RICHARD M

. NOLAN 8TH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE AVIATION HI GHWAYS & TRANSIT WATER RE SOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDING AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE CON SERVATION , ENERGY, AND FORESTRY LIVESTOC K, RURAL D EVELOPMENT, AND CREDIT 

# ((ongre9'9' oftbe**~nfteb ~tateS'** **J!)ou~e** 

# of**l\epre~entatibe~ ~af>bington,**  

### 1.8Qt20515-2308

March 4, 2013 Dr. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator US EPA Region 5 Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 RE: Docket ID No

. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0566 Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0954 Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0037

Dear Dr. Hedman: 2447 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDIN G WASHINGTON , DC 20515 (202) 225-6211 NOLAN

.HOUSE

.GOV

DULUTH OFFICE 11 EAST SUPERIOR STREET, SUITE 125 DuLUTH, MN 55802 PHONE: (218) 464-5095 FAX: (218) 464- 5098

BRAINERD OFFICE 501 LAUREL STREET BRAINERD, MN 56401 PHONE: (218) 454-4078 FAX: (218)454-4096

After considerable study and discussion, I have concluded that taconite mine operators and concerned citizens in Northern Minnesota are preparedto accept the newly proposed EPA Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reduce haze in our national parks and wilderness areas. I am concerned, however, that the plan as currently written does not allowtaconite mine operators sufficient time to comply in a mannerthat assures consistently high quality products can continue to be produced in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, I would like you to consider amending yourplan. I understand that you and your staffhave spent many months working with state and local officials, taconite mining operators, environmental organizations and the general public onthis issue. Moreover, I appreciate the time you and your associates have taken to briefmy staffand me, as well as your willingness to answer every question we posed. Also, I am impressed by the exceptionally knowledgeable staffat the various taconite mining operations affected by the proposed FIP, as well as the hard work and cooperation exhibited by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). With all ofthat in mind, I have several specific concerns.One size does not fit all inthe taconite business. Regional Haze FIP US Representative Richard Nolan Page 2 of3

• The quality and grades ofiron ore inthe west range are considerably different from those inthe central range and those inthe east. • The physical layout ofeach mine and the customized adaptations made to process the ore have resulted in unique processes which took years to develop at each location. • Dozens ofunique adaptations oflowNOxtechnology may therefore require a series of othertechnical and operational changes at each locationto comply withthe FIP emissions standards. The issue is larger than the haze emissions alone. In order to preserve these companies and the solid middle classjobsthey provide for our northern Minnesota communities, we need to also take into account the need for:

• Continued high quality taconite pellet production. • Reliable and efficient operational efficiency. The costs are more than the basic technology required to reduce the NOx emissions. Taconite mine operators will incur:

• The cost ofdown time onproduction lines. • The cost ofcompany engineers diverted from other duties. • The time lost while data is analyzed and approvals granted. • The cost oflitigation or delay ifunintended consequences result from the changes made. We should not and mustnot make criticaljudgmentsbased on Y-1 scale replicas and the assurances by technology vendors. Many questions are leftto be resolved. Haze emissions are primarily concerned withthe aesthetics ofenjoying clear skies at our national parks. Haze is not a primary human health issue. We can afford to take a few more months to do this right. The original State Implementation Plan (SIP) put forward by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) reflected the need for a wide variety ofsolutions that mustbe developed for all the mining operations involved. While EPA did not feel the MPCA adequately addressed the need for measurable goals intheir first SIP submission, Minnesota has made amendments and adjustments to insure regional Haze standards are met.Regional Haze FIP US Representative Richard Nolan Page 3 of 3

In fairness, you should also acknowledge the MPCA has long experience inregulating this industry. Accordingly, they put forth a plan supported by both the mining industry and many in the environmental community. Therefore, I strongly encourage youto either accept the amended MPCA SIP which will give the taconite operators sufficienttime to develop customized solutions, or work with the taconite mine operators to develop a compliance schedule that recognizes the reality ofthese customized operations. For example, I encourage you allow each mine at least 36 months to experimentwith various retrofit options onone full scale operating furnace; test emissions and pellet quality from each option considered, and then finalize theirretrofit options to bring that first furnace into full compliance. EPA could then certify full compliance based on your independent testing ofemissions data. With your approval, provide the mines with an additional 24 months for full compliance on all remaining furnaces. This schedule falls withinthe five (5) yeartime frame provided by law. This strategy is also in keeping with the timeline originally**envisio~ed** by the MPCA. I believe either following the MPCA SIP or negotiating a more flexible strategy with mining operators will produce full compliance without unnecessary and contentious litigation. Certainly the EPA, the MPCA and the mine operators affected can come up with a plan thatprovides mines withthe time they need to optimize their retrofit options and still achieves full haze compliance. 

### In addition to this formal submission, I would like the opportunity to meetwith you and your staff, in person, in your Chicago offices as soon as mutually feasible. I would like to discuss yourplans regarding haze pollution standards as well as otherissues ofconcern I wantto address in future correspondence. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. I look forward to working with you on many more items ofmutual concern inthe years to come. Sincerely,

# ?'?~~ Richard M. Nolan U.S. Representative Minnesota 81 h Congressional District