Modeled NAAQS Non-compliance in NE Minnesota and Proposed Path Forward

Summary

• Modeled non-compliance for 1-hr SO2 and 1-hr NO2 NAAQS in NE Minnesota

• Identified during modeling required for PolyMet’s environmental review

• Modeling indicates that nearby sources, not PolyMet, are culpable– 2 EGUs, 3 Taconites

• Proposing path forward to Risk Managers

1-hr SO2

Culpable Sources (number of receptors exceeded)

• Minnesota Power Laskin (2)• US Steel Minntac (10)• Northshore Peter Mitchell Pit (15)• ArcelorMittal (23)• Virginia Public Utilities (28)

Standard (µg/m3) Modeled Result (µg/m3)196 893/1705

Receptors in Red Exceed the Standard

1-hr NO2

Culpable Sources (number of receptors exceeded)

• Northshore Peter Mitchell Pit (1)• Virginia Public Utilities (30)• ArcelorMittal (791)• US Steel Minntac (853)

Standard (µg/m3) Modeled Result (µg/m3)188 292

Receptors in Red Exceed the Standard

MPCA Guidance

• 12/19/12 Memo to Resolve non-project NAAQS/MAAQS Exceedances– Goal: resolve modeled exceedances via

enforceable conditions– The project manager, modeler and permit

engineer prioritize list of culpable sources and recommend actions to the Risk Managers for approval

EPA Guidance

• Each receptor showing an exceedance is equal and must be addressed

• Environmental review must consider the ramifications of a NAAQS violation and possible non-attainment

• Non-PSD permits can be issued, if they don’t exceed the SIL

• PSD permits can not be issued without an enforceable, detailed plan with timelines in place for all facilities contributing to exceedance

Why now?

• PolyMet EIS must contain a description of the path forward for the culpable sources by March 2013

• PolyMet is a non-PSD source, therefore it is not necessary to resolve the NAAQS non-compliance in order for permitting

Why now?

• There will be future PSD permits submitted in the region, as soon as mid-year 2013

• Solutions will be iterative and time intensive, so advantageous to start ASAP

• PolyMet modeling shows exceedances only within its receptor grid – not the full extent of the impacts

• Likely to rely on concurrent, parallel efforts

Proposed Resolution

Team Lead: Air Policy Staff with modeling, enfocement, and permitting support

1. Letter to all culpable facilities putting them on notice of modeled exceedances

2. Require submittal of a plan within 45 days including actions to resolve modeled exceedances

3. Iterative steps, based on facility-specific plan, to get to final action

4. MPCA conducts cumulative modeled to confirm actions will result in compliance prior to becoming enforceable

5. Final action, via permit or enforceable agreement, must be taken by late-2013

Proposed Resolution

• If facility does not submit plan, does not submit adequate plan, or is not cooperative, the MPCA would issue a unilateral enforcement action requiring the facility to take action

• MPCA may need to specify needed emission reductions