Appendix A

Regional Haze Program Requirements, 40 CFR 51.308
282 

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–06 Edition) 

or major modification may have an adverse impact on visibility in any Federal Class I area. Where the State finds 

that such an analysis does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

State that an adverse impact will result in the Federal Class I area, the 

State must, in the notice of public 

hearing, either explain its decision or 

give notice as to where the explanation 

can be obtained. 

(b) The plan shall also provide for the 

review of any new major stationary 

source or major modification: 

(1) That may have an impact on any 

integral vista of a mandatory Class I 

Federal area, if it is identified in accordance with §51.304 by the Federal 

Land Manager at least 12 months before submission of a complete permit 

application, except where the Federal 

Land Manager has provided notice and 

opportunity for public comment on the 

integral vista in which case the review 

must include impacts on any integral 

vista identified at least 6 months prior 

to submission of a complete permit application, unless the State determines 

under §51.304(d) that the identification 

was not in accordance with the identification criteria, or 

(2) That proposes to locate in an area 

classified as nonattainment under section 107(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of the Clean 

Air Act that may have an impact on 

visibility in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area. 

(c) Review of any major stationary 

source or major modification under 

paragraph (b) of this section, shall be 

conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and §51.166(o), 

(p)(1) through (2), and (q). In conducting such reviews the State must 

ensure that the source’s emissions will 

be consistent with making reasonable 

progress toward the national visibility 

goal referred to in §51.300(a). The State 

may take into account the costs of 

compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, the energy and nonair 

quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the useful life of the 

source. 

(d) The State may require monitoring of visibility in any Federal Class 

I area near the proposed new stationary source or major modification 

for such purposes and by such means as 

the State deems necessary and appropriate. 

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 

FR 35765, 35774, July 1, 1999] 

§ 51.308 Regional haze program requirements. 

(a) What is the purpose of this section? 

This section establishes requirements 

for implementation plans, plan revisions, and periodic progress reviews to 

address regional haze. 

(b) When are the first implementation 

plans due under the regional haze program? Except as provided in §51.309(c), 

each State identified in §51.300(b)(3) 

must submit, for the entire State, an 

implementation plan for regional haze 

meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section no 

later than December 17, 2007. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) What are the core requirements for 

the implementation plan for regional 

haze? The State must address regional 

haze in each mandatory Class I Federal 

area located within the State and in 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located outside the State which may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

State. To meet the core requirements 

for regional haze for these areas, the 

State must submit an implementation 

plan containing the following plan elements and supporting documentation 

for all required analyses: 

(1) Reasonable progress goals. For each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

within the State, the State must establish goals (expressed in deciviews) that 

provide for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility conditions. 

The reasonable progress goals must 

provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over 

the period of the implementation plan 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

same period. 

(i) In establishing a reasonable 

progress goal for any mandatory Class 

I Federal area within the State, the 

State must: 

(A) Consider the costs of compliance, 

the time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

283 

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308 

affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors 

were taken into consideration in selecting the goal. 

(B) Analyze and determine the rate of 

progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. To 

calculate this rate of progress, the 

State must compare baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility conditions in the mandatory Federal Class I 

area and determine the uniform rate of 

visibility improvement (measured in 

deciviews) that would need to be maintained during each implementation period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In establishing the reasonable progress goal, 

the State must consider the uniform 

rate of improvement in visibility and 

the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered 

by the implementation plan. 

(ii) For the period of the implementation plan, if the State establishes a 

reasonable progress goal that provides 

for a slower rate of improvement in 

visibility than the rate that would be 

needed to attain natural conditions by 

2064, the State must demonstrate, 

based on the factors in paragraph 

(d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, that the rate 

of progress for the implementation 

plan to attain natural conditions by 

2064 is not reasonable; and that the 

progress goal adopted by the State is 

reasonable. The State must provide to 

the public for review as part of its implementation plan an assessment of the 

number of years it would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement continues at the rate of 

progress selected by the State as reasonable. 

(iii) In determining whether the 

State’s goal for visibility improvement 

provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the 

Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(iv) In developing each reasonable 

progress goal, the State must consult 

with those States which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the 

mandatory Class I Federal area. In any 

situation in which the State cannot 

agree with another such State or group 

of States that a goal provides for reasonable progress, the State must describe in its submittal the actions 

taken to resolve the disagreement. In 

reviewing the State’s implementation 

plan submittal, the Administrator will 

take this information into account in 

determining whether the State’s goal 

for visibility improvement provides for 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions. 

(v) The reasonable progress goals established by the State are not directly 

enforceable but will be considered by 

the Administrator in evaluating the 

adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan to achieve the progress 

goal adopted by the State. 

(vi) The State may not adopt a reasonable progress goal that represents 

less visibility improvement than is expected to result from implementation 

of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable planning period. 

(2) Calculations of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions. For each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State, the State must determine 

the following visibility conditions (expressed in deciviews): 

(i) Baseline visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and least impaired 

days. The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000 to 2004. 

Baseline visibility conditions must be 

calculated, using available monitoring 

data, by establishing the average degree of visibility impairment for the 

most and least impaired days for each 

calendar year from 2000 to 2004. The 

baseline visibility conditions are the 

average of these annual values. For 

mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000– 

2004, the State must establish baseline 

values using the most representative 

available monitoring data for 2000–2004, 

in consultation with the Administrator 

or his or her designee; 

(ii) For an implementation plan that 

is submitted by 2003, the period for establishing baseline visibility conditions for the period of the first longterm strategy is the most recent 5-year 

period for which visibility monitoring 

data are available for the mandatory 

Class I Federal areas addressed by the 

plan. For mandatory Class I Federal 

284 

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–06 Edition) 

areas without onsite monitoring data, 

the State must establish baseline values using the most representative 

available monitoring data, in consultation with the Administrator or his or 

her designee; 

(iii) Natural visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and least impaired 

days. Natural visibility conditions 

must be calculated by estimating the 

degree of visibility impairment existing under natural conditions for the 

most impaired and least impaired days, 

based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis 

techniques; and 

(iv)(A) For the first implementation 

plan addressing the requirements of 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, 

the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the most impaired 

and least impaired days; or 

(B) For all future implementation 

plan revisions, the number of deciviews 

by which current conditions, as calculated under paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section, exceed natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least 

impaired days. 

(3) Long-term strategy for regional 

haze. Each State listed in §51.300(b)(3) 

must submit a long-term strategy that 

addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I 

Federal area within the State and for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located outside the State which may be 

affected by emissions from the State. 

The long-term strategy must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals established by 

States having mandatory Class I Federal areas. In establishing its longterm strategy for regional haze, the 

State must meet the following requirements: 

(i) Where the State has emissions 

that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

in another State or States, the State 

must consult with the other State(s) in 

order to develop coordinated emission 

management strategies. The State 

must consult with any other State having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area within the State. 

(ii) Where other States cause or contribute to impairment in a mandatory 

Class I Federal area, the State must 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the 

progress goal for the area. If the State 

has participated in a regional planning 

process, the State must ensure it has 

included all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process. 

(iii) The State must document the 

technical basis, including modeling, 

monitoring and emissions information, 

on which the State is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for 

achieving reasonable progress in each 

mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses 

developed by the regional planning organization and approved by all State 

participants. The State must identify 

the baseline emissions inventory on 

which its strategies are based. The 

baseline emissions inventory year is 

presumed to be the most recent year of 

the consolidate periodic emissions inventory. 

(iv) The State must identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its long-term strategy. The 

State should consider major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources. 

(v) The State must consider, at a 

minimum, the following factors in developing its long-term strategy: 

(A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment; 

(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts 

of construction activities; 

(C) Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal; 

(D) Source retirement and replacement schedules; 

285 

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308 

(E) Smoke management techniques 

for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these 

purposes; 

(F) Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and 

(G) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the 

long-term strategy. 

(4) Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. The State 

must submit with the implementation 

plan a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 

regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I Federal areas within the State. 

This monitoring strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy 

required in §51.305 for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be 

met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments network. The implementation plan must also provide for the 

following: 

(i) The establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment 

needed to assess whether reasonable 

progress goals to address regional haze 

for all mandatory Class I Federal areas 

within the State are being achieved. 

(ii) Procedures by which monitoring 

data and other information are used in 

determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional 

haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within 

and outside the State. 

(iii) For a State with no mandatory 

Class I Federal areas, procedures by 

which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the 

contribution of emissions from within 

the State to regional haze visibility 

impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas in other States. 

(iv) The implementation plan must 

provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the 

State. To the extent possible, the State 

should report visibility monitoring 

data electronically. 

(v) A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected emissions. The State must also include a 

commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. 

(vi) Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. 

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for regional haze 

visibility impairment. The State must 

submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area, unless 

the State demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility conditions. 

(1) To address the requirements for 

BART, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses: 

(i) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

within the State. 

(ii) A determination of BART for 

each BART-eligible source in the State 

that emits any air pollutant which 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. All such sources are subject 

to BART. 

(A) The determination of BART must 

be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control 

technology available and associated 

emission reductions achievable for 

each BART-eligible source that is subject to BART within the State. In this 

analysis, the State must take into consideration the technology available, 

the costs of compliance, the energy and 

nonair quality environmental impacts 

of compliance, any pollution control 

286 

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–06 Edition) 

equipment 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 the use of such technology. 

(B) 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 guidelines in appendix Y of this 

part (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule). 

(C) Exception. A State is not required 

to make a determination of BART for 

SO2 or for NOX if a BART-eligible 

source has the potential to emit less 

than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(s), or for PM10 if a BART-eligible 

source emits less than 15 tons per year 

of such pollutant. 

(iii) If the State determines in establishing BART that technological or 

economic limitations on the applicability of measurement methodology to 

a particular source would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, it may instead prescribe a design, 

equipment, work practice, or other 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, to require the application of 

BART. Such standard, to the degree 

possible, is to set forth the emission reduction to be achieved by implementation of such design, equipment, work 

practice or operation, and must provide 

for compliance by means which achieve 

equivalent results. 

(iv) A requirement that each source 

subject to BART be required to install 

and operate BART as expeditiously as 

practicable, but in no event later than 

5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision. 

(v) A requirement that each source 

subject to BART maintain the control 

equipment required by this subpart and 

establish procedures to ensure such 

equipment is properly operated and 

maintained. 

(2) A State may opt to implement an 

emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. To 

do so, the State must demonstrate that 

this emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure will achieve 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation 

and operation of BART. To make this 

demonstration, the State must submit 

an implementation plan containing the 

following plan elements and include 

documentation for all required analyses: 

(i) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would have 

resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject 

to BART in the State. This demonstration must be based on the following: 

(A) A list of all BART-eligible 

sources within the State. 

(B) An analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each 

source within the State subject to 

BART. In this analysis, the State must 

take into consideration the technology 

available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the 

source, and the remaining useful life of 

the source. The best system of continuous emission control technology and 

the above factors may be determined 

on a source category basis. The State 

may elect to consider both source-specific and category-wide information, as 

appropriate, in conducting its analysis. 

(C) An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be 

achieved in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area as a result of the emission 

reductions achievable from all such 

sources subject to BART located within the region that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class I area, 

based on the analysis conducted under 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B) of this section. 

(ii) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or alternative 

measure will apply, at a minimum, to 

all BART-eligible sources in the State. 

Those sources having a federally enforceable emission limitation determined by the State and approved by 

EPA as meeting BART in accordance 

with §51.302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section do not need to meet the requirements of the emissions trading 

program or alternative measure, but 

may choose to participate if they meet 

287 

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308 

the requirements of the emissions trading program or alternative measure. 

(iii) A requirement that all necessary 

emission reductions take place during 

the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze. To meet this requirement, the State must provide a 

detailed description of the emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all necessary 

administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program, 

rules for accounting and monitoring 

emissions, and procedures for enforcement. 

(iv) A demonstration that the emission reductions resulting from the 

emissions trading program or other alternative measure will be surplus to 

those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of 

the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP. 

(v) At the State’s option, a provision 

that the emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure may include 

a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under 

§51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable impairment from the 

pollutants covered under the emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure. 

(3) A State which opts under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2) to implement an emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure rather than to require sources 

subject to BART to install, operate, 

and maintain BART may satisfy the 

final step of the demonstration required by that section as follows: If the 

distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, 

and the alternative measure results in 

greater emission reductions, then the 

alternative measure may be deemed to 

achieve greater reasonable progress. If 

the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine 

differences in visibility between BART 

and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and 

best 20 percent of days. The modeling 

would demonstrate ‘‘greater reasonable 

progress’’ if both of the following two 

criteria are met: 

(i) Visibility does not decline in any 

Class I area, and 

(ii) There is an overall improvement 

in visibility, determined by comparing 

the average differences between BART 

and the alternative over all affected 

Class I areas. 

(4) A State that opts to participate in 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule cap-andtrade and trade program under part 96 

AAA–EEE need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGU’s to install, operate, and maintain BART. A State that 

chooses this option may also include 

provisions for a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under §51.302(c) related to 

BART for reasonably attributable impairment from the pollutants covered 

by the CAIR cap-and-trade program. 

(5) After a State has met the requirements for BART or implemented emissions trading program or other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable progress than the installation 

and operation of BART, BART-eligible 

sources will be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section 

in the same manner as other sources. 

(6) Any BART-eligible facility subject to the requirement under paragraph (e) of this section to install, operate, and maintain BART may apply 

to the Administrator for an exemption 

from that requirement. An application 

for an exemption will be subject to the 

requirements of §51.303(a)(2)–(h). 

(f) Requirements for comprehensive periodic revisions of implementation plans for 

regional haze. Each State identified in 

§51.300(b)(3) must revise and submit its 

regional haze implementation plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018 and 

every ten years thereafter. In each plan 

revision, the State must evaluate and 

reassess all of the elements required in 

paragraph (d) of this section, taking 

into account improvements in monitoring data collection and analysis 

techniques, control technologies, and 

other relevant factors. In evaluating 

and reassessing these elements, the 

State must address the following: 

(1) Current visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and least impaired 

days, and actual progress made towards natural conditions during the 

previous implementation period. The 

period for calculating current visibility 

288 

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–06 Edition) 

conditions is the most recent five year 

period preceding the required date of 

the implementation plan submittal for 

which data are available. Current visibility conditions must be calculated 

based on the annual average level of 

visibility impairment for the most and 

least impaired days for each of these 

five years. Current visibility conditions 

are the average of these annual values. 

(2) The effectiveness of the long-term 

strategy for achieving reasonable 

progress goals over the prior implementation period(s); and 

(3) Affirmation of, or revision to, the 

reasonable progress goal in accordance 

with the procedures set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If the State 

established a reasonable progress goal 

for the prior period which provided a 

slower rate of progress than that needed to attain natural conditions by the 

year 2064, the State must evaluate and 

determine the reasonableness, based on 

the factors in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of 

this section, of additional measures 

that could be adopted to achieve the 

degree of visibility improvement projected by the analysis contained in the 

first implementation plan described in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section. 

(g) Requirements for periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable 

progress goals. Each State identified in 

§51.300(b)(3) must submit a report to 

the Administrator every 5 years evaluating progress towards the reasonable 

progress goal for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area located within the State 

and in each mandatory Class I Federal 

area located outside the State which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the State. The first progress report is due 5 years from submittal of 

the initial implementation plan addressing paragraphs (d) and (e) of this 

section. The progress reports must be 

in the form of implementation plan revisions that comply with the procedural requirements of §51.102 and 

§51.103. Periodic progress reports must 

contain at a minimum the following 

elements: 

(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included 

in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State. 

(2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the 

State through implementation of the 

measures described in paragraph (g)(1) 

of this section. 

(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State 

must assess the following visibility 

conditions and changes, with values for 

most impaired and least impaired days 

expressed in terms of 5-year averages of 

these annual values. 

(i) The current visibility conditions 

for the most impaired and least impaired days; 

(ii) The difference between current 

visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and 

baseline visibility conditions; 

(iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least 

impaired days over the past 5 years; 

(4) An analysis tracking the change 

over the past 5 years in emissions of 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment from all sources and activities within the State. Emissions 

changes should be identified by type of 

source or activity. The analysis must 

be based on the most recent updated 

emissions inventory, with estimates 

projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions 

changes during the applicable 5-year 

period. 

(5) An assessment of any significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions 

within or outside the State that have 

occurred over the past 5 years that 

have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. 

(6) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements 

and strategies are sufficient to enable 

the State, or other States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the State, to meet all 

established reasonable progress goals. 

(7) A review of the State’s visibility 

monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary. 

(h) Determination of the adequacy of 

existing implementation plan. At the 

same time the State is required to submit any 5-year progress report to EPA 

in accordance with paragraph (g) of 

this section, the State must also take 

one of the following actions based upon 

289 

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.309 

the information presented in the 

progress report: 

(1) If the State determines that the 

existing implementation plan requires 

no further substantive revision at this 

time in order to achieve established 

goals for visibility improvement and 

emissions reductions, the State must 

provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision 

of the existing implementation plan is 

not needed at this time. 

(2) If the State determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress 

due to emissions from sources in another State(s) which participated in a 

regional planning process, the State 

must provide notification to the Administrator and to the other State(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process with the States. The 

State must also collaborate with the 

other State(s) through the regional 

planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan’s deficiencies. 

(3) Where the State determines that 

the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another country, the State shall 

provide notification, along with available information, to the Administrator. 

(4) Where the State determines that 

the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

within the State, the State shall revise 

its implementation plan to address the 

plan’s deficiencies within one year. 

(i) What are the requirements for State 

and Federal Land Manager coordination? 

(1) By November 29, 1999, the State 

must identify in writing to the Federal 

Land Managers the title of the official 

to which the Federal Land Manager of 

any mandatory Class I Federal area 

can submit any recommendations on 

the implementation of this subpart including, but not limited to: 

(i) Identification of impairment of 

visibility in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area(s); and 

(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring 

strategy required by §51.305 and this 

section. 

(2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person and 

at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on an implementation 

plan (or plan revision) for regional haze 

required by this subpart. This consultation must include the opportunity 

for the affected Federal Land Managers 

to discuss their: 

(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal 

area; and 

(ii) Recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goal 

and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 

(3) In developing any implementation 

plan (or plan revision), the State must 

include a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the 

Federal Land Managers. 

(4) The plan (or plan revision) must 

provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and Federal Land Manager on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by this subpart, including development and review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year 

progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the 

potential to contribute to impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. 

[64 FR 35765, July 1, 1999, as amended at 70 

FR 39156, July 6, 2005] 

§ 51.309 Requirements related to the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. 

(a) What is the purpose of this section? 

This section establishes the requirements for the first regional haze implementation plan to address regional 

haze visibility impairment in the 16 

Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

Report. For the years 2003 to 2018, certain States (defined in paragraph (b) of 

this section as Transport Region 

States) may choose to implement the 

Commission’s recommendations within 

the framework of the national regional 

haze program and applicable requirements of the Act by complying with 

the provisions of this section, as supplemented by an approvable Annex to 

Appendix B 

December 6, 2007 Public Hearing Notice and 

Certification of Publication of the Notice 

AND 

June 25, 2009 Public Hearing Notice and 

Certification of Publication of the Notice 

PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT 


STATE OF MISSOURI,) 


)ss. 


COUNTY OF COLE) 


Mike Vivion being duly sworn, according to law, says he is Vice President of Central 

Missouri Newspapers, Inc., Publisher of the News Tribune, a newspaper printed and 

published in the COUllty of Cole, and State aforesaid; that said newspaper has been 

published continuously for more than three years; and that the notice hereto attached was 

published in said paper in compliance with the provisions ofSection 493.050 

R.S. ofMo. For 2000 as amended for ___1_t_im_e___as follows: 

1st insertion, No. _____ __2_1s_t__ day of____M_a.;...y___, 20__0_9__ 

2nd insertion, No. ____ _____ day 20,____ 

3rd insertion, No. _____ _____day 20,____ 

4th insertion, No. _~_-' _____day of ,20,____ 

5th insertion, No. _____ _____dayof ,20,_,___ 

Fee: ___$2_2_7_.o_0___ 2MZ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____2_2_n_d____ 

day May 20 09 

----------, --------­

• BARBARA I(IJETHERMES

Notary Public, Nclary Public·SIa!e of Missouri 

My Ccmmission Expires Mard) 13,2013 

Cole County

My term as Notary Public expires CommisslonIlOO529328 

MI:S:SUUHI AIR CONSERVATION 


COMMISSION 


WILL HOLD PUKIC H~ING 

JEFFERSON CITY, Mb -- The Mis-, 

sourf Air Conservation Commission 

will hold a public hearing on the MIssouri State Implementation Plan regarding the Regional Haze Plan and 

,the Doe Run Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment Area Plan on Thursday, 

June 25, 2009. The Public Hearing 

will begin at 9 a.m. at the Elm"Street 

Conference Center, 1730 East Elm 

Street, Lower Level, Bennett Springs 

Conference Room,. Jefferson City, 

Missouri, The commiSSion will hear 

testimony related to the following 

Jtem(s). 

* Missouri State Implementation 

Plan--Missourl Regional Haze Plan 

The Missouri Regional Haze Plan was 

developed to meet the requirements 

of the federal Regional Haze Rule. 

The Missouri Regional Haze Plan is 

being revised as result of the Holclm, 

.Inc. ,Clarksvi!lekiln Best AvailaQle 

Retrofit Technology (BART) findings 

and the U.S. Qourtof Appeal's late 

December 2008 decision on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule.' The de~ 

partment finalized a BART agreement 

with Holclm to address air; quality 

issues related, to visibility impacts at 

nearby CI~s I areas. At " the same 

time, clarifications have been made. 

to the content of the, plan as a result: 

of 'inquiries made by the. U.S;, 

Environmental. ,Protection Agency" 

" during review of this plan for Inclusion in ·the Missouri State Imple· 

mentation Plan. 

* Missouri State Implementation Plan' 

• Doe Run Herculaneum Lead Non-; 

I attainment Area 

This proposed amendment to the: 

2007 Revisi()n to the ,State Imple:; 

mentation Plan' (SIP) for t~e : 

Her.culaneum' Lead Nonattainment 

Area will establish the enforceable 

building ventilation system limits Jor. 

the Building Ventilation and Particle'. 

Capture project. Minimum fanamper~! 

ages aOd.floW ra.te limits attha. DOe'\ 

Run Company's Herculaneum 

Primary Lead Smelter are used to.! 

meet the requirements of the .2007, i 

Consent Judgment. These Iim~sate'l 

based upqn the results of a building: 

ventila~ion study completet! by Doe i 

Run and, once adopted, will become! 

enforceable as an amendment to the 

2007 Consent Judgement. Also as a· 

result of this st\ldy,. the Doe Ruri' 

Herculaneum Work PraQtices Manual 

Is beiog amended With the. test' 

Q'lethods, Implementation and 

;1 compliance provisions related to 

, these limits. For the purposes of 

'continual improvement, the Work: 

Practices Man/.lalis also being updated to restrict construction projects 

during periods of low temperature 

that would' prohibit the, use of water 

for dust suppression. 

Documents for 1he aQove Item(s) wili 

.be available for review at the Mis-, 

sourl Department of' Natural Re,,' 

sources, Air Pollution Control Pro-: 

gra(ll, 1659 Elm Street; Jefferson, 

City, (573)751:48:H and In the PubliC 

Notices section of th~ program web' 

site www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/lndex.html. This information will be 

available at lea.st '30 days prior to the . 

public hearing elate. 

Persons with disabilities requiring 

special services or accommodations, 

to attend the meeting can make 
Appendix C 

Comments and Responses to the Missouri Regional Haze Plan 

AND 

Comments and Responses to the 

2009 Revision to the Missouri Regional Haze Plan 
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON

PROPOSED MISSOURI STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN–

STATE OF MISSOURI REGIONAL HAZE PLAN

AND

RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION

On December 6, 2007, the Missouri Air Conservation Commission held a public hearing

concerning the proposed revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan for inclusion of a

State of Missouri Regional Haze Plan. The following is a summary of comments received and

the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' corresponding responses. Any changes to the

proposed regional haze plan are identified in the responses to the comments.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program recommends the

commission adopt the plan as revised. If the commission adopts this plan action, it will be the

department’s intention to submit this new plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to

replace the current visibility plan in the Missouri State Implementation Plan.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The department’s Air Pollution Control Program received

comments from five (5) sources: the Mississippi Lime Company, a private citizen, the U.S.

Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS).

COMMENT #1: The Mississippi Lime Company commented that one of their two units that

were removed from Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) consideration due to a permit

condition requiring shutdown, has become a BART-eligible emission unit as a result of their

request to remove that condition from the permit for that unit. As a BART-eligible unit, it is

subject to BART screening evaluation. This evaluation has been conducted and the results show

that this unit along with the company’s other two current BART-eligible emission units remain

below the 0.5 deciview impact level and, therefore, remain exempt from BART.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The language in the BART chapter of the

plan has been revised to reflect that Mississippi Lime Company has three BART-eligible units

that do not need to install BART controls to meet the federal Regional Haze Rule requirements.

COMMENT #2: A private citizen commented that the regional haze plan does not appear to

monitor or address nighttime visibility concerns, particularly with regard to man-made light

emissions. The comment requests justification for how the plan will achieve the natural

visibility controls of the Clean Air Act without a plan to reduce nighttime light emissions.

RESPONSE: The EPA’s Regional Haze Rule does not regulate light emissions directly. The

goals of the rule, as shown in the regional haze plan, can be met without requiring reductions in

nighttime emissions. However, the improved visibility levels that will result from regional haze

plans will help improve nighttime visibility. No changes were made to the plan as a result of this

comment.

COMMENT #3: The FWS commented that that it was their understanding that the comments

submitted by the U.S. Department of Interior in October 2007 on the draft Missouri Regional
Haze Plan were not considered to be “on the public record” because they were provided prior to

the official public comment period. Therefore, the FWS resubmitted their comments into the

official rulemaking process by attachment to a December 2007 letter.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The official “rulemaking” process does not

typically include early draft rule text comments in the formal comments and responses on

proposed rule actions because these early comments are taken into account in the proposed

rulemaking that is presented at public hearing. However, extra effort was made to share early

draft plan comments as a result of this comment. The public hearing presentation made before

the Missouri Air Conservation Commission and the public included discussion on the regional

haze plan consultation process. This discussion mentioned that the consultation process included

the Federal Land Managers and that they provided comments on the draft plan. The summary of

comments and responses includes comments received during the consultation process and on the

proposed plan that was presented at public hearing.

COMMENT #4: The FWS and the FS commented that their review of the draft Missouri

Regional Haze Plan indicated a need to more completely address the land management agency

priorities which include the following areas of interest: baseline, natural condition and uniform

rate, emission inventories, area of influence, reasonable progress goals and long-term strategy,

fire, regional consistency, verification and contingencies and coordination and consultation.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan

resulted in additional language being added to the proposed plan that was presented at public

hearing to more completely address the land management agency priorities and additional

revisions have been made to the plan as a result of comments received during the public

comment period.

COMMENT #5: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan relied on a

pattern of referencing technical documents that did not include explanations of the State’s

reasoning on deriving conclusions. They also requested that the discussion in the draft plan be

expanded regarding how important federal rule elements were approached and evaluated.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan was

considered and additional explanatory language was added to the proposed plan that was

presented at public hearing to describe the State’s approach, evaluation and reasoning on

deriving conclusions. In addition, revisions have been made to the plan as a result of comments

received during the public comment period.

COMMENT #6: The FWS commented that discussions of specific plan elements are re-visited

in several sections, often with contradictory or incorrect information. More robust explanations

of specific topic areas are often included in non-related chapters.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Early in the development of the regional

haze plan, it was decided to structure the Missouri Regional Haze Plan as closely as possible to

the plan template provided by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). The

reasoning was that if all states were to structure their plans to align to this template, then the

review of plans would be much easier for the Federal Land Managers. Since it is not our intent

to have contradictory or incorrect information in the plan, the plan was reviewed for accuracy at

the same time that more robust explanations were added with the reasoning for the conclusions

being drawn in the plan. At the same time, information in each chapter of the document was
reviewed to determine if it was in an appropriate section of the document while keeping with the

template structure.

COMMENT #7: The FWS requested that the baseline and natural condition values being used

as a basis for the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan be reviewed for consistency with the latest

available information. They also asked that the plan state if the estimates were generated using

the old or the new Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

equation.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, IMPROVE

information in the early draft plan was reviewed for consistency with the latest available

information. Additional language was also added to the proposed plan that was presented at

public hearing explaining that the plan is based on the new IMPROVE equation.

COMMENT #8: The FWS commented that the department should consider providing additional

information in the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan. They suggest a summary of the

IMPROVE equations and the calculations necessary to evaluate baseline conditions and

providing a specific description in an appendix. Also, it was noted that the plan references an

“ftp” website that is not publicly available.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, Appendix G

has been added to the plan to provide a more detailed explanation of the revised IMPROVE

equation. Therefore, the website reference was no longer necessary and has been removed from

the plan text.

COMMENT #9: The FWS commented that the department should identify whether the

“Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Paths” in section 8.4 of the draft Missouri Regional

Haze Plan were produced using actual model output or the results of applying a relative

reduction factor. Also, the concept of “Method 1” is mentioned in the Uniform Rate of Progress

graphs and should be explained in the plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Section 8.4 of the plan indicates that the

uniform rate of reasonable progress glide paths were produced by drawing a line from the

baseline observed visibility conditions for the 20 percent worst days to natural visibility

conditions in 2064. Neither model output nor relative reduction factors were used in the

construction of the glide paths. Therefore, no changes were made to the plan regarding how

uniform rate of reasonable progress glide paths were produced. However, language was added to

section 8.4 clarifying the procedures used in the CENRAP 2018 modeled visibility projections,

which are labeled “Method 1” in the uniform rate of progress graphs in the plan. The “Method 1”

procedures conform to the EPA’s default method of calculating future-year visibility conditions.

COMMENT #10: The FWS commented that statements in section 6.4, referencing ambient

ammonia monitoring in CENRAP regions and indicating that high concentrations of ammonia

are occurring with a considerable regularity, are in conflict with section 9.2 that stated ammonia

was being discarded from consideration due to the inventory being “very uncertain” regarding

anthropogenic contribution. The FWS requests the plan discuss whether the observations apply

in Missouri, whether the department has investigated winter dates when 20% worst visibility

occurs and how ammonia emissions were considered in evaluating the reasonable progress goal.

The FWS is concerned that the department should re-evaluate ammonia emission effects on
visibility at the Mingo Wilderness Area, considering the high nature of measurements that have

potentially occurred.

RESPONSE: The CENRAP/Midwest Regional Planning Organization (RPO) special ammonia

sampling was conducted in the upper Midwest, including central Missouri, where agricultural

sources of ammonia are numerous. The sampling was conducted primarily to aid in

understanding the association of free ammonia with regional haze pollutants, but was not able to

directly relate ammonia sources to haze. While that seems to be a given, the BART discussion in

section 9.2 points out that not only is the overall ammonia inventory, including agricultural, very

limited nationally, but that the BART eligible sources were not large ammonia emitters, so that

pollutant was not considered in the BART evaluation. Ammonia was part of the modeling

analysis for the 20% worst days, and is discussed in the CENRAP Modeling Technical Support

Document used as a basis for reasonable progress growth evaluation. Currently, the EPA is

conducting a study with large concentrated animal feeding operations to determine improved

emission factors. Contingent on the outcome of the mid-course review discussed in section 13,

an evaluation of ammonia controls may be included in the four (five) factor analysis, which

could include these new emission factors. No changes were made to the plan as a result of this

comment.

COMMENT #11: The FWS commented that the department should consider combining the

draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan discussions on emission inventories into one chapter.

RESPONSE: Early in the development of the regional haze plan, it was decided to structure the

Missouri Regional Haze Plan as closely as possible to the plan template provided by the

CENRAP. The reasoning was that if all states were to structure their plans to align to this

template, then the review of plans would be much easier for the Federal Land Managers.

Therefore, no changes were made to the plan as a result of this comment.

COMMENT #12: The FWS and EPA commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan

needs to commit to periodically updating the future emission inventory projections used for

regional haze decision making.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, section 7.3

was added to the plan with language that commits to periodic reviews and updates of base year

inventories and future-year emissions projections.

COMMENT #13: The FWS commented that the BART chapter discussion of the draft Missouri

Regional Haze Plan regarding the Doe Run-Glover facility should explicitly address the potential

scenario that Doe Run-Glover might resume operation under their valid air quality permit.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan

resulted in additional language being added to section 9.2 of the proposed plan that was

presented at public hearing to further address address Doe Run-Glover possibly resuming

operation under their valid air quality permit. To supplement this comment and on-going

operating permit issues, the department has sent a letter to Doe Run-Glover requesting

clarification of Doe Run’s plans. This letter clarified the intent of the department to require a

BART analysis for the facility if operations of the large units commenced. The letter is included

in Appendix J. At this time, the department does not believe the source will commence

operation and does not intend to pursue a BART evaluation unless contrary information is

presented.
COMMENT #14: The FWS requested that the reasons for excluding volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and ammonia from BART determinations should be expanded in the draft

Missouri Regional Haze Plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, language was

added to the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing expanding on the reasoning for

excluding VOCs and ammonia from BART determinations.

COMMENT #15: The FWS requested that the text in the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan

specify whether the CALPUFF/CALPOST screening analyses followed the CENRAP screening

modeling protocol, and if not, the reasons for not following that protocol.

RESPONSE: The CALPUFF/CALPOST screening analyses conducted do not explicitly follow

the CENRAP protocol for this evaluation because the department evaluated CALPOST Method2

and Method6. This level of review is beyond the CENRAP protocol and ensures that sources

were screened using a more conservative approach than specified in the CENRAP protocol. No

changes were made to the plan as a result of this comment.

COMMENT #16: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan approach

that uses the 98

th

percentile test on modeling results to determine BART eligible source impacts

is not appropriate according to CENRAP screening modeling protocol. In is unclear whether the

department refined the meterorology processing done in the modeling in order to move to refined

modeling which would then allow for use of the 98

th

percentile approach. Also, when using the

98

th

percentile approach, the eigth-highest daily visibility impact predicted in a modeling year

should be used rather than the seventh-highest value.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The first portion of this comment on the

early draft plan resulted in language being included in the proposed plan that was presented at

public hearing to include information specific to the use of “refined” meteorology and the 98

th

percentile visibility change. As a result of the second part of the comment regarding the use of

the 8

th

highest daily visibility impact, supplemental changes have been made to the plan to reflect

that the 98

th

percentile values represent the 8

th

highest visibility impact instead of the the 7

th

highest visibility impact.

COMMENT #17: The FWS requested that the BART chapter of the draft Missouri Regional

Haze Plan include information regarding Noranda Aluminum and the University of MissouriColumbia, including any modeling protocols for the refined analyses, modeling results and

BART engineering determinations as they become available.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The information requested by this comment

was included in the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing.

COMMENT #18: The FWS commented that there are inconsistent statements in the draft

Missouri Regional Haze Plan about the BART decisions pertaining to electric generating units

(EGUs) that are also subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). They requested that

additional information be provided explaining how CAIR EGU sources were evaluated for

primary particulate matter and primary sulfate emissions.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the BART

chapter in the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing was amended to remove
inconsistencies and additional information was included explaining the evaluation of EGUs

including the determination of primary particulate matter emissions.

COMMENT #19: The FWS recommended that the tables in Appendices G and I of the draft

Missouri Regional Haze Plan be reformatted for ease in reading this information.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The tables in these appendices have been

reformatted in the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing.

COMMENT #20: The FWS commented that the consultation plan in Appendix F of the draft

Missouri Regional Haze Plan contains several Area of Influence (AOI) maps for the affected

Class I areas in and near Missouri. These maps should be integral to the discussions in the plan.

The information in section 11.5 of the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan references tables in the

emissions inventory section that only presents a summary of 2002 and 2018 emissions inventory

for just Missouri sources and only in aggregrate by source category. Also, section 11.5 does not

provide any of the CENRAP graphics for Class I areas of concern. The plan needs to discuss

attribution of haze-causing pollution and the results of consultations with neighboring states

regarding achieving Reasonable Progress Goals for the Missouri Class I areas.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment and FS

comments on the early draft plan, discussion language in the proposed plan that was presented at

public hearing was expanded to include AOI maps, applicable CENRAP graphics, additional

emissions allocation information and attribution of haze-causing pollution that includes results of

consultations with neighboring states.

COMMENT #21: The FWS and the FS commented that Chapter 10 of the draft Missouri

Regional Haze Plan establishes that 2018 reasonable progress goals are equal to the 2018 year

value of the uniform rate of progress graph. This is not consistent with the federal Regional

Haze Rule. However, the 2018 visibility projections presented in section 8.4 were based on

emission growth and on-the-books controls that will be implemented between 2002 and 2018.

Based on this information, the federal Regional Haze Rule requires Missouri to adopt the results

of the visibility projection as its 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of FWS and FS comments on

the early draft plan, discussion language in the proposed plan that was presented at public

hearing was revised to show that the 2018 visibility projections based on emissions growth and

on-the books controls are the reasonable progress goals.

COMMENT #22: The FWS and the FS commented that Chapter 10 of the draft Missouri

Regional Haze Plan does not address the reasonable progress goals for the best 20% visibility

days as required by the federal Regional Haze Rule.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the discussions

in the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing were expanded to address the best 20%

visibility days.

COMMENT #23: The FWS commented that the discussion in Chapter 10 of the draft Missouri

Regional Haze Plan does not include the required four-factor analysis for establishing

Reasonable Progress Goals. The plan only applies the four-factor analysis to the CAIR-affected

and BART-affected sources within Missouri. The plan does not include the required four-factor
analysis for non-EGUs in establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals. This is a

misinterpretation of the EPA guidance that states that the four-factor analysis doesn’t need to

“reassess the reasonable progress factors for sources subject to BART for which you have

already completed a BART analysis.”

RESPONSE: The glide slope approach required in the 1999 federal Regional Haze Rule was

applied in establishing the reasonable progress goals for each Class I area. The draft regional

haze guidance published in 2006 radically departs from the federal Regional Haze Rule. The

guidance declares that the States should conduct reviews (4-factor analysis) for all stationary

sources to identify any potential controls before determining the reasonable progress goal. The

reasonable progress goal selection process in the guidance is fundamentally inconsistent with the

glide slope analytical approach contained in the federal Regional Haze Rule. It also contradicts

the traditional approach used in state implementation plans for nonattainment areas.

If modeling failed to achieve the Uniform Rate of Progress goals for Missouri Class I areas, then

conducting a 4-factor analysis would be appropriate for non-EGUs. However, visibility

projections based on CENRAP modeling indicate that Missouri will be able to meet the Uniform

Rate of Progress goals for both Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas in 2018. Missouri has

not selected a strategy to achieve greater reductions than necessary to meet the Uniform Rate of

Progress goals because the state must follow state statute 643.055 that does not allow standards

stricter than those required under the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. No changes were

made to the plan as a result of this comment.

COMMENT #24: The FWS commented that section 11.4 of the draft Missouri Regional Haze

Plan inaccurately refers to the regional haze process as an attainment demonstration. However, it

provides the framework for each State to establish those Reasonable Progress Goals based upon

the statutory four-factor analysis.

RESPONSE: The glide slope approach required in the 1999 federal Regional Haze Rule was

applied in establishing the reasonable progress goals for each Class I area as described in the

response to COMMENT #23. Therefore, no changes were made to the plan as a result of this

comment.

COMMENT #25: The FWS, the FS and EPA requested that the discussion in section 11.6.4 of

the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan be expanded to elaborate on how the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR) permitting programs will be

utilized as part of the long term strategy for meeting Reasonable Progress Goals. EPA stated

that, along with explaining to what extent the State relied on the PSD and NSR programs in

developing the long-term strategy, the State should provide more explanation in the plan on how

these programs satisfy the State’s obligation to consider construction activity, and source

retirement and replacement schedules.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the discussions

in the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing were expanded to elaborate on how the

PSD and NSR permitting programs will be used in the long term strategy. The department still

plans to coordinate the visbility review of major new source review permits with the Federal

Land Manager for applicable Class I areas. The requirements of the Clean Air Act with respect

to this type of coordination will still be met. In addition, the continued application of

nonattainment permitting and the PSD program in Missouri will help ensure that facilities are in
compliance with all standards including the National Ambient Air Quality and PSD increment

standards in Missouri. The existing permitting program to ensure compliance with the applicable

standards remains sufficient to meet the obligation to consider construction activities in Missouri

along with the continued coordination with EPA and the land managers.

COMMENT #26: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan should

describe how natural and non-natural smoke emissions from wild and prescribed fires currently

affect the Class I areas and how these effects may change during the planning period.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Fire, while not considered to be a main

source of visibility impairment in any Class I area, is one source of regional haze. Minimizing

the adverse effects of smoke results from a concerted effort to utilize prescribed fires in a

beneficial manner consistent with proven management strategies. These strategies include

understanding and using meteorological conditions when scheduling burning to avoid sending

smoke into a sensitive area, controlling the rate of emissions to promote dilution and dispersion,

and minimizing smoke output per unit area through emissions reduction techniques. Currently,

fires do not significantly contribute to visibility impairment in Class I Federal areas located in

Missouri and the affects of wild and prescribed fires are not expected to change over the

planning period of this plan. However, language was added to the plan to describe how adverse

affects of smoke from wild and prescribed fires are minimized.

COMMENT #27: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan and the

Missouri Smoke Management Plan should identify Mingo as a smoke sensitive area and

prescribed burners should be required to apply the appropriate smoke management techniques to

minimize smoke impacts.

RESPONSE: Both the Mingo National Wildlife Area and the Hercules Glades Wilderness Area

are identified as federal Class I Areas and, as such, are considered smoke sensitive. The

implementation of the Missouri Smoke Management Plan encourages prescribed burners to use

best smoke management practicies to minimize smoke impacts. No changes were made to the

plan as a result of this comment.

COMMENT #28: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan should refer

to the Missouri Smoke Management Plan in a way that does not require plan updates each time

the Smoke Management Plan is updated. They also request that Missouri indicate whether

Missouri intends to certify the Smoke Management Plan as provided for by the 1998 EPA

Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The Missouri Regional Haze Plan that was

presented at public hearing refers to the Missouri Smoke Management Plan in a way that does

not require plan updates each time the Smoke Management Plan is updated. A copy

of the Missouri Smoke Management Plan is provided as an appendix to the plan for reference.

Missouri does intend for the Missouri Smoke Management Plan to be certified as provided for by

the 1998 EPA Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire. A letter certifying

that the smoke management plan meets the basic requirements is being provided to EPA.

COMMENT #29: The FWS commented that neither section 11.6.5 of the draft Missouri

Regional Haze Plan nor the Missouri Smoke Management Plan addresses ongoing development,

review and updating of the plan as a result of coordination and consultation during the
development of future progress reports and plan revisions. Also, they do not provide for federal

land manager agency involvement.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan

resulted in additional language being added in Section 11.4.5 of the proposed plan that was

presented at public hearing to clarify that the department does not intend to submit the smoke

management plan for inclusion in the Missouri SIP. The additional plan language states that a

copy of the Missouri Smoke Management Plan is included in the appendix of the regional haze

plan for reference and a letter certifying that the smoke management plan meets the basic

requirements will be provided to EPA. This allows changes to be made to the smoke

management plan without undergoing a SIP revision. The language in Section 11.2 of the

proposed plan that was presented at public hearing addresses the coordination and consultation

during the development of future progress reports and plan revisions.

COMMENT #30: The FWS commented that there are three RPOs that also cover the Mingo

Wilderness Area. Missouri should consider including language in the draft Missouri Regional

Haze Plan to highlight the importance of the ongoing verification and contingency provisions in

view of the varying and different results of the three RPOs.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, a new section

8.4.2 “Other RPO’s visibility projections” has been added to the proposed plan that was

presented at public hearing. The section compares the visibility projections from CENRAP,

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), and Midwest

Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) for Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas.

Missouri used CENRAP modeling results in developing the RH plan based on a better qualityassured inventory.

COMMENT #31: The FWS commented that section 6.3 of the draft Missouri Regional Haze

Plan discusses the ongoing and future monitoring strategy for measuring visibility parameters

and progress at the Class I areas within Missouri. Given the uncertain future of any individual

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

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

national funding is not available.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan

resulted in additional language being added to the proposed plan that was presented at public

hearing to address future monitoring if national funding is not available.

COMMENT #32: The FWS encourages Missouri to not only consider the need for monitoring

data to measure progress, but also how the plan accounts for and reconciles both unexpected and

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

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

of the plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, section 7.3

was added to the plan with language that commits to periodic reviews and updates of base year

inventories and future-year emissions projections.

COMMENT #33: The FWS commented that Chapter 13 of the draft Missouri Regional Haze

Plan discusses options for action following the five-year review. This discussion should include
the anticipated criteria that will be used to evaluate the progress at the five-year review and to

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

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, criteria for

evaluating the progress of the RPGs at the five-year review has been added to the plan. A

process flow chart with the review criteria and course of action has also been added to the plan.

If the monitoring and emission data does not support the RPG projections for Missouri Class I

areas, a 5-factor analysis will be conducted at the five-year review.

COMMENT #34: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan refers to

appendices of the plan for documentation of the consultation process but the plan lacks

discussion of Missouri’s decisions based upon the results of those meetings.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, section 4.1 of

the plan was expanded to include more discussion of the basis for the decisions that resulted

from the consultation process.

COMMENT #35: The FWS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan should

outline how Missouri would accomplish future ongoing consultation activities if the CENRAP

organization no longer existed. Also, the future consultation activities mentioned in the plan

should consistently mention the Federal Land Manager agencies as a partner in that consultation.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan

resulted in additional language being added to the proposed plan that was presented at public

hearing stating that ongoing consultation activities would be led by Missouri if the CENRAP

organization no longer existed. In addition, language has been added to sections 2.6 and 10.3 of

the plan to clarify that federal land managers are included in the consultation process.

COMMENT #36: The FS commented that Chapters 1 and 4 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan

should include the Boundary Waters Canoe Class I area in Minnesota since earlier RPO

discussions identified Missouri as effecting visibility in that area. Also, the discussion should

clarify what states contributed to achieving reasonable progress in Missouri and an evaluation of

the additional Missouri controls that was requested by Minnesota.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment on the early

draft plan, additional discussion language regarding Boundary Waters was added to section 4 of

the proposed plan that was presented at public hearing to clarify the lack of contribution by

Missouri on that Class I Area.

COMMENT #37: The FS commented that Chapter 7 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan should

include a discussion of the Area of Influence for the emissions that cause or contribute to

visibility impairment in the affected Class I areas and identify those affected areas. The State is

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) to state the procedures by which monitoring data and other

information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to

regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory federal Class I Areas both within and outside

the state. It should also be mentioned in the plan if Missouri intends to update the inventory

periodically.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment and FWS

comments on the early draft plan, discussion language in the proposed plan that was presented at

public hearing was expanded to include AOI maps, applicable CENRAP graphics, additional
emissions allocation information and attribution of haze-causing pollution that includes results of

consultations with neighboring states. In addition, section 7.3 was added to the plan with

language that commits to periodic reviews and updates of base year inventories and future-year

emissions projections.

COMMENT #38: The FS commented that Chapter 8 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan should

include a discussion of what differences actually occurred in the various RPO inventories used

for visibility projections. Then one could assess which modeling scenario best represents

impacts at the affected Class I areas.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This comment on the early draft plan

resulted in additional language being added to section 8.4.2 of the proposed plan that was

presented at public hearing to more completely address the land management agency priorities.

COMMENT #39: The FS commented that Chapter 10 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan states

that the 2018 visibility goals for Mingo and Hercules Glades have been largely achieved through

EGU emissions reductions and that the four-factor analyses had been conducted by EPA,

CENRAP and other RPOs. Although, background and reference material was prepared by these

entities, it is the responsibility of the States to apply the four-factor analysis appropriately. EPA

also commented that Missouri must include the required four-factor analysis, the results of the

analysis and the effect(s) on visibility improvements at Class I areas in the plan.

RESPONSE: Missouri has included the four-factor analyses from CENRAP, and the effects on

visibility improvement at Missouri Class I areas in the plan. Additional CENRAP control

sensitivity run controls will be considered if the five-year review does not indicate sufficient

progress is being met with the proposed controls. No changes were made to the plan as a result

of this comment.

COMMENT #40: The FS requested clarification of the status of the Central Class I area

consultation since they thought that the consultation had ended.

RESPONSE: The discussion in section 11.2 is referring to subsequent coordination and

consultation that will occur in the development of future progress reports and plan revisions, as

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

impairment in the mandatory Class I areas. No text changes have been made to the plan as a

result of this comment.

COMMENT #41: The FS commented that the draft Missouri Regional Haze Plan listed those

Class I areas which Missouri would reasonably be anticipated to impact. Such a list in Chapter

11 of the plan would be useful and they recommend including the appropriate list in the plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment on the early

draft plan, discussion language in section 4.1 of the proposed plan that was presented at public

hearing was expanded to include a list of impacted Class I Areas.

COMMENT #42: The FS commented that Chapter 11 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan states

that Missouri will include BART controls proposed by the other impacting states in its long term

strategy. Since not all of these BART determinations are completed, they want to know what

mechanism will be used to adjust the Reasonable Progress Goal based on the other states’ final

BART determinations.
RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, section

11.4.1.2 has been revised to reflect that the five-year review will be the mechanism used to

adjust the Reasonable Progress Goal based on the other states’ final BART determinations.

COMMENT #43: The FS commented that section 11.4.2 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan

refers to the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals for Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas but

should refer to the Uniform Rate of Progress goal for 2018. While the CAIR controls are very

cost effective, Missouri has made no showing that additional cost effective controls are not

available. If Missouri chooses not to consider the CENRAP developed “C1” control strategy,

then Missouri should explain its rationale for not selecting a strategy which would achieve

greater reductions than its present strategy.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the language

in section 11.4.2 of the plan has been revised to reflect the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) goal

for 2018. Visibility projections based on CENRAP modeling indicate that Missouri will be able

to meet the Uniform Rate of Progress goals for both Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas

during the first planning period ending in 2018. All applicable measures reflected in the

modeling and weight of evidence analysis have been incorporated in the state’s long-term

strategy. Missouri has not selected a strategy to achieve greater reductions than necessary to

meet the Uniform Rate of Progress because the state must follow state statute 643.055 that does

not allow standards stricter than those required under the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act.

Additional cost effective controls including SO2/NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT) in the St Louis PM2.5 plan and Illinois Multi-Pollutant Strategy will provide more air

quality benefit in visibility improvement. These additional controls were not modeled by

CENRAP.

COMMENT #44: The FS commented that section 11.4.5 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan

should include discussion stating that Missouri has not documented smoke contributing

significantly to visibility impairment in Class I areas for consistency with the Missouri Smoke

Management Plan. Since it appears the current prescribed fire smoke management techniques

implemented in Missouri are adequate to protect visibility in the Class I areas and the Missouri

Smoke Management Plan should provide additional protection, these points should be noted in

the plan discussion.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, additional

language was added to section 11.4.5 of the plan stating that Missouri is not aware of any smoke

contributing significantly to visibility impairment in Class I areas and that the Missouri Smoke

Management Plan should provide additional protection for these areas.

COMMENT #45: The FS suggested that it may be prudent to omit specific elements of the

Interim Air Quality Policy from section 11.4.5 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan to help

maintain flexibility for modification since the policy is due to be revised by July 2008.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the specific

elements of the Interim Air Quality Policy has been removed from section 11.4.5 of the plan.

COMMENT #46: The FS commented that Section 13 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan

should contain greater detail relating to judging adequacy of the existing plan. For example,

explain how Missouri will determine if the plan is adequate, if the inadequacy is due to
emissions from Missouri or other states/areas and what plan revisions will be made if the

inadequacy is due to Missouri sources.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Section 13 of the plan already states that

the findings of the five-year progress report will determine what plan revisions will be made if it

is determined to be inadequate due to Missouri sources. Any resulting plan revisions could

include a revision to goals, contingency measures, the monitoring strategy, and any other parts of

the plan as deemed necessary. In response to COMMENT #50, criteria has been added to the

plan for evaluating the progress to meet the Reasonable Progress Goals in Missouri Class I areas.

COMMENT #47: The FS requested that Missouri consider how the Missouri Regional Haze

Plan accounts for and reconciles both unexpected and reasonably foreseeable emissions growth,

changes to the geographic distribution of emissions, and substantive discrepancies that may be

found in emissions inventories or other technical bases of the state implementation plan. As an

example, the predictions of the “IPM” model and the assumptions for CAIR implementation that

were used to project the future 2018 electric utility generation industry sources and emissions

may be greatly different from the outcomes that are actually realized in that future year. Such

factors, as well as other unanticipated circumstances, may adversely affect Missouri’s ability to

achieve the emissions reductions projected by the plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, section 7.3

was added to the plan with language that commits to periodic reviews and updates of base year

inventories and future-year emissions projections.

COMMENT #48: The EPA provided a statement at public hearing supporting Missouri’s efforts

in developing the Missouri Regional Haze Plan. Appreciation was expressed for the opportunity

to provide early comment on the draft regional haze plan. They believe that this cooperation

resulted in a more efficient and effective plan review process for both the department and the

EPA.

RESPONSE: EPA’s support for these efforts is appreciated.

COMMENT #49: The EPA commented that the Missouri Regional Haze Plan must include a

discussion of what action was taken or not taken in adddressing each Federal Land Manager

comment including the rationale for the decisions. The FWS and the FS also anticipate these

responses to their questions in accordance with the 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requirement.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: A copy of the comments, along with

responses to those comments, have been included in Appendix C of the Missouri Regional Haze

Plan.

COMMENT #50: The EPA commented that Section 13 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan

must include a definitive statement that the modeling and monitoring information will be used

and the consultation process described in the plan will be followed in carrying out the scheduled

incremental administrative and technical actions required in the plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, a more

definitive statement has been added to Section 13 of the plan.

COMMENT #51: The EPA commented that the Missouri Regional Haze Plan does not contain

any information concerning how the plan will be managed throughout its administrative and/or
regulatory life. The plan should identify what Missouri agency and/or official will be

responsible for conducting the numerous time critical actions required. The plan should also

identify the form(s) or format(s) in which the plan will be maintained. A digital (i.e. computer)

format with specific intervals to revisit the format for periodic technology updates is suggested

for the long-term plan retention and accessibility. It is also suggested that one or more paper

copies of the plan be retained by the State for easy retrieval by the public and others.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, sections 12.0

and 13.0 have been revised to include the suggested information pertaining to plan management.

Criteria has also been developed for evaluating the progress to meet the Reasonable Progress

Goals in Missouri Class I areas.

COMMENT #52: The EPA commented that Chapter 12 of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan

provides no specific information as to actions that will be taken by the State during the important

first five-year Reasonable Progress reporting period. The plan should include a discussion of the

planned activities during this period.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, sections 12.0

and 13.0 have been revised to include specific information regarding planned activities during

the five-year reasonable progress reporting period. Criteria has also been developed for

evaluating the progress to meet the Reasonable Progress Goals in Missouri Class I areas.

COMMENT #53: The EPA commented that interstate regional haze consultation discussion in

the Missouri Regional Haze Plan is unclear on whether or not there is an agreement between

Missouri and the states of Minnesota and Okalahoma over the significance of Missouri’s

emissions at Class I areas in those states. The status of the consultations between the states,

including a discussion of resolved issues, should be provided in the plan.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment on the early

draft plan, discussion language in section 4.2 of the proposed plan that was presented at public

hearing was revised to expand discussion on the disagreement between Minnesota, Oklahoma

and Missouri regarding Missouri source influences on the Minnesota and Oklahoma Class I

Areas.

COMMENT #54: The EPA commented that the discussion in section 11.4 of the Missouri

Regional Haze Plan needs to be clarified as to which programs listed are relied upon to

demonstrate that the plan will meet its Reasonable Progress Goal.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the plan has

been revised to specify that “on the book controls” under section 11.4.1. are the only programs

used in modeling demonstration in meeting the RPG requirements.

COMMENT #55: The EPA commented that the inventory development discussion in the

Missouri Regional Haze Plan should clarify that the department’s Air Pollution Control Program

and CENRAP, with contractor support, prepared the onroad inventory. Also, Missouri should

indicate what entity processed the data used in developing the final onroad inventory. Finally,

the inventory development discussion should state whether the 2018 emissions inventory was

based on 12 months of data inputs or a different time frame.
RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, language was

added clarifying which entity prepared the onroad mobile emissions inventory and stating that

the 2018 emissions inventory was based on 12 months of data inputs.

COMMENT #56: The EPA commented that Table 9.1 in Chapter 9 of the Missouri Regional

Haze Plan should be revised to include the dates for facilities, the emissions that make the

sources BART-eligible and an evaluation of emission type and amount. These dates should be

included since BART-eligible determinations involve consideration of both the “start-up” and

“in operation” dates. Missouri should clarify how it determined which sources should undergo

further BART modeling analysis. For example, the State should state whether it used the Q/d

(emissions divided by distance) approach in deterimining which sources needed to be modeled

further or some other approach. EPA commented that Appendix H of the plan is both difficult to

read and to extrapolate emission source information. Therefore, both Table 9.1 and Appendix H

should be revised to provide emission information and construction dates rather than the “X” that

was inserted in certain tabular fields without an explanation.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, Appendix I

(original Appendix H) of the plan has been revised to include an explanation of the finding of

BART-eligibility, specifically detailing the elimination methodology including date or size of

emission source as the rationale. Upon consideration of this comment, the department

discovered eight (8) additional sources that were mis-characterized as having no BART eligible

sources. The plan has been revised to include these sources in Table 9.1 and the rationale for

inclusion or exclusion is detailed in Appendix I (original Appendix H). In response to the

portion of the comment regarding Q/d, the department did not use a Q/d approach for eliminating

sources but, instead, performed a screening evaluation of all BART-eligible sources in Missouri.

The results of the screening analyses were utilized to determine the need for refined CALPUFF

modeling.

COMMENT #57: The EPA commented that the information in Chapter 9 of the Missouri

Regional Haze Plan needs to clarify the following issues. The plan is unclear as to the regulatory

status of Portland Cement Plants in Missouri. The plan suggests that these plants are subject to

seasonal limits under the NOx SIP Call but doesn’t address SO2 throughout the year, NOx during

non-ozone months or the applicability to plants in the western part of the state. Since Portland

Cement Plants are not affected by CAIR, it doesn’t seem appropriate to use the NOx SIP Call to

permanently exclude Portland Cement Plants from review under BART.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: It was not suggested that Portland Cement

Plants are not eligible for BART review due to inclusion in the NOx SIP Call. Chapter 9 of the

draft regional haze plan had only identified River Cement as a BART-eligible source due to its

installation and operation date and size. This plant was issued a construction permit for a new

kiln to replace the existing kilns at this location. Therefore, since the units do not exist that were

BART eligible, then the subsequent review is moot. However, review of the other cement kilns

in Missouri found that two others had units that were BART-eligible: Continental Cement in

Hannibal and Holcim – Clarksville. Continental Cement has been awarded a construction permit

for elimination of the existing kiln and the same logic applies to this plant as was applied to

River Cement. The Holcim – Clarksville facility is BART-eligible and has screening and refined

impacts over the visibility threshold. Currently, the Holcim facility has been asked to evaluate

additional controls for SO2 and NOx including cost of control. This information will be provided
to the department for a decision regarding potential control of the existing kiln at Holcim.

Chapter 9 of the plan has been revised to include this discussion.

COMMENT #58: The EPA commented that the information in Appendix H of the Missouri

Regional Haze Plan is either incomplete or inconsistent with the State’s finding that the River

Cement Plant is exempt from further BART review. The plan needs to be revised to address the

data omissions and inconsistencies.

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, the plan has

been revised to address the BART data omissions and inconsistencies.
 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON 

THE 2009 REVISION TO THE MISSOURI REGIONAL HAZE PLAN 

On June 25, 2009, the Missouri Air Conservation Commission held a public hearing concerning 

the 2009 revision to the Missouri Regional Haze Plan. The following is a summary of comments 

received and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ corresponding responses. Any 

changes to the proposed 2009 revision to the plan are identified in the responses to the 

comments. 

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program recommends the 

commission adopt the plan action as amended. If the commission adopts this plan action, it will 

be the department’s intention to submit this revised plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency for inclusion in the Missouri State Implementation Plan. 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The department’s Air Pollution Control Program received 

comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some comments were 

general in nature and others were specific to the interstate consultation, reasonable progress goal, 

long-term strategy, and best achievable retrofit technology (BART) sections. Some comments 

were also specific to the Holcim Cement-Clarksville BART determination and consent 

agreement. 

COMMENT #1: The EPA recommended that the plan, including appendices, be reviewed to 

assure that it has up-to-date and correct language. As an example, the original plan was 

submitted to the EPA in March of 2008 but the plan language refers to it as the February 2008 

submittal on plan pages 69, 70 and 71. Another example is repetitively listing the BASF facility 

twice in one sentence on page 58. In addition, the plan mentions documents as being 

incorporated into an appendix, but the information is not actually in the named appendix in all 

cases (e.g. Missouri’s letter to Doe Run-Glover regarding operating permits). 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: In response to these comments, the plan has 

been reviewed and updated to reflect the appropriate information. 

COMMENT #2: The EPA requested that the reasonable progress, best available control 

technology equivalency to BART, potential to emit permit limitation and all Holcim BART 

consent agreement comments to be considered major issue comments. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The plan has been reviewed considering the 

areas identified as major issues and changes were made when deemed necessary and feasible to 

address these areas. 

COMMENT #3: The EPA noted that, since Missouri’s Regional Haze Plan is relying on 

emission reductions from sources in other states in order to meet the 2018 Uniform Rate of 

Progress (URP) goal for Missouri’s Class I areas, Missouri should clearly communicate this 

reliance to the other states. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, letters will be 

sent to the states on which Missouri is relying for emission reductions to meet the URP. The 

letter will reiterate what was concluded during the consultation conference calls regarding 

Missouri’s reliance on other states’ emission reductions to meet the URP goal. 
 

COMMENT #4: The EPA requested additional explanation of how the four statutory factors 

were considered in arriving at the Reasonable Progress Goal for both Missouri Class I areas. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: To address this comment, section 10 of the 

plan was rewritten to provide more explanation of the how Missouri achieved the four factor 

analysis requirement.

COMMENT #5: The EPA requested that section 11.4 of the long term strategy chapter have a 

reference added to Table 10.1 in order to link it to the reasonable further progress chapter. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As suggested, a reference to Table 10.1 

was added to section 11.4. 

COMMENT #6: The EPA commented that section 11.4.2 should be revised to only list those 

programs that Missouri is relying on for long term strategy. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Only the programs listed in section 11.4.1. 

are relied upon for Missouri’s long term strategy as stated at the beginning of section 11.4.2. As 

stated in section 11.4.2, the programs listed in section 11.4.2. are additional control strategies not 

included in the modeling demonstration that may be considered during the five-year review. 

These programs are retained in section 11.4.2. for future reference. As a result of this comment, 

additional explanatory language has been added to section 11.4 for additional clarification. 

COMMENT #7: The EPA commented that Appendix I of the plan should be revised to provide 

consistency in the type of information provided. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, Appendix I 

has been revised so that information provided is presented in a consistent format. 

COMMENT #8: The EPA commented that the potential to emit (PTE) limits referenced in this 

appendix as reasons for exempting sources from BART should be included in the plan in a 

permanent and enforceable manner. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The limits referenced in this comment were 

for charcoal kiln facilities that were developed after the kilns were required to comply with 10 

CSR 10-6.330, Restriction of Emissions from Batch-Type Charcoal Kilns. This rule limits each 

kiln control system to emission limits of 1.5 pounds per hour of particulate matter and 0.24 

pounds per hour of volatile organic compounds; which translates to less than 10 tons per year for 

both pollutants. The limits are permanent and enforceable because they are in this rule which is 

part of the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) and, therefore, federally enforceable. The 

control systems required by implementation of this rule have resulted in dramatically reduced 

emissions of all air pollutants from the charcoal kiln industry in Missouri. These reductions have 

have also resulted in many of the kiln facilities to be classified as Basic operating permit sources 

instead of Part 70 (major) sources. Including these permits in the SIP will not bring additional 

enforceability to these facilities due to the ongoing requirements contained in the charcoal kiln 

rule. Therefore, reference to these permits has been removed from Appendix I. 

COMMENT #9: The EPA commented that Appendix J is missing a copy of the Doe Run-Glover 

facility termination letter that is mentioned in the Appendix C responses to comments. 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: As a result of this comment, a copy of the 

Doe Run-Glover facility termination letter has been added to Appendix J.
 

COMMENT #10: The EPA commented that some form of technical detail should be provided 

regarding the Missouri’s determination in Section 9.3 that BACT at Doe Run-Buick is equal to 

or better than BART. Also, using this determination in the plan requires that the permit must be 

amended to specify and reference the origin of an authority for the emission unit as cited in 40 

CFR 70.6(a)(1)(ii). 

RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: In response to this comment, Section 9.3 

has been revised to address the finding for Doe Run-Buick’s BART-eligible unit. Specifically, 

more documentation was provided to establish the BART finding for this unit. 

COMMENT #11: The EPA commented that the explanation of how Missouri performed a more 

robust screening of sources subject to BART should describe how the screening criteria was 

applied. 

RESPONSE: The approach outlined in the plan does not rely on a particular number of impact 

days that the State found significant enough to require further analysis at a particular Class I 

area. The refined screening approach used is consistent with other modeling outcomes that 

evaluate only a particular set of receptors when these receptors are clearly higher and provide the 

most conservative outcome for the given emissions set. The methodology utilized to perform the 

refined screening approach only removed the Hercules, Upper Buffalo, and Mammoth Cave 

Class I areas from consideration for the Noranda source. This was done because the very nearby 

Mingo Class I area was obviously impacted the most of any of these areas by the Noranda 

BART-eligible sources. The remaining sources that underwent refined screening were evaluated 

for the Mingo, Hercules, and Upper Buffalo Class I areas except the sensitivity analyses 

conducted for Doe Run Buick at Mingo. This refined screening approach was determined 

primarily based on distance from the relevant Class I areas to each source. No change was made 

to the plan as a result of this comment. 

COMMENT #12: The EPA commented that additional clarifying documentation should be 

provided describing how Missouri established both the NOx and SO2 BART limits for Holcim. 

RESPONSE: In the comment, EPA asserts that the NOx control efficiencies used by the 

department are questionable. The comment does not provide a true and accurate representation 

of the BART finding for NOx as only mid-kiln firing and selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) are mentioned. As discussed in the plan, the department found that mid-kiln firing of 

tires at a 12 percent total fuel rate along with the existing low-NOx burners and cement kiln dust 

insufflation represent BART. The department also found that the effective use of SNCR on this 

long-wet kiln had significant uncertainty. This provided further evidence that established BART 

as mid-kiln firing of tires with a 20 percent reduction in NOx emissions. 

EPA claims that the use of wet lime scrubbing at the facility was cost effective and available for 

the facility and implies that the department should have selected this control as BART for SO2. 

In the plan, the department clearly outlines its basis for the removal of scrubbing technology as 

BART under Section 9.3.8, “The department found the overall net cost per ton of cement 

produced (~$15/20) was excessive and would have seriously compromised the Clarksville kiln’s 

ability to compete in the cement production market.” On page 39130 of the Final Rule for 

Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART Determinations published on July 6, 2005; 

EPA states, “...we recognize there may be unusual circumstances that justify taking into 
 

consideration the conditions of the plant and the economic effects of requiring the use of a given 

control technology. These effects would include effects on product prices, the market share, and 

profitability of the source. We did not intend, for example, that the most stringent control 

alternative must always be selected in that level would cause a plant to shut down...”. The 

statement from the rule characterizes the exact approach used by the department in this instance. 

Further, the current operational shutdown at the facility supports the use of fuel switching as 

SO2 BART (27 percent reduction) at $3/ton cement produced instead of wet scrubbing at nearly 

$20/ton cement produced. No changes were made to the plan as a result of this comment. 

COMMENT #13: The EPA noted that the 30-day rolling average language in the Holcim 

Cement-Clarksville consent agreement and the plan language are not consistent. 

RESPONSE: The plan states that the calculation of these averages will include all hours when 

the kiln is not operating and those emissions for both pollutants will be entered as zero pounds. 

The agreement specifies conditions where the kiln is not operating and continuous emission 

monitoring data is not required to be collected (paragraph 20 of the agreement). This condition 

was implemented to allow shutdown of the monitoring equipment when the kiln is not operating 

for an extended period of time. It follows logically that if the kiln is not operating and is 

sufficiently cooled there will be no emissions of NOx or SO2. In paragraph 22 of the agreement, 

Holcim is required to, “...record the hourly CEM data or data supporting lack of kiln operation 

to demonstrate compliance with the [emission] limits...”. The intention of this statement is to 

allow the use of non-operational, zero emission data as part of the 30-day rolling averages for 

compliance with the SO2 and NOx BART limits. Therefore, this is consistent with the language 

in the plan. No change to the plan was made as a result of this comment. 

COMMENT #14: The EPA recommends that the agreement stay in place in the event of a 

shutdown, or, if the shutdown-termination language is retained, they recommend clarifying that a 

current or subsequent owner or operator may only utilize post-BART control emissions, if any, 

for the purposes of netting. 

RESPONSE: In the event of a shutdown, Holcim or any subsequent owner will be subject to the 

agreement until a permanent cessation letter is sent to the department and the owner agrees to 

terminate all operating and construction permits for the site as outlined in Condition 26(G) of the 

consent agreement. Once these conditions are met, the source does not exist any longer and is 

permanently shutdown for the purpose of new source review. This would mean that any new 

kiln or start-up of the existing kiln would be required to undergo a major source permitting 

analysis due to the modification requirement of the construction permit regulation. Therefore, 

the new source would not be allowed to net out of a major review and would be subject to the 

requirements of best available control technology and visibility impairment analysis under the 

permitting regulations. The department would only allow post-BART control emissions for any 

netting of a new source at this site. No change was made to the plan as a result of this comment. 
Appendix D

MACC Adoption Certification

Pursuant to 643.055 RSMo, the Missouri Air Conservation Commission has 

determined that this action is needed to have a U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency approved State Implementation Plan. 

The Missouri Regional Haze Plan is hereby adopted by the Missouri Air 

Conservation Commission this 29th day ofJuly, 2009. 

----ll'-l~a;:¥-J-I-/~l~L~b::.,========--__:, Chairman 

_______________, Vice-Chairman 

, Member 

________________,Member 

_______________,Member