By Robynn Andracsek, P.E., Burns & McDonnell and Contributing Editor

One goal of the Clean Air Act is to protect and repair visibility in the 156 mandatory Class I national parks and wilderness areas, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and the Everglades. Termed “regional haze”, visibility degradation is caused by air pollution (both natural and manmade) that travels hundreds of miles from its source and decreases the visual range by obscuring the clarity, color, texture and form of what we see. Without the effects of pollution, a natural visual range is around 140 miles in the West and 90 miles in the East. The current visibility range is 33 to 90 miles in the West and 14 to 24 miles in the East.

Last January, as a result of a lawsuit by Earthjustice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that 37 states subject to Regional Haze failed to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that meet the Regional Hazes rule requirements. This action starts a two-year “FIP clock” for EPA to issue a Federal Implementation Plan to replace the missing SIPs. Complicating the Regional Haze issue is the fact that EPA determined that the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is “better than BART” (best available retrofit technology) for SO₂ and NOx emissions from BART-eligible electric generating units. Therefore, many states took advantage of this rule overlap to reduce their required regulatory efforts. You might remember, however, that CAIR was vacated then remanded and now sits in a state of legal-limbo. Technically it remains in place but EPA has stated its intention to replace the rule within two years.

What does this mean to industry? The missed deadline adds to the uncertainty of whether or not BART-eligible units will need controls. Compounded with CAIR’s yo-yo existence, the regulatory ambiguity causes volatility in the control device equipment market, affecting other retrofit projects.

States missed the SIP deadlines for a variety of reasons. In some cases regional modeling work was delayed, BART sources were overlooked or coordination between states took longer than expected. States that were relying on CAIR controls have to rewrite their plans. Most states needed time to overcome the initial learning curve in dealing with the Regional Haze rule requirements.

Utilities are affected by the Regional Haze rule if they operate a “BART-eligible” unit. These are boilers which are (1) in the same 26 “listed” categories as Prevention of Significant Deterioration, (2) built between 1962 and 1977 and (3) have a potential to emit greater than 250 tons per year of SO₂, NOx or particulate matter. By now, if your boiler is subject to BART, you’ve been contacted by your state agency and have likely conducted long-range dispersion modeling to try to prove you do not impact a Class I area.

The four core requirements of a Regional Haze SIP are calculating baseline and natural visibility conditions, setting reasonable progress goals, determining BART, and developing a long-term strategy (including control measures needed to achieve goals).

The Regional Haze rule aims to return visibility to “natural” levels by 2064 by setting a series of short term goals. The demonstration of “reasonable progress” is evaluated every five years by the state, which then can adjust its SIP to meet the 2064 deadline. Each state’s statutory goal is to improve visibility on the haziest days and ensure no degradation occurs on the clearest days over the period of each implementation plan.

Another element of the Regional Haze rule is an emissions trading program that states can opt to use to meet the BART requirements. Trading programs have not fared well lately in the courts and few if any states are expected to propose a trading plan. Most states plan to impose BART limitations on each subject boiler as in response to its affect on visibility degradation as determined by dispersion modeling.

What can EPA use as a “stick” against the states to goad them into completing their SIPs? The only implication of missing the deadline is EPA revoking delegated authority from the state for this program and imposing a FIP. (Go ahead- take it!) The two-year FIP clock corresponds roughly to the two years EPA estimates it will take to craft a CAIR replacement. EPA senior managers have not yet decided if they are going to wait until the CAIR replacement is in place to begin the FIP process or proceed on an independent timeline. However, most states plan to make the subject moot by completing their SIPs before EPA has to take enforcement actions.

EPA wants to delegate to the states and keep to its role as enforcer. The states want to get an EPA-approved SIP in place so they can move on to other regulatory concerns. And industry wants certainty to understand if retrofits are required and when to budget for them.