[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11894-11914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4680]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0785-201041; FRL-9637-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
South Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the South
Carolina state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on December 17, 2007, that addresses
regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's
rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the
regional haze requirements for South Carolina on the basis that the
revision, as a whole, strengthens the South Carolina SIP. Additionally,
EPA is proposing to rescind the Federal regulations previously approved
into the South Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and November 24, 1987,
and to rely on the provisions in South Carolina's December 17, 2007,
SIP submittal to meet the monitoring and long-term strategy (LTS)
requirements for reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI).
EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of the South Carolina
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze
SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not proposing to take
action in this rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0785, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected].
3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0785, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0785.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni or Sara Waterson,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele
Notarianni can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by
electronic mail at [email protected]. Sara Waterson can be
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by
[[Page 11895]]
electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. LTS
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of South Carolina's regional haze
submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants,
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in South Carolina and Surrounding Areas
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable
Progress Analysis
6. BART
7. RPGs
D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
2. Consultation With the FLMs
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of South Carolina's December
17, 2007, SIP revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections
301(a) and 110(k)(3) because the revision as a whole strengthens the
South Carolina SIP. This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying
Technical Support Document \1\ (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's
proposed limited approval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support
Document for South Carolina Regional Haze SIP Submittal,'' is
included in the public docket for this action.
\2\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the
South Carolina regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR
to meet certain regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219 (December
30, 2011). EPA is not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on
issues associated with South Carolina's reliance on CAIR in its
regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed limited disapproval of
South Carolina's regional haze SIP are accepted at the docket for EPA's
December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729). The comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed
rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
In this action, EPA is also proposing to rescind the Federal
regulations in 40 CFR 52.2132 that were approved into the South
Carolina SIP. See 50 FR 28544 (July 12, 1985) and 52 FR 45132 (November
24, 1987). In summary, EPA is proposing to rely on the provisions in
South Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to meet the
monitoring and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 CFR
51.306.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas
\4\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In
accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with
the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I area is the responsibility
of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term
``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a ``mandatory
Class I federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to
[[Page 11896]]
address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084.
These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments,
tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
[[Page 11897]]
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states
with emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may
[[Page 11898]]
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned
to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain
subject to the CAIR Federal implementation plan in 40 CFR part 97 need
not require affected BART-eligible electrical generating units (EGUs)
to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2
and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not
address direct emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a
BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that
pollutant. Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the
rule to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport
of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219.
Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.
E. LTS
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the
[[Page 11899]]
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be
met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of South Carolina's regional haze submittal?
On December 17, 2007, SC DHEC's Bureau of Air Quality submitted a
revision to the South Carolina SIP to address regional haze in the
State's Class I area as required by EPA's RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
South Carolina has one Class I area within its borders: the Cape
Romain Wilderness Area (Cape Romain). South Carolina is responsible for
developing a regional haze SIP that addresses this Class I area and for
consulting with other states that impact South Carolina's Class I area.
The State determined appropriate RPGs, including consulting with other
states that impact the Class I area, as discussed in section IV.F.1. In
addition, South Carolina is responsible for describing its long-term
emissions strategies, its role in the consultation processes, and how
its particular state SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional
haze regulations.
The South Carolina regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for
visibility improvement at this Class I area and an LTS to achieve those
RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in
2018. In developing the LTS, South Carolina considered both emissions
sources inside and outside of South Carolina that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in South Carolina's Class I area.
The State also identified and considered emissions sources within South
Carolina that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class
I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The
VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses
used to make these determinations, including state-by-state
contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which
included the one area in South Carolina and those areas affected by
emissions from South Carolina.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, South Carolina calculated baseline/current and
natural visibility conditions for its Class I area, as summarized below
(and as further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of EPA's TSD
to this Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to the 2003
EPA guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light
extinction. South Carolina opted to use the default estimates for the
natural concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation'' for
its Class I area. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions
using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each
Class I area by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emissions sources
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11900]]
The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in numerous published papers. See, e.g.: Hand, J.L., and
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006.
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup. September 2006. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
SC DHEC estimated baseline visibility conditions at Cape Romain
using available monitoring data from a single IMPROVE monitoring site.
As explained in section III.B, baseline visibility conditions are the
same as current conditions for the first regional haze SIP. A five-year
average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of
the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at the South
Carolina Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Cape Romain for the
period 2000 to 2004 meet EPA requirements for data completeness. See
page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Table 3.3-1 from
Appendix G of the South Carolina regional haze SIP, also provided in
section III.B.3 of EPA's TSD to this action, lists the 20 percent best
and worst days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 for Cape Romain.
These data are also provided at the following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
For the South Carolina Class I area, baseline visibility conditions
on the 20 percent worst days are generally between 25 and 30 deciviews.
Natural visibility in this area is predicted to be between
approximately 12 and 13 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The
natural and baseline conditions for South Carolina's Class I area for
both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Cape Romain
Class I Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average for Average for
Condition 20% worst days 20% best days
(dv \10\) (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Visibility Conditions 2000-2004 26.5 14.3
Natural Background Visibility Conditions 12.2 5.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, South Carolina considered the uniform rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``glidepath'') and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or
equivalent to the glidepath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one
for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days,
for its Class I area. South Carolina constructed the graph for the
worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of
visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064
for the Cape Romain area. For the best days, the graph includes a
horizontal, straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out
to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation
period of the SIP. South Carolina's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for
its area provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst
days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same
period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
For Cape Romain, the overall visibility improvement necessary to
reach natural conditions is the difference between baseline visibility
of 26.48 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions
of 12.21 deciviews, i.e., 14.27 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from
2004 to 2064, this would require an approximate average improvement of
0.24 deciview per year (i.e., 14.27 deciviews/60 years) to reach
natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in
order to achieve visibility improvement at least equivalent to the
uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Cape Romain,
a visibility improvement of at least 3.36 deciviews would be needed
over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.24 deciview x 14 years =
3.36 deciviews) from the baseline visibility of 26.48 deciviews,
resulting in visibility levels at or below 23.12 deciviews in 2018. As
discussed below in section IV.C.7, South Carolina projects a 3.8
deciview improvement to visibility from the 2004 baseline of 26.5
deciviews to 22.7 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired
days, and a 1.5 deciview improvement to 12.7 deciviews from the
baseline visibility of 14.2 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired
days.
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by
[[Page 11901]]
the state for achieving its RPGs. South Carolina's LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal,
state, and local controls that take effect in the State from the end of
the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The South Carolina LTS
was developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO,
through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification
of the emissions units within South Carolina and in surrounding states
that likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the
State's Class I area; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018
based on all controls required or expected under Federal and state
regulations for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison
of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress
for the State's Class I area; and (4) application of the four statutory
factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified
emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were
required.
In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted
reasonable progress goals. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that
action, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional
haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For that reason,
EPA is not taking action on that aspect of South Carolina's regional
haze SIP in this action. Comments on the December 30, 2011, proposed
determination were accepted at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The
comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is
scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from South Carolina.
The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions
and applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in
section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while
emissions inventories were also developed for NH3 and VOC,
and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into South
Carolina's regional haze analyses, South Carolina did not further
evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions sources for potential
controls under BART or reasonable progress.
VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source
classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year,
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions from the source category could be significant.
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road)
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the
countywide level.
There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented
that VISTAS and South Carolina anticipate will reduce emissions between
the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from
these control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility
improvement by 2018 in Cape Romain. The control programs relied upon by
South Carolina include CAIR; EPA's NOX SIP Call; North
Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; Georgia's multi-pollutant rule;
consent decrees for Santee Cooper, Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric
and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and East Kentucky Power
Cooperative; NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control
rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern
Kentucky; North Carolina's NOX reasonably available control
technology state rule for Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA in the
Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area;
Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for on-road trucks and
buses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; Federal
large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; EPA's non-road
diesel rules; South Carolina's Smoke Management Guideline for
Vegetative Debris Burning Operations and state regulation, Prohibition
of Open Burning (R. 61-62.2); and Early Action Compacts with 45 out of
46 counties in South Carolina to reduce pollution that creates ground-
level ozone. Controls from various Federal Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the
2018 emissions inventory projections. These MACT rules include the
industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial
Boiler MACT''), the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal
combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT
standards.
Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\11\ This MACT was vacated
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and South Carolina did not
redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though
South Carolina's modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler
MACT limits, the State's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be
affected because the expected reductions due to the vacated rule were
relatively small compared to the State's total SO2,
PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter (PM10)
emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.2 to 0.5 percent, depending on the
pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and
PM10 inventory). Thus, EPA does not expect that differences
between the vacated and final Industrial Boiler MACT emissions limits
would affect the adequacy of the existing South Carolina regional haze
SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between projected
emissions reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the
Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects
South Carolina to do so in the State's five-year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11902]]
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for South Carolina.
Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for South Carolina
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 38,928 130,681 27,766 36,779 1,552 263,790
Area.............................. 175,666 24,602 63,802 287,162 29,074 14,087
On-Road Mobile.................... 114,861 138,941 2,473 6,505 4,646 5,909
Off-Road Mobile................... 55,016 50,249 3,945 4,152 33 4,866
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 384,471 344,473 97,986 334,598 35,305 288,652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for South Carolina
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 44,562 95,477 36,118 53,054 2,396 146,851
Area.............................. 177,273 26,491 70,274 333,404 34,535 14,816
On-Road Mobile.................... 41,866 39,348 988 3,994 5,878 584
Off-Road Mobile................... 36,131 31,758 2,474 2,617 41 1,198
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 299,832 193,074 109,854 393,069 42,850 163,449
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10
southeastern states, including South Carolina. The modeling analysis is
a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the
modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic, meteorological model routinely used
for urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5, and
regional haze regulatory modeling studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated emissions inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emissions sources for
photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was
also subjected to outside peer review.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the
10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid cells that covers the
continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions
of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts.
Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for
evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-
December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting
the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent
with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, and EPA
document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated
November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of South Carolina
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to
[[Page 11903]]
develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's
RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to
accept the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and determine
visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the
modeling system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling
Guidance. EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS model performance
procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for
the regional haze assessments for the South Carolina LTS and regional
haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emissions sensitivity model runs
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the
20 percent worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75
to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I
areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light
extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS
states. In particular, for Cape Romain, sulfate particles resulting
from SO2 emissions contribute roughly 71 percent to the
calculated light extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium
nitrate contributed less than five percent of the calculated light
extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst
visibility days. Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted
for 20 percent or less of the light extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days at the VISTAS Class I areas.
VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'')
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain,
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types
of Class I areas. South Carolina's Cape Romain area is classified as a
``coastal'' area.
Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS. South Carolina concluded that
reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in
the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for Cape
Romain. Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at the coastal Class I areas in VISTAS, which include Cape Romain,
the benefits of reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at
these sites are small. Some of the worst days at Cape Romain and other
coastal sites within the VISTA region occur in the winter when ammonium
nitrate has a somewhat larger contribution to visibility impairment.
South Carolina concluded that reducing ammonia emissions would be more
beneficial for reducing ammonium nitrate contributions to visibility
impairment in wintertime than further reducing NOX emissions
from either ground or point sources.
The VISTAS' sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore,
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if
any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region,
including South Carolina's area. The sensitivity analyses also show
that reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources,
or fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the
VISTAS Class I areas.
South Carolina considered the factors listed in under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section III.E of this action to develop its LTS
as described below. South Carolina, in conjunction with VISTAS,
demonstrated in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and
non-road diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and
wildfires), fine soils (a product of construction activities and
activities that generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively
minor contributors to visibility impairment at the Class I area in
South Carolina. South Carolina considered agricultural and forestry
smoke management techniques, in conjunction with the State's open
burning requirements, to address visibility impacts from elemental
carbon. The South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) developed a smoke
management program (Smoke Management Guideline for Vegetative Debris
Burning Operations), which regulates vegetative debris burning for
forestry, agriculture, and wildlife purposes in the State. SC DHEC and
SCFC have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing their
respective roles in implementing the State's smoke management plan that
utilizes basic smoke management practices and addresses the issues laid
out in EPA's 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed
Fires available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. SC DHEC notes in its SIP that this MOU represents the
State's collective commitment to develop a comprehensive approach to
establish and maintain a smoke management plan. In addition, SC DHEC's
Bureau of Air Quality has developed a state air pollution control
regulation (R. 61-62.2, Prohibition of Open Burning) that prohibits:
(a) Open burning of any/all household garbage, (b) open burning for the
purpose of land clearing or right of way maintenance in areas other
than predominantly residential areas, and (c) open burning of
residential construction waste from building and construction
operations unless specific conditions are met. South Carolina notes in
its SIP that, viewed together, the State's smoke management program and
open burning requirements minimize visibility impacts from all sources
of fire used for land management purposes within the State while
recognizing the important ecological role of fires. With regard to fine
soils, the State considered those activities that generate fugitive
dust, including construction activities. Fine soil particles are minor
contributors to visibility at Cape Romain. The State has chosen not to
develop controls for fine soils in this first implementation period
because of their relatively minor contribution to visibility
impairment.
EPA preliminarily concurs with the State's technical demonstration
showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not
significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I area, and
therefore, proposes to find that South Carolina has adequately
[[Page 11904]]
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to this Federal Register
action and South Carolina's SIP provide more details on the State's
consideration of these factors for South Carolina's LTS.
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to South Carolina, the VISTAS sensitivity
analysis projects visibility benefits in Cape Romain from
SO2 reductions from EGUs in eight of the 10 VISTAS states:
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia. Additional, smaller benefits are projected
from SO2 emissions reductions from non-utility industrial
point sources. SO2 emissions contributions to visibility
impairment from other RPO regions are comparatively small in contrast
to the VISTAS states' contributions, and thus, controlling sources
outside of the VISTAS region is predicted to provide less significant
improvements in visibility in the Class I areas within VISTAS.
Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration,
South Carolina concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from
EGU and non-EGU point sources within South Carolina would have the
greatest visibility benefits for Cape Romain. The State chose to focus
solely on evaluating certain SO2 sources contributing to
visibility impairment to the State's Class I area for additional
emissions reductions for reasonable progress in this first
implementation period (described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this
action). EPA proposes to agree with the State's analyses and
conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories that
most contribute to visibility impairment in the South Carolina Class I
area, and proposes to find the State's approach to focus on developing
a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point sources of
SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in South Carolina and Surrounding Areas
As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action, through
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\12\ the VISTAS states concluded that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions account for
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas
in VISTAS states, including Cape Romain in South Carolina. Utility and
non-utility boilers are the main sources of SO2 emissions
within the southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology
for South Carolina, which enables the State to focus its reasonable
progress analysis on those geographic regions and source categories
that impact visibility at its Class I area. Recognizing that there was
neither sufficient time nor adequate resources available to evaluate
all emissions units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each
Class I area that South Carolina's sources impact, the State
established a threshold to determine which emissions units would be
evaluated for reasonable progress control. In applying this
methodology, SC DHEC first calculated the fractional contribution to
visibility impairment from all emissions units within the
SO2 AOI for Cape Romain and from those surrounding areas in
other states potentially impacted by emissions from emissions units in
South Carolina. The State then identified those emissions units with a
contribution of one percent or more to the visibility impairment at
that particular Class I area, and evaluated each of these units for
control measures for reasonable progress, using the following four
``reasonable progress factors'' as required under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emissions unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated
with FLMs, EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia
to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina's SO2 AOI methodology captured greater
than 80 percent of the total point source SO2 contribution
to visibility impairment in the Class I area in South Carolina and
required an evaluation of 22 emissions units. Capturing a significantly
greater percentage of the total contribution would involve an
evaluation of many more emissions units that have substantially less
impact. EPA believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented
for the Class I area in South Carolina is a reasonable methodology to
prioritize the most significant contributors to regional haze and to
identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control in the
State's Class I area. The approach is consistent with EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and South Carolina
was objective and based on several analyses, which included a large
universe of emissions units within and surrounding the State of South
Carolina and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an
analysis of the VISTAS emissions units affecting nearby Class I areas
surrounding the VISTAS states that are located in other RPOs' Class I
areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA factors in the Reasonable Progress
Analysis
SC DHEC identified 22 emissions units at 13 facilities in South
Carolina (see Table 4) with SO2 emissions that were above
the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation
because they were modeled to fall within the sulfate AOI of any Class I
area and have a one percent or greater contribution to the sulfate
visibility impairment to at least one Class I area.\13\ Using the
expected costs of controls for EGUs complying with CAIR as an indicator
of what might be reasonable for non-EGU sources, SC DHEC established a
threshold of $2,000 per ton of SO2 for controls. Next, an
analysis of control options, generic costs of controls, and cost per
ton for various units contributing greater than one
[[Page 11905]]
percent to any Class I area was developed and matched with data from
AirControlNET, an EPA air pollution control cost database (accessible
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/AirControlNET.htm), to identify
expected cost per ton reduced for the application of each of the
specific control measures available for these units. SC DHEC then
compared the range cost effectiveness estimates for these units to its
cost threshold of $2,000 per ton for controls. As explained in section
IV.C.5, 16 of these 22 emissions units were already subject to CAIR or
were determined to not have a reasonable expectation of having control
costs less than $2,000 per ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from
the South Carolina's regional haze SIP submittal, Appendix H.
Table 4--South Carolina Facilities Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis:
DAK Americas, SC
Giant Cement, SC
Holcim Holly Hill, SC Units 1, 2
International Paper--Georgetown, SC
MeadWestvaco, SC
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area:
EGUs Subject to CAIR:
Duke Energy--Lee, Units 1, 2, 3
Santee Cooper--Cross, Units 2, 3
Santee Cooper--Jefferies Units 3, 4
South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G)--Canadys, Units 1, 2
SCE&G--Williams, Unit 1
Facilities With Unit(s) Evaluated using AirControlNET Only:
Alumax of South Carolina Units 2, 3, 4, 5
Cogen South
Showa Denko Carbon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis
SC DHEC analyzed whether SO2 controls should be required
for six units at five facilities, (DAK Americas, MeadWestvaco, Giant
Cement, Holcim Holly Hill Units 1 and 2, and International Paper),
based on a consideration of the four factors set out in the CAA and
EPA's regulations. For the limited purpose of evaluating the cost of
compliance for the reasonable progress assessment in this first
regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs, SC DHEC concluded that it was not
equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a greater economic burden than
EGUs for a given control strategy. Using CAIR as a guide, SC DHEC used
a cost of $2,000 per ton of SO2 controlled or reduced as a
threshold for cost effectiveness.
1. DAK Americas
DAK Americas operates a facility in Moncks Comer, South Carolina,
which produces polyethylene terephthalate (also commonly known as
``PET'') and finishes it into synthetic fibers and bottle resin
products. Boiler No. 2, a 206 million British thermal unit per hour
(MMBtu/hr) bituminous coal-fired boiler, was subject to a reasonable
progress control review. Currently, the existing air pollution control
device is a baghouse to control PM and a one percent sulfur limit on
the coal sulfur content to control sulfur emissions. Boiler No. 2 is
the only coal-fired boiler at the site. SC DHEC reviewed five
technologies for reasonable progress: Low-sulfur coal, wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), spray dryer absorber (SDA), fluidized-bed
combustion, and dry sorbent injection. The energy and non-air quality
impacts of the options were qualitatively ranked according to the
degree of energy usage and waste generation generally associated with
each option. The FGD and SDA options are the most cost-effective
options but would only reduce emissions 33-48 tons and are anticipated
to be $3,758 and over $4,000 per ton, respectively. SC DHEC deemed all
the available control options to be above its $2,000 per ton of
SO2 controlled cost effectiveness threshold.
2. Giant Cement Company (Giant)
Giant owns and operates a Portland cement manufacturing facility
located in Harleyville, South Carolina. In 2005, Giant completed the
modernization of its cement manufacturing facility. The modernized
cement facility consists of one dry process cement kiln system that
replaced four wet process cement kilns. The modernized cement kiln
system is more energy efficient than the previous wet process cement
kilns. A Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to
construct and operate the kiln system was issued in 2003, and the first
clinker was produced in March 2005. Based on the information in the
reasonable progress control analysis that Giant provided, SC DHEC
concluded that switching to low sulfur coal is not a cost effective
solution to address SO2 emissions at the Giant facility.
Sulfur input to the cement kiln system as a result of coal usage is
less than five percent of the total sulfur input, which corresponds to
between 55 and 69 tons of SO2 emitted per year. Switching to
a low sulfur coal reduces emissions between 24 and 36 tons of
SO2 per year, but at a cost ranging from $7,801 to $11,152
per ton of SO2 reduced. SC DHEC concluded that none of the
control options would be below its cost effectiveness threshold for
reasonable progress.
3. Holcim (US) Inc. (Holcim)
The Holcim Holly Hill Plant produces Portland cement. The two wet
process cement kilns identified in the reasonable progress analysis at
the Holly Hill facility were shut down in 2003 and eventually
demolished. They were replaced with a single, more efficient preheater
precalciner kiln system which began operation in 2003. Holcim prepared
a reasonable progress control analysis to assess the potential switch
to lower sulfur fuel oil from three percent sulfur coal, which is the
sulfur level that the current permit is based upon. The analysis
demonstrated that this switch would result in a maximum SO2
reduction of 4,011 tons at an additional cost to Holcim of $41,039 per
ton of SO2 removed. SC DHEC concluded that additional
reductions from this facility would be above its cost effectiveness
threshold.
4. International Paper
International Paper operates a paper mill located in Georgetown,
South Carolina. Units subject to a reasonable progress analysis are the
No. 1 Power Boiler, No. 2 Power Boiler, No. 1 Recovery Boiler, and No.
2 Recovery
[[Page 11906]]
Boiler. The power boilers currently burn a diverse fuel mix consisting
of wood, coal, tire-derived fuel, fuel oil, natural gas, and propane.
These power boilers are permitted for several additional fuels that are
currently not being utilized. The fuels that contribute to sulfur
emissions are coal, tire-derived fuel, and No. 6 fuel oil. The recovery
boilers primarily burn black liquor solids, but also burn limited
amounts of No. 6 fuel oil, primarily during start-up (e.g., less than
two percent of fuel input annually). International Paper prepared a
reasonable progress control analysis which evaluated three fuel
switching options.
The Mill evaluated switching sulfur-contributing fuels (coal, tire-
derived fuel, and No. 6 fuel oil) with natural gas, low-sulfur fuel
oil, and distillate oils for the reasonable progress control analysis.
The first option was to replace all coal, No. 6 fuel oil, and tire-
derived fuel with natural gas. The second option was to replace all
sulfur fuels with low sulfur fuel oil. The Mill's title V permit limits
No. 6 fuel oil consumption in the power boilers. Therefore, the Mill
calculated the second option two ways: (a) Replacing as much fuel oil
as possible with low sulfur fuel oil and leaving the balance as natural
gas, and (b) assuming the Mill would not be limited on firing low
sulfur fuel oil, calculating a complete fuel switch to low sulfur fuel
oil. The third option was to replace all coal, No. 6 fuel oil, and
tire-derived fuel with low sulfur distillate oils. The annual
SO2 emissions reductions from these options ranged from
2,281 to 3,284 tons of SO2. However, the cost-effectiveness
estimates for the fuel switching options ranged from $6,417 to $10,012
per ton SO2, which are above SC DHEC's cost effectiveness
threshold.
5. MeadWestvaco
MeadWestvaco Corporation operates a paper mill in North Charleston,
South Carolina. MeadWestvaco Corporation submitted a reasonable
progress control analysis for a switch to a lower sulfur fuel for the
two recovery boilers listed in emissions unit ID 06 of title V Air
Quality Operating (title V) Permit TV-0560-0008. The reasonable
progress control analysis evaluated costs associated with the most
feasible fuel switch, a change from high sulfur No. 6 fuel oil to low
sulfur No. 6 fuel oil. No. 6 fuel oil is used mainly as startup/
shutdown fuel in the recovery boilers; however, it can be used to
supplement and stabilize steam load when the recovery boilers are
burning black liquor. The analysis used the worst case scenario for
SO2 emissions, which is to assume all fuel oil is burned
without black liquor, because burning a blend of fuel oil and black
liquor would be expected to yield lower emissions than fuel oil firing
alone. This analysis considered firing the furnace at actual fuel usage
rates and at a maximum level, consistent with its existing
SO2 PSD limit. Changing from high sulfur No. 6 fuel oil to
low sulfur No. 6 oil in the No. 1 recovery boiler would reduce
SO2 emissions 81 tons and cost $7,463 per ton of
SO2 removed based on the actual operating scenario and
reduce SO2 emissions 384 tons and cost $3,359 per ton of
SO2 removed at its maximum allowed operating level. Both
scenarios are above SC DHEC's $2,000 per ton SO2 emissions
removed cost effectiveness threshold.
6. EPA Assessment
As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have
wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements
for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state
to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. States
must consider the four statutory factors, at a minimum, in determining
reasonable progress, but states have flexibility in how to take these
factors into consideration.
South Carolina applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for
identifying appropriate sources to be considered for additional
controls under reasonable progress for the implementation period ending
in 2018 that is addressed by this SIP. Using this methodology, SC DHEC
first identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to
have an impact on visibility in the State's Class I area. Units with
emissions of SO2 with a relative contribution to visibility
impairment of at least a one percent contribution at any Class I area
were then subject to further analysis to determine whether it would be
appropriate to require controls on these units for purposes of
reasonable progress. As noted above, six units were subject to this
analysis.
SC DHEC concluded, based on its evaluation of the companies'
submittals, that no further controls are warranted at this time. After
reviewing SC DHEC's methodology and analyses, EPA proposes to find that
South Carolina's conclusion that no further controls are necessary at
this time acceptable. EPA proposes to determine that South Carolina
adequately evaluated the control technologies available at the time of
its analysis and applicable to these types of facilities and
consistently applied its criteria for reasonable compliance costs. The
State included appropriate documentation in its SIP of the technical
analysis it used to assess the need for and implementation of
reasonable progress controls. Although the use of a specific threshold
for assessing costs means that a state may not fully consider available
emissions reduction measures above its threshold that would result in
meaningful visibility improvement, EPA believes that the South Carolina
SIP still ensures reasonable progress. In proposing to approve South
Carolina's reasonable progress analysis, EPA is placing great weight on
the fact that there is no indication in the SIP submittal that South
Carolina, as a result of using a specific cost effectiveness threshold,
rejected potential reasonable progress measures that would have had a
meaningful impact on visibility in its Class I area. EPA notes that
given the emissions reductions resulting from CAIR and the measures in
nearby states, the visibility improvements projected for the affected
Class I area are in excess of that needed to be on the uniform rate of
progress.
B. Emissions Units Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area
Ten of the 22 emissions units identified for a reasonable progress
control analysis are EGUs. These ten EGUs are subject to CAIR. To
determine whether any additional controls beyond those required by CAIR
would be considered reasonable for South Carolina's EGUs for this first
implementation period, SC DHEC evaluated the SO2 reductions
expected from the EGU sector based upon results of the Intergrated
Planning Model (IPM), as adjusted by the VISTAS states based on their
knowledge of which facilities will be installing controls, to estimate
the region-wide impacts of all the anticipated EGU controls, including
CAIR. South Carolina determined that for EGUs, emissions reductions
predicted to result from CAIR would be sufficient for ensuring
reasonable progress during the first implementation period (between the
baseline and 2018).
In reaching this decision, SC DHEC considered the four reasonable
progress factors set forth in EPA's RHR as they apply to the State's
entire EGU sector (see Appendix H of the South Carolina SIP and section
III.C.2 of EPA's TSD for this action). In particular, the State took
into account the factors of cost and time necessary for compliance in
view of EPA's analysis supporting CAIR. Based on the analysis, SC DHEC
concluded that additional SO2 control measures, beyond those
needed to meet CAIR requirements, for South Carolina's EGUs would not
be reasonable during this first
[[Page 11907]]
implementation period based on a consideration of the reasonable
progress statutory factors. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact
that visibility improvement at the Cape Romain Wilderness Area is
projected to exceed the uniform rate of progress in this first
implementation period. EPA proposes to find acceptable South Carolina's
methodology and determination that no additional controls beyond CAIR
are reasonable for SO2 for affected South Carolina EGUs for
the first implementation period.
C. Facilities With Unit(s) Evaluated Using AirControlNET Only
SC DHEC determined that there were no cost effective controls for
six non-EGU emissions units at three other facilities. As clarified in
a November 9, 2009, letter from SC DHEC to EPA Region 4, the State
assessed, through VISTAS, Alumax of South Carolina Units 2, 3, 4, and
5, Cogen South, and Showa Denko Carbon using AirControlNET in the
initial review of affected sources for reasonable progress. (The
November 2009 letter is in the docket for this action and can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-
0785.) Based on this assessment, SC DHEC determined that there were no
available controls for these facilities that were expected to be below
the $2,000 cost effectiveness threshold for non-EGUs established by SC
DHEC. Thus, the State did not pursue further evaluation of the three
remaining statutory factors (i.e., time necessary for compliance,
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and
remaining useful life of the emissions unit) since there were no cost-
effective controls to evaluate.
6. BART
BART is an element of South Carolina's LTS for the first
implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three
components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b)
an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART,
and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components, as
addressed by SC DHEC, and SC DHEC's findings, are discussed as follows.
A. BART-Eligible Sources
The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. SC DHEC identified
BART-eligible sources in South Carolina by utilizing the three
eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines; (2) the emissions units were not in operation prior to
August 7, 1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these
units have the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year of any
visibility-impairing pollutant.
The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2,
NOX, and direct PM (including both PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from
a source impair visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources are not significant
visibility-impairing pollutants in South Carolina, as discussed in
section IV.C.3 of this action. Regarding ammonia, the State notes in
Appendix H of the SIP that analyses of spatial and temporal
distributions of ammonia concentrations indicate that the primary point
source ammonia contributor to regional haze at Cape Romain is likely
the MeadWestvaco Plant in North Charleston, South Carolina, which is
located 29 kilometers from Cape Romain. MeadWestvaco is not subject to
BART because its BART-eligible units emit only approximately 130 tons
per year of NH3 and do not meet the BART eligibility
threshold criteria. For this reason, South Carolina did not evaluate
emissions of VOC and NH3 in its BART determinations.
B. BART-Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, South Carolina required each of its BART-eligible
sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent
of their contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I
areas.
1. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \14\ modeling
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and therefore, to
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject to BART.'' EPA believes that CALPUFF is the best regulatory
modeling application currently available for predicting a single
source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162). South
Carolina, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling system
to determine whether individual sources in South Carolina were subject
to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer on the
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including South Carolina,
developed a ``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART
Analyses.'' Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources,
trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in
the development and review of the VISTAS protocol.
The RHR gives the states significant flexibility in making
decisions concerning the BART modeling analysis as part of the regional
haze process. Several BART facilities located in South Carolina
proposed an alternative approach from the recommendation contained in
the VISTAS CALPUFF protocol to developing the sea salt concentration
when using the new IMPROVE equation to calculate visibility impacts.
For a few sources subject to coastal influences, the more accurate but
less generally available sodium ion concentration from ambient data
rather than the chloride ion concentration was used to calculate the
sea salt contribution. After consultation with EPA prior to the
submittal of the regional haze SIP, SC DHEC allowed the use of either
the sodium ion or the chloride ion to derive the IMPROVE sea salt
estimate for use in the assessment of visibility impacts to Class I
areas from individual BART-subject sources for this first
implementation period.
[[Page 11908]]
VISTAS has examined the effects of sea salt and proposed a
hierarchy of methods for sea salt estimation based on a consideration
of different factors that impact how technically reliable each method
is for estimating sea salt in the atmosphere. (For further details, see
section III.D.2 of EPA's TSD for this action and Appendices O.1 and O.3
of the South Carolina regional haze SIP revision). As a result, SC DHEC
chose to accept additional information on a case-by-case basis for
several BART facilities that requested a more refined approach, i.e.,
use of the new IMPROVE equation with sodium ion data, in their BART
exemption modeling. While the use of the sodium ion derived alternative
sea salt estimate would be justified for any facility modeling
visibility impairment at Cape Romain, that refinement was not required
if a facility exempted using chloride ion concentration. EPA proposes
to find that South Carolina's approach to estimating sea salt
concentration to determine visibility impacts at Cape Romain is
acceptable based on the supporting technical information provided by
the State in its SIP.
VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could
consider both the old and new IMPROVE equations. SC DHEC sent a letter
and a supplementary email to EPA justifying the need for this post-
processing approach, and the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator sent
the State a letter of approval dated October 5, 2007. South Carolina's
justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a
rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation. The South
Carolina and EPA Region 4 letters are located in Appendix O.1 of the
State's December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP submittal and can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-
0785.
2. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single source that
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across
states,'' but, ``[a]s 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.'' The Guidelines affirm that
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a
Class I area justifies this approach.
South Carolina used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject to BART. SC DHEC concluded that,
considering the results of the visibility impacts modeling conducted, a
0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate and a lower threshold was not
warranted. South Carolina demonstrated that it is unlikely that
multiple BART-eligible sources would simultaneously adversely impact
visibility at Cape Romain at a level that would warrant a lower
threshold value. For the South Carolina sources that were shown to be
impacting the Wolf Island Class I area in Georgia, South Carolina
demonstrated that they were located far from Wolf Island and that the
majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts
well below 0.5 deciview. Additional details regarding South Carolina's
justification for using a 0.5 deciview threshold are provided in
section III.D.2 of EPA's TSD for this action. EPA is proposing to agree
with South Carolina that the overall impacts of these sources are not
sufficient to warrant a lower contribution threshold and that a 0.5
deciview threshold was appropriate in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
South Carolina initially identified 24 facilities with BART-
eligible sources. The State subsequently determined that three sources
(Shaw Industries--Anderson, Solutia, Inc., and Honeywell--Clemson) are
not BART-eligible because the capacities of the boilers originally
identified at these facilities fall below the BART source category
threshold for fossil-fuel boilers of 250 MMBtu/hr heat input. See 40
CFR 51.301. Table 5 lists the 21 BART-eligible sources in South
Carolina.
Table 5--South Carolina's BART-Eligible Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albermarle Corp.
Bowater Inc. Paper/Pulp
BP Amoco Chemical--Cooper River Plant
DAK Americas
Eastman Chemical
International Paper Georgetown Mill
INVISTA--Camden Plant
INVISTA--Spartanburg Plant (formerly KOSA: Arteva)
ISG Georgetown
MeadWestvaco--Kraft Mill
Milliken Chemical--Dewey Plant
Owens Corning--Anderson
Rhodia--Charleston
Santee Cooper--Grainger
Santee Cooper--Jefferies
Santee Cooper--Winyah
SCE&G--Canadys
SCE&G--Wateree
SCE&G--Williams
Stone Container--Florence
Wellman Inc.--Palmetto Plant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11909]]
Of the 21 BART-eligible sources, 19 sources demonstrated that they
are not subject to BART. Seven of the 19 (Albermarle, BP Amoco
Chemical--Cooper River Plant, Rhodia--Charleston, Eastman Chemical,
INVISTA--Spartanburg, Owens Corning--Anderson, Milliken Chemical--
Dewey) are exempt from further BART review because they are only major
sources for VOC emissions. As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this
action, SC DHEC determined that controlling anthropogenic sources of
VOCs has little, if any, visibility benefit at Cape Romain. Twelve of
the 19 (Bowater, DAK Americas, International Paper--Georgetown,
INVISTA--Camden Plant, ISG Georgetown, MeadWestvaco--Kraft Mill, Santee
Cooper--Jefferies, Santee Cooper--Winyah, Santee Cooper--Grainger,
SCE&G--Canadys, Stone Container--Florence, Wellman--Palmetto) are not
subject to BART because their modeled visibility impact is less than
0.5 deciview at the affected Class I areas. In addition, although
modeling exempted them from BART, DAK Americas took an emissions limit
for further assurance of their exemption. South Carolina found that two
of its BART-eligible sources, SCE&G's Williams and Wateree Stations,
had modeled visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold
for BART exemption and are considered to be subject to BART. SCE&G
Willams and Wateree Stations, the two BART-eligible EGUs in the State,
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX
for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Therefore, as discussed in section III.D of this action, these
facilities were only required to evaluate PM emissions in their BART
determinations.
Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy
BART for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was
fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However,
the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOX and
SO2 and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on
CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the South Carolina regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the DC Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 82219.
Consequently, EPA is not taking action in this proposed rulemaking to
address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements, including BART for SO2 and NOX
emissions from EGUs.
C. BART Determinations for PM
South Carolina's two sources found subject to BART for PM (SCE&G's
Wateree and Williams Stations) each submitted permit applications to
the State that included their proposed BART determinations. In
accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of control
that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed existing
controls on these units to assess whether these constituted the best
controls currently available, then identified what other technically
feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the technically
feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. The State's
evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are summarized
below.
1. SCE&G Wateree
SCE&G Wateree Station is located in Eastover, South Carolina. The
station consists of two identical pulverized coal-fired, wet bottom
boilers (Units 1 and 2). The two boilers produce superheated steam,
which is used in the two dedicated turbine generators. Units 1 and 2
are equipped with fabric filter baghouses to control PM emissions, and
low-NOX burners and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to
control NOX emissions. Although Units 1 and 2 commenced
commercial operation in the early 1970s, there is no near-term
limitation on the useful life of these units.
SCE&G also installed two wet limestone scrubbers to control
SO2 emissions in the summer of 2009. Wateree Station Units 1
and 2 were retrofit with FGD systems using limestone slurry in a spray
tower to remove SO2 from the gas stream. Although designed
to control SO2 emissions, the FGD systems provide the added
benefit of removing sulfates, a principal constituent of condensable
PM10. The operation of the FGD systems is projected to
reduce visibility impacts to well below the State's 0.5 deciview BART
contribution threshold.
To address the BART requirement, SCE&G prepared an analysis of
several additional options for PM10 addressing the statutory
factors. The cost effectiveness of the various options ranged from
$11,238 to $19,056 per ton of PM10 removed with a projected
additional visibility improvement of approximately 0.04-0.05 deciview
at Cape Romain. SC DHEC determined that the additional annualized costs
associated with additional PM10 control options were
excessive and that no additional control measures were cost effective.
2. SCE&G Williams
SCE&G Williams Station is located in Goose Creek, South Carolina.
The station consists of a single pulverized coal-fired, dry bottom
boiler (Unit 1). The boiler produces superheated steam, which is used
in a turbine generator. Although Unit 1 commenced commercial operation
in 1973, there is no near-term limitation on the useful life of this
unit.
Unit 1 is currently equipped with low-NOX burners and
SCR to control NOX emissions and an electrostatic
precipitator to control PM10 emissions, the latter of which
has been demonstrated to achieve performance levels comparable to those
being specified as best achievable control technology for new coal-
fired boilers. The existing control device, therefore, is considered
representative of BART for PM10. To address the BART
requirement, SCE&G evaluated several additional options for control of
PM10 and addressed the statutory factors. The cost
effectiveness of the various options ranged from $307,420 to $376,318
per ton of PM10 removed with a projected visibility
improvement of less than 0.01 deciview. SC DHEC determined that the
additional annualized costs associated with additional PM10
control options were excessive and that no additional control measures
were cost effective.
In October 2009, SCE&G retrofitted Williams Station Unit 1 with a
FGD system using limestone slurry in a spray tower to remove
SO2 from the gas stream. Although designed to control
SO2 emissions, the FGD system will provide the added benefit
of removing sulfates, a principal constituent of condensable
PM10. PM10 emissions will be reduced from 925
tons per year to 464 tons per year following the installation of the
FGD system. This 50 percent reduction is attributable to the removal of
condensable PM10, principally sulfates, in the FGD system.
After the installation of the FGD system, the modeled 98th percentile
deciview visibility impact from this facility will be reduced by 0.69
deciview at Cape Romain.
3. EPA Assessment
EPA proposes to agree with South Carolina's analyses and
conclusions for the BART emissions units located at these facilities.
EPA has reviewed the South Carolina analyses and proposes to conclude
that they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART
Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, EPA
[[Page 11910]]
proposes to find that the conclusions reflect a reasonable application
of EPA's guidance to these sources.
7. RPGs
The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility.
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state
regulations for the period 2004-2018, and additional control measures
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the South
Carolina Class I area had not yet made final control determinations for
BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not
included in the modeling submitted by South Carolina. Any controls
resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions
reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give further
assurances that South Carolina will achieve its RPGs. This modeling
demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an
improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for
Cape Romain for the most impaired days over the period of the
implementation plan and ensures no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
As shown in Table 6 below, South Carolina's RPGs for the 20 percent
worst days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the
uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I area (i.e., 22.7
deciviews in 2018). Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best days provide
greater visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day
conditions. The regional haze provisions specify that a state may not
adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is
expected to result from other CAA requirements during the
implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR
states with Class I areas, like South Carolina, took into account
emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 2018
RPGs.\15\ The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is
consistent with EPA guidance at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly
relied on CAIR emissions reductions within the state to address some
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.
Table 6--South Carolina 2018 RPGs
[In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 RPG-- 20% Uniform rate of 2018 RPG-- 20%
Baseline worst days progress at Baseline best days
Class I area visibility-- 20% (improvement 2018--20% worst visibility-- 20% (improvement
worst days from baseline) days best days from baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Romain................................................... 26.5 22.7 (3.8) 23.2 14.2 12.7 (1.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RPGs for the Class I area in South Carolina are based on
modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the
best available information at the time the analysis was done. These
projections can be expected to change as additional information
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change
their emissions characteristics as they install control equipment to
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time
an event affecting these future projections changed.
EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions,
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways.
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard
which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR at 35733. At the
same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR
52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this
progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions management
strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an assessment of whether
current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or
affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its
assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR
requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h).
The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the
state's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet
the RPGs. South Carolina specifically committed to follow this process
in its submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve South Carolina's
RPGs for the Cape Romain Class I Area.
D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR
51.302. An integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as 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.'' Visibility in any mandatory Class I area
includes any integral vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not
identify any integral vistas in South Carolina. In addition, the Class
I area in South Carolina is not experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its
sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the December 17, 2007,
South Carolina regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address
the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze with
the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. South Carolina has, however,
previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify
visibility impairment from an individual source.\16\ EPA
[[Page 11911]]
proposes to find that this regional haze submittal appropriately
supplements and augments South Carolina's RAVI visibility provisions to
address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as
summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ South Carolina submitted its visibility SIP revisions
addressing RAVI on June 3, 1985, which EPA approved on January 21,
1986 (51 FR 2698).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 17, 2007, submittal, SC DHEC updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also
in this submittal, SC DHEC affirmed its commitment to complete items
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, SC DHEC made a
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, SC DHEC made a commitment to
submitting a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs the mandatory
Class I area located within South Carolina and in each mandatory Class
I area located outside South Carolina which may be affected by
emissions from within South Carolina. The progress report is required
to be in the form of a SIP revision and is due every five years
following the initial submittal of the regional haze SIP. See 40 CFR
51.308(g). Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and
regional haze, South Carolina will rely on the IMPROVE network for
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be
needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the
South Carolina new source review rules, previously approved in the
State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and
coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse
impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze)
in any Class I area.
The original South Carolina visibility SIP submitted to EPA June 3,
1985, addressing the monitoring and LTS requirements in 40 CFR 51.305
and 40 CFR 51.306, respectively, was supplemented by an EPA regulation,
40 CFR 52.2132, on July 12, 1985 (50 FR 28544), as amended on November
24, 1987 (52 FR 45132). The 1985 and 1987 EPA actions incorporate 40
CFR 52.26 and 40 CFR 52.29 into the South Carolina SIP and continue to
be in effect. Because the December 17, 2007, regional haze submittal
appropriately addresses the monitoring and LTS requirements in 40 CFR
51.305 and 40 CFR 51.306, and supersedes these previous requirements,
EPA is proposing to rescind the Federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.2132
and rely on the provisions in this December 17, 2007, submittal to meet
these requirements.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for regional haze in South Carolina
is the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this action,
there is currently one IMPROVE site in South Carolina, which serves as
the monitoring site for Cape Romain (ROMA1).
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program and is relied upon in the December 17, 2007,
regional haze submittal. In the submittal, South Carolina states its
intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the
regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and
future regional haze implementation periods.
Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. South
Carolina is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS
or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the
IMPROVE data.
In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, the State supplements the
IMPROVE sampling by operating additional co-located monitoring.
Monitoring at Cape Romain includes:
A tapered element oscillating microbalance for
continuously measuring PM2.5 mass concentration;
An aethalometer for continuously measuring black carbon;
An integrating nephelometer, supported by VISTAS, for
continuously measuring light scattering; and
Continuous monitoring of NO2 and SO2
precursor gasses.
Additional haze-related measurements were taken in South Carolina
in 2002-2005 as part of special monitoring studies by VISTAS to better
understand source contributions to PM2.5 mass and
visibility. These studies included: continuous monitoring of sulfate,
nitrate, and carbon to better understand daily trends in
PM2.5; detailed analyses of carbon collected on high volume
filters to identify source contributions to carbon; and additional
analyses of sodium and ammonium on IMPROVE filter samples. VISTAS does
not have the funding to continue these special studies and has
therefore transferred the equipment to SC DHEC. South Carolina has also
acquired several continuous sulfate monitors and expects to operate
them at urban and rural sites to further the understanding of both
PM2.5 and visibility formation and trends in the State. SC
DHEC will operate the units discussed above as long as funds allow. In
addition, SC DHEC operates a comprehensive PM2.5 network of
filter-based Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass
monitors, filter-based speciated monitors, and continuous speciated
monitors.
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
SC DHEC has evaluated the impact of South Carolina sources on Class
I areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is
located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside and
outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls.
Because many of these states had not yet defined their criteria for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, South Carolina
applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the State that have
emissions units with impacts large enough to potentially warrant
further evaluation and analysis. The State identified seven emissions
units at three facilities in South Carolina with a contribution of one
percent or more to the visibility impairment at the following five
Class I areas in two neighboring states: Wolf Island Wilderness Area
and Okefenokee Wilderness Area in Georgia; and Joyce Kilmer, Shining
Rock, and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North Carolina.
Georgia and North Carolina submitted letters to South Carolina
requesting that the State consider adding several of its sources'
emissions units to the SC DHEC's final reasonable progress
[[Page 11912]]
control analysis list of facilities so as to account for those
facilities that Georgia believes are likely to contribute more than 0.5
percent, and North Carolina believes are likely to contribute more than
one percent, to the total visibility impairment at one or more Class I
areas in these states, respectively. In its response to this request,
SC DHEC provided Georgia and North Carolina with a list of sources
identified as likely to contribute one percent or more to visibility
impairment in South Carolina and a justification as to why or why not
each facility would be included in South Carolina's final reasonable
progress control analysis list of facilities. South Carolina provided
initial results for several of its reasonable progress control
evaluations to both states. SC DHEC also notified Georgia that four of
the facilities identified by Georgia in its letter were either below
the 0.5 percent contribution threshold used by Georgia or did not meet
South Carolina's cost effectiveness threshold for additional controls.
The remaining facilities are addressed by CAIR. Based on an evaluation
of the four reasonable progress statutory factors, South Carolina
determined that there are no additional control measures for these
South Carolina emissions units that would be reasonable to implement to
mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas in these neighboring
states. SC DHEC has consulted with these states regarding its
reasonable progress control evaluations showing that no additional
cost-effective controls are available for those emissions units in
South Carolina contributing at least one percent to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the states. The documentation for these
formal consultations is provided in Appendix J of South Carolina's SIP.
Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on the Class I
area in South Carolina, SC DHEC sent a letter to Georgia identifying
two emissions units in that State that South Carolina believes
contributed one percent or higher to visibility impairment at Cape
Romain. At that time, Georgia was still in the process of evaluating
BART and reasonable progress for its sources. Any controls resulting
from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions
and resulting visibility improvement, which gives further assurances
that South Carolina will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be
conservative, South Carolina opted not to rely on any additional
emissions reductions from sources located outside the State's
boundaries beyond those already identified in the State's regional haze
SIP submittal and as discussed in section IV.C.1 of this action.
South Carolina also received letters from the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO States of New Jersey and New
Hampshire in the spring of 2007, stating that based on MANE-VU's
analysis of 2002 emissions data, South Carolina contributed to
visibility impairment to Class I areas in those states. The MANE-VU
states asked South Carolina to participate in further consultation with
MANE-VU during the summer of 2007. SC DHEC sent response letters to
both states and expressed its intent to consult with them through
VISTAS representatives. SC DHEC also explained in its responses that
VISTAS has conducted assessments for the VISTAS states to help predict
the influence of emissions from the VISTAS region on visibility at
Class I areas in and near the VISTAS region. This work took into
account the latest data and information available, including the
reductions from CAA and state programs that will be in effect in 2018.
SC DHEC notified New Jersey and New Hampshire that these assessments do
not indicate that South Carolina facility emissions have an impact on
visibility at any Class I area outside of the VISTAS region, and that
SC DHEC thus concluded that emissions from South Carolina do not
reasonably contribute to visibility impairment at these States' areas.
EPA proposes to find that South Carolina has adequately addressed the
consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its
consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
Through the VISTAS RPO, South Carolina and the nine other member
states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support
the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. South Carolina provided a
draft regional haze plan to the FLMs and EPA for early input in the
August to September 2007 time period. The proposed regional haze plan
for South Carolina was out for public comment from October 26, 2007,
until December 12, 2007.
The FLMs submitted comments on the August 17, 2007, draft SIP
provided by the State to the FLMs and EPA for initial consultation
prior to the public comment period. The October 9, 2007, letter from
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) noted that the draft SIP should
provide discussion or justifications for modifications made to the new
IMPROVE equation for determining which BART-eligible sources are
contributing to visibility impairment at any Class I area.
Additionally, FWS indicated that the modifications to the new IMPROVE
equation did not appear to be applied consistently throughout the
regional haze analyses and needed further explanation. The FWS
recommended that the SIP provide information that indicates that EPA
has approved these modifications. The FWS also identified several
appendices that were not included in the draft SIP, including the
appendix that addresses reasonable progress, BART, and the LTS. The FWS
also recommended that the State include its smoke management plan in
the SIP. The FWS suggested that the State add discussion of South
Carolina's evaluation of impacts to Class I areas outside of the State
to the narrative that was in an appendix, and made several other
recommendations to provide more detail or to clarify technical
discussions in the SIP. South Carolina responded to the comments and
subsequently modified the plan to address comments received on this
initial version of the State's regional haze SIP. South Carolina
included extensive discussion and documentation in both the SIP
narrative and appendices to explain the refinements to the IMPROVE
equation that BART-eligible sources could use, including the
alternative approach to the recommendation contained in the VISTAS
CALPUFF protocol using the sodium ion concentration to develop the sea
salt concentration when using the new IMPROVE equation to calculate
visibility impacts. The State also provided the missing appendices to
the FLMs on September 28, 2007, and added two other appendices on
November 21, 2007. SC DHEC made the requested clarifications to the
SIP. Instead of including the State's smoke management plan, SC DHEC
explained the reasons that the MOU with SCFC is included instead, with
references to the smoke management plan. To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), SC DHEC made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout
implementation of its plan, including annual discussions.
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
As also summarized in section IV.D of this action, consistent with
40 CFR 51.308(g), SC DHEC affirmed its commitment to submitting a
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to
[[Page 11913]]
EPA every five years following this initial submittal of the South
Carolina regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made
towards the RPGs for the mandatory Class I area located within South
Carolina and in each mandatory Class I area located outside South
Carolina which may be affected by emissions from within South Carolina.
South Carolina also offered recommendations for several technical
improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS.
These recommendations are discussed in detail in the South Carolina
submittal in Appendix K.
If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that South
Carolina's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after
appropriate consultation and South Carolina agrees, today's action may
be revisited, or additional information and/or changes will be
addressed in the five-year progress report SIP revision.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the South
Carolina SIP submitted by the State of South Carolina on December 17,
2007, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as
set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308, as described previously in this action. Also in this action, EPA
is proposing to rescind the Federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.2132 that
were approved into the South Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and
November 24, 1987, and to rely on the provisions in South Carolina's
December 17, 2007, SIP revision to meet the monitoring and LTS
requirements for RAVI.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Under section 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' Consistent with the EPA
[[Page 11914]]
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA
complies with this Executive Order through the process of tribal
consultation. With respect to today's action, EPA has offered the
Catawba Indian Nation two opportunities to consult.\17\ First, in an
email dated October 21, 2010, EPA extended the Catawba Indian Nation an
opportunity to consult, however, the Tribe declined to consult with EPA
at that time. Due to the passage of time between the initial offer of
consultation and today's proposed action, EPA provided the Catawba
Indian Nation a second opportunity to consult on the South Carolina
Regional Haze SIP revision on February 1, 2012. In an email dated
February 8, 2012, the Catawba Indian Nation stated that no consultation
on this pending action was needed by the Tribe. Further, EPA has no
information to suggest that today's action will impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the
South Carolina. Generally, SIPs do not apply in Indian country
throughout the United States, however, for purposes of the Catawba
Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South Carolina SIP does
apply within the Reservation pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (providing that ``all state
and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba
Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all
relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4680 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P