ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 

### NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT

### Of HEALTH Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave. Bismarck, NO 58501-1947 701.328
.5200 (fax) www.ndhealth.gov May 26, 2011 Mr. James B. Martin (II)

### o.~ 

### S Regional Administrator

## ~18 U.S. EPA, Region 8 

## frl .11) 1595 Wynkoop Street**a:~~** Ci) Denver, CO 80202-1129 ::) Re: Confirmation ofJune 2, 2011 Meeting and Discussion Agenda
• North Dakota's BACT Determination for MRYS • North Dakota's Regional Haze Plan Dear Regional Administrator Martin: Thank you for recently contacting me, following up on EPA AdministratorJackson's May 12,2011 reply letter to Governor Dalrymple and North Dakota's congressional delegation. From communications with your staff, North Dakota understands that the meeting requested by Governor Dalrymple is now scheduled for June 2 (10:00 a.m.) at EPA Region 8 offices in Denver. Accompanying me to the meeting will be Terry O'Clair and Tom Bachman from the North Dakota Department ofHealth:as well as Special Assistant Attorney General Paul Seby. Assistant Attorney General MaggIe Olson will be attending by phone. We assume that you have arranged forthe appropriate EPA officials and staffto attend the meeting, so that we will be able to have a meaningful discussion ofthe following specific issues (as set forth in Governor Dalrymple's May 6 letter to Administrator Jackson): 

### Proposed BACT-Related Discussion Issues 1. Relevance and applicability ofEPA's assertion that it "has previously concluded that SCR is technically feasible for North Dakota lignite coal facilities in New Source Performance Standards for Electric Utility Steam Generation Units, Best Available Retrofit Technology Guidelines, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
." 2. Nature and basis ofany EPA disagreement with North Dakota BACT Determination involving "cost-effectiveness" considerations for SCR. 3. Nature and basis ofany EPA fact-based disagreement with North Dakota BACT Determination of"technical infeasibility" ofSCR for applicable North Dakota facilities. 4. Nature, extent, basis and relevance ofEPA proposal that the parties to the Consent Decree might now "modify the Consent Decree to allow for field testing
... as a means...to definitively address
...catalyst concerns." c::> C"-.J**~** <= :z :::J -,

Environmental Health Division of Division of Division of Division of Section Chiefs Office Air Quality Municipal Facilities Waste Management Water Quality 701
.328
.5150 701.328
.5188 701.328
.5211 701.328
.5166 701
.328.5210 Printed on recycledpaper

### Mr. James 

### B. Martin Page 2 May 26,2011
5. Nature, extent and basis for EPA's suggestion that the Louisiana BACT Determination is substantively different thanNorth Dakota's determination. 

### Proposed Regional Haze-Related Discussion Issues 1. Basis for EPA's assertion that North Dakota's regional haze visibility modeling "substantially understates visibility improvements." 2. Basis for EPA's apparent suggestion that North Dakota's visibility modeling efforts are not within the State's authority. 3. Basis for EPA's apparent disagreement regarding North Dakota's consideration ofwhat control tecimologies may be "costprohibitive." Why specifically does EPA believe North Dakota's cost analyses are incorrect or "overestimated?" 4. EPA willingness to recognize North Dakota's forthcoming Supplemental Regional Haze SIP submittal to add reasonable progress measures and to supplement the State's BART Determinations. Ifyour orEPA's understanding on the nature and scope ofthe above meeting and agenda items is any different, please let me know this week. Sincerely,

# ~ North Dakota Department ofHealth Environmental Health Section
cc: Governor Jack Dalrymple SenatorJoim Hoeven Senator Kent Conrad Congressman Rick Berg Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General Lisa P
. Jackson, Administrator