### State of Wisconsin

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

101 S. Webster Street

Box 7921

Madison WI 53707

- 7921

February 24, 2014

Ms

. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77 West Jackson Boulevard, R-19J Chicago IL 60604-3507 Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary

Telephone 608-266

- 2621

Toll Free 1-888-936-7 463

TTY Access via relay- 711

Subject: Revision for Wisconsin's Ozone State Implementation Plan

Dear Regional Administrator Hedman: DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) hereby requests that the U.S

. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) revise Wisconsin's ozone state implementation plan (SIP) to incorporate Wisconsin

Statute 285

. 27 (3m) enacted by the Wisconsin legislature on December 14, 2013

. Please refer to the attached

technical support document (TSD) for information supporting this request.

In 2000, the WDNR originally formulated NO x emission limitations for existing combustion turbines that undergo

a major modification by assuming that all combustion turbines can install dry low NOx combustion (DLN) technology. These original emission limitations are set forth ins. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2

. a ofthe Wisconsin

Administrative Code. However, the WDNR has learned that DLN technology is not available to all existing

combustion turbines that may become subject to these emission limitations. In these cases, the emission

limitations are technically and economically unfeasible. To correct this problem, the Wisconsin Legislature

enacted Wisconsin Statute 285.27 (3m) which provides alternative emission limitations based on the next best

level of available NOx control technology for modified combustion turbines without DLN capability. The applicability of these alternative emission limitations is determined on a case-by-case basis with approval by both

the WDNR and EPA

.

The NOx control requirements affected by this revision were originally established to meet rate-of-progress (ROP) requirements in the Milwaukee

- Racine nonattainment area under the 1990 1-hr ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The attached TSD explains that this proposed SIP revision continues to satisfy
(ROP) requirements and does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

Please contact Tom Karman of my staff at (608) 264-8856 or thomas.karman@wisconsin

. gov to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely

,

# g:~
Director Bureau of Air Management

cc: Mr. Douglas Aburano

, Region V

, U

. S. E PA

Mr. Steven Rosenthal, Region V, U.S. EPA

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov 

## Naturally 

## WISCONSIN 

# €'

P R IN T ED

·,

. ON RE CY CLE

D

PA P ER

. - · -· · yPage 2

Enclosures

Attachment A - SIP Checklist

Attachment B- Technical Support Document for Incorporating s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., Into the Wisconsin Ozone State Implementation Plan

Attachment C- Appendix A to Attachment B, Wisconsin statutes. 285.27 (3m)

Attachment D- Appendix B to Attachment B, Green Sheet Package to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Board Meeting, September 2000, for Adopting a Stationary Source NOx Control Program under ch. NR 428,

Wis. Adm. Code, in Meeting ROP Requirements

Attachment E- Public Hearing Notice and Proof of Publishing

Attachment F - Summary of Public Comments and Response

Attachment G - SIP Certification

## Attachment A

EPA Region V

Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (Bart Sponseller)? Yes _X__ No ___

2. Date of Submittal: March 4, 2014

3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name: Ralph Patterson Telephone: (608) 267- 7546 E-MAIL Address: Ralph.Patterson@Wisconsin.gov

4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name: Tom Karman Telephone: (608) 264- 8856 E-MAIL Address: Thomas.Karman@Wisconsin.gov



### Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code or Statute

5. Is evidence that the State incorporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code or Statute supplied in this SIP package? Yes _X_ No__ if No explain.

6. The effective date of the regulation is or was December 14, 2013 (Date of Publication)

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

Yes_______ No_______ Not applicable ___X

____ For No and Not applicable explain answer.

This SIP revision addresses a modification to existing rules under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code. No test methods or rules were incorporated by reference in making this modification.

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement

the revision?

Yes ___X

____ No _______

This action is being taken by statute created by the Wisconsin Legislature in the 2013 session. Therefore, the WDNR did exercise authority in promulgating this requirement.

9. Did the State include a copy of the actual regulation or document for USEPA review?2

Yes __X

__

Wisconsin statute 285.27 (3m) No_____

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

Yes__X

__ No______

The Wisconsin Legislature enacted this modification under s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats. Therefore, procedures and review of this modification were not subject to ch. 227, Wis. Stats.

11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of publication? Yes__X

__ No ____

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public hearings were held in accordance wit h the information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof).

Yes_X

__ No___

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of public comments and the State’s response?

Yes_X

___ No____



### Technical Issues

14. Name all of

the regulated pollutants affected by the revision? ___ NOx

________

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)

Yes__X

__ N o_____

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources?

Yes__X

___ No_____

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the changes in

actual emissions from affected source s?

Yes_X

__ No____

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility will be protected if the revision is approved and implemented?3

Yes__X

__ No____

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

Yes___ No____ Unnecessary__X

__

20. Has the State provided evidence that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology?

Yes_X

___ No____

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirements where necessary, to ensure emission levels?

Yes_X

__ No____

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice, and at what frequency?

Yes_X

__ No___



### STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLIST-ENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

SIP Package Number ___________ Date Received by USEPA ________________ Date Due_____________________________

State: WISCONSIN4



### WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Establishing alternative NO

x 

### emission limitations for existing combustion turbines subject that become subject to emission limitations under s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a and 2.a, Wis. Adm. Code, due to a major modification, but which cannot implement dry low NO

x 

### (DLN) combustion technology.

Applicability
USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion Simple cycle combustion turbines that undergo a major modification, but which cannot impl ement dry low NO

x (DLN) combustion technology. What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion None Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) Not applicable

Is emission inventory listed in the background document of the

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

Is the averaging time(s) used in

the rule different from that of the

ambient standard? The averaging time in the rule m ust be consistent with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal to or shorter than the time associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available only in limited instances provided that the ambient

standard is not compromised. The emissions averaging time fo r the

emissions limitation is a 30 day rolling average. This is the same emission averaging time for all other emission

limitations under ch. NR 428 , Wis. Adm. Code, in addressing the Ozone NAAQS

. What are the units of compliance (lbs VOC per gallon of solids applied less water, grains per standard cubic foot?) Clearly stated in the rule. Parts per million dry volume (ppmdv) at 15% oxygen

Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? If yes, state

criteria . Could a USEPA inspector independently determine

if the criteria were met?? Does USEPA have to approve each

case? Explicit description of how averaging, bubbling, or equivalency is to be determined. VOC equivalency must be on a “solids applied” basis. Any method must be independently reproducible. Provision must be explicit as to whether

USEPA case

- by

- case approval is required. If provision intended to be “generic” then USEPA bubble policy

must be met. Emissions averaging or bubbling is not

allowed i n complying with the revised

emission limitation.

If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of

area to attainment. New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. There is no redesignation or change in the

attainment statu s requested under this

revision to the ozone SIP.5



### Compliance Dates
USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

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

source to state. Upon the effective date

– December 14,

2013.

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. Not applicable to this request.



### Specificity of conduct
USEPA Question USEPA Requireme nt State Response

What test method is required? Test method must be explicitly stated. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP. What is the averaging time in the compli ance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP. Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required ? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP. If a compliance calculation is necessary, list the formula, period of compliance, and/or evaluation

method. Formula must be explicit. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP.



### Incorporation by reference
USEPA Question USEPA Requiremen t State Response

What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. Not applicable. This modification to requirements was enacted by the Wisconsin Legislature. Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. Not applicable. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in the ozone SIP.



### Record keeping
USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What records are required to determine complian ce? Clearly stated. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP.6

In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On what time basis (instantaneou sly, hourly daily)? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the performance requirements, including the applicable time period . No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and a pproved in

the ozone SIP. Does the rule affirmatively require the records be kept? There must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes

a violation. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Ad m. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP.



### Exemptions
USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes

a violation. None

Is the criteria for application clear? C learly stated. Yes



### Malfunction Provisions
USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

Are there any malfunction provisions

in the rule? Rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the

determina tion. No change in test methods versus the methods already required under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, and approved in

the ozone SIP.

### 1 

## Attachment B Technical Support Document for Incorporating s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., Into the Wisconsin Ozone State Implementation Plan

Prepared By The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

February 22, 2014

The Wisconsin Legislature on December 13, 2013 enacted nitrogen oxide ( NO

x 

### ) emission requirements that are applicable to certain simple cycle combustion turbines in place of emission limitations under s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a and 2.a, Wis. Adm. Code, of Wisconsin’s NO

x 

### control program. These alternative

NO

x 

### emission requirements and the criteria that identify the affected combustion turbines are set forth in Wisconsin statute s. 285.27 (3m), as provided in Appendix A. This document describes the reason the Legislature established the alternative NO

x 

### emission requirements in s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats. The document also shows that these requirements will satisfy all applicable ozone state implementation plan (SIP) requirements.

1. Applicable Ozone SIP Requirements

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Department) established a stationary source NO

x 

### control program in 2000 to meet rate-of-progress (ROP) requirements that are applicable to the Milwaukee- Racine nonattainment area under the 1990 1-hr ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The entire NO

x 

### control program consists of emission limits for new sources, existing sources, and existing sources that undergo a major modification. These NO

x 

### control requirements are set forth in subchs. I through III of ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, (herein referred to as NR 428). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially approved this NO

x 

### control program as part of the ozone SIP on November 13, 2001, 66 FR 56931.

In 2012, the Milwaukee-Racine area was designated attainment for the 1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS. As part of the designation to attainment, a maintenance plan was required that showed daily NO

x 

### emissions will not exceed levels consistent with attainment. The NR 428 ROP requirements, among other requirements, is part of this maintenance plan. EPA approved designation of the Milwaukee-Racine area to attainment for the 1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS on February 9, 2012, 77 FR 6739.

2. Al ternative NOx Emission Requirements Established in s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats.

Under the current SIP approved NR 428 NO

x 

### control program, existing simple cycle combustion turbines larger than 84 megawatts (MW) that undergo a major modification after February 2001 must meet the

em ission limitations set forth in s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a, Wis. Adm. Code. This provision sets

NO

x 

### emission limits of 12 or 25 parts per million dry volume (ppmdv) at 15% O 2 

### , on a 30 day rolling average basis, when firing natural gas or distillate oil, respectively.

### 2

The Wisconsin Legislature enacted Wisconsin statute s. 285.27 (3m) on December 13, 2013 to establish different emission requirements for simple cycle combustion turbines that are modified and which do not have the necessary dry low NO

x 

### (DLN) combustion control technology available. Under the proposed requirement, the affected combustion turbines must operate water injection and meet NO

x 

### emission limits of 25 or 65 ppmdv at 15% O 2 

### , on a 30 day rolling average basis, when firing natural gas or distillate oil, respectively. The emission limitations originally applicable under NR 428 for modified combustion turbines and the alternative requirements enacted under s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., are compared in Table

1. The t ext of s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., is provided in Appendix A.

Table 1. NO

x 

### Emission Requirements for Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine > 84 MW that Undergo a Major Modification.

NR 428

Emission Limits s. 285. 27 (3m)

Wis. Stats.

Alternative Requirements

Emission Limitations 1



### Natural Gas: 12 25

Distillate Oil: 25 65

Technology Requirement: None Specified Operation of Water Injection

1) Emission limitations in parts per million dry volume @ 15% O 2 on a 30 day rolling average basis.



### In order to be subject to the alternative requirements under s. 285.27 (3m) ,Wis. Stats., the owner/operator of the combustion turbine must satisfactorily demonstrate that equipping the turbine with a DLN

com bustion system is not technologically or economically feasible or that a DLN combustion system is not commercially available from the manufacturer of the combustion turbine. The Department and the U.S. EPA must provide a determination in writing on this condition for a source to be subject to the alternative emission limitation under s. 285.27(3m).

In all other aspects, the monitoring, compliance demonstration and reporting requirements for combustion

turbines under the NR 428 NO

x 

### control program s til l apply.

3. Reason for the Alternative Emission Limitation

The Wisconsin Legislature enacted s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., in order to establish emission requirements for simple cycle combustion turbines that are technically and economically feasible and

w hich are consistent with the original intent of the NR 428 program. The need for these alternative emission requirements are explained below.

The Department originally set the NO

x 

### emission limitations for combustion turbines in s. NR 428.04( 2)(g)1.a. and 2.a., Wis. Adm. Code, by assuming the use of DLN combustion technology. This technology was intended to reflect readily available NO

x 

### combustion control technology for new and modified combustion turbines. Unless specifically stated, the emission limits under the NR 428 control

### 3

program were not intended to require the use of post-combustion control technology such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). This intent was discussed in a memorandum (Appendix B, performance standards for new sources, page 40) provided to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Board when it adopted the NR 428 requirements. In essence, the application of SCR was not considered

standard NO

x 

### combustion control equipment for simple cycle combustion turbines. This intent still applies and, in addition, SCR still is not considered standard NO

x 

### combustion control equipment for simple cycle combustion turbines (refer to the BACT discussion below).

As previously stated, the emission limitations in s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a., Wis. Adm. Code, apply to simple cycle combustion turbines that are larger than 84 MW and that undergo a major modification. There are only four existing combustion turbines in the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area that may meet these criteria. These combustion turbines are the model 11N turbines manufactured by ASEA

B rown-Boveri (ABB) that are operated by We Energies at their Paris generating facility.

In 2008, the Department conducted a best available control technology (BACT) assessment for a set of

ABB 11N combustion turbines operated by We Energies at their Concord facility 1



### . This BACT analysis is applicable to the NR 428 and alternative emission requirements as they apply to the same model combustion turbine. In performing this top-down BACT control analysis, SCR was the first, highest control technology considered. However, the Department determined that SCR was not cost-effective for BACT as the cost would likely exceed 8,236 dollars per ton of controlled NO

x 

### . In fact, the analysis noted that the cost would likely be higher due to intermittent operating profiles and high flue gas temperatures associated with simple cycle combustion turbines. After excluding SCR, the analysis indicates that the next best available technology is DLN combustion technology. In this case, the Department determined that DLN was not commercially available for the ABB 11N simple cycle combustion turbine. After SCR and DLN, the Concord BACT analysis indicates that the next best technology for the 11N ABB

com bustion turbines is water injection. Therefore water injection was determined to be BACT for the Concord simple cycle combustion turbines.

Thus, the best control technology available that is consistent with the intent of NR 428 in meeting ROP requirements is water injection for those simple cycle combustion turbines for which DLN is not

available.

4. Basis for Alternative Emission Requirements

Based on the use of water injection NO

x 

### control technology, s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., sets forth emission limitations of 25 or 65 ppmdv at 15% O 2 

### , on a 30 day rolling average basis, when firing natural gas or distillate oil, respectively. In addition to meeting these alternative emission limitations, s. 285.27 (3m) requires the operation of water injection according to the manufacturer's specifications.

T hese emissions limitations are appropriate for a number of reasons.

First, the emission limitations established in s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., are more stringent than new source performance standards (NSPS) set by EPA for these combustion turbines if they applied. The applicable emission limitation under 40 CFR Part 60 would be 77 ppm at 15% O 2 

### , dry basis, for both natural gas and distillate oil fuels.

1 WDNR 2008, Preliminary Determination, NO

x BACT Determination for ABB combustion turbines at the Concord Facility,

Construction Permit No. 08 -SDD-104.

2 WDNR 2008, Operating Permit Concord Facility, Permit Condition A.3.1, Permit No. 128065080-P30.

### 4

Second, these emission limits are consistent with the BACT emission limits for the Concord combustion

turbines which are of the same model and manufacturer 2



### .

Third, the emission limits in s. 285.27 (3m) are the same emission limitations set for using water injection in meeting reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the NR 428 control program. These RACT requirements are set forth in s. NR 428.22(1)(g)1.a and b., Wis. Adm. Code, and were approved by EPA on March 24, 2010, 75 FR 14116.

5. Emissions Levels

One of the elements that must be addressed in proposing revisions to the ozone SIP is the impact to NO

x 

### emission levels during the ozone season. The Department compared allowable emission rates and actual mass emissions to levels attributed in satisfying RO P for the 1990 1-hr ozone standard and maintenance

for the 1997 8-hr ozone standard. In both cases, the emission requirements under s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., will satisfy the ozone SIP.

The alternative emission requirements established in s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., wi ll not increase

allowable NO

x 

### emission rates above current levels for the affected combustion turbines. This determination is based on looking at the ROP and RACT emission limitations for simple cycle

combustion turbines under the NR 428 NO

x 

### control program. As shown in Table 2, the alternative emission limits in s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., are significantly more stringent than the ROP emission limitations and are equivalent to the applicable NOx RACT emission limitations. The combustion

t urbines in question at the Paris facility have been subject to the NO

x 

### RACT emission limitations since May 2009. Therefore, as shown in Table 2, the alternative emission limitations do not relax current allowable emission requirements.

Table 2. Comparison of Existing Combustion Turbine and Alternative NO

x 

### Emission Limits.

Emission Limitation s @ 15% O 2 

### on a 30 Day Rolling Average Basis

Effective 2001

NR 428

ROP Limits 1 

### Effective 2009

NR 428

RACT Limits 2 

### s. 285.27 (3m)

Wis. Stats.

Alternative Limits

Natural Gas: 75 25 25

Distillate Oil: 110 65 65

1) ROP emission limitations for existing simple cycle combustion turbines larger than 85 MW are set forth in 

### s. NR 428.05(3)(d)1. and 2., Wis. Adm. Code. 2) RACT emission limitations for existing simple cycle combustion turbines larger than 85 MW are set forth in s. NR 428.22(1)(g)1.a. and b., Wis. Adm. Code.



### The ROP and maintenance requirements for the Milwaukee-Racine area rely on the daily NOx emission budgets for the electric utility sector shown in Table 3. The ROP budget is the value attributed for the utility sector as part of the overall ROP stationary source emissions budget which is shown in Table 3-6, page 35 of Appendix B. The maintenance budget value is derived from the amount of NO

x 

### emitted by the electric utility sector during the 2008 ozone season. The 2008 emission level is the basis for maintenance

### 5

since that year coincided with the year of monitored data used in designation to attainment for the 1997 8-

hr ozone standard.

In Table 3, the electric utility attributed ROP and maintenance daily emissions budgets are compared to actual daily NOx emissions during the 2013 ozone season. This comparison shows that the electric utility

se ctor NO

x 

### emissions are significantly below the levels originally identified in meeting ROP and maintenance requirements.

Table 3. Electric Utility Emissions Identified in the NO

x 

### Emission Budgets for Ozone ROP 1 

### and

Maintenance 2 

### Compared to Actual 2013 Emissions.

ROP Maintenance 3 ,4 

### 2013 Actual 3,4



### NO

x 

### (tons/OS day) = 110 30.71 19.8

1) ROP emission levels attributed to electric utilities in the emission budget for meeting the 1990 1-hr ozone NAAQS requirements in the Milwaukee-Racine area. 2) Maintenance emission levels attributed to electric utilities during the 2008 emissions inventory year for demonstrating attainment with the 1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS in the Milwaukee-Racine area. 3) The tons/day is derived from the EPA CAMD air emissions database. 4) Average daily NO

x

emissions (tons/OS day) are derived from the total ozone season emissions divided by 153 days in the

ozone season.



### 6. Demonstrating Noninterference Under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

According to applicable EPA guidance, a SIP revision that removes or modifies a SIP-approved control measure can only be approved after the state has demonstrated that such removal or modification will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the related NAAQS, Rate of Progress (ROP), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirements of the CAA 2 

### . This issue is commonly referred to as “backsliding” or “noninterference”. This test for backsliding is met for the following

reasons:

 The allowable NO

x 

### emission rates will not increase for the affected sources, as shown in Table 2,
 Emission reductions that may result due to existing combustion turbines being modified and becoming subject to more stringent NR 428 emission limitations were not counted towards meeting ROP or maintenance requirements.
 The emission limitations in s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., are no less stringent than the emission rates allowed in meeting ROP and maintenance emission budgets, as shown in Table 2.
 Actual daily NOx emissions for the electric utility sector during the 2013 ozone season are well

bel ow the emissions identified in satisfying ROP and maintenance emission budgets, as shown in

Table 3.

2 U.S. EPA, Demonstrating Noninterference Under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act When Revising a State Implementation Plan , Draft Guidance.

## Attachment C Regulatory Language

Appendix A to Attachment B

Regulatory Language for Alternative Emission Requirements for Simple Cycle

Combustion Turbines for W hich Dry Low NO

x 

### Combustion is Not Technically or Economically Feasible

.

2013 WISCONSIN ACT 91

Date of enactment: December 13, 2013

2013 Senate Bill 371 Date of publication*: December 14, 2013

* Section 991.11, W ISCONSIN S TATUTES : Effective date of acts. "Every act and every portion of an act enacted by the legislature over the governor's partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the da y after its date of publication."



### S ECTIO N 

### 1

. 285.27 (3m) of the statutes is created to read:

285.27 (3m) E XEMPTION FROM STANDA RDS FOR CERTAIN COMB USTION TURBINES



### . (a) In this subsection, "combustion turbine" means a simple cycle combustion turbine. (b) The performance standards promulgated by the department under NR 428.04 (2) (g) 1. a. and 2. a., Wis. Adm. Code, do not apply to a combustion turbine that undergoes a modification on or after February 1, 2001 if all of the following apply: 1. The depar tment and the federal environmental protection agency find that the owner or operator of the combustion turbine has satisfactorily demonstrated that equipping the turbine with a dry low nitrogen oxide combustion system is not technologically or economicall y feasible or a dry low nitrogen oxide combustion system is not commercially available from the manufacturer of the combustion turbine. 2. The federal environmental protection agency concurs, in writing, with the department's finding

under subd. 1.

3. The owner or operator of the combustion turbine controls nitrogen oxide emissions during operation of the combustion turbine by injecting water into the combustion turbine according to the manufacturer's specifications. 4. The concentration of nitrogen oxide e mitted from the combustion turbine does not exceed 25 parts per million dry volume, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, on a 30 day rolling average basis during combustion of gaseous fuels and does not exceed 65 parts per million dry volume, corrected to 15 pe rcent oxygen, on a 30 day rolling average basis during combustion of distillate fuels. (c) The department shall determine whether a combustion turbine undergoes a modification under par. (b) in accordance with NR 428.04 (1), Wis. Adm. Code.

### 1 

## Attachment D

Appendix B to Attachment B

Green Sheet Package to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Board Meeting, September 2000, for Adopting a Stationary Source NOx Control Program under ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, in Meeting ROP Requirements

See electronic file for Board Order AM

- 27

- 00 (BO AM2700)

### DATE: September 8, 2000 FILE REF: 4519-22b

TO: Natural Resources Board

FROM: George E. Meyer /s/

SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Rules for Wisconsin’s Plan to Attain the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

and to Find the NOx and VOC Control Measures in AM-27-00 as Necessary to Meet Rate- of

Progress Emission Reduction Requirements for 2000-2007



### 1. INTRODUCTION

This plan and supporting rules focus on providing a demonstration of attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for 1-hour concentrations of ozone in eastern Wisconsin by 2007. The

rule s contained in this package are necessary for Wisconsin to achieve federally mandated rate-ofprogress (ROP) objectives to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for the years 2000 through 2007.

This attainment plan is designed to assure that NOx and VOC emissions from sources in Wisconsin, in conjunction with anticipated VOC and NOx emissions from sources in upwind states, do not cause violations of the 1-hour ozone standard. The plan assumes that the regional NOx SIP Call issued by

USEP A, which addresses interstate ozone transport, is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This plan is not designed to achieve future federal requirements related to 8-hour ozone concentration, fine

pa rticulate matter, hazardous air pollutants or regional haze, even though actions taken to implement this attainment plan may reduce these problems.

The modeling of this plan’s VOC and NOx emission reductions support a finding of projected attainment by 2007 for the 1-hour ozone standard based on EPA’s current attainment demonstration guidance. This demonstration assumes emission reductions from the NOx SIP call, where it is required, along with implementation of the federal Tier 2 tailpipe standards and low sulfur fuel requirements.

In addition to a modeled demonstration of attainment, this plan addresses other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements including ROP emission reductions, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT ) for VOC and excess emission fees. The language of the ROP provisions in the CAA explicitly require that Wisconsin achieve emission reductions averaging 3 percent per year until the attainment date of 2007. The CAA also specifically requires VOC RACT for all identified major source categories and the excess VOC emissions fee beginning in 2008 in order for EPA to approve the attainment plan.

Under this plan, the core attainment strategy now depends on major regional NOx reductions, combined with the prior, VOC-focused controls in order to achieve attainment by 2007. Wisconsin is selectively adjusting the “NOx Wavier” that EPA granted under Section 182 of the CAA to remove the waiver for NOx pass/fail cutpoints as part of the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. Wisconsin is claiming credit for selective NOx control measures toward both the attainment demonstration and as a component of the rate-of-progress plan. 

### State of Wisconsin 

## CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM

### 2



### Except for the I/M component, the measures in this rule package are distinct from those covered by the

NOx waiver – specifically, NOx New Source Review Control Technology [LAER], NOx New Source Review Offsets and existing major source NOx RACT. The agency anticipates that EPA will approve the continuation of such a modified NOx emission control waiver, under 182(f). The CAA implies that

W isconsin can selectively pursue NOx control as necessary for attainment while continuing the remainder of the NOx waiver as long as the waived controls are excess reductions to those shown necessary for a timely attainment demonstration.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE OZONE ATTAINMENT PLAN

The Attainment Demonstration Plan, as supported by rules proposed for adoption under AM-27-00,

include s elements that:

 Demonstrate improved air quality sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2007;

 Achieve the federally mandated rate-of-progress (ROP) deadlines for reducing VOC and NOx emissions in the milestone years of 2002, 2005 and 2007;

 Establish VOC and NOx emission budgets for mobile, area and stationary sources in 2002, 2005 and 2007;

 Set an ozone season NOx emission rate for 5 specific electric generation facilities for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007;

 Establish enforceable rate-of-progress control measures to meet the contingency requirement by setting the 2003, 2006 and 2007 emission rates for the 5 electric generation facilities;

 Establish Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for VOC emissions from industrial cleaning (e.g. - clean-up) operations in southeastern Wisconsin;

 R evise NR 410 to establish a federally mandated excess emissions fee of $5000/ton of VOC for major source emissions in southeastern Wisconsin if this area remains in nonattainment

for ozone in 2008.

A summary matrix of the NOx control portions of the plan is shown in Table 1 on page 10.

Current ozone formation (“photochemical”) modeling for the Lake Michigan region indicates Wisconsin areas can demonstrate attainment by 2007 under the assumptions of this final attainment plan revision.

### 3



### 3. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO THE DRAFT RULES

In response to comments on the draft plan, the Department has revised the control plan to meet the

rate -of-progress requirement. The following two paragraphs highlight the major deletions and modifications to the proposed NOx and VOC emission control plan components. The Response to Public Comments summary document (Attachment 1) contains more detailed discussions of the comments and changes made to the draft plan.

Elements in the Draft Rule Package deleted in the Final Plan Some components of the draft attainment package have been entirely removed from the final rule package. The final plan:

 does not include any formal emission control requirements outside an 8-county region that represents the defined ozone areas still violating the 1-hour ozone standard

 does not include offsets for new or modified NOx emission sources

 does not include the annual burner tune-up component proposed for both new and existing sources covered by the rule.

The agency intends to pursue a voluntary burner tune-up effort to achieve NOx reductions in a broader area that has been shown to impact ozone levels. Separate initiatives are being started in that regard.

Elements Significantly Modified from the Draft Rule Package The package proposed for adoption incorporates several refinements to the rate-of-progress control components that remain consistent with the rule structure developed in the draft. Some of the

refinements include:

 raising the threshold for facilities subject to new source NOx standards to a level consistent with the major modification thresholds

 adjusting emission limits and minimum size or minimum utilization (e.g.- capacity factor)

thre sholds for specific NOx source performance standard categories

 establishing source sub-categories, more focused emission limits and refined content limits based on a broadened set of control options for facilities subject to industrial cleaning operations VOC RACT

 setting the applicability period to the ozone season for the existing facility NOx emission limits

 excluding existing electric utility facilities which are subject to the ozone season systemaverage emission rates from other unit-specific emission limits and combustion optimization requirements

### 4



###  delaying the effect of the required additional 3% ROP control contingency for one year through

the e stablishment of annually-declining emission rate averages (for the ozone season) for the large electric utility systems

 removing Kewaunee County from the ROP control region because it is not violating the standard, has been redesignated to attainment and does not contribute significant levels of NOx to either Door County or the other Wisconsin ozone nonattainment areas

 establishing a non-regulatory effort to pursue voluntary NOx reductions from sources no longer

c overed by the rule package.

4. RATE- OF -PROGRESS (ROP)

This plan includes controls on sources in Wisconsin needed to meet the rate-of-progress based emission budgets for NOx and VOC under the 1-hour ozone standard. Ta ble 2 shows the maximum VOC and NOx emissions or “budgets” allowable in the milestone years of 2002, 2005 and 2007 in order to meet federal rate-of-progress emission reduction requirements.

Table 2 - Rate- of -Progress Milestones for 2002 through 2007

% Red uction

Relative to “1990 Adjusted Baseline” 

### 2002 (“33%”) 2005 (“42%”) 2007 (“51%”)

VOC

330 tpd NOx

356 tpd VOC

329 tpd NOx

354 tpd VOC

328 tpd NOx

353 tpd

8

- County Budget 

### 230 tpd 346 tpd 221 tpd 321 tpd 214 tpd 295 tpd

Creditable

Redu ction 

### 30.3% 2.7% 32.8% 9.2% 34.8% 16.2%



### Because the requirements of EPA’s NOx SIP Call issued in 1998 do not now apply to NOx sources in Wisconsin, Wisconsin has to craft a unique control program to address ROP needs. EPA’s current guidance allows other states, that remain a part of the NOx SIP Call, to claim their statewide NOx

re ductions based on the NOx SIP plans toward ROP.

Background on ROP Requirements to Support Attainment Several stakeholders had questioned the need for Wisconsin to satisfy federal ROP requirements for

the 2002 -2007 period in light of Wisconsin’s ability to demonstrate through modeling that the state should attain the 1-hour ozone standard in 2007 assuming upwind states fully comply with the NOx SIP call. A review of the applicable Clean Air Act provisions for ozone control plans indicates that ROP requirements must be implemented for each ozone nonattainment area through 2007.

### 5



### The Rate-of-progress [or “reasonable further progress”, as referred to in the Clean Air Act at 42 USC 7511a (c)(2)(B)] is one of several specific requirements for ozone control plans. Other similar requirements include the Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program for motor vehicles [required by 42 USC 7511a (c)(3)], Reasonably Available Control Technology emission limits for major sources, e.g., 25 tons of VOCs in severe ozone nonattainment areas [required by 42 USC 7511a (b)(2)], and gasoline vapor recovery programs, i.e., VOC emission controls on gasoline dispensing equipment, [required by 42 USC 7511a (b)(3)]. These specific emission control measures have

pr eviously been incorporated into Wisconsin’s ozone control plan (SIP), as required by the Clean Air

Act.

The language of the ROP provision of the Act clearly indicates that the reductions must be made at a rate “equal to [at least 3 percent of baseline emissions each year] averaged over each consecutive 3- year period.... until the attainment date ” . The ROP requirement, like analogous language for other similar requirements for ozone control plans, mandates that these emission control measures apply in a nonattainment area in order for the state’s ozone control plan to be approved as demonstrating

attainment of the ozone standard.

Even though modeling results indicate that southeastern Wisconsin should attain the 1-hour ozone

standa rd in 2007, assuming the compliance of upwind states with the NOx SIP call, without the benefit of ROP reductions, the language of the ROP provisions in the Clean Air Act requires that Wisconsin achieve emission reductions averaging 3 percent per year until the attainment date of 2007.

Two letters received from EPA since the release of the draft plan reiterate the necessity of submitting a formal rate-of-progress plan covering the period through the year that attainment can be demonstrated (Attachment 2).

A Focused Rate-of-Progress Plan Options for achieving the 2002, 2005 and 2007 ROP milestones were considered through the public hearing and public comment process. The combined NOx and VOC control program selected for adoption in this rule package focuses on a subset of control strategies in the draft plan:

1. Initiating a modest, but balanced, NOx control requirement focused on 48 sources at 21 facilities in the eight counties starting at the end of 2002

2. Gradually phasing in more stringent control objectives for the largest coal electric facilities through the 2007 ozone season

3. Implementing NOx cutpoints as part of the tailpipe test in the vehicle I/M program

4. Establishing new source NOx emission performance limits for several categories of

combustion sources

5. Filling identified gaps in the VOC RACT program for major sources.

The final plan contains a longer window (8 to 12 months) to accomplish the required NOx controls to meet the 2002 ROP budgets, based on EPA guidance covering when ROP controls have to actually be

### 6



### in place. The magnitude of the NOx (and VOC) reductions needed in 2003 required the inclusion of multiple measures and multiple sources in the total emission control effort. Such a broad and balanced effort was based as much on the short timeframe for implementing controls as on the final NOx control

level needed.

The plan includes the I/M cutpoint component partly because NOx test equipment is already in place and NOx tests (but not the test pass/fail decision) are already built into the program. The final plan excludes the proposed burner tune-up requirements, a simplification that results in a modest emission reduction loss, but which precludes the need to include an additional 160 units with low net emission levels in this NOx control program.

The required ROP contingency remains built into the core ROP program. However, guidance allows the contingency portion of the control effort to be effective one ozone season after each milestone year. Hence, for the electric generating units covered by the annually declining NOx emission rate structure, the 2002 contingency target is met by having a lowered rate set for 2003. In the overall control plan, this has the effect of slightly increasing the allowable emission budget at each milestone, compared to the draft plan, for each year of concern until 2007. This still provides a “sliding” 3% contingency over the period until 2007.

The proposed plan reflects an achievable and cost-efficient pathway to meeting ROP relying particularly on readily available and fuel-saving combustion improvement techniques for the early milestone years (2002-2003). Pursuit of this option, rather than a higher control level for fewer sources, precludes the need for hasty investment in more costly add-on NOx control technologies.

Attachment 3 summarizes the base emission reduction objectives for the rate-of-progress control plan

for 2002-2007.

NOx and VOC Budgets for Transportation Conformity based on an ROP Plan for Attainme nt The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires a showing that regional transportation plans, and Transportation Improvement Programs, conform to the emissions budgets for the mobile sector for the milestone years of 2002, 2005 and 2007. These emissions budgets are required to be included in this plan. The conformity assessment follows a coordinated, consultative process involving the Departments of Transportation and Natural Resources, the regional planning entities for areas with air quality problems, EPA and the Federal Highway Administration.

Conformity budgets must address both VOC and NOx emissions for all ozone nonattainment areas designated under the CAA. These budgets need to reflect consistent planning assumptions between the Air Quality and Transportation planning processes and reflect the impact of emission forecasts and emission control programs incorporated into ROP plans and attainment demonstrations. The Mobile Sector Budgets for 2002, 2005 and 2007, incorporated in this plan are shown in Table 3

.

Table 3 reflects emission levels used in the attainment demonstration modeling and are based on the aggregate rate-of-progress budget. Extensive dialogue with stakeholders earlier in the process refined the mobile sector projections. The refinements reflect existing and proposed mobile sector emission control components and updated VMT projections to use for the milestone years of 2002, 2005 and 2007. The revised budgets and projections in the plan will replace the budgets and projections that are

### 7



### in the Phase 2 Attainment Demonstration once these are approved as part of this final (Phase 3)

Attainment Demonstration.

Table 3 – Mobile Sector ROP Budgets for the 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration

Counties with Ozone Attainment

or Maintenance Conformit y

Budgets 1 

### 2002 2005 2007

VOC 

### (TPD) NOx

(TPD) VOC



### (TPD) NOx

(TPD) VOC



### (TPD) NOx

(TPD)

Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Waukesha, Washington, &

Ozaukee 43.5 103.5 36.7 84.1 32.2 71.4

Sheboygan 4.5 9.4 3.7 7.4 3.3 6.4

Manitowoc 5.4 10.0 5.2 8.8 5.2 8.3

TO TAL 53.4 122.9 45.6 100.3 40.7 86.1

1 Assumes high VMT growth, 7.5% buffer, updated speed profiles, and EPA’s latest Tier2/low sulfur gasoline projections.



### 5. A NOx-BASED CONTROL PROGRAM TO SUPPORT ATTAINMENT

Background on the Need to Pursue a NOx Control Strategy to Address Ozone In the early 1990’s Lake Michigan area attainment evaluations focused more on local and smaller region attainment issues. Those assessments focused on an ozone control strategy built predominantly around urban area VOC controls. These assessments led EPA to approve the Lake Michigan states’

mid -1990’s request for a “NOx waiver” for some of the CAA-specified NOx controls for their ozone nonattainment areas. This conditionally exempted the areas from NOx controls beyond those achieved through other parts of the Clean Air Act such as new vehicle emission control standards and national

acid rain controls.

The ozone attainment demonstration modeling evaluations that supported the regional Ozone Transport Assessment [OTAG] effort and an updated Lake Michigan attainment strategy showed that this region’s ozone problem would positively respond to a strong regional NOx control effort in conjunction with the more localized area VOC control strategy. Significant effort since 1995 has focused on the necessary scope of a regional NOx control effort to reach attainment.

EPA guidance allows states to craft final (“Phase 3”) attainment demonstrations based on some increment of NOx control without automatically triggering those measures previously waived. Areas can retain their core waiver from prescribed NOx controls while pursuing other timely and enforceable NOx control measures. Where appropriate from an air quality assessment perspective, such NOx reductions can also be counted toward the VOC-based ROP plans as long as a proportionate NOx reduction occurs compared to the claimed VOC ROP credit. This allows Wisconsin to craft an efficient NOx and VOC control plan to meet attainment and ROP without automatically tripping NOx control measures specified in the CAA.

Geographic Scope of Additional NOx (and VOC) Control

Because the most recent technical evaluations indicate a need to focus the control effort on NOx sources as well as VOC sources, NOx control measures are established for eight of the counties in

### 8



### southeast Wisconsin originally designated in 1990 as “severe” or “moderate” for ozone nonattainment under the Clean Air Act. The eight counties contain NOx and VOC sources shown to directly impact ozone concentrations in these and downwind areas of Wisconsin violating the 1-hour standard. The reductions from the entire area are creditable under current EPA guidance to rate-of-progress requirements for the period through 2007 or until attainment is demonstrated. The 8 counties include

Kenosha, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha. This refined “control region” is shown in Figure 1 – NOx Control Area in the Final Rule.

The Department took a draft package to public hearing that requested comment on the creation of a Secondary Ozone Control Region and an Ozone Maintenance Region. In addition that draft included Kewaunee County as part of the principal control area. Figure 1a is the “Figure 1” map from the draft plan showing the counties in the Primary and Secondary Ozone Control Regions and the Ozone Maintenance Region.

### 9



### The geographic extent of the emission controls in the draft generated a great deal of discussion with stakeholders. The narrowed scope of the rate-of-progress control program proposed for adoption reflects the Department’s resolution of the issues raised on that earlier draft proposal.

Controlling NOx from Stationary Sources There remain two principal components in the NOx control program for stationary sources proposed for adoption: combustion optimization and NOx emission performance standards for existing sources and NOx emission performance standards for new sources. These NOx controls are designed to meet the ROP milestones and to prevent any growth in emissions from stationary sources of NOx emissions from exceeding those sector-based ROP budgets. The performance standards for existing sources become effective at the end of 2002 and impact emission levels by the start of the ozone season in

2003. The standards for new or modified sources become enforceable after the effective date of the rule and affect emission levels throughout their operation.

Table 1 on page 10 provides information on key aspects of the NOx Control Plan to meet the ROP requirements for 2002 - 2007. Ta b le 1 provides a comparison of the NOx reduction effort required at stationary sources including large electrical generating units (EGU’s).

The utility boiler emission limits set corporate, system-average, NOx emission rates on an ozone season basis for 17 of the 18 largest electric generation units located at five facilities operated by the WEPCO and Alliant electric utility systems. These average rate limits decline over the period 2002 through 2007. The rates become effective December 31 of each year and effectively limit NOx emissions the following ozone season. The WEPCO coal-fired facilities include Valley, Pleasant Prairie, Oak Creek, Port Washington and a part of Edgewater, Unit 5. The Alliant facility is the remainder of the Edgewater power plant including units 1-4.

### 10



### TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF THE RATE- OF

- PROGRESS NOx CONTROL PLAN

The plan also establishes minimum performance standards for other NOx sources above specified threshold levels. These standards are based on unit-specific emission limits for the ozone season and on combustion optimization requirements. Based on historic data, these standards are projected to effect 31 units at 16 additional facilities in the 8 county area. The proposed NOx limits and performance standards are based on fuel type, combustion unit type, and size.

The NOx emission performance standards incorporate NOx emission reduction trading as an alternate compliance tool for sources if the sources use adequate NOx emission monitoring and tracking
systems.

The plan sets performance standards for NOx emissions for new facilities and major modifications above certain threshold sizes based on their potential to emit NOx. In a “typical” year, the agency anticipates that up to 15 new or modified units could be affected by these standards in the 8 county area. Larger “new” units will remain subject to the current PSD-BACT control requirements for major

NOx sources as defined under the CAA.

Attachment 4 contains more detailed information on the emission controls being proposed for various source categories in the eight counties including details on the NOx emissions performance standards for stationary sources.

Controlling NOx from Motor Vehicles through I/M Cutpoints for NOx While the current motor vehicle inspection program tests for VOC and NOx emissions, at this time the I/M NOx cutpoints are not enforceable limits. Implementing NOx cutpoints has been the subject of

### 11



### extensive stakeholder dialogue since 1998 when this option was evaluated for inclusion in the plan required by EPA’s NOx SIP Call.

Repairs needed to meet NOx cutpoints have been found to be highly cost-effective in relation to other potential NOx and VOC controls for the mobile sector. NOx cutpoints will result in a reduction of approximately 13 1⁄2 tons per day of NOx. This is approximately 31% of the 43.4 ton per day reduction of NOx required between 1999 and 2002. Creditable NOx reductions based on the NOx cutpoints will decline to approximately 7 tons per day in 2007 due to the introduction of vehicles with lower tailpipe emissions and due to the testing of newer vehicles through on-board diagnostic systems. If NOx cutpoints were not used to meet ROP requirements, an equivalent level of reduction would be required of other sources. Evaluations during the comment period supported the fact that the NOx credit achieved from pursuing the I/M NOx cutpoint strategy for 2002 would be difficult and expensive to replace.

6. VOC CONTROLS (RACT) FOR INDUSTRIAL CLEANING OPERATIONS

The Clean Air Act requires that states establish Reasonably Available emission Control Technology (RACT) for major sources of VOC emissions that are located in certain nonattainment areas. RACT is defined as the lowest emission rate required of a source considering technological and economic feasibility. Three categories of sources of VOC emissions that were not included in previous ozone attainment plans must now be controlled to RACT levels. They are industrial cleaning operations, ink manufacturing and plastic parts coating.

Revisions to Chapter NR 423 establish RACT requirements for VOC emissions generated at industrial cleaning operations located in a nine county area that includes Kewaunee. (While the NOx program can address only 8 counties, the VOC RACT area defined in the 1996 ROP Plan includes Kewaunee Co. This rule is an overdue component of that 1996 Plan.) The rule relies upon emission restrictions,

ope rational practices, control systems and record keeping requirements. In this case, emissions restrictions are essentially equivalent to VOC content or volatility limitations for industrial cleanup solvents. These limitations encourage material substitutions toward industrial cleanup solvents or solvent solutions with lower VOC content or, in some cases, lower vapor pressure. Compliance with

thi s RACT requirement is estimated to reduce VOC emissions in the nonattainment counties in the range of 0.1 tons per day to 0.6 tons per day.

Several different industrial sectors pursue cleaning or clean-up operations that could be affected by the rule. These include fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment; chemicals and allied products; printing, publishing and allied industries; industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment; and furniture and fixtures. A stakeholder review effort has been pursued to elicit technical advice and comment on the proposed rule. The final rule is not anticipated to result in a major level of effort in regard to compliance costs or record keeping.

The D epartment is pursuing an administrative consent order to achieve the RACT requirements for VOC emissions at ink manufacturing operations. An analysis of ink manufacturers in the nonattainment area identified one source qualifying for RACT restrictions. That company owns and operates equipment used to mix, transfer and store ink and ink ingredients containing VOC. RACT for

### 12



### Ink Manufacturing requires lids on all equipment used for mixing ink and ink ingredients. This order will be finalized before the Ozone Attainment Demonstration is submitted to EPA in December, 2000.

A completely separate rule development effort is addressing plastic parts coating operations. We anticipate proposing a draft rule prior to the attainment SIP submittal. VOC reduction from this rule is projected at less than 0.1 tons per day. An expedited rule development process is being pursued to establish RACT for this category so the requirements can be effective by the 2002 ozone season.

7. EXCESS VOC EMISSIONS FEE

The attainment plan includes revisions to s. NR 410.06, Wis. Adm. Code, to satisfy a provision of the Clean Air Act that requires major VOC sources, under certain conditions, to pay an excess emissions fee of $5000/ton of VOC. The fee would apply to the portion of their emissions beyond 80% of an annual 2007 baseline level as defined in the rule. The fee applies to sources with more than 25 tons of VOC emissions per year located in the six severe nonattainment counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha. The fee activates if the area remains in nonattainment for ozone in 2008 and thereafter. The fee is incorporated into the emissions inventory fee structure and would not apply in 2008 if the area receives a formal one-year extension to reach attainment.

8. BACKGROUND – OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS

Ongoing Attainment SIP Requirement By December 31, 2000, Wisconsin is required to submit to EPA revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) that will result in the attainment of the one-hour ozone standard throughout Wisconsin. These plan revisions, and their associated rules and programs, represent the third phase of a series of attainment demonstrations developed to address the one-hour ozone problem in eastern Wisconsin. These air quality improvement strategies combine federal, regional and local emission controls sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the one-hour ozone standard by 2007. The ROP Plan is a core component of the Ozone Attainment SIP for Wisconsin’s nonattainment areas.

Area Status for Ozone and the Tie-in of the ROP Plan to Prior Ozone SIP ElementsAt the present time, the following counties are designated as severe nonattainment areas for the onehour ozone standard: Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha. Manitowoc, Sheboygan and Kewaunee Counties were originally designated moderate areas. Walworth County was designated marginal, and Door County was designated as a marginal, rural transport area.

Kewaunee, Walworth, and Sheboygan Counties were reclassified as attainment based on air quality improvement that occurred during the mid-90’s, without the benefit of a formal regional ozone attainment demonstration. For Door County, EPA revoked the 1-hour standard based on 1995 to 1997 air quality data after the 8-hour standard was promulgated. This was based on a presumption that the

8 -hour standard and NOx SIP Call would be driving regional ozone plans and would ensure regional attainment by 2007. EPA has recently reinstated Door County as a “marginal - rural transport”

nona ttainment area. Door County currently is not recording violations of the standard and a request for

### 13



### redesignation to attainment will be pursued based on the approval of a SIP that contains a current

demonstration of attainment for 2007.

Sheboygan County was recently reinstated as an ozone maintenance area for the one hour standard. Sheboygan County currently is recording violations of the standard and emissions from the county are shown to impact Manitowoc County and Door County during some ozone episodes. EPA guidance provides a method for establishing the creditability of NOx (and/or VOC) reductions from a 1990 baseline for emissions from Manitowoc and Sheboygan Counties. Based on the showing of downwind in-state ozone impact, the agency has included NOx and VOC reductions from Sheboygan County in the attainment demonstration and rate-of-progress plans.

Including Sheboygan County’s emission reduction contributions in Wisconsin’s ROP calculations somewhat reduces the control percentage across the entire control region but achieves a larger aggregate reduction in NOx (and VOC) from the air shed. If Sheboygan County had been deleted from the ROP plan, it’s continuing ozone violation status could have led to a requirement to implement its potential attainment contingency measures, as identified in its current maintenance plan, in isolation. One of these measures includes reformulated gasoline.

Kewaunee County is classified as attainment with the 1-hour standard and is not recording violations of the standard. The agency has determined that Kewaunee County should be removed from the NOx portion of the ROP-based attainment plan because it does not have major sources of NOx contributing to the Door County nonattainment problem. In addition, the absence of concentrated mobile sector activity suggests that it does not have a major effect on downwind air quality. VOC RACT components in the rule do apply to the county because of the 1996 ROP VOC control area definitions.

The plan as proposed for adoption provides a basis on which to update (in a separate SIP effort) the maintenance plans for the two counties of Sheboygan and Kewaunee. These would then be based on final approval of the regional attainment demonstration.

9. POTENTIAL AFFECTED PARTIES AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT

As part of the ozone planning process during the last several years, all significant NOx and VOC emission sectors, including mobile, stationary, and area sources in Wisconsin have been the subject of emission control evaluations for the period 2001 through 2007. Recent evaluations have focused predominantly on stationary source NOx control because of EPA’s NOx SIP call to multiple states in the eastern US and in the midwest. Department staff received extensive stakeholder input on the form and levels of the NOx emission limits, the applicability of limits to various sectors and on the appropriate geographic extent of controls needed to address the ozone problem. That input has continued through and beyond the formal public hearing and public comment timeframe.

Stakeholder groups that have been involved in the development of the NOx control elements in the plan include electric utilities, the Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Department of Administration, the Department of Transportation, the Public Service Commission, the Department of Commerce, other state and local agencies, individual manufacturers, and other individuals. Outreach for development of RACT rules for VOC emissions have more

### 14



### recently included a more focused stakeholder effort for eastern Wisconsin. If added VOC control, beyond the current RACT efforts, become necessary in response to a conditional approval or disapproval of the attainment SIP associated with these rules, the agency will reinitiate a formal stakeholder dialogue.

By virtue of the smaller number of industrial sources now affected by the NOx performance standards, each of the facilities identified as potentially affected has been directly contacted by agency staff. The agency has had extensive interactions on the NOx control components with the two private electric generation utilities and one municipal electric utility directly impacted by the rules for existing facilities. A broader group of facilities has also made comment on portions of the rules that would

a ffect new sources and major source modifications.

Finally, the agency has had multiple contacts and has received comment from the various governmental representatives for Sheboygan and Manitowoc Counties. Their concerns addressed

sim ilar issues noted previously by local governmental entities in the 6 southeast counties. Issues of concern include: potential competitive disadvantage for the attraction of new industry, potential restrictions to their transportation planning efforts, small business impact of an offset program that contains small source size thresholds, and the general uncertainty of being “considered” nonattainment. Communication with these entities helped refine issues associated with the appropriate control approach for the Manitowoc Public Utility combustion units and underscored the importance for regional ozone of pursuing a reasonable control effort for the very high NOx emission Edgewater power plant.

10. PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD

The Board has previously adopted several sets of administrative rules to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act related to ozone attainment. The ROP plans for 1996 and 1999 focused on VO C emissions control and the vehicle emissions testing program.

The Department worked with stakeholders in 1999 to respond to EPA’s NOx SIP Call. In April, 1999 the Board authorized hearings on proposed rules needed to implement the NOx SIP Call that focused on electric utility and large industrial sources of NOx in 22 states in the eastern U.S. That regulatory effort was placed on hold pending the outcome of federal litigation.

This plan represents an effort to assure continued reduction in ozone levels to meet the standard by establishing limitations on NOx emissions and in the process, as required by the CAA, ensure that ROP milestones are met. As a required component of the Wisconsin’s Ozone Attainment SIP, this final plan represents a significant refinement from the draft ozone attainment and ROP plan approved by the Board for public hearing in May.

Though not a major strategy component of the plan, projected reductions in VOC emissions resulting from new RACT elements should also prove beneficial to ozone reduction. The VOC reductions slightly reduce the NOx ROP-based reduction hurdle for the 8 counties for the 2002-2007 period.

### 15



### 11. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN

The agency received a significant level of comment on the draft rule package by virtue of its “menu-ofoptions” approach to crafting a rate-of-progress control strategy. Many of the approximately 75 comments received regarding AM-27-00 questioned the core need to pursue any further emission control program to address attainment of the 1-hour standard given EPA’s pursuit of the NOx SIP call outside of Wisconsin and, regardless of Wisconsin’s rate- of -progress efforts, the attainment demonstration modeling shows a “statistical” achievement of the standard by 2007.

(As noted earlier in the memorandum, the state is under a strict CAA obligation to craft and implement

a rat e-of-progress effort through the attainment date or until such time as attainment is achieved.)

General comments surrounding the scope of the draft plan concerned a perception that the agency was

ove rstepping its authority in pursuing maintenance efforts associated with attainment rather than just crafting a rate-of-progress plan through 2007. These also concerned the attempt of the draft plan to establish a NOx control effort for areas attaining the air quality standard and for areas outside the formal ozone SIP planning domain for rate-of-progress and for attainment.

Significant comments regarding some of the optional control components of the ROP plan included:

 concerns with specific emission limits for new or used equipment

 the breadth of sources that would be subject to regulation under the rule

 concern regarding the viability of a NOx credit market in the short term that would be needed to support a NOx offset requirement for new and modified NOx sources

 concern regarding the threshold size of sources that could be subject to the various NOx performance standard and offset requirements.

Associated issues included:

 potential small business impact

 general business development impact for areas subject to new source standards

 the potential creation of major business planning uncertainties regarding the availability of

NOx credits inside and outside the formal nonattainment areas.

As a result of interactions with EPA and extensive interactions with utility, industrial and transportation sector stakeholders, the agency has crafted the single “option” to address rate- of

progress embodied in this rule. It responds to many of the negative comments and still achieves the necessary rate-of-progress in a fashion consistent with the regional attainment demonstration. The proposal provides a cost-effective solution to the NOx control effort needed to meet the 2002 rate- of

progress milestone.

A separate Response to Public Comments (Attachment 1) provides a detailed response to comments

on an issue- by -issue basis and is more inclusive in terms of issues addressed.

### 16



### 12. FISCAL IMPACT OF THE ROP PLAN

The rule proposed for adoption will affect state government in terms of the costs incurred by the Department of Administration (DOA) in reducing NO

x 

### emissions from one boiler used for heating and cooling at University of Wisconsin facilities. This facility at UW-Milwaukee may be able to reduce

NO

x 

### emissions by an estimated 25-30 percent through the implementation of the proposed combustion opti mization standard. These actions are estimated to yield a savings over time based on fuel efficiency and operational improvements. However, up-front monitoring and evaluation costs may lead to direct expenditures approaching $1000 per year amortized over the expected 10 year remaining life of the equipment.

The rule will also affect local government because Manitowoc Public Utilities owns and operates three units affected by the combustion optimization and one unit affected by the emission limit performance standards. The potential total annual cost of compliance for the Manitowoc utility could range from a maximum estimated net annual savings of $50,000, based on the expected fuel and operational cost reductions, to a maximum direct net NOx-based control cost (exclusive of those projected savings) approaching $5,000 per year.

Fiscal Estimate – NOx Controls at Government-Owned Facilities

Government

Source Number of

Affected Units NOx Red uction

–

Proposed Performance

Standard (Tons per Day) Total Annual Cost ($) $/ton

Reduction

Manitowoc Public Utility 4 Boilers 0.84 (

- 50,000) to 4,700 (

- 500) to 40

Department of

Administration 1 Boiler 0.1 (

- 6,000) to 1000 (

- 2,000) to 350



### In terms of program management costs, the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for implementing this plan after it is adopted. Staff in the Bureau of Air Management will be able to oversee the implementation of the new plan as part of their ongoing responsibilities to achieve the 1-

hour ozone standard.

12. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL IMPACT

An environmental analysis of the impact of the proposed rule revisions is not needed because these changes are considered to be a Type III action under s. NR 150.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code. A Type III action is one that normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, normally does not significantly affect energy usage and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts

in the use of available resources.

Several comments on the draft package contended that the plan as drafted constituted a Type II action which would entail a more extensive environmental review. However, as modified for adoption, the agency believes the rules meet the test for a Type III action, not a Type II action. Therefore, beyond the commitment to a mid-course, multi-state review of the adequacy of this plan to achieve attainment

### 17



### in the region by 2007, sometime in the 2003-2004 time-frame, the agency plans no further environmental review on this rate-of-progress plan.

13. SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS

Small businesses will not be directly affected by the proposed rules for controlling VOC and NOx emissions. The regulations for NOx control for existing facilities would apply to industries large

e nough to have existing steam boilers, industrial process heaters, furnaces, combustion turbines or stationary reciprocating engines with at least 75 million BTU per hour (or equivalent) of heat (energy) input. The RACT regulations for VOC control apply to major sources by definition. The NOx emission limit requirements for new or modified sources do apply to sources at a somewhat lower threshold than for existing facilities. However, the overall control effort for stationary sources is expected to predominantly affect larger businesses.

Some aspects of the rule proposal that might have impacted a broader population of business entities, and possibly some small businesses, have been removed from the ROP plan proposed for adoption. This specifically includes the annual burner tune-up requirement, which deletes approximately 150 units out of approximately 200 total units from a NOx program responsibility. Also deleted from the NOx program is the NOx offset requirement for new and modified facilities. Although it is impossible to estimate how many facilities would or wouldn’t have been affected by an offset requirement for new sources, and how many would be pursuing significant rebuilding, modification or expansion to existing

fa cilities, the issue has become moot for this rule.

Some indirect impact, due to slight changes in electricity rates, and a slightly increased I/M test failure rate, may still be experienced by small businesses. However, the cost of control for newly installed or completely refurbished equipment in the proposal is significantly less than the relative retrofit cost for existing units subject to emission limits. Also, any expenditure specifically for low NOx technology (mostly affecting utility facilities) would be subject to the same tax incentives and extended amortization schedules as the concurrent expenditure for the core combustion unit (without Low-NOx Technology) . Stationary source NOx reductions based on best combustion management practices (the optimization standards and the now voluntary tune-up efforts) are anticipated to result in aggregate cost savings for fuel and equipment maintenance. Most vehicle repairs needed for NOx related problems should reduce other vehicle maintenance costs, often lead to fuel-efficiency improvement and should extend the average repaired-vehicle lifetime.

14. COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The proposed revisions to the state NOx emission control program, as set forth in NR 428, 485, etc., are needed to meet provisions in the federal Clean Air Act that require the state to craft and implement a Plan to meet the one-hour ambient air quality standard for ozone. The CAA requires attainment of that standard as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 2007. The CAA requires that minimum ROP milestones be met in the period before attainment and that contingency measures are implemented in the event these ROP plans do not achieve timely reductions. Therefore, the proposed plan meets and does not exceed federal requirements.

### 18



### ATTACHMENTS

1 – Response to Public Comments on AM-27-00

2 – Copies of two EPA Letters to DNR regarding the Attainment Demonstration and the ROP Plan

3 - Achieving Rate- of

-Progress – A Description of Sector Budgets and Effect of Controls

4

- A Summary of the Stationary Source NOx Control Program to achieve Rate-of-Progress and to

Demonstrate Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

### 19 

## Attachment 1

Response to Public Comments on AM- 27 -00

The rule package, AM- 27 -00, received comments from approximately 65 companies, trade associations, local government units and organizations. The Department reviewed each specific comment and significantly revised and redrafted the proposed rule to respond to the comments. This document summarizes the contents of the comments received by subject area and summarizes the Department’s responses.

Legal Authority

COMMENT: There were numerous assertions that the proposed rule goes beyond the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

RESPONSE: The proposed rule has been revised and focuses on those elements, which are federally required under the CAA. However, all of the elements of the proposed rule that went out for public hearing were legally supported either by the CAA, federal guidance or stat e authority as a means to demonstrate the state’s attainment of the one -hour ozone standard.

COMMENT: Rate-of-progress controls are not required if modeling shows attainment.

RESPONSE: Rate- of -progress controls are required in the CAA for ozone nonattainment areas regardless of whether modeled attainment is demonstrated with emission reductions made outside of these areas. The proposed rule was revised to require rate-of-progress emission reductions in the 6 severe nonattainment counties, as well as Sheboygan and Manitowoc Counties, where violations of the standard have been monitored.

Geographic Scope

COMMENT: There should not be controls or requirements on sources in the maintenance and secondary ozone control regions because these regions do not contribute to the problem.

RESPONSE: Controls in these regions demonstrate an air quality benefit in the nonattainment counties. However, comments received made a strong case that the proposed controls on existing sources would affect numerous small sources and be a very staff-intensive effort. The revised rule limits the controls on existing sources to an 8-county ozone nonattainment area and does not identify secondary and maintenance ozone control regions. Based on the comments, DNR anticipates a strong commitment to significant voluntary NOx reduction efforts by some of the larger NOx emitters outside the 8-county area. Initiatives are being pursued in that regard through separate mechanisms.

### 20

Excess Emission Fee

COMMENT: The excess emission fee is counterproductive and not required at this time.

RESPONSE: The Department has concerns about the potential effect of this fee on sources which have complied with all CAA regulations and will be addressing these concerns with EPA. However, the fee provision is required under the CAA and must be submitted with this attainment demonstration or the Plan as a whole may be deemed incomplete by EPA and will not be approved.

NOx Offsets

COMMENT: The Department received extensive comments on the offset provisions in the proposed rule. The most frequent comments addressed the threshold for the offsets being too low with the resulting offset requirement on small sources constraining economic development and being an administrative burden for the DNR.

RESPONSE: There is no offset requirement in the revised rule. These comments, and those noted below, identified economic, administrative and timing issues that do not make the offset program practicable or cost-effective for this attainment demonstration.

COMMENT: Numerous comments noted that there is not a complete analysis on offset availability (e.g.

–

the viability of a NOx offset market in the near term) and that offsets take

time to accrue and will not be available at the effective date of the rule.

RESPONSE: The Department concurred that the offsets need time to accrue. Tracking the offsets would also place extra demand on limited staff resources. The revised rule contains no offset requirement.

Rate-of-Progress Requirements

COMMENT: The most frequent comment was that there is no need or rationale for additional

rate- of -progress requirements in Wisconsin to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2007.

RESPONSE: The rate-of-progress emission reductions are required for ozone nonattainment

ar eas under the CAA. The revised rule limits the requirements to 6 severe ozone nonattainment counties, as well as Sheboygan and Manitowoc Counties, where violations of the 1-hour standard

have been monitored.COMMENT: There were numerous comments suggesting that the geographic scope of the rateof-progress reductions be limited to smaller groups of counties varying from four to nine counties in size and excluding the secondary ozone control and ozone maintenance regions.

RESPONSE: The revised rule limits the geographic scope of the rate- of -progress reductions to 8 counties. In addition, the revised rule includes rate-of-progress controls for only 48 emission units at 23 existing NOx facilities.

Attachment 1 - Page # 2

### 21

COMMENT: Several comments affirmed the need for rate-of-progress reductions in the attainment demonstration plan. One comment suggested that the rate-of-progress reductions were too small to be truly protective of public health. The plan does not address public health

issues associated with the 8-hour ozone standard.

RESPONSE: The Department concurs that the rate-of-progress requirements are needed. The

rate- of -progress reductions in the revised rule support the attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, which will protect the public from the health effects of acute, high levels of ozone.

I/M Cutpoints as a part of Rate- of -Progress

COMMENT: There was substantial support for the enforcement of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) cutpoints for the Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program as a necessary component of the

rate- of -progress controls. One comment qualified the support by requesting that the Department demonstrate legislative support and cost-effectiveness compared to other controls in the rule. One comment argued against using I/M cutpoints.

RESPONSE: The revised rule contains the enforcement of the I/M NOx cutpoints because the resulting emission reduction credits are achievable within the current program by the 2002 milestone, the NOx portion of the test is already conducted on most vehicles in the program (but not used for pass/fail) and the test reflects a reasonably cost-effective NOx control measure. It would be difficult and expensive to replace the NOx credits associated with the cutpoints through a different control measure.

Contingency Provision

COMMENT: Remove the 3% contingency from rate-of-progress related limitations. Remove the 3% contingency from the “front end” of the control requirements.

RESPONSE: The 3% contingency provision is a requirement in the CAA and must be included in the rule for the attainment demonstration to be approved. The Department has addressed the 3% contingency from the “front end” by phasing in the emission rates annual for large utility

units.

Performance Standards

COMMENT: The most frequent comments on the performance standards for existing sources under the proposed rule addressed the geographic scope of the rule, the threshold levels and the need for additional control cost analysis.

RESPONSE: The proposed rule contained numerous options for control programs on existing utilities and industrial sources. If all of the options were implemented, the proposed rule would have affected approximately 200 facilities. The revised rule sets a corporate average emission rate for five of the largest utility facilities and sets unit specific performance standards for potentially sixteen additional facilities in an eight county area. The geographic scope is more limited, the thresholds apply to larger facilities and the control cost analyses concerns were addressed by the Department’s changes in the rule.

Attachment 1 - Page # 3

### 22

COMMENT: Numerous comments addressed technical and practical implementation issues, including monitoring and reporting requirements under the proposed rule, and areas of unclear rule language and definitions.

RESPONSE: Many of these issues were eliminated when the applicable thresholds increased

and the number of affected facilities was reduced to 23 in the revised rule. The rule definitions have been revised and rule language has been redrafted to address the remaining practical implementation issues.

COMMENT: Numerous comments were received on the new performance standards in the proposed rule. Some comments strictly opposed performance standards on new sources and others opposed the standards in the secondary and maintenance regions. A substantial number of comments did not oppose the standards for new sources but addressed technical issues to make the program more feasible.

RESPONSE: The Department used the technical comments as a basis for modifying the

standards for new sources. The new source standards in the revised rule are based on low NOx technology that is available.

COMMENT: Create a voluntary program to get emission reductions.

RESPONSE: The Department will develop a voluntary program for implementing optimization and tuning refinements statewide for emission reductions as a complement to the revised rule’s limited geographic scope.

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

COMMENT: The Department received several comments relating to the motor vehicle emissions budget in the proposed rule. The comments recommended that the Department adopt the budget presented in public hearings on the proposed rule and requested further explanations.

RESPONSE: The Department revised the budget, as presented in the public hearings, and has provided further explanations to the requesting parties.

Public Health and Air Quality Objectives

COMMENT: The Department received several comments supporting its efforts to attain the onehour standard with the proposed rule and one comment recommended the proposed rule should be more consistent with the objectives of the 8-hour ozone standard.

RESPONSE: The revised rule protects the public from the health effects of acute, high level ozone by demonstrating that the one-hour ozone standard will be attained. The revised rule does not include requirements to attain the 8-hour standard, but it is complementary to programs that

could address that standard.

Attachment 1 - Page # 4

### 23 Rule Notice and Outreach Effort

COMMENT: The Department received several comments which requested additional time for comments and meaningful input on the proposed rule. The comments expressed concern about the scope of the proposed rule and the need to get information out statewide and to smaller

sources that were affected.

RESPONSE: The revised rule is limited in scope and addresses many of the concerns raised about a perceived lack of notice statewide for smaller sources. The Department received approximately 75 comments, many of them extensive, which is a significant indicator that information did get out to affected parties. The Department has held informational meetings and public hearings, and has continued meeting with stakeholder advisory groups. The Department is also contacting and meeting with the 21 affected facilities and with local government entities that have expressed concern or surprise with their area being involved in this rule development effort. As the revised rule proceeds to the Natural Resources Board and through legislative review, the Department will continue meeting with advisory groups and providing updated
information.

VOC RACT Rule

COMMENT: The Department received comments from affected sources on the proposed volatile organic compound (VOC) Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) emission limits. Several comments questioned the need and justification for the rule and questioned the use of California limits that have not been proven in practice.

RESPONSE: The VOC RACT rule is a CAA requirement and must be included for approval of the attainment demonstration. DNR has worked with industry to make the rule address Wisconsin’s industrial mix and will stay apprised of any changes to California’s standards which could have an impact on Wisconsin sources.

COMMENT: Additional comments addressed implementation and compliance costs and concerns about the use of exempt solvents, options for solvent substitutions and safety concerns with certain solvents. Several comments made suggestions for definition revision and rule language

clarification.

RESPONSE: The revised rule contains a section to address an alternative compliance option using certain cleaning materials. The revised rule also has higher VOC limits for some of the problematic applications. The revised rule does not mandate the use of any particular exempt compounds and does not anticipate an increase in hazardous waste generation under the rule. Definition and language clarifications have been incorporated.

Attachment 1 - Page # 5

### 24

Air Quality Modeling

COMMENT: The Department received several comments related to the air quality modeling for the attainment demonstration. Comments raised concerns with the zero-out technique applied to the secondary control region and the trajectory analysis. One commentor also used the CAMx model to demonstrate the lack of culpability to high ozone concentrations from emissions in the secondary control region.

RESPONSE: The Department prepared comments to support the use of the zero-out technique and to qualify how the results were used. The Department also explained that the trajectory analyses were not used as absolute measures, but as relative measures. The Department expressed its concerns about CAMx model limitations and why it was not used.

Small Business and Fiscal Analyses

COMMENT: The Department received comments from industry stakeholder groups, large industries and local government regarding the potential small business impact associated with the proposed offset structure, especially in regard to the low proposed threshold (1 ton per year potential- to -emit) for new NOx sources locating in the state.

RESPONSE: The final plan includes no offset provision. The Department had selected the 1 ton threshold as a place-holder for the menu- of -options draft. This had been communicated with the advisory groups.

COMMENT: The Department received additional, related comments that the potential fiscal impact of the offset and new source provisions on small governmental entities installing boilers for large public facilities and related equipment.

RESPONSE: The final rule contains no offset provision, at any threshold, and the new source NOx emission limit standards are set to threshold levels likely to impact larger entities.

Environmental Impact Review

COMMENT: The Department received comments suggesting that the rules represent a Type II rather than Type III action and therefore require a more extensive environmental analysis than

pr ovided in the draft rule package.

RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed rules represents a Type III action under DNR’s rules.

Attachment 1 - Page # 6

### 25 

## Attachment 2

EPA Letters to DNR regarding the Attainment Demonstration and the ROP Plan

2 A – June 23, 2000

2B – August 25, 2000

### 26 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 

### 60604-3590

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF 

# JUN 2 3 2000 (A-18J)

Lloyd L. Eagan, Director

Bureau of Air Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707

Dear Ms. Eagan:

Thank you for your letter of May 31, 2000, regarding two issues
raised by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. The first issue
requests a legal opinion on the need for rate-of-progress
emission reduction in Wisconsin and the second issue deals with
the State's ability to take credit toward rate-of-progress for voluntary reductions at industrial sources. Legal counsel and
technical staff were consulted in responding to the issues you have raised.

Section 182(c) (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that any serious and above ozone nonattainment area submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that includes, among other items, (1)

an attainment demonstration, based on photochemical grid modeling, that provides for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by the area's applicable attainment date, 

### and (2) a
demonstration that the plan will achieve volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions from the 1990 baseline that equals at least 3 percent per year averaged over each consecutive
3 year period from 1996, until the area's attainment date. 

### The

CAA also provides for substitution of NOx reductions for the required VOC reductions.

In addition, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) guidance "Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance for
Ozone Nonattainment Areas," issued on January 24, 1994, further

states that "if an areas attainment demonstration shows that it
will attain before the statutory attainment date, the post-1996 rate-of-progress plan is only required to extend to the
demonstrated attainment date." 

### Thus, rate-of-progress is required to the area's statutory attainment date, unless the area demonstrates attainment earlier through complete photochemical grid modeling, in which case rate-of-progress is only required
until the modeled attainment date.



### As you know, the Milwaukee-Racine area is a severe-17 ozone nonattainment area with a statutory attainment date no later than

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with**Ve~table** Oil Based Inks on 50% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)

### 27 2

2007. Given the statutory language and considering the guidance
discussed above, the Milwaukee-Racine area must submit a SIP that
demonstrates modeled attainment no later than 2007, and provides
for rate-of-progress reductions through the modeled attainment
date at a rate of 3 percent per year averaged over 3 years through 2007. So, if the area**~ould** 

### demonstrate attainment
earlier than 2007, based on photochemical grid modeling, including accurate inventories, then rate-of-progress emission
reductions would only be required through the modeled attainment
date. The CAA also provides for rate-of-progress reductions of
less than 3 percent per year averaged over 3 years if the area implements the measures required of the next higher ·classification, i.e. for the Milwaukee-Racine area that means

implementation of requirements for the extreme classification
such as lower source threshold and higher offset ratios for new

or modified source permitting. Therefore, even though a State

may be able to demonstrate modeled attainment with a group of

measures (e.g., the NOx SIP Call, Tier 2 vehicle emission
standards and low sulfur gasoline-measures which do not provide
for the required rate-of-progress), additional measures must be adopted and implemented in order to achieve the separate rate-ofprogress requirement of 3 percent per year averaged over 3 years, through the modeled attainment date.

The second issue asks the USEPA to identify the types of voluntary emission reduction programs at industrial sources that
would be creditable toward the rate-of-progress requirement.
Please be advised that the USEPA is in the process of developing

a policy that would allow States to take credit for voluntary
emission reductions in a SIP, such as the rate-of-progress plan.
A draft policy has recently been released for public review and
is enclosed. Region 5 is available to work with Wisconsin to develop a SIP revision that would allow credit for voluntary
emission reductions at stationary sources in accordance with the
final policy.

I hope that this information is helpful to you and look forward

to working with you on the attainment demonstration and rate-ofprogress plans for the 1-hour ozone standard. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jacqueline Nwia, of my staff, at (312) 886-6081.

Sincerely,

# ~ Bharat Mathur, Director
Air and Radiation Division

Enclosure

### 28 

## I

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.



# AUG 2 5 

# 2001 REGION5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, ll 60604-3590



### Lloyd Eagan, Director

Bureau of Air Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

101 S- Webster Street

P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921

Dear Ms. Eagan: REPLY TO THI;**~TT!;NTION** OF:**(A-l~JJ**



### Thank you for your August 17, 2000, letter regarding the
submittal deadline for the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Your letter indicated the possibility of delayed Board and Legislative review which would likely result in a failure to submit the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP by December 31, 2000. Please be aware that our highest priority for ozone is to complete all actions related to
the one-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this letter is to identify the actions required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
situations where a State fails to submit a required plan or the
submitted plan is unapprovable.

Section 179(a) of the CAA provides for the imposition of two sanctions if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes
action to disapprove or makes a finding of failure to submit a required SIP. The first sanction would apply 18 months after the

EPA action or finding and would consist of 2:1 offsets for

sources subject to the new source review requirements under
section 173 of the CAA. If the State fails to comply within 6
months after the application of the first sanction, the second sanction, limits on the types of projects that may be funded with
Federal highway funds, goes into effect. The sanctions are discontinued only when the State has come back into compliance by submitting a complete plan, or, in cases where the plan is disapproved, EPA approves a submitted plan.

In addition to sanctions, a finding of a "failure to submit" or

an EPA disapproval of a required submittal requires EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 2

years from the finding (CAA Section 110(C) (1)). However, as a result of a consent decree between EPA and several environmental

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OH Based Inks on 100",4 Recycled Paper (40".4 Postconsumer)

### 29 2

groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, EPA would
be obligated to promulgate a FIP much earlier for Wisconsin, and

other States with severe ozone nonattainment areas. This decree requires EPA to propose a FIP no later than October 15, 2001, if

EPA has not approved a full 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP by that date and to promulgate a FIP by June 14, 2002, if a full

1-hour attainment demonstration SIP has not been approved. A FIP
would include any control measures that EPA determined were

necessary for Wisconsin to meet its attainment demonstration and rate-of-progress requirements. It should also be noted that a disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP could affect

Wisconsin's ability to use the SIP's motor vehicle emissions budget for conformity purposes and could adversely impact the

State's ability to move forward with some transportation projects.

If EPA promulgated a FIP for attainment of the 1-hour standard,

there is the possibility that the FIP would require nitrogen
oxide (NOx) reductions from sources in southeast Wisconsin currently covered by the 182(f) NOx waiver for the Lake Michigan

Air Directors Consortium area (61 FR 2428). If NOx reductions

were found to be beneficial toward reducing ozone levels in the
Milwaukee-Racine severe ozone nonattainment area, EPA could

remove the NOx waiver for the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area and NOx requirements would once again apply. Moreover, as part of a FIP, EPA could impose NOx controls beyond the nonattainment

area if such controls would be beneficial in achieving attainment

in the Milwaukee-Racine area.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and hope
it helps clarify the consequences associated with not submitting

a timely 1-hour Ozone SIP. Please call me if you have any questions.

### 30 

## Attachment 3

Demonstration of Progress in Reducing Emissions for Attainment

Areas designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard are required to reduce VOC emissions 3% per year from “adjusted” 1990 levels until the areas attain the ozone standard and get reclassified. For severe ozone areas, Rate of Progress (ROP) plans are required to meet milestone years in 1996 (15%), 1999 (24%), 2002 (33%), 2005 (42%) and 2007 (48%). For each milestone plan, an additional 3% reduction must be identified as a contingency measure. The first ROP SIP revision

was submitted in late 1993. The 1999 ROP SIP revision was submitted in 1997. The SIP revision for the remaining ROP milestones is due as part of the attainment demonstration.

For areas where NOx control is necessary or appropriate as a strategy to reduce ozone concentrations, NOx reductions may be substituted for VOC reductions. EPA guidance allows NOx reductions as a substitute for VOC reductions for ROP milestones beginning in 1999.

Wisconsin’s ROP SIP revisions for 1996 and 1999 relied on VOC emission reductions. Reductions in VOC emissions were believed to be the most appropriate means to improve ozone air quality. For the

1996 R OP Plan (“15% Plan”) for SE Wisconsin, specified CAA control measures provided most of the 15% VOC reduction. Federal programs to reduce VOC emissions included reformulated gasoline, clean fuel fleets, and revised motor vehicle emission standards. Wisconsin program elements included rules defining VOC RACT for major sources, enhancement to the vehicle I/M program, Stage 2 gasoline fueling vapor recovery, solvent limits for various coatings applications and a handful of “voluntary” industrial solvent regulation enhancements. In 1997 the Department projected that the VOC emission control measures in the 1996 ROP plan, along with additional emission reductions from adopted federal programs, would be sufficient to reach the 1999 ROP requirement.

To fulfill the ongoing contingency requirement for the 2002-2007 ROP plans, the final rule has deferred the additional 3% emission reduction target contained in the draft ROP plan by one year. The ROP emission reduction goal for 2002 is 33%. In 2003 the ROP plus contingency emission reduction goal is 36%. The ROP emission reduction goal for 2005 is 42%. In 2006 the ROP plus contingency emission reduction goal is 45%. From 2007 on, emission reductions will achieve at least a 51% reduction. The 51% emission reduction will satisfy the 2007 48% ROP requirement plus the 3% contingency requirement.

Figures 1 and 2 compare the emission reduction goals of the draft and final rules. The final rule will achieve the required ROP emission reductions in annual steps rather than in discreet three year steps. The steady reductions result from core ROP elements becoming effective for the 2002 milestone and the continuing emissions decline from then on based on annual fleet turnover from the national NLEV and Tier 2 motor vehicle rules combined with a steady drop in the target NOx emission rate for the large electric utility boilers between 2002 and 2007.

### 31



### VOC emission reductions are expected to continue, but these will not be sufficient to meet the 2002- 2007 ROP requirements. As a consequence, NOx emission reductions will be needed to cover some ROP and contingency requirements. The EPA has developed guidance on NOx emission reduction substitution for VOC reductions as part of ROP plans. This guidance requires a technical -



## - -



# - -



# - -

### 32



### demonstration to support the claim that NOx emission reductions are effective. NOx emission reductions may be substituted for VOC emission reductions so long as the VOC percentage reduction from the 1990 VOC adjusted emissions baseline plus the NOx percentage reduction from the 1990 NOx adjusted emissions baseline, when added together, are greater than or equal to the required ROP percentage reduction.

The proportion of VOC reductions to NOx reductions to achieve ROP is shown in Figure 3

.

The four Lake Michigan states previously received a waiver to the NOx RACT controls otherwise required for the Severe Ozone counties in Wisconsin. The waiver was based on modeling performed through 1994. Subsequent regional ozone control modeling efforts, beginning with the OTAG modeling from 1995 through 1997, established the need for regional NOx reductions to address ozone attainment across the Eastern US, including in the Lake Michigan area. The most recent modeling verifies the benefit of both the NOx and VOC reduction strategies for the Lake Michigan region.

The current air quality modeling for the Lake Michigan region, conducted for this attainment demonstration, verifies the need for strong regional NOx control to further reduce ozone concentrations under most episodic conditions. Additional VOC emission reductions, focused more locally, will reduce ozone levels under some conditions, but added VOC control has become are more expensive than the proportionate regional NOx emission reductions.

Attachment 3 - Page # 3

### 33



### Summary of the Post-2000 NOx-based Progress Plans

Tables 3-1 through 3-6 illustrate the VOC and NOx emission reductions necessary to meet the 2002, 2005 and 2007 ROP milestones. They show estimates of the actual VOC and NOx reductions from the adjusted 1990 baselines achieved through continued implementation of the 1996 and 1999 plans.

For calculating ROP emission budgets and necessary reductions the area included in the ROP plan is

the 8

- county area of Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Washington, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine,

and Kenosha.

VOC emissions projected for 2002, 2005 and 2007 are higher than prior estimates because of new information on activity levels and the creditability of emission reduction measures. The highway mobile sources VOC budget is slightly smaller after adjustments for vehicle speeds were incorporated. Under the final plan, the additional emission reductions needed for the 2002-2007 ROP milestones (including the 3% contingency) are achieved by reducing NOx emissions.

Table 3-1 Ozone Season Daily ROP Budgets – 2002, 2005, 2007

% Reduction

Relative to “1990 Adjusted

Baseline” 

### 2002 (“33%”) 2005 (“42%”) 2007 (“51%”)

VOC

3 30 tpd NOx

356 tpd VOC

329 tpd NOx

354 tpd VOC

328 tpd NOx

353 tpd

8 County Budget 

### 230 tpd 346 tpd 221 tpd 321 tpd 214 tpd 295 tpd

Creditable

Reduction 

### 30.3% 2.7% 32.8% 9.2% 34.8% 16.2%



### Table 3-2 1-Hr Ozone Attainment Demonstration – Mobile Sector Budgets

Counties with Ozone Attainment or Maintenance Conformity

Budgets 1 

### 2002 2005 2007

VOC 

### (TPD) NOx

(TPD) VOC



### (TPD) NOx

(TPD) VOC



### (TPD) NOx (TPD)

Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Waukesha, Washington, &

Ozaukee 43.5 103.5 36.7 84.1 32.2 71.4

Sheboygan 4.5 9.4 3.7 7.4 3.3 6.4

Manitowoc 5.4 10.0 5.2 8.8 5.2 8.3

TOTAL 53.4 122.9 45.6 100.3 40.7 86.1

1 Assumes high VMT growth, 7.5% buffer, updated speed profiles, and EPA’s latest Tier2/low sulfur gasoline projections.

Attachment 3 - Page # 4

### 34



### Table 3-3 Initial Milestone - 2002 - Total 33% Rate- of -Progress

2002 Planning Objective = 2.7% NOx and 30.3% VOC Reduction NOx Reduction Target = 43.4 Tons per Ozone Day for 8 Counties



### Control Measures Evaluated for 2002 Progress:

Sector

– M easure Tons Impact 2002

Mobile

- I/M Cutpoints on May 1, 2001 13.6

Performance Standards for Existing Facilities 4.6

Utility

– System Emission Rate 0.33 Assumes both I/M Cutpoints and Perf. Standards,

Net of Growth 25

Performance Standards for New Sources

Reduction from Growth .2



### Table 3-4 Intermediate Milestone - 2005 - Total 42% Rate- of -Progress

2005 Planning Objective = 9.2% NOx and 32.8% VOC Reduction NOx Reduction Target = 47.9 Tons per Ozone Day for 8 Counties



### Control Measures Evaluated for 2005 Progress:

Sector

– Measure Tons Impact 2005

Mobile

- I/M Cutpoints on May 1, 2001 10.1

Performance Standards for Existing Facilities 4.6

Utility

– System Emission Rate 0.29 Assumes both I/M Cutpoints and Perf. Standards 32

Pe rformance Standards for New Sources 1.2



### Table 3-5 Final Milestone - 2007 - Total 51% Rate- of -Progress

2005 Planning Objective = 16.2% NOx and 34.4% VOC Reduction NOx Reduction Target = 61.7 Tons per Ozone Day for 8 Counties



### Control Measures Evaluated for 2007 Progress:

Sector

– Measure Tons Impact 2007

Mobile

- I/M Cutpoints on May 1, 2001 6.8 Performance Standards for Existing Facilities 4.6 Utility

– System Emission Rate 0.28 Assumes both I/M Cutpoints and Perf. Standards 48.6

Performance St andards for New Sources 1.7 Attachment 3 - Page # 5

### 35

Table 3- 6 2002 and 2007 Emissions Forecasts and ROP Budgets

TONS PER DAY

8 Non

- Attainment

Counties Uncontrolled 2002 Emissions Forecast, if no added NOx reductions sml egu LARGE Highway Non

- Road Area Industrial EGU TOTAL

6

- Severe 116.2 44 32 13 105 310.2 Sheboygan 10.3 5 2.3 1 42 60.6

Manitowoc 10 4 1.7 3 0 18.7

TOTAL 136.5 53 36 17 147 389.5

2002 Emissions Budget to meet ROP

sml e gu LARGE

Highway Non

- Road Area Industrial EGU TOTAL

6

- Severe 103.5 44 32 9 91.2 279.7 Sheboygan 9.4 5 2.3 0.9 30.5 48.1

Manitowoc 10 4 1.7 2.5 0 18.2

TOTAL 122.9 53 36 12.4 121.7 346

Allowable 346

8 Non

- Attainment Counties Uncontrolled 2007 Emissions Forecast in tons per day if no added NOx reductions sml egu LARGE Highway Non

- Road Area Industrial EGU TOTAL

6

- Severe 77.8 41.5 30.2 16 114 279.5 Sheboygan 6.8 4.7 2.2 1.2 45 59.9

Ma nitowoc 8.3 3.8 1.6 3.6 0 17.3

TOTAL 92.9 50 34 20.8 159 356.7

2007 Emissions Budget in tons per day to meet ROP sml egu LARGE Highway Non

- Road Area Industrial EGU TOTAL

6

- Severe 71.4 41.5 30.2 10.2 82.8 236.1

Sh eboygan 6.4 4.7 2.2 1.2 27.6 42.1

Manitowoc 8.3 3.8 1.6 3.1 0 16.8

TOTAL 86.1 50 34 14.5 110.4 295.0

Allowable 295

Attachment 3 - Page # 6

### 36 

## Attachment 4

Stationary Source NOx Control Program

Overview

NR428 addresses stationary source NOx emissions and is structured to meet Rate-of-Progress (ROP) emission reduction requirements through 2007, the ozone attainment deadline for the Lake Michigan region. The program encompasses the eight southeast WI counties and proposes NOx controls for larger existing sources and establishes emission standards for new sources. The existing source control program reduces emissions at electric utility facilities and on larger industrial combustion sources from projected baseline levels in 2002 through 2007. The performance standards for new sources address emission rates from new uncontrolled facilities in the eight counties and for those undergoing major modification.



### Performance Standards for Existing Sources

The existing source performance standards are projected to effect 48 individual units at 21 facilities. Figure 4-1 notes the facilities and their relative location. This program is targeted to achieve 30 tons NOx per day at an average cost of approximately $1,000 per day by the 2003 ozone season. The program is expected to achieve a 55 ton per day reduction by 2007 at an average cost of approximately $1,600 per ton. Table 4-1 details the estimated program cost and impact for existing sources. The program consists of two basic elements: 1) ozone season emission limits for electric utility systems comprised of boilers equal to or greater than 500 mmbtu/hr; and 2) Unit-specific requirements of either emission rate limits or combustion optimization for other large

emission sources. Table 4-7 summarizes the performance standards by categories of combustion equipment and the associated applicability threshold.

Electric Utility System Emission Limits

Utility system emission limits are proposed for all utility boilers equal to or greater than 500 mmbtu/hr and are effective December 31, 2002. The limits were developed to meet the bulk of ROP requirements for each year through 2007 (specified in Table 4-7 ), and account for all the ROP need not met by the other plan components.

Th e emission limits apply during each respective ozone season and require determination of a 30 day rolling average over all designated units in a utility system based on 40 CFR Part 75 monitoring. A total of seventeen units, in the Alliant and WEPCO utility systems, are affected under this provision and are expected to pursue a combination of combustion modifications and post-combustion control for compliance. The list of effected utility sources and assumed controls are listed in Table 4-5 . Currently, the utility units have the necessary Part 75 monitoring and can therefore meet the monitoring requirements of the rule.

The majority of NOx reductions are targeted from the electric utility sector for several reasons. First, the utility boilers (=> 500 mmbtu/hr) account for roughly 90% or 147 ton/day of the total NOx emissions from stationary source categories. Second, by designating all of a utility’s major generation units into one averaging category, the rule provides the greatest flexibility in meeting reduction requirements. And third, the EPA determined, in their analysis for reducing NOx transport (the NOx SIP Call), that control of large utility systems to a 0.15 lbs/mmbtu emission rate costs less than $2,000 per ton on a system average basis. EPA determined the 0.15 average control level to be “highly cost effective”. Hence the utility system focus serves to obtain NOx reductions in a cost-effective manner while providing flexibility to the affected sources.

### 37

Table 4-1 Summary of the Impact of Performance Standards for Existing Sources

Program

Element No. of

Facilities No. of

Units Units

Currently Meeting NR

428 2002 NOx

Reduction (tpd) Estimated

Annual Cost ($/year) Estimated

Annual Cost ($/ton)

Utility System in

2002 5 17 0 25 up to 8 $M 1 ,000

Utility System in

2007 5 17 0 48 up to 13.4 $M 1,600

Unit Specific

Emission Limits 8 15 6 2.3 (80,000) to
70,000 - 250 to 200

NOx Combustion Optimization 10 16 0 2.3 (35,000) to
18,000 - 100 to 50

Subtotal 17 31 6 4.6 (123,190) to 88,000 - 200 to 150

Program Total

– 2002 21 48 6 29.6 up to 8.1 $M ~ 1,000

Program Total

– 2007 21 48 6 54.6 up to 13.5 $M ~1,600



### The initial requirement is for the utilities to meet an 0.33 lbs/mmbtu emission rate by the 2003 ozone season. An analysis of control options in Table 4-2 indicates this rate may potentially be reached through combustion modifications of Over-Fire Air (OFA) at the Alliant facility and through the installation of Low NOx burners at several WEPCO facilities. WEPCO may also have to utilize a higher cost natural gas re-burn system at the Pleasant Prairie facility during the initial 2003 ozone season. However, to achieve system average emissionrates below this level, the analysis shows that the utilities would likely have to implement additional postcombustion controls. Although post-combustion controls are cost effective and may be implemented to comply with the final 2007 emission rate, the engineering and construction timing of these controls (such as SCR) would make implementation by the 2003 ozone season extremely difficult. That could result in significant cost increases for the needed system reductions. The control phase-in approach starting at the 0.33 emission limit allows the utility systems to first optimize around combustion modification if that is the most efficient path to

NOx reduction.

Attachment 4 - Page # 2

### 38



### Table 4-2 Analysis of Electric Utility System Controls

Utility Emission

Rate Anticipated NOx Control

Installations Estimated

Annual Cost (M$) Estimated

Cost per

Ton ($/ton)

Alliant

– Edgewater 0.33 to 0.34 2 OFA < 1.6 M 400

0.31 to 0.32 2 OFA + 1 SNCR < 2.4 M 600

< 0.31 2 OFA + 1 SCR up to 7 M 2,100

WEPCO 0.33 to 0.34 3 LNB + FLGR up to 4 M 1,000

0.31 to 0.33 2 LNB + One SCR (or 2

a dditional LNB@ PP w/ additional LNB installations @ other units) up to 6.5 M 1,300

2002 ROP 0.33 up to 6 M 950

2007 ROP 0.28 up to 13.5 M 1,600 OFA – Overfire Air is a combustion modification which provides air above the main combustion area to allow for low NOx staged firing in the chamber. This technology provides 60 to 70% reduction in cyclone boilers. SNCR –Selective non-catalytic reduction is a post-combustion technique which involves the addition of ammonia or urea into exhaust gases to convert NOx to N 2

. SCR – Selective catalytic reduction is a post-combustion technique which involves installation of a large catalyst bed and the injection of ammonia or urea to achieve greater NOx control levels than either OFA or SNCR. FLGR – Fuel Lean Gas Reburn is a staged combustion system with the potential addition of urea or amine for deep

reductions.



### Unit Specific Performance Standards

The rule proposes emission limits for individual existing NOx emission units to be met during the ozone season effective December 31, 2002. These are listed in Table 4-7 . The limits are specified by source category and fuel type to reflect low NOx combustion technology. Applicability is based on the unit’s maximum capacity

combined with consideration of its ozone season utilization based on 2000 ozone season or after. Units not initially subject to the limits can trigger the requirement in a later year based on growing utilization. The unit is required to monitor emissions using 40CFR Part 60 monitoring or equivalent and show compliance with the emission rate on a 30 day rolling average and is required to submit compliance information along with current annual reports.

The emission limits were determined based on an analysis of combustion control modifications and low NOx technology. This primarily reflects low NOx burners for gas and oil fired processes and low NOx burners or air staging of the combustion process for solid fueled boilers. These technologies reduce NOx by controlling excess air to the combustion process and in many of the newer applications have demonstrated the potential to increase fuel efficiency. Because fuel consumption in larger industrial applications is typically a big portion of annual facility operating cost, these improved fuel combustion technologies can result in significant operational savings. It is also expected that the continuous monitoring of the rule will yield additional fuel efficiency gains. The capacity thresholds and utilization factors for each source category reflects level at which potential savings offset the expected initial capital investment. Units not utilized on a frequent basis would not see significant operational savings.

Attachment 4 - Page # 3

### 39

Based on historic data, the proposed emission limits for existing sources affect fifteen units at eight facilities for an approximate total reduction potential of 4.6 tons per day. These are listed in Table 4-6 . An analysis of controls for these sources resulted in an average program cost ranging from a net savings of $250/ton including efficiency improvements to a direct cost of $200/ton excluding the efficiency gains. Because final rule applicability is based on a unit’s record of operation in 2000 or after, the list of affected source is subject to change. The rule requires any unit triggering the utilization threshold to demonstrate compliance with the appropriate limit by the following calendar year.

Combustion Optimization for NOx Emissions

-

The combustion optimization procedure applies to individual units as specified by source category in Table 4-7

. The applicability is generally based on units with a 75 mmbtu/hr or greater capacity and a 20% or greater ozone season utilization factor. The rule provides that sources with an emission limit performance standard are exempt from the optimization requirement. As with the emission limits, the optimization requirement has a compliance date of December 31, 2002 and is shown to be applicable based on the year 2000 ozone season capacity utilization level. Units triggering the utilization threshold after 2000 must show compliance with the optimization requirement the following calendar year.

Combustion optimization requires the operator to pursue an engineering evaluation of the combustion unit and air delivery system to identify options for reduction of NOx emissions based on operational improvements. The facility then uses this information to determine a combustion optimization plan pursuant to review by the Department.

The unit is then set for optimized operation according to the plan and monitored to determine a low NOx operating curve over the potential load swing of the unit. Although low NOx combustion equipment modifications are a component of the evaluation, the source is only required to optimize existing equipment, but may elect to pursue these alternatives. The unit is ultimately required to operate consistent with the determination of an optimum combustion approach. A continuous combustion analyzer system is to be used to ensure continued operation with the low-NOx curve.

For simple combustion units, the initial optimization procedure may consist of a modest tuning effort combined with a balancing of the combustion airflow. The more complex combustion units subject to the rule, such as coal fired stoker boilers, will require a more in-depth evaluation of potential combustion modifications and process adjustments. These complex evaluations are expected to incur an initial capital cost per unit approaching $50,000. The continuous monitoring systems are expected to have an initial capital cost of $10,000 to $15,000. As with other low-NOx combustion technologies, the primary mechanism for emission reduction is through the control of excess combustion air and is expected to result in fuel efficiency gains. The unit threshold and capacity utilization are based on the threshold for the fuel and cost savings to offset initial capital investments for the optimization process.

Based on historic data, 16 units at 10 facilities are potentially subject to the optimization requirement. These are

as listed in Table 4-6 . The optimization component is anticipated to yield 2.3 tons per day in NOx reduction for ROP starting in 2002 (for the 2003 ozone season). Based on the anticipated efficiency gains, these facilities can expect to save upwards of $100/ton NOx reduction. Excluding the projected efficiency gains (as an indirect savings) related to the NOx reduction, the direct NOx control expenditure is estimated to range upwards to
$50/ton.

Attachment 4 - Page # 4

### 40



### Performance Standards for New Sources

New sources shall meet an annual emission limit based on source category and fuel type. These are listed in

Table 4-8 . The criteria for “New” is met by any unit obtaining a new source construction permit or for an existing unit which undergoes a “major modification” as defined by the current New Source Review programs. Compliance with the emission limits is based on a 30 day rolling average using 40 CFR Part 60 monitoring or equivalent, however, the rule provides the ability to demonstrate alternative monitoring as appropriate to each source. A compliance report is submitted annually as part of other reporting elements specified in the source’s operation permit.

The new source limit standards require sources to implement readily available low-NOx technology for new equipment. The limits are based on combustion technology specific to primary fuel type. The limits do not require post-combustion control investments. This ensures a minimum addition of NOx emissions from new sources in a cost-effective manner. Because the limits are based on control technology integrated into the combustion equipment, applicability is based exclusively on unit capacity thresholds.

Table 4-3 Analysis of 1999 Permits in 8 Proposed Counties
Source Type # of Units Capacity Range

Gas/Oil Boilers 3 < 25 mmbtu/hr
IC Engines 9 150 mmbtu/hr
Asphalt Plants 2 150 mmbtu/hr

Furnaces 3 < 25 mmbtu/hr

Gas Fired Processes 3 < 25 mmbtu/hr

Estimated Total NOx ~ 1 ton per day



### The new source standards have the potential to significantly reduce daily NOx emissions. As shown in Table 4-

3 , an analysis of 1999 permits indicate that new and modified sources not addressed by the New Source Programs had the potential to add up to 1 ton per day of NOx during the ozone season. In addition, Table 4-4 shows several other potential new NOx emission sources not captured in the 1999 analysis which would or could be expected to become operational during course of the ROP plan. The analysis shows that one typical source alone can account for up to 0.5 tpd NOx and indicates that the total potential to emit from new sources in one year could easily exceed the one ton per day estimated for 1999. Table 4-4 illustrates that the limits have the potential to reduce new source emission levels from 45 to 75%.

Attachment 4 - Page # 5

### 41

Table 4-4 Analysis of Typical New Sources not Captured by the NSR or PSD programs.



### Typical Source Large Sources

not Captured by NSR Uncontrolled

Emission Rate (l bs/mmbtu) Potential

Emitted NOx (tpd) Proposed

Emission

Rate Proposed

Potential NOx (tpd) Potential

Reduction (tpd) Percent

Reduction

Distillate Fired

Boiler 100 mmbtu/hr 0.23 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.09 61%

Gas Fired Boiler 100 mmbtu/hr 0.20 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.10 75%

Natural Gas Fired
Process Heaters,
Furnaces, etc 100 mmbtu/hr 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.07 50%

Asphalt Plants 150 mmbtu/hr 0.29 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.13 48%

Combustion

Turbines 25 MW 0.40 0.66 0.14 0.23 0.43 65%

IC Engines 1000 hp 12 gr/bhp 0.16 6.9 gr /bhp 0.09 0.07 43% 

### Assume 55% capacity utilization



### NOx Program Compliance

Any new or existing unit subject to a NOx emission limit performance standard must demonstrate compliance based on Part 60 monitoring or equivalent. The rule provides for a showing of alternative monitoring that is sufficient for an emission limit determination. Utility units equal to or greater than 500 mmbtu/hr, and subject to Part 75 monitoring, are excluded from the alternate monitoring. The rule provides for emission limit averaging by fuel, averaging between units, and trading. All units affected by emission limit performance standards must demonstrate compliance on a 30 day rolling average. A common averaging time provides program consistency and allows for such compliance options as unit averaging and trading.

Unit Averaging of Emission Rates – Emission rate averaging is provided for on a heat input weighted basis between units owned or operated by a single corporate entity subject to an proposed emission limit of NR 428. This includes averaging between and within new and existing sources including those units affected by electric utility corporate emission rates and specific emission rates. The program ultimately requires that a new source must first meet its applicable emission limit before averaging with another new or existing source. This is consistent with other new source programs which do not allow over control of an existing source to allow a new unit to come in at a higher limit. Any unit participating in averaging between units is required to utilize Part 60 monitoring to demonstrate compliance.

Trading – The rule provides for trading between corporate entities for any unit subject to a proposed emission limit. Trades can occur between any new or existing units under the program but, as with “Unit Averaging” all new sources must meet applicable emission limits before the trade. The source must also demonstrate the traded emissions are reductions below their 2000 base year emissions. Units participating in trading must demonstrate surplus and quantifiable emissions using Part 60 monitoring and Part 75 flow monitoring to demonstrate

tradable mass emissions.

Attachment 4 - Page # 6

### 42



# Figure 4

- 1. Facilities Identified to be Potentially Affected by NR 428 II



# •

### 43

Table 4-5 Electric Utility Boilers Affected and Projected Compliance in 2002 (Boilers => 500 mmbtu/hr)

Electric Utility System Facility County Unit 2002 Facility NOx (tpd) 2002 Utility

NOx (tpd) Assumed Aditional Control Technology Estimated System

Annual Cost (Million$) Estimated

System Cost ($/ton)

Alliant Ed gewater Sheboygan Edge 5 10

43 < 1.6 M$ 400 Edge 4 27 Overfire Air / SNCR Edge 3 5 Overfire Air

WEPCO Oak Creek Milwaukee OC 8 8

104 Low NOx Burners

up to 6.5 M$ 1,300 OC 7 9 Low NOx Burners

OC 6 9

OC 5 8

Pleasant

Prairie Kenosha PP 1 27 One SCR and LNB @ PP or LNBs @ PP and multiple LNB on other Units PP 2 25

Port Washington Ozaukee PW 3 2

PW 1 2

PW 2 3

PW 4 2

Valley Milwaukee Val 2 3

Val 2 3

Va l 1 2

Val 1 2



### Total 5 facilities 17 units 147 147 up to 8.1 M$ 950

Attachment 4 - Page # 8

### 44 Table 4-6 Identified Facilities Potentially Affected by Unit Specific Performance Standards for Existing Sources

Key County Source Dev ice Current

Emission

Rate (lbs/mmbtu) Regulatory

Threshold Proposed

Requirement (lbs/mmbtu) Anticipated Additional

Control 2002

Esitmated

Reduction (tons/day)

1 Manitowoc Manitowoc Public Utility Coal Stoker Boiler 0.54 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combus tion Monitoring 0.34

Coal Stoker Boiler 0.53 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.29

Coal Stoker Boiler 0.53 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.21

Coal Fluidized Boiler 0.11 100 mmbtu/hr 0.20

- 2 Rockwell Lime Lime Kiln 0.14 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.06

3 Sheboygan Kohler Natural Gas Boiler 0.14 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.01

4 Plastics Engineering Natural Gas Boiler 0.14 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0. 01

5 ANR Pipeline IC Engine 1.8 gr/hp 2000 hp 6.0 gr/hp

-

6 Washington WEPCO

– Germantown Combustion Turbine 0.72 50 MW 0.14 LNB (already installing) 0.09

Combustion Turbine 0.72 50 MW 0.14 LNB (already installing) 0.05

Combustion Turbi ne 0.72 50 MW 0.14 LNB (already installing) 0.03

Combustion Turbine 0.72 50 MW 0.14 LNB (already installing) 0.10

7 Ozaukee Charter Steel Metal Working Furnace 0.14 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 Low NOx Burner 0.03

8 Milwaukee DOA / UW Milwaukee Natural Ga s Boiler 0.14 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.01

9 Mid

- American Drum Metal Working Furnace 1.5 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 Low NOx Burner 1.23

10 Miller Brewing Company Natural Gas Boiler 0.42 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 Low NOx Burner 0.12

Natura l Gas Boiler 0.42 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 Low NOx Burner 0.12

Natural Gas Boiler 0.42 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Low NOx Burner 0.12

Natural Gas Boiler 0.42 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Low NOx Burner 0.12

11 Milwaukee Co Power

Plant Coal Stoker Boiler 0.54 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.18

Coal Stoker Boiler 0.54 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.17

Coal Stoker Boiler 0.54 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.16

12 Pfister and Vogel Leather Natural Gas Boiler 0.14 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.01

13 Wisconsin Paperboard Natural Gas Boiler 0.35 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 Low NOx Burner 0.37

14 Racine Ball & Foster Glass Glass Furnace 0.93 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.23

Glass Furnace 0.93 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.58

15 Case Corporation Natural Gas Boiler 0.14 75 mmbtu/hr Optimization Combustion Monitoring 0.01

16 Kenosha WEPCO

– Paris Combustion Turbine 0.08 50 MW 0.09

- Combustion Turbine 0.08 50 MW 0.09

- Combustion Turbine 0.08 50 MW 0.09

- Combustion Turbine 0.08 50 MW 0.09

-

Total 16 Facilities 31 units 4.7

Attachment 4 - Page # 9

### Table 4-7 NR 428 Performance Standards for Existing Sources

Source Category App licable Threshold (equal to or greater) Limitation Monitoring Requirement

Seasonal Electric Utility System Average Emission Rate

Electric Utility Boilers 500 mmbtu/hr 2002................0.33 lbs/mmbtu

2003.................0.31 lbs/mmbtu

2004........... .....0.30 lbs/mmbtu

2005................0.29 lbs/mmbtu

2006................0.29 lbs/mmbtu

2007.................0.28 lbs/mmbtu Part 75 CEM

Seasonal Emission Limit Requirements (Sources operating < 25 Capacity Factor Exempt)

Cyclone 100 mmbtu/hr 0.45 lbs/ mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Fluidized Bed 100 mmbtu/hr 0.20 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Pulverized Coal 100 mmbtu/hr 0.30 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Gas Fired Boiler 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Oil Fired Boiler 100 mmbt u/hr Distillate..........0.12 lbs/mmbtu

Residual...........0.20 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Metal Reheat, Annealing, and Galvanizing Furnaces 100 mmbtu/hr 0.10 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Combustion Turbine (No C.F. exemption) 50 MW Gas: 75 ppm Oil: 110 ppm Part 60 or equivalent

Reciprocating Engine (No C.F. exemption) 2000 hp Rich burn ............9.5 gr/bhp Lean burn...........10.0 gr/bhp Distillate fuel.......8.5 gr/bhp Dual fuel..............6.0 gr/bhp Part 60 or equivalent

Optimization of External Combustion Sources (Capacity Factor < 20% Exempt)*

Solid Fuel Boilers 75 mmbtu/hr Combustion Optimization Continuous Combustion Analyzer

Gas/Oil Fired 75 mmbtu/hr Combustion Optimization Continuous Combustion Analyzer

Cement, Lime Kilns, Calciners 75 mmbtu/hr Combustion Optimization Continuous Combustion Analyzer

Reheat, Annealing, Galvanizing

Furnaces 75 mmbtu/hr Combustion Optimization Continuous Combustion Analyzer

Glass Furnaces 75 mmbtu/hr Combustion Optimization Continuous Combust ion Analyzer
* Includes all sources above this threshold not subject to an emission rate limit Footnote – All emission limits are an ozone season requirement and based on a 30 day rolling average.

Attachment 4 - Page # 10

### 2 Table 4-8 NR 428 Performance Standards for New Sources

Source Category Applicable Threshold (equal to or greater unless specified) Requirement Monitoring

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers 250 mmbtu/hr 0.15 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers < 250 mmbtu/hr 0.20 lbs/mmbt u Part 60 or equivalent

Gaseous / Oil Fired Boilers 25 mmbtu/hr Gas................ 0.05 lbs/mmbtu

Distillate.........0.09 lbs/mmbtu

Residual..........0.15 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Recovery Boilers 50 mmbtu/hr 0.10 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Cement Kilns, Lime Kilns, and

Calciners 50 mmbtu/hr Gas.................0.10 lbs/mmbtu

Distillate.........0.12 lbs/mmbtu

Residual...........0.20 lbs/mmbtu

Solid Fuel........0.60 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Reheat, Annealing, Galvanizing

Furnaces 50 m mbtu/hr 0.10 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Glass Furnaces 50 mmbtu/hr 4 lbs/ ton pulled glass Part 60 or equivalent

Asphalt Plants 50 mmbtu/hr Gas..................0.15 lbs/mmbtu

Distillate..........0.20 lbs/mmbtu

Residual or

Waste Oil......... 0.2 7 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Process Heating Units (Process Heaters, Ovens, Dryers, and other external combustion) 50 mmbtu/hr Gas...................0.10 lbs/mmbtu

Oil.....................0.12 lbs/mmbtu Part 60 or equivalent

Combustion Turbine 85 MW Gas............. 12 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Oil............... 25 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Part 60 or equivalent

Combustion Turbine 40 to 84 MW Gas................ 9 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Oil............... 25 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Part 60 or equivalent

Combustion Turbine < 40 MW Gas.. ............25 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Oil................65 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Part 60 or equivalent

Combined Cycle Turbines 25 MW Gas............... 3 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Oil................ 8 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Part 60 or equivalent

Combined Cycle Turbine < 25MW Gas....... ..... 14 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Oil................25 ppmdv (15% O 2 ) Part 60 or equivalent

Reciprocating Engines 1000 hp Compression..........6.9 gram/bhp Spark Ignition.........4.0 gram/bhp Part 60 or equivalent

Footnote 

### - Performance standards do not supersede existing NSR or PSD program requirements. Footnote – All emission limits are an annual requirement and based on a 30 day rolling average.

## Attachment E Public Hearing Notice and Proof of Publishing

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Revision of the Wisconsin Ozone State Implementation Plan

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to s

. 285.11 (6)

, Wis. Stats

, the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing regarding the incorporation of Wisconsin s tatute s. 285 .27 (3m) into the ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Date and Time Location February 18 , 2014 Natural Resources State Office Buildi ng 1:30 pm Room 713
101 South Webster Street Madison, WI

R eas onable accommodations or informational material in an alternative format will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. To do so, make a request to Tom Karman using the contact information provided below. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Availability of the P roposed SIP Documents Background information and proposed documents relate d to revising the ozone SIP can be downloaded

at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/Input.html or hardcopies obtained, free of charge, by contacting Tom

Karman as indicated below.

Background

Wi sconsin Statute 285 .27 (3m) establishes alternative nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) emission requirements for

s imple cycle combustion turbines that undergo a major modification and which are within the Milwaukee

Racine ozone nonattainment area. The qualifying combust ion turbines are those that would otherwise be subject to NO

x emission limitations under s. NR 428.04( 2 ) (g) 1.a. and 2.a., Wis. Adm. Code, but which do not have the appropriate control equipment available. Instead, a qualifying simple cycle combustion

turbi ne must operate water injection NO

x control technology and meet appropriate emission limitations

when firing either natural gas or distillate fuels, respectively, as required under s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats.

This action will continue to satisfy ozone SIP requirements in that the emi ssion rates under s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats., are no higher than the emission rates allowed before a combustion turbine undergoes a

modification

.

Action S ubject to Comment The Department is soliciting comment related to the a ction of incorporating s. 285 .27 (3m), Wis. Stats.,
into the Ozone SIP. This action is necessary for s. 285.27 (3m) , Wis. Stats., to be come a federally enforceable requirement. The Department is not soliciting comment at this time on the substance of s.

28 5 .27 (3m), Wis. Stats. Public hearings were held on the substance of s . 285 .27 (3m), Wis. Stats., by the State Assembly Committee on the Environment and Forestry under Assembly Bill 463 on October 29,

2013 and by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources u nder Senate Bill 371 on October 31, 2013.

Agency Contact and S ubmitting Comment Comments on the proposed SIP submittal should be received on or before February 19 , 201 4. Written

comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, or email and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing.Questions or requests related to the hearing and w ritten comments or questions on the proposed SIP

revision should be submitted to:

Tom Karman

D epartment of Natural Resources

Bureau o f Air Management (AM/7)
101 S

. Webster St

. , Madison, WI 53703

Phone: (608) 264

- 8856

Fax: (608) 267

- 0560

E

- mail: Thomas.Karman@Wisconsin.gov

Dated at Madiso n, Wisconsin:

____________________

STATE OF WISCONSIN

D EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By _____

_______________ Cathy Stepp , Secretary

### Capital Newspapers Proof of Publication Affidavit

Ad# : 2152744 Price : $103

. 01 Ad ID: AMLL 1106

Retain this portion for your re co rds

. Pl

ease do not remit payment until you receive your adverti si

ng invoic e

.

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
R•vl•lo n o f the**~cons** In Ozone State

NOTICE**l~..r~;E~'!,ta~~~:l~~AT** pursu

-**~:~r ~i** **~:r.;~~ ~l** **·.~~C:~':!~~~ :,~do:~~~** **~** Es

. lie he ar ing rega rding the incorpo r ation o f \Maconsin stat ut e s. 285.27 (3m) in1o th e

o zo ne Sta l e Implementation Plan**~SIP~. ~!e**  and !imp : Feb ru ary 16. 20 4, :3 0

, 1**~** Natu r a l Resources State Otftee Building Room 7, 3, 101 South \i\lebster Street Mad1son, W I Reasonable accommodotlons or Informa

- tional material i n en a l temative f ormat wm be prov ided for qualified Ind ividual s w ith
disabilities upon teques t. To do so

, ma ke

a requ es t to Tom Karman us in g the con- t ac t Informa t ion provided b a iOVaf

. A fWiqtJelt must Include specifte informallon and be recel\led at least 10 days before t he date of the echeduled heanng

. Availability of the Propo.ed SIP Oocu · menta Background Information and proposed documents related to r evis i ng the ozone S I P can be downloaded at http :/Jd nr

.**~~·~~~"~g~~~~u;:~tztt nrc~!':o~.**  

### ob**h~~** tactlng Tom Karman as Ind i cated beYow. Background } Wisconsin Sta lut e 286

. 27 (3m) eatab · ll s l, e& a lt ernat i ve nitrogen oxide (NOx )

e mi ss ion req uir ements fo. · !Sample cyc l e combustion turbine• that undergo a ma-**~l~a0u~~;~~~i~~d o':~~h** **~o~a~:~~~hn~** a r ea. The qualify i ng combustion turbines

are thoa e that would otherwise be sub · ject to NOx e m iss i on llm 1 tatlon s under s

.**~~d:~gu~~ ~~l~c,•;.:t"~a~** **ih:;:• ·** **~~':1** WSJ

ate control eq u ipment ava ilable

. Cfttead,

a qualifying simple cycle comtxJst l on tur

- bine must operate water injection NOx**~~~ c~7~~Jn:n~~~otfi~** **r:f;~~~~~ ~t~~~u~:-esd** **o~~~~~ !~.,** **~S~'.~;ett:r'~r:** Slats. This action wi tl continue to sat i sfy ozone SIP requiAirnents In tha t the emission rate5 under s. 285

. 27 (3 m )

, Wls Stets

. ,**=•~ 0** **b~~~=r** 

# a**~~~:st~:n~~~~n~·~n ~:** **: l~~~n•** **~!~~~~t'Omrncnt** The Department i a soliciting commen t related to tho action of Incorporating a. 285.27 (3m). Wis. Sl ats

.. Into t he Ozona SIP

. This action Is necessary for s. 285.27 (3m ). W i s Stat&., to become a federally enfo r ceable req uirement

. The Department is not ao lfciti ng comment at thia lime on the s ub stance of s

. 285.27 (3m). Wis. Stat.

. P ublic h eanngs were he ' d on the subatance of a

. 285

. 27**~3 m)**  Wis

. S la ts.,**Wn~~~n~:~ ~~~'f'~~t~~~~eA~~~~~**  bly Bill 463 on October 29, 2013 and by the Senate Committee on Netur• l Re-

so urus under Senete Bill 371 on October 31.2013

. Agency Contlllct and Submitting Commont**~~~~o~~r~b'e~~:~~orr~~ -::!r** **~~ ~~~'Z~**  19, 2014. Written commen t & mar, be GUb · mitted by U

. S. mail l ax
, or e mail and W i ll ss.

• have the same welght ond effect

. u orel CJ

s t atemenl:9 presented at the public**he ~**  lng Que s tion• o r requostc related to ( hHring and wntten comments or quae · t .J tions on the proposed SIP r ev l alon should

be submitted to · Tom Karman. Departme nt of Natural Resouroe s, Bureau of Air M• n ·**~8~"S"~~lst.,** Madlson

. Wl53703 Phone · (808 ) 284

. 8856 Fax:(608l 267

- 0560 · E-maii

· Thomas.Karmon@Wi•c:on·**~~i~~v•t** Madison. wtsconsln : 1 /10/2014**5m.~~~~~C06'.;'IN** NATURAL RE

SOURCES By /o/ Cathy**Ste~p, Sea-eta,~**  2014

PUB ws**~;~~~:** WNAXLP RECEIVE D



### JAN 2 1 

### 2014

AIR MANAGEMENT

ARLENE STAFF

being duly sworn, doth depose and say that

he (she) is an authorized representative of Capital Newspapers, publishers of

Wisconsin State Journal

a newspaper

, at Madison

, the seat of government of said State,

and that an advertisement of which the annexed is a true

copy, taken from said paper, was published therein on January 16th

, 2014



# -...... (Sign e d)

- - 

# t

, \. (

(Title) Principal Cler

Subscribed and sworn to before me on



### JL.

... /**~** 

### _(,__**~)** 

# ' -· (_ 

# /_**~** ( (

, -

## ~ ) l · /1 

## l ( L C 1 If 1 L Notary Public, Dane County, Wisconsin

My Commission expires July 31st, 2 017

## Attachment F Summary of Comment and Response Regarding Incorporating s. 285.27 (3m) , Wis. Stats., Into the Ozone State Implementation Plan

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) held a public hearing on February 18, 2014 regarding incorporating s. 285.27 (3m) Wis. Stats., into the Wisconsin ozone state implementation plan (SIP). The notice for hearing and comment was published on January 16, 2014 with the ability to submit comments to the WDNR through February 19, 2014.

One person attended the public hearing, Mrs. Kathleen Standen, representing Wisconsin Electric Power Company (We Energies), an investor owned utility, which operates four combustion turbines potentially subject to the proposed SIP revision. Mrs. Standen indicated support for the proposed SIP revision. In addition, We Energies submitted written comment supporting the proposed SIP revision.

The WDNR did not receive negative comment regarding the proposed SIP revision.

## Attachment G

SIP Certification for s. 285.27 (3m), Wis. Stats.

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

BUREAU OF AIR MANAGEMENT

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR s. 51 .1 02(f), I hereby certify that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources held the hearing described below; that the hearing was held in accordance with the public notice (copy attached), as required by 40 CFR s. 51.1 02(d); and that I was the presiding officer at the hearing.

Subject :

Revisions to SIP to incorporate NOx emission limitations enacted under s. 285.27 (3m)

for certain combustion turbines.

Hearing held:

Tuesday February 18, 2013 in Madison

, Wisconsin.

Written comments were received until February 19,2013.

Subscribed and sworn to before me This 

## 02.4-+1'- day**of ~~Y**  , 

### 2014

# ~%2-4~ Notary Public, State of Wisconsin Michael Friedlander Hearing Officer

Bureau OF Air Management

My commission is permanent. 

## \\}3.0 

# j·ao 11./