1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

1

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed Federal Implementation Plan for Taconite 

Facilities in Minnesota and Michigan

MINNESOTA DOCKET NO. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037

MICHIGAN DOCKET NO. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954

Citizens Board Hearing Room

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

520 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota

Met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 in the

morning on August 29, 2012.

COURT REPORTER: Angie D. Threlkeld

* * *
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

2

I N D E X

SPEAKER PAGE

Bob Tammen 10

Brian Gordon 12

Wayne Rohde 15

Kevin Reuther 18

Wayne Dupuis 22

Scott Gischia 26

Mike Mlinar

Douglas McWilliams

30

 34

George Pruchnofski 41

Allen Miller 46

Carol Overland 51

Matthew Dinslage 53
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

3

MR. LEON: Good morning. We'll go ahead 

and get started. Good morning. Can everybody hear

me? Yes? All right. Good morning and thank you 

for attending this public hearing on the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's proposed federal 

implementation plan for taconite facilities in 

Minnesota and Michigan. 

My name's Heriberto Leon, and I am the 

community involvement coordinator with the USEPA 

Region 5 office in Chicago. Today I will be serving 

as the hearing officer, and what that means is I 

will basically direct the procedures and the timing

of the hearing. I'll give some more instructions in 

a moment. 

Joining me are Douglas Aburano, who is 

chief of the attainment planning and maintenance 

section with EPA's Region 5 office; Steve Rosenthal, 

the environmental engineer also in the same office;

and Bill Wagner from the Office of Regional Counsel

EPA Region 5. 

I'll go over some procedures to 

facilitate everyone's comments at today's hearing in 

a moment, but first I'd like to turn it over to 

Douglas Aburano who will provide us with a brief 

summary of this proposed rule. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

4

Doug. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. EPA and other 

agencies have been monitoring visibility in national 

parks and wilderness areas since 1988. In 1999 the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a 

major effort to improve our quality in natural parks 

and wilderness areas. The regional haze rules call

for state and federal agencies to work together to 

improve visibility in 156 national parks and 

wilderness areas such as Voyageurs National Park, 

the Boundary Water Canoe Area, the Isle Royale 

National Park, and the Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge. These areas are also known as Class I 

areas. 

On December 30th, 2009 Minnesota 

submitted a regional haze plan which included limits 

on taconite facilities to EPA for approval. 

Minnesota submitted a supplement to its original 

submittal on May 18th, 2012. On November 5th, 2010

Michigan submitted its original haze plan, which 

included limits on taconite facilities in Michigan 

to EPA for approval. 

On June 12th, 2012 EPA approved most of 

Minnesota's regional haze plan, except for the 

limits for taconite facilities. Similarly, on 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

5

August 6th, 2012 EPA proposed approval of Michigan's 

regional haze plan, but that approval did not 

address the taconite facility when it's found in the 

Michigan plan. 

On August 15th, 2012 EPA published in the 

Federal Register proposed limits for the taconite 

facility in both Minnesota and Michigan. 

Today we are here to listen to your 

comments on all aspects of EPA's proposed limits on

taconite facilities. The proposed regulation 

contains nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide limits at 

all affected taconite facilities. These limits are

intended to require nitrogen oxide production at all 

facilities and additional sulfur dioxide production

at two of these facilities, namely United Taconite 

and Tilden Mine. These limits will dramatically cut 

emissions and effluents from the affected taconite 

process facilities. The emission productions will 

reduce the amount of regional haze and improve 

visibility in downwind areas. 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act directs 

states or EPA, if implementing the federal 

implementation plan, or FIP, to evaluate the use of

retrofit controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

6

address visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the 

Clean Air Act requires EPA to implement a FIP to 

contain such measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national visibility 

goal, including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and 

operate the best-available retrofit technology, or 

BART, as determined by EPA. 

Under the regional haze rule EPA is 

directed to conduct BART determinations for such 

BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in

a Class I area. The proposed limits found in the 

August 15th, 2012 Federal Register notice reflect 

best available retrofit technology, or BART, for the 

affected taconite facilities. 

Today we are here to listen to your 

comments on all aspects of EPA's proposed limits on

these facilities. 

I'll turn it back to Heriberto to go over 

the ground rules today. 

MR. LEON: Thank you, Doug. 

I would like to draw your attention to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

7

the September 28th, 2012 deadline for submitting 

written comments on this proposal. This will hold 

the hearing record open for an additional 30 days 

beyond today's hearing to allow people to submit 

supplemental or rebuttal information that is related 

to testimony at today's hearing. So, again, you 

have until September 28th, 2012 to submit your 

comments and information. 

There are handouts in the registration 

area that have instructions for submitting the 

written comments. EPA will carefully consider your

comments from today's hearing, along with written 

comments received, in order to move ahead with the 

completion of this rule. Under a settlement 

agreement, EPA would take final action on this 

proposal by November 15th, 2012. 

You will notice that we have a court 

reporter at today's hearing. Her job is to listen 

to all of us speak in order to be able to create a 

written transcript of today's hearing. The 

transcript will become part of the official record 

on this rule and will be available to the public. 

Now let me describe the procedure for 

today's hearing. I will call scheduled speakers to

the table in pairs. When it is your turn to speak,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

8

please state your name and your affiliation before 

you begin your testimony. Please also spell out 

your name and talk clearly, because that will ensure 

that our court reporter captures your name and your

comments accurately. 

In order to be fair to everyone, we will 

limit testimony to five minutes each. Please remain 

seated at the table until both speakers have 

finished. After you've finished your testimony, 

members of the panel may ask clarifying questions. 

If you have a written version of your comments that

you would like to have entered in the docket, please 

give a copy to Sarah Cervak, who is sitting by the 

registration table over by the door. 

We have a timekeeping system consisting 

of green, yellow, and red sheets of paper. This is

to help us keep track of time and the five-minute 

limit that we have set. You may begin speaking when 

I hold up a green sheet. At four minutes I will 

bring up the yellow sheet, and this is to indicate 

that it is -- you have about one minute to wrap up. 

In the event that I notice that your eyes are 

looking at a paper and not looking up here, I may 

just say the word yellow. And when we have 

15 seconds to the 5 minutes, I will raise the red 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

9

sheet of paper to indicate that you're coming close

to your 5 minutes. And when your time is up at five 

minutes, I will ask you to stop your testimony. I 

will, however, exercise some discretion and offer 

additional time either immediately after your 

elapsed time or later, depending on the line of 

speakers that we have. 

Today's hearing will conclude at 

2:00 p.m. We will extend the session reasonably if

necessary to accommodate speakers who have signed up 

by noon today. If you would like to speak but have

not yet registered to do so, please sign at the 

registration table with Sarah Cervak. 

We ask for your patience as we proceed 

through the list of speakers. We may need to make 

some adjustments as the day progresses. 

Before we begin, I would like to 

acknowledge Brian Gordon from the office of 

Congressman Chip Cravaack, who is here today and 

will participate in the hearing and provide some 

comments. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. 

And also I would like to acknowledge Al 

Juhnke from the office of Senator Al Franken, who is 

also here. Thank you. 

Finally, if you have any questions during 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

10

the hearing, please see Sarah, who is sitting at the 

registration table over by the door, for any 

assistance. 

And thank you all for coming out and 

participating in today's proceeding. 

So we'll go ahead and get started by 

calling the first couple of attendees whose names I

have up here, and that would be Bob Tammen and Brian 

Gordon. 

All right. Mr. Tammen, go ahead. 

MR. TAMMEN: Thank you. I'm Bob Tammen 

from Soudan, Minnesota. B-O-B. T-A-M-M-E-N. 

Soudan is an old mining town. I'm a retired 

electrician. My wife, Pat, elementary teacher for 

many years, retired. We live on the range as our 

home. I worked in several of the taconite plants in 

my younger days. And of course you probably know 

that we have elevated levels of mesothelioma in 

northern Minnesota. I imagine you have the numbers, 

but I go to the funerals. 

A couple of months ago a report came out 

that many of the babies born in the Lake Superior 

drainage, northern Minnesota are born with elevated

levels of mercury. I'm sure you have the numbers, 

but my wife and I watch those children grow up in 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

11

our communities. 

A week ago a film company came to 

northern Minnesota. They wanted to go up in an 

airplane and get some videos of mining country. 

They asked me to go along because I know which mine

is which; I have some history of the taconite 

industry. It was a great flight. We left at 5:00 

in the afternoon, because they wanted the sun just 

right for their filming. And we were about 

800 feet. It was an impressive day, but it was a 

little hazy. And I don't know if that haze was 

natural haze or taconite haze. You know, you have 

the numbers, but my wife and I live in a world of 

death and toxicity and haze, and we'd like to see it 

cleaned up. 

Now we're sitting here in the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency building, and I know 

there's a lot of good people working in this 

building. They want to take care of our natural 

resources. And I also know that a previous 

commissioner of this agency went to work for the 

mining industry. 

The Department of Natural Resources 

routinely has their heads of the Land and Mineral 

Department retire young and go to work for the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

12

mining industry. There is a revolving door at the 

top. I know that the people in the middle went to 

work here because they love our natural resources 

and they want to do their jobs. And so I hope that

the Environmental Protection Agency will enforce the 

regulations that we have and encourage our 

regulators and our legislators in Minnesota to clean 

up northern Minnesota. 

Thank you. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. GORDON: Brian, B-R-I-A-N, last name 

Gordon, G-O-R-D-O-N, with Chip Cravaack's office, 

C-R-A-V-A-A-C-K. I have a written statement from 

the congressman dated August 27th, 2012 to 

Administrator Jackson, the EPA agency in Washington, 

D.C. 

Dear Administrator Jackson, On behalf of 

3,900 constituents of the Eighth District of 

Minnesota who are directly employed by the mining 

industry and the over 40,000 constituents that 

depend on the mining industry for their livelihood,

I am writing to express my concern with the recent 

proposed rule published in the Federal Register on 

August 15th, 2012. 

I request that the EPA reconsider its 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

13

rejection of the state implementation plan for 

upgrading taconite facilities. The Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency has carefully examined the

feasibility of best-available retrofit technology, 

the time it would take to implement, and the 

potential operating risk it presents to taconite 

mines in northeastern Minnesota. 

I request that EPA work with the state to 

continue improving visibility in protected areas 

while allowing taconite plants to obtain flexibility 

needed to cost effectively update their furnaces on

a feasible time frame without endangering the 

stability of these operations. 

In an August of 2012 opinion EME Homer 

City Generation versus EPA, the DC Circuit of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals wrote, I quote: To deal with

the complex regulatory challenge, Congress did not 

authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as 

the EPA deemed reasonable; rather, Congress set up a 

federalism-based system of air pollution control. 

Under this cooperative federalism approach, both the 

federal government and the state play significant 

roles. The federal government sets air quality 

standards for pollutants. The states have the 

primary responsibility for determining how to meet 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

14

those standards and regulating resources within 

their borders, unquote. 

I request that EPA work with the state to 

effectively address the needs of Minnesotans. EPA's 

proposed federal implementation plan contains the 

timeline that is not technically and economically 

feasible for some plants and could negatively impact 

thousands of jobs at a time when Minnesota is 

meeting its regional haze reasonable progress goal. 

Minnesota taconite mining provides 

tremendous benefits to our entire state with nearly

$1.8 billion annual benefit to our economy. 

According to a University of Minnesota-Duluth study, 

2.5 ancillary jobs are produced for every mining 

job. In times of such high unemployment, these are

good-paying jobs we cannot jeopardize. 

I am happy to be of any assistance in 

moving forward with this effort. Sincerely, Chip 

Cravaack. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Thank you very much. We'll 

move on to the next couple of speakers. Thank you. 

MR. ABURANO: What I should say, if you 

have written copies of your testimony that you would 

like to submit to us today, we're more than happy to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

15

take them. 

MR. LEON: Wayne Rohde and Kevin Reuther. 

Sorry. 

Mr. Rohde. 

MR. ROHDE: Good morning. My name is 

Wayne Rohde, and I'm a resident of Woodbury, 

Minnesota. I'm here to comment on the potential for 

other emissions increasing as a result of this rule. 

First, we want to commend the EPA for 

their efforts to improve air quality in Minnesota. 

Given the widespread use of natural gas by the iron

ore industry on the Iron Range for processing 

taconite, this proposed rule should increase 

positive impacts on air quality while minimizing 

economic impacts, since the price of natural gas has 

steadily dropped as new reserves have been 

developed. 

Second, reducing sulfates and nitrous 

oxide emissions produced by furnaces during taconite 

processing to improve visibility beyond the state 

proposal will not only further improve overall 

visibility in the region, it would also help reduce

the amount of respiratory and cardiovascular health

impacting pollution, impairing our local air 

quality, and reducing potentials for acid rain. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

16

However, that said, the proposed changes 

to improve visibility may result in unanticipated 

changes in the HAP emissions. Our concerns relate 

to the increased temperature that will be created by 

the improvements in combustion and resulting effects 

on the amount of mercury and other HAPs these plants 

will emit. As the process temperatures increase due 

to greater efficiencies proposed, the potential from 

increased volatilization and changes in combustion 

chemistry could result in increased HAP emissions. 

We believe localized impacts due to 

hazardous air pollutants emissions from these 

facilities already exist. Recently the Minnesota 

Department of Health indicated infants born to 

people in the vicinity of the Iron Range and North 

Shore of Lake Superior have greater mercury burdens

in their bodies than residents in other areas of the 

state. This may be the result of low-level local 

mercury emissions already coming from taconite 

processing. 

We encourage the industry, the State of 

Minnesota, and the EPA to undertake further 

research. Answers are needed about the associated 

impacts that will occur as a result of the proposed

rules effects on HAPs emissions to ensure continuous 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

17

improvement in local public health and reduction of

toxic pollution downwind and downstream from the 

taconite and iron ore industry. 

In closing, while we welcome the changes 

being proposed here, we're also -- we also note that 

there is sufficient evidence to require further 

investigation into the potentials for HAP emission 

increases and the need to address these as well. 

We will submit further documentation if 

needed on the issues related to impacts of mercury 

on the Iron Range and North Shore as well as other 

related information about our concerns. 

Thank you, and I appreciate this 

opportunity to speak. 

MR. ABURANO: Just a clarifying question. 

Do you have any -- I understand you'd be willing to

share information about the effects of mercury that

are currently found there. Do you have anything 

supporting what you said about the increase in 

temperature increasing the HAPs that would be 

emitted? Are there any studies or things you could

share with us? 

MR. ROHDE: Yes. We can -- I don't have 

them with me. I would be more than happy to submit

those to you before the deadline. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

18

MR. ABURANO: That would be great. Thank 

you. Appreciate that.

MR. WAGNER: Could you identify the 

organization you represent? 

MR. ROHDE: Yes. The Canary Party and 

also Safe Mines Institute. 

MR. LEON: Mr. Reuther. 

MR. REUTHER: Yeah. Thank you. Good 

morning. Is this on? 

MR. ABURANO: If a red light is on, then 

you're muted. So if you press the button and it is

not lit, then you should be on.

MR. REUTHER: I think it's on now? 

MR. ABURANO: Yep.

MR. REUTHER: Okay. Great. I'm Kevin 

Reuther. K-E-V-I-N. R-E-U-T-H-E-R. I'm the legal

director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental

Advocacy, MCEA. We, along with a number of other 

conservation and public health organizations, 

submitted lengthy comments in the technical review 

to you in response to the proposed rule. Those 

groups include the National Parks Conservation 

Association, Voyageurs Park -- Voyageurs National 

Park Association, the Friends of the Boundary Waters 

Wilderness, Fresh Energy, and also the Sierra Club. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

19

Our organizations represent thousands of 

members here in Minnesota. And we thank you, EPA, 

for rejecting MPCA's haze SIP. We value cleaner air 

and also clearer air. And the haze rule, of course, 

is primarily about scenic views and ridding our 

national treasures of the visibility impairments 

that they now suffer, but it's also about public 

health and the benefits that will be gained by 

reducing emissions. These same pollutants cause --

that cause haze cause well-documented diseases, lung 

diseases, heart attacks. You're very familiar with

that, as are we. 

Minnesota's Class I areas are iconic 

places, and they belong to everyone; and the 

taconite industry has for decades been polluting 

these areas. The data in your record developed by 

the MPCA show that Minntac, for example, just one of 

these plants alone, affects visibility in the 

Voyageurs National Park more than 50 percent of the

days of the year. There are clearly cost-effective

controls that can eliminate some of that smog; and 

taconite has for decades evaded control, while other 

industries have made great progress on pollution 

reduction. It's time now for the taconite industry

to invest in modern controls and stop polluting the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

20

public's air and the public's parks. 

In fact, there isn't really anything that 

aggressive or novel about EPA's action here. If 

anything, it is long overdue. So we thank you for 

rejecting the MPCA plan, which required nothing at 

all of this industry. 

Now that being said, we believe there are 

additional cost-effective technologies that could 

reduce pollution further. And we will be submitting 

comments to you by the comment deadline in mid 

September, but I'll just summarize the two main ones 

that we see in the proposed rule. 

First, with regard to SO2, EPA did not 

evaluate alternative fuels; and, instead, the 

proposed rule seems to defer to industry's view that 

BART doesn't include fuel switching. But that's not 

the case. And, in fact, EPA has in a number of 

other instances required fuel switching as BART. So 

we will develop that argument in our written 

comments. 

With regard to NOx, EPA did not evaluate 

SCRs, and the proposed rule cites to U.S. Steel as 

having demonstrated that SCRs are infeasible. 

However, in our original comments -- and this will 

be developed further -- we detailed the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

21

insufficiencies of the study relied on in 

disregarding SCRs. And so we would challenge EPA to 

take another look at SCRs and the feasibility of 

SCRs in this context. 

In summary, our organizations and our 

members fully support EPA's action to require 

taconite to reduce its pollution of Voyageurs 

National Park and the Boundary Waters wilderness, 

and we find that these minimal controls are long 

overdue. Thank you.

MR. LEON: Thank you very much. 

MR. ABURANO: Just a reminder to any 

subsequent speakers, please remember to state your 

name and spell out your name for the court reporter. 

And also I know that, you know, a lot of people 

talking about government regulations also have a lot 

of acronyms. So if you're going to use an acronym 

like BART or SCR, you know, best-available retrofit

technology or selected catalytic reduction, please,

for the court reporter's benefit, spell out the 

acronym or define the acronym that you're using, 

just for the people that aren't involved in 

government as much as some of us are on a day-to-day 

basis. Thank you. 

MR. LEON: All right. I'd like to call 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

22

up the next two speakers. Wayne Dupuis and Scott 

Gischia. 

Wayne Dupuis, go ahead. 

MR. DUPUIS: Good morning. My name is 

Wayne Dupuis. It's W-A-Y-N-E, D-U-P-U-I-S. I am 

from the Fond Du Lac Reservation. I'm an 

environmental program manager there. And appreciate 

your time this morning. I'd like to read what we've 

-- we're submitting. 

The Fond Du Lac Band has been involved 

for the past several years in working towards the 

implementation of the requirements of the regional 

haze rule, which was promulgated in 1999. The Band

was a member of the Central Regional Air 

Partnership, CENRAP, Coalition in nine states, 

federal land managers, industry groups, and several

tribes for a number of years, the staff serving as 

the secretary/treasurer of this organization. 

During the time that CENRAP was active, staff 

participated in numerous face-to-face meetings and 

conference calls on this topic. 

We appreciate the time and effort that 

Region 5 has put into reviewing the regional haze 

state implementation plan submitted by the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency and the Michigan Department 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

23

of Environmental Quality and in subsequently issuing 

a federal implementation plan that replaces the 

portion of these SIPs that were found to be 

inadequate. 

Regional haze is a matter of concern to 

the Band because two of the areas affected by the 

regional haze rule, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

and the Wilderness Area and Voyageurs National Park

lie within the Band's treaty-ceded territories. 

Treaty-ceded territories consist of roughly 8 

million acres in the arrowhead portion of Minnesota

that were ceded by the Band and other Lake Superior

Chippewa bands, the United States Government, and 

the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe, together with the 

territory ceded to the United States Government in 

the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters where the Band retains 

usufructuary rights, including hunting, fishing, and 

gathering. The Band believes that the application 

of the requirements of the regional haze rule will 

protect these lands not only from visual degradation 

but also from additional effects of haze-causing 

pollutants such as the potential acidification and 

nitrification of the water resources as well as 

deleterious effects on soil, plants, and wildlife. 

For the following four reasons the Band 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

24

strongly supports the FIP proposed by Region 5, 

particularly with regard to Region 5's determination 

that low NOx burners are best-available retrofit 

technology for taconite facilities. 

First, Region 5's analysis shows that 

this option is technically feasible as these burners 

have already been installed on U.S. Steel Minntac's

grate kiln furnaces and are being installed on 

Essar's straight-grate kiln furnaces. While some 

taconite facilities utilizing straight-grate kiln 

furnaces are concerned about how this technology 

will translate to these furnaces, the bench scale 

pilot study performed at SR, as well as SR's 

willingness to move ahead with full-scale 

construction of this technology, demonstrates this 

should not be a problem. The vendors who design and 

install low NOx burners also do not anticipate 

problems in installing their product in 

straight-grate kiln furnaces. 

Second, low NOx burners have been shown 

to be affordable with control costs estimated at 

roughly $500 per ton, which is well within the range 

of costs that have been deemed affordable for BART 

by both the states and the EPA. 

Third, low NOx burners are a wise control 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

25

choice because they prevent NOx from being formed in 

the first place, rather than just collecting the 

pollutant after it has been produced, which is a key 

concept in pollution prevention. Selection and 

disposal of pollutants can lead to secondary 

environmental problems as well as increased energy 

consumption by the control device. It is also 

advantageous that low NOx burners do not lead to 

increased use of fuel whereby additional pollutants

could be generated, including greenhouse gas 

pollutants. 

Fourth, in addition to the compelling 

results of the BART determination, the Band contends 

that installation of these burners is an equity. 

Based on the fact that U.S. Steel Minntac and SR 

have already made the commitment to low NOx burners

and have taken the majority of the burden of 

demonstration upon themselves, it would be unfair to 

allow other facilities to upgrade without having to

install this technology. 

The Band also supports the installation 

schedule that Region 5 has proposed. It is our 

understanding that product vendors anticipate 

roughly a six-month design time for each line and an 

installation time of about a week per line. With 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

26

the numerous delays that have been encountered in 

implementing the regional haze rule, we believe it 

is reasonable and desirable to require installation

of low NOx burners on the schedule that is being 

proposed. 

We want to thank you for your careful 

review of regional haze in northeastern Minnesota. 

We appreciate the time you've given us. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Thank you. 

Scott Gischia. 

MR. GISCHIA: Morning. My name is Scott 

Gischia. S-C-O-T-T. G-I-S-C-H-I-A. I'm the 

director of environmental compliance for Cliffs 

Natural Resources U.S. iron ore operation. 

My comments here today will be expanded 

upon by several others and ultimately supported by 

written comments by Cliffs, but Cliffs believes it 

important to briefly highlight some of the terms 

here today and appreciate the opportunity. 

By way of introduction, Cliffs Natural 

Resources is a 160-year old U.S. company whose goal

is responsible mining of products that support the 

steel industry. Iron ore is the key ingredient to 

making steel. And the whole of the United States' 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

27

domestic iron ore reserves originate from only eight 

facilities in the entire country. Cliffs' three 

Minnesota and two Michigan operations represent the

backbone of our company, rated to produce 32 million 

tons of iron ore annually, which represents nearly 

two-thirds of the entire domestic supply of iron 

ore. 

Cliffs employs nearly 6,000 men and women 

across the U.S., with both direct and indirect 

impact on the economies in these areas of roughly $2 

billion annually. 

First and foremost I'd like to emphasize 

that emissions reduction are an important part of 

Cliffs overall business strategy, whether to pave 

the way for future expansion opportunities because 

of the recently updated national ambient air quality 

standards or in recognition of concerns from a 

variety of stakeholders. Emissions reductions 

simply make good business sense. And in that light

Cliffs has similar goals as many others interested 

in this issue. 

Cliffs' concerns, however, with the 

reductions approach presented by the draft regional

haze federal implementation plan that is based on 

serious technical flaws fails to recognize the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

28

complexities involved with each unique taconite 

furnace, departs from EPA's own guidance for 

implementation of BART, bypasses due process at a 

number of stages, most significantly presents a 

serious risk to Cliffs' product quality which is 

central to the sustainability of any producer like 

Cliffs that must sell product to the open market, 

and all under a time frame that fails to recognize 

the necessary design and engineering steps required

to develop well thought out sustainable approaches 

for this industry. 

You recall that BART is designed as the 

first step of a 60-year program to improve 

visibility. It's not a health-related standard. It 

secured a quick available retrofit to subject 

facilities. To the extent that the proposed FIP 

suggests technologies that inherently challenge the

viability of the business, it is outside the scope 

and intent of BART. 

While Cliffs presents these concerns as 

facility operators, they are equally echoed by the 

designers of the underwriting processes whom Cliffs

would call upon to attempt to effect the changes 

considered by the FIP. The technology simply is not 

available to the industry at this point in time; and 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

29

the timeframes proposed by EPA are, quite simply, 

unrealistic. Emissions reductions of some scale, 

however, are always possible; and Cliffs embraces 

that idea as part of its current and future 

operations, but it is irresponsible of EPA to 

promote expectations that are not based on the 

available technical and knowledge base, especially 

when those expectations could negatively impact the

quality and marketability of the product. 

The Clean Air Act designates the states 

as the primary responsibility for determination of 

BART. Cliffs requests that EPA recognize the time,

energy, and ultimately the reasonable approaches put 

forward by both Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as 

the first steps of the regional haze plan and that 

EPA validates those state implementation plans. 

This concludes my comments here today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to enter this into the 

record. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Thank you very much. 

I'd like to call up the next couple of 

speakers, Mike -- is it -- 

MR. MLINAR: Mike Mlinar.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

30

MR. LEON: -- Mike Mlinar, okay, and Doug 

Williams. 

MR. MLINAR: Good morning and thank you 

for the opportunity to speak this morning. My name

is Mike Mlinar. That's M-I-K-E, M-L-I-N-A-R. And 

I'm vice president for Cliffs Natural Resources 

North America Iron Ore Initiatives, and in this 

position I have responsibility for the U.S. iron ore 

and eastern Canadian operations initiative endeavors 

to improve efficiency, look at alternative products, 

and improve overall performance. 

Before this position I was the vice 

president and general manager for the North Shore 

Mining Company, the Hibbing Taconite Company, the 

United Taconite Company in Minnesota, and prior to 

that was the vice president and general manager for

the two Michigan mines, the Tilden Empire and 

Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Therefore, with over 

35 years of experience as a professional engineer 

and manager of iron ore mining and taconite 

processing facilities, I have a thorough 

understanding of the process technology that's used

to convert iron-ore-bearing rock into higher 

iron-bearing pellets needed for our customers' 

fuel-making facilities. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

31

I'm here today to provide a perspective 

on the operation on pellet product quality impacts 

of USEPA's proposed regional haze federal 

implementation plan for the taconite industry. As 

Scott Gischia explained, Cliffs understands and we 

accept our role and the important objective to 

reduce regional haze impacts, and we have 

contributed significantly to the gradual reduction 

in these emissions. We remain committed to further

reducing emissions that contribute to the formation

of regional haze. We do have a strategic plan that

meets the state's long-term strategy outlined in the 

state implementation plan to reduce implementations

that contribute to regional haze and request that 

the USEPA respect the confidence plan developed in 

the SIPs that establish BART and demonstrate 

reasonable and significant further progress towards

reducing haze emissions and impacts. 

We have serious concerns that USEPA's 

federal implementation plan concludes that taconite

furnaces can successfully be retrofitted to deploy a 

pilot technology and achieve emissions limits 

without conducting any engineering to determine if 

the technology is technically or economically 

feasible. This one size-fits-all assumption ignores 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

32

the comprehensive technical evaluations performed by 

engineers specializing in the taconite industry and

the conclusions independently reached by the states

of Minnesota and Michigan which follow the USEPA's 

guidance in conducting their technology 

determinations. 

Even more perplexing, EPA ignored the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's firsthand 

knowledge of the readiness of this pilot technology

and surprisingly determined after years of study by

the mining industry and the state agencies that the

technology was viable, based upon the opinion of 

equipment vendors and others unfamiliar with 

potential impacts to the unique heat balance and 

product quality aspects. 

Finally, the OEM technical resources that 

were responsible for designing the heat balance 

process are a part of SIP and are the only ones 

fully knowledgeable of the unique indurating heat 

balance design. None of them were asked to conduct

any engineering evaluation for the EPA to assess the 

feasibility that validates this one-size-fits-all 

conclusion. 

Each of our taconite indurating furnaces 

are unique. None are the same. Each furnace is 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

33

engineered to process its unique iron ore bodies to

meet its customers' specifications that are all 

dependent on a carefully engineered, heat balanced 

distribution. 

Retrofitting existing burners from a low 

stoic design to a high stoic design, which is the 

current generation being pilot trialed at 1 grate 

kiln process, requires more primary combustion air 

to be introduced into the burner to cool the plane 

and reduce NOx emissions. This early generation of

low NOx burner pilot is being developed to resolve a 

singularly-focused NOx compliance issue at one 

taconite facility and creates other potential 

negative consequences that have not been evaluated 

by the USEPA and would not satisfy BART criteria. 

For example, according to the OEM 

engineers that are expert in the grate-kiln heat 

balance design, the NOx FIP would have a couple of 

detrimental impacts. First, the increase of fuel 

switching by up to 60 percent would lead to 

collateral increase in related combustion emissions; 

and, secondly, they would produce an altered flame 

temperature profile, which has negative collateral 

impacts on our quality process. 

In conclusion, we ask that the EPA 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

34

withdraw the proposed FIP for the taconite 

facilities in Minnesota and Michigan and approve the 

state SIPs which establish legitimate BART 

determinations, and of course the reasonable further 

progress to limit emissions that reduce visibility 

impacts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to listen. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Mr. McWilliams. 

MR. MCWILLIAMS: Thank you. My name is 

Douglas McWilliams. D-O-U-G-L-A-S. McWilliams, 

M-C-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. And I'm outside counsel -- 

outside environmental counsel, Squire Sanders U.S.,

and Cliffs Natural Resources has asked that I 

provide some comments for the record on the proposed 

regional haze federal implementation plan and to 

encourage USEPA to withdraw its FIP and, instead, 

approve the state implementation plans for the 

taconite industry. 

The Clean Air Act establishes different 

rules for USEPA and states. The DC Circuit Court of 

Appeals recently described the relationship as 

follows, and I quote: Under the Clean Air Act the 

federal government sets air quality standards, but 

states retain the primary responsibility if the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

35

states want it for choosing how to attain those 

standards within their borders. The act, thus, 

leaves it to the individual states to determine in 

the first instance the particular restrictions that

will be imposed on the particular emitters within 

their borders. If a state refuses to participate, 

the federal government regulates the sources 

directly, closed quote. 

Minnesota and Michigan did not refuse to 

participate; and, to the contrary, these states 

invested significant resources over many years to 

develop their regional haze state implementation 

plans for the taconite industry, demonstrating 

clearly that they were willing to exercise their 

primary responsibility to develop valid state plans. 

The primary role for states is very clear 

in the regional haze provisions of the Clean Air Act 

as well. In 1977 Congress added visibility 

protection in Section 169A of the act. Congress 

actively debated whether to place EPA or the states

in charge of implementing the regional haze program, 

and Congress chose the states. The DC Circuit Court 

recently reviewed the legislative history of the 

visibility protection provisions of the act and 

concluded, again I quote: Congress intended the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

36

states to decide which sources impaired visibility 

and what BART controls should apply to those 

sources, closed quote. 

The Court then decided that EPA's 1999 

regulations, regional haze rules, were invalid 

because they deprived the states of some of the that 

statutory authority. EPA's proposed FIP is another

attempt to deprive states of their statutory 

authority and the primary role in choosing how to 

achieve the regional haze goals within their 

borders. This time EPA is second-guessing the 

best-available retrofit technology determinations, 

or BART determinations, submitted by Minnesota and 

Michigan for taconite furnaces not because the 

states did something wrong, but because new 

information has been presented that was not 

available when the states arrived at their BART 

technology determinations and which still has not 

been peer reviewed or subject to evaluation by the 

affected stakeholders. 

EPA reviews SIPs to determine if they 

meet clean air criteria. And if the state process 

fails to produce a compliant SIP, EPA can produce a

FIP. That's not what happened here. EPA had 

proposed approving the Minnesota SIP for taconite 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

37

furnaces on January 25th of 2012. EPA changed 

directions and is proposing a FIP because it thinks

it has a better idea for BART that is based on newer 

data that it believes will reduce emissions and 

reach regional haze goals faster than the state's 

plan. 

Based on our preliminary review, it is 

premature to make any regulatory decisions based on

this new information, as others have indicated. 

But, more importantly, EPA's limited authority under 

the Clean Air Act does not authorize it to impose a

FIP because it thinks it has a better idea. That 

undercuts Congress' decision to give states the 

primary role in determining BART for sources within

their borders. 

EPA cannot rely on new information as the 

basis for claiming that the SIP is deficient. EPA's 

own guidelines, Part 51, Appendix Y, directs states

to stop considering the evolution of available 

technologies after they close public comment on 

their state's BART determination. Minnesota's BART

determination for taconite furnaces closed in 2009,

and Michigan's closed in 2010. EPA's proposed BART

FIP is based on questionable new information that 

was submitted for consideration in 2011 and 2012. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

38

EPA cannot fault the states for following federal 

guidance, particularly when that guidance promotes 

the common sense position that states must be able 

to choose an endpoint for finalizing their BART 

determination to ensure there is an end to the 

regulatory process. 

May I ask for your discretion to have a 

few more minutes to complete my comments? 

MR. ABURANO: Sure, go ahead. 

MR. MCWILLIAMS: Thank you. The proposed 

FIP also approves -- or proves, rather, the wisdom 

of Congress' decision to leave BART determinations 

in state hands. The taconite industry is unique to

the Iron Range that extends across northern 

Minnesota and into the upper peninsula of Michigan. 

These two states, Michigan and Minnesota, have 

decades of direct experience regulating taconite 

compliance and pelletizing furnaces that EPA 

cannot -- cannot hope to replicate. 

Minnesota and Michigan are in a better 

position to assess the time and resources that it 

will take to evaluate the next generation of 

emission controls for this industry. The states 

appropriately chose a more conservative and measured 

approach to the initial BART determination. EPA has 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

39

a statutory obligation to approve these legitimate 

state decisions and should withdraw its proposed 

FIP. 

Importantly, though, Minnesota's approach 

does not foreclose additional NOx reductions in the

future as part of the state's long-range regional 

haze strategy. In fact, Minnesota has required 

these taconite furnaces by the end of this year to 

offer NO2 modeling and offer NOx emission controls 

as necessary to meeting ambient concentrations of 

NO2. 

To the extent that NOx emission reduction 

strategies are necessary to achieve these 

health-based national standards, the reductions are

also expected to help meet the regional haze goals 

of the Clean Air Act. This approach allows the 

industry and its vendors more time to evaluate 

emission control options and their effect on health

quality, preserving energy efficiencies, and 

sustaining pellet production at economically-viable

levels. 

EPA's FIP usurps the state's reasoned and 

measured path forward and replaces it with a frenzy

federal plan with inadequate support, and we have 

just 44 days on which to comment. Vendors are 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

40

telling us that they need more time. Vendors are 

telling us they need months to design a burner 

system that might work for each furnace, more months 

to determine the rate of emission reduction that 

that is likely to achieve, and even more months to 

assess the true cost of retrofit emission controls. 

Modelers are telling us they need more time than 

remains in the comment period to perform the 

visibility analysis that EPA should have done to 

support its BART FIP determination. EPA should 

extend the comment period to ensure that it will get 

the quality of information necessary to critically 

evaluate the proposed control technology. 

To close, we ask that EPA approve the 

SIPs, withdraw the proposed federal implementation 

plan for the taconite facilities in both Minnesota 

and Michigan. 

Thank you for your time. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. One clarifying 

question. At the beginning of your statement you 

talked about a court ruling -- 

MR. MCWILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. ABURANO: -- that you quoted from. 

Can you tell us which court ruling it was? 

MR. MCWILLIAMS: The first one was EME 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

41

Homer versus EPA, DC Circuit 2012 vacating the 

cross-state air pollution rule. There was a brief 

second quote, and that is from American Corn Growers 

versus USEPA, 291 F.3d 1, DC Circuit 2002. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Thank you. 

I'd like to call up George Pruchnofski 

and Allen Miller.

Go ahead, Mr. Pruchnofski. 

MR. PRUCHNOFSKI: Is it working? Oh, the 

red light should be on for it to be working? 

Good day. My name is George Pruchnofski. 

My last name is spelled P-R-U-C-H-N-O-F-S-K-I. I'm

a principal engineer with Barr Engineering Company. 

Barr has a unique and long-term perspective on the 

regional haze SIP BART implementation plans -- BART

is the best-available retrofit technology -- that 

was developed for the taconite industry in Minnesota 

and Michigan. 

In 2006 Barr helped the taconite industry 

respond to the original state's request for BART 

technology determinations. In 2003 Barr provided a

report to MPCA, the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency, on the state of retrofit technology for the

taconite industry. The MPCA attached that report to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

42

their BART determinations in 2009 when they 

concluded that good combustion practices constituted 

BART from NOx submissions and existing controls 

constituted BART for SO2 emissions. 

Michigan relied on Barr's work for 

Minnesota to render its BART determination in 2010 

for the lone taconite furnace that is subject to 

regional haze regulation emission. Barr also 

provided support to the state process in 2011-2012 

that converted the state technology determinations 

into enforceable numerical limits using available 

test data. 

Throughout this process we witnessed the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency proceeding 

through a complete, lengthy, and legitimate SIP 

development process consistent with state and 

federal regional haze guidance. This includes the 

federal BART guidance published at 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix Y, and the Minnesota guidance that adopts 

the Appendix Y criteria and is called Guidance For 

Facilities Conducting a BART Analysis, March 2006. 

We are not aware of any errors or flaws in 

Minnesota's BART SIP process, and USEPA does not 

claim in its proposed federal implementation plan 

that Minnesota made errors or flaws leading up to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

43

its emission of its regional haze state 

implementation plan in December 2009. 

USEPA points to new information made 

available to USEPA in the comment period on its 

proposed approval of the Minnesota SIP in January of 

2012. This new information was not available to 

Barr when we were preparing the BART SIP technology

reviews for taconite facilities. 

According to USEPA's own guidance, 

Minnesota was allowed to close this review of BART 

technologies when it closed public comment on the 

December 2009 SIP because -- to quote, Because a new 

technology may become available at various points in 

time during the BART analysis process, we believe 

that guidelines are needed on when the technology 

must be considered. In order to provide certainty 

to the process, all technologies should be 

considered, if available, before the close of the 

state's public comment period. You need not 

consider technologies that become available after 

this date, end quote. 

MPCA reasonably followed federal 

guidelines to develop its SIP based on the 

information available at the time. It would be 

inconsistent with federal guidance to require that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

44

the SIP be reopened to consider this new 

information. But USEPA seems to be willing to 

propose a FIP based solely on this new information. 

That doesn't make sense to me. 

After thorough, intense, and lengthy 

reviews and additional evaluations required by the 

states, BART for nitrogen oxides controls was 

determined to be good operating practices for 

furnaces as determined on a furnace-specific basis. 

Now USEPA's proposed FIP relies on technologies that 

were not available, demonstrated, or were not 

permitted when the BART SIPs were submitted to USEPA 

in 2009 and 2010 for Minnesota and Michigan 

respectively. 

After similarly thorough, intense, and 

lengthy reviews and additional evaluations required

by the states, the SIPs determined that BART for 

sulfur dioxide control was existing controls without 

additional add-on emissions controls, in large part

based on cost considerations. The cost evaluations

were completed by professionals with experience in 

cost estimating for iron industry furnaces and 

emissions controls. These cost evaluations factored 

in the significant cost of ancillary changes that 

would need -- would be needed at the existing 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

45

facilities through use of a retrofit factor based on 

a professional's experience. However, for the 

proposed FIP USEPA has disregarded these evaluations 

and decided to complete the new cost evaluations 

that are currently incomplete and significantly 

underestimate the cost of installing the controls at 

an existing facility. 

May I have one more minute, please, sir? 

Thank you. 

USEPA is now asking that any objections 

to this incomplete cost evaluation be supported by 

vendor information. EPA should have fully completed 

its cost effectiveness analysis prior to making its

proposed determinations of BART in its proposed FIP. 

Our experience is that it will take months to gather 

the vendor information and complete the evaluations

USEPA is requesting at the detail they want. For 

new technologies applied to complex furnaces, the 

time to conduct the demonstrations needed for 

clients to get guaranteed emission rates and 

determine true costs could take considerably more 

time. 

My last two comments are very brief. One 

is that our preliminary review of the FIP appears -- 

our preliminary review of the FIP, it appears that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

46

USEPA is making several optimistic assumptions that

are underestimating the dollar-per-ton reduction 

improvement costs and also the dollar-per-deciview 

cost and will take time to get this sorted out. 

We'll be providing those comments for our clients 

for inclusion in their comments. 

And finally we have a final concern that 

in some cases USEPA may be establishing its proposed 

BART emission limits in the FIP based on average 

emissions, which means that roughly half the time 

actual emissions would be greater than the limit, 

resulting in noncompliance. Technology-based 

emission limits always includes some margin of 

safety to ensure that operations will achieve 

continuous compliance. We are concerned that the 

proposed FIP does not fully take this consideration

into account. 

Thank you so much for your time, allowing 

me to finish the comments into the record. 

MR. LEON: Thank you, Mr. Pruchnofski. 

Mr. Miller. 

MR. MILLER: Good morning. My name is 

Allen Miller. I live at 1110 West Avenue in 

Red Wing, Minnesota. I previously submitted some 

comments in this proceeding in the form of a letter
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

47

to Administrator Jackson dated February 24th, 2012;

and I'd like that to be included in the docket, if 

it isn't already. 

I think that anyone who's watched this 

proceeding, which has dragged out, in effect, for 

many years, and looked at it objectively would have

to recognize that what's fundamentally going on here 

is that the political influence of the mining 

industry in Minnesota has outweighed the integrity 

of the regulatory process in Minnesota. And 

although it's not pleasant to say this, in effect 

the MPCA is fronting for the industry rather than 

carrying out its responsibilities, particularly 

those responsibilities delegated to it by the region 

and the agency. 

So I want to thank you for being here 

today, for bringing forward the federal 

implementation plan. I think we're all aware that 

this is not something that is done commonly or 

lightly by EPA, but the need for it in this case in

my opinion is indisputable. And that's very clearly 

shown by the testimony on both sides that we've 

heard so far this morning. 

So I support the FIP, as you have brought 

it forward; but it also seems to me, as Mr. Reuther
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

48

suggested, that it is a very conservative, 

unaggressive document and there are many places in 

which one could arguably push for more aggressive 

reductions and stricter limits. And I can submit 

written comments on that, those points. But I'll 

just mention a couple of them. 

You know, you identified the cost per ton 

of NOx reductions from the Minntac heating boilers 

was 6- to $8,000 a ton. But then for the North 

Shore boilers it came out to $723 a ton. Obviously

boilers aren't all the same, and the engineering 

upgrades can vary quite a bit. But that's the 

difference of an order of magnitude in a 

fundamentally-similar device, and I would take a 

look at that. 

I'm concerned about the discussion of 

fuel switching and the implications of that. For 

example, there have been representations that 

burning wood is environmentally beneficial when, in

fact, the overall ecological impact of massive 

industrial steel wood burning is, in many respects,

very negative, and it shouldn't be lightly factored

in. 

Similarly, the MPCA seems to have been 

persuaded in some proceedings that the fuel 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

49

switching to coal was an emissions reduction measure 

in which it's argued that lower flame temperatures 

of coal reduce NOx emissions. But if one can make 

that argument at all, one can do it only by 

comparing coal to extremely-poorly-designed gas 

burners. And it seems to have been done without 

much regard for increased emissions of sulfur 

oxides. So, again, I think that is a subject that 

could use a little bit more exploration. 

I am concerned that some of the limits in 

the FIP seem to exclude oil burning. I won't go on

to specific cites, but one says these limits do not

apply when burning fuel oil. And that might seem 

fairly innocuous because of today's prices, nobody's 

going to burn much fuel when they have access to 

natural gas. But anybody who's been alive for more

than a few minutes knows that none of us really know 

where energy prices are going. So I'm concerned 

about setting limits that don't include limits 

during periods of gas burning. 

Similarly, there are references in the 

FIP to the burning of oil with sulfur concentrations 

by weight of over 1 percent. That doesn't seem 

appropriate to me. Every operating refinery in the

world now knows how to desulfurize fuel oil, and 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

50

we're seeing a broad movement across sectors and 

industries towards much lower levels of sulfur in 

fuel oil. So I think that's something that ought to 

be looked at if you're going to allow fuel oil. 

Burning -- particularly if you're going to exempt 

fuel oil burning periods from regulatory limits, you 

ought to specify clean fuel oil. 

And I'll just wind up then with this 

comment: That I am reasonably satisfied, based on 

the amount of time I've been able to spend on this,

that low NOx burners are appropriately identified as 

BART for the control of nitrogen oxide emissions. 

And when we look at a reduction in baseline levels 

from something like 4 pounds per million and BTUs to 

1.2, that looks pretty good. But when we look at 

the work that's been done on the reduction of sulfur 

oxide emissions, I'm less well satisfied. It's not

apparent that SCR and SNCR have been adequately 

evaluated. It's not clear to me that the use of 

spray dryers has been adequately considered. I see

that in one place that was found by one operator to

be technically feasible and by others not. I would

like to see a little bit more information on why 

that and other types of scrubbing aren't, in fact, 

cost effective. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

51

So, with that, I'll just close by saying 

please go ahead with the FIP; please take a look at

opportunities for tightening it up a bit. Thank 

you. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: We have -- well, I have one 

more name up here. Carol Overland. 

MS. OVERLAND: Good morning. My name is 

Carol Overland. I'm here on behalf of my company, 

Legalectric, l-e-g-a-l-e-c-t-r-i-c. 1110 West 

Avenue, Red Wing. And that is a -- I'm an attorney

working primarily in transmission issues, so I 

haven't had much time to look at this. This is not

my specialty. But a few things I wanted to note. 

First, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to make comments on this. I've been 

peripherally involved in some issues regarding the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the agency 

has consistently taken no action in this specific 

case over many, many years. And what I would like 

you to consider is that what you're seeing here is 

just the tip of the iceberg, and this is a pattern 

of behavior on behalf of the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency. And I'm glad to see the EPA taking

action here, and I hope you look further at what's 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

52

happening at the MPCA. 

For example, one that I was involved in 

was the MPCA did not weigh in on Excelsior Energy's

coal gasification project proposed for the Range 

near the plants that you're considering here until 

my clients had made a motion to drag them into the 

proceeding. And at that point they did, after the 

instance the pollution -- I mean, the Public 

Utilities Commission made a request that they do 

participate. And when -- in that case, where the 

MPCA saw no problem with haze potential, the EPA did 

weigh in. They were concerned about the haze and 

the potential for the Mesaba project to increase 

haze in the area. So this is another area that's 

related where the MPCA is not acting regarding haze

and it's not acting generally. 

And I ask that you do increase the haze 

regulation; and, as Mr. Miller said, tighten it up 

and that you go forward with this FIP. 

And I ask that the EPA look at the MPCA's 

failure to regulate in its delegated role. You 

heard a lot from Cliffs about the state's authority, 

but that authority has been delegated by the EPA, as 

you well know, and the MPCA is not doing its job. 

And I -- also, as a process issue I note 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

53

that, you know, look at the time. This is a time 

when most people work. And when you have a meeting

at this time, what you're going to get is five, six

Cliffs people and very few members of the public. 

And it does not work for the public. And the EPA 

does have a public participation component, and it 

would have helped to have at least another session 

in the evening so that people could attend, regular

people and not paid lobbyists. 

And I will submit more detailed comments 

by the deadline. And thank you for taking this 

action, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Thank you. 

Just a general announcement, if there's 

anybody else who would like to make a comment, I'd 

like to invite you to come up. 

MR. ABURANO: Because I don't think we 

have any additional speakers at this point, so 

we're -- okay. 

MR. LEON: So please state your name and 

affiliation, if you have one, and you have five 

minutes. 

MR. DINSLAGE: All right. Thanks. My 

name is Matthew Dinslage. I live in Lakeville, 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

54

Minnesota. 

COURT REPORTER: Could you spell that, 

please?

MR. DINSLAGE: D-I-N, S as in Sam, 

L-A-G-E.

COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

MR. DINSLAGE: And so, yes, I am just a 

general constituent of the area, so -- and important 

topics, so I made a time out in my schedule to 

attend this public hearing, so... 

I've listened to a lot of the comments 

from a technology standpoint, from an air quality 

standpoint. My family and I, we camp quite a bit 

all throughout Minnesota. My goal over the years is 

to have my kids attend and camp at all the state 

parks through the next 18 years, and I think we've 

accomplished getting to about 22 of them today. 

But I'm also a mechanical engineer. My 

wife is a chemical engineer. And we look at things

from a very process-oriented and technical 

standpoint. If you look at the ways that the EPA 

and the emission reductions have taken place on 

highway diesel engines globally, from a marine 

shipping standpoint and then also just from the 

power production plants throughout the United 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

55

States, the number of OEMs and the number of 

analysis and data analysis that has gone into those

emission reduction standards over the years is quite 

dramatic. When you look at the on-highway diesel 

engine market, you have probably seven to ten large

OEMs who have input -- or invested millions and 

millions of dollars at looking at different 

technologies to get to the point where we are today

in terms of particulate matter reduction and SOx and 

NOx emissions. 

If you look at the marine industry for 

the numbers of ships throughout the globe, again, 

the numbers of OEMs and the dollars spent and the 

amount of fuel used in that industry is staggering,

much higher than the CVL on highway industry. 

When you look at the number of power 

plants in the United States, the over 16 million 

gigawatts of power generated and the numbers of OEMs 

that put in millions and billions of dollars of 

research to get to the emission reductions we are 

today is staggering as well. 

When you look at the taconite industries, 

there are just a handful of OEMs that are in this 

job. And when you look at the taconite industry or

iron ore industry from a global standpoint, most of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

56

the iron ore developed throughout the U.S. -- 

throughout the world is dug out of the ground and 

put right into the mill -- or right into the 

steel-making process. Here we have to go through a

taconite process to refine and to purify that to a 

much greater concentration of ore, which there is 

very few OEMs and very few people invested into that 

industry. 

So the amount -- when I hear a lot of the 

research that has started to go out there in terms 

of reduction in some of these furnaces, these 

furnaces are very unique from one another. Just 

like God created each of us as unique individuals 

with an individual plan, each one of these 

indurating furnaces are very unique in their own 

processes. And to apply a standard thought process

like is done in the CVL on highway or marine 

industry or the power production standpoint, you 

can't just brushstroke that across and say if we can 

do it here, we should be able to do it here. That's 

not going to take. We have to have a very 

disciplined approach to meet these next guidelines. 

I agree that there should be a guideline, 

but I think this FIP should be pushed off and then 

looked at and really researched and looked at how 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

57

much money can be spent on developing this 

technology, what technology is good, because just 

taking one-off technology that has not been 

implemented or researched or vetted properly is not

good for the industry. 

Thank you for your time. 

MR. ABURANO: Thank you. 

MR. LEON: Is there anybody else 

interested in making a comment? 

MR. ABURANO: We could probably take a 

15-minute break then. And if anyone else would like 

to give testimony, please see Sarah to get on the 

speaker list or just let us know in the next 

15 minutes and you can have the opportunity to 

speak. 

Thank you. 

(Break from 11:11 to 11:29.) 

MR. ABURANO: I'd like to reopen the 

public hearing at this point. The 15-minute break 

is over. So if people could take their seats, we'd

like to restart the public hearing. 

Again, if there are people that would 

like to give testimony today that have not signed up 

to do so, please sign up at the registration desk at 

the door. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

58

Heriberto will go over the kind of ground 

rules that we're proceeding today in giving public 

testimony. 

MR. LEON: So, again, if you're 

interested in giving comments this morning, we ask 

that you check in with the registration. Sarah 

Cervak is at the -- by the door. And we ask that 

when you come up that you make sure that you state 

your name and spell it out for us so that we can get 

an accurate transcription of that information, as 

well as any affiliation that you have. 

And we have a color scheme here to 

indicate that you may begin your five-minute 

testimony. At four minutes we have a yellow sheet 

of paper to indicate that you have one more minute 

to wrap up. And then 15 seconds to 5 minutes we 

have the red sheet of paper to indicate that you 

should be wrapping up. So... 

MR. ABURANO: It looks like we don't have 

any more people currently slated to give testimony. 

So I think we're going to sit here. We're required

to be here until 2:00. That's how long the public 

hearing is going to be. So we will wait for 

additional speakers to show up. Again, we are 

accepting written comments on this until 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

59

September 28th. So this is not the last time you'll 

be offered to -- you'll have an opportunity to give

comments. You can give it today orally or we are 

accepting written comments until September 28th. 

So until someone wants to come up and 

talk, you can look at us. 

(Break from 11:32 to 12:08.) 

MR. ABURANO: Being we have no speakers 

at the moment, I think I'm going to allow ourselves

a 20-minute lunch break. So we will be reconvening

at 12:30, I guess. So if anyone would like to offer 

testimony, you can do so at 12:30 or later. Thank 

you. We're going to take a little break right now.

(Break from 12:08 to 1:46.) 

MR. ABURANO: We're formally closing this 

meeting because no one else is here to present 

testimony. Unless someone shows up in the last five 

minutes, we are officially done accepting comments 

at today's hearing. 

(Proceedings concluded at 2:00 p.m.) 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (952)888-7687 (800)952-0163

60

STATE OF MINNESOTA)

) ss.

COUNTY OF DAKOTA )

 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Angie D. Threlkeld, do hereby

certify that the above and foregoing transcript,

consisting of the preceding 59 pages is a 

correct transcript of my stenographic notes, and is

a full, true and complete transcript of the 

proceedings to the best of my ability.

Dated September 13, 2012.

ANGIE D. THRELKELD

Court Reporter