# State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment

and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Regional Haze

(2014 Five-Year Progress Report)



# February 2015

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Division of Environment

Bureau of Air

(785) 296-6024

## 2 

# Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

2. Summary of Initial Regional Haze SIP ................................................................................... 6

3. Regional Haze Five- Year Periodic Report .............................................................................. 7

3.1 Implementation Status - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(1) ........................................................... 7

3.2 Emissions Reductions - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(2).......................................................... 10

3.3 Visibility Conditions - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(3) ........................................................... 13

3.4 Emissions Trend Analysis - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(4) ................................................... 17

3.5 Emissions Changes Impeding Visibility Improvement - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(5) ....... 24

3.6 SIP Sufficiency – 40 CFR §51.308(g)(6) ................................................................... 25

3.7 Monitoring Strategy – 40 CFR §51.308(g)(7) ............................................................ 26

3.8 Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination – 40 CFR §51.308(i) ........................... 27

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 28

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix A: Net 2002 to 2018 Improvement in Visibility at Selected Class I Areas Due to

BART Controls in Kansas ( Table 10.15 in the original Kansas Regional H aze SIP* ) ............ 30

Appendix B: KCP&L and Westar Energy Regional Haze Agreements ................................... 31

Appendix C: 2012 NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## 30-Day Rolling Averages for Westar - Jeffrey Units 1 and 2

................................................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix D: Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards ........................ 53

Appendix E: Kansas NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## Reasonable Progress Unit Emissions 2002–2018 ............. 57

Appendix F: Data Tables and Glide Paths for Caney Creek, Hercules

- Glades, and ................ 59

Mingo Wilderness Areas ........................................................................................................... 59

Appendix G: Five- Year Average Visibility Impairment for Caney Creek, Hercules

- Glades, and

Mingo Wilderne ss Areas ........................................................................................................... 62

Appendix H: Data Tables for the 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 National Emissions Inventory

(NEI) for Kansas Nonpoint Sources

.......................................................................................... 65

Appendix I: Responsiveness Summary................................................................77

## 3 

# Executive Summary

In amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1977, Congress set a national goal to restore

vistas in national parks , wilderness areas, and w ildlife r efuge s to pristine conditions by

preventing any future, and remedying any existing

, man

- made visibility impairment. In 1999

, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the federal Regional Haze Rule,

which aims to fulfill the goals set forth in the CAA by the year 2064. The Regional Haze Rule

addresses the combined effects of several pollution sources over large geographic areas. It was

therefo re necessary to use a regional planning approach.

EPA helped develop and fund five regional planning organizations (RPOs); the Central Regional

Air Planning Association (CENRAP, no longer active as an organization ) was designated as the

RPO to represent t he central portion of the United States. T he State of Kansas was actively

involved in CENRAP s ince its inception . In addition, CENRAP served as a platform for

consultation between states, tribes, federal land managers (FLMs), and other stakeholders. The

Kansas Regional Haze Plan incorporates data analyses, modeling results, and technical support

documents prepared for CENRAP members by various contractors.

The Regional Haze Rule applies to states that encompass air emission sources that contribute to

vi sibility impairment at any of the 156 large , federally managed national parks , wilderness areas,

and w ildlife r efuge s designated as visibility protection areas by EPA—the mandatory Class I

federal areas . Modeling based on 2002 air emissions inventories sh owed that Kansas sources

moderately impacted several Class I areas in the CENRAP region ; in addition , Kansas emission

sources were identified by Oklahoma as potential contributors to visibility impairment at a specific Class I area, namely the Wichita Mountains Wilderness located in the southwest part of

that state

.

On October 26, 2009 the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) submitted to

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a state implementation plan (SIP) for the

initial ten

- year period of the Regional Haze Rule. The SIP was received by EPA on November

9, 2009, and was approved in the December 27, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 80754) with an

effective date of January 26, 2012.

Provisions of the Regional Haze Rule contained in 40 CFR §51.308(g) and (h) require that states

submit a progress report five years after the submittal of their initial regional haze SIP. The

progress reports must be in the form of a SIP revision and must include a determination

regarding t he adequacy of the existing regional haze SIP. This document has been prepared to

fulfill all applicable requirements pertaining to the five

- year progress report of the initial Kansas

R egional H aze SIP. KDHE concludes that the current SIP is sufficient t o address the reasonable

progress goals of Wichita Mountains Class I area, and by extension, other Class I areas that

showed less visibility impact in the original modeling.

In accordance with 40 CFR §51.308(h) KDHE is also providing to EPA a negative dec laration

, i.e., that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. This

finding is based upon (a) current state and federal regulations of air pollutants, (b) reductions in

Kansas of anthropogenic NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions, and (c ) improvement in visibility at the

Wichita Mountains Wilderness, as well as other nearby Class I area s, over the past five years

(2009 to 2013).

## 4 

# 1 . Introduction

T he Regional Haze Rule was originally promulgated as a final rule by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714). Only after l engthy litigation , however,

was it finally promulgated six years later, on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104). The Regional Haze

Rule encompassed the first regulations governing visibility impairment attributable to

widespread and numerous emissions sources. On October 26, 2009 the Kansas Department of

Health and Environment (KDHE) submitted to EPA the final revision to Kansas’ State

I mplementation P lan (SIP) to address the first ten

- year implementation period of its regional

haze program. The Kansas initial Regional Haze SIP is a vailable at

http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/reghaze/KDHERegHaze.pdf

.



## The Clean Air Act (C AA) provides EPA with the authority to regulate visibility impairment. In

the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress added the national goal of preventing any future and

remedying any existing impairment of visibility at 156 mandatory Class I federal areas (Class I

areas) , which are certain national parks and other federally managed wilderness areas and

wildlife refuges that meet certain criteria. A map showing the Class I areas closest to Kansas is

provided in Figure 1. N ote there are 11 areas originally selected by EPA Region 7 for Kansas’

initial SIP

— labeled in Figure 1 using bold font.

Figure 1. Locations of the mandatory Class I federal areas closest to Kansas.

## 5 

## As can be seen in Figure 1 , t here are no Class I areas in Kansas . However, t he pollutants

contributing to regional haze can travel many hundreds of miles

. Source apportionment

modeling (based on CAMx photochemical modeling) for the initial Kansas Regional Haze SIP

showed that applying b est a vailable r etrofit technology (BART) to Kan sas sources would

potential ly result in visibility improvements of greater than 0.5 inverse megameter ( Mm -1 

## ) at four

Class I areas. The complete set of areas can be found in Table 10.15 in the SIP (accessible at

http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/reghaze/KDHERegHaze.pdf ), presented in Appendix A in this

document. The four areas of interest for this Progress Report are Caney Creek Wilderness Area

(Arkansas)

, Hercules

- Glades Wilderness Area (Missouri)

, Mingo Wilderness Area (Missouri)

, and Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area (Oklahoma) . Wichita Mountains was the only Class I

area found to be significantly impacted by Kansas sources for the course of the State’s initial

Regional Haze SIP ; however, for pu rposes of completeness the other three areas with greater

than 0.5 Mm -1 

## improvement will be con s idered as well in this Progress Report.

The Regional Haze Rule calls for a cooperative approach involving state, federal, and tribal

participants to address vi sibility impairment. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),

shown in Figure 2, were formed to assist in the development of work products needed to

understand and address visibility impairment. When formed, the Central Regional Air Planning

Associat ion (CENRAP) included Kansas and eight other states (Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas) in the central portion of the continental

United S tates

. Note that since CENRAP funding was specifically designated for regional haze

work for the initial SIP process, it is no longer active.

Figure 2. Geographical areas of regional planning organizations (RPOs).



## Technical analyses and interstate consultation forums provided through CENRAP and other

regional planning organizations ( RPOs ) assisted KDHE in the development of its initial R egional

## 6 

## H aze SIP. Within the initial SIP , KDHE provided a long- term strategy to fulfill the requirement

of 40 CFR §51.308(d)(3), addressed the BART regulations codified at 40 CFR §51.308(e), and

satisfied the other applicable requirements found in 40 CFR §51.308.

The regional haze implementation process requires the submittal of a progress report five years

following the submittal of the initial regional haze implementation plan. Progr ess reports are

also due five years following all subsequent comprehensive Regional Haze SIP revisions. This

document constitutes KDHE’s five- year P rogress Report for Kansas’ initial R egional H aze SIP

. It conforms with EPA’s document General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress

Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (April 2013, cf.

http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf ) reg arding information provided,

and i t is in the form of a SIP revision

, fulfill ing all applicable obligations required by 40 CFR

§51.308(g) and §51.308(h). The first comprehensive revision to the R egional H aze SIP is due

July 31, 2018.



# 2 . Summary of Initial Regional Haze SIP

The key components of Kansas’ initial Regional H aze SIP included b est available r etrofit

technology (BART) requirements and the S tate’s long

- term strategy. Beginning in 2004, KDHE

sent out a survey to t he State’s stationary air emissions sources . A detailed review of the survey

results found 66 emission units, located at 19 different facilities, comprising the BART

- eligible

sources in Kansas . Of these, five emission units located at three facilities

— all electric

generating uni ts —were found subject to source- specific BART limits. The limits agreed to by

the owners of the se subject- to

- BART units met or exceeded the presumptive limits enumerated

in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y, “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze

Rule.”

Kansas developed a long- term strategy to address Class I areas located outside the S tate that may

be affected by emissions from Kansas, as required by 40 CFR §51.308(d)(3). Development of

the long- term strategy and fulfillment of other regional haze obligations included consulting with

downwind states containing Class I areas. Kansas participated in discussions involving Class I

areas in the states of Missouri and Arkansas , and attended discussions led by Oklahoma.

Emissions from Kansas were determined to be contributing to visibility impairment in the Class I

area in Oklahoma (i.e., the Wichita Mountains Wilderness ), but not to any Class I area in

Missouri or Arkansas.

In terms of emissions reductions for stationary sources, the long- term strategy for reasonable

progress was approached in two ways. For those facilities subject to BART, a greements for

reductions in nitrogen oxides ( NO

x 

## ) and sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

## ) emissio ns were negotiated and

signed . For remaining stationary sources with significant (greater than 500 tons per year) NO

x 

## and/or SO 2 

## emissions, a selection process using a “dollars per deciview difference 1 

## ” approach

was used to identify units that could be expected to add controls in the event BART controls

were insufficient. The u nits identified as reasonable progress, or “ beyond BART ” emission

units, included eight electric generating units and two Portland cement kilns.

1 

### One deciview is approximately the smallest amount of change in visibility impairment that a person can detect.

## 7 

## Fu rther, Kansas considered the following ongoing programs in developing its long- term strategy

for reasonable further progress :

• phase-in of on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) federal standards;

• phase-in of on-board diagnostics (OBD I and OBD II);

• f ed eral onroad and nonroad emissions standards;

• f ederal low sulfur fuel standards, including locomotive emissions standards;

• the Kansas City Ozone Maintenance Plan;

• the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ; and

• federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)



# 3

. Regional Haze Five

- Year Periodic Report

In general, the purpose of the five- year review is to evaluate accomplishments toward the

reasonable progress goals of each mandatory Class I federal area (Class I area) that ma y be

aff ected by emissions from within a s tate. P rogress reports are periodic in that they are due five

years following the submission of the initial regional haze SIP and every five years following

submission of a subsequent comprehensive r egional h aze S IP revision. P rogress report s must be

in the form of an implementation plan revision that complies with the procedural requirements of

40 CFR §51.102 (public hearings) and §51.103 (submission and preliminary review of plans).

The regulatory criteria for the progress reports are codified in 40 CFR §51.308(g), which treats

requirements for periodic reports, and 40 CFR §51.308(h), which treats SIP adequacy.

Kansas does not contain a Class I area, and this reduces—but does not eliminate— the applicable

requir ements just discussed . The remainder of this document contains the elements to be

addressed for Kansas’ first five

- year Regional Haze P rogress Report.

3.1 Implementation Status - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(1)

40 CFR §51.308(g)(1) requires that the five- year periodic report contain: “ A

description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the

implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I

federal areas both within and outside the State. ”

Long

- term strategies developed for the initial Regional H aze SIPs were to include all measures

relied upon by a state to achieve the reasonable progress goals of Class I areas affected by their

emissions. Kansas’ long-term strategy was broad in scope to ensure it encompassed all ongoing

state and federal programs reducing the types of air pollutants that might be associated with

visibility impairment , especially NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## , which are by far the most important pollutants

from stationary sources. Additional factors listed in 40 CFR §51.308(d)(3)(v), such as smoke

management plans, source retirements and replacements, emissions limits, and the net effect

upon visibility from projected changes in emissions from anthropogenic emissions over the

period addressed by the long-term strategy, were also required components of the long- term

strategy. Not all items included in Kansas’ long

- term strategy are expected to significantly

influence visibility impairment in a Class I area , but were included for completeness. 2

2 

### Such as the requirement that long

- term strategies must consider measures to mitigate emissions from construction

activities (51.308(d)(3)(v)( B)). Not all measures reviewed are considered significant in terms of visibility

impairment, but are once again included for completeness.

## 8 

## State Programs

Unit

- specific emissions limits were developed for the Kansas R egional H aze SIP for the five

electric generating units found to be subject to BART. These limits were embodied in the

form of agreements between the Kansas Department of Healt h and Environment ( KDHE )

and the two owners/operators of the five subject- to -BART units, KCP&L and Westar

Energy (Westar)

. Relevant sections of these agreements may be found in Appendix B.

Table 1 summarizes the emissions limits stipulated in the agreements for the subject

- to

BART units.

Table 1. Kansas Regional Haze SIP Emissions L imits for Subject

- to

- BART Emissions Units

Unit(s) subject to BART Emissions limit (lb/MMBtu, 30

- day rolling average)

NO

x 

### SO 2 

### PM 10 

### filterable PM 10 

### total

KCP&L

- La Cygne (average of Unit 1 and Unit 2) 3 

### 0.13 0.10 0.015 0.024

KCP&L

- La Cygne Unit 1 (>10

- week outage of Unit 2) 4 

### 0.10 0.10 0.015 0.024

Westar Energy

- Gordon Evans Unit 2 n/a Natural gas only n/a n/a

Westar Energy

- Jeffrey Unit 1 0.15 0.15 n/a n/a

Westar Energy

- Jeffrey Unit 2 0.15 0.15 n/a n/a



## T he SIP compliance date for the Westar units is January 1, 2014; nonetheless, compliance

with BART limits for both NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## was met by Units 1 and 2 throughout inventory

year 2012. 4 

## SO 2 

## emissions from Units 1 and 2 have been continuously controlled with wet

scrubbers since 2009 and 2010, respectively.

The compliance date for the KCP&L units is June 1, 2015. A major construction project

including installation of a new wet scrubber and baghouse for Unit 1, as well as low NO

x 

## burner,

selective catalyst reduction ( SCR ) control, baghouse, and wet scrubber for Unit 2, is scheduled

for completion sometime prior to the June 1, 2015 compliance date.

The KDHE continues to implement a major sourc e Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) permitting program and a minor source review program. Additionally, KDHE has

developed a Smoke Management Plan to address the air quality impacts associated with

annual prairie burning in the Flint Hills reg ion of the State. Information about the Kansas

Smoke Management Plan is available at http://www.ksfire.org

.

2010 Compliance Settlement

Beginning around the year 2000, t he U.S. Department of Justice, at EPA ’s request, began fil ing

lawsuits against coal

- fired electric utilities for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Th e resulting series of cases , called by EPA its “ Power Plants Enforcement Effort ,” sought to bring

the power plant industry into full comp liance with EPA’s New Source Review ( NSR ) and

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements of the Clean Air Act. In its

subsequent 2009 action and enforcement settlement with Westar (made final on March 25, 2010,

cf. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/westar- energy -inc- settlement ), EPA set limits on NO

x 

## at

the Jeffrey facility more stringent that the BART limits in the Kansas Regional Haze SIP.

3 

### See Appendix B, part A1

, KCP&L Agreement for more specific information on emissions limits for La Cygne

Units 1 and 2.

4 

### A table showing 2012 30

- day rolling averages for NO

x 

### and SO 2 

### for the two units is found in Appendix C.

## 9 

## Specifically:

• Beginning on December 31, 2011 [two years earlier than specified in the Kansas

Regional Haze SIP] , low NO

x 

## systems at all three u nits were required to achieve and

maintain a 30 -day rolling average unit NO

x 

## emission rate of at most 0.180 lb/M MBtu.

• By the end of 2014, when requirements under the settlement come into effect, Unit 1 will

have selective catalytic reduction (SCR) installed on Unit 1, and selective non- catalytic

reduction (SNCR) installed on Unit 2 and Unit 3 . Under this scenario, which is the

option Westar chose under the settlement, the plant- wide limit will be a 30 -day rolling

average NO

x 

## emission rate of 0.100 lb /MMBtu, with a 12-month rolling tonnage

limitation of 9,600 tons.

Federal Programs

The emission reductions associated with the federal programs that are described by the following

paragraphs were included in the CENRAP future year emissions estimates. Descriptions contain

qualitative assessments of emissions reductions associated with each program, and where

possible, q uantitative assessments. Additionally, estimates of particulate matter reductions from

area source maximum a chievable control technology (MACT) standards with compliance dates

since January 1, 2009 (i.e., the start of the five-year look back for this prog ress report) is

provided in Appendix D. The approximate total reduction in PM 2.5 

## from sources subject to these

standards is 351 tons per year.

2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule (40 CFR Part 86, Subpart P)

In this regulation EPA set a particulate matter (PM) emissions standard for new heavyduty engines of 0.01 g/bhp-hr, which took full effect for diesel engines in the 2007 model

year. This rule also included standards for NO

x 

## and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC)

of 0.20 g/bhp-hr and 0.14 g/bhp- hr, respectivel y. These diesel engine NO

x 

## and NMHC

standards were successfully phased in together between 2007 and 2010. The rule also

required that sulfur in diesel fuel be reduced to facilitate the use of modern pollution

control technology on these trucks and buses. The EPA required a 97 percent reduction

in the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel—from levels of 500 ppm (low sulfur diesel)

to 15 ppm (ultra low sulfur diesel, or ULSD). These requirements were successfully

implemented on the timeline in the regulatio n.

Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart H; 40 CFR Part

85; 40 CFR Part 86)

The EPA’s Tier 2 fleet averaging program for onroad vehicles, modeled after the

California LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle) II standards, became effective in the 2005

model year. The Tier 2 program allows manufacturers to produce vehicles with a range

of emiss ion rates among different models, but the mix of vehicles a manufacturer sells

each year must have average NO

x 

## emissions below a specified value. Mobile emissions

continue to benefit from this program as motorists replace older, more polluting vehicles

wi th cleaner vehicles.

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (40 CFR Part 89; 40 CFR Part 1039)

The EPA adopted standards for emissions of NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide

from several groups of nonroad engines, including industrial spark ignition engines and

recreational nonroad vehicles. Industrial spark ignition engines power commercial and

industrial applications and include forklifts, electric generators, airport baggage transport

vehicles, and a variety of farm and construction applications. Nonroad rec reational

## 10 

## vehicles include snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and all- terrain vehicles. These

rules were initially effective in 2004 and were fully phased in by 2012. The nonroad

diesel rule set standards that reduced emissions by more than 90 percent from nonroad

diesel equipment and, beginning in 2007, the rule reduced fuel sulfur levels by 99 percent

from previous levels. The reduction in fuel sulfur levels applied to most nonroad diesel

fuel in 2010, and applied to fuel used in locomotives and marine vessels in 2012.

3.2 Emissions Reductions - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(2)

40 CFR §51.308(g)(2) requires : “ A summary of the emissions reductions achieved

throughout the State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph

(g)(1) of this section

. ”

As described above, the chief measures relied upon by Kansas to achieve the reasonable progress

goals in its initi al Regional Haze SIP were establishing s pecific emissions limits for its subject

to -BART sources, combined with identifying reasonable prog ress (or “beyond BART”) units—

large NO

x 

## and/or SO 2 

## sources —that could cost- effectively install controls in case Kansas’ share

of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains Class I area by 2018 is not sufficient.

Subject

- to

- BART Sources

As stated above, five emission units located at three facilities were found to be subject to BART,

and the initial SIP details emission limits and projected emissions reductions expected after

installing requisite controls. This information is summarized i n Table 9.5 of the SIP, and

presented in Table 2 below

, along with 2002 (pre -construction) and 2012 (post-construction

except for KCP&L

– La Cygne) emissions values. Note the projected decrease s in total NO

x 

## and

SO 2 

## have essentially been met despite the fa ct that the final La Cygne BART controls will not be

in place until 2015.

Table 2. Projected Emissions Reductions from 2002 Levels after Installation of BART

Controls for the Subject

- to

- BART Units in Kansas , and 2012 Actual NO

x 

## and SO 2



## Emi ssions

Subject

- to

- BART Emission Unit Projected BART

Emissions Reductions

(tons/yr) 200 2 Actual

Emissions (tons) 2012 A ctual

Emissions (tons)

NO

x 

### SO 2 

### NOx SO2 NO

x 

### SO 2



### KCP&L

- La Cygne Unit 1 27,481.6 2,700.0 30,057.6 6,648.1 2,220.1 2,068.7

KCP& L

- La Cygne Unit 2 2,133.2 15,362.4 8,361.8 19,355.1 7,439.3 14,166.1

Westar Energy

- Gordon Evans Unit 2 1,885.6 3,210.5 2,023.2 3,210.5 589.5 1.1

Westar Energy

- Jeffrey Unit 1 5,333.6 16,927.3 9,601.6 20,458.9 2,950.2 389.2

Westar Energy

- Jeffrey Unit 2 6,852.1 20,250.7 10,891.7 23,715.3 3,235.0 400.7

Totals 43,686.1 58,450.9 60,935.9 73,387.9 16,434.1 17,025.8

## 11 

## Large NO

x 

## and/or SO 2 

## S ources Not S ubject to BART (“ Reasonable P rogress U nits”)

In section 10.2 of its initial implementation plan, titled “ Selection of Kansas Sources for

Reasonable Progress Evaluation,” Kansas developed a process to fairly select stationary sources

not subject to BART that could contribute to reasonable progress goals. This process was:

1. Identify all Kansas emission units that had greater than or equal to 500 tons for NO

x



## and/or SO 2



## 2. Identify the most effective control technologies and screen for excessive cost

3. Model visibility impacts and screen for low- impact facilities

4. Calculate, screen, and rank based on cost per ton per deciview difference (delta

deciview, or ∆ dv) [Note cost of controls were taken from EPA’s AirControlNET tool

( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/AirControlNET.htm ), while ∆ dv values were found by

running the CALPUFF model twice (with pre- and post-control emissions inputs)

and finding the difference in deciview outputs.]

5. Screen for non-cost statutory factors, i.e., time necessary for compliance, energy and

non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and remaining useful life

6. Re-sort and make final ranked list of potential facilities

The results of this process were summarized in Table 10.12 of the SIP, and sources are presented

in Table 3 . Note that Lafarge Midwest - Fredonia was permanently closed in 2012.

Ta ble 3 . Ranked List of Sources under the Reasonable Progress Analysis

Rank Source ID Reasonable Progress Emission Unit(s) Pollutant

1 1730012 Westar Energy

- Gordon Evans Unit 1 SO 2



### 2 1490001 Westar Energy

– Jeffrey Unit 3 SO 2



### 3 2090008 Kansas City BPU

– Nearman Unit 1 SO 2



### 4 0450014 Westar Energy

- Lawrence Units 3, 4, & 5 NO

x



### 5 1770030 Westar Energy

- Tecumseh Units 7 /9 & 8 /10 NO

x



### 6 2090008 Kansas City BPU

- Nearman Unit 1 NO

x



### 7 1490001 Westar Energy

- Jeffrey Unit 3 NO

x



### 8 2057022 Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia Kilns 1 & 2 NO

x



## E

missions R eductions S ummary — S ubject

- to -BART and Reasonable P rogress U nits

Using the two sets of emission units enumerated in the two tables above (i.e., subject- to

- BART

and reasonable progress, or “beyond BART” units), annual inventories from 2002 to 2012 and

estimated future emissions 2013 -2018 were compiled for the two major pollutants related to

visibility impairment from stationary sources

— NO

x 

## and SO 2



## — and are summarized in Figure 3

(for NO

x 

## ) and Figure 4 (for SO 2 

## ) below. Tables containing individual reasonable progress unit

values, along with notes describing estimates for future emissions, are presented in Appendix E.

## 12 

## Figure 3. Air Emissio ns of NO

x 

## from Kansas Emissions

Sources for Reasonable Progress, 2002–2018

Fi gure 4. Air Emissions of SO 2 

## from Kansas Emissions

Sources for Reasonable Progress, 2002–2018

Figures 3 and 4 show a dramatic decrease in both NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## from Kansas sources since 2002,

particularly for the subject

- to -BART units beginning in 2008, when regional haze agreements

were signed and their implementation begun. In absolute terms, total annual emissions of NO

x 

## for subject- to -BART units have fallen from a high of 60,936 tons in 2002 to 16,434 tons in 2012

(a 73 percent decrease), and by 2018 are predicted to fall to 7,091 tons, which would represent a

very substantial decline of 88 percent over the 16-year period. Likewise for SO 2 

## , total annual

emissions for s ubject

- to -BART units have fallen from a high of 80,828 tons in 2003 to 17,026

tons in 2012 (a 79 percent decrease), and by 2018 are predicted to fall to 2,683 tons, which

would represent a remarkable decline of 97 percent over the 1 6-year period. Emission s of NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## for the reasonable progress units have decreased as well, with percent declines over the

years 2002 to 2012 of 60 percent and 77 percent for NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## , respectively. It should be

noted that a portion of these decreases was not mandated by the Regional Haze SIP, but came 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,00020022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018tons NOx 

### Units subject to BART

Reasonable progress units not

subject to BART

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,00020022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018tons SO2 

### Units subject to BART

Reasonable progress units not

subject to BART

## 13 

## about primarily due to the 2010 EPA co mpliance settlement involving the Westar Energy

- Jeffrey facility , and secondarily due to the permanent closure of the Lafarge Midwest - Fredonia

Portland cement kilns. Again, tables showing annual values for each emission unit are presented

in Appendix E.

Non

- BART -Related Kansas P oint Source E missions

Lastly, in consideration of the remainder of the stationary (point) so u rces not already considered,

Table 4 shows NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emission trends over the period 2002-2012 for all Kansas Title V

(major) and synthetic minor sources. Note in 2012 there were 471 of these sources reporting NO

x 

## emissions, and 395 reporting SO 2 

## emissions.

Table 4. 2002-2012 NOx and SO2 emissions for all Kansas non- BART -related stationary

emissions sources

Year Total tons from Kansas sources reporting < 500 tons of NO

x 

### and /or SO 2



### tons NO

x 

### tons SO 2



### 2002 80,906 18,892

2003 79,760 24,768

2004 78,077 23,734

2005 80,529 26,575

2006 76,732 20,775

2007 75,261 20,903

2008 63,344 18,449

2009 59,072 17,135

2010 61,019 16,019

2011 56,832 13,619

2012 50,869 9,897



## Table 4 again shows significant decreases in the emissions of the two most significant hazeforming pollutants from stationary sources, NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## , from Kansas sources . In the case of

NO

x 

## the decrease from 2002 to 2012 was 37 percent, and for SO 2 

## the corresponding decrease

was 48 percent.

3.3 Visibility Conditions - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(3)

The text of 40 CFR §51.308(g)(3 ) begins: “For each mandatory Class I Federal area

within the State, the State must assess the following visibility conditions and changes,

with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5- year

averages of these annual values.”

Kansas contains no Class I area and therefore is not subject to this requirement; nevertheless , it is

beneficial for weight of evidence purposes to have available a record of visibility conditions and

changes for the Wichita Mountains Wilderness, as well as for the three Class I areas mentioned

above that showed the greatest potential visibility impact from Kansas emission sources by prior

source apportionment modeling. For convenience, this report will focus on visibility conditions

at the Wichita Mountains Wild erness only, but will show summary results for the other C lass I

areas. Data tables and glide paths for th ose area s ca n be found in Appendix F.

Table 4 below shows visibility data, taken from the Federal Land Manager Environmental

Database at http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/ , for annual average 20 percent worst and 20

percent best aerosol extinction days (in deciviews) for Wichita Mountains over the years 2002–

2011. As specified in §51.308(g)(3) , five

- year rolling averages of these annual values are

## 14 

## calculated and displayed, along with the official baseline and “natural conditions ” value s for

visibility (e.g., 7.53 dv for the average 20 percent worst days).

Table 4. 20% W orst and 20% Be st A erosol Extinction Days (in d eciviews) for Years 2002–

2011 - Wichita Mountains Wilderness

20% worst and 20% best aerosol extinction days (in deciviews) for years 2002

- 2011

- Wichita Mountains

Site Year Parameter Avg. 20% worst days 5- year average Avg. 20% best days 5- year average

WIMO1 2002 dv 23.60 9.75

WIMO1 2003 dv 23.60 10.02

WIMO1 2004 dv 24.23 9.56

WIMO1 2005 dv 25.68 10.59

WIMO1 2006 dv 21.83 23.79 9.74 9.93

WIMO1 2007 dv 22.80 23.63 9.32 9.85

WIMO1 2008 dv 21.55 23.22 9.85 9.81

WIMO1 2009 dv 21.62 * 

### 22.70 9.48 * 

### 9.80

WIMO1 2010 dv 21.69 21.90 9.11 9.50

WIMO1 2011 dv 22.86 22.10 10.25 9.60

WIMO1 Baseline dv 23.81 9.78

WIMO1 2064 dv 7.53 3.02

* 

### Value shown is deciview average of years 2008 and 2010 (2009 annual average not supplied by source)

Data source: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/DataWizard/Default.aspx



## An examination of Table 4 shows that average light extinction at Wichita Mountains (as well as

the other Class I area s of interest in Appendix F) has been generally decreas ing (v isibility has

been increas ing ) over the six five-year periods available since 2002. The degree to which

visibility is increasing can be measu red by plotting average deciview values over time, then

looking at the slope of the best- fi t line through the points—the more negative the slope, the

greater the rate of visibility improvement

. Figure 5 , which is a Microsoft Excel chart with linear

trendline included, shows the plot of five- year average deciview values

— as specified in

§51.308(g)(3)— over time for Wichita Mountains . Note Figure 5 is presented in two plots:

Figure 5a is for 20 percent worst days and Figure 5b is for 20 percent best da ys. The set of five

year average plots for the other three Class I areas of interest can be found in Appendix G.

## 15 

## Figure 5 a . Five -Y ear A verage V isibility Impairment (in deciviews) for

20% W orst Days over Years 2002-2011 - Wichita Mountains Wilderness

Figure 5b. Five- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for

20% Best Days over Years 2002-2011 - Wichita Mountains Wilderness

As indicated i n Figure 5 , the slope for 20 percent worst days at Wichita Mountains is -0.4046

dv/y ea r . Likewise, for 20 percent best days the slope is -0.0774 dv/y ea r.

Next, the five- year average slopes are c ompared with the slopes of the so- called “ glide path s” to

natural visibil ity conditions in the year 2064. The glide paths for both 20 percent worst days and

20 percent best days can be found at http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/DataWizard/Default.aspx



## , which is part of the official website for the Federal Land Manager Environmental Database

(FED)

. Figure 6 , taken directly from th e website, shows the glide paths ( for 20 percent worst

days and 20 percent best days) for Wichita Mountains ; glide paths for the other three Cl ass I

areas of interest are included (represented in the case of Mingo Wilderness Area) in Appendix F. y =

- 0.4046x + 835.47

21.00 21.50 22.00 22.50 23.00 23.50 24.00 24.50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

y =

- 0.0774x + 165.26

9.00 9.50 10.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

## 16 

## Figure 6. Wichita Mountains natural levels of haze and its

composition on the 20% best and 20% worst haze days.

Slopes of the two glide paths in Figure 6 we re calculated using the deciview values shown for

year 2064 and the baseline values (found at the FED webpage). T hese result s, along with the

five

- year average slopes for the four Class I areas of interest for Kansas, are presented in

Table 5.

Table 5. Summary Comparison of Five-Y ear A verage D eciview and G lide

P ath S lopes for S elected Class I A reas

Class I Area Visibility improvement (deciviews per year)

20% worst days 20% best days

5

- yr avg. Glide path 5

- yr avg. Glide path

Wichita Mountains

- 0.4046

- 0.2713

- 0.0774

- 0.1127

Caney Creek

- 0.7169

- 0.2463

- 0.3800

- 0.1168

Hercules

- Glades

- 0.5737

- 0.2575

- 0.2829

- 0.1358

Mingo

- 0. 5 2

- 0.2 987

- 0. 42

- 0.1 387



## Comparing slope values ( five

- year average versus glide path) allows the testing of whether or not

visibility is improving at the rate assumed adequate to meet reasonable progress goals. The goal

is for five -year average slopes to be more negative than the comparable glide path slope.

Looking at the two pairs of slope values for Wichita Mountains shows the five- year average actual visibility improvement for 20 percent worst days (-0.4046 dv/y ea r versus -0.2713 dv/y ea r )

is significant, with a slope 49 percent more negative than the glide path. On the other hand, th e

20 percent best day values show the actual visibility values improving at a rate slower than the

glide path —31 percent less so. Of the four Class I areas examined, the 20 percent best day

discrepancy for Wichita Mountains is the only case where visibility improvement for 20 percent

best days is not significantly improved.

## 17 

## 3.4 Emissions Trend Analysis - 40 CFR §51.308(g)(4)

40 CFR §51.308(g)(4) requires that the five-year periodic report contain: “ ...a n analysis

tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to

visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. Emissions changes

should be identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most

recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and

appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable 5-year period.”

A statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause, or

contribute to, visibility impairment at any Class I area was required to be included in the initial

regional haze SIP (40 CFR §51.308(d)(4)(v)). The initial Kansas Regional H aze SIP used a

baseline year of 2002, based on the final 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and these

values were projected to 2018. 2018 emissions estimates were made primarily using the

Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS6), MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission modeling

software, and the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) version 2.93 for electric generating units

(EGUs) ( cf. section 7.1)

. As indicated in several places in 40 CFR §51.308, the pollutants

inventoried by Kansas were those that “ may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to

any impairment of visibility ,” namely ammonia (NH 3 

## ), nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

## — NO and NO 2 

## ),

coarse particulates (PM 10 

## ), fine particulates (PM 2.5 

## ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

## ).

Pollutants and combined source types (“ all sources and activities ” per 40 CFR §51.308(g)(4))

included in the initial Kansas Regional Haze SIP are reviewed in this five

- year progress report

, with the goal of estimating changes in anthropogenic air emissions from 200 9 to 2013 (i.e., “ over

the past 5 years ” ). The most recent comprehensive inventory is the 2011 NEI version 1 (version

dated September 30, 2013). The 2011 inventory offers a recent and uniform platform for

emissions comparisons, and combined with the 2002, 2005, and 2008 national inventories

provides the logical data source to meet the requi rements of 40 CFR §51.308(g)(4).

Figure s 7 through 11 below show the overall trends in air emissions from all Kansas sources and

activities (i.e., from all point, nonpoint, onroad, and nonroad sources) for the five pollutants of

interest . Each of the figures was created in Microsoft Excel, which was also used to show bestfit lines for viewing estimated emission s over years 2009–2013. Data sources for emissions can

be found at the following URLs at the EPA ftp site :

• 2002 NEI -

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/20 02finalnei/all_sector_tier_summary_data/tier/02nei_v3

tier_summary_oct_15_2007.zip

• 2005 NEI - ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005_nei/tier_summaries/tier_05v2

• 2008 NEI - ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2008v3/tier_summaries

• 2011 NEI (version 1) - ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011/nei2011v1-county- tribe

allsectors.zip

## 18 

## Figure 7. Kansas Anthropogenic NH 3 

## from all NEI Sectors 2002−2013

Figure 8. Kansas Anthropogenic NO

x 

## from all NEI Sectors 2002−2013

Figure 9. Kansas Anthropogenic PM 10 

## from all NEI Sectors 2002−2013 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013tons NH3



### 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013tons NOx



### 0

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013tons PM10

## 19 

## Figure 10. Kansas Anthropogenic PM 2.5 

## from all NEI Sectors 2002−2013

Figure 11. Kansas Anthropogenic SO 2 

## from all NEI Sectors 2002−2013

Table 6 is a summary of the emissions shown in the previous six charts in tabular form.

Table 6. Kansas Anthropogenic Air Emissions (in tons) of Haze- Related

Pollutants from all NEI Sectors for Inventory Years 2002, 2005, 2008, and

2011

Year NH 3 

### NO

x 

### PM 10 

### PM 25 

### SO 2



### 2002 173,505 383,622 751,976 176,799 187,133

2005 177,822 365,146 781,965 202,059 198,905

2008 168,388 297,479 866,127 193,718 118,970

2011 190,031 325,610 903,400 240,280 60,381



## Table 7 provides a summary of interpolated Kansas total annual emissions over this report’s five

year period (2009–2013) for the five pollutants of interest

. Values in Table 6 were generated in

Microsoft Excel using the FORECAST function (i.e., using the same linear regression as displayed in Figures 7 through 11). In addition to the interpolated values, differences in

emissions of 2013 minus 2009 are displayed in the bottom row of Table 7 in order to show in

absolute terms the decreases and increases in emissions over the five years of interest

. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013tons2.5



### 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013tons SO2

## 20 

## Table 7. Kansas E stimated Total Anthropogenic Air Emissions (in tons) of

Haze

- Related Pollutants for Years 2009–2013

Year NH 3 

### NO

x 

### PM 10 

### PM 25 

### SO 2



### 2009 180,782 322,822 870,737 218,389 102,998

2010 182,120 314,766 888,684 224,459 87,658

2011 183,458 306,709 906,632 230,529 72,319

2012 184,796 298,652 924,580 236,599 56,979

2013 186,134 290,595 942,528 242,669 41,639

2013

- 2009 5,352

- 32,227 71,791 24,280

- 61,359



## Based on the National Emissions Inventory results just prese nted, Kansas has seen both

decreases and increases in anthropogenic air emissions over the years 2009 to 2013. Emissions

of NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## —the primary contributors to visibility impairment from anthropogenic

sources —are down significantly (10.0 percent for NO

x 

## and 59.6 percent for SO 2 

## ), thanks to the

Regional Haze agreements made with Westar Energy and KCP&L as discussed above.

However, NH 3 

## (ammonia) and PM emissions are up, and reasons for the increas in g levels

recorded for these pollutants need to be addressed.

In order to analyze emissions trends in the four inventories in greater detail , it is im portant to

understand that each triennial inventory cycle brings with it certain differences in both how

emissi ons are estimated, as well as changes in ho w the emission s data are aggregated. E xample s

of th ese differences include:

• For the 2005 NEI: “EPA developed the 2005 NEI v2 based on a reduced level of effort.

Part of this reduced effort involved using some NEI 2002 v3 data in the NEI 2005 v2 as

surrogates for emiss ions data representing 2005.” 5 

## For Kansas, this resulted in nearly all

nonpoint emissions for 2005 remaining the same as for 2002.

• For the 2008 NEI (beginning with version 2): “... updates are the use [of] a draft version

of the MOVES model for onroad mobile sources, a review and update of hazardous air

pollutant emissions , and additions of wildfires, prescribed burning and biogenic

emissions. ” 6



## Figure s 12 through 16 below show trends in Kansas air emissions from the five most significant

source type s (sector s) for each of the five haze

- related pollutants of interest, based on results of

the 2011 NEI. Text following Figure 12 (ammonia) and Figures 14 and 15 ( particulate matter )

will discuss reasons for upward trends as described above. Note that figures w ere created in

Microsoft Excel ; underlying data tables can be found in Appendix H. Data sources for emissions

can be found at the following URLs at the EPA website:

• 2002 NEI - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html#inventorydata

• 2005 NEI - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2005inventory.html#inventorydata

• 2008 NEI - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html

• 2011 NEI - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html

5 

### http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2005inventory.html#inventorydata

6 

### http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html

## 21 

## Figure 1 2. Kansas NH 3 

## Emissions 2002-2011 - Five Largest Anthropogenic NEI Sector s

As Figure 12 shows, the increase in ammonia, basically from the 2005 to the 2008 inventory,

was due chiefly to the increase in estimated livestock waste emissions, a nonp oint sector.

Recalling that 2005 NEI values typically copied 2002 estimates, the large emissions increase for

this sector is explained by Kansas not adopting the (EPA -approved) CMU (for Ca rnegie Mellon

University) model version 3.6 until the 2008 inventory. As explained in EPA’s documentation

for the 2002 NEI: “Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri included NH 3 

## emissions for confined

animal feeding operations in their point source inventories and adjusted their nonpoint source

inventories to exclude the point source emissions. Therefore, their nonpoint source inventories

were not replaced since the CMU model inventory is not adjusted for point source emissions.” 7



## Starting with the 2008 NEI, KDHE modified its definition of point sources to include only Title

V and synthetic minor sources (i.e., only those emission sources submitting annual inventories to

the Kansas Emissions Inventory). As a result, Kansas estimates for 2002 and 2005 were

significantly less than predicted by using the CMU model alone, w hich KDHE initiated in 2008.

A secondary cause for the jump in ammonia emissions from 2005 to 2011 was due to a

discrepancy in how fires were categorized : prescribed fires (event sector ) or agricultural field

burning (nonpoint sector). Beginning in 2008, EPA corrected the classifying of fires on

pastures

— at least for the Flint Hills region of eastern Kansas

— from “grass crop” residue

burning (nonpoint sector) to prescribed burning (event sector) . As a result, the 2002 and 2005

NEI estimates for the two an thropogenic fire- related sectors (i.e., Prescribed Fires and

Agricultural Field Burning ) are inconsistent, and for trend analysis need to be summed into a

single sector.

7 

### ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/nonpoint/2002nei_final_nonpoint_documentation0206

version.pdf 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

2002 2005 2008 2011tons NH3 

### Agriculture - Livestock Waste

Agriculture - Fertilizer

Application

Fires - Prescribed Fires

Industrial Processes - Chemical

Manuf

Mobile - On-Road Gasoline

Light Duty Vehicles

## 22 

## Figure 1 3. Kansas NO

x 

## Emissions 2002-2011 - Five Largest Anthropogenic NEI Sector s

Figure 1 4 . Kansas PM 10 

## Emissions 2002-2011 - Five Largest Anthropogenic NEI Sector s

Figure 13 shows a dramatic increase in NO

x 

## emissions in the oil and gas production sector—

from less than 10 tons in the 2002, 2005, and 2008 NEIs to more than 50,000 tons in the 2011

NEI. While there was an increase in drilling activities seen in Kansas beginning around 2011, the

primary reason fo r this jump in NO

x 

## emissions was EPA’s effort for the 2011 inventory cycle to

improve data inputs in the oil and gas production sector. Figure 14 shows distinct changes in

PM 10 

## emissions trends for two sectors , again with breaks from 2005 to the 2008 NEI. As was

already discussed for ammonia emissions under Figure 12, there was a correction made after

2005 that shifted most of what had been classified as agricultural field burning to prescribed

burning. Given that change, summing emissions for the two sec tors show a trend in PM 10 

## for 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

2002 2005 2008 2011tons NOx 

### Industrial Processes - Oil & Gas

Production

Fuel Comb - Electric

Generation - Coal

Fuel Comb - Industrial Boilers,

ICEs - Natural Gas

Mobile - Locomotives

Mobile - Non-Road Equipment

- Diesel

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000

2002 2005 2008 2011tons PM10-PRI 

### Agriculture - Crops & Livestock

Dust

Dust - Unpaved Road Dust

Fires - Prescribed Fires

Dust - Construction Dust

Fires - Agricultural Field

Burning

## 23 

## burning that i s slight ly upward : 99,292 tons (2002), 99,292 tons (2005), 64,308 tons (2008), and

120,145 tons (2011). It is to be noted, however, that emissions from prescribed burning actually

are quite variable from year to year, depending chiefly on fuel loading and weather conditions

more than any other factor.

The single largest source of Kansas PM 10 

## — the “ A gricult ure - C rops & Livestock D ust” sector

— displays a jump in PM 10 

## emissions from just over 250,000 tons for 2002 and 2005 to

approximately 415,000 tons for 2008 and 2011— a 66 percent increase

. Reviewing the

worksheets used for emissions calculations for this sector reveals that up through 2005, crop

related PM 10 

## emission factors were provided for planting and harvesting only. Beginning in

2008 (with EPA consultant E.H. Pechan & Associates -supplied spreadsheets), default PM

emission factors supplied by EPA were to be used in conjunction with the total number of passes

or tillings per year (e.g., five for winter wheat - conventional use or three for winter wheat -

conservation use). Using two to five (instead of only two) passes in calculations for PM 10



## emi ss ions for each crop resulted in significant increase s from 2005 to 2008.

Figure 1 5 . Kansas PM 2.5 

## Emissions 2002-2011 - Five Largest Anthropogenic NEI Sector s

As expected, t he trends seen in PM 2.5 

## emissions follow those seen for PM 10



## . Summing the fire

related sectors’ emissions yields a moderately upward PM 2.5 

## trend: 75,167 tons (2002), 75,167

tons (2005), 55,443 tons (2008), and 95,813 tons (2011). Recall, however, that fire emissions are

highly variable from year to year.

Agricultural tilling emissions of PM 2.5 

## appear to have a greater 2005

- to -2008 disparity than

PM 10 

## . In addition to the number of passes issue discussed above, there is an additional reason.

For the 2002 and 2005 inventories, the PM 2.5 

## /PM 10 

## ratio used by E PA for agricultural til l ing was

0.15; however, beginning with the 2008 (Pechan-produced) inventory, the PM 2.5 

## /PM 10 

## ratio

became 0.20 (i.e., PM 2.5 

## emissions were 20 percent of calculated PM 10 

## values)

. As a

consequence , a 33 percent jump in value for PM 2.5 

## emissions starting in 2008 is to be expected

due to the change made in the PM ratio

. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

2002 2005 2008 2011tons PM25-PRI 

### Agriculture - Crops & Livestock

Dust

Fires - Prescribed Fires

Dust - Unpaved Road Dust

Fires - Agricultural Field

Burning

Fuel Comb - Residential -

Wood

## 24 

## Figure 1 6 . Kansas SO 2 

## Emissions 2002-2011 - Five Largest Anthropogenic NEI Sector s

3.5 Emissions Changes Impeding Visibility Improvement - 40 CFR §51.308(g) (5)

40 CFR §51.308(g)(5) requires that the five-year periodic report contain: “An assessment

of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that

have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing

pollutant emissions and improving visibility.”

Over the period 2009–2013 there has been a steady decline in point source emissions of NO

x 

## and

SO 2 

## throughout the Midwest, especially due to sources installing controls to comply with present

and near -future lowered air quality standards, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule, and

the Clean Air Interstate Rule . Table 8 shows state

- level emissions of NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## from the

most significant point sources of those pollutants— large elec tric generating units (EGUs )—

located in Kansas and its four bordering states. 8



## Table 8. 2009 and 2013 NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions from large EGUs in bordering states

NO

x 

### SO 2



### 2009 2013 % change 2009 2013 % change

Colorado 53,473 44,640

- 16.5% 43,837 38,287

- 12.7%

Kansas 47,863 28,542

- 40.4% 51,561 30,021

- 41.8%

Missouri 53,475 75,831 41.8% 240,202 141,417

- 41.1%

Nebraska 46,314 27,554

- 40.5% 75,494 65,824

- 12.8%

Oklahoma 73,357 49,937

- 31.9% 95,307 74,425

- 21.9%

Totals 274,482 226,504

- 17.5% 506,401 349,975

- 30.9%

8 

### http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

2002 2005 2008 2011tons SO2 

### Fuel Comb - Electric

Generation - Coal

Fires - Prescribed Fires

Industrial Processes -

Chemical Manuf

Fires - Agricultural Field

Burning

Industrial Processes -

Petroleum Refineries

## 25 

## As Table 8 shows, with the sole exception of increased NO

x 

## in Missouri over the five- year period, that NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions in Kansas and its bordering states from large EGUs have

decreased significantly, with an overall decrease in NO

x 

## of 17.5 percent and decrease in SO 2 

## of

30.9 percent.

In conjunction with the emissions trend analysis just seen in section 3.4, KDHE is not aware of

anthropogenic emissions within or nearby Kansas that have occurred over the past five years that

have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.

3.6 SIP Sufficiency – 40 CFR §51.308(g)(6)

40 CFR §51.308(g)(6) requires that the five-year periodic report contain: “An assessment

of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to

enable the State, or other States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by

emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.”

EPA’s guidance document April 2013 document General Principles for the 5-Year Regional

Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to

Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports ) 9



## includes the follo wing text referencing this requirement :

(h) Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan. At the same time

the State is required to submit any 5

- year progress report to the EPA in accordance

with paragraph (g) of this section, the State must also take one of the following actions

based upon the information presented in the progress report:

(1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no

further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals

for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State must provide to

the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing

implementation plan is not needed at this time.

....

Where the visibility and emissions trend s indicate substantial progress, we expect that

this requirement will be satisfied with a simple negative declaration according to the first

option.

As discussed earlier in Section 3.2 there has been a dramatic decrease in both NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## from

Kansas po int sources since 2002, particularly for the subject- to -BART units beginning in 2008,

when regional haze agreements were signed and their implementation begun. Total annual

emissions of NO

x 

## for Kansas subject

- to

- BART units fell 73 percent from 2002 to 2012.

Similarly for SO 2 

## , total annual emissions fell 79 percent from 2002 to 2012. As mentioned in

Section 3.4, the five-year period 2009–2013 has seen a drop in total anthropogenic emissions of

NO

x 

## of 10 percent and of SO 2 

## 59.6 percent. These are subst antial emissions reductions in the

primary haze -causing pollutants NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## ; therefore, KDHE declares that : (1) Kansas’

current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State to meet all

established reasonable progress goals ; and (2) no substantive further revision to the initial

Kansas Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time in order to achieve established goals for

visibility improvement.

9 

### http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/haze_5year_4

- 10

- 13.pdf

## 26 

## 3.7 Monitoring Strategy – 40 CFR §51.308(g)(7)

40 CFR §51.308(g)(7) requires that the five-year periodic report contain: “A review of the

State’s visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.”

Under Section 6.1 (Current Monitoring Strategy) of the current Kansas Regional Haze SIP,

Section 6.1.1 ( Measuring Visibility Data ) reads:

Shortly after creation of the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP),

the organization’s Monitoring Workgroup identified large visibility data voids in

southern Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, southern Minnesota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

Only five IMPROVE sites were located in the CENRAP region. Between 2000 and

2003, five more IMPROVE sites and 15 IMPROVE Protocol sites (i.e., sites not

managed by IMPROVE directl y but by individual government or tribal

organizations) were established in the CENRAP region.

In conjunction with CENRAP and EPA Region 7, Kansas installed one IMPROVE

protocol sampler at Cedar Bluff State Park in Trego County in the western part of

the State, and another at the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in the Flint Hills

region of eastern Kansas.



## Since the time the original Regional Haze SIP was written, the following notes have been added

to KDHE’s annual monitoring Plan updates regarding t he IM PRO VE monitors in the State:

• 2010–2011 Kansas Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

o 20-017-0001; Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve

This site, which currently includes an Interagency Monitoring of Protected

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) protocol sampler, was accepted by EPA

as a rural NCore station. Relocation of this site to another part of the

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve is likely, contingent upon pending

negotiations with the National Park Service. This site’s operational start date

wil l be contingent on additional funding made available to KDHE by EPA.

The site is located at N 38.433611; W

- 96.55944, northwest of Strong City,

Kansas on Highway 177.



## • 2011–2012 Kansas Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

o 20-017-0001; Tallgrass Prairie Natio nal Preserve

This site operates as an Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments (IMPROVE) protocol sampler. Relocation of this site to

another part of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve is likely, contingent

upon pending negotiations with the National Park Service. In 2011, as a

result of personnel and funding shortages, the department informed the EPA

Region VII office that the Department was no longer interested in developing

the rural NCore site at the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Chase

County. The site is located at N 38.433611; W

- 96.55944, northwest of

Strong City, Kansas on Highway 177.



## • 2012–2013 Kansas Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

o 20-017-0001; Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve

This site operates as an Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments (IMPROVE) protocol sampler. Relocation of this site to

another part of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve is likely, contingent

upon pending negotiations with the National Park Service. The site is located

## 27 at N 38.433611; W

- 96.55944, northwest of Strong City, Kansas on Highway

177.



## o 20-195-0001; Cedar Bluff Reservoir

This location was chosen in Western Kansas to serve as a background site for

several pollutants, including SO 2 

## , ozone, and PM 2.5 

## . It also opera tes as an

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

protocol sampler site. The site is located at N 38.77027; W

- 99.76361, on the

south side of Cedar Bluff Reservoir in Trego County.

• 

## 2013–2014 Kansas Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

o 20-017-0001; Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve:

This site operates as an Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments (IMPROVE) protocol sampler. Relocation of this site to

another part of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve is likely, contingent

upon pending negotiations with the Nationa l Park Service. The site is located

at N 38.433611; W

- 96.55944, northwest of Strong City, Kansas on Highway

177.



## o 20-195-0001; Cedar Bluff Reservoir:

This location was chosen in Western Kansas to serve as a background site for

several pollutants, includin g SO 2 

## , ozone, and PM 2.5 

## . It also operates as an

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

protocol sampler site. The site is located at N 38.77027; W

- 99.76361, on the

south side of Cedar Bluff Reservoir in Trego County.

• 

## 2014–2015 Kansas Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

o 20-017- 0001; Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve:

This site operates as an Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments (IMPROVE) protocol sampler. The site is located at N

38.433611; W

- 96.55944, northwest of Strong City, Kansas on Kansas

Highway 177.



## o 20-195-0001; Cedar Bluff Reservoir:

This location was chosen in Western Kansas to serve as a background site for

several pollutants, including SO 2 

## , ozone, and PM 2.5 

## . It also operates as an

IMPROVE protoco l sampler site. The site is located at N 38.77027; W

- 99.76361, on the south side of Cedar Bluff Reservoir in Trego County.



## As the Kansas Department of Health and Environment faces increasingly constrained finances,

consideration of the need to operate tw o IMPROVE sites within the state will continue to be

factored into the annual planning process.

3.8 Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination – 40 CFR §51.308(i)

The Regional Haze Rule, at 40 CFR §51.308 (i)(4)

, requires that states consult with federal land

managers , “ including development and review of implementation plan revisions and 5- year progress reports... .” In conformity with this requirement, KDHE provided the federal land

managers a draft copy of this five-year update on November 25, 2014. Also, KDHE notified the

FLMs of a 60-day review and comment period commencing November 26. A summary of FLM

comments and responses is included in Appendix I to this document.

KDHE will continue to coordinate and consult with FLMs during the development of future

progress report and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having the

potential to contribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Class I ar eas.

## 28 

# 4. Conclusion

In accordance with 40 CFR §51.308(h), this five-year update provides justification for KDHE to

hereby make a negative declaration , i.e., that further revision of the existing implementation plan

is not needed at this time. This finding is based upon (a) current state and federal regulations of

air pollutants, (b ) significant reductions in Kansas of anthropogenic NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions, and

(c) improvement in visi bility at the Wichita Mountains Wilderness, as well as other nearby Class

I area s, over the past five years (2009 to 2013).

## 29 

## APPENDICES

## 30 

## Appendix A: Net 2002 to 2018 Improvement in Visibility at Selected Class I Areas Due to

BART Controls in Kansas ( Table 10.15 in the original Kansas Regional Haze SIP * )

Class I areas with visibility improvement >0.5 Mm -1 

## shown in bold text)

Class I area Net 2002

- 2018 light extinction difference

(improvement) from Kansas sources (Mm -1 

## )

Caney Creek (Arkansas) 0.63493

Upper Buffalo (Arkansas) 0.44533

Great Sand Dunes (Colorado) 0.03322

Rocky Mountain (Colorado) 0.06051

Hercules

- Glades (Missouri) 0.56911

Mingo (Missouri) 0.58719

Wichita Mountains (Oklahoma) 1.03715

Badlands (South Dakota) 0.12856

Wind Cave (South Dakota) 0.16741



## * http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/reghaze/KDHERegHaze.pdf

## 31 

## Appendix B : KCP&L and Westar Energy Regional Haze Agreements

A1. KC P &L Agreement (partial) (signed 12/5/2007)

For complete text beyond the terms of agreement for emissions limits refer to

http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/rules/kansas/KCPL_Regional_Haze_Agreement.pdf

AGREEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PLAN

22. The terms of this Agreement constitute an agreement pursuant to K.S.A. 65-3005 to satisfy future

regulatory requirements imposed by the RHR and BART requirements. Nothing in this

Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a release for any claim or cause of action for any

New Source Review (NSR) or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) liability under the

Clean Air Act.

23. KCP&L and KDHE agree that these emission limits for La Cygne Units 1 and 2 will meet or be

less than the presumptive emission lim its established by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, averaged

for Units 1 and 2. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, within 5 years of EPA’s

approval of the Kansas Regional Haze Implementation Plan, KCP&L agrees to install the

emissions control and process equipment as expeditiously as possible, as required by 40 CFR

51.308(e)(1)(iv) and in subparagraph E below, and to implement any necessary operating

procedures in order to achieve the following:

A. Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ): 0.13 lb/mmBTU based on a 30-day rolling weighted average of

both Units 1 and 2, excluding periods of startup and shutdown. During an extended

outage of La Cygne Unit 2 (duration in excess of 10 weeks), KCP&L will submit a plan

for Unit 1 to KDHE to achieve compliance with the presumpti ve NO

x 

## limit of 0.10

lb/mmBTU on a 30-day rolling average excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

B. Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

## ): 0.1 lb/mmBTU on a 30-day rolling average of both Units 1 and 2,

excluding periods of statup and shutdown.

C. PM 10 

## filterable: 0.015 lbs/mmBTU, based on either an average of 3 one- hour stack tests

annually using an approved test method for filterable PM 10 

## , or KCP&L will comply with

KDHE approved Continuous Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plan for PM 10 

## filterable

before baghouses go online for La Cygne Unit 1 and La Cygne Unit 2, at the discretion of

KCP&L.

D. PM 10 

## total: 0.024 lbs/mmBTU, based on either an average of 3 one-hour stack test

annually, using an approved test method for filterable PM 10 

## and Method 202 or an

approved test method for condensable PM as modified to remove artifact bias subject to

KDHE approval, or KCP&L will comply with the KDHE approved CAM plan for PM 10 

## total before baghouses go online for La Cygne Units 1 and 2, at the di scretion of KCP&L.

E. Schedule: KCP&L will issue a Request For Proposals (RFP) for equipment needed to

achieve the aforesaid emissions limits by December 31, 2008. The RFP will request that

construction commence by December 31, 2010. KCP&L will install and operate BART

as expeditiously as practical, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the SIP or

June 1, 2015, which ever date occurs first.

24. KCP&L agrees to minimize excess emissions of air pollutants during startup, shutdown and

malfunction b y committing to the following actions:

A. During startup, pollution control equipment will be activated as soon as practical, within

the manufacturer’s recommendations or following best engineering practices in the

industry.

## 32 

## B. During shutdown, pollution control equipment will be operated as long as practical,

within the manufacturer’s recommendations or following best engineering practices in

the industry.

C. Good combustion and operating practices will be utilized to minimize excess air pollutant

emissions during all startup, shutdown and malfunction conditions.

25. KCP&L agrees to perform compliance verification procedures and recordkeeping requirements

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v) and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y.

26. The emission limits in this Agreement will be incorporated into any construction or operating

permits issued to KCP&L for La Cygne Units 1 and 2.

27. This Agreement shall be proposed by the State of Kansas for incorporation into the

aforementioned Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

A2. Westar Energy (Westar) Agreement (partial) (signed 2/29/2008)

For complete text beyond the terms of agreement for emissions limits refer to

http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/rules/kansas/Westar_Regional_Haze_Agreement.pdf

AGREEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PLAN

23. The terms of this Agreement constitute an agreement pursuant to K.S.A. 65-3005 to satisfy future

regulatory requirements imposed by the RHR and BART requirements. Nothing in this

Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a release for any claim or cause of action for any

New Source Review (NSR) or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) liability under the

Clean Air Act.

24. Westar agrees that emiss ions from the Jeffrey Energy Center (1490001) Units 1 and 2 will meet

the presumptive limits established by 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.

25. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, within five (5) years of EPA’s approval of the

Kansas Regional Haze State Implem entation Plan, Westar agrees to install the emissions control

and process equipment as expeditiously as possible in order to implement any necessary

operating procedures and to achieve the air pollutant emission limits as specified for all of the

units lis ted in Appendix A. The emission limits will become effective January 1, 2014.

A. For Jeffrey Energy Center Units 1, 2 and 3, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv),

Westar agrees within three (3) years of EPA’s approval of the Kansas Regional Haze

State Implementation Plan to install any equipment and to implement any operating

practices necessary to achieve the presumptive NOx and SO2 emission limits

established under 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.

B. For Gordon Evans Energy Center Unit 2, Westar will implement an a lternative

control strategy that will achieve greater visibility improvement than BART, as

outlined in the BART Five Factor Analysis which was submitted to KDHE in

August, 2007. Westar will demonstrate compliance with the alternative control

strategy of s witching from No. 6 fuel oil to natural gas by submitting annual

certifications of compliance verifying that natural gas was the only fuel combusted at

Gordon Evans Energy Center Unit 2 for the preceding year, except as follows:

C. When the natural gas supplier to Gordon Evans Energy Center Unit 2 takes

emergency action which could result in an impact to electric system reliability,

Westar may combust No. 6 fuel oil for the duration of that condition. Westar will

diminish the existing supply of No. 6 fuel oil, and will replace any fuel oil used with

a fuel oil containing 1% or less sulfur content. Westar may burn a limited amount of

fuel oil during non-emergencies to assure that the Gordon Evans Energy Center Unit

2 functions properly during emergencies.

## 33 

## 26. Wes tar agrees to minimize excess emissions of air pollutants during startup, shutdown and

malfunction situations by committing to the following actions:

A. During startup, pollution control equipment will be activated as soon as practical,

within the manufacture r’s recommendations or following best engineering practices

in the industry;

B. During shutdown, pollution control equipment will be operated as long as practical,

within the manufacturer’s recommendations or following best engineering practices

in the industry;

C. Good combustion and operating practices will be utilized to minimize excess air

pollutant emissions during all startup, shutdown and malfunction conditions.

27. Westar agrees to perform compliance verification procedures and recordkeeping requirement s in

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v) and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y.

28. The emissions limits in this Agreement will be incorporated into any construction or operating

permits issued to Westar for any and all facilities listed in Appendix A.

29. This Agreem ent shall be proposed by the State of Kansas for incorporation into the

aforementioned Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

## 34 

## Appendix C : 2012 NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## 30-Day Rolling Averages for Westar - Jeffrey Units 1 and

2

Source: EPA Air Markets Program Data - http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/

Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 12/3/11 11.65 1.262 0.037 4.435 0.130

1 12/4/11 5.53 0.012 0.008 0.140 0.043

1 12/5/11 24 2.056 0.026 11.492 0.144

1 12/6/11 24 2.444 0.028 12.742 0.147

1 12/7/11 24 2.522 0.032 10.571 0.134

1 12/8/11 24 2.272 0.027 11.445 0.138

1 12/9/11 24 3.177 0.036 12.148 0.139

1 12/10/11 24 2.617 0.030 13.098 0.148

1 12/11/11 24 1.996 0.027 9.692 0.132

1 12/12/11 24 2.967 0.036 11.659 0.141

1 12/13/11 24 2.753 0.035 10.618 0.134

1 12/14/11 24 2.202 0.031 9.342 0.130

1 12/15/11 24 2.126 0.028 10.293 0.134

1 12/16/11 24 3.055 0.037 11.818 0.142

1 12/17/11 24 3.673 0.041 12.946 0.144

1 12/18/11 24 2.024 0.031 7.876 0.120

1 12/19/11 24 2.300 0.032 9.367 0.127

1 12/20/11 24 2.520 0.031 11.359 0.136

1 12/21/11 24 2.257 0.027 11.467 0.137

1 12/22/11 24 0.737 0.011 8.503 0.120

1 12/23/11 24 0.944 0.011 11.375 0.136

1 12/24/11 24 0.825 0.010 10.460 0.130

1 12/25/11 24 0.606 0.009 7.646 0.118

1 12/26/11 24 0.804 0.011 9.002 0.124

1 12/27/11 24 0.629 0.010 7.819 0.119

1 12/28/11 24 0.872 0.011 10.632 0.132

1 12/29/11 24 0.692 0.011 7.796 0.119

1 12/30/11 24 0.364 0.007 5.744 0.107

1 12/31/11 24 0.476 0.009 5.124 0.099

1 1/1/2012 24 0.493 0.008 0.023 7.416 0.119 0.127

1 1/2/2012 24 0.859 0.011 0.022 10.613 0.133 0.127

1 1/3/2012 24 0.685 0.010 0.022 9.348 0.129 0.130

1 1/4/2012 24 1.723 0.029 0.022 7.267 0.119 0.130

1 1/5/2012 24 0.439 0.007 0.022 7.043 0.116 0.128

1 1/6/2012 24 0.517 0.009 0.021 6.420 0.114 0.128

1 1/7/2012 24 0.628 0.010 0.020 7.843 0.120 0.127

1 1/8/2012 24 0.474 0.008 0.019 6.978 0.113 0.126

1 1/9/2012 23.98 3.385 0.043 0.020 10.899 0.135 0.126

1 1/10/2012 23.32 1.753 0.024 0.020 10.072 0.138 0.126

1 1/11/2012 24 0.907 0.014 0.019 7.388 0.116 0.125

## 35 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 1/12/2012 24 1.762 0.021 0.018 11.569 0.135 0.125

1 1/13/2012 24 2.861 0.032 0.018 12.448 0.141 0.126

1 1/14/2012 24 1.890 0.024 0.018 10.322 0.131 0.126

1 1/15/2012 24 1.440 0.023 0.018 7.313 0.117 0.125

1 1/16/2012 24 1.484 0.025 0.017 7.207 0.120 0.124

1 1/17/2012 24 2.135 0.026 0.017 11.419 0.134 0.124

1 1/18/2012 24 1.908 0.025 0.017 9.727 0.128 0.124

1 1/19/2012 24 1.898 0.024 0.017 10.368 0.129 0.124

1 1/20/2012 24 2.097 0.024 0.017 12.779 0.141 0.124

1 1/21/2012 24 2.223 0.024 0.017 13.353 0.145 0.125

1 1/22/2012 24 1.180 0.023 0.017 5.657 0.109 0.124

1 1/23/2012 24 1.616 0.024 0.018 8.381 0.119 0.124

1 1/24/2012 24 1.830 0.023 0.018 10.106 0.126 0.124

1 1/25/2012 24 1.937 0.024 0.019 10.665 0.129 0.124

1 1/26/2012 24 1.740 0.023 0.019 9.694 0.127 0.125

1 1/27/2012 24 1.218 0.020 0.020 6.842 0.113 0.124

1 1/28/2012 24 1.909 0.026 0.020 9.084 0.123 0.124

1 1/29/2012 24 1.283 0.022 0.021 6.597 0.111 0.124

1 1/30/2012 24 1.364 0.024 0.021 6.747 0.115 0.125

1 1/31/2012 24 2.015 0.029 0.022 8.832 0.125 0.125

1 2/1/2012 24 1.931 0.025 0.022 10.431 0.133 0.125

1 2/2/2012 24 1.924 0.027 0.023 9.026 0.124 0.125

1 2/3/2012 24 1.384 0.020 0.022 8.703 0.124 0.125

1 2/4/2012 24 1.384 0.022 0.023 7.763 0.122 0.125

1 2/5/2012 24 1.881 0.025 0.023 9.998 0.133 0.126

1 2/6/2012 24 2.348 0.030 0.024 10.738 0.136 0.126

1 2/7/2012 24 1.616 0.023 0.025 9.174 0.129 0.127

1 2/8/2012 24 1.282 0.015 0.024 12.041 0.139 0.127

1 2/9/2012 24 1.376 0.018 0.024 10.230 0.129 0.127

1 2/10/2012 24 1.209 0.018 0.024 8.213 0.120 0.127

1 2/11/2012 24 2.081 0.025 0.024 11.680 0.140 0.127

1 2/12/2012 24 1.860 0.025 0.024 9.539 0.127 0.127

1 2/13/2012 23.9 2.336 0.028 0.024 12.139 0.143 0.127

1 2/14/2012 0 0.024 0.127

1 2/15/2012 12.6 0.274 0.015 0.023 2.367 0.100 0.127

1 2/16/2012 24 1.013 0.016 0.023 7.457 0.116 0.126

1 2/17/2012 24 1.201 0.016 0.023 9.985 0.128 0.126

1 2/18/2012 24 1.638 0.020 0.023 11.385 0.136 0.126

1 2/19/2012 24 0.897 0.014 0.022 7.355 0.115 0.125

1 2/20/2012 24 0.921 0.015 0.022 7.190 0.116 0.124

1 2/21/2012 24 1.282 0.018 0.022 9.513 0.129 0.125

1 2/22/2012 24 1.330 0.019 0.022 8.887 0.125 0.125

1 2/23/2012 24 1.047 0.018 0.021 6.657 0.114 0.125

## 36 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 2/24/2012 20.95 1.133 0.018 0.021 8.028 0.127 0.125

1 2/25/2012 0

1 2/26/2012 0

1 2/27/2012 0

1 2/28/2012 0

1 2/29/2012 0

1 3/1/2012 0

1 3/2/2012 0

1 3/3/2012 0

1 3/4/2012 0

1 3/5/2012 0

1 3/6/2012 0

1 3/7/2012 0

1 3/8/2012 0

1 3/9/2012 0

1 3/10/2012 0

1 3/11/2012 0

1 3/12/2012 0

1 3/13/2012 0

1 3/14/2012 0

1 3/15/2012 0

1 3/16/2012 0

1 3/17/2012 0

1 3/18/2012 0

1 3/19/2012 0

1 3/20/2012 0

1 3/21/2012 0

1 3/22/2012 0

1 3/23/2012 0

1 3/24/2012 0

1 3/25/2012 0

1 3/26/2012 0

1 3/27/2012 0

1 3/28/2012 0

1 3/29/2012 0

1 3/30/2012 0

1 3/31/2012 0

1 4/1/2012 0

1 4/2/2012 0

1 4/3/2012 0

1 4/4/2012 0

1 4/5/2012 0

1 4/6/2012 0

## 37 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 4/7/2012 0

1 4/8/2012 0

1 4/9/2012 0

1 4/10/2012 0

1 4/11/2012 0

1 4/12/2012 0

1 4/13/2012 0

1 4/14/2012 0

1 4/15/2012 0

1 4/16/2012 0

1 4/17/2012 0

1 4/18/2012 0

1 4/19/2012 0

1 4/20/2012 0

1 4/21/2012 0

1 4/22/2012 0

1 4/23/2012 0

1 4/24/2012 0

1 4/25/2012 0

1 4/26/2012 4.62 0.010 0.007 0.046 0.019

1 4/27/2012 22.06 0.175 0.009 3.539 0.135

1 4/28/2012 24 1.071 0.020 11.107 0.206

1 4/29/2012 24 1.992 0.031 14.404 0.212

1 4/30/2012 24 2.408 0.036 10.795 0.161

1 5/1/2012 24 2.868 0.046 8.409 0.133

1 5/2/2012 24 4.053 0.056 10.273 0.136

1 5/3/2012 24 4.434 0.056 11.840 0.141

1 5/4/2012 24 1.806 0.026 10.260 0.141

1 5/5/2012 24 1.035 0.019 6.139 0.110

1 5/6/2012 24 1.409 0.022 8.320 0.131

1 5/7/2012 24 1.694 0.024 11.525 0.161

1 5/8/2012 24 1.428 0.023 9.151 0.147

1 5/9/2012 24 1.635 0.024 9.448 0.133

1 5/10/2012 24 1.399 0.020 9.480 0.134

1 5/11/2012 24 1.405 0.019 9.567 0.128

1 5/12/2012 24 1.262 0.016 10.462 0.132

1 5/13/2012 24 1.031 0.014 9.442 0.127

1 5/14/2012 24 1.705 0.021 12.418 0.144

1 5/15/2012 24 1.710 0.020 13.063 0.151

1 5/16/2012 24 1.575 0.020 11.385 0.143

1 5/17/2012 24 1.556 0.020 12.145 0.146

1 5/18/2012 24 1.824 0.022 13.284 0.152

1 5/19/2012 24 1.467 0.018 11.590 0.137

## 38 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 5/20/2012 24 1.327 0.017 11.135 0.135

1 5/21/2012 24 1.349 0.016 11.775 0.135

1 5/22/2012 10.07 0.295 0.013 2.533 0.132

1 5/23/2012 1.1 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005

1 5/24/2012 9.43 0.037 0.004 1.420 0.144

1 5/25/2012 1.45 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.004 0.010 0.131

1 5/26/2012 24 0.845 0.014 0.022 8.067 0.133 0.134

1 5/27/2012 24 1.093 0.015 0.022 8.932 0.125 0.134

1 5/28/2012 24 1.206 0.015 0.022 10.883 0.132 0.132

1 5/29/2012 24 1.170 0.014 0.021 10.909 0.131 0.129

1 5/30/2012 24 1.385 0.018 0.020 9.962 0.128 0.128

1 5/31/2012 24 0.816 0.013 0.019 6.876 0.111 0.127

1 6/1/2012 24 0.651 0.011 0.018 5.962 0.105 0.126

1 6/2/2012 24 1.227 0.017 0.017 9.283 0.122 0.125

1 6/3/2012 24 1.380 0.018 0.016 10.208 0.128 0.125

1 6/4/2012 24 1.357 0.017 0.016 10.231 0.129 0.126

1 6/5/2012 24 1.368 0.016 0.016 12.494 0.142 0.126

1 6/6/2012 24 1.440 0.018 0.016 10.782 0.130 0.125

1 6/7/2012 24 1.019 0.016 0.016 7.309 0.114 0.124

1 6/8/2012 24 1.132 0.015 0.015 9.410 0.123 0.124

1 6/9/2012 24 1.385 0.019 0.015 9.219 0.124 0.123

1 6/10/2012 24 1.687 0.022 0.015 10.422 0.132 0.123

1 6/11/2012 24 1.613 0.021 0.015 9.892 0.130 0.123

1 6/12/2012 24 1.163 0.016 0.016 8.385 0.118 0.123

1 6/13/2012 24 1.286 0.019 0.015 7.864 0.114 0.122

1 6/14/2012 24 1.257 0.017 0.015 8.591 0.117 0.121

1 6/15/2012 24 1.025 0.015 0.015 8.487 0.117 0.120

1 6/16/2012 24 1.046 0.014 0.015 10.652 0.131 0.119

1 6/17/2012 24 1.034 0.015 0.015 8.548 0.116 0.118

1 6/18/2012 24 0.849 0.013 0.015 7.563 0.117 0.118

1 6/19/2012 24 1.155 0.016 0.015 10.401 0.136 0.118

1 6/20/2012 24 1.313 0.018 0.015 11.486 0.147 0.118

1 6/21/2012 24 1.644 0.020 0.015 13.137 0.152 0.119

1 6/22/2012 24 3.303 0.039 0.016 12.257 0.141 0.123

1 6/23/2012 24 1.110 0.016 0.017 10.243 0.138 0.123

1 6/24/2012 24 1.229 0.015 0.017 11.835 0.141 0.127

1 6/25/2012 24 1.510 0.018 0.017 13.335 0.152 0.128

1 6/26/2012 24 1.506 0.018 0.017 11.894 0.139 0.129

1 6/27/2012 24 1.472 0.018 0.017 11.841 0.142 0.129

1 6/28/2012 24 2.058 0.025 0.018 12.869 0.150 0.129

1 6/29/2012 24 1.779 0.021 0.018 12.177 0.142 0.130

1 6/30/2012 24 1.404 0.017 0.018 11.913 0.143 0.131

1 7/1/2012 24 1.472 0.018 0.018 11.224 0.133 0.132

## 39 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 7/2/2012 24 1.401 0.017 0.018 11.684 0.135 0.132

1 7/3/2012 24 1.376 0.017 0.018 11.195 0.135 0.133

1 7/4/2012 24 1.399 0.018 0.018 10.405 0.129 0.133

1 7/5/2012 24 1.310 0.016 0.018 11.462 0.135 0.132

1 7/6/2012 24 1.579 0.018 0.018 12.455 0.143 0.133

1 7/7/2012 24 1.677 0.019 0.018 12.842 0.144 0.134

1 7/8/2012 24 1.386 0.017 0.018 11.121 0.131 0.134

1 7/9/2012 24 1.018 0.012 0.018 12.016 0.137 0.135

1 7/10/2012 24 0.994 0.012 0.018 12.136 0.138 0.135

1 7/11/2012 24 1.153 0.013 0.018 12.541 0.138 0.135

1 7/12/2012 23.4 0.775 0.010 0.017 10.723 0.131 0.136

1 7/13/2012 24 1.021 0.012 0.017 11.096 0.128 0.136

1 7/14/2012 24 0.892 0.011 0.017 10.330 0.126 0.136

1 7/15/2012 24 1.217 0.015 0.017 10.613 0.125 0.137

1 7/16/2012 24 1.172 0.014 0.017 11.199 0.129 0.136

1 7/17/2012 24 1.306 0.016 0.017 10.051 0.123 0.137

1 7/18/2012 24 1.183 0.014 0.017 12.194 0.137 0.137

1 7/19/2012 24 1.270 0.015 0.017 11.874 0.140 0.137

1 7/20/2012 24 1.336 0.015 0.017 13.629 0.153 0.138

1 7/21/2012 24 1.290 0.016 0.017 12.079 0.142 0.137

1 7/22/2012 24 1.316 0.016 0.016 11.047 0.131 0.137

1 7/23/2012 24 1.084 0.013 0.016 12.038 0.142 0.137

1 7/24/2012 24 0.952 0.011 0.016 13.828 0.152 0.138

1 7/25/2012 24 1.398 0.016 0.016 14.179 0.156 0.138

1 7/26/2012 24 1.138 0.012 0.015 14.086 0.147 0.138

1 7/27/2012 24 1.148 0.012 0.015 14.252 0.150 0.138

1 7/28/2012 24 1.188 0.014 0.015 12.948 0.149 0.138

1 7/29/2012 24 1.174 0.014 0.015 12.539 0.144 0.138

1 7/30/2012 24 1.097 0.013 0.015 12.903 0.145 0.138

1 7/31/2012 24 1.232 0.013 0.014 13.808 0.147 0.139

1 8/1/2012 24 1.145 0.013 0.014 11.841 0.131 0.139

1 8/2/2012 24 1.097 0.012 0.014 13.152 0.143 0.139

1 8/3/2012 24 1.241 0.013 0.014 13.915 0.150 0.140

1 8/4/2012 24 1.466 0.017 0.014 11.577 0.132 0.139

1 8/5/2012 24 1.419 0.017 0.014 10.647 0.126 0.139

1 8/6/2012 24 1.389 0.016 0.014 11.268 0.130 0.138

1 8/7/2012 20.5 1.005 0.015 0.014 9.315 0.139 0.139

1 8/8/2012 24 1.272 0.014 0.014 13.390 0.148 0.139

1 8/9/2012 24 1.145 0.013 0.014 12.902 0.147 0.139

1 8/10/2012 24 1.494 0.018 0.014 11.532 0.135 0.139

1 8/11/2012 24 1.070 0.014 0.014 9.899 0.128 0.139

1 8/12/2012 24 1.036 0.013 0.014 10.472 0.126 0.139

1 8/13/2012 24 1.032 0.012 0.014 11.376 0.130 0.139

## 40 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 8/14/2012 24 0.864 0.013 0.014 8.102 0.116 0.139

1 8/15/2012 24 0.558 0.007 0.014 11.474 0.134 0.139

1 8/16/2012 24 0.658 0.007 0.014 12.225 0.135 0.140

1 8/17/2012 24 0.986 0.012 0.014 11.094 0.133 0.139

1 8/18/2012 24 0.859 0.011 0.013 10.555 0.130 0.139

1 8/19/2012 24 0.647 0.008 0.013 10.372 0.129 0.138

1 8/20/2012 24 0.856 0.010 0.013 11.062 0.127 0.138

1 8/21/2012 24 1.553 0.018 0.013 11.342 0.133 0.138

1 8/22/2012 24 1.763 0.022 0.013 10.571 0.130 0.137

1 8/23/2012 24 1.456 0.020 0.014 10.360 0.136 0.137

1 8/24/2012 24 0.799 0.010 0.013 10.386 0.131 0.136

1 8/25/2012 24 1.019 0.012 0.013 11.899 0.137 0.136

1 8/26/2012 24 0.839 0.010 0.013 11.946 0.137 0.135

1 8/27/2012 24 0.967 0.011 0.013 11.683 0.133 0.135

1 8/28/2012 24 0.920 0.011 0.013 11.104 0.132 0.134

1 8/29/2012 24 1.061 0.013 0.013 10.917 0.132 0.134

1 8/30/2012 24 1.041 0.012 0.013 11.688 0.134 0.133

1 8/31/2012 24 1.226 0.013 0.013 13.161 0.142 0.134

1 9/1/2012 24 0.996 0.012 0.013 11.598 0.138 0.134

1 9/2/2012 24 1.146 0.015 0.013 10.739 0.134 0.133

1 9/3/2012 24 1.195 0.015 0.013 11.377 0.136 0.133

1 9/4/2012 24 1.467 0.016 0.013 12.881 0.141 0.134

1 9/5/2012 24 1.188 0.014 0.013 11.744 0.137 0.134

1 9/6/2012 24 1.173 0.014 0.013 11.729 0.138 0.134

1 9/7/2012 24 0.982 0.012 0.013 10.542 0.131 0.133

1 9/8/2012 24 0.703 0.009 0.013 9.392 0.120 0.133

1 9/9/2012 24 0.766 0.010 0.013 9.329 0.121 0.132

1 9/10/2012 24 0.877 0.012 0.012 8.914 0.119 0.132

1 9/11/2012 24 0.856 0.012 0.012 9.440 0.127 0.132

1 9/12/2012 24 0.746 0.010 0.012 10.359 0.131 0.132

1 9/13/2012 24 0.856 0.011 0.012 11.847 0.145 0.133

1 9/14/2012 24 0.761 0.011 0.012 8.691 0.125 0.132

1 9/15/2012 24 1.067 0.014 0.013 11.336 0.141 0.133

1 9/16/2012 24 1.041 0.015 0.013 9.789 0.142 0.133

1 9/17/2012 24 1.314 0.018 0.013 11.139 0.148 0.134

1 9/18/2012 24 0.921 0.014 0.013 9.390 0.147 0.134

1 9/19/2012 24 0.729 0.013 0.013 7.996 0.140 0.135

1 9/20/2012 24 0.891 0.013 0.013 9.831 0.140 0.135

1 9/21/2012 24 0.955 0.013 0.013 10.906 0.144 0.135

1 9/22/2012 24 0.964 0.013 0.013 10.367 0.142 0.135

1 9/23/2012 24 0.830 0.013 0.013 9.326 0.140 0.136

1 9/24/2012 24 1.033 0.014 0.013 10.536 0.136 0.136

1 9/25/2012 24 1.631 0.019 0.013 12.427 0.144 0.136

## 41 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 9/26/2012 24 1.530 0.018 0.013 13.302 0.152 0.137

1 9/27/2012 24 2.055 0.023 0.014 12.704 0.142 0.137

1 9/28/2012 22.02 1.417 0.018 0.014 10.811 0.131 0.137

1 9/29/2012 0

1 9/30/2012 7.3 0.002 0.001 0.014 0.615 0.088 0.135

1 10/1/2012 24 0.723 0.010 0.013 8.918 0.121 0.135

1 10/2/2012 24 1.163 0.015 0.014 9.937 0.127 0.134

1 10/3/2012 24 1.073 0.015 0.014 9.233 0.131 0.134

1 10/4/2012 24 1.185 0.015 0.014 10.129 0.127 0.134

1 10/5/2012 24 1.144 0.015 0.013 9.964 0.124 0.133

1 10/6/2012 24 1.287 0.016 0.014 10.528 0.126 0.133

1 10/7/2012 24 0.993 0.013 0.014 9.040 0.121 0.132

1 10/8/2012 24 0.962 0.014 0.014 8.648 0.121 0.132

1 10/9/2012 24 0.729 0.012 0.014 6.820 0.111 0.132

1 10/10/2012 24 0.904 0.014 0.014 7.451 0.113 0.131

1 10/11/2012 24 1.256 0.017 0.014 9.461 0.124 0.132

1 10/12/2012 24 0.850 0.013 0.014 7.805 0.114 0.131

1 10/13/2012 24 0.723 0.010 0.014 8.778 0.127 0.131

1 10/14/2012 24 0.741 0.012 0.014 7.321 0.113 0.130

1 10/15/2012 24 1.025 0.015 0.014 8.460 0.119 0.130

1 10/16/2012 24 1.016 0.014 0.014 8.982 0.121 0.129

1 10/17/2012 24 0.880 0.014 0.014 7.332 0.114 0.128

1 10/18/2012 24 0.650 0.012 0.014 6.225 0.112 0.127

1 10/19/2012 24 0.784 0.013 0.014 6.480 0.109 0.126

1 10/20/2012 24 0.745 0.013 0.014 6.508 0.110 0.125

1 10/21/2012 24 0.814 0.015 0.014 6.268 0.114 0.124

1 10/22/2012 24 0.956 0.015 0.014 7.697 0.117 0.123

1 10/23/2012 24 0.889 0.015 0.014 6.824 0.114 0.122

1 10/24/2012 24 0.579 0.010 0.014 6.718 0.116 0.121

1 10/25/2012 24 0.696 0.012 0.014 6.793 0.113 0.120

1 10/26/2012 24 0.901 0.012 0.014 9.024 0.118 0.120

1 10/27/2012 24 0.582 0.008 0.013 8.043 0.112 0.118

1 10/28/2012 24 0.385 0.007 0.013 6.428 0.112 0.117

1 10/29/2012 24 0.489 0.008 0.013 7.269 0.115 0.117

1 10/30/2012 24 0.999 0.013 0.013 10.044 0.124 0.118

1 10/31/2012 24 1.722 0.020 0.013 11.860 0.135 0.118

1 11/1/2012 24 1.372 0.017 0.013 10.435 0.128 0.118

1 11/2/2012 24 1.292 0.019 0.013 8.692 0.124 0.118

1 11/3/2012 24 1.088 0.014 0.013 9.692 0.120 0.118

1 11/4/2012 24 1.252 0.016 0.013 10.246 0.129 0.118

1 11/5/2012 24 1.334 0.016 0.013 11.363 0.132 0.118

1 11/6/2012 24 1.239 0.016 0.014 9.957 0.123 0.118

1 11/7/2012 24 1.332 0.017 0.014 10.517 0.129 0.119

## 42 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 11/8/2012 24 1.614 0.022 0.014 10.156 0.137 0.120

1 11/9/2012 24 1.241 0.020 0.014 8.146 0.134 0.120

1 11/10/2012 24 0.403 0.009 0.014 6.258 0.145 0.121

1 11/11/2012 24 1.456 0.021 0.014 8.958 0.127 0.121

1 11/12/2012 24 1.912 0.021 0.015 12.037 0.133 0.122

1 11/13/2012 24 1.294 0.017 0.015 9.116 0.123 0.122

1 11/14/2012 24 1.268 0.017 0.015 9.652 0.128 0.122

1 11/15/2012 24 1.418 0.018 0.015 10.251 0.125 0.122

1 11/16/2012 24 1.296 0.016 0.015 10.407 0.124 0.123

1 11/17/2012 24 0.466 0.010 0.015 6.212 0.133 0.123

1 11/18/2012 24 0.500 0.011 0.015 6.033 0.128 0.124

1 11/19/2012 24 2.790 0.034 0.016 10.394 0.127 0.125

1 11/20/2012 24 2.867 0.033 0.016 11.099 0.127 0.125

1 11/21/2012 24 1.538 0.031 0.017 6.257 0.129 0.125

1 11/22/2012 24 1.590 0.035 0.017 5.429 0.121 0.126

1 11/23/2012 24 2.606 0.041 0.018 7.249 0.113 0.126

1 11/24/2012 24 2.289 0.040 0.019 6.897 0.123 0.126

1 11/25/2012 24 2.962 0.041 0.020 8.869 0.123 0.126

1 11/26/2012 24 2.459 0.037 0.021 7.730 0.114 0.126

1 11/27/2012 24 4.110 0.045 0.023 11.650 0.128 0.127

1 11/28/2012 24 1.920 0.023 0.023 10.871 0.126 0.127

1 11/29/2012 24 1.302 0.015 0.023 11.608 0.131 0.127

1 11/30/2012 24 1.438 0.018 0.023 10.205 0.126 0.127

1 12/1/2012 24 1.145 0.017 0.023 8.462 0.120 0.127

1 12/2/2012 24 1.033 0.016 0.023 7.690 0.117 0.126

1 12/3/2012 24 1.586 0.023 0.023 8.611 0.123 0.127

1 12/4/2012 24 2.026 0.025 0.024 10.932 0.133 0.127

1 12/5/2012 24 1.098 0.018 0.024 6.936 0.110 0.126

1 12/6/2012 24 1.540 0.022 0.024 9.076 0.132 0.126

1 12/7/2012 24 1.497 0.016 0.024 12.492 0.133 0.126

1 12/8/2012 24 1.137 0.014 0.023 10.504 0.127 0.126

1 12/9/2012 24 0.524 0.011 0.023 6.965 0.151 0.127

1 12/10/2012 24 1.157 0.015 0.023 9.216 0.118 0.126

1 12/11/2012 24 1.575 0.020 0.023 9.671 0.120 0.126

1 12/12/2012 24 0.792 0.014 0.023 6.677 0.120 0.125

1 12/13/2012 24 1.080 0.016 0.023 8.271 0.126 0.125

1 12/14/2012 24 0.347 0.009 0.023 5.168 0.135 0.125

1 12/15/2012 24 1.141 0.017 0.023 8.061 0.119 0.125

1 12/16/2012 24 1.306 0.018 0.023 9.047 0.122 0.125

1 12/17/2012 24 1.370 0.019 0.023 9.006 0.124 0.125

1 12/18/2012 24 0.974 0.014 0.023 8.576 0.129 0.125

1 12/19/2012 24 0.902 0.014 0.023 7.858 0.120 0.125

1 12/20/2012 24 1.025 0.015 0.022 8.237 0.122 0.124

## 43 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

1 12/21/2012 24 1.186 0.015 0.021 9.464 0.120 0.124

1 12/22/2012 24 0.518 0.012 0.021 5.326 0.120 0.124

1 12/23/2012 24 1.282 0.019 0.020 8.170 0.117 0.124

1 12/24/2012 24 1.083 0.015 0.019 8.879 0.120 0.124

1 12/25/2012 24 0.709 0.012 0.018 6.735 0.116 0.124

1 12/26/2012 24 1.433 0.017 0.017 11.483 0.132 0.125

1 12/27/2012 24 1.998 0.021 0.017 13.366 0.140 0.125

1 12/28/2012 24 1.615 0.018 0.017 12.084 0.136 0.125

1 12/29/2012 24 1.296 0.015 0.017 10.535 0.125 0.125

1 12/30/2012 24 0.810 0.013 0.016 6.746 0.106 0.124

1 12/31/2012 24 1.688 0.019 0.016 11.600 0.130 0.125

2 12/3/11 24 1.445 0.019 11.147 0.140

2 12/4/11 24 1.639 0.019 12.352 0.142

2 12/5/11 24 1.796 0.022 11.955 0.141

2 12/6/11 24 1.881 0.021 13.219 0.147

2 12/7/11 24 1.831 0.021 12.883 0.149

2 12/8/11 24 1.632 0.019 12.252 0.142

2 12/9/11 24 1.880 0.021 12.872 0.144

2 12/10/11 24 1.692 0.020 12.046 0.140

2 12/11/11 24 1.225 0.018 8.564 0.122

2 12/12/11 24 1.468 0.020 9.893 0.130

2 12/13/11 24 1.595 0.020 11.706 0.145

2 12/14/11 24 1.235 0.019 8.607 0.131

2 12/15/11 24 1.313 0.018 9.816 0.132

2 12/16/11 24 1.777 0.022 11.553 0.142

2 12/17/11 24 2.068 0.024 12.912 0.148

2 12/18/11 24 1.170 0.020 7.286 0.120

2 12/19/11 24 1.268 0.019 8.951 0.127

2 12/20/11 24 1.691 0.021 12.225 0.146

2 12/21/11 24 2.018 0.025 11.999 0.147

2 12/22/11 24 1.179 0.018 8.571 0.127

2 12/23/11 24 1.383 0.017 12.122 0.146

2 12/24/11 24 1.310 0.016 11.175 0.139

2 12/25/11 24 0.942 0.016 7.110 0.118

2 12/26/11 24 1.761 0.027 8.862 0.132

2 12/27/11 24 0.960 0.016 7.857 0.127

2 12/28/11 24 1.177 0.016 9.958 0.132

2 12/29/11 24 0.735 0.014 6.492 0.118

2 12/30/11 24 0.406 0.010 4.152 0.101

2 12/31/11 24 0.677 0.017 4.174 0.106

2 1/1/2012 24 0.733 0.015 0.019 5.396 0.107 0.133

2 1/2/2012 24 1.342 0.018 0.019 10.624 0.135 0.133

## 44 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 1/3/2012 24 0.961 0.016 0.019 7.907 0.123 0.132

2 1/4/2012 24 0.721 0.014 0.019 6.213 0.116 0.131

2 1/5/2012 24 3.165 0.066 0.020 6.931 0.142 0.131

2 1/6/2012 24 1.375 0.034 0.021 5.433 0.138 0.131

2 1/7/2012 24 0.931 0.016 0.020 7.255 0.118 0.130

2 1/8/2012 24 0.927 0.019 0.020 5.945 0.119 0.129

2 1/9/2012 24 1.417 0.019 0.020 10.930 0.142 0.129

2 1/10/2012 24 1.560 0.019 0.020 12.053 0.144 0.130

2 1/11/2012 24 0.541 0.010 0.020 6.467 0.115 0.129

2 1/12/2012 24 1.893 0.024 0.020 11.715 0.142 0.129

2 1/13/2012 24 1.891 0.021 0.020 12.922 0.145 0.130

2 1/14/2012 24 1.493 0.021 0.020 9.224 0.130 0.130

2 1/15/2012 24 0.598 0.012 0.020 5.859 0.116 0.129

2 1/16/2012 24 0.470 0.010 0.020 5.935 0.128 0.128

2 1/17/2012 24 1.121 0.016 0.019 10.265 0.142 0.129

2 1/18/2012 24 2.422 0.033 0.020 10.411 0.141 0.129

2 1/19/2012 22.97 1.720 0.027 0.020 9.358 0.145 0.129

2 1/20/2012 0

2 1/21/2012 4.82 0.157 0.235 0.027 0.035 0.039 0.126

2 1/22/2012 24 0.477 0.013 0.027 5.170 0.144 0.126

2 1/23/2012 24 0.772 0.013 0.027 7.684 0.134 0.126

2 1/24/2012 24 0.922 0.013 0.027 9.376 0.127 0.126

2 1/25/2012 24 1.143 0.015 0.027 10.493 0.135 0.126

2 1/26/2012 24 0.933 0.013 0.026 8.969 0.124 0.126

2 1/27/2012 24 0.438 0.009 0.026 5.363 0.107 0.125

2 1/28/2012 24 1.829 0.029 0.026 8.746 0.133 0.125

2 1/29/2012 24 0.513 0.011 0.026 5.050 0.108 0.125

2 1/30/2012 24 0.453 0.009 0.026 5.222 0.105 0.125

2 1/31/2012 24 0.892 0.014 0.026 7.585 0.114 0.125

2 2/1/2012 24 1.017 0.014 0.026 9.601 0.125 0.126

2 2/2/2012 24 0.989 0.015 0.026 8.126 0.121 0.125

2 2/3/2012 24 0.924 0.015 0.026 7.958 0.121 0.125

2 2/4/2012 24 0.505 0.011 0.026 5.347 0.109 0.125

2 2/5/2012 24 0.997 0.015 0.024 8.466 0.123 0.124

2 2/6/2012 24 1.515 0.022 0.024 9.289 0.130 0.124

2 2/7/2012 24 1.694 0.022 0.024 10.375 0.133 0.125

2 2/8/2012 24 2.212 0.025 0.024 13.874 0.154 0.126

2 2/9/2012 24 1.465 0.018 0.024 11.541 0.143 0.126

2 2/10/2012 24 1.256 0.019 0.024 9.253 0.136 0.126

2 2/11/2012 23.58 1.687 0.021 0.025 12.432 0.152 0.127

2 2/12/2012 24 1.018 0.013 0.024 10.567 0.136 0.127

2 2/13/2012 24 1.281 0.016 0.024 11.544 0.141 0.127

2 2/14/2012 24 1.064 0.013 0.024 11.651 0.144 0.127

## 45 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 2/15/2012 24 0.874 0.012 0.024 10.068 0.135 0.128

2 2/16/2012 24 0.581 0.011 0.024 6.593 0.116 0.127

2 2/17/2012 24 0.760 0.013 0.024 7.610 0.123 0.127

2 2/18/2012 24 1.016 0.015 0.023 9.255 0.129 0.126

2 2/19/2012 24 0.604 0.011 0.023 6.264 0.116 0.125

2 2/20/2012 24 0.549 0.010 0.015 6.201 0.116 0.128

2 2/21/2012 24 0.882 0.013 0.015 8.751 0.128 0.127

2 2/22/2012 24 0.811 0.013 0.015 8.332 0.129 0.127

2 2/23/2012 24 0.311 0.007 0.015 4.819 0.110 0.126

2 2/24/2012 24 0.944 0.013 0.015 10.089 0.134 0.126

2 2/25/2012 24 0.773 0.011 0.015 9.769 0.140 0.127

2 2/26/2012 24 0.734 0.013 0.015 7.204 0.119 0.127

2 2/27/2012 24 1.125 0.015 0.014 10.638 0.135 0.127

2 2/28/2012 24 1.005 0.016 0.015 8.416 0.128 0.128

2 2/29/2012 24 1.090 0.018 0.015 8.037 0.130 0.129

2 3/1/2012 24 0.502 0.011 0.015 5.888 0.126 0.129

2 3/2/2012 24 1.417 0.021 0.015 9.478 0.138 0.130

2 3/3/2012 24 1.170 0.015 0.015 11.466 0.142 0.130

2 3/4/2012 24 0.798 0.012 0.015 9.203 0.141 0.131

2 3/5/2012 24 0.551 0.010 0.015 6.775 0.117 0.131

2 3/6/2012 24 0.230 0.006 0.015 4.225 0.101 0.131

2 3/7/2012 24 0.398 0.008 0.014 6.636 0.130 0.131

2 3/8/2012 24 1.199 0.018 0.014 9.315 0.139 0.131

2 3/9/2012 24 0.882 0.011 0.013 10.209 0.133 0.130

2 3/10/2012 24 0.796 0.011 0.013 8.839 0.127 0.130

2 3/11/2012 24 1.489 0.022 0.013 9.370 0.135 0.130

2 3/12/2012 24 0.845 0.014 0.013 7.807 0.126 0.129

2 3/13/2012 24 1.223 0.022 0.013 6.986 0.126 0.128

2 3/14/2012 24 1.985 0.032 0.014 8.411 0.133 0.128

2 3/15/2012 24 1.834 0.028 0.014 8.915 0.138 0.128

2 3/16/2012 24 2.023 0.039 0.015 6.856 0.131 0.128

2 3/17/2012 24 1.900 0.033 0.016 7.703 0.139 0.129

2 3/18/2012 24 1.316 0.025 0.016 7.058 0.136 0.129

2 3/19/2012 24 1.869 0.024 0.017 11.020 0.138 0.129

2 3/20/2012 24 1.202 0.017 0.017 9.416 0.129 0.130

2 3/21/2012 24 2.661 0.031 0.018 12.195 0.142 0.131

2 3/22/2012 24 1.244 0.017 0.018 9.890 0.132 0.131

2 3/23/2012 24 1.022 0.013 0.018 12.250 0.147 0.131

2 3/24/2012 24 0.714 0.012 0.018 7.206 0.121 0.132

2 3/25/2012 24 0.510 0.010 0.018 5.963 0.119 0.131

2 3/26/2012 24 0.805 0.013 0.018 7.794 0.120 0.130

2 3/27/2012 24 1.070 0.015 0.018 9.649 0.130 0.131

2 3/28/2012 24 1.142 0.017 0.018 8.626 0.127 0.131

## 46 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 3/29/2012 24 1.118 0.016 0.018 8.814 0.126 0.130

2 3/30/2012 24 1.145 0.015 0.018 10.089 0.131 0.131

2 3/31/2012 24 0.774 0.012 0.018 8.202 0.119 0.130

2 4/1/2012 24 1.037 0.016 0.018 8.297 0.127 0.130

2 4/2/2012 24 1.173 0.023 0.018 6.399 0.125 0.129

2 4/3/2012 24 0.799 0.019 0.018 4.495 0.108 0.128

2 4/4/2012 24 0.447 0.009 0.018 4.887 0.103 0.128

2 4/5/2012 24 0.565 0.012 0.018 5.147 0.107 0.128

2 4/6/2012 24 0.318 0.008 0.018 3.910 0.098 0.127

2 4/7/2012 24 0.360 0.009 0.018 4.448 0.110 0.126

2 4/8/2012 24 0.391 0.009 0.018 4.235 0.101 0.125

2 4/9/2012 24 1.165 0.025 0.019 5.478 0.117 0.125

2 4/10/2012 24 1.555 0.027 0.019 6.914 0.119 0.124

2 4/11/2012 24 0.814 0.018 0.019 5.001 0.110 0.124

2 4/12/2012 24 0.416 0.010 0.018 4.699 0.116 0.123

2 4/13/2012 24 0.719 0.014 0.018 6.312 0.124 0.123

2 4/14/2012 24 0.510 0.012 0.017 5.596 0.136 0.123

2 4/15/2012 24 0.673 0.014 0.017 5.892 0.123 0.123

2 4/16/2012 24 0.888 0.013 0.016 9.492 0.130 0.122

2 4/17/2012 24 0.902 0.014 0.015 8.108 0.126 0.122

2 4/18/2012 24 0.637 0.012 0.015 7.185 0.135 0.122

2 4/19/2012 24 0.764 0.014 0.015 7.431 0.132 0.122

2 4/20/2012 24 1.470 0.032 0.015 5.716 0.122 0.121

2 4/21/2012 24 1.401 0.022 0.015 8.135 0.127 0.121

2 4/22/2012 24 0.847 0.015 0.015 6.655 0.111 0.120

2 4/23/2012 24 1.722 0.022 0.016 10.618 0.134 0.120

2 4/24/2012 24 1.182 0.018 0.016 9.093 0.131 0.121

2 4/25/2012 24 1.216 0.016 0.016 10.904 0.136 0.121

2 4/26/2012 24 1.341 0.017 0.016 12.109 0.149 0.122

2 4/27/2012 24 1.395 0.021 0.016 9.455 0.138 0.122

2 4/28/2012 24 1.307 0.018 0.016 10.639 0.143 0.123

2 4/29/2012 24 1.156 0.017 0.016 9.743 0.136 0.123

2 4/30/2012 24 1.070 0.016 0.016 9.677 0.142 0.124

2 5/1/2012 24 1.027 0.015 0.016 9.871 0.137 0.124

2 5/2/2012 24 2.038 0.028 0.017 10.690 0.144 0.125

2 5/3/2012 24 1.432 0.022 0.017 10.299 0.150 0.126

2 5/4/2012 24 0.992 0.016 0.017 9.005 0.135 0.127

2 5/5/2012 24 1.086 0.016 0.017 9.864 0.139 0.128

2 5/6/2012 24 1.229 0.017 0.017 10.808 0.144 0.130

2 5/7/2012 24 1.211 0.017 0.018 10.524 0.139 0.131

2 5/8/2012 24 1.403 0.019 0.018 10.682 0.140 0.132

2 5/9/2012 24 1.284 0.018 0.018 9.943 0.138 0.133

2 5/10/2012 24 1.182 0.018 0.017 9.362 0.131 0.133

## 47 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 5/11/2012 24 1.071 0.016 0.017 9.150 0.136 0.134

2 5/12/2012 24 0.820 0.012 0.017 8.953 0.131 0.135

2 5/13/2012 24 0.777 0.011 0.017 9.738 0.134 0.135

2 5/14/2012 24 1.187 0.016 0.017 10.894 0.140 0.135

2 5/15/2012 23.62 1.005 0.014 0.017 10.915 0.147 0.136

2 5/16/2012 24 1.193 0.016 0.018 11.349 0.147 0.136

2 5/17/2012 24 1.102 0.016 0.018 10.550 0.139 0.137

2 5/18/2012 24 1.378 0.018 0.018 11.650 0.149 0.137

2 5/19/2012 24 1.253 0.017 0.018 10.994 0.146 0.138

2 5/20/2012 24 1.040 0.015 0.017 10.590 0.144 0.138

2 5/21/2012 24 1.211 0.016 0.017 11.691 0.148 0.139

2 5/22/2012 24 1.092 0.016 0.017 10.420 0.143 0.140

2 5/23/2012 24 1.044 0.015 0.017 10.597 0.142 0.141

2 5/24/2012 24 1.204 0.016 0.017 11.814 0.152 0.141

2 5/25/2012 24 1.730 0.022 0.017 13.278 0.160 0.142

2 5/26/2012 24 0.961 0.015 0.017 9.072 0.140 0.142

2 5/27/2012 24 1.006 0.016 0.017 8.529 0.136 0.142

2 5/28/2012 24 1.392 0.019 0.017 11.582 0.152 0.142

2 5/29/2012 24 1.514 0.020 0.017 12.242 0.154 0.143

2 5/30/2012 24 1.740 0.025 0.017 10.366 0.143 0.143

2 5/31/2012 24 0.728 0.013 0.017 6.617 0.120 0.142

2 6/1/2012 24 0.718 0.017 0.017 4.580 0.109 0.141

2 6/2/2012 24 1.459 0.023 0.017 8.361 0.126 0.140

2 6/3/2012 24 1.566 0.022 0.017 10.102 0.138 0.140

2 6/4/2012 24 1.548 0.022 0.017 10.084 0.137 0.140

2 6/5/2012 24 0.932 0.016 0.017 7.442 0.123 0.139

2 6/6/2012 24 0.811 0.015 0.017 6.483 0.121 0.139

2 6/7/2012 24 1.147 0.022 0.017 6.159 0.119 0.138

2 6/8/2012 24 0.971 0.015 0.017 8.575 0.129 0.138

2 6/9/2012 24 1.159 0.019 0.017 8.744 0.144 0.138

2 6/10/2012 24 1.572 0.023 0.017 10.418 0.142 0.138

2 6/11/2012 24 1.465 0.021 0.018 9.630 0.135 0.139

2 6/12/2012 23.54 0.582 0.012 0.018 6.492 0.130 0.138

2 6/13/2012 24 0.808 0.015 0.018 7.368 0.130 0.138

2 6/14/2012 24 1.061 0.017 0.018 8.369 0.129 0.137

2 6/15/2012 24 0.850 0.016 0.018 6.973 0.123 0.137

2 6/16/2012 24 1.152 0.018 0.018 8.782 0.129 0.136

2 6/17/2012 24 1.164 0.018 0.018 9.192 0.136 0.136

2 6/18/2012 24 0.687 0.013 0.018 6.441 0.119 0.135

2 6/19/2012 24 1.775 0.029 0.018 9.198 0.142 0.135

2 6/20/2012 24 1.842 0.029 0.019 9.872 0.155 0.135

2 6/21/2012 24 1.641 0.024 0.019 9.831 0.136 0.135

2 6/22/2012 24 2.076 0.030 0.019 10.315 0.142 0.135

## 48 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 6/23/2012 24 5.082 0.073 0.021 10.345 0.141 0.135

2 6/24/2012 24 4.605 0.065 0.023 11.452 0.153 0.134

2 6/25/2012 24 4.434 0.061 0.024 11.022 0.144 0.134

2 6/26/2012 24 3.958 0.052 0.025 10.799 0.136 0.134

2 6/27/2012 24 3.851 0.052 0.027 11.550 0.149 0.134

2 6/28/2012 24 4.501 0.059 0.028 11.677 0.147 0.134

2 6/29/2012 24 1.905 0.024 0.028 12.785 0.156 0.135

2 6/30/2012 24 1.067 0.014 0.028 11.606 0.144 0.135

2 7/1/2012 24 0.891 0.012 0.028 10.540 0.140 0.136

2 7/2/2012 24 0.627 0.009 0.027 10.357 0.136 0.137

2 7/3/2012 24 0.642 0.009 0.027 10.595 0.143 0.137

2 7/4/2012 24 0.717 0.011 0.026 9.262 0.133 0.137

2 7/5/2012 24 0.761 0.011 0.026 10.255 0.138 0.137

2 7/6/2012 24 0.912 0.012 0.026 11.229 0.145 0.138

2 7/7/2012 24 1.093 0.013 0.026 11.821 0.143 0.139

2 7/8/2012 24 0.945 0.013 0.026 10.128 0.135 0.139

2 7/9/2012 24 0.884 0.012 0.026 10.564 0.137 0.139

2 7/10/2012 24 1.139 0.016 0.025 10.059 0.134 0.139

2 7/11/2012 24 1.847 0.024 0.025 10.784 0.137 0.139

2 7/12/2012 24 1.723 0.021 0.026 11.955 0.145 0.139

2 7/13/2012 24 1.294 0.018 0.026 9.876 0.135 0.139

2 7/14/2012 24 0.949 0.016 0.026 8.380 0.133 0.140

2 7/15/2012 24 1.549 0.024 0.026 9.731 0.151 0.140

2 7/16/2012 24 1.771 0.027 0.026 9.905 0.149 0.141

2 7/17/2012 24 1.949 0.029 0.027 9.121 0.137 0.141

2 7/18/2012 24 1.510 0.020 0.027 11.013 0.141 0.142

2 7/19/2012 24 2.063 0.027 0.027 10.427 0.135 0.142

2 7/20/2012 24 2.081 0.026 0.027 11.805 0.141 0.141

2 7/21/2012 24 2.164 0.029 0.027 10.369 0.135 0.141

2 7/22/2012 24 2.285 0.030 0.027 11.149 0.140 0.141

2 7/23/2012 24 1.793 0.025 0.025 10.151 0.138 0.141

2 7/24/2012 24 2.063 0.025 0.024 12.391 0.147 0.141

2 7/25/2012 24 3.151 0.038 0.023 11.977 0.143 0.141

2 7/26/2012 5.35 0.874 0.051 0.023 2.674 0.177 0.142

2 7/27/2012 0

2 7/28/2012 18.68 1.110 0.024 0.022 6.543 0.121 0.141

2 7/29/2012 24 1.997 0.029 0.021 10.087 0.139 0.141

2 7/30/2012 24 2.209 0.028 0.021 11.498 0.143 0.140

2 7/31/2012 24 2.977 0.035 0.022 12.921 0.148 0.141

2 8/1/2012 24 2.776 0.033 0.023 12.692 0.149 0.141

2 8/2/2012 24 2.211 0.026 0.023 13.115 0.153 0.141

2 8/3/2012 24 1.412 0.016 0.024 12.813 0.148 0.142

2 8/4/2012 24 1.050 0.014 0.024 12.019 0.155 0.142

## 49 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 8/5/2012 24 0.950 0.014 0.024 10.334 0.151 0.143

2 8/6/2012 24 1.151 0.016 0.024 10.092 0.143 0.143

2 8/7/2012 24 0.857 0.012 0.024 10.681 0.146 0.143

2 8/8/2012 24 1.010 0.013 0.024 10.948 0.141 0.143

2 8/9/2012 23.53 0.612 0.010 0.024 9.153 0.143 0.143

2 8/10/2012 24 0.972 0.013 0.024 10.171 0.135 0.143

2 8/11/2012 24 0.594 0.010 0.023 8.824 0.142 0.143

2 8/12/2012 24 0.586 0.009 0.023 9.515 0.136 0.143

2 8/13/2012 24 0.562 0.007 0.023 10.543 0.133 0.143

2 8/14/2012 24 0.874 0.013 0.022 8.348 0.120 0.143

2 8/15/2012 18.08 1.036 0.019 0.022 7.716 0.141 0.142

2 8/16/2012 0

2 8/17/2012 0

2 8/18/2012 1.38 0.000 0.000

2 8/19/2012 21.31 0.103 0.003 0.021 5.074 0.099 0.141

2 8/20/2012 24 0.393 0.005 0.021 10.506 0.136 0.141

2 8/21/2012 24 0.492 0.007 0.020 10.654 0.141 0.141

2 8/22/2012 24 0.555 0.008 0.020 11.950 0.154 0.141

2 8/23/2012 24 0.516 0.008 0.019 9.324 0.133 0.141

2 8/24/2012 24 0.513 0.007 0.018 10.312 0.135 0.141

2 8/25/2012 24 0.637 0.008 0.018 11.472 0.141 0.141

2 8/26/2012 24 0.576 0.007 0.017 11.633 0.139 0.141

2 8/27/2012 24 0.656 0.008 0.016 11.022 0.133 0.141

2 8/28/2012 24 0.649 0.008 0.015 11.521 0.138 0.140

2 8/29/2012 24 0.816 0.010 0.014 10.727 0.133 0.139

2 8/30/2012 24 0.795 0.010 0.014 10.687 0.133 0.139

2 8/31/2012 24 0.813 0.011 0.013 10.964 0.144 0.139

2 9/1/2012 24 0.783 0.011 0.012 9.781 0.127 0.139

2 9/2/2012 24 0.846 0.012 0.012 9.057 0.122 0.138

2 9/3/2012 24 0.879 0.012 0.011 10.542 0.136 0.138

2 9/4/2012 24 1.218 0.014 0.011 12.972 0.148 0.137

2 9/5/2012 24 0.882 0.011 0.010 11.561 0.139 0.137

2 9/6/2012 24 0.975 0.012 0.010 11.195 0.136 0.137

2 9/7/2012 24 1.458 0.019 0.010 10.557 0.140 0.136

2 9/8/2012 24 0.532 0.008 0.010 10.081 0.144 0.136

2 9/9/2012 24 0.497 0.008 0.010 9.127 0.141 0.136

2 9/10/2012 24 1.060 0.017 0.010 8.845 0.139 0.136

2 9/11/2012 24 0.957 0.014 0.010 9.687 0.141 0.136

2 9/12/2012 24 0.854 0.013 0.010 8.682 0.126 0.136

2 9/13/2012 24 0.304 0.007 0.010 5.174 0.109 0.134

2 9/14/2012 24 0.520 0.009 0.010 7.581 0.125 0.134

2 9/15/2012 24 0.795 0.011 0.010 10.310 0.136 0.134

2 9/16/2012 24 0.898 0.014 0.010 9.256 0.135 0.135

## 50 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 9/17/2012 24 1.076 0.015 0.010 10.261 0.138 0.135

2 9/18/2012 24 1.014 0.017 0.011 8.484 0.135 0.136

2 9/19/2012 24 0.652 0.012 0.011 7.251 0.129 0.136

2 9/20/2012 24 0.713 0.011 0.011 8.366 0.124 0.135

2 9/21/2012 24 0.792 0.011 0.011 9.309 0.129 0.134

2 9/22/2012 24 0.710 0.011 0.011 9.721 0.136 0.134

2 9/23/2012 24 0.640 0.010 0.011 8.618 0.131 0.134

2 9/24/2012 24 0.854 0.012 0.012 10.028 0.137 0.134

2 9/25/2012 24 2.080 0.026 0.012 11.016 0.138 0.134

2 9/26/2012 24 1.097 0.014 0.012 11.468 0.139 0.134

2 9/27/2012 24 1.371 0.017 0.013 11.695 0.141 0.134

2 9/28/2012 24 1.394 0.017 0.013 12.017 0.144 0.135

2 9/29/2012 24 1.568 0.018 0.013 13.669 0.157 0.136

2 9/30/2012 24 1.452 0.018 0.013 12.251 0.153 0.136

2 10/1/2012 24 1.149 0.016 0.014 9.970 0.138 0.136

2 10/2/2012 24 1.281 0.018 0.014 9.887 0.136 0.137

2 10/3/2012 24 1.079 0.016 0.014 9.625 0.136 0.137

2 10/4/2012 24 0.974 0.015 0.014 8.260 0.122 0.136

2 10/5/2012 24 0.784 0.013 0.014 7.772 0.122 0.135

2 10/6/2012 24 1.019 0.014 0.014 10.806 0.144 0.136

2 10/7/2012 24 0.751 0.012 0.014 7.663 0.120 0.135

2 10/8/2012 24 0.729 0.011 0.014 8.190 0.122 0.134

2 10/9/2012 24 0.502 0.009 0.014 6.052 0.109 0.133

2 10/10/2012 24 0.615 0.011 0.014 6.813 0.112 0.132

2 10/11/2012 24 0.842 0.013 0.014 8.200 0.120 0.131

2 10/12/2012 24 0.520 0.009 0.014 6.643 0.111 0.131

2 10/13/2012 24 0.506 0.008 0.014 7.807 0.119 0.131

2 10/14/2012 24 0.581 0.010 0.014 6.620 0.114 0.131

2 10/15/2012 24 0.857 0.013 0.014 8.009 0.120 0.130

2 10/16/2012 24 0.815 0.012 0.014 8.956 0.124 0.130

2 10/17/2012 24 0.644 0.011 0.014 6.362 0.111 0.129

2 10/18/2012 24 0.775 0.013 0.013 7.336 0.116 0.128

2 10/19/2012 24 0.894 0.014 0.013 8.052 0.120 0.128

2 10/20/2012 24 0.792 0.013 0.014 7.881 0.122 0.128

2 10/21/2012 24 1.030 0.016 0.014 8.383 0.123 0.128

2 10/22/2012 24 0.879 0.013 0.014 8.906 0.128 0.128

2 10/23/2012 24 0.709 0.014 0.014 6.088 0.121 0.127

2 10/24/2012 24 0.340 0.008 0.014 4.483 0.109 0.126

2 10/25/2012 24 0.668 0.013 0.013 5.958 0.109 0.125

2 10/26/2012 24 0.581 0.011 0.013 6.409 0.113 0.124

2 10/27/2012 24 0.415 0.008 0.013 5.437 0.107 0.123

2 10/28/2012 24 0.312 0.007 0.013 4.401 0.101 0.122

2 10/29/2012 24 0.527 0.010 0.012 5.963 0.110 0.120

## 51 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 10/30/2012 24 0.604 0.009 0.012 9.492 0.132 0.120

2 10/31/2012 24 1.036 0.013 0.012 12.312 0.148 0.120

2 11/1/2012 24 0.905 0.012 0.012 11.278 0.143 0.120

2 11/2/2012 24 1.047 0.015 0.012 9.192 0.131 0.120

2 11/3/2012 24 0.867 0.013 0.012 9.172 0.131 0.120

2 11/4/2012 24 1.125 0.016 0.012 9.714 0.134 0.121

2 11/5/2012 24 0.827 0.012 0.012 9.694 0.136 0.120

2 11/6/2012 24 0.937 0.013 0.012 9.877 0.134 0.121

2 11/7/2012 24 1.031 0.014 0.012 10.884 0.141 0.122

2 11/8/2012 24 1.281 0.019 0.012 9.442 0.133 0.122

2 11/9/2012 24 1.041 0.017 0.012 7.853 0.125 0.123

2 11/10/2012 24 0.359 0.008 0.012 4.911 0.115 0.123

2 11/11/2012 24 1.019 0.017 0.012 8.122 0.126 0.123

2 11/12/2012 24 1.442 0.018 0.013 13.271 0.163 0.125

2 11/13/2012 24 1.177 0.016 0.013 10.211 0.136 0.125

2 11/14/2012 24 0.955 0.014 0.013 10.108 0.136 0.126

2 11/15/2012 24 0.970 0.014 0.013 9.685 0.133 0.126

2 11/16/2012 24 1.053 0.013 0.013 12.146 0.149 0.127

2 11/17/2012 24 0.309 0.008 0.013 3.948 0.106 0.127

2 11/18/2012 24 0.838 0.013 0.013 9.317 0.133 0.128

2 11/19/2012 24 0.962 0.013 0.013 10.606 0.139 0.128

2 11/20/2012 24 0.927 0.012 0.013 11.378 0.140 0.129

2 11/21/2012 24 0.827 0.012 0.013 8.907 0.127 0.129

2 11/22/2012 24 0.909 0.014 0.013 9.201 0.133 0.129

2 11/23/2012 24 0.925 0.014 0.013 8.804 0.128 0.130

2 11/24/2012 24 0.496 0.011 0.013 4.820 0.107 0.130

2 11/25/2012 24 0.808 0.013 0.013 8.114 0.124 0.130

2 11/26/2012 24 0.569 0.011 0.013 6.285 0.114 0.130

2 11/27/2012 24 1.135 0.015 0.013 10.365 0.140 0.132

2 11/28/2012 24 1.173 0.016 0.014 10.577 0.140 0.133

2 11/29/2012 24 0.860 0.012 0.014 10.123 0.139 0.133

2 11/30/2012 24 0.806 0.012 0.014 9.886 0.138 0.132

2 12/1/2012 24 0.570 0.009 0.013 8.336 0.130 0.132

2 12/2/2012 24 0.564 0.011 0.013 6.360 0.119 0.132

2 12/3/2012 24 1.037 0.017 0.013 8.254 0.130 0.132

2 12/4/2012 24 1.332 0.018 0.014 10.148 0.134 0.132

2 12/5/2012 24 0.688 0.013 0.014 5.744 0.110 0.131

2 12/6/2012 24 0.862 0.015 0.014 7.450 0.128 0.131

2 12/7/2012 24 0.903 0.012 0.014 11.312 0.143 0.131

2 12/8/2012 24 0.760 0.011 0.013 9.452 0.134 0.131

2 12/9/2012 24 0.293 0.007 0.013 4.420 0.114 0.130

2 12/10/2012 24 0.803 0.012 0.013 9.685 0.132 0.131

2 12/11/2012 24 1.179 0.016 0.013 10.682 0.142 0.131

## 52 Westar

- Jeffrey Unit Date Op

. hrs SO 2 (tons) SO 2 lb/MMBtu SO 2 30

- day

rolling avg. NO

x (tons) NO

x lb/MMBtu NO

x 30

- day

rolling avg.

2 12/12/2012 24 1.033 0.016 0.013 9.152 0.131 0.130

2 12/13/2012 24 0.838 0.014 0.013 7.891 0.124 0.130

2 12/14/2012 24 0.625 0.014 0.013 5.161 0.111 0.129

2 12/15/2012 24 0.843 0.015 0.013 7.605 0.125 0.129

2 12/16/2012 24 0.969 0.016 0.013 8.007 0.123 0.128

2 12/17/2012 24 1.157 0.018 0.013 8.610 0.127 0.129

2 12/18/2012 24 0.842 0.014 0.013 7.903 0.123 0.128

2 12/19/2012 24 0.623 0.011 0.013 6.635 0.119 0.128

2 12/20/2012 24 0.846 0.014 0.013 8.400 0.135 0.128

2 12/21/2012 24 1.015 0.014 0.014 10.357 0.137 0.128

2 12/22/2012 24 0.464 0.011 0.013 4.463 0.109 0.127

2 12/23/2012 24 0.733 0.014 0.013 6.318 0.119 0.127

2 12/24/2012 24 0.531 0.011 0.013 5.316 0.107 0.127

2 12/25/2012 24 0.393 0.009 0.013 5.072 0.112 0.126

2 12/26/2012 22.88 1.119 0.015 0.013 10.945 0.142 0.127

2 12/27/2012 7.35 0.077 0.013 0.013 0.800 0.101 0.126

2 12/28/2012 24 2.237 0.033 0.014 9.145 0.128 0.126

2 12/29/2012 24 2.431 0.028 0.014 13.167 0.149 0.126

2 12/30/2012 24 1.136 0.023 0.015 5.358 0.109 0.125

2 12/31/2012 24 2.737 0.034 0.016 11.057 0.135 0.125

## 53 

## Appendix D : Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards

MACT standards (all for area sources) in effect beginning in 2009 (cf.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnlalph.html and

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/area/arearules.html )

6J MACT: Area NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers

Compliance date: 3/21/2014

Affected sources NAICS codes : 33152x

Nominal/average PM c ontrol: 95% (existing sources); 99% (new sources)

6V MACT: Area NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing

Compliance date: 10/29/2012

Affected sources NAICS codes: n/a

Nominal/average PM control: n/a

6W MACT: Area NESHAP for Plating and Polishing Operations

Compliance date 7/1/2010

Affected sources NAICS codes: n/a

Nominal/average PM control: n/a (control is improved management practices)

6X MACT: Area NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories

Compliance date: 7/25/2011

Affected sources NAICS codes: 33211x, 332312, 332313, 332410, 332420, 332618, 332919,

332999, 333120, 333132, 333911, 335312, 335999

Nominal/average PM control : 98%

6Z MACT: Area NESHAP for Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries

Compliance date: 6/27/2011

Affected sources NAICS codes: 331521, 331522, 331524, 331525, 331528

Nominal/average PM control: 95%

7A MACT: Area NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

Compliance date: 12/2/2010

Affected sources NAICS codes: 324110, 324122

Nominal/average PM control: (Estimated) 95%

7B MACT: Area NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry

Compliance date: 12/30/2010

Affected sources NAICS codes:

Nominal/average PM control: 95%

7C MACT: Area NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing

Compliance date: 12/3/2012

Affected sources NAICS codes: n/a

Nominal/average PM control: n/a (control is for benzene and/ or methylene chloride)

7D MACT: Area NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

Compliance date 1/5/2012

## 54 

## Affected sources NAICS codes: 311111, 311119

Nominal/average PM control: 95%

Estimated Kansas PM 10 

## reductions from area source MACT standards with compliance dates

after January 1, 2009

MACT Facility Source

ID Applicable source(s) Actual/est.

PM 10 

### *

(tpy) PM

reduction Est. PM 10



### tons

saved

6J Wolf Creek Nuclear

Operating Corp. 0310021 122.73 MMBtu/hr #2 fuel oil

boiler 0.33 95% 0.3

6J Tyson Fresh Meats

-

Holcomb 0550043 2- 52.3 MMBtu/hr, 2

- 42

MMBtu/hr, 1

- 35 MMBtu/hr

NG/fuel oil/yellow grease boilers 3.00 95% 2.9

6J Cargill Meat Solutions 0570030 3- 25.2 MMBtu/hr bio gas, NG,

tallow & #2 fuel oil, 2

- 42

MMBtu/hr NG, tallow & #2 fuel

oil, 1

- 33.5 MMBtu/hr bio gas, NG,

tallow & #2 fuel oil boilers 2.32 95% 2.2

6J Day & Zimmermann

(Kansas Army Ammo) 0990010 EU

- BLR1002A, B & C 9.99

MMBtu/hr can run on RDO 0.18 95% 0.2

6J Cargill (Salt Div.)

-

Hutchinson 1550022 44 MMBtu/hr & 66 MMBtu/hr

NG/fuel oil boilers 3.37 95% 3.2

6J Hutchinson Regional

Medical Center 1550107 3 12.6 MMBtu/hr NG/#2 fuel oil

boilers 0.28 95% 0.3

6J Frito

- Lay 1770018 78.3 MMBtu/hr pallet, wood &

tire derived fuel, 2

- 75 MMBtu/hr 1.19 95% 1.1

6J Procter & Gamble 2090011 84.3 MMBtu/hr nat gas/#2 fuel oil

boiler 2.00 95% 1.9

6J General Motors 2090046 (5) 99 MMBTU/hr NG, SNG, or No.

6 Fuel Oil fired EU

- Boiler/SV

- Boil;

and (1) 0.142 MMBTU/hr. NG

fired IA

- HWBOIL/SV

- HWBOIL 1.98 95% 1.9

6J Kincaid High School

Community Center 003 -1 (1) 1.445 MMBtu/hr Burnham

boiler #2 fuel 0.01 95% 0.0

6J Hallowell

Manufacturing, Inc. 021 -1 (1) 3.34 MMBtu/hr fire tube

Cleaver Brooks (KS05065); (1) 2.51

MMBtu/hr fire tube Superior

Boiler Works (KS45275); (1) (1)

6.27 MMBtu/hr fire tube Cleaver

Brooks (KS30740) 0.09 95% 0.1

6X Taylor Forge

Engineered Systems

-

Garnett 0030027 dry blasting, dry machining, spray

painting, welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Wilde Tool 0130023 dry blasting, dry machining, dry

grinding 0.70 98% 0.7

6X Valmont Newmark

Industries 0150065 dry machining, welding > 2000 lb 1.75 98% 1.7

6X Tank Connection

-

Baxter Springs 0210047 dry abrasive blasting (vented

enclosures), welding >2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Alstom Power Air

Preheater 0290003 dry blasting, welding > 2000 lb 0.00 98% 0.0

6X Snorkel International 0430017 dry blasting, dry machining,

welding 5.00 98% 4.9

## 55 MACT Facility Source

ID Applicable source(s) Actual/est.

PM 10 

### *

(tpy) PM

reduction Est. PM 10



### tons

saved

6X Midland Steel 0430026 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Hammersmith Mfg. &

Sales 0850019 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Broderson Mfg. 0910067 dry blasting, dry machining, dry

grinding, spray painting, welding <

2000 lb 1.00 98% 1.0

6X Western Chemical

Pumps 0910160 dry machining 1.00 98% 1.0

6X CST Industries dba

CST Storage 0990037 dry blasting, dry machining,

welding > 2000 lb 7.89 98% 7.7

6X Boss Industries 0990060 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 0.11 98% 0.1

6X Tank Connection 0990061 dry blasting, welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98%

6X Taylor Forge

Engineered Systems

-

Garnett 1210006 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 0.11 98% 0.1

6X Doherty Steel 1210035 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.20 98% 5.1

6X Jensen International 1250045 welding 1.00 98% 1.0

6X Chanute Mfg. Co. 1330026 dry machining, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Caterpillar Work

Tools 1490021 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X PKM Steel Service

- Salina (E Ave A) 1690041 dry blasting, dry machining, dry

grinding, spray painting, welding

>2000 lb 11.20 98% 11.0

6X ICM Inc.

- Colwich 1730315 dry blasting, dry grinding, spray

painting, welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Koch

- Glitsch 1730325 dry machining, welding 1.00 98% 1.0

6X Topeka Metal

Specialties 1770175 dry blasting, dry grinding, spray

painting, welding < 2000 lb 16.10 98% 15.8

6X Midwestern Metals 1770241 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Bradford Built 2010038 welding, dry

machining/blasting/grinding 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Atec Steel 021 -1 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Leon's Welding &

Fabrication 051 -1 dry blasting, dry machining,

welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Broce Mfg. 057

- 1 spray painting, welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Invena Corp.

- Plant 4 073 -1 dry abrasive blasting, dry grinding,

spray painting, welding <2000 lb 0.50 98% 0.5

6X Mackey & Sons 079

- 1 spray painting, welding < 2000 lb 0.50 98% 0.5

6X US Towers 105

- 1 dry machining, welding > 2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Sauder Custom

Fabrication 111 -1 welding > 2000 lb 1.00 98% 1.0

6X Welco Services 113 -1 dry blasting, spray painting,

welding >2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

6X Cook Pump Company 125

- 1 spray painting, welding >2000 lb 2.00 98% 2.0

## 56 MACT Facility Source

ID Applicable source(s) Actual/est.

PM 10 

### *

(tpy) PM

reduction Est. PM 10



### tons

saved

6X Genuine Jacks 125

- 2 welding > 2000 lb 1.00 98% 1.0

6X Double T Industries 129

- 1 welding > 2000 lb 1.00 98% 1.0

6X Bergkamp, Inc 169

- 1 welding > 2000 lb 1.00 98% 1.0

6X JR Custom Metal

Products 173 -1 dry blasting, welding > 2000 lb 2.00 98% 2.0

6X R.K. Fabrication, Inc. 205

- 1 spray painting, welding >2000 lb 2.00 98% 2.0

6X T- Kennel 209 -1 dry machining, dry grinding,

welding < 2000 lb 0.50 98% 0.5

6X Shor

- line 209 -2 dry machining, dry grinding,

welding < 2000 lb 0.50 98% 0.5

6X A & E Custom Mfg. 209 -3 dry blasting, dry grinding, welding

>2000 lb 5.00 98% 4.9

7A Tamko Roofing

Products

- Columbus 0210033 1.00 95% 1.0

7A Tamko Building

Products

- Phillipsburg 1470004 Coater

- only roofing production

line, units (coater, vertical mixer,

horizontal mixer) controlled with

mist eliminator 1.39 95% 1.3

7B North American Salt 1590005 44.02 95% 41.8

7D Blair Milling &

Elevator Co.

-

Atchison 0050015 < 50 tons per day 3.37 95% 3.2

7D Butterball LLC 0210032 > 50 tons per day 29.21 95% 27.7

7D Alliance Nutrition 0410028 pelleting operation >50 tpd 4.80 95% 4.6

7D Cargill Animal

Nutrition

- Garden

City 0550003 > 50 tons per day 5.40 95% 5.1

7D Cargill Feed &

Nutrition

- Emporia 1110023 pelleting operation >50 tpd 0.00 95% 0.0

7D Cargill Animal

Nutrition

-

McPherson 1130005 > 50 tons per day 2.51 95% 2.4

7D Countryside Feed 1150035 pelleting operation >50 tpd 3.52 95% 3.3

7D Seaboard Foods

-

Hugoton 1890103 pelleting operation >50 tpd 45.02 95% 42.8

7D Seaboard Foods

-

Leoti 2030016 pelleting operation >50 tpd 42.29 95% 40.2

7D Cargill (Nutrena Feed

Div.)

- Kansas City 2090043 > 50 tons per day 24.00 95% 22.8

7D Manna Pro 2090116 pelleting operation >50 tpd 2.58 95% 2.5

7D Hubbard Feeds 123

- 1 pelleting operation >50 tpd 2.00 95% 1.9

Total 350.8

* Values are larger of 2012 or 2008 (or older) Kansas Emissions Inventory values, or are estimates (in

italics)

## Appendix E : Kansas NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## Reasonable Progress Unit Emissions 2002–2018

NO

x emission unit 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

tons NO

x

Reasonable progress (selected 500 ton) units not subject to BART

KC BPU

- Nearman Unit 1 3,860 4,629 4,316 4,137 3,829 4,647 3,595 3,231 3,856 4,214 2,104 2,104 2,104 2,104 2,104 210 210

Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia Kiln 1 596 518 600 644 657 1,244 784 526 831 1,329 258 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia Kiln 2 883 807 805 525 443 1,099 1,137 837 1,405 1,640 382 0 0 0 0 0 0

Westar

- Gordon Evans Unit 1 259 322 385 465 203 129 233 223 179 200 131 170 170 170 170 170 170

Westar

- Jeffrey Unit 3 10,807 11,419 10,532 10,882 4,351 3,939 4,253 4,416 4,322 4,489 2,601 3,804 2,282 2,282 2,282 2,282 2,282

Westar

- Lawrence Unit 3 728 668 795 722 504 564 696 546 655 631 588 625 625 625 625 625 625

Westar

- Lawrence Unit 4 1,987 1,775 1,821 1,832 1,646 1,764 1,271 1,347 1,129 1,380 1,053 1,187 1,187 1,187 1,187 1,187 1,187

Westar

- Lawrence Unit 5 3,546 3,196 3,255 2,598 2,521 2,318 2,348 2,108 2,503 3,051 1,886 2,480 2,480 2,480 2,480 2,480 2,480

Westar

- Tecumseh Unit 7/9 1,531 1,156 1,240 1,413 1,430 1,335 834 534 423 419 318 387 387 387 387 387 387

Westar

- Tecumseh Unit 8/10 2,222 1,663 1,612 1,941 1,764 1,839 1,780 1,744 1,442 1,414 1,341 672 672 672 672 672 672

Totals 26,419 26,153 25,361 25,160 17,348 18,876 16,931 15,511 16,745 18,767 10,662 11,429 9,907 9,907 9,907 8,013 8,013

Notes for future year NO

x emissions estimates

• 2013 values (or nominal values) are averages of 2010

- 2012 emissions

• Reductions in emissions are calculated based on generic percentages:

SCR

- 90% reduction (La Cygne 2 Jun 2015, Jeffrey 1 Jan 2014, KC BPU Nearman 1 2017)

SNCR

- 40% reduction (Jeffrey 3 Jan 2014, Jeffrey 2 assumed Jan 2015 )

LNB w/ SOFA plus low temperature superheater replacement

- net 52% reduction (Tecumseh 8/10 2013)

• Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia was permanently closed in 2012

## 58 SO 2 emission unit 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

tons SO 2

Reasonable progress (selected 500 ton) units not subject to BART

KC BPU

- Nearman Unit 1 7,625 8,727 8,024 7,242 6,020 7,327 5,992 5,931 6,126 5,988 4,136 5,417 5,417 5,417 5,417 921 921

Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia Kiln 1 660 574 665 454 915 543 339 44 192 386 74 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia Kiln 2 978 894 892 187 604 744 74 175 285 711 41 0 0 0 0 0 0

Westar

- Gordon Evans Unit 1 618 1,186 1,428 2,464 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Westar

- Jeffrey Unit 3 23,206 22,412 18,454 20,295 23,035 19,428 17,434 1,287 358 659 523 514 514 514 514 514 514

Westar

- Lawrence Unit 3 1,965 1,855 1,583 1,456 1,101 1,258 1,281 1,162 1,379 1,188 1,181 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249

Westar

- Lawrence Unit 4 1,430 619 439 475 296 275 197 260 217 168 108 16 16 16 16 16 16

Westar

- Lawrence Unit 5 4,354 4,028 2,003 1,831 1,216 1,005 1,226 1,350 1,595 1,437 746 126 126 126 126 126 126

Westar

- Tecumseh Unit 7/9 2,693 2,320 2,038 2,096 1,625 1,782 1,666 1,926 1,722 1,580 1,264 1,522 1,522 1,522 1,522 1,522 1,522

Westar

- Tecumseh Unit 8/10 3,624 4,073 3,174 3,127 2,501 2,620 2,816 3,101 2,675 2,282 2,714 2,557 2,557 2,557 2,557 2,557 2,557

47,153 46,687 38,701 39,627 37,312 34,983 31,025 15,236 14,550 14,400 10,787 11,402 11,402 11,402 11,402 6,906 6,906

Notes for future year SO 2 emissions estimates

• 2013 values (or nominal values) are averages of 2010

- 2012 emissions

• Reductions in emissions are calculated based on generic percentages:

Wet scrubber

- 90% reduction (La Cygne 2 Jun 2015, Lawrence 4 and 5 2013)

Dry scrubber

- 83% reduction (Nearman 1 2016 )

• Lafarge Midwest

- Fredonia was permanently closed in 2012

## Appendix F : Data Tables and Glide Paths for Caney Creek, Hercules

- Glades , and

Ming o Wilderness Areas

## 60

## 61 

## Graphic not available for the Mingo Wilderness Area at

http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/DataWizard/Default.aspx . Following is a table showing

tabular data generated at the same website.

Category Site Year Worst 20% days (dv) Best 20% days (dv)

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1988 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1989 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1990 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1991 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1992 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1993 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1994 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1995 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1996 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1997 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1998 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 1999 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2000 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2001 29.54 13.67

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2002 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2003 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2004 0 0

5yr Avg Mingo (MING1) 2004 29.54 13.67

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2005 0 0

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2006 27.26 14.2

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2007 29.12 15.13

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2008 26.8 13.93

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2009 25.13 12.33

5yr Avg Mingo (MING1) 2009 27.08 13.9

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2010 25.73 13.48

Base Data Mingo (MING1) 2011 25.17 12.51

Natural Conditions Mingo (MING1) 2064 11.62 5.35

## 62 

## Appendix G : Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment for Caney Creek, Hercules -Glades,

and Mingo Wilderness Areas

Data t able and charts for Caney Creek Wilderness Area

20% worst and 20% best aerosol extinction days (in deciviews) for years 2002

- 2011

- Cane y Creek

Site Year Parameter Avg. 20%

worst days 5

- year

average Avg. 20% best

days 5

- year

average

CACR1 2002 dv 27.21 11.88

CACR1 2003 dv 26.54 10.74

CACR1 2004 dv 25.34 11.11

CACR1 2005 dv 29.21 12.93

CACR1 2006 dv 25.68 26.80 12.51 11.83

CACR1 2007 dv 24.69 * 

### 26.29 10.88 * 

### 11.63

CACR1 2008 dv 23.70 25.72 9.24 11.33

CACR1 2009 dv 22.68 25.19 8.09 10.73

CACR1 2010 dv 22.87 23.92 10.66 10.28

CACR1 2011 dv 22.62 23.31 11.63 10.10

CACR1 Baseline dv 26.36 11.24

CACR1 2064 dv 11.58 4.23

* 

### Value shown is deciview average of years 2006 and 2008 (2007 annual average not supplied by source)

Data source: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/Tools/RegionalHazeSummary.aspx

Glide path slopes

- 0.2463

- 0.1168



## Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for 20% Worst Days over Years 2002

- 2011

– Caney

Creek Wilderness Area

Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for 20% Best Days over Years 2002

- 2011

– Caney

Creek Wilderness Area y =

- 0.7169x + 1465

23.00 23.50 24.00 24.50 25.00 25.50 26.00 26.50 27.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

y =

- 0.38x + 774.21

9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

## 63 Data t able and charts for Hercules

- Glades Wilderness Area

20% worst and 20% best aerosol extinction days (in deciviews) for years 2002

- 2011

- Hercules

- Glades

Site Year Parameter Avg. worst

20% days 5- year average Avg. 20% best

days 5- year average

HEGL1 2002 dv 27.17 13.64

HEGL1 2003 dv 26.61 12.22

HEGL1 2004 dv 26.47 12.66

HEGL1 2005 dv 29.52 13.62

HEGL1 2006 dv 25.91 27.14 13.34 13.10

HEGL1 2007 dv 26.23 26.95 12.99 12.97

HEGL1 2008 dv 25.01 26.63 11.71 12.86

HEGL1 2009 dv 23.57 26.05 10.96 12.52

HEGL1 2010 dv 23.55 24.85 11.51 12.10

HEGL1 2011 dv 24.15 24.50 11.37 11.71

HEGL1 Baseline dv 26.75 12.84

HEGL1 2064 dv 11.30 4.69

Data source: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/Tools/RegionalHazeSummary.aspx

Glide path slopes

- 0.2575

- 0.1358



## Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for 20% Worst Days over Years 2002

- 2011

–

Hercules

- Glades Wilderness Area

Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for 20% Best Days over Years 2002

- 2011

–

Hercules

- Glades Wilderness Area y =

- 0.5737x + 1178.3

24.00 24.50 25.00 25.50 26.00 26.50 27.00 27.50 28.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

y =

- 0.2829x + 580.66

11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

## 64 Data t able and charts for Mingo Wilderness Area

20% worst and 20% best aerosol extinction days (in deciviews) for years 2002

- 2011

- Mingo

Site Year Parameter Avg. 20%

worst days 5- year average Avg. 20% best

days 5- year average

MING1 2002 dv

MING1 2003 dv

MING1 2004 dv

MING1 2005 dv

MING1 2006 dv 27.26 14.20

MING1 2007 dv 29.12 15.13

MING1 2008 dv 26.80 13.93

MING1 2009 dv 25.13 12.33

MING1 2010 dv 25.73 27.08 13.48 13.90

MING1 2011 dv 25.17 26.56 12.51 13.48

MING1 Baseline dv 29.54 13.67

MING1 2064 dv 11.62 5.35

* 

### Value shown is deciview average of years 2009 and 2011 (2010 annual average not supplied by source)

Data source: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/Tools/RegionalHazeSummary.aspx

Glide path slopes

- 0.2987

- 0.1387



## Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for 20% Wor st Days over Years 2002

- 2011

– Mingo

Wilderness Area

Five

- Year Average Visibility Impairment (in deciviews) for 20% Best Days over Years 2002

- 2011

– Mingo

Wilderness Area y =

- 0.52x + 1072.3

26 26.5

27 27.5

28 28.5

29 29.5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

y =

- 0.42x + 858.1

13 13.5

14 14.5

15 15.5

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Deciviews (5-yr avg.)



### Fifth year of 5

- yr average

## 65 

## Appendix H : Data Tables for the 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 National Emissions Inventory

(NEI) for Kansas Nonpoint Sources

Data summary by sector and pollutant (note discrepancies in fire emissions, in red text)

Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Fires

- Prescribed Fires CO 741.7 741.7 505,480.3 848,646.5

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles CO 648,862.3 512,721.8 356,894.2 245,152.5

Biogenics

- Vegetation and Soil CO 133,414.4 155,758.1

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning CO 805,524.6 805,524.6 49,560.0 146,377.5

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline CO 201,475.4 174,105.5 146,688.7 128,997.0

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production CO 6.1 6.1 1.1 74,836.8

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood CO 30,602.4 30,602.4 16,872.8 34,770.8

Fires

- Wildfires CO 508.7 508.7 23,067.0 28,636.4

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal CO 5,651.0 5,390.3 7,388.3 20,354.3

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles CO 25,517.6 16,824.7 27,410.1 18,382.6

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel CO 24,021.2 21,587.8 19,712.9 17,553.5

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas CO 22,159.3 22,158.7 15,481.0 15,041.2

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles CO 9,437.5 8,416.6 9,684.3 9,158.5

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Other CO 15,007.0 15,629.9 12,831.6 8,846.1

Mobile

- Aircraft CO 4,733.5 4,733.5 4,288.2 5,545.7

Mobile

- Locomotives CO 4,340.0 4,340.0 5,300.3 5,286.9

Waste Disposal CO 7,476.6 7,476.6 5,150.4 4,751.5

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf CO 49,755.6 49,755.6 3,116.8 1,926.5

Industrial Processes

- NEC CO 2,652.5 2,652.5 2,918.2 1,640.2

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas CO 1,411.2 1,411.2 1,406.2 1,488.1

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries CO 685.1 685.1 1,131.8 1,426.4

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf CO 1,469.1 1,469.1 552.6 1,364.6

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas CO 1,598.0 1,598.0 1,384.5 1,331.4

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas CO 485.9 475.8 774.1 1,100.0

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals CO 522.0 522.0 733.7 766.5

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other CO 43.9 43.9 1,934.1 663.2

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil CO 521.2 521.2 527.2 449.9

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles CO 118.7 96.8 472.4 431.1

Commercial Cooking CO 273.0

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other CO 372.3 376.2 252.9 211.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass CO 196.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other CO 329.3 329.3 220.7 171.1

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer CO 109.9 109.9 39.2 60.1

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use CO 2.0 2.0 7.3 59.9

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass CO 52.7

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil CO 8.7 8.2 10.3 19.0

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals CO 1.0 1.0 2.2 13.6

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other CO 112.5 112.5 98.6 10.3

Bulk Gasoline Terminals CO 0.8 0.8 3.9 9.4

Solvent

- Degreasing CO 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil CO 97.9 97.9 31.1 3.3

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels CO 44.3 44.3 1.9 1.2

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil CO 1.5 1.5 0.4 0.4

Solvent

- Graphic Arts CO 1.7 1.7 5.4 0.1

## 66 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Miscellaneous Non

- Industrial NEC CO 172.3 172.3 173.7 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal CO 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal CO 409.2 409.2 29.0 0.0

Industrial Processes

- Mining CO 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0

Agriculture

- Livestock Waste NH3 33,455.8 33,455.8 92,100.7 101,760.9

Agriculture

- Fertilizer Application NH3 64,132.6 64,132.6 66,343.0 69,251.2

Fires

- Prescribed Fires NH3 11.8 11.8 8,441.8 14,144.0

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf NH3 427.3 427.3 1,141.9 1,193.2

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles NH3 2,755.2 2,904.7 1,239.7 1,025.6

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas NH3 744.0

Fires

- Wildfires NH3 7.4 7.4 385.0 475.3

Industrial Processes

- NEC NH3 58,988.7 58,988.7 4,311.6 429.8

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood NH3 138.7 305.3

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal NH3 305.8 288.2 325.4 302.8

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas NH3 206.0 206.0 211.1 85.6

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles NH3 73.0 75.4 60.4 68.2

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries NH3 434.6 434.6 6.5 42.7

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles NH3 40.7 40.5 37.3 37.2

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas NH3 101.0 98.3 32.6 36.2

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel NH3 25.8 27.7 29.8 31.7

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf NH3 7.1 7.1 16.5

Mobile

- Locomotives NH3 10.6 10.6 16.5 16.5

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other NH3 5.6 5.6 28.7 14.7

Waste Disposal NH3 823.0 823.0 17.2 10.6

Solvent

- Graphic Arts NH3 0.2 0.2 5.6 8.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas NH3 9.3 9.3 9.0 7.6

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline NH3 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles NH3 0.5 0.5 3.3 3.6

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other NH3 4.0 2.1

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production NH3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use NH3 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.9

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals NH3 3.7 3.7 2.5 1.7

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass NH3 1.6

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil NH3 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.3

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil NH3 82.1 82.1 84.4 0.7

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer NH3 125.8 125.8 0.7 0.7

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass NH3 0.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil NH3 0.1 0.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil NH3 13.6 13.6 4.7 0.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other NH3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels NH3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal NH3 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil NH3 11.8 12.8 0.0 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal NH3 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning NH3 11,436.3 11,436.3

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production NOx 6.5 6.5 1.4 56,612.5

Biogenics

- Vegetation and Soil NOx 60,081.3 55,495.4

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal NOx 91,146.9 84,801.0 50,225.9 40,323.3

## 67 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas NOx 62,911.9 62,909.5 44,388.5 39,161.8

Mobile

- Locomotives NOx 40,822.2 40,822.2 37,329.8 37,220.3

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel NOx 41,960.4 40,291.7 37,614.5 34,279.4

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles NOx 40,096.9 29,879.6 34,003.0 29,798.9

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles NOx 41,056.3 34,507.0 42,078.4 29,569.3

Fires

- Prescribed Fires NOx 4.3 4.3 14,389.1 22,675.2

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning NOx 29,094.7 29,094.7 2,065.0 5,884.8

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf NOx 5,316.9 5,316.9 2,269.8 5,166.5

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas NOx 3,317.1 3,317.1 3,304.3 3,496.9

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas NOx 3,454.7 3,418.2 2,566.1 2,588.4

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles NOx 4,352.2 3,702.8 2,759.5 2,243.0

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries NOx 1,050.7 1,050.7 1,157.8 2,242.6

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline NOx 1,939.1 1,998.5 2,098.6 2,001.2

Industrial Processes

- NEC NOx 2,926.1 2,926.1 5,174.4 1,921.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas NOx 1,905.4 1,905.40 1,624.80 1,599.5

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Other NOx 3,753.9 3,253.5 2,302.4 1,366.8

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf NOx 867.4 867.4 3,110.3 1,337.9

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil NOx 2,058.7 2,058.7 2,109.9 1,289.8

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other NOx 365.2 365.2 3,394.7 1,212.9

Fires

- Wildfires NOx 5.9 5.9 643.6 662.8

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles NOx 110.9 86.9 732.5 643.6

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other NOx 457.8 457.8 796.0 603.5

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood NOx 423.9 423.9 269.2 529.9

Waste Disposal NOx 526.3 526.3 413.6 278.8

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil NOx 36.4 33.5 13.2 240.0

Mobile

- Aircraft NOx 90.9 90.9 200.4 232.2

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other NOx 1,762.5 1,674.4 0.0 111.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass NOx 73.2

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass NOx 66.1

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals NOx 32.9 32.9 43.1 47.7

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use NOx 7.1 7.1 7.7 25.2

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer NOx 93.1 93.1 19.7 23.7

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other NOx 119.2 119.2 147 23.3

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals NOx 8.6 8.6 2.7 16.5

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil NOx 351.6 351.6 125.5 10.9

Industrial Processes

- Mining NOx 19.7 19.7 0.0 9.9

Miscellaneous Non

- Industrial NEC NOx 12.2 12.2 12.3 9.8

Bulk Gasoline Terminals NOx 0.40 0.40 0.2 8.5

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels NOx 234.2 234.2 10.0 5.9

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil NOx 6.1 6.1 1.4 1.4

Solvent

- Graphic Arts NOx 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal NOx 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal NOx 905.9 905.9 51.1 0.0

Solvent

- Non

- Industrial Surface Coating NOx 6.3 6.3 4.4

Agriculture

- Crops & Livestock Dust PM10

- FIL 253,845.3 253,845.3 413,968.2 417,427.9

Dust

- Unpaved Road Dust PM10

- FIL 275,025.9 275,025.9 280,603.0 282,328.0

Dust

- Construction Dust PM10

- FIL 48,050.0 48,050.0 41,618.1 32,562.3

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning PM10

- FIL 23,904.2

## 68 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Dust

- Paved Road Dust PM10

- FIL 32,892.2 32,892.2 32,114.3 18,344.1

Industrial Processes

- NEC PM10

- FIL 2,414.3 2,414.3 1,452.2 4,090.0

Industrial Processes

- Mining PM10

- FIL 10,621.6 10,621.6 2,113.7 1,699.6

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal PM10

- FIL 3,900.6 3,708.2 2,693.0 1,568.5

Waste Disposal PM10

- FIL 2,397.4 2,397.4 1,453.7 1,388.8

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production PM10

- FIL 0.2 0.2 0.1 841.1

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer PM10

- FIL 804.6 804.6 350.6 617.2

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf PM10

- FIL 149.0 149.0 129.0 570.3

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals PM10

- FIL 370.2 370.2 144.5 449.1

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas PM10

- FIL 645.8 645.7 326.3 310.3

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries PM10

- FIL 625.4 625.4 423.8 307.3

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf PM10

- FIL 767.0 767.0 142.1 208.0

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use PM10

- FIL 110.5 110.5 9.5 186.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass PM10

- FIL 162.4

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals PM10

- FIL 57.7 57.7 0.1 125.2

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil PM10

- FIL 103.7 103.7 0.2 54.2

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas PM10

- FIL 140.4 135.8 38.9 28.9

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass PM10

- FIL 15.7

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other PM10

- FIL 155.3 155.3 4.4 11.3

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas PM10

- FIL 6.5 6.5 5.7 7.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas PM10

- FIL 16.50 16.5 2.2 7.2

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil PM10

- FIL 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.5

Solvent

- Degreasing PM10

- FIL 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.4

Commercial Cooking PM10

- FIL 2.2

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other PM10

- FIL 377.9 394.5 3.1 1.5

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other PM10

- FIL 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.2

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other PM10

- FIL 4.3 4.3 0.6 0.9

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil PM10

- FIL 20.8 20.8 0.6 0.7

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil PM10

- FIL 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1

Industrial Processes

- Pulp & Paper PM10

- FIL 8.1 8.1 0.7 0.1

Solvent

- Graphic Arts PM10

- FIL 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal PM10

- FIL 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal PM10

- FIL 992.0 992.0 3.6 0.0

Solvent

- Non

- Industrial Surface Coating PM10

- FIL 54.5 54.5

Agriculture

- Crops & Livestock Dust PM10

- PRI 253,845.3 253,845.3 413,968.2 417,427.9

Dust

- Unpaved Road Dust PM10

- PRI 275,025.9 275,025.9 280,603.0 282,328.1

Fires

- Prescribed Fires PM10

- PRI 69.1 69.1 58,112.7 96,240.8

Dust

- Construction Dust PM10

- PRI 48,050.0 48,050.0 41,618.1 32,562.3

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning PM10

- PRI 99,222.8 99,222.8 6,195.0 23,904.2

Dust

- Paved Road Dust PM10

- PRI 32,892.2 32,892.2 32,114.3 18,344.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood PM10

- PRI 4,464.0 4,464.0 2,419.6 5,048.3

Industrial Processes

- NEC PM10

- PRI 3,458.6 3,458.6 6,726.7 4,304.3

Fires

- Wildfires PM10

- PRI 48.5 48.5 2,640.2 3,156.1

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel PM10

- PRI 4,940.1 4,310.4 3,484.0 2,990.0

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal PM10

- PRI 6,593.4 6,229.2 3,100.0 2,225.6

Industrial Processes

- Mining PM10

- PRI 10,883.9 10,883.9 2,137.7 1,702.2

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production PM10

- PRI 1.4 1.4 1.9 1,644.9

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles PM10

- PRI 1,273.0 1,056.6 1,889.2 1,617.3

## 69 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Waste Disposal PM10

- PRI 2,415.3 2,415.3 2,297.0 1,416.7

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles PM10

- PRI 816.8 766.4 1,495.9 1,256.3

Mobile

- Locomotives PM10

- PRI 1,127.7 1,127.7 1,217.5 1,214.1

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals PM10

- PRI 411.8 411.8 373.3 1,186.1

Commercial Cooking PM10

- PRI 736.0

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf PM10

- PRI 160.7 160.7 1,314.0 635.2

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer PM10

- PRI 872.9 872.9 430.7 626.9

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas PM10

- PRI 906.2 906.2 679.8 558.9

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries PM10

- PRI 678.7 678.7 746.9 551.2

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline PM10

- PRI 401.8 419.8 424.7 420.7

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf PM10

- PRI 832.3 832.3 155.5 240.0

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use PM10

- PRI 118.9 118.9 103.3 187.7

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass PM10

- PRI 168.0

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals PM10

- PRI 62.8 62.8 273.6 167.0

Mobile

- Aircraft PM10

- PRI 101.1 101.1 93.5 120.8

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas PM10

- PRI 82.0 73.7 95.6 109.9

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles PM10

- PRI 93.7 81.0 78.9 63.5

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil PM10

- PRI 237.9 237.9 242.7 58.3

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles PM10

- PRI 16.6 11.4 54.8 40.6

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other PM10

- PRI 164.2 164.2 842.0 38.8

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas PM10

- PRI 18.80 18.8 12.8 24.6

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Other PM10

- PRI 17.8 19.1 20.6 22.8

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas PM10

- PRI 17.8 17.8 18.3 19.3

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass PM10

- PRI 16.3

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil PM10

- PRI 3.6 3.5 5.0 8.0

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other PM10

- PRI 416.1 434.4 4.2 4.9

Solvent

- Degreasing PM10

- PRI 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other PM10

- PRI 1.7 1.7 18.5 3.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other PM10

- PRI 7.0 7.0 61.0 2.2

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil PM10

- PRI 43.1 43.1 19.4 0.9

Miscellaneous Non

- Industrial NEC PM10

- PRI 31.0 31.0 31.3 0.6

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels PM10

- PRI 8.0 8.0 0.4 0.2

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil PM10

- PRI 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2

Industrial Processes

- Pulp & Paper PM10

- PRI 8.8 8.8 1.0 0.1

Solvent

- Graphic Arts PM10

- PRI 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal PM10

- PRI 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal PM10

- PRI 1,077.1 1,077.1 3.8 0.0

Solvent

- Non

- Industrial Surface Coating PM10

- PRI 54.5 54.5

Agriculture

- Crops & Livestock Dust PM25

- FIL 38,076.3 38,076.3 82,792.6 83,381.5

Dust

- Unpaved Road Dust PM25

- FIL 27,547.2 27,547.2 27,898.7 28,081.8

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning PM25

- FIL 14,252.9

Dust

- Paved Road Dust PM25

- FIL 2,553.4 2,553.4 2,486.0 4,586.0

Dust

- Construction Dust PM25

- FIL 4,827.8 4,827.8 4,161.8 3,256.2

Industrial Processes

- NEC PM25

- FIL 1,423.7 1,423.7 920.8 1,432.8

Waste Disposal PM25

- FIL 2,181.0 2,181.0 1,235.5 1,244.9

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal PM25

- FIL 2,804.0 2,715.0 1,259.3 1,018.2

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production PM25

- FIL 1.2 1.2 1.2 835.9

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas PM25

- FIL 607.2 607.1 325.5 307.6

## 70 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries PM25

- FIL 606.0 606.0 423.8 292.9

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals PM25

- FIL 216.2 216.2 37.1 233.1

Industrial Processes

- Mining PM25

- FIL 2,073.4 2,073.4 405.0 232.4

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf PM25

- FIL 120.4 120.4 99.2 229.7

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use PM25

- FIL 92.4 92.4 0.0 157.7

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer PM25

- FIL 308.8 308.8 101.3 142.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass PM25

- FIL 139.7

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf PM25

- FIL 322.1 322.1 74.5 94.2

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil PM25

- FIL 26.0 26.0 0.0 51.6

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals PM25

- FIL 31.4 31.4 0.1 50.6

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas PM25

- FIL 131.9 130.9 38.8 28.8

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass PM25

- FIL 13.4

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other PM25

- FIL 101.1 101.1 3.6 10.9

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas PM25

- FIL 14.3 14.3 2.2 6.0

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas PM25

- FIL 3.6 3.6 3.1 4.1

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil PM25

- FIL 0.3 0.3 0.9 4.0

Solvent

- Degreasing PM25

- FIL 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.4

Commercial Cooking PM25

- FIL 2.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other PM25

- FIL 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other PM25

- FIL 182.9 195.2 1.8 0.9

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil PM25

- FIL 15.2 15.2 0.6 0.7

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other PM25

- FIL 2.7 2.7 0.3 0.5

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil PM25

- FIL 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

Industrial Processes

- Pulp & Paper PM25

- FIL 4.0 4.0 0.2 0.1

Solvent

- Graphic Arts PM25

- FIL 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal PM25

- FIL 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal PM25

- FIL 119.3 119.3 3.6 0.0

Solvent

- Non

- Industrial Surface Coating PM25

- FIL 54.5 54.5

Agriculture

- Crops & Livestock Dust PM25

- PRI 38,076.3 38,076.3 82,792.6 83,381.2

Fires

- Prescribed Fires PM25

- PRI 58.6 58.6 49,248.0 81,560.0

Dust

- Unpaved Road Dust PM25

- PRI 27,547.2 27,547.2 27,898.7 28,082.3

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning PM25

- PRI 75,108.0 75,108.0 6,195.0 14,252.9

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood PM25

- PRI 4,464.0 4,464.0 2,417.0 5,046.3

Dust

- Paved Road Dust PM25

- PRI 2,553.4 2,553.4 2,486.0 4,586.0

Dust

- Construction Dust PM25

- PRI 4,827.8 4,827.8 4,161.8 3,256.2

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel PM25

- PRI 4,791.8 4,181.0 3,379.5 2,900.3

Fires

- Wildfires PM25

- PRI 41.1 41.1 2,237.5 2,674.6

Industrial Processes

- NEC PM25

- PRI 2,407.3 2,407.3 2,019.9 1,735.3

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal PM25

- PRI 5,496.9 5,235.9 1,666.3 1,675.3

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production PM25

- PRI 1.3 1.3 1.7 1,639.8

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles PM25

- PRI 1,110.7 909.8 1,713.8 1,444.8

Waste Disposal PM25

- PRI 2,199.0 2,199.0 1,247.2 1,274.5

Mobile

- Locomotives PM25

- PRI 1,127.3 1,127.3 1,117.3 1,120.7

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals PM25

- PRI 257.8 257.8 265.8 977.1

Commercial Cooking PM25

- PRI 735.8

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles PM25

- PRI 435.0 373.5 925.2 708.8

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas PM25

- PRI 780.9 780.8 678.5 556.0

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries PM25

- PRI 659.2 659.2 656.4 536.8

## 71 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline PM25

- PRI 369.6 386.3 390.7 387.0

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf PM25

- PRI 153.1 132.0 189.2 340.5

Industrial Processes

- Mining PM25

- PRI 2,335.8 2,335.8 429.0 235.0

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer PM25

- PRI 377.4 377.4 171.9 168.2

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use PM25

- PRI 100.8 100.8 102.6 159.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass PM25

- PRI 145.3

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf PM25

- PRI 387.4 387.4 88.0 127.5

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas PM25

- PRI 73.4 68.8 95.5 109.9

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals PM25

- PRI 36.3 36.3 0.9 104.3

Mobile

- Aircraft PM25

- PRI 72.2 72.2 16.8 97.6

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil PM25

- PRI 160.2 160.2 163.4 55.7

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other PM25

- PRI 110.1 110.1 684.6 38.4

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles PM25

- PRI 14.5 9.7 49.4 35.5

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles PM25

- PRI 68.6 59.6 48.3 33.6

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas PM25

- PRI 16.2 16.2 12.5 23.4

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Other PM25

- PRI 17.8 19.1 20.6 22.8

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas PM25

- PRI 14.6 14.6 15.1 16.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass PM25

- PRI 14.0

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil PM25

- PRI 2.7 2.5 3.4 6.5

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other PM25

- PRI 221.0 235.0 2.9 4.3

Solvent

- Degreasing PM25

- PRI 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other PM25

- PRI 1.6 1.6 17.5 3.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other PM25

- PRI 5.3 5.3 60.1 1.8

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil PM25

- PRI 37.6 37.6 13.1 0.9

Miscellaneous Non

- Industrial NEC PM25

- PRI 28.3 28.3 28.5 0.6

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels PM25

- PRI 7.70 7.70 0.3 0.2

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil PM25

- PRI 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2

Industrial Processes

- Pulp & Paper PM25

- PRI 4.7 4.7 0.5 0.1

Solvent

- Graphic Arts PM25

- PRI 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal PM25

- PRI 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal PM25

- PRI 204.3 204.3 3.8 0.0

Solvent

- Non

- Industrial Surface Coating PM25

- PRI 54.5 54.5

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal SO2 124,386.2 125,294.8 95,894.5 39,375.4

Fires

- Prescribed Fires SO2 11.8 11.8 6,089.6 9,770.4

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf SO2 108.4 108.4 3,457.0 3,063.5

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning SO2 10,937.3 10,937.3 330.4 2,287.5

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries SO2 3,665.5 3,665.5 2,295.6 1,919.6

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf SO2 3,694.9 3,694.9 790.9 1,650.3

Industrial Processes

- NEC SO2 1,259.2 1,259.2 407.4 502.4

Mobile

- Locomotives SO2 2,838.7 2,838.7 384.8 372.3

Fires

- Wildfires SO2 3.2 3.2 273.9 298.4

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles SO2 1,803.1 792.0 636.9 247.4

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production SO2 112.7 112.7 4.8 196.3

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other SO2 2,747.5 2,747.5 6,574.1 155.0

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood SO2 64.9 64.9 49.2 89.7

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel SO2 4,781.8 5,151.2 797.0 73.6

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles SO2 947.9 969.0 46.9 51.2

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil SO2 4,396.8 4,396.8 191.2 47.0

## 72 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals SO2 21.8 21.8 32.5 44.3

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas SO2 429.1 429.1 386.5 41.6

Waste Disposal SO2 136.1 136.1 61.6 35.5

Mobile

- Aircraft SO2 11.0 11.0 29.0 34.6

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas SO2 20.6 20.6 21.1 22.3

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other SO2 5,346.7 11,110.8 0.0 15.2

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles SO2 133.5 54.9 33.3 13.1

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas SO2 35.8 42.6 11.6 10.7

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas SO2 11.4 11.4 9.9 9.9

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline SO2 72.2 30.5 14.8 9.5

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil SO2 48.8 50.4 3.1 9.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass SO2 8.2

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass SO2 5.6

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Other SO2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.9

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Oil SO2 768.5 768.5 8.9 3.1

Industrial Processes

- Mining SO2 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.6

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other SO2 110.3 110.3 10.1 2.6

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals SO2 6.5 6.5 0.0 2.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil SO2 14.8 14.8 3.3 2.0

Miscellaneous Non

- Industrial NEC SO2 1.5

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles SO2 8.1 8.0 1.3 1.4

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other SO2 9.7 9.7 5.8 0.7

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer SO2 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.5

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use SO2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels SO2 45.4 45.4 0.6 0.1

Bulk Gasoline Terminals SO2 0.1

Solvent

- Graphic Arts SO2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal SO2 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal SO2 18,134.7 18,134.7 105.7 0.0

Biogenics

- Vegetation and Soil VOC 495,008.9 599,015.5

Fires

- Prescribed Fires VOC 168.0 168.0 121,350.4 203,320.2

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production VOC 2,880.0 2,880.0 609.8 94,166.9

Solvent

- Consumer & Commercial Solvent Use VOC 31,905.1

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles VOC 48,809.3 40,765.2 31,203.1 21,120.6

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Gasoline VOC 18,765.5 17,324.1 15,262.5 13,752.7

Gas Stations VOC 11,302.6 11,302.6 10,399.3 10,930.9

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning VOC 54,890.0 54,890.0 3,717.0 10,433.1

Solvent

- Industrial Surface Coating & Solvent

Use VOC 16,454.5 16,454.5 14,611.8 7,941.9

Bulk Gasoline Terminals VOC 2,510.6 2,510.6 7,482.8 7,674.7

Fires

- Wildfires VOC 99.1 99.1 5,534.1 6,832.2

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood VOC 18,535.4 18,535.4 3,039.5 6,101.9

Industrial Processes

- NEC VOC 4,006.3 4,006.3 6,199.2 5,430.2

Solvent

- Non

- Industrial Surface Coating VOC 19,214.9 19,214.9 14,723.8 3,373.7

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel VOC 5,079.1 4,438.2 3,825.0 3,236.0

Solvent

- Degreasing VOC 1,626.2 1,626.2 2,696.1 2,836.5

Industrial Processes

- Storage and Transfer VOC 6,562.9 6,562.9 6,661.7 2,565.5

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas VOC 4,020.0 4,020.0 3,058.8 2,282.7

## 73 Sector (2011 naming convention) Pollutant 2002

tons 2005

tons 2008

tons 2011

tons

Miscellaneous Non

- Industrial NEC VOC 96.0 96.0 96.8 2,259.7

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf VOC 1,527.0 1,527.0 3,757.2 2,001.1

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles VOC 1,943.4 1,615.3 2,169.0 1,943.0

Mobile

- Locomotives VOC 1,935.3 1,935.3 1,852.3 1,882.1

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries VOC 7,881.9 7,881.9 2,220.1 1,722.2

Solvent

- Graphic Arts VOC 7,333.2 7,333.2 9,516.1 1,492.0

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles VOC 1,966.4 1,468.1 1,701.6 1,161.1

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal VOC 768.8 724.2 685.9 622.6

Waste Disposal VOC 2,073.6 2,073.6 924.5 575.0

Solvent

- Dry Cleaning VOC 118.8 118.8 687.9 566.7

Industrial Processes

- Ferrous Metals VOC 221.9 221.9 458.8 487.9

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Other VOC 883.9 806.4 587.8 337.5

Mobile

- Aircraft VOC 194.9 194.9 181.6 223.7

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Natural Gas VOC 193.6 193.6 193.4 204.6

Commercial Cooking VOC 103.8

Mobile

- On

- Road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles VOC 61.6 49.3 105.7 87.5

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Natural Gas VOC 112 112 90.7 86.9

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Natural Gas VOC 78.8 75.8 72.4 72.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Oil VOC 31.1 31.1 21.1 67.9

Industrial Processes

- Cement Manuf VOC 38.6 38.6 19.3 57.3

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Other VOC 8.2 8.2 125.9 46.4

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Other VOC 31.4 31.4 30.9 23.5

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Other VOC 11.2 12.2 1.8 15.9

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Biomass VOC 10.6

Industrial Processes

- Pulp & Paper VOC 7.9 7.9 9.1 9.7

Industrial Processes

- Non

- ferrous Metals VOC 18.2 18.2 132.4 9.2

Industrial Processes

- Mining VOC 0.6 0.6 0.0 6.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Biomass VOC 5.6

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Oil VOC 0.4 0.4 0.4 5.3

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Other VOC 26.2 26.2 111.2 1.0

Fuel Comb

- Comm /Institutional

- Oil VOC 7 7 2.6 1.0

Mobile

- Commercial Marine Vessels VOC 3.2 3.2 0.2 0.1

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Oil VOC 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Fuel Comb

- Comm/Institutional

- Coal VOC 0.0

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Coal VOC 4.3 4.3 0.3 0.0



## Tables showing top five anthropogenic NEI sectors for NH 3 

## , NO

x 

## , PM 10 

## , PM 2.5 

## , and SO 2



### Top five sectors for NH 3 

### 2002 2005 2008 2011

Agriculture

- Livestock Waste 33,456 33,456 92,101 101,761

Agriculture

- Fertilizer Application 64,133 64,133 66,343 69,251

Fires

- Prescribed Fires 12 12 8,442 14,144

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf 427 427 1,142 1,193

Mobile

- On

- Road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles 2,755 2,905 1,240 1,026

## 74 Top five sectors for NO

x 

### 2002 2005 2008 2011

Industrial Processes

- Oil & Gas Production 7 7 1 56,613

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal 91,147 84,801 50,226 40,323

Fuel Comb

- Industrial Boilers, ICEs

- Natural Gas 62,912 62,910 44,389 39,162

Mobile

- Locomotives 40,822 40,822 37,330 37,220

Mobile

- Non

- Road Equipment

- Diesel 41,960 40,292 37,615 34,279

Top five sectors for primary PM 10 

### 2002 2005 2008 2011

Agriculture

- Crops & Livestock Dust 253,845 253,845 413,968 417,428

Dust

- Unpaved Road Dust 275,026 275,026 280,603 282,328

Fires

- Prescribed Fires 69 69 58,113 96,241

Dust

- Construction Dust 48,050 48,050 41,618 32,562

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning 99,223 99,223 6,195 23,904

Top five sectors for primary PM 2.5 

### 2002 2005 2008 2011

Agriculture

- Crops & Livestock Dust 38,076 38,076 82,793 83,381

Fires

- Prescribed Fires 59 59 49,248 81,560

Dust

- Unpaved Road Dust 27,547 27,547 27,899 28,082

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning 75,108 75,108 6,195 14,253

Fuel Comb

- Residential

- Wood 4,464 4,464 2,417 5,046

Top five sectors for SO

2 

### 2002 2005 2008 2011

Fuel Comb

- Electric Generation

- Coal 124,386 125,295 95,895 39,375

Fires

- Prescribed Fires 12 12 6,090 9,770

Industrial Processes

- Chemical Manuf 108 108 3,457 3,064

Fires

- Agricultural Field Burning 10,937 10,937 330 2,287

Industrial Processes

- Petroleum Refineries 3,666 3,666 2,296 1,920

## 75 

## Appendix I: Responsiveness Summary

Kansas 2014 Regional Haze SIP Revision with First Five- Year Progress Report

Notice of public hearing with required thirty-day comment period was published in the Kansas

Register on October 23, 2014 (Vol. 33, No. 43, October 23, 2014, 1091-1092). No request for a

hearing was received by November 25 th 

## so the scheduled hearing was cancelled and announced

on the KDHE website at http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/planning/pnplanning/html

. The public

notice and cancellation announcement are included in Attachment A to this summary.

In a collaborative effort, comments were provided to KDHE by two federal land managers

(FLM) after reviewing our Regional Haze SIP Revision with First 5

- Year Progress Report.

Their input was accepted and incorporated into Sections 3.2 (Emissions Reductions) and Section

3.4 (Emissions Trend Analysis) of the final SIP revision where appropriate. The comment

documents received are included as Attachment B along with a letter of support received from

the USDA Forest Service endorsing Kans as’ efforts to implement and maintain attainment of air

quality standards for regional haze reduction.

KDHE responses to the FLM’s comments are included below.

Bret Anderson, Federal Land Manager, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, National Atmospheric

Modeling/Regional Haze Coordinator, Fort Collins, CO, provided the following comments.

COMMENT: Section 3.2 (Emissions Reductions)

On page 11 of this section, the KDHE briefly describes the approach that was taken for analyzing

reasonable progress or “beyond BART” sources. We recommend that the KDHE expand the

description to include methods used to construct the delta

- deciview (ddv) numbers and any

“bright line” decision points used with The $/ddv metric.

We amende d the final draft of the progress report by adding text within the list describing

the selection of reasonable progress units as follows (added text in brackets under step 4):

Sources not subject to BART (“reasonable progress units”)

In section 10.2 of its initial implementation plan, titled “Selection of Kansas

Sources for Reasonable Progress Evaluation,” Kansas developed a process to

fairly select stationary sources not subject to BART that could contribute to

reasonable progress goals. This process was:

1. Identify all Kansas emission units that had greater than or equal to 500 tons

for NOx and/or SO2

2. Identify the most effective control technologies and screen for excessive cost

3. Model visibility impacts and screen for low- impact facilities

4. Calculate, screen, and rank based on cost per ton per deciview difference

(delta deciview, or ∆ dv ) [Note cost of controls were taken from EPA’s

AirControlNET tool ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/A irControlNET.htm ), while

## 7 6 

## ∆ dv values were found by running the CALPUFF model twice (with pre- and

post-control emissions inputs) and finding the difference in deciview outputs.]

5. Screen for non-cost statutory factors, i.e., time necessary for compliance,

ene rgy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and

remaining useful life

6. Re- sort and make final ranked list of potential facilities

The results of this process were summarized in Table 10.12 of the SIP, and sources are presented

in Table 3.

Although we recall looking to find “bright line” break points in our search for “reasonable”

reasonable progress units, this need was basically rendered moot by using the process as finally

developed.

COMMENT: Section 3.3 (Visibility Conditions)

While Kansas has no Class I and much of the documentation focuses upon conditions at closest

Class I area, Wichita Mountains located in Oklahoma, we also recommend that KDHE consider

inclusion of a discussion on the apparent trend of increasing deciviews for years 2010

- 2011 for

the 20% best days at other neighboring Class I areas such as Caney Creek (CACR) and Hercules

Glades (HEGL). While the 5

- year movi ng average at CACR and HEGL shows a consistent trend

down, we conjecture that the trend down may be more related to economic conditions of the

time period of 2008

– 2009 and how these affect the 5

- year average rather than the realization

of emissions reducti ons, and that conditions on the 20% best days may return to values closer to

the pre

- 2006 timeframe once these years are not factored into the 5

- year moving average. This

trend should also be monitored as you move into the 2018 planning cycle.

As mentioned in the progress report, “Kansas emission sources were identified by

Oklahoma as potential contributors” to visibility impairment at Wichita Mountains in our

consultation for the original SIP. No other state with Class I areas did the same. This w as

the primary reason for our focus on Wichita Mountains, and why WIMO got the “prime

spot” in the report. Information for the other Class I areas of interest was included in the

progress report—but in Appendix F (Data Tables and Glide Paths for Caney Creek,

Hercules -Glades, and Mingo Wilderness Areas) and Appendix G ( Five

- Year Average

Visibility Impairment for Caney Creek, Hercules

- Glades, and Mingo Wilderness Areas ).

As to the conjecture about economics driving the downward trend in visibility

impairment at sites in Missouri and Arkansas, we would respectfully decline adding that

discussion to the progress report at this time, but instead consider it in the 2018 SIP.

## 7 7 

## Patricia Brewer, F ederal Land Manager, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Air Resources Division, Denver, C O, provided the following comments.

COMMENT 1. (Section 3.3 Visibility Conditions)

Define Oklahoma's 2018 visibility reasonable progress goal for the 20% worst days at Wichita

Mountains and compare current vis ibility to the 2018 goal.

In the Kansas progress report, we showed the current visibility values for Wichita

Mountains in Figures 5a and 5b (SIP p. 15); and the glide path for haze at Wichita

Mountains (SIP p. 16) in Figure 6 Wichita Mountains natural levels of haze and its

composition on the 20% best and 20% worst haze days.



## The report did not present a table comparing current (i.e., the most recent 2011) deciview

values with the corresponding “natural level” on the glide path, since the “natural” value

lies along an artificially nonlinear path, and has to be found by graphical interpolation.

Instead, we focused on comparing actual vs. natural slopes of the deciview values, which

are more informative.

To address your question, here are estimates for 2011 20% best- and worst-day values,

found using the following adaptation of Figure 6:

Thus, actual vs. natural for 20% best days are approximately 9.6 dv vs. 8.8 dv, and for

20% worst days are approximately 22.1 dv vs. 21.2 dv— meaning 2011 actuals are

slightly above natural values (0.8 dv for 20% best days and 0.9 dv for 20% worst days).

COMMENT 2. (Section 3.3 Visibility Conditions)

In addition to the visibility trends reported for the 20% best visibility days at Wichita Mountains,

it would be helpful to define pollutant contributions to haze and changes in pollutant

contributions over the past decade. An example is enclosed for your consideration.

## 7 8 

## Agreed. In preparing the progress report we did run several queries—including aerosol

trends— at http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/ . We concluded, however, that the

discussions of trends longer than the five years being looked at for the report would be

more appropriate for the 2018 SIP, particularly in terms of seeing differences over ten

years’ time (i.e., from SIP to SIP).

COMMENT 3. (Section 3.4 Emissions Trend Analysis)

In the first paragraph on page 20 that describes Table 7, isn't the reduction for sulfur dioxide 60

percent and not 6.0 percent?

Thank you for the correction. The sentence will be amended to read: “Emissions of NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## —the primary contributors to visibility impairment from anthropogenic

sources —are down significantly (10.0 percent for NO

x 

## and 59.6 percent for SO 2 

## ), thanks

to the Regional Haze agreements made with Westar Energy and KCP&L as discussed

above.”

COMMENT 4. (Section 3.4 Emissions Trend Analysis)

In addition to Table 7 and Figures 12 through 16, please provide a summary of emissions for

each of the five major pollutants, by major emission sectors (point, area, mobile onroad, mobile

nonroad ) for 2002, 2008, 2011, and 2018.

Please refer to the progress report’s Appendix H, “Data Tables for the 2002, 2005, 2008,

and 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Kansas Nonpoint Sources.” With the

development of the EIS, EPA has begun releasing emissions via 60 “EIS emission

sectors,” which do not always align with the major (but now older)

point/nonpoint/onroad/nonroad NEI sectors. Since the newer EIS sectors are significantly

more refined than the older system (and since EPA will apparently be using these going

forward in time), we are using them as well.

Also, we recognize that we did not provide emissions estimates for 2018 as you request.

In this regard, our understanding was that the last year for the period under study in this

progress report was 2013, which we surmised would be best estimated via linear

regression using NEI years 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011.

COMMENT 5. (Section 3.4 Emissions Trend Analysis)

Presenting the 2018 emissions that were used in regional modeling to set 2018 v isibility

reasonable progress goals will support the conclusion that emissions reductions are on track to

meet 2018 projections.

Agreed. Actually, we didn’t think about using the Access PSAT tool for support in the

progress report. Doing so now shows the following, based on tool-charted output for

2018 Kansas total SO 2 

## and NO

x 

## :

## 79 

## From the tool- created charts:

Est. 2018 SO 2 

## from point sources ~ 3,200 tons/day = 1,168,000 tons/yr

Est. 2018 SO 2 

## from nonpoint sources ~ 510 tons/day = 186,200 tons/yr

Est. 2018 NO

x 

## from point sources ~ 430 tons/day = 157,000 tons/yr

Est. 2018 NO

x 

## from nonpoint sources ~ 120 tons/day = 43,800 tons/yr

Est. 2018 NO

x 

## from onroad sources ~ 70 tons/day = 25,600 tons/yr

Est. 2018 NO

x 

## from nonroad sources ~ 110 tons/day = 40,200 tons/yr

Compare and contrast these with actual 2011 NEI emissions (anthropogenic emissions

crosswalked to 4 sectors):

Actual 2011 SO 2 

## from point sources = 46,900 tons/yr ( 1,121,100 tons less than

predicted )

Actual 2011 SO 2 

## from nonpoint sources = 3,000 tons/yr ( 183,200 tons less than

predicted )

Actual 2011 NO

x 

## from point sources = 93,300 tons/yr ( 63,700 tons less than predicted )

Actual 2011 NO

x 

## from nonpoint sources = 107,000 tons/yr ( 63,200 tons more than

predicted — but note 2011 saw a large jump in NO

x 

## from oil & gas production with

introduction of EPA inventory tool )

## 8 0 

## Actual 2011 NO

x 

## from onroad sources = 62,300 tons/yr ( 36,700 tons more than

predicted — but note change to MOVES model increased NO

x 

## estimate s )

Actual 2011 NO

x 

## from nonroad sources = 37,600 tons/yr ( 2,600 tons less than

predicted )

## 81 

# Attachment A

Notice of Public Hearing

 Kansas Register publication (October 23, 2014)

 Regional Newspaper publications (October 23, 2014)

 Notification letter (electronic) e -mailed to EPA and regional contacts (October 24, 2014)

 KDHE Website Cancellation Announcement (November 25, 2014)

# Kansas Register

Kris W. Kobach, Secretary of State

Vol. 33, No. 43 October 23, 2014 Pages 1085-1112



# In this issue . . . Page

Legislative interim c ommittee schedule

........................................................................................ 1086

North Central Regional Planning Commission

Notice to bidders

...................................................................................................................... 1087

Kansas Board of Regents Universities

Notice to bidders

...................................................................................................................... 1087

Department of Administration—Pro curement and Contracts

Notice to bidders for s tate purchases

......................................................................................... 1087

Kansas Department of Transportation

Request for comments on the Statewid e Transportation Improvement Program

........................... 1088

Notice to contractors

................................................................................................................. 1088

Department of Agriculture—Division of Conservation

Notice of authorization to proceed with on-call engineering service s........................................... 1090

City of Wichita

Notice to bidders

...................................................................................................................... 1090

Department of Health and Environment

Request for comments on proposed acid rain permit

.................................................................. 1090

Request for comments on proposed air quality permit

................................................................ 1091

Notice of hearing on proposed State Im plementation Plan update

.............................................. 1091

Notice concerning water poll ution control permits / applications

.................................................. 1092

Johnson County

Notice of bond sale

................................................................................................................... 1094

Pooled Money Investment Board

Notice of investment rates

......................................................................................................... 1095

Pawnee Watershed District 81

Request for proposals for design / construction services

............................................................... 1095

Office of the Governor

Executive Directive No. 14-458, author izing expenditure of federal funds

.................................... 1095

Secretary of State

Notice of forfeiture

................................................................................................................... 1095

Temporary Administr ative Regulations

Kansas Lottery

......................................................................................................................... 1101

Index to administrative regulations

.............................................................................................. 1108From: Classifieds

To: Pat Gibbs

Subject: Re: [classifieds] Legal Classified Publication Request for October 23, 2014

Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:34:26 AM



## (Published in the Dodge City Daily Globe on Thursday, October 23, 2014)

State of Kansas

Department of Health and Environment

Notice of Public Hearing

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) is proposing a 2014

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Update for the Attainment and Maintenance of

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Regional Haze. Pursuant to EPA’s 1999

Regional Haze Rule, KDHE is proposing to submit our first five-year progress report

to update the 2009 Kansas Regional Haze Plan.

Any member of the public may request a public hearing or submit comments

regarding this proposed action. If requested, a public hearing will be held Tuesday,

November 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM in the Curtis State Office Building Flint Hills

Conference Room, 3rd Floor, 1000 SW Jackson, Topeka, Kansas. If no request for

hearing is received by 12:00 noon on Friday, November 21, 2014, the tentatively

scheduled hearing will be cancelled with an announcement

on the KDHE Bureau of Air website at

http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/planning/pnplanning.html

. Inquiries may be made by

phone to (785) 291- 3278 or e-mailed to pgibbs@kdheks.gov

.

This SIP update fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and CFR Section

51.308 which requires states to address the impacts of regional haze. The SIP

update demonstrates Kansas compliance with the requirements for Best Available

Retrofit Technology and addresses reasonable progress goals and long-term

emissions reduction strategies to reduce visibility impairment in Class I areas of

neighboring states.

The proposed SIP update does not include any rulemaking action. Details

concerning this action can be obtained by contacting Pat Gibbs, KDHE, Bureau of Air

at (785) 291-3278. Copies of the proposed Plan may also be viewed at the following

locations.From: Pat Gibbs

To: "Tapp.Joshua@epa.gov" ; "Kemp.Lachala@epa.gov" ; "Jay.Michael@epa.gov" ; Jennifer Nichols ; Stan A. Marshall ;

Allison Herring ; Pat A Simpson ; Larissa Parker ; David Butler ; Doug Cole ; Ethel Evans ;

"bandersen@wycokck.org" ; "Michael.boothe@jocogov.org" ; "rowen@wichita.gov"

Cc: Miles Stotts

Subject: Public Notice and Proposed 2014 Kansas Regional Haze Plan Update with First Five-Year Progress Report (Draft)

Date: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:11:00 PM

Attachments: KR RH PN.pdf

2014 Five-year progress report (final draft) title revision.pdf

RH Ltr & Report.pdf



## Please find the Notice of Public Hearing that was published in the Kansas Register, the Salina,

Chanute, Wichita, Hays, and Topeka newspapers yesterday. It was also published on the KDHE

Bureau of Air website along with the Draft 2014 Kansas SIP Update with the First Five Year Progress

Report document.

As noted, a Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled in the KDHE Curtis State Office Building, Flint

Hills Conference Room, 3rd Floor, on Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 10 a.m. IF requested by Friday,

12 noon, November 21, 2014. Cancellation of the tentatively scheduled meeting will be posted on

the KDHE BOA website on that Friday, November 21st. Comments are encouraged and accepted

until 5 p.m., November 25, 2014.

Please contact us for any further information needed.

Pat Gibbs

Air Planning and Regulations

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310

Topeka, KS 66612

(785) 291- 3278

Pgibbs@kdheks.gov

# PUBLIC HEARING CANCELLED

– NO REQUESTS

Scheduled for November 25, 2014

Department of Health and Environment

Notice of Public Hearing

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) is proposing a 2014 State

Implem entation Plan (SIP) Update for the Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air

Qual ity Standards for Regional Haze. Pursuant to EPA’s 1999 Regional Haze Rule, KDHE is

proposing to submit our first five-year progress report to update the 2009 Kansas Regional Haze

Plan.

Any member of the public may request a public hearing or submit comm ents regarding this

proposed action. If requested, a public hearing will be held Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at

10:00 AM in the Curtis State Office Building Flint Hills Conference Room, 3rd Floor, 1000 SW

Jac kson, Topeka, Kansas. If no request for hearing is received by 12:00 noon on Friday,

November 21, 2014 , the tentatively scheduled hearing will be cancelled with an announcement

on the KDHE Bureau of Air website at http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/planning/pnplanning.html

.

Inquiries may be made by phone to (7 85) 291

- 3278 or e

- mail ed to pgibbs@kdheks.gov

.

This SIP update fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and CFR Section

51.308 which requir es states to address the impacts of regional haze. The SIP update

demonstra tes Kansas compliance with the requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology

and addresses reasonable progress goals and long-term emissions reduction strategies to reduce

visibilit y impairment in Class I areas of neighboring states.

## Th e proposed SIP update does not include any rulemaking action. Details concerning this

acti on can be obtained by contacting Pat Gibbs, KDHE , Bureau of Air at (785) 291-3278.

Copies of the proposed Plan may also be viewed at the following locations.

 Depart ment of

Air Quality, Unified Government of Wyandotte County

- Kansas City,

Kansas Health Department, 619 Ann Avenue, Kansas City, KS

 Johnson County Environmental Department, 11811 S. Sunset, Suite 2700, Olathe, KS

 KDHE No rthwest District Office, 2301 E. 13th St., Hays, KS

 KDHE North Central District Office, 2501 Market Place Ste. D, Salina, KS

 KDHE Northeast District Office, 800 W. 24th St., Lawrence, KS

 KDHE Southeast District Office, 1500 W. 7th St., Chanute, KS

 Wichita-Sedgwick County Dept. of Community Health, 1900 E. 9th St., Wichita, KS

 KDHE Southwest District Office, 302 W. McArtor Rd., Dodge City, KS

The Plan is also posted on the Bureau of Air’s website at:

http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/planning/pnplanning.html

.

Comments from the interested public may be mailed to KDHE

, Bureau of Air, Attention: Pat

Gibbs (contact information noted above) and must be received by the Bureau of Air no later than

Tuesday , November 25, 2014.

Any indi vidual with a disability may request accommodations in order to participate in the

public hearing and may request the proposed plan in accessible format. Please submit requests

for accommodation to Pat Gibbs by Monday, November 17, 2014.

Rober t Moser, M.D.

Secretary of Health and Environment

# Attachment B

Comment Documents

 Bret Anderson: Federal Land Manager, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, National Atmospheric

Modeling/Regional Haze Coordinator, Fort Collins, CO

 Patricia Brewer: Federal Land Manager, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Air Resourc es Division, Denver, CO



# Letter of Support

 Daniel Jiron: Regional Forester, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region,

Golden, CO

## Hi Tom, Tue 1/27/2015 11:52 AM

On behalf of the USDA Forest Service, I would like to offer our thanks for the opportunity to review and

comment upon your 5-year regional haze progress report. Overall, this document is well organized and

provides a thorough review of visibility conditions and emissions. We commend the KDHE for their

diligent efforts on the development of this document. We concur with KDHE’s negative declaration and

believe this report satisfies the requirements of both 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

Identified below are several comments for the KDHE to consider which may help provide greater clarity

in several sections in the report. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding

our comments.

Sincerely,

Bret Anderson

Bret Anderson

National Atmospheric Modeling/Regional Haze Coordinator

Forest Service

WO

- Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air & Rare Plants

p: 970

- 295

- 5981

baanderson02@fs.fed.us

2150A Centre Avenue., Suite 368

Fort Collins, CO 80526

www.fs.fed.us



### Caring for the land and serving people



## Section 3.2 (Emissions Reductions)

On page 11 of this section, the KDHE briefly describes the approach that was taken for analyzing

reasonable progress or “beyond BART” sources. We recommend that the KDHE expand the description

to include methods used to construct the delta- deciview (ddv) numbers and any “bright line” decision

points used with the $/ddv metric.

Section 3.3 (Visibility Conditions)

While Kansas has no Class I and much of the documentation focuses upon conditions at closest Class I

area, Wichita Mountains located in Oklahoma, we also recommend that KDHE consider inclusion of a

discussion on the apparent trend of increasing deciviews for years 2010-2011 for the 20% best days at

other neighboring Class I areas such as Caney Creek (CACR) and Hercules Glades (HEGL). While the 5

– year moving average at CACR and HEGL shows a consistent trend down, we conjecture that the trend

down may be more related to economic conditions of the time period of 2008

– 2009 and how these

affect the 5-year average rather than the realization of emissions reductions, and that conditions on the

20% best days may return to values closer to the pre-2006 timeframe once these years are not factored

into the 5-year moving average. This trend should also be monitored as you move into the 2018

planning cycle.