# State of New Mexico

Susana Martinez

Governor June 24, 2011

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz Regional Administrator (6-A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Dear Dr. Armendariz: tTl X



### ..... tTl ::0 :z: 

# iii! ::0 > IT1

> 

### w (")


## .., U1 

## .., IT1 > 

# - :ii ..." 

## <

Vl :II: IT1

c 0 

### <: § N

0 C)

:z:



# '*'0

. I " cL

### 6RA.~~~: .•...

### 6~N 

## .**6DRA~:.t~I.'6WQ.** ..•...•.........
6MD 

### 6SF

. 60EJ ..•••.••••... 6RC •..•..•••.••••••..

### 6PDQ!:!~i.ffi<1..6XA.~~.:.I ..

### ~.Io 

### c.o ",+<0 / 

### 1.,;( e.-.c./-

On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department, I am pleased to submit to the

Environmental Protection Agency the enclosed revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions include amendments to New Mexico's Regional

Haze SIP under 40 CFR § 51.309.

The hearing record for all of the SIP revisions is attached, which includes the revised SIP, filed regulations, transcripts, exhibits, public notices, affidavits of publication, the notice of intent to
present technical testimony, and public comments.

Included with the attached hardcopy of the hearing record is an electronic copy of the record provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate of the hardcopy.

These SIP revisions satisfY the requirements of the Clean Air Act, comply with EPA regulations

and policy, and will result in significant emission reductions while preserving the proper federalstate partnership envisioned under the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA must approve these

revisions. In addition, because the enclosed SIP revisions address two different provisions of the

federal Clean Air Act, I believe EPA should address them separately.

First, the enclosed "Interstate Transport SIP" addresses Section 11 0 of the Act, which requires

states to avoid interfering with any other states' implementation plans for visibility. As made

clear in the Interstate Transport SIP submitted in 2007, and further explained in two letters to
EPA Region 6 from the previous New Mexico administration (one from Governor Richardson on June 12,2009 and another from a member of his staff on May 6, 2010), New Mexico has already

satisfied its Interstate Transport obligations. However, the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP supplements those previous submittals by confirming that the emissions from New Mexico

sources will not exceed the assumptions utilized in the modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), upon which other western states' visibility plans are based.

State Capitol • Room 400 • Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 • 505-476-2200 • fax: 505-476-2226EPA has already recognized that "the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an appropriate

means for designing a [plan] that will ensure that emissions from sources in New Mexico are not interfering with the visibility programs of other states." 

### In fact, the enclosed Interstate Transport

SIP confirms that emissions will actually be much lower than the WRAP modeling assumptions.

Second, the enclosed revisions to the 2003 "Regional Haze Section 309 SIP" and the enclosed "Regional Haze Section 309(g) SIP" (together, the "Regional Haze SIPs") address New

Mexico's obligation to reduce visibility impairment at national parks and wilderness areas ("Class I areas") in accordance with Sections 169A & 169B of the Clean Air Act. The Regional

Haze SIPs satisfy New Mexico's regional haze requirements by adopting new sulfur dioxide (S02) milestones for the Section 309 Backstop Trading Program, establishing reasonable

progress goals and a long-term strategy for New Mexico's nine Class I areas, and adopting a variety of control measures to address emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from New

Mexico sources. Most notably, the enclosed Regional Haze SIP also includes a Best Available

Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the San Juan Generating Station, which requires

the installation of a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system to meet EPA's presumptive BART limit for nitrogen oxides (NO,).

I am aware that EPA has proposed a different plan for implementing the Interstate Transport

program and at least a portion of the Regional Haze program in New Mexico through a combined Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). I am also aware of EPA's concern that it is bound by a court order to complete that rulemaking effort by August 5, 20 II. However, the court order imposing the August 5, 20 II deadline only requires EPA to address Interstate Transport requirements before that date. In addition, the proposed FIP suffers from a variety of legal and

technical flaws and inappropriately seeks to address only an isolated portion of the regional haze

program. Under these circumstances, I believe EPA can and should address the Interstate Transport program and Regional Haze program separately. Doing so will enable EPA to address

New Mexico's Interstate Transport requirements by the court-ordered deadline, while allowing

additional time for review of the more lengthy and complicated Regional Haze SIPs.

One of the fundamental principles expressed in Section !OI of the Clean Air Act is that "air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments."

That principle is nowhere better illustrated in the Act than in its visibility provisions, which, as
EPA and the courts have recognized, grant to the states significant discretion in the implementation of measures to address visibility impairment. In designing the regional haze

program, Congress recognized that the individual states are best-equipped to balance the need for

robust environmental protections with the costs those protections necessarily entail.

Moreover, nothing in the Clean Air Act requires EPA to address Interstate Transport and Regional Haze requirements together. On the contrary, EPA has generally addressed these

programs separately in the past. As just one example, EPA Region 8 recently proposed to take

separate action on the Interstate Transport and Regional Haze implementation plan revisions

submitted by the state of Colorado. Even EPA's proposed FIP for New Mexico itself contemplates separate Interstate Transport and Regional Haze plans with regard to S02

emiSSIOns.Accordingly, EPA should meet its August 5, 2011 deadline by simply approving New Mexico's prior Interstate Transport submittals, as supplemented by the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP.

Even if EPA does not agree that New Mexico's prior submittals have already satisfied its

Interstate Transport obligations, EPA should be able to act on New Mexico's four-page Interstate Transport SIP before August 5, 2011.

Since the court order does not require EPA to address New Mexico's Regional Haze program by August 5, 2011, New Mexico is now, as of this submittal, in the same position as nearly every other state

- awaiting EPA action on its Regional Haze SIP. As with other states, EPA must
determine whether New Mexico's Regional Haze SIPs are complete no more than six months

from this date and, following that completeness determination or the expiration of six months,

EPA must act to approve or disapprove those SIPs within twelve months, including time allowed

for public notice and comment on the proposed action. Because EPA will be required to
consider New Mexico's Regional Haze SIPs regardless of whether it flllalizes the proposed FIP,

EPA should take no action on its proposed FIP, particularly since the August 5, 2011 deadline

does not apply to regional haze. At a minimum, EPA should reopen the docket on the proposed

PIP for at least ninety (90) days to accept further comment in light of the submission of these SIP

revisions.

I hope you will begin an immediate, expedited review and approval of the enclosed SIP revisions
and, as recommended above, take separate action on the separate Interstate Transport and Regional Haze requirements of the Clean Air Act.

If there are any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please contact Raj Solomon at (505)

827-2855.

Sincerely,

Susana Martinez

Governor

Enclosures

cc: Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6

Dave Martin, NMED Cabinet Secretary Raj Solomon, NMED Deputy Cabinet Secretary1 

### List of Enclosures:

01 Section 309 Revised State Implementation Plan 02 Appendix K - Recommendations for Maki ng Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART

03 20.2.73 NMAC Revisions - Notices of Intent and Emissions Inventory Requirements

04 20.2.81 NMAC Revisions - Western Ba ckstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program

05 Section 309(g) State Implementation Plan 06 Appendix A - Emissions Ov erview (WRAP, undated) 07 Appendix B - Air Quality Modeling (WRAP, undated) 08 Appendix C - Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for New Mexico 09 Appendix D - New Mexico BART De termination for San Juan Generating

Station 10 Appendix E - Supplementary Informati on for Four Factor Analyses by WRAP States, EC/R Incorporated, May 4, 2009 (corrected April 20, 2010) 11 Appendix F - Supplementary Inform ation for Four-Factor Analyses for

Selected Individual Facilities in New Mexico, May 5, 2009

12 NMED Notice of Intent to Prese nt Technical Testimony - May 2, 2011 13 NMED Ex. 1 Clean Air Act § 169A 14 NMED Ex. 2 Clean Air Act § 169B 15 NMED Ex. 3 40 C.F.R. § 51. 308 (Regional Haze Rule § 308) 16 NMED Ex. 4 40 C.F.R. § 51. 309 (Regional Haze Rule § 309) 17 NMED Ex. 5 BART Guidelines – Appe ndix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Published at 70 Fed. Reg. 39104

18 NMED Ex. 6 NMED Requests for Information from PNM

19 NMED Ex. 6a Email - BART Mo deling Results from WRAP (11.9.06) 20 NMED Ex. 6b Email – PNM San Juan Generating BART Modeling (6-26-07)

21 NMED Ex. 6c Email - Comments on the BART m odeling report for the San Juan Generating Station (7.30.07)

22 NMED Ex. 6d Email - SJGS BART An alysis Additional Information Request (9.21.07)

23 NMED Ex. 6e Letter - De partment Request (12.21.07)

24 NMED Ex. 6f Letter PN M-BART-Request (4-25-08) 25 NMED Ex. 6g Email - PNM NOx Information Review (3.20.08) 26 NMED Ex. 6h Email - Meeting (6.18.08)

27 NMED Ex. 6i Letter – Additiona l Information Request (12.29.08)2 

### 28 NMED Ex. 7 PNM Submittals Related to BART

29 NMED Ex. 7a San Juan BA RT Modeling Protocol (4.13.07) 30 NMED Ex. 7b PNM BART Analysis (6.6.07)

31 NMED Ex. 7c Email Thread with Cost Analysis Attached 32 NMED Ex. 7d SCR Cost Analysis - (7.11.07) 33 NMED Ex. 7e SNCR Hybrid Cost Analysis (7.11.07) 34 NMED Ex. 7f Updated Visibility Cost Effectiveness Data - (8.23.07) 35 NMED Ex. 7g PNM Response to NMED (9.14.07) - September 14, 2007

36 NMED Ex. 7h PNM SCR Schematic 37 NMED Ex. 7i Refined Visibility Results (11.5.07) 38 NMED Ex. 7j PNM Discussion of OAQPS Cost Manual Method (3.29.08)

39 NMED Ex. 7k Final BART Modeling Response (3.31.08)

40 NMED Ex. 7L Final BART SNCR Analysis (5.30.08)

41 NMED Ex. 7m Discussion of SJGS Coal and Classification

42 NMED Ex. 7n Final Nalco-MOBOTE C NOx BART Analysis (8.28.08)

43 NMED Ex. 7o Final PM BART Analysis (8.28.08) 44 NMED Ex. 7p PNM SO3 Removal Report (3.16.09) 45 NMED Ex. 7q SNCR Cover Ltr (2.9.11)

46 NMED Ex. 7r PNM BART SNCR Analysis Update (2.9.11)

47 NMED Ex. 7s SNCR Cover Ltr (2.11.11) 48 NMED Ex. 7t Revised SNCR Analysis (2.11.11) 49 NMED Ex. 7u Rate Impact Analysis (2.11.11)

50 NMED Ex. 8 Testimony of Mary Uhl
51 NMED Ex. 8a Testimony on Scien tific and Regulatory Background of Regional Haze 52 NMED Ex. 8b Regional Haze Powerpoint Slides 53 NMED Ex. 8c Testimony Re BA RT Determination for PNM SJGS

54 NMED Ex. 9 Testimony of Rita Bates 55 NMED Ex. 9a Testimony Re Revisions to 2003 § 309 SIP 56 NMED Ex. 9b Testimony Re Proposed §309(g) SIP

57 NMED Ex. 10 Additional Proposed Revisions to § 309 SIP (5.2.11)

58 NMED Ex. 11 Additional Proposed Revisions to § 309(g) SIP (5.2.11)

59 NMED Ex. 12 Public Notices3 

### 60 San Juan Citizens Allianc e Comment Lette r - May 3, 2011 61 NMED Response to San Ju an Citizens Alliance Comments 62 Public Service Company of New Mexico Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - May 17, 2011 63 San Juan Coal Company Notice of In tent to Present Technical Testimony - May 17, 2011

64 The Natural Resources Defense Counc il, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and WildEarth Guardians Entry of Appearance - May 17, 2011 65 NMED Notice of Receipt of Comme nts - May 16, 2011 (includes U.S. EPA Comments)

66 NMED Supplemental Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - May
20, 2011 67 NMED Ex. 13 May 20, 2011 Revisions to § 309(g) SIP in Response to EPA

Comments 68 NMED Ex. 14 May 20, 2011 Revisions to 20.2.81 NMAC in Response to EPA

Comments 69 NMED Ex. 15 May 13, 2011 Co mments from U.S. EPA Region 6 70 NMED Ex. 16 NMED Responses to EPA Comments of May 13, 2011

71 NMED Ex. 17 U.S.F.S. Letter of March 30, 2011with Comments 72 NMED Ex. 18 NMED Response to U.S .F.S Comments of March 30, 2011 73 NMED Ex. 19 Proposed Statement of Reasons for Adoption and Order 74 NMED Second Notice of Receipt of Comments - May 26, 2011 (includes comments received May 25, 2011 from U.S. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service)

75 NMED Exhibits Presented at the June 1, 2011 Hearing 76 NMED Ex. 20 Compiled Section 309(g) SI P (included herein as Section 309(g) SIP) -- was not included in submittal EPA received -- probably the same as

enclosures 05 to 11. 77 NMED Ex. 21 Responses to U.S. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service

Comments

78 Transcript of Hearing - June 1 and 2, 2011 (Volumes 1 and 2)

79 New Mexico Environmental Improv ement Board Statement of Reasons for
Adoption of SIP Revisions

# REVISION TO THE NEW MEXICO

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FOR REGIONAL HAZE

December 31, 2003 (Revisions dated June 2 , 2010)

Prepared by staff of the:

Air Quality Bureau

Environmental Protection Division New Mexico Environment Department

1301 Siler Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. i 

## New Mexico Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

..................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................. 1

Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 3

State Implementation Plan Requirements .................................................................................. 4

A. Projection of visibility improvement. ................................................................................. 4

B. Treatment of Clean Air Corridors ....................................................................................... 9

C. Stationary Sources ............................................................................................................ 12

D. Mobile Sources ................................................................................................................. 58

E. Programs Related to Fire. ................................................................................................. 60

F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust. ........................................................................................ 64

G. Pollution Prevention.......................................................................................................... 65

H. Implementation of Additional Recommendations. ........................................................... 76

I. Periodic implementation plan revisions. ........................................................................... 77

J. State pl anning and interstate coordination. ....................................................................... 78

K. Geographic Enhancement. ................................................................................................ 79

L. Reasonable Progress for Additional Class I Areas. .......................................................... 81

M. Demonstration That the SO 2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress Than

BART ............................................................................................................................ 82

L IST OF A PPENDICES

Appendix A: Projection of Visibility Improvement Appendix B: Western Regional Air Partnership Policy on Clean Air Corridors Appendix C: Stationary Sources Appendix C

- 1: Western Backstop Emissions and Allowance Tracking System and Analysis Appendix C

- 2: Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An

Initial As sessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts Appendix C- 3: SO 2 Emission Monitoring Protocols [Appendix D: Reserved] Appendix E: Fire Programs Appendix E

- 1: Comparison of Existing NM Smoke Management Program with RHR Requirements Appendix E

- 2: Description of Process to Identify and Remove Administrative Barriers to

the Use of Non- burning AlternativesNM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. ii Appendix E-3: Process for Establishing Annual Emission Goals Appendix E

- 4: Western Regional Air Partnership Policy on Enhanced Smoke Manageme nt Programs for Visibility Appendix E

- 5: Western Regional Air Partnership Policy on Annual Emission Goals for

Fire Appendix E- 6: Western Regional Air Partnership Fire Tracking System Policy Appendix F: Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Appendix G: Pollution Prevention [Appendix H: Reserved] [Appendix I: Reserved] Appendix J: Interstate and Regional Coordination

[[Append ices K

- ] Appendix K: Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART , Westar Council, May 2003 Appendix Appendix M: Monitoring Requirements L: Reserved]

Appendix N: WRAP Technical Support Document (on CD- ROM)NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. iii 

### E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY

This document comprises the State of New Mexico ' s State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Regional Haze Rule in Section 309 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (40 CFR 51.309). The first section of the SIP includes introductory and background information. Section II includes the SIP requirements under Section 309 and how New Mexico is addressing those requirements. Table

ES

- 1 is a brief summary of each of the 309 SIP requirements along with New Mexico ' s approach in addressing those requirements.

Table ES -1 Summary of 309 SIP Require ments Projection of visibility improvement Projected visibility improvement for each of the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau (San Pedro Parks Wilderness in New Mexico)

Clean Air Corridors Emission growth either inside or outside of the Clean Air Corr idor are not shown to be contributing to impairment within the Clean Air

Corridor Stationary Sources of SO 2 This section includes milestones for sulfur dioxide emissions along with a backstop market cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide

emissions from specific sources.

Mobile Sources Federal programs (such as low sulfur diesel, vehicle emission standards, etc.) lead to decreasing mobile source emissions throughout the planning period. Programs Related to Fire New Mexico has developed a smoke managemen t regulation (20.2.65 NMAC) that is included as an appendix to this SIP and that is responsive to the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy

. Paved and Unpaved Road

Dust Dust emissions are not a si gnificant contributor to visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas.

Pollution Prevention Programs and policies within New Mexico related to renewable energy and energy efficiency are described. New Mexico ' s anticipated

contributio n to the pollution prevention goals are outlined.

Additional

Recommendations New Mexico has not identified any other recommendations in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report to implement

in New Mexico at this time.

Periodic Revisions Ne w Mexico will submit period revisions to this SIP every five years as required by the Regional Haze Rule. State Planning and

Interstate Coordination New Mexico has participated in the WRAP and will continue to participate in the WRAP. In addition, New Me xico participates with the Joint Advisory Council on US/Mexico border issues. Geographic Enhancement [ As New Mexico does not have an approved SIP for reasonably attributable visibility impairment at this time, New Mexico is deferring the geographic enhanc ement option until a later date. ] EPA approval of New Mexico's Phase I visibility SIP became effective on March 28, 2006. New Mexico commits to following the recommendations for determining attribution outlined in the report "Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably

Attributable BART ", Westar Council, May 2003.NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. iv Reasonable Progress for

Additional Class I Areas New Mexico [ intends to follow ] is concurrently submitting a Section 309(g)(2) SIP for the eight additional Class I areas in New Mexico.NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 1 

### I NTRODUCTION

The blue skies and scenic vistas of New Mexico are considered some of the most beautiful in the

United States. While New Mexico ' s residents and visitors frequently enjoy good visibility, air pollutants interfe ring with light transmission can impose limitations on aesthetic appreciation of

scenery. Visibility is the term used to characterize physical limitations in the atmosphere that affect our ability to see clearly. Human caused pollution of varied concentrat ions and sizes in the atmosphere can impair or reduce visibility. Widespread visibility impairment caused by pollutants from a variety of sources and activities over a broad geographic area is known as regional haze . This document is the State of New Mexic o' s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), compiled in accordance with the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, Section 309 (40 CFR 51.309).

Background

Particles and gases released into the atmosphere either scatte r or absorb light. Light scattering and absorption reduces the amount of light the human eye receives from a viewed object and diminishes resolution and contrast. The effects include degradation of color, flattening or blurring of textures, and blocking of landscapes, resulting in the reduction or loss of aesthetic value. Visibility impairment can occur across state and international borders and at locations far from pollution source(s).

In 1977, Congress amended the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and declared t he national visibility goal, which is as follows:

The prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment in visibility in mandatory class I areas which impairment results from anthropogenic air pollution.

In accordance with requirem ents contained in the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1980 promulgated its first visibility protection regulation [40 CFR 51.300 through 307]. Known as Phase I visibility protection, states were required to develop plans to

address v isibility impairment in mandatory federal Class I areas that is reasonably attributable to single sources or small groups of sources. In response to this regulation, New Mexico developed and submitted to EPA a Phase I, Part I visibility SIP in 1986 and a P hase I, Part II visibility SIP in 1992. The Phase was divided into two parts as a result of litigation following the promulgation of the regulation. EPA ' s approval of New Mexico ' s Phase I visibility SIP submittals became effective on March 28, 2006.

[ Ho wever, New Mexico ' s Phase I visibility SIPs did not explicitly provide authority and obligation to New Mexico for reasonable visibility impairment attributions and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for single sources and groups of so urces, nor were the SIPs given final approval by EPA. Currently, there are Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in place and EPA continues to hold the authority and obligation for Phase I visibility protection in New Mexico. Although New Mexico ' s two Phas e I SIPs were intended to replace the two FIPs, they have not done so. The result of these complications is special language addressing Geographic Enhancements in New Mexico ' s Regional Haze SIP, due to the fact that the stateNM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 2 does not have authority or ob ligation for reasonable visibility impairment attributions or BART

determinations. ]

Building on science and technology that was developed since the Phase I requirements, EPA in 1999 promulgated a Phase II visibility protection regulation [40 CFR 51.308 and 309]. The Phase II regulation is commonly known as the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule addresses impairment across large geographic areas that impacts visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas), with a goal of returning visi bility in Class I areas to natural conditions by 2064. The Regional Haze Rule requires that states develop State Implementation Plans to control visibility

- impairing air pollution.

Class I areas are those designated as areas of special national or regiona l value from a natural, scenic, recreational, and/or historic perspective. These areas are the focus of federal visibility protection regulations, including the Regional Haze Rule. Across the country, Class I areas include such places as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Mt. Rainier, Great Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone, and the Everglades. There are a total of 156 mandatory federal Class I areas in the U.S. There are nine Class I areas in New Mexico, including Carlsbad Caverns National Park,

Bandelier National Mon ument, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gila, Pecos, Salt Creek, San Pedro Parks, Wheeler Peak, and White Mountain Wilderness Areas. The combination of Phase I and Phase II (Regional Haze) visibility protection is expected to improve visibility throughout the United States and attain the national visibility goal.

Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309) is an option available to only the nine western states that comprised the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GC VTC), an organization formed by Congress in 1991 to study scientific and technical information on visibility protection for 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau, including the San Pedro

Parks Wilderness Area in New Mexico. In 1996, the GCVTC su bmitted a report to EPA with recommendations on how to protect visibility for these areas. The Regional Haze Rule ' s Section 309 incorporates the recommendations of the GCVTC, which were developed through a

consensus- based process that involved states, tribes, EPA, federal land managers, industry, citizens and environmental groups from the west. New Mexico was an active participant in the process, as were New Mexico tribal governments, industry representatives and environmental groups. The State of New Mexico has chosen to pursue the path outlined in Section 309 in addressing regional haze.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is the successor organization to the GCVTC. Comprised of western states, tribes, federal agencies, and stakeholders, the WRAP is administered by the Western Governors ' Association and the National Tribal Environmental

Council. The WRAP ' s committees and forums have developed many technical and policy tools useful to New Mexico in implementing the requirements of Section 309. Thes e committees and forums have membership from the State of New Mexico as well as from New Mexico tribal governments, industry, federal land managers and environmental groups.NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 3 Public Involvement

In reaching the decision to develop a SIP in accordance with Section 309, New Mexico held 13 meetings and numerous conference calls with stakeholders. New Mexico has also been an active member and participant in WRAP committees, forums, and work groups. New Mexico stakeholders have been active participants in the WRAP process as well.NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 4 

### S TATE 

### I MPLEMENTATION 

### P LAN 

### R EQUIREMENTS

A. Projection of visibility improvement.

(a) Applicable Class I areas. This projection of visibility improvement covers the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, as defined in 40 CFR 51.309 (b)(1).

(b) Projected visibility improvement. [ Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2) , Tables 1 and 2 below indicate the projected visibility improvement in deciviews for each of the 16 Class I areas, from the years 1997

- 2001 through December 31, 2018. This pr ojection was made for the 20% worst days and 20% best days, and is expressed in deciview (dV). Comparing the modeled data across the last three columns of the tables shows the improvement in visibility that would result from implementation of all of the 3 09 control strategies. The base case modeled column shows the visibility that would result in the absence of the 309 control strategies. The last two columns show the improvements resulting from the control strategies either with or without an optimal

smo ke management program.

The technical work was conducted by the WRAP, which evaluated the visibility improvements resulting from the application of the regional haze control strategies and programs described in Chapter 2 of the WRAP ' s Technical Support Doc ument. See Appendix A of this implementation plan for the complete description of the control strategies and technical analysis. ]

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Table A- 1 below compares the monitored 2000

- 04 baseline visibility conditions in deciviews for the 20% Best and 20% Worst days to the projected visibility improvement resulting from the 2018 Base Case (Base 18b) and 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP18) modeling scenarios completed to date. These 2018 modeling

scenarios are defined as fol lows:

**•** Base Case (Base 18b) = growth plus all controls “on the books” as of December 2004, no

BART or SO 2 milestones assumptions;

**•** Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18 b ) = refined growth estimates plus all controls “on the books” as of May 2007, includes presumptive limit or known SO 2 BART on EGUs;

and

**•** [future] Final Reasonable Progress Case (FRP18) = all controls “on the books” as of 2007, will include all BART controls in the WRAP region and limits defined in the SO 2 milestone

“better -than- BART” p rogram.

When SO 2 and NOx controls for all BART sources have been adopted in the WRAP region, and

the 309 states re

- adopt the SO 2 milestone program, a 2018 Final Reasonable Progress (FRP18) modeling scenario will then be analyzed and the remaining cells co mpleted in the table below. The data in the table below satisfy 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2) of the Regional Haze Rule.

All 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas show a projected visibility improvement for 2018 using the monthly averages on the 20% Worst average visibility days, and no degradation on the 20% Best average visibility days for each monitoring site. The monthly average method for projectingNM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 5 visibility improvement is an allowed variation of EPA guidance, and the method description is

found at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/taf/meetings/070226c/Applying_Monitoring_Metrics_ for_Regional_Haze_Planning_%20February_23_2007_finalreviewdraft.pdf . The monthly averaging method was chosen because it was the shortest averaging period for making the future visibility projections, while avoiding the use of the EPA specific days method that only assesses impr ovements on the Worst and Best days observed during one year (2002) of the 2000 -04 baseline monitoring period. The methodology and current data showing projected visibility improvement in 2018 are now available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss ).NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 6 [ Table A

- 1. Modeling Results of Projected Visibility Improvement at the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas in 2018 on the Average 20% Worst Days, resulting from implementation of " All §3 09 Control Strategies. "

Modeling Results (deciviews)

Colorado Plateau

Class I Area State (20% Worst Days ' Visibility

- deciviews) 1997

- 2001 Monitoring Data (20% Worst Days ' Visibility

for all controls

" on the books "

as of 2002) 2018 Base Case (20% Worst Days ' Visibility for all §309 Control Strategies (SO 2 Annex Milestones and Pollution Prevention)

with Base Smoke

Management) 2018 Sce nario 1 (20% Worst Days ' Visibility for all §309 Control Strategies (SO 2 Annex Milestones and

Pollution Prevention) with Optimal Smoke Management) 2018 Scenario 2

Grand Canyon NP AZ 12.30 11.62 11.56 11.51

Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 14.30 12.22 12.02 11.96

Petrified Forest NP AZ 13.00 11.99 11.82 11.74

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 15.40 11.63 11.51 11.48

Black Canyon o f Gunnison NP CO 11.30 10.90 10.76 10.60

Flat Tops Wilderness CO 10.50 11.04 10.91 10.73

Maroon Bells

- Snowmass WA CO 10.60 11.15 11.00 10.84

Mesa Verde NP CO 13.10 12.24 12.03 11.84

West Elk Wilderness CO 10.60 11.19 10.99 10.84

Weminuche Wilderness CO 11.30 11.08 10.89 10.72

San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.70 12.33 12.12 11.71

Arches NP UT 12.10 12.41 12.29 12.15

Bryce Canyon NP UT 11.80 12.26 12.24 11.95

Canyonlands NP UT 12.10 12.41 12.31 12.18

Capitol Reef NP UT 12.10 12.51 12.49 12.36

Zion NP UT 13.60 12.13 12.09 12.03NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 7 Table A

- 2. Modeling Results of Projected Visibility Improvement at the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas in 2018, on the Average 20% Best Visibility Days, resulting from implementation of " All §309 Control Strategies. "

M odeling Results (deciviews)

Colorado Plateau

Class I Area State 1997

- 2001 Monitoring Data

(20% Best Days ' Visibility

- deciviews) (20% Best Days ' Visibility

for all controls

" on the books "

as of 2002) 2018 Base

Case (20% Best Days '

Visibil ity for all §309

Control Strategies (SO 2 Annex

Milestones and Pollution Prevention)

with Base Smoke

Management) 2018 Scenario 1 (20% Best Days ' Visibility for all §309 Control Strategies (SO 2 Annex

Milestones and Pollution Prevention) with Optimal

Smoke Ma nagement)

2018 Scenario 2

Grand Canyon NP AZ 4.80 4.76 4.72 4.64

Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 5.50 5.49 5.46 5.36

Petrified Forest NP AZ 6.50 5.18 5.14 5.10

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 6.30 4.85 4.82 4.75

Black Canyon of Gunnison NP CO 4.60 3.89 3.83 3.75
Flat Tops W ilderness CO 3.10 3.96 3.90 3.81

Maroon Bells

- Snowmass WA CO 3.10 3.90 3.85 3.80

Mesa Verde NP CO 5.50 4.40 4.38 4.33

West Elk Wilderness CO 3.10 3.89 3.83 3.74

Weminuche Wilderness CO 4.60 3.97 3.92 3.82

San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 4.00 5.59 5.51 5 .36

Arches NP UT 5.50 4.85 4.72 4.61

Bryce Canyon NP UT 4.30 3.91 3.92 3.89

Canyonlands NP UT 5.60 4.87 4.76 4.67

Capitol Reef NP UT 5.60 4.85 4.85 4.75

Zion NP UT 5.90 3.81 3.79 3.75 ]NM Regional Haze SIP

12/31/03 ; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 8 Table A

- 1 . Visibility Impairment in Deciviews *

Colorado Platea u Class I Areas Under §309(d)(2) State 20% Worst Visibility Days 20% Best Visibility Days

2000

- 2004 Regional

Haze Rule

Baseline Monitoring

Data Projected Visibility (Monthly Average Method) 2000

- 2004 Regional

Haze Rule

Baseline Monitoring

Data Projected Visibility (Monthly Average Method)

2018 Base

Case (Base 18b) 2018 Preliminary

Reasonable

Progress

Case (PRP18b) 2018 Final

Reasonable

Progress

Case (FRP18) 2018 Base

Case (Base 18b) 2018 Preliminary

Reasonable

Progress

Case (PRP18b) 2018 Final

Reaso nable

Progress

Case (FRP18)

Grand Canyon National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.5 3.0 2.9 2.9

Petrified Forest National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.8 5.0 4.9 4.7 Sycamore Canyon

Wilderness AZ 15.3 15.1 15.0 5 .6 5.6 5.5

Black Canyon of the

Gunnison National Park CO 10.3 10.0 9.8 3.1 2.9 2.9

Flat Tops Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5

Maroon Bells Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5

Mesa Verde National Park CO 13.0 12.8 12.5 4.3 4.1 4.0

Wemin uche Wilderness CO 10.3 10.0 9.8 3.1 2.9 2.9

West Elk Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5

San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.2

Arches National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 Bryce Canyon National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.1 2.8 2.7 2.6 Canyonlands National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 Capitol Reef National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.4 4.1 4.0 3.9

Zion National Park UT 13.2 13.0 12.8 5.0 4.7 4.7

* Data are from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx

-- > Modeling

-- > Visibility ProjectionsNM Regional Haze SIP 9 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. B. Treatment of Clean Air Corridors

(a) Comprehensive emissions tracking program. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), a

compre hensive emissions tracking system has been established to track emissions within portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah, that have been identified as part of the Clean Air Corridor, as specified in (b) below, to ensure that visibility is not degraded o n the least

- impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. This comprehensive emissions tracking system was developed by the WRAP to assist the above states in meeting this requirement. Appendix M

- 1 of this implementation plan descri bes the comprehensive emissions tracking system, and the process by which the WRAP will summarize annual emission trends in order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the

16 Class I areas . Included in t his summary will be an assessment of whether any significant emissions growth has occurred within the Clean Air Corridor, in accordance with (c) below.

(b) Identification of Clean Air Corridors. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State of New

Mexic o has identified a Clean Air Corridor, as indicated in the map provided below. This Clean Air Corridor was identified using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, and then updated by the WRAP based on an

assessment described in the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors , and related technical analysis conducted by the WRAP. The comprehensive emissions tracking system described

above in (a) shall track emissions within these counties. Ap pendix B of this implementation plan

is the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors

. Technical work associated with the identification of the Clean Air Corridor is included in Appendix N, the WRAP final draft Technical Support Document.

Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport RegionNM Regional Haze SIP 10 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (c) Patterns of growth within the Clean Air Corridor. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii), the State of New Mexico has determined, based on the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP

, that inside the Clean Air Corridor identified in (b) there is no significant emissions growth occurring at this time that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. See Appendix B of this implementat ion plan for further details of emissions growth assessment conducted by the WRAP. Future emissions growth will be tracked in accordance with the comprehensive emissions tracking system in (a) above. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends

within th e corridor and make an assessment of whether any significant emissions growth has

occurred within the corridor.

(d) Patterns of growth outside the Clean Air Corridor. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iii), the State of New Mexico has determined, based on the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP

, that outside the Clean Air Corridor identified in (b) there is no emissions growth occurring at this time that is impairing air quality within the

Clean Air Corrido r sufficient to cause any visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas of

the Colorado Plateau. See Appendix B of this implementation plan for further details of emissions growth assessment conducted by the WRAP. As part of the WRAP ' s annual summ ary of emission trends within the corridor, an assessment will be made of emission and monitoring data trends outside the Clean Air Corridor, in order to determine if significant emissions growth is occurring outside the corridor that could be impairing air quality within the corridor, and resulting in visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. See Appendix B for additional details on this assessment process.

(e) Actions if impairment inside or outside the Clean Air Corridor occurs. The State of New Mexico, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will review the WRAP ' s annual summary of emission trends within the Clear Air Corridor and whether any significant emissions growth was identified within the corridor in accordance with (c) above, or was identified outside the corridor, in accordance with (d) above. If significant emissions growth was identified, the State of New Mexico in coordination with other transport region states and tribes,

will conduct or seek WRAP assistance i n conducting an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth in terms of possible impact on air quality within the corridor and possible degradation of

the least

- impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. Pursuant to 40

CFR 51.309(d)(3) (iv), if this analysis finds that this growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State of New Mexico in coordination with other transport states and

tribes will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction meas ures, and identify an implementation schedule for such measures, if needed. The implementation of any additional emission measures shall be coordinated with all appropriate transport region states and tribes, on a mutually agreed upon timetable, and reported to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).

(f) Other Clean Air Corridors. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3) (v), the State of New Mexico has concluded that no other Clean Air Corridors can be identified at this time. This finding is based on the review of work conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission on Clean Air Corridors, as described in the WRAPNM Regional Haze SIP 11 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors

. See Appen dix B of this implementation plan for further description of this finding. Although no formal update on this finding is required, the State of New Mexico recognizes that future modeling or monitoring data may indicate other possible Clean Air Corridors exist. The State of New Mexico will notify EPA if there is evidence to support such a finding in the future, and take appropriate action pursuant to this requirement. No clean air corridor or portion of a clean air corridor has been identified within New M exico.NM Regional Haze SIP 12 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. C. Stationary Sources



### Sulfur Dioxide Milestone and Backstop Trading Program

Background

The SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program was developed to implement the emissions reduction program for major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide described in 40 CFR 51.309(h). The program is implemented through the following documents:

**•** The New Mexico Regional Haze Implementation Plan describes the overall program,

and contains New Mexico ' s commitment to implement all parts of the program as

outlined in the plan. The plan establishes the regional milestones, SO 2 emissions tracking requirements, and if the Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program ( " WEB Trading Program " ) is triggered, the plan also describes how the Department shall

determine allocations an d manage the allowance tracking system that is needed to implement the program.

**•** Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Model Rule 20.2.81 NMAC contains the requirements that shall apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a backstop regulatory program if the SO 2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO 2 milestones through voluntary

means is achieved. If the rule is implemented, it establishes the procedures and compliance requirements for so urces in the Trading Program.

**•** 20.2.73 NMAC requires major industrial sources of SO 2 to submit an annual emissions inventory in the pre

- trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones. If the backstop program is triggered then these requirements will eventually be replaced by more rigorous monitoring requirements

in 20.2.81 NMAC.



### Definitions

The definitions in this part apply only to this Implementation Plan:

Account Certificate of Representation means for a WEB Source the completed and signed submission required to designate an Account Representative for a WEB source who is authorized to represent the owners and operators of the WEB source with regard to matters under the WEB Trading Program and for a general account, the individual who is authorized to represent the persons having an ownership interest with respect to allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning the general account.

Account Representative means the individual who is authorized t hrough an Account Certificate of Representation to represent owners and operators of the WEB source with regard to matters under the WEB Trading Program (including, for example, to transfer and otherwise manageNM Regional Haze SIP 13 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. allowances and certify all submissions to the Allowance Tracking System and the emissions tracking database for the purposes of the Rule) or, for a general account, who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent the persons having an ownership

interest in allowances i n the general account with regard to matters concerning the general

account.

Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Actual Emissions means total annual sulfur dioxide emissions determined in accordance with 20.2.81.106 NMAC of the WEB Trading Program Rule, or determined in accordance with 20.2.73 NMAC for sources that are not subject to 20.2.81 NMAC.

Allocate means to assign allowances to a WEB source through Section C1 of this SIP.

Allowance means the limited authorization under the WEB Trading Program to emit one ton of

SO 2 during a specified control period or any control period thereafter subject to the terms and conditions for use of unused allowances as established by the 20.2.81 NMAC.

Allowance limitation means the tonnag e of SO 2 emissions authorized by the allowances available for compliance deduction for a WEB source for a control period under Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC on the allowance transfer deadline for that control period.

Allowance Tracking System means the system developed by the Department where allowances under the WEB Trading Program are recorded, held, transferred and deducted.

Allowance Tracking System account means an account in the Allowance Tracking System established for purposes of recording, holding, transferring, and deducting allowances.

Compliance account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under Subsection A of 20.2.81.105 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compl iance with its allowance limitation.

Control period means the period beginning January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive [ , during which a WEB source must hold allowances not less than its

emissions ].

Department means the New Mexico Environment Department or its successor agency or authority, as represented by the Department Secretary or his or her designee.

Emissions tracking database means the central database where SO 2 emissions for WEB sources as recorded and report ed in accordance with 20.2.81 NMAC are tracked to determine compliance

with allowance limitations.

Emission unit means any part of a stationary source that emits or would have the potential to emit any pollutant submitted to regulations under the Clean Ai r Act.NM Regional Haze SIP 14 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. EPA Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator' s duly authorized representative.

Existing source means a stationary source that commenced operation before the Program Trigger Dat e.

Floor allocation means the amount of allowances set by the Department in accordance with this Plan that represents the minimum necessary for a source to operate under stringent control assumptions.

General account means an account established in t he Allowance Tracking System under 20.2.81.105 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances held by a person that are not to be used to show compliance with an allowance limitation.

Milestone means the maximum level of stationary source regional sulfur dioxide emissions for each year from 2003 to 2018, established according to the procedures in Part C, Section A of the implementation plan, Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger.

New WEB Source means a WEB source that commenced operation on or aft er the Program Trigger Date.

New Source Set

- aside means a pool of allowances that are available for allocation to new WEB sources and modified WEB sources that have increased capacity in accordance with the provisions of Section C1.3 (a) of this implementation plan.

Opt

- in means to choose to participate in the WEB Trading Program by following the procedures in 20.2.81.101 NMAC and to comply with the terms and conditions of 20.2.81 NMAC.

Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation is enforceable by the EPA Administrator.

Program Trigger Date means the date that the Department determines that the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in accordance with the provisions of Section A2 of this Plan.

Reducible allocation means the amount of allowances set by the Department in accordance with Section C1.1(b)(9) of this Plan that represents, for each source, emissions in excess of the floor allocation that shall be reduced over time as the regional milestone is decreased.

[ Renewable Energy Resource means a resource that generates electricity by non

- nuclear and

non

- fossil technologies that results in low or no air emissions. The term includes electricity generated by wind energy technologies; solar photovoltaic and solar thermal technologies;NM Regional Haze SIP 15 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. geothermal technologies; technologies based on landfill gas and biomass sources, and new low

impact hydropower that meets the Low

- Impact Hyd ropower Institute criteria. Biomass includes agricultural, food and wood wastes. For the purposes of this Plan, a renewable energy resource does not include pumped storage or biomass from municipal solid waste, black liquor, or treated

wood. ]

Retired sou rce means a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption as provided in

Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC. [ Any retired source resuming operations under Paragraph (4) of Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC, must submit its exemption as part of its r egistration

materials. ]

Stationary source means any building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Ton means 2000 pounds and, for any control period, any fraction of a ton equaling 1000 pounds or more shall be treated as one ton and any fraction of a ton equaling less than 1000 pounds shall

be treated as zero tons.

Tracking System Administrator means the person designated by the Department as the

administrator of the W EB Allowance Tracking System and the emission tracking database.

Tribal Set

- Aside means a [20,000 ] 2,000

- ton SO 2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an

annual basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set- aside among tribes

in the region. The set

- side is intended to ensure equitable treatment for tribal economies and to prevent barriers to economic development.

Trigger refers to the activation of the WEB Trading Program for SO 2 in accordance with Part C

Section A.1 of this sta te implementation plan.

Unit means a stationary boiler, combustion turbine or combined cycle system.

WEB source means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of 20.2.81.100

NMAC.

Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program (" WEB Trading P rogram" ) refers to 20.2.81 NMAC that shall be triggered as a backstop in accordance the provisions in Section C of this Plan to ensure that regional SO 2 emissions are reduced.

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) means the collaborative effort of trib al governments, state governments, and federal agencies to promote and monitor implementation of recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission authorized under Section 169B(f) of the Act, and to address other common Western regional air quality issues.NM Regional Haze SIP 16 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 

### C. Emission Reductions for Stationary Sources

A1. Regional SO 2 Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger

A1.1 Base Milestone Values

The regional sulfur dioxide base milestones for the years [2003 ] 2008 through 2018 are provided

in Table C- 1. The base milestones shall be adjusted annually as described in paragraphs A1.2 and A1.3 of the New Mexico State Implementation Plan.

TABLE C- 1. [ Base ] Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones [ (excludes Smelter Set

- aside) ]

Column 1 Colum n 2 Column 3 For the year the base regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater than or less

than the milestone

2003 682,000 tons SO 2 2003

2004 682,000 tons SO 2 Average of 2003 and 2004

2005 682,000 tons SO 2 Average of 2003, 2004 and 2005

2006 682,000 tons SO 2 Average of 2004, 2005 and 2006

2007 682,000 tons SO 2 Average of 2005, 2006 and 2007

2008 [ 680,333 ] 269,083 tons SO 2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008

2009 [ 678,66 7 ] 234,903 tons SO 2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009

2010 [ 677,000 ] 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010

2011 [ 677,000 ] 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011

2012 [ 677,000 ] 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012

2013 [ 659,66 7 ] 185,795 tons SO 2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013

2014 [ 642,333 ] 170,868 tons SO 2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014

2015 [ 625,000 ] 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015

2016 [ 625,000 ] 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016

2017 [ 625,00 0 ] 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017

2018 [ 480,000 ] 141,849 tons SO 2 Year 2018 only

2019 forward until replaced by an approved SIP [ 480,000 ] 141,849 tons SO 2 Annual; no multiyear averaging

[ A1.2 Adjustments for participation by eligible States and Tribes.

The amount provided in Table 2 below shall be subtracted from the milestone in Table 1 for each state and tribe that does not have an Implementation Plan approved by the EPA Administrator as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 a s of December 31 of the year following the milestone year. The first adjustment to the 2003 milestone shall be made no later than March 31, 2005, and shall be based on all states and tribes that do not have a federally approved Implementation Plan as of De cember 31, 2004.NM Regional Haze SIP 17 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. TABLE 2a. [Years 2003

- 2010] Amounts of SO 2 tons to be Subtracted from the Base Milestones for States and Tribes that do not have an Approved Implementation Plan under 40 CFR 51.309 (Data includes new source set aside but not smelter set a side.)

State or Tribe 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. Arizona 117,372 117,372 117,372 117,372 117,372 117,941 118,511 119,080

2. California 37,343 37,343 37,343 37,784 37,343 36,363 35,382 34,402

3. Colorado 98,897 98,897 98,897 98,897 98,89 7 98,443 97,991 97,537

4. Idaho 18,016 18,016 18,016 18,016 18,016 17,482 16,948 16,414

5. Nevada 20,187 20,187 20,187 20,187 20,187 20,282 20,379 20,474

6. New Mexico 84,624 84,624 84,624 84,624 84,624 84,143 83,663 83,182 7. Oregon 26,268 26,268 26,2 68 26,268 26,268 26,284 26,300 26,316

8. Utah 42,782 42,782 42,782 42,782 42,782 42,795 42,806 42,819 9. Wyoming 155,858 155,858 155,858 155,858 155,858 155,851 155,843 155,836 10. Navajo Nation 53,147 53,147 53,147 53,147 53,147 53,240 53,334 53,427

1 1. Shoshone

Bannock Tribe of

the Fort Hall

Reservation 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994

12. Ute Indian Tribe

of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,131 1,131 1,131

13. Wind River

Reservation 1,384 1,384 1,384 1 ,384 1,384 1,384 1,384 1,384NM Regional Haze SIP 18 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. TABLE 2b. [Years 2011

- 2018] Amounts of SO 2 tons to be Subtracted from the Base Milestones for States and Tribes that do not have an Approved Implementation Plan under

40 CFR 51.309 *

State or Tribe 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2 016 2017 2018

1. Arizona 119,080 119,080 116,053 113,025 109,998 109,998 109,998 82,302

2. California 34,402 34,402 33,265 32,128 30,991 30,991 30,991 27,491

3. Colorado 97,537 97,537 94,456 91,375 88,294 88,294 88,294 57,675

4. Idaho 16,414 16,414 15, 805 15,197 14,588 14,588 14,588 13,227

5. Nevada 20,474 20,474 20,466 20,457 20,449 20,449 20,449 20,232

6. New Mexico 83,182 83,182 81,682 80,182 78,682 78,682 78,682 70,000 7. Oregon 26,316 26,316 24,796 23,277 21,757 21,757 21,757 8,281

8. Utah 42,8 19 42,819 41,692 40,563 39,436 39,436 39,436 30,746 9. Wyoming 155,836 155,836 151,232 146,629 142,025 142,025 142,025 97,758 10. Navajo

Nation 53,427 53,427 52,707 51,986 51,266 51,266 51,266 44,772

11. Shoshone

Bannock Tribe

of the Fort Hall

Reservati on 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994

12. Ute Indian

Tribe of the

Uintah and Ouray

Reservation 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135

13. Wind River

Reservation 1,384 1,384 1,384 1,384 1,384 1,384 1,384 1,384

* These numbers differ from Annex opt

- in/

- out tables in that the smelter set

- aside is excluded

and the new source set

- aside is included. ]

[A1.3 Adjustment for Future Operation of Copper Smelters in Arizona and New Mexico.

If either the BHP San Manuel smelter in Arizona or th e Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter in New

Mexico resumes operation, the milestones shall be increased as described below. The adjustment shall occur only if the respective state has a State Implementation Plan approved by the EPA

Administrator under 40 CFR 51. 309. Once the adjustments have been made, the milestones shall not be changed due to future suspensions or changes in plant operations, except as provided below. If Arizona or New Mexico elect not to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, the emissions

for the smelters in the state opting

- out will be subtracted from the smelter set

- aside.

(a) If one or both smelters resume operations under their existing permits, the milestone shall automatically be adjusted upward for each smelter respectively by the followin g amounts:

1. Phelps Dodge Corporation, Hidalgo Smelter: 22,000 tons SO 2 2. BHP, San Manuel Smelter: 16,000 tons SO 2 3. For the 2013 through 2018 milestones, the maximum increase shall be 30,000

tons SO 2

.NM Regional Haze SIP 19 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (b) If New Mexico determines that either smelter will resume operation by operating only a portion of the plant, the milestone adjustment in (a) shall be reduced by a percentage to reflect current conditions. If the smelter resumes normal operations at a later date, the full adjustment described in (a) shall be applied.

(c) If one or both smelters resume operations after going through new source review, the milestone adjustment shall be based on the new permitted level for the source, but in no instance may the adjustment to the milestones exceed 22,000 tons SO 2 per year for the Hidalgo Smelter or 16,000 tons SO 2 per year for the San Manuel Smelter.

(d) If one or both smelters do not resume operation, the Department will determine, based on the calculation procedures in provision A3.4 the amount of faci lity specific set

- aside that will be added to the milestone to account for capacity expansion at the remaining smelters. This

set

- aside shall only be available for use if sulfur input and emissions from the copper

smelters are above the baseline level list ed in Table 3 in any particular year, as a result of increased capacity. The increase to the milestone will be based on a smelter ' s proportional increase above its baseline sulfur input. The set

- aside shall be recalculated every year to

reflect actual o perations of the remaining copper smelters. The set

- aside may not be traded.

TABLE 3. Preliminary Smelter

- Specific Set Aside

Company / Smelter Baseline Sulfur input Baseline

Allocation Smelter

- specific Set

aside

BHP San Manuel 417,200 tons 16,000 tons SO 2 1,500 tons SO 2

Asarco Hayden 235,000 tons 23,000 tons SO 2 3,000 tons SO 2

Phelps Dodge Chino 212,800 tons 16,000 tons SO 2 3,000 tons SO 2

Phelps Dodge Hidalgo 256,800 tons 22,000 tons SO 2 4,000 tons SO 2

Phelps Dodge Miami 208,700 to ns 8,000 tons SO 2 2,000 tons SO 2

Kennecott Salt Lake 340,269 tons 1,000 tons SO 2 100 tons SO 2

TOTAL 1,670,769 tons 86,000 tons SO 2 13,600 tons SO 2 ]

A1.4 [ Other ] Milestone Adjustments.

a)All [other ] milestone adjustments shall require a SIP re vision. Section A3.3 of this plan outlines adjustments to be made to the emissions inventory to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. These adjustments shall be incorporated into the milestones every five years as part of the periodic Implement ation Plan revisions required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The Department shall track all adjustments to the milestone pursuant to section A3.3.NM Regional Haze SIP 20 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (b) Within ninety days of the periodic Implementation Plan revision incorporating adjustments based on section A3.3, the Department shall provide the date of the SIP revision reflecting the milestone adjustment to sources whose records were used as the basis for the milestone adjustment and state that the source needs to retain the record at least five years from the date of the SIP revision, or ten years from the date of establishing the record, whichever is longer.

(c) Opt -in Provisions for States and Tribes. The regional milestones i n Table C- 1 were developed

for a three state and one local jurisdiction region: N ew Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the City of Albuquerque . Other western states and tribes may choose to join this backstop trading program in the future. The addition of a state or tribe to the program will require SIP/Tribal Implementation Plan ( TIP ) rev ision for all participating states and tribes to adjust the regional milestones, and will not occur automatically. Any state or tribe that wishes to opt in to the program will propose milestone adjustments to the participating states and tribes using the same methodology that was used to develop the milestones in Table C-1. A new participant must agree to develop a SIP or TIP and backstop trading rule that is consistent with those adopted by the other participating states and tribes.

A2. Regional Program Administration

A2.1 Pre-trigger tracking of regional SO 2 emissions.

The Department shall work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in the

SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) compiled the SO 2 emission inventories that were used during the development of the Annex, and the WRAP continues to refine and improve the overall tracking system for regional

haze. The WRAP shall maintain the pre -trigger emissions tracking functions outlined in this plan for the foreseeable future. If the WRAP is no longer able to fulfill this function, then the Department shall ensure that other arra ngements are made, either through a different regional organization or through a contractor to maintain the SO 2 tracking system that is described in this plan. The Department is responsible for all regional program administration functions as

described in this plan. The Department shall perform these functions through the WRAP, as the Department 's agent. The WRAP shall have no authority to make regulatory determinations. The

WRAP has limited authority under this plan to perform tracking and accounting functions, prepare reports, and perform other administrative functions as directed by the states and tribes. The Department shall work expeditiously to correct any problems if the WRAP fails to perform any of the functions described in the SIP/TIP in a timely manner.

A2.2 Designation of the Tracking System Administrator.

If the backstop trading program is triggered due to an exceedance of the SO 2 milestones as outlined in section A3 of this plan, New Mexico shall work cooperatively with the other participati ng states and tribes to designate one Tracking System Administrator (TSA). The TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the program trigger date. In addition, before the TSA is designated, the Department shal l have entered into aNM Regional Haze SIP 21 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. binding contract with the TSA that shall require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in this plan. In addition, the Department must obtain sufficient authority to ensure the functions in the Implementation Plan are carried out by the TSA.

A2.3 Information Provided by other States and Tribes.

New Mexico shall accept the emission inventory and permitting information provided by the other participating states and tribes in order to determine the milestone value and program t rigger if such other states and tribes have provided proper documentation and followed the public notification process outlined in A3.6 through A3.8 of this Plan.

A3. Determination of Program Trigger.

A3.1 [ The ] Until the program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the Department shall submit an annual emissions report to the WRAP and all participating states and tribes by September 30 of each year. The report shall document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources required under Subsection F of 20.2.73 NMAC,

Pre

- trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventories, to submit emission inventory reports in New Mexico. The first report for calendar year 2003 shall be submitted by September 30, 2004. The Department shall prepare the supporting documentation that is included with the annual emissions report as noted in provisions A3.2 and

A3.3 below.

A3.2 The annual emissions report for New Mexico shall include a source emissions change exceptions report that contains the following information:

(a) identification of any new sources that were not contained in the previous calendar year ' s emissions report, and an explanation of why the source is now included in the program; (b ) identification of any sources that were included in the previous year' s report and are no longer included in the program, and an explanation of why this change has occurred; and (c) an explanation for emissions variations at any applicable source that exceeds +/

- 20 percent from the previous year.

A3.3 The annual emissions report for New Mexico shall include a proposed emissions adjustment as described in (a) [ through (c) ] and (b) below to ensure a consistent comparison to

the milestones.

(a) [Changes in flow rate measurement methods. Actual emission inventories for utilities that

use EPA ' s Reference Method 2F, 2G, or 2H to measure stack flow rate will be adjusted to be comparable with the flow rate assumptions that were used in 1999, the base year inve ntory for the Annex, except emissions for the year 2018 shall not be adjusted. The adjustment may be calculated using any of the following three methods.

1. Directly determine the difference in flow rate through a side

- by

- side comparison of

data collected with the new and old flow reference methods during a RATA test.NM Regional Haze SIP 22 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 2. Compare the annual average heat rate using Acid Rain heat input data (MMBtu) and total generation (MWHrs) as reported to the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA). Under this ap proach, the flow adjustment factor shall be calculated using the following ratio:

Heat input/MW for first full year of data using new flow rate method Heat input/MW for last full year of data using old flow rate method.

3. Compare the standard CFM per MW before and after the new flow reference method based on CEMs data submitted in the Acid Rain Program, as follows:

SCF/Unit of Generation for first full year of data using new flow rate method SCF/Unit of Generation for last full year of data using old fl ow rate method. ]

(b) ] Changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods. Actual emission inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions shall be adjusted to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method that was used in the 2006 base year inventory [for the Annex (1999 for utilities and 1998 for all other sources) ].

[ (c) ] (b) Changes due to enforcement actions

1. Adjustments due to enforcement settlements. Adjustments to the milestones shall be made, as specified in Section [A3.3(c) ] A3.3(b) 3 and 4, if: (A) an agreement to settle an action, arising from allegations of a failure of an owner or operator of an emissions unit at a source in the program to comply with applicable regulations which were in effect during the base year, is reached between the parties to the action; (B) the alleged failure to comply with applicable regulations affects the assumptions that were used in calculating the source ' s base year and forecasted sulfur dioxi de emissions; and (C) the settlement includes or recommends an adjustment to the milestones.

2. Adjustments due to enforcement actions arising from administrative or judicial orders. The milestones shall also be adjusted as directed by any final ad ministrative or judicial order, as specified in Section [A3.3(c) ] A3.3(b) 3 and 4. Where the final administrative or judicial order does not include a reforecast of the source ' s baseline, the Department shall

evaluate whether a reforecast of the source ' s baseline emissions is appropriate.

3. Adjustment procedures. Based on [A3.3(c) ] A3.3(b) 1 and 2, the milestone must be decreased by an appropriate amount based on a reforecast of the source ' s decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. The adjustments do not become effective until after the source has reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions as required in the settlement agreement, or administrative or judicial order. All adjustments based upon enforcement actions must be made in the form of an implementation pla n revision that complies with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and 40 CFR 51.103.NM Regional Haze SIP 23 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 4. Documentation of adjustments. In the periodic plan revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the Department shall include the following documentation of a ny adjustment due to an enforcement action: (A) identification of each source under New Mexico ' s jurisdiction which has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions pursuant to a settlement agreement, or an administrative or judicial order; (B) for each source identi fied, a statement indicating whether the milestones were adjusted in response to the enforcement action; (C) discussion of the rationale for the Department ' s decision to adjust or not to adjust the milestones; and (D) if [ extra ] SO 2 emissions reductions [( ] over and above those reductions needed for compliance with the applicable regulations [) ] were part of an agreement to settle an action, a statement indicating whether such reductions resulted in any adjustment to the milestones or allowance allocations, and a discussion of the rationale for the Department 's decision on any such adjustment.

A3.4 The annual sulfur dioxide milestone and emissions report for New Mexico shall document any adjustments that should be made to the milestone for the previous ye ar as described in (a) [through (e) ] an d (b)

.

(a) The Department shall document the submittal date of this Implementation Plan to implement the regional WEB Trading Program, and the approval date by the EPA Administrator, if applicable.
[ (b) New Mexico s hall determine the status of Phelps Dodge Hidalgo copper smelter during the previous year. If the smelter resumed operation in the milestone year, the report shall

include: 1. the date the smelter resumed operation; 2. a determination by New Mexico that ei ther, (i) the smelter resumed production consistent with past operations, (ii) the smelter was required to go through new source review, in which case New Mexico shall include the new permitted limit for sulfur dioxide for the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter in the report, or (iii) the smelter resumed operations in a substantially different manner such that emissions will be less than for past operations, in which case New Mexico shall determine expected emissions from the operation; and 3. a proposed adjustme nt to the sulfur dioxide milestone to account for the operation of the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter.

(c) Comparison of actual emissions from all smelters in New Mexico to the baseline

emissions level for that smelter listed in Table 3. If actual emissions and sulfur input are greater than the baseline level in Table 3, and either the BHP San Manuel smelter in Arizona or the Phelps Dodge smelter in New Mexico have not resumed operation, the Department shall determine the milestone by determining the increa se in the milestone based on theNM Regional Haze SIP 24 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. proportional increase in sulfur input over baseline levels. For each smelter, the adjustment shall not exceed the smelter specific set

- aside listed in Table 3.

The following example is for illustrative purposes:

Asarco ' s baseline SO 2 emissions are 23,000 tons

Asarco ' s baseline sulfur input is 235,000 tons

For example, in 2005:

Asarco ' s S0 2 emissions were 25,000 tons

Asarco ' s sulfur input was 250,000 tons.

Because Asarco ' s 2005 emissions and sulfur input exceeded it ' s baseline emissions and sulfur input: need to calculate the percent increase in sulfur input in the year 2005 = [(2005 sulfur input)

- (baseline sulfur input)] ÷ [baseline sulfur input] = [250,000

- 235,000] ÷ [235,000] = [15,000] ÷ [235,000]

= 0.0638

= 6 .38%

The adjustment to the milestone based on Asarco ' s increase in production is to increase the milestone by 1,564 tons of SO 2 (which is ok, since it is less than the maximum of 3,000 tons in Table 3 for Asarco). adjustment = 6.38% x baseline emissions adjustment = 6.38% x 23,000 adjustment = 1,564 tons ]

(b) Changes due to enforcement actions.

1. Adjustments due to settlements arising from enforcement actions. Adjustments to the milestones will be made, as specified in subsection (3.) below, if:

(i) an agreement to settle an action, arising from allegations of a failure of an owner or operator of an emissions unit at a source in the program to comply with applicable regulations which were in effect during the base year, is reached between the partie s to the action;

(ii) the alleged failure to comply with applicable regulations affects the assumptions that were used in calculating the source' s base year and forecasted sulfur dioxide emissions; and

(iii) the settlement includes or recommends an adjustment to the milestones.

2. Adjustments due to administrative or judicial orders. Adjustments to the milestones will be made as directed by any final administrative or judicial order, as specified in (3.)NM Regional Haze SIP 25 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. below. Where the final administrative or judici al order does not include a reforecast of

the source' s baseline, the Department will evaluate whether a reforecast of the source ' s baseline emissions is appropriate.

3. Adjustments method and effective dates. The milestone will be decreased by an

approp riate amount based on a reforecast of the source ' s decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. The adjustments will not be made to the milestone until after the source has reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions as required in the settlement agreement, or administrative or judicial order.

4. Documentation of adjustments for enforcement actions. The report will include the following documentation of any adjustment due to an enforcement action or a settlement

agreement:

(i) identification of each source in New Mexic o that has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions pursuant to a settlement agreement or an administrative or judicial order;

(ii) for each source identified, a statement indicating whether the milestones were adjusted in response to the enforcement action;

(iii) discussion of the rationale for the Department 's decision to adjust or not to adjust the milestones; and

(iv) if SO 2 emissions reductions over and above those reductions needed for compliance with the applicable regulations were part of an agreement to settle an action, a statement indicating whether such reductions resulted in any adjustment to the milestones or allowance allocations, and a discussion of the rationale for the Department 's decision on any such adjustment.

5. The State of New Mexico will include all accumulated milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements in the periodic SIP revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

A3.5 Compilation of Reports

(a) The WRAP shall compile the annual emissions report s submitted by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional emission report for sulfur dioxide. The WRAP shall follow additional quality assurance procedures developed by states and tribes to identify possible errors in the emissions data, including screening for missing or added sources, name changes, and significant changes in reported emissions. Any questions or anomalies regarding New Mexico ' s report shall be referred back to the Department for resolution prior

to the submission of the draf t regional emission report.NM Regional Haze SIP 26 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (b) By December 31 of each year, the WRAP shall submit the draft regional emission and milestone report to the Department and shall post the draft report on the WRAP website for public review. The report shall include the follo wing information for all states and tribes that have an Implementation Plan that has been approved by the EPA Administrator under 40 CFR 51.309(h).

1. Actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year). 2. Adjustments to account for: (i) [ changes in flo w rate measurement methods, (ii) ] changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods, or
[ (iii) ] (ii) enforcement actions or settlement agreements as a result of enforcement

actions. 3. Average adjusted emissions for the last three years (if applicable) for comparison to the regional milestone. [4. Regional milestone adjustments to account for participation by eligible states and tribes and the future operation of smelters in Arizona and New Mexico. ]

[ A separate report that includes additional states an d tribes that have submitted Implementation Plans that are still under review by the Environmental Protection Agency shall also be prepared for information purposes. ]

A3.6 The Department shall evaluate the draft regional emissions report and shall propos e a draft determination that the sulfur dioxide milestone has either been met in the region, or has been exceeded. In the event that the TSA has not submitted to the Department a draft regional emissions and milestone report by the December 31 deadline for any year, the Department shall prepare its own report for that year based upon the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes pursuant to A3.5 for that year. The Department shall modify the

data in these annual emissions re ports, or use data where such report(s) have not been submitted, based upon direction received from the Environmental Protection Agency.

A3.7 The Department will publish a notice of the final determination in newspapers of general circulation throughout t he state of New Mexico. This notice will include the milestone and the final annual regional sulfur dioxide emissions for that year. If the milestone has been exceeded, the notice will specify the program trigger date and the first year that WEB sources m ust be in compliance with the WEB Trading Program provisions as outlined in 20.2.81.109 NMAC. New

Mexico shall submit the draft determination to EPA for review and comment.

A3.8 The Department shall review any comments received during the comment period, and shall submit a copy of all comments to the WRAP and to all participating states and tribes along with a response to address the comments.

A3.9 The WRAP shall compile the comments and responses from all participating states and tribes and prepare a dr aft final regional emissions report. The report shall be submitted to the states and tribes that are participating in the program and, if necessary, the report shall propose a common Program Trigger Date.NM Regional Haze SIP 27 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. A3.10 The Department shall review and approve the final regional emissions report. The Department shall then submit this report to the Environmental Protection Agency along with a final determination that the milestone has either been met in the region, or that the milestone has

been exceeded and the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in New Mexico. This final determination shall be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by the end of March fifteen months following the milestone year. The first final determination shall be due March 31,

2005 for the 2003 milestone. If the milestone has been exceeded, the common trigger date proposed in the regional report shall become the Program Trigger Date for purposes of implementing the WEB Trading Program. In the event that the Program Trigger Date must be established by the Department in the absence of a regional emissions and milestone report prepared by the TSA, the date shall be March 31 of the applicable year.

A3.11 The Department shall notify the public of the final determination. This notice shal l include the final calculation of the milestone and the final annual regional emissions. If the milestone has been exceeded, the notice shall include the program trigger date and the first year that WEB sources must be in compliance with the WEB Trading Program provisions outlined in Subsection

C of 20.2.81.101 NMAC.

New Mexico will publish the final annual emissions report in a statewide newspaper ' s legal section and post it on the New Mexico Environment Department' s website.

A4. Year 2013 Assessment

.

A4.1 Initial Assessment in 2013 Periodic SIP/TIP Review.

(a) The Department shall work cooperatively with the WRAP and other participating states and tribes to develop a projected emission inventory for SO 2 through the year 2018, using the 2010 regional inventory as a baseline. This projected inventory shall be included in the 2010 annual emission and milestone report that shall be completed in March 2012 as outlined in Section A3 of this plan.

(b) [ New Mexico ] The Department shall evaluate the proje cted inventory, and based upon this information make an assessment of the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018.The Department shall include this assessment as part of New Mexico ' s progress report that must be submitted by December 31, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(10).

A4.2 Regional Emissions Report for 2012.

(a) The Department shall prepare an SO 2 emission report for the year 2012 by September 30, 2013 as described in Section A3.1 of this plan. The Department shall inc lude a list of all known projects in New Mexico that are anticipated to affect SO 2 emissions in 2018. This may include permitted projects, projects that are still in the planning stage, or projections from the affected sources of anticipated emissions in 2018. The status of these projects shallNM Regional Haze SIP 28 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. be described to provide a better understanding of the degree of certainty that individual projects will be completed by 2018.

(b) The WRAP shall compile the information from all participating states and tribes, prep are draft SO 2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the effect of known future projects on SO 2 emissions. Projected 2018 emissions will be compared to the 2018 milestone. This information shall be included in the draft regional emissions report that shall be submitted to the Department by December 31, 2013, as outlined in Section A3.5 of this plan.

A4.3 Consensus Decision.

The Department commits to meet with the participating states and tribes in March 2014 to discuss any comments receiv ed on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. The participating states and tribes shall decide, through a consensus process, whether an early trigger of the WEB Trading Program is necessary to meet the SO 2 emission reduction goals in 2018.

A4.4 Official Trigger.

If the participating states and tribes unanimously decide under Section A4.3 that an early trigger of the backstop trading program is necessary, the Department shall trigger the WEB Trading Program and the timing of various program ele ments shall be adjusted as follows to ensure that the WEB Trading Program is in place in 2018. The date of the consensus decision by the participating states and tribes to voluntarily trigger the WEB trading program shall become the Program Trigger Date.

(a) Allowances for 2018 shall be distributed to WEB sources by January 1, 2015.

(b) The first control period shall be the year 2018. WEB sources will need to demonstrate at the end of the first control period that they have enough allowances to cover thei r emissions

of SO 2 in 2018.

A4.5 Public Notification.

[ New Mexico ] The Department shall notify the public of the decision in a newspaper of statewide circulation and post the document on the NMED website. If applicable, the notification

shall include a statement that the WEB Trading Program is in effect and a notification of the official program trigger date.



### A5. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone

If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in Section A of the SO 2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program Implementation Plan, and the first control period will not occur until after the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed for the exceedance of the 2018 milestone.NM Regional Haze SIP 29 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. [ The Department shall allocate allowances to all WEB sources as established in the 2013 SIP revision described in Section D of this Plan. WEB sources will have the option to buy and sell allowances during a two

- month allowance transfer period as provided in 20.2.81.110 NMAC.

At the end of this two

- month allowance transfer period, compliance with the allowance limitation shall be determined as provided in Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC of the WEB Trading Program Model Rule. Penalties shall be assessed for SO 2 emissions that are greater than

the allowance limitati on for each WEB source as provided in Subsection C of 20.2.81.109 NMAC. However, notwithstanding Subsections A and C of 20.2.81.109 NMAC, SO 2 emissions in the year 2018 for each WEB source shall be determined in accordance with the pre

- trigger

emission tra cking requirements in Section B of this plan. ]

Details on the penalty provisions for violation of the 2018 milestone can be found in 20.2.81.110

NMAC . In general, the penalty involves an assessment of the minimum $5,000 per ton of SO 2 emissions in excess of the WEB source ' s allowance limitation. The source can resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to a streamline settlement approach outlined in 20.2.81.110

NMAC

.

The amount of the minimum monetary penalty in 20.2.81.110 NMAC shall be evaluated at each

five

- year SIP review, and adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceeds the expected cost of allowances to ensure that this remains a stringent penalty.

The 2018 special penalty provisions shall continue to be applied each year after 2018 until the

2018 milestone has been achieved.



### B1. SO 2 

### Emission Inventory

Pre

- Trigger Emission Tracking Requirements

The State of New Mexico is currently in the process of revising our state regulation for 20.2.73

NMAC

-- Notice of Intent and E mission Inventory Requirements. The regulation revision will be submitted for hearing in conjunction with this SIP. Appendix C

- 2 contains the revised regulation language for 20.2.73 NMAC.

To insure compliance with the emission inventory requirements fo r pre

- trigger tracking compliance with the sulfur dioxide milestones set forth under 40 CFR 51.309, the following changes will be incorporated into 20.2.73 NMAC.

(a) All stationary sources with actual emissions of one hundred (100) tons per year or

mor e of sulfur dioxide in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of sulfur dioxide emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inventory. A source that meets these criteria that then emits less than 100 tons per year in a lat er year must still submit a sulfur dioxide inventory for tracking compliance with the regional sulfur dioxide milestones until the WEB Trading Program has been fully implemented and emission tracking is occurred under 20.2.81.106 NMAC - Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program.NM Regional Haze SIP 30 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (b) All WEB Trading Program sources will be subject to the following federally enforceable provisions:

(1) submit an annual inventory of sulfur dioxide emissions;

(2) document the emissions monitoring /estimation me thodology used, and demonstrate that the selected methodology is acceptable under the inventory

program;

(3) include emissions from start up, shut down, and upset conditions in the annual total inventory;

(4) use methods from 40 CFR Part 75 methodology t o report emissions from all sources subject to the federal acid rain program;

(5) smelters must submit an annual report of sulfur input, in tons per year[. ];

(6) maintain all records used in the calculation of the emissions, including but not

limited t o the following:

(i) amount of fuel consumed, (ii) percent sulfur content of fuel and how the content was determined, (iii) quantity of product produced, (iv) emissions monitoring data, (v) operating data, and (vi) how the emissions are calculated;

(7) maintain records of any physical changes to facility operations or equipment, or any other changes (e.g. raw material or feed) that may affect the emissions projections.

(8) retain records for a minimum of ten years from the date of establishment, o r if the record was the basis for an adjustment to the milestone, 5 years after the date of an implementation plan revision, whichever is longer.

(c) The State of New Mexico shall retain emission inventory records for non

- utilities
[ sources from 1996 and 1998 ] until the year 2018 to ensure that changes in emissions monitoring techniques can be tracked.

[ (2) Reporting of emissions for which reporting is required under the Federal Act

shall not be waived. ]



### B2. Development of Emission Tracking SystemNM Regional Haze SIP 31 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. The Department shall work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in the WEB Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained.



### B3. Periodic Audit of Pre

- Trigger Emission Tracking Database

During the pre

- trigger phase when the Department is tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones, the Department shall work cooperatively with the participating states and tribes to

ensure that an in dependent audit of the tracking database is conducted to ensure that the WRAP is accurately compiling the regional emissions report. The first audit shall occur during the year 2006 and shall review data collected during the first two years of the program. Subsequent audits shall occur in 2011 (which shall cover emissions years 2005

- 2009) and 2016 (which shall cover emissions years 2010 -2014).

The primary focus of the audit will be the process that is used to compile the regional inventory from the data provided by each state and tribe, and the tracking of accumulated changes during the period between SIP revisions. The audit shall also review the accuracy and integrity of the regional reports that are used by the Department to determine compliance with the milestones.

The audit is not intended to be a full review the Department ' s process for compiling and reporting SO 2 emissions, but shall include a broad review of the Department ' s inventory management and quality assurance systems (i.e., presence and exercise of systems to assure data quality and integrity).

The audit shall discuss the uncertainty of emissions calculations, and whether this uncertainty is likely to affect the annual determination of whether the milestone is exceeded. The audit shall

iden tify any recommended changes to emissions monitoring or calculation methods or data quality assurance systems. The audit shall also review and recommend any changes to improve the administrative process of collecting the annual emissions data at the state and tribal level, compiling a regional emission inventory, and making the annual determination of whether the WEB Trading Program has been triggered.

Changes to the WEB trading program, including any changes to the milestones, due to the results

of these periodic audits shall be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision as part of the five

- year SIP/TIP review required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

The Department shall provide an opportunity for public review and comment on the draft audit report following each Depart ment procedure. The Department shall respond to comments and provide notice of the final availability of the report. The Department shall submit the final audit report to the EPA regional office.NM Regional Haze SIP 32 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 

### C WEB Trading Program Requirements

[ The proposed revisions to the regional haze rule 40 CFR 51.309 are referenced to reflect the SIP requirements for the WEB Trading Program as found in 68 FR 33784. ]



### C1. Allowance Allocations

C1.1 Initial Allocation of SO 2 Allowances.

(a) Draft Allocation Report from the Department to Tracking System Administrator Within six months of the program trigger date, as outlined in Section A3.11 of this plan, the Department shall submit a draft allocation report to all participating states and tribes and to the Tracking System Admi nistrator. This report shall contain the following information:

1. List of all WEB sources in New Mexico as defined in 20.2.81.101 NMAC. The list shall group the sources into two categories:

(i) Category 1: WEB sources that commenced operation prior to January 1, [2003 ]

2008 . These sources shall receive a floor allocation and shall be eligible for the reducible portion of the allocation.

(ii) Category 2: WEB sources that commenced operation on January 1, [2003 ]

2008 or a later date. These sources shall receive a floor allocation, but shall not be eligible for the reducible allocation. The floor allocation for Category 2 sources

shall be deducted from the new source set

- aside.

WEB sources that have received a retired source exemption under Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC will be included in the allocation process in the same manner as WEB sources that are currently operating. However, sources that were permanently shut down prior to the program trigger date are not considered WEB

sources under Subsection A of 20.2.81.101 NMAC and would therefore not be included in the allocation process.

2. Floor allocation for all WEB sources in New Mexico.

(i) For non -utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor allocation shall be as established in the E.H. Pechan Report, "Market Trading Forum Non- Utility Sector Allocation Final Report from the Allocations Working Group" (November 2002). If any additional category 1 sources are identified, the Department shall calculate a floor allocation using the methodology outlined in the E.H. Pechan Report.

(ii) For utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor will be calculated by first assigning a "clean unit" emission rate to each unit. The clean unit emission rate will then be multiplied by an annual heat input (MMBtu) that repr esents a realistic upper bound for the unit.NM Regional Haze SIP 33 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. ( iii) For Category 2 WEB sources the floor allocation shall be the lower of the permitted SO 2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO 2 annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100%

utilization of the WEB source.

Note: The floor level approach described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of New Mexico is participating in ongoing

discussions wit h the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equi ty issues have been addressed. New Mexico will work with the other participating states and

tribes to ensure that the floor allocation is calculated in a consistent m anner for all participants. As outlined further in this allocation methodology, the floor for both utilities and non

- utilities is limited by the utility/non

- utility split in Table C-2 . The floor allocation methodology will ensure

that credits are available for early reduction allocations. In addition, the regional number of allowances allocated for each year cannot exceed the milestone for that year under any

circumstances.

Principles

**•** Each unit will have enough allowances to operate as a clean source and at an operating rate (capacity factor) that is a realistic upper bound for the unit.

**•** There will not be significant winners and losers in this process.

**•** The focus is on a fair approach that is applied equally to all sources rather than on

state and tribal budgets.

**•** The allocation process will use data that reflect current conditions, including current monitoring methodologies.

Equity Issues

**•** Sources that are currently burning very low sulfur coal may see changes in their supply in the future. Historic actual emissions may not reflect future operations.

**•** Sources that are currently operating at a low utilization may not reach full capacity in the future. Assumptions about growth that are realistic on the regional level may provide a windfall to some sources, and not provide adequate

allowances for other sources.

**•** There are some utility units in the region that are not BART

- eligible and are operating at a low level of control for SO 2 . The relative responsibility of BART

eligible vs. non

- BART

- eligible is a cons ideration in the process.NM Regional Haze SIP 34 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. **•** Sources that are operating at a high level of control are already bearing the cost of control and this affects their ability to compete in the market.

**•** Sources that have no SO 2 controls are facing a large expense that could affec t their ability to continue to operate.

**•** Emission rate disparities exist throughout the region.

3. A list of certified early reductions, expressed as tons of SO 2 . Early reductions shall be

calculated and certified as follows:

(i) Any WEB source that ins talls control technology and accepts new permit emissions limits that are, for a non

- utility source, below its floor as established in this section, or, for a utility source, below BACT, may apply for an early

reduction credit as outlined in Subsection E of 20.2.81.104 NMAC. The credit will be available for reductions that occur between 2008 and the program trigger

year. The application must show that the floor was calculated in a manner that is consistent with the monitoring requirements of Subsections A and C of 20.2.81.106 NMAC of 20.2.81 NMAC and the new permit must contain monitoring requirements that are consistent with Subsections A and C of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. Emission units that are monitored using the less stringent monitoring requirements of Subsect ions B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC are not eligible for early reduction credits. The credits accumulate from the time the new controls come on line until the program trigger date and will be allocated to the WEB source over a 10 year period. The use of early redu ction credits in any control period is limited to no more than five percent, systemwide, of the existing available allowances, as provided in this plan.

(ii) The Department will review the application and will certify early reductions for each full year b etween [2003 ] 2008 and the program trigger year that meet the requirements of Subsection E of 20.2.81.104 NMAC [of the WEB Trading Model

Rule ] and this plan.

(iii) A source ' s certified early reductions for all years will be added together to

obtain the to tal certified early reductions for that source.

[ 4. A list of all renewable energy resources in New Mexico that began operation after October 1, 2000, and the MW of installed nameplate capacity for each of these resources. Renewable energy credits will b e granted at a rate of 2.5 tons per MW, and will accumulate from the beginning of the facility ' s operation. Their use in any control period is limited to no more than five percent, systemwide, of the existing available allowances, as provided in this plan

. ]NM Regional Haze SIP 35 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. [5

. ] 4. Historical SO 2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of calculating the reducible allocation.

(i) For utilities, [the average of the years 2000

– 2002 ] the annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006 . Another time period may be used for individual emission units, if needed, to be representative of normal operating conditions.

(ii) For non -utilities, the average of annual SO 2 emissions for the [years 1996 and

1998 ] year 2006

.

[ 6 ] 5 . Changes due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements as a result of enforcement actions. The adjustment shall be determined in accordance with section A3.3 (c) of this Implementation Plan. The difference between the WEB source ' s allocations prior to enforcement and after the enforcement action shall be removed from the allocation pool.

(b) Compiled Allocation Report [ from Tracking System Administrator ]

The Tracking System Administrator shall compile the information provided by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional allocati on report, and shall submit this draft regional report to the Department and all participating states and tribes for review and comment thirty days after receiving the preliminary allocation reports. The draft regional allocation report shall include a pro posed budget for each state and tribe and the proposed

allocation for each WEB source in New Mexico.

The State of New Mexico will work closely with the other participating states and tribes to ensure that the regional allocation is distributed consistentl y and fairly and to address any change in status that may affect this process.

The following methodology [ for calculating the proposed regional allocation for utilities and

non

- utilities is based on the assumption that the states of Arizona, Oregon, New M exico, Utah and Wyoming are the only participating states in the WEB Trading Program. These 5 states are actively pursuing a SIP under section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule and it is unlikely that any other states will be able to develop a SIP under secti on 309 by the deadline of December 31, 2003. The State of New Mexico will work closely with the other four states that are developing 309 SIPs to ensure that the regional allocation is distributed consistently and fairly and to address any change in statu s that may affect this process. Tribal nations may participate in the program at a later date under the provisions of the Tribal Authority Rule. There are currently four category 1 sources operating on tribal lands under the jurisdiction of three tribal nations. The following methodology will remain unchanged if any of these tribal nations opt in to the program at a later date because the allocation for any of the four existing tribal sources will be covered by the opt

- in adjustment for the tribe, and th e allocation for any new sources will be covered by the regional new

- source set

- aside ] distributes the allowances available under the milestone in the following order: tribal set

aside, new source set

- aside, floor, early reduction credit, reducible allocation. The allocation process is limited by the number of allowances available under the milestone. It is notNM Regional Haze SIP 36 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. possible under this methodology to distribute more allowances than are available under the

milestone. New Mexico expects that there will be allowances available for all of the categories listed above. However, if at any time in the process there are not enough allowances available to fully cover a particular category, then the sources eligible for that category will receive a pro

- rated allowance, and the process will stop. For example, if the early reduction credit allocation is greater than the remaining available allowances under the milestone, then each of the early reduction sources would receive a reduced early reduction credit allocation, and there would be no reducible allocation.

1. Table [ 7 ] C-2 shows [ the calculation of the available allocation for existing

sources. The base milestone for the 5

- state region calculated in accordance with section E.1.a(2) of this plan is the starting point. The base milestone does not

include the smelter set

- aside. 20,000 tons of SO 2 is then subtracted for a tribal set

aside ] the major categories that will be used to allocate allowances under the milestone. The methodology to calculate the available allocation for existing

sources is described below. The milestone for the 3

- state region is the starting point

.

.

Table [ 7 ] C-2 . Utility/Non

- utility Split.

Year Milestone Tribal
Set

- Aside New Source
Set

- Aside Remaining

Allocation Utility

Portion Non- Utility

Por tion

2008 269,083 2,500 6,143 260,440 210,480 49,961

2009 234,903 2,500 6,143 226,260 176,299 49,961

2010 200,722 2,500 6,143 192,079 142,119 49,961

2011 200,722 2,500 6,143 192,079 142,119 49,961

2012 200,722 2,500 6,143 192,079 142,119 49,961

2013 185,795 2,500 12,286 171,009 121,048 49,961

2014 170,868 2,500 12,286 156,082 106,121 49,961

2015 155,940 2,500 12,286 141,154 91,194 49,961

2016 155,940 2,500 12,286 141,154 91,194 49,961

2017 155,940 2,500 12,286 141,154 91,194 49,961

2018 141,849 2 ,500 12,286 127,063 80,402 46,661

2019* 141,849 2,500 12,286 127,063 80,402 46,661
*2019 and forward, until replaced by an approved SIP. [ 2. Table 8 shows the new source set

- aside for the 5

- state region.

(i) The new source set

- aside is calculated by s ubtracting the new source set

- aside adjustment listed in Table 8 for all states and tribes that do not have a federally approved Implementation Plan for the WEB trading program under 40 CFR 51.309 as of the program trigger date from the maximum possible s et

- aside for each of the first five years of the trading program.

Table 8. New Source Set

- Aside Adjustment

2003

- 2007 2008

- 2012 2013

- 2018NM Regional Haze SIP 37 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Maximum

Possible Set

Aside 9,000 18,000 27,000

State or Tribe Adjustment (tons/yr SO 2 )

1. Arizona 1,757 3,5 96 5,437
2. California 559 1,039 1,532
3. Colorado 1,480 2,945 4,364
4. Idaho 270 496 721
5. Nevada 302 618 1,011
6. New Mexico 1,267 2,512 3,889 7. Oregon 393 795 1,075
8. Utah 640 1,293 1,949 9. Wyoming 2,333 4,706 7,020
10. Tribes No adjustment

needed No adjustment

needed No adjustment

needed

(ii) Subtract the floor allocation for all WEB sources in the region that were identified as Category 2 from the new source set

- aside for the 5

- state region to

determine the available allocation for new sources that begin operation after the program trigger date. The allocation process for these new sources is described in section E.3.c of this plan. ]

2

. Subtract the floor allocation for all WEB sources in the region that were identified as Category 2 from the new source set

- aside to determine the available allocation for new sources that begin operation after the program trigger date.

This allocation methodology treats all Category 2 sources as existing sources because these sources will be operatin g on the program trigger date. However, the allowances for all Category 2 sources are actually drawn from the new source set

aside. If new source growth exceeds the projections used to develop this Plan, it is possible that the above calculation will resul t in a negative number. Therefore, to address this problem, Category 2 sources will be ranked based on the date the permit is issued for each source. Sources will then be removed from the list of Category 2 sources, starting with the most recent permit, un til the new source set

aside is no longer depleted. The last source on the list will receive a partial

allocation. The sources that were removed from the list will be considered new

sources as described in Section C1.3 of this Plan. These sources will need to purchase allowances to cover their emissions because the new source set

- aside for sources that begin operation after the program trigger date will be calculated as zero until it is replenished in the next 5

- year period. The allocation process for

these new sources is described in Section C1.3 of this Plan.NM Regional Haze SIP 38 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Example calculation of the new source set

- aside. The example uses the following assumptions: (i) Emissions exceed the milestones based on an average of the years [2003

- 2005 ]

2004-2006

. (ii) The prog ram trigger date is March 31, [2007 ] 2008

. (iii) The first 5 years of the program are [2011

- 2015 ] 2012-2016

. [(iv) Five states are participating in the program (AZ, NM, OR, UT, WY )]. (i v) New sources that commenced operation between January 1, [2003 ] 2008 and the program trigger date have a total floor allocation of [6,000 ] 600

.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Maximum Possible Set

Aside 18,000 18,000 27,000 27,000 27,000

5

- State Adjustment

- 5,098

- 5,098

- 7,628

- 7,628

- 7,628 Floor for Category 2

Sources - 6, 000

- 6,000

- 6,000

- 6,000

- 6,000

Remaining New Source Set

aside 6,902 6,902 13,372 13,372 13,372

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

New Source Set

- Aside 6,143 12,286 12,286 12,286 12,286 Floor for Category 2

Sources 600 600 600 600 600

Remaining New Source

Set

- Aside 5,543 11,686 11,686 11,686 11,686

3. The remaining allocation shown in Table [7 ] C-2 is available for distribution to category 1 sources. The final two columns in Table [7 ] C-2 split this remaining allocation into a utility alloca tion and a non

- utility allocation. [ Apply any milestone adjustments

due to the smelter set

- aside as outlined in section E.1.a(3) to the non

- utility allocation

listed in Table 7. ]

4. Subtract the floor allocations for all category 1 utility and non

- utili ty sources in the region from the utility allocation or the non- utility allocation.

In the unlikely event that the total floor allocation for either utility or non

- utility sources submitted by the participating states and tribes exceeds the total allocati on available for that category, the TSA will notify the participating states and tribes of the discrepancy.

New Mexico commits to work with the participating states and tribes through a consensus process to ensure that the floor allocation has been calculated in a consistent manner for all participants and to ensure that the floor allocation does not exceed the total allocation available for that category. The total number of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone for any given year.NM Regional Haze SIP 39 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 5. Calcul ate the early reduction allocation.

(i) Divide the number of certified early reduction credits for all WEB sources in the region by ten.

(ii) Add the utility allocation for 2018 to the non -utility allocation for 2018 and then multiply this total by 0.05.

(iii) If the product of paragraph (i) is no more than the product of paragraph (ii), the product of paragraph (i) is the early reduction allocation, and each source is allocated ten percent of its early reduction credits.

(iv) If the product of para graph (i) is more than the product of paragraph (ii), the early reduction allocation for the region is the product of paragraph (ii). To

determine a source 's allocation, divide the product of paragraph (ii) by 0.10 times the total number of early reductio n credits and apply that ratio to the early reduction credits claimed by the source.

(v) Split the regional early reduction allocation based on the ratio of utility to nonutility allocations in 2018 and subtract the early reduction allocation from the utility and non- utility allocation totals.

(vi) The early reduction allocation will be calculated in a similar manner for the second five-year allocation period under this program, and will then be discontinued for any future allocation periods.

[6. Calc ulate the regional renewable energy allocation.

(i) Add together the reported MW of installed nameplate capacity for renewable energy facilities reported by the participating states and tribes, and then multiply this number by 2.5.

(ii) Add the utilit y allocation for 2018 to the non

- utility allocation for 2018 and then multiply this total by 0.05.

(iii) If the product of paragraph (i) is no more than the product of paragraph (ii), the product of paragraph (i) is the renewable energy allocation.

(iv) If the product of paragraph (i) is greater than or equal to the product of paragraph (ii), the renewable energy allocation for the region is the product of paragraph (ii). To determine a source ' s allocation, divide the product of paragraph (ii) by the total number of renewable energy credits and apply that ratio to the early reduction credits claimed by the source.NM Regional Haze SIP 40 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (v) Split the regional renewable energy allocation based on the ratio of utility to

non

- utility allocations in 2018 and subtract the renewa ble energy allocation from the utility and non

- utility allocation totals .]

[7 ] 6 . Any remaining allowances in the utility allocation or the non

- utility allocation after subtraction of the early reduction allocation [ and the renewable energy allocation ] i s considered the reducible allocation and will be assigned to Category 1 sources.

(i) For non

- utility sources, add together the historic SO 2 emissions in accordance

with [section XX.E.3.a(1)(e) ] Part C1.1(a)5 of this [plan ] section for all Category

1 non- utility sources in the region to determine an historic emission total. Determine a percent contribution of SO 2 emissions for each WEB source to the

historic emission total. Multiply the non

- utility reducible allocation calculated in paragraph [(h) ] (7) by the percent contribution for each WEB source to determine

a reducible allocation for each WEB source.

(ii) For utility sources, the reducible allocation will be distributed to sources that emitted above their floor in the baseline period [(2000 through 2002) ] (2006) based on their percentage of total floor emissions for sources emitting above the floor times the number of reducible allowances available for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program. The number of allowances for any source receiving a reducible allocation shall not exceed a recent historic emission rate times a heat input that represents a realistic upper bound for the unit.

Note: The approach for distributing the reducible utility allocation described above is designed to address eq uity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of New Mexico is particip ating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The prin ciples and equity issues that are under discussion are listed in Part C1.1(a)2 of this section.

[8 ] 7 . Add together the floor allocation, early reduction allocation [ , renewable energy resource allocation, ] and reducible allocation for each WEB source [a nd each renewable

energy source ] to determine the proposed allocations for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program.

8. [ (i) ] Add together the proposed allocations for all of the WEB sources in the jurisdiction of each participating state and trib e to determine a draft SO 2 allowance budget for each state and tribe.

(c) Public Comment Period.
[ New Mexico shall make the draft regional allocation report available for public

comment. New Mexico shall notify the public of the decision in a newspaper of statewide circulation and post the document on the NMED website. The Public will have thirty (30) days to comment on the report. ] The Department will publish notice of availability of theNM Regional Haze SIP 41 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. draft regional allocation report in newspapers of general circulat ion throughout New

Mexico . A 30

- day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the comment period. The Department will consider the comments, and will revise the draft report if the recommended changes are consistent with the allocation process outlined in this Plan. The Department will prepare a written response that explains why each comment has either been accepted or has been determined to be inconsistent with the allocation process outlined in this Plan.

(d) Proposed Changes Submitted to Tracking System Administrator.
[ The Department shall submit proposed changes to the budget and source allocations to the Tracking System Administrator within sixty days of receipt of the draft regional allocation report. ] The Departme nt will submit a copy of all comments received, the response to those comments, and any proposed changes to the budget and source allocations to the TSA within sixty days of receipt of the draft regional allocation report.

(e) Compilation of Changes.
[ Th e Tracking System Administrator shall compile the proposed changes and shall submit a final draft regional allocation report to the participating states and tribes for approval within 30 days of receipt of the recommended changes. ] The TSA will compile

the comments, responses, and proposed changes to the report and will submit a final draft regional allocation report that is consistent with the allocation methodology outlined in this Plan to the Department within 90 days of the receipt of the draft regional allocation

report.

(f) Final Regional Allocation Report. The Department shall review the final regional allocation report and shall determine the budget for New Mexico and allocations for WEB sources within New Mexico in accordance

with the [provisions of ] allocation methodology outlined in this plan within thirty days of receipt of the final draft allocation report. The Department shall submit the budget and allocations for all WEB sources in New Mexico to EPA, and shall notify the Tracking System Admin istrator that the WEB source allocations should be recorded in the allowance tracking system.

(g) The Department shall notify all WEB sources within New Mexico of the number of allowances that have been recorded in their compliance account. The notice sha ll include a warning to the WEB sources that reported annual sulfur dioxide emissions may change due to the implementation of new monitoring methodologies as required by 20.2.81.106 NMAC . Allocations for the first five years of the program shall not be ad justed to account for changes due to the new monitoring methodology. However, allocations during the next five

- year distribution shall be adjusted as needed to account for paper changes in emissions due to changes in monitoring methodology.NM Regional Haze SIP 42 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. C1.2 Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods.

By December 1 of the year five years after the initial allocation, the Department shall follow the process outlined in Section C1.1 to distribute allowances for the next five

- year period. This process shall continue every five years until allowances have been allocated through the year

2018.

C1.3 Distribution of the New Source Allocation.

(a) The new source set

- aside shall be available for two categories of sources.

1. New WEB sources are eligible to rece ive [ allowances from the new source set

aside in the amount of the annual permitted SO 2 emissions for the source ] an annual floor allocation equal to the lower of the annual permitted sulfur dioxide emissions for the source, or sulfur dioxide annual emissi ons calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source

, beginning with the first full calendar year of operation and in accordance with the provisions of Subsection F of 20.2.81.104 NMAC.

2. Existing sources that increase production are eligible to receive allowances from

the new source set

- aside [ for the annual permitted amount of SO 2 emissions that is attributable to the increase in production over the permitted production level as of January 1, 2003

. ] equal to:

(i) the permitted annual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a new unit; or

(ii) the permitted annual SO 2 emission increase for the WEB source due to the replacement of an existing unit with a new unit or the modification of an existing unit that increased the production capacity of the WEB source.

Permitted emission increases due to fuel switching or other process changes that are not directly related to increased production capacity are not eligible for allocations

from the new source set -a side. The allocation from the new source set

- aside in the first year of operation shall be adjusted to account for the number of days that the source is operating in that first year.

EXAMPLE. A new unit with a nameplate capacity of 400 MW is constructed

a t a power plant with two existing units with nameplate capacities of 400 MW and 300 MW. The two existing units install SO 2 controls and reduce emissions to meet PSD requirements for the construction of the new unit. In this example, the source would contin ue to receive a floor and a reducible allocation for each of the existing units, and would also be eligible to receive

an allocation from the new source set

- aside for the new unit. Even though

total SO 2 emissions will decrease at this plant due to the cons truction of the new unit, the allowances allocated to the source will increase to reflect theNM Regional Haze SIP 43 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. increase in production capacity of 400 MW of electricity. If the new unit comes on line on July 1 the allocation for the first year shall be reduced by 50

percent because the unit was operational for half of the year.

(b) Allocations from the new source set

- aside shall remain constant for the applicable WEB source and shall be made on an annual basis by March 31 of each year for the current control period. When the next five

- year allocation block is distributed as outlined in Section C1.2 of this plan, all sources with an allocation under the new source set

- aside shall receive a five

year allocation block from the new source set

- aside, and shall continue to receive this

allocation in future five -year allocation blocks.

(c) Owners or operators of new sources or modified sources that meet the eligibility requirements of C1.3(a) may apply for an allocation from the new source set

- aside by submitting a written request to the Department as outlined in Subsection F of 20.2.81.104

NMAC.

(d) The Department shall review the application for an allocation from the new source set

aside for accuracy and completeness, and shall notify the source of intent to distribute

allocat ions from the regional new source set

- aside pending verification that allowances are

available in the new source set

- aside account. The Department shall then forward the request to the Tracking System Administrator.

(e) The Tracking System Administrator s hall document the date that the TSA receives the request. Requests for allocation of allowances from the new source set

- aside shall be processed in the order received. The Tracking System Administrator shall deduct the number of allowances requested from t he regional new source set

- aside that was established by the participating states and tribes [ in accordance with Section C1.1(b)3 of this plan ] , and shall then record an equal number of allowances in the source ' s compliance account for each remaining year of the five

- year period. The Tracking System Administrator shall then send

written notification to the source and to [ New Mexico ] the Department that the allowances

have been recorded in the source' s compliance account.

(f) If [ the new source set

- aside is depleted ] there are insufficient allowances remaining in the

new source set

- aside to fulfill the request , the source [ shall need to ] must purchase the allowances required to demonstrate compliance. Any eligible WEB source that does not

receive an allocati on from the new source set

- aside because the set

- aside was depleted shall

be first in line to receive an allocation when the new source set

- aside is increased in the next

five

- year period as outlined in Section C1.1(b)(3) of this Implementation Plan. If th ere is more than one such source, their allocation requests will be processed in the order they were received by the TSA.

(g) A source that has received a retired source exemption and continues to receive an

allocation as a retired WEB source shall not be eligible to receive an allocation from the new

source set -aside.NM Regional Haze SIP 44 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. C1.4 Regional Tribal Set- aside.

(a) Each year after the program is triggered, [20,000 ] 2,500 allowances will exist as a tribal

set

- aside.

(b) The tribal caucus of the WRAP has stated i ts intent to determine the means for distributing the allowances among the tribes by one year after the program trigger date. The Department understands that there will be a process that shall meet the tracking and data security requirements of the allowan ce tracking system by which a tribe shall move its set

aside allowances into the trading program for the purposes of trading.

(c) The state recognizes that the tribal set

- aside allowances are bonus allowances for the tribes and as such, are separate and a dditional to any allowances included in a tribal budget or the new source set-aside as outlined in the allocation report in C1.1(b)(11).

C1.5. [ Distribution of Allowances for ] Opt in Sources. [ The WRAP Market Trading Forum has recommended including prov isions in this plan that would allow smaller sources to opt in to the program. Opt

- in sources may provide a more cost

- effective way to reduce overall regional SO 2 emissions, and therefore may strengthen the market incentives of this program. While the

bene fits of allowing sources to opt in to the program are important, the program must also provide safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the program is not affected. For example, it would be counterproductive to allow sources that were already planning to shut down to opt in to the program and then sell allowances to an existing source. In this example, regional emissions could slowly creep upward in a manner that is not consistent with the goals of the SO 2 milestones. ] The Department is deferring inclusion of provisions for opt

- in sources until a future SIP revision to allow time to thoroughly consider how to provide the flexibility and potential benefits to the market by expanding the program while also ensuring that the SO 2 emission reductions goals are maintained.



### C2. WEB Allowance Tracking System (WEB ATS)

[ [Note: Section C1 includes a commitment to distribute the first round of allocations one year after the program is triggered. The contract for development of the ATS and ETD specifications

should address whether this time frame is reasonable.] ]

[ 51 CFR 309(d)(4)(v) requires the ] The Department [ to ] will provide a centralized system for the tracking of allowances and emissions within the framework of the SIP. The centralized system

will be referred to as the WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB E ATS). The

WEB E ATS must provide that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The E ATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording data.NM Regional Haze SIP 45 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. The Department shall work cooperatively with other states and tribes participating in the WEB Trading Program to designate this syst em. The Department shall be responsible for ensuring that

all the E ATS provisions are completed as described in this plan.

The E ATS will not exist unless the program is triggered. Prior to the implementation of the WEB Trading Program, a separate emission s tracking database will be employed to track the ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO 2 at amounts equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, used to track and measure SO 2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is triggered; If the program is triggered, either the emissions tracking database will be incorporated into the SO 2 Allowance Tracking System, or a similar, parallel one more suitable for enforcement and program specific p urposes will be developed and incorporated into the SO 2 Emissions and Allowance Tracking System. Both the emissions tracking database and the E ATS shall be centralized systems with data posted in a format, including an electronic, Web-based program, and av ailable to anyone.

The participating states and tribes shall contract with a common Tracking System Administrator

to service and maintain the WEB E ATS. It is envisioned that the E ATS will require the use of a contracted consultant or database design engin eer to create a secure, efficient and transparent tracking system. Because the E ATS shall be utilized by all states and tribes participating in the program, the design will require a uniform approach and level of security that will satisfy regional needs a nd concerns as well as meet the electronic, Web

- based, access needs and security provisions. Due to the dynamic needs of the marketplace, the E ATS will require a database that

will reflect the current status of allowances and allowance transactions. The E A TS shall be operational within one year after the program trigger date.

Specifications of the WEB E ATS such as emissions tracking, the recording of allowance transactions, account management, system integrity and transparency are [ described in a report

pr epared for the WRAP, titled " Western Emissions Backstop (WEB) Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis " (July 2003) ] WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis . [ A copy of this report is provided in outlined in related Tech nical Support Document (TSD) included in this plan as an appendix in this SIP. ] The [report ] EATS Analysis and related Sections of [ the WEB Trading Program Model Rule ] 20.2.81 NMAC detail how a WEB source will register for the E ATS and how the source will, through an account representative, establish accounts, transfer allowances, and track unused allowances from a previous year. The account representative will also look to the Analysis to determine the appropriate interface with the EATS.

Neither the Depa rtment nor the TSA shall adjudicate any dispute concerning the authorization of any Account Representative with regard to any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the Account Representative.

As an example of how the WEB E ATS will generally f unction, once the WEB Trading Program is triggered a WEB source will have its allowance allocation determined. On a parallel track, the

WEB source ' s account representative will register for the E ATS under 20.2.81.103 NMAC , and a compliance account will be established under 20.2.81.105 NMAC. Each allowance will beNM Regional Haze SIP 46 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. assigned a serial number. The allowance serial number will be used by the WEB E ATS to track allowance allocations, transfers under 20.2.81.107 NMAC, deductions, and account for any

unused allowanc es from a previous year ( 20.2.81.108 NMAC ) . The serial number will also be assigned each allowance recorded in a general account, an account for allowances that are not held to meet program compliance requirements. Furthermore, the E ATS will track tribal

a llowance set

- asides and new source allowance set

- asides not yet assigned to either a compliance or general account.

It is important to note that while an effort has been made in this plan to provide a design for and an operational understanding of the E AT S, the components of the E ATS will need to be examined and possibly altered upon each required SIP revision.



### C3. Allowance Transfers.

[ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(viii) requires the Implementation Plan to include provisions for detailing the process for transferring allowances between parties. ] [ Transfers ] Allowance transfers are defined as the conveyance from one account to another account (compliance account or general account) of one or more allowances by whatever means, including but not limited to purchase, trade, or gift in accordance with the procedures established in 20.2.81.107 NMAC. This includes transfers of allowances for the purpose of retirement. Once an allowance is retired, it is no longer available for transfer to or from any account. Allowances may be purchased by any party for the purpose of retirement.

The Tracking System Administrator shall have specific recording requirements involving transfers. These required procedures will be detailed in the service contract but are outlined here

as well.

C3.1 Recording of Allowance Transfers.

Within five business days of receiving an allowance transfer, except when the transfer does not meet the requirements of this Section, the Tracking System Administrator shall record an allowance transfer by movin g each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request, provided that:

(a) The transfer is correctly submitted; and (b) The transferor account includes each allowance identified in the transfer.

Any allowance transfer that is submitted for recording following the allowance transfer deadline and that includes any allowances allocated for a control period prior to or the same as the control period to which the allowance transfer deadline applies, shall not be rec orded until after completion of the compliance account reconciliation.

Where an allowance transfer submitted for allowance transfer recording fails to meet the requirements of this Section, the Tracking System Administrator shall not record such transfer.NM Regional Haze SIP 47 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. C3.2 Notification of the Recording of Allowance Transfers

The Tracking System Administrator has specific responsibilities involving the notification of the recording of any transferred allowances, including the failure to record any transfer of

allowa nces. Again, these required procedures will be outlined in the service contract, but will

include what is outlined here.

(a) Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the Tracking System Administrator shall notify the Account R epresentatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.

(b) Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements of 20.2.81.107 NMAC, the Tracking System Administrator shall notify the Account Representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.



### C4. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year.

C4.1 Background.

[ 51 C FR 309(4)(ix) allows states to include in the Implementation Plan provisions for the accounting of unused allowances from a previous year. The unused ] Unused allowances may be kept for use in future years in accordance with 20.2.81.108 NMAC [ and describe t he restrictions

on the use of the allowances in accordance with 20.2.81.108 NMAC ].

[ The federal rule requires that allowances ] Allowances kept for use in future years may be used in calendar year 2018 only to the extent that the Implementation Plan guaran tees that such

allowances will not interfere with the achievement of the 2018 milestone.

Subsection D of 20.2.81.108 NMAC addresses this requirement by prohibiting the use, after the year 2017, of allowances allocated for the years 2003 - 2017. This provision ensures that actual emissions will be less than the 2018 milestone because only allowances allocated for the year 2018 could be used to show compliance in that year. The provision also maintains flexibility by resetting the baseline to the year 2018 and then allowing sources to once again use extra allowances to show compliance in any future year. This flexibility is important for sources that have variable operations because the source may build up a reserve of unused allowances for use in a high production year.

[ The Annex explains the benefits of allowing the WEB source to tap the previous year ' s unused allowances, including increased ] Increased flexibility and early reduction stimulus are a benefit to allowing the WEB source to tap the previous y ear ' s unused allowances . [ The risk in allowing the use of allowances carried from a previous year could be an increase in emissions in later years as the unused allowances are withdrawn for compliance. ]NM Regional Haze SIP 48 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Because the regional haze SIP is based on reasonable progress requirements related to the remedying or prevention of any future visibility impairment, it is important to assure the use of these allowances will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any reasonable progress goals. The safeguard employed here to mitigate this type of risk is termed, " flow control " , and is

described below.

C4.2 Flow Control Provisions.

At the end of each control period, WEB sources may transfer allowances in and out of their compliance account for a period of 60 day s to ensure that the account will contain enough allowances to cover sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous year. At the end of the sixty

day transfer period, allowances shall be deducted from the compliance account of each WEB sources in an amount equal to the sulfur dioxide emissions of that source during the control period.

After the deductions have been completed, the Tracking System Administrator shall perform the following calculations and prepare a report according to Section C7.1(b).

(a) Determine the total number of allowances remaining in the allowance tracking system that were allocated for the just completed control period and all previous control periods.

(b) If the number calculated in (a) exceeds 10 percent of the milestone for the next control period, then the flow control procedures in Subsection C of 20.2.81.108 NMAC shall be triggered for that next control period. These flow control provisions will discourage the

excessive use of allowances that were allocated for an earlier contr ol periods without establishing an absolute limit on their use. WEB sources shall maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two allowances

for each ton of SO 2 emissions. Flow control operat es as follows:

(1) The flow control ratio shall be calculated by multiplying one tenth multiplied by the milestone for the next control period divided by the total number of unused allowances remaining in the system.

(2) To calculate the number of prio r- year allowances that can be used without restriction by a source for the just- completed control period, the TSA shall multiply them by the flow control ratio. The resulting number of allowances may be used on a one- to -one ratio to show compliance with the source's emission limitation as outlined in 20.2.81.109

NMAC.

(3) The remaining prior- year allowances may be used on a two

- to -one ratio to show compliance. Thus, WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for

an earlier control period, but will be required to use two of those allowances for each ton

of SO 2 emissions.NM Regional Haze SIP 49 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Example: On March 1, 2010 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2009 control period) the Tracking Systems Administrator deducts allowances from the compliance a ccount for each WEB source to cover

2009 SO 2 emissions from that source. After completing these deductions, the TSA reports the following information:

Total number of allowances still in the system for the years 2003 - 2009 = [75,000 ] 30,000

2010 milestone [ (5

- state, no smelter) ] = [508,223 ] 200,722

Percent of milestone = [14.75 ] 14.94 %

Because the number of allowances not used in previous control periods is greater than 10% of the milestone, flow control procedures are triggered. In the annual report required in C7.1 (b) the

TSA will then calculate the flow control ratio for 2010:

0.1 x 2010 Milestone ÷ prior year allowances = flow control ratio 20.1 x [508,223 ] 200,722 ÷ [75,000 ] 30,000 = [0.67 ] 0.70

On March 1, 2011 ( the compliance transfer deadline for the 2010 control period) the TSA will apply the 2010 flow control ratio before deducting allowances from each WEB source ' s compliance account

WEB Source A 2010 Allowances = 1,000 Remaining Prior Year Allowances = [500 ] 6 00

2010 Emissions = [1,400 ] 1,580

In this example, the TSA would multiply the prior year allowances by [0.67 ] 0.70 to determine the number of prior year allowances that could be used without restriction at a one to one ratio. This would equal [335 ] 420 . The remaining prior year allowances would then be used at a 2:1 ratio. [130 ] Three hundred sixty allowances would be needed to cover the remaining [65 ] 180

tons of SO 2 emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of [1,465 ] 1,780 allowance s (1,000 + [335 ] 420 + [130 ] 360 ) to cover [1,400 ] 1,580 tons of SO 2 emissions.



### C5. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Section

[ Recommendations regarding monitoring and recordkeeping and reporting are under development by the WRAP. Recommendations will be in cluded in 20.2.81 NMAC, New

Mexico ' s Backstop Trading Program Rule, pending their acceptance by the WRAP. ]

C5.1 For WEB sources subject to 40 CFR Part 75, the EPA Administrator shall quality assure and finalize the data for submission to the Tracking Sys tem Administrator. For WEB sources subject to 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC, the Department shall quality assure and finalize the data in accordance with these provisions for submission to the Tracking System

AdministratorNM Regional Haze SIP 50 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. C5.2 The [ EPA Administra tor and the ] Department [ , as applicable, ] shall verify and submit data to the emissions tracking database as soon as reasonably feasible after annual emissions are reported by the WEB sources. Note: these timelines will be modified, as necessary, accordi ng to the monitoring protocols.

C5.3 Special Reserve Compliance Accounts. The WEB Trading Program requires most WEB sources to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that meet the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. However, there are some emission units that are not physically able to install CEMS and there are also emission units that do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the expense of installing these systems (see Subsection B of

20.2.81.106 N MAC . The WE B Trading Program allows these emission units to continue to use their pre

- trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the WEB source to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unit for use by another WEB source. The restricti on on transferring these allowances is needed to ensure that an emission reduction of sulfur dioxide and the corresponding increase in sulfur dioxide are equal. The allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre

- trigger monitoring methodology are placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Allowances may not be traded out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission units with CEMS at the same WEB source. However, the WEB source may use allowances in the compliance account to demonstrate compliance with the WEB

source' s allowance limitation.

Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC allows WEB sources with any of the following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account:

(a) any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; or

(b) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a f uel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or

(c) any other type of unit without add

- on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing.

The emission units described in (a) and (b) cannot physically be monitored using a CEM. The emission units described in (c) do not typically have add

- on controls for sulfur dioxide. These units, addressed in Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 N MAC , are ex pected to operate within their

floor- level allocation and therefore will not be affected by the market, unless they make a process change and wish to sell allowances on the market. Other sources that are meeting the more rigorous monitoring requirements of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC and emit sulfur dioxide above their expected allocation will either need to purchase allowances or in stall sulfur

dioxide controls. Therefore, it is important that all emission units that participate in em issions trading have an accurate monitoring methodology that is comparable to other sources in theNM Regional Haze SIP 51 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. program to ensure that a ton of reductions is the same regardless of where the reductions originate.

The Department will review the application to monitor u nder Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of

20.2.81.106 NMAC

. If the emission units meet the criteria in Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, the Department will determine the portion of the WEB source ' s allocation

that is associated with the emission units that will be monitored under Paragraph 1 of Subsection

B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC and will require the TSA to record that portion of the WEB source ' s allocation in the special reserve compliance account. The Department will use the methodology

for determi ning allocations described in Section C1.1 of this Plan to determine the portion of the

allocation that is associated with emission units monitored under Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of

20.2.81.106 NMAC . The Department will notify the WEB source that the ap plication has either been accepted or rejected, including a notification of the allowances that are to be recorded in the

WEB source' s regular compliance account and the special reserve compliance account.

If an emission unit that is monitored under Parag raph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC is permanently retired, the TSA will transfer the portion of allowances that were associated with

that emission unit from the WEB source ' s special reserve compliance account to the source ' s compliance account. The se allowances will then be available for use or sale by the WEB source. The allowances will be transferred after the compliance deduction has taken place for the last control period that the unit was in operation.



### C6. Compliance and Penalties.

C6.1 Comp liance, Excess Emissions, and Penalties

When a WEB source exceeds its allowance limitation in 20.2.81.109 NMAC , the Department shall require the Tracking System Administrator to deduct allowances from the following year ' s allocation in an amount equal to [ two ] three times the WEB source ' s emissions of SO 2 in excess

of its allowance limitation. This deduction shall be made from the WEB source ' s compliance account after deductions for compliance under 20.2.81.109 NMAC. If sufficient allowances do not exist in the compliance account for the next control period to cover this amount, the Department shall require the Tracking System Administrator to deduct the required number of allowances, regardless of the control period for which they were allocated, whenever the

allowances are recorded in the account.

Under the rule, sources may also be liable for penalties for each day of violations of the program' s other requirements.

[C6.2 Penalties The amount of the penalty shall be evaluated at each five

- year SIP revie w, and adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceeds the expected cost of allowances to ensure that this remains a stringent penalty. The rule establishes a penalty of $5000 per ton for each ton of

emissions above the source ' s allowance l imitation. Each ton represents a separate violation. In addition, two allowances from the next year ' s allocation will be deducted from the account forNM Regional Haze SIP 52 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. each ton of exceedance. Under the rule, sources are also liable for penalties for each day of

violatio ns of the program ' s other requirements. More detail on liabilities for different provisions can be found in the provisions of 20.2.81 NMAC. ]



### C7. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program.

C7.1 Annual Report (a) [ One ] Beginning one year after complian ce with the trading program is required, the Department shall obtain from the Tracking Systems Administrator an annual report that contains the following information: (1) The level of compliance program- wide; (2) A summary of the use and transfer of allowances, both geographically and temporally; (3) A source-by source accounting of allocations compared to emissions; (4) A report on the use of unused allowances from a previous year [[ ] in order to

determine whether these emissions have or have not contributed to the emissions in excess to the cap. [] ] (5) The total number of WEB sources participating in the trading program and any changes to eligible sources, such as retired sources, or sources that emit more than

100 tons of SO 2 after the program t rigger date. (b) Within 10 months after the allowance transfer deadline for each control period when compliance with the trading program is required, the Tracking System administrator
[ will ] shall prepare a draft report that lists: (1) the total number of allowances deducted for the control period. (2) the total number of allowances remaining in the Allowance Tracking System allocated for that control period for and any earlier control period. (3) proposed determination that flow control procedures h ave either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period, and (4) if flow control procedures have been triggered, a draft flow control ratio calculated according to Section C4.2 of the state implementation plan. (c)The Department shall evaluate the draft report, and shall propose a determination that flow control procedures have been either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period. (d) The Department will publish a notice of availability of the draft re port, in newspapers of general circulation throughout New Mexico, and will hold a 30-day comment period. (e) [ The ] After the comment period, the Department will make a final determination that the flow control procedures have either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period. If the flow control procedures have been triggered, the Department will notify all WEB sources in New Mexico that flow control procedures will be in effect during the next control period.

C7.2 Five-year Evaluation.NM Regional Haze SIP 53 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (a) The Department will work cooperatively with other participating States and tribes
[ shall ] to conduct an audit of the WEB Trading Program no later than three years following the first full year of the trading program, and at least every f ive years

thereafter. This evaluation does not [supplant ] replace the Implementation Plan

assessments in [2008, ] 2013[, ] and 2018 as required by the regional haze regulations. The evaluation [should ] will be conducted by an independent third party and include an analysis of:

1. Whether the total actual emissions could exceed the values in Table C- 1 of this Implementation Plan of the WEB Trading Program even though sources comply with their allowances;

2. Whether the program achieved the overall emission m ilestone it was intended to reach;

3. The effectiveness of the compliance, enforcement and penalty provisions;

4. A discussion of whether states and tribes have enough resources to implement the WEB Trading Program;

5. Whether the trading program result ed in any unexpected beneficial effects, or any unintended detrimental effects;.

6. Whether the actions taken to reduce sulfur dioxide have led to any unintended increases in other pollutants;

7. Whether there are any changes needed in emissions monitoring and reporting protocols, or in the administrative procedures for program administration and tracking; and,

8. The effectiveness of the provisions for interstate trading, and whether there are any procedural changes needed to make the interstate nature of the program more

effective.

9. The integrity of the emissions and allowance tracking system, including whether the procedures for recording transactions are adequate, whether the procedures are being followed and in a timely manner, whether the information on sources ' emissions are accurately recorded, whether the emissions and allowance tracking system has procedures in place to ensure that the transactions are valid, whether

back -up systems are in place to account for problems with loss of data.

(b ) The public shall have an opportunity to participate in this trading program

evaluation.NM Regional Haze SIP 54 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (c) In the event that any audit results in recommendations for program revisions, the Department, in consultation with the WRAP, will make appropriate modifications to this plan. The Department will revise this plan if the program is not meeting its emission reduction goals.

(d) The Department shall submit a copy of the report to the EPA regional office.



### C8. Retired Source Exemption

Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC [ Section 4 of the Model Rule ] outlines the procedure that a WEB source must follow to receive a retired source exemption. The exemption would allow the source to continue to receive an allocation, but would exempt the source from monitoring and

record keeping requirements that would serve no useful function for a source that has ceased operations. The Department shall notify the source of its obligation to apply for a retired source exemption upon the cancellation or relinquishment of a permit.

In ord er to receive a retired source exemption, the source must submit a request for the exemption to the Department. The Department shall review this request, and within sixty days of receipt of the request shall notify the source that the retired source exemption has been granted or has been rejected. If the exemption has been rejected, the notification shall contain an explanation of the reasons for rejecting the request.

The TSA shall record an allocation to a WEB source that has received a retired source

ex emption. However, the allowances shall be recorded in a general account rather than a compliance account for the source. The TSA will transfer any existing allowances in the retired

source' s compliance account or special reserve compliance account into the general account for the retired source, and will close the compliance accounts.

A WEB source that is retired and that does not request a retired source exemption shall forfeit all

abandoned allowances in that source ' s compliance account, as outlined in P aragraph (5) of Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC Section 4 of the WEB Trading Program Model Rule. The forfeited allowances shall not be redistributed to other sources, and shall be retired from the Allowance Tracking System as outlined in 20.2.81.107 NMAC. During the next five

- year allowance distribution period the retired source shall not receive an allocation, and the

allowances that would have been distributed to that source shall be added to the new source set

aside.



### C9

. Integration into Federally Enf orceable Permits

[ 40 CFR 51.309 requires that the requirements for emissions reporting and for the trading program be incorporated into a permit that is enforceable as a practical matter by EPA and by citizens to the extent permitted by the Act. ] It is ex pected that all WEB sources will at least initially be required to obtain a permit under New Mexico ' s Title V delegated permitting program. Under 20.2.70 NMAC, New Mexico ' s delegated Title V permitting program, the pre

-NM Regional Haze SIP 55 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. and post

- trigger requirements of the market trading program fall under the definition of

" applicable requirements " , and will be incorporated into each source ' s Title V permit. 20.2.81 NMAC requires that any source that for any reason and at any time is not required to have a permit under 20.2.70 NMAC must obtain a New Source Review permit pursuant to 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC that incorporates the same requirements, and that the source must at all times possess a permit containing the program ' s requirements. Additionally, i n order for a source permitted under Title V to become a synthetic minor source, and thus not need a Title V permit, a source first must obtain federally enforceable permit limits through a New Source Review permit, and thus there will be no gap between th e effective Title V permit and the new NSR permit which contains the same market trading program requirements. Both types of permits are enforceable both federally and by citizens pursuant to New Mexico ' s Implementation

Plan.



### D 2013 SIP/TIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning

Period

D1

. Requirements of 2013 SIP Revision

In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the 2013 SIP [ /TIP ] shall contain:

1. Source specific allocations for all WEB sources under the jurisdiction of the Department for the year 2018; and

2. Either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO 2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP/TIP revision containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. The program will ensure that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 for the first planning period are achieved, including requirements that cannot be measured until after 2018, such as the determination of compliance with the 2018 miles tone.



### [ D2 ] Adjustments in Allocation Calculations

This 2013 SIP revision will provide certainty to sources regarding their potential liability under the special penalty provisions for the year 2018 outlined in Section A5 of this Implementation Plan. The calculation of these allocations is delayed until 2013 to provide certainty about the number of sources that would qualify as WEB sources at that time; the allocations needed for new sources in the region; [and the magnitude of renewable energy developmen t ] and early reductions that would need to be included in the allocation process. It is difficult to estimate the impact of these factors in 2003 because many things may change during the next 10 years.

If the 2018 milestone is not met, the starting point for the next planning period shall be the 2018 milestones, not actual emissions in 2018.NM Regional Haze SIP 56 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 

### D2 . A chievement of 13 percent SO 2 

### emission reduction

.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the State of New Mexico has determined that a 13 percent

reduction i n actual stationary source SO 2 emissions has occurred between the years 1990 and

2000. Table [5 ] C-3 below provides a state -by- state comparison of these emissions, and shows that there has been a 25 percent reduction from 1990 to 2000 for all states (from 828,775 tons to 621,838 tons). [ Further information on the emission inventories used for this calculation is described in Appendix M

- 5 of this implementation plan. ] The current emissions and modeling data and results for stationary sources in the WRAP reg ion are now available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss ). The methodology and data for the revised SO 2 Milestone Program are available at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/309/docs.html . Tracking pre

- trigger stationary source SO 2 emissions is found in Section 4.3 of Chapter 4 of the WRAP TSD.

Table [5 ] C-3 : State -by-State Comparison of SO 2 Emission Reductions, 1990 -2000 (i n tons per year)

States 1990 2000

Arizona 185,398 99,133

California 52,832 38,501

Colorado 95,534 99,161

Idaho 24,652 27,763

Nevada 52,775 53,943

New Mexico 177,994 117,344
Oregon 17,705 23,362

Utah 85,567 38,521
Wyoming 136,318 124,1 10

Totals 828,775 621,838



### D3 . [ Report on Assessment of NOx / PM Strategies ] Provisions for Stationary

Source NOx and PM

[ Provisions for Stationary Source NOx and PM. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(4)(v), the State

of New Mexico has included in this SI P a report which assesses emissions control strategies for stationary sources of NOx and PM, and the degree of visibility improvement that would result from implementation of the identified strategies. The report, Stationary Source NOx and PM

Emissions in the WRAP region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP and is included in Appendix C

- 2. The report represents the initial assessment of stationary source NOx and PM strategies for regional haze. T he Department has determined that NOx and PM strategies are not needed at this time. The State of New Mexico will review the need for long term strategies for stationary sources of NOx and PM during the SIP revision updates due in 2008, 2013 and 2018. ]

A ssessment of need for NOx and PM milestones. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v ii ), the State

of New Mexico has evaluated the need for NOx and PM emission control strategies, the degree of visibility improvement expected, and whether such milestones are needed to avoid any netNM Regional Haze SIP 57 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. increase in these pollutants. This evaluation was made by the WRAP Market Trading Forum for all WRAP states, including the transport region states.

Several conclusions were reached based on WRAP analyses. These include:

(a) That for the vast majority of Mandatory Federal Class I areas throughout the WRAP region stationary source NOx and PM emissions are not a major contributor to visibility impairment;

(b) That RAVI remedies are available in cases where particular stationary sources may impact particular Class I areas;

(c) Analysis fo r NOx and PM impacts in the 309(g) SIP submittal has reaffirmed the position that the need for milestones to support potential market- based programs is not yet established.

The initial assessment of the need for NOx and PM long

- term strategies is provided in the New

Mexico TSD. The State of New Mexico will continue to work with the WRAP to improve the emission inventories and regional modeling to support future policy decisions regarding stationary sourc e NOx and PM emissions. The State of New Mexico has made an additional preliminary assessment on the need for long

- term strategies for stationary sources of PM and NOx in the 309(g) SIP. NOx and PM long

- term strategies are discussed in the 309(g) SIP submittal, with commitments to reassess in SIP updates for 2013 and 2018.

Applicable WRAP Reports and Documents. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the TSD Development Plan provides a summary of the method for tracking and reporting stationary source emissions

covered in the backstop trading program, through the WRAP emissions data system. The current emissions and modeling data and results for stationary sources in the WRAP region are now available through the WRAP TSS (http:// vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss). The method ology and data

for the revised SO 2 Milestone Program are available at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/309/docs.html.

The Western Emissions Backstop Emissions Trading and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis report describes how emissions, allocations, and transactions will occur if the backstop trading program is triggered. This report is described further in the New Mexico TSD.

Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls and Air Quality Impa cts reviews possible emission control strategies for stationary sources of NOx and PM, and the degree of visibility improvement that would result from such strategies. The report is described further in the New Mexico TSD.NM Regional Haze SIP 58 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. D. Mobile Sources

(a) Actual a nd projected statewide inventory for mobile source emissions. Pursuant to requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d) (5)(i), a statewide inventory of baseline and future year mobile source emissions has been compiled for the years 2003 to 2018. Table D

- 1 below summ arizes these emissions, and indicates the year on

- road mobile source emissions are projected to be at their lowest level within the state. The following inventory as well as additional information on mobile source emissions can be found in Chapter 5 of th e Wrap Technical Support Document

, included in Appendix N of this SIP.

Table D

- 1: Statewide On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions, Annual Average Day (Tons Per Day)

Year VOC NOx SO 2 PM2.5*

1996 194 208 5.7 6.6

2003 137 179 7.6 6.7

2008 95 132 0.8 6.3

2013 70 87 0.9 4.3

2018 59 60 1.0 3.3

Lowest Year 59 60 0.8 3.3 *Includes organic and elemental carbon as a percentage of PM2.5. As a percentage of PM2.5, both organic and elemental carbon shows a continuous decline over the 2003

- 2018 planning period

(b) Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), the State of New Mexico, with the assistance of the WRAP, has developed a statewide inventory that

shows a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions from mobile sources over the 2003- 2018 planning period. In the 2008 SIP review, New Mexico will reevaluate mobile source emissions to determine if long

- term strategies are needed. Mobile source emissions are not a significant source of visibility impairment in New Mexico. Additional i nformation on the mobile source emission inventory as well as significance is included in Chapter 1 of the WRAP Technical Support Document , included as Appendix N to this SIP.

Table D

- 2 Net emissions change from 2003 to 2018 for total mobile source emissi ons, by pollutant.

2018 Total Mobile Source Emissions (tons per day) Reduction from 2003 (%)

VOC NO x PM 2.5 * SO 2 VOC NO x PM 2.5 SO 2 75.8 80.4 6.9 1.4 54% 62% 38% 89% * Exhaust emissions only, includes elemental and organic carbon as a percentage of PM2.5. As a percentage of PM2.5, both organic and elemental carbon shows a continuous decline over the 2003-2018 planning period.

.NM Regional Haze SIP 59 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (c) Interim Implementation Status Reports. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(iv), the State of New Mexico will submit periodic progress reports in 2008, 2013 and 2018 on the status of implementation of adopted regional and local strategies recommended by the Commission Report to address mobile source emissions.NM Regional Haze SIP 60 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. E. Programs Related to Fire.

(a) Definition of " fire ". The Regional H aze Rule in Section 40 CFR 51.309 (b)(4) defines fire as

" wildfire, wildland fire (including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands and farmlands. "

Prescribed natu ral fire has been functionally replaced by wildland fire managed for resource benefit (WFU) under the National Fire Plan. Except where " prescribed fire " is noted, the term

" fire " shall apply to the sources identified herein.

(b) Prescribed Fire Program Ev aluation . Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(6)(i), the Department has evaluated its smoke management program and all Federal, State, and private prescribed fire smoke management programs in the state, based on the potential to contribute to visibility impairmen t in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility protection from smoke is addressed in planning and operation. The Department has also evaluated whether New

Mexico ' s smoke management program and these prescribed fire smoke management p rograms contain the following elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation. Appendix E- 1 describes the results of these evaluations in detail.

The Department currently has in place a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the federal land management agencies and the State Forestry Division. This MOU addresses actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation.

As a result of these evaluations, the Department is making the following changes to the smoke management programs listed below.

Program evaluation is part of this smoke management program as required by the Regional Haze Rule. The Department will convene an annual meeting after the beginning of the calendar year during which the burn community and other interested stakeholders will assess the adequacy of the design, impact and implementation of the program. These program evaluations will be used to revise and improve the smoke management program and regulation as needed, as well as assisting the Department in the preparation of the five- year stat e implementation plan revision.

The proposed Smoke Management regulation adds requirements for public notice for burn projects planned in proximity to populations. For small projects planned within one mile of a population, public notice is now required. For larger projects planned within 15 miles of a population, or if wind direction is prescribed within 15 miles upwind of a population, public notice is required.

For larger burn projects, the proposed Smoke Management regulation requires burners to either review smoke management educational materials provided by the Department, or to complete an approved smoke management training program prior to initiating burning.

Surveillance/enforcement is an oversight mechanism that assures adherence to smoke management efforts as defined by the smoke management program. The New Mexico AirNM Regional Haze SIP 61 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Chapter 74, Article 2, authorizes enforcement actions and the assessment of civil penalties for violations. These actions may include a Warni ng Letter, Notice of Violation, or Compliance Order. An appeal process for enforcement actions is detailed in the

Act as well.

The Civil Penalty Policy, a public document available on the Department website, provides guidance to the Air Quality Bureau in determining the amount of civil penalties related to violations of the Air Quality Control Act. The objectives of the policy include ensuring fair and consistent penalty determination, ensuring a level playing field among sources and to impose penalties p roportional to the gravity of the violation.

The Department has authority to audit data, records, or weather measurements from previously conducted burns, if necessary to verify conformity with, or deviation from, procedures and

authorizations outlined i n the Smoke Management Regulation. On

- site inspections of burn sites may be conducted to ensure compliance with required elements of the smoke management regulation where appropriate. Any field surveillance and enforcement conducted will be consistently ap plied to all burners.

The Department will respond to and investigate smoke complaints on a case -by- case basis. If the burn is in compliance with the Smoke Management Regulation, shut down or mop up activities would not be anticipated. The Department will compile data from complaints to assist in future planning and program evaluation. The Department will notify individuals or agencies responsible for a burn of smoke complaints specific to the burn project.

In order to ensure that the regional effects on visibility are addressed in this program, the Department will coordinate with tribes and other states during the evaluation of airshed impacts. For example, should the state become aware of large burns planned or wildfires already occurring on lands outsid e of New Mexico ' s jurisdiction, the Department will work with burners to ensure that airsheds are not overly impacted by smoke emissions. Conversely, the Department will coordinate with New Mexico burners to ensure that New Mexico is not adversely impactin g other jurisdictions. The Department will continue to work with the WRAP and the Western States Air Resources Council on issues including smoke management.

All fires of more than 10 acres in size or greater than 1000 cubic feet of pile volume are include d within the New Mexico Smoke Management Regulation [20.2.65 NMAC]. The proposed Smoke Management Regulation addresses actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; burn authorization; and fire tracking.

(c) Emissions Inventory and Tracking System. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(6)(ii), New Mexico has established a system for tracking and emissions inventory for VOC, NOx, elemental and organic carbon, and particulate for fir e sources within the state. The Department has implemented an emissions tracking system that follows the WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy

, which identifies a process for gathering the essential post

- burn activity information necessary to consistently calcu late emissions and uniformly assess fire impact on regional haze on an annualNM Regional Haze SIP 62 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. basis. The fire tracking system described in this policy consists of seven components: (1) date of burn, (2) burn location, (3) area of burn, (4) fuel type, (5) pre

- burn fuel loading, (6) type of burn, and (7) "anthropogenic" or " natural " classification or information to support this classification. This policy served as the basis for creating a fire emissions inventory within the State of New Mexico. See Appendix M

- 2 of this implementation plan for further information on the fire emissions inventory and tracking system in New Mexico.

The database for New Mexico will be implemented as follows:

1. Information from the registration and tracking forms will be entered into the database.

2. Information from the database will eventually be available to the public through a web portal, as that capability is developed within the New Mexico Environment Department.

3. All sources that burn over 10 acres (or 1000 cubic feet of pile volume) in a day are required to track; therefore, all sources will be included in the database.

4. The database will use appropriate emission factors to determine the emissions of VOC, NOx, elemental carbon, organic carbon, and PM 2.5.

(d) Strategy for use of non -burning alternatives. The Department has developed a process with key public and private entities, such as the state departments of agriculture and forestry, farming and forestry associations, etc. to identify and remove administrative barriers to the use of non

b urning alternatives to prescribed fire on federal, state, and private lands, pursuant to 40 CFR

51.309 (d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and considers economic, safet y, technical and environmental feasibility criteria, and land management objectives. This process is described in Appendix E

- 2 of this implementation plan. Included in Appendix E

- 2 is a summary of the administrative barriers currently known to exist in the state. In developing this process, the Department relied on two documents: (1) Non

- burning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management, and (2) Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States , prepared by the WRAP, that describe a variety of non

- burning alternatives and methods of assessing their potential applicability. No administrative barriers are known to exist in New Mexico at this time, but any barriers identified shall be addressed through the collaborative process in Appendix E-2.

(e) Enhanced Smoke Management Program. Pursuant to CFR 51.309 (d)(6)(iv), all smoke management programs within the State of New Mexico are consistent with the WRAP Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy . This polic y calls for programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts. The WRAP policy lists the previously identified elements under 40 CFR 51.309( d)(6)(i) as well as adding " burn authorization " and "regional

coordination" elements to ensure visibility protection and meet the designation of "enhanced." The table in Appendix E

- 1 assesses the current smoke management program in the state, and explains how it will meet the Enhanced Smoke Management Program policy and the rule requirements.NM Regional Haze SIP 63 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. The Department has developed a Smoke Management Regulation that address all sources of fire over 10 acres or 1,000 cubic feet pile volume. This will add private burns to the federal land manager and state agency burns the New Mexico Environment Department currently tracks through its Memorandum of Understanding with these agencies.

New Mexico ' s new smoke management regulation requires the use of at least one emission reduction technique for all burns with emissions of PM

- 10 greater than one ton per day. These burns must also only be conducted during dispersion conditions of good or better. All burners with burns greater than 10 acres per day or 1000 cubic feet pile volume per day are required to submit prior registration and follow up after the burn with tracking, including the use of emission reduction techniques. For burns with emissions of greater than one ton of PM

- 10 emission per day, burners are required to document the reasons for not utilizing alternatives to burning on the registration form.

The burn authorization process requires that burners register burn projects, notify the Department prior to beginning burning, and, for larger burns, complete smoke management training. Burn authorization, regional coordination, and the requirement to utilize at least one ERT all focus on ensuring visibility protection.

(f) Annual Emission Goals. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), efforts will be made within the

State of New Mexico to minimize emission increases in fire, excluding wildfire, to the maximum extent feasible, through the use of annual emission goals (AEG), in accordance with the WRAP Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy . This policy recognizes that Emission Reduction Techniques (ERTs) can be used to minimize emissions from fire. The Department has established a collaborative mechanism for setting annual emission goals, and developed a process for tracking their attainment on a yearly basis.

The minimum emis sion increase from fire is accomplished through the application of emission reduction techniques (ERTs). The use of ERTs with the projected annual burn information provides the basis for the AEG. Due to the potential impacts from all fire sources, annual

e mission goals will apply to all fire except wildfire (as exempted by the Regional Haze Rule), and will be developed for the entire state in cooperation with all burners on a yearly basis.

The AEG is determined by the New Mexico Environment Department com piling all the registration information provided by the burners, specifically the total projected emissions and the total projected emission reductions. Information on the statewide use of ERTs from prior

years ' tracking forms will be used to determine if the annual emission goal is being set in a realistic manner. Appendix E- 3 of this implementation plan describes this process in more detail.NM Regional Haze SIP 64 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust.

(a) Impact of paved and unpaved road dust emissions. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (7), an assessment was made by the WRAP of the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads from transport region states on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. A complete description of this assessment is provided in Appendix F of this implementation plan.

(b) Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (7), the results of assessment on the impact of dust emissions described above, the State of New Mexico has

determined that dust emissions are not a significant contributor to visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas. A summary of this impact assessment is provided in Appendix F of this implementation plan. Based on these findings, no emission management strategies have be en identified for inclusion in this SIP submittal. A summary of this impact assessment is provided below. See also Appendix F for more information.

Road dust emission inventories were developed for WRAP states and the significance of road dust was then tested using the regional air quality model. Across WRAP states, p aved road dust emissions increase by about three percent per year from 1996 to 2018, per the increase in vehicle miles traveled. Unpaved road dust emissions are projected to decrease be tween 1996 and 2018, by about 0.75% per year, because of reductions in unpaved road mileage over time as more roads are paved. As a result, unpaved road dust emissions are about 80% of road dust PM 10 emissions in 1996, and about 65% of road dust PM 10 emis sions in 2018. Overall, road dust PM 10 emissions increase by about 6% from 1996 to 2018. The modeled regional impact of road dust emissions at the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas ranged from 0.31 deciviews (3.1% of natural conditions to be reached by 2064) at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 0.08 deciviews (0.8% of natural conditions to be reached by 2064) at the Weminuche Wilderness. From these results, WRAP determined that the regional impacts of road dust emissions are not significa nt at the 16

Colorado Plateau Class I areas at this time.

The state of New Mexico will continue to work with EPA and other entities to research the effects of road dust on visibility impairment, and re

- evaluate whether or not dust control strategies shoul d be developed.

(c) Tracking of Road Dust Emissions. The State of New Mexico shall track road dust emissions with the assistance of the WRAP, and provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission trends, including any modeling or monitoring inf ormation regarding the impact of these emissions on visibility in the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas. These updates shall include a

re

- evaluation of whether road dust is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. These updates shall be part o f the periodic implementation plan revisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). Appendix M

- 3 of this implementation plan provides a description of the road dust emission tracking program.NM Regional Haze SIP 65 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. G. Pollution Prevention.

(a) Summary of P2 programs in the state. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (8)(i), Tables G

- 1 through G

- 3 summarize all P2 programs currently in place in New Mexico. Appendix G summarizes all renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or planned as of 2002, the total energy generation capacity and production in the State, and the percent of the total

that is renewable

.

Table G

- 1. Policy Mechanisms to Promote Renewable Energy
Policy Program

Title Statutory/Regulatory Citation Program Description

Renewable

Portfolio Standard St atutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Utility Case No.
3619; Title 17, Chapter 9, Part 573

— Renewable Energy as a Source of Electricity, in New Mexico

Administrative Code [http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/n mac/] Description:

In December 2002, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission adopted a new Renewable Energy rule. The purpose of the

rule is " ...to establish a process for promoting the use and development of renewable energy

in New Mexico to assure that electric

consumers obtain adequate and reliable electric services at just and reasonable rates. "

The rule includes a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS); Section 17.9.573.10.A -C, NMAC. The RPS requires public utilities (El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of N ew Mexico, Southwestern Public Service Company, Texas

- New Mexico Power Company) to develop an energy portfolio appropriate to its suppliers and customers. The portfolio must include a progressively greater percentage of service from renewable sources, as follows: By January 1, 2006, the RPS shall be at least five percent (5%) of retail jurisdictional energy sales; By January 1, 2007, the RPS shall be at least six percent (6%) of retail energy sales; By January 1, 2008, the RPS shall be at least seven percent (7%) of retail energy sales; By January 1, 2009, the RPS shall be at least eight percent (8%) of retail energy sales; By January 1, 2010, the RPS shall be at least nine percent (9%) of retail jurisdictional energy sales; Upon and after January 1, 2011, the RPS shall be at least ten percent (10%) of retail jurisdictional energy sales.

Other factors being equal, preference is to be given to renewable energy generated in NewNM Regional Haze SIP 66 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Statutory/Regulatory Citation Program Description

Mexico. All transactions are to be documented using Renewable Energy

Certificates (RECs). RECs are to be issued in the following values:

1 kilowatt

- hour (kwh) WIND or HYDRO = 1

kwh REC 1 kwh BIOMASS, GEOTHERMAL,

LANDFILL GAS = 2 kwh REC

1 kwh SOLAR = 3 kilowatt

- hours REC

Green Power Marketing Statutory/Regulatory Citation:

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Utility Case No. 3619; Title 17, Chapter 9, Part 573

— Renewable Energy as a Source of Electricity, in New Mexico

Administrative Code [http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/n mac/] Description: In December 2002, the New Mexico Public

R egulation Commission adopted a new Renewable Energy rule. The purpose of the

rule is " ...to establish a process for promoting the use and development of renewable energy

in New Mexico to assure that electric consumers obtain adequate and reliable

electric services at just and reasonable rates. " The rule includes a Green Pricing/Green Power Marketing Program facilitated through Voluntary Renewable Tariffs filed by public utilities and rural electric cooperatives; Section 17.9.573.10.D, NMAC. Under this

sec tion of the Rule, each utility and cooperative must offer a voluntary renewable energy tariff for those customers who want the option to purchase additional renewable energy. The tariff is to set out any applicable conditions as to price, quantity and term of the agreement. Each public utility must also develop a corresponding educational program on the benefits and availability of its voluntary renewable energy program. All utilities and cooperatives are required to file a proposed tariff by September 1 , 2003.

Net Metering New Mexico Public Regulation Commission; Title 17, Chapter 10, Part 571

— Net Metering of Customer

Owned Qualifying Facilities of 10kW or Smaller, in New

Mexico Administrative Code [http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/n mac/] Description: Th e purpose of this rule, effective September 30, 1999, is "...to simplify the interconnection requirements for Qualifying Facilities of 10 kilowatts (kW) or smaller and encourage the use of small

- scale,

customer

- owned renewable or alternative

energy resources in recognition of the beneficial effects the development of such

resources will have on the environment of

New Mexico. " If the electricity generated by a customer exceeds the electricity supplied byNM Regional Haze SIP 67 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Statutory/Regulatory Citation Program Description

the grid during a billing period, the utility

must cred it the customer on the next bill for

the excess kilowatt

- hours generated. Unused

credits are carried forward from month to

month.

Table G

- 2. Financial Incentives to Promote Renewable Energy
Policy Program

Title Statutory/Regulatory Citation Program De scription

Renewable Energy

Production Tax

Credit Statutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Statutes Annotated,

Section 7

- 2A

- 19 [http://www.legis.state.nm.us]; New Mexico Energy, Minerals

and Natural Resources Department, Title 3, Chapter 13,

Part 19

— Rene wable Energy Production Tax Credit, in New

Mexico Administrative Code [http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/n mac/] Description: This tax incentive was enacted into law during the 2002 New Mexico Legislative Session. It originally provided a tax incentive in th e amount of one cent ($0.01) per kilowatt

- hour

for each kilowatt

- hour of electricity generated from solar or wind energy resources. The credit is applied against a company ' s state income tax liability. Qualifying facilities had to be at least 20 megawatt s in size, with the credit available up to a maximum of 400,000

megawatt

- hours per year per company or 800,000 megawatt

- hours per year in the aggregate for all companies. The statute was

amended in 2003 to include biomass as a qualifying form of source m aterial. Other amendments included lowering the minimum megawatt limit for qualifying projects from 20MW to 10MW to allow smaller wind, solar and biomass projects to qualify; and increasing

the total amount of the credit available each year from 800,000 m egawatt

- hours to 2,000,000 megawatt

- hours.

Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) Financing Statutory/Regulatory Citation:

New Mexico Statutes Annotated:

NM Industrial Revenue Bond Act (Section 3

- 32

- 1 et seq .); and County Industrial Revenue Bond Act (Section 4- 59

- 1 et seq .) [http://www.legis.state.nm.us] Description: The cited laws provide that any county or municipality may issue Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs) for the purpose of financing electric generating plants, including those fueled by renewable resources. The significance of IRB financing is the associated tax advantages.

Gross Receipts Tax Exemption for Wind Equipment Statutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Statutes Annotated,

Section 7

- 9

- 54.3 Description:

T his law provides wind developers an exemption from the gross receipts tax forNM Regional Haze SIP 68 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Statutory/Regulatory Citation Program De scription

[http://www.legis.state.nm.us]; certain wind equipment, including nacelles and

rotors, provided the project is financed with Industrial Revenue Bonds (Section 7 -9- 54.3 NMSA 1978).

Table G -3. Programs to Pro mote Renewable Energy Policy Program

Title Program Description

State Energy Program State Energy Program The State Energy Office administers the U.S. Department of Energy State Energy Program grant and implements program goals to encourage energy efficien cy and

renewable

- energy usage, provide energy education and community outreach, offer policy advise to the Executive and Legislative branches, and help New Mexico citizens reduce their utility bills and improve their comfort and safety. The Energy Office i s funded through a combination of federal funds and Petroleum

Violation Escrow funds.

Director: Chris Wentz (505) 476

- 3312 http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us

Special Projects The State Energy Office administers the State Energy Program

– Special Project

Grant s. Each year states submit proposals in response to a DOE solicitation identifying how specific technologies could be implemented in their region of the country. DOE then selects the projects that best meet national energy goals. The Energy Office publicizes grant availability, helps prepare grant applications, selects partners for project implementation and administers grants.

Geothermal Development and Use Program Geopowering the West Program

NM Geothermal Energy Working Group

The New Mexico Geothe rmal Energy Working Group was established in December 2000. It is an informal organization of representatives from both the public and private sectors, including geothermal developers, leaseholders and businesses, federal/state/tribal/local governments, national laboratories, electric utilities, universities, and renewable energy advocates. The Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department coordinates the group, with assistance from Sandia National

Laboratories

- Albuquerque and the U.S. Department of Energy ' s Geopowering the

West program. Over 70 individuals are now included on the NM Geothermal Working Group e

- mail address list. A primary role of the Working Group is to function as a stakeholder organization that can act and speak collectively on behalf of geothermal interests operating in New Mexico. Key tasks and activities of the NM Geothermal Energy Working Group are: serve as a forum for networking, communications and coordination among geothermal stakeholders; acquisition andNM Regional Haze SIP 69 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Program Description

dissemination of information about existing geothermal resources, their development and use (both electric generation and thermal applications); identification and delineation of the issues that impede expansion of geothermal applications; and removal of barriers to geothermal advancement.

Solar Development

and Use Million Solar Roofs Program Million Solar Roofs (MSRI) is an initiative to install solar energy systems on one million U.S. buildings by 2010. T he initiative includes two types of solar technology: solar electric systems (or photovoltaics ) that produce electricity from sunlight and solar thermal systems that produce heat for domestic hot water, space heating, or heating swimming pools. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative is helping increase the market for solar energy. At the same time, the Initiative is offering consumers an affordable, clean

- energy option, creating new U.S. high

- technology jobs, and playing an important role in reducing emissions. Emissions associated with power generation are caused mostly by the inefficient burning of fossil fuels. By increasing the efficiency of how we use fossil fuels, reducing our use of these fuels and switching to alternative, non

- polluting fuels, we can significantly reduce the emissions we put into the air and the atmosphere thereby reducing their harmful effects on human health and the environment. One of the most promising

non

- fossil sources is solar energy.

Schools with Sol Solar Demonstration

The Scho ols with Sol program is managed by ECMD to implement one of

Governor Richardson ' s conservation agenda goals, which is to provide solar power to 10 schools each year. Solar energy systems will be installed at New Mexico schools, competitively selected, to be used as demonstrations in renewable energy

education for K

- 12 students, as well as reduce energy consumption. Both photovoltaic and solar domestic water heating systems will be used. A teacher at each participating school will " champion " their system through educational activities in renewable energy. System installers will be selected from statewide price agreements. ECMD is using $100,000 in federal funds to implement the current FY2004 cycle of 10 school installations, with an additional $18,000

p rovided by Public Service Company of New Mexico and in

- kind contributions provided by participating schools.

Solar Rights Act

Statutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Sections 47 -3- 1 to

- 5 [http://www.legis.state.nm.us]

Description : The Solar Rights Act declares that the State of New Mexico recognizes thatNM Regional Haze SIP 70 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Program Description

economic benefits can be derived for its citizens from the use of solar energy. It goes on to state that the actual construction and installation of solar devises is properly a c ommercial activity which the law should encourage to be carried out, whenever practicable, by private enterprise. The Act defines the term " solar right "

as " ...a right to an unobstructed line

- of

- sight path from a solar collector to the

sun. " Moreover, the Legislature declares in the Act that the right to use the natural resource of solar energy is a property right.

Solar Recordation Act

Statutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Sections 47 -3- 6 to

- 12 [http://www.legis.state.nm.us]

D escription: The Solar Recordation Act declares that solar energy is a viable energy source in New Mexico and, as such, its development should be encouraged. The purpose of the Act is to accomplish such encouragement through the protection of solar rights necessary for small

- scale installations. A solar right is considered an " easement
appurtenant " and may be claimed by an owner of real property upon which a solar collector has been placed. The solar right is claimed and recorded by filing a

declaration w ith the county clerk of the applicable county where the property is located; a sample declaration is included in the statute as are provisions for notification of affected property owners. The statute also provides for the transfer of solar rights when a property changes ownership.

Solar Energy Development Act

Statutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Sections 71 -6- 1 to

- 3 [http://www.legis.state.nm.us]

Description: The purpose of Solar Energy Development Act is to promote development and use of solar energy in New Mexico, by both industry and government, for the benefit of New Mexico and United States citizens. It is proposed to accomplish this purpose through active measures to encourage the location within New Mexico of

research to discover practical and feasible methods to harness solar energy, as well as development of a vigorous and productive solar energy industrial complex. The New Mexico Economic Development Department is charged with various responsibilities under the Act, including establishment and operation of a program to encourage investment in the research and application of solar energy within New Mexico; development of necessary promotional material to be used in the process of attracting new investment capital within the solar energy field; employing sufficient staff to carry out the purpose of this law; and cooperation with private firms and all agencies of the state and federal government inNM Regional Haze SIP 71 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Program Description

furthering research and investment in solar energy use in New Mexico.

So lar Collector Standards Act

Statutory/Regulatory Citation: New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Sections 71 -6- 4 to

- 10 [http://www.legis.state.nm.us]

Description: The purpose of the Solar Collector Standards Act is to develop and implement a

program to promote solar industry and stimulate a demand for high quality solar components and systems. The New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources (EMNRD) is charged with the responsibility under the Act to promulgate regulations to define minimum standards for the durability and reliability of solar collectors; and to establish criteria for testing the durability, reliability and thermal efficiency of solar collectors. The Department is also authorized to develop and implement a solar collector certification program. EMNRD promulgated appropriate regulations and implemented the specified certification program in the mid

- 1980s until the expiration of federal and state

solar tax credits.

Biomass Development and Use Program Western Regional Biomass Program

Biom ass Industry Development Working Group The Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department is serving as the convener of a Biomass Industry Development Work Group in New Mexico. The purpose of this group is to develop a coordination process to encourage and assist in the development of a viable biomass industry in New Mexico, resulting in improved forest health and increased use of domestic biomass resources to stimulate economic development. This process will include assessing opportunities, current projects, end products (biofuels, biopower and bioproducts), supply, technologies, incentives, barriers, funding and economics.

Wind Development and Use Program Wind Powering America Program

NM Wind Energy Working Group The New Mexico Wind Energy Working G roup was established in December 2000. It is an informal organization of representatives from both the public and private sectors, including wind developers, related businesses, federal/state/tribal/local governments, national laboratories, electric utili ties, universities, and renewable energy advocates. Approximately 80 individuals are now included on the NM Wind Working Group e

- mail address list. The Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department coordinates the group, with assistance from Sandia

National Laboratories

- Albuquerque and the U.S. Department of Energy ' s Wind Powering America program. A primary role of the Working Group is to function as a stakeholder organization that can act and speak collectively on behalf of geothermal interests operating in New Mexico. Key tasks and activities of the NM Wind Energy Working Group are: serve as a forum for networking,NM Regional Haze SIP 72 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program

Title Program Description

communications and coordination among wind stakeholders; acquisition an d dissemination of information about existing wind resources, their development and use in electric generation; identification and delineation of the issues that impede expansion of wind applications; and removal of barriers to geothermal

advancement.

H

ydrogen Development and Use Program Hydrogen Technology Partnership (HyTep) The Energy Conservation and Management Division is administering the U.S. Department of Energy Industries of the Future (IOF) program in New Mexico. The Industries of the Future program seeks to bring together industry, academia, and state agencies to address industrial energy efficiency and pollution prevention. These public

- private coalitions facilitate industry solutions locally and enhance economic development. New Mexico is cu rrently focusing on the mining and forest products industry because of their high energy use, opportunities for pollution prevention and important role in New Mexico ' s economic development Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs) The New Mexico Environm ent Department can utilize supplemental environmental projects in enforcement cases for pollution prevention projects.

Table G

- 4. Policy Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency/Energy Conservation
Policy Program Title Program Description

Governor ' s E xecutive Order: Resource Efficiency in State

Government Since 1992 New Mexico State Government has been directed through Executive orders to reduce energy consumption and costs in state buildings. To accomplish the directive the State Energy Office has p rovided technical assistance, financial assistance grants, and worked with state agencies to develop and implement energy plans. New Executive Order currently being developed. Public Facility Energy Efficiency and Water

Conservation Act New Mexico Statutes Annotated,

Sections 6

- 23

- 1 to

- 10 [http://www.legis.state.nm.us] This legislation allows state agencies, school districts, and universities to

enter into ' Performance contracts ' whereby private sector energy service companies provide the up

- front costs of energy saving measures (such as installation of more efficient lighting, motors, and heating systems) and guarantee energy savings to recoup their investment through the utility cost savings over the period of up to 10 years. By statute, the State Ener gy Office is responsible for review of the proposed contracts to ensure that savings estimates are accurate and reasonable prior to agencies entering into performance contracts. Green Purchasing: Energy Star Partnership New Mexico is working with the U .S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to become a partner in the Energy Star Program to promote the benefits of energy efficient homes, buildings, and products. According to E nergy Star Program if all available opportunities for energy efficiency improvements were taken advantage of more than $229 million would be saved annually and 2.5 billion pounds of CO2, 6 million pounds of NOx, and 5.7 million pounds of SO 2 would be prevented each year in

New Mexico.NM Regional Haze SIP 73 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Table G

- 5. Programs to Promote Energy Efficiency/Energy Conservation
Policy Program Title Program Description

State Government Energy Management Program Electric/Gas Utility Database Professional engineering staff with the State Energy Office maintains a utility database that tracks utility usage by state agencies. 30 utility companies provide the data across the state. The database is the sole centralized repository for

information on the State ' s $13 million building energy expenditures. Energy Performance Contracting

P ublic Schools Energy Efficiency Program Construction Plan Review Professional energy engineers within the State Energy office continue to work with school districts throughout New Mexico in an effort to improve their facilities ' energy efficiency. Under an agreement with the State Department of Education the construction plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable building energy codes. Energy Performance Contracting

New Mexico school districts utilize " performance contracts " to implement ene rgy efficiency projects in school buildings that are paid from guaranteed energy savings. Private

- sector energy service companies provide the up

- front investment and installation of the energy efficient measures

Commercial and

Industrial Sector Energy Efficiency Program Building America Program Building Energy Codes/Standards The State Energy office has participated in several code technical advisory group meetings, provided graphical comparisons between old and new code requirements, and has been working with the Construction Industries Commission (CIC) to upgrade New Mexico ' s residential and commercial building energy codes. Currently Energy Office efforts on codes are being concentrated in the areas of 1) codes adoption, and 2) training provided to the building industry designed to help insure that structures designed to code will be more energy efficient Green Zia Environmental Excellence Program The Green Zia Environmental Excellence program is a voluntary program designed to support and assist all New Mexico businesses to achieve environmental excellence through continuous improvement and effective energy management. The program encourages integration of environmental excellence into business operations and management practices through establishment of a prevention

- based environmental management system. The Governor of New Mexico recognizes and presents awards annually to organizations that successfully participate in the program.

Rebuild America/Rebuild NM Program The program provides informatio n, training and technical assistance to private commercial building owners and local government participants in the program. Over 59 participants, with over 42.4 million square feet of building space, are improving their energy efficiency. Energy audits ha ve identified potential savings of more than $750,000 per year. Industries of the Future Program The US Department of Energy Program seeks to broaden the impact of investments in advanced industrial technologies and practices for energy efficiencyNM Regional Haze SIP 74 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Policy Program Title Program Description

and was te reduction through implementation of nationally developed IOF vision and technology roadmaps. New Mexico is currently conducting inventories of energy use and pollution prevention within the mining and forest industries in the state and will be working on a sustainability plan.

Residential Sector Energy Efficiency Program Wind Powering America Program Weatherization Assistance Program The New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority through an Agreement with the

State of New Mexico administers New Mexico ' s Weatherization Assistance Program (federal and private funds), low

- income, weatherization program The primary mission of this program is to reduce the energy required for space heating and cooling for income eligible households applying for assistance through the process sub

- grantees, statewide. This program receives its primary funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program also leverages additional funds through partnership with utilities, and other federal and state housing programs. Many aspects of the Residential Training and Technical Assistance Programs are now incorporated into the training of Weatherization sub

- grantees, which assures that savings are

maximized. Federal Energy Manageme nt

program The purpose of this program is to advance energy efficiency, water conservation, the use of distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at federal sites. Currently the State Energy office is working with the

In stitute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) to develop and implement a Sustainable Energy Initiative on the IAIA campus.

(b) Summary of the anticipated contribution toward the Renewable Energy Goals for 2005 and

2015. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Appendix G of this implementation plan summarizes

the State of New Mexico ' s anticipated contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015. See also section (g) below.

(c) Incentive programs. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (8)(ii), Table G

- 6 identifies incentive programs in the State of New Mexico that reward efforts to go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air pollution related requirements.

Table G

- 6: New Mexico Incentive Program

Green Zia

Environment al Excellence Program The Green Zia Environmental Excellence program is a voluntary program designed to support and assist all New Mexico businesses to achieve environmental excellence through continuous improvement and effective energy management. The program encourages integration of environmental excellence into business operations and management practices through establishment of a prevention

- based environmental management system. The Governor of New Mexico recognizes and presents awards annually to organizations that successfully participate in the program.NM Regional Haze SIP 75 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. (d) Programs that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (8)(iii), Tables G

- 1 through G

- 5 identify programs in New Mexico that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts.

(e) Potential for renewable energy. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (8)(iv), the State of New Mexico has made an assessment of areas where there is the potential for renewable energy to supply power in a cost

- effective manner. This assessment is described in Appendix G of this implementation plan.

(f) Projections of renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and pollution prevention activities.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d) (8)(v), regional projections have been made by the WRAP of th e short and long term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary

benefits associated with " renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and pollution prevention

activities. " Projections of visibility improvements for the 16 Cla ss I areas on the Colorado Plateau are provided in Table A

- 1. These projections include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements from air polluti on prevention programs are expected at some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the resolution of the regional air quality modeling system is not currently sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal nitrogen oxide emission reductions described above for air pollution prevention

programs.

(g) Demonstration of progress in achieving the GCVTC renewable energy goal. Pursuant to 40

CFR 51.309(d) (8)(vi), Appendix G and Tables G

- 1 through G

- 5 list the programs relied upon by the State of New Mexico to demonstrate progress in achieving the renewable energy goal of the GCVTC that renewable energy comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015. Appendix G of this implementation plan provides additional information on how these programs are meeting the 10/20 goals, and a discussion of a regional modeling analysis showing progress in meeting these goals. Included in Appendix G is documentation of the potential for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned, and the renewable energy generation capacity and production in use and planned in the state.

(h) Future progress reports. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), the State of New Mexico shall submit progress reports in 2008, 2013, and 2018, describing the state ' s contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals. This description shall be consistent with section (g) above. To the extent that it is not feasible for the state to meet its contribution to these goals, the state shall identify what measures were implemented to achieve its contribution, and explain why meeting its contribution was not feasible.NM Regional Haze SIP 76 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. H. Implementation of Additional Recommendations.

(a) Evaluation of additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission recommendations.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51. 309(d)(9), the State of New Mexico has evaluated the "additional" recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, to determine if any of these recommendations can be practicably included in this implementation plan. The State of

New Mexico reviewed the Commissions ' 1996 report Recommendations for Improving Western

Vistas to identify those recomme ndations that were not incorporated into Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.

(b) Implementation of Additional Recommendations. Based on the evaluation made by the State of New Mexico, no additional recommendations were identified that the state believ es are practical or necessary for inclusion in this implementation plan at this time.

(c) Future progress reports. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the State of New Mexico shall prepare a progress report in 2008, 2013, and 2018 that contains an evaluation in accordance with

Section (a) and (b) above. Copies of this report shall be provided to EPA and made available to the general public.NM Regional Haze SIP 77 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. I. Periodic implementation plan revisions.

(a) Periodic Progress Reports for demonstrating Reasonable Progress. Pursuant to 40 CFR

51.309 (d)(10)(i), the State of New Mexico shall submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress reports for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018 for the purpose of demonstrating reasonable progress in Class I areas within New Mexico, and Class I areas outside New Mexico that are affected by emissions from New Mexico. This demonstration may be conducted by the WRAP, with assistance from New Mexico, and shall address the elements listed under 40 CFR

51.309 (d)(10)(i)(A) through (G), as summ arized below:

1. Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures;

2. Summary of emissions reductions;

3. Assessment of most/least impaired days;

4. Analysis of emission reductions by pollutant;

5. Significant changes in anthropogenic emissions;

6. Assessment of 2003 SIP suffic iency; and

7. Assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.

(b) Actions to be taken concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports. Pursuant to 40 CFR

51.309 (d)(10)(ii), the State of New Mexico shall take one of the following actions based upon

information conta ined in each periodic progress report:

1. Provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no implementation plan revision is needed if reasonable progress is being made, in accordance with section (a) above;

2. If the state finds that the implement ation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside the state, New Mexico shall notify EPA and the other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts through a regional planning process to address the emissions in question. The State of New Mexico shall identify in the next progress report the outcome of this regional planning effort, including any additional strategies that were developed to address the plan' s deficiencies;

3. If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, New Mexico shall notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused by these emissions; or

4. If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequ ate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within New Mexico, New Mexico shall develop additional strategies to address the plan deficiencies and revise the implementation plan no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.NM Regional Haze SIP 78 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. J. State planning and interstate coordination.

(a) Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(11), the State of New Mexico has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing its emission reduction strategies under 40 CFR 51.309, related to protecting the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. This participation was through the Western Regional Air Partnership. The State of New Mexico has not participated in any regional planning and/or interstate coordination outside our participation with the Western Regional Air Partnership. Should this change, Appendix J

- 1 of this implementation plan will describe any participation in regional planning and interstate coordination outside of work with the Western Regional Air Partnership.

(b) Tribal Implementation. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(12), and in accordance with the Tribal Authority Rule, no Tribes whose lands are surrounded by the State of New Mexico have

elected to deve lop a regional haze TIP at this time to assure reasonable progress in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. Should this change, Appendix J

- 2 of this implementation plan will describe the participating Tribes and the emission management strategies in more detail.

(c) Federal Implementation . Pursuant to 40 CFR 49.11(a), the Administrator under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal implementation provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect a ir quality, consistent with the provisions of 304(a) and 301(d)(4), if a Tribe does not submit a TIP meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted TIP.NM Regional Haze SIP 79 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. K. Geographic Enhancement.

[ The purposes of this section of New Mexico ' s Phase II visibility State Implementation Plan (SIP) are as follows:

 Address the authority and obligation that EPA has for reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) attribution and Best Available R etrofit Technology (BART) determination for a source or group of sources, if and when a Federal Land Manager(s) certifies RAVI for one or more mandatory federal Class I areas in New Mexico;

 Clarify why the authority and obligation held by EPA are currently not held by the New Mexico Environment Department;

 Explain how the authority and obligation held by EPA may be transferred to the New Mexico Environment Department.

The authority and obligation held by EPA for RAVI attributions and BART determinations in New Mexico derive from the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) that are in place for New Mexico for Phase I of the federal visibility protection regulations (40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.307). FIPs are now in place for New Mexico because a SIP was n ot developed by New Mexico and submitted to EPA in accordance with a May 6, 1985 deadline specified in an April
20, 1984 court

- approved settlement between EPA and Environmental Defense Fund (now called Environmental Defense). The court

- approved settlement divided Phase I of the federal visibility protection regulations into two parts (Phase I, Part I and Phase I, Part II) and outlined a schedule for EPA to put into place FIPs for New Mexico for each of these two parts.

New Mexico developed and submitted to EPA a Phase I, Part I visibility SIP in 1986 and a Phase I, Part II visibility SIP in 1992. Although submitted after the deadline, the two SIPs were intended to replace the two FIPs, and in doing so, provide to New Mexico the authority and obligation to undertake RAVI attributions and related BART determinations if and when a Federal Land Manager(s) certifies RAVI for one or more mandatory federal Class I area in New Mexico. However, EPA never approved New Mexico ' s Phase I visibility SIPs. Compoundin g the issue is the fact that neither of New Mexico ' s Phase I visibility SIPs contain language explicitly providing to New Mexico the authority and obligation for RAVI attributions and

BART determinations.

Geographic enhancement, an optional component of New Mexico ' s Phase II visibility SIP, is

meant to address the intersection between a state ' s existing reasonably attributable BART provision and regional haze BART, which may be met through an emissions trading program such as the milestone/backstop marke t trading program. RAVI is different from regional haze, in that it addresses visibility impairment in a Class I area that is reasonably attributable to a single source or a small group of sources in relatively close proximity to the Class I area. The

ge ographic enhancement approach allows a state to use the efficiencies and reduced cost provided by the market trading program in the Annex to accommodate situations where RAVI

needs to be addressed. Since New Mexico ' s Phase I visibility SIPs did not provid e to New Mexico authority or obligation to perform RAVI attributions or related BART determinations, EPA continues to hold the authority and obligation through the FIPs that are in place for NewNM Regional Haze SIP 80 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Mexico ' s Phase I visibility protection. Accordingly, this Ph ase II visibility SIP for New Mexico does not include geographic enhancement. The authority and obligation needed by New Mexico to perform RAVI attributions and related BART determinations, and the geographic enhancement that may be necessary with such au thority, may be provided to New Mexico by a SIP revision completed at a future date. ]

1. Geographic Enhancements Program

The requirements for geographic enhancement are discussed on page 35757 in the Preamble to the 1999 regional haze rule. Geographic enhancement is a voluntary approach for addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) for stationary sources, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302(c). RAVI is different from regional haze in that it addresses " hot spots " or situations wher e visibility impairment in a Class I area is reasonably attributable to a single source or small group of sources in relatively close proximity to the Class I area. The geographic enhancement approach would allow states or tribes to use the efficiencies an d reduced cost provided by the market trading program to accommodate situations where RAVI needs to be addressed. Additional information is contained in the WESTAR report, Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably A ttributable BART.

Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule. If the Federal Land Manager certifies impairment, the State of New Mexico will fulfill its obligations to determine attribution and if n ecessary determine BART for the applicable source or group of sources in accordance with New Mexico' s SIP for reasonably attributable visibility protection approved by EPA through a notice in the Federal Register on January 27,

2006. The New Mexico SIP for reasonably attributable visibility became effective on March 28,

2006.

2. Applicable WRAP Reports and Documents

See WESTAR report Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART (Appendix K ). New Mexi co commits to following the recommendations outlined in this report in making RAVI determinations.NM Regional Haze SIP 81 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. L. Reasonable Progress for Additional Class I Areas.

(a) Declaration for other Class I areas. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 (g)(1), the State of New

Mexico declares it will follow Section 309(g)(2) in developing an implementation plan for the eight Class I areas not on the Colorado Plateau in the State of New Mexico, to be submitted by December 31, 2008. These Class I areas are as follows:

Bandelier Natio nal Monument Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge

Carlsbad Caverns National Park

Gila Wilderness Area

Pecos Wilderness Area

Salt Creek Wilderness Area

Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area

White Mountain Wilderness AreaNM Regional Haze SIP 82 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. M. Demonstration T hat the SO 2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress T han

BART

A. Background

In 1996 the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Comm ission (GCVTC) submitted recommendations to EPA to improve visibility in the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau.

The GCVTC concluded that a broad

- based approach that addressed multiple pollutants and source categories was necessary to reduce regional haze. The report recommended a series of strategies to address stationary sources, mobile sources, fire, pollution prevention, fugitive dust,

and clean air corridors.

On July 1, 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published regulations to a ddress regional haze visibility impairment. The regulations required States to address Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for regional haze visibility impairment, and allowed nine western states to develop plans that were based on the GCVTC recommendations for stationary sources in lieu of BART.

In 2000, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) submitted an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations that provided more details regarding the regional SO 2 milestones and backstop trading prog ram that had been recommended in the GCVTC Report, and included a demonstration that the milestones achieved greater reasonable progress than would have been achieved by the application of BART in the region. The Annex was approved by EPA in 2003, but this approval was later vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 due to problems with the methodology that was required in the regional haze rule for demonstrating greater reasonable progress than BART. 1

On July 6, 2005 EPA revised the regional h aze rule in response to the judicial challenges to the BART requirements. On October 13, 2006 EPA published additional revisions to address

alternatives to source

- specific BART determinations.

Five western states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and W yoming) and the City of Albuquerque had submitted State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in 2003 under 40 CFR §51.309. Three of those states (New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and the City of Albuquerque plan to update their SIPs to include new milestones that are based on more recent emission inventories as well as the revised BART requirements in the regional haze rule. Arizona and Oregon are no longer participating in the program. This demonstration shows that the SO 2 milestones will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have been achieved from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the participating states in accordance with the revised regional haze rule.

1 Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA , February 18, 2005; American Corn Growers

Association v. EPA , May 24, 2002.NM Regional Haze SIP 83 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. B. RH Rule Requirements

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) states, “The milestones must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART pursuant to §51.308(e)(2).”

40 CFR 51.308(e) ...(2) A State may opt to implement or require participation in an emissions trading program or othe r alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. Such an emissions trading program or other alternative measure must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. For all such emission trading programs or other alternative measures, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses:

(i) A demonstration t hat the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative

program. This demonstration must be based on the following:

(A) A list of all BART

- eligible sources within the State.

(B) A list of all BART

- eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the alternative program. The State is not required to include ev ery BART source category or every BART

- eligible source within a BART source category in an alternative program,

but each BART

- eligible source in the State must be subject to the requirements of the alternative program, have a federally enforceable emission limitation determined by the State and approved by EPA as meeting BART in accordance with section 302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of this section, or otherwise addressed under paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(4)of this section.

(C) An analysis of the best system of co ntinuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source within the State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program. This analysis must be conducted by making a determination of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program as provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless the emissions trading program or other alternative measure has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART (such as the core requirement to have a long

- term strategy to achieve the reasonable progress goals established by States). In this case, the State may determine the best system of continuous emission control technology and associated emission reductions for similar types o f sources within a source category based on both

source

- specific and category

- wide information, as appropriate.

(D) An analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative measure.

(E) A determination u nder paragraph (e)(3) of this section or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence that the trading program or other alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of

BART at the covered sources.NM Regional Haze SIP 84 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. C. Identification of BART

- Eligible Sources and Sources Subject to BART.

Establishing BART emission limitations under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) is a three step process (70 FR 39106):

**•** States identif y sources which meet the definition of BART eligible

**•** States determine which BART eligible sources are “subject to BART”

**•** For each source subject to BART the State identifies the appropriate control technology.

1. BART -Eligible Sources.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), States submitting §309 SIPs are required to list all BART

eligible sources covered by the alternative program. BART

- eligible sources are identified as those sources that fall within one of 26 specific source categories, were built between 1962 and 1977, and have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant (40 CFR 51.301). The BART

- eligible sources identified by the three §309 States are

shown in Table M-1.

2. Subject to BART Determination. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B) and (e)(1)(ii), States are required to determine which

BART

- eligible sources are “subject to BART.” BART

- eligible sources are subject to BART if they emit any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated t o cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. §309 States have conducted individual source modeling to determine if a BART

- eligible source causes or contributes to visibility impairment.

Two of the §309 Stat es (New Mexico and Utah) utilized the technical modeling services of the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Modeling was performed according to the RMC modeling protocols ( CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis

for Class I Areas in the Western United States). For the WRAP BART exemption screening modeling, the RMC followed the EPA BART Guidelines (EPA, 2005) and the applicable CALMET/CALPUFF modeling guidance (e.g., IWAQM, 1998; FLAG, 2000; EPA, 2003c) including EPA’s March 16, 2006 memorandum: “Dispersion Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF” (Atkinson and Fox, 2006).

The basic assumptions of the WRAP BART CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols are as

follows.

**•** Three years (2001, 2002 and 2003) were modeled.

**•** Visibi lity impacts due to emissions of SO 2 , NO x and primary PM emissions were

calculated.

**•** Visibility was calculated using the original IMPROVE equation and “Annual Average

Natural Conditions”.

**•** The effective range of CALPUFF modeling was set at 300km from the so urces.

**•** According to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y (EPA BART Guidelines; EPA, 2005), a

BART

- eligible source is considered to “contribute” to visibility impairment in a Class I

area if the modeled 98 th percentile change in deciviews is equal to or greater than the

“contribution threshold.”NM Regional Haze SIP 85 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. **•** The threshold for visibility impact, for a single source, was a 0.5 deciview change or more to “contribute” to visibility impairment. This threshold is consistent with the EPA BART Guidelines (EPA 2005) that states, “As a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.” This threshold is also consistent with long-standing visibility modeling practices. States have the discretion to set a lower threshold, but the three participating states have not determined that a lower threshold is needed or justified.

The State of Wyoming performed modeling in

- house that was also based on EPA BART Guidelines and the applicable CAL MET/CALPUFF guidelines. The basic assumptions were the same as used in the RMC modeling with the following exception: meteorological data for 1995, 1996, and 2001 that were prepared for a previous modeling analysis were used for the southwest Wyoming mod eling domain. Wyoming’s BART Air Modeling Protocol , September 2006, is posted at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/BART.asp

.

Table M-1. Subject to BART Status for §309 BART- Eligible Sources

State Plant Name Unit BART Eligible Subject

to BART Modeling Entity BART Category

NM Amoco Empire Abo SRU Only Y N WRAP 15

NM SWPS Cunningham Station (Xcel Energy) One Unit Y N WRAP 01

NM Duke Energy Artesia Gas Plant SRU Only Y N WRAP 15

NM Duke Energy Linam Ran ch Gas Plant SRU Only Y N WRAP 15

NM Dynegy Saunders SRU Only Y N WRAP 15

NM Giant Refining San Juan Refinery Unit #1 FCCP ESP

Stack Y N WRAP 11

NM Giant Refining, Ciniza Refinery 4 B&W CO boiler Y N WRAP 11

NM SWPS Maddox Station (Xcel Energy) One Uni t Y N WRAP 01

NM Marathon Indian Basin Gas Plant SRU Only Y N WRAP 15

NM PNM, San Juan Units 1

- 4 Y Y WRAP 01

NM Rio Grande Station One Unit Y N WRAP 01

NM Western Gas Resources San Juan

River Gas Plant SRU Only Y N WRAP 15

UT PACIFICORP

– Hunter Power Plant Units 1

- 2 Y Y WRAP 01

UT PACIFICORP

– Huntington Power

Plant Units 1

- 2 Y Y WRAP 01

WY BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOP

– LARAMIE RIVER Units 1

- 3 Y Y WY DEQ 01

WY BLACK HILLS POWER & LIGHT =

NEIL SIMPSON 1 Unit 1 Y N WY DEQ 01

WY Dyno Nobel (formerly Co astal Chemical) 9 Units Y N WY DEQ 10

WY FMC CORP

– GREEN RIVER SODA

ASH PLANT 3 Units Y Y WY DEQ 22

WY FMC WYOMING CORP

– GRANGER SODA ASH PLANT 2 Units Y N WY DEQ 22

WY GENERAL CHEMICAL

– GREEN

RIVER SODA ASH PLANT 2 Units Y Y WY DEQ 22

WY P4 PRODUCT ION

– ROCK 1 Unit Y N WY DEQ 22NM Regional Haze SIP 86 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. State Plant Name Unit BART Eligible Subject

to BART Modeling Entity BART Category

SPRINGS COKING PLANT

WY PACIFICORP

– DAVE JOHNSTON Units 3

- 4 Y Y WY DEQ 01

WY PACIFICORP

– JIM BRIDGER Units 1

- 4 Y Y WY DEQ 01

WY PACIFICORP

– NAUGHTON Units 1

- 3 Y Y WY DEQ 01

WY PACIFICORP

– WYODAK Unit 1 (335 MW) Y Y WY DEQ 01

WY SINCLAIR OIL CORP

- SINCLAIR

REFINERY 16 units Y N WY DEQ 11

WY SINCLAIR REFINERY

– CASPER 1 unit Y N WY DEQ 11

D. Baseline Inventory for 2018

The Stationary Sources Joint Forum of the WRAP coordinated the development of a baseline inventory for 2018 that was used to update the SO 2 milestones for the 3

- state region. The inventory was estimated as described below.

1. Electric Generating Units (EGU’s) The methodology for projecting existing EGU's into the future involves the following steps: a) the electricity production (MW's) for each individual unit at a plant was determined from the Energy Information Administration [EIA] (data available for 2002 -05) b) the electricity generation design maximum cap acity (MW's) was determined for each

individual unit from EIA data c) an operating Capacity Factor was determined by dividing the year specific production by the design maximum capacity of the each individual plant unit d) all individual units were assumed to be operating at 85% capacity in 2018 (unless they were already operating above this level in 2002) e) the Growth Ratio necessary to achieve 85% capacity was determined by dividing 0.85 by the Capacity Factor for each individual plant unit (averaged over four years) f) a Current Year Emission Factor (lb SO 2 /MM

- Btu) was calculated for the latest year of available EIA data (2006), using the actual reported emissions (tons SO 2 ) for each individual plant unit divided by the actual reported annual heat genera tion (MM Btu) g) the 2018 Emission Factor was assumed to be the same as the current emission factor, except for a few sources that had a new permitted emission rate. h) the 2018 Emission Rate (tons SO 2 ) was calculated by multiplying current year

emissions by the ratio of the 2018 to current year Emission Factors i) the Adjusted 2018 Emission Rate (tons SO 2 ) was "grown" to 85% capacity by multiplying the 2018 Emission Rate by the Growth Ratio from Step 5 (emissions from units already operating at or higher t han the 85% capacity in the 2002 data year, were not grown, but accepted at face value).

2. Permitted/Future EGU’s The PRP 18b inventory is documented in the ERG Final Technical Memorandum dated October 16, 2009. The Memorandum projects the need for 61.99 billion kWh of future coal

- fired electricity generation between 2002 and 2018. Of this total, 36.37 billion kWh will be met by increased utilization of existing plants, and the addition of new plants that are already under construction. The remaining 25.62 billion kWh will be met by new coal plants in the WRAPNM Regional Haze SIP 87 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. region. The §309 States estimate that 25% of that total will be constructed in the 3

- state region, with an emission estimate of 2,600 tons SO 2 by 2018.

a) Growth estimates in 2008 SIPs.

The previous SO 2 milestones were finalized by the §309 States in the Spring of 2008 and were adopted into the SIPs for Albuquerque, Utah, and Wyoming later that year. The milestones included a new source growth estimate of 20,000 tons SO 2 for

utilities. Thi s new source growth estimate was drawn from the PRP18a inventory that relied on the 2007 EIA projections. As part of the technical demonstration for the SIPs, the §309 States identified projects that were under construction or had been permitted that woul d have consumed about 10,000 tons of the new source set- aside.

b) Changes in Underlying Assumptions. During the last two years there have been significant changes in the EIA projections for future growth of coal

- fired electricity generation. The PRP18b inventory that is documented in the ERG Final Technical Memorandum dated October 16, 2009 has scaled back the projections of growth of coal

- fired utilities. EPA has indicated that this more recent information calls into question the estimates for future growth in

coal

- fired generation in the current milestones. In addition, the State of Arizona has elected to develop a SIP under Section 308 of the Regional Haze rule, further reducing the new source set

- aside.

c) Updated New Source Growth Estimates. The §309 States have reviewed the new Memorandum and have determined that the new source growth estimate should be reduced from 20,000 tons SO 2 to 6,600 tons

SO 2 . Of this total, approximately 4,000 tons SO 2 can be attributed to new units in Wyoming that are currently operating, or have commenced construction (Wygen Units II and III, Dry Fork Station, and Two Elk Unit 1). This leaves a remaining estimate of new source growth that has not been attributed to a specific plant of 2,600

tons SO 2

.

This estimat e is consistent with the 2009 ERG Final Technical Memorandum. As outlined in Table 3 of that Memorandum (summarized below) an additional 61.99

billion kWh of coal

- fired electricity generation will be needed between 2002 and

2018.NM Regional Haze SIP 88 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Future Coal

- Fired Elec tricity Generation (billion kWh)

258.7 2002 Electricity Generation

320.69 2018 Electricity Generation

61.99 Needed Generation

Future Coal

- Fired Electricity Generation from existing sources, and those under construction (billion kWh)

16.6 Unused cap acity at existing 2002 Facilities

5.34 Capacity at post

- 2002 facilities

14.43 Estimated generation capacity of the 6 EGUs under construction

36.37 Total

25.62 New Source Growth needed in WRAP Region (billion kWh)

As shown above, 36.37 billion kWh can be met by the combination of unused capacity from existing sources plus new sources that are in operation or under construction (including the three plants in Wyoming that are described above). This leaves a remaining 25.62 billion kWh that would be met by new coal plants in the region.

The need for new source growth beyond what is already under construction is supported by estimates of future electricity demand in the region. For example, the Integrated Resource Plan submitted by PacifiCorp to the Utah Public Service Commission in May 2009 estimates a capacity deficit of 3,520 MW by 2018. The IRP meets that deficit through a combination of new natural gas

- fired plants, renewable resources, and demand side management and does not include plans for

ne w coal

- fired generation. This is a change from the 2006 IRP (submitted in 2007), that included plans for new coal generation in Utah (340 MW) and Wyoming (527 MW) by 2018. However, the 2008 IRP also increased the estimated front office transactions (powe r purchased on the open market), from 249 MW in the 2006 IRP to 800 MW in the 2008 IRP for the year 2018. Because future demand exceeds existing capacity as shown in Table 3 of the ERG Final Technical Memorandum, it is reasonable to assume that new plants (including potential merchant plants built by other entities) will be needed to meet this demand for purchased power in 2018.

Table 4 in the Final Technical Memorandum identifies 8,880 MW that are being permitted in the region. The Memorandum states, “However, if 39% of the new coal

fired EGU plant capacity currently in the permitting process is brought on

- line, then

the 2008 coal

- fired EIA projection for 2018 will be met.” (see page 7). Therefore, the

estimate of future coal

- fired EGUs in the 12

- stat e region is 3,463 MW. Approximately 25% of the MWs listed in Table 4 as “being permitted” are located in Utah and Wyoming, therefore it is reasonable to estimate that 900 MWs (conservative emission estimate of 2,600 tons SO 2 ) of future coal

- fired EGUs be attributed to the §309 States.NM Regional Haze SIP 89 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 3. Non- EGU's The Methodology for projecting emissions from "Other Industrial Sources" is described in E.H. Pechan's October 2006 Report, 2018 SO 2 Emissions Evaluation for Non

- Utility Sources - Final

. The report is posted online at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/documents/eictts/projections.html

.

a) The SO 2 emissions for 19 Natural Gas Processing Plants were updated by Environ in

A pril 2007, with additional research into future O&G Operations. The September 2007 Final report with results of that update is posted at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/d ocuments/eictts/oilgas.html

. b) The 2005 SO 2 Milestone Report had some sources which were not picked up in the Pechan report. In those cases, the 2005 emissions were used as a placeholder for the

2018 emission values. c) The projections do not specific ally break out emissions from existing sources vs. new sources. For purposes of establishing a new source set

- aside, 2006 emissions were assumed to be the baseline emissions for existing sources, and the projected increase in emissions between 2006 and 2018 is attributed to new source growth.

There have been steady SO 2 emission reductions from the non

- utility sector since 1990. Several major sources were shut down, including two copper smelters (BHP San Manuel and Phelps Dodge Chino: 69,491 tons SO 2 in 1990) and a steel mill (Geneva Steel: 8,473 tons SO 2 in 1990). Kennecott Utah Copper reduced SO 2 emissions by 25,000 tons SO 2 during the mid

1990s. During this same time period, oil and gas production increased substantially in all three states requiring upgrades to processing plants and other facilities to address potential air quality problems. These upgrades have largely been completed, and it is anticipated that future emissions will reflect growing demand for natural gas in the Western US. As can be seen in Figure 1, emissions have leveled off in recent years and are likely to increase as the US emerges from a major recession in coming years. The 2006 EH Pechan report describes in detail the methodology that was used to project future emissions for each source category.NM Regional Haze SIP 90 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. Nonutility SO 2 Emission Trends 2000-2008

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Nonutility

Figure 1 . Non

- utility Emission Trends

Table M- 2 summarizes the projected 2018 Baseline SO 2 emissions for the 3- State region.

Table M-2. 2018 Baseline Projected 2018 SO 2 Emissions

Baseline

Utili ty 128,409

Non

- Utility 49,961 New Source Growth Utility 6,600

New Source Growth Non

- Utility 5,686

Total 2018 Baseline 190,656

E. Estimated Emission Reductions Due to BART

The SO 2 milestones and backstop trading program were designed pri marily to achieve reasonable progress towards meeting the long

- term visibility goal. As outlined in the regional haze rule, in cases where the an alternative program has been designed to meet requirements other than BART, States are not required to make BART determinations under 40 CFR 51.308(e) and mayNM Regional Haze SIP 91 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. use simplifying assumptions in establishing a BART benchmark based on an analyisis of what BART is likely to be for similar types of sources within a source category. Emission estimates for 2018, assuming the application of BART for SO 2 on all subject

- to

- BART sources in the three states, were prepared and are compiled in a spreadsheet named “8

- 11

- 10_milestone.xls” (see technical support documentation). The 2018 estimates for these sources are estimates of actual emissions and therefore reflect greater emission reductions than would be enforceable in a case

by- case BART permit. The methodology that was used to estimate these emission reductions is

described below.

1. Utilities - Presumptive BART.

All ut ilities that were determined to be subject to BART were assumed to be operating at the presumptive emission rate established in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y (0.15 lb/MMBtu). Actual emissions at this presumptive emission rate were estimated for 2018.

2. Ot her sources.

The SO 2 milestones were primarily designed to achieve reasonable progress for all sources of

SO 2 in the 3

- state region and therefore the regional haze rule allows States to use simplifying assumptions in establishing the BART benchmark. EPA has not established presumptive emission rates for nonutilities, therefore another approach was needed to estimate emission reductions from four boilers located at 2 trona facilities in SW Wyoming. . Recent pollution control projects achieved a 63% reduc tion in SO 2 from two of the boilers, and represent reasonably stringent controls, considering the age and purpose of the facility. Therefore, the emission rate achieved by these projects is used as the BART benchmark for the four boilers.

I. General Ch emical Soda Ash Partners, Green River Plant

C Boiler

Constructed in 1/74 Fuel Analysis for coal: 262,800 tons/year; 534 x 10e6 BTU/hr site rated capacity

Emission limit for SO 2 1.2 lb/MMBtu; 640.8 lb/hr; 2806.7 TPY

D Boiler

Constructed in 1/75

Fuel Anal ysis for coal: 388,000 tons/year; 880 x 10e6BTU/hr site rated capacity

Emission limit for SO 2 1.2 lb/MMBtu; 1056.0 lb/hr; 4625.3 TPY

II. FMC Wyoming Corporation Westvaco Facility

NS

- 1A

Constructed in 1975 Modified 8/2007 (New chevron mist eliminators installed in venturi scrubber) Fuel Analysis coal: 380,888 tons/year; 887 x 10e6 BTU/hr site rated capacity

Emission limit for SO 2 0.54 lb/MMBtu;NM Regional Haze SIP 92 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. NS

- 1B

Constructed in 1975 Modified 7/2008 (New chevron mist eliminators installed in venturi scrubber) Fuel Analysis coal: 380,888 tons/year; 887 x 10e6 BTU/hr site rated capacity

Emission limit for SO 2 0.54 lb/MMBtu

All four boilers were originally constructed in SW Wyoming for purposes of processing trona in the mid 1970’s. As process units, these four boilers are subject to greater load swings than would be experienced at electric generating units which typically come up to full operating levels and stay there. All four boilers were at one time operating under emission limits of 1.2 lb/MMBtu.

All four boile rs are roughly the same size with site rated capacities between 880 MMBtu/hr and 887 MMBtu/hr except for the oldest boiler, C Boiler at General Chemical at Green River rated at 534 MMBtu/hr. All four boilers burn primarily coal with oil and gas used as st art up fuels. All four units have been participating in the SO 2 Backstop Trading Program, reporting inventories annually as required by Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations.

Two of the four units, NS1A and NS1B operated by FMC, sought early SO 2 reductions in 2007 and 2008 respectively as participants in the 309 program. These two units reduced SO 2 emissions by 55 percent or 5126 tons collectively from both units. New chevron mist eliminators were installed on venturi scrubbers to accomplish t his reduction. Since that time, FMC has reviewed additional reductions resulting in a total reduction from the 2018 baseline of

5827 tons or an additional 701 tons. Total reduction from the 1.2 lb/MMBtu emission rate is a 63 percent removal rate. The State of Wyoming has reviewed these additional reductions and has determined that they represent reasonably stringent controls, considering the age and purpose of the facility.

In a similar fashion, the State has reviewed potential SO 2 reductions at the Gene ral Chemical facility at Green River and had concluded that a 63 percent removal rate is also appropriate for the two boilers located at that facility. As was mentioned above, these facilities are similar in age, and purpose. General Chemical boilers C a nd D are currently permitted at 7,432 tons of

SO 2 operating at 1.2 lb/MMBtu. The State would expect that reasonably stringent controls at this facility would result in a similar 63 percent reduction from the same starting point of 1.2 lb/MMBtu. Reviewing reductions from the 2018 milestone baseline, the General Chemical boilers would be looking at reducing emissions by 2,669 tons.

While the 2018 milestone baseline level is not the same for the two companies, the state has determined that equitable treat ment of like facilities would require similar reductions from the two companies prior to the 309 program. Both companies would be reducing emissions from a starting point of 1.2 lb/MMBtu down to 0.45 lb/MMBtu. In the case of FMC, who made early

reduction s in the program, an additional 701 ton reduction is expected to be achieved. In the case of General Chemical, 2,669 tons will be achieved. The total reduction from both facilities has been estimated at 3,370 tons. The State has determined that these are reasonably stringent controls and the resulting emissions would serve as an adequate BART benchmark.NM Regional Haze SIP 93 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 3. Summary. The estimated emission reductions due to the application of BART in the §309 States are

summarized in Table M-3.

Table M-3. Emission Red uction due to BART

2018 baseline SO 2 2018 SO 2 with BART Emission Reduction

due to BART

Utilities 128,409 82,972 45,437

Non

- Utilities 49,961 46,661 3,370

Total 48,807

F. 2018 BART Benchmark

2018 Ba seline 190,656 Estimated BART Reductions -48,807

Total 141,849

G. Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART

The Regional SO 2 milestone of 141,849 equals the BART benchmark, but provides greater reasonable progress than BAR T for the reasons outlined below.

1. Early Reductions. The GCVTC recommended that the market trading program "contain specific provisions to encourage and reward early emission reductions, including reductions achieved before 2000." 2

The GCVTC committed to achieve a 13% reduction in SO 2 emissions from stationary sources by the year 2000. The GCVTC also recognized that there was a good possibility that actual emission reductions would be greater than this 13% goal. A general plan was derived to give some early reductions credit to the region and some to the environment. The emission reductions that were greater than 13% were to be split, with 1⁄2 going to the environment (through the establishment of milestones) and the other 1⁄2 providing headroom. 3

Sulfu r dioxide emissions decreased by 25% in the 9

- state GCVTC region between 1990 and 2000, and SO 2 emissions in the three §309 states 33% in that same time period.

The regional milestones have been in effect since 2003 when the original five participating states submitted regional haze SIPs, as required by section 309 of the regional haze rule. The 2003 SIP was designed to provide flexibility so that sources could find the most cost

- effective way to

reduce SO 2 emissions, including over

- controlling some plants while opting for lower cost

2 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas at 33 (June 1996).

3 Id. at 34.NM Regional Haze SIP 94 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. controls at other plants. The 2003 SIP was also designed to encourage early reductions by providing an extra allocation for sources that made reductions prior to the program trigger year. The 2003 SIP influenced the long term planning for sources in the region, and utilities began upgrading plants based on the provisions of the SIP years earlier than would have been required

under a case -by-case BART determination in a §308 SIP.

Emissions in the 3- state region decreased an additional 31% between 2000 and 2008. 4
Figure 2 shows the emission reductions from 1990 baseline emissions in the §309 states that will have been achieved by 2018. This total 60% reduction from 1990 emissions is well on the way to the GCVTC goal of reducing SO 2 emissions by 50% - 70% by the year 2040.

Figure 3 shows the sulfate contribution to visibility at the long

- term IMPROVE sites located on the Colorado Plateau. As can be seen from these graphs, there has been a steady decrease in the visibility impact due to sulfates. The trend is especially apparent on the 20% best days that are not affected by the variability of fire emissions in the region.

4 WRAP 2008 Regional Emissions and Milestone Report , March 31, 2010.NM Regional Haze SIP 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev.; 05/02/11 Rev. 95 Figure 2 . Emission Trends

§309 SO 2 Backstop Cap and Trade Program -
Emissions, Modeling EI, and Milestone Program Data
(no tribal sources)

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000Tons per year

NM 140,177 79,011 37,918 31,068 31,012

UT 84,983 37,483 42,183 44,175 35,429

WY 133,204 122,373 120,991 113,465 96,809

3-State Total 358,364 238,867 201,092 188,708 200,722 155,940 163,250 141,849 1990 2000 2002 (Plan02d) 2006 Milestone Report 2008 Milestone 2013 Milestone 2018 (PRP18b) 2018 MilestoneNM Regional Haze SIP 96 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. Figure 3 . Sulfate Con tribution to Light Extinction at Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau. 5

Series

– Aggregation: Best 20%, Worst 20%, Best 20% 2000

- 2004 Baseline, Worst 20% 2000

- 2004 Baseline,

Metadata

– Program: IRHR2, Poc: 1, Parameter: ammSO4_bext, Method: RHR Dataset

.

5 Only those Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau with at least 15 years of data are included in this figure.NM Regional Haze SIP 97 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev.NM Regional Haze SIP 98 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev.NM Regional Haze SIP 99 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. 2. Additional Sources Included. The backstop trading program includes all stationary sources with emissions greater than 100 tons/year of SO 2 . The §309 States designed this program as part of a n overall strategy to address all sources of visibility impairing pollutants, rather than focusing on a subset of stationary

sources.

2006

Number of Sources Emissions Percentage Subject to BART 10 121,542 62% Other Stationary Sources 63 73,038 38%

The inclusion of all major SO 2 sources in the program is necessary to create a viable trading program, and also serves a broader purpose to ensure that growth in emissions from sources that are not subject to BART does not undermine the pro gress that has been achieved. BART applied

on a case -by- case basis would not affect these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future operations under their existing permit conditions. Because the milestones will cap these

sources at actual emissions (which are less than current allowable emissions), the overall effect of their inclusion is to provide greater reasonable progress than would have been achieved if only sources that are subject to BART were included in the program.

3. Cap on New Source Growth. When Congress established the visibility program in 1977 it declared as a national goal "the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing" anthropogenic visibility impairment

in mand atory class I federal areas. 6 BART is an emission limitation established at a specific source and is designed as a remedy to impairment at specific mandatory Class I areas. By contrast, the SO 2 milestones developed by the §309 States serve the dual purpose of remedying existing impairment and preventing future impairment by requiring regional SO 2 emissions reductions and capping emissions for stationary sources. Future impairment is prevented by capping emissions growth from sources not eligible under th e BART requirements, from sources subject to BART that are expected to significantly increase utilization, and from entirely new sources in the region.

The milestones include estimates for growth, but then lock these estimates in as an enforceable

emissio n cap. The milestone approach is consistent with the statutory goal of preventing any future visibility impairment that results from man

- made air pollution. The entire region is experiencing rapid growth which could erode the progress that has been achieved in the last two decades towards improving visibility. BART applied on a case -by- case basis would have no impact on future growth, and in the long run would not achieve the regional emission reductions that are guaranteed by the program.

4. Commissi on Strategies are a Total Package. The GCVTC recommendations were developed as a comprehensive strategy includes strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed fire, pollution prevention, and Clea n Air Corridors. The stationary source strategies need to be viewed as part of this overall package. Visibility

6 CAA § 169A(a)(1).NM Regional Haze SIP 100 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. impairment in the west is caused by multiple sources and pollutants, and a narrow focus on stationary sources may not achieve the same results as a broad

- based program. When viewed as part of the entire SIP, the milestones achieve much greater reasonable progress than BART.

5. Mass Based Cap has Inherent Advantages over BART

The baseline emission projections and assumed reductions due to the assumption of BART

- level emission rates on all sources subject to BART are all based on actual emissions, using 2006 as the baseline. The use of actual emissions has an effect in several ways. If the BART pr ocess was applied on a case

- by

- case basis to individual sources, emission limitations would typically be established as an emission rate (lbs/hr or lbs/MMBtu) that would account for variations in the sulfur content of fuel and alternative operating scenari os. The difference between actual emissions and allowable emissions is particularly large when a source is permitted to burn two different fuel types, such as oil and natural gas, or when the source is part of a cyclical industry where production varies from year to year due to the changing demand for their product. A

mass

- based cap that is based on actual emissions is more stringent because it does not allow a source to consistently use this difference between current actual and allowable emissions.

Ano ther difference is that mass

- based limits will include excess emissions that may occur due to malfunctions or during the start

- up or shut

- down of emission units. A good example of this difference is the requirement in the acid rain program that emissions must be assumed to be the highest value recorded from the past year during the time period that continuous emission monitors are not functioning on a stack. These higher emissions are calculated as part of the overall tons/year, and must be accounted for under the mass-based cap for the acid rain program.

6. Tribal Setaside The GCVTC recommended a market based program to address stationary source emissions of

SO 2 . The GCVTC recommended that the market based program include allocations to tribes that

are of practical benefit. 7 This recognized the concern that "tribes, by and large, have not contributed to the visibility problem in the region" and that "[t]ribal economies are much less developed than those of states, and tribes must have the opportunity to progress to reach some degree of parity with states in this regard." 8 The tribes specifically recommended that if an emission trading strategy is adopted to achieve SO 2 reductions from stationary sources that

allocations be based on considerations of equity rather than historical emissions:

Credits should not be based on historical emissions, but should be based on equitable factors, including the need to preserve opportunities for economic development on tribal lands. In general, these lands are currently lacking in economic bases and have not contributed to the visibility problems. 9

7 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas (June 1996)

. at 35.

8 Id. at 66

- 67

.

9 Id. at 71.NM Regional Haze SIP 101 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. Accordingly, the backstop trading program contains a 2,500 allocation to tribes in the GCVTC region. Case -by- case BART permits would not provide this practical bene fit to tribes that was an integral part of the GCVTC recommendations.

7. Other Class I Areas Also Show Improvement in Visibility In addition to demonstrating successful SO 2 emission reductions, §309 states have also relied on visibility modeling conducte d by the WRAP to demonstrate improvement at Class I areas. The complete modeling demonstration showing deciview values was included as part of the visibility improvement section in each of the state §309 SIPs, but the SO 2 portion of the demonstration has

been included below as Table M- 4 to underscore the improvements associated with 309 SO 2 reductions and further demonstrate why the 309 program is better than BART. 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2)(i) allows states to build upon the strategies implemented in a 309 program and take full credit for visibility improvement achieved through these strategies when addressing additional Class I areas. This table demonstrates achievements in visibility in these additional Class I areas (off the Colorado Plateau) in and surround ing the three states participating in the 309 program. For the most part, the table shows projected visibility improvement for 2018 with respect to SO 2 on the worst days and no degradation on the best days.NM Regional Haze SIP 102 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. Table M- 4. Visibility - Sulfate Extinction On ly

Class I Area Monitor
(Class I Areas Represented) 20% Worst Visibility Days (Monthly Average, Mm -1 ) 20% Best Visibility Days (Monthly Average, Mm -1 )

2018 1

Base Case (Base 18b) 2018 2
Preliminary

Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18a) 2018 1

Base Case (Base 18b) 2018 2
Preliminary

Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18a) Bridger, WY
(Bridger WA and Fitzpatrick WA) 5.2 4.3 1.6 1.3

North Absaroka, WY

(North Absaroka WA and Washakie WA) 4.8 4.5 1.1 1.1

Yellowstone, WY

(Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton WA) 4 .3 3.9 1.6 1.4

Badlands, SD 17.8 16.0 3.5 3.1
Wind Cave, SD 13.0 12.1 2.7 2.5
Great Sand Dunes NM, CO 5.3 4.9 2.0 1.8
Mount Zirkel, CO

(Mt. Zirkel WA and Rawah WA) 4.6 4.1 1.4 1.3

Rocky Mountain, CO 6.8 6.2 1.3 1.1
Gates of the Mountains, MT 5.3 5.1 1.0 1.0
UL Bend, MT 9.7 9.6 1.8 1.7
Craters of the Moon, ID 5.8 5.5 1.5 1.5
Sawtooth, ID 3.0 2.8 1.2 1.1
Bandelier NM, NM 6.4 5.9 2.4 2.2 Bosque del Apache NWRW, NM 7.0 6.6 2.7 2.5
Gila W, NM 6.2 6.0 1.8 1.7
Salt Creek NWRW, NM 14.4 14.0 3.3 3.1

Wh eeler Peak, NM

(Pecos W and Wheeler Peak W) 4.7 4.4 1.1 1.0

White Mountain W, NM 8.9 8.7 1.8 1.7
Great Basin NP, NV 4.1 4.1 1.2 1.2 Jarbidge W, NV 3.8 3.4 1.3 1.2
Chiricahua, AZ

(Chiricahua NM, Chiricahua W, Galiuro W) 7.4 7.4 2.2 2.1

Ike’s Backbone, AZ
(Mazatzal W, Pine Mountain W) 6.1 5.9 2.2 2.1

Queen Valley, AZ 7.5 7.5 3.0 3.0 Saguaro NM, AZ 7.1 6.8 2.6 2.5 Saguaro West, AZ 7.3 7.1 3.2 3.1
Sierra Ancha, AZ 6.0 5.8 2.2 2.1 Superstition, AZ 6.7 6.5 2.7 2.6 Guadalupe Mountains NP, TX

(Carlsbad Caverns NP, NM and Guadalupe Mountains NP, TX) 13.7 13.6 3.3 3.2

1 Represents 2018 Base Case growth plus all established controls as of Dec. 2004. No BART or SO 2 Milestone assumptions were included.

2 Represents 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress grow th estimates and established SO 2 limits.NM Regional Haze SIP 103 12/31/03; 12/20/10 Rev. ; 05/02/11 Rev. H. Comparison of Trading vs Command and Control BART Requirements

During the development of the Annex, the WRAP conducted modeling to determine whether the distribution of emissions under the backstop trading program would differ substantially from the distribution of emissions assuming installation of BART or would disproportionately impact any Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The results of this modeling are

included in Tables 2 an d 3 of Attachment C to the Annex 10

. Attachment C, Section G concludes, “The results of this analysis showed that the maximum difference between the two scenarios at any of the Class I areas was only 0.1 deciviews. 11 ”

10 Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibiltiy Transport Commission (September 2000) at C

- 15 and 16.

11 Id . at C

- 21.

# Recommendations for Making

Attribution Determinations

in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART

Prepared by: The WESTAR Council

Prepared for: The Air Managers Commit tee, Western Regional Air Partnership

May 2003

# Recommendations for Making

Attribution Determinations

in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART

Prepared by:

The WESTAR Council RA BART Phase II Working Group: Alice Edwards, Alaska Departm ent of Environmental Conservation; Mike Sundbl om, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Deb Wolfe, Montana Department of Environmental Quality; Dana Mount, North Dakota Department of Health; Dave DuBois, New Mexico Environment Department; Colleen Delaney, Utah Department of Environment Qua lity; Alan Newman, Washington Department of

Ecology; Lisa Reiner, Quinalt Indian Nation; Bruce Polkowsky and Kr isti Gebhart, National Park Service; and Kristin Ga ston and Bob Lebens, WESTAR.

Prepared for:

The Air Managers Committee of the Western Regional Air Partnership

in fulfillment of the Western Gove rn ors’ Association contract #30203-13

May 2003Acknowledgements

The recommendations regarding the attribut ion process, the applicable technical approaches and the examples in this report are the product of the RA BART Phase II Working Group. The WESTAR Council ackn owledges the generous support of all the W orking Group members. Alice Edwards, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; Mike Sundblom, Arizona Department of Environmental Qual ity; Deb Wolfe, Mont ana Department of Environmental Quality; Dana Mount, North Dakot a Department of Health; Dave DuBois, New Mexico Environment Department; Colleen Delane y, Utah Department of Environment Quality; Lisa Reiner, Quinalt Indian Nation; Bruce Pol kowsky and Kristi Gebhart, National Park Service;

and Kristin Gaston and Bob Lebens, WESTAR.

Authors of the Attribution Techniques (S ection VI) are Mike S undblom (Monitoring); Kristi Gebhart (Receptor Modeling); and Dave Du Bois (Source Modeling), with assistance from Ajith Kaduwela, California Air Resources Board. Bruce Polkowsky and Colleen Delaney

drafted the certification s ection and provided liaison betw een the Western Regional Air Partnership Market Trading Forum and th e Working Group. Alan Newman, Washington Department of Ecology drafted the portion of th e report outlining the example process to which Dana Mount also contributed. Kristin Gaston drafted the regulatory c ontext section and along with Bob Lebens, edited the report.

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends a genera l procedure and applicable te chnical approaches th at may be used by states and tribes to assess reasonabl e attribution in response to a Federal land manager (FLM) certification of visibi lity impairment in a Cl ass I area (Certification).

WESTAR formed the Reasonably Attributab le B est Available Retrofit Technology (RA BART) Phase II Working Group with Federal land management agency staff and members of state and tribal air quality agencies knowledg eable about RA BART and associated monitoring and modeling techniques. To provide the nece ssary framework, the report provides background information about both the certification process and the attribution de termination process. However, the recommendations focus on the gene ral principles of the attribution assessment process and the technical criter ia used in the assessment.

The recommendations are summarized below:

General Principles :

The attribution assessment should be:

 A collabor ative process that relies on existing data with minimal additional analyses.

 Technically and legally defensible.

 Accom plished at a reasonable cost a nd within a reasonable time frame.

 No m ore complex than necessary.

 Perform ed by state or tribal agency staff.

 Adequate to determ ine whether or not visibi lity impairment is attributable to an existing stationary source potentially subject to BART.

Technical Criteria :

 Em issions from BART-eligible sources must “cause or contribute to” visibility impairment. Visibility-impairing pollutant s of concern must be identified.

 Factors to consider in assessing im pa irment include: duration, frequency, geographic extent, magnitude, and time of occurrence.

 Identify distance from source to Class I area to determine appropriate tools for characterization of the impairment.

 Quantitative results are p referable, although qualitative results such as photographs may be adequate.

 Use as m any different indicators of impairm ent as practicable rather than relying on a single indicator.



###  Consider level of uncertainty in the assessment.

 Use EPA guideline models whenever practicable.

### Table of Contents

I. Backgr ound....................................................................................................... 1

A. Introduction and Purpose

B. Regulatory Context



### II. Federal Land Manager Cer tification of Impairment ........................................ 7

III. The Attribution Determ ination Process.............................................11

IV. General Principle s and Crite ria ...................................................................... 17

A. General Principl e s of the Attribution Process

B. Technical Criteria

C. Examples of the Attribution Process



### V. Techni ques...................................................................................................... 31

A. Monitoring

B. Source Modeling

C. Observational Modeling



### VI. Appendix

RA BART Rule (40 CFR 51.300-306)

### I. BACKGROUND

A. Introduction and Purpose

Reasonably Attributable Best Available Retr ofit Technology (RA BART ) is the portion of EPA’s visibility rule published in 1980 and codified in 40 CFR 51.302–51.306 that deals with visibility impacts from one source or a small gr oups of sources. RA BART refers to reasonably attributable visibility impairment and best av ailable retrofit t echnology for eligible sources and emission limits, and emissions controls as define d by the statute and the rules. Some confusion exists regarding the application of RA BART, the process of a ssessing sources of visibility impairment, and the technical t ools available for an RA BART attribution determination. RA BART is a statutory requirement, although cer tain of the requirements may no longer be applicable when a source complies with BART or installs BART-like controls or after a state implements a trading program under 51.308(e)(2) or any trading program under 51.309, and if no remaining visibility impacts continue from one source or a small group of sources.

This report, therefore, addresses the RA BART attribution process and builds upon case studies WESTAR developed in 2001 to examin e and document how Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) had been addressed in previous assessments. 1

The Federal land managers (FLMs) advocate ma intaining RA BART as a tool because RA BART is effective when new monitoring indicat es that a previously un-monitored area has visibility problems differing from the regional visi bility impairment conditions at other areas. In addition, RA BART is effective when BART-eligible sources in the vicinity of the protected area are causing or contributing to identified visibility impairment. 2

First, this report recommends attribution pr ocess principles and a ssessment techniques a state or tribe may consider in an attribution assessment to identify if, and to what degree, an existing source or small group of sources causes or contributes to visibility impairment. The report focuses on RAVI and does not specifically address impairment due to regional haze. Although this report includes references to regional haze, such references serve only to place the attribution process in the larger context of the broad regulatory framework that addresses visibility impairment, including the regional haze regulations.

Second, this report includes no recommendations with regard to establishing a threshold level at which reasonably attributable impairme nt exists. Instead, the working group outlined a recommended general process and recommended t echnical procedures that may be used as guidelines if an attribution assessment is nece ssary. Due to the circumstances unique to each attribution assessment and the requirement that the assessment be conducted on a case-by-case basis, recommending one specific analysis for ever y situation was not possible. A state or tribe should select from the techniques summarized in Section IV. Secti on IV(C) includes five examples of the attribution assessm ent process, each providing a ra nge of techniques to be used

1 WESTAR Council, RA BART and RA BART-like Case Studies , June 2001.

2 This document specifically relates to RA BART and does not address broader issues relating to long-term visibility strategies. FLMs generally do not intend to issue Certificat ions citing specific sources except for situations involving

BART sources.

1based on available data. The examples also reco mmend more refined analys es that may require

additional data.

Third, this report includes specific informati on about the current poli cy of FLM agencies regarding certifications of impairment (Certif ication), but makes no recommendations regarding the certification process. This report make s no recommendations regarding state process following an attribution determin ation nor examines options for performing the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) analys is or the incorporation of BART requirements into State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

Tribal Implementation

The recommendations in this document are in tended to help stat es assess reasonable attribution following Certification by an FLM. S ubject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7601(d) and the Tribal Authority Rule, 40 CFR 49.1– 49.11, a tribe may accept responsibility for making reasonably attributable determinations in response to a Certification by an FLM when a BART-eligible source identified by the FLM in the Certification is on the tribe’s land. The regional haze rule also ex plicitly recognizes the authority of tribes to implement the provisions of that rule on tribal lands. T hose provisions create the following framework:

1. Absent special circumstances, reservation lands are not subject to state jurisdiction.

2. Federally recognized tribes may apply for a nd receive delegation of federal authority to implement CAA programs (including visibility regulation), or “rea sonably severable” elements of such programs. The mechan ism for this delegation is a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). A reasonably severable element is one that is not integrally related to program elements that are not included in the plan submittal, and is consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

3. Where a tribe does not seek delegation th rough a TIP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as necessary and appropriate , will promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within a reasonable timeframe to protect air quality on tribal lands.

Accordingly, these recommendations also ma y assist a federally recognized tribe that chooses to adopt a TIP to implement the RA BART provisions. In some cases, a tribe may be

able to utilize the recommendations in much the same way as states. In many other cases, however, the recommendations may be modified to meet the unique situati on of the tribe and the nature of its air program, incl uding its manner of defining “rea sonably severable elements” and its method of dividing responsibilities between th e tribe and EPA. Because of these differences,

the recommendations that follow do not refer to tribes every time states are referenced.



### B. Regulatory Context

The national goal for visibility is set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA) at 42 USC 7491: “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairme nt results from manmad e air pollution.” The requirements apply to 156 designated Class I areas.

2As stated previously, Congress required that states provide a remedy for visibility impairment that was “reasonably attributable” to one source or a small group of sources. (42 USC 7491). Congress directed EPA to ensure that all SIPs contained measures necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting th e national goal, including requirements for identifying major sources of emissions causing or contributing to visibility impairment, and requirements for the application of BART on such sources. EPA promulgated rules pursuant to Congress’s directive to provide guidelines to the st ates on appropriate te chniques and methods for implementing the SIP requirements. (40 CFR 51.302( c)). (Note: when this report refers to a “source” within the meaning of this regulati on, the phrase “or a small group of sources” is implied.)

The requirement to install Best Available Retr ofit Technology controls on existing sources is a key element of the visibili ty protection provisions in the CAA demonstrating the need to focus on pollution emitted from a specific set of ex isting sources. Sources are potentially subject to BART controls if they meet the following criteria:

1. A major stationary source from 1 of 26 source categories identified in the CAA and regulations (see Appendix A); 2. Potential to Emit (PTE) 250 tons per year of any air pollutant; and, 3. Not in operation prior to August 7, 1962 and “in existence” on August 7, 1977.

In the 1980 visibility rule, EPA used the term “existing stati onary facility” to define a facility that met the above criteria. However, to avoid any confusion about whether that term encompassed a larger group of sources, EPA now uses the term “BART-eligible source.” The term “BART-eligible source” is used throughout th is report for similar reasons, but the reader

should be aware that some sections of the visibi lity rule still refer to “existing stationary facilities.” For purposes of th e attribution discussion in th is paper, these terms are interchangeable.

In 1999, EPA added two new sections to the visi bility rule to address regional haze (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309). Pollutants causing regional haze ma y be transported hundreds of miles, and therefore, regional haze must be addressed as a broader regional issue. The 1980 vi sibility rule focused on direct visibility impacts of an indi vidual source or small group of sources. The 1999 revisions are commonly referred to as the regiona l haze rule, although the 1999 rule incorporates the earlier requirements for BART as we ll as the new regional haze provisions.

To remedy RAVI, the regulations outline a process to identify and control emissions from sources that are directly impac ting visibility at specific Clas s I areas (40 CFR 51.302). Three primary steps in this process are:

1. The Federal land manager certifies impairment; 2. The state identifies existing sources that cause or contribut e to the visibility impairment; and

33. The state performs a BART analysis to de termine what controls , if any, are required on any existing source that meets the BART criteria and has been identified as contributing to the impairment.

Attribution Process

The language of 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(i) provides the basic principle upon which the state will rely during the attribution process. That secti on states that the attribution must indicate each [BART-eligible source] “ which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility .” Whether or not the impairment is “reasonably attributable” is determined by “visual observation or other t echnique the state deems appropriate.” (40 CFR 51.301(s)). Because the state is responsible for identifying sources, this report provides

recommendations for the state to consider wh en it undertakes an attribution determination.

Once visibility impairment is identified, RAVI is addressed on a case-by-case basis. Under the 1980 regulation, a state evaluates BART-eligib le sources only after an FLM certifies the existence of visibility impairment. However, in the context of the current regional haze rule, states must also address BART requi rements for regional haze (RH BART). 3 Several options exist for addressing RH BART. For example, ra ther than require a source-specific BART emission limit, a state may choose to develop a tr ading program, either regionally or within its own jurisdiction, that achieves greater reasonable progress th an case-by-case RH BART.

If a state develops a trading program, the time period to achieve the emissions reductions may be extended. As a result, visibility conditions at a specific Class I area initially may remain

static or even deteriorate dur ing the early implementation period. During this time, FLMs have indicated that the RAVI process may be utili zed to provide steady a nd continuing improvement in visibility. Within the context of the regi onal haze rule, this may be an example of a “geographic enhancement.” As noted above, the recommendations in this report apply only to case-by-case applications of BART and are not intended to apply to the broader regional haze rule such as a market-based trading progr am implemented as part of the 1999 rule.

A state may find it difficult to determine a source/receptor link for RAVI difficult when there are other sources located in the area, includ ing international sources. However, the regional haze rule provisions do not alter the requireme nt to undertake the attribution assessment.

State determines what contro ls, if any, are required

After the attribution determination, the state is required to perform a BART analysis to determine what types of controls, if any, should be placed on the source(s) found to be contributing to the impairment. The following factors affect the BART determination:

1. Available technology; 2. Costs of compliance; 3. Energy and non air quality envir onmental impacts of compliance;

3 The RH BART provision was remanded to EPA by the U. S. Court of Appeals as a result of the ruling in American

Corn Growers Association v. EPA , No. 9901348 (DC Cir. May 24, 2002)

44. Remaining useful life of the source; and, 5. Degree of improvement that can be anticipated to result from the use of the controls.

As noted above, this report does not provide guidance regarding state process following an attribution determination nor does it examine op tions for implementing the BART requirement.

56

### II. FEDERAL LAND MANAGER CERT IFICATION OF IMPAIRMENT

The Federal land managers monitor visibili ty through a nationwid e monitoring network, known as Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). The IMPROVE network has recently been expanded and the FLMs anticipate reliable trend data for the new IMPROVE sites between the years 2006 and 2008. The FLMs plan to evaluate the current visibility conditions in Class I areas as well as trends occurring over time to identify areas where visibility is not improving.

The FLMs generally will use a screening proces s to identify Class I areas that may be affected by RAVI. This screening process will be influenced by the approach the state relies upon to address RH BART in its SIP. There are three approaches that may be used.

1. Case-by-Case Review of RH BART under 51.308

No distinction exists between emission re ductions needed to address RH BART and reductions to address RAVI, therefore, the BART process will address both types of visibility impairment.

2. Trading Program under 51.308

The FLMs anticipate that the following screenin g criteria may be appropriate, but will not make a final decision until a 308 trading program has been developed. Th e screening criteria associated with this approach may be similar to the screening criteria asso ciated with the trading program option under 51.309. However, the FLMs have indicated that the screening criteria ultimately selected for 51.308 will depend on how the trading program is structured, the selected emissions cap, and other aspect s of the trading program.

Potential Screening Process Criteria:

(i) Sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, other fine particulate, etc., levels in the Class I area are not decreasing. 4
(ii) One or more BART-eligible sources of SO 2 , NO

x , VOC, PM 10 , etc., are located within 100 miles of the mandatory federal Class I area. (iii) The BART-eligible sources identified in (ii) are not already well-controlled for pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment.

3. Milestones and Backstop Trading Program under 51.309

The FLMs plan to sign a Memorandum of U nderstanding (MOU) with the participating states to define the screening criteria the FLMs will use to certify impairment.

4 The decrease of a pollutant (or secondary species of that pollutant) would be measured from the beginning of the market or emissions trading program, and such a trading pr ogram would take a long time (10 to 15 years) to reach

the level of reduction that “meets” BART . The decrease would be tested over th e first 5 to 10 years. A very quick time frame for reductions would negate the need for RA BART criteria.

7Screening Process criteria: 5

(i) Sulfate levels in the Class I area are not decreasing. (ii) One or more BART-eligible sources of SO 2 are located within 100 miles of the mandatory federal Class I area. (iii) The BART-eligible sources identified in (ii) are not alrea dy well-controlled for

SO 2 (85% or better SO 2 control for coal-fir ed utility boilers).

Goal: For FLMs to complete the cer tification process between 2006 and 2008. 6

These criteria were influenced by the design of the 309 trading program including emission reduction estimates, shape of the declining emi ssion cap, inclusion of sources that were not BART-eligible, and inclusion of new source growth under the cap.

Although geographic enhancements do not need to be addressed under the first approach, they must be addressed in the two tradi ng programs described above because emission reductions may occur more gradually in the context of a trading program. The FLMs do not anticipate certifying impairment under these circumstances but do intend to notify the state as part of the SIP development process if concerns arise regarding “hot spot ” impacts from sources that may directly affect specific Class I areas.

Note: BART for regional haze has been addressed for SO 2 under this option. Regional haze BART for NO

x and PM will be addressed in SIP revisions that are due in 2008.

In all three cases discussed above, if the FLM determines that a certification of visibility impairment is necessary, the FLM will send an official Certification to the state. The Certification will generally include the following information:

1. Class I area(s) impacted; 2. Basis of certification (photographic docu mentation, monitoring, modeling, etc.); 3. Type of impairment certified: plume impact, or layered or uniform haze; 4. Pollutant(s) of interest; and, 5. Preliminary identification of source( s) believed responsible for impact.

FLM, State, and EPA roles in RA BART

FLMs are responsible for certifying impairment. The Certification demonstrates the FLM’s

determination that there is evidence of visibil ity impairment from one source or a small group of

sources.

5 Within the context of established regional milestones for SO 2 and a backstop trading program, the FLMs have said it is appropriate to use the following screening process in making these recommendations as part of the Certification. Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop Trading Program. An Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Submitted by the Western Regional Air Partnership to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 61, September
29, 2000.

6 This goal will not in any way restrict the ability of the FLMs to certify impairment at a later date if it is necessary to fulfill their statutory obligations. ibid

.

8Following the Certification, states have the following regulatory oblig ations: (1) identify facilities that “emit an air pollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment” in that Class I area, and (2) for sources subject to BART, the state must identify the BART level of control techno logy. If the source does not have adequate control in place, the state must establish a BART limit in the SIP.

EPA has two major responsibilities for the RA BA RT requirement. First, in the states that do not have a SIP in place to address the RA BART requirements, but where the program is implemented through a FIP, EPA will conduct th e BART analysis and establish any BART emission limits. Second, for the states with SIPs that include RA BART regulations, EPA will provide federal enforcement of stat e-established BART emission limits.

910

### III. THE ATTRIBUTION DETERMINATION PROCESS

This section recommends a process for the state to follow in order to complete an attribution determination after receipt of a Certification from an FLM under 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1).

The Certification focuses on the existence of visibility impairment. While the FLM may identify sources or even sources areas that contribute to the Certification, the formal

identification of sources is a state responsibility.

The state should make a detailed review of th e data supporting the Cert ification to determine which sources or source areas requi re further evaluation. If the data are insufficient to identify specific sources or source areas, the state may request that the FLM perform more detailed analyses to further substantiate the imp airment set forth in the Certification.

If the state determines sufficient information exists to proceed, the state should begin the process by: (1) evaluating which sources are BA RT-eligible, and (2) reviewing the impairment information provided by the FLM in support of the Certification.

1. Evaluate which sources are BART-eligible

Congress and EPA established criteria to dete rmine which sources are subject to BART. The categories of sources subject to BART are listed in 40 CFR 51.301, the definition of “existing stationary facility,” and also are in cluded in Appendix A of this report.

The state must confirm that th e potential source or group of sources is subject to the RA BART process by examining the potential sour ce emissions and the dates of operation.

The criteria for determining if a source is BA RT-eligible may be complicated if a source has multiple units that were constructed at different times and a state may be unable to determine if a specific source would qualify as BART-eligible. EPA published guidelines in 1980 to aid states in implementing the 1980 rule. 7 In addition to the 1980 guidelines for determining BARTeligibility, EPA also has proposed gu idelines that include criteria for determining if a source is BART-eligible. 8 These guidelines are expected to be re-proposed in 2004, promulgated in 2005 and codified at 40 CFR Part 51 as Appendix Y. Th e state should refer to both sets of guidelines to determine if a source is BART-eligible, alt hough the proposed guidelines are not binding until final promulgation occurs.

When using the applicability criteria in Appendix Y, the st ate should look for information readily available from existing state data such as permitting history, emission inventory, or other

similar databases.

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coalfired Power plans and Other Existing Stationary Facilities, EPA-450/3-80-009(b), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N. D., November 1980 (1980 BART Guidelines).

8 66 FR 38108 Proposed Guidelines for Best Av ailable Retrofit Technology (BART) (July 20, 2001). EPA will repropose these guidelines as a result of the remand in American Corn Growers v. EPA

.

111. If a database of Potential To Emit (PTE) is not available, state emission inventories can be a useful screening tool to determ ine whether a source m eets the size criteria (for example, identify all sources with emissions greater than 100 tons/year of visibility impairing pollutants). Operati ng permit applications may also contain information about the PTE of a source, or individual units within a source. 2. State business records may be useful to determine when the facility was constructed or when it commenced operation. Newspaper arti cle searches or a detailed historical review of each source may also provide useful information. 3. The state should require the source to provide informati on regarding the construction

dates of individual emission units. 4. Institutional memory within the air ag ency can be invaluable if records of construction dates of major emission units are not available, although memories will not withstand legal challenges like hard documentary data. 5. New Source Review permitting records may be useful to identify new units that were constructed after 1977, determine the P TE of the source, or determine if reconstruction has occurred. (Note: the dr aft guidelines in Appendix Y state that

modifications at a source do not affect a pplicability unless the change qualifies as reconstruction of the source).

If the source or group of sources identified in the Certification is not BART-eligible, the state should inform the FLM of its finding. The stat e should look in the vicini ty of all the sources suspected of causing or contributing to the impa irment identified in th e Certification. If no BART-eligible sources exist, an at tribution assessment is unnecessary.

2. Review Support Information in the FLM Certification

Initially, the state should acquire all the supporting information the FLM used in the Certification and independently evaluate the da ta. This initial review will help the state

determine if the information is sufficient to support a reasonable attr ibution determination.

The state should consider the t ype of impairment in the Cer tification: (a) plume impact visibility impairment, (b) uniform haze visibil ity impairment, or (c) layered haze visibility impairment:

(a) Plume impact is the impairment addre ssed by the original visibility protection program under which the state must make a reasonable attribution determination before proceeding to the BART analysis (40 CFR 51.301- 51.307). (b) In some instances, uniform haze may be thought to be source-specific haze from a BART-eligible source. If a state can successfully demonstrate there is a source emitting any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibilit y, the state should c onsider that portion of the uniform haze to be impact from the identified source(s) and, therefore, consider the source to be subject to BART. (c) The visibility impairment may also be defined as layered haze, a condition that results when aerosols are “trapped” under stagnant air mass conditions.

12Once the FLM has issued a Certification, the responsibility for the attribution assessment

shifts to the state. If a state doe s attribute impairment to a source, the state must be able to defend its finding that one or more BART-eligible so urces did cause or c ontribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area. However, the Ni nth Circuit Court of Ap peals established a low threshold for unacceptable visibility impairment. 9

3. Evaluate Existing Data not included in the Certification

When analyzing supporting data, the state should determine if additional information exists that was not available to the FLM. Examples in clude special project camera studies or ambient monitoring data collected by the state or local air pollution control agency, th e potential or actual PSD permit applicant, 10 or the university. In certain situ ations, another ag ency may have previously collected information that could be used in an attribution determination. 11 These data

should be reviewed to determine whet her they support the FLM Certification.

To conclude this portion of the attribution process, the state ma y wish to prepare a report that

summarizes its initial evaluation of the Certification. The purpose of the report is to carefully document the state’s findings and conclusions about its decisions. The report would address two questions:

First, the report would assess whether any BA RT-eligible source(s) exist that potentially contributed to visibility impairm ent as described in the Certifi cation. The report would contain a preliminary determination of whether the source s are BART-eligible and, if possible, analyze each source’s relative contribution to the impa irment (based on available source/receptor information).

Second, the report would assess the impairment data. This assessment would include the state’s evaluation of the supporting data in the Ce rtification and an anal ysis of any additional

data used in the attribution assessment. The data gaps found in this review would be identified along with any recommendations for strategies to obtain the missing information. The state may

use these recommendations to determine the next steps in the at tribution process.

If the state believes the Certification is s upported by sufficient data, proceeds with an

attribution assessment and makes a determination that the data does or does not indicate a source subject to BART, the attribution process is complete. However, if the state determines the data is insufficient to complete an attribution assessmen t, the evaluation process ends, and the state may proceed to the next step—identification of data gaps and the studies necessary to obtain this

information.

9 See Central Ariz. Water Conservation Dist v. EPA , 990 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1993); See also discussion in RA BART

and RA BART-like Case Studies

. 10 For example, a PSD permit applicant may be required to obtain pre-application ambient air quality information, and that information may not have been available to or known to the FLM.

11 In Washington state, the plume of a defunct copper smelter has been traced by its arsenic deposition. If this were an active facility, this ground tracing of the plume could be used to support a source/receptor connection in an

attribution determination.

134. Identify data gaps and necessary studies to fill the gaps

As part of the data review, th e state should note gaps or incons istencies in the available data. Examples of data gaps and inconsistencies may include:

1. Missing photos in a sequence of photos, 2. Poor resolution of the plum e or its source in the photos, 3. Back trajectory analyses done with a very large grid resolutio n or poor techniques,

4. IMPROVE monitor data mi ssing at critical periods,

5. Lack of association between the source’s em issions and monitored data at the receptor, 6. Special studies performed dur ing a time when a source that potentially contributed to the impairment was not operating, 7. Contemporaneous studies with contradi ctory results that cannot be explained, 8. Ambient studies that use naturally occurri ng tracers and, when th e suspected source(s) are tested, the tracers do not exist or exist at levels fa r below (or above) the level indicated by the ambient study results,

9. Tracer studies where the tracer was not found at the anticipated receptors, 10. No explicit exploration of whether wildfire or other natu ral events significantly caused or contributed to one or more of the impairment episodes,

11. Other differences or inconsistencies in the available data.

Once any data gaps have been identified, the state should decide which studies are necessary to obtain the missing information sufficient to complete an attribution assessment. The state should design potential studies a nd determine the resource needs of those studies. The amount of work necessary will depend on the availability of the information and how critical the

information is to the attribution assessment. S ection IV provides technica l criteria and examples of the technical process the state may c onsider at this point in the process.

5. Consultation Process

The WESTAR review of previous RAVI a ssessments demonstrated the importance of including all stakeholders in the design of a ny data collection plans or modeling protocols. Competing studies can be very inefficient, expensive, and ti me-consuming, and ultimately may not help the state make a final decision.

If stakeholders are involved in the design of any data collection efforts or modeling protocols, disagreements may be resolved be fore the state or source continues with any

additional studies. The state should consider involving the following stakeholders in the consultation process:

1. Affected sources 2. Neighboring states and tribes 3. Environmental Protection Agency 4. Federal land managers 5. Local environmental groups 6. Local permitting agencies

147. Local government representatives

6. Completion and Review of Additional Visibility Studies

When the additional visibility studies, if any, are complete, the state should evaluate the resulting data. The technical st aff may wish to finalize the re port and make recommendations

based on the scientific aspects of the data.

7. Final Determination of Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment

The state may reach any one of the following conclusions:

1. The impairment certified by the FLM is reasonably attributable to the identified BARTeligible source(s) for specific pollutants; 2. The impairment certified by the FLM is re asonably attributable to the source(s) identified by the FLM and additional sour ces not identified by the FLM for specific pollutants; 3. There is inadequate data to support a dete rmination that the impairment is due to the source(s) identified by the FLM; 4. The impairment is reasonably attributable to other adjacent BART-eligible sources for specific pollutants; or 5. The impairment certified by the FLM is not reasonably attributable to a BART-eligible

source.

1516

### IV. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA

This section provides general prin ciples and technical criteria fo r the state to consider after receipt of an FLM Certification. After receipt of such a Certifi cation, the state must determine whether BART-eligible sources “e mit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibi lity impairment in any” Class I area. While these principles and technical criteria should generally be useful and applicable, each state must decide what is required to support its individual determination.

Part A contains general princi ples to guide the development of a conceptual framework for the attribution assessment process. Part B contai ns evaluation criteria to guide the decisions regarding a technical framework for the attribution assessment process.

Conceptually, the statutory framework for an attribution determination (“may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribu te to visibility impairment”) should be the general principle guiding the attribution process. EP A maintains, and the Ninth Circui t agreed, that an affirmative attribution decision is possible ev en with considerable uncertainty and a low triggering threshold. However, each state should decide individually wh at is required to support its determination.

A. General Principles of the Attribution Process

Attribution process criteria address factors lik ely to influence the performance of the state

attribution assessment. These crite ria provide parameters to define and implement the attribution assessment process given resource constraint s, legal considerations, administrative decisionmaking requirements, and other relevant factors. The general principles include the following:

1. Whenever possible, an attribution assessm ent should be a collaborative process that relies on existing data with a mi nimum of additional analysis ( see section III). If supplemental data are needed, field studies should be designed in a collaborative process between affected states and tribes, identified sources, Federal land managers, EPA, and the general public. Past experi ence has shown that competing technical studies often result in an unnecessarily expensive and unduly complicated process.

2. Attribution assessments should be technically and legally defensible.

3. Attribution assessments should be accomp lished at a reasonable cost and within a

reasonable time frame.

4. Attribution assessments shoul d be no more complex than necessary, recognizing that the circumstances surrounding a Certification may vary greatly. State or tribal agency staff should be capable of performing the attribution assessment and making the final determination, although contractors may be used for certain types of modeling or monitoring.

5. Reasonably attributable visibility impairme nt can only be identifie d if a source/receptor

17links a potentially BART-eligi ble source or small group of sources to a Class I area.

B. Technical Criteria

The technical criteria address th e appropriateness of availabl e analytical techniques from a scientific perspective. The rule defines visibil ity impairment to mean “any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light ex tinction, visual range, c ontrast, coloration) from that which would

have existed under natural conditions.”

The technical criteria include the following:

1. The BART source must emit an air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any of the impairment. The visibi lity-impairing pollutants of

concern must be identified.

2. The attribution assessment should address th e unique visibility impairment in the FLM

Certification for the Class I area. Some factors to consider include:

a. Duration: source’s length of effect on visibility per episode; 12

b. Frequency: how often episodes of impairment occur;

c. Geographic extent: how much of the Cl ass I area is affected by the impairment;

d. Magnitude: how much visibility impairme nt is due to the source’s emissions; and

e. Time of occurrence: incl uding time of day and time of year.

These factors need to be considered together, because they affect each other. An infrequent occurrence of a large magnitude episode may meet the criteria. A frequent occurrence of a small magnitude episode ma y also meet the criteria. The FLM may provide information about thes e criteria in the Ce rtification, and the state should review this information as a starting point for its assessment. The state may consider other factors and data, as appropriate.

3. The attribution assessment should identify th e distance from the source to the Class I

area. This distance will affect the choice of tools appropriate fo r characterizing the specific source’s impact on visibility impairment.

4. To the extent possible, the attribution a ssessment should be quantitative. Under certain circumstances, qualitative information, such as photographs or time-lapse video of distinct plumes or source-specific haze events, may be adequate.

5. The state should use as many approaches or indicators of impair ment as practicable

12 Based on previous cases, most impairment episodes ar e relatively short—lasting one to several hours—which may affect monitoring and ot her assessment techniques.

18rather than relying on a single method. The assessment may rely on air monitoring and modeling techniques and other supporting scie ntific data. Consistency between source and observational techniques strengthens the analysis. 13

6. The state should consider the leve l of uncertainty in the assessment.

7. EPA guideline models should be used when ever practicable. When other models are used, additional technical discussi ons with EPA may be necessary.

C. Examples of the Attribution Process

The state should consult this se ction after evaluation of the FL M Certification. At this point, the state will already have decided what gaps n eed to be filled to complete the attribution

assessment.

The recommendations in this report recognize th at each attribution de termination will be unique. Because an attribution determination is a fact-specific and individual determination, it is not possible to recommended a sing le technical approach for a stat e to follow. A combination of monitoring and modeling techniques is usually appropriate, but inst ead of attempting to cover all possible combinations of technique s, this report provides five se lected scenarios. The general principles and technical criteria identified in sections A and B are incorporated into these scenarios. The goal is to provide the state with references for use when it is creating its own

individualized tech nical procedure.

In addition to the scenarios, this report provides deta iled tables and narrative descriptions of techniques that may be consider ed and/or substitute d for the techniques in the scenarios (see Section V).

Scenario 1 : Limited data/one source

Data input: Small amount of existing data (i.e ., one IMPROVE site with data for 2-3 years) Evidence of “local” impact. Limited meteorological data.

Where it is likely that one major source cont ributes to impairment, a combination of the following techniques is suggested:

1. Examine IMPROVE data, in cluding quality assurance 2. Look at extinction budget to identi fy visibility-impairing pollutants 3. Perform some analysis of when the episodes are occurring 4. Perform a simple back trajectory an alysis using a method such as HYSPLIT 5. Look at relationships be tween particulate species

6. Examine source emissions data for co rrelations with ambient monitoring 7. Perform dispersion model based on data a nd capabilities such as VISCREEN or

CALPUFF Lite

13 WESTAR Council, RA BART and RA BART-like Case Studies , June 2001.

198. Examine other data such as source owne r data, deposition data, or photographic

evidence

The results of this initial analysis may not alwa ys be conclusive. This level of review may be adequate if a source/receptor relationship can be identified. However, if the results are inconclusive, more data and/or more refined an alyses may be necessary and may help the state

reach an attribution determination. The state shou ld consider how the available data and choice of techniques might affect its abil ity to assess the effectiveness of the controls in remedying the impairment.

It may be efficient to look ahead to the da ta and analytical need s of a potential BART analysis. For example, the state may wish to use a more refined model that would be useful for both attribution and remedy assessment.

Assuming there is a two-year time period 14 to collect data and analyze additional information, the following techniques also can be considered:

1. Better source characterization, including m easurement of emissions of trace elements (source profiles) for use in CMB modeling 2. Met monitoring or modeling 3. Camera site, possibly with time-lapse video

4. Additional aerosol monitori ng, episodic or saturation 5. In plume trajectory by aircraft, if available 6. Fine time-resolved optical monitoring, such as nephelometer, transmissometer, aethelometer combined with pollutant monitoring (e.g., SO 2 , NOx, real time PM) for monitoring of episodes 7. More refined chemical visibility model, such as CALPUFF 8. Repeat initial techniques with new data

The technical criteria are listed below, followed by t echniques that may be used to obtain results

about the criteria.

1. The impairment must be related to emi ssions from specific sources. The visibilityimpairing pollutants of concern should be identified.

Techniques : Back trajectory, species relations hips, relationship between source emissions and ambient monitoring, dispersi on model refined by camera, aerosol, in plume, optical monitoring, a nd refined dispersion models.

2. The attribution assessment must address the unique visibility impairment certified by

14 The 1999 regional haze rule revised the requirements for general plan requirem ents for visibility protection. As a result, plan revisions are required once every five years, rather than the Long Term Strategy review requirement of every three years. If an FLM certifies RAVI at least 6 months prior to a plan revision, section 51.302 requires that

the State Plan revision address such Certifications. Given this 5-year cycle, we have presum ed for this report that an attribution analysis should take about two years to comp lete in order to allow time for the BART engineering analysis, if needed.

20the FLM for the Class I area. Some factors to consider include:

a. Duration: source’s length of effect per episode Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

b. Frequency: how often the impairment occurs Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

c. Geographic extent: how much of the Class I area is impaired Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion model, addi tional data on deposition and other

studies

d. Magnitude: how much impair ment is due to the source Techniques : Dispersion model, receptor model

e. Time of occurrence Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

3. Uncertainty of results: Each analytical me thod will have its own level of uncertainty. These individual uncertainties should be kept in mind as outputs ar e compared within

the overall assessment. If the results of different technique s are the same or similar (within the uncertainties of the techniques), th en the overall level of uncertainty is likely

to decrease.

Scenario 2: Moderate data/multiple sources

Data input: Moderate amount of existing data (i .e., one IMPROVE site with data for six or more years) Evidence of an increasing trend in sulfate Meteorological data likely from several stations

Assuming the Certification identi fies multiple BART sources of different types within a 100- mile radius, a combination of the following techniques is suggested:

1. Examine IMPROVE data, in cluding quality assurance 2. Look at extinction budget to identi fy visibility-impairing pollutants 3. Perform some analysis of when the episodes are occurring 4. Perform multiple back trajectory anal yses using a method such as HYSPLIT 5. Look at relationships be tween particulate species

6. Examine source emissions data for co rrelations with ambient monitoring 7. Perform dispersion model based on data a nd capabilities such as CALMET/CALPUFF

8. Examine other data such as source owne r data, deposition data, or photographic

evidence 9. Wind fields/Synoptic analyses 10. Comparison of different episodes 11. UNMIX, PMF and/or CMB

2112. Analysis of any regional modeli ng already conducted, such as CMAQ 13. Long term visual monitoring, such as camera data or transmissometer data, compared to met data to identify quadrants of concern

The results of this initial analysis may not be conclusive. This level of review may be adequate if a source/receptor re lationship can be identified.

However, if the results are in conclusive, more data and/or more refined analyses may be necessary and may help the state reach an attribution determina tion. The state should consider how the available data might affect the ability to assess the effectiveness of the controls in remedying the impairment. It may be efficient to l ook ahead to the data and analytical needs of a potential BART analysis. For example, the stat e may wish to use a more refined model that would be useful for both attribution and remedy assessment.

Assuming there is a two-year time period to coll ect data and analyze additional information, the following techniques also can be considered:

1. Emissions inventory 2. Analysis of a nested domain within the regional model 3. Source profiles (natural tracers)

4. Additional source measuremen ts, such as stack testing 5. Met monitoring or modeling

6. Camera

7. Additional aerosol monitori ng, episodic or saturation 8. Monitoring to measure additional parameters, such as precursors, ammonia and

oxidants 9. In plume trajectory by aircraft, if ava ilable, to characterize plume chemistry 10. Fine time-resolved optical monitoring, such as nephelometer, transmissometer, aethelometer combined with pollutant monitoring (e.g., SO 2 , NOx, real time PM) for monitoring episodes. 11. Repeat initial techniques with new data

The technical criteria are listed below, followed by t echniques that may be used to obtain results

about the criteria.

1. The impairment must be related to emi ssions from specific sources. The visibilityimpairing pollutants of concern should be identified.

Techniques : Back trajectory, species relations hips, relationship between source emissions and ambient monitoring, dispersi on model refined by camera, aerosol, in plume, optical monitoring, a nd refined dispersion models.

2. The attribution assessment must address th e unique visibility impairment certified by

the FLM for the Class I area. Some factors to consider include:

a. Duration: each source’s length of effect per episode

22Technique s: Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

b. Frequency: how often the impairment occurs by source Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion model, back trajectory, receptor model, camera

c. Geographic extent: how much of the Class I area is impaired Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion model, a dditional data on deposition and other

studies

d. Magnitude: how much impairment is due to each individual source Techniques : Dispersion model, receptor model

e. Time of occurrence Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

Scenario 3 : No IMPROVE data, Certification by modeling evidence

Data input: Detailed modeling of a source a nd specific visibility impairment using a CALPUFF run, or detailed (neste d) run of regional model. Detailed emissions data and meteorologi cal data were input to the model. No IMPROVE data available for this specific Class I area (monitoring may be at a “representative site”) Some optical data, photographic data, and limited aerosol data from other

networks

Assuming the Certification points to a specific source, a combination of the following techniques is suggested:

1. Examine IMPROVE data for any nearby Class I areas (especially those included in the modeling domain) to better understand the re gional conditions and compare with model outputs of the unique effect 2. Review the model’s outputs on “high im pact” days and compare with actual meteorological data of the area (to confirm transport, inversi ons, or other aspects of the model which may create the unique impact)

3. Review source emissions data used in the model 4. Review other monitoring data (optical measurements, deposition data, ozone data, etc.) to collaborate model predictions 5. Examine any photographic evidence

The results of this initial analysis may not alwa ys be conclusive. This level of review may be adequate if a source/receptor relationship can be identified. Because no visibi lity-specific particle monitoring is available in this case, the key to attribution is to dete rmine that the source emissions are indeed reaching the Class I area on days when impairment exists. If the results are inconclusive, more data and/or more refined an alyses may be necessary and may help the state

reach an attribution determination. The state shou ld consider if the avai lable data and modeling information supplied with this Certification could be used to determine the effectiveness of the

23controls in remedying the impairment. It may be e fficient to look ahead to the data and analytical needs of a potential BART analysis if additio nal or different modeling will be necessary.

Additional data collection and analys es that might be considered:

1. Better source profiles or newer emissions information 2. Met monitoring or modeling

3. Camera 4. New aerosol monitoring (e pisodic or saturation) 5. In plume trajectory by aircraft, if available 6. Repeat initial analytical techniques with new data

The technical criteria are listed below, followed by t echniques that may be used to obtain results

about the criteria.

1. The impairment must be related to emi ssions from specific sources. The visibilityimpairing pollutants of concern should be identified.

Techniques : Confirm model inputs, co mpare with any new particle monitoring at Class I area. Examine performance of the mode l, and perform uncertainty analyses.

2. The attribution assessment must address the un ique visibility impairment certified by the

FLM for the Class I area. Some factors to consider include:

a. Duration: source’s length of effect per episode Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

b. Frequency: how often the impairment occurs Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

c. Geographic extent: how much of the Class I area is impaired Techniques : New monitoring and examinati on of dispersion model outputs, additional data on deposition and other studies

d. Magnitude: how much impair ment is due to the source Techniques : Dispersion model

e. Time of occurrence Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

Scenario 4 : Direct Photographic Evidence

Data input: The FLM certified impairment in a wilderness area based on photographic evidence. Photographs taken over a period of two years showed a distinct haze in a valley located in the wilderness area when the wind is from the east. A series of photographs during two epis odes showed a distinct plume that

24originates at an existing stationary source constructe d in 1965 and located ten

miles east of the wilderness area. The photographic series showed that the plume traveled into the wilderness area. Aerial photos during one episode also s how a distinct plume that travels into

the wilderness area. The wilderness ar ea does not have an IMPROVE site. A

Class I area located 50 miles to the nor th has an IMPROVE site that was representative for the area. This mo nitoring site does not show decreased visibility on the days when haze was photographed in the wilderness valley.

Assuming the Certification identifies one BART source, the following steps are suggested:

1. Review the photographic evidence and dete rmine whether the photogr aphs show a clear

connection between the source and the h aze documented in the wilderness area.

In this example, the photographic eviden ce showed a clear connection between the

source and the haze in the wilderness ar ea. Qualitative information, such as photographic evidence that establishes a source/receptor link, is allowed under EPA regulations that define reas onable attribution as determin ed by “visual observation or other technique the State deems appropriate.” (40 CFR 51.301(s)).

The results of this initial analysis may not always be conclusive. If the photographic evidence is not compelling, the state may reach a different conclusion. The state may determine that the impairment, as documented by the FLM, was not reasonably attributable to the source

identified in the Certification. The FLM would th en need to gather additional information to support a Certification. Alte rnatively, if the state determines that the source may be causing the haze but the qualitative evidence is not quite suffi cient to determine attribution, the state could initiate a data collection effort to provide better information regarding vi sibility impairment at the Class I area. Such techniques may include:

1. Better source characterization, including m easurement of emissions of trace elements (source profiles) for use in CMB modeling 2. Met monitoring or modeling

3. Additional aerosol monitori ng (episodic or saturation) 4. In plume trajectory by aircraft, if available 5. Fine time-resolved optical monitoring, su ch as nephelometer, transmissometer, or aethelometer combined with pollutant monitoring (e.g., SO 2 , NOx, real time PM) for monitoring of episodes. 6. More refined chemical visibility model, such as CALPUFF

The technical criteria are listed below, followed by t echniques that may be used to obtain results

about the criteria.

1. The impairment must be related to emi ssions from specific sources. The visibilityimpairing pollutants of concern should be identified. Techniques : Back trajectory, species relations hips, relationship between source emissions and ambient monitoring, dispersi on model refined by camera, aerosol, in

25plume, optical monitoring, a nd refined dispersion models.

2. The attribution assessment must address the unique visibility impairment certified by

the FLM for the Class I area. Some factors to consider include:

a. Duration: source’s length of effect per episode Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

b. Frequency: how often the impairment occurs Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

c. Geographic extent: how much of the Class I area is impaired Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion model, addi tional data on deposition and other

studies

d. Magnitude: how much impair ment is due to the source Techniques : Dispersion model, receptor model

e. Time of occurrence Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

3. Uncertainty of results: Each analytical me thod will have its own level of uncertainty. These individual uncertainties should be kept in mind as outputs ar e compared within

the overall assessment. If the results of different technique s are the same or similar (within the uncertainties of the techniques), th en the overall level of uncertainty is likely

to decrease.

The final step in the attribution process scen ario would be to veri fy that the source was operating on the days when the haze was observed in the area. The state should also determine if the source was experiencing unusual upset cond itions during the times identified. In this example, the source was determined to have been operating normally. The state would then issue a determination that the visibility impairment at the Class I area was reasonably attributable to the existing stationary facility.

Scenario 5 : Data Rich

Data input: A large special visib ility study recently was conducted. Four months of data spanning two seasons was collected including:

1. At one “receptor” site in a Class I area there were multiple meteorological, optical, and particulate samplers including extensive meas urements of particle compositions, size distributions, scattering, abso rption, light extinction, ions, oxidants, relative humidity, temperature, vertical wind profiles, SO 2 , photographs, and concentr ations of four unique

tracers released from four di fferent sources of interest. Th ere were co-located samplers measuring several parameters in more than one way. There are at least some one, six, and twelve-hour partic le measurements in addition to twenty-four hour samples.

262. This receptor site has been an IMPROVE s ite for several years a nd these data are also

available. 3. At thirty-five other sites in the region, called “satellit e” sites there was an IMPROVE Module-A sampler taking daily twenty-four hour samples which were analyzed for fine mass, S, soil elements, trace metals, and elemental H from which organics can be estimated. The unique tracers were also measured at many of these sites. 4. Aircraft sampling of plumes from source(s) of interest was conducted.

5. An extensive current emi ssions inventory was created. 6. Wind profilers were deployed at two to th ree sites in addition to the receptor site. 7. Measurements of the chemical compositi on of resuspended local dust, smoke from burning local fuels, and emissions from local point and area sources of interest were

collected in order to creat e “source profiles” to be us ed in receptor modeling.

Assuming the certification identifies a BART source within 100 miles of the Class I area from which a unique tracer was released, a co mbination of the following techniques is suggested:

1. Examine fine particle data, including quali ty assurance. Use the collocated data to assess accuracy and precision. The one, six, a nd twelve-hour data should average up to match the twenty-four hour data and if reasonable, be us ed to examine the diurnal cycles in the fine particle concentrations. 2. Look at the extinction budget to identify vi sibility-impairing pollutants. Because size distributions were measured, the extinction budget can be estimated from Mie scattering calculations as well as by using simple techniques that assume bulk scattering and absorption efficiencies. Check to see if m easured scattering plus absorption add up to

the measured and reconstructed extinction. 3. Compare the special study data to histor ical IMPROVE and archived meteorological data to determine the representativeness of the study period. 4. Perform some analysis of when the episode s are occurring. EOF analysis can be helpful to summarize the massive data set. Use the photographs to create a time-lapse

visualization of the scen e at the receptor site. 5. Perform back trajectory analyses usi ng HYSPLIT, CAPITA Monte Carlo or ATAD. Examine whether the trajector ies change substantially when the study’s wind-profiler data are included. Determine whether trajectories are consistent with tracer

concentrations. 6. Look at relationships between particulate species (f actor analysis) to s ee if they identify

source types. 7. Look at the spatial and temporal patterns of trace elements and the major constituents of the fine mass. This may suggest dominan t source areas and transport patterns for different source types. Use EOF analysis to determine the patterns th at explain most of

the covariance in the data. Check to see how well these are reconciled with the back trajectory modeling and the deterministic mode ling. Check to see if the same dominant

sources were indicated.

8. Examine source emissions data for co rrelations with ambient monitoring. 9. Perform dispersion model such as CALMET/CALPUFF.

2710. Analyze wind fields, synoptic conditions, a nd satellite photos. Check to see if they were consistent with more sophisticated meteorological modeling. Look for unusual conditions such as wild fires, hurricanes, stagnation episodes, etc. Look to see if modeled and observed cloud patterns were comparable. 11. Compare the meteorological and chem ical characteristics of different episodes 12. UNMIX, PMF and CMB can help determine major source types and when they were important.

If, at this point, similar source/receptor relati onships have been identified using several different techniques, this level of review is adequate. If the resu lts are inconclusive, and there are differing points of view about the frequency, dura tion, or significance of the attribution to the BART-eligible source, more analyses may be necessary. Often in a large study, measurements are made, but not immediately analyzed in the lab due to cost. If this is the case, more samples could be analyzed. It is unlikely that any additional field monitoring would be required.

The technical criteria are listed below, followed by techniques that may be used to obtain

results about the criteria.

1. The impairment must be related to emi ssions from specific sources. The visibilityimpairing pollutants of concern should be identified.

Techniques : Reconstructed particle mass and light extinction including examination of the reconstructions in different size ranges a nd at different sites in the region, analysis of responses of light scattering to rela tive humidity, back trajectory analyses, examination of inter-species relationships compared to measured source profiles, dispersion modeling with sophisticated mode ls such as REMSAD and CMAQ, analysis of wind fields and dispersion by comparis on to measured tracer concentrations, computer animation of spatial patterns of species of interest, use of receptor models such as TMBR, DMB, and TAGIT that ut ilize unique tracer information, or other receptor models such as CMB, UNMIX, and PMF that do not require tracer information, but can use it. When so many different models can be used, model reconciliation is usually a pa rt of a data-rich scenario.

2. The attribution assessment must address th e unique visibility impairment certified by

the FLM for the Class I area. Some factors to consider include:

a. Duration: each source’s length of effect per episode Technique s: Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

b. Frequency: how often the impairment occurs by source Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion model, back trajectory, receptor model, camera

c. Geographic extent: how much of the Class I area is impaired Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion model, analys is of spatial patterns using data

from the satellite sites.

28d. Magnitude: how much impairment is due to each individual source Techniques : Dispersion model, receptor model

e. Time of occurrence Techniques : Monitoring, dispersion mode l, back trajectory, camera

3. Uncertainty of results: In this case, the abil ity of a model to predict the observed tracer

concentrations is an indicator of the model’s uncertainty.

2930

### V. TECHNIQUES

A. Monitoring

Introduction

This section describes a variety of ambient air monitoring methods that, if appropriate, might be used to support an attribution analys is. The methods described include those most commonly used in pollution studies or ambi ent monitoring programs and should not be considered an exhaustive list of potential methods. Methods include, IMPROVE, filter based aerosol, continuous aerosol (incl udes optical methods such as the nephelometer), continuous gas and canister sampling, transmissometer, scene (i ncludes film, video, digital), and tracer or

aircraft methods.

Several of the methods described ar e currently in use as a part of national, st ate, local, tribal, or private ambient monitoring networks. These si tes are generally located in urban areas, but those near the area of study could be used in the attri bution analysis thereby reducing the cost of monitoring.

The IMPROVE network is designed to assess visibility in Class I areas and routinely measure visibility impairing pollutants. These sites offer value to the attribution analysis if they are located in the area of study.

The RA BART case studies show additional examples of the methods used during source

attribution studies. The case studies also show that methods, other than ambient monitoring, may be used to support the analysis . Existing programs su ch as CASTNET (dry deposition network), surface water deposition studies, or snow deposition studies may provide additional data for the attribution analysis.

Although not specifically listed as a monitoring technique, meteorological monitoring is an important element the attribution analysis. Coll ection of meteorological data can range from simple wind, temperature, and relative humidity measurement to an array of acoustic wind profilers. The complexity of the meteorological monitoring program depends on data needs and the availability of existing da ta. As with ambient monitori ng, meteorological data may be

available at sites located near the stu dy area and offers reduced monitoring cost.

1. IMPROVE

Overview : The Interagency Monitoring of PROtect ed Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federa l and regional-state organiza tions. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the crea tion of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas (156 national parks and wilderness areas) as stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The objectives of IMPROVE are to: (1) establish current visibility and aerosol conditi ons in mandatory class I areas; (2) identify chemical species and emission sources responsibl e for existing man-made visibility impairment;

31(3) document long-term trends for assessing progre ss towards the national vi sibility goal; and (4) with the enactment of the regional haze rule, provide regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected federal class I areas where practical.

Magnitude : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Frequency : Possible when used in conj unction with appropriate anal ytical techniques; Limited by twenty-four hour sample integration, and one-in-three day sampling frequency.

Duration : Possible when used in conjunction with a ppropriate analytical techniques; Limited by 24 hour sample integration, and one -in-three day sampling frequency.

Principle : Twenty-four hour integrated filter-based ambient monitor; Gravimetric analysis for

PM 2.5 (Module D) and PM 10 ); S from Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE); NO 3 from ion chromatography (denuded nylon filter from Modu le C); Organic and elemental carbon from Thermal Optical Reflectance (TOR); H fr om Proton Elastic Scattering (PESA).

Uncertainty : All elemental S if from sulfate; All sulfate is ammonium sulfate; NO 3 (Denuder efficiency is close to 100%. All ni trate is from ammonium nitrate); Average organic molecule is 70% carbon; Carbon (organic and elemental) is defined by the analytical method; Fine soil based on elemental composition; Course mass (PM 10 – PM 2.5 ) consists only of insoluble soil particles.

Strengths : Regulatory indicator for regional haze rule; Long term data record in or near many federal Class I areas; Extensiv e network currently in place.

Limitations : Integrated twenty-four hour sample; one -in-three day sampli ng interval; Nitrate losses due to volatilization from filter; Not capable of distinguishing between primary particulate and atmospherically transformed particulate.

Level of Expertise Required : Standard operating procedures av ailable for routine operation and maintenance; Chemical analysis must be conducted by appropriate laboratory.

Regulatory Context : Regional Haze rule; Included in SIP Visibility Plan

2. FILTER-BASED AEROSOL

Overview : Filter-based aerosol monitoring is used to identify chemical species and obtain concentration measurements of atmospheric constitu ents that contribute to visibility impairment. Primary techniques include filter-based aerosol samplers that collect samples on various substrates in various size ranges such as PM 2.5 or PM 10 . Aerosol monitoring can provide fine mass concentration, course mass concentration, optical absorption, major and trace elements, organic and elemental carbon, and su lfate, nitrate, and chloride ions. A variety of methods are

available to conduct filter ba sed aerosol monitoring. Many methods are approved as an EPA reference method, while some are not, but may of fer variability that the reference method does

not.

32Magnitude : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Frequency : Possible when used in conj unction with appropriate anal ytical techniques; Limited by 24-hour sample integration and sampling fre quency (daily sampling is possible depending on instrument selected).

Duration : Possible when used in conjunction with a ppropriate analytical techniques; Limited by 24-hour sample integration and sampling freque ncy (daily sampling is possible depending on instrument selected).

Principle : The methods used for analyses of these filter media include gravimetry (electromicrobalance) for mass; X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and particle induced X-ray emission (PIXE) for trace elements; Ion chromatography (IC) for anions and selected cations; Controlledcombustion for carbon; Gas chromatography/ma ss spectroscopy (GC/MS) for semi-volatile organic particles; Special measurement needs may include determining particle size and morphology through optical a nd/or electron microscopy.

Strengths : Large network of urban m onitoring available; Filter ba sed sampling allows for a variety of chemical/elemental analysis.

Limitations : Integrated twenty-four hour sample; Ge nerally operated on one -in-three or one-insix day sampling interval (daily sampling is po ssible depending on instrument selected); Not capable of distinguishing between primary particulate and atmospherically transformed particulate.

Level of Expertise Required : Standard operating procedures av ailable for routine operation and maintenance; Chemical analysis must be conducted by appropriate laboratory.

Regulatory Context : Commonly used in NAAQS/SIP compliance monitoring networks.

3. CONTINUOUS AEROSOL

Overview : Aerosols can be measured continuously using several different methods. Optical

measurement of aerosols can be measured usi ng an instrument such as a nephelometer to measure light scattering (bscat) or a aethelometer to measure light absorption (babs) by aerosols (black carbon). Continuous instruments such as TEOM or BETA can provide PM 10 or PM 2.5 aerosol concentration.

Magnitude : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Frequency : Possible when used in conj unction with appropriate anal ytical techniques; Limited by twenty-four hour sample integration and sa mpling frequency (daily sampling is possible depending on instrument selected).

33Duration : Possible when used in conjunction with a ppropriate analytical techniques; Limited by twenty-four hour sample integration and samp ling frequency (daily sampling is possible depending on instrument selected).

Strengths : Continuous measurement with at least hour ly time resolution; Nephelometers and Aethelometers are commonly used to support Cla ss I area monitoring programs and an existing data record may be available in some areas.

Limitations : Continuous aerosol measurement with methods such as TEOM and BETA are generally made in urban areas to suppor t NAAQS compliance networks; Not capable of distinguishing between primary particulate a nd atmospherically transformed particulate.

Level of Expertise Required : Standard operating procedures av ailable for routine operation and

maintenance.

Regulatory Context : Commonly used in Class I area m onitoring networks or urban NAAQS compliance networks.

4. CONTINUOUS GASEOUS

Overview : A variety of gaseous pollu tants, such as Ozone (O 3 ), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx), nitr ic oxide (NO), ammonia (NH 3 ), hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2) , Organics, and HAPS/TOXICS, can be measured continuously. Gaseous monitoring is generally conducte d with instruments that continuously draw sample air and periodically (as frequently as once per second) analy ze the sample. Canister systems collect an ambient air sample over a specific period of time in clean evacuated canisters. The canisters are then subject to subsequent analysis at a labora tory using a method such as GC/FID. This method is able to provide time-integrated samples fr om several hours to twen ty-four hours or more. Regular checks of the flow rate, stability, re producibility, precision, and accuracy of these instruments must be conducted on a regular schedule in order to ensure data quality.

Magnitude : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Frequency : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Duration : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Strengths : Continuous measurement with hourly time reso lution; Monitors available to identify variety of pollutants.

Weaknesses/Limitations : Generally require conditioned envi ronment and frequent performance

checks.

Practical Considerations : Data may be available from established urban area monitoring networks and some Class I area monitoring netw orks; Additional cost ($/year) for new sites.

34Level of Expertise Required : Standard operating procedures av ailable for routine operation and

maintenance.

Regulatory Context : Commonly used in urban NAAQ S compliance and HAPS/TOXICS

networks.

5. TRANSMISSOMETER

Overview : Transmissometers measure the amount of light transmitted through the atmosphere over a known distance (generally between 0.5 km and 10.0 km) betw een a light source of known intensity and a receiver. The transmission measur ements are electronically converted to hourly averaged light extinction (b ext ).

Magnitude : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Frequency : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Duration : Possible when used in conjunction with appropriate analytical techniques.

Uncertainties : A transmissometer must be installed in stable locations with a clear and unobstructed path to avoid in terference with the signal.

Strengths : Continuous measurement of b ext in many Class I areas and some urban areas.

Limitations : Not capable of identifying pollutants c ontributing to visibility impairment.

Level of Expertise Required : Standard operating procedures av ailable for routine operation and maintenance; Data processing/quality assu rance requires high level of expertise.

Regulatory Context : Commonly used in Class I area mon itoring networks and in some urban

areas.

6. SCENE

Overview : Scene monitoring refers to the use of still and/or time-lapse photography (including digital imagery) to provide a qualitative repres entation of visual air quality. Scene monitoring data quality objective recommendations are to document the appearance of scenes of interest under a variety of air quality and illumination cond itions at different times of day and different seasons. Scene monitoring documents the visual condition observed at a monitoring site. The data collection schedule can be tailored to capture the periods when visibility impairment is most likely to occur at specific sites. Time-lapse m ovies (generally time-lapse video or super 8 mm film) can be used at monitoring sites and during special studies to docum ent the visual dynamics

of a scene or source.

Magnitude : Cannot provide a quantita tive measurement of visibility impairment but can qualitatively illustrate various le vels of visibility impairment.

35Frequency : Possible depending on the method used. Time-lapse video may be able to demonstrate the frequency of the impairment . The use of still photography to document impairment frequency depends upon the number of images acquired over time.

Duration : Possible depending on the method used. Time-l apse video may be able to demonstrate the impairment frequency. The use of still photography to document impairment frequency depends upon the number of images acquired over time.

Uncertainties : n/a

Strengths : Provides image/video record

Limitations : Not capable of identifying pollutants c ontributing to visibility impairment.

Level of Expertise Required : Standard operating procedures av ailable for routine operation and

maintenance.

Regulatory Context : Commonly used in Class I area mon itoring networks and in some urban

areas.

7. TRACER METHODS, LIDAR SYSTEM S, AIRCRAFT BASED MEASUREMENTS

Overview : The methods described in this section are more specialized methods generally reserved for special studies as opposed to the pr eviously described methods that are used more routinely. Tracer methods, lidar systems and aircraft based measurements will be described individually.

Tracer Methods : A tracer element or compound is a substance with unique characteristics that allows positive identification at very low concentrations. Th e tracer compound of choice will vary by source type and composition of the plume being tracked. In general, the tracer must have very low natural background concentrations and ideally would have the same chemical form and properties as the compound being tracked. In ambien t applications where use of the ideal tracer is not possible due to potential environmental risk, a near-substitute compound may be used. When used to determine potential source imp acts, the chosen compound is released from a

source stack and downwind monitors are used to detect the presence of the compound.

Lidar Methods : A lidar transmits short pulses of laser light into the atmosphere. The laser beam loses light to scattering as it travels. At each range, some of th e light is backscattered into a detector. Because the light takes longer to return from the more di stant ranges, the time dela y of the return pulses

can be converted to the corres ponding distance between the atmospheric scatterer and the lidar. The end result is a profile of atmospheric scatteri ng versus distance. Analysis of this signal can yield information about the distri bution of aerosols in the atmos phere. The amount of backscatter indicates the density of the scatters. This can be used to measure cloud base height or track

36plumes of pollution. Other properties of the atmosphe re can also be deduced from the lidar return signals. A frequency shift in the light because of the Doppler effect permits measurement of wind speeds. By detecting the amount of depolar ization, one can discriminate between liquid droplets and nonspherical ice partic les. Differential Absorption Li dar (DIAL) uses absorption, as evidenced by reduced backscatter from greater distances, to measure the concentration of atmospheric gases. A Raman lidar detects partic ular atmospheric components (such as water vapor) by measuring the wavelength-shifted return from selected molecules (NOAA).

Aircraft Based Measurements : Aircraft based measurement systems utilize specia lly equipped aircraft to make pollutant and meteorological measurements at various elevat ions throughout the study domain. The aircraft can be equipped with a multitude of gaseous, aerosol, optical and meteorological equipment. This measurement method provides the advantage of vertical profiles of various parameters, the ability to track point source plumes, and the ab ility to establish boundary conditions for future analytical and modeling exercises.

References:

NOAA, Atmospheric Light Division, Environmental Technology Laboratory, http://www2.etl.noaa.gov/DIAL_lidar.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Visibi lity Monitoring Guidance (EPA-454/R-99-003),

June 1999.

National Research Council, Pr otecting Visibility in Nationa l Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, Wa shington D.C., 1993, pp. 315-357.

3738Table 1. Monitoring TechniquesCriteriaMonitoring MethodIMPROVEFilter BasedAerosolContinuous AerosolGaseous;Continuousmethods, canistersampling, etc.TransmissometerScene35mmfilm/8mmvideo, digitalTracer Methods, Lidarsystems, Aircraft basedmeasurementsPollutantPM10YesYesYesNoNoNoAll PossiblePM2.5YesYesYesYesNoNoNOx(Site specific)NoNoYesNoNoSO2(Site specific)NoNoYesNoNoSulfateYesYesNoNoNoNoNitrateYesYesNoNoNoNoCarbonYesYesNoNoNoNoOrganicsYesYesNoYesNoNoOtherReconstructedextinctionNephelometer -BscatAethelometer - BabsHAPS, TOXICSTotalExtinctionVisualParametersVisibility/Concentration ChangesMagnitudeYesYesAll PossibleAll PossibleAll PossibleNoAll PossibleFrequencyYesYesYesAll PossibleDurationYesYesYesTime of DayNoNoAll PossibleAll PossibleAll PossibleYesLikely Part ofFLMCertification?PossibleNo39Monitoring Techniques (continued)PrincipalQualitative/QuantitativeQuantitativeQualitativeQualitative/QuantitativeStrengthsReconstructedextinctioncalculation,historicalrecordvarious chemicalanalysis, largenetworknationwideContinuousmeasurement,nephelometercommonly located inor near Class I areasContinuousmeasurement,variety of possiblepollutantsContinuousmeasurement,provides lightextinctionvalue,historicalrecordRelativelyinexpensive,uncomplicatedoperationalrequirementsLidar and airplane basedsystems can providedtemporal and spatialresults, tracer methodscan provide sourcereceptor dataWeaknesses/LimitationsFixed locationin or near ClassI areas, alsolocated inseveral urbanareasIntegrated 24 hoursample generallycollected on onein-three schedule,commonly inurban areasTEOM, BETA, etc,commonly located inurban areasGenerally requireconditionedenvironment forproper operation,commonly locatedin urban areasFixed locationin or near ClassI areasNumber of stillimages limited,video requiresstorage androutine reviewComplex and relativelyexpensive to operate,requires specializedtraining and knowledgeto operate and analyzeresultsDistinguishBART Sources?Possible withother analysisPossible with otheranalysisNoPossible with otheranalysisNoPossible withother analysisPossible with otheranalysisPractical ConsiderationsCostModerate; varies depending on the number of instrumentsLowHigh40

### B. Source Modeling

Introduction

Given the complex natural environment, the st ate must choose the conf iguration of modeling techniques that will provide the most inform ation on the contributing source or sources of impairment within the limited resources of cu rrent technology, data, budgets, time and staff availability.

1. Physical Models

Physical models are those that simulate the meteorology and air quality over an area. Modeling relies on a numerical or analytical model to estimate particulate concentrations in space and time. Because of its nature and sources, particulate matter is difficult to model over all spatial scales. Many air quality mo dels that are currently availabl e were designed to be applied over the regional scale with grid sizes from four to forty kilo meters. Modeling requires detailed meteorological fields and emissi ons inventory over the entire domain. The compilation of data required to run these models can require much effort and expertise. Efforts are underway by government agencies in the U.S. to generate and archive both emissions and estimated activity levels of many source types in ge ographical information systems.

Numerical source-oriented models are desi gned to simulate atmospheric diffusion or dispersion and estimate concentrations at defi ned receptors. Numerical source models can be grouped as kinematic, first-order closure, or second-order closure models (Bowne and Lundergan, 1983). Kinematic models are the simple st both mathematically and conceptually. These models simplify the non-linear equations of turbulent motion, thereby permitting a closed analytical approximation to describe pollutant concentration (Green et al. , 1980). First-order closure models are based on the assumption of an isotropic pollutant concentration field. Consequently, turbulent eddy fluxes are estimated as being proportional to the local spatial gradient of the transport quantities. The Eulerian grid models, Lagrangian particle models, and trajectory puff/plume models are included in this category. Second- order closure models involve a series of algorithm transformati ons of the equations of state, mass continuity, momentum, and energy by using the Boussinesque approximati on and Reynold’s decomposition theory (Holton, 1992; Stull, 1988).

2. Spatial Scales

The model’s applicable spatial scales play a large role meeting the analysis' objectives and its ability to accurately a ssess spatial variability. PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations modeled or measured at any receptor result from the complex interaction of meteorology, chemical transformations and emissions from nearby and di stant sources. For example, a monitor located near an operating construction site will be impacted more by the daily construction activity than the surrounding area. That site may be classified as representing an area of a few tens of meters to no more than one kilometer depending on the size of the construction area and fugitive dust

control measures.

The dimensions given below are nominal rather than exact and are presented as defined in 40 CFR part 58.

41a. Micro-Scale (10 to 100 m): This scale does not apply to scenarios releva nt to the attribution problem. Modeling at the microscale is usually d one by simple Gaussian plume models such as

ISCST3. Measurements in urban areas can show cons iderable variations at this scale while those in pristine areas would not. Variations often occur when monitors are located close to a low-level emissions source, such as a busy roadway, constr uction site, within a co mmunity that uses wood stoves, or a short industrial stack. Fortunately, compliance mon itoring site exposure criteria

avoids microscale influences even fo r source-oriented monitoring sites.

b. Middle Scale (100 to 500 m): Middle-scale monitors show significant differences between locations that are ~0.1 to 0.5 km apart. These di fferences may occur near large industrial areas with many different operations or near large cons truction sites. Monitors with middle-scale zones of representation are often source-oriented, used to determine the contributions from emitting activities with multiple, individual sources to nearby community exposure monitors.

c. Neighborhood Scale (500 m to 4 km): Nei ghborhood-scale monitors do not show significant differences in particulate concentrations with spacing of a few kilometers. This dimension is often the size of emissions and modeling grid s used in large urban areas for PM source assessment, so this zone of representation of a monitor is the only one th at should be used to evaluate such models. Sources affecting nei ghborhood-scale sites typically consist of small individual emitters, such as clean, paved, curbed roads, uncongested traffic flow without a significant fraction of heavy-dut y vehicles, or neighborhood use of residential heating devices such as fireplaces and wood stoves.

d. Urban Scale (4 to 100 km): Urban-scale m onitors show consistency among measurements with monitor separations of tens of kilometers. These monitors represent a mixture of particles from many sources within the urban complex, including those from the smaller scales. PM

measurements at urban-scale locations are not dominated by any pa rticular neighborhood,

however. Urban-scale sites are often located at hi gher elevations and away from highly traveled roads, industries, and residential heating.

e. Regional-Scale Background (100 to 1,000 km): Regional-scale background monitors show consistency among measurements for monitor separations of a few hundred kilometers. Background concentrations are often more consis tent for specific chemical compounds, such as sulfate or nitrate, than they are for PM mass co ncentrations. Regional-scal e PM is a combination of naturally-occurring aerosol from windblown dust and marine aerosol as well as particles generated in urban and industrial areas that ma y be more than 1,000 km distant. Regional-scale

sites are best located in rural areas away from local sources, a nd at higher elevations. National parks, national wilderness areas, and many stat e and county parks and re serves are appropriate areas for regional-scale sites. Many of the IM PROVE sites characterize PM regional scale background in different regi ons of the United States.

f. Continental-Scale Background (1,000 to 10,000 km): Continental-scale background monitors show little variation even when they are separated by more than 1,000 km. They are hundreds of kilometers from the nearest significant emitters. Though these sites measure a

mixture of natural and diluted manmade source contributions, the manmade component is at its minimum expected concentration. The Jarbidge Wilderness IMPROVE site in northern Nevada is a good example of a continental-scale background site for particulate matter in North America.

42e. Global-Scale Background (>10,000 km): Global-scale background monitors are intended to quantify concentrations transported between different continents as well as naturally-emitted particles and precursors from sea spray, vol canoes, and windblown dust. Yellow sand from China has been detected at the Mauna Loa, HI, laboratory (Darzi and Wi nchester, 1982; Braaten and Cahill, 1986), as well as on the North American continent. Red dust from Africa’s Sahara

desert has been detected at Mt . Yunque, Puerto Rico and over the southeastern United States. Other global-scale sites include McMurdo, Palmer , and Ahmundson-Scott stations in Antarctica (Lowenthal et al. , 1996), Pt. Barrow, Alaska, and Mace Head, Ireland.

3. Chemical Composition

This section illustrates how the chemical composition of aerosols is an important consideration in the choice of particulate matte r models. The knowledge of how the aerosol's composition varies over an area will play a key role in the attr ibution study design.

The relative abundance of chemical component s in the atmosphere closely reflect the

characteristics of emission sources. Major chemical components of PM 2.5 and PM 10 mass in urban and rural areas consist of nitrate, sulfat e, ammonium, carbon, geological material, sodium chloride, and liquid water.

Chemical compositions can vary spatially in all scales of the atmosphere and depend on sources surrounding the monitoring s ite. For example, on the continen tal scale, the eastern U.S. fine particulate chemical compositions are differe nt than those of the western states. In the eastern portion of the U.S., nonurban PM 2.5 is dominated by secondary sulfate, organics and elemental carbon (EPA, 1996). The data to supp ort this conclusion are based on the IMPROVE and CASTNET networks. These networks provide a background fine-fraction aerosol database because the monitoring sites are primarily loca ted in national parks and wilderness areas. Analysis of this network shows that the western U.S. nonurban PM 2.5 aerosol is predominantly

carbon in nature. Nitrate also contributes si gnificantly to the fi ne particle mass budget particularly in central and coas tal California. Within these ge neralizations, obvious departures will be found especially near sources such as near the ocean and urban areas where the aerosol will be primarily influenced by sea salt and combustion particles, respectively.

The typical PM 2.5 chemical compositions vary by season (Chow et al., 1993a; 1996a, Watson et al., 1997), and consist of the following major components:

a. Organic Carbon: Organic carbon is com posed of gases and particles containing combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Organic compounds found in ambient air may also

be associated with other elements and co mpounds, particularly oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, halogens, and metals. Particulat e organic carbon consists of hundreds, possibly thousands, of separate compounds (Rogge et al ., 1993a). The mass concentration of organic carbon can be accurately measured, as can carbonate carbon (C how et al., 1993b), but only about ten percent of the specific organic compounds th at it contains have been meas ured. Vehicle exhaust (Rogge et al., 1993b), residential and agricu ltural burning (Rogge et al., 1998) , meat cooking (Rogge et al., 1991), fuel combustion (Rogge et al., 1997), ro ad dust (Rogge et al., 1993c), and particle formation from heavy hydrocarbon gases (Pandis et al., 1992), are the major sources of organic

carbon in PM 2.5

.

43b. Elemental Carbon: Elemental carbon is bl ack, often called “soot.” Elemental carbon contains pure, graphitic carbon, but it also contai ns high molecular weight, dark-colored, nonvolatile organic materials such as tar, biological material (e.g., coffee), and coke. Elemental carbon usually accompanies organic carbon in combustion emissions, with diesel exhaust (Watson et al., 1994a, 1998) bei ng the largest contributor.

c. Sulfate: Ammonium sulfate ((NH 4 SO 4 ), ammonium bisulfate (NH 4 HSO 4 ), and sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4 ), are the most common sulfate compounds in PM 2.5 . These compounds are water-soluble and reside almost exclusively in the PM 2.5 size fraction. Sodium sulfate (Na 2 SO 4 ) has been found

in coastal areas where sulfuric acid has been ne utralized by sodium chloride (NaCl) in sea salt. Although gypsum (Ca 2 SO 4 ) and some other geological compounds contain sulfate, these are not easily dissolved in water for chemical analysis an d are more abundant in the coarse fraction than

in PM 2.5 ; they are usually classified in the geologi cal fraction.

d. Nitrate: Ammonium nitrate (NH 4 NO 3 ) is the most abundant nitrate compound, a large

fraction of PM 2.5 occurs during winter, and a moderate fr action occurs during fall. Sodium nitrate (NaNO 3 ) is found in the PM 2.5 and coarse fractions near the oceans and salt playas. Small quantities of sodium nitrate have been found in summertime particulate matter inland owing to transport from the ocean (Chow et al., 1996b).

e. Ammonium: Ammonium sulfate (NH 4 SO 4 ) and ammonium nitrate (NH 4 NO 3 ) are the most common compounds containing ammonium from reactio ns between sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and ammonia gases. While most of the sulfur dioxi de and oxides of nitrogen originate from fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources, most of the ammonia derives from living things, especially animal husbandry prac ticed in dairies and feedlots.

f. Geological Material: Suspended dust consis ts mainly of oxides of aluminum, silicon, calcium, titanium, iron, and other metal oxides. In areas surrounded by substantial terrain (i.e., mountains), eons of runoff produce mineral co mpositions in soils that can be fairly homogeneous, with the exception of places where dr y lake beds exist that have accumulated salt deposits. Industrial processes su ch as steel making, smelting, and mining have distinct geological compositions. For instance, cement production an d distribution facilities may use alcareous, siliceous, argillaceous, and ferriferous minerals that may not be natural to the region, with limestone (CaCO 3 ) being the most abundant (Greer et al ., 1992). Suspended geological material resides mostly in the coarse particle fraction (Houck et al, 1989,1990), and typically constitutes

~50% of PM 10 while only contributing 5 to 15% of PM 2.5 (Watson et al., 1994b).

g. Sodium Chloride: Salt is found in suspended particles near oceans, open playas, and after de-icing materials are applied. Bulk sea water contains 57 ± 7% chloride, 32 ± 4% sodium, 8 ± 1%
sulfate, 1.1 ± 0.1% soluble potassium, and 1.2 ± 0.2% calcium (Pytkowicz and Kester, 1971). As noted above, sodium chloride is of ten neutralized by nitric or sulfur ic acid in urban air where it is

encountered as sodium nitrate or sodium sulfate.

h. Liquid Water: Soluble nitrates , sulfates, ammonium, sodium, ot her inorganic ions, and some organic material (Saxena and Hildemann, 1997) absorb water vapor from the atmosphere, especially when relative humidity exceeds 70% (Tang and Munkelwitz, 1993). Sulfuric acid absorbs some water or deliquesces at all humid ities. Particles containing these compounds grow

44into the droplet mode as they ta ke on liquid water. Some of this water is retained when particles are sampled and weighed for mass concentration. The precise amount of water quantified in a

PM 2.5 depends on its ionic composition and the equ ilibration relative humidity applied prior to laboratory weighing.

Ambient mass concentrations contain both pr imary and secondary particles. Primary particles are directly emitted by sources and usually undergo few changes between source and receptor. Atmospheric concentrations of primar y particles are, on average, proportional to the quantities that are emitted.

Secondary particles are those th at form in the atmosphere from gases that are directly emitted by sources. Sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and oxides of nitrogen are the precursors for sulfuric acid, ammonium bisulfat e, ammonium sulfate, and ammoni um nitrate particles. “Heavy” volatile organic compounds or HVO C (those containing more than eight carbon atoms) may also change into particles. The majority of these transformations result from intense photochemical reactions that also create high ozone levels. Secondary particle s usually form over several hours or days and attain aerodynamic diameter s in the accumulation mode between 0.1 and 1 μ m. Several of these particles, notab ly those containing ammonium n itrate, are volatile and transfer mass between the gas and particle phase to mainta in a chemical equilibrium. This volatility has implications for ambient concentration meas urements as well as for gas and particle concentrations in the atmosphere.

Ambient concentrations of secondary aerosols are not necessarily pr oportional to quantities of emissions since the rate at which they form may be limited by factors other than the concentration of the precursor gases. Secondary particulate a mmonium nitrate concentrations depend on gaseous ammonia and nitric acid concen trations as well as temperature and relative humidity. A nearby source of ammonia may cause a localized increase in PM 2.5 concentrations by shifting the equilibrium from the gas to the particulate amm onium nitrate phase (Watson et al., 1994c). Ammonium sulfate may form rapidly fr om sulfur dioxide and ammonia gases in the presence of clouds and fogs, or slowly in dry ai r. Because fine particle deposition velocities are

slower than those of th e gaseous precursors, PM 2.5 may travel much farther than the precursors, and secondary particles precursors are often f ound far from their emissions sources and may extend over scales exceeding 1,000 km.

4. Particle Formation

Ammonium nitrate and ammoni um sulfate aerosols are th e most prevalent secondary particles found at urban and non-urban sites throughout the U.S. during the winter. These particles can form when gas molecules are attr acted to and adhere to existing particles.

Sulfur dioxide gas changes to particulat e sulfate through gas- and aqueous-phase transformation pathways. In the gas-phase path way, ultraviolet sunlight induces photochemical reactions creating oxidizing species that react w ith a wide variety of atmospheric constituents. The gas-phase transformation rate appears to be controlled more by the presence or absence of the hydroxyl radical and its competing reactions of other gases than by the sulfur dioxide

concentrations.

45In the presence of fogs or cl ouds, sulfur dioxide dissolves in droplets where it experiences aqueous reactions that are much faster than gas-phase reac tions. When ozone and hydrogen peroxide are dissolved in the dr oplet, the sulfur dioxide is qu ickly oxidized to sulfuric acid. When ammonia is dissolved in the droplet, the sulf uric acid is neutralized to ammonium sulfate. If the fog or cloud evaporates and relative hum idity decreases below 100 percent, the sulfate particle exists as a small droplet that includes a portion of liquid water. As the relative humidity further decreases below 70 percent, the droplet ev aporates and a small, solid sulfate particle

remains. The reactions within th e fog droplet are very fast, a nd the rate is controlled by the solubility of the precursor gases. Aqueous transformation rates of sulfur dioxide to sulfate are 10 to 100 times as fast as gas-phase rates. These ch emical reactions are crit ical to understanding PM

concentrations in areas and downwind of areas that emits large amounts of SO 2 . The location and

SO 2 emissions output of large point sources such as coal and oil fired power plants need to be mapped and compared with transport patterns in order to determine the impact of ammonium sulfate particles on ambien t surface concentrations.

Fogs serve as an environment for creating part icles and as vehicles for particle removal. During heavy fogs, particles and precursor gases ar e scavenged as fog droplets grow to sizes that settle rapidly to the surface. The extent and inte nsity of these fogs is so poorly characterized, however, that it is not yet possible to determin e where and when particle formation overtakes particle deposition, thereby adding to the PM 2.5 concentration loading.

Nitrogen oxide converts to nitrogen dioxide, primarily by reaction with ozone. Nitrogen dioxide can: 1) change back to nitrogen oxide in the presence of ultraviole t radiation; 2) change to short-lived species which take place in other ch emical reactions; 3) form organic nitrates; or 4)

oxidize to form nitric acid. The major pathway to nitric acid is a reaction with hydroxyl radicals that transforms nitrogen dioxide to nitric acid. Nitric acid deposits from the atmosphere fairly rapidly but, in the presence of ammo nia, it is neutralized to partic ulate ammonium nitrate. This is an important process in secondary partic le production because ma ny agricultural areas surrounding populated urban areas contain larg e ammonia sources. Chow and Egami (1997) show that San Joaquin Valley a mmonia concentrations are large during winter. Conversion rates for nitrogen dioxide to nitric aci d, ranging from less than one per cent per hour to ninety percent per hour. These rates are typically five to ten times the conversion rates for sulfate formation. Though they vary throughout a twenty-four hour period, these rates are significant during both daytime and nighttime hours, in contrast to the gas-phase sulfate chemistry that is most active during daylight hours. The important nitric acid -ammonia reaction has imp lications to network design by the need to locate and map possible sources of ammonia. Significant sources of

ammonia are associated with animal husbandr y and fertilizer applications. Locating and estimating ammonia emissions will be a difficult ta sk because it is not traditionally tabulated in emission inventories and requires further resear ch to refine the methodology to measure the

emissions.

While ammonium sulfate is a fairly stab le compound, ammonium nitrate is not. Its equilibrium with gaseous ammonia and nitric ac id is strongly influenced by temperature and relative humidity. Atmospheric particle nitrate can occur in atmospheric aerosol particles as solid

ammonium nitrate or as ionized ammonium nitrate in aerosol par ticles containing water. In both

46the solid and ionized forms, ammonium nitrate is in equilibrium with ga s-phase nitric acid and

ammonia.

For fixed relative humidity, increasing temperat ure decreases the particle nitrate fraction. This is a consequence of the direct relation be tween the equilibrium constants and temperature. As temperature increases, the equilibrium cons tants increase, which means higher gas-phase pressures can be supported, thereby reducing the particle nitrate fract ion. For fixed humidity, decreasing temperature increases the particle nitr ate fraction. As temperatur es approach 0°C, the curves approach limiting values. Particle fractions of one are used for ion ratios greater than or equal to one, and particle fractions are determ ined by the amount of available ammonia for ion ratios less than one. For the higher temperatur es, increasing relative humidity increases the particle nitrate fraction. This is a consequence of liquid wate r present for the 60% and 80% relative humidity cases. When there is sufficient ammonia present with 30% relative humidity, more than 90% of the nitrate is in the particle phase for temperatures less than 20°C. More than half of the particle nitrate is gone at temper atures above 30°C, and all of it disappears at temperatures above 40°C.

Atmospheric water is another important com ponent of suspended pa rticulate matter. The sharp rise in liquid water cont ent at relative humidities betw een 55% and 75% is known as deliquescence. A precise humidity at which solubl e particles take on liquid water depends on the chemical mixture and temperature. Particles c ontaining these compounds gr ow into the droplet mode as they take on liquid water, so the same concentration of sulfate or nitrate makes a much larger contribution to light extinc tion when humidities are high (> 70 percent) than when they are low (<30 percent). Excess liquid water is also measured as part of the PM 2.5 mass when sampled by light scattering continuous monitors or when fi lters have not been eq uilibrated at relative humidities less than 30% prior to weighing.

Some of the organic carbon in suspended particles is also of secondary origin. Secondary organic compounds in particulate matter include aliphatic acids, alcohols, aromatic acids, nitroaromatics, carbonyls, esters, phenols, and alip hatic nitrates (Grosjean and Seinfeld, 1989; Grosjean, 1992, Pandis et al., 1992, 1993; Sein feld and Pandis, 1998). Normally, primary organic carbon particles are more prevalent than secondary orga nics with exceptions such as those found in Los Angeles where conditions of clear skies and high photochemical smog are frequent. Although secondary organi c aerosol was thought to be minimal during winter in central California, recent analyses (Strader et al., 1998) demonstrate that it could be as much as 20% of twenty-four hour organic carbon in some samp les. This occurs because low wintertime temperatures lower the saturation vapor pressure for semi-volatile organic compounds. This is probably minor during winter and fall when photochemical reactions are not dominant.

The exact precursors of secondary organics ar e not well understood, but they are believed to consist of heavy hydrocarbons with more than seven carbon atoms. Odum (1997) identifies aromatics as the major group of commonly measur ed reactive organic ga ses that affect both ozone and secondary aerosol formation.

475. Source Modeling Techniques

Before selecting a modeling technique, it is wise to establish a conceptual model. A conceptual model describes the re levant physical and chemical pr ocesses that affect emissions, transport, and transformation specific to the regi on of interest. It is the starting point for any source apportionment process. Conceptual models take advantage of the large body of scientific knowledge already acquired. They id entify the sources that are likel y to be present and eliminate those that are not. They examine meteorological conditions that a ffect concentrations and focus further modeling on the conditions c onducive to the high concentrations.

Modeling techniques relevant to attribution are split into several categories depending complexity, physical attributes, purpose and cost to execute. The following tables on pages 55 to 62 provide a matrix of detailed information on specific models grouped in these categories.

a. Puff Modeling Techniques

These models are based on a Lagrangian framew ork where air parcels are tracked spatially and temporally. They can include chemical mechan isms as well as deposition effects. The most commonly used puff model is the CA LMET/CALPUFF (Scire et al., 2000).

b. Grid Modeling Techniques

For estimating PM 2.5 levels, Eulerian models that in clude aerosol modules simulating the physical and chemical processes governing particulat e concentrations in th e atmosphere are more suitable than Lagrangian models such as plume trajectory models. Eulerian three-dimensional models may use either a simplifie d treatment of atmospheric chemistry (usually used to address long-term particulate concentrations at urban sites) or include a more detailed atmospheric chemistry treatment (usually used to simula te only a few days of episodes due to their compositional cost).

Commonly used long-term Eulerian models w ith simplified atmospheric processes include (Seigneur et al., 1997):

• Urban Airshed Model Version V (UAM-V).

• Urban Airshed Model with version V with Linear Chemistry (UAM-LC)

• Regulatory Modeling System for Aerosol and Deposition (REMSAD).

Short-term Eulerian models with co mplex atmospheric processes include:

• Urban Airshed Model Version V with Aerosols (UAM-AERO),

• Urban Airshed Model with Aeroso l Inorganic Module (UAM-AIM).

• SARMAP Air Quality Model w ith Aerosols (SAQM-AERO).

• Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ)

48• Comprehensive Air Quality Mode l with extensions (CAMx)

All of the above mentioned Eulerian models ha ve been developed by va rious scientists from universities, federal and state agencies, and th e private sector. These particulate air quality models provide a three-dimensional treatment to simulate the fate and transport of atmospheric

contaminants. All of these Eulerian models in clude gas phase chemistr y and aerosol dynamics and simulate atmospheric inorganics (such as sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium), but some of these

models do not include the treatment of organics (i.e., REMSAD and UAM-LC).

c. Lagrangian Trajectory Model Techniques

The advantages of using Lagrangian models ar e the ease of use, the ability to perform many trajectories and perform back trajectories. Commonly used Lagrangian models include HYSPLIT (Draxler and Hess, 1997) and FLEXPART (Stohl and Siebert, 2001).

d. Meteorological Modeling Techniques

Meteorological models describe transport, disp ersion, vertical mixing, and moisture in time and space. Meteorological models consist of strai ght line, interpolation (termed diagnostic), and first principle (termed prognostic) formulations, with increasing levels of complexity and requirements for computational and data resources.

The straight line model is applied to hourly wind directions from a si ngle monitor, assuming an air mass travels a distance equal to the wind velo city in the measured di rection, regardless of the distance from the monitoring site. This model is applicable for a few hour s of transport in flat terrain, typically for evaluating a single emissions source.

Interpolation models integrate wind speed and directions from multiple measurement locations, including upper air measurements provi de by remote sensors or balloon launches. The more advanced of these models allow barriers, such as mountains, to be placed between monitors. Wind fields, therefore, show different directions and ve locities at different horizontal and vertical positions. Interpolation wind models are applicable to domains with a large number of well-placed monitors and for estimating the movement of air masses from many sources over transport times of more than ha lf a day. The number and placement of monitors, especially upper air monitors, is especially important in mountai nous terrain and in coastal areas where winds are

unusual.

First principle models (Stauffer and Seaman, 1994; Seaman et al., 1995; Koracin and Enger, 1994) embody scientists’ best knowledge of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics, employing basic equations for conservation and transfer of energy and momentum. Also known as “prognostic models,” first principle models pur port to need no data other than values from a sparse upper air network for interpolation. They are computationally intensive, often requiring supercomputers but have become more practical and cost-effective as workstation and desktop computers become more powerful. Modern versions use “four-dimensional data assimilation” or FDDA that compare model-calculated wind, humidity, and temperature fields with measurements and “nudge” model outputs toward observations.

49A more complex meteorological model is not necessarily a better model for a specific application. One of the most widely used fi rst principle model is the Fifth-Generation

NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model or MM5 model (Grell et al., 1995). The MM5 meteorological model has been adopted as the plat form for central California air quality studies (Seaman et. al., 1995). MM5 input data consist of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, atmospheric pressure, and relative humidity at ground level, within th e boundary layer, and above the boundary layer. In many cases in valle y situations ten-meter vertical resolution is

needed within the surfac e layer, 30-50 m resolution is needed in the valley wide layer, and 100 m

resolution is needed above the valleywide layer up to ~2000 m agl (Watson et al., 1998). Time resolution is at least hourly for these measur ements. Measurements are needed where large differences are expected, although th is is largely unknown for winter.

References:

Bowne, N.E.; and Londergan, R.J. (1983). Overview , results and conclusions for the EPRI plume model validation and development project: Plains site. Report No. EA-3074 PROJECT

1616. Prepared by Electric Power and Res earch Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Braaten, D.A.; and Cahill, T.A. (1986). Size and composition of Asian dust transported to

Hawaii. Atmos. Environ., 20 : 1105-1109.

Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Lowenthal, D.H.; So lomon, P.A.; Magliano, K.L.; Ziman, S.D.; and Richards, L.W. (1993a). PM 10 and PM 2.5 compositions in California's San Joaquin Valley. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 18 : 105-128.

Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Pritchett, L.C.; Pier son, W.R.; Frazier, C.A.; and Purcell, R.G. (1993b). The DRI Thermal/Optical Reflectan ce Carbon Analysis System: Description, Evaluation and Applications in U.S. air quality studies. Atmos. Environ., 27A : 1185-1201.

Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Lu, Z.; Lowenthal, D. H.; Frazier, C.A.; Solomon, P.A.; Thuillier, R.H.; and Magliano, K.L. (1996a). Descriptive analysis of PM 2.5 and PM 10 at regionally representative locations during SJVAQS/AUSPEX. Atmos. Environ., 30 : 2079-2112.

Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Lowenthal, D.H.; and Countess, R.J. (1996b). Sources and chemistry

of PM 10 aerosol in Santa Barbara County, CA. Atmos. Environ., 30 : 1489-1499.

Chow, J.C.; and Egami, R.T. (1997). San Jo aquin Valley Integrated Monitoring Study: Documentation, evaluation, and descriptive analysis of PM 10 and PM 2.5 , and precursor gas measurements - Technical Support Studies No. 4 and No. 8 - Fi nal report. Prepared for California Regional Particulate Air Qual ity Study, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, by Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV.

Darzi, M.; and Winchester, J.W. (1982). Aero sol characteristics at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, after east Asian dust storm episodes. J. Geophys. Res., 87 : 1251-1258.

Draxler, R.R.; and Hess, G.D. (1997). Description of the Hysplit_4 modeling system. Report No. NOAA Tech Memo ERL ARL-224, December 1997. Prepared by Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD.

50Green, A.E.; Singhal, R.P.; and Venkateswar, R. (1980). Analytic extensions of the Gaussian plume model. JAPCA, 30 : 773-776.

Greer, W.L.; Johnson, M.D.; Morton, E.L.; Raught, E.C.; Steuch, H.E.; and Trusty, C.B. (1992).

Portland cement. In Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Buonicore, A.J. and Davis, W.T., Eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 746-766.

Grell, G.A.; Dudhia, J.; and Stauffer, D.R. ( 1995). A description of the fifth-generation Penn

State/NCAR Mesoscale Mode l (MM5). Report No. NCAR Technical Note, NCAR/TN398+STR, June 1995. Prepared by National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder,

CO.

Grosjean, D.; and Seinfeld, J.H. (1989). Parameteri zation of the formation potential of secondary organic aerosols. Atmos. Environ., 23 : 1733-1747.

Grosjean, D. (1992). In-situ organic aerosol formation during a smog episode: estimated production and chemical functionality. Atmos. Environ., 26A : 953-963.

Holton, J.R. (1982). An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Houck, J.E.; Chow, J.C.; and Ahuja, M.S. (1989). The chemical and size characterization of particulate material originating from geological sources in California. In Transactions, Receptor Models in Air Resources Management, Watson, J.G., Ed. Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 322-333.

Houck, J.E.; Goulet, J.M.; Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; and Pritchett, L.C. (1990). Chemical

characterization of emission sources contributing to light extinction. In Transactions, Visibility and Fine Particles, Mathai, C.V., Ed. Air and Wa ste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 437-446.

Koracin, D.; and Enger, L. ( 1994). A numerical study of boundary-l ayer dynamics in a mountain valley. Part 2: Observed and simulated charac terisitcs of atmospheric stability and local

flows. Boundary Layer Meteorology, 69 : 249-283.

Lowenthal, D.H.; Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Dipple, W.A.; and Mazzera, D.M. (1996). PM 10 source apportionment at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. EM, 28-30.

Odum, J.R.; Jungkamp, T.P.W.; Griffin, R.J.; Forstn er, H.J.L.; Flagan, R.C.; and Seinfeld, J.H. (1997). Aromatics, reformulated gasoline, and atmospheric organic aerosol formation.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 31 : 1890-1897.

Pandis, S.N.; Harley, R.A.; Cass, G.R.; and Se infeld, J.H. (1992). Secondary organic aerosol formation and transport. Atmos. Environ., 26A : 2269-2282.

Pandis, S.N.; Wexler, A.S.; and Seinfeld, J.H. (1993). Secondary organic aerosol formation and transport - II. Predicting the ambient sec ondary organic aerosol size distribution. Atmos.
Environ., 27A : 2403-2416.

51Pytkowicz, R.M.; and Kester, D.R. (1971) . The physical chemistry of sea water. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol., 9 : 11-60.

Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; Mazurek, M.A.; and Cass, G.R. (1991). Sources of fine organic

aerosol. 1. Charbroilers a nd meat cooking operations. Environ. Sci. Technol., 25 : 1112-

1125.

Rogge,W.F.; Mazurek, M.A.; Hildemann, L.M.; Cass, G.R.; and Simoneit, B.R.T. (1993a). Quantification of urban organi c aerosols at a molecular le vel: identification, abundance

and seasonal variation. Atmos. Environ., 27A : 1309-1330.

Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; Mazurek, M.A.; Cass, G.R.; and Simoneit, B.R.T. (1993b). Sources of fine organic aerosol. 2. Noncatalyst and catalyst-equipped automobiles and heavy-duty diesel trucks. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 : 636-651.

Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; Mazurek, M.A.; Cass, G.R.; and Simoneit, B.R.T. (1993c). Sources of fine organic aerosol. 3. Road dust, tire debris, and organometallic brake lining

dust: Roads as sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 : 1892-1904.

Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; Mazurek, M.A.; Cass, G.R.; and Simoneit, B.R.T. (1997). Sources of fine organic aerosol. 8. Boile rs burning No. 2 distillate fuel oil. Environ. Sci. Technol., 31 : 2731-2737.

Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; Mazurek, M.A.; Cass, G.R.; and Simoneit, B.R.T. (1998). Sources of fine organic aerosol. 9. Pine, oa k, and synthetic log combustion in residential fireplaces. Environ. Sci. Technol., 13-22.

Scire, J.S.; Strimaitis, D.G.; and Yamartino, R.J. (2000). A user's guide for the CALPUFF dispersion model (version 5). Prepared by Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA.

Seaman, N.L.; Stauffer, D.R.; and Lario-Gibbs, A.M. (1995). A multiscale four-dimensional data assimilation system applied in the San Joa quin Valley during SARMAP. Part I: Modeling design and basic performance characteristics. Appl. Meteorol., 34 : 1739-1761.

Seigneur, C.; Pai, P.; Lourensz, R.S.; Hopke, P.K.; and Grosjean, D. (1997). Review of air quality models for particulat e matter. Report No. CP015-97-1a. Prepared for American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., by Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.,
San Ramon, CA.

Seinfeld, J.H.; and Pandis, S.N. (1998). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Stauffer, D.R.; and Seaman, N.L. (1994). Mu ltiscale four-dimensional data assimilation. J. Appl.
Meteorol., 33 : 416-434.

Stohl, A.; and Seibert, P. (2001). The FLEXPART particle dispersion model version 4.0 user guide. June 4, 2001.

52Strader, R.; Pandis, S.N.; and Lurmann, F.W. (1 998). Evaluation of secondary organic aerosol formation in winter. Prepared for Califor nia Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, by Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Stull, R.B. (1988). An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Tang, I.N.; and Munkelwitz, H.R. (1993). Comp osition and temperature dependence of the deliquescence properties of hygrosopic aerosols. Atmos. Environ., 27A : 467-473.

Watson, J.G.; Chow J.C.; Lowenthal, D.H.; Pritc hett, L.C.; Frazier, C.A.; Neuroth, G.R.; and Robbins,R. (1994a). Differences in the carbon co mposition of source profiles for dieseland gasoline-powered vehicles. Atmos. Environ., 28 : 2493-2505.

Watson, J.G.; Chow, J.C.; Lu, Z.; Fujita, E.M.; Lowenthal, D.H.; and Lawson, D.R. (1994b). Chemical mass balance source apportionment of PM 10 during the Southern California Air Quality Study. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 21 : 1-36.

Watson, J.G.; Chow, J.C.; Lurmann, F.W.; and Musa rra, S. (1994c). Ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, and ammonia equilibrium in wintertime Phoenix, Arizona. JAWMA, 44 : 405-412.

Watson, J.G.; Chow ,J.C.; Rogers, C.F.; Dubois, D.; and Cahill, C.F. (1997). Analysis of

historical PM 10 and PM 2.5 measurements in Central California. Prepared for California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, by Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV.

Watson, J.G.; Fujita, E.M.; Chow, J.C.; Zielin ska, B.; Richards, L.W.; Neff, W.D.; and Dietrich,D. (1998). Northern Front Range Ai r Quality Study. Final report. Prepared for Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, by Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV.

Watson, J.G.; DuBois, D.W.; DeMandel, R.; Kadu wela, A.; Magliano, K.; McDade, C.; Mueller, P.K.; Ranzieri, A.; Roth, P.M.; and Tanrikul u, S. (1998). Aerometric monitoring program plan for the California Regional PM2.5/ PM10 Air Quality Study. Report No. DRI

document No. 9801.1D5. Prepared by Division of At mospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV.

53Source Modeling and Back Trajectory Attribution TechniquesTable 2. Puff, Visibility and Trajectory Modeling Attribution TechniquesAir Quality ModelsVisibility ModelsLagrangian Trajectory ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCALPUFFVISCREENPLUVUEIIHYSPLITRAPTADFLEXPARTChemical MechanismsDoes the model simulateaqueous phase chemistry? (Ifit does what chemistrymechanism is used and does itinclude fog/cloud chemistry)Yes; reactions forSO4and NO3NONONONONODoes the model simulate gasphase chemistry? (if it does,what chemical mechanism isimplemented)YesNONONONONOSimulate secondary organicaerosols4 species modelNONONONONOInorganic PM (i.e. ions, SO4,NO3, etc)SO4, NO3NONONONONOSize distributions (sectional ormodal)Coarse and finemodesNONOOnly for depositionNOApplicable spatial scalesMicro- to regionalscaleNeighbor-hood tourban scaleNeighborhood toglobal scaleNeighborhood to globalscaleNeighborhood to global scaleApplicable temporal scales(episodic or long termapplications)Episodic or LongtermN/AN/AEpisodicor LongtermEpisodic or Long termEpisodic or Long termDoes the model have thecapability to distinguishBART sources?YESYESYESYESYESYESDoes the model have thecapability to ingest fieldmeasurements (PM, HNO3,H2O2, NH3, etc)NO; only asbackground valuesNONONONONO55Air Quality Models (continued)Visibility ModelsLagrangian Trajectory ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCALPUFFVISCREENPLUVUEIIHYSPLITRAPTADFLEXPARTVisibility ModelingDoes the model simulatebackground regional hazeNONONONONONOPoint source treatment (plumerise, plume in grid)YESYESYESYESYESYESDoes the model have thecapability to calculate wet anddry deposition?YESNONOYESNOYESVisibility treatment:(extinction, deciview, visualrange)Extinction (totaland for SO4, NO3,EC, OC, fine,coarse), Deciviews**NONONOInput RequirementsMeteorological data required(single site, gridded, numberof levels, etc)Gridded; able torun with single site**Gridded(FNL, EDAS,MM5)Gridded(Use HOTMAC’sprediction)Gridded (ECMWF, MM5)Emission data required (singlestack, multiple point sources,gridded, etc)Multiple point,area, volume**Multiple pointsources, griddedinventorySingle stack or multiplepoint sources*Allow for initial and boundaryconditions (is it required ornot applicable)YESNONONONONOHas the model been comparedagainst field program data?Has the model been peerreviewed?YESYESYESYESYESNODoes enough data exist nowto run the model (Does dataexist in a format ready for themodel? Are current databasesadequate for the model?)Use CALMETwith existingstations or MMdataYESYESGridded met dataavailable on NOAAARL ftp site (FNL,EDAS); adaptableto read in MM5Use HOTMAC to obtainwind and turbulence data*56Air Quality Models (continued)Visibility ModelsLagrangian Trajectory ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCALPUFFVISCREENPLUVUEIIHYSPLITRAPTADFLEXPARTPractical ConsiderationsCosts to run (hardwareplatforms, file storage,operating system)Inexpensive; PC,Windows, up to20GB (withCALMET)Inexpensive; PC,DOS, 1MBInexpensive;PC, DOS,1MBInexpensive; PC,Windows, 20MBInexpensive: Linux PC,RedhatInexpensive; Linux PC, Redhat; can becompiled on PCHave protocols or proceduresbeen developed to run andinterpret the model?FLAG for Class IAQRVsFLAG for Class IAQRVsFLAG forClass IAQRVsNONONOIs the source code available?YESYESYESNOYESYESAre beginning user trainingclasses available?YES; byEarthTech, BEELineEPA; APTIEPA; APTINOYESNOAre user support groupsavailable?YES; one list-serveYES; through EPASCRAMYES; throughEPA SCRAMNOYESNOLevel of expertise required torun and interpret results(Level of Linux, UNIX, PCskills required)Moderate; able torun PC DOSprograms;knowledge ofatmosphericchemistry &physicsSimple; able to run onPC DOS and windowsSimple; ableto run on PCDOS andWindowsSimple; able to runon PC runningWindowsSimple to run: GUIallows the user to easilyrun the programKnowledge is needed tointerpret resultsModerate; must compile source code forPC, Linux or UNIX; knowledge of metinput formatsOutput visualization requiredto interpret output numbersYESNONOYES; has built invisualizationYES; has built invisualizationYESOther strengths****Applicable from buildingscale to terrain scale.*AvailabilityEarthTechwww.src.comEPAEPANOAA AirResourceLaboratory;www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/models/hysplit.htmlYamada Science & Art;http://www.ysasoft.comhttp://www.forst.unimuenchen.de/EXT/LST/METEO/stohl/flexpart.html* No information available at this time57Source Modeling and Back Trajectory Attribution TechniquesTable 3. Eulerian Grid Based Modeling Attribution TechniquesAir Quality ModelsGrid ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCMAQREMSADCAMxUAM-AEROUAM-VPMURMCalGridChemical MechanismsDoes the model simulate aqueous phasechemistry? (If it does, what chemistrymechanism is used and does it includefog/cloud chemistry)35 equilibria and 99reactions for SO4andNO31 reaction for SO41 reaction for SO435 equilibria and 99reactions for SO4andNO3*2 reactions for sulfateNODoes the model simulate gas phasechemistry? (if it does, what chemicalmechanism is implemented)CBM-IV (93reactions) or RADM2(158 reactions)CBM-IV(93 reactions) orRADM2 (158reactions)CB-IV with enhancedisoprene orSAPRC97SAPRC97(185 reactions)CBLCCYES (both CBM-IVand SAPRC)(about 100 reactions)Simulate secondary organic aerosolsPrimary fromemissions; secondaryfrom organicsPrimary fromemissionsPrimary fromemissions; secondaryfrom gas phasereactions of organicprecursors usingyieldsSecondary from gasphase reactions oforganic precursorsusing yieldsPrimary fromemissionsPrimary fromemissions; secondaryfrom gas phasereactions of organicprecursors usingproduction fractionsNOInorganic PM (i.e. ions, SO4, NO3, etc)SO4, NO3and othermaterialSO4, NO3, NH4, andother materialSO4, NO3, NH4, Cl,other ions andmaterialsSO4, NO3, NH4, Cl,other ions andmaterialsSO4, NO3, NH4, andother materialsSO4, NO3, NH4, Cl,other ions andmaterialsNOSize distributions (sectional or modal)Lognormal; threemodes: Aitken,Accumulation andcoasePM2.5fraction, coarsemodeDiscrete bins, userspecified up to 10Discrete bins, userspecified up to 10Lognormal bins; userspecifiedDiscrete bins; userspecifiedNOApplicable spatial scalesMesoscaleMesoscaleMesoscaleUrban scaleUrban scaleMesoscaleUrban to RegionalApplicable temporal scales (episodic or longterm applications)EpisodicLong termEpisodicEpisodicEpisodicEpisodicEpisodicDoes the model have the capability todistinguish BART sources?YES; using plume ingridNOYESNONONONO58Air Quality Models (continued)Grid ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCMAQREMSADCAMxUAM-AEROUAM-VPMURMCalGridChemical Mechanisms (continued)Does the model have the capability to ingestfield measurements(PM,HNO3,H2O2,NH3,etc)YES; as initial andboundary conditionsUses default profilesYES; as initial andboundary conditionsYES; as initial andboundary conditionsYES; as initial andboundary conditionsYES; as initial andboundary conditionsYES; as initial andboundary conditionsVisibility ModelingDoes the model simulate background regionalhazeYESYESYESYES (withprocessing)YESYESNOPoint source treatment (plume rise, plume ingrid)Plume in gridNOPlume in gridNONONONODoes the model have the capability tocalculate wet and dry deposition?YESYESYESYESYESYESYESVisibility treatment: (extinction, deciview,visual range)Extinction (total andfor SO4, NO3, EC,OC, fine, coarse),DeciviewsExtinction (total andfor SO4, NO3, EC,OC, fine, coarse),DeciviewsNOYES (withprocessing)**NOInput RequirementsMeteorological datarequired (single site,gridded, number of levels, etc)GriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedCALMETdateEmission data required (single stack, multiplepoint sources, gridded, etc)GriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedGriddedAllow for initial and boundary conditions (isit required or not applicable)YESYESYESYESYESYESYESHas the model been compared against fieldprogram data? Has the model been peerreviewed?YESYESYESYESYESYESYESDoes enough data exist now to run the model(Does data exist in a format ready for themodel? Are current databases adequate forthe model?)Extensive need fordetailed emissionsand meteorologicalfieldsExtensive need fordetailed emissionsand meteorologicalfieldsExtensive need fordetailed emissionsand meteorologicalfieldsExtensive need fordetailed emissionsand meteorologicalfieldsExtensive need fordetailed emissionsand meteorologicalfields*Extensive need fordetailed emissionsand meteorologicalfields59Air Quality Models (continued)Grid ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCMAQREMSADCAMxUAM-AEROUAM-VPMURMCalGridPractical ConsiderationsCosts to run (hardware platforms, file storage,operating system)Can be runinexpensively; LinuxPC, up to 1 TB(annual runs)Can be runinexpensive; LinuxPCCan be runinexpensively; LinuxPCCan be runinexpensively; LinuxPCCan be runinexpensively; LinuxPCCan be runinexpensively; LinuxPCCan be runinexpensively; LinuxPCHas a protocol or procedures been developedto run the model?NO; but RPOs haveregional hazeprotocolsNO; but RPOs haveregional hazeprotocolsNONONONONOIs the source code available?YES*YESYESYESYESYESAre beginning user training classes available?YES; through EPAand RPOsNOYES; through SAIand RPOsNONONONOAre user support groups available?YES; through EPAand RPOsNONONONONONOLevel of expertise required to run andinterpret results (Level of Linux, UNIX, PCskills required)Considerableexpertise in UNIX orLinux; knowledge ofatmosphericchemistry & physics*Moderate toextensiveModerate toextensive**ModerateOutput visualization required to interpretoutput numbersYES; use PAVEYES; usePAVEYESYESYESYESYESAvailabilityEPA; Sharon LeDuc919-541-1335SAI; Sharon Douglas415-507-7108ENVIRON; RalphMorris 415-899-0700SAI; Sharon Douglas415-507-7108SAI; Sharon Douglas415-507-7108Georgia Tech; TedRussel, Talat OdmanCalifornia AirResources Board* No information available at this time60Table 4. Meteorological Modeling Attribution TechniquesDiagnostic ModelsMesoscale Prognostic ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCALMETDiagnostic WindModelRAMSMM5Eta *ARPSHOTMACApplicable spatial scalesUrban to regionalscaleUrban to regionalscaleUrban to globalscaleUrban to globalscaleUrban to globalscaleUrban to globalscaleUrban tomesoscaleApplicable temporalscalesHourly to annualHourly to annualHourly to annualHourly toannualHourly to annualHourlyto annualHourly to annualDoes enough data exist inorganization now to runthe model? Are theexisting monitoringnetworks adequate withinthe domain?Depends on areaDepends on areaDepends on areaDepends on areaDepends onareaDepends on areaDepends on areaFor the prognosticmodels: Capable ofFDDA?N/AN/AYesYesYesYesYesFor the prognosticmodels: Are filesavailable (archived) fromreal-time?N/AN/ANOAA is runningthe model for theeast coastSeveral federalagencies andregionalconsortiums arerunning MM5NOAA is runningthe Eta model andfields availablethrough NCEP ftpsiteIt can beinitialized usingNCEP analysesfiles as well asindividualobservationsNoData storage/archivalrequirements forsimulation of episodicand annual eventsDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, number ofspecies and lengthof simulationDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, numberof species andlength ofsimulationDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, numberof species andlength ofsimulationDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, numberof species andlength ofsimulationDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, numberof species andlength ofsimulationDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, numberof species andlength ofsimulationDepends onmodeling domain,grid size, numberof species andlength ofsimulationSimulateclouds/precipitationfields? At what timeintervals?NoNoYes – minutes todaysYes – minutes todaysYes – minutes todaysYes – minutes todaysYes – minutes todaysHas the model beencompared against fieldprogram data? Has themodel been peerreviewed?YesYesYesYesYesYesYes61Meteorological Modeling Attribution Techniques (continued)Diagnostic ModelsMesoscale Prognostic ModelsEvaluation CriteriaCALMETDiagnostic WindModelRAMSMM5Eta *ARPSHOTMACTools available tovisualize output fields?What operating systems?Yes – Unix, Linux,WindowsYes – Unix,Linux, WindowsYes – Unix, LinuxYes – Unix, LinuxYes – Unix, LinuxYes – Unix, LinuxYes – Built-inGUI; Unix, Linux,WindowsAre user groups,listservers available whenproblems arise?YesYesYesYesNoYesYesCost to run (hardware,software)PC Windows, PCLinux; Free sourcecodePC Linux, UNIX;FreePC Linux; licensedsource codePC Linux, UNIX;Free source codePC Linux, UNIX;Free source codePC Linux, UNIX;Free source codePC Linux; licensedsource codeLevel of expertiserequired to run andinterpret results (Level ofLinux, UNIX, PC skillsrequired)ModerateModerateHighHighHighHighHighAvailability of usertrainingYesYesYesYesNoYesYesIs the source codeavailable?YesYesYesYesNoYesYesHas a protocol orprocedures beendeveloped to run themodel?YesYesYesYesYesYesYesStrengthsRelatively easy touse; little observeddata neededRelatively easy touse; little observeddata neededDetailed 3-D,complex flow intimeDetailed 3-D,complex flow intimeDetailed 3-D,complex flow intimeDetailed 3-D,complex flow intimeDetailed 3-D,complex flow intimeWeaknesses/LimitationsParameterizationdepended; may notcapture variousflowsParameterizationdepended; may notcapture variousflowsLarge computertime; timeconsuming todebugLarge computertime; timeconsuming todebugLarge computertime; timeconsuming todebugLarge computertime; timeconsuming todebugNo real time datainitialization* While the Eta is not considered a mesoscale model, it has been used to simulate meteorology downto 10 km grid scales. The workstation Eta is available fromNOAA and used experimentally by some NWS offices.* No information available at this time62

### C. Observational Modeling Techniques

Introduction

Observational or receptor modeling refers to a group of analysis techniques in which monitoring data collected at or in the region of a receptor are analyzed in various ways in order to infer information about the pollutants and th e sources of the polluta nts causing visibility impairment.

These types of models often are used as the fi rst technique for source apportionment in order to get an initial understanding of the source-receptor relationships in a region. They are also used to verify or reconcile deterministic models, a nd to aid in planning intensive monitoring studies.

Results of observational models can either be quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative results are estimates of the fractions of a measured species that can be attributed to a single source or attributed among several sources or source areas. Qualitative results include such information as the wind directions and other meteorological conditions most associated with high concentrations, or inferences about probable source types based on the relationships between trace elements at a single s ite, or information about source areas based on the spatial and temporal patterns in the concentrations of a single species. Often seve ral observational models are used together to form hypotheses about the important source areas and source types affecting the concentrations at a receptor.

Advantages of receptor models are that they are generally qu ick and inexpensive to run and require relatively little input data. Disadvantages include the necessity of employing simplifying assumptions such as linear relationships and ofte n the results are limited to averages over long periods of time or large spatial areas. Subjective user judgment is required to choose appropriate input data and/or interpret th e results of many receptor models. As an example, suppose the

UNMIX model data located a source associated w ith high concentrations of Br, K, elemental carbon, and organic carbon, and anothe r source associated with high Se and S. It is the judgment of the modeler regarding the re lationship of the individual spec ies to a specific source that

determines that first source is “smoke” a nd the second is “coal-fired power plants.”

Receptor models could potentially be grouped in several different ways, based on their different attributes. Here they are somewhat ar bitrarily put into four categories, with each category requiring incrementally more particulat e data at the receptor: 1) back-trajectory analyses; 2) analyses of interspe cies relationships; 3) analyses of spatial an d temporal patterns; and 4) analyses that require a un ique tracer. Some models that fall into each category are listed

below:

Category 1. Back-Trajectory Analyses a. Residence Time Analyses including re sidence time, source contribution function, conditional probability, and so forth. These give qualitative info rmation about source areas and transport patterns.

63b. Trajectory Mass Balance – Regression of reside nce time of back trajec tories in selected source areas against concentrations yi elding quantitative so urce attributions.

Category 2. Analyses of Interspecies Relationships a. Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) - Quantitati ve source attributions are obtained by a weighted regression of known s ource profiles against measured concentrations of several species. b. UNMIX – By looking for “edges” in th e relationships between species, UNMIX estimates both the source profiles and th e quantitative source contributions from each

source. c. Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) – PMF, like UNMIX, uses the relationships between species to estimate the number and composition of the sources and the quantitative source

contributions. d. Enrichment Factors (EF) – The “enrichment” of certain ratios of trace elements is used to qualitatively infer source types impacting a receptor.

Category 3. Analyses of Spati al and Temporal Patterns a. Empirical Orthogonal Function Analysis (E OF) – Analysis of spatial and temporal patterns leading to qualitative information about locations of dominant source areas, frequency and timing of source impacts and meteorological conditions associated with

them. b. Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS) – With additional assumptions applied to EOFs, quantitative s ource attributions are estimated.

Category 4. Tracer Analyses a. Tracer Mass Balance Regression (TMBR) – Tracer concentrations, possibly weighted by other factors, are regressed against concentra tions of the species of interest to give a quantitative estimate of the contribution from the source that emitted the tracer. b. Differential Mass Balance (DMB) - The differen tial ratios of tracer to pollutant between source and receptor are adjusted based on simp le chemistry and meteorology to give an

estimate of the contribution of th e tracer source to the receptor. c. Tracer-Aerosol Gradient Interpretive Technique (TAGIT) – By comparing the ratios of

tracer to concentration of in terest at “background” sites to the ratios at tracer-affected sites, a quantitative attribution of the trac er source to the r eceptor is estimated.

Following are brief descriptions of each of thes e models and a few references giving further details and examples of their use.

1a. Qualitative Back Trajector y Residence Time Analyses

There are several methods of statistically analyzing the re lationships between where air

masses arrived from and the concentrations meas ured at a receptor. Th ese include, but are not limited to: 1) where was air most likely to arrive from when concentrations are high; 2) if air arrived from a given area, what is the probability that the concentration at the receptor was high when the air mass arrived there; 3) what is the mean (or median or maximum or distribution) of

64concentrations at the receptor when air masses arrived from a given area. Selected References: Ashbaugh et al. (1985), Gebhart et al. (2001), Poirot and Wishinski (1986).

Data Needed : A time series of concentrations of the species of interest. One or more back trajectories of three to five da ys duration corresponding to each c oncentration. Back trajectories can be calculated by any of several methods including ATAD, Hysplit, the CAPITA Monte Carlo Model, as well as others. Standard National Weather Service upper air data can be used as input, though more detailed mete orological data can be input if available. Dispersion can be

included in some of these models.

Model Assumptions : Errors in trajectory placement ar e random and uncorrelated. Variations in deposition, chemistry, emissions, and so forth, have less influence on m easured concentrations on average than variations in transport directions.

Biggest Potential Problems: Results of these types of anal yses are qualitative rather than quantitative. Results are more st atistically robust when averaged over long time periods, usually a minimum of one season and preferably several years. Nearby sources cannot be resolved. User judgment is required to choose trajectories of an appropriate type, height, and length and also to choose appropriate definitions of “high” con centrations. Some concentrations that vary seasonally may have all “high” concentra tions in a single season, necessitating some compensation in the analysis. Model results are probably more appropriate for species such as particulate sulfate that are rela tively uniform over large spatial sc ales, rather than, for example, particulate nitrate, which is more volatile and s eems to be more related to local sources than long-range transport.

1b. TrMB (Trajectory Mass Balance)

This is a multiple linear regression of the fre quency of occurrence of trajectory endpoints in each of several source areas against the correspondi ng concentrations at the receptor. The result is the average attribu tion of a single species among up to about 25 source areas over a long time, for example, one season or year, or several year s. Selected references: Gebhart and Malm (1989), Stohl (1998).

Data Needed : Time series of concentra tions of the pollutant of in terest at a single site. One or more back trajectories associated with each concentration. Input data for these are upper air winds, temperatures, and moisture over a large ar ea. Often data are obtained from the standard

National Weather Service observa tions, but other data such as higher resolution wind fields, wind profiler data specific to a given study, can also be used if available. Emission data can be used if available, but must vary in time to be useful. Simple chemistry and/or deposition can be

used if data are available. The user defines the size and locations of the source areas to be

considered.

Model Assumptions : Average contributions of each sour ce area can be written as a linear

combination of the contributions from severa l source areas. Average chemistry and deposition are adequate to explain average source contributio ns. Errors in back traj ectories are random and normally distributed.

65Biggest Potential Problems: No attribution to single sources—only to source areas. Attributions must be averag ed over long time periods. Nearby sources cannot be modeled accurately. Subjectivity in choosi ng source areas. Violation of a ssumptions of linear chemistry.

2a. Chemical Mass Balance (CMB)

CMB is a multiple linear regression of measured concentrations against known source profiles. It is used for the attribution of all measured chemical species among several sources for each concentration measurement period for a single monitoring site. Regressions are weighted by the uncertainties in both the source profiles and the concentrations. Selected References: Watson et al. (1984 and 2001).

Data Needed : Concentrations and measurement uncertain ties of both the chemical species of interest and of as many trace elements as possibl e are necessary for each time period and location

for which attributions are desi red. IMPROVE data can be used. A source profile is needed for

each source. These are the relative amounts of each emitted chemical species and the

uncertainties in these values.

Model Assumptions : Compositions of source emissions ar e constant over the period of ambient and source sampling. Chemical species do not react with each other, for example, they add linearly. All sources with a potential for significantly contribut ing to the receptor have been identified and have had their emissions characterized. The sources’ compositions are linearly independent of each other. The number of sources or source categories is less than or equal to the number of chemical species. Measurement un certainties are random, uncorrelated and normally

distributed.

Biggest Potential Problems: The model cannot directly appor tion secondary species such as sulfates, nitrates, and secondary organics. There are some workar ounds for this. The usual tactic is to apportion these species between the known primary sources and a source designated as “secondary particles.” It is also possible to use “fract ionated” or “aged” source profiles where an attempt is made to pre-determine the chemical processes that occurr ed between source and receptor and then adjust the source profile acco rdingly. Obtaining all necessary source profiles can be difficult. In some studies, other rece ptor models have estim ated source profiles.

2b. UNMIX

For a selection of measured species, UNMIX uses singular value decomposition with additional non-negativity constrai nts to estimate the number of sources, the source compositions, and the source contributions to each sample at a single monitoring site. UNMIX attempts to find the “edges” in the relationshi ps between species and relates these to sources. Selected References: Henry (1997a, 1999), Lewis et al. (1998).

Data Needed : A time series of concentrations of se veral species measured at a single site.

IMPROVE data can be used.

66Model Assumptions : Concentrations are linear comb inations of an unknown number of sources of unknown composition. Contributions fr om sources are positive. Source compositions are approximately constant in time. For each source there are some samples that contain little or

no contribution from that source.

Biggest Potential Problems : A maximum of seven sources ca n be identified. There is some subjectivity in choosing fitting sp ecies, number of sources, how to deal with missing or below detection limit values, and which time periods a nd species should be analyzed together. Sources of secondary species will probably violate the assumption of constant source composition. This can cause multiple sources to be identified for a single physical source that impacts the receptor under differing conditions. Supplemental analysis may be required to deconvolute these.

2c

. Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF)

PMF uses an iterative weighted least squares method to deco mpose a time-by-species matrix to estimate the number and composition of the sources and the contributions of each source to each measured species. It will also calculate error estimates for these values. Selected References: Paatero and Tappe r (1994), Paatero (1997); Xie et al. (1999).

Data Needed : A time series of concentrations and their uncertainties for several species at a single monitoring location. IMPROVE data can be used.

Model Assumptions : Concentrations are linear comb inations of an unknown number of sources of unknown composition. Contributions fr om sources are positive. Source compositions are approximately constant in time.

Biggest Potential Problems: Correlations in detection limits or uncertainties as well as in concentrations can influence the results. For example, PMF may detect positive correlations between species either due to source activity (desirable) or measurement protocol changes (undesirable).

2d. Enrichment Factors (EF)

The differences in ratios of elemental con centrations between a reference sample and a measured sample are used to determine how sour ces may have “enriched” the concentrations of certain species. Some examples include: high A l/Ca has been linked to Saharan dust, high Br/Pb may indicate lead is linked to autos rather than industry, high Se is linke d to coal burning, heavy metals are linked to smelting, V and Ni are linked to residual oil combustion. Selected References: Lawson and Winchester (1979), Pare kh et al. (1989), Perru (1997), Roshid and Griffiths (1993).

Data Needed : Time series of concentrations of tr ace elements and the species of interest.

Some historical information about the “standard” crusta l, sea salt, or other ratios for a region.

Model Assumptions : Elemental ratios depend mostly on en richment of trace elements by a source and have less dependence on meteor ology. The reference ratios are constant.

67Biggest Potential Problems: Attributions are generally to so urce areas, not to single sources.

3a. Empirical Orthogonal Function Analysis (EOF)

A few (typically two to six) spatial patterns that explain most of the c ovariance in the spatial and temporal patterns of a measured species are obtained by singular value decomposition. Associations between the spatial patterns and source areas and/or transport of air pollutants into the study area can often be infe rred, but are qualitative. The or iginal data matrix can be approximately reconstructed by linearly recombin ing these few patterns. Selected References: Gebhart and Malm (1997), Henry et al. (1991), Malm et al. ( 1990), Malm and Gebhart (1997).

Data Needed : Measurements of a single air pollutant of interest at several sites for several time periods. Typically used are c oncentrations measured at fifteen to forty sites for thirty or more time periods. There must be more time peri ods than sites. Data from special studies are often analyzed in this way.

Model Assumptions : Only a few spatial patterns are requir ed to explain a large majority of the covariance in the spa tial and temporal patterns. These pa tterns have a physical meaning that can be inferred, such as transport of emissions from a source into the study area or local stagnation.

Biggest Potential Problems : Source attributions are qualit ative, not quantitative and interpretation of the spatial patterns is subjectiv e. The model requires a si te by time matrix with no missing values, so some method of eliminating or filling in both missing and below detection limit values is necessary.

3b. Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS)

Determines the average attribution of a single species among a few source areas by decomposing the time by site matrix of concentr ations into a source matrix and a time weighting matrix. Similar to UNMIX, the edges in the s catterplots between s ources and non-negativity requirements are used to constrain the identifi cation of sources. Selected References: Henry (1997 b, c, d), White (1999).

Data Needed : Time series of concentrati ons of the pollutant of interest at several sites within a region. The model previously has been used in special studies such as Project MOHAVE and

PREVENT where there are fifteen to forty sites within a one or two state region collecting data daily for several weeks or months.

Model Assumptions : Average contributions of each source area can be written as a nonnegative linear combination of the major principal components of the data. The spatial scale of the pollutant is large compared to the spacing of the sampling sites.

Biggest Potential Problems : If the second major assumption is violated, the concentrations of the pollutant at each site will have little correlation with the other sites; therefore the model would not apply because it relies on the common variations among sites.

684a. Tracer Mass Balance Regression (TMBR) also called Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) on Marker Species

Estimates the attribution of the aerosol specie s of interest by a sour ce or source type, which emitted or emits a unique tracer. Uncertainty esti mates are also generated if included in the regression. The model is a regressi on of the tracer, possibly weight ed by other factors against the species of interest. Selected Refe rences: Malm et al. (1989 a, b, c).

Data Needed : Time series of ambient concentrations and their uncertainties for the aerosol species being apportioned and also the tra cer species.

Model Assumptions : The tracer(s) are uniquely em itted by non-overlapping groups of sources. Source emissions are constant over the period of ambient sampling. Deposition and conversion are constant for all sampling pe riods and can be estimated by first-order approximations. In the WHITEX a pplication, sulfate oxidation rates were assumed to be related to RH, where RH was a surrogate for time the ai r mass spent in clouds. Measurement errors are random, uncorrelated, and normally distributed.

Biggest Potential Problems : Tracer concentrations are not of ten available. Source profiles, deposition, and conversion all vary in time and space.

4b. Differential Mass Balance (DMB)

DMB estimates the fraction of a spec ies of interest attributable to a single source that can be tagged with a unique tracer. The ratio of measured tracer to measured sulfate or nitrate is

assumed to be related to the fr actional contribution of the traced source. The ratio is adjusted

based on the estimated difference between the rati o at the source to the ratio at the receptor. Travel times between the source and receptor ar e estimated based on winds, and then by using simple estimates of dispersion, deposition and oxid ation, the tracer to seco ndary species ratio is adjusted. Selected Refe rences: Malm (1989b, c).

Data Needed : Time series of tracer concentrations and concentrations and emission rates of the species of interest and its precursors, for ex ample, sulfur dioxide a nd sulfate. Estimates of wind speed and direction, mixing heights, deposition and oxidation rates.

Model Assumptions : Wind direction does not change dur ing transport time. The rates for deposition and conversion are firs t-order and invariant in space a nd time along the transport path between the source and the receptor. The ratio of the emission rates for the species of interest or its parent species and the tracer is known.

Biggest Potential Problems : Simple chemistry and mete orology may not be adequate, especially for long transport times, complex terrain, and/or changing chemical regimes. Tracer concentrations unique to a singl e source are often not available. The fraction of attributable concentration may only be calcula ble to within a range based on the reasonable ranges of rate

coefficients.

694c. Tracer

- Aerosol Gradient Interpretive Technique (TAGIT)

Results are the attribution of primary or s econdary species associated with the source “tagged” by a tracer release. TAGIT computes attributions on a sample period-by-sample period basis. For each sample period, background concentrati on of the species of interest is determined by averaging the concentrations of the speci es at nearby sites th at do not have tracer concentrations and are significantly above background. These sites are presumed to be unaffected by the tracer-tagged source and t hus represent the av erage background. This background for each sample period is then subtract ed from the concentration of the species of interest at impacted receptor sites for corr esponding sample periods. The difference is the

concentration attributable to th e tagged source. Green (2001), K uhns et al. (1999), Pitchford et al. (2000).

Data Needed : Concentrations of a unique tracer from a source of interest and simultaneous concentrations of a pollutant of in terest at several sites in a region.

Model Assumptions : There is no impact from the tagged so urce if the tracer concentration is

less than the level considered to be “s ignificantly” above it s’ background. Background concentrations of the species of interest do not vary systematically in space.

Biggest Potential Problems : Assuming no impact from the tagged source when tracer is not statistically above background can lead to an und erestimation of attribu tion. Measured tracer

concentrations often have la rge uncertainties. Some samplin g periods will have a negative concentration attributed to the tagged source.

References:

Ashbaugh, Lowell L., William C. Malm, Willy Z. Sadeh (1985) “A Residence Time Probability Analysis of Sulfur Concentrati ons at Grand Canyon National Park,” Atmospheric

Environment , 19, 1263-1270.

Gebhart, Kristi A., Sonia A. Kreidenweiss, and William C. Malm (2001) “Back-Trajectory Analyses of Fine Particulate Matter Measured at Big Bend National Pa rk in the Historical Database and the 1996 Scoping Study” Science of the Total Environment , 276, 185-204.

Gebhart, Kristi A. and William C. Malm (1989) “Source Apportionment of Particulate Sulfate

Concentrations at Three National Parks in the Eastern United States,” in Transactions of the A&WMA/EPA Specialty Conference- Visibility and Fine Particles , Estes Park, CO, Oct. 15-19, 1989, pp. 898-913, C.V. Mathai, Ed.

Gebhart, Kristi A. and William C. Malm (1997) “S patial and Temporal Patterns in Particle Data Measured during the MOHAVE Study,” J. of the Air & Waste Management Assoc. , 47,

119-135

Green, Mark, 2001 (Informal paper, BRAVO)

70Henry, R.S. (1997a) “History and fundamentals of multivariate air quality receptor models,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , 37

, 37-42.

Henry, R.C. (1997b) “Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS) Part I – Model Description” JA&WMA , 47, 216-219.

Henry, R.C. (1997c) “Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS) Part II – Apportionment of Airborne Particul ate Sulfur from Project MOHAVE” JA&WMA , 47,

220-225.

Henry, R.C. (1997d) “Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS) Part III – Apportionment of Airborne Particulat e Sulfur Western Washington State” JA&WMA , 47,

226-230.

Henry, R.C. (1999) “Comparing a new algorithm with the classic methods for estimating the number of factors,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , 48, 91-97.

Lewis, C.W., R.C. Henry, and J.H. Shreffler (1998) “An Exploratory L ook at Hydrocarbon Data

from the Photochemical Assessmen t Monitoring Stations Network” J. Air & Waste Management Assoc . 48, 71-76.

Henry, Ronald C., Yi-Jin Wang, and Kristi A. Gebhart (1991) “The Relationship Between Empirical Orthogonal Functions an d Sources of Air Pollution,” Atmospheric

Environment , 25A, 503-509.

Kuhns et al. (1999)

Lawson, D.R. and J.W. Winchest er (1979) “A Standard crusta l aerosol as a reference for elemental enrichment factors,” Atmospheric Environment , 13, 517-523.

Malm, William C, Hari K. Iyer, and Kristi Gebh art (1989a) “Application of Tracer Mass Balance Regression to WHITEX Data” in Trans actions of the A&WMA/EPA Specialty Conference: Visibility and Fine Particles, Estes Park, CO, Oct. 15-19, 1989, pp. 806-818, C.V. Mathai, Ed.

Malm, William C., Hari K. Iyer, John Watson, and Douglas A. Latimer (1989b) “Survey of a Variety of Receptor Modeling Techniques,” Transactions of the A&WMA/EPA Specialty Conference-Visibility & Fi ne Particles, Estes Park, CO, Oct. 15-19, 1989, pp. 781-805, C.V. Mathai, Ed.

Malm, William, Kristi Gebhart, Douglas Latimer, Thomas Cahill, Robert Eldred, Roger Pielke, Roger Stocker, and John Watson (1989) “Natio nal Park Service Report On the Winter Haze Intensive Tracer Experiment” Nationa l Park Service, Air Quality Division, Research Branch, Fort Collins, CO, Dec. 4, 1989

71Malm, William C. and Kristi A. Gebhart (1997 ) “Source apportionment of sulfur and light extinction using receptor modeling techniques,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management

Association , 47, 250-258.

Malm, William C., Kristi A. Gebhart, and Ronald C. Henry (1990) “An Investigation of the Dominant Source Regions of Fine Sulfur in th e Western United States and their Areas of Influence,” Atmospheric Environment , 24A, 3047-3060.

Paatero, P. (1997) “Least squares formulati on of robust non-negative factor analysis,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , 37, 15-35.

Paatero, P. and U. Tapper (1994) “Positive Matrix Factorization – a Nonnegative Factor Model with Optimal Utilization of Error-Estimates of Data Values,” Environmetrics , 5, 111-126.

Parekh, P.P., B. Ghauri, and L. Husain (1989) “Identification of Pollution Sources of Anomalously Enriched Elements,” Atmospheric Environment , 23, 1435-1442.

Perru, K.D., T.A. Cahill, R.A. Eldred, and D.D. Dutcher (1997) “Long-range Transport of North African dust to the eastern United States,” J. Geophys. Res ., 102, 11,225-11,238.

Pitchford, Marc, Mark Green, Hampden Kuhns, and R obert J. Farber (2000) “Characterization of Regional Transport and Dispersion Using Project MOHAVE Tracer Data” J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 50: 733-745. (This is not exactly TAGIT, but the 1999 reference may be a conference paper.)

Poirot, Richard L. and Paul R. Wishinski ( 1986) “Visibility, Sulfat e and Air Mass history

Associated with the Summertime Aerosol in Northern Vermont,” Atmospheric

Environment , 20, 1457-1469.

Roshid, M. and R.F. Griffiths (1993) “Ambient K, S, and Si in fine and coarse aerosols of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,” Journal of Aerosol Science , 24, 597-601.

Stohl, A. (1998) “Computation, Accuracy and A pplications of Traject ories - A Review and Bibliography,” Atmospheric Environment , 32, 947-966.

Watson, John G., John A. Cooper, and James J. Huntzicker (1984) “The Effective Variance Weighting for Least Squares Calculations Appl ied to the Mass Balance Receptor Model,” Atmospheric Environment , 18, 1347-1355.

Watson, John G., Judith C. Chow and Eric M. Fujita (2001) “Review of volatile organic compound source apportionment by chemical mass balance” Atmospheric Environment

, 35, 1567-1584.

White, Warren H. (1999) “Phantom Spatial Factors: An Example,” J. of the Air & Waste Management Assoc. , 49, 345-349.

72Xie, Yu-Long, Philip K. Hopke, Pentti Paatero, Leonard A. Barrie, and Shao-Meng Li (1999)

“Identification of Source Natu re and Seasonal Variations of Arctic Aerosol by Positive Matrix Factorization,” J. of the Atmospheric Sciences , 56, 249-260.

7374Table 5. Observational Modeling TechniquesAnalyses of Back TrajectoriesCriteriaResidence Time &Source ContributionFunctionConditionalProbabilityConcentrationStatistics by Air MassHistory (Mean, Max,Median)ClusterAnalysisHit – No HitTrajectory Mass BalanceQuantitative Source Attribution?NoNoNoNoNoYesNumber of sources that can bedistinguished?Typically only about10 or fewer transportpatterns aredistinguishableMaximum of 10-151/grid cell, typically50x50 (2500), thoughusually only about 5-20transport patterns aredistinguishable2-15120-30 maxAveraging Time of Result?Weeks to yearsWeeksto yearsWeeks to yearsWeeks to yearsDaily,possiblyhourlyMonths to yearsPrevious use at Class I Areas? (See Text for References)YesYesYesYesYesYesMagnitude of impacts?NoNoYesNoNoYesFrequency of impacts?YesNoNoYesYesYesDuration of impacts?YesNoNoYesYesYesTime of Day of impacts?Depends on particledataDepends on particledataDepends on particledataDepends onparticle dataYesDepends on particle dataTime of Year of impacts?YesYesYesYesYesYesAppropriate for what source-receptordistances?Regional ScaleRegional ScaleRegional ScaleRegional ScaleRegionalScaleRegional ScaleAttribution of Secondary Species?YesYesYesYesYesYesCost to run?MinimalMinimalMinimalMinimalMinimalMinimalCode Available?NoNoNoNoNoNoEquations and/or algorithms available?YesYesYesYesNone neededYesComputer Hardware NeededPCPCPCPCPCPCAdditional software necessary?Any programminglanguage or statisticalpackage and graphicsand/or mappingsoftware that allowsoverlay of data on amapAny programminglanguage orstatistical packageand graphics and/ormapping softwarethat allows overlayof data on a mapAny programminglanguage or statisticalpackage and graphicsand/or mappingsoftware that allowsoverlay of data on amapAnyprogramminglanguage orstatisticalpackage andgraphics and/ormappingsoftware thatallows overlayof data on a mapGraphing ormappingsoftware thatallowsoverlay ofdata on amapAny programming language orstatistical package and graphicsand/or mapping software thatallows overlay of data on a mapEPA Approved Model?NoNoNoNoNoNo75Observational Modeling Techniques(continued)Analyses of inter-species relationshipsAnalyses of Spatial and TemporalPatternsCriteriaCMBPMFUNMIXFactor AnalysisEOFRMAPSQuantitative Source Attribution?YesYesYesNoNoYesNumber of sources that can bedistinguished?Usually <10Usually <107< Number of speciesanalyzedUsually 4-8transport patternsUsually 4-8 transportpatternsAveraging Time of Result?Same asmonitoringdataSame asmonitoringdataSame asmonitoring dataSame asmonitoring dataSame as monitoringdataPrevious use at Class I Areas? (See Text forReferences)YesNo?No?YesYesYesMagnitude of impacts?YesYesYesNoNoYesFrequency of impacts?YesYesYesYesYesYesDuration of impacts?YesYesYesNoYesYesTime of Day of impacts?Depends oninput dataDepends oninput dataDepends on inputdataDepends on inputdataDepends on inputdataDepends on input dataTime of Year of impacts?YesYesYesYesYesYesAppropriate for what source-receptordistances?Urban toregionalscalesUrban toregionalscalesUrban to regionalscalesUrban to regionalscalesRegional ScaleRegional ScaleAttribution of Secondary Species?WithadditionalinformationWithadditionalinformationWith additionalinformationYesYesYesCost to run?Free topurchase,minimal torun$700 topurchase,minimal torunCurrently free topurchase,minimal to run,$100 (student)-1500 (full) forMATLABMinimalMinimalMinimalCode Available?YesYesYesNoNoNoEquations and/or algorithms available?YesYesYesYesYesYesComputer Hardware NeededPCPCPCPCPCPCAdditional software necessary?NoNoMATLAB withoptimizationtoolboxAny statisticspackageAny statisticspackage withability to dosingular valuedecompositionsAny statistics packagewith ability to dosingular valuedecompositionsEPA Model?YesNo?Yes?NoNoNo76Observational Modeling Techniques (continued)Analyses of Unique Tracer DataCriteriaTMBRDMBTAGITQuantitative Source Attribution?YesYesYesNumber of sources that can bedistinguished?1-31-31/tracerAveraging Time of Result?Same asparticulate dataSame as particulate dataPrevious use at Class I Areas? (SeeText for References)YesYesYesMagnitude of impacts?YesYesYesFrequency of impacts?YesYesYesDuration of impacts?YesYesYesTime of Day of impacts?Depends on particulate dataDepends onparticulate dataDepends on particulate dataTime of Year of impacts?YesYesYesAppropriate for what source-receptordistances?Urban to Regional ScaleUrban to RegionalScaleRegional ScaleAttribution of SecondarySpecies?YesYesYesCost to run?MinimalMinimalMinimalCode Available?NoNoNoEquations and/or algorithmsavailable?YesYesYesComputer Hardware NeededPCPCPCAdditional software necessary?Any programming language,spreadsheet, or statisticalpackageAny programminglanguage,spreadsheet, orstatistical packageAny programming language, spreadsheet,or statistical packageEPA Model?NoNoNo77

### Appendix A : RA BART Rule (40 CFR 51.300-306)

Sec. 51.300 Purpose and applicability.

Authority: Secs. 110, 114, 121, 160-169, 169A, a nd 301 of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, 7470-7479, and 7601).

Source: 45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, unless otherwise noted.

(a) Purpose. The primary purposes of this s ubpart are to require States to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting th e national goal of prev enting any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution; a nd to establish necessary additional procedures for new source permit applicants, States and Fe deral Land Managers to use in conducting the visibility impact analysis required for new sources under Sec. 51.166. This subpart sets forth requirements addressing visibility impairment in its two principal forms: ``reasonably attributable'' impairment (i.e., impairment attrib utable to a single source/small group of sources) and regional haze (i.e., widespread haze from a mu ltitude of sources which impairs visibility in every direction over a large area). (b) Applicability. (1) Gene ral Applicability. The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation plan requirements for assuring re asonable progress in preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility impairment are applicable to: (i) Each State which has a mandatory Class I Federal area iden tified in part 81, subpart D, of this title, and Each State in which there is any source the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area. (ii)The provisions of this subpart pertaini ng to implementation plans to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment are applic able to the following States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montan a, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Okla homa, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Vi rgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. (3) The provisions of this subpart pertaini ng to implementation plans to address regional haze visibility impairment are applicable to all States as defined in section 302( d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) except Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 35763, July 1, 1999]

Sec. 51.301 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart: Adverse impact on visibility means, for purposes of section 307, visibility impairment which interferes with the management, protection, pres ervation, or enjoyment of the visitor's visual experience of the Federal Class I area. This dete rmination must be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographi c extent, intensity, duration, fr equency and time of visibility impairments, and how these factors correlate with (1) times of visitor use of the Federal Class Iarea, and (2) the frequency and timing of natural conditions that reduce visibility. This term does

not include effects on integral vistas. Agency means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. BART-eligible source means an existing stationary facility as defined in this section. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BAR T) means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of th e best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existin g stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by -case basis, taking into consid eration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibi lity which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

Building, structure, or facility means all of the pollutant-emitt ing activities whic h belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person (or pe rsons under common control). Pollutant-emitting activities must be considered as part of the sa me industrial grouping if they belong to the same Major Group (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 as amended by th e 1977 Supplement (U.S. Government Printing

Office stock numbers 4101-0066 an d 003-005-00176-0 respectively).

Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairm ent. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entir e range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calcula ted based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements):

Deciview haze index = 10 ln

e (b ext /10Mm -1 ) Where b ext = the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm -1 ).

Existing stationary facility means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed s ource, which was not in operati on prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and ha s the potential to em it 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitiv e emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be

counted. Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), Kraft pulp mills, Portland cement plants, Primary zinc smelters, Iron and steel mill plants, Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, Primary copper smelters, Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, Hydrofluoric, sulfuric , and nitric acid plants, Petroleum refineries, Lime plants, Phosphate rock processing plants,Coke oven batteries, Sulfur recovery plants, Carbon black plants (furnace process), Primary lead smelters, Fuel conversion plants, Sintering plants, Secondary metal production facilities, Chemical process plants,

Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 m illion British thermal units per hour heat input, Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, Taconite ore processing facilities, Glass fiber pr ocessing plants, and Charcoal production facilities.

Federal Class I area means any Federal land that is clas sified or reclassified Class I. Federal Land Manager means the Secretary of th e department with auth ority over the Federal Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt- Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-Ca mpobello International Park Commission. Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditi ons which are enforceable by the

Administrator under the Clean Air Act including those requirements developed pursuant to parts 60 and 61 of this title, requirements within a ny applicable State Implementation Plan, and any permit requirements established pursuant to S ec. 52.21 of this chapter or under regulations approved pursuant to part 51, 52, or 60 of this title. Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all of the depreciable components. Fugitive Emissions means those emissions wh ich could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other func tionally equivalent opening.

Geographic enhancement for the purpose of Sec. 51.308 means a method, procedure, or process to allow a broad regiona l strategy, such as an emissions trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for reasonably attributable impairment.

Implementation plan means, for the purposes of this part, any State Implementation Plan, Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal Implementation Plan.

Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian tribe, band, na tion, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Na tive village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the Unite d States to Indians because of their status as

Indians.

In existence means that the owner or operator ha s obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of th e facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modifi ed without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable

time.

In operation means engaged in activity related to the primary design function of the source.

Installation means an identifiable piece of process equipment.Integral vista means a view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal

area.

Least impaired days means the average visibility impairme nt (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calenda r year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.

Major stationary source and major modification mean ma jor stationary source and major modification, respectively, as defined in Sec. 51.166.

Mandatory Class I Federal Area means any area identified in part 81, subpart D of this title. Most impaired days means the average visibility impairme nt (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.

Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visu al range, contrast, or coloration.

Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a sta tionary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant includ ing air pollution control equipmen t and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally

enforceable. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.

Reasonably attributable means attributable by visual obser vation or any other technique the State deems appropriate. Reasona bly attributable visibility impairment means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small number of

sources.

Reconstruction will be presumed to have taken place wh ere the fixed capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital co st of a comparable entirely new source. Any

final decision as to whether reconstruction has occurred must be made in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 60.15 (f) (1) through (3) of this title.

Regional haze means visibility impairment that is cause d by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.

Secondary emissions means emissions which occur as a re sult of the construction or operation of an existing stationary facility but do not come from the ex isting stationary facility. Secondary emissions may include, but are not limited to, emissions from ships or trains coming to or from the existing stationary facility. Significant impairment means, for purposes of Sec. 51.303, vi sibility impairment which, in the judgment of the Administrator, interferes with the management , protection, preservation, or enjoyment of the visitor's visual experience of the mandatory Class I Federal area. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographic extent, intensity, duration, frequency and time of the vi sibility impairment, and how these factors correlate with (1) times of vi sitor use of the mandatory Cla ss I Federal area, and (2) the frequency and timing of natural co nditions that reduce visibility.

State means ``State'' as defined in section 302(d) of the CAA. Stationary Source means any building, struct ure, facility, or insta llation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under na tural conditions. Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral vista associated with

that area.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 35763, 35774, July 1, 1999]

Sec. 51.302 Implementation control strategies for r easonably attributable visibility impairment.

(a) Plan Revision Procedures. (1) Each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(2) must have submitted, not later than September 2, 1981, an imple mentation plan meeting the requirements of this subpart pertaining to reasonably attributable visibility impairment. (2)(i) The State, prior to adoption of any implementation plan to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment required by this subpart, must conduct one or more public hearings on such plan in accordance with Sec. 51.102. (ii) In addition to the requirements in S ec. 51.102, the State must pr ovide written notification of such hearings to each affected Federal La nd Manager, and other aff ected States, and must state where the public can inspect a summary prep ared by the Federal Land Managers of their conclusions and recommendations, if a ny, on the proposed plan revision. (3) Submission of plans as required by this subpart must be conducted in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 51.103. (b) State and Federal Land Manager Coordina tion. (1) The State must identify to the Federal Land Managers, in writing and within 30 days of the date of pr omulgation of these regulations,

the title of the official to which the Federal La nd Manager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit a recommendation on the implementation of this subpart including, but not limited to: (i) A list of integral vist as that are to be listed by the St ate for the purpose of implementing section 304, (ii) Identification of impairment of visibil ity in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s), and (iii) Identification of elements for inclusi on in the visibility mon itoring strategy required by

section 305. (2) The State must provide opportunity for c onsultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the plan, with the Federal Land Manager on the proposed SIP revision required by this subpart. This consultation must include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their: (i) Assessment of impairment of visibi lity in any mandatory Cl ass I Federal area, and (ii) Recommendations on the de velopment of the long-term strategy. (3) The plan must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and Federal Land Manager on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by this subpart. (c) General plan requirements for reasonabl y attributable visibili ty impairment. (1) The affected Federal Land Manager may certify to the St ate, at any time, that there exists reasonably attributable impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. (2) The plan must contain the following to address reasonably attributable impairment: (i) A long-term (10-15 years) strategy, as specified in Sec. 51.305 and Sec. 51.306, including such emission limitations, schedules of compliance, and such other measures including schedulesfor the implementation of the elements of the lo ng-term strategy as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natio nal goal specified in Sec. 51.300(a). (ii) An assessment of visibi lity impairment and a discussion of how each element of the plan relates to the preventing of future or remedying of existing impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State. (iii) Emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each existing stationary facility identified acco rding to paragraph (c)(4) of this section. (3) The plan must require each source to maintain control equipment required by this subpart and establish procedures to ensure such contro l equipment is properly operated and maintained. (4) For any existing reasonably attributable visibility impairment the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State under para graph (c)(1) of this section, at least 6 months prior to plan

submission or revision: (i) The State must identify and analyze for BART each existing stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area where the impairment in th e mandatory Class I Federal area is reasonably attributable to that existing stat ionary facility. The State need not consider any integral vista the Federal Land Manager did not identify pursuant to Sec. 51.304(b) at least 6 months before plan

submission. (ii) If the State determin es that technologicial or economic limitations on the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular existing stationary facility w ould make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible it may instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or combination thereo f, to require the application of BART. Such standard, to the degree possible, is to set forth the emissi on reduction to be achieved by implementation of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, and must provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results. (iii) BART must be determined for fossil-fu el fired generating plants having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts pursuant to ``Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities'' (1980), which is incorporated by reference, exclusive of appendix E, which was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 1980 (45 FR 8210). It is EPA publication No. 450/3-80-009b and is for sale from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. It is also available for inspection at the Office of the Federal Register Information Center, 800 North Capitol NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (iv) The plan must require that each existi ng stationary facility require d to install and operate BART do so as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than five years after plan approval. (v) The plan must provide for a BART analysis of any existing stationa ry facility that might cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area identified under this paragraph (c)(4) at such times, as de termined by the Administrator, as new technology for control of the pollutant becomes reasonably available if: (A) The pollutant is emitted by that existing stationary facility, (B) Controls representing BA RT for the pollutant have not prev iously been required under this subpart, and (C) The impairment of visibility in a ny mandatory Class I Federal area is reasonably attributable to the emissions of that pollutant.[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amende d at 57 FR 40042, Sept. 1, 1992; 64 FR 35764, 35774, July 1, 1999]

Sec. 51.303 Exemptions from control.

(a)(1) Any existing stationary facility subject to the requirement under Sec. 51.302 to install, operate, and maintain BART may apply to the Administrator for an exemption from that requirement. (2) An application under th is section must include all availa ble documentation relevant to the impact of the source's emissions on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area and a demonstration by the existing stationary facility that it does not or will not, by itself or in combination with other sources, emit any air pollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to cause or contri bute to a significant impairment of visibility in any mand atory Class I Federal area. (b) Any fossil-fuel fired power plant with a total generating capaci ty of 750 megawatts or more may receive an exemption from BART only if the owner or operato r of such power plant

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that such pow er plant is located at such a distance from all mandatory Class I Federal areas that such power plant does not or will not, by itself or in combination with other sources, em it any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribu te to significant impairment of vi sibility in any such mandatory

Class I Federal area. (c) Application under this Sec. 51.303 must be accompanied by a written concurrence from the State with regulatory authority over the source. (d) The existing stationary facility must gi ve prior written notice to all affected Federal Land Managers of any application fo r exemption under this Sec. 51.303. (e) The Federal Land Manager may provide an initial recommendation or comment on the disposition of such application. Such recomm endation, where provided, must be part of the exemption application. This recommendation is not to be construed as th e concurrence required under paragraph (h) of this section. (f) The Administrator, within 90 days of recei pt of an application for exemption from control, will provide notice of receipt of an exemption application and notice of opportunity for public hearing on the application. (g) After notice and opport unity for public hearing, the Admi nistrator may grant or deny the exemption. For purposes of judici al review, final EPA action on an application for an exemption

under this Sec. 51.303 will not occur until EPA approves or disapproves the State Implementation Plan revision. (h) An exemption granted by the Administ rator under this Sec. 51.303 will be effective only upon concurrence by all affected Federal Land Mana gers with the Administrator's determination.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended by 64 FR 35774, July 1, 1999]

Sec. 51.304 Identification of integral vistas.

(a) On or before December 31, 1985 the Federal Land Manager may identify any integral vista. The integral vista must be identified according to cr iteria the Federal Land Managerdevelops. These criteria must in clude, but are not limited to, wh ether the integral vista is important to the visitor's visual experience of the mandatory Cl ass I Federal area. Adoption of criteria must be preceded by reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment on the proposed criteria. (b) The Federal Land Manager must notify th e State of any integral vistas identified under paragraph (a) of this secti on, and the reasons therefor. (c) The State must list in its implementation plan any integral vista the Federal Land Manager identifies at least six months pr ior to plan submission, and must li st in its implementation plan at its earliest opportunity, and in no case later than at th e time of the periodic review of the SIP required by Sec. 51.306(c), any integr al vista the Federal Land Mana ger identifies after that time. (d) The State need not in its implementation plan list any integral vista the identification of

which was not made in accordance with the criteri a in paragraph (a) of this section. In making this finding, the State must carefully consider the expertise of the Federal Land Manager in making the judgments called for by the criteria for identification. Where the State and the Federal Land Manager disagree on the identification of any integral vista, the State must give the Federal Land Manager an opportunity to c onsult with the Gover nor of the State.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended by 64 FR 35774, July 1, 1999]

Sec. 51.305 Monitoring for reasonably at tributable visibility impairment.

(a) For the purposes of a ddressing reasonably attributable vi sibility impairment, each State containing a mandatory Class I Fe deral area must include in the plan a strategy for evaluating reasonably attributable visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring techniques. Such stra tegy must take into account current and anticipated vi sibility monitoring research, the ava ilability of appropriate monitoring techniques, and such guidance as is provided by the Agency. (b) The plan must provide for the consideratio n of available visibility data and must provide a

mechanism for its use in deci sions required by this subpart.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 35764, July 1, 1999]

Sec. 51.306 Long-term strategy requirements for r easonably attributable visibility impairment.

(a)(1) For the purposes of addressing reasonabl y attributable visibility impairment, each plan must include a long-term (10-15 years) strate gy for making reasonable progress toward the national goal specified in Sec. 51.300(a). This strategy must cove r any existing impairment the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State at least 6 months pr ior to plan submission, and any integral vista of which the Federal Land Manager no tifies the State at least 6 months prior to plan

submission. (2) A long-term strategy must be develope d for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and each mandatory Class I Fede ral area located outside the State which may be affected by sources within the State. This does not preclude the de velopment of a single comprehensive plan for all such areas.(3) The plan must set forth with reasonable specificity why the long-term strategy is adequate for making reasonable progress toward the nation al visibility goal, including remedying existing and preventing future impairment. (b) The State must coordinate its long-term strategy for an area with existing plans and goals, including those provided by the a ffected Federal Land Managers, that may affect impairment of visibility in any mandato ry Class I Federal area. (c) The plan must provide for periodic revi ew and revision, as appr opriate, of the long-term strategy for addressing reasonably at tributable visibility impairme nt. The plan must provide for such periodic review and revision not less frequently than every 3 years until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing re gional haze visibility im pairment in accordance with Sec. 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this da te, the State must revise its plan to provide for

review and revision of a coordi nated long-term strategy for addr essing reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the first such coordinated long-term strategy. Future coordinated long-term st rategies must be submitted consistent with the schedule for periodic progress reports set forth in Sec. 51.308(g). Until the State revises its plan to meet this requirement, the State must continue to comply with existing requirements for plan review and revision, and with all emission mana gement requirements in the plan to address reasonably attributable impairment. This requir ement does not affect any preexisting deadlines for State submittal of a long-term strategy review (or element thereof) between August 30, 1999, and the date required for submission of the State' s first regional haze plan. In addition, the plan must provide for review of the long-term strate gy as it applies to reasonably attributable impairment, and revision as appropriate, within 3 years of State receipt of any certification of reasonably attributable impairment from a Fede ral Land Manager. The review process must

include consultation with the a ppropriate Federal Land Managers, and the State must provide a report to the public and the Admi nistrator on progress toward the national goal. This report must

include an assessment of: (1) The progress achieved in remedying existi ng impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area; (2) The ability of the long-term strategy to prevent future impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area; (3) Any change in visibility since the last su ch report, or, in the case of the first report, since plan approval; (4) Additional measures, including the need fo r SIP revisions, that may be necessary to assure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal; (5) The progress achieved in implementing BART and meeting other schedules set forth in the long-term strategy; (6) The impact of any exemption granted under Sec. 51.303; (7) The need for BART to remedy existing visi bility impairment of any integral vista listed in the plan since the last such re port, or, in the case of the fi rst report, since plan approval. (d) The long-term strategy must provide for review of the impacts from any new major stationary source or major modifications on visibi lity in any mandatory Class I Federal area. This review of major stationary sour ces or major modifications must be in accordance with Sec. 51.307, Sec. 51.166, Sec. 51.160, and any other binding guidance provided by the Agency insofar as these provisions pertain to protection of visibility in any ma ndatory Class I Federal

areas.(e) The State must consider, at a minimum, the following factors during the development of its long-term strategy: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, (2) Additional emission limitations and schedules for compliance, (3) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities, (4) Source retirement and replacement schedules, (5) Smoke management techniques for ag ricultural and forestry management purposes including such plans as cu rrently exist within the State for these purposes, and (6) Enforceability of emission limitations and control measures. (f) The plan must discuss th e reasons why the above and other reasonable measures considered in the development of the long-term strategy were or were not adopted as part of the long-term

strategy. (g) The State, in developing the long-term st rategy, must take into account the effect of new sources, and the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, a nd the remaining useful life of any affected existing source and equipment therein.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 35764, 35774, July 1, 1999]20.2.73 NMAC 1 TITLE 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CHAPTER 2 AIR QUALITY (STATEWIDE)

PART 73 NOTICE OF INTENT AND EMISSIONS INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS

20.2.73.1 ISSUING AGENCY: Environmental Improvement Board. [11/30/95; 20.2.73.1 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.100 02/18/02]

20.2.73.2 SCOPE: All persons who own or operate a source or who intend to construct or modify a source. [11/30/95; 20.2.73.2 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.101 02/18/02]

20.2.73.3 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74 -1- 8(A)(4), and Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74 -2- 1 et seq., including specifically, Section 74 -2- 7(A)(1) and (B). [11/30/95; 20.2.73.3 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.102 02/18/02]

20.2.73.4 DURATION: Permanent. [11/30/95; 20.2.73.4 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73. 103 02/18/02]

20.2.73.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 1995 except where a later date is cited at the end of a section or paragraph. [11/30/95, 10/01/97; 20.2.73.5 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.104 02/18/02] [The latest effective date of any section in this Part is July 6, 2011 .]

20.2.73.6 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this part is to establish requirements for the submission of certain relevant information to ensure that the regulations and standards under the Air Quality Control Act and the federal

act will not be violated, and to facilitate the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico. [11/30/95; 20.2.73.6 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.105 02/18/02; A, 01/01/08]

20.2.73.7 DEFINITIONS: In addition to the terms defined in 20.2.2 NMAC (Definitions), as used in this part, the following apply.

A. "Air pollution control equipment" means any device, equipment, process or combination thereof the operation of which would limit, capture, reduce, confine, or otherwise control air contaminants or

convert for th e purposes of control any air contaminant to another form, another chemical or another physical state.

B. "California climate action registry" means the voluntary registry for greenhouse gas emissions established pursuant to California Health & Safety Cod e D . 26, Pt. 4, Ch. 6 (West 2007).

C. "Commencement" means that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of

construction or modification.

D. "Construction" means fabrication, erection, installation or relocation of a stationary source,

in cluding but not limited to temporary installations and portable stationary sources.

E. “Emission report or inventory” means a listing, by source, of the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of a community.

F. “Fuel carbon content” mean s the mass of carbon per unit of heat content of a fuel.

G. "Fugitive emissions" are those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally

- equivalent opening.

H. "Greenhouse gas emissions reporting year” me ans the calendar year in which greenhouse gas emissions required to be reported under this part occurred.

I. "Modification" means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which results in an increase in the pote ntial emission rate of any regulated air contaminant emitted by the source or which results in the emission of any regulated air contaminant not previously emitted, but does not

include: (1) a change in ownership of the source; (2) routine maintenance, repair or replacement; (3) installation of air pollution control equipment, and all related process equipment and materials necessary for its operation, undertaken for the purpose of comp lying with regulations adopted by the board or pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act; or (4) unless previously limited by enforceable permit conditions:20.2.73 NMAC 2 (a) an increase in the production rate, if such increase does not exceed the operating design capacity of the source; (b) an increase in the hours of operation; or (c) use of an alternative fuel or raw material if, prior to January 6, 1975, the source was capable of accommodating such fuel or raw material, or if use of an alternate fuel or raw material is caused by any natural gas curtailment or emergency allocation or any other lack of supply of natural gas.

J. "Nonattainment area" means, for any air pollutant, an area which has been designated as a

nonattainment area under Section 107 of the f ederal a ct.
K. "Operator" means the person or persons responsible for the overall operation of a facility.

L. "Owner" means the person or persons who own a facility or part of a facility.

M. "Part" means an air quality control regulation under Title 20, Chapter 2 of the New Mexico

a dministrative c ode, unless otherwise noted; as adopted or amended by the board.

N. "Portable stationary source" means a source which can be relocated to another operating site with limited dismantling and reassembly, including for example but not limited to moveable sand and gravel processing operations and asphalt plants.

O. "Potential emission rate" means the emission rate of a source at its maximum capacity to emit a regulated air contaminant under its physical and operational design, provided any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a regulated air contaminant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored or processed, shall be treated as part of its physical and operational design only if the limitation or the effect it would have on em issions is enforceable by the department pursuant to the Air Quality Control Act or the federal act.

P. "Potential to emit" means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air pollutant under its physical and operational design; any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation is federally enforceable; the potential to emit for nitrogen dioxide shall be based on total oxides of nitrogen. Q. "Regulated air contaminant" means any air contaminant, the emission or ambient concentration

of which is r egulated pursuant to the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act or the federal act.

R. "Shutdown" means the cessation of operation of any air pollution control equipment, process equipment or process for any purpose, except routine phasing out of batch proces s units.

S. "Stationary source" or "source" means any building, structure, equipment, facility, installation (including temporary installations), operation or portable stationary source which emits or may emit any air contaminant; any research facility may group its sources for the purpose of this part at the discretion of the secretary of the department.

T. “The climate registry” means the nonprofit corporation by that name incorporated under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act with a purp ose of creating and operating a multi

- state greenhouse gas emissions registry.

U. “WEB source” means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of 20.2.81.101

NMAC.

V. “Western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program” means 20.2.81 NMA C, triggered as a backstop in accordance with the provisions in the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan, if necessary, to ensure that regional sulfur dioxide emissions are reduced. [11/30/95, 10/01/97; 20.2.73.7 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.107 & A, 02/18/02; A, 12/31/03; A, 01/01/08]

20.2.73.8 to 20.2.73.105 [RESERVED]

20.2.73.106 AMENDMENT AND SUPERSESSION OF PRIOR REGULATIONS: This part amends and supersedes Air Quality Control Regulation ("AQCR") 703.1

- Notice of I ntent and Emissions Inventory Requirements last filed May 29, 1990, as amended ("AQCR 703.1").

A. All references to AQCR 703.1 in any other rule shall be construed as a reference to this part.

B. The amendment and supersession of AQCR 703.1 shall not aff ect any administrative or judicial enforcement action pending on the effective date of such amendment nor the validity of any permit issued pursuant to AQCR 703.1. [11/30/95; 20.2.73.106 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.106 02/18/02]

20.2.73.107 to 20.2.73.199 [R ESERVED]20.2.73 NMAC 3 20.2.73.200 NOTICE OF INTENT:

A. Applicability: (1) Any owner or operator intending to construct a new stationary source which has a potential emission rate greater than 10 tons per year of any regulated air contaminant or 1 ton per year of lead shall file a notice of intent with the department. (2) Any owner or operator intending to modify a stationary source which either prior to or following the modification has a potential emission rate greater than 10 tons per year of any regulated air contaminant or 1 ton per year of lead shall file a notice of intent with the department. (3) The requirements of 20.2.73.200 NMAC do not apply to stationary sources or modifications

located in Bernalillo county. (4) The notice of intent shall be filed prior to the commencement of construction. Construction shall not begin prior to issuance of a written determination by the department that a permit is not required, or if a permit is required, prior to the issuance of the permit under 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC.

B. Contents of Notice: Notices of intent shall be filed on forms furnished by the department, which shall be identical to the extent practicabl e, as those used for 20.2.72 NMAC (Construction Permits) and shall

include: (1) The applicant's name and address, the person to contact regarding the application, and the name

and address of the new source or modification. (2) The date of the application. (3) A description of the new facility or modification including all operations affecting air emissions. (4) The anticipated operating schedule. (5) A map such as a 7.5 minute United States geological survey topographic quadrangle showing the location of the stationary source. (6) The nature and quantities of any regulated air contaminants the new source or modificat ion will emit, including all calculations utilized to estimate emissions. (7) A description of any air pollution control device or method to be utilized, including the basis for the estimated control efficiency. (8) The stack and exhaust gas parameters for all emission points. (9) Any other relevant information as the department may reasonably require. (10) Be signed under oath or affirmation by the operator, the owner, or an authorized representative, certifying to the best of his or her knowledge the truth of all information submitted.

C. Review of Notice: Within thirty days from the date a notice is received, the department shall review its content and by certified letter indicate to the applicant: (1) the notice is incomplete and indicate specific additional material or clarification required; or (2) a permit is not required and construction may commence; or (3) a permit is required before construction may commence. For this case, the department will indicate whether the application is complete with respect to the requirements of each applicable permit regulation and specify additional material or clarification required if it is not complete.

D. Verification: In verifying information submitted in response to the requirements of this part, the department may: (1) Enter at all reasonable times in or upon any private or public property, except private residences, which the department has reasonable cause to believe is or will become a source of air contaminants contributing to air pollution; and (2) Require the production of information relating to emissions which cause or contribute to air pollution, including the sampling of emissions in accordance with methods and at locations and intervals as may be prescribed by the department.

E. Notification Requirements: (1) The owner or operator of a portable stationary source shall notify the department in writing of the date and site of any relocation at least fifteen days prior to its occurrence. (2) Any owner or operator of a stationary source which will be shut down for a period of one year or more shall notify the department in writing of the actual date of shut down within thirty days after the shut down

occurs. (3) Any new owner or operator of a stationary source shall notify the department within thirty days of assuming ownership of his or her name and address. [11/30/95; 20.20.73.200 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.200

- 204 02/18/02]20.2.73 NMAC 4 20.2.73.201 to 20.2.73.299 [RESERVED]

20.2.73.300 EMISSION INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS:

A. Applicabili ty. The requirements of 20.2.73.300 NMAC apply to the owner or operator of any stationary source located outside of Bernalillo county which: (1) has been issued a permit under 20.2.72 NMAC (Construction Permits) during any period o f time, except for toxic air pollutant permits issued under Secti ons 401 to 499 of 20.2.72 NMAC; (2) is required to file a notice of intent under 20.2.73.200 NMAC; or (3) emits in excess of 1 ton of lead or 10 tons of total suspended particulate, PM10, PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, or volatile organic compounds in any calendar year including and subsequent to 1990.

B. Reporting requirements. (1) Any source wh ich emits, or has the potential to emit, 5 tons per year or more of lead or lead compounds, or 100 tons per year or more of PM10, PM2.5, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, or volatile organic compounds shall submit an emissions report annuall y. (2) Any source defined as a major source of hazardous air pollutants under 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits) shall submit an emissions report annually. (3) Any source which is located in an ozone nonattainm ent area and which emits, or has the potential to emit, 25 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides or volatile organic compounds shall submit an emissions report annually. (4) Any source which is not required by Paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of Subsection B of this section (20.2.73.300 NMAC) to submit an emission report shall submit an emissions report under this part upon request by the department, but no more frequently than annually. (5) Except as provided in Paragraph (8) of Subsection B of this section (20.2.73.300 NMAC), the department shall provide to the owner or operator required by this section (20.2.73.300 NMAC) to submit an emissions report a complete copy of the most current emissions report for thei r stationary source which is on file with the department. The department shall provide this copy to the owner or operator at least 90 days prior to the date when the source is required to submit an emissions report. (6) The owner or operator shall submit to the department a complete, correct and current emissions report in the format specified by the department which reflects emissions during the previous calendar year. (7) Except as provided in Paragraph (8) of Subsection B of this section (20.2.73.300 NMAC) the owner or operator shall submit the emission report by April 1 of each year in which the source is required to submit an emission report. (8) Sources for which a date for submitt ing an annual emission report is specified in a current operating permit issued under 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits) shall submit such report on that date. The department shall provide a copy of the previous emissions report upon request by the owner or operator of such

source

. (9) Any source that is requested by the department to submit a report of greenhouse gas emissions

shall: (a) submit such report on the schedule and according to the greenhou se gas emissions reporting procedures established by the department, but not more often than annually; or (b) report greenhouse gas emissions from the source under 20.2.87 NMAC for the greenhouse gas emissions reporting ye ar and the two years following that year; or (c) provide the department access to the requested information for the greenhouse gas emissions reporting year registered in either the climate registry or the California climat e action registry; and (d) keep records in support of the report for a minimum of five years. (10) In determining the schedule of greenhouse gas emissions reports and reporting procedures, the depar tment, subject to Paragraph ( 11) below, shall provide an opportunity for public comment, and shall consider: (a) public comments regarding the schedule of such reports and greenhouse gas emissions reporting procedures; (b) emissions quantification standards and best practices approved or recommended by federal and state agencies, by greenhouse gas emissions registries, and by non

- governmental bodies having expertise in greenhouse gas emi ssi ons quantification;20.2.73 NMAC 5 (c) whether greenhouse gases emissions from a particular source or source type, considering the amount and chemical composition of the emissions, are expected to be minimal relative to emissions from ot her sources or source types, and (d) whether emissions of a particular greenhouse gas from a source or source type, considering the amount and chemical composition of the emissions, are expected to be minimal relative to the total greenhouse gas emissions from that source or source type. (11) The schedule for greenhouse gas emissions reports and reporting procedures pursuant to Paragraphs (9) and (10) of Subsection B of 20.2.73.300 NMAC, shall: (a) subject to the department’s selection of best available quantification methodologies, include a requirement that sources within North American industry classification system codes 211111, 211112, 213111,
213112, 486210, 22 1210, 486110, and 486910 subject to this part and permit requirements pursuant to 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits) report at a minimum emissions of carbon dioxide and methane beginning no later than reporting year 2009 and for subsequent reporting ye ars; a nd (b) subject to the d epartment’s selection of best available quantification methodologies, include a requirement that sources within North American industry classification system codes 211111, 211112, 213111, 213112, 486 210, 221210, 486110, and 486910 subject to this part pursuant to Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection A of 20.2.73.300 NMAC, and not otherwise covered by Subparagraph (a), above, report at a minimum emissions of carbon dioxide and methane no later than rep orting year 2010 and for subsequent reporting years as requested by the

d epartment.
C. Content of emissions reports. Emissions report contents for reports made under Paragraphs (1) through (8) of Subsection B of 20.2.73.300 NMAC shall include: (1) the name, address, if any, and physical location of the stationary source; (2) the name and telephone number of the person to contact regarding the emissions report; (3) a certification sign ed by the owner, or operator, or a responsible official as defined in 20.2.70 NMAC attesting that the statements and information contained in the emissions report are true and accurate to the best knowledge and belief of the certifying official, and includ ing the full name, title, signature, date of signature, and telephone number of the certifying official; for sources subject to 20.2.70 NMAC, the certification shall be made as required under that part; (4) smelters shall submit an annual report of sulfur input, in tons/year; (5) for each emission point, as required by the department: (a) stack and exhaust gas parameters and location information; (b) type of control equipment and estimated control efficiency; (c) schedule of operation; (d) estimated actual emissions, including fugitive emissions and emissions occurring during

m aintenance, start

- ups, shutdowns, upsets, and downtime of total suspended particulate, PM10, PM2.5, ammonia, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and lead, and, if requested by the department, speciated hazardous air pollutants, in tons per year and a description of the methods utilized to make such estimates, including calculations; (e) the annual process or fuel combustion rates; and (f) the fuel heat, sulfur, and ash content; and (6) all information required under the federal act.

D. Additional content for emissions reports from sources in ozone nonattainment areas. Emissions reports from sources located in ozone nonattainm ent areas shall include, in addition to the contents specified by Subsection C of this section (20.2.73.300 NMAC), the following information: (1) typical daily process rate during the peak ozone season, where the peak ozone season i s s pecified by the department; and (2) estimated actual emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which shall be reported: (a) for each emissions point; (b) for each process and fuel type contributing to emissions from each point; (c) in units of tons per year for annual emissions; and (d) in units of pounds per day for a typical d ay during the peak ozone season.

E. Waiver of reporting requirements for insignificant emissions. The department may waive the requirements of Paragraph (5) of Subsection C of this section (20.2.73.300 NMAC) for emissions which the department determines to be insignificant under 20.2.70 NMAC, except that:20.2.73 NMAC 6 (1) for sources in nonattainment areas, reporting of emissions of pollutants for which the area is nonattainment shall not be waived; and (2) reporting of emissions for which reporting is required under the federal act shall not be waived.

F. Emission tracking requirements for sulfur dioxide emission inventories. All stationary sources with actual emissions of one hundred (100) tons per year or more of sul fur dioxide in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, shall submit an annual inventory of sulfur dioxide emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inventory. A source that meets these criteria that then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later ye ar shall submit a sulfur dioxide inventory for tracking compliance with the regional sulfur dioxide milestones until the western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program has been fully implemented and emission tracking has occurred

under 20.2.81.106 NMAC. (1) All WEB sources will be subject to the following federally enforceable provisions: (a) submit an annual inventory of sulfur dioxide emissions; (b) document the e missions monitoring/estimation methodology used, and demonstrate that the selected methodology is acceptable under the inventory program; (c) include emissions from start up, shut down, and upset conditions in the annual t otal inventory; (d) use 40 CFR Part 75 methodology for reporting emissions for all sources subject to the federal acid rain program; (e) maintain all records used in the calculation of the emissions, including but not limited to the following: (i) amount of fuel consumed; (ii) percent sulfur content of fuel and how the content was determined; (iii) quantity of product monitoring data; (iv) emissions monitoring data; (v) operating data; and (vi) how the emissions are calculated; (f) maintain records of any physical changes to facility operations or equipment, or any other changes that may affect the emissions projections; and (g) retain records for a minimum of ten years from the date of establishment, or if the record was the basis for an adjustment to the milestone, five years after the date of an implementation plan revision, whichever is longer. (2) Changes in emission measurement techniques. Each source subject to this subsection that uses a different emission monitoring or calculation method than was used to report sulfur dioxide emissions in 2006 under this part or 40 CFR Part 75 shall adjust their reported emissions to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method that was used in 2006. The calculations that are used to make this adjustment shall be included with the annual emission report. (3) The department shall retain emission inventory records for non

- utilities for 2006 until the year 2018 to ensure that changes in emissions monitoring techniques can be tracked.

G. Content of greenhouse gas emissions reports. Greenhouse gas emissions reports s hall contain the following information, as set out in the greenhouse gas emissions reporting procedures established under Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph (9) of Subsection B of 20.2.73.300 NMAC: (1) the name, location, and permit or n otice of intent number of the stationary source; (2) the name and telephone number of the person to contact regarding the greenhouse gas emissions

report; (3) a certification signed by the owner or operator a ttesting that the statements and information contained in the emissions report are true and accurate to the best knowledge and belief of the certifying official, and including the full name, title, signature, date of signature, and telephone number of the certifying official; (4) for each emission point as required by the department under the greenhouse gas emissions reporting procedures, the estimated actual emissions of greenhouse gases, including fugitive emissions and

emissions o ccurring during maintenance, start

- ups, shutdowns, upsets and downtime; and (5) if requested by the department, the fuel type, fuel heat content, and fuel carbon content. [11/30/95, 10/01/97; 2.20.73.300 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.73.300

- 304 02/18/02; A, 12/31/03; A, 12/31/04; A,

01/01/08 ; A, 0 7/ 0 6/11 ]

HISTORY OF 20.2.73 NMAC:20.2.73 NMAC 7 Pre

- NMAC History: The material in this p art was derived from that previously filed with the commission of public records

- state records center and archives.

EIB /AQCR 703.1, Air Quality Control Regulation 703.1

- Notice of Intent and Emissions Inventory Requirements,

5/29/90.

History of Repealed Material: [RESERVED]

Other History: EIB/AQCR 703.1, Air Quality Control Regulation 703.1

- Notice of Intent and Emiss ions Inventory Requirements, filed 5/29/90, was renumbered into first version of the New Mexico Administrative Code as 20 NMAC 2.73, Notice of Intent and Emissions Inventory Requirements, filed 10/30/95. 20 NMAC 2.73, Notice of Intent and Emissions Inventory Requirements, filed 10/30/95, was renumbered, reformatted, amended and replaced by 20.2.73 NMAC, Notice of Intent and Emissions Inventory Requirements,

effective 02/18/02.20.2.81 NMAC 1 TITLE 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CHAPTER 2 AIR QUALITY (STATEWIDE)

PART 81 WESTERN BACKSTOP SULFUR DIOXIDE TRADING PROGRAM

20.2.81.1 ISSUING AGENCY: Environmental Improvement Board. [20.2.81.1 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.2 SCOPE: All geographic areas within the jurisdiction of the environmental improvement board. [20.2.81.2 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.3 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74 -1- 8(A)(4) and (7), and Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74 -2- 1 et seq., including specifically, Section

74 -2- 5 (A), (B) and (C). [20.2.81.3 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.4 DURATION: Permanent. [20.2.81.4 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 2003, except where a later date is cited at the end of a section. [20.2.81.5 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03] [The latest effective date of any section in this part is July 6, 2011 .]

20.2.81.6 OBJECTIVE:

A. 20.2.81 NMAC implements the western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program ("WEB trading program") provisions req uired under the federal regional haze rule, 40 CFR 51.309, and New Mexico's regional haze implementation plan.

B. Nothing in 20.2.81 NMAC waives any requirement otherwise in effect or subsequently required under another program, including rules governing new sources. [20.2.81.6 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.7 DEFINITIONS : I n addition to the terms defined in 20.2.2 NMAC (Definitions), as used in this

part , the following definitions shall apply.

A. "A ccount certificate of representation" means the completed and signed submission required to designate an account representative for a web source or an account representative for a general account

. B. " Account representative" means the individual who is authorized through an account certificate of representation to represent owners and operators of the WEB source with regard to matters under the web trading program or, for a general account, who is authorized through an account certificate of representation to represent the persons having an ownership interest in allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning the general account

. C. " Act " means the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

D. " Actual emissions" means total annual sulfur dioxide emissions determined in acco rdance with 20.2.81.106 NMAC, or determined in accordance with 20.2.73 NMAC for sources that are not subject to

20.2.81.106 NMAC

. E. "A llocate" means to assign allowances to a WEB source through Section C1 of the implementation plan

. F. "A llowance" means the limited authorization under the WEB trading program to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide during a specified control period or any control period thereafter subject to the terms and conditions for use of unused allowances as established by 20.2.81 NMAC

. G. "A llowance limitation" means the tonnage of sulfur dioxide emissions authorized by the allowances available for compliance deduction for a WEB source for a control period under 20.2.81.109 NMAC on the allowance transfer deadline for that control period

. H. "A llowance tracking system" means the system developed by the department where allowances under the WEB trading program are recorded, held, transferred and deducted

. I. "A llowance tracking system account" means an account in the allowance tracking sy stem established for purposes of recording, holding, transferring, and deducting allowances

.20.2.81 NMAC 2 J. "A llowance transfer deadline" means the deadline established in Subsection B of 20.2.81.107 NMAC when allowances must be submitted for recording in a WEB source's compliance account in order to demonstrate compliance for that control period

. K. "Best available retrofit technology (BART)" means that emission reduction control device, facility, method, or system, used to achieve the best continuous emission reduction for each pollutant emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation shall be established on a case

- by

- case basis taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non

- air quality environmen tal impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the

use of such technol ogy. L. "C ompliance account" means an account established in the allowance tracking system under Subsection A of 20.2.81.105 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation

. M. " Compliance certification" means a submission to the department by the account representative as required under Subsection B of 20.2.81.109 NMAC to report a WEB source's compliance or noncompliance with

20.2.81 NMAC

. N. "C ontrol period" means the per iod beginning January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive

. O. " Emission unit" means any part of a stationary source that emits or would have the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulations under the Clean Air Ac t.
P. "Emissions tracking database" means the central database where sulfur dioxide emissions for WEB sources as recorded and reported in accordance with 20.2.81 NMAC are tracked to determine compliance with

allowance limitations. Q. " Existing source" me ans, a stationary source that commenced operation before the program trigger date

. R. " Fugitive emissions" are those emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening

. S. " General account" m eans an account established in the allowance tracking system under 20.2.81.105 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances held by a person that are not to be used to show compliance with an allowance limitation

. T. " Milestone " means the maximum level of stationary source regional sulfur dioxide emissions for each year from 2003 to 2018, established according to the procedures in section A of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan

. U. " New web source" means a WEB source that commenced operation on or after the program trigger date

. V. " New source set

- aside" means a pool of allowances that are available for allocation to new sources in accordance with the provisions of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trad ing program implementation plan

. W. " Owner or operator" means any person who is an owner or who operates, controls or supervises a WEB source, and includes but is not be limited to any holding company, utility system or plant manager

. X. " Part " means an air quality control regulation under Title 20, Chapter 2 of the New Mexico administrative code, unless otherwise noted, as adopted or amended by the board

. Y. " Potential to emit" means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air pollutant under its physical and operational design . A ny physical or operational limitation on the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation is enforceable by the EPA administrator

. Z. " Program trigger date" means the date that the department determines that the WEB trading program has been triggered in acco rdance with the provisions of section A2 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan

. AA . " Program trigger years" means the years shown in table 1, column 3, of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading progr am implementation plan for the applicable milestone if the WEB trading program is triggered as described in section A of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan

. AB. " Retired source" means a WEB source that has recei ved a retired source exemption as provided

in Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC . A ny retired source resuming operations under Subsection D of 20.2.81.10120.2.81 NMAC 3 NMAC, must submit its exemption as part of its registration materials

. AC. " Serial number" means, when referring to allowances, the unique identification number assigned to each allowance by the tracking systems administrator, in accordance with Subsection B of 20.2.81.104 NMAC

. AD. "Special r eserve c ompliance a ccount" means an account established in the allowance tracking system under 20.2.81.105 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation for emission units that are monitored for sulfur dioxide in

accordance with 20.2.8 1.106 NMAC

. AE. " Sulfur dioxide emitting unit" means any equipment that is located at a WEB source and that

emits sulfur dioxide

. AF. " Sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan" or "implementation plan" means section C of the New Mexico regional haze state implementation plan

. AG. " Stationary source" means any building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act

. AH. " Submit " means sent to th e appropriate authority under the signature of the account representative

. For purposes of determining when something is submitted, an official U.S. postal service postmark, or equivalent electronic time stamp, shall establish the date of submittal

. AI. " Ton " means 2000 pounds and, for any control period, any fraction of a ton equaling 1000 pounds or more shall be treated as one ton and any fraction of a ton equaling less than 1000 pounds shall be treated

as zero tons

. AJ. " Tracking system administrator" means the person designated by the department as the administrator of the allowance tracking system and the emission tracking database

. AK. "Web source" means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of 20.2.81.101

NMAC

. AL. " Western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program ("WEB trading program")" means 20.2.81 NMAC, triggered as a backstop in accordance with the provisions in the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan, if necessary, to ensure that regional sulfur dioxide emissions are

reduced. [20.2.81.7 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.8 - 20.2.81.99 [RESERVED]

20.2.81.100 WEB TRADING PROGRAM TRIGGER:

A. Except as provided in Subsection B of this section, the provisions of 20.2.81 NMAC s hall apply on the program trigger date that is established in accordance with the procedures outlined in the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan.

B. 20.2.81.110 NMAC, special penalty provisions for 2018 milestone , sh all apply on January 1, 2018 and shall remain effective until the provisions of 20.2.81.110 NMAC have been fully implemented.

C. The department shall report to the environmental improvement board every two years following the trigger of this program on the distributions of emissions allowances under the program. [20.2.81.100 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.101 WEB TRADING PROGRAM APPLICABILITY:

A. General applicability. 20.2.81 NMAC applies to any stationary source or group of stationary

sourc es that are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and which are under the control of the same person or persons under common control, belonging to the same industrial grouping, and that are described in Paragraphs 1 through 4 of Subsecti on B. A stationary source or group of stationary sources shall be considered part of a single industrial grouping if all of the pollutant emitting activities at such source or group of sources on contiguous or adjacent properties belong to the same major g roup as described in the North American industry classification syste m (NAICS), 2007

. B. The following are WEB sources. (1) All BART

- eligible sources as defined in 40 CFR 51.301 that are BART

- eligible due to sulfur

dioxide emissions. (2) All stationary sources not meeting the criteria of Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.101 NMAC, that have actual sulfur dioxide emissions of 100 tons or more per year in the program trigger years or any subsequent year. The fugitive emission s of a stationary source shall not be considered in determining whether it is a WEB source unless the source belongs to one of the following categories of stationary source:20.2.81 NMAC 4 (a) coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers); (b) Kraft pulp mills; (c) Portland cement plants; (d) primary zinc smelters; (e) iron and steel mills; (f) primary aluminum ore reduction plants; (g) primary copper smelters; (h) municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day; (i) hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; (j) petroleum refineries; (k) lime plants; (l) phosphate rock processing plants; (m) coke oven batteries; (n) sulfur recovery plants; (o) carbon black plants (furnace process); (p) primary lead smelters; (q) fuel conversion plants; (r) sintering plants; (s) secondary metal production plants; (t) chemical process plants; (u) fossil

- fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; (v) petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capa city exceeding 300,000 barrels; (w) taconite ore processing plants; (x) glass fiber processing plants; (y) charcoal production plants; (z) fossil

- fuel

- fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; or (aa) any other stationary source category, which as of August 7, 1980 is being regulated und er Section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act. (3) A new source that begins operation after the program trigger date and has the potential to emit 100 tons or more of sulfur dioxide per year. (4) The department may determine on a case

- by

- case basis, with concurrence from the EPA administrator, that a source defined in Paragraph 2 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.101 NMAC is not a WEB source if

the source: (a) in each of the previous five years had actual sulfur dioxide emissions of less than 100 tons per year; and (b) had actual sulfur dioxide emissions of 100 tons or more in a single year due to a temporary emission increase that was caused by a sudd en, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, failure of process equipment, or a failure to operate in a normal or usual manner; and (c) took timely and reasonable action to minimize the temporary emission increase; and (d) has corrected the failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or process by the time of the department's determination under this section; or (e) had to switch fuels or feedstocks on a temporary basis and as a result of an emergency situation or unique and unusual circumstances besides cost of such fuels or feedstocks; and (f) a temporary emission increase due to poor maintenance or careless operation does not meet

the criteria of this section.

C. Duration of program participation. Except as provided for in Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC, once a source is subject to the WEB trading program, it will remain in the program every year thereafter.

D. Retired source exemption: application. (1) Any WEB that is retired shall apply for a retired source exemption. The WEB source may only be considered retired if all sulfur dioxide emitting units at the source are retired. The application shall contain all of the following information: (a) i dentification of the WEB source, including plant name and an appropriate identification code in a format specified by the department;20.2.81 NMAC 5 (b) name of account representative; (c) description of the status of the WEB source, including the date that the WEB source was retired; (d) signed certification that the WEB source is retired and will comply with the requirements of Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC; and (e) verification that the WEB source has a general account where any unused allowances or

future allocations will be recorded. (2) Responsibilities of retired sources. The retired source exemption becomes effective when the department notifies the source that the retired source exemption has been granted. (3) A retired source shall be exempt from 20.2.81.106 NMAC and 20.2.81.109 NMAC, except as provided below. (a) A retired source shall not emit any sulfur dioxide after the date the retired source exe mption

is effective. (b) A WEB source shall submit sulfur dioxide emissions reports, as required by Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC for any time period the source was operating prior to the effective date of the retired s ource exemption. The retired source shall be subject to the compliance provisions of 20.2.81.109 NMAC, including the requirement to hold allowances in the source's compliance account to cover all sulfur dioxide emissions prior to the date the source was pe rmanently retired. (c) A retired source that is still in existence but no longer emitting sulfur dioxide shall, for a period of five years from the date the records are created, retain records demonstrating the effective date of the retired source exemption for purposes of this part. (4) Resumption of operations. (a) Should a retired source desire to resume operation, the retired source shall submit registration mate rials as follows: (i) if the source is required to obtain a new source review permit or operating permit under 20.2.70 NMAC, 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC prior to resuming operation, then the

source shall submit registration information as described in 20.2.81.103 NMAC and a copy of the retired source exemption with the application required under 20.2.70 NMAC, 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC;

or (ii) if the source is not required to obtain a new source review permit or operating permit under 20.2.70 NMAC, 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC prior to resuming operation, then the source shall submit registration information as described in S ubsection A of 20.2.81.103 NMAC and a copy of the retired source exemption to the department at least ninety days prior to resumption of operation. (b) The retired source exemption shall automatically expire on the day the source resumes operation. (5) Loss of future allowances. A WEB source that is retired and that does not apply to the department for a retired source exemption within ninety days of the date that the source is retired shall forfei t any unused and future allowances. The abandoned allowances shall be retired by the tracking system administrator. [20.2.81.101 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03 ; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.102 ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE FOR WEB SOURCES: Each WEB source must identify one account representative and may also identify an alternate account representative who may act on behalf of the account representative. Any representation, action, inaction or submission by the alternate account representative will be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction or submission by the account representative.

A. Identification and certification of an account representative. (1) The account representative and any alternate account representative shall be appointed by an

agre ement that makes the representations, actions, inactions or submissions of the account representative and any alternate binding on the owners and operators of the WEB source. (2) The account representative shall submit to the depart ment and the tracking system administrator a signed and dated account certificate of representation (certificate) that contains the following elements: (a) identification of the WEB source by plant name, state and an appro priate identification code in a format specified by the department; (b) the name, address, e

- mail (if available), telephone and facsimile number of the account representative and any alternate; (c) a list of owners and operators of the WEB source; and (d) information to be part of the emission tracking system database in accordance with the20.2.81 NMAC 6 implementation plan. the specific data elements shall be as specifi ed by the department to be consistent with the data system structure, and may include basic facility information that may appear in other reports and notices submitted by the WEB source, such as county location, industrial classification codes, and similar general facility information. (e) the following certification statement: "I certify that I was selected as the account representative or alternate account representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the WEB source. I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the WEB trading program on behalf of the owners and operators of the WEB source and that each such owner and operator s hall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the department regarding the WEB trading program." (3) Upon receipt by the department of the complete certificate, the account representative and any alternate account representative represents and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally binds each owner and operator of the WEB source in all matters pertaining to the WEB tradin g program. The owners and operators shall be bound by any decision or order issued by the department regarding the WEB trading

program. (4) No WEB allowance tracking system account shall be established for the WEB source until the

t racking system administrator has received a complete certificate. Once the account is established, the account representative shall make all submissions concerning the account, including the deduction or transfer of allowances.

B. Requirements and respons ibilities. (1) The responsibilities of the account representative include, but are not limited to, the transferring of allowances, and the submission of monitoring plans, registrations, certification applications, sulfur dioxide

emi ssions data and compliance reports as required by 20.2.81 NMAC, and representing the source in all matters pertaining to the WEB trading program. (2) Each submission under this program shall be signed and certified by the account re presentative for the WEB source. Each submission shall include the following truth and accuracy certification statement by the account representative: "I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the WEB

source for whic h the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary respons ibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment."

C. Changing the account representative or owners and operators. (1) Changes to the account representative or the alternate account r epresentative. The account representative or alternate account representative may be changed at any time by sending a complete superseding certificate to the department and the tracking system administrator under Paragraph 3 of Subsection A of

20.2.81.102 NMAC, with the change taking effect upon receipt of such certificate by the department. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous account representative or alternate prior to the time and date when the tracking system administrator receives the superseding certificate shall be binding on the new account representative and the owners and operators of the WEB source. (2) Changes in owners and operators. (a) Within thirty days of any change in the owners and operators of the WEB source, including the addition of a new owner or operator, the account representative shall submit a revised certificate amending the list of owners and operators to include such change. (b) In the event a new owner or operator of a WEB source is not included in the list of owners and operators submitted in the certificate, such new owner or operator shall be deemed to be subject to a nd bound by the certificate, the representations, actions, inactions, and submissions of the account representative of the WEB source, and the decisions, orders, actions, and inactions of the department as if the new owner or operator were

included in such list. [20.2.81.102 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.103 REGISTRATION:

A. Deadlines. (1) Each source that is a WEB source on or before the program trigger date shall register by submitting the initial certificate required in Subsection A of 20.2.81.102 NMAC to the department no later than 180 days after the program trigger date. (2) Any existing source that becomes a WEB source after the program trigger date shall register by20.2.81 NMAC 7 submitting the initial certificate re quired in Subsection A of 20.2.81.102 NMAC to the department no later than September 30 of the year following the inventory year in which the source exceeded the emission threshold. (3) Any new WEB source shall register by submitting the initial certificate required in Subsection A of 20.2.81.102 NMAC to the department prior to the commencement of operation.

B. Integration into permits. (1) Any allocation, transfer or deduction of allowance to or from the compliance account of a WEB source shall not require revision of the WEB source's operating permit under 20.2.70 NMAC. (2) Any WEB source is not required to have a permit under 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC at any time aft er this rule becomes effective, must at all times possess a permit that includes the requirements of 20.2.81 NMAC. If it does not possess a title V permit under 20.2.70 NMAC , it may satisfy this paragraph's requirements by obtaining or modifying a permit under 20.2.72, NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC to incorporate the requirements of 20.2.81 NMAC. The source must at all times possess a permit that includes these requirements. [20.2.81.103 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.104 ALLOWANCE ALLOCATION S:

A. The tracking system administrator shall record the allowances for each WEB source in the compliance account for a WEB source once the allowances are allocated by the department under section C1 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program impl ementation plan. If applicable, the tracking system administrator shall record a portion of the sulfur dioxide allowances for a WEB source in a special reserve account assigned to the department to account for any allowances to be held by the Department in accordance with

Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC.

B. The tracking system administrator shall assign a serial number to each allowance in accordance

with section C2 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan.

C. All allowances shall be allocated, recorded, transferred, or used as whole allowances. To determine the number of whole allowances, the number of allowances shall be rounded down for decimals less than 0.50 and rounded up for decimals of 0.50 or greater.

D. An allowance is not a property right, and is a limited authorization to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide valid only for the purpose of meeting the requirements of 20.2.81 NMAC. No provision of this WEB trading program or other law should be construed to limi t the authority of the United States or the department to terminate

or limit such authorization.

E. Early reduction bonus allocation. Any WEB source that reduces permitted annual sulfur

dioxide emissions to a level that is below the floor level allocation established for that source in section C1 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan between 2003 and the program trigger year may apply to the department for an early reduction bonus allocation. The application sha ll be submitted no later than ninety days after the program trigger date. Any WEB source that applies and receives early reduction bonus allocations shall retain the records referenced below for a minimum of five years after the early reduction bonus

allow ance is certified in accordance with section C1.1(a) (3) of the implementation plan. The application for an early reduction bonus allocation shall contain the following information. (1) Copies of all permits or other enforceable documents that include annual sulfur dioxide emissions limits for the WEB source during the period the WEB source was generating the early reductions. Such permits or enforceable documents shall require monitoring for sulfur dioxide emissions that meets the r equirements in Subsection A and Subsection C of 20.2.81.106 NMAC and that the monitoring provisions were in effect one year prior to the beginning of the credit generating period. (2) Copies of emissions monitoring reports, for one year prior to the beginning of the credit generating period and for the period the WEB source was generating the early reductions, that documents the actual annual sulfur dioxide emissions. The emissions monitoring reports during the credit generating per iod must

demonstrate that the actual annual sulfur dioxide emissions were below the floor level allocation established for that source in section C1 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan. (3) Demonstration that the floor level established for the source in accordance with section C1 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan was calculated using data that are consistent with the new monitoring methodol ogy under Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. If new monitoring techniques change the floor level for the source, then a demonstration of the new floor level based on new monitoring techniques shall be included in the application.

F. Request for allowances for new WEB sources or modified WEB sources. (1) A new WEB source or an existing WEB source that has increased production capacity through a20.2.81 NMAC 8 permitted change in operations under 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC may apply t o the department for an allocation from the new source set

- aside, as outlined in section C1.3 of the implementation plan. (a) A new WEB source is eligible to apply for an annual allocation equal to the permitted

annual sul fur dioxide emission limit for that source after the source has commenced operation. (b) An existing WEB source is eligible to apply for an annual allocation equal to the permitted annual sulfur dioxide emission limit for that source that is attributable to any amount of production capacity that is greater than the permitted production capacity for that source as of January 1, 2003. (c) A source that has received a retired source exemption under Subsection D of 20.2.81.101 NMAC is not eligible to apply for an allocation from the new source set

- aside. (2) The application for an allocation from the new source set

- aside shall contain the following

information: (a) for existing WEB sources, documentation that shows the permitted production capacity of the source before and after the new permit; or (b) for new WEB sources, documentation of the actual date of the commencement of operation and a copy of the permit. [20.2.81.104 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.105 ESTABLISHMENT OF ACC OUNTS:

A. Allowance tracking system accounts. All WEB sources shall open a compliance account. Any person may open a general accoun t for holding and transferring allowances. In addition, if a Web source conducts monitoring under Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, the WEB source shall open a special reserve compliance account for allowances associated with units monitored under those provisions. The WEB source and account representative shall have no rights to transfer allowances in or out of such special reserve compliance account. The department shall allocate allowances to the account in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC and all such allowances for each control period shall be retired each year for compliance in accordance with 20.2.81.109 NMAC. To open either type of account; an application that contains the following information shall be

submitted: (1) the name, mailing address, e

- mail address, telephone number, and facsimile number of the account representative; for a compliance account, include a copy of the account certificate of representation of the account representative and any alternate as required in Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.102 NMAC; for a general account, include the account certificate of representation of the account representative and any alternate as required in Paragraph 2 of Subsection C or 20.2.81.105 NMAC; (2) the WEB source or organization name; (3) the type of account to be opened; and (4) a signed certification of truth and accuracy by the account representative according to Pa ragraph 2

of Subsection A of 20.2.81.102 for compliance accounts and for general accounts, certification of truth and accuracy by the account representative according to Subsection D of 20.2.81.105 NMAC.

B. Account representative for general accounts. For a general account, one account representative shall be identified and an alternate account representative may be identified and may act on behalf of the account representative. Any representation, action, inaction or submission by the alternate account representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction or submission by the account representative.

C. Identification and certification of an account representative for general accounts. (1) The account representative shall be appointed by an agreement that makes the representations, actions, inactions or submissions of the account representative binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to allowances held in the general account. (2) The account representative shall submit to the department and the tracking system administrator a signed and dated account certificate of representation (certificate) that contains the following elements: (a) the name, address, e

- mail (if available), telephone and facsimile number of the account representative and any alternate; (b) the organization name; and (c) the following certification s tatement: "I certify that I was selected as the account representative or alternate account representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on all persons who have an ownership interest in allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning the general account. I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the WEB trading program on behalf of said persons and that each such person shall be fully bound by my representations, action s, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the department regarding the general20.2.81 NMAC 9 account." (3) Upon receipt by the department of the complete certificate, the account representative represents and, by h is or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally binds each person who has an ownership interest in allowances held in the general account with regard to all matters concerning the general account. Such persons shall be bound by any d ecision or order issued by the department. (4) No WEB allowance tracking system general account shall be established until the tracking system administrator has received a complete certificate. Once the account is established, the account representative shall make all submissions concerning the account, including the deduction or transfer of allowances.

D. Requirements and responsibilities. Each submission for the general account shall be signed and certified by the account represe ntative for the general account. Each submission shall include the following truth and accuracy certification statement by the account representative: "I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of all person who have an ownership interest in allowa nces held in the general account. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and

inform ation or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment."

E. Changing the account representative. The account representative or alternate account representative may be changed at any time by sending a complete superseding certificate to the department and the tracking system administrator under Paragraph 2 of Subsection C of 20.2.81.105 NMAC, with the change taking effect upon receipt of such certificate by the department. Notwithstanding any such change, al l representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous account representative or alternate prior to the time and date when the department receives the superseding certificate shall be binding on the new account representative and all

person s having ownership interest with respect to allowances held in the general account.

F. Changes to the account. Any change to the information required in the application for an existing account under Subsection A of 20.2.81.105 NMAC shall require a revisio n of the application. [20.2.81.105 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.106 MONITORING, RECORDKE EPING AND REPORTING - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

ON MONITORING METHOD S:

A. For each sulfur dioxide emitting unit at a WEB source shall comply with the following, as applicab le, to monitor and record sulfur dioxide mass emissions. (1) If a unit is subject to 40 CFR Part 75 under a requirement separate from the WEB trading program, the unit shall meet the requirements contained in Part 75 with respect to monitoring, recording and reporting sulfur dioxide mass emissions. (2) If a unit is not subject to 40 CFR Part 75 under a requirement separate from the WEB trading program, a unit shall use one of the following monitoring methods, as applicable: (a) a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for sulfur dioxide and flow that complies with all applicable monitoring provisions in 40 CFR Part 75; (b) if the unit is a gas - or oil

- fired combustion device, the excepted monitoring methodology in Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75, or, if applicable, the low mass emissions (LME) provisions (with respect to sulfur dioxide mass emissions only) of Section 75.19 of 40 CFR Part 75; (c) one of the optional WEB protocols, if applicable, in 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC; or (d) a petition for site

- specific monitoring that the source submits for approval by the

de partment, and approval by the U.S. environmental protection agency in accordance with Paragraph 5 of

Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. (3) A permanently retired unit shall not be required to monitor under this section if such unit w as permanently retired and had no emissions for the entire period for which the WEB source implements this Paragraph 3 and the account representative certifies in accordance with Subsection B of 20.2.81.109 NMAC that these

conditions were met. In the event that a permanently retired unit recommences operation, the WEB source shall meet the requirements of this Section 20.2.81.106 NMAC in the same manner as if the unit was a new unit.

B. Notwithstanding Subsection A of this section, the WEB source with a un it that meets one of the conditions of Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC may elect to have the provisions of this Paragraph 1 apply to that unit. (1) Any of the following units may implement Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC:20.2.81 NMAC 10 (a) any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (b) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or (c) any other type of unit without add

- on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if no control level was assumed for the WEB source in establishing the floor level (and reducible allocation) provided in section C1 of the implementation plan. (2) For each unit covered by Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC , the account representative shall submit a notice to request that Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC apply to one or mor e sulfur dioxide emitting units at a WEB source. The notice shall be submitted in accordance with the compliance dates specified in Paragraph 1 of Subsection M of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, and shall include the following information (in a format specified by the department with such additional, related information as may be requested): (a) a notice of all units at the applicable source, specifying which of the units are to be covered by Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; (b) consistent with the emission estimation methodology used to determine the floor level (and reducible allocation) for the source in accordance with section C1 of the implementation plan, the portion of the WEB source's overall allowance allocation that is attributable to any unit(s) covered by this paragraph; and (c) an identification of any such units that are permanently retired. (3) For each new unit at an existing WEB so urce for which the WEB source seeks to comply with this Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; and for which the account representative applies for an allocation under

the new source set

- aside provisions of Subsection F of 20.2.81.104 NMAC, the account represen tative shall submit a modified notice under Paragraph 2 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, that includes such new sulfur dioxide emitting unit(s). The modified notice shall be submitted in accordance with the compliance dates in Paragraph 1 of

Subsection M of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, but no later than the date on which a request is submitted under Paragraph 1

of Subsection F of 20.2.81.104 NMAC for allocations from the set

- aside. (4) The department shall evaluate the information submitted by the WEB source in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, and may issue a notice to the source to exclude any units that do not qualify under this Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC or to adjust the portion of allowances attributable to u nits that do qualify to be consistent with the emission estimation methodology used to establish the floor level (and reducible allocation) for the source. (5) The department shall allocate allowances equal to the adjusted portion of the WEB source's allowances under Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC in a special reserve compliance account provided that no such treatment of the WEB source's allocation will be required for any unit that is permanently retired and had no emissions for the entire period for which the WEB source implements this Subsection B and the account representative certifies in accordance with 20.2.81.109 NMAC that these conditions are met. In the event that a permanently retired unit recommences operation, the WEB source shall meet the requirements of this Section 20.2.81.106 NMAC in the same manner as if the unit was a new unit. (6) The account representative for a WEB source shall submit an annual emissions statement for each

unit under this Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC in accordance with Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. The WEB source shall maintain operating records sufficient to estimate annual emissions in a manner consistent with the

emission estimation met hodology used to establish the floor level (and reducible allocation) for the source. In addition, if the estimated emissions from all such units at the WEB source are greater than the allowances for the current control year held in the special reserve compliance account under Paragraph 5 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC for the WEB source, the account representative shall report the excess amount as part of the annual report for the WEB source under 20.2.81.109 NMAC and be required to use other allowan ces in the standard compliance account for the WEB source to account for such emissions, in accordance with 20.2.81.109 NMAC. (7) The remaining provisions of this section shall not apply to units covered by Subsection B of

20.2.81.1 06 NMAC except where otherwise noted. (8) A WEB source may opt to modify the monitoring for an sulfur dioxide emitting unit to use monitoring under Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, but any such monitoring change shall take effect o n January 1 of the next compliance year. In addition, the account representative shall submit an initial monitoring plan at least 180 days prior to the date on which the new monitoring will take effect and a detailed monitoring plan in accordance

with Subs ection D of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. The account representative shall also submit a revised notice under Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC at the same time that the initial monitoring plan is submitted.

C. For any monitoring that the WEB source uses under this section (including Paragraph 1), the WEB source (and, as applicable, the account representative) shall implement, certify, and use such monitoring in20.2.81 NMAC 11 accordance with this section, and shall record and report the data from such monitoring as required in this section. In addition, the WEB source (and, as applicable, the account representative) shall not: (1) except for an alternative approved by the U.S. EPA administrator for a WEB source that implements monitoring under Paragraph 1 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, u se an alternative monitoring system, alternative reference method or another alternative for the required monitoring method without having obtained prior written approval in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; (2) operate an sulfur dioxide emitting unit so as to discharge, or allow to be discharged, sulfur dioxide emissions to the atmosphere without accounting for these emissions in accordance with the applicable provisi ons of this section; (3) disrupt the approved monitoring method or any portion thereof, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording sulfur dioxide mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere, except for periods of recertification o r periods when calibration, quality assurance testing or maintenance is performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section; or (4) retire or permanently discontinue use of an approved monitoring method, except un der one of the following circumstances: (a) during a period when the unit is exempt from the requirements of this section, including retirement of a unit as addressed in Paragraph 3 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; (b) the WEB source is monitoring emissions from the unit with another certified monitoring method approved under this section for use at the unit that provides data for the same parameter as the retired or

discontinued monitor ing method; or (c) the account representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system in accordance with this section, and the WEB source recertifies thereafter a replac ement monitoring system in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section.

D. Monitoring plan general provisions. The WEB source of a sulfur dioxide emitting unit that uses a monitoring method under Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NM AC shall meet the following requirements: (1) prepare and submit to the department an initial monitoring plan for each monitoring method that

the WEB source u ses to comply with this section; i n accordance with Subsection F of 20.2.8 1.106 NMAC, the plan shall contain sufficient information on the units involved, the applicable method, and the use of data derived from that method to demonstrate that all unit sulfur dioxide emissions are monitored and reported; the plan shall be

submitt ed in accordance with the compliance deadlines specified in Subsection M of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; (2) prepare, maintain and submit to the department a detailed monitoring plan prior to the first day of certification testing in accordance with the compliance deadline specified in Subsection M of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; the plan shall contain the applicable information required by S ubsection D of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; t he department may require that the monitoring plan (or portions thereof) be submi tted electronically; the department also may require that the plan be submitted on an ongoing basis in electronic format as part of the quarterly report submitted under Paragraph 1 of Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC or resubmitted separately within after any change is made to the plan in accordance with the following Paragraph 3 of Subsection D of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; and (3) whenever the WEB source makes a replacement, modification, or change in one of the systems or methodologies pro vided for in Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, including a change in the automated data acquisition and handling system or in the flue gas handling system, that affects information reported in the monitoring plan (e.g., a change to serial nu mber for a component of a monitoring system), then the WEB source shall update the monitoring plan in accordance with the compliance deadline specified in Subsection M of

20.2.81.106 NMAC

. E. A WEB source with a sulfur dioxide emitting unit that uses a me thod under Paragraph 1 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC (a unit subject to 40 CFR Part 75 under a program other than this WEB trading program) shall meet the requirements of Subsections D

- I of 20.2.81.106 NMAC by preparing, maintaining and submitting a monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 75, provided that the WEB source also shall submit the entire monitoring plan to the department upon request.

F. Initial monitoring plan. The account representative shall submit an initial monitoring plan for each sulfur dioxide emitting unit (or group of units sharing a common methodology) that, except as otherwise specified in an applicable provision in 20.2.81.111 NMAC, contains the following information. (1) For all sulfur dioxide emitting units involved in the monitoring plan: (a) plant name and location; (b) plant and unit identification numbers assigned by the department; (c) type of unit (or units for a group of units using a common monitoring methodology);20.2.81 NMAC 12 (d) identification of all stacks or pipes associated with the monitoring plan; (e) type s of fuel(s) fired (or sulfur containing process materials used in the sulfur dioxide emitting unit), and the fuel classification of the unit if combusting more than one type of fuel and using a 40 CFR Part 75 methodology; (f) type(s) of emissions controls for sulfur dioxide installed or to be installed, including specifications of whether such controls are pre

- combustion, post

- combustion, or integral to the combustion process; (g) maximum hourly heat input capacity, or process throughput capacity, if applicable; (h) identification of all units using a common stack; and (i) indicator of whether any stack identified in the pl an is a bypass stack. (2) For each unit and parameter required to be monitored, identification of monitoring methodology information, consisting of monitoring methodology, monitor locations, substitute data approach for the

methodol ogy, and general identification of quality assurance procedures. If the proposed methodology is a site

specific methodology submitted pursuant to Subparagraph d of Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, the description under this paragraph shall describe fully all aspects of the monitoring equipment, installation locations, operating characteristics, certification testing, ongoing quality assurance and maintenance procedures, and substitute data procedures. (3) If the WEB s ource intends to petition for a change to any specific monitoring requirement otherwise required under this section, such petition may be submitted as part of the initial monitoring plan. (4) The department may issue a notice of app roval or disapproval of the initial monitoring plan based on the compliance of the proposed methodology with the requirements for monitoring in this section.

G. Detailed monitoring plan. The account representative shall submit a detailed monitoring plan

t hat, except as otherwise specified in an applicable provisions in 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC, shall contain the following information. (1) Identification and description of each monitoring component (including each monitor and its identifiable components, such as analyzer or probe) in a CEMS (e.g., sulfur dioxide pollutant concentration monitor, flow monitor, moisture monitor), a 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix D monitoring system (e.g., fuel flowmeter, data acquisition and handli ng system), or a protocol in 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC , including: (a) manufacturer, model number and serial number; (b) component or system identification code assigned by the facility to each identifiable monitoring component, such as the analyzer or probe; (c) designation of the component type and method of sample acquisition or operation (e.g., in situ pollutant concentration monitor or thermal flow monitor); (d) designation of the system as a primary or backup system; (e) first and last dates the system reported data; (f) status of the monit oring component; and (g) parameter monitored. (2) Identification and description of all major hardware and software components of the automated data acquisition and handling system, including: (a) hardware components that perform emission calculations or store data for quarterly reporting purposes (provide the manufacturer and model number); and (b) software components (provide the identification of the provider and model or version number). (3) Explicit formulas for each measured emissions parameter, using component or system identification codes for the monitoring system used to measure the parameter that lin ks the system observations with the reported concentrations and mass emissions. The formulas shall contain all constants and factors required to derive mass emissions from component or system code observations and an indication of whether the formula is

be ing added, corrected, deleted, or is unchanged. The WEB source with a low mass emissions unit for which the WEB source is using the optional low mass emissions excepted methodology in Section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR Part 75 is not required to report such formul as. (4) Inside cross

- sectional area (square feet) at flow monitoring location (for units with flow monitors, only). (5) I f using CEMS for sulfur dioxide and flow, for each parameter monitored: scale, maximum potential concentration (and method of calculation), maximum expected concentration (if applicable) (and method of calculation), maximum potential flow rate (and method of calculations), span value, full

- scale range, daily calibration units of measure, sp an effective date and hour, span inactivation date and hour, indication of whether dual spans are required, default high range value, flow rate span, and flow rate span value and full scale value in20.2.81 NMAC 13 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) for each unit or stac k using sulfur dioxide or flow component monitors. (6) If the monitoring system or excepted methodology provides for use of a constant, assumed, or default value for a parameter under specific circumstances, then the following information for each value of such parameter shall be included: (a) identification of the parameter; (b) default, maximum, minimum, or constant value, and units of measure for the value; (c) purpose of the value; (d) indicator of use during controlled and uncontrolled hours; (e) types of fuel; (f) source of the value; (g) value effective date and hour; (h) date and hour value is no longer effective (if applicable); and (i) for units using the excepted methodology under Section 75.19 of 40 CFR Part 75, the applicable sulfur dioxide emission factor. (7) Unless otherwise specified in Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, for each unit or

common stack on which hardware CEMS are insta lled: (a) the upper and lower boundaries of the range of operation (as defined in Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75), or thousand of lb/hr of steam, or ft/sec (as applicable); (b ) the load or operating level(s) designated as normal in Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, or thousands of pounds per hour lb/hr of steam, or feet per second ft/sec (as applicable); (c) the two load or operating levels (i.e., low, mid, or high) identified in Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75 as the most frequently used; (d) the date of the data analysis used to determine the normal load (or operating) level (s) and the two most frequently

- used load (or operating) levels; and (e) activation and deactivation dates when the normal load or operating level(s) change and are updated. (8) For each unit that is complying with 40 CFR Part 75 for which the optional fuel flow

- to

- load test in Section 2.1.7 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75 is used: (a) the upper and lower boundaries of the range of operation (as defined in Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75), expressed in thousand of lb/hr of steam; (b) the load level designated as normal, pursuant to Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, expressed in thousands of lb/hr of ste am; and (c) the date of the load analysis used to determine the normal load level. (9) Information related to quality assurance testing, including (as applicable): identification of the test strategy; protocol for the relative accuracy test audit; other relevant test information; calibration gas levels (percent of span) for the calibration error test and linearity check; calculations for determining maximum potential concentration, maximum expected concentration (if applicable), maximum potential flow rate, and span

. (10) If applicable, apportionment strategies under Sections 75.10 through 75.18 of 40 CFR Part 75. (11) Description of site locations for each monitoring component in a monitoring system, including schematic diagrams and engineering drawings and any other documentation that demonstrates each monitor location meets the appropriate siting criteria. For units monitored by a continuous emission monitoring system, diagrams

shall include: (a) a schematic diagram identifying entire gas handling system from unit to stack for all units, using identification numbers for units, monitor components, and stacks correspondi ng to the identification numbers provided in the initial monitoring plan and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Subsection G of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; the schematic diagram must depict the height of any monitor locations; comprehensive or separate schematic diagrams

shall b e used to describe groups of units using a common stack; and (b) stack and duct engineering diagrams showing the dimensions and locations of fans, turning vanes, air preheaters, monitor components, probes, reference method sampling ports, and other equipment that affects the monitoring system location, performance, or quality control checks. (12) A data flow diagram denoting the complete information handling path from output signals of CEMS component s to final reports.

H. In addition to supplying the information in Subsections F and G above, the WEB source with an sulfur dioxide emitting unit using either of the methodologies in Subparagraph b of Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of

20.2.81.106 NMAC shall include the following information in its monitoring plan for the specific situations

described.20.2.81 NMAC 14 (1) For each gas

- fired or oil

- fired sulfur dioxide emitting unit for which the WEB source uses the optional protocol in Appendix D to 4 0 CFR Part 75 for sulfur dioxide mass emissions, the WEB source shall include the following information in the monitoring plan: (a) parameter monitored; (b) type of fuel measured, maximum fuel flow rate, units of measure, and basis of maximum fuel flow rate (i.e., upper range value or unit maximum) for each fuel flowmeter; (c) test method used to check the accuracy of each fuel flowmeter; (d) submission status of the data; (e) monitoring system identification code; (f) the method used to demonstrate that the unit qualifies for monthly gross calorific value ( GCV) sampling or for daily or annual fuel sampling for sulfur content, as applicable; (g) a schematic diagram identifying the relationship between the unit, all fuel supply lines, the fuel flowmeter(s), and the stack(s); the schematic diagram must depict the installation location of each fuel flowmeter and the fuel sampling location(s); comprehensive and separate schematic diagrams shall be used to describe groups of units using a common pipe; (h) for units using the optional default sulfur dioxide emission rate for "pipeline natural gas" or "natural gas" in Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75, the information on the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel used to demonstrate compliance with either Sect ion 2.3.1.4 or 2.3.2.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75; (i) for units using the 720 hour test under Section 2.3.6 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75 to determine the required sulfur sampling requirements, report the procedures and results of the test; and (j) for units using the 720 hour test under Section 2.3.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75 to determine the appropriate fuel GCV sampling frequency, report the procedures used and the results of the test. (2) For each sulfur dioxide emitting unit for which the WEB source uses the low mass emission excepted methodology of Section 75.19 to 40 CFR Part 75, the WEB source shall include the following information in the monitoring plan that accompanies the initial certification application: (a) the results of the analysis performed to qualify as a low mass emissions unit under Section 75.19(c) to 40 CFR Part 75; this report shall include either the previous three years actual or projected emissions; the following items shall be included: a) current calendar year of application; b) type of qualification; c) years one, two, and three; d) annual measured, estimated or projected sulfur dioxide mass emissions for years one, two, and three; and e) annual operating hours for years one, two, and three; (b) a schematic diagram identifying the relationship between the unit, all fuel supply lines and tanks, any fuel flowmet er(s), and the stack(s); comprehensive or separate schematic diagrams shall be used to describe groups of units using a common pipe; (c) for units which use the long term fuel flow methodology under Section 75.19(c)(3) to 40 CFR Part 75, a diagram of the fuel flow to each unit or group of units and a detailed description of the procedures used to determine the long term fuel flow for a unit or group of units for each fuel combusted by the unit or group of units; (d) a statement that the unit burns only gaseous fuel(s) and/or fuel oil and a list of the fuels that are burned or a statement that the unit is projected to burn only gaseous fuel(s) and/or fuel oil and a list of the fuels

that are projected to be burned; (e) a statement that the unit meets the applicability requirements in Sections 75.19(a) and (b) to 40 CFR Part 75 with respect to sulfur dioxide emissions; and (f) any unit historical actual, estimated and projected sulfur dioxide emissions data and calculated sulfur dioxide emissions data demonstrating that the unit qualifies as a low mass emissions unit under Sections 75.19(a) and (b) to 40 CFR Part 75. (3) For each gas

- fired unit the WEB source shall include the following in the monitoring plan: current calendar year, fuel usage data as specified in the definition of gas

- fired in Section 72.2 of 40 CFR Part 72, and an indication of whether the data are actual or projected data.

I. The specific elements of a monitoring plan under Subsection D of 20.2.81.106 NMAC shall not be part of an operating permit for a WEB source issued in accordance with the title V of the Clean Air Act, and

modifica tions to the elements of the plan shall not require a permit modification.

J. Certification and recertification. (1) All monitoring systems are subject to initial certification and recertification testing as specified in

40 CFR Par t 75, 20.2.81.111 NMAC or ; 20.2.81.112 NMAC. Certification or recertification of a monitoring system by the U.S. environmental protection agency for a WEB source that is subject to 40 CFR Part 75 under a requirement separate from 20.2.81 NMAC shall const itute certification under the WEB trading program.20.2.81 NMAC 15 (2) The WEB source with a sulfur dioxide emitting unit not otherwise subject to 40 CFR Part 75 that

monitors sulfur dioxide mass emissions in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 to satis fy the requirements of this section shall perform all of the tests required by that regulation and shall submit the following: (a) a test notice, not later than 21 days before the certification testing of the monitoring sy stem, provided that the department may establish additional requirements for adjusting test dates after this notice as part of the approval of the initial monitoring plan under Subsection F of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; (b) an ini tial certification application within 45 days after testing is complete; (c) a monitoring system shall be considered provisionally certified while the application is pending, and the system shall be deemed certified if the department does not approve or disapprove the system within six months after the date on which the application is submitted; and (d) whenever an audit of any monitoring certified under 20.2.81 NMAC, and a review of the

in itial certification or recertification application, reveal that any system or component should not have been certified or recertified because it did not meet a particular performance specification or other requirement of 20.2.81 NMAC, both at the time of the initial certification or recertification application submission and at the time of the audit, the department will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such system or component; for the purposes of this paragraph, an audit shall b e either a field audit of the facility or an audit of any information submitted to the department regarding the facility; by issuing the notice of disapproval, the certification status is revoked prospectively, and the data measured and recorded shall not be considered valid quality

- assured data from

the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status until the date and time that the WEB source completes subsequently approved initial certification or recertification tests in accorda nce with the procedures in Subsection J of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; the WEB source shall apply the substitute data procedures in Paragraph 2 of Subsection L of 20.2.81.106 NMAC to replace, prospectively, all of the invalid, non

- quality

- assured data for each disap proved system or component.

K. Ongoing quality assurance and quality control. The WEB source shall satisfy the applicable quality assurance and quality control requirements of Part 75 or, if the WEB source is subject to a WEB protocol in

20.2.81.111 NMAC , the applicable quality assurance and quality control requirements in 20.2.81.111 NMAC on and after the date that certification testing commences.

L. Substitute data procedures. (1) For any period after certification testing is c omplete in which quality assured, valid data are not being recorded by a monitoring system certified and operating in accordance with 20.2.81 NMAC, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 or, if the WEB source is subject to a WEB protocol in 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC , with substitute data in accordance with

20.2.81.111 NMAC. (2) For a sulfur dioxide emitting unit that does not have a certified or provisionally cert ified monitoring system in place as of the beginning of the first control period for which the unit is subject to the WEB trading program, the WEB source shall: (a) if the WEB s ource will use a CEMS to comply with this sec tion, substitute the maximum potential concentration of sulfur dioxide for the unit and the maximum potential flow rate, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75; the procedures for conditional data validation under Section 75.20(b)(3) may be

used f or any monitoring system under 20.2.81 NMAC that uses these 40 CFR Part 75 procedures, as applicable; (b) if the WEB source will use the 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix D methodology, substitute the maximum potential sulfur conten t, density or gross calorific value for the fuel and the maximum potential fuel flow rate, in accordance with Section 2.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75; (c) if the WEB source will use the 40 CFR Part 75 methodology for l ow mass emissions units, substitute the sulfur dioxide emission factor required for the unit as specified in 40 CFR 75.19 and the maximum rated hourly heat input, as defined in 40 CFR 72.2; or (d) if using a protocol in 2 0.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC, follow the procedures in the applicable protocol.

M. Compliance d eadline. (1) The initial monitoring plan shall be submitted by the following dates. (a) For eac h source that is a WEB source on or before the program trigger date, the monitoring plan shall be submitted 180 days after such program trigger date. (b) For any existing source that becomes a WEB source after the program trigger date, the monitoring plan shall be submitted by September 30 of the year following the inventory year in which the source

exceeded the emissions threshold. (c) For any new WEB source, the monitoring plan shall be i ncluded with the permit application20.2.81 NMAC 16 under 20.2.70 NMAC, 20.2.72 NMAC, 20.2.74 NMAC or 20.2.79 NMAC. (2) A detailed monitoring plan under Subsection E of 20.2.81.106 NMAC shall be submitted no later than 45 days prior to commencing certification with the following Paragraph 3. (3) Emission monitoring systems shall be installed, operational and shall have met all of the certification testing requirements of this 20.2.81.106 NMAC (including any referenced in 20. 2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC ) by the following dates. (a) For each source that is a WEB source on or before the program trigger date, two years prior to the start of the first control period as described in 20.2.81.109 NMAC. (b) For any existing source that becomes a WEB source after the program trigger date, one year after the due date for the monitoring plan under Subparagraph b of Paragraph 2 of Subsection M of 20.2.81.106

NMAC. (c) For any new WEB source, (or any new unit at a WEB source under Paragraph 3 Subparagraph a or b, the earlier of 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days after the date the new source commences operation. (4) The WEB source shall submit test notices and certification applications in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Paragraph 2 of Subsection J of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. (5) For each applicable control period, the WEB source shall submit each quarterly report under Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC by no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter and shall submit the annual report under Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC no later than 60 days after the end of e ach calendar

year. N. Recordkeeping. (1) The WEB source shall keep copies of all reports, registration materials, compliance certifications, sulfur dioxide emissions data, quality assurance data, and other submissions under 20.2.81 NMAC for a period of five years. In addition, the WEB source shall keep a copy of all account certificates of representation. Unless otherwise requested by the WEB source and approved by the department, the copies shall be kept on site at the

source. (2) The WEB source shall keep records of all operating hours, quality assurance activities, fuel sampling measurements, hourly averages for sulfur dioxide, stack flow, fuel flow, or other continuous measurements, as applicable, and any other applicable data elements specified in this section , 20.2.81.111 NMAC or in 20.2.81.112 NMAC. The WEB source shall maintain the applicable records specified in 40 CFR Part 75 for any sulfur dioxide emitting unit that uses a Part 75 monitoring method to meet the requirements of this section.

O. Reporting. (1) Quarterly reports. For each sulfur dioxide emitting unit, the account representative shall submit a quarterly report within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter. The report shall be in a format specified by the department to include hourly and quality assurance activity information and shall be submitted in a manner compatible with the emissions tracking database designed for the WEB trading program. If the WEB source submits a quarterly report under 40 CFR Part 75 to the U.S. EPA administrator, no additional report under this paragraph shall be required, provided, however, that the department may require that a copy of that report (or a separate statement of quarterly and cumulative annual sulfur dioxide mass emissions) be submitted separately to the department. (2 ) Annual report. Based on the quarterly reports, each WEB source shall submit an annual statement of total annual sulfur dioxide emissions for all sulfur dioxide emitting units at the source. The annual report shall identify the total emissions for all units monitored in accordance with Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC and the

total emissions for all units with emissions estima ted in accordance with Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. The annual report shall be submitted within 60 days after the end of a control period. (3) If the department so directs that any monitoring plan, report, certification, recertification, or emissions data required to be submitted under this section be submitted to the tracking system administrator. (4) The department may review and reject any report submitted under this Subsection O of

20.2.81.106 NMAC t hat contains errors or fails to satisfy the requirements of this section, and the account representative shall resubmit the report to correct any deficiencies. (5) A WEB source may petition for an alternative to any requirement spec ified in Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. The petition shall require approval of the department and the U.S. EPA administrator. Any petition submitted under this paragraph shall include sufficient information for the evaluation of the petit ion, including, at a minimum, the following information: (a) identification of the WEB source and applicable sulfur dioxide emitting unit(s); (b) a detailed explanation of why the proposed alternative is being suggested in lieu of the20.2.81 NMAC 17 requirement; (c) a description and diagram of any equipment and procedures used in the proposed alternative, if applicable; (d) a demonstrati on that the proposed alternative is consistent with the purposes of the requirement for which the alternative is proposed and is consistent with the purposes of 20.2.81 NMAC and that any adverse effect of approving such alternative will be de minimis ; and (e) any other relevant information that the department may require. (6) For any monitoring plans, reports, or other information submitted under 20.2.81.106 NMAC, the WEB source shall ensure that, wh ere applicable, identifying information is consistent with the identifying information provided in the most recent certificate of representation for the WEB source submitted under

20.2.81.102 NMAC. [20.2.81.106 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03 ; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.107 ALLOWANCE TRANSFERS:

A. Procedure. To transfer allowances, the account representative shall submit the following information to the tracking system administrator: (1) the transfer account number(s) identifying the transferor acco unt; (2) the transfer account number(s) identifying the transferee account; (3) the serial number of each allowance to be transferred; and (4) t he transferor's account representative's name and signature and date of submission.

B. Deadline. The allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific standard time March 1 of each year (or if this date is not a business day, midnight of the first business day thereafter) following the end of the control period. By this time, the transfer of the allowances into the WEB source's compliance account must be correctly submitted to the tracking system administrator in order to demonstrate compliance under Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC for that control period.

C. Retirement of Allowances. To transfer allowances for the purpose of retirement, the account representative shall submit the following information to the tracking system administrator: (1) the transfer account number (s) identifying the transferor account; (2) the serial number of each allowance to be retired; and (3) the transferor's account representative's name and signature and date of submission accompanied by a sign ed statement acknowledging that each retired allowance as no longer available for future transfers from or

to any account. [20.2.81.107 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.108 USE OF ALLOWANCES FROM A PREVIOUS YEAR:

A. Any allowance that is held in a compliance account or general account shall remain in such an account unless and until the allowance is deducted in conjunction with the compliance process, or transferred to

another account.

B. In order to demonstrate compliance under Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC for a control period, WEB sources shall only use allowances allocated for that current control period or any previous year. Because all allowances held in a special reserve compliance account for a WEB source that monitors certain units in

accordance wi th Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC will be deducted for compliance for each control period, no banking of such allowances for use in a subsequent year is permitted by 20.2.81 NMAC.

C. If flow control procedures for the current control period have been triggered as outlined in section C4.2 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan, then the use of allowances that were allocated for any previous year shall be limited as follows. (1) The number of allowances that are held in each compliance account and general account as of the allowance transfer deadline for the immediately previous year and that were allocated for any previous year shall be

determined. (2) The number det ermined in Paragraph 1 shall be multiplied by the flow control ratio established in accordance with section C4.2 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan to

determine the number of allowances that were allocated for a previous year that can be used without restriction for the current control period. (3) Allowances that were allocated for a previous year in excess of the number determined in Paragraph 2 may also be used for the current control period. If such allowances are used to make a deduction, three allowances shall be deducted for each deduction of one allowance required under 20.2.81.109 NMAC.20.2.81 NMAC 18 D. Special provisions for the year 2018. After compliance with the 2017 allowance limitation h as been determined in accordance with Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC, allowances allocated for any year prior to 2018 shall not be used for determining compliance with the 2018 allowance limitation or any future allowance

limitation. [20.2.81.108 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03 ; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.109 COMPLIANCE:

A. Compliance with a llowance l imitations. (1) The WEB source shall hold allowances, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC and 20.2.81.108 NMAC, as of t he allowance transfer deadline in the WEB source's compliance account (together with any current control year allowances held in the WEB source 's special reserve compliance

account under Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC in an amount not less than the tota l sulfur dioxide emissions for the control period from the WEB source, as determined under the monitoring and reporting requirements of

20.2.81.106 NMAC. (a) For each source that is a WEB source on or before the program t rigger date , the first control period is the calendar year that is six years following the calendar year for which sulfur dioxide emissions exceeded the milestone in accordance with procedures in section A of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trad ing program implementation plan. (b) For any existing source that becomes a WEB source after the program trigger date, the first control period is the calendar year that is four years following the inventory year in which the source exceeded the

sulfur dioxide emissions threshold. (c) For any new WEB source after the program trigger date the first control period is the first full calendar year that the source is in operation. (d) If the WEB trading program is triggered in accordance with the 2013 review procedures in

section A4 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan, the first control period for each source that is a WEB source on or before the program trigger date is the year 2018. (2) Allowance transfer deadline. An allowance may only be deducted from the WEB source's compliance account if: (a) the allowanc e was allocated for the current control period or meets the requirements in 20.2.81.108 NMAC for use of allowances from a previous control period; and (b) the allowance was held in the WEB source's compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for the current control period, or was transferred into the compliance account by an allowance transfer correctly submitted for recording by the allowance transfer deadline for the current control period. (3) Compliance with allowance limitations shall be determined as follows. (a) The total annual sulfur dioxide emissions for all sulfur dioxide emitting units at the source that are monitored under Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, as reported by the source in Paragraph 2 or 4 of Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, and recorded in the emissions tracking database shall be compared to the allowances held in the source's special reserve compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for the current control period, adjusted in accordance with 20.2.81.108 NMAC. If the emissions are equal to or less than the allowances in such account, all such allowances shall be retired to satisfy the obligation to hold allowances for such emissions. If the total emissions from such units exceeds the allowances in such special reserve account, the WEB source shall account for such excess emissions in Subparagraph b of this paragraph

. (b) The total annual sulfur dioxide emissions for all sulfur dioxide emitting units at the source that are monitored under Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, as reported by the source in Paragraph 2 or 4 of Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, and recorded in the emissions tracking database, together with any excess emissions as calculated in the preceding Subparagraph a, shall be compared to the allowances held in the source's compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for the current control period, adjusted in accordance with

20.2.81.108 NMAC. (c) If the comparison in Subparagraph b of this paragraph results in emissions that exceed the allowances held in the source's compliance account, the source has exceeded its allowance limitation and the excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction penalty in S ubsection C of this s ection. (4) Other than allowances in a special reserve compliance account for units monitored under Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, to the extent consistent with 20.2.81.108 NMAC, allowances shall be deducted for a WEB source for compliance with the allowance limitation as directed by the WEB source's account representative. Deduction of any other allowances as necessary fo r compliance with the allowance limitation shall

be on a first

- in, first

- out accounting basis in the order of the date and time of their recording in the WEB source's20.2.81 NMAC 19 compliance account, beginning with the allowances allocated to the WEB source and continu ing with the allowances transferred to the WEB source's compliance account from another compliance account or general account. The allowances held in a special reserve compliance account pursuant to Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC shall be deducted as spe cified in Subparagraph a of Paragraph 3 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC.

B. Certification of compliance. (1) For each control period in which a WEB source is subject to the allowance limitation, the account representative of the source shall submit to the department a compliance certification report for the source. (2) The compliance certification report shall be submitted no later than the allowance transfer deadline of each control period, and shall con tain the following: (a) identification of each WEB source; (b) at the account representative's option, the serial numbers of the allowances that are to be deducted from a source's compliance account for compliance with the allowance limitation; and (c) the compliance certification report according to Paragraph 3 of this section. (3) In the compliance certification report, the account representative shall certify, based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for operating the WEB source in compliance with the WEB trading program, whether the WEB source for which the compliance certification is submitted was operated during the control period covered by the report in compliance with the requirements of the WEB trading program applicable to the source including: (a) whether the WEB source operated in compliance with the sulfur dioxide allowance limitation; (b) whether sulfur dioxide emissions data has been submitted to the department in accordance with Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC and other applicable guidance, for review, revision as neces sary, and finalization for forwarding to the sulfur dioxide allowance tracking system for recording; (c) whether the monitoring plan that governs the WEB source has been maintained to reflect the actual operation and monit oring of the source, and contains all information necessary to attribute sulfur dioxide emissions to the source, in accordance with Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC; (d) whether all the sulfur dioxide emissions from the WE B source if applicable, were monitored or accounted for either through the applicable monitoring or through application of the appropriate missing data procedures; (e) if applicable, whether any sulfur dioxide emitting un it for which the WEB source is not required to monitor in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.106 NMAC remained permanently retired and had no emissions for the entire applicable period; and (f) whether there were any changes in the method of operating or monitoring the WEB source that required monitor recertification; if there were any such changes, the report shall specify the nature, reason, and date of the change, the method to determine compliance status subsequent to the change, and specifically, the

method to determine sulfur dioxide emissions.

C. Allowance d eduction p enalty for any WEB source exceeding its allowance limitations. (1) If emissions from a WEB source exceed the allowance limitation for a control period, as determined in accordance with Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC, the source's allowance held in its compliance account will be reduced by an amount equal to three times the source's tons of excess emissions. I f the compliance account does not have sufficient allowances allocated for that control period, the required number of allowances shall be deducted from the WEB source's compliance account regardless of the control period for which they were allocated, once allowances are recorded in the account. (2) Any allowance deduction required under this section shall not affect the liability of the owners and operators of the WEB source for any fine, penalty or assessment or their obligation to comply with any other remedy, for the same violation, as ordered under the Clean Air Act, implementing regulations or applicable state or tribal law. Accordingly, a violation can be assessed each day of the control period for each ton of sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of its allowance limitation if the department so chooses.

D. Liability. (1) WEB source liability for non

- compliance. Separate and regardless of any allowance deduction penalty, a WEB source that violates any req uirement of 20.2.81 NMAC is subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Air Quality Control Act and the Clean Air Act. Each day of the control period is a separate violation, and

each ton of sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of a source's allowance limitation is a separate violation. (2) General liability. (a) Any provision of the WEB trading program that applies to a source or an account representative shall apply also to the owners and opera tors of such source.20.2.81 NMAC 20 (b) Any person who violates any requirement or prohibition of the WEB trading program shall be subject to enforcement pursuant to applicable state, tribal or federal law. (c) Any person who knowingly makes a false material statement in any record, submission, or report under this WEB trading program shall be subject to criminal enforcement pursuant to the applicable state,

tribal or federal law. [20.2.81.109 NMAC

- N, 1 2/31/03 ; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.110 S PECIAL PENALTY PROVISIONS FOR THE 2018 MILESTONE : A. If the WEB trading program is triggered as outlined in section A of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan, and the first cont rol period will not occur until after the year 2018, the following provisions shall apply for the 2018 emissions year. (1) All WEB sources shall register, and open a compliance account within 180 days after the program trigger date, in accordance with Subsection A of 20.2.81.103 NMAC and 20.2.81.105 NMAC. (2) The tracking system administrator shall record the allowances for the 2018 control period for each WEB source in the source's compliance account once the department allocates the 2018 allowances under section C1

and D1 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan. (3) The allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific standard time on May 31 , 20 21 (or if this date is not a business day, midnight of the first business day thereafter) . WEB sources may transfer allowances as provided in Subsection A of 20.2.81.107 NMAC until the allowance transfer deadline. For each control period after

2018 that th e special penalty provisions are assessed, the dates for the 2019 control period will be adjusted forward by one year. (4) A WEB source shall hold allowances allocated for 2018 including those transferred into the compliance account by an allowance transfer correctly submitted by the allowance transfer deadline, in an amount not less than the WEB source's total sulfur dioxide emissions for 2018. Emissions shall be determined using the pre

trigger monitoring provisions in section B of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan, and 20.2.73 NMAC. (5) In accordance with Subsection D of 20.2.8 1 .108 NMAC and Paragraph 4 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.110 NMAC, the department shall seek at least the minimum financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of sulfur

dioxide emissions in excess of the WEB source’s allowance limitation. (a) Any source may resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to a streamli ne settlement approach where the source pays a penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton of excess emissions, and payment is received within 90 calendar days after the issuance of a notice of violation. (b) Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions violation in accordance with the streamlined settlement approach in Subparagraph a of this paragraph will be subject to civil enforcement action, in which the department shall seek a financial penalty for the excess em issions based on the state's statutory maximum civil penalties. (6) Each ton of sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of a source's allowance limitation is a separate violation and each day of a control period is a separate violation.

B. The provisions in 20.2.81.110 NMAC shall continue to apply for each year after the 2018 emission year until: (1) the first control period under the WEB trading program under Paragraph 1 of Subsection A of

20.2.81.109 NMAC ; or (2) the department determines , in accordance with section A3.10 of the implementation plan, that the

2018 sulfur dioxide milestone has been met.

C. If 20.2.81.110 NMAC was implemented, the following shall apply to each emissions year after the 2018 emissions year. (1) The tracking system administrator will record the allowances for the control period for the specific year for each WEB source in the source's compliance account once the department allocates the a llowances under section C1 of the sulfur dioxide milestones and backstop trading program implementation plan. (2) The allowance transfer deadline for the 2019 emissions year shall be midnight Pacific s tandard

t ime on May 31, 2021 (o r if this date is not a business day, midnight of the first business day thereafter); and for each control period after 2018 that the special penalty provisions are assessed, the May 31, 2021 allowance transfer deadline for the 2019 control period will be adjusted forward by one year. (3) A WEB source must hold allowances allocated for that specific emissions year, or any year after 2018, including those transferred into the compliance account by an allowance transfer correctly submi tted by the allowance transfer deadline, in an amount not less than the WEB source's total sulfur dioxide emissions for the20.2.81 NMAC 21 specific emissions year. Emissions are determined using the pre

- trigger monitoring provisions in section B of the

sulfur dioxide mil estones and backstop trading program implementation plan, and 20.2.73 NMAC. (4) An allowance deduction penalty and financial penalty shall be assessed and levied in accordance with Subsection D of 20.2.81.108 NMAC, Paragraph 4 of Subsection A of 20.2.81.109 NMAC, and Subsection C of 20.2.81.109 NMAC, except that sulfur dioxide emissions shall be determined under Paragraph 3 of Subsection C

of 20.2.81.110 NMAC. [20.2.81.110 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03 ; A, 07/06/11 ]

20.2.81.111 NMAC SULFUR DI OXIDE MONITORING OF FUEL GAS COMBUSTION DEVICES:

A. Applicability. (1) The provisions of this protocol are applicable to fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum

refineries. (2) Fuel gas combustion devices include boilers, process heaters, and flares used to burn fuel gas generated at a petroleum refinery. (3) Fuel gas means any gas which is generated and combusted at a petroleum refinery. Fuel gas does

not include: (a) natural gas, unless combined with other gases generated at a petroleum refinery; (b) gases generated by a catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator; (c) gases genera ted by fluid coking burners; (d) gases combusted to produce sulfur or sulfuric acid; or (e) process upset gases generated due to startup, shutdown, or malfunctions.

B. Monitoring Require ments. (1) Except as provided in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of 20.2.81.111 NMAC, fuel gas combustion devices shall use a continuous fuel gas monitoring system (CFGMS) to determine the total sulfur content (reported as H2S) of the fuel gas m ixture prior to combustion, and continuous fuel flow meters to determine the amount of fuel gas

burned. (a) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored for sulfur content at one location, if monitoring at that location is representative of the sulfur content of the fuel gas being burned in any fuel gas combustion device. (b) The CFGMS shall meet the performance requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60, and the following. (i) Continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of total sulfur compounds in the gaseous fuel reported as ppmv H 2 S. (ii) Have the span value set so that the majority of readings fall between 10 and 95 percent of the range. (iii) Record negative values of zero drift, for initial certification and daily calibrati on

error tests. (iv) Calibration drift shall be 5.0 percent of the span. (v) Methods 15A, 16, or approved alternatives for total sulfur, are the reference methods

for the relative accuracy test. The relative accuracy test shall include a bias test in accordance with Paragraph 3 of

Subsection D of 20.2.81.111 NMAC. (c) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of S ection 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75. (d) The hourly mass sulfur dioxide emissions rate for all the fuel combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the following equation:

E t = (C S )(Q f )(K)

where: E t = Total sulfur dioxide emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

C S = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H 2 S(ppmv) Q f = Fuel gas flow rate to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices (scf/hr)

K = 1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ ppmv (2) In place of a CFGMS in Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.111 NMAC, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored with an sulfur dioxide CEMS flow CEMS and (if necessary) a moisture mon itoring system at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the sulfur dioxide emission rate (lb sulfur dioxide/scf fuel gas burned) of all applicable fuel gas

combustion devices. Continuous fuel flow meters shall be u sed in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.111 NMAC, and the fuel gas combustion device monitored by a CEMS shall have separate fuel metering.20.2.81 NMAC 22 (a) Each CEMS for sulfur dioxide and flow, and (if applicabl e) moisture, shall comply with the operating requirements, performance specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 75. (b) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75. (c) The sulfur dioxide hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be determined by the ratio of the amount of fuel gas burned by the CEMS

monitored fuel gas combustion device to the total fuel gas burned by all applicable fuel gas combustion devices using the following equation:

E t = (E

m )(Q t )/(Q

m )

where: E t = Total sulfur dioxide emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices.

E

m = sulfur dioxide emissions in lb/hr from the CEMS

- monitored fuel gas combustion device, calculated using Equation F

- 1 or (if applicable) F

- 2 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75 Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) from applicable fuel gas combust ion devices. Q

m = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the CEMS

- monitored fuel gas combustion device. (3) In place of a CFGMS in Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.111 NMAC, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel g as may be monitored with an sulfur dioxide

- diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the sulfur dioxide emission rate (lb sulfur dioxide/mmBtu) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. If this option is selected, the owner or operator shall conduct fuel gas sampling and analysis for gross calorific value (GCV), and shall use continuous fuel flow metering in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.111 NMAC, with separate fuel meteri ng for the CEMS

monitored fuel gas combustion device. (a) Each sulfur dioxide

- diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable provisions for sulfur dioxide monitors and diluent monitors in 40 CFR Part 75, and shall use the procedures in Section 3 of Appendix F to Part 75 for determining sulfur dioxide emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting the term sulfur dioxide for no

x in that section, and using a K factor of 1.660 x 10 - 7 (lb/scf) ppmv instead of the NO

x K factor. (b) All continuous fuel flow meters and fuel gas sampling and analysis for GCV to determine the heat input ratio shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 2.1.5 and 2.3.4 of Appendix D to 40

CFR Part 75. (c) The sulfur dioxide hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be determined by the ratio of the fuel gas heat input to the CEMS

- monitored fuel gas combustion devic e to the total fuel gas heat input to all applicable fuel gas combustion devices using the following equation:

E t = (E

m ) ( Q t )/( GCV ) / 10 6

where: E t = Total sulfur dioxide emissions in lbs/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices.

E

m = sulfur dioxide emissions in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS

- monitored fuel gas combustion device. Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices. GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf)

10 6 = Conversion from Btu to million Btu (d) The owner or operator shall calculate total sulfur dioxide mass emissions for each calendar quarter and each calendar year based on the emissions in lb/hr and equations F

- 3 and F

- 4 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F.

C. Certification and recertification requirements. All monitoring systems are subject to initial certification and recertification testing as follows. (1) The owner or operator shall comply with the initial testing and calibration req uirements in performance specification 2 in Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60 and Subparagraph b of Paragraph 1 of Subsection B

of 20.2.81.111 NMAC for each CFGMS. (2) Each CEMS for sulfur dioxide and flow or each sulfur dioxide

- diluent CEMS shall comply with the testing and calibration requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 75, Section 75.20 and appendices A and B, except

that each sulfur dioxide

- diluent CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NOx

- diluent CEMS (lb/mmBtu). (3) A continuous fuel flow meter shall comply with certification requirements in Section 2.1.5 of Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 75.

D. Quality assurance/quality control requirements. (1) A quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan shall be developed and implemented for

each CEMS for sulfur dioxide and flow or the sulfur dioxide

- diluent CEMS in compliance with Sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75.20.2.81 NMAC 23 (2) A quality assurance and quality control plan shall be developed and implemented for each continuous fuel flow meter and fuel sampling and analysis in compliance with Sections 1, 1.1, and 1.3 Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75. The owner or operator shall meet the require ments in Section 2.1.6 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75, and may use the procedures set forth in Section 2.1.7 of that appendix. (3) A quality assurance and quality control plan shall be developed and implemented for each

CFGMS in co mpliance with Sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75, and the following. (a) Perform a daily calibration error test of each CFGMS at two gas concentrations, one low level and one high level. Calculate the calib ration error as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the error is greater than 5.0 percent of the span value. (b) In addition to the daily calibration error test, an additional calibration error test shall be performed whenever a daily calibration error test is failed, whenever a monitoring system is returned to service following repairs or corrective actions that may affect the monitor measurements, or after making manual cali bration adjustments. (c) Perform a linearity test once every operating quarter. Calculate the linearity as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the linearity error is greater than 5.0 percent of a reference value, and the absolute value of the difference between average monitor response values and a reference value is greater than 5.0 ppm. (d) Perform a relative accuracy test audit once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the relative accuracy is greater than 20.0 percent of the mean value of the reference method measurements. (e) Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

E. Missing data procedures. (1) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an sulfur dioxide CEMS or flow CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the requirements in subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75. (2) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an sulfur dioxide

- diluent CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data on a rate basis (lb/mmBtu ) in accordance with the requirements for sulfur dioxide monitors in subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75. (3) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by a continuous fuel flow meter or for fuel gas GCV sampling and analysi s specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with missing data requirements in Section 2.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75. (4) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the CFGMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the missing data requirements for units performing hourly gaseous fuel sulfur sampling in Section 2.4 of Appendi x D to 40 CFR Part

75.

F. Monitoring plan and reporting requirements. In addition to the general monitoring plan and reporting requirements of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements. (1 ) The monitoring plan shall identify each group of units that are monitored by a single monitoring system under this 20.2.81.111 NMAC, and the plan shall designate an identifier for the group of units for emissions reporting purposes. For purpose of su bmitting emissions reports, no apportionment of emissions to the individual units within the group is required. (2) If the provisions of Paragraph 2 or 3 of Subsection B of 20.2.81.111 NMAC are used, provide documentation and an exp lanation to demonstrate that the sulfur dioxide emission rate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from non

- monitored units. [20.2.81.111 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

20.2.81.112 NMAC PREDICTIVE FLOW MONI TORING SYSTEMS FOR K ILNS WITH POSITIVE

PRES SURE FABRIC FILTER:

A. Applicability. The provisions of this protocol are applicable to cement kilns or lime kilns that: (1) are controlled by a positive pressure fabric filter; (2) combust only a single fu el, no fuel blends; and (3) have operating conditions upstream of the fabric filter that the WEB source documents would reasonably prevent reliable flow monitor measurements; this protocol does not modify the sulfur dioxide monitori ng requirements in 20.2.81.106 NMAC.20.2.81 NMAC 24 B. Monitoring requirements. (1) A cement or lime kiln with a positive pressure fabric filter shall use a predictive flow monitoring system (PFMS) to determine the hourly kiln exhaust gas flow. (2) A PFMS is the total equipment necessary for the determination of exhaust gas flow using process or control device operating parameter measurements and a conversion equation, a graph, or computer program to produce results in cubi c feet per hour. (3) The PFMS shall meet the following performance specifications. (a) Sensors readings and conversion of sensor data to flow in cubic feet per hour must be

automated. (b) The PFMS must allow for the automatic or manual determination of failed monitors. At a minimum a daily determination must be performed. (c) The PFMS shall have provisions to check the calibration error of each parameter that is individually measured. The owner or operator shall propose appropriate performance specifications in the initial monitoring plan for all parameters used in the PFMS comparable to the degree of accuracy required for other

monit oring systems used to comply with 20.2.81 NMAC. The parameters shall be tested at two levels, low: 0 to 20 percent of full scale, and high: 50 to 100 percent of full scale. The reference value need not be certified. (d) Th e relative accuracy of the PFMS must be < 10.0 percent of the reference method average value, and include a bias test in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Subsection D of 20.2.81.112 NMAC.

C. Certification Requirements. The PFMS is subject to initial certif ication testing. The source owner or operator shall: (1) demonstrate the ability of the PFMS to identify automatically or manually a failed monitor; (2) provide evidence of calibration testing of all monitor ing equipment. Any tests conducted within the previous 12 months of operation that are consistent with the QA/QC plan for the PFMS are acceptable for initial certification purposes; and (3) perform an relative accuracy test audit and accompanying bias test once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy (and bias adjustment factor) as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the flow relative accuracy is greater than 10.0 percent of the mean value

of the reference method.

D. Quality assurance and quality control requirements. A quality assurance and quality control plan shall be developed and implemented for each PFMS in compliance with Sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B o f 40 CFR Part 75, and the following: (1) perform a daily monitor failure check; (2) perform calibration tests of all monitors for each parameter included in the PFMS. At a minimum,

calibrations shall be condu cted prior to each relative accuracy test audit; and (3) perform a relative accuracy test audit and accompanying bias test once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy (and bias adjustment factor) as describe d in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the flow relative accuracy is greater than 10.0 percent of the mean

value of the reference method.

E. Missing data. For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the PFMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the flow monitor missing data requirements for non

- load based units in subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

F. Monitoring plan requirement s. In addition to the general monitoring plan requirements of 20.2.81.106 NMAC, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements. (1) The monitoring plan shall document the reasons why stack flow measurements upstream of the fabric filter are unlikely to provide reliable flow measurements over time. (2) The initial monitoring plan shall explain the relationship of the proposed parameters and stack flow, and discuss other parameters considered and the reasons for not using those parameters in the PFMS. The department may require that the subsequent monitoring plan include additional explanation and documentation for the reasonableness of the proposed PFMS. [20.2.81.112 NMAC

- N, 12/31/03]

HISTORY OF 20.2.81 NMAC:

Pre

- NMAC History: None.

History of Repealed Material: [RESERVED]20.2.81 NMAC 25 Other History: [RESERVED]