UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 8

1595 Wynkoop Street

DENVER, CO 80202-1129

Phone 800-227-8917

http://www.epa.gov/region08

September 3,2010

Ref: 8ENF-L

Via US Mail & Email

Mr. Terry O'Clair

Director, Division ofAir Quality

North Dakota Department ofHealth

918 East Divide Avenue, 2nd Floor

Bismarck, ND 58501-1947

Re: Transmittal ofBurns & McDonnell's114 Response and

Remaining Concerns

Dear Mr. O'Clair:

In a letter dated July 6,2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

requested certain information from Burns & McDonnell (B&McD) under Section 114(a) ofthe

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a). Enclosed are the transmittal letter and the B&McD

response. Please note the Bums & McDonnell response contains information that is classified by

the vendor as Confidential Business Information (CBI). On page 3 ofthe transmittal letter,

B&McD agrees to allow EPA to provide this information to North Dakota Department ofHealth

(NDDH). EPA has maintained the CBI designation and transmitted that information in

accordance with the federal policies regarding CBI. EPA has not reviewed this information to

ascertain ifit is CBI, and is not taking a position as to whether or not such a claim is valid. EPA

requests that NDDH treat this CBI information in accordance with its process for handling CBI

found at NDAC 33-15-01-16 and any other applicable state laws.

EPA is also enclosing recent information for inclusion in the administrative record for the

Draft NOx BACT Determination at Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). This new information is

related to costs that other states have found acceptable for purposes of determining Best

Available Control Technology (BACT). The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (the

Division) has recently submitted Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations to

its Air Quality Control Commission (the Commission) as part of a proposed revision to its

Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) dated August 5, 2010. On pages

48 and 49 ofthis proposal, the Division notes that a cost effectiveness of$5,000/ton value is

reasonable for a variety ofregulatory purposes and is consistent with its BACT determinations.

Specifically, the Division states, "control costs for Colorado BACT can be in the range of

$5,000/ton (and higher)." While this proposal has not been finalized by the Commission for *

Prinlsd on RecyoJed Pape,
purposes ofthe BART, it does document that Colorado has found $5,000/ton (and higher) to be

reasonable for BACT determinations.

Minnkota and B&McD continue to assert that any SCR application at MRYS is

technically infeasible, despite NDDH's July 15,2009, determination that low-dust selective

catalytic reduction (LDSCR) and tail-end selective catalytic reduction (TESCR) are technically

feasible at MRYS. EPA reviewed the budgetary proposals that Minnkota and B&McD obtained

from two catalyst vendors, CERAM and Haldor Topsoe, Inc., for LDSCR and TESCR at MRYS.

Based on the information submitted by Minnkota and B&McD to these catalyst vendors, and

after several meetings between the parties, the vendors recommended slipstream pilot testing data

for MRYS prior to providing a catalyst life guarantee.

Minnkota's and B&McD'sjustification for eliminating SCR technology as being

"technically infeasible" is purportedly based upon EPA;s October 1990 Draft New Source

Review Workshop Manual (the NSR Manual) Section B.IV. EPA reiterates that both Minnkota

and B & McD have incorrectly interpreted the NSR Manual. The NSR Manual does state that

"technologies in the pilot scale testing stages of development would not be considered available

for BACT review." The vendors have not suggested "pilot scale testing" relating to the

development of SCR technology. Rather, they have recommended testing to further understand

catalyst deactivation rates at MRYS. It is clear from the catalyst vendor proposals that SCR is

commercially available and technically feasible at MRYS. In fact, the two catalyst vendors were

willing to provide guarantees on every aspect ofthe catalyst, other than the catalyst life guarantee

(i.e. NOx rates, ammonia slip, S02 conversion, etc.). The lack of a catalyst life guarantee is

simply a matter ofrisk management on the part ofthe catalyst vendor. The NSR Manual

explicitly states that a "lack of a vendor guarantee by itself does not present sufficient

justification that a control option or an emissions limit is technically infeasible." Although the

catalyst vendors were apparently concerned about the amount of catalyst deactivation data for

plants firing North Dakota lignite, this data could easily be obtained ifMinnkota wanted to have

the assurance of a catalyst life guarantee. 1 EPA has never objected to Minnkota obtaining this

data during the nearly ten-year period of discussing the feasibility of SCR at MRYS.2

The extensive history of applying SCR to boilers of wide-ranging fuel types (bituminous,

subbituminous, lignite, brown coals, biomass, petcoke) and process types (municipal and

hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, glass furnaces, etc.) is evidence that SCR is a

commercially-available control option and not in the "developmental" stages. EPA fully concurs

with NDDH's standing determination that LDSCR and TESCR are technically feasible at

MRYS. As stated in our May 10,2010, comment letter, SCR is clearly economically feasible at

MRYS.

1 Minnkota has repeatedly expressed concern regarding the range ofsodium in Center Mine lignite coal. The BACT

analysis must consider coal blending to mitigate any potential adverse impacts from the upper range ofsodium levels

in the coal.

2 During this period, pilot testing and the application of SCR on Texas lignite for the first time has taken place.

2
Enclosures

cc: Jerry MacLaughlin, DOJ

JeffKodish, EPA, OECA

Hans Buenning, EPA, ENF-AT

S~d1-/~ Brenda L. Morris, Senior Enforcement Attorney

U.S. EPA Region 8

Tel: 303-312-6891

Fax: 303-312-6953

morris.brenda@epa.gov

3