x:\ko\m\merid\135471\3-env-stdy-regs\32-permit\air permit\air permit public comments\to nddoh 3.15.18\final air permit response to questions 3.15.18.docx

Meridian Energy Group would like to thank everyone who has provided comments on our Synthetic Minor Source application. Our team has reviewed every comment provided to the state and we have included our responses below to comments that pertain to the rules, regulations, or the Clean Air Act. Additionally, some comments have requested information on the size of refinery, construction time frame, and siting, among other items. While our website (https://www.meridianenergygroupinc.com/) can provide more details on these comments and questions, below is a brief summary of the project.

The Davis Refinery site was selected after long and careful consideration. It is an optimum location for serving local refined fuel markets with local Bakken crude due to the convergence of existing pipeline systems, rail and roadway transportation. There are in fact very few sites that would accommodate a project such as Davis, and none of them have the logistics advantages of the Davis site. In late 2015, Meridian completed its land use and environmental studies and then filed its application with Billings County for a Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP was unanimously approved by the Billings County Board of Commissioners on July 6, 2016, after a thorough and professional review of all aspects of location and impacts. There is strong local support for the project at this location.

The following responses were compiled by representatives of Meridian to the written comments provided to the North Dakota Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”, or “NDDoH”) during the comment period ending January 26, 2018. In responding to the comments, representatives of Meridian reviewed each of the nearly 11,000 written comments. A diligent effort was made to respond to each and every comment. In an effort to aid the Department in evaluating the comments and the responses to the comments, Meridian has prepared a spreadsheet which sets forth certain information the Department and the general public may find useful. For example the spreadsheet lists the name of each commenter as downloaded from the NDDoH’s website, the commenter’s state or county of residence, and is annoted to show whether or not the commenter submitted a form letter or a unique comment. Further, the spreadsheet contains the response to the comments in Column E. The numbering system used on Column E correspond to the following responses.

In attempt to avoid unnecessary duplication of responses, Meridian responded to duplicative comments by addressing the comment once and then incorporating by reference the response to the identical or nearly identical comment. In responding to the thousands of comments, Meridian faced a daunting task—reviewing the comments, attempting to understand the comments and its relevance to the PTC, summarizing the comments and then preparing meaningful responses that addressed the comments. Completing this task consumed hundreds of man hours of time. While Meridian used its best efforts to respond to every comment carefully and thoughtfully, there may be situations where a commenter may believe his or her comments were not responded to completely. In those situations, it is the opinion of Meridian that if all the responses are reviewed as a whole, it will be determined that Meridian responded to all the concerns raised by the commenters even though in some situations the responses did not address the comments point by point.

Meridian’s Response to Public Comments:

1) Response to General Statements

2

This comment contains no questions pertaining to rules, regulations or the Clean Air Act. Meridian respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Thank you for your statements.

3

2) Response to Form Letter 1 2a) Comment: Based on independent industry expert review, it appears that the draft air permit is a "bait and switch." It relies on company claims about unusually low emissions, but doesn't prove low limits can be met or require adequate monitoring to make sure they are.

Response: Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the US EPA Region 8, herein after referred to as EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. 2b) Comment: The proposal also fails to protect against peak impacts from the highest levels of pollution -- what occurs during flaring as well as startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. Response: With regard to potential impacts from flaring events, Meridian’s refinery design includes a cascaded flare system and an integrated vapor recovery unit (VRU) to minimize flaring emissions, similar to what is required of refineries that are major sources of air pollution subject to the new 2015 EPA Refinery Sector Rule, or that are under EPA Consent Decrees. Meridian is doing this voluntarily and going far beyond what is required by applicable regulations at this time. The VRU achieves two main purposes, recovery of waste gases that would otherwise normally be flared and removal of any liquids entrained with the blowdown gases, delivering them both back into the facility for reprocessing and re-use. While in an upset condition, the VRU will continue to send the recovered condensable and non-condensable phases back to the process. Only in the event that the capacity of the VRU is exceeded, the excess portion will be routed to the flares. The permit requires, and Meridian has agreed to, a significant level of monitoring of emission levels via both an enhanced LDAR program as well as via compliance stack test data and/or in-stack continuous emission monitors at all major point sources throughout the plant. In addition, though not required by regulation, Meridian has also agreed to install perimeter fence monitors at the site to further ensure compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. At the time that this plant starts operation, only other facility in North Dakota that will have fenceline monitoring is Andeavor Mandan, as required by consent decree. Other than fenceline monitoring, no other minor source in the state will have as much monitoring in place as currently specified by the draft Permit to Construct (“PTC”).

4

Meridian is required by provisions of the permit and applicable federal standards to ensure the reliability aspects of various time tested systems being installed which will improve the reliability of various operations and equipment thereby minimizing emergencies, startups, shutdowns etc. 2c) Comment: Due to the close proximity of the refinery to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the flawed draft permit, I urge the North Dakota Department of Health to deny Meridian's request. If the agency is to move forward, I request it conduct a more rigorous assessment of the Davis Oil Refinery and require the refinery go through a major source of air pollution permit review, including requirements for the best available controls. Response: The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian has also provided information in the permit application more typical of a facility applying for major source permit. In addition, Meridian's design has included implementation of state of the art control technology to minimize emissions throughout the plant. In many instances, Meridian has gone above what a best available control technology (BACT) review would require and the controls selected for the Refinery would be considered lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) technology. As the agency tasked with protecting the air quality and health of the people of North Dakota, we have included specific language in the permit proposed addressing the allowable emission levels, necessary pollution controls, emissions monitoring, record keeping and reporting far above that for a typical synthetic minor source and well beyond that required to satisfy North Dakota air pollution control rules and applicable Federal Regulations. This has been done in an effort to ensure the facility now and in the future, remains a minor synthetic source and to protect the National Park.

5

3) Responses to Form Letter 2 and Form Letter 3 3a) Comment: A refinery of this size should not be allowed a Synthetic Minor Source Permit.

Response: The size of a facility has no direct bearing on whether the facility qualifies as a major or minor source. Whether a facility is considered a major source or a minor source of emissions is only related to the amount of emissions that the facility releases. In this instance, the NDDoH has reviewed all information provided with Meridian’s Synthetic Minor Source Permit application and in response to the NDDoH’s further requests for information during the application review process. This information included evaluation of the emission levels proposed in using actual emissions achieved in practice. The emissions information was provided in the form of supporting stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states.

3b) Comment: (N)or should a refinery be sited close to North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt National Park, which has a Class I Air Shed designation. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during our review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants except for NOx. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the Meridian plant. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels as applicable. This is further supported by the comments received from NSPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NSPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 3c) Comment: Meridian Energy Group has used a variety of refinery production numbers, all which fall just short of numbers that would require more detailed examinations by you and the Public Service Commission. Response: Any application submitted to any other State agency does not have a bearing on the air application currently under review by NDDoH. If the applicant is limited by permits issued by another agency, related to this permit that will just mean that they will run significantly below the maximum production and/or emissions levels that are allowed under their air permit.

6

3d) Comment: Furthermore, independent researchers have suggested the refinery will result in higher emission numbers than those presented by Meridian Energy Group. Meridian Energy Group is not including all the sources of emissions that are likely to come from this refinery such as those resulting from flaring. Response: Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the type and level of the information provided and the controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. With regard to potential impacts from flaring events, Meridian’s refinery design includes a cascaded flare system and VRU to minimize flaring emissions, similar to what is required of refineries that are major sources of air pollution subject to the new 2015 EPA Refinery Sector Rule, or that are under EPA Consent Decrees. Meridian is doing this voluntarily and going far beyond what is required by applicable regulations at this time. The VRU achieves two main purposes, recovery of waste gases that would otherwise normally be flared and removal of any liquids entrained with the blowdown gases, delivering them both back into the facility for reprocessing and re-use. While in an upset condition, the VRU will continue to send the recovered condensable and non-condensable phases back to the process. Only in the event that the capacity of the VRU is exceeded, the excess portion will be routed to the flares. As the agency tasked with protecting the air quality and health of the people of North Dakota, we have included specific language in the permit proposed addressing the allowable emission levels, necessary pollution controls, emissions monitoring, record keeping and reporting far above that for a typical synthetic minor source and well beyond that required to satisfy North Dakota air pollution control rules and applicable Federal Regulations. This has been done in an effort to ensure the facility now and in the future, remains a minor synthetic source and to protect the National Park. Meridian is required by provisions of the permit and applicable federal standards to ensure the reliability aspects of various time tested systems being installed which will improve the reliability of various operations and equipment thereby minimizing emergencies, startups, shutdowns etc.

7

4) Response to Form Letter 4

4a) Comment: The location of this proposed project – just three miles from the border of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, which is visited by hundreds of thousands of visitors annually, requires close scrutiny, and the proposed permit does not pass muster. Response: We agree that the permit application required close scrutiny. That is why we have spent two years in the process of preliminary facility design and development of the permit application that has resulted in the submittal of a request for permit for the cleanest refinery in the U.S. This application has undergone over a year of review by the NDDoH and has also undergone simultaneous review by the EPA and a courtesy review by the National Park Service (NPS). All have indicated their agreement with the emissions estimates provided. 4b) Comment: Approval of this permit would place the refinery’s neighbors and some 600,000 visitors at increased risk of breathing dirtier air each year. Response: The permit application that has been extensively reviewed by the NDDoH and also reviewed by the EPA and NPS shows that the level of anticipated emissions from this facility qualify it as a minor source of air pollutants. Due to the significant level of controls that are being installed throughout the Refinery, the emissions are at levels that would be equivalent to a small concrete batching or asphalt plant or less than 10 pump jack operations. For comparison, we have run the estimated tailpipe emissions from the more than 600,000 visitors to the National Park. Utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website, and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors from the vehicles while they are in the Park, the emissions from those vehicles are several times the levels of the emissions estimated from this plant. Regarding threatening the visitors and wildlife within the Park, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from the visitors within the Park (see table in response 4e below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility which is located three miles away 4c) Comment: The proposal to refine 55,000 barrels a day at this site raises serious concerns. How much pollution will this facility really emit? Response: The draft PTC has strict limitations on individual pieces of equipment and processes regarding the emissions levels that can be emitted. These emissions are required to be verified via strict record keeping, testing and, in many instances, via continuous emissions monitoring systems. Thus, the level of control on emissions is extremely strict and highly restricted by monitoring and testing. Once the facility begins operations, this facility will be the most strictly monitored synthetic minor source facility currently in North Dakota. Thus, the levels of emissions stated in the permit can be relied upon as maximum emissions levels that will be allowed. 4d) Comment: How will the company monitor emissions to assure the public that they are meeting required limits?

8

Response: Please see response to comment above. In addition, we refer the commenter to Section D – Annual Emissions Restrictions (page 26 of the draft PTC document), Section E – Monitoring Conditions (page 32 of the draft PTC document), and Section F- Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (page 42 of the draft PTC document) for specifics by emissions unit regarding controls, requirements for monitoring and testing and related record keeping and reporting. Thus there are approximately 18 pages of requirements related to testing, monitoring, record keeping and reporting in the draft permit that the facility will be required to comply with. 4e) Comment: Oil refineries are a significant source of air pollutants including particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). All of these pollutants threaten our hearts and lungs, and they are the building blocks of smog and acid rain. They harm people, wildlife, waterways and forests. In short, they threaten the visitors to the national park and the diverse wildlife and beautiful vistas that bring people to the park. Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. With regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

9

5) Response to EPA

5a) Equipment at the Facility Table Pages 1-5 Comment: As staff from our agencies discussed on December 21, 2017, NDDH agreed to clarify the applicability of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to the various process units listed in the table. For example, the flare system listed on page 4 of the table lists NSPS Jain the Air Pollution Control Equipment or Design Features heading. The facility uses the applicable emission limits of NSPS Ja to establish the potential to emit. In addition to the flare system, the refinery fuel gas combustion devices (FGCDs) in the table are also subject to NSPS Ja. However, none of the listed FGCDs are listed with NSPS Ja as an applicable requirement. We recommend that NSPS Ja applicability be included in the table in order to eliminate possible confusion for the reader. In addition to NSPS Ja applicability to the FGCDs, Region 8 notes the absence of NSPS De applicability listed in the table for the units in the Boiler house, the underlying NSPS or MACT requirement to conduct Leak Detection and Repair for those units subject the Enhanced Leak Detection and Repair Program (ELDAR Program), and NSPS Kb for those internal floating roof (IFR) tanks in the Feedstock, Intermediate Products, Blend Stocks, and Final Products groups. Region 8 recommends NDDH clarify the NSPS applicability for these emission units and associated permit conditions. North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) 33-15-14-02(5)(b) includes provisions that are relevant to this and our other comments on the NSPS permit conditions. Response: The Equipment at the Facility Table is a high level summary of the Emission Units and Air Pollution Control Equipment or Design Features to be specifically included in the design. The applicability of NSPS standards to the various process units listed in the Equipment at the Facility Table are covered under II.A. Emission Limits Table, by listing under Emission Limit or Design/Work Practice the applicable NSPS or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard when the minimum requirements of these standards are to be met and by specifically listing an emission limit/work practice when the requirement imposed by the permit is above and beyond the minimum requirements of the applicable NSPS. The Reference Conditions following the Emissions Limits table delve further into the specific NSPS and/or MACT requirements applicable to Meridian’s proposed facility.

a. The applicability of NSPS Ja to the FGCDs at the facility is covered by permit condition II.A.2. of the Draft Permit which specifically states “All fuel gas combustion devices (FGCD), flares, and the sulfur recovery unit at the facility are subject to the design, equipment, and work practice or operational standards of new source performance standards (NSPS) Subpart Ja, specifically, 40 CFR (§)60.103a.”

b. The applicability of NSPS DC is covered by permit condition II.A.17 of the Draft Permit which specifically states “The Medium Pressure Boilers (EUs 8A – 8D) and High Pressure Boilers (EU 8E – 8G), EUs 8A to 8G, are subject to the applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements of NSPS Dc.”

c. The underlying NSPS or MACT requirement to conduct Leak Detection and Repair for those units subject the Enhanced Leak

10

Detection and Repair Program (ELDAR Program) is covered by permit condition II.A.10. of the Draft Permit which is referenced in the Table. Condition II.A.10 indicates NSPS GGGa is applicable to Meridian’s proposed facilities and clarifies that NSPS GGGa requires the owner/operator to comply with NSPS VVa to ensure compliance with NSPS GGGa. NSPS VVa §60.480a(e)(2)(i) allows the owner or operator to choose compliance with MACT H to ensure compliance with VVa and therefore with GGGa: “Owners or operators may choose to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, to satisfy the requirements of §60.482-1a through §60.487a for an affected facility. When choosing to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the requirements of §60.485a(d), (e), and (f), and §60.486a(i) and (j) still apply.”:

d. The applicability of NSPS Kb is covered by permit condition II.A.12 of the Draft Permit which specifically states: “All internal floating roof tanks (IFRT) at the facility are subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart Kb – Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984 (NSPS Kb).” The condition further states that “NSPS Kb gasoline storage tanks are subject to the storage tank requirements of 40 CFR 63, Subpart BBBBBB – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities (MACT 6B) depending on the material stored in the tank.”

5b) Condition II. A Emissions Limits Pages 6-13 Comment: As staff from our agencies discussed on December 21, 2017, NDDH planned to examine the table in Condition II.A and include all applicable emission limits for the associated emission unit. Additionally, while not explicitly discussed on the call, we want to clarify that if the permit relies on two emission limits to demonstrate synthetic minor compliance at one unit, we recommend including both limits in the table, and adding an explanation to the Air Quality Effects Analysis document to explain if NDDH intends to streamline the facility's compliance requirements.

It appears that all units subject to a federal NSPS have one or more other limits in the proposed permit, and we recommend that NDDH conduct the same analysis and revisions recommended in the prior paragraph. Response: Since the draft PTC relies for some emission units (e.g. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5B), on two emission limits to demonstrate synthetic minor compliance, the Emission Limits permit table includes both limits, where applicable. The explanation to the Air Quality Effects Analysis document must be addressed by the department. 5c) Condition II. A Emissions Limits Pages 6-13 (Averaging Times) Comment: As staff from our agencies discussed on December 21, 2017, NDDH agreed to include the averaging times for the emission limits in the permit. The table in this condition contains a column labeled "Emission Limit or Design/Work Practice" where the

11

various pollutant limits are stated in relation to the corresponding Emission Unit. For all of the listed limits, there is a stated numeric value that the emissions point must meet to comply with the permit. However, while the facility-wide totals for each of the criteria pollutants provides for a 12-month rolling sum (page 13), none of these stated individual emissions limits have a corresponding averaging time that the source must use in demonstrating compliance. Region 8 recommends that NDDH review this table and the associated permit documents (e.g., Air Quality Effect Analysis for Permit to Construct and the input assumptions used in the state's air quality modeling completed in November 2017) and add the appropriate averaging times to the individual emission limits, if applicable, to assist in clarity. Response: Averaging times for the emission limits in the draft PTC are addressed in the Emission Limits Table via the particular Reference Conditions associated to each individual emission unit. For example, Permit Conditions II.A.3.a and b state the corresponding averaging times for the NOx emission limits for FGCDs, Permit Conditions II.A.4.a and b state the corresponding averaging times for the SO2 emission limits for FGCDs, Permit Conditions II.A.5.a and b state the corresponding averaging times for the CO emission limits for FGCDs, etc. 5d) Condition II.A.10 ELDAR Pages 16-18 Comment: These conditions contain an analysis of cross-references between applicable NSPS regulations and suggest that compliance with certain NSPS requirements allows the facility to comply with a MACT standard. NSPS and MACT rules allow for the EPA to approve alternative compliance methods. While the permit proposes alternative compliance methods for NSPS applicable to the proposed facility, the relevant regulatory provisions to allow the proposed alternative compliance methods differ from the regulatory provisions cited in the permit.

Condition II.A.10 states that the Davis facility is subject to 40 CFR subpart GGGa-Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction of Modification Commenced After November 7, 2006 (NSPS GGGa). This subpart references NSPS VVa - Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After November 7, 2006 (NSPS VVa). In 60.592a(a), NSPS GGGa requires compliance with the standards in NSPS VVa found in 60.482-1 a to 60.482-10a for units subject to NSPS GGGa.

NDDH further states in this condition II.A.10 that the Davis Refinery is allowed, under NSPS VVa, to comply with 40 CFR part 63 subpart H- National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks (MACT H). The authority to comply the MACT H to demonstrate compliance with NSPS VVa is found in 40 CFR 60.480a(e)(2)(i). NSPS GGGa never references 40 CFR 60.480a(e)(2)(i) as a condition of NSPS GGGa. There is no condition in NSPS GGGa that would allow a source subject to NSPS

12

GGGa to directly comply with MACT H to demonstrate compliance with NSPS GGGa.

40 CFR 60.592a(c) does allow the owner or operator of a source subject to NSPS GGGa to apply to the Administrator for a determination of equivalency for any means of emission limitation that achieves a reduction in emissions of VOC at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of VOC achieved by the controls required in NSPS GGGa. In the case of this NSPS, the authority of the Administrator resides with the EPA. Region 8 recommends that NDDH cite the appropriate compliance language in NSPS GGGa in the permit and inform Meridian that if they wish to obtain a determination of equivalency for compliance with NSPS GGGa using the provisions of MACT H, that a formal application must be made to the EPA Administrator. Response: EPA is correct that NSPS GGGa does not directly reference 40 CFR 60.480a(e)(2)(i) as a condition of NSPS GGGa. However, we disagree that there is no condition in NSPS GGGa that would allow a source subject to NSPS GGGa to directly comply with MACT H to demonstrate compliance with NSPS GGGa. In order to comply with NSPS GGGa the facility must comply with specific provisions of NSPS VVa. §§60.592a, the NSPS GGGa Standards, specifically state in 40 CFR 60.592a(a): “Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the requirements of §§ 60.482-1a to 60.482-10a as soon as practicable, but no later than 180 days after initial startup.” Subsequently, §§ 60.482-1a(a) states “Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of §§ 60.482-1a through 60.482-10a or § 60.480a(e) for all equipment within 180 days of initial startup.” Thus, based on the above references, there is at least an indirect, if circuitous, reference to the applicable requirement. Regardless, the NDDoH can and has decided to be more restrictive than EPA requirements in this instance and Meridian is in agreement with this more restrictive requirement.

5e) Condition II.A.12 Volatile Organic Liquids Storage Tanks Page 20 Comment: Condition II.A.12 states that all internal floating roof storage tanks (IFRT) at the Davis facility are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb- Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984 (NSPS Kb) and that all of these NSPS Kb storage tanks that store gasoline at the Davis Refinery are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Distribution Bulk terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities (MACT 6B).

NDDH states that owners of IFRTs are allowed to comply with the more stringent requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW - National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks)- Control Level 2 (MACT WW). NDDH cites 40 CFR 63.640(n) "Overlap of this subpart with other regulations for storage vessels" to allow sources subject to both NSPS Kb and MACT CC to comply with only one

13

of the subparts. Region 8's concern is that this source is not subject to MACT CC due the source's synthetic minor status for hazardous air pollutants. NSPS Kb does not contain any provisions that would allow a subject source to demonstrate compliance with a separate regulation to demonstrate compliance with NSPS Kb.

MACT 6B does state: "If your gasoline storage tank is subject to, and complies with, the control requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb of this chapter, your storage tank will be deemed in compliance with this section. You are to report this determination in the Notification of Compliance Status report under §63.11093(b)."

While NDDH can apply more stringent control requirements to IFRT at the Davis Refinery to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants, these more stringent control requirements are not to be used to demonstrate compliance with NSPS Kb without first being approved. 40 CFR 60. l l 4(b) does contain provisions that would allow an owner or operator to demonstrate an alternative means of compliance for NSPS Kb.

Region 8 recommends that NDDH cite the appropriate compliance language for NSPS Kb into the permit and inform Meridian that if they wish to obtain an alternative means of compliance for NSPS Kb, that they submit the appropriate information as required in 40 CFR 60. l l 4(b). Response: In modeling emissions for IFR tanks using EPA’s TANKS 4.0.9d software, the physical characteristics and fittings modeled by the Permittee included deck, seal and fitting requirements to demonstrate compliance with NSPS Kb, and also covered sample wells and slotted pipes not required for NSPS Kb compliance but specified in MACT WW. It should be noted that the more stringent requirements of MACT WW, do not eliminate any of the NSPS Kb compliance requirements; on the contrary, it places additional requirements beyond those of NSPS Kb such as implementation of wipers, and covered column, ladder and sample wells, on top of the minimum provisions needed for NSPS Kb compliance, such as covered and gasketed access hatch and automatic gauges. Meridian’s intention by offering to voluntarily comply with the requirements of MACT WW, although the proposed Refinery is not required or subject to them, is to provide the highest level of pollution prevention from the proposed facility by going above and beyond mere compliance with NSPS Kb, not forgoing it. In closing, if the EPA is not accepting of the reference to NSPS MACT WW, then that reference will be removed but the related requirements currently specified will remain.

5f) Condition II.D.1 through Condition II.D.4 - Annual Emissions Restrictions Pages 26 - 32, Comment: Condition II.D contains several equations that the Davis Refinery would use to demonstrate compliance with the overall

14

pollutant emission limits. For example, Condition II.D.1 requires that the source calculate the VOC emissions from all sources including the VOC emissions from all heaters and boilers at the facility. Region 8 recommends that the permit specify all the data necessary to perform these calculations. For example, the calculation for the VOC content of the heaters and boilers requires that the total heat content of refinery gas combusted in IA, 1B, 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, SB, 6A, 6B, 7A, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F and 8G be used in the equation found on page 27 of the permit. It appears the permit does not require monitoring and reporting of the total heat content and volume of cubic feet used during a particular time period for these combustion devices. This is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the facility-wide limit, because both the Btu/ft3 of the refinery fuel gas and the volume of gas used are required to calculate total VOC emissions to show compliance with the rolling 12-month VOC limit. Region 8 recommends NDDOH clarify that the data required to comply with facility-wide, pollutant specific emission limits found in Condition II.D must be monitored, recorded and reported, and records kept such that the data is sufficient to determine compliance with the synthetic minor and other permit conditions. Response: The draft PTC specifies the data necessary that the Davis Refinery would use to perform the calculations required to demonstrating compliance with the overall pollutant emission limits. In order for Meridian to be able to calculate actual emissions, Permit Condition II.D requires the Permitee to ascertain the heat content of the refinery fuel gas burned in FGCDs not fitted with continuous emissions monitoring systems (Units 3A, 3B, 3C, 5A, 5B, 7A, 8E, 8F and 80). In the case of the boilers run exclusively on pipeline quality natural gas (Units 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D), Permit Condition II.A,17, requires Permitee to maintain records of the type and amount of fuel used by the boilers in order to comply with §60.48c(g)(1). Since the FGCDs have a common source of refinery fuel gas, the final version of the proposed permit shall require Permittee to install a CPMS to measure flowrate and H2S, and shall measure heat content at least annually on the RFG system header exiting the SRU that is common to all the FGC units. This will be done instead of only measuring H2S content as noted in Permit Condition II.E.2 of the current draft PTC. 5g) Condition II.E.1 through Condition II.E.18 - Monitoring Conditions Pages 32 – 42 Comment: Condition II.E lists the Monitoring requirements for the units at the facility. For the combustion devices listed (Units 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F and 80), only exit gas characteristics are monitored, and no devices are required to monitor the volume or heat content of gas burned. Region 8 recommends that Condition II.E be revised to require monitoring for the volume and heat content of gas burned. Response: Although not specifically requested anywhere in the draft Permt, the equations that the Davis Refinery would use to demonstrate compliance with the overall pollutant emission limits in Permit Condition II.D, require the Permittee to ascertain the heat content of the gas burned in FGCDs not fitted with continuous emissions monitoring systems in case they burn refinery fuel gas (Units

15

3A, 3B, 3C, 5A, 5B, 7A, 8E, 8F and 80), as well as for those run exclusively on pipeline quality natural gas (Units 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D). In the particular case of the later, Permit Condition II.A,17, requires Permittee to maintain records of the type and amount of fuel used by the boilers to comply with §60.48c(g)(1). Since the FGCDs have a common source of refinery fuel gas, the final version of the proposed permit shall require Permittee to install a CPMS to measure flowrate and H2S, and shall measure heat content at least annually on the RFG system header exiting the SRU that is common to all the FGC units. This will be done instead of only measuring H2S content as noted in Permit Condition II.E.2 of the current draft PTC. 5h) Condition II.F.1 through Condition II.F.4 - Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Pages 42 – 44 Comment: Condition II.F lists the Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements at the facility. There does not appear to be any requirement in the permit to record or to keep records of the data needed to demonstrate compliance with Condition II.D.1. One approach would be to include in the permit information from Meridian's permit application that identified various recordkeeping requirements, including: recognizing applicable requirements in the NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards; maintaining records on file for a minimum of five years; and making records available for inspection by NDDH upon request. Permit Application, page 84 (April 2017) ("Application"). Additionally, the Application identified six categories of records that will be maintained, including an overall requirement to maintain all "[r]eports as required by the Permit to Construct or by the Permit to Operate." (Application at page 85.) While the permit application discusses annual and semi-annual reporting, it is not clear whether the information is sufficient to determine compliance. Response: Condition II.F, the Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements specifically states: “The owner/operator shall maintain any compliance monitoring records required by this permit or applicable requirements. The owner/operator shall retain records of all required monitoring data and support information for a period of at least five years from the date of the monitoring sample, measurement, report or application. Support information may include all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip-chart recordings/computer printouts for continuous monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all reports required by the permit.” Furthermore the same lists the records the Permittee shall maintain as part of the permit conditions in reference to the NSPS (Permit Condition II.F.1), NESHAP (Permit Condition II.F.2), and MACT (Permit Condition II.F.3).

5i) Condition II.K - Fugitive Emissions Page 44 Comment: The Air Quality Effects Analysis (AQEA) states that the permit contains provisions to control fugitive emissions. (See AQEA at page 20.) Permit Condition II.K requires that "[t]he release of fugitive emissions shall comply with the applicable

16

requirements in NDAC 33-15-17.," which is in reference to the particulate matter emissions and the state's fugitive emission rules. The rule contains certain overarching restrictions (NDAC 33-15-17-02) and examples of ways to abate and prevent fugitive emissions (33-15-17-03); however, it is unclear what operations the rule applies to, what actions the permittee will take to comply with the rules, and how the permittee will demonstrate compliance with these rules. The EPA recommends clarifications to the permit to address these questions.

Region 8 recommends that the permit include provisions that: (1) explain what activities are covered by fugitive source permit condition (Condition II.K); (2) describe what the permittee is required to do to comply with the state's fugitive emissions rules; and (3) describes how the permittee will demonstrate compliance with the permit.

Response: Fugitive Particulate Emissions: The release of fugitive particulate emissions shall comply with the applicable requirements in NDAC 33-15-17.

5j) Applicability of NSPS XX

Comment: In addition to the MACT 6B requirements in the proposed permit, NSPS XX also applies, and the permit requirements overlap with several in the NSPS. Therefore, as discussed via staff email between NDDH and the EPA on January 10, 2018, we recommend the permit state that the source is subject to NSPS XX since the Davis Refinery meets the definition for a bulk gasoline terminal as defined in the subpart. Response: Agree. Emission Limits or Design / Work Practices in Table II.A shall be updated to reflect applicability of MACT XX, as well as MACT 6B accordingly. 5k) Modeling Comment: The state's website for the permit record contains several air quality modeling analyses. Based on conversations between our Region 8 modeler and the state's modeler, we understand that the state relied on the modeling analysis they completed in November 2017 for its proposed permit decision. Since the state's proposal did not rely on the additional analyses, we did not review those analyses. During our review, we found that NDDH did not appear to include any qualitative analysis or quantitative modeling to determine the potential impacts of the Phase I build of the Davis Refinery. While the proposed permit approves a full build-out of Phase II of the refinery, the permit also provides for facility construction as a "Phase I built" refinery

17

for an indefinite period of time. There does not appear to be any discussion in the permit or supporting documentation of the effects on ambient air quality from emissions during Phase I construction and operation. NDAC 33-15-14-02 (4), (5)(a). Region 8 recommends that NDDOH analyze the potential impacts of emissions from the "Phase I built" refinery to determine whether emissions from the refinery during that phase will cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable ambient air quality standard. Response: Meridian did submit a Phase 1 emissions inventory and air quality modeling analysis for the Phase 1 built refinery in order for NDDOH to determine whether emissions from the refinery during that phase could cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable ambient air quality standards. Overall emission levels from the Phase 1 operations are significantly lower that Phase 2 emission levels, therefore NDDOH relied on the modeling analysis for the full build out of the Refinery for its proposed permit decision. The draft PTC lists the units to be installed in each phase as well as specific emission limits for FGCDs during Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations. 5l) Director’s Discretion Permit Provisions Comment: In several instances in the permit, the phrase "test procedures approved by the Department" or Department-approved performance test" is used to describe allowable test and monitoring methods to comply with permit conditions (see page 18 Condition 10.m Alternative Work Practice Monitoring, page 25-26 Condition 11.B.4, page 29 footnote #5, page 30 footnote #6, and page 38 Condition II.E.3a and 4a). These phrases give the state the sole discretion to approve alternative test methods without EPA approval.

Under provisions for SIP-approved programs, at 40 CFR 51.212 ("Testing, inspection, enforcement and complaints"), states may use, as enforceable methods, the methods in 40 CFR 51 appendix M, or in 40 CFR 60 appendix A, or an alternative method following review and approval of that method by the Administrator. A letter dated March 31, 1994, from the EPA' s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the state of Iowa (available on EPA's NSR Policy and Guidance website), makes it clear that the EPA interprets "Administrator" in 40 CFR 51.212 to mean only the EPA Administrator.

NDDH's AQEA explains that it relies on the authority in North Dakota rule Chapter 33-15-14 to create "federally enforceable emission limitations via a synthetic minor permit." (See AQEA at page 19.) Consistent with 40 CFR 51.212, and the EPA's approval of the referenced rule in North Dakota's SIP, the rule contains no provisions giving the state the sole discretion to approve alternative test methods. 60 FR 43396, 43398 (August 31, 1995). We recommend revising or removing the provisions in the permit that give the

18

state the sole discretion to approve test methods. We suggest revised language such as, "appropriate EPA approved reference method" or other similar language so that the permit contains conditions that are permanent, quantifiable and enforceable as a practical matter. Response: Meridian Energy will not address issues related to Director’s Discretion Permit Provisions.

19

6) Response to Non-Technical Comments or Questions

6a) Comment: Opposed to the location of the refinery. Response: As stated above, the location of the refinery has been approved by Billings County through issuance of a CUP and allowing the property to be rezoned. The footprint of the refinery is approximately 150 acres. The visual, noise, and other impacts on the neighboring areas will be mitigated by placing the 150 acre refinery within over 700 acres of rural property. With assistance from NDSU and UND, the extensive additional acreage will be utilized as agricultural production and habitat best suited for the area, which will also reduce visual impacts. 6b) Comment: Meridian has played a numbers game to intentionally skirt under Public Service Commission (“PSC”) siting requirements and needs to go through a full siting review. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the draft PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to

20

process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.. 6c) Comment: There will be impacts to the viewshed of the park due to the refinery. Response: Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine.

6d) Comment: There will be strong odors or smells emitting from the refinery. Response: Analysis conducted by Meridian and independently conducted by the NDDoH and/or the NPS have shown that the Refinery meets State and federal regulations for impacts to the National Park. Regarding the smell of the Refinery, this is typically resulting from leaks from refinery operations including piping, valves and process equipment. In this instance, there are rigorous controls throughout the process to minimize leaks and to control emissions from the Refinery to levels that are beyond what is considered standard in the industry. As a result, it is highly unlikely that there will be odors from the Refinery to the level that one typically attributes to refinery operations. 6e) Comment: If a spill or a breach in pipelines occurs, who is responsible for the clean-up?

21

Response: The party responsible for a spill is required to report the event to the NDDoH and initiate containment and cleanup under NDCC 33-16-02.1-11 6f) Comment: How much air pollution will this refinery produce and how far will the winds carry this pollution? Response: The NDDoH and the EPA have reviewed the emissions inventory and calculations submitted with the PTC application for the Refinery. Both Agencies have agreed, based on the data and information provided, that the Refinery qualifies as a synthetic minor source. The application also includes detailed air modeling results that show that air quality impacts from the Refinery are extremely minimal. These results are confirmed by independent modeling conducted by the NDDoH as well as by modeling conducted by the NPS (see separate NPS comments under Section 10). 6g) Comment: How can this refinery qualify as a synthetic minor source and not a major source? Response: The NDDoH and the EPA have reviewed the emissions inventory and calculations submitted with the PTC application for the Refinery. Both Agencies have agreed, based on the data and information provided, that the Refinery qualifies as a synthetic minor source. 6h) Comment: How can we be sure Meridian will follow and comply with the rules and regulations? Response: Compliance with the terms of the PTC and all other applicable environmental laws will be enforced by both the EPA and the NDDoH. 6i) Comment: I ask the North Dakota Department of Health deny this permit request. Response: Based on the applicable regulations for air permitting, the NDDoH must issue a PTC to an applicant that as long as the applicant shows full compliance with applicable laws, regulations and related PTC requirements. To not issue a PTC if the applicant shows full compliance with applicable requirements would be considered arbitrary and would expose the State to liability. 6j) Comment: Why is Meridian going through the NDDoH for this permit, and not the EPA, Clean Air Act or some other agency? Response: The PTC application process falls under the jurisdiction of the NDDoH Division of Air Quality under NDCC 33-15-01-3. The NDDoH does follow the requirements of the US EPA and the Clean Air Act and in some instances, is actually stricter in its requirements. Also the US EPA has also been involved in the review process and is generally in agreement with the findings of the NDDoH related to the

22

issuance of this PTC as proposed. 6k) Comment: Are the emissions claims provided by Meridian substantiated by an impartial party? Response: The NDDoH and the EPA have reviewed the emissions inventory and calculations submitted with the PTC application for the Refinery. The emissions estimates are confirmed as accurate based on the information provided in the application. Information provided was based on EPA data and methods, other permits issued by NDDoH or other states for similar facilities and/or equipment and/or from data provided by equipment or manufacturer suppliers.

23

7) Response to North Dakota Wildlife Federation

7a) Comment: Given the various descriptions of the project to date, and the various capacities proposed for the Meridian-Davis Refinery, we believe is should be considered as a major source of pollution. Meridian has proposed differing capacities for its refinery, ranging from from 27,500 barrels per day to 49,500 bbls, and 55,000 bbls, depending on the permit applied for and the audience. We believe the permit should reflect the maximum proposed capacity proposed, 55,000 bbls per day. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the draft PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. 7b) Comment: Theodore Roosevelt National Park has a Class I air quality standard under the Clean Air Act, and this standard requires air quality protection, not degradation under permitted limits or allowances. Response: We agree that TRNP has a Class I air quality standard under both the federal CAA as well as the State regulations. The

24

application submitted by Meridian along with the detailed modeling conducted by Meridian and independently also conducted and verified by the NDDoH, EPA and NPS, shows that we are meeting all compliance requirements for air impacts both within the Park boundaries (Class I area) as well as outside of the Park boundaries including immediately surrounding the Plant. In fact, the emissions levels from the Plant were so low that, except for NOx emissions within the Class II airshed close to the Plant boundary, the levels were below those considered of significance which would require more detailed airshed analysis. Essentially for all practical purposes, the facility does not show impacts of any significance to the Park or to surrounding areas and more importantly, shows full compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 7c) Comment: We recommend that this permit if allowed as either a major or minor source of pollution, be conditioned on receiving a site permit from the North Dakota Public Service Commission. To do otherwise is to allow and proceed under a system of un-coordinated and segmented permit processes. All State agencies should be reviewing and addressing the real and tea same project proposal. Response: Any determination as to whether Meridian is required to site the Davis Refinery with the North Dakota Public Service Commission is governed by Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Section 49-22-1-01(6) provides that Energy Conversion Facilities, such as a refinery, are only subject to the provisions of Chapter 49-22.1 if the refinery is designed for or capable of refining 50,000 BBLS of crude oil per day. Since other permits, such as water permits and air permits have different criteria for determining if Meridian must make application, it is nonsensical to suggest that the requirement for a water permit or air permit for the refinery should trigger the requirement to have the refinery sited under Chapter 49-22.1. If those who oppose the refinery believe that the criteria of an air permit or a water permit should trigger a requirement to obtain a certificate of site compatibility under Chapter 49-22.1, then the current statute relative to siting needs to be amended. 7d) Comment: We would refer the North Dakota Department of Health to its Century Code enabling legislation and authorities in which it is instructed to consult and coordinate with other state agencies, industry, and the public in reviewing and making its decisions. Certainly, consultation with the Public Service Commission, the N.D. State Water Commission, the U. S. NPS, and other interested agencies and parties would be the required and responsible role to take in regard to the proposed Meridian-Davis Refinery permit. Response: Please see our prior response to comment 4. Under the applicable State and Federal air quality regulations, the Park Service is not a formal reviewer of minor air emissions permits; they are only formal reviewers when a facility meets requirements for major permit status. However, due to the location and proximity to the Park, and the sensitivity of Class I areas, the State has had significant coordination with both the Park Service and EPA for this application even though, under the applicable regulatory framework it is not specifically required to. Further, while the Park Service has obvious concerns, they did not negatively comment regarding the applicability of the status of our application (as a synthetic minor source) nor of our estimated emissions. We will continue to work with the Park Service to mitigate the concerns they have raised to the extent possible.

25

7e) Comment: While the Federation lacks the specific expertise to review the air quality analyses presented with the permit application, we respectfully recommend that the North Dakota Department of Health consider the air quality analysis offered by the National Parks Conservation Association in your review of this proposed permit. Response: There is no legal process to have an outside entity that has an obvious agenda, to be a formal reviewing entity of this permit application. Nevertheless, Meridian has provided a detailed and separate response to the National Parks Conservation Association. In many instances many comments of the Association are either just not accurate as to their technical basis and/or are requesting that data and/or procedures be implemented that are not currently stipulated by EPA. Please refer to our response to National Park Conservation Association elsewhere in the Public Comments responses. 7f) Comment: Finally, and not as an air quality issue, please consider the location of this proposed refinery in your permit deliberations. Locating a major oil refinery and all of its associated infrastructure and activities within 3 miles of a National Park, North Dakota’s only National Park, seems to be a wrong approach. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant.

26

8) Response to Friends of Teddy Roosevelt National Park 8a) Comment: My name is Larry Heilmann. I am the president of the Friends of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. We are an organization dedicated to the promotion and preservation of the historical, cultural and natural values of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. We have members throughout North Dakota and in eleven other states. We are not normally a politically active organization but the proposal to build a large oil refinery next door to the park has shocked us into a response. My Board of Directors has directed me to express our opposition to the construction of the Davis Refinery at its proposed location. If you suddenly discover that the vacant lot across the street from your family home is to become an auto junkyard you would probably be outraged. Likewise we are outraged at the idea to build a refinery next door to our favorite national park. This would apply to any idea to build a refinery next to any national park. The two are incompatible. This does not mean we are against auto junkyards or oil refineries. They are necessary in modern society. What it does mean is that great care must be taken in siting these types of facilities. That care has not been taken in siting the Davis Refinery only a couple of miles from a national park. We are not opposed to the refinery. I emphasize that! WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THAT REFINERY. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards avoiding any impact on the Park or other Class I area. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 8b) Comment: The current suggested site will result in the degradation of the park experience. Despite what Meridian Energy says there will be smoke and steam plumes dominating the eastern and southeastern horizon from most viewpoints within the park. Response: Even though not required by the applicable regulatory framework, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck

27

Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) would be visible from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be the equivalent of trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate higher elevation terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did complete an analysis and identified that that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. . Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the same acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, electrical transmission line towers, county airport, oil bulking facility and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 8c) Comment: The company has requested permits to use 650 acre feet of water per year as coolant. That water will go somewhere. It will become steam. It will effect (sic) the quality of the air in the park and adjacent areas. The chemicals in that steam and smoke cloud will have broad effects. The health department is responsible for air quality and we ask that it not permit the degradation of the air in the park or adjacent areas. This is not fresh water. It is highly saline brine. What will happen to the hundreds of tons of salts left over when the water evaporates. The North Dakota winds will inevitably blow it into the air. This not pure tale salt, NaCl, It is a mixture of heavy metal salts of all types including radioactive Radium salts. Just how much of each is not known since testing has not been done. We ask that no air quality permits be given until such testing is done and procedures are in place to prevent the dispersal of these chemical salts into the air. Response: The air permitting analysis provided an estimate of the particulate emissions that could be generated from the condensed water cooling tower loses. Using EPA methods and criteria, taking into consideration the cooling tower drift and the total dissolved solids concentration the estimated emissions for an entire year in the condensed water from the cooling tower are approximately 2.1 tons per year of particulates and 0.4 tons per year of volatile organic compounds. For this very low level of emissions from the cooling tower, if they were not part of a larger permit application, these emissions would be considered de minimis by regulatory agencies and would not even require a permit.

28

8d) Comment: The Health Department looks only at air quality. This project must be reviewed in its agencies of the state government into the permitting process if necessary to get a complete picture. We ask that you do not issue any permits until such time as these studies can be done. These studies need to be done independently of Meridian Energy. We cannot and should not rely only on Meridian's numbers for analysis. Those numbers have varied greatly over the last two years as the size and design of the refinery have changed repeatedly. Response: To proceed with construction of the Davis Refinery, Meridian is required to comply with many federal, state and local regulations. This responder suggests a rewrite of all these statutes, rules and regulations so that one agency has primary jurisdiction over the entire permitting process. While such a procedure might seem logical, that is not the law with respect to construction of refineries in the state. Currently, the North Dakota Department of Health regulates air quality issues, the Water Commission regulates water source issues, and Billings County regulations zoning issues. There is not any federal or state agency that oversees the entire project. That is not uncommon for industrial projects in general and specifically for energy conversation facilities constructed in the state. For example, pipelines face regulations at the federal, state and local level. Ethanol plants face regulations at the federal, state and local level. Wind farms face regulations at the federal, state and local level. Many of these sorts of facilities have been constructed in North Dakota without one governmental agency having oversight over the entire process yet the facilities were constructed in a manner that was protective of the environment and the public in general. There is no reason to believe that the federal, state and local permitting process that Meridian is being required to comply with will also not be protective of the environment. 8e) Comment: I emphasize again that we are only opposed to the site of the refinery. There are other acceptable sites throughout western North Dakota and eastern Montana. There is no reason that this refinery has to go in next door to a national park. We would suggest just move the refinery ten miles east along the same rail line and same interstate highway to an area nearer Dickinson that has already seen considerable industrial development, including another refinery. We ask that you deny the permit to construct a refinery at the presently proposed site. Response: Please see the response to 8a.

29

9) Response to Berlin D. Nelson, Jr. 9) Comment: Based on wind rose information from 1996 to 2012, the prevailing winds during the peak visitation period (May to October) are primarily from the South East which will move pollutants to toward the park. Additionally, any wind from the East, East South East, South East, and South South East will carry pollutants directly over or right adjacent to the National Park. Response: Thank you for the information regarding the prevailing wind direction. We can assure you and the public that the detailed analysis conducted for this project took into account area specific meteorological data, including seasonal variations in prevailing wind direction. Specifically, we utilized 5-years of hourly meteorological data from 2009 to 2013 specifically from the Theodore Roosevelt station for lower air data (which includes prevailing wind direction) and the Bismarck station for upper air data. Thus the detailed modeling conducted which showed compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for both Class II and Class I (inside the Park) standards was met using this 5-years of hourly data. This analysis was run using a refined receptor grid as follows (distances shown are distances from the plant boundary). Thus, through the nearest portion of the Park and for the first three miles or so of the park area, there were receptors every 250 meters showing compliance with National Air Quality standards for Class I areas. Beyond this, receptors were at 500 meters and ultimately 1,000 meters. The grid used is shown in the below table. In addition, receptors were also specifically included at the Painted Canyon Visitors Center, Buck Hill and the TRNP Visitors Center and Amphitheatre.

Regarding the emissions from the plant, the permit application has been extensively reviewed by the Department and also reviewed by the EPA and Park Service and shows that the level of anticipated emissions from this facility qualify it as a minor source of air pollutants. Due to the significant level of controls that are being installed on the facility throughout the plant, the emissions are at levels that would be equivalent to a small concrete batching plant.

30

For comparison, we have run the estimated tailpipe emissions from the more than 600,000 visitors to the National Park. Utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website, and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors from the vehicles while they are in the Park, the emissions from those vehicles are several times the levels of the emissions estimated from this plant.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

31

10) Response to National Park Service

10a) Comment: “concerned about significant park air quality impacts during upset conditions at the proposed refinery. These conditions and their impact have not been well-characterized. We request additional information, modeling, and analysis of air emissions during upset conditions. These conditions are discussed in the attached Technical Comments.”

Response: Refer to further discussion in the foregoing responses.

10b) Comment: We request that the NDDoH require additional permit review and public input prior to any expansion or increase in production at the proposed facility.

Response: NDAC 33-15-14 lists petroleum refining and petrochemical operations, and petroleum storage as designated air contaminant sources subject to the permitting provisions of NDAC 33-15-14 including alterations to source that are subject to new source review. The Davis Refinery is subject to compliance with NDAC 33-15-14 as a designated air contaminant source. Thus any modification would require submittal of an application for permit modification and additional review and approval by the NDDoH.

10c) Comment: Meridian is proposing to install Ultra-Low NOx Burners (ULNB) with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) on all (eight) process heaters with greater than 37 million (MM) Btu/hr heat input. This represents best available control technology and will limit NOx emissions to 0.0063 lb/MMbtu. We encourage Meridian to consider meeting limits similar to those cited above for the remaining 13 FGCD. This could reduce plant-wide NOx emissions by 45% from the proposed levels.

Response: Meridian will consider the comment under advisement.

10d) Comment: On pages 102- 103 and page 458 of the permit application, there are references to three high pressure steam boilers and four medium pressure steam boilers. However, it looks like only two high pressure steam boilers and three medium pressure steam boilers were modeled by NDDoH. Specifically, in Table 12 of NDDoH's "AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ANALYSIS," it states that: "B0201D was not modeled as the permit limits Davis Refinery to operating no more than three of the Medium Pressure Steam Boilers at a time. They also share a common flue stack."

The draft permit does not limit boiler operation

Response: Based on steam requirements for the Refining process, Meridian intends to operate only three (3) of the four (4) Medium Pressure boilers and two (2) of the three (3) High Pressure Boilers at a given time. This operational condition for the Boilerhouse process unit is established in the Equipment at the Facility Table via Footnote C, which applies to Emission Point 8 – Medium Pressure Steam Boilers –, and footnote D, which applies to Emission Points 8E, 8F and 8G – High Pressure Steam Boilers.

32

For the Medium Pressure Steam Boilers #1 through #4 – Emission Units 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D with a common Emission Point 8:

C Common flue stack. Under normal operations, during Phase 1, two will be in service and one on stand-by, during Phase 2, three will be in service and one on stand-by

For the High Pressure Steam Boiler #1 through # 3 – Emission Units/Emission Points 8E, 8F and:

D Under normal operations, two will be in service and one on stand-by

Furthermore, Table II.A., the Emission Limits, summarizes the applicable emission limits for the boilers, as FGCDs, under draft permit Condition II.A:

NOX II.A.3.b

CO II.A.5.b

H2S II.A.4.b, 17

PM II.A.6

Opacity II.A.7

10e) Comment: With the exception of the SRU, it looks like the S02 emission rate that the ND DoH modeled is about five times greater than the S02 emission estimates in the permit application. For the flares, it looks like the NOx emission rate that ND the DoH modeled is about one-fifth of the NOx emission estimates in the permit application. For the cooling towers, it looks like the PMlO emission rate that the ND DoH modeled is about one-fourth of the PMlO emission estimates in the permit application.

Response: These comments are specific to modeling that NDDoH did and thus Meridian cannot comment as to the details of the State modeling.

10f) Comment: Additionally, it appears that the NDDoH did not include flare emissions during blowdownscenarios in any modeling analyses. Meridian estimates that this scenario may occur for up to 168 hours per year. While it is unlikely this would change any of the NDDoH's conclusions because the NDDoH's approach is consistent with EPA policy on intermittent emissions, 8 the fact remains that, when a blowdown scenario occurs, emissions of NOx and S02 increase by one-to-two orders of magnitude. We request that the NDDoH evaluate the impacts and possible mitigation of these blowdown emissions on short-term NAAQS and visibility in the south unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Par.

Response: Meridian is aware of the concerns that exist regarding flaring and at the Davis Refinery is implementing a cascaded flare system to minimize flaring events. This cascaded flare system includes a flare gas recovery system designed, sized and operated in accordance with the

33

applicable design, equipment, work practice or operational standards of NSPS Ja as defined in draft Permit condition II.9. One of the design features of the refinery’s cascaded flare system is the incorporation of a vapor recovery unit (VRU) that will be integrated into the refinery’s relief header and the flare system. The VRU achieves two main purposes, recovery of waste gases that would otherwise normally be flared and removal of any liquids entrained with the blowdown gases, delivering them both back into the facility for reprocessing and re-use. While in an upset condition, the VRU will continue to send the recovered condensable and non-condensable phases back to the process. Only in the event that the capacity of the VRU is exceeded, the excess portion will be routed to the flares.

Meridian shall ensure the reliability aspects of various time tested systems being installed which will improve the reliability of various operations and equipment thereby minimizing emergencies, startups, shutdowns etc. This will reduce flaring during such unenforced eventualities leading to lesser uncontrolled emission levels

Regarding modeling of the 168 hours of flare blowdown, as the EPA noted, it is difficult to specifically overlay the flaring which is unknown as to when it could occur versus worst case meteorological conditions for the given 5-year window. In an attempt to at least take into account the flaring hours, the Meridian application took the 168 hours and divided them by four (for each quarter of the year) and then took ¼ of the emissions from the 168 hours and added those to the flare emissions from the pilots by spreading the emissions out over the quarter. Since these emissions are so minimal, there is essentially little to no change in the emissions values and the model impacts from the flaring hours. Thus the emissions were taken into account in this fashion.

To further support that the flare emissions would not negatively impact surrounding areas (including within the Park) we refer you to comments and discussion provided by Dr. H. Andrew Gray on behalf of the National Park Conservation Association (NPCA). Mr. Gray provided a detailed review of the modeling conducted by Meridian and NDDoH as relates to the NOx emissions during flaring. His analysis conservatively assumed flaring, “during every hour of the simulation, which would provide a measure of the potential peak air quality impacts during a blowdown event (if the blowdown event should occur during a “worst-case” meteorological event).” His independent analysis showed that, even under this extreme condition of assuming flaring 24x7 to try to capture flare emissions during the worst meteorological conditions, the facility still showed compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We also remind you that we are proposing to only flare for up to 168 hours per year total so the potential of flaring occurring simultaneously with a worst-case meteorological condition is highly unlikely.

10g) Comment: NPS Air Quality Related Values Modeling Analyses: Because the Davis Refinery would not be a major source, it is not subject to PSD requirements to analyze impacts on Air Quality Related Values (visibility, acid deposition) in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. However, because of our park protection responsibilities, we conducted CALPUFF modeling analysis to estimate the nitrogen and sulfur deposition impacts of the Davis Refinery on Air Quality Related Values in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. None of the air modeling analyses indicated significant impacts at the park. However, as noted above we suggest that the state re-run the visibility modeling analysis and NAAQS modeling analysis for the facility using the highest hourly flaring emissions rates rather than annualized flaring emissions rates.

34

Response: Visibility Protection regulations under ND 33-15-19-01 General Provisions state:

1. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to the owner or operator of a major stationary source or major modification, as defined in section 33-15-15-01, whose construction or modification is commenced after August 12, 1985. The standards shall be applied in conjunction with the procedures set forth in chapters 33-15-12, 33-15-14, and 33-15-15. Therefore, the visibility impairment provisions of 33-15-19-01 do not apply to the Davis Refinery.

Also as stated in response 10f, the analysis that the NPS is requesting that the NDDoH conduct was actually conducted by Dr. Gray on behalf of the NPCA and his independent analysis showed compliance with NAAQS.

10h) Comment: Our CALPUFF runs also predicted that the maximum annual nitrogen deposition would be 0.00382 kg/ha/yr and sulfur deposition would not exceed 0.00043 kg/ha/yr. We would typically consider deposition in excess of 0.005 kg/ha/yr to be significant. NPS also conducted nitrogen and sulfur deposition analysis using the annualized upset or blowdown flaring emissions.

We ran the VISCREEN Level 1and 2 model to estimate impacts of routine operation and blowdown. During routine operation, Level 1 screening criteria for Delta E (color change) and Contrast were exceeded within the South Unit for an observer standing on Buck Hill. We next applied a Level 2 evaluation to routine operations and the Davis Refinery failed under the first eight worst case meteorological conditions in VISCREEN. The refinery barely passed the ninth worst case with a Delta E of 1.9 under the meteorological condition of Class E stability and 4.0 m/sec wind speed. All the large impacts were against a terrain background.

During blowdown to the flares, VISCREEN Level 1 predicted that screening criteria for Delta E would be exceeded within the South Unit for an observer standing on Buck Hill. Because of this finding, we ask the state to further evaluate this aspect of the operation and consider possible ways to reduce potential impacts.

Response: As noted in Response 10g and as your comment itself states, the analyses that you are referring to are not required for regulatory compliance related to issuance of this permit. Also as you noted, your own analysis under this extremely conservative condition shows compliance with depositional values even if such an analysis were required by regulation. In addition, as was stated previously, the basis of your analysis assumes an extremely conservative assumption that flaring would occur during “worst-case” meteorological conditions and in the case of the VISCREEN analysis conducted, that it would occur during daylight hours when visibility impairment could actually potentially be identified. Since flaring is limited to only 168 hours per year, this request to further identify ways to limit this extremely rare potential convergence of conditions does not appear justified by the less than 0.1% chance of this occurring

10i) Comment: Emissions During Malfunction/Upset Conditions: We recognize that it is not possible to anticipate every type of potential malfunction or upset scenario. However, as part of its Emissions Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries, which Meridian has cited

35

frequently throughout its permitting application, the EPA recommends that "emissions estimates should be provided for the following malfunction events:

1. Any instance when a control device is bypassed or is not functioning properly.

2. Any instance when the amine scrubbing system and/or sulfur recovery plant is offline or not operating at normal efficiencies (generally affecting S02 emission estimates from combustion sources, flares, and/or sulfur recovery plants).

3. Instances of over-steaming a flare (steam-to-gas ratios exceeding 4) or instances where the flare operating conditions do not satisfy 40 CFR 60.18 (i.e., inadequate BTU content, exit velocities exceeding limits). Eighty percent flare destruction efficiencies should be used during periods of over-steaming; 93 percent flare destruction efficiencies should be used during periods when the flare operating conditions do not satisfy 40 CFR 60.18.

4. Any instance when a spill or similar emergency release occurs.

Response: The Emissions Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries (Protocol) discusses Malfunctions/Upsets in Section 12. The list provided by the Protocol and quoted by the NPS is a list of those specific events “for which malfunction/upset emissions estimates should be made to accurately account for these emissions” for the purpose of emissions inventories which are used to comply with operational reporting requirements and not necessarily required for airshed modeling. The emission inventory provisions apply, among other activities, to flaring, SRU operations, and spills or similar emergency releases.

Response to Item 1: The design of the control devices precludes their bypass. The refinery will be equipped with a VRU integrated to the flare header feeding a cascaded flare system comprised by three (3) flares. The redundancy will allow routing a possible flaring event from a control device that is not functioning properly to one of the standby flares. The flares will only be engaged in case the VRU is not able to handle the excess gases and liquids being recycled back to processes or to Fuel Gas treatment.

Response to Item 2: Meridian has chosen Merichem’s LO-CAT liquid redox process to ensure the efficiency of sulfur recovery at the Davis Refinery even at high turndowns. In the LO-CAT process, a non-toxic, chelated iron catalyst is employed to accelerate the reaction between H2S and oxygen to form elemental sulfur. All reactions take place in the liquid phase, and 99.9+ % removal efficiency of the H2S is routine even at 90% turndown capacity. At full build-out, Meridian intends to operate two LO-CAT units to ensure reliability and availability during operations. To ensure overall SOx emissions from the refinery are not exceeded a refinery shutdown may be required in case neither unit is available.

Response to Item 3: The refinery will follow the flare manufacturer’s recommendations on steaming ratios, and its design will be in accordance with API 521 Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems, ANSI/API, Fifth Edition, January 2007. To ensure proper operation

36

of the flare system and satisfy draft permit conditions and the provisions of NSPS Ja, the control of the flare will have inputs to adjust the steam to hydrocarbon ratio, and assure minimum steam flow requirements are met.

The refinery’s flare management plan will use a process control approach in identifying streams within the flare header system that can potentially lower the BTU value, and address the remedies to be implemented to ensure the necessary Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE) of the flares can be achieved. A DRE of 98% can be consistently maintained through a combination of:

• Process knowledge

• Maintain availability of the VRU to function as the designated flare gas recovery system

• Proper maintenance under the PSM Mechanical Integrity requirements

• Following flare manufacturer operating recommendations

• Steam and natural gas assist in case of an upset condition involving low BTU value streams

• Ensuring the reliability aspects of various time tested systems being installed which will improve the reliability of various operations and equipment thereby minimizing emergencies, startups, shutdowns etc. This will reduce flaring during such unenforced eventualities leading to lesser uncontrolled emission levels

Response to Item 4: Although the Protocol identifies specific calculations for inclusion of spills or similar emergency releases in the annual emissions inventories for Refineries, and such events are recordable under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan, the possible emissions from potential spills are not part of any airshed modeling protocol.

37

11) Response to Kevin Uttech 11a) Comment: The Department of Health has classified the Davis Refinery as a synthetic minor source since the modeling numbers, which are underestimated; result in the emission data below the 100 tons per year threshold. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulation section 52.21(v)(b)(1)(i)(a) defines a major stationary source of any NSR pollutant, which does specifically include petroleum refineries in the listing, that will emit 100 tons per year , OR HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EMIT 100 tons per year. Potential to emit, PTE, is defined as the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under it physical and operation design 50 C.F.R. 51.166(b)(4). Maximum capacity means that the facility is assumed to be operation at full tilt, 24 hours per day, 365 days a year. EPA describes this as: …..the worst case uncontrolled emissions rate, which is based on the dirtiest fuels and/or the highest emitting materials and operating conditions that the source is or will be permitted to use under federally enforceable requirements. The Davis refinery HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EMIT 100 tons per year and should not be categorized as a minor source. Did the Divison of Air Quality take into account the worst case uncontrolled emission rate when they reclassified the refinery as a minor source? Response: The commenter is correct. The Refinery is categorized as a synthetic minor source since it could otherwise potentially emit more than 100 tons per year of a criteria pollutant but has taken certain federally enforceable restrictions so that its Potential to Emit (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4))is less than such amounts for major sources which results in it qualifying as a synthetic minor source. Such restrictions must be enforceable as a practical matter (as defined in 40 CFR 49.152). The US Code of Federal Regulation section 52.21 (b)(1)(i)(a) defines a major stationary source of any NSR pollutant, a listed facility that will emit 100 tons per year of criteria pollutants, or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year of criteria pollutants. The list specifically includes petroleum refineries as major sources provided they will emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons per year of criteria pollutants. Further, Section 52.21 (b)(4) defines potential to emit as: “the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable.” 11b) Comment: Independent analysis using the same data utilized by the Department has determined that the Davis refinery should be classified as a major source for pollution. Your correspondence letter of 06/13/17 with Meridian indicated that the Department classified a refinery as a major source. Why are the numbers so different and the interpretation of them on either side of the scale? Why the change in interpretation, as the refinery has the POTENTIAL to emit more than 100 tons? I request that all analysis be reviewed and recalculated and the minor source designation should be rescinded and the permit to construct be denied.

38

Response: The 06/13/17 letter from Meridian Energy in response to NDDoH correspondence dated May 15, 2017 received the proper response where Meridian Energy explained why the status of synthetic minor source applied. The permit application included the emissions inventory for the proposed refinery, and Meridian’s response letter from 06/13/17 and further submissions of supporting information provided sufficient justification and rationale for suitability of proposed emission controls which limit the PTE of criteria pollutants to below the 100 tpy threshold thus qualifying the facility as a synthetic minor source. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the draft PTC review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period 11c) Comment: As a primary point polluter, and a major stationary source of pollution, which independent analysis proves, using the same data given to the Department of Air Quality, the emissions should be recalculated for a major polluter in a Class 1 air space. The emissions presented in the draft permit will violate the clean air act and I request that the emissions be recalculated and the refinery be reclassified as a stationary major source of pollution and the pending permit be rescinded and denied. Response: There is no legal process to have an outside entity to be a formal reviewing entity of this permit application. Nevertheless, Meridian has provided a detailed and separate response to the National Parks Conservation Association. In many instances many comments of the Association and their independent analysis are either just not accurate as to their technical basis and/or are requesting that data and/or procedures be implemented that are not currently stipulated by EPA. Please refer to our response to National Park Conservation Association elsewhere in the Public Comments responses. Modeling conducted by Meridian and the NDDoH’s separate and independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 11d) Comment: Intentionally splitting what is in reality a single project into smaller projects, as Meridian is doing in order to avoid triggering the NSR program, is illegal and qualifies as a SHAM permit. Using air emission data formulated to produce low numbers to obtain a federally

39

enforceable permit with operating restriction limiting the emissions to minor levels to commence construction on a stationary primary point polluter is illegal. The Davis refinery has the POTENTIAL to emit over 100 tons per year, and reviewing the independent air analysis which plainly proves that the Davis refinery classifies as a MAJOR source, with plans to expand beyond the initial start up project size, the EPA would consider the minor source construction permit void. I request that the Division of Air Quality review and recalculate the air emission data using all references and independent information to determine the Davis refinery as a MAJOR source polluter and rescind and denie (sic) the pending permit to construct. Response: The statement is inaccurate. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at a capacity that would account for any potential future expansions to ensure emissions would fall far below the threshold and to ensure any future expansion would be possible if justified. Hence, Meridian submitted an application for a 55,000 bpd for that sole purpose. Further, it is absolutely legal, and codified in the applicable regulations, as noted in Response 1 above, to obtain a federally enforceable permit with operating restrictions limiting the emissions to minor levels to commence construction on a stationary source of air pollution. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period 11e) Comment: Do to the Class 1 air space, and the extremely close proximity to the eastern boundary of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, did the state notify the Federal Land Manager in charge of the area to indicate the emissions from the proposed refinery may adversely impact the Class 1 area? Response: The Federal Land Manager has been highly aware of the proposed refinery application, has provided comments at every stage of the process and has been in close communications with the NDDoH and the EPA throughout the review process. Please see separate comments and response to NPS provided elsewhere. 11f) Comment: I request an explanation on how emissions from flares were estimated, in the emission calculations and that a realistic recalculation of emission be conducted. Response: See the permit application documentation for an explanation of how the flare emissions were calculated. In summary, the flare emissions were calculated in two separate categories: • Flare pilot emissions (8760 h/year) resulting from natural gas combustion to keep the pilot flames lit

40

• Flare blowdown operations (limited to 168 hours/year) resulting from those rare times when refinery gas reliefs either exceed the capacity of the vapor recovery unit or in those rare instances when there could be a failure of the vapor recovery unit. During those rare instances, reliefs to the flares will be combusted prior to discharge to the atmosphere.

For this worst case scenario, Dr. H. Andrew Gray, an independent source of comments on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, modeled the air dispersion of the blowdown emissions from the flares in a theoretically impossible situation: The flares operating in a blowdown mode for 24 hours per day for the entire five (5) year period required by the permit application. His conclusion, emphasis added: “Examination of the model results reveals that the nearby sources are responsible for the majority of the modeled 1-hr NO2 peak (79.3 out of the modeled design value of 79.64). On its own, the Davis refinery would produce a 1-hr NO2 peak design value of only 5.3 μg/m3 (using the state’s model results), or 36.9 μg/m3, under the elevated flare emissions scenario. Because the Davis refinery contributes only a small amount to the modeled peak 1-hr NO2 concentration, increasing the Davis NOx emissions from 36.83 tpy to 227.5 tpy resulted in only a minor effect on the modeled peak 1-hr NO2 concentrations.” Dr. Gray concluded the facility’s NOx emissions do not result in an exceedance of the 1-hr NOx AAQS limits even when using the higher flare emission rates continuously over the full five years of the meteorological period. Meridian Energy emission calculations and process considerations agrees with the analysis by Dr. Gray: Flaring does not exceed the NAAQS. 11g) Comment: The U.S. EPA has found that, historically, refineries have substantially underestimated their emission of NOx from heaters and boilers. How did the NOx emission calculations take that into consideration so that the correct data was used to calculate this? I request that this be recalculated to account for any underestimated NOx emissions. Response: The NOx emissions from heaters and boilers were calculated using equipment vendor information which are corroborated by EPAs RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and further supported by stack testing and compliance data obtained from other State’s Regulatory Agencies which oversee furnace installations currently in service in similar refinery applications. These emissions will be required to be confirmed by initial testing and further by continuous monitoring for the major heater and boiler units. See Response 60 to the NPCA. 11h) Comment: Has the Department determined what the formaldehyde emissions are and how were the estimates for formaldehyde determined? Is the refinery reporting emissions from formaldehyde?

41

Response: Formaldehyde calculations were completed. See “Flares” tab, Emissions Inventory_Controller_PTC Amendment-Full Refinery.xlsx spreadsheet, permit application documents. These emissions were found to be insignificant due to the integration of a vapor recovery unit (VRU) to the flare header. 11i) Comment: Is the Department requiring the Davis refinery to utilize differential light absorption and ranging,(DIAL) technology to detect VOC emissions? If not, why? A study found that compared with emission factor estimates, the DIAL technology detected 33 times more VOC and 96 times more benzene, (a known carcinogen), from storage emissions and 12 times more VOC and 8 times more benzene from fugitive emissions. I request that the Davis refinery VOC emission be recalculated using this information for the storage emissions and for the fugitive emissions. As a result, I request the permit to construct be denied. Response: The Department has requested from the permittee the use of Alternative Work Practice (AWP) monitoring, such as optical gas imaging (OGI) in conjunction with approved Method 21 analyzers or other AWP as approved by the Department, to improve the efficiency of the ELDAR program for all equipment in VOC service, as defined in §60.481a. See Response 79 and 88 associated with the EPA consent decree resulting from the Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:13-cv-00621-KBJ (D.D.C.) lawsuit. The EPA reached the following conclusions regarding DIAL and SOF flare studies:

We believe the new measurement data for CO and VOC are from accurate and calibrated instruments using appropriate analytical methods. Therefore, we conclude that it is necessary and appropriate to revise the CO emissions factor and develop a VOC emissions factor for flares. Therefore, we are revising section 13.5 of AP-42 to incorporate the new emissions factors for CO and VOC developed with these data.

From the “EPA Review of Available Documents and Rationale in Support of Final Emissions Factors and Negative Determinations for Flares, Tanks, and Wastewater Treatment Systems”:

Based on this information, the EPA believes that the AP-42 tank equations provide reasonably accurate estimates of measured emissions rates when appropriate process data are used in the AP-42 equations. Therefore, we determine that it is not necessary to revise the tank emissions estimation equations in AP-42 Chapter 7 or create a VOC emissions factor for tanks. The AP-42 tank emissions estimation equations sufficiently estimate emissions with accurately characterized tanks, site-specific inputs, and properly operated and maintained equipment.

Reference: (https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/final_report_review.pdf

42

11j) Comment: Do the sulfur recover units have some sort of a redundant capacity to handle sudden spikes in the sulfur content of waste streams? If not, have the spikes in the sulfur-rich waste streams that would end up being released into the environment been included into the emission calculations? I request that these emissions be added and the air emissions be recalculated. Response: Emissions for the SRU and related units were identified based on engineering knowledge and EPA emissions factors. The NDDoH, the EPA and the NPS have all reviewed the emissions inventory for the Meridian Application and have agreed that the emissions inventory shows the facility qualifies as a synthetic minor source. See Response 67 to the NPCA regarding emissions from the Sulfur Recovery Unit. 11k) Comment: Does the emission data take into account a change in feed stock such as processing tar sands from Alberta, Canada or other dirtier and heavier oils other than bakken crude? Was bakken crude the only oil used in the emission calculations? I request emission data from other feed stocks to be included in any emission calculations. I also request that if only one source was used in the calculations, the permit to construct be rescinded and denied. Response: See Response 23 to NPCA. There is no regulation mandating multiple sources of feedstock be considered for the purpose of permit application and issuance. Meridian currently does not envision refining any product other than Bakken Crude. Unless conditions significantly change, it would not be economically feasible to import other crude sources to the facility for processing. 11l) Comment: Did the Department require Meridian to include a consideration of impacts on vegetation including an inventory of all vegetation with any commercial or recreation value that would be impacted by the emissions of this refinery? The emission impacts should address the pollution emitted from the refinery on soil and vegetation, the growth anticipated to be associated with the refinery and visibility. This is vital to the individuals that live close to the refinery and necessary to protect their property values for resale. If not, I request that the permit to construct be denied on the basis the application is incomplete. Response: Since this facility qualifies as a synthetic minor source, there are no requirements under current federal or state law, regulations or rules applicable to this permit application to perform or consider the additional impacts analysis for soil, vegetation, growth, and visibility. However, visibility analysis was conducted at the request of the NDDoH and is included as part of the application. Growth and transportation issues were previously addressed in the siting application and approval by the County for the zoning of the site. Further, the NPS conducted deposition modeling and found no potential issues. See "NPS Air Quality Related Values Modeling Analysis" on page 3 of January 18, 2018 National Park Service - Air Resource Division Technical Comments letter.

43

11m) Comment: Startup, shutdown, maintenance and malfunctions allow the refinery emissions to exceed the permit limits which results in a major source of air pollution. As a result, I insist that any SSM provisions apply only when it is technologically impossible for the refinery to comply with the limits and where the emissions are short and infrequent, could not have been prevented through careful planning and design, and would not be part of a recurring pattern. I insist that the any upset provisions apply only when it is beyond the refinery’s control to stay within limits, and where the excess emissions are caused by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of technology, do no stem from anything that could have been foresee, planned for, or avoided by better operation and maintenance, and are not part of a recurring pattern. Response: Startup and shutdown of process equipment and related maintenance are part of the normal operation of a source and are accounted for in the planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for the process and control equipment. Meridian Energy will exercise careful and prudent planning and design to eliminate, as far as technologically and safely possible, violations of emission limitations during such periods. Part of the planning includes the installation of a vapor recovery unit that will be connected to the cascading flare system for the minimization of flaring and related emissions a cascaded flare system with and an VRU to specifically to minimize flaring emissions, similar to what is required of refineries that are major sources of air pollution subject to the new 2015 EPA Refinery Sector Rule, or that are under EPA Consent Decrees. Meridian is doing this voluntarily and going far beyond what is required by applicable regulations at this time. The VRU achieves two main purposes, recovery of waste gases that would otherwise normally be flared and removal of any liquids entrained with the blowdown gases, delivering them both back into the facility for reprocessing and re-use. While in an upset condition, the VRU will continue to send the recovered condensable and non-condensable phases back to the process. Only in the event that the capacity of the VRU is exceeded, the excess portion will be routed to the flares.. Further, Permit Condition II.A.1 compels Meridian Energy to:

At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the permittee shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any affected facility including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.

This permit condition has been included by NDDoH to place emphasis on the Federal requirements for equipment operator’s general duty which are found in the NSPS and NESHAP.

• “At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction…the operator shall operate and maintain any affected source,including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.” See, e.g., 40 CFR § 63.6(e), 40 CFR § 60.11(d). • “Operators of control devices that are used to comply with the provisions of this subpart shall monitor these control devices to ensure that they are operated and maintained in conformance with their design. See, e.g., 40 CFR § 63.172(e), 40 CFR § 60.482-10.

44

Emissions exceedances caused by upsets are violations and NDDoH has full jurisdiction to assess fines or penalties according to the statutory requirements. 11n) Comment: I insist that any SSM provisions comply with all of the requirements set forth in the EPA’s policy regarding excess emissions during malfunctions, startup, and shutdown. I insist that the permit require adequate monitoring of excess emissions (both SSM and upsets), such as continuous video monitoring for opacity and FTIR for other emissions. I insist that any excess emissions to be promptly reported and steps taken to prevent recurrence. I insist that under no circumstance should emissions during SSM or upset event be treated as exempt for the Clean Air Act. I insist that the permit require electronic reporting of all excess emissions within 24 hours with toxics reported immediately, and that the reports be made available to the public on the states website within 72 hours. I insist that the permit provide for automatic penalties for upsets, require the refinery to shut down after a certain number of excess emission events, and including excess emission in PTE calculations. Response: There is no statutory requirement to post the reports to the NDDoH’s website within 72 hours. The permit does require the reporting of malfunctions in accordance with NDAC 33-15-01-13. 11o) Comment: No matter what the view of the Davis refinery is, it is a stationary primary polluter. This refinery will impact the air quality of the area and threaten the class 1 air quality of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. This refinery will pollute no if ands or buts, it will bring more pollution to an area that should be protected and as a result degrade the area from health to property values. Response: See prior responses to comment 11c and comment 11f above. 11p) Comment: The air emission calculations should be scrutinized heavily and should be recalculated using everyone’s input and independent data resources should be incorporated into the process. I request that the air emission calculations be recalculated using all sources including independent analysis and information. Response: There is no regulatory requirement to calculate the emissions of a source using “everyone’s input and independent data resources” or to incorporate such information into the permit application. There is a public comment process for the analysis of the permit application and the draft PTC. The data presented in the application was heavily scrutinized by the NDDoH, and also reviewed by the EPA and the NPS. When other than emission factors from EPA’s AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, or from the EPA’s Emissions Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries, Version 3 were used, it was corroborated as noted in Response 11g above.

45

11q) Comment: I formally request that the U.S. EPA Region 8 and the ND Department of Health conduct an environmental justice analysis to determine the disproportionate effect the refinery will have on low income individuals and the community which do not have the resources to relocate to a safer locality. I also request the pending permit to construct be denied as a result of this disproportionate burden to these residences. I request notification of such analysis.

Response: Under EPA Guidelines, the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Justice defines Environmental Justice as:

"The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.”

Per existing NDDoH and EPA regulations, formal environmental justice review is not a part of the application process unless the facility qualifies as a major PSD source which it does not. In addition, a negative environmental justice review would have to show that the impacts from this facility would abnormally and negatively impact those individuals and/or neighborhoods which are identified as socially, racially or economically disadvantaged. Based on detailed modeling analysis of this project, the emissions impacts to surrounding areas is extremely limited to the point of being negligible and the impacts are limited to the immediate area surrounding Belfield (mostly to the east/southeast and west). Based on review of surrounding areas within the US Census Bureau, the surrounding areas generally would not qualify as socially, racially or economically disadvantaged. Thus, in summary, environmental justice review is not required for this project by regulation and even if it was, a formal environmental justice review would not result in findings of concern to the point where environmental justice would be a consideration related to project siting. 11r) Comment: The Clean Air Act permitting process allows refineries to have legal permits to pollute the air that we all, human and animal, breathe in to survive and should be maintained in as pristine condition as possible. The permits are allowed by our Federal and State government agencies supposedly on our behalf. The problem is the predominantly low income families in a community pay the price for those permits granted on our behalf. Studies have shown that living near a refinery low-income residents pay the price in toxic air pollution. This hazardous air pollution includes premature death; cancer; respiratory illnesses; aggravation of heart conditions; aggravation of asthma; non reversible lung damage and cardiovascular and central nervous system problems. The hazardous chemicals emitted by a refinery cause problems with reproductive, neurological, developmental, respiratory, immunological systems in the human and animal systems. It also causes bio-mutations in both human and animal DNA. Residents living near a refinery are also subject to noise and foul odors; and periodic requirement to remain indoors until winds carry toxic pollution away. This is just a short listing of the hazards of living next to a refinery

46

which do not include what damage the refinery pollution does to the environment in fence line communities and beyond. The Davis refinery will cause visible impairments that will migrate to sensitive areas in the Theodore Roosevelt Nation Park and will deplete soil nutrients needed for endangered plant species in our National Park. Davis refinery will emit toxic pollution and will create irreversible hazards for the residents that live close to the “fence line” and the Department of Air Quality should seriously consider the consequences of granting a permit to construct on their behalf. Having studied the hazards of refineries and have attended the meetings that have dealt with Meridian I have to strongly insist that the Department of Air Quality stand up for the families that do not have the means to flee the pending toxic air pollution and the symptoms it causes. I strongly insist that the Department of Air Quality deny the permit to construct and allow the quality of life to the North Dakota residents that will be affected that everyone should have living in the state of North Dakota Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter

47

12) Response to Michael Lukes 12a) Comment: The location of an industial (sic) facility that will release point source air and water pollution just three miles from the border of one of our US National Parks is an unnecessary risk to it. I seriously doubt that the air pollutiants (sic) from the oil refining process and all the support activity (e.g., truck traffic) will comply with the Class I Air Qulaity (sic) Standards of the Clean Air Act. Please refer to the Air Quality and Visibility violations at the Grand Canyon National Park due to industrial activity hundereds (sic) of miles away. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 12b) Comment: Permitting this facility so close to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park will make it easier to allow more industrial facilities to site themselves there and thus encourage the corprorate (sic) community to encamp there, ensuring more air and water pollution to adversly (sic) impact the park. Response: As noted by Response 12a, there is no limit to proximity to the Park that is stated by either State or Federal regulations, as long as the facilities show that they can meet applicable regulations. These regulations are typically already quite restrictive and have been developed to protect sites such as the TRNP and similar sensitive locations. Each facility that desires to locate, now or in the future near the TRNP, will have to undergo similar reviews and show it can similarly meet applicable regulations. To arbitrarily state that, because a Park is present, no industry should locate within a specified distance of the Park without there being regulations in place to back that up is an illegal constriction of both private and public landholders rights related to what can be done on their land and would subject the State to lawsuits from many property owners that would be affected by such an arbitrary limitation.

48

12c) Comment: The park is a state and national treasure (the only one in ND) and is for the use and enjoyment of nature as it has been for eons by the people and it should be protcted (sic) as such. The visibility of man-made mega-facilities would ruin the vision of those who made [possible our National Parks. Response: Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling water condensed water plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did complete an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 12d) Comment: water requiements (sic) should be reviewed by the Little Missouri Senic (sic) River Commission as well as the ND Industrial Commission to determine if the water permits are reasonalble (sic) and fair in our drought prone current and future climate. Response: Review of water rights and water usage is not specifically part of the process or part of the consideration related to issuance of this air permit. However, Meridian has applied to the State as required for use of highly brackish groundwater at depth below the facility and this permit is under a separate review by the State. 12e) Comment: What can I say that has not been said before about the sneaky and coniving (sic) nature of this proposed refinery's rollout. Refer to Jim Fuglie's, Connie Tripplet's and Tracy Potter's objections on the history of this debacle. Specifically, Meridian's first prospectus indicated a significantly larger than the 50k BPD that would trigger the PSC siting reaquirement (sic). When this was pointed out to them the sinisterly redced (sic) it to 99% of that trigger so they would not have to trigger the siting process while not promising that hey would stay under the limit in the future, thus "just folloeing (sic) they the law" now to get their perimit (sic) and leave the barn door open for non-

49

comluing (sic) after the horse left it. This is not fair in anyone's worldview if they have any ethics or morals. Having a different message for different audiances (sic) sould (sic) put the NDDoH into suspicion mode and require Meridian to undergo a PSC siter (sic) review to protect the citizens off North Dakota from "adverse effects" as well as te National Park. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the draft PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 12f) Comment: Considering that 2017 has been the second or third hottest year globaly (sic) since 1898 when such world wide temperature data has been available to be analized (sic), depending on the NOAA or NASA number, and that the four hottest years have been 2014, 15, 16 and 17, and that the 2017 temperatures were not souped (sic) up by La Nina, ahy (sic) new industrial facility that enables and supports any more production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels is a candidate for the "NOT ON PLANET EARTH culb (sic) (NOPE). We know the problem and should not be contributing to it if we value life as we know it here and value the lives of our species and those of the other species that make

50

our and our progeny's possible. We are on our way to a hotter earth and how hot it will get is up to us acting now..."We have seen the enemy and it is us"- Pogo. Response: Meridian understands the general concerns related to global climatological conditions. However, now and for the foreseeable future, the economy of North Dakota, the United States and the world at large is still dependent upon petroleum based fuel sources. Thus, it only makes sense to develop refinery units that are more technologically advanced and efficient, as well as more environmentally friendly, that will allow North Dakota and the United States to maximize the utilization of our own petroleum reserves as opposed to being reliant upon reserves from other countries which then need to ship those resources to the U.S. at a very high environmental impact and substantially more damaging to the world climate concerns than developing our own resources. We wish to ask the commenter to consider that saying we shouldn’t build more refinery capacity in the U.S. while simultaneously shipping, at a high environmental impact, oil from overseas from refineries that are significantly more highly polluting causes a significantly greater negative impact to the commenter’s concern regarding global warming.

51

13) Response to Bruce Bale 13a) Comment: The source designation matters, Dr. Phyllis Fox, an environmental and chemical engineer from Florida who has prepared air permit applications on behalf of refiners and has reviewed and commented on hundreds of permit applications, says, because unlike major sources of pollution, a minor source permit doesn’t require a rigorous assessment of pollution impacts as well as the best pollution controls. A major source permit requires serious scrutiny. In her analysis of the application, Dr. Fox says the refinery “is almost certainly a ‘major’ source of pollution that would release substantial amounts of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants – all harmful to human and ecological health.” Response: Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. 13b) Comment: The draft Permit to Construct, II Conditions, A. Emission Limits, exempts certain emissions from regulation during identified conditions. Among other provisions: 9.b. “The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from this the [sic] limit requirements of §60.103a(h).”; Similarly, 9. e. and f. flare – all at page 16 of 46; Response: Condition II.9.b of the draft PTC references §60.103a(h), and it is in no way contrary to the provisions of §60.103a(h), which specifically states:

“(h) Each owner or operator shall not burn in any affected flare any fuel gas that contains H2S in excess of 162 ppmv determined hourly on a 3-hour rolling average basis. The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from this limit.”

NSPS Subpart Ja, §60.103a(h), exempts the upset gases or fuel gas released to the flare for control from the 3-hour rolling average limit for H2S.

52

13c) Comment: Exempt facilities and delay of repair, iv., at page 20 of 46, “Delay of repair of facilities that are subject to the provisions of this subpart will be allowed if the repair is technically impossible without a complete or partial refinery or process unit shutdown. Repair of such equipment shall occur before the end of the next refinery or process unit shutdown.”; and Response: This is a specific provision of EPA regulations found under MACT H – National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks, particularly, part of the LDAR Regulations §63.171(a):

“(a) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected is allowed if repair within 15 days is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown. Repair of this equipment shall occur by the end of the next process unit shutdown.”

13d) Comment: 16. “As allowed by this subpart, the permittee has chosen to install a vapor recovery system designed, sized, and operated to capture all flows discharged through the vent streams of the above mentioned units except those resulting from startup, shutdown or malfunction.” i.e., during turnaround maintenance operations. At page 22 of 46; Response: This is a specific provision of NSPS Subpart Ja §60.107a(e)4.B(iii):

“(iii) Flares equipped with flare gas recovery systems designed, sized and operated to capture all flows except those resulting from startup, shutdown or malfunction, provided that for each such flare, the owner or operator complies with the monitoring alternative in paragraph (g) of this section.”

13e) Comment: Also, Footnote D to the table, on page 25 of 46, “Flare units are not subject to initial performance testing as they are not intended to operate on a routine basis, only in upset conditions.” “Upset conditions” occur often in refineries, as all the processes, equipment, controls, and varying feedstock and fuel qualities can require frequent balancing. Response: Flares are emergency control devices. There is no methodology available for initial compliance testing of a flare nor a regulation that requires such a compliance test. No permittee can be made to cause a malfunction in order to test a control device. Further, please refer to Response 4 above, which addresses how the refinery will handle the expected operational variabilities you are incorrectly labeling as “upset conditions”. 13f) Comment: On page 45, “Q. Malfunction Notification: The owner/operator shall notify the Department of any malfunction which can be expected to last longer than twenty-four hours and can cause the emission of air contaminants in violation of applicable rules and regulations.” How will the Park’s federal Class I area status be protected during the times this provision contemplates?

53

Response: Dr. H. Andrew Gray modeled the air dispersion of the blowdown emissions from the flares in a theoretically impossible situation: The flares operating in a blowdown mode for 24 hours for the five (5) year period required by the permit application. His conclusion, emphasis added:

“Examination of the model results reveals that the nearby sources are responsible for the majority of the modeled 1-hr NO2 peak (79.3 out of the modeled design value of 79.64). On its own, the Davis refinery would produce a 1-hr NO2 peak design value of only 5.3 μg/m3 (using the state’s model results), or 36.9 μg/m3, under the elevated flare emissions scenario. Because the Davis refinery contributes only a small amount to the modeled peak 1-hr NO2 concentration, increasing the Davis NOX emissions from 36.83 tpy to 227.5 tpy resulted in only a minor effect on the modeled peak 1-hr NO2 concentrations.”

Further, Meridian is aware of the concerns that exist regarding flaring and at the Davis Refinery is implementing a cascaded flare system to minimize flaring events. This cascaded flare system includes a flare gas recovery system designed, sized and operated in accordance with the applicable design, equipment, work practice or operational standards of NSPS Ja as defined in draft Permit condition II.9. One of the design features of the refinery’s cascaded flare system is the incorporation of a vapor recovery unit (VRU) that will be integrated into the refinery’s relief header and the flare system. The VRU achieves two main purposes, recovery of waste gases that would otherwise normally be flared and removal of any liquids entrained with the blowdown gases, delivering them both back into the facility for reprocessing and re-use. While in an upset condition, the VRU will continue to send the recovered condensable and non-condensable phases back to the process. Only in the event that the capacity of the VRU is exceeded, the excess portion will be routed to the flares. Thus, the commenter’s concern related to flaring conditions lasting greater than 24-hours is a scenario that is highly unlikely given the design of the facility. 13g) Comment: From the Air Quality Effects Analysis for Permit to Construct, on page 12, “L. Chapter 33-15-12- Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (40 CFR 60), Subpart Ja - Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction…, in the last full paragraph on page 14: “Combustion of process upset gases or fuel gas released to the flare as the result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from this limit.” Response: Please see exemption discussions in Response 13b above. 13h) Comment: O. Chapter 33-15-15 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. This chapter adopts the federal provisions of the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) program. A facility is subject to PSD review if it is classified as a “major stationary source” under Chapter 33-15-15. The Davis Refinery will be subject to federally enforceable emission limitations via a synthetic minor permit to construct to remain below “major source thresholds” and therefore is not subject to PSD review under this chapter. At page 19 of the Air Quality Effects Analysis for Permit to Construct.

54

Response: PSD review requirements are applicable to major stationary sources of air pollution. As the Davis Refinery qualifies as a synthetic minor source it is not subject to the PSD requirements. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 13i) Comment: From my extremely limited, passing acquaintance with a very few of the possibly relevant federal rules here, first, Class I Area Impacts: No matter what the “net increase” in emissions is, isn’t a new source or modification still considered “major” if it occurs within 10 kilometers of a “Class I area,” 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(e)(1), and the increased emissions would increase the 24-hour average ambient air concentration of a regulated pollutant in the Class I area by at least one microgram per cubic meter (1 μg/m3). 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23)(iii)? Response: The classification of a facility as a major source is based on the emission levels for criteria pollutants and not by its proximity to a Class I area, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i) and (b)(4). The PSD provisions that limit distance to a Class I area you are quoting, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(iii) specifically state: “Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(23)(i) of this section, significant means any emissions rate or any net emissions increase associated with a major stationary source or major modification, which would construct within 10 kilometers of a Class I area, and have an impact on such area equal to or greater than 1 µg/m 3, (24-hour average).” Therefore, since the Davis Refinery qualifies as a minor synthetic source, these PSD provisions do not apply. In addition, detailed modeling impacts analysis conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH showed that we met all Class I National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) within the Park area. 13j) Comment: If this is true, then (from the draft Permit): “Although not applicable to the Davis Refinery, the subparts applicable to major source petroleum refineries are identified below. It should be noted that, while the major source MACT standard requirements do not apply to the Davis Refinery, the facility will comply with most of these standards via compliance with strict emission limits and environmental programs (i.e., the ELDAR program).” Air Quality Effects Analysis for Permit to Construct, V. Chapter 33-15-22, bottom of page 25. Shouldn’t the permittee applicant comply with all the major source standard requirements? Similarly on page 19: O. Chapter 33-15-15 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality “This chapter adopts the federal provisions of the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) program. A facility is subject to PSD review if it is classified as a “major stationary source” under Chapter 33-15-15. The Davis Refinery will be subject to federally enforceable emission limitations via a synthetic minor permit to construct to remain below “major source thresholds” and therefore is not subject to PSD review under this chapter.” Wouldn’t this also change, following the above?

55

Response: The fact that the permittee has elected to comply with, and NDDOH intends to imposed via the draft PTC, stricter emission standards that are applicable to major sources of air pollution does not imply by extension that a PSD review is required. 13k) Comment: On page 18, Subpart NNN - Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMD Distillation Operations, 2nd paragraph there: “The facility will comply with NSPS NNN by installation of a VRU to capture all flows discharged through the vent streams of the affected units, except those resulting from SSM events. In the event gas flow rates exceed VRU capacity, the facility will combust the excess overhead gas flow in a flare to comply with §60.662.” Response: The distillation operations for the facility are subject to Subpart NNN, and therefore compliance with the standards set forth in §60.662. Subpart Ja §60.103a establishes the requirement to minimize emissions from the flares which at the Davis Refinery will include the installation of a VRU as described in Response 13f above. 13l) Comment: Permitted Non-Compliance “Practical enforceability” also requires that the monitoring provisions do not allow non-compliance. The EPA has specifically identified at least two types of provisions which may improperly allow non-compliance: 1) where satisfaction of a permit requirement is left to the discretion of the director of the permitting authority (“Director’s discretion”); and 2) where the permit excuses emissions in excess of permitted limits during times of “Startup / Shutdown and Malfunction [SSM].” EPA Title V Guidelines – Practical Enforceability, supra note 159, at III-58 to III-59. Similarly, I would request removal of the language based on the EPA’s “Credible Evidence Rule” at 62 Fed. Reg. 8314, 8315 (Feb. 24, 1997),” since the EPA’s “Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” states that “all periods of excess emissions must be considered violations…. [and] any provision that allows for an automatic exemption for excess emissions is prohibited.” www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/excesem2.pdf (“EPA SSM Policy”). There should be no exceptions (or affirmative defenses) – emissions from SSM and upset events that exceed limits should be prohibited; and under no circumstance should emissions during SSM or upset events be treated as “exempt” from the Clean Air Act, which mandates continuous compliance with its pollution limits and does not provide exceptions for excess emissions. CAA § 302(k), 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). Any emissions exceeding federal limits are to be treated as violations. www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/automati.pdf Response: No part of the draft permit exempts any emissions from compliance with the Clean Air Act. Any exemptions quoted in the permit are related to specific exemptions allowed within the applicable federal regulations. The commenter seems to equate all exemptions allowed by the applicable Clean Air Act regulatory framework as violations of the Clean Air Act even though the exemptions are specifically carved out in the applicable EPA regulations.

56

13m) Comment: Furthermore (continuing), “Startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, upsets must be treated as violations and prohibited. Response: The commenter is correct: “Startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for the process and control equipment.” The commenter is also correct in that Meridian Energy will exercise careful and prudent planning and design to eliminate, as far as technologically and safely possible, violations of emission limitations during such periods. Part of the planning includes the installation of a vapor recovery unit that will be connected to the flare header for the minimization of flaring. Please refer to Response 6 above. Further, Permit Condition II.A.1 compels Meridian Energy to:

At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the permittee shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any affected facility including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.

This permit condition has been included by NDDoH to place emphasis on the Federal requirements for equipment operator’s general duty which are found in the NSPS and NESHAP.

• “At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction…the operator shall operate and maintain any affected source,including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.” See, e.g., 40 CFR § 63.6(e), 40 CFR § 60.11(d). • “Operators of control devices that are used to comply with the provisions of this subpart shall monitor these control devices to ensure that they are operated and maintained in conformance with their design. See, e.g., 40 CFR § 63.172(e), 40 CFR § 60.482-10.

Emissions exceedances caused by upsets are violations and NDDoH has full jurisdiction to assess fines or penalties according to the statutory requirements. 13n) Comment: I request that the permit include: 1) that SSM provisions apply only when it is “technologically impossible” for the refinery to comply with the limits, and where the emissions are short and infrequent, could not have been prevented through careful planning and design, and are not part of a recurring pattern;

57

Response: Please see prior response to Comment 13m. 13o) Comment: 2) that upset provisions apply only when it is “beyond the refinery’s control” to stay within limits, and where the excess emissions are caused by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of technology, do not stem from anything that could have been foreseen, planned for, or avoided, and are not part of a recurring pattern; Response: The commenter is stating the reason behind the Subpart Ja regulations, which are part of the limits in the PTC for Refinery. Also please see response to Comment 13m. 13p) Comment: 3) that the provisions be removed from the permit if they “excuse emissions that should be under the refinery’s control” (or allow for “Director’s discretion”); and 4) that the provisions comply with all of the requirements set forth in the EPA’s “Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” [SSM]. Response: Please see prior response to Comment 13m. 13q) Comment: As to monitoring and reporting of SSM and upset emissions, I request that the permit require electronic reporting of all excess emissions within 24 hours (toxics reported immediately), that the reports be made available to the public on state agency websites within 72 hours, and that the reports specify, at a minimum: • The individual pollutants emitted, • The quantity of each pollutant emitted, • The method of calculating emissions, • The cause of the emissions, • The quantity by which the emissions exceed regulatory limits, • The regulatory limits that apply, and • The actions planned to prevent such excess emissions from occurring in the future. Response: Draft permit already requires the reporting of malfunctions in accordance with NDAC 33-15-01-13.

58

13r) Comment: I also request that this permit subject all excess emissions to LAER limits, provide for automatic penalties, require offset reductions in routine emissions, require facilities to shut down after a certain number of excess emission events, and include excess emissions in PTE calculations; Response: There are no “LAER limits”, or requirements for offset reductions in routine emissions, or the shut down of after a certain amount of excess emissions events in the applicable regulatory framework. Emissions exceedances caused by upsets are violations and NDDoH has full jurisdiction to assess fines or penalties according to the statutory requirements. LAER or Lowest Achievable Control Technology is required on major new or modified sources in non-attainment areas. The proposed Refinery qualifies as a synthetic minor source that, although not required to do so, has implemented in its design LAER technology, such as ultra low NOX burners and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on the larger heaters. 13s) Comment: and that the permit include an Additional Impacts Analysis – Soil & Vegetation, Growth and Visibility, and an Estimate of the Increased Emissions from Industrial, Commercial and Residential Growth Associated with the Proposed Project, if either or both are required under current federal or state law, regulations or rules applicable to this permit application. Response: Since this facility qualifies as a synthetic minor source, there are no requirements under current federal or state law, regulations or rules applicable to this permit application to perform or consider the additional impacts analysis for soil, vegetation, growth, and visibility. However, visibility analysis was conducted at the request of the NDDoH and is included as part of the application. Growth and transportation issues were previously addressed in the siting application and approval by the County for the zoning of the site. 13t) Comment: Also, last full paragraph on page 14: “NSPS Ja requires that the owner/operator develop and implement a flare management plan for all flares.” Shouldn’t the permittee have this plan in place now? Response: Permittee does not need to have this plan in place now. In accordance with NSPS Ja the flare management plan must be submitted prior to start-up of the facility:

§60.103a Design, equipment, work practice or operational standards. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each owner or operator that operates a flare that is subject to this subpart shall develop and implement a written flare management plan no later than the date specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The flare management plan must include the information described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.

59

Paragraph (b) of this section specifically states: “(1) The owner or operator of a newly constructed or reconstructed flare must develop and implement the flare management plan by no later than the date that the flare becomes an affected facility subject to this subpart, except for the selected minimization alternatives in paragraph (a)(2) and/or the procedures in paragraphs (a)(5) though (a)(7) of this section that cannot reasonably be implemented by that date, which the owner or operator must implement in accordance with the schedule in the flare management plan. The owner or operator of a modified flare must develop and implement the flare management plan by no later than November 11, 2015 or upon startup of the modified flare, whichever is later.”

13u) Comment: Separately, Why is Benzene Fenceline Monitoring limited to only five years? Does that assure operating within an allowable emissions range after that period? Or can expensive benzene-related refining equipment start to deteriorate after that, and replacement cost for compliance might then be “economically prohibitive”? At page 42, draft Permit to Construct, II Conditions, E. 18. Response: The five (5) years mention in draft Permit Condition II.E.18 refers to record retention requirement. There is no plan to discontinue fenceline monitoring after 5-years. 13v) Comment: Our state Health Department’s (DEH) Environmental Health section, Air Quality division, and our Public Service Commission have appeared to restrict themselves to staying within perceived narrow “silos” of delegated responsibility, as if they were unauthorized and therefore unable to compare notes and share information with each other, and take notice of and act on the convenient discrepancies between Meridian’s widely, publicly stated plans and those it has presented to them. Namely, whether Meridian – publicly advertising to entice potential investors, that it will complete a plant capable of producing 55,000 or more barrels per day of crude oil – is misrepresenting its plans, or at least providing conflicting quantities, when it belatedly revises its answers to the Public Service Commission that its refinery will produce only 49,500 barrels per day. Much as it did when it greatly increased its expected truck traffic after obtaining the site permit from Billings County. Unfortunately, the size of Meridian’s proposed refinery depends on who they’re talking to. The 5,500 barrel-a-day difference from the 55,000 they’re still promoting to potential investors is over eleven percent greater than the 49,500 they now represent, at least to the PSC. Which equipment did they downsize, from their original proposal? That should be quite a cost savings for them – it might reassure some that they’re sincere and exercising good faith in their application. According to their online promotional materials, Meridian is still seeking more “sophisticated investors,” those with substantial liquid assets and investment savvy, to invest in their refinery. (Meaning most North Dakotans needn’t apply.) However, despite its rules – allowing promoters to sell restricted securities without going through the work of registering or allowing exchange trading – the SEC still very strongly frowns on material misrepresentation of facts to induce potential investors, maybe such as representing vacillating sizes of a proposed refinery to investors and possibly running afoul of our state’s own Blue

60

Sky securities laws. Game playing to dodge major siting permit requirements for a major industrial plant is inappropriate. Doesn’t this not only tarnish Meridian’s credibility and good faith before ground is even broken, but also give the intelligence of North Dakota government an obvious black eye? Since 2015, the industry and other publications, like The Oil & Gas Journal, have published several Meridian press releases repeatedly touting its plans, seeking investors for a two-phased 55,000 bbl a day refinery. I easily found some from Dec 23, 2015, Aug 24, 2016, Feb 21 and May 10, 2017. Allowing Meridian to publicly proclaim the enticing wealth and riches investors will make on the two phases of the refinery it’s intent on building, while telling the PSC that’s it’s only the first “stage” of a recently revised total just one percent – 500 bbls per day – below the PSC review threshold: Doesn’t such an obvious end run make a mockery of our legislators and our law? Maybe it’s better to extract their promise – if they’re sincere – that there WON’T be a second “stage”? Otherwise, more obviously, the initial stage was only part of what they fully planned to build in the first place, and the entire project should be covered by a comprehensive review, despite for now meeting some additional, selected parameters. As “Meridian CEO William Prentice told investors in a webinar earlier [], a third phase is planned for the Davis Refinery that will involve another expansion. ‘We fully expect that the finalized refinery will be well above 55,000 barrels per day in capacity,’ Prentice said in the webinar from the first quarter of 2017.” Bismarck Tribune, Jul 1 2017 http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/regulators-get-mixed-message-from-refinery-developer/article_ab457e62-a1b6-5633-925d-e3a7c3aae38f.html “Prentice said in a statement to The Bismarck Tribune, the initial phase of the refinery is ‘too small to warrant Public Service Commission attention.’ ‘There is simply no reason to go to the PSC at all since we are focusing now on the initial phase – we will cross all phase 2 bridges when we come to them,” he said.” (Also from the above source.) “It’s really a mixed message from the company,” PSC Commission President Fedorchak said. “They’re telling us one thing directly and telling a whole bunch of other audiences something very different.” As she noted, “Otherwise, when the company is ready to expand, it would apply for a siting permit for a refinery that is already constructed.” Such gamesmanship. Meridian’s website also states they’re “negotiating options on additional property that would increase the size of the site to nearly 2,000 acres.” That extra 1,280 acres is nearly twice the size of the proposed refinery site footprint. What are their plans for that – an industrial park along I-94 beside the TR Park Entrance – and the cumulative, added impacts? Mr. “Prentice previously said they may decide to expand beyond that in four to five years.” http://staging.inforum.com/business/ energy-and-mining/4374845-proposed-refinery-near-western-north-dakota-national-park-spurs Wouldn’t leasing land from Meridian next to the proposed refinery, possibly for a planned gas to liquids project, by someone like the related Trapezium Corp., further compound regulated emissions?

61

So Meridian now says – to most – that they’ll slip under the Major Source Review and PSC comprehensive siting review wire by starting with a smaller daily output, then “quite possibly” add on, to where it would trip the site review requirements – but only after the fact, when the supposed site review may well then be a mere formality – since the plant would already be up and running, the horse out of the barn. As others have noted, the relevant state government agencies need to review the entire project as a cooperating group, not as individual agencies charged with merely examining specific parts of the project, such as water, emissions and location. “But there is no review of the entire project.” “You have to look at the whole picture – the whole project is more than the sum of its parts.” http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/regulators-get-mixed-message-from-refinery-developer/article_ab457e62-a1b6-5633-925d-e3a7c3aae38f.html The Health Department’s Division of Air Quality and the PSC are, in fact, required to: Encourage the voluntary cooperation of persons or affected groups to achieve the purposes of their regulatory duties; and Advise, consult and cooperate with other public agencies (as someone with highly relevant experience and training at the recent Jan 17 hearing noted to the Air Quality division). Chapter 23-25, Air Pollution Control 23-25-01.1. Declaration of public policy and legislative intent. “It is … the public policy of this state and the legislative intent of this chapter to achieve and maintain the best air quality possible, … to protect human health, welfare and property, to prevent injury to plant and animal life, … , and to facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of this state.” 23-25-03. Power and duties of the department. “The department shall: 1. Encourage the voluntary cooperation of persons or affected groups to achieve the purposes of this chapter. 4. Advise, consult, and cooperate with other public agencies and with affected groups and industries.” http://legis.nd.gov/cencode/t23c25.html Likewise for the PSC, Chapter 49-22.1, Energy Conversion and Transmission Facilities 49-22.1-12. Cooperation with state and federal agencies. The commission may, and is encouraged to, cooperate with and receive and exchange technical information and assistance from and with any department, agency, or officer of any state … government to eliminate duplication of effort, to establish a common database, or for any other purpose relating to the provisions of this chapter. [Emphasis added.] legis.nd.gov/cencode/t49c22-1.html

62

These provisions require the state agencies involved to openly share relevant information with each other. Once the PSC is involved, 49-22.1-09. Factors to be considered in evaluating applications and designation of sites, corridors, and routes. The commission is guided by, but is not limited to, the following considerations, when applicable, to aid the evaluation and designation of sites, corridors, and routes [in relevant paragraphs]: 1. Available research and investigations relating to the effects of the location, construction and operation of the proposed facility on public health and welfare, natural resources and the environment. 2. The effects of new gas or liquid energy conversion and gas or liquid transmission technologies and systems designed to minimize adverse environmental effects. 4. Adverse direct and indirect environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed site or route be designated. 5. Alternatives to the proposed site, corridor, or route that are developed during the hearing process and which minimize adverse effects. 6. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources should the proposed site, corridor or route be designated. 9. The effect of the proposed site or route on existing scenic areas, historic sites and structures, and paleontological or archaeological sites. 10. The effect of the proposed site or route on areas that are unique because of biological wealth or because the site or route is a habitat for rare and endangered species. legis.nd.gov/cencode/t49c22-1.html As President Theodore Roosevelt exhorted us as future stewards, “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.” Meridian’s sole consideration in insisting on its proposed site has been for its developers’, and the shareholders’ it still seeks, success, in ruling out all other locations, “[T]he logistics here were very good,” Mr. Prentice. So might building hydropower generators on both of Yellowstone’s falls. They voice no real regard for the rest of our values here, but come as developers promising to try to live up to being a cleaner outfit, citing their poor choice of location as pushing them to do so. In the Roughrider state, do we still have a Welcome mat out, at the Gateway to OUR wonderful, wild Park & naturally inspiring Badlands? Or are we doomed as others have been, to be merely another Doormat to whatever oil and other interests and developers promise and demand? Is it possible, because North Dakota is known to the petroleum industry lately as so reliably lenient in letting violations, like most penalties for oil spills, leaks and excessive flaring, slide (and maybe longingly casting an eye to the more well-developed and familiar Texas &

63

Oklahoma oilfields, among others) that we’re seen as revenue desperate or cozy enough to allow nearly any oil development projects to waltz in here, to our uncritical, open arms? It’s particularly ironic that Theodore Roosevelt National Park, set aside to honor the famed progressive trust buster and lover of the strenuous outdoor life, who championed some of our greatest national parks & the then globally novel idea of a National Park System itself for all people – and now already ringed with oil wells and support roads and facilities – is threatened with further encroaching development. Prior North Dakotans worked hard to preserve this. In 1921, two years after Roosevelt’s death, our legislature instructed their Congressional representatives to set aside land for a park. By 1947 (after CCC work during the Depression), Congress finally created the Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park, four years before any petroleum reserves were discovered here. Much of our Park’s appeal is the wild, unspoiled views and air, in one of our last, best places. The Park’s importance as our top tourist attraction is highlighted by the number of those enjoying what it has to offer. Now that ND Tourism’s efforts and our funds have upped recreational visitors to TRNP in 2016 to 754,000 – a thirty percent increase, equal to our state’s population – why start to tarnish and throttle this carefully developed goose laying such great eggs? The Park has an outsized appeal, presence and praiseworthy effect on, and benefits for, us and the rest of America. In 2016, the Park created $49.6 million in economic benefits, and visitor spending here supports 681 jobs in North Dakota’s economy. nps.gov/thro/learn/news/local-economic-impacts-2016.htm In January 2016, the New York Times, in its annual list of “52 Places to Go in 2016,” placed TR National Park fifth. Above it on the list were Mexico City, Bordeaux in France, Malta and St. John in the Virgin Islands. Tourism overall is North Dakota’s third largest industry (if we lump coal, petroleum & renewables together as “energy”), contributing more than $3 billion to the state’s economy annually. For a smaller state population, it’s a big deal, versus other states with more parks or other features (mountains, oceans, geysers, tall trees) and a greater variety of recreational and rejuvenating opportunities, attractions and diversions. Yet it’s in the same league with our other great American National Parks and Monuments, several of which Theodore Roosevelt had a big hand in setting aside: Yellowstone, Crater Lake, Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon www.theodore-roosevelt.com/ trenv.html#NATIONALPARKS; plus others like The Grand Tetons, Great Smokey Mountains, The Everglades, and the once aptly named “Glacier” National Park – whose glaciers are now rapidly evaporating, thanks to the effects of the Anthropocene we’ve created by the fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions driving global climate warming from our industrial “revolution” and prosperity. Since Meridian is headquartered in California, they might be familiar with how the other half of Yosemite National Park – the Hetch Hetchy Valley – was dammed, flooded and turned into a mere water reservoir for San Franciscans & their developers, when park and wilderness proponents – and Americans – irretrievably lost out to Gifford Pinchot’s pro-development ideals. How welcome would building a refinery alongside Yosemite or the Grand Canyon be there? Or beside Sequoia, Redwoods or Kings Canyon National Parks?

64

Our beautiful, wild, unique National gem is a legacy, a special place to us. How could we be so lucky, to still have wild mountain lions, bighorn sheep, antelope, bison rescued from mindless slaughter and extinction, mule deer and the grand Roosevelt elk grazing within its inspiring boundaries? Are industrial plants the gateway we North Dakotans want for it? The best we can do? This isn’t only OUR park, it’s a rare, National – and international – treasure. What will be the view of the proposed refinery from the Park? Driving west from Sterling on I-94, 25 miles east of Bismarck, upper portions of our 242-foot-tall Capitol building are plainly visible, despite a large hill between them. The towers and exhaust plumes from a major industrial plant shouldn’t be hugging and irretrievably diminishing a still largely unblemished National Park, which gives quality to our lives – a nearby getaway, respite, inspiration and recreation in one of Mother Nature’s original wild wonderlands. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the draft PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

65

13w) Comment: Page 26 of the Air Pollution Control, Permit to Construct, under II, Conditions, contains section C, Stack Heights: “Stack heights may be no less than those listed in the table below,” which lists 22 stacks, 18 of which are 90 to 150 feet tall. A formula & examples for Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth’s Curvature can be found online, for instance at davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html. From the calculations there, using the simple Pythagorean theorem, if a 64-inch-tall person’s eyes are at a height of 60 inches, or 5 feet, at night on level terrain, they can see a flashlight laying on the ground at 1.23 times the square root of that 5 feet, or 2¾ miles. They would also be able to see another, similarly tall, standing person’s headlamp at twice that distance, or 5½ miles, since each person would be able to see the midway tangent point. Senesac adds, “In the real world, atmospheric effects of mainly ray refraction tend to cause objects beyond the theoretical horizon to sometimes be visible. Thus, the visible setting sun is usually a little below the theoretical horizon. [Likewise], the effect is to increase the apparent height of distant peaks.” Working with the formula and examples there, at 40 feet, the shortest allowable stack would be visible for about 8 miles. The four 91-foot-high towers, visible for at least 11 miles. The seven 100 to 105 foot towers, visible for 12½ miles. The four 125 to 130 foot towers, visible for nearly 14 miles. And the three 150 foot tall towers visible for around 15 miles. And if the Plumes from those towers add only an additional 100 feet above a 150 foot tower, they’re visible for about 19½ miles. If they’re an extra 200 feet above a 150 foot tower, they’d be visible for about 23 miles. Won’t any proposed tree plantings (even on a “berm”) have to grow quite tall & quickly to obscure this proposal? Sequoias, redwoods and plane trees don’t do too well here. What does Meridian have in mind, & how long do they expect it to take for them to reach a serious screen height? Doesn’t “hardly visible beyond 3 miles” seem disingenuous? Similarly, how much TALLER – above the flare tower height – will the FOUR Flares themselves be? And how often, in practice, over time? Response: Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck

66

Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did complete an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, and nearby existing pump-jacks, county airport, oil bulking facility and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield from that same acreage. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 13x) Comment: Despite the proposed plans for a very clean plant, many have a hard time squaring promises – from an unproven entity planning to exploit our resources – that it values clean production, but disregards proximity to a National Park. On page 45 of the Air Pollution Control, Permit to Construct, under II. Conditions, section P. Nuisance or Danger: “This permit shall in no way authorize the maintenance of a nuisance ….” Doesn’t this permit, which contemplates jeopardizing one of our nation’s wonderful park resources, authorize a “nuisance”? And what’s all this ultimately for? How much of a white elephant might our needless sacrifice be? Car makers are well underway to offering more electric powered cars. BMW met its goal to sell 100,000 electrics in 2017; Honda is building affordable mid-size electrics this year; and Tesla is even seeking electric semi-truck and bus orders. Justifiably alarmed at the destruction of rapid climate change, the rest of the world is moving away from internal combustion engines – our own domestic automakers can hardly be expected to limit their production to vehicles serving only “Island America.” As we see with coal-fired electricity, the capital marketplace is demanding cheaper, less climate-endangering & polluting natural gas-fired, clean wind & solar generation, no matter how much fossil fuel interests temporarily twist Washington to manipulate advantages for themselves. A month ago (Dec 19, 2017), Bismarck’s mayor advised the Bismarck-Mandan Planning Council that installing conveniently highway accessible, quick 440-volt recharging stations for electric car drivers is coming soon, and we should prepare now to accommodate them. Meanwhile, the EPA Secretary recently took a $40,000-plus trip to Morocco, to sell them some of our natural gas, after we ship it across the ocean. http://www.newsweek.com/scott-pruitt-epa-investigation-morocco-777689, 1-11-18 (Did anyone explain to him that several oil-rich countries are much closer to Morocco? Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE & Libya come to mind.) Is sacrificing our National Park’s serenity and values worthy of this?

67

How has the proposed, still theoretically “assembled” technology been tested – proof of concept? Where is the currently “cleanest refinery on the plant” and what is its emissions record? The prevailing winds through the Park are mainly from the northwest during the winter, but from the southeast in the spring and summer months. The refinery plans to emit Total Volatile Organic Compounds of 58 Tons EVERY year, Total Sulfur Dioxide of 13 Tons Annually, and 6.2 Tons of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) – which can include a toxic ABC stew: Arsenic compounds, Benzenes, Chlorine, Chloroform, Cyanide compounds, Hydrofluoric acid and Lead, among others – Annually. A much longer list is at 42 U.S.C. §7412. Hazardous air pollutants www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7412.htm. Meridian currently estimates its total expected Annual Emissions, as submitted to the Division of Air Quality, at 233 tons. Since the refinery would be located so close to the Park, even more of its airborne pollutants will fall back to earth there, in heavier concentrations, than if they were dispersed from farther away. What are the cumulative effects of these, as they’re deposited in the natural Park? You’re relying on the winds to disperse these, mostly to the east & south, to downwind communities? With a straight face, considering North Dakota’s rural air quality, do you consider this a “minor” source of pollution?

Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis.

With regard to your concern about depositional effects on the Park, the NPS conducted deposition modeling and found no potential issues. See "NPS Air Quality Related Values Modeling Analysis" on page 3 of January 18, 2018 National Park Service - Air Resource Division Technical Comments letter.

With regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348

68

2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

13y) Comment: Furthermore, if a desalinization plant is required for the vast quantities of water the proposed refinery will require, the blowing dust from various salts – some quite toxic and all injurious to plant life – in any exposed waste salt piles will only add to the noxious particulates headed for the Park. Response: There is no plan to accumulate salt piles at the facility. 13z) Comment: Today’s leaders need to remember Governor Art Link’s words – they apply as much now as in the 1970s: “We do not want to halt progress; we do not plan to be selfish and say North Dakota will not share its energy resources. We simply want to ensure the most efficient and environmentally sound method of utilizing our precious coal and water resources for the benefit of the broadest number of people possible.” “And when we are through with that and the landscape is quiet again, when the draglines, the blasting rigs, the power shovels and the huge gondolas cease to rip and roar and when the last bulldozer has pushed the spoil pile into place and the last patch of barren earth has been seeded to grass or grain, let those who follow and repopulate the land be able to say, our grandparents did their job well. The land is as good, and in some cases better, than before.” “Only if they can say this, will we be worthy of the rich heritage of our land and its resources.” As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman’s recent observed, “We spent more than two centuries building a great nation, and even a ‘very stable genius’ probably needs a couple of years to complete its ruin.” Let’s not denigrate OUR great National Park. Once its values are lost or encroached upon, they’re gone. PLEASE, Meridian, reconsider equally fine locations nearby – maybe in the same county, and from the same seller – to build your clean refinery.

69

Response: No technical questions posed. Meridian Energy respects the commenter’s opinion and editorial.

70

14) Response to Dr. Nygard 14a) Comment: We understand you have before you an application—a “Synthetic Minor Source Permit”— to allow the construction of the Davis Refinery based on promises that its output of certain hazardous chemicals into the air, three miles from the park, will not exceed a certain amount per year. If we understand correctly, this would be up to 100 tons per year each for Pb, NOX, SOX, and CO2, all three miles from the park, and up to 10 tons per year for a combination of other toxins including benzene, again, only three miles from the park. Let us say as citizens of North Dakota that we strongly oppose our department of health permitting the daily flushing of over 500 pounds of lead, 500 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 500 pounds sulfur oxides, and 50 pounds of much more toxic chemicals into air that south and east winds will carry immediately and directly across Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Response: The levels of emissions as identified by Meridian and as limited by the NDDoH in the proposed permit are shown below and are significantly less than those quoted in the comment. These emissions are significantly below the values in the regulations that the commenter listed which are the maximum levels that can be emitted for a facility to qualify as a synthetic minor source (which this facility does). CO – 79.60 TPY PM10-12.99 TPY NOx – 38.95 TPY SO2 – 7.02 TPY VOC – 61.63 TPY HAPs – 12.21 TPY The permit application that has been extensively reviewed by the NDDoH and also reviewed by the EPA and Park Service shows that the level of anticipated emissions from this facility qualify it as a minor source of air pollutants. Due to the significant level of controls that are being installed on the facility throughout the plant, the emissions are at levels that would be equivalent to a small concrete batching or asphalt plant or less than 10 pump jack operations (of which several already are on the edge of the Park). Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards which Meridian has demonstrated. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of

71

significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 14b) Comment: A second point: The variety of production figures for the refinery offered to the public by Meridian gives reason to wonder if we can trust what they say. We hear 27,500 BPD for Phase I, but we also hear 55,000 BPD for a second phase. These figures were offered to the Department of Health, but 49,500 BPD was cited to the Public Service Commission. These amounts invite suspicion that they are working their figures to remain under the 50,000 BPD limit that would require of them a major source operating permit—the PSC total makes the cut by only 500 BPD, a margin of no more than one percent. And why would they offer the higher figure for a second phase—10% over the limit—if they were not hoping to achieve such a phase in the future. Not only so, but these figures depend on a perfectly running refinery without errors or problems—not likely in the world we know. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the draft PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud.

72

Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 14c) Comment: A third point: There are air pollutants besides the direct emissions of the refinery itself. Do the dust and exhaust from the 175 diesel truck trips each day required to service the plant not count as degradation of air quality in the park? Are the chemicals resulting from extra flaring separate from the plant’s operation not also a consideration for air quality? We think so. Response: The traffic count for loading/unloading operations were considered in the permit application, emissions estimates for the facility and air modeling required by the NDDoH. As indicated in Response 14a above, the air dispersion model passed the strict requirements of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the North Dakota Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for Class I and Class II areas. For comparison, we have run the estimated tailpipe emissions from the more than 600,000 visitors to the National Park. Utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website, and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors from the vehicles while they are in the Park, the emissions from those vehicles are several times the levels of the emissions estimated from this plant.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

73

15) Response to Sarah Vogel Comment: The primary focus of this comment is that the North Dakota Department of Health as the lead environmental agency in the State of North Dakota should look at all factors related to how the proposed Davis Refinery may impact the environment. In other words, the Department should not just limit its review to air quality issues. In support of this contention the commenter cites the cases of United Plainsmen Association v. North Dakota Water Conservation Commission, 247 N.W.2d.457 (ND 1976) and State ex rel. Sprynczynatyk v. Mills, 523 N.W.2d.537 (ND 1974) for the proposition that under the Public Trust Doctrine, the Department has the authority, indeed the duty, on behalf of the citizens of the State of North Dakota “to coordinate with the PSC to ensure that all environmental factors are appropriately considered at the appropriate time and in the appropriate sequence. Response: Meridian recognizes, as the court did in United Plainsmen, that the Public Trust Doctrine is “assuming an expanding role in environmental law.” But the expansion of the Public Trust Doctrine is not without limits. In this case, the commenter suggests that under the guise of the Public Trust Doctrine, the Department has the authority to convert an application for an air permit filed by Meridian into a process whereby the Department would assume the role of a “Super Agency” requiring and making as part of the NDDoH’s criteria for obtaining an air permit any and all such environmental concerns any person or entity might have with respect to the construction of the Davis Refinery. The commenter cites no authority for this position and we are certainly not aware of any such precedent. Moreover, the commenter’s position is contrary to general rules of construction with respect to the power and authority of state agencies, i.e., that state agencies only have such power and authority as granted by statute. In that respect, the Department does not have the authority to look at environmental factors that have not been delegated to it by statute. For instance, since the Department does not have the authority to regulate in the area of cultural resources, it cannot assume such authority; since the Department does not have the authority to regulate in the area of wetlands, it cannot assume such authority; since the Department does not have the authority to regulate in the area of threatened and endangered species, it cannot assume such authority; and since the Department does not have the authority to regulate the general siting of energy conversion facilities, it cannot assume such authority. As the commenter admits, the North Dakota Public Service Commission is the agency responsible for the siting of energy conversion facilities such as crude oil refineries. Meridian does not disagree. What is important to note, however, is North Dakota legislature in its adoption of the Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Siting Act (N.D.C.C. Chapter 49-22.1) has determined that there should be a threshold with respect to the size of the energy conversion facility before the Public Service Commission will exercise its power and authority to do so. With respect to refineries, N.D.C.C. Chapter 49-22.1 provides that the Public Service Commission has no authority to regulate a siting of a refinery unless the refinery is designed or capable of refining 50,000 BBLs or more of oil per day. Here, Meridian’s Davis Refinery is not being designed nor will it be capable of refining 50,000 BBLs or

74

more of oil per day. Therefore, the provisions of N.D.C.C. Chapter 49-22.1 are not applicable and the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no authority to site the facility.

75

16) Response to Dacotah Chapter Sierra Club Comment: This commenter begins with general concerns that the Billings County Board of County Commissioners did not meet the statutory responsibility by authorizing construction of the proposed Davis Refinery because in the commenter’s view, the Davis Refinery cannot be constructed in a manner which also will promote “health, safety, morals, public convenience, general prosperity, and public welfare ….” Response: The commenter offers no support for this statement. Rather, the commenter merely quotes various federal statutes which have no relevance to the request of Meridian for an air permit from the Department. First, the commenter quotes 41 U.S.C. § 7472 which provides that Class I Areas may not be redesignated. Meridian is not requesting a redesignation of Class I air space. Second, the commenter quotes 42 U.S.C. § 7402, which provides, inter alia, that states and local governments should cooperate with the EPA to prevent air pollution. There is no evidence to suggest any agency of the State of North Dakota nor any local government is not doing so. Third, the commenter quotes 42 U.S.C. § 7402 providing that the EPA should encourage cooperative actions by the states and local governments for the prevention and control of air pollution. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the State of North Dakota states and local governments are not doing so. Fourth, the commenter quotes 42 U.S.C. § 7413 which provides that if the EPA finds a state is not acting in compliance with any EPA requirement the EPA may issue an order prohibiting the same. There is no evidence to suggest that the State of North Dakota is not complying with any EPA request. Fifth, the commenter quotes 42 U.S.C. § 7472 which sets forth those areas designated by law as areas with Class I air standards. Other than informational in nature, this comment provides little or no basis for granting or denying the Meridian Air Permit.

76

17) Response to Connie Triplett Oral Comment Comment: This commenter expresses concern that the process for obtaining an air permit does not involve a more comprehensive review of all the regulations Meridian must comply with to construct the Davis Refinery. The commenter recognizes that current law provides for a limited role of the North Dakota Department of Health but argues the language in N.D.C.C. § 23-25-03.1 provides the Department with considerable latitude in these matters. At one point the commenter states “People want a more comprehensive process and the way that the system is set up it really only works if all the agencies work together, the Water Commission, the Health Department, the PSC, and others, and the PSC is the agency that has the ability to have the most comprehensive look at the environmental issues, and so my suggestion here tonight, to resolve this concern of so many people, is that if you go through and offer a permit, if you issue a permit to construct, that you condition that permit on the applicant’s submission to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, and if you did that then many of the concerns and questions that are being asked here tonight would be resolved through their hearing process because they do have the ability to look at the bigger picture and whether the siting is appropriate.” The commenter also spends considerable time discussing that the Department needs to consider the fact that Meridian has an option to purchase additional property in the area; that the North Dakota Public Service Commission has the authority to require entities who may wish to site an energy conversion facility to file a “10 Year Plan”; and the Department should also consider the impact a water well, which may produce salt water, will have on the air quality in the area. The commenter closes with a quote from the North Dakota Century Code which provides as follows: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state and the legislative intent of this chapter to achieve and maintain the best air quality possible, consistent with the best available control technology, to protect human health, welfare, and property, to prevent injury to plant and animal life, to promote the economic and social development of this state, to foster the comfort and convenience of the people.” Response: As other commenters who seek to have intervention by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, this commenter ignores the fact that the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission by statute is limited to the provisions of North Dakota’s Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Siting Act, codified as Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Chapter 49-22.1 grants to the Public Service Commission, among other things, the power and authority to regulate the construction of gas and liquid energy conversion facilities and gas and liquid transmission facilities. See N.D.C.C. §§ 49-22.1-01(6); 49-22.1-01(7). As to refineries, the statute provides for a threshold of 50,000 BBLs of oil per day. In other words, the Public Service Commission’s authority to regulate the construction of crude oil refineries is limited to refineries designed or capable of refining 50,000 BBLs or more per day. The commenter goes on further to suggest, as other commenters have, that because of certain policy statements contained in the enabling legislation of the Department, the Department should exercise authority, found no where in North Dakota law, to coordinate with all the

77

various state and local government entities that have any regulatory authority over the refinery so that an air permit is not granted before Meridian secures all those permits and makes application for siting of the proposed Davis Refinery with the Public Service Commission. Considering the Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Siting Act is not applicable to the Davis Refinery, because it is not designed nor capable of refining 50,000 BBLs or more of crude oil per day, the commenter is requesting compliance by Meridian with a statute that is clearly not applicable. Further, the commenter’s suggestion that Meridian should be required to file a “Ten Year Plan” is also misguided. The 2017 Legislative Assembly amended Chapter 49-22 of the North Dakota Century Code so as to create a new chapter codified as Chapter 49-22.1. This new chapter of the Century Code only addresses gas and liquid energy conversion facilities and gas or liquid transmission facilities. See N.D.C.C. §§ 49-22.1-01(5); 49-22.1-01(6). If the commenter had taken the time to review Chapter 49-22 and Chapter 49-22.1, the commenter would have realized that the requirement to file a “Ten Year Plan” is no longer a requirement for a gas or liquid energy conversion facility or a gas or liquid transmission facility. Overall, this commenter advocates for a permitting process that is overseen by one state agency like the Department of Health and that agency would ensure that the entity desiring to construct a refinery would be required to obtain all permits before an air permit could be issued. Regardless of the wisdom of implementing such a process of permitting, that is not what current law in North Dakota requires. Before the Department could follow the recommendations as made by this commenter, significant legislative enactments would be required. Although the Departments enabling legislation charges the Department to protect the environment, the legislation does not grant the Department the status of a “Super Agency” to ensure all aspects of permitting an energy conversion facility are fulfilled by the applicant before an air permit is issued.

78

18) Response to Badlands Conservation Alliance 18a) Comment: Throughout this process we have watched Meridian change its numbers and development plan dependent on whom they are talking to and what best fits Meridian’s own self-interest - be that government entities at local and state levels, potential investors, the local community or the general public. BCA finds it particularly egregious that Meridian is avoiding the ND Public Service Commission’s (PSC) siting review by claiming a 49,500 BBL per day capacity while all other applications have clearly stated an intended 55,000 BBL per day. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the draft PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18b) Comment: BCA has consistently opposed the proposed location of a refinery at such near proximity to the state and nation’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park and cannot help but wonder how a company could rationalize such a siting. To select such an obviously contentious

79

site is beyond our understanding of good business practice and common sense. A refinery can be located elsewhere; the existing National Park cannot. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards which Meridian has demonstrated. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18c) Comment: It is BCA’s position that the ND DOH Air Quality Division has the authority, and should in good conscience deny the application for a Permit to Construct at this location. Such an action would save time, money, and angst for all involved and ultimately allow Meridian to apply its energy toward a more suitable location for an oil refinery. Response: Please see response to Comment 18b. 18d) Comment: ND Century Code 23-25-01.1 states: It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state and the legislative intent of this chapter to achieve and maintain the best air quality possible, consistent with the best available control technology, to protect human health, welfare, and property, to prevent injury to plant and animal life, to promote the economic and social development of this state, to foster the comfort and convenience of the people, and to facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of this state. This declaration of public policy clearly allows you the authority to deny this application.

80

Response: Meridian agrees that NDDoH must comply with the requirements of all applicable provisions of the ND Century Code, including the public policy stated in ND Century Code 23-25-01.1, and believes that NDDoH has done so in all respects throughout the PTC process. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC 33-15-14. 18e) Comment: Theodore Roosevelt National Park is the number one tourist destination in North Dakota with 753,880 visitors in 2016. That is 1500 short of the US Census Bureau’s 2017 estimate of the entire population of our state. BCA members with cars bearing ND license plates often report being approached by Park visitors questioning our state’s seemingly casual siting of industrial development visible within Park boundaries. There are circumstances when this is inescapable. The proposed Meridian refinery is not one of them. Response: Meridian is not proposing to locate the facility within the Park but on private property located over three miles from the Park, and has complied with all requirements applicable to the Davis Refinery being located at that site. Please see response to Comment 18b. Furthermore, with regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

81

18f) Comment: The Cooling Tower Plume Visibility Analysis cited by Meridian as to whether the proposed refinery will have visual impacts on the Park is less than adequate. Meridian’s frequent reference to it as proof that the refinery will not be visible from the Park is misleading and simply wrong. The four locations chosen for analysis omit the most obvious eastern boundary area of the Park closest to the refinery. Many Park visitors do not limit themselves to the “public gathering places” representative of the four locations, but use the trail system that includes the east boundary Rim Trail clearly delineated on official South Unit maps. Furthermore, visitors are not limited to trails and many seek-off trail experience, BCA among them. Response: There is no specific regulatory requirement that Meridian conduct any visibility analysis at all under the NDDoH or EPA regulations. However, Meridian previously honored the NDDoH’s request for a visibility study to determine if the cooling tower’s condensed water plume rise from the proposed Refinery would be visible at observation points at the Park. The decision regarding what points to analyze was based on request by the NDDoH and was not arbitrarily selected by Meridian. The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the Refinery site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did complete an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Furthermore, upon submitting the visibility analysis, Meridian correctly stated that the analysis “has no regulatory criteria or basis.” The analysis, and the concern underlying it, still has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18g) Comment: BCA members have firsthand, on the ground experience with that eastern portion of the Park and can readily claim that the proposed refinery site is visible to the naked eye from the Park. To say otherwise is a lie. Table 7 on page 5 of the Cooling Tower Plume Visibility Analysis charts the 15 top measurements for Visible Plumes Above the Buckhill Trail Horizon. If one were to transpose the height of

82

the tallest plume (175.48 feet) to the eastern portion of the Park where the refinery site is clearly visible and add the fifty-foot tall cooling tower, total plume blight could reach 225.48 feet, or 16 feet short of the height of the ND Capitol Building. This is no small impact on the Park. Response: The opinions expressed in the comment ignore multiple facts placed in evidence throughout the proceedings. The Cooling Tower visibility study, calculations, documentation, and references were submitted to the North Dakota Department of Health and are part of the public record. The study includes not only a consideration for the curvature of the earth but the surrounding topography as well. The visibility study concluded the Refinery cooling tower condensation plume will be visible with the following frequency: .

Observation Point Normal Plumes

Category 32

Painted Canyon Visitor Center 0 0

Buckhill Trail Parking Center 0 16

Amphitheater 0 (*) 0

TRNP Visitor Center 0 0

* The top one (1) meter of the highest normal plume would be theoretically possible to see at a distance of 12 km.

Also, see Response 18f. 18h) Comment: Furthermore, Meridian has again provided mixed messages as to how frequently that maximum plume blight might occur, with no mention of frequency at lesser visible heights. At the December 19, 2017 PSC meeting with Meridian, William Prentice stated that there was potential for the maximum-rated plume to be visible from Buck Hill 30 days per year. In a January 14, 2018 Bismarck Tribune that number was an estimated 15 daylight hours per year as attributed to Meridian’s Dan Hedrington. Do they actually know? Response: See Responses 18f and 18g.

83

18h) Comment: BCA questions whether we can trust any of Meridian’s numbers and calculations, including those submitted in their application to the Health Department for a Permit to Construct. While Meridian appears ready to use advanced technologies, individual components have not been tested previously as an integrated system. DOH comments in phone conversations with staff suggest that operations will have to be “very stringent, of course…and expensive” and maintaining equipment to continue to meet requirements will be equally costly. BCA is not confident that Meridian has either the experience or the deep pockets necessary to meet those standards. Response: The comment is untrue and speculative. Meridian is well-positioned to maintain its equipment and honor the NDDoH’s standards. Moreover, should Meridian fail to meet any standards, the Department may initiate enforcement actions against Meridian to ensure compliance. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18i) Comment: Beyond our lack of confidence in Meridian as a corporate neighbor, we hold great concern for the integrity of Theodore Roosevelt National Park and proliferating industrialization necking in on it. Our concern includes this specific project as well as the growing cumulative impacts that threaten the very reason the Park exists. BCA opposed construction of the Fryburg Rail Loading Facility when it came before the Billings County Commission on the grounds of proximity to the Park and its potential to encourage further industrialization in the area. The County approved that project completed in 2013 citing local jobs and increased income for county tax rolls, just as it has done here. Response: This comment is speculative, irrelevant, and may be properly addressed through zoning laws and other regulations. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18j) Comment: However, we must point out that one of the justifications at Billings County hearing in favor of this current Meridian proposal was slumping employment opportunity and decreasing tax income from the Fryburg Rail Facility. How short our memories, and with the potential for repetition here. Response: This comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18j) Comment: Meanwhile, we must also consider potential economic impacts to the Park itself, North Dakota’s tourist mecca of Medora, and Park associated businesses and services. Response: This comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

84

18k) Comment: BCA’s concerns about cumulative impacts are not unsubstantiated. Again, at the December 2017 PSC meeting with Meridian, Mr. Prentice referenced refinery by-products as potential feedstock for additional area development and it is our understanding Meridian currently holds an option on up to 2000 acres. ND could be well on our way to facilitating an industrial zone as the gateway to our National Park. With Meridian’s continued refusal to submit application to the broader PSC site review process, we can only speculate on the aggressiveness of any larger plans. This is unacceptable. Response: The additional acreage secured by Meridian was secured primarily as buffer and based on private negotiations between Meridian and the private property owner(s). There are no specific plans by Meridian to utilize or develop this acreage. Any potential future uses by Meridian or by others for additional development in or around the Davis facility or elsewhere in the area are subject to strict regulations and zoning requirements and those facilities would be required to meet them just as Meridian has. Further, this objection has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18l) Comment: With the coming of the Bakken Boom, North Dakota saw opportunity. Immediate and legitimate concerns with out-migration and insufficient income to feed state budget needs created a political climate where state departments and entities holding conflict with the rate and scale of development were squelched. Response: No technical question in this comment. The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18m) Comment: No longer in boom times, state government should be exercising a degree of hard gained maturity. A new Governor and state administration needs to re-evaluate what we want for North Dakota’s future - what values and key natural, cultural, historic and social treasures we want to hang on to, and which we are willing to sacrifice. We are making that choice right now on our National Park. Response: No technical question in this comment. The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 3315-14. 18n) Comment: Departments and agencies within ND’s state government have a wealth of scientific and institutional knowledge. To compartmentalize that expertise is a strategic error. It is coordinated opportunity missed and wise decision-making denied. Consultation and collaboration do not defy authority, they enhance it, as Public Service Commissioners continue to stress to both Meridian and the public. Response: No technical question in this comment. The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

85

18o) Comment: Humans are biological beings. Advancing technologies and increasing urbanization have had a tendency to separate us from our roots. However, recent studies of human health issues are encouraging a reconnection with nature for the greater well being of both adults and children. Response: No technical question in this comment. The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18p) Comment: One cannot look at a discussion of modern day ills without the iteration of non-drug treatments that include exercise, mindfulness and sunlight, all of which are enhanced by our presence in nature. Response: Comment is related to a discussion of modern day ills. No technical question in this comment. The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18q) Comment: Theodore Roosevelt National Park is not a sought destination merely for recreational pursuits. It is a source of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. It is a place to not only re-make connection with the environment that surrounds us, but with ourselves; and with our place in the larger community, world and universe. Response: Comment is related to a discussion physical, mental, and spiritual well being. No technical question in this comment. The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18r) Comment: With each infringement on that unique setting and landscape, the power of that place to heal both itself and us is diminished. ND Century Code 23-25-01.1 recognizes that interconnected relationship. BCA opposes the siting of a refinery that impinges on that power to heal. Meridian must seek an alternative location for their refinery. The ND DOH Air Quality Division has a responsibility to deny Meridian’s application for a Permit to Construct at this location. Response: Both Meridian’s and the NDDoH’s independent analysis shows that the level of impacts from the proposed Refinery to the Park are considered negligible. In the case of NOx emissions, more detailed modeling included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed Refinery. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant.

86

The comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 18s) Comment: BCA copied and saved the Meridian statement below earlier in the DOH permitting process. It is the final item on their webpage titled Permits and is the only one in quotation marks, italics and highlighted in bold. In recently revisiting that page, BCA found that Meridian has made an edit adding a single word to their statement, a word that reflects the company’s proclivity to say anything that will further their self-interest, even when it is not true.

The Environment “Meridian Energy Group, Inc. is committed to building the cleanest refinery in the world, and has engineered Davis Refinery to the highest environmental standards, including the ability to meet the very strict Class 1 emissions standards which qualifies its proximity to Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Meridian has taken extensive measures to ensure that the Davis Refinery will not negatively impact the natural landscape of the surrounding terrain both during the day and at night, and has conclusively demonstrated that the Refinery will not be seen from the National Park.” https://www.meridianenergygroupinc.com/permits/ BCA can conclusively say otherwise. Air quality will be cleaner in Theodore Roosevelt National Park without the proposed Davis Refinery than with it; even if it were to be “the cleanest refinery on the planet.” Deny the Permit to Construct. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter.

87

19) Response to DeMores Riders 19a) Comment: Lack of a comprehensive siting approval process by the ND-PSC: It seems clear that Meridian Energy is trying to avoid a comprehensive, coordinated siting process by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, as evidenced by their proposed capacity reduction in the second phase of the project from 55,000 barrels per day to 49,500, thus staying just under the 50,000 threshold which would trigger the more thorough process. Commissioner Fedorchak has spoken on the record in favor of this coordinated siting process. Meridian Energy may be following the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit. If they want to be good corporate citizens in North Dakota, why not go through the complete, transparent process? It would likely avoid more conflicts in the future and could prevent costly mistakes which would be nearly impossible to undo. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. 19b) Comment: Adverse effect on air quality in TRNP: Our concerns are not only related to the hazardous chemicals released from the refinery during normal operation, flaring, and unforeseen malfunction, but also related to dust from increased truck traffic.

88

Response: With regard to emissions from normal refinery operations – The NDDoH independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus, no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. With regard to flaring and unforeseen malfunction – For further discussion on flaring and unforeseen malfunctions please refer to Responses 13 and 15 and related responses to the NPCA comments. With regard to dust from increased truck traffic – General Condition K of the Draft PTC references fugitive emissions from vehicular traffic which are subject to compliance with the provisions of NDAC 33-15-17. 19c) Comment: Negative effect on views from TRNP: Meridian's claim that the refinery won't be seen from the Park is based on evaluating four locations: Buck Hill, Painted Canyon Overlook, the Main Visitor Center, and the Amphitheatre. While these are all popular visitor destinations, they are by no means the only ones! Many park visitors explore off-road areas, such as the eastern Rim Trail, both on foot and horseback. The DeMores Riders property is on the east side of the Park, and according to an evaluation by the National Park Service, the refinery will be visible from about 630 acres on the eastern side of the Park. No amount of tree planting will hide a 150' stack! Additionally, the significant amount of lighting attached to the refinery will negatively impact the dark night skies, a precious resource valued by our members. Response: NDAC Chapter 33-15-19 Visibility Protection applies to major stationary sources or major modifications and therefore is not applicable to the facility. Nevertheless, Meridian Energy, is conscious of the concern the NPS has over possible effects on visibility associated with the existing oil and gas production facilities and other activities in the region. Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Desert Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be

89

equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, and nearby existing pump-jacks, county airport, oil bulking facility and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield from that same acreage. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 19d) Comment: Noise pollution from both construction and ongoing truck traffic: Without a comprehensive siting process through the PSC, this factor won't even be evaluated. Response: Review of noise pollution is not part of the air permitting review process. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 19e) Comment: Water usage: Meridian's application to the State Water Commission for a permit supporting 55,000 barrels per day processing capacity reflects a lack of transparency in what their actual, long-term intentions really are. Response: Please refer to Response 19a. 19f) Comment: In 1910, Theodore Roosevelt stated "Of all the questions which can come before this nation, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us." TRNP is the crown jewel for North Dakota's outdoor recreation and tourism, and a major contributor to western North Dakota's economy. It is unique in its geography, geology, plant and wildlife diversity, and history. Theodore Roosevelt was the ultimate conservationist, and to tarnish the landscape next to a park bearing his name is a betrayal of his legacy and our heritage. As long-time and consistent stakeholders in TRNP, and landowners in close proximity to the proposed site, we are opposed to construction of a refinery on the front porch of North Dakota's only national park. No doubt the state agencies involved are doing the best they can with the disjointed and incomplete process currently in place. We strongly urge you to use every possible means to utilize the Public Service Commission siting process to evaluate all aspects of the project in a thorough, comprehensive manner. In the long run, it's the best way to serve the citizens of North Dakota.

90

Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter.

91

20) Response to Joletta Bird Bear 20a) Comment: The anticipated chemical emissions and particulate matter pollution from the proposed Davis Oil Refinery will drift and adversely impact the protected federal Class I Air Quality Airshed of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park contains 69,675 acres and is protected by a federal Class 1 airshed standing which is the highest environmental quality and requires maximum protection. Because of the projected anticipated air quality impacts to the TRNP, the ND Health Department Environmental Unit must require compliance in this application process to the requirements of the federal Clean Air act. As stated by Rheanna Kautzman, the ND Department of Health Environmental Health Air Quality at the January 17th Public Meeting & Hearing event in Dickinson ND, the proposed oil refinery which is to be sited next to the TRNP must meet the requirements of 30 (thirty) state and federal regulatory laws and acts in this application process. The Davis Oil Refinery is proposed to be sited 3 miles from the Theodore Roosevelt NP. The oil refinery is a hazardous chemical plant and will emit hazardous gases and particles from the processing and refining of Bakken crude oil. The gas emissions and particle emissions generated daily will violate the existing federal Clean Air Act requirements and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements of the Theodore Roosevelt NP Class I air quality protections. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the PTC application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 20b) Comment: According to the permit application data, the Davis Refinery will dump into the air 58 tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), 80 tons of Carbon Monoxide, 40 tons of Nitrogen Oxide, and 13 tons of Sulfur Dioxide per year at the time of application. At the time of application, Meridian Oil Company made statements in public that it will refine 27,500 BPD at Phase I and up to 55,000 BPD at Phase II and later reduced that amount to 49,500 BPD before the ND Public Service Commission.

92

Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. 20c) Comment: The Prevention of Significant Deterioration must be applied in the state’s Health Department decision making of this permit application determination. In comparison, when distance was the factor in decision making of denial of a permit, in 2008, the US Department of the Interior determined that the proposed Gascoyn Coal plant would have an adverse impact on the same Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The distance between that proposed industrial plant and the TRNP was some 60 miles. Interesting history in that decision, the ND Department of Health took opposition to USDOI determination and used non EPA approved methodology to support its argument in its determination of emissions. In that permit process it was the compliance to federal requirements of the Clean Air Act and a determination that that industrial plant would result in adverse impact of the significant deterioration to the air quality of the TRNP that resulted in denial of the permit.

93

Response: The Refinery is a synthetic minor source based on the information presented in the permit application and federally enforceable emission limitations included in the draft Permit. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus, no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. . Ultimately, although not required since the facility qualified as a synthetic minor source. Due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the NDDoH review of the Meridian permit application included most of the requirements reserved for examination of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered maximum achievable control technology (MACT). 20d) Comment: The vistas of natural beauty that we enjoy at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park will be harmed and visibility will suffer irreparable harm. The chemical refining plant will contain 3 stacks that are 150’ each and cannot be any less than 150’. Response: NDDAC Chapter 33-15-19 Visibility Protection applies to major stationary sources or major modifications and therefore is not applicable to the facility. Nevertheless, Meridian Energy, is conscious of the concern the NPS has over possible effects on visibility associated with the existing oil and gas production facilities and other activities in the region.

94

Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling water condensed water plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Desert Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, and nearby existing pump-jacks, county airport, oil bulking facility and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield from that same acreage. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 20e) Comment: The Baseline Benzene Fence line monitoring states that the permittee Meridian shall retain records of its monitoring for a period of five years. How often is the permittee required to conduct baseline benzene fence line monitoring during the life of its existence? Is the oil company the only repository of these monitoring records? Response: Benzene Fenceline monitoring for compliance purposes is a specific provision of 40 CFR Subpart CC (MACT CC) and it is only applicable to refineries that are major sources of air pollution. As a minor synthetic source, Meridian Energy is not required to conduct Benzene Fenceline monitoring to satisfy the requirements of MACT CC. However, conscious of the health concerns with potential Benzene emissions from its proposed refinery, Meridian Energy is in agreement with NDDoH’s requirement in draft Permit Condition II.E.18 to implement “a Department approved benzene fenceline monitoring program” with a five (5) years record retention requirement that “can be readily accessed within 24 hours upon Department request”. 20f) Comment: The ND Health Department Environmental Health agency is attempting to segregate the impacts that will occur. Water quality is directly impacted by the level of air quality. ND is well aware of the deterioration of air quality upon the Missouri River system and the ND Department of Health advisory warning to pregnant women to not consume fish due to the existence of mercury contamination generated by energy gasification plants to the fish in the Missouri River.

95

What is the location of wastewater discharge of the Davis Oil Refinery? The Heart River is not only a tributary that feeds into the Missouri River but it is also significant water stream to the Mandan and the Hidatsa tribes because of our historic relationship to its location. The Heart River originates within the TRNP and flows to the Missouri River. The citizens of ND participated in the public meeting & hearing on January 17th conducted by the ND Department of Health Environmental Health and 42 citizens provided comment, of that total 30 requested your agency to deny the permit. Listen to the people who are asking your agency to protect the quality of air and the Class I air of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

96

21) Response to Lisa DeVille (L-726) Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. Also to compare what is being proposed at this refinery to refineries constructed more than 20-years ago is like comparing a car today to a car from the 1980’s. The emissions and efficiency of vehicles frm the 1980’s or older is not the same as the vehicles today and when one opens the hood of vehicles today, they look only vaguely similar to engines from the past. Extensive review for over a year by NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. As the agency tasked with protecting the air quality and health of the people of North Dakota, NDDoH has included specific language in the permit proposed addressing the allowable emission levels, necessary pollution controls, emissions monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting far above that for a typical synthetic minor source and well beyond that required to satisfy North Dakota air pollution control rules and applicable Federal Regulations. This has been done in an effort to ensure the facility now and in the future, remains a minor synthetic source and to protect the National Park. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 20c.

97

22) Response to North Dakota Badlands Horse 22a) Comment: Meridian’s avoidance of a comprehensive site approval by the North Dakota Public Service Commission - By reducing their proposed output from 55,000 to just under 50,000 barrels per day, Meridian is avoiding a more in-depth study into the appropriateness of this site. Response: Please see the response to Comment 6b. 22b) Comment: Air, light, noise, and view, pollution - TRNP is home to thousands of wild animals besides the horses. Those beautiful animals bring in tourists from all over the world and regular visitors who return to the park again and again to view, photograph, and enjoy the animals and the unique landscapes. Particles released into the air along with the exhaust of additional truck traffic will impact the air all animals and visitors will have to breath. TRNP has already been greatly impacted by light and view pollution from the encroaching oil industry. When we look around the park from various highpoints, we can already see wells and flares that pollute the air and the night skies. Large trucks are constantly rumbling past the park. This refinery will increase all these types of pollution to one of the most pristine wilderness areas in North Dakota Response: Please see the responses to Comments 6c and 8b. 22c) Comment: Water usage - . Is there enough water in that area to support the use of 50,000 gallons of water per day? When drought lowers the water supply in aquifers, will there be enough water for area ranches that depend on that water for their livestock and livelihood and for the wildlife in the park? Response: Review of water rights and water usage is not specifically part of the process or part of the consideration related to issuance of this air permit. However, Meridian has applied to the State as required for use of highly brackish groundwater at depth below the facility and this permit is under a separate review by the State. 22d) Comment: North Dakota is blessed to have this beautiful park in the midst of the unique Badlands. Yet much of the Badlands have already been marred by oil production. Is there not a site farther from the park that would allow this refinery and the jobs it creates without having such an impact on the park? Please do not let the desire for profits destroy this beautiful place loved by so many. Please see that the Public Service Commission has the responsibility and the opportunity to study the site proposal for this refinery and see that a cherished icon of North Dakota history and tourism is preserved for generations to come.

98

Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

99

23) Response to Jim Fuglie and Lillian Crook (WC-3 to WC-5) Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. With regards to the specific concerns of the commenter, such as proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, claims of unreliable information in the permit application, and claims of avoidance of serious scrutiny Meridian Energy offers the following clarifications: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. With regard to the claim of “the numbers in their permit application are pure speculation, untested by science” – Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims as a Synthetic Minor Source during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA Region 8 (through

100

cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Further, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. With regard to the claim that Meridian is “applying for a Synthetic Minor Source Air Quality Permit” to avoid “serious scrutiny from you” – The NDDoH review of the Meridian Energy permit application included most of the requirements reserved for examination of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution, regardless of the facility qualifying as a Synthetic Minor Source, and solely due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Meridian Energy provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) technology, and air pollution control equipment considered best available control technology (BACT) to minimize emissions throughout the plant. Meridian The refinery’s physical and operational design even applied BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered maximum achievable control technology (MACT.)

101

24) Response to Eric Thompson (WC-9) Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. . The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. With regard to potential impacts of the refinery and compliance with applicable air quality standards, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I

102

and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Ultimately, Meridian is not proposing to locate the facility within the Park but on private property located over three miles from the Park, and has complied with all requirements applicable to the Davis Refinery being located at that site. Furthermore, with regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

Finally, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

103

25) Response to Sandra Fisher (WC-11) Response: This objection is speculative and may be properly addressed through zoning laws and other regulations. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated based on the review conducted by NDDoH. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our claims or NDDoH findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Further Meridian is well-positioned to maintain its equipment and honor the Department’s standards. Moreover, should Meridian fail to meet any standards, the Department may initiate enforcement actions against Meridian to ensure compliance. Ultimately, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

104

26) Response to Tom and Lupe Wirtz (WC-13) Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. With regard to the claim of “untested technology”, Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims as a Synthetic Minor Source during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. With regard to the claim of “our air quality and the state's only National Park are at risk”, the NDDoH independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. With regard to statements made by Meridian’s CEO William Prentice, The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a

105

major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission..

106

27) Response to Ruth Molm (WC-57) Response: Ultimately, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. With regard to your concern of “The downward prevailing winds would cause toxins from the emissions to drift…” – NDDoH independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Furthermore, with regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

107

With regard to the claim of “too close…would destroy natural beauty as folks drive on I-94 to the park” – Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. The NPS conducted a visibility analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the Refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed “as folks drive on I-94 to the park” are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine.

108

28) Response to Robert Todd (WC-67) Response: Regarding your first concern - Some air pollution is an inevitable part of human activity. Regulations have been put in place by the State and at the Federal level In order to protect the public and the environment from excessive pollution. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims as a Synthetic Minor Source during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA Region 8 (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). Both, the NDDoH and EPA, agreed that the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility. In regard to your second concern - Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. Further, the NDDoH independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. With regard to your third concern - You are correct. Your comment is not directly related with the air quality permit and has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14.

109

29) Response to Denice Aaron (WC-109) Response: Some air pollution is an inevitable part of human activity. Regulations have been put in place by the State and at the Federal level In order to protect the public and the environment from excessive pollution. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims as a Synthetic Minor Source during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA Region 8 (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). Both, the NDDoH and EPA, agreed that the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility. Further, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Furthermore, With regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

110

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

With regard to the facility being ever being a major source – To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter.

111

30) Response to Linda Weiss (WC-111 to WC-112) Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. There is no specific regulatory requirement that Meridian conduct any visibility analysis at all under the NDDoH or EPA regulations. However, Meridian previously honored the Department’s request for a visibility study to determine if the plume rise from the proposed Refinery would be visible at observation points at the Park. The decision regarding what points to analyze was based on request by the NDDoH and was not arbitrarily selected by Meridian. The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the Refinery site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant.

112

The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the Refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims as a Synthetic Minor Source during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA Region 8 (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. The North Dakota Davis Refinery is a synthetic minor source based on the information presented in the permit application and federally enforceable emission limitations included in the draft Permit. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. For further discussion please refer to responses provided to NPCA comments in the appropriate section. Further, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance with all applicable National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated for the proposed Davis Refinery. Impacts from

113

other facilities is not something that is in the control of Meridian nor can it be a point of consideration related to approval or denial of this permit per applicable State and federal regulations. General statement without a reference. Regardless, fugitive emissions sources were taken into account and calculations of emissions levels were reviewed and verified by staff from the NDDoH, the EPA and even the NPS reviewed them and did not comment negatively regarding the emissions estimates. As noted above, the permit application reflects the potential emissions for “the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future.” Meridian has plans to incorporate transport via pipeline at some point in the future, however, there are no air emissions to be considered from pipeline transport for air permitting purposes. Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter.

114

31) Response to Wayne Fisher 31a) Comment: Has the ND Dept of Health done an assessment of the air and water quality or the sound level surrounding the future site of the Davis Refinery? These tests should be performed right now before any permits are approved. Meridian Energy should pay for the tests; but the tests and monitoring should be performed by the ND Health Dept. with citizens of Belfield and the area's farmers and ranchers approving the sites to be monitored and tested. This will establish a baseline that can be used to gauge any future environmental impact by the refinery. Response: There are no specific regulatory requirements applicable to this permit application that requires that Meridian conduct detailed and comprehensive assessment of air, water and noise on surrounding lands. The NDDoH does not have a legal basis to arbitrarily require studies and tests that are not specified by regulation. Meridian has met, and in several instances, exceeded all current regulatory requirements for issuance of the requested air PTC. 31b) Comment: It is probable that there will be smog, air pollutants, dust and constant noise coming from this site, affecting the lives of children and adults. This could result in possible toxic chemicals such as mercury in the fishing areas; the Game and Fish Dept suggesting not to eat the fish. Noise levels from the refinery and the possibility of 300 to 400 trucks and other vehicles entering or leaving the site every day could be stressful to the public, livestock, and wildlife. Response: The comment regarding possible toxic chemicals is speculative and does not have a technical basis nor proof that this is a realistic possibility. Regardless we do agree and have included the estimated on-site emissions from vehicular traffic in our analysis. Also as part of our response to various public comments received, Meridian Energy has performed a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279

115

2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

31c) Comment: Do a search of the ND Health Department Air Quality website and you will observe that Bismarck and Mandan are sometimes rated with a high unhealthy air quality index. On January 13, 2018 the Air Quality Index in Bismarck-Mandan was rated very unhealthy. This area was considered one of the highest five in the nation for having the poorest air quality at that time. Enclosed are 3 copies demonstrating the problems with refineries. This means that persons with heart and lung disease, older adults, and children are at greater risk from the presence of particles in the air due largely to the oil refinery in this area. Albeit, this refinery is larger than the proposed Davis refinery, but Meridian has suggested that they plan to enlarge this from 27,500 BPD to a much larger refinery. Meridian is making a fool out of our government, our state agencies and our Billings County elected officials in ND. Response: All analysis and values supplied by Meridian and verified by the NDDoH and the US EPA Region 8, included both the initial Phase I at 27,500 bpd, and the maximum ultimate potential capacity of the facility at 55,000 bpd. For background, the original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud.

116

Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. In addition to the above provided general background, regarding specific comparison to air quality issues within the Bismarck/Mandan area, the refinery in Mandan is of a significantly larger size and is significantly older with not near the level of controls that are being proposed for the Refinery due to advances in control technology and regulations since the Mandan facility was constructed. In addition, the air quality within the Bismarck/Mandan area is further significantly impacted by the greater population, other industrial sources, and the airport operations in Bismarck to name a few sources. To equate the air emissions levels in the Bismarck area in totality to the potential emissions that are proposed to be released by a single synthetic minor source (the Refinery) is an unrealistic comparison. Also as noted by our Response 2, the greatest likely single source of air quality impacts within the general Bellfield area is the vehicular traffic from the National Park and not any single industrial facility currently operating in the area or the Refinery as proposed.

117

32) Response to Roger Ashley 32a) Comment: We value clean air and open spaces and are blessed to have Theodore Roosevelt National Park with its Class I airshed designation. In today's built environment, places like the National Park should receive even more protection from development within and outside the park. In addition to Class I airshed designation the area is North Dakota's number one tourist attraction, drew 760,458 visitors in 2016, provided employment for 654 people within a 50-mile radius and generated $47.8 million in economic activity.1 Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 32b) Comment: Meridian is asking to establish the Davis Refinery, an industrial complex, on the doorstep of Theodore Roosevelt National Park that will dump tons of pollutants into the air we breathe, affecting our health as well as contributing to visibility issues. Response: See responses to Comments 32a and 31b. 32c) Comment: Refineries release toxins including benzene, hydrogen cyanide and lead which can cause cancer, birth defects, and chronic conditions such as asthma.2 Billings and Stark Counties are currently high-risk counties, above the EPA level of concern for cancer risk, with a county-wide average cancer risk equal to or greater than 1 in 1 million. And Divide, Dunn, McKenzie, Mountrail and Williams counties have cancer risks over 1 in 250,000.3 This study was based on EPA's most recent National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) analysis and only includes toxic air emissions from the oil and gas industry it does not include health impacts from particulate matter and ozone-related air emissions, nor does it include health impacts of water contamination cause by the oil and gas industry. Nor does it include the increased truck traffic and changes in land use. The North Dakota Department of Health should be protecting its citizens from unnecessary health risks posed by refineries.

118

Response: Meridian submitted the required air dispersion model following the “Criteria Pollutant Modeling Requirements for a Permit to Construct” memo dated October 6, 2014 from the North Dakota Department of Health Air Division. The memorandum and NDAC §33-15-14 establish Class I and Class II Significant Impact Levels (SIL) for preliminary screening analysis for SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and CO. The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR part 50 for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. To further protect public health and welfare, environmental health, and preserve and protect air quality, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program was included in amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1977. The emissions from the Refinery are not expected to affect positively or negatively the existing conditions that may or may not be causing the increase in cancer risks. The PSD program created three classifications or classes: • Class I: Allows for minimal degradation of air quality • Class II: Allows for moderate increase in air pollution • Class III: Allows the greatest increase in air pollution Presently, there are no Class III areas designated in the United States. PSD increments in Class II and Class I areas are triggered by submission of the first PSD preconstruction permit application from a major new or modified source (Clean Air Act § 163). PSD provisions allow a modest increase in Class II areas, such as the area that will surround the proposed refinery. PSD increments allow a smaller increase in Class I areas, such as the federally designated area for the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Class I ensures economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources. The air dispersion model of the Refinery passed all Class I and Class II SIL screening levels for all pollutants except for NO2. The NO2 emissions passed the Class I levels and exceeded the 1-hour NOX Class II level, this last associated with the area around the refinery.

119

The NDDoH required a more detailed analysis of the NOx 1-hr emissions to show compliance with the AAQS requirement of 188 μg/m3. This more detailed analysis required that both background and nearby potentially contributing sources of NOx emissions be included in the comprehensive analysis. NDDoH provided background air quality concentrations as well as source data for potentially contributing nearby sources, their stack heights and emissions, and coordinates for the North Dakota Land Holding Fryburg, Tesoro Belfield Gas Plant, and Petro Hunt Little Knife. The Refinery air dispersion model passed the detailed analysis for the 1-hr NOX NAAQS standard for both the Class I and Class II areas. By passing the Class I and Class II NAAQS standards, the proposed refinery adheres to the intent of the Clean Air Act to protect human health and the environment. Thus the Refinery should not create a greater health risk above current levels experienced by the residents of Billings County. 32d) Comment: In addition to health risks associated with this type of development negative impact to air quality. Will create issues with smog. The mixing of ozone, NOx, SOx, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds will create a brown cloud and haze that will decrease visibility within the National Park and adjacent areas. Response: Please see Response 32b. In addition, please note that, per comments submitted by the NPS, they conducted separate modeling to determine compliance of the facility with depositional and visual impairment resulting from the facility. This was done by the NPS through the use of CALPUFF and VISCREEN models. Though not required to meet specific CALPUFF analysis since the facility is not considered a major source, it is significant to note that the NPS did conduct CALPUFF analysis of the project and showed compliance with desired CALPUFF Class I levels from the site. In addition, the NPS conducted VISCREEN analysis of the project as well and showed compliance with desired Class I VISCREEN levels for standard plant operations. 32e) Comment: We have experienced smog in western North Dakota particularly at the height of flaring. Even now with a reduction in flaring there are still some days where we see smog. The nearby Belfield gas plant located south of Belfield also contributes pollutants into the air but this is partially offset by a reduction in flaring and off gassing that was being done prior to the natural gas plant construction Response: The regulations for the Oil and Gas (O&G) industry are different than for refineries. The Subpart Ja regulations are very specific in the requirement to minimize flaring. Thus, the operations involved in the O&G and the refinery are not comparable. In this instance, flaring is proposed to be limited to a total of 168 hours per year across all refinery operations. In addition, please see response to Comment 32d.

120

32f) Comment: The proposed Davis Refinery will increase the level of pollutants in the air without any reduction in air pollutants from oil wells in adjacent areas around the plant. Response: Meridian Energy has no control over the emissions from the oil and gas industry nor from other air emissions sources. The regulations of the State and the US EPA are specifically designed to protect the environment from combined emissions under separate processes not applicable to minor sources such as the Davis Refinery. 32g) Comment: Various sources big and small contribute to smog. The refinery is expected to generate at least 170 round trips per day for trucks hauling refined products.4 With the addition of the air pollutants from the proposed Davis Refinery to the Belfield gas plant, the oil-loading rail facility, traffic on 1-94 and U.S. Highway 85, flaring from nearby oil wells, the soon to be constructed OIT thermal treatment facility, etc. The area will have a considerable amount of pollutants that will mix causing an increase in health and visibility issues. Response: The air permitting process, the air emissions limits that are required to be met and the air emissions modeling conducted for this facility are designed to be protective of the human health and the environment. By Meridian showing compliance with all applicable standards, it has met the regulatory basis to be issued a permit by showing it can comply with applicable standards that are protective of air quality in general and within the Park. Meridian Energy has no control over the emissions from future facilities planned for construction in the region. The NDDoH will review and regulate each future source of emissions as applicable. 32h) Comment: Why isn't the North Dakota Department of Health considering the entire load of pollutants in the air? No barrier can be built to keep pollutants from various sources separate. There are many areas within North Dakota that have roads, rails and pipelines that can host a refinery without being sited next to a Class I air shed, a National Park and North Dakota's number 1 tourist attraction. Response: Please see response to Comment 32a. 32i) Comment: Meridian has touted the proposed Davis Refinery will use technology that has never been integrated as it is in this proposed project. This technology is unproven as a whole system, yet they have arrived at an estimated tons of pollutants generated. In Vepica, USA, Inc Emissions Inventory Document dated 03/17/17, Sheet 19 of 35 the company states in Section 5.2 Emission Estimation- Basis and Assumptions in the first bulleted paragraph, Since this is a new refinery, and site-specific measurement or test data are not available, default emission factors (Methodology Ranks 5,or 4, as applicable) were used to estimate criteria pollutant and HAPs emissions, unless noted otherwise. For new industrial sources with no actual monitoring or direct measurements, the methodology ranks

121

above mentioned were used since they are based on typical refinery average stream concentrations and statistical default process compositions. Also, when available, actual engineering/licensor data or vendor guarantees were used as preferred emissions factors. Response: The commenter attempts to characterize the emission factors research and published by the EPA as “generic factors” and somehow as invalid. In response, we refer the reviewer to the Introduction to EPA’s AP-42 (emphasis added): “Emission factors and emission inventories have long been fundamental tools for air quality management. Emission estimates are important for developing emission control strategies, determining applicability of permitting and control programs, ascertaining the effects of sources and appropriate mitigation strategies, and a number of other related applications by an array of users, including federal, state, and local agencies, consultants, and industry. Data from source-specific emission tests or continuous emission monitors are usually preferred for estimating a source’s emissions because those data provide the best representation of the tested source’s emissions. However, test data from individual sources are not always available and, even then, they may not reflect the variability of actual emissions over time. Thus, emission factors are frequently the best or only method available for estimating emissions, in spite of their limitations.” Furthermore, the EPA addresses vendor emissions information specifically as a better source of emissions information for permitting decisions (emphasis added): “If representative source-specific data cannot be obtained, emissions information from equipment vendors, particularly emission performance guarantees or actual test data from similar equipment, is a better source of information for permitting decisions than an AP-42 emission factor. When such information is not available, use of emission factors may be necessary as a last resort. (Page 3)” The EPA allows “emissions information from equipment vendors” as the valid tool to be used to calculate emissions that is better suited to make permitting decisions. Furthermore, the EPA Protocol allows the use of AP-42 factors “When such information is not available, use of emission factors may be necessary as a last resort”. The AP-42 factors are extensively used by industry and government as a conservative basis for emissions calculations when more specific vendor or engineering information is not available. Meridian considered the use of emission factors or vendor information carefully to best characterize the emissions from the refinery and their applicability to the permit application. In many instances, Meridian specifically reviewed the EPA RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse database to determine what emissions levels were common within recent permits issued for similar units. Once this was done, when possible, discussion ensued with equipment suppliers and vendors to determine whether additional supporting vendor information could be obtained. Specifically the

122

suitability of using vendor information the source of emission factors for the fuel fired sources at the Davis Refinery was addressed at length in Meridian’s justification for the use of vendor emissions performance guarantees in letter to NDDoH dated 06/13/2017, which we quote: “In the case of refinery emissions factors, most data in AP-42 dates from studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s and is based on data from those periods or earlier. Even updated guidance documents published by EPA in 2015 for petroleum refineries refer to the 1998 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors for Natural Gas Combustion, for default AP-42 criteria pollutants and HAPs emission rates. Although the 1998 revision incorporated data from studies in the 1990’s it specifically states that combustion sources AP-42 emission factors for criteria pollutants such as CO and NOx remained unchanged from prior versions of the guidance, therefore do not reflect significant advances in burner technology over the last twenty years. Thus, EPA AP-42 typically does not reflect the current state of burner technology. It is therefore to be expected that emissions values on new state of the industry units to be significantly below published default AP-42 emission values factors for similar units. This is particularly the case for a refinery such as Davis, where a concerted effort has been made to minimize those emissions by all current means available.” 32j) Comment: In several sections of Meridian's application Meridian has stated that they will use "fuel gas" in processes that require heaters. A letter dated March 22,2017 from Born Inc., Tulsa,5410 S 49th W Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107, Subject: Emissions From Born Heaters supporting the Meridian application, was used as one of the guarantee or manufacturers specifications. This guarantee of specification has five footnotes. The 5th footnote reads, Above emissions are valid for clean natural gas firing only. If available fuel is not natural gas, detailed composition is required to analyze and provide emission values. If the modelers for this project used vendor or manufacturer guarantee/specification where did the detailed composition of the fuel gas come from that was used in generating the mean values published in the application? Apparently Born Inc., Tulsa has some reservations using other fuel gases to specify natural gas in their equipment performance data. Vendor guarantees and engineering/licensor data are very specific. Variations can significantly impact performance of equipment. Response: The composition of refinery fuel gas is comparable to that of natural gas since the individual components of the gases determine the heating value. Natural Gas: https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Chemical-Composition-of-Natural-Gas Refinery Fuel Gas Composition: http://www.aidic.it/cet/13/35/226.pdf Effect of Composition on the heating value of Refinery Fuel Gas:

123

http://www.refinerlink.com/blog/Improving_Refinery_Fuel_Gas_Composition The main component in both natural gas and refinery fuel gas is methane, ranging between 93% and 96% in composition. Refinery fuel gas contains H2S which is limited to 15 ppmv by regulation. 32k) Comment: Estimated values generated by models is dependent upon assumptions and data used. Table 4c: Davis Refinery-Summary of Applicable Air Pollution Control Technologies by Source Category Stationary Sources (Process Heaters and Boilers) on page 12 of Controls Technology Review indicates a rating of 79% for SCR w/Low NOx burners. We are not sure how the value 79% was arrived at given the values shown in the Born Inc., Tulsa specifications/guarantee. Values such as 79% tend to impart the idea that the value generated is more precise than what it really is. Considering that the N02 rate reported as "result'' (the author must have meant estimated) is only 4% less than the one-hour SIL set by the North Dakota Department of Health for Class II air, there is no room for error.5. Response: The commenter is attempting an equivalence between the emission factors used for the calculation of emissions form SCR and ULNB heaters and boilers with the model results for the 1-hour NO2 SIL for Class II. Regardless, further full analysis of the NO2 emissions to include background concentrations and surrounding sources was conducted by Meridian and independently by the NDDoH and compared to the NAAQS levels for both Class I and Class II areas. The results showed that the combined levels of the Refinery, background NOx and surrounding permitted sources, were at approximately 60% of the NAAQS with background being approximately 19% of the NAAQS limit. Further, the analysis showed that the NO2 contribution by Refinery was only 5.3 ug/m3 or less than 3% of the NAAQS level. This result was actually confirmed by Dr. Andrew Gray as an independent consultant who submitted his review on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association. 32l) Comment: Assumptions, guarantees and data used to generate the estimated levels of pollutants emitted into the air should be scrutinized by independent experts hired by the state. Considering the air quality application of 55,000 bpd exceeds the Public Service Commission review limit of 50,000 bpd the North Dakota Department of Health should withhold the permit to construct until Meridian submits and passes a review by the Public Service Commission. Meridian's application states that they will first build to 27,500 bpd and then in two to three years build the proposed refinery to 55,000 bpd. Even if it takes them 10 years to build up to 55,000 bpd it is still the same project. William Prentice,CEO for Meridian, told investors in a webinar in early 2017 "We fully expect that the finalized refinery will be well above 55,000 barrels per day in capacity." 6 Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent

124

experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. 32m) Comment: For a state agency to participate in helping a company circumvent a part of the regulatory process is unethical. Since Meridian is telling one agency one thing and turning around and telling the Public Service Commission something else, should the North Dakota Department of Health believe the application Meridian submitted? Response: Please see response to Comment 32l. 32n) Comment: Meridian describes itself as a "development state firm that has no operating history."7 Why should they be trusted to build and operate a refinery next to a National Park? This is unproven technology and the place to test it is not next door to a National Park that was named for, and honors, this country's greatest conservationist. We have lived in large cities and major metropolitan areas but over 20 years ago we chose to live in western North Dakota because of its clean air and open spaces. We are concerned about the addition of the proposed Davis Refinery's HAP, VOCs, 03, NOx, SOx and particular matter to an already impacted air quality by industrial development, primarily the result of oil and gas development, that will affect our

125

health and the enjoyment of the National Park and the National Grasslands. If NDDoH issues this permit as proposed we believe that through the exposure we are likely to experience long term respiratory problems and/or cancer from air pollutants emitted by Davis Refinery. Response: Please see response to Comment 32a. 32o) Comment: We urge you to deny this permit, but if you must approve it please put a condition on it that Meridian will have to obtain a siting permit from the Public Service Commission. Thank you. Response: Each agency that Meridian has applied has a different emphasis of concern related to regulations and compliance. There currently is no overarching process or regulatory requirement within North Dakota for a single application being reviewed by all regulatory entities within the State. Meridian has therefore applied to each agency based on the requirements of that agency and has complied with applicable current regulatory requirements for each application we have submitted. To now say that Meridian must meet requirements that are not currently in regulation and/or to change regulatory requirements “in mid-stream” is not legally possible. We suggest that, if the public and regulators desire to change the current review processes for major projects, please proceed to change them as you deem necessary through appropriate legislative and legal channels. However, we stress that Meridian has appropriately followed and complied with current applicable regulations and permit processes and to say otherwise is just not correct.

126

33) Response to Pat Hedstrup 33a) Comment: Concerns that the technology proposed at the Refinery has not been proven. Where is this technology currently used and who uses it? Response: The technology for the control of emissions from refineries are well known and have been implemented for years at facilities across the US for multiple industrial applications. Some of the control technologies are listed at the US EPA Technology Transfer Network Clean Air Technology Center - RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse https://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action=Results.PermitSearchResults In addition, we point the reviewer to the Application for Air Quality Permit documents submitted to the NDDoH by Meridian for this project. Within this document, there is detailed and in-depth discussion of the control technologies used and the sources for the data. 33b) Comment: Concerns about only a limited amount of pollutants being monitored. Response: The draft PTC places limits on the emissions of all criteria pollutants, such as SO2, NOX, CO, H2S, PM10, PM2.5, and VOC (Pages 6 through 13). There are a number of non-criteria pollutants that are sub-species, most specifically VOC’s. VOC’s include all volatile compounds including minute and trace levels of hazardous air pollutants (similar to what is found in gasoline and diesel). These were required to be separately identified and quantified as part of the application process. Capturing of the compliance for these emissions will be done by the monitoring and controls implementing for VOCs since they are a subset of the VOC emissions. 33c) Comment: Referred to Craig Thorstenson’s request on additional documentation to support the new technology to be used at the Refinery. Response: The documentation request by Mr. Thorstenson was submitted for review by the NDDoH. The NDDoH was satisfied with the additional support data provided by Meridian. 33d) Comment: Makes the claim that this project is a scam. Response: Meridian does not agree with this statement but respects the opinion of the commenter. No technical or regulatory question was posed.

127

34) Response to Braden Amick Response: Meridian appreciates the support and comments. Further, you raised a fair concern that of vehicular traffic emissions from visitors within the Park. For comparison, we have run the estimated tailpipe emissions from the more than 600,000 visitors to the National Park. Utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website, and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors from the vehicles while they are in the Park, the emissions from those vehicles are several times the levels of the emissions estimated from this plant.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

128

35) Response to Bradley Kropp Comment: I am very concerned about the impact of air pollution from the proposed Davis Oil Refinery on Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I ask that the North Dakota Department of Health not issue a Minor Source Air Permit to Meridian Energy Group. The proposal does not adequately protect against all contingencies and the refinery is not far from the park. Our economy has already begun to move beyond fossil fuels and to run the risk of polluting one of America's parks is both short sighted and unnecessary. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated based on the review conducted by NDDoH. This is further supported by the comments received from the NP) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our claims or NDDoH findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant.

129

36) Response to Bonnie Palecek Comment: I am a lifelong citizen of North Dakota. My roots remain deep in the North Dakota prairie. My great-grandparents homesteaded here. At 74, I long to preserve and protect this precious land for my own great-grandchildren. I firmly believe in a role for government in protecting our common heritage. The Department of Health is charged with that awesome responsibility, and I implore you to fulfill that responsibility by taking this public comment input seriously as you make crucial permitting decisions about the proposed siting of the Davis Refinery within 2.5 miles of the South Unit of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I must admit I struggle with trust in government processes these days. I struggle even more with trust in the corporate world to value anything more than the bottom line dollar. From what I have seen and read, Meridian has not earned my trust. And it seems our Public Service Commission and the DoH share this distrust. I am really fearful of the domino effect should this site be granted a permit. Meridian is apparently already looking for sites for related efforts. Talk about counting unhatched chickens! And speaking of unknowns, as a start-up company, Meridian actually has no track record on maintaining any standards. So it seems as a taxpayer, DoH is gambling my money on what might well be extraordinary monitoring and “fixes” after a permit is granted. I don’t feel I can afford such a gamble. Please say no to this permit. Once our precious earth resources are lost, there is no fix. We all have one chance to do this right. Frankly, the “we will be watching” stance rings hollow. I understand this is a difficult and complicated call for DoH, but please take a stand in favor of our mutual, precious, long term legacy. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Further, the comment is speculative and may be properly addressed through zoning laws and other regulations.

130

37) Response to Corrine Lee 37a) Comment: I am just incredulous that Meridian Energy has gotten this far in the permitting process. It should have been rejected from the very beginning for the ridiculous proposal of building an oil refinery next to Theodore Roosevelt National Park. As far as I can tell, the air quality permit in question for the Davis oil refinery is based on Meridian's theories and promises. Meridian claims that this refinery will be "the cleanest oil refinery on the planet!", but they have admitted that only parts of their planned refinery are actually tested and part of currently functioning oil refineries. There is no refinery in existence that is composed of all the cutting edge technology they are proposing--in other words, the refinery they plan to build is theoretical, has not been tested. So I ask again; why, why, why ! has Meridian even gotten this far in the permitting process? Since the proposed refinery is to be built next to Theodore Roosevelt National Park (which I do not agree with-at all!) shouldn't the baseline standard, the very minimum, the bare minimum standard be that it will incorporate proven technology? Why is the state of North Dakota willing to use TRNP as a testing ground and risk doing irreversible damage to our (your) national park based on Meridian's hopes and projections and promises? Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPs and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period.

131

Regarding your claim of “unproven technology”, Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. 37b) Comment: The current permitting process only allows for separate determinations from separate departments on certain aspects of the proposal and other important aspects are not considered because they are not included in any department's jurisdiction. A proposal as large and significant and risky as this oil refinery needs to be looked at in its entirety and in ND that can only be done through the siting process of the Public Service Commission. Response: Any determination as to whether Meridian is required to site the Davis Refinery with the North Dakota Public Service Commission is governed by Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Section 49-22.1-01-6) provides that Energy Conversion Facilities, such as a refinery, are only subject to the provisions of Chapter 49-22.1 if the refinery is designed for or capable of refining 50,000 BBLS of crude oil per day. Since other permits, such as water permits and air permits have different criteria for determining if Meridian must make application, it is nonsensical to suggest that the requirement for a water permit or air permit for the refinery should trigger the requirement to have the refinery sited under Chapter 49-22.1. If those who oppose the refinery believe that the criteria of an air permit or a water permit should trigger a requirement to obtain a certificate of site compatibility under Chapter 49-22.1, then the current statute relative to siting needs to be amended. 37c) Comment: Meridian Energy has resisted repeated requests by the PSC to go through the siting process and has even suspiciously reduced the proposed output of the refinery from 55,000 barrels to 49,500 so that it just squeaks below the amount at which a PSC siting permit is required. If Meridian is so certain of its claim that the Davis refinery will be the "cleanest on the planet" then they should welcome a comprehensive inspection and undergo the PSC siting process. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH.

132

To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 37d) Comment: Since the decision made by Billings county commission has allowed this ridiculous proposal to begin the permitting process I think the people of North Dakota and the nation deserve to see Meridian Energy's refinery proposal undergo the most rigorous scrutiny possible before it moves ahead with plans to build their refinery next to our National Park. Response: As previously noted, the Davis Refinery qualifies as a Synthetic Minor Source. The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered MACT.

133

38) Response to Cecilia Montesdeoca Comment: I am looking for details regarding the timeline of Meridian Energy Group Inc.'s air quality application. My understanding was that the initial application submitted in Oct 2016 needed to be amended and resubmitted. The NDDH website says the application has been received. Does this mean the amended application was received? Can you please provide me with details as to why the initial application needed to be amended? Thank you. Look forward from hearing from you. Response: The draft permit documentation is part of the public record and available at: https://deq.nd.gov/AQ/permitting/PTCInProgress.aspx The initial application was amended and resubmitted in April 2017 to account for design changes to the originally submitted Refinery processing scheme to specifically address processing of Bakken Crudes and the ultimate intended production slate for the Davis Refinery.

134

39) Response to Cgjanzen@comcast.net (C-20) 39a) Comment: I OPPOSE the construction of a dirty oil refinery right next to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park which is a national treasure. Allowing an oil refinery so close to his namesake, is the exact opposite of what Theodore Roosevelt was about. He wanted our parks and wilderness to be protected from destruction by the dirty energy industry or any other special interest group that puts their own agenda ahead of our park system. All oil refineries are dirty, contrary to Meridian’s claims that they will build the "cleanest refinery on the planet." There is no such thing as a clean oil refinery so please don’t buy into that lie. Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the NP) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 39b) Comment: Nobody wants to see an oil refinery while they’re driving into a national park. This is NOT the place for an industrial blight like an oil refinery. The visual, noise, and pollution impacts are unavoidable and unacceptable and should be placed in an industrial part of the state, not next to a park.

135

Response: Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 39c) Comment: I’m sure you are aware that Meridian has changed their tune many times. Meridian is just another dirty energy company that cares only about its profits and will tell investors and regulators different specifications and capacity numbers depending on how they want to spin it. Anyone who thinks they will be a good corporate neighbor, needs their head examined. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the

136

Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 39d) Comment: The Visibility Impact Study conducted by Meridian is flawed as no readings were taken on the east boundary closest to the facility. That alone should keep their facility from going forward. No oil facility next to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park as this is a horrible use of the land and totally undermines our park system that is about preserving our beautiful parks, not refining oil. Response: Please refer to previous responses. Meridian respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Further, the comment is speculative and may be properly addressed through zoning laws and other regulations.

137

40) Response to Julie Koehler 40a) Comment: There just isn't any way that any permit can prevent the air pollution that will come from the proposed Davis refinery. All refineries pollute the air, land, and water - and as a driver I know I am part of the problem for needing refineries in the first place. However, some places are just too special to even be considered for a refinery, and 2.5 miles from the South Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park on of those places. Response: Meridian respects the opinion of the commenter. The permit application and the permit to construct followed the NDAC §33-15-14 air regulations to account for and minimize as much as possible the emissions from the refinery. The application shows full compliance with all required regulations and standards both within the Park as well as the area in general. In addition, Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. 40b) Comment: No matter the assurances from Meridian, a company of questionable ethics to begin with, there will be major air pollution from the proposed refinery. They know it, you know it, and public citizens like us know it. Response: Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. These values show the facility qualifies as a synthetic minor (not major) emissions source. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the US EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA apparently agree with this. 40c) Comment: Our national parks are our treasures. Open lands are disappearing, making our national parks even more important to every citizen. It is already bad enough that this park is no longer quiet because of all the noise from the oil wells surrounding it, and no longer dark at night due to all the lights from the wells. But that does not justify also polluting the air in and around the park, fouling the viewshed from the park, or taking away the viewshed altogether due to dirty air. And then there are the toxins that would be blown into the air, then falling to the ground, and also going into the area's ground and surface waters ....

138

Response: Meridian has no control over the operations of the Oil and Gas industry surrounding the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. As relates to the estimated impacts from the facility to the Park, Meridian, and the NDDoH and the National Park Service independently have all analyzed the impacts of the facility to the Park and all results show compliance with applicable regulatory standards for air impacts for normal plant operations. 40d) Comment: The refinery, and anything related to the refinery, should NOT be permitted. It is WRONG! Please deny all permits for, and related to, this refinery! Response: Meridian respects the opinion of the commenter and thanks him for his submittal.

139

41) Response to Marie Hoff (WT-2) 41a) Comment: The only piece of land in all of North Dakota that is owned by all Americans is the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I am writing as an American and a resident of North Dakota who takes great pride in our common Ownership of this beautiful and unique place. An oil refinery on the front door of the Park is a real abomination, a desecration of one of our nation’s sacred places. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter and thanks them for the comment. 41b) Comment: Words cannot begin to express my anger and dismay at this proposal. All Americans have a stake in this issue, not just N. Dakotans. The developers keep claiming it will be a clean refinery: it is STILL an oil refinery. Response: The air permitting process, the air emissions limits that are required to be met and the air emissions modeling conducted for this facility are designed to be protective of the human health and the environment. By Meridian showing compliance with all applicable standards, it has met the regulatory basis to be issued a permit by showing it can comply with applicable standards that are protective of air quality in general and within the Park. 41c) Comment: The air permitting process, the air emissions limits that are required to be met and the air emissions modeling conducted for this facility are designed to be protective of the human health and the environment. By Meridian showing compliance with all applicable standards, it has met the regulatory basis to be issued a permit by showing it can comply with applicable standards that are protective of air quality in general and within the Park. Response: The Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. As relates to the commenter’s concern in general regarding vehicular emissions, for comparison, we refer the commenter to the estimated vehicular emissions generated from within the Park from vehicular traffic from visitors. As Response 6 shows, the estimated emissions from within the Park are many times greater than the estimated emissions from the NDDR facility.

140

41d) Comment: Significant air quality impacts and dangers of major spills or leaks will undoubtedly also accrue from pipeline transport of oil. Response: For the significant air quality impacts, see Response 41c above. Regarding pipeline transport, at present, the primary means of materials transport is proposed to be trucks. In addition, the transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Responsibility and response requirements for spills from pipeline transportation are regulated under 49 CFR Part 172 Section 1 through 822. No accrual of major spills is allowed under the regulations. 41e) Comment: I strongly suspect that eventually the owners would be pressing for water to be piped from Lake Sakakawea, generating even more noxious air and land impacts, as well as potential water depletion. This proposal cannot be appraised in segmented fashion: the entire range of ecological impacts must be assessed in relationship, because that is how ecological systems work: everything affects how everything else functions. Response: Review of water rights and water usage is not specifically part of the process or part of the consideration related to issuance of this air permit. However, Meridian has applied to the State as required for use of highly brackish groundwater at depth below the facility and this permit is under a separate review by the State. 41f) Comment: The corporate owners have shown huge disrespect to the people of North Dakota by corning in with different proposed production levels presented in different venues. I believe the intention is to get it built with no comprehensive review by the Public Service Commission, and then when attention quiets down, to stealthily increase the daily production. What a nasty insulting trick! Give everyone the same numbers! Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded

141

to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permits issued to the facility or by market conditions. The permit application reflects the request for a production limit of 55,000 bpd. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never design or build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. 41g) Comment: A refinery facility already exists in Dickinson. Williston is in the heart of oil production country. If another refinery is needed (something I doubt), it should be located someplace already compromised by oil production, NOT NEXT TO THE PREMIER NATIONAL PARK and the ONLY REMAINING small genuine natural area in North Dakota. North Dakota holds in trust a national and world class treasure; Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated for the proposed Davis Refinery. With regard to the visitors and wildlife within the Park being threatened, as we stated before, a preliminary analysis of the vehicular emissions generated from over 600,000 visitors within the Park (see table below) shows that the estimated tailpipe emissions are conservatively several multiples higher than the emissions anticipated from this facility. This analysis was completed utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors’ vehicles while they are in the Park.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

142

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

41h) Comment: I strongly urge the State to not let it be degraded for temporary and even dubious economic gain for private parties. Our people and our Park deserve better. Response: Please see response to Comment 41g.

143

42) Response to Teresa Seamster 42a) Comment: As a health researcher working on medical, social and cultural impacts of oil development on nearby communities and National Parks, our the air quality data shows the following results of approving Minor Source Air Permits for oil facilities located adjacent to residents and Parks: 1. Number of visitors declines significantly (up to 30-40%) 2. Revenue to parks drops as the visual landscape becomes industrialized and visible air pollution days increase 3. Residents and visitors complain of sudden headaches, noxious odors, respiratory symptoms - coughing, throat and nasal irritation, nosebleeds, dizziness and nausea when exposed to nearby flaring and other less visible emissions from wells and refineries Response: Meridian is not involved in the oil development in the nearby communities and National Parks nor does it have any control over such activities. Analysis conducted by Meridian and independently verified by analysis of the NDDoH and even the NPS of this application and proposed permit shows that the facility would be fully compliant both inside and outside the Park area with all required air impacts for emissions from the facility. 42b) Comment:

1. Number of visitors declines significantly (up to 30-40%) 2. Revenue to parks drops as the visual landscape becomes 3. industrialized and visible air pollution days increase

Response: According to the statistics of the National Parks Service, the attendance to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park has seen a net increase from 456,588 visitors in 2007 to 708,003 in 2017. The statistics cited by the commenter are either erroneous or associated with a different National Park. Reference: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=KNRI . 42c) Comment: Residents and visitors complain of sudden headaches, noxious odors, respiratory symptoms - coughing, throat and nasal irritation, nosebleeds, dizziness and nausea when exposed to nearby flaring and other less visible emissions from wells and refineries.

144

Response: Please see response to Comment 42a. 42d) Comment: Ongoing symptoms are correlated with eventual illness - the most serious ones being childhood asthma, neural tube and heart disorder in newborns whose mothers have been exposed to BTEX emissions, lung and renal cancers, and ongoing memory and cognitive disorders. No industrial infrastructure of this type with these ongoing toxic emissions should be located near any community or next to a National Park. Response: Please see response to Comment 42a. In addition, neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated for the proposed Davis Refinery. 42e) Comment: As one of the 1.3 million supporters of the National Parks Conservation Association, I am deeply concerned about the impact of air pollution from the proposed Davis Oil Refinery on Theodore Roosevelt National Park and ask that the North Dakota Department of Health not issue a Minor Source Air Permit to Meridian Energy Group. Based on independent industry expert review, it appears that the draft air permit is a "bait and switch." It relies on company claims about unusually low emissions, but doesn't prove low limits can be met or require adequate monitoring to make sure they are. The proposal also fails to protect against peak impacts from the highest levels of pollution -- what occurs during flaring as well as startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. All of this means that the proposed refinery could emit pollution well beyond the levels permitted. Due to the close proximity of the refinery to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the flawed draft permit, I urge the North Dakota Department of Health to deny Meridian's request. If the agency is to move forward, I request it conduct a more rigorous assessment of the Davis Oil Refinery and require the refinery go through a major source of air pollution permit review, including requirements for the best available controls. Response: Please see responses to 2a, 2b, and 2c.

145

43) Response to Gary Anderson Comment: I am writing with regards to the proposed Davis Refinery, to be located three miles from Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I was incredibly dismayed to learn that this would even be considered to be built so close to a national park. I live in Washington State, but have relatives in North Dakota and have visited the state since the 1970's. I am a chemical engineer and work in the power industry, and have gone to North Dakota several times in the past few years to work at the coal- fired power plants there. I biked through Theodore Roosevelt National Park in 2009 while on vacation, and during one work trip in 2012, I took a day off to hike through the park, and of course loved it. The landscape, wildlife / bison, petrified forest remains, were all very memorable. One thing that stuck out in my mind during my 2012 trip to Theodore Roosevelt National Park were the oil wells located just outside the park. The sight and smells associated with these wells I felt detracted from the park experience. Having a refinery nearby would make things exponentially worse. Having been to refineries in Texas for work, the odors from these plants are very distinct and unpleasant. While the proposed Davis Refinery may be advertised as state-of-the-art and one of the cleanest built, the odors from these facilities cannot be removed completely. This is definitely not something that should be built adjacent to a national park. At night, light pollution from the refinery would also be an issue. Please do the right thing and immediately drop the plans to build the refinery at the proposed location. I realize that a refinery would help North Dakota's economy, but there are other areas located much further away from Theodore Roosevelt National Park where this could be built. It may add to the cost, but will keep our national parks at a safe distance. Making this effort will show that North Dakota values our historic national treasures and the tourists who come to visit them Response: Meridian agree’s that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Meridian wishes to clarify what makes this Refinery different from those already operating in Texas. The permit application and equipment design is centered on avoiding the pitfalls of already established refineries that were placed into consent decrees for failure to maintain emissions control. In addition, Meridian will be installing controls on process systems that in the past, typically did not have controls or the level of controls (or related testing) that are being proposed for this facility. This is the reason why the emissions from this facility are so much lower than what is typical within an industry that has been in operations for several decades.

146

Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. For comparison of the anticipated emissions from the Refinery, we have run the estimated tailpipe emissions from the more than 600,000 visitors to the National Park. Utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website, and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors from the vehicles while they are in the Park, the emissions from those vehicles are several times the levels of the emissions estimated from this plant.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

147

44) Response to Glen Lohmann Response: Meridian appreciates the support and comments. Further, you raised a fair concern that of vehicular traffic emissions from visitors within the Park. For comparison, we have run the estimated tailpipe emissions from the more than 600,000 visitors to the National Park. Utilizing traffic count data publicly available from the Park Service website, and only looking at the emissions produced from those visitors from the vehicles while they are in the Park, the emissions from those vehicles are several times the levels of the emissions estimated from this plant.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Type (VMT) Emissions, Ton per year (TPY)

Year Traffic Count

TOTAL MILES LDG HDG HDD MOT HC CO NOX PM Tot

2017 111,289 2,003,202 1,502,402 260,416 200,320 40,064 80 1,039 359 359 2016 107,850 1,941,300 1,455,975 252,369 194,130 38,826 78 1,007 348 348 2015 89,929 1,618,722 1,214,042 210,434 161,872 32,374 65 839 290 290 2014 86,545 1,557,810 1,168,358 202,515 155,781 31,156 62 808 279 279 2013 88,637 1,595,466 1,196,600 207,411 159,547 31,909 64 827 286 286

Estimated Emissions From Meridian Refinery at Full Production (Phase II) 61.63 (As VOC) 79.6 38.95 12.99

148

45) Response to Deborah Larson Comment: I have no scientific data to back my objection to the Davis Refinery project, but as a longtime resident of ND, I continue to be amazed and appalled by the ongoing rape of my state in the name of progress and oil production. And now we are faced with approving another Refinery not only within sight of the beautiful Badlands, but also spewing cancer causing gases and pollutants. (Lucky for us, the sulfur, methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, cyanide, mercury and arsenic will be less than 100 tons annually)wink, wink! Since money always trumps common sense, I know the project is a go and I’m wasting my time writing this. I just want to go on the record as objecting to the location of the Davis Refinery. Build it up near Watford City or the Williston area where there’s already so many eyesores that it won’t matter. Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Furthermore, even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the

149

South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Meridian respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Further, the comment is speculative and may be properly addressed through zoning laws and other regulations.

150

46) Response to Deeann Baertsch Comment: I am a Billings County resident and would like to voice my strong opposition to the location of the Davis Refinery 3 miles from Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Regardless of the air quality issues which I believe are unproven I do not believe any refinery should be within a close proximity to any national park. This is the only national park we have in North Dakota and I would not believe it would be in anyone's best interest to claim that we have an oil refinery 3 miles away from our national park. We already have enough visual degradation from nearby oil wells which is not a justification to further degrade the park in any way, whether it be visual, water, or air quality issues. As a landowner in Billings County I also have serious concerns about the water needs for this plant; I believe there is a reason most refineries are located next to a flowing water source. If this is indeed a viable business venture which I doubt from the numerous questionable solicitations for investment in this project that I have personally received, let it go in another location where there is no legitimate objection. Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Regarding your alleged claim of further park degradation, please see the response to Comment 4e. Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant.

151

The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Review of water rights and water usage is not specifically part of the process or part of the consideration related to issuance of this air permit. However, Meridian has applied to the State as required for use of highly brackish groundwater at depth below the facility and this permit is under a separate review by the State. Consideration of brackish water has been taken into account in the Refinery’s process design

152

47) Response to Donald Jablonsky Comment: I am in favor of the Davis Refinery project. It appears that they have met or exceeded all the requirements for a Refinery. I am a life time resident of Belfield. The Administrators of Theodore Roosevelt Park are raising concerns as to the proximity to the park. The prevailing winds in ND are from the northwest which should tell the park officials something. Also the Park officials should be more concerned about taking care of the park. I go through the park at least twice a year for 40 years. To me every year it gets more disgusting. Take a look what is happening inside our park. The prairie dogs are out of control. It is sickening to see that happening. Then look at the noxious weeds that are taking over. Leafy spurge, and Canadian thistle are out of control. The park officials would be better off taking care of our park so we can enjoy it in the future and not worry about the Refinery and let the state do their job. Do residents of Bismarck, Mandan protest the Tesoro Refinery? No because air quality, emissions control are closely regulated by the state as would the Davis Refinery. Does anybody even say anything about Interstate 94 goes right through the park? Are the emissions from the cars and heavy trucks going on the interstate pollute the park? Are they being monitored by the North Dakota Health? Like I said I have gone through the park here, but the last few years we have included the north unit which is more beautiful. Why, you do not see any prairie dog towns, noxious weeds as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle. Response: Meridian appreciates the support and comments. Further, you raised a fair concern, that of vehicular traffic emissions from visitors within the Park and furthermore, from vehicular traffic from other than visitors to the Park on Interstate 94 that goes right through the park.. For more detailed information on the traffic in the park, please see the response to Comment 44.

153

48) Response to Dawn Packard 48a) Comment: This letter is to register my opposition to the Davis Refinery. The Davis Refinery will be approximately 3 miles from the Eastern boundary of the South Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I feel this is unacceptably close to TRNP. The refinery will release sulfur, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon monoxide, benzene, cyanide, arsenic, and mercury. These pollutants are known to cause harm to human health. Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NP) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 48b) Comment: The developers of the Davis Refinery are also adopting a cynical approach to the permitting process, stating that the refinery will produce 49,500 barrels a day, thus avoiding the PSC Siting Permit requirement for refineries producing 50,000 barrels per day or more. It is time to stand up to unfettered energy development in North Dakota's Badlands. Oil and gas development has already reduced Little Missouri State Park to a hollow shell. Let's not let that happen to Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Responsible development of North Dakota's energy resources can occur without spoiling our parks and endangering the health of their visitors, flora, and fauna. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and

154

the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Further, this comment has no regulatory basis under NDAC § 33-15-14. 48c) Comment: It is time to stand up to unfettered energy development in North Dakota's Badlands. Oil and gas development has already reduced Little Missouri State Park to a hollow shell. Let's not let that happen to Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Responsible development of North Dakota's energy resources can occur without spoiling our parks and endangering the health of their visitors, flora, and fauna. Response: Regarding your assertion of “Responsible development of North Dakota's energy resources can occur without spoiling our parks and endangering the health of their visitors, flora, and fauna.” – As previously stated, Meridian has spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

155

The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Furthermore, with regard to your concern about depositional effects on the Park, the NPS conducted deposition modeling and found no potential issues. See "NPS Air Quality Related Values Modeling Analysis" on page 3 of January 18, 2018 National Park Service - Air Resource Division Technical Comments letter.

156

49) Response to Dorothy Reil Comment: I am pretty sure since I can't go very often to Williston because of that radio active pit and all the gases that emit because they refuse to just haul in dry stuff. I sure would hate if I could not go to Dickinson because of a stinking gas refinery. I am so allergic to benzene that it just scares me. In 2016, I was having Lasix between the blood transfusions and then that changed to after the two units each day. well, I developed this horrible rash on my chest and neck. It itched like sin and that did not go away for a MONTH. I finally checked out Lasix and of course it is comprised of benzene as all meds are, and how scary is that. That little bottle of Lasix is no bigger than the end of my little finger, yet contained enough benzene to drive me bonkers itching. I got concerned at the outer rash, wondering just what the heck if it was an inner thing too, and managed to choke off my breathing! So the stuff is deadly to me. I guess 74 units of blood since 2011 should mean something to someone. Benzene destroys the blood cells and the cell makers in the bone marrow too. BAD STUFF. I keep telling my story, but I am pretty sure people just go ho hum what a looney bin. well I wish they'd just go on line and do some research! Please NO refinery near Highway 85! Response: Meridian respects the opinion and editorial discussion by the commenter. Regarding risk of potential Benzene emissions. The Refinery is highly regulated in that regard. Further, conscious of the health concerns with potential Benzene emissions from its proposed refinery, Meridian Energy is in agreement with NDDoH’s requirement in draft Permit Condition II.E.18 to implement “a Department approved benzene fence line monitoring program” with a five (5) years record retention requirement that “can be readily accessed within 24 hours upon Department request”.

157

50) Response to Deborah Zillich Comment: I recently attended the public hearing in Dickinson for the air quality permit being considered for the Meridian Davis Refinery. I want to thank you for sharing information regarding this project. I am still concerned with the siting of a refinery this close to our national treasure in North Dakota, Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I don't believe the numbers being presented by Meridian. Since this is the first refinery of this type being built, the information being presented should be viewed with some amount of skepticism. The numbers can be manipulated and the models run to provide whatever data the company needs to meet the stringent Health Department requirements. I also believe the air quality permitting should not only look at the emissions from the refinery but all the dust and particulate matter that will be going into the air with the large number of trucks that this project will require to be driving on the dusty dirt roads and well as the fuel emissions from these diesel trucks. I appreciate the fact that Meridian is attempting to build a "clean" refinery. I just reject the siting of this plant so close to the park and so close to I-94 at the gateway to the park. Please reject the application for the clean air permit for this project!! Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the

158

NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Regarding emissions generated by loading/unloading truck traffic as well as plant personnel, those were included in the permit application and emissions inventory in accordance with EPA’s Protocol. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

159

51) Response to Dean Rummel Comment: My name is Dean Rummel, I am retired and reside in Dickinson. I enjoyed over 125 days in the TR National Park at Medora the past 12 months. My passion is photography in the TR Park capturing sunrises, sunsets, wildlife and scenery especially in the fall, winter and spring seasons. I attended the public meeting and hearing in Dickinson and understand that your focus by law is on air permitting. I was a business person my entire career and am certainly not against this refinery. They just need to locate it further east and away from the TR National Park. In the Bismarck Tribune on 1-14-2018 it stated that the "water vapor plume from a cooling tower would be seen an estimated 15 daylight hours a year typically on cold days with no wind." I have been in the TR Park on many days that were "cold and with no wind." There is also many with wind! My concern is we are just adding this to the other things that infringe on the beauty of the TR National Park. I have taken over 100,000 photos inside the park (I will attach a few examples) and I already have to watch for the following: Cell phone and other towers on the southeast, east, west and south side of the park. (We all do like cell coverage everywhere we go.) Vapor trails from the numerous aircraft that almost always interfere with sunrises and sunsets. Flaring from oil wells on the north side of the park that have been unusually large this winter. Traffic from Interstate 94. Drilling and work over rigs from time to time. Oil storage tanks. Accidental fires and the burning that was used to clean up oil spills. Planes flying low over the park. In addition, often times you can smell H2S on the north side of the park especially during cold weather. I have hiked nearly every area in this park and if we keep adding all these exceptions together someday there will not be a day or time without some type of outside interference. There is no place like the TR National Park and if we continue on this path it will be ruined for all future generations. I know you can only consider "air quality" but anything in the air that close to the TR National Park just needs to be avoided. Thanks for your efforts. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis.

160

Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Specifically we think the comment in regards to what was published in the Bismarck Tribune is referring to the condensed water vapor plume that would be generated from the cooling tower facility under an appropriate combination of meteorological conditions. The plume can dissipate or can become visible depending on the meteorological conditions, specifically the dew point. The reference to the cold day is akin to how the water vapor in the breath of a person will condense and become visible during cold days. Although not required by the applicable regulations, Meridian conducted a visibility analysis that took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a condensed water plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the Refinery site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the Refinery would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the Refinery. Furthermore, the NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, as a frequent visitor to the Park you would agree that you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the Refinery viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine.

161

52) Response to David Addison 52a) Comment: Should the proposed Davis Oil Refinery be approved, the air pollution produced by this 55,000-barrel per day oil operation would be very damaging to the entire area. The request made by the Meridian Energy Group is for a Minor Source Air Permit, but the daily damage to the air quality would hardly be classified as "minor." Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 52b) Comment: Besides relying on manufactured statistics related to extremely low emissions throughout its operation, neither flaws, nor flares, nor malfunctions of any nature would ever occur during this site's time. Aside from unplanned errors, the daily operation would produce air pollution in the moderate to high realm. The surrounding area would most certainly have very negative effects throughout this operation. The North Dakota Department of Health should take the only sane action and deny Meridian's request. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Response: Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar

162

applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

163

53) Response to Daniel Brown Comment: I'm writing in regards to the proposed refinery near Teddy Roosevelt National Park. I recently had a chance to visit North Dakota for the first time in September and October of this year. I was visiting after staying in the Sierra Nevada mountains all summer, near the Nevada border One the highlights of my stay was a trip through TRNP. Seeing the prairie dogs, bison and other wildlife in such a pristine environment was spectacular and began to open my eyes to the beauty that North Dakota has to offer. I had missed the clean air and beauty of the mountains and pine forests of the west coast but the raw and rugged beauty of TRNP made me feel more at home. After building a mountain bike trail I thought was pretty spectacular, hiking the Maah Daah Hey gave me a great perspective on how a trail can work with the terrain to create something truly wonderful that can draw people from all over the world. An oil refinery in the area could easily ruin all of this. From air pollution ruining the clean environment to increased traffic making the area harder to access, a nearby oil refinery would have significantly lessened my experience in TRNP. I think risking the beauty and pristine nature of an area with such a powerful tourism draw is a foolish and shortsighted thing to do. I hope that you will take this into account when considering the proposed refinery and what other natural resources North Dakota has to offer the world. Response: Meridian agree’s that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed

164

modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

165

54) Response to Steve Spacek Comment: I am deeply concerned about the impact of air pollution from the proposed Davis Refinery at Roosevelt National Park. As a public service professional and educator, I request the state Department of Health DENY any "Minor Source Air" Permit to Meridian Energy Group. In the last seven years, North Dakota has been rated a "worst" government in the American State Litter Scorecard Due to the close proximity of this potentially "deadly bad air" refinery to Roosevelt, please reject Meridian's permit request. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

166

55) Response to Joan Waddell 55a) Comment: I am writing to oppose the building of the Davis Oil Refinery complex, especially because it is so close to the Teddy Roosevelt National Park. From what I understand, North Dakota Department of Health has not received concrete information about the construction of and the emissions from the refinery. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an

167

independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 55b) Comment: Also, It seems pretty clear that Davis Oil means to grow the complex to a 55 barrels per day facility, once they gain this approval. Response: Please see the response to Comment 6b. 55c) Comment: I am concerned that we will ruin MORE of our natural and beautiful parkland, never to get it back again. PLEASE do not let this happen. Response: Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

168

56) Response to Joseph Jastrzembski Comment: I am writing to oppose the building of the Davis Oil Refinery complex, especially because it is so close to the Teddy Roosevelt National Park. From what I understand, North Dakota Department of Health has not received concrete information about the construction of and the emissions from the refinery. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the Refinery would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the Refinery. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine.

169

Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

170

57) Response to Jonathon Torfin Comment: I am writing to oppose the building of the Davis Oil Refinery complex, especially because it is so close to the Teddy Roosevelt National Park. From what I understand, North Dakota Department of Health has not received concrete information about the construction of and the emissions from the refinery. Response: Please see the response to Comment 56.

171

58) Response to Jon Stika 58a) Comment: Following are my concerns regarding the construction and operation of the Davis Refinery: • Viewshed of Theodore Roosevelt National Park - The experience of visitors to the South Unit of TRNP (Theodore Roosevelt National Park)

should not be impaired by the ability to see lights or condensing vapors from the proposed refinery. Odors emitted by the refinery would also impair the visitor experience at TRNP.

Response: Please see the response to Comment 56. 58b) Comment: Following are my concerns regarding the construction and operation of the Davis Refinery: • Water - There has been little information regarding the source and amount of water the refinery will need to operate or how waste water

will be disposed of. I think this should be addressed and publicized as the air quality information has.

Response: Review of water rights and water usage is not specifically part of the process or part of the consideration related to issuance of this air permit. However, Meridian has applied to the State as required for use of highly brackish groundwater at depth below the facility and this permit is under a separate review by the State. Consideration of brackish water has been taken into account in the Refinery’s process design.

172

59) Response to JoAnn Unruh 59a) Comment: My family has farmed in ND since 1914. I grew up on the farm, own farmland in ND, and have a continuing interest in the ND economy, society, and quality of life. Theodore Roosevelt National Park was the first national park my parents, siblings, and I traveled to on one of our few family vacations in the 1960’s. Even then we took pride in knowing that our state had stewardship of an area held in high regard by Americans for its historical significance, natural beauty, and wildlife populations. Since then I have visited Theodore Roosevelt NP numerous times, and last year my brother and I took our elderly mother to the park on what will likely be her last road trip and family vacation. My pride and connection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park are not uncommon and are shared by almost everyone I know in ND. Having clean air in the park is imperative, and no risks should be taken that could jeopardize the air quality. Having a refinery so close to the park certainly cannot improve the air quality and can only pose a threat to it now and in the future during construction and operations. Will North Dakota have resources to provide continuing monitoring during construction, and equally as important, during operations? Response: We agree that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NP) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 59b) Comment: I am concerned about Meridian’s lack of transparency and changes in their requests. Too often we see changing conditions cited as a reason for construction and operational changes that lead to shortcuts. I am worried that if construction begins on this site, it will be too difficult to monitor and stop even if the company does not or cannot follow through on their original stated intentions. Future expansion on the site would also have an impact and would be difficult to limit because of the infrastructure that would already in place. Response: Please see the response to Comment 6b.

173

59c) Comment: This project impacts more than air quality and should receive a comprehensive review from an overall perspective of its effects, including the potential threat to the park resources and to tourism and economy in North Dakota if there is degradation to the visitor experience at Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the surrounding communities. The oil industry has boom and bust cycles, but the national park has an enduring history. Please consider my comments regarding this unacceptable site for this refinery so close to a national park. Thank you. Response: Regarding your concern about the project receiving a comprehensive review – As previously noted, the Davis Refinery qualifies as a Synthetic Minor Source. The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered MACT. Regarding your concern of “degradation to the visitor experience at Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the surrounding communities” – As previously stated, Meridian has spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant.

174

Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

175

60) Response to Jeff Weispfenning 60a) Comment: Theodore Roosevelt National Park is a national and North Dakota treasure. TR Park is the ultimate North Dakota location –topping many other worthy geographic or geologic options. Unfortunately, many of those other places are severely damaged by the impacts of industrial forces that generally do as they please to the landscape with the blessing of state regulators. The sight of a refinery belching who knows what is something visitors to the park do not need to see. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park. With regards to viewshed impacts - Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume

176

would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 60b) Comment: North Dakota media have covered the contortions that the sponsoring company has undertaken to squeeze through North Dakota’s regulatory gaps. Response: Please see the response to Comment 6b. 60c) Comment: The impact of this project is such that the State of North Dakota should require a careful site review. I urge that you consider attaching such a condition to any permissions you provide to the proposed location. Response: As previously noted, the Davis Refinery qualifies as a Synthetic Minor Source. The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered MACT response.

177

61) Response to Jack Sorum Comment: I am writing concerning the request for public comment for the proposed Davis Refinery by Meridian Energy Group. I am a life long North Dakota resident and am firmly opposed to the proposed refinery within eye site of our most precious natural resource, Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The fact that the state is even considering siting this refinery near a National Park is unbelievable and appalling. I have been near several refineries and the air quality is compromised no matter what existing technology is used. The visible emissions from a refinery will be an eye sore to anyone visiting the park or enjoying this part of the North Dakota badlands. The state has many locations in much less scenic and sensitive areas which would be more than suitable for a refinery. This proposed location has so many negatives and would be a disgrace to the legacy of our greatest conservation president, Theodore Roosevelt. Please do not approve the permitting of this refinery for this generation and future generations. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Meridian agree’s that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Meridian wishes to clarify what makes this Refinery different from those in operation for several decades. The permit application and equipment design is centered on avoiding the pitfalls of already established refineries that were placed into consent decrees for failure to maintain emissions control. In addition, Meridian will be installing controls on process systems that in the past, typically did not have controls or the level of controls (or related testing) that are being proposed for this facility. This is the reason why the emissions from this facility are so much lower than what is typical within an industry that has been in operations for several decades. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed

178

modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Although not required by the applicable regulations, Meridian conducted a visibility analysis that took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a condensed water plume from the cooling towers from the cooling towers would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the Refinery site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the Refinery would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the Refinery. Furthermore, the NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, as a frequent visitor to the Park you would agree that you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park.

62) Response to Jim Unruh 62a) Comment: This letter expresses my fervent opposition to the placement of an oil refinery anywhere close to the pristine landscape surrounding Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota. May I first state that my family roots in North Dakota extend back to three generations of grain farmers. Although I currently do not live in the state, my family owns several quarters of North Dakota farmland. Each year we make multiple trips to North Dakota to visit relatives, conduct farm business, and to enjoy the stunning landscape and rich heritage within the western part of the state. My opposition to Meridian Energy Group’s proposed site for its Davis Refinery is summarized below:

179

Meridian promises to create a “green” facility; even if this promise were to be kept, the current pristine (Class 1) atmosphere in the National Park will only deteriorate. (As an analogy: How would you settle for “just a very little” toilet sewage in your family’s household drinking water?) Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Additionally, please see the response to Comment 43 for more information on existing emissions from traffic from the park. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. 62b) Comment: Meridian has demonstrated neither honesty nor transparency. Information contained in its permit application is suspect. Response: Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this.

180

62c) Comment: I have been made aware of anecdotal evidence suggesting there are significant discrepancies between information Meridian provided in its application and information supplied to investors. Meridian has shown a pattern of making adjustments based, not with a good-faith plan, but rather by adjusting, then readjusting figures obviously and primarily for the purpose of enhancing chances of success through the application review. Response: Please see the response to Comment 6b. 62d) Comment: Contrary to claims by Meridian and others, this is not a small project. A project of this scope requires comprehensive considerations commensurate with its impact to air and other environmental qualities. An industrial presence has no place within such close proximity to any national park, and certainly not within the atmospheric doorstep of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The proposed location for Meridian’s refinery is worse than unacceptable; it is a travesty Response: As previously noted, the Davis Refinery qualifies as a Synthetic Minor Source. The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered MACT.

181

63) Response to Ken Berian 63a) Comment: The proposed Davis Oil Refinery will certainly produce air pollution onto Theodore Roosevelt National Park well beyond permitted levels. Response: The comment is speculative in nature. 63b) Comment: The North Dakota Department of Health should not issue a Minor Source Air Permit to Meridian Energy Group. The Refinery should have been required to go through a major source of air pollution permit review. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. As previously noted, the Davis Refinery qualifies as a Synthetic Minor Source. The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered MACT.

182

64) Response to Lynn Morgenson 64a) Comment: I am concerned about Meridian Energy's proposal to build a refinery less than three miles from Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Meridian claims it would be the cleanest refinery in the planet, but the company has made questionable claims in the past. Why should we trust that the company will meet air quality requirements. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an

183

independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. The permit draft PTC has strict limitations on individual pieces of equipment and processes regarding the emissions levels that can be emitted. These emissions are required to be verified via strict record keeping, testing and, in many instances, via continuous emissions monitoring systems. Thus, the level of control on emissions is extremely strict and highly restricted by monitoring and testing. Once the facility begins operations, this facility will be the most strictly monitored synthetic minor source facility currently in North Dakota. Thus, the levels of emissions stated in the permit can be relied upon as maximum emissions levels that will be allowed 64b) Comment: TRNP was established to protect a very special part of North Dakota and to preserve it for all to enjoy. Locating industrial development in such close proximity to the park would be a terrible idea. Response: No technical or regulatory question in this comment. Please refer to previous response in relation to proximity to the Park.

184

65) Response to Wally Owen Comment: I am a Billings County Resident, and am very concerned about the negative impact of the Davis Refinery on the air quality, water impact and long term economics. I do not believe we know enough at this time to allow the refinery. T.R. National Park is to (sic) important to risk a air quality compromise. Let alone the visual, economic and water impacts. Please proceed with caution as your guide. We need more impute (sic) before proceeding. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This is further supported by the comments received from the NPS and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. Further, the NDDoH’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both, background and adjacent sources, as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the NDDoH. This more detailed modeling also showed

185

compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. And additionally, by analysis conducted by Dr. Gray, an independent commenter, who concluded that even in a theoretically impossible scenario of continuous flaring 24 hours, 365 days of the year, risks to the park were not significant. Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the cooling tower’s condensed water plume from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Canyon Visitor Center). The plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The NPS did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the Refinery. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, nearby existing pump-jacks, wind mills, county airport, an oil bulking facility, electricity transmission towers and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield. Thus, the viewshed from this acreage from where the Refinery could be seen are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine.

186

66) Response to Theodora Bird Bear 66a) Comment: The federal Class 1 air shed of the national Roosevelt Park in southwest North Dakota is an invaluable resource essential to the integrity and health of the park and must have standing in this matter. Further, local North Dakota residents living near the Roosevelt National Park have benefited from increased health or respiratory protections because of the park's Class 1 Air Shed. Many North Dakotans travel hours - and hundreds of miles - to experience this national park's untarnished views, camping and hiking experiences, and the natural night skies. For decades, the park's Class 1 air shed has been an essential air quality protection that significantly contributed to these positive experiences in the Roosevelt national Park by North Dakotans. If NDDOH Air Quality Division approves an air pollution permit for the proposed Davis refinery, your agency will degrade the national park's federal Class 1 Air Shed. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this.

187

66b) Comment: Even though the State of North Dakota is nationally known for its weak environmental protections, Meridian - the company proposing the Davis refinery - is still deliberately avoiding a complete regulatory review by all pertinent state agencies. Meridian has repeatedly downsized their data projections concerning barrels-per-day and volume of air pollution from the proposed refinery. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Any determination as to whether Meridian is required to site the Davis Refinery with the North Dakota Public Service Commission is governed by Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Section 49-22.1-01(6) provides that Energy Conversion Facilities, such as a refinery, are only subject to the provisions of Chapter 49-22.1 if the refinery is designed for or capable of refining 50,000 BBLS of crude oil per day. Since other permits, such as water permits and air permits have different criteria for determining if Meridian must make application, it is nonsensical to suggest that the requirement for a water permit or air permit for the refinery should trigger the requirement to have the refinery sited under Chapter 49-22.1. If those who oppose the refinery believe that the criteria of an air permit or a water

188

permit should trigger a requirement to obtain a certificate of site compatibility under Chapter 49-22.1, then the current statute relative to siting needs to be amended. 66c) Comment: Due to Meridian's questionable practices, its also obvious that Meridian minimized their refinery data in order to avoid a needed review for a "major" source synthetic air quality permit. Response: As previously noted, the Davis Refinery qualifies as a Synthetic Minor Source. The permit review process for a minor source of air pollution is not as rigorous as that of a major source. However, due to the proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and the public’s interest in this project, NDDoH's review of Meridian's permit application included most of the requirements reserved to reviews of permit application for Major PSD sources of air pollution. Meridian provided information in the permit application comparable to that of a major source permit. The Refinery’s physical and operational design, as reflected in the draft PTC issued by NDDoH for public comment, includes implementation of state of the art, LAER technology, and air pollution control equipment considered BACT to minimize emissions throughout the plant. The refinery’s physical and operational design even includes BACT requirements and implemented controls that would be considered MACT. From the EPA regulations contained in 40 CFR: "Synthetic minor source" means a source that otherwise has the potential to emit regulated NSR pollutants in amounts that are at or above the thresholds for major sources in 40 CFR 49.167, 40 CFR 52.21 or 40 CFR 71.2, as applicable, but has taken a restriction so that its PTE is less than such amounts for major sources. Such restrictions must be enforceable as a practical matter (as defined in 40 CFR 49.152)”. 66d) Comment: If the Air Quality Division approves an air permit for the proposed Davis refinery to pollute the air by the national park, your state health agency will enable Meridan's current practice of avoiding of a complete state regulatory review of their proposed refinery. Further, if you approve the requested air pollution permit under these conditions, you will open the door for other companies to follow Meridian's questionable practices. State-approved intensive oil and gas extraction is near the park already and is already undermining the park's air quality. Because the proposed Davis refinery will be only three (3) miles from the national park boundary, a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must consider the total cumulative and significant impacts of the proposed refinery to both the Roosevelt National Park and its Class 1 air shed. Deny any air pollution permit for the Meridian's proposed Davis refinery. Response: Meridian respects the opinion of the commenter but disagrees with the attacks on the integrity of persons or institutions without a statement of fact. Further the comment is speculative in nature.

189

There is no provision that triggers the need for a Federal EIS solely due to proximity to a National Park. Please refer to previous responses regarding permitting process.

190

67) Response to Tama Smith Comment: Hello, my name is Tama Smith. I own Prairie Fire Pottery, a business in Beach, that is dependent on tourism. I welcome people from all over the country and world who travel I-94 for vacation or business. I’ve been told by many of these visitors “it’s BEAUTIFUL out here!” in a surprised tone. It always warms my heart when people realize the beauty and uniqueness of western North Dakota. This beauty is something I have always known and is the reason I moved my business from Michigan back to North Dakota 22 years ago. The thought of allowing an oil refinery on the door step of our National Park is unthinkable. Especially since Meridian has played fast and loose with their numbers. How can any of their numbers be believed? Including air quality numbers. If they are so confident in their “green” refinery they should have no hesitation in submitting to the PSC siting regulations. But in fudging their numbers to skirt just under the PSC rules they show their hand as being disingenuous. Please deny this permit. Response: Meridian agrees that air pollution emissions are a concern for the environment. That is why we have spent more than two years in the preliminary design and permitting process to get to this stage of the project. Our goal has been to design and obtain a permit for the greenest oil refinery in the US. We feel that issuance of this permit will raise the bar within the entire industry regarding what can be done within the refinery industry for reducing emissions. As we previously noted, extensive review for over a year by the NDDoH and more recently by the EPA and the NPS has confirmed our proposed emissions levels so we are confident regarding our analysis. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards, which Meridian has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. Thus, the emissions estimates are considered “realistic” given the information provided and the type and level of controls that Meridian is proposing to install at this facility and both the NDDoH and EPA agree with this. The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of

191

Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. Any determination as to whether Meridian is required to site the Davis Refinery with the North Dakota Public Service Commission is governed by Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Section 49-22.1-01(6) provides that Energy Conversion Facilities, such as a refinery, are only subject to the provisions of Chapter 49-22.1 if the refinery is designed for or capable of refining 50,000 BBLS of crude oil per day. Since other permits, such as water permits and air permits have different criteria for determining if Meridian must make application, it is nonsensical to suggest that the requirement for a water permit or air permit for the refinery should trigger the requirement to have the refinery sited under Chapter 49-22.1. If those who oppose the refinery believe that the criteria of an air permit or a water permit should trigger a requirement to obtain a certificate of site compatibility under Chapter 49-22.1, then the current statute relative to siting needs to be amended.

192

68) Response to Ed Gruchala (WT-4 – WT-14) Response: Meridian appreciates the effort by the commenter in evaluating the by-month and annual wind roses from 1996 to 2012 in an effort to establish the prevailing winds near or on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. However, wind direction and speed are not the only predictors of possible dispersion of contaminants from a facility. Other variables such as upper level meteorology, emission rates from the facility sources, the temperature, flow, and height of stacks, together with the downwash created by structures must be considered to more closely determine the possible effects on the surrounding environment. Meridian Energy submitted the required air dispersion model following the “Criteria Pollutant Modeling Requirements for a Permit to Construct” memo dated October 6, 2014 from the North Dakota Department of Health Air Division. The memorandum and NDAC §33-15-14 establish Class I and Class II Significant Impact Levels (SIL) for preliminary screening analysis for SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and CO. The meteorological period for the air model was from 01/01/2009 to 12/31/2013. The air dispersion model or the NDDR passed all Class I and Class II SIL screening levels for all pollutants except for NO2. The NO2 emissions passed the Class I levels and exceeded the 1-hour NOX Class II level, this last associated with the area around the refinery. The NDDoH required a more detailed analysis of the NOx 1-hr emissions to show compliance with the AAQS requirement of 188 μg/m3. This more detailed analysis required that both background and nearby potentially contributing sources of NOx emissions be included in the comprehensive analysis. NDDoH provided background air quality concentrations as well as source data for potentially contributing nearby sources, their stack heights and emissions, and coordinates for the North Dakota Land Holding Fryburg, Tesoro Belfield Gas Plant, and Petro Hunt Little Knife. The NDDR air dispersion model passed the detailed analysis for the 1-hr NOX NAAQS standard for Class II areas. By passing the Class I and Class II NAAQS standards, the proposed refinery adheres to the intent of the Clean Air Act to protect human health and the environment.

69) Response to Stacy Dibbel 69a) Comment: I am a resident of North Dakota concerned about preventing environmental degradation near the TR National Park, the sole National Park in our state. Can our state afford the protections necessary to preserve the TR National Park experience? North Dakota should do everything it can to protect this public asset. Will our state laws enable us to protect the environment in the park? What happens within three miles of the park border effects what happens inside the park. Ecosystems are not defined by arbitrary property boundaries.

193

Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 69b) Comment: The Meridian Energy Group's permit application for the Davis refinery was for 55,000 barrels per day. Meridian Energy's decision to downsize the project to 49,500 barrels a day is a ploy to avoid examination and regulation of the project by the state. Many of the concerns about the negative effects of a refinery (light, noise, smell) sited this close to a National Park do not fall within the scope of your review of this proposal. A review of this project by the PSC would be helpful in order to determine if the siting of this project is appropriate. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud.

194

Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission. 69c) Comment: I live in north Bismarck and the prevailing winds frequently blow the Mandan power plants effluent towards my home. At these times I experience particulate matter settling out of the air inside my house and the bad odor that accompanies the effluent. The air quality inside the Park will be effected negatively if a refinery is located within 3 miles of its border. Can the state of North Dakota do anything to prevent this? Response: Please see response to Comment 69a. Regarding conditions in Bismarck, we suggest the commenter contact the NDDoH related to what options can be done to address her situation 69d) Comment: Negative effects will be felt inside the Park if this refinery is allowed to built where currently sited. We only have one National Park in our state to protect. Is the state able or willing to require a comprehensive review of this proposal by the PSC? Why doesn't our Governor weigh in on this issue? We only have this one chance to protect this public asset (TR Park). As a state we would be remiss not to take the opportunity to fully review the proposed Davis Refinery. I have listened to people say they are coming to western North Dakota to exploit the oil patch in ways that are not permitted in other states due to differences in state regulation. I have heard these comments in Colorado and Utah. Is anything sacred in this state? I hope a National Park is determined to be something worth protecting. Our National Parks are among our greatest assets. North Dakota should protect our National Park with a thorough review of this project. Please figure out a way the Health Department can facilitate this.. Response: The PSC does not have jurisdiction over the review of the permit to construct for the North Dakota Davis Refinery. In addition, please see responses to Comments 69a and 69b.

195

70) Response to Susan Vogt 70a) Comment: I am not against the refinery in North Dakota. I am against it being built 3 miles from the edge of the National Park. It is not about the air quality, the increase in the number of people, the lights, and the truck traffic on the exit just yards from the park boarder will have a dramatic impact on animals and migratory birds that use the park. These things are not even being addressed by the permit process. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter. The permit application and the permit to construct followed the NDAC §33-15-14 air regulations to account for and minimize as much as possible the emissions from the refinery. The application shows full compliance with all required regulations and standards both within the Park as well as the area in general. In addition, Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. 70b) Comment: The fact that they changed the number of barrels per day to fall just under the amount for EPA permits should be a huge warning! Please do not allow this refinery to be built next to the number one tourist destination in North Dakota! Response: The comment is incorrect that the facility has restricted it’s operations to fall under any EPA permits. We assume the commenter may be referring to coordination and discussions between Meridian and the State Public Service Commission. As background regarding the various numbers that have been quoted, the original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud.

196

Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission.

197

71) Response to Sandra Baertsch 71a) Comment: I am a Billings County resident opposed to the Meridian Refinery proposed for Billings County. The Bakken is not in Billings County, and there is no need for a refinery placed so close to our State's National Park. The Badlands are treasured by many, many North Dakotan's, not just those of us who are fortunate enough to live here. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter. The permit application and the permit to construct followed the NDAC §33-15-14 air regulations to account for and minimize as much as possible the emissions from the refinery. The application shows full compliance with all required regulations and standards both within the Park as well as the area in general. In addition, Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. 71b) Comment: There is a refinery mothballed at Dickinson. Why is that not looked at as a better location, better economics? It is located near the railroad, new highway bypass, and the Heart River and Patterson Lake. They have more fire-fighting resources, water sources, work force, housing, motels, EMS, a hospital, airport. Response: The refinery in Dickinson is being operated by the MDU Resources Group. Meridian feels it is a better use of their capital to develop a new facility rather than construct older, less reliant, more polluting facilities. 71c) Comment: They tout new technology, but it is untested correct? It is theory. Let's not experiment near the Badlands, and Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Response: With regard to the claim of “untested technology”, Meridian provided extensive detailed and supporting information to back up their emission level claims as a Synthetic Minor Source during the permit application review process. In addition, these emissions estimates were reviewed by NDDoH in detail as well as the US EPA (through cooperative review by the NDDoH). The emissions values used in the application process were either EPA values (AP-42), values from permits and/or emissions tests at other similar refinery facilities and/or values from equipment manufacturers and/or suppliers in the form of emissions guarantees. More specifically, Meridian provided as part of their application support documents, actual achieved in practice emission levels in the form of stack test and compliance data obtained from state regulatory agencies overseeing refineries and similar applications in other states. 71d) Comment: I am also a volunteer firefighter for the county, and the city of Medora. It gives me nightmares to think of how we could respond to an oil refinery fire, with a totally volunteer fire department, and the vast majority of our volunteers are scattered throughout our

198

sparsely populated county. How could we possibly, adequately respond to something Houston, Texas full time, highly trained firefighters dread? Response: Meridian thanks the commenter for its concern regarding safety and emergency response. Meridian Energy has the resources to provide the necessary training to operate the refinery and is required to make provisions for emergency response under the Process Safety Management regulation (29 CFR 1910.199). This includes coordination as necessary with the local emergency response providers for training and support to ensure adequate response.

199

72) Response to Suzanne Russ 72a) Comment: As a ten-year resident of the beautiful state of North Dakota and faculty member at Dickinson State University, I wish to state my strong opposition to the building of a refinery so near the state treasure of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. You will have heard from many others the range of practical reasons why Meridian’s refinery is unwise—the undependable record of Meridian, the questionable nature of long-term job production, the ambiguity of the plan for standards violations, the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment, the inherent risks that would be undesirable anywhere. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter. The permit application and the permit to construct followed the NDAC §33-15-14 air regulations to account for and minimize as much as possible the emissions from the refinery. The application shows full compliance with all required regulations and standards both within the Park as well as the area in general. In addition, Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. 72b) Comment: But I ask you to deny this permit for another reason: to honor the power you have to protect the rare and precious national treasure that is Theodore Roosevelt National Park. We are given stewardship of this land, and these badlands have been a solace to many more before and after Roosevelt himself. Any who have spent time in the park recognize that the precious nature of this land does not end at an arbitrary line on a map. Surely the skyline, the pureness of the air, the dark skies, the haunting quietude, and the remote untainted feeling of the land are as much a part of the park experience as is the nature center and the badlands. A brightly lit refinery so near the eastern border would destroy all of those aspects of the park, and this in a world with so few untrammeled spaces. In wisdom, in integrity, in respect for the land the people who need its offerings, I urge you to honor your responsibility and deny this permit Response: Please see the response to Comment 72a.

200

73) Response to Carol Davis 73a) Comment: The aesthetic beauty of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park is at risk. Who wants to look out and see a refinery puffing out hazardous material? Visitors who expect to see the beauty of the badlands will see a haze coming from the refinery. Response: NDAC Chapter 33-15-19 Visibility Protection applies to major stationary sources or major modifications and therefore is not applicable to the facility. Nevertheless, Meridian is conscious of the concern the NPS has over possible effects on visibility associated with the existing oil and gas production facilities and other activities in the region. CAA requirements resulted in both federal and State regulations that were developed to protect air quality and visibility within Class I areas such as the TRNP. To the extent that those standards and regulations are applicable to this project, Meridian has shown compliance with all Class I area requirements. In fact, even though not required by the applicable regulatory framework, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the steam plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Desert Visitor Center). The steam plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a steam plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that the very top of the steam plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) would be visible from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be the equivalent of trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the steam plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate higher elevation terrain between these locations and the plant. Though not required to meet specific CALPUFF analysis since the facility is not considered a major source, it is significant to note that the NPS did conduct CALPUFF analysis of the project and showed compliance with desired CALPUFF Class I levels from the site. In addition, the NPS conducted VISCREEN analysis of the project as well and showed compliance with desired Class I VISCREEN levels for standard plant operations. 73b) Comment: The night sky will be filled with refinery lights. In spite of what the ND Dept. of Health has said, there will be pollution that will eventually cause people to choose another location to visit rather than visiting the Park or the badlands. The Medora Musical, which is a North Dakota treasure, will suffer when visitors choose to bypass the area because of the pollution. Response: See Response 73a. In addition, neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards.

201

In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. Comments regarding negative economic impact to Medora and the Park are speculative and not backed by data or proof. 73c) Comment: Who is going to want to drink the water from the area near the refinery? Who is going to want to breathe the air that contains the contaminants caused by the refinery? Response: See Responses73a and 73b for response to concerns regarding air quality. Regarding water quality, this is not specifically addressed nor a part of the current air permit process. However, Meridian respects the opinion of the commenter but disagrees with the premise. The concern for pollution of the drinking water is speculative. The EPA and NDDoH have strict regulations regarding the discharge of pollutants to surface water and groundwater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations (40 CFR Part 123). Meridian will be required to meet all requirements for any surface or groundwater discharges that it may have. 73d) Comment: Residents who support the refinery should realize that they are trading tourism for a refinery that is guaranteed to pollute the area and have a negative impact on the number of visitors. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter but disagrees with the premise. The visitors to the park have continued to increase in spite of the ongoing and new oil and gas operations near the Park. The visitor count has increased from 465,588 in 2007 to 708,003 in 2017. Reference: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=KNRI

202

74) Response to Julia Page 74a) Comment: Please deny the application of Meridian Energy Group for it's Davis Refinery. It represents a threat to the Class I airshed of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The history of the company's application, with its multiple estimates of production, always conveniently under the threshold for greater scrutiny, should be a giant red flag. What are the true numbers? How "clean" will it be?. Response: Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud.

203

74b) Comment: I lived at the north entrance to Yellowstone National Park for 30 years before moving over here to Boise. One of the very best things about Yellowstone, besides the wildlife and geothermal features, is its wonderful clean air. In winter especially it was glorious. Clean air is a huge gift. Granting a permit to a polluting industrial facility (refineries are infamous) so close to Theodore Roosevelt National Park will put the air at risk. Response: See Response 74a for information related to air quality. 74c) Comment: When the company shifts its production numbers, does it also shift its emissions estimates? Has the company included all emission sources in their estimates? What about flaring? There will be no turning back once this facility is built. It will remain, it will pollute, the question is how much. Response: See Response 74a for information related to air quality and production numbers. Regarding flaring and related emissions, Meridian is implementing a cascaded flare system to minimize flaring events. This cascaded flare system includes a flare gas recovery system designed, sized and operated in accordance with the applicable design, equipment, work practice or operational standards of NSPS Ja. One of the design features of the refinery’s cascaded flare system is the incorporation of a vapor recovery unit (VRU) that will be integrated into the refinery’s relief header and the flare system. The VRU achieves two main purposes, recovery of waste gases that would otherwise normally be flared and removal of any liquids entrained with the blowdown gases, delivering them both back into the facility for reprocessing and re-use. While in an upset condition, the VRU will continue to send the recovered condensable and non-condensable phases back to the process. Only in the event that the capacity of the VRU is exceeded will the excess portion be routed to the flares. The VRU is part of the flare gas recovery requirement for the development of a flare minimization plan under Subpart Ja §60.103a(a) for flares. The requirement to install a flare gas recovery system is in §60.103a(a)(2)(iii). From the Subpart Ja definitions. 74d) Comment: Now is the time to say no to this permit and protect the people of North Dakota and all of us around the country who value and hope to visit our national park. Response: Please see response to Comment 74a.

204

75) Response to Terry Schaunaman 75a) Comment: I urge you, at a minimum, to require the Meridian Davis refinery be subject to a Synthetic Major Source review (based on their intent / messaging to build a refinery to process 55,000 barrels of oil per day) to meet the standards set by the National Environmental Protection Act to protect North Dakota’s environment and Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s Class I Air Quality. Response: Note that there is no category under the regulations for a synthetic major source. There is either a minor source, a synthetic minor source or a major source. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period. 75b) Comment: I urge you to completely reject the Meridian Davis refinery application for an Air Quality Permit at the proposed location, W1/2 Sect 1, SE1/4 Sect 2, T139N, R100W, Billings Co, three miles from Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Theodore Roosevelt National Park is North Dakota’s jewel, and to destroy the value of the park’s essence and the public’s experience of North Dakota’s only national park will forever be tragic. Response: See response to Comment 75a. 75c) Comment: The National Park Service’s earlier analysis showed there is potential to see the refinery from 630 acres in the park, including large sections of the eastern side.

205

Response: NDAC Chapter 33-15-19 Visibility Protection applies to major stationary sources or major modifications and therefore is not applicable to the facility. Nevertheless, Meridian Energy, is conscious of the concern the NPS has over possible effects on visibility associated with the existing oil and gas production facilities and other activities in the region. Even though not required by regulation, Meridian conducted a viewshed analysis of the steam plumes from the four primary points of visitation within the Park (TRNP Visitor Center, TRNP Amphitheatre, Buck Hill, and Painted Desert Visitor Center). The steam plume analysis took into account a full year of hourly meteorological data to determine when a steam plume would be generated and the maximum height of generation. This analysis showed that there are approximately 15 hours within a given year that one would be able to potentially see the very top of the steam plume (the approximate 1-25 topmost feet of the plume) from the approximate 6 miles between Buck Hill and the plant site. This would be equivalent to trying to distinguish a single tree from six miles away. From all other major viewpoints, neither the steam plume nor the plant would be visible due to intermediate terrain between these locations and the plant. The National Park Service did an analysis and identified that only approximately 300-600 acres of the far southeastern corner of the Park boundaries can potentially see the refinery stacks. Thus, the Refinery cannot be seen from approximately 99% of the Park’s approximately 46,000 acres in the South Unit. It should be noted that, for the acreage within the Park that one potentially may be able to see the refinery, you can also already see the adjacent highway, and nearby existing pump-jacks, county airport, oil bulking facility and the already constructed gasification plant and the City of Belfield from that same acreage. Thus, the viewshed impacts from this acreage are already impacted and cannot be considered pristine. 75d) Comment: Meridian recently listed on its website “We fully expect that the finalized refinery will be well above 55,000 barrels per day in capacity.” Last summer in its water permit Meridian requested enough water for use in a refinery that can process 55,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian is still telling its investors that they are building 55,000 barrels of oil per day refinery. Response: The original concept of the Davis Refinery consisted of a 20,000 barrel per day (bpd) topping unit, and during the initial design process, multiple configurations and potential design capacities were considered. The final initial configuration is based on recent experiences of Meridian executives, which when evaluated using Bakken crude, gave rise to the plans to construct a 27,500 bpd hydroskimming facility. That was the capacity indicated in the original discussions concerning the PTC with the NDDoH. To be fully diligent, NDDoH officials encouraged Meridian to apply for the air permit at the maximum capacity that could be contemplated by Meridian now or in the future noting that it would be inappropriate to approve the facility as a minor source if it could potentially be a major source in the future. This approach taken by the Agency provided the greatest protection to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the public in general. Thus, Meridian set the upper envelope for the Davis Refinery by doubling the initial capacity to 55,000 bpd for that

206

purpose only. Meridian will review market conditions in the future, and if market conditions support it, then the refinery could be expanded to the maximum allowed emissions specified by the air permit or to a lower capacity if constricted by other permitting requirements for the facility or by market conditions. It is important to note that the draft PTC issued by the NDDoH shows that even if Meridian did expand the Davis Refinery to the maximum emission levels allowed, it would still qualify as a Synthetic Minor Source – something that is historic in the industry and something of which Meridian is very proud. 75e) Comment: The Public Service Commission also needs to do a comprehensive review of the project, including evaluating the company's line-of-sight modeling and looking at the impact of light, noise, dust and truck traffic to the park and surrounding area. Response: Please see our response to Comment 75c. In addition, the Public Service Commission does not have jurisdiction at this time over the siting of the refinery. Once the initial phase of the Davis Refinery is in operation, Meridian will evaluate the operations and make decisions about improvements. One goal will be to convert Davis Refinery atmospheric tank bottoms into higher value products for the local market. It is important to note that pursuant to Chapter 49-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction over siting of refineries that refine less than 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Meridian would never build the Davis Refinery to process 50,000 BBLS a day or more without first seeking a permit from the Public Service Commission.

207

76) Response to Thomas Dahle Comment: I am opposed to the refinery being so close to the park. Theodore Roosevelt in reference to the Grand Canyon in Arizona said. “….Leave it as it is. You can not improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.” I say the refinery will seriously mar the Park with the smell, smoke, and noise. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period.

208

77) Response to Thomas Dahle Comment: My family was fortunate enough to visit this park last year. The vistas were gorgeous and such a surprise in the otherwise undulating hills. I can’t imagine an oil refinery looming on the horizon of this National treasure, destroying the views, the night sky, and the air quality. Please stop this disaster. Response: Meridian Energy respects the opinion of the commenter. Neither the State nor EPA regulations specifically limit how close a facility can be constructed to a National Park nor to a designated Class I airshed (be it a National Park or other Class I area). This is limited solely by whether the facility can show compliance with applicable regulations related to applicable emissions standards. In this instance, the Department’s independent airshed modeling conducted during their review of the permit application confirms the findings of Meridian’s airshed modeling which resulted in identification of emissions levels below the applicable regulatory specified levels of significance for all pollutants within the Class I airshed and for all pollutants except for NOx within the Class II areas. Thus no further detailed modeling was required except for NOx. In the case of NOx, more detailed modeling that included both background and adjacent sources as well as the proposed refinery was conducted by both Meridian and independently by the State. This more detailed modeling also showed compliance all applicable with National Ambient Class I and Class II levels. This is further supported by the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS) and EPA during the review process and the fact that neither EPA nor NPS questioned our findings related to the facility qualifying as a synthetic minor source during the public comment period.