Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule for Montana

On June 19, 2006, EPA received a letter from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality that stated it was withdrawing its efforts to adopt the provisions of the Regional Haze Rule as required under 40 C.F.R. 51.308. Due to Montana's announcement that it would not be addressing the requirements under 40 C.F.R. 51.308, EPA Region 8 is moving forward with the technical and policy work needed to implement the requirements of this program under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).

The information below is intended to provide interested parties with updates on EPA Region 8's development of a FIP for Montana and related public documents.

You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.

BART Calpuff modeling site
Updated January 3, 2007: Tentative Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Schedule PDF (2 pp, 11K)
Presentation for August 23, 2006 Stakeholder Meeting in Billings, Montana PDF (7 pp, 113K)
Montana modeling protocol PDF (102 pp, 1.61MB)

BART Analyses from Montana Sources

As a result of the modeling for determining whether sources are "subject to BART", EPA Region 8 notified affected sources that they believe are subject to BART and requested that they perform a BART analysis and submit it to EPA for review. The responses to that request and follow-on comments and responses are listed below.

Note: many of the documents below are found in this publicly accessible FTP folder.

Ash Grove Cement

BART Analysis and Proposed Control Measures for Ash Grove Cement (42 pp, 300K)

EPA's Comments to Ash Grove on BART Analysis (4 pp, 35K)

Ash Grove Cement – Montana City Plant Response to Comment on Best Available Retrofit technology (BART) Analysis

Columbia Falls Aluminum Company

BART Analysis and Proposed Control Measures for Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (73 pp, 1MB)

CFAC BART Analysis – Response to EPA Comments – Revised

Holcim US, Inc.

BART Analysis and Proposed Control Measures for Holcim (US), Inc. (67 pp, 1MB)

EPA's Comments to Holcim on BART Analysis (4 pp, 35K)

Holcim BART Analysis – Response to EPA Comments

PPL Montana Colstrip Units 1 and 2

BART Analysis and Proposed Control Measures for PPL Montana Colstrip Units 1 & 2 (91 pp, 2.56MB) and Cover letter (2 pp, 233K)

EPA's Comments to PPL Montana on BART Analysis for Colstrip Units 1&2 PDF (7 pp, 33K)

Addendum to PPL Montana’s Colstrip BART Report

NOx Control Update to PPL Montana’s Colstrip Generating Station BART Report, September 2011 (PDF, 44 pp, 648K)

PPL Montana Corette

BART Analysis and Proposed Control Measures for PPL Montana Corette (92 pp, 2.39MB) and Cover Letter (2 pp, 139K)

EPA's Comments to PPL Montana on BART Analysis for Corette (7 pp, 31K)

Addendum to PPL Montana’s J.E. Corette Generating Station BART Report

SO2 Control Update to PPL Montana’s J.E. Corette Generating Station BART Report, August 2011

NOx Control Update to PPL Montana’s J.E. Corette BART Analyses, September 2011 (PDF, 44 pp, 631K)

Reasonable Progress Analyses from Montana Sources

In November 2010, EPA Region 8 requested an analysis of control options addressing the four factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) – the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of the potentially affected source. The letters and responses to that request are listed below.

Letter Requesting Four-Factor Analyses (all sources)

Devon Energy

Graymont Western

Montana Dakota Utilities – Lewis and Clark Station

PPL Montana Colstrip Units 3 and 4

PPL Montana Colstrip Units 3 and 4 Addendum September 2011

Plum Creek Manufacturing – Columbia Falls and Evergreen Facilities

Rocky Mountain Power – Hardin Generating Station

Roseburg Forest Products

Smurfit-Stone Container

Comments Received from EarthJustice

EarthJustice letter dated August 22, 2011