### RECElVEU

-- 

## &;'EL 

## AIR PLANNING SEC.



### 08SEP23 

## PW l: 26

STATE OF ARKANSAS


### MIKE 

### BEEHI:
(;OVFRNOR



### July 29,2008

Richard Greene, Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency- Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Mail Code 6RA Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Dear Mr. Greene:

The State of Arkansas is hereby submitting a State Implementation Plan (SIR$ to? address requirements for regional haze visibility protection in mandatory federal Clm I
areas. This SIP contains the necessary measures to ensure that the tate of ~rkanss is working toward the national goal for visibility contained in 42 U. 

# C .C. 7491-Visibility protection for federal Class I areas. It fulfills requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, Subpart

P- Protection of Visibility.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require states to submit SIPs to make "reasonable progress" in reducing visibility impairment in federal Class I areas resulting from anthropogenic pollution. The CAA, 169A(a)(l), "declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory federal
Class I areas, where impairment results from man-made air pollution." Class I areas are national parks, containing more than 6,000 acres, and wilderness areas, containing more than 5,000 acres, which Congress has recognized as significant sites. Arkansas has two such areas: the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area in the Ozark National Forest and the Caney Creek Wilderness Area in the Ouachita National Forest.

The Regional Haze Rule focuses on older emission sources that have not been regulated under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Such older sources that could contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas may be required to install Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Regional Haze SIPs must contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal, including requiring installation, operation, and maintenance of BART, as determined by the State on certain existing stationary sources.

### The EPA Regional Haze Rule strongly encourages states to work together in regional partnerships to reduce haze. As a member of the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP), Arkansas has worked closely with Kansas, Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as with federal agencies,
tribal areas, and other interested parties to improve air quality in our region and the
country.

The State of Arkansas hereby submits to the EPA that it has met the requirements
for regional haze visibility protection in mandatory federal Class I areas under 40 C.F.R.
551.308. We are enclosing two hard copies and one electronic copy of the State Implementation Plan for your review.

We look forward to your prompt review of this SIP submission. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Bates, Air Division Chief of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, at 5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, AR 7221 8-53 17,

or by phone at (501) 682-0750. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ike Beebe

cc: Mike Bates, Chief

- 

### Air Division, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

Enclosure

## Arkansas Regional Haze SIP



## Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

State of Arkansas Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan

Air Division Planning and Air Quality Analysis Branch
5301 Northshore Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72218-5317

A Member of Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP)

September 09,2008

## Table of Contents

i Submittal letter – Governor Approval

1. Background and Overview of the Federal Regional Haze Regulation 7

2. General Planning Provisions 11

3. Regional Planning 12

4. State/Tribe and Federal Land Manager Coordination 14

5. Assessment of Baseline, Current Conditions a nd Estimate of Natural Conditions 15

6. Monitoring Strategy 21

7. Emissions Inventory 24

8. Modeling Assessment 32

9. Best Available Retrofit Technology 43

10 Reasonable Progress Goals 58

11. Long Term Strategy to Reach Reasonable Progress Goals 68

12. Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 76

13. Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing Plan 77

Guidance Documents 78

2

## List of Tables

Table 3.1 CENRAP Geographical Area 12

Table 5.1 Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Arkansas 19

Table 7.1 2002 Emissions Inventory Summary 24

Table 7.2 2018 Emissions Inventory Summary 27

Table 8.1 Ambient Data Used in Model Performance Evaluation 36

Table 9.1 Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in the State of Arkansas 45

Table 9.2 Subject-to-BART Sources in the State of Arkansas 47

Table 9.3a BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 52

Table 9.3b BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 53

Table 9.3c BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Particulate Matter 10 micrometers (PM10) 54

Table 9.3d BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Particulate Matter 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) 54

Table 9.4a American Electric Power Control Results 55

Table 9.4b Arkansas Electric Coop – Carl E. Bailey Control Results 55

Table 9.4c BART Arkansas Electric Coop – McClellan Control Results 55

Table 9.4d Domtar Control Results 56

Table 9.4e Entergy – Lake Catherine Natural Gas Control Results 56

Table 9.4f Entergy – Lake Catherine Fuel Oil Control Results 56

Table 9.4g Entergy – White Bluff Control Results 56

Table 10.1 Uniform Rate of Progress for Arkansas Class I Areas 59

3Table 10.2 Reasonable Progress Goals for Arkansas Class I Areas 63



## List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Regional Planning Organizations 8

Figure 1.2 Mandatory Federal Class I Areas 9

Figure 3.1 CENRAP Geographical Areas of Regional Planning Organizations 12

Figure 5.1 Determination of Natural Background 16

Figure 6.1 CENRAP IMPROVE and IMPROVE Protocol Sites 22

Figure 6.2 Class I Areas in Arkansas 23

Figure 7.1 2002/2018 Arkansas Emission Summary Comparison Excluding Biogenics 30

Figure 7.2 2002/2018 Arkansas Emission Summary Comparison Including Biogenics 31

Figure 8.1 Modeling Domain Used for CENRAP 2002 Modeling 35

Figure 8.2 Caney Creek 2002 Daily Extinction Model Performance 39

Figure 8.3 Upper Buffalo 2002 Daily Extinction Model Performance 40

Figure 8.4 Comparison of RPO Visibility Projections 42

Figure 9.1 Map Showing Arkansas’s Bart-Eligible Sources 44

Figure 9.2 Map Showing Arkansas’s Subject-to-Bart Sources 49

Figure 10.1 Uniform Rate of Progress for Caney Creek’s 20% Worst Days 60

Figure 10.2 Uniform Rate of Progress for Caney Creek’s 20% Best Days 61

Figure 10.3 Uniform Rate of Progress for Upper Buffalo’s 20% Worst Days 63

Figure 10.4 Uniform Rate of Progress for Upper Buffalo’s 20% Best Days 64

4Figure 10.5 Uniform Rate of Progress and Reasonable Progress Goal for Caney Creek’s 20% Worst Days 65

Figure 10.6 Uniform Rate of Progress and Reasonable Progress Goal for Caney Creek’s 20% Best Days 66



## List of Appendices

Appendices are listed at th e end of each chapter.

5This page intentionally left blank.

61. Background and Overview of the Federal Regional Haze Regulation

1.1. General Background / History of Federal Regional Haze Rule

In amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1977, Congress added Section 169 (42 U.S.C. 7491) setting forth the following national visibili ty goal of restoring pristine conditions in national parks and wilderness areas:

“Congress hereby declares as a national goa l the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of vi sibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.”

Over the following years modest steps were take n to address the visibility problems in Class I areas. The control measures taken mainly addr essed “Plume Blight” from specific pollution sources, and did little to address regional haze issues in the Eastern United States. Plume blight is the visual impairment of air quality that manifest s itself as a coherent plume. This results from specific sources, such as a power plant smoke st ack, emitting pollutants into a stable atmosphere. The pollutants are then transported in some direction with little or no vertical mixing.

When the CAA was amended in 1990, Congre ss added Section 169B (42 U.S.C. 7492), authorizing further research and regular assessmen ts of the progress made so far. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “c urrent scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking regulatory action to im prove and protect visibility.”

In addition to authorizing creation of visibility transport commissions and setting forth their duties, Section 169B(f) of the CAA specifi cally mandated creation of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) to make recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the region affecting the visibility of the Grand Canyon National Park. In June 1996, following four years of research and policy development, the GCVTC submitted its report to EPA. This report, as well as the many research reports prepared by the Commission, contributed invaluable information to EPA in its development of the federal regional haze rule.

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule was adopted July 1, 1999, and went into effect on August 30, 1999, see Appendix 1.1 Regional Haze Regulations –Final Rule. The Regional Haze Rule aimed at achieving national visibility goals by 2064. This rulemaking addressed the combined visibility effects of various pollution sources over a wide geographic region. EPA concluded that this meant that many states – even those without Cla ss I Areas – would be requi red to participate in haze reduction efforts. EPA designated five Re gional Planning Organizations (RPOs) to assist with the coordination and cooperatio n needed to address the visibili ty issues that states in the five regions share or have in common. Those states that make up the midsection of the contiguous United States were designated as the Central Re gional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). Figure 1.1 is a map de picting the five RPO regions.

7Fig. 1.1 – Regional Planning Organizations

On May 24, 2002 the US Court of Appeals, DC Di strict Court ruled on the challenge brought by the American Corn Growers Association agains t EPA’s Regional Haze Rule of 1999. The Court
remanded to EPA the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) provisions of the rule, and denied industry’s challenge to the haze rule goals of natural visibi lity and no degradation requirements. On July 6, 2005, EPA issued a revised BART rule.

The federal requirements for visibility protecti on are contained in 40 CFR Chapter 51 Subpart P – Visibility Protection. The regional haze program requirement s are located at 40 CFR 51.308. Arkansas submitted a Part I Visibility Plan on March 25, 1985 that was subsequently approved by EPA. The approved SIP meets the currently applicable requireme nts of 40 CFR § 51.302 and

51.306.

To facilitate the review of this State Implemen tation Plan (SIP) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Land Managers (FLM), stakeholders and the public, ADEQ has prepared a cross-referenced “Guide to Locating Section 30 8 Requirements” that is included as Appendix 1.2 herein. Appendix 1.2 is based on a checklist th at was prepared by EPA for its use in review of regional haze SIP submittals that includes refe rences and citations for specific Section 51.308 requirements. ADEQ updated this checklist by inserting references to locations where these requirements are address in this SIP.

1.2 Identification of Class I Areas

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308, CENRAP and ADEQ have conducted assessments of emissions and modeled visibility impacts on a regional scale. These assessments, further described herein, indicate that various emissions source s located within the State of

8Arkansas are likely to cause, or contribute to, regional haze in Class I Areas located both within
and outside of the bounda ries of the State.

The State of Arkansas has two federal Class I ar eas within its borders. ADEQ has determined
that sources located in Arkansas also contribut e to regional haze in two additional Class I Areas
that are located in the State of Missouri. Both of Arkansas’s Class I Areas are designated as federally protected wilderness areas for which the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is the FLM.

In Arkansas, mandatory Class I Federal areas include the 14,460 acre Caney Creek
Wilderness in Ouachita National Forest at Po lk County (CACR) and the 11,801 acre Upper
Buffalo Wilderness in the Ozark National Forest at Newton Count y (UPBU). The Upper Buffalo Class I Area includes the original wilderness area and the additions to it, but does not include the
Buffalo National River.

Potentially affected areas in ot her states are the two Class I ar eas in Missouri. These are the 12,315 acre Hercules Glades Wilderness in the Ma rk Twain National Forest, located in Taney County Missouri (HEGL), approximately 25 mile s (40 km) north of Boone County Arkansas; and the 8,000 acre Mingo National Wildlife Ref uge located in Wayne and Stoddard Counties (MING), approximately 30 miles (48 km) north of Clay County, Arkansas. The respective FLMs
are the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the U.S. Department of Interior. Figure 1.2 depicts the mandatory federal Class I areas throughout the country.

The emission reductions achieved through implementati on of this SIP and other federal, state and
local measures will result in visi bility improvements at Class I ar eas both within, and outside of,
the State of Arkansas. These measures will al so improve visibility throughout the region.

Fig. 1.2 – Mandatory Federal Class I Areas

9List of Chapter 1 Appendices 1.1 Regional Haze Regulations –Final Rule 1.2 Guide to Locating Section 308 Requirements

102. General Planning Provisions

Pursuant to the requirements of 51.308(a) and (b ), Arkansas submits this SIP submission as adopted to meet the requirements of EPA’s Re gional Haze Rules that were adopted to comply with requirements set forth in the CAA. Elemen ts of this plan address the core requirements pursuant to CFR 40 51.308(d) and the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) components of 40 CFR 51.308(e). In addi tion, this SIP addresses Regi onal Planning, State and FLMs coordination, and contains a commitment to provi de plan revisions and adequacy determinations.

Arkansas has adopted this SIP in accordance w ith State laws and rules. Arkansas has the authority to adopt the SIP in accordance with local laws and rules, see Appendix 2.1(a).

As required in Section 2.1(f) of Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51, Arkansas provided public notice of the opportunity to comment on the SIP on June 7, 2008 in a statewide newspaper, the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Included in the no tice to the public was an nouncement that a public hearing had been scheduled for on July 7, 2008. A copy of the draft Regional Haze SIP was made available at the ADEQ Headquarters, P ublic Records Center, Room 127, 5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72218.

Arkansas provided the FLMs a draft copy of the Regional Haze SIP and solicited comments comment on the draft SIP on February 22, 2008, see Appendix 2.1(b).

Arkansas held public hearings regarding the SIP on July 7, 2008. Public comments, inclusive of those made by the FLMS are addressed and ar e summarized in Appendix 2.1c. A responsive summary of all comments is provided in the final SIP document Appendix 2.1.

List of Chapter 2 Appendices 2.1 Summary of (a) legal author ity; (b) public participation process; and, (c) public comments and responses (inclusive of FLMS comments and responses).

113. Regional Planning

In 1999, EPA and affected States/Tribes agreed to create five RPOs to facilitate interagency coordination on Regional Haze SIPs. The State of Arkansas is a member of the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) RPO. Memb ers of CENRAP are in the geographical areas listed in Table 3.1. Figure 3.1 shows a map of all five regional planning organizations.

Table 3.1 CENRAP Geographical Area*

Arkansas Iowa

Kansas Louisiana

Minnesota Missouri

Nebraska Oklahoma

Texas

*Includes both state and tribal areas

Figure 3.1 - Geographical Areas of Regional Planning Organizations

12The governing body of CENRAP is the Policy Over sight Group (POG). The POG is made up of eighteen (18) voting members representing the states a nd tribes within the CENRAP region and non-voting members representing local agencies, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service

, and National Park Service. The POG facilitates communication with FLMs, stakeholders, the public, and with CENRAP staff.

Since its inception, CENRAP has established an active committee structure to address both
technical and non-technical issues related to regional haze. The work of CENRAP is accomplished through five standing workgroups: Data Analysis and Monitoring; Emission Inventory; Modeling; Communications; and Implementa tion and Control Strategies. Participation in workgroups is ope n to all interested parties. Ad hoc workgroups may be formed by the POG to address specific issues. Ultimat ely, policy decisions are made by the CENRAP

POG.

CENRAP has adopted the approach that the Regional Haze Rule requires the “States to establish goals and emission reduc tion strategies for improving vi sibility in all 156 mandatory Class I parks and wilderness areas.” The rule also encouraged states and tribes to work together in regional partnerships.

This SIP utilizes data analysis, modeling result s and other technical s upport documents prepared for CENRAP members. By coordinating with CE NRAP and other RPOs, the State of Arkansas has worked to ensure that its long-term stra tegy and BART determina tions provide sufficient reductions to mitigate visibility impacts on aff ected Class I areas. Data analyses, modeling results and other technical support documents ar e provided to CENRAP members through either the CENRAP website (cenrap.org) or through a prot ocol (ftp) that allows users to copy files between their local system and the CENRAP network.

List of Chapter 3 Appendices

There are no Appendi ces in Chapter 3.

1314 4. Arkansas and Federal Land Manager Coordination

The 40 CFR 51.308(i) require coordination between the State of Arkansas and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). FLMs are an integral pa rt of CENRAP’s POG and the membership on standing committees. FLMs have c ontributed to the development of technical and non technical work as a result of that part icipation. In addition, opportunitie s have been provided by CENRAP
for FLMs to review and comment on each of th e technical documents developed by CENRAP and included in this SIP. The Arkansas Depa rtment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has provided agency contacts to the FLMs as require d. In development of this plan, the FLMs were consulted in accordance with the prov isions of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).

ADEQ provided FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on an implementation plan or plan revision. The FLMs comments can be found in Appendix 2.1(c).

During the consultation process, the FLMs reviewed the SIP to evaluate:

• Assessment of the impairment of visibility in any Class I areas

• Recommendations on the development of reasonable progress goals

• Recommendations on the development and im plementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.

ADEQ sent the draft SIP to the FLMs on February 22, 2008. ADEQ notified the FLMs of public hearings held on July 7, 2008. ADEQ considered /incorporated the FLMs comments on the SIP draft as noted in Appendix 2.1(c).

ADEQ will continue to coordinate and consult w ith the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan revisi ons, as well as during the implem entation of programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I areas. The FLMs must be consulted in the following instances:

• Development and review of im plementation plan revisions

• Review of 5-year progress reports

• Development and implementation of other programs that may contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

Arkansas has consulted in person with FL Ms during CENRAP meetings, and commits to
continued consultation with th em during the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to vi sibility impairment in the mandatory Class I areas.

List of Chapter 4 Appendices

4.1 Updated ADEQ Contact for FLMs15 5. Assessment of Baseline and Current Conditi ons and Estimate of Natural Conditions in
Class I Areas

Th e goal of the Regional Haze Rule is to restore natural visibility conditions to the 156 Class I
areas identified in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. Sec. 51.301(q) defines natural
conditions: “Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenom ena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.” The Regional Haze
SIPs must contain measures that make “rea sonable progress” toward this goal by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause haze. For e ach Class I area, there are three metrics of visibility that are part of the de termination of reasonable progress: 1) baseline conditions 2) natural conditions 3) current conditions
Each of the three metrics includes the concentrati on data of the visibility pollutants as different terms in the light extinction algorithm, with respective extinction coefficients and relative humidity factors. Total light extinction when c onverted to deciviews (dv) is calculated for the average of the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst visibility days.

“Baseline” visibility is the starting point for the improvement of visibility conditions. It is the average of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for 2000 through 2004 and can be thought of as “current” visibility conditions for this initial period. The comparison of in itial baseline conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement n ecessary to attain natural visibility by 2064. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of visibility pollutants and then calculating total light extinction with the light extincti on algorithm. (See Figure 5.1 as an example.) Each state must estimate natural visi bility levels for Class I areas within its borders in consultation with FLMs and other states (51. 308(d)(2)). “Current conditions” are assessed every five years as part of the SIP review wher e actual progress in reduci ng visibility impairment is compared to the reductions committed to in the SIP.

Default and refined values fo r natural visibility conditions

EPA’s “Guidance for Estimating Natural Vi sibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program” (Sept 2003) provides states a “default” estimate of natura l visibility. The default
values of concentrations of visibility pollutants are based on a 1990 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program report (Trijonis, J.C. ( 1990) NAPAP State of Sc ience & Technology, vol. III). In the guidance, the United States is divided into “East” and “West” along the western boundary of the states one tier west of the Mississippi River. Th is division divi des the CENRAP states into “East” which includes Arkansas (A R), Iowa (IA), Louisiana (LA), Minnesota (MN), and Missouri (MO) with seven Class I areas, and “West” which includes Kansas (KS), Nebraska (NE), Oklahoma (OK), and Texas (TX) with thre e Class I areas. In the two equations, only sulfate and organic carbon have different values, but the calcul ated deciview difference is significant. (See Appendix 5.2 for furthe r discussion of the default equation.)16 Figure 5.1 Determination of Natural Background

In the guidance, EPA also provides that states may use a “refined approach” to estimate the values that characterize the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. The purpose of refinement would be to provide more accurate es timates with changes to the extinction algorithm that may include the following : the concentration values; factors to calculate extinction from a measured particular species and particle size; the extinction coefficien ts for certain compounds; geographical variation (by altitude) of a fixed valu e; and/or the addition of visibility pollutants.
States can choose between the defa ult and refined equations. One equation is used to calculate baseline and current conditions of visibility due to haze-causing pollutants and, with natural concentrations of the same polluta nts the same equation is used to calculate natural visibility.17 Equation 1: The old (default) algorithm



## [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

10 6.0 1 10 4 )(3 )(3

+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ××+ ××≈

Mass Coarse Soil Fine Carbon

Elemental Carbon Organic Nitrate

RH f Sulfate RH fb

ext

Equation 2: The new (refined) algorithm:
Differences from the default are in bold.



## [ ] [ ] [] [ [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] p p b N O 0

. 3 3 S p e c i f i c) i t e S( S c a t t e r i n g R a y l e i g h S a l t S e a R H) ( f 1

. 7 C a r b o n O r g a n i c a r g e L 6

. 1 C a r b o n O r g a n i c S m a l l 2

. 8 N i t r a t e a r g e L R H) ( f 5

. 1 N i t r a t e S m a l l R H) ( f 2

. 4 S u l f a t e a r g e L R H)

The choice between use of the default or the re fined equation for calculating the visibility metrics for each Class I area is made by the state in which the Class I area is located. According to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2), the state wi ll make the determin ations of baseline a nd natural visibility
conditions. It is with these cal culations and in cons ultation with other states whose emissions affect visibility in that park or wilderness area (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i v)) that the state has developed a “reasonable progre ss goal” for each Class I area. 

## ] ]) (( f 4

. 8 S u l f a t e S m a l l R H)( f 2

. 2

2 S S L S L S

×+ + ×+ × ×+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ××+ ××+ × × + ××≈

Mass Coarse SoilFine Carbon

Elemental b

ext

6.0 1 10

The refined equation was used by ADEQ to calculate visibility metrics for the purpose of developing its reasonable progr ess goal. Please refer to Appendix 5.2 for the IMPROVE Steering Committee’s report on the justificati on for the use of the “refined” IMPROVE algorithm.

The IMPROVE Steering Committ ee recommended to EPA a change to the light extinction equation. With this revision, a second set of “r efined” numbers is being added to the IMPROVE
and VIEWS websites for baseline and current conditi on values for each Class I area. States that choose the “corrected” algorithm th at incorporate recent visibility research and analysis can also adopt new natural conditions values and document the reasonableness of these changes to EPA.18 Consultation Regarding the Visibility Metrics

Consultation among states is a requirement that is repeated in the Regiona l Haze Rule. As part of a “long-term strategy” for regional haze, a stat e whose emissions are “reasonably anticipated” to contribute to impairment in other states’ Class I area(s) must consult with those states ; likewise, the state must consult with any states whose emissions affect its own Class I area(s) (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)).

A chief purpose of the RPO is to provide a means for states to confer on all aspects of the regional haze issue, including c onsultation on reasonable progress goa ls and long-term strategies based on the current (baseline) and natural visibil ity determinations. (This process is described in Chapter 3 “Regional Planning”). CENRAP has provided a forum for the member States and
Tribes to consult on the determination of baseline and natural visibility co nditions in each of the
Class I areas.

In addition, states in CENRAP have conferre d with neighboring Class I area states outside CENRAP, both individually and by way of th e states’ RPO. Description of Arkansas’s consultation process is located in Chapter 10 Section 3.

The 40 CFR 51.308(i) requires Class I area stat es’ coordination with FLMs which includes consultation on implementation, the assessment of visibility impairment, and recommendations regarding the reasonable progress goal and strategies fo r improvement. This consultation requirement is treated in Chapter 4.

Through participation in CENRAP and as a stat e, Arkansas has completed this regulatory requirement. Chapter 4 provides details of actions taken to meet this requirement.

5.1 Baseline Visibility Conditions

Caney Creek WA has an established baseline vi sibility of 11.24 deciviews for the cleanest 20 percent of the sample days and 26.36 deciviews for the 20 percent worst visibility days. This is based on sampling data collected at the IMPROV E monitoring site located on Eagle Mountain, Polk County, Arkansas. A three year average (2 002 to 2004) was calculated for each value (both best and worst) in accordance with 40 CFR 51.30 8(d)(2). The light extinction and deciview visibility values for these worst and best days are based on data and calculations included in Appendix 5.1 of this SIP. The summary data wi th the concentration values, light extinction calculations, and deciview values are presented in tables in Appendix 5.1

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (WA) has an esta blished baseline visibi lity of 11.71 deciviews for the cleanest 20 percent of the sample da ys and 26.27 deciviews for the 20 percent worst visibility days. This is based on sampling da ta collected at the IMPROVE monitoring site located in Deer, Newton County, Arkansas. A fi ve year average (2000 to 2004) was calculated19 for each value (both best and worst) in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). The light
extinction and deciview vi sibility values for these worst a nd best days are based on data and calculations included in Appendix 5.1 of this SIP. The summary data with the concentration values, light extinction calculatio ns, and deciview values are pres ented in tables in Appendix 5.1.

5.2 Natural Visibility Conditions

The state of Arkansas has w ithin her boundary two mandatory Class I federal areas (Class I area), Upper Buffalo WA and Ca ney Creek WA which are managed by the United States Forest
Service. Table 5.2 contains the natural conditions for the 20 per cent (%) best days and the 20% worst days as well as the baseline visibility c onditions for the 20% best and 20% worst days for each Class I area in Arkansas. Appendix 5.3 pr ovides calculations and methodologies for estimating natural visibility conditions.

5.1 Visibility Metrics for th e Class I Areas in Arkansas

Natural Background Conditions

Class I Area Average for the
20% Worst Days (deciview) Average for the 20% Best Days (deciview) Average for the
20% Worst Days B ext (Mm -1 ) Average for the
20% Best Days B ext (Mm -1 ) Caney Creek 11.58 4.23 21.16 4.33 Upper Buffalo 11.57 4.18 21.54 4.23 Baseline Visibility Conditions 2000 - 2004

Class I Area Average for the
20% Worst Days (deciview) Average for the 20% Best Days (deciview) Average for the
20% Worst Days B ext (Mm -1 ) Average for the
20% Best Days B ext (Mm -1 ) Caney Creek 26.36 11.24 134.1 20.61 Upper Buffalo 26.27 11.71 131.95 22.1920 List of Chapter 5 Appendices

5.1 Revised Algorithm for Estimating Light Extin ction from IMPROVE Particle Speciation

Data
5.2 Determination of Baseline Visibility Conditions

5.3 Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions21 6. Monitoring Strategy

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the fe deral regional haze rule requi res a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within the Stat e of Arkansas. The monitoring strategy relies upon participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network.

Current Monitoring Strategy

Upon the creation of CENRAP, the newly formed Monitoring Workgroup identified that there were large visibility data voids in Southern Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Southern Minnesota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Only five (5) IMPROVE sites were located in the CENRAP region. Between 2000 and 2003, five (5) more IMPROVE s ites and 15 IMPROVE Protocol Sites were installed (see Figure 6.1). In Arkansas, IM PROVE sites are located at the 14,460 acre Caney
Creek Wilderness area in the Ouachita Nationa l Forest in Polk County, and the 11,801 acre Upper Buffalo Wilderness area in the Ozark National Forest in Newton County. The Upper Buffalo Class I area includes the original wilderness and the additions to it. It does not include the Buffalo National River (see Figure 6.2). In addition to the IMPROVE monitor, the Upper
Buffalo Wilderness area site also includes a Na tional Parks Service maintained nephelometer, and a meteorological monitor. Arkansas commits to meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA visibility data for each of the Arkansas Class I areas annually.

The filter samples from the IMPROVE modules ar e sent for analysis to the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory of the University of California in Davis and the data is posted to the IMPROVE website [http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/] and the Visibility Information Exchange Websystem (VIEWS) website [http://vista.cira.col ostate.edu/views/]. This fulfills Arkansas’s reporting requirement of visibility data (electronic) under subsecti on (iv). Details regarding the monitors (location, date of installation etc. ) and monitoring data are found in Appendices 6.1,
and 6.2.22 Figure 6.1 CENRAP IMPROVE a nd IMPROVE Protocol Sites23 Figure 6.2 Class I areas in Arkansas

Future Monitoring Strategy

In order to assess progress in reducing visibility impairment in Class I areas, the existing
IMPROVE and IMPROVE Protocol sites will be maintained contingent upon continued national funding to measure, characterize and report regi onal haze visibility impairment to satisfy requirements of subsection (i). The State will evaluate the monitoring network periodically including evaluation technology changes and the need for new monitors. Where economically feasible or with national funds, the State anticipates making those changes needed to be able to assess whether reasonable progress goals are bein g achieved in each of Arkansas’s mandatory
Class I areas.

Special Monitoring Studies

As funding permits, CENRAP, in cooperation with st ates and tribes, intends to study impacts of ammonia and carbon on visibility impairment in the CENRAP region. Preliminary monitoring studies and monitoring data analysis suggests that these two air cons tituents contribute to a large portion of visibility impairment in the CENRAP geographical area.

List of Chapter 6 Appendices

6.1 Monitoring and Data Analysis to Support the Regional Haze Rule 6.2 CENRAP Regional Haze Monitoring Strategy24 7.0 Emission Inventory

The 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires a statewide emission inventor y of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause

, or contribute

, to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area. As specified in the applicable EPA gui dance, the pollutants inventoried by Arkansas include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO X) , fine particulate (PM 2.5 ), coarse particulate (PM 10 ), ammonia (NH 3 )

, carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). An inventory was developed for the baseli ne year 2002, and ADEQ will update the emission inventory according to the polic y issued by the EPA. A summar y of those inventory results follows; the 2002 emission inventor y developed by Environ Intern ational Corporation has been submitted as Appendix 7.1 A.

Table 7.1 2002 Emissions Inventory Summary

VOC NOx PM2.5 PM10 NH3 CO SO2

Point 44,329 72,419 7,837 12,406 1 56,366 92,205 Nonpoint 93,548 27,450 68,000 148,433 152,436 436,525 29,889

Nonroad
Mobile 54,785 62,472 5,220 5,673 49 272,627 5,490

On-Road
Mobile 48,599 141,894 3,021 3,784 2,480 669,214 3,902 Biogenics 1,385,666 18,960 136,688

TOTAL 1,626,927 323,195 84,078 170,296 154,967 1,571,419 131,485

Overview of the 2002 Emission Inventory

The 2002 point source inventory was comple ted in-house with Emission Inventory Questionnaires (EIQs). We contracted with Environ to prepare our on-road, nonroad, and nonpoint sources 2002 emission inventory (see en closed document in Appendix 7.1 A). We accepted the EPA’s biogenic source inventory. Th e nonpoint source inventory included emitters of ozone pollutants (i.e., VOC, NOx and CO) such devices that combust fuel (e.g., wood stoves, commercial and industrial boilers), disperse i ndustrial and commercial VOC sources (e.g., dry cleaners, degreasing and industrial surfaces coat ing), gasoline distribution, asphalt paving and fires and open burning (e.g., agricultural burning, st ructural fires wildfire s, prescribed burning).

For some source categories, the methodologies ac tually used in the Arkansas nonpoint source inventory are different than those originally pr oposed due to newly developed methodologies. Also, because some data were not available, alte rnate sources of data for some source categories
were used. The industrial fuel combustion categories in the Ar kansas nonpoint inventory were reconciled with industrial nonpoint fuel data in order to prevent pot ential double c ounting of emissions. The industrial point source fuel data were obtained from ADEQ’s Emission Inventory Questionnaire (ADEQ 2004). The 2002 EIQs were bei ng processed and could not be used; The 2001 EIQ were used instead. All EIQ fuel use data were being processed and could not be used; The 2001 EIQ were used instead. All EI Q fuel use data were directly input “as is” into a spread sheet form the EIQ forms. The onl y adjustments made were to the EIQ data were25 conversions units (i.e., natural gas to 10 6 ft 3 , distillate and residual fuel oil to 10 3 gallons, and coal to tons) and corrections of obvious incons istencies (e.g., wood combus tion reported in units
of 10 6 ft 3 for a natural gas boiler was sw itched to natural gas combusti on, etc.). Facilities with ambiguous fuel types, quantities or units were omitted from the reconciliation. The reconciliation was performed by s ubtracting state level EIQ industr ial nonpoint fuel use from the nonpoint inventory’s state level industrial combustion fuel use. Fuel use from utility facilities listed in the EIQ was not included in the EIQ fuel use totals. Distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, natural gas and coal were include d in the reconciliation; LPG use was not identified in the EIQ fuel use data. As a result of the reconciliation, state level industrial fuel use in the nonpoint inventory was adjusted (i.e., dist illate fuel oil reduced by 4.3 pe rcent, natural gas reduced by 45.0 percent and coal reduced by 16.8 percent). For resi dual fuel oil, the EIQ fuel use data exceeded the industrial fuel combustion nonpoint fuel use estim ate. Therefore, indu strial fuel combustion or residual fuel oil in the nonpoint inventory was adjusted to zero. Reconciliation for other area source categories (i.e., industrial surface coating or degreasing) was not preformed because data were unavailable on the EIQ forms.

On-road Source Inventory

The on-road mobile source emissi ons included emissions from vehi cles certified for highway use – cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Emissions fr om these sources were estimated by combining EPA emission factors from the MOBILE6 model, e xpressed in grams per mile (g/mile), with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) activity data. Fo r all of the Arkansas counties, county-level Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) VM T data were used. The data collected as part of the on-road inventory were reviewed prio r to use in emission calc ulations. All modeling inputs, data processing and calcu lation spreadsheets were checked by a technical supervisor. Annual average daily HPMS VMT data were provided by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD). These data were reported separately for urban and rural areas and within those categories, by county and HPMS facility class. The AHTD provided data for 2007 and 2010 and these were exponentially extrap olated back to 2002. To arrive at monthspecific estimates, the annual average was adju sted using seasonal factors derived based upon data provided by AHTD. Finall y, to obtain weekday VMT (for the summer and winter reporting requirements) the monthly values were correcte d using Texas statewide average weekday/annual average daily factors: there were no default factors from EPA and these were considered to be the best, given the limited data available fr om only a few states. For each county, MOBILE6
emission was used in combination with the VM T data to estimate emissions by roadway type and vehicle type and vehicle class. National average speeds derived from HMPS data for each facility class were utilized. Monthly emissions were first esti mated from which annual total, summer weekday and winter wee kday emissions were derived.



### N onroad Emission Inventory

Nonroad mobile sources encompass a wide variet y of equipment types that either move under their own power or are capable of being move d from site-to-site. Mo re specifically, these sources, which are not licensed or certified as highway vehicles, ar e defined as those that move26 or are moved within a 12-month period and are convered under the EPA’s emissions regulations
as nonroad mobile sources. Where feasible and appropriate, local activity data for specific source categories were gathered a nd used to develop the inventory.

US EPA’s draft NONROAD2002 model (June 2003 versio n) was used to estimate emissions for
most nonroad sources. The NONROAD model estimat es emissions from non-road equipment in the following categories:

▪ Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, combines and balers

▪ Airport ground support, such as terminal tractors

▪ Construction equipment, such as graders and back hoes

▪ Industrial and commercial equipment, such as fork lifts and sweepers

▪ Residential and commercial lawn and garden equipment, such as leaf and snow blowers

▪ Logging equipment, such as shredders and large chain saws

▪ Recreational equipment, such as off-road motorbikes and snowmobiles and

▪ Recreational marine vessel s, such as power boats

Aircraft, commercial marine and locomotive emi ssions were also included in the non-road inventory, but these sources were estimated sepa rately since they were not included in the NONROAD model. General EPA methodologies were followed to estimate emissions for these three categories. For all source categories, annual average emissions have been estimated in tons per year and ozone season and winter season daily emissions are estimated in tons per day. All data collected as part of nonroa d sources emission inventory were thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they were the most appropriate a nd up-to-date emission factors available.

Point Source Inventory

ADEQ is responsible for compiling the point so urce inventory. The Air Division Emission Inventories and Data Management Section is ac countable for identifying point sources meeting the threshold criteria, collecting facility emissions data, processing, managing data, compilation and displaying the results. Emissions data prov ided by the facilities are estimates of actual emissions for the facility during the previous year. Estimations methodologies are required to follow state and federal guidelines. Point Sources are large, stat ionary, emissions sources that release pollutants into the atmosphere. Accordin g to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR), States are required to report data for larger point sources, or Type A point sources, on an annual basis, starting with 2001 inventory. Type B sources refer to all point sources,27 including Type A sources. The reporting freque ncy for Type B sources has been established as once every 3 years, starting with the 2002 base year inventory.

Actual measurement with continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) is the desired
method of calculation emissions fr om a point source. In lieu of CEMS data, emissions may be calculated using other stack test data, material balance or em issions factors from AP-42 or approved engineering journals. Since the data are used for m odeling and other purposes, data elements include parameters and coordinates, co ntrol devices and efficien cies, actual emissions, emission factors, process codes and parameters . All data are processed into the i-STEPS database which automatically applies minimum qu ality assurance and quality control checks. Further, the data is processed for inaccuracies those that cannot be readily resolved are referred back to the facility for clarification/correction.

Following the submission of our 2002 Emission Inventory to the CDX, additional quality assurance, and revision of the data was co mpleted through CENRAP. E. H. Pechan & Associates (Pechan) was contracted to QC the da ta and fill in the gaps where needed. Pechan would call us with errors they detected in th e 2002 inventory and we would make corrections over the phone and sometimes via email. Pechan ’s work is included in (Appendix 7.1 B and C): The Consolidation of Emissions Inventories (April 28, 2005) and Refinement of CENRAP’s 2002

Emissions Inventories (August 31, 2005).

The majority of the nonroad mobile inventor y was developed by Sonoma Technology under a
contract with CENRAP. The methods and data used by Sonoma are de scribed in the report (Appendix 7.1 D) Emission Inventory Development for Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States (October 28, 2004).

Table 7.2 2018 Emissions Inventory Summary

VOC NOx PM2.5 PM10 NH3 CO SO2

Point 55,603 71,107 13,775 19,799 2,575 75,708 106,461 Nonpoint 107,387 31,531 69,585 148,592 201,722 448,760 31,169

Nonroad
Mobile 31,475 34,305 3,387 3,678 49 293,734 211

On-Road
Mobile 19,924 33,640 949 949 3,412 367,152 443 Biogenics 1,385,666 18,960 136,688

TOTAL 1,600,055 189,542 87,695 173,019 207,758 1,322,043 138,283

Overview of the 2018 Emission Inventory

The 2002 emissions were grown to 2018 by using gr owth and control fact ors derived from the EGAS6, MOBILE6, and NONROAD models. The In tegrated Planning Model (IPM) was used to forecast 2018 electric generating unit (EGU) em issions. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the 2018 BaseG emissions inventory. The summary data provided in Table 7.2 was compiled through a contract with E. H. Pechan.28 The 2018 point source emission inventory was pr epared by CENRAP. For the non-EGUs, the 2002 emission were projected by applying growth a nd control factors usi ng the SMOKE model. The growth and control factor s were prepared by Pechan a nd are documented in the report (Appendix 7.2 E): Development of Growth and Control Inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emissions Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005). The control fact ors for non-EGU point sources
account for Maximum Achievable Control Tec hnology (MACT) standards and the NOx SIP Call
for industrial boilers.

The Integrated Planning Model (IPM) versi on 2.1.9 model out put for 2018 was used for 2018 EGU point source emissions. The SMOKE IDA formatted version of the 2018 Integrated Planning Model (IPM) was prepared by Pechan for CENRAP. See the Pechan report, Refinement of CENRAP’s 2002 Emissions Inventories (August 31, 2005), in Appendix 7.1 C for additional information. The IPM conducted by IC F specifically address the emission reductions to be realized through implementation of CAIR assuming all states participated in the EPA’s trading program, Acid Rain Program (Title IV-P hases I and II), NOx SIP Call, State and local regulations, while incorp orating unit-level updates provided by power company stakeholders. The University of California-Riverside (UCR) ran the smoke Model for the 2018 point sources. The edited IPM file for EGUs was processed in SMOKE without adjustments. The growth and control factors for non-EGUs were applied using the SMOKE model. The technical support document in Appendix 8.1 describes UCR’s wo rk on the 2018 point source inventory.

To prepare the nonpoint inventor ies for modeling, UCR made seve ral modifications to the IDA files by removing selected sources either to model them as separa te source categories or to omit them from simulations completely. Fugitive an d road dust sources were extracted from all stationary nonpoint inventories and ad justed by transport factors following Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fracti on (TF) of Fugitive Dust Em issions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses (Pace 2005).

The 2018 nonpoint source emissions inventory was based on data provided by CENRAP states. Nonpoint source growth and contro l factors were prepared by Pech an and are documented in the following report in Appendix 7.2 E: Development of Growth and C ontrol and Control Inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emission Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005). The control factors reflect New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood combustion and Stage I vapor recovery controls, including onboard vapo r recovery. UCR ran the SMOKE model for the 2018 area source emissions. The growth and control factors for nonpoint sources were applied within SMOKE. The technical support documen t in Appendix 8.1describes UCR’s work on the 2018 nonpoint inventory. Windblow n dust from non-agricultural la nd use categories and fire
emissions were held constant from 2002 to 2018.

The 2018 nonroad mobile inventory was based on inputs from CENRAP st ates. Growth and control factors for locomotives, aircraft, and commercial marine vessels were prepared by
Pechan. The control factors accounted for federa l standards for commercial marine vessels and locomotives. For the remaining nonroad m obile categories, Pechan ran the EPA’s29 NONROAD2004 model for 2018. EPA’s NONROAD2004 model accounts for growth in equipment population and incorporat es the effects of most final federal standards, including the Tier 4 diesel engine standards and the exha ust emission standards fo r large spark-ignition engines, diesel marine, and land- based recreational engines. Pech an’s methods are described in detail in Appendix 7.2 E: Development of Growth and Control inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emissions Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005). UCR applied the growth and control factors to NONROAD categories using the SM OKE model. In addition, UCR processed NONROAD-model categories in SMOKE without adju stments. The technical support document Appendix 8.1 describes UCR’s work on the 2018 nonroad inventory.

Pechan prepared the VMT and MOBILE inputs for the 2018 on-road mobile source emissions inventory. The VMT growth f actors and MOBILE6 input files were provided in SMOKE
format. The MOBILE6 model accounts for motor ve hicle controls, including light duty diesel engine standards and low-sulfur diesel. The technical support document in Appendix 8.1
describes UCR’s onroad mobile emissions inventory processing.

UCR generated biogenic emissions by running the BEIS3 model within the SMOKE framework.BEIS3 is a system integrated into SMOKE for deriving emissions estimates of biogenic gasphase pollutants from land use information, emissi ons factors for different plant species, and hourly, gridded meteorology data. Biogenic emi ssions were held constant from 2002 to 2018. The technical support document in Appendix 8.1 describes the development of the biogenic emission inventory.

The increase in SO2 from 127,290 in 2002 to 138,284 in 2018 is attributed to growth in Electrical Generating Units (EGU) use in Arkansas . We anticipate additional coal fired plants being built between 2002 and 2018. See figures 7.1 and 7.2 for a comparison of the 2002 and 2018 inventory by source category.

The point source inventories will be updated on an annual basis and the nonpoint, on-road, nonroad mobile inventories will be updated ev ery three years according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule.30 2002/2018 Arkansas Emission Summary Comparison (Excl uding Biogenics)

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 160000020022018200220182002201820022018200220182002201820022018Tons Per Year
On-Road

Off-Road

Area

Point

VOC NOx PM 2.5 PM 10 NH3 CO SO2

Figure 7.1. 2002/2018 Arkansas Emission Summary Co mparison (Excluding Biogenics)31 2002/2018 Arkansas Emission Summary Co mparison (Including Biogenics)

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 180000020022018200220182002201820022018200220182002201820022018Tons Per Year Biogenics

On-Road

Off-Road

Area

Point

VOC NOx PM 2.5 PM 10 NH3 CO SO2

Figure 7.2. 2002/2018 Arkansas Emission Summary Comparison (Including Biogenics)

List of Chapter 7 Appendices

7.1 Statewide/Tribal 2002 Emi ssions Inventory – Parts A-D 7.2 2002 Emissions Inventory Short Summary (Chapter 8 Appendix 8.1 TSD includes all CENRAP contractor work)32 8. Modeling Assessment

The 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W provides modeli ng guidelines for conducting regional-scale modeling for particulate matter and visibility. Th e U.S. EPA recommends the use of one of the three following models to simulate pollutants impairing visibility: Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ), the Comprehensive Air qua lity Model (CAMx), and Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD). CENRAP contractors performed regional modeling using CMAQ and CAMx.

The CMAQ model is an Eulerian model that simulates the atmospheric and surface processes affecting the transport, transformation and deposi tion of air pollutants and their precursors. A Eulerian model computes the numerical solution of partial differential equations of plumes on a fixed grid ; other models may lose accuracy or need regridding as the plumes expand.

CAMx is a computer modeling system for the integrated assessment of photochemical and particulate air pollution. CAMx incorporates al l of the technical attrib utes demanded of stateof-the-art photochemical grid models, including two-way grid nesting, a subgrid-scale Plume-inGrid module to treat the early dispersion and ch emistry of point source NOx plumes, and a fast chemistry solver.

Particulate Matter (PM) M odeling: CAMx Mechanism 4 (M4) provides "1-atmosphere" modeling for fine and coarse PM and ozone. A queous phase chemistry is modeled using the RADM mechanism. Inorganic sulfate/nitrat e/ammonium chemistry is modeled with
ISORROPIA. ISORROPIA is a model that calc ulates the composition and phase state of an
ammonia-sulfate-nitrate-chloride -sodium-water inorganic aerosol in thermodynamic equilibrium with gas phase precursors. Sec ondary organic aerosols are modele d using a semi-volatile scheme called Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). Wet and dry deposition processes are included for gasses and particles. Gridde d deposition information is output along with the concentrations.

In the July 1, 1999 publication of the Regional H aze Rule in the Federal Register, EPA defined the uses of regional modeling as follows:

• Analyses and determination of the extent of emissions reductions needed from individual

states

• Analyses and determination of emissions needed to meet the progress goal for the Class I

area

• Analyses to support conclusion that the Long-Term Strategy provides for reasonable

progress

• Analyses to calculate the resulting degree of visibility improvement that would be
achieved at each Class I area

• Analyses to compare visibility improvem ent between proposed control strategies33 8.1 Model Inputs

8.1.1. Selection of Episodes
The ca lendar year 2002 was selected for th e base year for CENRAP regional haze annual modeling consistent with EP A guidance. The Technical Support Document provides additional information on the selection of 2002 as the base year for regional haze modeling and is found at Appendix 8.1.

8.1.2. Selection of Modeling Domain CENRAP conducted emissions and air qua lity modeling on the 36 km national RPO domain. This domain consists of a 148 by 112 array of 36 km by 36 km grid
cells and covers the cont inental United States, see Figure 8.1. The Technical Support Document provides additional information on the modeling domain and is found at Appendix 8.1. 8.1.3 Emission Inventories - The emissions inventory includes VOC, NO X , CO, SO 2 , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and NH 3 emissions from all anthro pogenic and biogenic sources. The emissions inventory information submitted by state, tribal, and local agencies to the 2002 NEI formed the basis of the 2002 CENRAP emissions inventory. The NEI data was supplemented with non- point source emissions inventories developed for CENRAP by Sonoma Technology. These CENRAP-specific inventories addressed agricultural and prescribed burning, onroad and offroad mobile sources, agricultural tilling and liv estock dust, and ag ricultural ammonia. In addition, Pechan assisted CENRAP by quality-assuring the emissions inventory and preparing day- and hour-specific emissions for EGUs based on Continuous Emissions Monitor (CEM) data for the model performance evaluation. Emissions inputs for the air quality model were prepared using the SMOKE emissions modeling system. The CENRAP modeling emis sions inventory consists of several
distinct datasets: the 200 2 base case for model performance evaluation, 2002 typical, 2018 base case, and the 2018 control strategy scenar io. Its spatial extent is the RPO 36 km modeling domain, which covers. The Technical Support Document (TSD) provides the methodologi es for this process and is found in Appendix 8.1. Emission inventory info rmation can be found in Chapter 7.

8.1.3. Meteorology - The Fifth-Generation NCAR / Penn State Mesoscale Model (MM5) is the latest in a series that developed from a mesoscale model used by Anthes at Penn State in the early 70's that was later documented by Anthes and Warner (1978). Since that time, it has undergone many changes designed to broaden its usage. These changes in clude: a multiple-nest capability; nonhydrostatic dynamics, which allows the m odel to be used at a few-kilometer scale; multitasking capability on shared - and distributed-memory machines; a four-dimensional data-assimilation capabi lity; and more phys ics options. The model (known as MM5) is supported by several auxiliary programs, which are referred to collectively as the MM5 modeling system. Since MM5 is a regional model, it requires an initial condition as well as a lateral boundary condition to run. To produce a lateral boundary condition for a model run, gridded data to34 cover the entire time period that the mode l is integrated is needed The TSD provides the methodologies for this process and is found at Appendix 8.1.

8.2 2002 Model Year

8.2.1 Model Year Selection

The calendar year 2002 was selected for CENRAP regional haze annual modeling as described in the CENRAP Modeling Protocol prepared at the end of 2004. EPA’s applicable guidance on

PM 2.5 /Regional Haze modeling at that time (EPA, 2001) identifies specific goals to consider when selecting modeling periods for use in dem onstrating reasonable progr ess in attaining the regional haze goals. Due to limited available re sources CENRAP was rest ricted to modeling a single Calendar Year (CY). The RHR uses th e five-year baseline of 2000-2004 period as the starting point for projecting future-year visibilit y. Thus, the modeling year should be selected from this five-year baseline period. The 2002 calendar year, which lies in the middle of the 2000-2004 Baseline, was selected for the following reasons:

3⁄4 Based on available information, 2002 appears to be a fairly typical year in terms of meteorology for the 5-year Baseline period of 2000-2004; 3⁄4 2003 and 2004 appeared to be colder and we tter than typical in the eastern US;

3⁄4 The enhanced IMPROVE and IMPROVE Protoc ol and Supersites PM monitoring data were fully operational by 2002. Much less IM PROVE monitoring data was available during 2000-2001, especially in the CENRAP region;

3⁄4 IMPROVE data for 2003 and 2004 were not yet available at the time the CENRAP modeling was initiated; and

3⁄4 2002 is being used by the other RPOs.

The CMAQ and CAMx models were operated separa tely for each of four quarters of the 2002 year using a ~15 day spin up peri od (i.e., the models were starte d approximately 15 days before the first day of interest in each quarter in or der to limit the influence of the assumed initial concentrations, e.g., start June 15 for quarter 3 w hose first day of interest is July 1). Boundary Conditions (BCs) (i.e., the assumed concentratio ns along the later edges of the 36 km modeling domain, see Figure 8.1) we re based on a 2002 simulati on by the GEOS-CHEM global circulation/chemistry model. GEOS-CHEM is a three-dimensional global chemistry model driven by assimilated meteorological observations from the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) of the NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office . It is applied by research groups
around the world to a wide range of atmospheric composition problems, including future climates and planetary atmospheres using gene ral circulation model meteorology to drive the
model. Central management and support of the model is provided by the Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group at Harvard University35 -2736 -2304 -1872 -1440 -1008 -576 -144 288 720 1152 1584 2016 2448 -2088 -1872 -1656 -1440 -1224 -1008

-792 -576 -360 -144

72 288 504 720 936 1152 1368 1584 1800

Figure 8.1. National Inter-RPO 36 km modeling domain used for the CENRAP 2002 annual SMOKE, CMAQ and CAMx modeling.

8.2.2 Emissions Input Preparation

The CENRAP SMOKE emissions modeling was ba sed on an updated 2002 emissions data for the U.S. (Pechan, 2005c,e; Reid et al., 2004a,b) , 1999 emissions data for Mexico (ERG, 2006),
and 2000 emissions data for Canada. These data were used to generate a final base 2002 Base G Typical (Typ02G) annual emissions database. Numerous iterations of the emissions modeling were conducted using interim databases before a rriving at the final Base G emission inventories (e.g., Morris et al., 2005). The 2018 Base G base case emissions (Base18G) for most source categories in the U.S. were based on projecti ons of the 2002 inventory assuming growth and control (Pechan, 2005d).

8.2.3 Meteorological Input Preparation

The 2002 36 km MM5 meteorological modeling wa s conducted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) who also performed a preliminary model performance evaluation (Johnson, 2004). CENRAP performed an addi tional MM5 evaluation of the CENRAP 2002 3636 km MM5 evaluation that included a comparativ e evaluation against the final VISTAS 2002 36
km MM5 and an interim WRAP 2002 36 km simulation (Kemball-C ook et al., 2004).

8.2.4 Photolysis Rates Model Inputs

Several chemical reactions in the atmosphere ar e initiated by the photod issociation of various trace gases. To accurately represent the comple x chemical transformations in the atmosphere, accurate estimates of these photodi ssociation rates must be made. The Models-3 CMAQ system includes the JPROC processor, which calculates a table of clear-sky photoly sis rates (or J-values) for a specific date.

8.2.5 Air Quality Input Preparation

Air quality data used with the CMAQ and CA Mx modeling systems include: (1) Initial Concentrations (ICs) that are the assumed three-dimensional concentrations through the modeling domain at the very start of the simula tion; (2) the Boundary Conditions (BCs) that are
the concentrations assu med along the lateral edges of the RPO national 36 km modeling domain; and (3) air quality observations that are used in the model performance evaluation are discussed in Section 3 and Appendix C of Appendix 8.1.

8.2.6 Model Performance Evaluation

The CMAQ and CAMx models were evaluated agai nst ambient measurements of PM species, gas-phase species and wet deposi tion. Table 8.1 summarizes the networks used in the model evaluation, the species measured and the averagin g times and frequency of the measurements.

Table 8.1. Ground-level ambient data monitoring networks and stations available in the CENRAP states for calendar year 2002 use in the model performance evaluation.

Monitoring

Network Chemical Species Measured Sampling Frequency;

Duration Approximate
Number of

Monitors
IMPROVE Speciated PM 2.5 and PM 10 1 in 3 days; 24 hr 11
CASTNET Speciated PM 2.5 , Ozone Hourly, Weekly; 1 hr, 1 Week 3

NADP WSO4, WNO3, WNH4 Weekly 23
EPA-STN Speciated PM 2.5 Varies; Varies 12 AIRS/AQS CO, NO, NO 2 , NO
x , O 3 Hourly; Hourly 25

Numerous iterations of CMAQ and CAMx 2002 base case simula tions and model performance
evaluations were conducted duri ng the course of the CENRAP modeling study, most of which have been posted on the CENRAP modeling website (http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/cen rap/cmaq.shtml) and presented in previous reports and37 presentations for CENRAP (e.g., Mo rris et al., 2005; 2006a,b). Deta ils on the final 2002 Base F 36 km CMAQ base case modeling performance evaluation are provided in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of Appendix 8.1, (because of the si milarity between 2002 Base F and 2002 Base G
and resource constraints the model evaluation was not re-conducted for Base G). In general, the model performance of the CMAQ and CAMx mode ls for sulfate (SO4) and elemental carbon (EC) was good. Model performance for nitrat e (NO3) was variable, with a summer
underestimation and winter overestimation bias . Performance for organic mass carbon (OMC) was also variable, with the inclusion of the SOAmods enhancement in CMAQ Version 4.5 greatly improving the CMAQ summer OMC model performance (Morris et al., 2006c). Model performance for Soil and coarse mass (CM) was ge nerally poor. Part of the poor performance for
Soil and CM is believed to be due to m easurement-model incommensurability. The IMPROVE measured values are due, in part, to local fugi tive dust sources that are not captured in the model’s emission inputs and the 36 km grid re solution is not conducive to modeling localized

events.

8.3 2018 Base G Model Year

8.3.1 2018 Emissions Inventory

The 2018 Base G modeling run reflects emissions growth and “on the books” controls, which are
state and federal controls th at will be implemented between the 2002 base year and the 2018 future year.2018 emissions for Electrical Generating Units (EGUs) were based on simulations of the Integrated Planning Model (I PM) that took into the account the effects of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on emissions from EGUs in CAIR states using an IPM realization of a CAIR cap-and-trade program. Thus the Emissions for on-road and non-road mobile sources were based on activity growth and emissions factors from the EPA MOBILE6 and NONROAD models, respectively. Area sources and non-EGU point sources were grown to 2018 levels.

The following sources were assumed to remain constant between the 2002 and 2018 base case
simulations:

• Biogenic VOC and NOx emissions from the BEIS3 biogenic emissions model; • Wind blown dust associated with non-agri cultural sources (i.e., natural wind blown fugitive dust);
• Off-shore emissions associated with o ff-shore marine and oil and gas production activities; • Emissions from wildfires; • Emissions from Mexico; and • Global transport (i.e., emissions due to BCs from the 2002 GEOS-CHEM global chemistry model.38 8.3.2 Model Performance Evaluation

In this section, and in section 3 of Appendix 8.1, the results of the model performance evaluation
at each of Arkansas’s Class I areas for the worst and best 20 percent days are presented. Performance on these days is cr itical since they are the days used in the 2018 visibility projections discussed in Chapte r 8.6. The 2002 and 2018 modeling results were used in a relative
sense to scale the observed PM concentra tions from the 2000-2004 Baseline and the IMPROVE monitoring network to obtain the 2018 PM pr ojections. The 2018/2002 modeled scaling factors are called Relative Response Factors (RRFs) and ar e constructed as the ra tio of modeling results
for the 2018 model simulation to the 2002 mode l simulation. Two important regional haze metrics are the average visibility for the wors t 20 percent and best 20 percent days from the 2000-2004 five-year Baseline. For the 2018 visib ility projections, EPA guidance recommends developing Class I area and PM sp ecies specific RRFs using the average modeling results for the worst 20 percent days duri ng the 2002 modeling period and the 2002 and 2018 emission scenarios. For each Class I area we compared th e predicted and observed extinction of the worst and best 20 percent days below. In Appendi x C of Appendix 8.1 the PM species specific extinction is also compared for the worst 20 percent days.

EPA guidance recommends using the model in a re lative sense to project future-year visibility conditions (EPA, 2007a). This projection is made using Relative Response Factors (RRFs) that are defined as the ratio of the future-year modeli ng results to the base-year modeling results. The RRFs are applied to the baseline visibility conditi ons to project future-year visibility. The major features of EPA’s recommended visibility projection approach are as follows :

• Monitored data are used to define cu rrent visibility Baseline Conditions using IMPROVE monitoring data from th e 2000-2004 five-year base period.

• Monitored concentrations of PM 10 are divided into six major components, the first five
of which are assumed to be PM 2.5 and the sixth is coarse mass (CM or PM 2.5-10 ).

• SO4 (sulfate) that is assumed to be ammonium sulfate [(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ];

• NO3 (particulate nitrate) that is a ssumed to be ammonium nitrate [NH 4 NO 3 ];

• OC (organic carbon) that is assumed to be total organic mass carbon (OMC)

• EC (elemental carbon);

• IP (other fine inorganic particulate or Soil); and

• CM (coarse mass).

Models are then used in a relative sense to develop RRFs between baseline and future predicted concentrations of each component. Fi nal projections were based on these RRFs, and
indicate that while the model re sults may be off in absolute te rms, the model still responds to increases or decreases in pollutants responsible for visibility impairm ent. This can lead to over or underestimation of light extinc tion for the various pollutant s while still showing model applicability. 8.3.2.1 Caney Creek Wilderness Area Modeling

The ability of the CMAQ model to estimate visibility extinction at the CACR Class I area on the 2002 worst and best 20 percent days is provide in Figure 8.2. On most of the worst 20 percent39 days at CACR total extinction is dominated by SO4 extinction with some extinction due to OMC. On four of the worst 20 percent days extinction is dominated by NO3. The average extinction across the worst 20 percent days is underestimated by -33% (Figure 8.2), which is primarily due to a -51% underestimation of SO4 extinction combined with a 6% overestimation
of NO3 extinction. Performance for OMC extincti on at CACR on the worst 20 percent days is pretty good with a -20% bias and 36% error. EC extinc tion is systematically underestimated. Soil extinction has low bias (-19%) buts lots of scat ter and high error (74%), while CM extinction is greatly underestimated (bias of -153%).

On the best 20 percent days at CACR the observed extinction ranges from 20 to 40 Mm -1 , whereas, the modeled extinction has a much larger range from 15 to 120 Mm -1 . Much of the
modeled overestimation of total extinction on the best 20% days (+44% bias) is due to NO3 overestimation (+94% bias).

Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at CACR1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

80 128 143 155 170 173 188 191 200 203 215 218 221 239 242 248 251 254 257 260 296 320 341 _ _ Avg
Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM

bSOIL

bEC

bOC

bNO3

bSO4

Best 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at CACR1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

11 14 26 89 98 116 197 266 278 284 287 293 299 302 311 323 329 335 338 353 356 359 _ _ Av
Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM

bSOIL

bEC

bOC

bNO3

bSO4

Figure 8.2. Daily extinction model performance at Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas for the worst (top) and best (bottom) 20 percent days during 2002.40 8.3.2.2 Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area Modeling

Model performance at the UPBU Class I area for th e worst and best 20 percent days is shown in Figure 8.3. On most of the worst 20 percent days at UPBU, visibi lity impairment is dominated by SO4, although there are also two high NO3 days . The model underestimates the average of
the total extinction on the worst 20 percent days at UPBU by -40% (Fig ure 8.3), which is due to
an underestimation of extinction due to SO 4, OMC and CM by -46%, -33% and - 179%, respectively.

On the best 20 percent days at UPBU, the model performs reasonably well with a low bias (2%) and error (42%). But again, the model has a much wider range in extinction values across the best 20 percent days (15 to 120 Mm -1 ) than observed (20 to 45 Mm -1 ). There are five days in which the modeled NO3 overprediction is quite severe and when those days are removed the range in the modeled and observed extinction on the best 20 percent days is quite similar to the observed, although the model gets much cleaner on the very cleanest modeled days.

Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at UPBU1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

128 143 158 170 173 179 191 197 203 206 215 218 221 224 239 242 248 251 254 257 269 296 320 332 _ Avg
Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM

bSOIL

bEC

bOC

bNO3

bSO4

Best 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at UPBU1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

14 26 47 68 89 98 116 119 164 167 176 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 311 323 335 353 _ _ Av
Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM

bSOIL

bEC

bOC

bNO3

bSO4

Figure 8.3. Daily extinction model performance at Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas for the worst (top) and best (bottom) 20 percent days during 2002.41 8.4 Information from Modeling Performed by Other RPOs

2018 visibility projections for CENRAP and nearby Class I area have also been performed by the other RPOs. Thus, it is useful to compare the CENRAP 2018 visibility projections with those from the other RPOs as a quality assurance (QA) check and to foster confidence in the CENRAP modeling results. Detailed information concerni ng other RPOs modeling is found in Appendix

8.1.

The CENRAP 2018 Base G visibility projections were compared to the following other RPO visibility projections:

• VISTAS 2018 visibility projections based on their CMAQ 12 km 2002 annual modeling results
for the 2002 Base G and 2018 Base G2a emissions scenarios.

• MRPO 2018 visibility projecti ons based on their CAMx 36 km 2002 annual modeling for the Run 4 Scenario 1a (R4S1a) emissions scenario.

• WRAP 2018 visibility results based on their Plan02b and Base18b CMAQ 36 km modeling of the 2002 calendar year.

Figure 8.4 displays a DotPlot comparison of the f our RPO visibility proj ections expressed as a percentage of achieving the 2018 URP point at CENRAP and nearby Class I areas. For the four CENRAP Class I areas just west of the Missi ssippi River in Arkansas and Missouri (CACR, UPBU, HEGL and MING), 2018 visibi lity projections are availabl e from the CENRAP, VISTAS and MRPO RPOs. At HEGL, the three RPOs 2018 vi sibility projections are in close agreement with each other (estimated to achieve 99% , 101% and 95% of the 2018 URP point). The CENRAP and VISTAS 2018 visibility projections are also very close at the other three
Arkansas-Missouri CENRAP Class I areas: CA CR (112% and 116%), UPBU (109% and 112%) and MING (118% and 114%). But the MRPO 2018 visibility projections are approximately 12 to 25 percentage points lower than the CENRAP and VISTAS projec tions at these three Class I areas, with values of 97% to 100%. The reasons why the MRPO 2018 visibi lity projections are less optimistic than CENRAP and VISTAS ar e unclear. However, the MRPO focused on visibility projections at their northern Class I areas and likely did not use the latest CENRAP emission estimates. In addition, the CENRAP 2018 visibility projections included BART
controls on several sources in CENRAP states not included in the MR PO projections. Such BART controls are even more important in those states not covered by CAIR.42 CMAQ Method 1 predictions with new IMPROVE algorithm at CENRAP+ sites Across RPOs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%BIBE1GUMO1WIMO1CACR1UPBU1HEGL1MING1BRET1VOYA2BOWA1MACA1SIPS1ISLE1SACR1WHIT1WHPE1GRSA1ROMO1WICA1BADL1THRO1LOST1Percent of target reduction achieved CENRAP 36k Base18g/Typ02g

VISTAS 12k 2018g2b/2002gt2a

WRAP 36k Base18b/Plan02b corrected

MwRPO 2018 R4S1a

CENRAP non-CENRAP Figure 8.4. DotPlot comparing the CENRAP, VI STAS, MRPO and WRAP 2018 visibility projections expressed as a percentage of achieving the 2018 URP goal.

List of Chapter 8 Appendices

8.1 Technical Support Documentation for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation.43 9. Best Available Retrofit Technology

The U.S. EPA’s 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) re quires certain emission sources “that may reasonably be anticipated to cau se or contribute” to visibility impairment in downwind Class I
areas to install Best Available Retrofit Technolo gy (BART) controls. States are required to determine the “degree of improvement in visibil ity which may reasonably result from the use of such technology.” On July 6, 2005, EPA published final amendments to its 1999 RHR in the
Federal Register , including Appendix Y, “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule” (“Guidelines”), the final guidance for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39104-39172).

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Qual ity (ADEQ) is requiri ng sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART rather than implement an emission trading

program, or other alternative meas ure, in place of BART.

9.1 BART – Eligible Sources in the State of Arkansas

The facilities with BART-eligible units in Arkansas are shown in Figure 9.1 and Table 9.1. A detailed description of each BART-eligible emission units is included in Appendix 9.1A.44 S R BART-eligible Source s Hercules-Glade Wilderness Area, M O

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR

Caney Creek Wilderness Area, AR

Mingo Wilderness Area, MO

Sipsey Wilderness Area, AL Figure 9.1 Map showing Arkansas’s BART-eligible sources and the 300 km radius buffer zones around five separate receptors ( north, south, east, west, and cente r) located in the following Class I areas: Upper Buffalo, Caney Creek, Hercules Glade, Mingo, and Sipsey. This map was developed to determine which Class I areas will be assessed during th e BART determination modeling.45Table 9.1 Facilities with BART-eligibleUnits in the State of ArkansasBART SourcesCategory Numberand NameFacility Name/LocationSICFacility IDAFINUnit IDUnit DescriptionAmerican ElectricPower/Gentry(SWEPCO)*4905-007-0010704-0017SN-01BoilerAR Electric Cooperative/Augusta*4905-147-0002474-00024SN-01Boiler 1350 mmAR Electric Cooperative/Camden*4905-103-0005552-00055SN-01BoilerEntergy-Lake Catherine/Jones Mills4905-059-0001130-00011SN-02Unit 4 BoilerEntergy-Ritchie Plant/Helena4905-107-0001754-00017SN-02Unit2Entergy-White Bluff/Redfield4905-069-0011035-00110SN-01Unit 1Entergy-White Bluff/Redfield4905-069-0011035-00110SN-02Unit 21. Fossil fuel-firedElectric Plants > 250MMbtu/hour-ElectricGenerating Units(EGUs)Entergy-White Bluff/Redfield4905-069-0011035-00110SN-05Auxiliary BoilerDomtar, Inc./Ashdown2605-081-0000241-00002SN-03#1 Power BoilerDomtar, Inc./Ashdown2605-081-0000241-00002SN-05#2 Power BoilerDelta Natural Kraft/Pine Bluff2605-069-0001735-00017SN-02Recovery BoilerEvergreen Packaging/Pine Bluff2605-069-0001635-00016SN-04# 4 Recovery BoilerGeorgia-Pacific Paper/Crossett2605-003-0001302-00013SN-229A BoilerGreen Bay Packaging/Morrilton2605-029-0000115-00001SN-05ARecover Boiler3. Kraft Pulp MillsPotlatch/McGehee2605-041-0003621-00036SN-04PowerBoiler11. PetroleumRefineriesLion Oil/El Dorado2905-139-0001670-00016SN-809#7 Catalyst Regenerator15. Sulfur RecoveryPlantAlbermarle-South Plant/Magnolia2805-027-0002814-00028SR-01Tail Gas Incinerator19. Sintering PlantsBig River Industries/West Memphis3205-035-0008218-00082SN-01Kiln AAlbermarle-South Plant/Magnolia2805-027-0002814-00028BH-01Boiler #1Albermarle-South Plant/Magnolia2805-027-0002814-00028BH-02Boiler #2FutureFuels Chemical/Batesville2805-063-0003631-000366M01-013 Coal BoilerEl Dorado Chemical/El Dorado2805-139-0004070-00040SN-08West Nitric Acid PlantEl Dorado Chemical/El Dorado2805-139-0004070-00040SN-09East Nitric Acid Plant21. ChemicalProcessing PlantsEl Dorado Chemical/El Dorado2805-139-0004070-00040SN-10Nitric Acid Concentrator* Please note: American Electric Power/Gentry (SWEPC) is permitted as Flint Creek Power Plant; AR Electric Cooperation/Augustais permitted as Arkansas Electric CooperationCarl E. Bailey Plant; and AR Electric Cooperation/Camden ispermitted as AR Electric Cooperation Corporation – John L. McClellan Generating Station46 The BART-eligible sources were identified using the methodology in the “Guidelin es”. (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y) To identify as BART-eligible emission units, ADEQ used the following
“Guidelines” criteria:

• One, or more, emission(s) units at the facili ty fit within one of the twenty-six (26) categories listed in the “Guidelines”;

• The emission unit(s) were in existence on August 7, 1977 and began operation at some point on

, or after, August 7, 1962; and

• The sum of the potential emissions from all emission unit(s) identifie d using the previous two criteria were greater than 250 tons, or more, per year of the visibility-impairing pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxide (NO

x ), and PM 10

.

The “Guidelines” recommend addressing th e visibility-impairing pollutants: SO 2 , NO

x , and Particulate Matter (PM). ADEQ ad dressed these three pollutants a nd used PM less than ten (10) micrometers ( μ m) in diameter (PM 10 ) as an indicator for PM in th e initial step of identifying BART-eligible units. Consistent with the “Guidelines”, ADEQ did not evaluate emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (NH 3 ) in BART determinations, because only specific VOCs form secondary organic aerosols that affect visibility. These compounds are a fraction of the total VOCs reported in the em issions inventory, and ADEQ does not have the breakdown of VOC emissions necessary to model t hose that only impair vi sibility. Further, the prescribed screening model (CALPUFF) cannot simulate formation of particles from anthropogenic VOCs, nor their visibility impacts. Ammonia from specific sources will not be evaluated in this process, although ammonia is included in the modeling as a background concentration. The appropriate VOCs and ammoni a emission data can, and will be, included in regional scale modeling used for the Regional Haze SIP.

BART-eligible sources were determined by a re view of ADEQ’s emissi on inventory database and a review of the permits and permit applicatio ns. A detailed description of the process is located in Appendix 9.1B. As shown in Table 9.1, this analysis indicated there were 27 facilities in Arkansas with BART-eligible units.

9.2 Determination of Sources Subject-to-BART

Under the “Guidelines”, ADEQ has the following options regarding its BART-eligible sources: a) make BART determinations for all sources or b) consider exempting some sources from BART because they do not cause or contribute to visibility impair ment in a Class I area. ADEQ has chosen option b. If a State chooses option b, the “Guidelines” suggest the following three modeling options for determining which sources may be exempt:

(1) Individual source attribution approach (dispersion modeling). (2) Use of model plants to exempt s ources with common characteristics. (3) Cumulative modeling to show that no s ources in a state are subject to BART.47 ADEQ has chosen sub-option 1 above to determine which sources are subject to BART. ADEQ performed a source-specific analysis to determine which sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment using the CALPUFF model. The CALPUFF modeling protocol used for determining which facilities are subject-to-BAR T is included in Appendix 9.2A. In accordance with the “Guidelines”, a contributio n threshold of a 0.5 change (delta Δ ) in deciview (dv) was used for determining which sources were subject to BART. The “Guidelines” provide States the
discretion to set a lower dv thre shold than 0.5 dv if “the locati on of a large number of BARTeligible sources within the State and in proximity to a Class I area justifies this approach.” The 0.5 dv threshold was selected because ADEQ fo llowed EPA’s BART Modeling Guidance (p 42) in sitting a threshold limit in determining whethe r a BART-eligible source is either subject-toBART or exempt. According to the aforementioned modeling guidance, an i ndividual source will be considered to “cause visibility impa irment” if the emissions results in a Δ dv that is greater than or equal to 1.0 dv on the visibility in a Cl ass I area. Additionally, if the emissions from a

source results in a Δ in visibility that is great er than or equal to 0.5 dv in a Class I area the source
will be considered to “contribute to visibi lity impairment” (BART Final Rule, 40 CFR 51 p 39113). Thus, ADEQ has set the threshold limit at 0.5 dv.

Please note that ADEQ used the original (d efault) IMPROVE algorithm (Equation 1) in the BART determination modeling because the CA LPUFF model was developed using Equation 1.

Equation 1 

## [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

10 6.0 1 10 4 )(3 )(3

+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ××+ × × ≈

Mass Coarse Soil Fine Carbon

Elemental Carbon Organic Nitrate

RH f Sulfate RH fb

ext

The facilities with BA RT-eligible units found to be subj ect-to-BART by ADEQ are shown in Table 9.2 and Figure 9.2. Appendix 9.2B contai ns the CALPUFF modeling input and output files for each BART-eligible sour ce. Facilities found to be subj ect-to-BART must complete a BART analysis. However, ADEQ worked closely w ith the facilities in th eir preparation of the BART engineering analyses. Additionally, it is ultimately the responsibility of ADEQ to either approve or reject the BART sources’ engineer ing analysis during the permitting process. Appendix 9.2C contains the post-control CALP UFF modeling input and output files for each subject-to-BART source.48 Table 9.2 Subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas

BART Source Category

Name Facility Name Facility ID Emission Units Subject-to-BART Pollutants Evaluated

in BART
Determination Contribution to Visibility Impairment ( Δ dv)

American
Electric

Power/SWEPCO 05-007-

00107 Boiler SN-01 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B

AR Electric Coop Bailey
Plant 05-147-

00024 Boiler 1350 mm SN01 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B

AR Electric Coop McClellan
Plant 05-103-
00055 Boiler SN-01 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B

Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant 05-059-

00011 Unit 4 Boiler SN-03 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B

Unit 1 SN-01 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B

Unit 2 SN-02 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B1. Fossil fuelfired Electric
Plants > 250
MMbtu/hour
– Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

Entergy White
Bluff Plant 05-069-
00110
Auxiliary Boiler SN05 SO 2 , NO

x , PM 10 , and

PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B

# 1 Power Boiler

SN-03 SO 2 , NO

x , and PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B 3. Kraft Pulp
Mills Domtar 05-081-

00002 # 2 Power Boiler
SN-05 SO 2 , NO

x , and PM 2.5 See Appendix
9.2B49 S R Subject to BART Sources

Hercules-Glade Wilderness Area, M O

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR

Caney Creek Wilderness Area, AR

Mingo Wilderness Area, MO

Sipsey Wilderness Area, AL Figure 9.2 Map showing Arkansas’ subject to BART sources and the 300 km buffers around Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area , Arkansas, HerculesGlade Wilderness Area, Missouri, Mingo Wilderne ss Area, Missouri, and Sipsey Wilderness Area, Alabama

Cumulative Impact of Subject-t o-BART Sources on Visibility

Additionally, in accordance to Federal Register (FR 39105) notice promulgating the “Guidelines”, ADEQ contracted with ENVIRO N International Corporation and Alpine Geophysics, LLC to perform a cumulative BART modeling analysis of the 6 subject-to-BART
facilities in Arkansas to evaluate the cumulativ e visibility impacts due to the aforementioned50 facilities at nearby Class I area s. Please refer to Appendix 9.2C for a detailed description of ENVIRON and Alpine Geophys ics’ methodology and the Class I areas studied.

Clean Air Interstate Rule and BART

The Clean Air Interstate Rule was finalized in May 2005 by EPA and applies to states in the
eastern U.S. Reconsiderations were finalized March 2006. This rule addresses air pollution transport across state borders. EPA determined which states must reduce which pollutants based on modeling which showed how the travel of pollu tion affects non-attainment in other states. CAIR requires states to reduce NO

x and/or SO 2 emissions. Of the three programs in CAIR, Arkansas is required to partic ipate in only the Ozone-Season NO

x reductions program. Although EPA’s BART Modeling Guidance allows CAIR states to participate in the CAIR cap and trade program, the state of Arkansas is not eligible for the aforem entioned trading program because Arkansas is in CAIR only for NO

x during the ozone season. Theref ore, in Arkansas CAIR is not better than BART. Thus BART-eligib le EGUs will be modeled for BART determination/exemption by ADEQ.

9.3 Determination of BART Requirem ents for Subject-to-BART Sources

BART-level emissions reductions for the subject to BART sources in Arkansas are shown in Tables 9.3a through 9.3d for each visibility impa iring pollutant. The BART requirements in the RHR are intended to reduce emissions specifically from large emission units that, due to age, were exempted from other control requirement s of the CAAA. BART emission limits for each pollutant are based on the following: the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission re duction, taking into consideration the technology available; the costs of complia nce; the energy and the non-air qua lity environmental impacts of compliance; any pollution c ontrol equipment in use or in exis tence at the source; the remaining useful life of the source; and th e degree of improvement in visibi lity which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such techno logy. However, a State is not required to make
a determination of BART for SO 2 or NO

x if a BART-eligible source has the potential to emit less than forty (40) tons per year of such pollutant(s), or less than fifteen (15) tons per year for PM 10

.

The BART analysis conducted by the facility fo r each subject-to-BART source is included in Appendix 9.3A. BART for each subject-to-BART source was determined by ADEQ using the methodology in the “Guidelines.” These BART emissi on standards will be included in the Title V operating permit for each source after this im plementation plan is approved by EPA. A copy of Regulation 19 which contains these BART limits is included in Appendix 9.3C. Additionally, response to EPA comments concerning the BART analyses performed by the subject-to-BART facilities is included in Appe ndix 9.3B. All correspondence between ADEQ, subject-to-BART sources, and EPA is located in Appendix 9.4B.

ADEQ is requiring that each subject-to-BART sour ce install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than six year s after the effective day of Arkansas Regulation51 19, Chapter 15 or five years after approval of the SIP or plan revision by EPA, whichever comes
first.Table 9.3a BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

Source and
Unit Maximum 24-Hour
Actual Emissions (lb/day) Baseline Peak 24-
hour Emissions (lb/hr) BART Level of
Control %

Removal 1 Future Peak 24-
hour Emission Rate (lb/hr) Emission
Limit 2

04-00107

276-AOP-R1
American Electric

Power/SWEPCO
SN-01 113483.81 4728.49 78.3% 1026.08 0.15 lb/MMBtu

74-00024
154-AOP-R0 AR Electric Coop Bailey Plant

SN-01 57018.10 2375.75 55% 1069.09 1034.17 lb/hr (1% S fuel oil)

52-00055

181-AOP-R1 AR Electric Coop
McClellan Plant

SN-01 65942.06 2747.59 65% 961.66 982.47 lb/hr (1% S fuel oil)

41-00002
287-AOP-R2

Domtar
SN-03 10620 442.5 0% 442.5 1.12 lb/MMBtu

41-00002
287-AOP-R2

Domtar
SN-05 18916.8 788.2 0% (using existing scrubber) 788.2 1.20 lb/MMBtu

30-30-00011
1717-AOP-R1 Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant

SN-03 oil 126647.84 5276.99 46% 2860.4 0.562 lb/MMBtu (0.5% S fuel oil)

35-00110
263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-01 186319.32 7763.3 82% 1400.8 0.15 lb/MMBtu(Bituminous & subbituminous coal)

35-00110

263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-02 187799.35 7825.0 80% 1533.2 0.15 lb/MMBtu(Bituminous & subbituminous coal)

35-00110
263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-05 N o emission standards have been estab lished for this source. Rather the state has established work practice standards for this source pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iii).

1. Only listed if facility is adding co ntrols or taking limits that will reduce emission per BART requirements. Facilities which are not adding controls or using controls which are already installed have a 0% BART control efficiency. 2. 30-day rolling average

52Table 9.3b BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Oxides of Nitrogen (NO

x )

Source and
Unit Maximum 24-Hour
Actual Emissions (lb/day) Baseline Peak 24-
hour Emissions (lb/hr) BART Level of
Control %

Removal 1 Future Peak 24-
hour Emission Rate (lb/hr) Emission
Limit 2

04-00107

276-AOP-R1
American Electric

Power/SWEPCO
SN-01 46680.0 1945 16.8% 1618.24 0.23 lb/MMBtu

41-00002
287-AOP-R2

Domtar
SN-03 4309.0 179.54 0% 179.54 0.46 lb/MMBtu

41-00002
287-AOP-R2

Domtar
SN-05 12643.2 526.8 30% 368.76 0.450 lb/MMBtu

30-00011
1717-AOP-R1 Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant

SN-03 gas 58960.0 2456.67 69.6% 746.82 0.15 lb/MMBtu

30-00011

1717-AOP-R1 Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant

SN-03 oil 60273.0 2511.38 47.6% 1315.96 0.25 lb/MMBtu

35-00110
263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-01 104920.0 4371.7 69% 1355.23 0.28 lb/MMBtu (bituminous coal)

35-00110
263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-01 104920.0 4371.7 69% 1355.22 0.15 lb/MMBtu (sub-bituminous coal)

35-00110

263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-02 113540.0 4730.8 69% 1466.56 0.28 lb/MMBtu (bituminous coal)

35-00110
263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant

SN-02 113540.0 4730.8 69% 1466.56 0.15 lb/MMBtu (sub-bituminous coal)

35-00110

263-AOP-R1 Entergy White
Bluff Plant
SN-05 N o emission standards have been estab lished for this source. Rather the state has established work practice standards for this source pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iii).

1. Only listed if facility is adding co ntrols or taking limits that will reduce emission per BART requirements. Facilities which are not adding controls or using controls which are already installed have a 0% BART control efficiency. 2. 30-day rolling average

53Table 9.3c BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Particulate Matter 10 micrometers (PM 10 )

Source and
Unit Maximum 24-Hour
Actual Emissions (lb/day) Baseline Peak 24-
hour Emissions (lb/hr) BART Level of
Control %

Removal 1 Future Peak 24-
hour Emission Rate (lb/hr) Emission
Limit 2

41-00002

287-AOP-R2

Domtar
SN-03 4068.0 169.5 (filterable) 76% 40.6 0.07 lb/MMBtu

41-00002
287-AOP-R2

Domtar
SN-05 1958.4 81.6 (filterable) 29.7% (using existing scrubber) 57.4 0.10 lb/MMBtu

1. Only listed if facility is adding co ntrols or taking limits that will reduce emission per BART requirements. Facilities which are not adding controls or using controls which are already installed have a 0% BART control efficiency. 2. 30-day rolling average

Table 9.3d BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Particulate Matter 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 )

Source and
Unit Maximum 24-Hour
Actual Emissions (lb/day) Baseline Peak 24-
hour Emissions (lb/hr) BART Level of
Control %

Removal 1 Future Peak 24-
hour Emission Rate (lb/hr) Emission
Limit 2

30-00011
1717-AOP-R1 Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant

SN-03 oil 6810.0 283.75 69.4% 86.83 0.037lb/MMBtu (filterable & condensable) 0.5% S
fuel oil

1. Only listed if facility is adding co ntrols or taking limits that will reduce emission per BART requirements. Facilities which are not adding controls or using controls which are already installed have a 0% BART control efficiency. 2. 30-day rolling average

5455 9.4 Results and Conclusions

To determine if there was a statistical significant improvement to visibility from the post-control emissions of Arkansas’ subject-to-BART sour ces, a student t (TTEST function in Excel) was performed. Tables 9.4a through 9.4g c ontain the maximum change (delta Δ ) in deciview (dv) from the pre-control emissions, the maximum Δ dv from the post-control emissions, the percent decrease, the P value, and the number of days the Δ dv from the pre-control emissions were greater than or equal to (> ) a Δ dv of 0.5.

Table 9.4a American Electric Power results comp aring the pre-control emissions and the postcontrol emissions to Caney Creek Wilderness Ar ea (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas and Hercules-Gla de Wilderness Area (HEGL), Missouri

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >
0.5

CACR 3.970 1.573 60.38 Yes 106

UPBU 3.781 2.089 44.75 Yes 139

HEGL 3.983 1.541 61.31 Yes 117

Table 9.4b Arkansas Electric Coop – Carl E. Baile y results comparing the pre-control emissions and the post-control emissions to Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas and Hercules -Glade Wilderness Area (HEGL) and Mingo Wilderness Area (MING), Missouri

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >
0.5

CACR 1.841 0.897 51.28 Yes 28

UPBU 1.232 0.574 53.41 Yes 23

HEGL 1.594 0.809 49.25 Yes 30

MING 1.660 0.766 53.86 Yes 45

Table 9.4c Arkansas Electric Coop – McClellan results comparing the pre-control emissions and the post-control emissions to Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >
0.5

CACR 2.197 1.011 53.98 Yes 58

UPBU 1.196 0.487 59.28 Yes 2356 Table 9.4d Domtar results comparin g the pre-control emissions and the post-control emissions to Caney Creek Wilderness Area (C ACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilder ness Area (UPBU), Arkansas

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >
0.5

CACR 2.262 2.038 9.90 Yes 149

UPBU 1.181 1.029 12.87 No 18

Table 9.4e Entergy – Lake Catherine results comp aring the pre-control emissions from natural gas and the post-control emissions from natura l gas to Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arka nsas and Hercules-Glade Wilderness Area (HEGL), Missouri

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >
0.5

CACR 3.209 1.111 63.48 Yes 87

UPBU 2.186 0.753 66.55 Yes 54

HEGL 1.663 0.558 66.45 Yes 23

Table 9.4f Entergy – Lake Catherine results comp aring the pre-control emissions from fuel oil and the post-control emissions from fuel oil to Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas an d Hercules-Glade Wilderness Area (HEGL),
Missouri

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >

0.5

CACR 6.607 3.671 36.49 Yes 201

UPBU 2.953 1.636 44.60 Yes 188

HEGL 4.129 2.397 41.95 Yes 134

Table 9.4g Entergy – White Bluff results compar ing the pre-control emissions and the postcontrol emissions from to Caney Creek Wilder ness Area (CACR) and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas and Hercules-Gla de Wilderness Area (HEGL), Missouri

Class I area Pre-control

Maximum Δ
dv Post-control

Δ dv Percent Change Is P < 0.05 Number of Days

Pre-control Δ dv >

0.5

CACR 8.677 2.665 69.29 Yes 245

UPBU 7.948 2.167 72.74 Yes 242

HEGL 6.631 2.030 97.97 Yes 234

The results from the ENVIRON cumulative modeling using Comprehensive Air-quality Model with extensions (CAMx) PM Source Apportionmen t Technology (PSAT) is estimated to result in substantial improvements in visibility to all 10 Cl ass I areas studied, with the largest visibility improvement of 5 Δ dv at Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri. (Please refer to Appendix 9.2C for ENVIRON and Alpine Geophys ics’ final report.) The highest cumulative visibility impacts due57 to all PM species in the pre-cont rol base case range d from 4 to 11 Δ dv across the Class I areas, whereas the highest visibility impacts in the post-control case ranged from 1 to 7 Δ dv. Despite these apparent visibility improvements, the cu mulative visibility impacts due to all Arkansas BART sources in the post-control case still exceed 1 Δ dv at most Class I areas of interest.

During the modeling process, ADEQ was informed that the emissions provided for the Domtar Arkansas subject-to-BART source were understated. To address this issue, a sensitivity analysis was performed by ENVIRON using the corrected Do mtar emissions for both the pre- and postcontrol scenarios was conducted. The analysis suggested that the revised (higher) Domtar emissions worsen the visibility improvement in the post-control case, specifically by 2 Δ dv at Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas.

In summary, there is an improveme nt in visibility from the post-co ntrol emissions of the State of Arkansas’s subject-to-BART s ources at all Class I areas assessed by ADEQ. Appendix 9.4A contains charts comparing the pre- and post-co ntrol emissions of Arkansas’ subject-to-BART
sources. These charts also indicate there is a considerable improvement to visibility from the post-control emissions of Arkans as’s subject-to-BART sources.

List of Chapter 9 Appendices

9.1A Detailed Description of BART-eligible Emission Units 9.1B Method of Identifying BART-Eligible Sources in the State of Arkansas 9.2A Modeling Protocol Used to De termine Subject-to-BART Sources 9.2B BART-exemption CALPUFF Modeling Input and Output Files 9.2C Subject-to-BART CALPUFF Post-cont rol Modeling Input and Output Files 9.2D ENVIRON Final Report 9.3A BART Analyses for the Subject-to-BART Sources 9.3B Response to EPA Comments on BART Engineering Analyses 9.3C Copy of Regulation 19 9.3D Regulation 19 Supporting Documents 9.4A Charts Comparing Arkansas’s subjec t-to-BART Sources’ Pre- and Post-control 9.4B Correspondence58 10. Reasonable Progress Goals

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.308( d)(1) require the State of Arkansas to establish Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for achieving natural visibility for each Class I area within the state. The State is required to develop RP Gs that provide for visibility improvement for the most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility fo r the least impaired da ys throughout the year. These goals are expressed in units of deciviews (dv). A decivi ew is a measurement of haze, implemented in a Haze Index (HI), derived from calculated light extinction. The RPGs are established in the State Implementation Plan (S IP) and are used to track progress towards the ultimate goal of achieving natural visibility conditions by 2064.

In September 2003, EPA released a technical gui dance document describing the techniques used
to determine baseline and na tural visibility conditions 1

. The EPA has also released guidance describing various procedures that might be used to establish RPGs 2 . The goals must provide improvement in visibility for the most impaired days, and ensure no degrad ation in visibility for the least impaired days for the duration of the SIP. The State must also provide an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural visibility c onditions if improvement continues at the rate represented by the RPG. The above-referenced EPA guidance describes the meaning of the term Reasonable Progress Goal:

States must establish RPGs, measured in deciviews (dv) for each Class I area for the purpose of improving visibility on the haziest days and ensuring no degradation in visibility on the cl earest days over the period of each implementation plan. RPGs are interim goals that represent incremental visibility improvement over time toward the goal of natural background conditions and are developed in consultation with other aff ected States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs).

In determining what would constitute reason able progress, Section 169A(g) of the CAA requires States to consid er the following four factors:

• The costs of compliance,

• The time necessary for compliance,

• The energy and non-air quality enviro nmental impacts of compliance, and

• The remaining useful life of existing sources that contribute to visibility impairment.

States must demonstrate in their SIPs how th ese factors are taken in to consideration in selecting the RPG for each Class I area in the State.

1 Guidance for Tracking Progress Unde r the Regional Haze Rule, EPA – 09/03. 2 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA – 06/01/0759 The “Uniform Rate of Progress” (URP) describe d in the EPA guidance, described as “uniform rate of improvement” in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), is graphed on a timeline as a line between the “baseline conditions” represen ting visibility for the best a nd worst days at the time the regional haze program is established and natura l background levels in 2064. Table 10.1 provides
the URP for Class I Areas in the State of Arka nsas. Figures 10.1 and 10.2 depict the URP for each Class I area in Arkansas as a “glide path.”

Table 10.1 - Uniform Rate of Progress for Arkansas Class I Areas

Class I Area Deciview Improvement Needed by 2018 assuming URP (dv) Progress Annually to 2018 assuming

URP (dv/yr) Deciview Improvement Needed by 2064 (dv)

Caney Creek 3.45 - 0.25 14.78 Upper Buffalo 3.43 - 0.25 14.7060 Fig.10.1 Year 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 Haze Index (deciviews) Uniform Rate of Progress = 14.78 dv X 14 yr 60 yr = 3.45 dv Over First Planning Period

Natural
Conditions for

the 20% Worst Days Baseline

First Planning

Period

2064 Uniform Rate of Progress for the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas61 Uniform Rate of Progress for the U pper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas

30

Fig. 10.2 0 5 10 15 20 25

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064

Year Baseline

Haze Index (deciview)

Natural
Conditions

for the 20% Worst Days Uniform Rate of Progress = 14.70 dv X 14 yr 60 yr = 3.43 dv Over First Planning Period First Planning

Period62 10.2 Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

The State of Arkansas has determined that the rates of visibility improvement by 2018 that are expressed in Table 10.2 are reasona ble and hereby adopts them as the Reasonable Progress Goals for the listed Class I areas. An analysis showi ng that these goals are reasonable is provided in Appendix 10.1, - Analysis of Control Strategies and Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals. Figures 10.3 - 10.6 show comparisons of URP, RFP and anticipated improvement in visibility on best days for each Class I Area. The establishe d RPGs show that Caney Creek Wilderness Area can attain the goal of b ackground conditions by CY 2062 and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area can achieve backgroun d conditions by CY 2063. These RPGs exceed
the URPs established for these areas and woul d result in a return to natural background conditions prior to CY 2064.

Table 10.2 - Reasonable Progress G oals for Arkansas Class I Areas

Class I

Area Deciview Improvement Projected by
CY 2018 using RPG (dv) Deciview Improvement by
CY 2018 at URP (dv) Projected
Annual Rate
of Improvement

2008-2018

(dv/yr) Projected Deciview Improvement by
CY 2064 (dv)

Caney
Creek 3.88 3.45
- 0.32 15.38

Upper
Buffalo 3.75 3.43
- 0.28 15.0263 Uniform Rate of Pro g ress and Reasonable Pro g ress Goal for the Twent y Percent (20%) Worst Days at Caney C reek Wilderness Area, Arkansas

30

Fig. 10.3

0 5 10 15 20 25

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

Year Haze Index (Deciviews) Baseline

Natural

Conditions Uniform Rate of Progress = 14.78 dv X 14 yr 60 yr = 3.45 dv Over First Planning Period

22.86

22.4 First Planning

Period64 Uniform Rate of Pro g ress and Demonstration of "No De g radation" for the Twent y Percent (20%) Best Days at Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaze Index (Deciviews) 10.35 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24

First Planning

Period Baseline

Fig. 10.465 Uniform Rate of Progress and Reasonable Progress Goal for the Twenty Percent (20%) Worst Days for Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

Year Uniform Rate of Progress = 14.70 dv X 14 yr 60 yr = 3.43 dv Over First Planning Period

First Planning

Perio d Baseline

Natural

Conditions Haze Index
(Deciviews) 22.84

22.52

Fig. 10.566 Uniform Rate of Progress and Demonstration of "No Degradation" for the Twenty Percent (20%) Best Days at Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaze Index (Deciviews) 11.71 11.71 11.71 11.71 11.71 11.71 11.71

10.80 Baseline

First Planning

Period

Fig. 10.667 10.3 Consultation

In determining a reasonable progress rate for each Class I area, the State of Arkansas has
consulted with the other states and Tribes which are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in each of these Class I areas. A description of the consultations that were hosted by Arkansas and Missouri is provi ded in Appendix 10.2., Interagency Consultation Process in Establishing Reasonable Progress Goals.

On February 26, 2007, an invitation letter was sent to 12 States and tribes in the region. The invitation included a consultation plan that deta iled the procedures and timelines for identifying possible contributors to regi onal haze in Arkansas and Missouri Class I Areas. These consultations were accomplished through a series of conference calls and letters. Calls were held on April 3, May 11 and June 7, 2007. Participants included States and tribes, EPA personnel, FLMs and other Regional Planni ng Organizations. A summary of these conference calls can be found on the CENRAP website. Corresponden ce between Arkansas, FLMs, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas is incl uded in Appendix 10.3 – Arkansas Consultation

Letters.

10.4 Reporting

Progress will be reported to the EPA every fi ve years in accordance with the requirements of 51.308 (g).

List of Chapter 10 Appendices

10.1 Analysis of Control Strategies and Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals 10.2 Interagency Consultation Process in Establishing Reas onable Progress Goals
10.3 Arkansas Consultation Letters68 11. Long-term Strategy to Reach Reasonable Progress Goals

11.1 Federal Requirements

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) requires the Stat e of Arkansas to submit a long -term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each manda tory Class I federal area within and outside the State which may be affected by emissions fr om within the State. The long-term strategy must include any enforceable emissions limitatio ns, compliance schedules and other measures considered necessary to achieve the RPGs described in Chapter 10. This chapter describes the long-term strategy of the State of Arkansas.

11.2 Consultation

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires Arkans as to consult with other st ates and tribes to develop coordinated emission strategies. This requirement applies both where emissions from the State are reasonably anticipated to contri bute to visibility impairment in Class I areas outside the State
and when emissions from other states or tribes are reasonably anticipat ed to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas within the State.

The State of Arkansas has consulted with other st ates and tribes by its on-going participation in CENRAP. The monitoring analysis, emission inventory, modeling assessments and control strategy assessments that have been conducted by CENRAP on behalf of its member states and tribes have all been done through a collaborative process that is i nherently consultative in nature. In addition, the State of Arkans as has participated in discus sions focused on Class I areas through-out the CENRAP region and in neighboring states which invo lved the states and tribes listed in Appendix 10.2 – Inte rstate Consultations. Strategy development considered the impacts of the State’s emissions on Cla ss I areas within and outside the State.

The manner in which the State of Arkansas ha s coordinated with FLMs on long-term strategy development is described in Chapter 4.

Arkansas will continue to consult with states, tribes, FLMs, EPA and other stakeholders to the extent necessary to assure that RPGs are achie ved. Progress reports and plan updates will be communicated to stakeholders as they become av ailable. On-going consu ltations will be in the form of written communications, conference calls and meetings on an as-needed basis.

In addition to the consultations held jointly by Ar kansas and Missouri, Arkansas participated in consultations hosted by Oklahoma. No other states or Tribes have indicated that Arkansas was potentially contributing to visibility impairment in their Class 1 areas.69 11.3 Share of Emission Reductions

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires the State of Arka nsas to demonstrate that its implementation plan includes all measures necessary to obtain it s fair share of emission reductions needed to
meet RPGs in other Class 1 areas.

Arkansas and Missouri relied on technical analys es developed by CENRAP, additional weight of evidence analyses prepared by Missouri as part of the Central Class 1 Areas Consultation Plan and in-house screening of BART-e ligible sources to determine which states might reasonably
cause or contribute to haze in its Class 1 areas. In addition to its own sources, states with emissions that were determined to have potenti al impacts on Arkansas’s Class 1 areas included Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Texas. These states and tribal representa tives from these states were in cluded in the consultation process
described in the Consultation Plan. CENRAP-model ed visibility projectio ns indicate that the emission reductions planned for these states are sufficient to achieve the RPGs for all Class 1
areas located in Arkansas and Missouri.

CENRAP and ADEQ analyses i ndicate that the impact of anthropogenic emissions from Arkansas sources have not been shown to appreciabl y affect visibility in Class 1 areas other than
the four located in Arkansas and Missouri. Visi bility projections for each of these areas show that they will all be able to demonstrate a better than uniform rate of progress through the implementation of existing and forthcoming Stat e and federal emission reduction programs. The
emission reductions described elsewhere herein are sufficient to constitute a fair share of
emission reductions needed to meet RPGs in affected Class I areas.

The demonstration of attainment of RPGs relies on the analysis of monitored and modeled data in a weight of evidence analysis to determine whether visibility is improved on days when it is usually poor and does not deteriorate on days wh en it is usually good. Current visibility is estimated from monitored components of PM2.5 and co arse mass. Models are used in a relative
sense to estimate how current concentrations respond to emi ssion reduction measures. Data analysis is used to identify source categories a nd regions. Current concen trations of particulate matter components are adjusted by the relative modeled response to estimate concentrations at the end the first implementation period in 2018. Fu ture visibility is estimated from estimated component concentrations of PM2.5 and coarse particulate matter at the end of the first implementation period. The difference between presen t visibility and future estimated visibility is compared with the reasonable progress goal to determine if the goal is met.

The CENRAP technical report on current vi sibility conditions is found in Appendix 5.1,
Determination of Baseline Visi bility Conditions. CENRAP t echnical reports on current and projected inventories and regional modeling are found in Chapte rs 7 and 8 respectively. All applicable measures reflected in the modeling demonstration and weight-of-evidence analyses have been incorporated in the State’s long-term strategy.70 11.4 Long-term Strategy Elements

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires the State of Arkansas to consider several factors in developing its long-term strategy. Th ese are discussed below.

11.4.1 Emission Reductions due to On -going Air Pollution Programs.

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) requires the State of Ar kansas to consider em ission reductions from ongoing pollution control programs in the deve lopment of its long-term strategy.

The State of Arkansas considered the followi ng ongoing programs in de veloping its long-term
strategy:

11.4.1.1 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

40 CFR 96 Subparts AAAA-HHHH (with the ex ception of Subpart EEEE) for the CAIR NO

x Ozone Season Trading Program, as finalized by the U.S. EPA on May 12, 2005, and further revised by EPA on April 28, 2006, with correc ting amendments on December 13, 2006, were incorporated by reference as Chapter 14 of Ar kansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation No. 19 – Regulations of the Arkans as Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control on September 28, 2007.

By 2015, the State ozone season trading budget for annual NO

x allocations will be capped at 9,596 tons. This represents a reduction of 1,919 tons NO

x per period from 2009’s budget of 11,515 tons NO

x per period.

11.4.1.2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART Rule)

Chapter 15 of Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation No. 19 – Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implemen tation for Air Pollution Control identifies BART eligible sources, subject to BART sources, numeric emissions limits for NO

x , SO 2 and particulate matter and other requirements applicable to BART sources. These controls are required to be in place by no later than CY 2013.

11.4.1.3 Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards

Federal Tier 2 Vehicle Emission standards for passenge r cars and light trucks have been in effect since 2004 and were fully implemented in 2007. Sim ilar rules for heavy trucks are scheduled to be fully implemented by 2009. These rules will resu lt in reductions of em issions of particulate matter, ozone precursor pollutants and non-meth ane organic compounds. Reductions in these71 pollutants will contribute to improvements in vi sibility in Class I areas and throughout the
country.

11.4.1.4 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, Clean Ai r Highway and Nonroad Diesel Rules

These federal rules will result in significant re ductions in visibility-related pollutants emitted from diesel engines. The low sulfur content mandated by the Ultra Low Su lfur Diesel Rule will result in being able to bette r control particulate emissions from diesel engines by allowing
installation of control de vices that were technically infeas ible for fuels with higher sulfur

content.

11.4.1.5 Measures to mitigate the impact s of construction activities.

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires the State of Arka nsas to consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.

In Arkansas, ADEQ is responsible for all air pollution control programs. Due to certain limitations on regulatory authorities that are included in the Arkansas Water and Air Quality Control Act, the opportunities to mitigate air em issions from construction activities are limited 3

. ADEQ does anticipate that current and future fede ral programs will result in some mitigation and has undertaken efforts to provide incentives for voluntary measures that can result in emission
reductions.

The federal General Conformity program require s assessments of the potential impacts of any construction activity-related emissions of criteria ai r pollutants from federal projects in areas that have been designated as not attaining the Na tional Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for that pollutant. These criteria pollutants in clude, among others, PM 2.5 and ozone (some ozone precursor compounds contribute to visibility cond itions). At the current time, there is only one county in Arkansas in non-attainment for the ozone standard and no counties in non-attainment for other criteria pollutants.

ADEQ has undertaken several initia tives to obtain reductions from on-road and off-road engines, including construction equipment th roughout the State. Grant funds have been directed to fleet managers and equipment suppliers as a means of subsidizing diesel retr ofits and the biodiesel market. ADEQ participates in a regional “Blu e Skyways” group that works collaboratively on

3 Section 8-4-305 of The Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Ac t states that “The provisions of this subchapter do not apply to: ---; (4) La nd clearing operations or land grading; (5) Road construction operations and the use of mobile and portable equipment and machinery incident thereto; ---.” It would require legislative act ion for these exceptions to be removed from the Act and to give ADEQ explicit regulatory authority over these activities.72 the introduction of innovative, regional-scale, tr ansportation-related programs and projects. These efforts are on-going.

11.4.1.6 Source retirement and replacement schedules

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires the State of Ar kansas to consider source retirement and replacement schedules in developing reasonabl e progress goals. Retirement and replacement will be managed in conformance with existing SIP requirements pertaining to PSD and New Source Review. Source retirement and repla cement will be tracked through on-going point
source inventories.

Emission limitations and schedules of compliance

.

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires the State of Ar kansas to identify additional measures to meet RPGs when on-going programs alone are not sufficient to meet the RPGs. The State of Arkansas has determined that on-going State and federal air pollution control programs are sufficient to meet RPGs through 2018. Emissi ons reductions at non-BA RT facilities or new control programs for other anthropogenic source categories will not be required at this time.

11.4.1.7 Agricultural and Fores try Smoke Management

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires Arkansas to consider smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and fore stry management. In 2007, the Arkansas Forestry Commission, approved revisions to the Arka nsas Smoke Management Plan (SMP). The Arkansas Smoke Management Plan is designed to assure that prescribed fires are planned and executed in a manner designed to minimize impacts associated with the smoke produced by prescribed fires.

Arkansas has adopted a basic Smoke Management Program (SMP), in which owners/managers voluntarily notify state officials of fire plans. Documentation of this program is in Appendix

11.1.

Arkansas’s SMP recommends a wri tten fire plan that includes m easures that can be taken to reduce residual smoke from burning activities. Arkansas’s SMP recommends these actions to reduce smoke impacts where applicable:

• Reduce the fuel loading in the area to be burned by mechanical means or by using frequent, low-intensity burns to gradually reduce fuels.

• Reduce the amount of fuel consumed by th e fire by burning when fuel moistures for larger fuels and duff moistures are high.73 • Rapid and complete mop-up after the burn or mop-up of certain fuels.

• Reference “Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed Fire and Wildland Fire” by National Wildfire Coordinating Group Fire Use Working Team, publication
NFES 1279.

In addition, the Arkansas SMP has a process to evaluate potential smoke impacts at sensitive receptors and schedule fires to minimize exposur e of sensitive populations and avoid visibility impacts in Class I areas. Arkansas’s SMP details procedures for the identification of smokesensitive targets and minimization of their e xposure to smoke. Methodologies to reduce smoke exposure include smoke emissions estimates us ing determination of available fuels and identification of the category day base d on local weather conditions forecast.

Arkansas’s SMP details the AFC Di spatch Center’s role in locating each prescribed fire in the center of an airshed. This system estimates the range in tons of fu el that can be allocated to an airshed based upon downwind distance to the neares t smoke sensitive target and monitors the total fuel loading tonnage burned within each ai r shed, each day, in order to ensure compliance with permissible limits. If the AFC Dispatch center determines that the fuel tonnage for a single prescribed fire causes the air pollution tonnage for a given airshed to exceed these limits, the AFC Dispatch Center will recommend to the pres cribed fire manager that the plan should be altered by measures such as delaying the burn and reducing the acr eage to be burned.

Arkansas has a public notification process and exposure reduction process in place to reduce the impacts of burning. The AFC, in cooperation with the Arkansas Prescribed Fire Committee, will explain the use and importance of fire for ecosyst em management, the implications of smoke to public health and safety, and the goals of the SMP. This public awareness effort will use posters, pamphlets, news releases, and public presentations. Prescribed fire managers are encouraged to train on-the-ground personnel to understand the SM P. AFC will cooperate with organizations and government agencies such as Arkansas Lu ng Association or ADEQ to make the public aware of planned prescribed fires.

Arkansas’s SMP states monitoring of the smoke from the prescribed fire should match the size of the fire. For small or short duration fires (such as those in grass or leaf litter), visual monitoring of the directions of the smoke plume and monitoring nuisance complaints by the public may be sufficient. Other monitoring techniques include posting personnel on vulnerable roadways to look for visibility impairment and to initiate sa fety measures for motorists; posting personnel at
other smoke sensitive areas to look for smoke intr usions; using aircraft to track the progress of smoke plumes; and continued tracking of me teorological conditions during the fire. For prescribed fires in fuels with longer duration burning (such as tim ber litter or slash), and which are expected to last more than one day, locating real-time particulate matt er (PM) monitors at smoke- sensitive areas may be warranted to f acilitate timely response to smoke problems.74 The AFC has established a policy to issue health advisories when necessary. State and federal prescribed fire managers routinely notify la ndowners adjacent to prescribed burns of the potential for exposure to smoke. AFC Dispatch is currently deve loping a daily listing of planned prescribed fires on the AFC website (www.forest ry.state.ar.us). The planned prescribed burn listing will have the county, nearest communit y, legal description, pla nned ignition time and acres of the prescribed burn.

Arkansas’s SMP has provisions fo r an annual review by the Arkans as Forestry Commission that will include the following activities:

• Collect and review information on acres burned by prescribed fire and wildfire

• Review the reference, continuous, an d IMPROVE monitoring station data maintained by ADEQ

• Use information from reports of nuisa nce complaints or significant smoke
intrusions to measure the effectiveness of the SMP

• Provide recommendations to ADEQ and Ar kansas Prescribed Fire Committee concerning the SMP

Pursuant to the EPA’s Interim guidance cited abov e, Arkansas has adopted a program that should help prevent NAAQS violations and addresses visibility impa irment due to fires. This program established the documentation of basic paramete rs: contact information of person in charge, purpose of prescribed burn, fuel type and tonnage , ignition time and durat ion of fire, wind speed, direction, location, and distance to sensitive receptors. Prescribed fire managers are required under Arkansas law to notify the AFC Dispatch Ce nter on the morning of the prescribed fire by calling 1-800-830-8015. See Arkans as Code Annotated §20-22-302.

11.4.1.8 Additional Control Measures

The CENRAP modeling shows that Arkansas’s Cl ass 1 areas can achieve the 2018 RPGs without additional control measures beyond those describe d above. In the situation where anticipated emission reductions produce a 2018 outcome that meets the goal of natural background conditions, it is not imme diately necessary to evaluate the ne ed for additional control measures. A four-factor analysis was included as part of the engineering analysis for all BART eligible
sources in Arkansas. Since Arkansas has demons trated that it can meet or exceed established URPs, it is not necessary to evaluate the emission reductions potential of point sources other than those BART-eligible sources that are specifically regulated in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.75 The Regional Haze Rule requires states to review progress in reaching their established RPGs every five years. If, in the fu ture, it is demonstrated that th e actual rate of progress is not meeting the established goals, Arkansas will reeval uate the need for additional control measures. This would require a four-factor analysis to be conducted as a means of determining which facilities, in addition to thos e already regulated under the BART Rule, would be potentially subject to additional control measures.

11.4.6 Enforceability of emission limitations and control measures

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires th e State of Arkansas to ensure that emission limitations and
control measures used to meet RPGs are enforceable.

The State of Arkansas has ensured that all em ission limitations and control measures used to meet RPGs are enforceable by embodying these in St ate-adopted rules. Ar kansas has determined
that emission limitations or control measures othe r than BART are not currently required in order to meet the established RPGs. Appe ndix 11.2 is a copy of these regulations.

List of Chapter 11 Appendices

11.1 Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management 11.2 Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Co mmission Regulation No. 19 – Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control76 12. Comprehensive Periodic Impl ementation Plan Revisions

The 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires a State to revise it s regional haze implementation plan and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every ten (10) years thereafter. In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the federal rule for regional haze, Arkansas commits to revising and submitting this regiona l haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018, and
every ten (10) years thereafter.

In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requ ires periodic reports evalua ting progress towards the RPG established for each mandatory Class I area. In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of the federal rule for regional haze, Arkansas commits to submitting a report on reasonable progress to EPA every five years following the initial submittal of the SIP. The reasonable progress report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPG for each mandatory Class I area located within Arkansas and in each mandatory Class I area located outside Arkansas, which may be affected by emissions fr om within Arkansas. All requirements listed in 51.308(g) shall be addressed in any SI P revision for reasonable progress.

List of Chapter 12 Appendices

There are no Appendi ces in Chapter 12.77 13. Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing Plan

Depending on the findings of the five-year progress report, Arkansas commits to taking one of the actions listed in 40 CFR 51.308(h). The fi ndings of the five-year progress report will determine which action is appropriate and necessary.

List of Possible Actio ns – 40 CFR 51.308(h)

1) Arkansas determined that the existing SI P required no further substantive revision in order to achieve established goals. Arkansas provided to the Ad ministrator a negative
declaration that further revision of th e SIP is not needed at this time> 2) Arkansas determined that the existing SI P may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from other states which participated in the regional planning process. Arkansas provided notification to the Administrator and the states that participated in regional planni ng. Arkansas collaborated with states through the regional planning process to address the SIP’s deficiencies. 3) Arkansas determined that the current SIP may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another count ry. Arkansas provide d notification, along with available information, to the Administrator. 4) Arkansas determined that the existing SIP is inadequate to ensu re reasonable progress due to emissions within the Arkansas, Arkansas will revise/has revised its SIP to address the plan’s deficiencies (State must address the deficiencies within one year.)

List of Chapter 13 Appendices

There are no Appendi ces in Chapter 13.78 Guidance Documents

Assessment of Baseline, Natural and Current Conditions EPA is to develop guidance on calculating baseline and current visibility. EPA is to develop guidance on calculating baseline in the absence of on-site data. EPA is to develop technical guidance on estimating natural visibility conditions. EPA to revise the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires wh ich includes guidance on determining the
contribution of fire to natural visibility conditions. St ates should include in the SIP “appropriate methods for estimating natural conditions. It is assumed that the States procedures will use these guidance documents to establish the Baseline, Background and Current conditions in each Class

I Area.

Best Available Retrofit Technology Controlling SO 2 Emissions: A Review of Technol ogies, EPA Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/R-00-093

Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retr ofit Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities. EP A-450/3-80-009b. November 1980. This document addresses reasonably attributable BART not regional haze BART. However, it will be the basis for regional haze BART guidan ce being developed by EPA. The RH BART engineering analysis will be similar to the RA BART guidance of 1980.

40 CFR part 51 Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule. EPA . Federal Register Vol. 64, No 126/ Thursday, July 1, 1999. The preamble discusses RH BART in detail.

Guidance for Demonstrating Attain ment of Air Quality Goals for PM 2.5 and Regional Haze. EPA. Draft 2.1, January 2, 2001.

This document provides guidance on how to use modeled and mon itored data to estimate if visibility goals for regional haze will be met by a proposed control strategy.

Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major I ndustrial Sources of Sulf ur Dioxide in Nine Western States and a Backstop Market Trading Pr ogram. An Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Western Regional Air Partnership. October 1, 2000.

This document describes an emissions trading program and provides a model rule and draft memorandum of understanding between states an d tribes for implementing an interagency emissions trading program.

Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrof it Technology (BART) Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations. EPA. Draft January 12, 2001. This document, when finalized in 2001, will provide the guidance on RH BART. It wa s recently proposed in the Federal Register. The final document will be Appendix Y of Part 51. It will address the RH BART engineering analysis, cumulative visibility assessme nt, and emission trading alternatives.79 Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Pr ograms. EPA - 452/R-01-001. January 2001. This document provides guidance for economic incentive programs including emission trading programs that states may incorporate in their st rategies for meeting air quality standards and addressing visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness areas.

Long Term Strategy Guidance for Demonstrating Attainme nt of Air Quality Goals for PM 2.5 and Regional Haze (EPA, OAQPS, draft 2.1, January 2, 2001)

Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementa tion of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations (EPA-454/R-99-006, April 1999)

Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrof it Technology (BART) Dete rminations Under the Regional Haze Regulations. This proposal will be published in the Federal Register soon.

Monitoring Strategy and Emissions Inventory Visibility Monitoring Guidance docum ent, (EPA-454/R-99-003, June 1999) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/file s/ambient/visib le/r-99-003.pdf

IMPROVE Particulate Monitoring Network - Proce dures for Site Selection, (Crocker Nuclear Laboratory, University of Ca lifornia, February 24, 1999) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ ambient/visible /select22.pdf

IMPROVE Particulate Monitoring Network – St andard Operating Procedures Air Quality, (Crocker Nuclear Laboratory, Univers ity of California, October 15, 1998) http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/vis/sop/index.html

National Park Service Visibility Monitoring internet site,
ht tp://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/vis/vishp.html

EPA Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule, (Federal Register: May 23, 2000, Volume 65, Number 100, Proposed Ru les, Page 33268-33280.) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cerr/CERR_FR.pdf

Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementati on of Ozone and Partic ulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations (EPA-454/R-99-006, April 1999). http://www.epa.gov/tt n/chief/eidocs/eidocfnl.pdf

Reasonable Progress Goals Controlling SO 2 Emissions: A Review of Technol ogies, EPA Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/R-00-09380 EPA Clean Air Technology Center - Control Cost Manual (5th edition) - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html

EPA BART guidelines (soon to be proposed) - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pfpr.html

EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses - http://www.epa.gov/economics/

Guidelines for Determining Natural Background, to be developed by EPA.

Guidelines for interpreting statutory factors, to be developed by EPA.

Regional Haze Regulations, Final Ru le, 40 CFR, Part 51, July 1, 1999.

Weight of Evidence Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled. http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/addwoe1h.wpd