### REVISION TOTHE VERMONT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

TOADDRESS THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF POLLUTANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLEAN AIRACT § I I0(a)(2)(D)(i) 

### APRIL 2009

I . Introduction This revision to the Verrnont State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrates that the State of Vermont has met its obligations to address the interstate transport of air pollution fromVermont sources as required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and by the finding of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that states failed to submit SIPs addressing transported air pollution within three years of the 1997 promulgation of newNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone . and fine particulate matter (PM, .;) . II . Backbround on SIP Requirement A . Clean Air Act Requirements On July 18, 1997. EPA issued the 8-hour ozone and PM,.; NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAArequires that within three years after EPApromulgates a NAAQS, each state must adopt a SIP that provides for the implementation and maintenance of the newor revised standard. Implementation of the newNAAQS for ozone and PM,.; was delayed for years due to litigation. EPA did not finalize attainment/nonattaiiustent desianations for the ozone standard until June 2004,1 and for the PM2 .; standard until April ?005.2 Consequently, states were not able to submit SIPs within the three-year time frame required by Section 1 IO(a)(1) . In March 2004. Environmental Defense and the American Lung Association initiated legal action agagainst EPA for failure todetermine whether states had submitted SIPs following promulgation of the newNAAQS. As part of a consent decree in that action, EPA issued a rule in April 2005 finding that all 50 states had failed to submit SIPs satisfying Section 110(a)(?)(D)(i) requirements related to interstate transport."' If EPA did not approve a state's SIP as bei11c, i17 compliance with Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) b~- May 1 The entire state ofVermont is designated as attaimnent irnder the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. I Vermont was designated as an attainment aT~ea for the 1997 PM-.; NAAQS. EPA r-evised the 24- hour P1V1=, ; NAAQS in Decenmber 2006 and designated Vennont as attainrnent for the revised Pivl- ; NAAQS in Decen1ber 2008. This docunient. however. relates only to the 1997 NAAQS. U.S. EPA, Findirnp of Failure to Submit Section 1 10 State lmplementation Plans for Interstate Transport for the National Ambient Air Quality Statndards for S-hour Ozone and PM, ~ ; . 70 Fed. Re~. 21147 (April ?5, 2005) .25, 2007, EPA may propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the state's

transported air pollution. Section 1 10(a)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act sets out specific requirements for SIPs, and Includes Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of emissions. It requires that SIPs contain provisions adequate to prohibit emissions within a state from : (1) Contributing significantly to nonattainment in another state, or interfering

with maintenance of a NAAQS by any other state; or quality or to protect visibility. B . Transport SIP Guidance On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidancea for states to use as they developed SIPs to meet their outstanding obligations under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. The guidance outlines the four elements states should address in their SIPs: (1) Significant contribution to nonattainment; (2) Interference with maintenance; (3) Prevention ofsignificant deterioration; and (4) Protection ofvisibility. Sections III through Vbelow present data and information, as suggested in EPA's guidance, that demonstrate Vermont meets the interstate transport requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) . III . Analysis ofSignificant Contributions of Nonattainment or Interference With Maintenance of 8-hour Ozone and PMZ, ; NAAQS The Clean Air Act contains a "good neighbor" provision that requires states to submit SIPs that include provisions prohibiting emissions of air pollutants which "contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interference with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard . . . ." CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) . The modeling conducted by EPAto determine which states should be included in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) demonstrates that emissions from Vermont do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with ' MemorandumfromWilliamT. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I - X on Guidance for SIP Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Aug. 15, 2006) (hereinafter "Transport SIP Guidance") .maintenance of the 1 Q97 8-hour ozone and PM, ; standards .' Furtherniore. there are no

nonattainment areas in Vermont for these standards. A . 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS In the air quality modeling conducted to support CAIR . EPA utilized two different techniques (source apportionment and zero-out modeling) to quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind states on projected downwind nonattaininent areas for 8- hour ozone. The zero-out and source apportionment modeling techniques provide different technical approaches to quantifying the downwind impact of emissions in upwind states. Zero-out modeling provides an estimate of downwind impacts by calculating the difference between the model estimates from a base case run to the estimates fromsimulation in which the base case man-made emissions are removed from a specific State. In source apportionment techniques, the contributions from many individual source areas (or categories) to ozone formation are estimated in a single model run. Source apportionment modeling tends to show a greater magnitude and frequency of contributions than the zero-out modeling, but neither technique is clearly superior to the other for evaluatinL, .contributions to ozone fromvarious emissions sources. Using the zero-out and source apportionment techniques. EPAdetermined which states contribute significantly to nonattainment in the 40 downwind receptor counties that were modeled. Of the 31 states EPA included in its assessment of interstate ozone contributions, Vermont was one of six states that EPA found to not make a significant contribution to downwind ozone nonattainment.b B . PM,.; NAAQS State by state zero-out modeling was also used as the modelinc, teclu-iique to quantify the contribution fromSO, and N0, emission in individual states to future PM, nonattaitunent in other states. As part ofthe zero-out modeling technique_ EPA removed the ?010 Base Case anthropogenic emissions of S02and NOa from37 states in the east on a state-by-state basis in different CMAQmodeling runs. EPA then used the modeled contribution fromeach upwind state to PM-) ; at each ofthe 11 ' 2010Base year "modeled plus monitored" nonattaininent sites in other states. The niaximuna contribution from amonL, the set of downwind contributions was then selected as the maximumdownwind contribution. EPA used a criterion of 0.? ltg/m' for determining whether SO, of NO, emissions in a state make a significant contribution to PM, ., nonattainment in another State. Ofthe ' U .S. EPA . Office of Air Quality Plammng and Standards. Technical Support Document for the Final Cleaii Air Interstate Rule. Air QUality Modeling (March ?005) . See aZso U.S. EPA . Office ofAir Qualit` Plammnp, and Staridards, Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions Invernton~ Techrnical Support Documernt (March ?005) . `' Technical Sttpport Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule. Air Qualit~~ ModelinL, at 36.37 states analyzed, EPAfound that the maximum downwind contribution of 28 states and the District of Columbia was 0 .2 pg/m3 or more and therefore make a significant contribution to PM2

.; nonattaiiunent in other States. EPA also found that Vermont does not make a significant contribution to downwind PM2 .5 nonattainment because Vermont's maximumdownwind contribution was less than 0 .05 pig/m3.7 IV. Prevention of Significant Deterioration As discussed above, states are required to submit SIPs that include provisions prohibiting emissions of air pollutants which "interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State . . . to prevent EPA regulations require each SIP to include a preconstruction reviewprogramfor major sources to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) . In nonattainment areas, the preconstruction reviewprogramis known as nonattaimnent newsource review (NNSR) . In attainment areas, preconstruction review is part of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program . Vermont has an EPA-approved PSDprogram for stationary sources of air pollution that it has successfully implemented for many years. Vermont's PSD permitting programrequirements are set forth in sections 5-501 and 5-502 ofVermont'sAir Pollution Control Regulations.8 EPA's Transport SIP Guidance states that, because. current PSD and NNSR permitting programs "require a demonstration that newor modified sources will not cause or contribute to air pollution in excess of the NAAQS in neighboring states or that sources in nonattainment areas procure offsets, EPAbelieves that states need not make an additional SIP submission containing rule changes or modeling demonstrations" to address the above requirement for the 8-hour ozone and PM2; NAAQS.' EPA's Transport SIP Guidance states that for 8-hour ozone, states need only confirmthat major sources are currently subject to PSDand NNSR permitting programs (as applicable) that implement the 8-hour ozone standard and that the state is on track to meet the June 15, 2007 deadline for SIP submissions adopting the requirements of the Phase II ozone rule.1° Vermont confirms that major sources in the state are currently subject to a PSD permitting program that implements the 8-hour ozone standard. Vermont was not required to revise its SIP to adopt the requirements of the Phase II ' Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule, Air Quality Modeling at 42-43. 8All ofVermont's Air Pollution Control Regulations are available at: littl) ://www

.arnr.state.vt.us/air/docs/apcre£ ;s .pdf. 9 Transport SIP Guidance at 6. " Transport SIP Guidance at 8.ozone rule because its approved PSD progratn already has a threshold for ambient impact

evaluations of' 50 tpy of- NOa for major sources and 40 tpy of' NOx for major modifications . EPA's Transport SIP Guidance states that lot- PM^ ; ., states need only confirmthat major sources are subject to PSD and NNSR perin~itting programs (as applicable) implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for use of PM,(, as a surrogate for PM=, ; in the PSD and NNSR pro(,ratns. ~ ~ Vermont confirms that major sources in the state are subject to a PSD permitting program that applies PM,(, as a surrogate for PM-, ; in accordance with interimEPAouidance. Protection of Visibility States are also required to submit SIPs that contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions of air pollutants which "interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State . . . to protect visibility." CAA§ I10(a)(?)(D)(i)(II) . EPA adopted a phased approach to visibility protection. issuing regulations in 1980 addressing reasonablv attributable visibility impairment and regulations in 1999 addressing reaional haze.12 which require states to submit Re~ional Haze SIPs. In response to the requirement to submit Regional Haze SIPs," Vermont has been working with MANE-VU (Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union) . the regional planning orcyanization for the Northeast states, to develop emission reduction/visibilitv improvement goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibilitv by 2064 in Class 1 areas in the MANE-VU region. The reasonable progress aoals for the first ten-year planning period will ensure improvement in visibility for the 20 percent most impaired days each year, and also ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent least impaired days each vear. The . long-term strateav will include enforceable emission limitations. compliance schedules and other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals established by the states in which the protected areas are located. The emission reduction obli-ations of each state will be based on an analysis of monitoring and modeling data through a consultative process with the other states, MANE-VU and other regional planning organizations . In the Transport SIP Guidance. EPA concluded that it is "preinature to determine whether or not State SIPs for 8-hour ozone or PM,.; contain adequate provisions to

~- See 40 CF.R. ~~ 51 .300-51 .308 '' Vermont submitted a proposed Regiornal Haze SIP to EPA on Jarnuary 15. 2009. Vermont ~vill submit the final Regional Haze SIPto EPA after resporndirng to comments received fromthe EPA aiid federal land marnaGers.hrollibit emissions that interfere with measures in other States' SIN designed to address

regional haze."14 Vermont agrees with EPAthat "it is not possible at this time to assess wllether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another state designed to `protect visibility' for the 8-hour ozone and PM-2, ; NAAQS until regional haze SINare submitted and approved."15

14 Transport SIP Guidance at 9. 15 Transport SIP Guidance at 9-10 .

# ATTACHMENT A :

PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSEDSIP REVISIONS AND 

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO40 CFR§ 51 .102 ANDAPPENDIXVOF 40 CFRPART 51NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITYTOREQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ANDSUBMIT COMMENTS ONPROPOSED REVISIONS TOTHE

VERMONT STATE IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN Notice is hereby given that the Air Pollution Control Division is providing the opportunity for interested persons to request a public hearing and comment on proposed revisions to the Vermont State Implementation Plan (SIP) . If the Division receives a request for a hearing, the hearing will be held on Monday, February 23, 2009, at 6:00 pmin Stanley Hall Room 100 located on the grounds of the State Office Complex at 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont . Those requesting a hearing must call (888) 520-4879. The .deadline to submit a request for a hearing is 5:00 p.m . on February 17, 2009. If no request for a hearing is received prior to this date, a Notice of Cancellation of the hearing will be posted on February 18, 2009, on the Air Pollution Control Division's website at Iittp://www

.anr.state.vt .us/air/Planning/htm/DraftRegionaIFlazeSIP.htm . Interested persons may also call (888) 520-4879to determine ifthe public hearing has been cancelled. The Air Pollution Control Division is proposing revisions to the Vermont SIP to address federal requirements with respect to (1) regional haze; and (2) the interstate transport of pollutants. The regional haze SIP revisions are being proposed to address the requirements under the federal Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR 51 .309. The transport SIP revisions are being proposed to address the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM),5) . The proposed regional haze SIP and the proposed interstate transport SIP revisions are available on the APCD's website at

l'.SLatf; .Vt.Us/alr/Plannin,_,/htCl"1/DraftReQioncllf-IazcSlP.htill and at tile APCD offices located in Waterbury at the State Office Complex, Building 3 South, 103 South Main Street. If requested, a hearing will be held to receive comments from interested persons regarding the proposed revisions. Attendance at the hearing is not necessary to submit written comments on the proposed SIP revisions. Written comments on the proposed SIP revisions must be received by the Air Pollution Control Division by 5:00 pmon February 24, 2009. All written comments must be mailed, faxed, or e-mailed to: Corie Dunn Air Pollution Control Division Building 3 South 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0402 FAX: 802-241-2590 EMAIL: corie.dunn6~i ;state.vt.LlsNOTICE Or CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGON PROPOSED REVISIONS TOTHE VERMONT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Notice is hereby given that the Air Pollution Control Division has cancelled the public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Vermont State Implementation Plan (SIP) . The public hearing

; has been cancelled because the Division did not receive any requests for a hearinc. The deadline to submit a request for a hearin- was 5:00 p.m . on February 17, 2009. The Air PolIution Control Division is proposing revisions to the Vermont SIP to address federal requirements with respect to (1) regional haze; and (?) the interstate transport of pollutants. The regional haze SIP revisions are being proposed to address .the requirements under the federal Regional Haze Rule. 40 CFR 5 1309. The transport SIP revisions are being proposed to address the requirements ofClean Air Act Section 1 10(a)(?)(D)(i) with respect to the interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) . The proposed regional haze SIP and the proposed interstate transport SIP revisions are available on the APCD's website at htth: ~\\ \\ \\ .tinr.statc.Vt .uSLiir'I'lannii1 L!htm"DriftRe`_ic~ntill-Itizel-ll' .htm and at the APCD offices located in Waterbury at the State Office Complex. Building 3 South. 103 South Main Street.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO40 CFR§ 51 .102 ANDAPPENDIXVOF 40 CFRPART 51

REGARDING PROPOSED REVISION TOVERMONT'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TOADDRESS THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF POLLUTANTS Public notice of the proposed revision to theVermont state implementation plan (SIP) to address the interstate transport following newspapers: Burlington Free Press, Rutland Herald, Caledonian Record, Times Argus, and Vermont Lawyer. The notice provided the opportunity for interested persons to request a public hearing and comment on the proposed revisions. The notice further stated that ifa hearing was requested by February 17, 2009, the hearing would be held on February 23, 2009, at 6

:00 pm in Stanley Hall Room100located on the grounds ofthe State Office Complex at 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont. As required by 40 CFR§ 51 .102(f), I hereby certify that the requirements of40 CFR§ 51 .102(a)-(d) were met and that no public hearing was requested during the notification period. In accordance with Section 2.1(g) ofAppendix Vof40CFRPart 51, 1 further certify that the public notice and hearing procedure followed was consistent with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, as applicable.

RichardA . Valentinetti Certifying Officer

## ATTACHMENT B:

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMENTS RECEIVED, ANDVERMONT'S RESPONSE TOCOMMENTSLIST OF WITNESSES, COMMENTS RECEIVED, ANDVERMONT'S RESPONSE TOCOMMENTS n public hearing was not held because no public hearingwas requested. Thcrefore, there were no witnesses. In addition, no comments on Vermont's proposed SIP revisions were received fromthe public. The only comment submitted was 6rorn the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 provided by letter dated February 24, 2009 fromAnne E, Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit. EPAprovided the following comment: "In Section V, Vermont should add reference to its proposed Regional Haze SIP." In response, Vermont added footnote 13 to Section Vto reference the proposed Regional Haze SIP .