1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From:Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:53 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Cc:Subject: Request for Comments on Planned Amendments to Rules Pertaining to theControl of Particulate Emissions and Other Pollutants

from Silica Sand Projects

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Greetings, I've been following the sand mining discussions and regulatory environment information. Regarding comments for any rule amendments, the following are some thoughts: 1. strict minimal emmission standards need to be established (lower than the documented "issue" levels) 2. existing mines (along with any future ones) - need to have ongoing scrutiny and frequent air/water/land pollutant testing by independant/objective testers 3. stringent rules need to be established so that emmission infraction prosecution is closing down the mine (along with large fines and financial responsibility to clean up/restore the environment) 4. due to the additional regulatory administration/enforcement and increased sand mining interest, mining companies should be responsible for the added costs - hiring people for DNR, MCPA and other agency groups that provide services; - pollution clean up and cost of natural resource loss; - community job loss due to mining coming in (outdoor jobs, tourism, hunting/fishing jobs, etc.) - infrastructure costs due to truck traffic, plus air/water/land impacts 5. natural resources are more important than money earned through sand mining - sensitive land areas such as the Driftless Area of SE Mn should be zoned so no sand mining or other environment-degrading or negative health impact industries are allowed Thanks for listening. Sue Ramthun

Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency August 21, 2013 Dear Manager Kelly, Mr. Smyser, Mr. Cooley and Ms. Miller My name is Collin Johnson, I reside near St. Charles in Winona County where silica sand mining and processing sites are being or have been proposed. I was fortunate enough to be in attendance at the August 2, 2013 Silica Sand Legislation meeting in Winona but felt that the personal nature of my story would best be presented out of the public forum. My concern is of the lack of available data regarding the effects that exposure to silica sand dust will have on persons with auto-immune and/or kidney diseases. Research and risk assessment has focused almost exclusively on the relationship between long term silica dust exposure and silicosis, but has not begun to fully consider or evaluate the consequences fugitive silica dust has on the acute response of our body’s immune system. This concern is specifically relevant for those of us living with auto-immune and kidney diseases. I have a kidney based auto-immune type disease called IgA Nephropathy where exposure to silica dust at even moderate to low levels will likely put my health at risk. Not only has silica exposure been linked to causing kidney damage and disease, but silica exposure is also a known potent activator of the immune system. Both events of which would contribute significantly to the decline of kidney function in susceptible populations such as those of us with IgA Nephropathy. In fact evidence seems to be surfacing that as a result of silica exposure, kidney disease may emerge as perhaps a higher risk than either mortality from silicosis or lung cancer. That theory is also supported by research which indicates that, when tested, workers who have even short term exposure to silica will likely display subclinical signs of kidney dysfunction. I have spent considerable time exploring the expected effect(s) fugitive silica dust will have on my immune system and ultimately my kidney function yet have been largely unable to find conclusive data which would either dismiss my concerns or support what I feel is a very real threat to my health. I have contacted the CDC, the Minnesota Department of Health (Dr. Carpenter) and numerous other experts who focus on the field of public health and/or epidemiology. To date, no one has been able to offer any significant information related to risks silica sand exposure has on those of us with auto-immune disease. With that, I continue to seek data (or in the least expert opinion) which would offer some assurance of my health due to the proposed silica sand mining and processing in my area. Absent of conclusive data, I have had to base my concern on the basic pathophysiology of our immune systems normal response to silica exposure and the effect immune dysfunction has on my kidneys. As noted above, silica is a potent activator of our

immune system, and part of that normal response is the increased production of Immunoglobulin A (IgA) which is an antibody that helps neutralize invading pathogens, in this case silica. That response would be of little or no detriment to a healthy individual because IgA passes through the kidney when it clears your body of the invading pathogen. With IgA Nephropathy, Immunoglobulin A (for whatever reason) gets stuck in the kidney, mistakes healthy tissue for invading pathogens and ends up destroying the filtering cells of the organ. Generally, inhaled viral or bacterial based pathogens trigger the problematic IgA production, but our bodies also react in a similar manner to other environmental pathogens such as silica dust. My fear is that silica exposure at even nominal levels will unduly stress my immune system and contribute significantly to the demise of my already compromised kidney function. I would welcome any information, either actual or theoretical to dispel my fears, but as of now and based on everything I have read and been told, I can only conclude that silica dust exposure will likely contribute significantly to the prognosis of my disease. I ask for consideration by the Department of Health to further study the potential effects of silica dust exposure on those of us with auto-immune and kidney disease and develop, in the very least hypothetical, conclusions based on the unique risks susceptible populations are at. I also ask that my story not get overlooked as an isolated case. There are people in all corners of this state that suffer from more than 70 other types of auto-immune disease, all of which could be negatively influenced in different ways by silica exposures activation of the immune system. Presently, Minnesota acknowledges and adheres to an Air Quality Health Based Value that almost exclusively references the risk of healthy people developing silicosis with very little mention of other risks associated with silica exposure. The critical study behind the HBV Toxicological Summery published July 2013 (OEHHA 2005 report) clearly notes that the final determination of 3ug/m3; “Adequately protects most members of the general population.” Of what consequence is that to those of us who might be considered less than healthy? In my case, the largest silica sand processing plant in North America was proposed 550 feet from where I live and assuming that facility were to, at all times stay in compliance with the 3ug/m3 value, I would have no defense in protecting my health if in fact silica exacerbates my disease. I also have concern that local officials will become blinded by subjective numbers and assume that everyone’s health will be preserved if the HBV is not exceeded. The core of Minnesota’s environmental Policy (116D.02 - State Responsibilities - 2) states; “Assure for all people of the state, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” Similarly the Minnesota Department of Health Mission Statement states; “To protect, maintain and improve the health of all Minnesotans.” My emphasis on the words all is self-explanatory. The bold word Assure (ance) summarizes what I am desperately in search of. I sincerely believe that based on any available data that I have either seen or been presented with, there is (to date) NO assurance that I would not experience a measurable decline in my immune system/kidney health if exposed to even small amounts of freshly fractures crystalline silica dust.

The meeting in Winona was very encouraging and it would be discourteous for me not to thank all the agencies for their hard work on this very contentious issue. It was unfortunate however that I left the Winona meeting feeling a bit frustrated, confused and even jealous. Jealous because I wasn’t a trout that had an entire State affording me the luxury of controlling any potentially dangerous activity up to one mile away from where I lived. And frustrated that mining is being permitted in Winona County with no air monitoring requirements. And even worse, no assurances are being offered that the health of ALL citizens will be protected from the ill effects if silica sand exposure. Sincerely Collin Johnson

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From:Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:42 AMTo: james.kelley@state.mn.us; Smyser, Jeff (MPCA); Miller, Nancy (MPCA); Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: Silica Sand Legislation CommentsAttachments: MDH - silica concerns.docx

Please accept the attached comments related to silica sand mining, processing and transportation in the State of Minnesota. ____________________________________________________________ 30‐second trick for a flat belly This daily 30‐second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat‐burning hormone http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3231/521712ac44f0212ac7fb1st02vuc 

Legalectric, Inc. Carol Overland Attorney at Law, MN #254617 Energy Consultant—Transmission, Power Plants, Nuclear Waste overland@legalectric.org

1110 West Avenue P.O. Box 69 Red Wing, Minnesota 55066 Port Penn, Delaware 19731

612.227.8638 302.834.3466 September 8, 2013 Will Seuffert

RE: Silica Sand Draft Model Standards & Criteria EQB, DNR, MPCA Rulemaking Advisory Committee Dear Mr. Seuffert: Welcome to the Environmental Quality Board! Let’s dive in… I am submitting this comment as an individual and not in the course of representation of any party. I’ve reviewed the Agenda and Packet for the September 18, 2013 meetings, and wish to raise several issues before the meeting. Rulemaking Advisory Committee First, I’m concerned about the staff comment regarding a rulemaking advisory committee. Agenda item IV(c)(i) is “Citizen Advisory Group Discussion” regarding whether to appoint a Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Rulemaking Advisory Committees are a routine part of rulemaking, authorized under Minn. Stat. §14.101.1 Multiple requests were made both orally and in writing to each agency for a Rulemaking Advisory Committee. At the August 2 meeting in Red Wing, I made a request for a Rulemaking Advisory Committee, and later that day in Winona, when questioned about it, MPCA Commissioner Stine noted the value of Advisory Committees and that it might work to have one Advisory Committee for the three agencies tasked with rulemaking in the 2013 legislation. 1 Online at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=14.101

2

Rulemaking is somewhat arcane, except for those of us involved in rulemaking! Staff seems confused about authorization and the role of a Rulemaking Advisory Committee, and it’s unfortunate they do not provide the statute authorizing committees for Board review. This omission leaves the board in the dark, perhaps leaving the impression that this request is something unusual, that Advisory Committees are something unusual, not part of typical rulemaking process! To clarify, Advisory Committees are authorized by statute to engage the public and solicit and receive comments at the critical rule drafting stage, a routine phase of rulemaking. From the packet:

The statute is very clear about the agencies’ authority to appoint an Advisory Committees and how it would affect rulemaking – by providing input before the draft rule is issued:

14.101 ADVICE ON POSSIBLE RULES. Subd. 2.Advisory committees. Each agency may also appoint committees to comment, before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing, on the subject matter of a possible rulemaking under active consideration within the agency.

Input “before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing” is when comments are meaningful because they can be incorporated into the draft rule. Comments after a notice of intent to adopt have little impact because the agency won’t adopt a rule that is significantly different from that proposed. My experience in rulemaking proceedings is what triggered my request for a committee. I’m currently an active member of a Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking Advisory Committee regarding Minnesota Rules Chapters 7849 and 7850, and have been a member of several others, including one or two EQB committees regarding environmental review and siting/routing under the Power Plant Siting Act and others regarding Distributed Generation and Certificate of Need. Recently I’ve commented on rules ranging from PUC Practice and Procedure, to the DNR’s delisting rulemaking, and the MPCA’s GHG rules for Range mining. I urge you to authorize a Rulemaking Advisory Committee and solicit members for appointment. I am ready and willing to serve on such a committee.

3

Public forums should be distributed across Minnesota’s affected areas

Thus far, two meetings were held to solicit comments, in Red Wing and Winona. While frac sand mining activity is a primary concern in southeast Minnesota, it is important not to forget the other parts of Minnesota directly affected, particularly near Mankato, Shakopee, and along the St. Croix River.

Mindful of the short time frame and the necessity for a broad range of public input, please consider hosting meetings for comment again in Red Wing and Winona, and also in St. Charles, Mankato, Shakopee and Taylors Falls. These are directly affected areas with concerns and insights that should be considered in developing Standards and Criteria.

Public review “and comment”

The words used repeatedly in the Annotated Agenda is “public review.” I’d feel more comfortable if it were “public review and comment” to presume more than just review, that we’ll have meaningful comment opportunities as well.

Silica Sand Mining Model Standards and Criteria to be adopted by local government

I greatly appreciate staff’s clarification that “there is no mandate for a local government to adopt any of the model standards and criteria” and that adoption is “at their discretion.” It would be helpful for a clarification to be sent to all affected local units of government – this was an issue at a Goodhue County Board meeting, and, as staff notes, “there is some confusion.” Many affected local governments will probably not be reading the EQB packet and could use direct communication about this matter.

Going forward, I’ll have additional specific comments on the Standards and Criteria, hopefully prior to the September 18th meeting. If you have any questions or require anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours,

Carol A. Overland Attorney at Law

cc: tom.landwehr@state.mn.us: John.Stine@state.mn.us; dave.frederickson@state.mn.us; Spencer.Cronk@state.mn.us; katie.clark.sieben@state.mn.us; Ed.Ehlinger@state.mn.us; charlie.zelle@state.mn.us; Mike.Rothman@state.mn.us; brian.napstad@co.aitkin.mn.us; Julie@redriverbasincommission.org; john_saxhaug@yahoo.com; etomlinson@sehinc.com; kristin@duncansongrowers.com; kate.knuth@gmail.com; Rulemaking – DNR, MPCA, EQB staff: heather.arends@state.mn.us; nathan.cooley@state.mn.us; Jeff.Smyser@state.mn.us; bob.patton@state.mn.us; kate.frantz@state.mn.us;

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Carol A. Overland Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 7:54 AMTo: Seuffert, Will (GOV)Cc: Stine, John (MPCA); Landwehr, Tom (DNR); Frederickson, Dave (MDA); Cronk, Spencer (ADM); Clark Sieben, Katie (DEED);

Ehlinger, Ed (MDH); Zelle, Charlie (DOT); Rothman, Mike (COMM); brian.napstad@co.aitkin.mn.us; Julie@redriverbasincommission.org; john_saxhaug@yahoo.com; etomlinson@sehinc.com; kristin@duncansongrowers.com; kate.knuth@gmail.com; Arends, Heather (DNR); Cooley, Nathan (MPCA); Smyser, Jeff (MPCA); Patton, Bob (MDA); Frantz, Kate (MPCA); Heffron, Susan B (MPCA); Ross, Michele (MDH); Doperalski, Melissa (DNR); Moynihan, Debra (DOT); Kirsch, Raymond (COMM); travis.germuncson@state.mn.us

Subject: EQB Sept 18 meeting - Silica Sand Standards & CriteriaAttachments: Overland_Comments_Sept 7.pdf

Legalectric, Inc.

Carol Overland Attorney at Law, MN #254617 Energy Consultant—Transmission, Power Plants, Nuclear Waste

overland@legalectric.org

1110 West Avenue P.O. Box 69 Red Wing, Minnesota 55066 Port Penn, Delaware 19731

612.227.8638 302.834.3466

2

September 8, 2013

Will Seuffert

Executive Director

Environmental Quality Board via email: will.seuffert@state.mn.us

520 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55101

RE: Silica Sand Draft Model Standards & Criteria

EQB, DNR, MPCA Rulemaking Advisory Committee

Dear Mr. Seuffert:

Welcome to the Environmental Quality Board! Let’s dive in…

I am submitting this comment as an individual and not in the course of representation of any party.

I’ve reviewed the Agenda and Packet for the September 18, 2013 meetings, and wish to raise several issues before the meeting.

3

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

First, I’m concerned about the staff comment regarding a rulemaking advisory committee. Agenda item IV(c)(i) is “Citizen Advisory Group Discussion” regarding whether to appoint a Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

Rulemaking Advisory Committees are a routine part of rulemaking, authorized under Minn. Stat. §14.101.i Multiple requests were made both orally and in writing to each agency for a Rulemaking Advisory Committee. At the August 2 meeting in Red Wing, I made a request for a Rulemaking Advisory Committee, and later that day in Winona, when questioned about it, MPCA Commissioner Stine noted the value of Advisory Committees and that it might work to have one Advisory Committee for the three agencies tasked with rulemaking in the 2013 legislation.

Rulemaking is somewhat arcane, except for those of us involved in rulemaking! Staff seems confused about authorization and the role of a Rulemaking Advisory Committee, and it’s unfortunate they do not provide the statute authorizing committees for Board review. This omission leaves the board in the dark, perhaps leaving the impression that this request is something unusual, that Advisory Committees are something unusual, not part of typical rulemaking process! To clarify, Advisory Committees are authorized by statute to engage the public and solicit and receive comments at the critical rule drafting stage, a routine phase of rulemaking.

From the packet:

The statute is very clear about the agencies’ authority to appoint an Advisory Committees and how it would affect rulemaking – by providing input before the draft rule is issued:

14.101 ADVICE ON POSSIBLE RULES. Subd. 2.Advisory committees. Each agency may also appoint committees to comment, before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing, on the subject matter of a possible rulemaking under active consideration within the agency.

4

Input “before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing” is when comments are meaningful because they can be incorporated into the draft rule. Comments after a notice of intent to adopt have little impact because the agency won’t adopt a rule that is significantly different from that proposed.

My experience in rulemaking proceedings is what triggered my request for a committee. I’m currently an active member of a Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking Advisory Committee regarding Minnesota Rules Chapters 7849 and 7850, and have been a member of several others, including one or two EQB committees regarding environmental review and siting/routing under the Power Plant Siting Act and others regarding Distributed Generation and Certificate of Need. Recently I’ve commented on rules ranging from PUC Practice and Procedure, to the DNR’s delisting rulemaking, and the MPCA’s GHG rules for Range mining.

I urge you to authorize a Rulemaking Advisory Committee and solicit members for appointment. I am ready and willing to serve on such a committee.

Public forums should be distributed across Minnesota’s affected areas

Thus far, two meetings were held to solicit comments, in Red Wing and Winona. While frac sand mining activity is a primary concern in southeast Minnesota, it is important not to forget the other parts of Minnesota directly affected, particularly near Mankato, Shakopee, and along the St. Croix River.

Mindful of the short time frame and the necessity for a broad range of public input, please consider hosting meetings for comment again in Red Wing and Winona, and also in St. Charles, Mankato, Shakopee and Taylors Falls. These are directly affected areas with concerns and insights that should be considered in developing Standards and Criteria.

Public review “and comment”

The words used repeatedly in the Annotated Agenda is “public review.” I’d feel more comfortable if it were “public review and comment” to presume more than just review, that we’ll have meaningful comment opportunities as well.

Silica Sand Mining Model Standards and Criteria to be adopted by local government

I greatly appreciate staff’s clarification that “there is no mandate for a local government to adopt any of the model standards and criteria” and that adoption is “at their discretion.” It would be helpful for a clarification to be sent to all affected local units of government – this was an issue at a Goodhue County Board meeting, and, as staff notes, “there is some confusion.” Many affected local governments will probably not be reading the EQB packet and could use direct communication about this matter.

Going forward, I’ll have additional specific comments on the Standards and Criteria, hopefully prior to the September 18th meeting.

5

If you have any questions or require anything further, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

Carol A. Overland

Attorney at Law

cc: tom.landwehr@state.mn.us: John.Stine@state.mn.us; dave.frederickson@state.mn.us; Spencer.Cronk@state.mn.us; katie.clark.sieben@state.mn.us; Ed.Ehlinger@state.mn.us; charlie.zelle@state.mn.us; Mike.Rothman@state.mn.us; brian.napstad@co.aitkin.mn.us; Julie@redriverbasincommission.org; john_saxhaug@yahoo.com; etomlinson@sehinc.com; kristin@duncansongrowers.com; kate.knuth@gmail.com; Rulemaking – DNR, MPCA, EQB staff: heather.arends@state.mn.us; nathan.cooley@state.mn.us; Jeff.Smyser@state.mn.us; bob.patton@state.mn.us; kate.frantz@state.mn.us;

-- "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Carol A. Overland

www.legalectric.org www.nocapx2020.info

6

i Online at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=14.101

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Dean Flugstad Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:55 PMTo: Arends, Heather (DNR); Landwehr, Tom (DNR); Cooley, Nathan (MPCA); Stine, John (MPCA); Smyser, Jeff (MPCA); Patton, Bob

(MDA); Frantz, Kate (MPCA); dave.fredrickson@state.mn.usSubject: Silica Sand Rules

Dear EQB members, I am chair of the Lake Township Comprehensive Land Use Study Committee that met tonight to start the process of creating a comprehensive plan for our township. Due to the fact that we could not convince the Wabasha County Planning Commission, after attending 7 months of biweekly meetings, to create a strong enough ordinance to fit our needs we must now act.. I now read that the EQB is folding to industry also by not developing strong enough rules. Once you suggest these rules industry will argue , in court perhaps, that if you suggest these rules that is what they should be against the wishes of small governmental units such as ours. Why not protect the little guy for a change and make the rules real strong and they can always be relaxed? We don’t have the staff or money to fight prolonged legal battles. Also we need a Rule Making Advisory Committee to get adequate input to you from the citizens. Please!!! Thank you , Dean Flugstad

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Adrienne Bayer Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:59 AMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: Protecting SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA against frac sand mining

Good morning, My name is Adrienne Bayer, and I live in Houston, MN in Houston County located in Southeast Minnesota. I have been following the frac sand issues like a hawk. Being the daughter of a geologist, I know full well the severe dangers and irreversible damages that frac sand mining will cause to our fragile region. I am severely concerned for my personal well-being, my entire family's well-being, and our properties, as there is a frac sand mine being proposed on the top of the ridge right next to the valley we live in. I'm 30 years old and I've lived here for all my 30 years. I don't want to see our lands and bluffs destroyed, I don't want our precious aquifers polluted, nor our trout streams ruined by frac sand mining. I'm taking a stand against frac sand mining! Please review the information I've included below, I ask for your help in keeping all of SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA safe from frac sand mines, and mining.

State Standards Must Protect our Air from Frac Sand Pollution. Frac sand is silica sand. Long-term exposure to low levels of silica dust can cause severe health problems including silicosis, an incurable disease that can kill. An effective strategy to regulate silica sand must have these components:

Air quality permit required. A “Silica Sand Ambient Air Quality permit” must be created and required for all frac sand facilities (mines, processing and loading facilities, etc.). Requiring a permit to operate gives the MPCA leverage to enforce compliance. Without the threat of being able to shut the operation down by revoking the permit, frac sand facilities can ignore rules and pay fines while continuing to pollute. Meaningful setbacks from adjoining property lines, residences, schools, nursing homes, etc., should be required as part of the permit. Continuous ambient air quality monitoring. All frac sand facilities—mines, processing facilities and loading and transfer stations—should pay for the installation and maintenance of state-of-the-art continuous air monitoring equipment that is overseen by the MPCA. Facilities must not allow silica dust in the ambient air at their property line to exceed the level of safe exposure established by the Minnesota Department of Health. Monitoring data is made public. Air monitoring results are available to the public in real time via the web. Violations have meaningful and immediate consequences. Violations result in substantial fines and the scaling down of operations to make them come into compliance. Swift and meaningful consequences are the only way to ensure compliance from the industry. Repeated violations will result in revocation of the permit. Industry pays. The permit costs cover the cost of regulating the industry, including the air monitoring equipment. State Regulations Must Protect our Water from Frac Sand Pollution. The processing of frac sand can involve the use of harmful chemicals and millions of gallons of water. Also, frac sand mining can open up conduits that allow surface pollution to enter into the groundwater quickly. This is especially true for southeast Minnesota’s sensitive karst geology. An effective strategy to protect water quality should have these components:

2

Water quality permit required. Frac sand mines and frac sand processing facilities that use water should require an individual water quality permit that requires public notice and allows for public comment. No permits should be allowed within any well head protection area. All chemicals used by frac sand companies must be publicly disclosed. Industry claims of “proprietary information” cannot be allowed to trump the public’s right to know what chemicals they may be exposed to. Disruption of the hydrological function of the landscape must be considered. Frac sand mining could disturb thousands of acres of land in southeast Minnesota’s karst landscape. Karst geology is made up of fractured limestone and is typified by sinkholes that can allow surface pollution to enter groundwater immediately. Disruption of the landscape through strip mining for frac sand threatens to create many more points of entry for surface pollution to enter the groundwater. This issue has to be addressed up front and cannot be done on a case-by-case basis. The Governor has said he supports a frac sand mining ban in this area of the state and protecting water quality is a good reason to simply declare this region off-limits to frac sand mining and processing.

Thank you kindly, Adrienne A. Bayer

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Mary Tacheny Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:47 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: Frac Sand Mining comment

Mr. Cooley, The frac sand industry has a history of polluting air and water and violating regulations. Only tough rules that put protection of public health and well being ahead of corporate profit will change this. That is why I want the MPCA to require an air quality permit that gives the MPCA leverage to enforce compliance along with continuous ambient air quality monitoring. All frac sand facilities should pay for monitoring equipment which monitoring is overseen by the MPCA. Air monitoring results should be made public with violations resulting in substantial fines. Those frac mines and processing facilities that use water should be required to get a water quality permit with full disclosure of chemicals being used. Disrupting the hydrological function of the landscape MUST be considered. Air and surface as well as underground water belong to all and are necessities of life. How dare any corporate entity take over these precious gifts that belong to the “common good” and misuse them with abandon. Thank you. Mary Tacheny, SSND, Jordan, Minnesota

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Sheila Garrity Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:17 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: sand frac mining

I support Gov. Dayton’s position to severely limit sand frac mining and to not allow it at all in the south eastern portion of the state.  Minnesota is recognized and loved for clean air and clean water.  Let’s keep it that way.    Just look at the mess in Colorado following flooding they never expected to see.  The Mississippi River and Mn Lakes and streams must be protected because once destroyed they are forever gone.  Tourism, and recreation bring more money into the state for the long‐term, than sand frac mining ever will.  Protect MN rivers, lakes and streams.    Sheila Garrity

 

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Beattie, Joe Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:11 AMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: FW: frac sand industry

Let's try this one more time.  ________________________________ From: Beattie, Joe Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:56 AM To: natan.cooley@state.mn.us Subject: frac sand industry   Hello Mr. Cooley ‐    I am writing to you today about the frac sand industry in Minnesota.  Our image of Minnesota is one of clean air and clean water.  This is not simply an image.  The economic well‐being of our state depends on clean air and clean water.  As a member of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, I will hope you will work with the governor and the legislature to assure tough standards for the frac sand industry in our state.    Thank you,  Joe Beattie    

 

  

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Kathleen Mary Kiemen Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:27 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: Tough and good standards for Frac Sand Mining

Hello, Nathan, I hope this week goes well for you. I called you last week to get your correct email and I appreciated your response. I am now getting back to you about my concern about Sand Frac mining here in MN. I was among many last spring who pressed our MN legislators and Governor to call for a moratorium on Sand Frac mining because we have great evidence about its pollution to water, land and air, besides all the challenges small communities face in their infrastructure and the devaluing of people's property. As you and the MPCA know, this did not happen. The industry won through their narrative of creating jobs, their argument that they already have environmental requirements, and of course, let us not forget they have money for lobbying, etc. Yes, there are such requirements for mining, but not Sand Fracking, which has many more dangers. NOW then, we need to call this industry to strong regulations. They will make millions on this industry, so they should be accountable and have the money to comply. These strong standards should include:

Silica sand ambient air quality permits Continuous...continuous...continuous air quality monitoring This monitoring information should be easily available to the public Violations should have strong and immediate consequences This industry pays for the regulating costs, and definitely be responsible for clean up that will be required

I am a School Sister of Notre Dame and our Mankato campus called, Good Counsel Hill, is situated close to Jordan Sands, which wants to do sand frac mining. This campus is home to some 120 Sisters plus our many employees who serve many of the sisters who are aged and where there is a grade and high school for children and teems. This property is situated very near the Jordan aquifer and the MN river. The former is the water resource for people and land on Good Counsel Hill and many others in the Mankato and surrounding areas. The water, land and air in this area must be protected. Jordan Sands and other sand frac industry people in MN need to be held accountable. I ask the MPCA to VERY SOON (like this fall) take on the challenge to create tough standards for the silica sand industry in our great state. Thanks for your work with the MPCA and for reading this email. I wish you lots of peace in all you are about. Kathleen Mary Kiemen

2

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From:4:40 PM

To: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: oppose sand frac mining

                                                                                September 26, 2013   To: Nathan Brooks Cooley, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency   Dear Sir:  I am writing in regards to the need for high standard to protect our air quality in Southern Minnesota where the Jordan Sands Mining is planning to begin a  frac sand mine.  First, I believe it should be made illegal because anything that adds any amount of carcinogens to the air is a wrong thing to do. I have a home based Montessori School in Lime Township and my students are 3‐6 years old.  The first rule of the school is “Take care of the people.”  I think it is an extreme offense to the people in this area, and on the planet for that matter, to consider it a good idea to do sand frac mining.  My young children are learning right from wrong, and the example set by the adults of Jordan Sands is wrong, wrong, wrong.  A dear pastor in this community just died of cancer.  Two friends of mine are battling cancer.  My father died of cancer.  My grandmother died of cancer.  My sister was treated for cancer. Is this not a story similar to most of the population?  There are clean alternatives that are available such as wind and solar energy.  There is no justification for the frac sand mining.  Having said that the first thing would be a ban on frac sand mining in the state of Minnesota.  Until this happens, there should be the strictest standards to protect our air quality.  These should include: 1. An air quality permit to be required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2. Continuous air quality monitoring.  All frac sand facilities – mines, processing facilities and loading and transfer stations should pay for the installation and maintenance of state‐of‐the‐art continuous air monitoring equipment that is overseen by the MPCA.  3. The data of this monitoring needs to be made public. 4. If there is a violation of the standard, substantial fines should be imposed and the operations should be ceased or at least cut down to meet compliance ot eh standard. Repeated violations should result in the revocation of the permit. 5. The permit costs paid by the industry will include the cost of regulating and monitoring equipment  

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Larry Sonnek Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 7:40 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: FW: Protection of our air and water as it relates to silica mining

Mr. Cooley,  I am writing to ask that you consider this statement which comes from the MCPA home page.  "The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's mission is to protect and improve the environment and enhance human health."  If the MPCA is serious about this mission statement and the the three goals identified on the same website, then it would seem to be difficult to find fault with the arguments made by a large number of groups and individuals across the state to strictly regulate silica sand mining.  In particular, the first two goals: Evaluation of groundwater and lakes; and Pollution reduction or prevention seem to blend well with positions taken by groups like The Land Stewardship Project and Save The Bluffs to name a few.  I support their positions and ask that you put in place very strict standards while this window of opportunity is open.  Larry Sonnek 

  

2

There also needs to be regulations to protect our water from frac sand pollution.  All chemicals used by frac sand companies must be publically disclosed.  People have a right to know what is in the water. The frac sand companies should be required to get a water quality permit.  Minnesota can do better than to allow this kind of pollution and harm done to our environment.  Minnesota should take care of its beautiful land and keep it safe as much as possible.  To forbid frac sand mining is one thing Minnesota needs to do to take care of the people, the air and land.  Diane Childs 

   

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From:Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 4:40 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: oppose sand frac mining

                                                                                September 26, 2013   To: Nathan Brooks Cooley, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency   Dear Sir:  I am writing in regards to the need for high standard to protect our air quality in Southern Minnesota where the Jordan Sands Mining is planning to begin a  frac sand mine.  First, I believe it should be made illegal because anything that adds any amount of carcinogens to the air is a wrong thing to do. I have a home based Montessori School in Lime Township and my students are 3‐6 years old.  The first rule of the school is “Take care of the people.”  I think it is an extreme offense to the people in this area, and on the planet for that matter, to consider it a good idea to do sand frac mining.  My young children are learning right from wrong, and the example set by the adults of Jordan Sands is wrong, wrong, wrong.  A dear pastor in this community just died of cancer.  Two friends of mine are battling cancer.  My father died of cancer.  My grandmother died of cancer.  My sister was treated for cancer. Is this not a story similar to most of the population?  There are clean alternatives that are available such as wind and solar energy.  There is no justification for the frac sand mining.  Having said that the first thing would be a ban on frac sand mining in the state of Minnesota.  Until this happens, there should be the strictest standards to protect our air quality.  These should include: 1. An air quality permit to be required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2. Continuous air quality monitoring.  All frac sand facilities – mines, processing facilities and loading and transfer stations should pay for the installation and maintenance of state‐of‐the‐art continuous air monitoring equipment that is overseen by the MPCA.  3. The data of this monitoring needs to be made public. 4. If there is a violation of the standard, substantial fines should be imposed and the operations should be ceased or at least cut down to meet compliance ot eh standard. Repeated violations should result in the revocation of the permit. 5. The permit costs paid by the industry will include the cost of regulating and monitoring equipment  

2

There also needs to be regulations to protect our water from frac sand pollution.  All chemicals used by frac sand companies must be publically disclosed.  People have a right to know what is in the water. The frac sand companies should be required to get a water quality permit.  Minnesota can do better than to allow this kind of pollution and harm done to our environment.  Minnesota should take care of its beautiful land and keep it safe as much as possible.  To forbid frac sand mining is one thing Minnesota needs to do to take care of the people, the air and land.  Diane Childs 

  

  

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Kathleen Mary Kiemen Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 4:53 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: Re: Tough and good standards for Frac Sand Mining

Dear Nathan, thanks for your reply. I do know that no frack mining is done so far in MN. I am also against this process too. Therefore I don't want MN to feed that industry. Since we are through, in the mining of silica sand, I continue to encourage MPCA to do the things I suggested in my first email. Do require adequate monitoring and pollution regulations. Take care, Kathleen Mary Kiemen From: "Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)" <nathan.cooley@state.mn.us> To: Kathleen Mary Kiemen Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: RE: Tough and good standards for Frac Sand Mining Ms. Kiemen, It is good to hear from you again and I appreciate your interest and kindness. I hope you will register on the MPCA’s main webpage for email notification of future actions related to silica sand projects in Minnesota (please see http://www.pca.state.mn.us/, and click on the little red envelope in the upper right hand quarter of the page to register under our GovDelivery system). Just to be clear, my agency is charged with regulating the mining of sand that has been used for a variety of purposes from an ingredient in glass and concrete to a more recent use in a process called hydraulic fracture mining (fracking; here, the sand is used to prop open fractured rock deep underground to help recover natural gas and petroleum oils). The practice of fracking for gas/oil is unlikely to happen in Minnesota as we lack the required gas/oil deposits. The MPCA does not have authority to regulate fracking practices in other states. We can only regulate the effects of mining within MN; a regulating effort we share with local governments. We plan to require adequate monitoring and to regulate any pollution related to silica sand mining activities. I grew up around some big gravel pits so was not too surprised to see how common is the practice of aggregate, sand and gravel mining. I found something like 88 registered aggregate mine sights in Scott County and 122 registered sites in Dakota County—dating back nearly 70 years. By the way, I grew up in Dakota County and attended the University in Mankato (they recently tore down my dormitory). I am very attached to this remarkable part of the country. Nathan Brooks Cooley Rules Coordinator 651-757-2290 v 651-297-8676 x

2

From: Kathleen Mary Kiemen Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:27 PM To: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA) Subject: Tough and good standards for Frac Sand Mining Hello, Nathan, I hope this week goes well for you. I called you last week to get your correct email and I appreciated your response. I am now getting back to you about my concern about Sand Frac mining here in MN. I was among many last spring who pressed our MN legislators and Governor to call for a moratorium on Sand Frac mining because we have great evidence about its pollution to water, land and air, besides all the challenges small communities face in their infrastructure and the devaluing of people's property. As you and the MPCA know, this did not happen. The industry won through their narrative of creating jobs, their argument that they already have environmental requirements, and of course, let us not forget they have money for lobbying, etc. Yes, there are such requirements for mining, but not Sand Fracking, which has many more dangers. NOW then, we need to call this industry to strong regulations. They will make millions on this industry, so they should be accountable and have the money to comply. These strong standards should include:

Silica sand ambient air quality permits Continuous...continuous...continuous air quality monitoring This monitoring information should be easily available to the public Violations should have strong and immediate consequences This industry pays for the regulating costs, and definitely be responsible for clean up that will be required

I am a School Sister of Notre Dame and our Mankato campus called, Good Counsel Hill, is situated close to Jordan Sands, which wants to do sand frac mining. This campus is home to some 120 Sisters plus our many employees who serve many of the sisters who are aged and where there is a grade and high school for children and teems. This property is situated very near the Jordan aquifer and the MN river. The former is the water resource for people and land on Good Counsel Hill and many others in the Mankato and surrounding areas. The water, land and air in this area must be protected. Jordan Sands and other sand frac industry people in MN need to be held accountable. I ask the MPCA to VERY SOON (like this fall) take on the challenge to create tough standards for the silica sand industry in our great state. Thanks for your work with the MPCA and for reading this email. I wish you lots of peace in all you are about. Kathleen Mary Kiemen

3

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Kelley Stanage Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 2:45 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Cc: Stine, John (MPCA); Seuffert, Will (MPCA)Subject: Comments on plans to amend rules relating to silica sand projects

Dear Mr. Cooley,  Please find below my comments on plans to amend rules relating to silica sand projects.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I look forward to reviewing the outcome of your work.  Sincerely,  Kelley Stanage 

  

  ~~~  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) rules should include the following: Air Quality The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) identifies the following health hazards of silica for the workplace: "Hydraulic fracturing sand contains up to 99% silica. Breathing silica can cause silicosis. Silicosis is a lung disease where lung tissue around trapped silica particles reacts, causing inflammation and scarring and reducing the lungs' ability to take in oxygen. Workers who breathe silica day after day are at greater risk of developing silicosis. Silica can also cause lung cancer and has been linked to other diseases, such as tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney and autoimmune disease."

The Hazard Alert issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)in the summer of 2012 identified seven primary sources of silica dust exposure at hydraulic fracturing operations. Among them were "dust generated by on-site vehicle traffic" and dust released by various sand-moving equipment. Both of these sources also occur at mining and/or processing sites. Additional sources of dust at a mining operation would presumably include blasting and excavating operations.

The dramatic increase in the intensity of frac sand mining operations demands that these same hazards be considered with regard to public health.

Recent research conducted has measured ambient silica dust can travel as far as 1.5 miles from a sand facility.

Air quality should be monitored for, including but not limited to, both silica dust and diesel particulates.

2

Rules should identify a required information architecture for continuous, real-time measurement and publication of air quality on a publicly available website, such as the MPCA website. The architecture should define the specific types of instrumentation (including calibration), network interfacing, data to be gathered, and time intervals for measurements. Raw data should be passed to a public database in real time such that it is available for public viewing when the particulates are in the air. All costs for the development of the architecture shall be borne by the industry. HOWEVER, the architecture should be developed by objective, scientific, uninvolved parties as directed by the MPCA. (Perhaps this is where the Industrial Sand Association can gain more public confidence by funding this development.) All costs for inspection activity by the MPCA shall be the responsibility of the industry and/or project owners / operators.. All required equipment and connections for each project should be paid for by the owners/operators, and required to be operational at all times until the project is complete. Baseline measurement shall be performed using the required particulate monitoring architecture, and verified by the MPCA prior to the operation's commencement. There shall be no measurable deterioration of air quality due to any silica sand project. All components of the particulate monitoring architecture shall be regularly inspected by the MPCA, and must be available for inspection at any time based on monitoring results and public complaints. Air monitors should be placed at a minimum as follows:

At the perimeter of the project, at 1 mile intervals Along the haul route, regardless of the transportation method (truck/rail/barge), at 2 mile intervals in a rural area, and at 1Ž2 mile intervals within city limits As requested by any member of the public at any of the following: dwelling school health care facility child care facility park athletic facility public facility business bike or recreational path or area any additional area as requested

Water Quality Chemicals called flocculants are used in processing sand. One such chemical is polyacrylamide. In outdoor conditions, polyacrylamide degrades to acrylamide, a neurotoxin and possible carcinogen, and can leach into groundwater. The EPA's maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for acrylamide in drinking water is zero (see link to chart on epa website under organic chemicals.) (I believe this level in the EQB Silica Sand report may have been listed in error as .05%, which is the combination of dose and monomer level used in water treatment when using acrylamide to treat drinking water.) A study conducted at Wright-Patterson AFB stated, "In an agricultural setting, the degradation of polyacrylamide may create an environmental/health hazard. If polyacrylamide were to release acrylamide during the degradation process, acrylamide, because of its chemical properties, could adulterate surface water and/or ground water systems. Rural communities rely upon these types of water sources for livestock and personal use. Adulteration of these sources would impact not only the health but the economical welfare of those communities." Because Southeastern Minnesota contains Karst topography, which makes the water table highly susceptible to contamination, the processing of sand using water and chemicals should be prohibited. The degradation from polyacrylamide to acrylamide occurs within days, and also within days, it is no longer detectible, so allowing the use of flocculants (polyacrylamide, or any other potentially harmful chemicals) would require ongoing, continuous, real-time monitoring of water sources for people and livestock. A monitoring architecture similar to the one

3

described above for air quality could be developed, but once the chemicals are detected, the damage has already been done. It would seem that the best way to protect the public health, especially considering the fragility of water in a Karst area, would be to prohibit the use of chemicals (and water) for processing of sand.

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Neuschler, Catherine (MPCA)Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:58 AMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: FW: Comments on Planned Amendments to Silica Sand RulesAttachments: 20130930094756.pdf

From: Clarizio, Michele (MPCA) Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:04 AM To: Neuschler, Catherine (MPCA) Subject: FW: Comments on Planned Amendments to Silica Sand Rules Importance: High  The original is on its way to your office. Thanks!!!

From: Clarizio, Michele (MPCA) Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:50 AM To: Smith, Jeff J (MPCA) Cc: Stine, John (MPCA); Thornton, J. David (MPCA) Subject: Comments on Planned Amendments to Silica Sand Rules Importance: High  Jeff, I am sending the original of the attached comment letter to your office (for the record). Thanks. Michele Michele Clarizio | Executive Aide to the Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 520 Lafayette Road | St. Paul, MN | 55155 Voice (651) 757‐2023 Fax (651) 296‐6334 michele.clarizio@state.mn.us | www.pca.state.mn.us  

 Our mission is to protect and improve the environment and enhance human health.  

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Kelley Stanage Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 8:04 AMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Cc: Stine, John (MPCA); Seuffert, Will (MPCA)Subject: Additional Comments on plans to amend rules relating to silica sand projects

Dear Mr. Cooley,  It occurred to me that my earlier message did not address enforcement. In March of this year, a Wisconsin DNR air management engineer reported that he had sent letters of noncompliance to 80 – 90% of the sites he had visited.  With this pattern of noncompliance in the industry, Minnesota rules must make it clear that this will not be tolerated here. Using real‐time, ongoing monitoring will allow the MPCA to identify noncompliance without having to go on‐site. Once a problem is identified, the MPCA should take swift and definitive action to achieve compliance.   A cash escrow should be a requirement for an air quality and/or water quality permit. The amount of the cash escrow should be sufficient to resolve any potential air or water quality problems, to provide alternative sources of water for residents, livestock, and other needs, and to pay damages to reimburse affected parities.   Consider the following actions:  Substantial fine for first violation Substantial fine and increase in cash escrow for second violation Revocation of permit, shutdown of operation, and forfeiture of entire cash escrow on third violation  Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.   Sincerely,  Kelley Stanage 

       

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Herman, John H. Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:13 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA); Thornton, J. David (MPCA)Cc: Herber, Daniel J.; Doug Losee ; Joe Shapiro ); Michael E. Wallenius

; Grey M. Lusty Subject: FW: Scanned documentsAttachments: [Untitled].pdf

Nathan and David, here are Unimin's comments on the pending process for consideration of regulations for silica PM4 emissions.  You will see we have focused on the HBV, because we believe serious scientific criticisms have been raised as to whether this is an appropriate threshold for ambient exposure over any short duration.  Our view is that the current NAAQSs for PM10 and PM2.5 already provide adequate levels of ambient protection.  While Unimin takes silica exposure very seriously, we think off‐site exposures impacts and any regulations to that end, should be carefully considered.  Hillary Carpenter told me he viewed the 3 microgram HBV standard as a "life time of exposure,"  and this should be weighed in any regulation process.   No evidence indicates exposures even close to the HBV occur regularly, let alone over a life time, near facilities of the type Unimin operates.    Unimin is committed to working with you and the Agency throughout the rule process in this area and will be happy to participate in any fashion the Agency feels productive.  We look forward to the tour later this month as a first step in this cooperative effort.  Thank you for your attention.    John H. Herman Partner                   

  

  

 www.FaegreBD.com   FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 

 

  This message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank you. 

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Bobby King Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:37 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: LSP Comments on Planned Amendments to Rules Relating to Silica Sand ProjectsAttachments: MPCA comment letter final with signatures.pdf

Mr. Cooley,  Attached please find the Land Stewardship Project’s comments to the MPCA’s request for comments on planned amendments to rules pertaining to the control of particulate emissions and other pollutants from silica sand projects.  I would like to be on the notification list for this process and receive a draft rule when it is available.  I would also like to receive copies of all comments submitted.  Bobby King 

 

 

1

Lehner-Reil, Janice (MPCA)

From: Aaron Scott Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:33 PMTo: Cooley, Nathan (MPCA)Subject: Request for comments on planned amendments to rules regarding sand projectsAttachments: Comment to proposed rule ammendments Sept 30 2013 - Fairmount Minerals.pdf

Importance: High

Nathan,  Please find attached a comment letter regarding your request for comments on planned amendments to rules pertaining to the control of particulate emissions and other pollutants from silica sand projects.  Fairmount Minerals, Ltd. operates a facility in Shakopee, MN.   Thanks,  Aaron Scott 

  

  

 

  

2

 To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax‐related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax‐related matters addressed herein.  ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: HP Scanner    Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 1:37 PM To: Herman, John H. Subject: Scanned documents     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Attached is your scanned document 

John Linc Stine, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 Sept. 30, 2013 RE: Request for Comments on Planned Amendments to Rules Relating to Silica Sand Projects Dear Commissioner Stine, The frac sand industry poses serious threats to our air and water. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has begun the critical process of creating regulations to protect air and water quality from frac sand industry pollution. We urge the agency to develop regulations that put protecting our air and water before frac sand profits. We agree with the framework that Governor Mark Dayton outlined at the Minnesota State Fair on August 29 of a ban on frac sand mining in ecologically fragile southeast Minnesota and tough standards for the rest of the state. We believe the MPCA regulations for protecting air and water quality should adhere to this vision. It is critical to keep in mind the experience that Wisconsin has had with this industry. Many of the companies that have been problematic in Wisconsin are doing business in Minnesota or would like to. An enforcement officer in Trempeleau County, Wis., said about the industry: “So, we’ve learned that citations are pretty much ineffective for this industry. This industry has very deep pockets and a wealth of resources.” This must be kept in mind when developing an enforcement strategy. Protecting our air from frac sand pollution. Protecting air quality is essential to public health. Long-term exposure to low levels of silica dust can cause severe health problems, including silicosis, an incurable disease that can kill. The Minnesota Department of Health has established an ambient air quality standard for silica sand exposure. The MPCA should create regulations to ensure this standard is adhered to. We urge the MPCA to develop a framework for protecting air quality that incorporates these elements:

Permit required. A “Silica Sand Ambient Air Quality Permit” must be created and required for all frac sand facilities (mines, processing and loading facilities, etc). Requiring a permit to operate gives the MPCA leverage to enforce compliance. Without the threat of being able to shut the operation down by revoking the permit, frac sand facilities can ignore rules and pay fines while continuing to pollute. Meaningful setbacks from adjoining property lines, residences, schools, nursing homes, etc., should be required as part of the permit. In addition, there must be no silica sand allowed to blow from trucks or trains hauling silica sand.

Continuous ambient air quality monitoring. All frac sand facilities—mines, processing facilities and loading and transfer stations—should pay for the installation and maintenance of state-of-the-art continuous air monitoring equipment, which in turn should be overseen by the MPCA.

Facilities must not allow silica dust in the ambient air at their property line to exceed the level of safe exposure established by the Minnesota Department of Health. Computer modeling should not take the place of on-the- ground real time monitoring.

Monitoring data is made public. Air monitoring results are produced and available to the public in real time via the web.

Violations have meaningful and immediate consequences. Violations must result in substantial fines and scaling down of operations so that they will come into compliance. Swift and meaningful consequences are the only way to ensure compliance from the industry. Repeated violations should result in revocation of the permit.

Industry pays. The permit costs cover the cost of regulating the industry, including the air monitoring equipment.

Protecting our water from frac sand pollution. The processing of frac sand mining can involve the use of harmful chemicals and millions of gallons of water. Also, frac sand mining can open up conduits that allow surface pollution to enter into the groundwater quickly. This is especially true for southeast Minnesota’s sensitive karst geology. We urge the MPCA to develop a framework for protecting water quality that incorporates these elements:

Water quality permit required. All frac sand mines and frac sand processing facilities that use water should require an individual water quality permit that requires public notice and allows for public comment. No permits should be allowed within any well-head protection area. All chemicals used by frac sand companies must be publicly disclosed. Industry claims of “proprietary information” cannot be allowed to trump the public’s right to know what chemicals they may be exposed to.

Disruption of the hydrological function of the landscape must be considered. Frac sand mining could disturb thousands of acres of land in southeast Minnesota’s karst landscape. Karst geology is made up of fractured limestone and is typified by sinkholes that can allow surface pollution to enter groundwater immediately. Disruption of the landscape on the scale wanted by frac sand companies threatens to create many more points of entry for surface pollution to enter the groundwater. This issue has to be addressed up front and cannot be done on a case-by-case basis. Gov. Dayton has said he supports a ban in this area of the state. Protecting southeast Minnesota’s water quality is a good reason to simply declare this region off-limits to frac sand mining and processing.

It is important that the MPCA adopt standards and an enforcement mechanism that protects air and water quality because in most cases local units of government do not have the expertise to do this. In addition, water and air quality protection is not effective when done only at the county, city or township level. These standards need to be statewide in order to ensure a minimum level of protection for a region. Local units of government will impose additional requirements through their zoning powers, but the state should be responsible for establishing a minimum level of protection from pollution.

dms.us.52876303.02

Comments on Air Monitoring and Crystalline Silica Ambient Concentrations .

Unimin submits these additional comments based on insights and comments from John Richards, principal of Air Control Techniques, P.C. and a consultant to Unimin on air monitoring. We felt these were of sufficient importance to provide them at this early stage of MPCA’s consideration of rulemaking regarding PM4 crystalline silica particulates. John’s perspectives are unique, since he was the first to develop modeling methods and conduct ambient silica particulate monitoring. We can also make Mr. Richards available during the rule consideration process to provide direct opportunity for MPCA questions and discussion. California Adoption of REL in 2005. When the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) brought renewed attention to this issue in 2005 they faced (1) almost a complete lack of relevant health effects data for non-occupational exposure, (2) almost a complete lack of ambient concentration data, and (3) a complete lack of ambient crystalline silica measurement methods. OEHHA had very little information available with which to base the ambient crystalline silica chronic reference exposure limit (REL) of 3 micrograms per cubic meter that they adopted in 2005. Air Control Techniques, P.C. worked with industry and the OEHHA in the first development of monitoring protocols and programs thereafter in California to develop data on actual crystalline silica ambient levels and facility impacts on ambient levels. Recent Monitoring Sampling Protocol Development, Wisconsin Results. In 2012, a number of industrial sand producing companies in Wisconsin retained Air Control Techniques, P.C. to develop fenceline ambient crystalline silica monitoring programs for their plants to help address community concerns. They voluntarily started these programs when it became apparent that the Wisconsin DNR did not have the necessary resources for this effort. In these sampling programs, the plants are using EPA Reference Method PM2.5 samplers (Thermo Fisher Partisol 2000i, U.S. EPA Designation FRPS-0498-117) satisfying the design and performance requirements of 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L and modified for PM4 crystalline silica sampling based on the procedures that we developed. An accredited laboratory is analyzing the Partisol 2000i filter samples for PM4 crystalline silica by X-ray diffraction in accordance with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7500. The Partisol 2000i EPA reference method samplers are being operated in accordance with the extensive quality assurance guidelines specified in the EPA Quality Assurance Guidance Document 2.12 dated November 1998. The sampling and analytical procedures used in these programs are providing an extremely sensitive measurement of ambient air PM4 crystalline silica concentrations. While some of these ambient crystalline silica sampling programs are still in-progress, the data that has been compiled to-date and provided to the Wisconsin DNR strongly indicates that the ambient crystalline silica levels downwind of sand processing plants and quarries are low and well within the anticipated background concentration range. Furthermore, the background concentrations of ambient crystalline silica due to agricultural sources and other non-industrial sources also appear to be low. MPCA has access to this data through the Wisconsin DNR. The Wisconsin data strongly indicate that responsible plant and quarry operators are not major contributors to ambient crystalline silica levels. This result is not a surprise. The well-

dms.us.52876303.02

established programs used by industrial sand producers to (1) meet the MSHA crystalline silica PEL, (2) meet the EPA requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOO, and (3) comply with the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), have already encouraged dust control equipment installation and dust control best operating practices needed to minimize crystalline silica emissions. This combination of factors resulted in a recent Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter by the USEPA conclusion that the compliance with the existing NAAQS was sufficient to protect the public from crystalline silica. Area Source Emissions vs. Industrial Mining Operations. While effective fugitive dust emission controls are already in-place at most industrial facilities, including responsible silica sand mining and processing sites, control measures for many non-industrial sources appear infeasible. It is inherently difficult, and perhaps impossible to effectively control crystalline silica-containing fugitive dust emissions from agricultural operations, construction sites, and

public unpaved roads, none of which reasonably can implement dust control measures. It is completely impossible to control natural emissions of crystalline silica from arid land to the west

of Minnesota and even from global transport of dust from sources such as the Gobi Desert and Saharan Desert. To the extent that ambient crystalline silica concentrations are of concern, these local area source categories will be most affected by rules seeking to attain compliance with an ambient standard. While the monitoring data allow high confidence that levels of crystalline silica at the fence lines of responsible silica sand plant operators are quite low, there could be a few unique conditions at other facilities or types of sources where community exposure is possible (e.g. transshipment yards, urban loading and unloading facilities, open storage in close proximity of habitation). There are already nuisance powers to respond to many of these unique conditions in both local ordinances and in MPCA’s current regulatory system. Whether additional “best practices” or other controls for these limited cases are needed and appropriate might be a fruitful area of inquiry in the rulemaking analysis. Monitoring Costs and Implementation. The ambient crystalline silica monitoring programs that Air Control Techniques, P.C. developed for use in California and Wisconsin can be easily implemented by MPCA, or even a city such as Winona, at minimal cost. The burden in compiling accurate and meaningful data does not have to be industry’s alone. These sampling procedures use standard PM2.5 filter samplers such as those already operated by MPCA. The adjustments needed to sample for PM4 crystalline silica instead of PM2.5 particulate matter take less than 5 minutes to complete. The sampling procedures are identical to those specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L and the quality assurance procedures are identical to EPA Section 2.12. The analytical procedures are identical to NIOSH 7500. The sampling locations can be selected in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E. MPCA ambient air monitoring specialists familiar with PM2.5 monitoring will feel quite comfortable with the PM4 ambient crystalline silica sampling instruments and procedures. MPCA and others can take actions to compile useful data by devoting some of their existing PM2.5 monitoring resources for measuring background levels of PM4 crystalline silica in Minnesota. Once they have compiled ambient crystalline silica data using well-established instruments and scientifically-based sampling procedures, they can reach informed conclusions regarding statements being made by some based on entirely inappropriate instrumentation and poorly conceived sampling procedures.

dms.us.52876303.02

Conclusions.

Gathering solid data would be prudent before adopting an extremely consequential ambient standard that might severely impact Minnesota agricultural and construction industries and local government on roadways, none of which are presently aware of ambient crystalline silica issues.

Agricultural, construction, road and general sources appear to be the major sources affecting ambient crystalline silica. These industries have not been part of the sand mining air quality discussion, and should have the opportunity to actively participate in the development and review of any standard concerning ambient crystalline silica.

MPCA has existing authority to protect citizens from ambient crystalline silica emitted from the few industrial sources described above that have not taken sufficient steps to minimize exposure. A fruitful area of inquiry is whether area emissions from transshipment and open storage or open processing equipment, particularly in urbanized locations, warrant any further controls.

Given the absence of data (1) showing any health effects at very low concentrations in the ambient air, and (2) on general background concentrations of ambient crystalline silica due to natural sources, dirt roads, construction and agricultural sources, MPCA should delay any proposal or promulgation of specific ambient standards beyond the NAAQSs or specific controls, until it obtains further data on existing levels and linking existing levels with health impacts.