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 531

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 servin g 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 i n 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 i n 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 nationa l parks and wilderness areas since 1988. In 1999 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a major effort to improve our quality in natural park s 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 limit s 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, on1

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 th e 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 a t all affected taconite facilities. These limits are intended to require nitrogen oxide production at al l facilities and additional sulfur dioxide production at two of these facilities, namely United Taconite and Tilden Mine. These limits will dramatically cu t 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 to1

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 th e 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 to1

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 relate d 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 ensur e 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 remai n 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, pleas e 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 whe n 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 red1

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 fiv e 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 u p 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 i s also here. Thank you.

Finally, if you have any questions during1

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 th e 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 Bria n 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 i n 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 in1

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 i t 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 the1

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 th e regulations that we have and encourage our regulators and our legislators in Minnesota to clea n 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 its1

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 flexibilit y 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 a s the EPA deemed reasonable; rather, Congress set up a federalism-based system of air pollution control. Under this cooperative federalism approach, both th e 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 meet1

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 impac t 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 woul d like to submit to us today, we're more than happy t o1

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 fo r 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 ha s steadily dropped as new reserves have been developed. Second, reducing sulfates and nitrous oxide emissions produced by furnaces during taconit e 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 b y the improvements in combustion and resulting effect s on the amount of mercury and other HAPs these plant s will emit. As the process temperatures increase du e to greater efficiencies proposed, the potential fro m 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 th e 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 continuou s1

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 tha t 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 Water s 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 ai r 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, lun g 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 o f 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 othe r industries have made great progress on pollution reduction. It's time now for the taconite industry to invest in modern controls and stop polluting the1

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 submittin g comments to you by the comment deadline in mid September, but I'll just summarize the two main one s 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 tha t BART doesn't include fuel switching. But that's no t the case. And, in fact, EPA has in a number of other instances required fuel switching as BART. S o 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 the1

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 t o 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 lo t 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-da y basis. Thank you.

MR. LEON: All right. I'd like to call1

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 appreciat e your time this morning. I'd like to read what we'v e -- 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 Minnesot a Pollution Control Agency and the Michigan Departmen t1

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 issuin g 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 retain s usufructuary rights, including hunting, fishing, an d gathering. The Band believes that the application of the requirements of the regional haze rule will protect these lands not only from visual degradatio n 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 Band1

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 determinatio n 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 burner s 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 an d 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 rang e of costs that have been deemed affordable for BART by both the states and the EPA.

Third, low NOx burners are a wise control1

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 i n the first place, rather than just collecting the pollutant after it has been produced, which is a ke y 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 contend s 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 t o 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 a n installation time of about a week per line. With1

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 eigh t facilities in the entire country. Cliffs' three Minnesota and two Michigan operations represent the backbone of our company, rated to produce 32 millio n 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 qualit y 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 the1

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. I t 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 no t available to the industry at this point in time; an d1

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 pu t forward by both Michigan Department of Environmenta l 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 th e 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 or e and eastern Canadian operations initiative endeavor s 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 th e 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 ignore s1

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 b y 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 th e feasibility that validates this one-size-fits-all conclusion.

Each of our taconite indurating furnaces are unique. None are the same. Each furnace is1

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 EPA1

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 th e state SIPs which establish legitimate BART determinations, and of course the reasonable furthe r 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 propose d 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 o f 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 the1

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 Ac t 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 Cour t recently reviewed the legislative history of the visibility protection provisions of the act and concluded, again I quote: Congress intended the1

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 tha t 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 taconite1

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 newe r 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 unde r 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 measure d approach to the initial BART determination. EPA ha s1

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 are1

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 month s 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 ge t 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 EME1

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 Grower s 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 Minnesot a 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 t o1

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 constitute d 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 to1

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 o f 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 ne w technology may become available at various points i n 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 that1

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 tha t were not available, demonstrated, or were not permitted when the BART SIPs were submitted to USEP A 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 withou t 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 factore d in the significant cost of ancillary changes that would need -- would be needed at the existing1

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 o n a professional's experience. However, for the proposed FIP USEPA has disregarded these evaluation s and decided to complete the new cost evaluations that are currently incomplete and significantly underestimate the cost of installing the controls a t 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 complete d 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 gathe r 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 that1

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 propose d 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 letter1

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 her e 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 regio n 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 clearl y 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. Reuther1

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 fuel1

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 measur e 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 kno w 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 concentration s 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, and1

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 t o 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, yo u 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 a s 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 t o 1.2, that looks pretty good. But when we look at the work that's been done on the reduction of sulfu r 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's1

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 di d 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, a s you well know, and the MPCA is not doing its job.

And I -- also, as a process issue I note1

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 importan t 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 i s 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 United1

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 quit e 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 an d 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 OEM s 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 of1

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 tha t 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 ca n 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 how1

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 lik e 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 u p to do so, please sign up at the registration desk a t 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 ge t 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 until1

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'l l 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 offe r 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 fiv e 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