### State of Wisconsin

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
101 S. Webster Street Box 7921 Madison WI 53707-7921 Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary Telephone 608-266-2621 Toll Free 1-888-936-7463 TTY Access via relay - 711



### January 18, 2012

Ms. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard, R-19J Chicago IL 60604-3507

Subject: Wisconsin's Implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Dear Ms. Hedman:

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) hereby submits its implementation of Chapter NR 433, Protection of Visibility by Application of BART. This submittal is one major component of Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for compliance with the federal Regional Haze Rule issued in 1999 and modified in 2005 (64 FR 35714 and 70 FR 39104). The remaining portions of Wisconsin's Regional Haze SIP, such as plans to address 2018 reasonable further progress (RFP) goals for visibility protection in federal Class I Areas, will be submitted under separate cover letter.

The WDNR determined that ten (10) facilities are subject to BART. This included nine (9) electric generating units (EGUs) and one (1) non-EGU source. The original EGU and non-EGU BART technical support documents prepared by the WDNR are included as attachments, as well as the final BART analysis and summary of changes. In 

### addition, modeling demonstrations are provided for three (3) other non-EGU sources that are not subject to BART. Furthermore, a draft Administrative Order (AO) and draft permit revisions are provided.

The following are some key dates related to WDNR's implementation of BART requirements:

• March 6, 2009 —BART analysis submitted to WDNR by Georgia-Pacific (GP) Consumer Products 

### LP (included as attachment)

• July 29, 2010 — Public hearing conducted in Madison, WI (proof of hearing and summary /response to comments included as attachment)

• January 13, 2011 — Regional Haze SIP, including BART analysis, submitted to the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) for a 60-day review and comment period.

• July 1, 2011 — Revised Regional Haze SIP, including BART analysis, submitted to the FLMs for another 60- day review and comment period.

• September 13, 2011 — Public hearing conducted in Madison, WI (proof of hearing and summary /response to comments included as attachment)

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov 

## Naturally 

# WISCONSIN 

# O PRIN'TED N RECYCLED PAPER

### Page 2

The WDNR has the legal authority under Wisconsin law to adopt and implement these requested SIP revisions. Section 285.11 (6), Wis. Stats., authorizes the WDNR to develop and revise the SIP for prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution.

In accordance with the April 6, 2011 McCabe Memo, one paper copy of the SIP revision documents are enclosed. In addition, an electronic copy of these documents is provided as well on an enclosed CD. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to call either Joseph Hoch at 608-267-7543 or Ralph Patterson at 608-267- 7546.

Sincerely,

L-X3

.
William B. Baumann, Acting Director Bureau of Air Management

cc: Patrick Stevens — AD/8 Joseph Hoch — AM/7 Ralph Patterson — AM/7 Cheryl Newton — U.S. EPA Region V (A-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 Douglas Aburrano — U.S. EPA Region V (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 Jacqueline Nwia — U.S. EPA Region V (AT-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604

Summary of Attachments: Hard Copy and Electronic

Attachment 1 — U.S. EPA SIP checklist

Attachment 2 — Draft BART Technical Support Document for EGUs — Dated July 1, 2011

Attachment 3 — Draft BART Technical Support Document for Non-EGUs — Dated July 1, 2011

Attachment 4 — Final BART Determination and Summary of Changes from Draft Technical Support Documents

Attachment 5 — BART Modeling for PCA-Tomahawk, Thilmany, and Wausau-Mosinee

Attachment 6 — Draft Administrative Order (AO) for Georgia Pacific

* To be finalized after proposed approval by the U.S. EPA



### Attachment 7

— 

### Template for EGU BART Permit Revisions for Implementation of BART

* To be finalized in EGU specific permits after proposed approval by the U.S. EPA



### Attachment 8 — BART Analysis Submitted by Georgia Pacific

Attachment 9 — Proof of Public Hearing on July 29, 2010 (Response to Public Comments Included in Attachment 3)

Attachment 10 — Proof of Public Hearing on September 13, 2011 and Summary / Response to Public Comments

# A TTACHMENT 

# 1

# EPA Region V 

# Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (Bill Baumann)? Yes X No

2. Date of Submittal: January 18, 2012

3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name: Ralph Patterson Telephone Number: (608) 267-7546 Fax Number: (608) 267-0560 E-mail Address: Ralph.Patterson@wisconsin.gov

4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name: Joseph Hoch Telephone: (608) 267-7543 Fax Number: (608) 267-0560 E-mail Address: Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov 

# Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State in corporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this SIP package?

Yes
No (if No, explain) Not applicable X (if Not applicable, explain answer)

This SIP submittal is a non-rule submittal.

6. The effective date of the regulation is or was:

Not applicable

7. Are test methods/rules incorporated by reference correctly? (Has approval been obtained from the state Attorney General

Yes
No (if No, explain) Not applicable X (if Not applicable, explain answer)

This SIP submittal is a non-rule submittal.

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revision? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).2

Yes X
No

9. Did the State include a copy of the actual regulation or document for USEPA review? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

10. Did the State provide evidence that it followed all of the requirements of its Administrative Procedures Act (ch. 227, Wis. Stats., Admini strative Procedure and Review) in conducting and completing adoption/issuance of the revision? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes
No (if No, explain) Not applicable X (if Not applicable, explain answer)

This SIP submittal is a non-rule submittal.

11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of publication? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public heari ngs were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof). Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of pub lic comments and the State’s response? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No



# Technical Issues

14. Name all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision.

 Oxides of nitrogen (NO
x )

 Particulate Matter (PM)

 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).3

Yes
No X

Not applicable.

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the changes in actual emissions from affected sources? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility will be protected if the revision is approved and impl emented? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

19. Has the State provided modeling information to support the revision.

Yes X
No

20. Has the State provided evidence that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology? Pr ovide additional explan ation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirement s where necessary, to ensure emission levels? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice, and at what frequency? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X
No



# STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY4



## USEPA USE ONLY

SIP Package Number ___________ Date Received by USEPA ________________ Date Due_____________________________ State: WISCONSIN5



# WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Implementation of Protectio n of Visibility by Application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)



## Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion Nine (9) Electric Gene rating Units (EGUs) and One (1) Non-EGU

What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion Section NR 433.05(2):

“The department may not make a determination of BART for SO 2 or for NO X if the potential to emit of a BART-eligible source is less than 40 tons per year of the respective pollutant; or for particulate matter, if the potential to emit PM 10 of a BART-eligible source is less than 15 tons per year.”

Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) Yes.

Is emission inventory listed in the background document of the attainment demonstration? Inventory including allowable and actual emissions in source category should be included, for enforcement purposes and independent of any Clean Air Act requirements, in the attainment demonstration if such data is necessary for determining baselines in regulations. Not applicable.

Is the averaging time(s) used in the rule different from that of the ambient standard? The averaging time in the rule must be consistent with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal to or shorter than the time associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available only in limited instances provided that the ambient standard is not compromised. Not applicable (no ambient standard).

What are the units of compliance (lbs VOC per gallon of solids applied less water, grains per standard cubic foot?) Clearly stated in the rule. 30-day and annual emission mass limits.6



### USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? If yes, state criteria. Could a USEPA inspector independently determine if the criteria were met?? Does USEPA have to approve each case? Explicit description of how averaging, bubbling, or equivalency is to be determined. VOC equivalency must be on a “solids applied” basis. Any method must be independently reproducible. Provision must be explicit as to whether USEPA case-by-case approval is required. If provision intended to be “generic” then USEPA bubble policy must be

met. Emissions averaging between boilers as described in the SIP submittal and in accordance with the EIP.

If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of area to attainment. New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. Not applicable.



## Compliance Dates

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What is the compliance date? The compliance date must not be later than the approved or about to be approved date of attainment unless emission reductions are not necessary for attainment. In some cases, it will be necessary for the regulation to specify dates in compliance schedules that are required to be submitted by

source to state. Section NR 433.05(1)4.:

“The requirement that the owner or operator of each source subject to BART shall install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than December 31, 2015.”

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. Not applicable.7



## Specificity of Conduct

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What test method is required? Test method must be explicitly stated. Described in the Administrative Order.

What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. 30-day and annual.

Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. Yes.

If a compliance calculation is necessary, list the formula, period of compliance, and/or evaluation method. Formula must be explicit. Described in the Administrative Order.



## Incorporation by Reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. Not a pplicable (non-rule).

Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. Not a pplicable (non-rule).



## Recordkeeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What records are required to determine compliance? Clearly stated. 30-day and annual emissions.

In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On what time basis (instantaneously, hourly daily)? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the performance requirements, including the applicable time period . Tons/30-day and Tons/Year.

Does the rule affirmatively require the records be kept? There must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. Not applicable (non-rule).8



## Exemptions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. Section NR 433.05(2):

“The department may not make a determination of BART for SO 2 or for NO X if the potential to emit of a BART-eligible source is less than 40 tons per year of the respective pollutant; or for particulate matter, if the potential to emit PM 10 of a BART-eligible source is less than 15 tons per year.”
Are the criteria for application clear? Clearly stated. Yes.



## Malfunction Provisions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

Are there any malfunction provisions in the rule? Rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination. Not applicable.