# APPENDICES[This page intentionally left blank]Appendix 1.1: Benefits of Improved Visibility 103
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. 104 Visibility impairment is the most noticeable effect of fine par ticles present in the atmos phere, as particle pollution degrades the visual appearance and perceived color of distant objects and reduces the range at which they can be distinguished from the background.

Visibility impairment due to haze in Class I areas is primarily due to anthropogenic emissions of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ). PM 2.5 is composed of ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine soil, and trace me tals. Fine particulates can be em itted directly into the atmosphere or can be formed in the atmosphere by the transfor mation of gaseous emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds.

Visibility impairment may be either “reasonably attributable” (defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as attributable by visual observation) to specific sources (i.e. local visibility impairment) or a result of emissions from a large number of sources located over a wide geogr aphic area (regional haze as defined in 40 CFR 51.301). Sources of visible plumes are generally tho ught to be comparatively negligible contributors to the impairment of visibility in Class I areas. Ac cording to EPA (2005), “there have been a limited number of cases in which Federal la nd managers have certified the existe nce of visibility impairment in a Class I area as being ‘reasonably attr ibutable’ to a particular source.” 105

According to EPA:

“Regional haze impairs visibility in every direction over a large area, in some cases over multi-state regions. It also masks objects on th e horizon and reduces the contrast of nearby objects. The formation, extent, and intensity of regional haze are functions of meteorological and chemical processes, which sometimes cause fi ne particle loadings to remain suspended in the atmosphere for several days and to be transported hundreds of kilometers from their sources (NRC, 1993). It is this second type of visibility degradation, regional haze, which is principally responsible for impairment in national parks and wilderness areas across the country (NRC, 1993).

While visibility impairment in urban areas at times may be dominated by local sources, it often may be significantly affected by long-range transport of haze due to the multi-day residence times of fine particles in the atmos phere. Fine particles transported from urban and industrialized areas, in turn, may, in some case s, be significant contributors to regional-scale impairment in Class I and other rural areas.” 106

The document goes on to state:

“Regional trends in Class I area visibility are updated and presented in the EPA’s National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (EPA , 2001). Eastern trends for the 20% haziest days from 1992-1999 showed a 1.5 deciview improvement, or about a 16% improvement. However, visibility in the East remains significantly impaired, with an average visual range of approximately 20 km on the 20% haziest days . In western Class I areas, aggregate trends showed little change during 1990- 1999 for the 20% haziest days, and modest improvements

103 Adapted from the CENRAP SIP Template

104 National Research Council, Commission on Ge osciences, Environment and Resources, 1993.

105 EPA, OAQPS, 2005. p 6-2.

106 Ibid. p 6-3.on the 20% mid-range and clearest days. Average visual range on the 20% haziest days in western Class I areas is approximately 100 km.” 107

The benefits of improving visibility in the federally protected national parks and wilderness areas by reducing PM 2.5 pollution are far reaching and include envi ronmental/ecological, health, and economic benefits.

Environmental/Ecological Benefits The components and precursors of PM 2.5 are harmful to the environment and ecosystems. For instance, sulfur dioxide is linked to increased transformation of mercury to methyl mercury, the more toxic form of mercury, in lake sediments. In addition to being pr ecursors to sulfate and nitrate fine particles, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides contribute to the formation of acid rain. Acid rain has harmful effects on forests, soils, flora, fauna, waterw ays, materials, and human health. 108

According to EPA, acid rain and dry deposition of aci dic particles contribute to the corrosion of metals (such as bronze) and the deteriora tion of paint and stone (such as ma rble and limestone). These effects seriously reduce the value to society of buildings, br idges, cultural objects (such as statues, monuments, and tombstones), and cars. The afore-mentioned f act is reiterated in the following excerpts from the EPA’s review of the Particulate Matter Standard:

“Physical damage such as corrosion, degradati on, and deterioration o ccurs in metals, paint finishes, and building materials such as stone a nd concrete, respectively. Metals are affected by natural weathering processes even in the ab sence of atmospheric pollutants. Atmospheric pollutants, most notably SO 2 and particulate sulfates, can have an additive effect, by promoting and accelerating the corrosion of metals ... (CD, pp. 4-192 to 4-193).” 109

“In addition, the deposition of ambient PM can reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling. Pa rticles consisting primarily of carbonaceous compounds cause soiling of commonly used buildin g materials and culturally important items such as statues and works of art (CD, p. 4-191). Soiling is the deposition of particles on surfaces by impingement, and the accumulation of particles on the surface of exposed material results in degradation of its appearance” (EPA, 1996b, p. VIII-19).” 110

Another environmental effect linked to PM 2.5 precursors, and thus visibility impairment, is the formation of ozone. As stated in the EPA’s PM Data Analys is Workbook, “formation of a substantial fraction of secondary PM 2.5 depends on photochemical gas phase reactions.” 111 Ground level ozone has been linked to foliage and ecosystem damages, as well as the more commonly mentioned respiratory problems.

Currently 21 of the 48 contiguous states have areas that have been designated non-attainment for PM 2.5 and 14 of those states have non-attainment areas for the eight hour ozone standard. 112 Therefore, reduction in visibility impairing pollutants will help these areas to at tain the NAAQS for PM 2.5 and ozone.

Other environmental and ecological benefits are likel y to result from the reduction of visibility impairing particulates and their precursors. For example, reduction of sulfur dioxide will reduce the amount of

107 Ibid. p 6-4.

108 EPA. Effects of Acid Rain

. 109 EPA, OAQPS, 2005. p 6-51.

110 Ibid., p 6-50.

111 EPA, 1996.

112 EPA, NAAQS Designations web pagesinjury or death of tissues in foliage, while reducti on of both nitrogen and sulfur compounds will decrease acidification and fertilization of waters and soils a nd eutrophication of coastal waters and estuaries. Finally, reduction of metals and toxic organics will decrease bioaccumulation in the food chain, which causes neurological and reproductive effects in fish and wildlife.

Health Benefits Fine particulate matter poses significant health threats because it can easily reach deep into the lungs. Strategies to reduce visibility impairment may result in reduced concentrations of PM 2.5 elsewhere, leading to health benefits. Studies link particul ate matter to a host of health problems, including premature death, aggravated asthma, and other respirat ory ailments that require emergency-room care or hospitalization. The elderly are especially at risk for premature death from the effects of particulate matter. Those most at risk for respiratory impacts in clude the elderly, people with asthma or pre-existing heart or lung disease, and children.

“There are several reports of associations betw een short-term fluctuations in ambient PM and day-to-day frequency of respiratory illnesses (6). In most cases, notably in pre-teen children, assessments have found exacerbation of pre-exis ting illness and related symptoms rather than de novo acute respiratory infections (7). The us e of inhalers has also been shown to increase in many young asthmatics in response to air pollution in general and PM in particular.” 113

In EPA’s Particulate Matter review, the following eff ects on the respiratory system from short-term and long-term exposures to particulate matter are discussed:

“[R]ecent epidemiologic findings are consis tent...in showing associations with both respiratory symptom incidence and decreased lung function (CD, p. 9-70). PM 10 and PM 2.5 were associated with small decreases in lung function and increases in respiratory symptoms...The findings from studies of physicians’ office visits...offer new evidence of acute respiratory effects with exposure to ambi ent PM that is coherent with evidence of increased respiratory symptoms and admissions/v isits to the hospital or emergency room for respiratory disease...In general...studies have indicated that long term exposure to PM 2.5 is associated with reduced lung function...and incr eased risk of developing chronic respiratory illness (CD, p. 8-313).” 114

In the same Review, EPA also found that particul ate matter has an impact on cardiovascular health.

“[N]ew epidemiologic studies provide much mo re evidence of effects on the cardiovascular system with short-term exposure to PM, particularly PM 10 and PM 2.5 (CD, p. 9-67). Epidemiologic studies have reported associati ons between short-term exposures of ambient PM (often using PM 10 ) and measures of changes in cardiac function such as arrhythmia, alterations in electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns, heart rate or heart rate variability changes, though the CD urges caution in drawing conclu sions regarding the effects of PM on heart rhythm (CD, p. 8-166).” 115

EPA has also stated that exposure to ambient PM affects the autonomic control of the heart; alters cardiac re-polarization; and can affect cardiac arrhythmias and myocardial infractions. 116

113 EPA, ORD, 2004. p 94.

114 EPA, OAQPS, 2005. pp 3-22 to 3-23.

115 Ibid, pp 3-23 to 24.

116 EPA, ORD, 2004.In 2002, a study by C. Arden Pope, et al, assessed the relationship between long- term exposure to ambient PM pollution and cardiopulmonary mortality. 117 The results seemed to indicate for each 10 μ/m 3 increase of PM 2.5 there was about a 6% increased risk of cardiopulm onary mortality. This study also assessed the relationship between long-term expos ure to fine particulate air pollution and lung cancer, with results indicating that with each 10 μ/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 ambient air concentration there is an 8% increase in lung cancer mortality.

A press release from the National Institute of Environm ental Health Sciences about this study stated:

“Years of exposure to the high concentrations of tiny particles of soot and dust from cars, power plants and factories in some metropolitan areas of the United States significantly increase residents’ risk of dying from l ung cancer and heart disease...Arden Pope...the study’s co-leader, said that wh ile far less than the risks asso ciated with active cigarette smoking, ‘we found that the risk of dying from lung cancer as well as heart disease in the most polluted cities was comparable to the risk associated with nonsmokers being exposed to second-hand smoke over a long period of time.’

The study evaluated the effects of air pollutio n on human health over a 16-year period. Previous studies have linked soot in the air to many respiratory ailments and even death, but the new findings ‘provide the strongest evidence to date that long term exposure to fine particulate air pollution common to many metropolita n areas is an important risk factor for cardiopulmonary mortality,’ as well as lung cancer deaths” 118

Economic Benefits Poor visibility in national parks and wilderness areas may also result in a decline in visitors, in turn affecting the socio-economic structure of the municipa lities located near these areas. Tourism is a major part of the economy of regions around Class I ar eas, as spending in communities surrounding national park sites was approximately $10.6 billion dollars in 2001. 119 Various studies have shown that poor visibility in National Parks results in lower visito r attendance, which would decrease outside dollars coming in to these areas, and that visitors place a high value on scenic vistas. 120

Additional economic benefits from improved visibility are linked to improved health outcomes. Incidences of asthma and other cardiopulmonary probl ems can cause absences from work and school and decreased productivity, as well as high medical e xpenses. By improving health, decreases in PM 2.5 will improve these economic indicators.

117 Pope, et al., 2002.

118 NIEHS, 2002.

119 Stynes and Sun, 2003.
120 U.S. National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Economic Effects of Air Pollution and Clear View: What is it worth? (web pages)Appendix 1.2: EPA SIP Submittal ChecklistY / N orN/A Regulation Citation Regulation Summary Location in SIP

Administrative Requirements from Appendix V to Part 51

Y 2.1(a) Has a letter of submittal from the governor / designee, requesting EPA approval of the SIP been received? Front matter

Y 2.1(b) Has the state provided evidence it has adopted the legally enforceable portions of the plan in the state code or body of regulations; or issued the neces sary permits, orders, consent agreements in final form? Appendix 9.6 Appendix 9.7

Y 2.1(c) Has the state provided evidence it has the necessary legal authority under state law to adopt and implement the plan? Appendix 2.1

Y 2.1(d) Has the official state regulation /document been signed/stamped/dated by the appropriate state official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the state? Appendix 9.6 Appendix 9.7

Y 2.1(e) Has the state provided eviden ce it followed all of the procedural requirements of the state’s laws and constitution in the adoption/issuance of the plan? Appendix 2.1

Y 2.1(f) Has the state provided evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice? Appendix 2.2

Y 2.1(g) Has the state provided a certification that public hearings(s) were held in accordance with the info rmation provided in the public notice and the state’s laws and constitution, if applicable? Appendix 2.3

Y 2.1(h) Has the state provided a compilation of public comments and the state’s response thereto? Appendix 2.4

Technical Requirements from 40 CFR 51.308 N (b) Was the SIP submitted no later than December 17, 2007?

Y (d) Did the state provide a table identifying each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state affected by emissions from within the state? Table 10.1

Y (d)(1) Did the state establish RPGs for each Class I area that provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period? Table 10.6

Y (d)(1)(i)(A) In establishing RPGs for each Class I area, did the state consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal? Chapter 10 Appendix 10.5 Appendix 10.6

Y (d)(1)(i)(B) Did the state submit the glidep ath (i.e., rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064) for each Class I area? Table 5.3Y / N orN/A Regulation Citation Regulation Summary Location in SIP

Y (d)(1)(i)(B) In establishing the RPG fo r each Class I area, did the state calculate the uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the SIP? Chapter 5 Chapter 8 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(1)(ii) If the state establishes a RPG < the glidepath, has it demonstrated, based on the factors in (d)(1)(i)(A), the rate of progress for the SIP to attain natural conditions by 2 064 is not reasonable, and its RPG is reasonable? Chapter 10

Y (d)(1)(ii) If the state establishes a RPG < the glidepath, did it provide to the public for review as part of its SIP, an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural conditions using its RPG? Table 10.6

Y (d)(1)(iv) In developing its RPG, has the state consulted with those states that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas? Chapter 3 Appendix 3.2

Y (d)(1)(iv) If the state cannot agree with another state(s) that a goal provides for reasonable progress, has the state described in its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement? Chapter 3 Appendix 3.2 Chapter 10

Y (d)(1)(vi) Has the state adopted RPGs th at represents at least the visibility improvement expected from implementation of other CAA programs during the applicable planning period? Chapter 10

Y (d)(2)(i) Has the state calculated ba seline visibility conditions for each Class I area for the most impaired and least impaired days using 2000 to 2004 monitoring data? Table 5.1

Y (d)(2)(i) In calculating the baseline visibility conditions, did the state estimate the average degree of vi sibility impairment for the most and least impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004, and then determine the average of these annual values? Table 5.2

Y (d)(2)(i) If the state has Class I areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000 - 2004, did the state use the most representative available monitoring data for 2000 - 2004 to establish baseline values, in consultation with the EPA Regional Office? Chapter 5

Y (d)(2)(iii) Did the state calculate natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days by estimating the degree of impairment based on availabl e monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques? Chapter 5 Table 5.1

Y (d)(2)(iv)A Did the state calculate the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visib ility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days for the first planning period? Table 5.3

Y (d)(3) Did the state submit a LTS that addresses visibility impairment for each Class I area, inside and outside the state, which may be affected by the state’s emissions? Chapter 10

Y (d)(3) Does the LTS include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by states having Class I areas? Appendix 9.6 Appendix 9.7 Chapter 10 Appendix 10.4Y / N orN/A Regulation Citation Regulation Summary Location in SIP

Y (d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the state consult with other state(s) to develop coordinated em ission management strategies for cases in which it has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in those state(s)? Chapter 3 Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the state consult with other state(s) to develop coordinated em ission management strategies for cases in which those state(s) have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located within the state? Chapter 3 Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(ii) In establishing its LTS, where multiple state(s) cause or contribute to impairment of the same Class I area, did the state include all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area? Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(ii) In addressing (d)(3)(ii), above, if the state participated in a RPO, did it ensure it included all me asures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process? Chapter 3 Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(iii) In establishing its LTS, did th e state document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each Class I area it affects? Chapter 8 Appendix 10.1 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(3)(iii) In addressing (d)(3)(iii), above, did the state identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based? Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(3)(iv) Did the state identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by it in developing its LTS, including consideration of major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources? Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(3)(v)(A) In developing its LTS, did the state consider the emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI? Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(v)(B) In developing its LTS, did the state consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities? Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(v)(C) In developing its LTS, did th e state consider emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal? Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(v)(D) In developing its LTS, did th e state consider source retirement and replacement schedules? Chapter 10

Y (d)(3)(v)(E) In developing its LTS, did the state consider smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes, including plans as currently ex ist within the state for these purposes? Chapter 10 Appendix 10.7Y / N orN/A Regulation Citation Regulation Summary Location in SIP

Y (d)(3)(v)(F) In developing its LTS, did the state consider enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures? Appendix 9.6 Appendix 9.7 Chapter 10 Appendix 10.3 Appendix 10.4

Y (d)(3)(v)(G) In developing its LTS, did the state consider the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over th e period addressed by the LTS? Chapter 8 Chapter 10 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(4) Did the state submit with the SIP a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment representative of all Class I areas within the state? Chapter 6 Appendix 6.1

N/A (d)(4) Did the state coordinate the above monitoring strategy with the RAVI monitoring strategy in § 51.305? N/A

N (d)(4)(i) Did the SIP provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment need ed to assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all Class I areas within the state are being achieved? Unnecessary

Y (d)(4)(ii) Did the SIP establish proce dures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state? Chapter 6

N/A (d)(4)(iii) For a state with no Class I areas, did the SIP establish procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states? N/A

Y (d)(4)(iv) Did the SIP provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually fo r each Class I area in the state? Chapter 6

Y (d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a stat ewide EI of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area? Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(4)(v) Did the EI include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions? Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Modeling TSD

Y (d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a commitment to update the EI periodically? Chapter 7 Chapter 8

Y (d)(4)(vi) Did the SIP include other elements necessary to assess and report on visibility (e.g., reporting, recordkeeping, etc.)? Chapter 10 Chapter 11

Y (e) Did the state submit a SIP containing emission limitations representing BART, and schedules for compliance with BART, for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impa irment of visibility in any Class I area? Chapter 9 Appendix 9.3 Appendix 9.4 Appendix 9.6 Appendix 9.7

Y (e)(1)(i) Did the SIP include a list of all BART-eligible sources within the state with supporting documentation? Chapter 9 Table 9.1Y / N orN/A Regulation Citation Regulation Summary Location in SIP

Y (e)(1)(ii) Did the SIP include a determination of BART for each BARTeligible source in the state that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area? Chapter 9 Appendix 9.3 Appendix 9.4

Y (e)(1)(ii)(A) Did the SIP include a de termination of BART based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available, and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART within the state? Chapter 9

Y (e)(1)(ii)(A) In the BART analysis, did the state take into consideration thetechnology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology? Chapter 9 Appendix 9.4 Appendix 9.5

Y (e)(1)(ii)(B) Did the state determine BART for fossil-fuel fired power plants > 750 megawatts pursuant to the BART guidelines? Chapter 9 Appendix 9.4

Y (e)(1)(iii) If the state has determined that technological or economic limitations on the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular source would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, has the state prescribed a design, equipment, work practice, or other operati onal standard, to require the application of BART, as an alternative to a BART emission standard? Chapter 9 Appendix 9.3

Y (e)(1)(iii) If the state adopted a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard alternative to BART, did the state, to the degree possible, set forth the emission reduction to be achieved, and provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results? Chapter 9 Appendix 9.3

Y (e)(1)(iv) Has the state required each source subject to BART to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after approval of the SIP? Chapter 9

Y (e)(1)(v) Has the state required each BART source to maintain the required control equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained? Chapter 9

N/A (e)(4) If the state is using its participation in CAIR to exempt BARTeligible EGUs from BART, has it included supporting documentation? N/A

N/A (e)(4) If the state is using its participation in CAIR to exempt BARTeligible EGUs from BART, did it include provisions for a geographic enhancement to the pr ogram to address RAVI BART under § 51.302(c)? N/A

N/A (e)(6) If a facility is seeking an exemption under §51.303(a)(2)–(h) for any of its BART-eligible emission units, has the appropriate documentation been included in the SIP? N/AY / N orN/A Regulation Citation Regulation Summary Location in SIP

Y (f) Has the state included a commitment it will submit its SIP revision, as specified in 51.308(f), by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter? Chapter 11

Y (g) Has the state included a commitment it will submit its SIP report, as specified in 51.308(g), by an exact date named , that is within 5 years from submittal of the initial SIP? Chapter 11

Y (h) Has the state included a commitment it will, at the time of the submission of the SIP report, also submit a determination of the adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP revision, as specified in 51.308(h)? Chapter 11

Y (i)(1)(i)-(ii) Did the state, by November 29, 1999, identify in writing to the FLMs the title of the official to which any FLMs can submit recommendations on the implementation 51.308 including, (i) identification of impairment of visibility in any Class I area(s); and (ii) identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by §51.305 and 51.308? Chapter 4

Y (i)(2) Did the state provide the FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP (or its revision)? Chapter 4

Y (i)(2)(i)-(ii) Did the above consultation include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their: (i) assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area; and, (ii) recommendations on the development of the RPG and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment? Chapter 4

Y (i)(3) Did the state include in the SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs? Appendix 4.2

Y (i)(4) Does the SIP provide proce dures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs on the implementation of 51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas? Chapter 4 Chapter 10 Chapter 11Appendix 2.1: Documentation of legal auth ority and compliance with State procedure

# STATE OF MINNESOTA

LORI SWANSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL December 21, 2009 SUITE 900 445 MINNESOTA STREET ST. PAUL, MN 55101-2127 TELEPHONE: (651) 297-1075

Mr. Bharat Mathur Acting Regional Administrator (AR-19J) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604

Re:State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Legal Authority and Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Dear Mr. Mathur:

I am writing to confirm that (1) the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is acting within its legal authority in submitting the revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Regional Haze and issuing the rules and orders attached to it; and (2) the MPCA has complied with the procedural rules that apply to such actions.

This letter identifies the sources of the MPCA's authority to implement the proposed revision, and is provided for inclusion in the MPCA's SIP submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Division (U.S. EPA) to satisfy the requirement of 42 USC 

### § 74l0(a)(2)(E).

1.Legal Authority

The MPCA is a statutory agency of the State of Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 116.02, subd. 

### 1. The Minnesota statute that lays out the powers and duties of the MPCA (Minn. Stat. § 116.07, 2008)

states in subd. 2,

"The agency shall also adopt standards of air quality

... Such standards of air quality shall be premised upon scientific knowledge of causes as well as effects based on technically substantiated criteria and commonly accepted practices."

The same statute goes on, in Subdivision 4, to give the agency the authority to

"[A]dopt, amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of law relating to
any purpose

... for the prevention, abatement, or control of air pollution. Any such rule or standard may be of general application throughout the state, or may be limited

as to times, places, circumstances, or conditions in order to make due allowance for variations therein. Without limitation, rules or standards may relate to sources or emissions of air contamination or air pollution, to the quality or composition of such emissions, or to the quality of or composition of the ambient air or outdoor atmosphere or to any other matter relevant to the prevention, abatement, or control of air pollution."

TTY: (651) 296-1410 • Toll Free Lines: (800) 657-3787 (Voice), (800) 366-4812 (TTY) • www.ag.state.rnn.us Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity**S~1l** OPrinted on 50% recycled paper (15% post consumer content)Mr. Bharat Mathur U.S. EPA, Region V December 21, 2009 Page 2

This statute also gives the agency the authority to enter into orders, schedules of compliance and stipulation agreements, requiring owners or operators of emission facilities to install and operate monitoring equipment, and to conduct investigations. Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 9 (2008).

Minn. Stat. § 115.071, subd. 1 authorizes the MPCA to enforce Minn. Stat. ch. 116 and all rules, standards, orders, stipulation agreements, schedules of compliance and permits adopted or issued by the MPCA by criminal prosecution, action to recover civil penalties, injunction, action to compel performance, or other appropriate actions.

Among the rules adopted by the MPCA under the above grant of authority is the rule included in the SIP that makes visibility an applicable requirement. Minn. R. 7007.0100, subd. 7, part V lists "any standard or other requirement established under section l69A (Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas) or 169B (Visibility) of the act including emission limits established in the determination of best available retrofit technology" as an applicable requirement.

II. Procedural Compliance

The authority to issue orders has been delegated by the Citizens' Board of the MPCA to its Commissioner by delegation dated October 24, 1995. The delegation is subject to several requirements and limitations that either do not apply to the orders issued as part of the Regional Haze SIP revision, or that have been complied with.

The Citizens' Board of the MPCA has also delegated to the Commissioner its authority to make SIP submittals to the U.S. EPA, by delegation dated October 24, 1995. This delegation supplements the Commissioner's direct statutory authority under Minnesota Statute § 116.03, subd. 3 (2008) to act as the state agent to "apply for, receive, and disburse federal funds made available to the state by federal law or rule and regulations promulgated there under for any purpose related to the
power and duties of the MPCA or the Commissioner." Nonetheless, the Commissioner and MPCA staff determined that the SIP should be brought before Citizens' Board for its consideration and approval. On December 15, 2009, the Citizens' Board voted to approve submittal of the Regional Haze SIP. The Findings of Fact and Order, signed by the Chair of the Board, is attached.

No additional procedural requirements under state law apply.

Very truly yours,

# d~/tf!~ STEVEN M. GUNN Deputy Attorney General

(651) 296-8954 (Voice) (651) 297-4139 (Fax)

AG: #2559389-vlAppendix 2.2: Public NoticesState of Minnesota 

# State Register

Rules, Executive Orders, Appointments, Commissioners’ Orders, Revenue Notices, Official Notices, Grants, State Contracts & Loans, Non-State Bids, Contracts &Grants Published every Monday (Tuesday when Monday is a holiday)


## Monday 25 February 2008 

# Volume 32, Number 35 Pages 1603 - 1658

# State Register

Judicial Notice Shall Be Taken of Material Published in the State Register

The State Register is the official publication of the State of Minnesota, published weekly to fulfill the legislative mandate set forth
in Minnesota Statutes § 14.46. The State Register contains: • rules of state agencies • executive orders of the governor • appointments • commissioners’ orders • revenue notices • official notices • state grants and loans • contracts for professional, technical and consulting services • non-state public bids, contracts and grants

PUBLISHING NOTICES: Submit ONE COPY of your notice, typed double-spaced. State agency submissions must include a “ State Register Printing Order” form, and a “Certification/Internal Contract Negotiation” form with contracts for professional, technical and c onsulting services. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, with a letter on your letterhead stationery requesting publication and dat e to be published. E-MAIL submissions to: robin.panlener@state.mn.us, or FAX to: (651) 297-8260. Please follow FAX by sending originals and applicable forms or letters. The charge is $14.40 per tenth of a page (columns are seven inches wide). One typwritten, double-spaced page is about 4/10s of a page in the State Register , or $57.60. About 2-1/2 pages typed, double-spaced, on 8-1/2"x11" paper equal one typeset page
in the State Register. Contact the editor if you have questions.

SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES: Copies are available at Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, MN 55155. Order by phone: Metro area: (651) 297-3000 Toll free (800) 657-3757. TTY relay service phone number: (800) 627-3529. NO REFUNDS. E-mail subscriptions are available by contacting (651) 297-8777. Send address changes to Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.

SEE THE State Register free at website: http://www.minnesotasbookstore.com

• State Register: On-line subscription – $180, includes Early View, LINKS, INDEX, and Sidebar Table of Contents sent to you via E-mail

. • Single issues are available for a limited time: State Register $5.00.
• “Affidavit of Publication” costs $10.00 and includes a notarized “Affidavit” and a copy of the issue.

Printing Schedule and Submission Deadlines

PUBLISH Deadline for: Emergency Rules, Executive and Vol. 32 DATE Commissioner’s Orders, Revenue and Official Notices, Deadline for Proposed, Issue ( BOLDFACE shows S tate Grants, Professional-Technical-Consulting Adopted and Exempt Number altered publish date) Contracts, Non-State Bids and Public Contracts RULES

# 35 Monday 25 February Noon Tuesday 19 February Noon Wednesday 13 February # 36 Monday 3 March Noon Tuesday 26 February Noon Wednesday 20 February # 37 Monday 10 March Noon Tuesday 4 March Noon Wednesday 27 February # 38 Monday 17 March Noon Tuesday 11 March Noon Wednesday 5 March

Copyright © 2008 Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota. USPS Publication Number: 326-630 (ISSN: 0146-7751) THE STATE REGISTER IS PUBLISHED by Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 14.46 and is available at main branch county libraries in Minnesota and all “State Depository Libraries:” State University and Community College libraries; University of Minnesota libraries; St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth Public Libraries; Legislative Reference Library; State Law Library; Minnesota Historical Society Library; and Library Development Service at the State Department of Ed ucation.

Tim Pawlenty, Governor (651) 296-3391 Carol L. Molnau, Lt. Governor (651) 296-3391 Lori Swanson, Attorney General (651) 297-4272 Rebecca Otto, State Auditor (651) 297-3670 Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State (651) 296-2079 Department of Administration: Dana B. Badgerow, Commissioner (651) 296-1424 Materials Management Division: Kent Allin, Director (651) 201-2400 Mary Mikes, Manager (651) 297-3979 State Register: Robin Panlener, editor (651) 297-7963 John Mikes, assistant editor (651) 297-4616

Cathy Hoekstra, subscriptions (651) 297-8777 Bonnie Karels, billing (651) 296-4912



### Minnesota Legislative Information

Senate Public Information Office (651) 296-0504 House Public Information Services (651) 296-2146 State Capitol, Room 231, St. Paul, MN 55155 State Office Building, Room 175, Website: www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/secretary/seninfo.htm 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/hinfo.htm 

### Minnesota State Court System

Court Information Office (651) 296-6043 MN Judicial Center, Rm. 135, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.courts.state.mn.us 

### Federal Register
Office of the Federal Register (202) 512-1530; or (888) 293-6498 U.S. Government Printing Office – Fax: (202) 512-1262 Website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html(Cite 32 SR 1605) State Register , Monday 25 February 2008 Page 1605 

# Contents

Minnesota Rules : Amendments & Additions

Rules Index - Vol. 32, # 28-35, Monday 25 February 2008 ................................. 1546 

### Proposed Rules Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Municipal Division - Local Government Assistance Unit: Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Solid Waste Planning....................... 1607


### Commissioners' Orders Natural Resources Department (DNR) Classification of the Mississippi Headwaters State Forest in Beltrami, Clearwater, and Hubbard Counties, Minnesota with Respect to Motor Vehicle Use......................................................................... 1624 MAP: Exhibit A - Area with Limitations on Off-Trail and Non-Designated Trail Use.......................................................................................... 1625 Designation of Forest Trails in Mississippi Headwaters State Forest in Beltrami, Clearwater, and Hubbard Counties, Minnesota............................. 1626 MAP: Exhibit A - All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Trail Designation........................ 1627 MAP: Exhibit B - Hunter Walking Trail Designation........................................ 1628 Designation of Forest Roads in Mississippi Headwaters State Forest in Beltrami, Clearwater, and Hubbard Counties, Minnesota............................. 1629 MAP: Exhibit A

- Forest Road Designation........................................................... 1630 Classification of State Forest Lands Outside State Forests Under the Authority of the Commissioner in Southwest Beltrami County, Minnesota with Respect to Motor Vehicle Use.................................................... 1631 MAP: Exhibit A - Motor Vehicle Classification of State Forest Lands............ 1632 Designation of Forest Roads on State Forest Lands Outside State Forests Under the Authority of the Commissioner in Southwest Beltrami County, Minnesota................................................................. 1633 MAP: Exhibit A - Forest Road Designation........................................................... 1634
Transportation Department (Mn/DOT)

Amended Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual - ORDER NO. 90038...... 1635


### Revenue Notices Department of Revenue Revenue Notice # 08-04: Corporate Income Tax - Apportionment of Income; Two-Factor and One-Factor Weighted Formulas; Revocation of Revenue Notice # 02-06.................................................................. 1636


### Official Notices

Aid with Official Notices............................................................................................... 163 7
Comprehensive Health Association Meeting of the Enrollee Appeal Committee February 28, 2008.......................... 1638
Electricity Board Request for Comments on Possible Amendment to Rules Governing Electrical Licensing, Registration of Unlicensed Workers, and Continuing Education, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3800.................................. 1638

Executive Council State Board of Investment Land Exchange Board Investment Advisory Council Meetings on March 4 and March 10, 2008 of the Executive Council, the State Board of Investment, the Land Exchange Board, and the Investment Advisory Council................................................................................... 1640
Historical Society (MHS) State Review Board Regular Meeting March 25, 2008.......................................... 1640
Human Services Department (DHS) Health Care Purchasing and Delivery Systems Division, Health Care Administration: Public Notice of Maximum Allowable Costs of Medical Assistance Outpatient Prescribed Drugs.............................. 1640 Labor and Industry Department (DOLI) Construction Codes and Licensing Division: Request for Comments on Possible Rules Governing Residential Contractor Continuing Education Instructor Approval, Minnesota Rules, 2891......... 1641 Construction Codes and Licensing Division: Request for Comments on Possible Amendment to Rules Governing Industrialized/Modular Buildings, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361.......... 1642
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division: Public Notice on Draft State Implementation Plan Revision........................... 1643 Public Notice for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity................................................................. 1644


### State Contracts

Assistance with Contracts............................................................................................ 1648
Administration Department (Admin) Materials Management Division: Availability of Contract(s) for Disparity Study(ies)............................................................................................... 1 648
Colleges and Universities, Minnesota State (MnSCU) Anoka Ramsey Community College, Cambridge Campus Request Bids for an East River Courtyard Expansion and Waterproofing.... 1649 Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids Campus Request Bids for an Expansion of a Heated Sidewalk System at Anoka Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids Campus......................... 1649
Human Services Department (DHS) Aging and Adult Services Division: Request for Proposals to Provide Services to Support the Minnesota Age and Disabilities Odyssey................ 1650 Health Care Operations Division: Request for Proposals to Provide Third Party Liability Services.................................................................................. 1651
Natural Resources Department (DNR) Division of Forestry: Availability of Contract for Forest Stewardship Technical Assistance.............................................................. 1652 Division of Forestry: Availability of Contract for Information and Education Items.............................................................................. 1652 Request for Proposals to Prepare and Execute a Study of North Central Minnesota Boating During Summer of 2008............................. 1653
Public Facilities Authority Request for Proposals for Professional Services to Conduct Financial and Compliance Audits........................................................... 1654
Transportation Department (Mn/DOT) Contracting Opportunities for a Variety of Highway Related Technical Activities (“Consultant Pre-Qualification Program”).................... 1654 Professional/Technical Contract Opportunities...................................................... 1655 

### Non-State Bids, Contracts & Grants Metropolitan Council - Metro Transit Invitation for Bids on Bus Engine Replacements................................................... 1656
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies: Request for Information (RFI) for Professional Services to Provide Program Delivery.......................... 1656 Subscribe to Bid Information Service (BIS).............................................................. 1657


### Minnesota’s Bookstore

........................................................ 1657

Contracts information is available from the Materials Management Helpline (651) 296-2600, or Web site: www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us

State Register information is available from Minnesota’s Bookstore (651) 297-3000, or (800) 657-3757, Web site: www.minnesotasbookstore.com(Cite 32 SR 1643) State Register , Monday 25 February 2008 Page 1643 compacting State.

Public Comment. Interested persons or groups may submit comments or information on these possible rules in writing until 4:30 p.m. on Friday, April 25, 2008. The Department does not contemplate appointing an advisory committee to comment on the possibl e rules.

Rules Drafts. The Department does not anticipate that a draft of the possible new rules will be available before the publication of the proposed rules.

Agency Contact Person. Written comments, questions, requests to receive a draft of the rules when it has been prepared, and requests for more information on these possible rules should be directed to: Ms. Carrie Rohling at the Department of Labor and Industry, 443 Lafayette Road North, Third Floor, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155, or FAX (651) 284-5725.

Alternative Format. Upon request, this Request for Comments can be made available in an alternative format, such as large print, Braille, or cassette tape. To make such a request, please contact the agency contact person at the address or telephone number listed above.

NOTE: Comments received in response to this notice will not necessarily be included in the formal rulemaking record submitted to the administrative law judge if and when a proceeding to adopt rules is started. The agency is required to submit to the judge onl y those written comments received in response to the rules after they are proposed. If you submitted comments during the development of the rules and you want to ensure that the Administrative Law Judge reviews the comments, you should resubmit the comments after the rules are formally proposed.

Dated: February 11, 2008 Steve Sviggum, Commissioner Department of Labor and Industry



## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Public Notice on Draft State Implementation Plan Revision

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commissioner has determined that a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision must be submitted to meet Minnesota’s requirements under the federal Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.300 - 51.309). The draft SIP revisi on is now available for public comment.

Background. Under the authority of Section 169(a) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 1, 1999 promulgated visibility goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas in the federal Regional Haze Rule . The Regional Haze Rule was further amended in 2005 and 2006. Section 169(a) of the Act and the Regional Haze Rule requires each st ate to adopt and submit a plan to EPA that addresses the state’s contribution to visibility impairment at the mandatory Class I Federa l areas.

Purpose of the SIP Revision. The purpose of this SIP revision is to address visibility protection at national parks, wildernesses, and scenic areas, also referred to as mandatory Class I Federal areas. Class I areas within Minnesota are the Boundary Waters Cano e Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. The SIP lays out how Minnesota intends to implement the Regional Haze Rule in order to reduce regional haze in Minnesota’s Class I areas as well as those Class I Areas outside of Minnesota where visibility is impacted by emissions
from Minnesota.

The SIP revision includes information on the following core requirements of the Regional Haze Rule:

· Reasonable progress goals

· Baseline and natural visibility conditions

· Long-term strategy for regional haze

· Monitoring strategy

· Best Available Retrofit Technology 

# Official NoticesPage 1644 State Register , Monday 25 February 2008 (Cite 32 SR 1644) The SIP revision also fulfills Minnesota’s requirements under Section 110(a)(2) of the Act to demonstrate that emissions f rom Minnesota will not interfere with measures required to meet the implementation plan for any other state related to regional haze and visibility.

The MPCA will hold a public meeting about the proposed SIP revision from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at the MPCA’s Duluth office, 525 Lake Avenue South, Duluth, Minnesota.

In order to facilitate the process of taking public comments during the public meeting, if you would like to speak during the public meeting, please contact the MPCA contact person identified in this notice by April 8, 2008. Those who wish to make comments at the public meeting may also sign up, prior to the start of the public meeting, to speak. If possible, please also provide a written copy of any comments you intend to make at the public meeting.

The MPCA will consider changing the contents of the proposed SIP revision based on comments received during the comment p eriod and at the public meeting. Following the end of the comment period, the Commissioner will decide whether to submit the proposed SIP revision to the EPA unless, as provided by Minnesota Statutes § 116.02, the MPCA Citizens’ Board makes this decision.

MPCA Contact Person. The MPCA contact person is Catherine Neuschler. Written comments, requests and petitions should be mailed to: Catherine Neuschler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194, telephone number: (651) 296-7774 Voice or toll free 1-800-657-3864; facsimile number: ( 651) 297-8324; and email: catherine.neuschler@pca.state.mn.us . TTY users may call the MPCA at TTY (651) 292-5332 or 1-800-657-3864.

Availability of SIP. A copy of the proposed SIP revision is available on the MPCA’s Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/ regionalhaze.html. A copy of the proposed SIP is also available upon request by contacting Catherine Neuschler at 651-296-7774, or will be mailed to any interested person upon the MPCA’s receipt of a written request. Materials relating to the SIP revision are ava ilable for inspection by appointment at the MPCA St. Paul Office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, and at the MPCA Dul uth Office, 525 Lake Avenue South, Duluth, Minnesota, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. To exami ne these materials in St. Paul, or for more information, please contact Catherine Neuschler. To examine these materials in Duluth please call Patty Parker at (218) 723-4660. All MPCA offices may be reached by calling 1-800-657-3864.

Public Comment Period. Your comments must be in writing and received by Catherine Neuschler by 4:30 p.m. on April 16, 2008. Written comments may be submitted to the MPCA contact person at the address, facsimile number, or E-mail address listed above.

Request to Have MPCA Citizens’ Board Make Decision. You have the right to submit a petition to the MPCA Commissioner asking that the MPCA Citizens’ Board make the decision on submitting the proposed SIP revision to the EPA. Your petition must b e in writing, and must be received by the MPCA contact person by 4:30 p.m. on March 28, 2008. If you submit your request in person or by facsimile, the request must be received by the MPCA by April 1. Whether the petition will be granted or denied is in the sole d iscretion ofthe MPCA Commissioner. The MPCA Citizens’ Board will only make the decision on the proposed SIP revision if the MPCA Commissioner grants your petition or if an MPCA Citizens’ Board member makes a timely request to have the decision made by the MPCA
Citizens’ Board.

Brad Moore, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency



## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Public Notice for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) intends to reissue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) General Permit No. MNR100001, under the provisions of Minnesota Rules 7001.0210, for persons conducting construction activity and for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. Com

# Official NoticesState of Minnesota 

# State Register

Rules, Executive Orders, Appointments, Commissioners’ Orders, Revenue Notices, Official Notices, Grants, State Contracts & Loans, Non-State Bids, Contracts &Grants Published every Monday (Tuesday when Monday is a holiday)


## Monday 7 April 2008 

# Volume 32, Number 41 Pages 1841 - 1870

# State Register

Judicial Notice Shall Be Taken of Material Published in the State Register

The State Register is the official publication of the State of Minnesota, published weekly to fulfill the legislative mandate set forth
in Minnesota Statutes § 14.46. The State Register contains: • rules of state agencies • executive orders of the governor • appointments • commissioners’ orders • revenue notices • official notices • state grants and loans • contracts for professional, technical and consulting services • non-state public bids, contracts and grants

PUBLISHING NOTICES: Submit ONE COPY of your notice, typed double-spaced. State agency submissions must include a “ State Register Printing Order” form, and a “Certification/Internal Contract Negotiation” form with contracts for professional, technical and c onsulting services. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, with a letter on your letterhead stationery requesti ng publication and date to be published. E-MAIL submissions to: robin.panlener@state.mn.us [ FAX to: (651) 297-8260. You MUST follow FAX by sending originals and applicable forms or letters via E-mail.] We charge $14.40 per tenth of a page (columns are seven inch es wide). One typwritten, double-spaced page is about 4/10s of a page in the State Register , or $57.60. About 2-1/2 pages typed, double-spaced, on 8-1/2"x11" paper equal one typeset page in the State Register. Contact the editor if you have questions.

SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES: Copies are available at Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, MN 55155. Order by phone: Metro area: (651) 297-3000 Toll free (800) 657-3757. TTY relay service phone number: (800) 627-3529. NO REFUNDS. E-mail subscriptions are available by contacting (651) 297-8777. Send address changes to Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.

SEE THE State Register free at website: http://www.minnesotasbookstore.com

• State Register: On-line subscription – $180, includes LINKS, INDEX, “Contracts and Grants” special section, Sidebar Table of Contents, and Early View via E-mail

. • Single issues are available for a limited time: State Register $5.00.
• “Affidavit of Publication” costs $10.00 and includes a notarized “Affidavit” and a copy of the issue.

**Printing Schedule and Submission Deadlines**

PUBLISH Deadline for: Emergency Rules, Executive and Vol. 32 DATE Commissioner’s Orders, Revenue and Official Notices, Deadline for Proposed, Issue ( BOLDFACE shows S tate Grants, Professional-Technical-Consulting Adopted and Exempt Number altered publish date) Contracts, Non-State Bids and Public Contracts RULES

# 41 Monday 7 April Noon Tuesday 1 April Noon Wednesday 26 March # 42 Monday 14 April Noon Tuesday 8 April Noon Wednesday 2 April # 43 Monday 21 April Noon Tuesday 15 April Noon Wednesday 9 April # 44 Monday 28 April Noon Tuesday 22 April Noon Wednesday 16 April

Copyright © 2008 Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota. USPS Publication Number: 326-630 (ISSN: 0146-7751) THE STATE REGISTER IS PUBLISHED by Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 14.46 and is available at main branch county libraries in Minnesota and all “State Depository Libraries:” State University and Community College libraries; University of Minnesota libraries; St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth Public Libraries; Legislative Reference Library; State Law Library; Minnesota Historical Society Library; and Library Development Service at the State Department of Ed ucation.

Tim Pawlenty, Governor (651) 296-3391 Carol L. Molnau, Lt. Governor (651) 296-3391 Lori Swanson, Attorney General (651) 297-4272 Rebecca Otto, State Auditor (651) 297-3670 Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State (651) 296-2079 Department of Administration: Dana B. Badgerow, Commissioner (651) 296-1424 Materials Management Division: Kent Allin, Director (651) 201-2400 Mary Mikes, Manager (651) 297-3979 State Register: Robin Panlener, editor (651) 297-7963 John Mikes, assistant editor (651) 297-4616

Cathy Hoekstra, subscriptions (651) 297-8777 Bonnie Karels, billing (651) 296-4912



### Minnesota Legislative Information

Senate Public Information Office (651) 296-0504 House Public Information Services (651) 296-2146 State Capitol, Room 231, St. Paul, MN 55155 State Office Building, Room 175, Website: www.senate.mn 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/hinfo.htm 

### Minnesota State Court System

Court Information Office (651) 296-6043 MN Judicial Center, Rm. 135, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.mncourts.gov 

### Federal Register
Office of the Federal Register (202) 512-1530; or (888) 293-6498 U.S. Government Printing Office – Fax: (202) 512-1262 Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html(Cite 32 SR 1843) State Register , Monday 7 April 2008 Page 1843 

# Contents **Minnesota Rules : Amendments & Additions** 
Rules Index - Vol. 32, # 41, Monday 7 April 2008 ............... 1844


## Expedited Emergency Rules **Natural Resources Department (DNR)** Adopted Expedited Emergency Game and Fish Rules: 2008 Bear Season................................................................. 1845 Adopted Expedited Emergency Game and Fish Rules: Disabled Turkey Hunt Quotas and Youth Turkey Special Hunts........................................................................ 1846



## Official Notices

Help with Official Notices....................................................... 1852
**Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture,**  **Geoscience, and Interior Design** Request for Comments on Possible Amendment to Rules Governing Architecture........................................... 1853
**Human Services Department (DHS)** Proposed Payment Rate Changes for Hospitals, Nursing Facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities for Persons with Mental Retardation (ICFs/MR) Participating in the Medical Assistance Program.................. 1853
**Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)** Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division: Extension of Time to Submit Comments on Draft State Implementation Revision................................................... 1855 Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division: Request for Comments on Possible Rule Amendments Governing Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality....................................................................... 1856



## State Grants & Loans

Grant Applicants..................................................................... 1858
**Employment and Economic Development Department (DEED)**  Minnesota Job Skills Partnership Training Grant Deadline...... 1858



## State Contracts

Assistance with Contracts........................................................ 1859
**Administration Department (Admin)**

Real Estate & Construction Services Division: State Real Property For Sale in Rochester, Minnesota............. 1860
**Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU)** Facilities Design and Construction: Request for Information (RFI) for Architectural, Owner’s Representative, Real Estate and Other Related Professional and Technical Services for a Master List of Consultants................................................... 1860 Metropolitan State University: Request for Proposals for a Media Buying Agent..................... 1861 Minnesota West Community & Technical College, Pipestone Campus: Request for Bids for Lumber and Building Materials................. 1861 Normandale Community College: Proposals Solicited for Print Management System................... 1861 Saint Paul College: Request for Sealed Bids for Printing of Saint Paul College Fall 2008 College Magazine and Course Schedule.................. 1862
**Minnesota State Lottery** Request for Proposals for Sponsorship Agreements................. 1862
**Natural Resources Department (DNR)** Availability of a Contract to Sell Advertising Space in Department of Natural Resources Publications................. 1863
**Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)** Request for Proposals for Professional/Technical Master Contract for Superfund, Petroleum and Agriculture Environmental Services...................................... 1864
**Transportation Department (Mn/DOT)**

Office of Electronic Communications: Request for Proposal (RFP) for Land Acquisitions for Radio Towers.................................................................. 1865 Potential Availability of Contracting Opportunities for a Variety of Highway Related Technical Activities (“Consultant Pre-Qualification Program”)........................... 1865 Professional/Technical Contract Opportunities....................... 1866



## Non-State Bids, Contracts & Grants **Metropolitan Council** Request for Proposals (RFP) for Component Data Collection Project................................................................ 1866
**Metropolitan Council - Metro Transit** Request for Proposals for Twin Cities 2030 Aviation System Plan Update............................................................. 1867
**Mississippi River Parkway Commission of Minnesota**  Request for Proposals for Managing Organizational Affairs, Scenic Byway Grant Work and Tourism Marketing............... 1867
**University of Minnesota (U of M)** Request for Proposal for Consulting Environmental Review Services (EAW/EIS) for UMore Park Sand and Gravel Mining................................................................ 1868 Subscribe to Bid Information Service (BIS).............................. 1869

Contracts information is available from the Materials Management Helpline (651) 296-2600, or Web site: www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us

State Register information is available from Minnesota’s Bookstore (651) 297-3000, or (800) 657-3757, Web site: www.minnesotasbookstore.com(Cite 32 SR 1855) State Register , Monday 7 April 2008 Page 1855 facility services for State Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010. The state general fund cost decrease is projected to be $4,546,000 in St ate Fiscal Year 2009 and ; $1,357,000 in State Fiscal Year 2010.

The net effect of the proposed nursing facility rate change would be an increase in state Medical Assistance expenditures for nursing facility services in State Fiscal Year 2011. The state general fund cost increase is projected to be $1,357,000 for State Fisc al Year 2011.

Information on the proposed inpatient hospital rate changes is available from Paul Olson, Department of Human Services, He alth Care Administration, Post Office Box 64984, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55164-0984; phone (651) 431-2532 or email: paul.olson@state.mn.us

Information on the proposed nursing facility and ICF/MR rate changes is available from Kari Irber, Department of Human Se rvices, Continuing Care Administration, Post Office Box 64974, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55164-0974; phone (651) 431-3491 or email:
kari.irber@state.mn.us.

The public is invited to attend the legislative hearings where these proposals will be discussed. Information on Senate h earings is available from the Senate Information Office at: (651) 296-0504 (voice) or (651) 296-0250 ( TTY ); for Greater Minnesota call 1-888-234- 1112 (voice) or 1-888-234-1216 ( TTY ). Hearing schedules are posted at: http://www.senate.mn.schedule

Information on House of Representatives hearings is available from the House of Representatives Public Information Office at: (651) 296-2146 (voice) or (651) 296-9896 ( TTY ); for Greater Minnesota call 1-800-657-3550 or 1-800-627-3529 ( TTY) . Hearing schedules are posted at: http://www.house.mn/hinfo/hinfosched.asp

Notice of final rate changes enacted by the 2008 legislature will be published in the State Register prior to the effective date of the changes.



## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency **Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Public Notice of Extension of Time to Submit Comments on Draft State**  **Implementation Revision**

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is extending the time for submission of comments, requests, and petitions on the Draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Regional Haze until M ay 16, 2008. The purpose of this SIP revision is to address visibility protection at national parks, wildernesses, and scenic areas, also referred to as mandatory Class I Federal areas.

The MPCA will consider changing the contents of the proposed SIP revision based on comments received during the comment pe riod. Following the end of the comment period, the Commissioner will decide whether to submit the proposed SIP revision to the EPA un less, as provided by Minnesota Statutes § 116.02, the MPCA Citizens’ Board makes this decision.

MPCA Contact Person. The MPCA contact person is Catherine Neuschler. Written comments, requests and petitions should be mailed to: Catherine Neuschler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194, phone: (651) 296-7774; toll-free: 1-800-657-3864; fax: (651) 297-8324; and e-mail: catherine.neuschler@pca.state.mn.us

. TTY users may call the MPCA at TTY (651) 292-5332 or 1-800-657-3864.

Availability of SIP. A copy of the proposed SIP revision is available on the MPCA’s Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/ regionalhaze.html. A copy of the proposed SIP is also available upon request by contacting Catherine Neuschler at (651) 296-7774, or will be mailed to any interested person upon the MPCA’s receipt of a written request. Materials relating to the SIP revision a re available for inspection by appointment at the MPCA St. Paul Office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, and at the MPCA Duluth Office, 525 Lake Avenue South, Duluth, Minnesota, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. To examine these materials in St. Paul, or for more information, please contact Catherine Neuschler. To examine these materials i n Duluth please call Patty Parker at (218) 723-4660. All MPCA offices may be reached by calling 1-800-657-3864. 

# Official NoticesPage 1856 State Register , Monday 7 April 2008 (Cite 32 SR 1856) Public Comment Period. The original public notice was published on February 25, 2008 in the State Register (32 SR 1643). That notice indicated that the public comment period would end on April 16, 2008. This notice is extending the public comment period to May 16, 2008. Comments must be received in writing at the MPCA by 4:30 p.m. on May 16, 2008. Written comments may be submitted to the MPCA contact person at the address, facsimile number, or E-mail address listed above.

Request to Have MPCA Citizens’ Board Make Decision. You have the right to submit a petition to the MPCA Commissioner asking that the MPCA Citizens’ Board make the decision on submitting the proposed SIP revision to the EPA. Your petition must b e in writing. Whether the petition will be granted or denied is in the sole discretion of the MPCA Commissioner. The MPCA Citizens’ Board will only make the decision on the proposed SIP revision if the MPCA Commissioner grants your petition or if an MPCA Citizens’ Board member makes a timely request to have the decision made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board.

Brad Moore, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency



## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency **Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Request for Comments on Possible Rule Amendments Governing Prevention of**  **Significant Deterioration of Air Quality to be Codified in Minnesota Rules**  **Chapter 7007.3000**

Subject of Rule : The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requests comments on a possible rule revision affecting the MPCA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air quality rule, currently codified in Minnesota Rules, Section 7007.3000. Please note that as the MPCA develops this rulemaking it may identify portions of other chapters of the air quality rules that need to be amended, for example when one rule cross references another or shares a common definition. Such collateral amendments will be kept within the original scope of the rule.

Background: The federal New Source Review permit program has two parts: 1) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applies to major emitting facilities (as that term is defined by § 168 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7479) in areas that are in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2) Non Attainment New Source Review (NANSR) applies to major emitting facilities in areas that are not in attainment with the NAAQS. Currently, all of Minnesota is in attainment with NAAQS. As a result, only the PSD portion of the program applies in Minnesota at this time. Regulations to implement PSD are codified at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21.

Currently, the MPCA operates the PSD permit program through direct delegation of authority from the United States Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) to the State of Minnesota. This means that Minnesota operates the federal PSD program as an agent of E PA rather than operating an approved state PSD program. Because Minnesota operates a federally delegated PSD program, it is const rained to administer the federal program verbatim without any changes for state considerations.

States that operate approved state programs do so by submitting for EPA approval a state implementation plan (SIP) that is at least as effective as the federal PSD program. It should be noted that Minnesota has incorporated the federal PSD rule by reference at Minnesota
Rule 7007.3000. The incorporation was never submitted to EPA as part of a request for PSD SIP approval, however, and Minnesota continues to operate only as a delegated PSD state.

At this time, the MPCA is considering whether to amend 7007.3000 and whether to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) t o the EPA in order for Minnesota’s PSD permit program to become a “SIP-approved” program rather than a delegated program. Having a S IPapproved PSD program would allow the MPCA the flexibility to determine if future changes to the PSD program should be made in Minnesota. A PSD-approved program would also give Minnesota more time to implement federal PSD amendments in the future and would keep the appeal process for PSD permits within the state.

The MPCA is not currently considering making changes to the substantive provisions of the PSD program; this rulemaking focuses on 

# Official NoticesState of Minnesota 

# State Register

Proposed, Adopted, & Expedited Rules; Executive Orders; Appointments; Commissioners’ Orders; Revenue Notices; Official Notices; State Grants & Loans; State Contracts; Non-State Public Bids, Contracts &Grants Published every Monday (Tuesday when Monday is a holiday)


## Monday 20 July 2009 

# Volume 34, Number 3 Pages 78 - 106

# State Register

Judicial Notice Shall Be Taken of Material Published in the State Register

The State Register is the official publication of the State of Minnesota, published weekly to fulfill the legislative mandate set forth
in Minnesota Statutes § 14.46. The State Register contains:

• Proposed Rules • Adopted Rules • Exempt Rules • Expedited Rules • Withdrawn Rules • Vetoed Rules • Executive Orders of the Governor • Appointments • Proclamations • Commissioners’ Orders • Revenue Notices • Official Notices • State Grants and Loans • Contracts for Professional, Technical and Consulting Services • Non-state Public Bids, Contracts and Grants

**Printing Schedule and Submission Deadlines**

PUBLISH Deadline for: Emergency Rules, Executive and Vol. 34 DATE Commissioner’s Orders, Revenue and Official Notices, Deadline for Proposed, Issue ( BOLDFACE shows S tate Grants, Professional-Technical-Consulting Adopted and Exempt Number altered publish date) Contracts, Non-State Bids and Public Contracts RULES

# 3 Monday 20 July Noon Tuesday 14 July Noon Wednesday 8 July # 4 Monday 27 July Noon Tuesday 21 July Noon Wednesday 15 July # 5 Monday 3 August Noon Tuesday 28 July Noon Wednesday 22 July # 6 Monday 10 August Noon Tuesday 4 August Noon Wednesday 29 July

PUBLISHING NOTICES: We need to receive your submission ELECTRONICALLY. Submit ONE COPY of your notice via e-mail to: robin.panlener@state.mn.us . State agency submissions must include a “ State RegisterPrinting Order” form, and, with contracts, a “Certification/Internal Contract Negotiation” form. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, with a letter on your letterhead stationer y requesting publication and date to be published. [ FAX to: (651) 297-8260. You MUST follow FAX by e-mailing notice and other forms or letters.

Page charges are $13.60 per tenth of a page (columns are seven inches wide). One typwritten, double-spaced page is about 4/10s of a page in the State Register , or $54.40. About 2-1/2 pages typed, double-spaced, on 8-1/2"x11" paper equals one typeset page in the State Register. Contact the editor if you have questions, by calling (651) 297-7963, or e-mail: robin.panlener@state.mn.us

.

SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES: Copies are available at Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, MN 55155. Order by phone: Metro area: (651) 297-3000 Toll free (800) 657-3757. TTY relay service phone number: (800) 627-3529. NO REFUNDS. E-mail subscriptions are available by contacting (651) 297-8777. Send address changes to Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.

SEE THE State Register free at website: http://www.minnesotasbookstore.com

• State Register: On-line subscription – $180, includes LINKS, INDEX, “Contracts and Grants” special section, Sidebar Table of Contents, and Early View via E-mail

. • Single issues are available for a limited time: State Register $5.00. • “Affidavit of Publication” includes a notarized “Affidavit” and a copy of the issue: $10.00.

Copyright © 2009 Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota. USPS Publication Number: 326-630 (ISSN: 0146-7751) THE STATE REGISTER IS PUBLISHED by Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 14.46 and is available at main branch county libraries in Minnesota and all “State Depository Libraries:” State University and Community College libraries; University of Minnesota libraries; St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth Public Libraries; Legislative Reference Library; State Law Library; Minnesota Historical Society Library; and Library Development Service at the State Department of Ed ucation.



### Minnesota Legislative Information

Senate Public Information Office (651) 296-0504 House Public Information Services (651) 296-2146 State Capitol, Room 231, St. Paul, MN 55155 State Office Building, Room 175, Website: www.senate.mn 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/hinfo.htm



### Minnesota State Court System Federal Register

Court Information Office (651) 296-6043 MN Judicial Center, Rm. 135, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.mncourts.gov Office of the Federal Register (202) 512-1530; or (888) 293-6498 U.S. Government Printing Office – Fax: (202) 512-1262 Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html Department of Administration: Dana B. Badgerow, Commissioner (651) 296-1424 Materials Management Division: Kent Allin, Director (651) 201-2400 Mary Mikes, Manager (651) 297-3979 Tim Pawlenty, Governor (651) 296-3391 Carol L. Molnau, Lt. Governor (651) 296-3391 Lori Swanson, Attorney General (651) 297-4272 Rebecca Otto, State Auditor (651) 297-3670 Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State (651) 296-2079 State Register: Robin Panlener, editor (651) 297-7963 John Mikes, assistant editor (651) 297-4616 Cathy Hoekstra, subscriptions (651) 297-8777 Bonnie Karels, billing (651) 296-4912(Cite 34 SR 81) State Register , Monday 20 July 2009 Page 81 

# Contents **Minnesota Rules : Amendments & Additions** 

Rules Index - Vol. 34, # 3: Monday 20 July 2009 ............................................. 82

**Adopted Rules Racing Commission**  Adopted Permanent Rules Relating to Horse Racing............................................ 83

**Expedited Emergency Rules Natural Resources Department (DNR)**  Adopted Expedited Emergency Game and Fish Rules: 2009 Camp Ripley Archery Deer Hunt; 2009 Youth Deer Hunts and Seasons................. 83 Adopted Expedited Emergency Game and Fish Rules: 2009 Elk Season Quotas and Dates......................................................................... 86

**Commissioners' Orders Natural Resources Department (DNR)** 
Commissioner’s Order: #INF-09-002 - Designation of Infested Waters......... 89

**Official Notices**

Official Notices Go to Work for You........................................................................... 91

**Administration Department (Admin)** STAR Program AT Advisory Council Meeting July 21, 2009............................. 91

**Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA)** Board of Directors Meeting July 29, 2009................................................................ 91

**Health Department (MDH)** Division of Compliance Monitoring, Managed Care Systems Section: Application for Essential Community Provider Status......................................... 91

**Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)** Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division: Public Notice on Revised Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision........................................................................ 92

**Public Utilities Commission (PUC)** Energy Facilities Planning: Notice of Filing and Public Comment in the Matter of the Application of Buffalo Ridge Power Partners, LLC for a Certificate of Need for the 138-Megawatt Bitter Root Wind Project in Yellow Medicine and Lincoln Counties, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket No: IP-6684/CN-08-785............................................................................................ 93

**Secretary of State’s Office** Request for Comments on Possible Amendment to Rules Governing Petitions, Absentee Balloting, Voting System Testing, Optical Scan Voting Systems, Recounts, Election Judge Training Program, Ballot Preparation and Redistricting................................................................................... 94

**State Grants & Loans**

Here’s Help in Applying for Grants........................................................................... 95

**Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)** Regional Division: Availability of Proposals Accepted for Water Resource Project Grants and Loans through the State Clean Water Partnership Program.................... 96

**State Contracts**

All “Active” Contracts.................................................................................................. 97

**Administration Department (Admin)** Availability of Request for Proposal (RFP) for Designer Selection for Design of Two State Veterans Cemeteries, Duluth area and Redwood County........................................................................................................... 97 State Designer Selection Board Project No. 09-05: Availability of Request for Proposal (RFP) for Designer Selection for Normandale Community College, Bloomington, MN – Academic Partnership Center Project.............................................................................................................. ... 98 **Colleges and Universities, Minnesota State (MnSCU)** Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids & Cambridge, MN Century College, White Bear Lake, MN Dakota County Technical College, Rosemount, MN Hennepin Technical College, Brooklyn Park and Eden Prairie, MN Inver Hills Community College, Inver Grove Heights, MN Metropolitan State University, St Paul, MN Minneapolis Community & Technical College, Minneapolis, MN Minnesota State University Moorhead, Moorhead, MN Normandale Community College, Bloomington, MN North Hennepin Community College, Brooklyn Park, MN Riverland Community College, Austin, Albert Lea, and Owatonna, MN St Cloud Technical College, St Cloud, MN St Paul Technical College, St Paul, MN South Central College, North Mankato, MN Request for Armored Car Services................................................................................ 98 Minneapolis Community and Technical College: Availability of Request for Proposal (RFP) for Designer Selection for Student Center Renovation and Addition, Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Minneapolis, Minnesota.......................... 99 Minnesota West Community and Technical College: Sealed Bids Accepted for Eight (8) Test Consoles with AC/DC Test Card for a NIDA Training Lab at Their Canby Campus............................. 99 Normandale Community College: Department of Academic Affairs, Office of Institutional Research: Request for Proposal in Implementing a System for Form Creation, Scanning and Reporting.......................................................................................... 100 Winona State University: Request for Proposals for Public Art Commission for Memorial Hall Addition and Renovation/Integrated Wellness Complex.................................. 100

**Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS)** Availability of Contract for the Administration of MSRS Board of Directors Election...................................................................... 101

**Transportation Department (Mn/DOT)** Engineering Services Division: Contracting Opportunities for a Variety of Highway Related Technical Activities (“Consultant Pre-Qualification Program”).................... 101 Professional/Technical Contract Opportunities and Taxpayers’ Transportation Accountability Act Notices.................................... 102 Office of Investment Management: Request for Proposals (RFP) Loop and Length Based Classification.............. 102

**Non-State Bids, Contracts & Grants Dakota County**  Request for Qualified Contractors to Provide Homelessness Prevention, Rapid Re-housing, and Housing Outreach Services................... 103

**University of Minnesota (U of M)** Subscribe to Bid Information Service (BIS).............................................................. 104

**Minnesota’s Bookstore** .......................................................... 105

Contracts information is available from the Materials Management Helpline (651) 296-2600, or Web site: www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us

State Register information is available from Minnesota’s Bookstore (651) 297-3000, or (800) 657-3757, Web site: www.minnesotasbookstore.comPage 92 State Register, Monday 20 July 2009 (Cite 34 SR 92) An ECP is a health care provider that serves high-risk, special needs, and underserved individuals. In order to be design ated as an ECP, a provider must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 62Q.19 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 4688. The public is allowed 30 days from the date of the publication of this notice to submit written comments on the application. The c ommissioner will approve or deny the application once the comment period and compliance review is complete.

For more information contact: Mary Ann Fena Managed Care Systems Section Division of Compliance Monitoring Department of Health
P.O. Box 64882 St. Paul, MN 55164-0882
Phone: (651) 201-5164



## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) **Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Public Notice on Revised Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision** 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commissioner has determined that a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision must be submitted to meet Minnesota’s requirements under the federal Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.300 - 51.309). A draft SIP was plac ed on public notice on February 25, 2008; a revised draft Regional Haze SIP is now available for public comment.

Background. Under the authority of Section 169(a) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 1, 1999 promulgated visibility goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas in the federal Regional Haze Rule . The Regional Haze Rule was further amended in 2005 and 2006. Section 169(a) of the Act and the Regional Haze Rule requires each st ate to adopt and submit a plan to EPA that addresses the state’s contribution to visibility impairment at the mandatory Class I Federa l areas.

Purpose of the SIP Revision. The purpose of this SIP revision is to address visibility protection at national parks, wildernesses, and scenic areas, also referred to as mandatory Class I Federal areas. Class I areas within Minnesota are the Boundary Waters Cano e Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. The SIP lays out how Minnesota intends to implement the Regional Haze Rule. The SIP revision includes information on the following core requirements of the Regional Haze Rule: reasonable progress goals, baseline and natural visibility conditions, long-term strategy for regional haze, monitoring strategy, and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

.

A draft SIP was placed on notice in February 2008; in response to comments received and the potential for changes in the application of the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule to Minnesota, the SIP has been revised. The revised SIP is now available for public c omment. Comments will be taken only on those portions of the SIP that have changed since the initial draft. Revised portions include:

· Best Available Retrofit Technology for Electric Generating Units

· Administrative Orders by Consent for taconite facilities

· Long Term Strategy

Information on these items is found in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 of the revised SIP. For context, the entire SIP is available for review, but comments will be taken only on Chapter 8, 9, 10 and the associated Appendices, and any changes made in response to comments on the
initial draft.

The MPCA will consider changing the contents of the proposed SIP revision based on comments received during the comment pe riod. Following the end of the comment period, the Commissioner will decide whether to submit the proposed SIP revision to the EPA un less, as provided by Minnesota Statutes § 116.02, the MPCA Citizens’ Board makes this decision.

MPCA Contact Person. The MPCA contact person is Catherine Neuschler. Written comments, requests and petitions should be mailed to: Catherine Neuschler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194, telephone number: (651) 757-2607 Voice or toll free 1-800-657-3864; facsimile number: (65 1) 

# Official Notices(Cite 35 SR 93) State Register , Monday 20 July 2009 Page 93 297-8324; and e-mail: catherine.neuschler@pca.state.mn.us . TTY users may call the MPCA at TTY (651) 292-5332 or 1-800-657-3864.

Availability of SIP. A copy of the proposed SIP revision is available on the MPCA’s Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/ regionalhaze.html. A copy of the proposed SIP is also available upon request by contacting Catherine Neuschler at (651) 757-2607, or will be mailed to any interested person upon the MPCA’s receipt of a written request. Materials relating to the SIP revision are ava ilable for inspection by appointment at the MPCA St. Paul Office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, between the hours o f 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. To examine these materials in St. Paul, or for more information, please contact Catherine
Neuschler.

Public Comment Period. Your comments must be in writing and received by the MPCA contact person by 4:30 p.m. on August 19, 2009. Written comments may be submitted to the MPCA contact person at the address, facsimile number, or E-mail address listed above.

Request to Have MPCA Citizens’ Board Make Decision. You have the right to submit a petition to the MPCA Commissioner asking that the MPCA Citizens’ Board make the decision on submitting the proposed SIP revision to the EPA. Your petition must b e in writing, and must be received by the MPCA contact person by 4:30 p.m. on August 19, 2009. Whether the petition will be granted or denied is in the sole discretion of the MPCA Commissioner. The MPCA Citizens’ Board will only make the decision on the proposed SIP revision if the MPCA Commissioner grants your petition or if an MPCA Citizens’ Board member makes a timely request to have the decision made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board.



## Public Utilities Commission (PUC) **Energy Facilities Planning Notice of Filing and Public Comment in the Matter of the Application of Buffalo**  **Ridge Power Partners, LLC for a Certificate of Need for the 138-Megawatt Bitter Root Wind Project in Yellow Medicine and Lincoln Counties,**  **Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket No: IP-6684/CN-08-785**

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 27, 2009, Buffalo Ridge Power Partners, LLC, (the Applicant) submitted an application for a certificate of need for a 138-Megawatt wind-powered generation facility in Yellow Medicine and Lincoln Counties, near Can by. The proposed wind generation project constitutes a “large energy facility” as defined in Minnesota Statutes § 216B.2421, subd. 2 (1) and therefore cannot be constructed or sited in Minnesota unless the commission issues a certificate of need to the Applicant. The review process for certificate of need applications are contained in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7849.

On July 7, 2009 the commission ordered an informal review process as authorized by Minnesota Rules 7829.1200. This order and other documents associated with certificate of need application can be viewed at: www.puc.state.mn.us (click ‘Search eDockets’ then enter docket number “08 785” for the certificate of need application). Additionally the Applicants intend to file a site permit appli cation for the project and information on this application will be available once the application is filed.

Interested persons are encouraged to provide written comments on whether the proposed project is needed and is in the publ ic interest. This comment period is open until August 10, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Individuals may file replies to comments received until September 14, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. These comments should be addressed to Burl Haar Executive Secretary, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101. Questions about the Bitter Root Wind Project certificate of nee d application may be directed to Michael Kaluzniak, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101, phone: (651) 201-2257, e-mail: mike.kaluzniak@state.mn.us

. 

# Official NoticesState of Minnesota 

# State Register

Proposed, Adopted, & Expedited Rules; Executive Orders; Appointments; Commissioners’ Orders; Revenue Notices; Official Notices; State Grants & Loans; State Contracts; Non-State Public Bids, Contracts &Grants Published every Monday (Tuesday when Monday is a holiday)


## Monday 10 August 2009 

# Volume 34, Number 6 Pages 175 - 208

# State Register

Judicial Notice Shall Be Taken of Material Published in the State Register

The State Register is the official publication of the State of Minnesota, published weekly to fulfill the legislative mandate set forth
in Minnesota Statutes § 14.46. The State Register contains:

• Proposed Rules • Adopted Rules • Exempt Rules • Expedited Rules • Withdrawn Rules • Vetoed Rules • Executive Orders of the Governor • Appointments • Proclamations • Commissioners’ Orders • Revenue Notices • Official Notices • State Grants and Loans • Contracts for Professional, Technical and Consulting Services • Non-state Public Bids, Contracts and Grants

**Printing Schedule and Submission Deadlines**

PUBLISH Deadline for: Emergency Rules, Executive and Vol. 34 DATE Commissioner’s Orders, Revenue and Official Notices, Deadline for Proposed, Issue ( BOLDFACE shows S tate Grants, Professional-Technical-Consulting Adopted and Exempt Number altered publish date) Contracts, Non-State Bids and Public Contracts RULES

# 6 Monday 10 August Noon Tuesday 4 August Noon Wednesday 29 July # 7 Monday 17 August Noon Tuesday 11 August Noon Wednesday 5 August # 8 Monday 24 August Noon Tuesday 18 August Noon W ednesday 12 August # 9 Monday 31 August Noon Tuesday 25 August Noon W ednesday 19 August

PUBLISHING NOTICES: We need to receive your submission ELECTRONICALLY. Submit ONE COPY of your notice via e-mail to: robin.panlener@state.mn.us . State agency submissions must include a “ State RegisterPrinting Order” form, and, with contracts, a “Certification/Internal Contract Negotiation” form. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, with a letter on your letterhead stationer y requesting publication and date to be published. [ FAX to: (651) 297-8260. You MUST follow FAX by e-mailing notice and other forms or letters.

Page charges are $13.60 per tenth of a page (columns are seven inches wide). One typwritten, double-spaced page is about 4/10s of a page in the State Register , or $54.40. About 2-1/2 pages typed, double-spaced, on 8-1/2"x11" paper equals one typeset page in the State Register. Contact the editor if you have questions, by calling (651) 297-7963, or e-mail: robin.panlener@state.mn.us

.

SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES: Copies are available at Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, MN 55155. Order by phone: Metro area: (651) 297-3000 Toll free (800) 657-3757. TTY relay service phone number: (800) 627-3529. NO REFUNDS. E-mail subscriptions are available by contacting (651) 297-8777. Send address changes to Minnesota’s Bookstore, 660 Olive Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.

SEE THE State Register free at website: http://www.minnesotasbookstore.com

• State Register: On-line subscription – $180, includes LINKS, INDEX, “Contracts and Grants” special section, Sidebar Table of Contents, and Early View via E-mail

. • Single issues are available for a limited time: State Register $5.00. • “Affidavit of Publication” includes a notarized “Affidavit” and a copy of the issue: $10.00.

Copyright © 2009 Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota. USPS Publication Number: 326-630 (ISSN: 0146-7751) THE STATE REGISTER IS PUBLISHED by Materials Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 14.46 and is available at main branch county libraries in Minnesota and all “State Depository Libraries:” State University and Community College libraries; University of Minnesota libraries; St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth Public Libraries; Legislative Reference Library; State Law Library; Minnesota Historical Society Library; and Library Development Service at the State Department of Ed ucation.



### Minnesota Legislative Information

Senate Public Information Office (651) 296-0504 House Public Information Services (651) 296-2146 State Capitol, Room 231, St. Paul, MN 55155 State Office Building, Room 175, Website: www.senate.mn 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/hinfo.htm



### Minnesota State Court System Federal Register

Court Information Office (651) 296-6043 MN Judicial Center, Rm. 135, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Website: www.mncourts.gov Office of the Federal Register (202) 512-1530; or (888) 293-6498 U.S. Government Printing Office – Fax: (202) 512-1262 Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html Department of Administration: Dana B. Badgerow, Commissioner (651) 296-1424 Materials Management Division: Kent Allin, Director (651) 201-2400 Mary Mikes, Manager (651) 297-3979 Tim Pawlenty, Governor (651) 296-3391 Carol L. Molnau, Lt. Governor (651) 296-3391 Lori Swanson, Attorney General (651) 297-4272 Rebecca Otto, State Auditor (651) 297-3670 Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State (651) 296-2079 State Register: Robin Panlener, editor (651) 297-7963 John Mikes, assistant editor (651) 297-4616 Cathy Hoekstra, subscriptions (651) 297-8777 Bonnie Karels, billing (651) 296-4912(Cite 34 SR 177) State Register , Monday 10 August 2009 Page 177 

# Contents **Minnesota Rules : Amendments & Additions** 

Rules Index - Vol. 34, # 6: Monday 10 August 2009 .......................................... 110



### Proposed Rules **Minnesota Racing Commission** Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Horse Racing.......................................... 179



### Official Notices

Official Notices Help Y ou.............................................................................................. 18 6

**Animal Health Board** Quarterly Meeting September 2, 2009........................................................................ 186
**Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA)** Board of Director’s Strategic Planning Meeting August 17, 2009................... 186

**Executive Council State Board of Investment**  **Land Exchange Board Investment Advisory Council**  Meeting of the Investment Advisory Council August 19, 2009, and the Executive Council, State Board of Investment, the Land Exchange Board on Tuesday, September 29, 2009............................. 186
**Health Department (MDH)** Patient Access to Health Records Notice of Rights Requirements to Provide Notice to Patients and Copy of Notice................................................. 187
**Metropolitan Council** Notice of Change in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Eligibility for USEPA’s Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Fund Projects............................................................. 187
**Natural Resources Department (DNR)** Division of Parks and Trails, Division of Forestry: Request for Comments on Possible Amendment to Rules Governing State Parks and State Forest Land including State Parks, State Recreation Areas and State Waysides.................................... 188
**Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)** Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division: Extension of Time to Submit Comments on Revised Draft State Implementation Revision....................................................... 189 Remediation Division: Intent for Private Development of a Pilot Project for Solar Installation at Two Closed Landfills and Request for Comment.............................................. 190



### State Grants & Loans

Help with Grants.............................................................................................................. 191
**Administration Department (Admin)** STAR Program: Availability of Contract for Assistive Technology Device Loan and Device Demonstration................................................................ 191 **Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)** Request for Qualifications for the Rehabilitation Loan Program....................... 192 Minnesota Housing Consolidated Request for Proposals · 2009 Single Family Request for Proposals · 2009 Multifamily Request for Proposals · 2010 Round 2 Housing Tax Credit Program Request for Proposals · Tax Credit Assistance Program and Section 1602/Exchange Program Request for Proposals........................................................................................... 193
**Human Services Department (DHS)** Child Safety and Permanency Division: Request for Proposals to Counties, Tribes and Child Advocacy Centers............................................................................................. 201



### State Contracts

Help with “Active” Contracts..................................................................................... 202
**Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU)** Lake Superior College: Advertisement for Bids for ADA Remodel of Men’s Restroom / Shower Room............................................................................... 203

Saint Paul College Sealed bids sought for Bus for Students.................................................................... 204
**Minnesota Management and Budget** Request for Proposal for Underwriting Services for the Tax Exempt 911 Fee Revenue Bonds Issued by the State of Minnesota......... 204
**Transportation Department (Mn/DOT)** Engineering Services Division: Contracting Opportunities for a Variety of Highway Related Technical Activities (“Consultant Pre-Qualification Program”).................... 205 Engineering Services Division: Professional/Technical Contract Opportunities and Taxpayers’ Transportation Accountability Act Notices.................................... 205



### Non-State Bids, Contracts & Grants **University of Minnesota (U of M)**
Subscribe to Bid Information Service (BIS).............................................................. 206



### Minnesota’s Bookstore ........................................................ 206

Contracts information is available from the Materials Management Helpline (651) 296-2600, or Web site: www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us

State Register information is available from Minnesota’s Bookstore (651) 297-3000, or (800) 657-3757, Web site: www.minnesotasbookstore.com(Cite 35 SR 189) State Register , Monday 10 August 2009 Page 189 

## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency **Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Public Notice of Extension of Time to Submit Comments on Revised Draft State**  **Implementation Revision**

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is extending the time for submission of comments, requests, and petitions on the Revised Draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Regional Haze until September 3, 2009. The purpose of this SIP revision is to address visibility protection at national parks, wildernesses, and scenic areas, also referred to as mandatory Class I Federal areas.

The MPCA will consider changing the contents of the proposed SIP revision based on comments received during the comment pe riod. Following the end of the comment period, the Commissioner will decide whether to submit the proposed SIP revision to the EPA un less, as provided by Minnesota Statutes § 116.02, the MPCA Citizens’ Board makes this decision.

MPCA Contact Person. The MPCA contact person is Catherine Neuschler. Written comments, requests and petitions should be mailed to: Catherine Neuschler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; telephone number: (651) 757-2607; Voice or toll free: 1-800-657-3864; facsimile number: (651) 297-8324; and e-mail: catherine.neuschler@state.mn.us

. TTY users may call the MPCA at TTY (651) 292-5332 or 1-800-657-
3864.

Availability of SIP. A copy of the proposed SIP revision is available on the MPCA’s Web site at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/regionalhaze.html.

A copy of the proposed SIP is also available upon request by contacting Catherine Neuschler at (651) 757-2607, or will be mailed to any interested person upon the MPCA’s receipt of a written request. Materials relating to the SIP revision are available for inspec tion by appointment at the MPCA St. Paul Office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. To examine these materials in St. Paul, or for more information, please contact Catherine Neuschle r. All MPCA offices may be reached by calling 1-800-657-3864.

Public Comment Period. The original public notice was published on July 20, 2009 in the State Register (34 SR 92). That notice indicated that the public comment period would end on August 19, 2009. This notice is extending the public comment period to Se ptember 3, 2009. Comments must be received in writing at the MPCA by 4:30 p.m. on September 3, 2009. Written comments may be submitte d to the MPCA contact person at the address, facsimile number, or E-mail address listed above.

Request to Have MPCA Citizens’ Board Make Decision. You have the right to submit a petition to the MPCA Commissioner asking that the MPCA Citizens’ Board make the decision on submitting the proposed SIP revision to the EPA. Your petition must b e in writing. Whether the petition will be granted or denied is in the sole discretion of the MPCA Commissioner. The MPCA Citizens’ Board will only make the decision on the proposed SIP revision if the MPCA Commissioner grants your petition or if an MPCA Citizens’ Board member makes a timely request to have the decision made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board.

Paul Eger, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

# Official NoticesAppendix 2.3: Certification of Public Meeting
The public meeting was held on April 10, 2008. This Appendix includes the sign in sheets showing attendees at the public meeting and the Powerpoint presentation given by MPCA staff at the public meeting.

# W Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Regional Haze Public Meeting April 10, 2008 

### 6 - 8 pm Duluth Office



### Name Organization Phone or Email

-'\'-

## S""'~~~.(~**~C\.~** 

## \::. v-O... \'" €,."l; ,- 

## Co. Q. \f\I' 

### > 

## @ 

# 0., -J". 

## c.. 0 ""'"**\vV\.~**



# }(x**/~-'** 

# V0f: c;U 

# Sd-rJ**fn~ V\~s** **cf~jLA** . 

## jV 

# M 

# vJ "**~;~** 

# c./ el1.

.... wW(. V\ 

# erv U 

# IllAD,-(**~~LL** l 

# oA.-f**12G101>-P-~** VVu:tV\..l,**~LU,(~,", «U)~**  ,L.{j. 

### 'V7

' I

# M;C-h(l~ \ 

# ras; 'It,li/l 

# M 1"\ v\, (JOUlfV' 

### vV> C q So 

## h; V1 @ vtAVf ,v'Ot{}f V

, (()t '1 

# 03 t/ 

# e

# Sje~s**/'n..f~/"** 

# e Ie v£'/ 

# .l4/

- C/r 

# 1';; cl z sjO)Jf,.''!$)r' GJ 

### c/""f'!z;.tc!- (.


### \{)el\V\\s \' Q. V\.A-- " 

## VV\ ; 1\.\1\-

,

### tfou->~v-- JlV\',eM'. @**CLU.e.{l2-('O~** {


### " 

# M AiW\

# ~A IA \A. '"**rC1Y<-~** 

### k, I/"LI

. hi 

### .fd { r,. z.

. L" flI\ ht vl II fA "''' 

### .J '-'

# W Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Regional Haze Public Meeting April 10, 2008 

### 6 - 8 pm**~iifb** 

### Otflq,.**c~,B.V\** 

## oQ';ce.

Name Organization Phone or Email



# e

R {:tt6 

# &£L I lIlo,..·/, 

### tM.sNI 

### \"lei**A~c** 

# . 

# c**f~1(C) 'tacoVl;re.o~**  to.' 

### /14fU( je/J/I/

### Il:AlJI(~ 

## l1f1tA f7l1 r t1 

## iecvJ, f'u,5 

### ke (Zj) 

### 5ftd(f-ln (, 

## I,

J
('**~,J'\A-e** 

## tve u.::> c IA. i. e',-v vt-<.. 

### Pc 14

## ~fJA~.**1fr.~~r~** 

# Mr,'AN 'PilKtu 'l .'" lAl ( 

## 6r-f(J..N ((;) 

# .DrifJvd5 

# -6wco .Of'
l '-- ...)

# ~i"C~ C-o ((\e.s HPCA- n cY1a.( 

## d .Coc 

## d.es**@~J~** ,mC\'US

# ~o&{/ 

# Se-/(a /?/A/A 

# r::O

A 

### '::J<0C7v? .Ee 

# r h §) Sf**~«'** •

. C4?'1- ./

## Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Public Meeting April 10, 2008
Duluth 

### Regional Haze Rule

 States are mandated to improve visibility in

national parks, wildernesses (Class I Areas)

 Implemented through 1999 Regional Haze Rule

 States must document how they will reach the goal

of no man-made visibility impairment by 2064

 Minnesota has two Class I Areas

 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

 Voyageurs National Park



### What is Regional Haze?

 Haze comes from fine particles (PM 2.5 ) in the

atmosphere

 Interfere with light reaching the human eye

 Linked to asthma and adverse health impacts

 Main haze particles are formed through

atmospheric reactions involving NO x and SO 2

 Focus on reducing these precursor emissions

 Regional problem

 Requires coordination among states

 All States required to develop strategies to reduce

haze in the Class I areas their emissions impact Visibility: Uniform Rate of Progress

URP: Boundary Waters Wilderness

0 5 10 15 20 25

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 YearDeciviews Baseline Conditions 20% Worst Days RPG
20% Worst Days in 2018

Natural Conditions 20% Worst Days

Baseline Conditions 20% Best Days RPG
20% Best Days in 2018 No Degradation on 20% Best Days

Natural Conditions 20% Best Days

### Visibility Conditions and Goals

 Baseline W20% are the current conditions on the

haziest days

 RPG W20% is the goal MPCA is setting for 2018

 Natural W20% are the ultimate goal of the rule – we

need to improve the haziest days to this level

 Need to ensure visibility on the B20% (cleanest)

days do not become more impaired 4.3 12.1 18.9 17.8 7.1 19.5 VNP 3.4 11.6 18.6 18.0 6.4 19.9 BWCAW Natural B20% Natural W20% RPG W20% URP W20% Baseline
B20% Baseline W20% 

### Projecting Visibility

 Baseline Period

 Baseline visibility conditions (2000-04)

 Baseline emissions (2002)

 Model baseline emissions and compare

results to monitored visibility

 Future period

 Future year emissions (2018)

 Predicted using economic models and staff

knowledge

 Estimate 2018 visibility through modeling



### Control Strategies for Haze

 Minnesota’s Draft Haze SIP has three main

control strategies

 “On the books” controls

 Existing/Planned Federal or State regulations

 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

 Only required control strategy

 Long Term Strategy

 Northeast Minnesota Plan

 Future evaluation of additional control strategies 

### Control Strategies: BART

 Best Available Retrofit Technology requires

controls on facilities:

 In 26 specific source categories

 Built between 1962 – 1977

 Emitting > 250 tpy of visibility impairing

pollutants (SO 2 , NO X , PM)

 States have discretion in BART application

 Key BART Sources:

 Electric Generating Units (5)

 Taconite processing plants (6)

### EGU BART: CAIR = BART

 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

 A cap-and-trade program to reduce NO X and

SO 2 emissions from power plants

 CAIR improves visibility more than EGU BART

 Power plants covered by CAIR do not need to

install BART for NO X and SO 2

 BART analysis completed for PM

 Showed little impact

 Existing PM controls are BART 

### Taconite BART: Determination

 Focuses on indurating furnaces

 BART controls are difficult to determine due to lack of

new facilities or retrofit projects

 Few control strategies known to be feasible/cost-effective

 MPCA determined:

 BART for NO X is good combustion practices

 BART for SO 2 is PM scrubbers optimized for SO 2 removal

 BART for PM is equivalent to taconite MACT

 Determinations need a corresponding emission limit

 Indurating furnace emissions, especially for NO X , are

variable and difficult to predict



### Taconite BART: Emission Measurement

 MPCA requiring CEMS or a comparably accurate

method of emission estimation for BART

 Accurately determine emissions of NO X and SO 2

 Give information needed to set a meaningful limit

 Provide for future required continuous compliance

 Administrative Orders will require CEMS or

comparable method

 Goal is to have more accurate emission

estimation starting by November 2008 

### LTS: Northeast Minnesota Plan

 Concern about emissi ons from this area

 High emissions in proximity to Class I areas, with

disproportionate visibility impact

 Few reductions planned from non-utilities

 Several new sources planned

 Ensure area contributes its “fair share” to reductions

 Regional non-binding emission reduction target

 St. Louis, Lake, Cook, Carlton, Itasca, Koochiching

 Larger sources > 100 tpy

 Existing and new sources

 SO 2 and NO X

 20% decrease by 2012

 30% decrease by 2018

### LTS: Emissions in NE Minnesota

6% Other Facilities 47% Existing Power Plants 47% Existing Taconite 95,500 tons Region Total NO X + SO 2 (2002) LTS: NE Minnesota Plan Implementation

 Annual Emission Tracking

 Research and pilot testing of emission reduction

strategies

 Required from taconite facilities

 Report on analysis of results and feasibility

 MPCA will review and evaluate measures based on

statutory factors and emission projections

 Reasonable controls or practices will be implemented

at taconite facilities and may be required at other facilities if needed to meet emission budget



### Five Year SIP Assessment

 Minnesota’s will contain information on:

 Additional reasonable emission reductions

 Certain source categories

 Taconite

 Facilities in NE Minnesota (if needed)

 Information from other states on reasonable controls

 Remaining taconite BART limits

 Progress in meeting 2012 and 2018 NE Plan emission

targets

 Update of 2018 reasonable progress goal based on

new information 

### Comments Received: FLMs

 BART

 EGUs should have BART limits in case Minnesota is

exempted from CAIR

 More dates and timelines needed, especially for

taconite BART

 SO 2 determination for taconite facilities can be made

now

 Especially for UTac Line 2

 Recirculating scrubber likely to be BART

 SO 2 limits at natural gas fired lines seem too high

 Taconite NO X BART should include CEMS or

equivalent, installed by 11/08 with reporting by 1/09

 “Comparable method” should be further explained

### Comments Received: FLMs

 NE Minnesota Plan

 Goal assumes 75% of emissions uncontrollable by

MPCA

 More dates and timelines needed

 Content of pilot test studies at taconite facilities

should be more detailed

 Include tests of improving scrubber SO 2 removal

 Accuracy of 2002 taconite emissions

 If shown to be inaccurate, baseline for NE Minnesota Plan

should be corrected

 Should be a factor in dete rmining additional controls

needed under the plan 

### Comments Received: FLMs

 NE Minnesota Plan, cont’d

 Minor source emissions should be examined

 State should explain how it will address new permits

if targets are not met (2012)/projected to be met (2018)

 Reasonable Progress Goal

 Should update the information used to set the RPGs

during the five year report

 Long Term Strategy

 Discuss decision not to address agricultural burning

 Remove detailed description of Smoke Management

Plan



### Comments Received

 Other comments

 Cost figures in Table 10.6.1 for SCR on

Boise’s recovery furnace are too low

 Should mention and consider the relationship

between the Regional Haze SIP and future climate change regulations

 Identification of various typographical or

minor errors 

### Response to Comments

 Taconite SO 2 BART determinations

 Limits at natural gas fired lines based on a

predictive interval

 Scrubbers already optimized for SO 2 removal at

these lines

 More information needed at other lines

 Plan is in place to gather information to set a

limit for UTac Line 2

 Updating RPG

 Chapter 11 indicates Minnesota intends to

update the RPG in the five year assessment

### Response to Comments

 NE Minnesota Plan

 If 2018 target is not projected to be met,

regulatory options will be pursued to try to make the target

 Visibility impacts of new permits will be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis

 Long Term Strategy

 Information on SMP is necessary for context,

very clear that SMP is not part of SIP 

### Response to Comments

 SCR cost in Table 10.6.1 is RPO work

 MPCA will not make final decisions based on the cost

figures in this table

 As this table is the work of CENRAP, the MPCA feels

it is inappropriate to alter the table

 Greenhouse gas regulation

 Situation with climate change legislation is evolving;

difficult to determine how programs will overlap

 Likely that any interactions will be taken into account

in future SIPs



### Major Changes Made

 Additional Documents

 Addition of response letter from Missouri

 Addition of signed AO for Hibbing Taconite

 Addition of signed AO for Northshore Mining

 New Table 8.9

 EGU BART

 Clarification that the PM BART determination is

existing PM controls

 Explanation that, if CAIR no longer applies, MPCA will

prioritize BART NO X and SO 2 determinations for facilities not undertaking controls 

### Major Changes Made

 Taconite BART

 Clarification that NO X CEMS apply to all

taconite facilities

 Clarification of which taconite BART limits are

being determined when

 Now: SO 2 limits for lines that burn only natural

gas

 Future: NO X limits for all facilities and SO 2 limits

for lines that burn solid fuels

### Major Changes Made

 Taconite BART (cont’d)

 Description of the comparable to CEMS method

 150 emission data points collected under varying

furnace conditions

 Low Variability:

 Develop emission factor, confirm with annual stack

testing and quarterly submission of operating parameters

 High variability:

 Develop predictive equation to correlate emissions

with process parameters

 Confirm with annual stack testing and quarterly

submittal of predictive parameters 

### Major Changes Made

 Addition of new table laying out BART and NE Minnesota

Plan timelines

Process Dates Begin data collection and reporting for taconite facilities with new CEMS/PEMS November 2008 (no facility later than April 2009) Begin annual tracking of NE Minnesota Plan emissions December 2008 MPCA determines remaining BART limits for each taconite facility By August 31, 2010 Title V permits amended and BART limits included By June 2012 Taconite facilities conduct pilot testing of potential control strategies and pollution prevention January 2010 – December 2011

MPCA determines if 2012 target will be met, and projects status of 2018 emission reduction target. July – December 2011

Taconite facilities report to MPCA on results of pilot testing By December 31, 2011 MPCA reviews pilot testing reports and determines if any additional controls are reasonable January – June 2012

MPCA does preliminary analysis of potentially reasonable reductions from non-taconite facilities in NE Minnesota. January – June 2012

MPCA develops enforceable mechanism to require any additionalcontrol found to be feasible, for both taconite and (if necessary) nontaconite facilities July – December 2012

MPCA submits 5 year assessment which includes BART limits, determination of additional reasonable controls. December 2012

Facilities install any additional controls found to be reasonable 2013 - 2015



### Major Changes Made

 NE Minnesota Plan

 Clarification that pilot tests of emission reduction

projects at taconite facilities should be on-site

 Commitment to evaluate changes in minor source

emissions in 2012 and 2018

 For facilities with permits that submit an emission inventory

 Accuracy of 2002 baseline will be taken into account

in determining reasonable control strategies from taconite facilities

 A numerical correction factor is likely to be very difficult,

but at least a qualitative analysis should be possible 

### Major Changes Made

 RPG revised downward 0. 1 dv at each Class I

Area

 Based on new modeling that includes the entire NE

Minnesota Plan

 Previously, only a 20% reduction was modeled

 Impacts when Class I Areas are projected to reach

natural conditions

Class I area 2018 Visibility 20% Worst Days (dv) 2018 Visibility 20% Best Days

(dv) Projected Annual Improvement 2004-2018 (W20%, dv) Projected Improvement by 2064 (W20%, dv) Year Reaching Natural Conditions (W20%) BWCAW 18.6 6.4 0.09 5.6 2093 VNP 18.9 7.1 0.04 2.6 2177

### Additional Information

 If you have comments or questions about

the Regional Haze SIP http://www.pca.state.mn.u s/air/regionalhaze.html

 Comment Period Ends May 16, 2008

 Contact:
Catherine Neuschler
651-296-7774 catherine.neuschler@pca.state.mn.usAppendix 2.4: Public Comments on Draft Haze SIP and MPCA Response

### Neuschler, Catherine

From: ijl [ingej@access-one.com]

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:59 PM

To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: Regional Haze Comment 

### Page 1 of 1

5/23/2008 Catherine Neuschler,

Today I was at a Target in St. Louis Park. Outside I saw what I see frequently all over the T win Cities, a diesel truck idling , fumes spewing out, no one in it. All these air alerts, and no one se ems to pay attention to the small things which could be done wit h no inconvenience. When I complained to the Target managers, they di d not seem to understand. More than 35 years ago, I left Los A ngeles because of the smog. They have many more cars plus a combination of cold air from the ocean hitting hot air of a desert all trapped against the mountains. They at least had restrictio ns on burning, bon fires, barbeq ues, charcoal lighter fluid use , fire places and they had car inspections to ma ke sure pollution equipment was working. They had a number to call with people who actually came out to investigate air compla ints. As usual politics often interfered, but those things were in place 35 years a go. Minnesota has fallen behind in setting standards . If people are going to buy polluting cars, they should be taxed according to how much they pollute. People don't need to leav e vehicles running. Buses don't need to si t idling as they do next to the Highland Park Library. We can do someth ing about this. One day there w ill be no place left to move for clean air. If there is technol ogy out there, it should be required of industry as well.

Johanna Leste rUnited States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Superior National Forest 8901 Grand Ave. Place Duluth, MN 55808-1122 Phone: (218) 626-4300 Fax: (218) 626-4398

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper File Code: 

### 2580-2
Date: 

### March 5, 2008

Mr. David Thornton Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155

Dear Mr. Thornton:
On February 7, 2008, the State of Minnesota submitted a draft implementation plan describing your proposal to improve air qual ity regional haze impacts at mandatory Class I areas across your region. We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State thr ough the initial evaluation, development, and subse quent review of this plan. Cooperative efforts such as these ensure that together we will continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act’s goal of natural visibility conditions at our Cl ass I wilderness areas and parks.

This letter acknowledges that the USDA - Fore st Service has received and conducted a substantive review of your pr oposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan. Please note, however, that only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can make a final determination about the document's completeness. Therefore, only the EPA has the ability to approve the document. Participation by the Fo rest Service in the State of Minnesota’s administrative process does not waive any legal de fenses or sovereignty rights it may have under the laws of the United States, including the Cl ean Air Act and its implementing regulations.

As outlined in a letter to the State dated Se ptember 29, 2006, our review focused on eight basic content areas which reflect prior ities for the Federal Land Manager agencies; we have enclosed comments to this letter associated with thes e priorities. We look forward to your response required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). For further in formation, please contact Trent Wickman at (218) 626-4372.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work clos ely with the State of Minnesota. The Forest Service compliments you on your hard work and dedication to significant improvement in our nation's air quality values and visibility

Sincerely,

/s/ James W. Sanders JAMES W. SANDERS Forest Supervisor

### cc: Bruce Polkowsky Chris Holbeck Tim Allen Matt Rau

### Technical Comments on Minnesota Region al Haze State Implementation Plan

We would like to begin by commending Minne sota on the quality and depth of their Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). We believe that it will serve as an excellent roadmap to improve visibility in the Minnesota Class I Areas and hopefully also serve as a model for other states to follo w that have yet to submit their plans.

We have some comments on the plan that are included below.

Baseline Visibility Conditions We support the inclusion of the high-deciview , incomplete, sample days in the baseline because it is a reasonable way to include va luable information that falls outside the standard EPA criteria.

Best Available Control Technology (BART) - Taconite We conveyed our comments on the BART determin ations for the taconite facilities in a letter to Mary Jean Fenske, dated April 10, 2007. We have attached that letter to this one and would like to incorporate those comments by reference.

With respect to the United Taconite facility, we feel the information included in the SIP shows that the installation of a new recirculating scrubber to c ontrol sulfur dioxide at this facility is BART. We feel the BART determ ination for this facility for sulfur dioxide should be made with this SIP and not delayed. We hope that United Taconite’s delays in sending requested information does not dela y MPCA’s BART determination for their facility. We note that United Taconite uses a very high sulfur fuel and its current sulfur dioxide emissions are far above the rest of the industry.

Plant 2002 ton SO 2 

### /MMLT US Steel, Keewatin Taconite 131 Hibbing Taconite 77 US Steel, Minntac 133 United Taconite 749 Mittal Steel 59 Northshore Mining Co. 16

Another possible alternative is to look at the other taconite lines and set a sulfur dioxide standard for United based on the leve l of performance in the industry.

We believe that an argument can be made that one or more post-combustion control options for nitrogen oxides are BART for the ta conite industry. In spite of this, we are willing to delay the determinati on of proper nitrogen oxides controls to allow the industry to trial nitrogen oxides control options through 2011 under the long te rm strategy as long as there is a firm deadline in the SIP for the industry to complete the studies. We also believe the content of the control studies shoul d be more clearly specified. For example we’d expect these studies to include on-site, slip-stream and other pilo t-scale studies. In

### addition, we would prefer that interim deadlines also be included in the SIP to ensure that the studies stay on track.

Besides studying nitrogen oxide controls, as stated in our earlier BART letter, under the long term strategy we feel it is worth havi ng the taconite industry also investigate whether any physical improvements can be made to the existing particulate scrubbers to improve the transfer of sulfur from the ga s phase to the liquid phase by modifying or redesigning the internal com ponents of the scrubbers. A number of these options are mentioned in the US EPA BART guidelin es. Many relate to improving the water distribution within the scrubbe r using trays, rings, or impr oved spray headers/nozzles. This is in line with the gene ral BART determination for sulfur dioxide made on page 62, that the existing particulate scrubbers be “optimized” fo r sulfur dioxide removal.

We are concerned with the level of the sulf ur dioxide limits proposed for the taconite facilities that burn low sulfur fuels. Fo r example, for Hibbing Taconite the proposed limit is about 20 percent above th e highest value ever recorde d. The difference is similar for the non-coal burning lines at Minntac. Th is seems to be a larg e cushion considering that the facilities were not likely focused on optimizing for sulfur di oxide control at the time the tests were done. We would hope the BART limits would encourage the facilities to operate their scrubbers at the best possible performance le vel – again, in line with the BART determination to optimize these units for sulfur dioxide removal.

Continuous Emissions Monitors (C EMs) at the Taconite Plants On page 62 of chapter nine a statement is made that CEMs “... would apply to NOx emissions at the facilities burning natural gas and to SO 2 

### emissions at facilities burning high sulfur fuels.” We don’t understand why the NOx CEMs are only being required at natural gas fired furnaces. Those furnaces burning fuels other than natural gas will also investigate nitrogen oxide control strategies and ther efore will need the CEMs.

We understand from page 62 of the SIP that it is Minnesota’s intent to require the installation of conti nuous emission monitoring systems (CE Ms) at the taconite plants by November 30, 2008. We are aware of only two taconi te plants to date that have agreed to install them and are concerned that the time fr ame in the SIP may not be met. We would also like to see a deadline associated with the requirement on page 62 for the taconite plants to “...provide the MPCA with data fr om these new emission methods.” Similarly we believe a deadline should be associated with the MPCA’s intent to establish the BART limits and include those in each facility’s Title V operating permit to clarify when these tasks will be completed.

We would like to see more specifics as to what specific requirements a “comparable alternative emission measurement method” woul d have to meet. For example, will you use the criteria in the Federal New Source Performance Standards?

Best Available Control Technology – Electrical Generating Units Since Minnesota Power has petitioned EPA to remove Minnesota from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) we believe that all BART electrical generating units should have

### unit-specific BART limits determined with this SIP so that there is no delay in implementing BART should a determination to remove Minnesota from CAIR come at a later date. One facility for which this is a particular concern is Northshore’s Power Boiler #2. No BART-like nitr ogen oxides or sulfur dioxide unit-specific limits were identified in the SIP. We believe it is r easonable that the permit limits on its neighbor, Taconite Harbor, be considered as one potential source of BART emission limits.

New Sources We applaud the State for including some of the new Iron Range facilities recently permitted, or in the permitting process, in their 2018 modeling. As you know, a number of additional sources are now in the planning stage. All of these new facilities will put pressure on the Northeastern Minnesota em issions targets and likely require further emission reductions from existing industrial sources in the area.

Reasonable Progress To help clarify when the following will take place, we would like to see deadlines associated with the following tasks and intermediate deadlines also added, as appropriate:

From Chapter 10, Page 84:

• “MPCA will conduct a BART-like review of the taconite faci lities’ reports on control strategies and pollution preventi on options investigated by the taconite facilities. If it appears that other (non-taconite ) facilities will need to implement control strategies in order for the emissi on reduction target to be met, the MPCA will do a preliminary cost analysis of feasible pollution prevention and control options to evaluate whether any further an alysis by those facilities is warranted.”

• “If, after all voluntary EGU reductions and reductions at the taconite plants have occurred, additional emission reductions are needed to meet the target, the MPCA would set limits for other sources with reasonable control strategies available. Minnesota would implement this require ment for additional emission reduction measures through a “state retrofit” require ment that would ultimately apply an emission limit to each facility where addi tional controls have been found to be reasonable. This limit could be set through a state rule or through amendments to each facility’s Title V air emission permit, which would be submitted in the Five Year SIP Assessment.”

From reviewing Table 11.1 it would appear that the tasks noted above, and those in the table, either are needed to be completed to feed into subsequent tasks for the Five Year report, or themselves are required to be in th e Five Year report. To aid in understanding when these tasks will be completed and how th ey interrelate, please add a column to this table with deadlines and also break down some of the larger tasks into intermediate tasks, also with associated deadlines. We note that the five year report will be expected by December 17, 2012.

### We believe the 2018 target for Northeastern Minnesota should continue past 2018 unless it is modified by the next 10 year SIP done in 2018. We believe this point should be clarified in the SIP.

We agree that under the NE Minnesota Plan any additional emission reductions necessary to meet the target would be specified in th e Five Year report (whi ch is due on December 17, 2012). We also believe that if at any time between now and 2012 the target appeared to be threatened, it would be prudent for the MPCA to begin the work of assessing control strategies so that a final determinati on of applicable controls can be included in the Five Year report.

We would like to clarify that our understanding of the para graph on the bottom of page 84, starting, ”If either target...” applies only to the situati on where the targ et in 2018 is projected not to be met. On the contrary, if the 2012 target is not going to be met we’d expect that the Five Year report would include the controls which had already been identified by the MPCA.

We are confused by the following on page 97 – “MPCA will then undertake a BART-like review of these report s and control strategies and eval uate them based on the statutory factors and the status of progr ess towards the emission target . The five year SIP report will likely include the results of the analysis, a de termination of any control strategies or pollution prevention projects that are reasonabl e at each of the taconite facilities, and enforceable mechanisms for requiring applica tion of these measures.” The inclusion of the word “likely” makes the timing of these ta sks unclear. A table with deadlines for the following would be helpful:

• the final report from the taconite pl ants on additional control technologies investigated for sulfur di oxide and nitrogen oxides

• the MPCA’s BART-like review of the report, and

• the installation and operation of control t echnologies deemed to be reasonable

Since, according to page 84 of the SIP, the investigation of control technologies will happen from 2008 – 2011, we feel the final repo rt should be required to be submitted by the end of 2011 and the MPCA could then ha ve its BART-like review and enforceable mechanisms done in time for the 2012 Five Y ear report which is due at the end of 2012. It is important that the BART-like review be completed by the Five Year report so that the assessment of the likelihood of attainment of the 2018 targets can be made with full knowledge of the potential for additional contro ls in the taconite industry (see discussion on page 84). We suggest that those controls identified as reas onable would then be required to be installed and operational w ithin two years or by the end of 2014. We assume this whole process would be ope n and the MPCA would share relevant documents with the FLMs and the public and also accept and consider their comments.

Smoke Management We are concerned with the level of detail on the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) in the SIP. The SMP is meant to be a living docum ent that can be easily changed as conditions dictate. We are concerned th at the level of detail on th e SMP in the SIP creates an

### unnecessary administrative hurdle to making fu ture changes to improve the SMP. We have identified, via phone, the language that we feel is unnecessary for the purposes of the SIP on pages 87, 89 and 90.

Interstate Consultation We hope EPA will facilitate future discu ssions between Minnesota and its neighboring states. We have submitted comments on Missouri’s and Iowa’s SIPs that are substantially in line with Minnesota, especially with regard to the issue of the existence of cost effective controls in those states a nd the “fair share” respons ibilities those states have as contributors to visibili ty impairment in the BWCAW.United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Superior National Forest 8901 Grand Ave. Place Duluth, MN 55808-1122 Phone: (218) 626-4300 Fax: (218) 626-4398

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper File Code: 

### 2580
Date: 

### April 10, 2007

Mary Jean Fenske Staff Engineer Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road N St. Paul, MN 55155

Dear Ms. Fenske:
We are providing comment on the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations submitted by the taconite plants located in Minneso ta. This industry is somewhat unique in that all of the facilities in the United States are in the two states of Mi chigan and Minnesota. Therefore, these two states carry the entire re sponsibility of fairly administering the BART regulations to the industry.

As you know, application of BART is one of th e components of the Regional Haze Rule. The purpose of the Regional Haze Rule is to require states to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any futu re, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas. As th e Federal Land Manager for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) Class I area we ha ve an affirmative res ponsibility to protect the air quality related values of this area. On e of the key air quality related values of the BWCAW is visibility.

The determination of BART must consider the “best system of continuous emissions control technology” taking into account “t he technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of comp liance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining us eful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility,” 40 CFR S ection 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).

We find the BART determinations submitted by th e taconite plants to be deficient in the following ways:

• Available control technologies were not fully evaluated

• Technical difficulties were overstated

• The costs of contro ls were overstated More detailed technical comments on these points are enclosed.

Technical analyses by Midwest RPO and MPCA a nd the BART proposals themselves show that the taconite plants are important contributors to visibi lity impairment at the BWCAW. It is disappointing that in spite of th eir importance, the industry has pr oposed contributing very little toward reducing haze in the BWCAW.

### The federal land managers have been meeting with the MPCA to discuss innovative ways to implement the regional haze rule so that new in dustrial sources in Northeastern Minnesota are addressed. This would happen under the long-term strategy portion of the Regional Haze Rule that lays out actions the stat e will take to achieve the 2018 vi sibility goal. Based on the information we present in this letter and enclos ure, we believe the MPCA has the information it needs to make determinations under the BART portion of the Regional Haze Rule that require nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) reductions at the taconite facilities. We are also willing to continue our dialogue with the MPCA, industry, and pub lic to look at how a similar level of reductions can be implemented through the long-term strategy in Minnesota.

We look forward to working with your agency as you develop your own BART determinations for these facilities. If you have questions or comments, please contact Trent Wickman, Engineer (Air Resources), at (218) 626-4372.

Sincerely,

/s/ James W. Sanders JAMES W. SANDERS Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Don Shepherd Chris Holbeck David Pohlman Matt Rau Asad Khan

### Technical Comments

Due to their similarity, for the most part th e BART determinations will be addressed as a group. We will focus our review on the indurati ng furnaces, due to the dominance of their impact over the other BART-eligible units at the taconite facilities.

The recently promulgated Taconite MACT sta ndard represents a BART level of control for particulates from the furnaces; that leaves SO 2 

### and NOx as the remaining visibility impairing pollutants to be addressed from the furnaces. A summary of the BART proposals from each facility is summarized below.

Facility # and Type of Furnace Fuels SO 2 

### Proposal NOx Proposal

Keetac 1 grate-kiln NG, FO, coal, coke Existing Controls Existing Controls

Hibbing 3 straight grates NG, FO Existing Controls Energy efficiency projects completed in 2005-06 – effect on emissions unknown Minntac 5 grate-kilns NG, FO, biomass, coal (coal only on lines 6 and 7) Existing Controls Low NOx burners to preheat section of lines 4, 5, 7 and fuel blending - ~10% reduction United Taconite 2 grate-kilns NG, FO, coal, coke (coal and coke only on line 2) Existing Controls Heat recoup project on line 1 completed in 2005 - ~ 46% reduction Mittal 1 straight grate NG, FO Existing Controls Existing Controls

Northshore 2 straight grates NG, FO Existing Controls Existing Controls

Projects that have already been impl emented don’t count as BART (see MPCA presentation http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publi cations/presentations/haze-0107- fenske.pdf , slide 6) so the table above becomes:

### Facility # and Type of Furnace Fuels SO 2 

### Proposal NOx Proposal

Keetac 1 grate-kiln NG, FO, coal, coke Existing Controls Existing Controls

Hibbing 3 straight grates NG, FO Existing Controls Existing Controls

Minntac 5 grate-kilns NG, FO, biomass, coal (coal only on lines 6 and 7) Existing Controls Low NOx burners to preheat section of lines 4, 5, 7 and fuel blending - ~10% reduction United Taconite 2 grate-kilns NG, FO, coal, coke (coal and coke only on line 2) Existing Controls Existing Controls

Mittal 1 straight grate NG, FO Existing Controls Existing Controls

Northshore 2 straight grates NG, FO Existing Controls Existing Controls

Now that the individual proposals have been summarized, we would like to highlight some concerns we have with the BART determination process taken, which were generally common throughout al l the facilities proposals.

Sulfur Dioxide Controls All facilities use some form of wet scrubber or wet ESP to control particulates. Until recently there has been no motivation for the facilities to optimize these units for SO 2 

### control. Most of these scrubbers are once-th rough systems versus the newer recirculating systems such as those at Keetac and Minntac line 3 which treat the scrubber water before reusing it. We believe actions could be ta ken to optimize the chemistry of the systems and/or optimize the gas to liq uid contact to improve the SO 2 

### removal of these units. For example, just adjusting the pH at Keetac from 6.5 to 8 increased the SO 2 

### removal from 35% to 64% (H. Jiang, per. com.). The recent report by John Engesser, “Evaluation of Minnesota Taconite Wet Scrubbers...” addresses the chemistry issues in more detail. A few key excerpts from this paper include:

• Over the past 40-50 years of operation of these facilities the dissolved solids in the process and taili ng water has increased

• Increased scrubber efficiency can result in increased sulfat e concentration in taconite process water

### • As the concentration of su lfate increases, the concentration of magnesium and calcium (hardness) also increases which can cause problems to the taconite production process and cause precipitation in pipes.

• A number of other items can contribute to the neutralizing capacity of the flue gas of a facility including, if flux is added to the pellets (i.e. the facility makes fluxed pellets) and if wood is used as a fuel.

• The efficiency of the scrubbing systems is dependant on: the pH and alkalinity of the scrubbing water, the make-up water flowrate, and inlet SO 2 

### concentration

• The lime recirculating scrubber at Keet ac can limit the amount of sulfate and fluoride that enter the taili ng water by adjusting the pH of the scrubber water so that they precipitate in the scrubbing water system

• The current removal efficiency of the sc rubbers in the report are much higher (26-75%) than that reported by each facility in their BART report (15-30%).

• Keetac – the scrubber report says that th e scrubber should be operated at a pH between 7 and 7.5 for optimum scrubbing performance. The BART report from this facility says it wi ll operate at a pH of 6.5.

• United Taconite – the scrubber on line 2 could double its scrubbing efficiency by using either sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate or adding a new recirculating lime scrubber

The option of modifying the existing scrubbers was dismissed in the BART report from every facility as not being av ailable and therefore not bei ng technically feasible. The reasons stated included corrosion of the pro cess water handling system and the creation of solid wastes. Sulfur scrubbing technology ha s been in existence since the 1960’s. The issues described above are not new, unique or insumountable. In addi tion these issues are not technical feasibility issues but are econom ic feasibility issues. The BART proposals did not provide the cost data for this option, so how economica lly infeasible they may, or may not be, is unknown.

Beyond just adjusting the chemistry of and/or treating the process water, a number of options are available that would help improve th e transfer of sulfur from the gas phase to the liquid phase by redesigning the internal components of the scrubber that would be worth investigating depending on the particul ars of each scrubber. A number of these options are mentioned in the BART guideli nes. Many relate to improving the water distribution within the scrubber using trays, rings, or improve d spray headers/nozzles.

Control of SO 2 

### can also be achieved by either limiting the sulfur content of fuels or fuel switching, for those facilities that use high sulf ur fuels. Switching fuels may or may not trade one visibility im pairing pollutant (SO 2 

### ) for another (NOx), as induration furnaces are thought to emit less NOx when burning solid fuel s. It is not clear this is true for all furnace types. Even if it is true, the pollutant trading concern would not be applicable if wood was substituted for coal/coke or if lower sulfur content was specified for the same fuel type. It is also important to note that U.S. EPA’s intent is for facilities to consider alternate fuels as an option, not to direct the fuel choice. To consider it as a control option means the economic feasibility should be determined. Fuel sulfur content limits was an option for which EPA determined the co sts for oil-fired EGUs in the BART rule

### itself. While most of the taconite industry in Minnesota primarily uses natural gas, there are examples of plants (e.g. United Taconite) that use higher sulfur fuels. The economic feasibility of fuel limits was not in any of the BART proposals and should be for those facilities that use high er sulfur fuels.

A couple of key quotes from the EPA BART gu idelines are important to keep in mind - “a demonstration of technical infeasibility may involve a showing that there are unresolvable technical difficulties with applying the control to the source ( e.g. , size of the unit, location of the proposed site, operating pr oblems related to specific circumstances of the source, space constraints, reliability, a nd adverse side effects on the rest of the facility). Where the resolution of technical difficulties is merely a matter of increased cost, you should consider the technology to be technically feasible , FR 7/6/05 pg 39165, emphasis added.

Physical modifications needed to resolve tec hnical obstacles do not, in and of themselves, provide a justification for eliminating the c ontrol technique on the basis of technical infeasibility, FR 7/6/05 pg. 39165.

While we believe the best option to control SO 2 

### is to modify the existing scrubbers, we think it is important that the cost estimate s performed for the secondary wet scrubber be accurate. We have concerns with the adjustments made to the EPA costing methodologies, especially the 60% of the total capital investment adjustment due to space considerations, and th e site-specific estimate for site work, foundations, and structural steel. In spite of these adjustments that in flate the cost per ton fi gure, United Taconite shows costs that are within th e range of economic feasibility for an additional scrubber on line 2 - $3361/ton. Additionally, looking at the cost and performance of the recent recirculating scrubber installa tion at Keetac would be additi onal information to help accurately determine the cost of this type of device.

Nitrogen Oxides Controls The issue of control of NOx from taconite furnaces has been appr oached in the past within the context of two Pr evention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits: Minntac backwards PSD permit and the PSD permit for Mi nnesota Steel. Minntac is a grate-kiln furnace and Minnesota Steel is a straight grat e furnace. This discussion initially focused on the application of selectiv e catalytic reduction (SCR) and more recently has looked at low temperature oxidation (LoTOx).

• In the Minntac case, in a letter date d October 22, 2003, the MPCA determined that SCR was technically feasible but not economically feasible. This configuration assumed reheating of the wa ste gas. The cost per ton calculated was sensitive to the assume d cost of natural gas and was “at or above the upper range of economic feasibility,” and was rejected as best available control technology (BACT).• 

### In a letter dated August 1 8, 2006 the MPCA assessed the applicability of LoTOx at 90% control efficiency to Minntac a nd concluded that LoTOx was technically and economically feasible and therefore BACT.

• In their PSD permit application, Minnes ota Steel proposed LoTOx on the waste gas stack at 90% control efficiency for their taconite furnace.

In summary LoTOx has been declared BACT fo r one type of taconite furnace and will soon be installed on the other. The technica l feasibility issues brought up in the BART proposals for each facility have been addresse d by the developer of the technology and in the analyses above. Most significantly, the installation in Texas on a number of fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) has been success ful. These units have a similar airflow and the solid loading in the FCCU off-gas is much higher than the particulate loading in a taconite furnace waste gas stream.

Based on the discussion above it appears that Lo TOx is technically and economically feasible for the entire industry. In additi on, one form of SCR has been found technically feasible and borderline economically infeasib le based in a BACT analysis from four years ago. Another form of SCR, Regenera tive Selective Catalytic Reduction looks to have promise, but as a new t echnology would require trials.

Summary The net result of the Minnesota taconite BART determinations is that only one facility is proposing doing anything to improve visibility in the BWCAW. This is particularly disheartening in light of the impact these faci lities have on visibility. A count of days with a percent change in visibility greater than or equal to 0.5 deciviews at specified receptors within the BWCAW assessed ove r the 3-year period 2002-2004 due to the emissions from BART sources at the facilities is below ( http://www.pca.state.mn.us /publications/aq-sip2-07.pdf - page 5).

Facility # of days Keetac 228 Hibbing 247 Minntac 530 United Taconite 442 Mittal 228 Northshore 169* *excludes power house unit #2

This data shows that these faci lities caused or cont ributed to visibility impairment in the BWCAW anywhere from 15 to 48 percent of the period. The only other facilities in Minnesota with a comparable impact are the two largest utilities: Xcel Sherburne County (Sherco), Minnesota Power Boswell; and Minne sota Power Taconite Harbor (which is a smaller power plant, but very close to the BWCAW). When the Midwest RPO looked at the impact to visibility in the BWCAW of the largest industrial sources from across the entire upper Midwest, the tacon ite plants still claimed 4 spot s in the top te n list (which

### when added to the three Minnesota power plan ts mentioned previously, took 7 of the ten spots). The Minnesota Power facilities are pursuing emission reduction projects. Although reasonable progress toward the nationa l visibility goal ca nnot, and should not, be achieved with reductions from the taconite plants alone, these facilities are clearly an important contributor to impairment and ther efore should contribute their fair-share of emission reductions toward improvi ng visibility in the BWCAW.1 

### Neuschler, Catherine

From: Glass, Nancy [nancy.c.glass@xcelenergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:15 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Cc: Rosvold, Richard A Subject: Regional Haze Comment

Catherine,

I noticed two mistakes in the draft haz e SIP documents on the MPCA web site.

1. Page 80 in Chapter 10, for projects being undertaken to reduce NOx and SO2. The lis t uses Xcel Energy's unit numbering for the King, Riverside and Sherburne County plants, but incorrect numbers for the High Bridge plant. The High Bridge units that shut down in 2007 are 3, 4, 5 and 6.

2. Memo from Mary Jean Fenske to AQD File No. 202G, dated January 11, 2008. Section 2. 3 of the memo says that "Minnesota Power" was not asked by the MPCA to perform a BART analysis for the Allen S. King Plant, instead of saying "Xcel Energy."

Nancy Glass Senior Environmental Analyst, QEP Xcel Energy Environmental Services 612.330.5520 Fax 612.330.6357file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Elanne%20Palcich.htm



## From: Elanne Palcich [epalcich@cpinternet.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:51 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: Regional Haze Comments I have great concerns in regard to haze over the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and Voyageurs National Park. A new sulfide mining industry is exploring the entire Duluth Complex adjacent to, and even underneath, these Class I areas.

Proximity is of prime concern in regard to pollutants. In addition to threats from an entirely new mining industry, taconite expansion is continuing on the Iron Range, and Minnesota Steel has been permitted but is awaiting more financial support. A coal gasification industry is also vying for a place in the mix.

I would like to know how these projects would be factored into a haze reduction plan. It seems to me that, if a new industry is permitted, than an old industry must make some huge accommodations in reducing its emissions. Otherwise a new industry will have to wait approval until some old industry dies out and leaves a haze opening.

I would like the haze reduction plan to show how a reduction in consumer demand could reduce the amounts of energy and resources that are needed and how recycling of resources could reduce the amount of virgin minerals that need to be mined.

I would also like the haze reduction plan to specifically graph the amount of haze that a new sulfide mining industry would contribute. The Polymet environmental process is far enough along to give baseline haze information that could be extrapolated to plans by Franconia, Duluth Metals, Teck Cominco, and Kennecott. (There may also be others.)

I believe that the coal gasification project also has enough information to predict haze.

Minnesota Steel has already been permitted, so that information should definitely be a part of the haze reduction plan.

Mesabi Nugget is undergoing environmental review, but information could be deduced from former LTV outputs.

Northshore Mining is also in proximity. And Minorca plans expansion in the Biwabik area.

Keewatin taconite expansion must also be factored in, especially with problems that Keetac has had with dust blowing off its tailings basins.

I think that the plan also needs to include peat mining in the area. Dust is a huge factor in peat mining. I believe that Waupaca in Meadowlands is near enough to be factored in.

In regards to this, forested areas can act as a buffer zone for blowing dust. But the U.S. Forest service has plans for huge amounts of clear cutting bordering the BWCA. I believe that logging must be

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Elanne%20Palcich.htm (1 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:22 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Elanne%20Palcich.htm


### factored into the haze plan.

Without all this information, I don't see how you can possibly have a haze reduction plan that will actually follow Federal guidelines. There is no way that we can continue to add particulates to the air and reduce haze at the same time.

Thank you. Elanne Palcich 29 SE 5th St. Chisholm, MN 55719

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Elanne%20Palcich.htm (2 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:22 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Gary%20Clements.htm



## From: Gary Clements [gclem@visi.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:56 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: air pollution control laws & BWCA Greetings Ms. Neuschler, My name is Gary Clements, and I live in St. Paul. I have long been a visitor to northern Minnesota, particularly the BWCA area around Ely. I am aware that there is a possible move afoot to weaken some emissions standards or laws that could result in increased haze and air particles in that area.

I would be so dismayed to learn that the taconite industry is not carrying its share of the responsibility for low emissions, and that any weakening of the standards might happen. The BWCA and surrounding Superior National Forest is a gem that cannot be replaced for future generations if we allow the activities of this generation to slowly erode the environment there.

Please take a stand against weakening emissions standards or laws, and demand that ALL industries do their part in protecting our future. It ’ s not just the loss of economic impact that a damaged northern Minnesota would suffer if thousands like me stopped going. It ’ s just the right thing to do. Thanks for your consideration, Gary Clements 1362 Lincoln Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Gary%20Clements.htm [3/9/2009 1:41:22 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Doug%20Anderson.htm



## From: d p anderson [dpadaa@frontiernet.net] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:37 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Cc: brian@friends-bwca.org Subject: Regional Haze plan 

## MPCA,

I am writing to share my support, and strong encouragement, to develop a plan to reduce the regional haze over the BWCA. The taconite industry should do its fair share to control its air pollution. New facilities should be required to keep their emissions as low as possible and existing pollution control laws shouldn ’ t be weakened.

I can tell you from experience that if we don ’ t correct this now, is will not be good. I spend two weeks in Hong Kong last December. Yes, it is a beautiful place; however, the haze was so bad for all but one day that you couldn ’ t see the top of Victoria Peak, just across the harbor.

This is what we need to ensure doesn ’ t happen here. Your actions can make a difference, will they? Let ’ s get this on the right track!

Thanks,

Doug Anderson 19827 Jersey Ave. Lakeville, MN 55044 952-469-1016

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Doug%20Anderson.htm [3/9/2009 1:41:22 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Chuck%20Hoffman.htm



## From: Chuck Hoffman [chuckhoffman@mail.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:46 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: Air Quality in northeastern Minnesota Dear Ms Neuschler,

I am writing in response to word I have received about plans for reducing haze and pollution in the BWCA and surrounding areas.

As someone who visits the BWCA often, and appreciates its natural beauty, clean air, and healthful environment, I urge you to support maintaining and improving the air quality.

Area industries, such as mining, should do their fair share to keep emissions low.

And air quality standards should be strengthened, not weakened.

Thanks for listening,

Chuck Hoffman 738 Forest Dale Road New Brighton, MN 55112

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Chuck%20Hoffman.htm [3/9/2009 1:41:22 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Pete%20Duys.htm



## From: peterduys@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:53 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: brian@friends-bwca.org To the MPCA,

Do Not Back Down On The Pollution Control Laws Concerning The Air In The BWCAW!

I am one that depends on an unspoiled area to go to, for personal renewal and restore my faith in the world we live in and the manner in which we take care of it.

I think the Taconite Industry should do its fair share to control its air pollution, new facilities should be required to keep their emissions as low as possible and existing pollution control laws shouldn ’ t be weakened.

Regional haze is creating unhealthy and hard-to-see-through air in northern Minnesota

. Pollution from coal plants, taconite facilities and other sources in northern Minnesota and surrounding states has increased the amount of haze in the region. As a result, the air in places like the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs National Park and Isle Royale National Park has become less healthy and visibility has been significantly reduced. To protect people who visit places like the Boundary Waters and our national parks, federal law requires Minnesota to develop a “ state implementation plan ” to reduce haze and eliminate man-made visibility impairments in these areas by 2064.

Lets not rudder away from these laws but embrace them and tighten up on those that feel they have a right to nonchalantly ruin some of the most blessed areas of our world for the sake of profit. When are we going to live in balance with our natural world instead of expecting it to become a bigger dumping ground from our stupidity!

Pete Duys Northfield, MN

Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com : America's #1 Mapping Site.

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Pete%20Duys.htm [3/9/2009 1:41:23 PM]Chris Norbury.txt From: Chris Norbury [chitrader@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:12 AM To: Neuschler, Catherine Cc: brian@friends-bwca.org Subject: regional haze plan

Dear Ms. Neuschler:

I am concerned about the air quality in northern Minnesota as it affects the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. I understand that the taconite industry is a major contributor to poor air quality in northern Minnesota but is not regulated with regard to pollution control. This is absurd. ANYONE who engages in a business that can possibly harm the environment should be held responsible for doing whatever is necessary to prevent that harm from happening.

I urge you to work for laws and policies that will force ALL polluters to be responsible for cleaning up their messes and help ensure that northern Minnesota remains a clean, healthy area with some of the most pristine wilderness in the nation.

Sincerely, Chris Norbury

Page 1file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Jon%20Ridge.htm



## From: Jon Ridge | Executive Director HI-MN [jridge@himinnesota.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:30 AM To: Neuschler, Catherine Cc: brian@friends-bwca.org Subject: BWCA Haze Guidelines Dear Catherine,

I received a notice from the Friends of the BWCA of your interest in gathering responses in your efforts to control haze and other pollutants in these wilderness areas. Thank you for asking!

I'm a guy in his mid 50's who has been paddling, skiing and winter camping in the BWCA for over 30 years. It is my favorite place on this planet and is right in our backyard if you live in Minnesota. Both the regions of the BWCA and Voyageur's Park have a rich history in their establishment and survival. It is worth our collective effort to protect these resources as best we can.

A visitor to these wilderness areas cannot help but tell the difference between the management of this land and the land where they work and raise a family. As the number of protected wild spaces continues to decline we need to be vigilant in protecting the few that remain.

When paddling the BWCA your senses are overloaded with this wild place. You observe the efforts of a Canadian forest fire in the sky for weeks at a time. You hear a plane from miles away yet never notice them in the city. You appreciate the clean drinking water. You feel safe eating the fish you catch. You know the protections from government leaders of our past have kept this place safe and wild and natural.

But these protections are always at risk. Industrial growth, mining and jobs are important issues in Northern Minnesota. But please lets make sure our air quality and water quality protection remains strong or better yet is made stronger than the past.

The Canadian forest fire is a natural occurrence, haze created from an industrial plant is not. The industrial plant will emit the pollutants daily affecting the air and water quality of the entire region and the visual affect will absolutely impact the visitor to Voyageurs or the BWCA.

I expect the Minnesota PCA to set strong standards for protection, not just for the BWCA but for all of Minnesota. But please lets make sure our unique wilderness remains a wilderness.

Thank you Catherine,

Jon Ridge jridge@himinnesota.org

Jon Ridge Executive Director

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Jon%20Ridge.htm (1 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:23 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Jon%20Ridge.htm


### Hostelling International-USA, Minnesota Council 622 Selby Ave St. Paul, MN 55104

Phone: 651/251-1495 Fax: 651/251-1496 www.himinnesota.org

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Jon%20Ridge.htm (2 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:23 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Roy%20Erickson.htm



## From: Erickson, Roy D [RERICKS1@Fairview.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:05 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Cc: brian@friends-bwca.org; eric1187@d.umn.edu; Hanna Erickson Subject: air pollution Dear Catherine, Please do the right thing and require all businesses to contain their air pollution.They should do this regardless of any excuses they may generate.If they can't be competitive because of extra costs then that business is not viable! A quote from Aldo Leopold: " A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the earth's ecosystems. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Thanks For Doing The Right Thing, Roy Erickson

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material, including 'protected health information'. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy and delete this message from any computer and contact us immediately by return e-mail.

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Roy%20Erickson.htm [3/9/2009 1:41:23 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Christina%20Erickson.htm



### From: Erickson [toddandchristina@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:48 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Cc: toddandchristina@hotmail.com Dear Catherine -

I was so happy to hear that the MN PCA is considering maintaining/improving air quality in the BWCA.

My family are avid campers in the BWCA, and I hope my children will continue to be as they grow up. I support efforts to keep the Boundary Waters as pristine as possible. Efforts to keep emissions low from nearby northern Minnesota taconite industry is a gift to all of us who love northern Minnesota. I appreciate your consideration of these pollution control laws.

Christina Erickson 1764 Simpson Street Falcon Heights, MN 55113

Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. Start sharing.

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Christina%20Erickson.htm [3/9/2009 1:41:23 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Paul%20McCormick.txt



## From: mccor026@umn.edu Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:30 AM To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: Air Pollution Regulations

Ms Neuschler I am a cabin owner on the edgwe of the BWCA and also frequent paddler in Voyageurs and the BWCA. I am writning to urge you to maintain and enforce without exemption the current the current EPA guidelines for air quality . The BWCA wilderness and the surrounding enviroment need more protection not less. Sincerely Paul mcCormick

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Paul%20McCormick.txt [3/9/2009 1:41:24 PM]P.O. Box 475, County Road 666, Ho yt Lakes, MN 55750-0475 tel.218.225.44 17 fax.218.225.4429 www.polymetmining.com May 15, 2008

Ms. Catherine Neuschler
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155

Dear Ms. Neuschler,

PolyMet Mining, Inc (PolyMet), is submitting these comments in response to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) proposed State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act Regional Haze Rule
that will be submitted to the USEPA by the MPCA.

PolyMet is a mining comp any currently involved in the development of the NorthMet project, located in

an established mining district within northeastern Minnesota. The NorthMet project is a development
of a copper, nickel, and platinum group metals deposit within the Duluth Complex, an area of known polymetallic nonferrous metal deposits. This esta blished mining district and the current and future

emission sources that lie within it are part of the targeted long term strategy for controls required to

meet the Reasonable Progress Goals as laid out in Chapters 10 & 11 and Appendix 10.4 –“Concept Plan
for Addressin g Major Point Sources in Northeastern Minn esota”.

As stated in the SIP, Minnesota must demonstrate that its implementation plan includes all measures

necessary to obtain its fair share of emission reductions needed to meet reasonable progress goals at all
Class I areas where visibility is impacted by emissions from Minnesota. The SIP lays out a strategy for

emission reductions in the six largest co unties, closest to the Class I areas in Northeastern Mi nnesota.
Within Chapter 10 it is stated that the status of the emission targets within this region (identified within
Table 10.4) will be used primarily to inform the consideration of cost

‐ effe ctiveness

– if the overall regional emission reductio n target is being met, the maximum $/ton cost

‐ effectiveness level considered

to be reasonable would likely be lower. Should more reductions be needed to meet the emission target,
then a higher $/ton figure may be considered reasonable.

While we concur that exist i ng point sources within this region should do their “fair share” of emissions reductions, we do not feel the SIP completely addresses or evaluates other potential areas of reduction
within the entire state of Minnesota. It should be noted that in the NE region of MN, the existing non

‐ EGU point sources, and in most cases any futur e non

‐ EG U point sources of SO 2 and NO x are and will be large users of electrical energy. As such they are subject to increases in electrical rates from the EGU’s
that are due to pass

‐ through costs necessary for environmental pollutant control upgrades at the EGU’s. Inexorably, they will end up spending more than there fair share in cost of control. On its face, a hi gher $/ton figure may be considered reasonable in order to achieve a regional target, but may not accurately
reflect the other true costs being felt by the source due to other ancillary costs such as electrical rate05

‐ 13

‐ 08 Comment Letter for Regional Haze SIP Page 2 of 2 PolyMet Mining, Inc.

increases from mandated pollution reductions. This is especially magnified when the brunt of the costs

are borne in a small geographical region, that is heavily dependent upon the mining sector. Once again

we would ask tha t the MPCA ensure the SIP and any fu ture reviews and revisions undertake an

assessment of not just the point sources in northeastern MN, but the entire state for any further source reductions. In that manner we can be assured that all of Minnesota is doing its fair share of r eductions.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ke vi n Pylka

Kevin Pylka Manager Environmental Permitting and Compliance

### May 15, 2008

Ms. Catherine Neuschler Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

Re: Minnesota Power comments on the “M PCA DRAFT State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Regional Haze”

Dear Ms. Neuschler,

Minnesota Power (MP) appreciates the Mi nnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) leadership efforts in addressing regional haze, visibility impact concerns in national parks, scenic areas and wilderness areas, al so referred to as Mandatory Class I Federal Areas. MP attended the April 10, 2008 Regi onal Haze teleconference hearing, reviewed the April 8 information packet provided and offers the following comments.

Proximity Impact

First, Minnesota Power wishes to affirm our support for the basic approach the MPCA applied when targeting collective emission re ductions from Minnesota sources in close proximity to Class I Wilderness Areas. While visibility modeling has affirmed the relationship between visibility impairing emissions and proximity to Wilderness Areas, MPCA has also recognized that more than half of the visibility impacts on Minnesota Class I areas are from emission sources outsi de of Minnesota. The MPCA established a workable plan by which Minnesota emissions can be targeted for their “fair share” of reductions needed to meet the Federal, visibility impairment, Reasonable Further Progress goals. MP agrees with the MPCA assessment that Minnesota electric generating units are doing their part to help achieve the MPCA regional haze SIP, northeast Minnesota emission reduction targets.

Minnesota Power Proj ects/BART Requirements

Minnesota Power notes that sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), oxides of nitrogen (NO x 

### ) and particulate emission controls that have b een retrofitted and are being retrofitted on Minnesota electric generating units are re sulting in significan t Minnesota emission reductions. Minnesota Power’s Arrowhead Regional Emission Abatement (AREA) controls on the Taconite Harbor Energy Cent er and Laskin Energy Center have already started to bring benefits through reduced emi ssions from controls al ready in service and scheduled to be placed in service over the ne xt year. MP has also announced additional

### emission reductions with emission control retr ofits at the Boswell Energy Center, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 that will further reduce SO 2 

### , NO x 

### and particulate emissions in our area by 2010. It is important to note these MP control retrofit projec ts will continue, regardless of the status of the Clean Air Interstate Ru le in Minnesota, bringi ng further benefits to Minnesota’s regional air quality.

A key part of the regional haze program is to address emissions from units designated by Clean Air Visibility Rule provisi ons as BART eligible units, th at is, units subject to Best Available Retrofit Technology assessment. Minnesota Power’s BART eligible units, Boswell Unit 3 and Taconite Harbor Unit 3, are both receiving control retrofits that MPCA review has already designated as BA CT or BACT-like. The BACT/BACT-like designation indicates their control retrofit design can meet Best Available Control Technology standards appli cable to units of their size, wh ich are considered to be more stringent than Best Available Retrofit T echnology. Consequently, MP considers the MPCA’s BACT/BACT-like design ation as demonstrating the MP BART eligible unit requirements are being satisfied under MPCA’s regional haze plan, as supported by MP’s emission control retrofits.

All three units at the Taconite Harbor En ergy Center are receiving innovative emission control retrofit technology provided by Nalco-Mobotec addressi ng the challenge of achieving good environmental performance on th ese smaller sized, electric generating units. MP notes the newly retrofitted NO x 

### and SO 2 

### controls performance is undergoing optimization on Taconite Harbor Unit 2. Demonstrated overall performance is confirming the Mobotec technology is the be st retrofit technology selection for the Taconite Harbor Energy Center, consider ing fuel type, boile r size, boiler design, demonstrated emission reduction performance and cost.

Regional Haze SIP and the CAIR Rule

MP notes the reference made by the MPCA to Federal Land Managers (FLMs) comments in the April 8, 2008 hearing packet about the impact of Minnesota’s CAIR status on the Minnesota regional haze SIP. MP supports the MPCA position that the measures being implemented in Minnesota are delivering su itable emission control retrofits on BARTeligible electric generating units independent of the Minnesota CAIR status. MP agrees with the MPCA that CAIR cap and trade co mpliance provisions are not suitable for being overlaid into the Minnesota regional haze SI P, recognizing that specific unit emission rates are not stipulated as pa rt of the CAIR cap and trade program. Regardless of the CAIR outcome, MP continues to install emi ssion control retrofits for regional haze, delivering the associated improvements in Mi nnesota background air quality that impact regional haze.

Contact Information

Please contact Mike Cashin (218-722-5642 extension 3339) or Br andon Krogh (extension 3954) if you have any questions related to Minnesota Power’s comm ents regarding the

### Page 3 of 3 MPCA DRAFT Regional Haze, State Implem entation Plan. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide Minne sota Power comments.

Regards,



## Michael G. Cashin Michael G. Cashin, P.E. Senior Environmental Policy Advisor Minnesota Power 30 West Superior Street Duluth, MN 55802

Phone: 218-722-5642 ext. 3339 FAX: 218-723-3923 Cell: 218-343-6472



### Cc Brandon Krogh Dennis Niemi Margaret Hodnik David Thornton (MPCA)file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Evans%20Excelsior%20Comments.htm



## From: Robert Evans [BobEvans@excelsiorenergy.com] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 3:35 PM To: Catherine.Neuschler@state.mn.us Subject: Comments on Draft Regional Haze SIP

Importance: High 

## Dear Ms. Neuschler:

As you know, Excelsior Energy Inc. ( “ Excelsior ” ) is the proponent of two 600 MW (net) 

## coal-fired
IGCC power stations (a.k.a. Mesaba One and Mesaba Two) proposed to be located on Minnesota ’ s Mesabi Iron Range on one of two alternative sites that will likely be designated by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission later this year in response to the company ’ s application for Site and Route Permits therefrom. As well, Excelsior has submitted applications for the two sources to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to obtain New Source Review Construction Authorization and Water Appropriation Permits, respectively. When they begin operation, Mesaba One and Mesaba Two are expected to emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (and other criteria pollutants) at rates rivaling the lowest of any full-scale coal-fired power station in the world.

By design, Mesaba One and Mesaba Two will be capable of using bituminous and subbituminous coals and blends of these two feedstocks with smaller amounts of petroleum coke. Specifically, Mesaba One will be critical in demonstrating the full-scale commercial demonstration of ConocoPhillips ’ EGas TM technology, the only gasification technology of which we know has been proven capable of using subbituminous coal in an IGCC application. The practical implication of this demonstration is that IGCC will become even more prominent in regulatory decision-making processes for new Midwest baseload coal-fired power stations and major modifications of existing baseload coal-fired stations. Given that the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission rates proposed for Mesaba One and Mesaba Two are 0.025 lb and 0.058 lb per million Btu heat input, respectively, are a fraction of the lowest emission rates shown for the Midwest Electric Generating Units in Table 10.3 of the Draft SIP, we believe that substitution of IGCC technology for conventional coal-fired steam electric generating units will become the rule once IGCC is commercially demonstrated. When it does, the state will begin to witness significant reductions in regional haze in its Class I areas.

Therefore, Excelsior recommends that Mesaba one and Mesaba Two be reflected in the inventory of Minnesota Sources in 2018 to reflect growth in electricity demand. In this table, two generic mines were added to reflect growth expected to occur in the mining industry, based on projected emissions from two proposed projects (Minnesota Steel and Polymet). Those two projects alone would require at least 500 MW of baseload electricity. The total growth in baseload need across the region is likely to be much larger.

PM]

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Evans%20Excelsior%20Comments.htm (1 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:38file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Evans%20Excelsior%20Comments.htm



## Applying the same rationale to growth expected to occur in baseload electricity demand, it would be reasonable to include a generic electricity source in the emissions inventory for 2018, based on the emissions of the only new, in-state baseload electric generating sources proposed at this time (i.e., Mesaba One and Mesaba Two). If, alternatively, one assumes that new sources are not constructed, the existing baseload generators in the region (with much higher sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission rates) are likely to operate at the absolute maximum feasible capacity factor. In that case, the emissions inventory for 2018 should reflect sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emission rates consistent with maximum feasible capacity factors of northeast Minnesota generators, rather than 2002 capacity factors. This, of course, would not be to the advantage of showing that reasonable further progress goals were attainable. Therefore, to the extent that including emissions associated with electricity demand and generation growth affect the 2018 emissions inventory, the reasonable progress goal and 30% emissions reduction target may need to be adjusted. Emissions goals that assume no economic growth have the potential to discourage development which would not be a good approach for achieving regional haze goals.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the States Draft Regional Haze SIP. Please call me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Robert S. Evans II V.P., Environmental Affairs Excelsior Energy Inc. 11100 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 305 Minnetonka, MN 55305 952-847-2355

PM]

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/Evans%20Excelsior%20Comments.htm (2 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:38May 16, 2008

Ms. Catherine Neuschler Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194

Re: Comment on Draft State Implementation Plan Revision for Regional Haze.

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, Inc. ("ArcelorMittal") hereby submits its comments to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") draft State Implementation Plan ("SIP") revision for regional haze. These comments address four aspects of the draft SIP: 1) the IMPROVE equation, 2) the ArcelorMittal-specific SO2 emissions limit of 0.123 pounds of SO2 per long ton of taconite processed, 3) pH monitoring requirements, and 4) NOx BACT equivalency. First, ArcelorMittal supports the use of the IMPROVE modeling equation, but comments that this equation should allow the use of annual average background to replace 20% best day inputs to the model. Second, ArcelorMittal objects to the proposed SIP on the grounds that it should not include a numerical limitation for SO2 emissions when the primary fuel source is gaseous. Third, ArcelorMittal comments that pH monitoring should not be required if sufficient data is generated to demonstrate stable pH conditions for water leaving the scrubber. Fourth, ArcelorMittal comments that NOx Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") and PSD emission limits should be considered equivalent to Best Available Retrofit Technology (`BART"). Each of these comments will be addressed more fully below. Finally, ArcelorMittal expects that applicable portions of the SIP, including but not limited to the applicable sections of Appendix 9, will be revised to reflect the Administrative Consent Order and permit revisions currently being negotiated by ArcelorMittal and MPCA.

The Regional Haze Rule

On July 6, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") published regulations to address visibility impairment in our nation's largest national parks and wilderness areas ("Class I areas"). This rule is commonly known as the "Regional Haze Rule" (the "Rule"). The Rule requires Minnesota to establish and achieve visibility goals for each of its Class I areas by 2018 by regulating certain emissions believed to contribute to regional haze. MPCA determined that the key haze causing emissions in Minnesota are particulate matter ("PM," measured as PM10), sulfur dioxide ("SO2"), and nitrogen oxides ("NO,,").

Additionally, the Rule regulates certain stationary sources that could contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas and requires BART limits for these sources. Pursuant to the Rule, Minnesota must submit a Regional Haze SIP to U.S. EPA identifying sources that cause or contribute to visibility impairment in its Class I areas. The Regional Haze SIP submittal must also include a schedule for implementation of BART and other control measures, including dates by which the MPCA will establish BART limits for specific units at BART-eligible sourcesand dates by which facility owners or operators will demonstrate compliance with the limits.

MPCA has five years from the time of SIP approval

- until at least 2013 - to establish and implement the BART limits.

Accordingly, MPCA must determine what constitutes BART for each BART-eligible unit and must establish emission limits consistent with its determination of BART. BART limits must take into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance

, the energy and the non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source

, the remaining useful life of the source

, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology

. For taconite pellet furnaces

, MPCA determined BART for each of the emissions to be as follows:

NOx - An operating standard of good combustion practices in combination with process changes proposed as BART by the facilities

, such as low-NOx burners in pre-heat zones, ported kilns and modified furnace design for improved fuel efficiency.

PM - Equivalent to the taconite Maximum Available Control Technology ("MACT"), which requires control of PM emissions to control hazardous air pollutants. The taconite MACT establishes a PM10 limit of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot. For MACT compliance, five facilities

, including the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine operate wet scrubbers.

SO2 - Existing particulate scrubbers optimized for SO2 removal, except possibly at the United Taconite Line 2, where BART may require an add-on SO2 scrubber.

Pursuant to the SIP, MPCA intends to enter into Administrative Consent Orders with each of the taconite facilities determined to be subject -to-BART, including the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine. MPCA and ArcelorMittal are engaged in ongoing negotiations over the terms and conditions of the consent order

, and ArcelorMittal comments that the SIP regulatory requirements should be in accord, and not conflict

, with those terms and conditions agreed to by both ArcelorMittal and MPCA for purposes of the ArcelorMittal Administrative Consent Order.

The ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine

ArcelorMittal produces taconite pellets at its facility ( the "Minorca Mine" ) near Virginia, Minnesota. In March 2006, the MPCA determined that ArcelorMittal's Facility includes units that are subject to BART. See, RESULTS of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling to Determine Sources Subject-to-BART in the State of Minnesota

, March 2006, at http :// I)roteus.pca.state.i,nn

. us/publications / aq-sip2-07

. pd f (The Minorca Mine was formerly known as the Ispat Inland Mining Co, and is referred to by that name in the modeling document).ArcelorMittal has one pellet furnace

, identified as Emission Unit EU026 in Air Emissions Permit

No. 13700062-002, that MPCA determined is BART-eligible for S02 and NO, and for which a BART analysis was performed

. This furnace has 4 stack vents. The stack vents associated with the furnace are identified as SVO14, SVO15, SVO16, and SVO17.

L IMPROVE modeling equation

ArcelorMittal supports using the new IMPROVE modeling equation. As stated in the rule package:

"Baseline" visibility for determining visibility improvements was determined through the use of average Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments ("IMPROVE") date for the years 2000 through 2004.

Consistent with the approach taken for refined modeling by other Region Planning Organizations (e.g., VISTAS) as well as the state of Wisconsin

, we encourage Minnesota to expressly adopt use of the annual average natural background coupled with the 98th percentile day. The new IMPROVE equation and other refinements in the modeling have eliminated the need for conservative ( 20% highest day) natural background data in the model.

II. S02 limitation inappropriate

MPCA has proposed a BART limit of 0.123 pounds S02 per long ton of pellets fired (finished) when the company is burning natural gas. MPCA proposes to incorporate this limit into the Minorca Mine's operating requirements through an air emission permit amendment in 2008. A specific numerical emission limit for S02 is inappropriate because S02 emissions are primarily a product of the sulfur content of the iron ore feedstock, which varies and cannot be controlled by ArcelorMittal.

The 1997 test results

, upon which the 0.123 lb S02 / ton limit is based

, reflect the S02 emissions on a single day and therefore cannot take into account the variability in sulfur content of the taconite ore. The amount of sulfur in the raw ore may vary from one day to the next, which can cause great variability in the S02 emissions. ArcelorMittal cannot accurately predict sulfur content in the ore being processed, nor can the facility control the amount of sulfur in the

ore. Without far more sampling data reflecting the true range of sulfur in the iron ore and the effect of iron ore sulfur content on operations at the facility

, therefore, an emissions limit of 0.123 pounds S02 per long ton of pellets fired is little more than an arbitrary guess at what actual emissions may be and an equally arbitrary guess at ArcelorMittal ' s ability to comply. Subjecting ArcelorMittal to enforcement for failure to comply with this standard would be wholly arbitrary and unfair.Rather than impose an arbitrary emissions level as BART, MPCA should instead require

only that BART-appropriate pollution abatement equipment is properly installed and operated. This is particularly appropriate at the Minorca facility because it uses gaseous fuel that contains very little sulfur. Thus, the vast majority of the sulfur being converted to S02 comes from the raw ore that cannot be predicted or controlled. Alternatively, MPCA should delay establishing a numerical standard until sufficient data can be gathered to establish a non-arbitrary standard that considers the variability of sulfur in the ore. In the Draft SIP, MPCA states that it will require ArcelorMittal to monitor the concentration of sulfur being introduced into the pelletizing furnace. Implicit in this requirement, which MPCA states "will allow Mittal Steel and the MPCA to gauge the relationship between stack emissions ... and the sulfur content of the raw materials," is an acknowledgment that there is not sufficient data at this time to draw any conclusions regarding SO2 emissions based on the sulfur content of the ore. If this monitoring requirement is imposed on ArcelorMittal, the company should be given several years to gather monitoring data sufficient to set a more realistic numerical S02 emissions standard that ensures compliance even when sulfur content in the ore exceeds historic values.I

III. pH Monitoring

According to the SIP, MPCA intends to impose certain monitoring requirements on the Minorca Mine through permit conditions as part of the BART permit amendment process. MPCA states they intend to require ArcelorMittal to monitor the pH of the water leaving the scrubber either continuously or on a monitoring schedule to be determined. ArcelorMittal agrees that monitoring pH of water leaving the scrubber can provide information on the effectiveness of scrubber operation, however, continuous pH monitoring of water leaving the scrubber is not
necessary.

As MPCA states

, ArcelorMittal is already subject to the Taconite MACT , which requires monitoring of the pressure drop across the scrubber and the water flow rate to assure good particulate control

. These monitoring requirements are sufficient to ensure the scrubber is operating properly. However, given MPCA's concern that monitoring of pH is required to ensure the scrubber is properly removing S02 emissions

, ArcelorMittal requests it be given the opportunity to conduct a pH stability demonstration in lieu of ongoing monitoring. If ArcelorMittal can demonstrate stable pH conditions for water leaving the scrubber

, the company should not be required to conduct ongoing pH monitoring, which is expensive, operationally burdensome and not required by the MACT standards already in place to ensure proper scrubber operation

. If pH stability is demonstrated

, requiring ongoing monitoring is an arbitrary requirement that does not generate any additional information with regard to proper scrubber operation.

1 It should be noted that even if monitoring data is collected for several years and some understanding of the variability of sulfur content of the ore is gained, there still exists the possibility that sulfur content in the ore could vary significantly from one day to the next, creating a possibility for non-compliance out of ArcelorMittal's control.IV. NOx

For the purposes of compliance with the Rule, NOx BACT and PSD emission limits should be considered equivalent to BART for NOx in Minnesota. Although very similar in
process, BART reviews differ in several important respects from the BACT review process. First, because all BART reviews apply to existing sources, the available controls and the impacts of those controls may differ. Second , the Clean Air Act requires slightly different factors be taken into account in determining BART and BACT.

In a BACT analysis, the permitting authority must consider the "energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs" associated with a control technology in making its determination. In a BART analysis, on the other hand, the state must take into account the "cost of compliance, the remaining useful life of the source, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility from the use of such technology" in making its BART determination. Because of the differences in terminology, the BACT review process tends to encompass a broader range of factors. For example, the term "environmental impacts" in the BACT definition is broader than the term "non-air quality environmental impacts" used in the BART definition. Accordingly, there is no requirement in the BART engineering analysis to evaluate adverse air quality impacts of control alternatives such as the relative impacts on hazardous air pollutants. Finally, for the BART analysis, there is no minimum level of control required, while any BACT emission limitation must be at least as stringent as any New Source Performance Standard that applies to the source.

The BACT rule dates back to 1980 and applies to affected sources for which construction or modification began after 1977. BART, by comparison, applies to all facilities that began operations after 1962 and were in existence in 1977. BART is aimed at filling the regulatory gap left open to "grandfathered" facilities that began operation before the more strict BACT and NSPS controls were implemented, many of which have never since been modified. The BACT rules have, however, captured all those sources that were in existence in 1977 and have been modified since then, such as the Minorca Mine. Facilities such as the Minorca Mine, which have been modified since 1977, and thus subject to BACT, should not also be subject to BART, which is aimed at ensuring retrofitting of those facilities constructed or modified only pre-1977. For those facilities falling into the BART-BACT "overlap" (those facilities built after 1962; in existence in 1977; and modified since 1977), BACT should be deemed equivalent to BART.

In the early 1990s, a BACT analysis was conducted at the Minorca Mine, and the indurating furnace at the facility received an emissions limit of 1,088 pounds NOx per hour to represent the emission rate achieved by best available control technology applied to this facility. The BACT determination and related permitting activities are described in the Technical Support Document for Air Emissions Permit No. 13700062-001.Since BACT controls are generally more restrictive than BART controls, and since the

BART rule was intended to regulate those sources that were not subject to BACT and NSPS requirements

, MPCA should include a BART-BACT equivalency determination in the SIP. ArcelorMittal proposes the following language:

"For purposes of the Regional Haze Rule, NOx BACT shall be deemed equivalent to BART, and shall satisfy all BART requirements for any facility that would otherwise be required to comply with BART requirements under the Rule. Any affected facility that performs or has performed a BACT determination and installs or has installed BACT shall not be required to conduct any BART analysis or install new BART controls before construction or modification of any emissions source."

Conclusion

ArcelorMittal supports the efforts of MPCA to comply with the federal Regional Haze Rule through revision of the Minnesota SIP. ArcelorMittal appreciates the opportunity to work with MPCA in drafting the Administrative Consent Order and the opportunity to submit these comments. Finally, ArcelorMittal looks forward to working with MPCA to revise the SIP as necessary to reflect any changes that may be necessary or appropriate to harmonize the SIP and the Administrative Consent Order currently being negotiated. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, 

# 61, & / L " C, a, - -, ^^

Michael E. Long Manager Environmental Compliance ArcelorMittal USA

cc: Jaime Baggenstoss, ArcelorMittal Minorca Facility Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

### May 16, 2008 (Submitted Electronically)

Mr. David Thornton Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155

Re: Draft Haze State Implementation Plan Comments

Dear Mr. Thornton:

The following comments regarding the Draft Re gional Haze SIP are submitted by Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness (NMW). NMW is a regional grassroots, wilderness advocacy group. Our contact is, NMW 821 E. Pattison ST Ely, MN 55731 (218) 365-2272 Email concerning Regional Haze ma y be sent to, “Brad Sagen” hbsagen@cpinternet.com

.
NMW’s core mission is to preserve and protect wilderness and wild places in the Minnesota Arrowhead Region, especially the BWCAW. Since its founding in 1996 NMW has grown to represent over 400 members and supporters in Northeastern Minnesota. Most NMW members and supporters live in the (Arrowhead) Region of the two Class I Areas listed for protection under the Regional Haze Plan. Because of our regional focus and experience, NMW comments will focus on SIP considerations concerning the 6 county Northeast Minnesota area (the concept plan for Northeastern Minnesota).

NMW has reviewed the materials prepared for su bmission by MCEA and the expert analysis as contained in the affidavit submitted by Dr. Ranajit Sahu. NMW hereby incorporates, as if set forth herein, the letter of comments from MCEA to MPCA dated May 16 and the affadavit from Dr. Ranajit Sahu attached to that letter.

2064 Goal The most salient fact in the dr aft SIP (Changes Made..., p.3) is that the State will not achieve the mandated Natural Conditions target by 2064. The projected compliance by Minnesota is VNP by 2177 and BWCAW by 2093. In view of other problems wi th the SIP, this fact alone should disqualify the current plan from receiving Federal approval.

The SIP expresses no sense of urgency regard ing proposed emissions reduction activities. Indeed it effectively postpones implementati on of most major activ ities such as BART requirements until at least 2012.

### 2 Realism of the Intermediate Emission Reduction Targets Toward Achieving the Ultimate Target While the intermediate targets of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions 2002-12 and a 30 percent reduction 2002-18 appear formidable, one can qu estion their potential contribution toward achieving the mandated reduction in haze by 2064. The 2002-12 emissions reduction target is 2 percent (1911 tons) a year. The 2012-18 target is an additional 10 perc ent reduction, yielding a total reduction of 30 percent 2002-18.

The absolute reduction 2012-18, however, is only 1593 tons per year, or 17 per year less than the 2002-12 annual reduction. This is not made clear or discussed in the Draft SIP. The 2012-18 decline in projected annual amounts of reduction appears more realistic because of expected declining marginal rates of return in invest ment in emissions reduction and in compliance enforcement. (2012-18 reductions actually requir e a 2 percent annual reduction when measured against the 2012 expected level of emissions as a base.)

Because of reductions anticipated from a variety of sources in the near term, the near term 2012 reduction target should be increased to achieve a more realistic “g lide path” over th e longer term. NMW recommends that the 2012 emissions reducti on target be set at 25 percent or 2.5 percent per year, and that the 2012-18 target be maintained at a further 10 percent reduction. This would achieve a 35 percent reduc tion in emissions 2002-18, a more realistic goal if the 2064 ultimate target is to be achieved.

Problems with Data and Modeling Dr. Sahu’s analysis of data and modeling (Affi davit attached to MC EA letter of May 16) addresses a number of emissions data, proj ections, and modeling problems on which NMW will offer brief comments in areas of NMW focus and experience.

Emissions Inventory Data. Dr. Sahu identifies a number of gross differences in the several emissions inventories reported in the draft SIP for both 2002 and for 2005 (Sahu Affadavit IV Emissions Inventory .2 and .5). Sahu concludes, and NMW concurs, that little confidence can be place in the Minnesota emissions reported by MPCA.

Special attention is directed to the differences in inventory data concer ning point sources from various reports (Sahu Affadavit, IV Emissions I nventory .4) since point sources form the single most important factor in scenar ios and SIP projections for emissi ons reductions. Any confidence in SIP data is undermined by the discrepancies in th is most fundamental of data classifications.

Climate Change . The SIP makes no direct mention of clim ate change as a factor in emissions. Climate change can play an enormous role in meteorological patterns which affect geographic patterns of pollution such as from Canada, a nd fire and smoke pollution problems (Sahu, II. General Comments .6). The absence of climate cha nge as a factor should either be addressed in the SIP or the exclusion justified.

Canada. Projections for emissions from Canada ma ke the untenable assumption that emissions will remain constant 2005-18 (Sahu, IV Emissions Inventory .8). The projections discount the probability that emissions will increase due to normal growth and in the absence of any

### 3 meaningful Canadian legislati on concerning emissions reducti on. Canadian pollution in the Class I Region is likely to increase because of projects such as the accel erated development of Canadian tar sands in Alberta. As noted earl ier, Canadian projections will be substantially affected by meteorological pattern s and thus by climate change.

Ammonia . MPCA (Sahu IV. Emissions Inventor y .8) does recognize the significance of ammonia as a pollutant and substa ntial factor in emissions inve ntories and projections. MPCA, however, does not recommend additional data gathering or monitoring regarding ammonia and rejects responsibility for filling da ta gaps. This is irresponsible and should be rejected by Federal decision-makers regarding the SIP.

NMW concludes that problems of data, modeli ng, and projections identified by Dr. Sahu are so substantial that the SIP should not receive Federal approval until substantial improvements are made.

Monitoring Data The problems of data, modeling, and projections concerning emissions sources and reductions suggest that much greater reliance must be placed on the actual m onitoring data. In this regard, certain problems and uncertainties in monitoring must be addressed.

Monitoring Locations. The two current monitoring locations ha ve not been subjected to analysis regarding representation of the two Class I areas, capturing of c onditions at scenic vistas, and over and under reporting of haze.

Variability in Monitoring Data . The summary Haze monitoring data for BWCAW and VNP for 2000-04 (Sahu III Visibility Measurements .2) rev eal substantial variations with no discernable patterns or likely explanations. (None are provided in the SIP.) Yet the data provide the basis for determination of SIP progress or the lack of it, and for making crucial decisions regarding next steps in pollution control. The data, and the monitoring locations and other considerations, should be subjected to rigorous analysis.

Federal Funding of Monitoring Sites. Continued Federal funding of the two sites is apparently uncertain. The centrality of adequate monitoring to fulfillment of EPA requirements should be made clear. The State should be prepared to assume some responsibility for funding, should Federal support be withdrawn.

### 4 BART This section draws upon but does not offer the details provided by the Dr. Rahu Affadavit attached to the MCEA letter of 5/ 16. As Dr Rahu states (V. BART):

EPA notes that “[A] State’s regional haze (RH) SIP submittal must include source-specific BART em ission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. See 40 CFR 51.308 (e). All regulatory requirements must be approved into the SIP. 1



### , 2 

### It also notes that “[A]s specified in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v), States are required to ensure each source subject to BART install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable , but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the imp lementation plan revision. States should ensure that BART requirements in a SIP are written in a way that clearly specifies the individual emission unit(s) subject to BART regulation and the time by which the emission unit(s) must be gin to comply with the BART limit.” The governing regulations 3 

### note that “...[T]he following elements, at a minimum, must be addressed to ensure .... BART controls are adopted into the State’s SIP – “[N]ame of source facil ity and the specific emission units and pollutants being controlled...” 4 

### and “[S]pecifics of the controls, control efficiency(ies), emissions reductions expected. 5


### Footnotes renumbered.*

*Renumbered Footnotes to Rahu Affadavit.

1 

### Additional Regional Haze Questions, EP A document dated August 24, 2006. (BART #1)
2 

### Additional Regional Haze Questions, EP A document dated August 24, 2006. (BART #4)
3 

### 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y – Section V.
4 

### 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) and (ii)
5 

### Additional Regional Haze Questions, EP A document dated August 24, 2006. (BART #4)

### 5 The SIP clearly fails to meet these requirements. “At this time we cannot predict what emissions reductions might result from BART in Minnesota” (SIP, Chap 10, p. 81). This is particularly true for the taconite indurating furnace lines for which no BART li mits have been established. NMW requests that the SIP specifically addr ess the EPA requirements concerning BART as communicated in the Dr. Ranjit Rahu Affidavit submitted by MCEA, May 16, 2008.

Bart Timetable. The SIP now offers a very loose tim etable postponing even pilot testing of taconite BART to 2010 and required controls to begin installation in 2013 (Changes Made... 04/08 Packet). This schedule only contributes to the projected failure to attain the 2064 target and makes problematic the attainment of the 2018 30% emissions reduction. NMW recommends that pilot testing of BART control st rategies begin as soon as practicable, and certainly concurrent with the tracking of em issions and determination of BART limits proposed for 2008-10. The schedule currently pr oposed suggests notable foot dragging by MPCA added to the reluctance of taconite mining facilities to propose meaningful control strategies. Some timetable such as that recommended is the only way the SIP will comply with the 5 year requirement for implementa tion following approval of the SIP.

BART in EGU. The draft SIP exempts EGU’s from BART considerations at this time. This is indefensible, especially in view of the inaccuraci es and uncertainties in overall current data and projections. EGU’s should be subject to the same BART guidelines as taconite facilities and neither should be limited to th e 5% threshold for consideration.

Dysfunctions in the Incentives/Sanc tions Program for Taconite Emissions One goal of the NE Minnesota Plan (p.78) is to “spur” development of new control options at taconite facilities. The plan itself (pp.82-84), however, relie s on compliance rather than the positive incentives implied by the verb, “spur.” More over, there appears to be little incentive for individual facilities to even comply. The economic incentiv e to mining is to prolong the compliance process and to offer only the minimum necessary for compliance. The threat seems to be the imposition of a State Retrofit Requirement (p.84). We contrast th is scenario with the evidence submitted that (some) voluntary progre ss is being achieved with EGU through rate recovery incentives for imp roved emissions controls.

{As a footnote, we offer the philosophical problem of “The Commons” in which the potential consequences for the (taconite) community as a whole cannot be addressed because the immediate negative individual consequences to members of the community prevent their stepping forward to take positive steps wh ich would improve the general situation.}

NMW recommends that MPCA take two steps to improve the probability of significant emissions reductions by taconite facilities: 1) Make clear (to the general public and to stakeholders) the tool s MPCA has at hand to compel compliance at the several stage s in implementation of the SIP. 2) Develop positive economic incentives for taco nite facilities to develop and implement new emissions controls. (This may require new legislation.)

### 6 New Construction Activities EPA requires emissions impacts analysis fo r new construction activities (40 CFR § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B). The draft SIP does not addr ess the issue. Ther e is substantial new construction underway and proposed on the Iron Range for mining and energy especially. According to (the State Agency) Iron Range Res ources (Ely Echo, 5/12/08), “About $5 billion in economic development projects are under cons truction or proposed along a 110-mile corridor stretching from Cohasset to Babbitt and beyond.” Th e projects cited involve an estimated 7,000 construction jobs and are all mining or energy. The SIP should address the new construction activities issue as required by EPA, with speci al attention to the NE Minnesota Plan area.

Mobile Sources and Visitors to Class I Areas The BWCAW and VNP are destinations for a cons iderable number of visitors annually (an estimated 250,000 to the BWCAW and 220,000 to VNP). According to USFS, Superior National Forest, adjacent to and surrounding much of these areas, is estimated to draw 4 million visitors annually. Visitors typically arrive by motor vehicle and often drive portions of the perimeters of the two Class I areas. OHV and snowm obile use is heavy in the vicinity of the two areas. Moreover, motorboats and snowmobiles are permitted in VNP and motorboats are allowed in portions of the BW. The older 2 stro ke engines still used in many recreational mobile sources are considered to be s ubstantial polluters. In addition, open cooking and camp fires are typically approved in both Class I areas. In view of the proximity to the scenic vistas deserving of Regional Haze protection, SIP emissions analysis should consider visitor activities and their mobile emissions sources within and in proximity to the BWCAW and VNP.

Conclusions The conclusions and recommenda tions offered by NMW are supported by the analyses reported here and by the more detailed analyses in the letter of comments from MCEA to MPCA dated May 16 and the affadavit from Dr. Ranajit Sahu attach ed to that letter. As noted, these latter two documents are incorporated as part of NMW public comments concerning the SIP.

The major conclusion regarding the draft SIP is that the SIP in anything like its current form should not receive Federal approval. The deficiencies are simply too great. NMW calls upon MPCA, and if necessary the Federa l Government, to undertake the substantial revisions and improvements recommended for the current draft SIP. NMW will provide responsible support for these efforts.

Sincerely,

Brad Sagen, Chair NMW Board of Directorsfile:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/EPA%20Comments.txt

From: Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Catherine.Neuschler@state.mn.us Cc: Bortzer.Jay@epamail.epa.gov; Mooney.John@epamail.epa.gov; Summerhays.John@epamail.epa.gov; Rosenthal.Steven@epamail.epa.gov; Aburano.Douglas@epamail.epa.gov; Rau.Matthew@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Comments on Draft Regional Haze SIP

Catherine,

Matt has finished reviewing your draft regional haze submittal and has a few minor comments which I have summarized below. We w ill be formalizing these comments and submitting them to you before the end of the public comment period.

1) Minnesota needs to submit a complete 2005 emissions inventory. Currently only a 2005 point source inventory has been submit ted.

2) Minnesota should include a discussion regarding agricultural burning. If this source was not included because of minimal im pacts, this should be articulated and supporting information should be included.

3) MPCA should set deadlines for major steps of the taconite BART process such as installation of CEMs and completion of pilot s tudies to keep things on track. It appears that MPCA has done this in the most recent draft developed in response to comments.

4) As we are sure you are aware, prior to final submittal, the state must replace "placeholders" with actual documents; e.g., response to public comments.

Let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Kathleen & Matt

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/EPA%20Comments.txt [3/9/2009 1:41:59 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/EPA%20Comments%202.txt



## From: Rau.Matthew@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:58 PM To: Neuschler, Catherine Subject: Draft Regional Haze SIP Comments

Catherine,

Here is what will be sent in a letter to John Seltz:

Comments on February 2008 Draft Minnesota Regional Haze SIP:

The additions and clarifications to the Regional Haze SIP presented in the document “ Changes Made to Regional Haze SIP Since Public Review Draft ” are helpful. The table proving key dates for the BART process and the Northeast Minnesota Plan are especially helpful.

The schedule in the table suggests it could be mid-2012 before BART limits are incorporated into permits. This is a concern because Minnesota is already past due in submitting enforceable BART limits. I understand that the state is pursuing additional data from its taconite facilities so that appropriate emission limits can be set. Still, EPA is concerned over any delays in setting BART limits. I encourage Minnesota to set appropriate emission limits for its taconite facilities in an enforceable form as quickly as possible.

Considering the Northeast Minnesota Plan, it is not clear what the emission target is beyond 2018. Does the 2018 target remain for the years beyond? Will a new target be set in the 2018 Regional Haze SIP revision? I recommend clarifying what the emission target will be in 2019 and beyond.

Agricultural burning is briefly discussed on page 88 of the draft SIP. There is no mention of the impact of agricultural burning on visibility. The language states that agricultural burning may be addressed in a future SIP revision. It is not clear to the reader if impact of agricultural burning is insignificant, but will be watched in case it becomes an issue or if the state is unsure on the impact now, but it will study it further and take action if warranted. I suggest adding a statement on agricultural burning impact on visibility in Minnesota.

The emissions inventory for 2005 appears incomplete as it only

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/EPA%20Comments%202.txt (1 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:59 PM]file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/EPA%20Comments%202.txt


## includes point sources emissions. The 2002 emissions inventory summarizes point source emission and also area source and mobile source emissions. Minnesota has indicated that staff members have completed the 2005 emissions inventory and that it will be included in the final SIP. A complete 2005 emissions inventory can be used with the 2002 baseline emissions inventory and future year emissions inventories to better see trends in emissions than comparing just to the 2002 baseline. EPA supports the inclusion of the complete 2005 emissions inventory in final SIP.

Let me know if you have any questions.

-- Matt

file:///X|/Programs/Regional_Haze/SIP%20Document/Comments%20Received/EPA%20Comments%202.txt (2 of 2) [3/9/2009 1:41:59 PM]MPCA Response to Comments

Comment Letter 1: Johanna Lester
This comment was mainly concerned with pollution from motor vehicles, particularly smog created around the Twin Cities from idling cars and buses. The commenter stated that “Minnesota has fallen behind in setting standards” and refe renced restrictions on burning and vehicle inspection requirements in Los Angeles. This comment also included the statem ent “If there is technology out there, it should be required of industry as well.”
MPCA Response: The comment is focused largely on the problem of urban air pollution. Although this is an important issue, it is not directly related to the Regional Haze program. The commenter did not list any specific concerns with the draft Regional Haze SIP.
Comment Letter 2: Boise White Paper, L.L.C, David Reimer
1) Cost of Controls – These comments are on Appendix 3.2 and Appendix 10.6, Table 10.6.1, which contain a table of potentially reasonable NO X controls within Q/5d 121 of BWCAW and VNP, based on the work of CENRAP. The tables indicate that SCR might be a potential reasonable control option for Boise’s recovery furnace. Boise believes that the technological feasibility of applying SCR to recovery furnaces has not been proven, and that, ev en were the technology feasible, the costs would be considerably higher than reflected in the tabl e. Boise references its 1999 PSD permit application, where the cost per ton of NO X reduction using SCR was estimated at $29,650/ton. Boise requests that the MPCA either remove the references to Boise from the tables or reflect these higher costs.
MPCA Response: In part due to Boise’s concerns, which had previously been made known to MPCA, Appendix 10.6 states that “the MPCA believes that these cost curves are not appropriate for making a final determination of whether controls on a certain source are cost-effective. Therefore, Minnesota is using these tables merely to point to sources or s ource categories that should be further evaluated in order to determine if controls are cost-effective and could be undertaken in the future for reasonable progress. The listing in this table of a control strate gy on a specific source should not be considered a definitive statement of the cost-effectiveness of the list ed control or a specific decision or request to place the listed controls on the stated source.” In order to make this more clear, in response to this comment the language was modified to state “these cost estimate s” rather than referring to cost curves. However, because this table is the work of CENRAP rather than the MPCA, the MPCA feels it is inappropriate to alter the table. 2) Climate Change – The commenter is concerned that ther e is no mention in the draft Regional Haze SIP about climate change legislation and its pot ential impacts on regional haze and regional haze regulations. The commenter states that Northeas t Minnesota has the potential for development and use of biomass fuel sources, which make ec onomic sense and could reduce emissions of CO 2 , SO 2 , and NO X . However, there is also a potential for increased NO X emissions from biomass compared to NO X emissions from the use of natural gas. The comme nter believes that use of biomass fuels for reducing greenhouse gases needs to be considered.
MPCA Response: The MPCA has added some information concerning climate change impacts and possible regulations to the SIP. However, while the MPCA appreciates Boise’s concern, at this time the situation with climate change legisl ation or regulations in Minnesota is still evolving. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how programs to reduce em issions of greenhouse gases and those to improve visibility will overlap. As the Regional Haze program is very long term, it is likely that any interactions will be taken into account in future SIPs.

121 If a facility is within Q/5d of a Class I area, that mean s that its annual emissions of the specified pollutant when divided by 5 times the distance in kilometers to the Class I area is greater than 1.Comment Letter 3: USDA Forest Service, James W. Sanders
1) Baseline Visibility Conditions – The Forest Service supports the MPCA’s inclusion of the highdeciview, incomplete sample days in the baseline visibility conditions.
MPCA Response: Comment Noted.
2) BART for Taconite – In initial BART comments (April 10, 2007), incorporated into their SIP comment letter, the Forest Service commented that the BART analyses submitted by the taconite facilities are incomplete, and raised concerns that the industry is proposing few actions that will contribute to reducing haze. They also commented that more actions could be taken to optimize the existing scrubbers for SO 2 removal, or that different fuel blends could be used to reduce SO 2 emissions, and that the Low Temperature Oxidation (LoTOx) control technology is technologically and economically feasible for the taconite industry. The Forest Service comments particularly that an SO 2 BART determination for United T aconite’s Line 2 should be made in this SIP submittal, and that they believe BART to be either installation of a new recirculating scrubber or an SO 2 standard based on the level of SO 2 emissions from the rest of the industry. In addition, they state that they are willing to delay the determination of NO X BART controls in order to allow for trials of new technology, but that the content of the control studies should be more clearly specified. They also reiterate that more investigation should be done in to optimizing scrubbers for SO 2 removal.
MPCA Response: The MPCA appreciates the Forest Service’ s commitment to working with the MPCA and the facilities to determine the most appropriate NO X BART determination for the taconite facilities. Some language was added to clarify that pilot testing would be required to be on site and when it would take place.
In regards to the SO 2 BART limits, the MPCA’s intention is to set SO 2 limits based on optimal operation of the PM scrubbers for SO 2 removal. Language has been added to the SIP to explain that the MPCA believes the scrubbers at t he natural gas fired facilities are already optimized for SO 2 removal, but that more data is needed to determine if this is the case at solid fuel fired lines. Therefore, in the case of most lines that burn solid fuels, SO 2 limits will be set after baseline data is gathered using CEMs or the alternative methods.
For United Taconite Line 2, the MPCA agrees that an SO 2 BART limit can and should be set at this time. In the SIP, the MPCA has set a limit of 1.7 lbs SO 2 /MMBtu heat input, which the MPCA believes can be cost-effectively met through fuel blending or addition of a recirculating scrubber. This limit is documented in Appendix 9.3.
During discussion of BART limits with United Taconite , it became clear that the opportunity to pursue a substitute for BART (which was described briefly in the initial draft SIP) needed to be clearly stated to apply to all subject-to-BART sources and that MPCA’s criteria for determining an appropriate substitute for BART needed to be elaborated. The MPCA has therefore added the following language to the Regional Haze SIP, and to United Taconite’s BART determination memo:

“A facility may choose to propose a BART Alternative project. The BART Alternative must result in equivalent or greater emissions redu ctions and visibility b enefits when compared to the MPCA’s BART determination.

Should a facility choose to propose a BART alternative, the proposal must include:

• A demonstration of equivalent or greater co mbined annual emission reductions of NO X and SO 2 (in tpy) than that established in this BART determination;

• Appropriate visibility modeling demonstrating equivalent or greater visibility protection than the MPCA’s BART determination; and

• A proposal for enforceable emission limitations, with appropriate and justified averaging periods and methods for evaluating compliance.Since the facility would be proposing an alternat ive to MPCA’s BART determination, visibility modeling should follow the MPCA’s Guidance for Facilities Conducting a BART Analysis 122 and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources Subject-to-BART in the State of Minnesota, 123 using the most recent versions of any model or EPA guidance referenced in those documents. The modeling should compare the baseline, pre-control scenario to post-cont rol scenarios representing the MPCA’s BART determination and the BART alternativ e being proposed by the facility.

Facilities may propose a BART al ternative that covers multiple BART units or both BART and non-BART units at the facility in the same source category. A proposal covering BART and non-BART units must demonstrate greater emi ssion reductions and more visibility improvement than MPCA’s BART determination.

The MPCA would evaluate the BART alternative proposal, consult with the Federal Land Managers, and determine if it is an acceptable BART alternative. If the project is deemed to result in equivalent or greater pollution cont rol than BART, the MPCA may determine that the proposed project is equivalent to BART. The resulting emission limits would then substitute for the BART emission limits.” 3) CEMs at the Taconite Plants – Concern was raised by the Forest Service about a statement in the SIP that NO X CEMs were only being required at the natural gas fired taconite plants. The Forest Service also raised a concern about the timeline for requiring CEMs, as only two plants had agreed to install CEMs. The Forest Service requested more info rmation to describe the requirements that an alternative method to CEMs would have to meet for those facilities that will not be installing CEMs at this time. Also, the commenter stated that a timelin e for final BART determinations and inclusion in facility Title V permits should be established.
MPCA Response : The statement that NO X CEMs or equivalent would onl y be required at natural gas fired facilities was an error and has been corrected to state “the requirement for more accurate data collection through CEMs or a comparable alternative applies to NO X emissions at all the facilities.”
In regards to the Administrative Orders by Consent for gathering emissions data to support setting BART limits, each taconite facility has signed an Order to install CEMs or undertake an equivalent method of emission measurement. At the time of the initial draf t SIP, only US Steel – MinnTac and US Still – KeeTac had agreed to install CEMs. United Taconite has also agreed to install CEMs on both of its indurating furnaces, and the revised SIP includes an Order requiring submission of NO X emissions information to the MPCA.
Each Order for an equivalent method specifies a period for developing the alternative method and MPCA’s approval, along with times for data submission . The Orders require all the facilities to begin to submit data in the first part of 2009; this will a llow MPCA to meet its commitment to make BART determinations by September 2010 with a year’s wo rth of operating data. Some data has already been submitted.
The Orders that rely on the alternative method to CEMs installation for gathering emissions data include the basic requirements that need to be met by the facilit ies in order to employ the alternative method, and require that the alternative method be approved by MPCA. In addition, language was added to the BART chapter to better describe the alternative method. The MPCA also added Table 10.5 to the SIP in order to better delineate the timelines for the completion of taconite BART and the Northeast Minnesota plan. The table notes that MPCA will complete BART determina tions by August 2010, and include BART limits in facility Title V permits by September 2011. 4) BART for EGUs – The commenter requested that MPCA ma ke unit-specific BART determinations in this SIP so that there is no delay in BART im plementation if Minnesota is removed from CAIR.

122 http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/aq-sip2-09.pdf

123 http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/aq-sip2-05.pdfSpecifically, there is concern about Northshore’s Po wer Boiler 2, where no control projects are being undertaken and no BART-like NO X or SO 2 limits were specified in the SIP.
MPCA Response : At the time of the initial draft Regional Haze SIP being placed on public notice, the MPCA did not feel it necessary to make unit-specific BART determinations for NO X and SO 2 for EGUs, due to Minnesota’s participation in CAIR and the emission reductions expected at subject-to-BART EGUs. Although CAIR was being legally challenged, none of the challengers were asking for the rule’s vacatur.
However, after the public comment period for the dr aft SIP, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated CAIR. It subsequently reversed the vacatur and remande d the rulemaking to EPA, while leaving CAIR in place. One of the issues EPA is directed to st udy on remand is whether Minnesota’s emissions met the threshold for inclusion. Although CAIR remains in effect, EPA has pr oposed a rule that will stay the effectiveness of CAIR in Minnesota. Therefore, t he MPCA has proceeded to make BART determinations for the subject-to-BART EGUs, requiring emission reducti ons even if CAIR does not remain in effect for Minnesota. Language describing the legal proceedings concerning CAIR was also added to the SIP.

MPCA’s EGU BART determinations are documented in Appendix 9.4 of the revised SIP; for ease of review, the table below shows the BART determinations for NO X and SO 2 for these facilities.

Facility NO X BART Limit SO 2 BART Limit

Minnesota Power – Taconite Harbor Unit 3 0.13 lb/MMBtu 0.42 lb/MMBtu

Minnesota Power – Boswell Unit 3 0.07 lb/MMBtu 0.09 lb/MMBtu

Xcel – Sherburne County Units 1 and 2 0.15 lb/MMBtu 0.12 lb/MMBtu

Rochester Public Utilities – Silver Lake Unit 3 No Limit 2.30 lb/MMBtu

Rochester Public Utilities – Silver Lake Unit 4 0.25 lb/MMBtu 0.60 lb/MMBtu

Northshore Mining – Power Boiler #1* 0.41 lb/MMBtu 0.41 lb/MMBtu

Northshore Mining – Power Boiler #2 0.40 lb/MMBtu 0.48 lb/MMBtu * Note that Unit 1 is not a BART unit, but was added to the BART determination because it was decided that both power boilers were the logical set to which controls woul d apply. See the BART memo in Appendix 9.4 for details.

The MPCA also investigated the difference between the EGU emissions estimated by IPM3.0 and used in the SIP modeling and EGU emissions projected without CAIR. For Minnesota, total EGU emissions were very similar. The SIP modeling has 6% (2,900 tons) less NO X and 9% (4,400 tons) more SO 2 than projected by Midwest RPO from Minnesota EGUs with BART and known controls. Language discussing this similarity was added to Chapter 8 of the revised SI P. Because of similarity in emissions, the MPCA did not alter the modeling used to set the RPG in the SIP.
5) New Sources – The commenter expressed support for the State’s modeling including new sources that were in the process of being permitted, and notes that more sources in Northeastern Minnesota are currently in the planning stages.
MPCA Response: Comment noted. 6) Reasonable Progress – The commenter requested that the MPCA add more specific dates and deadlines for various tasks in the Northeast Minnesota plan, particularly for MPCA’s review of taconite plant research into emission reductions. The commenter also requested clarification that the 2018 target for Northeast Minnesota will continue past 2018 unless modified in the next SIP.
MPCA Response: In response to this and other comments, MPCA added Table 10.5, which lists the tasks involved in implementing the remainder of the BART determinations and the Northeast Minnesota Plan, with associated dates. Table 10.5 is reproduced here:Process Dates Begin data collection and reporting for taconite facilities with new CEMs/PEMS, as required by Administrative Orders November 2008

Begin annual tracking of NE Minnesota Plan emissions December 2008 MPCA determines remaining BART limits for each taconite facility By August 31, 2011 MPCA determines if 2012 target w ill be met, and projects status of 2018 emission reduction target. January – December 2012

Taconite facilities conduct pilot test ing of potential control strategies and pollution prevention July 2011 – December 2012

Taconite facilities report to MPCA on resu lts of pilot testing By March 1, 2013 MPCA reviews pilot testing reports and determines if any additional controls are reasonable March – June 2013

MPCA does preliminary analysis of potentially reasonable reductions from non-taconite facilities in NE Minnesota. January – June 2013

MPCA develops enforceable mechanism to require any additionalcontrol found to be feasible, for both taconite and (if necessary) nontaconite facilities July 2013 – June 2014

MPCA submits 5 year assessment which includes BART limits, determination of additional reasonable controls. July 2014

Facilities install any additional controls found to be reasonable 2015 and forward

The SIP was clarified to indicate that emissions in Northeast Minnesota will continue to be held to the level specified by the 2018 target, 30% below 2002 levels. 7) Smoke Management – The commenter expressed concern that the level of detail included on the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) creates an unnecessa ry hurdle to making future changes to the SMP without a SIP revision.
MPCA Response: The SMP is not part of Minnesota’s submittal for inclusion in the SIP. The MPCA feels that some level of detail on the SMP is necessary, so that readers who are not familiar with the SMP can get a basic understanding of what it contains and re quires. MPCA added language to clarify that the SMP is often revised and updated and that MPCA is not re questing that the language of the SMP be explicitly approved into the SIP.
8) Interstate Consultation – The commenter hopes that EPA w ill facilitate discussions between Minnesota and neighboring states to ensure that cont ributing states obtain their fair share of emissions reductions.
MPCA Response: MPCA agrees that EPA needs to settle any disputes between Minnesota’s SIP and those submitted by contributing states if it appears that contributing stat es will not achieve their fair share of emission reductions. The MPCA intends to continue participating in the Northern Class I consultation process, discussing regional haze issues with nearby states.
Comment Letter 4: US Department of the Interior, Lyle Laverty 

### 1) Baseline, Natural Conditions, and Uniform Rate of Progress – The commenter concurs with the State’s decision to use ad justed baseline conditions
MPCA Response : Comment noted. 

### 2) BART for EGUs – The commenter requested that the SIP include unit-specific BART emission limits for EGUs, in order to avoid delay in BART impl ementation if CAIR is vacated or Minnesota is removed from CAIR.
MPCA Response: See response to Forest Service comment #4. 

### 3) BART for Taconite – The commenter states that they belie ve there is sufficient information to determine SO 2 BART emission limits at this time, particularly at United Taconite’s Line 2, and thatthey should be included in the SIP. They also raise concerns about the proposed SO 2 limits for lines that burn low sulfur fuels, as these are above me asured emission rates. In addition, the commenter concurs with the delay in setting NO X BART limits as long as CEMs or equivalent emission estimation methods are in place by November 2008, with reporting beginning in January 2009; that sources have to do on-site pilot scale studies w ith results reported to the MPCA by December 2011; and that permits with BART limits are completed by December 2012.
MPCA Response: For United Taconite, see response to Forest Service comment #2.

The SO 2 BART limits for the lines that burn low sulfur fuel s are based on a predictive interval (most lines) or other statistical method (Arcelor Mittal) devel oped from very few data points. Although higher than actual emissions, the MPCA does not believe the facilitie s will specifically change their operations in order to emit up to the limit. The predominant source of sulfur (and therefore, of SO 2 emissions) from these furnaces is the ore; the primary fuels - natural gas and biomass - are very low in sulfur. The MPCA believes that the geographical source of the or e used by an individual company will not change; companies have very little incentive to use ores outside those that they themse lves mine. It is reasonable to assume that the ore’s sulfur content will be co nsistent within a relatively small geographical range; however, the MPCA does not intend to use BART to limit or direct ore choice.
In terms of the timelines for BART, the MPCA agrees with the timelines laid out by the commenter. The Orders contain deadlines that match with those la id out by the commenter, and the MPCA has placed overall timelines into Table 10.5, incorporated into the SIP based on these comments. These require final BART limits to be determined by the MPCA in 2011, earlier than requested by the commenter. 

### 4) Reasonable Progress Goals and Long Term Strategy – The commenter asked that MPCA clarify that the emission reduction target for the Northeast Mi nnesota Plan was developed with the assumption that 75% of all visibility impacts are uncontrollabl e by the MPCA, not generally uncontrollable. In addition, the commenter requested that the SIP co mmit the State to updating the information used to set the reasonable progress goals during the five year report process.
MPCA Response: MPCA added the requested clarification on uncontrollable impacts. The MPCA also further clarified that the Five Y ear SIP assessment submitted by t he MPCA will include an update of the reasonable progress goal for 2018, taking into account all additional control strategies being implemented in Minnesota or surrounding states. 

### 5) Northeast Minnesota Plan

a. In reference to emissions from the taconite f acilities, the commenter requested that “if initial CEM data indicate a dramatic reduction in emi ssions from the 2002 inventory and those data are not supported by significant process or line operation changes...some correction factor for CEM versus the 2002 baseline should be accounted fo r when determining compliance with the 30% reduction goal.” The commenter also requested that a factor comparing the 2002 baseline emissions to the CEM data be part of the d ecision of cost-effective or reasonable additional controls.
MPCA Response: The MPCA feels that developing a numerical “correction factor” would be extremely difficult, and likely unnecessary, as the MPCA believe s most of the taconite facilities have done some modifications at their lines since 2002, but prior to the installation of CEMs or development of the alternative method required under the BART Orders. However, the MPCA will examine the CEM and alternative method data, and if there are strong indications that a fac ility’s emissions were dramatically overestimated in 2002, that will be taken into account when deciding what constitutes reasonable additional controls for that facility. The MPCA also understands that the FLMs may wish to take such a correction into account in determining if the 2012 and 2018 targets are projected to be met.

b. The commenter requested that the SIP clearly id entify the existing sources that will be tracked under the NE Minnesota plan, rather than simply having them listed in an appendix.MPCA Response: The list of existing facilities to be tracked under the plan was added to the main body of the SIP, in addition to Appendix 10.4.

c. The commenter requested that the SIP recognize MPCA’s responsibility to account for changes in emissions of minor sources, and that this coul d be addressed during the 2012 assessment and planning for 2018.
MPCA Response: The MPCA added language to the SIP that commits the MPCA to conducting an evaluation of the changes in emissi on from minor sources (those in the six county area that hold air permits but are not tracked under the No rtheast Minnesota Plan) in 2012 and 2018.

d. The commenter stated that the SIP must have specific dates for the various portions of the Northeast Minnesota plan, particularly the determ ination of additional reasonable controls for the taconite facilities.
MPCA Response: The MPCA added Table 10.5 to the SIP to lay out the dates and timelines for both BART and the Northeast Minnesota Plan.

e. The SIP should speak to how the State will addre ss any new permits for facilities to be located in the NE region if the 2012 target has not been met or the 2018 target is projected not to be met.
MPCA Response: The MPCA believes that the key goal is the 2018 target. If the area does not meet the 2012 goal, but is projected to meet the 2018 goal, t hen the plan has succeeded. If we project that the 2018 target will not be met, various regulatory options will be pursued to try to make the target; these will not necessarily apply only to existing sources or only to new sources.
In developing the plan, the MPCA and the FLMs agreed t hat if the target is not being met, the visibility impacts of any new permit will continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, rather than using solely the more holistic evaluation that is planned as long as the targets are being met. This is planned to be implemented through an MOU between the MPCA an d the FLMs, which could contain more detailed language. The language of the SIP indicates that MP CA will consult with the FLMs to determine what additional actions would be appropriate if the 2018 is not projected to be met. 

### 6) Coordination and Consultation – The Department of Interior requested that the MPCA confirm with Michigan that Minnesota’s SIP meets Michigan’s expe ctations, particularly in regards to Minnesota’s contribution to reasonable progress at Seney.
MPCA Response: The MPCA has asked Michigan to confirm that Minnesota’s SIP is sufficient to address Minnesota’s contribution to visibility at Seney Wilderness. 

### 7) Smoke Management – The commenter asked that the MPCA confirm that the Smoke Management Plan identifies Class I areas as sensitive receptors, and to support the decision not to address smoke from agricultural burning activity.
MPCA Response: The Smoke Management Plan does not identify Class I areas specifically as sensitive receptors, but requires them to be given the same cons ideration as sensitive receptors. Minnesota did not address agricultural burning because it generally occurs in areas of the state distant from the Class I areas, with fuel types that produce very short-term smoke events. More importantly, none of the 20% worst days appear to be influenced by such burning. Information was added to the SIP to further explain why Minnesota chose not to address agricultural burning.

Comment Letter 5: Elanne Palcich
This commenter is primarily concerned about the im pact of new industry in Northeast Minnesota – sulfide mining, taconite expansion, and a proposed IGCC power plant – due to proximity to the Class I areas. The commenter asks how these projects are fact ored into a haze reduction plan, stating that if new industry is permitted, old industry must reduce its emissions. The commenter requests that the haze reduction plan show how a reducti on in consumer demand or increased recycling could reduce the amounts of energy and resources that are needed, and include the amount of haze that would be contributed by a new sulfide mining industry, the new coal gasification project, Minnesota Steel Industry,Mesabi Nugget, and planne d expansions at Northshore mining, and Keewatin Taconite. The commenter also raises concerns about peat mining contributing to windblown dust, and plans by the Forest Service to log areas around BWCAW, removing the buffer zone for blowing dust.
MPCA Response: The concern about the impact of new indust ry in Northeast Minnesota was one of the primary drivers for the inclusion of the Northeast Mi nnesota Plan into the Regional Haze SIP. That plan sets an emission reduction target for the area that calls for a 30% reducti on in pollutants that are precursors to regional haze by 2018; in order to meet this goal there will have to be reductions in emissions from existing facilities if newly permitted facilities are to fit in to the overall emission “budget” for the area. Some of this reduction in existing fac ility emissions is already predicted to occur.
The MPCA set the Reasonable Progress Goal for haze levels in 2018 based on predictions of future emissions. The models used to develop these predictions apply growth and control factors, which should account for any changes in industrial emissions likel y to result from changing consumer demand. MPCA’s future year emission projections also include seve ral of the new projects mentioned by the commenter, namely Minnesota Steel and Mesabi Nugget. Others were not included due to lack of regulatory certainty, but would be included in future SIP revisions if they are built.
The main components of haze at Minnesota’s Cl ass I areas are ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, which are caused from emissions of SO 2 and NO X . Particles resulting from windblown dust are not a major contributor. Should they become a major cont ributor in the future, they will be evaluated and addressed in future SIP revisions.
Comment Letters 6 – 14: Gary Clements, Doug Anderson, Chuck Hoffman, Peter Duys, Chris Norbury, Jon Ridge, Roy Erickson, Christina Erickson, Paul McCormick
These commenters made many of the same points in expressing their appreciation for BWCAW and VNP as pristine areas and discussing their concerns over ai r pollution and visibility. The main points of the comments included 1) support for strengthening, not weakening, air quality rules; 2) concern that the taconite industry is not doing its fair share to cont rol its own emissions and resulting air pollution along with requests that all industry be required to do what is necessary to control air pollution; and 3) concern that new facilities, particularly in the mining industr y, be required to keep their emissions as low as possible.
MPCA Response: The MPCA is putting in place the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan in order to ensure that visibility in Minnesota’s Class I areas is im proved. The SIP strengthens air quality rules. This is particularly true for the Northeast Minnesota Plan w here the SIP requires a holistic look at the level of emissions that contribute to regional haze, and a de crease in those emissions from current conditions, not just a case-by-case evaluation t hat allows new facilities as long as they do not contribute to visibility impairment above a certain thres hold. The MPCA also believes that, through BART and the Northeast Minnesota Plan’s requirement for research into emission reduction projects at the taconite facilities, the taconite facilities will make emission reductions and contribute to reducing air pollution and regional haze. Finally, all new major facilities across the state will be subject to Best Ava ilable Control Technology (BACT), which will minimize their emissions.
Comment Letter 15: Nick Axtell, 1854 Treaty Authority
1) BART for EGUs – The commenter requested that the SIP include unit specific BART emission limits for EGUs, in order to avoid delay in BART impl ementation if CAIR is vacated or Minnesota is removed from CAIR.
MPCA Response : See response to the USDA Forest Service, Comment letter 3, part #4
2) Monitor Funding – The commenter requests that the MPCA make it a priority to fund and provide support for both of the IMPROVE monitor sites.
MPCA Response : The MPCA agrees that it is important that both IMPROVE monitors continue to operate, and will continue to work to ensure that f ederal funding is maintained. The MPCA has committed in the SIP to attempting to provide support for the monitors, should federal funding be eliminated.However, as the State and Agency’s budget process is always unpredictable, the MPCA cannot definitely commit to supporting both monitors without federal funding. 3) Northeast Minnesota Plan – The commenter suggests that th e facilities in need of further investigation into the feasibility and cost-effectiv eness of control technologies make their studies available for public review through scheduled interi m reports. The Authority believes that the actions to be taken if the 2012 emission target is not met do not address new facilities. In addition, the commenter would like to see a better explanati on on how the memorandum of understanding works.
MPCA Response: The MPCA understands that it is important to many stakeholders to be able to review the results of the investigations and pilot testing of emission control technologies and pollution prevention practices. The MPCA anticipates that much of this information will be shared with stakeholders, as were the BART analyses from many of these facilities. However, certain information may be considered confidential business information and therefore unavailable for public review.
In regards to the 2012 emission target, the commenter is not specific into how the proposed SIP actions do not address new facilities. The MPCA believes the ac tions to be taken if the 2012 target is not met will address all facilities in existence as of 2012. Any new major facilities that are proposed will have to go through BACT, and the MPCA has also committed to ev aluate changes in emissions from minor sources in 2012 and 2018 as part of the Northeast Minnesota plan. In response to another comment, more information on new sources has been added to the SI P. In addition, it should be noted that the MPCA views the 2018 reductions as the ultimate target, wi th 2012 being merely a check-in point. Therefore, if the 2012 target is not met, but the 2018 target is me t, the Plan would be considered a success. The MOU between the FLMs and the MPCA is not yet fully dev eloped, but the MPCA intends to offer some public review of the MOU when it is closer to final form. 4) Clean Air Mercury Rule – The commenter suggests that the SIP should explain that CAMR has been struck down and how this affects the SIP or the references to CAMR should be removed.
MPCA Response: The MPCA has taken the commenter’s suggestion and both struck some language related to CAMR in the SIP, as it is no longer an “on the books program,” and explained that CAMR has been vacated. Ultimately, this should not have a major impact on the Regional Haze program.
Comment Letter 16: Polymet Mining, Kevin Pylka
Polymet Mining believes that the SIP does not adequate ly address or evaluate the potential for reduction of emissions at sources throughout the state, not just those in the northeastern portion, and asks that the SIP and future reviews take into account the entire st ate. The commenter also expresses concern that nonEGU point sources of SO 2 and NO X in the NE region are major users of electricity, and will be subject to costs passed down by EGU point sources in the form of increased electrical rates. Thus, the commenter believes that the costs paid by the non-EGU point sources will be magnified.
MPCA Response: The SIP explains the MPCA’s decision to focus on the Northeast region due to the region’s disproportionate impact on visibility and lower predicted emission reductions. However, as part of the long term strategy the MPCA is also committi ng to evaluate certain potent ially reasonable controls from source categories such as power plants and indu strial, commercial, and institutional boilers. This evaluation will be on a statewide level. The comment er’s concern about the non-EGU facilities bearing additional costs due to increases in electrical rates arising from rate recovery for emission reduction projects is noted.
Comment Letter 17: U.S. Steel, Chrissy Bartovich

U.S. Steel noted that the draft SO 2 BART emission limits are presente d for lines that burn only natural gas, though U.S. Steel MinnTac lines 3, 4, and 5 have such limits and are also permitted for biomass and fuel oil. Also, MinnTac requests that their BART SO 2 emission limit be in the form of a lb/hour rather than lb/long ton pellets limit. The commenter states that MPCA previously agreed to this change.
MPCA Response: The MPCA is aware of the concern about mu ltiple fuels, and has revised the language in the SIP to clarify that the BART limits are for lines that burn low-sulfur fuels, such as natural gas orbiomass, as their primary fuel. Language has also been added to clarify that the SO 2 BART limits established at this time will apply only during the burn ing of those primary fuels, not during use of back up fuels such as fuel oil.
The MPCA is also willing to change the BART SO 2 limit to a lb/hr value. The U.S. Steel facilities will monitor their SO 2 emissions with Cont inuous Emission Monitors (CEMs) , ensuring that the MPCA will have a more complete and accurate picture of ac tual emissions, compared to other facilities, and understand how emissions react to changes at the facility.

The emission factor of 0.421 lb SO 2 /long ton works out to ~116 lb SO 2 /hr (max) for Line 3 and ~180 lb SO 2 /hr (max) for Lines 4 & 5. This revised emission limit has been placed in the SIP Table 9.5 and the BART memos in Appendix 9.3.
Comment Letter 18: Minnesota Power, Mike Cashin
Minnesota Power supports emission reduction targets in the northeastern portion of the Minnesota, and states that BART requirements will be met by BACT or BACT-like designs at Minnesota Power’s subject units. Minnesota Power states that they will continue to install emission control retrofits regardless of whether CAIR is implemented.
MPCA Response: Comments noted. The MPCA appreciates Mi nnesota Power’s emission reductions.
Comment Letter 19: Excelsior Energy, Bob Evans
Excelsior Energy recommends that their proposed EG Us, Mesaba One and Mesaba Two, be included in Minnesota’s 2018 projections of emission sources. Ex celsior believes that electricity demand growth should be projected, just as mining growth was project ed based upon proposed projects in that industry. If the proposed Mesaba EGUs are not included, Ex celsior suggests that the 2018 emissions reflect Minnesota’s current EGUs with SO 2 and NO X emission rates for operations at maximum capacity. Excelsior believes that without projection of growth in electricity demand, economic growth may be discouraged.
MPCA Response: The MPCA attempted to provide the mo st reasonable 2018 emissions scenarios. IPM3.0, coupled with staff knowledge, was used to proj ect growth in electricity demand, application of control technology, and resulting 2018 emissions. The two mining projects mentioned were included because they met the reasonable level of certainty n eeded for inclusion into the 2018 emission inventory. Growth at other mining facilities was not projected. At the time of the SIP modeling, MPCA staff did not feel that the Excelsior project met the same criteria fo r level of regulatory certai nty; therefore, it was not included in the emission projections. However, shoul d the project become more certain, the project will be included in the Northeast Minnesota plan projections, and may be included in future modeling scenarios, such as that for the Five Year Assessment.

Comment Letter 20: Cleveland-C liffs Mining, Dave Skolasinski
1) Form of SO 2 Emission Limit – Cleveland-Cliffs requests that a different form be used for the SO 2 BART limits; stating that the lb SO 2 /long ton pellet fired form may limit production in some cases. They suggest that the rate be made more appropr iate based on the type of fuel being used; one suggestion is a lb/MMBtu limit.
MPCA Response : For the affected lines, nearly all the sulfur being released comes from the ore. The MPCA has set the SO 2 BART limits for the Cleveland-Cliffs fac ilities based on a predictive interval; the limit is designed not to limit the choice of ore to be us ed in production. Since the ore is the primary source of sulfur, tying the limit to the heat input would likely be problematic for the Clev eland-Cliffs facilities; the MPCA does not have confidence t hat a lb/MMBtu limit could be both achievable and meaningful.
2) Northshore SO 2 Emission Data and Limits –

a. Cleveland-Cliffs states that the emissions data reported on Table 9.5 for Northshore’s Furnaces 11 and 12 are inconsistent with each other, though the units are identical, and do not reflect stacktest records. They request that the MPCA review the actual emissions with Northshore environmental staff, to ensure a correct BART limit.
MPCA Response : The 1231.2 rate associated with Northshore’s EU100 (Furnace 11 Hood Exhaust) in Table 9.5 is in error. It should be 852, the same as shown for EU110 (Furnace 12 Hood Exhaust). The MPCA has made this correction in Table 9.5.

b. Some units are permitted to use fuel oil in their fu rnaces in addition to natural gas. The emission data in Table 9.5 pertains to burning of natural gas. Cleveland-Cliffs suggests that the specified emission limits only apply to the use of natural gas.
MPCA Response: As noted in the response to Comment Letter 17, the language in the SIP has been revised to clarify that the SO 2 BART limits are for lines that burn low-sulfur fuels as their primary fuel and that the SO 2 BART limits established at this time will apply only during the burning of those primary fuels, not during use of back up fuels.
3) Northshore Emission Control Equipment – Cleveland-Cliffs states that Northshore Mining’s emission control equipment is incorrectly described. They be lieve that “Wet-Wall ESP” is the correct term that should be used where the draft refers to wet electrostatic precipitators.
MPCA Response: The MPCA has changed the references to “Wet ESPs” to “Wet-Wall ESPs” throughout the SIP.
Comment Letter 21: Arcelor Mittal Mining, Michael Long
1) IMPROVE Equation – ArcelorMittal believes that the IMPROVE modeling equation would be most effective if the 20% best day inputs were replaced by the pairing of annual average background and 98 th percentile day. The commenter subsequently clar ified that it believes the proposed modification of the IMPROVE equation would result in mo re realistic background for refined modeling.
MPCA Response : The MPCA has used the IMPROVE equat ion as specified in EPA guidance. The modification the commenter suggests is not consistent with EPA guidan ce and would not further the goal of improving visibility. The goal of the rule is to improve visibility to natural conditions, and even the current 20% best days are above natural conditions. A less conservative approach (such as the one suggested) is therefore not warranted. An approach using the 98 th percentile visibility day has been used in facility-specific BART analyses, but not in the case of overall visibility. 2) BART SO 2 Limits – The commenter believes that that the MP CA should not set an “arbitrary” BART limit for SO 2 . The commenter believes the SO 2 BART limit does not take into account the variability of taconite ore’s sulfur content; the or e sulfur constitutes the main source of SO 2 emissions for natural gas fired furnaces. The commenter states that the limit developed by MPCA is based on SO 2 emissions on a single day, and that the facility ca nnot control the sulfur content of the ore. The commenter suggests that the MPCA not set an SO 2 limit at this time, but rather require the proper use of BART-appropriate equipment, or delay setting a numerical limit un til more data can be gathered.
MPCA Response : In determining BART SO 2 limits, primarily at lines that burn low sulfur fuels, the MPCA has taken into account the variability of the sulfur content of taconite or e. The limit will not unduly limit ore choice. The MPCA needs to set a BART SO 2 limit, and for furnaces that are already burning low-sulfur fuels, it is reasonable to do so at this time. T he MPCA based the limit on the available actual data. If Arcelor Mittal can provide the MPCA with new objective, reliable information that shows the proposed BART limit cannot be met, the MPCA will consider it.
3) pH Monitoring Requirements – The commenter requests that if pH values for water exiting the scrubber can be shown to be stable, then ongoing pH monitoring should not be required. The MACT monitoring requirements are sufficient to en sure the scrubber is operating properly.
MPCA Response : pH is a significant factor in scrubbers’ efficiency in removing SO 2 , therefore ongoing measurement is warranted. The MPCA is willing to consider whether the monitoring activities should be modified, if Arcelor Mittal conducts a pH stability study to the MPCA’s approval.4) NO X BACT Equivalency – The commenter suggests that NO X BACT and PSD emission limits be deemed equivalent to BART, and that a facility al ready subject to BACT should not be subject to BART. Arcelor Mittal’s Minorca mine conducted a BACT analysis in the early 1990s and received a corresponding emission limit.
MPCA Response: The MPCA does not agree that BACT should, by default, substitute for BART. The determination of BACT controls and emission limits for this facility was done for a modification made in the late 1980s, and did not result in any add-on controls.

In its BART Guidelines, 124 EPA recognized that in some cases, ex isting emission limits established under MACT, NSPS, or NSR/PSD may be the best available at a reasonable cost level and therefore may be BART. However, the rule also states that EPA does “ not believe that technology determinations from the 1970s or early 1980s, including new source perfor mance standards (NSPS), sh ould be considered to represent best control for existing sources, as best control levels for recent plant retrofits are more stringent than these older levels.” (70 FR 39164) The guidelines are clear that, at some point, previously set emission limits are too old to be considered best technology, as emission control technologies are likely to have advanced in the intervening years. Therefore, the MPCA would not be justified in simply stating that old BACT limits are equivalent to BART.

Since the MPCA has determined that NO X BART is good combustion practices, the MPCA’s goal is to arrive at the best possible BART emission limit based on actual operat ion conditions at the facility. 5) Administrative Order – Arcelor Mittal wants to ensure that any necessary revisions of the SIP reflect the Administrative Consent Order and permit revi sions that are currently under negotiation.
MPCA Response: The MPCA and Arcelor Mittal have agreed to an Administrative Order by Consent to explore the development of long-term performance test results as a substitute for CEMs data. It will be an enforceable document of the SIP for this facility and the MPCA has ensured t hat the two documents are consistent.
Comment Letter 22: Mary Marrow, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy; Brian Pasko, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness; Cory MacNulty, Voyageurs National Park Association; Lynn McClure, National Park Conser vation Association. Incorporates Affidavit of Dr. Ranajit Sahu.
(For easier reading, where the letter and attached a ffidavit provide similar comments, they are treated together. Where only one provides certain comments that is noted.)

II. General Comments
1) Organization, Access to Documents and Legal Authority – The commenters feel that the SIP document has confusing organizati on, and that the manner of pres entation and document organization make the SIP difficult to understand. In addition, they state that “Due to poor organization (whose structure is driven by a demonstration of co mpliance with the underlying regulations) and poor presentation...the SIP misleads the reader by suggesti ng a level of precision in its analytical results and predictions that is unwarranted.”
It is stated that the MPCA should subject the document to a “full technical editorial review,” minimize jargon by inserting more explanatory boxes defining terms when they first appear, and list, in one location, all of the key assumptions that underlie the SIP spanning all technical aspects and policy choices include emission inventory, BART, modeling, etc. Also, the commenters state that tools such as sensitivity or Monte Carlo analyses should be used to understand the impacts of variability in key assumptions.

124 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Final Rule . Federal Register 70:128 (6 July 2005), p. 39104.The commenters also state that th e SIP has a lack of specific or accurate citations to many of the background technical documents and legal authority. The commenters request that MPCA ensure that all citations are accurate and specific, with in structions on where to find documents not easily accessible to the public. The commenters also noted th at the review time was short to review such a technical document.
MPCA Response: The concerns about organization and access to documentation are noted. The MPCA has made many of the pieces of the SIP availabl e for review throughout the SIP development period. MPCA has also tried to ensure all references are easy to find through including a reference list with weblinks. However, due to the way other organizati ons have arranged the storag e of information on their web sites, it may remain difficult to find certain do cuments. The MPCA has double checked the reference list to the SIP to ensure that web links are correct.
The MPCA has tried to fully explain all terms when th ey first appear. However, documenting all of the key assumptions that underlie the various diverse part s of the SIP in one place would be duplicative and unwieldy. Readers who are not interested in the modeli ng, for example, may not want to wade through a long discussion of the assumptions underlying the mode ling prior to reading the rest of the document. The MPCA has, however, added a glossary of term s to the SIP and Technical Support Document.
The SIP presents a large amount of information. Giv en that the MPCA must demonstrate compliance with the regulations to EPA, the MPCA chose a structure that is designe d to most clearly make that demonstration. The MPCA believes the SIP states the uncertainties inherent in the technical analyses, and that these are explained by us ing the many different analyses di scussed, thereby making clear the level of precision in the analyses. The MPCA made the best use of the tools available in order to complete the Regional Haze SIP, which requires stat es to make specific projections about variable phenomena.

It is unclear in what areas the commenter believes additional sensitivity or, particularly, Monte Carlo analyses would be useful. The MPCA believes that t he number of modeling analyses discussed, varying both in emission inventory and meteorological data, serv e many of the same functions as a sensitivity analysis and provide useful weight of evidence an alysis. Regarding perceived model sensitivity to ammonia emissions and meteorology in the Technica l Support Document (TSD), the MPCA has since supported these perceptions through additional modeling. Documentation of the results is in the current TSD. The MPCA also made attempts to better organi ze and explain the technical analysis, including a new introduction. 2) Climate Change and Long Term Impacts – The commenters state that the SIP is a long range plan, though it is to be reviewed every 10 years, and that long range plans are poorly constructed if they fail to consider changes that might affect the outcome of the plan. They believe the haze SIP fails to acknowledge or analyze the impact climate change will have on visibility conditions over the time period of the SIP; by not including any consideration of the effects of climate change they feel the SIP is strongly deficient. The commenters believe MPCA should include such an analysis. Climate change is likely to affect key assumptions such as emission inventory (more/less fires, windborne dust, biogenics) and modeling (changes in wind flow , weather pattern, rainfall and humidity). Since the effects of climate change are likely to be si gnificant, the commenters believe its effects on “all key RH SIP underlying assumptions should be discus sed and analyzed.” MPCA is also urged by the commenters to undertake a brainstorming exercise to identify other impacts (like climate change) that might be significant and occur on the same time scale as the SIP.
MPCA Response: Under the Regional Haze Rule, the SIP is to be rewritten every 10 years, not just reviewed. Each revision looks at the next ten year period for visibility projections and necessary control strategies to improve visibility. This will allow the stat e to adjust projections and c ontrol strategies in order to take into account other long range phenomena. This SIP is to cover the period until 2018, and in 2018 the MPCA will be submitting another SIP to cover t he period until 2028. MPCA acknowledges that climate change is likely to have an impact on some of the sa me factors that impact visibility impairment, and has added statements concerning the possible impacts of clim ate change to the SIP. However, it is extremely difficult to predict what that impact will be, particularl y in regard to changing wind or rainfall patterns. Jointresearch by NESCAUM, Georgia Tech, and MIT i ndicates that “sensitivities of ozone and PM 2.5 formation to precursor emissions are found to change only slightly in response to climate change.” 125 This research indicates that control strategies which reduce NO X and SO 2 will remain effective in reducing ozone and PM 2.5 , even in a situation of climate change. In addition, the current status of climate regulation in Minnesota and around the United States is quite uncertain. Given the compound ing uncertainties of both visibility and climate modeling, the MPCA believes th at an analysis of the impact of climate change on visibility conditions would be unreliable. Like climate c hange, there are other factors that may interact with the currently known factors to influence visibility impairment. The long-term process with a new SIP every 10 years will allow for future accounting of t hese impacts as more is known about them. 3) Technical Analyses (Affidavit only) – The commenter conclude s that the goal of attaining natural visibility conditions is unlikely to be met based on th e draft SIP. He states that the technical analyses are poorly supported and lack rigor, therefore the conclusions are not robust and future predictions are not likely to be met. Also, he notes that other st ates have refused to commit to emission reductions and emissions from Canada are not properly consid ered; therefore, the record should indicate when EPA was brought into the consultation process and their response.
MPCA Response: The goal of this SIP is to make reasonabl e progress towards visi bility conditions. The MPCA believes that this SIP represents the most accurate technical information available, while acknowledging that many uncertainties exist that, in turn, make the accuracy of the future predictions uncertain. However, despite uncertainty, the MPCA be lieves that real emission reductions are upcoming that will result in the reduction of visibility impairm ent in Minnesota’s Class I areas. See response below concerning EPA’s involvement in arbitrating disput es between states, and for a discussion about Canada emissions. III. Key Areas of Concern
1) BART – The commenters state that the Haze SIP fails to comply with federal requirements and EPA guidance for BART-eligible sources, which says “Sta tes should ensure that BART requirements in a SIP are written in a way that clearly specifies the individual emission unit(s) subject to BART regulation and the time by which the emission unit(s) must begin to comply with the BART limit.” They are specifically concerned that the SIP doe s not meet the requirements for source-specific emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART, deadlines for installation and operation of BART for each source, or specifi c information regarding the controls, control efficiencies and emission reductions expected. In addition, they believe the MPCA should establish BART limits for EGUs and a specific timeline for installation of BART in the event Minnesota is removed from the CAIR region.
MPCA Response: In the case of BART for the taconite facilities, EPA’s BART guidance does not anticipate the difficulty of placing controls on an indust ry with no new or rebuilt sources that can be looked to as examples of good control technology. Because of the lack of data, if MPCA were forced to require installation of BART controls and set a BART limit imm ediately, controls would likely be “current controls” and BART would be the facilities’ existing limits; in m any cases this would result in no emission limits. Through the phased approach, the MPCA has been able to say that BART is good combustion practices (requiring some optimization of the combustion process) and take enough time to gather data in order to set better source-specific emission limits. The MPCA believes this will result in more stringent and better BART limits that can be implemented wi thin five years of SIP approval.
In terms of BART for EGUs, BART determinations have been made and can be found in Appendix 9.4, and in our response to previous comments. These determinations are made by unit.

a. BART-eligible sources contributing less than 0.5 dv of visibility impairment – The commenters note that MPCA chose to exempt from BART t hose BART-eligible sources that contribute less than 0.5 dv to visibility impairment in the Class I areas, but states that the MPCA did not explain

125 Liao, K., et al. (2007). Sensitivities of Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter Formation to Emissions under the Impact of Potential Future Climate Change. Environmental Science and Technology , 41 (24), 8355 – 8361. p 8355why this threshold was chosen. The commenters do not support MPCA’s decision to choose an “arbitrary” visibility threshold to exempt sour ces from BART, as “even a 0.1 deciview impact could have a significant affect [ sic ] on visibility in BWCAW and VNP.” Therefore, MPCA should revisit its decision to exempt these sources.
MPCA Response: The commenter states that the MPCA shou ld revisit the 0.5 deciview threshold for determining which sources are subject-to-BART. This comment was made based on the perception that there are significant shortcomings associated with the RH SIP modeling. These perceived shortcomings of the RH SIP modeling are addressed in Sections V and VI of the response to this comment letter. The State has revisited the 0.5 deciview threshold and has determined that adjusting the 0.5 deciview threshold would not gain any true visibility improvem ent, confirming our decision to use the threshold.

The basis for which the State selected the 0. 5 deciview threshold is provided in the BART documentation. 126 The appropriateness of the threshold was subject to public review and comment in the Proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology Strategy for Minnesota, which was on public notice September 6, 2005 through October 21, 2005, and the Draft Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources Subject-to-BART in the State of Minnesota , which was on public notice October 10 through November 4, 2005.

In the comments received on these draft documents, there were proponents for raising and lowering the 0.5 deciview threshold. The MPCA prepared the following response in December 2005:
“The MPCA agrees that it has discretion to se t the “contribution” threshold lower than 0.5 deciview and is cognizant of a number of existing sources in close proximity to Class I areas. The MPCA will use the proposed contri bution threshold of 0.5 deciview for the CALPUFF modeling. However, if the modeling shows a number of so urces are causing impacts at levels somewhat below 0.5 deciview, the MPCA may need to consider readjusting the contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. The MPCA also believes that the U.S. EPA will expe ct a review of all sources (BARTeligible and non-BART existing sources, mobile and area) for emissions reductions in establishing its 2018 reasonable progress goal with consideratio n to the four Clean Air Act factors. Thus, the BART implementation process should be viewed in concert with other actions that are required in the development of a regional haze SIP. It is t he MPCA’s expectation that the totality of these activities will appropriately address source s contributing to visibility impairment” 127

The MPCA took into account four factors in revisi ting the 0.5 deciview threshold for subject-to-BART:

• How close the BART-eligible source contributions are to the 0.5 threshold;

• Total facility control measures/emission reduct ions gained by federal regulations and during the establishment of reasonable progress goals in the RH SIP;

• Visibility improvement gains from BART; and

• The tool (CALPUFF) used to determine subject- to-BART status and its applicability to regional haze analyses.
Table A, below, contains the 98 th percentile deciview values for all the BART-eligible sources as modeled with CALPUFF. (Table A also contains information on other deciview metrics and what controls on each source were modeled for the Regional Haze SIP. ) Sources above 0.5 deciviews were determined to be subject-to-BART, those below the 0.5 deciview thre shold were determined not subject-to-BART. The 98 th percentile deciview values for those subject-to-BART range from 0.6 – 4.4 deciviews, while the 98 th percentile deciview values for those not subjec t-to-BART range from 0.0 – 0.4 deciviews.
There are 15 facilities with BART-eligible sources that were determined not subject-to-BART based on the 0.5 deciview threshold. Of the 15 facilities, three are subject to the Northeast Minnesota Plan and three are EGUs that were initially subject to CAIR . Minnesota was initially included in CAIR, leading many utilities to install controls in anticipation of CAIR compliance. EPA has recently published a proposed stay of CAIR in Minnesota until there is a repromulgated rule. Should Minnesota not be included in a repromulgated rule, two of the three EGUs that showed modeling results closest to the

126 Available at http://www.pca.sta te.mn.us/air/regionalhaze.html

127 Available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/aq-sip2-04.pdfBART threshold—Austin Public Utilities and Otter Tail Power Hoot Lake—will be re-evaluated for reasonable progress cont rols. Minnesota will re-evaluate at the 5-year SIP assessment. The other of the three EGUs initially subject to CAIR—Xcel Energy, A.S. King—has legally enfor ceable controls on its BART-eligible unit with Selective Catalytic Reduction controlling 80% NO X and a scrubber controlling 82% SO 2

. Of the remaining nine facilities not subject to the Northeast Minnesota Plan nor initially subject to CAIR, all have 98 th percentile deciview values of 0.2 deciviews or less. Four of these facilities – American Crystal Sugar-East Grand Forks, Flint Hills Reso urces-Pine Bend, Marathon Ashland Petroleum, and New Ulm Public Utilities – have BART-eligible source s at 0.2 deciviews; four – American Crystal SugarDrayton North Dakota, Gopher Resource Corporatio n, Sappi Cloquet and Southern Minnesota Beet Cooperative – have BART-eligible sources at 0.1 deciviews; and one facility with BART-eligible units has a deciview value of zero.
The commenter implies that the same modeling was conducted for the BART analysis and for the RH SIP. In fact, different modeling requirements are in place for BART than the overall RH SIP. In the BART rule, 128 EPA recommends using the CALPUFF model to evaluat e BART. This model is currently is used to demonstrate individual source impacts on visibility at Class I areas as part of the federal New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs.
Although CALPUFF is recommended for use in BART analyses, EPA guidance 129 for regional haze recommends use of a Lagrangian model, such as CALPUFF, only for addressing the primary components of PM 2.5 ; not the secondary formed components of PM 2.5 (i.e. mass associated wi th sulfate, nitrate and secondary organic carbon). To simulate the effect s of strategies to reduce ozone and the secondary components of particulate matter, the guidance states that States should use a photochemical grid model (i.e. CAMx). CAMx is the model Minnesota used for the SIP.
CALPUFF is not recommended for modeling secondary formed components of PM 2.5 because the model is out of date and uses overly simplistic chem istry. ENVIRON has compared CALPUFF modeling to observations and conducted sensitivity analyses between CALPUFF and photochemical model chemistry and found large over-predictions in sulfate and nitrate formation using the CALPUFF simplified chemistry. 130,131 The MPCA used the CALPUFF model as the tool for determining subject-to-BART status; not as a means to assess true visibility impacts on the Class I areas.
The MPCA believes re-adjusting the 0.5 dv threshold fo r BART would not result in any additional visibility improvement for the following reasons:

• All BART-eligible sources not subject-to-BART with deciview values 0.3 to less than 0.5 are either currently subject to CAIR 132 or are included in the NE Minnesota Plan; and

• The large over-predictions of sulfate and nitr ate associated with the CALPUFF chemistry module indicate that any additional controls on the five BART-eligible units with 98 th percentile values of 0.1 to 0.2 deciviews would result in no true visibility improvement.
Thus, the MPCA will not re-adjust the 0.5 deciview threshold for deter mining subject-to-BART sources. However, language further detailing the MPCA’s justif ication of this decision has been added to the SIP.

128 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Final Rule . Federal Register 70:128 (6 July 2005), p. 39104.
129 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (2007a, April). Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. EPA454/B-07-002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/gui dance/ guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf

130 Morris, Ralph, et al. (ENVIRON), “Evaluation of th e CALPUFF Chemistry Algorithms”, presented at AWMA 98 th Annual Conference and Exhibition”, June 2005.

131 Morris, Ralph, et al. (ENVIRON), “Further Evaluatio n of the Chemistry Algorithms used in the CALPUFF Modeling System”, April 2006.

132 Many of Minnesota’s initially subject-to-CAIR EGUs began undertaking emission reductions projects in preparation for CAIR, and some of these are likely to continue.Table A. 98thPercentile Deciview Values (& other metrics) for BART-Eligible Sources at the Listed Facilities as Modeled with CALPUFFFacility NameCALPUFF Subject-to-BARTData DescriptionBWCAWVOYASubjectto-BART?AdditionalRegional Haze SIP Action2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004American Crystal Sugar –Drayton, North DakotaNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 0 0 0 0 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.198thPercentileΔdv0.10.00.10.10.00.1American Crystal Sugar –East Grand ForksNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.51 0 0 1 0 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.398thPercentileΔdv0.20.10.10.20.10.1Arcelor Mittal MiningNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.585 77 66 26 20 27Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0032 22 15 6 7 5LargestΔdv 2.8 4.1 2.4 1.5 2.3 1.998thPercentileΔdv1.6 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.9Xcel Energy – A. S. KingNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.54 6 3 1 4 0NoLegally enforceable controlsEU001 (initially subject to CAIR);80% reduction in NOX82% reduction in SO2Number of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.498thPercentileΔdv0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3Austin Utilities NE StationNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 3 0 0 1 0NoInitially subject toCAIR, review in5-year SIP assessmentNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.398thPercentileΔdv0.20.30.10.10.30.1Boise White PaperNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 0 0 3 2 1NoNE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 1 0 0LargestΔdv 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.598thPercentileΔdv0.20.20.20.40.30.3United Taconite – FairlanePlantNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.5157 148 137 76 67 71Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.00103 102 88 45 35 42LargestΔdv 6.1 7.8 5.1 3.8 6.6 4.698thPercentileΔdv3.3 3.9 3.6 2.6 3.1 2.5Flint Hills Resources – PineBendNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 1 0 0 1 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.298thPercentileΔdv0.10.20.20.10.10.1Gerdau Ameristeel – St. PaulMillNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 0 0 0 0 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.198thPercentileΔdv0.00.00.00.00.00.0Gopher ResourceCorporationNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 0 0 0 0 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.198thPercentileΔdv0.00.10.10.00.00.1Facility NameCALPUFF Subject-to-BARTData DescriptionBWCAWVOYASubjectto-BART?AdditionalRegional Haze SIP Action2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004Hibbing Public UtilitiesNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.52 1 1 0 2 0NoNE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 1 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.598thPercentileΔdv0.30.30.30.20.30.2Hibbing Taconite CompanyNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.592 78 77 74 72 59Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0053 34 33 37 30 26LargestΔdv 4.5 6.7 .3 2.9 4.5 3.198thPercentileΔdv2.2 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.9U.S. Steel – KeewatinTaconiteNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.568 57 58 51 46 41Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0024 19 19 19 16 14LargestΔdv 3.2 4.3 3.5 2.0 3.2 1.998thPercentileΔdv1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3Marathon Ashland PetroleumNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 1 0 0 1 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.398thPercentileΔdv0.10.20.20.10.10.2U.S. Steel – MinntacNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.5184 180 166 101 96 92Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.00139 131 123 65 52 53LargestΔdv 6.4 7.7 7.3 4.4 6.9 5.898thPercentileΔdv4.4 4.4 4.3 3.3 3.8 3.0Minnesota Power, BoswellNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.577 69 59 69 50 43Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0029 26 18 24 16 17LargestΔdv 4.1 2.5 3.2 3.6 2.5 3.698thPercentileΔdv1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2Minnesota Power, TaconiteHarborNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.590 70 65 2 1 0Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0034 26 27 0 0 0LargestΔdv 3.7 3.9 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.598thPercentileΔdv2.1 1.7 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.3New Ulm Public UtilitiesNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 1 1 0 1 1NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 1 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.798thPercentileΔdv0.10.20.20.10.20.1Northshore Mining Company;Excluding Power HouseBoiler #2Number of Days withΔdv≥0.560 60 49 8 6 16Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0023 15 21 4 1 1LargestΔdv 2.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 1.1 1.098thPercentileΔdv1.6 1.3 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.6Northshore Mining Company;Power House Boiler #2Number of Days withΔdv≥0.5109 109 98 3 1 1Yes NE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0066 47 47 1 0 0LargestΔdv 3.7 3.8 3.3 1.2 0.7 0.698thPercentileΔdv3.0 2.5 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.3Facility NameCALPUFF Subject-to-BARTData DescriptionBWCAWVOYASubject-to-BART?AdditionalRegional Haze SIP Action2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004Otter Tail Power – Hoot LakeNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.53 1 5 0 1 5NoInitially subject toCAIR, review in5-year SIP assessmentNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 1LargestΔdv 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.198thPercentileΔdv0.40.30.40.20.30.3Rochester Public Utilities –Silver LakeNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.51 8 8 1 3 6YesNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 2 2 0 1 0LargestΔdv 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.998thPercentileΔdv0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4Sappi CloquetNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 0 0 0 0 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.198thPercentileΔdv0.10.10.10.00.10.1Xcel Energy – ShercoNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.572 78 80 46 48 46YesNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.0038 46 36 20 22 25LargestΔdv 4.0 3.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.198thPercentileΔdv2.2 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.9Southern Minnesota BeetCooperativeNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.50 0 0 0 0 0NoNoneNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 0 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.498thPercentileΔdv0.10.10.10.10.10.1Virginia Public UtilitiesNumber of Days withΔdv≥0.53 3 2 0 1 0NoNE Minnesota PlanNumber of Days withΔdv≥1.000 1 0 0 0 0LargestΔdv 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.498thPercentileΔdv0.40.40.30.20.20.2b. Taconite Industry Determinations – The commenters agree that the lack of adequate emission information from the taconite industry may make establishing BART limits for some of the taconite facilities infeasible at this time. However, they state that the “Haze SIP fails to address why some concrete suggestions made to the state regarding potential BART controls for SO 2 and NO X have not been implemented.” The commenters state through the affidavit that the lack of BART for taconite facilities is glaring, going on to say that the “state has again squandered its current opportunity to impose achievable BART li mits...in favor of a loose timetable promising some future controls.” Therefore, they do not support an extension of time to establish BART limits unless MPCA provides an analysis that the proposed technologies are infeasible or do not limit emissions, particularly in regards to the USDA comments on BART controls for NO X . They also do not support any extension of the time to establish an SO 2 BART limit on United Taconite Line 2. If there is an extension, there should be enforceable deadlines, in more specificity than included in the table shared at the public meeti ng. MPCA must be able to analyze the emission reductions achieved through BART and their impact on visibility as part of the 2012 SIP assessment. Finally, the state notes that it w ill conduct “a BART-like review” of the taconite facilities’ reports on control strategies. The comme nters believe it is not clear what this term means or where the state will de rive the regulatory authority.
MPCA Response: In their comment letter on the SIP, the US DA Forest Service not ed that although they “believe that an argument can be made that one or more post-combustion control options for nitrogen oxides are BART for the taconite industry...[they] are willing to delay the determination of proper nitrogen oxides controls to allow the indus try to trial nitrogen oxides control options through 2011 under the long term strategy as long as there is a firm deadline in the SIP for the industry to complete the studies.” The MPCA believes that setting a BART limit in the future , once more accurate emissi on data is gathered, will result in a stronger BART limit than any that could be set at this time. In addition, the Northeast Minnesota Plan and timelines laid out for BART provide the requested firm deadlines. The MPCA intends to discuss the emission reductions achieved through BART in the five year SIP assessment, and language spelling this out has been added to Chapter 11 of the SIP.
Because of the difficulty in determining BART for the taconite facilities, the MPCA considered various approaches to BART. The first was to determine BART technology now, followed by the imposition of limits after data gathering. The other was a delayed BART technology determination after some new and promising technologies are shown to be feasible. Howe ver, the MPCA believes that BART is to be based on what is feasible now, and should not be delayed. Therefore, the MPCA determined that the better approach is to require the taconite facilities to rese arch control strategies and then, essentially undertake a BART II or “state retrofit” requirement in the fu ture. Facilities will have to undertake an analysis of available emission reduction opportunities, similar to that submitted to the MPCA under BART. The MPCA will then review the feasibility and cost-effectiv eness of installing controls or employing pollution prevention. The MPCA has broad regulatory authority, but would likely implement a state rule or Administrative Orders to specifica lly require this “ BART II” process.

c. Taconite Administrative Orders – Although the SIP states that MPCA will have more information about emissions from the taconite industry, the SIP does not require that taconite indurating furnaces therefore install continuous monitors. In the affidavit the commenter states, “I am aware that MPCA has developed/is in the process of developing various Administrative Orders with specific taconite facilities which include either continuous emissions monitors or process emissions monitors. However, it is my understanding that the requirements for such monitors are not enforceable under the RH SIP. If so, the RH SIP must include the requirements contained in the Administrative Orders as enforceable in the RH SIP.” The commenter also states that plan is vague and the actual details of the alternative me thod (predictive equation) are still missing. Also, the commenters feel there needs to be transparency in the proce ss and public involvement in the Administrative Orders and review of data received.MPCA Response: The MPCA has provided an opportunity for public input on the Administrative Orders. Two Orders were included in the draft SIP, and additional Orders were provided during the public meeting and on the MPCA’s website. All Order s have now been signed, meeting t he requirements laid out in the SIP and following a substantially similar framework to those placed on notice. The public may provide additional comment on the Orders (or any other po rtion of the SIP) when EPA proposes app roval or disapproval of the SIP. In terms of reviewing data provided through the installation of CEMs/PEMs, the MPCA intends to share this data with the public, through the emission inventory and other methods. However, it is possible that some information ma y be considered confidential business information, particularly information related to process paramet ers, and therefore would not be able to be shared publicly. This will be evaluated on a facility by facilit y basis. For information on the situation with United Taconite Line 2, please see the response to t he Forest Service, Comment Letter 3, part 2.
It is not clear what the commenter means by stating that the requirements for emission monitors are not enforceable under the Regional Haze SIP and that t he SIP “must include the requirements contained in the Administrative Orders as enforceable in the RH SIP.” The MPCA will be submitting to EPA Administrative Orders for the taconite facilities, an d requesting that those Orders be included in the SIP. That inclusion will make the Orders enforceable at bot h the state and federal levels. MPCA has taken this approach, using both Orders and permits, in its cr iteria pollutant SIPs and it has been effective.
Since the draft SIP, MPCA has included in the body of the SIP document more information on what is required for the PEMs method of emissions monitoring. Details on specific facility requirements can be found in the Administrative Order issued to each faci lity, which are included in Appendix 9.7 of the final SIP.

d. EGUs – The commenters state that “MPCA must require additional controls beyond CAIR for EGUs because implementing CAIR alone will not allow the state to meet the visibility goal of natural visibility conditions by 2064.” They no te that the SIP examined some emission reduction strategies for EGUs (the EGU1 and EGU2 scen arios). However, they feel the SIP does not provide any rationale as to why these were chosen. EGUs in other states routinely achieve lower emission levels than those in the Haze SIP and th erefore the SIP should include a justification of those levels.
MPCA Response: Although the ultimate goal of the rule is to have no man-made visibility impairment by 2064, this SIP covers only the period through 2018. As explained in the response to Comment Letter 23, #1, the 2018 goals set in this SIP meet the requirements for reasonable progress. Nothing in this SIP prevents the MPCA from requiring additional emission reductions from sources in order to make continued progress towards the 2064.
That being said, many of Minnesota’s EGUs are under taking voluntary control projects that result in emissions at or below the level set by CAIR (bea ring in mind that CAIR sets a lb/MMBtu level for allowance distribution but does not mandate that facilitie s emit at or below that level). In addition, subjectto-BART EGUs are now being required to install BAR T due to Minnesota’s likely exclusion from CAIR.
The EGU1 and EGU2 scenarios were developed by a LADC O working group as part of their evaluation of candidate control measures. A reference for the appropriate white paper has been added to the SIP. 133 Although individual EGUs may be controlled to levels lo wer than those proposed, the levels set in these two scenarios were meant to be a regionwide avera ge, not applicable to every individual EGU source.
2) New Sources – The commenters state that, “for haze purposes, MPCA should evaluate potential impacts from new major sources through a non-attainme nt standard and not an incremental analysis as done through the PSD process. The PSD increm ental analysis does not apply when air quality standards and visibility conditions required under th e Regional Haze Rule are not being met. The Haze SIP does not explain how its review of majo r new sources through a PSD analysis meets the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.” The commenters have concerns about approving any new

133 Lake Michigan Air Directors Co nsortium (LADCO). (2005, December 9). Interim White Paper - Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measures Source Category: Electric Generating Units. http://64.27.125.175/reports/rpo/Regional%20Air%20Quality/White%20Papers%20March%202006/EGU_Ver4.pdfmajor sources before the emission reductions to be achieved through BART are known. They also state that the Northeast Minnesota Plan does not explain what is saved or lost by removing FLM involvement in individual source modeling for new s ources in that region. They request that any MOU have an opportunity for public comment a nd participation as such an MOU “appears to eliminate federally mandated oversight from the FLMs in the permitting of new major sources in NE Minnesota.”
MPCA Response: Again, it is important to note that the Re gional Haze Rule does not hold states to meeting any specific visibility goal, just to implemen tation of the identified control strategies. Therefore, the Regional Haze SIP is very different from SIPs fo r attainment of criteria pollutant standards, and the MPCA believes that a non-attainment standard type a nalysis would be inappropriate under the visibility program because there is no bright line ambient stan dard to delineate attainme nt versus non-attainment.
The Regional Haze Rule does not treat Class I areas with low visibility as nonattainment areas; it does not require any specific treatment of new sources, outside of that established through the PSD process. For new major sources or major modifications, the PSD program requires the installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and modeling of the projec t’s impacts on local air quality. New sources or major modifications outside the Northeast Minnesota Pl an also need to screen their emissions. If they are judged to have a potential adverse impact on visibilit y, those projects will need to perform more sophisticated modeling of their prop osed impacts on Class I areas, incl uding their effects on visibility.
Sources covered by t he Northeast Minnesota Plan t hat propose PSD modifications for haze pollutants will have to install BACT and ensure that their emissions fit into the budget for the Plan. The PSD regulations also require the consideration of other impacts to the environment. The proximity of new and modified facilities to Minnesota’s Class I areas, even those covered by the Plan, necessita tes consideration of visibility in this step. (Historically, the MPCA has incorporated similar environmen tal factors into the BACT determination by adjusting the cost-e ffectiveness threshold.) This can lead to the application of more effective control strategies and thus lower emission ra tes. In addition, the MPCA could cite the visibility section of the PSD rule in order to ask for controls. Either option would likely generally result in installation of more stringent controls. Through the PSD process, which includes review by and input from the Federal Land Managers, the MPCA will be able to mi nimize the impact of new sources on visibility.
The Northeast Minnesota plan attempts to move from the incremental approach of the traditional PSD visibility program towards a more holistic approach. If emissions are declining under the Northeast Minnesota Plan, visibility impairment from those sour ces should be decreasing; this is a better approach than determining if simply the addition of pollutants will not have too gr eat an impact on the Class I area. The FLMs would continue to review BACT determinations , and would also review the status of emissions under the Northeast Minnesota Plan; the plan changes, rather than eliminates, FLM oversight for new sources in this area. In addition, it adds a catego ry of sources (those between 100 and 250 tpy) that would get FLM scrutiny that may not do so now if a PSD permit is not issued. The goal of an MOU is to set out the specifics for how FLM review will be conducted in the future. If an MOU between the MPCA and FLMs is developed, it will be posted on the MP CA’s Regional Haze website to be reviewed by interested parties, and comments will be taken as t hey were during the development of the Northeast Minnesota Plan.
MPCA has clarified and provided ad ditional explanation of the treatment of new sources in the SIP. IV. Visibility Measurements
1) Inconsistency in Measurem ent of Visibility Changes – The SIP does not explain how MPCA determines when variances in deciview estimates or measurements are statistically significant or meaningful. The inclusion of the change in RPG of 0.1 dv due to complete modeling of the Northeast Minnesota plan indicates that an improvement of 0. 1 dv is significant, while in other sections, larger changes in visibility between 0.2 and 0.8 dv are c onsidered insignificant. The SIP should explain and justify why changes > 0.1 dv are not considered significant. The commenter believes the SIP has no consistency in determining which changes in visib ility are considered significant. The presentation of the revised RPG at the public meeting left the impr ession that a 0.1 dv change is significant, yet inother areas much larger changes (0.2 to 0.8 dv ) are called small. The commenter believes that “Characterizing changes in 0.2 to 0.8 dv as ‘small’ is incorrect.”
MPCA Response: The affidavit quotes the MRPO document “Regional Haze in the Upper Midwest, Summary of Technical Information”, Version 2.1, Jan uary 31, 2008, which is provided as an Appendix to the Minnesota Regional Haze SIP. In that document, vi sibility levels of less than 1 deciview are described as “small”. When describing the change as “small” the MRPO was using the term in the context of perceptible changes in haziness – in the deciview scale. By definition, 1 deciview is the amount of change in visibility that the human eye can discern, and in th is context, “a 1 to 2 deciview difference corresponds to a small, visibly perceptible change in scene appearance” by the human observer. 134 Therefore, any visibility change below 1 deciview could rationally be calle d “small” or insignificant, as it is imperceptible.
It should be noted that the SIP does not state that a change of 0.1 dv is significant. The MPCA shared with stakeholders at the public meeting the results of a modeling analysis that resulted in the 2018 RPGs decreasing 0.1 dv in order to explain why the RPGs in the final document would be slightly different from those presented in the draft document. It was not presented as a significant change.

The use of the term “small” in the previous context is not meant to mi nimize the progress the Minnesota Regional Haze SIP illustrates at tenth-of-a-deciview le vels toward achieving observable visibility changes. Any change toward improved visibility, whether that change is perceptible by the human observer, is a step in the right direction toward reaching the visibility goals. 2) IMPROVE Monitors – The SIP does not address the ability of only two monitors to accurately measure visibility conditions in the entirety of the Class I areas or the appropriateness of the location of the IMPROVE monitors. The commenters feel that the “SIP should provide a discussion of the meaning of visibility data collected at just one m onitor in each Class I area in terms of its ability to represent visibility at numerous (or all scenic vistas) locations at the Class I area. For example, a list of scenic vistas could be provided in the RH SIP as each Class I area. The number of visitors to these vistas could also be noted for the various baseline years at each Class I area.”

The commenters also state that the SIP does not a ddress any temporal variability or uncertainty as to how representative the 2000 – 2004 baseline period is compared to individual years or other periods. Although the regulations only require data from 2000 – 2004, the commenters believe the state should discuss more years of data, providing greater context. Even for 2000 – 2004, the commenter feels the annual data provided are not critically discussed. The SIP should also discuss if the monitors are likely to over or under-estimate actual visibilit y. Finally, the MPCA should support continued funding of monitors.
MPCA Response: The MPCA understands the concern about the ability of the IMPROVE monitors to address visibility in the entirety of each Class I area. However, the choice of monitor sites is made by federal entities, not the State. In addition, the use of a single monitor to reflect visibility conditions in the Class I areas was add ressed by the EPA in development of t he Final Regional Haze Regulations. In response to comments on the Regional Haze Rule regarding the use of the one deciview change as the threshold for perception in all cases for all scenes, t he EPA made the following statement, which also appears to appropriately address the comment:
“EPA wishes to emphasize that the overall goal of the regional haze program is not to track changes in visibility for only cert ain vistas at a specific Class I area. Rather, the program is designed to track changes in regional visibility for the range of possible views of sky and terrain found in any Class I area, and to assure progress toward a national goal...The monitoring network is not design ed to track changes in visibilit y for specific views in each Class I area. Rather, the network is designed to characterize visibility conditions that, for each site, are representative of a fairly broad geographic region. The EPA believes this approach is consistent with the nature of regi onal haze, which is defined as a uniform haze caused by numerous sources covering a broad area”.

134 Pitchford, M.L. and Malm, W. C. (1994). Development and Application of a Standard Visual Index. Atmospheric Environment , 28, pp. 1049-1054.While preparing the Regio nal Haze SIP, the MPCA followed EPA ru les and guidance, which went through extensive public notice and comment. The final ru les and guidance do not require the type of analysis suggested by the commenter. Furthermore, upon cons ultation with the U.S. Forest Service, which oversees BWCAW, staff is unaware of any list of scenic vistas within the BWCAW. Although the Forest Service does tally the number of visitors at entry points to the BWCAW, and dates in and out of those points, they do not know what locations (or scenic vistas) people visit once they enter the BWCAW.

The MPCA believes it is reasonable to focus attention in the SIP to the most re cent years (i.e. 2000-2004) of monitoring data collected at the Class I areas. This data provides representation of the air quality at the time period from which we intend to improve visib ility conditions. As the commenter states, “the RH regulations prescribe the temporal baseline period (i.e. 2000-2004)”. The lower visibility values in 2004 are due to an unusual meteorological year, when the Midwest was cooler and wetter than some other years. That year had corresponding record low ozone and particulate concentrations throughout the Midwest, as shown in a report pr epared by Donna Kenski of LADCO. 135 To allow for variations in meteorology like those described above – without putting undue weight on an anomalous meteorological year, the EPA chose to include a 5-year baseline period to “establish a more ro bust baseline value” than using a 3-year period. 3) IMPROVE Data Analysis (Largely from Affidavit)

a. The commenters feel the SIP does not address wh ether the efforts to adjust/correct IMPROVE data meets EPA’s data filling requirements, and reque st that the details of the regression analysis used to “patch” the BWCAW monitor data for the years of malfunction should be included in the SIP and that the SIP should also note if the me thodology and details were discussed with EPA and any EPA responses.
MPCA Response: The Regional Haze rule prescribes the baseline as the years 2000 through 2004. An equipment malfunction in 2002, 2003 and 2004 at the BWCAW IMPROVE monitor site caused the loss of the following data :

• “Module A” – PM 2.5 particle mass

• “Module C” – Elemental and organic carbon mass, and

• “Module D” – PM 10 particle mass
This data loss invalidated three out of every se ven samples from these modules. “Module B” has a denuder that collects nitrate, chlori de, sulfate and nitrite. According to CIRA, the “Module B” data from BWCAW during this period are valid. In order to utilize the valid data from BWCAW, Scott Copeland of CIRA substituted the missing components with a li near regression analysis from corresponding valid data collected at Voyageurs. His replacement of the missi ng BWCAW IMPROVE was presented to the national EPA/RPO Monitoring and Data Analysis discussion gr oup. This group held monthly conference calls to report research related to visibility and to address pr oblems and issues with monitoring and data analysis; EPA representatives participated in the calls. MPCA staff attended all the calls that addressed data substitutions and EPA did not expre ss any opposition to the respecti ve methods. The EPA position was that approval of substituted datasets would be the responsibility of the Region reviewing affected SIP submittals. It was, however, understood that participants in the discussion group would decide the validity of substitution methods, and that the process of pr esenting to this national workgroup constituted the approval process. This precept ap plied to all the data restorations done at Class I areas (e.g. Mingo NWR, Breton Island, nine in the WRAP states). Data substitution r eports are available on the VIEWS website. 136

Additional documentation of the data su bstitution method is in the document IMPROVE Data Substitution Methods for Regional Haze Planning recently presented at the Air and Waste Management Association specialty conference “Aerosol and Atmospheric Optics : Visual Air Quality and Radiation” in Moab, Utah, April 28, 2008 through May 2, 2008.

135 Kenski, D. (2006, March 20). Draft: PM2.5 Trends in the Midwest . Provided via email to Margaret McCourtney, May 29, 2008.

136 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/Documents/SubstituteData.aspxb. The commenter also states that the SIP should de scribe the rationale for the change to the new IMPROVE equation, particularly because it is “clear that all the data required for the new IMPROVE equation were (and are) not collected at these monitors. Thus, the overall basis for using the new IMPROVE equation is somewhat compromised.” The SIP should also note if the predictions would be better if all the data was collected and comment on whether additional data should be collected at the IMPROVE monitors.
MPCA Response: As stated in the SIP, the new IMPROVE equation better fits the observed light extinction values. The MPCA chose to use the new equation because it is more representative and to promote consistency as the new equation is being used by most other states. In referring to missing data, the commenter references a statement in the draft SIP, Chapter 5, page 20, which states: “[New] terms have been added for Sea Salt (important for coastal areas) and for light absorption by NO 2 , where NO 2 observations are available. (These observations are not available for Minnesota, so this component was not used).” The IMPROVE steering committee, in it s December 2005 approval of the revised IMPROVE algorithm, had no intention of excludi ng sites that did not collect this component from using the equation. Instead, it included the additional component for sites t hat do collect it. The “old” IMPROVE algorithm also does not contain NO 2 . According to Scott Copeland of CIRA, “NO 2 is not a normal part of the IMPROVE program. [He] would expect slight changes to both natural and baseline conditions, perhaps adding very roughly 1-3 Mm -1 to the 20% worst baseline and 0.5-1.5 Mm -1 to the 20% worst natural. This would have a small effect on glide path calculations.” Further information on the revised algorithm can be found on the IMPROVE website. 137

c. The commenter also requests that the actual cal culations for the 20% best and worst natural condition and baseline condition days should be included. Finally, although the commenters applaud the MPCA and LADCO for including the poor visibility days with missing data in the baseline period, the commenters feel that the fact that natural conditions were not recalculated with the inclusion these days is a problem, as it is unclear what the impact of this recalculation would be on natural conditions.
MPCA Response: As stated in the Technical Support Document, page 69,

“The baseline visibility conditions were calculated using the regulatory version of the observed data obtained from VIEWS, and incl udes the substituted values for Boundary Water...The 20 percent worst days in Boundary Waters and Vo yageurs used here differ from those currently available on VIEWS. The MR PO identified some days at Upper Midwest Class I area data excluded from the 20 percent worst days on VIEWS because of incomplete capture of insignificant components of visibility in those Class I areas. For example, coarse mass and soil/crustal material are missing, while the remaining components—notably sulfate and nitrate—are present at levels that would ca use those days to be on the list of 20 percent worst. The details of the MRPO inclusion of miss ing days is described in “Impact of Missing Data on Worst Days at Midwest Northern Clas s I Areas”, March 12, 2007 (revised June, 19, 2007). Over the five-year period used to calc ulate the baseline visibility conditions, this affects six days at Boundary Waters and three days at Voyageurs. The baseline increases by 0.3 dv at Boundary Waters and 0.2 dv at Voy ageurs. The MRPO treatment does not affect the 20 percent best days.”
As requested, the actual calculations are provided below, and for the public record:

137 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/ Publications/GrayLit/gray_literature.htmA. Using monitored data, rank base line visibility for each day with PM 10 , PM 2.5 and speciated PM 2.5 measurements within a Class I area.

1. Obtained PM 2.5 speciated monitored data from VIEWs with inclusion of missing data from MRPO;
2. Estimate extinction coefficient for each day using the new IMPROVE equation 138 adopted by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005: 139

b ext = 2.2 * f S (RH) * [small sulfate] + 4.8 * f L (RH) * [large sulfate]

+ 2.4 * f S (RH) * [small nitrate] + 5.1 * f L (RH) * [large nitrate]
+ 2.8 * [small organic mass] + 6.1 * [large organic mass]
+ 10 * [elemental carbon]
+ 1 * [fine soil]

+ 1.7 * f SS (RH) * [sea salt]
+ 0.6 * [coarse mass]
+ Rayleigh scattering (site specific—BOWA1= 11, VOYA2 = 12)
+ 0.33 * [NO 2 (ppb)]

where: b ext is calculated total light extinction in inverse megameters

f S (RH) is the relative humidity adjus tment factor for small particles;

f L (RH) is the relative humidity adjus tment factor for large particles;

f SS (RH) is the relative humidity adj ustment factor for sea salt; and
The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfate compounds into the concentrations of the small and large size fractions is accomplished using the following equations:
[large sulfate] = ([total sulfate]/20μg/m3) * [to tal sulfate], for [total sulfate] < 20 μg/m3;
[large sulfate] = [total sulfate], for [total sulfate] ≥ 20 μg/m3; and
[small sulfate] = [total sulfate] – [large sulfate]
The same equations above for large sulfate, are also used to apportion total nitrate and total organic mass concentrations into the large and small size fractions.

NO 2 is not currently measured at the IMPROVE moni tors, so this factor is not included. It also is not part of the “old” IMPROVE equation.

138 IMPROVE Steering Committee, “Revised IMPROVE Algo rithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data”, July 2005.

139 VIEWs web site. http://vista.cira.colost ate.edu/views/Web/RHR/RHR_Planning.aspxMonthly f S (RH) and f L (RH) values are presented in Table 1. 140

, 141

ClassI f (RH) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

BOWA1 f S (RH) 3.24 2.84 2.99 2.64 2.93 3. 21 3.44 3.67 3.80 3.07 3.50 3.49

f L (RH) 2.50 2.26 2.32 2.09 2.22 2.42 2.57 2.69 2.76 2.37 2.65 2.65

f SS (RH) 3.74 3.37 3.34 2.92 3.03 3. 43 3.68 3.85 3.95 3.44 3.89 3.92

VOYA2 f S (RH) 3.16 2.77 2.82 2.59 2.65 3. 28 3.25 3.48 3.66 3.02 3.37 3.32

f L (RH) 2.46 2.22 2.22 2.07 2.09 2.46 2.46 2.59 2.70 2.35 2.58 2.55

f SS (RH) 3.69 3.31 3.20 2.90 2.89 3. 46 3.55 3.71 3.87 3.42 3.83 3.80

3. Convert b ext to decivews (dv) using the following equation:
Haze Index (dv) = 10 ln (b ext /10)

Where: b ext and light scattering due to Rayleigh scattering (i.e. the “10” in the denominator) are both expressed in inverse megameters (Mm -1 ). In order to be consistent across all Class I areas, the U.S. EPA prescribed that the Rayleigh Scattering in the denominator of the conv ersion of the extinction value to deciviews should always be 10 instead of using site-specific Rayleigh Scattering values. 142

4. Order the deciview values for all days at eac h Class I area for each of the 5-years of the baseline period from worst (highest deciview value) to best (lowest deciview value).
B. Calculate the average baseline deciview for the 20 percent worst (highest deciview values) and for the best (lowest deciview value).

1. Calculate the arithmetic mean deciview val ue for the 20 percent worst and best visibility values for each year;

2. Average the resulting 5-year mean deciview values reflecting worst visibility for each of the years; and

3. Average the 5-year mean deciview values reflec ting best visibility for each of the years.
The calculations of natural conditions are done by th e VIEWS staff at CIRA for all states. Scott Copeland recently presented a paper, “Calculation Met hod for Natural Conditions with the New IMPROVE algorithm,” to the Air and Waste Management Associat ion specialty conference “Aerosol and Atmospheric Optics: Visual Air Quality and Radiation” in Moab, Utah, April 28, 2008 through May 2, 2008.
After learning about MRPO’s discovery of the poor visi bility, missing data days (often referred to as the Kenski days because of Donna Kenski ’s discovery and subsequent analysis of the data) and the decision to include them in the 20% worst days, VIEWS staff discovered that these ty pes of missing data days existed at many Class I areas, and hoped to do some recalculation of visibility conditions with the additional data. The MPCA requested VIEWS staff to calculate natural conditions with the new data for BWCAW and VNP, as had been done by VIEWS w hen the new IMPROVE algorithm was adopted. However, these calculations were not done due to t he relatively late discovery of these data in the Regional Haze process (early 2007) and the workload and staff shortage at VIEWS. The MPCA believes

140 VIEWs web site. http://vis ta.cira.colostate.edu/views

141 Hand, J.L, and Malm, W.C. (March 2006) Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients

. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications /GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm
142 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (2007, April). G uidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze . EPA454/B-07-002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/gui dance/ guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdfthat VIEWS still intends to complete this calculati on, and post it on the VIEWS website – the national visibility data repository.
The change will be very small due to the fact that natural conditions in deciviews are small and the changes due to the addition of these days had a relatively small effect on the 20% best and worst days in the baseline years. A proportionate ch ange to natural visibility would be le ss than this. According to Scott Copeland of CIRA, “Including the K enski days has a demonstrable effect on the baseline values, but the natural conditions 2 values are normalized to the Trijonis annual mean estimate. So, for example, adding a few extra high sulfate days increases the annual su lfate mean, which increa ses the sulfate scaling factor which reduces all the values in the distribu tion, somewhat offsetting the larger values. In the specific case of BOWA1 and VOYA2, only 6 and 3 samp le dates respectively are added to the distribution of roughly 120 observations that are in the 5 years’ wo rth of 20% worst days, so there is just no way to move the mean very much.” V. Emission Inventory
1) Jargon – The commenters state that the emission inventories used and discussions of these are difficult to understand due to use of jargon.
MPCA Response: The commenter specifically refers to portions of the TSD as examples of jargon. The TSD is meant primarily to fulfill the needs of a techni cal audience, by providing all the details of the data analysis and modeling that supports the SIP. The intended audience includes those at EPA responsible for reviewing the SIP and technical staff at Regional Planning Organizations, States, and consultants that are very familiar with the technical process. Th e example the commenter provided of jargon in the documentation contains a lot of meaning for indivi duals and groups that have been deeply involved in the technical portions of the Regional Haze SIP process.
Chapter 8 of the SIP is intended for a more general audi ence, in order to explain the technical basis of the SIP. In response to this comment, the MPCA will review Chapter 8 of the SIP in order to ensure that its presentation of technical information is as clear as possible and understandable to a general audience.
For instance, the example given in the affidavit relate s to the various versions of the modeling inventories created by the regional planning organizations for t he Haze SIP; similar language is included in the TSD and Chapter 8 of the SIP describing these modeling inventories. The MPCA will modify the Regional Haze SIP Chapter 8 to include the underlined statement in order to help describe these version numbers.
“Both CENRAP and the MRPO incorporated the inv entories developed by the States within their respective RPOs and shared modeling in ventories with one another and other RPOs. Due to the iterative nature of the work, a va riety of emission inventories have been developed and used by organizations conducting haze m odeling. Therefore, each RPO might have a different version of their member States’ invent ories. Each subsequent version of a modeling emissions inventory might include the addition of emission sources that were missed, corrections to location coordinates and stack parameters of industrial point sources, and revisions to the inv entory methodology.

Both CENRAP and MRPO have identified the vari ous versions of their modeling inventories using a lettering system. Each base year invent ory starts with the word “base” followed by the version (i.e. “A” through “Z”). CENRAP’s final 2002 inventory is BaseG, the MRPO’s latest 2002 inventory is BaseK. Unfortunatel y, based on each RPO’s timing in the creation of these modeling inventories, the latest base year inventory of one RPO is not necessarily included in another RPO’s base year. For ex ample, the MRPO BaseK contains CENRAP’s BaseC, while CENRAP’s BaseG contains the MRPO BaseK.”
The MPCA will make similar changes to the SIP to ens ure that any jargon is appropriately explained. The MPCA will also review the draft TSD and remove jargon as much as possible and provide additional explanation where jargon may be necessary. The MP CA will add a glossary t hat addresses potentially unfamiliar terms in the Technical S upport Document and the SIP.
2) Reliability of Emissions Inventories – The commenters feel that the SIP does not address the inconsistencies, contradictions, and “huge disparities” between the various emission inventories,which raises questions about the credibility of th e inventories. The commenter states that glaring differences between inventories are left unexplained, and therefore it is reasonable to ask why any of these inventories should be relied upon. This includes differences between the 2002 and 2005 inventories developed by Minnesota and MRPO . The commenters believe the haze SIP should provide context for these inventories, with a b ackground discussion and overview of how they are developed and used and an explanation of why ther e are differences and how MPCA reconciled them. The commenters also believe that errors associated with the inventory estimates and the number of significant digits used in reporting the inventory da ta should be considered. These two omissions lead to an impression of greater precision in the reported data than is possible. The commenters also state that the different emission inventory tables in the Draft SIP and TSD report emissions somewhat differently in terms of defining source categorie s and emission types, and these should be made consistent.

MPCA Response: The commenter claims great uncertainty in the base year “past actual” inventory, and references Tables in Chapter 7 of the Regional Haze SIP and in the Technical Support Document, section 2.0, Emissions Inventory Development (the emissions summary data in this table is also in Chapter 8 of the Regional Haze SIP). The table cont aining Minnesota’s 2002 emissions in Chapter 7 was developed by the emissions inventory staff of t he MPCA for submission to the National Emissions Inventory. The tables in Chapter 8 are summaries of the modeled inventory. The modeling inventory starts with the inventory provided by the State and makes enhancements as necessary, due to findings during the modeling process. Recall the iterative nat ure of deriving the modeled emissions described in the draft TSD in “II. Process for Developing Technical Support for Region al Haze”, Pages 12 through 15. Thus, some differences will be seen between the inventory prepared by a St ate for the NEI; and those modified for purposes of modeling.

As noted in Chapter 8, page 34 of the SIP, and Section 2.1, page 17 of the draft TSD:
“For some sectors, methods initially availabl e to States for inventory development were inadequate for air quality modeling. For these sectors, both CENRAP and MRPO have independently, and in some cases cooperatively, hired contractors to develop emissions data to support improvement of State

- developed inventories where the older methodology, insufficient for modeling purposes, was used. For example, it is important to have accurate ammonia emissions because ammonia combines with sulfuric and nitric acid to form aerosol sulfate and nitrate, significant components of PM 2.5 and of visibility impairment. Also, States do not create inventories for biogenic source s, so these inventories had to be created.”
Eliminating biogenic emissions (which States do not calcul ate for the NEI) from the emission totals in the summary tables in the Regional Haze SIP chapter 7, the most significant difference between the total State-generated emissions and modeled emissions are primary particulates. As noted in Section 2.0, Table 2.1, page 20 of the draft TSD:
“Wind-blown and agricultural tilling dust emissions were eliminated from the modeling inventory due to concerns over the transportable fraction of fugitive dust. Road dust is included”.
There also is no expectation that the emissions totals in Table A and Table B would match because they were created with different calculation methodology. The State calculations in Chapter 7 were developed as county annualized emissions summed for the State, whereas the State annual emissions totals in Chapter 8 and in Section 2.0 of the TSD are back-c alculated from the CAMx model-ready input files. CAMx model-ready emissions are by grid cell (or elev ated point), in moles per hour for gases and grams per hour for aerosols. Emissions that are back-calculated to grid cells on the borders between two States are assigned as appropriately as possible geographically. This does not replicate how the emissions were initially assigned to grid cells in the emissions mode ling process; but is the best method available to the State for describing the modeled emissions in tons per year by geographic region.The MPCA agrees that these emissions summaries should not be summarized to the ton. The MPCA will modify emission inventory tables in the Regional Ha ze SIP chapters 7 and 8, and the TSD section 2.0, so all values are presented to 3 significant digits.
The resulting State derived NEI emissions and the back-calculated modeled emissions (to threesignificant digits) for Minnesota are provided in Tables A and B, below. Considering the calculation methodology differences in deriving the summary tables, and other reasons described above, the emissions are quite similar.

Table A: 2002 Modeled Emissions for Minnesota

. SrcGroup SO 2 NO X NH 3 PM 25 PM 10 VOC

Point 131,000 155,000 2,310 12,500 31,100 33,700

Area 22,800 58,100 175,000 19,500 72,200 133,000

Mobile On-road 29 172,000 7,200 2,200 2,200 97,600

Non-road 9,210 102,000 98 5,600 6,380 96,800

Biogenics 0 28,700 0 0 0 698,000

Minnesota TOTAL: 163,000 516,000 185,000 39,900 112,000 1,060,000

(no biogenics) TOTAL: 163,000 487,000 185,000 39,900 112,000 361,000

Table B: 2002 State Derived Emissions for NEI.

SrcGroup SO 2 NO X NH 3 PM 25 PM 10 VOC

Point 131,000 153,000 1,270 12,500 31,500 29,500

Area 17,500 57,000 172,000 145,000 734,000 161,000

Mobile On-road 3,000 172,000 5,360 2,750 3,800 91,000

Non-road 9,100 103,000 97 8,850 9,670 84,300

Biogenics n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

TOTAL: 161,000 485,000 179,000 169,000 779,000 366,000

The commenter specifically mentions mobile source SO 2 emissions as a concern. In the modeled inventory, on-road mobile source SO 2 for Minnesota is summarized as ~28 tons per year. The MPCA agrees that this estimate is low; however, the MPCA believes this does not make the modeled inventory unusable for purposes of the SIP. Even with on-ro ad mobile source emissions at ~3,000 tons SO 2 per year, point source contributions of SO 2 (~130,000 tons per year) far out-weigh on-road mobile source SO 2 emissions. The main impact on visibility fr om on-road mobile sources comes from NO x emissions (~170,000 tons per year).

The commenter made the same remarks for summar y tables developed for the 2005 inventories. The MPCA response to this comment is the same, with an additional factor: While the State-derived annual emissions summary table in Chapter 7 of the SI P depicts the final 2005 NEI, the MRPO modeled 2005 inventory does not. These inventories take a few ye ars to develop and the Chapter 7 table was added to the Regional Haze SIP late in SIP development process. The MRPO modeled 2005 inventory was developed much earlier with the data available at the time.
Minnesota did not use the MRPO modeled 2005 inventory to develop progress goals for the Regional Haze SIP; so whether or not the State-deriv ed emissions summary tables and the modeled 2005 inventory match is irrelevant. The 2005 modeled inventor y was provided in the TSD as part of the weightof-evidence to help explain why the progress goal s differ between the 2002 and 2005 modeling analyses. The MRPO 2005 inventory will be moved to an Appendix of the TSD to lessen any confusion caused by its inclusion.In addition to comparing the emissions summaries between the 2002 Minnesota NEI and the 2002 modeled inventory estimates, the commenter also made comparisons between the MRPO modeled inventory (which the MPCA relies upon in the SIP, and is summarized above) and the CENRAP derived emission summaries by State. The MPCA made an atte mpt in the draft TSD to warn the reader, on page 18, paragraph 6, which states,
“The CENRAP model inputs do not support these emissions totals, apparent in Section 2.2. Nevertheless, the emissions summary information from CENRAP is included, but should be viewed with some caution.”
Due to the apparent confusion caused by the inclusion of this somewh at erroneous data, the MPCA will remove the CENRAP-derived summary emissions data from the Tables in section 2.0 of the TSD. The MPCA will also remove the CENRAP 201 8 summary emissions from the TSD.

The MPCA has confidence in the MRPO develop ed modeled 2002 inventory for Regional Haze SIP purposes. The continued emissions inventory develop ment work has resulted in the best modeling emissions inventories possible to date. An attempt to better explain, and put into context, the differences in the modeling inventories and how they are used to define uncertainties in the model results will be added to the TSD. 3) Reliability of Emission Projections (Affidavit) - The commenters reiterate that if past actual emission inventories are so inaccurate, “it is wholly premature to confidently lead into distant future year emissions projections, such as for year 2018,” as there is no reason to believe that 2018 inventories are accurate. The commenters also state that th e emission projections rely on models whose usefulness for projecting future emissions has not been fully described. The example used is that of the IPM model, routinely used by EPA but with no documentation provided. The commenter believes that because the state had to make corrections to the IPM data, all predictions relying on IPM model projections are likely to be unreliable. The comparisons of the different work of the different organizations show the significant uncertainties in developing even past actual inventories, and inspire no confidence that any projections of future inventories are meaningful.
MPCA Response: Although the MPCA has often lamented the fa ct that IPM is such a “black box” to those outside of EPA, all RPOs agreed to predict future EGU emissions with IPM for consistency with EPA projections used to support the CAIR rule. The R egional Haze Rule requi res states to project emissions to the future; including emissions of el ectric generating units (EGUs). Like the emissions development for all categories, many iterations and improvements were made through a concerted effort among the States through the RPO process. The future pr ojections used in the SIP are the best to date. We can only use the tools that are available to us, and review the projections to verify that yield reasonable results. MPCA staff reviewed the future year projections for EGUs used in the Regional Haze SIP and confirmed that they are consistent with expe ctations based all the available information on hand to date.
The commenter also raises questions about different future scenarios of utility emissions presented. The commenter implies that the fact many states “noted si gnificant different emissions as compared to IPM3.0 (base), as reported in the RH SIP” means that the IP M model results in large errors in predicting 2018 emissions, drawing this conclusion from comparing IPM3.0 (base), which is t he primary IPM3.0 future year emission projection, and IPM3.0 (will do), which is a future prediction modified with information from several states, presented in table 8.3. However, as stated in Chapter 8 of the draft SIP, although the IPM3.0 (will do) scenario does include the correction of some mistakes, many of the changes made were due to “committed control projects t hat occurred after the deadline for subm ission of such projects to EPA for inclusion in IPM3.0.” Therefore, these emission s are meant to be different from those in IPM3.0, because they represent a different future scenario. The SIP was further clarified by adding the following language to Chapter 10: “the projects in the IPM “will do” scenario were not known in time to be submitted to EPA in order to be includ ed in the base IPM3.0 projection.” 4) International Emissions – The comment letter states, “The Haze SIP does not include proper documentation of Canadian emissions or an e xplanation of why proper documentation was notavailable” and “fails to account for projections of fu ture Canadian emissions in an informed manner.” The commenters also state that there is no analys is of potential growth in emissions sources from Canada or how growth will be offset by Canadi an regulatory programs. The commenters feel it is likely that there will be increases in Canadian emissions over the next decade, due to tar sands development, and these, as well as the impact of climate change on Canadian emissions, are not explained.
MPCA Response: There are difficulties in accessing the Canadi an inventory, which the MPCA believes it is appropriate for the EPA to resolve in a government-to-government relationship. Therefore, the MPCA believes that the action taken in the SIP (holdi ng emissions from Canada constant) is the most appropriate action, as it focuses att ention on the changes in emissions in Minnesota and other States that are required to submit Haze SIPs. The explanation provided in the draft TSD, section 2.3, page 35, provides sufficient reason for using the Canadian 2005 inventory for both the 2002 base-year modeling and the 2018 future-year modeling. The draft TSD states , “...no credit is taken for any possible reduction (or increase) in emissions from Canada.” The MPCA emphasized reductions in emissions because the use of the available 2000 base-year, and 2018 future -year Canadian emissions would have resulted in modeled visibility impacts closer to the URP at BWCAW and VNP than when the emissions are held constant. Thus, we would have taken credit for em issions reductions in Canada. Because the underlying data and calculations used to create the Canada emissi ons are unavailable, along with problems with the dataset, the MPCA is uncomfortable taking credit for those modeled visibility improvements. The choice was made to keep the emissions constant. 5) Ammonia Emissions – The commenters note that ammonia emissions have significant uncertainty, but that the state does not seem to recommend add itional data gathering or monitoring of ammonia. The commenters feel th e state should not assign responsib ility for improving ammonia modeling without identifying how the state can help to improve understanding. Instead, the Haze SIP should include “strategies for increasing our ability to unde rstand and control pollutants” for pollutants such as ammonia. The state is responsible for impr oving understanding of emissions of ammonia from point and area sources and, if needed, collecti on of additional ambient ammonia measurements.
MPCA Response: Both CENRAP and MRPO are currently planning to conduct studies of ammonia in the near future. The MPCA certainly intends to assist in these studies, as we believe that a better understanding of ammonia is necessary on a regional level. VI. Modeling
1) Reliability of Models – The commenters state that SIP language is very technical, and general background information on the use of air quality mode ls would provide additional clarity/context. As noted in the SIP, Minnesota has five modeling analys es to draw from. The commenters state that the five scenarios do not agree, and the SIP can only sp eculate as to the causal factors. The commenters feel that inconsistencies between the models used to determine progress towards visibility goals raises concerns about the reliability of the models as a basis for planning, and that “none of these modeled results can or should be used as the basis for seri ous planning”, as they are not robust enough. The commenter specifically refers to a statement in the draft SIP that models are “less reliable for organic carbon – note the large underestimation in mont hly average organic carbon concentrations.” Therefore, the commenters request that more inform ation be added to a weight of evidence analysis.
MPCA Response: One reason the commenter states the modeled results should not be used for planning is because of the model performance of organic carbon. The MPCA disagrees. Model performance of organic carbon in the rural BWCAW and VNP fit within performance goals on non-wildfire days (Organic carbon often arises from wildfires) and is better than that seen in overall performance conducted by the MRPO which encompasses a much larger scope and includes urban areas. The weight-of-evidence that poor performance at BW CAW and VNP is on days influenced by wildfires is documented in the draft TSD, Se ction 6, page 59, which states: “Organic carbon performance is good [at BWCAW and VOYA] with several days not meeting [the performance] criteria. They are May 26, June 1, July 19 and October 2....In apaper titled ‘Establishing Reasonable Progress Goals for the Northern Class I Areas: Treatment of Organic Carbon”, April 2, 2007, the MRPO addresses impact from wildfire activity. MRPO identifies the days with bad organic carbon model performance as days in which the Minnesota Class I areas we re impacted by Canadian wildfires”.
It makes sense that modeled organic carbon performance on those days would be poor because wildfires were not included in the modeling inventory. Because w ildfires cannot be predicted in the future, for the modeled inventory wildfires can either be included – a nd held constant – from the base-year to the futureyear (as CENRAP had done) or excluded from the bo th the base-year and future-year, and handle the model performance in a qualitative manner as MRPO (and Minnesota) has done, and is described above.
In order to clarify why inclusion of wildfires in the modeling inventory is not necessary to establish reasonable progress goals at BWCAW and VOYA, a descrip tion of how modeling results are used in the reasonable progress test is useful. First, the absolute modeled concentration results are not directly used. Rather, the EPA guidance describes a method (also described in the draft TSD in Section 7.0, pages 69- 70) of using the modeled results to establish a unitless “relative response factor” which is then applied to the observed data. The relative resp onse factors are the ratio of the future absolute model concentration for each individual component of PM 2.5 (i.e. averaged over the 20% wo rst days), to the base case absolute model concentration for each individual component of PM 2.5 . Because wildfires are not predictable nor controllable in the sense of enforceab le control strategies, no changes in organic carbon due to wildfires appears in the relative response fa ctor. This means that organic carbon levels due to wildfires are included in the baseline and in the reasonable progress goal, both of which are established using monitored data, but no changes in organic carb on due to wildfire occurrence is assumed in the goal. The MPCA will clarify in the TSD that the five modeling analyses do agree as long as we take the opportunity to understand and consider the uncertainties of each. This is what the MPCA attempt to do in the TSD. 2) Meteorological Data – The commenters note that the SIP uses met data from one year as a basis for developing 2018 emission predictions; they state that it is overly simplistic to assume that the met data for a long term plan will be the same as an y one calendar year. Therefore, they believe modeling for a long term plan using met data from one year is “indefensible” and renders the long term plan inherently flawed. The SIP should include multiple y ears of met data to ensure greater reliability of future predictions. Even PSD permitting requires mu ltiple years of data. The SIP does not show any sensitivity analysis about the met data and how that affects results.
MPCA Response: The MPCA agrees that it would be preferabl e to utilize multiple years of meteorology covering the baseline period (2000-2004), however, the amount of resources would be immense, in terms of the physical (hard drive space, computer processing speed), time and money. The level of effort and resources that were put toward this multi-year/multi -organization project are not trivial. The requirements for the simpler individual source modeling conducted for PSD cannot compare to that required for the large, resource-intensive regional models used for attainment of the ozone and PM 2.5 standards and for establishing visibility goals. In order to conduct one y ear of modeling, it was necessary to pool resources and conduct the work through the RPOs.
Cognizant of the intense resources required to c onduct these analyses, EPA gui dance for regional haze does not tread in the area of modeling multiple meteorological years, but discusses modeling analysis encompassing multiple days, and suggests a poss ible need to model an entire year. For modeling PM 2.5 , EPA guidance discusses modeling a full year as “a logica l goal.” For regional haze, the multiple days are those which reflect the variety of meteorological c onditions representing visibility impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst days in the Class I areas bei ng modeled. Minnesota knows of no state that surpassed EPA guidelines by modeling multiple year s of meteorology in establishing their regional progress goals.

Because of the resource limitations , the EPA guidelines attempt to take into account the year-to-year variability of the meteorology in the baseline (yea rs 2000 – 2004). The middle year (2002) has more weight due to the fact the emissions and the met eorology are used to develop the relative response factors (RRF) applied to the baseline. Also, the “relat ive” application of the model results is intended to“help reduce the impact of possibl e over-or under-estimations by the dispersion model due to emissions, meteorology, or general selection of other model input parameters.”
The commenter quotes the Regional Haze SIP as sayi ng Minnesota “speculates” that differences in meteorology can “...result in a different set of 20% worst days with less impact from Minnesota.” The commenter refers to a hypotheses made by the MPCA as to why the MRPO 2005 modeling showed reasonable progress goals closer to the URP than th e Minnesota 2002 goals. The MPCA would like to clarify that the different set of 20% worst days are de termined by the observed data; not by the modeling.
That being said, the MPCA obtained the 2005 meteor ology developed by the MRPO. The MPCA tested the hypothesis in the Regional Haze SIP and dra ft TSD by modeling 2002 anthropogenic emissions with 2005 biogenics – which are highly dependant on meteorology – and 2005 meteorology. Because biogenic emissions remain the same from the base-year to the future-year, use of 2005 biogenics does not influence the resulting RRFs.
The use of 2005 meteorology results in a reasonable progress goals 0.4 deciviews closer to the URP at BWCAW, and 0.8 deciviews closer to the URP at VN P. Because of time and resources, Minnesota was able to test this hypothesis only after the public notice of the draft TSD; and only because the MRPO switched from a 2002 base year to a 2005 base year. The result demonstrates that the RRF, and hence, reasonable progress goals, are sensitive to meteorol ogy and where the emission reductions occur.
The RRFs, developed from the modeling, really reflec t a percent reduction in each individual component of PM 2.5 . If significant percent reductions in PM 2.5 precursors occur to the – for example, Southeast – of BWCAW and VNP, and during that meteorological y ear winds predominated from the Southeast during the 20 percent worst days, the RRF would reflect the percent reductions from the geographic area to the Southeast. If those same emissions reductions occur in the Southeast but meteorological conditions bring influence from a different geographic area on t he 20 percent worst days, like the Northwest, the emissions reductions from the southeast will not carry as mu ch weight in the RRF.
There is no way to anticipate how other meteorologica l years would impact the results without conducting the modeling, which as described above is too resour ce intensive for most organizations to conduct, at least in the near term, and certainly it is beyond Minnesota’s resources. 3) Boundary Conditions – The SIP indicates that “boundary conditions” are responsible for a significant amount of visibility impairment; the commenters stat e that it is unclear if some of these boundary conditions should be attributed to specific states. Th ey believe that the extent to which BCs could be attributed to specific states should be analyzed, as it may mean that some states contribute more than 5% to visibility impairment.
MPCA Response: Boundary conditions are those source cont ributions outside of the modeling domain. In the case of the Haze SIP (and ozone and PM 2.5 attainment modeling) they are the conditions derived from monthly averaged species output from the global scale chemical transport model (GEOS-CHEM) for the year 2002. Essentially, the GE OS-CHEM model is run at a much coarser resolution to allow for modeling global emissions. The GEOS-CHEM model output is processed to remove discrepancies between the grid scales, etc., and the GEOS-CHEM and CAMx model are linked at the CAMx domain boundary.
Boundary conditions can transfer into and out of the dom ain from the North, South, East and West. In the case of ozone, boundary conditions can also enter in from the top of the domain due to stratospheric infusion. Source apportionment techniques can on ly account for the total contribution of boundary conditions to the overall visibility conditions, which accounts for the conservation of mass in the modeling apportionment.
Expanding the domain likely would not have an effe ct on the extent to which boundary conditions contribute to the visibility impact at BWCAW and VNP. The CENRAP domain covers at least the entire U.S. and has a similar contribution to extinction attr ibuted to boundary conditions. The domain used in the modeling to support the Regional Haze SIP ext ends far enough out from BWCAW and VNP to fully account for the contributions from the most significant geographic regions (i.e. St ates). None of the state contributions in the signific ant-contribution analysis are lost in the boundary conditions.4) Grid Size (Affidavit only) – The commenter states that some modeling choices are not explained, such as the choice to use a 12km grid over Minnesota rather than a 4 km or 1 km grid.
MPCA Response: The spatial resolution to use for emissions and meteorology when conducting a regional scale modeling analysis are dictated by spatial variability in em issions, spatial precision of the available emissions data, and whethe r smaller scale meteorology may have a significant affect on the results. Another constraint to consider is time and resources.
In the BWCAW and VNP, and generally in the Midwest, there is no complex terrain (i.e. geographic features such as mountains) and so the meteorol ogy for regional scale modeling need not have great spatial resolution. The BWCAW and VNP also are in a rural area. In an urban setting, one would use no lesser grid resolution than 12-km.
EPA guidance, page 158, states: “Becau se of the remoteness of Class I areas, grid cell sizes up to 36 km on a side should suffice for regional haze-related modeling. States may wish to perform diagnostic tests using plume-in-grid analyses, as well as finer horizontal resolution to determine if results may differ using more finely resolved emissions and meteorology.”
Both CENRAP and MRPO, and other States affiliated with them, modeled at 36km grid spacing. With the resources made available through MRPO, Minnesota went beyond the RPO 36km regional haze modeling conducted for the Midwest with a 12km fl exi-nest over Minnesota and conducted a plume-ingrid analysis for individual sources located in the Northeastern part of Minnesota, nearest the Class I

area. The 12km “flexi-nest” incorporated 12km landuse, but did not contain emissions or meteorology resolved to 12km. As noted in item #3 above, the cost, time and data management difficulties greatly increase with more finely resolved grids. The 2002 12km meteorologic al data and emissions were not readily available, nor did Minnesota have time to process the data and have readily available space to store the data.
Effectively, the 12km flexi-nest provid es more resolved placement of point sources. As noted in the TSD, the MPCA conducted plume-in-grid modeling for t he point sources nearest the BWCAW and VOYA. The plume-in-grid tool allowed the State to gain better unde rstanding of the influence of individual facilities on Class I area visibility by looking at the early treatment of dispersion and chemistry of point source plumes. 5) Inclusion of Canada (Affidavit only) – The commenter states that the Canadian contributions to haze are poorly understood in the model predictions. Some of this seems to be due to the domain size; if domain size is a factor, that should be investigated and a domain used that is “sufficiently large/ encompassing so as to not unduly influence contri butions.” The commenter believes that continuing to run models with insufficient domain size to reso lve Canadian contributions renders much of the modeling suspect.
MPCA Response: Efforts are underway to explore expanding t he domain west and north to include more of the Canadian contribution in concert with effort s to work with the Canada government regarding their inventory. It is the understanding of the MPCA that Canada has increased their efforts to improve the characterization of the tar sands sources for the sa me reasons the commenter mentions. The MPCA has no intention of including an expanded domain that includes the Alberta inventory as it currently exists. Because Canada emissions were kept constant in the modeling and thus, were not in the relative response factors used to determine reasonable progre ss goals, expanding the domain at this time would be meaningless. The collaborative effort between the two countries will take considerable time and will require significant contribution by the U.S. federal and the Canadian governments. However, this ongoing effort does not preclude U.S. sour ces from taking reason able measures to improve visibility in the meantime.

VII. Other Comments
1) Collaboration with Other States – The commenters state that MPCA’s efforts to work with the RPOs and States that contribute to visibility impairme nt in Minnesota “appear to have resulted in no progress in spite of the multiple meetings and extensive collaboration undertaken.” The feel that since the MPCA did not reach agreement with other stat es on those states’ responsibility for visibilityimpairment or emission reductions, much of the vi sibility impairment remains unaddressed. The SIP does not indicate how/if EPA was involved in resolvi ng problems with other states, and should make a direct appeal to EPA to resolve the inter stat e issues. In addition, the commenters feel the SIP should more clearly articulate the problems and issues experienced in working with other states, not simply indicate that 75% of visibility impairi ng emissions are outside MPCA’s control.
MPCA Response: The MPCA has been, and continues to be, involved in consultation with many surrounding states. EPA regional staff (particularly Region 5 staff) have also been involved in these calls, and therefore have been party to many of the states’ discussions about contribution. It is the MPCA’s understanding that disagreements between states about contribution or appropriate controls will be resolved by consultation in and am ong EPA regional offices during SIP review. As requested by the commenter, the MPCA ha s added a more direct appeal to EPA to resolve these issues.
At this time, it is difficult to know how much visibility impairment at Minnesota’s Class I areas resulting from other states will be addressed as only two contributing states have submitted their Haze SIPs. It should be noted that MPCA’s referenc e to the fact that 75% of visibilit y impairing emissions are outside of MPCA’s control refers only to the development of t he target for the Northeast Minnesota Plan; though it generally holds true, this did not affect how the MP CA approached consultation with other States. The MPCA hopes to be able to include emission reductions from surrounding states’ haze and PM 2.5 SIPs in the five year SIP assessment.
2) States contributing less than 5% - The commenters state that the 5% threshold for designating states as causing or contributing to visibility impairment leaves out 22% of emissions affecting BWCAW and 23% of VNP. They believe the federal goal will not be met if strategies are not developed to address the cumulative amount of visibility impairment caused by state contributing less than 5% of visibility impairment, and state that “excluding states with smaller than 5% contributions effectively sets aside a cumulative contribution that is quite large...Setting aside these states is also arguably unfair to the sources and states that are above 5% since they have to disproportionately reduce emissions to meet the glide path.” The commenters feel that the Haze SIP should identify states that contribute < 5% and incorporate reductions in emissi ons from these states into Minnesota’s long term strategy. Likewise, MPCA should address its impact on Seney.
MPCA Response: The decision to use a 5% threshold to des ignate specific contributing states was a policy decision made for this SIP. Such a threshold might be changed in future SIPs. Places in the SIP (Appendix 10.1, Table 10.1.1) show the contributions to visibility im pairment by all states; the MPCA believes that using the 5% threshold gets the most important c ontributors to visibility impairment in Minnesota’s Class I areas. States with contributio ns below 5% generally had contributions much below that threshold.
However, emissions data and projections for all states in the modeling domain were included in Minnesota’s modeling of 2018 and determination of RPGs. Although states with less than a 5% contribution to light extinction are not asked to make emission reductions particularly to reduce their impact on Minnesota’s Class I areas, these states should also making reductions to reduce their impacts the Class I areas, and any PM 2.5 nonattainment areas, to which they are significant contributors, which would also reduce their contribution to haze in Minnesota. It should also be noted that the Regional Haze program is a long term one; should certain states not reduce their emissions, they will contribute a higher portion of visibility impairment in the future and can be addressed at that time. The RPGs set by the MPCA are set taking into account projected emission changes in all states in the domain, and will not require disproportionate reductions from thos e states as compared to other states
Michigan has not asked Minnesota to specifically address its impact on S eney, and the MPCA believes that emission reductions undertaken to improve visibi lity at BWCAW, VNP, and Is le Royale National Park will also benefit Seney Wilderness.
3) New Minor Sources – The commenters state that the SIP should indicate how new minor sources will impact visibility and discuss how emissions from new minor sources will be regulated.MPCA Response : The addition of new minor sources is included in projections for emission growth for 2018, and therefore taken into account in the visib ility modeling of the future. Emissions from minor sources generally will continue to be regulated thro ugh the MPCA’s operating permitting program. The MPCA has added a component to the Northeast Minneso ta Plan that includes an evaluation of overall minor source emissions in the six-county area at the plan check-in points of 2012 and 2018. The Northeast Minnesota Plan also explicitly includes sources with emissions between 100 and 250 tpy. 4) Northeast Minnesota Plan (Affidavit) – The commenter notes that the Northeast Minnesota plan contemplates an MOU between the MPCA and FL Ms. The commenter believes this MOU should be subject to public review. The commenter also states , in regards to the Northeast Minnesota Plan, that since new major sources have to undergo PSD anal ysis, it is not clear why haze modeling cannot also be performed. The commenter believes that using an emissions cap to excuse modeling, without taking into account source locations, is flawed.
MPCA Response: Location was one of the key concerns in determining which counties to include in the Northeast Minnesota Plan. For the purposes of the Plan, it was determined that it was reasonable to treat all emissions from the chosen six counties equally, regard less of their location, in terms of their effect on visibility impairment. The one exception is emission s ources that are lo cated extremely close to the Class I areas. Modeling to determine visibility impact is re source-intensive, both for the source and the agency reviewing the modeling (which is often the relevant FLM.) In addition, facilities are generally approved as long as they do not contribute more than a certain amount to visibility impairment. Although this may help to minimize individual facility emissions, it does nothing to look at the sum total of many facilities’ emissions. The Northeast Minnesota Plan is designed to result in a reduction of emissions from the totality of nearby facilities, which can only decrease the contribution to visibility impairment from those facilities. It therefore takes a more holistic look at emissions contributing to visibility impairment than the standard PSD modeling. 5) Mobile Sources – The commenters state that the SIP fails to analyze the visibility impacts of mobile sources (off-road vehicles, motorboats, snowmobiles) from users and visitors of the Class I areas.
MPCA Response: Although the modeling analysis contains emissions associated with marine, recreational vehicle (as well as other non-road vehicles) and on-road vehicles to and/or into the Class I areas (as appropriate), no specific regional haze impact analysis was conducted specifically for visitors of BWCAW and VNP. Motor vehicle impacts were evaluat ed holistically rather than specifically directed toward visitors of the Class I area. The website ci ted by the commenter relates to transportation planning at all federal National Parks regarding aesthetic concerns – both noise and sight – due to low altitude airplane flights and full parking lots. These aesthet ic issues are beyond the scope of the SIP. 6) Fire Emissions and Smoke Management – The commenters believe the SIP should discuss why Minnesota has such a high level of prescribed burning compared to other states, and that the role of fire emissions should be discussed in more detail, particularly because of the high level of prescribed burning. They state that the SIP should include mo re information on how MPCA proposes to regulate visibility impairment which results from prescribed fi res. They feel it is not clear how the objectives of the Smoke Management Plan affect or tie in with the regional haze goals.
MPCA Response: The role of fire emissions was discussed in detail. As noted in the SIP, Minnesota’s native ecosystems are dependent on and adapted to fire disturbance; for example, Minnesota has more coniferous forest land than nearby states (Michigan and Wisconsin) and these tree species are more fire dependent. In addition, Minnesota has greater land ar ea than nearby states and likely also has more undeveloped vegetative habitats where there is lower concern about wildland/ urban interface problems with burning. Due largely to these factors, Minneso ta’s land management agencies conduct a more active prescribed burning program than the other nearby st ates. Although Minnesota does have high levels of prescribed burning, prescribed burning does not have an impact on the haziest days at the Class I areas. The commenter says that it is not clear how the objectives of the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) affect the regional haze goals, but in fact, reducing haze is a key objective for having a SMP, and the SMP is the basic instrument to address visibility effects fr om prescribed fires. The SMP provisions address visibility through use of ventilation index and sens itive receptor areas. The revised 2008 SMP alsoreferences the AQI and, in practice, if the AQI is elevated for either ozone or fine particles, it is recommended that burns not be conducted in the area. The MPCA, as required in the SMP, conducts an annual review of the effects of prescribed bur ning on Minnesota’s air qualit y, providing actual measurement and attribution of ozone and fine particle le vels to prescribed fires. This evaluation serves to make the SMP more robust in its go als of reducing visibility effects. 7) Construction Activities – The commenters feel that the SIP fails to explicitly address the impact of emissions from construction activities.
MPCA Response: The SIP deals with nonroad emissions, and, as stated, rules are already in place to prevent particulate emissions from construction and minimize the impact of federal construction through conformity rules. EPA Region V reviewed Minnesota’s draft SIP and did not identify this as an area of deficiency. 8) Evaluating progress against the Glide Path – The commenters believe the SIP should include a comparison of modeled deciview values against actual measurements at the IMPROVE monitors taken in 2007.
MPCA Response: The MPCA did not model a projection for 2007, so there cannot be a direct comparison between modeled and actual visibility cond itions in 2007. The MPCA has added to the SIP, in Chapter 5, the following table updating monitore d visibility conditions (with no data adjustments) for 2005 through 2007.

The MPCA will continue to use the IMPROVE data in or der to evaluate our progress towards meeting the RPGs.
Comment Letter 23: Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Brad Sagen
This comment letter incorporates by reference Co mment Letter 22, summarized and responded to above. Responses focuses solely on the additi onal comments made in this letter.
1) 2064 Goal – The commenter states that the “State w ill not achieve the mandated Natural Conditions target by 2064...In view of other problems with the SIP, this fact alone should disqualify the current plan from receiving Federal approval. The SIP e xpresses no sense of urgency regarding proposed emissions reduction activities. Indeed it effectivel y postpones implementation of most major activities such as BART requirements until at least 2012.”
MPCA Response: The MPCA recognizes that, at this time, we are not projecting meeting natural conditions by 2064. However, the SIP meets the requi rements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), which states:
“The reasonable progress goals must provide fo r an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impair ed days over the same period.”
In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) states
“For the period of the implementation plan, if the State establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain natural conditions by 2064, t he State must demonstrate...that the rate of Site Days 2005 2006 2007 Baseline (Average 2000 - 2004) 2000 - 2007 Average Most Recent Five Year Average (2003 - 2007) Natural Conditions
BWCAW 20% Worst 21.3 19. 6 19.8 19.9 20.0 19.8 11.6
20% Best 6.3 5.8. 5.8 6.4 6.3 6.1 3.4
VNP 20% Worst 19.9 20.5 19.2 19.5 19.6 19.8 12.1

20% Best 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.9 6.8 4.3 Isle Royale 20% Worst 23.8 21. 9 21.7 21.6 21.9 21.9 12.5
20% Best 7.1 6.4 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.6 3.7progress for the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the progress goal adopted by the Stat e is reasonable. The State must provide to the public for review...an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvem ent continues at the rate of progress selected by the State as reasonable.”

The MPCA believes that it has demo nstrated that the rate of progress set in the SIP is reasonable, and that additional progress is not yet known to be reas onable. The MPCA has provided dates by which the Class I areas will reach natural conditions if progress continues at this rate. Therefore, the MPCA has fulfilled these requirements of the Regional Haze Ru le. In addition, although not all BART limits are not being set in this SIP, BART limits are to be incorpor ated into permits by September 1, 2011, meeting the deadline of implementation within five years of SIP submittal. The MPCA believes the delay in determining BART limits will ultimately result in better BART limits. 2) Realism of the Intermediate Emission Reducti on Targets Toward Achieving the Ultimate Target – The commenter here questions the potential contri bution of the 20% and 30% reduction goals towards meeting the 2064 goals. The commenter states that the 2012, 20%, reduction goal is 1911 tons per year, and that the absolute reduction, 2012 – 2018, is only 1593 tons per year, or 17% less than the 2002 – 2012 annual reduction. The commenter requests that the emission reduction targets be increased, to a 25% reduction by 2012 and a 35% reduction by 2018.
MPCA Response: The MPCA views the 2018, 30%, reduction ta rget as the ultimate goal, with the 20% target being set as a “check-in” to ensure that all the emission reductions needed to get to a 30% reduction are not made at the last minute. The goal of the emission reduction tar get is to reduce overall emissions in tons per year. As shown in Table 10.4 of the SIP, a reduction in emissions from 2002 – 2012 is 19,112 tons per year, while the additional reductions to 2018 is an additional 9,556 tons per year. It appears that the commenter has divided this number by the number of years (9556 / 6 = 1593 as stated in the commenter’s letter) to estimate the incremental or marginal number of tons that must be reduced each year. However, the MPCA does not feel that this is the best wa y to evaluate emission changes. The nature of control projects is such that decreases in emissions are likely to come in larger steps, not incremental, annual reductions. Although there ar e many ways to think about setting the emission reduction target, the MPCA believes that the 30% re duction goal for 2018 is both substantial enough to result in visibility improvement, and yet reasonably achievable. 3) Monitoring – The commenter suggests that greater relian ce be placed on actual monitoring data, but raises concerns that the location of the monitors have not been analyzed to determine if they are representative of the entirety of the Class I areas, and that there is unexplained variation in the monitoring data. The commenter asks that the Stat e be prepared to assume some responsibility for funding the monitors if federal funding is withdrawn.
MPCA Response: Monitoring data is important, but it would be difficult to place more reliance on the monitors due to some of the concerns expressed by the commenter, namely the fact that the monitors are located in one spot within each large Class I area. Th erefore, they cannot repr esent the entirety of the Class I area, which is why modeling is used with mult iple receptors to estimate conditions across each Class area. On funding, see tesponse to comment letter 15, item 2.
4) BART –The commenter “recommends that pilot testing of BART control strategies begin as soon as practicable, and certainly concurrent with the tr acking of emissions and determination of BART limits”.
MPCA Response : The MPCA would like to make clear that the pi lot testing is for additional controls to be implemented under the long term strategy. BART has been determined to be existing controls or good combustion techniques, not add-on controls. Therefore, in order to set BART limits based on the current state of technology in the indu stry, the MPCA needs to have data reflecting emissions under current operating conditions, prior to any pilot testing of add-on controls. However, the MPCA understands that some testing into energy efficiency improvements and other good combustion practices is currently ongoing.5) Dysfunctions in the Incentives/Sanctions Program for Taconite Emissions – The commenter states that there is little incentive for individual facilities to comply with the plan to develop new control options or pollution prevention technologies at th e taconite facilities. They recommend that MPCA “make clear...the tools MPCA has at hand to co mpel compliance at the several stages in implementation of the SIP [and] develop positive economic incentives for taconite facilities to develop and implement ne w emissions controls.”
MPCA Response: As stated in the SIP, the MPCA has yet to determine exactly what tool will be used to require investigation into emission controls at the tac onite facilities. The main tools would be either a state rule (such as the BART rule), Administrative Orders (such as those issued to require CEMs/PEMS), or requirements in facility operating permits. Since the draft SIP, one facility (US Steel – MinnTac) is being required to investigate emission controls throug h requirements in a permit. In terms of economic incentives, the MPCA is exploring what kinds of in centives might be within its authority. As the commenter notes, longer term incentives would lik ely require new legislation. Given the current budget situation, any incentive that results in increased st ate spending seems unlikely. The MPCA hopes that the installation of CEMs and the pilot testing of control strategies will result in the discovery of process changes or add-on controls that both reduce emis sions and save money, thereby creating the correct incentives.
Comment Letter 24: EPA Region V
1) BART

a. MPCA should set deadlines for major steps of the taconite BART process such as installation of CEMs and completion of pilot studies to keep things on track. The timeline for BART and the Northeast Minnesota Plan presented at th e public meeting addresses this concern.
MPCA Response: Comment noted. The timeline table menti oned will be included in the SIP as Table 10.5.

b. The date of setting enforceable BART limits is listed in the table provided at the public meeting as mid-2012, which is a concern. The MPCA s hould set appropriate BA RT emission limits for the taconite facilities in an enforceable form as soon as possible.
MPCA Response: Based on timelines for data collection, the MPCA previously believed it would be possible to set enforceable BART limits in Title V permits for the taconite facilities by September 1, 2011. However, the economic situation leading to the idlin g of nearly all the taconite facilities affects the MPCA’s ability to receive and analyze the year of data we believe is necessary to set BART emission limits, particularly for NO X . However, the MPCA does believe that BART determinations will be able to be made by the end of August 2011, with BART limits be ing placed in permits so that BART compliance occurs within five years of EPA’s approval of the SIP. 2) Northeast Minnesota Plan – It is not clear what will happen to the emission target is beyond 2018. This should be clarified in the SIP
MPCA Response: MPCA has added the following explanation to the SIP to clarify the status of the Northeast Minnesota Plan target after 2018: “Emiss ions from the six-county region covered by the Northeast Minnesota plan will continue to be held to a level 30% below 2002 levels beyond 2018. In future SIP revisions, the MPCA will consult with the FLMs and evaluate the necessity of maintaining emissions from Northeast Minnesota at this level and the possibility of conti nuing reductions from the area in order to reach the long term visibility goals. ”
3) Agricultural burning – Although agricultural burning is briefly discussed, there is no mention of the impact of this burning on visibility.
MPCA Response: The MPCA has added further information to the SIP describing the type of agricultural burning that is prevalent in Minnesot a, and that the MPCA believes that this does not have a significant impact on visibility because the generally light fuel type does not produce major smoke events. Inaddition, an analysis of the days impacted by smok e does not show any impacts from agricultural burning, and such burning takes place in portions of the state quite distant from the Class I areas. 4) Emissions Inventory – The 2005 emission inventory is incomplete, as only point sources are shown. The complete 2005 emission inventory should be include d as it helps to illustrate trends in emissions both now and in the future.
MPCA Response: The 2005 emission inventory was not complete when the initial Draft SIP was put on public notice. It is now complete and a summary has been added to the SIP.