United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Washington, DC 20240

OCT 3 0 2007

Doyle Childers. Director

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City. Missouri 65102

Dear Mr. Childers:

We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State through the initial evaluation,

development, and review process. Please note that only the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) can make a final determination regarding the document's completeness and therefore its

ability to receive Federal approval from EPA.

As outlined in a letter to each Slate dated August 1, 2006, the FWS review focused on eight basic

content areas, which reflect priorities of the Federal land management agencies. We have

enclosed the specific comments associated wilh each of these content areas. In general, our

review of the State of Missouri's draft plan indicates a need to more completely address the land

management agency priorities. However, the FWS Branch of Air Quality staff" stands rcad\ to

work with you toward resolution of these issues. We ask that further consultations take place

with us prior to public release of the draft plan. We have enclosed a copy of the August 1. 2006,

letter for your reference as you consider the concerns we are raising. We look forward to your

response, as per section 40 CFR 51,308(i)(3). Specific questions regarding the review of and

consultation on the draft plan may be directed to Mr. Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service Branch

of Air Quality, at (303) 914-3802.'

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State of Missouri and compliment

you on your hard work and dedication to significant improvement in our Nation's air quality
Doyle Childers. Director 2

values and visibility. Cooperative efforts such as these ensure that, together, we will continue to

make progress toward the Clean Air Act's goal of natural visibility conditions at all of our most

pristine National Parks and Wilderness Areas for future generations.

Sincerely.

Assistant Secretary for Fish

and Wildlife and Parks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments Regarding 

Missouri Draft Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan 

 On August 23, 2007, the State of Missouri submitted a draft Regional Haze Rule State 

implementation plan (SIP), pursuant to the requirements codified in federal rule at 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2), to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Subsequently, on September 19, 2007, the State submitted a revised draft of its SIP, together 

with several appendices that had been incomplete in the original package. 

 The air program staff of the FWS has conducted a substantive review of the Missouri 

draft plan, and provide the comments listed below. In these comments, all references to the 

Draft Missouri Regional Haze SIP (“Draft SIP”) refer to the September 19, 2007, submittal. Our 

concerns that are described below warrant additional consultation prior to public release of the 

Missouri Regional Haze Plan. 

 We look forward to your response as per section 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), and would be 

willing to work with Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) staff towards resolving 

the major issues discussed below. For further information, please contact Tim Allen, FWS 

Regional Haze lead at (303) 914-3802. 

Overall Comment

The Fish & Wildlife Service has a significant concern that the information provided in the 

State of Missouri’s Draft Regional Haze SIP fails to describe or address content elements 

required by the Regional Haze Rule. In reviewing the Missouri Draft SIP, the FWS has 

identified two very distinct issues that hamper our ability to find and evaluate important 

information to be described by the State. 

 The discussions of specific SIP elements are re-visited in several sections, often with 

contradictory or incorrect information. More robust explanations of specific topic 

areas are often included in non-related chapters, thus complicating the review of the 

entire SIP. 

 The draft SIP also relies on a pattern of referencing as an apparent substitute to 

presenting the State’s reasoning. These references often point to lengthy and 

extremely technical documents produced by other organizations or consultants. 

Those technical references are neither intended to, nor do they proclaim a specific 

opinion. Deriving conclusions from the technical information sources is the 

responsibility of each State in its Regional Haze SIP, and the reasoning for the 

conclusions must be explained. Although our office has participated in many of the 

same Regional Planning Organization functions and has experience with the 

referenced documents, we find it difficult to understand through these references 

how MDNR came to its own conclusions. 

Specific examples of these two points are further described below. 
As such, the FWS respectfully requests that the State of Missouri reconsider the Draft SIP 

in its present form before release to the public. We ask that the State review the eight 

elements identified by the Fish & Wildlife Service letter (August 2006) and expand its 

discussion in the document regarding how MDNR approached, evaluated, and drew 

conclusions on these important rule elements. 

In addition, it is our opinion that our concerns described below in items 14, 15, and 16 are 

deficiencies that are not consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Regulations 

and may warrant the SIP unapprovable. 

The remaining comments provided here are organized according to the priorities that we 

presented in our August 1, 2006, letter. Many of the following comments will also provide 

direction towards building the narrative of the Draft SIP to satisfy the documentation deficiency 

noted above. 

Baseline, Natural Conditions, Uniform Rate

1. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Draft SIP discuss baseline and natural visibility conditions for the 

Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas. The last paragraph on page 23 of the Draft SIP 

indicates that IMPROVE data for the Mingo monitoring site was supplemented with data as 

the result of monitor failure. Recently, errors in the parameter calculations were discovered 

by CIRA, and new estimates for baseline and natural conditions are available on both the 

IMPROVE and VIEWS websites. Also, please verify that all baseline and natural condition 

numbers match throughout the documents and state if these estimates were generated using 

the old or the new IMPROVE equation. 

2. Section 5.1 of the Draft SIP describes the old and new IMPROVE equations in a way that is 

difficult to follow. MDNR should consider providing a summary of the equations and 

calculations necessary to evaluate baseline conditions and provide a specific description in an 

appendix. The IMPROVE committee website offers a more appropriate derivation and 

application description of the equation that can be referenced. Also, please note that within 

this section the document makes reference to an internet “ftp” website (see page 19 of the 

Draft SIP). The link that is provided is to a site that is password protected, and thus not 

publicly available. 

3. Please identify whether “Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Paths” presented in 

section 8.4 of the Draft SIP were produced using actual model output or the results of 

applying a relative reduction factor. If these numbers were the result of a relative reduction, 

please provide a discussion of how they were generated. In addition, these uniform rate of 

progress graphs include an additional line labeled “Method 1 Prediction,” but nowhere is the 

concept of “Method 1” explained. 

4. Section 6.4 of the Draft SIP introduces evidence that “high concentrations of ammonia are 

occurring ... with considerable regularity,” and that the ammonia is likely coming from 

anthropogenic sources. But, in another portion of the Draft SIP, section 9.2 indicates that 

ammonia was discarded from further consideration due to the inventory being “very 

uncertain” regarding anthropogenic contribution. Please discuss whether the observations 

2
cited in section 6.4 apply in Missouri, whether MDNR has investigated dates of 20% worst 

visibility that occur in winter, and how ammonia emissions were considered in evaluating the 

reasonable progress goal. We are concerned that MDNR perhaps should re-evaluate 

ammonia emission effects on visibility at the Mingo Wilderness, considering the high nature 

of measurements that have potentially occurred. 

Emission Inventories

5. Section 7 of the Draft SIP, titled “Emissions Inventory,” discusses the MO emission 

inventory, yet chapters occurring later in the document include much more specific 

information on the region-wide emission inventories utilized for the technical analyses 

supporting this SIP. MDNR should consider combining discussion of inventory to one 

chapter. This Chapter should identify and describe the differences between the various 

emissions scenarios that MDNR employed for its Regional Haze SIP analyses and decisions, 

including Base/Performance, Typical 2002, Base 2018, and Alternate 2018, emissions 

inventories. 

6. The Draft SIP needs to commit to periodically review and update the future emission 

inventory projections used for Regional Haze decision making. This can be addressed either 

in the Emission Inventory section, or in another appropriate location within the document 

(for instance, it could also fit within section 11, which discusses the long-term strategy for 

reaching reasonable progress goals, or section 12, which discusses comprehensive periodic 

plan revisions). 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)1

7. The Draft SIP discusses the status of the Doe Run-Glover facility as having “been placed in a 

care and maintenance” status since the BART component of the regional haze rule was 

finalized.” In a conference call with MDNR on September 25, 2007, we asked for 

clarification of what this statement means. We understand the response to be that: the Doe 

Run-Glover facility has not been operational for approximately four years, although it still 

holds an active permit that does authorize it to operate; that if the facility is non-operational 

for a period of five consecutive years (in this case, that threshold will be passed in 

approximately November 2008), State regulations require the facility to reapply for a new air 

quality construction and operation permit as if it were a new source; that MDNR fully 

expects that this facility will not become operational before the five year window has passed; 

and for these reasons, MDNR is not requiring this facility to undergo a BART analysis, 

which could require the source to install BART controls. As we discussed on that phone call, 

we believe that as long as this facility holds a valid air quality permit allowing it to operate, 

the Draft SIP needs to explicitly address the potential scenario that Doe Run-Glover might 

resume operation under that permit. This could be phrased as an affirmative statement that 

 

1 BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing 

air pollutant, were put in place or under construction between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose 

operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. Under CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 

BART is required for any BART-eligible source which “emits any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated 

to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area.” 

3
the facility would be required to provide a BART analysis and install controls by a date that 

is no later than the date that would have been required had the facility not been in this “care 

and maintenance” status. 

8. In discussing the disposition of BART-eligible units, section 9.2 of the Draft SIP provides 

three reasons that “the State of Missouri did not evaluate emissions of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) and ammonia in BART determinations....” These reasons provided are 

insufficient to draw a conclusion that VOCs and ammonia are not significant. In addition, as 

noted above, the third statement is contradicted in earlier chapters. Please expand on 

MDNR’s reasons for excluding VOC and ammonia units from BART. 

9. Table 9.3 of the Draft SIP presents the CALPUFF/CALPOST screening results for the 

BART-eligible units. The section above indicates that the modeling input files used for these 

analyses are provided in Appendix H. Please also specify within the text of the Draft SIP 

whether these screening analyses followed the CENRAP2 screening modeling protocol, and 

if not, MDNR’s reasoning for deviating from the agreed-upon approach of its regional 

planning group. 

10. Between Table 9.3 and Table 9.4, the Draft SIP discusses that it also evaluated the 

“likelihood that the impact from the BART eligible sources would cause the 7th high 

visibility impact (98th percentile) in any given year to exceed the contribution threshold.” 

There are two issues related to this approach. First, it is inappropriate to apply the 98th

percentile test to modeling results per CENRAP’s screening protocol. It is unclear whether 

MDNR refined the meteorology processing done in the modeling in order to move from 

screening to refined modeling, which would then allow for use of the 98th percentile 

approach. Second, in applying the 98th percentile, we look to the eighth-highest daily 

visibility impact predicted in a modeling year, skipping over the first seven values. The 

Draft SIP text indicates that MDNR was looking at the seventh-highest value. 

11. Near the end of the BART section, the Draft SIP contains the statement that, “Appendix I 

contains more detailed results of the screen-modeling analyses for each BART-eligible 

facility. Upon approval by the State of Missouri, the refined analyses submitted by Noranda 

Aluminum and the University of Missouri-Columbia, will be provided as an Appendix to this 

document.” Please provide information regarding these two sources, including any modeling 

protocols for the refined analyses, modeling results, and BART engineering determinations, 

as they become available. 

12. Within the BART section, there are inconsistent statements about the BART decisions 

pertaining to electric utility generating units that are also subject to the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR EGU sources). On page 44, the Draft SIP indicates that CAIR EGU sources 

were, “modeled collectively using all BART-eligible sources for only the PM impacts on the 

applicable Class I areas.” However, the discussion on page 49 says that, “CAIR EGU 

sources are not required to install, operate, and maintain BART,” because of the 

 

2

 Central Regional Air Planning Association CENRAP is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies and other 

interested parties that identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies to address them. CENRAP 

is one of the five Regional Planning Organizations RPOs across the U.S. and includes the states and tribal areas of 

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. 

4
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that “as a whole, the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) cap-and-trade program improves visibility more than implementing BART in 

States affected by CAIR.” This EPA finding only applies for emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Please provide additional information about how CAIR 

EGU sources were evaluated for primary particulate matter and primary sulfate emissions. 

13. The bulk of the information in Draft SIP Appendices G and I is in hard-copy renditions of 

spreadsheets that extend over multiple pages for each row, and require hundreds of pages to 

present the entire document. We recognize that this type of information is difficult to present 

in a paper document format. But for the ease of a reader being able to track rows across 

tables and the meaning of information in the columns, we recommend that MDNR reformat 

the table printouts to include row numbers at the right and/or left on each printed page (so 

that a reader can follow the information for a given entry across the multiple horizontal pages 

needed to show all the columns of the spreadsheet), and also include the column headers on 

each page of the printout (which currently only appear at the top of the first page above row 

one). It would also helpful to have the software add page numbers for these printouts of the 

spreadsheets to help a reader stay organized as to his/her location within the document. 

Area of Influence

14. The Consultation Plan that is included as Appendix F to the Draft SIP contains several Area 

of Influence (AOI) maps for the affected Class I areas in and near Missouri. However, these 

studies, concepts, and graphics are not presented in the Draft SIP text. They should be 

integral to the discussions of attribution of regional haze causing pollution, identification of 

reasonable progress goals, and development of long term strategies for this Regional Haze 

Plan. 

Section 11.5 of the Draft SIP responds to the Regional Haze Rule requirement for “Missouri 

to identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in 

developing its long-term strategy,” by referencing back to Tables 7.1 and 7.2 of the Emission 

Inventory section. However, those two tables present only the 2002 and 2018 emissions 

inventory summary for just the State of Missouri sources, and then only in aggregate by 

source category. 

In contrast, CENRAP conducted extensive Area of Influence analysis, and produced graphic 

representations for each of the Class I areas within and near to the CENRAP region. 

However, the Draft SIP does not provide any of these graphics for the local Class I areas of 

concern, nor does it discuss any of the work or results from those analyses. 

As an example, the data contained within both the Draft CENRAP TSD and MDNR’s 

Consultation Plan (appendices E and F to the Draft SIP, respectively), indicates that the areas 

of influence that affect the Missouri and Arkansas Class I areas extend across several 

surrounding States. In fact, the CENRAP “PSAT” source apportionment modeling results 

for the Mingo Class I area, show that emissions from elevated point sources from Illinois and 

Indiana are second and third behind Missouri area sources in contribution to the 2018

projected 20% worst visibility days. In addition, both these neighboring States’ point source 

contributions are more significant than Missouri’s own elevated point sources (see figure E5
7c in that CENRAP TSD Appendix E). The Draft SIP needs to discuss the attribution of 

haze-cause pollution and the results of MDNR’s consultations with neighboring States 

regarding achieving Reasonable Progress Goals at the Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I 

areas. 

Reasonable Progress Goals: Long Term Strategy

15. Section 10 of the Draft SIP presents Missouri’s Reasonable Progress Goals. During our 

conference call with MDNR on September 25, 2007, the State clarified that its approach here 

was to establish its reasonable progress goals to be equal to the 2018 year value of the 

uniform rate of progress graph. This is inconsistent with the Regional Haze Rule, which 

says: “The State may not adopt a reasonable progress goal that represents less visibility 

improvement than is expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the 

CAA during the applicable planning period.” (See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(B)(vi).) It’s our 

understanding that the 2018 visibility projections presented in section 8.4 were based upon, 

“emission growth” and “on the books” controls, which are State and Federal controls that 

will be implemented between the 2002 base year and the 2018 future year.” (Draft SIP, page 

34.) As such, the rule requires that Missouri adopt the results of this visibility projection as 

its 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal. 

16. The Regional Haze Rule also requires that States establish Reasonable Progress Goals for the 

Best 20% days, based upon projected emission reductions for the future planning year. 

Neither section 10 nor any other area of the Draft SIP addresses the goals for the Best 20% 

days. 

17. At the beginning of Section 10 of the Draft SIP, MDNR outlines the four statutory factors 

that each State must consider in setting its Reasonable Progress Goals. These factors are 

intended to be applied holistically, across all contributing sources of visibility impairing 

pollutants, to inform the decision being made by the State. However, it appears from the 

remaining discussion within this section that MDNR is only applying this “four-factor 

analysis” to the CAIR-affected and BART-affected sources within Missouri. This is a 

misinterpretation of the EPA guidance quoted on page 53 of the Draft SIP – it says that the 

four-factor analysis doesn’t need to “reassess the reasonable progress factors for sources 

subject to BART for which you have already completed a BART analysis,” (which would 

include CAIR sources where CAIR is deemed to be equal to BART). That guidance does not 

say that these are the only pollution sources that the four-factor analysis should consider, but 

rather that for such sources, additional consideration beyond CAIR and BART is not needed 

as part of the four-factor analysis. In effect, therefore, the Draft SIP essentially does not 

include the required four-factor analysis for establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals. 

18. Section 11 of the Draft SIP presents the Long Term Strategy. Section 11.4 inaccurately 

refers to the regional haze process as an attainment demonstration. As described above, the 

Regional Haze Rule does not set absolute levels to be achieved at the ten-year planning 

intervals, but rather provides a framework for each State to establish those Reasonable 

Progress Goals based upon the statutory four-factor analysis. 

6
19. In Section 11.6.4, the Draft SIP discusses how it will manage retirement and replacement of 

stationary sources, and references existing State and Tribal “requirements pertaining to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR).” Please 

elaborate on how the PSD and NSR permitting programs will be utilized by MDNR as part of 

its Long Term Strategy for meeting Reasonable Progress Goals. 

Fire

20. As discussed above, the Draft SIP lacks information regarding the causes of haze at the 

Mingo Class I area, as well as a full explanation of the projected changes and reasons for 

those changes leading towards the 2018 planning year. 

In the context of wild and prescribed fire, the State should consider and describe how natural 

and non-natural smoke emissions currently affect the Class I areas and how these effects may 

change during the planning period given the State’s future burning projections and the 

implementation of the Smoke Management Plan (SMP). 

21. The Draft SIP and the Missouri SMP should identify Mingo as a smoke sensitive area and 

prescribed burners should be required to apply the appropriate smoke management 

techniques to minimize smoke impacts. 

22. We recommend that MDNR refer to the Missouri SMP in a way that does not require SIP 

updates each time the SMP is updated. Also, please indicate whether Missouri intends to 

“certify” its SMP as provided for by the 1998 EPA Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland 

and Prescribed Fire. 

23. Section 4.0 of the Draft SIP commits that: “Missouri will continue to coordinate and consult 

with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan revisions, as well 

as during the implementation of programs having the potential to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the mandatory Class I areas. The FLMs will be consulted in the following 

instances...Development and implementation of other programs that may contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas.” The Missouri SMP, as cited through section 11.6.5 

of the Draft SIP, is one of these “other programs” that would be monitored and updated 

during the implementation of this Regional Haze SIP, including consultation with the FLM 

agencies in that process. We note, however, that neither the later section nor the Missouri 

SMP itself address ongoing development, review, and updating of the plan, nor do they 

provide for FLM agency involvement. 

Regional Consistency

24. Missouri is situated geographically at the boundary between three multi-state Regional 

Planning Organizations (RPO): CENRAP running along the west of the Mississippi River 

from Minnesota south to Texas and Louisiana; VISTAS, comprised of the southeastern 

United States, and MWRPO, from the Ohio River Valley north through the Great Lakes 

region. As a member State of the CENRAP organization, Missouri has utilized the technical 

products that were produced by the CENRAP efforts as the information upon which it has 

built its Regional Haze SIP. The VISTAS and MWRPO technical work also cover the 

Mingo Wilderness Area, as several of their western member States may have emission 

7
sources that influence visibility at Mingo. The results indicated by each of the three regional 

planning organizations are different. While it is fully appropriate for Missouri to rely upon 

the CENRAP work, MDNR might consider highlighting the importance of the ongoing 

verification and contingency provisions in view of the varying results of the RPOs. 

Verification & Contingencies

25. Section 6.3 of the Draft SIP discusses the ongoing and future monitoring strategy for 

measuring visibility parameters and progress at the Class I areas within Missouri. MDNR 

specifies that, “the existing IMPROVE and IMPROVE Protocol sites will be maintained 

contingent upon continued national funding.” Please note that the State has a responsibility 

to conduct monitoring and assessment as part of an ongoing progress review towards the 

goals set in this SIP, as well as for informing future SIP revision and planning activities 

required under the national Regional Haze Rule. Given the uncertain future of any individual 

monitoring site, the SIP should address the representativeness of both primary and alternative 

data sites, and also provide a more specific plan for ensuring that monitoring is continued if 

national funding is not available. 

26. We encourage MDNR to not only consider the need for these monitoring data to measure 

progress, but also how the plan accounts for and reconciles both unexpected and reasonably 

foreseeable emissions growth, changes to the geographic distribution of emissions, and 

substantive discrepancies that may be found in emission inventories or other technical bases 

of the SIP. As an example, the predictions of the “IPM” model and the assumptions for 

CAIR implementation that were used to project the future 2018 electric utility generation 

industry sources and emissions may be greatly different from the outcomes that are actually 

realized in that future year. Such factors, as well as other unanticipated circumstances, may 

adversely affect Missouri’s ability to achieve the emissions reductions projected by the SIP. 

Considering these factors through adaptive management or routine review processes may 

assist in mitigating these circumstances. 

27. Section 13 of the Draft SIP discusses the options for action following the five-year review, 

basically quoting the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h). However, the document does not 

provide any criteria that MDNR will use in evaluating the five-year progress report to decide 

which of the listed actions would be indicated. Please include discussion of the anticipated 

criteria that MDNR will use to both evaluate the progress at the five-year review and to select 

the course of action that will be taken based upon that review. 

Coordination & Consultation

28. The Draft SIP references to its Appendix F for documentation of the consultation process that 

Missouri and Arkansas jointly conducted for the four Class I areas in their two States. 

Appendix F contains the consultation plan that was presented. Additionally, Appendix K of 

the Draft SIP contains the minutes from the three consultation meeting conference calls held 

in April, May, and June, 2007. However, the Draft SIP lacks discussion of Missouri’s 

decisions based upon the results of those meetings. 

8
29. Section 2.6 of the plan says that “Consultation between the States and the FLMs will 

continue as the federal regional haze program progresses. The consultation will continue via 

participation in CENRAP. This effort will include five-year progress reports and 

development and review of any SIP revisions deemed necessary. It will also provide for 

consideration of any other programs that are implemented and have the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.” We are encouraged that Missouri will 

continue the dialogue and progress towards Regional Haze goals. However, the statement 

above relies upon the continued existence of the CENRAP organization. Since the future of 

the Regional Planning Organizations as a whole is uncertain, the SIP should outline how 

Missouri would accomplish future ongoing consultation activities absent the CENRAP 

organization. 

In addition, the Draft SIP references future consultation activities in many places, but several 

of those omit the FLM agencies as a partner in that consultation. The Draft SIP should be 

consistent in addressing this topic. (See also, Draft SIP sections 2.6, 4.0, and all of 

section 12.) 

9