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 

U.S. EPA, Region 8 ~18 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 Administrator Jackson'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 of Health: 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 staff to attend the meeting, so that we will be able to have a meaningful 

discussion of the 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 of EPA'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 of any EPA disagreement with North Dakota BACT Determination 

involving "cost-effectiveness" considerations for SCR. 

3. 	 Nature and basis of any EPA fact-based disagreement with North Dakota BACT 

Determination of "technical infeasibility" of SCR for applicable North Dakota facilities. 

4. 	 Nature, extent, basis and relevance of EP A proposal that the parties to the Consent Decree 

might now "modify the Consent Decree to allow for field testing ... as a means ...to 

definitivel y 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 recycled paper 
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 than North 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 of what 

control tecimologies may be "cost prohibitive." 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. 

If your or EPA's understanding on the nature and scope of the above meeting and agenda items is any 

different, please let me know this week. 

Sincerely, 

~ North Dakota Department of Health 


Environmental Health Section 


cc: 	 Governor Jack Dalrymple 


Senator J oim Hoeven 


Senator Kent Conrad 


Congressman Rick Berg 


Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General 


Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator