Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of North Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 11858-11879 [2012-4711]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11858
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action based on
health or safety risks subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This proposed action
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the CAA will not in and of itself
create any new regulations but simply
approves or disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
the EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed
action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s
role is to approve or disapprove state
choices, based on the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve or disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will
not in and of itself create any new
requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide the EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport
of pollution, Regional haze, Best
available control technology.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012–4676 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0219–201148; FRL–
9639–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
North Carolina; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing a limited
approval of a revision to the North
Carolina state implementation plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of North
Carolina through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Resources, Division of Air Quality
(NCDAQ), on December 17, 2007, that
addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) 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 North Carolina on the
basis that the revision, as a whole,
strengthens the North Carolina SIP. In a
separate action, EPA has proposed a
limited disapproval of the North
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–2010–0219, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404–562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0219,
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.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010–
0219.’’ 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 https://
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
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. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9061 and by
electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele
Notarianni can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9031 and by
electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
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. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (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 North
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 North Carolina and
Surrounding Areas
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in
the Reasonable Progress Analysis
6. BART
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11859
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 proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of North 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 North Carolina
SIP. This proposed rulemaking and the
accompanying Technical Support
Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for
EPA’s proposed limited approval
action.2
In a separate action, EPA has
proposed a limited disapproval of the
North 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
North Carolina’s reliance on CAIR in its
regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA’s
proposed limited disapproval of North
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.
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,
1 EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled ‘‘Technical
Support Document for North 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: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11860
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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).
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 Federal 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.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
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.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm 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
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
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 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/
6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
B–03–005 located at https://
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
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–004 located at https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11861
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
7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11862
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
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 (MW), 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 visibilityimpairing 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 emission 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
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 emission 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 (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, 550F.3d 1175
(DC 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
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 DC 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 DC 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. Long-Term Strategy (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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11863
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 North
Carolina’s regional haze submittal?
On December 17, 2007, NCDAQ
submitted revisions to the North
Carolina SIP to address regional haze in
the State’s Class I areas as required by
EPA’s RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
North Carolina has five Class I areas
within its borders: Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness Area, Linville
Gorge Wilderness Area, Shining Rock
Wilderness Area, and Swanquarter
Wilderness Area. Two of these Class I
areas (Great Smoky Mountains and
Joyce Kilmer) also fall within the
geographic boundaries of Tennessee.
Therefore, both North Carolina and
Tennessee are responsible for
developing their own regional haze SIPs
that address these two Class I areas and
for consulting with other states that
impact the areas. The two states worked
together to determine appropriate RPGs,
including consulting with other states
that impact these two Class I areas, as
discussed in section IV.F.1 of this
rulemaking. In addition, both North
Carolina and Tennessee are responsible
for describing their own long-term
emissions strategies, their role in the
consultation processes, and how their
particular state SIP meets the other
requirements in EPA’s regional haze
regulations.
The North Carolina regional haze SIP
establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at each of these Class I
areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs
within the first regional haze
implementation period ending in 2018.
In developing the LTS for each area,
North Carolina considered both
emissions sources inside and outside of
North Carolina that may cause or
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11864
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
contribute to visibility impairment in
North Carolina’s Class I areas. The State
also identified and considered
emissions sources within North
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 five areas in North Carolina and
those areas affected by emissions from
North 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, North Carolina
calculated baseline/current and natural
visibility conditions for each of its Class
I areas, 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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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. North Carolina opted to use
the default estimates for the natural
concentrations combined with the ‘‘new
IMPROVE equation’’ for all of its Class
I areas. Using this approach, natural
visibility conditions using the new
IMPROVE equation were calculated
separately for each Class I area by
VISTAS.
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.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
NCDAQ estimated baseline visibility
conditions at the State’s five Class I
areas using available monitoring data
from four IMPROVE monitoring sites.
The Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
Area does not contain an IMPROVE
monitor. In cases where onsite
monitoring is not available, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the
most representative monitoring
available for the 2000–2004 period to
establish baseline visibility conditions,
in consultation with EPA. North
Carolina used, and EPA is proposing to
find adequate North Carolina’s use of,
2000–2004 data from the IMPROVE
participant in visibility-related research, including
the advancement of monitoring instrumentation,
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitor at Great Smoky Mountains
National Park for the Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness Area. The
IMPROVE Steering Committee considers
the IMPROVE monitor at the Great
Smoky Mountains to be representative
of visibility in Joyce Kilmer. The Great
Smoky Mountains National Park is the
nearest Class I area and contiguous to
Joyce Kilmer and they possess similar
characteristics, such as meteorology and
topography.
As explained in section III.B, for the
first regional haze SIP, baseline
visibility conditions are the same as
current conditions. 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 each North Carolina Class I area.
IMPROVE data records for Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and the
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area for the
period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA
requirements for data completeness. See
page 2–8 of EPA’s 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance. Shining Rock and
Swanquarter Class I areas had missing
data in more than one year between the
years 2000 to 2004. Data records for
these sites were filled using data
substitution procedures. Tables 3.3–1,
3.3–2, 3.3–3, and 3.3–4 from Appendix
G of the North Carolina regional haze
SIP, also provided in section III.B.3 of
EPA’s TSD to this action, list the 20
percent best and worst days for the
baseline period of 2000–2004 for the
Great Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge,
Shining Rock, and Swanquarter areas,
respectively. These data are also
provided at the following Web site:
https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/
SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions
For the North Carolina Class I areas,
baseline visibility conditions on the 20
percent worst days range between
approximately 24.5 and 30.5 deciviews.
Natural visibility in these areas is
predicted to be between approximately
11 and 12 deciviews on the 20 percent
worst days. The natural and baseline
conditions for North Carolina’s Class I
areas for both the 20 percent worst and
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort
Collins, Colorado. https://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. https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/
improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/
naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11865
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
best days are presented in Table 1
below.
TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS I AREAS
Average for
20% worst
days (dv 10)
Class I area
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Natural Background Conditions:
Great Smoky Mountains National Park ............................................................................................................
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ..........................................................................................................
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................
Shining Rock Wilderness Area .........................................................................................................................
Swanquarter Wilderness Area ..........................................................................................................................
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004):
Great Smoky Mountains National Park ............................................................................................................
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ..........................................................................................................
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................
Shining Rock Wilderness Area .........................................................................................................................
Swanquarter Wilderness Area ..........................................................................................................................
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, North 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 than, less than, or
equivalent to the glidepath.
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 five Class I
areas. North 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
its areas. 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. North
Carolina’s SIP shows that the State’s
RPGs for its areas 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 the Great Smoky Mountain and
Joyce Kilmer Class I areas, the overall
10 The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for
‘‘deciview.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
visibility improvement necessary to
reach natural conditions is the
difference between baseline visibility of
30.28 deciviews for the 20 percent worst
days and natural conditions of 11.05
deciviews, i.e., 19.23 deciviews. Over
the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064,
this would require an approximate
improvement of 0.321 deciview per year
(i.e., 19.23 deciviews/60 years) to reach
natural conditions. Hence, for the 14year 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 the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce
Kilmer areas, North Carolina would
need to project at least 4.49 deciviews
over the first implementation period
(i.e., 0.321 deciview x 14 years = 4.49
deciviews) of visibility improvement
from the 30.28 deciviews baseline in
2004, resulting in visibility levels at or
below 25.79 deciviews in 2018. As
discussed below in section IV.C.7, for
the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce
Kilmer areas, North Carolina projects a
6.78 deciview improvement to visibility
from the 30.28 deciview baseline to
23.50 deciviews in 2018 for the 20
percent most impaired days, and a 1.47
deciview improvement to 12.11
deciviews from the baseline visibility of
13.58 deciviews for the 20 percent least
impaired days. Similar computations
can be made for the other three North
Carolina Class I areas.
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section III.E of this
action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by a
state for achieving its RPGs. North
Carolina’s LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the
emissions reductions from federal, state,
and local controls that take effect in the
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Average for
20% best
days (dv)
11.05
11.05
11.19
11.47
11.55
4.54
4.54
4.08
2.51
5.46
30.28
30.28
28.77
28.46
24.74
13.58
13.58
11.11
7.69
11.99
State from the end of the baseline period
starting in 2004 until 2018. The North
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 North
Carolina and in surrounding states that
likely have the largest impacts currently
on visibility at the State’s Class I areas;
(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 areas; 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 RPGs. See
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In
that action, EPA proposed a limited
disapproval of North 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 North
Carolina’s regional haze SIP in this
action. Comments on the December 30,
2011, proposed determination are
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.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11866
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 North 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 North
Carolina’s regional haze analyses, North
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, offroad 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 roadways); and
(c) biogenic sources (which are natural
sources of emissions, such as trees). Onroad 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 North 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 the North
Carolina Class I areas. The control
programs relied upon by North Carolina
include CAIR; EPA’s NOX SIP Call;
North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act
(CSA); Georgia Rule 391–3–1–
.02(2)(sss), ‘‘Multipollutant Control for
Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units;’’ consent decrees for Tampa
Electric, Virginia Electric and Power
Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and
American Electric Power; 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; and EPA’s non-road diesel
rules. 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 North Carolina
did not redo its modeling analysis when
the rule was re-issued. Even though
North 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., 0.1 to 0.4 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 North
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
North Carolina to do so in the State’s
five-year progress report.
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are
summaries of the 2002 baseline and
2018 estimated emissions inventories
for North Carolina.
TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA
[Tons per year]
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
61,484
250,044
263,766
94,480
196,731
41,517
327,329
84,284
26,953
83,520
4,623
7,348
36,539
300,838
6,579
7,348
1,233
162,183
9,702
65
522,093
5,815
12,420
7,693
Total ..................................................
669,774
649,861
122,444
351,304
173,183
548,021
11 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir.
2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:32 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
11867
TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA
[Tons per year]
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
71,247
203,132
101,099
61,327
94,276
49,514
87,791
49,046
37,789
93,406
2,123
4,069
48,354
338,872
4,392
4,298
2,073
181,333
14,065
83
148,972
6,674
1,481
905
Total ..................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-road Mobile ........................................
436,805
280,627
137,387
395,916
197,554
158,032
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 North
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 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-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
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
eiguid/, 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, 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 North Carolina
provided the appropriate supporting
documentation for all required analyses
used to determine the State’s LTS. The
technical analyses and modeling used to
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 to 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 concur with the VISTAS model
performance procedures and results,
and that the CMAQ is an appropriate
tool for the regional haze assessments
for the North 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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11868
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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,
sulfate particles resulting from SO2
emissions contribute to the calculated
light extinction on the haziest days
roughly 74 percent for the Swanquarter
area, and 84 to 87 percent for the Great
Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge, and
Shining Rock areas, depending on the
area. 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. All of
North Carolina’s Class I areas, except for
Swanquarter, are ‘‘inland’’ areas.
Swanquarter is considered 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. North Carolina concluded that
reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and
non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS
states would have the greatest visibility
benefits for the North Carolina Class I
areas.
Because ammonium nitrate is a small
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at the inland Class I areas in
VISTAS, which include all of the North
Carolina Class I areas except for the
Swanquarter area, the benefits of
reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at
these sites are small. Some of the worst
days at Swanquarter, and other coastal
sites within the VISTAS region, occur in
the winter when ammonium nitrate has
a somewhat larger contribution to
visibility impairment. North 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-level or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
point (elevated) sources. NCDAQ notes
that for Swanquarter, the numerous hog
farms in eastern North Carolina are the
likely primary emissions sources for
ammonia.
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 North
Carolina. 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.
North Carolina considered the factors
listed under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and
in section III.E. of this action to develop
its LTS as described below. North
Carolina, in conjunction with VISTAS,
demonstrated in its SIP that elemental
carbon (a product of highway and nonroad 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 areas
in North Carolina. North Carolina
considered agricultural and forestry
smoke management techniques to
address visibility impacts from
elemental carbon. NCDAQ stated in its
SIP that it is working with the North
Carolina Division of Forest Resources to
develop a smoke management program
that utilizes basic smoke management
practices and addresses the issues laid
out in the EPA’s 1998 Interim Air
Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires available at: https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
firefnl.pdf. Additionally, NCDAQ is
working with the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture to develop a
Memorandum of Understanding
regarding agricultural burning.
With regard to fine soils, the State
considered those activities that generate
fugitive dust, including construction
activities. With regard to construction
activities, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation’s Division
of Highways has issued regulations
addressing control of erosion, siltation,
and pollution from construction
activities. In addition, NCDAQ
promulgated state rule 15A NCAC
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
02D.0540, ‘‘Particulates From Fugitive
Dust Emission Sources,’’ effective on
September 1, 2007, to control
particulates from fugitive dust
emissions sources generated within
plant boundaries from activities such as
‘‘unloading and loading areas, process
areas, stockpiles, stock pile working,
plant parking lots, and plant roads
(including access roads and haul
roads).’’ 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.
With regard to ammonia emissions
from agricultural sources, NCDAQ, as a
continuation of the State’s CSA,
initiated the Climate Action Planning
Advisory Group to develop options for
the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in North Carolina, including
the emissions from agriculture and
agricultural waste in North Carolina.
The Group issued a report that supports
expanded research, regulatory actions,
and grant guarantees as key
implementation tools to accomplish the
expanded utilization of methane (a
greenhouse gas) from hog/cattle waste
for energy. The report also highlights
improved waste management practices
as important. A co-benefit of any
resulting measures will be the reduction
of ammonia emissions from animal
waste. In addition, the North Carolina
Legislature approved a bill on July 26,
2007, that permanently bans new
lagoons at hog farms and orders state
regulators to set environmental
standards for new hog farm waste
systems. The new legislation phases-out
the use of waste lagoons by hog farmers,
replacing them with more
environmentally friendly systems.
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 areas, and therefore, proposes to
find that North Carolina has adequately
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s
TSD to this Federal Register action and
North Carolina’s SIP provide more
details on the State’s consideration of
these factors for North 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 North Carolina, the VISTAS
sensitivity analysis projects visibility
benefits on the 20 percent worst days at
the State’s four inland Class I areas from
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
SO2 reductions from EGUs in eight of
the 10 VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia. For the Swanquarter area,
reductions from EGUs in North Carolina
and South Carolina would have the
greatest benefits; the contributions from
other VISTAS states are comparatively
small. Additional, smaller benefits are
projected for North Carolina’s Class I
areas from SO2 emissions reductions
from non-utility industrial point sources
in the VISTAS states. 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 in VISTAS.
Taking the VISTAS sensitivity
analyses results into consideration,
North Carolina concluded that reducing
SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
point sources in certain VISTAS states
would have the greatest visibility
benefits for the North Carolina Class I
areas. The State chose to focus solely on
evaluating certain SO2 sources
contributing to visibility impairment to
the State’s Class I areas 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 North Carolina Class I areas, 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 visibility 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
other pollutants as visibility conditions
change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls in North 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 those areas in
North Carolina. Utility and non-utility
boilers are the main sources of SO2
emissions within the southeastern
United States. VISTAS developed a
methodology for North Carolina that
enables the State to focus its reasonable
progress analysis on those geographic
regions and source categories that
impact visibility at its Class I areas.
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 of the Class I areas that
North 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,
NCDAQ first calculated the fractional
contribution to visibility impairment
from all emissions units within the SO2
AOI for its Class I areas, and from those
units within the SO2 AOIs surrounding
Class I areas in other states potentially
impacted by emissions from emissions
units in North 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’’ 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
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 humaninduced 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11869
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful
life of the emissions unit.
North Carolina’s SO2 AOI
methodology captured greater than 60
percent of the total point source SO2
contribution to visibility impairment in
four of the five Class I areas in North
Carolina, and required an evaluation of
21 emissions units at seven facilities in
North Carolina. At the remaining Class
I area, Swanquarter, the one percent
threshold represents 47 percent of the
total point source SO2 contribution,
while requiring an evaluation of 12
additional units at six facilities in North
Carolina. The NCDAQ also looked at
what sources in North Carolina may be
impacting Class I areas located outside
of the State, as well as what sources
located outside of North Carolina may
be impacting the North Carolina Class I
areas. By applying the State’s AOI SO2
methodology, the only North Carolina
source that was identified as potentially
impacting visibility in a Class I area
outside the State was the Duke PowerDan River facility, which may impact
the James River Face Wilderness Area in
Virginia. To capture a higher percentage
of emissions units contributing to the
total sulfate visibility impairment would
involve an evaluation of many more
units that have substantially less
impact.
NCDAQ believes that the one percent
threshold is appropriate given the
contribution to the total sulfate visibility
impairment at each Class I area and the
limited resources available to conduct a
unit-by-unit evaluation for reasonable
progress. EPA believes the approach
developed by VISTAS and implemented
for the Class I areas in North Carolina
is a reasonable methodology to
prioritize the most significant
contributors to regional haze and to
identify sources to assess for reasonable
progress control. The approach is
consistent with EPA’s Reasonable
Progress Guidance. The technical
approach of VISTAS and North Carolina
was objective and based on several
analyses, including the evaluation of a
large universe of emissions units within
and surrounding the State of North
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
NCDAQ identified 34 emissions units
at 14 facilities in North Carolina (see
Table 4) with SO2 emissions that were
above the State’s minimum threshold
for reasonable progress evaluation
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11870
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
because they were modeled to fall
within the SO2 AOI of any Class I area
and have a one percent or greater
contribution to the sulfate visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area.13
Of these 34 units, seven emissions units
were not subject to a reasonable
progress analysis because they were
already subject to BART or had shut
down. In addition, as discussed in
section IV.C.5.B, 16 units are subject to
CAIR, and NCDAQ concluded that no
additional controls for SO2 beyond
CAIR for subject EGUs are reasonable
for this first implementation period.
NCDAQ evaluated 11 units at five
facilities.
TABLE 4—NORTH CAROLINA FACILITIES WITH EMISSIONS UNIT(S) SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS:
Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
Blue Ridge Paper Products—Canton Mill G–24, G–25, G–65, G–66
Cogentrix Kenansville—Gen1
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.—Aurora G–1034, G–1035
Weyerhaeuser Company—New Bern G–42
Weyerhaeuser Company—Plymouth G–140, G–143, G–148
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis:
EGUs Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area:
Carolina Power & Light Asheville Steam E1, E2
Duke Energy Corporation—Buck Steam Station G–4, G–5
Duke Energy Corporation—Dan River Station G–21
Duke Energy Corporation—Cliffside Steam G–86, G–87, G–88
Duke Energy Corporation—Marshall Steam G–1, G–2
Duke Energy Corporation—Riverbend Steam G–17, G–19, G–20
L V Sutton Steam Electric Plant G–188
Progress Energy—F Lee Plant G–2, G–3
Emissions Units Subject to BART:
Blue Ridge Paper Products—Canton Mill G–26, G–31, G–32
Emissions Units that Shut Down:
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.—Aurora G–1032, G–1033
Ecusta Business Development Center LLC—G–28, G–29
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s)
Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
NCDAQ analyzed whether SO2
controls should be required for 11
emissions units at five facilities 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, NCDAQ believed
that it was not equitable to require nonEGUs to bear a greater economic burden
than EGUs for a given control strategy.
The facility-by-facility costs for EGUs
under CSA ranged from 912 to 1,922
dollars per ton of SO2 removed ($/ton
SO2), and the average costs per utility
system ranged from $1,231 to $1,375/
ton SO2. These costs were estimated
using the capital costs from the CSA
2006 compliance plans and the
projected operating costs provided by
Duke Energy and Progress Energy. These
costs were used as a guide in
determining cost effectiveness.
During the current reasonable
progress assessment, no emissions units
in North Carolina were identified for
additional control since no measures
were found to be below the cost
threshold discussed above. NCDAQ did
not perform an exhaustive review of the
remaining three statutory factors for
reasonable progress since it did not
13 See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
identify any cost-effective control
measures for the specific sources with
contributions to Class I areas in North
Carolina or neighboring states. Neither
the time necessary for compliance nor
the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance
appear to be out of the ordinary for the
control measures identified for these
facilities. A likely short remaining
useful life for two units was noted in
one case, but a longer remaining useful
life would not alter the reasonable
progress determination for those units.
North Carolina also noted that, in
order to show continued progress past
2018, the criteria will likely be different
in the next reasonable progress
assessment in order to maintain
continuous visibility improvement
toward natural background conditions
by 2064. The facilities in North Carolina
that have units that contribute at least
one percent to visibility impairment at
any Class I area in the State, or in
neighboring states, were sent letters
from NCDAQ indicating that while no
additional controls were identified
during this reasonable progress
assessment, these sources will evaluate
possible SO2 reduction strategies for the
next regional haze SIP due July 31,
2018.
1. Blue Ridge Paper Products
Four coal-fired Power Boilers at Blue
Ridge Paper Products were evaluated for
reasonable progress: No. 4 Power Boiler
(G–66) with a capacity of 535 million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/
hr) and boilers G–24, G–25, and G–65,
each with a capacity of 364–399
MMBtu/hr. Boilers G–24, G–25, and G–
65 burn a washed and blended coal
from different portions of the coal seam
at the Apollo mine to meet Blue Ridge
Paper’s specifications for heat, ash and
sulfur content. Coal from the Apollo
mine has high heat content, low to
moderate ash, and low to moderate
sulfur, and it averages from 1.4 to 1.5
pounds SO2 per million British Thermal
Units (lbs SO2/MMBtu). The
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) on
these boilers perform well on this
moderate sulfur coal and test well below
applicable PM standards. They are not
designed, however, to burn low sulfur
coal. Ash from low sulfur coal has a
higher resistivity than ash from the
moderate sulfur coal that Blue Ridge
Paper burns in these boilers. The No. 4
Power Boiler burns washed, low sulfur
coal subject to new source performance
standards (NSPS) with a sulfur limit of
1.2 lbs SO2/MMBtu.
Based on information from the
company, this lower sulfur coal is $75–
$90/ton SO2, and the other coal used at
excerpted from the North Carolina SIP, Appendix
H.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the facility is $65/ton SO2. The cost
difference is $10–25/ton SO2. The
company burned 277,214 tons of higher
sulfur coal in 2005; switching to lower
sulfur coal would cost approximately
$2,772,140–$6,930,350 extra per year. If
1,400 tons of SO2 were reduced by
switching from the current higher sulfur
coal (one percent sulfur or
approximately 1.6 lb SO2/MMBtu) to
lower sulfur coal (0.75 percent sulfur or
approximately 1.2 lb SO2/MMBtu) at the
2005 rate of coal consumption,
associated costs would range from
$1,980–$4,950/ton SO2 with an average
cost of $3,465/ton SO2. NCDAQ
determined that the cost for add-on
control technology for these units ranges
from $12,055 to $100,961/ton SO2.
NCDAQ concluded that there are no
cost-effective controls available for these
units at this time within the cost
threshold established for this reasonable
progress assessment. Although NCDAQ
has concluded that there are no costeffective controls for this reasonable
progress period, the State acknowledges
that the emissions from Blue Ridge
Paper Products impact North Carolina’s
inland Class I areas. NCDAQ notified
the company that although additional
controls are not required during this
implementation period, the State may
require the installation and operation of
controls for future implementation
periods. NCDAQ is committed to
working with this company over the
next review period and encouraging the
company to modernize some of its
processes with more efficient equipment
with lower emissions.
2. PCS Phosphate
Two of the four sulfuric acid units at
PCS Phosphate identified for further
analysis under reasonable progress
remain in operation (units 1034 and
1035). On February 7, 2011, NCDAQ
provided a technical supplement to the
December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP
for these units. The two PCS Phosphate
units currently utilize dual absorption
systems with a vanadium catalyst. The
four technologies reviewed included
sodium bisulfite scrubbing, molecular
sieve, ammonia scrubbing, and dual
absorption process with cesiumpromoted catalyst.
The first three technologies were
rejected because they have not been
commercially demonstrated to reliably
meet current NSPS and state permit
limits. The use of cesium-promoted
catalyst was further evaluated, looking
at three scenarios. The first scenario
evaluated, changing to a cesiumpromoted catalyst without making other
major capital investments, was
estimated to cost $2,879/ton SO2 and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
reduce SO2 emissions by only 165 tons
per year. This estimate was based on
reducing SO2 emissions from 3.8 to 3.5
lbs SO2/ton of sulfuric acid produced.
The other two scenarios evaluated
meeting a 2.0 lbs SO2/ton of sulfuric
acid produced limit by either making
operational changes or by modifying the
reactor vessel. The operational changes
could be made without significant
capital expenditures but would
significantly reduce production
capacity. Modifying the unit to increase
the amount of catalyst available
required significant capital investment.
NCDAQ estimated that these options
would reduce SO2 emissions by 2,073
tons/year with a cost effectiveness of
approximately $11,347/ton of SO2
reduced for the operational change and
a cost effectiveness of approximately
$12,816 to $13,651/ton SO2 for the unit
modification. NCDAQ also cited
modeling analyses which concluded
that the visibility improvement at the
Swanquarter Wilderness Area resulting
from reducing the SO2 emissions rate by
1.0 lb SO2/ton sulfuric acid produced
(i.e., a change in emissions rate from 4.0
to 3.0 lbs SO2/ton sulfuric acid
produced) would only be 0.16 deciview.
Therefore, NCDAQ concluded that there
are no cost-effective controls available
for these units at this time within the
cost threshold established for this
reasonable progress assessment. NCDAQ
notified the company that although
additional controls are not being
required during this planning period,
the State may require the installation
and operation of controls for futureplanning periods.
3. Weyerhaeuser—Plymouth
Weyerhaeuser—Plymouth has three
power boilers subject to analysis: Riley
No. 1 Combination Boiler, No. 1 Hog
Fuel Boiler, and No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler.
The Riley No. 1 Combination Boiler
burns coal, No. 6 fuel oil, Low Volume
High Concentration (LVHC) gases, and
Stripper Off Gas (SOG) gases and is fired
at 624 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input.
The No. 1 Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog
fuel (wood waste), No. 6 fuel oil, coal,
used oil, sludge, and High Volume Low
Concentration (HVLC) gases. This boiler
is fired at 835 MMBtu/hr maximum heat
input from hog fuel, 617 MMBtu/hr
maximum heat input from No. 6 fuel oil,
or for combination firing, 701.2 and
319.8 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input
from hog fuel and coal, respectively.
The No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog
fuel, No. 6 fuel oil, coal, used oil,
sludge, HVLC, LVHC, and SOG gases. It
is fired at 889 MMBtu/hr maximum heat
input from combined fuels or 800
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11871
MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from
No. 6 fuel oil.
NCDAQ did not identify any available
controls for the Hog Boiler 1 or 2. For
the Riley Boiler, the only available
control that NCDAQ identified is a flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber at a
cost of $20,460/ton SO2. Therefore,
NCDAQ concluded that there are no
cost-effective controls for these units at
this time within the cost threshold
established for this reasonable progress
assessment.
4. Weyerhaeuser—New Bern
Weyerhaeuser—New Bern has one
power boiler which burns residual oil.
It is fired at 579 MMBtu/hr maximum
heat input rate. The only available
control identified by NCDAQ is an FGD
at a cost of $17,317/ton SO2. Therefore,
the NCDAQ concluded that there are no
cost-effective controls available for this
unit at this time within the cost
threshold established for this reasonable
progress assessment.
5. Cogentrix Kenansville
The affected emissions unit at
Cogentrix Kenansville is Gen1, a 215
MMBtu/hr heat input mixed fuel-fired
EGU capable of burning coal, natural
gas, No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil, tire-derived
fuel, pelletized paper fuel, flyash
briquette, and wood. Although the
company retains coal as a permitted fuel
on the permit, it is currently burning
unadulterated wood (pure wood with
up to five percent impurities), and its
new business plan is to continue
burning only wood as part of the ‘‘green
power’’ movement in North Carolina.
The 2005 actual SO2 emissions for
this unit were 23.25 tons, whereas the
projected 2018 SO2 emissions were
1,833.8 tons based on using coal. In the
final SIP submittal, the NCDAQ stated
that it is sending the company a letter
indicating that they are currently on the
list of sources contributing greater than
one percent to the total sulfate visibility
impairment at the Swanquarter
Wilderness Area based on the estimated
emissions from burning coal. The SIP
submittal indicated that the letter will
suggest that the facility change its
permit to remove coal as a possible fuel
source for this unit.
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, at a
minimum, the four statutory factors in
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11872
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
determining reasonable progress, but
states have flexibility in how to take
these factors into consideration.
NCDAQ 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, NCDAQ
first identified those emissions and
emissions units most likely to have an
impact on visibility in the State’s and
neighboring Class I areas. 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 a
reasonable progress control analysis
except for utilities subject to CAIR.
After reviewing NCDAQ’s
methodology and analyses and the
record prepared by NCDAQ, EPA
proposes to find North Carolina’s
conclusion that no further controls are
necessary at this time acceptable. EPA
proposes to find that North Carolina
adequately evaluated the control
technologies available at the time of its
analysis and applicable to this type of
facility and consistently applied its
criteria for reasonable compliance costs.
The State also 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 North Carolina SIP still ensures
reasonable progress. In proposing to
approve North Carolina’s reasonable
progress analysis, EPA is placing great
weight on the fact that there is no
indication in the SIP submittal that
North 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 areas. 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 areas are in
excess of that needed to be on the
uniform rate of progress.
B. Facilities With Emissions Units
Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any
Class I Area
NCDAQ identified 16 EGUs at eight
facilities which met the State’s
minimum threshold for reasonable
progress evaluation because they were
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
modeled to fall within the SO2 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. North Carolina determined
that no additional controls for the
State’s EGUs for SO2 were reasonable
during the first implementation period.
In reaching this decision, NCDAQ
evaluated the amount of SO2 emissions
reductions from the EGU sector
expected from the implementation of
North Carolina’s CSA and CAIR. The
EGUs in North Carolina are expected to
reduce their SO2 emissions by greater
than 80 percent between 2002 and 2018.
Additionally, NCDAQ considered the
four reasonable progress factors set forth
in EPA’s RHR as they apply to the
State’s entire EGU sector in sections 7.7
and 7.8 of the North Carolina SIP. 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 this analysis, NCDAQ
concluded that the emissions reductions
required by CAIR constitute reasonable
measures for North Carolina EGUs
during this first assessment period. This
conclusion is bolstered by the fact that,
as discussed in section IV.C.7, visibility
improvement at the State’s Class I areas
is projected to exceed the uniform rate
of progress in this first implementation
period. NCDAQ intends to re-evaluate
EPA’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
predictions of SO2 emissions reductions
for CAIR at the time of the next periodic
progress report to ensure that the
reductions are in fact taking place where
they were predicted. Based on the
controls required by CSA, and predicted
by IPM under CAIR, NCDAQ has
concluded that, at this time, these
existing regulatory programs constitute
reasonable control measures for these 16
EGUs during the first implementation
period (between the baseline and 2018).
EPA proposes a limited approval of
North Carolina’s methodology and
determination that no additional
controls beyond CAIR and CSA are
reasonable for SO2 for affected North
Carolina EGUs for the first
implementation period.
C. Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not
Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
1. Non-EGUs Subject to BART
Three emissions units at Blue Ridge
Paper that met the State’s minimum
threshold for a reasonable progress
control evaluation are emissions units
that NCDAQ also found to be subject to
BART. NCDAQ concluded that the
application of BART constitutes
reasonable progress for these three units
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for this implementation period, and
thus, it is not requiring any additional
controls for reasonable progress at this
time. As discussed in EPA’s Reasonable
Progress Guidance, since the BART
analysis is based, in part, on an
assessment of many of the same factors
that must be addressed in establishing
the RPGs, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to conclude that any control
requirements imposed in the BART
determination also satisfy the RPGrelated requirements for source review
in the first implementation period.14
Thus, EPA proposes to concur with the
State’s conclusions that BART satisfies
reasonable progress for the first
implementation period for these three
emissions units at Blue Ridge Paper.
2. Other Units Exempted from Preparing
a Reasonable Progress Control Analysis
NCDAQ did not evaluate the two
emissions units at Ecusta Business
Development Center since they ceased
operation prior to the regional haze SIP
submittal date. Two of the four units at
PCS Phosphate in Aurora that were
identified for assessment for reasonable
progress have since permanently ceased
operation and therefore were not
evaluated further.
6. BART
BART is an element of North
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 BARTeligible sources are subject to BART and
(c) a determination of the BART
controls. These components, as
addressed by NCDAQ and NCDAQ’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.
NCDAQ identified the BART-eligible
sources in North 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.
14 EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages
4.2–4–3.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 a Class I area. See 70 FR
39160. VISTAS modeling demonstrated
that VOC from anthropogenic sources
and ammonia from point sources,
except for potentially one ammonia
source, are not significant visibilityimpairing pollutants in North Carolina,
as discussed in section IV.C.3 of this
action. Based on the VISTAS modeling,
NCDAQ has determined that ammonia
emissions from the State’s point sources
are not anticipated to cause or
contribute significantly to any
impairment of visibility in Class I areas
and should be exempt for BART
purposes. No ammonia source in North
Carolina was identified by VISTAS as a
possible contributor to visibility
impairment.
B. BART-Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible 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, North 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 Class I areas in
surrounding states.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to
use the CALPUFF 15 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
15 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: https://www.src.com/verio/download/
download.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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). North
Carolina, in coordination with VISTAS,
used the CALPUFF modeling system to
determine whether individual sources
in North Carolina were subject to BART.
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 North 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.
VISTAS developed a post-processing
approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model
results so that the BART analyses could
consider the old and new IMPROVE
equations. North Carolina’s justification
included a method to process the
CALPUFF output and a rationale on the
benefits of using the new IMPROVE
equation.
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.
North Carolina used a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11873
to BART. NCDAQ concluded that,
considering the results of the visibility
impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5
deciview threshold was appropriate in
this situation and a lower threshold was
not warranted for the following reasons.
The State demonstrated that there are a
limited number of in and out of state
sources that impact the Class I areas in
the State, and that there are a limited
number of sources in close proximity to
each of the affected Class I areas.
Additionally, the majority of the
visibility impacts were well below 0.5
deciview. Also, even though several
sources impacted each Class I area, the
overall impacts were low from the
sources. EPA is proposing to agree with
North 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
North Carolina identified 17 facilities
with BART-eligible sources. All of
North Carolina’s 17 BART-eligible
sources were required by the State to
submit exemption-modeling
demonstrations. North Carolina found
that two of its BART-eligible sources
(Blue Ridge Paper and PCS Phosphate)
had modeled visibility impacts of more
than the State’s 0.5 deciview threshold.
Therefore, these two facilities are
subject to BART and submitted State
permit applications including their
proposed BART determinations. PCS
Phosphate subsequently shut down its
two sulfuric acid units subject to BART
and these units were not further
evaluated.
The 15 remaining sources were able to
demonstrate that they are not subject to
BART by modeling less than a 0.5
deciview visibility impact at the
affected Class I areas. This modeling
involved emissions of NOX, SO2, and
PM10 as applicable to individual
facilities.
Six of North Carolina’s BART-eligible
sources are facilities with EGUs that are
subject to CAIR. 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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11874
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
remain subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97
need not require affected BART-eligible
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.
Thus, North Carolina’s EGUs were
allowed to submit BART exemption
modeling demonstrations for PM
emissions only. All of the BART-eligible
EGUs demonstrated that their PM
emissions do not contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. Table 5
identifies the 17 BART-eligible sources
located in North Carolina.
TABLE 5—NORTH CAROLINA BART—ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART:
Blue Ridge Paper
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART:
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources 16:
Duke Energy—Belews Creek Steam Station
Duke Energy—Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy—Marshall Steam Station
Progress Energy—Asheville Plant
Progress Energy—Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Progress Energy—Sutton Plant
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt:
Alcoa, Inc.-Badin Works
DAK Americas—Cape Fear
DAK Americas—Cedar Creek
Elementis Chromium
International Paper—Riegelwood Mill
International Paper—Roanoke Rapids
Invista, S.A.R.L.
Weyerhaeuser Company—Plymouth
Weyerhaeuser Company—New Bern
Shut Down:
PCS Phosphate
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 proposed a
limited disapproval of the North
Carolina regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State’s regional haze
SIP submittal arising from the remand
by the D.C. 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.
C. BART Determination
The five BART-eligible units at Blue
Ridge Paper modeled visibility impacts
of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold
and are therefore subject to BART.
Consequently, Blue Ridge Paper
submitted to the State a permit
application that included their proposed
BART determination.
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
16 EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions.
North Carolina relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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. The units
subject to the BART requirements at
Blue Ridge Paper include the two
recovery furnaces, their associated smelt
dissolving tanks, and the black liquor
oxidation system (BLOX). NCDAQ
concluded that BART for all of these
emissions sources is the existing
emissions control systems currently in
place.
The recovery furnaces emit PM, SO2,
and NOX. For the recovery furnaces,
potential retrofit control technologies
for PM emissions were not further
evaluated since the units are already
equipped with the most stringent
controls and since the operation of these
controls is required by the facility’s title
V operating permit. For NOX, several
potential control alternatives were
evaluated; however, NCDAQ believes
that the installation of NOX reduction
controls for the recovery furnaces is not
economically feasible. For SO2,
installation of a wet scrubber following
the ESP was identified as technically
feasible; however, it was not considered
economically feasible and would result
in only a marginal visibility
improvement at one Class I area (Great
Smoky Mountains) and degradation in
visibility at another (Shining Rock).
Therefore, the State determined that
retrofit controls are not warranted as
BART for SO2 emissions from the
recovery furnaces.
The smelt dissolving tanks emit PM,
SO2, and NOX. No NOX controls are
available for this source type. For PM
and SO2, the number of technically
feasible controls is limited due to the
fact that the emissions are minimal and
of low velocity. Although several
options were evaluated, they would
only minimally reduce the number of
days above 0.5 deciview at Shining
Rock and Great Smoky Mountains, and
NCDAQ believes that the installation of
retrofit controls on the smelt dissolving
tanks as BART is not economically
feasible (in excess of $13,000/ton for
less than 44 tons/year of particulate
reduction).
The BLOX system emits PM, SO2 and
NOX. Blue Ridge is complying with
MACT Subpart S through alternative
requirements approved by the EPA
under an equivalency by permit
SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were
not analyzed.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
approach. Under these alternative
requirements, Blue Ridge is controlling
the BLOX system to achieve a greater
level of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
reduction by controlling emissions from
the BLOX system in a new Regenerative
Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) equipped with
a wet scrubber for SO2 control. Proper
operation of the RTO and combustion of
natural gas as auxiliary fuel minimize
PM and NOX emissions.
Because the unit is already equipped
with the most stringent controls as
required by the MACT standards, and
permit limits are in place to ensure
these controls are operated properly, the
NCDAQ has determined that BART for
the BLOX is existing controls.
EPA proposes to agree with North
Carolina’s analyses and conclusions for
the BART emissions units located at the
Blue Ridge Paper facility. EPA has
reviewed the North 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
(https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/
products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, 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 North
Carolina Class I areas 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 North Carolina.
Any controls resulting from those
determinations will provide additional
emissions reductions and resulting
visibility improvement, which give
further assurances that North 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 both of the North
Carolina Class I areas 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.
On February 16, 2010, NCDAQ sent a
letter to EPA Region 4 clarifying the
reason for the differences in the RPGs
for Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce
Kilmer presented in the North Carolina
and Tennessee regional haze SIP
submittals. For the 20 percent worst
days, the April 4, 2008, Tennessee
submittal used 23.50 deciviews while
the North Carolina submittal states the
RPG as 23.7 (or 23.66) deciviews.
(Similarly, for the 20 percent best days,
the RPG differences between the two
states’ submittals were 12.2 (or 12.15)
deciviews in the North Carolina
11875
submittal vs 12.11 deciviews in the
Tennessee submittal.) NCDAQ
explained that the differences are due to
different modeling runs used by each
state. At the time of SIP development,
only the earlier version of the VISTAS
modeling run was available to NCDAQ.
NCDAQ acknowledges that the RPGs in
the Tennessee regional haze SIP
represent the most current information
and commits to revise the RPGs for
Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce
Kilmer in the periodic progress report
SIP. In accordance with this letter of
clarification, Table 6 below reflects the
updated RPGs of 12.11 (approximated to
12.1) and 23.50 for both the best and
worst days, respectively, for these two
Class I areas.
As shown in Table 6 below, North
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
areas. 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
North Carolina, took into account
emissions reductions anticipated from
CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs.17
The modeling supporting the analysis of
these RPGs is consistent with EPA
guidance at the time.
TABLE 6—NORTH CAROLINA 2018 RPGS
[In deciviews]
Baseline
visibility—20%
worst days
Class I area
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Great Smoky Mountains National Park ...........
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area .........
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area .......................
Shining Rock Wilderness Area ........................
Swanquarter Wilderness Area .........................
2018 RPG—
20% worst days
(improvement
from baseline)
30.3
30.3
28.8
28.5
24.7
23.5
23.5
22.0
22.1
20.4
Uniform rate
of progress at
2018—20%
worst days
(6.8)
(6.8)
(6.8)
(6.4)
(4.3)
Baseline
visibility—
20% best days
25.79
25.79
24.67
24.50
21.66
13.6
13.6
11.1
7.7
12.0
2018 RPG—
20% best days
(improvement
from baseline)
12.1
12.1
9.6
6.9
11.0
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(0.8)
(1.0)
The RPGs for the Class I areas in
North 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 adjust 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
17 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11876
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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 RPGs 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. North Carolina specifically
committed to follow this process in its
submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
approve North Carolina’s RPGs for Great
Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer,
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and
Swanquarter.
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 North
Carolina. In addition, the Class I areas
in North Carolina are neither
experiencing RAVI nor are any of its
sources affected by the RAVI provisions.
Thus, the December 17, 2007, North
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. North
Carolina has, however, previously made
a commitment to address RAVI should
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
the FLMs certify visibility impairment
from an individual source.18 EPA finds
that this regional haze submittal
appropriately supplements and
augments North Carolina’s RAVI
visibility provisions to address regional
haze by updating the monitoring and
LTS provisions as summarized below in
this section.
In its December 17, 2007, submittal,
NCDAQ updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed a
LTS to address regional haze. Also in
this submittal, NCDAQ affirmed its
commitment to complete items required
in the future under EPA’s RHR.
Specifically, NCDAQ 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, NCDAQ
committed to submitting a report to EPA
on progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I area located within
North Carolina and for each mandatory
Class I area located outside North
Carolina that may be affected by
emissions from within North 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, North 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 North Carolina
new source review (NSR) rules,
previously approved in the State’s SIP,
continue to provide a framework for
review and coordination with the FLMs
on new sources and major modifications
to existing sources subject to the NSR
regulations which may have an adverse
impact on visibility in either form (i.e.,
RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class
I area.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for
regional haze in North Carolina is the
IMPROVE network. As discussed in
section IV.B.2 of this notice, the
following Class I areas in North Carolina
have IMPROVE monitoring sites:
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and
18 North Carolina submitted its visibility SIP
revisions addressing RAVI on April 15, 1985, which
EPA approved on January 21, 1986 (51 FR 2695).
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Swanquarter. There is also one
IMPROVE site in Tennessee that serves
as the monitoring site for both Great
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer,
both of which lie partly in Tennessee
and partly in North Carolina.
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. 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. North 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, there is long-term
limited monitoring by FLMs which
provides additional insight into progress
toward regional haze goals. Such
measurements include:
D Web cameras operated by the
National Park Service at Look Rock,
Tennessee, and Purchase Knob, North
Carolina, in Great Smoky Mountains,
and by the U.S. Forest Service at Frying
Pan Mountain in Shining Rock.
D An integrating nephelometer for
continuously measuring light scattering,
operated by the National Park Service at
Look Rock, Tennessee.
• A Tapered Element Oscillating
Microbalance for continuously
measuring PM2.5 mass concentration,
operated by the National Park Service at
Look Rock, Tennessee.
Additional haze-related
measurements were made in North
Carolina in 2002–2005 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
filters to identify source contributions to
carbon, and additional analyses of
sodium and ammonium on IMPROVE
filter samples. While funding no longer
exists to continue these special studies,
VISTAS transferred the monitoring
equipment to NCDAQ.
In the regional haze submittal, the
State notes that NCDAQ will continue to
operate the following monitors to
further the understanding of both PM2.5
as well as visibility formation and
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
trends in North Carolina for as long as
funds allow:
• Continuous nitrate monitor and
continuous sulfate monitor at the
Millbrook monitoring site in Raleigh,
North Carolina;
• Continuous nitrate monitor at the
Rockwell monitoring site in Rowan
County, North Carolina, with a
continuous sulfate monitor planned for
this site as of January 2008;
• 5400 R&P monitor for organic, total,
and elemental carbon at the Millbrook
site; and
• Aethalometer (whose final location
was yet to be determined at time of SIP
development).
In addition, NCDAQ and the local air
agencies in the State operate a
comprehensive PM2.5 network of the
filter-based federal reference method
monitors, continuous mass monitors,
filter-based speciated monitors, and the
continuous speciated monitors
described above.
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Consultation With Other States
In December 2006 and May 2007, the
State Air Directors from the VISTAS
states held formal interstate
consultation meetings. The purpose of
these 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.
NCDAQ evaluated the impact of
North 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, North 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 one
emissions unit in North Carolina with a
contribution of one percent or more to
the visibility impairment at the
following Class I area in a neighboring
state: James River Face Wilderness Area,
Virginia. North Carolina also identified
two emissions units that impact the
shared Class I areas located in both
North Carolina and Tennessee (Great
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer).
Based on an evaluation of the four
reasonable progress statutory factors,
North Carolina determined that there
are no additional control measures for
these North Carolina emissions units
that would be reasonable to implement
to mitigate visibility impacts in the
Class I areas in these neighboring states.
NCDAQ consulted with these states
regarding its reasonable progress control
evaluations showing no cost-effective
controls available for those emissions
units in North Carolina contributing at
least one percent to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the states.
Additionally, NCDAQ sent letters to
other states in the VISTAS region,
specifically Alabama, Georgia, and
South Carolina, documenting its
analysis using the State’s AOI
methodology that no SO2 emissions
units in North Carolina contribute at
least one percent to the visibility
impairment at the Class I areas in those
states. No adverse comments were
received from the other VISTAS states.
The documentation for these formal
consultations is provided in Appendix J
of North Carolina’s SIP.
Regarding the impact of sources
outside of the State on Class I areas in
North Carolina, NCDAQ sent letters to
Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
pertaining to emissions units within
these states that the State believes
contributed one percent or higher to
visibility impairment in the North
Carolina Class I areas. At that time,
these neighboring states were still in the
process of evaluating BART and
reasonable progress for their sources.
Any controls resulting from those
determinations will provide additional
emissions reductions and resulting
visibility improvement, which give
further assurances that North Carolina
will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be
conservative, North 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.
North Carolina also received letters
from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE–VU) RPO
states of Maine, New Jersey, and New
Hampshire in early 2007 stating that
based on MANE–VU’s analysis of 2002
emissions data, North Carolina
contributed to visibility impairment at
Class I areas in those states. These
letters invited North Carolina to
participate in future consultation
meetings. North Carolina sent response
letters to these states providing
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11877
information on the State’s CSA and
copies of the compliance plans for two
utilities in the State showing which
emissions units are expected to install
controls to meet CSA NOX and SO2
emissions caps. North Carolina
emphasized in its response letters that
it is important to also evaluate visibility
impairment contributions for the year
2018 to reflect implementation of
programs such as CAIR and CSA.
NCDAQ noted that based upon VISTAS’
analyses using 2018 emissions
projections, no emissions units in North
Carolina meet NCDAQ’s minimum
threshold for a reasonable progress
control evaluation for the Class I areas
in these states. Thus, NCDAQ stated that
it does not believe any of its emissions
units provide significant contributions
from sulfate-derived visibility impacts
to these MANE–VU states’ Class I areas,
and expressed the State’s willingness to
participate in future consultations
through VISTAS.
In their consultation discussions, the
MANE–VU states identified twelve
EGUs in North Carolina that they would
like to see controlled to 90 percent
efficiency. They also requested a control
strategy to provide a 28 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions from
sources other than EGUs that would be
equivalent to their low sulfur fuel oil
strategy. North Carolina has controlled
or is expecting to control under the
North Carolina CSA eleven of the twelve
identified EGUs. Additionally,
scrubbers are expected on three EGUs
that were not identified by MANE–VU.
NCDAQ believes that these reductions
satisfy MANE–VU’s request.
EPA proposes to find that North
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, North
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. The proposed regional haze plan
for North Carolina was out for FLM and
EPA discussions from August to
September 2007. North Carolina
subsequently modified the plan to
address comments received on this
initial version and reissued it for public
comment from October to November
2007.
Regarding North Carolina’s initial
August 2, 2007, draft regional haze SIP
and the proposed regional haze SIP
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11878
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
released for public comment on October
12, 2007, the FLMs requested that the
State provide more information in the
SIP revision regarding two facilities,
Blue Ridge Paper and PCS PhosphateAurora. Based on the Blue Ridge Paper’s
visibility impacts at multiple Class I
areas, the FLMs asked the State to
describe a plan to consult with the
company on potential control actions
prior to 2018 that may warrant a higher
cost of control for reasonable progress.
For PCS Phosphate, the FLMs expressed
concern that the facility’s BART
determination for this facility did not
fully evaluate the effectiveness and
associated cost of controls. Other
comments asked for clarification of
items and for more discussion with
specific source information for the AOI
reasonable progress evaluations in the
main body of the SIP, in addition to the
appendices. North Carolina provided
responses to the FLMs regarding their
comments on the draft SIP. The State
included more of the detailed
reasonable progress control evaluation
information in the main body of the SIP.
Regarding Blue Ridge Paper, the State
described that it acknowledged in the
SIP that the company has visibility
impacts on multiple Class I areas and
has notified the company that although
additional controls are not being
required this implementation period,
future periods may require controls.
NCDAQ stated in the SIP that it is
committed to work with the company
over the next implementation period
and encourage the company to
modernize some of its processes with
more efficient, less polluting equipment.
For the two BART-eligible units at PCS
Phosphate, the State noted that the
facility is planning to shut down these
units, and thus, it would not be prudent
to install controls on them. For the two
units subject to a reasonable progress
control analysis, NCDAQ included
additional language in the SIP stating
that it has notified the company that
although additional controls are not
being required this period, future
implementation periods may require
controls to be installed.
To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), NCDAQ made a
commitment in the SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on regional
haze issues throughout implementation
of its plan, including annual discussions
of the implementation process and the
most recent data from IMPROVE
monitoring and VIEWS. NCDAQ also
affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
is required for those sources subject to
the State’s NSR regulations.
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
As also summarized in section IV.D of
this notice, consistent with 40 CFR
51.308(g), NCDAQ affirmed its
commitment to submitting a progress
report in the form of a SIP revision to
EPA every five years following this
initial submittal of the North Carolina
regional haze SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress made towards the
RPGs for each mandatory Class I area
located within North Carolina and for
each mandatory Class I area located
outside North Carolina that may be
affected by emissions from within North
Carolina. North 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 North Carolina submittal in
Appendix K.
If another state’s regional haze SIP
identifies that North Carolina’s SIP
needs to be supplemented or modified,
and if after appropriate consultation
North 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 Proposing?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of a revision to the North Carolina SIP
submitted by the State of North 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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act 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 costeffective 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 preexisting requirements under state or
local law, and imposes no new
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11879
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 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. 2012–4711 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784, FRL–9638–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Mississippi; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing a limited
approval of two revisions to the
Mississippi state implementation plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of
Mississippi through the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) on September 22, 2008, and
May 9, 2011, that address regional haze
for the first implementation period.
These revisions address 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 these SIP revisions to
implement the regional haze
requirements for Mississippi on the
basis that the revisions, as a whole,
strengthen the Mississippi SIP. EPA has
previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Mississippi 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 (D.C. 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11858-11879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4711]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0219-201148; FRL-9639-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of North 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 North
Carolina state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), on December 17,
2007, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period.
This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 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 North Carolina on the basis that the
revision, as a whole, strengthens the North Carolina SIP. In a separate
action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the North 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-2010-0219, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0219, 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.
[[Page 11859]]
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0219.'' 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 https://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: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
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. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by
electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele Notarianni can be
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
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. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (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 North 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 North 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 proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of North 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
North 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 North 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: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the
North 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 North Carolina's reliance on CAIR in its
regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed limited disapproval of
North 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.
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,
[[Page 11860]]
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 Federal 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 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
[[Page 11861]]
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 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 https://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 Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at https://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
[[Page 11862]]
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 (MW), 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 emission 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 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 emission
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 (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, 550F.3d 1175 (DC 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 DC 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 DC 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. Long-Term Strategy (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
[[Page 11863]]
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 Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (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 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 North Carolina's regional haze submittal?
On December 17, 2007, NCDAQ submitted revisions to the North
Carolina SIP to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as
required by EPA's RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
North Carolina has five Class I areas within its borders: Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area,
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, Shining Rock Wilderness Area, and
Swanquarter Wilderness Area. Two of these Class I areas (Great Smoky
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer) also fall within the geographic boundaries
of Tennessee. Therefore, both North Carolina and Tennessee are
responsible for developing their own regional haze SIPs that address
these two Class I areas and for consulting with other states that
impact the areas. The two states worked together to determine
appropriate RPGs, including consulting with other states that impact
these two Class I areas, as discussed in section IV.F.1 of this
rulemaking. In addition, both North Carolina and Tennessee are
responsible for describing their own long-term emissions strategies,
their role in the consultation processes, and how their particular
state SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional haze
regulations.
The North Carolina regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for
visibility improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to
achieve those RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period
ending in 2018. In developing the LTS for each area, North Carolina
considered both emissions sources inside and outside of North Carolina
that may cause or
[[Page 11864]]
contribute to visibility impairment in North Carolina's Class I areas.
The State also identified and considered emissions sources within North
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 five areas in North Carolina and those areas affected by
emissions from North 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, North Carolina calculated baseline/current and
natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, 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. North Carolina opted to use the default estimates for the
natural concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation'' for
all of its Class I areas. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. https://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. https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
NCDAQ estimated baseline visibility conditions at the State's five
Class I areas using available monitoring data from four IMPROVE
monitoring sites. The Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area does not
contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not
available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most
representative monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to
establish baseline visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA.
North Carolina used, and EPA is proposing to find adequate North
Carolina's use of, 2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at Great
Smoky Mountains National Park for the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
Area. The IMPROVE Steering Committee considers the IMPROVE monitor at
the Great Smoky Mountains to be representative of visibility in Joyce
Kilmer. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the nearest Class I
area and contiguous to Joyce Kilmer and they possess similar
characteristics, such as meteorology and topography.
As explained in section III.B, for the first regional haze SIP,
baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. 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
each North Carolina Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area for the
period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for data completeness.
See page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Shining Rock and
Swanquarter Class I areas had missing data in more than one year
between the years 2000 to 2004. Data records for these sites were
filled using data substitution procedures. Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3,
and 3.3-4 from Appendix G of the North Carolina regional haze SIP, also
provided in section III.B.3 of EPA's TSD to this action, list the 20
percent best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 for
the Great Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and
Swanquarter areas, respectively. These data are also provided at the
following Web site: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
For the North Carolina Class I areas, baseline visibility
conditions on the 20 percent worst days range between approximately
24.5 and 30.5 deciviews. Natural visibility in these areas is predicted
to be between approximately 11 and 12 deciviews on the 20 percent worst
days. The natural and baseline conditions for North Carolina's Class I
areas for both the 20 percent worst and
[[Page 11865]]
best days are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for North Carolina's
Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average for Average for
Class I area 20% worst 20% best days
days (dv \10\) (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 11.05 4.54
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 11.05 4.54
Area...............................
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area...... 11.19 4.08
Shining Rock Wilderness Area........ 11.47 2.51
Swanquarter Wilderness Area......... 11.55 5.46
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-
2004):
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 30.28 13.58
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 30.28 13.58
Area...............................
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area...... 28.77 11.11
Shining Rock Wilderness Area........ 28.46 7.69
Swanquarter Wilderness Area......... 24.74 11.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, North 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 than, less than, 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 five Class I areas. North 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 its areas. 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. North Carolina's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for its areas
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 the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer Class I areas, the
overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is
the difference between baseline visibility of 30.28 deciviews for the
20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.05 deciviews, i.e.,
19.23 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would
require an approximate improvement of 0.321 deciview per year (i.e.,
19.23 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 the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer
areas, North Carolina would need to project at least 4.49 deciviews
over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.321 deciview x 14 years =
4.49 deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 30.28 deciviews
baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 25.79
deciviews in 2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, for the Great
Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer areas, North Carolina projects a 6.78
deciview improvement to visibility from the 30.28 deciview baseline to
23.50 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a
1.47 deciview improvement to 12.11 deciviews from the baseline
visibility of 13.58 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.
Similar computations can be made for the other three North Carolina
Class I areas.
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 a state for
achieving its RPGs. North 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 North 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 North Carolina and in surrounding states that
likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's
Class I areas; (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 areas; 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 RPGs. See
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA proposed a limited
disapproval of North 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 North Carolina's regional haze SIP in this action.
Comments on the December 30, 2011, proposed determination are 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.
[[Page 11866]]
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 North 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 North
Carolina's regional haze analyses, North 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
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 North 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 the North Carolina Class I areas. The control
programs relied upon by North Carolina include CAIR; EPA's
NOX SIP Call; North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA);
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss), ``Multipollutant Control for Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units;'' consent decrees for Tampa Electric,
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and
American Electric Power; 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; and EPA's non-
road diesel rules. 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 North Carolina did not
redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though
North 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., 0.1 to 0.4 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 North 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
North 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for North Carolina.
Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 61,484 196,731 26,953 36,539 1,233 522,093
Area.................................................... 250,044 41,517 83,520 300,838 162,183 5,815
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 263,766 327,329 4,623 6,579 9,702 12,420
Off-Road Mobile......................................... 94,480 84,284 7,348 7,348 65 7,693
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 669,774 649,861 122,444 351,304 173,183 548,021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11867]]
Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 71,247 94,276 37,789 48,354 2,073 148,972
Area.................................................... 203,132 49,514 93,406 338,872 181,333 6,674
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 101,099 87,791 2,123 4,392 14,065 1,481
Off-road Mobile......................................... 61,327 49,046 4,069 4,298 83 905
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 436,805 280,627 137,387 395,916 197,554 158,032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 North 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 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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/, 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, 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 North Carolina
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to 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 to 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 concur with the VISTAS model
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate
tool for the regional haze assessments for the North 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
[[Page 11868]]
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, sulfate particles resulting
from SO2 emissions contribute to the calculated light
extinction on the haziest days roughly 74 percent for the Swanquarter
area, and 84 to 87 percent for the Great Smoky Mountains, Linville
Gorge, and Shining Rock areas, depending on the area. 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. All of North Carolina's Class I areas, except for
Swanquarter, are ``inland'' areas. Swanquarter is considered 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. North Carolina concluded that
reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in
the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for the
North Carolina Class I areas.
Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the
inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which include all of the North Carolina
Class I areas except for the Swanquarter area, the benefits of reducing
NOX and NH3 emissions at these sites are small.
Some of the worst days at Swanquarter, and other coastal sites within
the VISTAS region, occur in the winter when ammonium nitrate has a
somewhat larger contribution to visibility impairment. North 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-level or point (elevated) sources. NCDAQ notes that for
Swanquarter, the numerous hog farms in eastern North Carolina are the
likely primary emissions sources for ammonia.
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 North Carolina. 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.
North Carolina considered the factors listed under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section III.E. of this action to develop its LTS
as described below. North 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 areas in
North Carolina. North Carolina considered agricultural and forestry
smoke management techniques to address visibility impacts from
elemental carbon. NCDAQ stated in its SIP that it is working with the
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources to develop a smoke
management program that utilizes basic smoke management practices and
addresses the issues laid out in the EPA's 1998 Interim Air Quality
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires available at: https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. Additionally, NCDAQ is
working with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture to develop a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding agricultural burning.
With regard to fine soils, the State considered those activities
that generate fugitive dust, including construction activities. With
regard to construction activities, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Division of Highways has issued regulations addressing
control of erosion, siltation, and pollution from construction
activities. In addition, NCDAQ promulgated state rule 15A NCAC
02D.0540, ``Particulates From Fugitive Dust Emission Sources,''
effective on September 1, 2007, to control particulates from fugitive
dust emissions sources generated within plant boundaries from
activities such as ``unloading and loading areas, process areas,
stockpiles, stock pile working, plant parking lots, and plant roads
(including access roads and haul roads).'' 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.
With regard to ammonia emissions from agricultural sources, NCDAQ,
as a continuation of the State's CSA, initiated the Climate Action
Planning Advisory Group to develop options for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions in North Carolina, including the emissions
from agriculture and agricultural waste in North Carolina. The Group
issued a report that supports expanded research, regulatory actions,
and grant guarantees as key implementation tools to accomplish the
expanded utilization of methane (a greenhouse gas) from hog/cattle
waste for energy. The report also highlights improved waste management
practices as important. A co-benefit of any resulting measures will be
the reduction of ammonia emissions from animal waste. In addition, the
North Carolina Legislature approved a bill on July 26, 2007, that
permanently bans new lagoons at hog farms and orders state regulators
to set environmental standards for new hog farm waste systems. The new
legislation phases-out the use of waste lagoons by hog farmers,
replacing them with more environmentally friendly systems.
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 areas,
and therefore, proposes to find that North Carolina has adequately
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to this Federal Register
action and North Carolina's SIP provide more details on the State's
consideration of these factors for North 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 North Carolina, the VISTAS sensitivity
analysis projects visibility benefits on the 20 percent worst days at
the State's four inland Class I areas from
[[Page 11869]]
SO2 reductions from EGUs in eight of the 10 VISTAS states:
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia. For the Swanquarter area, reductions from
EGUs in North Carolina and South Carolina would have the greatest
benefits; the contributions from other VISTAS states are comparatively
small. Additional, smaller benefits are projected for North Carolina's
Class I areas from SO2 emissions reductions from non-utility
industrial point sources in the VISTAS states. 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 in VISTAS.
Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration,
North Carolina concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from
EGU and non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the
greatest visibility benefits for the North Carolina Class I areas. The
State chose to focus solely on evaluating certain SO2
sources contributing to visibility impairment to the State's Class I
areas 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 North Carolina
Class I areas, 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 visibility 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 North 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 those areas in North Carolina. Utility and
non-utility boilers are the main sources of SO2 emissions
within the southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology
for North Carolina that enables the State to focus its reasonable
progress analysis on those geographic regions and source categories
that impact visibility at its Class I areas. 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
of the Class I areas that North 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, NCDAQ first calculated the fractional contribution to
visibility impairment from all emissions units within the
SO2 AOI for its Class I areas, and from those units within
the SO2 AOIs surrounding Class I areas in other states
potentially impacted by emissions from emissions units in North
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'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina's SO2 AOI methodology captured greater
than 60 percent of the total point source SO2 contribution
to visibility impairment in four of the five Class I areas in North
Carolina, and required an evaluation of 21 emissions units at seven
facilities in North Carolina. At the remaining Class I area,
Swanquarter, the one percent threshold represents 47 percent of the
total point source SO2 contribution, while requiring an
evaluation of 12 additional units at six facilities in North Carolina.
The NCDAQ also looked at what sources in North Carolina may be
impacting Class I areas located outside of the State, as well as what
sources located outside of North Carolina may be impacting the North
Carolina Class I areas. By applying the State's AOI SO2
methodology, the only North Carolina source that was identified as
potentially impacting visibility in a Class I area outside the State
was the Duke Power-Dan River facility, which may impact the James River
Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. To capture a higher percentage of
emissions units contributing to the total sulfate visibility impairment
would involve an evaluation of many more units that have substantially
less impact.
NCDAQ believes that the one percent threshold is appropriate given
the contribution to the total sulfate visibility impairment at each
Class I area and the limited resources available to conduct a unit-by-
unit evaluation for reasonable progress. EPA believes the approach
developed by VISTAS and implemented for the Class I areas in North
Carolina is a reasonable methodology to prioritize the most significant
contributors to regional haze and to identify sources to assess for
reasonable progress control. The approach is consistent with EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and
North Carolina was objective and based on several analyses, including
the evaluation of a large universe of emissions units within and
surrounding the State of North 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
NCDAQ identified 34 emissions units at 14 facilities in North
Carolina (see Table 4) with SO2 emissions that were above
the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation
[[Page 11870]]
because they were modeled to fall within the SO2 AOI of any
Class I area and have a one percent or greater contribution to the
sulfate visibility impairment in at least one Class I area.\13\ Of
these 34 units, seven emissions units were not subject to a reasonable
progress analysis because they were already subject to BART or had shut
down. In addition, as discussed in section IV.C.5.B, 16 units are
subject to CAIR, and NCDAQ concluded that no additional controls for
SO2 beyond CAIR for subject EGUs are reasonable for this
first implementation period. NCDAQ evaluated 11 units at five
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from
the North Carolina SIP, Appendix H.
Table 4--North Carolina Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to
Reasonable Progress Analysis:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis
Blue Ridge Paper Products--Canton Mill G-24, G-25, G-65, G-66
Cogentrix Kenansville--Gen1
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.--Aurora G-1034, G-1035
Weyerhaeuser Company--New Bern G-42
Weyerhaeuser Company--Plymouth G-140, G-143, G-148
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis:
EGUs Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area:
Carolina Power & Light Asheville Steam E1, E2
Duke Energy Corporation--Buck Steam Station G-4, G-5
Duke Energy Corporation--Dan River Station G-21
Duke Energy Corporation--Cliffside Steam G-86, G-87, G-88
Duke Energy Corporation--Marshall Steam G-1, G-2
Duke Energy Corporation--Riverbend Steam G-17, G-19, G-20
L V Sutton Steam Electric Plant G-188
Progress Energy--F Lee Plant G-2, G-3
Emissions Units Subject to BART:
Blue Ridge Paper Products--Canton Mill G-26, G-31, G-32
Emissions Units that Shut Down:
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.--Aurora G-1032, G-1033
Ecusta Business Development Center LLC--G-28, G-29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis
NCDAQ analyzed whether SO2 controls should be required
for 11 emissions units at five facilities 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, NCDAQ believed
that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a greater
economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. The facility-
by-facility costs for EGUs under CSA ranged from 912 to 1,922 dollars
per ton of SO2 removed ($/ton SO2), and the
average costs per utility system ranged from $1,231 to $1,375/ton
SO2. These costs were estimated using the capital costs from
the CSA 2006 compliance plans and the projected operating costs
provided by Duke Energy and Progress Energy. These costs were used as a
guide in determining cost effectiveness.
During the current reasonable progress assessment, no emissions
units in North Carolina were identified for additional control since no
measures were found to be below the cost threshold discussed above.
NCDAQ did not perform an exhaustive review of the remaining three
statutory factors for reasonable progress since it did not identify any
cost-effective control measures for the specific sources with
contributions to Class I areas in North Carolina or neighboring states.
Neither the time necessary for compliance nor the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance appear to be out of the
ordinary for the control measures identified for these facilities. A
likely short remaining useful life for two units was noted in one case,
but a longer remaining useful life would not alter the reasonable
progress determination for those units.
North Carolina also noted that, in order to show continued progress
past 2018, the criteria will likely be different in the next reasonable
progress assessment in order to maintain continuous visibility
improvement toward natural background conditions by 2064. The
facilities in North Carolina that have units that contribute at least
one percent to visibility impairment at any Class I area in the State,
or in neighboring states, were sent letters from NCDAQ indicating that
while no additional controls were identified during this reasonable
progress assessment, these sources will evaluate possible
SO2 reduction strategies for the next regional haze SIP due
July 31, 2018.
1. Blue Ridge Paper Products
Four coal-fired Power Boilers at Blue Ridge Paper Products were
evaluated for reasonable progress: No. 4 Power Boiler (G-66) with a
capacity of 535 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and
boilers G-24, G-25, and G-65, each with a capacity of 364-399 MMBtu/hr.
Boilers G-24, G-25, and G-65 burn a washed and blended coal from
different portions of the coal seam at the Apollo mine to meet Blue
Ridge Paper's specifications for heat, ash and sulfur content. Coal
from the Apollo mine has high heat content, low to moderate ash, and
low to moderate sulfur, and it averages from 1.4 to 1.5 pounds
SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lbs SO2/
MMBtu). The electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) on these boilers perform
well on this moderate sulfur coal and test well below applicable PM
standards. They are not designed, however, to burn low sulfur coal. Ash
from low sulfur coal has a higher resistivity than ash from the
moderate sulfur coal that Blue Ridge Paper burns in these boilers. The
No. 4 Power Boiler burns washed, low sulfur coal subject to new source
performance standards (NSPS) with a sulfur limit of 1.2 lbs
SO2/MMBtu.
Based on information from the company, this lower sulfur coal is
$75-$90/ton SO2, and the other coal used at
[[Page 11871]]
the facility is $65/ton SO2. The cost difference is $10-25/
ton SO2. The company burned 277,214 tons of higher sulfur
coal in 2005; switching to lower sulfur coal would cost approximately
$2,772,140-$6,930,350 extra per year. If 1,400 tons of SO2
were reduced by switching from the current higher sulfur coal (one
percent sulfur or approximately 1.6 lb SO2/MMBtu) to lower
sulfur coal (0.75 percent sulfur or approximately 1.2 lb
SO2/MMBtu) at the 2005 rate of coal consumption, associated
costs would range from $1,980-$4,950/ton SO2 with an average
cost of $3,465/ton SO2. NCDAQ determined that the cost for
add-on control technology for these units ranges from $12,055 to
$100,961/ton SO2. NCDAQ concluded that there are no cost-
effective controls available for these units at this time within the
cost threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment.
Although NCDAQ has concluded that there are no cost-effective controls
for this reasonable progress period, the State acknowledges that the
emissions from Blue Ridge Paper Products impact North Carolina's inland
Class I areas. NCDAQ notified the company that although additional
controls are not required during this implementation period, the State
may require the installation and operation of controls for future
implementation periods. NCDAQ is committed to working with this company
over the next review period and encouraging the company to modernize
some of its processes with more efficient equipment with lower
emissions.
2. PCS Phosphate
Two of the four sulfuric acid units at PCS Phosphate identified for
further analysis under reasonable progress remain in operation (units
1034 and 1035). On February 7, 2011, NCDAQ provided a technical
supplement to the December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP for these units.
The two PCS Phosphate units currently utilize dual absorption systems
with a vanadium catalyst. The four technologies reviewed included
sodium bisulfite scrubbing, molecular sieve, ammonia scrubbing, and
dual absorption process with cesium-promoted catalyst.
The first three technologies were rejected because they have not
been commercially demonstrated to reliably meet current NSPS and state
permit limits. The use of cesium-promoted catalyst was further
evaluated, looking at three scenarios. The first scenario evaluated,
changing to a cesium-promoted catalyst without making other major
capital investments, was estimated to cost $2,879/ton SO2
and reduce SO2 emissions by only 165 tons per year. This
estimate was based on reducing SO2 emissions from 3.8 to 3.5
lbs SO2/ton of sulfuric acid produced. The other two
scenarios evaluated meeting a 2.0 lbs SO2/ton of sulfuric
acid produced limit by either making operational changes or by
modifying the reactor vessel. The operational changes could be made
without significant capital expenditures but would significantly reduce
production capacity. Modifying the unit to increase the amount of
catalyst available required significant capital investment. NCDAQ
estimated that these options would reduce SO2 emissions by
2,073 tons/year with a cost effectiveness of approximately $11,347/ton
of SO2 reduced for the operational change and a cost
effectiveness of approximately $12,816 to $13,651/ton SO2
for the unit modification. NCDAQ also cited modeling analyses which
concluded that the visibility improvement at the Swanquarter Wilderness
Area resulting from reducing the SO2 emissions rate by 1.0
lb SO2/ton sulfuric acid produced (i.e., a change in
emissions rate from 4.0 to 3.0 lbs SO2/ton sulfuric acid
produced) would only be 0.16 deciview. Therefore, NCDAQ concluded that
there are no cost-effective controls available for these units at this
time within the cost threshold established for this reasonable progress
assessment. NCDAQ notified the company that although additional
controls are not being required during this planning period, the State
may require the installation and operation of controls for future-
planning periods.
3. Weyerhaeuser--Plymouth
Weyerhaeuser--Plymouth has three power boilers subject to analysis:
Riley No. 1 Combination Boiler, No. 1 Hog Fuel Boiler, and No. 2 Hog
Fuel Boiler. The Riley No. 1 Combination Boiler burns coal, No. 6 fuel
oil, Low Volume High Concentration (LVHC) gases, and Stripper Off Gas
(SOG) gases and is fired at 624 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input. The No. 1
Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog fuel (wood waste), No. 6 fuel oil, coal, used
oil, sludge, and High Volume Low Concentration (HVLC) gases. This
boiler is fired at 835 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from hog fuel, 617
MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from No. 6 fuel oil, or for combination
firing, 701.2 and 319.8 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from hog fuel and
coal, respectively. The No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog fuel, No. 6
fuel oil, coal, used oil, sludge, HVLC, LVHC, and SOG gases. It is
fired at 889 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from combined fuels or 800
MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from No. 6 fuel oil.
NCDAQ did not identify any available controls for the Hog Boiler 1
or 2. For the Riley Boiler, the only available control that NCDAQ
identified is a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber at a cost of
$20,460/ton SO2. Therefore, NCDAQ concluded that there are
no cost-effective controls for these units at this time within the cost
threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment.
4. Weyerhaeuser--New Bern
Weyerhaeuser--New Bern has one power boiler which burns residual
oil. It is fired at 579 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input rate. The only
available control identified by NCDAQ is an FGD at a cost of $17,317/
ton SO2. Therefore, the NCDAQ concluded that there are no
cost-effective controls available for this unit at this time within the
cost threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment.
5. Cogentrix Kenansville
The affected emissions unit at Cogentrix Kenansville is Gen1, a 215
MMBtu/hr heat input mixed fuel-fired EGU capable of burning coal,
natural gas, No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil, tire-derived fuel, pelletized
paper fuel, flyash briquette, and wood. Although the company retains
coal as a permitted fuel on the permit, it is currently burning
unadulterated wood (pure wood with up to five percent impurities), and
its new business plan is to continue burning only wood as part of the
``green power'' movement in North Carolina.
The 2005 actual SO2 emissions for this unit were 23.25
tons, whereas the projected 2018 SO2 emissions were 1,833.8
tons based on using coal. In the final SIP submittal, the NCDAQ stated
that it is sending the company a letter indicating that they are
currently on the list of sources contributing greater than one percent
to the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Swanquarter
Wilderness Area based on the estimated emissions from burning coal. The
SIP submittal indicated that the letter will suggest that the facility
change its permit to remove coal as a possible fuel source for this
unit.
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, at a minimum, the four statutory factors in
[[Page 11872]]
determining reasonable progress, but states have flexibility in how to
take these factors into consideration.
NCDAQ 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, NCDAQ first
identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an
impact on visibility in the State's and neighboring Class I areas.
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 a reasonable progress control
analysis except for utilities subject to CAIR.
After reviewing NCDAQ's methodology and analyses and the record
prepared by NCDAQ, EPA proposes to find North Carolina's conclusion
that no further controls are necessary at this time acceptable. EPA
proposes to find that North Carolina adequately evaluated the control
technologies available at the time of its analysis and applicable to
this type of facility and consistently applied its criteria for
reasonable compliance costs. The State also 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 North Carolina SIP still ensures
reasonable progress. In proposing to approve North Carolina's
reasonable progress analysis, EPA is placing great weight on the fact
that there is no indication in the SIP submittal that North 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 areas. 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
areas are in excess of that needed to be on the uniform rate of
progress.
B. Facilities With Emissions Units Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any
Class I Area
NCDAQ identified 16 EGUs at eight facilities which met the State's
minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation because they were
modeled to fall within the SO2 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. North Carolina determined that
no additional controls for the State's EGUs for SO2 were
reasonable during the first implementation period. In reaching this
decision, NCDAQ evaluated the amount of SO2 emissions
reductions from the EGU sector expected from the implementation of
North Carolina's CSA and CAIR. The EGUs in North Carolina are expected
to reduce their SO2 emissions by greater than 80 percent
between 2002 and 2018.
Additionally, NCDAQ considered the four reasonable progress factors
set forth in EPA's RHR as they apply to the State's entire EGU sector
in sections 7.7 and 7.8 of the North Carolina SIP. 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 this analysis, NCDAQ concluded that the emissions
reductions required by CAIR constitute reasonable measures for North
Carolina EGUs during this first assessment period. This conclusion is
bolstered by the fact that, as discussed in section IV.C.7, visibility
improvement at the State's Class I areas is projected to exceed the
uniform rate of progress in this first implementation period. NCDAQ
intends to re-evaluate EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
predictions of SO2 emissions reductions for CAIR at the time
of the next periodic progress report to ensure that the reductions are
in fact taking place where they were predicted. Based on the controls
required by CSA, and predicted by IPM under CAIR, NCDAQ has concluded
that, at this time, these existing regulatory programs constitute
reasonable control measures for these 16 EGUs during the first
implementation period (between the baseline and 2018). EPA proposes a
limited approval of North Carolina's methodology and determination that
no additional controls beyond CAIR and CSA are reasonable for
SO2 for affected North Carolina EGUs for the first
implementation period.
C. Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis
1. Non-EGUs Subject to BART
Three emissions units at Blue Ridge Paper that met the State's
minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation are
emissions units that NCDAQ also found to be subject to BART. NCDAQ
concluded that the application of BART constitutes reasonable progress
for these three units for this implementation period, and thus, it is
not requiring any additional controls for reasonable progress at this
time. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the
BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same
factors that must be addressed in establishing the RPGs, EPA believes
that it is reasonable to conclude that any control requirements imposed
in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for
source review in the first implementation period.\14\ Thus, EPA
proposes to concur with the State's conclusions that BART satisfies
reasonable progress for the first implementation period for these three
emissions units at Blue Ridge Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Other Units Exempted from Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control
Analysis
NCDAQ did not evaluate the two emissions units at Ecusta Business
Development Center since they ceased operation prior to the regional
haze SIP submittal date. Two of the four units at PCS Phosphate in
Aurora that were identified for assessment for reasonable progress have
since permanently ceased operation and therefore were not evaluated
further.
6. BART
BART is an element of North 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 NCDAQ and NCDAQ'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. NCDAQ identified the
BART-eligible sources in North 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.
[[Page 11873]]
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 a Class I area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS
modeling demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia
from point sources, except for potentially one ammonia source, are not
significant visibility-impairing pollutants in North Carolina, as
discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action. Based on the VISTAS
modeling, NCDAQ has determined that ammonia emissions from the State's
point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly
to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt
for BART purposes. No ammonia source in North Carolina was identified
by VISTAS as a possible contributor to visibility impairment.
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, North 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 Class I areas in
surrounding states.
1. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \15\ 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). North
Carolina, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling system
to determine whether individual sources in North Carolina were subject
to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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: https://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 North 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.
VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could
consider the old and new IMPROVE equations. North Carolina's
justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a
rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation.
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.
North Carolina used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject to BART. NCDAQ concluded that,
considering the results of the visibility impacts modeling conducted, a
0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate in this situation and a lower
threshold was not warranted for the following reasons. The State
demonstrated that there are a limited number of in and out of state
sources that impact the Class I areas in the State, and that there are
a limited number of sources in close proximity to each of the affected
Class I areas. Additionally, the majority of the visibility impacts
were well below 0.5 deciview. Also, even though several sources
impacted each Class I area, the overall impacts were low from the
sources. EPA is proposing to agree with North 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
North Carolina identified 17 facilities with BART-eligible sources.
All of North Carolina's 17 BART-eligible sources were required by the
State to submit exemption-modeling demonstrations. North Carolina found
that two of its BART-eligible sources (Blue Ridge Paper and PCS
Phosphate) had modeled visibility impacts of more than the State's 0.5
deciview threshold. Therefore, these two facilities are subject to BART
and submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART
determinations. PCS Phosphate subsequently shut down its two sulfuric
acid units subject to BART and these units were not further evaluated.
The 15 remaining sources were able to demonstrate that they are not
subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact
at the affected Class I areas. This modeling involved emissions of
NOX, SO2, and PM10 as applicable to
individual facilities.
Six of North Carolina's BART-eligible sources are facilities with
EGUs that are subject to CAIR. 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
[[Page 11874]]
remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part
97 need not require affected BART-eligible 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. Thus, North
Carolina's EGUs were allowed to submit BART exemption modeling
demonstrations for PM emissions only. All of the BART-eligible EGUs
demonstrated that their PM emissions do not contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. Table 5 identifies the 17 BART-eligible
sources located in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. North Carolina
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX
for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus,
SO2 and NOX were not analyzed.
Table 5--North Carolina BART--Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART:
Blue Ridge Paper
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART:
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources \16\:
Duke Energy--Belews Creek Steam Station
Duke Energy--Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy--Marshall Steam Station
Progress Energy--Asheville Plant
Progress Energy--Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Progress Energy--Sutton Plant
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt:
Alcoa, Inc.-Badin Works
DAK Americas--Cape Fear
DAK Americas--Cedar Creek
Elementis Chromium
International Paper--Riegelwood Mill
International Paper--Roanoke Rapids
Invista, S.A.R.L.
Weyerhaeuser Company--Plymouth
Weyerhaeuser Company--New Bern
Shut Down:
PCS Phosphate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposed a limited disapproval of
the North Carolina regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C.
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.
C. BART Determination
The five BART-eligible units at Blue Ridge Paper modeled visibility
impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold and are therefore
subject to BART. Consequently, Blue Ridge Paper submitted to the State
a permit application that included their proposed BART determination.
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. The units subject to the BART requirements at Blue
Ridge Paper include the two recovery furnaces, their associated smelt
dissolving tanks, and the black liquor oxidation system (BLOX). NCDAQ
concluded that BART for all of these emissions sources is the existing
emissions control systems currently in place.
The recovery furnaces emit PM, SO2, and NOX.
For the recovery furnaces, potential retrofit control technologies for
PM emissions were not further evaluated since the units are already
equipped with the most stringent controls and since the operation of
these controls is required by the facility's title V operating permit.
For NOX, several potential control alternatives were
evaluated; however, NCDAQ believes that the installation of
NOX reduction controls for the recovery furnaces is not
economically feasible. For SO2, installation of a wet
scrubber following the ESP was identified as technically feasible;
however, it was not considered economically feasible and would result
in only a marginal visibility improvement at one Class I area (Great
Smoky Mountains) and degradation in visibility at another (Shining
Rock). Therefore, the State determined that retrofit controls are not
warranted as BART for SO2 emissions from the recovery
furnaces.
The smelt dissolving tanks emit PM, SO2, and
NOX. No NOX controls are available for this
source type. For PM and SO2, the number of technically
feasible controls is limited due to the fact that the emissions are
minimal and of low velocity. Although several options were evaluated,
they would only minimally reduce the number of days above 0.5 deciview
at Shining Rock and Great Smoky Mountains, and NCDAQ believes that the
installation of retrofit controls on the smelt dissolving tanks as BART
is not economically feasible (in excess of $13,000/ton for less than 44
tons/year of particulate reduction).
The BLOX system emits PM, SO2 and NOX. Blue
Ridge is complying with MACT Subpart S through alternative requirements
approved by the EPA under an equivalency by permit
[[Page 11875]]
approach. Under these alternative requirements, Blue Ridge is
controlling the BLOX system to achieve a greater level of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) reduction by controlling emissions from the BLOX system
in a new Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) equipped with a wet
scrubber for SO2 control. Proper operation of the RTO and
combustion of natural gas as auxiliary fuel minimize PM and
NOX emissions.
Because the unit is already equipped with the most stringent
controls as required by the MACT standards, and permit limits are in
place to ensure these controls are operated properly, the NCDAQ has
determined that BART for the BLOX is existing controls.
EPA proposes to agree with North Carolina's analyses and
conclusions for the BART emissions units located at the Blue Ridge
Paper facility. EPA has reviewed the North 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 (https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo).
Therefore, 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 North
Carolina Class I areas 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 North Carolina. Any controls
resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions
reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give further
assurances that North 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
both of the North Carolina Class I areas 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.
On February 16, 2010, NCDAQ sent a letter to EPA Region 4
clarifying the reason for the differences in the RPGs for Great Smoky
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer presented in the North Carolina and
Tennessee regional haze SIP submittals. For the 20 percent worst days,
the April 4, 2008, Tennessee submittal used 23.50 deciviews while the
North Carolina submittal states the RPG as 23.7 (or 23.66) deciviews.
(Similarly, for the 20 percent best days, the RPG differences between
the two states' submittals were 12.2 (or 12.15) deciviews in the North
Carolina submittal vs 12.11 deciviews in the Tennessee submittal.)
NCDAQ explained that the differences are due to different modeling runs
used by each state. At the time of SIP development, only the earlier
version of the VISTAS modeling run was available to NCDAQ. NCDAQ
acknowledges that the RPGs in the Tennessee regional haze SIP represent
the most current information and commits to revise the RPGs for Great
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer in the periodic progress report SIP.
In accordance with this letter of clarification, Table 6 below reflects
the updated RPGs of 12.11 (approximated to 12.1) and 23.50 for both the
best and worst days, respectively, for these two Class I areas.
As shown in Table 6 below, North 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 areas. 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 North Carolina,
took into account emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR in
determining their 2018 RPGs.\17\ The modeling supporting the analysis
of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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--North 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-- (improvement
worst days from baseline) days 20% best days from baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountains National Park........................... 30.3 23.5 (6.8) 25.79 13.6 12.1 (1.5)
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area........................ 30.3 23.5 (6.8) 25.79 13.6 12.1 (1.5)
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area................................ 28.8 22.0 (6.8) 24.67 11.1 9.6 (1.5)
Shining Rock Wilderness Area.................................. 28.5 22.1 (6.4) 24.50 7.7 6.9 (0.8)
Swanquarter Wilderness Area................................... 24.7 20.4 (4.3) 21.66 12.0 11.0 (1.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RPGs for the Class I areas in North 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 adjust 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
[[Page 11876]]
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 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 RPGs 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. North Carolina specifically committed to follow this process
in its submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve North Carolina's
RPGs for Great Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer, Linville Gorge, Shining
Rock, and Swanquarter.
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 North Carolina. In addition, the Class
I areas in North Carolina are neither experiencing RAVI nor are any of
its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the December 17,
2007, North 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. North Carolina has,
however, previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLMs
certify visibility impairment from an individual source.\18\ EPA finds
that this regional haze submittal appropriately supplements and
augments North Carolina's RAVI visibility provisions to address
regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as
summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ North Carolina submitted its visibility SIP revisions
addressing RAVI on April 15, 1985, which EPA approved on January 21,
1986 (51 FR 2695).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its December 17, 2007, submittal, NCDAQ updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also
in this submittal, NCDAQ affirmed its commitment to complete items
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, NCDAQ 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, NCDAQ committed to
submitting a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I area located within North Carolina and for each
mandatory Class I area located outside North Carolina that may be
affected by emissions from within North 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, North 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
North Carolina new source review (NSR) rules, previously approved in
the State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and
coordination with the FLMs on new sources and major modifications to
existing sources subject to the NSR regulations which may have an
adverse impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional
haze) in any Class I area.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for regional haze in North Carolina
is the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this notice,
the following Class I areas in North Carolina have IMPROVE monitoring
sites: Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter. There is also one
IMPROVE site in Tennessee that serves as the monitoring site for both
Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer, both of which lie partly in
Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.
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. 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. North 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, there is long-term limited
monitoring by FLMs which provides additional insight into progress
toward regional haze goals. Such measurements include:
[ssquf] Web cameras operated by the National Park Service at Look
Rock, Tennessee, and Purchase Knob, North Carolina, in Great Smoky
Mountains, and by the U.S. Forest Service at Frying Pan Mountain in
Shining Rock.
[ssquf] An integrating nephelometer for continuously measuring
light scattering, operated by the National Park Service at Look Rock,
Tennessee.
A Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance for
continuously measuring PM2.5 mass concentration, operated by
the National Park Service at Look Rock, Tennessee.
Additional haze-related measurements were made in North Carolina in
2002-2005 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 filters to
identify source contributions to carbon, and additional analyses of
sodium and ammonium on IMPROVE filter samples. While funding no longer
exists to continue these special studies, VISTAS transferred the
monitoring equipment to NCDAQ.
In the regional haze submittal, the State notes that NCDAQ will
continue to operate the following monitors to further the understanding
of both PM2.5 as well as visibility formation and
[[Page 11877]]
trends in North Carolina for as long as funds allow:
Continuous nitrate monitor and continuous sulfate monitor
at the Millbrook monitoring site in Raleigh, North Carolina;
Continuous nitrate monitor at the Rockwell monitoring site
in Rowan County, North Carolina, with a continuous sulfate monitor
planned for this site as of January 2008;
5400 R&P monitor for organic, total, and elemental carbon
at the Millbrook site; and
Aethalometer (whose final location was yet to be
determined at time of SIP development).
In addition, NCDAQ and the local air agencies in the State operate
a comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter-based federal
reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter-based
speciated monitors, and the continuous speciated monitors described
above.
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of these 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.
NCDAQ evaluated the impact of North 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, North 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 one emissions
unit in North Carolina with a contribution of one percent or more to
the visibility impairment at the following Class I area in a
neighboring state: James River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia. North
Carolina also identified two emissions units that impact the shared
Class I areas located in both North Carolina and Tennessee (Great Smoky
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer). Based on an evaluation of the four
reasonable progress statutory factors, North Carolina determined that
there are no additional control measures for these North Carolina
emissions units that would be reasonable to implement to mitigate
visibility impacts in the Class I areas in these neighboring states.
NCDAQ consulted with these states regarding its reasonable progress
control evaluations showing no cost-effective controls available for
those emissions units in North Carolina contributing at least one
percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas in the states.
Additionally, NCDAQ sent letters to other states in the VISTAS region,
specifically Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, documenting its
analysis using the State's AOI methodology that no SO2
emissions units in North Carolina contribute at least one percent to
the visibility impairment at the Class I areas in those states. No
adverse comments were received from the other VISTAS states. The
documentation for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J
of North Carolina's SIP.
Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I
areas in North Carolina, NCDAQ sent letters to Alabama, Delaware,
Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia pertaining to
emissions units within these states that the State believes contributed
one percent or higher to visibility impairment in the North Carolina
Class I areas. At that time, these neighboring states were still in the
process of evaluating BART and reasonable progress for their sources.
Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide
additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement,
which give further assurances that North Carolina will achieve its
RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative, North 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.
North Carolina also received letters from the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO states of Maine, New Jersey,
and New Hampshire in early 2007 stating that based on MANE-VU's
analysis of 2002 emissions data, North Carolina contributed to
visibility impairment at Class I areas in those states. These letters
invited North Carolina to participate in future consultation meetings.
North Carolina sent response letters to these states providing
information on the State's CSA and copies of the compliance plans for
two utilities in the State showing which emissions units are expected
to install controls to meet CSA NOX and SO2
emissions caps. North Carolina emphasized in its response letters that
it is important to also evaluate visibility impairment contributions
for the year 2018 to reflect implementation of programs such as CAIR
and CSA. NCDAQ noted that based upon VISTAS' analyses using 2018
emissions projections, no emissions units in North Carolina meet
NCDAQ's minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation
for the Class I areas in these states. Thus, NCDAQ stated that it does
not believe any of its emissions units provide significant
contributions from sulfate-derived visibility impacts to these MANE-VU
states' Class I areas, and expressed the State's willingness to
participate in future consultations through VISTAS.
In their consultation discussions, the MANE-VU states identified
twelve EGUs in North Carolina that they would like to see controlled to
90 percent efficiency. They also requested a control strategy to
provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from sources
other than EGUs that would be equivalent to their low sulfur fuel oil
strategy. North Carolina has controlled or is expecting to control
under the North Carolina CSA eleven of the twelve identified EGUs.
Additionally, scrubbers are expected on three EGUs that were not
identified by MANE-VU. NCDAQ believes that these reductions satisfy
MANE-VU's request.
EPA proposes to find that North 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, North 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. The proposed regional
haze plan for North Carolina was out for FLM and EPA discussions from
August to September 2007. North Carolina subsequently modified the plan
to address comments received on this initial version and reissued it
for public comment from October to November 2007.
Regarding North Carolina's initial August 2, 2007, draft regional
haze SIP and the proposed regional haze SIP
[[Page 11878]]
released for public comment on October 12, 2007, the FLMs requested
that the State provide more information in the SIP revision regarding
two facilities, Blue Ridge Paper and PCS Phosphate-Aurora. Based on the
Blue Ridge Paper's visibility impacts at multiple Class I areas, the
FLMs asked the State to describe a plan to consult with the company on
potential control actions prior to 2018 that may warrant a higher cost
of control for reasonable progress. For PCS Phosphate, the FLMs
expressed concern that the facility's BART determination for this
facility did not fully evaluate the effectiveness and associated cost
of controls. Other comments asked for clarification of items and for
more discussion with specific source information for the AOI reasonable
progress evaluations in the main body of the SIP, in addition to the
appendices. North Carolina provided responses to the FLMs regarding
their comments on the draft SIP. The State included more of the
detailed reasonable progress control evaluation information in the main
body of the SIP. Regarding Blue Ridge Paper, the State described that
it acknowledged in the SIP that the company has visibility impacts on
multiple Class I areas and has notified the company that although
additional controls are not being required this implementation period,
future periods may require controls. NCDAQ stated in the SIP that it is
committed to work with the company over the next implementation period
and encourage the company to modernize some of its processes with more
efficient, less polluting equipment. For the two BART-eligible units at
PCS Phosphate, the State noted that the facility is planning to shut
down these units, and thus, it would not be prudent to install controls
on them. For the two units subject to a reasonable progress control
analysis, NCDAQ included additional language in the SIP stating that it
has notified the company that although additional controls are not
being required this period, future implementation periods may require
controls to be installed.
To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), NCDAQ made a commitment in the
SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues
throughout implementation of its plan, including annual discussions of
the implementation process and the most recent data from IMPROVE
monitoring and VIEWS. NCDAQ also affirms in the SIP that FLM
consultation is required for those sources subject to the State's NSR
regulations.
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
As also summarized in section IV.D of this notice, consistent with
40 CFR 51.308(g), NCDAQ affirmed its commitment to submitting a
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years
following this initial submittal of the North Carolina regional haze
SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for
each mandatory Class I area located within North Carolina and for each
mandatory Class I area located outside North Carolina that may be
affected by emissions from within North Carolina. North 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 North Carolina submittal in Appendix K.
If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that North
Carolina's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if after
appropriate consultation North 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 Proposing?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the North
Carolina SIP submitted by the State of North 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.
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 sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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
[[Page 11879]]
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.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
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 oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 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. 2012-4711 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
