### I4J 002
egiO! 4 124 25 h Street

, gden UT 84401 Region 2 740 Simms Street Golden, CO 80401 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

United States Department of Agriculture 

## USDA 

## W5F 10/21/2009 15:06 FAX 303 275 512

# 1
Forest I' Service



### 2009 ! 1>S80 

# tOCT 2 1 I ' , I

1 File Code: Date: 

## i David

### A. Finley, Air Quality' dministrator Wyoming Department ofEn ironmental Quality

- Air QualityDivisio 122 W. 2Sth St., Herschler B i1ding Cheyenne, WY 82002 

# ' I Dear Mr. Finley: The Forest Service (FS) has mpleted its review ofthe yoming RJgion IHaze State Implementation Plan (SIP). he FS concurs and support the**reVieW~d** dings ofthe US Department ofInterior, Natio al Park Service, and Fish d Wildlife ervi e. This plan's intent is to demo strate how the State ofWy ming will ake r asonable progress toward meeting the national oal ofpreventing any futur , andremedying nyexisting, impairment ofvisibility in m datory Class I areas. !

, The regulations describing w at these plans should conta n are foundlat 40 CFR S1.300 through

309. AI; the Federal Land Mager (FLM) for the North bsaroka,**~ash** ie, Teton, Fit.zpatrick, Bridger,**~avage** . un,**Mo~t** Zirkel,**Ra~ah, la~**  Tops, at d Ea les Nest Class I Wildernesses, the FS IS verYfterested m the Wyommg eglortal Ha ePia
. As you are aware, the region Ihaze regulations at 40 CF SIJ08(i)

# ~qUir consultation between the FLMs and the St teo Specifically: ! The State mustprovide the Pederal LandManagerwith an a ortunity for lnsult tion, inperson andat least 60 daysprior ta holdinganypublic hearing on a Implementatibnplm (orplan revision) for regional haze required this subpart. This consultation ust include t+e opp rtunity for the affectedFederalLandMan gel's to discuss their:

PrInted on Recycled Papet lt's Cool to Be Safe (i) Assessmentof impair me t of visibility In any mandatory lass IFederallarea; nd 

### , (ii) Recommendations on th development of the reasonable rogress goalalndon he development andimplementation of strat gies 10 address visibility impair ent. 

# I Detailed comments on the S materials and related Best vailable R,btrofi Technology (BART) materials are included with**t~i~** letter, specifically, 1) FS omments gn the Regional Haze SIP, 2) FS Comments on**Non-E~~** BART Sources, 3) FS Co ments on J1iGU ART Sources, 4) US EPA Comments on**Reasona~e** Progress (forreference). 

# i
The FS compliments you on

## ~our hard work and dedicati n to Signifij,ant 

### iJ provement in our nation's air quality values and visibility. Cooperative ef£ rts such as ,hese nsure that, together, we will continue to make pro resS toward the Clean Air ct's goal 0 natu al visibility



# . I
I i i OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 98% P.02141 003 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

# I
conditions at our Class I wild mess areas and parks. We appreciate tJle op ortunity to continue to work closelywith your ag cy as you develop this SIP Ifyouhat. que tions or connnents, please contact JeffSorkin of**~ur** Rocky Mountain Regio ,at (303) 2

### '15-57 9. Sin el,
. 10/21/2009 15:06 FAX 303 275 5122

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 98Y. P.0310/21/2009 15:07 FAX 303 275 5122 PHYSICAL RESOURCES**~004** United States Department of A ricnlture Forest Service Intermountain Region 324 2 "'Street Ogde , UT 84401 80{-6 5-5605
File Code: 2580 Date: Octo er 31, 2008 Mr. David

### A. Finley, Admi 'strator Division ofAir Quality Department ofEnvironment I Quality 122 W. 25th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002
DearMr. Finley: The Forest Service (FS) has eviewed the Department 0
.Environme tal Q ality's (DEQ) Best Available Retro-Fit Technol gy (BART) determinations for the B T-eli ible emission units at the FMC Granger AP-6044, MC Westvaco AP-6045, d General hem cal Green River Works AP-6046 facilities. T eBART determination is critical co pon t ofthe EPA Regional Haze programto i prove visibility in ournati nal PllIks wil erness areas, of which Regional FurtherPro ess and the Long Term Str tegy are als key components, 

### As such, the decisions madeby e DEQ under the BART p ocess may Iso feet the otherprogram elements affecting ournatio 's abilityto improve visibil ty. With th's bro der perspective, the FS offers the following co ents on the DEQ's BART etern'linatio s.

ART modeling Wyominghave

mately, the o a direct ave higher ozone Similarly, the spatial distribu 'on ofthe ozone monitorin sites used i. the analysis is suspect. Recent st dies ofmonitoring locatio, s 

### in southw ,ster certainly raised awareness of he complexityofaddressin this 1ssue. Unfi Pinedale ozone monitoring si was not operating during his studyp .od, comparison is notpossible. owever, the area near Sout Pass appe rs to Dispersion Modeling

- Ozo e Concentrations: The FS is concerned that visi ility impacts may be under stimated 

### in the r fmed modeling, as causedby an under-represent tion ofthe ozone concentr tion. The 0 one ata used in the BART modeling is notbelieved to b spatially ortemporally r resentative fthe ozone concentration ofa plume/pufftraveling fro any ofthe BART-eligible emission so rces near Green River toward the Fitzpatrick and B dgerWilderness areas. E
.. issions of
. poll tants originating near Green Rivermustpass throu h the atmosphere near the J nab and W msu ter oil and gas fields as they travel toward the Bri ger andFitzpatrick Wilde ess areas. e oz ne data used in the modeling is from 2001 throu 2003. 

### In 2001, there wer reported 2 ',199 oil and gas producing wells in Wyoming. By 2006, this numberincreased to a. proximatel 38,0 0 wells state wide!, with associated increases in a r emissions. 

### In 2006, the stoever win erti e exceedance ofthe ozone standard was experien ed in Sublette County. He ce, hOurly 0 one ata used in the refined dispersion modeling. r the BART analyses is no temporally epre entative.

I Wyoming Oil & Gas Commission Caring for the Land and Serv ng PeQple Printed on Recycled Paper 

# 0:

OCT-21-2009 16'13 303 275 5122 99% P.04I4J 005 2 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

# I
concentrations than near Pin ale. As such, the FS is c cerned thaJ the zone data used in the BART modeling is not spati llyrepresentative. 

# I
I The underestimation ofozo concentration affects the Odel-predilted h e impacts primarily for nitrates, as follows. Ozo e is theprimary source of ydroxyl rad cals OR), which playakey role in the formation of onium sulfate [(NH4)2S04] d ammonum n trate (NH4N03) in the CALPUFF model. Ozone s es as theprimary source· fhydroxyl adic s, which react with NO

### zto form nitric acid. Th nitric acid reacts with am oniato fornj onium nitrate. i Figure I below illustrates thd effect ofozone concentrati n on the fo Imati n ofnitric acid (RN03), which is also

### affeC~d byPG stability class and 02 conce atio. Underestimating the ozone concentration by 2 ppb (e.g., 40 ppb instead f60 ppb), my r ult in a 50 percent underestimation in the conve 'sion rate ofN02to nitric a id, and effe tivel reduce the modelpredicted haze by halffor a iven hour. I 

### Figure 1. Effect ofOzone

## ~oncentration on Nitric A id 10/21/2009 15:07 FAX 303 275 5122 DearMr. Finley

he more recent d rerun the BART -FGT=2

_.-FGT=3 FGT=4


### 0.09 0.05 one Concentration (p 

### .03 Q) 

### 30.0 

### 'Iii 25.0 0:: 

### c:: 'C' 

### 20.0 0 

### € 15.0 

## 'i!! ;l.



## ...... 10.0· .-'': 

### c:: 5.0 0 0 

### 0.0 0.01 

# I To remedy this issue, the FS s requesting thatWyoming EQre-evalluate hourly ozone datato ensure appropriately representati e value is ured, dispersionmodeling analysis. 

# I

t 

### Con rsion Rate of NOx 0 

### HN03 [NOx] 

# =0.025 pp

Natural Background Conce tration: The DEQ states that "Species concentrations correspondi g to the 20 erce tbest days were calculated for each Class I ar a by scaling backthe annu Iaverage co cent ations given in Table 2-1 ofthe EPA document 

### Gu ance for EstimatingNatur I Visibility ond'tions Under the RegionalHaze Rule." Additi nal information is needed t understan and valuate the use of scaling factors as applied to t e annual average concentra ions for cal.ulati g background

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99% P.0510/21/2009 15:08 FAX 303 275 5122 

### Dear Mr. Finley PHYSICAL RESOURCES 141006 

### 3

concentrations for the 20 pe ent bestdays. As this info ati<lln is u 'edi change in light extinction, w 'ch is subsequentlycomp ed witIrthr shol tIrorough understanding of is approach is needed for c ncurrence. the quantification of ofacceptance, a 

### USDA Forest Service omments on BART D terrninat on r FMC Granger The FS understands thattwo BART-eligible units were valuated anI dee ed exempt from BARTbased upon refined**d~** 

### persionmodeling. These t 0 

### units are1358. MMBtulhr coal-fired boilers, each equipped**Wi~GD** 

### scrubber and ESP cont oIs. ; Given tire modeling concern expressed above, tire FS c otconcu with tire DEQ's determination tIrattIrese B T-eligible units are not su 'ectto BAR at t is time. 

### USDA Forest Service omments on BART D terminat on J 

### r FMC Westvaco Facility AP-6045 The FS has reviewedtire DE's proposed BART dete 'nation for t e thr e BART-eligible emission units atFMC's We tvaco facility. We underst· d tIrat one fth e units, tire naturalgas fired boiler (PH-3), has b en determined not to be sli**~ect** 

### to B T ba ed upon tireresults of refined dispersion modeling. The remaining two units N -IAandN -lB, both coal-fired boilers, are subjectto BART. I I

. In 

### making its determination, eDEQ recognized and rei ed upon th fact at applying the recently installed lowNOx b rners and OFA for NOx is ufficient to brin the model-predicted 98th 

### percentile impactbelow he 0.5 Adv threshold. 

### As s ch, the DE rec mmends thatno additional controls are warr ted. The FS acknowledges this 

### ap roach, as manyBART-eli ible source are sing federallyenforceable controls to reduc model-predicted impacts elow the su dect 0 

### BART thresholds. However, recognizing that B T is one ofthree compo ents ofthe egio al Haze Rule tIrat the Statewill use to achieve our ational visibility goals, we ncourage t Ie D to considerthe cumulative impacts ofsevera BART-eligible sources in e Green Rvcr ea. Considerthe following discussion contain d in the preamble to the Re ional Haze ule p 39120-39121. "In a regulatory context, we believe thata State's decisi nas to an a 'Pro riate threshold for contribution coulddepend uppn the number of sources a. ectinga cl sI a ea. To illustrate, 

## if there were only one emissio source affecting Visibility a class I a ea, t atsource couldhave a deciview impact only slight below theperceptibility t resholdwit out ontributing to noticeable impairment. How ver, 

## if there were IOOO sou ces each ch ngi visibility by 0.1 deciviews, the total impact w uldbe a lO deciview chan in visibilitL. In this hypothetical example, alii00sources wou dbe contributing in equal mounts to

### s~bsta tialvisibility impairment. " 

### i 

## , Currently, there are two BAR -eligible sources at the F C Grangcr iIit, three BARTeligible sources at the FMC estvaco facility, and two B RT-eligibl' sou ces located at

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99% P.0610/21/2009 15:08 FAX 303 275 5122 

### DearMr. Finley PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4**~007**

i 

### General Chemical Green 

### Ri er Works facility. Four of hese sevenJIOurc s havebeen determined to be subject to ART, afterrefined modeli g. The current approach propo 

## 100 by the DEQ is to reduce missions om e ch subjectto BART source to controls, which re uce individual impacts fro each sourCJ'toj stbelow the 0.5 Mv threshold. Our general comments regar ing the dispersion modelin applyto t .s fac·lity. As such, the model-predicted impacts rna be underestimated, which fthis is the :case, ould warrant further emission reductions. beyond theminimumprOPOSi'dbytheDEQ are reasona Ie. Upon c nside ation ofthe cumulative impacts from the e sources, additional contr Is impleme ted a this time will help the DEQ move closertoward its easonable progress goals.**enc~,** 

### whe er ese controls are implemented as part ofBAR orunder Reasonable Furt erProgress) such controls are viewed as reasonable. I S02 Controls: The S02 controls identified fi I.'

### the two coal-fired boilers in DEQ's alysi are limited for two options for increasing the am unt ofgas routed exhausttough the ret sc bber. However, the EPABART rule identifies se eral otherwet scrubberup ade option, wh ch are not currently addressed in the DEQ's anal is. These additional upgr e options' ,cIud installation ofliquid distribution rings; installatio ofperforated trays; use of rganic acid addit ves; improve or upgrade scrubber auxiliary s stem equipment; and redesi spray he del.' 0 

### nozzle configuration. Each ofthese upgrade option shouldbe considered in th BART an lyses Analysis ofControl Techno ogies in the Visibility Mo eling: In 

### evaluating the effectivenes ofthe various control opti us in reduclUg h ze, it wouldbe helpful ifthemodeling result were presented for the co bination ofLNB OF

### NSNCR (NOx) and scrubberupgrades, both ithout and with a new byp ss (S02). 

### I BART Determination: TheDEQ determined that the installation oflow NOx bu OFA meetingNOx emission limits of0.35 Ib/M tu (3D-dayroIling averag ),represen B T for each ofthe coal-firedboilers. The DEQ tates that this determinatio is based 0 

### the I.' 

### suIts ofthe visibility analysis, which show thatF C's proposed BART contr optionres Its in an average reduction of0.3 Adv in the 98th 

### percent suItat Bridger Wildemes Area as co par to the baseline condition for each unit, and areduction of0.2 Adv in thc 8th 

### percent esul atFitzpatrick Wilderness Area comparedto baseline conditions. The 8th 

### percenti e val es for both units NS-IA andNS-IB werebelo 0.3 Adv increase from ba kground co ditio s for all 3 years of meteorology.

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 98% P.0710/21/2009 15:09 FAX 303 275 5122 

### DearMr. Finley PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### 5 

### I4i 008



### USDA Forest Service Chemical Green River This determination is based pon considerations ofthe**odel-~redic** 

### ,ed c ange in deciviews compared to baseline conditi ns. EPA states in the pre ble

### to its· T Guideline2 

### that "Even though visibility improvem t from an individual sourc .maynotbe erc tible, it should still be considered in setting B Tbecause the contribution 0ha2!e maybe si ificantrelativeto other source contributions in the Class I areas." Given t eproximityofth two boilers, the combined effect ofrequiring more stringentcontrols, suh as LNB/ A ith SNCR, will likely allow the State to reach its re sonable progress goals 

### mments on BART D terminatilon r General

orks AP-6046

Dispersion Modeling: Please referto ourprevious c mments on o.zone concen determination ofbackground oncentrations. The FS has reviewedthe DE's proposed BART determ nation for •e tw BART-eligible emission units at General Ch mical GreenRiverWorks. We unders 'and t e two units are tangentially fired boilers usi in-line pulverizers to bur low sulfur 'ubbi minous coal, which supply power andprocess s m to the mining and orep cessing op ,ratio s. BoilerC has a firing rate of534 MMBtu/hr d Boiler D has a firing ra of880 M Bt
. Each boiler is currently equipped with aho side ESP to control particu ates, overfi 'e air d low excess air usedto reduceNOx, and no dd-on controls for S02. 0 r comment1 are resented below. 

## i
."'" Md

# + of

# ~ting ",w,

# f~
, Effectiveness ofControl Te hnologies: NOx In its preamble 

### to its BART uidelines, BPA states, "Ma 

### ycontrol t cOOi ues...canperform at a wide range oflevels
.. .It is i pOItant, however, that in aly:ting th tee ology, you take into account the most stringent e .ssion control level that t e tecOOolo y is apable ofachieving." The DEQ identifies the effec iveness ofNOx controls as follows: 10 N x bwners (LNB) with separated overfire air (SOF ) achieve 30 percent con I; SNCR hiev s 50 percent control, and SCR achieves 80 percent controL LowerNOx emiss on rates are achi able. Low NOx burners with adv ced over-fire air, tangential y-fired boil rs ar able to achieve NOx etnission rates between 0.14 nd 0.39 Ibs/MMBtu (equiv lent to 20-7 per ent control)'. Similar emission rates were found i the NETL coal plant da base. For xam Ie, the Ameren Rush Island Facility in Missouri s able to achieve annual verage N x e .ssion rates of 0.089 Ibs/MMBtu, and 0.0941bs/M Btu for its two boilers. A eren's Ne 

### rton, llinois, facility is able to achieve an aimual average Ox emission rate of0.13· Ibs/MMBt I. 

### S CR alone can achieve between 30-50 percentreduct ons inNOx4• 

### SCR can ac ieveup to 0per ent reduction5•

2 FederalRegi,terNoL 70No. 128 edoe,day, July 6,2005. Page 39129 3 Aisiom TFS 2000R 

### Low NOx nlrol Syslerm 4 U.s. EPA AirPollution Control T elmologyFact Sheet: Selective ou-C<ltalytic**~educ** ·on. EPA'452/F-03-031. 'U.S. EPA AirPollution Control T cImology Fact Sheet: Selective atalytic Redu ion: PA-4521F-03-032.

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 98% P.0S10/21/2009 15:09 FAX 303 275 5122 

### Dear

### Mr. Finley PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### 6 

### Iill 009



### The use oflowerthan best a bievable control effectiven ss results i low r model-predicted reductions in haze, and ther fore potentially affects the etenrtinatio of ART. Costs: The costs for applying each fthese control technologie is higher t an tical costranges. For example, ultra low NOx b ers with advanced over-fir· air, tangen ially- Iredboilers cost between $300 and $1200 pe ton, whereas the costs are stimated at 133 per ton for BoilerC and $1433 for BoilerD. I 

### cost are estimated at Typical SNCR costs are $50

- $1500 perton6
, 

### whereas he propose $2712 perton for Boiler C d $2025 perton for Boiler
. 

## ! Western Backstop Sulfur ioxide Trading Program: 

# I
The DEQ has stated that "G eral Chemical will notbe equired to 4eet e·therproposed emission limit underBART. Instead, General Chemical will be req Ired t participate in the emissions trading program der Chapter 14 ofthe WA SR should he pr gram be triggered." Under40 CFR 51.309 (g)(2) ii), the requirement under 1.308(e) reI ted t BART forregional haze is deemed to be satisfie forpollutants addressed b. the milest es a d backstop trading program if, in establishing th emission reductions miles ones under ara aph 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(4), itis shown that greate reasonable progress will b achieved Jrthe e additional Class I areas (e.g., Fitzpatrick and B idgerWilderness Areas) th would be achi ed through the application ofsource-specifi BART emission limitation under 51.3 8 (e (1), Additional information supporting this monstration is required, 01 

### erwise the O2 

### e ission limits established under BART wil be in effect. 

# 1

We appreciate your consider tion ofthese comments. S ould you h ve q estions regarding these cOnmJents please conta t BudRolofson, FAA Staf, at (303) 2 ,5-57 2. Sincerely,



### lsi Brent Larson (for) HARV FORSGREN Regional Forester

cc: MikeDudley Bud Rolofson JeffA Sorkin Rick Graw ScottA Copeland Ann 

### Acheson

6 Midwest RPO Interim White P per - EGUs, March 2006

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99X P.0910/21/2009 15:10 FAX 303 275 5122

### I PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### I4J 010

UNITED S TES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO ECTI'oN AG NC REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street DENVER, CO 60202-112 Phone 600·227-6917 http://www.epa·90v/reglonO
Ref: 8P-AR 

## AtI6 f

## 22009 David A. Finley, Administrato Division off-ir Quality Department ofEnvironmental uaIity 122 W. 25th St.
. Cheyenne, WY 82002

Dear Mr. Finley: Re: Prelimi Specific Fo Progress in ary Gomme ts 0 WRAP's Source-**-Fac~or** 

### An lyses for Reasonable yOlIling

Sincerely, , Please fin<j enclosed EP ,s preliminary comments 0 the dWaft

### Su le Informationfor Four-FactorA dlysesfor Selectecllndividu .1 FacUlties I Wy May 6, 2009. In addition, .som ofthese preliminary comme' ts pet!ain t the ay 4, 2009, draft 

### SupplementaryIn/ormation/or Four FactorAnalyses by 

## w:. P States, a oug EPA has not· completed a full review ofthis .'general" report. These repo s wete prep ed EC/R IncorPorated for the Western R gional Air Partnership ( P) and the este Governors" Association ('\VGA). Weunde stand thatyou intend to use 

### f ese reports sup lement the State's Reasonable Progress an lysis for the Wyoming Regi nal Ha2e SI Please note these comm nts are highly preliminary. iven \:he na re 0 EelR's fourfactor analyses and our uncerta' ty regarding theirfuture use we dld not Item t to ·identify every

. 

### , concern. Also, as you know, w will only reach a final concl sion Iregard ng th adequacy of Wyoming's.Reasonable Progre s analysis and Regional Ha2· SIP when e act n Wyoming's Regional Ha2e SIP revision thr ugh notice and comment rul making. Thank you for yourcon iderations ofour concerns. I you**~ave** a y qu tions, you may contact me at (303) 312-6434, r your staffmay contact Am Plait,at (30 ) 312 6449, 

### I I

# 4/\:1'~ 

# "" '

- .**~Vjdeti** h, Director

# I Air Program Enclosure

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99% P.1010/21/2009 15:10 FAX 303 275 5122

### I PHYSICAL RESOURCES I4J 010

UNITED S TES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO ECTI'oN AG NC REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street DENVER, CO 80202-112 Phone 800-227·8917 htlp:llwww,epe,govlreglonO'
Ref: 8P-AR 

## AUG 1

## 22009 David A, Finley, Administrato Division ofAir Quality DepartIhent'ofEnvironmental uality 122 W. 25th St.
. Cheyenne, WY 82002 Re: Prelim; ary Oomme ts 0 WRAP's SourceSpecific Fo -FaCjtor 

### An lyses for Reasonable Progress in' yoming Dear Mr. Finley: Please find enclosed EP 's preliminary comments 0 the 

### dlraft Su 'PIe Informationfor Four-FactorA alyseslorSelecteqlndivid I FacUities i Wy Mal' 6, 2009. In addition,.som ofthese preliminary comme ts pertain t the ay 4, 2009, draft Supplementary Information/or Four FaotorAnalyses by 

## w: P States, a oug EPA has not completed a full review ofthis .'general" report. These repo were prep ed EC/R Incorporated for the Western R gional Air Partnership ( P) anc! the. este Governors" Association (WOA). We unde stand that you intend to use 

### t ese reports sup lement the State's Reasonable Progress an lysis for the Wyoming Regi nal Haze SI Please note these comm nts are highly preliminary,
. iven lne na re 0 EC/R's fourfactor analyses and our uncerta' ty regarding theirfuture use we did not !tern t to ·identitY every concern. Also, as you know, w will only reach a final concl sionjregard ng th adequacy of Wyoming's.Reasonable Progre s analysis and Regional H SIP when e act n Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP revision thr ugh notice and comment rul making. Thankyou for yourcon iderations ofour concerns, I you have y qu stlons, you may contact me at (303) 312-6434, ryourstaffmaycontactAm Platt,at(30 )3126449. 

### ! '. Sincerely,
.

# ~~ /"'. Callie A. Videti h, Director Air Program**FnnJn~l,rfO'**10/21/2009 15:10 FAX 303 275 5122

### I PHYSICAL RESOURCES

ENCLOSU 

### I4J 011

EPA R""gion 8 relilntllary Commeats on eM:\y 

### 6, 2 Il!l, raft



### , Supptemen ary

### In!ormatlonjdrFour- ' ctorAmity s10' Set ctedIndividualFacilities in Wyoming

• Region 8 is concerned at Wyoming's draftana'lysi does ,not co side any additional S02 measures necess for demonstratingReasona'Ie Prdgress ) fi r the additional Class I areas. Specific Hy, on page 1-1 ofthe repo the ct>Iltrac r wh developed the report (HCIR Incorpored) states, 

### "By. request from ' e**W~omin** stat representative, S02 has not beenanaIy ed as S02 emissio\lS haYe b en adcllresse 'tbro gh the back stop trading program." Wy ming is one of,four states p i'Cipating in the R giorialHaze 309 program (the others inc ude Arizona, New!Mexico 

### dUtllh). A of yarning's seven Class I areas are offth Colorado Plateau, and arere erred:to inPA's egulations as "additional class I area ." Seclion 51.309(g) does n texclude th 309 tates thathave Class I areas offthe Co orado Plateau from addressi g 802 unde Reas nable Progress. Specifically, 40 CFR 5 J09(g) states the 'following: 51.309(g) A did nal Class I areas. Each Transpart Regi n State implementing the p, ovisltms Of his etion as the basis for demonstrating RI,' for mandatory Cla.s I Fed ral areas oer t an the 16 Class I areas Rlust include th following provisions in its**mplementa~ion** la'n. Ifa Transport Region State submits an implementation ,an which is appro ed by EPA as meeting the requireine ts ofthis section, it will bed emed to co lply ith the requirements for RP fo the period from approval of he plan to 2 18, 

### (I) A demonstr tion of**expect~d** Visibility c nditicins for he m st impaired and least impaired ys atthe additiomil mandatD Cl$s 

## rFe eral eats) based on emissions proje tions from the long-term str egies'in the impl entation plan, This demonstra ion may be based on assess nts conduct d by the StatesandJor a regional planni g body, (2) Provisions stablishlng reasonable pro ress goals aod I plementing any additional mea ures necessary to demons! lite reason'aiJle p ogress for the additional maatory Federal Class 

## rarea • These pr visio s must comply with the provis ons of51.308(d)(1) throng 

### (4). (I) In d veloping LTSs pursuant to 51.3Q8(d)(3 ,the tate may bund upon th strategies implemented u derparagr ph ( 1 ofthis section, and tak full credit for the visibili 'Improvement ac ieved through these sl ategies.

I Paragraph d ofthis section includes requirements for thebackstop trad ng**pro~ram** (B TP), 1

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 98% P.ll10/21/2009 15:11 FAX 303 275 5122

## I PHYSICAL RESOURCES**~012**

i The states' 309 SIPs must includeprovisions for stabli$hing rlason ble progress goals and implement any dditional measures needed td demonstrate RP Ii r the Class I areas offthe Colorado PIa eau. [5 1J09(g)(2)], The re**ation~** provi e th t a state may take creditfor and build pon 

### the strategies**impleinen~** dunq.er'the backs op trading program (BSTP) in its RP an ysis. However, ,the state p:1U t provide a emo stration in its SIP of howthe BSTP is me ting its visibility goals, and hy 802 con ols e not needed under RP, Ifthe BSTP is otmeeting visibiiity goals, t en S02 con Is m st be evaluated under RP.

• We have some over ching comments/questions r lated 'to this epo as well as the May 4, 2009, draftS 

### IfJplementaryInjormationlo' Four Facto 'Anal ses by WRAP States ("General Repor!"). How did Wyoming selectth sourdes to anal zed? How'were

,certain emission uni s selected? What sources an' source cate ories ere found to significantlyimpact isibility? You wili need to 'scussiyour s leeti n criteria in the Reasol1able Progress section ofthe SIP and explai whithe so ces ou select are the appropriate sOurces address under Reasonable ,rogresslLon -te Strategy requirements. Ifthe tate does not address certa!
.**sour~es** or s mce ategories, orelects to defer some reduct ons 

### to a future planning peri d, the State ust ovide adequate justification and doc entation for doing so" in ditioljt, with ut Ia wing Wyoming's uniform rateofprog ess levels and how the ECIR**eport~** will e use in Wyoming's SIP effort, it is difficult 

### fully review the informatio, presented. e wi 1need to review how the information om these reports is used in our SIP to d term ne adequacy.

• Wyoming included t e two coal-fired boilers (Uni s BW41 & W42 at the Pacificorp Dave Johnston e1ec c generating station, and the ounlain C ment ompany Laramie Plant cementkiln in ts source specific,four-factoranalysis reprt. H wever, it is unknown how Wyo ing selected the sources that ere evaluat -d, he the significance of the sources was dete ined (e.g., Q/d threshold), d what crit riaw re used to cut off other sources or sour ecategories from evaluation Wyqming ou! ensure that its SIP includes a discussion ofthe methodology used to S lect sources and hy they are the appropriatesources

### t~ address under Reasonable P ogress/Lon -term Strategy requirements.

• Page 2-1, second par aph: The RACTIBACT/L R Clemo hOlls is another source ofinformation for po enti&1 control teclrnologies 'at theState hou!d consult in developing its SIP. Iso, we have conoemswith 'e second to ,asts tence ofthis paragraph. Emission reduction requirements shou d be develop d

### thr ugh the four:factor reasonable progress alysis, not before the analys s occurs.

• Section 2.3, first par raph,p.2-2: The first line s auld read," able 2-1 sunlmarizes the energy and non-air q ality related environmental i pacts
....."

• Table 2-1, p. 2-3: "*vironmental Impacts" shonl be "Non-A' Qua ity Related Environmental Impa ts." Also, the first two ,itemslistecl',(wastegene ted and wastewater generated) fall into, lcal categories ofimpacts e aluated unde non air qnality related , 2

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 98% P.1210/21/2009 15:11 FAX 303 275 5122

### I I PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### I4i 013

environmental impacts 

### e.g., effects on the waste str am, virater c ns ption" andlor waStewaterdisposal. 'owever, the remah:ling four es 

### of impa ts lis cd donot fall into these oategories oflin cts, and we recommend dele ing them ft 

## ev 'uation,

• Pages 3-1 tlrrough 3-4 Tables 3-1 through 3-4): W oming shoul IblMMBtu value for th Dave Johnston U1jlts, becau e con\<r?l e ,depend upon existing I IMMBtu emissionrates.

• Page 3-2 (first paragra '): It is our unde$andillg til t

### cos~ Info available for larger siz boilers so there should be' need to ex apm' te the capital cost, data, In addition, the nual capital cost should be c lculatedusi 19 a apital Recovery**F~ctor** (CRF), which isladded to, not multiplied by, t e O&M co s. ' ,

• Page 3-2, last paragtap ,and Page 4-4, second para' aph: These timel nes for compliance for the boil rs seem to be, overestimated: 

### dloT don't co tfor steps that could be completed in arallel. SimiiarlY"an estinia' d seven y rs to ontrol the 'Mountain Cement Co any's Laramie Cement

### Plan kiln

# is not r "istl ,and should be shortened, as akiln is n where near as complex

# as a' owerplant. 'In a dition, the time, necessary for complian e should not inciude time to, evelop re ation, Ifnew regulations are necess , suchregulationS should be submitted 'th th forthcomingSIP, The statementthat two earsmay be need&! to devel p the' rnIes 

### 1m 'lementthe ' strategy implies that th State lacks authovity to deve op and sub it a S to address Long-term Strategy an Reasonable Progress require ents, inclu'ling r levant reasonable progress measures.

• 'Page 3-2 (Table 3-2): he estimated control efficien y ranges do ot a pear to be reasonable, It would b er serve the reader to pravi e a best esti ate fcontrol efficiency as a distinct umber rather than'atange ( ile a¢know dgin thatthere is a range ofuncertainty aro dthat estimate in the text' r a foomote). For Ox, we suggest using 40% for LNB, 60 for LNB with O'FA, 50% 'r SNCR, an 

### 90· for SCR. It should be,noted thatN xcontrols can also be used i, comllinatio ,andthe reductions thatresult from using t e control technologies in co bination sh· ,Id ai' 0 be evaluated and may**low~r** the over 1 $/ton numbers.

• Page 3-2 (Table 3-2): 

### CIR has calculated,the emiss on realuctio num ers using the upper end ofthe control efficiencyrange"which coul be mislead ng, gain, a central estimate (with upper an lowerbounds noted) should be provided with the**tonna~e** reductions based on the est estimate.

• Page 3-2 (Table 3-2) an Page 3-3 (Table 3-3): EC has listed v 'ous control options for use as individual co trol technologies. It should, enot¢d that hese controls can aiso be used in combination, and the reductions that resul from !using e co trol technologies in combination should so be evaluated; For examp e, you could instal LNB, OFA, ' SNCR, and SCR togeth r (in'series), which might 10 er the over 1$/t n numbers, 3

OCT-21-2009 15:13 303 275 5122 99X P.1310/21/2009 15:12 FAX 303 275 5122

### , PHYSICAL RESOURCES**~014**



## .. , . "."

that

### SCR r uces NOx emissions owever, SC doe not co\,\vert NO, to • Page 3-3, second p graph: In the first sentence,'Wyorning s uld dd SCR after "SNCR," because b th control options use compr ssors andst to inject ammonia into the flue gas. [n the s cond sentence in this paragr ph, t1w repo .stat s, "Installation of SCR on an industria boiler is not expected to incr ase fuel con ump ion." However, this may not necessanly e true, due to the fact that th· extent that
. ower is used (i. e, additional fancapaci to blow flue gas through

### t!< SCR, cataly t bed, and that when power is replaced by increased boiler capacity, ad' itionail coal auld be burned. EPA recommends modify ng the statement, or reinovin it altogethe:. In ddition, it should be noted that catalysts e commonly regenerated riotonly to save ost, ut also to eliminate the waste stream ass ciated with catalystdisposal" which this r port hould acknowledge.

• Page4-1 (four:th par graph): Coke should be add 'to the list fuel that may be used in cement kilns.

• Page 4,3, lasttwo p ,agraphs: The report indiCl}te from exhaust gases b converting NOxto nitrate. nitrate; it.reduces N xto n\trogen gas (Nz).

• Page 4-5, first full se tence: The,report states, 

## "rere is'also t e add tional burden of getting rid offouled r deactivated catalyst from e system
- 0 en t e PM control device in the form ofa fabri filter or electrostatic precipi ator can ac ve t is goal." However, in EPA's experience, one would not get rid ofa c alyst with a 'M c ntrol device. As noted above, catalyst are commonly regenerated t not only sa· e cos. butalso to eliminate a waste. st am, whichthis report should cknowledg
.

• Page 4-5, section 4.4 The discussion onthe rerna rung useful Ife in icates that the age ofthe cementkilns
. as not available to WRAP's ontractor. T 's i ormation should be obtained and include in the SIP. '

• Page 4-6 (Table 4-2): 'The controlled amounts list d in tile tabl
.for CR are incorrect; they should be 262 t s/year. EPA believes that e SCR contr Ieffi iency should be in the range of80-90%, with corresponding cantrolle, amounts. or ex pIe, using SCR with a 90% control e lciency would equate to 472tons NO,/ye
. In addition, in EPA's opinion, the cost effi tiveness for low NO, burner (LNB) pres ,nted n this table seems too high. We usuallyexpect numbers between.$5 0 and $1,00 per t n for LNB.

4
Printedon RecyoledPaper

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99% P.1410/21/2009 15:12 FAX 303 275 5122 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 141015
United State. Department of Agriculture Fore.t Service Rocky Mountain Region 740 Smm. Street Gold ,CO 80401 Voice 303-275-5350 TDD: 303-275-5367 FileCode: 2580 Date: July. I, 2009 I David A. Finley Air Quality Administrator I Wyoming Department ofEn· 'ronmental Quality 122 West 25th St. Cheyenne, WY 82002 DearMr. Finley: The Forest Service (FS)has mpleted its review ofthe est ayailabl retr fit technology (BART) materials for the B T-subject electric generatng uriits (E 'Us), Jim Bridger and Naughton powerplants post on the Wyoming Dep ent ofEnvi onm tal Quality (WDEQ) website. The FS concurs an supports the review and fi dingsiofthe U.S. epartment of Interior, National Park Servi e, and Fish and Wildlife Se ice tegard g B T materials submitted for the Dave John bn, Laramie River, and W'j dak EGUs.1
, - These BART determinations are a key part ofthe region Ihaz¢ plan -he St te ofWyoming is preparing. This plan will de onstrate how Wyoming wi Imakereas nabl progress toward meeting the national goal of reventing any future, and r medying a exi ting, impairment of visibilityin mandatory Class I areas. Theregulations de cribirtg wh t thes plans should contain are found at 40 CFR 51.300 tough 309. As the Federal Land Mana er LM) for the North Absaroka, Washakie, Teton, itzpatrick, Bridger, Savag. Run,MountZirk I, Rawah, FlatTops, and Eagles Nest Class I Wild messes, we are very intere ted in these BA determinations and the Wyoming Regional Haze Plan as a whole. The regional haze regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(i) requir**con~ultati** n be een the FLMs and the State. Specifically, the F M is to receive 60 days to eview and mm t on any plan or plan revision. The State mus also include a description fhow it ad esse the FLM comments ifthey are received in the spe ified timeframe. As you know, the BART de ination must consider th

- "best syste of ontinuous emissions control technology" taking in account the following fac ors: "the te hnol gy available, the costs of compliance, the ener andnon airquality envir nmelital im acts of compliance, any pollution control equipment i use at the source, the rem ininFf, usefu life thesource, andthe degree of improvement in vis! ility," 40 CFR Section 51. 08(e)(I)(ii) A). Ourreview ofthe five statuto y factors leads us to the co clusi¢m that sele ive catalytic reduction (SCR) should be B T for nitrogen oxides (N x) fdr all u its a both the Jim Bridger and Naughton powerplants. e applaud the State ofW
. ming for popos ng to install SCR at the 4 units at the Jim Bridger GU. The FS believes the stalhltion t mefr e for SCR should be within the 2015-2016 time ame for all four units at th facility.

OCT-21-2009 16:13 

## It'. Cool to BeSafe
303 275 5122 99% Printed on Recycled Paper P.1510/21/2009 15:13 FAX 303 275 5122

David A. Finley, WDEQ PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### I4J 016

2
The FS believes that the alre dy-permitted installation 0 wet flue ga des furization (FGD) equipment for the Jim Bridg PowerPlantUnits 1-4 sh. uld**b~** B . S' Harly, the FS believes that the installation fwet FGD equipment for t e Naughto Po r Plant Units 1-3 should be BART. The United States Forest Se 'ce compliments you on y .ur hatd wor{ and dedication to significantimprovementin 0 nation's air quality valu
. and visibil ty. ooperative efforts such as these ensure that, tog ther, we will continue to
.ake pi-ogres i tow d the Clean AirAct's goal ofnatural visibility con itions at our Class I wilder. ess areas a pars. We appreciate the opportunityto continue to w rk closely with your agenc as ydlu dev lop nal BART determinations for thesefaeil ties. Ifyou have questions orcommen s, pie se contactJeff Sorkin, at (303)-275-5759. Sincerely,

lsiRickD. Cables RICK D. CABLES Regional Forester RockyMountain Region Enclosures

cc: JeffA Sorkin 

### AnnAcheson Trent R Wickman Terry Svalberg ScottA Copeland Bruce Polkowsky Don Shepherd Dean Gillam

OCT-21-2009 16:13 lsiHarv Forsgren HARV FORSGREN Regional Forester Intermountain Region

303 275 5122 98% P.1610/21/2009 15:13 FAX 303 275 5122, PHYSICAL RESOURCES**~017**



### Unite States Forest Service Te Wyoming BART de erminations for Jim Brid The units under consideratio are four 530 MW units (n bered 1 powerplant and 3 units at

### th~ Naughton powerplant; 16 ,210,330 through 3. I 

### Overall Comments: Power Plants oug 4) at the Jim Bridger W r spectively for units I

The FS connnends PacifiCo and the Wyoming DEQ f1 

### r the strong Ox ontrols proposed for BART and reasonable progr ss. We believe the propos, controls ill 

### si
.ficantly improve air quality in the many Class I eas surrounding the faciHti s. While w do ot agree with every conclusion, the BART doc ents are thorough and well
.tten. Demonstration ofthe Exte t ofVisibility Impacts:

,PacifiCorp modeled visibilit improvements from propo ed BART Id re sonable progress

controls. The FS feels it is i portantto document visibi,ity ill1pacts Cl s I areas as completely as possible in ord rto place in contextthe to benefit d 'ved from controls. Then, the cost ofeach BART altern tive shouldbe divided by , e sum of ' dec view improvement at all impacted Class I areas to etermine the costper deciv ew. This aYre ult in acceptance ofa previously discarded control itemative due to the showi g ofareas abl cost ofvisibility improvement. As such, the FS would like to see visibility benefitmodel'ng fqr all C ass I areas within 300km. (see maps attached.) Additi ally, since there are Class areasjustb yon 300km, ifany modeling already exists sho ing visibility improvement, enef'lts gre terth 0.5dv beyond 300km, the FS requests that i 

### formation be included as ell. The State ofWyoming has d termined that the SavageR Wilderne sArawill bemanaged as a Class I airshed. Therefore, he FS would like the Sava e Run Wild ,rnes Areato bc treated as such in all Regional Haze pi ing including this BART cview. Pages ES-5 and 5-10 ofthe P cifiCorp BART Aoalysis d scuss' "Just notic able difference in atmospheric haze" indicating that minimal, ifany, obse ble visibili y im rovements at the Class I areas would be expec dunder any ofthe control' enarios. I is in rrect to dismiss a control strategy on the basis at the resulting improveme tis notper,epti Ie or significant. EPA states in the preamble to its B T Guidelines: "Even though the visi ility improvement from an dividuals rce ay not be perceptible, itshould ,tillbe consideredin settingBARTbeca e th contribution to haze may besignificantrel tive to othersource contri tions in th Clas 

### 1 areas. Thus, we disagree that thedeg e of impairmentshouldbe onti1lf5ent on rceptibility. Failing to considerless-than- erceptible contributions to' isibility im airm 'litwouldignore the CAA 's intentto have ARTrequirements apply to souroes tha cant ibute to, as wellas cause, such impairme t.,,3

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99% P.1710/21/2009 15:14 FAX 303 275 5122 PHYSICAL RESOURCES I{j] 018



### Five Factor Analysis for B RT Selection: ! 

### In the BARTdetennination 

## i he State ofWyoming discu ses the app lcabirty ofpresumptive BART to units at the Jim B ' ger andNaughton power .lants,: EPA vie ofpresumptive limits for S02 and NOx forEGUs e that they are "highly cos effective," PA oes on to say: "States, as a general alter, must require owner andoperat rs 0 

### greater than 750MW powerplants to meet heseBARTemission limits, We are est blish 'ng these requirements basedon the conside ation of certainfactors dis· ussedbela ,Alt ough we believe that these requirements a e extremely likely to be app opriatefor IIg aterthan 750MW I 

### powerplants subject aBART, a State may estab ish difJeren requ rements 

## if the State can demonstrate thatan alternative determinatio isjustifle
.base on a consideration of thefive statutory fact rs:,4 So althoughthe presumptive requirements are "extremel likely to b appr 'Priate" a State can demonstrate otherwise based on the five statutory factor. The FS b ieve that the analysis of coal composition is not only awed in its conclusions, re pI'incipa ly, it does not meet the requirement for a demonstrat on ofwhypresumptive lim'ts cannotb reac ed. NOx Controls: The FS sees the infonnation resented as supporting SC. as B:ART r all units atbothJim Bridger and Naughton powerplants. The State ofWyoming lists t e following reasons for not installing S R a BART on the 4 units at the Jim Bridgerpowerpi t and units I and 2 at theN ughtQn po er pI nt: 1) "The cost of compliance r installing SCR on each u 

### it is signifl·antl higherthan LNB with separated OFA." 

## ! 2) "Combustion control usi g 

### LNB with separatedOF does not re uire non-airquality environmentalmitigation orthe use of chemical rea· ents (i. e., a man 'a or urea) andthere is a minimal energy impa t." However, the FS believes SC is BART for all units at b th facilitie , Th State ofWyoming appears to concur with this fi ding because, in the deter 'ination, the tate says "The cost effectiveness andincrementa cost effectiveness ofthefo rproposed 'AR technologies forNOx are allreasonable". In addif n, FS is confused as to wbJ Wyoming eter ines SCR as BART at unit 3 attheNaughton Po erPlant at $283

### Olton butfo unclearre ons ot at the other six units with costs from $2258

- 2848/ton. I 

### TheFS would like to point OIt that SCR is amature tee ology. We e aware ofany enviromnental degradation d eto aproperly operated SC
. Furthe ore, ur inspection ofthe cost analysis leads us to belie ethe energy impact associ ted With op ,ratin SCR is included in the cost analysis, which make this pointraised by the St te moot.

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99}; P.IB10/21/2009 15:14 FAX 303 275 5122 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### I4i 019

For the 

### Jim BridgerPower ant units, the State ofWyo ing indica es: 

### "The cumulative 3-)1 

### araveragedvisibility impr, vement fro Pas -ControlScenarioA across the three Cia I areas achievedwith Pas -ControlSc 

### nari B was 0.627.ddvper unit from Units 1-3 

### adO. 635 

### .ddv from Unit 4." This statementmakes the ca e that SCR would result in' significantimpr vement in visibility. Each unitbyitselfimproves isibilityby an amount thatresulis in" ntri ution" to visibility impairment i.e. it exceeds 

### O. dv. The total benefit ofS R on,the fo un ts (-2.5dv) easily exceeds the threshold for "c sing" visibility impairmen , 1.0dv. Similarly, for the Naughton owerPlantunits, the State fWyomin indi ates: 

### "The cumulative 3-ye raveraged98th

### percentile'isibility im rove entfrom PostControl ScenarioA a ross both Class Iareas ac ievedwith ost- antralScenario Bwas 0.405.ddv from Unit, and0.506Mvfrom Unit, ." Again, the FS sees this fact a making the case that this 

### i a signific t im rovement in visibility. Each unitby itselfimproves isibilityby an amount 

### that esults in, 0 'appr aches, a "contribution" to visibility i pairment. The total impact fSCR on t e 

### tw units approaches the threshold for "causing" imp rment. Regarding SCRin the BAR 7 of!the W omi g BART Application Analysis shows aremoval e lCiency of84.4 percent for 

### NB/OF N CR t reach 0.07 IbIMMBtu. PacifiCorp and yoming have underestima ed th¢ abili of odernNOx control systems. SCRhas been retro rtted to many easternpulv ized coal b ilers that are now achieving 0.05 IblMMBtu 0 a 30-day rolling averageb sis. 

### It is lik ly th tmany ofthese EOUs areburning easternbit 'nous coals with higher' el-b(i)und n trog than thatburned at the Jim BridgerPower Plant. Because 

### "jUel nitrogen ca account fa
.up t 80percent of total NOxfrom coal combustion" i shouldbe easier for Pacifi, orp 

### 10 achi ve I erNOx emissions than an EOU burning coal w' higher fuel-bound nitrog n. IfSCR i cap ble ofreducing emissions below PacifiCorp' target, then the amount of ereductio an consequentvisibility improvements will increase. These greater efficiencies s ould,be fac ored
.nto the cost and visibility analyses. Reasonable Progress Contr Is: 

# I
The FS requests clarification s 

### to why units I & 2 at the Naug/iton

# p~wer lant arenotrequired to install SCR as part ofreas nable progress like the oth, five'units. 

### S02 ContrOlS:, The FS believes thatthe alre y-permitted installation ofwetFOD e , ipm nt for the Jim BridgerPowerPlantUnits 1- shouldbe considered B 'T. Similarl , the FS believes thatthe

OCT-21-2009 15:13 303 275 5122 99% P.1910/21/2009 15:15 FAX 303 275 5122 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

### IiZl 020



### installation ofwetFGD equi ment for the Naughton Po er

### PI~t U its 1- should be considered BART. There appears to be an error n the analysis for unit 3 at augllton. he p rformance ofthe wet FGD was stated to be 0.10 1 MBtu (Table 18) but the cost effecti enes analysis was done based on 0.15 lblMMBtu (T hie 24). The costperton 

### Ii r S02 reducion s ouldbe calculated using 0.10 lb/MMBtu, 

### ifthatlis the correctvalue. ' The FS understands the role ifsection 309 in exempting; the state of yo ing from BART and reasonableprogress controlsfor S02 based on the demo, stration in Technical Support Documentl 

### that the S02 emi$sions reductions benefits u der s@ction 09 e ceedthose that would have resulted from BART. t11lrther we understand that teState of yom ng has met ittargets under the 309 program. The IFS would like to know ifth controls' plac at the Naughton and Jim BridgerPowerPlants ar at least equivalentto the c ntrol**~cen** 0 

### us d in the demonstration report. In 

### otherwords, are t existing S02 controls ac Ily as need d to ccomplish the "better than BART" demonstration? , The FS also notes that the 30 program sunsets in 2018, d that add1tiona S02 controls maybe appropriate for reasonable p gress at that time. 

# 1 Visibility Impairment: 

# I ys E.PA BART

# ~delin~s2 s ate that 0.5dv

# "cont.ri~utes' to i

## niP .

# airmln~, a d, 1.0dv "causes"· Impairment. The diSCUSSIOn om RonaldHenry IS mele ant and use· 10 

### Impropercontext. References: 

## I 1. WRAP Technical Ov rsight Committee, Regiona Technical uppo tDocument for the Requirements of §309 of theRegionalHazeRule, 5/2008, 

### 2. 40 CFRPart 51, App dixY. U.S. Environment IProtection Age cy, "Guidelines for BART Determination Under the Regional Haze ule.", July ,20 5, See FR Vol 70, No 128, page 39161. 3. See 40 CFRPart 51, ppendix Y. The U.S. Env! onmental P otecton Agency finalized it's BART Guidelines on June 15, 2005, and publ shed thepr bl and final rule textin theFederal Register 0, 

### July 6, 2005. The rulema ing action ded ppendix Y to Part 51, titled "Guidelines orBART Determinations ndertheR Haze Rule." See Preamble,70FR30l2 ,middle column. 4. Federal Register, 7/61 

### 5, p.3913l

OCT-21-2009 16:13 303 275 5122 99% P.2010/21/2009 15:15 FAX 303 275 5122


### I

"**N~** DIslan"" 

# I • Naughton PP

CIo... IUnb !**II,~** NPS 

# I-

I USFS



# _FWS

, .,.- .'-.-

OCT-21-2009 16:13 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

303 275 5122 98% 

### I4J 021

P.2110/21/2009 15:16 FAX 303 275 5122

## I

..---- Jim Bli/lg$t DiStance

.,. Jim 81ldgerPP

, Closs IIJIIIls



## I!liJI NPS

• USFS 

# 1.

FWS

OCT-21-2009 16:13 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

303 275 5122 99% 141022

P.22