### January 6, 2012

Ms. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard, R-19J Chicago IL 60604-3507

Subject: Revisions to Wisconsin’s State Implementation Plan for Protection of Visibility

Dear Ms. Hedman:

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) he reby submits Chapter NR 433, Protection of Visibility by Application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BAR T), and Section NR 484.04 (11m), Wis. Adm. Code, for approval and incorporation into Wisconsin’s State Implementa tion Plan (SIP). These rules relate to the identification of sources subject to the BART requirements for visibilit y protection and the determination of BART for those sources in accordance with the federal Regional Haze Rule ( 64 FR 35714 and 70 FR 39104 ). The following table provides a summary of state actions related to development of these rules.

Table 1 : History of Rule Development for the BART Requirements

Action Public Hearing Authorization Granted by the Wisconsin NRB Public Hearing(s) Conducted Rule Adopted by the Wisconsin NRB Rules Published Rules Effective

Adopt : Chapter NR 433 Section NR 484.04 (11m) January 24, 2007 (Agenda Item 3.A.3) AM-04-06 March 13, 2007 (Wausau, WI) 1

March 15, 2007 (Milwaukee, WI) 2 January 22, 2008 (Agenda Item 3.A.2) June 30, 2008 July 1, 2008

Revise : Sections NR 433.05(1)(a)4. and NR 433.06(1)(intro.), (b)1., and (c) March 16, 2010 (Agenda Item 3.A.4) AM-06-09 April 26, 2010 (Madison, WI) 3 August 11, 2010 (Agenda Item 3.A.6) November 30, 2010 December 1, 2010

1 Wausau Room, Marathon County Public Library, 300 North First Street, Wausau, WI

2 Room 140-141, WDNR Southeast Region Headquarters, 2300 North Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Milwaukee, WI
3 Room G09, WDNR Building, 101 South Webster Street, Madison, WI NRB – Natural Resources Board Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary

Telephone 608-266-2621 Toll Free 1-888-936-7463 TTY Access via relay - 711 

### State of Wisconsin
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 101 S. Webster Street Box 7921 Madison WI 53707-7921

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov

### Page 2

The WDNR has the legal authority under Wisconsin law to adopt and implement these requested SIP revisions. Section 227.11 (2) (a), Wis. Stats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. Section 285.11 (1), Wis. Stats., authorizes the WDNR to develop rules consistent with ch. 285, Wis. Stats. Section 285.11 (6), Wis. Stats., authorizes the WDNR to develop and revise the SIP for prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution.

In accordance with the April 6, 2011 McCabe Memo, one paper copy of the SIP revision documents is enclosed. In addition, an electronic copy of these documents is provided as well on an enclosed CD. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to call either Joseph Hoch at 608-267-7543 or Ralph Patterson at 608-267- 7546.

Sincerely,

William B. Baumann, Acting Director Bureau of Air Management

cc: Patrick Stevens — AD/8 Joseph Hoch — AM/7 Ralph Patterson — AM/7 Cheryl Newton — U.S. EPA Region V (A-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 Douglas Aburrano — U.S. EPA Region V (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 Jacqueline Nwia — U.S. EPA Region V (AT-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604



## Summary of Attachments: Hard Copy and Electronic

Attachment 1 U.S. EPA SIP checklist

Attachment 2 — Chapter NR 433, Wis. Adm. Code, as amended

Attachment 3 — Section NR 484 (11m), Wis. Adm. Code

Attachment 4 — Proof of public hearing, including public hearing notice, for BART rules adoption. Copy of legal notice from February 9, 2007 Wisconsin State Journal



### Attachment 5 — Background for AM-04-06 and public comments received for BART rules adoption — summary and response

Attachment 6 — Proof of public hearing, including public hearing notice, for BART rules revision. Copy of legal notice from March 22, 2010 Wisconsin State Journal



### Attachment 7 — Background for AM-06-09 and public comments received for BART rules revision — summary and response

# A TTACHMENT 

# 1

# EPA Region V 

# Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (Bill Baumann)? Yes X No

2. Date of Submittal: January 6, 2012

3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name: Ralph Patterson Telephone Number: (608) 267-7546 Fax Number: (608) 267-0560 E-mail Address: Ralph.Patterson@wisconsin.gov

4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name: Joseph Hoch Telephone: (608) 267-7543 Fax Number: (608) 267-0560 E-mail Address: Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov 

# Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State in corporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this SIP package?

Yes X No (if No, explain)

 Wisconsin Natural Resource Board (NRB) Order AM-04-06 created Chapter NR 433 and Section NR 484.04(11m)

 Wisconsin NRB Order AM-06-09 modified Sections NR 433.05(1)(a)4. and NR 433.06(1)(intro.), (b)1., and (c)

6. The effective date of the regulation is or was:

 Wisconsin NRB Order AM-4-06 Changes Effective: July 1, 2008

 Wisconsin NRB Order AM-6-09 Changes Effective: December 1, 2010

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

Yes X No (if No, explain) Not applicable (if Not applicable, explain answer)

See Section NR 484.04(11m)2

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revision? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No

9. Did the State include a copy of the actual regulation or document for USEPA review? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No

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

Yes X No

11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of publication? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public heari ngs were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof). Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of pub lic comments and the State’s response? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No


# Technical Issues

14. Name all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision.

 Oxides of nitrogen (NO x )

 Particulate Matter (PM)

 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes No X

Not applicable.3

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No

See Section NR 433.02(1) for a list of BART-eligible sources.

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the changes in actual emissions from affected sources? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes No X

Not applicable.

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility will be protected if the revision is approved and impl emented? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

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? Pr ovide additional explan ation (if necessary).

Yes No X

Not applicable.

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirement s where necessary, to ensure emission levels? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X No

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice, and at what frequency? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes No X

Not applicable.4



# STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

SIP Package Number ___________ Date Received by USEPA ________________ Date Due_____________________________ State: WISCONSIN5



# WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Protection of Visibility by Application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)



## Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion See Section NR 433.02(1) for list of BARTeligible sources.

What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion Section NR 433.05(2):

“The department may not make a determination of BART for SO 2 or for NO X if the potential to emit of a BART-eligible source is less than 40 tons per year of the respective pollutant; or for particulate matter, if the potential to emit PM 10 of a BART-eligible source is less than 15 tons per year.”
Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) Yes.

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

Is the averaging time(s) used in the rule different from that of the ambient standard? The averaging time in the rule must be consistent with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal to or shorter than the time associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available only in limited instances provided that the ambient standard is not compromised. Not applicable (no ambient standard).6



### USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

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. Section NR 433.03(3):

“A BART-eligible source shall be considered subject to BART if the air quality modeling analysis conducted under sub. (2) demonstrates that the source contributes to visibility impairment in any mandatory class I federal area. A source shall be considered to contribute to visibility impairment if for any year modeled the 98th percentile daily average change in visibility impairment from the source is equal to or greater than 0.5 deciviews, as compared to natural visibility conditions. Natural visibility conditions for each mandatory class I federal area shall be the average natural visibility impairment of the 20% best visibility days, or with department approval of a request made by the source owner or operator, the annual average natural visibility impairment for the class I area.”

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. Not applicable. However, the BART rule does allow for emissions trading between boilers (see Section NR 433.06).

If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of area to attainment. New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. Not applicable.7



## Compliance Dates

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

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

source to state. Section NR 433.05(1)4.:

“The requirement that the owner or operator of each source subject to BART shall install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than December 31, 2015.”

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. Not applicable.



## Specificity of Conduct

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What test method is required? Test method must be explicitly stated. Not applicable.
What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. Not applicable.

Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. No.

If a compliance calculation is necessary, list the formula, period of compliance, and/or evaluation method. Formula must be explicit. Not applicable.



## Incorporation by Reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. Section 227.11(2)(a), 227.14(1m), 285.11(1), and 285.11(6), Wis. Stats. Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. Yes. See Section NR 484.04(11m)8



## Recordkeeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What records are required to determine compliance? Clearly stated. A final BART determination is necessary and th e department must issue a revision to the facility’s air quality permit which includes the BART requirements. In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On what time basis (instantaneously, hourly daily)? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the performance requirements, including the applicable time period . Permit enforceable limits.

Does the rule affirmatively require the records be kept? There must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. Not applicable.



## Exemptions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. Section NR 433.05(2):

“The department may not make a determination of BART for SO 2 or for NO X if the potential to emit of a BART-eligible source is less than 40 tons per year of the respective pollutant; or for particulate matter, if the potential to emit PM 10 of a BART-eligible source is less than 15 tons per year.” Are the criteria for application clear? Clearly stated. Yes.



## Malfunction Provisions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

Are there any malfunction provisions in the rule? Rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination. Not applicable.

# A TTACHMENT 

# 2166−17 NR 433.02 DEPARTMENT OF NA

TURAL RESOURCES

Register November 2010 No. 659 

### Chapter NR 433

PROTECTION OF VISIBILITY BY APPLICA TION OF BEST AV AILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY

NR 433.01 Applicability; purpose. NR 433.02 Definitions. NR 433.03 Identification of sources subject to BAR T. NR 433.04 BAR T analyses. NR 433.05 Determination of BAR T requirements. NR 433.06 Emissions trading program for boilers.

NR 433.01 Applicability; purpose. (1) A PPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter apply to facilities having one or

more BAR

T−eligible sources. (2) P URPOSE. This chapter is adopted under s. 285.11

, Stats.,
to establish the procedures for controlling emissions of air pollu

tants from BAR

T−eligible sources which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any mandatory class I federal area. History: CR 07−017 : cr

. Register June 2008 No. 630 , ef f. 7−1−08.

NR 433.02 Definitions. The definitions contained in ch. NR 400 apply to the terms used in this chapter . In addition, the fol

lowing definitions apply to the terms used in this chapter: (1) “BART−eligible

source” means any of the stationary

sources of air pollutants listed in this subsection, including any reconstructed source, which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and which has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any visibility impairing air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, shall be counted. The sta

tionary sources are as follows: (a) Fossil fuel−fired steam electric plants of more than 250 mil

lion Btu per hour heat input, except for cogeneration units that supply 1/3 or less of their potential electric output capacity and 219,000 megawatt−hours or less actual electric output on an annual basis to any utility power distribution system for sale. (b) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers). (c) Kraft pulp mills. (d) Portland cement plants. (e) Primary zinc smelters. (f) Iron and steel mill plants. (g) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants. (h) Primary copper smelters. (i) Municipal incinerators capable of char ging more than 250
tons of refuse per day

. (j) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants. (k) Petroleum refineries. (L) Lime plants. (m) Phosphate rock processing plants. (n) Coke oven batteries. (o) Sulfur recovery plants. (p) Carbon black plants (furnace process). (q) Primary lead smelters. (r) Fuel conversion plants. (s) Sintering plants. (t) Secondary metal production facilities. (u) Chemical process plants. (v) Fossil fuel boilers of more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input. (w) Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels. (x) T aconite ore processing facilities. (y) Glass fiber processing plants. (z) Charcoal production facilities. (2) “Best available retrofit technology” or “BAR T” means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each visibility impairing pollutant which is emitted by a stationary source. The emission limitation shall be estab

lished on a case−by−case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the ener gy and non−air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollu

tion control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the source and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of the technology

. (3) “Deciview” means a metric for visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction that is designed so that uniform changes in haziness correspond
to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire
range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The haze index in units of deciviews is calculated as follows: Haze index deciview =10 ln e (b eXt /10 Mm −1 ) where: b eXt is the atmospheric light extinction coef ficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm −1 ) (4) “In existence” means that the owner or operator obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by federal or state air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regu

lations and either began, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on−site construction of the facility , or entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which could not be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time. (5) “In operation” means engaged in activity related to the pri

mary design function of the source. (6) “Integral vista” means a view perceived from within a mandatory class I federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory class I federal area. (7) “Least impaired days” means the average visibility impairment, measured in deciviews, for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impair

ment. (8) “Major stationary source” has the meaning given in s. NR 405.02 (22)

. (9) “Mandatory class I federal area” means any area identified in 40 CFR part 81 , Subpart D. (10) “Potential to emit” means the maximum capacity of a sta

tionary source to emit an air pollutant under its physical and opera

tional design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capac

ity of the source to emit an air pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount

of material combusted, stored or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the ef fect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions166−18

NR 433.02 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRA TIVE CODE

Register November 2010 No. 659 do not count

in determining the potential to emit of a stationary

source. (11) “Secondary emissions” means emissions which occur as

a result of the construction or operation of an existing stationary facility but do not come from the existing stationary facility

. Sec

ondary emissions may include, but are not limited to, emissions from ships or trains coming to or from the existing stationary facil

ity. (12) “Visibility impairing air pollutant” means SO 2 , NO X or particulate matter

. Particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) may be used as the indicator for particulate mat

ter. (13) “Visibility impairment” means any humanly perceptible change in visibility , perceived as light extinction, visual range,
contrast or coloration, from that which would have existed under natural conditions. Natural conditions include naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration. History: CR 07−017 : cr

. Register June 2008 No. 630 , ef f. 7−1−08.

NR 433.03 Identification of sources subject to BART. (1) On or before September 29, 2008, the department shall identify all BAR

T−eligible

sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in
any mandatory class I federal area according to the criteria and procedures in this section and the applicable guidelines in 40 CFR part 51 , Appendix Y

, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04 (11m). These sources are identified as sources subject to BAR T. The department may request in writing information that is required for the identification of sources subject to BAR T from the owner or operator of a BAR

T−eligible source. The owner or operator of the source shall submit to the department true, accurate and complete information in writing within a reasonable time period specified by the department in its request. (2) The department shall identify sources subject to BAR T by using an air quality modeling analysis to estimate the individual contribution of each BAR T−eligible source to visibility impair

ment in a mandatory class I federal area. The department shall use

an air quality model approved by the EP A and conduct the air qual

ity modeling analysis according to procedures that include all of the following: (a) The department shall apply the air quality model to each BART−eligible

source for calendar years 2002, 2003 and 2004. (b) The individual contribution to visibility impairment shall be calculated on a daily basis, using emission rates reflecting steady−state

operating conditions during periods of high capacity utilization of the source. These emission rates shall reflect either the maximum actual emission rates provided by the owner or operator, if available and approved by the department, or the source’s potential to emit. The maximum actual emission rates shall be the 24−hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled, unless this rate reflects periods of start−up, shutdown or malfunction. The source’s potential to emit shall be averaged over 24 hours or shorter periods of time. (3) A BAR

T−eligible source shall be considered subject to BART if the air quality modeling analysis conducted under sub. (2) demonstrates that the source contributes to visibility impair

ment in any mandatory class I federal area. A source shall be con

sidered to contribute to visibility impairment if for any year mod

eled the 98th percentile daily average change in visibility impairment from the source is equal to or greater than 0.5 deci

views, as compared to natural visibility conditions. Natural visi

bility conditions for each mandatory class I federal area shall be the average natural visibility impairment of the 20% best visibility days, or with department approval of a request made by the source

owner or operator , the annual average natural visibility impair

ment for the class I area. (4) On or before September 29, 2008, the department shall provide written notice to the owner or operator of each facility which the department has determined includes a source that is subject to BAR

T. History: CR 07−017 : cr

. Register June 2008 No. 630 , ef f. 7−1−08.

NR 433.04 BART analyses. (1) No later than 180 days after the department sends a notification under s. NR 433.03 (4) that a source is subject to BAR T , the owner or operator of the

source shall conduct and submit to the department a BAR T analy

sis for all emissions units which comprise the BAR T−eligible

source. If the owner or operator submits a written request for an extension prior to the BAR T analysis submittal deadline date, the department may grant an extension of up to 60 days to the submit

tal deadline. The BAR

T analysis shall contain all information nec

essary to evaluate all available retrofit control technologies for each unit and to determine the level of control that is BAR T for the unit, including all of the following: (a) A list of all emissions units which comprise the BART−eligible source within the facility

. (b) All available retrofit emission control technologies for each visibility impairing pollutant emitted by each unit subject to BART at the facility

. (c) An evaluation of each control technology identified in par

. (b)

, considering all of the following factors: 1. The costs of compliance. 2. The ener gy and non−air quality environmental impacts of compliance. 3. Any existing pollution control technology in use at the

source. 4. The remaining useful life of the source. 5. The degree of improvement in visibility which may reason

ably be anticipated to result from the use of the technology

. (d) Procedures for an initial performance test and for demon

strating compliance with the emission limits representing BAR T

on a continuous basis including continuous emission monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting according to the applicable require

ments of ch. NR 439 or 440

. (2) The BAR

T analysis shall be conducted pursuant to the applicable guidelines in 40 CFR part 51

, Appendix Y , incorpo

rated by reference in s. NR 484.04 (1 1m). (3) If the owner or operator of a BAR T−eligible source pro

poses to use the emissions trading program under s. NR 433.06 for compliance with this section, the owner or operator shall submit
to the department the emissions trading plan required under s. NR 433.06 (1)

. (4) If the BAR T analysis for a source subject to BAR T demon

strates that all control technologies are technologically or eco

nomically infeasible, the owner or operator of the source shall pro

pose in the BAR

T analysis a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or combination thereof, to meet the BART requirements. If a design, equipment, work practice or operational standard is proposed, the analysis shall include a cal

culation of the emission reductions to be achieved by implementa

tion of the design, equipment, work practice or operation, and shall provide the method for demonstrating compliance. (5) The owner or operator of a BAR T−eligible source shall certify in writing that any information submitted to the department under this section is true, accurate, and complete, based on infor

mation and belief formed after reasonable inquiry

. (6) The department may request in writing additional infor

mation necessary to evaluate the BAR T analysis. The owner or operator of the BAR

T−eligible source shall provide the informa

tion in writing within the reasonable period of time specified by the department in the request. (7) If a fossil fuel−fired steam electric plant subject to BAR

T is subject to the trading programs of the clean air interstate rule under 40 CFR part 97 , the owner or operator of the fossil fuel−166−19 NR 433.06 DEPARTMENT OF NA

TURAL RESOURCES

Register November 2010 No. 659 fired electric plant is not required to conduct a BAR T analysis for SO 2 and NO x emissions under this section. History: CR 07−017 : cr

. Register June 2008 No. 630 , ef f. 7−1−08.

NR 433.05 Determination of BART requirements. (1) P RELIMINARY DETERMINATION. (a) The department shall make

a preliminary determination of the BAR T requirements for each emissions unit which comprises the sources subject to BAR T based on the information in the BAR T analysis required under s. NR 433.04 and other available information. The preliminary BART determination for each facility shall include all of the fol

lowing elements:
1. A list of all emissions units which comprise the source sub

ject to BAR

T. 2. A determination of the BAR T requirements for each emis

sions unit.
3. Requirements for initial performance tests and for demon

strating compliance with the emission limits representing BAR T

on a continuous basis, including emission monitoring, record

keeping and reporting.
4. The requirement that the owner or operator of each source subject to BAR

T shall install and operate BAR T as expeditiously

as practicable, but in no event later than December 31, 2015.
5. The requirement that the owner or operator of each source subject to BAR

T shall maintain the control equipment required by the BAR T determination and establish procedures to ensure the equipment is properly operated and maintained. (b) The determination of BAR T shall be based on the depart

ment’s review of the analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each unit subject to BAR T at the facility

. The department

shall take into consideration the technology avail

able, the costs of compliance, the ener gy and non−air quality envi

ronmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equip

ment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from use of the technology

. (c) The determination of BAR T for all emissions units which comprise the source subject to BAR T shall be made pursuant to the applicable guidelines in 40 CFR part 51 , Appendix Y , incorpo

rated by reference in s. NR 484.04 (1 1m). (d) If the department determines that it is technologically or economically infeasible for a source to install and operate the available control technologies, it may instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or com

bination thereof to meet the BAR T requirements. The department shall estimate the emission reduction to be achieved by imple

mentation of the design, equipment, work practice or operation, and shall prescribe the method for demonstrating compliance. (e) If a fossil−fuel fired steam electric plant is subject to the clean air interstate rule trading programs under 40 CFR part 97 the determination of BAR

T shall be made for particulate matter emis

sions only

. (f) The department

shall incorporate the results of its prelimi

nary BAR

T determination in a draft revision to the source’ s air quality permit. (2) E XCEPTION. The department may not make a determina

tion of BAR

T for SO 2 or for NO X if the potential to emit of a BART−eligible

source is less than 40 tons per year of the respec

tive pollutant; or for particulate matter

, if the potential to emit PM 10 of a BAR

T−eligible source is less than 15 tons per year

. (3) P UBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT. The department shall notify the owner or operator of the source subject to BAR T and the EP

A of its preliminary BAR

T determination and shall publish a notice of its preliminary BAR

T determination and the draft permit condi

tions for public comment. The department shall provide at least 30 days for submittal of written comments. (4) F INAL DETERMINATION. Following the close of the public
comment period and after consideration of all public comments, the department shall make a final BAR T determination and issue

a revision to the facility’ s air quality permit which includes the BART requirements. (5) R EVISION. The department may revise the BAR T require

ments in the air quality permit, if the EP A requires a revision of the BAR T requirements or the department determines that the revision of the existing BAR T requirements is justified based on safety, health, environmental or excessive cost impacts which the original BAR

T analysis and BAR

T determination failed to take into account. The department shall provide notice and of fer an opportunity for public comment on any proposed revision under this section. History: CR 07−017 : cr

. Register June 2008 No. 630 , ef f. 7−1−08; CR 10−033 : am. (1) (a) 4. Register November 2010 No. 659 , eff. 12−1−10.

NR 433.06 Emissions trading program for boilers. (1) The owner or operator of a facility , having at least one boiler subject to BAR

T , may propose an emissions trading program if the
program achieves an improvement in visibility in the mandatory class I federal areas greater than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BAR T on each boiler subject to BART. The owner or operator of a boiler subject to BAR T who is proposing to use an emissions trading program shall submit an emissions trading plan to the department. The plan shall be sub

ject to department approval and meet the following criteria: (a) The plan shall

contain the proposed control strategy and the method of demonstrating compliance. (b) The plan shall achieve either of the following: 1. For each visibility impairing pollutant for which com

pliance is demonstrated through use of a trading plan, an emission reduction of that pollutant at least 10% greater than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BAR T on each boiler subject to BAR

T. 2. An improvement in visibility in the mandatory class I fed

eral areas greater than or equal to the visibility improvement achieved under subd. 1. The improvement in visibility shall be demonstrated by comparing the 20% best days of visibility and the 20% worst days of visibility in at least the 4 mandatory class I fed

eral areas nearest to the source and for each calendar year 2002, 2003 and 2004. The daily visibility shall be determined using an air quality model approved by the EP A for predicting visibility impacts from single emission sources and conducting the air qual

ity modeling analyses according to the guidelines in 40 CFR part 51

, Appendix Y

, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04 (1 1m). (c) T rading shall be between all boilers serving a similar func

tion and located on the same property

. (d) Boilers participating in the trading shall achieve the required emission reductions on a continuous basis and shall be subject to continuous emission monitoring, which meets the applicable requirements under ch. NR 439 or 440

. (e) The plan shall specify the monitoring devices and proce

dures which will be used to provide information suf ficient to

assess the performance of the proposed emission control mea

sures and to quantify on an hourly average basis the mass flow of each pollutant in pounds per hour and the emission rate of each pollutant in pounds per mmBtu heat input for each boiler partici

pating in the trading. The procedures and methods required for compliance demonstration and for performance testing shall be according to the applicable requirements of ch. NR 439 or 440

. (f) Excess emission reductions, for the purposes of meeting the BART requirements, shall be emission reductions beyond those required to meet all state and federal requirements and may not include emission reductions used in any other banking or trading
program. (2) If the department approves the emissions trading plan, the department shall propose to revise the source’ s air quality permit166−20

NR 433.06 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRA TIVE CODE

Register November 2010 No. 659 to include the requirements of the emissions trading plan in lieu of the BAR

T requirements for the boilers identified in the emis

sions trading plan. (3) After the department incorporates the emissions trading plan in the revised air operation permit, the owner or operator of the BAR T−eligible source shall comply with the requirements of the emissions trading plan for the boilers identified in the plan. History: CR 07−017 : cr

. Register June 2008 No. 630 , ef f. 7−1−08; CR 10−033 : am. (1) (intr o.), (b) 1., (c) Register November 2010 No. 659 , eff. 12−1−10.

# A TTACHMENT 

# 3

# A TTACHMENT 

# 4r.



### BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

AM-04-06

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11(2)(a), 227.14 (1m) and 285.11(1) and (6), Stats., interpreting s. 285.11(6), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on the creation of ch. NR 433 and s. NR 484.04(11m) Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for visibility protection.

The Department is proposing a rule to address BART related State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions which are required by the federal regional haze rule. The Federal regulations require all states, including Wisconsin, to develop State Implementation Plans to address visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal Areas (Class I Areas) by December 2007. One of the provisions of the federal regulations is the application of BART requirements to major stationary sources that meet certain criteria relating to amount and type of emissions, installation date and source category. The proposed rule requires that the affected facilities perform an engineering analysis for the BART determination which shall be based on an analysis of the best systems of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART. This analysis is to be performed on a source-by-source basis taking into account the criteria provided by the federal regulation. The net effect of the proposed rule would be to examine potential emission control technologies for S02. NOx and particulate mailer from approximately 10 power plants and 4 pulp and paper mills that meet the criteria in the federal regulations and to determine BART for those emission sources.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have a direct economic impact on small businesses. The requirements to emission units owned and operated by electric utilities and paper manufacturers may increase the cost of their products and therefore may have an indirect impact on small businesses through higher electricity costs or the costs of paper products.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Marathon County Public Library, Wausau Room, 300 N. First Street, Wausau, WI at 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, March 15, 2007 Room 140-141, DNR Southeast Region Headquarters, 2300 North Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Milwaukee, WI at 1:00 p.m.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Robert Eckdale at (608) 266-2856 or by e-mail to RobertEckdale@wisconsin.gov with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be reviewed and downloaded and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov . (Search this Web site using the Natural Resources Board Order No.

### AM-04-06.) Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Farrokh

Ghoreishi, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by e-mail to Mr. Ghoreishi at Farrokh.Ghoreishi@wisconsin.gov . Comments may be submitted until March 19, 2007. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. If you do not have Internet access, a personal copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be obtained from Robert Eckdale, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by calling (608) 266-2856.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin 

## Aboo7

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By 

# Sett Hathat Scott Hassell, Secretary

### inda Lund, Office Operations Associate

Bureau of Air Management 608-264-9206

Subscribed and sworn to before me

Notary Public, State of Wisconsin

My commission e Publication to appear in: The DNR will publish in: Wisconsin State Journal PO Box 8056 Madison, WI, 53708-8056 On Friday, February 9, 2007



### Location and date of hearing:
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Marathon County Public Library Wausau Room, 300 N. First St. Wausau, WI at 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, March 15, 2007 Room 140-141, DNR Southeast REgion Headquarters 2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. Milwaukee, WI at 1:00 p.m.STATE OF WISCONSIN 

### Notice/Permit Number:

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AM

- 04

- 06



### NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11(2)(a), 227.14 (1m) and 285.11(1) and (6), Stats., interpreting s. 285.11(6), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on the creation of ch. NR 433 and s. NR 484.04(11m) Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for visibility protection

Linda Lund, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that said person is employed as a Office Operations Associate, by the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; that on the 9th day of 8th, February, said person deposited in the United States mail at Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin, copies of the notice for public hearing 

### to the above entitled action, securely enclosed in envelopes, the postage duly prepaid and one copy addressed to each of the following at his/her respective last known address:

Pamela Blakley, Chief- AR-18J US EPA - Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604

Janice Kelb PO Box 146 Brokaw, WI 54417

Michael Huenick Env. Tech. & Engineering Corp. 13020 Bluemound Rd. Elm Grove, WI 53122

Gene Mayemick Mayemick Assoc., Inc. PO Box 201 North Prairie, WI 53153-0201

James O'Connor Kent & O'Connor Incorporated 1990 M. Street NW STE 340 Washington, DC 20036

Lee Kottke Anguil Environmental Consultants 851 E. Glen Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53217

Michael Mayan Environmental Monitoring & Tech. Inc. 8100 North Austin Ave Morton Grove, IL 60053-3203

Dennis Greil Bay Environmental Strategies 529 S. Jefferson St. - STE 10 Green Bay, WI 54301 Clean Wisconsin 122 State Street STE 200 Madison, WI 53703-2500

Environmental Law Society, UW Law School 975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706

Bro. Don Balentine It's About Time, 

### Ltd. PO Box 090062 Milwaukee, WI 53209

Mike Mayan RMC Env. PO Box 216 Rosendale, WI 54974

Bruce Nines Sierra Club 122 W. Washington St.- STE 830 Madison, WI 53703

Mark Larson 2310 Pinehurst Drive Middleton, WI 53562-2541

Blake Trimbell 8256 Starr Grass Drive Madison, WI 53719-4479

Dave Bender Garvey & Stoddard SC 634 W Main Street Ste 200 Madison, WI 53703-2697

Dane County Library Service 201 W. Mifflin St. Madison, WI 53703-2597

### County Clerk, Dane County

210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Deforest Times-Tribune Room 112 PO Box 585 Madison, WI 53703-3342 De Forest, WI 53532

Mayor, City of Madison 210 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Madison, WI 53709

County Executive, Dane County 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Room 421 Madison, WI 53703-3345

Dane County Board 210 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Madison, WI 53709

Unit Director The Community Analysis and Planning Division City County Building 210 Martin Luther King Blvd.-RM 362 Madison, WI 53703

GLIFW Commission P.O. Box 9 Odanah, WI 54861-0009

Ho-Chunk Tribe PO Box 667 Black River Falls, WI 54615

Capital Times City Desk Box 8060 Madison, WI 53708

Belleville Recorder PO Box 50 Belleville, WI 53508-0050

Cambridge News 201 W. North St. Cambridge, WI 53523 Mt. Horeb Mail PO Box 88 Mount Horeb, WI 53572

Oregon Observer PO Box 26 Oregon, WI 53575

Stoughton Courier-Hub 135 W Main St. STE-102 Stoughton, WI 53589

The Independent 33 N. Main St. Deerfield, WI 53531

Waunakee Tribune PO Box 128 Waunakee, WI 53597

WDLB/WLJY Radio 1712 N. Central Ave. Marshfield, WI 54449

WIBA Radio Park PO Box 99 Madison, WI 53701

WISM PO Box 2058 Madison, WI 53701

WORT 118 Bedford St. Madison, WI 53703

Dane Co. News-Sickle & Arrow WTDY AM/FM 1126 Mills St. PO BOX 2058 Black Earth, WI 53515 Madison, WI 53701

1..71 \lt 11VGil i11 cult. eucnuai. _CI

### WISC TV Hometown News, LP

7025 Raymon Rd. PO Box 645 Madison, WI 53711 Sun Prairie, WI 53590-0264

Wisconsin State Journal PO Box 8058 Madison, WI 53708

WKOW TV 5727 Tokay Blvd Madison, WI 53719

WMTV 615 Forward Dr. Madison, WI 53711

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal 119 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. STE LL Madison, WI 53703-3355

Tom Steidl, LS/5

DMZ. Hearing and Meeting Calendar, CE/6

Annmarie Kutzke, LS/5

Others:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 333 W. State St. Box 661 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0661

Daily Herald 220 First Ave. South Box 8090 Wausau, WI 54402-1286 Middleton Times Tribune 6826 Union Avenue PO Box 6 Middleton, WI 53562

Don Sutton Illinois PO Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794

Catherine Fitzsimmon Iowa 7900 Hickman Road, Suite 1 Urbandale, IA 50322

# A TTACHMENT 

# 5

### Report From Agency

REPORT TO LEGISLATURE

NR 433, Wis. Adm. Code Identification of sources subject to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for visibility protection and the determination of

BART for those sources

Board Order No. A M

- 04

- 06 Clearinghouse Rule No. 07

- 017

Basis and Purpose of the Proposed Rule

The Department is proposing this rule to address the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) revisions to Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) which are required by the federal regional haze rule. Under s. 285.14(2), Stats., rules that affect the State Implementation Plan must be submitted to standing committees of the legislature with jurisdiction over environmental matters at least 60 days before the rule may be submit ted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is the Department’s intent to submit the proposed rule to the U.S. EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final “regional haze r egulations and guidelines for BART determinations” on July 6, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 39104). The federal regulations require all states, including Wisconsin, to revise their State Implementation Plans to address visibility impairment in Mandat ory Class I Federal Areas (Class I Areas), which are specific national parks and wilderness areas across the country. The deadline for the SIP submittal is December 17, 2007.

One of the provisions of the federal regulations is the application of BART req uirements to certain existing stationary sources which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in a Class I Area. All such sources are “subject to BART”. The state of Wisconsin must submit an implementation pla n revision containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance for all sources subject to BART.

The federal regional haze regulation requires that the BART determination be based on an analysis of the best systems of continuou s emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART. This analysis is to be performed on a source

- by

- source basis taking into account the criteria provided by the federal regulation.

The rule would require facilities affected by BART to conduct the BART analyses for their sources subject to BART and submit the analyses to the Department for review and the determination of BART requirements for each emission unit subject to BART. The BART d eterminations would be part of the state implementation plan (SIP) which is subject to EPA approval.

The net effect of the proposed rule would be to examine potential particulate matter (PM) emission controls for BART

- eligible boilers at 10 power plants a nd potential SO 2 , NO x and PM emission controls for BART

- eligible units at a pulp and paper facility in the State.

Summary of the rule

The rule establishes a procedure for the determination of BART requirements to control SO2, NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions from sources subject to BART, which are mainly boilers at electric generating power plants and at pulp and paper facilities. The electric generating power plants subject to2

BART do not need to install, operate, and maintain BART for SO2 and NOx controls, if they are subject to the SO2 and NOx trading programs of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This exception is consistent with EPA’s finding that CAIR requirements for SO2 and NOx can be a substitute for meeting BART requirements. The m ain elements of the rule are as follows:

 Identifying sources subject to BART based on their individual impacts on visibility impairment in Class I Areas and notifying the facilities.

 Requirements for the facilities to perform engineering analyses for BAR T determinations based on the EPA guidelines published in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y. If the guidelines do not provide sufficient instructions for a specific case, the facility can consult the Department for further information and clarification. The time available for conducting the BART analyses is 6 months.

 Requirements for the facilities to provide their BART analyses with all supporting documents to the Department for review and BART determinations.

 The BART rule would require that the BART determina tions be based on an analysis of the best systems of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART. The Department will determine the emission reduction requirements for each source considering the technologies available and the following factors:

a) The costs of compliance b) The energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance c) Any pollution control equipment in use at the source d) The remaining useful life of the sour ce e) The degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved as a result of the emission reductions.

 An emissions trading program in lieu of BART for boilers located within a facility is a compliance option. Facilities which choose to use the emissions trading program must submit an emissions trading plan, which would be subject to Department approval. The criteria for the plan approval are listed below:

a) The plan must ensure an emission reduction at least 10% higher for the visibility impairing pollut ants than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART or an alternative plan that demonstrates equivalent visibility improvement. b) Trading must be between the boilers located at the same facility. c) Boilers participating in the trading m ust be equipped with continuous emission monitoring equipment meeting the applicable requirements under ch. NR 439 or 440. d) The plan must specify the monitoring devices and procedures which will be used to determine the performance of the proposed emission control measures and to provide information sufficient to quantify on an hourly average basis the mass flow of each pollutant in pounds per hour and the emission rates of each pollutant in pounds per million Btu (British thermal unit) heat input for each b oiler participating in the trading. The procedures and methods required for compliance demonstration and for performance testing shall be according to the applicable requirements under ch. NR 439 or 440. e) For the purpose of meeting the BART requirements, ex cess emission reductions shall be emission reductions beyond those required to meet all state and federal requirements and may not include emission reductions used in any other trading or banking program.

 Requirements that the Department’s determination of BART for a facility be published for public comment, and after consideration of all comments become legally enforceable by including them in the air quality permit for the facility.

 A provision that allows the Department to revise the BART requirements in the air quality permit, if the EPA requires a revision or the Department determines that the revision is justified based on safety,3

health, environmental, or excessive cost impacts which the original BART analysis failed to take into account.

Backgr ound information for the proposed BART rule

The federal regional haze regulations require all states, including Wisconsin, to revise their SIPs to address visibility impairment in Class I Areas. One of the provisions of the federal regulations is the dete rmination and application of BART to certain stationary sources. The EPA has published regulations and guidelines for the BART determination but has left the decisions on some issues to the states’ discretion. These issues along with the Department’s posit ions are described below.

1. Introduction

The BART provision of the regional haze regulation applies to “BART

- eligible” sources. These are major stationary sources from 26 identified source categories, which were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977, and have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any visibility impairing air pollutant. Among the BART

- eligible sources, only those that may cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Cl ass I Area are “subject to BART”. Only a source subject to BART needs to go through a process to determine the level of emission control and the control technology representing BART. The BART determination must be based on a source specific analysis of th e best systems of continuous emission control technology available taking into account:

a) the cost of control b) the energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of control c) any pollution control equipment in use at the source d) the remaining useful life of t he source e) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology

The EPA has provided guidelines for BART determinations, which can be found in Appendix Y of 40 CFR part 51. The determination of BART for fossil

- fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the EPA guidelines. The application of the guidelines is not mandatory for the other source categories. However, the Departme nt intends to follow the EPA guidelines for all BART

- eligible sources.

2. Visibility Impairing Pollutants

The rule would consider sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and particulate matter (PM) as visibility impairing pollutants. Particulate mat ter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) will be used as an indicator for particulate matter. According to EPA, states should use their best judgment in deciding whether certain types of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as ammonia and ammonia compounds are likely to have an impact on visibility in a Class I Area. There are significant uncertainties in demonstrating the visibility impacts of VOC and ammonia caused by a single source. Therefore, the Department does not intend to include these pollutants in the BART determinations.

3. Sources Subject To BART

The regional haze regulations give states the authority to determine among the BART

- eligible sources which sources are subject to BART and which sources can be exempted from the BART determinations. The EPA

- guidelines provide three options for the identification of sources subject to BART.

The Department chose the option which considers the individualized contribution of BART

- eligible sources to the visibility impairment in Class I Areas and has b een conducting source

- by

- source modeling analyses to determine whether the source significantly contributes to visibility impairment in Class I Areas. The preliminary results show that ten (10) power plants and an industrial source may be subject to BART. The industrial source is a major pulp and paper facility. Further modeling results will be used to finalize4

the identification of sources that will be subject to the BART determination. The current preliminary list shows that the following facilities poten tially have at least one emission unit subject to BART.

Ten Electric generating power plants : Alliant Energy

- Columbia Generating Station Alliant Energy, Nelson Dewey Gen Station We Energies

- Oak Creek Station We Energies

- Valley Station WI Public Servi ce Corp

- JP Pulliam Plant Manitowoc Public Utilities WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station Dairyland Power Coop Alma Station Dairyland Power Coop Genoa Station

- EOP Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

- Weston Plant

One Pulp and paper facilit y : Georgia

- Pacific Corporation (former Fort James Operating Company)

The two other options for determining sources subject to BART are:

a) Consider all BART

- eligible sources subject to BART This option would require the BART determination process for all B ART

- eligible sources. The Department is not proposing this option, because some of the BART

- eligible sources have minor impacts on visibility impairment in Class I Areas.

b) Consider none of the BART

- eligible sources subject to BART This option required a de monstration that emissions from BART

- eligible sources in the state are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I Area. This option is not applicable for Wisconsin, because the Department has already determi ned that BART

- eligible sources in Wisconsin contribute to visibility impairment in the nearby Class I Areas.

4. Emissions Trading

The proposed BART rule includes an emissions trading program. The program is intended to provide more flexibility to facili ties to meet the requirements of the BART rule. The program provides facilities with the option to install emission controls on boilers which are not subject to BART in lieu of the sources subject to BART. A facility choosing this option shall submit a pla n demonstrating a control strategy that achieves at least 10 percent higher emission reductions than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART only on units subject to BART. The plan would be subject to the Department’s approval.

5. Alternative to BART Program

The regional haze regulation allows states to opt into an alternative measure in lieu of BART. The State can use other programs, for example a trading program, as an alternative to BART, if the State can show that the alter native program will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. Based on this alternative, the Department is proposing the emissions trading program mentioned above.

The regional haze rule giv es states the option to use the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as a BART substitute for electric generating power plants. This option along with the Department’s proposed approach is discussed below.

CAIR as a BART

- Substitute for Power Plants5

There are ten (10) power plants among the BART

- eligible sources in Wisconsin. Those power plants are also subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which is another federal rule designed to address the interstate transport of ozone and particulate matter. Al though the purpose of CAIR is different from the BART rule, both rules require sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides ( NO x ) reductions from power plants. CAIR provides a cap

- and

- trade program and applies to all power plants larger than 25 MW located in the CAIR

- region, which includes the 28 states in the eastern part of the United States. BART, on the other hand, needs to be determined on a source

- by

- source basis and applies to a much smaller number of power plants located nationwide.

The EPA conducted modeling analyses comparing BART with CAIR and determined that CAIR makes “greater reasonable progress” than BART in terms of the overall improvement in visibility over all Class I areas. Based on this finding, the regional haze regulation allows a state participating in the CAIR cap

and

- trade program to treat CAIR as a BART

- substitute for power plants. However, if a state believes more progress can be made at affected Class I Areas by utilizing BART, the state need not make the determination that impleme ntation of CAIR satisfies the BART requirement in that State. Therefore, the states have two options, either to treat CAIR and BART as separate requirements, or to consider CAIR as a BART substitute for SO2 and NOx, the pollutants covered by CAIR.

The Dep artment has conducted an analysis to investigate the air quality impacts and the cost of control for each of the options if applied in Wisconsin. The analysis included all power plants in Wisconsin affected by either BART or the CAIR cap

- and

- trade program, as predicted by EPA in its 2004 modeling analysis. The EPA modeling prediction shows that only a limited number of power plants affected by CAIR are likely to be equipped with air pollution control systems as a result of open market trading.

The Depart ment’s analysis showed that the implementation of BART and CAIR as separate rules would result in better visibility in the nearby Class I Areas than substituting CAIR for BART. Consequently, the Department first proposed making the determination that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emissions if the power plant demonstrates that its compliance with CAIR meets its BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emissions. However, after receiving several comments on this issue the Department has revise d its previous proposal and is now proposing to consider CAIR as a BART

substitute for the SO2 and NOx requirements. The reasons for the revision are as follows:

 The regional haze regulation requires states, including Wisconsin, to submit an implementati on plan addressing regional haze in each Class I area affected by emissions from the state. Emissions from Wisconsin mostly affect the visibility in four Class I areas located north of Wisconsin in Michigan and Minnesota. The states of Michigan and Minneso ta , along with Wisconsin and some other states, tribal governments and federal agencies are working together to address the visibility problem in the four Class I areas. Although the analyses are not finalized yet, the interim results show that the applic ation of BART will not be sufficient to meet the reasonable progress goals required by the federal regional haze program for 2018 and additional emission reductions will be required. Our current analysis indicates that electric generating power plants as a category are the largest contributors to regional haze, as compared with the contributions of the other emission source categories. Considering also that the emission controls on power plants are more cost effective, the control of SO2 and NOx emissions f rom power plants will need to be the core element in the state implementation plan revisions addressing the reasonable progress goals required by 2018. Therefore, the Department intends to propose another rule within a year, the haze rule, which will requi re significant emission reductions from all coal

- fired power plants including those older units which could be subject to BART. Because the haze rule will be implemented in two phases, the emission reductions at power plants in the initial phase will be in a time

- frame and at a level commensurate with the emission reductions that would otherwise have been associated with BART. This approach will be more effective than a unit

- by

- unit BART determination, and will provide the utility companies more flexibility at lower costs to comply with the requirements. In addition, it minimizes the time and expenses for conducting site specific engineering analyses required for the BART determinations.6

 As mentioned above, the analyses indicate that there will be more emis sion reductions required than those projected from the application of BART to meet the federal haze requirements. Since a more inclusive haze rule is needed for power plants, the BART requirements would be redundant and therefore without any significant ef fect on air quality. In the interests of simplicity and clarity of regulations, we believe that SO2 and NOx control requirements are not needed at this time in the implementation of BART for power plants that are subject to the CAIR requirements.

 The EPA ’s determination that CAIR is better than BART was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in a decision on December 12, 2006. The EPA position was confirmed despite the fact that CAIR may not achieve as much visibility improvement as BART in each Class I area

. Summary of Public Comments

The summary of public comments is attached.

Modifications Made

After consideration of comments that the Department consider the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as a BART

- substitute for electric generating units, the Boa rd adopted revisions to the rule on the CAIR as BART

- substitute issue and is proposing that the BART

- eligible electric generating units subject to a CAIR trading program are not required to install, operate and maintain additional control equipment to meet BART requirements for the pollutants covered by the trading program. This revision is consistent with the option allowed in the federal regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)4.

Appearances at the Public Hearing

March 13, 2007

– Wausau

In support

– none In op position

– none

As interest may appear:

Kelly T. Zagrzebski, 4512 Huntington Court, Wausau, WI 54401

March 15, 2007

– Milwaukee

In support:

Elizabeth Wheeler, Clean Wisconsin, 122 State Street, Suite 200, Madison, WI 53702

In opposition:

Michele Plu ta, Alliant Energy, 4902 N. Biltmore Lane, Madison, WI 53707

As interest may appear:

Kris McKinney, WE Energies, 333 W. Everett St., A231, Milwaukee, WI 53203 Dave Durment, 231 W. Michigan, P145, Milwaukee, WI 53203

Changes to Rule Analysis and Fiscal E stimate

The rule analysis was changed to reflect consideration of the CAIR rules. The fiscal estimate is unchanged.7

Response to Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse Report

The recommendations were accepted.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Th e proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. The facilities affected by the proposed rule are power plants and major manufacturers of pulp and paper. These facilities are not considered to be small businesses.8

Attachme nt: Summary of Public Comments and Department Responses

Introduction

Prior to the development of Wisconsin’s BART rule, the Department staff summarized the major issues related to the implementation of BART in an information document titled “Strategy fo r implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology provisions for Wisconsin” in March 2006. That document can be found at: ( http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/air/h ot/8hrozonestd/cairbart/BART

- Rule%20background.pdf ). Its purpose was to provide information regarding BART and to ask the public and stakeholders for comments on the different options for the implementation of BART. We also had meetings with the Wisconsi n utility companies, Clean Air Act Task Force, and pulp and paper companies to inform them about the BART requirements and the available options for the implementation of a BART rule. Based on the comments we received, we prepared a BART rule proposal that was authorized for public comments by the Natural Resources Board in January 2007. That BART rule proposal is posted at: https://apps4.dhfs.state.wi.us/admrules/public/Rmo?nRmoI d=683

The Department held two public hearings in Wausau and in Milwaukee in March 2007 to receive comments on the proposed BART rule. In addition, written comments were submitted to the Department by April 9, 2007.

We received written comments from: Wi sconsin Legislative Council (Rules Clearinghouse); Thilmany, LLC; Wisconsin Paper Council; WE Energies; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Sierra Club (also on behalf of Clean Wisconsin); Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Quarles and Brady on behalf of Mosinee Mill of Wausau Paper Specialty Products, LLC; and Alliant Energy.

Changes to the rule were made to address the comments from the Rules Clearinghouse. Summaries of the other comments and our responses are provided below:

Comment : Several comme nters requested that the Department consider the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as a BART

- substitute for electric generating units (EGUs). The basis for this request is the EPA determination that CAIR will achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal than would BART for affected EGUs. The federal regional haze program at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) states that “A State that chooses to meet the emission reduction requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) by participating in o ne or more of the EPA

- administrated CAIR trading programs for SO2 and NOx need not require BART

- eligible EGUs subject to such trading programs in the State to install, operate, and maintain BART for the pollutants covered by such trading programs in the S tate”. Since Wisconsin will participate in the CAIR trading programs, CAIR as a BART

- substitute is a possible option for Wisconsin.

The Department first proposed the BART rule with a provision allowing a power plant subject to BART to demonstrate that the reductions achieved through compliance with the CAIR requirements constitute compliance with the SO2 and NOx requirements in the BART rule. Almost all comments on this issue opposed the deviation from the EPA’s determination and requested a corresponding revision of the state’s proposed rule. One commenter supported the proposed approach and stated that it “aligns with the purpose of BART and must remain as a central element of the rule”.

Response: After consideration of those comments, the Department sta ff have recommended revisions of the rule on the CAIR as BART

- substitute issue and is now proposing that the BART

- eligible electric generating units subject to a CAIR trading program are not required to install, operate, and maintain additional control equ ipment to meet BART requirements for the pollutants covered by the trading program. This revision is consistent with the option allowed in the federal regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). The Department’s reasons for the revision were outlined below:

 The re gional haze regulation requires states, including Wisconsin, to submit an implementation plan addressing regional haze in each Class I area affected by emissions from the state. Emissions from Wisconsin mostly affect the visibility in four Class I areas lo cated north of Wisconsin in Michigan and9

Minnesota. The states of Michigan and Minnesota , along with Wisconsin and some other states, tribal governments and federal agencies are working together to address the visibility problem in the four Class I areas. Although the analyses are not finalized yet, the interim results show that the application of BART will not be sufficient to meet the reasonable progress goals required by the federal regional haze program for 2018 and additional emission reductions will be required. Our current analysis indicates that electric generating power plants as a category are the largest contributors to regional haze, as compared with the contributions of the other emission source categories. Considering also that the emission co ntrols on power plants are more cost effective, the control of SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants will need to be the core element in the state implementation plan revisions addressing the reasonable progress goals required by 2018. Therefore, the Dep artment intends to propose another rule within a year, the haze rule, which will require significant emission reductions from all coal

- fired power plants including those older units which could be subject to BART. Because the haze rule will be implemented in two phases, the emission reductions at power plants in the initial phase will be in a time

- frame and at a level commensurate with the emission reductions that would otherwise have been associated with BART. This approach will be more effective than a un it

- by

- unit BART determination, and will provide the utility companies more flexibility at lower costs to comply with the requirements. In addition, it minimizes the time and expenses for conducting site specific engineering analyses required for the BART d eterminations.

 As mentioned above, the analyses indicate that there will be more emission reductions required than those projected from the application of BART to meet the federal haze requirements. Since a more inclusive haze rule is needed for power pla nts, the BART requirements would be redundant and therefore without any significant effect on air quality. In the interests of simplicity and clarity of regulations, we believe that additional SO2 and NOx control requirements are not needed at this time in the implementation of BART for power plants that are subject to the CAIR requirements.

 The EPA’s determination that CAIR is better than BART was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in a decision on December 12, 2006. The EPA position was confirmed despi te the fact that CAIR may not achieve as much visibility improvement as BART in each Class I area.

Commen t: A commenter stated that contrary to “the fact that the Board, and not Department staff, creates environmental policy, the proposed rule does no t establish a numerical “floor” for BART compliance. Rather it puts off setting any standards or any limits, and delegates that duty and authority to Department staff

- outside of the Board or the public rulemaking process. This results in a rule that does not ensure the Board or the public of pollution reduction and leaves too much opportunity for post

enactment weakening of this rule. The Board should include numerical limits in the rule or, at a minimum, a presumptive minimum that cannot be weakened”.

Re sponse: The purpose of the proposed BART rule is to establish the procedures for determining what BART is for each specific emission unit subject to BART. The BART determination process will be similar to other control technology

- based (Best Available Con trol Technology and Lowest Achievable Emission Reduction) emission limits that are determined through a permit process and include public notice and public comments. The Department will publish its preliminary BART determination for each emission

sources s ubject to BART and the public will have at least 30 days to comment on each preliminary BART determination. Therefore, contrary to the commenter’s opinion, the BART determination will include public participation.

Moreover, because the BART rule is intend ed to include site

- specific conditions that take into account the five statutory factors, it would be inconsistent with that approach to establish by rule a minimum or “numerical floor” for all BART determinations.10

Comment: A commenter requested the re moval of “section NR 433.06 from the proposed rule to avoid backtracking on the Department’s commitment to implement BART in addition to CAIR and to ensure that modern pollution controls are put on each of Wisconsin’s power plants”.

Response : Section NR 4 33.06 provides a facility the option of trading emissions between boilers at the facility if the emission reductions achieved by the trading is at least 10% more than the emission reductions that would be achieved by applying BART only to the boilers subje ct to BART. This trading option is expected to make the rule more effective and to reduce costs. In addition, the Department is committed to providing trading options for NOx reductions under a statutory requirement (s. 285.49, Wis. Stats.).

Comment: A commenter stated that “...the draft rule does not result in a modification to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan to incorporate the BART determinations and limits for each source. Rather, it proposes to merely amend the operating permit for each source . This poses two problems. First, putting aside the Department’s backlog of operating permits, operating permits expire and there is no assurance that the limits established as BART will be legally enforceable after the expiration of the permit. BART limit s must be established by rule and included in a SIP to ensure they do not expire. Second, this process does not comply with the requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e) that Wisconsin “submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART... for each BART

- eligible source...” Federal law requires the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan to be amended to incorporate the limits. It does not allow the concept behind the proposed rule: where only the process of determining BART is in the State I mplementation Plan, while leaving the actual limits up to the Department outside of the State Implementation Plan process.”

Response: The purpose of the proposed BART rule is to establish a procedure for BART determinations. The results of the BART determ ination process will be BART requirements for each source subject to BART. Those requirements, as the commenter correctly states, will be incorporated into the state’s federally

- enforceable SIP as well as in the facility’s permit and will be federally enfo rceable. In addition, the BART requirements will be an “applicable requirement” that is incorporated into the facility’s operation permit. That means, that in each permit renewal the BART requirements will remain in place and will be enforceable.

Comment : The proposed rule requires that the visibility impacts of BART

- eligible sources are determined using air quality modeling. A commenter discussed the requirements for conducting the computer modeling and requests that the modeling options provided in the rule should be removed

The commenter noted that “The Department is making a one

- time determination about whether sources are subject to BART based on only three years of data

– 2002, 2003, and 2004. The modeling is based upon a very small data set conside ring that all sources subject to this rule have been in operation since at least 1977

– over 30 years. It is entirely possible

– and quite likely that those three particular years were not representative operational years for some sources.” The commenter r equests that “the rule should specify that all sources must model impacts to Class I areas according to a uniform method used by the Department, which should include a requirement to use potential to emit. A source that wishes to rely on its 2002 through 2 004 actual emissions, based on its assertion that those emissions are representative of the source’s emissions in the future, should be required to accept permit limits that prohibit them from increasing emissions in the future.”

In addition the commenter requested that “DNR should not permit industry sources to submit CALPUFF modeling results based upon contributions to “natural conditions” calculated using the average “natural conditions” instead of the 20% best “natural conditions.”

Response: The model ing requirements and the options included in the rule are provided to be consistence with the corresponding EPA guidance and recommendations. The Department has not11

deviated from the EPA recommendations and followed EPA guidance for the modeling. The speci fic issues raised by the commenter are addressed below:

According to the federal regional haze regulation, states have discretion to identify BART

- eligible sources with minor visibility impact on Class I areas and exempt them from BART requirements. There fore, the proposed rule requires that the Department conduct computer modeling to determine the visibility impact of each BART

- eligible source on Class I areas and exempts sources with a visibility impact below the threshold defined in the proposed rule. T he modeling years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were selected because meteorological data for those years were available when the Department began with the preliminary modeling and rule development. In addition, the selected modeling years and period are consistent with EPA’s recommendations.

Using maximum actual emission rates for the modeling is consistent with EPA’s recommendations. The proposed rule offers sources the option to use the source’s “potential to emit”, because some sources may not record their actua l emissions daily. The source’s “potential to emit” is an approximation of the maximum actual emissions.

The visibility impact of each source is expressed in “deciviews”, a unit defined with the intention to better express impairment as visually perceived . It depends on the level of background impairment (also called natural conditions) in each Class I area. Therefore, the rule requires the visibility impact of each source to be compared against a background which represents the average of the 20% best day s of natural conditions. To correspond with the EPA’s recommendations the proposed rule also provides a facility the option to use the annual average natural visibility as background conditions, if the modeling is performed according to the EPA’s requireme nts as verified by the Department.

Comment : The Department received comments expressing concerns that the separation between the BART portion of the regional haze requirements from the requirements for achieving the reasonable progress goals is a “proble m for regulated sources”. The issue seems to be the uncertainty caused by possible differences between the requirements for BART and those for achieving the reasonable progress goals. The commenter stated that “Companies could be subject to differing regul atory requirements for the same pollutants and these potentially differing requirements could result in unnecessary costs or compliance traps for companies.” The commenter requested that the Department provide more information about it’s regulatory activit ies in respect to regional haze. The commenter recommended that the Department form a stakeholder group that would meet periodically with the Department’s staff to closely monitor the implementation of the BART rule and the development of the reasonable pr ogress rule.

Response: The requirements for application of BART and those for achieving the reasonable progress goals are separate, but complementary, provisions of the regional haze regulations. For BART, the states are required to identify the sources s ubject to BART and determine BART on a source

- by

- source basis. On the other hand, the requirements for achieving the reasonable progress goals may include emission limits for entire source categories or individual sources. Sources affected by both provisio ns need to develop a control strategy meeting the requirements of both provisions.

The Department intends to inform the public and stakeholders about the relevant regulatory activities with respect to regional haze and intends to meet periodically with s takeholders.

Comment: A commenter urged the Department to include a definition for the source category “fossil fuel

fired steam electric plants” in the BART rule, consistent with the definition of the electric generating units (EGUs) in the Clean Air Int erstate Rule (CAIR). The purpose of the definition is to exclude the industrial cogeneration units from the BART source category called “fossil fuel

- fired steam electric plants”. As a supporting document, the commenter provided a copy of a letter from EPA to the American Forest & Paper Association dated April 4, 2007.12

Response: According to the EPA letter to the American Forest & Paper Association

“...it would be reasonable for a State, for Regional Haze purposes, to treat EGUs as synonymous with the categ ory of fossil

- fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input (million BTU/hr), which is BART category number one.”

Consistent with this statement of EPA, the Department is proposing a rule revision to clarify that an industrial cogeneration unit that supplies less than one

- third of its potential electric output capacity on an annual basis to any utility power distribution system for sale, is not considered a “fossil fuel

- fired steam electric plant” for the BART

- eligibility determination.

Comment : Referring to s. NR 433.04 of the proposed rule, a commenter urged the Department to clarify that not all available retrofit control technologies need to be evaluated for the BART determinations. The control te chnology representing BART should be determined using a top

- down approach and the analysis should stop when BART has been determined and any additional evaluations beyond that point should not be required.

Response: It is the Department’s intention to str eamline the BART determination process while avoiding ambiguous requirements that can be interpreted differently. The top

- down approach would simplify the identification of BART if the performance and the costs of all available technologies were known for all emission units. However, this may not be the case. Especially for industrial sources, the top

- down order of the available control technologies may be debatable. Therefore, all available control options need to be included in the BART analysis. However, if in any case it is obvious which control option would represent BART, the BART analysis simply needs to address the other options to demonstrate that the selected option represents the best option. In such a case, all available options would be addresse d, but a full

blown analysis of each option would not need to be conducted.

Comment: A commenter suggests that the BART rule should allow the extension of the deadline for submittal of the BART analysis beyond 6 months with the approval of the Department

. Response : The Department has proposed a revision to the rule to allow one extension of up to a maximum of two months (60 days) for submittal of the BART analysis, subject to the Department’s approval.

Comment: Section NR 433.04(6) of the proposed rule requires that if the Department needs additional information “the owner or operator of the BART

- eligible source shall provide the information within a period of time specified by the department”. The commenter requests that the language should be revised to read “... within a reasonable period of time...”

Response: The Department has modified the proposed language accordingly.

Comment : Section NR 433.05(5) of the proposed rule provides the Department with the ability to revise BART requirements if EPA does not approve the BART determination in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) or if a revision is required based on unforeseeable safety, health, environmental, or cost impacts. Recognizing the purpose of the provision, a commenter pointed out that “the langua ge of s. NR 433.05 reads as though the department could revise the BART requirements at any time”. The commenter suggested that the language be revised by using the term “final BART determination” rather than “BART requirements”. In addition, the commenter requested that “technical feasibility” should be added to the reasons for a revision of the already determined BART.

Response : The revision of BART requirements is supposed to be for unexpected events such as EPA’s objection to the BART determination. It is also intended as a safety measure for the rare case that the13

implementation of BART, as determined in the BART determination process, would cause health, safety, environmental, or excessive cost problems that could not be foreseen at the time that th e BART determination was conducted. Considering that any revision of the existing BART requirements would need to be subject to public comments, the Department can and would not propose any revision to the existing BART requirements which is not justified. The BART revision procedure would be similar to that described for the revision of operation permits (see 285.62, Stats.).

As mentioned above, s. NR 433.05(5) of the proposed rule covers the unexpected problems; the Department staff does not think that t he “technical feasibility” should be an unexpected problem after the BART determination has been conducted. The technical feasibility of control options is one of the main reasons for the BART determination analysis and should not be considered an unexpect ed issue.

Comment : Referring to s. NR 433.06(1) (b) 2 of the proposed rule, a commenter suggested that, when using the emission trading option, the demonstration of visibility improvement should be limited to only those Class I areas where the source wa s shown to significantly contribute to visibility impairment. The proposed rule required this demonstration in the four Class I areas nearest to the source.

Response : We have limited the demonstration of visibility improvement to the four Class I areas in order to streamline the analyses and to simplify the rule requirements. The Department’s air quality modeling analyses show that the emissions from BART eligible sources in Wisconsin would significantly impact the visibility in the four Class I areas nort h of Wisconsin. These Class I areas are Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs National Park, Isle Royale National Park, and Seney Wilderness Area. Assuming a facility has somehow determined that its affected sources significantly impacts only on e of the four Class I areas, the practical approach would be to concentrate the detailed analysis for BART determination on that Class I area. However, the final modeling run should include all four Class I areas to demonstrate that the visibility improvem ent in the other Class I areas meet the “better

- than

- BART” criteria, as well. This is a simpler approach than the approach suggested by the commenter. The commenter’s suggestion would require that the facility first demonstrate which class I areas are sign ificantly affected by the source and the BART rule has to define what “significant” impact means for that demonstration. Considering that it is a relatively simple procedure to include all four Class I areas in the final modeling run, the approach as propo sed in the rule provides straightforward and sound results.

Comment : Section NR 433.06(1)(e) of the proposed rule deals with monitoring under the trading option and specifies hourly monitoring. One commenter suggested that daily or a 24

- hour basis shoul d be allowed since this would make compliance monitoring consistent with the applicability provision that a source has the ability to use the maximum 24

- hour average actual emission rate for determining a contribution to visibility impairment.

Response: The averaging time interval for compliance with BART requirements will be determined on a

source

- specific basis in the BART determination process. The purpose of s. NR 433.06(1) (e) of the proposed rule is to require a monitoring system that is able to det ermine the emissions on an hourly

average basis. This requirement is consistent with the monitoring requirements of the EPA trading programs for boilers participating in the SO2 cap

- and

- trade program or the NOx trading program and makes use of already avai lable data for many boilers participating in other emission trading programs.

Comment: One commenter requested that the department allow sources affected by BART to implement alternate programs in lieu of source

- by

- source BART since the federal regulat ions allow this in 40 CFR Subpart P.

Response : The federal regulations provide a broad framework for alternative measures and they can be as elaborate as a regional trading program. Considering the limited number of sources subject to BART in Wisconsin, a vailable resources, and the feedback from the affected facilities, the Department prepared a14

more specific trading program as described in s. NR 433.06 of the proposed BART rule. This program allows trading among all boilers within a facility.

Comment : A commenter pointed out that the rule needed to cite specific applicable provisions in chs. NR 339 and NR440, Wis. Adm. Code, in regard to compliance demonstration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

Response: The purpose of the proposed BART rul e is to establish a procedure for determining BART for a variety of emission sources belonging to different source categories. BART itself will be determined on

a source

- specific basis considering engineering analyses conducted by the affected facilities. The BART determination, like a facility’s air quality permit, will include unit

- specific requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting as well as references to specific applicable provisions in chs. NR 339 and NR 440, if needed. The reference g enerally to chs. NR 339 and NR 440 in the proposed rule provides facilities a framework for establishing the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Citing specific provisions of chs. NR 439 and NR 440 is unnecessary and not helpful at this phase of the BART determination process, considering the variety of the sources and their unknown emission controls.

Comment : The Department received comments stating that specific emission units should not be subject to BART. The basis for the comments is the Department’s preliminary determination of sources subject to BART.

Response: The Department staff used the agency’s database for identification of BART

- eligible sources and has been conducting preliminary modeling analyses to determine the sources subject to BART in Wisconsin. Current results are preliminary and subject to change. The data used as input for the modeling and the results have been shared with the facilities to inform them of the status of the preliminary analyses and to ask them for comments and information if incorrect data were used for the analyses. The Department will continue to work with the facilities to clarify whether a specific source is subject to BART or if it is exempt.

# A TTACHMENT 

# 6

### BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Natural Resources Board Order AM-06-09

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss. 227.16 and 227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to s. NR 433.05 and 433.06, relating to implementation of best available retrofit technology for the protection of visibility in mandatory class I federal areas. The proposed amendments relate to issues for State Implementation Plan approvability, and the State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats., will be revised.

Hearing Information

Date and Time

April 26, 2010, Monday, at 1:30 PM Location

WI DNR Building (GEF 2) Room G09 101 S. Webster Street Madison, WI

Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Robert Eckdale in writing at the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AM/7), 101 S Webster, Madison, WI 53703; by E-mail to Robert.Eckdale©wisconsin.gov ; or by calling (608) 266-2856. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Availability of the Proposed Rules and Fiscal Estimate The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative Rules System Web site which can be accessed through the link provided on the Proposed Air Pollution Control Rules Calendar at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/air/rules/calendar.htm . A printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Eckdale, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AM/7), 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI, 53703, or by calling 608.266.2856.

Submitting Comments Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before Friday, May 7, 2010. Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, E-mail, or through the Internet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be submitted to: Tom Karman Department of Natural Resources Bureau of 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

, 

### Internet: Use the Administrative Rules System Web site accessible through the link provided on

the Proposed Air Pollution Control Rules Calendar at http://dnr.wi.gov/air/rules/calendar.htm

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources Statute interpreted: Section 285.11(6), Stats. The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats., is revised.

Statutory authority: Sections 227.11(2)(a) and 285.11(1) and (6),Stats.

### By ,ry 4 

## e r

e # Matthew J. Frank, Secretary Fiscal Estimate Summary: 

### The proposed rules have no fiscal effect on state and local government, and no significant fiscal effect on the private sector. The proposed revisions to ch. NR 433 do not alter which sources are subject to BART, the required level of emission control, or final compliance requirements under the Wisconsin BART rules. Based on this premise, there is no change anticipated for the fiscal cost of implementing the BART rule.



### Environmental Analysis: The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

### Publication to appear in:

The DNR will publish in: Wisconsin State Journal PO Box 8056 Madison, WI, 53708-8056 On Monday, March 22, 2010

Location and date of hearing:
Monday April 26, 2010 at 1:30 PM WI DNR Building (GEF 2) Room G09 101 S. Webster Madison, WI

ins a Lund, Office Operations Associate Bureau of Air Management 608-264-9206

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this day of 

# ao la

Notary Public, State of isconsin

My commission expires: a01.3 , 1 

### ,„,F VVIS)

•

### STATE OF WISCONSIN Hearing Notice:

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AM-06--09



### NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to 

### ss. 227.16 and 227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to s. NR 433.05 and 433.06, relating to implementation of best available retrofit technology for the protection of visibility in mandatory class I federal areas. The proposed amendments relate to issues for State Implementation Plan approvability, and the State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats., will be revised.

Linda Lund, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that said person is employed as a Office Operations Associate, by the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; that on the 22nd day of March, 2010, said person deposited in the United States mail at Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin, copies of the notice for public hearing to the above "entitled action, securely enclosed in envelopes, the postage duly prepaid and one copy addressed to each of the following at his/her respective last known address: Environmental Law Society, UW Law School 975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706

Bro. Don Balentine It's About Time, Ltd. PO Box 090062 Milwaukee, WI 53209 Pamela Blakley, Chief - AR-18J US EPA - Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604

Janice Kelb PO Box 146 Brokaw, WI 54417

Michael Huenick Env. Tech. & Engineering Corp. 13020 Bluemound Rd. Elm Grove, WI 53122

James O'Connor Kent & O'Connor Incorporated 1990 M. Street NW Ste. 340 Washington, DC 20036

Lee Kottke Anguil Environmental Consultants 851 E. Glen Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53217

Gregory Denny Environmental Monitoring & Tech. Inc. 8100 North Austin Ave Morton Grove, IL 60053-3203

Dennis Greil Bay Environmental Strategies 529 S. Jefferson. St. Ste. 10 Green Bay, WI 54301

Clean Wisconsin 122 State Street, Ste. 200 Madison, WI 53703-2500 Mike Mayan RMC Env. PO Box 216 Rosendale, WI 54974

Bruce Nilles Sierra Club 122 W. Washington St. Ste. 830 Madison, WI 53703

Mark Larson 2310 Pinehurst Drive Middleton, WI 53562-2541

David C. Bender McGillivray Westerberg & Bender LLC 305 S. Paterson Street Madison, WI 53703

Dane County Library Service 201 W. Mifflin St. Madison, WI 53703-2597

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 333 W. State S. PO Box 661 . Milwaukee, WI 53201-0661

•Jk.1,4. QUIS.G311a.

### Tom Steidi — LS/8

Marney Hoefer - LS/8

Mike Scott — LS/8

John Melby — AM/7

Rick Wulk NER/Green Bay

Imelda Stamm NER/Oshkosh

Neal Baudhuin — NR/Rhinelander

Daniel Schramm — SER/Milwaukee

Bill Yantawood SER/Waukesha

Tom Roushar — SCR/Fish Hatchery

Jeffery Johnson — WCR/Eau Claire

Others:

None.

# A TTACHMENT 

# 7

### 1 Report From Agency

REPORT TO LEGISLATURE

NR 433.05 and 433.06, Wis. Adm. Code Implementation of best available retrofit technology for the protection of visibility in mandatory class I federal areas

Board Order Number: AM

- 06

- 09 Clearinghouse Rule Number: CR 10

- 033

BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED RULE

In January 2008, the Natural Resources Board adopted rules establishing ch. NR 433

, requiring Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the protection of visibility. Specifically, the BART requirement s pertain to controlling particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emitted from certain stationary sources which cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in mandatory class I federal areas. For Wisconsin, these areas are the Boundary Wa ters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, and the Seney National Wildlife Refuge and Isle Royal National Park in Michigan. The rule sets forth procedures for identifying stationary sources potentially subject to BART and for dete rmining appropriate control levels for each source based on several factors including visibility improvement.

Since the initial creation of BART requirements, the Department and affected stakeholders have identified several implementation issues and the n eed for certain rule clarifications. The revisions proposed by this rule package are in response to those issues.

Summary of the rule revisions

Compliance Date for BART Controls The current BART rules require the owner or operator of a source which has b een determined to be subject to BART controls to have those controls in place and operating "as expeditiously as practicable" but no later than December 31, 2013. The Department is proposing to extend the final allowed compliance date to December 31, 2015

. This extended compliance date provides additional time for sources which are undergoing significant installations of control equipment, particularly in the case of a source implementing controls for multiple pollutants or emissions units. Extending the fi nal compliance date to December 31, 2015 does not relax the requirement for controls to be in place as expeditiously as practicable.

Emissions Averaging The Department is proposing c larifications to the emissions averaging provisions of the BART rules. On e change pertains to the extra 10% emission reduction required in order to qualify for the additional compliance flexibility afforded by emissions averaging under the current rule provisions. The proposed revision clarifies that the additional reduction ap plies only to the pollutant being offset by other reductions achieved under the averaging plan.

Another proposed revision clarifies the intent that emissions averaging must account for all sources at a facility which can impact the real emission reductio ns achieved under BART requirements. Due to the nature of the regulation, BART may apply to one emissions unit at a facility but not to other similar emissions units. To avoid simply shifting emissions from one boiler to another, the BART rule currently

re quires all boilers at a facility to be included in any emissions averaging program. However, this

### 2

language may unnecessarily include units which cannot be used to offset operational load or emissions of a BART affected boiler. For that reason, a revision i s proposed to require only the boilers serving a similar function at the facility be included in emissions averaging because those boilers can affect the amount of actual emission reductions achieved by BART.

The Department also proposes to modify the emi ssions averaging program to allow an owner or operator of a BART affected source to submit a proposed emissions averaging plan at any time, not just during the initial BART determination process. Determining the best control approach for a source may requi re significant additional analysis once the BART control levels have been finalized. Therefore, the Department proposes to revise the BART rule to allow for future submittals of an emissions averaging plan. If submitted later, the emissions averaging plan must still show that the necessary emission reductions will be achieved by the compliance date set under the initial BART determination. This approach will also allow sources flexibility for submitting a revised averaging plan as operating conditions at th e source change.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

Written comments were submitted by Alliant Energy and Georgia Pacific, both of which operate emission sources affected by the proposed rules. The substantive comments and issues, and the Department’s associated response, are as follows.

Issue 1) Final Compliance Date This rule making proposes to extend the final compliance date for requiring operation of BART controls from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015. There were several comments related to the final compliance date.

Comment

– Both sets of comments supported the change to the compliance date but sought even further extension. Alliant Energy suggested that the additional time would be necessary if EPA changes their Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAI R), which currently allows SO 2 

### and NOx BART requirements for electric utilities to be met through complying with CAIR.

Response

– The Department extended the compliance date two years

, to December 31, 2015

, to allow for planning and installation of contro l equipment for the sources currently affected under the state's BART rule. The 2015 date is sufficient to allow for installation of the most intensive SO 2 

### and NOx controls that may require several years for completion. At this time, EPA has not proposed r evisions to the CAIR rule. If EPA does promulgate a revised CAIR that changes its interaction with BART, the Department will consider making related changes to the state BART rule. However, at this time the Department does not recommend further delay in re ducing the amount of SO 2 

### and NOx emitted and achieving the resultant health and environmental benefits.

Issue 2) Existing BART Rule Provisions and Their Effect on Final Compliance Date

Comment

- Georgia Pacific suggests sources demonstrating compliance t hrough emissions averaging under the state BART rule are not subject to a compliance date.

Response

- The trading provisions are meant to provide flexibility to the source to meet BART emission reduction requirements, not eliminate the compliance date as suggested by Georgia Pacific. The compliance date under an averaging program would not exceed the final compliance date established in the rule which, if adopted, is December 31, 2015.

### 3

Comment

- Georgia Pacific suggests that NR 433.05(5) in the BART rul e allows the Department to consider an extended compliance date.

Response

– To clarify, NR 433.05(5) allows the Department to revise BART requirements in a permit if the Department determines that the revision is justified based on safety, health

, enviro nment
, or excess costs not considered when the Department originally made the BART determination. This provision allows the Department to address conditions that cannot be foreseen through the BART determination process, but it does not allow the Departmen t to generally extend the compliance date farther into the future than is specifically warranted by the known conditions leading to the extension until 2015.

Issue 3) Boilers Required to Participate in an Emissions Trading Program This rule proposes to mo dify the boilers required to participate in emissions trading from "all boilers" to "boilers serving a similar function" which are located at the affected facility. This proposed change provides additional compliance flexibility for facilities without jeop ardizing the emission reduction requirements of the rule.

Comment

– Georgia Pacific suggested that only those boilers at a facility subject to BART be required to participate in emissions trading if that compliance option is utilized.

Response

– The orig inal rule established the trading program to provide compliance flexibility to facilities when they are installing control equipment to comply with the BART requirements. The proposed rule change clarifies the scope of boilers used in averaging but not in the same way recommended in the comment. The comment proposal would allow a facility to shift loads to other boilers resulting in less emission reduction and so is not recommended.

MODIFICATIONS MADE

No modifications were made in response to the public c omme n ts received.

APPEARANCES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING

The Department held a hearing on April 26, 2010 at the DNR Building located at 101 S

. Webster Street in Madison, WI. One person attended as indicated below.

In support: None In opposition: None As in terest may appear: Kathleen Standen, W e Energies, 22 E

. Mifflin St., Suite 850, Madison, WI

CHANGES TO RULE ANALYSIS AND FISCAL ESTIMATE

No changes to the fiscal estimate were necessary. The rule analysis was changed to reflect a change in terminology re commended by the Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse, and discussed in the next section of this report.

RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RULES CLEARINGHOUSE REPORT

The Clearinghouse provided a comment on Form, Style and Placement in Administrative Cod e relating to the use of the term “ particulate matter ” instead of “ particulate ” in the analysis section of the Order. The recommended change was made.

### 4

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

The existing rule requirements apply to large industrial sources or electric generation units which are not small businesses. Therefore based on the limited nature of the proposed rule changes there is no impact anticipated to small businesses.