June 8, 2007
J. David Thornton
Assistant Commissioner – Air Policy
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
RE: MPCA’s Proposed Regional Haze Long Term Strategy Concept
Dear Assistant Commissioner Thornton:
The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (“the Band”) wishes to respond to the MPCA’s proposed plan for addressing regional haze in Minnesota’s Class I areas. The Band appreciates being approached early in the process of this plan’s development and being approached in a manner that is respectful of government-to-government relations. The Band agrees in principle to the proposals in the plan, but would like to be kept informed as the details are developed.
The plan seeks to address the regional haze analyses by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (“CENRAP”) and the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (“MRPO”) predicting that Minnesota will not be able to reach its goal of eliminating human-caused visibility impairment in its Class I areas by 2064 based solely on current regulations and proposed Best Achievable Retrofit Technology (“BART”) controls, as required by the Clean Air Visibility Rule (“CAVR”). As a boost to regulations and BART controls, the plan proposes to require roughly 30% control of sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) and nitrous oxides (“NOx”) from uncontrolled and under-controlled plants in the Northern Minnesota area by 2018, with check-in reductions of around 20% by 2012. These pollutants are precursors to ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, which have been shown to be the largest contributors to regional haze in Minnesota’s Class I areas. We understand that the figures of 20% reduction by 2012 and 30% by 2018 were arrived at using methods commonly used by other regional haze entities when addressing the same issues and that roughly the same figures were reached when using a variety of technical approaches. The Band agrees with this method as a good faith estimate by the MPCA unless new and compelling
information is found to suggest another method that would yield significantly different results.
This proposed plan will study existing and new facilities emitting over 100 tons per year (“tpy”) of SO2 or NOx located in St. Louis, Lake, Cook, Carlton, Itasca, and Koochiching counties. Uncontrolled and under-controlled sources will specifically be required to investigate feasible control technologies and look at their cost-effectiveness. The MPCA also proposes to require installation of continuous emission monitors (“CEM’s”) in facilities of interest that do not already have them in order to get a better idea of actual emissions so that reductions can be planned accordingly. The document proposes to require installation of CEM’s in existing facilities in the six counties of interest that emit over 500 tpy of SO2 or NOx and do not already have CEM’s technology. The Band is in agreement with the details of the approach described above. We are also in agreement with the MPCA’s hypothesis that these emission control requirements will drive the development of innovative control strategies, since many taconite facilities on the Iron Range have stated that there are currently no economically feasible ways to control these emissions, yet their emissions have been shown to impact visibility in the areas of concern.
The MPCA requested input on the question of what criteria should be used to select units/facilities that are uncontrolled or under-controlled; the Band suggests looking first to the taconite industry for reductions. These sources have been modeled and their effects on Class I air quality are demonstrable. It is the Band’s opinion that any BART-eligible sources that were not ultimately required to install BART controls are under-controlled if CAVR goals cannot be reached without their help. The Band realizes that cost was a factor in not requiring BART controls, but these sources nevertheless do have an impact on visibility and were constructed several years ago, meaning that pollution prevention technology was probably not considered in their original construction and operation. These sources are also likely to continue operating for many years to come. The Band is also concerned with the number of new sources proposed in the Arrowhead region. If new sources are going to be approved and permitted, older sources must do something to contribute to emissions reductions so regional haze does not degrade farther. Also with regard to new sources, while it is unlikely that a new, major source of air emissions would be approved with no pollution controls, we would like to see every effort made to ensure that these new sources do their fair share and do not impede progress being made by other sources.
The Band is concerned that economics shall not prevent large, older, uncontrolled sources from reducing their emissions. While we do understand that some technologies are economically infeasible, alternatives need to be found. We support cost-saving measures such as having the taconite industry work together on pilot projects. We would also support allowing trading of emissions or allowing some facilities to install controls that would make up for another facility’s lack of control measures, as long as the effects on visibility remain positive and put the state on the glide path to achieving regional haze goals.
As stated on the conference call between the state and tribes on April 12th, 2007, the Band is concerned about the Memorandum of Agreement proposed between the FLM’s and the MPCA. The Band’s concern is that FLM’s not be stymied in any way from enforcing their rights and responsibilities in the Class I areas. While the Band respects the FLM’s expertise in entering this agreement, we also expect the FLM’s to be able to do the job that the Band, and the general public, relies on them to do.
As stated in the first paragraph of this letter, the Band would like to be kept informed as this plan progresses. While we agree in principle with the plan, we may have concerns as more details become available. For instance, we are interested in how facilities would be required to comply with the conditions of this plan. Point #6 of the plan mentions “encouraging voluntary implementation of control measures”, but the Band wants to know what enforcement or permitting tools could be used if voluntary measures fail and what timetables may be implemented for using these tools.
Thank you for seeking our comments and input on this matter. If you have any further questions about this letter, please contact Joy Wiecks of my staff at 218-878-8008.
Sincerely,
Wayne Dupuis
Fond du Lac Environmental Program Manager
c.c. Matt Rau, USEPA – Region V
Annette Sharp, Executive Director – CENRAP
Michael Koerber, Director - Midwest RPO
3