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 
ATTACHMENT 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 incorporated 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., Administrative 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 hearings 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 public 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 (NOx) 

 Particulate Matter (PM) 

 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

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 implemented? 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? Provide additional explanation (if necessary). 

 Yes X 

 No 

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice 

standards and record keeping/reporting requirements 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 CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY 
4

USEPA USE ONLY 

SIP Package Number ___________ 

Date Received by USEPA ________________ 

Date Due_____________________________ 

State: WISCONSIN 
5

WDNR Information 

Subject Matter: Implementation of Protection 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 Generating 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 SO2 or for NOX 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 PM10

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 applicable (non-rule). 

Are methods/rules 

incorporated by reference 

in the right manner? 

Clearly stated. Not applicable (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 SO2 or for NOX 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 PM10 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.