UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

NOV - 4 2011 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

The Honorable Kent Conrad 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Conrad: 

Thank you for your letter of October 6, 2011, co-signed by two of your colleagues, addressed to 

Administrator Lisa Jackson in which you request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency respect 

the technical judgment of North Dakota as the state permitting authority and accept the state's State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for regional haze. 

We acknowledge the importance of the issues related Lo several coal-fired power plants in North Dakota 

and agree that states have primary responsibility to develop regional haze SIPs. However, the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) clearly requires the EPA to review the adequacy of the regional haze SIPs and requires the 

EPA to take action to correct any deficiencies, in the SIP where the EPA has disapproved all or part of a 

SIP. See CAA sections 110(k) and (c). 

In our September 21,2011 proposal, we agreed with many of North Dakota's decisions regarding CAArequired Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) - emission controls for certain types of older 

industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibiliLY. However, because North Dakota's 

analyses of controls for some of the sources subject to BART, and of controls on other sources that 

could help provide reasonable progress towards visibility goals, are not merely different from our own, 

but appear to be significantly flawed, we proposed disapproval of those parts of the SIP and proposed a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to ensure that air pollution improvements continue. Specifically, we 

disagree with North Dakota's conclusions that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce nitrogen 

oxide emissions from facilities in North Dakota is technically infeasible. We also found that North 

Dakota has substantiaJIy over-estimated costs and based some control level conclusions on modeling 

techniques which substantially understate visibility improvements. Nonetheless, our proposal notes that 

should we finalize our FIP as proposed, the affected facilities and/or the state may request 

reconsideration of our final action based on the potential outcomes of any field testing of SCR feasibility 

they may choose to undertake prior to the date the emission limits in our FIP become effective. 

We thank you for testifying at the public hearing held on October 14,2011. We welcome public 

comments on our proposal until November 21,2011. We intend to carefully consider these comments as 

we make a final decision. Our current schedule, which is court-ordered, requires us to make a final 

decision on our proposal no later than February 9, 2012. 

Internet Address (URl) • hllp IIwwwepa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable' Printed With Vegerable 0,1 Based Inks on 100% Poslconsurner. Process ChlOrine Free Recycled Pape, 
Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may cal1 

Josh Lewis in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202564-2095) 

Sincerely 

ina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator