## 101 S. Webster St. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 Telephone 608-266-2621 FAX 608-267-3579 TTY Access via relay - 711 Jim Doyle, Governo r Scott Hassett, Secretary



# June 12, 2007

Ms. Mary Gade USEPA-Region V 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604-3608

Subject: Submittal of Wisconsin's NO x 

# RACT program and misc ellaneous non-substantive changes for the ozone state implementation plan

Dear Ms. Gade:
On behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), I am submitting a revision to its state implementation plan (SIP) regarding the control of ni trogen oxides per ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code. The rules fulfill the CAA requirement for a Reasonabl y Available Control Technology (RACT) program applicable to major NO x 

# sources in the moderate ozone non-attainment area. Also included are several miscellaneous non-substantive chang es to existing SIP requirements.
The sections of ch. NR 428, Wis. Adm. Code, comp rising the RACT program and miscellaneous changes have been approved by the state Legislature and w ill become effective upon publication. We are now submitting these documents as a formal SIP revision by this letter and its attachments. The USEPARegion V checklist and the hearing documentation are included as attachments to this letter.
If you have any questions regardi ng this submittal, please call Ralph Patterson of my staff at 608-267- 7546.
Sincerely,

/s/

Kevin Kessler, Director Bureau of Air Management
cc: Stephan Rothblatt - USEPA Rgion V Douglas Aburano - USEPA-Region V Bob Eckdale-AM/7 Ralph Patterson-AM/7 Larry Bruss-AM/7

wisconsin.gov Printed on Recycled Pape 

# Quality Natural Resources Management

Through Excellent Customer Service dnr.wi.gov

r

# Enclosures:

Attachment 1 - NO x 

# RACT Rules Greensheet Packages Attachment 2 - Adopted rule (t o be replaced by published rule) Attachment 3 - Public hearing certification Attachment 4 - SIP Checklist

# Attachment 1

NOx RACT Rules

Green Sheet Packages

1

# I. Summary of Rule Requirements

The RACT rule establishes NO x 

# emission limitations for major sources in the moderate ozone nonattainment areas of Wisconsin which include th e counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha. Major sources in those counties must be in compliance with the NO x 

# RACT program by May 1, 2009. The RACT rule has been adopted and passed by all necessary state law-making bodies a nd the rule will be effective upon publication expected prior to January 1, 2008.
The RACT rule requires individual emission units at a major source to be in compliance with specific emission limitations defined by source category and fuel types. The NO x 

# emission limitations are defined based on available control technologies and cost-effectiveness of up to $2,500 per ton of controlled NO x 

# . However, the emission limits are not applicable if the unit operates below a ozone season threshold level that is related to cost-e ffectiveness of control. Once a unit exceeds the threshold during any ozone season after the effective date of the rule it is always subject to the RACT requirements. A phased compliance schedule is specified for electric utility coal fired boilers to account for installation and electric reliability need s. All emission limitations across the source categories are expressed on a 30-day rolling basis and are to be met on a year-round basis.
The rule requires compliance monitoring, record keeping, and reporting specified for each source category. For units already required to do so emissions are to be measured according to Part 75 CEMs monitoring requirements. Remaining units ar e specified by source category to either install and operate continuous NO x 

# emission monitors according to 40 CFR Part 60 methods or perform stack testing every two years. The rule specifies the methods and calculations to tabulate emissions under each requirement. Units which may emit over 3 lbs. per hour or 15 lbs. per day of NOx are required to have a malfunction and abatement plan for the monitoring system.
The rule establishes a number of default exemp tions from the emission limits for units meeting certain conditions. The exemptions streamline co mpliance by identifying sources for which control cost-effectiveness is beyond that considered in the rule. These sources otherwise would likely apply for a variance to the RACT requirement. The rule identifies minimal recordkeeping requirements to ensure continued qualification under the applicable exemption. There are generally two basis for the exemptions: 1) unit types or applications with lo w operation levels; and 2) units which are meeting the emission limit and have sufficient monitoring re quirements in place or are well controlled and for which the incremental control to meet the RACT emission limit is significantly more costly.
Alternative compliance methods in the rule in clude emissions averaging, a case-by-case RACT determination, and a CAIR equiva lency provision. These programs are structured to meet EPA's guidance for economic incentive programs, public notification and review, and EPA approval requirements.
Lastly, to address utility reliability i ssues the rule allows an entity to request a temporary waiver to an emission limit. This provision establishes a process to evaluate an emission limit exceedance due to an uncontrollable or unforeseeable event during the course of which service must be maintained to un-interruptible customers. The request for a waiver is after the event and is subject
The major provisions of the RACT rule are:

NR 428.02 Definitions NR 428.20 Applicability and purpose.

2

# NR 428.21 Emission unit exceptions. NR 428.22 Emission limitation requirements. NR 428.23 Demonstrating complia nce with emission limitations. NR 428.24 Record keeping and reporting. NR 428.25 Alternative compliance methods and approaches. NR 428.26 Utility reliability waiver.

Provisions related to the RACT rule are: NR 400 Air pollution control definitions NR 439 Reporting, recordkeeping, tes ting, inspection and determination of compliance requirements NR 484.04 Incorporation by reference

Several non-substantive modifications are included in this package addressing the units of applicable emission limitations for reciprocating en gines under existing NR 428 requirements.
A description of the rules and supporting documentati on attached in the two following sections. The first is the background memo to the DNR Board me mos for the primary RACT rule adoption. The second section refers to a following adoption of a germane modification to the RACT rule.



# II. Green Sheet Memo to DNR Board of RACT Rules for Adoption

DATE: April 9, 2007

TO: Members of the Natural Resources Board
FROM: Scott Hassett, Secretary
SUBJECT: Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) program for major sources of nitrogen oxides (NO x 

# ) in the moderate ozone nonattainment area and miscellaneous non-substantive corrections to current ch. NR 428 requirements.



# Introduction

In June 2004, the US EPA designated ten Wisconsin counties as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard. The counties of Ke nosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, and Sheboygan are designated as “moderate” ozone nonattainment and the counties of Manitowoc, Kewaunee, and Door as “basic.” Th e designation triggered federal Clean Air Act requirements for adopting rules to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NO x 

# ) and volatile organic compound emissions sufficiently to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard by 2009 in basic areas and 2010 in moderate areas.

3

# The federal Clean Air Act requires implementati on of “reasonably available control technology” (RACT) for major stationary sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the moderate ozone nonattainment area by May 1, 2009. The Department is proposing this rule package to meet the RACT requirement for major sources of NO x 

# emissions. The Department previously adopted RACT rules for VOC to address the old 1-hour ozone standard. Under the 1-hour standard, the State had a waiver for implementing NOx RACT. No su ch waiver exists for the 8-hour standard. Therefore, the Department must proc eed with developing NOx RACT rules.
To develop the proposed rules, the Department used the flexibility that EPA allows in creating RACT rules. However, these proposed rules do not exceed federal Clean Air Act requirements.

Potential NO x 

# emission requirements for the basic nonattainment areas are not addressed in this rule package, since NO x 

# RACT is required in basic areas only if attainment cannot be demonstrated by the 2009 ozone season.
One issue associated with RACT rule development warrants additional attention. EPA allows a state to determine if the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) satisfies NOx RACT requirements for major utility coal-fired boilers subject to CAIR. This is often referred to as the "CAIR = RACT" determination. This provision is based on EPA ’s assessment that the CAIR program, on a national basis, achieves greater reductions than the tota l reductions from a surrogate RACT program only in the nonattainment areas. Department legal staff has identified significant legal issues associated with EPA’s assessment. In particular, RACT and CAIR are separate requirements in the Clean Air Act and implementation of CAIR cannot satisfy the RACT requirement. DNR legal staff indicates that both programs must be implemented. See Attachment C for more details. 

# 1. Why is this rule being proposed?

The Department is proposing this rule to comply w ith the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act to implement a NOx RACT program for major sources in the moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The resulting NO x 

# emission reductions will directly cont ribute to achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards and will ai d in meeting future haze requirements.
Additionally, the Department is proposing the rule to make a non-substantive change to ch. NR 428. Section NR 428.05(3)(e) currently sets forth emission lim itations for reciprocating engines. The units for the emission limit currently read grams per brake-horsepower (gr /br-hp). The units are corrected in this rule package to read grams per brake-horsepower hour (gr / br-hp-hr). This proposed change in the current language is consistent with the ch. NR 428 rule package adopted by the Board in 2000. 

# 2. Summary of the rule

The proposed rule establishes NO x 

# RACT emission requirements for major sources in the moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The emission requireme nts apply to individual stationary combustion units at major sources and must be met by May 1, 2009.
The emission requirements consist of NO x 

# emission limitations which apply on a year-round basis. The emission limitations are established by source categories with an emission unit size threshold based on available control technologies and cost-effect iveness. The rule contains exemptions from RACT requirements for certain types of emission uni ts demonstrating low operating levels during the ozone season. An additional exemption recognizes th at certain smaller emission units are already well controlled under existing NR 428 provisions a nd no further action is needed in meeting the

4

# RACT emission limit. Attachment A provides the technical assessment that supports the Department’s proposed rule.
a. General Applicability
The proposed rule affects facilities with the potential to emit 100 tons or more of NO x 

# per year in the moderate ozone nonattainment areas, but the emission limits apply to individual emission units , such as a boiler or furnace, at the affected facilities. It is possible that an emission unit contributing to a major source's potential to emit may not be subject to a RACT requirement. Likewise, an emission unit identified by a RACT source category, but at a facility with a potential to emit less than 100 tons per year, will not be subject to a RACT requirement.
b. Categorical Emission Limits
The proposed rule establishes NO x 

# emission rate limits by source category applicable to emission units operating above threshold le vels during the ozone season. The proposed source categories, operating levels, and emission limitati ons are presented in Table 1. The emission limits contained in the proposed rule are a 30-day rolling average requi rement applicable on a year-round basis. A unit subject to an emission limitation must demonstrate compliance on an individual basis by May 1, 2009.

5

# Table 1. Proposed NO x 

# RACT Categorical Emission Limits 1



# . Source Category Capacity Threshold NO x 

## Emission Limitation (30 day rolling average)

=> 1000 mmBtu/hr Tangential-fired.............................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired......................................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Cyclone-fired ...............................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Fluidized bed-fired......... ...............0.10 lbs/mmBtu Arch-fired..................................... 0.18 lbs/mmBtu

=> 500 – 999 mmBtu/hr Tangential-fired.............................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired (low heat release).........0.15 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired (high heat release).........0.17 lbs/mmBtu Cyclone-fired ................................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Fluidized bed-fired......... ................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Arch-fired...................................... 0.18 lbs/mmBtu

=> 250 – 495 mmBtu/hr Tangential-fired.............................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired (low heat release).........0.15 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired (high heat release).........0.17 lbs/mmBtu Cyclone-fired ................................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Fluidized bed-fired......... ................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Arch-fired...................................... 0.18 lbs/mmBtu Stoker-fired....................................0.20 lbs/mmBtu Solid Fuel-Fired Boiler

50 - 249 mmBtu/hr Tangential-fired.............................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired (low heat release).........0.15 lbs/mmBtu Wall-fired (high heat release).........0.17 lbs/mmBtu Cyclone-fired ................................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Fluidized bed-fired......... ................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Arch-fired...................................... 0.18 lbs/mmBtu Stoker-fired....................................0.25 lbs/mmBtu Gaseous or Liquid Fuel-Fired Boiler => 100 mmBtu/hr...... => 100 mmBtu/hr...... => 65 mmBtu/hr........ Gaseous fuel.....................................0.08 lbs/mmBtu Distillate oil.......

............... .............. 0.10 lbs/mmBtu Residual or waste oil......................0.15 lbs/mmBtu

Lime Kiln (manufacturing) => 50 mmBtu/hr Gaseous fuel....................................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Distillate oil...

................ ............... .0.12 lbs/mmBtu Residual oil.....................................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Coal................................................0.60 lbs/mmBtu Coke...............................................0.70 lbs/mmBtu

Glass Furnace => 50 mmBtu/hr 2.0 lbs/ton of glass

Metal Reheat, Galvanizing, and Annealing Furnace => 75 mmBtu/hr 0.08 lbs/mmBtu

Asphalt Plants => 65 mmBtu/hr Gaseous fuel.....................................0.15 lbs/mmBtu Distillate oil.......

............... .............. 0.20 lbs/mmBtu Residual or waste oil.......................0.27 lbs/mmBtu

Process Heating => 100 mmBtu/hr...... => 100 mmBtu/hr........ => 65 mmBtu/hr........ Gaseous fuel.....................................0.10 lbs/mmBtu Distillate oil.......

.............................. 0.12 lbs/mmBtu Residual or waste oil.......................0.18 lbs/mmBtu Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine => 50 MW Natural gas................................25 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Distillate oil...

................ ...........65 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Biologically derived fu el.......... 35 ppmdv @ 15% O 2



# 6

## 25 – 49 MW Natural gas................................42 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Distillate oil...

................ ...........96 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Biologically derived fu el.......... 35 ppmdv @ 15% O 2



## Combined Cycle Turbine => 25 MW........

10 – 24 MW.........

=> 25 MW.......... Natural gas.................................9 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Distillate oil........

............ ..........42 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Natural gas................................42 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Distillate oil........

............... ........42 ppmdv @ 15% O 2 

## Biologically derived fuel.......... 35 ppmdv @ 15% O 2



## Reciprocating Engine => 500 horsepower Rich-burn units.................. ................3.0 gr/bhp-hr Lean-burn units..................................3.0 gr/bhp-hr Distillate-fuel units..........

................ ..3.0 gr/bhp-hr Natural Gas / Dual fuel......................3.0 gr/bhp-hr 1) The compliance deadline for most sources is May 1, 2009. However, electric generating units have interim emission limits and extended compliance time frames. See Table 2.



# 1. Implemented on an annual basis The proposed rule implements the RACT requirement s on an annual basis. This is the default approach for RACT as reflected in the cu rrent EPA 8-hour ozone Phase II Implementation Rule (70 FR 71611). Controls implemented for ozone purposes are cost-effective to operate year-round and yield continual ai r quality benefits related to fi ne-particles, haze, acid rain, and eutrophication of lakes.

2. 30-day rolling average emission limit The 30-day rolling averaging time is a short term , rate-based approach to ensure full benefit of the installed control equipment. In this wa y, emissions are continuously controlled in the event conditions are conducive to forming ozone . This approach allows averaging of the typical variations in controlled emission levels from a single unit.

3. Emission unit exceptions Emission units which operate at very low le vels during the ozone season are exempt from RACT requirements. The rule also exempts units with low emission rates from installing additional controls to meet the RACT emission limits.

4. Compliance monitoring and demonstration The proposed rule requires most sources subj ect to emission limitations to demonstrate compliance using continuous emissions monito ring. For electric utility (EGU) sources this monitoring is based on 40 CFR part 75 methods and for industrial source monitoring is based on 40 CFR part 60 methods. For a few source categories with low variability in operations or emission rates, compliance is demonstrated by periodic stack testing. The proposed emission monitoring requirements are consistent with ex isting state and EPA programs. The rule will also allow a source to request approval of an alternative monitoring method.

5. Electric utility coal-fired boil er phased compliance schedule. For electric utility coal-fired boilers the rule sets a phased compliance schedule with interim emission limits for May 1, 2009 and final RACT emission limits by May 1, 2013. The purpose of the phased compliance schedule is to allow the electric utilities the necessary time to install post combustion controls while maintain ing a reliable electric supply. Some control technologies, like selective catalytic reduction equipment, can take up to two years to install for an individual project. This is compounded by the fact that utilities are subject to limited installation windows which further restrict the in stallation schedule. On this basis, multiple installations cannot be fully accomplished on all electric utility boilers within the moderate

7

# nonattainment area by 2009. The phased approach is also consistent with operating generating units on a system-wide basis and utilization of a multi-facility averaging program.
The schedule of phased limitations is provided in Table 2. The interim emission limits for 2009 is based on implementation of full com bustion modifications and a limited number of selective non-catalytic reduction installations. In this manner, the proposed rule sets forth a RACT level of NO x 

# control across electric utility boilers achieved on a schedule the Department has found to be as expeditious as practicable. Attachment B summarizes the expected emissions from electric utility coal fired boilers.
Table 2. Compliance Schedule for Electric Utility Coal-Fired Boilers Emission Limits (lbs/mmbtu) Compliance Date Coal-fired Boilers > 1000 mmbtu/hr Coal-fired Boilers >500 and <1000 mmbtu/hr

May 1, 2009 wall fired = 0.15 tangential fired = 0.15 cyclone = 0.15 fluidized bed = 0.15

arch fired = 0.18 wall fired = 0.20 tangential fired = 0.15 cyclone = 0.20 fluidized bed = 0.15

arch fired = 0.18

May 1, 2013 wall fired = 0.10 tangential fired = 0.10 cyclone = 0.10 fluidized bed = 0.10

arch fired = 0.18 wall fired = 0.17 tangential fired = 0.15 cyclone = 0.15 fluidized bed =0.10

arch fired = 0.18

6. Alternative compliance methods. The proposed RACT rule provides several compliance options.
1) Emissions from one or more units subj ect to a RACT emission limitation may be averaged with other similar units at an i ndustrial or small utility facility. Under this approach all similar units at the facility must be included in the averaging program. This is to eliminate a potential shift in generation/ production to unit not subject to the RACT requirements.
Emissions averaging applies the current a pplicable emission limit of each unit on a heat input weighted basis to determine an average facility or system emission limit. The EPA requires that averaging programs like the system averaging in the proposed rule have an additional emi ssion reduction applied to the facility or system emission limit as an environmental benefit in lieu of the provided flexibility. (See Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs , EPA-452/R-01-001, Jan. 2001.) Under facility averaging the proposed envir onmental benefit is the implementation of an annual and ozone season mass cap.
2) Emissions units may participate in an emission averaging program across multiple units and facilities. Each unit can only par ticipate in one type of averaging program on an annual basis (facility or system-wide) . The proposed environmental benefit is the EPA default of 10% reduction in the em ission rate on an annual and an ozone season basis.
3) An individual source may request an alternative emission limitation or compliance schedule, with a determination made on a case-by-case basis by the Department. An

8

# alternative emission limit may be the r esult of an engineering assessment that demonstrates RACT controls are not economically or technically feasible for that unit. Any determination of an alternativ e limit or schedule must also account for a unit’s ability to participate in either a facility or system-wide emissions averaging program.

7. Utility reliability waiver The proposed rule contains a provision that allo ws an electric or steam utility or natural gas transmission facilities to request a waiver from an applicable emission limit for a period oftime due to reliability issues. This provision acknowledges that these facilities serve noninterruptible customers and uncontrollable even ts may occur which result in an increase in emissions. Facilities generating steam for process and manufacturing purposes are not eligible for the waiver.

3. 

# Hearing Summary and Comment Summary A public hearing was held on March 15 in Milwauk ee. Twelve people attended the hearing. WE Energies, Alliant Energy, and Wisconsin Manufact urers and Commerce, testified opposing major portions of the rule. Sierra Club/Clean Wisconsin testified in support of the rule, but suggested changes to strengthen the emission limits in the rule. Additionally, written public comments were accepted through March 19 th 

# , 2007. The Department recei ved written comments from: Alliant Energy ANR Pipeline David Bender Engine Manufacturers Association James McCarthy Sierra Club/Clean Wisconsin Solar Turbines US EPA Waste Management WE Energies Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group Wisconsin Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse Wisconsin Paper Council Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce
A list of comments and Department responses is found in Attachment C. 

# 4. Impact to Existing Policy

This proposal is consistent with existing state stat utory policy for ozone rules under s. 285.11(6), Wis. Stats., to revise and implement state implementati on plans for the purpose of prevention, abatement and control of air pollution in Wisconsin.


# 5. Has the Board dealt wi th these issues before?

The Board authorized public hearings on this rule at its January, 2007 meeting. Most recently prior to that, the NRB adopted ch. NR 428 in 2000 for regulation of NO x 

# emissions from stationary sources in the state. Those regulations were formulated to meet rate-of-progress and attainment requirements for the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration in Southeastern Wisconsin. That rule established performance standards for existing electric utility and larger industrial sources in the area now

9

# designated as moderate under the 8-Hour ozone standard. The sources subject to ch. NR 428 requirements are also subject to the proposed RACT rules. In some cases, meeting the NR 428 limits exempts units based on lowering their pote ntial to emit below 100 tons per year. 

# 6. What changes have been made to AM-17-05?

a. Combustion Tuning The Department proposed that sources should participate in combustion tuning, since it provides energy and environmental benefits. Ho wever, the provisions of the proposed rule dealing with combustion tuning were contr oversial because they were viewed as overly prescriptive and requiring unnecessary recordkeepin g. Considering the comments from the industrial sector in Wisconsin, the Department proposes to drop combustion tuning from the NOx RACT rule. This provision wouldn’t ha ve accounted for very large emission reductions because it would have applied to smaller sources and some of the reductions will be achieved through voluntary combustion tuning.
The Department may consider combustion tuning in future air quality related initiatives such as PM2.5 or ozone attainment demonstrations, reasonable progress for haze or climate change proposals. In these new initiatives, DNR will work with industrial representatives to address their concerns and streamline t esting and reporting requirements.
b. Exemptions. General Exemptions – For purposes of clarity and streamlining of requirements, additional exemptions were included to define emergency, auxiliary, and backup units which would normally qualify under the low operating unit exception. Exceptions were added based on the periodic or intermittent nature of operation for peaking or reliability units.

Low operating unit – The Department proposed the lo w operating unit exception based on a 5% ozone season capacity factor for recipro cating engines and combustion turbines and a 10% capacity factor for the remaining source categories. Based on comments concerning cost-effectiveness, the Department revised the capacity factor used in calculating the utilization threshold to 20% for all source categories.
Other regulated unit – The rule exempts emission units that have been well controlled under existing NR 428 requirements and for which cost rapidly increases in meeting additional reductions under the RACT requirements. An exemption threshold based on potential emissions of 50 tons per year was proposed in the public hearing draft of rule. Based on comments the Department increased the threshold to 75 tons per year in the revised rule.

c. Source Categories and Emission limits Solid fuel wall-fired boilers – The proposed rule provided a distinction between low and high heat release wall fired boilers based on achieva ble emission limitations. The basis for the distinction is being modified based on comments to reflect standard methods and terminology in the industry without affecting the applicability of the requirements.

Boilers – The exemption threshold for residual fuel-fired boilers was originally proposed at 60 mmBtu/hr and the Department revised the limit to 65 mmBtu/hr.

10

# Process heating – Comments were received concerning the applicability threshold of 50 mmBtu/hr for all process heaters. The thresholds have been revised based on fuel type and cost-effectiveness. Similar to other categories, natural gas, distillate oil, and residual fuel emit NOx at increasingly higher emission rates in that respective order. Therefore it is appropriate to distinguish lower unit size threshol ds for the higher emitting fuels. The revised thresholds are natural gas = 100 mmBtu/hr, dis tillate fuel = 100 mmBtu/hr, and residual fuel = 65 mmBtu/hr. To address comments related to the distinction of process heaters and other gaseous and liquid fuel fired units such as dr yers and ovens, the Department clarified the definition of process heaters

Combustion turbines – After reviewing comments from industry and a turbine manufacturer, the Department adjusted source category th resholds and emission limits for combustion turbines. The Department created an exemption size threshold for simple cycle turbines at 25 MW. The Department also adjusted emission limits for all combustion turbine categories to reflect available low NOx combustion techniques without the use of post-combustion control.

Reciprocating engines – Based on comments concerning cost and technical issues, the Department raised exemption threshold fo r affected engines from 250 to 500 hp. Additionally, the Department revised the emissi on limits for natural gas fired engines to 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.
d. Monitoring requirements Based on comments, the Department revised sev eral monitoring requirements to streamline requirements without compromising the compliance demonstration.
The public hearing draft rule allowed an alternative EPA monitoring method with written approval of the department. The revised rule will allow this alternative without approval for specific source categories.

Other miscellaneous modifications have been made based on comments to address consistency in testing methods standard to certain source categories and clarification.

e. Green Tier U.S. EPA commented that including the green tier provision in the draft rule would require that the green tier program be submitted to EPA for approval as part of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision. While the Department strongly supports the goals of the Green Tier program, we believe that the Green Tier program being a federally enforceable part of the SIP would delay promulgation of this rule and might be counter to the Green Tier program goals. Therefore, we’ve dropped the pro posed Green Tier language in this rule that was only a general reference to the program anyway. The Department will continue to search for ways to take advantage of the Green Tier program to achieve superior environmental goals.
f. Steam and Electric Reliability Waiver The reliability waiver establishes a process to address situations where facilities supplying electricity or steam for critical needs must c ontinue to operate and ex ceed limitations due to uncontrollable or foreseeable events. The rule is revised to allow natural gas transmission facilities subject to reliability constraints by the Federal Regulatory and Energy Commission to access this provision.

11

# g. Minor changes to address comments from Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse and US EPA The Department made the necessary chang es for clarity and to meet rule writing requirements.


# 7. Who will be affected by the propos ed rule? How will they be affected?

The rule provides a significant public health benefit fo r the citizens of the state. Using an EPA health benefits model, COBRA, the Department estimated, when fully implemented, the NOx RACT rule would provide about $80,000,000/year in public h ealth benefits compared to compliance costs of about $16,000,000 annually.
The proposed rule affects emission units at majo r source facilities which have applicable emission limits specified in the ru le. In the moderate nonattainment are as the affected emission units include electric utility generating units, industrial boilers , combustion turbines, glass and steel furnaces, asphalt plants, process heaters, and reciprocating engi nes. Refer to Attachment A for a summary of anticipated general control levels and range of cost-effectiveness represented by rule requirements.
The affected electric utility generating units consist primarily of 13 large coal fired boilers. The proposed rule is likely to result in significant post-combustion controls achieving 50% to 90% reduction from uncontrolled emissions for most of these units, at a cost effectiveness ranging from $1,000 to $2,200 per ton of controlled NO x 

# emissions. The rule also affects 3 coal-fired boilers which are smaller than typical electric generating units, but which are used for steam utility services. These boilers will require less intensive post-combustion c ontrols, approximately a 50% reduction, at a costeffectiveness of $2,500 per ton. All of these coal-fi red boilers are eligible to participate in multifacility trading allowing electric utilities maximu m flexibility in meeting RACT requirements.
The remaining source categories are primarily gaseous and oil-fired combustion processes. The prevalent method of control applied to these typ es of emission units is combustion modification consisting of over-fire air and low NO x 

# burners. The Department expects combustion modifications to achieve a 30% to 60% reduction at individual s ources burning gas and oil. The one exception is very large reciprocating engines, where it appears cost-effective controls may achieve an 80% - 90% reduction in emissions. The analysis of the rule id entifies that up to 25 gaseous or oil fired emission units may have to take additional action to meet proposed RACT emission limits of the rule. This results in an estimated NO x 

# reduction of 46% from a base emission level at a cost effectiveness ranging from $300 to $2,500 per ton.
The RACT rule may also affect additional emission un its in the future in two ways. First, emission units which currently operate at very low levels are currently exempt from the emission limitations. Once these units exceed a threshold utilization level they are subject to meeting the requirements. Secondly, the rule will affect any source whic h becomes a major source (PTE > 100 TPY) due to adding additional sources or modify ing existing sources for additional capacity. At that time, a source would have to review their sources for appli cability to the RACT requirements. This aspect of the rule serves to maintain emissions at RACT c ontrolled levels equitably across emission sources in the area.



# 8. What are other states doing?

12

# States near Wisconsin with 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. Illinois, Indiana and Ohio also have mode rate non-attainment areas. All of the Michigan nonattainment areas are of a lower non-attainment de signation of either "basic" or "marginal".

Illinois: The state of Illinois has proposed a statewide RACT rule for industrial boilers and other sources with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or greater. The Illinois rule affects smaller sources and implements equivalent or more stringent requirements than those in the Wisconsin rule. The Illinois proposed RACT emission limits are based on a cost-effectiveness ranging up to $2,500 per ton of NO x 

# removed. The rule proposes combusti on tuning for boilers between 50 and 100 mmbtu/hr and emission limits for units approximately equivalent to 50 mmbtu/hr across the source categories. Illinois EPA negotiated very stringe nt SO2 and NOx limitations with the utilities in Illinois that generate about 90% of the electric power in the state. The resulting emission limits for the Chicago area are more stringent than what th e Department has proposed for NOx RACT in the Milwaukee area.

Indiana: Indiana is not proceeding with NOx RACT rule development at this time.
Michigan: The state of Michigan has made no dete rmination regarding the need for developing RACT rules. A Michigan RACT rule is require d only if attainment in the basic areas cannot be demonstrated by the state's SIP submittal deadline of June 2007.

Ohio: Ohio is developing NOx RACT rules for indus trial sources in the Cleveland nonattainment area. The rule affects smaller sources and implements equivalent or more stringent requirements than the Wisconsin rule for industrial sources. The pro posed Ohio rule considers controls up to $5,000 per ton of controlled NOx. The proposal requires combustion tuning for boilers between 20 and 50 mmBtu/hr. Emission units of approximately 50 mmbt u/hr and larger across source categories must meet emission limits. 

# 9. Information on environmental analysis

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

# 10. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

There are no emission or performance requireme nts or compliance and reporting requirements proposed for small businesses and as such are not antici pated to directly affect small businesses. The proposed RACT rules are applicable to major industrial entities and electric utility facilities.
Small business may experience electricity rate impacts related to RACT requirements for the electric generation sector. The cost of controls is estimated to be less than 1-3% of current electricity rates.

13

# Attachment A.

DATE: April 4, 2007
TO: Larry Bruss

FROM: Tom Karman

SUBJECT: Technical Basis for RACT Determinations
This document provides the technical basis for proposing Reasonably Availa ble Control Technology (RACT) requirements for NO X 

# emission units in Southeastern Wisconsin. The previous version of this document has been revised to incorporate ne w information that’s been submitted or become available during the public comment process for the proposed RACT rule.
For several reasons it is necessary to perform an anal ysis of RACT requirements. In the mid-1990's, NO x 

# RACT programs were implemented by other st ates to meet requirements under 1-hour ozone non-attainment designations. However, because NO x 

# control technologies and costs have changed, we found it necessary to perform an up-to-date ev aluation of RACT. And, although other state RACT rules are an important reference the associ ated supporting evaluations may not have addressed issues specific to emission units found in Wisconsin . Other states currently developing RACT rules are following a similar process of developing up-dated RACT requirements. The basis for RACT requirements is also a necessary component of subm itting the proposed rule to EPA for approval as a SIP component.

Definition of RACT
The EPA defines RACT as "the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technol ogy that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility." (44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979.)
Evaluating RACT
According to the EPA definition, the determina tion of RACT is based on evaluating two primary criteria:

• A review of available control technologies a nd applicable emission reductions for each type of emissions unit.

• The cost-effectiveness, typically expressed in dollars per ton of controlled NO x 

# , of applying the control technologies.
We evaluated these two criteria following general approaches and methods established in EPA’s 1994 series of Alternative Control Technology (ACT) documents for NO x 

# source categories. The ACT documents were the primary reference for states in developing the 1990 vintage RACT requirements. However, we updated the information on control technology and costs based on more recent EPA information, equipment vendor information, actual installations, and information received during the public comment period. In some cases, we used a pplicable cost-effectiveness directly from reference resources utilizing the same or similar methodologies. All cost information is presented in 2000 or later dollars. We adjusted costs from historic documents based on the consumer price index.

14

# The first step in the RACT evaluation process is to identify control technologies applicable to general emission source categories. Only those control t echnologies which are found to be readily available and have already been utilized in existing applications were used in the evaluation. The general types of control technology found applicable to cont rolling NOx emissions are shown in table A1.
Table A1. General NOx Controls Applied in the RACT Evaluation. Category Technology Control Efficiency Compliance Margin Combustion Tuning 5 – 35% NA Combustion air staging: OFA, FGR 25% - 50

LNB 50 – 70% Gaseous & oil fired – 10% Solid fuel fired – 15% CT Steam/water Injection 60% - 90% 10% Combustion Modifications
Engine combustion modifications 30 – 90% 10%
SNCR 35% - 60 20% Post Combustion SCR 75% - 90% 25%
To determine potential RACT controlled emission rates we applied the control efficiencies of applicable technologies to baseline emission rates as was done in the 1994 vintage RACT determinations. These baseline emission rates for most source categories are from the ACT documents and represent a typical uncontrolled source for that source category. However, we used historic actual emission rates in the case of EGU boilers and combustion turbines as there are a limited number of individual units and their emi ssions are well quantified. The definitions of acronyms used for the control technologies can be found at the end of the memo.
Also, for emission units which already have controls in place due to current state NOx requirements, we applied additional controls to the actual or the applicable emission limit (e.g. electric and industrial boilers, reciprocating engi nes,). This is a secondary test for the feasibility and cost of additional controls in meeting the proposed limits.
Unless specifically stated for a technology, we assu med the reported control efficiencies are based on long-term averages of control technology performance. Therefore, in accounting for potential operational variability in estimating the emission limit for compliance we applied a compliance margin factor, as shown in Table A1, in propos ing the RACT emission limits. Based on published evaluations, the control variability for post combustion control can be significant and therefore the compliance margin is set higher than for combustion modifications.

To determine cost-effectiveness, we estimated the annual cost for each control technology and divided it by the amount of controlled NO x 

# emissions. The annual control cost consists of the total capital and installation costs annualized over the life of the equipment plus annual operating costs of the equipment. The cost-effectiveness is then calculated as the annualized cost divided by the calculated reduction in each case. We tested the cost-effectiveness over a range of capacity factors and emission unit sizes. This is necessary as technolog y capital cost is usually relatively higher for a small unit than for a larger unit (economies of scale) and operational cost will vary over utilization of each individual unit. For the large electric utility boilers costing is based on actual operation of the existing units. The costing analysis of utility co al-fired boilers is presented in more detail in a separate section below.

15

# The calculation of cost-effectives does not include the cost of compliance monitoring. The EPA references in discussing RACT cost-effectiveness (see discussion below) do not include the cost of compliance monitoring. This is a separate cons ideration in structuring rule requirements.
The determination of RACT is an iterative pro cess where the evaluations of technology and costeffectiveness further define sub-categories of emis sion units and applicable RACT requirements. For particular source categories the cost-effectiveness will define unit sizes a nd operational levels or capacity factors differentiating RACT requirements. We proposed the emission limits to reflect these considerations.

Cost-effectiveness Basis for RACT
For the evaluation, we assumed an upper limit of approximately $2,500 per ton of NOx controlled from uncontrolled emission rates in proposing NOx RACT emission limits. Other factors considered is where cost for additional control increase rapidly. This rate of increasing cost is evaluated versus the size and operational levels of the emission units and versus in evaluating incremental reductions for units subject to existing emission limits.
The basis for assuming $2,500 per ton considers several factors as outlined below.
In a 1994 memo, EPA indicated that RACT controls should, at a minimum, overlap the range of $160 to $1,300 per ton. The memo also states, in discussing controls for utility boilers, that controls meeting EPA's presumptive NOx RACT levels show a range in cost effectiveness of about $160 to $5,100 per ton of NOx (based on 1991$). These co st ranges are based on controls from uncontrolled emission rates. In the recent 8-hour ozone Phase II Implementation rule, EPA referenced the $160 to $1,300 range as still applicable in evaluating RACT. However there are several considerations that indicate other levels of cost-effectiveness may be more appropriate in the current determination of RACT.

• The $1,300 per ton cost-effectiveness from the 1994 is approximately $2,000 per ton in 2005 dollars using the consumer price index. The normal EPA methodology is to normalize costing to current dollars.

• The cost range referenced in EPA's 1994 memo was based on an analysis of controls available at that time. Since then, availabilit y, control efficiencies, and cost of control equipment have changed. EPA’s original eval uation referenced in the memo a cost range of $320 to $5,200 per ton for SCR installations at 80 to 90% reduction which is very similar to the cost range stated for other technologies. However, EPA did not feel that the knowledge based for SCR control was suffi cient to assume it as technically and reasonably available for RACT at that time. The installation of SCR is now common practice as referenced in current EPA documents.

• EPA in their determination of NOx controls for the NOx SIP call determined $2,000 per ton to be "highly cost-effective". This cost was based on an average of controls predicted by a modeled trading program. The actual costs for the SIP program for individual units would be higher and lower in than the average. Ther efore assuming $2,500 per ton of NOx appears to be a reasonable ceiling in estimating applicable RACT controls.

• Other existing NO x 

# RACT programs are based on higher cost-effectiveness ceilings. Staff from the Northeast Ozone Transport Commi ssion region indicates the average cost16

# 17 effectiveness for already established NO x 

# RACT programs ranged upwards to $3,500 per ton. A recent determination of RACT for the Charleston, South Carolina identified RACT reductions up to $3,500 pe r ton. And in 1990, the California Air Resources Board determined that a range of $2,000 to $10, 000 (1990$) for cost-effectiveness as the average rate for installation of NO x 

# controls.

• Current development of RACT rules are based on levels higher than the minimum rangepresented in EPA's 1994 memo. For example, the state of Illinois is using a costeffectiveness of $2,500 per ton as a guideline in proposing RACT emission limits for industrial source categories. According to st aff, Ohio is proposing RACT limits based on costs up to $5,000 per ton.

Recommended RACT Control Levels
Based on the methodology outlined above, we pr opose emission limits for emission units over specific size thresholds by fuel types to satisfy RACT requirements at major sources. And the emission limits are found cost-effective when units in a source category operate at a utilization level over 20% of the source categories capacity threshold operating at full load. The utilization threshold relates when controls are warranted versus actual emissions.
In addition, we propose that an emission unit current ly meeting one of the current state NOx emission limits (NR 428.04 and 0.05, excluding combustion optimization) be exempt from additional control in meeting the proposed RACT limits if the unit's emission potential is below 75 tons per year. This emission level identifies where additional controls would be cost-effective in meeting RACT limits based in context of parameters di scussed for this evaluation. The units above the 75 ton threshold in Southeast Wisconsin include coal-fired utility boile rs, large engines over 1000 hp and potentially residual fuel fired emission units.
The emission limits are listed in detail for each source category in Table A2 along with an assumed control technology. This does not represent the full spectrum of tec hnologies that are available in many cases to achieve the equivalent control. The results from the specific application of evaluated control technologies and assumptions for existing co al-fired boilers in Wisconsin are presented in a separate section below.
I found combustion tuning to be an integral firs t step in reducing NOx emission for all for emission units equal to or greater than 50 mmBtu/hr in fuel consumption capability. Across the source categories the costs of combustion tuning for these units is largely offset by fuel savings. Below this level, combustion tuning may also be benefici al, but there was less information for all source categories (7). However, tuning is usually an integral portion of implementing combustion controls and there is not sufficient information available to determine the extent of tuning already occurring at Wisconsin sources. Also, the implementation a pproaches required across the different types of emission sources which capture the benefit of tuning re quires further investigation. Therefore, since combustion tuning may already be occurring on a wide-spread basis and that specific requirements need further investigation there may not be sufficient basis to include in the RACT requirements at this time.Table A2. Summary of RACT Source Categories and RACT ControlsSource CategoryBaseEmissionRate (lbs/mmBtu)Control Technologyand EfficiencyControlRef.RACTEmissionLimit (lbs/mmBtu/hr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)CostRef.Comment> 1000 mmBtu/hr0.46SCR – 86%1, 2, 30.101,300 – 1,6002, 5500 - 1000 mmBtu/hr– HHR0.47LNB – 40% +OFA-25% +SNCR - 35%2, 40.171,300 – 1,4002SNCR control adjustedfor HHR.500 - 1000 mmBtu/hr– LHH0.46LNB – 40% +OFA-25% +SNCR - 40%2, 40.151,300 – 1,4002< 500 mmBtu - HHR0.47LNB – 40% +OFA-25% +SNCR - 35%2, 40.171,800 – 2,1006SNCR control adjustedfor HHR.Wall-firedboilers< 500 mmBtu - LHR0.46LNB – 40% +OFA-25% +SNCR - 40%2, 40.151,800 – 2,1006Cost is for 250 - 100mmBtu/hr boilers @50% c.f.> 1000 mmBtu/hr0.46SCR – 86%1, 2, 30.101,200 – 1,9002Tangential-fired boilers< 1000 mmBtu/hr0.46LNB – 40% +OFA-25% +SNCR - 40%2, 40.151,500 – 2,1002,6Cost is for 1000 - 100mmBtu/hr boilers @50% c.f.> 1000 mmBtu/hr0.79OFA – 50%+SCR – 89%1, 2, 30.10700 -1,2002assumed PC boiler OFAcostCyclone-fired boilers< 1000 mmBtu/hr0.86OFA – 50%+SCR – 75%1, 2, 30.151,700 – 2,1002, 5Low cost representsEdge 3 from ref. 2.High cost is derivedfrom ref. 6 for100mmBtu/hr boiler @50% c.f.Arch-firedboilersall capacity sizes0.24Tertiary Air – 20%30.181,200 – 1,5002Reported averageemission rateFluidizedbed boilersall capacity sizes0.15SNCR – 50 to 60%4,6,70.106>250 mmBtu/hr0.50OFA – 25% + SNCR –50 to 60%4,6,70.20<2,5006Stoker firedboilers< 250 mmBtu/hr0.50SNCR – 50 to 60%4,6,70.25<2,500618Table A2. Summary of RACT Source Categories and RACT Controls (continued)Source CategoryBaseEmissionRate(lbs/mmBtu)Control Technologyand EfficiencyControlRef.RACTEmissionLimit (lbs/mmBtu/hr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)CostRef.CommentGas firedboilers> 100 – 150mmBtu/hr0.22LNB/OFA/GR – 60%6, 140.08700 – 2,2006Cost range for 80% &25% C.F., respectivelyDistillateoil firedboilers> 100 mmBtu/hr0.21LNB/OFA/GR – 50%6, 140.10700 - 2,3006Cost for 100mmBtu/hr boiler @25% C.F.Residualoil firedboilers> 65 mmBtu/hr0.38LNB/OFA/GR – 50%6, 140.15700 – 2,400Cost for 50 mmBtu/hrboiler @ 25% C.F.Gas firedprocessheater> 100 mmBtu/hr0.26LNB – 60%7, 140.10<2,3006Cost for 50 mmBtu/hr@ 25% C.F.Distillateoil processheater> 75 mmBtu/hr0.32LNB/GR – 60 - 70%7, 140.12<2,5006Cost for 50 mmBtu/hr@ 25% C.F.Residualoil processheater> 50 mmBtu/hr0.54LNB/GR 60 – 80%7, 140.18< 1,5006Cost for 50 mmBtu/hr@ 25% C.F.Otherprocessheatingdevices14Same cost basis as forboilers. Operate athigh capacity factorsMetalFurnaces> 100 mmBtu/hr0.22LNB/OFA/GR – 60%60.08700 – 2,2006Assume cost for NGBoilers. Operate athigh capacity factors19Table A2. Summary of RACT Source Categories and RACT Controls (continued)Source CategoryBaseEmissionRate (gr/bhphr)ControlTechnology andEfficiencyControlRef.RACTEmissionLimit (gr/bhphr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)CostRef.CommentRich-burn16.4NSCR – 80 – 90%9, 143.0< 2,5009Cost for 500 hp unit @20% C.F.Lean-burn18.6LEC – 80 - 90%9, 143.0< 2,5009Cost for 500 hp unit @20% C.F.Distillatecompression13SCR – 80 – 90%9, 143.0< 2,5009, 7Cost for 500 hp unit @20% C.F.Dual fuelcompression10.7LEC – 80 - 90%9, 143.0< 2,5009Cost for 500 hp unit @20% C.F.ReciprocatingEngines >500 hpBiogas fired1.8NA143.0NAInherently low emittingSource CategoryBase EmissionRate (ppm @15% O2)Control Technologyand EfficiencyControlRef.RACT EmissionLimit (ppm @15% O2)CostEffectiveness($/ton)CostRef.CommentDistillate Oil200Steam/ Water Inj. –60 - 70%7, 1465< 2,5007Interpolated costeffectiveness for 25 and100 MW units @ 25%C.F.Simple CTs> 50 MWNatural Gas99 – 430DLN - 90%+7, 1425< 1,3007Cost-effectiveness for25 MW unit @ 25%CFDistillate Oil200Steam/Water Inj. –50 - 60%7, 14110< 2,1007Simple CTs25 - 50 MWNatural Gas99 – 430DLN – 80 - 90%7, 1442< 1,3007Cost-effectiveness for25 MW unit @ 25%C.F.Distillate Oil200Steam/Water Inj. -60 - 80%7, 1442< 2,5007CombinedCycle CT >10 MWNatural Gas99 – 430DLN 80- 90%7, 10< 25 MW = 42> 25 MW = 9< 2,5007Interpolated costeffectiveness for 5 and25 MW units @ 90%C.F.Biogas firedcombustionturbinesBiogas25 – 35NA10, 1435Inherently low emittingTable A2. Summary of RACT Source Categories and RACT Controls (continued)2021Source CategoryBaseEmissionRateControl Technologyand EfficiencyControlRef.RACT EmissionLimitCostEffectiveness($/ton)CostRef.CommentGlassFurnace> 50 mmBtu/hr10lbs/ton ofglassOxy-firing72.0 lbs/ ton of glass<2,5007Oxy-firing duringrebuild can pay foritself.Natural GasU.D.100.10700 – 2,2007distillate oilU.D.100.12 lbs/mmBtu< 2,3007residual oilU.D.LNB100.15 lbs/mmBtu< 1,6007- Assume same cost asboilers for NG, DO,RO.coalU.D.100.60lbs/mmBtu7Lime Kiln> 50mmBtu/hrcokeU.D.mid-kiln firing110.70 lbs/mmBtu< 1,0007-Controls based onWDNR BACT analysis.-Cost based on cementplantsNatural Gas0.26LNB – 50%100.15 lbs/mmBtu<2,3007distillate oil0.32LNB – 50%100.20 lbs/mmBtu<2,5007AsphaltPlants > 65mmBtu/hrresidual oil0.54LNB – 50%100.27 lbs/mmBtu< 1,5007assume same as processheater costs. Asphaltplants fire multiplefuelsU.D - undetermined

# 22 Evaluation of Coal-fired Boilers
Large coal-fired boilers represent more than 90% of the stationary source NO x 

# emission in Southeastern Wisconsin. These boilers include 13 very large units used for electricity generation and 3 smaller units used to generate steam for industrial processes or space conditioning.

In the RACT evaluation for these boilers, we c onsidered the following control technologies:

• Over-fire Air

• Low NOx Burners

• Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)

• Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
I evaluated these control technologies singularly and in various combinations. There are also a number of factors which affected the application and effectiveness of these technologies to the coal boilers including unit size, fuel type and firi ng configuration. The technologies and control assumptions evaluated for each type of boiler is illustrated in Table A5.
For boilers greater than 500 mmBtu/hr, we used, control costs and control effectiveness from EPA's base data used for running the Integrated Planning Mo del (1). However, this size class of boilers in Wisconsin is comprised totally of electric u tility boilers which in some case have already implemented the same or similar controls to those being evaluated. Therefore, where available, we incorporated information for cost submitted to the Public Service Commission in certificates of authorization and effective emission rates reported to the department. In cases where there is a significant difference, uncontrolled emission rates are included for both the general category and for the specific unit based on historic reported rates.
For boilers less than 500 mmBtu/hr, the application of technology is based primarily on EPA's recent compilation of control options for industrial boilers (6). Other sources were utilized as reference in applying the control information (4) (7).
Along with the average cost of control from an uncont rolled basis, we calculate d the marginal cost of control for each option. This demonstrates the relationship of combining technologies as well as testing the incremental cost for emission units with existing controls. The incremental or marginal cost of installing additional control did not appear excessive for any option where the average cost of total control was less than the $2,500 per ton ceiling.Table A5. Summary of the Evaluation of Control Technologies for Wisconsin Specific and TypicalSource Category Coal-Fired Boilers.Boiler SizeClass(mmBtu/hr)FiringConfiguration Facility UnitFiringCapacity(mmBtu/hr)MegawattsBase EmissionScenarioBaseEmissionRate (lbs/mmbtu) TechnologyControlEfficiencyAnnual Cost($M)ControlledEmissionRate (lbs/mmBtu)ControlledEmissionRate w/C.M. (1)Cost ofMeasure($/ton) (2)AverageCost ofControl($/ton) (3)> 1000 wall-fired Pleasant Prairie 16,158580AU0.46 *SCR85% 14,695,9490.070.091,6051,605> 1000 wall-fired Pleasant Prairie 26,158580AU0.46 *SCR85% 12,710,6970.070.091,3641,364> 1000 arch-fired South Oak Creek 52,298258AU0.24 *Tertiary Air25% 525,0760.180.181,1061,106AU + tertiary air 0.18 SCR61% 4,689,0400.070.095,3863,876> 1000 arch-fired South Oak Creek 62,283260AU0.23 Tertiary Air20% 531,5280.180.181,5021,502AU + tertiary air 0.18 SCR61% 4,772,8270.070.095,5173,464> 1000 tangential Edgewater54,366380AU0.22 LNC340% 929,7530.130.13749749AU + LNC3 0.13 SNCR35% 3,248,7960.080.105,0022,209AU + LNC3 0.13 SCR46% 7,279,5670.070.092,7652,833CU0.46 SCR85% 7,279,5670.070.091,5001,913> 1000 tangential South Oak Creek 7 / 8 2,608280AU0.39 *LNC264% 912,7490.140.14327327AU0.39 SCR82% 5,381,2130.070.091,5061,506AU + LNC2 0.14 SNCR35% 2,420,5710.090.114,411999CU0.46 SCR85% 5,381,2130.070.091,2321,232> 1000 cycloneEdgewater43,529330AU0.79 *OFA + SB67% 2,533,8480.260.26461461AU0.79 SCR90% 6,102,7900.080.10827671AU + OFA + SB 0.26 SCR73% 6,102,7900.070.093,0951,156500 - 1000 wall-fired (HHR) Valley1 - 484664AU0.47 *LNB23% 283,7050.36 0.36 1,1691,169AU0.47 LNB + upgrade 40% 317,4900.280.32782782AU + LNB w/ upgrade 0.28 OFA26% 113,8160.210.24748773AU + LNB w/ upgrade 0.28 SNCR36% 576,7630.180.222,5501,379AU + LNB w/ upgrade 0.28 OFA + SNCR 52% 690,5790.130.162,2131,404500 - 1000 cycloneEdgewater384460AU0.79 *OFA / SB62% 1,044,3560.300.30834834AU + OFA 0.30 SNCR40% 878,1330.180.222,8411,232AU + OFA 0.30 SCR75% 2,061,858.810.080.093,5581,696CU0.86 OFA50% 1,044,355.590.430.49943943CU + OFA 0.43 SNCR40% 662,400.000.260.311,9822,308CU + OFA 0.43 SCR75% 2,061,858.810.110.132,4821,603< 250 mmBtu/hstokerMilwaukee County 1 - 3140AU + OFA 0.45 SNCR - Urea 60% see note (4)0.180.222,3842,384CU0.53 SNCR - Urea 60% see note (4)0.210.252,3842,384Control Technology EvaluationsBase Emission Scenario – This is the emission basis for applying control technologies. AU = actualuncontrolled emissions of the unit based on historic data. CU = a typicaluncontrolled emission rate for emission units in that source category.Technology definitions – OFA = overfire air,LNB = low NOx burners, LNC = low NOx burners with coupled overfire air, SB = smartburn (patented optimization process),SNCR = selective non-catalytic reduction,SCR = selective catalytic reduction* These are existing controls with demonstrated control efficiency and emission rates.The shaded areas illustrate a technology that was not considered to be cost-effective for the RACT determination.23241) C.M. is the compliance margin account for variability of controls in meeting an emission limit. The emission rate with CMis the actual demonstrated emission rate. For addedcontrols the assumed CM is: 15% for combustion controls, 20% for SNCR, 25% for SCR.2) This represents the cost-effectiveness of the measure incremental to the base emission scenario controls.3) This represents the cost-effectiveness of all measures included in the base emission scenario and the additionally applied measure versus the actual or categorical uncontrolledemission rate.4) The cost-effectiveness of the measure isthat estimated by EPA fora coal fired boiler operating at 50% capacity converted to 2004$ (6)

# 25 Impact to Wisconsin Sources
The impact of the proposed RACT requirements in Southeast Wisconsin is summarized by general levels of control effort in Table A3 and by specific source category in Table A4.
The affected sources are identified and impacts calculated based on existing emission limitations in 2005 applied to historic operating levels or the un it's 2002 air emissions. We calculated the emission reductions by applying the proposed RACT emission limit or representative control efficiency. For asphalt plants, reciprocating engines, process heat er, and metal furnaces, source categories units are screened by comparing reported emissions to the potential emissions of an uncontrolled source.
The RACT emission limitations represent a 30% to 90% reduction (from uncontrolled emission rates) with an estimated cost-effectiveness ranging from $5 00 to $2,500 per ton of reduction. The emission limitations represent an estimated reduction of ap proximately 14,919 tons per year of from the estimated base NOx emission levels.
Table A3. Proposed RACT Control Levels, Co st Effectiveness, and Estimated Wisconsin Source Reductions.

Control Categories (1) Base NO x 

# Emissions (tons/year) (2) Reduction from uncontrolled emission rates (3) EstimatedRACT CostEffectiveness

($/ton) (4) Estimated NOx Reduction w/ RACT Limits

(tons/year)

EGU coal fired boilers (5) 26,864 tpy (13 units) 50 - 90% Comb. Mods, SNCR, SCR 1,000 – 2,200 14,277 tpy (47% reduction)

Coal fired boilers < 500 mmBtu/hr 277 tpy (3 units) 50% Comb. Mods, SNCR 2,000 – 2,500 138 tpy (50% reduction)
Gas and oil fired source categories (gas and oil fired) b 

# 1,138 tpy (60/25 units) (5) 

# 30 - 90% Comb. Mods. / NSCR 300 – 2,500 504tpy (44% reduction)

Total 28,279 tpy (41 units) 300 - 2500 14,919 (53%)

1) Solid fuel boilers greater than 500 mmBtu/hr are large electric utility coal-fired boilers. Solid fuel boilers smaller than 500 mmBtu/hr include smaller electr ic utility and industria l sized solid fuel boi lers. “Other Source Categories” include gas and oil boilers, combustion turbines , furnaces, asphalt plants, lime kilns, reciprocating engines, and heating processes. 2) EGU coal boiler emissions represent 2005 ozone season emission rates multiplied by an average of the highest 3 years of heat input for each unit between 2000 and 2004. Coal boiler < 500 mmBtu/hr and gas and oil fired source category emissions are based on 2002 primary combusted fuels, ozone season utilization levels, and emissions adjusted for NR 428 emission limits which be came effective in 2003. 3) Percent reductions are from an uncontrolled basis. Combustion modifications = overfire air and low NO x 

## burners. SCR = Selective catalytic reduction. SNCR = Select ive non-catalytic reduction. 4) The presented cost-effectiveness represents the calculated “average” cost of reduction from an uncontrolled or initial emissions level as defined for each source category. 5) 60 units equals total number in source categories / 26 units equals number of units expect ed to subject to emission limits and require additional control. Note: The estimate of affected units and emissions is based on emission units estimated to be in a RACT source category. The actual number of affected units in the "Others Source Cate gories" is expected to be lower due to units being at facilities with a PTE < 100 TPY or bein g classified as low operating units.26Table A4.Estimated Impact of RACT applied to Wisconsin Sources.No. of UnitsEst. NOxEmissions(tons) (2)EmissionIntensity(tons/unit)No. of unitsaddingcontrolsunder RACT(3)Est. NOxreductionfrom Baseemissions(tons)Percentreductionfrom BaseemissionsRACT ControlTechnologiesEstimated ControlCost fromUncontrolled Levels($/ton) 2004$Source Categories subject to Emission Limits:Solid Fuel Boilers > 1000 mmbtu/hr 822,685 2,8368 12,35454% SCR, CM + SNCR1,000 - 2,200Solid Fuel Boilers > 500 mmbtu/hr 54,1798365 1,92346% C.M. + SNCR1,000 - 2,000Solid Fuel Boilers > 250 mmbtu/hr 0C.M. + SNCRSolid Fuel Boilers < 250 mmbtu/hr 3277923138 50% C.M. + SNCR2,200 - 2,500Gaseous and Oil Boilers16131800 0% LNB, LNB + GR800 - 2,500EGU Combustion Turbines926229474 28% DLNB, S.I.+ W.I. 2000 - 2500Industrial Combustion Turbines67513263 84% DLNB1,500 - 2,500Lime Kilns0C.M.1,500 - 2,000Glass Furnaces (4)2974900 0% Oxy-Fire< 2,500 (a)Furnaces513527581 60% LNB500 - 1,500Asphalt Plants (5)765900 0% LNB800 - 2,500Process Heating310736364 60% LNB800 - 2,500Reciprocating Engines122662211222 83% LEC, NSCR,SCR< 2,000Total for Units Affected byEmission L:imits76 28,27941 14,919 53%Notes:1) No. of units reflect total number of units in the identified RACT source category regardless of major source status and notconsidering exemptions.2) EGU coal boiler emissions represent emission rates in 2005 in meeting current NR 428 requirements and an average heat input.Industrial emissions represent2002 emissions adjust according to NR 428 emission limitations effective in 2005.3) Emission units which are not expected to meet exemptions which do not already controled to the RACT emission limit level.4) Glass Furnaces emitted over 700 tons per year prior to 2001. However, St. Gobain converted to oxy-fire to upgrade furnacesand reduce fuel cost by 2005. The RACT limit isconsistent with oxy-fire operation.5) The owners and operators of most asphalt plants are entering into a general permit which restricts the facility PTE to lessthan 25 TPY.a) Oxy-firing is a significant rebuilding which extends plantlife. Cost attributable to NOx reduction < 2,000. (7)Sources in RACT Category (1)Impact of RACT RequirementsProposed RACT ControlRACT Source Category

# Attachment C
Summary of Public Comment s and Department Responses

The Natural Resource Board approved the draft RACT rule for public hearing and comments at its January, 2007 Board meeting. A public hearing w as on March 15, 2007 in Milwaukee. Twelve people attended the hearing. WE Energies, Alliant En ergy, and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, testified opposing major portions of the rule. Sierra Cl ub/Clean Wisconsin testified in support of the rule, but suggested changes to strengthen the emission limit s in the rule. Additionally, written public comments were accepted through March 19 th 

# , 2007. The Department received 14 sets of written comments. This document summarizes the public comments and th e Department’s responses to comments.

1. Implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule Satisfies the NOx RACT Requirement. Comments: WMC, WE Energies, and Alliant indicated that impl ementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rules for EGUs was enough to satisfy the NOx RACT re quirement. The commentors quoted several EPA documents making a similar statement.
Response: The Department disagrees with this position for the following reasons.

• The NOx RACT requirement and the CAIR program are developed to address 2 distinct provisions of the Clean Air Act. NOx RACT is a direct re quirement of the §§ 172(c) and 182(b)(1)(A) and (2) and (f) of the Act [42 USC 7502(c) and 7511a(b)(1)(A ) and (2) and (f)] which require that major sources of NOx (and VOCs) in ozone nonattainment areas be subject to emission limits that represent Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) . CAIR is an EPA program developed by federal rule to assist states in meeting the SIP requirements of § 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act [42 USC 7410(a)(2)(D)]. That provision requires a state SIP to include provisions prohibiting emission sources in the state from interfering with another st ate’s ability to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards.

• EPA issued its conclusion that CAIR=RACT for el ectric generating units (EGUs), as part of EPA guidance for implementation of the 8-hour ozone stan dard (“Phase 2” of the Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality St andard) in November 2005 (70 Federal Register 61611, November 29, 2005). EPA subsequently requested additional public comment of its CAIR=RACT conclusion in December, 2006 (71 Fe deral Register 75902, December 19, 2006). EPA has not yet responded to the additional public comments on its conclusion that CAIR=RACT for EGUs.

• EPA’s Phase 2 guidance allows, but does not require, states to conclude those EGUs subject to and complying with CAIR meet NOx RACT requirements for EGUs.

• EPA’s conclusion that CAIR=RACT for EGUs is base d on EPA’s analysis that the application of the CAIR NOx budget in the 28-state region in the eastern part of the country will result in more emission reductions in that region than the reductions accomplished by applying NOx RACT to those EGUs located just in the nonatta inment areas in the same region.

• The CAIR rules are based on establishing a NOx emissions budget for each state calculated by allocating NOx emission allowances for EGUs within the state. The focus of the CAIR rules is a regional cap and trade program which allows an E GU to meet its CAIR emissions cap by installing controls or by purchasing allowances from another EGU w ithin the 28-state region that has over complies with its emissions cap. Under the CAIR program, there is no assurance that a specific

27

# EGU will install NOx controls to comply with its emissions cap. Instead, an EGU could achieve compliance with CAIR through the purchase of allowances from an over complying EGU.

• EPA’s guidance does not address the issue of how its conclusion that CAIR=RACT for EGUs complies with (or overrides) the specific Clean Air Act requirement that a state’s SIP require NOx RACT emission limits for all major sources within an ozone nonattainment area. Federal courts have repeatedly held that EPA’s guidance ca nnot override a specific CAA requirement. For example, on December 22, 2006, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s April 2004 rule (“Final Phase 1 Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard”) because of the Court’s finding that provisions of th e rule were contrary to the anti-backsliding provision (§ 172(e)) [42 USC 7502(e)]of the Clean Air Act. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

• Because EPA’s conclusion that CAIR=RACT for EGUs is not consistent with a specific Clean Air Act requirement (i.e., that all major sources of NOx emissions in an ozone nonattainment area are subject to NOx RACT), a state’s reliance on EPA’s conclusion could subject the state’s SIP to a legal challenge. For these reasons, the Department has included NOx RACT emission limits for all major NOx sources, including EGUs, in the ozone nonattainment areas in the proposed rule, in co mpliance with the Clean Air Act requirements for ozone SIPs. In addition, the Department has included a specific provision in the proposed NOx RACT rule which allows an EGU to demonstrate that the emission reductions that the EGU achieves in complying with the CAIR require ments constitute compliance with the NOx RACT emission limitation requirements of the proposed rule.
Specifically, section NR 428.26(2) of the proposed rule provides:
“CAIR EMISSIONS UNITS. The owner or operator of an emission unit which is subject to the emission reduction requirements of the clean air interstate rule (CAIR) under 40 CFR part 97 may demonstrate that the NOX emission reductions achieve d by the emissions unit in complying with the CAIR requirements constitute compliance with th e NOx RACT emission limitation requirements of this subchapter.”
This provision balances the specific requirement of the Clean Air Act to set NOx RACT emission limits for all major NOx sources in an ozone nonattainment area with the recognition that individual EGUs may meet both their CAIR requirements and their NOx RACT requirements through the installation of NOx emission controls which are designed and operate d to meet both regulatory requirements. This provision contrasts with the opportunity provided by EPA guidance that allows states to rely on EPA’s “generic” finding that CAIR=RACT for EGUs, an opti on which is in direct contradiction of the Clean Air Act requirement that NOx RACT be applied to all major sources in an ozone nonattainment area..

2. Cost for RACT Controls. Comments: Alliant, WIEG, WMC commented that DNR’s $2,500/to n upper limit for RACT controls was too high. The commentors cite a 1994 EPA document that th ey claim establishes a $1,300/ton limit on the application of NOx RACT. They cite additional do cumentation included in EPA guidance, including the Phase 2 Implementation plan for the 8-hour ozone sta ndard and the NOx SIP Call. WMC further claims that the DNR’s application of the consumer price inde x to adjust to current year dollars is inaccurate. WMC claims that calculation of the maximum contro l costs should be based on the incremental costs and not calculated from an uncontrolled level.
ANR Pipeline indicates, “The costs and stringency asso ciated with compliance approaches that may be appropriate for electric generating units (EGUs ) are not appropriate for smaller industrial facilities...[B]ased on ANR’s e xperience, requirements related to i ssues such as applicability thresholds,

28

# emission limits, and compliance monitoring and testin g are more stringent and costly for the Proposed Rule than typical NOx RACT rules or EPA’s NOx SIP Call.” ANR also indicates that the control costs are underestimated.
Clean Wisconsin and Sierra Club commented that the $2, 500/ton limit is too low. They cite data from other states where RACT was established in other states including the Ozone Transport Commission, South Carolina and California. In these states NOx control was found reasonable in ranges at $3,500/ton to as much as $10,000 in California.
Response: DNR reviewed the comments and affirms its original an alysis and determination that an upper limit of RACT should be calculated from a le vel of $2,500/ton based on reductions from an uncontrolled level. The basis for EPA’s 1994 document is even older docu ments that are quite dated. The technology of NOx control and costs has change considerably since then. DNR believes that the strongest argument for establishing a $2,500/ton limit is EPA’s NOx SIP Call. Quoting from EPA’s NOx SIP Call rule: “The NOx controls for this rulemaking were cons idered highly cost effective for the purposes of reducing ozone transport to the extent they achieve the greatest feasible emissions reduction but still cost no more than $2,000 per ton of ozone season NOx emi ssions removed (in 1990 dollars), on average, for each subcategory.” DNR believes that if EPA determin ed that $2,000/ton was highly cost effective that DNR could reasonably determine that $2,500/ton meets the reasonable test for NOx RACT in Wisconsin.

3. Intra-Facility and Multi-Facility Averaging. Comments: Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin object to inclusio n of multi-facility averaging. They cite EPA’s definition of RACT as “the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by application of control technology that is reasonabl y available...” Additionally they cite environmental justice concerns if RACT level of controls are not applied at WE Energies Valley Plant in downtown Milwaukee.
Although not specifically addressed in Alliant’s or WE Energies’ comments, it was apparent to DNR staff during initial rule development that multi-facility averaging is a critical compliance component for electric generating units in the rule.
Response: Multi-facility averaging is a compliance option in the ru le. In order to take advantage of the compliance option sources must obtain an additional 10% emission reduction beyond the source specific requirements. EPA’s guidance document, Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, provides the basis for application of an economic incentive program as the justification for the 10% additional emission reduction needed to implement an economic incentive program. Additionally, ozone is a regional pollutant. The produc tion of ozone resulting from NOx emi ssions at power plants occurs far downwind from the source of NOx. The DNR is con cerned about environmental justice, but in this case, people living in the vicinity of the smoke stacks are not exposed to higher concentrations of ozone than people living at greater distances.

4. Application of a Compliance Margin to Calculate RACT Emission Limits. Comment: Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin argue that there is no need for a compliance ma rgin in the rule, since they feel a compliance margin is already built in to the proposed emission limits and the multi-facility averaging provides an additional compliance margin.

29

# Response: A compliance margin accommodates unforeseen circumst ances such as control equipment that does not operate as efficiently as planned. Therefore, the De partment affirms that inclusion of the compliance margin is appropriate in determining a RACT emission limit.

5. Definition of RACT Existing, NR428 meets RACT Comment: WMC argues that the existing NR428 meets the NOx RACT requirement. Response: The Department disagrees with WMC’s conclusion. Existing NR428 was created to meet rate of progress requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. In the 1-hour attainment demonstration, the Department determined that additional emission reduc tions, enough to accelerate attainment by at least one ozone season, were not economically feasible. To accelerate attainment, a very large amount of NOx emissions would need to be reduced over a short tim e. Given the limited number of opportunities for cheap, fast emission reductions in the Milwaukee ar ea, Department staff found accelerating attainment infeasible when they developed the attainme nt demonstration for the 1-hour standard.

6. Combustion Tuning Comments: Clean Wisconsin supports the inclusion of combusti on tuning in the rule, citing energy efficiency and cost effectiveness concerns.
Alliant, ANR Pipeline, Engine Manufacturers Association, WE Energies, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Wisconsin Paper Council, and WMC cite numerous problems with the combustion tuning requirements. These commentors indicate, due to fuel prices, most sources already tune their boilers and therefore the requirement is unnecessary. These commentors also cite the modest emission reductions, stack testing and reporting requirements as problematic . ANR Pipeline indicated that combustion tuning should be eliminated for IC engines and turbines.

EPA indicated that alternative methods for combusti on tuning that are approved by the Department must also be approved by EPA.
Response: The Department proposes to drop combustion tuni ng from the NOx RACT rule. This provision wouldn’t have accounted for very large emission redu ctions because it would have applied to smaller sources and some of the reductions will be achie ved through voluntary combustion tuning.
The Department may consider combustion tuning in fu ture air quality related initiatives such as PM2.5 or ozone attainment demonstrations , reasonable progress for haze or climate change proposals. In these new initiatives, DNR will work with industrial repr esentatives to address their concerns and streamline testing and reporting requirements.

7. Emission Limits for EGUs Comments: Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin indicate that the 2009 emission limits for power plants are too lenient. David Bender provided data for power plants in Ke ntucky and Texas showing that a continuous NOx emission limit at 0.04 lbs/mmBtu is not unreasonable.
Response: DNR developed 2009 emission limits for power plants considering the time frame needed to permit and install operating equipment by 2009. Given that there are only two years before the May 1, 2009

30

# compliance data, it is simply not possible to acquire funding, permit and install major pieces of control equipment such as SCR. Additionally, DNR devel oped emission limits capped at $2,500/ton. While it is true that NOx emission limits in the 0.04 lb s/mmBtu range can be achieved for various control equipment configurations, those control confi gurations are more costly than $2,500/ton.

8. Emission Unit Exemptions Comments: EPA indicates that any exemptions must be for sour ces where application of RACT is technologically or economically unreasonable. EPA goes on to indicate that the once in always in policy applies for sources that are required to install RACT controls. EPA also suggests language changes to clarify sources exempted due to federally enforceable limits.
James McCarthy, suggests creating a cut-off for comb ustion turbines, below which the sources would be exempt. WMC suggests increasing the exemption for lo w capacity units during the ozone season. Solar Turbine suggests exempting com bustion turbines less than 25 MW
Response : The Department modified the proposed exemptions to define emergency, auxiliary, and backup units which would normally qualify under the low operating un it exception. In addition, the Department has revised the capacity factor used in calculating the utilization threshol d to 20% for all source categories, increased the threshold to 75 tons per year in the revised rule, and created an exemption size threshold for simple cycle turbines at 25 MW.

9. In Attainment – No RACT Is Justified. Comment: WMC argues that RACT is not justified, since the area has already or will attain the 8-hour ozone standard in the near future.
Response: Any regulatory requirement that should have been on the books at the time a re-designation request is submitted must still be adopted for the re-designation request to be complete. The NOx RACT submittal was due to EPA in September 2006. As such it is a past due requirement of the nonattainment areas and is necessary for EPA to consider approving our red esignation requests that will be submitted later this year. Notwithstanding the need to submit NOx RACT rules to support the redesignation requests, there are other reasons to develop and submit NOx RACT rules.

a. Sheboygan County remains in nonattainment stat us. A statistical analysis prepared by the DNR indicates that Sheboygan County has less than a 10% chance of attaining the 8- hour ozone standard after the 2007 ozone season. b. EPA promulgated a new fine-particle standard in October 2006. Monitoring data from the most recent three years indicates that th e Milwaukee/Waukesha area is violating that new fine-particle standard. NOx RACT will be a necessary part of any attainment plan for the fine-particles in Milwa ukee/Waukesha nonattainment area.

c. EPA is in the process of promulgating a ne w ozone standard. They are under court order to finalize the standard by March 2008. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), EPA’s advisory group on air quality standards indicates, “There is no scientific justification for retaining th e current primary 8-hr NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), and ... Therefore, the CASAC unanimously recommends a range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm for the primary ozone NAAQS .” If the standard is revised as CASAC recommends, it is very likely that the Milwaukee area will once again violate the ozone standard. RACT will once again be a requirement. Since there is a significant

31

# public health benefit to the NOx RACT rules, it is prudent to continue with RACT rules now instead of waiting for requirements from implementing a new standard. d. NOx RACT rules will provide a significant public health benefit. Based on EPA’s COBRA benefits model, the costs savings in public health benefit will be approximately $80,000,000/year, or about twice the cost of compliance.

10. Temporary Waivers for Outages Comment: Alliant suggested adding temporary waivers from emission limits to accommodate outages. Response: The Department believes that there is a need for a waiver for unforeseen circumstances that affect the reliability of the electric grid. That need for unforeseen circumstances is adequate ly covered in the rule. The Department does not agree that there is a need to provide such a waiver for planned outages.

11. Competitive Disadvantage Comment: WMC indicates that application of RACT in the Wi sconsin’s non-attainment area will put Wisconsin sources at a competitive disadvantage. Response: Application of RACT is required by federal law. Further, for example, the Chicago 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is immediately adjacent to the Milw aukee nonattainment. Illinois is in the process of developing NOx RACT rules as well. Illinois curre nt proposal includes a statewide NOx RACT with emission limits commensurate with those in Wiscons in’s proposed rule. Additionally, Illinois has negotiated multi-pollutant agreements with their majo r power producers, representing about 90% of the generating capacity in the state. Those emission limi ts are more stringent than the ones proposed in our rule. Therefore, application of NOx RACT in Wisconsin does not appear to put our sources at a competitive disadvantage, at least, with a state that shares a border and has similar air quality circumstances to our own.

12. Compliance Schedule, Move Phase 2 Limits to 2015 Comment: WIEG commented that the second phase of the RACT compliance should be moved to 2015 to make it consistent with the second phase of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Response: The compliance date for RACT is May 1, 2009, but th e Department is allowing a later final compliance date, May 1, 2013, for electric utilities to come into compliance. Because the Department believes that final compliance for large installations at power plan ts cannot occur within two years, the Department proposed the 2013 date in the public hearing draft. EPA must approve our SIP. From discussions with that agency, we do not believe that a later complia nce date would be allowed under federal regulations and guidance. In addition, the Department did not re ceive any data to support the extension of the final compliance date to beyond 2013. Therefore, extending the compliance date beyond 2013 is not justified.

13. RACT Limit for Combustion Turbines Comments: Solar Turbine suggests: Breaking the combustion turbine category into subcategories; smaller combustion turbines cannot meet the emission limits without expensive add-on controls; simple-cycle gas turbines could not meet a 9 ppm limit for retrofitted equipment and recommended specific emission limits for these turbines; different limits for liquid-fired turbines; other parameters to determine compliance.

32

# Waste Management suggested that contaminants in land-fill gas can render SCR and SNCR ineffective. Additionally, the requirements for combustion turb ines make the beneficial use of land-fill gas uneconomical. Waste Management argues that ther e is a net reduction of using land-fill gas in combustion turbines versus flaring the gas.
Response: In response to comments, the Department created an exemption size threshold for simple cycle turbines at 25 MW. The Department also adjusted emissi on limits for all combustion turbine categories to reflect available low NOx combustion techniques without the use of post-combustion control.

14. Definition of Wall-Fired Boiler with Maximum Heat Rate between 500 to1000 mmBtu/hr. Comments: WE Energies suggested that DNR change the language in the rule that describes wall-fired boilers in the 500 to1000 mmBtu/hr range to language that reflects i ndustry standards for such boilers. The issue is large heat release for some wall-fired boilers co mpared to the physical size of the boiler.
Response: DNR agrees with the comment and has made the suggested change.

15. Green Tier Comment: EPA indicates that inclusion of the Green Tier program as a compliance strategy will necessitate submitting the Green Tier program as part of Wiscons in’s federal enforceable state implementation plan (SIP).
Response: While the Department strongly supports the goals of the Green Tier program, we believe that the Green Tier program being a federally enforceable pa rt of the SIP would delay promulgation of this rule and might be counter to the Green Tier program goals. Therefore, we’ve dropped the proposed Green Tier language in this rule that was only a general reference to the program anyway. The Department will continue to search for ways to take advantage of the Green Tier program to achieve superior environmental goals.

16. Alternative Monitoring Strategies Comment: EPA indicates that any alternative monitoring strate gy approved by the Department must also be approved by EPA.
Response: DNR has made the change to insure EPA approval.

17. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Comment: EPA indicates that the Department’s rule should cl arify how records are to be kept. ANR Pipeline objected to CEMs for turbines and periodic tes ting for IC engines. The Engine Manufacturers Association indicates that IC engines almost always opera te at full load so, only testing at 100% load is necessary. Waste Management indicates that periodic testing for IC engines burning land-fill gas is not cost effective.
Response:

33

# The Department revised the rule to streamline monitoring requirements without compromising the compliance demonstration. The public hearing draf t rule allowed an alternative EPA monitoring method with written approval of the departme nt. The revised rule will allow this alternative without approval for specific source categories. Other miscellaneous m odifications have been made based on comments to address consistency in test method standards and for cer tain source categories and to clarify portions of the rule.

18. Alternative Compliance Methods Comment: EPA indicates that averaging times longer than 30 days rolling averages need to meet requirements of a 1993 guidance memo, “Fuel Switching to Meet the Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Nitrogen Oxides.” Response: After subsequent discussions, EPA concluded that the compliance averaging times in the public hearing draft of the rule were approvable.

19. Electric Reliability Waiver Comment: EPA states that the rule should be clarified so that it is clear the intent is not to delay the May 1, 2009 compliance date. EPA indicates that this type of en forcement discretion has been used in the past, for instance, to allow non-spec gasolin e after a refinery explosion. Response: DNR revised the rule to add EPA’s approval as well as the Department’s approval for the waiver.

20. No Environmental Benefit for Controlling Small IC Engines and Turbines Comment: ANR Pipeline indicates that there is no environmenta l benefit for controlling small units and that the minimum size threshold for internal combusti on engines and for combustion turbines should be increased. Response: The Department raised exemption threshold for aff ected engines from 250 to 500 hp. Additionally, the Department revised emission limits for natu ral gas fired engines to 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.

21. Control Technology for Gas Transmission Sources Comments: ANR Pipeline indicate that natural gas transmission stations are designed with excess capacity that results in low utilization, so emission reductions are costly compared to the actual amount of reduction. ANR further comments that the proposed rule is not consistent with recent EPA action and that DNR inappropriately identified control technology for rich-burn IC engines. Response: The Department included natural gas transmission stations among the source types eligible for the reliability waiver. The Department does not agree th at including this category is inappropriate.

22. Waiver for Natural Gas Transmission Stations from RACT Controls Comment: ANR Pipeline indicates that natural gas transmissi on stations should get a waiver from NOx RACT controls.
Response: No such waiver is allowed under the federal Clean Air Act.

34

# 23. Emission Limits for Lean-Burn IC Engines Comment: The Engine Manufacturers Association commented that the emission factor and cost analysis for leanburn IC engines was inaccurate and needs to be revised.
Response: In response to this comment, the Department raised the exemption threshold for affected engines to 500 hp. Additionally, the Department revised emission limits for natural gas fired engines to 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.



# III. Green Sheet Memo to DNR Board of RACT Rule Germane Modification

DATE: May 16, 2007

TO: Members of the Natural Resources Board
FROM: Scott Hassett, Secretary

SUBJECT: Order AM-17-05, Adoption of germane modi fications to the NOx RACT rules in Chap. NR 428 pursuant to s. 227.19(4)(b)3., Stats.

In April of 2007 the Board adopted RACT rules under Board Order AM-17-05 for control of NO x 

# from major sources in the ozone non-attainment area. Af ter further review the Department recommends two germane modifications to the adopted rule. Neith er modification will significantly affect emission reductions achieved by the rule. The specific modifications are:

• An exemption for certain newer reciprocating engines that are manufactured and certified to meet EPA emission standards for newly manufactured engines. The recommended modification is proposed in Attachment A.

• A restructuring of the "Other Regulated Unit" provision which establishes an exemption from RACT requirements for well-controlled emissions units . The modification is for clarity to eliminate criteria which are not pertinent to a unit's qua lification for the exemption. The recommended modification is proposed in Attachment B.
The changes would be transmitted to the standing comm ittees of the Legislature as "germane modifications" pursuant to s. 227.19(4)(b)3., Stats. A "clean copy" version with incorporated germane modifications is provided in Attachment C.

I. Analysis of reciprocating engine requirements.
Stakeholder testimony during adoption highlighted concerns that the NO x 

# RACT rules unduly regulate newly manufactured reciprocating engines meeting Federal Ti er emission standards. The EPA Tier 1 emission standards came into effect by year 2000 (phased in from 1996 to 2000) for all of the engine classes falling

35

# under RACT source categories. More stringent standard s, Tier 2, 3, 4, etc..., are being phased in through 2015 on an ongoing basis for newly manufactured engines. These federal standards do not apply to previously installed or manufactured engines unless the engines undergo a major modification.
After further review the department has concluded that further regulation of most of the recently manufactured engines under the RACT rule is unnecessary. A comparison of Tier emission standards and the RACT emission limits is provided in Table 1. Th e Department has concluded that for certain of these engine classes and sizes, the incremental control (if any) necessary in meeting the RACT limit is beyond the cost levels considered in establishing the applicable limits of this rule. The adopted RACT rule allows exemption of existing well controlled units in other source categories under the provision in s. NR 428.21(3) "Other Regulated Units". However, due to the current rule structure, the Tier certified engines do not currently qualify for the exemption.
For these reasons the Department recommends creating a specific exemption in the rule for certain EPA certified engines. This action is cons istent with the intent of providing an exemption under s. NR 428.21(3) "Other Regulated Units" for well-controlled units. This change will result in no significant increased emissions. This modification will streamline impl ementation and compliance requirements for both the sources and the Department Requested modifications to Board Order AM-17-05 related to exempting EPA certified engines are shown in Attachment A.
Table 1. Comparision of RACT and EPA Tier Requirements for Compression Ignition Engines Regulation Effective Date Engine Size Emission Limit (grams/bhp-hr) Comment
Adopted RACT limit for existing and new engines 2009 => 500 hp 3.0 NOx

Federal Standards for newly manufactured engines: Tier 1 1996-2000 by class* => 500 hp 6.9 NOx + NMHC Incr. control to meet RACT is cost-effective => 2000 hp Tier 2 2001-2006 by class* => 500 hp 4.8 NOx + NMHC Incr. control is not costeffective Tier 3 2006 => 500 hp 3.0 NOx + NMHC Meets RACT limit
Tier 4 2009 – 2011 => 500 hp 0.3 – 2.6 NOx Meets RACT limit



# II. Clarification of the Provision in Section NR 428.21(3) "Other Regulated Units".
The adopted rule contains a provision, s. NR 428.21( 3) "Other Regulated Units", to exempt units from RACT requirements which are already well-controlled. The exemption qualifications are that the emissions unit must be subject to a current s. NR 428 requirem ent and the unit is subject to federally enforceable provisions which limit the unit’s emissions to less than 75 tons per year.

Stakeholder discussions have demonstrated that the cu rrent language of this pr ovision is confusing and problematic to the stakeholders. After additional re view, the Department has c oncluded that the language should be clarified to accomplish its intent. Therefor e, the Department recommends modifying the current provision of s. NR 428.21(3) "Other Regulated Un its" to restructure the subsection. The requested

36

# modification does not change the original intent of th is subsection. The modification to Board Order AM17-05 related to NR 428.21(3) is shown in Attachment B.

37

# Attachment A Modifications Related to the Exemption of
Certain Reciprocating Engines Meeting Federal Emission Standards.

NR 428.21(intro.) is amended to read:
NR 428.21(intro.) Emissions unit exceptions. The emissions units described in subs. (1), (2) and

(3 ) this section are exempt from the emission limitation requirements of s. NR 428.22, but shall comply with
applicable record keeping requirements under s. NR 428.24. Once an emissions unit no longer qualifies for
an exemption, the owner or operator of the emissions unit shall comply with the requirements of s. NR
428.22 by December 31 of the following calendar year, unl ess an alternate date is approved in writing by the
department and the administrator.

NR 428.21(2m) is created to read:
NR 428.21(2m) RECIPROCATING ENGINES. Any recipr ocating engine that is certified to meet
the applicable federal non-road engine emission standa rds specified in this subsection is exempt from the
emission limitations of s. NR 428.22(1)(i):
(a) A reciprocating compression ignition engine th at is certified as meeting Tier 1 requirements as
specified in 40 CFR part 89, if one of the following applies:
1. The engine has a maximum design power output of less than 2,000 horsepower.
2. The engine has a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 2,000 horsepower and
has a total utilization during each ozone season of less than 1.5 million horsepower-hours, based on actual
measured output.
(b) A reciprocating compression ignition engine that is certified as meeting the Tier 2 standard, as
specified in 40 CFR part 89, or a reciprocating compr ession ignition engine that is certified as meeting the
requirements of a more stringent Tier standard, as specified in 40 CFR part 89 or 1039.

38

# (c) A reciprocating spark ignition engine that is certified as meeting the Tier 1 standard or a
reciprocating spark ignition engine that is certified as meeting a more stringent Tier standard, as specified in
40 CFR part 1048.

NR 428.24(2m) is created to read:
NR 428.24(2m) RECIPROCATING ENGINES. The ow ner or operator of an emissions unit
claiming exemption under s. NR 428.21(2m)(a)2., shall maintain a record of horsepower-hours of operation
for each ozone season. Measurement of horsepower-hour s may be determined using recorded data which
can be directly related to actual horsepower-hours of operation of the engine including actual total operating
hours, fuel consumption, or load and duration measurements.

39

# Attachment B
Modifications Related to Clarification of "Other Regulated Unit" Provision.

NR 428.21 (3) is amended to read:
NR 428.21(3) OTHER REGULATED UNIT. An emissions unit which is subject to and meeting an
emission limitation in s. NR 428.04 or 428.05(3) and which is subject to a fede rally enforceable condition in
an air permit issued prior to January 1, 2006 whic h limits emissions to no more than 75 tons of NO X 

# per year
is exempt from the emission limitations in s. NR 428.22

. , if one of the following applies:
(a) The emissions unit is subject to a federally en forceable condition in an air permit which limits its

emissions to no more than 75 tons of NO X 

# per year.
(b) The emissions unit, because of a physical opera ting constraint, cannot emit more than 75 tons of

NO X 

# per year.

40

# Attachment C
"Clean Copy" with incorporated Germane Modifications

NR 428.21(intro.) Emissions unit exceptions. The emissions units described in this section are
exempt from the emission limitation requirements of s. NR 428.22, but shall comply with applicable record
keeping requirements under s. NR 428.24. Once an emi ssions unit no longer qualifies for an exemption, the
owner or operator of the emissions unit shall comply with the requirements of s. NR 428.22 by December 31
of the following calendar year, unless an alternate date is approved in writing by the department and the

administrator.

NR 428.21(2m) RECIPROCATING ENGINES. Any recipr ocating engine that is certified to meet
the applicable federal non-road engine emission standa rds specified in this subsection is exempt from the
emission limitations of s. NR 428.22(1)(i):
(a) A reciprocating compression ignition engine th at is certified as meeting Tier 1 requirements as
specified in 40 CFR part 89, if one of the following applies:
1. The engine has a maximum design power output of less than 2,000 horsepower.
2. The engine has a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 2,000 horsepower and
has a total utilization during each ozone season of less than 1.5 million horsepower-hours, based on actual
measured output.
(b) A reciprocating compression ignition engine that is certified as meeting the Tier 2 standard, as
specified in 40 CFR part 89, or a reciprocating compr ession ignition engine that is certified as meeting the
requirements of a more stringent Tier standard, as specified in 40 CFR part 89 or 1039.
(c) A reciprocating spark ignition engine that is certified as meeting the Tier 1 standard or a
reciprocating spark ignition engine that is certified as meeting a more stringent Tier standard, as specified in
40 CFR part 1048.

41

# NR 428.24(2m) RECIPROCATING ENGINES. The ow ner or operator of an emissions unit
claiming exemption under s. NR 428.21(2m)(a)2., shall maintain a record of horsepower-hours of operation
for each ozone season. Measurement of horsepower-hour s may be determined using recorded data which
can be directly related to actual horsepower-hours of operation of the engine including actual total operating
hours, fuel consumption, or load and duration measurements.

NR 428.21(3) OTHER REGULATED UNIT. An emissions unit which is subject to and meeting an
emission limitation in s. NR 428.04 or 428.05(3) is ex empt from the emission limitations in s. NR 428.22, if
one of the following applies:
(a) The emissions unit is subject to a federally en forceable condition in an air permit which limits its

emissions to no more than 75 tons of NO X 

# per year.
(b) The emissions unit, because of a physical opera ting constraint, cannot emit more than 75 tons of

NO X 

# per year.

42

# Attachment 2 Adopted Rule (to be replaced by published rule)

# 2 ORDER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD AMENDING AND CREATING RULES

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an order to amend 428.04(2)(h)1. and 2., 428.05(3)(e)1. to 4. and 484.04(13), (21m), (26m)(d), and (27) and create NR 428.02(7m), 428 subch. IV and 484.04 (15m ),(16m) and (26m)(bm) relating to implementation of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) NO x 

## emission limitations applicable to major sources in the 8-Hour ozone non-attainment area in southeastern Wisconsin. AM-17-05



# Summary Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

1. Statute interpreted: s. 285.11(6), Stats. The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats., is revised.

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

3. Explanation of agency authority: Section 227.11(2)(a), Stats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. 

# S ection 285.11(1) Stats., gives the Department the authority to promulgate rules consistent with ch. 285, Stats. Section 285.11(6), St ats., authorizes the Department to develop and revise a state implementation plan for the prevention, abatement and control of air pollution.

4. Related statute or rule: The current provisions of ch. NR 428 established nitrogen oxide emission limits for new and existing facilities which are located in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment counties. The primary intent in creating these past provisions of ch. NR 428 was to fulfill Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for demonstrating rate-of-progress towa rds attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. The proposed rule will create a new subchapter in ch. NR 428 for purposes of establishing Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) emission limitations for major sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in counties designated as nonattainment under the 8-hour ozone standard. Modifications are also proposed to existing portions of ch. NR 428 in rela tion to the creation of the new subchapter and in s. NR 484.04 to reflect incorporation by reference of standards.

5. Plain language analysis: The Clean Air Act requires states to adopt and implement a control program of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major NO x 

# stationary sources in the moderate ozone nonattainment area. To meet this requireme nt, the proposed rule establishes emission limits and compliance requirements for emission units at facilities with a total potential to emit of 100 tons/year of NO x 

# . The proposed RACT rules conform to the federal Clean Air Act.
The Department determined that $2,500/ton of NOx removed, from an uncontrolled baseline, is an appropriate upper limit for application of RACT at an affected facility. The Department’s proposed emission limits for electric utility generating units and larger industrial emission units are based on that upper limit. The source categories affected by the ru le include industrial boilers, combustion turbines, glass and steel furnaces, reciprocating engines, and other miscellaneous large combustion processes.
The emission limits are designated by source category and fuel type as necessary, but are not applicable unless the unit is operated over an utilization threshold during the ozone season as specified in the rule for

# 3 each source category. The operating threshold for exemption is based on 20% of the source category's unit size threshold for defining the smallest unit subj ect to the emission limit. The proposed rule also exempts emission units from further control if the unit is already meeting an existing NOx emission limit under ch. NR. 428 and emits less than 75 tons per year of NO x 

# . And the rule lists specific units such as emergency generators, fire-fighting water pumps, peak ing units, etc.. which also are exempt from the emissions limits. However, once an emissions unit no longer qualifies for one of the exemptions, it is subject to the emission limitations on an ongoing basis.
The rule provides compliance flexibility by providing phased implementation for electric generation units subject to CAIR, emissions averaging programs, a lternative RACT determina tions, demonstration of CAIR actions satisfying RACT emission limits , and a reliability waiver option.
Sources demonstrate compliance with the emission rate limits by 1) Installi ng and operating continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMs) consistent with 40 CFR part 60 requirements for units with considerable variability in operation, 2) Performan ce stack testing every 2 years for units with less variability in operation or emissions, or 3) Continuous parametric monitoring of combustion parameters with stack testing every 5 years for all gaseous and oil fired units. The rule allows an owner to request an alternative to any of the emissions monitoring requirements.

6. Summary of, and comparison with, exis ting or proposed federal regulation: In 2004, the federal NO x 

# SIP Call became effective in 21 eastern states requiring control of NO x 

# emissions. However, the NOx SIP call did not apply to Wisconsin. The sources affected by the SIP call include electric utility generating units greater than 25 megawatts and very large industrial emission units. The USEPA estimated the cost of meeting the NO x 

# SIP call requirements to be appr oximately $2,000/ton of controlled NO x 

# emissions and described this as “hi ghly cost-effective.” The Wisconsin NO x 

# RACT rule is based on considering controls with a cost ceiling of $2,500 per ton of NO x 

# . The EPA is requiring implementation of best availa ble retrofit technology (BART) control by 2013 to reduce NOx emissions from certain large emission sour ces which have visibility impacts in scenic Class I areas. The BART requirement is a case-by-case dete rmination and, therefore, cannot be accurately represented for this discussion. However, EPA assumes default BART controls resulting in approximately 50% to 90% reduction in NO x 

# emissions. The proposed emission limits in the Wisconsin rule are similar and do not exceed an anticip ated 90% reduction for similar sources.
The proposed RACT rule proposes emission limits for the type of industrial sources that would be affected by federal NOx SIP Call or BART require ments. The proposed emission limits for industrial sources reflect a control cost range of approximately $500 to $2,500 per ton of NO x 

# removed. The proposed controls for electric utility generating sour ces reflect a cost range of approximately $1,000 to $2,200 per ton of NO x 

# . The proposed emission limits in the Wisconsin rule are similar to default BART levels and do not exceed an anticipated 90% reduction for similar sources. It should be noted that both the NOx SIP Call and BART regulations primarily aff ect larger sources and that the proposed RACT rule establishes emission limits for additional sources based on the CAA definition of a major sources and the level of cost-effectiveness considered for this rule.

7. Comparison with rules in adjacent states: States near Wisconsin with 8-hour ozone nonattainmentareas are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. Illinois, Indiana and Ohio also have moderate nonattainment areas. All of the Michigan nonattainment areas are of a lower non-attainment designation of either "basic" or "marginal".

# 4 Illinois: The state of Illinois has proposed a statewide RACT rule for industrial boilers and other sources with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or gr eater. The Illinois rule affects smaller sources and implements equivalent or more stringent requirement s than those in the Wisconsin rule. The Illinois proposed RACT emission limits are based on a cost-effectiveness ranging up to $2,500 per ton of NO x 

# removed. The rule proposes combustion tuning for boilers between 50 and 100 mmbtu/hr and emission limits for units approximately equivalent to 50 mmb tu/hr across the source categories. Illinois EPA negotiated very stringent SO 2 

# and NOx limitations with the utilities in Illinois that generate about 90% of the electric power in the state. The resulting emissi on limits for the Chicago area are more stringent than what the Department has proposed fo r NOx RACT in the Milwaukee area.

Indiana: Indiana is not proceeding with NOx RACT rule development at this time.
Michigan: The state of Michigan has made no determin ation regarding the need for developing RACT rules. A Michigan RACT rule is required only if a ttainment in the basic areas cannot be demonstrated by the state's SIP submittal deadline of June 2007.

Ohio: Ohio is developing NOx RACT rules for industr ial sources in the Cleveland nonattainment area. The rule affects smaller sources and implements equi valent or more stringent requirements than the Wisconsin rule for industrial sources. The proposed Oh io rule considers controls up to $5,000 per ton of controlled NOx. The proposal requires combustion tuning for boilers between 20 and 50 mmBtu/hr. Emission units approximately 50 mmbtu/hr and larger across source categories must meet emission limits.

8. Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies:
Department staff identified potentially affected units and source categories based on information contained in the air emissions inventory and source permits. A review of available emission control technologies and options was conducted based on ava ilable EPA resources, industry information, and other technical resources. General control assumptions and cost factors for each source category were used in evaluating appropriate emission limits and applicability. The proposed emission limitations were also compared to both existing and proposed RACT emission limits or NO x 

# emission control programs in other states. The department considered techni cal information obtained through the public comment period as applicable to each source category.

9. Analysis and supporting documents used to determ ine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report:
The proposed rule is expected to affect only large i ndustrial sources and therefore it is not anticipated to have an impact on small businesses.

10. Effect on small business:
The proposed rule is expected to affect only large i ndustrial sources and therefore it is not anticipated to have an impact on small businesses.

11. Agency contact person:

Thomas Karman Thomas.karman@dnr.state.wi.us

# 5 (608) 264-8856

The consent of the Attorney General and the Revisor of Statutes will be requested for the incorporation by reference of new test methods in ch. NR 484.

____________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 1. NR 428.02(7m) is created to read:
NR 428.02(7m) "Process heater" means an enclosed device using controlled flame, that is not a
boiler, and that has a primary purpose to transfer heat i ndirectly to a process material or to a heat transfer
material for use in a process unit, instead of generating steam. Process heaters may not include
combustion equipment where the material being heated is in direct contact with the products of
combustion, such as furnaces or kilns, any unfired waste heat recovery heater or units used for comfort
heat or space heat, food preparation for onsite consumption, or autoclaves.

SECTION 2. NR 428.04(2)(h)1. and 2. are amended to read:
NR 428.04(2)(h)1. 6.9 grams per brake horsepower-hour for a compression ignition unit with a
maximum design power output of 1000 hp or greater.
2. 4.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour for a spark ignition unit with a maximum design power
output of 1000 hp or greater.

SECTION 3. NR 428.05(3)(e)1. to 4. are amended to read:
NR 428.05(3)(e)1. 9.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour for rich-burn units.
2. 10.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour for lean-burn units.
3. 8.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour for distillate fuel oil-fired units.
4. 6.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour for dual-fuel units.

# 6 SECTION 4. NR 428 subch. IV to follow NR 428.11 is created to read:

SUBCHAPTER IV

NO X 

# REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
NR 428.20 Applicability and purpose. (1) APPLICABILITY. The requirements of this
subchapter apply to the owner or operator of an NO X 

# emissions unit which is in a source category

identified in s. NR 428.22 and which is located at a f acility with a combined total potential to emit for all

NO X 

# emissions units of 100 tons per year or more of NO X 

# and which is in the county of Kenosha,
Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington or Waukesha.
(2) PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to establish reasonably available control
technology requirements for NO X 

# emissions units in the ozone nonattainment area consisting of the

counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine , Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha to comply
with sections 172(c) and 182(f) of the Act (42 USC 7502(c) and 7511a(f)).

NR 428.21 Emissions unit exceptions . The emissions units described in this section are exempt
from the emission limitation requirements of s. NR 428.22, but shall comply with applicable record
keeping requirements under s. NR 428.24. Once an emissions unit no longer qualifies for an exemption,
the owner or operator of the emission unit shall comply with the requirements of s. NR 428.22 by
December 31 of the following calendar year, unless an alternate date is approved in writing by the
department and the administrator.
(1) GENERAL EXEMPTIONS. The following emi ssions units and processes are exempt from

the emission limitations in s. NR 428.22:
(a) Any emissions unit operated only to restart electric generation in the event of a complete loss
of facility power.

# 7 (b) Any emissions unit which is operated no more than 500 hours per year and no more than 200
hours during the ozone season and whose only purpose is to provide electricity to a facility if normal
electricity service is interrupted or to replace normal critical operations at a facility.
(c) Any emissions unit whose only function is to pump water in the case of a fire emergency.
(d) Any emissions unit whose utilization is less than 10% of its capacity factor on an annual
average basis over a 3-year rolling period and less than 20% of its capacity factor in any year of the 3-
year rolling period and which is ow ned or operated by an electric generation utility or gas transmission
utility.
(e) A research or development unit.
(f) An engine testing operation or process line.
(g) Any gaseous fuel fired unit used to contro l VOC emissions from a commercial or industrial

process.
(2) LOW OPERATING UNIT. An emissions unit d escribed in s. NR 428.20 is exempt from the
emission limitations of s. NR 428.22 if, during each ozone season, the emissions unit's utilization based
on actual measured heat input or output is less than the utilization threshold for the source category
according to the following equation:

UU i 

# < (Category capacity ) x (3,672 hours / Ozone Season ) x Capacity Factor Equation 1

where:

UU i 

# is the unit's actual fuel consumption or output in measurement units consistent with the
calculated utilization threshold for the source category in s. NR 428.22
Category capacity is the lower value in the ra nge of unit capacity or design output used to
describe the unit’s source category i in s. NR 428.22
Capacity factor is 0.20 for all source categories in s. NR 428.22

(2m) RECIPROCATING ENGINES. Any reciprocating engine that is certified to meet the

# 8 applicable federal non-road engine emission standard s specified in this subsection is exempt from the
emission limitations of s. NR 428.22(1)(i):
(a) A reciprocating compression ignition engine that is certified as meeting Tier 1 requirements as
specified in 40 CFR part 89, if one of the following applies:
1. The engine has a maximum design power output of less than 2,000 horsepower.
2. The engine has a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 2,000 horsepower and
has a total utilization during each ozone season of l ess than 1.5 million horsepower-hours, based on actual
measured output.
(b) A reciprocating compression ignition engine that is certified as meeting the Tier 2 standard, as
specified in 40 CFR part 89, or a reciprocating compression ignition engine that is certified as meeting the
requirements of a more stringent Tier standard, as specified in 40 CFR part 89 or 1039.
(c) A reciprocating spark ignition engine that is certified as meeting the Tier 1 standard or a
reciprocating spark ignition engine that is certified as meeting a more stringent Tier standard, as specified
in 40 CFR part 1048.
(3) OTHER REGULATED UNIT. An emissions unit which is subject to and meeting an emission
limitation in s. NR 428.04 or 428.05(3) is exempt from the emission limitations in s. NR 428.22, if one of
the following applies:
(a) The emissions unit is subject to a federally enforceable condition in an air permit which limits

its emissions to no more than 75 tons of NO X 

# per year.
(b) The emissions unit, because of a physical operating constraint, cannot emit more than 75 tons

of NO X 

# per year.

NR 428.22 Emission limitation requirements. (1) EMISSION LIMITS. Except as provided in
sub. (2), on or after May 1, 2009, no person may cause, allow or permit NO X 

# to be emitted in excess of
the following emission limitations on a 30-day rolling average basis:

# 9 (a) Boilers. 1. For a solid fuel-fired boiler with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater
than 1,000 mmBtu per hour, one of the following, as applicable:
a. If tangential, wall, cyclone or fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
b. If arch-fired, 0.18 pound per mmBtu of heat input.

2. For a solid fuel-fired boiler with a maximum h eat input capacity equal to or greater than 500
mmBtu per hour and less than 1,000 mmBtu per hour, one of the following, as applicable:
a. If tangential-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
b. If wall-fired with a heat release rate equal to or greater than 17,000 Btu per cubic feet per hour,
0.17 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
c. If wall-fired with a heat release rate less than 17,000 Btu per cubic feet per hour, 0.15 pound
per mmBtu of heat input.
d. If cyclone-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
e. If arch-fired, 0.18 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
g. If fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.

3. For a solid fuel-fired boiler with a maximum h eat input capacity equal to or greater than 250
mmBtu per hour and less than 500 mmBtu per hour, one of the following, as applicable:
a. If tangential-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
b. If wall-fired with a heat release rate equal to or greater than 17,000 Btu per cubic feet per hour,
0.17 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
c. If wall-fired with a heat release rate less than 17,000 Btu per cubic feet per hour, 0.15 pound
per mmBtu of heat input.
d. If cyclone-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
f. If arch-fired, 0.18 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
g. If fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
h. If stoker-fired, 0.20 pound per mmBtu of heat input.

# 10 4. For a solid fuel-fired boiler with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 50
mmBtu per hour and less than 250 mmBtu per hour, one of the following, as applicable:
a. If tangential-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
b. If wall-fired with a heat release rate equal to or greater than 17,000 Btu per cubic feet per hour,
0.17 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
c. If wall-fired with a heat release rate less than 17,000 Btu per cubic feet per hour, 0.15 pound
per mmBtu of heat input.
d. If cyclone-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
e. If fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
f. If stoker-fired, 0.25 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
5. For a gaseous fuel-fired boiler with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 100
mmBtu per hour, 0.08 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
6. For a distillate fuel oil-fired boiler with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than
100 mmBtu per hour, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
7. For a residual fuel oil-fired boiler with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than
65 mmBtu per hour, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
(b) Lime kilns. For a lime kiln with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 50
mmBtu per hour, one of the following as applicable:
1. For a gaseous fuel-fired unit, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
2. For a distillate oil-fired unit, 0.12 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
3. For a residual oil-fired unit, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
4. For a coal-fired unit, 0.60 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
5. For a coke-fired unit, 0.70 pound per mmBtu of heat input.

# 11 (c) Reheat, annealing or galvanizing furnaces. For a reheat, annealing or galvanizing furnace
with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 75 mmBtu per hour, 0.08 pounds per million
Btu of heat input.
(d) Glass furnaces. For a glass manufacturing furnace with a maximum heat input capacity equal
to or greater than 50 mmBtu per hour, 2.0 pounds per ton of produced glass.

(e) Asphalt plants. For an asphalt plant with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater
than 65 mmBtu per hour, one of the following as applicable:
1. For a gaseous fuel-fired unit, 0.15 pound per million Btu of heat input.
2. For a distillate fuel oil-fired unit, 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input.
3. For a residual fuel oil-fired or waste oil-fired unit, 0.27 pound per million Btu of heat input.
(f) Process heating. For a process heater, dryer, oven or other process heating device, one of the
following as applicable:
1. For a gaseous fuel-fired unit with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 100
mmBtu per hour, 0.10 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
2. For a distillate oil-fired unit with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 100
mmBtu per hour, 0.12 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
3. For a residual oil-fired unit with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 65
mmBtu per hour, 0.18 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
(g) Simple cycle combustion turbines . For a simple cycle combustion turbine, one of the
following exhaust outlet concentrations, corrected to 15% O 2 

# and at ambient temperatures greater than

0 o 

# F, as applicable:
1. For a unit with a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 50 megawatts, one of
the following, as applicable:
a. If natural gas-fired, 25 parts per million dry volume.
b. If distillate oil fuel-fired, 65 parts per million dry volume.

# 12 c. If biologically derived gaseous fuel-fired, 35 parts per million dry volume.
2. For a unit with a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 25 megawatts and less
than 50 megawatts, one of the following as applicable:
a. If natural gas-fired, 42 parts per million dry volume.
b. If distillate oil fuel-fired, 96 parts per million dry volume.
c. If biologically derived gaseous fuel-fired, 35 parts per million dry volume.
(h) Combined cycle combustion turbines. For a combined cycle combustion turbine, one of the
following exhaust outlet concentrations, corrected to 15% O 2 

# and at ambient temperatures greater than

0 o 

# F, as applicable:
1. For a natural gas-fired unit with a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 25
megawatts, 9 parts per million dry volume.
2. For a natural gas-fired unit with a maximum design power output equal to or greater than 10
megawatts and less than 25 megawatts, 42 parts per million dry volume.

3. For a distillate oil fuel-fired unit with a maxi mum design power output equal to or greater than
10 megawatts, 42 parts per million dry volume.
4. For a biologically derived gaseous fuel-fire d unit with a maximum design power output equal
to or greater than 10 megawatts, 35 parts per million dry volume.
(i) Reciprocating engines. For a reciprocating engine with a maximum design power output equal
to or greater than 500 horsepower, one of the following as applicable:
1. For a rich-burn spark ignition unit, 3.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
2. For a lean-burn spark ignition unit, 3.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
3. For a diesel fuel-fired compression unit, 3.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
4. For a dual fuel-fired compression unit, 3.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
(2) ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILER COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE. The owner or operator of an
electric utility boiler subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 97 shall demonstrate compliance with the

# 13 following interim NO x 

# emission limitations, as applicable, on a 30-day rolling average by May 1, 2009

and with the emission limitations in sub. (1)(a) on and after May 1, 2013:
(a) For a solid fuel-fired boiler with a maximum h eat input capacity equal to or greater than 1,000
mmBtu per hour, one of the following, as applicable:
1 If tangential, wall, cyclone or fluidized bed-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
2. If arch-fired, 0.18 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
(b) For a solid fuel-fired boiler with a maximum h eat input capacity equal to or greater than 500
mmBtu per hour and less than 1,000 mmBtu per hour, one of the following, as applicable:
1. If tangential-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
2. If wall-fired, 0.20 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
3. If cyclone-fired, 0.20 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
4. If arch-fired, 0.18 pound per mmBtu of heat input.
5. If fluidized bed-fired, 0.15 pound per mmBtu of heat input.

NR 428.23 Demonstrating compliance with emission limitations. The owner or operator of an

emissions unit shall determine the emissions unit's NO X 

# emissions and shall determine compliance with
the emission limitations in s. NR 428.22 according to the applicable methods in this section.

(1) EMISSIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Installation and operation. No later
than April 1, 2009 or April 1 of the year an emissi ons unit first becomes subject to an emission limitation
in s. NR. 428.22, the owner or operator of the emissions unit shall do the following:
1. Submit to the department in writing, a certification of the installation and operation of all
monitoring systems or a certification of the completion of initial emission performance tests required
under par. (b).
2. Begin and continue to monitor, measure and record all data necessary to determine emissions
in the measurement units of the applicable emissi on limitation according to the methods of this section.

# 14 (b) Monitoring s ystems and procedures. 1. 'Part 75 continuous emissions monitoring.' The owner
or operator of an affected unit as defined under s. NR 400.02(11), or an emissions unit subject to 40 CFR
part 97 shall monitor NO X 

# emissions for requirements of this subsection by installing and operating
monitoring equipment and measuring and recording NO X 

# emissions data according to methods and
specifications of 40 CFR part 75 and 40 CFR part 75, A ppendices A to I, incorporated by reference in s.
NR 484.04(27), as required of an affected unit or an emissions unit subject to 40 CFR part 97.
2. 'Continuous emissions monitoring.' Except as provided in subd. 1., the owner or operator of an
emissions unit subject to an emissions limitation in s. NR 428.22(1)(a) to (d) shall monitor NO x 

# emissions
for requirements of this subsection according to the following specifications, as applicable:
a. The owner or operator shall install and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system that
measures the hourly average NO X 

# emission rate.
b. The emissions monitoring system shall consist of an NO X 

# diluent continuous emissions
analyzer and, as applicable, an O 2 

# or CO 2 

# diluent continuous emissions analyzer to correct all emissions

data and heat rate values for the emissions unit to th e same moisture and diluent gas basis, as required in

subd. 6.b.
c. The owner or operator shall calibrate, mainta in and operate the emissions monitoring system
according to the requirements of s. NR 439.09(9), the applicable operating requirements of 40 CFR 60.13,
the performance specifications in 40 CFR part 60, A ppendix B, incorporated by reference in s. NR
484.04(21) and the quality assurance procedures of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, incorporated by
reference in s. NR 484.04(21m).
d. For an emissions unit subject to an NO X 

# emission limit on a pound per million Btu basis, the
emissions shall be determined using the F-factor method according to methods in Method 19 of 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04(16m).
e. Except for an emissions unit subject to subd. 1. or an emissions unit subject to an emission
limitation in s. NR 428.22(1)(a)1. to 4., an owner or operator of an emissions unit may measure NO x

# 15 emissions for compliance determination purposes us ing continuous parametric monitoring methods
meeting emissions monitoring specifications in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix E, incorporated by reference in

s. NR 484.04(26m)(cm).
3. 'Periodic emissions performance test.' Except as provided in subd. 1., the owner or operator of
an emissions unit subject to s. NR 428.22(1)(e) to (i) shall conduct an initial performance test and a
subsequent performance test every 2 years thereaf ter, according to the following requirements, as
applicable, to determine the emissions unit's NO X 

# emission rate for each fuel fired in the emissions unit. A
performance test is not required for a fuel used only fo r startup or for a fuel constituting less than 1% of
the unit’s annual fuel consumption.
a. The emissions performance test shall be conducted according to one of the following methods
as applicable: Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D or 7E in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, incorporated by reference
in s. NR 484.04(15m).
b. Except for units specified in this subd. 3.c., the initial emissions performance test shall include
a determination of the capacity load point of the unit’s maximum NO X 

# emissions rate based on one 30
minute test run at each capacity load point for whic h the unit is operated, other than for startup and
shutdown, in the load ranges of 20 to 30%, 45 to 55%, 70 to 80% and 90 to 100%.
c. The emissions performance tests for emissions un its subject to s. NR 428.22(1)(g) or (h) shall
be conducted within 10% of full load operation.
d. The emissions performance test shall dete rmine compliance based on the average of 3 60-
minute test runs performed at the capacity lo ad specified in this subd. 3.b. or c.
e. An additional performance test shall be conducte d according to this subd. 3.b. or c. within 90
days of completing an equipment modification or ch ange in fuel which has the potential to increase the

NO X 

# emissions concentration or rate.

# 16 4. 'Continuous monitoring for an output based standa rd.' In addition to applicable monitoring and
measuring requirements under subd. 2., the owner or operator of an emissions unit subject to an output
emission limitation in s. NR 428.22(1)(d) shall do the following:
a. Install, maintain and operate monitoring e quipment for measuring and recording the output on
an hourly basis with plus or minus 5% accuracy, in units consistent with the applicable emission

limitation.
b. Calculate on an hourly basis, the output based emission rate as the hourly mass of NO X 

# emissions determined according to subd. 5. divided by the emissions unit's total output for that hour.
5. 'Continuous monitoring of total heat input a nd mass emissions.' The owner or operator of an
emissions unit required to measure total heat input or mass NO x 

# emissions for requirements of subd. 4.,
sub. (2)(c) and s. NR 428.25(1)(b) or (c) shall perform the applicable measurements according to
following:
a. Except as allowed in subd. 5.d., install, calib rate, maintain and operate a volumetric flue gas
flow monitoring system meeting specifications in subd. 2.c. The hourly heat input shall be determined
using the F-factor and the as fired fuel heat cont ent according to Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A , incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04(16m).
b. Unless specified in Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, incorporated by reference in s.
NR 484.04(16m), the heat content value for each fu el shall be based on a heat content analysis.

c. The mass of NO X 

# emissions shall be determined on an hourly basis by either multiplying the

NO X 

# concentration by the flue gas flow rate corrected for diluent gas and moisture or, by multiplying the
monitored hourly average emission rate in mass per mmBtu by the total heat input as determined under
subd. 5.a. or b. The calculations of mass emissions are to be performed according to conversion
procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix F, incor porated by reference in s. NR 484.04(26m)(d).
d. For a liquid or gaseous fuel fired system, the total heat input and mass of NO x 

# emissions may
be determined using a fuel flow monitoring system cap able of determining the hourly flow with plus or

# 17 minus 5% accurancy and using continuous parametric monitoring as specified under subd. 8. The total
heat input shall be calculated as the total fuel flow multiplied by the fuel heat content.
6. 'General monitoring requirements.' Unless otherw ise specified in this subsection, an owner or
operator shall meet the following requirements:
a. All certification tests or emissions perfo rmance tests shall be performed according to
procedures of s. NR 439.07.

b. The determination of emission rates, mass emi ssions and total heat input shall be calculated
and corrected to the same basis for flue gas moistu re and diluent gases according to Method 19 of 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04 (16m), or 40 CFR part 75, Appendix F,
incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04(26m)(d).
c. For emissions units with a common flue gas stack system, all sampling locations and
apportionment of emissions to an individual emissions unit shall conform to applicable procedures and
methods in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix F, incor porated by reference in s. NR 484.04(26m)(d).
7. 'Malfunction and abatement.' An owner or operator of an emissions unit subject to the
malfunction and abatement plan requirement of s. NR 439.11 shall include a malfunction plan for the
emissions monitoring system and a monitoring a nd operating plan for continuing operation of the
emissions unit in a manner consistent with meeting all applicable emission limitations during any period
when the monitoring system malfunctions or is i noperable other than for scheduled maintenance.
8. 'Alternate emissions monitoring.' An owner or operator of an emissions unit may request and

monitor NO x 

# emissions for compliance determination purposes using an equivalent alternative method to
any requirement of this subsection with written a pproval of the department and the administrator.
(2) COMPILATION OF EMISSIONS. An owner or operator shall compile the measured

emissions data in measurement units consistent w ith the units of the applicable emission limitation
according to the following applicable calculation a nd tabulation methods for purposes of demonstrating
compliance:

# (a) Continuous emissions monitoring . When measuring emissions according to requirements in
sub. (1)(b)1. or 2.:
1. The average emission rate shall be the aver age of the hourly average emissions obtained from
the continuous emissions monitoring system for the hours the emissions unit operated during the
averaging period. The calculation is as follows: 

# ∑

= ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎠ ⎞
⎜ ⎜ ⎜
⎝ ⎛



# = n

1j jH, A 

# E n 1 E Equation 2

where:

E A 

# is the average emission rate for the compliance period in units consistent with units of the
applicable emission limit

E H, j 

# is the hourly average emission rate for each hour, j, for which the emissions unit is operating
during the compliance period in units consistent with units of the applicable emission limit

n is the total number of hours the emissions unit operated during the compliance period

2. The 30-day rolling period shall consist of the day of monitoring and the previous 29
consecutive calendar days. A new 30-day rolling average emission rate (E A 

# ) shall be calculated and
recorded at the end of each day.
(b) Emissions performance testing . When measuring emissions according to performance testing
requirements of sub. (1)(b)3., the 30-day rolling aver age emission rate or concentration shall be the
emissions determined in sub. (1)(b)3.d . for the most recent performance test.

(c) Multiple fuel-fired emissions units . When measuring emissions for an emissions unit firing
multiple fuels, compliance shall be determin ed according to one of the following methods:

1. The unit's emissions shall be monitored and co mpiled according to applicable methods in par.
(a) or (b) for each individual fuel and compliance de monstrated with the emission limitation for each fuel.



# 18

# 2. The unit's emissions and a multiple fuel emission limit shall be determined on a total heat input
fuel weighted basis according to equation 3. A fuel representing less than 1% of the unit's annual fuel
consumption on a heat input basis may be excluded in determining the multiple fuel emission limit.



# ∑ ∑

= = 

# = n

1 f f n

1 f ff
HIWieghted 

# HI HIE E Equation 3

where:

E HIWeighted 

# is the heat input weighted multiple fuel emission rate or emission limitation for the
compliance period in units consistent w ith the units of the emission limitation

E f



# is the emission rate or emission limit for fuel F during the compliance period in units

consistent with the units of the emission limitation

HI f 

# is the total heat input for fuel f during the compliance period
n is the number of different fuels used during the compliance period

(d) Total heat input and mass emissions . When measuring hourly heat input or mass of NO X 

# emissions according to sub. (1)(b)5., the totals over a period of time shall be compiled according to the
following procedures:
1. The total hourly heat input shall be summed for the hours the emissions unit operated during
the applicable period of time according to equation 4. 

# ∑

= 

# = n

1h h total 

# HI HI Equation 4

where:

HI total 

# is the total heat input by fuel over the period of time

HI h 

# is the heat input by fuel for hour h



# 19

# n is the number of hours over which the specific fuel was burned

2. The total hourly mass of NO X 

# emissions shall be summed for the hours the emissions unit
operated during the applicable peri od of time according to equation 5. 

# ∑

= 

# = n

1h h total x 

# Mass Mass NO Equation 5

where:

NO X 

# Mass total 

# is the total mass of NO X 

# emissions over the period of time

Mass h 

# is the mass of NO X 

# emissions for hour h
n is the number of hours the emissions unit is operating during the specified period of time

NR 428.24 Recordkeeping and reporting. (1) EMISSION LIMITATIONS. The owner or
operator of an emissions unit subject to an emission limitation in s. NR 428.22 shall meet the
recordkeeping and reporting requi rements of this subsection.

(a) Recordkeeping. In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of ss. NR 439.04(1) and (2) and
439.05, the owner or operator shall maintain records of all of the following:
1. The applicable emission limit and calculated heat input weighted emission limit for an
emissions unit demonstrating compliance for multiple fuels.
2. The 30-day rolling average emission rate on a daily basis determined according to s. NR

428.23.
3. The total monthly heat input for each fuel or the emissions unit output, as applicable, in
measurement units consistent with the units of the applicable emission limitation.

4. The emissions unit's annual and ozone seas on capacity utilization in measurement units
consistent with the units of the applicable emission limitation.



# 20

# 21 5. For the emissions monitoring system required in s. NR 428.23(1)(b) on an annual and on an
ozone season basis, records of performed maintena nce, hours of malfunction and necessary repairs, and
the percent of hours the monitoring system operated during the emissions unit's operating hours.
(b) Reporting. In the reports to the department required under s. NR 439.03(1)(b), the owner or
operator shall submit the following information:
1. A certification of compliance with the applicable emission limitation in s. NR 428.22 or
identification of the periods of non-compliance, with a quantification of the excess emission rate and the

excess mass emissions.
2. For each calendar month, the highest 30-day rolling average emission rate. The emissions data
shall be reported in the measurement units of the applicable emission limitation.

3. The emissions unit's annual and ozone season total operating hours, capacity utilization, and
the percent operation of any required continuous emissions or combustion monitoring systems during the
hours the emissions unit was operating.
(2) GENERAL EXEMPTION UNIT. The owner or operator of an emissions unit claiming
exemption under s. NR 428.21(1), shall record operati onal parameters necessary to demonstrate the unit’s
qualification for the exemption status.
(2m) RECIPROCATING ENGINES. The owner or operator of an emissions unit claiming
exemption under s. NR 428.21(2m)(a)2., shall maintain a record of horsepower-hours of operation for
each ozone season. Measurement of horsepower-hours ma y be determined using recorded data which can
be directly related to actual horsepower-hours of operation of the e ngine including actual total operating
hours, fuel consumption, or load and duration measurements.
(3) LOW OPERATING UNIT. The owner or operator claiming a low operating unit exemption
for an emissions unit under s. NR 428.21(2), shall maintain a record of the unit's applicable fuel heat input
or production output, as applicable, the unit's total capacity utilization on an ozone season and on an

# 22 annual basis for each calendar year and calculations demonstrating the unit’s qualification for the
exemption.
(4) OTHER REGULATED UNIT. The owner or operator claiming a regulated emissions unit
exemption for an emissions unit under s. NR 428.21(3), shall maintain a record of all performance tests,
calculations, assumptions and methods used to determine the emissions unit's potential emissions.

NR 428.25 Alternative compliance methods and approaches. (1) EMISSIONS AVERAGING.
The owner or operator of an emissions unit may demonstrate compliance with an NO X 

# emission limitation
in s. NR 428.22 by participating in an emissions rate averaging program according to the general
provisions of par. (a) and either the specifications for facility wide averaging in par. (b) or for multifacility averaging in par. (c).

(a) General provisions. 1. 'Participating units.' a. The participation of an emissions unit in an
emissions averaging program shall be designated for a full calendar year. Individual emissions units may
not be withdrawn from an averaging program, during a year, unless each emissions unit in the averaging
program meets its applicable emission limit in s. NR 428.22.
b. If an emissions unit at a facility participates in an averaging program, all similar units at the
facility shall be included in the averaging program unless the unit is complying with an emission limit in
s. NR 428.22 or is participating in another emissi ons averaging program under this subsection. Similar
units at a facility are those which serve a similar process or purpose and which are described by the same
general source category under s. NR 428.22 without re gard to fuel type or unit size threshold.
c. An emissions unit for which the department has approved an alternative emission limit or
compliance schedule under sub. (3) may not participat e in an emissions averaging program under this

subsection.
2. 'Monitoring requirement.' The owner or operato r of an emissions unit participating in an
emissions averaging program shall monitor all necessary NO X 

# emissions, as applicable, according to

# 23 requirements of s. NR 428.23(1)(b)1. or 2. The total heat input and NO X 

# mass emissions shall be
monitored and measured according to s. NR 428.23(1)(b)5. and compiled according to s. NR
428.23(2)(d).

3. 'New units'. An emissions unit which begins operation on or after the effective date of this
section... [revisor insert date] may not participat e in an emissions averaging program under this

subsection.
4. 'Emission reductions.' For purposes of this subsection, only emission reductions which go
beyond all state and federal requirements are considered excess emission reductions.

(b) Facility averaging . An owner or operator may average emissions from emissions units at one
facility by complying with the following procedur es for demonstrating compliance on an annual and on
an ozone season basis with an aggregate NO X 

# emission limit and mass emissions cap:
1. 'Notification.' The owner or operator shall s ubmit to the department a notification of an NO X 

# emissions averaging program by October 1 of the year prior to the emissions averaging year. The
notification shall include the following information:

a. The participating emissions units.
b. The owner or operator of each emissions unit.
c. For a unit subject to s. NR 428.22, the applicable emission limitation.
d. For a participating emissions unit not subject to s. NR 428.22, the average emission rate by fuel
type over the unit's normal operating range determined according to methods of s. NR 428.23(1)(b)3. The
tested average emission rate may be adjusted based on a heat input we ighted average of the emissions
unit's annual percent operation at different lo ad points in the previous calendar year.
e. For averaging programs effective on or after January 1, 2013, for each emissions unit, the
annual and ozone season heat input for 2000 to 2005, and the annual and ozone season average of the 3
years of highest annual heat input for 2000 to 2005.

# f. For averaging programs effective on or afte r January 1, 2013, an annual and ozone season NO x 

# mass emissions cap in aggregate for the emissions un its in the averaging program. The mass emissions
caps shall be the summation of the products for each emissions unit of the emission limitation in subd.
1.c. or the average emission rate in subd. 1.d. and the 3-year average annual or ozone season heat input.
The mass emission cap shall be calculated as follows:

i n

1i k

1j jj 

# HIE MC 

# ∑ ∑

= = 

# ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

= Equation 6

where:
MC is either the annual mass emissions cap or the ozone season mass emissions cap in tons of

NO x 

# for all units participating in the averaging program

E j 

# is the applicable emission limitation for fuel j submitted in subd. 1.c. or the average emission

rate in subd. 1.d.

HI j 

# is either the average annual or ozone season heat input for fuel j, submitted in subd. 1.e., for
the 3 years of highest heat input from 2000 to 2005
k is the number of fuels fired by a unit either during the year or during the ozone season
n is the number of units participating in the averaging program

2. 'Implementation.' The department shall review the proposed averaging program provided in the
notification and unless the department, within 30 da ys of receiving the proposed averaging program,
requests additional information or revisions to the pr ogram, the owner or operator shall comply with the
submitted emissions averaging program.
3. 'Compliance demonstration.' The owner or ope rator of emissions units participating in the
averaging program shall submit a compliance report c ontaining the following information by March 1 of
the calendar year following the averaging program year:



# 24

# a. The annual and ozone season actual heat input by fuel type for each emissions unit in the
averaging program.

b. The annual and ozone season actual NO X 

# mass emissions for each emissions unit.
c. The annual and ozone season actual average NO X 

# emission rate for each emissions unit

calculated as follows:



# ∑

= 

# = n

1 j j

x avg 

# HI Mass NO ER Equation 7

where:

ER avg 

# is the annual or ozone season average emission rate for each emissions unit

NO X 

# Mass is the total NO X 

# mass emissions for the averaging period

HI j 

# is the heat input for fuel type j for the averaging period
n is the number of fuels fired during the averaging period

d. The annual and ozone season actual NO X 

# mass emissions and heat input in aggregate for all

emissions units.
e. The annual and ozone season actual aggregate NO X 

# emission rate for all emissions units. This

emission rate is the summation of the total mass of NO X 

# emissions for all emissions units divided by the
total heat input for all emissions units and is calculated as follows:



# ∑ ∑

=

= 

# = n

1 u u n

1 u u x

aggr 

# HI Mass NO ER Equation 8

where:

ER aggr 

# is the emission rate in aggregate for all em issions units on an annual or ozone season basis

NO x 

# Mass u 

# is the total NO x 

# mass emissions for emissions unit u, for the averaging period



# 25

# HI u 

# is the total heat input for each emissions unit u, for the averaging period
n is the number of emissions units participating in averaging

f. The annual and ozone season aggregate emi ssion limitation for all emissions units. These
emission limitations are the summation of the product of each unit's actual heat input and emission
limitation by fuel type divided by the summation of the actual heat input for all emissions units. The
aggregate emission limitations shall be calculated as follows:



# ∑ ∑∑

= == 

# ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= n

1 u u

j

1 f ff n

1 u
aggr 

# HI ELHI EL Equation 9

where:

EL aggr 

# is the aggregate emission limit for all emissions units on an annual or ozone season basis

HI f 

# is the heat input for fuel f, for unit u

EL f 

# is the emission limit for fuel f, for unit u

HI u 

# is the total heat input for emissions unit u, for the averaging period
n is the number of emissions units participating in averaging
j is the number of fuels for unit u

g. Compliance on an annual and ozone season basis is demonstrated if the aggregate emission rate
required in subd. 3.e. is less than the aggregat e emission limit required in subd. 3.f., and the NO x 

# mass
emissions required in subd. 3.b. is less than the mass emissions cap required in subd. 1.f.
4. 'Heat input conversion.' For an emissions unit subject to emission limitations expressed in units
other than heat input, the emission limitation shall be converted to a heat input basis. All required

calculations shall be on a common basis with necessar y conversions performed according to the methods



# 26

# 27 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendices A and B, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04(13) and (21).
5. 'Mass emissions cap ex ceedance.' If the total NO x 

# emissions from the emissions units in the
averaging program exceed either the annual or ozone season emissions caps determined in subd. 1.f., the
owner or operator shall achieve additional NO X 

# reductions to compensate for the excess emissions within
3 calendar years after the averag ing year with the exceedance.

(c) Multi-facility average. An owner or operator may average emissions from emissions units at
multiple facilities by complying with the following procedures for demonstrating compliance on an
annual and ozone season basis with an aggregate NO X 

# emission limitation:
1. 'Notification.' The owner or operator shall s ubmit to the department a notification of an NO x 

# emissions averaging program by October 1 of the year prior to the emissions averaging year. The
notification shall include the following information:
a. The participating emissions units.
b. The owner or operator of each emissions unit.
c. The applicable emission limitation in s. NR 428.22 for each emissions unit.
d. The projected heat input, capacity utilization, NO X 

# emission rate and total NO X 

# mass emissions

for each emissions unit on an annual and ozone season basis.
e. The projected heat input, capacity utilization, NO X 

# emission rate and total NO X 

# mass emissions
in aggregate for all emissions units participating in the averaging program.
2. 'Implementation.' The department shall review the proposed averaging program provided in the
notification and unless the department, within 30 da ys of receiving the proposed averaging program,
requests additional information or revisions to the pr ogram, the owner or operator shall comply with the
submitted emissions averaging program.
3. 'Public notice.' a. The owner or operator pr oposing to average emissions units at multiple
facilities shall provide public notice 60 days prior to the calendar year of the averaging program in
newspapers of general circulation for the areas of the emissions units.

# 28 b. The public notice shall describe the proposed averaging program, the participating emissions
units and how to obtain a copy of the averag ing program information required in subd. 1.
c. In addition to the information required in s ubd. 1., the averaging program information provided
to the public upon request shall indicate whether any of the emissions units identified in the proposed
averaging program participated in prior averagi ng programs under this subsection and whether that
participation resulted in a violation of the emission limits.
4. 'Compliance demonstration.' The owner or operator participating in an averaging program shall
submit a compliance report containing the following information by March 1 of the calendar year
following the averaging program year:
a. The annual and ozone season actual heat input for each emissions unit.

b. The annual and ozone season actual NO X 

# mass emissions for each emissions unit.
c. The annual and ozone season actual average NO X 

# emission rate for each emissions unit
calculated using Equation 7 in par. (b)3.c.

d. The annual and ozone season actual NO X 

# mass emissions and heat input in aggregate for all

emissions units.
e. The annual and ozone season aggregate NO X 

# emission rate for all emissions units calculated
using Equation 8 in par. (b)3.e.
f. The annual and ozone season aggregate emi ssion limitation for all emissions units. These
emission limitations are the summation of the product of the each unit's actual heat input and emission
limitation divided by the summed actual heat input for all emissions units less an averaging program
environmental benefit factor. The aggregate emission limitations are calculated as follows:

# ( EBF1 HI ELHI EL

n

1 u u n

1 u uu

aggr 

# −× = 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

# ) Equation 10

where:

EL aggr 

# is the aggregate emission limit in aggregate for all emissions units on an annual or ozone

season basis

HI u 

# is the heat input for each emissions unit, u, for the specified period of time

EL u 

# is the emission limit for each emissions unit, u. For emission limitations in units other than
heat input, the emission limitations shall be converted to a heat input basis according to par. (b)4.
EBF is the environmental benefit factor. For averaging programs effective on or after January 1,

2013, the EBF is 10% for the annual emission limit a nd 10% for the ozone season emission limit. Prior to

this date the EBF is 0%.

g. A demonstration of compliance on an annual and ozone season basis consisting of the
aggregate emission rates under subd. 4.e. compared to the aggregate emission limitations calculated in

subd. 4.f.
(d) Violations and penalties . 1. All emissions units participating in an emissions averaging
program are considered out of compliance if emi ssions exceed any of the averaging program emission

limitations on either an annual or ozone season basis.
2. Each emissions unit participating in the averag ing program shall be considered in violation for
each day of non-compliance until corrective acti on is taken to achieve compliance.
3. Except for those periods of time for which the department grants an electric or steam utility
reliability waiver under s. NR 428.28 to the emissions units exceeding the applicable aggregate average
emission limitation, the department shall require the ow ners or operators of the emissions units in the



# 29

# 30 program to achieve reductions equivalent to th e amount of the exceedance. The additional emission
reductions shall be achieved within the subsequent 3 years on an annual or ozone season basis, consistent
with the period of the exceedance.
4. All owners or operators of emissions units considered out of compliance with an averaging
program emission limitation are liable for each violation and subject to enforcement and penalty
provisions under ss. 285.83 and 285.87, Stats. The owners or operators of the emissions units in the
averaging plan shall evaluate the emissions and operating data for any period of non-compliance to
determine which units are responsible for the non-co mpliance event. The information used in this
evaluation shall be made available to the department within 30 days of the discovery of a non-compliance

event.
5. The parameters required in the notice under pa r. (c) 1.d. shall cons titute annual and ozone
season alternative compliance limits for each unit par ticipating in a multi-facility averaging program
under par. (c). If compliance is demonstrated under pa r. (c)4.g., all emissions units in the averaging
program shall be deemed to be in complia nce with the alternative compliance limits.
(2) CAIR EMISSIONS UNITS. The owner or operato r of an emissions unit which is subject to
the emission reduction requirements of the clean air interstate rule (CAIR) under 40 CFR part 97 may

demonstrate that the NO x 

# emission reductions achieved by the emissions unit in complying with the
CAIR requirements constitute compliance with the NO x 

# RACT emission limitation requirements of this
subchapter.
(3) ALTERNATIVE RACT REQUIREMENT. (a) The owner or operator of an emissions unit
may request that the department establish an alte rnative emission limitation or alternative compliance
deadline to the requirements in s. NR 428.22 if the ow ner or operator demonstrates that it is economically
or technically infeasible to meet the requirement.
(b) The owner or operator of the emissions unit shall submit the request with the demonstration
for an alternative RACT requirement by the later of May 1, 2008 or by May 1 following the calendar year

# 31 in which an emissions unit first becomes subject to an emission limitation in s. NR 428.22.
(c) Any request for an alternative RACT requireme nt made under this subsection shall be subject
to the requirements and procedures of s. NR 436.05 and written approval of the administrator.

NR 428.26 Utility reliability waiver. The owner or operator of an emissions unit used for
purposes of electric or steam utility generation or natural gas utility transmission and subject to an
emission limitation in s. NR 428.22 may request that the department grant a waiver from meeting the
emission limitation for a specific period of time based on the following criteria and procedures:
(1) The waiver request is due to the utility's need to maintain a supply of electricity, steam, or
natural gas to non-interruptible customers.
(2) A waiver request may only be based on an unavoidable or unforeseeable event including:
(a) A major electric supply event affecting the utility.
(b) A major fuel supply disruption affecting the utility.
(c) A disruption in the operation of a gene rating unit or pollution control equipment.
(3) The owner or operator of a utility shall subm it a written request for a waiver that provides
information sufficient to demonstrate to the department’s satisfaction that granting the waiver is
warranted. The request shall include the following:
(a) The duration of the conditions warranting the waiver.
(b) The specific measures taken to mitigate emissi ons during the duration for which the waiver is
requested.
(c) The reasons why the utility was unable to ach ieve compliance with the emission requirement.
(4) The department may grant a waiver under th is section if, in consultation with the public
service commission and written approval by the administra tor, the department determines that the owner
or operator's failure to meet a requirement under s. NR 428.22 is consistent with criteria of sub. (2).
(5) Within 60 days after the receipt of a comple te request, the department shall publish a public

# 32 notice of the receipt of the waiver request and the department’s preliminary determination to approve,
partially approve, or deny the request. The depart ment shall provide an opportunity for public comments
on the request and the department's preliminary determination. The department shall hold a public
hearing on the request if a hearing is requested by a person affected by the waiver request.
(6) Following the public comment period, the department shall notify the applicant in writing of
the final determination to approve, conditiona lly approve or deny the waiver request.

SECTION 5. NR 484.04(13) is amended to read:

CFR Appendix Referenced Title Incorporated by Reference For NR 484.04 (13) 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A Test Methods NR 400.02(131) NR 428.25(1)(b)4. NR 439 NR 460 to 469


# SECTION 6. NR 484.04(15m) and (16m) are created to read:

CFR Appendix Referenced Title 

# Incorporated by Reference For NR 484.04 (15m) 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A, Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and 7E Determination of nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary sources 

# NR 428.23(1)(b)3.a.

(16m) 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A, Method 19 Determination of sulfur dioxide removal efficiency and particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emission rates 

# NR 428.23(1)(b)2.d., 5.a. and b. and 6.b.

SECTION 7. NR 484.04(21m) is amended to read:

CFR Appendix Referenced Title Incorporated by Reference For NR 484.04 (21m) 40 CFR part 60 Appendix F Quality Assurance Procedures NR 428.23(1)(b)2.c. NR 466.10(2)

# 33 SECTION 8. NR 484.04(26m)(bm) is created to read:

CFR Appendix Referenced Title Incorporated by Reference For NR 484.04 (26m)(bm) 40 CFR part 75 Appendix E Optional NO x 

## Emissions Estimation Protocol for Gas-Fired Peaking Units and Oil-Fired Peaking Units NR 428.23(1)(b)2.e.



# SECTION 9. NR 484.04(26m)(d) and (27) are amended to read:

CFR Appendix Referenced Title Incorporated by Reference For NR 484.04 (26m)(d) 40 CFR part 75 Appendix F Conversion Procedures NR 428.23(1)(b)5.c. and 6.b. and c. NR 446.04(3) NR 446.09(1)(a)

(27) 40 CFR part 75 Appendices A to I NR 428 NR 439 NR 428.23(1)(b)1.



# SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following
publication in the Wisconsin administrative register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

# 34 SECTION 11. BOARD ADOPTION. This rule was appr oved and adopted by the State of Wisconsin
Natural Resources Board on on April 25, 2006 and May 23, 2007.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin _________________________________.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By__________________________________ Scott Hassett, Secretary

(SEAL)

# Attachment 3 Public Hearing Certification

### Reasonabl e accommodation
, includin g th e provisio n o f informationa l materia l i n a n alternativ e format
, wil l b e provide d fo r qualifie d individual s wit h disabilitie s upo n request

. http://www.madison.co m



### 0 3

•for e
m

. BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F NATURA L RESOURCE S NOTIC E O F PUBLI C HEARIN G - AM-04-0 6 NOTIC E I S HEREB Y GIVE N tha t pursuan t t o ss

. 227.11(2)(a)
, 227.1 4 (1m ) an d 285.11(1 ) an d (6)
, Stats.
, interpretin g s

. 285.11(6)
, Stats.
, th e Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s wil l hol d a publi c hearin g o n th e creatio n o f ch
, N R 43 3 an d s

. N R 484.04(1 1 m ) Wis

. Adm

. Code
, relat

in g t o th e bes t availabl e retrofi t technolog y (BART ) requirement s fo r visibilit y protection

. Th e Departmen t i s proposin g a rul e t o addres s BAR T relate d Stat e Implementatio n Pla n (SIP ) revision s whic h ar e require d b y th e federa l regiona l haz e rule

. Th e Federa l regulation s requir e al l states , includin g Wisconsin
, t o develo p Stat e Implementatio n Plan s t o addres s visibilit y impairmen t i n mandator y Clas s I Federa l Area s (Clas s I Areas ) b y Decembe r 2007

. On e o f th e provision s o ( th e federa l reg
ulation s i s th e applicatio n o f BAR T require

ment s t o majo r stationar y source s tha t mee t certai n criteri a relatin g t o amoun t an d typ e o f emissions
, installatio n date an d sourc e catego

ry

. Th e propose d rul e require s tha t th e affect

e d facilitie s perfor m a n engineerin g analysi s fo r th e BAR T determinatio n whic h shal l b e base d o n a n analysi s o f th e bes t system s o f continu

ou s emissio n contro l technolog y availabl e an d associate d emissio n reduction s achievabl e (o r eac h sourc e subjec t t o BART
, Thi s analysi s i s t o b e performe d o n a source-by-sourc e basi s takin g int o accoun t th e criteri a provide d b y th e federa l regulation

. Th e ne t effec t o f th e pro
pose d rul e woul d b e t o examin e potentia l emis

sio n contro l technologie s fo r SO2
, NO x an d particulat e matte r fro m approximatel y 1 0 powe r plant s an d 4 pul p an d pape r mill s tha t mee t th e criteri a i n th e federa l regulation s an d t o determin e BAR T fo r thos e emissio n sources

. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t pur
suan t t o s

. 227.114
, Stats.
, i t i s no t anticipate d tha t th e propose d rul e wil l hav e a direc t eco
nomi c impac t o n smal l businesses

. Th e requirement s t o emissio n unit s owne d an d operate d b y electri c utilitie s an d pape r manu
facturer s ma y increas e th e cos t o f thei r prod

uct s an d therefor e ma y hav e a n indirec t impac t o n smal l businesse s throug h highe r electricit y cost s o r th e cost s o f pape r products

. NOTIC E i S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t th e Departmen t ha s mad e a preliminar y determina

tio n tha t thi s actio n doe s no t involv e significan t advers e environmenta l effect s an d doe s no t nee d an environmenta l analysi s unde r ch

. NR 150
, Wis

. Adm
, Code

. However
, base d o n th e comment s received
, th e Departmen t ma y pre
par e a n environmenta l analysi s befor e pro
ceedin g wit h th e proposal

. Thi s enviro n rnent a I revie w documen t woul d summariz e th a Department' s consideratio n o f th e impact s o f th e proposa l an d reasonabl e alternatives. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t th e hearing s wil l b e hel d on : Tuesday
, Marc h 13,200 7 Maratho n Count y Publi c Library
, Wausa u Room
, 30 0 N

. Firs t Street
, Wausau
, W l a t 1:0 0 p.m

. Thursday
, Marc h 15
, 200 7 Roo m 140-141
, DN R Southeas t Regio n Headquarters
, 230 0 Nort h Dr

. Marti n Luthe r Kin g Jr

. Dr.
, Milwaukee
, W l a t 1:0 0 p.m

. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t pur
suan t t o th e American s wit h Disabilitie s Act
, reasonabl e accommodations
, includin g th e provisio n o f informationa l materia l i n a n alter

nativ e format
, wil l b e provide d fo r qualifie d individual s wit h disabilitie s upo n request

. Pleas e cal l Rober t Eckdal e a t (608 ) 266-285 6 o r b y e-mai l t o Robert.Eckdale@wisconsin.go v wit h specifi c informatio n o n you r reques t a t leas t 1 0 day s befor e th e dat e o f th e schedule d hearing

. Th e propose d rul e an d supportin g documents
, includin g th e fisca l estimat e ma y b e reviewe d an d downloade d an d comment s electronicall y submitte d a t th e followin g Interne t site : http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov

. (Searc h thi s We b sit e usin g th e Natura l Resource s Boar d Orde r No
, AM-C4-Q6. ) Writte n comment s o n th e propose d rul e ma y b e submitte d vi a U.S

. mai l t o Mr

. Farrok h Ghoreishi
, Burea u o f Ai r Management
, P.O

. Bo x 7921
, Madison
, Wl 6370 7 o r b y e-mai l t o Mr

. Ghoreish i a t Farrokh.Qhoreishi@wisconsin.gov

. Comment s ma y b e submitte d unti l Marc h 19
, 2007

. Writte n comment s whethe r submitte d elec

tronicall y o r b y U.S

. mai l wil l hav e th e sam e weigh t an d effec t a s ora l statement s presente d a t th e publi c hearings
, i f yo u d o no t hav e Interne t access , a persona l cop y o f th e pro
pose d rul e an d supportin g documents
, includ

in g th e fisca l estimat e ma y b e obtaine d fro m Rober t Eckdale
, Burea u o f Ai r Management
, P.O

. Bo x 7921, Madison
, W l 5370 7 o r b y callin g (608 ) 266-2856

. Date d a t Madison
, Wisconsi n Februar y 2
, 2007

. STAT E O F WISCONSI N DEPARTMEN T O F NATURA L RESOURCE S By ; Scot t Hsssett
, Secretar y

PUB

. WSJ : Februar y 9
, 200 7

(#6711305 ) WNAXL P

BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F NATURA L

RESOURCE S NOTIC E O F PUBLI C HEARIN G AM-17-0 5 NOTIC E I S HEREB Y GIVE N tha t pursuan t t o ss

. 227.11(2)(a)
, 227.1 4 (1m ) an d 285.11(1 ) an d (6)
, Stats,
, interpretin g s

. 285.11(6)
, Stats.
, th e Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s wil l hol d a publi c hearin g o n th e creatio n o f ss

. N R 423.2 0 t o 428.28
, Wis

. Adm

. Code
, an d amendment s i o ss

. N R 423.04(2)(h } an d 428.05(3)(e ) an d 484,04
, Wis

. Adm

. Code
, relatin g t o th e estab

lishmen t o f rule s fo r reasonabl e availabl e con
tro l technolog y (PACT ) emissio n requirement s fo r majo r source s o f NO x emission s i n th e southeas t 8-hou r ozon e nonatttainmen t coun
tie s o f Kenosha
, Racine
, Milwaukee
, Waukesha
, Washington
, Qzaukee
, an d Sheboygan

. I n Jun e 2004
, th e U S EP A designate d th e Wisconsi n countie s addresse d b y th e rul e a s "moderate " nonattamrnen t area s fo r th e 8-hou r ozon e ambien t ai r qualit y standard

. Th e desig

natio n triggere d federa l Clea n Ai r Ac t require

ment s fo r implementatio n o f "reasonabl y avail

abl e contro l technology " (RACT ) fo r majo r sta

tionar y source s o f NO x an d volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) b y Ma y 1
, 2009

. Th e Departmen t i s proposin g thi s rul e packag e t o mee t th e RAC T requiremen t fo r majo r source s o f NO x emissions

. Th e Departmen t previousl y adopte d RAC T rule s fo r VO C source s t o addres s th e previou s 1-hou r ozon e standard

. Th e propose d rul e affect s facilitie s wit h th e potentia l t o emi t 10 0 ton s o r mor e o f NO x pe r yea r i n th e moderat e ozon e nonattainmen t areas

. However
, th e emissio n requirement s appl y t o individua l emissio n units
, suc h a s a boile r o r furnace
, a t th e affecte d facilities

. I t i s possibl e tha t a n emission'uni t contributin g t o a majo r source' s potentia l t o emi t ma y no t b e subjec t t o a RAC T requirement

. Likewise
, a n emissio n uni t identifie d b y a RAC T sourc e cate

gory , bu t a t a facilit y wit h a potentia l t o emi t les s tha n 10 0 ton s pe r year , wil l no t b e subjec t t o a RAC T requirement

. Th e emissio n requirement s propose d i n th e rul e consis t o f NO x emissio n limitation s an d combustio n tunin g requirement s applicabl e o n a year-roun d basis

. Th e emissio n limitation s ar e establishe d b y sourc e categorie s wit h a n emissio n uni t siz e threshol d base d o n availabl e contro l technologie s an d cost-effectiveness

. Combustio n tunin g requirement s appl y t o th e emissio n unit s subjec t t o emissio n limitations
, a s wel l a s t o smalle r emissio n units

. Th e emis

sio n limi t an d combustio n tunin g requirement s ar e establishe d base d o n a cost-effectivenes s o f $2,50 0 o r les s pe r to n o f controlle d NO x emissions

. Th e rul e contain s exemption s fro m bot h RAC T requirement s fo r certai n type s o f emissio n unit s demonstratin g lo w operatin g level s durin g th e ozon e season

. A n additiona l exemptio n recognize s tha t th e NO x emission s o f certai n smalle r emissio n unit s ar e alread y wel l controlle d unde r existin g ch

. N R 42 8 pro
vision s an d n o furthe r actio n i s cost-effectiv e i n meetin g a NO x RAC T emissio n limit

. Th e propose d rul a contain s severa l provision s t o addres s technica l issue s an d provid e com
plianc e flexibility

. Th e rul e propose s a specifi c phase d schedul e applicabl e t o larg e coa l boil

er s owne d o r operate d b y electri c utilitie s i n orde r t o maintai n electri c reliability
, wit h fina l complianc e b y Ma y 1
, 2013

. Fo r complianc e flexibility
, th e rul e allow s facility-wid e an d multi-facilit y emissio n averagin g betwee n emissio n unit s a t th e affecte d facilities

. A n affecte d entit y ma y als o reques t a n alternat e RAC T requiremen t fo r a n emissio n uni t base d
o n a technica l an d economi c demonstration

. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t pur
suan t t o s

. 227,114
, Stats.
, i t i s no t anticipate d tha t th e propose d rul e wil l hav e a direc t eco
nomi c impac t o n smal l businesses

. Th e pro
pose d RAC T rule s impos e n o reporting
, com
plianc e o r performanc e standard s o n smal l businesses

. Th e requirement s t o emissio n unit s owne d an d operate d b y electri c utilitie s ma y increas e th e cos t o f electricit y an d there

for e ma y hav e a n indirec t impac t o n smal l busi

nesse s throug h highe r electricit y costs

. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t th e Departmen t ha s mad e a preliminar y determina

tio n tha t thi s actio n doe s no t involv e significan t advers e environmenta l effect s an d doe s no t nee d a n environmenta l analysi s unde r ch

. N R 150
, Wis

. Adm

. Code
, However
, base d o n th e comment s received
, th e Departmen t ma y pre
par e a n environmenta l analysi s befor e pro
ceedin g wit h th e proposal

. Thi s environmenta l revie w documen t woul d summariz e th e Department' s consideratio n o f th e impact s o f th e proposa l an d reasonabl e alternatives

. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t th e hearin g wil l b e hel d on : Thursday
, Marc h 15
, 200 7 Roo m 140-141
, DN R Southeas t Regio n Headquarters
, 230 0 Nort h Dr

. Marti n Lulhe r Kin g Jr

. Dr.
, Milwaukee
, W l a t 2:0 0 p.m

. NOTIC E I S HEREB Y FURTHE R GIVE N tha t pur
suan t t o th e American s wit h Disabilitie s Act
, reasonabl e accommodations
, includin g th a provisio n o f informationa l materia l i n a n alter

nativ e format
, wil l b e provide d fo r qualifie d individual s wit h disabilitie s upo n request

. Pleas e cal l Rober t Eckdal e a t (308 ) 266-285 6 o r b y e-rnai l t o Robert.Eckdal e ©Wisconsin.gov

. wit h specifi c informatio n o n you r reques t a t leas t 1 0 day s befor e th e date o f th e schedule d hearing

. Th e propose d rul e an d supportin g documents
, includin g th e fisca l estimat e ma y b e reviewe d an d downloade d an d comment s electronicall y submitte d a t th e followin g interne t site : http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov

. (Searc h thi s We b sit e usin g th e Natura l Resource s Boar d Orde r No

. AM-17-05. ) Writte n comment s o n th e propose d rul e ma y b e submitte d vi a U.S

. mai l t o Mr

. To m Karman
, Burea u o f Ai r Management
, P.O

. Bo x 7921
, Madison
, W l 5370 7 o r b y e-mai l t o Mr

. Karma n a t Thomas.Karman@wisconsin.gov

. Comment s ma y b e submitte d unti l Marc h 19
, 2007

. Writte n comment s whethe r submitte d elec

tronicall y o r b y U.S

. mai l wil l hav e th e sam e weigh t an d effec t a s ora l statement s presente d a t th e publi c hearings

. I f yo u d o no t hav e Interne t access , a persona l cop y o f th e pro
pose d rul e an d supportin g documents
, includ

in g th e fisca l estimat e ma y b e obtaine d fro m Rober t Eckdale
, Burea u o f Ai r Management
, P.O

. Bo x 7921
, Madison
, W l 5370 7 o r b y callin g (60S ) 266-2856
, Date d a t Madison
, Wisconsi n Februar y 2, 200 7 STAT E O F WISCONSI N DEPARTMEN T O F NATURA L RESOURCE S By : Scot t Hassett
, Secretar y

PUB

. WSJ : Februar

y 9
, 200 7 (#6711310 ) WNAXL P

Notic e i s hereb y give n tha t a meetin g o f th e Executiv e Committe e o f th e La w Enforcemen t Standard s Boar d o f th e Wisconsi n Departmen t o f Justic e wil l b e hel d Tuesday
, Februar y 13
, 200 7 a t 10:0 0 a.m. , a t th e Risse r Justic e Center
, 1 7 Wes t Mai n Street
, Roo m 884
, Madison
, W l t o conduc t th e followin g business : 1 ) Introduction s 2 ) Request s t o Waiv e Basi c La w Enforcemen t Training
, Basi c Jai l Office r Training
, Contin

genc y Office r Training
, Instructo r Developmen t Cours e an d Colleg e Credit s 3 ) Request s t o Certify/Recertif y La w Enforce

men t Officers
, Jai l Officers
, Secur e Detentio n Officer s an d Instructor s 4 ) Request s t o Certif y Academie s (Northeas t Wisconsi n Technica l Colleg e an d Wester n Technica l College ) 5 ) Amendmen t t o Minute s o f Jun e 6
, 200 6 La w Enforcemen t Standard s Boar d Regardin g Lapse d Instructo r Statu s 6 ) Instructo r Certificatio n Requirements—3-Yea r Full-Tim e v

. 3-Yea r Part-Tim e Employmen t 7 ) Certificatio n Trac k Progra m 8 ) Standardize d Fiel d Sobriet y Testin g Mem o o f Understandin g Updat e 9 ) Standardize d Fiel d Sobriet y Testin g Maste r Instructo r Traine r Cours e an d Instructo r Cours e Certificatio n 10 ) Principle s o f Subjec t Contro l Instructo r Updat e 11 ) Cos t Analysi s fo r Basi c Jai l Trainin g 12 ) Defensiv e an d Arres t Tactic s & Crisi s Inter

vention-Motio n Proces s 13 ) Marc h Boar d Election s o f Chairperson / Vice-Chairperso n 14 ) Propose d Schedul e fo r Quarterl y Executiv e Committe e Meeting s 15 ) Adjournmen t Fo r furthe r information
, contac t th e Trainin g an d Standard s Bureau
, Wisconsi n Departmen t o f Justic e .a

t 6p8/266-8SQO : TT

Y User s 1-800

- 947-352 9 i - PUB

. WSJ : Februar y 9,2007

. J l#«aU8P L

.. i



# L

# Attachment 4 SIP Checklist

## 2


# EPA Region V 

# Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee? Yes _X_ No ___

2. Date of Submittal _June 12, 2007__
3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name _Ralph Patterson Telephone _(608)267-7546 FAX Number _(608)267-0560____ E-MAIL Address___Ralph.Patterson@dnr.state.wi.us
4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name _Tom Karman_ Telephone _(608) 264-8856 FAX Number _(608)267-0560____ E-MAIL Address___Thomas.Karman@dnr.state.wi.us 

# Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

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

__ No_X_ The attached rule language has been adopted but has not been published as yet. A copy of the rule published in the Wisconsin Code will be forwarded to EPA.
6. The effective date of the regulation is or wa s _Upon Publication. Publication is approximately three months after final adoption by the legislative bodies which occurred in May, 2007
7. Are test methods/rules incorporated by reference correctly? (Has approval been obtained from the state Attorney General

Yes_X_ No_______ Not applicable _______ For No and Not applicable explain answer.

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

Yes __X___ No _______ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

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

## 3

Yes _X___ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

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

Yes__X__ No______ Additional Explanation (if necessary)
11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of publication? Yes_X__ No ____ Additional Explanation (if necessary)

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certificati on that public hearings we re held in accordance wit the information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof).

Yes_X__ No___ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

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

Yes_X___ No____ Additional Explanation (if necessary).



# Technical Issues

14. Name the all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision? _Emissions of nitrogen oxide__
15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)

Yes__X__ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary)

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

Yes__X___ No_____

## 4

Additional Explanation (if necessary)

## 5

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the changes in actual emissions from affected sources?

Yes_X__ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary)

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

Yes_X___ No____
Additional explanation (if necessary) - Thes e rules implement additional emission reductions which contributes to and pr otects emission levels associ ated with fulfilling NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility requirements.

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

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

Yes_X___ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary). See technical support analysis provided in the attached Green Sheet background memo's to the DNR Board.
21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirement s where necessary, to ensure emission levels?

Yes_X__ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary).

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

Yes_X__ No___ Additional explanation (if necessary).

## 6



# STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

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

## 7


# WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Submittal for SIP approval of:
1) Adopted NOx RACT rules for major sources in the moderate nonattainment areas
2) Non-substantive changes to units of emissi on limits for reciprocating engines under existing NR 428.04 and 05 NOx control requirements.



# Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What sources are being regul ated? CAA NOx RACT Major sources in the moderate nonattainment areas of Wisconsin. Major sources are facilities with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more. What are criteria for exemption? - Low operating levels: Exemptionsar are consistent with cost-effectiveness of RACT control. The state cost-effectiveness is up to $2,500 per ton from an uncontrolled basis. - Units meeting existing NOx emission limits with potential emissions < 75 tons per year. Marginal cost of control increases significantly for well controlled smaller units. - Specific unit applications consistent with low operating levels. Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) The exemptions have record keeping requirements which must clearly demonstrate all necessary measurements and calculations for exemption. Is emission inventory listed in the background document of the attainment demonstration? Inventory including allowable and actual emissions in source category should be included, for enforcement purposes and independent of any Clean Air Act requirements, in the attainment demonstration if such data is necessary for determining baselines in regulations. The sources listed in the inventory as potentially affected are all units in the nonattainment area falling in the RACT emission limit categories.

Is the averaging time(s) used in the rule different from that of the ambient standard? The averaging time in the rule must be consistent with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal to or shorter than the tim e associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available only in limited instances provided that the The averaging time is consistent with the Phase II implementation rule and EPA guidance.

## 8

ambient standard is not compromised. What are the units of compliance (lbs VOC per gallon of solids applied less water, grains per standard cubic foot?) Clearly stated in the rule. Units for emission limitation are different for each source category.

Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? If yes, state criteria. Could a USEPA inspector independently determine if the criteria were met?? Does USEPA have to approve each case? Explicit description of how averaging, bubbling, or equivalency is to be determined. VOC equivalency must be on a “solids applied” basis. Any method must be independently reproducible. Provision must be explicit as to whether USEPA case-by-case approval is required. If provision intended to be “generic” then USEPA bubble policy must be met. Yes, averaging is allowed. The averaging programs have clear criteria specified for participating in an averaging program. EPA will be approving the criteria for participation. Emissions monitoring and compliance submittals are required specific to the averaging programs.

If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of area to attainment. New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. No, These RACT limitations are to fulfill a separate CAA requireme nt and independent of demonstrating attainment.



# Compliance Dates

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the compliance date? The compliance date must not be later than the approved or about to be approved date of attainment unless emission reductions are not necessary for attainment. In some cases, it will be necessary for the regulation to specify dates in compliance schedules that are required to be submitted by source to state. Emission limitations are applicable May 1, 2009. EGU coal fired boilers are subject to a phased compliance schedule of emission limits for May 1, 2009 and May 1, 2013.

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. May 1, 2009 

# Specificity of conduct

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What test method is required? Test method must be explicitly stated. • A.R. and CAIR subject EGU's – 40 CFR Part 75 CEMs.

• Non-EGU units – As specified by source category either: 40 CFR Part 60 monitoring or emissions stack testing every two years according to Method 7. Any non-EGU unit can utilize parametric monitoring according to 40

## 9

CFR Part 75 appendix E.
What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. • CEMs monitored units – 30 day rolling average.

• Stack tested units – average of 3 hourly

runs. Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. Yes, calculations and tabulation of emissions for the different monitoring methods and for specific cases of firing multiple fuels are specified in the rule. If a compliance calculation is necessary, list the formula, period of compliance, and/or evaluation method. Formula must be explicit. Specific calculations are specified in the rule under s. NR 428.23.



# Incorporation by reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. s. 227.11(2)(a) and 285.11(1) and (6), Stats.
Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. The rule incor poration by references were reviewed by the state legislative clearinghouse. 

# Record keeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What records are required to determine compliance? Clearly stated. • Applicable emission limit

• 30 day rolling emission rate for CEMs monitored units or stack test determination every two years.

• Records of monitoring equipment operation and maintenance. In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On what time basis (instantaneously, hourly daily)? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the performance requirements, including the applicable time period . Units of the emission limitations are specified for each source category. The records to be kept include:

• Applicable emission limit

• 30 day rolling emission rate for CEMs monitored units or stack test determination every two years.

• Unit's heat input or output on a monthly basis.

• Unit's capacity utilization on an ozone season and annual basis. Records of monitoring equipment operation and maintenance. Does the rule affirmatively require the records be kept? There must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. Yes, recordkeeping requirements are specified under s. NR 428.24



# Exemptions

## 10



# USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. • Exemptions are specified under s. NR 428.21 and include: 1) General exemptions – a list of defined units by application type. 2) Low operating units – establishes a threshold of operation during the ozone season for being subject to the emission limits. 3) Reciprocating engines – Certain EPA certified engines which are meeting the emission limit or which are well control and costly to implement additional control. The engines are certified to emit at these levels of its life and therefore no additional monitoring is required. 4) Other regulated units – Units that are subject to a NOx emission limit under current NR 428 requirements which limits emissions to less than 75 tons per year.

• The units qualifying for exemption (except EPA certified engines) have record keeping requirements under NR 428.24 to clearly establish what constitutes a violation. Is the criteria for application clear? Clearly stated. Yes, see previous response.



# Malfunction Provisions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response Are there any malfunction provisions in the rule? Rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination. • Malfunction provisions are not specific in the RACT rules. However all state air rules are subject to a requirement of malfunction and abatement plans under s. NR 439.11 applicable to units that may emit 3 lbs per hour or 15 lbs per day.

• The RACT rule contains a Utility Waiver provision which allows evaluation of compliance related to uncontrollable or foreseeable events. The waiver may grant temporary relief from the emission limitation and is subject to public comment and EPA approval.