7. If Held, Summary of Comments Received During Preliminary Comment Period
and at Public Hearing on the Statement of Scope:
The department held a preliminary public comment period on the statement of scope from August 15 to 22, 2022. The department received three written comments. One comment was not germane to the scope statement. The two remaining sets of comments were submitted by trade organizations. The organizations stated that ch. NR 439, Wis. Adm. Code, should be revised and included a list of changes the organizations would like the department to make during the proposed rulemaking. The department also hosted an online preliminary public hearing on the statement of scope on August 22, 2022. Four members of the public attended the hearing. None of the attendees registered a position on the scope statement. A representative from a trade organization provided verbal comments reiterating the organization’s more detailed written comments.
8. Comparison with Similar Rules in Adjacent States:
Recordkeeping and Reporting – The States of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota have incorporated recordkeeping and reporting requirements into their administrative codes. The rules vary from state to state and the key differences relative to ch. NR 439, Wis. Adm. Code, are described below. Control Equipment Monitoring – Proposed changes to s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code, remove the specific minimum monitoring requirements for sources and air pollution control equipment in current rule language, effectively increasing flexibility for demonstrating compliance. Illinois’ general control device monitoring requirements are incorporated under s. 201.281, Illinois Administrative Code and are similar to the proposed changes to s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. Illinois Administrative Code requires that every emission source or air pollution control device be equipped with monitoring instruments as required by its permit. Iowa’s control equipment monitoring rules are similar to the proposed changes to s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. The monitoring requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis and included in the facility’s air permit. Michigan’s control equipment monitoring requirements are incorporated under R. 336.1213(3), Michigan Administrative Code and are similar to or slightly more stringent than the proposed changes to s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. In addition to general monitoring requirements, Michigan requires certain industries to participate in a monitoring program which meets specified requirements. Minnesota’s control equipment monitoring rules are incorporated under Minnesota Administrative Rules 7011.0080. They are similar to or slightly more stringent than the existing rules under s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code, and are more stringent than the proposed changes to s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. Minnesota rules specify monitoring parameters for more control device technologies than are currently included under s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. Deviation Reporting – Proposed changes to deviation reporting under s. NR 439.03, Wis. Adm. Code, include reporting tiers depending on the severity of the occurrence and are described in detail under section #5 of this board order. The basis for deviation reporting comes from federal rule 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) which requires prompt reporting of deviations from permit requirements and specifies that “the permitting authority shall define ‘prompt’ in relation to the degree and type of deviation….” Illinois’ deviation reporting requirements are included under Section 201.530(c), Illinois Administrative Code and are more stringent than the proposed changes to s. NR 439.03, Wis. Adm. Code. Unless specified in the applicable permit-by-rule subpart, a written report of any deviation is required to be submitted within 30 days after the date the deviation occurred. Iowa’s deviation reporting requirements are included under 567 Iowa Administrative Code 22.108(5) and 24.1 and are similar to the proposed changes to s. NR 439.03, Wis. Adm. Code. Iowa’s reporting timeline for excess emissions is more stringent, but the reporting of non-excess emission deviations is less stringent. The Iowa Administrative Code requires a written report regarding excess emissions to be submitted within seven days, instead of Wisconsin’s proposed 10 days. Under Iowa Administrative Code, excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, or cleaning of control equipment are not violations and are not to be reported as long as the startup, shutdown, or cleaning is accomplished expeditiously and in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions. EPA has proposed to find Iowa Administrative Code 24.1(1) as substantially inadequate under section 110(k) of the CAA because it does not comply with EPA’s policy on excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (88 FR 11842). All other deviations are to be clearly identified in reports submitted at least every six months. Michigan’s deviation reporting requirements are included under Section R. 336.1213(3)(c), Michigan Administrative Code and are more stringent than the proposed changes to s. NR 439.03, Wis. Adm. Code. Michigan includes provisions that only emissions that exceed the applicable standard for greater than a specified time period need to be reported as deviations within two business days with a written report submitted within 10 days after the deviation occurred. For deviations which are less than the specified time period or which do not exceed the emissions allowed under the permit, a facility is required to submit a report of those deviations at least once every six months. Minnesota’s deviation reporting requirements are included under 7019.1000 Subpart 1 and 7007.0800 Subpart 6, Minn. Adm. Rules and are more stringent than the proposed changes to s. NR 439.03, Wis. Adm. Code. Minnesota requires deviations which could endanger human health be reported within two business days and all other deviations are to be reported in a semiannual monitoring report. Minnesota is more stringent on reporting breakdowns for more than one hour that cause any increase in emissions. Breakdown notifications are required within 24 hours of when the breakdown was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. Minnesota requires semi-annual reporting of permit deviations which do not result in an emissions limit to be exceeded, which is similar to Wisconsin’s proposed rule. Calibration – Proposed changes to s. NR 439.055(4), Wis. Adm. Code, replace the requirement that monitoring equipment be calibrated at least yearly with a requirement that equipment be calibrated at a frequency based on written manufacturer recommendations or as required by an applicable standard, whichever is more frequent. If no such recommendations or standards exist, the time between a calibration, replacement or validation may not exceed one year. Illinois’ control device monitoring equipment calibration requirements are similar to the proposed changes in s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. Monitoring equipment is required to be installed, calibrated, operated and maintained according to vendor specifications. Iowa’s control equipment calibration requirements are similar to the proposed changes in s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. Permits generally specify that monitoring equipment be operated in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Iowa retains the authority to require more frequent calibrations. Michigan requires air-cleaning devices to be calibrated under the authority of Mich. Admin. Code R. 336.1910. This section requires that these devices be installed, maintained, and operated in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with emissions limits and existing law. This requirement is similar to the proposed changes to s. NR 439.055(4), Wis. Adm. Code. Operation in a satisfactory manner is typically defined as operating according to manufacturer recommendations. Minnesota’s control equipment calibration requirements are included under 7011.0075 Subpart 2.G., Minn. Adm. Rule and are similar to the proposed changes in s. NR 439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. All monitoring equipment for each piece of listed control equipment is required to be calibrated annually, or as required by the manufacturing specification. Malfunction Prevention and Abatement Plan (MPAP) – Proposed changes to s. NR 439.11, Wis. Adm. Code, include defining thresholds when an MPAP is required, excluding smaller units from needing an MPAP, and clarifying plan content. Throughout the Illinois Administrative Code, monitoring equipment is required to be installed, calibrated, operated and maintained according to vendor specifications. This requirement is similar to proposed s. NR 439.11(1r)(bm), Wis. Adm. Code, which allows a facility to consider and/or use a manufacturer recommendation to set the interval for routine inspection, maintenance, and calibration, replacement, or validation. Iowa’s MPAP requirements are included in 567 IAC 24.2(445B). Maintenance plans are required for equipment or control equipment where the Iowa director determines that a continued pattern of excess emissions indicative of inadequate operation and maintenance is occurring. The content of Iowa’s MPAP is similar to the proposed changes in s. NR 439.11, Wis. Adm. Code. Wisconsin’s proposed rule provides more clarity for what emissions units need an MPAP than Iowa’s rules, but Iowa would likely have less equipment subject to the MPAP requirements. Michigan’s MPAP requirements are included under Section R. 336.1911, Michigan Administrative Code. The content of the MPAP is similar to the proposed changes in s. NR 439.11, Wis. Adm. Code. However, Michigan’s plan is required whenever requested by the department, while Wisconsin’s MPAP requirements are based on the emissions of the specific process. Wisconsin’s proposed rule provides more clarity for what emissions units need an MPAP than Michigan’s rules, and Michigan has the option to be more or less stringent than Wisconsin on when a plan is required. Under 7011.075 Subpart 2, Minn. Adm. Code, Minnesota’s maintenance requirements for control equipment are included. The requirements include training, inspection timelines, and repair records for maintaining each piece of listed control equipment. These maintenance requirements are similar to and slightly more stringent than the proposed changes to s. NR 439.11, Wis. Adm. Code. 9. Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies Used and How Any Related Findings Support the Regulatory Approach Chosen:
The department is proposing updates to test methods referenced under ch. NR 439, Wis. Adm. Code. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) is an international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide variety of materials, products, systems and services. ASTM technical standards are the written procedures that provide consistent application, specification and results. ASTM technical standards are periodically created and updated. This rule package incorporates the current state of the ASTM technical standards. EPA reference methods are the technical written procedures to characterize and measure air contaminants. EPA reference methods are periodically created and updated. This rule package incorporates the current EPA reference methods. This proposed rulemaking revises provisions related to monitoring methodology to ensure requirements related to instrument calibration, validation, and replacement reflect current technology, business operations, and maintenance strategies.
10. Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine the Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of an Economic Impact Report:
The proposed changes will apply to all businesses, including small businesses, which emit or cause emissions of air contaminants (“emissions sources”) subject to ch. NR 439, Wis. Adm. Code. The department estimates the cost of the rule to be $0 because the proposed rule revisions will not impose new compliance costs on businesses. The proposed changes are intended to clarify, reduce, and make more efficient reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. 11. Effect on Small Business (final regulatory flexibility analysis):
No business is expected to incur additional costs in order to comply with the revised rule. Some small businesses may have reduced costs due to proposed rule changes that reduce frequency and redundancy of reporting.
13. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission: A public comment period occurred from March 18 through April 25, 2024, and a public hearing was held on April 18, 2024.
On July 31, 2024, the Attorney General consented to the incorporation by reference of the following methods into ch. NR 484, Wis. Adm. Code: • “Determination of PM10 Emissions” (40 CFR 51 Appendix M, Method 201) • “Determination of PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary Sources” (40 CFR 51 Appendix M, Method 201A) • “Dry Impinger Method for Determining Condensable Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources” (40 CFR part 51 Appendix M, Method 202) • “Determination of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrogen, and Oxygen form Stationary Sources” (40 CFR part 60 Appendix A, Method 3C) • “Determination of Metals from Stationary Sources” (40 CFR part 60 Appendix A, Method 29) • “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy” (40 CFR part 60 Appendix A, Method 320) • “Standard Test Method for Total Moisture in Coal” (ASTM D3302/D3302M-22a) • “Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy” (ASTM D6348-12(2020)) RULE TEXT
1Section 1 NR 400.02 (79) is amended to read: NR 400.02 (79) “Heat input" means the total gross calorific value per unit of time of all fuels being burned, where gross calorific value of a fuel is measured by ASTM Method D240-02D240-19, D1826-94 (2017), or D5865-04D5865/D5865M-19, incorporated by reference under s. NR 484.10 (4), (26), and (55g). WhereWhen the test method gives a higher and a lower heating value, heat input is calculated in Btu per hour using the higher heating value of the fuel. 2Section 2 NR 419.08 (5) and (6) (b) are amended to read: NR 419.08 (5) Emission control system monitoring. The owner or operator of any facility which uses a wet scrubber to control organic gas emissions from the catalysis of urethane cold box binders shall continuously measure and record the pH of the scrubber liquid in addition to meeting the monitoring requirements of s. NR 439.055 (1) (e)and monitor, measure and record pressure drop across the scrubber and demister in inches of water and scrubber liquor flow in gallons per minute once for every 8 hours of source operation or once per day, whichever yields the greater number of measurements. (6) (b) Records of operation variables which are required to be measured under sub. (5) and s. NR 439.055 (1) (e). 3Section 3 NR 439.01 (1) is amended to read: NR 439.01 (1) Applicability. This chapter applies to all air contaminant sources and to their owners and operators. For sources subject to an emission standard under chs. NR 460 to 469 or under 40 CFR part 63, the requirements of ch. NR 460 40 CFR parts 60 to 63, the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 60 to 63 apply in addition to the requirements of this chapter. In the case of anya conflict between applicable provisions under chs. NR 460 to 46940 CFR parts 60 to 63 and provisions of this chapter, the provisions under chs. NR 460 to 46940 CFR parts 60 to 63 shall apply, this chapter not withstanding. 4Section 4 NR 439.02 (1) is renumbered NR 439.02 (1s) and as renumbered is amended to read: NR 439.02 (1s) “Audit samples sample” means a glass vials vial, a gas cylinders cylinder, or other materials which contain material that contains a known concentration of a pollutant that may be used for the purpose of quality assurance of certain laboratory analyses required for the determination of compliance.
