DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT 

and NATURAL RESOURCES 

PMB 2020
 

JOE FOSS BUILDING
 

523 EAST CAPITOL
 

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA 57501·3182
 

www.state.sd.us/denr 

June 1,2011 

Carl Daly Director 

Air and Radiation Program, 8P-AR 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Daly: 

On May 16,2011, Gail Fallon, EPA Region 8, sent the department an email identifying EPA's 

comments on South Dakota's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. The department reviewed 

and responded to each comment (see Attachment A). 

The department discussed EPA's comments with Otter Tail Power Company. Even though the 

department and Otter Tail Power Company disagree with EPA's comment that the pounds per 

million Btu emissions limit established for normal operation should include startup and shutdown, 

Otter Tail Power Company agreed to EPA's request. Otter Tail Power Company's agreement is 

contingent on EPA agreeing to the 30-day rolling average defined in the drafted revisions ofthe 

Regional Haze regulations under the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, chapter 74:36:21 (see 

Attachment B). 

EPA's other item of concern relates to identifying the compliance test method for particulate matter. 

EPA believes the state has too much director's discretion if we do not specify what EPA approved 

test method in the federal rules must be used to demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter 

limits. DENR disagrees for the reasons specified in the response to comments (see Attachment A). 

If EPA is in agreement, the department will move forward with the rule changes and make the 

appropriate changes to the technical document. After you have had a chance to review the drafted 

revisions and response to comment, please contact me at (605) 773-3151, to discuss any outstanding 

issues and the timeline for EPA to approve South Dakota's Regional Haze Program. A timely 

approval process by EPA will mean Otter Tail Power Company can order and install the required 

equipment and start, us on our path of achieving natural visibility in our Class I areas. 

Sincerely, 

Attachments 
A-1 

Attachment A 

Response to EPA’s Comments (May 12, 2011) 

DENR’s comments are organized in the manner in which EPA identified them in their 

comments. 

A. Emission Limits for Big Stone I 

1. The BART Guidelines require emission limits be met on a continuous basis. 

EPA’s Comment: South Dakota’s proposed separate pounds per hour startup/shutdown 

limits have not been adequately justified for nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide and 

therefore, are not acceptable. In addition, the proposed pounds per hour limits are not 

reflective of the control technologies selected. 

Response: After going through a case-by-case Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) determination, DENR established a BART emission limit for nitrogen oxide 

representing the installation and operation of a separated over-fire air and selective 

catalytic reduction system for Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I electric coal-fired 

power plant. The BART emissions limit for sulfur dioxide represents a semi-dry flue gas 

desulfurization system. 

Separated over-fire air is a combustion air staging technique aimed at minimizing 

nitrogen oxide generation during the fuel combustion process. The separated over-fire air 

system is designed to limit the oxygen (combustion air) that is available to react with 

nitrogen during the combustion process. The combustion air is limited to a value close to 

the amount stoichiometrically needed to combust the fuel. This process is achievable at 

normal operating loads. This process is not achievable at startup and shutdown. During 

startup and shutdown periods, the National Fire Protection Association requires a 

minimum of 25% of the full load air flow be established through the boiler before any 

combustion is initiated and after combustion is terminated. The National Fire Protection 

Association requirement is a safety practice during startup and shutdown. Therefore, the 

separated over-fire air system is not effective in controlling nitrogen oxide emissions 

during startup and shutdown. 

A selective catalytic reduction system uses a catalytic reduction with the use of ammonia 

injection. Based on reaction kinetics, the target temperature window for the reactions is 

560 to 780 degrees Fahrenheit. A selective catalytic reduction system typically operates 

in the 600 to 750 degree Fahrenheit temperature range. These reaction temperatures are 

not typical and not achievable during startup and shutdown periods. In addition, injecting 

ammonia at temperatures below 560 degrees Fahrenheit will coat the catalyst with 

ammonium salts. This process would reduce catalyst life, increase operation and 

maintenance cost and may cause fouling of the downstream baghouse. 
A-2 

As noted, the two nitrogen oxide control systems do not operate effectively during 

periods of startup and shutdown and are unable to meet the same normal operations 

emission limits on a pound per million British Thermal Units (Btu) basis during startup 

and shutdown. Therefore, DENR established a separate pounds per hour emission limit, 

which includes startup and shutdown, based on the 0.10 pounds per million Btus 

emission limit for normal operation and the maximum design operating rate for the boiler 

(e.g., multiply 0.10 pounds per million Btus by 5,609 million Btus per hour which equals 

561 pounds per hour). Both limits have to be met on a continuous basis. 

Semi-dry flue gas desulfurization systems inject an aqueous sorbent slurry. As the flue 

gas mixes with the slurry solution, water from the slurry is evaporated. The water that 

remains on the solid sorbent enhances the reaction with sulfur dioxide. The process 

forms a dry waste product which is collected with a standard particulate matter collection 

device such as a baghouse. The waste product can be disposed, sold as a byproduct or 

recycled to slurry. The performance of a semi-dry system is sensitive to operating 

conditions, in particular the operating temperature. The system needs to operate near the 

adiabatic saturation temperature to maximize the removal of sulfur dioxide. The 

optimum temperature is 20 to 50 degrees below the saturation temperature. Operations 

during startup and shutdown are not conducive to maintaining the appropriate 

temperature. As such, it is not recommended to place the system on line until Otter Tail 

Power Company can effectively control the exit temperature within the appropriate range 

above the adiabatic saturation temperature so Otter Tail Power Company does not have 

condensation in the baghouse or on the walls of the semi-dry system. 

The sulfur dioxide control system does not operate effectively during periods of startup 

and shutdown and is unable to meet the same normal operations emission limit on a 

pound per million Btus basis during startup and shutdown. Therefore, DENR established 

a separate pounds per hour emission limit, which includes startup and shutdown, based 

on the 0.09 pounds per million Btus emission limit for normal operations and the 

maximum design operating rate for the boiler (e.g., multiply 0.09 pounds per million Btus 

by 5,609 million Btus per hour which equals 505 pounds per hour). Both limits have to be 

met on a continuous basis. 

DENR is unsure why EPA believes establishing two BART emission limits is not 

adequately justified. It is unrealistic to believe the same emission limit can be established 

for normal operations when the control equipment is operational and during startup and 

shutdown when the control equipment is inoperable or not working efficiently. 

Therefore, DENR established a limit for normal operation when the control equipment is 

operating efficiently and a second limit which includes normal operations and startup and 

shutdown periods when the control equipment is not working efficiently. The worst case 

scenario (e.g., operating at maximum capacity with an emission limit of 0.10 pounds per 

million Btus or 561 pounds per hour) was modeled and determined that Big Stone I 

would not contribute to any visibility impairment in any Class I areas in South Dakota or 
A-3 

in other states. This analysis is based on EPA’s guidelines for a BART determination in 

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. 

EPA also stated the proposed pounds per hour limits were not reflective of the control 

technologies selected by DENR but did not provide any evidence to support this 

conclusion. DENR conducted a five factor analysis as specified in the federal Regional 

Haze rules, outlined the five factor analysis in the technical document for South Dakota’s 

Regional Haze Program and determined the pounds per hour limits are appropriate. 

EPA’s Comment: South Dakota’s limits in pounds per hour are less stringent than the 

pounds per million Btus limit at any firing rate other than the maximum rated capacity. 

The more stringent pounds per million Btu limit would supersede the pounds per hour 

limit overcoming another flaw in that cross-referenced continuous emission monitoring 

rules do not indicate how to calculate a pounds per hour rate. 

Response: DENR agrees with EPA that the pounds per million Btu emission limit is 

more stringent than the pounds per hour for any firing rate other than the maximum rated 

capacity since that is how DENR determined the pounds per hour emission limit. At the 

maximum rated capacity, the two limits are equivalent. However, the pound per hour 

limit applies at all times including startup and shutdown. If Otter Tail Power Company 

were to operate other than maximum capacity during normal operation (e.g., non-startup 

and non-shutdown periods) the pounds per million Btu limit is applicable and supersedes 

the pounds per hour limit. 

EPA reference to a flaw of the continuous emission monitoring rules appears to reference 

the continuous emission monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B and 40 

CFR § 60.13, which are referenced in the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) 

chapter 74:36:13 – Continuous Emission Monitoring System. 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix 

B Performance Specification 6 – Specification and Test Procedures for Continuous 

Emission Rate Monitoring Systems is the specification for a pound per hour monitoring 

system. In section 3.1, the specification states the continuous emission rate monitoring 

system is the total equipment required for the determining and recording the pollutant 

mass emission rate (in terms of mass per unit time). In section 18.0, the flowchart and 

validation table notes the relative accuracy test audit is to compare the emission rate for 

the continuous emission monitoring system to the reference method. The table in the 

regulations provided indicates the units to be in kilograms per hour and notes that the 

data needs to be corrected to a consistent basis for comparison (i.e., moisture, 

temperature, and pressure conditions). Therefore, the cross-reference to 40 CFR part 60 

Appendix B does specify how to certify the data so you can demonstrate compliance with 

a pounds per hour emission limit. 

DENR does agree to change the reference from ARSD chapter 74:36:13 to 40 CFR Part 

75 to stay consistent with the Acid Rain program that Big Stone I is already required to 

meet. 
A-4 

EPA’s Comment: EPA comments the separated over fire air system proposed for Otter Tail 

Power Company should be able to achieve a post combustion emission rate of around 0.50 

pounds per million Btus on a 30-day rolling average. EPA believes since a selective catalytic 

reduction system is capable of achieving greater than 90 percent removal efficiency, then an 

emission rate of 0.05 pounds per million Btus on a 30-day rolling average is a more than 

reasonable expectation for the application of selective catalytic reduction system. Therefore, 

the proposed emission limit of 0.10 pounds per million Btus on a 30-day rolling average 

provides a more than ample margin to accommodate startup and shutdown. 

Response: DENR has continual discussed in its technical document for South Dakota’s 

Regional Haze Program and previous response to comments that the control efficiency of 

a control device is variable and it is inappropriate to take an arbitrary emission rate Otter 

Tail Power Company actually emitted and multiply it by an arbitrary control efficiency to 

establish an air emission limit. DENR provided examples in these previous discussions 

and still consider those discussions valid. To augment those discussions, DENR will use 

the annual data provided by EPA and presumptive limits in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y 

as another method to illustrate why one does not arbitrarily multiply an actual emission 

rate by an assumed efficiency to establish an emission limit. 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y identifies presumptive limits for different boiler design and 

type of coal burned for electrical generating units operating without post-combustion 

controls (e.g., no selective catalytic reduction system). If a selective catalytic reduction 

system is applied and automatically reduces emissions by 90% as indicated by EPA, then 

the identified boilers should obtain the emission rates identified in Table 1-1. This is the 

same approach used by EPA when it assumes the separated over-fire air system will 

achieve a specific emission rate and then automatically multiply by the identified 90% 

control efficiency. 

Table 1-1 – Emission rate after selective catalytic reduction (pounds per million Btus) 

Boiler Type Coal Type Presumptive 

Limit 

SCR 

Efficiency 

Calculated 

Emission Rate

Dry-bottom wall-fired Bituminous 0.39 90% 0.039 

 Sub-bituminous 0.23 90% 0.023 

 Lignite 0.29 90% 0.029 

Tangential-fired Bituminous 0.28 90% 0.028 

 Sub-bituminous 0.15 90% 0.015 

 Lignite 0.17 90% 0.017 

As noted in Table 1-1, the dry-bottom wall-fired and tangential-fired boiler should have 

actual emissions in the range of 0.02 to 0.04 pounds per million Btus. Table 1-2 

compares the “calculated emission rate” in Table 1-1 to the actual emission rates of the 

units identified by EPA. Only one of the 14 units identified by EPA has actual emissions 
A-5 

less than the “calculate emission rate” and this is based on an annual average not a 30-day 

rolling average. 

Table 1-2 – Selective catalytic reduction comparison (pounds per million Btus) 

Facility Boiler Type Unit # Actual 

Emission Rate 

Calculated 

Emission Rate

Cardinal Dry bottom wall-fired 3 0.05 0.04 

Chesapeake Dry bottom wall-fired 3 0.03 0.04

E D Edwards Dry bottom wall-fired 3 0.05 0.04

John E Amos Dry bottom wall-fired 1 0.05 0.04

John E Amos Dry bottom wall-fired 2 0.05 0.04

Mitchell (WV) Dry bottom wall-fired 2 0.05 0.04

Mitchell (WV) Dry bottom wall-fired 1 0.05 0.04

TS Power Plant Dry bottom wall-fired 1 0.05 0.04

Walter Scott Jr. Dry bottom wall-fired 4 0.06 0.04

Chesapeake Tangentially-fired 4 0.04 0.03 

Chesterfield Tangentially-fired 5 0.04 0.03

Chesterfield Tangentially-fired 6 0.04 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 1 0.05 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 6 0.05 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 8 0.05 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 9 0.05 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 5 0.05 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 2 0.05 0.03

Kingston Tangentially-fired 7 0.05 0.03

W A Parish Tangentially-fired WAP7 0.04 0.03

W A Parish Tangentially-fired WAP8 0.04 0.03

EPA alludes that Otter Tail Power Company should be able to average out the startup and 

shutdown emissions by using a 30-day rolling average. This comment has several issues. 

The first issue is the duration and the frequency of startup and shutdown periods. As noted 

in Tables 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7, the emission rate during startup and shutdown periods are 

greater than the limit. Therefore, the emission calculation must include other operational 

periods and those operational periods must be lower to offset the emissions during startup 

and shutdown periods. 

By defining the 30-day average as 30-operational days, Otter Tail Power Company is not 

allowed to take credit for days that it is not operating to average out the startup and shutdown 

emissions. This leads to the second issue, which is the actual emission rate during nonstartup and non-shutdown periods. As noted in Table 1-1 and 1-2, one cannot automatically 

assume the actual emissions during non-startup and non-shutdown periods will average less 

than 0.05 pounds per million Btus (e.g., 50% of the standard) for every 30-day rolling 

average. Based on the data from the Baldwin Energy facility and the Kincaid Energy center, 

which both have cyclone fired boilers with selective catalytic reduction systems, there are 
A-6 

actual 30-day rolling averages (excluding startup and shutdown emissions) that are equal to 

or greater than 0.07 pounds per million Btus. DENR disagrees that there is ample room for 

Otter Tail Power Company to always be able to average out startup and shutdown emissions. 

As noted above, the separated over-fire air and selective catalytic reduction system do not 

operated efficiently during startup and shutdown due to technological reasons. DENR 

pulled hourly nitrogen oxide emissions from EPA’s Clean Air Markets for calendar year 

2006, 2007, and 2008 for Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I facility. To estimate 

the hourly emissions rates, DENR defined a startup as the time period that indicated 

emissions and at electrical rate of 0 megawatts to an electrical rate of 200 megawatts. A 

shutdown period was defined in the opposite direction. Table 1-3 indicates the startup 

and shutdown periods, including the hourly data for pounds per million Btus, hourly data 

for pounds of emissions, hourly electrical load, and the average emission rates in pounds 

per million Btu and pounds per hour for each startup and shutdown episode. Table 1-3 

demonstrates and including the diluent approach recommended by EPA, Otter Tail Power 

Company cannot meet the 0.10 pound per million Btu emission limit averaged over the 

startup and shutdown period. However, Otter Tail Power Company can generally meet 

the pound per hour emission limit (e.g., 561 pounds per hour) averaged over the startup 

and shutdown period 

Table 1-3 – Otter Tail Nitrogen Oxide Comparison 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

Shutdown 02/11/2006 1 173 0.602 1374.125 

 02/11/2006 2 38 0.382 59.106 

 02/11/2006 3 0 

Startup 02/12/2006 11 0 

 02/12/2006 12 0 0.017 1.174 

 02/12/2006 13 0 0.05 10.825 

 02/12/2006 14 0 0.506 221.729 

 02/12/2006 15 0 0.583 370.671 

 02/12/2006 16 1 0.562 427.232 

 02/12/2006 17 31 0.56 769.328 

 02/12/2006 18 95 0.55 871.09 

Average 0.42 456.14 

Shutdown 02/24/2006 15 299 0.814 2845.988 

 02/24/2006 16 0 

Startup 02/24/2006 19 0 

 02/24/2006 20 0 0.311 18.271 

 02/24/2006 21 0 0.464 277.286 

02/24/2006 22 25 0.494 446.082 
A-7 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

 02/24/2006 23 190 0.608 1611.99 

Average 0.54 1039.92 

Shutdown 06/01/2006 16 93 0.73 921.453 

 06/01/2006 17 0 

Startup 06/11/2006 17 0 

 06/11/2006 18 0 0.045 6.199 

 06/11/2006 19 0 0.104 21.882 

 06/11/2006 20 0 0.32 11.332 

 06/11/2006 21 0 

 06/11/2006 22 0 0.549 131.492 

 06/11/2006 23 0 0.844 435.757 

 06/12/2006 0 0 0.795 349.8 

 06/12/2006 1 0 0.747 463.364 

 06/12/2006 2 14 0.734 568.923 

 06/12/2006 3 30 0.708 669.98 

 06/12/2006 4 113 0.674 1117.088 

Average 0.57 427.02 

Shutdown 06/13/2006 18 77 0.596 551.082 

 06/13/2006 19 0 

Startup 06/14/2006 3 0 

 06/14/2006 4 0 0.724 100.301 

 06/14/2006 5 0 0.679 427.974 

 06/14/2006 6 5 0.723 538.418 

 06/14/2006 7 132 0.613 1270.197 

Average 0.67 577.59 

Shutdown 09/29/2006 20 88 0.68 604.077 

 09/29/2006 21 0 

Startup 09/30/2006 18 0 

 09/30/2006 19 0 0.092 7.888 

 09/30/2006 20 0 0.362 122.827 

 09/30/2006 21 0 0.651 381.616 

 09/30/2006 22 0 0.541 346.294 

 09/30/2006 23 66 0.467 681.68 

 10/01/2006 0 194 0.566 1434.98 

Average 0.48 511.34 
A-8 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

Shutdown 11/21/2006 21 107 0.656 865.93 

 11/21/2006 22 0 

Startup 11/22/2006 20 0 

 11/22/2006 21 0 0.065 1.192 

 11/22/2006 22 0 0.142 40.953 

 11/22/2006 23 0 0.672 389.491 

 11/23/2006 0 0 0.733 520.723 

 11/23/2006 1 1 0.695 265.063 

 11/23/2006 2 9 0.731 559.434 

 11/23/2006 3 47 0.632 716.625 

 11/23/2006 4 186 0.567 1313.852 

Average 0.54 519.25 

Shutdown 01/02/2007 19 90 0.618 603.57 

 01/02/2007 20 

Startup 01/03/2007 17 

 01/03/2007 18 0 0.073 9.252 

 01/03/2007 19 0 0.533 193.053 

 01/03/2007 20 0 0.733 456.439 

 01/03/2007 21 10 0.767 597.34 

 01/03/2007 22 39 0.793 855.25 

 01/03/2007 23 164 0.526 1137.159 

Average 0.58 550.29 

Shutdown 01/05/2007 21 94 0.683 751.163 

 01/05/2007 22 

Startup 01/06/2007 16 

 01/06/2007 17 0 0.099 1.899 

 01/06/2007 18 0 0.125 23.425 

 01/06/2007 19 0 0.599 273.204 

 01/06/2007 20 0 0.644 375.71 

 01/06/2007 21 13 0.613 534.352 

 01/06/2007 22 39 0.67 738.742 

 01/06/2007 23 183 0.523 1227.429 

Average 0.49 490.74 

Shutdown 03/02/2007 20 107 0.599 722.297 

 03/02/2007 21 

Startup 03/04/2007 17 
A-9 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

 03/04/2007 18 0 0.514 27.494 

 03/04/2007 19 0 0.037 7.659 

 03/04/2007 20 0 0.513 265.734 

 03/04/2007 21 0 0.727 421.66 

 03/04/2007 22 0 0.667 468.568 

 03/04/2007 23 29 0.679 718.314 

 03/05/2007 0 123 0.624 1096.68 

Average 0.55 466.05 

Shutdown 04/24/2007 18 178 0.478 1022.633 

 04/24/2007 19 87 0.623 677.964 

 04/24/2007 20 

Startup 04/26/2007 19 

 04/26/2007 20 0 0.018 1.782 

 04/26/2007 21 0 0.079 20.311 

 04/26/2007 22 0 0.417 276.93 

 04/26/2007 23 0 0.426 262.033 

 04/27/2007 0 0 0.431 269.03 

 04/27/2007 1 19 0.572 446.314 

 04/27/2007 2 25 0.502 293.903 

 04/27/2007 3 131 0.539 1043.019 

Average 0.41 431.39 

Shutdown 05/24/2007 19 104 0.642 858.323 

 05/24/2007 20 

Startup 05/26/2007 2 

 05/26/2007 3 0 0.009 0.839 

 05/26/2007 4 0 0.091 23.687 

 05/26/2007 5 0 0.423 287.598 

 05/26/2007 6 0 0.362 194.756 

 05/26/2007 7 23 0.622 565.274 

 05/26/2007 8 38 0.748 769.393 

 05/26/2007 9 164 0.571 1241.068 

Average 0.43 492.62 

Shutdown 06/09/2007 18 96 0.598 679.388 

 06/09/2007 19 

Startup 06/10/2007 21 

 06/10/2007 22 0 0.001 0.041 
A-10 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

 06/10/2007 23 0 0.031 5.05 

 06/11/2007 0 0 0.254 140.919 

 06/11/2007 1 0 0.449 328.354 

 06/11/2007 2 40 0.665 737.286 

 06/11/2007 3 115 0.519 843.738 

Average 0.36 390.68 

Shutdown 10/24/2007 16 75 0.6 620.34 

 10/24/2007 17 0 0.197 11.194 

 10/24/2007 18 

Startup 12/23/2007 1 

 12/23/2007 2 0 0.447 120.474 

 12/23/2007 3 0 0.322 123.712 

 12/23/2007 4 0 0.322 129.283 

 12/23/2007 5 0 0.322 135.787 

 12/23/2007 6 0 0.322 139.523 

 12/23/2007 7 0 0.322 145.415 

 12/23/2007 8 0 0.322 152.242 

 12/23/2007 9 0 0.322 154.785 

 12/23/2007 10 0 0.322 156.395 

 12/23/2007 11 0 0.322 154.85 

 12/23/2007 12 0 0.227 76.885 

 12/23/2007 13 0 0.213 63.261 

 12/23/2007 14 0 0.02 1.135 

 12/23/2007 15 0 0.34 173.842 

 12/23/2007 16 0 0.303 116.443 

 12/23/2007 17 0 0.157 34.54 

 12/23/2007 18 0 0.018 0.965 

 12/23/2007 19 0 0.033 5.448 

 12/23/2007 20 0 0.045 9.436 

 12/23/2007 21 0 0.025 2.915 

 12/23/2007 22 0 0.024 2.825 

 12/23/2007 23 0 0.043 8.05 

 12/24/2007 0 0 0.026 2.426 

 12/24/2007 1 0 0.023 2.167 

 12/24/2007 2 0 0.04 7.504 

 12/24/2007 3 0 0.029 4.045 

 12/24/2007 4 0 0.023 2.705 

 12/24/2007 5 0 0.147 38.22 
A-11 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

 12/24/2007 6 0 0.285 133.864 

 12/24/2007 7 0 0.328 175.71 

 12/24/2007 8 0 0.351 188.873 

 12/24/2007 9 19 0.47 369.091 

 12/24/2007 10 35 0.529 520.642 

 12/24/2007 11 133 0.707 1437.543 

Average 0.24 150.63 

Shutdown 12/26/2007 3 175 0.504 279.831 

 12/26/2007 4 

Startup 12/26/2007 5 0 0.33 117.488 

 12/26/2007 6 0 0.389 212.122 

 12/26/2007 7 96 0.649 1016.529 

Average 0.47 406.49 

Shutdown 12/29/2007 1 180 0.695 1453.662 

 12/29/2007 2 34 0.233 31.958 

 12/29/2007 3 

Startup 12/30/2007 19 

 12/30/2007 20 0 0.026 4.602 

 12/30/2007 21 0 0.045 10.372 

 12/30/2007 22 0 0.137 62.623 

 12/30/2007 23 0 0.432 296.784 

 12/31/2007 0 17 0.551 472.262 

 12/31/2007 1 64 0.807 1078.394 

 12/31/2007 2 139 0.72 1533.816 

 12/31/2007 3 174 0.636 1602.974 

Average 0.43 654.74 

Shutdown 01/04/2008 23 105 0.694 737.778 

 01/05/2008 0 

Startup 01/05/2008 20 

 01/05/2008 21 0 0.013 1.418 

 01/05/2008 22 0 0.07 17.43 

 01/05/2008 23 0 0.305 165.249 

 01/06/2008 0 0 0.396 205.366 

 01/06/2008 1 0 0.345 200.238 

 01/06/2008 2 0 0.298 137.497 

 01/06/2008 3 15 0.458 378.903 
A-12 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

 01/06/2008 4 141 0.592 1201.05 

Average 0.35 338.33 

Shutdown 04/22/2008 23 69 0.746 427.085 

 04/23/2008 0 

Startup 04/24/2008 23 

 04/25/2008 0 0 0.001 0.142 

 04/25/2008 1 0 0.049 17.542 

 04/25/2008 2 0 0.294 188.807 

 04/25/2008 3 0 0.358 217.986 

 04/25/2008 4 61 0.654 868.316 

 04/25/2008 5 188 0.544 1331.658 

Average 0.38 435.93 

Shutdown 05/21/2008 18 117 0.715 930.358 

 05/21/2008 19 6 0.044 0.265 

 05/21/2008 20 

Startup 05/30/2008 17 

 05/30/2008 18 0 0.004 0.416 

 05/30/2008 19 0 0.014 4.064 

 05/30/2008 20 0 0.167 77.505 

 05/30/2008 21 0 0.226 100.819 

 05/30/2008 22 0 0.36 220.464 

 05/30/2008 23 0 0.288 163.037 

 05/31/2008 0 21 0.512 493.363 

 05/31/2008 1 48 0.638 719.345 

 05/31/2008 2 182 0.705 1672.33 

Average 0.33 398.36 

Shutdown 08/05/2008 22 147 0.637 1097.806 

 08/05/2008 23 64 0.603 410.779 

 08/06/2008 0 

Startup 08/06/2008 20 

 08/06/2008 21 0 0.008 0.225 

 08/06/2008 22 0 0.107 27.927 

 08/06/2008 23 0 0.421 252.263 

 08/07/2008 0 0 0.419 203.089 

 08/07/2008 1 7 0.416 93.626 

 08/07/2008 2 4 0.303 83.096 
A-13 

Time 

Period 

Date Hour 

Operated 

Operational 

Load 

(megawatts) 

Emission Rate 

(lbs/MMBtus) 

Emission 

(lbs/hour) 

 08/07/2008 3 38 0.791 820.821 

 08/07/2008 4 143 0.708 1408.849 

 08/07/2008 5 195 0.665 1648.734 

Average 0.44 494.94 

Shutdown 09/15/2008 22 159 0.683 1067.529 

 09/15/2008 23 

Startup 09/17/2008 1 

 09/17/2008 2 0 0.007 0.161 

 09/17/2008 3 0 0.014 2.155 

 09/17/2008 4 0 0.242 102.656 

 09/17/2008 5 0 0.325 163.962 

 09/17/2008 6 5 0.533 407.372 

 09/17/2008 7 31 0.659 591.848 

 09/17/2008 8 120 0.629 1063.324 

Average 0.39 424.88 

Shutdown 11/08/2008 15 146 0.572 841.469 

 11/08/2008 16 44 0.05 2.713 

 11/08/2008 17 

Startup 11/10/2008 1 

 11/10/2008 2 0 0.006 0.173 

 11/10/2008 3 0 0.011 2.032 

 11/10/2008 4 0 0.093 22.878 

 11/10/2008 5 0 0.472 320.205 

 11/10/2008 6 0 0.536 363.73 

 11/10/2008 7 24 0.621 624.043 

 11/10/2008 8 78 0.667 971.352 

 11/10/2008 9 195 0.37 921.152 

Average 0.34 406.97 

 

Table 1-3 indicates that Otter Tail Power Company’s startup and shutdown periods may have 

an emission rate of 0.2 to 0.7 pounds per million Btus. Table 1-4 illustrates how many days 

and how many hours of startup/shutdown periods may occur before an exceedance of the 

0.10 pounds per million Btu emissions limit occurs assuming the non-startup and nonshutdown periods are at a constant emission rate in pounds per million Btus. 
A-14 

Table 1-4 – 30-Day Startup/Shutdown Comparison (pounds per million Btus) 

Emissions During 

Normal Operation 

Normal 

Operations 

Startup/Shutdown 

Emissions 

Startup/Shutdown 

Operations 

Average 

Emission Rate

0.05 26 days 0.5 4 days 0.11 

0.06 26 days 0.5 4 days 0.12 

0.07 27 days 0.5 3 days 0.11 

0.08 28 days 0.5 2 days 0.11 

0.09 28 days 0.5 2 days 0.12 

0.05 27 days 0.6 3 days 0.105 

0.06 27 days 0.6 3 days 0.114 

0.07 28 days 0.6 2 days 0.105 

0.08 28 days 0.6 2 days 0.115 

0.09 29 days 0.6 1 day 0.107 

0.05 632 hours 0.5 88 hours 0.105 

0.06 646 hours 0.5 74 hours 0.105 

0.07 661 hours 0.5 59 hours 0.105 

0.08 677 hours 0.5 43 hours 0.105 

0.09 698 hours 0.5 22 hours 0.105 

0.05 648 hours 0.6 72 hours 0.105 

0.06 660 hours 0.6 60 hours 0.105 

0.07 672 hours 0.6 48 hours 0.105 

0.08 685 hours 0.6 35 hours 0.105 

0.09 693 hours 0.6 27 hours 0.106 

Table 1-4 indicates Otter Tail Power Company would have to limit its startup and shutdown 

emissions to less than 3% to 13% of its operations. The duration and frequency of the startup 

and shutdown periods are due to malfunction or planned outages of the emission unit or 

control device. 

The concept of duration and frequency of startup and shutdown periods was a 

consideration in the consent decree for the Baldwin facility. The consent decree 

identifies that the nitrogen oxide emissions occurring during a fifth startup during a 30-

day period may be excluded from 30-day rolling average calculations. Table 1-3 

indicates a startup and shutdown period covers approximately 10 hours which could 

occur over a two day period. Depending on the emission during non-startup and nonshutdown periods, this means Otter Tail Power Company could have approximately 1 to 

9 startup and shutdown periods before an exceedance would occur. 

As indicated by EPA, the emission rate during normal operation will have to be lower than 

0.10 pounds per million Btus to account for startup and shutdown periods. Even though the 
A-15 

emission rate (pounds per hour) used in the modeling analysis for visibility would not 

change, this approach would change the cost analysis for step 4 of the BART determination. 

The visibility and emission reduction used in the analysis will not change with the change in 

the emission limit to include startup and shutdown emissions. However, qualitatively, the 

cost of compliance both on a dollar per ton basis and a dollar per deciview would increase 

because at a minimum the operation and maintenance cost would increase. In addition, 

depending on how hard the system is pushed to meet the revised limit, the non-air 

environmental impacts required in step 4 of a BART determination may be significantly 

impacted due to the additional raw material used, the degradation of catalysts, etc. that were 

not accounted for by EPA. 

EPA did not provide any evidence that the increased costs and non-air environmental impacts 

were accounted for when EPA identified 0.10 pounds per million Btu, including startup and 

shutdown in EPA’s BART determination. DENR believes its case-by-case BART 

determination took all of this in account when determining the BART emission limits during 

normal operation and operations that include startup and shutdown. 

EPA’s Comment: EPA also identified there were two boilers at the Illinois Baldwin 

power plant burning powder river basin coal with a similar firing design as Otter Tail 

Power Company and accepted an emission limit 0.10 pound per million Btus on a 30-day 

rolling average, including startup and shutdown emissions (with limited exceptions). 

Response: The Baldwin power plant uses a selective catalytic reduction system to 

minimize nitrogen oxide emissions. DENR pulled daily average nitrogen oxide emissions 

from EPA’s Clean Air Markets for calendar year 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the 

Baldwin Power Plant. The Baldwin Power Plant operates three coal fired boilers. DENR 

determined that Unit #1 and #2 are cyclone fired boilers and Unit #3 is a tangential fired 

boiler. Using the daily information, DENR reviewed the pound per million Btus 

emission rate associated with startup and shutdown periods for Unit #1 and #2. Table 1-5 

and Table 1-6 lists those emission rates and compares them to the nitrogen oxide pound 

per million Btus emission limit for Otter Tail Power Company, which excludes startup 

and shutdown. 

Table 1-5 – Baldwin Unit #1 nitrogen oxide comparison (pounds per million Btus) 

Date Daily Hours 

Operated 

Baldwin 

Emission Rate 

Otter Tail

Limit 

Compliance 

Issue? 

03/27/2007 1 0.756 0.1 Yes 

03/31/2007 14 0.3171 0.1 Yes 

04/01/2007 24 0.1157 0.1 Yes 

07/27/2007 4 0.241 0.1 Yes 

07/29/2007 9 0.2823 0.1 Yes 

09/08/2007 5 0.2696 0.1 Yes 

09/09/2007 24 0.1755 0.1 Yes 

10/27/2007 2 0.343 0.1 Yes 
A-16 

Date Daily Hours 

Operated 

Baldwin 

Emission Rate 

Otter Tail

Limit 

Compliance 

Issue? 

10/28/2007 6 0.2118 0.1 Yes 

10/31/2007 21 0.1564 0.1 Yes 

11/05/2007 14 0.1258 0.1 Yes 

11/08/2007 24 0.2024 0.1 Yes 

01/15/2008 24 0.1835 0.1 Yes 

03/03/2008 24 0.1945 0.1 Yes 

04/05/2008 8 0.1259 0.1 Yes 

05/15/2008 9 0.3036 0.1 Yes 

05/16/2008 16 0.3736 0.1 Yes 

05/17/2008 24 0.3186 0.1 Yes 

06/02/2008 24 0.2752 0.1 Yes 

06/05/2008 21 0.2018 0.1 Yes 

08/21/2008 23 0.1985 0.1 Yes 

09/27/2008 2 0.5265 0.1 Yes 

09/28/2008 4 0.2725 0.1 Yes 

09/29/2008 24 0.1736 0.1 Yes 

10/22/2008 22 0.2235 0.1 Yes 

11/14/2008 23 0.2243 0.1 Yes 

01/15/2009 24 0.2557 0.1 Yes 

02/27/2009 24 0.3135 0.1 Yes 

04/20/2009 24 0.1993 0.1 Yes 

06/11/2009 24 0.1836 0.1 Yes 

08/03/2009 22 0.1721 0.1 Yes 

08/10/2009 12 0.3396 0.1 Yes 

08/15/2009 8 0.4135 0.1 Yes 

08/16/2009 4 0.1725 0.1 Yes 

08/17/2009 24 0.2097 0.1 Yes 

08/30/2009 24 0.1929 0.1 Yes 

11/01/2009 22 0.3054 0.1 Yes 

02/08/2010 22 0.289 0.1 Yes 

04/07/2010 2 0.5705 0.1 Yes 

04/11/2010 22 0.2294 0.1 Yes 

04/17/2010 3 0.4733 0.1 Yes 

04/18/2010 5 0.1856 0.1 Yes 

04/19/2010 24 0.1678 0.1 Yes 

04/30/2010 1 0.666 0.1 Yes 

05/02/2010 22 0.206 0.1 Yes 

05/20/2010 5 0.2612 0.1 Yes 

05/21/2010 24 0.1395 0.1 Yes 

06/07/2010 9 0.3441 0.1 Yes 
A-17 

Date Daily Hours 

Operated 

Baldwin 

Emission Rate 

Otter Tail

Limit 

Compliance 

Issue? 

08/01/2010 6 0.1997 0.1 Yes 

08/03/2010 2 0.351 0.1 Yes 

08/04/2010 24 0.2099 0.1 Yes 

09/15/2010 1 0.356 0.1 Yes 

09/16/2010 18 0.3339 0.1 Yes 

09/17/2010 15 0.2033 0.1 Yes 

11/17/2010 20 0.2565 0.1 Yes 

12/19/2010 24 0.2053 0.1 Yes 

Table 1-6 – Baldwin Unit #2 nitrogen oxide comparison (pounds per million Btus) 

Date Daily Hours 

Operated 

Baldwin 

Emission Rate 

Otter Tail

Limit 

Compliance 

Issue? 

02/08/2007 2 0.606 0.1 Yes 

02/14/2007 10 0.2926 0.1 Yes 

02/15/2007 24 0.2303 0.1 Yes 

06/08/2007 2 0.463 0.1 Yes 

06/10/2007 16 0.3688 0.1 Yes 

07/27/2007 15 0.2498 0.1 Yes 

09/03/2007 23 0.1617 0.1 Yes 

11/01/2007 2 0.6675 0.1 Yes 

11/04/2007 16 0.2603 0.1 Yes 

12/15/2007 8 0.3126 0.1 Yes 

12/16/2007 5 0.3124 0.1 Yes 

12/17/2007 24 0.2498 0.1 Yes 

02/06/2008 3 0.464 0.1 Yes 

02/08/2008 6 0.2715 0.1 Yes 

02/09/2008 24 0.2022 0.1 Yes 

03/07/2008 10 0.2415 0.1 Yes 

03/08/2008 24 0.1987 0.1 Yes 

04/05/2008 24 0.1901 0.1 Yes 

04/27/2008 23 0.2722 0.1 Yes 

05/25/2008 14 0.3313 0.1 Yes 

05/26/2008 22 0.2946 0.1 Yes 

09/20/2008 2 0.637 0.1 Yes 

09/22/2008 17 0.3627 0.1 Yes 

01/19/2009 10 0.2123 0.1 Yes 

01/20/2009 24 0.211 0.1 Yes 

02/17/2009 1 0.583 0.1 Yes 

02/28/2009 10 0.2059 0.1 Yes 

03/01/2009 16 0.3068 0.1 Yes 
A-18 

Date Daily Hours 

Operated 

Baldwin 

Emission Rate 

Otter Tail

Limit 

Compliance 

Issue? 

03/03/2009 21 0.1631 0.1 Yes 

04/01/2009 14 0.2911 0.1 Yes 

05/16/2009 11 0.2924 0.1 Yes 

06/21/2009 4 0.2038 0.1 Yes 

06/22/2009 24 0.1917 0.1 Yes 

07/11/2009 2 0.551 0.1 Yes 

07/12/2009 10 0.2485 0.1 Yes 

11/13/2009 2 0.31 0.1 Yes 

11/14/2009 16 0.2763 0.1 Yes 

11/15/2009 24 0.2673 0.1 Yes 

11/16/2009 1 0.259 0.1 Yes 

11/17/2009 22 0.2221 0.1 Yes 

11/26/2009 1 0.494 0.1 Yes 

11/29/2009 13 0.2737 0.1 Yes 

12/02/2009 2 0.4035 0.1 Yes 

12/04/2009 18 0.1707 0.1 Yes 

12/25/2009 3 0.5653 0.1 Yes 

12/27/2009 6 0.201 0.1 Yes 

02/03/2010 24 0.2168 0.1 Yes 

04/03/2010 1 0.465 0.1 Yes 

04/04/2010 4 0.1995 0.1 Yes 

04/05/2010 24 0.1643 0.1 Yes 

07/29/2010 3 0.4413 0.1 Yes 

08/01/2010 15 0.2837 0.1 Yes 

08/05/2010 24 0.1583 0.1 Yes 

09/04/2010 3 0.4367 0.1 Yes 

09/07/2010 9 0.1922 0.1 Yes 

09/10/2010 24 0.2345 0.1 Yes 

10/17/2010 21 0.2178 0.1 Yes 

11/06/2010 2 0.2345 0.1 Yes 

11/09/2010 24 0.1828 0.1 Yes 

Table 1-5 and 1-6 indicates the two cyclone units at the Baldwin Energy facility are 

unable to meet the emission rate of 0.1 pounds per million Btus during a startup and 

shutdown period based on a daily average. 

2. South Dakota requested information on what other states are meeting nitrogen 

oxide limits below 0.1 pounds per million Btus and on the diluent cap. 

EPA’s Comment: South Dakota’s pounds per million Btus BART limit for nitrogen 

oxide is higher than other states’ and provided examples. 
A-19 

Response: The Clean Air Act provides states, not EPA, with the primary authority to 

determine BART for sources within their individual states by weighing the five statutory 

criteria set forth in the Clean Air Act. EPA’s attempt to make BART consistent 

throughout the nation by comparing BART emission limits and denying a state’s BART 

determination just because it is not the lowest conflicts with the Clean Air Act and 

federal regulations. Therefore, EPA should ensure states are following the case-by-case 

basis BART determination requirements in the Clean Air Act instead of trying to make 

every state’s BART determination consistent. 

EPA provided a list of coal fired boilers in an excel spreadsheet representing achievable 

emission rates. These emission rates represent boilers with a different firing design than 

used by Otter Tail Power Company and are not specifically comparable. Regardless, 

DENR pulled daily average nitrogen oxide emissions from EPA’s Clean Air Markets for 

calendar year 2009. DENR pulled out the days that operated less than 24 hours and 

assumed these days represented startup and shutdown operations of the boilers. DENR 

then ranked those daily readings. Table 1-7 identifies the range of the three highest daily 

average nitrogen oxide emission rates in pound per million Btus and compares them to 

the nitrogen oxide pound per million Btus emission limit for Otter Tail Power Company, 

which excludes startup and shutdown. Table 1-7 indicates that on a day when a startup 

and/or shutdown period occurs the pound per million Btus emission rates are higher than 

the limit established for Otter Tail Power Company. 

Table 1-7 – Daily Nitrogen Oxide Emission Rate 

Plant Name Unit Top Three 

Emission Rate 

Startup / Shutdown 

(pound per MMBtus) 

Otter Tail 

Limit 

(pound per MMBtus) 

Compliance 

Issue? 

Belews Creek 1 0.24 to 0.31 0.1 Yes 

Belews Creek 2 0.36 to 0.59 0.1 Yes 

Cardinal 1 0.24 to 0.28 0.1 Yes 

Cardinal 2 0.29 to 0.49 0.1 Yes 

Cardinal 3 0.26 to 0.75 0.1 Yes 

Chesapeake Energy 3 0.08 to 0.17 0.1 Maybe 

Chesterfield 5 0.18 to 0.39 0.1 Yes 

Chesterfield 6 0.13 to 0.18 0.1 Yes 

E D Edwards 3 0.11 to 0.14 0.1 Yes 

Havana 9 0.24 to 0.31 0.1 Yes 

John E Amos 1 0.26 to 0.44 0.1 Yes 

John E Amos 2 0.11 to 0.16 0.1 Yes 

Kingston 1 0.09 to 0.16 0.1 Maybe 

Kingston 2 0.13 to 0.23 0.1 Yes 

Kingston 5 0.07 to 0.13 0.1 Maybe 
A-20 

Plant Name Unit Top Three 

Emission Rate 

Startup / Shutdown 

(pound per MMBtus) 

Otter Tail 

Limit 

(pound per MMBtus) 

Compliance 

Issue? 

Kingston 6 0.11 to 0.17 0.1 Yes 

Kingston 7 0.13 to 0.20 0.1 Yes 

Kingston 8 0.13 to 0.16 0.1 Yes 

Kingston 9 0.33 to 0.49 0.1 Yes 

Mitchell (WV) 1 0.23 to 0.41 0.1 Yes 

Mitchell (WV) 2 0.26 to 0.40 0.1 Yes 

Pleasant Prairie 1 0.11 to 0.21 0.1 Yes 

TS Power Plant 1 0.12 to 0.12 0.1 Yes 

W A Parish WAP7 0.05 to 0.11 0.1 No 

W A Parish WAP8 0.05 to 0.10 0.1 No 

Walter Scott Jr. 4 0.05 to 0.09 0.1 No 

 EPA did not provide any evidence to indicate the sulfur dioxide emission limit was not 

reflective of the control technology selected. Based on DENR’s BART determination, 

which is a state’s case-by-case evaluation, DENR disagrees with EPA and believes the 

0.09 pounds per million Btu limit during normal operation and the 505 pounds per hour 

limit, which includes startup and shutdown periods is BART. 

DENR’s BART emission limits were based on a case-by-case BART determination using 

the five factor analysis. The pounds per hour BART emission limits which represents the 

worst case scenario were modeled using EPA approved models and determined that Big 

Stone I would not contribute to any visibility impairment in any Class I areas in South 

Dakota or in other states. This analysis is based on EPA’s guidelines for a BART 

determination in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. Therefore, DENR established BART 

emission limits that meet the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze program requirements, 

are being met on a continuous basis, and are enforceable. 

3. South Dakota suggested that pounds per million Btu emission limits are not 

required in a regional haze state implementation plan, just limits of some form (e.g., 

pounds per hour) that correspond to modeling results of less than 0.5 deciview 

impact. 

EPA’s Comment: EPA comments that the regulations are clear that the rule intended the 

enforceable limits for electrical generating units be established on a pounds per million 

Btus basis using a 30-day rolling average. EPA specifically notes the following: 

a. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B); 
A-21 

b. The presumptive limits on a pound per million Btu basis as noted in 70 FR 39172 and 

in particular, the presumptive limit of 0.10 pounds per MMBtu for cyclone units 

burning subbituminous coal using a selective catalytic reduction system; 

c. The rule specifies a 30-day rolling average for electrical generating units and contain 

a definition of “boiler operating” that is consistent with the definition in the proposed 

revisions to the NSPS for utility boilers in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da; and 

d. All nitrogen oxide emission limits proposed for utility boilers under BART, 

regardless of the state or EPA region, have been in pounds per million Btus. 

Response: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B) specifies that “the determination of BART for 

fossil-fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 

megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines in appendix Y of this part (Guidelines 

for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule). Otter Tail Power Company’s 

Big Stone facility is not greater than 750 megawatts. Therefore, Otter Tail Power 

Company is not required to follow or implement the requirements in Appendix Y. 

EPA references the presumptive limits and referenced in the July 6, 2005, federal register 

notice (Volume 70 pages 39104 through 39172) of the final rules for the Regional Haze 

Regulations and Guideline for Best Available Retrofit Technology. The presumptive 

limits are identified in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y. As noted above Otter Tail Power 

Company is not applicable to Appendix Y. 

 

In addition, in response to comments EPA noted in the federal register on page 39108 

that “Having carefully considered the comments and further reviewed the CAA and the 

legislative history, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate for EPA to require 

States to use the guidelines in making BART determinations for other categories of 

sources. The better reading of the Act indicates that Congress intended the guidelines to 

be mandatory only with respect to 750 megawatt power plants. Thus, while we 

acknowledge the State agency comments and the policy reasons support consistency 

across States, we are not requiring States to use the BART guideline for these other 

categories. In response to State concerns about equitable application of the BART 

requirement to source owners with similar sources in different States, we do encourage 

States to follow the guidelines for all source categories but are not requiring States to do 

so. States should view the guidelines as helpful guidance for these other categories. We 

disagree with comments that the CAA and the legislative history prohibit us from issuing 

guidance for other source categories. As the guidelines make clear, States are not 

required to follow the approach in the guidelines for sources other than 750 megawatt 

power plants. As such, although we believe that the guidelines provide useful advice in 

implementing the BART provisions of the regional haze rule, we do not believe that they 

hamper State discretion in making BART determinations.” 

EPA also references the requirements in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The reference to 

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da in the regulation is identified in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

Y. As noted above Otter Tail Power Company is not applicable to Appendix Y. In 
A-22 

addition, the reference to Subpart Da is specific to the definition of operating day and not 

the emission limits. However, Subpart Da does not support the requirement that startup 

and shutdown emissions shall be included in the compliance determination for the pounds 

per million Btus limit. 

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da at § 60.48Da (c) specifies that “the PM emission standards 

under §60.42Da and the NOX emission standards under §60.44Da apply at all times 

except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. The sulfur dioxide emission 

standards under §60.43Da apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, 

or when both emergency conditions exist and the procedures under paragraph (d) of this 

section are implemented.” 

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da at § 60.48Da (g)(1) states “compliance with applicable 30-

day rolling average SO2and NOX emission limitations is determined by calculating the 

arithmetic average of all hourly emission rates for SO2and NOX for the 30 successive 

boiler operating days, except for data obtained during startup, shutdown, malfunction 

(NOX only), or emergency conditions (SO2 only).” 

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da at §60.51Da (b)(5) specifies “identification of the times when 

emissions data have been excluded from the calculation of average emission rates 

because of startup, shutdown, malfunction (NOX only), emergency conditions (SO2 only), 

or other reasons, and justification for excluding data for reasons other than startup, 

shutdown, malfunction, or emergency conditions must be reported to the Administrator 

for each 24-hour period.” 

DENR agrees that the definition of “boiler operating” should be consistent with 40 CFR 

Part 60, Subpart Da and will revise the Regional Haze rules. DENR disagrees that the 

federal rule is clear that the rule intended for enforceable limits be established in pounds 

per million Btus using a 30-day rolling average. DENR would agree it is clear if the 

federal rules intended for the BART limits to be in pounds per million Btus for sources or 

all electrical generating units, the federal rule would have specified this requirement. 

However, the federal rule is silent on this issue. Therefore, DENR has the ability to 

define the emission limit, the averaging period, etc. Even though not specifically 

commented upon, DENR will revise the rules to define how to calculate the 30-day 

rolling average. 

4. South Dakota explained during the call that startup/shutdown events are rare at Big 

Stone (only about twice a year) and the pounds per hour limits apply anyway during 

those events. South Dakota asked where in the rules the pounds per million Btu 

limits must also apply during startup and shutdown. (Note, for clarity, Big Stone’s 

pounds per hour limits apply over a 30 day period and include periods of startup 

and shutdown. Therefore, the startup and shutdown emissions are average to with 

normal operating emissions. 
A-23 

EPA’s Comment: The rule states "Section 302(k) of the CAA requires emissions limits 

such as BART to be met on a continuous basis. Although this provision does not necessarily 

require the use of continuous emissions monitoring (CEMs), it is important that sources 

employ techniques that ensure compliance on a continuous basis" (70 FR 39172). The rule 

goes on to state "[m]onitoring requirements generally applicable to sources, including those 

that are subject to BART, are governed by other regulations. See, e.g., 40 CFR part 64 

(compliance assurance monitoring); 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) (periodic monitoring); 40 CFR 

70.6(c)(1) (sufficiency monitoring) (70 FR 39172). Therefore, it is clear that the rule intended 

for BART emission limits to be met on a continuous basis and did not provide either 

explicitly or implicitly exceptions for startup and shutdown. 

Response: DENR was incorrect in stating that Big Stone I only had one or two startup 

and shutdowns per year. Big Stone I has only one or two startup and shutdown periods 

for planned routine maintenance. There are other startup and shutdowns periods during 

the year related to the routine operations of the facility. 

Section 302(k) of the Clean Air Act states the term “emission limitation” and emission 

standard” mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits 

the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, 

including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure 

continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational 

standard promulgated under this act. DENR does not disagree with EPA’s interpretation 

that 302(k) requires an emission limit to be met on a continuous basis. However, EPA 

response still does not answer and does not specify why an emission limit in pounds per 

hour, which includes startup and shutdown, is not an emission limit to be met on a 

continuous basis, does not meet the requirements of the regulations and specifically 

where it states that an emission limit in pounds per MMBtus must include emissions 

generated during startup and shutdown. 

B. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting 

1. A compliance test method(s) for PM10 must be specified. 

EPA’s Comment: South Dakota’s proposal to review the test protocol prior to testing to 

determine if the test method proposed is appropriate is an unacceptable form of director’s 

discretion. In addition, EPA states South Dakota’s performance rules do not specify who 

makes the determination regarding which of the hundred of test methods is “applicable”. 

EPA suggests adding the following language “...in accordance with the requirements and 

procedures set forth in EPA Test Method 5, 5B, 5D, 17, 201, or 201A.” 

Response: 40 CFR § 60.8(b) states “performance tests shall be conducted and data reduced 

in accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in each applicable subpart 

unless the Administrator (1) specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a reference 

method with minor changes in methodology, (2) approves the use of an equivalent method, 

(3) approves the use of an alternative method the results of which he has determined to be 
A-24 

adequate for indication whether a specific source is in compliance, (4) waives the 

requirement for performance tests because the owner or operator of a source has 

demonstrated by other means to the Administrator’s satisfaction that the affected facility is in 

compliance with the standard, or (5) approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample 

volumes when necessitated by process variables or other factors.” 

40 CFR § 63.7 (b)(1) states “the owner or operator of an affected source must notify the 

Administrator in writing of his or her intention to conduct a performance test at least 60 

calendar days before the performance test is initially scheduled to begin to allow the 

Administrator, upon request, to review and approve the site-specific test plan required under 

paragraph (c) of the is section and to have an observer present during the test.” 

 

40 CFR § 63.7 (e)(2) states “performance tests shall be conducted and data reduced in 

accordance with the test methods and procedures set forth in this section, in each relevant 

standard, and, if required, in applicable appendices of parts 51, 60, 61, and 63 of this chapter 

unless the Administrator (i) specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a test method 

with minor changes in methodology, (ii) approves the use of an intermediate or major change 

or alternative to a test method, the results of which the Administrator has determined to be 

adequate for indicating whether a specific affected source is in compliance, (iii) a approves 

shorter sampling times or smaller sample volumes when necessary by process variables or 

other factors, or (iv) waives the requirement for performance tests because the owner or 

operator of an affected source has demonstrated by other means to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that the affected facility is in compliance with the relevant standard.” 

EPA regulations involving performance testing have several “director’s discretion” criteria. 

DENR performance testing specifies in Administrative Rule 74:36:11:01 stack performance 

testing or other testing methods – “all stack performance tests or other test methods must be 

made in accordance with the applicable method specified in 40 CFR § 60.17; Part 60, 

Appendix A; § 63.14; Part 63, Appendix A; and Part 51, Appendix M (all July 1, 2009). 

Therefore, the testing must be conducted in accordance with a method that EPA has approved 

and has completed a rule making process to incorporate that test method. 

EPA suggested language contradicts EPA’s position. Each of the test methods specified 

reference other test methods. For example, EPA’s Method 5 specifies in a note “This method 

does not include all of the specifications and procedures essential to its performance. Some 

material is incorporated by reference from other methods in this part. Therefore, to obtain 

reliable results, persons using this method should have a through knowledge of at least the 

following additional test methods: Method 1, Method 2, Method 3. EPA language does not 

list all potentially applicable test methods needed to determine the particulate matter emission 

rate. 

As a practical matter and as South Dakota revises its regulations, it is easier to revise the 

performance test requirements in Administrative Rules Chapter 74:36:11 then to update 

performance testing requirements throughout other regulations. Repeating requirements in 

other sections generates a greater risk of having regulations covering the same topic being 

different, which causes conflicting requirements. 
A-25 

2. Specific Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting language must be incorporated 

into the State Implementation Plan. 

EPA’s Comment: South Dakota’s Regional Haze program does not contain the elements 

necessary to make BART limits practically enforceable. The proposed State Implementation 

Plan contains controls, emission limits and general schedules but does not include specific 

averaging times, recordkeeping, monitoring, and schedules for compliance. The Clean Air 

Act requires that State Implementation Plans, including the Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan, contain elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically 

enforceable. It is not sufficient to include these elements in a separate permit or 

agreement that is not made part of the State Implementation Plan. EPA provided 

language DENR could use to address the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

Response: DENR does not agree that the BART limits are not enforceable. Administrative 

Rules of South Dakota section 74:36:21:06 establishes the BART emission limits. In 

addition, it indicates compliance with the particulate matter limit be based on an annual stack 

performance tests and the average of three 1-hour test runs. It also indicates compliance with 

the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide limits shall be based on continuous emission 

monitoring equipment and a 30-day rolling average. DENR does agree the boiler operating 

and 30-day rolling average should be defined and will revise the Regional Haze rules 

appropriately. DENR also disagrees that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements are not specified since DENR referenced the same monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting language in DENR’s EPA approved Title V air quality permit program. DENR 

does agree to incorporate similar language proposed by EPA in the Regional Haze rules to 

address this concern. 

3. Additional suggested improvements which South Dakota may opt to address and 

which EPA strongly encourages. 

EPA’s Comment: EPA recommends South Dakota incorporate a Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring plan into the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

Response: A Compliance Assurance Monitoring plan is a requirement under 40 CFR Part 70 

which is the Title V air quality permit requirements. A facility that must submit a compliance 

plan must establish operational limitations in which it can operate and stay in compliance 

with its permit limits. The operational limits are based on the facilities actual operations. In 

addition, typically if a facility installs continuous emission monitoring equipment it has 

satisfied the requirements under the Compliance Assurance Monitoring plan. Therefore, the 

only pollutant this would have to be developed for is for particulate matter. Requiring a 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring plan before the facility has installed and operated the new 

control devices would be unrealistic. Therefore, DENR will establish the Compliance 

Assurance Monitoring plan when DENR incorporates the BART requirements in Big Stone 

I’s Title V air quality permit. 
A-26 

EPA’s Comment: EPA recommends DENR reference 40 CFR Part 75 for the continuous 

emission monitoring systems instead of 40 CFR Part 60.

Response: DENR agrees and will revise the Regional Haze rules appropriately. 

C. Reasonable Progress Four-Factor Analysis 

1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction system must be carried through the 4-factor 

analysis for GCC Dacotah. 

EPA’s Comment: WRAP’s report stated the Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction system is 

not applicable to long wet and dry kilns is out of date. EPA indicates the Selective NonCatalytic Reduction system is being used for wet cement kilns in Europe and Ash Grove 

Cement’s wet kiln in Midlothian, Texas was authorized to test a Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction system. Ash Grove Cement installed a full scale Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction system on one of its wet kilns and the system has been running for several months 

and achieving 35 to 40% nitrogen oxide reductions on a consistent basis.

Response: Although DENR does not agree that one plant operating for several months 

constitutes the system is capable, DENR will include a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

system in the 4-factor analysis for GCC Dacotah. 

2. Make necessary edits for correction of WRAP CMAQ modeling results. 

EPA’s Comment: EPA is requesting that Table 7-1(a) for Badlands be revised in the 

technical document to reflect the correction of WRAP’s Plan02d CMAQ modeling results. 

Response: DENR believes this revision can be made during the 5-year review but since 

DENR is already making changes to the technical document, DENR will review WRAP’s 

results and update the technical document appropriately. 

D. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment 

1. EPA is requesting that DENR reconsider adopting the Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment rules which are currently under a Federal Implementation 

Plan. 

EPA’s Comment: The Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment may be handled 

through South Dakota adopting it under its State Implementation Plan, revising the Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan to clarify its intention to coordinate the Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan with EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan, or South Dakota does nothing 

and the burden remains with EPA to ensure proper coordination between the two 

implementation plan’s long term strategies occurs.
A-27 

Response: DENR plans on coordinating with EPA to ensure the long term strategies 

requirements are met for each program. DENR does agree to reconsider the first option once 

the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan has been approved by EPA and DENR has a 

chance to determine if it has the resources necessary to implement the Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment under its State Implementation Plan. 
B-1 

ATTACHMENT B 

ARTICLE 74:36 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM 

Chapter 

74:36:01 Definitions. 

74:36:02 Ambient air quality. 

74:36:03 Air quality episodes. 

74:36:04 Operating permits for minor sources. 

74:36:05 Operating permits for Part 70 sources. 

74:36:06 Regulated air pollutant emissions. 

74:36:07 New source performance standards. 

74:36:08 National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. 

74:36:09 Prevention of significant deterioration. 

74:36:10 New source review. 

74:36:11 Performance testing. 

74:36:12 Control of visible emissions. 

74:36:13 Continuous emission monitoring systems. 

74:36:14 Variances, Repealed. 

74:36:15 Open burning, Transferred or Repealed. 

74:36:16 Acid rain program. 

74:36:17 Rapid City street sanding and deicing. 

74:36:18 Regulations for state facilities in the Rapid City area. 

74:36:19 Mercury budget trading program, Repealed. 

74:36:20 Construction permits for new sources or modifications. 

74:36:21 Regional haze program. 

 

CHAPTER 74:36:21 

REGIONAL HAZE PROGRAM 

Section 

74:36:21:01 Applicability. 

74:36:21:02 Definitions. 

74:36:21:03 Existing stationary facility defined. 

74:36:21:04 Visibility impact analysis. 

74:36:21:05 BART determination. 

74:36:21:06 BART determination for a BART-eligible coal-fired power plant. 

74:36:21:07 Installation of controls based on visibility impact analysis or BART 

determination. 

74:36:21:08 Operation and maintenance of controls. 
B-2 

74:36:21:09 Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

74:36:21:10 Permit to construct. 

74:36:21:11 Permit required for BART determination. 

74:36:21:12 Federal land manager notification and review. 

74:36:21:01. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to the owner or operator of 

a new major source, modification to a major source, and a BART-eligible source. The provisions 

of this chapter do not apply to a major source or major modification to an existing source 

applicable to chapters 74:36:09 and 74:36:10. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:02. Definitions. Unless otherwise specified, the terms used in this chapter mean: 

 (1) "Adverse impact on visibility," visibility impairment that interferes with the 

management, protection, preservation, or enjoyment of the visitor's visual experience of the 

mandatory Class I federal area. Adverse impact on visibility shall be based on a case-by-case basis 

taking into account the geographic extent, intensity, duration, frequency, and time of visibility 

impairment, and how these factors correlate with times of visitor use of a mandatory Class I 

federal area and the frequency and timing of natural conditions that reduce visibility; 

 (2) "BART," best available retrofit technology; 

 (3) "Best available retrofit technology" an emission limitation based on the degree of 

reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction 

for each pollutant that is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be 

established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs 

of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution 

control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and 

the degree of improvement in visibility that may reasonable be anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology; 

 (4) "BART-eligible source," an existing stationary facility; 

 (5) "Coal-fired power plant," any person, corporation, limited liability company, 

association, company, partnership, political subdivision, municipality, rural electric cooperative, 

consumers power district, or any group or combination acting as a unit, owning or holding under 

lease, or otherwise real property used, or intended for use, for the conversion of coal into electric 

power; 

 (6) "Contribute to adverse impact on visibility," a change in visibility impairment in a 

mandatory Class I federal area of five-tenths deciviews or more, based on a 24-hour average, 

above the average natural visibility baseline. A source exceeds the threshold if the 98th percentile 
B-3 

(eighth highest value) of the modeling results, based on one year of the three years of 

meteorological data modeled, equals or exceeds five-tenths deciviews; 

 (7) "Major source," as defined in § 74:36:01:08(2) and (3); 

 (8) "Mandatory Class I federal area," any area identified in 40 C.F.R. § 81, Subpart D (July 

1, 2009); and

 (9) "Visibility impairment," any human perceptible change in visibility such as light 

extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration, from that which would have existed under natural 

conditions; and 

(10) “30-day rolling average,” shall be expressed as pounds per million Btus and pounds per 

hour and calculated in accordance with the following procedures: 

 (a) Sum the total pounds of pollutant in question emitted from a unit during an operating 

day and the previous 29 operating days; 

 (b) Sum the total heat input to the unit in million Btus during the operating day and the 

previous 29 operating days; 

 (c) Sum the total hours the unit operated in hours during the day and the previous 29 

operating days; 

(d) For pounds per million Btus, divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant 

emitted during the 30-day operating days by the total heat input during the 30-day operating days; 

(e) For pounds per hour, divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant emitted 

during the 30-day operating days by the total hours operated during the 30-day operating days. 

A new 30-day rolling average shall be calculated for each new operating day. Each 30-day rolling 

average shall include all emissions that occur during periods of startup and shutdown. 

(11) “Operating day,” means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following 

midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the unit. It is not necessary for fuel to 

be combusted the entire 24-hour period. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:03. Existing stationary facility defined. An existing stationary facility is any of 

the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed source that was not 

in operation before August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential 

to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive 

emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be counted for: 
B-4 

 (1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per 

hour heat input; 

 (2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers); 

 (3) Kraft pulp mills; 

 (4) Portland cement plants; 

 (5) Primary zinc smelters; 

 (6) Iron and steel mill plants; 

 (7) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants; 

 (8) Primary copper smelters; 

 (9) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day; 

 (10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants; 

 (11) Petroleum refineries; 

 (12) Lime plants; 

 (13) Phosphate rock processing plants; 

 (14) Coke oven batteries; 

 (15) Sulfur recovery plants; 

 (16) Carbon black plants (furnace process); 

 (17) Primary lead smelters; 

 (18) Fuel conversion plants; 

 (19) Sintering plants; 

 (20) Secondary metal production facilities; 

 (21) Chemical process plants; 

 (22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; 

 (23) Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels; 

 (24) Taconite ore processing facilities; 

 (25) Glass fiber processing plants; and 

 (26) Charcoal production facilities. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:04. Visibility impact analysis. The owner or operator of a new major source or 

modification to a major source shall demonstrate to the department that the potential to emit from 

the new major source or modification to a major source will not contribute to adverse impact on 

visibility in any mandatory Class I federal area. The demonstration shall be based on visibility 

models approved in 40 C.F.R. § 51, Subpart W (July 1, 2009). 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:05. BART determination. The owner or operator of a BART-eligible source that 

emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to adverse impact on 

visibility in any mandatory Class I federal area shall submit a BART determination. The BART 

determination shall follow the procedures outlined in 40 C.F.R. § 51, Subpart Y (July 1, 2009) and 

must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology 
B-5 

available and associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-eligible source. In this 

analysis, the BART determination must take into consideration the technology available, the costs 

of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution 

control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of 

improvement in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such 

technology. The BART determination shall be submitted within nine months after being notified 

by the department that the existing stationary source is reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

adverse impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I federal area. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:06. BART determination for a BART-eligible coal-fired power plant. The 

owner or operator of a BART-eligible coal-fired power plant may not cause or permit emissions of 

the following regulated air pollutant in excess of the following amounts: 

 (1) PM10 emissions in excess of 67.3 pounds per hour, which includes periods of startup 

and shutdown; 

 (2) PM10 emissions in excess of 0.012 pounds per million Btus, which includes periods of 

startup and shutdown; 

 (3) Sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of 505 pounds per hour, which includes periods of 

startup and shutdown; 

 (4) Sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of 0.09 pounds per million Btus, which does not 

include includes periods of startup and shutdown;

 (5) Nitrogen oxide emissions in excess of 561 pounds per hour, which includes periods of 

startup and shutdown; and 

 (6) Nitrogen oxide emissions in excess of 0.10 pounds per million Btus, which does not 

include includes periods of startup and shutdown. 

 Compliance with the PM10 emission limits shall be based on an annual stack performance 

test using the performance testing methods in § 74:36:11 and using the average of three 1-hour test 

runs. Compliance with the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission limits shall be based on 

using continuous emission monitoring systems and a 30-day rolling average. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:07. Installation of controls based on visibility impact analysis or BART 

determination. The owner or operator of a new major source, modification to a major source, or a 

BART-eligible source that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to 
B-6 

contribute to adverse impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I federal area shall install, 

operate, and maintain the controls established in a visibility impact analysis or BART 

determination. The owner or operator of a new major source or modification to a major source 

must install and operate the controls established in a visibility impact analysis at initial startup. 

The owner or operator of a BART-eligible source required to install BART must install, operate, 

and demonstrate compliance with BART as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five 

years from EPA's approval of the state implementation plan for regional haze. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:08. Operation and maintenance of controls. The owner or operator required to 

install and operate controls established in a visibility impact analysis or BART determination shall 

establish written procedures to ensure the control equipment is properly operated and maintained. 

The written procedures shall include, at a minimum, the following: 

 (1) A maintenance schedule for each control device that is consistent with the 

manufacturer's instructions and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance; 

 (2) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each control device; and 

 (3) Parameters to be monitored to determine each control device is being operated properly. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:09. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The owner or operator required 

to install and operate controls established in a visibility impact analysis or BART determination 

shall conduct periodic monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. All sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

oxides emissions from the BART-eligible source shall be routed to the main stack of a BARTeligible source. Monitoring of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from the main stack of 

a BART-eligible source shall be conducted using a continuous emission monitoring system which 

complies with the continuous emission monitoring requirements in chapter 74:36:13 40 C.F.R. 

Part 75 (July 1, 2009). Monitoring and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements for other 

air pollutants from a BART-eligible source or from a major source or modification of a major 

source shall consist of at least the following: be in accordance with § 74:36:05:16.01(9). 

Recordkeeping and reporting shall comply with the requirements in § 74:36:05:16.01(9). 

 (1) All emissions monitoring and analysis procedures, alternative approved methods or test 

methods required in determining compliance with §§ 74:36:21:04 and 74:36:21:06; 

 (2) As necessary, documentation of the use, maintenance, and if appropriate, installation of 

monitoring equipment or methods; 

 (3) Documentation of the following: 

 (a) The date, place, and time of sampling or measurements; 
B-7 

 (b) The date or dates analyses were performed; 

 (c) The company or entity that performed the analyses; 

 (d) The analytical techniques or methods used; 

 (e) The results of such analyses; and 

 (f) The operating conditions as existing at the time of sampling or measurement; 

 (4) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements that comply with the following: 

 (a) Submission of reports of any required monitoring must occur at least every six 

months. Reports must clearly identify all exceedances with §§ 74:36:21:04 and 74:36:21:06. All 

required reports must be certified by a responsible official; and 

 (b) Exceedances of §§ 74:36:21:04 and 74:36:21:06, including those attributable to upset 

conditions, the probable cause of such exceedance and any corrective actions or preventive 

measures taken must be promptly reported and certified by a responsible official; and 

 (5) Requirements for retention of monitoring records and all supporting documentation for 

at least five years from the date of the monitoring sample, measurement, report, or application. 

 Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:10. Permit to construct. The owner or operator subject to this chapter may be 

issued a permit to construct in accordance with chapter 74:36:20 if the department determines that 

the new major source or modification to a major source does not contribute to adverse impact on 

visibility at a mandatory Class I federal area. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:11. Permit required for BART determination. The owner or operator of a 

BART-eligible source shall submit an application in accordance with chapter 74:36:20 to include 

the controls, emission limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements identified in 

the BART determination and approved by the department. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

74:36:21:12. Federal land manager notification and review. The department shall 

provide written notice to the federal land manager of a BART determination or any permit 

application for a new major source or modification to a major source if the emissions from which 

may contribute to adverse impact on visibility at a mandatory Class I federal area, except for an 

application submitted in accordance with chapter 74:36:09 or 74:36:10. A notification of a BART 

determination shall include a copy of the BART determination and must be submitted within 30 

days of receipt of a complete BART determination. The department shall consider an analysis 
B-8 

performed by the federal land manager submitted within 60 days of the federal land manager being 

notified of a BART determination or by the end of the public participation process, whichever is 

later. A permit application for a new major source or modification to a major source shall include a 

copy of the permit application and visibility impact analysis. The department shall consider an 

analysis performed by the federal land manager submitted within 30 days of the federal land 

manager being notified of a visibility impact analysis or by the end of the public participation 

process, whichever is later. The department shall follow the procedures outlined in chapter 

74:36:09 or 74:36:10 for an application submitted in accordance with chapter 74:36:09 or 

74:36:10. 

Source: 37 SDR 111, effective December 7, 2010. 

General Authority: SDCL 34A-1-6. 

Law Implemented: SDCL 34A-1-6.