-(. ..Jl, , 	 ...... (; ~ 

SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR 

410 Willoughby Ave., Ste 303 

Post Office Box 111800 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 	 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Phone: 907-465-5065

Fax: 907-465-5070 

www.dec.state.ak.us 

February 7. 2008 FEd ! .. >000 

Elin D. Miller 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue (RA-140) 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Dear Ms. Miller: 

Today, we are pleased to transmit to you revisions to Alaska's State Air Quality Control 

Plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) related to the 

interstate transport of pollution. We are providing the amended section of the State Air 

Quality Control Plan, adopted by reference under 18 MC 50.030, to your lead staff 

person, Donna Deneen, for EPA's review and approval. 

The supporting documents for the complete SIP submission include: 

1. 	 five copies of the SIP, incorporating amendments as initially adopted by the 


department on July 31,2007 and re-adopted (without changes) following 


legal review on November 27,2007; 


2. 	 the signed adoption order and filing certification for the December 2007 

regulation amendment to 18 MC 50.030 (effective date of December 30, 2007); 

3. 	 affidavits of public notice and oral hearing; 

4. 	 the department's written response to public comments for the December 2007 

amendments; 

5. 	 a copy of the public notice and markups distributed for public review. 

This SIP revision was noticed to the public along with other regulation revisions in 18 

MC 50 pertaining to the Best Available Retrofit Technology requirements for regional 

haze. DEC received comments on the regulation revisions, but none of those comments 

pertained to the revised SIP for interstate transport of pollution. Ifyou or your staff 

have any questions or need further information regarding these amendments, please 

contact Alice Edwards, Program Manager, Air Non-Point & Mobile Sources, at (907) 

465-5109. 

Sincerely, 

~ Larry Hartig 

Commissioner 

Elin Miller 	 2 February 7, 2008

cc: 	 Rick Albright, EPA Region 10 (wi 0 enclosures) 

Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10 (wi enclosures) 

Tom Chapple, Air Quality Director, DEC (w/o enclosures) 

Alice Edwards, Program Manager, DEC (w/o enclosures) 

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume II, Section III.D. Particulate 

Matter Subpart D.l Overview, a new section to be inserted after section D.l.V: 

VI. PROVISIONS PROHIBITING REGIONAL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section IIO(a)(2)(D)(i), 

Alaska's State implementation plan (SIP)must contain adequate provision prohibiting" ... any 

source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in 

amounts which willI. 	 contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or 

2. 	 interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for 

any other State ... to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or visibility ... " 

Alaska meets the requirements of Section 110 as followsI. 	 Does not contribute to other states NAAQS pollutants: 

• 	 Alaska is not subject to the "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule Preamble)," 69 FR 4566 (January 30, 

2004) (CAIR); 

• 	 Alaska's southem most border is separated from the border of the lower 48 states by over 

500 air miles; 

• 	 Alaska's aggregate manmade PM2.5 and ozone levels are minimal relative to national 

levels; 

2. 	 Prevention of Significant DeteriorationlNew Source Review (PSDlNRS) Program 


Requirements: 


It 	 Alaska has a fully approved PSD/NSR program most recently approved on February 16, 

1995 (60 FR 8943); 

• 	 Alaska 15 working to incorporate Phase Ii ozone requirements for PSD/NSR into the SIP; 

69 FR 23951 (April 30,2004); 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29,2005); 

3. 	 Prevention of Visibility deterioration: 

• 	 States have not yet submitted Regional Haze SIPs, so it is not possible for Alaska to 

assess its compatibility or interference with control measures in another state's Regional 

Haze (visibility) SIP; Alaska is working with the Westem Regional Air Partnership to 

prepare a SIP to address EPA's Regional Haze regulations; 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 

SIP submittals to EPA are due no later than December 17, 2007. 

Adopted 7/3112007 

Register _, __ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

NOTE: The following regulations were signed and filed by Lt. Governor Parnell 

on November 30,2007. They will become effective on December 30, 2007. The 

fonowing copy of the regulations is not an official copy of the regulations, as they 

have not yet been published in the State Register. The regulations are being 

provided for informational purposes only at this time. 
Register _, __2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVAnON 

The lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read: 

18 AAC 50.030. State air quality control plan. Volumes II and III of the State Air 

Quality Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and this 

chapter, as amended through july 31, 2007 [SEPTEMBER 19,2006], arc adopted by reference. 

The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by reference: 

(Eff. 1118/97, Register 141; am 6121198, Register 146; a1119/4/98, Register 147; am 111/2000, 

Register 152; am 12/30/2000, Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am 1/27/2002, Register 

161; am 3/27/2002, Register 161; am 5/312002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, Register 169; am 

6/24/2004, Register 170; a111 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12114/2006, Register 180; am 

_1_1__, Register __) 

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140 

18 AAC 50 is amended by adding a new section to Article 2 to read: 

18 AAC 50.260. Guidelines for best available retrofit technology under the regional 

haze rule. (a) For purposes of this section, the following are adopted by reference: 

(1) 40 C.F.R. 51.301 (Definitions), as revised as of July 1,2007, except that 

(A) "fugitive emissions" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990; 

(B) "major stationary source" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990 and 

18 AAC 50.990; 

(C) 	 "potential to emit" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990; 

2 
Register _, __ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

(D) "stationary source" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990; 

(2) 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y (guidelines for BART detenninations under 

the regional haze rule), as revised as of July I, 2007. 

(b) Sources subject to a best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitation 

will be identified consistent with Section III of the BART guidelines. No more than five days 

after {effective date ofregulations} , the department will notify the owner or operator of each 

source subject to BART in writing and will identify the affected Class I areas. A written notice 

provided to the owner or operator before {effective date ofregulations} satisfies the notification 

requirement in this subsection. Unless the department exempts a source in accordance with 

Section III of the BART guidelines, each source subject to BART shall comply with (d) - (h) and 

(1) - (0) of this section. 

(c) An owner or operator notified under (b) of this section may request an exemption 

from BART. An exemption from BART approved by the department in writing before {effective 

date ofregulations} has the same effect as an exemption approved under this subsection. An 

exemption from BART must be requested and will be processed as follows: 

(1) the owner or operator shall 

(A) notify the department, no more than 10 days after the later of 

{effective date ofthe regulations} or the date ofthe department's notice under (b) of this 

section that the owner or operator intends to request exemption from BART through 

visibility impact analysis modeling; and 

(8) submit, no more than 30 days after the later of {effective date of 

regulations} or the date of the department's notice under (b) of this section, a visibility 

3 
Register 2008 ENVIRONMEi'JTAL CONSERVATION 

impact analysis modeling protocol that will meet the requirements of (h)(3) of this 

section for refined visibility impact analysis modeling; 

(2) no more than 30 days after receiving a submission under (I )(B) of this 

subsection, the department will 

(A) approve the modeling protocol; or 

(B) disapprove the modeling protocol and notify the owner or operator of 

the reasons for the disapproval; 

(3) upon approval of the modeling protocol, the owner or operator shall 

(A) conduct a visibility impact analysis in accordance with (h)(3) of this 

section; and 

(B) submit the visibility impact analysis report, including all supporting 

documentation, to the department no more than 60 days after the date of the department's 

approval under (2)( A) of this subsection; if a modeling protocol is submitted and 

approved before {effective date ofregulations/, the vlsibility impact analysis report 

required under this subparagraph shall be submitted no later than (90 days after effective 

date ofregulations); 

(4) the department will approve an exemption if the owner or operator meets the 

requirements of (1) and (3) of this subsection and the information submitted adequately 

demonstrates that the BART-eligible source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute 

to any impaim1ent of visibility in a Class I area identified in the department's notice under (b) of 

this section; 

(5) if the department disapproves an exemption, the owner or operator shall 

4 
Register --2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

(A) submit a BART control analysis in accordance with (d) - (0) of this 

section; or 

(B) submit an application under 18 AAC 50.225 for an owner requested 

limit (ORL); that application must be submitted no more than 30 days after the date of the 

disapproval; upon approval of an owner requested limit under 18 AAC 50.225, the owner 

or operator shall comply with the terms and conditions of that approval; if the owner 

requested limit is subsequently rescinded, the owner or operator shall conduct a BART 

control analysis in accordance with (d) - (0) of this section; 

(6) the department will notify each owner or operator, EPA, and each afTected 

federal land manager, in writing, of a department approval or disapproval under this subsection; 

if the decision is to approve an exemption, either through visibility impact analysis or an owner 

requested limit, the department will explain what requirements of this section no longer apply to 

the BART-eligible source. 

(d) If an owner or operator does not submit a modeling protocol under (c)( 1) ofthis 

section, or ifthe department disapproves the exemption request under (c) of this section, the 

owner or operator shall submit a BART assessment modeling protocol that meets the 

requirements of(h)(3) of this section for control technology visibility impact analysis modeling 

no more than 30 days after the latest of reflective date ofregulations}, the date ofthe 

department's notice under (b) of this section, or the date of the department's notice disapproving 

the exemption request under (c) of this section. No more than 30 days after submission of a 

modeling protocol under this subsection, the department will 

(1) approve the modeling protocol; or 

5 

Register~, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

(2) disapprove the modeling protocol and notify the owner or operator of the 

reasons for the disapproval. 

(e) For purposes of analyzing the visibility impact from potential control techno logies, 

the owner or operator of each source subject to BART shall submit to the department an analysis 

of control options consistent with Section IV of the BART guidelines 

(1) no more than 210 days after the later of {effective dale ofregulations} or the 

date ofthe department's notice under (b) of this section, if the owner or operator did not submit 

an exemption modeling protocol under (c)(1) of this section; or 

(2) no more than 180 days after the date of the department's notice disapproving 

an exemption request submitted under (c) of this section. 

(f) The pollutants of concern for purposes of BART are nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide. 

and PM-10. 

(g) If an owner or operator elects to apply, or has already applied, the most stringent 

controls available consistent with the analysis conducted under (e) of this section, the owner or 

operator is not required to conduct a visibility impact analysis for the emission units and 

pollutants to which the controls are to be or have been applied. 

(h) A visibility impact analysis must 

(I) use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and postcontrol impacts of potential BART controls; 

(2) determine the maximum change in visibility impacts. in daily deciviews, 

between the current or pre-control technology and each potential BART control option consistent 

with the approved modeling protocol compared to the annual average default natural visibility 

6 

Register 2008 ENVIRO~"'1ENTAL CONSERVAnON 

condition as listed in EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, dated September 2003 and adopted by reference, at 

each Class I area identified in the department's notice under (b) of this section; and 

(3) be conducted in a manner consistent with either 

(A) the Western Regional Air Partnership's CALMETICALPUFF 

Protocolfor BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western 

United States, dated August 15,2006 and adopted by reference, as amended by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership's Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modelingfor Alaska, 

Draft #7, dated April 6, 2007 and adopted by reference; or 

(B) a modified protocol that was first submitted as a draft and made 

available for at least a 15-day review by EPA and each affected federal land manager, 

and subsequently approved in writing by the department. 

(i) The department will request from the owner or operator any additional information 

necessary to complete review of the analysis of control options for a source subject to BART. 

The department will establish a reasonable deadline for submitting the information after 

consulting the owner or operator. The owner or operator shall provide such information no later 

than the deadline established by the department. 

CD The department will review each analysis of control options and issue a preliminary 

BART determination for each emission unit at each source subject to BART. In the preliminary 

BART determination, the department will include 

(1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each source 

subject to BART; and 

7 

Register ~._, _~ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

(2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 CF.R. 71.6(a)(3), adopted by reference 

in 18 AAC 50.040(j). 

(k) No more than 120 days after receipt of BART analysis under (e) of this section, the 

department will publish a notice of its preillninary BART determination and provide at least 30 

days for the public to comment in accordance with 40 CF.R. 7 L 11, adopted by reference in 

J8 AAC 50.040(j), except as follows: 

(1) the department may distribute a public notice to a person by electronic mail; 

if a person requests to be sent notice by postal mail instead of electronic mail, the department 

will send the notice by postal mail; 

(2) the department will hold a public hearing only if one is requested \vithin 15 

days after publication of the notice. 

(I) Within 15 days after the deadline for receipt of public comments, and after 

consideration of comments and testimony received, the department will make a final BART 

determination and provide written notice of the final detennination to each O\vner or operator, 

EPA, each affected federal land manager, and any person who commented on the preliminary 

BART determination. In the final BART determination, the department will include 

(1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each source 

subject to BART; and 

(2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 CF.R. 71.6(a)(3), adopted by reference 

in 18 AAC 50.040(j). 

8 

Register _ 2008 ENV1RONMENTAL CONSERVATION .._-­

(m) An informal review of the final BART detennination may be requested as prescribed 

in 18 AAC 15.185. An adjudicatory hearing of the final BART determination may be requested 

as prescribed in 18 AAC 15.195 - 18 AAC 15.340. 

(n) As expeditiously as practicable, but in no case more than five years after the date of 

EPA approval of the regional haze state implementation plan required under 42 U.s.C. 7410 and 

7491, the owner or operator of a source that is subject to a final BART determination under this 

section shall comply with the requirements established in that determination. 

(0) The owner or operator of a source required to install control equipment to comply 

with the BART determination shall 

(1) maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure that the 

equipment is properly operated and maintained; and 

(2) conduct monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in accordance with 

methods set out in the final BART determination. 

(p) Department services under this section are designated regulatory services for preapplication assistance and will be billed to the operating permit covering the source subject to 

BART as set out in 18 AAC 50.400(m). 

(q) In this section, 

(1) "BART" has the meaning given the term "Best Available Retrofit 

Technology" in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in (a) of this section; 

(2) "BART-eligible source" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 5] .301, adopted 

by reference in (a) ofthis section; 

(3) "BART guidelines" means 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y (Guidelines for 

9 

Register _ ......' 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

BART detenninations under the regional haze lUle), adopted by reference in (a) of this section; 

(4) "cause or contribute to impainnent of visibility" means to release emissions 

that produce a 0.5 or greater change in the daily deciview \vhen compared against natural 

conditions; for purposes of this paragraph, "natural conditions'! includes naturally occurring 

phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in tenns of light extinction, visual range, contrast, 

or coloration; 

(5) "deciview" has the meaning given in 40 CF.R. 51.301, adopted by reference 

in (a) ofthis section; 

(6) "existing stationalY facility" has the meaning given in 40 CF.R. 51.301, 

adopted by reference in (a) of this section; 

(7) "federal land manager" has the meaning gi'\ien in 40 CF.R. 51.301, adopted 

by reference in (a) of this section: 

(8) "maximum change" means the greatest relative change in visibility between 

pre-BART controls and post-BART controls for purposes of this section; 

(9) "source subject to BART" means a source identified by the department in 

accordance with Section 1lI of the BART guidelines; 

(10) "visibility impact analysis" means an air quality modeling analysis 

conducted for the purposes of detennining visibility impacts. (Eff.~; Register 

Authority: AS 46.03.71 0 AS 46.14.020 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 

AS 46.14.010 AS 46.14.030 

Editor's note: The Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, the CALMETICALPUFF Protocol for BART E-r:emption Screening AnaZvsis 

10 

Register _, __ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSER V A TION 

for Class I Areas in the Western United States, and the Summary of WRAP RMC BART A10deling 

for Alaska, Draft #7, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260(h), may be reviewed at the 

department's Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau office. To obtain a copy of these or any other 

documents adopted by reference in this section, contact the Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Division of Air Quality at (907) 465-5100. 

18 AAC 50.400(m)(3) is amended to read: 

(3) an adjudicatory hearing under 18 AAC 15.195 - 18 AAC 15.340, if requested 

under 18 AAC 50.260(m), 18 AAC 50.306(e), 18 AAC 50.326(k), or 18 AAC 50.542(d) by the 

permit applicant; at the request of the permittee, and ifthe permittee is current on all other 

billings in the department, the department will hold in abeyance a fee charged under this 

paragraph during the course of the adjudicatory hearing; 

18 AAC 50.400(m)(9) is amended to read: 

(9) pre-application assistance, including services under 18 AAC 50.260; 

(Eff. 1118/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/112004, Register 171; am 

12/1/2004, Register 172; am 1129/2005, Register 173; am / I Register _~) 

Authority: AS 37.10.050 AS 44.46.025 AS 46.14.140 

AS 37.10.052 AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.240 

AS 37.10.058 

11 

Register _. ....__ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

18 AAC 50.990(47) is amended to read: 

(47) "impairment of visibility" means any [A] humanly perceptible change in 

visibility [SUCH AS VISUAL RANGE, CONTRAST, OR COLORATION,] from that which 

would have existed [EXIST] under natural conditions; in this paragraph, "change in 

visibility" includes light extinction, atmospheric discoloration, and anv other change in 

visual range. contrast, or coloration; 

18 AAC 50.990(88) is amended to read: 

(88) "reconstruct" and "reconstruction" have the meaning given "reconstruction" 

in 40 C.F.R. 63.2, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040, except that for purposes of18 AAC 

50.260, "reconstruction" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference 

in 18 AAC 50.260(a); 

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141: am 6/14/98, RegIster 146; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, 

Register 147; am 1114/99, Register 152; am 1/l/2000, Register 152; am 21212002, Register 161; 

am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 1111512002, Register 164; am 8/812003, Register 167; am 

10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12/3/2005, Register 176; am 1_J__, Register __J 

Authority: AS 44.46.025 AS 46.14.140 AS 46.14.250 

AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.150 AS 46.14.255 

AS 46.03.710 AS 46.14.160 AS 46.14.280 

AS 46.14.010 AS 46.14.170 AS 46.14.285 

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.180 AS 46.14.290 

AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.210 AS 46.14.300 

12 

Register 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

AS 46.14.120 AS 46.14.230 AS 46.14.560 


AS 46.14.130 AS 46.14.240 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 


13 


Signed Adoption Order and Filing Certification 

(Filed 11/30/2007) 

UElTE,\A,\T G()\TR'\OR 41j~ 1~::(1 

46~ FlX 

STATE OF ALASKA 

OFFICE OF THE LIE.UTE:\,A:\T GOVERNOR t 

Jll:\EAU 

M E :VI 0 RAN D L M 

To: 	 Gary !'-.1endivil. AAC Contact Date: .November 30,2007 

Department of EnVironmenta~1 ,conservatio~ 

From: 	 Telephone: (907) 465-4082 Jason Hoole) ~'A 1 /

Special Assistant , LJ\ 

Re: FIled Permanent Re atlOns Department of Environmental Conservation 

Air Quality and Best Available Retrofit Technology tBART) for Control of Regional 

Haze: J8 AAC 50.030; 18 AAC 50.260; 18 AAC 50.400(m): 18 AAC 50.990(47), (88) 

Attorney General File 993-07-0101 

Regulation Filed: 11.30;2007 

Effective Date: J2/30:2007 

Print: 184, January 2008 

cc with enclosures: 	 Linda Miller. Department of Law 

Eugene Harnett, Administrative Regulation Review Committee 

Judy Herndon, LexisNexis 

Tom Chapple. Department of Environmental Conservation 

ORDER ADOPTING CHA?'\GES TO 


REGUL-\TIONS OF THE DEPARTME?\T OF E~'VIRON\lENTAL CO~SERVATI0:.J 

The attached 12 pages of regulations, dealing \vith Air Quality Control are hereby' adopted and 

certified to be a correct copy of the regulation changes that the Department of Environmental 

Conservation adopts under the authonty of AS 46.03 and AS '+6.14 and after compliance v..;ith 

the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62), specifical:y including notice under AS 44.62.190 

and 44.62.200 and opportunity for public comment under AS 44.62.210. 

This action is not expected to require an increased appropriation. 

In considering public comments, the Department of Envirorunental Conservation paid special 

attention to the cost to private persons of the regulatory action being taken. The Department of 

En vironmental Conservation also gave special attention to alternate practical methods in this 

regulatory action, as required by AS 46.03.024 

The regulation changes adopted under this order take effect on the 30th day after they have been 

filed by the lieutenant governor as provided in AS 44.62.180. 

DATE: November 27.2007 

at Juneau, Alaska 

~,. r FILING CERTfFICATION ,Jo-s.~ hool~ -'<'0(' 

I,~ean Parnell, Lieutenant Governor for the State of Alaska, certify that on N')'I!~W 30 

2007, at ~:L{o ,,-.m., I filed the attached regulations according to the provisions of AS 44.62.040­

44.62.120. \ ~~"_ ~ 

/Y\"JA~I / \.J / '\1 IV . 

Effectin.:; 

Register: 

FOR DELIGAT10;\ UEUTE;\A~T GOVER!'\OR'S :-\CTHORJTY 

1, SEA\[ PAR\'ELL, LIEUTE\JA~\.JT GOVER.,\OR OF THE STA.T£ OF ALASKA, as , 

authorized by designate the following Special Assistant to the Lieutenant 

G(lvernor to perfoml the Administrative Procedures Act filing functions ,lfthe Lieutenant 

Governor: 

Ja50n Hooley, Special Assistant, Office of the Lieutenant Governor 

IN TESTL'vfONY \\lIEREOF, I 

have signed and affixed the Seal of 

the State of Alaska, at Anchorage, on 

July 31, 2007. 

../\J

/~(P~e ...................................... . 


SEA~ PARNELL 

LIEUTENANT GO\,Efu~OR 

------

ORDER ADOPTING CHANGES TO 


REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EWIROKMENTAL CONSERVATION 


The attached 10 pages of regulations, dealing with Air Quality Control are hereby adopted and 

certified to be a correct copy of the regulation changes that the Department of Environmental 

Conservation adopts under the authority of AS 46.03 and AS 46.14 and after compliance with 

the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62), specifically including notice under AS 44.62.190 

and 44.62.200 and opportunity for public comment under AS 44.62.210. 

This action is not expected to require an increased appropriation. 

In considering public comments, the Department of Environmental Conservation paid special 

attention to the cost to private persons of the regulatory action being taken. The Department of 

Environmental Conservation also gave special attention to alternate practical methods in this 

regulatory action, as required by AS 46.03.024 

The regulation changes adopted under this order take effect on the 30th day after they have been 

filed by the lieutenant governor as provided in AS 44.62.180. 

DATE: July 31,2007 

at Juneau, Alaska 

~~' Larry Hartig, CommisslOner 

Department of Environmental Conservation 

FILING CERTIFICATION 

I, Sean Parnell, Lieutenant Governor for the State of Alaska, certify that on 

2007, at .....m., I filed the attached regulations according to the provisions of AS 44.62.040 

44.62.120. 

Sean Parnell, Lieutenant Governor 

Effective: 

Register: 

Affidavits 

1. 	 Affidavit of Agency Record of Public Comment 

2. 	 Affidavit of Notice of Proposed Adoption of Regulations and 

Furnishing of Additional Information 

3. 	 Newspaper Affidavits of Publication for Public Notice 

STATE OF ALASKA ) 

) ss. 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 

AFFIDA VIT OF AGENCY RECORD OF P1JBLIC COM.MENT 

I, Tom Turner, Environmental Program Manager for the Department of Environmental 

Conservation, being duly sworn, state the following: 

In compliance with AS 44.62.215, the Department of Environmental Conservation has kept a 

record of its use or rejection of factual or other substantive information that was submitted in 

writing as public comment and that was relevant to the accuracy, coverage, or other aspect of the 

Department of Environmental Conservation regulations on Air Quality Control, Guidelines for 

Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule. 

Date: 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Tom Turner, Environmental Program Manager 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ----"''''-- day of n u..l.iL ,dDO r;t ~~ 

~Cllin bn ~rn i tb 

[NOTARY SEAL] 	 Notary PUblicdand for the 

State of Alaska 'll I

My commission expires: WUJI) <:t:J~ ~ 

STATE OF ALASKA ) 

) 5S. 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 

AFFIDAYJI.OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS 

AND FURNISHING OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

I, Rebecca Tyson Smith, Environmental Program Specialist, of the Department of Environmental 

Conservation, being sworn, state the following: 

As required by AS 44.62.190, notice of the proposed adoption of changes to 18 AAC 50, adding new 

section 260, Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology and updating section 30 to reflect 

adoption of a new section of the State Air Quality Control Plan to address Clean Air Act requirements has 

been given by being 

(1) published in a newspaper or trade publication; 

(2) furnished to interested persons as shown on the attached list; 

(3) 	furnished to appropriate state officials; 

(4) 	furnished to the Department of Law, along with a copy of the proposed regulations; 

(5) electronically transmitted to incumbent State of Alaska legislators; 

(6) 	furnished to the Legislative Affairs Agency, Legislative Library; 

(7) 	posted on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175(a)(1) and (b) 

and 44.62.190(a)(1); 

(8) 	furnished electronically, along with a copy of the proposed regulations, to the 

Legislative Affairs Agency, the chair ofthe Resources Committees of the 

Alaska Senate and House of Representatives, the Administrative Regulation Review 

Committee, and the legislative council. 

As required by AS 44.62.190( d), additional regulations notice information regarding the proposed 

adoption of the regulation changes described above has been furnished to interested persons as shown on 

the attached list and those in (5) and (6) of the list above. The additional regulations notice information 

also has been posted on the Alaska Online Public Notice System. 

DATE: 25'Y!1r€ iO;Z 

Juneau, Alaska 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this t 5' day of ..) ""'-""-L ,~--,. 

State of Alaska 

My commission expires: (..;7 u... D~'-<..... 

TbfAirSurvey 

~~-.~---~ ~------~ 

~~------

~----~--~ -~~"-----1r~' 

~~-----~~ --~" --­

~--~-----

.-~--,~,- ------­ ----­ ------~ ~-

~--3~-~~~3~1~~~~~~;E~----~·-~ 

-------~ 

---~~---- -­ '-+~:::~~~=::::'--:---- ~--c:--=.~--

-f-=-==-:=~----~---

---.-----~ 

I

P.o. Sox 71249 

6241 I'f'I< 23rd stree(suite 500 

------+.::;90:-:8Js~ng S1re~, Suite 200 

PO. Box 3S005 

1836 O<ehard Pl~ 

10840 Glazanof Drive 

Page 1 


___=rSt!te [POstaICod8 Ema1iAddress 

. . =, aminm@lICU.edu 

Anchorage AI< 99502·1935 ! 

PUerto Real 50ain 11519 'rdea~Izar,es .--

AnchCHaae AI< 99501 Scott Ballev@dec.Slate.ak,U1I --­

Excelsior M.N-=- 5533..1. Stephen aamartt@URS~~oom .. ..____' Jim Bau ,state.ak.us 

Shellv 8e6elGldec.staI8.ak.us 

AK 99501· Obevi~_.c:om ___. . 

CoIumbU$._~..._ 43.201 jboc:ze. .ekb@battei.le.oral._ j

tf-airbanks .. ~_ 99101 -,. 1. I -1 ..- Anchornge TAl< 99518- hmh-abohnCalaska.com 

Anchornge AI< 99503 sbolell@alaska.net 

IAnchor,lll! IAI< 9951~47 boundsi~.c:om .__._ 

Anchorage iAK 99501 IIbrenaCentrlx.com I 


AUKE BAY .. iAK 99821 !~.!'@alaska.com---L 

Juneau fAK 99601-8707 cdbrucetl'balask.a.net 


Homer !AI< 99603- . I I
 EMil ~arj(__~.AK_-l~75s. - ca.9pel1 liIIY@ararnaflt.oom·----·-· 


Elmend~~ 99506-3240 I I
 '_'____1--- -. d'lVe,chaput@aicUc.coml 

Fori Collins C()~18()52E)_ 'christophe~:c:om Elmendorf AK ~.Il?06 sean:c:ockre!!@Eilmendorf.af,mil 


Fairhanks AI< .•_. 99706 COQkD2@alyeska-pi~line.cc?.m I 


Anchoraae AI< 99503 croc1<ett@a~OIJ!. --l 
 Anchorag~_~_ ~5Q4-' I 


~~rf AFB :~_ :=-2200 deve~@elmendOrf.afmil! _-=-=-

GaSilia ,.-~--- 99654 .' r~ dalCher@dec.stale.ak.us_f_·___ 

FOrIColiins CO 80525 . t2i11mii1lna@e.nsr:~.com ___ . __.... 

Fort Wai!1Wlight AI< 9!)7.1lL. eric.michaeLejick@us.army.mii .. ,.__.__ 

~neau ,.AK ._~1-009.J.~ donohu~l1(.stale.ak,us + 

Fort wainwri~ AI<.. 99703 aldriScoll~ainwrigh!.al!!ly,mil +-----1 

Fort Collins ... ~_~26 md~el\1!l@!amar.coIO$taI~e(ju_._ .__ 

~negi1l Bay AI< ___ '99574· _ IChene~~aOl.com. 

___ _ __ ,Albert Faure@d€iC state.ak.us 

Soldotna AK 199669 ..J!..~~tate.ak us"---_-+__ 

~d~ Ii ~~ ~~~~~ IllJk~tIu$teeS'Or9~+ - -t=-.-.. - Ninilchik AK - . 9963S- --- ----r---­ l:..itlleI2.~ __ _ 80120-5639 thgll)bons~rs.oom += _____ Anchorn~__ AK 99516 ~@99inet . L . ' u 

~!i!e.£!~~ 99sn--TshalVey@mtaonline,net 


Juneau ...__:A_K__ 99~coll)':hildenbral'l':!.@~::::co:::m,-,-.......,:--__ 


IHealY -- :AK---,99743---·lbhoefler@rl'le~ 

Ancho~-'AK---,99502-1935L_ r '--r--+---~. __ Fairbanks 'AK__ 199707'1267imaY'?r~falrbanksak.US _ i __ 

Anch0r!ge 1AK _~7 howard~Cl.anchol1lge a~ +=---_ --l____t-__-----rChris Kent@dec stale ak.~ ____ __ ~ku1erhach@dec staI.e~__ 

Falrhanks AK------ts9707 I ! . ._-+1___ 'Ga.,1esville FL'=E2665 __I(jla~.@~ C(j1Tl.... _ __L........ ~exandna_ VA ??~L '-,----1---­ tort Wainwri AI< 99703 ___ImJynch@blm.gov. I ~. __ 

~nc~e~___ 99508· 1 --:-. . ._1 ____.1 


-An-C-ho-ra-e- .~ 99s07--~~a~~)I@=m__-_+._--, 


TbIAirS urvey 

Page 2 


------ --------

-----

-----

TblAirSUlvey 

~~I:~~--.-~--__~ _____i-"---' - _____ ----===-- ____ -------------=-~.-.--_ _____-1 

;=="-==..:::::.:"------.. --- ----­

-- ---~ -------.--.--~---

---- ---1 

-----_. 

---'-'-'-' ----£::.~~~':=;.;;;--------

~~9U3lity MeteoroIO.9ist_ ---. ~=_:-=-=--=

I..:::c:=-------+:~=-- ____ E,,~me~mpli~ ______ 

--------- --- ~.~---~~- ---------~-- -----­

-------~----

. ----~~---

----~.~- -----~------

--.--- -­

______ ­ 1601 Pro~a:rk\Y~________ 

___________________+p~.~O~·7B70XI9.~66~5~O~

.~_____________________+610 University A..ve 

_______..~_.. ____.. __..__ _ 1411 W. 4TH AVENUE., STe 2 .__ 

_______.. _____.__ ______ _ 1410 Waloughby Av~_30~_______ 

--- - IP.O 8oxS7438::::,9:c---:--~;--; 

+------_____~___ _~_=_-~~j~~:~~~~~~~~~~~111800= 

6425 N. E. 175th Street ---- ------ -----"------'+'510West ca~na'"':Ic::CO~u":rt-:.S""u""ite,,-:,-=oo:;co;;---­ --+~:';;:.::'=:'-=-:'::..:;:::::::.-----:-::----------.-.---+-------- ----- ------- ..--'-- 354 CESICEV. 2258 Central Aile., Suttel00 

___--1~P.O. aID: 196650----------­ ----- --_.- 483iTaQiestreet ______ 

_______ _ 6228 Nielsen Wa.r 

3401 Mirmesotl Dn·7"·ve-,"'S-u'::-'te-3()=O:----­

_____._____ t1~ Bellai~8~ule~____ 

;;:-;-;---------I-......;:='-;-~ =f§ri~~~~~~=======~·-~--·-===:l~::::::::::::-------- ---------- --------=====------li~:~;:,,-:~;:,,:;~~__;._:_:,_-;::-.:::_:- -------~--~.,---- ----~-

-------- --------- .---- ---.--- PO Box 787 --- '--- --­

"'---~-- ----~ --- IpO.Box71249 

Page 3 

TblAjr$urvey 

____ ____\;"'''-''_ L~elus,~!.... June~._.._ ~K. _~ay.L maclcinnon@acsalaS)(a.net. --i-!__ 

~.-'.'.'~.'. ;~:~~6~-OOOJ!..r~~.T~S~i~~,cQm~_.~· Kenai Kenai._.., _ _ 

.._h~_.~. ~K ~~- kmccullo@agrium.£!='"' kmccullo@.!!.9...riutl _ \.:..r~~ __ '_ 

~:e' ~~t :~~-~~~=t~oom~-__ Sitka !AK 99835, i • 

:~~_!l'J__3AK'---.·99503_-.1;0.ot!~L-.sta-~-e.-akus~f---.~_-_. Redmon'!.. WA 9,8052 __!d0!:!!J@envirolawl"Ni.oom :.,_ 

Eielso.'1AFB ~ ,.99702_ . fzachary.mothershed. . .I@!ielsonaf.mil,_, 

Soldotna__ ~,---l99669-05~newbouk:l@aWII,rflOOnSUlti~~!_,___. 

2.'~.i"" Anchoralle }l.:.~1=.~i~lnl~~ AK.. '99503-20.35 Resource akr!:/c,Q ___j_ 


Delta Juncti()n.~ __ ~J)737 Ij)'l.vpalme!@poe-"'!icom '. ___ 


~e_______~i~~_ .',__ ~~2~.~ ~~a ..~.,':rt~~~~.mt"-.1 OV ! __, .___ 


Fort Collins. CO 80525__..!.mpoar1<ins@$ecor.C<>!". 


~:!:ka_-:--= ~A--- ::~--=-:1~~!"~~Z- '. ,__==-' 

Ancl1orajJ.e_ AK_.. ,_ 99510-0360 iRand~eet@oonooop'hillil's.:EOm___ 


Juneau, '_ ~_, 1!2Q1 Jl.m Pouod@I~,s1aIe'!'S.!I.s._l_.__ 


~irrt Paul_ AK !9~~ s!p"aulak@~~co.m~ ~ ___ 


Rrichin~~r,com '1 ' 

~~:ge=.,. ~-==+~~:~~~-=. 'de~-1i-t-I~- i::--=_. 

~~~:-'f~ Anchora2!. AK__ -, 1:~~ts1. 9950.1_ _ 68. r~""" SavilleYV 9i:,anchon! e.ak.u$ +-I--'~-" ___ 


Fort ~ollins ~Q. 80524 . ~ensr.~I!'.-'-_-,---l 

Anchota911 .. ~K _ .. 99519-6650 ISchlapiaAM@.£ianchorage,a,l<·lls 


Fairbanks__iAK__ 99.L~-----1davld~~~~dec.stlI!e,a.lcus 

Anchon!g.!!..._l~ 99.so 1__!Betty Sehol!@decstat.e<l,l<.us 


.Ju~_!AK 99801 'alan_schu1er@dec.state.ak.us .

I I .- 'fathima siddeek@dec.state,ak.U5 

!y~silla ____~AK-_' 99687-4389 I --L_~_ ~~. __.t\K 99811-18001.~e!>ecca Smiltl@'oi"estate.ak.u5__ 


EII,gle River,_ A~.19,9577-a114 1'Snod.ll.l!T.@.alp;ne-meadow __ 


l5.enmo~,6._~028. ...L.:::::=r 1. ___ 


Littleton, ., ICO ~~wd~@3e~~,__ : 
 I 

E.;el,sooAFB_._IAK 99702· ,$tep.henstri~.eielson!!!c!l'~ 

AnchOtll911. _ AK _ 99519-6650 Ta loll@ci.anchora911.ak.u$ 1 


Anchera e .AlL....... Sl9~. l'11Iei1zel~~org T="'--+..-_.-=--=--_-_-1 ' 


,6.nchora~" AK 9951L_~mh-klhieman!il9£j.r1e!.. ~r__ _ 
 Anchorag!... AK___ 99~atrbovictl@hoeftemet.com . ___ 


Houston _ TX 77072 ; denise. halliburtqrl.C9_m.. . 


~,_ ._--'.!!!~r@dec.state.ak.us L 

~ka~.a ____ AK. 99840 jmtwitchell@Skagwaytra.ditio.1131.0$. _'.­ !".hoe-".!.X__J~_ 85018rvo@lestlaw.co"! •• J ___ L ___ 
 __ ail! Watker@tiec.state.ak.us .. 


Kodiak AK ~9615 ijriChcreek~kodiak.cooP. 

Fairbanks AK 9970.­

Page 4 

------ -- -----------

------

-----

TblAirSurvey 

----~~-- ----~- - .------­

---.._--_. 

-----_. ~--- -- --- -~- -. ---.-- -- --t':::-:~"~c"-"=- -~---.

--~--~.---- ------­ --~---. 

--- -----~..­

------.---~---. ------ ---_._---_.. _--_. 

-t:;..~~~::-~-:;-------· ---------1 

------. 

-------._-­

--------~-

~--.---

PageS 

-1 

TblAir$ul'\ley 

Homer 

Fort Collins 

Se~ 

Cod~WY 

~~::f-i~~ -

m 

Page 6 


Response to Public Comments 

Response to Public Comments 


Regulation Addition to Title 18, Chapter 50 ofthe Alaska Administrative Code 


Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule 


Prepared by: 

Rebecca Smith 

Tom Turner 

Rusty Gesin 

The Department proposed adding a section to the Air Quality Control regulations in 

18 AAC 50 to address guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) under 

the Regional Haze Rule on April 27, 2007. The proposed BART regulations were public 

noticed on May I, 2007, and the Department accepted public comments from May I, 

2007, through June 5,2007. The Department held a public workshop on May 29, 2007, 

following a request from the BART Coalition. A public hearing was held on May 31, 

2007; however, no comments were received at the public hearing. 

This document responds to comments received during the comment period, including 

comments made at the public workshop held on May 29, 2007. 

The Department received written comments from the following: 

A) BART Coalition, by Marilyn Crockett, May 10,2007 

B) BART Coalition, by Matthew Cohen, May 17,2007 

C) Tesoro Alaska Co., Kenai Refinery (Tesoro), June 4,2007 

D) Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), June 4, 2007 

E) Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC), 

June 4,2007 

F) ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Kenai LNG Plant (Conoco), June 5, 2007 

G) National Park Service, on behalf ofNational Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and U.s. Forest Service (collectively the Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs», June 5, 2007 

H) BART Coalition, by Marilyn Crockett, June 5, 2007 

I) Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska), June 5, 2007 

J) Agrium Kenai Nitrogen Operations (Agrium), June 5, 2007 

The Department received oral comments at the Public Workshop on May 29, 2007 

from: 

A) Al Trbovich, Hoefler Consulting Group 

B) Bob Price, ML&P 

C) Brad Thomas, Alyeska 

D) Chris Drechsel, Tesoro 

E) Matt Cohen, Heller Ehrman 

F) Marilyn Crockett, Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

G) Michelle Grzybowksi, Tesoro 

H) Bud Rice, National Park Service (NPS) 

I) Ann Mebane, Forest Service (Wyoming) 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 lof29 
J) Bruce Polko\vsky, NPS (Colorado) 


K) Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service (Colorado) 


L) Andrea Blakesley, NPS (Denali) 


M) Ken Richmond, GeoMatrix (Bothel, Washington) 


N) John Vimont, NPS (Colorado) 


0) John Notar, 1\PS (Colorado) 


P) Kristy McCullough, Agrium 


Q) Tom Gibbons, Steigers Corporation 


In addition the following state staff attended the May 29,2007, workshop: 

A) Tom Turner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 

B) John Kuterbach, DEC 

C) Tom Chapple, DEC 

D) Rebecca Smith. DEC 

E) Lindsay Wolter, Office of the Attorney General 

Further clarification was requested and provided by: 

A) Steve Body, EPA Region 10 

B) Tim Allen, NPS 

Structure of Response to Comments 

The public comments were received in various formats, in advance of the public 

workshop and at the close of the comment period. Most comments were similar in nature 

or \vere centered on common issues. 

The affected BART sources formed a coalition group to represent their common Issues. 

The members of the BART Coalition are Tesoro, Alyeska, Anchorage Municipal Light 

and Pmver, Agrium, and ConocoPhillips. The BART Coalition sent comments through a 

letter from Matt Cohen on May 17,2007, and later requested a public workshop to assist 

with clarification of regulation interpretation, prior to the close of the comment period. 

Many of the proposed changes to the regulations presented in the BART Coalition's 

May 17,2007, letter by Matt Cohen were clarified through discussions at the May 29, 

2007, public workshop. The BART Coalition also provided comments in a second letter 

on June 5, 2007. Their letter stated "This letter supplements and updates comments 

previously submitted by the Coalition via Matt Cohen's letter to John Kuterbach of May 

17,2007, and the public workshops on April 3 and May 29, 2007." The June 5, 2007, 

BART Coalition letter provided a different redline version of the proposed regulations 

than was submitted with the May 17,2007, letter. All of the individual letters and 

comments from BART Coalition members referenced support for the June 5, 2007, letter 

from Marilyn Crockett representing the BART coalition. 

The department considered the proposed changes to the regulations presented by the 

BART Coalition, as well as comments received from other parties, both written 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 20f29 
comments received as e-mails and letters and oral comments made during the public 

workshop. Numerous comments focused on the timetable to complete the BART 

determination process in order to meet federal deadlines for the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for Regional Haze. 

The Response to Comments will first address the general comments on the timetable and 

then address other common issues and redline regulations as presented in BART 

Coalition's June 5, 2007, letter and attachment. Finally, other comments and additional 

issues from the public, not included in the BART Coalition's letters, will be addressed as 

detailed below. 

The comments and proposed changes centered on the following issues: 

• Time-table to complete BART Process and meet Federal Deadlines; 

• Visibility Impacts AnalysislModeling: 

o Original WRAP modeling shortfalls; 

o Ability to use 98th percentile; 

o Issues with the modeling results summary; 

• Owner requested limits; 

• Definitions; 

• Permit Mechanism to Implement BART; and 

• Other specific comments on individual issues. 

The department will make some revisions to the regulations to address comments and 

concerns from the BART Coalition. Other suggested changes were contrary to comments 

provided by the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). Since states are required under the 

Clean Air Act and the BART regulations to consult with the FLMs in developing Class I 

visibility programs, the department gave deference to the FLM recommendations unless 

there was a clear inconsistency with Federal andJor State rule. Responses to comments 

are found below. 

Comment A: Related to Timetable for the BART Element of SIP Process 

The majority of the comments were related to the timetable of the BART SIP 

process. The BART Coalition and the sources commented that the timeframes proposed 

were not achievable. Sources will need more time to complete every step of the process. 

Comments requested that the department should provide adequate time to do each step. 

Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) commented that they are particularly 

concerned about the schedule due to the need to incorporate BART determinations into 

their long-term generation plan. ML&P recommended that adequate time for BART 

analysis preparation include department review and determination. The BART Coalition 

letters included specific increases In the time line in suggested changes to the proposed 

regulations. 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 30f29 
Response A: Timetablefor BART Element ofSIP Process 

The department will revise the regulations to allow more time for certain steps in 

the BART ana~vsis process, including adjusting timelines to reflect deadlines occurring 

after department approval ofsubmittals. However, sorne ofthe timelines ~·t'ill not be 

extended as far as requested in comments. To grant the entire timetable as requested 

would delay implementation ofthe BART determination process in a timely manner, 

contrary to federal requirements. 

The BART regulations are only one portion ofthe State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for Regional Ha:::e. Based on even the most ambitious schedule for completion of 

the BARTprocess, Alaska will fail to meet the EPA Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan deadline ofDecember 17, 2007. Therefore, it is necessary for the department to 

demonstrate to EPA that our regulations will result in continued progress on the BART 

anal,vsis and determination process so that a complete Regional Haze SIP may be 

submitted to EPA as expeditiously as possible. Outlining a timetable that meetsfederal 

requirements for the BART element ofthe 51P and accounts for the m}'riad logistical 

elements to complete the BARTprocess from exemption modeling through BART analysis 

to final determination will be a challenge for all parties involved 

A BART timetahle process map has heen included for reference. (See page 21) 

(Please note: the BARTprocess begins on the effective date ofthe regulations. It does 

not include the current time that is requiredfor state review procedllres following 

adoption by the department. The department does recognize and appreciate current 

ejJorts ofBART Coalition members to facilitate the process though advanced modeling 

protocol submission.) 

Ifall the timeline adjustments to the regulations that ~vere proposed during the 

comment period were inc01porated, the time to complete the BARTprocess before it 

could be included in the State Implementation Plan sllbmittal (SIP) is estimated to be 24 

to 30 months after the ejJcLtive date ofregulations. The final Regional Ha-z.e SIP 

submittal 'rvill require at least an additional 9 months. A timeline ofthis length is 

unacceptable and could result in the Environmental Protection Agency considering the 

promulgation ofa Federal Implementation Plan (F1P). All BART Sources indicated the 

SIP was the preferred regulatory process over a FIP. 

The BARTprocess in other states was completed in similar timeframes to those 

proposed in the department regulations. Several other states ~vere polled concerning 

their BART timeframes. New Jersey, Colorado, North Dakota, and Kansas responded, 

stating their rules and/or processes allow 6 months for eligible sources to submit BART 

analyses. The State ofAlaska proposed BART regulations and associated timeframes are 

not unreasonable. The proposed Alaska BART regulations would allow 180-210 days for 

submittal ofa BART analysis. 

To balance the many challenges ofthe SIP requirements, the regulations have 

been revised to include deadlines for the various steps ofthe process. ADECfeels that it 

is fair and reasonable to make all parties accountable ~\'ithin the BARTprocess. This 

Response to Comments -- BART Regulations 7-25-07 40f29 
includes deadlines for delivel}' ofinformationFom the sources andfor approvalsFom 

the department. The regulations have been revised to set a deadlinefor having the BART 

process completed within 18 months, assuming a source subject to the rule undertakes 

each step ofthe process leading to a BART determination. Options are providedjar an 

expedited time completion for BART affected sources. It is important to recognize that in 

order to complete the BART timetable, the regulations required adjustment in some areas 

and clear deliverable times in other areas. Additionally, in 18 AAC 50. 260(b), the 

deadline for the department to notify the sources that they are su~ject to BART has been 

reducedfrom the proposed 10 days to 5 days. The department has already notified all 

sources that are su~ject to BART ofthe status; in order to expedite the BARTprocess 

timeline, the department concluded that an additional 5 days at that step in the process 

tvas not necessat}'. 

Comments B thru J are from the BART Coalition letter, June 5, 2007. An 

attachment included with the letter provided a redline version of suggested changes 

to the BART regulations. 

Comment B: Timetable for Exemption Modeling 

"18 AAC 50.260(c) Subsection (c) outlines the procedure for a source to request 

an exemption from BART on grounds that its emissions do not cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment. We propose an edit to paragraph (c)(1 )(C) to set the deadline for 

submittal of an exemption modeling report 60 days after the Department approves a 

modeling protocol for the visibility impact analysis. At the May 29, 2007, workshop 

Coalition representatives explained that the Department appropriately demands the 

opportunity to review and approve a modeling protocol, and that there is no way to 

conduct the modeling until that approval is obtained. We incorporate by reference our 

comments on this issue during the May 29,2007, workshop." 

Comment B: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Timetable for Exemption 

Modeling 

"260(c)(1)(C) submit the visibility impact analysis report, including all supporting 

documentation, to the department no later than 60 days after the department approves a 

modeling protocol for the visibility impact analysis (effective date ojreg1:d£ltions) ;" 

Response B: Timetable/or Exemption Modeling: 

The department agrees that having reports due after approval ofa modeling 

protocol provides a deadline andprovides for the ability to complete the necessary ·work. 

It is reasonable that sources would be hesitant to invest in conducting modeling runs 

H'ithout an approval from the department. 

A deadline will ensure that the BARTprocess will stay on track to satisJY federal 

requirements. In the BARTprocess, it is reasonable to include deadlines for both the 

sources and the department in order to satisjj,federal time requirements as noted in 

comment A. 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 50[29 
Sources may choose to avoid the expense and time to undertake exemption model 

in lieu ofsubmitting a BART analJ'sis upon the effective date ofregulations. A modeling 

protocol will be requiredfor the BART ana(I-'sis. J8 AAC 50.260 (d) will be revised to 

add clarif)' to this process. 

Response B: Regulations Revision: Timetable for Exemption !lfodeling 

The regulations will be revised at 18 AA C 50.260 (c) to reflect afinite schedule 

for exemption modeling. 

18 AAC 50. 260(c)(J)(A) will shorten the notification requirement from sources 

who are/will perform exemption jar modeling to 1 () days. The majority ofthe sources 

have already started work on exemptions modeling. A simple notification lvill not require 

30 days. 

18 AAC 50. 260(c){J HE) will be revised to reflect a deadline of30 daysfor 

submitting modeling protocols, and 260(c)(2) will be revised to provide{or a department 

approval in 30 daysJollowing the submittal. 

The regulations at 260(c)(3)(B) }Fill be revised to reflect that the visibility impact 

analysis report 'will be due 60 days ajter the department approves a modeling protocol 

submission. In addition, the regulations will al101vfor a 90 da:}' submission ifthe 

modeling protocol is approved prior to the effective date ofthe regulations. This change 

reflects the efforts that are current(v in progressji-om Coalition members on modeling 

protocol and comments requesting more time to run the modeling program. 

In addition, the regulations section 260(d) will add language to clarify that 

sources can modelfor BART analysis {fa source does not choose to undertake exemption 

modeling. 

Comment C: Owner Requested Limits (ORL) 

"We propose a new paragraph (c)(3) to enable a source seeking to avoid the 

BART requirement to request an owner-requested limit or limits to ensure that its 

emissions do not cause or contribute to visibility impaimlent in a Class I area. At the 

May 29, 2007, workshop John Kuterbach commented that an owner-requested limit 

under 18 AAC 50.225 could be used to achieve this goal. Paragraph (c) (3) implements 

that suggestion." 

Comment C: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Owner Requested Limits 

(ORL) 

"260(c)(3) request for exemption may include an application under 18 AAC 

50.225 for owner-requested limits that reduce the visibility impact of a BART eligible 

source to levels at which the BART-eligible source is not reasonably anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any visibility impaimlent in a Class I area identified in the notice 

provided under (b) of this section. The department's decision to approve an exemption 

may include a letter approving the owner-requested limit, per 18 AAC 50.225(£)." 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 60f29 
Response C: Owner Requested Limits (ORL) 

The department will add language to the proposed regulations to clarify the use 

of18 AAC 50.225 to allaw exemption to BART eligible sources. 

Owner requested limits are part ofdepartment regulations in 18 AAC 50.225. 

These regulation options are available to an}' source that makes the choice to limit 

emissions. In addition to the BART Coalition letter, comments received during the public 

workshop indicated that the application of18 AAC 50.225 to the BARTprocess were not 

clear to all affected parties. 

A source may take an owner requested limit to avoid BART analysis and then be 

exempt from the BART determination process. Additional regulations language has been 

included to ensure that the source's obligation to perform a BART analysis will still 

apply should it choose to revise the ORL at some future date. 

The proposed regulations will also provide a deadline of30 days for sources to 

request an ORL. (Please reference Comment A). The department approval within 

30 days for an ORL exists in the cun"ent regulations under 18 AAC 50.225. 

Response C: Regulations Revision: Owner Requested Limits (ORL) 

Section 260(c)(5) is revised to clarifY the applicability of18 AAC 50.225 to BART 

sources. The ORL submittal is required in 30 days. Please note: the revision also 'will 

allow an ORL submittal within 30 days after the effective date ofregulations for those 

who choose to not undertake exemption modeling or 30 days after receiving DEC's 

determination that the results ofthe exemption modeling do not qualifY for an exemption 

ofthe BART Determination. 

Section 260(c)(6) shmvs the BART obligation should the ORL be rescinded or 

removed. 

Section 260(c)(8) adds language to allow exemption for either a visibility impact 

ana~vsis or owner requested limit. 

Comment D: Timetable for BART Analysis 

"18 AAC 50.260(d) Subsection (d) sets a deadline for sources subject to BART to 

submit a BART control technology analysis. The Coalition's edits address three 

shortcomings in the proposed rule. First, subsection (d) of the proposed rule forces a 

source that applies for an exemption to develop a BART control technology analysis 

while the exemption application is pending. This schedule is inefficient and wasteful 

because the BART control technology analysis will not be needed if the Department 

grants the exemption application. Attachment A, subsection (d), solves this problem by 

starting the clock for submittal of a BART control technology report upon receipt of the 

Department's decision denying an exemption. It provides no deferral for a source that 

does not apply for an exemption. 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 70f29 
A second concern with proposed 18 AAC 50.260( d) is that it does not provide 

time for the Department to review and approve a visibility modeling protocol for a source 

analyzing alternative BART control strategies. A BART control technology analysis 

requires its own modeling exercise, different from the exemption modeling perfonned by 

WRAP or the source. Per EPA's BART Guideline, "Step 5" in a BART control 

technology analysis consists of modeling "to detennine the visibility improvement 

expected at a Class I area from the potential BART control technology applied to the 

source." The Guideline directs the State to develop a modeling protocol for this analysis, 

but acknowledges that "States have the authority to require source owners to assume part 

of the analytical burden ..." Given that the control technology modeling protocol 

includes detailed source-specific infonnation, including infonnation about what control 

scenarios to model, the Coalition recommends that the Department call on the sources to 

model visibility improvements as part of their BART control technology submittals, 

using a protocol approved by the Department. Our proposed edits to subsection (d) add a 

requirement that each source subject to BART will submit a modeling protocol, and it 

directs the sources to submit completed control technology analyses within 180 days after 

the Department approves the modeling protocol. 

Finally, as we discussed at the May 29, 2007, workshop, 180 days is very little 

time to complete a BART control technology analysis. The contents of that analysis, per 

the EPA BART Guideline, include several challenging tasks. First, the source must 

conduct an engineering analysis to identify technically feasible control options for NOx, 

S02 and PM. Second, the source must prepare cost estimates for each of those control 

options. The estimates typically will require third party vendor support, because most 

control devices must be engineered to fit the configuration of the source, and an 

owner/operator cannot rely on back-of-the-envelope cost estimates to choose between 

controls that may be imposed as BART. Third, the source must model the visibility 

improvement attributable to different control strategies. For a source with many BARTeligible emission units, some internal review and consultation with the Department will 

be required just to identify the set of control options to model. Finally, the source must 

obtain management approval for submittal of a report to the Department that identifies a 

proposed set of controls as BART. Where BART controls involve significant capital 

investments, the process of obtaining corporate approval for a particular set of 

investments requires management briefing and approval. 

For all of these reasons, the Coalition believes that 180 days from approval ofa 

modeling protocol is a minimal time frame to develop a BART control technology 

analysis. We are including in our proposed edits a new subsection (p) to 18 AAC 50.260, 

authorizing the Department to extend submittal deadlines for good cause demonstrated." 

Comment D: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Timetable for BART 

Analysis 

"260(d) No later than -h:W-60 days after the later of reflective date ofregulations) 

or the department's denial of a request for exemption under (c) of this section, the owner 

or operator of each source subject to BART shall submit to the department a visibility 

impact modeling protocol, consistent with (g) of this section, to analyze the visibility 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 80f29 
improvement expected at a Class J area from one or more potential BART control 

technologies. No later than 180 days after approval of a modeling protocol the owner or 

operator shall submit an analysis of control options consistent with Section IV of the 

BART guideline." 

Response D: Timetable for BARTAnalysis 

There are several timetable issues related to the BART analysis. Any delays in 

the early part ofthe process can be compounded b}' subsequent timetable issues. As 

noted in comment A, the department did review other states' BART ana~l'sis time, which 

ranged from 90 to 180 days. The proposed regulations allmv 180 days for BART 

analysis. 

Ifa source performs exemption modeling but the exemption is denied, then it is 

reasonable that the source has the advantage ofbase model runs with limited 

modification for the BART analysis. However, for the sources that have the advantage of 

4 month periodfor exemption modeling, the BART analysis and the modelingfor such 

will need to be completed with the J80 days upon denial ofthe BART exemption. 

It is reasonable that a source that does not extend the timetable though exemption 

modeling and proceed, directly to BART analysis should be allowed the opportunity to 

provide a modeling protocol and have time for the department review. The regulations 

will be revised to provide those sources the time to model for BART Analysis. 

The April 27, 2007 proposed regulations did not provide a deadline for the 

department to approve the BART analysis. The regulations will be revL)'ed to require the 

department to complete a draft BART determination for public notice within J20 days. 

Re$ponse D: Regulation Revision: Timetable for BART Analysis 

The April 27, 2007, regulations have been revised as follows: 

Section (k) has been revised to include language for the department to complete 

the BART determination in 120 days. 

Section (e) has been revised to read: (e) For purposes o.fanalyzing the visibility 

impactFom potential BART control technologies, the owner or operator ofeach source 

subject to BART shall submit to the department an analysis ofcontrol options consistent 

with Section IV ofthe BART guideline; 

(1) no later than 210 days after the latter of{effective date oftile 

regulations} or notification under (b) ofthis section for an mvner or operator who 

did not submit an exemption modeling protocol under (G)(1) ofthis section: or 

(2) no later than J80 days after the denial ofan exemption request 

submitted under (c) ofthis section. 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 90f29 
Comment E: Identical Modeling Approach 

"18 AAC 50.260(g) Subsection (g) describes the mandatory elements of a 

visibility impaet analysis. This subsection applies to both exemption modeling and 

control technology improvement modeling. For that reason, the Coalition proposes to 

add a few words to paragraph (g)(l) to clarify that the requirement to "use an identical 

modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and post-control impacts" applies only 

to control technology improvement modeling. not to exemption modeling." 

Comment E: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Identical Modeling 

Approach 

"260(g)( 1) use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and 

post-control impacts of potential BART control technologies;" 

Response E: Identical Il-fodeling Approach 

The department agrees 'rvith the proposed revision. Clarification for exemption 

modeling and BART anaZrsis modeling is required. 

Response E: Regulation Revision: Identical Modeling Approach 

Section 260(h)(l) will be revised with the suggested regulation language. 

Comment F: Use of the Word "Maximum" 

"Paragraph (2) provides guidanee on modeling the visibility impacts of a source, 

and of proposed controls applied to a source. The Coalition strongly urges the 

Department to delete the word "maximum" from this paragraph. The proposal to use the 

maximum daily visibility impact, as opposed to the 98th percentile impact, as the 

measure of a source's impacts on visibility conflicts with the EPA BART Guideline, and 

would grossly exaggerate a source's contribution to visibility impairment. The Coalition 

incorporates by reference the comments we provided on this issue in our May 17,2007 

letter and at the May 29,2007 workshop." 

Comment F: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Use of the Word 

"Maximum" 

"260(g)(2) determine the maximum change in visibility impacts (in daily 

deciviews) compared to the annual average default natural visibility condition as listed in 

Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

EP A-454/B-03-005, September 2003, adopted by reference, at each Class I area 

identified in the notice under (b) of this section." 

Response F: Use ofthe Word "iMaximum" 

The use (lthe 'Yliord "maximum" in 18 AAC 50. 260(g)(2), which is nm1/ 

18 AAC 50. 260(h)(2J, refers to the maximum change in visibility between pre- andpostBART control technologies, not to 'he cause and contribute threshold evaluated as part of 

the subject to BART determinations. In the context, "maximum" is a relative measure of 

'he effectiveness ofthe controls. not ofthe effect oflhe sources 011 the Class 1 areas. 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 100f29 
Due to the needfor the regulations to indicate what degree ofchange be[}'v'een 

control options must be considered as part ofthe BART analysis, the u'ord maximum will 

stay in the regulations, The department recognizes that the "vord "maximum" may create 

some confusing or perceived outcome. The revised regulations will add clarification 

language in section (h)(2) and a definition for "maximum change" as it is referenced in 

the BART regulations, 

Response F: Regulations Revision: Use ofthe Word ",Maximum" 

To assist with clarification, section 260(h)(2) has been revised and a definition of 

"maximum change" will be added to 18 AAC 50.990 to clarify the regulations. 

Comment G: Reference to the "VRAP RMC BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft #7 

"Paragraph (3) specifies guidelines for acceptable modeling protocols. In 

paragraph (3)(A) the Coalition does not object to adoption of the CALMET/CALPUFF 

Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western 

United States. We propose for three reasons to strike the reference to the WRAP RMC 

BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft #7. First, the WRAP document is not modeling 

guidance, nor does it contain any modeling guidance. It simply reports the results of an 

exemption modeling exercise performed by a WRAP contractor. Second, a source 

conducting its own modeling would have no occasion to apply the modeling guidelines 

used by WRAP. If those guidelines produced an acceptable result the source would not 

be proposing to conduct its own exemption modeling. Third, the WRAP modeling 

exercise contains many prejudicial errors, outlined in detail in the Coalition's May 17, 

2007 letter and Attachment D to that letter. The Department should not incorporate into 

its rules a modeling exercise that contains as many serious errors as WRAP Draft #7, 

especially when the only purpose for which the Department employed the WRAP study 

was to identify sources potentially subject to BART." 

Comment G: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Reference to the WRAP 

RMC BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft #7 

"260(g)(3) be conducted in a manner consistent with either: 

(A) the August 15, 2006 CALMETICALPUFF Protocol for 

BART Exemption Screening Analysisfor Class 1 Areas in the Western United States, 

adopted by reference, as amended by the S7::UnmtH) , ofWRAP RhfC BART Modelingfor 

,lJ.eska, Draft #7, April 6, 2007, adopted by reference; or" 

Response G: Reference to the WRAP RMC BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft #7 

The department ,vil/ keep the reference in the regulations, First, the WRAP 

"document" was the approved reference at the time ofthe modeling. The WRAP 

modeling protocol was approved by EPA and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) and 

was conducted with the data available at the time ofthe modeling run. The changes 

made to the WRAP protocol (as approvedfor all WRAP states) were necessary to 

accountfor only having only one year ofmeteorological data available for Alaska. 

WRAP reran the modeling to account for some ofthe errors noted early in the public 

process, and the Summary, Draft #7 document reflects thm;e corrections. During the 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 110[29 
public workshop, the FLMs confirmed and clar!fied this process in response to comments 

and questions. 

Second. regarding the statement that no source using Draft 7, the BART Coalition 

may be zmmvare A (veska has had a modeling protocol discussion with the department 

that indicated that they may be able to exempt out ofBART requirements by using the 

Draft 7 protocols with updated emission unit data. It is important that the department 

and the regulations allow for as many options available to all sources. The Summary of 

WRAP RMC BART Modelingfor Alaska, Draft #7, April 6, 2007, must be incorporated 

b}' reference along with the CALMETICALPUFF Protocolfor BART Exemption 

Screening Ana(vsis for Class I Areas in the Western United States, August 15, 2006, 

because any visibility impact analysis conducted using the WRAP protocol must use 

exactly the modifications and settings used by WRAP as detailed in the summary in order 

to be approved by the department and the FLMs, with the possible exception ofusing 

corrected emission rates. This is the case H·ith Alyeska. 

With regard to the errors in the Draft 7 modeling, the department recognizes that 

new data may be available and that errors in the original modeling protocol may need to 

be corrected. The April 27, 2007, proposed regulations did provide the ability to correct 

errors andprovide new data (such as MM5) though submittal ofa modeling protocol 

under (h)(3)(B). 

The revised regulations for modeling demonstration are now found at (h)(3)(B). 

The modeling protocol is the appropriate mechanism to correct errors in Draft 7. The 

department is hesitant to be overly prescriptive, but it need.) to allow for a modeling 

protocol that is approval b}' thefederalland managers and EPA while also allowing for 

correction oferrors and new data sets. 

The EPA BART Guidelines allow for states to consider all BART-eligible sources 

as subject to BART without conducting impact modeling. DEC affirms that the WRAP 

modeling was conducted in an attempt to show that sources might not be subject to 

BART. However, the results ofthe modeling (as approved and run) indicated that all the 

sources were determined by the modeling to be causing or contributing to impairment of 

visibility. 

Response G: Regulations Revision: Reference to the WRAP RMC BART Modeling 

For Alaska, Draft #7 

The department will not remove the adoption by reference ofthe summary 

document from the regulations. 

Comment H: Monitoring 

"18 AAC 50.260(n) Subsection (n) incorporates requirements from 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(l)(v) to ensure that control equipment installed to comply with BART is 

maintained and operated. The Coalition urged the Department to strike paragraph (2): 

"conduct monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting that complies with 18 AAC 50.220 

and that demonstrates compliance or noncompliance with the BART requirements under 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 120[29 
all operational conditions." First, the requirement that monitoring demonstrate 

compliance "under all operational conditions" has no basis in 40 CFR 51.308 or the 

BART Guideline. The Guideline rejects the idea that the federal definition of emission 

standard or the BART rules "necessarily require the use of continuous emissions 

monitoring ..." Second, subsection (i) of the proposed rule addresses monitoring 

requirements in a manner consistent with the BART Guideline. Subsection (i) fully 

covers the monitoring requirements of the BART Guideline and paragraph (n)(i) says 

everything that the BART Guideline or 40 CFR 51.308 require about operation and 

maintenance of control equipment." 

Comment H: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Monitoring 

"260(n) The owner or operator of a source required to install control equipment to 

comply with the BART detennination shall: 

(1) maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure 

such equipment is properly operated and maintained; ttf1fl 

(2) conduct monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that complies 

"'lith 18 AAC 50.220 and that demonstrates compliance or noncompliance with the 

BART requirements under all operational conditions. " 

Response H: ,Monitoring 

The department will revise the regulation. Per 40 CFR 51.308(e), the department 

must submit an implementation plan that contains emission limits representing BARTfor 

each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment ofvisibili~y in any mandatory Class 1 areas. Emission limits are 

mean ingless ifthere are no methods for ver~fying that the source can comply with those 

limits. IncOlporating a monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (A1R&R) requirement 

is therefore appropriate and consiSTent with the department ',,; standard practice of 

establishing MR&R requirements to verifj' emission limit compliance in all other permit 

mechanisms. 

Demonstrating compliance under all operating conditions does not necessarily 

require the use ofcontinuous emissions monitoring. in many situations, sources can 

demonstrate compliance under a worst-case condition to show that they can also comply 

when operating under all other conditions. SurrogaTe measures can also be used in some 

cases to demonstrate compliance with an emission limit. For example, the maximum fuel 

rate and maximum fuel sulfur content could be used to demonstrate compliance with a 

sulfur dioxide (S02) emission limit. 

Response H: Regulation Revision: Monitoring 

In review ofthese comments, the department noted That the final BART 

determination includes a MR&R finding. Therefore, there vvas no need to establish the 

MR&R parameters in 18 AAC 50. 260(0j(2) - a simple reference to the final 

determination is all that is needed. (Please note that this section is nowfound at (0) in 

the proposed regulations). The department has revised subparagraph (2) to read: 

"conduct the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting methods contained in the final 

BART determination. " 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 13 of29 
Comment I: Timetable: Extension 

"For all of these reasons, the Coalition believes that 180 days from approval of a 

modeling protocol is a minimal time frame to develop a BART control technology 

analysis. We are including in our proposed edits a new subsection (p) to 18 AAC 50.260, 

authorizing the Department to extend submittal deadlines for good cause demonstrated." 

Comment I: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Extension 

"260(p) The department may extend the deadline for submittal of any filing 

required by this section upon a satisfactory showing that an extension is justified." 

Response I: Timetable: Extension 

The Department understands that due to the perceived limited time to go through 

the BARTprocess that this change rna}' be desirable. The addition ofanother step for 

approval or disapproval only opens the doorfor additional work effort on all parties 

directed tm1;ard~ extension approvals rather than accomplishment ofthe task. The 

revised timetable, including department deli vel)' times, provides a reasonable assurance 

ofcommunication with the BART sources and task completion. {fthrough this process it 

is apparent, that despite the best efforts more time is required, the department can 

consider extension on case by case basis. BART determinations must be included as 

Title V permit terms and conditions. Therefore, the adoption by reference of40 CFR 

ParI 71 in 18 AA C 50.040(j) should cover any necessary extension oftime limits under 

the permit application requirements found in 40 CFR 71,5(aj{2) and 40 CFR 71.5(b). 

Response I: Regulation ReJ'is;on: Timetable: Extension 

The Department 'will not revise the regulations by adding 260(p). Please see the 

timetable discussions in response A. 

Comment J: Definitions 

"18 AAC 50.990 The Coalition proposes edits to two definitions presently 

contained in 18 AAC 50.990 to reconcile differences bef\..veen the definitions in that 

section and in 40 CFR 51.301. We propose to update the state definition of "impairment 

of visibility" to match the current EPA definition for all purposes for which the term is 

used in 18 AAC ch. 50. We propose an edit to the existing state definition of 

"reconstruct"!"reconstruction" to clanfy that the definition used in the regional haze 

program differs slightly from the definitions used in the NSPS and MACT programs." 

Comment J: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Definitions 

"18 AAC 50,990(47) is amended to read as follows: 

(47) "impairment of visibility" or visibility impaimlent means any humanly 

perceptible change in visibility such as (light extinction, visual range, contrast or 

coloration), from that which would have existed under natural conditions." 

"18 AAC 50.990(88) is amended to read as follows: 

(88) "reconstruct" and "reconstruction" have the meaning given "reconstruction" 

in 440 C.F.R. 63.2, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040, except that for purposes of 

18 AAC 50.260 "reconstruction" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301." 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 140f29 
Response J: Definitions 


The department agrees. Definitions will need to be consistent with the EPA and 


clarify terms as they relate to the BART regulations. 


Response J: Regulation Revision: Definitions 

Definitions will be revised to reflect a more complete definition ofimpairment of 

vis ibility and to include a specific clarification ofthe definition ofreconstruction for 

purposes of18 AAC 50.260. 

Comments from BART Coalition and Public workshop not addressed above: 

Comment K: Comments related to Permit Mechanism to Implement BART 

The BART Coalition proposed in the May 17,2007, Matt Cohen letter that the 

BART detenninations should be enforced through a minor pennit, not the sources' 

operating, or Title Y, pennits. During the Public Workshop, questions were asked to 

clarify the pennit mechanism for BART. 

Response K: Comments related to Permit Mechanism to Implement BART 

The BART determinations are applicable requirements ofthe Clean Air Act and 

therefore must be included as Title V permit conditions. The BART determinations must 

be incorporated into a source's Title V permit. Therefore, the department will not to use 

minor permits to implement BART. ofminor permits is not laid out infederal BART 

rules or guidance. 

Comment L: Use of 98th Percentile in Modeling 

The BART Coalition and the sources commented during the public workshop and 

referenced in the May 17,2007. Matt Cohen letter that the regulations should follow the 

BART Guidelines exactly, including using the 98th percentile for visibility impact 

analysis, including the exemption modeling. 

Response L: Use of981h Percentile in Modeling 

This issue was clarified though questions during the public workshop. The April 

27, 2007, proposed regulations allow for the use ofthe 98th percentile in the submittal of 

modeling protocol in 260(g){3)(B). (Please note the adopted regulation section is 

(h)(3)(B) with no language change.) 

The meteorological data that was available at the time for the WR4P modeling 

was insufficient to allow the use ofthe 98th percentile value. This was noted b.v the federal 

land managers (FL.M~)during the public workshop. The regulations provide for 

alternative modeling protocols to be submitted and approved. The alternate modeling 

protocols would be alloH'ed to use the 98th percentile value [fthere is sufficient 

meteorological data that has been apprm'ed for use available at the time the protocol is 

submitted. The regulations othenvise were written to follmv the federal guidelines. 

Response to Comments ~ BART Regulations 7-25-07 150f29 
In consultation Hith the federal/and managers (FLiHs) and the EPA, the decision 

has been made that sources submitting alternate modeling protocols under 18 AA C 

50.260(h)(3) may be a/lo),ved to use the 981h percentile value ifthe FLMs, EPA, and 

department have approved the results ofthe MM5 data set and any alternate modeling 

protocols. 

Comments from other interested parties: 

Comment M: f'ederal Land Managers: Timetable 

The National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest 

Service wrote a combined letter supporting the approach DEC is taking with BART 

regulations. They supported the department's April 27, 2007, proposed regulations. 

However, they also provided some suggested language changes to the regulations to 

clarifY timetable issues: 

260(c)(1)(B): Add "upon ADEC approval of modeling protocols" after 

" .. visibility impact analysis" and before "in accordance with (g)(3) ... " 

260(d): Add "or 120 days after ADEC makes a final determination that BART is 

required" after" ... effective date of the regulations" and before "the owner or operator ... " 

Response M: Federal Land llfanagers: Timetable 

The department acknmvledges the support ofthe federal land managers in the 

proposed approach to BART regulations. The department has revised the regulations to 

include language similar to the suggested change.<; in order to clarify timing issues as 

noted in the department's responses to comments A and B. 

Comment l\': Comments to include other pollutants 

The department requested comments on whether Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOCs) and ammonia (NH3) should be included into the BART regulations. They were 

not proposed in the April 27, 2007, regulations. Tesoro, Agrium, and Alyeska submitted 

comments that VOCs and ammonia should not be included as pollutants of concern for 

purposes of BART. All sources commented that they are taking steps to control or 

capture the VOC and ammonia emissions. Sources reference modeling runs (provided by 

the source or sensitivity analysis run by WRAP) that show the VOC and ammonia 

emissions also have little impact on regional haze in Class 1 areas. 

Re[}ponse N: Comments related to other pollutants 

The department .viIl not be including VOCs and NH3 as pollutants ofconcernfbr 

purposes ofBART as proposed in the April 27, 2007, regulations. 

WR4P conducted ammonia sensitivity tests with concentrations ofNH3 from 0.1 

ppb to ]0 ppb. The WRAP run included updated datafrom Agrium. The sensitivity test 

showed that there .'vas not a signfficant difference in the effect on visibilitJ' impairment 

among the modeled levels ofNH3, which indicates that the Nfl} being released by the 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 160f29 
Agrium plant also is not like!.v to have a significant effect on visibility impairment at the 

Class I areas. Therefore, Nfh }'vill not be included as a pollutant ofconcern for purposes 

ofBART. 

It is not possible to account for VOCs in CALPUFF modeling, and Alyeska 

provided data to show that the:v are currently controlling (or plan to control) their VOC 

emissions to a level considerably lower than their permitted potential to emit (PTE). 

Based on those two factors, DEC has decided to not include VOCs as a pollutant of 

concern for purposes ofBART. 

Comment 0: ConocoPhilJips BART Determinations 

ConocoPhillips submitted comments stating that they should not be included in 

this regulation process because the detennination that the Kenai LNG Plant is a BARTeligible source is unwarranted. They requested that DEC remove the Kenai LNG Plant 

from the list ofBART-eligible sources. 

Response 0: ConocoPhillips BART Determinations 

This comment does not address the proposed regulations directly. There is not a 

list ofBART-eligible sources in the regulations at this time, as BART-eligible sources are 

being determined based on the EPA Guidelines and then notified oftheir status as set out 

in the regulations. The department lvill implement the BART eligibility as outline in the 

federal guideline. 

Comment P: BART-eligible Units 

Alyeska commented that backup power generation and firewater pumping engines 

should not be included as BART-eligible units. 

Response P: BART-eligible Units 

The units can be removed ifan ana!.vsis demonstrates that the cost to control 

unreasonable. Department staffconsulted l1'ith the EPA on the issue ofinclusion of 

emergency units in BART-eligible emission units lists. The department and the EPA have 

concurred that emergencJ' units should be included as emission units for which BART 

control technologies are ana!.vzed, unless their use is specifically limited in the Title V 

permitfor emergency use on!.v. EPA did state that given the size ofthe units, it's like!.v 

that the BART control technology analysis would shaH' that the cost benefit ofcontrolling 

them is not reasonable, so they could be excludedfrom needing BART controls based on 

that factor. However. the analysis must be completedfor those units so the cost benefit of 

controls can be evaluated as part ofthe BART determination process. 

Comment Q: BART for State Parks and Tanker Units 

The Prince William Sound RCAC support the department's proposed BART 

regulations. They commented that a number of Alaska State Parks are within 17 miles of 

VMT and that all of the Prince William Sound consists of National Park quality visual 

aesthetics that would be hanned by visible emissions. Additionally they recommend that 

emissions from tankers and other vessels be included in rulemaking while they're docked 

at Valdez Marine Terminal or any other tenninal in Alaska. They recommend the tanker 

Response to Comments ..- BART Regulations 7-25-07 170f29 
control because visibility impacts from vessels at VMT have been a source of citizen 

concern. 

Response Q: BARTfor State Parks and Tanker Units 

These regulations cannot address air quality jmpacts from BART sources to State 

Parks. Alaska State Parks are not part ofthe Federal Class J areas that are ofconcern 

in the BART Rule. AdditionalZv, lankers do not meet the "in existence" timeframe 

requirement ofthe BART Rule to be BART-eligible sources, so they cannot be included as 

a part ofthe emission units subject to the BART regulations. 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 18 of 29 
Overall Summary of Comments: 

BART Coalition Marilvn Crockett letter, 10 Mav 2007: This letter commented on 

sections of proposed regulations that the BART Coalition wanted to discuss at third 

workshop. The letter set a goal of being able to work though 260(g), 260(c), address 

inability to take owner-requested limits, 260(i)-(k), 260(d) and (g), and conflicting 

definitions in 990. 

BART Coalition Matt Cohen letter, 17 Mav 2007: This letter commented on issues of 

concern with the proposed regulations and suggested significant changes to the 

regulations. 

BART Public Workshop transcript, 29 May 2007: See additional documents. 

Tesoro Letter, 4 June 2007: This letter strongly supported the June 5 BART Coalition 

letter. The letter also provided additional comments on VOCs and requested that they not 

to be included in the BART regulations. 

Anchorage ML&P letter, 4 Jun 2007: This letter fully supported the 17 May/5 June 

Coalition letters. They continue to believe implementation schedule is not practical and 

should be revised as discussed in the BART Coalition letter. They are very sensitive to 

the timetable issues because of need to incorporate BART determination into their longterm generation plan. They noted that the impact of the BART determination must be 

fully evaluated before ML&P can submit their BART analysis. They also requested that 

ADEC provide adequate time for BART analysis and for ADEC review. 

Prince William Sound RCAC letter, 4 June 2007: This letter noted that a number of 

Alaska State Parks are within 17 miles of VMT and that all of PWS consists of National 

Park quality visual aesthetics that would be harmed by visible emissions. They support 

ADEC's proposed regulations. Additionally, they recommended that emissions from 

tankers and other vessels be included in rulemaking while they are docked at the Valdez 

Marine Terminal (VMT) or any other terminal in Alaska. They recommended this 

because the visibility impacts from vessels at the VMT have been a source of citizen 

concern. 

ConocoPhillips letter, 5 June 2007: This letter supported the 5 June Coalition letter. 

As stated in an attached letter and EPA info to Tom Turner and Nancy Helm, ADEC's 

detennination that the LNG plant is a BART-eligible source is not warranted. The letter 

requested that ADEC remove Kenai LNG plant from the list of BART-eligible sources. 

National Park Service/FLM letter. 5 June 2007: This letter supported adoption ofthe 

federal language and guidance in drafting state BART regulations. Given the Regional 

Haze Rule and the impending SIP, they think ADEC is wise to embark on BART rule in 

a timely fashion. They supported use of WRAP modeling as first analysis step. They 

also recognized that the proposed regulations provide ample opportunity for sources to 

conduct additional analyses to detennine if BART analysis IS required. They looked 

fonvard to working with ADEC and the sources to assure that appropriate procedures are 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 190f29 
followed. Their letter also included specific language change suggestions to clarify 

schedule due dates. They hoped the proposed changes would avoid confusion on the part 

of sources and assure the regulation's success. Suggested changes-260(c)(l)(B) add 

"upon ADEC approval of modeling protocols" 260( d) add "or 120 days after ADEC 

makes a final determination that BART is required" 

BART CoalitiQJ1 Marilyn Crockett letter, 5 June 2007: This letter was written on behalf 

of the BART Coalition and supplemented and updated comments previously submitted 

via the 17 May letter and via the workshops on 3 April and 29 May. They still believe 

that the proposed revisions to the regulations presented with the 17 May letter comprise a 

fair and efficient program to implement BART, and they hope that DEC will follow it. 

Their current comments offered more limited mark-up of proposed regulations to assist 

DEC with solving the most serious problems of27 April proposed regulations if DEC 

concluded it was not feasible to follow their 17 May proposal. They continued to support 

the 17 May version, but the current proposal was offered as a compromise. They also 

provided further descriptions of their proposed changes to each section. 

Alyeska Pipeline letter, 5 June 2007: In their letter, Alyseska noted that they fully 

expected to demonstrate using the WRAP protocol with refined inputs that VMT does not 

cause or contribute to visibility impacts at Denali, and they are currently working with 

DEC to carry this out. When this work is completed. they expect that VMT will be 

exempted from the BART regulations. In the meantime, they supported the 5 June 

BART Coalition letter and hope DEC carefully considers, acts on, and thoughtfully 

responds to each comment. They particularly supported the BART Coalition's urging to 

use 98th percentile visibility impact rather than maximum. They noted that this is the 

approach in the EPA guidelines and is a sensible approach in that it keeps the facility 

from being regulated on the basis of extreme conditions. If DEC adopts 98th percentile, 

the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) may assess the impacts at Denali using that 

approach. The VMT believes DEC properly handled the VOCs in regulations by 

excluding them. They attached modeling output to their letter that shows that VOC 

impacts at Denali barely registered. They also noted that VOC emissions will be much 

lower starting in 2008. Alyeska also believes that diesel engines used for backup power 

generation and firewater pumping should be excluded from being BART units. They also 

attached the assessment of potential impacts report to theIr letter. 

Agrium letter, 5 June 2007: This letter supported the 5 June BART Coalition letter and 

suggested regulation language revisions and urged ADEC to take them into thoughtful 

consideration. In addition, they recommended that ADEC not include ammonia in the 

BART analysis, due to the facts that the results of sensitivity analysis showed that at 

various background levels the affect was still the same, that Agrium has undertaken 

numerous projects to reduce or capture ammonia, and that due to most impairnlent in 

Alaska being due to forest fires, inclusion of ammonia would be an undue financial 

burden on Agrium resulting in no visibility improvement. Also, their letter implored 

DEC to set aside concerns about implementation deadlines to concentrate on a full and 

objective review of the final public comments. 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 200f29 
BART Timetable Process Map 

L 

BART 

Anatysis 

// 

Submit Modeling 

90 Days ,c,,<,,", 

~~ " '\ 

_ '" Aypproval ~~yes.....{ BART with ORL) ',}O Oays \,- . nil· _ 

~--------------NOI------------~ 

Submit 

BART 


Analysis 
 IDEC RevteW 

ays ~ Oraft _,__ Determlnalion 

ISubmit 

~--~~ MRT ---­

I Analysis 

L_________________====______-J1 180 Days I 

{:DEC Response ~ COIllm,ents and 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 210f29 
The May 17, 2007, letter offered the following significant changes to the proposed 

rule: 

BART COALITION 4127/07 DRAFT OF BART REGULATION: 

18 AAC 50 is amended by adding a new ~ectioD to read: 

18 AAC 50.260 (a) Guidelines for best available retrofit technology (BART) 

uetcnllinations under the regional haze rule. 40 C. F. R., Part 51, Appendix y, a~ published in 

Federal Register of July 6,2005, is adopted by reference into this chapter. 

(b) Within 5 days of the effective date of this regulation, the department shall, by cerl1ficd 

mail, notify the owner/operator of each BART-eligible source of the emission units that comprise 

the BART-eligible source In making BART eligibility dererminations the department shall apply 

the criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R., Part 51, Appendix y, Section II ("How To IdentifyBA.RTEligible Sources"). 

(c) Within 35 days ofn;celpt of the department's final BART eligibility detemlmation the 

owner/operator of a BART-eligible source may submit one oCThe following: 

(I} An application for a mlllor permit under 18 AAC 50508(5), establishing 

owner-requested limits on emissions by the BART-eligible source of PM I(}, ~OX and SO:. 

set cqual to one of the: !Ollowlllg thresholds: 

(AJ 250 tons per year of each pollutant; 

IH) 500 tons per year of ea~h pollutant fur a BART-eligible soarer l(l~ated 

at kast <0 km from both the Denali and Tuxedm Class I areas; 

(C) 1000 tons per year of each pollutant for a BART-dig-ib!c ,ourec locakxl 

;n Iellst 100 km from both the Denali and Tuxedni Class I areas; i 

(2) A modeling protocol for a visibility impact analYSIS. designed In accordance 

with (d) of this sectioH, to evaluate whether the HART-eligible source causes or 

'See BART Guidelines, 71) Fed. Reg. 34119 (JlIly 6. 2005). 

Attachment B 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 220f29 
contributes to visIbility impairment In a Class I Area identified in 18 AAC 50.0 15(c)(2) 

located within 300 kilometers of the source. 

(d) A visibility impact al1<llysis must: 

(I) determine the 98'h percentile change III visibility impacts (in daily deci\'iewsJ 

compared (0 the annual average defaul! natural visibility condition as listed in GlIi.iann! 

for Esrimaling i'l'atura! Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Ha=c Rille, EPt\-454/B· 

03-005, September 2003, adopted by reference, at each Class I area located \\ithin 30() 

kIlometers orthe BART-eligible source: 

(2) be conducted in a manner consistent with either: 

(A) the August 15,2006 CALMETICALPUFF Protocoljor BART 

£~cmption Screening A/la(vsis for Class JAreas 111 the Western United Slates. 

adopted by reference; or 

(B) a modified prolocol approved by the department, after a IS-day review 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the applicable federal Land 

:\1anager(s). 

(e) The departmcllI shall designate as a source subject to BART each BART-eligible 

source idemI tied by the department under (b) of this section, unless the owner or operator either 

app lies for an owner-rtq uesteci limn as provicied (c)( I ) of this section, or submits onc of the 

tollowing within 60 days after approval by the department of a modeling protocol under (d(2) of 

this section: 

(I) A visibility impact analysis, conducted in accordance with the approvcd 

modeling protocol. that demonS1rates that the BART-eligible &Ol:rce does not cause or 

2 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 23 of29 
contrihute 10 visibili:y impainncnt in a Cia';> J r'rca illcntilicl\ iJ~ 1 R AAC 5(),1)15(c)(2) and 

located within 300 kilometers of the source;" 

(2) An application lor a minor permit umler 18 AAC 50,508(5), supported by a 

yisibtlity impact analysis conducted m accoruallte wilh tile approved modeh1Jl:; protocol, 

proposing owner-requested limits at which emissions from the BART-eliglble source wi II 

not cause or contribute to v'isibi!ity impaimlcilt in a Class I Area identified ill 18 AAC 

50,OI5(c)(2) and lo..:ated within 31)0 kilometers of the source;' 

(f) The department will notify an owner or operator, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

and tne affected federal land manager of action taken under Ie) of this subsection. 

(g) No latcrthan 180 days after receipt of a detennination under (e) of thlS scction that a 

BART-eligible source is SUbject to BART the owner or operator shall submillo the dcpantncnl an 

anal;sis of control options consIstent wllh 40 CF,R, Pan 51, Appendix Y, Section IV C'The 

BART Determination: Analysis of BART Options"), 

(hl The pollutants of concern for purposes ofBART arc SO" NO" and P:-'I ((I, 

(i) Ifan owner or operator dects to apply OT has already applied (he most stringent cOlltrols 

available. consistent with the analysis conductoo under (g) of this section, the owner or operator 

neerinot conduct an air quality modding analysis for the purposes of dClcmlining the visibility 

impacts ofthe stationary source. 

ti) The department shall reqlle.st from the owner or operator allY additional infonllatiol1 

necessary to comp!.:!.:: rC\'ICW of the an:Jiysis of control options for a sOllrce subject to BART. The 

department shall establish a reasonable deadline for submitting the infomlatilln alier consulting 

. s<~ BAR"l GUidelmes. 70 fed, R"l!. 39161 (Jtlly 6,20(15) 

Se< EPA. Additionat ReglOnal Haze Questiom (Septemher ~7. 20061 al21 ":Aj SraI< may al!()w a BASRT'eilglbk 

s.oun.:C' to reduce its emj~s:ions such Ihat indh·idual source di.'Spcf5.!on modehng shows the source's Impact f::.JlJs bek·w 

the <olllJibmivn !br<,bold csiablistwd by tbe SW,t," 

3 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 240f29 
the owner or op<:rator. The owner or operator sh:J1I provide such infoml<lllol1 no later than the 

deadline establishc:d by the department. 

(k) The depanment shall review each analysis nf control options and lSSllt! for public 

comment a proposed minor permit. incorporating a proposed BART detemlinalion ror each 

BART-eligible emission unit at each source subject to BART. The minor permit will include: 

(1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each BART-eJigJble emission unit at 

each source subject to BART, and 

(2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed 10 demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits; 

(3) a compliance schedule providing that the owner or operator oflhe source shall 

comply with the requirements described in (!) and (2) atlove as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 5 years after the date of EPA approval of the stale 

implementation plan for regional haze; 

(I) The dcparlmcm wll! (aHow the prow:lnrcs in 18 AAC 50.542(d) to soheit public 

eommem on the proposed permit. 

(m) After the puhlic notice period and consideration of comn1t:nts received, the department 

\'. iII issue a tinal pcrmlltha! Illcludes emission limits and monitoring, record alld 

reporting requirements to ~nsure continuous compliance with the BART limn for each BARTeligible source; 

In) An intormal fCview of the minor permit may be requested as in IS AAC 

15.185. AIl adJudkatory hearing of the minor permit may be requested as prescribed In 18 AAC 

15.195 18 AAC 15.340. 

(0) The 0',\ ncr or operator of a stationary source required to tnstalJ control cquipmellt in 

order to comply with BART emission limits is required 10 maintain the control c:quiprm:nt .md to 

,,<;wbli:,h procedures 10 en,;ure such equipment is properly opcrar::1l and maintained. 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 250[29 
[pI The llepartment may extenJ the deadline for suhl11lt!al of any filing requir~ll by this 

section upvn a satisf~ctory showlIlg that an cxtensivJl IS Justified. 

(q) Department services under this scction are designated regulatory services anll shall he 

Diilcll as set out in 18 AAC 50.400(m) and shall he allocated to the emission control pcrmJt 

receipts account unller AS 46.14.265. (Eff. _I~2007. Register _~) Authority: AS 46.0).710 

AS 46.141)10 S(Oc. 30, eh. 74. SLA 1'>93 

J 8 AAC S0.400(m) is amended b~' adding a new paragraph to read: 

(m) Unless the designated regul:uory service is suhjcct to a fixed fce set out in (a) - (1) of 

this section, or to the terms of a negotiated sen-ice agreement under AS 37.10/iS2(hi and 18 AAC 

50.405. the permitte(O, ownt'T, or operator shall pay an hourly permit administration fce for a 

designated regulatory service. Designatell regulatory sen'ices subject to this subsection 

include regulatory services for 

(14) Development and issll9!lCf9Ll!IlJiJ.lQ[1l.crmil under 18 AAC 50,504 

18 AAC 50 is amended b~' adding a nt'\'\' section to read: 

18 AAC 50.504 !\linor permits to implement BART TIle owner or operator of a source 

subject to BART musl ohlilin il minor rCllllit as required under 1 S AA(' SO.2(.(). 

18 AA(' 50.990 is amended hy adding nt'w paragraphs to read: 

(126) For purposes of 18 At>"C 50.2bO, "natural conditions" includes nalur.llly occurring 

phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light ~:\tll1cliOlJ. visual range. c\11llrasL or 

coloration; 

(127) "BesI Available Retrofit Tec1ulology (BART)" means an emission iimitallon hased 

on the degree ofreduc1ion nchlo:.blc through the application of the best system of continuous 

5 

Response to Comments - BART Regulations 7-25-07 260f29 
emission reductIOn for each pollutant which is emitted by an eXIsting stationary tacility. The 

emission limitation must be cst~blished, on a ease-bycasc basis, taking into consideration the 

wduwlogy available, the costs of compliance, the energr and non-au quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the 

remaining useful life oflhe source, amllhe degree ofimprovcmellt In visibility which rnay 

reasonably be anticipated to result from the use ofsuch technology; 

(128) "BART-eligible source" means the collection of emission units identified umier 40 

C.F.R. Part 51, Appendill Y, Section II, at an existing stationary facility defined in (I J() ofthis 

section; 

(129) "dccivicw" is a measurement of visibility impaimlcnL A declyiew is a haze index 

deriVed from calculated light extinction. such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to 

ulIltoml incremental changes In perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to 

highly impaired. The deciview haze mdex is calculated based on the following equalion (for the 

purposed of calculating deciview. the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated 

from aerosol measurcme!l1sj: Deciview Haze Index 10 In< (hc>dOMm ) where be" the 

atmospheric hght extinction cocfilcient, expressed in inverse mcganlctcrs (Mm .); 

(130) "Existing stationary facility" means any ofthe 26 categories of stationary sources of 

air pollutants listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix y, including any rcconstructtd soun;e, which 

\"..s nol in (lp~ration prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1')77, and bas the 

potcntial to emit 250 lOllS per year or more or any air pollutant. In udenlllning rott:ntial to emit, 

fugitive emissions, w the extent quantifiable, must be cOWltcd; 

(I J I) "source.: subject to BART" means a BART-<:ligible source that can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impaimlcnt in nearby Class 1 areas. A single source 

that 15 n:sponsihlc for a 1.0 dcciview change in vlsibility in a Class I area is considered to cause 

(. 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 27 of29 
\lsibility impaimlent. A single source that I;; responsible for ~ 0.5 decivit:w change in "isibll;ty m 

a Class I area is considered to contribute to visibility impaim1ent. 

(132) "In existence" means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary 

preconstruct ion approvals or permits rcquircu by Federal, State or local air pollution emissions 

and air quality laws or regulations and either has (I) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous 

progmm of physical on-site construction ofthe facility or (2) entered into bmding agreements or 

contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modi.lied without substantial loss to the 

owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a 

reasonable time. 

[133) "In operation" means engaged in activity rdated to the primary design funcllon of 

the source. 

18 AAC SO.99O(47) is amended to read as follows: 

(47) "lmpainnenl of visibility" or visibilitv impairmen( means allY humanly perceptible 

chal1ge in visihility !.light extinfll.QIh.. visual range, contrast, or coloration}. from that which 

would have exist~ under natural condJlions. 

18 AAC 50.990(88) is amended to read as follows: 

(88) "reconstruct" and "reconstruction" have the meaning given "reconstruction" Jll 40 

C.F.R. 63.2, adopted by rcfererlce in 18 AAC 50.040,-~~lJ.hillJ2IJIl!!I!9S.£S of 1S AAC 50.160 

"reconstruction" has the mcanillg..!?Lvcn in 40 eFR 51.311.L 

(EfI'. 1.'18/97_ RegIster 141; aI1l6!14i98. Register 146; am 6i21!~8, Register 146; am 'l/4i')8, 

Register 147; am lli4199, Register 152; am Ifl/2000, Rcgis:er 152; am 2/2/2002, Reglster 161; 

am 5/3,2002, Register 162; am 11/1512002, Register 164; am g;8f 2003, Register 167; am 

10!1120\)4, Register 171; am 12/);2005, Register \76; am I 12007, Register 

7 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25..07 280f29 
Alltbority: 	 AS 44.46.m5 AS 46.14.140 AS 46.14.250 

AS 46.03.0:20 AS 46.14.150 AS 46.14.255 

AS 4603.710 AS 46.14.160 AS 46.14.280 

AS 46.14.010 AS 46.14.170 AS 46.14.285 

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.180 AS46.14290 

AS 46.14.030 A54614.210 A546.14.300 

AS 46.14.120 AS 46.14.230 A546 14.560 

AS 46.14.130 AS 46.14.240 Sec. 30. eh. 7.:t. 5LA 1993 

221~2oH ,,~ 

5,'l7;mq,~q A~1 (lO]N,I)((,.,lj 

8 

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 	 290[29 

Affidavit of Oral Hearing 

STATE OF ALASKA ) 

) ss. 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 

AFFIDA VIT OF ORAL HEARrNG 

I, Rebecca Tyson Smith, Environmental Program Specialist, ofthe Department of Environmental 


Conservation, Division ofAir Quality, being sworn, state the following: 


On May 31, 2007, at 1900 to 2030, in the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation 


Building, First Floor Large Conference Room, 555 Cordova St., Anchorage, Alaska 99501, 


I presided over a public hearing held in accordance with AS 44.62.210 for the purpose oftaking 


testimony in connection with the adoption of changes to 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control, 


pertaining to Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology and adoption of a new section ofthe 


State Air Quality Control Plan. 


DATE: /~lIe t27­

Anchorage, Alaska 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this L day of ~ 

[NOTARY SEAL] ~~~ No ary PublIc m and for the 

State ofAlaska 

My commission expires: 'ltv It> /. 

Public Notice 

and 

Public Review Mark Ups 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO 

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGULATIONS 

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), proposes to adopt regulation changes in 

Title 18, Chapter 50 of the Alaska Administrative Code dealing with Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) and adopt an addition to the State Air Quality Control Plan. 

DEC is proposing to amend 18 AAC 50, Article 2 Program Administration, to add a section 

adopting the federal rule on BART and establishing regulations to address BART requirements 

for stationary sources with emission units that are subject to BART. The Department has found 

that the following facilities may be subject to BART: (1) Anchorage Municipal Light and 

Power, George Sullivan Plant Two; (2) Golden Valley Electric Association, Healy Power Plant; 

(3) Agrium, Kenai Nitrogen Operations Plant; (4) Alyeska Valdez Marine Terminal; (5) 

Chugach Electric Association, Beluga River Power Plant: (6) ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Kenai 

LNG; and (7) Tesoro Kenai Refinery. 

DEC is also proposing to add a section to the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted by 

reference in 18 AAC 50.030, to address Clean Air Act requirements for prohibitions on regional 

transport of air pollutants. 

The Department is particularly soliciting comments in the public record in regards to BART 

eligible emission units, whether the state should require units that emit volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) or ammonia to be subject to the federal BART requirements if the units 

meet the other eligibility requirements, and the length of time required for BART analysis. 

Please refer to the BART Public Notice Discussion document on the Air Quality webpage at 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/ap/regulati.htm for additional information. 

You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, and the analysis of alternatives, 

including the potential costs to private persons of complying and alternative practical methods of 

complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Rebecca Smith, 

Environmental Specialist, Air Permit Program, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 410 Willoughby A venue Suite 303, Juneau, Alaska 99801, by facsimile at: (907) 

465-5129, or by E-mail atRebecca_Smith@dec.state.ak.us. Comments must be received by 5 :00 

p.m., on June 5, 2007. Comments received after this date will not be considered in final action 

on these rules. 

The Department will hold a public hearing on this proposal on May 31,2007, from 7:00 - 8:30 

pm at the DEC First Floor Conference Room, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage. Oral or written 

comment may be submitted at the hearing. The hearing will be extended if necessary to 

accommodate those present before 7:30 pm who did not have an opportunity to comment. If you 

will not be able to attend the public hearing in person, please contact Rebecca Smith at (907) 

465-5121 by May 25,2007, to make arrangements to participate by phone. The State of Alaska, 

Department of Environmental Conservation complies with Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990. If you are a person with a disability who may need a special 

accommodation in order to participate in this public process, please contact Deborah Pock at 

(907) 269-0291 or TDD Relay Service 1-800-770-8973/TTY or dial 711 within 30 days of 

publication of this notice to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided. 
For a copy of the proposed regulation changes and a discussion of the rationale for the changes, 

contact Rebecca Smith, Air Permit Program, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 303, Juneau, Alaska, 99801; by phone at (907) 

465-5121; by facsimile at (907) 465-5129; or you can go to the department's webpage at: 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/ap/regulati.htm 

After the public comment period ends on June 5, 2007, DEC will either adopt these or other 

provisions dealing with the same subject, without further notice, or decide to take no action on 

them. DEC may process the BART regulations separately from the State Air Quality Control 

Plan revision. The language of the final regulations may be different from that of the proposed 

regulations. YOU SHOULD COMMENT DURING THE TIME ALLOWED IF YOUR 

INTERESTS COULD BE AFFECTED. Written comments received are public records and are 

subject to public inspection. 

Statutory Authority: AS 44.03.710, AS 46.14.010, AS 46.14.020, AS 46.14.030 

Statutes Being Implemented, Interpreted, or Made Specific: AS 46.14 

Fiscal Information: The proposed regulation changes are not expected to require an increased 

appropriation. 

Dated: April 27, 2007 Larry Hartig, Commissioner 

Juneau, Alaska 
Ad# 178671 AO-33-5021-07 

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA } 

STATE OF ALASKA SS. 

FOURTH DISTRICT Before me, the undersigned, a notary public, this day 

personally appeared Bonn i e Keenan , who, being 

first duly sworn, according to law, says that he/she is an 

Advertising Clerk of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a 

newspaper iii published in newspaper format, (ii) 

distributed daily more than 50 weeks per year, (iii) with 

a total circulation of more than 500 and more than 10% 

of the population of the Fourth Judicial District, (jv) 

holding a second class mailing permit from the United 

States Postal Service, Iv) not published primarily to 

distribute advertising, and (vi) not intended for a 

particular professional or occupational group. The 

advertisement which is attached is a true copy of the 

advertisement published in said paper on the following 

day(s): 

Hay I, 2007 

Hay 2, 2007 

and that the rate charged thereon is not excess of the 

rate charged private individuals, with the usual 

discounts. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day 

of June 

r the State Alaska. 

My commission exPires_____---'?"--!l_it'--'"t-"'Jt ........ 
 >-?:_-+-,_



STOF0600 lY$c 

#206741 ~/VJ $836.64 At4r ~D & 10 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIOl~~C 200; 

-4Q 

STATE OF ALASKA 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICf 

Christine Clark 

being first duly sworn on oath 

deposes and says that helshe is 

an representati ve of the 

Anchorage Daily News, a 

daily newspaper. That said 

newspaper has been approved 

by the Third Judicial Court, 

Anchorage, Alaska, and it now 

and has been published in the 

English language continually as a 

daily newspaper in Anchorage, 

Alaska, and it is now and during 

all said time was printed in an 

office maintained at the aforesaid 

place of publication ofsaid 

newspaper. That the annexed is 

a copy of an advertisement as it 

was published in regular issues 

(and not in supplemental form) 

of said newspaper on 

May I & 2, 2007 

and that such newspaper was 

regularly distributed to ils 

subscribers during all of said 

period. That the full amount of 

the fee charged for the foregoing 

publication 

gFd p v 

s. j 

___~~~-7~~~~~~~ 

i ot in ex ess of 

the rale ch 

individu 

Signe~ 

Subscribed and sworn to before 

me this -'L__ day of ~ 

~"'-'-"""";'~#~ 

NOla 

fl ;I7~i(rl({r(11 itLY A M/.....-: ~ ••• , : ,'11'.6 'l. . --* . -~'" lie ina dfor~ ..... '· ('\TAR~,:;l.-;' The State of Alaska, Ji: ,\'>l. •~,.~ ~ r" ::. Third Di vision ::: ' ..... __ 

Anchorage. Alaska...., -.. ' Il'~ •...• '.... • -­ ..... ·'.:u. ,1:;:::­

MY COMMISSION EXPIlgi. "t.P~ __.. /'.: ~.:::: 

0

7

)JfA ) firxrtJ~~~ .~~~~ //.1 r.rl L::;<pil~' )'\' / ))JJJ)J1I\1 

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), proposes to adopt regulation cha... Page 1 of 1 

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED CHANGES 

TO 


ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGULATIONS 


The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title 

18, Chapter 50 of the Alaska Administrative Code dealing with Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) and adopt an addition to the State Air Quality Control Plan. 

DEC is proposing to amend 18 AAC 50, Article 2 Program Administration, to add a section adopting the 

federal rule on BART and establishing regulations to address BART requirements for stationary sources 

with emission units that are subject to BART. The Department has found that the following facilities 

may be subject to BART: (1) Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, George Sullivan Plant Two; (2) 

Golden Valley Electric Association, Healy Power Plant; (3) Agrium, Kenai Nitrogen Operations Plant; 

(4) Alyeska Valdez Marine Terminal; (5) ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Kenai LNG; and (6) Tesoro 


Kenai Refinery. 


DEC is also proposing to add a section to the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted by reference in 18 

AAC 50.030, to address Clean Air Act requirements for prohibitions on regional transport of air 

pollutants. 

This is a SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE adding to the NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES that was 

issued on May 1,2007, concerning the proposed regulation revisions contained in the Department of 

Law file number 993-07-0101. This SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE is being issued because the 

Department ofEnvironmental Conservation is having a public workshop on the proposed regulations on 

May 29,2007, from 1 :00 - 4:30 pm at the DEC First Floor Conference Room, 555 Cordova Street, 

Anchorage. This public workshop is an additional meeting; the public hearing which was previously 

public noticed will still occur on May 31, 2007. If you will not be able to attend the public workshop in 

person, please contact Rebecca Smith at (907) 465-5121 by May 23, 2007, to make arrangements to 

participate by phone. 

You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, and the analysis of alternatives, including the 

potential costs to private persons of complying and alternative practical methods of complying with the 

proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Rebecca Smith, Environmental Specialist, Air 

Permit Program, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby A venue Suite 

303, Juneau, Alaska 99801, by facsimile at: (907) 465-5129, orby E-mail at 

Rebecca_Smith@dec.state.ak.us. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., on June 5, 2007. 

Comments received after this date will not be considered in final action on these rules. 

The State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation complies with Title II ofthe 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you are a person with a disability who may need a special 

accommodation in order to participate in this public process, please contact Deborah Pock at (907) 269­

0291 or TDD Relay Service 1-800-770-8973/TTY or dial 711 within 30 days of publication ofthis 

notice to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided. 

__/s/,----_____ 

Dated: May 9, 2007 Larry Hartig, Commissioner 

Juneau, Alaska 

AMI 181464 AO-33-502S-07 

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA } 

STATE OF ALASKA 55. 

FOLIRTH DISTRICT Before me, the undersigned, a notary public, this day 

personally appeared Bonnie Keenan , who, being 

first duly sworn, according to law, says that he/she is an 

Advertising Clerk of the Fairbanks Daily News·Miner, a 

newspaper (i) published in newspaper format. (ii) 

distributed daily more than 50 weeks per year, (iii) with 

a total circulation of more than 500 and more than 10% 

of the population of the Fourth Judicial District. (iv) 

holding a second class mailing permit from the United 

States Postal Service, (v) not published primarily to 

distribute advertising, and {vi) not intended for a 

particular professional or occupational group. The 

advertisement which is attached is a true copy of the 

advertisement published in said paper on the following 

dayls): 

May 11, 2007 

May 12,2007 

and that the rate charged thereon is not excess of the 

rate charged private individuals, with the usual 

discounts. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this1Lday 

ofJune 

for the State Alaska. 

My commission expires ____~t:'_j;l....._/_~_Jt:..JAJ::;.· ..Jo.00l10::~7~·__ 

. ,.; I' 

, ~, ­

. , 

5/14/2007 Anchorage Daily News 

Affidavit of Publication 

1001 Nortnway Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508 

PRICE QI!:IR. 

AD I! DATE PO ACCOUNT E.IiR RAY CHABG!I~ 

217010 05/11/2007 

05/12/2007 

STOF06OQ 

STOFD600 

$275,56 

$275.56 

$551.12 $0,00 

STATE OF ALASKA 


THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 


Christine Clark, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and 

says that she is an advertising representative of the Anchorage 

Daily News, II daily newspaper. 

That said newspaper has been approved by the TIUrd Judicial 

Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it now and has been published in 

the English language continually as a daily newspaper in 

Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during all said time was 

printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of 

publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a copy of an 

advertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not in 

supplemental form) of said newspaper on the above dates and 

that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers 

during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged 

for the foregoing publication is not in excess of the rate charged 

private individuals. 

Subscribed and sworn to me before this date: 

QI!!&E. OTHER OTHER OTHER GRAND 

CHARG~ CHARGE,', #3 CHARGES!14 CHARGES !:i IQIA1 

$0.00 $0.00 SO.OO SO.OO $551.12 

. Dated: May 9, 2~7 . 

Juneau, AlOska .,': . '.. ', 

1$1; Larry liartlg, CommltslO/1el' 

AoI, ' . 

Pub"$h: Moy 11, 12, 2!lO7, 

Amendments to Volume II, Section III.D. Particulate Matter 


Subpart D.l Overview, a new section to be inserted after section D.1.V: 


VI. PROVISIOl\S PROHIBITING REGIOl\AL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS 

Pursuant to the requirements ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i), 

Alaska's State implementation plan (SIP)must contain adequate provision prohibiting " ... any 

source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in 

amounts which will1. 	 contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or 

2. 	 interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for 

any other State ... to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or visibility ... " 

Alaska meets the requirements of Section 110 as fo11ows1. 	 Does not contribute to other states NAAQS pollutants: 

• 	 Alaska is not subject to the "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule Preamble)," 69 FR 4566 (January 30, 

20(4) (CAIR); 

• 	 Alaska's southern most border is separated from the border of the lower 48 states by over 

500 air miles; 

• 	 Alaska's aggregate manmade PM25 and ozone levels are minimal relative to national 

levels: 

2. 	 Prevention of Significant Deteriorationl1\ew Source Review (PSD/NRS) Program 


Requirements: 


• 	 Alaska has a fully approved PSDfNSR program most recently approved on February 16, 

1995 (60 FR 8943); 

• 	 Alaska is working to incorporate Phase II ozone requirements for PSDlNSR into the SIP; 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005); 

3. 	 Prevention of Visibility deterioration: 

• 	 States have not yet submitted Regional Haze SIPs, so it is not possible for Alaska to 

assess its compatibility or interference with control measures in another state's Regional 

Haze (visibility) SIP; Alaska is working with the Western Regional Air Partnership to 

prepare a SIP to address EPA's Regional Haze regulations; 64 FR 35714 (July 1,1999); 

SIP submittals to EPA are due no later than December 17, 2007. 

Register _,_~2007 ENVIRO;-.'.!\lENTAL CONSERVATION 

DEPARTMENT OF 


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 


18 AAC 50 


AIR QUALITY COI\"TROL 


Public Comment Draft 


April 27, 2007 


Comment Period Ends 


June 5, 2007, 5:00 p.m. 


Sarah Palin 

Governor 

Larry Hartig 

Commissioner 
Register 	 ENVIRONl\JENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read: 

18 AAC 50.030. State air quality control plan. Volumes II and III of the State 

Air Qualizv Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and 

this chapter, as amended through {effective date ofthese regulationsl [SEPTEMBER 19, 

2006], are adopted by reference. The plan includes the following documents which are 

also adopted by reference: 

(Eff. 1118/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147; am 

111/2000, Register 152; am 12/30/2000, Register 156; am 9/2112001, Register 159; am 

1127/2002, Register 161; am 3/2/2002, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 

2/20/2004, Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; am 1011 12004, Register 171; am 

1211412006, Register 180; am 12007, Register ~ 

Authority: 	 AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140 

18 AAC 50 is amended by adding a new section to read: 

18 AAC 50.260 Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the 

Regional Haze Rule (a) For the purposes of this section, the following are adopted by 

reference: 

(1) Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule. 

40 C.F.R., Part 51, Appendix Y, as amended through July 6,2005; and 

(2) 40 C.F.R. 51.301, as amended through July 1,2006. 

(b) Sources subject to BART shall be identified consistent with Section III of the 

BART guideline. No later than 10 days after {effective date ofregulations}, the 

Department shall notify the owner or operator of each source subject to BART in writing 
Register ___ 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

and shall identify the affected Class I areas. A notice provided to the owner or operator 

prior to {effective date ofregulations} shall satisfy this obligation. Unless the 

department exempts a source in accordance with Section III of the BART guideline, each 

source subject to BART shall comply with (d) through (h), and (1) through (0) of this 

section. 

(c) An owner or operator notified under (b) of this section may request an 

exemption from BART. Exemptions from BART approved by the department in writing 

prior to {effective date ofregulations} shall have the same effect as those approved under 

this subsection. An exemption from BART must be requested and processed as follows: 

(I) the owner or operator shall: 

(A) notify the department no later than 30 days after {effective date 

ofthe regulations} that they intend to request exemption from BART; 

(B) conduct a visibility impact analysis in accordance with (g) of 

this section; and 

(C) submit the visibility impact analysis report, including all 

supporting documentation, to the department no later than 60 days after {effective 

date ofregulations}; 

(2) The department will approve an exemption if the owner or operator 

met the requirements of (l) ofthis subsection and the information submitted adequately 

demonstrates that the BART-eligible source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I Area identified in the notice provided 

under (b) of this section; 

(3) The department will notify the owner or operator, the Environmental 
- 

- -- 

Register __, ~_~ 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DR~FT 

Protection Agency, and the affected federal land manager, in writing, of the department's 

decision under (2) of this subsection; if the decision is to approve an exemption, the 

department will explain what requirements of this section no longer apply to the BARTeligible source. 

(d) No later than 120 days after {effective date o/regulations} the owner or 

operator of each source subject to BART shall submit to the department an analysis of 

control options consistent with Section IV of the BART !,'Uideline. 

(e) The pollutants of concern for purposes of BART are S02, NOx, and PMIO • 

(f) If an owner or operator elects to apply, or has already applied, the most 

stringent controls available consistent with the analysis conducted under (d) of this 

section, they are not required to conduct a visibility impact analysis for the emission units 

and pollutants so controlled. 

(g) A visibility impact analysis must: 

(1) use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and 

post-control impacts; 

(2) determine the maximum change in visibility impacts (in daily 

deciviews) compared to the annual average default natural visibility condition as listed in 

Guidance/or Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

EP A-454/B-03-005, September 2003, adopted by reference, at each Class I area 

identified in the notice under (b) of this section. 

(3) be conducted in a manner consistent with either: 

(A) the August 15,2006 C4LMET/CALPUFF Protocol/or BART 

Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States, 
Register E~VIRONMENTAL CONSERVAnON DRAFT 

adopted by reference, as amended by the Summary of WRAP RJvIC BART A10dcling 

for Alaska, Draft #7, April 6, 2007, adopted by reference; or 

(B) a modified protocol that was first submitted as a draft and 

made available for at least a IS-day review by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and the applicable Federal Land Manager(s), and subsequently approved in 

writing by the department. 

(h) The department shall request from the owner or operator any additional 

information necessary to complete review of the analysis of control options for a source 

subject to BART. The department shall establish a reasonable deadline for submitting the 

information after consulting the owner or operator. The owner or operator shall provide 

such information no later than the deadline established by the department. 

0) The department shall review each analysis of control options and issue a 

preliminary BART determination for each emission unit at each source subject to BART. 

The preliminary BART determination will include: 

(l) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each 

source subject to BART, and 

(2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 71.6(a)(3) adopted by 

reference in 18 AAC 50.040: 

(j) The department will publish a notice of its preliminary BART determination 

and provide at least 30 days for the public to comment. 

(k) After consideration of comments and testimony received, the department will 

make a final BART determination and provide written notice to each owner or operator, 
Register ___, _____ 2007 ENVIRONMEl\TTAL CONSERVAnON DRAFT 

the Environmental Protection Agency, and the affected federal land manager of the final 

BART determination within 15 days of making the final determination. The final BART 

determination will include: 

(1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each 

source subject to BART; and 

(2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 71.6(a)(3) adopted by 

reference in 18 AAC 50.040. 

(f) An informal review of the final BART determination may be requested as 

prescribed in 18 AAC 15.185. An adjudicatory hearing ofthe final BART determination 

may be requested as prescribed in 18 AAC 15.195 - 18 AAC 15.340. 

(m) Upon EPA approval of the regional haze SIP, the owner or operator of a 

source that is subject to a final BART determination under this section shall comply with 

the requirements established in that determination as expeditiously as practicable, but in 

no case later than 5 years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. 

(n) The owner or operator of a source required to install control equipment to 

comply with the BART determination shall: 

(1) maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure 

such equipment is properly operated and maintained; and 

(2) conduet monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that complies with 

18 AAC 50.220 and that demonstrates eompliance or noncompliance with the BART 

requirements under all operational conditions. 

(0) Department services under this section are designated regulatory services for 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

preapplication assistance and 

(1) shall be billed to the operating permit covering the source subject to 

BART as set out in 18 AAC 50AOO(m); and 

(2) receipts shall be allocated to the clean air protection fund under 

AS 46.14.260. (Eff. / 12007, Register 

Authority: AS 46.03.710 AS 46.14.010 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.030 

Editor's note: The BART-Eligible Sources Table and the other documents adopted by 

reference in 18 AAC 50.260 can be reviewed at the department's Anchorage, Fairbanks, 

or Juneau office. To obtain a copy of these or any other documents adopted by reference 

in this section, contact the Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality 

Division at (907) 465-5100. 

18 AAC 50.990 is amended by adding new paragraphs to read: 

(126) "BART" has the meaning given to Best Available Retrofit Technology in 

40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; 

(127) "BART-eligible source" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, 

adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; 

(128) "BART guideline" means 40 C.F.R., Part 51, Appendix Y, adopted by 

reference in 18 AAC 50.260; 
Register ____ , __ __~ 2007 E;-';VIRONMENTAL CO;-';SERVATION DRAFT 

(129) "cause or contribute to visibility impailment" means to release emissions 

that produce a 0.5 or greater change in the daily deciview when compared against natural 

conditions. For purposes of 18 AAC 50.260, "natural conditions" includes naturally 

occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, 

visual range, contrast, or coloration; 

(130) "deciviews" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by 

reference in 18 AAC 50.260; 

(131) "Existing stationary facility" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, 

adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; 

(132) "Federal land manager" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, 

adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; 

(133) "regional haze SIP" means Alaska's state implementation plan for regional 

haze required by 40 C.F.R. 51.308, as amended through July 6,2005. 

(134) "source subject to BART" means a source identified by the department in 

accordance with Section III of 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y, adopted by reference in 

18 AAC 50.260. 

(135) "visibility impact analysis" means an air quality modeling analysis 

conducted for the purposes of determining visibility impacts. 

(Eff. 1118/97, Register 141; am 6114/98, Register 146; am 6/21/98, Register 

146; am 9/4198, Register 147; am 11/4/99, Register 152; am 11112000, Register 152; am 

2/2/2002, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 11115/2002, Register 164; am 

8/812003, Register 167; am 101112004, Register 171; am 12/3/2005, Register 176; 

am _~2007, Register __) 
Authority: 	 AS 44.46.025 

AS 46.03.020 

AS 46.03.710 

AS 46.14.010 

AS 46.14.020 

AS 46.14.030 

AS 46.14.120 

AS 46.14.130 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

AS 46.14.140 AS 46.14.250 

AS 46.14.150 AS 46.14.255 

AS 46.14.160 AS 46.14.280 

AS 46.l4.170 AS 46.14.285 

AS 46.l4.180 AS 46.14.290 

AS 46.14.210 AS 46.14.300 

AS 46.14.230 AS 46.14.560 

AS 46.14.240 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993