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

May 12,2011

Ms. Susan Hedman USEPA-Region V 77 WestJackson Boulevard Chicago IL 60604 Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary Telephone 608-266-2621

### ~:1-w~rsc,(Job<NSliJNt:::::::-"-''''-'~1 FAX 608-267-3579 DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES TTY Access via relay· 711

Subject: Permit requirements relating to particulate matter emissions requiring changes
to certain portions ofNR 400, 404 to 408, and 484, Wis. Adm. Code

Dear Ms. Hedman:

The information in this SIP submittal focuses on the pollutant PM,s. The rules adopted by the Natural Resources Board in AM-16-1O at their August 2010 meeting:

• Defined major source thresholds for PM'5 and significant emission increase level for PM, 5.

• Established significant impact levels and increment consumption thresholds for PM'5'

• Established inter-pollutant trading ratios for PM, 5, SO, and NOx.

• Clarified existing non-attainment area permitting rules for permitting in PM,s non-attainment areas (presently Milwaukee, Waukesha and Racine counties are PM,s non-attainment areas and subject to non-attainment area

new source permitting for PM'5)'

We ask Region 

### V to process this SIP submittal as expeditiously as possible. If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please call Andrew Stewart of my staff at 608 266-6876 or email him at Andrew.stewart@wisconsin.gov

Sincerel

Jo

.

# ~~~""\ Di ector, Bureau of Air

Andrew Stewart

- AM/? Ralph Patterson

- AMI? Pat Stevens

- 

### AD/8 (w/o enclosures) Cheryl Newton

- USEPA Region 5 (A -I8J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507 (w/o enclosures)

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov 

## Naturally 

# WISCONSIN

" """"0**~.'** OOIlECYCl.ED

. . PAPER

### Page 2

Enclosures:

• SIP Checklist

• SIP Certification Form

• Public Hearing Notice

• Class I Public Hearing notice

• Rule – AM-16-10

• Background Memo

• DNR Green Sheet showing DNR Board’s adoption of AM_16_10

# EPA Region V 

# Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (John Melby, Jr.)? Yes _x__ No ___ 2. Date of Subm ittal _______M ay 20, 2011_______________________________ 3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name __Ralph Patterson__ Telephone __608-267-7546__ FAX Number ___608-267-0560______ E-MAIL Address______________________________ 4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name __Steve Dunn___ Telephone __608-267-0566__ FAX Number ____608-267-0560____ E-MAIL Address___steven.dunn@wisconsin.gov 

# Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State incorporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this SIP package? Yes _X_ No__ if No explain.

6. The effective date of the re gulation is or was __December 1, 2010___

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

Yes_______ No_______ Not applicable ___X____ For No and Not applicable explain answer. This revision does not incorporate by reference any test methods or rules.

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?

Yes _X___ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary).2

10. Did the State provide evidence that it followed all of the requirements of its Administrative Procedures Act (ch. 227, Wis. Stats., Administrative 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 certification that public hearings were held in accordance with 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? ___ PM 2.5 - particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 μm ________

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)

Yes____ No__X___ Additional Explanation (if necessary) Not applicable

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

Yes__X___ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary)3

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 In crement/RFP demonstration/vi sibility will be protected if the revision is approved and implemented?

Yes____ No__X__ Additional explanation (if necessary) Not applicable

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____ No__X__ Additional explanation (if necessary) Not applicable

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirements where necessary, to ensure emission levels?

Yes___ No__X__ Additional explanation (if necessary) Not applicable

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

Yes___ No_X__ Additional explanation (if necessary) Not applicable4



# STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

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



# WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Revisions to Wisconsin’s prevention of significant deterioration new source review SIP through the amending/creation of certain sections of NR 400 and 405, Wis. Adm. Code.



## Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion Major sources and major modifications at major sources.

Specifically, this rule incorporates changes made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in their regulations regarding the regulation of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size and several changes of a clean-up nature in otherwise affected rules.

What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion Not applicable Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) Not applicable

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

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

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. Micrograms per cubic meter Pounds per hour Tons per year

Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? If yes, state criteria. Could a USEPA inspector independently determine if the criteria were met?? Does 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 Not applicable6

USEPA have to approve each case? whether USEPA case-by-case approval is required. If provision intended to be “generic” then USEPA bubble policy must be met. If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of area to attainment. New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. Not applicable



## 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. December 1, 2010

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. Not applicable


## Specificity of conduct

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What test method is required? Test method must be explic itly stated. Not applicable What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. Not applicable

Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. Not applicable

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



## Incorporation by reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. Section 227.11(2)(a), Stats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. Section 227.14(1m)(b), Stats., allows the Department to use the format of federal regulations in preparing a proposed rule if it determines that all or part of a state environmental regulatory program is to be administered according to standards, requirements or methods7

which are similar to standards, requirements or methods specified for all or part of a federal environmental program. Section 285.11(1), Stats., gives the Department authority to promulgate rules consistent with ch. 285, Stats. Section 285.11(16), Stats., requires the Department to promulgate rules, consistent with but no more restrictive than the federal clean air act, that specify the amounts of emissions that result in a stationary source being classified as a major source. Section 285.11(17) requires the Department to develop and implement rules that define the term modification in a manner consistent with the clean air act. Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. Not applicable



## Record keeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What records are required to determine compliance? Clearly stated. Not applicable

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 . Not applicable

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



## Exemptions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. Minor source emitting less than 2.2 pounds per hour is exempt from new source review. Is the criteria for application clear? Clear ly stated. Yes. Emission calculated on a maximum theoretical emissions basis.



## Malfunction Provisions

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

### WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

BUREAU OF AIR MANAGEMENT

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR s. 5I .1 02( f), 

### I hereby certify that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources held the hearing described below; that the hearing was held in accordance with the public notice (copy attached), as required by 40 CFR s. 51.1 02( d); and that I was the presiding officer at the hearing.

Subject:

Revisions to SIP relating to air pollution permit requirements for fine particulate matter.

Hearings held:

Monday, June 7th, 2010 in Madison, Wisconsin; Tuesday June 8 th 

### in Milwaukee; and, Wednesday June 9 th 

### in Wausau.

Written comments were received until June 14,2010.

# /J~ 

# fJ.dd"'

Michael D. Scott BUREAU OF LEGAL SERVICES

Subscribed and sworn to before me This

### 1\~dayofMay,2011

Notary Public, State of cons in My commission is permanent.BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Natural Resources Board Order AM-16-10

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss. 227.16 and 227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on renumbering and amending, amending, and creating rules affecting chs. NR 400, 404 to 408, and 484, relating to air pollution permit requirements for fine particulate mater (PM 2.5) emissions. The proposed revisions relate to issues for State Implementation Plan approvabilily, and the State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11 (6), Stats., will be revised.

Hearing Infonnation Date and Time June 7, 2010, Monday at 2:30 PM

June 8, 2010, Tuesday 

### at 1:30 PM

June 

### 9, 2010, Wednesday at 2:00 PM Location Natural Resources State Office BUilding RoomG09 101 S. Webster Street Madison, WI

Havenwoods

- Auditorium 6141 N Hopkins Milwaukee, WI

Northcentral Technical College Main Building, Room E101 1000 West Campus Drive Wausau, WI

Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an**a~emative** format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Robert B. Eckdale in writing at the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AMI7), 101 S Webster, Madison, WI 53707; by E-mail to Robert.Eckdale@wisconsin.gov ; or by calling (608) 266-2856. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Availability of the Proposed Rules and Fiscal Estimate The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative Rules System Web site which can be accessed through the link provided on the Proposed Air Pollution Control Rules Calendar at http://www.dnr.state.wLus/air/rules/calendar.htm

. If you do not have Internet access, a printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert B. Eckdale, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AMI7), 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI, 53703, or by calling 608.266.2856.
Submitting Comments Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before Monday, June 14, 2010. Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, E-mail, or through the Internet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be submitted to: Steve Dunn Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Air Management (AMI7) 101 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53703

Phone: Fax: E-mail: 608 267-0566 608 267-0560 steven.dunn@wisconsin.govInternet: Use the Administrative Rules System Web site accessible through the link provided on the Proposed Air Pollution Control RUles Calendar at 

### htto:lld nr. 

### wi.gov/air/rules/calendar. htm

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources Statute interpreted: The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(1) and (6), Stats., is revised.
Statutory authority:

ss. 227.11(2)(a) and 285.11(1), (16) and (17), Stats.
Explanation of agency authority: Section 227.11 (2)(a), Stats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. section 227.14(1 m)(b), Stats., allows the Department to use the format of federal regUlations in preparing a proposed rule 

### if it determines that all or part of a state environmental regUlatory program is to be administered according to standards, requirements or methods which are similar to standards, requirements or methods specified for all or part of a federal environmental program. Section 285.11(1), Stats., gives the Department authority to promulgate rules consistent with ch. 285, Stats. Section 285.11 (16), Stats., requires the Department to promUlgate rules, consistent with but no more restrictive than the federal clean air act, that specify the amounts of emissions that result in a stationary source being classified as a major source. Section 285.11 (17) requires the Department to develop and implement rules that define the term modification in a manner consistent with the clean air act.

Related statute or rule: None.

Plain language analysis: The proposed rules contained in this order reflect changes made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their regulations regarding the regulation matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). The Department needs to make this change in order to retain EPA approval of Wisconsin's air permit programs.

PM2.5 is proposed to be included as a pollutant used to determine whether a facility is a major source of air pollution. Additionally, increases in PM2.5 emissions will potentially trigger the need to obtain an air pollution control construction permit, including requirements to control emissions to levels which represent best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate.

Additionally, the rule package includes some cleanup changes to otherwise unaffected existing rules. These changes are proposed to include up-to-date test methods and definitions in these existing rules. These changes do not change the effect or intent of these rules.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation: The proposed PM2.5 rules will make the regulations consistent with the equivalent Federal rules.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota): The proposed rule is based on the federal rule changes. The adjacent states will all be implementing the federal rule changes.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen: The proposed rule is based on the federal rule changes and the data and methodologies used by USEPA in developing these rules. Some portions of the proposed rule have yet to be finalized by the USEPA. Finalization of these rule sections is expected in Spring 2010. Placeholders for these final rule additions

are included in the proposed rule.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact report: An analysis of the effect of the proposed rules on small business was not performed since the proposed rule only impacts major sources of air pollution in the State and conforms to federal requirements. Majorsources of air pollution are not typically small businesses. Additionally, USEPA has concluded that this rule will not impact a significant number of small entities.

Effect on small business: These rules should not have a significant economic impact on small businesses because major air pollution sources do not generally meet the definition of a small business. The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at SmaIiBusiness@dnr.state.wLus, or by calling (608) 266-1959.

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

Fiscal Estimate Summary The Department anticipates that there will be no state fiscal effect and no local government costs as a result of the proposed rules. In addition, the Department does expect the proposed rules will have a significant fiscal impact on those private sector facilities requiring permits.
Agency contact person: Steven Dunn P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 Phone: (608) 267-0566 Fax: (608) 267-0560 Email: Steven.Dunn@wisconsin.gov

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin 

# 4ti 2t, 1.; V/O

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

# By/kAl)fJ'

CrMatthew J. Frank, Secretary

/""'<.

### Ad 

### #: 1581171

Mal/to: 

# AM- ,,- It)



## . capital Newspapers Proof of Publication Affidavit
Price: $341.50 Ad 10: AMLL

- 709
Retain 

### this portion for your records. Please 

### do not I'f!I11lt payment until you your

### ~rtlsing In

. 

### VOIce.

-WI DEPT NATURAL R Sharon Reeve Attn: Sharon Reeve PO Box 7921

### ~~d!s.9-"-. WI 53707-7921 

## , ! 

## , ---_..I 

# RECEIVED

MAY 

# 7 Z010 

# AIR MANAGEMENT

STATE OF WISCONSIN
Dane County 55. 

### Arlene Staff being duly sworn, doth depose and sa

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

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board adopts an order to renumber and amend NR 404.02 (4e) and (4m); to amend NR 400.02 (40), (70), (79), and (135), 405.02 (25k)(intro.), 406.04 (1) (n) (intro.) and 1. (intro.) and 2., 484.03 (5), and 484.04 (5) and (6g); and to create NR 400.02 (123m), 400.03 (4) (ki), 405.02 (27) (a) 5m., 405.07 (8) (a) 3m., 406.04 (2) (cs), 407.03 (2) (be), 408.02 (32) (a) 5m., and 408.06 (1) (cm), relating to permit requirements for particulate matter emissions and affecting small business.



### AM-16-10
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

1. Statute interpreted: The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(1) and (6), Stats., is revised.
2. Statutory authority: ss. 227.11(2)(a), 227.14(1m)(b) and 285.11(1), (16) and (17), Stats.

3. Explanation of agency authority: Section 227.11(2)(a), Stats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. Section 227.14(1m)(b), Stats., allows the Department to use the format of f ederal regulations in preparing a proposed rule if it determines that all or part of a state environmental regulatory program is to be administered according to standards, requirements or methods which are similar to standards, requirements or methods specified for all or part of a federal environmental program. Section 285.11(1), Stats., gives the Department authority to promulgate rules consistent with ch. 285, Stats. Section 285.11(16), Stats., requires the Department to promulgate rules, consistent with but no more restri ctive than the federal clean air act, that specify the amounts of emissions that result in a stationary s ource being classified as a major source. Section 285.11(17) requires the Department to develop and implem ent rules that define the term modification in a manner consistent with the clean air act.

4. Related statute or rule: None.
5. Plain language analysis: The proposed rules contained in this order reflect changes made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their regulations regarding the regulation of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). The Department needs to make this change in order to retain EPA approval of Wisconsin’s air permit programs.
PM2.5 is proposed to be included as a pollutant used to determine whether a facility is a major source of air pollution. Additionally, increases in PM2.5 em issions will potentially trigger the need to obtain an air pollution control construction permit, including requirement s to control emissions to levels which represent best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate.
Additionally, the rule package includes some cleanup changes to otherwise unaffected existing rules. These changes are proposed to include up-to-date test methods and definitions in these existing rules. These changes do not change the effect or intent of these rules.
6. Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation: The proposed PM2.5 rules will make the regulations consistent with the equivalent Federal rules with one exception. That exception is the inclusion of a maximum air quality impact that can be allowed to be exempt from preconstruction monitoring. The proposed value in this order is based on the lowest value proposed by EPA.
7. Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota): The proposed rule is, with one exception, based on the federal rule changes. Adjacent states will all be



### 1implementing the federal rule changes. Whether they adopt a value for a maximum air quality impact that can be allowed to be exempt from pre-construction m onitoring in the absence of a final federal number is indeterminate at this time. Failure to adopt a number increases the stringency of the rule.
8. Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen: The proposed rule is based on the federal rule changes and the data and methodologies used by EPA in developing t hese rules. One portion of the proposed rule has yet to be finalized by the EPA.

9. Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact report: An analysis of the effect of the proposed rules on small business was not performed since the proposed rule only impacts major sources of air pollution in the State and conforms to federal requirements. Major sources of air pollution are not typically small businesses. Additionally, EPA has concluded that this rule will not impact a significant number of small entities.

10. Effect on small business: These rules should not have a significant economic impact on small businesses because major air pollution sources do not generally meet the definition of a small business.

11. Agency contact person: Steven Dunn, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, Telephone number: (608) 267-0566; e-mail address: steven.dunn@wisconsin.gov



### SECTION 1. NR 400.02 (40), (70), and (79) are amended to read:

NR 400.02 (40) “Coal” means all solid fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous

or lignite by ASTM designation D388

− 99e D388-99e1 (2004) , incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.10

(7).

(70) “Fuel oil” means any petroleum

− based fuel, including diesel fuel or petroleum derivatives

such as oil tar, as defined in ASTM D396

− 02 D396-02a , incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.10 (8),

and any recycled or blended pe troleum products or petroleum by

− products used as a fuel whether in a

liquid, solid or gaseous state.

(79) “Heat input” means the total gross calorific value per unit of time of all fuels being burned,

where gross calorific value of a fuel is measured by ASTM Method D240

− 02, D1826

− 94 or D5865

− 02

D5865-04 , incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.10 (4), (26) and (55g). Where the test method gives a

higher and a lower heating value, heat input is calcula ted in Btu per hour using the higher heating value of

the fuel.

SECTION 2. NR 400.02(123m) is created to read:



### 2

### NR 400.02(123m) "PM 2.5 

### emissions" means PM 2.5 

### emitted to the ambient air as measured by an

applicable reference method or an equivalent or alternative method specified by the department.

SECTION 3. NR 400.02 (135) is amended to read:

NR 400.02 (135) “Residual fuel oil” means an industrial fuel oil of grade No. 4, 5 or 6, as

determined by the specifications in ASTM D396

− 02 D396-02a , incorporated by reference in s. NR

484.10 (8).

SECTION 4. NR 400.03 (4) (ki) is created to read:

NR 400.03 (4)(kh) “PM 2.5 

### ” -- particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 μm

SECTION 5. NR 404.02 (4e) and (4m) are renumbe red NR 400.02 (123e) and ( 123s), and as renumbered

are amended to read:

NR 400.02 (123e) "PM 2.5 

### " means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or

equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured in the ambient air by a reference method based on

Appendix N L of 40 CFR part 50, incorporated by refe rence in s. NR 484.04(6g), and designated in

accordance with 40 CFR part 53, incorporated by refe rence in s. NR 484.03(5), or by an equivalent

method.

(123s) "PM 10 

### " means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a

nominal 10 micrometers as measured in the ambient air by a reference method based on Appendix J of 40

CFR part 50, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04 (5) , and designated in accordance with 40 CFR

part 53, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.03 (5) , or by an equivalent method.

SECTION 6. NR 405.02 (25k) (intro.) is amended to read:



### 3

### NR 405.02 (25k) (intro.) "Replacement unit" mean s an emissions unit for which all the criteria

listed in pars. (a) to (d) are met. No creditable emission reductions shall may be generated from shutting

down the existing emissions unit that is replaced.

SECTION 7. NR 405.02 (27) (a) 5m. in Table A is created to read:

NR 405.02 (27) (a) 5m. PM 2.5 

### : 10 tpy, also 40 tpy of nitrogen oxides or 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide

SECTION 8. NR 405.07 (8) (a) 3m. is created to read:

NR 405.07 (8) (a) 3m. PM 2.5 

### – 2.3 μg/m 3 

### , 24 hour average

SECTION 9. NR 406.04 (1) (n) (intro.) and 1. and 2. (intro.) are amended to read:

NR 406.04 (1) (n) (intro.) Renovation or demolition operations involving friable asbestos

containing regulated asbestos-containing material provided that the provisions of subd. 1. or 2. are met:

1. The amount of asbestos containing regulated asbestos-containing material is less than 260

linear feet on pipes or 160 square feet on other facility components.

2. If the amount of asbestos containing regulated asbestos-containing material is at least 260

linear feet on pipes or at least 160 square feet on ot her facility components, all of the following conditions

are met:

SECTION 10. NR 406.04 (2) (cs) is created to read:

NR 406.04 (2) (cs) The maximum theoretical emissions from the source for PM 2.5 

### do not exceed

2.2 pounds per hour.

SECTION 11. NR 407.03 (2) (be) is created to read:

NR 407.03 (2) (be) The maximum theoretical emissions from the source for PM 2.5 

### do not exceed



### 4

### 2.2 pounds per hour.

SECTION 12. NR 408.02 (32) (a) 5m. is created to read:

NR 408.02 (32) (a) 5m. PM 2.5 

### : 10 tpy; 40 tpy for nitrogen oxides; and 40 tpy for sulfur dioxide.

SECTION 13. NR 408.06 (1) (cm) is created to read:

NR 408.06 (1) (cm) PM 2.5 

### emission increases may be offset by decreases in nitrogen oxides or

sulfur dioxide emissions, that are otherwise creditable, at a ratio of 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide for each ton of

direct PM 2.5 

### emissions and 200 tpy of nitrogen oxides for each ton of direct PM 2.5 

### emissions.

SECTION 14. NR 484.03 (5) in Table 1 is amended to read:

NR 484.03 (5)

Table 1 CFR References
CFR Reference Title Incorporated by Reference For (5) 40 CFR part 53 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods NR 404.02(4e) and (4m) NR 400.02 (123e) and (123s) NR 404.06(3)(b)

SECTION 15. NR 484.04 (5) and (6g) in Table 2 are amended to read:

NR 484.04 (6g)

Table 2

CFR Appendix References CFR Appendix

Referenced Title Incorporated by Reference For

(5) 40 CFR part 50 Appendix J Reference Method for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM 10 

### in the Atmosphere NR 404.02(4m) NR 400.02 (123s)

(6g) 40 CFR part 50 Appendix L Reference Method for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM 2.5 

### in the Atmosphere NR 404.02(4e) NR 400.02 (123e)



### 5

### 6 CFR Appendix

Referenced Title Incorporated by Reference For

SECTION 16. 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.

SECTION 17. BOARD ADOPTION. This rule was appr oved and adopted by the State of Wisconsin

Natural Resources Board on August 11, 2010.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin October 5, 2010.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By_____________ /S/

________________ Matthew J. Frank, Secretary

(SEAL)

### State of Wisconsin 

## CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 12, 2010 FILE REF: 4533

TO: Natural Resources Board Members

FROM: Matt Frank, Secretary

SUBJECT: Background Memo for adoption of Board Order AM-16-10, proposed rules affecting NR 400, 404 to 408, and 484 pertaining to perm it requirements relating to particulate matter emissions.

Why is this rule being proposed? This rule is being proposed to amend portions of De partment rules to incorporate federal rule changes as required under s. 285.11(16) and (17), Wis. Stats. The revisions are based on changes in federal permitting regulations and are needed so the Department can retain US EPA’s approval of state air permit programs. Studies have shown significant health effects from exposure to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### ), including a connection between high PM 2.5 

### levels and premature mortality. Adverse health effects also include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks and certain other cardiovascular problems. Children, older adults and those with existing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases are par ticularly sensitive to the effects of PM 2.5 

### .

Summary of the Rules The rule proposes to:

• Define major source thresholds for PM 2.5 

### and significant emission increase level for PM 2.5 

### .

• Establish significant impact levels and increment consumption thresholds for PM 2.5 

### .

• Establish inter-pollutant trading ratios for PM 2.5 

### , SO 2 

### and NOx.

• Clarify existing non-attainment area permitting rules for permitting in PM 2.5 

### non-attainment areas (presently Milwaukee, Waukesha and Racine counties are PM 2.5 

### non-attainment areas and subject to non-attainment area new source permitting for PM 2.5 

### ). The Department is proposing the lowest value proposed by US EPA for Section 8 of the proposed rule in lieu of a final promulgated federal number. This number is used to determine if monitoring may be required as part of a project. In actual practice, th e Department does not require project monitoring to establish pre-construction backgroun d concentrations and instead re lies on values generated from the existing State monitoring network. Therefore, there should be no impact on proposed projects regardless of whether US EPA promulgates this number or a slightly higher number in the future. The Department has also removed a proposed amendmen t to s. NR 405.14(4) related to Class I variances. The proposed amendment would have establishe d a maximum allowable emission increase for PM 2.5 

### . The Department had thought that US EPA would promulgate this limitation as part of their overall effort to address PM 2.5 

### permitting requirements. The Department do es not now anticipate US EPA promulgating this limitation in the near future.

### 2 How does this proposal affect existing policy? Currently, PM 2.5 

### is not regulated under the new source review program in PM 2.5 

### air quality attainment areas. Under federal law a nd this proposed rule, PM 2.5 

### will be regulated for all emission sources, with a permitting threshold at levels comparable to those pr eviously set for larger particulate matter (PM and PM 10 

### ). Permitting rules have been in effect in the three-county PM 2.5 

### non-attainment area since that area was designated by EPA in December 2009. This proposal clarifies existing rules by defining a significant increase and establishing emission offset requirements. The department is required to update the state new so urce review rules to keep them consistent with the federal rules to maintain federal approval of Wisconsin’s new s ource review program.

Hearing synopsis Hearings on the proposed rule were held on June 7, June 8 and June 9, 2010 in Madison, Milwaukee and Wausau, respectively. Two people attended the heari ng in Madison. No one attended the hearing in Milwaukee. There were four attendees at the heari ng in Wausau. Two general comments in support of the proposed rule were received at the hearing in Wausau. Comments were received on the proposed rule on Ju ne 10 from the law firm of Pepper Hamilton on behalf of its client, glass manufacturer Saint-Gobain, Inc. These comments suggested a minor correction to the rule, three editorial changes and a recommenda tion that the Department conduct regional modeling to establish State specific inter pollutant trading ratios for NOx and SO 2 

### . The correction and two of the three editorial changes have been ma de to the proposed rule. The third editorial change has not been made as it would modify the term “PM 2.5 

### ” in a way that has not been defined in Administrative Code. The Department is not able to do the regional modeli ng recommended by the commenter as the emission input information for the modeling is not available at this time. The Department estimates it will be mid-2011 before this informati on may be available. Comments submitted by the Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse were generally of a non-substantive nature. Changes specifically suggested by the Clearinghouse to be included in the final rule are included except for suggested changes to s. NR 405.02(25k)(intro.). The federal rule on which this rule is based has “substantive provisions” primarily contained in the definitions. The Department believes that it is both appropriate and allowed by s. 227.14(1m)(b), Stats ., to maintain this format and has been carried it forward into ch. NR 405. No other comments on the proposed rule were receive d by the Department and the Department does not anticipate any controversy concer ning adoption of the final rule.

Information on environmental analysis. Under ss. NR 150.03(3) and 150.03(6)(b)3., Wis. Adm. Code, an environmental analysis is not needed because this proposal is considered a Type III Acti on which does not result in material impacts on the human environment and where the Department has limited discretion in formulating all important provisions of the rule.

### 3 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Major sources that are currently subject to the Title V and PSD program generally do not qualify as small business under s. 227.114 (1), Wis. Stat. The proposed ru le is not expected to have a significant impact on small business.Form 1100-001 

### NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD AGENDA ITEM Item No. _ 3.A.11

__ ___ (R 9/07)

SUBJECT: Request adoption of Board Order AM-16-10, proposed rules affecting chs. NR 400, 404 to 408, and 484 pertaining to permit requirements for fine particulate matter emissions.

FOR: AUGUST, 2010 BOARD MEETING

TO BE PRESENTED BY: Andy Stewart, Chief, Permits and St ationary Source Modeling section

SUMMARY: The proposed rules contained in this order reflect changes made by the United St ates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their regulations regarding the regulation of particu late matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) and several changes of a clean-up nature in otherwise affected rules. T he Department needs to make t hese changes to the permitting program in order to retain EPA approval of Wisconsin’s air permit programs.

PM2.5 is proposed to be included as a pollutant used to determine whether a facility is a major source of air pollution. Additionally, increases in PM2.5 emissions will potentially tr igger the need to obtain an air pollution control construction permit, potentially including requirements to control emissions to levels which represent Best Available Control technology or Lowest Achievable Emission rate.

In the past, the Board has often adopted updates to the air permi t program rules to keep them consistent with federal regulations.

There is no controversy expected over adopting these rules.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt Order AM-16-10.

LIST OF ATTACHED MATERIALS:

No Fiscal Estimate Required Yes Attached
No Environmental Assessment or Impact Statement Required Yes Attached
No Background Memo Yes Attached

APPROVED:

________ /S/

________________________________________________________________ _____ 7-09-2010

_________ Bureau Director, John H. Melby, Jr Date

________ /S/

________________________________________________________________ _____ 7-12-2010

_________ Administrator, Al Shea Date

________ /S/

________________________________________________________________ _____ 7-22-2010

_________ Secretary, Matthew J. Frank Date

cc: Laurie Ross - AD/8 Linda Haddix - LS/8 Mike Scott - LS/8 R. Eckdale - AM/7