APPENDICES
 

[This page intentionally left blank]
 

Appendix 1.1: Benefits of Improved Visibility103

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 particles present in the atmosphere, 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 (PM2.5). PM2.5 is composed of ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, fine soil, and trace metals. Fine particulates can be emitted directly into the atmosphere 

or can be formed in the atmosphere by the transformation 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 geographic area (regional haze as defined in 40 CFR 

51.301). Sources of visible plumes are generally thought to be comparatively negligible contributors to 

the impairment of visibility in Class I areas. According to EPA (2005), “there have been a limited 

number of cases in which Federal land managers have certified the existence of visibility impairment in a 

Class I area as being ‘reasonably attributable’ 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 the 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 fine 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 atmosphere. Fine particles transported from urban and 

industrialized areas, in turn, may, in some cases, 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 Geosciences, Environment and Resources, 1993. 105 EPA, OAQPS, 2005. p 6-2. 106 Ibid. p 6-3. 

118
 

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 PM2.5 pollution are far reaching and include environmental/ecological, health, and economic 

benefits. 

Environmental/Ecological Benefits 

The components and precursors of PM2.5 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 precursors 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, waterways, materials, and human health.108

According to EPA, acid rain and dry deposition of acidic particles contribute to the corrosion of metals 

(such as bronze) and the deterioration of paint and stone (such as marble and limestone). These effects 

seriously reduce the value to society of buildings, bridges, cultural objects (such as statues, monuments, 

and tombstones), and cars. The afore-mentioned fact is reiterated in the following excerpts from the 

EPA’s review of the Particulate Matter Standard: 

“Physical damage such as corrosion, degradation, and deterioration occurs in metals, paint 

finishes, and building materials such as stone and concrete, respectively. Metals are affected 

by natural weathering processes even in the absence of atmospheric pollutants. Atmospheric 

pollutants, most notably SO2 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. Particles consisting primarily of carbonaceous 

compounds cause soiling of commonly used building 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 PM2.5 precursors, and thus visibility impairment, is the formation 

of ozone. As stated in the EPA’s PM Data Analysis Workbook, “formation of a substantial fraction of 

secondary PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 attain the NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone. 

Other environmental and ecological benefits are likely 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. 109EPA, OAQPS, 2005. p 6-51. 110 Ibid., p 6-50. 111 EPA, 1996. 112 EPA, NAAQS Designations web pages 

119
 

injury or death of tissues in foliage, while reduction of both nitrogen and sulfur compounds will decrease 

acidification and fertilization of waters and soils and 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 PM2.5 elsewhere, 

leading to health benefits. Studies link particulate matter to a host of health problems, including 

premature death, aggravated asthma, and other respiratory 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 include the elderly, people with asthma or pre-existing 

heart or lung disease, and children. 

“There are several reports of associations between 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-existing illness and related symptoms rather than 

de novo acute respiratory infections (7). The use 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 effects on the respiratory system from short-term and 

long-term exposures to particulate matter are discussed: 

“[R]ecent epidemiologic findings are consistent...in showing associations with both 

respiratory symptom incidence and decreased lung function (CD, p. 9-70). PM10 and PM2.5

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 ambient PM that is coherent with evidence of 

increased respiratory symptoms and admissions/visits to the hospital or emergency room for 

respiratory disease...In general...studies have indicated that long term exposure to PM2.5 is 

associated with reduced lung function...and increased risk of developing chronic respiratory 

illness (CD, p. 8-313).”114 

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

“[N]ew epidemiologic studies provide much more evidence of effects on the cardiovascular 

system with short-term exposure to PM, particularly PM10 and PM2.5 (CD, p. 9-67). 

Epidemiologic studies have reported associations between short-term exposures of ambient 

PM (often using PM10) 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 conclusions 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. 

120
 

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/m3

 increase 

of PM2.5 there was about a 6% increased risk of cardiopulmonary mortality. This study also assessed the 

relationship between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution and lung cancer, with results 

indicating that with each 10 μ/m3

 increase in PM2.5 ambient air concentration there is an 8% increase in 

lung cancer mortality. 

A press release from the National Institute of Environmental 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 lung cancer and heart disease...Arden Pope...the 

study’s co-leader, said that while far less than the risks associated 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 pollution 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 metropolitan 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 municipalities located near these areas. Tourism is a major 

part of the economy of regions around Class I areas, 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 visitor 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 problems can cause absences from work and school and 

decreased productivity, as well as high medical expenses. By improving health, decreases in PM2.5 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)

121
 

Appendix 1.2: EPA SIP Submittal Checklist 

Y / N or N/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 necessary 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 evidence 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 information 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 glidepath (i.e., rate of progress needed to 

attain natural visibility conditions by 2064) for each Class I area? 

Table 5.3 

122
 Y / N or 

N/A 

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary Location in SIP 

Y 

(d)(1)(i)(B) In establishing the RPG for 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 2064 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 that 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 baseline 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 visibility 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 available 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 visibility 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 10.4 

123
 Y / N or 

N/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 emission 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 emission 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 measures 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 exist within the state for these 

purposes? 

Chapter 10 

Appendix 10.7 

124
 Y / N or 

N/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 the 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 needed 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 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 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 for each Class I area in the state? 

Chapter 6 

Y 

(d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a statewide 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 impairment 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 9.1 

125
 Y / N or 

N/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 determination 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 the 

technology 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 operational 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 program 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/A 

126
 Y / N or 

N/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 procedures 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 11 

127
 

Appendix 2.1: Documentation of legal authority and compliance with State procedure 

128
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 of42 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) 

129
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 ofthe 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-vl 

130
131
132
133
 

Appendix 2.2: Public Notices

134
 State 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

135
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 consulting

services. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, with a letter on your letterhead stationery requesting publication and date 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 State 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 Education.

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

136
(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............................................................................................... 1637

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)............................................................................................... 1648

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

137
(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 possible

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 only 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 revision 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 state to

adopt and submit a plan to EPA that addresses the state’s contribution to visibility impairment at the mandatory Class I Federal 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 Canoe 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 Notices

138
Page 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 from

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 period

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 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 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 be 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 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

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. ComOfficial Notices

139
 State 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

140
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 consulting

services. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, with a letter on your letterhead stationery requesting

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 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 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 State 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 Education.

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

141
(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

142
(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 State 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 Fiscal Year 2011.

 Information on the proposed inpatient hospital rate changes is available from Paul Olson, Department of Human Services, Health 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 Services,

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 hearings 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 May 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 period.

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, 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 are 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 in Duluth

please call Patty Parker at (218) 723-4660. All MPCA offices may be reached by calling 1-800-657-3864.

Official Notices

143
Page 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 be 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 Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to the State of Minnesota. This means that Minnesota operates the federal PSD program as an agent of EPA

rather than operating an approved state PSD program. Because Minnesota operates a federally delegated PSD program, it is constrained

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) to the

EPA in order for Minnesota’s PSD permit program to become a “SIP-approved” program rather than a delegated program. Having a SIPapproved 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 Notices

144
 State 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

145
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 State 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 Register Printing Order” form, and, with contracts, a “Certification/Internal Contract Negotiation” form. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, with a letter on your letterhead stationery 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 Education.

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

146
(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.com

147
Page 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 designated 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 commissioner

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 placed 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 state to

adopt and submit a plan to EPA that addresses the state’s contribution to visibility impairment at the mandatory Class I Federal 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 Canoe 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 comment.

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 period.

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) 757-2607 Voice or toll free 1-800-657-3864; facsimile number: (651)

Official Notices

148
(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 available for

inspection 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

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 be 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 Canby. 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 application 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 public 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 need

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 Notices

149
 State 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

150
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 State 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 Wednesday 12 August

 # 9 Monday 31 August Noon Tuesday 25 August Noon Wednesday 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 Register Printing Order” form, and, with contracts, a “Certification/Internal Contract Negotiation” form. Non-State Agencies should submit ONE COPY, with a letter on your letterhead stationery 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 Education.

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

151
(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 You.............................................................................................. 186

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

152
(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 period.

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) 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 inspection 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 Neuschler. 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 September

3, 2009. Comments must be received in writing at the MPCA by 4:30 p.m. on September 3, 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 be 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 Notices

153
 

Appendix 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.

154
W Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Regional Haze Public Meeting 

April 10, 2008 

6 - 8 pm 

Duluth Office 

Name Organization Phone or Email 

-'\'-

\vV\.~ S""'~~~.(~ ~C\.~ \::. v-O...\'" €,."l; ,- Co. Q.\f\I' >@ 0., -J". c.. 0 ""'" 

}(x /~-' V0f: c;USd-rJ fn~ V\~s cf~jLA . jVM 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{}fV , (()t '1 

03 t/ e Sje~s /'n..f~/" eIe v£'/.l4/- C/r1';; clz 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 '-' 

155
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 

eR{:tt6 &£L I lIlo,..·/, tM.sNI \"lei A~c . cf~1(C) 'tacoVl;re.o~ to.' 

/14fU( je/J/I/ Il:AlJI(~ l1f1tA f7l1r 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 

Mr,'AN 'PilKtu ~fJA~. 1fr.~~r~ 'l .'" lAl ( 6r-f(J..N ((;) .DrifJvd5 -6wco .Of' 

l '-- ...)

~i"C~ C-o ((\e.s HPCA- n cY1a.( d.Cocd.es @~J~ ,mC\'US 

~o&{/ Se-/(a /?/A/A r::O A 

'::J<0C7v?.Ee rh §) Sf~«' • . C4?'1- ./ 

156
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 (PM2.5) 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 NOx and SO2

 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 Year

Deciviews

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

157
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

VNP 19.5 7.1 17.8 18.9 12.1 4.3

BWCAW 19.9 6.4 18.0 18.6 11.6 3.4

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 (SO2, NOX, PM)

 States have discretion in BART application

 Key BART Sources:

 Electric Generating Units (5)

 Taconite processing plants (6)

158
EGU BART: CAIR = BART

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

 A cap-and-trade program to reduce NOX and 

SO2 emissions from power plants

CAIR improves visibility more than EGU BART

 Power plants covered by CAIR do not need to 

install BART for NOX and SO2

 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 NOX is good combustion practices

 BART for SO2 is PM scrubbers optimized for SO2 removal

 BART for PM is equivalent to taconite MACT

 Determinations need a corresponding emission limit

 Indurating furnace emissions, especially for NOX, 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 NOX and SO2

 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 emissions 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

 SO2 and NOX 

 20% decrease by 2012

 30% decrease by 2018

159
LTS: Emissions in NE Minnesota

Other Facilities 6%

Existing Power Plants 47%

Existing Taconite 47%

Region Total NOX + SO2 (2002) 95,500 tons

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

 SO2 determination for taconite facilities can be made 

now

 Especially for UTac Line 2 

 Recirculating scrubber likely to be BART

 SO2 limits at natural gas fired lines seem too high

 Taconite NOX BART should include CEMS or 

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

 “Comparable method” should be further explained

160
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 SO2 removal 

 Accuracy of 2002 taconite emissions

 If shown to be inaccurate, baseline for NE Minnesota Plan 

should be corrected

 Should be a factor in determining 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 SO2 BART determinations

 Limits at natural gas fired lines based on a 

predictive interval

 Scrubbers already optimized for SO2 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

161
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 NOX and SO2 determinations for 

facilities not undertaking controls

Major Changes Made

Taconite BART

 Clarification that NOX CEMS apply to all 

taconite facilities

 Clarification of which taconite BART limits are 

being determined when 

 Now: SO2 limits for lines that burn only natural 

gas

 Future: NOX limits for all facilities and SO2 limits 

for lines that burn solid fuels

162
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 additional 

control 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 

163
Additional Information

 If you have comments or questions about 

the Regional Haze SIP

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/regionalhaze.html

 Comment Period Ends May 16, 2008

 Contact:

Catherine Neuschler

651-296-7774

catherine.neuschler@pca.state.mn.us

164
Appendix 2.4: Public Comments on Draft Haze SIP and MPCA Response 

165
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 Twin Cities, a diesel truck idling, fumes 

spewing out, no one in it. All these air alerts, and no one seems to pay attention to the small things which could be done with no 

inconvenience. When I complained to the Target managers, they did not seem to understand. More than 35 years ago, I left Los 

Angeles 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 restrictions on burning, bon fires, barbeques, charcoal lighter fluid use, fire 

places and they had car inspections to make sure pollution equipment was working. They had a number to call with people who 

actually came out to investigate air complaints. As usual politics often interfered, but those things were in place 35 years ago. 

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 leave vehicles running. Buses don't need to sit idling as they do next to the Highland

Park Library. We can do something about this. One day there will be no place left to move for clean air. If there is technology out 

there, it should be required of industry as well.

 

 

Johanna Lester

166
167
168
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: 2580-2 

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 quality regional haze impacts at mandatory Class I areas across 

your region. We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State through the initial 

evaluation, development, and subsequent 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 Class I wilderness areas and parks. 

This letter acknowledges that the USDA - Forest Service has received and conducted a 

substantive review of your proposed 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 Forest Service in the State of Minnesota’s 

administrative process does not waive any legal defenses or sovereignty rights it may have under 

the laws of the United States, including the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. 

 

As outlined in a letter to the State dated September 29, 2006, our review focused on eight basic 

content areas which reflect priorities for the Federal Land Manager agencies; we have enclosed 

comments to this letter associated with these priorities. We look forward to your response 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). For further information, please contact Trent Wickman at 

(218) 626-4372. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely 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 

169
cc: Bruce Polkowsky 

Chris Holbeck 

Tim Allen 

Matt Rau 

170
Technical Comments on Minnesota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

We would like to begin by commending Minnesota 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 follow 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 valuable information that falls outside the 

standard EPA criteria. 

Best Available Control Technology (BART) - Taconite 

We conveyed our comments on the BART determinations 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 control sulfur dioxide at this 

facility is BART. We feel the BART determination 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 delay 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 SO2/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 level 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 taconite industry. In spite of this, we are 

willing to delay the determination of proper nitrogen oxides controls to allow the industry 

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. We also 

believe the content of the control studies should be more clearly specified. For example 

we’d expect these studies to include on-site, slip-stream and other pilot-scale studies. In 

171
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 having 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 gas phase to the liquid phase by modifying or 

redesigning the internal components of the scrubbers. A number of these options are 

mentioned in the US EPA BART guidelines. Many relate to improving the water 

distribution within the scrubber using trays, rings, or improved spray headers/nozzles. 

This is in line with the general BART determination for sulfur dioxide made on page 62, 

that the existing particulate scrubbers be “optimized” for sulfur dioxide removal. 

We are concerned with the level of the sulfur dioxide limits proposed for the taconite 

facilities that burn low sulfur fuels. For example, for Hibbing Taconite the proposed 

limit is about 20 percent above the highest value ever recorded. The difference is similar 

for the non-coal burning lines at Minntac. This seems to be a large cushion considering 

that the facilities were not likely focused on optimizing for sulfur dioxide 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 level – again, in line with the 

BART determination to optimize these units for sulfur dioxide removal. 

Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) 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 SO2 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 therefore will need the CEMs. 

We understand from page 62 of the SIP that it is Minnesota’s intent to require the 

installation of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMs) at the taconite plants by 

November 30, 2008. We are aware of only two taconite plants to date that have agreed to 

install them and are concerned that the time frame 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 from 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” would 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 

172
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 nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxide unit-specific limits were 

identified in the SIP. We believe it is reasonable 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 emissions 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 facilities’ reports on 

control strategies and pollution prevention options investigated by the taconite 

facilities. If it appears that other (non-taconite) facilities will need to implement 

control strategies in order for the emission 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 analysis 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 requirement for additional emission reduction 

measures through a “state retrofit” requirement that would ultimately apply an 

emission limit to each facility where additional 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 the Five Year report. To aid in understanding 

when these tasks will be completed and how they 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. 

173
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 the Five Year report (which 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 determination of applicable controls can be included in 

the Five Year report. 

We would like to clarify that our understanding of the paragraph on the bottom of page 

84, starting, ”If either target...” applies only to the situation where the target 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 reports and control strategies and evaluate them based on the statutory 

factors and the status of progress towards the emission target. The five year SIP report 

will likely include the results of the analysis, a determination of any control strategies or 

pollution prevention projects that are reasonable at each of the taconite facilities, and 

enforceable mechanisms for requiring application of these measures.” The inclusion of 

the word “likely” makes the timing of these tasks unclear. A table with deadlines for the 

following would be helpful: 

• the final report from the taconite plants on additional control technologies 

investigated for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides 

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

• the installation and operation of control technologies 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 report should be required to be submitted by 

the end of 2011 and the MPCA could then have its BART-like review and enforceable 

mechanisms done in time for the 2012 Five Year 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 controls in the taconite industry (see discussion 

on page 84). We suggest that those controls identified as reasonable would then be 

required to be installed and operational within two years or by the end of 2014. We 

assume this whole process would be open 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 document that can be easily changed as conditions 

dictate. We are concerned that the level of detail on the SMP in the SIP creates an 

174
unnecessary administrative hurdle to making future 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 discussions 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 and the “fair share” responsibilities those states 

have as contributors to visibility impairment in the BWCAW. 

175
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 Minnesota. This industry is somewhat unique in that 

all of the facilities in the United States are in the two states of Michigan and Minnesota. 

Therefore, these two states carry the entire responsibility of fairly administering the BART 

regulations to the industry. 

As you know, application of BART is one of the 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 future, and remedying any existing, impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas. As the Federal Land Manager for the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) Class I area we have an affirmative responsibility to protect 

the air quality related values of this area. One 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 “the technology 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,” 40 CFR Section 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

We find the BART determinations submitted by the taconite plants to be deficient in the 

following ways: 

• Available control technologies were not fully evaluated 

• Technical difficulties were overstated 

• The costs of controls were overstated 

More detailed technical comments on these points are enclosed. 

Technical analyses by Midwest RPO and MPCA and the BART proposals themselves show that 

the taconite plants are important contributors to visibility impairment at the BWCAW. It is 

disappointing that in spite of their importance, the industry has proposed contributing very little 

toward reducing haze in the BWCAW. 

176
The federal land managers have been meeting with the MPCA to discuss innovative ways to 

implement the regional haze rule so that new industrial 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 state will take to achieve the 2018 visibility goal. Based on the 

information we present in this letter and enclosure, 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 (SO2) reductions at the taconite facilities. We are also 

willing to continue our dialogue with the MPCA, industry, and public 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 

177
Technical Comments 

Due to their similarity, for the most part the BART determinations will be addressed as a 

group. We will focus our review on the indurating furnaces, due to the dominance of their 

impact over the other BART-eligible units at the taconite facilities. 

The recently promulgated Taconite MACT standard represents a BART level of control 

for particulates from the furnaces; that leaves SO2 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 SO2 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 implemented don’t count as BART (see MPCA 

presentation http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/presentations/haze-0107-

fenske.pdf, slide 6) so the table above becomes: 

178
Facility # and Type of 

Furnace 

Fuels SO2 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 all 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 SO2

control. Most of these scrubbers are once-through 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 taken to optimize the chemistry of the systems 

and/or optimize the gas to liquid contact to improve the SO2 removal of these units. For 

example, just adjusting the pH at Keetac from 6.5 to 8 increased the SO2 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 tailing water has increased 

• Increased scrubber efficiency can result in increased sulfate concentration in 

taconite process water 

179
• As the concentration of sulfate 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 SO2 concentration 

• The lime recirculating scrubber at Keetac can limit the amount of sulfate and 

fluoride that enter the tailing water by adjusting the pH of the scrubber water so 

that they precipitate in the scrubbing water system 

• The current removal efficiency of the scrubbers 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 the scrubber should be operated at a pH 

between 7 and 7.5 for optimum scrubbing performance. The BART report from 

this facility says it will 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 available and therefore not being technically feasible. The 

reasons stated included corrosion of the process water handling system and the creation 

of solid wastes. Sulfur scrubbing technology has been in existence since the 1960’s. The 

issues described above are not new, unique or insumountable. In addition these issues are 

not technical feasibility issues but are economic feasibility issues. The BART proposals 

did not provide the cost data for this option, so how economically 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 the 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 particulars of each scrubber. A number of these 

options are mentioned in the BART guidelines. Many relate to improving the water 

distribution within the scrubber using trays, rings, or improved spray headers/nozzles. 

Control of SO2 can also be achieved by either limiting the sulfur content of fuels or fuel 

switching, for those facilities that use high sulfur fuels. Switching fuels may or may not 

trade one visibility impairing pollutant (SO2) for another (NOx), as induration furnaces 

are thought to emit less NOx when burning solid fuels. 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 costs for oil-fired EGUs in the BART rule 

180
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 higher sulfur fuels. 

A couple of key quotes from the EPA BART guidelines 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 problems related to specific circumstances of 

the source, space constraints, reliability, and 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 technical obstacles do not, in and of themselves, 

provide a justification for eliminating the control technique on the basis of technical 

infeasibility, FR 7/6/05 pg. 39165. 

While we believe the best option to control SO2 is to modify the existing scrubbers, we 

think it is important that the cost estimates 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 the site-specific estimate for site work, foundations, and structural 

steel. In spite of these adjustments that inflate the cost per ton figure, United Taconite 

shows costs that are within the 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 installation at Keetac would be additional 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 approached in the past 

within the context of two Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits: Minntac 

backwards PSD permit and the PSD permit for Minnesota Steel. Minntac is a grate-kiln 

furnace and Minnesota Steel is a straight grate furnace. This discussion initially focused 

on the application of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and more recently has looked at 

low temperature oxidation (LoTOx). 

• In the Minntac case, in a letter dated October 22, 2003, the MPCA determined 

that SCR was technically feasible but not economically feasible. This 

configuration assumed reheating of the waste gas. The cost per ton calculated 

was sensitive to the assumed cost of natural gas and was “at or above the upper 

range of economic feasibility,” and was rejected as best available control 

technology (BACT). 

181
• In a letter dated August 18, 2006 the MPCA assessed the applicability of LoTOx 

at 90% control efficiency to Minntac and concluded that LoTOx was technically 

and economically feasible and therefore BACT. 

• In their PSD permit application, Minnesota Steel proposed LoTOx on the waste 

gas stack at 90% control efficiency for their taconite furnace. 

In summary LoTOx has been declared BACT for one type of taconite furnace and will 

soon be installed on the other. The technical feasibility issues brought up in the BART 

proposals for each facility have been addressed 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 successful. 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 LoTOx is technically and economically 

feasible for the entire industry. In addition, one form of SCR has been found technically 

feasible and borderline economically infeasible based in a BACT analysis from four 

years ago. Another form of SCR, Regenerative Selective Catalytic Reduction looks to 

have promise, but as a new technology 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 facilities 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 over 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 facilities caused or contributed 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 Minnesota 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 taconite plants still claimed 4 spots in the top ten list (which 

182
when added to the three Minnesota power plants mentioned previously, took 7 of the ten 

spots). The Minnesota Power facilities are pursuing emission reduction projects. 

Although reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal cannot, and should not, 

be achieved with reductions from the taconite plants alone, these facilities are clearly an 

important contributor to impairment and therefore should contribute their fair-share of 

emission reductions toward improving visibility in the BWCAW. 

 

183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
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 haze SIP documents on the MPCA web site.

1. Page 80 in Chapter 10, for projects being undertaken to reduce NOx and SO2. The list 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 612.330.6357

191
file:///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]

192
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]

193
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]

194
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]

195
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]

196
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]

197
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 1

198
file:///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]

199
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]

200
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]

201
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]

202
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]

203
204
205
206
P.O. Box 475, County Road 666, Hoyt Lakes, MN 55750-0475 tel.218.225.4417 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 company 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 established 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 Addressing Major Point Sources in Northeastern Minnesota”.     

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 counties, closest to the Class I areas in Northeastern Minnesota.

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‐effectiveness – if the overall

regional emission reduction 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 existing 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 future non‐EGU point sources of SO2 and NOx 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 higher

$/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 rate

207
05‐13‐08 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 that the MPCA ensure the SIP and any future 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 reductions.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kevin Pylka

Kevin Pylka

Manager Environmental Permitting and Compliance

208

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 “MPCA DRAFT State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Revision for Regional Haze” 

Dear Ms. Neuschler, 

Minnesota Power (MP) appreciates the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

leadership efforts in addressing regional haze, visibility impact concerns in national 

parks, scenic areas and wilderness areas, also referred to as Mandatory Class I Federal 

Areas. MP attended the April 10, 2008 Regional 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 reductions 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 outside 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 Projects/BART Requirements

Minnesota Power notes that sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 

particulate emission controls that have been retrofitted and are being retrofitted on 

Minnesota electric generating units are resulting in significant Minnesota emission 

reductions. Minnesota Power’s Arrowhead Regional Emission Abatement (AREA) 

controls on the Taconite Harbor Energy Center and Laskin Energy Center have already 

started to bring benefits through reduced emissions from controls already in service and 

scheduled to be placed in service over the next year. MP has also announced additional 

210
emission reductions with emission control retrofits at the Boswell Energy Center, Units 1, 

2, 3 and 4 that will further reduce SO2, NOx and particulate emissions in our area by 

2010. It is important to note these MP control retrofit projects will continue, regardless 

of the status of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in Minnesota, bringing 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 provisions as BART eligible units, that 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 BACT or BACT-like. The BACT/BACT-like 

designation indicates their control retrofit design can meet Best Available Control 

Technology standards applicable to units of their size, which are considered to be more 

stringent than Best Available Retrofit Technology. Consequently, MP considers the 

MPCA’s BACT/BACT-like designation 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 Energy Center are receiving innovative emission 

control retrofit technology provided by Nalco-Mobotec addressing the challenge of 

achieving good environmental performance on these smaller sized, electric generating 

units. MP notes the newly retrofitted NOx and SO2 controls performance is undergoing 

optimization on Taconite Harbor Unit 2. Demonstrated overall performance is 

confirming the Mobotec technology is the best retrofit technology selection for the 

Taconite Harbor Energy Center, considering fuel type, boiler 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 suitable emission control retrofits on BARTeligible electric generating units independent of the Minnesota CAIR status. MP agrees 

with the MPCA that CAIR cap and trade compliance provisions are not suitable for being 

overlaid into the Minnesota regional haze SIP, recognizing that specific unit emission 

rates are not stipulated as part of the CAIR cap and trade program. Regardless of the 

CAIR outcome, MP continues to install emission control retrofits for regional haze, 

delivering the associated improvements in Minnesota background air quality that impact 

regional haze. 

Contact Information

Please contact Mike Cashin (218-722-5642 extension 3339) or Brandon Krogh (extension 

3954) if you have any questions related to Minnesota Power’s comments regarding the 

211
Page 3 of 3 

MPCA DRAFT Regional Haze, State Implementation Plan. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to provide Minnesota 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) 

212
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’ EGasTM 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.

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

213
file:///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

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

214
215
216
May 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 sources

217
and 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).

218
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.

219
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.

220
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.

221
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.

222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
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 Regional 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 may 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 submission 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 draft 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 with the SIP, this fact alone 

should disqualify the current plan from receiving Federal approval.

The SIP expresses no sense of urgency regarding proposed emissions reduction activities. 

Indeed it effectively postpones implementation of most major activities such as BART 

requirements until at least 2012. 

278
2

Realism of the Intermediate Emission Reduction Targets Toward Achieving the Ultimate Target

While the intermediate targets of a 20 percent reduction in emissions 2002-12 and a 30 percent 

reduction 2002-18 appear formidable, one can question 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 percent 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 investment in emissions reduction and in compliance 

enforcement. (2012-18 reductions actually require 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 “glide path” over the longer term. 

NMW recommends that the 2012 emissions reduction 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 reduction 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 (Affidavit attached to MCEA letter of May 16) 

addresses a number of emissions data, projections, 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 concerning point sources from 

various reports (Sahu Affadavit, IV Emissions Inventory .4) since point sources form the single 

most important factor in scenarios and SIP projections for emissions reductions. Any confidence 

in SIP data is undermined by the discrepancies in this most fundamental of data classifications. 

Climate Change. The SIP makes no direct mention of climate 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, and fire and smoke pollution problems (Sahu, II. 

General Comments .6). The absence of climate change as a factor should either be addressed in 

the SIP or the exclusion justified. 

Canada. Projections for emissions from Canada make 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 

279
3

meaningful Canadian legislation concerning emissions reduction. Canadian pollution in the 

Class I Region is likely to increase because of projects such as the accelerated development of 

Canadian tar sands in Alberta. As noted earlier, Canadian projections will be substantially 

affected by meteorological patterns and thus by climate change. 

 Ammonia. MPCA (Sahu IV. Emissions Inventory .8) does recognize the significance of 

ammonia as a pollutant and substantial factor in emissions inventories and projections. MPCA, 

however, does not recommend additional data gathering or monitoring regarding ammonia and 

rejects responsibility for filling data gaps. This is irresponsible and should be rejected by Federal 

decision-makers regarding the SIP. 

NMW concludes that problems of data, modeling, 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 monitoring data. In this regard, 

certain problems and uncertainties in monitoring must be addressed. 

Monitoring Locations. The two current monitoring locations have not been subjected to analysis 

regarding representation of the two Class I areas, capturing of conditions 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) reveal 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. 

280
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 emission 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 implementation 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 begin to comply with the BART limit.” 

The governing regulations3 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 facility 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, EPA document dated August 24, 2006. (BART #1) 

2

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

281
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 limits have been established. 

NMW requests that the SIP specifically address 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 timetable 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 strategies begin as soon as practicable, and 

certainly concurrent with the tracking of emissions and determination of BART limits 

proposed for 2008-10. The schedule currently proposed 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 implementation 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 inaccuracies 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 the 5% threshold for consideration. 

 Dysfunctions in the Incentives/Sanctions 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, relies on compliance rather than the 

positive incentives implied by the verb, “spur.” Moreover, there appears to be little incentive for 

individual facilities to even comply. The economic incentive 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 this scenario with the 

evidence submitted that (some) voluntary progress is being achieved with EGU through rate 

recovery incentives for improved 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 which 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 tools MPCA has at hand to 

compel compliance at the several stages in implementation of the SIP. 

2) Develop positive economic incentives for taconite facilities to develop and implement new 

emissions controls. (This may require new legislation.) 

282
6

New Construction Activities 

EPA requires emissions impacts analysis for new construction activities (40 CFR § 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(B). The draft SIP does not address the issue. There is substantial new 

construction underway and proposed on the Iron Range for mining and energy especially. 

According to (the State Agency) Iron Range Resources (Ely Echo, 5/12/08), “About $5 billion in 

economic development projects are under construction or proposed along a 110-mile corridor 

stretching from Cohasset to Babbitt and beyond.” The 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 special attention to the NE Minnesota Plan area.

Mobile Sources and Visitors to Class I Areas 

The BWCAW and VNP are destinations for a considerable 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 snowmobile 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 stroke engines still used in many recreational mobile 

sources are considered to be substantial 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 recommendations 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 attached 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 Federal 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 Directors 

283
file:///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 will 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 submitted.

2) Minnesota should include a discussion regarding agricultural burning. If this source was not included because of minimal impacts, 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 studies 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]

284
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]

285
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]

286
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 referenced restrictions on burning and vehicle inspection requirements in 

Los Angeles. This comment also included the statement “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 NOX controls within Q/5d121 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, even were the technology feasible, the costs would 

be considerably higher than reflected in the table. Boise references its 1999 PSD permit application, 

where the cost per ton of NOX 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 source 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 strategy on a specific source should not be considered a 

definitive statement of the cost-effectiveness of the listed 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 estimates” 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 there is no mention in the draft Regional Haze 

SIP about climate change legislation and its potential impacts on regional haze and regional haze 

regulations. The commenter states that Northeast Minnesota has the potential for development and 

use of biomass fuel sources, which make economic sense and could reduce emissions of CO2, SO2, 

and NOX. However, there is also a potential for increased NOX emissions from biomass compared to 

NOX emissions from the use of natural gas. The commenter 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 legislation or regulations in Minnesota is still evolving. Therefore, it is 

difficult to determine how programs to reduce emissions 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 means 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. 

287
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 SO2 removal, or that different fuel blends could be used to reduce SO2

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 

SO2 BART determination for United Taconite’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 SO2 standard based 

on the level of SO2 emissions from the rest of the industry. In addition, they state that they are willing 

to delay the determination of NOX 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 into optimizing scrubbers for SO2 removal. 

MPCA Response: The MPCA appreciates the Forest Service’s commitment to working with the MPCA 

and the facilities to determine the most appropriate NOX 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 SO2 BART limits, the MPCA’s intention is to set SO2 limits based on optimal operation of 

the PM scrubbers for SO2 removal. Language has been added to the SIP to explain that the MPCA 

believes the scrubbers at the natural gas fired facilities are already optimized for SO2 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, SO2 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 SO2 BART limit can and should be set at this time. 

In the SIP, the MPCA has set a limit of 1.7 lbs SO2/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 reductions and visibility benefits 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 combined annual emission reductions of NOX

and SO2 (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. 

288
Since the facility would be proposing an alternative to MPCA’s BART determination, visibility 

modeling should follow the MPCA’s Guidance for Facilities Conducting a BART Analysis122

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-control scenarios representing the MPCA’s BART 

determination and the BART alternative being proposed by the facility. 

Facilities may propose a BART alternative 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 emission 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 control 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 NOX 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 information 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 timeline for final BART determinations and inclusion in 

facility Title V permits should be established. 

MPCA Response: The statement that NOX CEMs or equivalent would only 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 NOX 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 draft 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 NOX 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 allow MPCA to meet its commitment to make BART 

determinations by September 2010 with a year’s worth 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 facilities 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 determinations by August 2010, and include BART limits in 

facility Title V permits by September 2011. 

4) BART for EGUs – The commenter requested that MPCA make unit-specific BART determinations in 

this SIP so that there is no delay in BART implementation 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.pdf 

289
Specifically, there is concern about Northshore’s Power Boiler 2, where no control projects are being 

undertaken and no BART-like NOX or SO2 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 NOX and SO2 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 draft SIP, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated 

CAIR. It subsequently reversed the vacatur and remanded the rulemaking to EPA, while leaving CAIR in 

place. One of the issues EPA is directed to study on remand is whether Minnesota’s emissions met the 

threshold for inclusion. Although CAIR remains in effect, EPA has proposed a rule that will stay the 

effectiveness of CAIR in Minnesota. Therefore, the MPCA has proceeded to make BART determinations 

for the subject-to-BART EGUs, requiring emission reductions 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 NOX and SO2 for these facilities. 

Facility NOX BART Limit SO2 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 would 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 NOX and 9% (4,400 tons) more SO2 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 SIP. 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: 

290
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 will be met, and projects status of 

2018 emission reduction target. 

January – December 2012 

Taconite facilities conduct pilot testing of potential control strategies 

and pollution prevention 

July 2011 – December 2012 

Taconite facilities report to MPCA on results 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 additional 

control 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 unnecessary 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 requires. MPCA added language to clarify that the SMP 

is often revised and updated and that MPCA is not requesting that the language of the SMP be explicitly 

approved into the SIP. 

8) Interstate Consultation – The commenter hopes that EPA will facilitate discussions between 

Minnesota and neighboring states to ensure that contributing 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 states 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 adjusted 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 implementation 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 believe there is sufficient information to 

determine SO2 BART emission limits at this time, particularly at United Taconite’s Line 2, and that 

291
they should be included in the SIP. They also raise concerns about the proposed SO2 limits for lines 

that burn low sulfur fuels, as these are above measured emission rates. In addition, the commenter 

concurs with the delay in setting NOX 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 with 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 SO2 BART limits for the lines that burn low sulfur fuels are based on a predictive interval (most lines) 

or other statistical method (Arcelor Mittal) developed from very few data points. Although higher than 

actual emissions, the MPCA does not believe the facilities will specifically change their operations in order 

to emit up to the limit. The predominant source of sulfur (and therefore, of SO2 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 ore used by an individual company will not change; 

companies have very little incentive to use ores outside those that they themselves mine. It is reasonable 

to assume that the ore’s sulfur content will be consistent 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 laid 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 Minnesota Plan was developed with the assumption 

that 75% of all visibility impacts are uncontrollable by the MPCA, not generally uncontrollable. In 

addition, the commenter requested that the SIP commit 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 Year SIP assessment submitted by the 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 facilities, the commenter requested that “if initial 

CEM data indicate a dramatic reduction in emissions 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 for 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 decision 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 believes 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 facility’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 identify the existing sources that will be tracked 

under the NE Minnesota plan, rather than simply having them listed in an appendix. 

292
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 could 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 emission from minor sources (those in the six county area that hold air 

permits but are not tracked under the Northeast 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 determination 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 address 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, then 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 that 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 and the FLMs, which could contain more detailed 

language. The language of the SIP indicates that MPCA 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 expectations, 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 consideration 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 impact 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 factored 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 reduction 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, 

293
Mesabi Nugget, and planned 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 industry in Northeast Minnesota was one of the 

primary drivers for the inclusion of the Northeast Minnesota Plan into the Regional Haze SIP. That plan 

sets an emission reduction target for the area that calls for a 30% reduction 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 into the overall emission “budget” for 

the area. Some of this reduction in existing facility 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 likely to result from changing consumer demand. MPCA’s 

future year emission projections also include several 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 Class I areas are ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate, which are caused from emissions of SO2 and NOX. Particles resulting from windblown dust are not 

a major contributor. Should they become a major contributor 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 air 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 control 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 industry, 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 improved. The SIP strengthens air quality rules. This 

is particularly true for the Northeast Minnesota Plan where the SIP requires a holistic look at the level of 

emissions that contribute to regional haze, and a decrease in those emissions from current conditions, 

not just a case-by-case evaluation that allows new facilities as long as they do not contribute to visibility 

impairment above a certain threshold. 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 Available 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 implementation 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 federal funding is maintained. The MPCA has committed 

in the SIP to attempting to provide support for the monitors, should federal funding be eliminated. 

294
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 the facilities in need of further 

investigation into the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of control technologies make their studies 

available for public review through scheduled interim 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 explanation 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 actions 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 evaluate 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 SIP. In addition, it should be noted that the MPCA 

views the 2018 reductions as the ultimate target, with 2012 being merely a check-in point. Therefore, if 

the 2012 target is not met, but the 2018 target is met, the Plan would be considered a success. The MOU 

between the FLMs and the MPCA is not yet fully developed, 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 adequately 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 state. The commenter also expresses concern that nonEGU point sources of SO2 and NOX 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 committing to evaluate certain potentially reasonable controls 

from source categories such as power plants and industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers. This 

evaluation will be on a statewide level. The commenter’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 SO2 BART emission limits are presented 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 SO2 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 multiple 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 or 

295
biomass, as their primary fuel. Language has also been added to clarify that the SO2 BART limits 

established at this time will apply only during the burning of those primary fuels, not during use of back up 

fuels such as fuel oil. 

The MPCA is also willing to change the BART SO2 limit to a lb/hr value. The U.S. Steel facilities will 

monitor their SO2 emissions with Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs), ensuring that the MPCA will 

have a more complete and accurate picture of actual emissions, compared to other facilities, and 

understand how emissions react to changes at the facility. 

The emission factor of 0.421 lb SO2/long ton works out to ~116 lb SO2/hr (max) for Line 3 and ~180 lb 

SO2/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 Minnesota Power’s emission reductions. 

Comment Letter 19: Excelsior Energy, Bob Evans 

Excelsior Energy recommends that their proposed EGUs, Mesaba One and Mesaba Two, be included in 

Minnesota’s 2018 projections of emission sources. Excelsior believes that electricity demand growth 

should be projected, just as mining growth was projected based upon proposed projects in that industry. If 

the proposed Mesaba EGUs are not included, Excelsior suggests that the 2018 emissions reflect 

Minnesota’s current EGUs with SO2 and NOX 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 most reasonable 2018 emissions scenarios. 

IPM3.0, coupled with staff knowledge, was used to project 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 needed 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 for level of regulatory certainty; therefore, it was not 

included in the emission projections. However, should 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-Cliffs Mining, Dave Skolasinski

1) Form of SO2 Emission Limit – Cleveland-Cliffs requests that a different form be used for the SO2

BART limits; stating that the lb SO2/long ton pellet fired form may limit production in some cases. 

They suggest that the rate be made more appropriate 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 SO2 BART limits for the Cleveland-Cliffs facilities based on a predictive interval; the 

limit is designed not to limit the choice of ore to be used in production. Since the ore is the primary source 

of sulfur, tying the limit to the heat input would likely be problematic for the Cleveland-Cliffs facilities; the 

MPCA does not have confidence that a lb/MMBtu limit could be both achievable and meaningful. 

2) Northshore SO2 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 stack 

296
test 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 furnaces 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 SO2 BART limits are for lines that burn low-sulfur fuels as their primary fuel and 

that the SO2 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 believe 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 

98th percentile day. The commenter subsequently clarified that it believes the proposed modification 

of the IMPROVE equation would result in more realistic background for refined modeling. 

MPCA Response: The MPCA has used the IMPROVE equation as specified in EPA guidance. The 

modification the commenter suggests is not consistent with EPA guidance 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 98th percentile visibility day has been used 

in facility-specific BART analyses, but not in the case of overall visibility. 

2) BART SO2 Limits – The commenter believes that that the MPCA should not set an “arbitrary” BART 

limit for SO2. The commenter believes the SO2 BART limit does not take into account the variability 

of taconite ore’s sulfur content; the ore sulfur constitutes the main source of SO2 emissions for natural 

gas fired furnaces. The commenter states that the limit developed by MPCA is based on SO2

emissions on a single day, and that the facility cannot control the sulfur content of the ore. The 

commenter suggests that the MPCA not set an SO2 limit at this time, but rather require the proper use 

of BART-appropriate equipment, or delay setting a numerical limit until more data can be gathered. 

MPCA Response: In determining BART SO2 limits, primarily at lines that burn low sulfur fuels, the MPCA 

has taken into account the variability of the sulfur content of taconite ore. The limit will not unduly limit ore 

choice. The MPCA needs to set a BART SO2 limit, and for furnaces that are already burning low-sulfur 

fuels, it is reasonable to do so at this time. The 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 ensure the scrubber is operating properly. 

MPCA Response: pH is a significant factor in scrubbers’ efficiency in removing SO2, 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. 

297
4) NOX BACT Equivalency – The commenter suggests that NOX BACT and PSD emission limits be 

deemed equivalent to BART, and that a facility already 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, existing 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 performance standards (NSPS), should 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 NOX BART is good combustion practices, the MPCA’s goal is to 

arrive at the best possible BART emission limit based on actual operation 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 revisions 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 that 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 Conservation Association. Incorporates Affidavit of Dr. 

Ranajit Sahu.

(For easier reading, where the letter and attached affidavit 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 organization, and that the manner of presentation 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 compliance with the underlying regulations) and poor 

presentation...the SIP misleads the reader by suggesting 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. 

298
 The commenters also state that the 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 instructions on where to find documents not easily 

accessible to the public. The commenters also noted that 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 available 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 organizations have arranged the storage of information on their 

web sites, it may remain difficult to find certain documents. 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 they first appear. However, documenting all of the key 

assumptions that underlie the various diverse parts of the SIP in one place would be duplicative and 

unwieldy. Readers who are not interested in the modeling, for example, may not want to wade through a 

long discussion of the assumptions underlying the modeling prior to reading the rest of the document. The 

MPCA has, however, added a glossary of terms to the SIP and Technical Support Document. 

The SIP presents a large amount of information. Given that the MPCA must demonstrate compliance with 

the regulations to EPA, the MPCA chose a structure that is designed 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 using the many different analyses discussed, 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 states 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 the number of modeling analyses discussed, varying 

both in emission inventory and meteorological data, serve many of the same functions as a sensitivity 

analysis and provide useful weight of evidence analysis. Regarding perceived model sensitivity to 

ammonia emissions and meteorology in the Technical 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 organize 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 significant, the commenters believe its effects on “all 

key RH SIP underlying assumptions should be discussed 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 state to adjust projections and control 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 the period until 2028. MPCA acknowledges that climate 

change is likely to have an impact on some of the same factors that impact visibility impairment, and has 

added statements concerning the possible impacts of climate change to the SIP. However, it is extremely 

difficult to predict what that impact will be, particularly in regard to changing wind or rainfall patterns. Joint 

299
research by NESCAUM, Georgia Tech, and MIT indicates that “sensitivities of ozone and PM2.5 formation 

to precursor emissions are found to change only slightly in response to climate change.”125 This research 

indicates that control strategies which reduce NOX and SO2 will remain effective in reducing ozone and 

PM2.5, 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 compounding uncertainties of both 

visibility and climate modeling, the MPCA believes that an analysis of the impact of climate change on 

visibility conditions would be unreliable. Like climate change, 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 these impacts as more is known about them. 

3) Technical Analyses (Affidavit only) – The commenter concludes that the goal of attaining natural 

visibility conditions is unlikely to be met based on the 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 states have refused to commit to emission reductions 

and emissions from Canada are not properly considered; 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 reasonable progress towards visibility 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 believes that real emission reductions are upcoming 

that will result in the reduction of visibility impairment in Minnesota’s Class I areas. See response below 

concerning EPA’s involvement in arbitrating disputes 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 “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 begin to comply with the BART limit.” 

They are specifically concerned that the SIP does 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 specific 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 industry 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 immediately, controls would likely be “current controls” 

and BART would be the facilities’ existing limits; in many 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 within 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 those 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 8355 

300
why this threshold was chosen. The commenters do not support MPCA’s decision to choose an 

“arbitrary” visibility threshold to exempt sources 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 should 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 improvement, 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 set 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 contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for the CALPUFF modeling. 

However, if the modeling shows a number of sources 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 expect 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 consideration 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 the MPCA’s expectation that the totality of these 

activities will appropriately address sources contributing to visibility impairment”127

The MPCA took into account four factors in revisiting 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 reductions 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 98th 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 threshold were determined not subject-to-BART. The 98th

percentile deciview values for those subject-to-BART range from 0.6 – 4.4 deciviews, while the 98th

percentile deciview values for those not subject-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.state.mn.us/air/regionalhaze.html 127 Available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/aq-sip2-04.pdf 

301
BART threshold—Austin Public Utilities and Otter Tail Power Hoot Lake—will be re-evaluated for 

reasonable progress controls. 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 enforceable controls on its 

BART-eligible unit with Selective Catalytic Reduction controlling 80% NOX and a scrubber controlling 82% 

SO2. 

Of the remaining nine facilities not subject to the Northeast Minnesota Plan nor initially subject to CAIR, 

all have 98th percentile deciview values of 0.2 deciviews or less. Four of these facilities – American 

Crystal Sugar-East Grand Forks, Flint Hills Resources-Pine Bend, Marathon Ashland Petroleum, and 

New Ulm Public Utilities – have BART-eligible sources at 0.2 deciviews; four – American Crystal SugarDrayton North Dakota, Gopher Resource Corporation, 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 evaluate 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 guidance129 for regional haze 

recommends use of a Lagrangian model, such as CALPUFF, only for addressing the primary components 

of PM2.5; not the secondary formed components of PM2.5 (i.e. mass associated with sulfate, nitrate and 

secondary organic carbon). To simulate the effects 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 PM2.5 because the model 

is out of date and uses overly simplistic chemistry. 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 for 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 CAIR132 or are included in the NE Minnesota Plan; and 

• The large over-predictions of sulfate and nitrate associated with the CALPUFF chemistry module 

indicate that any additional controls on the five BART-eligible units with 98th 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 determining subject-to-BART sources. 

However, language further detailing the MPCA’s justification 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/guidance/ guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf 130 Morris, Ralph, et al. (ENVIRON), “Evaluation of the CALPUFF Chemistry Algorithms”, presented at AWMA 

98th Annual Conference and Exhibition”, June 2005. 131 Morris, Ralph, et al. (ENVIRON), “Further Evaluation 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. 

302
Table A. 98th Percentile Deciview Values (& other metrics) for BART-Eligible Sources at the Listed Facilities as Modeled w

Facility Name CALPUFF Subject-to-BART Data Description BWCAW

VOY

A Subjectto-BART? 

2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Region

American Crystal Sugar – Drayton, North Dakota 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 

American Crystal Sugar – East Grand Forks 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 

Arcelor Mittal Mining 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 85 77 66 26 20 27 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 32 22 15 6 7 5 

Largest 

Δdv 2.8 4.1 2.4 1.5 2.3 1.9 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 1.6 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.9 

Xcel Energy – A. S. King 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 4 6 3 1 4 0 

No 

Legally enfEU001 (init80% reduc

82% reduc

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 

Austin Utilities NE Station 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 3 0 0 1 0 

No Initially sub

5-year SIP 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 

Boise White Paper 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 0 0 3 2 1 

No NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.5 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 

United Taconite – Fairlane Plant 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 157 148 137 76 67 71 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 103 102 88 45 35 42 

Largest 

Δdv 6.1 7.8 5.1 3.8 6.6 4.6 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 3.3 3.9 3.6 2.6 3.1 2.5 

Flint Hills Resources – Pine Bend 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Gerdau Ameristeel – St. Paul Mill 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Gopher Resource Corporation 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 
Facility Name CALPUFF Subject-to-BART Data Description BWCAW

VOY

A Subjectto-BART? 

2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Region

Hibbing Public Utilities 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 2 1 1 0 2 0 

No NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 

Hibbing Taconite Company 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 92 78 77 74 72 59 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 53 34 33 37 30 26 

Largest 

Δdv 4.5 6.7 .3 2.9 4.5 3.1 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.9 

U.S. Steel – Keewatin Taconite 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 68 57 58 51 46 41 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 24 19 19 19 16 14 

Largest 

Δdv 3.2 4.3 3.5 2.0 3.2 1.9 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 

Marathon Ashland Petroleum 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 

U.S. Steel – Minntac 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 184 180 166 101 96 92 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 139 131 123 65 52 53 

Largest 

Δdv 6.4 7.7 7.3 4.4 6.9 5.8 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 4.4 4.4 4.3 3.3 3.8 3.0 

Minnesota Power, Boswell 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 77 69 59 69 50 43 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 29 26 18 24 16 17 

Largest 

Δdv 4.1 2.5 3.2 3.6 2.5 3.6 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 

Minnesota Power, Taconite Harbor 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 90 70 65 2 1 0 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 34 26 27 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 3.7 3.9 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 2.1 1.7 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 

New Ulm Public Utilities 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 1 

No None Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 

Northshore Mining Company; Excluding Power House Boiler #2 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 60 60 49 8 6 16 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 23 15 21 4 1 1 

Largest 

Δdv 2.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 1.1 1.0 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 1.6 1.3 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 

Northshore Mining Company; Power House Boiler #2 

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 0.5 109 109 98 3 1 1 

Yes NE Minnes

Number of Days with 

Δdv 

≥ 1.00 66 47 47 1 0 0 

Largest 

Δdv 3.7 3.8 3.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 

98th Percentile 

Δdv 3.0 2.5 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 
Facility Name CALPUFF Subject-to-BART Data Description BWCAW VOYA Subject- to-BART? 

2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Region

Otter Tail Power – Hoot Lake 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 0.5 3 1 5 0 1 5 

No Initially sub

5-year SIP 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 Largest Δdv 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.1 98th Percentile Δdv 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 

Rochester Public Utilities – Silver Lake 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 0.5 1 8 8 1 3 6 

Yes Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 1.00 0 2 2 0 1 0 Largest Δdv 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.9 

98th Percentile Δdv 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 

Sappi Cloquet 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No None Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Largest Δdv 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

98th Percentile Δdv 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Xcel Energy – Sherco 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 0.5 72 78 80 46 48 46 

Yes Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 1.00 38 46 36 20 22 25 Largest Δdv 4.0 3.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.1 

98th Percentile Δdv 2.2 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.9 

Southern Minnesota Beet Cooperative 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No None Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Largest Δdv 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 

98th Percentile Δdv 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Virginia Public Utilities 

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 0.5 3 3 2 0 1 0 

No NE Minnes

Number of Days with Δdv ≥ 1.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 Largest Δdv 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.4 98th Percentile Δdv 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 
b. 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 SO2 and 

NOX 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 limits...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 NOX. They 

also do not support any extension of the time to establish an SO2 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 meeting. 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 will conduct “a BART-like review” of the taconite 

facilities’ reports on control strategies. The commenters believe it is not clear what this term 

means or where the state will derive the regulatory authority. 

MPCA Response: In their comment letter on the SIP, the USDA Forest Service noted 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 industry 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 emission 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. However, 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 research control strategies and then, essentially undertake 

a BART II or “state retrofit” requirement in the future. 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-effectiveness of installing controls or employing pollution 

prevention. The MPCA has broad regulatory authority, but would likely implement a state rule or 

Administrative Orders to specifically 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 method (predictive equation) are still missing. Also, 

the commenters feel there needs to be transparency in the process and public involvement in the 

Administrative Orders and review of data received. 

306
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 Orders have now been signed, meeting the 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 portion of the SIP) when EPA proposes approval 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 may be considered confidential business information, 

particularly information related to process parameters, and therefore would not be able to be shared 

publicly. This will be evaluated on a facility by facility basis. For information on the situation with United 

Taconite Line 2, please see the response to the 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 the 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, and requesting that those Orders be included in the SIP. 

That inclusion will make the Orders enforceable at both the state and federal levels. MPCA has taken this 

approach, using both Orders and permits, in its criteria 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 facility, 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 note that the SIP examined some emission reduction 

strategies for EGUs (the EGU1 and EGU2 scenarios). 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 therefore 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 undertaking voluntary control projects that result in 

emissions at or below the level set by CAIR (bearing in mind that CAIR sets a lb/MMBtu level for 

allowance distribution but does not mandate that facilities emit at or below that level). In addition, subjectto-BART EGUs are now being required to install BART due to Minnesota’s likely exclusion from CAIR. 

The EGU1 and EGU2 scenarios were developed by a LADCO 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 lower than those proposed, the levels set in these 

two scenarios were meant to be a regionwide average, 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-attainment standard and not an incremental analysis 

as done through the PSD process. The PSD incremental analysis does not apply when air quality 

standards and visibility conditions required under the Regional Haze Rule are not being met. The 

Haze SIP does not explain how its review of major 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 Consortium (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.pdf 

307
major 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 sources in that region. They request that any 

MOU have an opportunity for public comment and 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 Regional Haze Rule does not hold states to 

meeting any specific visibility goal, just to implementation of the identified control strategies. Therefore, 

the Regional Haze SIP is very different from SIPs for attainment of criteria pollutant standards, and the 

MPCA believes that a non-attainment standard type analysis would be inappropriate under the visibility 

program because there is no bright line ambient standard to delineate attainment 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 project’s impacts on local air quality. New sources or 

major modifications outside the Northeast Minnesota Plan also need to screen their emissions. If they are 

judged to have a potential adverse impact on visibility, those projects will need to perform more 

sophisticated modeling of their proposed impacts on Class I areas, including their effects on visibility. 

Sources covered by the Northeast Minnesota Plan that 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, necessitates consideration of 

visibility in this step. (Historically, the MPCA has incorporated similar environmental factors into the BACT 

determination by adjusting the cost-effectiveness threshold.) This can lead to the application of more 

effective control strategies and thus lower emission rates. 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 minimize 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 sources should be decreasing; this is a better approach 

than determining if simply the addition of pollutants will not have too great 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 category 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 MPCA’s Regional Haze website to be reviewed by 

interested parties, and comments will be taken as they were during the development of the Northeast 

Minnesota Plan. 

MPCA has clarified and provided additional explanation of the treatment of new sources in the SIP. 

IV. Visibility Measurements

1) Inconsistency in Measurement 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 considered 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 visibility are considered significant. The presentation of 

the revised RPG at the public meeting left the impression that a 0.1 dv change is significant, yet in 

308
other 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, January 31, 2008, which is provided as an Appendix to 

the Minnesota Regional Haze SIP. In that document, visibility 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 this 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 called “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 minimize the progress the Minnesota 

Regional Haze SIP illustrates at tenth-of-a-deciview levels 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 monitor 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 address 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 visibility. 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 addressed by the EPA in development of the 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, the 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 certain 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 designed to track changes in visibility 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 regional 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. 

309
While preparing the Regional Haze SIP, the MPCA followed EPA rules and guidance, which went through 

extensive public notice and comment. The final rules and guidance do not require the type of analysis 

suggested by the commenter. Furthermore, upon consultation 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 recent 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 visibility 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 prepared 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 robust baseline value” than 

using a 3-year period. 

3) IMPROVE Data Analysis (Largely from Affidavit) 

a. The commenters feel the SIP does not address whether the efforts to adjust/correct IMPROVE 

data meets EPA’s data filling requirements, and request 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 methodology 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” – PM2.5 particle mass 

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

• “Module D” – PM10 particle mass 

This data loss invalidated three out of every seven samples from these modules. “Module B” has a 

denuder that collects nitrate, chloride, 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 linear regression analysis from corresponding valid data 

collected at Voyageurs. His replacement of the missing BWCAW IMPROVE was presented to the national 

EPA/RPO Monitoring and Data Analysis discussion group. This group held monthly conference calls to 

report research related to visibility and to address problems 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 express any opposition to the respective 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 presenting to this national workgroup constituted the 

approval process. This precept applied to all the data restorations done at Class I areas (e.g. Mingo 

NWR, Breton Island, nine in the WRAP states). Data substitution reports are available on the VIEWS 

website.136 

Additional documentation of the data substitution 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.aspx 

310
b. The commenter also states that the SIP should describe 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 NO2, where NO2

observations are available. (These observations are not available for Minnesota, so this component was 

not used).” The IMPROVE steering committee, in its December 2005 approval of the revised IMPROVE 

algorithm, had no intention of excluding sites that did not collect this component from using the equation. 

Instead, it included the additional component for sites that do collect it. The “old” IMPROVE algorithm also 

does not contain NO2. According to Scott Copeland of CIRA, “NO2 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 calculations 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 includes the substituted values for Boundary 

Water...The 20 percent worst days in Boundary Waters and Voyageurs used here differ from 

those currently available on VIEWS. The MRPO 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 cause those days to be on the list of 20 percent 

worst. The details of the MRPO inclusion of missing days is described in “Impact of Missing 

Data on Worst Days at Midwest Northern Class I Areas”, March 12, 2007 (revised June, 19, 

2007). Over the five-year period used to calculate 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 Voyageurs. 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.htm 

311
A. Using monitored data, rank baseline visibility for each day with PM10, PM2.5 and speciated PM2.5

measurements within a Class I area.

1. Obtained PM2.5 speciated monitored data from VIEWs with inclusion of missing data from 

MRPO; 

2. Estimate extinction coefficient for each day using the new IMPROVE equation138 adopted by 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005:139

bext = 2.2 * fS(RH) * [small sulfate] + 4.8 * fL(RH) * [large sulfate] 

 + 2.4 * fS(RH) * [small nitrate] + 5.1 * fL(RH) * [large nitrate] 

 + 2.8 * [small organic mass] + 6.1 * [large organic mass] 

 + 10 * [elemental carbon] 

 + 1 * [fine soil] 

 + 1.7 * fSS(RH) * [sea salt] 

 + 0.6 * [coarse mass] 

 + Rayleigh scattering (site specific—BOWA1= 11, VOYA2 = 12) 

 + 0.33 * [NO2 (ppb)] 

where: bext is calculated total light extinction in inverse megameters 

fS(RH) is the relative humidity adjustment factor for small particles; 

 fL(RH) is the relative humidity adjustment factor for large particles; 

 fSS(RH) is the relative humidity adjustment 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) * [total 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. 

NO2 is not currently measured at the IMPROVE monitors, so this factor is not included. It 

also is not part of the “old” IMPROVE equation. 

 

138 IMPROVE Steering Committee, “Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle 

Speciation Data”, July 2005. 

139 VIEWs web site. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/RHR/RHR_Planning.aspx 

312
Monthly fS(RH) and fL(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 

fS(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 

fL(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 

fSS(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 

fS(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 

fL(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 

fSS(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 bext to decivews (dv) using the following equation: 

Haze Index (dv) = 10 ln(bext /10) 

Where: bext 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 conversion 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 each 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 value 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 reflecting best visibility for each of the years. 

The calculations of natural conditions are done by the VIEWS staff at CIRA for all states. Scott Copeland 

recently presented a paper, “Calculation Method for Natural Conditions with the New IMPROVE 

algorithm,” to 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. 

After learning about MRPO’s discovery of the poor visibility, 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 types 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 when the new IMPROVE algorithm was adopted. 

However, these calculations were not done due to the 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://vista.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). 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/guidance/ guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf 

313
that VIEWS still intends to complete this calculation, 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 change to natural visibility would be less than this. According to Scott 

Copeland of CIRA, “Including the Kenski 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 sulfate mean, which increases the sulfate scaling 

factor which reduces all the values in the distribution, somewhat offsetting the larger values. In the 

specific case of BOWA1 and VOYA2, only 6 and 3 sample dates respectively are added to the distribution 

of roughly 120 observations that are in the 5 years’ worth 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 technical 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. The example the commenter provided of jargon in the 

documentation contains a lot of meaning for individuals 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 audience, 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 relates to the various versions of the modeling inventories 

created by the regional planning organizations for the 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 inventories developed by the States within 

their respective RPOs and shared modeling inventories with one another and other RPOs. 

Due to the iterative nature of the work, a variety of emission inventories have been developed 

and used by organizations conducting haze modeling. Therefore, each RPO might have a 

different version of their member States’ inventories. 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 inventory methodology. 

Both CENRAP and MRPO have identified the various versions of their modeling inventories 

using a lettering system. Each base year inventory 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. Unfortunately, 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 example, 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 ensure 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 MPCA will add a glossary that addresses potentially 

unfamiliar terms in the Technical Support 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, 

314
which raises questions about the credibility of the 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 background discussion and overview of how they are 

developed and used and an explanation of why there 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 data 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 categories 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 containing Minnesota’s 2002 emissions in Chapter 7 was 

developed by the emissions inventory staff of the 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 nature of deriving the modeled emissions described in 

the draft TSD in “II. Process for Developing Technical Support for Regional Haze”, Pages 12 through 15. 

Thus, some differences will be seen between the inventory prepared by a State 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 available 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 PM2.5 and of visibility impairment. Also, States 

do not create inventories for biogenic sources, so these inventories had to be created.” 

Eliminating biogenic emissions (which States do not calculate 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-calculated from the CAMx model-ready input files. 

CAMx model-ready emissions are by grid cell (or elevated 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 modeling process; but is the best method available to the 

State for describing the modeled emissions in tons per year by geographic region. 

315
The MPCA agrees that these emissions summaries should not be summarized to the ton. The MPCA will 

modify emission inventory tables in the Regional Haze 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 SO2 NOX NH3 PM25 PM10 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 SO2 NOX NH3 PM25 PM10 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 SO2 emissions as a concern. In the modeled 

inventory, on-road mobile source SO2 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-road mobile source emissions at ~3,000 tons SO2 per 

year, point source contributions of SO2 (~130,000 tons per year) far out-weigh on-road mobile source SO2

emissions. The main impact on visibility from on-road mobile sources comes from NOx emissions 

(~170,000 tons per year). 

The commenter made the same remarks for summary 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 SIP depicts the final 2005 NEI, the MRPO modeled 2005 

inventory does not. These inventories take a few years 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-derived emissions summary tables and the modeled 2005 

inventory match is irrelevant. The 2005 modeled inventory was provided in the TSD as part of the weightof-evidence to help explain why the progress goals 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. 

316
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 attempt 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 somewhat 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 2018 summary emissions from the TSD. 

The MPCA has confidence in the MRPO developed modeled 2002 inventory for Regional Haze SIP 

purposes. The continued emissions inventory development 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 the 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 fact 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 Regional Haze Rule requires states to project 

emissions to the future; including emissions of electric 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 projections 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 expectations 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 significant different emissions as compared to IPM3.0 

(base), as reported in the RH SIP” means that the IPM model results in large errors in predicting 2018 

emissions, drawing this conclusion from comparing IPM3.0 (base), which is the 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 that occurred after the deadline for submission of such projects to EPA 

for inclusion in IPM3.0.” Therefore, these emissions 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 included 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 explanation of why proper documentation was not 

317
available” and “fails to account for projections of future Canadian emissions in an informed manner.” 

The commenters also state that there is no analysis of potential growth in emissions sources from 

Canada or how growth will be offset by Canadian 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 Canadian 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 (holding emissions from Canada constant) is the most 

appropriate action, as it focuses attention 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 emissions reductions in Canada. Because the underlying 

data and calculations used to create the Canada emissions 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 additional data gathering or monitoring of ammonia. 

The commenters feel the state should not assign responsibility 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 understand and control pollutants” for pollutants such 

as ammonia. The state is responsible for improving understanding of emissions of ammonia from 

point and area sources and, if needed, collection 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 models would provide additional clarity/context. As 

noted in the SIP, Minnesota has five modeling analyses to draw from. The commenters state that the 

five scenarios do not agree, and the SIP can only speculate 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 serious 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 monthly average organic carbon concentrations.” 

Therefore, the commenters request that more information 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 BWCAW and VNP is on days influenced by wildfires is 

documented in the draft TSD, Section 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 a 

318
paper 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 were 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 wildfires cannot be predicted in the future, for the 

modeled inventory wildfires can either be included – and held constant – from the base-year to the futureyear (as CENRAP had done) or excluded from the both 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 description 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 response factors are the ratio of the future absolute model concentration 

for each individual component of PM2.5 (i.e. averaged over the 20% worst days), to the base case 

absolute model concentration for each individual component of PM2.5. Because wildfires are not 

predictable nor controllable in the sense of enforceable control strategies, no changes in organic carbon 

due to wildfires appears in the relative response factor. 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 carbon 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 any 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 years of met data to ensure greater reliability of 

future predictions. Even PSD permitting requires multiple 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 preferable 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 PM2.5 standards and for 

establishing visibility goals. In order to conduct one year of modeling, it was necessary to pool resources 

and conduct the work through the RPOs. 

Cognizant of the intense resources required to conduct these analyses, EPA guidance for regional haze 

does not tread in the area of modeling multiple meteorological years, but discusses modeling analysis 

encompassing multiple days, and suggests a possible need to model an entire year. For modeling PM2.5, 

EPA guidance discusses modeling a full year as “a logical goal.” For regional haze, the multiple days are 

those which reflect the variety of meteorological conditions representing visibility impairment on the 20% 

best and 20% worst days in the Class I areas being modeled. Minnesota knows of no state that 

surpassed EPA guidelines by modeling multiple years 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 (years 2000 – 2004). The middle year (2002) has more 

weight due to the fact the emissions and the meteorology are used to develop the relative response 

factors (RRF) applied to the baseline. Also, the “relative” application of the model results is intended to 

319
“help reduce the impact of possible 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 saying 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 the Minnesota 2002 goals. The MPCA would like to 

clarify that the different set of 20% worst days are determined by the observed data; not by the modeling. 

That being said, the MPCA obtained the 2005 meteorology developed by the MRPO. The MPCA tested 

the hypothesis in the Regional Haze SIP and draft 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 VNP. 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 meteorology and where the emission reductions occur. 

The RRFs, developed from the modeling, really reflect a percent reduction in each individual component 

of PM2.5. If significant percent reductions in PM2.5 precursors occur to the – for example, Southeast – of 

BWCAW and VNP, and during that meteorological year 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 the 20 percent worst days, like the Northwest, the 

emissions reductions from the southeast will not carry as much weight in the RRF. 

There is no way to anticipate how other meteorological years would impact the results without conducting 

the modeling, which as described above is too resource 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 state that it is unclear if some of these boundary 

conditions should be attributed to specific states. They 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 contributions outside of the modeling domain. 

In the case of the Haze SIP (and ozone and PM2.5 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 GEOS-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 domain 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 only 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 effect 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 attributed to boundary conditions. The domain used in the 

modeling to support the Regional Haze SIP extends far enough out from BWCAW and VNP to fully 

account for the contributions from the most significant geographic regions (i.e. States). None of the state 

contributions in the significant-contribution analysis are lost in the boundary conditions.

320
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 emissions, spatial precision of the 

available emissions data, and whether 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 meteorology 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: “Because 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 flexi-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 meteorological 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 provides more resolved placement of point sources. As noted in the TSD, 

the MPCA conducted plume-in-grid modeling for the point sources nearest the BWCAW and VOYA. The 

plume-in-grid tool allowed the State to gain better understanding 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 contributions.” The commenter believes that continuing 

to run models with insufficient domain size to resolve Canadian contributions renders much of the 

modeling suspect. 

MPCA Response: Efforts are underway to explore expanding the domain west and north to include more 

of the Canadian contribution in concert with efforts 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 same 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 progress 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. sources from taking reasonable 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 impairment 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 states on those states’ responsibility for visibility 

321
impairment or emission reductions, much of the visibility impairment remains unaddressed. The SIP 

does not indicate how/if EPA was involved in resolving problems with other states, and should make 

a direct appeal to EPA to resolve the inter state 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 impairing 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 among EPA regional offices during SIP review. As requested by the 

commenter, the MPCA has 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 reference to the fact that 75% of visibility impairing emissions are outside of 

MPCA’s control refers only to the development of the target for the Northeast Minnesota Plan; though it 

generally holds true, this did not affect how the MPCA approached consultation with other States. The 

MPCA hopes to be able to include emission reductions from surrounding states’ haze and PM2.5 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 emissions 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 designate 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 impairment by all states; the MPCA 

believes that using the 5% threshold gets the most important contributors to visibility impairment in 

Minnesota’s Class I areas. States with contributions 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 PM2.5 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 those states as compared to other states 

Michigan has not asked Minnesota to specifically address its impact on Seney, and the MPCA believes 

that emission reductions undertaken to improve visibility at BWCAW, VNP, and Isle 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. 

322
MPCA Response: The addition of new minor sources is included in projections for emission growth for 

2018, and therefore taken into account in the visibility modeling of the future. Emissions from minor 

sources generally will continue to be regulated through the MPCA’s operating permitting program. The 

MPCA has added a component to the Northeast Minnesota 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 FLMs. 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 analysis, 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, regardless of their location, in terms of their effect on 

visibility impairment. The one exception is emission sources that are located extremely close to the Class 

I areas. Modeling to determine visibility impact is resource-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 evaluated holistically rather than specifically directed 

toward visitors of the Class I area. The website cited 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 aesthetic 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 more information on how MPCA proposes to regulate 

visibility impairment which results from prescribed fires. 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 area 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, Minnesota’s land management agencies conduct a more active 

prescribed burning program than the other nearby states. 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 from prescribed fires. The SMP provisions address 

visibility through use of ventilation index and sensitive receptor areas. The revised 2008 SMP also 

323
references 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 burning on Minnesota’s air quality, providing actual 

measurement and attribution of ozone and fine particle levels to prescribed fires. This evaluation serves 

to make the SMP more robust in its goals 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 conditions in 2007. The MPCA has added to the SIP, 

in Chapter 5, the following table updating monitored visibility conditions (with no data adjustments) for 

2005 through 2007. 

The MPCA will continue to use the IMPROVE data in order to evaluate our progress towards meeting the 

RPGs. 

Comment Letter 23: Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Brad Sagen

This comment letter incorporates by reference Comment Letter 22, summarized and responded to above. 

Responses focuses solely on the additional comments made in this letter. 

1) 2064 Goal – The commenter states that the “State will 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 expresses no sense of urgency regarding proposed 

emissions reduction activities. Indeed it effectively 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 requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), which states: 

“The reasonable progress goals must provide for 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 impaired 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, the 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 3.7 

324
progress for the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; 

and that the progress goal adopted by the State 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 improvement continues at the rate of progress selected by the State 

as reasonable.” 

The MPCA believes that it has demonstrated that the rate of progress set in the SIP is reasonable, and 

that additional progress is not yet known to be reasonable. 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 Rule. In addition, although not all BART limits are not 

being set in this SIP, BART limits are to be incorporated 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 Reduction Targets Toward Achieving the Ultimate Target – 

The commenter here questions the potential contribution 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 target 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 target 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 way 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 are many ways to think about setting the emission 

reduction target, the MPCA believes that the 30% reduction goal for 2018 is both substantial enough to 

result in visibility improvement, and yet reasonably achievable. 

3) Monitoring – The commenter suggests that greater reliance 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 State 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. Therefore, they cannot represent the entirety of the 

Class I area, which is why modeling is used with multiple 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 tracking of emissions and determination of BART 

limits”. 

MPCA Response: The MPCA would like to make clear that the pilot 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 industry, 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. 

325
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 the taconite facilities. They recommend that MPCA 

“make clear...the tools MPCA has at hand to compel compliance at the several stages in 

implementation of the SIP [and] develop positive economic incentives for taconite facilities to 

develop and implement new 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 taconite 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 through requirements in a permit. In terms of economic 

incentives, the MPCA is exploring what kinds of incentives might be within its authority. As the 

commenter notes, longer term incentives would likely require new legislation. Given the current budget 

situation, any incentive that results in increased state 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 emissions 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 the public meeting addresses this concern. 

MPCA Response: Comment noted. The timeline table mentioned 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 should set appropriate BART 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 idling 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 NOX. However, the MPCA does believe that BART determinations will be able to be 

made by the end of August 2011, with BART limits being 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: “Emissions 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 continuing 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 Minnesota, 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. In 

326
addition, an analysis of the days impacted by smoke 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 included 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.

327