west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N Public Participation Documentation

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]

### 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[This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



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

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]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 fineparticles 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 bereturned 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 57thStreet, 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

.[This page intentionally left blank.]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-icingis 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
- HazeThe 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~rprecursors, 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 In the 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:

# 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,PUBLGHMR- 

# , 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~nepartlcles 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 ofQtl; ~wal Charleston, W 26304 Partlclpsntsshould 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 41rQuality if postmarked or transmMed by the close of bus~ness onNovembw27, 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 documqniationw~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 SIPSto reduce visbility impairment w~th - the express intent that. by 2064,,the~1sibilityjn the qps rareaswill 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 97,2007at the fdlowlw

.- looptlcsn rI vwuuI #mnta?u AND PU~LIC CCIMMENT~ PERIOD ~hd' Wdst V~rginia *Department of Environmental Protectidn, D~visinl of Alr 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~arttclesand 

# 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~bllltyIn 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 thepublisher 

### * of the 

### Zntelligencer newspaperpublished in the CITY OF WHEELING,STATE 0 F WEST VIRGINIA, hereby certify that the annexedpublication was inserted in said newspaper on the following dates: 

### j 

## O-ab-a7

Given under my hand this 

# d~~
day of 

# +

, 

### - at WHEELING, OHIO COUNm 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

# WEST VIRGINIA 

# REGISTER 

# v
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 DatesINDEX 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'hCircuits Public Defender Corp. for the 131hJudicial 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-- - -- 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 multitudeof sourcesand activitieswhich emit fine particles and their precursors,and which are located across a broad geographic area. These emissions are lransported over large regions, includingnational parks, forests and wilderness areas ("Class I" federal areas). The Clean Air Act mandates protectionof visibility, especially in Class I areas. Thestates are requiredto developand implement air quality protectionplans to reduce pollutionthat causes visibility impairment.These plans should establishgoals and emissions reduction strategies based on trends from various sources includingpoint, area, and mobile (both on-mad and non-road) source emissions, commercial marine, biogenic, and wildfire and agriculturalemissions. Under the federal Regional Haze Rule, states are requiredto 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 inthe 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 Iareas. Once finalized, the Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA for review and approval.
A public hearingwill be held beginning at 6:00p.m. Tuesday, November 27,2007 at the following location: Wcst Virginia DEP Headquarters Division of Air Quality 601 57'hStreet, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Participantsshouldcheck 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 willalso be acceptedfor inclusion inthe rule-makingrecord by mail, facsimile (304-926- 0479), e-mail (11iio~vlrrr3rr~~~1ro.1~1~~) or other delivery to the DivisionofAir 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 ofthe pmpased Haze SIP and supporting documentation will be available for public review between 830a.m. and 4:30p.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)[This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N.2. November 27, 2007 Public Hearing Transcript and Sign-In Sheet

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]

### 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

### APPEARANCES : 

### PAM NIXON, Environmental AdvocateINDEX

Reporter's Certificate



### ........... 

## ........ Page 7

### Proceedings 4

MR. DURHAM: This public hearing will now
come to order on this 27thday 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

### 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.

### Proceedings



### (WHEREUPON, the hearing was 

### closed.)

### 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[This page intentionally left blank.]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[This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N.3 Federal Land Manager (FLM) Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]

## 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

### , -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

### 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.

Caring for the Land and Sewing People Printed on Recyded Paper 

# 0Mr. 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 HuberOctober 22, 2007



### Attachment 

### 1
Forest Service Technical Comments on WKDAQ'sDraft 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 ofInfluence
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 A01information can assist states in highlighting which sources they may need to follow up with in subsequent planning and

### 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 A01tables 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, asOctober 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 2018, 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 ofany signijicant changes in or out of the State which have impeded progress, and,

### Assessment of the sufJiciency of the implementationplan 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 WVOctober 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 SO2and 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 

### 30October 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 A01that 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.*. 

### . , 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 A01metric contributions when determining which sources to assess for further reasonable progress, We recommend that WVDAQ either provide thisjustification 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.

# 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.

### 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
EnclosureNational 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.

### 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.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.[This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N.4 Response to Federal Land Manager (FLM) Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]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.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 inResponse 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, butResponse 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 allthe units in the Dolly Sods AoI which contribute at least 0.5% of the sulfate. Table 7.5.dResponse to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 5 2 also provides the SO2emissions for 2002 and the projected emissions for 2018, as well as the SO2control 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 touse 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 rulestated 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 NOxSIP 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 ozoneproblem 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 NOxSIP 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 im pact levels (SILS) are assigned which allow sources to determine their significance on air quality in the area around their facilities. Sources that demonstrate that theirResponse 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 SO2contribution 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 SO2Emission 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%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 SO2and NOx emissions, a BART determination was completed forResponse to FLM Comments on Preliminary Draft Page - 8 particulate matter emissions from Mount Stor m, 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, NorthResponse 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 maybe 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 NOxand 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, NOxand 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 ActResponse 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 SO2increment 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 SO2increment 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 VISTASregion. 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, weResponse 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 asto what “ongoing consultation” requires in future years.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 alsoResponse 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 maybe 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.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 NOxand VOC as ozone precursors, and mayyield 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 NOxand 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.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 theirResponse 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 SO2emissions 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 existingResponse 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 SO2emissions 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 SO2emissions during this first planning period and did not evaluate potential NOxreductions. 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 NOxemissions 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 NOxBACT for a portland cement plant. [See RBLC ID MD-0027] Maryland stated “A 5-stage preheater/precalciner pyroprocessing plant is selected for NOxemission abatement. Any add-on NOxemissions 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 NOxcontrols during the next haze review.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 PM 10emissions 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 lbPM 10/mmBtu (filterable) for the Units at Mt. Storm was based on a determination of appropriate source performance within in the context ofBART. 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 stacktesting 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 lbPM 10/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 aResponse 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 beevaluated 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.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.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.”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 byResponse 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 communicationsin 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 SO2emissions, and 4) discussion of any other measures to reduce SO2and NOxemissions 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’sResponse 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 Iareas 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 SO2emissions from these units with a 90% efficiency. MANE-VU also requested a control strategy to provide a 28% reduction in SO2emissions 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 SO2in 2002. As shown in Table 7.5.d-3, by 2018 all the EGUs in West Virginia are expected to either be controlled for SO2or shutdown. West Virginia’s non-EGUs are predicted to emit 61,704 tons of SO2in 2018, MANE-VU in their “non-EGU Ask” has requested a 28% reduction in these emissions, or 17,277 tons of SO2reductions. The additional 91,864 tons of SO2reductions achieved by the installation and operation of more efficient controls on the EGUs and the shutdown ofadditional EGUs, will achieve greater reductions than the 28% reduction in the MANEVU “non-EGU Ask”. The WVDAQ believes thatthese 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.west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N.5 Public Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.]November 27,2007 

### Mr. John 

### A. Benedict, 

### Director 

### West Virginia Deparhnent ofEnvironmental 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 ofthe 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

Ncu Jersey Ir An Equal Opporlunlty Employer Prinred on Rewed Roper and Re~clablcc: 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, MaineComments 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, nojustification 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 

### afthe Regional 

### Haze 

### SIP and is missing. 

### This is particularly true as the cost-effectivenessof 

### any future controls on Electric Generating Units (EGU's) beyond the 

### 2015 

### CAIR implementationperiod 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,udethe visibility improvement as 

### a first step. 

### In fact, thc four-stepprocess 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 withjustification why the measure 

### isnot "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.

### 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 11.32 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.eformation 

### 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 torevicw the 

### status of the emission reductions and projectih at the time of 

### the five-year 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". 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 

### CARtrading 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 tojustify 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 2018 .aspredicted 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 CAEis a "cap and trade" program where credits can be purcl~ascd in areas outside the 

### VISTAS domain, this 

### amount of reduction m.aynot 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 uponwell over 103,497 tons of 

### SO2emission 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 anticipatednet 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 determinereasonable 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 

### addressedby 

### 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 theBrigantine Wilderness area and 

### NJDEP stands behind those multiple assessments. More importantly, several important factors are not included in West Virginia's 

### SPthat 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,lbe 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 201 

### 8 and had their emissions adjusted in the inventory used) will occur and commit to 

### a 201

### 8 beyond CAElevel 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).
11)Page 73 

## - Even using the method selccted to determinepoint 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 contributionsby 

### 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 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 determiningif 

### 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 itsplan 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 167units 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 

### inthe SIP, its 

### plan to address rhese emissions after the 

### final measures under CANin 

### 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.eintent 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 contributeto 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 visibilityimpairment (UVQprovisions 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 1to 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 $3,400per 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 controlsbased 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 

### $02was determined for inclusionin 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.

### 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 

### ofthe 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 isto be applauded for establishingthc 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 CARin 

### 2018 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 coilclusionthat 

### 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 

### CARby 201 

### 8. NJDEP believes that this is 

### the proper location to account for the effects of 

### CARand reiterates its position that these reductions 

### must be a component of West Virginia's regional haze SIP.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 emissionreductions required to make the progress goal set by the Statchosting 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, scientificallybased 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,lbe 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 firstprogress 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.[This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N.6 Response to Public Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]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 Visibilityin 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 proposedRegional 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, dueWV 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 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 Virginialooked 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 NOxSIP Call and has accepted a permit limit requiring a reduction in SO2emissions, 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 thatWV 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 EGUsidentified 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 SO2inventory. 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 SO2by 4% and PM by 40% by 2018.WV Regional Haze Response to CommentsPage 5Table 10.0-1. 23 WV Electric GeneratingUnits Identified in MANE-VU “EGU ASK”Plant ID Unit MW 2002 SO2Emissions(tons)SO2ControlsYr SO2ControlsInstalledSO2ControlEfficiency2018Projected SO2Emissions(tons)CommentsAlbright 077-00001 3 137 10,136.5 Scrubber 2018 90% 660.1 IPM Predicted ControlsFt. Martin 061-00001 1 552 45,228.5 Scrubber 201095% 4,922.1 Controls under construction9,812.1 additional tons of SO2removed due to greater than90% Control Efficiency2 555 45,890.7 Scrubber 2010 95% 4,890.0John Amos 079-00006 1 800 31,938.0 Scrubber 2009 95%6,612.7 Controls under construction24,127.6 additional tons of SO2removed due to greater than90% Control Efficiency2 800 31,465.0 Scrubber 2009 95% 6,693.93 1300 44,030.0 Scrubber 2008 95% 10,821.0Kammer1051-00006 1 210 14,896.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 951.1 IPM Predicted Controls2 210 12,711.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 949.2 IPM Predicted Controls3 210 14,452.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 948.7 IPM Predicted ControlsKanawhaRiver039-00006 1 200 7,944.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 902.7 IPM Predicted Controls2 200 7,741.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 900.3 IPM Predicted ControlsMitchell 039-00006 1 800 29,568.0 Scrubber 2007 95% 7,646.2 15,228.1 additional tons of SO2removed due to greater than90% Control Efficiency2 800 29,532.0 Scrubber 2007 95% 7,581.9Mountaineer 053-00009 1 1300 42,992.0 Scrubber 2007 95%11,433.5 11,433.5 additional tons of SO2removed due to greater than90% Control EfficiencyTable 10.0-1. 23 WV Electric GeneratingUnits Identified in MANE-VU “EGU ASK”Plant ID Unit MW 2002 SO2Emissions(tons)SO2ControlsYr SO2ControlsInstalledSO2ControlEfficiency2018Projected SO2Emissions(tons)CommentsWV Regional Haze Response to CommentsPage 6Mt. Storm 023-00003 1 533 9,958.5 Scrubber 2002 95%3,191.0 9305.3 additional tons of SO2removed due to greater than90% Control Efficiency2 533 10,467.4 Scrubber 2001 95% 3,191.03 521 2,944.4 Scrubber 1994 95% 2,923.3Philip Sporn1, 2053-00001 1 150 6,638.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 668.1 IPM Predicted Controls2 150 6,822.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 647.6 IPM Predicted Controls3 150 6,939.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 643.0 IPM Predicted Controls4 150 6,876.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 633.2 IPM Predicted Controls5 450 13,863.0 Scrubber 2018 90% 1,942.6 IPM Predicted ControlsPleasants 073-00005 1 650 21,667.2 Scrubber 1979 95% 1,575.6 3,109.1 additional tons of SO2removed due to greater than90% Control Efficiency2 650 20,241.7 Scrubber 1980 95% 1,533.5Total 476,943.90 84,880.30Expected Reductions of392,063.6 tons of SO2, 73,015.7tons greater than the “Ask” of90% Control on these units1AEP Consent Decree [US District Court for the Southern Districtof Ohio, Eastern Division], Paragraph 87 requires that a totalof at least 600 MW from the followinglist 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 by December 31, 2018.2AEP Consent Decree [US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division], Paragraph 87 requires that Sporn Unit 5 be Retired, Retrofit, or Repowered by December 31, 2018.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 fr om 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 ofsources which most greatly affect visibility in the State, no justification is provided to showwhy 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 Virginiashould reconsider what are “reasonable measures.”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 SO2control 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 consideredin 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 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 specificpower 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 toaddress 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 perceptibleto 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 expressesWV 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. [60Pritchford, 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, Winter1993, April 1993 Feature Article “Deciview, A Standard Visibility Index” states: The newly-developed visibility index’s dvscale is linear to humanlyperceived changes in visual air quality. A one dvchange is approximately a 10% change in the extinction coefficient, which is a small, but usually perceptible scenic change. The dvscale 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 natur al 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 dvWV 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 rolethat Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides, also regional haze precursors, play inozone 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 isformed 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 NOxare contributors to ozone but are minor contributors to regional haze in the West Virginia Class I areas. NOxand 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 ofthe benefits of emission reductions would occur in the state where the emissions reductions weremade. While this conclusion may be drawn in the general sense for some pollutants, it iscertainly 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 couldWV 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 t hat 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 pollut ants 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 anWV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 13 enforceable commitment in order for thisSIP 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 ofthese 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 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 howthe 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 Virginiawill consider what additional regulatory action might be taken.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 SO2emissions 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 NOxemissions for 2002, 2009 and 2018 in the VISTAS states. Table 4.1 shows Summary of 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory which includes VOC, NH3, PM 10, PM2.5, NOxand SO2emissions 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 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 thistechnique results ina 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 SO4is the dominant contributor to visibility impairment. NO3is 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, NOxand anthropogenic VOC are very small. The emissionsWV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 17 inventory demonstrates that in West Virginia 97% of the SO2inventory is from point sources (see Table 4.1, and Figure 4.2-2). It is appropriate for West Virginia to focus on SO2from 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 bemade 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 ad justments 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 to18% reduction beyond CAIR. WV has expected reductions of 392,063.6 tons of SO 2in 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 SO2reductions.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 isimportant 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 inDolly 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-o f-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 SO2emissions by 67.5%, and West Virginia’s EGUs are proj ected to reduce their SO2emissions 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 SO2emissions 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 addressWV 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 SO2emissions 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 SO2and NOx, EPA recognized that the air pollution control retrofits that result from a program to achieve highly cost-effective reductions are quite significant and cannot 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 toWV 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 SO2allowances). First, the Agency confirmed that the levels of SO2and NOxemissions it believed werereasonable 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 insteadof 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 SI P 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 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 SO2emissions from these units with a 90% efficiency. MANE-VU also requested a control strategy to provide a 28% reduction in SO2emissions 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 SO2reductions 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 SO2in 2002. As shown in Table 7.5.d-3, by 2018 all the EGUs in West Virginia are expected to either be controlled for SO2or shutdown. West Virginia’s non-EGUs are predicted to emit 61,704 tons of SO2in 2018, MANE-VU in their “non-EGU Ask” has requested a 28% reduction in these emissions, or 17,277 tons of SO2reductions. The additional 91,864 tons of SO2reductions 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 withinthe “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 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 weneed 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 enactedbetween 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, socommitting 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 anal ysis 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 identicalto 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 inremedying 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 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 SO2sources. The first statutory factor is costs of controls. Costs of SO2emissions control measures were evaluated for every SO2source 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 analysisfor 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 ina 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 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 touse 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 rulestated 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 NOxSIP 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 NOxSIP Call. 3. For the CAIR rule, a PM contribution of 0.2 μg/m3was used to demonstrate a significant impact, which is 1.3% of the annual PM2.5standard 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/m3and 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 resourcesWV 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 SO2contribution to Dolly Sods, while requiring an evaluation of only 17 units. The next 27% of cumulative contribution may be attributed to units withindividual 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 SO2Emission 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 emissionsreduction 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 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 in formation 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 SO2with at least a 90% control efficiency or SO2controls 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 re port 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 analysisto 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 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 NOxSIP 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 Response to CommentsPage 28WV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 29 COMMENT BB: Page 90 – West Virginia appears to not havefully 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 f ile 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 explainin the document howthe 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 Response to Comments Page 30 RESPONSE CC: PSD rules in effect at the time permit a pplication 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 SO2emissions. 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 howBART 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 aff ected 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 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. Thisshould 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 simplystates 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 “additionalcontrol measures” that will be summarized and included in the modeling and SIP.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 CAIRWV 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 Sodsand 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 U nder the Regional Haze Program, EPA states: “InWV Regional Haze Response to Comments Page 34 deciding what amount of emissions reduction isappropriate 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 Wilder ness 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 SO2point sources collectively contribute 20% of the total benefit of reducing SO2in 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 thandispute New Jersey’s opinion, West Virginia again affirms that a 78% reduction in SO2from 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 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 sourceswithin 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 ifit 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 rulefor regional haze, West Virginia commits to submitting a report on reasonable progress toEPA 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 elementsand 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.[This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



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

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]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[This page intentionally left blank.]

# 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 DatesAGENCY Air Quality Blue Ridge Community and Technical College Consolidated Public Retirement Board Corrections Corridor G Regional DevelopmentAuthority Culture & History - Arts Section DHHTIBCFIOCFPIEarlyCare & 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 Partnershipto 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- .. 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 630p.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 Repaand 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 1area. 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 6:00p.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~[This page intentionally left blank.]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 Page 1of 4 Classifieds

- Saved ads

5/2/2008 http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72

-65

- 156

-96

-2008

-5

-2

- 19

-37

-35

-0000conclusions/ 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: Page 2of 4 Classifieds

-Saved ads

5/2/2008 http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72

-65

- 156

-96

-2008

-5

-2

- 19

-37

-35

-0000West 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 Page 3of 4 Classifieds

-Saved ads

5/2/2008 http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72

-65

- 156

-96

-2008

-5

-2

- 19

-37

-35

-0000above 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 Page 4of 4 Classifieds

-Saved ads

5/2/2008 http://classifieds.cnpapers.com/savedads.php?user_id=72

-65

- 156

-96

-2008

-5

-2

- 19

-37

-35

-0000

### 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 PAI D : 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

191.37west 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.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 environmentwest 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.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.- 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 sourcepreviously 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,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 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-makingrecord 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,

dohnA. 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.west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



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

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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.)

### 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.[This page intentionally left blank.]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[This page intentionally left blank.]west virginiadepartment of environmental protection



# Appendix N.9. Response to Comments

Promoting a healthy environment.[This page intentionally left blank.]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.