west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N

Public Participation 

Documentation

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 1
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 2
Table of Contents

Appendix N.1. Notice of November 27, 2007 Public Hearing and 

Public Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 5

Appendix N.2. November 27, 2007 Public Hearing Transcript and 

Sign-In Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 17

Appendix N.3. Federal Land Manager (FLM) Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 29

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 31

US Department of the Interior, National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 41

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 47

Appendix N.4. Response to Federal Land Manager (FLM) Comments . . . Page Appendix N - 51

Appendix N.5. Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 77

United States Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 79

State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 81

Appendix N.6. Response to Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 93

Appendix N.7. Notice of June 3, 2008 Public Hearing and 

Public Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 131

Letter to EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 145

Letter to Federal Land Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 147

Letter to Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Appendix N - 149

Appendix N.8. June 3, 2008 Public Hearing Transcript and Sign-In Sheet Page Appendix N - 151

Appendix N.9. Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix N - 159

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 3
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 4
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.1.

Notice of 

November 27, 2007

Public Hearing

and

Public Comment Period

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 5
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality is soliciting

comment on, and will hold a public hearing on, a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) to address Regional Haze. Regional haze is defined as visibility impairment that is produced

by a multitude of sources and activities which emit fine particles and their precursors, and which are

located across a broad geographic area. These emissions are transported over large regions,

including national parks, forests and wilderness areas (“Class I” federal areas). The Clean Air Act

mandates protection of visibility, especially in Class I areas.

The states are required to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce pollution that

causes visibility impairment. These plans should establish goals and emissions reduction strategies

based on trends from various sources including point, area, and mobile (both on-road and non-road)

source emissions, commercial marine, biogenic, and wildfire and agricultural emissions. Under the

federal Regional Haze Rule, states are required to develop SIPs to reduce visibility impairment with

the express intent that, by 2064, the visibility in the Class I areas will be returned to natural

conditions.

With the help of the Visibility Improvement - State and Tribal Association of the Southeast

(VISTAS), West Virginia has developed a SIP to address visibility impairment in the State’s Class

I Federal Areas – Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area – located in the

eastern mountains of West Virginia, as well as potential impacts on nearby states’ Class I areas.

Once finalized, the Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for review and approval.

A public hearing will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at the following

location:

West Virginia DEP Headquarters

Division of Air Quality

601 57th Street, SE

Charleston, WV 25304

Participants should check in at the front lobby. Written and oral comments will be accepted until the

close of the hearing on November 27, 2007 and will be made part of the formal record. Written

comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the rule-making record by mail, facsimile (304-926-

0479), e-mail (tmowrer@wvdep.org) or other delivery to the Division of Air Quality if postmarked

or transmitted by the close of business on November 27, 2007. Send written comments to John A.

Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality at the address shown above.

Copies of the proposed Haze SIP and supporting documentation will be available for public review

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the DEP Charleston office located at the above address, and may

be viewed electronically on the Division of Air Quality website under the public notice and

comment section: www.wvdep.org/daq.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 7
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 8
CHAK1,KSTON NEWSPAPERS 

P 0 Dox 2993 

Chdilu~I011. Wehl Vlrglllli~ 25330 

U~ll~nfi 348-48C)x 

LEGAL ADVERTISING INVOICE 

r * r 

WV DIV ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT 1 

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY 

601 57TH STREET 

CHARLESTON WV 25304 USA 

I 

INVOICE DATE 

ACCOUNT NBR 

SALES REP ID 

INVOICE NBR 

Please return this portion with your payment. 

Make checks payable to: Charleston Newspapers 

I.u/~!y/u'/ 

034329005 . . 

45'/5 b35OT 

AMOUNT' PATU: - 

CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS 

P.O. Box 2993 

Charleston, Wusl Virginia 25330 

Billing 348-4898 

Classified 348-4848 

I -800-WVA-NEWS Legal PI-icing is based upon 63 words per column inch. 

FElN 55-067(107~) Each s~~ccessive insertion is discounted by 25% of the first insertion rate. 

INVOICE DATE IU/LY/UI~ 

ACCOUNT NBR 05 

SALES REP ID U0ZU 

INVOICE NBR 45'/5bjU01 

l'ht: Daily Mail is at a rate of $. 13 per word, and the Charlesron Gazette is at a rate of$. 14 per word. 

TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT 

AFFIDAVIrI' OF PUBLICATION 

-- 

ILY DEMOCRATIC NEWSPAPER, 

~blic Hearing - Haze 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 9
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 

Air Quality is so!iciting comment on, and will hold a public hearing on, a pro. posed revision to the State 

Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to address Regional Haze. Regional haze is defined as visibilitv impair- ment that is aroduced by a multitude of sources and 

activities which emit fine 

particles and the~r precursors, and which are located across a broad seo- grclphic area. These emissions are transported over large regions, including nut~onal ~arks, forests 

and wilderness areas 

("Class I" iederal areas). The Clean Air Act mon- dates protection of visibility, especially in Class I areas. 

The states are rewired 

to develop and implemeirt air quality protection plans to reduce pollution that causes visibilitv impairment. These plans should establish goals an'd I emissions reduction strut- 

~qiw based on trends 

from various sources Including pos, area, and 

mobile (both on-road aqd non-road) source emlssions, commercial ma- rine, biogenic. and wl!dfire and agricultural ems- sions. Under the federal I Rectibnal Haze Rule. 

LEGAL 

ADVERTISEMENT 

express intent that, bv 

2064, the vislbilifv in the 

Class I areas w~ll be re- turned to natural conditlons 

wiih the help of the Visi-. 

billty Improvement - State 

and Tr~bal Assoclatlon of 

the Southeast (VISTAS), West Virainla has developed oSIP to address visib~l~tv ~mpa~rment Inthe 

State's Class I Federal 

Areas - Dolly Sods Wllder- ness Area and Otter Creek 

Wilderness Area - located 

In the easterp .mountains 

of West Vjrgl?~a, as well as ~otent~al ~mpacts on * nearby states' Cltxss I areas. Once finalized, the 

Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for revlew and 

approval. 

A public hearing will be 

Meld beg~nn~ng at 6:00 

p,m- Tuesda~, Npvember 27,2007 atrhe followin9 IDcatlon: 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 10
CertFcate ofPu6lication 

Th~s IS to cert~fy the annexed advertisement 

WV DEPT OF ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 

appeared for 1 consecutive dayslweeks 

in The Journal Publlsh~ng Company, a newspaper publ~shed in the C~ty of Mart~nsburg, 

WV in its Issue beg~nning: 

101 26107 

and endlng 

10126107 

The Journal 

207 W K~ng Street 

Mart~nsburg, WV 25401 

Fee$ 77.14 

THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

COUNTY OF BERKELEY 

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged 

- / NOTICE OF,PUBLG HMR- 

, INO AND PUBLIC COMI MENT PERIOD 

The West VlrlJinia Department 

of Environmental Protectton 

Dtvls~on of Atr Quality is sol; 

cltlng 

comment on, and will hold a 

pubhc heanng on, a proposed 

revlslon to the State Implementat~on Plan 

(SIP) to address Reg~ond 

Haze Reg~onal haze is defined as v~sibllity rmpalrment 

that IS produced 

by a mult~tude of.sources and 

actlvltles whlch emit f~ne partlcles and thew precursors, 

and wh~ch are locaied across a broad geograph~c area. These emlsslons are transported over 

large reglons, lncludtng natwnal parks, 

forests and w~lderness areas 

("Class I" federal areas). The 

Clean Air Act 

mandates protect~on of VISIblllty, especcally In Class I 

areas The states are requ~red to 

develop and ~mplement acr 

quality protection plans to 

reduce pollubon that causes vrscbility ~mpairrnent. 

These plans should establrsh 

goals and emiss~ons reduct~on 

strategies 

based on trends from varcous 

sources imiudlng point, area, 

and mobile (both on-road and 

non-road) 

source emlsstons, pmmev 

WOW vlrglnla PISP Wlc\gqurr. 

trrr 

Dhrlllon of Qtl; ~wal 

Charleston, W 26304 

Partlclpsnts should check In 

at the front lobby. Written and 

Oral comments bill be accept. 

ed until the 

close of the hearlng on November 27,2007 and will be 

made part of the formal 

record. Written 

comments wlll also be accepted for ~ncluscon ~n the 

rule-making record by mail, 

facsim~le (304-926- 

0479), e-mall 

(tmowrer@wvdep.org) or 0th- er delivery to the ~1vhio11 of 

41r Quality if postmarked 

or transmMed by the close of 

bus~ness onNovembw 27, 

2007 Sen@wr~ttehtomWnts 

to John A. I 

eenedd, Dlrector of thesDivislon of AI~ Quality at the address shown abpve 

Coples of the proposed Haze 

SIP and supportcng documqniation w~ll be available for 

publlc rewew 

between 8.30 am. and430 

p m at the DEP Chqleston 

offlce IocatW at the above 

address, and may 

be v~ewed elebtronically on 

the D~v~s~on of Air Quality 

website under the publrcootlce and 

comment sem0n. 

Ctalmarlne, bogenic, and 

I w.wdep Orgldaq 

wtldf~re and agncukural ernis- , 10.26 (1 1) 

stons Under the 

federal Reg~onal Haze Rule, 

, 

L 

'~$Wes am required to develop 

SIPS to reduce visbility impairment w~th - the express intent that. by 

2064,,the~1sibility jn the 

qps rareas will be cqtilrned 

\M % natural\ 

CoMitionM ' - 

With the help of the Visibility 

Improvement - State and Tnbal Assoc~at~on of the 

Southeast 1 (VISTAS), West Vlrglnla has I developed a SIP to address 

v~s~blllty lmpalrment In the 

State's ClasS 

I Federal Areas - D~lly Sods 

Wilderness Area and Otter 

Creek Wilderness Area - located in the 

ewtern mountains of West 

Virginla,-as well as potentlal 

Impacts on nearby states' 

Class i areas. Onm flneilzed, the Hare SIP 

wlll be submitted to EPA for 

review and BpprOvai, 

A publla hrurln will br hsld 

kglnnmlng at a:& p.m. Turndry, Novrmbrr 97,2007 at 

the fdlowlw 

. - looptlcsn r 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 11
I vwuu I #mnta?u 

AND PU~LIC CCIMMENT~ 

PERIOD 

~hd' Wdst V~rginia *Department of Environmental Protectidn, D~visinl ofAlr Quality IS soltcltcng comment on, and 

will hold a public heqrlng on, a proposed revislon tb the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address Regional 

Haze. Regional haze is defined as vts~b~l~tv rmoalrrnent 

that 1s produced by 'a multi- I 

hrde of sources and activ~ties 

whlch emir f~ne ~arttcles and I 

the~r precursors, ' and ,w61ch 

are located across a broad 

geographic Area. These erntsslons are transported over large regions, ~ncludlng na- t~onal parks, forests and wilderness areas ("Class I" 

federal areas). The Clean Alr 

Act mandates Rrotection of 

visibility, especially In Class I areas , I 

The states are requ~red to 

develop and implement alr 

quality protection plans to 

reduce pollution that causes 

visibility Impairment. These 

plans should establish , gpals 

and emissionk reduction strategies based on trends from 

various sources lncludtng point, area, and rnob~le (both 

on-road and non-road) source emlsslons, commercial' ma- rine, blogenrc, and w~ldflre 

and agricultural emlsslons 

Under the federal Regional 

Haze Rule, state? are re- / 

quired to develop SIPS to 

reduce vislbillty impairment 

with the express intent that, 

by 2064, the vls~blllty In the 

Class I areas will be returned 

to natural conditions. 

W~th the help of the Vis~blllty Improvement - State and Trlbal Assoctation of the 

Southeast (VISTAS), ' West 

Vlrglnia has developed a SIP 

to address visibility impairment In the State's Class I 

Federal Areas - Dolly Sods 

W~lderness Area and Otter 

Creek W~lderness Area - located in the eastern moun- tams of West Virg~oia, as well as potentla1 impacts on ngarby st8es' Class I areas. Once finalized, the Haze SIP 

will be submttted to EPA for 

reviey gnd approval. 

A public hearin will be held 

beginning at 6:$0 p.m. Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 

the following locat~on. 

West Virginia DEP 

Headquarters Division of Air Quality i 

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Participants should check In 

at the front lobby. Written 

and oral comments will be 

accepted until the close of 

the heanng on November 27, 

2007 and will be made part of 

the formal record. Written 

comments w~ll also be acCepted for tnclus~on in the 

rule-making recqrd by mall, 

facsimile (304-926.0479). e-mall (tmowrerBwdep.org) or other deltvery to the DIVIston of Air QLial~ty d post- marked or transrnltted by the 

close of buslness on November 27, 2007 Send written wmments to John A 

Benedlct. Dlrector of the DIVIslon of Alr Quallty at the address shown above 

Co ies of the proposed Haze SJ~ and supporting documentation will be available for 

public revlew between 8.30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the 

DEP Charleston offlce located at the above address, and 

may be v~ewed electronically on !he Dlvls~on of Air Qual~ty 

webs~te under the public notlce and comment sectlon 

.. - wwwLw_d_ep_.or4"aq. 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, 

COUNTY OF OHIO. 

(ia I \ - for the publisher 

* of the Zntelligencer newspaper published in the CITY OF 

WHEELING, STATE 0 F WEST VIRGINIA, hereby 

certify that the annexed publication was inserted in said 

newspaper on the following dates: 

j O-ab-a7 

Given under my hand this d~~ 

day of + 

, - at WHEELING, 

OHIO CO UNm WEST VIRGINIA 

/Notary Public 

oJ in and for OHIO COUNTY WEST VIRGINIA. 

MY Commission expires &.&/f 

OFFICIAL SEAL 

NOTARY PUBLIC 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

KATHLEEN D. FUGATE 

R.D. 1, Box 1258 

Dallas. West Virginia 26036 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 12
WEST 

VIRGINIA 

v 

REGISTER 

Published by the Office of the Secretary of State 

Volume XXlV 

Issue 43 

October 26, 2007 

Pages 1900 - 1938 

A Weekly Publication 

Administrative Law Division 

Judy Cooper, Manager 

Betty Ireland 

Secretary of State 

Administrative Law Division 

Bldg. I, Suite 157K 

1900 Kanawha Blvd. E. 

Charleston. WV 25305-0770 

CONTENTS 

I. Chronological Index 

II. Open Government Meetings Listing 

Ill. Price List 

IV. Rule Monitor 

V. Notices 

a. Legislative Rules 

b. Interpretive Rules 

c. Procedural Rules 

d. Emergency Rules 

e. Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee 

VI. Legislative Interims 

VII. Orders 

VIII. Ethics Commission Opinions 

IX. Office of Tax Appeal Decisions 

X. Other Documents or Information Filed 

XI. Publication Deadlines and Publication Dates 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 13
INDEX 

AGENCY 

Air Quality 

Auditor's Office 

Barbers & Cosmetologists 

Blue Ridge Community 8 Technical College 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

CommercelDevelopment Office 

Corridor G Regional Development Authority 

CREATE for a Drug Free WV 

Criminal Justice Services 

Deaf and Hard of Hearing 

Dental Board 

DHHRIBPHISTECS 

' Education 

Environmental Protection 

Ethics Commission 

Fairmont State University 

Fairmont WORKFORCE West Virginia 

Foresters 

Funeral Service Examiners 

Health and Human Resources 

Health Care Authority 

Holocaust Education, WV Commission for 

Infrastructure & Jobs Development Council 

Insurance Commission 

KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission 

Library Commission 

Lottery 

Marshall Community & Technical College 

Massage Therapy Licensure Board 

Medicine, WV Board of 

Miners' Health, Safety 8 Training 

Natural Resources 

New River Community & Technical College 

Occupational Therapy 

Ohio County Commission 

Parkways Economic Development 8 Tourism Auth. 

Partnership to Promote Community Well-Being 

Pharmacy 

Pierpont Community & Technical College 

Psychologists, WV Board of Examiners 

Public Defender Corp. 61h and 24'h Circuits 

Public Defender Corp. for the 131h Judicial Circuit 

Public Employees Insurance Agency 

Real Estate Appraiser & Licensing Certification Board 

Real Estate Commission 

Senior Services 

Shepherd University 

Southern WV Community & Technical College 

St. Albans Housing Authority 

Statewide Addressing and Mapping Board 

Statewide Independent Living Council 

Tourism 

Veterinary Medicine 

WVU Board of Governors 

WORKFORCE West Virginia 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 14
-- - -- 

I- 1 i I- . ~abell~untington 13.30 .. .... ,........ H~tl~~wflpn,~y~ll~ni;~r7~~~ . phone 30J.526 ?.(, Hospital .. ! 

-. 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT PER^ OCT 23 PI+ 12: 34 OTHER 

October 9, 2007 2oflIOCr I8 Alllj: 14 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality@ soliciting - .:.:':~\i,~ 

comment on, and will hold a public hearing on, a proposed revision to the State ~m~lerne$~[!~u(?~q~ ;.f $T/dE 

(SIP) to address Regional Haze. Regional haze is defined as visibility impairment that IS pro>uced 

by a multitude of sourcesand activities which emit fine particles and their precursors, and which are 

located across a broad geographic area. These emissions are lransported over large regions, 

including national parks, forests and wilderness areas ("Class I" federal areas). The Clean Air Act 

mandates protection of visibility, especially in Class I areas. 

Thestates are required to developand implement air quality protection plans to reduce pollution that 

causes visibility impairment. These plans should establish goals and emissions reduction strategies 

based on trends from various sources including point, area, and mobile (both on-mad and non-road) 

source emissions, commercial marine, biogenic, and wildfire and agricultural emissions. Under the 

federal Regional Haze Rule, states are required to develop SIPS to reduce visibility impairmcntwith 

the express intent that, by 2064, the visibility in the Class I areas will be returned to natural 

conditions. 

With the help of the Visibility Improvement - State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS), West Virginia has developed a SIP to address visibility impairment in the State's Class 

I Federal Areas - Dolly Sods Wildernea Area and Oner Creek Wilderness Area - located in the 

eastern mountains of West Virginia, as well as potential impacts on nearby states' Class I areas. 

Once finalized, the Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for review and approval. 

A public hearing will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 27,2007 at the following 

location: 

Wcst Virginia DEP Headquarters 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57'h Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Participantsshould check in at the front lobby. Written and oral comments will be accepted until the 

close of the hearing on Novcmber 27,2007 and will be made part of the formal record. Wrinen 

comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the rule-making record by mail, facsimile (304-926- 

0479), e-mail (11iio~vlrrr3rr~~~1ro.1~1~~) or other delivery to the Division of Air Quality if postmarked 

or transmitted by the close of business on November 27,2007. Send wrinen comments to John A. 

Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality at the address shown above. 

Copies of the pmpased Haze SIP and supporting documentation will be available for public review 

between 830 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the DEP Charleston office locared at the aboveaddress, and may 

be viewed electronically on the Division of Air Quality website under !he public notice and 

comment section: rvrvr! .\I vdcn.nreldsq. 

Dayle D. Stepp 

Director-Certificate of Need 

West Virginia Health Care Authority (Authority) 

100 Dee Drive, Suite 201 

Charleston, West Virginia 2531 1-j692 

Dear Mr. Stepp: 

SUBJECT: Computed Tomography Proposed Standards 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Computed Tomography 

Standards during this public comment period announced by the Authority in the 

September 7, 2007 Health Care Review newsletter. On behalf of Cabell Huntington 

Hospital, Inc. (CHHI), I would like to offer the following comments and observations in 

response to our review of the proposed standards and documents from the West 

Virginia Hospital Association regarding proposed Computed Tomography Standards. 

By the Authority's own proclamation, the 'primary goal of the health planning process is 

the establishment of a rational allocation of services and resources. Planning for the 

provision of health care sewices is frequenffy associated with prohibiting the 

development of duplicate services and cost containment".' Allowing the expansion of 

highly specialized diagnostic imaging services outside of the hospital setting not only 

creates opportunities for the duplication of sentices, but also handicaps hospitals in 

providing the large array of acute health care services they provide by creating cost 

containment concerns. 

A few areas of utmost concern with the proposed standards are: 

a Cardiac CT Threshold - set at 700 scans. This would require physician offices to 

perform as few as 4 scans per day to demonstrate need. 

o Overall Need Methodolosy - vague in describing the required components of a 

service area. 

a Qualitv Standards - proposed standards would allow a non-hospital provider the 

ability to offer services without meeting minimum quality standards, for up to 

three years. 

By this letter. CHHI shows their support for the opinions expressed by the West Virginia 

Hospital Association. I respectfully request that the issue at hand not be taken lightly, 

Proposed Computed Tomography Services. Wesl Virginia Heallh Care Authority (2007) 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 15
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP 
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.2.

November 27, 2007

Public Hearing Transcript

and 

Sign-In Sheet 

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 17
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 18
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Proposed Revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

address Regional Haze 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had or testimony of 

adduced pursuant to the West Virginia Rules of Civil 

Procedure in the above-entitled action, on the 27th day of 

November, 2007, commencing at 6:08 p.m. and concluding at 

6:15 p.m., at the office of the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection, 601 57th Street, S.E., 

Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia, pursuant to 

notice to all interested parties. 

BEFORE: FRED DURHAM, Deputy Director 

Assistant Director of Planing 

Division of Air Quality 

NANCY MCNEALY 

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 

Post Office Box 134 15 

Charleston, West Virg~n~a 25360-04 15 

(304) 988-7873 FAX (304) 988-1419 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 19
APPEARANCES : PAM NIXON, Environmental Advocate 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 20
INDEX 

Reporter's Certificate ........... ........ Page 7 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 21
Proceedings 4 

MR. DURHAM: This public hearing will now 

come to order on this 27th day of November 2007, in the 

Canaan Valley Hearing Room (#1041) at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection Headquarters located 

at 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25304. My 

name is Fred Durham. I am the Deputy Director, as well as 

the Assistant Director for Planning, for the Division of 

Air Quality and I will be the moderator for these 

proceedings. 

This hearing pertains to a proposed 

revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address 

Regional Haze. Regional haze is defined as visibility 

impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and 

activities which emit fine particles and their precursors 

and which are located across a broad geographic area. 

These emissions are transported over large regions, 

including national parks, forests and wilderness areas 

("Class I" federal areas). The Clean Air Act mandates 

protection of visibility, especially in Class I areas. 

The states are required to develop and 

implement air quality protection plans to reduce pollution 

that causes visibility impairment. These plans should 

establish goals and emissions reduction strategies based on 

trends from various sources including point, area, and 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 22
Proceedings 

mobile (both on-road and non-road) source emissions, 

commercial marine, biogenic, wildfire and agricultural 

emissions. Under the federal Regional Haze Rule, states 

are required to develop SIPS to reduce visibility 

impairment with the express intent that the visibility in 

the Class I areas will be returned to natural conditions by 

the year 2064. 

With the help of the Visibility Improvement 

- State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), 

West Virginia has developed a SIP to address visibility 

impairment in the State's Class I Federal Areas - Dolly 

Sods Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area - 

located in the eastern mountains of West Virginia, as well 

as potential impacts on nearly states; Class I areas. Once 

finalized, the Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for review 

and approval. 

The floor is now open for comments on the 

proposed SIP. Please wait to be recognized by the 

moderator, then state your name and any affiliation along 

with your comments. Also please complete the hearing signin sheet. The floor is now open. 

There being no comments and being nothing 

further, this hearing on the Regional Haze proposed SIP 

revision is closed. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 23
Proceedings 

(WHEREUPON, the hearing was closed.) 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 24
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, 

COUNTY OF KANAWHA, to wit: 

I, NANCY MCNEALY, Certified Verbatim 

Reporter and Commissioner of West Virginia, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is, to the best of my skill and 

ability, a true and accurate transcript of all the 

proceedings as set forth in the caption hereof. 

Given under my hand this 30th day of 

November, 2007. 

My commission expires November 26, 2010. 

~er&$fied Verbatim Reporter 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 25
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 26
SIP Public Hearing for Regional Haze 

Canaan Valley Conference Room 

601 57th Street SE, Charleston Sign-In 

November 27, 2007 6:00 p.m. 

west virginia department of environmental protection 

NAME (Please Print) ADDRESS ORGANIZATION PHONEIFAX E-MAIL COMMENT 

YESINO 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 27
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP 
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.3

Federal Land Manager

(FLM)

Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 29
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 30
USDA United States Forest Monongahela National Forest 200 Sycamore Street 

Department of Service Elkins, WV 26241 

Aericulture 304-636-1800 

File Code: 2580 

Date: October 12,2007 

Frederick Durham 

Deputy DirectorIAssistant Director, Planning 

WV DEP, Division of Air Quality 

601 57th Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Dear Mr. Durham: 

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our receipt of the West Virginia Draft Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), and our commitment to completing a substantiative review of 

this document. I appreciate the efforts your agency has put forth in coordinating and consulting 

with my staff throughout the Regional Haze process, and we look forward to continuing that 

consultation as we move towards a finalized Plan for the State of West Virginia. As you know, I 

am extremely interested in the anticipated benefits and positive goals of the Regional Haze 

Regulations for the Class I areas we manage, Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wildernesses. 

Given the current time constraints you are facing for meeting the deadlines under the Regional 

Haze Regulations, and given the quality of your initial draft, I do not believe that official face-toface meeting will be necessary. However, I am very interested in our continued consultation, 

and in lieu of a face-to-face meeting will follow up with our official comments in a letter. Once 

you have had a chance to review our comments, I expect that we should be able to address any 

questions, comments or discussion points you may have in a conference call. 

With that in mind, I would like to confirm when you will need to receive our official comments 

for inclusion in the consultation sections of the final draft SIP available for public review. It is 

our understanding that the draft SIP will be available for public review prior to the public hearing 

date, which is to be scheduled 60 days after the official FLM review period begins. I would like 

to facilitate your ability to demonstrate that FLM consultation requirements were addressed in 

the SIP submitted for public review. Based on previous communications, I am aware that our 

official review period began September 21". This means our official 60-day deadline, and 

potential public hearing dates would fall on or around November 2oth. We feel that 30 days after 

the official review period began would constitute an appropriate time frame for submittal of our 

comments; this would fall on October the 2oth. Please let us know your thoughts on this matter. 

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recyded Paper 8 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 31
, -A? 

Mr. Durham October 12,2007 

Finally, I would like to emphasize my appreciation of your efforts to meet the consultation 

requirements. I feel the initial draft submitted for our review reflects the excellent job your 

agency has done in pulling this information together. As stated previously, we will do our part 

by following up with our comments on this draft in a second letter. 

If you have any questions, please feel fiee to contact our Air Quality Specialist, Andrea Stacy. 

Sincerely, 

I Forest Supervisor 

cc: John Benedict, Charles E Sams, Holly Salazer, Bruce Polkowsky, Tim Allen, Cindy M 

Huber 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 32
USDA United States Forest Monongahela National Forest 200 Sycamore Street 

Department of Sew ice Elkins, WV 26241 

Agriculture 304-636-1800 

File Code: 2580 

Date: October 22, 2007 

Frederick Durham 

Deputy DirectorIAssistant Director, Planning 

WV DEP, Division of Air Quality 

601 57th Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Dear Mr. Durham: 

On September 21,2007, we received a draft state implementation plan (SIP) describing your 

proposal to improve air quality regional haze impacts at mandatory Class I areas across your 

region. We appreciate the opportunity to work with your agency through the initial evaluation, 

development, and, now, subsequent review of this plan. Cooperative efforts such as these ensure 

that, together, we will continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act's goal of natural 

visibility conditions at our Class I wilderness areas and parks. Specifically, I would like to 

commend West Virginia on the thoroughness and completeness of the SIP submitted for our 

review. In general, I feel all of the major components that the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

are looking for were incorporated in this draft SIP document. 

The main purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service has received and completed a substantive review of your proposed Regional Haze 

Rule SIP. As the official FLM for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas, I feel that your 

agency has provided me with the opportunity to review and comment on this comprehensive 

regional haze SIP. As such, our specific comments regarding this plan are provided in an 

attachment to this letter. However, I recognize that only the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) can make a final determination about the document's completeness, and therefore, 

only the EPA has the ability to approve the document. The Forest Service's participation in the 

State of West Virginia's administrative process does not waive any legal defenses or sovereignty 

rights it may have under the laws of the United States, including the Clean Air Act and its 

implementing regulations. 

As outlined in a letter to your State dated October 13,2006, our review focused on eight basic 

content areas. Those content areas reflect priorities for the Federal Land Manager agencies, and 

the comments we have attached to this letter are associated with these priorities. We look 

forward to your response required by 40 CFR 5 1.308(i)(3). For further information, please 

contact Andrea Stacy at (304) 636-1800, extension 3 14 or Ann Mebane at (307) 578-8241. 

WV Regional Haze SIP

Caring for the Land and Sewing People Printed on Recyded 

Appendix N - 33

Paper 0 
Mr. Durham ,. October 22,2007 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity review West Virginia's draft Regional Haze Rule SIP. The 

Forest Service compliments you on your hard work and dedication to significant improvement in 

our nation's air quality values and visibility. 

Sincerely, 

~ordst Supervisor 

cc: John Benedict 

Charles E Sams 

Holly Salazer 

Bruce Polkowsky 

Tim Allen 

Cindy M Huber 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 34
October 22, 2007 

Attachment 1 

Forest Service Technical Comments on WKDAQ's Draft Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

Overall Comments 

As stated in our letter, we feel that your agency has addressed each of the priority content 

areas with which the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) are concerned in the draft Regional 

Haze Regulations State Implementation Plan (SIP). This includes, but is not limited to, 

clearly defining results and methods used to develop visibility goals for Dolly Sods and 

Otter Creek as well as the uniform rate of progress necessary to achieve natural 

conditions by 2064; emissions inventories used to develop 201 8 projections; coordination 

and consultation measures; the long term strategy and sources considered under further 

reasonable progress; and the area of influence analysis results. In particular, we were 

pleased to see that the West Virginia Division of Air Quality (WVDAQ) assessed 

specific West Virginia (WV) sources for further reasonable progress in section 7.7 of the 

draft SIP. We are also pleased that WVDAQ clearly identified reasonable progress goals 

for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas for both the 20% worst and 20% best 

visibility days. While overall we are satisfied with the extent of the information provided 

in the WVDAQ SIP, we have several comments that focus on three main areas in the 

draft SIP. These are as follows: 

1. Area of Influence 

2. Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

3. Ongoing Consultation 

4. Miscellaneous Comments 

1. Area of Influence 

Section 7.4 of the SIP identifies the key pollutants and source categories of concern in 

terms of visibility impairment, as well as the geographic areas of influence for Dolly 

Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas. The Area of Influence (AOI) discussion is of 

particular importance to the Forest Service FLMs for several reasons. First, the 

information provided by the VISTAS Regional Planning Organization (RPO) allowed the 

states and FLMs to come to a consensus at the consultation meeting held the week of 

June 12 on the realm of sources to be considered under further reasonable progress 

assessments for the VISTAS states, including West Virginia. Second, it can assist the 

VISTAS states in identifying which sources are anticipated to affect visibility in 201 8 in 

Class I areas within their state, as well as identify which Class I areas outside of their 

state are affected by point sources within their state. This source-specific information can 

provide a basis for state-to-state consultation both within the VISTAS region, and with 

states outside of the VISTAS RPO. Finally, the A01 information can assist states in 

highlighting which sources they may need to follow up with in subsequent planning and 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 35
October 22,2007 

review periods as they track progress towards the national visibility goal. For these 

reasons, we have several comments on this aspect of the SIP. 

Section 7.5 of the draft SIP outlines the technical basis for VISTAS'S approach to 

developing the AOI. This includes graphics displaying the A01 and table 7.5-1 showing 

a state-by-state contribution metric based on the VISTAS analysis. For clarity, we would 

suggest that WVDAQ identify in this table heading and the following text that this is not 

a source apportionment modeling exercise, but rather a relative metric based on the 

magnitude of emissions from a source, its distance to the Class I area(s) of concern, and 

the sulfate extinction weighed residence time plots, developed using back trajectories. In 

other words, it is not an exact quantification of the source-by-source contributions to 

visibility impairment on the 20% worst visibility days at a specific Class I area, but a 

relative metric used to infer this determination. (Concurrently, this clarification and 

distinction should be made on page 74 of the draft document where WVDAQ identifies 

the threshold used for identifLing sources to consider under further reasonable progress.) 

We feel additional clarification could be achieved through modifying Figure 7.5.d-2 to 

show only the A01 metrics WV decided to utilize (in consultation with other VISTAS 

states and the FLMs) as you consecutively narrowed the potential list of sources for 

inclusion in the final A01 (i.e. Only show the lines for Residence Times greater than 5% 

and lo%, and not the 100 and 200 km radii). 

Because the A01 analysis allowed states to identify specific sources that may affect 

visibility in a given Class I area in the year 20 18, we recommend that some of this 

information be incorporated into the body of the SIP. Recognizing that the complete A01 

information produced by VISTAS is included in the appendix, no information in the SIP 

clearly shows the sources of primary significance for the West Virginia Class I areas in 

this planning period, or which threshold(s) for defining these sources of significance 

WVDAQ chose to makes their final A01 determinations on. For example, VISTAS went 

through multiple iterations to sequentially narrow down the list of sources in the AOI. 

Initially, there are over 300 emission units that show up within the geographic area 

defined by back trajectory residence times greater than 5% for Dolly Sods. In an 

information package prepared for the FLMs in June of 2007, and in the appendices to the 

draft SIP, WVDAQ further sorted and narrowed this list of sources according to emission 

units whose contribution to the total Q/d * maximum residence time is greater than or 

equal to 0.5%. We suggest the inclusion of a table which lists these units, including their 

base year 2002 emissions, as well as their projected 2018 emissions in the body of the 

SIP. Additionally, it may even be appropriate to decrease the cutoff threshold used to 

highlight sources in the A01 (i.e. 0.2% rather than 0.5%) for several reasons. First, the 

A01 tables were produced on a unit-by-unit basis rather than on a facility wide basis, but 

the contribution metric relies heavily on an emissions over distance weighting factor. 

Second, as mentioned previously, the metric used is not a direct source apportionment 

analysis, but relies heavily on residence time probabilities, not actual estimates of 

emissions transport. Whichever metric threshold WVDAQ chooses to implement, they 

should identify why they feel this threshold is the most appropriate. We feel it is 

important to identify these emission sources early in the regional haze planning stages, as 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 36
October 22,2007 

this sets the stage for managing visibility impairment and improvement for the next 

several decades. Additionally, we feel that identifying this information in the SIP will 

assist WVDAQ in fully meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 5 1.308 to identify the 

sources that can be reasonably anticipated to cause visibility impairment in the WV Class 

I areas, as well as provide a baseline from which periodic reports can be established. 

Finally, while the focus of the A01 discussion is on Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I 

areas, based on conversations with your staff, it is our understanding that similar 

information will be incorporated in this section (such as table 7.5.1) for Class I areas 

outside of WV which WV sources may affect. We agree with this approach, and are 

happy to see that this additional information will be included in the SIP. We would also 

encourage WV to include the maps showing the AOIs for these other Class I areas. 

2. Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

Page 49 of the draft SIP discusses the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reductions that are 

expected to occur across the VISTAS region as a result of the Federal Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). While large reductions are anticipated under CAIR, as the SIP 

identifies, even after implementation of this Federal Rule, EGU emissions are expected to 

remain a significant contributor to regional haze. Additionally, while a 7.3 deciview 

improvement is expected within the first planning period, chiefly due to implementation 

of CAIR, an additional 1 1.3 deciviews of improvement will be necessary to achieve the 

visibility goal for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. Given that additional EGU reductions 

will still be necessary after 201 8, and that there is a fair amount of uncertainty 

surrounding the modeling analyses conducted for future year projections, as well as what 

is actually going to occur under CAIR, the tracking and review periods under the 

Regional Haze Regulations become increasingly important from the FLMs perspective. 

We are pleased to see WVDAQ7s commitment to completing the reasonable progress 

reports every five years, as well as comprehensive SIP revisions in subsequent planning 

periods, in accordance with the Regional Haze Regulations. With these progress reports 

and SIP revisions in mind, we would like to make several suggestions. 

First, The WVDAQ has listed the requirements found in the regulations for completing 

SIP revision progress reports. Referring back to the sources identified in the A01 (as 

highlighted in comment #1) would assist the WVDAQ in meeting requirement four, 

Analysis of emissions changes over the 5-yearperiod, identlped by source or activity. It 

may also assist the state in making determinations regarding requirements number five 

and six, Analysis of any signijicant changes in or out of the State which have impeded 

progress, and, Assessment of the sufJiciency of the implementation plan to meet RPGs, 

respectively. 

Second, we feel that it is appropriate to restate the anticipated need for continued future 

emissions reductions to achieve the visibility goals, and to recognize that these further 

reductions may need to come from targeted facilities as we move into future planning 

periods. This is not to say that WVDAQ is currently seeking reductions from these 

facilities in the first planning period, as it is anticipated that improvement in the WV 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 37
October 22,2007 

Class I areas will exceed the URP. Rather it is simply identifying the sources that are 

anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the current and future planning 

period(s). With this in mind, two of the units showing up on the A01 and under the 

reasonable progress analysis, are of particular importance to the FS in terms of visibility 

impairment at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. These are the Mount Storm Power Plant and 

the North Branch Power Station. 

Significant reductions have already been made at the Mount Storm units, however this 

facility is located less than 20 kilometers from Dolly Sods and may become increasingly 

important for visibility impairment in the future. While the CAIR was determined to be 

better than BART for SO2 and NOx emissions, a BART determination was completed for 

particulate matter emissions from Mount Storm, but additional controls were determined 

to be infeasible at this time. While the FS has no further comment on the final BART 

determination for this facility, we feel this source should be identified in the SIP as a 

source of particular importance. 

The North Branch Power Station also located less than 20 kilometers from Dolly Sods, at 

18.73 km away. The North Branch facility is actually anticipated to increase its actual 

emission unfer CAIR between the base year and 2018. Preliminary CALPUFF~O~~~~~

conducted b the USFS based on the Title V emission limits for North Branch indicates 

that there m y be 30 days in three years of modeling at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class 

I areas with change in extinction greater than 10%. Recognizing that this is based on 

the Title V otential-to-emit limits, and not the actual emissions, these preliminary results 

demonstrate that these nearby facilities may be the focus of further reductions in the 

future. Add tionally, through previous permitting actions by WVDAQ, we understand 

that this part'cular i facility may contribute to significant increment problems in the Class I 

areas. The preliminary modeling results for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas are 

presented in Table 1 below. (It is important to note that these are only preliminary 

results, which have not gone through extensive review. They are included in these 

comments for informational purposes only.) 

Table 1: Preliminary CALPUFF visibility modeling results at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek receptors 

for the North Branch Power Station, using permitted Title V emission rates. 

We are concerned that emissions from the North Branch facility will continue to cause 

visibility impairment in the Class I areas we manage even in 2018. Again, we request 

that WVDAQ acknowledge this source as a candidate for review in future planning 

periods, as described for the Mount Storm Power Plant above. 

200 1 

2002 

2003 

Total in 3 

Modeled Years 

3 5 

3 1 

3 8 

104 

11 

8 

11 

30 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 38
October 22,2007 

3. Ongoing Consultation 

Requirements for consultation under the Regional Haze Regulations involve both stateto-state consultation, as well as consultation with the FLMs. In terms of state-to-state 

consultation, we feel WVDAQ fully fulfilled this requirement for states within the 

VISTAS region. However, because WV lies on the boundary with two other RPO's, the 

state-to-state consultation requirement becomes increasingly difficult for WVDAQ to 

fulfill. Additionally, because several of these states have sources which are showing up 

in the VISTAS A01 for the WV Class I areas, as well as the AOIs produced by other 

RPOs, we feel this consultation outside of the VISTAS region is important. WVDAQ 

has determined that within the first planning period, because reductions within WV in 

particular will be great enough to achieve progress that is better than the URP, they will 

not ask for reductions from neighboring states at this point in time. While we feel that 

this is an appropriate approach for the first planning period, again we feel is it important 

to set the stage for subsequent planning periods, by identifying those sources in other 

states that show up in the VISTAS A01 that may be a contributor to visibility impairment 

in the WV Class I areas. Additionally, WVDAQ should document any consultation with 

other states that has occurred regarding specific sources that affect Dolly Sods and Otter 

Creek, as defined by the AOI. It is our understanding through conversations with your 

agency that several of these consultations are beginningst0 occur and that WVDAQ 

intends to include the results of this consultation in the final SIP. 

The state-to-state consultation is also important in terms of those states with Class I areas 

which may be affected by emission from WV sources. While WVDAQ addressed the 

impact of their sources assessed for further reasonable progress on VISTAS Class I areas 

(including James River Face and Shenandoah), on page 93 of the draft SIP, WV 

acknowledges receipt of letters from the states of New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire 

and Maine. These letters assert that based on the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment, 

emissions sources in WV are causing visibility impairment in their Class I areas. While 

we can not speak for the FS FLMs of the Vermont and New Hampshire Class I areas, as 

the technical reviewers of the WV SIP, we do have several comments on WVDAQ's 

determination regarding MANE-VU's assessment. While we recognize and agree with 

WVDAQ that MANE-VU's contribution assessment should have also addressed 201 8 

emissions, rather than 2002 alone, we would like to point out that unlike VISTAS AOI, 

MANE-VU's contribution assessment included actual source apportionment analyses 

using the CAPUFF and REMSAD modeling platforms. Obvious problems arise from the 

inability to compare various pieces of information developed by the different RPOs. This 

highlights the need for a unified assessment approach for the eastern United States for 

future planning periods that would eliminate significant impediments to states when 

approaching state-to-state consultation. None-the-less we feel WVDAQ should provide 

additional documentation that these states have been officially notified of WVDAQ's 

final position, and what steps, if any, were taken by the states pursuing the request to 

resolve this disagreement. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 39
*. . , 

October 22,2007 

Finally, we are pleased to see that WVDAQ has included measures for ongoing 

consultation with the FLMs. Recognizing that the meaning of "ongoing consultation" at 

this point in time is inferred based on current working relationships, we feel it is 

important for future planning periods to explicitly establish what this means. For 

example, does this mean that the FLMs will be involved early in the review process for 

the periodic reviews? Will the FLMs receive copies of revised regional haze SIPs prior 

to finalizing the documents? How will the FLMs be consulted in terms of reviewing the 

visibility data? We feel that clearly establishing the process for FLM consultation in the 

SIP document may eliminate any confusion as to what "ongoing consultation" requires in 

future years. 

4. Miscellaneous Comments 

It is our recollection from the VISTAS FLM consultation meeting held in Asheville in 

June of 2007, that EPA requested that states identify why they chose the 1% threshold for 

the fractional contribution to the total A01 metric contributions when determining which 

sources to assess for further reasonable progress, We recommend that WVDAQ either 

provide this justification in the body of the SIP, or cite the document in which this 

justification can be found. 

Given the uncertainty in the new source growth estimates used to develop the 20 18 

emissions inventory, and ultimately 201 8 visibility projects, we feel it would be 

appropriate for WVDAQ to discuss the relationship between the regional haze plan and 

the requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program within 

the WV SIP. In other words, how does WVDAQ anticipate addressing new sources of 

air pollution; specifically how emissions from these new sources are will affect progress 

toward the interim visibility goals established under this SIP. 

Finally, we recognize that the RPOYs have provided significant resources to the states 

throughout the Regional Haze planning process, and that it will be detrimental to the state 

agencies if these resources are no longer available for subsequent planning and periodic 

SIP review periods. We strongly encourage the EPA to maintain support for the RPOs as 

we begin tracking reasonable progress for the Class I areas under the Regional Haze 

SIPs. Additionally, if further technical support is provided to the states, we also 

recommend the development of a unified analytical approach for the eastern United 

States in effort to resolve the issues discussed under section 3 of these comments. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 40
United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Air Resources Division TAKE PRIDE' INAMERICA 

PO. Box 25287 

IN REPLY REFER To: Denver, CO 80225 

October 30,2007 

Mr. William Frederick Durham 

Deputy Director 

Assistant Director, Planning 

Division of Air Quality 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

60 1 57th Street SE 

Charleston, West Virginia 25304 

Dear Mr. Durham: 

On September 2 1, 2007, the State of West Virginia submitted a draft implementation plan 

describing your proposal to improve air quality regional haze impacts at mandatory Class 

I areas across your region. We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State 

through the initial evaluation, development, and, now, subsequent review of this plan. 

Cooperative efforts such as these ensure that, together, we will continue to make progress 

toward the Clean Air Act's goal of natural visibility conditions at all of our most pristine 

National Parks and Wildernesses Areas for future generations. 

This letter acknowledges that the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

has received and conducted a substantive review of your proposed Regional Haze Rule 

implementation plan in fulfillment of your requirements under the federal regulations 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(2). Please note, however, that only the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) can make a final determination regarding the document's completeness 

and, therefore, ability to receive federal approval from EPA. 

As outlined in a letter to each State dated August 1, 2006, our review focused on eight 

basic content areas. The content areas reflect priorities for the Federal Land Manager 

agencies, and we have enclosed comments associated with these priorities. We look 

forward to your response, as per section 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). For further information, 

please contact Holly Salazer of our Northeast Regional Office at (814) 865-3 100. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 41
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State of West Virginia and 

compliment you on your hard work and dedication to significant improvement in our 

nation's air quality values and visibility. 

Sincerely, 

~~christine L. Shaver 

Chief, Air Resources Division 

Enclosure 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 42
National Park Service Comments Regarding 

West Virginia Draft Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan 

On September 2 1, 2007, the State of West Virginia submitted a draft Regional Haze Rule 

State implementation plan (SIP), pursuant to the requirements codified in federal rule at 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

(NPS). The air program staff of the NPS has conducted a substantive review of the West 

Virginia draft plan, and has provided the comments listed below. We look forward to the 

West Virginia Division of Air Quality's (WVDAQ) response as per section 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). For fbrther information regarding these comments, please contact Holly 

Salazer of our Northeast Regional Office at (8 14) 865-3 100. 

General Comments: 

1. Page 46, Section 7.2, we recommend identifying the state in which the Consent 

Agreements were filed. 

2. Page 48, Section 7.2, please clarify significance of Early Action Compacts (EAC) 

to the state's proposed RH program. The draft SIP states the WVDAQ encourages 

emission reductions through EACs stating that such emissions may yield 

quantifiable visibility benefits. However, the paragraph concludes such 

reductions were not included in modeling because essentially the reductions will 

likely have little impact on visibility. Which one is it? 

3. Page 60, Section 7.3, figure 7.3-3 presents results on projected visibility glide 

slope for Dolly Sods WV. One data point is offered to represent a projection of 

haziness if international effects were removed. Providing this data is misleading 

without removing an appropriate amount of international contribution from the 

2064 estimate of natural condition. Please remove an appropriate international 

contribution from the natural condition and present a new glide slope line. 

4. Page 61-62, Section 7.4, Figure 7.4-1 illustrates neighboring state contributions to 

visibility degradation at Dolly Sods WA on the 20% worst days. Please provide 

additional discussion in the main body of the SIP discussing the consultation with 

these States to address those contributions. Please see also comments #14-17 

below regarding Section 10.0. 

5. Page 62, Section 7.5, recommend including maps, tables and discussion for 

additional Class I areas (e.g., Shenandoah National Park) impacted by WV 

sources in this section. Such a discussion is referenced in Appendix H, but we 

recommend adding this information to the main body of the SIP. 

6. Page 68, Section 7.5, Table 7.5.-1 highlights the neighboring States sulfur dioxide 

point source contribution to visibility impairment in WV Class I areas. Please 

provide additional discussion describing the consultation with these States to 

address their contributions. Please also see comments # 14- 16 below regarding 

state-to-state consultations. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 43
Page 71, Section 7.5, we would like to see a list of the sources located within the 

Area of Influence (AOI) of each Class I area in West Virginia. A summary list of 

these sources should be included in the SIP narrative, much like the identification 

and listing of BART eligible sources. Providing these sources by name will add 

clarity to the reasonable progress discussion, especially with respect to the cost 

effectiveness of controls for the non-EGU sources. In addition, the State 

mentions it used lists of individual sources to see if other source categories were 

major contributors to SO2 emissions in the Area of Influence, but no conclusions 

were provided in the narrative. 

8. Page 72, Section 7.6, please provide more information regarding VISTAS 

modifications to EPA's AirControlNET database. 

9. Page 76-77, Sec 7.7, and Page 86, Section 7.8.c, we compliment West Virginia on 

looking at reducing sulfur dioxide at Capitol Cement as part of their reasonable 

progress effort, but think the State should also evaluate potential NOx reductions 

(e.g., by application of SNCR) there as well. 

10. Page 84, Section 7.8, correct reference to chart 7.8.b-3 in text. Paragraph should 

read, "The facilities with BART-Eligible units found to be subject to BART are 

shown in Table 7.8.b-3," not Table 7.8.b- 1 

11. Page 86, Section 7.8.c, regarding Dominion-Mt. Storm facility, we recognize that 

the facility is well-controlled and would like to see this level of control reflected 

in the pending Title V permit. Information provided by WVDAQ indicates that 

this facility is capable of meeting a limit on filterable PMlo emissions of 0.010 

lb/mmBtu. Considering that the BART analyses were based upon the premise of 

this high-degree of control, it seems that, for consistency, the resulting permit 

limit should reflect the degree of control used in the analyses (with some safety 

margin). Since the NSPS for EGUs is 0.015 IbImmBtu, we suggest that this would 

provide an adequate margin of safety while insuring that the control equipment is 

properly maintained and operated in the manner assumed by the analyses. 

. 12. Page 87, Section 7.9, please clarify language as to what the State is planning in 

terms of addressing prescribed fire in this planning period. Were emissions from 

prescribed burns considered in VISTAS modeling? Will future prescribed burns 

be significant enough to be addressed in each planning phase? 

13. Page 86, Section 7.9, please add a discussion of other programs that will balance 

growth or relocation of emissions and the regional haze goals. For example, WV 

DAQ should include a discussion of the Prevention of Significant 

DeteriorationNew Source Review program as a tool for considering emissions 

growth and its effect on the regional haze plan. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 44
14. Page 93, Section 10.0, please identify what Class I areas West Virginia 

considered when evaluating if the state's emissions impacted other Class I areas 

in neighboring states. Also please include any consultations West Virginia has 

had with those Class I area states. As mentioned in Comment #5 above, including 

information in Appendix H directly into the main body of the SIP would be 

helpful to the discussion in Section 10.0 (as well as Section 7.5). 

15. Page 93, Section 10.0, it would be helpful to again see information discussing 

which states were contributors to visibility impairment and a discussion 

describing the consultation with these States to address their contributions (similar 

to Section 7.4 or 7.5 or reference those sections). No reference is made to 

communications with states in MWRPO, which were deemed significant in 

Section 7.4 and Section 7.5 above. 

16. Page 93, Section 10.0, we recommend that the State update the discussion of 

consultation with MANE-VU states that may have occurred this past summer. It 

is important to acknowledge that the State, although not agreeing with the 

MANE-VU assertions, is willing to participate in the consultation process. 

17. Page 94, Section 10.0, this one paragraph regarding Brigantine National Wildlife 

Refuge is the only discussion of impacts from West Virginia emissions on a Class 

I area outside state boundaries. As mentioned above, we recommend a discussion 

of WV emission sources on other Class I areas (e.g., Shenandoah National Park). 

18. Page 95, Section 11 .O, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), please provide 

specific procedures for assuring ongoing FLM-State consultation on 

implementation of the provisions of the SIP, the development of the 5-year review 

and work on the SIP revision due in 2017. Annual discussions of the 

implementation plan may not be sufficient to meet this ongoing consultation 

requirement. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 45
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 46
WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 47
WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 48
WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 49
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 50
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.4

Response to 

Federal Land Manager (FLM)

Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 51
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 52
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 1

Federal Land Manager Consultation

The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR §51.308(i)(2) requires that the State “provide the Federal

Land Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to

holding any public hearing on an implementation plan (or plan revision).” In accordance with

these requirements, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air

Quality (WVDAQ) sent a draft of the West Virginia (WV) Regional Haze State Implementation

Plan (SIP) to the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) on September 21, 2007. 

Clyde Thompson, Forest Supervisor for the Monongahela National Forest, responded on October

12, 2007 acknowledging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service had

received the draft Regional Haze SIP and committing to a substantive review. Mr. Thompson

followed up with a letter on October 22, 2007 acknowledging that the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service had completed a substantive review of the draft WV Regional

Haze Rule SIP. As the official FLM for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas, Mr.

Thompson indicated that he felt that the DAQ had provided the opportunity to review and

comment on this comprehensive regional haze SIP. (See attached letters and comments.)

Christine L. Shaver, Chief, Air Resources Division, responded on October 30, 2007 

acknowledging that the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service had received and

conducted a substantive review of the proposed WV Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in

fulfillment of the requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). (See attached

letter and comments.)

Sandra V. Silva, Chief, Branch of Air Quality, responded on November 21, 2007,

acknowledging that the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service had received

and conducted a review of the proposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in fulfillment

of the requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). (See attached letter and

comments.)

The WVDAQ commenced the public comment period on October 26, 2007. Since the Forest

Service comments were received October 22, prior to the start of the public hearing, the

WVDAQ was able to incorporate some of their suggested changes in the public review

document. However, due to the short time frame not all comments could be addressed prior to

the start of the public comment period. 

The WVDAQ is reopening the public comment period to notify the public that the responsible

FLM has been consulted and provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on

the FLM conclusions/recommendations and the DEP responses. All the FLM comments have

been addressed, as noted in this document, in the May 2008 proposed Regional Haze SIP.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 53
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 2

I. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

(October 22, 2007)

COMMENT A:

Overall Comments

As stated in our letter, we feel that your agency has addressed each of the priority

content areas with which the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) are concerned in the draft

Regional Haze Regulations State Implementation Plan (SIP). This includes, but is not

limited to, clearly defining results and methods used to develop visibility goals for Dolly

Sods and Otter Creek as well as the uniform rate of progress necessary to achieve

natural conditions by 2064; emissions inventories used to develop 2018 projections;

coordination and consultation measures; the long term strategy and sources considered

under further reasonable progress; and the area of influence analysis results. In

particular, we were pleased to see that the West Virginia Division of Air Quality

(WVDAQ) assessed specific West Virginia (WV) sources for further reasonable progress

in section 7.7 of the draft SIP. We are also pleased that the WVDAQ clearly identified

reasonable progress goals for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas for both the 20%

worst and the 20% best visibility days. While overall we are satisfied with the extent of

the information provided in the WVDAQ SIP, we have several comments that focus on

the three main areas in the draft SIP. These are as follows:

1. Area of Influence

2. Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

3. Ongoing Consultation

4. Miscellaneous Comments

RESPONSE A:

No response required.

COMMENT B:

1. Area of Influence

Section 7.4 of the SIP identifies the key pollutants and source categories of concern in

terms of visibility impairment, as well as the geographic areas of influence for Dolly

Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas. The area of influence (AOI) discussion is of

particular importance to the Forest Service FLMs for several reasons. First, the

information provided by the VISTAS Regional Planning Organization (RPO) allowed the

states and FLMs to come to a consensus at the consultation meeting held the week of

June 12 on the realm of sources to be considered under further reasonable progress

assessments for the VISTAS states, including West Virginia. Second, it can assist the

VISTAS states in identifying which sources are anticipated to affect visibility in 2018 in

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 54
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 3

Class I areas within their state, as well as identify which Class I areas outside of their

state are affected by point sources within their state. This source-specific information can

provide a basis for state-to-state consultation both within the VISTAS region, and with

states outside of the VISTAS RPO. Finally, the AOI information can assist states in

highlighting which sources they may need to follow up with in subsequent planning

review periods as they track progress towards the national visibility goal. For these

reasons, we have several comments on this aspect of the SIP.

Section 7.5 of the draft SIP outlines the technical basis for VISTAS’s approach to

developing the AOI. This includes graphics displaying the AOI and table 7.5-1 showing

a state-by-state contribution metric based on the VISTAS analysis. For clarity, we would

suggest that WVDAQ identify in this table heading and the following text that this is not a

source apportionment modeling exercise, but rather a relative metric based on the

magnitude of emissions from a source, its distance to the Class I area(s) of concern, and

the sulfate extinction weighed residence time plots, developed using back trajectories. In

other words, it is not an exact quantification of the source-by-source contributions to

visibility impairment on the 20% worst visibility days at a specific Class I area, but a

relative metric used to infer this determination. (Concurrently, this clarification and

distinction should be made on page 74 of the draft document where WVDAQ identifies

the threshold used for identifying sources to consider under further reasonable progress.)

We feel additional clarification could be achieved through modifying Figure 7.5.d-2 to

show only the AOI metrics WV decided to utilize (in consultation with other VISTAS

states and the FLMs) as you consecutively narrowed the potential list of sources for

inclusion in the final AOI (i.e. Only show the lines for Residence Times greater than 5%

and 10%, and not the 100 and 200 km radii).

Because the AOI analysis allowed states to identify specific sources that may affect

visibility in a given Class I area in the year 2018, we recommend that some of this

information be incorporated into the body of the SIP. Recognizing that the complete AOI

information produced by VISTAS is included in the appendix, no information in the SIP

clearly shows the sources of primary significance for the West Virginia Class I areas in

this planning period, or which threshold(s) for defining these sources of significance

WVDAQ chose to make their final AOI determinations on. For example, VISTAS went

through multiple iterations to sequentially narrow down the list of sources in the AOI. 

Initially, there are over 300 emission units that show up within the geographic area

defined by back trajectory residence times greater than 5% for Dolly Sods. In an

information package prepared for the FLMs in June of 2007, and in the appendices to the

draft SIP, WVDAQ further sorted and narrowed this list of sources according to emission

units whose contribution to the total Q/d * maximum residence time is greater than or

equal to 0.5%. We suggest the inclusion of a table which lists these units, including their

base year 2002 emissions, as well as their projected 2018 emissions in the body of the

SIP. Additionally, it may even be appropriate to decrease the cutoff threshold used to

highlight sources in the AOI (i.e. 0.2% rather than 0.5%) for several reasons. First, the

AOI tables were produced on a unit-by-unit basis rather than on a facility wide basis, but

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 55
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 4

the contribution metric relies heavily on an emissions over distance weighting factor. 

Second, as mentioned previously, the metric used is not a direct source apportionment

analysis, but relies heavily on residence time probabilities, not actual estimates of

emissions transport. Whichever metric threshold WVDAQ chooses to implement, they

should identify why they feel this threshold is the most appropriate. We feel it is

important to identify these emission sources early in the regional haze planning stages,

as this sets the stage for managing visibility impairment and improvement for the next

several decades. Additionally, we feel that identifying this information in the SIP will

assist WVDAQ in fully meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 to identify the sources

that can be reasonably anticipated to cause visibility impairment in the WV Class I

areas, as well as provide a baseline from which periodic reports can be established.

Finally, while the focus of the AOI discussion is on Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I

areas, based on conversations with your staff, it is our understanding that similar

information will be incorporated in this section (such as table 7.5.1) for Class I area

outside of WV which WV sources may affect. We agree with this approach, and are

happy to see that this additional information will be included in the SIP. We would also

encourage WV to include maps showing the AOIs for these other Class I areas.

RESPONSE B:

The WVDAQ has added language to sections 7.5 and 7.7 to make it clear that the Area of

Influence analysis is not a source apportionment modeling analysis, but rather a relative

metric based on the magnitude of emissions from a source, its distance to the Class I

area(s) of concern, and the sulfate extinction weighted residence time plots, developed

using back trajectories, hereafter referred to as sulfate contribution. Although this metric

is not a direct modeling analysis, its basis is grounded in the VISTAS regional scale

modeling which found that visibility impairment is proportional to sulfate within

reasonable bounds. Appendix H contains a more detailed discussion of these analyses.

The WVDAQ notes that section 7.5 of the public (October) draft of the SIP contains

tables similar to Table 7.5.1 that show the state-by-state sulfate contribution of sources

within the AoI to the following Class I areas: Brigantine, New Jersey; Great Smokey

Mountains, North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face, Virginia; Linville Gorge,

North Carolina; Mammoth Cave, Kentucky; and Shenandoah, Virginia. In addition, the

WVDAQ has added maps showing the Area of Influence for each of the Class I areas

identified above to the final SIP narrative. The WVDAQ disagrees that the radii of 100

and 200 km should be removed from the AoI maps. The radii provide a reference point

for scale, assisting the reader in comprehending the size of the AoI.

The WVDAQ had included a table in section 4.2 of the public (October) draft SIP –

which has been moved to section 7.5.d and renumbered Table 7.5.d-2 – that identifies all

the units in the Dolly Sods AoI which contribute at least 0.5% of the sulfate. Table 7.5.dWV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 56
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 5

2 also provides the SO2 emissions for 2002 and the projected emissions for 2018, as well

as the SO2 control efficiency projected for 2018.

The WVDAQ has also included the following additional language from Appendix H in

Section 7.5.e which explains the reasons for the 1% contribution threshold.

As discussed in Appendix H - Reasonable Progress Evaluation and Long

Term Strategy, Section 5, the WVDAQ elected to focus on those units that

contributed at least one percent to sulfate visibility impairment at a given

Class I area. First, the units with the larger contribution toward visibility

impairment would likely show an environmental benefit under a control

evaluation, and WVDAQ would be able to use that environmental benefit to

require controls on a given unit. Second, there are several regulatory

programs which we consider to have established precedents for the use of

significance thresholds greater than one percent.

1. EPA in the preamble to the BART rule stated that the threshold used “for

determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment should

not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.” [70 FR 39161. 6JUL2005] This

threshold equates to roughly a 5 percent change in visible perception.

This same significance level is used in the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration/ New Source Review program for the visibility air quality

related value. The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related

Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (December 2000) [page 26] states:

“The FLMs are concerned about situations where a change in extinction

from new source growth is greater than 5% as compared against natural

conditions.”

2. The NOx SIP Call laid out a significance level for Section 126 petitions

of 4 parts per million (ppm), that being the level to which a State's

contribution to another state's ozone problem was considered significant.

Four ppm represents approximately 3.75 percent of the 1-hour ozone

standard, which was in place at the time EPA promulgated the NOx SIP

Call.

3. For the CAIR rule, a PM contribution of 0.2 ug/m3 was used to

demonstrate a significant impact, which is 1.3% of the annual PM2.5

standard of 15 ug/m3.

4. Lastly, when human health standards are proposed National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) significant impact levels (SILS) are assigned

which allow sources to determine their significance on air quality in the

area around their facilities. Sources that demonstrate that their

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 57
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 6

"contribution" from the new or modified sources is less than these

significance levels do not have to complete any further modeling. The

SILS represent a percentage of the NAAQS.

After reviewing all averaging periods for the criteria pollutants, WVDAQ

determined that the one percent threshold we were proposing for reasonable

further progress was as protective or more protective than the significant

impact levels. The most restrictive threshold identified was for NOx, which

has a NAAQS of 100 ug/m3 and a significance level of 1 ug/m3, which

represents one percent of the total. 

Finally, WVDAQ considered available resources to evaluate the sources in

each Class I area’s sulfate AoI. WVDAQ recognized that there was neither

sufficient time or resources available to evaluate all units within a given AoI.

Therefore, a threshold was needed to determine which units would be

evaluated. Table 5.0-1 from Appendix H (now Table 7.5.e-3 in the SIP

narrative) shows that a one percent contribution threshold captures greater

than 64% of the total point source SO2 contribution to Dolly Sods, while

requiring an evaluation of only 17 units. The next 27% of cumulative

contribution may be attributed to units with individual contribution between

0.1% - 1% and would require analysis of 97 additional units. The WVDAQ

believes that the one percent threshold is appropriate, given the contribution

to the total visibility impairment at each Class I area, and the limited

resources available to conduct the unit-by-unit evaluation for reasonable

progress.

Table 5.0-1. Numbers and Percentages of 2018 SO2 Emission Units

that Contribute to Sulfate Visibility Impairment at Dolly Sods

Dolly Sods

# Units Contributing > 1% 17

Percentage of total Contribution 64.28%

# Units Contributing > 0.1%, but < 1% 97

Percentage of total Contribution 27.33%

# Units Contributing < 0.1% 209

Percentage of total Contribution 8.38%

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 58
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 7

COMMENT C:

2. Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

Page 49 of the SIP discusses the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reductions that are

expected to occur across the VISTAS region as a result of the Federal Clean Air

Interstate Rule (CAIR). While large reductions are anticipated under CAIR, as the SIP

identifies, even after implementation of this Federal Rule, EGU emissions are expected to

remain a significant contributor to regional haze. Additionally, while a 7.3 deciview

improvement is expected within the first planning period, chiefly due to implementation

of CAIR, an additional 11.3 deciviews of improvement will be necessary to achieve the

visibility goal for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. Given that additional EGU reductions will

still be necessary after 2018, and that there is a fair amount of uncertainty surrounding

the model analyses conducted for future year projections, as well as what is actually

going to occur under CAIR, the tracking and review periods under the Regional Haze

Regulations become increasingly important from the FLMs perspective. We are pleased

to see WVDAQ’s commitment to completing the reasonable progress reports every five

years, as well as comprehensive SIP revisions in subsequent planning periods, in

accordance with the Regional Haze Regulations. With these progress reports and SIP

revisions in mind, we would like to make several suggestions.

First, the WVDAQ has listed the requirements found in the regulations for completing

SIP revisions progress reports. Referring back to the sources identified in the AOI (as

highlighted in comment #1) would assist the WVDQAQ in meeting requirement four,

Analysis of emissions changes over the 5-year period, identified by source or activity. It

may also assist the state in making determinations regarding requirements number five

and six, Analysis of any significant changes in or out of State which have impeded

progress, and Assessment of the sufficiency of the implementation plan to meet RPGs,

respectively.

Second, we feel that it is appropriate to restate the anticipated need for continued future

emissions reductions to achieve visibility goals, and to recognize that these further

reductions may need to come from targeted facilities as we move into future planning

periods. This in not to say that WVDAQ is currently seeking reductions from these

facilities in the first planning period, as it is anticipated that improvements in the WV

Class I areas will exceed the URP. Rather it is simply identifying the sources that are

anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the current and future planning

period(s). With this in mind, two of the units showing up on the AOI and under the

reasonable progress analysis, are of particular importance to the FS in terms of visibility

impairment at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. These are the Mount Storm Power Plant and

the North Branch Power Station.

Significant reductions have already been made at the Mount Storm units, however this

facility is located less than 20 kilometers from Dolly Sods and may become increasingly

important for visibility impairment in the future. While the CAIR was determined to be

better than BART for SO2 and NOx emissions, a BART determination was completed for

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 59
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 8

particulate matter emissions from Mount Storm, but additional controls were determined

to be infeasible at this time. While the FS has no further comment on the final BART

determination for this facility, we feel this source should be identified in the SIP as a

source of particular importance.

The North Branch Power Station also located less than 20 kilometers from Dolly Sods, at

18.73 km away. The North Branch facility is actually anticipated to increase its actual

emission under CAIR between the base year and 2018. Preliminary CALPUFF modeling

conducted by the USFS based on the Title V emission limits for North Branch indicates

that there may be 30 days in three years of modeling at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class

I areas with a change in extinction greater than 10%. Recognizing that this is based on

the Title V potential-to-emit limits, and not the actual emissions, these preliminary

results demonstrate that these nearby facilities may be the focus of further reductions in

the future. Additionally, through previous permitting actions by WVDAQ, we understand

that this particular facility may contribute to significant increment problems in the Class

I areas. The preliminary modeling results for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas

are presented in Table 1 below. (It is important to note that these are only preliminary

results, which have not gone through extensive review. They are included in these

comments for informational purposes only.)

Table 1: Preliminary CALPUFF visibility modeling results at Dolly Sods and Otter

Creek for the North Branch Power Station, using permitted Title V emission rates.

Modeling Year Modeled Days with a

Change in Extinction

$5%

Modeled Days with a

Change in Extinction

$10%

2001 35 11

2002 31 8

2003 38 11

Total in 3 Modeled Years 104 30

We are concerned that emissions from the North Branch facility will continue to cause

visibility impairment in the Class I areas we manage even in 2018. Again, we request

that WVDAQ acknowledge this source as a candidate for review in future planning

periods, as described for the Mount Storm Power Plant above.

RESPONSE C:

As noted in response B above, WVDAQ has included additional maps, tables and

discussion of sources in the AoI for Brigantine, New Jersey; Great Smokey Mountains,

North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face, Virginia; Linville Gorge, North

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 60
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 9

Carolina; Mammoth Cave, Kentucky; and Shenandoah, Virginia, as well as provided a

table identifying all the sources in the AoI for Dolly Sods with a contribution of 0.5% to

sulfate.

The WVDAQ recognizes that the 2018 projections of EGU controls from the IPM runs

represent a solution as to how the CAIR requirements may be met, not necessarily the

solution as to how the CAIR requirements will be met. By the time the of the first

periodic report, the WVDAQ anticipates that the actual compliance strategy for the

various electric utility companies will be much more defined. An assessment of the actual

compliance plans will be completed for the first periodic report. 

The WVDAQ acknowledges that continuing emissions reductions will be required to

achieve natural background conditions by 2064. Although the first review period focused

on sulfate reductions, future review periods may find that additional sulfate reductions

are required and achievable as control technologies improve. Furthermore, as emissions

are reduced from specific source sectors over time, emissions from other source sectors

may become increasingly significant.

The WVDAQ acknowledges that the Mt. Storm Power Station is located very near Dolly

Sods and Otter Creek, however, it should be noted that the facility is currently equipped

with scrubbers to control SO2, SCRs to control NOx and ESPs to control particulate

matter. These controls are all highly efficient, and additional cost-effective controls are

not available at this time. 

The WVDAQ also acknowledges that the North Branch Power Station is located very

close to Dolly Sods and Otter Creek, however, it should be noted that the facility was

built in the 1990's and was subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

review, requiring BACT controls for SO2, NOx and particulate matter.

In response to the FLM request that Mt. Storm and North Branch be identified in the SIP

narrative as a “source of particular concern” the WVDAQ has added language to section

7.7 that states: “The WVDAQ notes that due to the close proximity of Mt. Storm and

North Branch Power Stations to Dolly Sods and Otter Creek, these plants are of

particular concern.”

In regard to the issue of “significant increment problems”, on March 2, 2004, the

WVDAQ issued a major source PSD permit (R14-0024) for the construction and

operation of the Longview Power Station. This facility will be a 600 MW coal-fired

power generation facility located in Monongalia County, WV approximately 3.5 miles

north of Morgantown, near the border with Pennsylvania. 

As part of the permitting process, the applicant provided an air dispersion modeling

analysis that studied the cumulative PSD sulfur dioxide (SO2) increment consumption at

the federally designated Class I Areas, as mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 61
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 10

Amendments(CAAA). In West Virginia, these are the Otter Creek Wilderness Area and

the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, both of which are managed by the US Forest Service,

the federally designated Federal Land Manager (FLM) for these areas. The modeling

analysis showed apparent violations of both the 3-hour and the 24-hour SO2 increment

standard at the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, due primarily to the impacts from the North

Branch Power Plant, located in Bayard, WV. 

In June 2005, the Pennsylvania Division of Environmental Quality (PADEQ) issued a

major source PSD permit (PA-30-00150A) for the Greene Energy Resource Recovery

Facility, in Nemacolin, PA. This facility is less than 10 miles due north of the Longview

Power Station, and is comprised of a 525 MW circulating fluidized bed (CFB) waste coal

power generation facility. As in the earlier permit, the applicant performed an air

dispersion modeling analysis for the federal Class I Areas. Due to the similarity in

facility type, geography, and timing, much of the Greene Energy analysis was based upon

the earlier work done for Longview. Both U.S. EPA Region III, and the U.S. Forest

Service, provided oversight to Pennsylvania for this analysis and each provided

significant input to the process. 

In addition to being a more recent analysis, the Greene Energy analysis included the

following technical improvements: a larger modeling domain; inclusion of more sources

in the cumulative analysis; improved increment consumption modeling inventories from

West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the inclusion of three years of mesoscale

meteorological data versus the single year used in the Longview project. 

The Greene Energy analysis demonstrated that there were no modeled violations of the

SO2 increment standard at the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, or at any other Class I Area

in West Virginia. The DAQ believes that the Greene Energy analysis, which has been

accepted as an adequate PSD demonstration by both the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Forest

Service, adequately resolves the previous apparent violation.

During future regional haze review periods the WVDAQ will consider all sources that

impact the Class I areas for potential control, and analyze the situation as it exists at that

time.

COMMENT D:

3. Ongoing Consultation

Requirements for consultation under the Regional Haze Regulations involve both stateto-state consultation, as well as consultation with the FLMs. In terms of state-to-state

consultation, we feel WVDAQ fully fulfilled this requirement for states within the VISTAS

region. However, because WV lies on the boundary with two other RPO’s, the state-tostate consultation requirement becomes increasingly difficult for WVDAQ to fulfill. 

Additionally, because several of these states have sources which are showing up in the

VISTAS AOI for the WV Class I areas, as well as the AOIs produced by other RPOs, we

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 62
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 11

feel this consultation outside of the VISTAS region is important. WVDAQ has determined

that within the first planning period, because reductions within WV in particular will be

great enough to achieve progress that is better than the URP, they will not ask for

reductions from neighboring states at this point in time. While we feel that this is an

appropriate approach for the first planning period, again we feel is it important to set the

stage for subsequent planning periods, by identifying those sources in other states that

show up in the VISTAS AOI that may be a contributor to visibility impairment in the WV

Class I areas. Additionally, WVDAQ should document any consultation with other states

that has occurred regarding specific sources that affect Dolly Sods and Otter Creek, as

defined by the AOI. It is our understanding through conversations with your agency that

several of these consultations are beginning to occur and that WVDAQ intends to include

the results of this consultation in the final SIP.

The state-to-state consultation is also important in terms of those states with Class I

areas which may be affected by emissions from WV sources. While WVDAQ addressed

the impact of their sources assessed for further reasonable progress on VISTAS Class I

areas (including James River Face and Shenandoah), on page 93 of the draft SIP, WV

acknowledges receipt of letters from the states of New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire

and Maine. These letters assert that based on the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment,

emissions sources in WV are causing visibility impairment in their Class I areas. While

we can not speak for the FS FLMs of the Vermont and New Hampshire Class I areas, as

the technical reviewers of the WV SIP, we do have several comments on WVDAQ’s

determination regarding MANE-VU’s assessment. While we recognize and agree with

WVDAQ that MANE-VU’s contribution assessment should have also addressed 2018

emissions, rather than 2002 alone, we would like to point out that unlike VISTAS AOI,

MANE-VU’s contribution assessment included actual source apportionment analyses

using the CAPUFF and REMSAD modeling platforms. Obvious problems arise from the

inability to compare various pieces of information developed by the different RPOs. This

highlights the need for a unified assessment approach for the eastern United States for

future planning periods that would eliminate significant impediments to states when

approaching state-to-state consultation. None-the-less we feel WVDAQ should provide

additional documentation that these states have been officially notified of WVDAQ’s final

position, and what steps, if any, were taken by the states pursuing the request to resolve

this disagreement. 

Finally, we are pleased to see that WVDAQ has included measures for ongoing

consultation with the FLMs. Recognizing that the meaning of “ongoing consultation” at

this point in time is inferred based on current working relationships, we feel it is

important for future planning periods to explicitly establish what this means. For

example, does this mean that the FLMs will be involved early in the review process for

the periodic reviews? Will the FLMs receive copies of revised regional haze SIPs prior

to finalizing the documents? How will the FLMs be consulted in terms of reviewing the

visibility data? We feel that clearly establishing the process for FLM consultation in the

SIP document may eliminate any confusion as to what “ongoing consultation” requires

in future years.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 63
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 12

RESPONSE D:

The WVDAQ has updated the language in section 10 regarding interstate consultation.

As noted in section 10, WVDAQ participated in a consultation meeting with MANE-VU

in Atlanta on August 20, 2007, and participated in conference calls with Kentucky,

Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia at various times. (See Appendix

J for documentation.)

On October 26, 2007, the WVDAQ provided copies of the draft Regional Haze SIP and

notice of the public comment period to the following states: Kentucky, Maryland, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont and

Virginia. The WVDAQ received comments from the State of New Jersey, their

comments and WVDAQ’s response are included in Appendix N. 

The WVDAQ updated the language in section 11, and added the following sentence:

“Consultation between WVDAQ and the FLMs will include early involvement of FLMs

in the periodic review process and the FLMs will receive copies of revised regional haze

SIPs for comment prior to finalization.”

COMMENT E:

4. Miscellaneous Comments

It is our recollection from the VISTAS FLM consultation meeting held in Asheville in

June of 2007, that EPA requested that states identify why they chose the 1% threshold for

the fractional contribution to the total AOI metric contributions when determining which

sources to assess for further reasonable progress, We recommend that WVDAQ either

provide this justification in the body of the SIP, or cite the document in which this

justification can be found. 

Given the uncertainty in the new source growth estimates used to develop the 2018

emissions inventory, and ultimately 2018 visibility projections, we feel it would be

appropriate for WVDAQ to discuss the relationship between the regional haze plan and

the requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program

within the WV SIP. In other words, how does WVDAQ anticipate addressing new

sources of air pollution; specifically how emissions from these new sources are will

affect progress toward the interim visibility goals established under this SIP. 

Finally, we recognize that the RPO’s have provided significant resources to the states

throughout the Regional Haze planning process, and that it will be detrimental to the

state agencies if these resources are no longer available for subsequent planning and

periodic SIP review periods. We strongly encourage the EPA to maintain support for the

RPOs as we begin tracking reasonable progress for the Class I areas under the Regional

Haze SIPs. Additionally, if further technical support is provided to the states, we also

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 64
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 13

recommend the development of a unified analytical approach for the eastern United

States in effort to resolve the issues discussed under section 3 of these comments.

RESPONSE E:

As noted in Response I.B, the WVDAQ has added the justification for the 1% threshold

from Appendix H to section 7.5.e of the SIP narrative.

As prviusly noted, the WVDAQ recognizes that the 2018 projections of EGU controls

from the IPM runs represent a solution as to how the CAIR requirements may be met, not

necessarily the solution as to how the CAIR requirements will be met. By the time the of

the first periodic report, the WVDAQ anticipates that the actual compliance strategy for

the various electric utility companies will be much more defined. An assessment of the

actual compliance plans will be completed for the first period report.

The WVDAQ also recognizes that IPM predicted the installation of new generation in

different states, including West Virginia, and that these are projections of what may be

built, not guarantees of what will be built. Regardless of whether a new unit was

predicted by IPM or not, West Virginia has rules in place to regulate emissions from new

sources, including the following:

• 45CSR13 – Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation And

Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements,

Administrative Updates, Temporary Permits, General Permits, and Procedures

for Evaluation (minor source NSR); 

• 45CSR14 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary

Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); and 

• 45CSR19 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major

Stationary Sources of Air Pollution which Cause or Contribute to

Nonattainment (nonattainment NSR). 

These rules have been approved by EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan. 

The West Virginia PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations address emissions from new

major sources that may locate near a Class I area; or increases in emissions from major

modifications to existing sources located near a Class I area. Both the PSD and

nonattainment NSR programs require consultation with the FLMs and require that

emissions not adversely impact any identified air quality related value, including

visibility.

The WVDAQ has added language to section 7.9 of the SIP narrative to address the issue

of PSD and nonatttainment NSR.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 65
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 14

II. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service

(October 30, 2007)

COMMENT A:

1. Page 46, Section 7.2, we recommend identifying the state in which the Consent

Agreements were filed.

RESPONSE A:

WVDAQ agrees, and has updated the SIP narrative accordingly.

COMMENT B:

2. Page 48, Section 7.2, please clarify significance of Early Action Compacts (EAC) to

the state’s proposed RH program. The draft SIP states the WVDAQ encourages emission

reductions through EACs stating that such emissions may yield quantifiable visibility

benefits. However, the paragraph concludes such reductions were not included in

modeling because essentially the reductions will likely have little impact on visibility. 

Which one is it?

RESPONSE B:

As stated in the draft SIP narrative, the EAC agreements outlined emission control

strategies that addressed NOx and VOC as ozone precursors, and may yield visibility

results. However, the agency did not attempt to quantify the improvements because the

strategies focus on ozone-season emissions, rather than annual emissions. The WVDAQ

acknowledges that NOx and VOC emissions reductions have been shown to have little

visibility benefit on the 20% worst days, which occur mainly in the summer and are

dominated by sulfate, whereas nitrate emissions have a greater impact in the winter.

To avoid confusion, the WVDAQ has deleted the reference to the Early Action Compacts

in section 7.2.a.

COMMENT C:

3. Page 60, Section 7.3, figure 7.3-3 presents results on projected visibility glide slope

for Dolly Sods WV. One data point is offered to represent a projection of haziness if

international effects were removed. Providing this data is misleading without removing

an appropriate amount of international contribution from the 2064 estimate of natural

conditions. Please remove an appropriate international contribution from the natural

condition and present a new glide slope line. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 66
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 15

RESPONSE C:

The estimated impact of international emissions was presented for informational

purposes only. The state has no authority to control international emissions, therefore it

would be inappropriate and misleading to show a reasonable progress glide path that

removed international emissions. Moreover, even if other nations cooperated, only a

fraction of these emissions could be reduced.

To avoid confusion, the WVDAQ has deleted Figure 7.3-3.

COMMENT D:

4. Page 61-62, Section 7.4, Figure 7.4-1 illustrates neighboring state contributions to

visibility degradation at Dolly Sods WA on the 20% worst days. Please provide

additional discussion in the main body of the SIP discussing the consultation with these

States to address those contributions. Please see also comments #14-17 below

regarding Section 10.0.

RESPONSE D:

WVDAQ has updated the discussion regarding the consultation between the states in

Section 10. 

COMMENT E:

5. Page 62, Section 7.5, recommend including maps, tables and discussion for additional

Class I areas (e.g., Shenandoah National Park) impacted by WV sources in this section. 

Such a discussion is referenced in Appendix H, but we recommend adding this

information to the main body of the SIP.

RESPONSE E:

WVDAQ agrees with the recommendation and has included additional maps, tables and

discussion for Brigantine, NJ; Great Smokey Mountains, NC and TN; James River Face,

VA; Linville Gorge, NC; Mammoth Cave, KY; and Shenandoah, VA.

COMMENT F:

6. Page 68, Section 7.5, Table 7.5.-1 highlights the neighboring States sulfur dioxide

point source contribution to visibility impairment in WV Class I areas. Please provide

additional discussion describing the consultation with these States to address their

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 67
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 16

contributions. Please also see comments #14-16 below regarding state-to-state

consultations. 

RESPONSE F:

WVDAQ discusses the consultation between the states in Section 10.

COMMENT G:

7. Page 71, Section 7.5, we would like to see a list of the sources located within the Area

of Influence (AOI) of each Class I area in West Virginia. A summary list of these sources

should be included in the SIP narrative, much like the identification and listing of BART

eligible sources. Providing these sources by name will add clarity to the reasonable

progress discussion, especially with respect to the cost effectiveness of controls for the

non-EGU sources. In addition, the State mentions it used lists of individual sources to

see if other source categories were major contributors to SO2 emissions in the Area of

Influence, but no conclusions were provided in the narrative. 

RESPONSE G:

A list of all the sources in the AoI is provided in Appendix H.2. A list of sources

contributing greater than 0.5% to sulfate at Dolly Sods has been added to the narrative

(See Table 7.5.d-2).

COMMENT H:

8. Page 72, Section 7.6, please provide more information regarding VISTAS

modifications to EPA’s AirControlNET database.

RESPONSE H:

AirControlNET is a relational database system in which control technologies are linked

to sources within EPA emission inventories. It contains a database of control measures

and cost information for reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, as well as carbon

monoxide and mercury from point (utility and non-utility), area, nonroad, and mobile

sources as provided in EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) format. As such,

AirControlNET is linked to and dependent upon EPA emission inventories as a source of

emissions data. The control measure data files in AirControlNET include the control

efficiency to calculate emission reductions for that source and cost data (annual and

capital) to calculate the total costs of applying the control measure.

AirControlNET allows the user the flexibility of selecting the baseline and user modified

emissions data for emission reduction and cost evaluation of control strategies. The Data

Set Tool allows the user to Add, Remove, Edit descriptions, and select existing

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 68
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 17

AirControlNET data sets. Once the desired data set has been loaded into AirControlNET,

it is used in the Control Scenario Module, Least Cost Module, and Reporting Module.

The “modifications” to EPA’s AirControlNET database, were simply the loading of

VISTAS emission inventories into EPA’s AirControlNet. This allowed for emission

reduction and cost evaluation of control strategies for the sources in the VISTAS

inventory.

COMMENT I:

9. Page 76-77, Sec 7.7, and Page 86, Section 7.8.c, we compliment West Virginia on

looking at reducing sulfur dioxide at Capitol Cement as part of their reasonable progress

effort, but think the State should also evaluate potential NOx reductions (e.g., by

application of SNCR) there as well.

RESPONSE I:

The monitored data and modeling analyses cited in sections 2 and 5 of the narrative

establish that, for the VISTAS region (including West Virginia), the key contributors to

regional haze in the 2002-04 baseline period were large stationary sources of sulfur

dioxide emissions. The results from the emissions sensitivity runs (see section 7.4) are

consistent with the conclusions drawn from the 2000-04 baseline monitoring data. The

results indicate that sulfate is the dominate contributor to visibility impairment on the

20% worst days at all VISTAS sites. WVDAQ concluded that reducing SO2 emissions

from EGU and non-EGU point sources would have the greatest visibility benefit for

Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. Therefore, we decided to focus on SO2 emissions during

this first planning period and did not evaluate potential NOx reductions.

As stated in Section 7.7, Capitol Cement is currently undergoing a modernization project,

which includes the replacement of two existing long wet process cement kilns and

associated clinker coolers with a modern large preheater/precalciner kiln system and

related equipment. Although the WVDAQ did not evaluate NOx emissions for purposes

of reasonable progress, a review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse found that in

June of 2000 Maryland determined that a preheater/precalciner kiln was NOx BACT for a

portland cement plant. [See RBLC ID MD-0027] Maryland stated “A 5-stage

preheater/precalciner pyroprocessing plant is selected for NOx emission abatement. Any

add-on NOx emissions control has been determined to be either technically or

environmentally infeasible”.

[http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/cfm/PoltDetl.cfm?facnum=16031&Procnum=90034&poltnum

=111059]

The WVDAQ will reevaluate the potential benefit of NOx controls during the next haze

review.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 69
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 18

COMMENT J:

10. Page 84, Section 7.8, correct reference to chart 7.8.b-3 in text. Paragraph should

read, “The facilities with BART-Eligible units found to be subject to BART are shown in

Table 7.8.b-3,” not Table 7.8.b-1.

RESPONSE J:

WVDAQ agrees and has made the correction.

COMMENT K:

11. Page 86, Section 7.8.c, regarding Dominion-Mt. Storm facility, we recognize that the

facility is well-controlled and would like to see this level of control reflected in the

pending Title V permit. Information provided by WVDAQ indicates that this facility is

capable of meeting a limit on filterable PM10 emissions of 0.010 lb/mmBtu. Considering

that the BART analyses were based upon the premise of this high-degree of control, it

seems that, for consistency, the resulting permit limit should reflect the degree of control

used in the analyses (with some safety margin). Since the NSPS for EGUs is 0.015

lb/mmBtu, we suggest that this would provide an adequate margin of safety while

insuring that the control equipment is properly maintained and operated in the manner

assumed by the analyses.

RESPONSE K:

The BART emission limit of 0.03 lbPM10/mmBtu (filterable) for the Units at Mt. Storm

was based on a determination of appropriate source performance within in the context of

BART. Considered in this determination were current allowable levels (0.05 lbPM/mmBtu), past performance of the Units and reasonably achievable future

performance, and appropriateness of any emission limit within BART. 

Concerning past performance levels of the Units, additional particulate matter stack

testing data (attached) has been reviewed that includes a filterable test level of 0.0205 lbPM/mmBtu on Unit 3 (5/18/06). Based on the past performance tests and an

understanding of the effects on particulate matter emissions from variability in the fuel

source, it was determined that 0.03 lbPM10/mmBtu (filterable) represented an appropriate

emission limit based on past performance and future expectations. This limit was also

considered appropriate (representing a decrease of 0.02 lb-PM/mmBtu below current

allowable levels) within the context of BART. [See Appendix L.8.b which has been

amended to include stack test data.]

The emission levels used by Dominion in the BART screening modeling were not

considered in determining the appropriate BART emission limit. The modeling was used

for program applicability determination only and, therefore, was not considered a

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 70
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 19

relevant factor in determinating the final BART emission limit. Subpart Da emission

limits were also not considered a relevant factor in determinating the final BART

emission limit. The WVDAQ believes that New Source Performance Standards are not a

guide for BART performance levels.

COMMENT L:

12. Page 87, Section 7.9, please clarify language as to what the State is planning in

terms of addressing prescribed fire in this planning period. Were emissions from

prescribed burns considered in VISTAS modeling? Will future prescribed burns be

significant enough to be addressed in each planning phase? 

RESPONSE L:

VISTAS included emissions from prescribed burns, as submitted by the National Park

Service, the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, in the modeling. The

WVDAQ has added clarifying language to Section 7.9.

The question of whether or not future prescribed burns will be significant enough to be

addressed in each planning phase must be evaluated during each individual phase. As

emissions are reduced from other source sectors, emissions from prescribed burns may

become more significant and may warrant increased scrutiny.

COMMENT M:

13. Page 86, Section 7.9, please add a discussion of other programs that will balance

growth or relocation of emissions and the regional haze goals. For example, WVDAQ

should include a discussion of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source

Review program as a tool for considering emissions growth and its effect on the regional

haze plan.

RESPONSE M:

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program (PSD) and the New Source Review

Program (NSR) are separate programs that are already part of the State Implementation

Plan. These programs require FLM consultation and the consideration of visibility

impairment prior to issuance of any new major source permits.

WVDAQ has included language in section 7.9 that makes it clear that the PSD and NSR

programs will consider the impact of new or modified sources on regional haze.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 71
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 20

COMMENT N:

14. Page 93, Section 10.0, please identify what Class I areas West Virginia considered

when evaluating if the state’s emissions impacted other Class I areas in neighboring

states. Also please include any consultations West Virginia has had with those Class I

area states. As mentioned in Comment #5 above, including information in Appendix H

directly into the main body of the SIP would be helpful to the discussion in Section 10.0

(as well as Section 7.5).

RESPONSE N:

WVDAQ has included additional maps, tables and discussion for Brigantine, NJ; Great

Smokey Mountains, NC and TN; James River Face, VA; Linville Gorge, NC; Mammoth

Cave, KY; and Shenandoah, VA in Section 7.5. Additional language has been added to

Section 10 regarding the consultation between the states. Appendix J contains

documentation of the consultation between the states.

In addition, on October 26, 2007, the WVDAQ provided copies of the draft Regional

Haze SIP and notice of the public comment period to the following states: Pennsylvania,

Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee,

Virginia and Vermont. The WVDAQ received comments from the State of New Jersey, a

copy of their comments and WVDAQ’s response to their comments in included in

Appendix N. 

COMMENT O:

15. Page 93, Section 10.0, it would be helpful to again see information discussing which

states were contributors to visibility impairment and a discussion describing the

consultation with these States to address their contributions (similar to Section 7.4 or 7.5

or reference those sections). No reference is made to communications with states in

MWRPO, which were deemed significant in Section 7.4 and Section 7.5 above.

RESPONSE O:

Appendix J contains documentation of discussions with Ohio and the Midwest RPO. 

WVDAQ has added additional discussion in Section 10 of the narrative.

COMMENT P:

16. Page 93, Section 10.0, we recommend that the State update the discussion of

consultation with MANE-VU states that may have occurred this past summer. It is

important to acknowledge that the State, although not agreeing with the MANE-VU

assertions, is willing to participate in the consultation process.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 72
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 21

RESPONSE P:

WVDAQ has updated the consultation discussion in section 10 and included

documentation of the consultation in Appendix J.

COMMENT Q:

17. Page 94, Section 10.0, this one paragraph regarding Brigantine National Wildlife

Refuge is the only discussion of impacts from West Virginia emissions on a Class I area

outside state boundaries. As mentioned above, we recommend a discussion of WV

emission sources on other Class I areas (e.g., Shenandoah National Park).

RESPONSE Q:

As noted in Responses E and N above, WVDAQ has included additional maps, tables

and discussion for Brigantine, NJ; Great Smokey Mountains, NC and TN; James River

Face, VA; Linville Gorge, NC; Mammoth Cave, KY; and Shenandoah, VA in Section

7.5. WVDAQ has updated the consultation discussion and included documentation of the

consultation in Appendix J.

COMMENT R:

18. Page 95, Section 11.0, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), please provide

specific procedures for assuring ongoing FLM-State consultation on implementation of

the provisions of the SIP, the development of the 5-year review and work on the SIP

revision due in 2017. Annual discussions of the implementation plan may not be

sufficient to meet this ongoing consultation requirement.

RESPONSE R:

The WVDAQ has updated the language in section 11 and added the following sentence:

“Consultation between WVDAQ and the FLMs will include early involvement of FLMs

in the periodic review process and the FLMs will receive copies of revised regional haze

SIPs for comment prior to finalization.”

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 73
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 22

III. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

(November 21, 2007)

COMMENT A:

On September 21, 2007, the State of West Virginia submitted a draft of the

implementation plan describing your proposal to improve air quality regional haze

impacts at mandatory Class I areas across your region. This letter acknowledges that the

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has received and

conducted a review of your proposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in

fulfillment of your requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).

Please note, however, that only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can

make a final determination regarding the document’s completeness, and therefore, ability

to receive federal approval from EPA.

As outlined in a letter to each State dated August 1, 2006, our review focused on eight

basic content areas, reflecting priorities for the Federal Land Manager (FLM) agencies.

For the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service (NPS) was lead agency

responding to West Virginia’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) and

provided comments to you on October 30, 2007. After further review, FWS would like to

make a few suggestions toward strengthening the SIP, particularly in terms of regional

consistency as outlined in our August 2006 letter. These comments compliment the

comments provided by NPS and United States Forest Service (USFS).

RESPONSE A:

No response required.

COMMENT B:

USFS and NPS each commented on the need to fully address state-to-state consultation

both within and outside the Visibility Improvement - State and Tribal Association of the

Southeast (VISTAS) Regional Planning Organization (RPO). Consultation is a key

component of the Regional Haze program because an emission reduction strategy on a

regional (multi-state) basis can help achieve reasonable progress for many Class I areas

at the same time. As such, the FWS believes it is important that West Virginia address the

requests made during the consultation process by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility

Union (MANE-VU) RPO and its respective states.

FWS recommends that West Virginia summarize the letters sent by New Hampshire, New

Jersey, and Vermont and the individual response(s) from West Virginia to those states in

the narrative of the SIP in Section 10.0 “Interstate Consultation Regarding West Virginia

Contribution to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas in Neighboring States.” This

addition will highlight West Virginia’s commitment to the consultation process by

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 74
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 23

describing the written and verbal communication that occurred. Also, it is important for

West Virginia to document its communication with the State of Maryland as evidenced by

a referenced conference call that occurred in October 2007 (Appendix J). Again,

discussion of the various state communications in Section 10.0 of the SIP narrative would

show how West Virginia satisfied the consultation requirements of the Regional Haze

Program.

RESPONSE B:

See Responses I.D, II.D, II.F, and II.N - II.Q. above. WVDAQ has updated the

consultation discussion in section 10 of the final SIP submittal.

COMMENT C:

Perhaps more importantly, the FWS would like to see West Virginia’s response to the

MANE-VU “Request for a Course of Action” submitted by MANE-VU to VISTAS states

during the August 20, 2007, consultation meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia. This

“Request for a Course of Action” can currently be found in Appendix J, pages 76-77 of

the draft SIP. VISTAS prepared a response to MANE-VU that is found on pages 80-100

in Appendix J. The VISTAS response does not address the conclusions made by West

Virginia. We recommend that West Virginia include its conclusions regarding this

“Request for a Course of Action” in Section 10.0 of the SIP narrative.

Specifically, it is important for West Virginia to explain its decisions regarding the four

actions that MANE-VU requested:

1) timely implementation of BART,

2) the 167 stacks identified by MANE-VU, as “reasonably anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas,”

3) an additional 28% reduction in non-EGU SO2 emissions, and

4) discussion of any other measures to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from coalburning facilities by the year 2018 (Appendix J - pgs. 76-77).

By providing West Virginia’s conclusions in the Regional Haze SIP narrative, West

Virginia will appropriately address those issues raised during the consultation process,

both within and outside the VISTAS RPO, and as required by the Regional Haze Rule.

RESPONSE C:

The SIP narrative has a section (Section 7.8) devoted to discussion of how West Virginia

addressed BART. WVDAQ has issued permits for the two (2) BART subject sources in

West Virginia. These two (2) sources are required to comply with the BART

requirements in their permits no later than 6 months after approval of West Virginia’s

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 75
Response to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 24

Regional Haze SIP. WVDAQ believes that this satisfies the request for “timely

implementation of BART”. A summary table of the BART requirements has been added

to section 7.8. 

In addition, WVDAQ issued a permit to one source requiring emission reductions such

that the visibility impact of the source was reduced to less than 0.5 deciviews. This limit

allows the source to meet the exemption requirements of the BART rule.

The MANE-VU states identified 167 EGU stacks, thirteen (13) of which were in West

Virginia, as contributing significantly to visibility impairment at MANE-VU Class I

areas in 2002. The 13 stacks identified by MANE-VU vent the emissions from twentythree (23) EGUs (identified in Table 10.0-1 of the final SIP narrative) in West Virginia.

MANE-VU has asked states to control the SO2 emissions from these units with a 90%

efficiency. MANE-VU also requested a control strategy to provide a 28% reduction in

SO2 emissions from sources, other than EGUs, that would be equivalent to their

proposed low sulfur residential fuel oil strategy. West Virginia has controlled or is

expecting to control all of the EGUs identified by MANE-VU, with at least a 90%

control efficiency by 2018.

As shown in Table 10.0-1 (of the SIP narrative), all of the units identified by MANE-VU

in their “EGU Ask” are expected to be controlled by 2018, and thirteen (13) of the units

will be controlled with a 95% efficiency, resulting in an additional 73,015 tons of SO2

reductions beyond those requested in the “EGU Ask”. In addition, IPM has predicted the

shutdown of five (5) EGUs (337 MW of capacity) not identified by MANE-VU. These

units accounted for a total of 18,849.5 tons of SO2 in 2002. As shown in Table 7.5.d-3,

by 2018 all the EGUs in West Virginia are expected to either be controlled for SO2 or

shutdown. 

West Virginia’s non-EGUs are predicted to emit 61,704 tons of SO2 in 2018, MANE-VU

in their “non-EGU Ask” has requested a 28% reduction in these emissions, or 17,277

tons of SO2 reductions. The additional 91,864 tons of SO2 reductions achieved by the

installation and operation of more efficient controls on the EGUs and the shutdown of

additional EGUs, will achieve greater reductions than the 28% reduction in the MANEVU “non-EGU Ask”. The WVDAQ believes that these reductions satisfy MANE-VU’s

request.

Section 7 of the SIP narrative is devoted to a discussion long-term strategy for West

Virginia’s Class I areas. Section 7.2 discusses the significant control programs being

implemented between the baseline period and 2018, including those related to measures

to reduce emissions from coal-burning facilities. WVDAQ believes that this satisfies

MANE-VU’s final request.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 76
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.5

Public Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 77
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 78
WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 79
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 80
November 27,2007 

Mr. John A. Benedict, Director 

West Virginia Deparhnent of Environmental Protection 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57" Street SE 

Charleston. WV 25304 

Dear Mr, Benedict, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the West Virginia Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

1. We support the West Virginia proposal of a better than uniform progress goal to 

improve visibility for your two Class I areas: Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. 

2. The limit of $2,000 per ton of pollutant removed as the benchmark (used by the USEPA 

in their CAW analysis) to determine if a measure is dso reasonable under the federal 

regional haze rule (40 CFR 51.308) is inappropliate, The USEPA in their Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) analysis determined costs at this level to be "highly cost 

effective" which indicates that higher costs are reasonable. If EGU costs are used to 

exclude control of other sources, essentially no other source categories would be 

controlled because of the relatively low cost per ton to control EGU's. 

3. The NJDEP welcomes the opportunity to work with West Virginia to further develop 

regional haze plans prior to the 5-year review, including the following: 

a. Address the influence of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) boilers 

which still are among the largest categories of emissions in 2018 (page 82); 

b. Implement the Industrial Boiler1 Process Heater1 RICE MACT standard under 

the Clean Air Act's Section 1 12 0) (page 5 1); and 

c. Develop strategies outlined in the MANl3-W "ask", including a regional low 

sulfir he1 oil strategy, a regional approach for a next phase to "CAI. 

implementation, and control of the 14 West Virginia EGUs identified as being 

part of the 167 EGUs impacting the MANE-VU Class I areas. 

Attached are the more detailed comments prepared by Ray Papalski, NJDEP7s regional 

haze lead. If you have any questions, pIease contact Ray at 609-633-7225. lj@b 

lam O'Su 'v n, P.E. 

&ector, Division df Air Quality 

WV Regional Haze SIP

Ncu Jersey Ir An Equal Opporlunlty Employer Prinred on Rewed Roper and Re~clablc 

Appendix N - 81
c: 

Nancy Wimnberg, Assistant Commissioner. NJDEP 

Anna Garcia, OTC/MANE-W 

Sandra Silva, USFWS 

Tim Allen, USFWS 

Holly Satmr, National Park Service 

Chris Salmi Assistant Dimtor, NJDEP 

Sandy KrietPnan NJDEP 

Ray Pwski, NJDEP 

Robert Kelly, USEPA 

Jeff Underhill, New Hampshire 

Gary Kld$mn~ NESCAUM 

Susan Wierm;ul MARAMA 

Pad WisW, Vermont 

Tom Downs, Maine 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 82
Comments from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on the 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's "Reional Haze State 

lmalementation Plan to Preserve, Protect and Improve Visibility in Class I Federal 

Areas". Comments nrovided on November 21,2007. 

General Comments 

1) While the State of West Virginia recognizes the causes of regional haze 

impairment in the State, namely the emissions from sources located over a large 

area, the required scope of the analysis was arbitrarily narrowed to apparently a 

300 km radius. While analysis was performed to determine the main locations of 

sources which most greatly affect visibility in the State, no justification is 

provided to show why the scope of review was narrowed or why the selected 

levels to cause concern were selected. 

2) West Virginia did not provide the necessary analysis of "reasonable measures" as 

required by the Regional Haze regulation at 40 CFR 5 1.308 (d)(l)(i). The New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) believes that this 

analysis is a necessary component af the Regional Haze SIP and is missing. This 

is particularly true as the cost-effectiveness of any future controls on Electric 

Generating Units (EGU's) beyond the 2015 CAIR implementation period is not 

assessed. West Virginia also fails to recognize that CAIR was dccmed by EPA to 

represent "highly cost-effective" controls which is not a test of whether a measure 

is "reasonable". West Virginia should reconsider what are "reasonable 

measures." 

3) The procedure to determine if any "reasonable measures" exist also 

inappropriately adds the analysis of visibility improvement as a pre-step in the 

pmcess of determining if a given control measure is feasible. Performing this 

pre-step is contrary to the Clean Air Act and accompanying regulations at 40 CFR 

5 1.308 (d)(l)(i) as the four-step analysis to determine if a given measure is 

reasonable does not inc1,ude the visibility improvement as a first step. In fact, thc 

four-step process for determining if a measure is reasonable is purposefully 

different than the five-step BART analysis in this one regard. 

4) West Virginia did not specifically addrcss any of the areas or reasonable measures 

that the MANE-VU States asked to be addressed by all contributing States. 'West 

Virginia should address the following area with either a commitment to pursue the 

measure further or with justification why the measure is not "reasonable." Please 

address control of the specific power plants in West Virginia identified as having 

the greatest impact on visibility in MANE-W's Class I areas. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 83
Specific Comments 

1) ~xecutive Summary (Page xi) and Page 10 - The summary contains the sentence 

"A change of one dcciview is normally perceptible to the human eye". The 

USEPA in their BART documentation cites a 0.5 dv change as the breakpoint 

above which the change is perceptible to the human eye. (69 FR 25194) 

2) Executive Summary (Page xi) - The summary says that thc natural background 

visibility levels for Wcst Virginia's Class I areas is 10.45 dv by 2064. Page 103, 

as well as other documentation on the new lMPROVE equation to calculate 

deciviews, lists the natural background levels as 1 1.32 dv. 

3) Page '1 - Section 1.1 - WVDEP mentions correctly that fine particles also 

adversely impact human health and mentions the national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for fine particulates, but does not mention the role that 

Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides, also regional haze precursors, 

play in oz0n.e formation and its associated NAAQS. The ozone NAAQS should 

also be referenced. This is especially important since page 18 states that 

particulate organic matter, which is formed horn VOC emissions, is the second 

most important conkibutor to fine particle mass at Dolly Sods. 

4) Page 6 - The document states that much of the benefits of emission reductions 

would occur in the state where the emissions reductions were made. While this 

conclusion may be drawn in the general sense for some pollutants, it is certainly 

not true in all cases and for all pollutants. The SAM1 study was primarily focused 

on ozone formation and is only of tangential benefit to regional haze formation. It 

aIso did not fully examine the time, distance and conditions needed for SO2 and 

NOx gas to form into a secondary aerosol. Some pollutants like sulfur oxides and 

nitrogen oxid- may travel great distances before being converted in the air to fine 

particulate matter. Newer rcgional models like CMAQ better account for the 

complete chemistry associated with the formation of secondary particles that 

contribute to regional haze and fine particle formation over large distances. The 

statement also ignores that emission sources located in the border regions of any 

given State could have larger impacts on their neighboring States then upon 

themselves. Some Class I areas, likc the Brigantine Wilderness Area, are more 

heavily influenced by transported emissions from out-of-state than from in-state 

emissions as evidenced by the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP at Table 7.5-2 on 

page 73. 

5) Tn several locations throughout the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP, emission 

reductions were relied upon to set the progress goal for Dolly Sods and Otter 

Creek. The regional haze regulation (at 40 CFR 5 1.308 (d)(3)(ii)) requires that the 

State include in its implementation plan "all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the ernissioil reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area." 

West Virginia should include "all measures" relied upon to make the requisite 

progress goal established within the SIP, While West Virginia does commit to 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 84
revicw the status of the emission reductions and projectih at the time of the 

five-year progress report (page 11 2), this is not the same as making the 

commitment to actually achieve those reductions for specific pollutants in specific 

quantities. The emission reductions included in the SIP to obtain the first progress 

goal and which lack a specific commitment include the following: 

a. Page 49 - "For this analysis, the emissions for NOx SIP call affected 

sources were capped at 2007 levels and carried forward at the capped 

levels for the 2009/2018 future year inventories." 

b. Page 52 - "For EGU's, IPM results were adjusted based on State and 

local (S/L) agency knowledge of planned emission controls at specific 

EGU's". West Virginia must make these emission reductions used to 

change the TPM model results into an enforceable commitment in order for 

this SIP to comply with the regional haze regulations. 

c. Page 52 - Section 7.2.b. does not list any additional State programs to 

reduce emissions except for the areas that must be addressed in the 

regional haze rule. Any and all commitments by the State of West 

Virginia to achieve new or existing emission reductions and that West 

Virginia dcpends upon to achieve the first progress goal should be listed 

here rather than referenced in an Appcndix. 

d. Page 57 - Changes to the 201 8 VISTAS IPM inventory were made by the 

States in the EGU scctor and these changes allowed for lowered emission 

levels than the LPM predicted emission levels due to information on 

expected controls provided by the utility companies themselves. These 

lowered emissions were not placed back into the emissions of other 

EGU's to maintain the balance of the CAR trading program so effectively 

a lower than CATR levcl scenario was modeled to set the progress goal for 

Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. So, these reductions were relied upon by the 

State of West Virginia to make set the reasonable progress for Dolly Sods 

and should be included as a SIP commitment. 

e. Beginning on page 76 to 81, West Virginia states that the results of the 

IPM model were used to justify not requiring additional controls on West 

Virginia's Electric Generating Units as the IPM model predicts this will 

occur to comply with CAIR and Table 7.5-8 lists the specific unih upon 

which TPM predicts controls, Tt is also staled that all units in West Virginia 

will be controlled or will shut down by 201 8 .as predicted by the IPM 

model. It is important to note that some of these units are specifically 

listed in the list of 167 units that the MANE-VU States have requested 

specific controls. As CAE is a "cap and trade" program where credits 

can be purcl~ascd in areas outside the VISTAS domain, this amount of 

reduction m.ay not necessarily actually occur in West Virginia. West 

Virginia must commit in this SIP to actually requiring this level of 

reduction in the State as these emission reductions were used to set the 

progress goal for the Class I area. 

f. Page 76 and 77 - From this table and other information available from the 

IPM modeling, NJDEP has concluded that West Virginia is relying upon 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 85
well over 103,497 tons of SO2 emission reductions (plus reductions at 

Rinesville and Willow Island) due to the predictions from the IPM model. 

Page 84 even states that the reductions relied upon through the IPM model 

are not directly enforceable and controls on all plants or units are not 

certain. Yet the emission reductions horn these three plants were relied 

upon to establish the progress goal for Dolly Sods. 

6) Page 53 - The SIP shows the annual emission sources for $02. While it is 

justified to focus on sulfates by the explanation that sulfates is the predominant 

pollutant affecting fine particulates and visibility impairment in the eastern United 

States, the sources of particulate emissions and nitrogen oxides should be shown 

as wcll. These other visibility impairing pollutants should be addressed in the 

SIP. 

7) Page 55 - Table 7.2.c-2 shows the emissions projected to occur in 2018 in the 

State of West Virginia. A comparison of the emissions contained in the 2002 

inventory in Table 7.2.c-1 shows that some of these emissions, namely ammonia, 

PM10, and PM2.5, are projected to increase by 20 18. The regional haze 

regulation requires all States to address "the anticipated net effect on visibility due 

to the projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 

period addressed by the long-term shategy" (40 CFR 5 1.308 (d)(3)(v)(G)). 

8) Page 66 - The statement is made that the greatest visibility benefits appear to be 

result from further controls on SO2 in the utility sector. NJDEP agrees. 

Page 69 - NJDEP disagrees with West Virginia's use of an ma of influence, 

rather than the use of regional modeling analysis and conductance of the requisite 

four-factor analysis to determine reasonable future control measures, as a 

determinant to where controls should be located. Application of this technique 

results in a procedure that effectively makes the regional haze SIP into a point 

source specific SIP rather than a SIP that addresses many sources located over a 

wide rcgion. Use of the 200 kilometer (lan) radii from the Class I area is arbitrary 

as tho maps show impacts beyond the 200 kilometer radii even if the also arbitrary 

levels of significance are chosen as a level. And in other sections of the Regional 

Haze implementation plan apparently a 300 km radii was used; making the choice 

of distance also an appear arbitrary. Use of only SO2 as a guide to determinc the 

area of influence also ignores the ability of other pollutants like ammonium nitrate 

to have greater seasonal effects on visibility than SO2 and these effects are not 

addressed by this focus on 502 alone. 

10) Page 72 - West Virginia uses one technique to determine that the relative 

contribution of emissions from West Virginia is not significant when it comes to 

visibility impairment in New Jersey's Brigantine Wilderness area. The MANEVU contribution assessment uscd several techniques to conclude that 'West 

Virginia emissions are having a significant impact on visibility levels in the 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 86
Brigantine Wilderness area and NJDEP stands behind those multiple assessments. 

More importantly, several important factors are not included in West Virginia's 

SP that need to be included before that assumption of not having an impact in 

201 8 can be true, First, West Virginia should include in its SIP a commitment 

that all IPM projected levels of mission reductions wil,l be made in the State by 

201 8* Second, it needs to include a commitment that all controls on EGU's that 

are not currently controlled (but are anticipated to be controlled by 201 8 and had 

their emissions adjusted in the inventory used) will occur and commit to a 201 8 

beyond CAE level as a result. (Note; MANE-VU asked for an 18% reduction 

beyond CAIR 2015 lcvels by 201 8 during the consultation and this was also not 

addressed in the SIP). 

1 1) Page 73 - Even using the method selccted to determine point source contributions 

to the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey, it is important to note that therc 

is an important distinction between Dolly Sods and Brigantine. Only 34% of the 

visibility impairment at Dolly Sods is shown to be occurring in 2018 as a result of 

out-of-state emissions (see Table 7.5-I), This means, by West Virginia's own 

analysis, that in-state controls can make still be proposed to make significant 

improvements in Dolly Sods visibility levels. In contrast, West Virginia's own 

analysis shows that in 201 8,60% of the visibility impairment at the Brigantine 

Wilderness area will be from out-of-state sources (see Tablc 7.5-2). Given thc 

fact that New Jersey will commit to controlling all emissions fram all coal 

beg units in New Jersey by 201 8 or much earlier (where these controls have 

not been not fully reflected in the 2018 inventory), this level of out-of-state 

influence can be expected to be even gcater than the 60% projected using the 

West Virginia methodology, This conclusion, drawn by West Virginia that its 

sources wilI not influence visibility at Brigantine in 2018, also does not address 

the "ask" of the MANE-VU States to control 167 specific EGU's by 2018 as these 

units are having the greatest influence an visibility impairment at Brigantine. 

12) Page 72 and 73 - Analysis by West Virginia shows point source contributions by 

sources in West Virginia using select criteria to determine significance in their 

own Class I area- Dolly Sods. The SIP does not address how West Virginia will 

address their in-state sources for controls other than to simply rely upon CAIR 

implementation. For rcasons previously explained, simple reliance on CAIR does 

not comply with the requirements of the USEPA regional haze regulation as it 

ignores the requisite four-factor analysis, does not address future, beyond the last 

phase of CAIR in 201 5 emissions (i.e., does not show reasonable progress to 

eventually achieve the 2064 goal in Class I areas for the absence of all manmade 

pollution), and ignores that the USEPA has called CAIR controls "highly cost 

effective" which is a much more viable level of cost than must be assumed under 

the regional haze criteria for determining if a measure is reasonable. 

13) West Virginia must also state in the SIP how it will, address the specific units in 

West Virginia that were also included on the list of 167 units that MANE-W 

asked to be controlled. Nowhere in the document does West Virginia present its 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 87
plan for how these units will be controlled within the context of CAlR and how 

the impacts of the units on the Brigantine Wilderness area will be alleviated. 

While West Virginia contends to have no impacts on the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area by the one metric used, the multiple rnetrics used in the NESCAUM 

Contribution Assessment shows otherwise. If West Virginia is not planning to 

address the MANE-VU "ask for controls on the 167 units or disagrees with 

MANE-VU conclusion on the need for controls on these specific units, it should 

state this in the SIP. 

14) Page 80 - NJDEP commends West Virginia for recognizing that fuel combustion 

from electric utilities and industrial sources, even within the "area of influence', 

will still be the major source of visibility impairment in 2018 even after 

implementation of CAIR (emphasis added- see first paragraph on page 80). West 

Virginia should include in the SIP, its plan to address rhese emissions after the 

final measures under CAN in 201 5 are taken. 

15) Page 82 - The procedure to determine sources and ahue controf strategies in the 

Area of Influence is seriously flawed as it places an analysis of emissions times 

distance before the statutorily required four factor analysis to determine 

reasonable measures. The four factor analysis to determine reasonable air 

pollution control measures does not contain a factor to address the improvement 

that will result in visibility levels from implementation of that control measure. 

By placing this analysis before thc four-factor analysis, West Virginia is not fully 

complying with th.e intent of the regional haze regulation and violating the goals 

of the Clean Air Act itself to eventually alleviate all manmade air pollution fiom 

Class I areas by 2064. By limiting any analysis of the reasonable measures to 

only those sources or measures that have the greatest impact on visibility results 

will result in a State never proposing any reasonable measures that are available 

and contribute to manrnade air pollution in the Class I area because even small 

manrnade sources contribute to the regional haze phenomena, 

16) Page 82 and Page 83 - The 4-factor analysis for determining if a measure is 

reasonable is deficient of information. A full analysis of the factors was not 

conducted and even general statements related to the factors are not presented. 

For example, nowhere in the section on costs is even a range of costs for scrubber 

controls on existing units presented. Another example of deficiency is apparent 

in the factor addressing remaining useful life. The SIP states that this must be 

addressed on a case by case basis and West Virginia should be addressing this 

factor in more meaningful terms. 

17) Page 84 - Units with a contribution greater than I % to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area was apparently assessed. West Virginia should not place this 

extremely high level of contribution (1%) to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area under the context of a regional haze SF. A 1% contribution to visibility 

levels in a Class 1 area is unarguably a source attributable visibility impairment 

level that should be covered under the reasonably attributable visibility 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 88
impairment (UVQ provisions of the USEPA visibility regulations, not under the 

regional haze provisions. 

18) Page 84 - West Virginia included a step to determine if CAlR was sufficient for 

reasonable progress regarding EGU's. West Virginia should be aware that the 

USEPA's own modeling to support CAR implementation included an analysis 

that showed that the Brigantine Wilderness Area would not achieve a uniform or 

better rate of progress after full implementation of the CAIR rule in 2018, This 

would be counter to West Virginia's conclusion and West Virginia has produced 

no information that would bc contrary to this conclusion. 

19) Page 84 - The commitment to re-evaluate the IPM predictions with CAIR 

implementation at the time of the first five-year progress report is not sufficient 

justification to avoid performing the 4-factor analysis to determine reasonable 

measures as required by the Regional Haze Rule. The four factor analysis to 

determine reasonable measures must still be performed now as a component of 

this SIP and to meet the requirements of the federal Regional Haze rule. 

20) Page 86 - Performing step 1 to 4 to determine reasonable progress places a fifth 

factor for degree of visibility improvement before doing the required four factor 

analysis. This violates the federal Regional Haze Regulations. But assuming that 

this step is really the first step, the costs for EGU controls presented here would 

make another phase of EGU controls cost effective. The dollar per ton of 

reductions referenced here are certainly less than the $2,000 per ton and, as shown 

on page 90, to be in the range of $400 to $3,400 per ton. The NJDEP believes 

that even the use of the higher $3,400 per ton estimate is cost-effective and West 

Virginia should be pursuing additional controls based on these estimates. 

21) Page 90 - West Virginia appears to not have fully evaluated the emissions fiom 

non-EGU sourccs and the availability of "reasonable control measures" for these 

sources within the SIP. 

22) Page 90, Page 91, and Page 92 - Please explain in the document how the 900 tpy 

limit for $02 was determined for inclusion in the PSD permit. This does not 

appear to be a large reduction from the 1,247 tpy baseline emissions in 2002. 

23) Page 99 - West Virginia does not address how BART will be applied for the one 

source that contributes significantly to PM emissions in the Class I area (see last 

sentence on this page). West Virginia needs to commit to requiring BART 

controls for PM upon this source and fully explain how BART controls will be 

handled for PM in the future. 

24) Page 99 - West Virginia lists SNCR on two units but does not address if these 

SNCR-controlled units were ever evaluated for BART. It is the NJDEP's 

contention that SCR constitutes BART level controls for EGU's and this should 

be addressed or evaluated for these units. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 89
25) Rage 100 - West Virginia should explain in the SIP what controls will be 

required on the Mount Storm, PPG Industries, and Capitol Cement facilities as a 

result of the analysis. What were the result of the analysis conducted and BART 

detenninations? In the case of Capitol Cement, a discussion of whether or not the 

new replacement unit was ever considered for controls and if those controls were 

placed on the replacanent unit was not included, 

26) Page 103 - Section 8 establishes the reasonable progress goals for Dolly Sods and 

Otter Creek. Missing fiom this section is any discussion or list of the measures 

relied upon to establish the progress goal for the area. This should include a 

discussion of the measures that West Virginia will propose to take and that wac 

relied upon by the other States and regional planning organizations when they 

created their 20 18 emissions inventory. 

27) Page 103 - West Virginia is committing to summarize in the final SR! "any 

additional control measures found to be reasonable to implement in this review 

period" and to model these in CMAQ as part of the long-term strategy. West 

Virginia should first commit to the process to be used to identify the "additional 

control measures" that will be summarized and included in the modeling and SIP. 

28) Page 103 - West Virginia is to be applauded for establishing thc 2018 goal for 

Dolly Sods and Otter Creek at a 7.3 dv improvement on the 20% worst days of 

visibility impairment and for committing to this level of reduction and reasonable 

progress using the final modeling results. 

29) Page 107 - This page mentions that West Virginia disagrees with the MANE-VU 

assessment of the visibility impairment from West Virginia and concludes that the 

MANE-VU assessment did not account for the reductions to bc made under CAR 

in 2018. The NJDEP would argue that an assessment of the effects of CAR in 

201 8 is not required to make a conclusion as to who is currently contributing to 

visibility impairment in Brigantine or who contributed to visibility irnpaimcnt in 

the year 2002. The coilclusion that any given State currently contributes or 

contributed in the past meets the requirement of the Regional Haze Rule. The 

consultation process and the evaluation of reasonable measures in the contributing 

States that could be installed by 2018 would then account for the implementation 

of CAR in 2018 and the fact that the overall contribution of West Virginia's 

emissions to the Brigantine Wilderness Area is expected to be less in 2018. The 

NJDEP will be using the same IPM run as uscd by the VISTAS States and West 

Virginia when it performs the final CMAQ regional modeling run to establish the 

progress goals for the Brigantine Wildmess Area and, therefore, will be 

accounting for West Virginia's lowering of EGU emissions through CAR by 

201 8. NJDEP believes that this is the proper location to account for the effects of 

CAR and reiterates its position that these reductions must be a component of 

West Virginia's regional haze SIP. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 90
30) Pagc 107 - The NJDEP reinforces its comments that the levels to define 

significance as set by West Virginia are extremely high (i,e.; a 1% contribution) 

and does not adequately address all sources of manmade visibility impairing 

emissions that could come from the State of West Virginia. The NJDEP cannot 

agree then that the measures adopted to protect visibility in West Virginia's own 

Class I area will be enough to meet the first progress goal in the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area. The NJDEP believes that more can be done and does agree that 

any measures taken by West Virginia to lower missions will have a benefit on 

the home state as well as a benefit to the Brigantine Wilderness Area. The 

NJDEP believes, using the discretion provided by the Regional Haze Regulations 

as a State with a Class I area, that West Virginia should not be evaluating sources 

in their State by the criteria it uses for their own Class I areas but has to show that 

it has committed to make the emission reductions required to make the progress 

goal set by the Statc hosting the Class I area, namely New Jersey. To make this 

progress goal for the Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey will be relying 

upon the implementation of additional controls as outlined in the MANE-VU 

"ask" and believes West Virginia needs to include these measures in their SIP as 

well. 

3 1) Page 109 - NJDEP does not believe that the method used to assess contribution 

(using emissions, distance and residence time) should be relied upon over the use 

of complex, scientifically based regional photochemical modeling. More 

scientific methodology should be applied before concluding that the States 

missions will have no impact on any other Class I area. The formation of 

secondary aerosol particles occurs many miles away from the source and is not 

accounted for within the emissions, distance, and residence time metric used by 

West Virginia The conclusion then that the Class I areas in West Virginia are 

getting the greatest impact from its own West Virginia emissions, or that 

Delaware has an extremely large impact on the Brigantine Wilderness area, is 

unfairly biased to the nearer States as thc time and conditions to form secondary 

aerosols is ignored by this metric. 

32) Page 112 - West Virginia commits to taking one of the actions listed in the five 

year progress report based upon some findings of the progress to meeting thc 

goals. It is unlikely that failure to meet the emission reductions used to set the 

progress goal wil,l be due to any one State, regions, or countries fault but will 

likely be due to inaction by more than one party. This section should be redone to 

commit to a full assessment of progress and to address all possible recourses to 

address not meeting the goal. 

33) Page 112 - Option 1 in the list of possible actions says that West Virginia will 

send a negative declaration in lieu of a SIP submittal if it finds that it is on course 

to make the first progress goal in 2018. The USEPA regional haze regulation 

clearly states that the five-year progress report must come in the form of a SIP 

revision and not a negative declaration. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 91
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 92
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.6

Response to 

Public Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 93
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 94
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 1

West Virginia 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

to Preserve, Protect and Improve Visibility in Class I Federal Ares

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

On October 26, 2007, the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality

(WVDAQ) commenced the public comment period and subsequently held a public hearing on

November 27, 2007 to accept oral comments on the draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

(SIP) to Preserve, Protect and Improve Visibility in Class I Federal Areas. Written comments were

also accepted through 6:00 PM on Tuesday, November 27, 2007. One person attended the public

hearing, however no verbal comments were received. The United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and the State of New Jersey submitted written comments on the draft SIP. WVDAQ

addresses these comments below.

The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR §51.308(i)(2) requires that the State “provide the Federal Land

Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any

public hearing on an implementation plan (or plan revision).” In accordance with these requirements,

the WVDAQ sent a draft of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the Federal Land

Managers (FLMs) on September 21, 2007. 

Clyde Thompson, Forest Supervisor for the Monongahela National Forest, responded on October

12, 2007 acknowledging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service had received

the draft Regional Haze SIP and committing to a substantive review. Mr. Thompson followed up

with a letter and comments on October 22, 2007 acknowledging that the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service had completed a substantive review of the draft Regional Haze

Rule. As the official FLM for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas, Mr. Thompson indicated

that he felt that the WVDAQ had provided the opportunity to review and comment on this

comprehensive regional haze SIP.

Christine L. Shaver, Chief, Air Resources Division, responded with comments on October 30, 2007,

and acknowledged that the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service had received and

conducted a substantive review of the proposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in

fulfillment of the requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).

Sandra V. Silva, Chief, Branch of Air Quality, responded with comments on November 21, 2007,

and acknowledged that the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service had received

and conducted a review of the proposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in fulfillment

of the requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).

Since the WVDAQ commenced the public comment period on October 26, 2007, and the Forest

Service comments were received October 22, prior to the start of the public hearing, the WVDAQ

was able to incorporate some of the suggested changes in the public review document. However, due

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 95
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 2

to the short time frame not all comments could be addressed prior to the start of the public comment

period. The FLM comments are addressed in a separate document titled “Federal Land Manager

Consultation.” Copies of FLM comment letters are attached to that document.

I. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

(November 21, 2007)

COMMENT:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submits the following comment based upon a

review of the proposed SIP revision. The proposed SIP revision represents that the final

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling run for the purposes of determining

the first set of reasonable progress goals for the first planning period (2004-2018) has not

yet been completed. Your proposed SIP revision at Section 8.0 commits to establishing

reasonable progress goals to be developed from the up-dated CMAQ modeling, provided

however, that the reasonable progress goals will be at least as stringent as those developed

based on the presently available Base G2a modeling results in the proposed SIP revision.

Additionally, in Section 8.0 of the proposed SIP revision, West Virginia appears to establish

reasonable progress goals for the Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas based on

presently available Base G2a modeling results. Those goals are for a 7.3 deciview (dv)

reduction in visibility impairment by 2018 for the 20 percent worst days, and a 1.9 dv

reduction in visibility impairment for the 20 percent best days.

EPA believes that the current wording of Section 8.0 does not unambiguously establish

reasonable progress goals in the currently proposed SIP revision. EPA recommends that the

West Virginia Department of Air Quality (WVDAQ) unambiguously establish reasonable

progress goals in the current SIP revision based on the most current available modeling

(and the statutory factors). We also recommend that WVDAQ not make an enforceable

commitment to revise the reasonable progress goals. Such a commitment is not required for

Federal approval. Furthermore, nothing in the current SIP revision or under Federal law

would prevent West Virginia from submitting updated reasonable progress goals to EPA for

approval at a later time.

RESPONSE:

WVDAQ has updated the language in Section 8.0 to unambiguously establish reasonable

progress goals of 7.3 deciview (dv) reduction in visibility impairment by 2018 for the 20

percent worst days, and a 1.9 dv reduction in visibility impairment for the 20 percent best

days, and to remove any commitment to revise the reasonable progress goals based on the

final CMAQ modeling results.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 96
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 3

II. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection

(November 27, 2007)

COMMENT A:

We support the West Virginia proposal of a better than uniform progress goal to improve

visibility for your two Class I areas: Dolly Sods and Otter Creek.

RESPONSE A:

No response required.

COMMENT B:

The limit of $2,000 per ton of pollutant removed as the benchmark (used by the USEPA in

their CAIR analysis) to determine if a measure is also reasonable under the federal regional

haze rule (40 CFR 51.308) is inappropriate. The USEPA in their Clean Air Interstate rule

(CAIR) analysis determined costs at this level to be “highly cost effective” which indicates

that higher costs are reasonable. If EGU costs are used to exclude control of other sources,

essentially no other source categories would be controlled because of the relatively low cost

per ton to control EGU’s.

RESPONSE B:

See Response II.AA below. West Virginia looked at costs below $10,000 per ton and as

shown in the table in Response II.AA there were two sources (each with two units) with

estimated control costs less than $10,000 per ton and the unit with the lowest cost was PPG,

Boiler 5 with a cost of $3,254 per ton. Boiler 5 at PPG is subject to the NOx SIP Call and has

accepted a permit limit requiring a reduction in SO2 emissions, allowing it to meet the BART

exemption requirement of having less than 0.5 deciview of impact on any Class I area. These

reductions are addressed in Section 7.8 and Appendix L. The next lowest cost estimate was

$6001 per ton, which WVDAQ determined to be unreasonable.

West Virginia notes that in their June 1, 2007, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress

Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA states: “In deciding what amount of

emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, you should take into account the fact

that the long-term goal of no man-made impairment encompasses several planning periods.

It is reasonable for you to defer reductions to later planning periods in order to maintain a

consistent glidepath toward the long-term goal.”

WVDAQ believes that setting a RPG of 7.3 dv of improvement by 2018 is an aggressive

goal, requiring only an additional 11.3 dv of improvement by 2064 to achieve natural

background. With this aggressive goal for reasonable progress, West Virginia believes that

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 97
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 4

it is appropriate to defer any additional reductions to later planning periods as suggested by

EPA guidance.

COMMENT C:

The NJDEP welcomes the opportunity to work with West Virginia to further develop

regional haze plans prior to the 5-year review, including the following:

a. Address the influence of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) boilers which

are among the largest categories of emissions in 2018 (page 82);

b. Implement the Industrial Boiler/ Process Heater/ RICE MACT standard under the

Clean Air Act’s Section 112(j) (page 51); and

c. Develop strategies outlined in the MANE-VU “ask”, including a regional low sulfur

fuel oil strategy, a regional approach for a next phase to “CAIR” implementation,

and control of the 14 West Virginia EGUs identified as being part of the 167 EGUs

impacting the MANE-VU Class I areas.

RESPONSE C:

West Virginia will monitor progress towards emission reductions in the first five years

leading up to the mid-course review in 2012 and West Virginia will continue to evaluate

potential control options. West Virginia does not intend to revise the regional haze SIP prior

to the mid-course review.

As indicated in Table 10.0-1 below all of the West Virginia EGUs that were identified by

MANE-VU as impacting MANE-VU Class I areas will be controlled by 2018. This

information was provided to MANE-VU in April 2007 and was included in the MANE-VU

Base OTW model run. 

Industrial, commercial and institutional fuel oil currently comprise only 3% of the West

Virginia total SO2 inventory. Residential fuel oil comprises less than 1% of the WV SO2

inventory. Therefore, West Virginia does not consider a low sulfur fuel oil strategy a

reasonable strategy for visibility improvement. This strategy would be more effective in the

MANE-VU states where these fuel sources have a greater contribution to the total SO2

inventory.

VISTAS states included reductions equivalent to the Boiler MACT in the Base G2 modeling

because the state believes that these reductions will be realized by 2018 even though the

boiler MACT was vacated. The benefits of the Boiler MACT are included in the Base G2

inventory, VISTAS calculations indicate that the Boiler MACT reduced SO2 by 4% and PM

by 40% by 2018.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 98
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments 

Table 10.0-1. 23 WV Electric Generating Units Identified in MANE-VU “EGU ASK

Plant ID Unit MW 2002 SO2

Emissions

(tons)

SO2

Controls

Yr SO2

ControlsInstalled

SO2

Control

Efficiency

2018

Projected SO2

Emissions

(tons)

Albright 077-00001 3 137 10,136.5 Scrubber 2018 90% 660.1 IPM PreFt. Martin 061-00001 1 552 45,228.5 Scrubber 2010 95% 4,922.1 Control

9,812.1 

remove90% Co

2 555 45,890.7 Scrubber 2010 95% 4,890.0

John Amos 079-00006 1 800 31,938.0 Scrubber 2009 95% 6,612.7 Control

24,127.

remove90% Co

2 800 31,465.0 Scrubber 2009 95% 6,693.93 1300 44,030.0 Scrubber 2008 95% 10,821.0

Kammer1 051-00006 1 210 14,896.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 951.1 IPM Pre

2 210 12,711.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 949.2 IPM Pre3 210 14,452.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 948.7 IPM Pre

KanawhaRiver

039-00006 1 200 7,944.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 902.7 IPM Pre

2 200 7,741.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 900.3 IPM Pre

Mitchell 039-00006 1 800 29,568.0 Scrubber 2007 95% 7,646.2 15,228.

remove

2 800 29,532.0 Scrubber 2007 95% 7,581.9 90% Co

Mountaineer 053-00009 1 1300 42,992.0 Scrubber 2007 95% 11,433.5 11,433.

remove90% Co

WV Regional Haze SIP 
Table 10.0-1. 23 WV Electric Generating Units Identified in MANE-VU “EGU ASK

Plant ID Unit MW 2002 SO2

Emissions

(tons)

SO2

Controls

Yr SO2

ControlsInstalled

SO2

Control

Efficiency

2018

Projected SO2

Emissions

(tons)

WV Regional Haze Response to Comments 

Mt. Storm 023-00003 1 533 9,958.5 Scrubber 2002 95% 3,191.0 9305.3 

remove90% Co

2 533 10,467.4 Scrubber 2001 95% 3,191.03 521 2,944.4 Scrubber 1994 95% 2,923.3

Philip Sporn1, 2 053-00001 1 150 6,638.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 668.1 IPM Pre

2 150 6,822.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 647.6 IPM Pre3 150 6,939.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 643.0 IPM Pre4 150 6,876.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 633.2 IPM Pre5 450 13,863.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 1,942.6 IPM Pre

Pleasants 073-00005 1 650 21,667.2 Scrubber 1979 95% 1,575.6 3,109.1 

remove90% Co

2 650 20,241.7 Scrubber 1980 95% 1,533.5

Total 476,943.90 84,880.30 Expecte

392,063

tons gre90% Co

1AEP Consent Decree [US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division], Paragraph 87 requires that a total of at least 6

list of Units: Sporn Units 1-4, Clinch River Units 1-3, Tanners Creek 1-3, and/or Kammer Units 1-3 be Retired, Retrofit, or Re-powered 

2AEP Consent Decree [US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division], Paragraph 87 requires that Sporn Unit 5 

powered by December 31, 2018.

WV Regional Haze SIP 
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 7

General Comments

COMMENT D:

While the State of West Virginia recognizes the causes of regional haze impairment in the

State, namely the emissions from sources located over a large area, the required scope of

the analysis was arbitrarily narrowed to apparently a 300 km radius. While analysis was

performed to determine the main locations of sources which most greatly affect visibility in

the State, no justification is provided to show why the scope of review was narrowed or why

the selected levels to cause concern were selected.

RESPONSE D:

WVDAQ notes that discussion of a 300 km radius can be found only in Section 7.8.c –

Determination of BART Requirements for Subject-to-BART Sources. The first sentence of

which states: “Two sources, Dominion’s Mount Storm Power Station in Mt. Storm, and PPG

Industries in Natrium were unable to demonstrate a contribution of less than 0.5 deciview

at all Class I areas within 300 km from their BART eligible sources.” Since the use of

CALPUFF is limited to a 300 km radius a 300 km distance was used in BART modeling.

However, no other analyses were narrowed to a 300 km radius. The Area of Influence shown

in Figure 7.5.d-1 shows that the AoI extends well beyond a 300 km radius.

Moreover, the emissions sensitivities done by VISTAS showed that emissions in the state

or neighboring states had the greatest contributions to visibility in the Class I areas. EGU

sources within an area with residence time greater than 5% and non-EGU sources within an

area with residence time greater than 10% were considered in the reasonable progress

analysis simply to focus on the sources with the greatest contribution. These criteria were

selected by the VISTAS states after consultation with EPA and the FLMs. Selection of

alternative thresholds would also be subjective.

COMMENT E:

West Virginia did not provide the necessary analysis of “reasonable measures” as required

by the Regional Haze regulation at 40 CFR 51.308 (d)(1)(i). The New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) believes that this analysis is a necessary component

of the Regional Haze SIP and is missing. This is particularly true as the cost-effectiveness

of any future controls on Electric Generating Units (EGU’s) beyond the 2015 CAIR

implementation period is not assessed. West Virginia also fails to recognize that CAIR was

deemed by EPA to represent “highly cost-effective” controls which is not a test of whether

a measure is “reasonable”. West Virginia should reconsider what are “reasonable

measures.” 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 101
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 8

RESPONSE E:

WVDAQ believes that the determination of what is “reasonable” is left to the state’s

discretion. 

Since all EGUs in West Virginia are predicted to be either controlled with SCRs for NOx

control, and scrubbers for SO2 control by 2018, or shutdown, there are no additional CAIR

controls to consider in West Virginia. 

Also see Response II.Q below.

COMMENT F:

The procedure to determine if any “reasonable measures” exist also inappropriately adds

the analysis of visibility improvement as a pre-step in the process of determining if a given

control measure is feasible. Performing this pre-step is contrary to the Clean Air Act and

accompanying regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 (d)(1)(i) as the four-step analysis to determine

if a given measure is reasonable does not include the visibility improvement as a first step.

In fact, the four-step process for determining if a measure is reasonable is purposefully

different than the five-step BART analysis in this one regard. 

RESPONSE F:

West Virginia believes that any analysis for the purpose of Regional Haze inherently has a

visibility component, since the purpose of the haze rules is to improve visibility in Class I

areas. CAAA section 169A(g)(1) provides reasonable progress factors which are nearly

identical to the CAAA section 169(A)(g)(2) factors applicable to major stationary sources

subject to BART, the major difference being that the reasonable progress factors do not

include consideration of visibility improvement. This is not surprising, as it is self-evident

that visibility improvement must be considered in determining what progress is reasonable

in remedying existing visibility impairment. In contrast, absent Congress making it so,

consideration of visibility improvement would not be inherently necessary in order to

determine the appropriate control technology at a particular source.

In their June 1, 2007 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional

Haze Program, EPA states: “. . . the RHR establishes an additional analytical requirement

for States in the process of establishing the RPG. This analytical requirement requires States

to determine the rate of improvement in visibility needed to reach natural conditions by

2064, and to set each RPG taking this “glidepath into account.” 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 102
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 9

COMMENT G:

West Virginia did not specifically address any of the areas or reasonable measures that the

MANE-VU States asked to be addressed by all contributing States. West Virginia should

address the following area with either a commitment to pursue the measure further or with

justification why the measure is not “reasonable.” Please address control of the specific

power plants in West Virginia identified as having the greatest impact on visibility in MANEVU’s Class I areas.

RESPONSE G:

Although the WVDAQ had not specifically responded to MANE-VU’s “EGU ask”, all

EGUs in West Virginia were identified along with their current and future controls.

WVDAQ has updated the language in Section 10 to address control of the specific power

plants in West Virginia identified as having the greatest impact on visibility in MANE-VU’s

Class I areas. Also see response L below.

These control measures were provided to MANE-VU in April 2007, before the “ask” was

developed, and were included in the MANE-VU Base B OTW model run.

Specific Comments

COMMENT H:

Executive Summary (Page xi) and Page 10 - The summary contains the sentence “A change

of one deciview is normally perceptible to the human eye.” The USEPA in their BART

documentation cites a 0.5 dv change as the breakpoint above which the change is perceptible

to the human eye. (69 FR 25194) 

RESPONSE H:

WV disagrees and points the commenter to the references cited below.

69 FR 25194 was the May 2004 proposed BART Rule. The final BART Rule, published in

the July 6, 2005 Federal Register at 70 FR 39120, footnote 32 states: “If ‘causing’ visibility

impairment means causing a humanly perceptible change in visibility in virtually all

situations (i.e., a 1.0 deciview change), then ‘contributing’ to visibility impairment must

mean having some lesser impact on the conditions affecting visibility that need not rise to

the level of human perception.”

The July 1, 1999, final Regional Haze Rule at 64 FR 35725 states: 

Deciview. The proposal explained that the deciview is an atmospheric haze

index that expresses changes in visibility. This visibility metric expresses

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 103
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 10

uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire

range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions60.

Because each unit change in deciview represents a common change in

perception, the deciview scale is like the decibel scale for sound. The

proposal also stated that “A one deciview change in haziness is a small but

noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing

scenes in Class I areas. [60 Pritchford, M. And Malm, W., “Development and

Application of a Standard Visual Index,” Atmospheric Environment, v 28,

no. 5, March 1994.] 

IMPROVE newsletter Volume 2, No. 1, Winter 1993, April 1993 Feature Article “Deciview,

A Standard Visibility Index” states: 

The newly-developed visibility index’s dv scale is linear to humanlyperceived changes in visual air quality. A one dv change is approximately a

10% change in the extinction coefficient, which is a small, but usually

perceptible scenic change. The dv scale is near zero for a pristine atmosphere

(dv - 0 for Rayleigh conditions at approximately 1.8 km elevation) and

increases as visibility degrades. Because the index increases as haziness

increases, it is characterized as a haziness index. . . .

Ideally, a just noticeable change (JNC) in scenic visibility should be

approximately a one or two dv change in the deciview scale (i.e., a 10% to

20% fractional change in extinction coefficient) regardless of the baseline

visibility level. Similarly a change of any specific number of dv should

appear to have approximately the same magnitude of visual change on any

scene. The degree to which the deciview scale meets these ideals will depend

on the extent to which any scene departs from the assumptions required to

develop the scale (Pritchford and Malm, 1993).

COMMENT I:

Executive Summary (Page xi) - The summary says that the natural background visibility

levels for West Virginia’s Class I areas is 10.45 dv by 2064. Page 103, as well as other

documentation on the new IMPROVE equation to calculate deciviews, lists the natural

background levels as 11.32 dv. 

RESPONSE I:

The correct natural background value for Dolly Sods is 10.4 dv, as listed in the Executive

Summary, Table 2.3-1, Section 3.1, Figure 3.1-1, and Figure 7.2.d-1. The 11.3 dv value in

Table 8.0-1 is identified in the column heading of the table as the “Deciview Improvement

Needed 2018 - 2064 (20% Worst Days),” meaning that after meeting the goal of 7.3 dv

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 104
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 11

improvement by 2018, there will still be a need for an 11.3 dv improvement to achieve

natural background by 2064.

COMMENT J:

Page 1 – Section 1.1 – WVDEP mentions correctly that fine particles also adversely impact

human health and mentions the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine

particulates, but does not mention the role that Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen

Oxides, also regional haze precursors, play in ozone formation and its associated NAAQS.

The ozone NAAQS should also be referenced. This is especially important since page 18

states that particulate organic matter, which is formed from VOC emissions, is the second

most important contributor to fine particle mass at Dolly Sods.

RESPONSE J:

Section 1.1, second paragraph states : “Fine particles may either be emitted directly or

formed from emissions of precursors, the most important of which are sulfur dioxide (SO2)

and nitrogen oxides (NOx).”

Sensitivity analyses have shown that anthropogenic VOC emissions are an insignificant

contributor to visibility impairment at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. See Figure 7.4-1.

Page 18 discussion of POM states “Biogenic emissions, chiefly emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) from vegetation, peak in spring and summer.”

VOC and NOx are contributors to ozone but are minor contributors to regional haze in the

West Virginia Class I areas. NOx and anthropogenic VOC controls would have little benefit

for regional haze and therefore do not receive significant attention in the regional haze SIP.

All areas of West Virginia are currently classified as attainment with respect to the 8-hour

ozone standard.

COMMENT K:

Page 6 – The document states that much of the benefits of emission reductions would occur

in the state where the emissions reductions were made. While this conclusion may be drawn

in the general sense for some pollutants, it is certainly not true in all cases and for all

pollutants. The SAMI study was primarily focused on ozone formation and is only of

tangential benefit to regional haze formation. It also did not fully examine the time, distance

and conditions needed for SO2 and NOx gas to form into a secondary aerosol. Some

pollutants like sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides may travel great distances before being

converted in the air to fine particulate matter. Newer regional models like CMAQ better

account for the complete chemistry associated with the formation of secondary particles that

contribute to regional haze and fine particle formation over large distances. The statement

also ignores that emission sources located in the border regions of any given State could

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 105
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 12

have larger impacts on their neighboring States then [sic] upon themselves. Some Class I

areas, like the Brigantine Wilderness Area, are more heavily influenced by transported

emissions from out-of-state than from in-state emissions as evidenced by the West Virginia

Regional Haze SIP at Table 7.5-2 on page 73. 

RESPONSE K:

West Virginia disagrees with New Jersey’s interpretation of the paragraph on page 6 that

summarizes the SAMI assessment. New Jersey in incorrect in its assertion that SAMI

primarily focused on ozone. SAMI most definitely focused on visibility and the paragraph

accurately states that the SAMI assessment concluded that sulfate is the major contributor

to visibility impairment in the Southern Appalachians and that on the haziest days much of

the benefit of sulfur dioxide emissions reductions would occur in the state where the

emissions reductions were made. It is true that emissions from a state can also contribute to

pollutant loadings beyond a state’s borders. Since the SAMI assessment did not attempt to

address the impacts from the southeastern states on the Class I areas outside the Southern

Appalachians, the paragraph as written is correct. The objective of the paragraph was to

establish that the southeastern states had previously cooperated to understand the

contributions to visibility impairment in the south east and that the SAMI analyses informed

the southeastern states as they began analyses to support the regional haze SIP. No changes

were made to this background paragraph in response to the New Jersey comment. 

COMMENT L:

In several locations throughout the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP, emission reductions

were relied upon to set the progress goal for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek. The regional haze

regulation (at 40 CFR 51.308 (d)(3)(ii)) requires that the State include in its implementation

plan “all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet

the progress goal for the area.” West Virginia should include “all measures” relied upon

to make the requisite progress goal established within the SIP. While West Virginia does

commit to review the status of the emission reductions and projections at the time of the fiveyear progress report (page 112), this is not the same as making the commitment to actually

achieve those reductions for specific pollutants in specific quantities. The emission

reductions included in the SIP to obtain the first progress goal and which lack a specific

commitment include the following:

a. Page 49 – “For this analysis, the emissions for NOx SIP call affected sources were

capped at 2007 levels and carried forward at the capped levels for the 2009/2018 future

year inventories.”

 b. Page 52 – “For EGU’s, IPM results were adjusted based on State and local (S/L)

agency knowledge of planned emission controls at specific EGU’s” [sic]. West Virginia

must make these emission reductions used to change the IPM model results into an

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 106
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 13

enforceable commitment in order for this SIP to comply with the regional haze

regulations.

c. Page 52 – Section 7.2.b. does not list any additional State programs to reduce emissions

except for the areas that must be addressed in the regional haze rule. Any and all

commitments by the State of West Virginia to achieve new or existing emission

reductions and that West Virginia depends upon to achieve the first progress goal should

be listed here rather than referenced in an Appendix.

d. Page 57 – Changes to the 2018 VISTAS IPM inventory were made by the States in the

EGU sector and these changes allowed for lowered emission levels than the IPM

predicted emission levels due to information on expected controls provided by the utility

companies themselves. These lowered emissions were not placed back into the emissions

of other EGU’s to maintain the balance of the CAIR trading program so effectively a

lower than CAIR level scenario was modeled to set the progress goal for Dolly Sods and

Otter Creek. So, these reductions were relied upon by the State of West Virginia to make

set the reasonable progress for Dolly Sods and should be included as a SIP commitment.

e. Beginning on page 76 to 81, West Virginia states that the results of the IPM model were

used to justify not requiring additional controls on West Virginia’s Electric Generating

Units as the IPM model predicts this will occur to comply with CAIR and Table 7.5-8

lists the specific units upon which IPM predicts controls. It is also stated that all units

in West Virginia will be controlled or will shut down by 2018 as predicted by the IPM

model. It is important to note that some of these units are specifically listed in the list of

167 units that the MANE-VU States have requested specific controls. As CAIR is a “cap

and trade” program where credits can be purchased in areas outside the VISTAS

domain, this amount of reduction may not necessarily actually occur in West Virginia.

West Virginia must commit in this SIP to actually requiring this level of reduction in the

State as these emission reductions were used to set the progress goal for the Class I

area. 

f. Page 76 and 77 – From this table and other information available from the IPM

modeling, NJDEP has concluded that West Virginia is relying upon well over 103,497

tons of SO2 emission reductions (plus reductions at Rinesville [sic] and Willow Island)

due to the predictions from the IPM model. Page 84 even states that the reductions relied

upon through the IPM model are not directly enforceable and controls on all plants or

units are not certain. Yet the emission reductions from these three plants were relied

upon to establish the progress goal for Dolly Sods. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 107
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 14

RESPONSE L:

a. West Virginia has federally enforceable rules in place to assure compliance with the NOx

SIP Call.

b. The IPM model results that were changed for West Virginia were those in 2009, West

Virginia did not change any of the 2018 IPM results. The 2009 IPM results were

changed to reflect changes that we had confirmed would take place, and to remove

controls that WV knew were not scheduled to be installed by that date.

c. State measures are addressed in Section 7.9. The state measures are discussed in detail

in Appendix H.

d. West Virginia did not make any changes to the 2018 IPM projections.

e. West Virginia adopted the CAIR and CAMR rules as required by EPA. CAIR and

CAMR allow emissions trading. West Virginia disagrees that to set the reasonable

progress goals for the Class I areas we must commit in this SIP to source specific

controls beyond adopting the CAIR rule. Our understanding in consultation with EPA

is that the CAIR requirements are sufficient. 

In fact, in Section 5.0 of Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the

Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007 rev.), EPA states: “As noted in Section 4.1, given

the significant emissions reductions that we anticipate to result from BART, the CAIR,

and the implementation of other CAA programs, these reductions may be all that is

necessary to achieve reasonable progress in the first planning period for some states.”

West Virginia recognizes that the 2018 projections of EGU controls from the IPM runs

represent a solution as to how the CAIR requirements may be met, not necessarily the

solution as to how the CAIR requirements will be met. By the time of the first periodic

report, the WVDAQ anticipates that the actual compliance strategy for the various

electric companies will be much more defined. An assessment of the actual compliance

plans will be completed for the first periodic report due in 2012. In Section 11 of the SIP

narrative West Virginia committed to “submitting a report on reasonable progress to

EPA every five years following the initial submittal of the SIP” as required by 40 CFR

§51.308(g). 

f. New Jersey is correct. We are relying on emissions reductions predicted by IPM in

addition to those that we have confirmed will occur. If in the mid-course review it

appears that emissions reductions in West Virginia are not on track to meet the

reasonable progress goals, then West Virginia will consider what additional regulatory

action might be taken.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 108
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 15

COMMENT M:

Page 53 – The SIP shows the annual emission sources for SO2. While it is justified to focus

on sulfates by the explanation that sulfates is the predominant pollutant affecting fine

particulates and visibility impairment in the eastern United States, the sources of particulate

emissions and nitrogen oxides should be shown as well. These other visibility impairing

pollutants should be addressed in the SIP.

RESPONSE M:

In Section 2.3 of their June 1, 2007, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under

the Regional Haze Program, EPA recommends that the state “ Identify the key pollutants

and sources and/or source categories that are contributing to visibility impairment at each

Class I area.”

West Virginia believes that New Jersey missed the point. Figure 6.3-1 clearly demonstrates

that sulfates that sulfates are overwhelmingly the major contributor on the 20% worst days.

In Table 7.3.c-1 we focus on sulfates as the most efficient and cost effective way of

achieving significant visibility improvements. 

Page 53 has Figure 7.2.c-1 which shows the Base G2 Annual SO2 emissions for 2002, 2009

and 2018 in the VISTAS states. The following page has a similar bar chart, Figure 7.2.c-2

which shows the Base G2 Annual NOx emissions for 2002, 2009 and 2018 in the VISTAS

states. 

Table 4.1 shows Summary of 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory which includes VOC, NH3,

PM10, PM2.5, NOx and SO2 emissions for Point, Area, Non-Road Mobile, On-Road Mobile

and Biogenics. Table 7.2.c-1 shows the same breakdown for the 2009 projections, and Table

7.2.c-2 shows the same breakdown for the 2018 projections.

COMMENT N:

Page 55 - Table 7.2.c-2 shows the emissions projected to occur in 2018 in the State of West

Virginia. A comparison of the emissions contained in the 2002 inventory in Table 7.2.c-1

shows that some of these emissions, namely ammonia, PM10, and PM2.5, are projected to

increase by 2018. The regional haze regulation requires all States to address “the

anticipated net effect on visibility due to the projected changes in point, area, and mobile

source emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy” (40 CFR 51.308

(d)(3)(v)(G)).

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 109
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 16

RESPONSE N:

These increases were modeled in all VISTAS inventories, so the net effect was considered.

In addition, as illustrated in Figure 7.4-1 the visibility benefit of additional reductions of

SO2, NOx, NH3, VOC and primary carbon were considered. The benefits of reducing these

species were small compared to further reducing SO2.

COMMENT O:

Page 66 – The statement is made that the greatest visibility benefits appear to be result from

further controls on SO2 in the utility sector. NJDEP agrees.

RESPONSE O:

No response required.

COMMENT P:

Page 69 – NJDEP disagrees with West Virginia’s use of an area of influence, rather than

the use of regional modeling analysis and conductance of the requisite four-factor analysis

to determine reasonable future control measures, as a determinant to where controls should

be located. Application of this technique results in a procedure that effectively makes the

regional haze SIP into a point source specific SIP rather than a SIP that addresses many

sources located over a wide region. Use of the 200 kilometer (km) radii from the Class I

area is arbitrary as the maps show impacts beyond the 200 kilometer radii [sic] even if the

also arbitrary levels of significance are chosen as a level. And in other sections of the

Regional Haze implementation plan apparently a 300 km radii was used; making the choice

of distance also an appear arbitrary. Use of only SO2 as a guide to determine the area of

influence also ignores the ability of other pollutants like ammonium nitrate to have greater

seasonal effects on visibility than SO2 and these effects are not addressed by this focus on

SO2 alone.

RESPONSE P:

The 200 km radius is used in the graphics to illustrate distance; it was not considered in the

selection of the area of influence. All sources within the AoI were considered not just those

within 200 km. The 300 km radius was used in conjunction with BART modeling, and it is

a function of the limits of CALPUFF when applied as an EPA guideline model. The

monitoring data illustrated in Section 2 establishes that SO4 is the dominant contributor to

visibility impairment. NO3 is not a significant contributor on any of the 20% worst days at

WV Class I areas. The emissions sensitivities (Figure 7.4-1) demonstrate that the visibility

benefits of reducing NH3, NOx and anthropogenic VOC are very small. The emissions

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 110
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 17

inventory demonstrates that in West Virginia 97% of the SO2 inventory is from point sources

(see Table 4.1, and Figure 4.2-2). It is appropriate for West Virginia to focus on SO2 from

point sources.

COMMENT Q:

Page 72 – West Virginia uses one technique to determine that the relative contribution of

emissions from West Virginia is not significant when it comes to visibility impairment in New

Jersey’s Brigantine Wilderness area. The MANE-VU contribution assessment used several

techniques to conclude that West Virginia emissions are having a significant impact on

visibility levels in the Brigantine Wilderness area and NJDEP stands behind those multiple

assessments. More importantly, several important factors are not included in West

Virginia’s SIP that need to be included before that assumption of not having an impact in

2018 can be true. First, West Virginia should include in its SIP a commitment that all IPM

projected levels of emission reductions will be made in the State by 2018. Second, it needs

to include a commitment that all controls on EGU’s that are not currently controlled (but

are anticipated to be controlled by 2018 and had their emissions adjusted in the inventory

used) will occur and commit to a 2018 beyond CAIR level as a result. (Note: MANE-VU

asked for an 18% reduction beyond CAIR 2015 levels by 2018 during the consultation and

this was also not addressed in the SIP).

RESPONSE Q:

MANE-VU used CALPUFF well beyond the 300 km limits of its regulatory application (700

km or more). West Virginia sources will comply with CAIR and any applicable Consent

Decrees. West Virginia did not make any adjustments to the 2018 IPM projections, since we

did not have any better data that far into the future. 

EGU sources in West Virginia which are currently scrubbed have scrubbers with a 95%

control efficiency. EGU sources in West Virginia with scrubbers under construction are

installing scrubbers with a 95% control efficiency. This 95% control efficiency is better than

the 90% requested by MANE-VU, and better than the 90% predicted by IPM. Furthermore,

81.4% of West Virginia’s current capacity will be controlled with scrubbers by 2010, these

controls are not just projected but are either already installed or are currently under

construction.

Refer to Response L above in regard to 18% reduction beyond CAIR. WV has expected

reductions of 392,063.6 tons of SO2 in 2018 from the 23 units identified by MANE-VU in

their list of 167 stacks, this is 73,015.7 tons greater than would be achieved by complying

with the “Ask” of 90% control on these units. However, WVDAQ has added additional

language in Section 10.0 which specifically addresses MANE-VU’s request for additional

SO2 reductions.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 111
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 18

COMMENT R:

Page 73 - Even using the method selected to determine point source contributions to the

Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey, it is important to note that there is an important

distinction between Dolly Sods and Brigantine. Only 34% of the visibility impairment at

Dolly Sods is shown to be occurring in 2018 as a result of out-of-state emissions (see Table

7.5-1). This means, by West Virginia’s own analysis, that in-state controls can make still

be proposed to make significant improvements in Dolly Sods visibility levels. In contrast,

West Virginia’s own analysis shows that in 2018, 60% of the visibility impairment at the

Brigantine Wilderness area will be from out-of-state sources (see Table 7.5-2). Given the

fact that New Jersey will commit to controlling all emissions from all coal burning units in

New Jersey by 2018 or much earlier (where these controls have not been not fully reflected

in the 2018 inventory), this level of out-of-state influence can be expected to be even greater

than the 60% projected using the West Virginia methodology. This conclusion, drawn by

West Virginia that its sources will not influence visibility at Brigantine in 2018, also does

not address the “ask” of the MANE-VU States to control 167 specific EGU’s by 2018 as

these units are having the greatest influence on visibility impairment at Brigantine.

RESPONSE R:

See Responses II.L and Q above.

West Virginia believes that the emissions reductions achieved by West Virginia by 2018 are

reasonable. West Virginia is projected to reduce total SO2 emissions by 67.5%, and West

Virginia’s EGUs are projected to reduce their SO2 emissions by 78% by 2018. All West

Virginia EGUs identified by MANE-VU as contributing to MANE-VU Class I areas are

projected to be controlled by 2018. MANE-VU identified PPG as a non-EGU impacting

Brigantine. PPG is subject to BART and will reduce SO2 emissions under BART. The

VISTAS Area of Influence analyses identified only one non-EGU, Capitol Cement with

emissions contributions to sulfate greater than 1% for Dolly Sods. Control measures for

Capitol Cement would be greater than $10,000 per ton. West Virginia determined there are

no additional reasonable control measures for sources in West Virginia impacting Dolly

Sods for this first SIP. The same cost analyses apply for Brigantine as for Dolly Sods and

therefore, there are no additional reasonable control measures in West Virginia for

Brigantine in this first SIP planning period.

COMMENT S:

Page 72 and 73 – Analysis by West Virginia shows point source contributions by sources in

West Virginia using select criteria to determine significance in their own Class I area- Dolly

Sods. The SIP does not address how West Virginia will address their in-state sources for

controls other than to simply rely upon CAIR implementation. For reasons previously

explained, simple reliance on CAIR does not comply with the requirements of the USEPA

regional haze regulation as it ignores the requisite four-factor analysis, does not address

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 112
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 19

future, beyond the last phase of CAIR in 2015 emissions (i.e., does not show reasonable

progress to eventually achieve the 2064 goal in Class I areas for the absence of all manmade

pollution), and ignores that the USEPA has called CAIR controls “highly cost effective”

which is a much more viable level of cost than must be assumed under the regional haze

criteria for determining if a measure is reasonable. 

RESPONSE S:

In Section 4.1 of their June 1, 2007, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under

the Regional Haze Program, EPA states: “Given the significant emissions reductions that we

anticipate to result from BART, the CAIR, and the implementation of other CAA programs,

including the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, for many States this will be an important step in

determining your RPG, and it may be all that is necessary to achieve reasonable progress in

the first planning period for some states.”

As previously stated, the regional haze rule provides states flexibility in defining the cost

threshold for “reasonable” control measures. West Virginia used a cost threshold consistent

with other VISTAS states and provided justification for that threshold. West Virginia

acknowledges that New Jersey would choose a higher threshold. Also, as previously stated,

all EGUs in West Virginia are projected to be shutdown or scrubbed by 2018, resulting in

a 78% reduction in EGU SO2 emissions statewide. NJDEP stated that WVDAQ ignored the

requisite 4-factor analysis, the commenter is directed to the discussion of the 4-factor

analysis contained in Section 7.6 of the SIP narrative. 

In addition, EPA found that the CAIR controls are all that is reasonable for EGUs for the

compliance period of the rule, please refer to EPA’s discussion in the preamble to the final

CAIR, Section IV.A.2, titled “The EPA’s Proposed Methodology to Determine Amounts of

Emissions That Must be Eliminated” [70 FR 25197, 12MAY2005], which states:

From past experience in examining multi-pollutant emissions trading

programs for SO2 and NOx, EPA recognized that the air pollution control

retrofits that result from a program to achieve highly cost-effective

reductions are quite significant and can not be immediately installed. Such

retrofits require a large pool of specialized labor resources, in particular,

boilermakers, the availability of which will be a major limiting factor in the

amount and timing of reductions.

Also, EPA recognized that the regulated industry will need to secure

large amounts of capital to meet the control requirements while managing an

already large debt load, and is facing other large capital requirements to

improve the transmission system. Furthermore, allowing pollution control

retrofits to be installed over time enables the industry to take advantage of

planned outages at power plants (unplanned outages can lead to lost revenue)

and to enable project management to learn from early installations how to

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 113
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 20

deal with some of the engineering challenges that will exist, especially for

the smaller units that often present space limitations.

Based on these and other considerations, EPA determined in the NPR that

the earliest reasonable deadline for compliance with the final highly costeffective control levels for reducing emissions was 2015 (taking into

consideration the existing bank of title IV SO2 allowances). First, the Agency

confirmed that the levels of SO2 and NOx emissions it believed were

reasonable to set as annual emissions caps for 2015 lead to highly costeffective controls for the CAIR region.

Once EPA determined the 2015 emissions reductions levels, the Agency

determined a proposed first (interim) phase control level that would

commence January 1, 2010, the earliest the Agency believed initial pollution

controls could be fully operational (in today's final action, the first NOx

control phase commences in 2009 instead of in 2010, as explained in detail

in section IV.C). The first phase would be the initial step on the slope of

emissions reductions (the glide-path) leading to the final (second) control

phase to commence in 2015. The EPA determined the first phase based on

the feasibility of installing the necessary emission control retrofits, as

described in section IV.C.

Although EPA's primary cost-effectiveness determination is for the 2015

emissions reductions levels, the Agency also evaluated the cost effectiveness

of the first phase control levels to ensure that they were also highly cost

effective. Throughout this preamble section, EPA reports both the 2015 and

2010 (and 2009 for NOx) cost-effectiveness results, although the first phase

levels were determined based on feasibility rather than cost effectiveness.

The 2015 emissions reductions include the 2010 (and 2009 for NOx)

emissions reductions as a subset of the more stringent requirements that EPA

is imposing in the second phase.

COMMENT T:

West Virginia must also state in the SIP how it will address the specific units in West

Virginia that were also included on the list of 167 units that MANE-VU asked to be

controlled. Nowhere in the document does West Virginia present its plan for how these

units will be controlled within the context of CAIR and how the impacts of the units on the

Brigantine Wilderness area will be alleviated. While West Virginia contends to have no

impacts on the Brigantine Wilderness Area by the one metric used, the multiple metrics used

in the NESCAUM Contribution Assessment shows otherwise. If West Virginia is not

planning to address the MANE-VU “ask” for controls on the 167 units or disagrees with

MANE-VU conclusion on the need for controls on these specific units, it should state this in

the SIP.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 114
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 21

RESPONSE T:

The MANE-VU states identified 167 EGU stacks, thirteen (13) of which were in West

Virginia, as contributing significantly to visibility impairment at MANE-VU Class I areas

in 2002. The 13 stacks identified by MANE-VU vent the emissions from twenty-three (23)

EGUs (identified in Table 10.0-1 of the final SIP narrative) in West Virginia. MANE-VU

has asked states to control the SO2 emissions from these units with a 90% efficiency.

MANE-VU also requested a control strategy to provide a 28% reduction in SO2 emissions

from sources, other than EGUs, that would be equivalent to their proposed low sulfur

residential fuel oil strategy. West Virginia has controlled or is expecting to control all of the

EGUs identified by MANE-VU, with at least a 90% control efficiency by 2018.

As shown in Table 10.0-1 (of the SIP narrative), all of the units identified by MANE-VU in

their “EGU Ask” are expected to be controlled by 2018, and thirteen (13) of the units will

be controlled with a 95% efficiency, resulting in an additional 73,015 tons of SO2 reductions

beyond those requested in the “EGU Ask”. In addition, IPM has predicted the shutdown of

five (5) EGUs (337 MW of capacity) not identified by MANE-VU. These units accounted

for a total of 18,849.5 tons of SO2 in 2002. As shown in Table 7.5.d-3, by 2018 all the EGUs

in West Virginia are expected to either be controlled for SO2 or shutdown. 

West Virginia’s non-EGUs are predicted to emit 61,704 tons of SO2 in 2018, MANE-VU

in their “non-EGU Ask” has requested a 28% reduction in these emissions, or 17,277 tons

of SO2 reductions. The additional 91,864 tons of SO2 reductions achieved by the installation

and operation of more efficient controls on the EGUs and the shutdown of additional EGUs,

will achieve greater reductions than the 28% reduction in the MANE-VU “non-EGU Ask”.

The WVDAQ believes that these reductions satisfy MANE-VU’s request.

Section 7 of the SIP narrative is devoted to a discussion long-term strategy for West

Virginia’s Class I areas. Section 7.2 discusses the significant control programs being

implemented between the baseline period and 2018, including those related to measures to

reduce emissions from coal-burning facilities. WVDAQ believes that this satisfies MANEVU’s final request.

Also see Responses II.C, L, Q and R above.

COMMENT U:

Page 80 – NJDEP commends West Virginia for recognizing that fuel combustion from

electric utilities and industrial sources, even within the “area of influence’, will still be the

major source of visibility impairment in 2018 even after implementation of CAIR (emphasis

added- see first paragraph on page 80). West Virginia should include in the SIP, its plan

to address these emissions after the final measures under CAIR in 2015 are taken. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 115
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 22

RESPONSE U:

West Virginia will address these emissions in the 2012 review, and in the next planning

period. This is not a committal SIP, wherein we need to make commitments to enact rules

between now and 2018 to address haze. We are including rules that are currently in effect

that will have regional haze benefits. This differs from MANE-VU, which has proposed a

residential low sulfur fuel oil strategy, which has not yet been enacted by all MANE-VU

states. Additional rules that may be enacted between now and 2018 may have haze benefits

but do not need to be committed to in this SIP. West Virginia’s procedure for adopting rules

requires legislative approval of all rules, so committing to enact rules in the SIP is not

appropriate.

COMMENT V:

Page 82 – The procedure to determine sources and future control strategies in the Area of

Influence is seriously flawed as it places an analysis of emissions times distance before the

statutorily required four factor analysis to determine reasonable measures. The four factor

analysis to determine reasonable air pollution control measures does not contain a factor

to address the improvement that will result in visibility levels from implementation of that

control measure. By placing this analysis before the four-factor analysis, West Virginia is

not fully complying with the intent of the regional haze regulation and violating the goals

of the Clean Air Act itself to eventually alleviate all manmade air pollution from Class I

areas by 2064. By limiting any analysis of the reasonable measures to only those sources

or measures that have the greatest impact on visibility results will result in a State never

proposing any reasonable measures that are available and contribute to manmade air

pollution in the Class I area because even small manmade sources contribute to the regional

haze phenomena.

RESPONSE V:

As stated in Response II.F above, West Virginia believes that any analysis for the purpose

of Regional Haze inherently has a visibility component, since the purpose of the haze rules

is to improve visibility in Class I areas. CAA section 169A(g)(1) provides reasonable

progress factors which are nearly identical to the CAA section 169(A)(g)(2) factors

applicable to major stationary sources subject to BART, the major difference being that the

reasonable progress factors do not include consideration of visibility improvement. This is

not surprising, as it is self evident that visibility improvement must be considered in

determining what progress is reasonable in remedying existing visibility impairment. In

contrast, absent Congress making it so, consideration of visibility improvement would not

be inherently necessary in order to determine the appropriate control technology at a

particular source.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 116
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 23

Note that the entire state of West Virginia is contained in the Area of Influence for Dolly

Sods. The statutory factors were considered for all West Virginia SO2 sources. The first

statutory factor is costs of controls. Costs of SO2 emissions control measures were evaluated

for every SO2 source in West Virginia.

West Virginia also used the Area of Influence analyses to identify sources in other states that

should be considered for reasonable progress analysis. 

COMMENT W:

Page 82 and Page 83 – The 4-factor analysis for determining if a measure is reasonable is

deficient of information. A full analysis of the factors was not conducted and even general

statements related to the factors are not presented. For example, nowhere in the section on

costs is even a range of costs for scrubber controls on existing units presented. Another

example of deficiency is apparent in the factor addressing remaining useful life. The SIP

states that this must be addressed on a case by case basis and West Virginia should be

addressing this factor in more meaningful terms.

RESPONSE W:

West Virginia identified sources to be considered for reasonable progress analysis, and a 4-

factor analysis was applied on a case-by-case basis. As stated at the end of Section 7.9 “The

three remaining statutory factors: 1) time necessary for compliance, 2) energy and non-air

quality environmental impacts of compliance, and 3) remaining useful life of the emissions

unit, while required to be considered, were deemed not applicable, since there were no cost

effective controls to evaluate.” If there are no cost effective control options to be considered,

there is no need to evaluate the time necessary to comply; if there are no cost effective

control options to be considered there are no energy and non-air quality impacts to be

evaluated; and if there are no cost effective controls to be considered there is no remaining

useful life of the source to consider. 

COMMENT X:

Page 84 – Units with a contribution greater than 1% to visibility impairment in any Class

I area was apparently assessed. West Virginia should not place this extremely high level

of contribution (1%) to visibility impairment in a Class I area under the context of a regional

haze SIP. A 1% contribution to visibility levels in a Class I area is unarguably a source

attributable visibility impairment level that should be covered under the reasonably

attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) provisions of the USEPA visibility regulations, not

under the regional haze provisions.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 117
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 24

RESPONSE X:

As discussed in Appendix H - Reasonable Progress Evaluation and Long Term Strategy,

Section 5, the WVDAQ elected to focus on those units that contributed at least one percent

to sulfate visibility impairment at a given Class I area. First, the units with the larger

contribution toward visibility impairment would likely show an environmental benefit under

a control evaluation, and WVDAQ would be able to use that environmental benefit to require

controls on a given unit. Second, there are several regulatory programs that use a higher

threshold than one percent for evaluation thresholds.

1. EPA in the preamble to the BART rule stated that the threshold used “for

determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment should not be

higher than 0.5 deciviews.” [70 FR 39161, 6JUL2005] This threshold equates to

roughly a 5 percent change in visible perception. This same significance level is

used in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration/ New Source Review program for

the visibility air quality related value. The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality

Related Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (December 2000) [page 26] states: “The

FLMs are concerned about situations where a change in extinction from new source

growth is greater than 5% as compared against natural conditions.”

2. The NOx SIP Call laid out a significance level for Section 126 petitions of 4 parts per

million (ppm), that being the level to which a State's contribution to another state's

ozone problem was considered significant. Four ppm represents approximately 3.75

percent of the 1-hour ozone standard, which was in place at the time EPA

promulgated the NOx SIP Call.

3. For the CAIR rule, a PM contribution of 0.2 μg/m3 was used to demonstrate a

significant impact, which is 1.3% of the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3.

4. Lastly, when human health standards are proposed (NAAQS) significant impact

levels (SILS) are assigned which allow sources to determine their significance on air

quality in the area around their facilities. Sources that demonstrate that their

"contribution" from the new or modified sources is less than these significance levels

do not have to complete any further modeling. The SILS represent a percentage of

the NAAQS.

After reviewing all averaging periods for the criteria pollutants, WVDAQ determined that

the one percent threshold we were proposing for reasonable further progress was as

protective or more protective than the significant impact levels. The most restrictive

threshold identified was for NOx, which has a NAAQS of 100 ug/m3

 and a significance level

of 1 ug/m3

, which represents one percent of the total. 

Finally, WVDAQ considered available resources to evaluate the sources in each Class I

area’s sulfate AoI. WVDAQ recognized that there was neither sufficient time or resources

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 118
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 25

available to evaluate all units within a given AoI. Therefore, a threshold was needed to

determine which units would be evaluated. The table below shows that a one percent

contribution threshold captures greater than 64% of the total point source SO2 contribution

to Dolly Sods, while requiring an evaluation of only 17 units. The next 27% of cumulative

contribution may be attributed to units with individual contribution between 0.1% - 1% and

would require analysis of 97 additional units. The WVDAQ believes that the one percent

threshold is appropriate, given the contribution to the total visibility impairment at each

Class I area, and the limited resources available to conduct the unit-by-unit evaluation for

reasonable progress.

Numbers and Percentages of 2018 SO2 Emission Units that Contribute to Sulfate

Visibility Impairment at Dolly Sods

Dolly Sods

# Units Contributing > 1% 17

Percentage of total Contribution 64.28%

# Units Contributing > 0.1%, but < 1% 97

Percentage of total Contribution 27.33%

# Units Contributing < 0.1% 209

Percentage of total Contribution 8.38%

In addition, as stated in Response II.B above, West Virginia notes that in their June 1, 2007,

Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA

states: “In deciding what amount of emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG,

you should take into account the fact that the long-term goal of no man-made impairment

encompasses several planning periods. It is reasonable for you to defer reductions to later

planning periods in order to maintain a consistent glidepath toward the long-term goal.”

WVDAQ believes that setting a RPG of 7.3 dv of improvement by 2018 is an aggressive

goal, requiring only an additional 11.3 dv of improvement by 2064 to achieve natural

background. West Virginia notes that this is the largest projected visibility improvement for

any Class I area in the VISTAS states and is likely the largest projected improvement in the

United States. With this aggressive goal for reasonable progress, West Virginia believes that

it is appropriate to defer any additional reductions to later planning periods as suggested by

EPA guidance.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 119
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 26

COMMENT Y:

Page 84 – West Virginia included a step to determine if CAIR was sufficient for reasonable

progress regarding EGU’s. West Virginia should be aware that the USEPA’s own modeling

to support CAIR implementation included an analysis that showed that the Brigantine

Wilderness Area would not achieve a uniform or better rate of progress after full

implementation of the CAIR rule in 2018. This would be counter to West Virginia’s

conclusion and West Virginia has produced no information that would be contrary to this

conclusion. 

RESPONSE Y:

West Virginia did not portray its analysis as a national CAIR analysis, but as a review of the

units in West Virginia which contribute at least 1% to sulfate visibility impairment at any

Class I area. As shown in Table 7.7-1, all the units in WV with a 1% contribution to sulfate

visibility impairment are either currently controlled for SO2 with at least a 90% control

efficiency or SO2 controls with at least a 90% control efficiency are currently under

construction. 

In addition, all units in West Virginia are predicted to be controlled under CAIR based on

IPM projections by 2018.

COMMENT Z:

Page 84 – The commitment to re-evaluate the IPM predictions with CAIR implementation

at the time of the first five-year progress report is not sufficient justification to avoid

performing the 4-factor analysis to determine reasonable measures as required by the

Regional Haze Rule. The four factor analysis to determine reasonable measures must still

be performed now as a component of this SIP and to meet the requirements of the federal

Regional Haze rule.

RESPONSE Z:

WV has adopted the CAIR rules and believes that compliance with CAIR is sufficient to for

reasonable progress regarding EGUs in West Virginia. See Responses II.L, Q, R and Y

above.

As noted by EPA in Section 1.2 of their June 1, 2007 Guidance for Setting Reasonable

Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, “In deciding what amount of emission

reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, you may take into account the fact that the longterm goal of no manmade impairment encompasses several planning periods. It is reasonable

for you to defer reductions to later planning periods in order to maintain a consistent

glidepath toward the long-term goal.” 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 120
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 27

EPA further noted in Section 4.1: “One important factor to keep in mind when establishing

a RPG is that you cannot adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is

expected to result from the implementation of other CAA requirements. You must therefore

determine the amount of emission reductions that can be expected from identified sources

or source categories as a result of requirements at the local, State, and federal levels during

the planning period of the SIP and the resulting improvements in visibility in Class I areas.

Given the significant emissions reductions that we anticipate to result from BART, the

CAIR, and the implementation of other CAA programs, including the ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, for many States this will be an important step in determining your RPG, and it may

be all that is necessary to achieve reasonable progress in the first planning period for some

States.”

COMMENT AA:

Page 86 – Performing step 1 to 4 to determine reasonable progress places a fifth factor for

degree of visibility improvement before doing the required four factor analysis. This violates

the federal Regional Haze Regulations. But assuming that this step is really the first step,

the costs for EGU controls presented here would make another phase of EGU controls cost

effective. The dollar per ton of reductions referenced here are certainly less than the $2,000

per ton and, as shown on page 90, to be in the range of $400 to $3,400 per ton. The NJDEP

believes that even the use of the higher $3,400 per ton estimate is cost-effective and West

Virginia should be pursuing additional controls based on these estimates. 

RESPONSE AA:

The Regional Haze Rule left the determination of what is reasonable up to each state and

West Virginia disagrees with New Jersey’s definition of what is “reasonable”.

VISTAS also did an analysis of possible controls using AirControlNET. West Virginia

looked at costs below $10,000 per ton and as shown in the table below from Appendix H

there were two sources (each with two units) with estimated control costs less than $10,000

per ton and the unit with the lowest cost was PPG, Boiler 5 with a cost of $3,254 per ton.

Boiler 5 at PPG is subject to the NOx SIP Call and to BART and a BART permit has been

issued requiring reductions. These reductions are addressed in Section 7.8 of the SIP

narrative and Appendix L. The next lowest cost estimate was $6001 per ton, which WVDAQ

determined to be unreasonable.

West Virginia notes that in their June 1, 2007, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress

Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA states: “In deciding what amount of

emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, you should take into account the fact

that the long-term goal of no man-made impairment encompasses several planning periods.

It is reasonable for you to defer reductions to later planning periods in order to maintain a

consistent glidepath toward the long-term goal.”

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 121
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments 

WV Regional Haze SIP 
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 29

COMMENT BB:

Page 90 – West Virginia appears to not have fully evaluated the emissions from non-EGU

sources and the availability of “reasonable control measures” for these sources within the

SIP.

RESPONSE BB:

West Virginia disagrees. As stated in Section 7.6:

For non-EGUs, VISTAS used EPA’s AirControlNET database, modified for

the VISTAS emission inventories. The core AirControlNET is a relational

database system in which control technologies are linked to sources within

EPA emissions inventories. The system contains a database of control

measure applicability, efficiency, and cost information for reducing

emissions. The control measure data file in AirControlNET includes not only

the technology’s control efficiency and calculated emission reductions for

that source, but also estimates the costs (annual and capital) for application

of the control measure.

Using the inventories identified above, VISTAS ran every available SO2

control strategy in AirControlNet against the EGU and non-EGU point

source inventories to develop a master list of incremental control strategies

for each unit in the VISTAS 36-km domain.

For sources within the Area of Influence for Dolly Sods, the master list of

incremental control measures was sorted to determine the costs of

incremental control measures. These data were combined in a master

spreadsheet with the distance from the emission release point to the Class I

area IMPROVE monitor (in km), the 2018 residual emissions and the

distance (Q/d) or squared distance (Q/d^2), and the normalized 2018 SO2

point source emissions times distance-weighted residence time (RTMAx)

values for the county in which the emission release point was located.

As stated in Section 7.7, Step 5, “During the current reasonable progress assessment, no nonEGU units in West Virginia were identified for additional control because no measures were

found to be cost effective.” (See Table above in Response II.AA.)

COMMENT CC:

Page 90, Page 91, and Page 92 – Please explain in the document how the 900 tpy limit for

SO2 was determined for inclusion in the PSD permit. This does not appear to be a large

reduction from the 1,247 tpy baseline emissions in 2002.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 123
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 30

RESPONSE CC:

PSD rules in effect at the time permit application R14-026 was submitted (2004) required

the netting baseline to be calculated using the average of the previous 2 years actual

emissions. For Capitol Cement this was 2002 and 2003. Capitol reported an average SO2

emission rate for these two years of 2,274.84 tons per year. This was actually a very

conservative value based on Empirical calculations relating back end oxygen measurements

with SO2 emissions. This method provided for a lower baseline than either a mass balance

approach or the use of an on site stack test performed in Jan. 2004. Therefore it is obvious

that a reduction from almost 2300 tpy to 900 tpy is significant.

COMMENT DD:

Page 99 – West Virginia does not address how BART will be applied for the one source that

contributes significantly to PM emissions in the Class I area (see last sentence on this page).

West Virginia needs to commit to requiring BART controls for PM upon this source and fully

explain how BART controls will be handled for PM in the future.

RESPONSE DD:

West Virginia has determined that the existing PM controls on the Mt. Storm Power Station

constitute BART. The facility has a BART permit with a PM limit of 0.03 lb/mmBtu.

Additional language has been added to Section 7.8.c to more clearly identify the BART

limits for the sources subject to BART in the SIP narrative. A copy of the BART permit and

determination are contained in Appendix L.

COMMENT EE:

Page 99 – West Virginia lists SNCR on two units but does not address if these SNCRcontrolled units were ever evaluated for BART. It is the NJDEP’s contention that SCR

constitutes BART level controls for EGU’s and this should be addressed or evaluated for

these units.

RESPONSE EE:

The units that are equipped with SNCRs are EGUs subject to CAIR. As stated in Section

7.8.b, EPA has determined that, as a whole, the CAIR program improves visibility more than

BART for individual sources in states affected by CAIR. Therefore, WVDAQ disagrees

with NJDEP’s contention that SCR constitutes BART level controls for EGU’s that should

be addressed or evaluated for these units.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 124
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 31

COMMENT FF:

Page 100 – West Virginia should explain in the SIP what controls will be required on the

Mount Storm, PPG Industries, and Capitol Cement facilities as a result of the analysis. What

were [sic] the result of the analysis conducted and BART determinations? In the case of

Capitol Cement, a discussion of whether or not the new replacement unit was ever

considered for controls and if those controls were placed on the replacement unit was not

included.

RESPONSE FF:

West Virginia included the BART determinations and the permits in Appendix L. WVDAQ

updated the language of the SIP to include a table that summarizes the controls and limits

that are required for BART.

In regard to Capitol Cement, there is a discussion of the controls that are included on the

replacement units in Section 7.7.

COMMENT GG:

Page 103 – Section 8 establishes the reasonable progress goals for Dolly Sods and Otter

Creek. Missing from this section is any discussion or list of the measures relied upon to

establish the progress goal for the area. This should include a discussion of the measures

that West Virginia will propose to take and that were relied upon by the other States and

regional planning organizations when they created their 2018 emissions inventory. 

RESPONSE GG:

West Virginia disagrees. This section simply states what Reasonable Progress Goals being

adopted. These reasonable progress goals are based on the control programs being

implemented between the baseline period and 2018, as described in Section 7.2.a.

COMMENT HH:

Page 103 – West Virginia is committing to summarize in the final SIP “any additional

control measures found to be reasonable to implement in this review period” and to model

these in CMAQ as part of the long-term strategy. West Virginia should first commit to the

process to be used to identify the “additional control measures” that will be summarized and

included in the modeling and SIP.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 125
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 32

RESPONSE HH:

EPA Region 3 commented (see Comment I.A above):

EPA recommends that the West Virginia Department of Air Quality

(WVDAQ) unambiguously establish reasonable progress goals in the current

SIP revision based on the most current available modeling (and the statutory

factors). We also recommend that WVDAQ not make an enforceable

commitment to revise the reasonable progress goals. Such a commitment is

not required for Federal approval.”

In accordance with EPA’s recommendation West Virginia is not going to update the final

SIP submittal.

COMMENT II:

Page 103 – West Virginia is to be applauded for establishing the 2018 goal for Dolly Sods

and Otter Creek at a 7.3 dv improvement on the 20% worst days of visibility impairment and

for committing to this level of reduction and reasonable progress using the final modeling

results. 

RESPONSE II:

No response required.

COMMENT JJ:

Page 107 – This page mentions that West Virginia disagrees with the MANE-VU assessment

of the visibility impairment from West Virginia and concludes that the MANE-VU assessment

did not account for the reductions to be made under CAIR in 2018. The NJDEP would

argue that an assessment of the effects of CAIR in 2018 is not required to make a conclusion

as to who is currently contributing to visibility impairment in Brigantine or who contributed

to visibility impairment in the year 2002. The conclusion that any given State currently

contributes or contributed in the past meets the requirement of the Regional Haze Rule. The

consultation process and the evaluation of reasonable measures in the contributing States

that could be installed by 2018 would then account for the implementation of CAIR in 2018

and the fact that the overall contribution of West Virginia’s emissions to the Brigantine

Wilderness Area is expected to be less in 2018. The NJDEP will be using the same IPM run

as used by the VISTAS States and West Virginia when it performs the final CMAQ regional

modeling run to establish the progress goals for the Brigantine Wilderness Area and,

therefore, will be accounting for West Virginia’s lowering of EGU emissions through CAIR

by 2018. NJDEP believes that this is the proper location to account for the effects of CAIR

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 126
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 33

and reiterates its position that these reductions must be a component of West Virginia’s

regional haze SIP.

RESPONSE JJ:

West Virginia believes that the measures we have adopted to protect visibility in our own

Class I areas are sufficient to address any out of state impacts on other Class I areas.

West Virginia notes that Clyde Thompson, Forest Supervisor for the Monongahela National

Forest, the Federal Land Manager for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek, stated in his October 22,

2007 comments on West Virginia’s Regional Haze SIP, “. . . we recognize and agree with

WVDAQ that MANE-VU’s contribution assessment should also have addressed 2018

emissions, rather than 2002 alone, . . .” 

COMMENT KK:

Page 107 – The NJDEP reinforces its comments that the levels to define significance as set

by West Virginia are extremely high (i.e.; a 1% contribution) and does not adequately

address all sources of manmade visibility impairing emissions that could come from the

State of West Virginia. The NJDEP cannot agree then that the measures adopted to protect

visibility in West Virginia’s own Class I area will be enough to meet the first progress goal

in the Brigantine Wilderness Area. The NJDEP believes that more can be done and does

agree that any measures taken by West Virginia to lower emissions will have a benefit on

the home state as well as a benefit to the Brigantine Wilderness Area. The NJDEP believes,

using the discretion provided by the Regional Haze Regulations as a State with a Class I

area, that West Virginia should not be evaluating sources in their State by the criteria it uses

for their own Class I areas but has to show that it has committed to make the emission

reductions required to make the progress goal set by the State hosting the Class I area,

namely New Jersey. To make this progress goal for the Brigantine Wilderness Area, New

Jersey will be relying upon the implementation of additional controls as outlined in the

MANE-VU “ask” and believes West Virginia needs to include these measures in their SIP

as well.

RESPONSE KK:

West Virginia points out that we are not required to comply with the “ask”, but to do what

we deem reasonable for sources within our jurisdiction. As we have stated repeatedly, all the

West Virginia EGUs identified in the MANE-VU “ask” will be scrubbed by 2018. The only

WV non-EGU that MANE-VU identified as impacting Brigantine will also reduce S02

emissions by 2018. Also see Response II.X above.

Also as previously stated, West Virginia notes that in their June 1, 2007, Guidance for

Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA states: “In

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 127
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 34

deciding what amount of emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, you should

take into account the fact that the long-term goal of no man-made impairment encompasses

several planning periods. It is reasonable for you to defer reductions to later planning periods

in order to maintain a consistent glidepath toward the long-term goal.”

WVDAQ believes that setting a RPG of 7.3 dv of improvement by 2018 is an aggressive

goal, requiring only an additional 11.3 dv of improvement by 2064 to achieve natural

background. With this aggressive goal for reasonable progress, West Virginia believes that

it is appropriate to defer any additional reductions to later planning periods as suggested by

EPA guidance.

West Virginia further notes that only the US EPA can make a final determination on the

completeness and adequacy of the SIP, and ultimately to approve the SIP. 

COMMENT LL:

Page 109 – NJDEP does not believe that the method used to assess contribution (using

emissions, distance and residence time) should be relied upon over the use of complex,

scientifically based regional photochemical modeling. More scientific methodology should

be applied before concluding that the States emissions will have no impact on any other

Class I area. The formation of secondary aerosol particles occurs many miles away from

the source and is not accounted for within the emissions, distance, and residence time metric

used by West Virginia. The conclusion then that the Class I areas in West Virginia are

getting the greatest impact from its own West Virginia emissions, or that Delaware has an

extremely large impact on the Brigantine Wilderness area, is unfairly biased to the nearer

States as the time and conditions to form secondary aerosols is ignored by this metric.

RESPONSE LL:

As previously stated, the Area of Influence analyses were used to define the geographic areas

most likely to contribute to sulfate visibility impacts in Class I areas. VISTAS used the

regional photochemical model CMAQ for emission sensitivity analyses to consider state

specific contributions from reductions in SO2, NOx, NH3, VOC and primary carbon. Results

were reported for Dolly Sods in Figure 7.4-1. Emissions sensitivity analyses for Brigantine

indicate that VISTAS SO2 point sources collectively contribute 20% of the total benefit of

reducing SO2 in the modeling domain. The VISTAS states chose not to counter MANE-VU

source attribution using emission/distance, CALPUFF and REMSAD as all these methods

are estimates. The regional haze rule provides states the flexibility to determine what level

of control is reasonable in this first implementation period. West Virginia acknowledges that

New Jersey has a different opinion. Rather than dispute New Jersey’s opinion, West Virginia

again affirms that a 78% reduction in SO2 from West Virginia’s EGUs by 2018 is a good

start in visibility improvement. In future implementation periods additional controls may

be considered.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 128
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 35

COMMENT MM:

Page 112 – West Virginia commits to taking one of the actions listed in the five year

progress report based upon some findings of the progress to meeting the goals. It is unlikely

that failure to meet the emission reductions used to set the progress goal will be due to any

one State, regions, or countries fault but will likely be due to inaction by more than one

party. This section should be redone to commit to a full assessment of progress and to

address all possible recourses to address not meeting the goal.

RESPONSE MM:

West Virginia only has authority over sources within its jurisdiction, and can only commit

to addressing those sources.

COMMENT NN:

Page 112 – Option 1 in the list of possible actions says that West Virginia will send a

negative declaration in lieu of a SIP submittal if it finds that it is on course to make the first

progress goal in 2018. The USEPA regional haze regulation clearly states that the five-year

progress report must come in the form of a SIP revision and not a negative declaration.

RESPONSE NN:

West Virginia notes that Section 11 states, in part: “In accordance with the requirements

listed in 40 CFR §51.308(g) of the federal rule for regional haze, West Virginia commits

to submitting a report on reasonable progress to EPA every five years following the initial

submittal of the SIP. The report will be in the form of a SIP revision.”

40 CFR §51.308(g)(6) requires that the periodic progress report contain “An assessment of

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

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

State to meet all established reasonable progress goals.”

West Virginia notes that the language of 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) states: “If the State

determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at

this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions

reductions, the State must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further

revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.”

Therefore, New Jersey appears to have misunderstood the USEPA regional haze regulation.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 129
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 130
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.7.

Notice of 

June 3, 2008

Public Hearing

and

Public Comment Period

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 131
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 132
NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality is

reopening the comment period for two specific portions of a proposed revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address Regional Haze. The DEP previously provided the entire

Regional Haze SIP for review and comment last winter, with a public hearing on November 27,

2007. In response to some comments, DEP is now offering the opportunity for additional

comment, and holding a supplemental public hearing on two express portions of the proposed

SIP.

1) Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 169A(d), the DEP is hereby notifying the public that the

responsible Federal Land Manger (FLM) has been consulted. DEP is making the FLM

conclusions/recommendations, and the DEP responses, available to the public through the

following mechanisms:

a) access through the DEP-DAQ website at:

http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=8&ss1id=376

b) e-mail request to tmowrer@wvdep.org

c) review of the hard copy documents at the address listed below

2) The DEP has revised the status of one source previously found to be subject to Best

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements. The source has committed to emission

reductions which limit the maximum visibility impacts to less than one-half deciview at any

federal Class I area. Therefore, DEP has determined this source to be exempt from BART

requirements. This is the same criteria used by the agency to determine other sources as

BART exempt.

Once finalized, the Regional Haze SIP will be submitted to U.S. EPA for review and

approval. The documentation may be reviewed on our website and at the following location: 

West Virginia DEP - Division of Air Quality

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304

Written comments on the two specified SIP elements and the associated revisions to the draft

SIP will be accepted until the close of the public hearing and will be made part of the formal

record. Written and oral comments will be accepted during the public hearing, which will be

held beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at DEP headquarters, at the address listed

above.

Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the record by mail, facsimile (304-

926-0479), e-mail (tmowrer@wvdep.org) or other delivery to the Division of Air Quality if post

marked or transmitted by the close of business on June 3, 2008. Send written comments to John

A. Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality at the address shown above. 

Copies of the proposed Regional Haze SIP and supporting documentation will be available

for public review Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the DEP

Charleston office located at the above address, and may be viewed electronically on the Division

of Air Quality website under the public notice and comment section:

http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=8&ss1id=376

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 133
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 134
WEST 

VIRGINIA 

REGISTER 

Published by the Office of the Secretary of State 

Volume XXV 

Issue 18 

May 2,2008 

Pages 762 - 815 

A Weekly Publication 

Administrative Law Division 

Judy Cooper, Manager 

Betty Ireland 

Secretary of State 

Administrative Law Division 

Bldg. 1, Suite 157K 

1900 Kanawha Blvd. E. 

Charleston, WV 25305-0770 

CONTENTS 

I. Chronological Index 

II. Open Government Meetings Listing 

Ill. Price List 

IV. Rule Monitor 

V. Notices 

a. Legislative Rules 

b. Interpretive Rules 

c. Procedural Rules 

d. Emergency Rules 

e. Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee 

VI. Legislative Interims 

VII. Orders 

VIII. Ethics Commission Opinions 

IX. Ofice of Tax Appeal Decisions 

X. Other Documents or Information Filed 

XI. Publication Deadlines and Publication Dates 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 135
AGENCY 

Air Quality 

Blue Ridge Community and Technical College 

Consolidated Public Retirement Board 

Corrections 

Corridor G Regional Development Authority 

Culture & History - Arts Section 

DHHTIBCFIOCFPIEarly Care & Education 

Education 

Environmental Protection 

Environmental Quality Board 

Ethics 

Fairmont WORKFORCE West Virginia Center 

Fire Marshal 

Health and Human Resources 

Health Care Authority 

Human Rights Commission 

Infrastructure & Jobs Development Council 

Insurance Commission 

Investment Management Board 

Labor 

Lottery 

Marshall Community & Technical College 

Medicine, Board of 

Miners' Health Safety & Training 

Nursing Home Administrators Licensing Board 

Optometry, WV Board of 

Osteopathic Medicine, WV School of 

Partnership to Promote Community Well-Being 

Pierpont Community & Technical College 

Professional Surveyors 

Public Defender Corporation - 23rd Judicial 

Public Defender Corp. for the 13'~ Judicial Circuit 

Putnam County Solid Waste Authority 

Racing Commission 

Real Estate Appraiser Board 

Real Estate Commission 

Region VII Workforce Investment Board 

Registered Professional Nurses 

Secretary of State's Office 

Shepherd University 

Social Work Examiners, WV Board of 

Tax Department 

Tri River Transit Authority 

Upshur County Solid Waste Authority 

Veterinary Medicine 

Waste Management 

WU Hospitals, Inc. 

Workers' Comp by the lnsurance Comm. 

WORKFORCE West Virginia 

INDEX 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 136
- .. 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING ' 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

601 ~7'~ Street 

Charleston, WV 25304 

The West Virginia Deparirnent of Environmental Protection (DEP) announces a comment period 

on draft Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for selected streams in the Upper New River and 

Lower New River watersheds. The comment period begins May 2,2008 and extends through 

June 2,2008. A public meeting is scheduled for May 16.2008 to present a general discussion of 

the TMDL development pmcess and to answer questions regarding the proposed TMDL.. The 

meeting will be held at the Hinton Technology Center, 301 Summers Street, Hinton, W.Va. and 

will begin at 630 p.m. 

A Total Maximum Daily Load is a plan of action used to clean up streams not meeting water 

quality standards. Each of the streams under TMDL development has been identified as violating 

state water quality standards and the federal Clean Water Act quires TMDL development for 

them. The pollutants of concern are dissolved aluminum, total iron, pH and fecal colifonn. In 

addition, some streams have also btcn identified as having impairments to biological integrity. 

DEP began this TMDL development in January 2004 and expects to submit final drafl TMDLs to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval in June 2008. 

The DEP invites public comment on all aspects of the draft TMDLs. Written cornmenu may be 

submitted by U.S. Mail, electronic mail, and fax. The preferred forin for comment submissions is 

c-mail or disk in order to expedite the review and response process. Written comments should be 

postmarked no later than June 2,2008. Comments should be sent to: 

Steve Youn~ ATTN: New River Comments 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

601 57' Street 

Charleston, WV 25304 

E-mail: syoung@wvdep.org 

On May 2,2008, the TMDLs will be available for review on DEP's Web site: 

http:/lwww.wvdep.orghvvtmdI. 

CDs with Technical Repa and an ArcExpiorer GIS Project may be obtained by calling Steve 

Young at (304) 926-0495, e-mail syoun@wdep.org. Fax (304)926-0496, 'ITYITDD (304) 926- 

0489. 

CO 

The West Virginia Depanment of Environmental Protection. Divisiom; $~~iRi~il: zu 

OTHER reopening the comment period for two specific portions of a proposed revis~on to t e State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address Regional Haze. The DEP previously,provided the entire 

Regional Haze SIP for review and comment last winter, with a public hearing on'.November 27, 

2007. In response to some comments, DEP is now offering the opportunitji fai additio'nhr " 'I' 

comment, and holding a supplemental public hearing on two express portions of the proposed 

SIP. 

1) Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 169A(d), the DEP is hereby notifying the pubIic that the 

responsible Federal Land Manger (FLM) has been consulted. DEP is making the FLM 

conclusions/recommendations, and the DEP responses, available to the public through the 

following mechanisms: N 

,- . D c7.- 

a) access through the DEP-DAQ website at: i;. c. 

>- I' 

htt~://w.wde~.ore/item.ch?ssid=8&ss1 id=376 -.3. - 

b) e-mail request to tmowrer@wvdeo,org 2- a 

C c) review of the hard copy documents at the address listed below r' 

. . -, 2 

-i. 8 

2) The DEP has revised the status of one source previously found to be subject t&est 5 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements. The source has committed& ernissian 

reductions which limit the maximum visibility impacts to less than one-half deciview at agy 

federal Class 1 area. Therefore, DEP has determined this source to be exempt from BART 

requirements. This is the same criteria used by the agency to determine other sources as 

BART exempt 

Once finalized, the Regional Haze SIP will be submitted to U.S. EPA for review and 

approval. The documentation may be reviewed on our website and at the following location: 

West Virginia DEP - Division of Air Quality 

601 574h Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Written comments on the two specified SIP elements and the associated revisions to the draft 

SIP will be accepted until the close of the public hearing and will be made part of the formal 

record. Written and oral comments will be accepted during the public hearing, which will be held 

beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3.2008 at DEP headquarters. at the address listed 

above. 

Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the record by mail, facsimile (304- 

926-0479), e-mail &nowr@wvdep.ore) or other delivery to the ~ivision of Air Quality if post 

marked or transmitted by the close of business on June 3,2008. Send written comments to John 

A. Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality at the address shown above. 

Copies of the proposed Regional Haze SIP and supporting documentation will be available 

for public review Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the DEP 

Charleston office located at the above address, and may be viewed electronically on the Division 

of Air Quality website under the public notice and comment section: 

h~://www.wvde~.ore/item.cfm?ssid=8&sslid=37~ 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 137
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP 
1.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC 

COMMENT PERIOD 

AND PUBLIC 

HEARING 

The West Virginia 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection, Division of 

Air Quality is reopening 

the comment period for 

two specific portions of 

a proposed revision to 

the State 

Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to address 

Regional Haze. The 

DEP previously 

provided the entire 

Regional Haze SIP for 

review and comment 

last winter, with a public 

hearing on November 

27, 2007. In response to 

some comments, DEP 

is now offering the 

opportunity for 

additional comment, 

and holding a 

supplemental public 

hearing on two express 

portions of the proposed 

SIP. 

1) Pursuant to Clean Air 

Act section 169A(d), the 

DEP is hereby notifying 

the public that the 

responsible Federal 

Land Manger (FLM) has 

been consulted. DEP is 

making the FLM 

Classifieds - Saved ads Page 1 of 4

http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72-65-156-96-2008-5-2-19-37-35-0000 5/2/2008

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 139
conclusions/ 

recommendations, and 

the DEP responses, 

available to the public 

through the following 

mechanisms: 

a) access through the 

DEP-DAQ website at: 

http://www.wvdep.org/ 

item.cfm?ssid=8&ss1id= 

376

b) e-mail request to 

tmowrer@wvdep.org

c) review of the hard 

copy documents at the 

address listed below 

2) The DEP has revised 

the status of one source 

previously found to be 

subject to Best 

Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) 

requirements. The 

source has committed 

to emission reductions 

which limit the 

maximum visibility 

impacts to less than 

one-half deciview at any 

federal Class I area. 

Therefore, DEP has 

determined this source 

to be exempt from 

BART requirements. 

This is the same criteria 

used by the agency to 

determine other sources 

as BART exempt. 

Once finalized, the 

Regional Haze SIP will 

be submitted to U.S. 

EPA for review and 

approval. The 

documentation may be 

reviewed on our website 

and at the following 

location: 

Classifieds - Saved ads Page 2 of 4

http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72-65-156-96-2008-5-2-19-37-35-0000 5/2/2008

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 140
West Virginia DEP - 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Written comments on 

the two specified SIP 

elements and the 

associated revisions to 

the draft SIP will be 

accepted until the close 

of the public hearing 

and will be made part of 

the formal record. 

Written and oral 

comments will be 

accepted during the 

public hearing, which 

will be held beginning at 

6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 

June 3, 2008 at DEP 

headquarters, at the 

address listed above. 

Written comments will 

also be accepted for 

inclusion in the record 

by mail, facsimile (304-

926-0479), e-mail 

(tmowrer@ wvdep.org) 

or other delivery to the 

Division of Air Quality if 

post marked or 

transmitted by the close 

of business on June 3, 

2008. Send written 

comments to John A. 

Benedict, Director of the 

Division of Air Quality at 

the address shown 

above. 

Copies of the proposed 

Regional Haze SIP and 

supporting 

documentation will be 

available for public 

review Monday through 

Friday between 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at 

the DEP Charleston 

office located at the 

Classifieds - Saved ads Page 3 of 4

http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72-65-156-96-2008-5-2-19-37-35-0000 5/2/2008

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 141
above address, and 

may be viewed 

electronically on the 

Division of Air Quality 

website under the public 

notice and comment 

section: http://www. 

wvdep.org/item.cfm?

ssid=8&ss1id=376

(338245)

Class: 983 DailyMail Legal Ads Last appeared: 05-02-2008

Classifieds - Saved ads Page 4 of 4

http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72-65-156-96-2008-5-2-19-37-35-0000 5/2/2008

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 142
WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 143
CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS 

P.O. Box 2993 

Charleston, West Virginia 25330 

Billing 348-4898 

Classified 348-4848 

I -800-WVA-NEWS 

r * 8 

WV DIV ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT 1 

PROTECTION/AIR QUALITY 

BILLED 601 57TH STREET 

TO CHARLESTON WV 25304USA 

LEGAL ADVERTISING INVOICE 

Please return this portion with your payment. AMOUNT PAID: 

Make checks payable to: Charleston Newspapers 

INVOICE DATE 

ACCOUNT NBR 

SALES REP ID 

INVOICE NBR 

US/US/U8 

034320005 

002U 

SU183'1UUl 

INVOICE DATE 

ACCOUNT NBR 

SALES REP ID 

INVOICE NBR 

State of West irginia, A" AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

/7 

U~/US/U~ 

034320005 

0 o~Z6 

S01837UUT 

CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS 

P 0 Box 2993 

Charleston, West Vuginla 25330 

Billing 348-4898 

Classified 348-4848 

1 -800-WVA-NEWS Legal pricing is based upon 63 words per column inch. 

FEIN 55-0676079 Each successive insertion is discounted by 25% of the first insertion rate. 

The Daily Mail rate is $. 13 per word, the Charleston Gazette rate is $. 14 per word, and the Metro Putnam rate is $.07 per word. 

I, of 

THE CHARLESTON GAZETT~~ 

fSSUE 

DATE 

05/02 

05/02 

THE DAILY MAIL, 

do solemnly swear that the legal notice of: 

Notice of Public Comment 

' AD 

TYPE 

LEG 

LEG 

was duly published in said newspaper(s) at the stated pr 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4 day o 

DESCKIPTSON PUB m~m$Nm NEE PURCHASE O~ER t ' 

L)M 

GZ 

Aa SI&E 

Notlce of Pub11.c Com 

301837001 Dee Smith 

IiJotice of Public Com 

501837002 Dee Smith 

TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT 

,~ RATE 

8.19 

8.82 

12 RCVD 

AD mBER 

0338245 

TO~L RUN 

1x1125 

11.25 

1x1125 

11.25 

05-1)7-0 8~02: 

OR(lS8 iW(I,UNP 

92.14 

99.23 

WET AMOUNT 

92.14 

99.23 

191.37 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 144
west virginia department of environmental protection - - -- -- - - -- - - -- - - 

Division of Air Quality Joe Manchin 111, Governor 

601 57b Street SE Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary 

Charleston, WV 25304 www.wvdep.org 

Phone: (304) 926-0475 

Fax: (304) 926-0479 

May 1,2008 

Ms. Judith Katz, Director 

US EPA Region I11 

Air Protection Division 

1650 Arch Street (3AP00) 

Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029 

Re: Proposed West Virginia Regional Haze SIP 

Dear Ms. Katz, 

The 1999 federal Regional Haze Rule requires states to develop State Implementation Plans 

(SIPS) to reduce visibility impairment consistent with the relevant Clean Air Act requirements. 

DEP accordingly initiated a public process for our proposed Regional Haze SIP, culminating in a 

public hearing held in November 2007. In response to some comments, DEP is reopening the 

comment period, and will hold a supplemental public hearing on June 3,2008, for two specific 

portions of the proposed Regional Haze SIP. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 169A(d), the DEP is notifying the public that 

the responsible Federal Land Manager (FLM) has been consulted. DEP is making 

the FLM conclusions/recommendations, and the DEP responses, available to the 

public, including access on our website at 

http:llwww.wvdep.orditem.cfin?ssid=8&ssl id=376. 

The DEP has revised the status of one source previously found to be subject to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The source has committed to 

emission reductions which limit the maximum visibility impacts to less than onehalf deciview at any federal Class I area. Therefore, DEP has determined this 

source to be exempt from BART requirements. This is the same criteria used by 

the agency to determine other sources as BART exempt. 

The proposed SIP is enclosed for your review and comment. The main narrative is provided as 

hard copy while the supporting appendices are being supplied in electronic format on Compact 

Disc. Once finalized, the Regional Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for approval. 

Promoting a healthy environment. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 145
Letter to Judith Katz 

May 1,2008 

Page 2 

A public hearing will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 3,2008 at the following 

location: 

West Virginia DEP Headquarters 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the hearing on June 3,2008 and 

will be made part of the formal record. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in 

the rule-making record by mail, facsimile (304-92600479), email (tmowrer@,wvdep.org) or other 

delivery to the Division of Air Quality if postmarked or transmitted by the close of business on 

June 3,2008. Send written comments to my attention at the address shown above. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the address shown above or by phone 

at 304-926-0462. 

Sincerely, 

Tohn A. Benedict 

Director 

Division of Air Quality 

Enclosures: Notice of Public Comment Period and Public Hearing (hard copy and on CD) 

WV Regional Haze SIP narrative (hard copy and on CD) 

Supporting appendices (on CD) 

Promoting a healthy environment 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 146
west virginia department of environmental protection 

Division of Air Quality Joe Manchin III, Governor 

601 57" Street SE Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary 

Charleston, WV 25304 www.wvdep.org 

Phone: (304) 926-0475 

Fax: (304) 926-0479 

May 1,2008 

Ms. Ann Mebane 

U.S. Forest Service 

4307 Cooper Lane 

Cody, WY 82414 

Mr. Bruce Polkowsky 

National Park Service 

NPS-ARD 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

Mr. Tim Allen Mr. Charles Sams 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service 

7333 W Jefferson, Suite 375 1720 Peachtree Road, NW 

Lakewood, CO 80235 Atlanta, GA 30309 

Re: Proposed West Virginia Regional Haze SIP 

Dear Federal Land Manager Stakeholders: 

The 1999 federal Regional Haze Rule requires states to develop State Implementation Plans 

(SIPS) to reduce visibility impairment consistent with the relevant Clean Air Act requirements. 

DEP accordingly initiated a public process for our proposed Regional Haze SIP, culminating in a 

public hearing held in November 2007. In response to some comments, DEP is reopening the 

comment period, and will hold a supplemental public hearing on June 3,2008, for two specific 

portions of the proposed Regional Haze SIP. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 169A(d), the DEP is notifying the public that 

the responsible Federal Land Manager (FLM) has been consulted. DEP is making 

the FLM conclusions/recommendations, and the DEP responses, available to the 

public, including access on our website at 

http://www.wvdep.orrr/item.cfm?ssid=8&sslid=376. 

The DEP has revised the status of one source previously found to be subject to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The source has committed to 

emission reductions which limit the maximum visibility impacts to less than onehalf deciview at any federal Class I area. Therefore, DEP has determined this 

source to be exempt from BART requirements. This is the same criteria used by 

the agency to determine other sources as BART exempt. 

Promoting a healthy environment. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 147
Letter to FLMs 

May 1,2008 

Page 2 

The proposed SIP is enclosed for your review and comment. The main narrative is provided as 

hard copy while the supporting appendices are being supplied in electronic format on Compact 

Disc. Once finalized, the Regional Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for approval. 

A public hearing will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 3,2008 at the following 

location: 

West Virginia DEP Headquarters 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the hearing on June 3,2008 and 

will be made part of the formal record. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in 

the rule-making record by mail, facsimile (304-92600479), email (tmowrer0,wvdev.org) or other 

delivery to the Division of Air Quality if postmarked or transmitted by the close of business on 

June 3,2008. Send written coniments to my attention at the address shown above. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the address shown above or by phone 

at 304-926-0462. 

Sincerely, 

%hn A. Benedict 

Director 

Division of Air Quality 

Enclosures: Notice of Public Comment Period and Public Hearing (hard copy and on CD) 

WV Regional Haze SIP narrative (hard copy and on CD) 

Supporting appendices (on CD) 

Promoting a healthy environment. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 148
- 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57" Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Phone: (304) 926-0475 

Fax: (304) 926-0479 

west virginia department of environmental protection -- -- 

Joe Manchin Ill, Governor 

Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary 

www.wvdep.org 

May 1,2008 

Mr. Mike Dowd, Director 

Virginia Air Division 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 10009 

Richmond, VA 23240 

Re: Proposed West Virginia Regional Haze SIP 

Dear Mr. Dowd, 

The 1999 federal Regional Haze Rule requires states to develop State Implementation Plans 

(SIPS) to reduce visibility impairment consistent with the relevant Clean Air Act requirements. 

DEP accordingly initiated a public process for our proposed Regional Haze SIP, culminating in a 

public hearing held in November 2007. In response to some comments, DEP is reopening the 

comment period, and will hold a supplemental public hearing on June 3,2008, for two specific 

portions of the proposed Regional Haze SIP. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 169A(d), the DEP is notifying the public that 

the responsible Federal Land Manager (FLM) has been consulted. DEP is making 

the FLM conclusions/recommendations, and the DEP responses, available to the 

public, including access on our website at 

http:llwww.wvdep.or~item.cfin?ssid=8&ssl id=376. 

The DEP has revised the status of one source previously found to be subject to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The source has committed to 

emission reductions which limit the maximum visibility impacts to less than onehalf deciview at any federal Class I area. Therefore, DEP has determined this 

source to be exempt from BART requirements. This is the same criteria used by 

the agency to determine other sources as BART exempt. 

The proposed SIP is enclosed for your review and comment. The main narrative is provided as 

hard copy while the supporting appendices are being supplied in electronic format on Compact 

Disc. Once finalized, the Regional Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for approval. 

Promoting a healthy environment, 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 149
Letter to Mike Dowd 

May 1,2008 

Page 2 

A public hearing will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 3,2008 at the following 

location: 

West Virginia DEP Headquarters 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 253 04 

Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the hearing on June 3,2008 and 

will be made part of the formal record. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in 

the rule-making record by mail, facsimile (304-92600479), email (tmowrer@,wvdep.org) or other 

delivery to the Division of Air Quality if postmarked or transmitted by the close of business on 

June 3,2008. Send written comments to my attention at the address shown above. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the address shown above or by phone 

at 304-926-0462. 

Sincerely, 

dohn A. Benedict 

Director 

Division of Air Quality 

Enclosures: Notice of Public Comment Period and Public Hearing (hard copy and on CD) 

WV Regional Haze SIP narrative (hard copy and on CD) 

Supporting appendices (on CD) 

Promoting a healthy environment. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 150
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.8.

June 3, 2008

Public Hearing Transcript

and 

Sign-In Sheet 

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 151
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 152
BEFORE THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

Transcript of proceedings had at a public 

hearing in the above-styled matter taken by Missy L. Young, 

Certified Court Reporter, at the West Virginia Department 

of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 

Canaan Valley Conference Room, 601 57th Street, S.E. 

Charleston, West Virginia, commencing at 6:20 p.m., on the 

3rd day of June 2008, pursuant to notice. 

MISSY L. YOUNG, C.C.R. 

POST OFFICE BOX 6296 

CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25362 

(304) 205-4942 OR (304) 539-6192 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 153
Proceedings 

PROCEEDINGS 

MR. DURHAM: This public hearing will now 

come to order on this third day June 2008, in the Canaan 

Valley Hearing Room, room number 1041, at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection Headquarters located 

at 601 57th Street Southeast, Charleston, West Virginia 

25304. My name is Fred Durham. I am the Deputy Director, 

as well as the ~ssistant Director for Planning, for the 

Division of Air Quality and I will be the moderator for 

these proceedings. 

This hearing pertains to specific portions 

of our proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan 

to address Regional Haze. Regional haze is defined as 

visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which emit fine particles and their 

precursors and which are located across a broad geographic 

area. These emission are transported over large regions, 

including national parks, forests and wilderness areas. 

Called Class I federal areas. 

The Clean Air Act mandates protection of 

visibility, especially in Class I areas. The states are 

required to develop and implement air quality protection 

plans to reduce pollution that causes visibility 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 154
Proceedings 3 

impairment. States are required to develop SIPS to reduce 

visibility impairment with the express intent that the 

visibility in the Class I areas will be returned to natural 

conditions by the year 2064. 

The DEP previously provided the entire 

draft Regional Haze SIP for review and comment last winter, 

with a public hearing on November 27, 2007. In response to 

some comments DEP subsequently offered the opportunity for 

additional comment, and is holding this supplemental public 

hearing on two express portions of the proposed SIP. 

1) Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 

169A(d), the DEP has expressly notified the public that the 

responsible Federal Land Manager, FLM, has been consulted. 

DEP made the FLM conclusions or recommendations, and the 

DEP responses, available to the public through several 

mechanisms, including the DEP website; via e-mail request; 

and by physically providing the documents for review at our 

headquarters in Charleston. 

2) The DEP has revised the status of one 

source previously found to be subject to Best Available 

Retrofit Technology, BART, requirements. The source has 

committed to emission reductions which limit the maximum 

visibility impacts to less than on-half deciview at any 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 155
Proceedings 4 

federal Class I area. Therefore, DEP has determined this 

source to be exempt from BART requirements. This is the 

same criteria used by the agency to determine other sources 

as BART exempt. 

Once finalized, the Regional Haze SIP will 

be submitted to U.S. EPA for review and approval. 

The floor is now open for comments on the 

proposed SIP. Please wait to be recognized by the 

moderator, then state your name and any affiliation along 

with your comments. Also please complete the hearing 

sign-in sheet. 

The floor is now open. 

There being no comments and there being 

nothing further, this hearing on the Regional Haze proposed 

SIP revision is closed. 

(WHEREUPON, the hearing was 

concluded at 6 :25 p.m.) 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 156
Proceedings 5. 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, 

COUNTY OF KANAWHA, to-wit: 

I, the undersigned, Missy L. Young, a 

Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public within and for 

the State of West Virginia, duly commissioned and 

qualified, do hereby certify that the foregoing, is to the 

best of my skill and ability, a true and accurate 

transcript of all the proceedings had in the aforementioned 

matter. 

Given under my hand and official seal this 

4th day of June 2008. 

Notary Public for the State of West Virginia 

My commission expires April 15, 2018. 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 157
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 158
SIP Public Hearing for Regional Haze 

Canaan Valley Conference Room 

601 57th Street SE, Charleston 

June 3,2008 6:00 p.m. 

Sign-In 

west virginia department of environmental protection 

NAME (Please Print) ADDRESS ORGANIZATION PHONEIFAX E-MAIL COMMENT 

YESINO 

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 159
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP 
west virginia department of environmental protection

Appendix N.9.

Response to Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 161
[This page intentionally left blank.]

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 162
WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 1

West Virginia 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

to Preserve, Protect and Improve Visibility in Class I Federal Ares

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

On May 2, 2008, the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality (WVDAQ)

commenced the public comment period and subsequently held a public hearing on June 3, 2008 to

accept oral comments on the proposed Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Preserve,

Protect and Improve Visibility in Class I Federal Areas. Written comments were also accepted

through 6:00 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. One person attended the public hearing, however no

verbal comments were received. No written comments were received. Therefore, WVDAQ received

no comments that require response.

WV Regional Haze SIP Appendix N - 163