From: Aagenes, Jason D.

To: "George Pruchnofski"

Cc: "Beth Havlik"

Subject: RE: DRAFT STS report

Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:05:07 AM

Ok. Thanks. I’ll review in more detail also and I’ll wait to hear from you.

From: George Pruchnofski [mailto:gpruchnofski@barr.com]

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:49 PM

To: Aagenes, Jason D.

Cc: Beth Havlik Subject: RE: DRAFT STS report

I just read the text and the $/ton removed cost at the end of the spreadsheet and I feel pretty good.
Beth is looking at the costs in more detail. A few points:

1. For the BART analysis last year we decided to add a 2nd scrubber in series in a new location because (a) leaving the existing scrubber in place for initial particulate removal added no addional cost while replacing with a multiclone like STS is proposing adds to the capital costs and (b) both STS and
we concluded that the existing location could not accomidate the equipment needed.

2. I also like that STS concluded that you just can't add lime to the existing system because it would
result in operational issues so they did not even evaluate this alternative in detail. This is consistent with what we were thinking last year for the BART analysis so we did not even evaluate this option.

3. I like the $/ton removal cost - on the order of $20,000. Our BART analysis was based on a different design configuration, etc and the $/ton removed were lower in the BART analysis so I think this should
show MPCA that we were not trying to jack up the costs like they seem to have perceived.

I will look at this in more detail in the AM.

By the way, when is a good time for you to have a conference call tomorrow- to catch up on
everything. Does 9:00 AM work for you?

From: Aagenes, Jason D. [mailto:JDAagenes@cleveland-cliffs.com]

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:09 PM

To: Beth Havlik ; George Pruchnofski ; Erik Boleman ; Paul Taylor ; Dostal, Thomas C. ; Davis, Todd E.

Cc: Skolasinski, Dave Z. ; Roth, Todd D. Subject: FW: DRAFT STS report Importance: High

All, MPCA hired STS to perform a more detailed cost analysis of installing a second scrubber on Line 2 for SO2 control as part of BART. They’ve given us a lot of time to review the draft – by tomorrow. Please take a quick read through and let me know if you have any comments or concerns ASAP.

Tom Dostal, Please forward this information to Jardar and see if they have any comments.

Thanks,

JasonFrom: Fenske, Mary Jean [mailto:Mary.Jean.Fenske@state.mn.us]

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:11 PM

To: Aagenes, Jason D.

Cc: Seltz, John; Jackson, Anne; Taylor, Hal Subject: DRAFT STS report

Jason, Here is the draft report from Hal Taylor at STS. We are currently reviewing and assembling our comments. If you see any issues with the assumptions used, please comment directly to the MPCA (by tomorrow if possible).

You will receive a comment of the final report and you can provide more detailed comments on that product as well, if you choose .

<<UTAC Cost Analysis SpreadsheetSO2 STSHWTDraft 5 30 07.xls>> <<STS UTAC cost
analysis.doc>>

Thanks Jason.
Mary Jean

Mary Jean Fenske, P.E.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

520 Lafayette Road N.

St. Paul

, MN 55155

(651) 297-5472 e-mail: mary.jean.fenske@pca.state.mn.us

This electronic message and any attachments included with this message are for the

exclusive use of the individual or entity to which it is intended to be addressed. This message

may contain information that is privileged or confidential and thereby exempt and protected

from unauthorized disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the

intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the

intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication, or the use of its contents, is not authorized and is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication and are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original message from your e-mail system.