Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Second Period Regional Haze Plan, 92038-92066 [2024-26977]
Download as PDF
92038
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
§ 165.T01–0404 Safety Zone; Hackensack
River, Kearny and Secaucus, NJ.
ACTION:
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All the navigable waters of
the Hackensack River between the New
Jersey Turnpike/I–95 Fixed Bridge
(River Mile 5.3) and 150 feet south of
the existing Portal Bridge (River Mile
5.0).
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard
coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of
the Port New York (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general
safety zone regulations in subpart C of
this part, you may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter,
contact the COTP or the COTP’s
representative via VHF Channel 16 or by
phone at (718) 354–4353 (Sector New
York Command Center). Those in the
safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the
COTP or the COTP’s designated
representative.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
is effective from November 21, 2024,
through December 31, 2025, but will
only be enforced during periods when
heavy lift operations at the new bridge
are in progress. The Coast Guard will
make notice of this safety zone via the
Local Notice to Mariners and issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine
channel 16 (VHF–FM) as soon as
practicable. In addition, if the project is
completed before December 31, 2025,
enforcement of the safety zone will be
suspended, and notice given via Local
Notice to Mariners.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the regional
haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by Georgia
Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD), dated August 11, 2022 (‘‘Haze
Plan’’ or ‘‘2022 Plan’’), as satisfying
applicable requirements under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the
regional haze program’s second
planning period. Georgia’s SIP
submission addresses the requirement
that states must periodically revise their
long-term strategies (LTS) for making
reasonable progress toward the national
goal of preventing any future, and
remedying any existing, anthropogenic
impairment of visibility, including
regional haze, in mandatory Class I
Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘Class I areas’’). The SIP submission
also addresses other applicable
requirements for the second planning
period of the regional haze program.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to
sections 110 and 169A of the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective December
23, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2023–0220. All documents in the docket
are listed on the regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Estelle Bae, Air Permitting Section, Air
Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, Region 4,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
Jonathan A. Andrechik,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector New York.
[FR Doc. 2024–27429 Filed 11–19–24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0220; FRL–10407–
02–R4]
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Second
Period Regional Haze Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30303–8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562–9143. Ms. Bae can also be
reached via electronic mail at
bae.estelle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 11, 2022, GA EPD
submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second
planning period.1 2 GA EPD made this
SIP submission to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA’s regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A
and 169B and 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.308. EPA has
determined that the Georgia regional
haze SIP submission for the second
planning period meets the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements
and is thus approving Georgia’s
submission into its SIP.
Through a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), published on June
3, 2024 (89 FR 47481), EPA proposed to
approve Georgia’s Haze Plan as
satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second planning
period contained in the CAA and 40
CFR 51.308. EPA described its rationale
for proposing approval of the Haze Plan
in the June 3, 2024, NPRM. Comments
on the June 3, 2024, NPRM were due on
or before July 3, 2024. EPA received two
sets of comments on the NPRM. One set
of comments received is not relevant to
this action, and the other set of
comments is addressed below. Both sets
of comments are available in the docket
for this action.
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, EPA
received a comment letter signed by the
National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, the
Coalition to Protect America’s National
Parks, and the Southern Environmental
Law Center. Collectively, these groups
will be referred to as the ‘‘Commenters.’’
In general, the Commenters state in their
comment letter that Georgia, in its SIP
submittal, and EPA, in its proposed
approval of the SIP submittal, failed to
1 The August 11, 2022, SIP submission, with
exception of the supporting modeling files and CBI,
is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Due
to size and compatibility limitations of the Federal
Docket Management System, the supporting
modeling files for Georgia’s Regional Haze Plan are
instead available at the EPA Region 4 office. To
request these files, please contact the person listed
in this rulemaking under the section titled FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
2 On November 1, 2023, Georgia supplemented its
August 11, 2022, Haze Plan by submitting the final
permits for each of the three sources selected for an
emissions control analysis. This supplemental
submission, received November 1, 2023, along with
GA EPD’s November 17, 2023, clarification email,
is included in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
satisfy the requirements of the Act and
the RHR. The Commenters thus request
that EPA disapprove Georgia’s SIP
revision. Summaries of the significant
comments received from the
Commenters and EPA’s responses to
these comments are below.
Comment 1: The Commenters state
that in 2021 they informed the Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)
and EPA via letter of ‘‘significant errors’’
in the visibility modeling conducted by
VISTAS for the VISTAS states—
including Georgia—and that EPA did
not acknowledge these errors in the
NPRM. These alleged errors are
addressed in Comments 1.a through 1.c
below.
Comment 1a: The Commenters
contend that the VISTAS modeling
significantly underpredicted the
contribution of sulfates to visibility
impairment at Class I areas on the 20
percent most impaired days and that
this underprediction, while prevalent
across all seasons, was largest during
the summer months.3 The Commenters
also assert that these errors resulted in
the modeling not meeting VISTAS’
model performance goals and modeling
acceptance criteria for a number of Class
I areas. The Commenters further assert
that although Georgia claims that it
corrected for this underprediction
through the use of relative response
factors (RRFs), neither Georgia nor EPA
assessed whether use of RRFs
adequately corrected for errors in the
modeling.
Response 1.a: Regarding the 2021
letter described by the Commenters,4
EPA disagrees with the Commenters
that there are significant flaws in
Georgia’s 2028 visibility modeling that
resulted in excluding major sources of
haze-forming pollution from evaluation
via Four-Factor Analyses (FFAs) for the
second planning period. As the
Commenters state, Georgia relied upon
the photochemical visibility modeling
performed by VISTAS to project the
impact of the State’s 2028 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions on visibility in both in-state
and out-of-state Class I areas. VISTAS
performed the modeling in accordance
3 Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class
I Federal 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.
CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas.
The list of areas to which the requirements of the
visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D.
4 Exhibit 10 of the Conservation Groups’
comments contains the May 12, 2021, letter
regarding the VISTAS regional haze modeling for
the second planning period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
with the principles described within
EPA’s ‘‘Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze’’ (2018
Modeling Guidance).5 In 2018, EPA
approved 6 the Quality Assurance
Project Plan prepared by VISTAS for
performing the modeling and also
reviewed and provided comments on
the VISTAS Modeling Protocol. EPA
also reviewed the VISTAS final
modeling reports and data relied upon
by Georgia and found them acceptable.
The Commenters assert that, due to
errors, the modeling failed to meet
VISTAS’ model performance goals and
modeling acceptance criteria for a
number of Class I areas. Specifically, the
Commenters assert that the VISTAS
modeling significantly underpredicted
the contribution of sulfate to visibility
impairment on the 20 percent most
impaired days and that the largest
underprediction was during the summer
months when visibility is most
problematic at Class I areas. Figure 6–
7 in Georgia’s Haze Plan shows the
results of the normalized mean bias and
normalized mean error statistical model
performance tests for sulfates.
Model bias and error, either high or
low, is not uncommon in photochemical
modeling analyses due to uncertainties
in model inputs and the scientific
model formulation, and the fact that all
air quality models are simplified
approximations of the complex
phenomena of atmospheric chemistry,
fate, and transport of pollutants. Section
6.0 of EPA’s 2018 Modeling Guidance
discusses uncertainties that may affect
model results and provides
recommendations to mitigate modeling
bias and uncertainty. Georgia
acknowledges that model performance
is biased low on the 20 percent most
impaired days and provided an
explanation of why this modeling was
appropriate for its regulatory
determinations in the Haze Plan.
Georgia references the 2018 Modeling
Guidance, which states that it is not
appropriate to use a ‘‘bright-line test’’
for distinguishing between adequate and
inadequate photochemical model
performance for a single performance
test statistic. EPA’s 2018 Modeling
Guidance instead recommends using a
‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach for
5 ‘‘Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,’’
EPA 454/R–18–009, November 29, 2018, (hereafter
‘‘2018 Modeling Guidance’’) is available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/
documents/o3-pm-rh-modeling_guidance-2018.pdf.
6 The April 3, 2018, Quality Assurance Project
Plan for the VISTAS II Regional Haze Project is
located in Appendix A–1 of the Haze Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92039
evaluating model performance
holistically.
As discussed in Section 5.2(d) of
EPA’s ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality
Models’’ contained in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W, there are no specific levels
of any model performance metric that
indicate acceptable model performance.
The decision regarding acceptability is
heavily influenced by professional
judgment of the reviewing authority,
which is EPA in this case. Based upon
the overall performance of the model for
all pollutants affecting visibility,
considered holistically, EPA agrees with
Georgia’s conclusions that the modeling
is acceptable for use in the regional haze
SIP analyses, and the model bias was
adequately explained by Georgia and
therefore the source selection outcomes
using the VISTAS’ methodology were
reasonable.
Just as importantly, Georgia took
appropriate steps to correct for this
model bias. The Haze Plan explains that
the model is applied in a relative sense
through the calculation of RRFs
following the procedures in 2018
Modeling Guidance for calculating 2028
future year visibility impacts, which
helps alleviate concerns about the low
bias in the sulfate model predictions. As
described in EPA’s 2018 Modeling
Guidance, RRFs are ‘‘the fractional
change in air quality concentrations that
is simulated due to emissions changes
between a base and a future year
emissions scenario.’’ 7
EPA agrees with Georgia that applying
the model in a relative sense using the
RRFs is an important tool in alleviating
the impacts of the sulfate modeling
underpredictions in the 2011 baseline
year on the model projections for the
2028 future year. Section 4.1 of the 2018
Modeling Guidance provides a detailed
explanation of why EPA recommends
photochemical modeling be applied in a
relative sense and explains that
problems posed by model bias are
expected to be reduced when using the
relative approach. Section 7.2.5.1 of
Georgia’s Haze Plan explains the
calculation of 2028 visibility estimates
using the RRF approaches contained in
EPA’s 2018 Modeling Guidance. Using
the RRF approach with an average of
five years of Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) 8 data on the 20 percent
most impaired days and 20 percent
clearest days along with the relative
percent modeled change in all of the
particulate matter (PM) species between
2011 and 2028 reduces the influence of
7 See
2018 Modeling Guidance at p. 103.
visibility monitoring data is available
at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/.
8 IMPROVE
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92040
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the bias in sulfate-modeled (and other
PM species) values in the 2011 baseline
year. The 2028 visibility impairment
projection is derived primarily from the
five-year average of actual IMPROVE
monitoring data in 2009–2013 that was
then scaled in a relative sense by the
modeling results. If the model was being
applied in an absolute sense, the low
bias in the sulfate modeled values
would have a larger impact on the 2028
visibility projections. For these reasons,
Georgia’s use of RRFs adequately
minimized the impacts of model bias,
and therefore, Georgia’s source selection
using the VISTAS’ methodology was
reasonable.
Comment 1.b: The Commenters also
discuss several other alleged
deficiencies with VISTAS’ modeling.
They state that VISTAS relied on an
‘‘outdated’’ 2011 baseline year for its
2028 future year emissions projections
and assumed that electric generating
units (EGUs) would operate in the exact
same manner in 2028 as they did in
2011. Thus, the Commenters assert that
this model assumption is incorrect
because EGUs are likely to have
different load utilization in 2028 than in
2011.
Response 1.b: Regarding the
Commenters’ comments about Georgia’s
use of a 2011 base emissions inventory
year to project emissions out to 2028
(the end of the second planning period),
EPA finds the 2011 baseline year
acceptable in this instance. Although it
is always preferable to use the most
recent information available for
modeling, the 2011 baseline year
inventory used by VISTAS was the
latest region-wide inventory available at
the time that Georgia’s SIP submittal
was being developed during the VISTAS
technical work, which took place from
December 2017 to February 26, 2021.9
In EPA’s experience, coordination
among states such as those in the
VISTAS region takes time, and the
modeling involved is time-consuming,
highly technical, and resource intensive.
The modeling generally requires
hundreds of hours of time to gather the
model input data (e.g., emissions,
meteorology, land-use, etc.), prepare
modeling protocols, perform the
modeling, and analyze the results. The
computational resources to run
photochemical models are also very
large. ‘‘Mainframe’’ clusters of a large
number of computer processors are
required to run the models, and even
using these powerful computers, it takes
weeks of computer run-time for a full9 See ‘‘Timeline’’ for the VISTAS II Regional Haze
Project at: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/
vistas-regional-haze-project-intro.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
year model simulation. Additionally,
EPA’s newer 2016-based modeling
platform only became available in
September 2019, after VISTAS had
already invested a considerable amount
of time and money into the regional
haze modeling analysis.10
EPA develops the National Emission
Inventory (NEI) suitable for use in such
models every three years.11 By design,
the regional haze program requires
states to spend significant time in the
planning phase, and this generally
necessitates the use of a baseline year
that is substantially earlier than the date
the state submits its SIP to EPA. Here,
it is reasonable that Georgia utilized the
2011 emissions inventory year on which
to base the technical work for the
following reasons. There is no RHR
requirement regarding the baseline year
for regional photochemical modeling
(nor is photochemical modeling
required). GA EPD justifies the use of
this particular baseline year and states
that the 2011 emissions inventory was
the most recently available quality
assured statewide emissions inventory
when the VISTAS project began for the
second planning period. Moreover, prior
to using this data, GA EPD discussed the
selection of this baseline year emissions
inventory and received confirmation
from EPA to use this emissions
inventory.12 Given the aforementioned
reasons, EPA finds the use of the 2011
baseline year by VISTAS, and thus
Georgia, reasonable.
The 2011 emissions inventory was
used to estimate emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants in 2028 to develop
the 2028 projections. VISTAS applied
reductions expected from federal and
state regulations to the visibility
impairing pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2.
Georgia’s 2028 emissions projections are
based on the State’s technical analysis
of the anticipated emissions rates and
level of activity for EGUs, other point
sources, non-point sources, on-road
sources, and off-road sources based on
their emissions in the 2011 base year,
considering growth and additional
emissions controls to be in place by
2028. In addition, the VISTAS
emissions inventory for 2028 accounts
for post-2011 emission reductions from
10 See ‘‘Technical Support Document for EPA’s
Updated 2028 Regional Haze Modeling’’ at: https://
www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-supportdocument-epas-updated-2028-regional-hazemodeling.
11 For more information on the NEI, see: https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/nationalemissions-inventory-nei.
12 See the January 29, 2018, email from EPA
(Richard Wayland) regarding use of a 2011 base
year by VISTAS for regional haze in the docket for
this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
promulgated federal, state, local, and
site-specific control programs.
Although Georgia used the 2011 year
as its emissions inventory base year, as
required by the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), Georgia also examined
more recent emissions inventory
information for SO2 and NOX for the
years 2017, 2018, and 2019 and
compared these emissions to the 2028
emission projections that were used for
modeling purposes in Section 7.6.5 and
Tables 7–32 and 7–33 of its Haze Plan.
This helps to ensure that the State
adequately considered more recent
emissions inventory information when
developing its LTS. The technical
information provided in the docket
demonstrates that the emissions
inventory in the Haze Plan adequately
reflects projected 2028 conditions.
Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA
finds the use of the 2011 baseline year
by VISTAS (and thus Georgia)
reasonable.
Comment 1.c: The Commenters state
that VISTAS used ‘‘outdated’’
monitoring data for its 2028 future year
projections that did not reflect an
observed shift in nitrate contribution to
visibility impairment in the
southeastern United States in the recent
past. Consequently, the Commenters
assert that Georgia improperly excluded
major sources of haze-forming pollution
from FFAs.13
Response 1.c: Regarding the
Commenters’ claims that the 2009–2013
modeling base period did not reflect
more recent changes in nitrate
contributions, EPA discussed its views
on this issue in detail in the NPRM.
Nitrates are also discussed in Response
3, below. EPA agrees that after the
2009–2013 timeframe, nitrate impacts
have become more significant on some
of the 20 percent most impaired days,
especially taking into account the
significant decrease in SO2 emissions
and measured sulfate concentrations as
acknowledged in the NPRM. EPA
nonetheless agrees with Georgia’s
conclusion that for the second planning
period, sulfates remain the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant at the
Class I areas affected by Georgia, and
therefore, it is reasonable for Georgia to
focus on SO2 emitting sources during
this period.14
13 The amount of progress that is ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ is based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation
of potential control options for sources of visibility
impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a
‘‘four-factor analysis.’’
14 Out-of-state Class I areas affected by Georgia
sources are: Florida, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Tennessee. Figures 2–8 and 2–9 of the
Haze Plan provide the 2014–2018 IMPROVE data
for the VISTAS Class I areas.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Comment 2: The Commenters assert
that Georgia’s source selection process
was unreasonable and too restrictive,
based, in part, on their concerns
summarized in Comment 1.
Additionally, the Commenters state that
Georgia’s use of VISTAS’ multi-step
source screening process using Area of
Influence (AoI) and Particulate Matter
Source Apportionment Technology
(PSAT) analysis was unreasonable. They
therefore contend that EPA’s proposal to
approve the State’s source selection
method is arbitrary and capricious. The
Commenters’ specific comments on this
topic are addressed in Comments 2.a
through 2.f, below.
Comment 2.a: The Commenters also
claim that the State employed
unreasonably high source selection
thresholds for AoI, which were too
restrictive and resulted in the
identification of only five sources at that
step. The Commenters assert that by
using a percentage source selection
threshold (for AoI and PSAT), the
calculated threshold in absolute
visibility impact terms was higher for
Class I areas with the most severe
visibility impairment. This in turn, they
contend, meant that fewer sources were
identified at the AoI step for Class I
areas with the worst visibility
impairment. The Commenters state that
for the areas with the worst visibility
impairment, more sources should be
selected to make progress toward the
natural visibility goal. In addition, the
Commenters assert that neither Georgia
nor EPA provide any justification for
doubling the AoI threshold for out-ofstate sources compared to in-state
sources.
Response 2.a: Concerning the
Commenters’ argument that the State’s
source selection threshold is
unreasonable, as explained in the
NPRM, the RHR does not require states
to consider controls for all sources, all
source categories, or any or all sources
in a particular source category. Nor does
the RHR expressly specify criteria for
minimum source selection thresholds.
These flexibilities are, however, not
unbounded. The RHR requires that
‘‘[t]he State should consider evaluating
major and minor stationary sources or
groups of sources, mobile sources, and
area sources. The State must include in
its implementation plan a description of
the criteria it used to determine which
sources or groups of sources it evaluated
and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures
for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.’’ 15 In addition, the technical
basis for source selection must also be
documented, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). Thus, states must
utilize a reasonable source selection
methodology,16 and whatever choices
states make regarding source selection
should be reasonably explained.17
Georgia met these requirements.
Specifically, Georgia discussed the
criteria it used to determine which
sources or groups of sources were
evaluated by the State, including the use
of AoI analysis, photochemical
modeling (e.g., PSAT), and associated
source selection thresholds for AoI and
PSAT tagging in its Haze Plan. Georgia
documented its use of these approaches
in extensive detail within Section 7.5 of
the Haze Plan and Appendices D–1 and
D–2 of the Haze Plan (relating to AoI
92041
analysis) and Section 7.6 of the Haze
Plan and Appendices E–1a, E–1b, E–2a,
E–2b, E–2c, E–2d, E–2e, E–2f, E–3, E–4,
E–5, E–6, E–7a, E–7b, and E–8 of the
Haze Plan (relating to PSAT modeling).
Georgia’s documentation adequately
demonstrates why its source selection
methodology—including the use of an
AoI threshold of two percent 18 for instate sources for follow-up PSAT
tagging, and a one percent PSAT
threshold on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis for source selection—is
reasonable. For the reasons stated in the
NPRM (89 FR 47497), EPA finds that
Georgia’s source selection methodology
was reasonable and resulted in the
selection of a reasonable set of sources
contributing to visibility impairment at
Class I areas affected by Georgia’s
sources. The State’s methods for
selecting sources for a control analysis
and the State’s AoI and PSAT analyses
identified sources in Georgia having the
highest impact on visibility at Class I
areas at the end of the second planning
period and identified sources outside of
Georgia having the largest impacts on
visibility at Class I areas in the State. A
specific source selection approach is not
required by the RHR.19
The results of this methodology were
reasonable as well. On the whole, SO2
emissions from the three in-state
sources selected by Georgia for FFAs—
Georgia Power Company’s Plant Bowen
(‘‘Plant Bowen’’), International Paper’s
Savannah Mill (‘‘IP-Savannah’’), and
Brunswick Cellulose—are projected to
impact visibility at Class I areas as
described in Table 1 below.20
TABLE 1—SULFATE PSAT CONTRIBUTIONS (%) FOR PLANT BOWEN, IP-SAVANNAH, AND BRUNSWICK CELLULOSE AT
CLASS I AREAS ON 20% MOST IMPAIRED DAYS *
Class I area **
Plant Bowen
Cohutta National National Wilderness Area (Cohutta) (GA) ...............................................................
Okefenokee National Wilderness Area (Okefenokee) (GA) ................................................................
Wolf Island National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island) (GA) *** ..............................................................
Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area (FL) .................................................................................
St Marks National Wilderness Area (FL) .............................................................................................
Linville Gorge National Wilderness Area (NC) ....................................................................................
Shining Rock National Wilderness Area (NC) .....................................................................................
Swanquarter National Wilderness Area (NC) ......................................................................................
15 See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
explained in the July 8, 2021, EPA
memorandum containing ‘‘Clarifications Regarding
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021
Clarifications Memo’’), a reasonable source
selection process ‘‘should be designed and
conducted to ensure that source selection results in
a set of pollutants and sources the evaluation of
which has the potential to meaningfully reduce
their contributions to visibility impairment.’’ See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 3 available at: https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
16 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-for-the-secondimplementation-period.pdf.
17 See 89 FR 47481, 47493 (June 3, 2024); see also
Sections 2 and 2.1 of 2021 Clarifications Memo.
18 The State’s use of a four percent AoI threshold
for out-of-state sources is discussed below in
Response 2.a.
19 Both of these approaches (AoI and PSAT) are
example methods in EPA’s August 20, 2019,
guidance titled: ‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2019 Guidance’’) which
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2.13
2.30
2.33
2.28
4.89
1.13
1.29
1.03
IPSavannah
Brunswick
Cellulose
....................
1.04
1.54
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
1.76
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/
files/2019-08/documents/8-20-2019_-_regional_
haze_guidance_final_guidance.pdf. See subsection
‘‘b) Estimating baseline visibility impacts for source
selection’’ on pages 12–15 of the 2019 Guidance.
PSAT is a type of photochemical modeling which
is item 4 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance. VISTAS’
AoI analyses involve items 1–3 on page 13 of the
2019 Guidance.
20 No sources met Georgia’s Nitrate PSAT
threshold of greater than or equal to one percent on
the 20 percent most impaired days.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
92042
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SULFATE PSAT CONTRIBUTIONS (%) FOR PLANT BOWEN, IP-SAVANNAH, AND BRUNSWICK CELLULOSE AT
CLASS I AREAS ON 20% MOST IMPAIRED DAYS *—Continued
Class I area **
IPSavannah
Brunswick
Cellulose
1.28
....................
....................
....................
Plant Bowen
Cape Romain National Wilderness Area (SC) ....................................................................................
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock National Wilderness Area (TN and NC) ........................................................
3.53
1.11
* Note that fields in the above table left blank indicate that visibility impacts are below one percent.
** The Class I areas listed in Table 1, above, are included because the Georgia facilities in this table have a sulfate PSAT contribution of one
percent or more at one or more of these areas.
*** Wolf Island has no IMPROVE monitor. Visibility at Wolf Island is assumed to be the same as the nearest Class I area monitor located at
Okefenokee.
Although these three sources are the
largest contributors within Georgia to
visibility impairment at Class I areas,
Table 1 shows Sulfate PSAT visibility
impacts from these sources range from
approximately one to five percent at the
selected Class I areas. This is due to the
fact that most anthropogenic impacts to
visibility at these Class I areas come
from outside of Georgia. In fact, they
primarily come from outside of the
VISTAS states. This is illustrated in
Table 7–4 of the Haze Plan, which
provides the contributions from 2028
SO2 and NOX emissions to visibility
impairment from all source sectors for
the 20 percent most impaired days in
units of inverse megameters (Mm¥1).
The entries in Table 2, below, show the
contributions made from Georgia, all
other VISTAS states, and other Regional
Planning Organizations to Georgia’s
Class I areas.
TABLE 2—CONTRIBUTIONS OF 2028 SO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCE SECTORS TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT
FOR THE 20 PERCENT MOST IMPAIRED DAYS FOR CLASS I AREAS IN GEORGIA
[Mm¥1] *
Class I area **
Projected 2028
impairment on
20% most
impaired days
COHU .................................
OKEF .................................
WOLF .................................
All other
VISTAS
states
GA
45.28
54.66
53.59
1.04
2.17
2.57
CENRAP
region ***
5.19
7.57
6.56
LADCO
region ***
1.76
2.27
2.15
MANE–VU
region ***
6.88
3.60
3.44
WRAP region within
VISTAS modeling
domain ***
0.87
1.01
1.15
2.30
2.84
3.41
* As noted in Georgia’s Haze Plan, the columns to the right of ‘‘Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days’’ do not add up to the
values in the ‘‘Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days’’ column due to international emissions and boundary emissions.
** ‘‘COHU’’ refers to Cohutta; ‘‘OKEF’’ refers to Okefenokee; and ‘‘WOLF’’ refers to Wolf Island.
*** ‘‘CENRAP’’ refers to Central Regional Air Planning Association (which is associated with the Central States Air Resource Agencies
(CENSARA)); ‘‘LADCO’’ refers to Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium; ‘‘MANE–VU’’ refers to Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union; ‘‘WRAP’’
refers to Western Regional Air Partnership. See also: https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-regional-planning-organizations.
Table 2, above, illustrates that
Georgia’s in-state emissions account for
a relatively small fraction of total
visibility impairment at Georgia’s Class
I areas. This fraction is approximately
2.29 percent for Cohutta, 3.97 percent
for Okefenokee, and 4.79 percent for
Wolf Island.21
Likewise, the PSAT Tag Results
spreadsheet in Appendix E–7A of the
Haze Plan shows the visibility impacts
on a facility-by-facility basis due to SO2
emissions. Specifically, Appendix E–7A
shows the following SO2 visibility
impacts to Georgia’s Class I areas on the
20 percent most impaired days in units
of Mm¥1.
TABLE 3—SO2 VISIBILITY IMPACTS TO GEORGIA CLASS I AREAS ON THE 20 PERCENT MOST IMPAIRED DAYS
[Mm¥1]
Plant Bowen
contribution
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Class I area
IP-Savannah
contribution
Brunswick
Cellulose to 20%
contribution
COHU .................................................
OKEF .................................................
WOLF .................................................
0.282
0.308
0.302
0.038
0.140
0.200
0.002
0.077
0.228
The above data in Table 3 further
supports that Georgia’s source selection
thresholds and source selection
methodology were reasonable.
Specifically, on the 20 percent most
impaired days, Georgia’s selected instate sources are responsible for
approximately 40 percent of Georgia’s
Total of
Georgia
selected
sources
Georgia total
contribution
0.322
0.525
0.458
16:40 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15.6
16.4
16.2
total in-state SO2 visibility impairment
at Cohutta, 31.5 percent of total in-state
SO2 visibility impairment at
Okefenokee, and 21.6 percent of total in-
21 These percentages were calculated by dividing
the ‘‘GA’’ column by the ‘‘Projected 2028 20% Most
Impaired Days Column’’ and multiplying by 100.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
0.803
1.669
2.124
All sources
(including
out-of-state)
contribution
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
state SO2 visibility impairment at Wolf
Island.22 States are not required by the
RHR to select every source in the state,
and the state selected the in-state
sources with the largest visibility
impacts on in-state and nearby Class I
areas. The selection of the above sources
captured sufficient visibility-impairing
emissions to allow Georgia to ensure
that FFAs conducted for this planning
period had the potential to meaningfully
reduce emissions (and thus, associated
visibility impacts at Class I areas) from
in-state sources.
Table 3 also shows that most
emissions of visibility-impairing
sulfates that impact Georgia’s Class I
areas on the 20 percent most impaired
days are emitted from outside of
Georgia. The same general pattern holds
for the 20 percent least impaired days as
well. Georgia does not have jurisdiction
through its SIP to regulate sources
outside of state boundaries. Georgia did,
however, request FFAs from other states
for an additional 14 facilities outside of
Georgia through the interstate
consultation process.23 The ‘‘regional’’
nature of the regional haze program
necessarily requires Georgia to rely on
reasonable progress made by other
states, just as other states must rely on
Georgia to make reasonable progress.
The Commenters also argue that
neither Georgia nor EPA provided
justification for doubling the AoI
threshold for out-of-state sources. In its
Haze Plan, Georgia explained that use of
an AoI contribution of four percent or
more to tag sources for PSAT captures
large sources outside of Georgia. When
selecting out-of-state sources, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) applies. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires states to
‘‘consult with those States that have
emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in the mandatory Class I
Federal area.’’ The use of the four
percent AoI threshold allowed Georgia
to identify ‘‘emissions that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment’’ 24 at Class I areas
within Georgia that are emitted from
out-of-state, and indeed, using this
methodology combined with follow-up
PSAT tagging and modeling, Georgia
sought interstate consultation for 14
such sources.
Turning to the Commenters’ other
source selection comments, they assert
that by using a percentage threshold for
AoI and PSAT, the calculated threshold
22 These percentages were calculated by dividing
the ‘‘Total of Selected Georgia Sources’’ column by
the ‘‘Georgia Total Contribution’’ column and
multiplying by 100.
23 See Haze Plan Section 7.6.
24 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
in absolute visibility impact terms was
higher for Class I areas with the most
severe visibility impairment, which
resulted in fewer sources being
evaluated for reasonable progress for the
most visibility-impaired Class I areas.
Thus, the Commenters assert that the
use of a percentage threshold was
unreasonable.
EPA disagrees. Regardless of whether
a relative or absolute threshold is used,
the number of sources selected depends
on the chosen value of the threshold. A
percentage threshold, rather than one
using inverse megameters or deciviews,
may capture more sources at areas with
less visibility impairment or areas
where no or few sources exceed an
absolute visibility impairment
threshold. When using an absolute
value threshold instead of a percentage
threshold, Class I areas with less
visibility impairment might not have
any sources selected at all that impact
those areas. Thus, in general, the use of
a percentage threshold is consistent
with the requirement to make
reasonable progress toward remedying
visibility impairment in each Class I
area. As noted above, states have
flexibility to adopt any source selection
methodology so long as the
methodology is reasonable, and the
states’ choices are reasonably explained.
EPA finds that Georgia’s source
selection method is reasonable and
adequately explained for the reasons
discussed above.
Comment 2.b: The Commenters also
state in their comments that VISTAS
considered sulfate and nitrate separately
in model analyses, which the
Commenters allege does not align with
how these pollutants actually function
in the atmosphere. They state that
sulfate and nitrate act in combination in
the atmosphere, along with other haze
precursors, to contribute to visibility
impairment. As a result, they argue that
VISTAS likely underestimated the
overall visibility impact of individual
sources in its PSAT analysis.
Response 2.b: Regarding the
Commenters’ assertion that VISTAS
considered sulfate and nitrate separately
in model analyses, which led to
underestimating the visibility impacts
in the PSAT analyses, EPA disagrees. In
the AoI screening analysis, VISTAS
used the combined sulfate plus nitrate
values to select sources to tag for the
refined PSAT source apportionment
modeling analyses. Section 7.5.5 of the
Haze Plan explains how Georgia used
the results of the AoI analysis to select
sources for further evaluation with
PSAT. This section shows that facilities
contributing more than two percent (instate) or four percent (out-of-state) of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92043
sulfate plus nitrate were selected for
PSAT tagging. See Tables 7–8 through
7–10 for the specific sources with
sulfate plus nitrate values greater than
Georgia’s AoI source selection
thresholds.
Also, contrary to the Commenters’
assertion, sulfates and nitrates were
modeled together in the PSAT modeling
with the other PM species that impact
visibility (e.g., direct PM, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, etc.). Section
7.6.2 of Georgia’s Haze Plan summarizes
the results of the PSAT modeling. This
section states that: ‘‘The adjusted PSAT
results were used to calculate the
percent contribution of each tagged
facility to the total sulfate and nitrate
point source (EGU + non-EGU)
contribution at each Class I area.’’
Tables 7–16 through 7–18 contain the
specific PSAT results for each of
Georgia’s Class I areas. It is true that
Georgia considered the PSAT modeled
results for sulfate and nitrate separately
to compare against its selected one
percent threshold to identify a
reasonable number of sources for
reasonable progress analyses. EPA
agrees with the State that this approach
is reasonable for the reasons discussed
above and was adequately justified in
the Haze Plan.
Comment 2.c: The Commenters state
that VISTAS used an outdated 2028
emissions projection to ‘‘tag’’ sources.
They note that although VISTAS
documented that the initial 2028
emission inventory projections were
updated for the final modeling, the
associated PSAT modeling did not use
the final 2028 inventory. The
Commenters state that VISTAS scaled
predicted sulfate and nitrate to the
corresponding changes in SO2 and NOX
emissions using a linear relationship
between SO2 and NOX emissions and
sulfate and nitrate concentrations. They
argue that there is a non-linear
relationship between emissions and
sulfate/nitrate concentrations. These
factors all are argued by the
Commenters to have introduced errors
into the VISTAS modeling. Moreover,
the Commenters argue the PSAT tagging
process was entirely unnecessary, as the
AoI step would have already identified
the sources that contributed to
impairment at Class I areas.
Response 2.c: VISTAS used the
original 2028 emissions inventory to
perform the PSAT modeling and the
original PSAT results were linearly
scaled to reflect the updated 2028
emissions. Although linear scaling
introduces some uncertainty to the final
PSAT results, EPA agrees with VISTAS
and Georgia that adjusting the results to
account for VISTAS’ updated 2028
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
92044
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
emissions inventory using linear scaling
is a reasonable approach to account for
VISTAS’ updated 2028 emissions
projections and is a better approach
than relying on the original PSAT
modeling. Linear scaling of
photochemical modeling results to
account for changes in emissions is, in
most cases, reasonable and is an
accepted practice by EPA. As an
example, EPA guidance recommends
using EPA’s Modeled Emission Rates for
Precursors (MERPs) for evaluating
secondary particulate matter of 2.5
micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5)
impacts in Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) modeling analyses
and allows for and recommends scaling
of photochemical modeling results
based on emissions.25 This guidance
recommends an approach where the
PM2.5 impacts are estimated using an
archived national-scale photochemical
modeling analysis, performed using
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) and Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 26
photochemical models, that uses
hypothetical emissions sources, and
then linearly scaling the photochemical
modeling results using the ratio of the
PSD project-specific source emissions to
the modeled emissions from the
hypothetical source (see Equation 1 on
page 3 of the referenced April 30, 2024,
MERPs memorandum). This approach is
widely used and accepted by state air
quality agencies and EPA to account for
secondarily formed PM2.5 from
precursor emissions (SO2 and NOX) for
PSD modeling analyses. Since the
VISTAS analyses used for regional haze
modeling use linear scaling with CAMx
and for the same PM2.5 precursors (SO2
and NOX) as the MERPs analyses, EPA
finds the method of linear scaling of PM
precursor emissions conducted by
VISTAS to be acceptable practice.
Regarding the Commenters’ assertion
that the PSAT tagging process was
unnecessary because the AoI step
already identified the sources that
contributed to impairment at Class I
areas, EPA disagrees with the premise of
this comment. The standard is not
whether the state’s source selection
approach is necessary or required, but
rather, whether the approach is
reasonable and is reasonably
25 ‘‘Clarification on the Development of Modeled
Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1
Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM2.5 under the
PSD Permitting Program,’’ April 30, 2024,
Memorandum from Tyler Fox to Regional Office
Modeling Contacts is available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/
documents/epa-454_r-19-003.pdf.
26 See https://www.epa.gov/cmaq for further
information on CMAQ.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
explained.27 The two-step process of
screening with the AoI analysis and
then applying the more refined PSAT
source apportionment modeling to
sources that met the initial AoI
screening criteria is a sound technical
approach for identifying sources to
evaluate for reasonable progress.
Elements of Georgia’s AoI approach are
discussed in EPA’s 2019 Guidance as a
viable method to assess sources’
visibility impacts to Class I areas.28
Georgia, along with many of the VISTAS
states, also relied upon the AoI initial
screening approach in its first planning
period Haze Plan.29 VISTAS used the
AoI analysis as an initial screening step
because it is a much simpler and less
resource intensive approach than using
PSAT tagging to model hundreds to
thousands of potential sources. The AoI
screening approach identified a smaller
subset of sources that could undergo
refined analysis using PSAT modeling.
EPA finds the two-step process of first
screening with the AoI analysis
followed by use of the more refined
PSAT source apportionment modeling
to sources is valid and reasonable. Also,
as discussed above, states have
discretion under the RHR regarding
choice of source selection methodology.
Georgia’s approach is acceptable for
these reasons.
Comment 2.d: The Conservation
Groups note that Georgia relied on the
PSAT modeling results for its multiple
in-state sources that are located less
than 50 kilometers (km) from a Class I
areas and claim that PSAT modeling has
been shown to be unreliable for sources
that are within a short distance from a
Class I area, referencing Federal Land
Manager (FLM) 30 guidance that
addresses regional grid models. The
Commenters assert that this caused
Georgia to improperly screen out
sources. Specifically, the Commenters
27 See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), (iii); 89 FR 47481,
47493 (June 3, 2024); see also Sections 2 and 2.1
of 2021 Clarifications Memo.
28 EPA’s 2019 Guidance, pages 12–14, describe
components of Georgia’s AoI approach, including
Q/d, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses,
and source apportionment photochemical modeling
(e.g., CAMx PSAT).
29 See e.g., 77 FR 1163 published February 27,
2012, for a description of Georgia’s AoI approach
in the first planning period. On May 4, 2018, EPA
fully approved Georgia’s first period regional haze
plan, effective June 4, 2018. See 83 FR 19637.
30 EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land
Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with
authority over the Federal Class I area (or the
Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park
Commission.’’ See 40 CFR 51.301. The U.S.
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are
collectively referred to as the ‘‘Federal Land
Managers’’ or ‘‘FLMs’’ throughout this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
argue that the FLMs’ Air Quality Related
Values Work Group (FLAG) Guidance
indicates that photochemical grid
models are not the preferred model for
evaluating visibility impacts from
sources less than 50 km from Class I
areas and reference the use of direct
plume impact models.31 According to
the Conservation Groups, this guidance
shows that regional grid models are not
preferred for sources located close to
Class I areas and that the grid size used
by VISTAS is too small to produce
accurate results for those sources.
Response 2.d: The Commenters do not
provide any specific model performance
information demonstrating that the
CAMx model nor the PSAT source
apportionment tool have poor model
performance for evaluating visibility
impacts from sources located within 50
km of any of the Class I areas located in
Georgia.
The Commenters take the FLMs’
FLAG guidance out of context. The
FLAG reference to direct plume models
(e.g., Plume Visibility Model) 32 is for
evaluating visibility impacts under the
New Source Review (NSR)/PSD
permitting regulations and not for
regional haze analyses. EPA’s regional
haze regulations do not require
evaluations of direct plume impacts
separate from the photochemical
modeling analyses used for regional
haze visibility analyses.
The Commenters assert that since the
horizontal grid size used in the VISTAS
CAMx modeling was 12 km, it is
insufficient to resolve the details of
emissions plumes from facilities within
50 km of a Class I area and that the
model performance degrades
substantially at close-in distances. The
general statement from the Commenters
that model performance substantially
degrades within 50 km is not supported
by any specific evidence in the
comments. Moreover, the Commenters’
position is belied by the fact that one of
the three sources selected by Georgia—
Brunswick Cellulose—is 27.9 km from
the nearest Class I area (Wolf Island).
EPA thus reaffirms that Georgia’s CAMx
PSAT modeling was appropriate for
selecting sources for reasonable progress
analyses.
31 Conservation Groups cite to the FLAG
Guidance at 2024 Kordzi Report at pp. 7–10.
32 The Plume Visibility Model ‘‘PLUVUE’’ is used
for estimating visual range reduction and
atmospheric discoloration caused by plumes
resulting from the emissions of particles, nitrogen
oxides, and sulfur oxides from a single source. See
‘‘PLUVUE II’’ at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/airquality-dispersion-modeling-alternative-models.
The User’s Guide is available at: https://gaftp.
epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/other/pluvueii/
PluvueUG.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
The Commenters separately argue that
Georgia’s correlation analysis of the
sulfate AoI versus PSAT presented in
Section 7.6.3 of the Haze Plan is flawed.
The Commenters in the Kordzi Report
point out the scatter in the AoI/PSAT
ratio data for distances less than 100 km
in Figure 7–42 of the Georgia Haze Plan
and argue this makes the State’s
correlation conclusions invalid. Also,
the Commenters refer to the scatter in
the sulfate fractional bias values in
Figure 7–43 in the Haze Plan and argue
the AoI versus PSAT correlation is
invalid.
EPA disagrees. Georgia’s Figure 7–43
has a coefficient of determination (R2)
that appears to have a strong correlation,
and the Commenters provided no new
information that Georgia’s correlation
results were flawed. While there is more
scatter between the data points less than
100 km from the Class I area, there is
clearly a trend that the AoI values are
much larger than the PSAT values
within 100 km compared to the ratios
for further distances. There is logic to
this result due to the way the AoI metric
is calculated using the Extinction
Weighted Residence Times (EWRT)
multiplied by the Emissions divided
Distance (EWRTxQ/d). The EWRT is
calculated using the frequency that
winds (represented by Hybrid SingleParticle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
(HYSPLIT) back trajectories) pass over a
specific geographic area (represented by
a modeling grid cell) on the path to the
Class I area.33 For sources located less
than 100 km from a Class I area, there
is likely to be a higher frequency of the
HYSPLIT back trajectories passing over
the 12 km grid cell containing the
source, thus the EWRT and AoI value
will be larger. The CAMx PSAT
modeling is a more refined
photochemical modeling approach that
calculates the atmospheric fate and
transport of the PM precursors and their
chemical reactions to form visibility
impairing pollutants (e.g., ammonium
sulfate). Therefore, compared to the AoI
screening process, the refined PSAT
technique is less likely to overestimate
the visibility impacts for sources located
within 100 km of the Class I area.
Regarding the scatter of the data
resulting in the AoI to PSAT fractional
bias correlation, EPA acknowledges that
there is scatter in the data which is
reflected in the 0.72 R2 value shown in
Figure 7–43 in the Haze Plan. However,
this level of correlation is not
uncommon in these types of modeling
data analyses, and the results are
33 This is explained in much greater detail in
Section 7.5 of the Haze Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
reasonable. For these reasons, Georgia’s
correlation approach is valid.
The photochemical modeling
employed by VISTAS and Georgia is the
most refined methodology available for
evaluating regional haze visibility
impacts. Moreover, Georgia’s AoI
screening process identified sources
located within 50 km of its Class I areas,
including the Brunswick Cellulose
facility located approximately 30 km
from Wolf Island that met the PSAT
source selection criteria and underwent
an FFA to evaluate reasonable progress.
As discussed above, Georgia
demonstrated in Section 7.6.3 of the
Haze Plan that the AoI screening
technique overestimates visibility
impacts for sources located within 100
km of a Class I area. Based upon this
AoI overestimation, in Section 7.6.4 of
the Haze Plan, Georgia explains why
sources (with the exception of
Brunswick Cellulose which is located
27.9 km from Wolf Island) that are
located less than 100 km from its Class
I areas were not tagged for PSAT
modeling and thus were not selected for
FFAs. EPA finds that Georgia
adequately justified why the other
sources within 100 km of Class I areas
were not selected for FFAs.
Comment 2.e: The Commenters also
note that EPA stated in guidance 34 that
use of a source selection threshold that
captures only a small portion of a state’s
contribution to visibility impairment in
Class I areas is more likely to be
unreasonable. The Commenters assert
that to ensure Georgia captured a
meaningful portion of in-state sources, a
different selection method with a lower
threshold should have been used, such
as a ‘‘Q/d’’ (emissions (Q) divided by
distance to a Class I area (d)). The
Commenters assert that utilizing this
method with a threshold of five or lower
might have resulted in up to 21 sources
in Georgia being selected for an FFA.
Response 2.e: Regarding the
Commenters’ argument that the State
should have adopted a different
selection method (such as Q/d) with a
lower threshold to select more sources,
as discussed above, a state is not
required to evaluate all sources of
emissions in each planning period.
Instead, a state may reasonably select a
set of sources for an analysis of control
measures. Selecting a set of sources for
analysis of control measures in each
34 ‘‘Clarifications
Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period.’’ https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92045
planning period is also consistent with
the RHR, which sets up an iterative
planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control
measures for all its sources in a given
SIP revision. See 2019 Guidance at 9.
Moreover, use of Q/d (which simply
involves dividing the quantity of
emissions by the distance to a Class I
area) does not consider transport
direction/pathway, dispersion and
photochemical processes, or the
particular days that have the most
anthropogenic impairment due to all
sources. 2019 Guidance at 13. Therefore,
compared to photochemical modeling,
using a simple Q/d technique as
Commenters suggest would have
resulted in a less accurate quantification
of visibility impacts on Class I areas. As
for the use of specific source selection
thresholds (including Commenters’
suggested Q/d threshold of above five),
as discussed in detail above, Georgia’s
source selection methodology and
thresholds were well documented and
reasonable.
Comment 2.f: The Commenters also
assert that EPA’s position that Georgia’s
source selection method is reasonable
given the specific circumstances present
in Georgia, including that Georgia is not
contributing to visibility impairment at
any Class I areas above the Uniform Rate
of Progress (URP), is not a valid basis on
which EPA can approve the State’s
selection method.35 Specifically, the
Commenters note that the glidepath
(i.e., URP) is not a ‘‘Safe Harbor’’ to
avoid requiring additional reasonable
progress measures for Class I areas.
Separately, the Commenters take issue
with EPA’s statement in the NPRM that
Georgia’s source selection methodology
is also reasonable given the ‘‘specific
circumstances present in Georgia’’
which precedes a factual recitation of
the improvements in visibility since the
2000–2004 baseline and Georgia’s lack
of contribution to any Class I area above
the URP.
Response 2.f: EPA agrees that the URP
is not a ‘‘safe harbor’’ to avoid requiring
additional reasonable progress
measures. However, being below the
URP is relevant to whether a state needs
to perform a ‘‘robust demonstration’’
based on the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). Therefore, the factual
35 The URP (also commonly referred to as the
‘‘glidepath’’) is the linear rate of progress needed to
attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a
starting point of baseline visibility conditions in
2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064.
The URP is used as a tracking metric to help States
assess the amount of progress they are making
toward the national visibility goal over time in each
Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi).
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
92046
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
information that all Georgia and nearby
Class I areas are below the URP is
needed to inform that requirement.
Additionally, other information about
measured progress towards natural
conditions can be relevant in evaluating
the source selection process and LTS.
For example, significant improvements
in visibility at impacted Class I areas
since the beginning of the second
planning period (starting in 2019) is
relevant context to whether a state is
making progress towards the national
goal and how many additional sources
needed to be analyzed in order to
determine what is necessary for
reasonable progress in the second
planning period. Therefore, what
progress the state has already achieved
in the second planning period is a
relevant factor that EPA may consider
regarding the reasonableness of a state’s
source selection thresholds. Even
ignoring the fact that the visibility at
Class I areas impacted by Georgia has
greatly improved, EPA would still reach
the same conclusion that Georgia’s
source selection methodology and
thresholds for this second planning
period are reasonable for the reasons
stated earlier in this Response.
Comment 3: The Commenters assert
that EPA incorrectly endorses Georgia’s
decision to exclude consideration of
NOX controls in any FFAs. They
contend that VISTAS modeling did not
accurately reflect the shift in the 20
percent most impaired days and the
corresponding increase in the
contribution of nitrate to visibility
impairment at Southeastern Class I areas
such as Cohutta, especially in winter
months and at coastal sites. The
Commenters state that EPA’s
expectation is that states will, at a
minimum, consider both SO2 and NOX
in this planning period, and that there
are multiple sources of significant NOX
emissions that Georgia should have
analyzed for NOX controls.
Response 3: EPA disagrees with this
comment. The RHR does not prescribe
which visibility impairing pollutants
must be evaluated in the FFAs. EPA’s
2019 Guidance on page 11 states:
‘‘When selecting sources for analysis of
control measures, a state may focus on
the PM species that dominate visibility
impairment at the Class I areas affected
by emissions from the state and then
select only sources with emissions of
those dominant pollutants and their
precursors.’’ Section 2.2 of EPA’s 2021
Clarifications Memo recommends that
states which do not evaluate SO2 and
NOX in both source selection and
control evaluations show why such
consideration of these pollutants would
be unreasonable, especially if the state
considered both of these pollutants in
the first planning period.36
Georgia followed these recommended
approaches in the development of its
Haze Plan. Georgia considered both SO2
emissions (via sulfate’s visibility
impacts) and NOX emissions (via
nitrate’s visibility impacts) in the source
selection process. As part of the Haze
Plan, GA EPD presented the results of
PSAT modeling conducted by VISTAS
to estimate the projected impact of
statewide SO2 and NOX emissions
across all emissions sectors in 2028 on
total light extinction for the 20 percent
most impaired days in all Class I areas
in the VISTAS modeling domain. The
modeling showed that SO2/sulfate
visibility impacts from point sources
were in general much larger than NOX/
nitrate impacts. Applying the modeling
results to individual sources resulted in
relatively large sulfate visibility impacts
for a small number of in-state SO2
sources, but much smaller nitrate
impacts from NOX emissions. Therefore,
several sources were selected for SO2
control analysis determinations, but no
sources in Georgia met the same source
selection threshold for nitrate, and
therefore Georgia did not select any
sources for a NOX emissions control
evaluation. Contrary to the Commenters’
assertion that Georgia made a
‘‘decision’’ to exclude consideration of
NOX controls in any FFA, it was
Georgia’s objective application of its
source selection process in combination
with data and modeling showing that
SO2 and not NOX is the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant that
resulted in Georgia selecting only
sources for SO2 emissions control
analyses.
This approach was reasonable.
IMPROVE monitoring data shows that
ammonium sulfate remains the
dominant visibility impairing pollutant
at Georgia’s Class I areas as well as at
those Class I areas outside of the State
that are impacted by Georgia as
discussed in Section 2.5.2 of the Haze
Plan (particularly Figures 2–4 through
2–6 for the 2009–2013 period and
Figures 2–7 through 2–9 for the 2014–
2018 period). Recent 2015–2019
IMPROVE monitoring data cited within
the Haze Plan identifies the relative
contributions of PM species
contributing to the total visibility
impairment at the Georgia Class I areas,
which are shown in Table 4, below. In
spite of increased nitrate contributions
on the 20 percent most impaired days in
more recent years (as the Commenters
note, often on winter days), as indicated
in Table 4, ammonium nitrate
contributions to regional haze at the
State’s Class I areas remain relatively
low at 8 to 15 percent of the total
visibility impairment as compared to
ammonium sulfate at 55 to 58 percent.
TABLE 4—§2015–2019 SPECIATED IMPROVE MONITORING DATA FOR GEORGIA’S CLASS I AREAS
Ammonium
sulfate
(%)
Ammonium
nitrate
(%)
55
58
58
15
8
8
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Cohutta .....................................................
Okefenokee ..............................................
Wolf Island ...............................................
Furthermore, in Tables 7–5 through
7–7 of the Haze Plan, the State provided
a calculation of the sulfate and nitrate
EWRT used in the AoI analysis for
Cohutta and Okefenokee for the 20
percent most impaired days from 2011
to 2016, demonstrating that the sulfate
Organic
carbon
(%)
Coarse
mass
(%)
19
19
19
EWRT is significantly higher than the
nitrate EWRT. This further supports the
importance of focusing on SO2
emissions reductions for this planning
period.
The State’s rationale for focusing on
SO2 controls in the FFAs is summarized
Elemental
carbon
(%)
5
6
6
5
5
5
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Fine
soils
(%)
0
2
2
in Georgia’s SIP submittal and the
NPRM. See Haze Plan, Section 7.10; 89
FR 47491, 47493–47494. EPA gave
careful consideration to Georgia’s
rationale and reaffirms that Georgia’s
justification for not evaluating sources
selected for SO2 emission control
36 Georgia considered SO for FFAs conducted in
2
the first planning period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Fine
sea salt
(%)
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
1
1
1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
analyses for a separate NOX emission
control analysis is reasonably justified
for this planning period. The trend of
increasing nitrate contribution to
visibility impairment as a total percent
of all visibility impairment at Class I
areas over time highlighted by the
Commenters is something that will
continue to be evaluated in future
planning periods. If the data warrants
further consideration of NOX/nitrate in
future planning periods, EPA expects
that Georgia will address potential NOX
controls in future regional haze SIP
revisions.
Comment 4: The Commenters assert
that EPA ignores that Georgia
unreasonably excluded sources from
FFAs. The Commenters state that EPA
must require Georgia to prepare FFAs
for 16 additional EGU and non-EGU
industrial sources identified by U.S.
National Park Service (NPS) and the
Commenters which have emissions that
likely contribute to impairment in Class
I areas in Georgia and other states.
The Commenters describe four of
these facilities in greater detail. These
specific arguments are addressed in
Comments 4.a through 4.c, below.
Comment 4.a: Regarding Georgia
Power—Plant Scherer (Plant Scherer),
the Commenters state that this facility is
not well controlled for NOX and that
NOX emissions ‘‘can be cut in half at no
capital cost whatsoever by simply
requiring Georgia Power to operate its
existing SCRs continuously throughout
the year.’’ The Commenters also state
that although the SO2 emission rate at
each Plant Scherer unit is often very
low, that at times the SO2 emission rates
are as much as ten times higher, and
that the current controls are not
consistently achieving the level of
control that they are capable of.
Therefore, the Commenters assert that
EPA must require Georgia to prepare an
FFA for this facility.
Response 4.a: As discussed in
Response 2, Georgia’s source selection
methodology was reasonable and was
adequately documented in its Haze
Plan. The fact that certain sources,
including the 16 sources identified by
the Commenters, were not selected for
FFAs for either SO2 or NOX for this
planning period is the result of the
reasonable application of Georgia’s
source selection process and source
selection thresholds. In other words, if
sources were selected by the State, they
were selected because the data
supported the selection of that source.
The inverse is also true regarding
sources that were not selected. As
discussed in Response 3, NOX impacts
were considered by the State, but no
sources were selected for NOX controls
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
(including these sources highlighted by
the Commenters) because visibility
impacts did not exceed the State’s
source selection threshold. To the extent
that the 16 sources identified by
Commenters were not selected by
Georgia, the Responses to Comments 2
and 3 generally address why these
sources were not selected and why EPA
agrees with the State that it was
reasonable for this planning period to
not select these sources. To summarize,
Georgia selected a sufficient number of
sources under Georgia’s jurisdiction to
ensure that sources responsible for the
largest visibility impacts to Class I areas
completed FFAs for this planning
period. Georgia has discretion under the
RHR to determine its source selection
methodology and Georgia’s source
selection process, and the sources that
Georgia selected were reasonable and
the Haze Plan complied with the CAA
and RHR for this planning period. While
Georgia could have used its discretion
to select other sources in addition to
those screened in during its source
selection process, including some or all
of the sources that the Commenters
highlight, Georgia was not required to
do so.
Throughout the Commenters’
discussion of these 16 sources, however,
the Commenters raise several additional
points that have not yet been fully
addressed in prior responses. Regarding
the comment that Plant Scherer is not
well-controlled for NOX, this was not a
relevant consideration for Georgia’s
source selection process. Plant Scherer
did not meet Georgia’s two percent
combined sulfate plus nitrate AoI
threshold for visibility impacts and
therefore was not selected for further
PSAT analysis during the State’s initial
screening process. Specifically,
Georgia’s (through VISTAS’ modeling)
AoI analysis found that Plant Scherer’s
combined sulfate and nitrate impacts
would be 0.79 percent for Cohutta, 0.71
percent for Okefenokee, and 0.56
percent for Wolf Island. See Haze Plan,
Appendix E–7b. These numbers fell
below Georgia’s two percent AoI
threshold for visibility impacts, and
therefore, the State did not consider this
source for further PSAT analysis (or an
FFA). By way of comparison, Georgia
calculated Plant Bowen’s (another
Georgia Power facility) combined nitrate
and sulfate AoI impacts as 20.74 percent
for Cohutta, 14.67 percent for
Okefenokee, and 11.78 percent for Wolf
Island, which is why Plant Bowen was
considered for further PSAT tagging and
was ultimately selected for an FFA for
SO2, while Plant Scherer was not. EPA
agrees with Georgia’s combined nitrate
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92047
and sulfate AoI calculations and finds
the State’s methodology and the results
of this methodology reasonable.
Regarding the Commenters’ comments
that variability in the emissions at Plant
Scherer warrant an emission limit of
0.01 to 0.02 pound (lb)/million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu), as noted
above, Georgia did not select Plant
Scherer for an FFA because the
visibility impacts from this source were
well below Georgia’s source selection
thresholds. As Plant Scherer was not
selected for an FFA, consistent with the
requirements under the RHR, Georgia
does not have to address the limits at
the source as suggested by the
Commenters.
Comment 4.b: Regarding Georgia
Power—Plant Wansley (Plant Wansley),
the Commenters state that while the
facility has ceased to operate, nothing in
the SIP submission prevents Plant
Wansley from restarting operations with
corresponding increases in emissions in
the future. Separately, the Commenters
express concerns that the
documentation of the shutdown of Plant
Wansley described in the NPRM does
not adequately prevent Plant Wansley
from restarting operations. The
Commenters assert that this shutdown
must be incorporated into the Haze
Plan.
Response 4.b: Even if EPA were to
assume that Plant Wansley had not shut
down, Georgia still would not have
selected this source because the
combined sulfate and nitrate AoI
impacts based on VISTAS’ 2028
projections for this facility, which
project emissions without this
shutdown, are 1.09 percent for Cohutta,
0.67 percent for Okefenokee, and 0.77
percent for Wolf Island, all of which are
well below the State’s two percent AoI
threshold. Therefore, even if the
shutdown documentation for Plant
Wansley was inadequate as asserted by
the Commenters (which is not the case,
as explained below), Georgia satisfied
its RHR obligations under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) and considered and
reasonably explained the methodology
by which it selected sources for FFAs
that contribute to visibility impairment
in Class I areas.
However, Georgia did not just revoke
the Part 70 operating permit for Plant
Wansley as stated by the Commenters.
Rather, Georgia’s December 28, 2022,
letter to Georgia Power states that it
revoked ‘‘all Georgia Air Quality
Permits previously issued to this
facility,’’ which would include both the
facility’s preconstruction permits and
the facility’s Part 70 permit that
contains applicable requirements
(including those originating from the
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92048
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
preconstruction permits). Restarting the
facility—a concern raised by the
Commenters—could not be
accomplished without the submission of
an application for a permit, as specified
in Paragraph 391–3–1–.03 of the Georgia
Rules for Air Quality Control 37 and
issuance of an entirely new
preconstruction permit, which would
likely need to be a major source NSR
permit. These major NSR permits
generally require Best Available Control
Technology for a PSD Permit or Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate for a
Nonattainment New Source Review
permit. The Commenters appear to agree
and state that ‘‘Any attempt to restart a
boiler at Plant Wansley would require a
new construction or major modification
permit including either a prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) or new
source review (NSR) analysis.’’
Comment 4.c: In regards to
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co.,
LLC, Compressor Station 120, the
Commenters state that this facility
emitted 2,283.57 tons of NOX in 2020
and likely impacts 12 Class I areas, and
that there are likely feasible and costeffective controls available to reduce
this facility’s NOX emissions. Therefore,
the Commenters assert that EPA must
require Georgia to conduct an FFA of
potential controls for Compressor
Station 120. Regarding CEMEX
Southeast, LLC, the Commenters state
that this facility emits 1,424.37 tons per
year (tpy) of NOX and 130.87 tpy of SO2
and likely impacts eight Class I areas,
and that there are likely available
controls that could reduce haze-forming
emissions from CEMEX Southeast, LLC
that Georgia failed to consider in its SIP
revision.
As for the 12 additional sources
identified by the Commenters, all 12 of
the listed sources have reported NOX
and/or SO2 emissions in the 2020 NEI
and, according to the Commenters’
analysis, have a Q/d value above five for
multiple Class I areas in the Southeast.
For example, the Commenters state that
Rome Linerboard Mill has a Q/d value
of as high as 28.80 for Cohutta in
Georgia and that NPS has noted in its
consultation materials that the facility
ranked third for haze contributions to
VISTAS Class I areas based on
cumulative AoI screening results and
was in the top 80 percent of total AoI
impact for five Class I areas.
Additionally, Commenters assert that
Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC is
another paperboard mill that Georgia
did not select but should have selected.
37 Georgia
Rule 391–3–1–.03. ‘‘Permits.
Amended’’ is available at: https://rules.sos.ga.gov/
GAC/391-3-1-.03.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
The Commenters state that this facility
emits 2,461.26 tpy of NOX and 338.2 tpy
of SO2 and likely impacts 16 Class I
areas.
Response 4.c: For the same reasons as
stated above in Responses 2 and 3
regarding the adequacy of Georgia’s
source selection methodology, EPA also
disagrees that Georgia should have
selected Transcontinental Gasoline
Company LLC—Compressor Station
120; CEMEX Southeast, LLC; Green
Power Solutions; International Paper
Co.—Temple Inland Rome Linerboard
Mill (Temple-Inland—Rome Lumber
Mill); Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs
LLC; Interstate Paper LLC; Georgia
Pacific Consumer Products LP—
Savannah River Mill; Rayonier
Performance Fibers LLC; PCA Valdosta
Mill; C–E Minerals Plants 1, 2, and 6;
Graphic Packaging Macon Mill;
Weyerhaeuser NR Port Wentworth;
Pinova, Inc.; and Thermal Ceramics. GA
EPD identified and evaluated these
sources as part of its AoI screening
approach and did not select them for
FFAs because they did not meet
Georgia’s source selection thresholds.38
Comment 5: The Commenters assert
that Georgia’s cost effectiveness
analyses are arbitrary and that
‘‘[a]lthough EPA acknowledges that
Georgia relied on the Arkansas Excel
document for its cost-effectiveness
determinations, EPA does not address
whether it was reasonable for Georgia to
do so.’’ Additionally, they state that ‘‘to
provide a reasoned basis for its
decisions, Georgia must first establish a
threshold, or explain and justify some
other objective measure, for determining
cost effectiveness that is in line with
other states’ chosen measures and apply
that threshold consistently across its
Four-Factor Analyses.’’
According to the Commenters, there
are three specific problems with
Georgia’s reliance on the Arkansas Excel
spreadsheet. First, the Commenters
assert that this spreadsheet does not
consider that Round one costeffectiveness measures were considered
alongside visibility benefits and cite to
EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo’s
statement that ‘‘a state should not use
visibility to summarily dismiss costeffective potential controls.’’ 39 Second,
the Commenters state that they expect
that with each successive planning
period, the cost of controls should
increase because the lowest cost
emission reductions would have already
38 See ‘‘Individual VISTAS Class I Areas Results’’
available at: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/
content/task-5-area-influence-analysis.
39 ‘‘Round one’’ and ‘‘Round two’’ refer to the first
and second planning periods, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
been implemented, and therefore, the
Commenters assert that relying on first
planning period costs to guide second
planning period costs is improper.
Third, Commenters state that the
‘‘Arkansas’ spreadsheet fails to include
the high end of first round costeffectiveness values up to $10,000/ton.’’
In addition to this last point, the
Commenters assert that ‘‘Arkansas
wrongfully included [in its spreadsheet]
some cost-effectiveness data that is too
old to escalate according to EPA’s
Control Cost Manual.’’
The Commenters instead suggest that
Georgia should have adopted a firm cost
threshold such that controls below the
threshold would be selected and
controls above the threshold would not
be selected. Alternatively, the
Commenters state that Georgia ‘‘should
have explained or justified some other
objective measure.’’ The Commenters
also contend that EPA must reject
Georgia’s use of this approach because
it would be inconsistent with EPA’s
reasoning in its proposal to partially
disapprove Arizona’s SIP revision in
which Arizona used a cost threshold of
$6,500/ton. Finally, the Commenters
state (in the Kordzi Report) that data
from Florida River Power Plants 1 and
2 are missing from this spreasheet and
should have been included and
considered.
Response 5: There is no requirement
in the CAA or the RHR for states to
establish bright line cost effectiveness
thresholds when evaluating control
costs in FFAs. The CAA and the RHR
instead require states to evaluate the
costs of compliance, and EPA’s 2019
Guidance recommends that states follow
the recommendations in EPA’s ‘‘Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual’’
(CCM) 40 to facilitate apples-to-apples
comparisons of different controls
options for the same source, and
comparisons across different sources.
2019 Guidance at 31.
As described in Section 7.7 of the
Haze Plan, for the cost of compliance
factor, Georgia EPD did not set a specific
cost per ton threshold, but rather
analyzed each facility using the
information in EPA’s CCM and 2019
Guidance to determine whether a given
control measure is cost-effective based
on a number of factors, including the
historical range of cost/ton values. The
historical cost information was derived
from an Excel spreadsheet assembled by
Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality that compared the cost of
40 EPA’s ‘‘Air Pollution Control Cost Manual’’ is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/economic-andcost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reportsand-guidance-air-pollution.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
compliance from the first planning
period for SO2 and NOX in dollars per
ton for various types of industrial
emission units (e.g., EGU Boiler,
Industrial Boiler, Kiln, Smelter, all NonEGU). The spreadsheet was updated
with VISTAS data (Appendix G–4) and
presents the maximum and minimum
cost/ton and various statistical
percentile values. While Georgia did not
choose a bright-line cost effectiveness
threshold, Georgia’s use of this
spreadsheet was an objective measure
by which Georgia determined the
reasonableness of control costs for this
second planning period.
EPA acknowledges the Arkansas cost
spreadsheet includes Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) control
determination costs that considered the
visibility benefits of the controls
pursuant to the CAA and RHR under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).41 However, this
fact does not change EPA’s position that
Georgia’s use of this spreadsheet was
reasonable. First, Georgia did not
consider visibility in making its control
determinations for this planning period.
Just as importantly, while EPA agrees in
general with the Commenters that data
from the first planning period is
necessarily an imperfect yardstick by
which to determine the reasonableness
of control measures for this second
planning period—in part because the
first planning period included BART
determinations whereas the second
planning period does not—the
information is nonetheless highly
relevant. Moreover, Georgia did not set
a cost threshold based on the low-end
or mean (or median) cost of first
planning period controls. In fact, all
controls rejected by Georgia were more
costly than the 98th percentile of all
first planning periods costs. This also
addresses the Commenters’ contention
that with each planning period, control
costs should increase.
Finally, regarding the Commenters’
third concern with Georgia’s use of the
Arkansas spreadsheet that the
spreadsheet may include missing data,
EPA has reviewed the concern raised in
the Kordzi 42 report that the Florida
Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and
2 determinations were excluded from
this spreadsheet. According to the
Kordzi Report cited by the Commenters,
41 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A): ‘‘. . . the State must
take into consideration . . . the remaining useful
life of the source, and the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated
to result from the use of such technology.’’
42 Joe Kordzi, A Review of EPA’s Proposed
Approval of the Georgia Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (June 2024) (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘Kordzi Report’’) included in the
docket for this action as Exhibit 1 in the
Conservation Group letter (July 3, 2024).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
the Crystal River Power Plant Units 1
and 2 determinations required the
source to either (1) install dry flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and SCR at a costeffectiveness of $10,000/ton for SO2
BART and $8,224/ton for NOX BART or
(2) retire by December 31, 2020. This is
not accurate. While both options were
considered in the Florida first planning
period regional haze NPRM, the final
rule selected only the shutdown option
based upon the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection’s decision to
adopt this shutdown in a SIP
supplement. See 78 FR 53,262 (August
29, 2013). For this reason, there was no
add-on control adopted, and therefore
no cost to consider. Although EPA was
not involved in the preparation of the
Arkansas spreadsheet, this may explain
why the Crystal River Power Plant
facility was not included in the
spreadsheet. In any event, EPA
concludes that Georgia’s decision not to
consider this facility was reasonable.
Regarding the Commenters’ assertions
that Georgia’s approach is unreasonable
when compared to states such as
Colorado and Nevada, which elected to
set cost effectiveness thresholds of
$10,000/ton of pollutant removed, and
to Arizona, which elected to set a cost
effectiveness threshold of $6,500/ton of
pollutant removed, Georgia was not
required by the CAA or RHR to adopt
a similar bright-line cost effectiveness
threshold. Moreover, the Commenters
themselves do not suggest a specific
bright-line threshold, let alone provide
rationale to support such a threshold.
Georgia applied its chosen methodology
in a way that is reasonable by rejecting
controls with cost-effectiveness values
above the 98th percentile of first
planning period costs.
As for the Commenters’ position that
approval of Georgia’s plan would be
inconsistent with the rationale within
EPA’s proposed disapproval of
Arizona’s plan regarding the importance
of adequate state justification, EPA
disagrees. In EPA’s proposed
disapproval of Arizona’s regional haze
SIP, EPA stated that Arizona ‘‘did not
provide an adequate justification for
how this threshold resulted in a
reasonable set of control measures,’’ and
in several instances in the notice of
proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that
Arizona ignored its own threshold
without justification. See 89 FR 47,429
(May 31, 2024). That is quite different
than Georgia, which did not use a
bright-line threshold at all and instead
consistently applied the statistical
methods in the Arkansas spreadsheet to
only reject control costs that exceed the
98th percentile of first planning period
costs identified within that spreadsheet.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92049
Comment 6: The Commenters assert
that EPA shirks its duty to review
Georgia’s source-specific FFAs. The
Commenters state that EPA proposes to
merely ‘‘rubber stamp’’ the State’s SIP
submission, without engaging in any
meaningful, independent, analysis of
Georgia’s FFAs for the three facilities
the State selected. Additionally, the
Commenters assert that ‘‘[d]espite EPA’s
stated expectations for this planning
period, Georgia does not require any of
the sources to adopt additional control
measures to make reasonable progress.’’
Response 6: EPA’s proposed approval
of Georgia’s Haze Plan is a proper
exercise of EPA’s authority under the
CAA. Congress crafted the CAA to
provide for states to take the lead in
developing implementation plans, but
balanced that decision by requiring EPA
to review the plans to determine
whether a SIP meets the requirements of
the CAA. When reviewing SIPs, EPA
must consider not only whether the
state considered the appropriate factors
in making decisions, but acted
reasonably in doing so. In undertaking
such a review, EPA does not usurp the
state’s authority but ensures that such
authority is reasonably exercised.
Contrary to the comment that the
Agency ‘‘shirks’’ its CAA obligations,
EPA has performed its duties with
diligence. EPA carefully evaluated the
Haze Plan and the associated record and
engaged in a thorough analysis of each
control option, including each of the
underlying cost assumptions used in the
calculations. Georgia conducted
extensive technical work in support of
its SIP submittal, and therefore, EPA
independently evaluated each FFA,
including costs, and compared each
FFA’s control determination against the
CCM. In the Technical Support
Document (TSD) to the NPRM, EPA
documented the cost assumptions that
the State relied upon in its FFAs for
transparency to the public.
Each of the FFAs are discussed in
more detail in the responses to
comments that follow, but EPA notes
that Georgia did adopt important control
measures into the SIP as necessary for
reasonable progress for the second
planning period, including the coal
burning prohibition at IP-Savannah.
While that facility had voluntarily
elected to stop burning coal at the No.
13 Power Boiler, this prohibition was
not federally enforceable and permanent
until incorporated into the Georgia SIP.
In the absence of placing this
prohibition into the SIP, the facility
could have lawfully restarted burning
coal at any time, which is inconsistent
with making reasonable progress under
the CAA and RHR. EPA’s specific
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92050
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
analyses for each FFA are addressed in
responses to comments below that
address each of the three facilities
selected by Georgia.
Comment 7: The Commenters assert
that ‘‘Plant Bowen’s SO2 emission rates
have increased since round one of
regional haze, which is contrary to the
intent of the Regional Haze Program.’’
The Kordzi Report describes how,
although Plant Bowen was reviewed for
BART in the first round of regional haze
planning, Georgia relied on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy
BART for SO2 and NOX for EGUs and
did not include any enforceable
mechanism to ensure Plant Bowen’s
emissions did not increase, citing to
projected emissions from Plant Bowen
and Q/d values.
Response 7: Although the combined
SO2 emission rates at Plant Bowen for
Units 1–4 have increased since the first
planning period as discussed below,
focusing only on these emission rates
from these units ignores the significant
declines in total facility-wide SO2
emissions from this facility. EPA also
does not agree with the Commenters
that an increase in emission rates within
permitted levels during the first
planning period, on its own, is contrary
to the intent of the regional haze
program.
In 2010, after wet scrubbers had been
installed to control SO2 emissions at
Plant Bowen’s four units, this facility’s
annual average SO2 emission rates were
approximately 0.068 lb/MMBtu based
on Clean Air Markets Program Data
(CAMPD) reviewed by EPA. In 2023, the
annual average emission rate was 0.13
lb/MMBtu. This increase was primarily
due to a change in coal used at the
facility from Central Appalachian
bituminous coal (CAPP coal) to Illinois
Basin coal (IB coal), with IB coal
containing a higher sulfur content.43
These coal types are discussed in more
detail in EPA’s responses to later
comments regarding Plant Bowen’s FFA
along with discussion as to why
switching back to CAPP coal is not cost
effective.
While emission rates are an important
consideration because FFAs generally
yield emission controls that result in
updated emission rates, in this instance,
only considering emission rates as the
Commenters propose would ignore an
important aspect of the problem. Here,
the total amount of SO2 emissions is
also important. The first regional haze
planning period spanned the period
from 2000–2018, with SIPs due in 2007.
Plant Bowen’s SO2 annual emissions in
43 See Appendix G–1b, at p. 13 (noting that Plant
Bowen switched to IB coal in 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
2007 were approximately 197,000 tpy
prior to the installation of wet scrubbers
to control SO2 emissions. Plant Bowen
installed wet scrubbers between 2008
and 2010 at Units 1 through 4. After
these wet scrubbers were installed,
Plant Bowen’s total facility-wide SO2
emissions dropped to approximately
7,618 tpy in 2010, and in 2023, SO2 total
emissions from Plant Bowen were 7,143
tpy.44 EPA acknowledges that there is
year-to-year variability in Plant Bowen’s
emission rates and total emissions due
to changes in demand for electricity,
sulfur content of the fuel used at Plant
Bowen, and scrubber efficiency.
However, the general trend at this
facility has been a significant reduction
in total SO2 emissions during the first
planning period. Contrary to the
Commenters’ assertions, the fact that
SO2 emission rates have varied to some
extent at this facility during the first
planning period is not contrary to the
RHR.
Comment 8: As a general matter, the
Commenters contend that EPA did not
scrutinize Georgia’s analysis of Plant
Bowen and did not consider the
comments submitted by the
Commenters to Georgia, including the
Stamper report.45 Specifically, the
Commenters assert that Georgia greatly
overstated the costs of switching back to
lower sulfur CAPP coal for three
primary reasons.
Response 8: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters. Regarding the
Commenters’ assertion that EPA did not
scrutinize the FFA or consider the
Commenters’ state-level comments
provided to Georgia, that is not correct.
EPA evaluated Georgia’s entire SIP
submittal, including the FFAs, the statelevel comments, and the State’s
responses to those comments.
Comment 8.a: First, the Commenters
argue that Georgia’s assumption of an
SO2 rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu when
burning CAPP coal was improper
because Plant Bowen averaged 0.05 lb/
MMBtu or lower for many years when
combusting CAPP coal.
Response 8.a: The Commenters are
incorrect. The data submitted by the
Commenters in the Kordzi Report
contains emission data for Plant Bowen
Units 1 through 4 including for the
years 2010 through 2014. As previously
44 Facility and unit emissions and emissions rate
data is from EPA’s CAMPD available at: https://
campd.epa.gov/.
45 The July 25, 2022, Stamper Report, ‘‘Review
and Comments on Reasonable Progress Four-Factor
Analyses Evaluated as Part of the Georgia Regional
Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period,’’
is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix H–3a of the
Haze Plan which is included in the docket for this
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
stated, Plant Bowen began to transition
to IB coal in 2014. EPA was not able to
reproduce the 0.05 lb/MMBtu average in
the Kordzi Report. Based on the
information submitted by the
Commenters, the actual average SO2
emissions in lb/MMBtu across all four
boilers from 2010–2013 is 0.065 lb/
MMBtu (i.e., prior to any switch to IB
coal), not 0.05 lb/MMBtu as stated by
the Commenters. The average for all
four boilers from 2010 through 2014 is
0.069 lb/MMBtu. These numbers are
very close to the SO2 emission rate of
0.07 lb/MMBtu assumed by Georgia if
Plant Bowen were to switch to CAPP
coal. EPA further confirmed these
numbers by reviewing information from
EPA’s CAMPD.46
Comment 8.b: Second, the
Commenters argue that Georgia assumed
in its analysis that CAPP coal has a
higher sulfur content than most of the
CAPP coal that Plant Bowen previously
burned.
Response 8.b: This is not correct
based on the data provided by the
Commenters. The statement cited by the
Commenters in the Kordzi Report states
that ‘‘Bowen’s estimate assumes a coal
sulfur content of 1.1 percent. As shown
above, this is slightly higher than most
of the previous CAPP coal it burned.’’
However, taking a simple average of the
sulfur content of all coal combusted
across all four boilers contained within
Table 2 of the Kordzi Report yields an
average of 1.08 percent sulfur content
for CAPP coal combusted from 2010–
2013 and 1.19 percent for CAPP coal
combusted from 2010–2014. Again,
these numbers are very close to what
Georgia relied upon for the Plant Bowen
FFA, and EPA agrees with Georgia’s
assumption regarding the sulfur content
of CAPP coal given the averages
discussed above.
Comment 8.c: Third, the
Commenters—and specifically the
Kordzi Report provided as an
attachment to the comments—state that
based upon publicly available Energy
Information Agency (EIA) Form 923
data, railroad-transportable CAPP coal
with a sulfur content of 1.05 percent or
less is available to purchase from
Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia at
delivered prices (i.e., including both
fuel costs and transportation costs) that
are lower per MMBtu than what Plant
Bowen currently pays for IB coal of a
higher sulfur content. Based on this
information, the Commenters argue that
EPA must reject Georgia’s FFA for Plant
Bowen.
46 CAMPD data is available at: https://
campd.epa.gov/.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Response 8.c: EPA also disagrees with
the Commenters’ contention that Plant
Bowen could purchase CAPP coal from
mines in Kentucky, Virginia, and/or
West Virginia at prices that are less
expensive than the higher sulfur IB coal
that Plant Bowen primarily relies upon.
Table 4 within the Kordzi Report
contains information obtained from EIA
Form 923 for the year 2023, which
includes coal production and sale
information such as coal mine name,
quantity sold, average heat content of
the coal, average sulfur content of the
coal, fuel cost in cents per MMBtu, total
cost of each purchase of coal, and
whether the purchase was pursuant to a
contract or was made on the spot
market. Based upon this data, the
Kordzi Report tabulated the total cost of
coal per MMBtu from mines that met
the following criteria: the mines were
only within Kentucky, Virginia, or West
Virginia; the mines were capable of
transporting coal by railroad; and the
coal sold by the mine had sulfur content
below 1.05 percent. Based upon this
data, the Commenters conclude that the
average cost of such coal is $4.89/
MMBtu. The Commenters also conclude
that this is less expensive than the
average cost of Plant Bowen’s coal
purchases in 2023, which the
Commenters assert is $5.33/MMBtu.
First, EPA reviewed the unredacted
fuel cost information contained in the
technical appendix submitted by
Georgia to EPA prior to publishing the
NPRM, and EPA affirms that the
information in that technical appendix
supports the State’s and EPA’s
conclusions that procuring CAPP coal
would be significantly more costly than
Plant Bowen’s current purchases of IB
coal. Second, there is inadequate supply
of coal fitting the type preferred by the
Commenters to supply a facility as large
as Plant Bowen. According to the EIA
923 form data cited by the Commenters,
in 2012, Plant Bowen purchased
4,737,780 tons of coal. In that same year,
32,145,400 tons of coal were sold
meeting the criteria preferred by the
Commenters (from Kentucky, Virginia,
or West Virginia; no greater than 1.05
percent sulfur content; and railroadtransportable). But in 2023, only
4,900,885 tons of coal meeting the
criteria preferred by Commenters were
sold to all facilities combined. In other
words, if Plant Bowen were to switch to
CAPP coal, the demand for CAPP coal
created by Plant Bowen alone would
almost exceed the entire supply of such
coal put into commerce in 2023.
Comment 8.d: Additionally, the
Commenters assert that Plant Bowen’s
cost-effectiveness calculation contains
an annual fuel cost of $86 million to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
switch to CAPP coal that is ‘‘completely
undocumented.’’ Commenters argue that
although Plant Bowen claimed this fuel
cost as a trade secret and therefore
submitted it to EPA as CBI, EPA is
required to review this information and
declare whether EPA finds that this
information meets the documentation
requirements contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). The Commenters assert
that some of the information may not be
CBI, including certain fuel cost data,
and that EPA must evaluate whether
this information is CBI to provide the
public with sufficient information to
fully evaluate the proposal.
Response 8.d: The costs for switching
to CAPP coal were included in the Haze
Plan under Appendix A and Appendix
B to Appendix G–1b. Georgia Power
submitted this cost information under a
claim of business confidentiality and
provided redacted versions of its
proposed four factor analysis, including
Appendix B to Appendix G–1b for
public release.
Under the CAA and EPA’s
regulations, a company may assert a
business confidentiality claim covering
information furnished to EPA. See 40
CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted,
the Agency must consider the
information to be confidential and must
treat it accordingly unless the Agency
finds in a CBI determination that the
material is not CBI. See 40 CFR 2.205,
2.301(g). Under 40 CFR 2.204(a), EPA is
required to make a CBI determination
when the Agency (1) learns that it is
responsible for responding to a request
under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) for the release of
business information; (2) desires to
determine whether business information
in its possession is entitled to
confidential treatment, even though no
request for release of the information
has been received; or (3) determines that
it is likely that EPA eventually will be
requested to disclose the information at
some future date and thus will have to
determine whether the information is
entitled to confidential treatment. EPA’s
regulations set forth the specific
procedures that EPA must follow when
making a CBI determination. 40 CFR
2.204, 2.205, and 2.301(g). Under the
regulations, EPA must provide the
affected businesses with notice and,
usually, an opportunity to comment on
the impending CBI determination or
release, including an opportunity to
justify their CBI claims. See, e.g., 40
CFR 2.204(e), 2.209(d), and 2.301(g)(2).
Considering the nature of the comments
regarding a switch to CAPP coal, the
mechanism by which the Commenters
requested that EPA make a CBI
determination (i.e., via rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92051
comment instead of via FOIA), EPA’s
review of the CBI information in
evaluating the reasonableness of the
FFA, and EPA’s refutation of the
Commenters’ concerns regarding the
costs of switching to CAPP coal, EPA is
exercising its discretion under 40 CFR
2.204(a) to not perform a CBI
determination at this time. Therefore,
EPA is obligated to protect the
confidentiality of that information,
which precludes the Agency from
publicly posting this in the docket at
regulations.gov.
Plant Bowen submitted a signed
affidavit 47 to substantiate its CBI claim
and provided a public disclosure
version of Technical Appendix A and
Technical Appendix B to Appendix G–
1b of the Haze Plan, with the CBI
information redacted. As noted in the
public disclosure materials, the redacted
information consists of material
including ‘‘2019 IRP Capacity Planning
Documentation,’’ ‘‘Delivered Fuel Cost
Estimates for PRB and CAPP Coals,
‘‘CSX Transportation Contract
Language,’’ ‘‘CSX Pricelist
Inforormation,’’ and variable operating
and maintenance costs for switching to
CAPP coal such as including the costs
from ‘‘hydrated lime adjustment,’’
‘‘ammonia adjustment,’’ ‘‘fuel additive
adjustment,’’ and ‘‘activated carbon
adjustment’’ as it relates to CAPP coal.
Upon review of the assumptions and
information contained in Appendix G
used in the cost analyses, including the
unredacted information, EPA finds the
cost-effectiveness calculations for
switching to CAPP coal to be
appropriately documented and
reasonable based on the available
information, justifications, and support
for each assumption used in the cost
calculation.
Comment 9: The Commenters state
that in 2014, Plant Bowen switched
from lower-sulfur CAPP coal to IB coal,
which they state has a high sulfur
content. The Commenters assert that
Georgia greatly overstated the costs of
switching to Powder River Basin (PRB)
coal. Instead of requiring a switch to
PRB coal, the Commenters contend that
EPA accepted Georgia’s and Georgia
Power’s claims at face value that such
a switch would be cost prohibitive. The
Commenters argue that Georgia Power’s
cost analysis contains several problems
that cause it to be overinflated.
First, the Commenters argue that
Georgia Power wants to earn a 6.04
percent rate of return for electricity that
it must purchase to make up for lost
capacity. In referencing the Stamper
47 The affidavit is located in Appendix G–1b of
the Haze Plan.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92052
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
report, they contend that this cost
should not be a capital expense but
rather should be treated as an operating
expense (such as fuel costs) that is not
entitled to such returns.
Second, the Commenters argue that
Georgia does not make a fair comparison
by assuming operating time will
increase at the same time it will need to
purchase $51 million worth of
electricity to cover lost capacity. The
Commenters contend that the FFA does
not account for revenue from additional
sales of electricity due to increased
hours of operation. Additionally, the
Commenters argue that the FFA already
accounts for an increase in fuel costs in
a different line item in the cost analysis,
so they argue that Georgia Power is at
least, in part, double counting the
increased fuel usage of PRB coal.
The Commenters state that even
assuming the switch to PRB coal will
decrease maximum hourly generating
capacity, Georgia Power’s cost analysis
appears to overstate the need (and cost)
for replacement energy. The
Commenters contend that based on 2019
plantwide generation rates, Georgia
Power would need to purchase only
134,982 megawatt-hour (MWh) to make
up for the switch to PRB coal. The
Commenters cite to Table A2.2 of the
FFA for the proposition that Georgia
Power estimated that the switch ‘‘would
require the purchase of approximately
8,000,000 MWh of energy to replace the
deficit’’ as a result of the assumption
that the capacity penalty would apply
during all hours of operation. In
contrast, the Commenters provide an
exhibit that they argue demonstrates
that switching to PRB would only
impact the peak hours of plant
operation, which equates to 5.8 percent
of the time according to the
Commenters. Even assuming aboveaverage energy prices ($40/MWh), the
Commenters assert that with the switch
to PRB coal, the company would
consequently need to only spend $5
million annually, instead of Georgia
Power’s assumed $51.7 million.
The Commenters also assert that to
the extent that Georgia Power suggests
it needs to purchase or build
replacement capacity to meet peak
demands and reserve margin
requirements, the FFA fails to provide
the ‘‘robust’’ technical support for this
position. As with the energy deficit
discussed above, the Commenters
contend that Georgia Power fails to
establish that it actually has a projected
capacity need in any such year.
Additionally, the Commenters assert
that Georgia Power fails to provide any
documentation for current ‘‘market rate’’
or ‘‘cost of new construction.’’ As a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
result, the Commenters contend it is
impossible to verify the needed capacity
replacement and cost associated with
switching to PRB. The Commenters state
that EPA must review Georgia Power’s
cost assumptions and confirm that the
Company’s capacity penalty
calculations are appropriate.
The Commenters also state that
Georgia refuses to make available for
public review the calculations and
supporting documentation for the cost
analysis of switching to PRB coal. The
Commenters assert that Georgia and
EPA are obligated by the
documentations requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) to review this
information and declare whether they
have found it acceptable, but neither
Georgia nor EPA has indicated if they
have reviewed the information and
found it acceptable. The Commenters
argue that a failure by EPA to make an
independent determination as to
whether this information satisfies the
requirements for CBI violates the CAA
and the RHR.
Finally, the Commenters contend that
Georgia’s calculated costs of $6,424/ton
of SO2 reduced to switch to PRB coal is
cost effective, and this cost-effectiveness
value is lower than thresholds used by
other states such as Colorado ($10,000/
ton), New Mexico ($7,000/ton), and
Arizona ($6,500/ton). Moreover, the
Commenters state that cost effectiveness
should be lower to reflect that switching
to PRB coal would result in 46 percent
lower NOX emission rates without
changing Plant Bowen’s use of NOX
controls. They argue that the NOX
reductions of switching to PRB coal
would result in a cost-effectiveness of
$4,749/ton of combined SO2 and NOX
removed.
Response 9: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters’ argument that EPA did not
scrutinize GA EPD’s analysis of Plant
Bowen and did not consider the public
comments submitted at the state level.
Regarding the Commenters’ argument
that in 2014 Plant Bowen switched from
lower-sulfur CAPP coal to IB coal which
has a higher sulfur content, EPA
acknowledges that the sulfur content for
IB coal is higher and SO2 emissions
have increased with the switch to IB
coal. This switch is also discussed in
Response 8.
EPA disagrees with the Commenters’
argument that Georgia greatly overstated
the costs of switching to 100 percent
PRB coal. With a fuel switch to PRB
coal, there would be a 27 percent
facility derate based on the average heat
content of PRB coal ((8,800 British
thermal units per pound (Btu/lb)) in
comparison to the current coal being
used at Plant Bowen, which is IB coal
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with an average heat content of 12,002
Btu/lb.48 This derate resulting from the
reduced heat content of PRB coal would
result in Plant Bowen having 27 percent
less total electricity generation capacity.
This is a real cost that Georgia was
correct to account for in the FFA.
Through a letter to GA EPD dated
August 8, 2022, Georgia Power
responded directly to similar comments
submitted by the Commenters to GA
EPD. This letter was included as part of
Georgia’s submittal and is located
within Appendix G–1e to the Haze Plan.
Within that letter, Georgia Power
explained that ‘‘[t]he capacity penalty
costs in the Plant Bowen FFA
represented the costs to replace the
derated unit capacity to meet the reserve
margin required in the Southern
Company system.’’ Georgia Power also
cited to the FFA, which notes that
‘‘Plant Bowen Units 1–4 provide
capacity value by supporting system
reliability and by avoiding costs
associated with replacement capacity
that would be required to meet customer
peak demands and reserve margin
requirements in the absence of such
Plant Bowen units. Without these units,
Georgia Power would have to procure
short-term and long-term replacement
capacity in order to restore Georgia
Power and the Southern Company
system to a comparable level of
reliability that the system currently
holds.’’
The Commenters conflate two distinct
electric generation concepts: capacity
and generation. They are not the same.
Nor are the financial costs and revenues
associated with each the same.
According to the EIA, ‘‘[e]lectricity
generation capacity is the maximum
electric output an electricity generator
can produce under specific
conditions.’’ 49 ‘‘Electricity net
generation,’’ on the other hand, ‘‘is the
amount of gross electricity generation a
generator produces minus the electricity
used to operate the power plant.’’ 50 It is
this incorrect conflation of concepts that
leads the Commenters to incorrectly
conclude that Georgia Power could
make up for any lost capacity at Plant
Bowen by simply purchasing 134,982
MWh of electricity annually. In general,
the electrical grid can experience high
periods of demand for short durations.
This is known as ‘‘peak’’ electricity
demand. To ensure reliability of the
electrical grid, electric utilities must
have sufficient capacity available to
48 See Section 4.4.1.1 on p. 15 of the Haze Plan
in Appendix G–1b.
49 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/
faq.php?id=101&t=3.
50 Id.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ensure that these peak loads can be met.
The Commenters’ suggestion that
Georgia Power could simply purchase
134,982 MWh of generated electricity
does not account for the need for
Georgia Power to also have adequate
capacity available for the grid, even at
times of peak demand. Georgia Power
refers to this concept as the ‘‘reserve
margin’’ in its August 8, 2022, letter.
EPA agrees with Georgia’s assessment
that requiring PRB coal would result in
a capacity derate, and that this capacity
derate would impact electrical
reliability by reducing peak available
capacity to a sufficient extent that
Georgia Power would have to ‘‘procure
short-term and long-term replacement
capacity.’’ Over the long-term, this
would likely result in the need for
Georgia Power to construct new
generation capacity equivalent to the
capacity derate, which would be a
capital cost and not an operating
expenditure. EPA thus does not agree
with the Commenters that this capacity
derate was mis-classified within the
FFA as an operating expense. Plant
Bowen Units 1 and 2 each have a
maximum capacity of 724 megawatts
(MW), and Units 3 and 4 have a
maximum capacity of 892 MW. See
Haze Plan Appendix G–1b, Note 1 to
Table A2.2. Combined, these four units
have a maximum capacity of 3,232 MW
if combusting IB coal. A 27 percent
derate of these units associated with a
switch to PRB coal would reduce the
maximum capacity of Plant Bowen to
2,359 MW. The difference between
these two numbers is 873 MW, which is
the total capacity that Georgia Power
would no longer have available to put
onto the grid.
Moreover, according to a recent IRP
Update submitted by Georgia Power to
the Georgia Public Service Commission
(GA PSC), ‘‘the Company’s current
projections reflect load growth of 6,600
MW through the winter of 2030/2031,
which is approximately 17 times greater
than that previously forecasted.’’ 51 Due
to this projected growth, Georgia Power
requested that the GA PSC approve the
construction of 1,400 MW of new
generation capacity at Plant Yates, the
authority to develop, own, and operate
up to 1,000 MW of battery energy
storage systems, the long term purchase
of 750 MW of capacity from Mississippi
Power through a power purchase
agreement, and the long term purchase
of 230 MW of capacity from Santa Rosa
Energy Center through a power
purchase agreement.52
On April 26, 2024, the GA PSC issued
an order in which it took action on
Georgia Power’s IRP Update filing. In
that order, the GA PSC approved much
of Georgia Power’s IRP Update filing,
with certain modifications subject to a
stipulation adopted by the GA PSC.
Critically, within the GA PSC’s April 26,
2024, order, the GA PSC stated the
following as a finding of fact:
Substantial empirical evidence shows that
the load projected by the Company is indeed
coming to Georgia. There is a large economic
development pipeline made up of businesses
seeking to locate in Georgia, and the
Company has continued to see progress from
large load customers included in its forecast,
as well as accelerated customer load ramps
and other tangible evidence of growth. The
number of committed Georgia Power
customers continues to increase. As of the
2023 IRP Update filing, the Company had
already been chosen to serve over 3,600 MW
of load from the approximately 17,000 MW
pipeline of economic development, nearly
3,000 MW of which is already under
construction. (Rebuttal Hearing Tr. 2031.)
Since the 2023 IRP Update filing in October
of 2023, the economic development pipeline
has grown from 17,000 MW to 21,000 MW,
and Georgia Power has been selected to serve
an additional 2,602 MW. The large load
customers included in the Company’s
forecast are moving forward and making
progress without material delay. The
Stipulation will allow Georgia Power to
reliably serve both its existing customers and
the new ones.53
On August 29, 2024, the GA PSC took
further action within this IRP Update
docket by granting Georgia Power a
certificate of convenience and public
necessity for the construction of Plant
Yates Units 8–10, and the PSC noted
that ‘‘time is of the essence and the
Commission declines to accept any
further delay in putting these assets in
place,’’ and ‘‘[i]n light of . . . the state
of Georgia’s recent extraordinary
economic growth, and its citizens and
business’ pressing need for economical
and reliable energy to meet this growth,
the Commission agrees with the
Company and Staff that certification of
Plant Yates Units 8–10 is reasonable and
appropriate.’’ 54 Plant Yates Units 8–10
would provide Georgia Power with
approximately 1,400 MW of additional
generation capacity.
These recent actions by the GA PSC
are highly relevant to the Commenters’
assertions. Specifically, the Commenters
at pp. 15–25.
PSC Order Adopting Stipulated Agreement,
at pp. 7–8, available at: https://psc.ga.gov/search/
facts-document/?documentId=218484.
54 GA PSC Order Granting Certification of Plant
Yates Units 8–10, available at: https://psc.ga.gov/
search/facts-document/?documentId=219790.
Power ‘‘2023 Integrated Resource Plan
Update,’’ at p. 1, available at: https://
georgiapower.com/content/dam/georgia-power/
pdfs/company-pdfs/2023-irp-update-maindocument.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
argue that the Plant Bowen FFA’s
conclusion is unsubstantiated regarding
the need for Georgia Power to construct
or otherwise acquire additional
generation capacity to replace the 873
MW of lost capacity if Plant Bowen
were required to utilize lower sulfur,
lower heat content PRB coal. Based on
the recent factual findings of the GA
PSC, which EPA acknowledges, EPA
does not agree with the Commenters.
While requiring Plant Bowen to switch
to PRB coal would reduce SO2
emissions, it would do so at the expense
of generation capacity, and the need to
construct or procure new generation
capacity was therefore properly
considered within the FFA. EPA
therefore agrees with Georgia’s
conclusions that this capacity derate
should be classified as a capital
expenditure since it would result in the
need to construct or procure access to
new capital, i.e., 873 MW of generation
capacity. EPA also agrees that the
financial and energy costs associated
with this capacity derate are not
reasonable under the RHR. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i).
The CBI filings provided by Georgia
Power as part of the Plant Bowen FFA
further support EPA’s conclusion.
Regarding the Commenters’ request that
EPA determine whether these materials
are in fact CBI, for the same reasons
stated in Response 8, EPA is exercising
its discretion to not make a formal CBI
determination regarding the redacted
materials contained within the Plant
Bowen FFA at this time and disagrees
with the Commenters’ assertion that
EPA is required to make such a
determination here. Nonetheless,
throughout this rulemaking process,
EPA has reviewed the unredacted
indirect costs that GA EPD submitted in
Technical Appendix B of Appendix G–
1b of the Haze Plan (along with all other
components of the Haze Plan). As
requested by Commenters, EPA
confirms that it reviewed this CBI
information during the review of the
Haze Plan and finds that it provides
adequate technical justification in
support of the submittal. Because the
capacity derate would result in the need
for Georgia Power to construct or
procure new long-term generation
capacity, EPA also agrees that Georgia
Power would reasonably be entitled to
a rate of return on this capital, which
Georgia Power substantiated in its
FFA.55
52 Id.
53 GA
51 Georgia
92053
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55 The Commenters also incorrectly note that
Georgia Power is entitled to a 6.04 percent rate
return. This 6.04 percent figure is identified in
Table A1.2 as Georgia Power’s firm-specific interest
rate as authorized by the Georgia Public Service
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
Continued
21NOR1
92054
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
The Commenters contend that there is
a mismatch in assumptions in the FFA
because the FFA assumes operating time
will increase if combusting PRB coal at
the same time as Plant Bowen would
need to purchase $51 million worth of
electric generating capacity to cover lost
capacity due to the derate associated
with reduced heat content of PRB coal.
The Commenters are incorrect. The
Plant Bowen FFA states that ‘‘the level
of unit capacity derate does not impact
the annual SO2 emissions reduction
since the analysis assumes that the 2019
baseline annual heat input is achievable
at this derated unit capacity with an
increased amount of operating time.’’
The FFA properly assumed an increase
in operating time when comparing SO2
emissions if combusting PRB coal
compared to IB coal because those
emissions are based on projected 2028
emissions. The 2028 emission
projections, in turn, are based in part
upon projections about the quantity of
electricity that will actually be
generated. The Plant Bowen FFA
reasonably increased operating hours in
2028 when modeling SO2 emissions if
operating on PRB coal to ensure that the
same quantity of electricity was
generated in both the PRB scenario and
the IB coal scenario. Again, the concept
of total generation capacity of the plant
that is available to provide load to the
grid as needed is separate and distinct
from electricity that is actually
generated and placed onto the grid. EPA
thus disagrees that there is a
‘‘mismatch’’ in assumptions in the FFA.
Regarding the comment that the cost
of $6,424/ton of SO2 reduced associated
with a switch to PRB coal is costeffective because it is lower than
thresholds used by other states
(Colorado—$10,000/ton, New Mexico—
$7,000/ton, and Arizona—$6,500/ton),
EPA disagrees. Flexibility afforded to
states has long been a hallmark of the
regional haze program. See, e.g., 82 FR
3078, 3088 (January 10, 2017) (‘‘While
these final revisions to the RHR
continue to provide states with
considerable flexibility in evaluating the
four reasonable-progress factors, we
expect states to exercise reasoned
judgment when choosing which
sources, groups of sources or source
Commission. This is not the same as the rate of
return that Georgia Power is entitled to. The rate of
return that Georgia Power is entitled to is identified
in the same rate case cited to in support of Table
A1.2. That rate of return (referred to by the Georgia
Public Service Commission as ‘‘return on equity’’)
is set forth in the Georgia Public Serivce
Commission’s December 31, 2019, Short Order
Adopting Settlement Agreement as Modified and
ranges from 9.5 percent to 12.0 percent. This order
is available at https://psc.ga.gov/search/factsdocument/?documentId=179339.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
categories to analyze.’’); 2019 Guidance
at p. 4 (‘‘States have discretion to
balance these factors and considerations
in determining what control measures
are necessary to make reasonable
progress.’’). Inherent in this flexibility is
that different states may choose brightline cost effectiveness thresholds, and
some may instead choose to adopt a
different methodology to determine
whether controls are cost effective (i.e.,
Georgia’s approach). For those states
that do choose to use bright-line costeffectiveness thresholds, those
thresholds may differ from state-to-state.
Different states will take different
approaches to comply with the RHR,
and various methods of complying with
the rule may be reasonable depending
on a number of facts and circumstances
(e.g., number of sources in the state;
magnitude of emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants from sources in the
state; visibility impairment at impacted
Class I areas).
Due to this flexibility, EPA disagrees
with the premise of the Commenters’
assertion, which appears to be that cost
effectiveness thresholds in one state
should be determinative of whether
controls are cost-effective in another
state. Taken to its logical conclusion,
the Commenters’ position seems to be
that EPA’s determinations regarding the
approvability of bright-line costeffectiveness thresholds in states such
as Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona
should serve to set a nationwide costeffectiveness floor. The RHR requires no
such thing, and indeed, the Commenters
cite to no legal authority for their
position.
As discussed in Response 5, Georgia
relied on a spreadsheet of first planning
period costs developed by Arkansas
with input from other states and
supplemented with VISTAS-specific
data. Georgia determined based on that
spreadsheet that a cost of $6,424/ton of
SO2 removed, as determined for the
2019 cost year, would exceed the 98th
percentile of all costs incurred by
sources to control emission in the first
planning period. On this basis, Georgia
determined that a cost of $6,424/ton of
SO2 removed was not a reasonable cost
of control. EPA reaffirms that Georgia’s
conclusions were reasonable under the
CAA and RHR.
While the Commenters state that a
switch to PRB coal would result in 46
percent lower NOX emission rates and
taking the NOX reductions into account
would result in a cost-effectiveness of
$4,749/ton for SO2 and NOX, combined,
because the facility did not exceed
Georgia’s AoI/PSAT threshold for NOX,
Georgia did not conduct a control
analysis for NOX due to its
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determination that SO2 is the dominant
pollutant in this planning period for
Class I areas impacted by Georgia
sources. For the reasons discussed
earlier in Response 3, EPA has
concluded that Georgia’s approach is
reasonable. As set forth in that response,
PSAT source apportionment modeling
clearly demonstrates that contributions
from Georgia’s point source NOX
emissions are significantly below
Georgia’s source selection thresholds.
As stated in Tables 7–16, 7–17, and 7–
18 of the Haze Plan, the modeled
visibility impacts on a pollutant-bypollutant basis for Plant Bowen were as
follows: 2.13 percent SO2 and 0.07
percent NOX for Cohutta; 2.77 percent
for SO2 and 0.01 percent for NOX for
Okefenokee; and 2.35 percent for SO2
and 0.14 percent for NOX for Wolf
Island, which results in SO2 visibility
impacts approximately 17 times greater
than NOX visibility impacts at each of
the Georgia Class I areas. The nitrate
impacts from this facility are far below
Georgia’s source selection thresholds.
As EPA has consistently stated, ‘‘When
selecting sources for analysis of control
measures, a state may focus on the PM
species that dominate visibility
impairment at the Class I areas affected
by emissions from the state and then
select only sources with emissions of
those dominant pollutants and their
precursors.’’ 2019 Guidance, at p. 11.
Additional rationale can be found in the
Response 3, which discusses the
dominant nature of SO2 emissions in
Georgia on visibility impairment at
Class I areas compared to NOX
emissions.
Comment 10: The Commenters assert
that EPA must require Georgia to
consider year-round operation of the
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
systems at each of Plant Bowen’s
emissions units within the FFA. They
state that ignoring NOX pollution and
controls and EPA’s proposal to approve
Georgia’s decision are not supported by
the record. Instead, they argue EPA
must require Georgia to evaluate options
to reduce NOX emissions at Plant
Bowen. The Commenters argue that
although Plant Bowen is equipped with
low NOX burners, separated overfire air,
and SCR, Plant Bowen operates the SCR
optimally only during ozone season,
that they ‘‘severely underperform,’’ and
that year-round operation of SCR could
cut NOX emissions in half. The
Commenters therefore state that EPA
must require Georgia to evaluate readily
implementable NOX controls, such as
year-round SCR systems operation on a
30-boiler operating day average NOX
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
emission limit of between 0.05 lb/
MMBtu and 0.07 lb/MMBtu.
Response 10: EPA finds the
Commenters’ assertions that EPA must
require Georgia to analyze year-round
operation of the SCR systems at Plant
Bowen’s Units 1–4 unfounded because,
as discussed in Response 3 and in the
NPRM, EPA agrees with Georgia’s
decision to focus on SO2 controls in this
planning period given, among other
things, IMPROVE monitoring data from
the 2014–2018 and 2015–2019 five-year
periods showing that ammonium sulfate
is the dominant visibility impairing
pollutant contributing to regional haze
at the Class I areas impacted by Plant
Bowen. As also discussed in Response
9, the modeled visibility impacts on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis for Plant
Bowen show that modeled visibility
impacts from SO2 are 17 times higher
compared to modeled visibility impacts
from NOX in each of the Class I areas in
Georgia. Based on these modeled
visibility impacts, Plant Bowen did not
meet Georgia’s source selection
threshold for NOX due to low NOX
impacts. Therefore, EPA finds that
Georgia appropriately focused on
evaluating SO2 emissions controls only
for Plant Bowen for this planning
period.
Comment 11: The Commenters
contend that EPA cannot approve the
incorporation of Plant Bowen’s Permit
No. 4911–015–0011–V–04–3 (2023
Permit Amendment) into Georgia’s SIP
due to an unlawful startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) exemption and
emergency affirmative defense
provisions in Plant Bowen’s 2019 title V
renewal permit 4911–015–0011–V–04–0
(2019 title V Permit) that could apply to
the SO2 regional haze SO2 emission
limit. The Commenters state the ‘‘Excess
Emission’’ permit condition (i.e.,
Condition 8.14.4 of the 2019 title V
permit) could allow Plant Bowen to
exceed its regional haze SO2 limit
contained in the 2023 Permit
Amendment during SSM events.
Additionally, the Commenters argue
that Plant Bowen’s ‘‘emergency’’
affirmative defense provision (i.e.,
condition 8.13.2 of the 2019 title V
permit) would allow Plant Bowen to
argue an affirmative defense in any
enforcement action brought for an
alleged violation of the facility’s SO2
regional haze limit contained in the
2023 permit amendment. Thus, the
Commenters assert that EPA’s proposal
to incorporate Plant Bowen’s 2023
Permit Amendment into Georgia’s SIP
violates the CAA and the RHR.
Response 11: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters. The Agency is
incorporating the 2023 Permit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
Amendment into the Georgia SIP and is
not incorporating into the SIP any
portion of the 2019 title V Permit.
Therefore, the provisions of the 2023
Permit Amendment will be federally
enforceable via the SIP as specifically
provided for in that permit, which
contains work practice requirements
that apply during startup and shutdown.
See 2023 Permit Amendment, Condition
3.3.8. Additionally, Condition 8.14.4 of
Plant Bowen’s 2019 title V Permit,
referenced by the Commenters, is
substantively the same as Georgia Rule
391–3–1-.02(2)(a)7 of the State’s
federally approved SIP. Because this
rule is already in Georgia’s SIP and
further because EPA is not adopting
Condition 8.14.4 into the SIP in this
action, the Commenters’ concerns are
without merit. Likewise, Condition
8.13.2 of Plant Bowen’s 2019 title V
Permit, also referenced by the
Commenters, is derived from Georgia
Rule 391–3–1-.03(10)(d)7, which is a
rule that is currently approved into
Georgia’s title V rules. Specifically, that
rule states that ‘‘40 CFR part 70.6(g) is
hereby incorporated and adopted by
reference.’’ On July 21, 2023, EPA
removed 40 CFR 70.6(g) from the Code
of Federal Regulations as ‘‘inconsistent
with the EPA’s interpretation of the
enforcement structure of the Clean Air
Act.’’ Id. In accordance with the EPA’s
July 21, 2023, rulemaking, Georgia is
likewise required to remove this
provision from the State’s title V rules.
See 88 FR 47029. Upon removal of this
rule from Georgia’s title V program,
Georgia would then be obligated to
remove conditions such as Plant
Bowen’s Condition 8.13.2 from the
facility’s title V permit. EPA also
disagrees that the Condition 8.13.2
would allow Plant Bowen to argue an
affirmative defense in any enforcement
action brought for an alleged violation
of the facility’s SO2 regional haze limit
contained in the 2023 permit
amendment. Rather, an affirmative
defense may only be argued for
emergencies that meet the specific
criteria of paragraphs a. though d. of
Condition 8.13.2.
Comment 12: The Commenters assert
that EPA cannot approve Georgia’s FFA
for Brunswick Cellulose and must
require the facility to install costeffective controls. They state that due to
the facility’s ‘‘significant’’ NOX
emissions, EPA must require Georgia to
conduct an FFA for NOX controls. In
addition, the Commenters argue that
Georgia’s FFA, as it pertains to SO2
controls, is ‘‘riddled with errors that
EPA neither acknowledges nor
addresses.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92055
The Commenters state that NPS found
that Georgia did not follow EPA’s CCM
in its analyses of wet scrubber and dry
sorbent injection (DSI) controls for the
No. 4 Power Boiler and No. 5 and 6
Recovery Furnaces. The Commenters
thus contend that to meet its regional
haze requirements, as well as the
requirement that EPA must act
consistently across SIP actions, EPA
must determine that these deviations
from EPA’s CCM in its analyses of
controls for Brunswick Cellulose violate
the CAA and RHR.
The Commenters also assert that
Georgia inappropriately rejected a wet
scrubber for the No. 4 Power Boiler.
They contend that ‘‘based even on
Georgia’s flawed analyses for
Brunswick, a wet scrubber would likely
reduce SO2 emissions from the No. 4
Power Boiler by 141 tpy at a costeffectiveness of $10,330/ton of pollution
reduced,’’ which they argue is within
the range of cost thresholds adopted by
other states.
Response 12: Regarding the
Commenters’ assertion that EPA cannot
approve GA EPD’s FFA for Brunswick
Cellulose and must require the facility
to conduct NOX control analyses given
its NOX emissions and to install costeffective controls for NOX, see Response
2 and Response 3. In the Haze Plan, GA
EPD evaluated Brunswick Cellulose’s
contributions to visibility impairment at
Class I areas and concluded that SO2
contributions to visibility impairment
from this facility exceeded State’s AoI
and PSAT screening thresholds and that
NOX emissions did not exceed the
State’s screening thresholds. Therefore,
Brunswick Cellulose was selected for an
SO2 FFA, but not for a NOX FFA. As
discussed in Response 2 and Response
3, Georgia’s approach was reasonable
and complies with the RHR.
Regarding the Commenters’
arguments that GA EPD’s FFA of SO2
controls for Brunswick Cellulose is
‘‘riddled with errors’’ and not properly
substantiated, the Commenters do not
discuss any errors with any specificity.
Instead, the Commenters cite to the
NPS’s June 22, 2022, letter to GA EPD,56
in which NPS noted that ‘‘the indirect
operating costs do not reflect the most
recent CCM wet scrubber chapter
methods.’’ The Commenters omit,
however, that NPS also ‘‘agree[d] with
several revisions made to the cost
analyses.’’ While the Commenters focus
on several concerns raised by NPS
regarding Georgia’s rationale, the
Commenters omit that in spite of these
concerns, NPS agreed with Georgia’s
56 Haze Plan, Appendix H–1b, NPS Regional Haze
SIP feedback for Georgia EPD (June 22, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92056
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ultimate conclusion that ‘‘[g]iven that
the fuel switch is estimated to result in
a cost savings (even at higher natural gas
prices), the NPS reviewers concur that
the incremental costs of selecting a
scrubber system in lieu of a fuel switch
are not justified from a cost standpoint.’’
Based on EPA’s evaluation of
Brunswick Cellulose’s cost analyses,
EPA noted several discrepancies,
including the addition of property tax
values to the total indirect operating
costs. As alluded to in the NPS letter
cited by the Commenters, these
discrepancies were addressed prior to
Georgia’s final SIP submittal. The State’s
final SIP submittal to EPA included a
revised cost calculation which was
nearly identical to EPA’s calculations.
In the Haze Plan, the State’s cost per ton
calculation was marginally lower than
EPA’s calculation due to EPA’s use of a
lower 3.25 percent bank prime interest
rate, as recommended by the CCM.
Although EPA recognizes that GA EPD’s
cost calculations produced slightly
lower values compared to EPA’s own
evaluation in accordance with the CCM,
the differences in the total cost per ton
of SO2 removed would not have
changed the outcome of the FFA. In
Appendix G–3 of the Haze Plan, GA
EPD included documentation and
explained the assumptions that the State
used in the Brunswick Cellulose FFA,
including the use of the current bank
prime rate, a 30-year equipment life,
and control efficiency assumptions used
in the scrubber and DSI cost analyses.
EPA thus does not agree with the
Commenters that the FFA was not
properly substantiated.
The Commenters also argue that
Georgia inappropriately rejected a costeffective control for the No. 4 Power
Boiler ($10,330/ton of SO2 reduced for
the installation of a wet scrubber),
considering the cost-effectiveness is
within the range of cost thresholds
adopted by other states for the second
planning period. Commenters raised a
very similar argument regarding Plant
Bowen, and for the same reasons that
EPA disagreed with the Commenters’
position in Response 9 (regarding Plant
Bowen), EPA disagrees here as well.
Furthermore, the $10,330/ton value
exceeds the highest state cost threshold
identified by the Commenters ($10,000/
ton for Colorado).
As discussed in Response 5, Georgia
relied on a spreadsheet of first planning
period costs developed by Arkansas
with input from other states and
supplemented with VISTAS-specific
data. Georgia determined based on that
spreadsheet that a cost of $10,330/ton of
SO2 removed would exceed the 98th
percentile of all costs incurred by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
sources to control emission in the first
planning period. On this basis, Georgia
determined that a cost of $10,330/ton of
SO2 removed for the installation of a
wet scrubber at Brunswick Cellulose
was not a reasonable cost of control.
Given that the State is not required to
set a bright-line cost threshold by the
RHR, the discretion afforded to the state
to determine whether costs are
reasonable, and the even-handed and
consistent methodology applied by
Georgia to determine whether control
costs were reasonable for this planning
period, EPA reaffirms that Georgia’s
conclusions were reasonable under the
CAA and RHR.
Comment 13: The Commenters assert
that, at a minimum, Brunswick
Cellulose’s existing measures for the No.
5 and 6 Recovery Furnaces are
necessary for reasonable progress. The
Commenters note that EPA has
explained that a state can demonstrate
that a source will continue
implementing its existing measures
such that they are not necessary for
reasonable progress ‘‘based on data and
information on: (1) The source’s past
implementation of its existing measures
and its historical emission rate, (2) the
source’s projected emissions and
emission rate, and (3) any enforceable
emissions limits or other requirements
related to the source’s existing
measures.’’ The Commenters state that
the expected emission ranges provided
by Georgia for these furnaces are ‘‘very
wide, with the top of the range being
more than double the bottom.’’
Additionally, the Commenters state that
nothing in the SIP revision
demonstrates that emissions will remain
the same at these units. The
Commenters state that EPA explains
that Georgia submitted a supplement to
its SIP revision providing that the No.
5 Recovery Furnace’s emissions
fluctuated from 2016 to 2020 and argued
that ‘‘the emission rate for the unit is
within a consistent range limited by the
Permit.’’ The Commenters therefore
contend that EPA’s own justification for
its determination underscores that
existing permit limits for the facility are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Response 13: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters. EPA requested
supplemental information from Georgia
regarding emissions for the No. 5
Recovery furnace, which has higher
emissions than the No. 6 Recovery
Furnace. Based on 2016 to 2020
emissions data provided by Georgia to
EPA that was cited in the NPRM and
included in the docket, emissions at the
No. 5 Recovery Furnace ranged from
0.125 to 0.152 tons SO2/1,000 gallons of
No. 6 fuel oil burned, demonstrating a
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reasonably consistent SO2 emission rate
during this time period. The increase in
total SO2 emissions discussed by the
Commenters is attributable to increased
fuel oil burned in the unit and is not
attributable to an inconsistent emission
rate. Based on 2016 to 2020 emissions
data, SO2 emissions decreased from 21.7
tpy in 2016 to 7.8 tpy in 2020. Because
emissions remain consistent at the No.
5 Recovery Furnace, EPA is not
requiring Georgia to adopt existing
measures for this emission unit into the
SIP. This position is also consistent
with EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo.
See 2021 Clarifications Memo, at p. 9.
Regarding the No. 6 Recovery Furnace,
EPA likewise requested supplemental
information from Georgia. This
supplemental information is in the
docket.57 While there is somewhat more
variability in the emissions rate for this
unit, the unit’s SO2 emissions are
extremely low, and therefore existing
measures at this unit are not necessary
for reasonable progress.
Comment 14: The Commenters assert
that the Brunswick Cellulose permit that
EPA proposes to incorporate into
Georgia’s SIP does not include
practically enforceable emission limits.
More specifically, they argue the
Brunswick Cellulose permit does not
contain sufficient measures to ensure
the facility complies with the 15 tpy
SO2 limit for the No. 4 Power Boiler and
the No. 6 fuel oil burning condition
during adverse wood/bark conditions.
The Commenters contend that the
permit states that Brunswick Cellulose
‘‘shall use emission factors’’ but does
not specify what emission factors
Brunswick Cellulose must use.58 The
Commenters note that in an April 24,
2024, email from GA EPD to EPA, GA
EPD stated that Brunswick Cellulose
will use an AP–42 emission factor of
157 S lb/Mgal (where S is the fuel sulfur
content by weight as a percentage per
million gallons of fuel).59 However, the
Commenters contend that AP–42 factors
57 See October 29, 2024, GA EPD email and
attached file transmitting supplemental emissions
information for the Brunswick Cellulose No. 6
Recovery Furnace.
58 Ga. Dept Nat. Res., Air Quality—Part 70
Operating Permit, Brunswick Cellulose LLC, Permit
No. 2631–127–0003–V–07–3 at 3 (Oct. 25, 2023),
Document No. EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0220–0011
(providing that Condition 6.2.52 ‘‘demonstrate[s]
compliance with Condition 3.2.25’’) [hereinafter
‘‘Brunswick Permit’’].
59 Email from James Boylan, Chief, Air Prot.
Branch, Ga. Env’t Prot. Div., to Estelle Bae, Air
Permits Sec., Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation Div., Env’t Prot. Agency
Region 4 (Apr. 15, 2024), Document No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2023–0220–0109; Ga. Env’t Prot. Div.,
Response to EPA Regional Haze Questions at 1
(April 14, 2024), Document No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2023–0220–0110.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
do not reliably predict emissions and
therefore are insufficient to determine
compliance. The Commenters note that
EPA has cautioned that the AP–42
factors ‘‘are not likely to be accurate’’
and ‘‘[u]se of these factors as sourcespecific permit limits . . . is not
recommended.’’ 60 The Commenters
further argue that since neither EPA nor
Georgia can rely on these AP–42 factors
to establish or demonstrate compliance,
the 15 tpy SO2 emission limit is not
practically enforceable and EPA’s
proposal to incorporate it into the SIP
violates the CAA and the RHR.
Response 14: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters. GA EPD’s April 24, 2024,
clarification email stated that the facility
used the 157 S lb/Mgal emission factor
contained within Table 1.3–1 of AP–42
in its title V permit application.61 The
use of interpretive letters to clarify
ambiguity or perceived ambiguity in the
provisions in a SIP submission is a
permissible, and sometimes necessary,
approach under the CAA.62 So long as
the interpretive letters and EPA’s
reliance on them is properly explained
and documented, regulated entities,
regulators, and the public can readily
ascertain the existence of interpretive
letters relied upon in EPA’s approval
that would be useful to resolve any
perceived ambiguity. By virtue of being
part of the stated basis for EPA’s
approval of that provision in a SIP
submission, interpretive letters
necessarily establish the correct
interpretation of any arguably
ambiguous SIP provision. In other
words, the rulemaking record should
reflect the shared state and EPA
understanding of the meaning of a
provision at issue at the time of the
approval, which can then be referenced
should any question about the provision
arise in a future enforcement action. In
60 EPA, ‘‘Enforcement Alert: Reminder About
Inappropriate Use of AP–42 Emission Factors,’’
Publication No. EPA 325–N–20–001 (Nov. 2020),
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2021-01/documents/ap42-enforcementalert.pdf.
61 Permit No. 2631–127–0003–V–07–3, Condition
6.2.52, requires the source to use the emission
factors and the records required by Condition 6.2.51
to ensure compliance with the 15 tpy SO2 emission
limit specified in Condition 3.2.25 for the No. 4
Power Boiler. On April 15, 2024, GA EPD
supplemented its August 11, 2022, Haze Plan by
providing clarification on the specific emission
factor that the source will use for calculating
compliance with Condition 3.2.25. This April 15,
2024, email containing the supplemental
clarification is included in the docket for this
action.
62 See, e.g., Discussion of interpretive letters in
‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition
for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s
SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During
Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ 80
FR 33840, 33884–89 (June 12, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
this action, EPA is approving the
Brunswick Cellulose emission limit and
incorporating it into the SIP based on
Georgia’s interpretation that the phrase
‘‘shall use emissions factors’’ in
Condition 6.2.52 means that the source
shall use an emissions factor of 157 S
lb/Mgal to calculate SO2 emissions from
the unit for comparison with the 15 tpy
emission limit.63 EPA will include an
entry for this Brunswick Cellulose
permit in the Georgia source-specific
SIP table at 40 CFR 52.570(d) with text
in the explanation column stating that
‘‘shall use emissions factors’’ refers to
the use of a 157 S lb/Mgal, from AP–42,
Chapter 1, Section 1.3: Fuel Oil
Combustion. For these reasons, EPA
views the use of this emissions factor as
a federally-enforceable requirement
which renders the emission limit
practically enforceable.
As for the Commenters’ argument
regarding the use of AP–42 as the basis
for this emissions factor, the
Commenters seem to suggest that AP–42
emission factors can never be used in
permitting. While AP–42 emission
factors should be used with caution
because source-specific data is always
more reliable than industry-wide
averages compiled in AP–42, EPA has
consistently stated that ‘‘AP–42
emission factors may be used to
demonstrate compliance with emission
limits in certain circumstances’’ and
that ‘‘[w]hether and how a permit must
account for uncertainty in AP–42
emission factors (including the AP–42
emission factor at issue here) is a factspecific decision, as with essentially all
other decisions concerning compliance
assurance.’’ 64
The Commenters do not raise any
specific facts to suggest that the use of
AP–42 emission factors here is
inappropriate. Instead, they simply
assert that EPA has ‘‘cautioned’’ against
the use of such emission factors in
permitting, and the Commenters then
make a blanket statement that therefore
such emission factors cannot be used in
permitting at all. As applied here, the
63 On October 16, 2024, GA EPD provided a letter
to EPA with an interpretation of the phrase ‘‘The
Permittee shall use emissions factors’’ in Condition
6.2.52. GA EPD stated in this letter that this phrase
in Permit Condition 6.2.52 means that Brunswick
Cellulose will use the same AP–42 emission factor
as was used to calculate emissions for their permit
application. The emission factor used by Brunswick
Cellulose for No. 6 Fuel Oil in No. 4 Power Boiler
(U700) is 157 S lb/Mgal, where S is the fuel content
as a percentage. This emission factor was taken
from Table 1.3–1 of AP–42. This October 16, 2024,
letter containing the supplemental clarification of
the emission factor is included in the docket for this
rulemaking action.
64 Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC
Pasadena Terminal, Title V Order No. VI–2023–13,
at p. 15.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92057
Commenters contend that the use of an
AP–42 emission factor rendered the 15
tpy emission limit practically
unenforceable and therefore unlawful
under the CAA and RHR.
EPA disagrees. The AP–42 emission
factor used by GA EPD, which is located
in Table 1.3–1 of AP–42, is rated ‘‘A’’
by EPA, which is the best rating
available and means that the test quality
data used by EPA to develop this
emission factor was ‘‘performed by a
sound methodology and are reported in
enough detail for adequate
validation.’’ 65 An ‘‘A’’ rating also means
that the ‘‘Factor is developed from Aand B-rated source test data taken from
many randomly chosen facilities in the
industry population. The source
category population is sufficiently
specific to minimize variability.’’ 66 The
157 S lb/Mgal AP–42 emission factor, is
a commonly used and appropriate
representation of the SO2 emitted from
a fuel-burning unit, as SO2 emissions
are almost entirely dependent on the
sulfur content of the fuel, conservatively
assuming that 95 percent of the fuel
sulfur is converted to SO2.67 Scenarios
where EPA has raised concerns about
the use of AP–42 emission factors
generally involve scenarios such as
synthetic minor permitting limits used
to avoid major source permitting where
the synthetic minor limit is near the
major source threshold. For example,
EPA is aware of many scenarios where
permitting agencies have imposed
emission limits of 249 tpy to avoid the
250 tpy potential to emit major source
PSD threshold in CAA 169(1). In such
instances, precision in any emission
factors used to develop the emission
limit and to ensure compliance with the
limit are essential because small errors
in such emission factor relative to the
source’s actual emission could result in
a facility exceeding pertinent major
source thresholds. As noted by
Commenters, EPA issued a compliance
alert to this effect in November of
2020.68 The circumstances discussed in
that compliance alert, however, are not
present here because under the regional
haze program, there is not a specific
numeric threshold, such as a PSD major
source threshold, that is applicable.
Under the specific factual circumstances
65 AP–42,
Introduction, p. 9.
66 Id.
67 See AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1:
External Combustion Sources, 1.3: Fuel Oil
Combustion, available at: https://www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.3_fuel_oil_
combustion.pdf.
68 See EPA Reminder About Inappropriate Use of
AP–42 Emission Factors, available at: https://
epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/
ap42-enforcementalert.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92058
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
present here, EPA finds that GA EPD’s
use of this AP–42 emission factor was
appropriate and that the Commenters’
concerns that deviations in Brunswick
Cellulose’s actual emissions from those
assumed in the emission factor are
without merit.
Comment 15: The Commenters assert
that the most recently renewed
Brunswick Cellulose title V permit
(April 2023) is also affected by the same
SSM exemption and affirmative defense
provisions that were detailed above in
the 2019 Plant Bowen title V permit.
The Commenters contend that the
Brunswick Cellulose SSM exemption
also states that the exemption does not
apply to ‘‘sources’’ subject to New
Source Performance Standards
requirements, and so, it is not clear
whether that provision applies to
Brunswick Cellulose’s 15 tpy limit for
the No. 4 Power Boiler. However, the
Commenters state if that provision
applies to the 15 tpy limit, it renders the
15 tpy limit unlawful and not
practically enforceable for the same
reasons raised by the Commenters
regarding the identical permit
conditions for Plant Bowen. The
Commenters thus assert that EPA’s
proposal to incorporate the 15 tpy limit
into Georgia’s SIP violates the CAA and
RHR.
Response 15: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters for the same reasons stated
in Response 11.
Comment 16: The Commenters assert
that the Brunswick Cellulose title V
permit that EPA would be adopting into
Georgia’s SIP does not contain necessary
reporting requirements, but instead only
requires the facility to maintain
documents ‘‘kept as part of the record’’
reflecting its fuel use and emission
calculations. The Commenters note that
the permit makes reference to a
requirement that Brunswick Cellulose
report its excess emissions,
exceedances, or excursions in
accordance with ‘‘the report required in
Condition 6.1.4’’ of the permit.
However, the Commenters state that the
permit as included in EPA’s docket does
not contain Condition 6.1.4., and thus,
the Commenters argue that the
provisions EPA proposes to incorporate
into the SIP do not meet the
requirements of the CAA or the RHR.
Response 16: Permit condition 6.1.7,
as incorporated, requires Brunswick
Cellulose to report excess emissions,
exceedances, or excursions from the 15
tpy SO2 emission limit and fuel burning
limitations in accordance with permit
condition 6.1.4. Permit condition 6.1.4
requires Brunswick Cellulose to submit
a written report each quarter that
contains any excess emissions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
exceedances, or excursions, and any
monitor malfunctions during each
quarterly reporting period. If none of
these occurred, Brunswick Cellulose
must still submit a report stating that
there were no excess emissions,
exceedances, excursions, or monitor
malfunctions during the quarterly
reporting period. Condition 6.1.4. exists
in a federally enforceable title V permit
and is referenced in the reporting
requirement in Condition 6.1.7 that is
being approved into the SIP.
Comment 17: The Commenters assert
that EPA shirks its duty to review
Georgia’s source-specific FFA for IPSavannah. The control measure at IPSavannah that Georgia determined is
necessary to make reasonable progress is
a requirement that the facility no longer
burn coal at its No. 13 Power Boiler. The
Commenters contend that EPA cannot
approve Georgia’s reliance on the
cessation of coal burning at the No. 13
Power Boiler because it is not a new
control and will not reduce IPSavannah’s emissions. The Commenters
note that IP-Savannah ceased burning
coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler in 2017,
three years before the facility submitted
its FFA to the State and five years before
Georgia finalized its SIP revision, and
contend that the measure is therefore
neither ‘‘new’’ nor ‘‘additional.’’ The
Commenters state that EPA’s conclusion
that the control would achieve any
emission reductions, let alone more
reductions than other controls analyzed,
is misleading at best. The Commenters
contend that IP-Savannah’s baseline
emissions for its control analysis used
2018 and 2019 emissions and that
because these years already accounted
for the cessation of coal burning, EPA’s
assertion that this control measure
would achieve additional reductions in
SO2 is ‘‘inappropriate double counting.’’
Nonetheless, the Commenters agree
with EPA and GA EPD that this measure
should be adopted into Georgia’s SIP,
but the Commenters state that cessation
of coal combustion at the No. 13 boiler
should be classified as an existing
measure.
Response 17: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters’ argue that IP-Savannah’s
cessation of burning coal at the No. 13
Power Boiler in 2017 is neither ‘‘new’’
nor ‘‘additional.’’ Although IP-Savannah
stopped burning coal voluntarily in
2017, IP-Savannah was still permitted to
burn coal and the facility did not
physically modify the No. 13 Power
Boiler to remove the capability to burn
coal. This restriction is a new control for
regional haze purposes because
incorporating it into Georgia’s SIP will
result in the permanent cessation of coal
combustion at the No. 13 Power Boiler.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Without this incorporation into the SIP,
the source could request a permit
modification to begin combusting coal
again, which would be inconsistent
with the requirement to achieve
reasonable progress under the CAA and
RHR. The removal of coal as a fuel in
the No. 13 Power Boiler will result in
the permanent reduction of
approximately 2,662 tpy of SO2
emissions reductions per year (see
column ‘‘SO2 tpy Reductions’’ in Table
7–35 of the Haze Plan). EPA finds that
the selected control option is necessary
for reasonable progress for the second
period and is therefore adopting this
measure into the SIP. In response to the
Commenters’ assertion of the
‘‘inappropriate double counting’’ of SO2
reductions, the characterization of the
whether these are ‘‘additional’’
reductions is irrelevant. The cessation of
coal burning is simply a measure that
EPA is adding to the SIP and is a part
of the LTS.
Comment 18: Instead of the cessation
of burning coal, the Commenters assert
that EPA must require IP-Savannah to
install cost-effective circulating dry
scrubber (CDS) or DSI controls. The
Commenters argue that Georgia’s
analysis of these controls for the No. 13
Power Boiler contain multiple errors
and unsupported costs, which are
detailed below.
First, the Commenters contend that
the facility’s 20-year ‘‘economic life’’
deviates from the CCM, where the
remaining useful life for these controls
is 30 years. Second, the Commenters
contend that IP-Savannah provided only
vague statements or justifications in
support of its retrofit factor, that this
retrofit factor was at the top of EPA’s
recommended range, and that Georgia
should have used an average retrofit
factor of one when considering CDS and
DSI controls. The Commenters also
similarly contend that the capacity
factor of 59 percent for the No. 13 Power
Boiler is unsupported in the FFA, and
that Georgia and EPA should have not
accepted this number without further
documentation. The Commenters state
that information in the facilitysubmitted FFA indicates that the actual
capacity factor is very likely much
higher at 76.4 percent. The Commenters
state that Georgia did not require or
provide any documentation to support
(1) IP-Savannah’s argument that it
would have to expand its solid waste
disposal site to accommodate CDS or
DSI controls, or (2) the cost of
expanding the waste disposal site. The
Commenters contend that the facility’s
claimed costs for waste disposal are not
reliable, as the facility escalated the
costs for expanding its disposal site
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
from 2007 to 2021 dollars despite the
fact that the CCM states that costs
should not be escalated more than five
years.
The Commenters also assert that
beyond the above-described alleged cost
analysis errors for CDS and DSI, Georgia
accepted an unreasonably low 90
percent removal efficiency for CDS from
the facility-submitted cost analysis.
According to the Commenters, the CCM
states that CDS systems can achieve at
least 95 percent and possibly over 98
percent removal efficiency. They further
contend that Georgia acknowledged in
the SIP revision that CDS systems can
achieve 98 percent control in its
response to comments, but the State still
stated, without any support or
explanation, that ‘‘it supports IPSavannah’s choice to use 90 percent as
an appropriate efficiency factor.’’
Separately, the Commenters assert
that Georgia accepted the same waste
disposal cost for both CDS and DSI even
though IP-Savannah’s calculated waste
rate for CDS was significantly lower
than that for DSI. Therefore, they argue
that Georgia should have used a lower
waste disposal cost in its analysis for
CDS. In total, the Commenters contend
that each of these alleged errors resulted
in artificially inflated control costs for
CDS and DSI and, therefore, artificially
inflated cost-effectiveness values. The
Commenters state that, according to the
Stamper report attached to the
Commenters’ comments, by correcting
some of the noted errors identified by
the Commenters in Georgia’s analysis,
CDS and DSI are cost-effective controls
at $3,790/ton and $5,920/ton of SO2
removed, respectively.
Related to these points, the
Commenters assert that Georgia violated
the RHR’s requirement that it
adequately document and support the
technical basis for its control
determinations, and that EPA does not
acknowledge or address any of the many
errors in Georgia’s control analyses.
They also contend that in response to
comments, Georgia admits that ‘‘the
costs associated with [CDS and DSI]
were not looked at in depth due to [the
removal of coal burning] being an
obvious path forward.’’ The
Commenters contend that EPA’s
argument that Georgia followed a
reasonable cost analysis method and
followed the CCM is unsupported. The
Commenters state that in proposed
rulemaking on the Arizona regional
haze SIP, EPA proposes to conclude the
FFAs for numerous sources were
unreasonable because the State based its
control determinations on, among other
things, inappropriate emission rates for
the controls analyzed and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
unsubstantiated deviations from the
CCM. The Commenters therefore state
that EPA must treat the errors in
Georgia’s SIP revision consistently with
how it has proposed to treat these same
errors in Arizona’s SIP revision.69
Response 18: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters’ argument that the Agency
must require Georgia to ‘‘correct’’ its
cost analyses, or ‘‘correct’’ those
analyses itself, and require the
installation of either CDS or DSI on the
No. 13 Power Boiler at IP-Savannah to
make reasonable progress. Georgia’s
selection of cessation of coal
combustion as a control met the
requirements of the RHR and was
consistent with EPA’s recommended
process to select controls discussed in
the 2019 Guidance and the 2021
Clarifications Memo. Georgia was not
required to select multiple controls for
IP-Savannah’s No. 13 Power Boiler and
applied its reasonable discretion to
require IP-Savannah to implement the
most cost-effective control. Moreover,
even if assuming the Commenters’
technical arguments above regarding
items such as retrofit factors, capacity
factors, removal efficiency, and waste
rate are accurate (EPA has not made a
determination on those points), the cost
of the other potential controls would
still be positive, whereas cessation of
coal combustion has a negative cost
while still resulting in substantial
permanent emission reductions.
Because Georgia was not required to
select multiple controls for the No. 13
Power Boiler and further because EPA
agrees with Georgia’s selection of
cessation of coal combustion as
reasonable for this planning period, the
Commenters’ comments regarding other
potential control options are without
merit.
EPA also disagrees with the
Commenters’ argument that EPA did not
evaluate the CDS and DSI in depth due
to the removal of coal burning being an
obvious path forward. EPA evaluated
each assumption used in the cost
analyses as part of the pre-hearing
process and throughout the Haze Plan
development process.
Comment 19: The Commenters further
assert that even using Georgia’s cost
analyses, following the cessation of
burning coal, CDS (removing 3,674 tpy
of SO2 at a cost of $5,564/ton) and DSI
(removing 2,653 tpy of SO2 at a cost of
$6,245/ton) to control emissions from
the No. 13 Power Boiler are cost
effective because ‘‘[t]hese costs are well
within the range of costs that other
states have determined are cost effective
for the second planning period.’’ The
69 See
PO 00000
CAA 301(a)(2) and 40 CFR 56.5(a).
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92059
Commenters argue that EPA’s proposal
to approve Georgia’s determination that
these controls are not cost effective
based on the State’s application of the
Arkansas cost spreadsheet is arbitrary
and capricious.
Response 19: Commenters raised a
very similar argument regarding Plant
Bowen, and for the same reasons stated
in Response 9 (regarding Plant Bowen),
EPA disagrees here as well. As
discussed in Response 5 and as noted by
the Commenters, Georgia relied on a
spreadsheet of first planning period
costs developed by Arkansas with input
from other states and supplemented
with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia
determined based on that spreadsheet
that costs of $5,564/ton of SO2 removed
for CDS and $6,245/ton of SO2 removed
for DSI would exceed the 98th
percentile of all costs incurred by
sources to control emission in the first
planning period. On this basis, Georgia
determined that these were not
reasonable costs to control emissions for
this planning period. Given that the
State provided a detailed
documentation and justification, and is
not required to set a bright-line cost
threshold by the RHR, the discretion
afforded to the State to determine
whether costs are reasonable, the
consistent methodology applied by
Georgia to determine whether control
costs were reasonable for this planning
period, and the flexibility discussed in
Response 9, EPA reaffirms that Georgia’s
conclusions were reasonable under the
CAA and RHR.
Georgia selected the most costeffective control option for IP-Savannah,
which is the permanent cessation of
coal combustion at the No. 13 Power
Boiler. The selection of this control is
consistent with EPA’s recommended
process to select controls as discussed
in the 2019 Guidance and the 2021
Clarifications Memo. The selection of
the most cost-effective control is also
consistent with Georgia’s approach to
selection of controls. In short, Georgia
was not required to select multiple
controls for IP-Savannah’s No. 13 Power
Boiler and applied its reasonable
discretion to require IP-Savannah to
implement the most cost-effective
control. This approach is consistent
with the CAA’s and RHR’s requirements
that the state selects emission controls
based upon four factors, including cost.
See CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i).
Comment 20: The Commenters also
assert that Georgia and EPA failed to
consider other available controls to
reduce IP-Savannah’s haze-forming
emissions, namely packed bed
scrubbers. The Commenters contend
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92060
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
that packed bed scrubbers are a common
SO2 control option for many industrial
sources, including paperboard mills like
IP-Savannah, and that these scrubbers
are demonstrated to achieve up to 99.99
percent control efficiency. The
Commenters note that the CCM includes
a module for assessing packed bed
scrubber controls, and the Commenters
conclude that while the record does not
contain sufficient information to
provide a cost analysis for these packed
bed scrubbers, examples provided in the
CCM indicate that packed bed scrubbers
are likely a highly cost-effective control
option for IP-Savannah.
Response 20: EPA disagrees with the
Commenters that GA EPD did not
consider packed bed scrubbers in IPSavannah’s FFA. Packed tower
scrubbers (also known as packed bed or
packed column scrubbers) are a type of
wet scrubber, and wet scrubbers were
explicitly considered in IP-Savannah’s
FFA and were rejected by GA EPD as
not feasible due to the additional offsets
to the facility’s water use and freshwater
demand. See Haze Plan, Appendix G–
2b, at p. 2–7 and 2–8. Thus, for the
reasons stated in Responses 17 and 18,
EPA disagrees.
Packed tower scrubbers can achieve
high removal efficiencies, handle high
liquid rates, and have relatively lower
water consumption requirements than
other types of gas absorbers. However,
packed towers may also have high
system pressure drops, high clogging
and fouling potential, and extensive
maintenance costs due to the presence
of packing materials. Installation,
operation, and wastewater disposal
costs may also be higher for packed bed
scrubbers than for other absorbers.70 In
addition to pump and fan power
requirements and solvent costs, packed
towers have operating costs associated
with replacing damaged packing.
Wet scrubbers such as packed tower
scrubbers have water use and water
discharge requirements that can make
these controls not feasible in certain
situations. According to GA EPD,
treated wastewater from IP-Savannah is
discharged to the Savannah River. IPSavannah’s 2019 National Pollutant
Discharge Permit currently limits this
facility’s wastewater discharge, and the
facility has since committed to meet
biologically based Ultimate Oxygen
Demand limits which represent an
approximately 85 percent reduction
from its current permit limits. The
facility is also limited on how much
70 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2021-05/documents/wet_and_dry_scrubbers_
section_5_chapter_1_control_cost_manual_7th_
edition.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
groundwater can be withdrawn, and its
water withdrawal permit limits will be
lower starting in 2025, which will cause
any projects requiring additional water
use to be offset by water-savings
projects.71 Thus, a wet scrubber, which
would represent 10 percent of the
facility’s freshwater demand, was
deemed not feasible by GA EPD. EPA
agrees with GA EPD that adding a
packed tower scrubber to control SO2
emissions from IP-Savannah would not
be reasonable based upon Georgia’s
technical determinations that this
control is not feasible. Because this
control is not feasible, neither GA EPD
nor EPA performed a cost analysis for
this control option.
EPA disagrees that Georgia did not
consider other available control options
for reducing SO2. Georgia also evaluated
the feasibility of a dry scrubber for the
No. 13 Power Boiler. While a dry
scrubber does not have the same
additional needs for water as a wet
scrubber, EPA agrees with Georgia’s
determination that a dry scrubber was
considered not technically feasible due
to costs from the additional solid waste
and wastewater generated and the
expansion of the existing mill-owned
landfill.
Comment 21: The Commenters argue
that IP-Savannah is a significant source
of NOX pollution. The commenters
contend that EPA must require Georgia
to conduct an FFA for NOX controls on
the facility’s emission units to ensure
that the State requires a reasonable
range of controls to make progress.
Response 21: For the reasons stated in
Response 2 and Response 3, EPA
disagrees with the Commenters. In the
Haze Plan, GA EPD evaluated IPSavannah’s contributions to visibility
impairment at Class I areas and
concluded that SO2 contributions to
visibility impairment from this facility
exceeded State’s AoI and PSAT
screening thresholds and that NOX
contributions did not exceed the State’s
screening thresholds. Therefore, IPSavannah was selected for an SO2 FFA
but not for a NOX FFA. As discussed in
Response 3, Georgia’s approach was
reasonable and complies with the RHR.
Comment 22: The Commenters assert
that EPA ignores that the IP-Savannah
title V permit that Georgia proposes to
incorporate into its SIP does not include
necessary reporting requirements. The
Commenters argue that IP-Savannah’s
permit, as reproduced in EPA’s docket,
only includes provisions requiring the
facility to ‘‘measure and record’’
information reflecting fuel use for the
71 See Section 7.8.1. International Paper—
Savannah Mill in the 2022 Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
No. 13 Power Boiler. The permit makes
reference to a requirement that IPSavannah report its excess emissions,
exceedances, or excursions in
accordance with ‘‘the report required in
Condition 6.1.4’’ of the permit.
However, the Commenters state that the
permit does not contain Condition 6.1.4,
and therefore the provisions EPA
proposes to incorporate into the SIP do
not include necessary reporting
provisions and do not meet the
requirements of the CAA or RHR.
Response 22: Permit condition 6.1.7,
as incorporated, requires IP-Savannah to
report excess emissions, exceedances, or
excursions in accordance with permit
condition 6.1.4, as it relates to the
burning of coal in the No. 13 Power
Boiler. Permit condition 6.1.4 requires
IP-Savannah to submit a written report
each quarter that contains any excess
emissions, exceedances, or excursions,
and any monitor malfunctions during
each quarterly reporting period. If none
of these occurred, IP-Savannah must
still submit a report stating that there
were no excess emissions, exceedances,
excursions, or monitor malfunctions
during the quarterly reporting period.
Condition 6.1.4 exists in a federally
enforceable title V permit and is also
referenced in the portions of the permit
being approved into the SIP.
Comment 23: The Commenters assert
that EPA ignores that Georgia’s SIP does
not address measures necessary to
prevent future impairment as is required
at Class I areas by the CAA and RHR.
The Commenters contend that EPA has
historically relied on new source
permitting programs, ‘‘like the [PSD]
and [NSR] programs,’’ to address the
CAA’s prevention of future impairment
mandate, but these programs ‘‘have
changed dramatically over the decades.’’
The Commenters state that current PSD
rules, as well as the nonattainment NSR
rules, now exempt many modifications
at existing major sources that were
previously subject to PSD review. As a
result, the Commenters state that the
PSD and NSR rules do not provide as
comprehensive Class I area visibility
protections as they previously did. The
Commenters thus contend that it is
imperative that Georgia’s LTS include
measures to prevent future visibility
impairment from new sources, as well
as new modifications at existing sources
of haze pollution.
More specifically, the Commenters
assert that Georgia does not discuss
anywhere in its SIP revision (1) the
programs it has in place to address any
potential future increases in emissions
or (2) any pending air permit
applications for sources that may
contribute to future impairment at Class
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
I areas in Georgia or other states. As an
example, the Commenters state that
Georgia is currently reviewing a permit
application and draft permit from Twin
Pines Minerals which proposes to locate
a mine just three miles from
Okefenokee. Although Twin Pines
Minerals’ permit application indicates
that the mine’s emissions would be
relatively low, the Commenters state
that the application is missing
information on emission sources and
potential emission levels. As a result,
the Commenters state that it is nearly
impossible for the public to determine
exactly what kind of impact the
proposed mine may have on air quality
at Okefenokee. The Commenters state
that the SIP revision does not address
this facility, or any other proposed new
sources or modifications. They assert
that this underscores the need for the
State to address measures to prevent
future impairment to ensure that it is
meeting the CAA’s natural visibility
goal. Furthermore, they state that
nowhere in EPA’s proposed approval
does the Agency acknowledge or
address the fact that Georgia’s SIP
revision entirely omits any discussion of
measures to prevent future impairment.
Finally, they contend that EPA’s
proposal to approve Georgia’s SIP is
therefore arbitrary and capricious, in
violation of the CAA and RHR.
Response 23: Contrary to the
Commenters’ assertions, there is no
requirement in the CAA or for states’
second planning period regional haze
plans to assess and/or adopt emission
reduction measures into the SIP for
hypothetical new emissions sources that
do not yet exist (e.g., those which have
not yet been constructed and/or are not
yet in operation) to prevent future
visibility impairment at Class I areas.
Nor do the Commenters cite to legal
authority suggesting that the CAA or
RHR require this. Instead, the
Commenters cite to CAA section
169A(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.300(a), and 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B).
None of these statutes and regulations
support the Commenters’ assertions.
CAA section 169A(a)(1) states the
‘‘national goal’’ underlying the regional
haze program ‘‘the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air
pollution.’’ In support of this goal,
Congress required EPA to ‘‘promulgate
regulations to assure (A) reasonable
progress toward meeting the national
goal specified in paragraph (1), and (B)
compliance with the requirements of
this section.’’ EPA has done so by
promulgating the RHR, which the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
Commenters also cite to. 40 CFR
51.300(a), cited by the Commenters, is
entitled ‘‘Purpose and applicability’’
and restates the national goal from CAA
section 169A(a)(1). This provision,
while providing important context to
the RHR, contains no independent
requirements that states must meet and
therefore does not support the
Commenters’ position.
The remaining citation to the RHR
provided by the Commenters, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), similarly does not
support the Commenters’ position. That
provision states in full as follows: ‘‘The
State must consider the following
additional factors in developing its longterm strategy: Measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities.’’
Contrary to the Commenters’ assertions,
Georgia plainly addressed this
requirement in its Haze Plan. See Haze
Plan, at p. 221 (noting that ‘‘Measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction
activities’’ are addressed in Section
7.9.2 of the Haze Plan); see also Haze
Plan Section 7.9.2 (discussing ‘‘Dust and
Fine Soil from Construction
Activities’’).
At bottom, the RHR addresses ‘‘the
prevention of any future’’ visibility
impairment by ensuring that reasonable
progress measures are adopted into
states’ SIPs. In this way, the RHR
renders such measures permanent,
which necessarily prevents future
visibility impairment from those
emission sources. Because neither the
CAA nor RHR requires further measures
to address future construction, the
Commenters’ comments regarding the
Twin Pines Minerals permit are
acknowledged, but are not relevant.
Comment 24: The Commenters argue
that EPA’s proposal to approve
Georgia’s RPGs violate the CAA and
RHR. The Commenters maintain that in
EPA’s SIP planning sequence, states first
identify their LTS controls, which is
followed by the development of RPGs.
However, the Commenters contend that
EPA fails to acknowledge that Georgia’s
established RPGs for its three in-state
Class I areas are based on VISTAS
modeling results which were conducted
in 2020. They comment this was
completed before conducting FFAs or
finalizing the State’s LTS controls in
2022. Therefore, the Commenters assert
that Georgia impermissibly reversed the
SIP planning sequence and that
Georgia’s RPGs are based on modeling
results which do not meet the RHR
requirement that RPGs must be based on
enforceable SIP measures. The
Commenters argue that Georgia’s
response to comments ignored the
problems raised regarding the RPGs and
that Georgia’s response that the State’s
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92061
RPGs ‘‘are representative of all known
control measures necessary to make
reasonable progress’’ is unfounded.
Additionally, the Commenters assert
that Georgia ‘‘cherry-picked’’ a
statement from EPA’s 2019 Guidance in
response to the concerns raised, i.e.,
EPA’s statement that states may conduct
modeling to establish RPGs before ‘‘the
outcome of some final state decisions on
emission control measures [are]
known.’’ The Commenters state Georgia
ignored other parts of EPA’s 2019
Guidance explaining that if a state
conducted modeling for RPGs before
finalizing LTS control determinations,
the state must adjust its RPGs to
reconcile the scenarios before the SIP
revision with the RPGs is submitted.
The Commenters argue that nothing in
Georgia’s SIP revision or EPA’s proposal
indicates that Georgia made adjustments
to its RPGs after its FFA and finalizing
its LTS, which the Commenters argue is
contrary to EPA’s 2019 Guidance. Thus,
the Commenters contend that EPA must
not approve Georgia’s RPGs for its three
Class I areas and must require that
Georgia adjust those goals to properly
reflect enforceable emission limitations
adopted in the LTS portion of Georgia’s
SIP.
Response 24: EPA disagrees that
Georgia’s RPGs must be disapproved on
the basis that they do not reflect any
new measures resulting from the three
FFAs. EPA reiterates that the process for
establishing RPGs for each Class I area
is prescribed in the RHR and its
amendments and discussed in related
guidance.72 73 74 The RPGs established
by the states with Class I areas are not
directly enforceable but will be
considered by the Administrator in
evaluating the adequacy of the measures
in the implementation plan in providing
for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility conditions at
that area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii).
As explained in footnote 34 of the
NPRM of the Georgia Haze Plan, RPGs
are intended to reflect the projected
impacts of the measures all contributing
72 See 40 CFR 51.308; 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999;
and 82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017.
73 See ‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period’’ available at: www.epa.gov/
visibility/guidance-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-second-implementationperiod. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20,
2019).
74 See ‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period’’ available at: www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
92062
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
states include in their LTS. However,
due to the timing of analyses, control
determinations by other states, and
other ongoing emissions changes, a
particular state’s RPGs may not reflect
all control measures and emissions
reductions that are expected to occur by
the end of the planning period.
Because the air quality modeling to
calculate RPGs is resource intensive and
time consuming, EPA does not always
expect the modeling to be repeated after
a subsequent change in the content of a
state’s own LTS or another state’s LTS
that impacts the host state’s Class I
area(s). 2019 Guidance at 47–48.
Adjustment of the RPGs once
modeling is completed to reflect new
FFA outcomes is not required. However,
the 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for addressing the
timing of RPG calculations when states
are developing their LTS on disparate
schedules and for adjusting RPGs using
a post-modeling approach. The outcome
of a state’s source selection process and
subsequent evaluation of technically
feasible and cost-effective emissions
controls as part of FFAs determine what
constitutes the state’s LTS for that
particular planning period. If a state’s
source selection process and evaluation
of technically feasible and cost-effective
controls results in a LTS that includes
the enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress, then the
requirements of the RHR are satisfied for
that planning period. Any additional
emissions reductions resulting from
new FFA measures not included in the
2028 RPGs serve to provide further
assurance that the State’s Class I areas
and those areas affected by the State’s
sources will achieve their 2028 RPGs.
Comment 25: The Commenters assert
that EPA’s proposal to approve
Georgia’s state-to-state consultations
violates the CAA and RHR. They
specifically mention EPA’s 2017
amendments to the RHR stating ‘‘states
must exchange their four factor analyses
and the associated technical information
that was developed in the course of
devising their long-term strategies.’’
The Commenters contend that EPA
treats the consultation process as a boxchecking exercise. Additionally, they
argue that EPA’s proposal and TSD only
recites what Georgia provided regarding
its consultation, without conducting an
independent analysis, and that EPA
only mentioned that Georgia
documented its consultation with other
states. The Commenters assert that
Georgia failed to independently assess
whether additional controls on out-ofstate sources are needed to achieve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
reasonable progress. Therefore, both
Georgia and EPA will need to
independently evaluate all information
in the record, as well as provide an
explanation for their final
determinations.
The Commenters state that Georgia
recognizes that sources from other states
are projected to impact visibility in
Georgia’s Class I areas, and the State
requested FFAs from Florida, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio,
Indiana, and Pennsylvania. However,
the Commenters state that few of the
out-of-state sources are adopting new
control measures as a result of the FFAs.
Furthermore, the Commenters assert
that Georgia failed to critically evaluate
whether additional controls are
warranted from out-of-state sources to
ensure reasonable progress.
The Commenters assert that EPA must
require that Pennsylvania optimize or
upgrade controls at the Keystone
Generating Station (Keystone Station).
The Commenters state that the Keystone
Station is not exempt from an FFA
simply because it has systems (FGD and
SCR) in place that meet the Mercury and
Air Toxics Standards rule. Additionally,
the Commenters contend that the
scrubbers currently in place are
underperforming and do not achieve at
least 95 percent control efficiency, let
alone the 98 percent control efficiency
that a modern wet scrubber system is
capable of continuously achieving. The
Commenters state that of the control
measures that Keystone Station did
consider in FFA, running one more
level of recycle pumps would be costeffective ($413/ton of NOX), and must be
required. The Commenters argue that
modern SCR systems have been shown
to operate at an average monthly NOX
emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or
lower, whereas the current SCR systems
in Units 1 and 2 of the Keystone Station
in 2019 have higher NOX emissions
rates of 0.104 and 0.103 lb/MMBtu,
respectively. In response to the
Keystone Station’s assertion that
optimization of the current SCR systems
will be addressed in a future case-bycase NOX reasonably available control
technology (RACT) analysis, the
Commenters contend that a future
RACT analysis is not an offramp from
the regional haze requirements that
apply now. Furthermore, the
Commenters argue that the outcome of
the RACT analysis will likely be
different and less stringent because the
analysis applies a different set of factors.
Therefore, the Commenters assert that
EPA must require Pennsylvania to direct
the Keystone Station to evaluate
additional cost-effective control
measures, and the agency must ensure
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that the accuracy of cost-effectiveness
arguments regarding the new controls
are supported and documented.
The Commenters also assert EPA must
require that Ohio direct the Gavin
Power Plant (Plant Gavin) to optimize or
upgrade controls. The Commenters
argue that Ohio failed to show that NOX
emissions from Plant Gavin are
effectively controlled since the State did
not show that an FFA for NOX control
on the facility would be futile.
Furthermore, the Commenters contend
that nothing in the RHR itself permits
the states to exclude sources from an
FFA on the basis that they are
‘‘effectively controlled.’’ Moreover, the
Commenters argue that Plant Gavin’s
FFA of SO2 controls contain errors, and
that there are feasible and cost-effective
controls available that can reduce SO2
emissions from the facility. The
Commenters maintain that because
Plant Gavin likely contributes to the
impairment to both Georgia’s and Ohio’s
Class I areas, EPA must require Ohio to
perform an FFA of NOX controls and
implement available and cost-effective
SO2 controls for Plant Gavin.
The Commenters further assert that
EPA cannot approve Georgia’s
consultation with Indiana. The
Commenters state that Georgia disagreed
with Indiana’s response to not require
FFAs from its EGUs (including Gibston
Station and AEP Rockport Generating
Station), and Georgia’s consultation
record is incomplete because ‘‘there is
no record of the Indiana disagreement in
the Georgia SIP.’’ If Georgia does
disagree with Indiana, the Commenters
argue that 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) would
apply, which requires Georgia to
‘‘describe the actions taken to resolve
the disagreement’’ and EPA ‘‘take this
information into account.’’ The
Commenters assert that EPA cannot
approve of Georgia’s state-to-state
consultation because Georgia has not
adequately documented its
disagreement and resolution of the
disagreement with Indiana, which the
Commenters state is in violation of the
CAA and the RHR.
Response 25: 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)
provides that a ‘‘State must consult with
those States that have emissions that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in the mandatory
Class I Federal area to develop
coordinated emission management
strategies containing the emission
reductions necessary to make reasonable
progress.’’ If the state disagrees, the state
must describe the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement (40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C)).
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Consultation may include efforts to reach
agreement on the measures that each state
will apply to its sources, or agreement on
decision thresholds and other decision
approaches, but it does not require such
effort by any state and does not require that
agreements be reached. If neither consulting
state has sought an agreement about
measures to be included in their SIP revision,
neither state is required to include in its
implementation plan the description
mentioned in this requirement. However, if
one state has formally asked another state to
adopt a particular measure for a particular
source, and the second state has not adopted
that measure and also has not adopted an
equivalent measure(s) as described in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A), then both states are subject
to this requirement to describe the actions
taken to resolve the disagreement. This
provision does not specify that any particular
actions towards resolution be taken. If the
two states submit SIP revisions that disagree
on the controls in each state that are needed
for reasonable progress, the RHR provides for
EPA to consider the technical information
and explanations presented by both states
when considering whether to approve each
state’s SIP.
2019 Guidance, at p. 53.
EPA’s review of Georgia’s interstate
consultation process was hardly a box
checking exercise, as EPA
independently reviewed all of the
consultation documentation provided
by Georgia within its Haze Plan. Those
materials are primarily contained in
Appendix F of the Haze Plan, and EPA
affirms that GA EPD properly complied
with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by
consulting with Florida, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana,
Pennsylvania, and Ohio and requesting
FFAs for facilities located within those
states with visibility impacts to Georgia
Class I areas exceeding one percent for
SO2 or NOX. Specifically, five facilities
are located in Florida, one facility is
located in Kentucky, two facilities are
located in South Carolina, one facility is
located in Tennessee, two facilities are
located in Indiana, two facilities are
located in Ohio, and one facility is
located in Pennsylvania. Regarding
Indiana specifically, Georgia
documented communications between
Georgia and Indiana in Appendix F–2b
of the Haze Plan, and on pages 243–244
of the Haze Plan narrative, Georgia
indicated that Indiana ‘‘is not requiring
4-factor analyses from its EGUs.’’
Georgia does not explicitly state its
disagreement with Indiana, but based on
the record, the states appear to disagree
based on Georgia’s request for FFAs at
Plant Gibson and AEP Rockport along
with Georgia’s documentation within its
Haze Plan that Indiana will not be
preparing FFAs for these two facilities.
As noted elsewhere in Georgia’s Haze
Plan, AEP Rockport’s SO2 impact on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
visibility at Cohutta is 4.68 percent, and
Plant Gibson’s SO2 impact on visibility
at Cohutta is 2.31 percent. In accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), Georgia has
adequately documented its position and
Indiana’s position, including in a letter
VISTAS sent to Indiana on behalf of
Georgia dated June 22, 2020, requesting
FFAs for these facilities, as well in
follow-up emails. See Haze Plan,
Appendix F–2b.
In regards to the Commenters’
contention that EPA must require
controls at facilities outside of Georgia
in this action on Georgia’s regional haze
SIP, this action is not the appropriate
forum to submit such comments. To the
extent that Commenters have concerns
about facilities outside of Georgia, such
as those facilities in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Indiana, any public comments
related to out-of-state sources should be
provided during the public comment
periods regarding those states’ haze
plans. Georgia lacks authority to
regulate these out-of-state sources, and
therefore EPA cannot require other
states to implement control measures
through the Georgia regional haze SIP.
Comment 26: The Commenters assert
that EPA must disapprove Georgia’s SIP
because the State failed to engage in
meaningful FLM consultation. The
Commenters state that while Georgia
did summarize and respond to the
FLMs’ comments, it did not
meaningfully consider or incorporate
the suggestions into the SIP. The
Commenters contend that ‘‘[c]ontrary to
the CAA and RHR, Georgia treated the
consultation as a box-checking exercise’’
and released the draft of the SIP revision
for public comments only two days after
it closed the formal consultation with
FLMs. The Commenters argue that
Georgia made only minor edits to the
SIP based upon the FLMs’ comments
and did not fully respond to the many
concerns raised. Some concerns
included screening thresholds that led
to very few Georgia sources for analysis,
exclusion of NOX from FFAs, lack of
FFAs for multiple facilities (Plant
Wansley, Plant Scherer, the Rome
Linerboard Mill, Brunswick Cellulose,
and IP-Savannah), concerns about the
FFA for SO2 at Plant Bowen, and
concerns about the VISTA modeling
approach. Therefore, the Commenters
assert that EPA must reject Georgia’s SIP
revision on that basis that the State
failed to meet the CAA’s and RHR’s
requirement to ‘‘engage in meaningful
FLM consultation.’’ Additionally, the
Commenters argue that because EPA
must disapprove of Georgia’s source
selection method, FFA, and RPGs, the
Agency must also disapprove of
Georgia’s FLM consultation on the basis
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92063
that the FLM consultation was based
upon a SIP revision that did not meet
the statutory and regulatory
requirements of the CAA and RHR.
Response 26: The FLMs play
important roles in addressing visibility
at Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3)
requires states to include a description
of how they address any comments
provided by the FLMs. However, neither
the CAA nor the RHR requires the state
to agree with the FLM
recommendations, nor do they specify
the degree of consideration that must be
given to those comments. Rather, 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires the State to
‘‘include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by
the Federal Land Managers.’’
Georgia complied with this
requirement by documenting how it
addressed the FLMs’ comments in 21
pages of single-spaced responses to the
FLMs’ comments contained within
Appendix H–4a of its Haze Plan. The
Commenters do not identify any specific
FLM comments that Georgia did not
respond to. EPA reviewed GA EPD’s
responses and finds that they comply
with the RHR requirement to describe
how the state addressed comments
provided by the FLMs. EPA thus
disagrees with the Commenters that GA
EPD did not fully respond to the FLMs’
comments.
The timing of this consultation was
also compliant with the RHR. FLM-State
consultation must take place at least 60
days prior to the state public comment
period on any haze plan or plan revision
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). GA
EPD complied this RHR requirement by
initiating consultation with the FLMs on
April 22, 2022, which was 62 days
before the opening of the State’s public
comment period on June 24, 2022. In
addition, GA EPD met with NPS upon
request on June 14, 2022, to discuss
NPS’ feedback in more detail.75
Comment 27: The Commenters assert
that EPA must consider the
environmental justice (EJ) impacts of
Georgia’s SIP revision. The Commenters
state that EPA states it can ignore EJ
implications of Georgia’s SIP revision,
and that the Agency contravenes
directives from the current presidential
administration, as well as EPA’s
commitments and action plans. The
Commenters contend that EPA cannot
argue to prioritize EJ while also
disavowing any need to consider the
disproportionate impacts of haze
pollution sources in Georgia and its own
actions on Georgia’s SIP revision.
75 FWS, FS, and EPA representatives were also in
attendance at the June 14, 2022, Georgia-NPS
consultation meeting.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
92064
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
The Commenters assert that executive
orders (EOs), as well as EPA’s own
commitments and action plans direct
the Agency to consider EJ implications.
The Commenters state that EOs in place
since 1994 require EPA to incorporate EJ
as ‘‘part of its mission by identifying
and addressing . . . disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its program,
policies, and activities,’’ which they
argue to be applicable to regional haze
SIP actions on minority populations and
low-income populations. Additionally,
the Commenters argue the directive to
incorporate EJ into all of the Agency’s
actions was reaffirmed by the Biden
Administration in 2021 through back-toback EOs directed to federal agencies,
including EPA, and again in 2023 when
the Administration issued the
‘‘Executive Order on Revitalizing Our
Nation’s Commitment to Environmental
Justice for All.’’ 76
The Commenters state that
Administrator Regan recognized that
EPA has a lead role in coordinating EJ
efforts across the country and ‘‘urged all
EPA offices to take ‘affirmative steps to
incorporate environmental justice
consideration into their work . . . in
regulatory development processes and
to consider regulatory options to
maximize benefits to these
communities,’ ’’ and the Commenters
argue that EPA’s Equity Action Plan 77
issued in 2022 makes equity, EJ, and
civil right a centerpiece of the agency’s
regulatory work, which includes actions
on regional haze SIPs. Furthermore, the
Commenters assert that the
determination of which sources to
selected for an FFA and the reasonable
progress measure to require for a source
should incorporate EJ and equity into
technical analyses, citing EPA’s 2019
Guidance, which specifies that ‘‘[s]tates
may also consider any beneficial non-air
quality environmental impacts,’’ as well
as the 2021 Clarification Memo issued
by the Agency.
The Commenters contend that EPA
ignores the previously mentioned EOs,
plans, and commitments when
concluding that it is not required to
consider EJ impacts of pollutants that
contribute to regional haze from
Georgia’s sources and actions on the SIP
revision. The Commenters state that the
76 The ‘‘Executive Order on Revitalizing Our
Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for
All’’ is available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/04/21/
executive-order-on-revitalizing-our-nationscommitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all/.
77 U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, E.O. 13985 Equity
Action Plan at 4–11 (Apr. 2022), see https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/epa
equityactionplanapril2022508.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
same pollutants that affect visibility at
national parks and wilderness areas also
cause significant public health impacts,
particularly those who live closest to the
facilities.
Drawing from EJScreen data,78 the
Commenters state that emissions from
sources of concern raised by NPS and
the Commenters in their comments to
Georgia are likely impacting areas
characterized by higher percentages of
low income and people of color.
Specifically, within a 10-mile radius of
Plant Bowen, the Commenters state that
32 percent of the population are lowincome and 25 percent as people of
color, with the community surround the
plant in the 73rd percentile for the PM
EJ Index and 67th percentile for ozone
EJ Index when compared to the rest of
the country. The Commenters state that
analysis conducted by a Clean Air Task
Force, based on 2019 emissions, shows
that Plant Bowen’s emissions are
responsible for ‘‘59 deaths, 7 hospital
admissions, 13 asthma ER visits, 28
heart attacks, 34 cases of acute
bronchitis, 637 asthma attacks, and 3020
lost work days each year.’’ The
Commenters also highlight the
community surrounding IP-Savannah,
which they state is 37 percent lowincome and 59 percent people of color,
as well as being in the 77th percentile
for the PM EJ index when compared to
the rest of the country. Additionally, the
Commenters argue that the population
surrounding the Rome Linerboard Mill,
a facility that Georgia did not select or
analyze in its SIP revision and EPA does
not discuss in its proposal, is comprised
of 44 percent low-income and 40
percent people of color, and in the 82nd
percentile for PM EJ index and 71st
percentile for ozone EJ index. The
Commenters contend that the sources
from the facilities identified above are
likely adversely impacting those
communities and assert that EPA can
and must hold Georgia accountable to
consider EJ impacts of haze pollution
from in-state sources, as well as analyze
the potential disparate impacts of its
action on Georgia’s SIP revision.
Response 27: EPA disagrees with this
comment but acknowledges the
EJScreen information provided by the
Commenters. The regional haze
statutory provisions do not explicitly
address considerations of EJ and neither
do the regional haze regulatory
requirements of the second planning
period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).
However, the lack of explicit direction
does not preclude a State’s SIP
consideration of EJ in its SIP submittal.
78 EJScreen, an EJ screening and mapping tool, is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
As explained in ‘‘EPA Legal Tools to
Advance Environmental Justice,’’ 79 the
CAA provides states with the discretion
to consider EJ in developing rules and
measures related to regional haze. While
a state may consider EJ under the
reasonable progress factors, neither the
statute nor the regulation requires states
to conduct an EJ analysis for EPA to
approve a SIP submission.
In this instance, Georgia elected not to
consider EJ under the reasonable
progress factors. In Appendix H of the
Haze Plan, in response to an EJ
comment received from the NPCA and
Sierra Club, GA EPD states that the
purpose of the RHR is to improve
visibility in the Class I areas, not to look
at health impacts from criteria
pollutants in areas outside Class I areas,
which is addressed through the
implementation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. In
addition, GA EPD notes that it has not
identified any EJ communities living in
any Class I areas whose visibility would
be disproportionately impacted by GA
EPD’s selection of reasonable progress
controls.
As discussed in the NPRM and in this
notice of final rulemaking, EPA has
evaluated Georgia’s SIP submission
against the statutory and regulatory
regional haze requirements and
determined that it satisfies those
minimum requirements. Furthermore,
the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require
such an evaluation of EJ with a regional
haze SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and
II of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference into
Georgia’s SIP GA EPD Permit No. 4911–
015–0011–V–04–3 for Bowen SteamElectric Generating Plant (State effective
September 6, 2023), GA EPD Permit No.
2631–051–0007–V–04–1 for
International Paper—Savannah (State
effective October 20, 2023), and GA EPD
Permit No. 2631–127–0003–V–07–3 for
Brunswick Cellulose LLC (State
effective October 25, 2023). EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
79 See ‘‘EPA Legal Tools to Advance
Environmental Justice’’, May 2022, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202205/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May
%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35–36.
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.80
INFORMATION CONTACT
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving Georgia’s August
11, 2022, SIP submission as satisfying
the regional haze requirements for the
second planning period contained in 40
CFR 51.308(f). Thus, EPA is adopting
into Georgia’s SIP GA EPD Permit No.
4911–015–0011–V–04–3 for Bowen
Steam-Electric Generating Plant, GA
EPD Permit No. 2631–051–0007–V–04–
1 for International Paper—Savannah,
and GA EPD Permit No. 2631–127–
0003–V–07–3 for Brunswick Cellulose
LLC.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
80 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rulemaking does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994) directs Federal agencies to
identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on communities with EJ
concerns to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing
Our Nation’s Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR
25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and
supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ
as, among other things, the just
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people, regardless of income, race,
color, national origin, or Tribal
affiliation, or disability in agency
decision-making and other Federal
activities that affect human health and
the environment.
Georgia EPD did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken
here, this action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
92065
quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096
of achieving EJ for communities with EJ
concerns.
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and EPA will
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by January 21, 2025. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: November 14, 2024.
Cesar Zapata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart L—Georgia
2. In § 52.570(d), amend ‘‘Table 2 to
Paragraph (d)’’ by adding entries for
‘‘Bowen Steam-Electric Generating
Plant’’, ‘‘International Paper-Savannah’’,
and ‘‘Brunswick Cellulose LLC’’ at the
end of the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.570
Identification of plan.
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
92066
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (d)—EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
State
effective
date
Permit No.
EPA approval
date
*
Bowen Steam-Electric
Generating Plant.
*
*
4911–015–0011–V–04–3
*
9/6/2023
International Paper—Savannah.
2631–051–0007–V–04–1
10/20/2023
Brunswick Cellulose LLC ..
2631–127–0003–V–07–3
10/24/2023
3. In § 52.570(e), amend the table by
adding an entry for ‘‘Regional Haze
*
11/21/2024, [Insert first
page of Federal Register citation].
11/21/2024, [Insert first
page of Federal Register citation].
11/21/2024, [Insert first
page of Federal Register citation].
Plan—Second Planning Period’’ at the
end of the table to read as follows:
■
Comments
*
*
In Condition 6.2.52, the phrase ‘‘shall
use emissions factors’’ means ‘‘shall
use an emissions factor of 157 S lb/
Mgal.’’
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
*
*
Regional Haze Plan—Second Planning
Period.
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment area
*
Georgia ..................
[FR Doc. 2024–26977 Filed 11–20–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 272
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2021–0330; FRL–9522–
01–R6]
Texas: Incorporation by Reference of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule codifies in the
regulations the prior approval of Texas’
hazardous waste management program
and incorporates by reference
authorized provisions of the State’s
statutes and regulations. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
uses the regulations entitled ‘‘Approved
State Hazardous Waste Management
Programs’’ to provide notice of the
authorization status of State programs
and to incorporate by reference those
provisions of the State statutes and
regulations that are authorized and that
EPA will enforce under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, commonly referred to as
the Resource Conservation and
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Nov 20, 2024
Jkt 265001
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
8/11/22
EPA approval date
*
*
11/21/2024, [Insert first page of Federal
Register citation].
Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA
previously provided notices and
opportunity for comments on the
Agency’s decisions to authorize the
State of Texas program and the EPA is
not now reopening the decisions, nor
requesting comments, on the Texas
authorizations as previously published
in the Federal Register documents
specified in Section I.C of this final rule
document.
DATES: This regulation is effective on
December 23, 2024. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference as of
December 23, 2024, in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2021–0330. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
You can view and copy the
documents that form the basis for this
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
codification and associated publicly
available materials from 8:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
the following location: EPA, Region 6,
1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas 75270, phone number: (214) 665–
8533. Interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make
an appointment with the office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alima Patterson, EPA Region 6 Regional
Authorization/Codification Coordinator,
RCRA Permits and Solid Waste Section
(LCR–RP), Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 6,
1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas 75270, phone number: (214) 665–
8533, Email address: patterson.alima@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Incorporation by Reference
A. What is codification?
Codification is the process of placing
a State’s statutes and regulations that
comprise the State’s authorized
hazardous waste management program
into the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as
amended, allows the EPA to authorize
State hazardous waste management
programs to operate in lieu of the
Federal hazardous waste management
regulatory program. The EPA codifies its
authorization of State programs in 40
E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM
21NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 92038-92066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26977]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220; FRL-10407-02-R4]
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Second Period Regional Haze Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD), dated August 11, 2022 (``Haze Plan'' or ``2022
Plan''), as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze
program's second planning period. Georgia's SIP submission addresses
the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term
strategies (LTS) for making reasonable progress toward the national
goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I
areas''). The SIP submission also addresses other applicable
requirements for the second planning period of the regional haze
program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of
the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective December 23, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220. All documents in the docket
are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
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 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estelle Bae, Air Permitting Section,
Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division,
Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9143.
Ms. Bae can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 11, 2022, GA EPD submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second planning period.1 2 GA
EPD made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308. EPA has determined that the
Georgia regional haze SIP submission for the second planning period
meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus
approving Georgia's submission into its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The August 11, 2022, SIP submission, with exception of the
supporting modeling files and CBI, is included in the docket for
this rulemaking. Due to size and compatibility limitations of the
Federal Docket Management System, the supporting modeling files for
Georgia's Regional Haze Plan are instead available at the EPA Region
4 office. To request these files, please contact the person listed
in this rulemaking under the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
\2\ On November 1, 2023, Georgia supplemented its August 11,
2022, Haze Plan by submitting the final permits for each of the
three sources selected for an emissions control analysis. This
supplemental submission, received November 1, 2023, along with GA
EPD's November 17, 2023, clarification email, is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on June
3, 2024 (89 FR 47481), EPA proposed to approve Georgia's Haze Plan as
satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning
period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA described its
rationale for proposing approval of the Haze Plan in the June 3, 2024,
NPRM. Comments on the June 3, 2024, NPRM were due on or before July 3,
2024. EPA received two sets of comments on the NPRM. One set of
comments received is not relevant to this action, and the other set of
comments is addressed below. Both sets of comments are available in the
docket for this action.
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, EPA received a comment letter signed by
the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, the
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and the Southern
Environmental Law Center. Collectively, these groups will be referred
to as the ``Commenters.'' In general, the Commenters state in their
comment letter that Georgia, in its SIP submittal, and EPA, in its
proposed approval of the SIP submittal, failed to
[[Page 92039]]
satisfy the requirements of the Act and the RHR. The Commenters thus
request that EPA disapprove Georgia's SIP revision. Summaries of the
significant comments received from the Commenters and EPA's responses
to these comments are below.
Comment 1: The Commenters state that in 2021 they informed the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) and EPA via letter of ``significant errors'' in the visibility
modeling conducted by VISTAS for the VISTAS states--including Georgia--
and that EPA did not acknowledge these errors in the NPRM. These
alleged errors are addressed in Comments 1.a through 1.c below.
Comment 1a: The Commenters contend that the VISTAS modeling
significantly underpredicted the contribution of sulfates to visibility
impairment at Class I areas on the 20 percent most impaired days and
that this underprediction, while prevalent across all seasons, was
largest during the summer months.\3\ The Commenters also assert that
these errors resulted in the modeling not meeting VISTAS' model
performance goals and modeling acceptance criteria for a number of
Class I areas. The Commenters further assert that although Georgia
claims that it corrected for this underprediction through the use of
relative response factors (RRFs), neither Georgia nor EPA assessed
whether use of RRFs adequately corrected for errors in the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
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. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1.a: Regarding the 2021 letter described by the
Commenters,\4\ EPA disagrees with the Commenters that there are
significant flaws in Georgia's 2028 visibility modeling that resulted
in excluding major sources of haze-forming pollution from evaluation
via Four-Factor Analyses (FFAs) for the second planning period. As the
Commenters state, Georgia relied upon the photochemical visibility
modeling performed by VISTAS to project the impact of the State's 2028
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions on visibility in both in-state and out-of-state Class I
areas. VISTAS performed the modeling in accordance with the principles
described within EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze'' (2018
Modeling Guidance).\5\ In 2018, EPA approved \6\ the Quality Assurance
Project Plan prepared by VISTAS for performing the modeling and also
reviewed and provided comments on the VISTAS Modeling Protocol. EPA
also reviewed the VISTAS final modeling reports and data relied upon by
Georgia and found them acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Exhibit 10 of the Conservation Groups' comments contains the
May 12, 2021, letter regarding the VISTAS regional haze modeling for
the second planning period.
\5\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,'' EPA 454/R-18-009,
November 29, 2018, (hereafter ``2018 Modeling Guidance'') is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/o3-pm-rh-modeling_guidance-2018.pdf.
\6\ The April 3, 2018, Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
VISTAS II Regional Haze Project is located in Appendix A-1 of the
Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters assert that, due to errors, the modeling failed to
meet VISTAS' model performance goals and modeling acceptance criteria
for a number of Class I areas. Specifically, the Commenters assert that
the VISTAS modeling significantly underpredicted the contribution of
sulfate to visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired days
and that the largest underprediction was during the summer months when
visibility is most problematic at Class I areas. Figure 6-7 in
Georgia's Haze Plan shows the results of the normalized mean bias and
normalized mean error statistical model performance tests for sulfates.
Model bias and error, either high or low, is not uncommon in
photochemical modeling analyses due to uncertainties in model inputs
and the scientific model formulation, and the fact that all air quality
models are simplified approximations of the complex phenomena of
atmospheric chemistry, fate, and transport of pollutants. Section 6.0
of EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance discusses uncertainties that may affect
model results and provides recommendations to mitigate modeling bias
and uncertainty. Georgia acknowledges that model performance is biased
low on the 20 percent most impaired days and provided an explanation of
why this modeling was appropriate for its regulatory determinations in
the Haze Plan. Georgia references the 2018 Modeling Guidance, which
states that it is not appropriate to use a ``bright-line test'' for
distinguishing between adequate and inadequate photochemical model
performance for a single performance test statistic. EPA's 2018
Modeling Guidance instead recommends using a ``weight of evidence''
approach for evaluating model performance holistically.
As discussed in Section 5.2(d) of EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models'' contained in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, there are no specific
levels of any model performance metric that indicate acceptable model
performance. The decision regarding acceptability is heavily influenced
by professional judgment of the reviewing authority, which is EPA in
this case. Based upon the overall performance of the model for all
pollutants affecting visibility, considered holistically, EPA agrees
with Georgia's conclusions that the modeling is acceptable for use in
the regional haze SIP analyses, and the model bias was adequately
explained by Georgia and therefore the source selection outcomes using
the VISTAS' methodology were reasonable.
Just as importantly, Georgia took appropriate steps to correct for
this model bias. The Haze Plan explains that the model is applied in a
relative sense through the calculation of RRFs following the procedures
in 2018 Modeling Guidance for calculating 2028 future year visibility
impacts, which helps alleviate concerns about the low bias in the
sulfate model predictions. As described in EPA's 2018 Modeling
Guidance, RRFs are ``the fractional change in air quality
concentrations that is simulated due to emissions changes between a
base and a future year emissions scenario.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 2018 Modeling Guidance at p. 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees with Georgia that applying the model in a relative sense
using the RRFs is an important tool in alleviating the impacts of the
sulfate modeling underpredictions in the 2011 baseline year on the
model projections for the 2028 future year. Section 4.1 of the 2018
Modeling Guidance provides a detailed explanation of why EPA recommends
photochemical modeling be applied in a relative sense and explains that
problems posed by model bias are expected to be reduced when using the
relative approach. Section 7.2.5.1 of Georgia's Haze Plan explains the
calculation of 2028 visibility estimates using the RRF approaches
contained in EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance. Using the RRF approach with
an average of five years of Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) \8\ data on the 20 percent most impaired days
and 20 percent clearest days along with the relative percent modeled
change in all of the particulate matter (PM) species between 2011 and
2028 reduces the influence of
[[Page 92040]]
the bias in sulfate-modeled (and other PM species) values in the 2011
baseline year. The 2028 visibility impairment projection is derived
primarily from the five-year average of actual IMPROVE monitoring data
in 2009-2013 that was then scaled in a relative sense by the modeling
results. If the model was being applied in an absolute sense, the low
bias in the sulfate modeled values would have a larger impact on the
2028 visibility projections. For these reasons, Georgia's use of RRFs
adequately minimized the impacts of model bias, and therefore,
Georgia's source selection using the VISTAS' methodology was
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ IMPROVE visibility monitoring data is available at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.b: The Commenters also discuss several other alleged
deficiencies with VISTAS' modeling. They state that VISTAS relied on an
``outdated'' 2011 baseline year for its 2028 future year emissions
projections and assumed that electric generating units (EGUs) would
operate in the exact same manner in 2028 as they did in 2011. Thus, the
Commenters assert that this model assumption is incorrect because EGUs
are likely to have different load utilization in 2028 than in 2011.
Response 1.b: Regarding the Commenters' comments about Georgia's
use of a 2011 base emissions inventory year to project emissions out to
2028 (the end of the second planning period), EPA finds the 2011
baseline year acceptable in this instance. Although it is always
preferable to use the most recent information available for modeling,
the 2011 baseline year inventory used by VISTAS was the latest region-
wide inventory available at the time that Georgia's SIP submittal was
being developed during the VISTAS technical work, which took place from
December 2017 to February 26, 2021.\9\ In EPA's experience,
coordination among states such as those in the VISTAS region takes
time, and the modeling involved is time-consuming, highly technical,
and resource intensive. The modeling generally requires hundreds of
hours of time to gather the model input data (e.g., emissions,
meteorology, land-use, etc.), prepare modeling protocols, perform the
modeling, and analyze the results. The computational resources to run
photochemical models are also very large. ``Mainframe'' clusters of a
large number of computer processors are required to run the models, and
even using these powerful computers, it takes weeks of computer run-
time for a full-year model simulation. Additionally, EPA's newer 2016-
based modeling platform only became available in September 2019, after
VISTAS had already invested a considerable amount of time and money
into the regional haze modeling analysis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ``Timeline'' for the VISTAS II Regional Haze Project at:
https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-project-intro.
\10\ See ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Updated 2028
Regional Haze Modeling'' at: https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-support-document-epas-updated-2028-regional-haze-modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA develops the National Emission Inventory (NEI) suitable for use
in such models every three years.\11\ By design, the regional haze
program requires states to spend significant time in the planning
phase, and this generally necessitates the use of a baseline year that
is substantially earlier than the date the state submits its SIP to
EPA. Here, it is reasonable that Georgia utilized the 2011 emissions
inventory year on which to base the technical work for the following
reasons. There is no RHR requirement regarding the baseline year for
regional photochemical modeling (nor is photochemical modeling
required). GA EPD justifies the use of this particular baseline year
and states that the 2011 emissions inventory was the most recently
available quality assured statewide emissions inventory when the VISTAS
project began for the second planning period. Moreover, prior to using
this data, GA EPD discussed the selection of this baseline year
emissions inventory and received confirmation from EPA to use this
emissions inventory.\12\ Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA finds
the use of the 2011 baseline year by VISTAS, and thus Georgia,
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For more information on the NEI, see: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
\12\ See the January 29, 2018, email from EPA (Richard Wayland)
regarding use of a 2011 base year by VISTAS for regional haze in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2011 emissions inventory was used to estimate emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants in 2028 to develop the 2028
projections. VISTAS applied reductions expected from federal and state
regulations to the visibility impairing pollutants NOX, PM,
and SO2. Georgia's 2028 emissions projections are based on
the State's technical analysis of the anticipated emissions rates and
level of activity for EGUs, other point sources, non-point sources, on-
road sources, and off-road sources based on their emissions in the 2011
base year, considering growth and additional emissions controls to be
in place by 2028. In addition, the VISTAS emissions inventory for 2028
accounts for post-2011 emission reductions from promulgated federal,
state, local, and site-specific control programs.
Although Georgia used the 2011 year as its emissions inventory base
year, as required by the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Georgia also
examined more recent emissions inventory information for SO2
and NOX for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 and compared
these emissions to the 2028 emission projections that were used for
modeling purposes in Section 7.6.5 and Tables 7-32 and 7-33 of its Haze
Plan. This helps to ensure that the State adequately considered more
recent emissions inventory information when developing its LTS. The
technical information provided in the docket demonstrates that the
emissions inventory in the Haze Plan adequately reflects projected 2028
conditions. Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA finds the use of the
2011 baseline year by VISTAS (and thus Georgia) reasonable.
Comment 1.c: The Commenters state that VISTAS used ``outdated''
monitoring data for its 2028 future year projections that did not
reflect an observed shift in nitrate contribution to visibility
impairment in the southeastern United States in the recent past.
Consequently, the Commenters assert that Georgia improperly excluded
major sources of haze-forming pollution from FFAs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The amount of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is
based on applying the four statutory factors in CAA section
169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options for sources
of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a
``four-factor analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1.c: Regarding the Commenters' claims that the 2009-2013
modeling base period did not reflect more recent changes in nitrate
contributions, EPA discussed its views on this issue in detail in the
NPRM. Nitrates are also discussed in Response 3, below. EPA agrees that
after the 2009-2013 timeframe, nitrate impacts have become more
significant on some of the 20 percent most impaired days, especially
taking into account the significant decrease in SO2
emissions and measured sulfate concentrations as acknowledged in the
NPRM. EPA nonetheless agrees with Georgia's conclusion that for the
second planning period, sulfates remain the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant at the Class I areas affected by Georgia, and
therefore, it is reasonable for Georgia to focus on SO2
emitting sources during this period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Out-of-state Class I areas affected by Georgia sources are:
Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Figures 2-8
and 2-9 of the Haze Plan provide the 2014-2018 IMPROVE data for the
VISTAS Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 92041]]
Comment 2: The Commenters assert that Georgia's source selection
process was unreasonable and too restrictive, based, in part, on their
concerns summarized in Comment 1. Additionally, the Commenters state
that Georgia's use of VISTAS' multi-step source screening process using
Area of Influence (AoI) and Particulate Matter Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) analysis was unreasonable. They therefore contend
that EPA's proposal to approve the State's source selection method is
arbitrary and capricious. The Commenters' specific comments on this
topic are addressed in Comments 2.a through 2.f, below.
Comment 2.a: The Commenters also claim that the State employed
unreasonably high source selection thresholds for AoI, which were too
restrictive and resulted in the identification of only five sources at
that step. The Commenters assert that by using a percentage source
selection threshold (for AoI and PSAT), the calculated threshold in
absolute visibility impact terms was higher for Class I areas with the
most severe visibility impairment. This in turn, they contend, meant
that fewer sources were identified at the AoI step for Class I areas
with the worst visibility impairment. The Commenters state that for the
areas with the worst visibility impairment, more sources should be
selected to make progress toward the natural visibility goal. In
addition, the Commenters assert that neither Georgia nor EPA provide
any justification for doubling the AoI threshold for out-of-state
sources compared to in-state sources.
Response 2.a: Concerning the Commenters' argument that the State's
source selection threshold is unreasonable, as explained in the NPRM,
the RHR does not require states to consider controls for all sources,
all source categories, or any or all sources in a particular source
category. Nor does the RHR expressly specify criteria for minimum
source selection thresholds.
These flexibilities are, however, not unbounded. The RHR requires
that ``[t]he State should consider evaluating major and minor
stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area
sources. The State must include in its implementation plan a
description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or
groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' \15\ In addition, the technical basis for source selection
must also be documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). Thus,
states must utilize a reasonable source selection methodology,\16\ and
whatever choices states make regarding source selection should be
reasonably explained.\17\ Georgia met these requirements. Specifically,
Georgia discussed the criteria it used to determine which sources or
groups of sources were evaluated by the State, including the use of AoI
analysis, photochemical modeling (e.g., PSAT), and associated source
selection thresholds for AoI and PSAT tagging in its Haze Plan. Georgia
documented its use of these approaches in extensive detail within
Section 7.5 of the Haze Plan and Appendices D-1 and D-2 of the Haze
Plan (relating to AoI analysis) and Section 7.6 of the Haze Plan and
Appendices E-1a, E-1b, E-2a, E-2b, E-2c, E-2d, E-2e, E-2f, E-3, E-4, E-
5, E-6, E-7a, E-7b, and E-8 of the Haze Plan (relating to PSAT
modeling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
\16\ As explained in the July 8, 2021, EPA memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications
Memo''), a reasonable source selection process ``should be designed
and conducted to ensure that source selection results in a set of
pollutants and sources the evaluation of which has the potential to
meaningfully reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.''
See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3 available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
\17\ See 89 FR 47481, 47493 (June 3, 2024); see also Sections 2
and 2.1 of 2021 Clarifications Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia's documentation adequately demonstrates why its source
selection methodology--including the use of an AoI threshold of two
percent \18\ for in-state sources for follow-up PSAT tagging, and a one
percent PSAT threshold on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis for source
selection--is reasonable. For the reasons stated in the NPRM (89 FR
47497), EPA finds that Georgia's source selection methodology was
reasonable and resulted in the selection of a reasonable set of sources
contributing to visibility impairment at Class I areas affected by
Georgia's sources. The State's methods for selecting sources for a
control analysis and the State's AoI and PSAT analyses identified
sources in Georgia having the highest impact on visibility at Class I
areas at the end of the second planning period and identified sources
outside of Georgia having the largest impacts on visibility at Class I
areas in the State. A specific source selection approach is not
required by the RHR.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The State's use of a four percent AoI threshold for out-of-
state sources is discussed below in Response 2.a.
\19\ Both of these approaches (AoI and PSAT) are example methods
in EPA's August 20, 2019, guidance titled: ``Guidance on Regional
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation
Period'' (``2019 Guidance'') which is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/8-20-2019_-_regional_haze_guidance_final_guidance.pdf. See subsection ``b)
Estimating baseline visibility impacts for source selection'' on
pages 12-15 of the 2019 Guidance. PSAT is a type of photochemical
modeling which is item 4 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance. VISTAS'
AoI analyses involve items 1-3 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of this methodology were reasonable as well. On the
whole, SO2 emissions from the three in-state sources
selected by Georgia for FFAs--Georgia Power Company's Plant Bowen
(``Plant Bowen''), International Paper's Savannah Mill (``IP-
Savannah''), and Brunswick Cellulose--are projected to impact
visibility at Class I areas as described in Table 1 below.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ No sources met Georgia's Nitrate PSAT threshold of greater
than or equal to one percent on the 20 percent most impaired days.
Table 1--Sulfate PSAT Contributions (%) for Plant Bowen, IP-Savannah,
and Brunswick Cellulose at Class I Areas on 20% Most Impaired Days *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP- Brunswick
Class I area ** Plant Bowen Savannah Cellulose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta National National 2.13 ........... ...........
Wilderness Area (Cohutta)
(GA).........................
Okefenokee National Wilderness 2.30 1.04 ...........
Area (Okefenokee) (GA).......
Wolf Island National 2.33 1.54 1.76
Wilderness Area (Wolf Island)
(GA) ***.....................
Chassahowitzka National 2.28 ........... ...........
Wilderness Area (FL).........
St Marks National Wilderness 4.89 ........... ...........
Area (FL)....................
Linville Gorge National 1.13 ........... ...........
Wilderness Area (NC).........
Shining Rock National 1.29 ........... ...........
Wilderness Area (NC).........
Swanquarter National 1.03 ........... ...........
Wilderness Area (NC).........
[[Page 92042]]
Cape Romain National 3.53 1.28 ...........
Wilderness Area (SC).........
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 1.11 ........... ...........
National Wilderness Area (TN
and NC)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that fields in the above table left blank indicate that
visibility impacts are below one percent.
** The Class I areas listed in Table 1, above, are included because the
Georgia facilities in this table have a sulfate PSAT contribution of
one percent or more at one or more of these areas.
*** Wolf Island has no IMPROVE monitor. Visibility at Wolf Island is
assumed to be the same as the nearest Class I area monitor located at
Okefenokee.
Although these three sources are the largest contributors within
Georgia to visibility impairment at Class I areas, Table 1 shows
Sulfate PSAT visibility impacts from these sources range from
approximately one to five percent at the selected Class I areas. This
is due to the fact that most anthropogenic impacts to visibility at
these Class I areas come from outside of Georgia. In fact, they
primarily come from outside of the VISTAS states. This is illustrated
in Table 7-4 of the Haze Plan, which provides the contributions from
2028 SO2 and NOX emissions to visibility
impairment from all source sectors for the 20 percent most impaired
days in units of inverse megameters (Mm-1). The entries in
Table 2, below, show the contributions made from Georgia, all other
VISTAS states, and other Regional Planning Organizations to Georgia's
Class I areas.
Table 2--Contributions of 2028 SO2 and NOX Emissions From All Source Sectors to Visibility Impairment for the 20 Percent Most Impaired Days for Class I
Areas in Georgia
[Mm-\1\] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2028
impairment on All other CENRAP LADCO MANE-VU WRAP region within
Class I area ** 20% most GA VISTAS region *** region *** region *** VISTAS modeling
impaired days states domain ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COHU............................................ 45.28 1.04 5.19 1.76 6.88 0.87 2.30
OKEF............................................ 54.66 2.17 7.57 2.27 3.60 1.01 2.84
WOLF............................................ 53.59 2.57 6.56 2.15 3.44 1.15 3.41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As noted in Georgia's Haze Plan, the columns to the right of ``Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days'' do not add up to the values in
the ``Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days'' column due to international emissions and boundary emissions.
** ``COHU'' refers to Cohutta; ``OKEF'' refers to Okefenokee; and ``WOLF'' refers to Wolf Island.
*** ``CENRAP'' refers to Central Regional Air Planning Association (which is associated with the Central States Air Resource Agencies (CENSARA));
``LADCO'' refers to Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium; ``MANE-VU'' refers to Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union; ``WRAP'' refers to Western
Regional Air Partnership. See also: https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-regional-planning-organizations.
Table 2, above, illustrates that Georgia's in-state emissions
account for a relatively small fraction of total visibility impairment
at Georgia's Class I areas. This fraction is approximately 2.29 percent
for Cohutta, 3.97 percent for Okefenokee, and 4.79 percent for Wolf
Island.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ These percentages were calculated by dividing the ``GA''
column by the ``Projected 2028 20% Most Impaired Days Column'' and
multiplying by 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, the PSAT Tag Results spreadsheet in Appendix E-7A of the
Haze Plan shows the visibility impacts on a facility-by-facility basis
due to SO2 emissions. Specifically, Appendix E-7A shows the
following SO2 visibility impacts to Georgia's Class I areas
on the 20 percent most impaired days in units of Mm-1.
Table 3--SO2 Visibility Impacts to Georgia Class I Areas on the 20 Percent Most Impaired Days
[Mm-\1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of All sources
Plant Bowen IP-Savannah Brunswick Georgia Georgia total (including out-
Class I area contribution contribution Cellulose to 20% selected contribution of-state)
contribution sources contribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COHU.................................................. 0.282 0.038 0.002 0.322 0.803 15.6
OKEF.................................................. 0.308 0.140 0.077 0.525 1.669 16.4
WOLF.................................................. 0.302 0.200 0.228 0.458 2.124 16.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above data in Table 3 further supports that Georgia's source
selection thresholds and source selection methodology were reasonable.
Specifically, on the 20 percent most impaired days, Georgia's selected
in-state sources are responsible for approximately 40 percent of
Georgia's total in-state SO2 visibility impairment at
Cohutta, 31.5 percent of total in-state SO2 visibility
impairment at Okefenokee, and 21.6 percent of total in-
[[Page 92043]]
state SO2 visibility impairment at Wolf Island.\22\ States
are not required by the RHR to select every source in the state, and
the state selected the in-state sources with the largest visibility
impacts on in-state and nearby Class I areas. The selection of the
above sources captured sufficient visibility-impairing emissions to
allow Georgia to ensure that FFAs conducted for this planning period
had the potential to meaningfully reduce emissions (and thus,
associated visibility impacts at Class I areas) from in-state sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ These percentages were calculated by dividing the ``Total
of Selected Georgia Sources'' column by the ``Georgia Total
Contribution'' column and multiplying by 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 also shows that most emissions of visibility-impairing
sulfates that impact Georgia's Class I areas on the 20 percent most
impaired days are emitted from outside of Georgia. The same general
pattern holds for the 20 percent least impaired days as well. Georgia
does not have jurisdiction through its SIP to regulate sources outside
of state boundaries. Georgia did, however, request FFAs from other
states for an additional 14 facilities outside of Georgia through the
interstate consultation process.\23\ The ``regional'' nature of the
regional haze program necessarily requires Georgia to rely on
reasonable progress made by other states, just as other states must
rely on Georgia to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Haze Plan Section 7.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters also argue that neither Georgia nor EPA provided
justification for doubling the AoI threshold for out-of-state sources.
In its Haze Plan, Georgia explained that use of an AoI contribution of
four percent or more to tag sources for PSAT captures large sources
outside of Georgia. When selecting out-of-state sources, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) applies. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires states to
``consult with those States that have emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory
Class I Federal area.'' The use of the four percent AoI threshold
allowed Georgia to identify ``emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment'' \24\ at Class I areas within
Georgia that are emitted from out-of-state, and indeed, using this
methodology combined with follow-up PSAT tagging and modeling, Georgia
sought interstate consultation for 14 such sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to the Commenters' other source selection comments, they
assert that by using a percentage threshold for AoI and PSAT, the
calculated threshold in absolute visibility impact terms was higher for
Class I areas with the most severe visibility impairment, which
resulted in fewer sources being evaluated for reasonable progress for
the most visibility-impaired Class I areas. Thus, the Commenters assert
that the use of a percentage threshold was unreasonable.
EPA disagrees. Regardless of whether a relative or absolute
threshold is used, the number of sources selected depends on the chosen
value of the threshold. A percentage threshold, rather than one using
inverse megameters or deciviews, may capture more sources at areas with
less visibility impairment or areas where no or few sources exceed an
absolute visibility impairment threshold. When using an absolute value
threshold instead of a percentage threshold, Class I areas with less
visibility impairment might not have any sources selected at all that
impact those areas. Thus, in general, the use of a percentage threshold
is consistent with the requirement to make reasonable progress toward
remedying visibility impairment in each Class I area. As noted above,
states have flexibility to adopt any source selection methodology so
long as the methodology is reasonable, and the states' choices are
reasonably explained. EPA finds that Georgia's source selection method
is reasonable and adequately explained for the reasons discussed above.
Comment 2.b: The Commenters also state in their comments that
VISTAS considered sulfate and nitrate separately in model analyses,
which the Commenters allege does not align with how these pollutants
actually function in the atmosphere. They state that sulfate and
nitrate act in combination in the atmosphere, along with other haze
precursors, to contribute to visibility impairment. As a result, they
argue that VISTAS likely underestimated the overall visibility impact
of individual sources in its PSAT analysis.
Response 2.b: Regarding the Commenters' assertion that VISTAS
considered sulfate and nitrate separately in model analyses, which led
to underestimating the visibility impacts in the PSAT analyses, EPA
disagrees. In the AoI screening analysis, VISTAS used the combined
sulfate plus nitrate values to select sources to tag for the refined
PSAT source apportionment modeling analyses. Section 7.5.5 of the Haze
Plan explains how Georgia used the results of the AoI analysis to
select sources for further evaluation with PSAT. This section shows
that facilities contributing more than two percent (in-state) or four
percent (out-of-state) of sulfate plus nitrate were selected for PSAT
tagging. See Tables 7-8 through 7-10 for the specific sources with
sulfate plus nitrate values greater than Georgia's AoI source selection
thresholds.
Also, contrary to the Commenters' assertion, sulfates and nitrates
were modeled together in the PSAT modeling with the other PM species
that impact visibility (e.g., direct PM, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, etc.). Section 7.6.2 of Georgia's Haze Plan summarizes the
results of the PSAT modeling. This section states that: ``The adjusted
PSAT results were used to calculate the percent contribution of each
tagged facility to the total sulfate and nitrate point source (EGU +
non-EGU) contribution at each Class I area.'' Tables 7-16 through 7-18
contain the specific PSAT results for each of Georgia's Class I areas.
It is true that Georgia considered the PSAT modeled results for sulfate
and nitrate separately to compare against its selected one percent
threshold to identify a reasonable number of sources for reasonable
progress analyses. EPA agrees with the State that this approach is
reasonable for the reasons discussed above and was adequately justified
in the Haze Plan.
Comment 2.c: The Commenters state that VISTAS used an outdated 2028
emissions projection to ``tag'' sources. They note that although VISTAS
documented that the initial 2028 emission inventory projections were
updated for the final modeling, the associated PSAT modeling did not
use the final 2028 inventory. The Commenters state that VISTAS scaled
predicted sulfate and nitrate to the corresponding changes in
SO2 and NOX emissions using a linear relationship
between SO2 and NOX emissions and sulfate and
nitrate concentrations. They argue that there is a non-linear
relationship between emissions and sulfate/nitrate concentrations.
These factors all are argued by the Commenters to have introduced
errors into the VISTAS modeling. Moreover, the Commenters argue the
PSAT tagging process was entirely unnecessary, as the AoI step would
have already identified the sources that contributed to impairment at
Class I areas.
Response 2.c: VISTAS used the original 2028 emissions inventory to
perform the PSAT modeling and the original PSAT results were linearly
scaled to reflect the updated 2028 emissions. Although linear scaling
introduces some uncertainty to the final PSAT results, EPA agrees with
VISTAS and Georgia that adjusting the results to account for VISTAS'
updated 2028
[[Page 92044]]
emissions inventory using linear scaling is a reasonable approach to
account for VISTAS' updated 2028 emissions projections and is a better
approach than relying on the original PSAT modeling. Linear scaling of
photochemical modeling results to account for changes in emissions is,
in most cases, reasonable and is an accepted practice by EPA. As an
example, EPA guidance recommends using EPA's Modeled Emission Rates for
Precursors (MERPs) for evaluating secondary particulate matter of 2.5
micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) impacts in
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) modeling analyses and
allows for and recommends scaling of photochemical modeling results
based on emissions.\25\ This guidance recommends an approach where the
PM2.5 impacts are estimated using an archived national-scale
photochemical modeling analysis, performed using Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) and Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) \26\ photochemical models, that uses hypothetical
emissions sources, and then linearly scaling the photochemical modeling
results using the ratio of the PSD project-specific source emissions to
the modeled emissions from the hypothetical source (see Equation 1 on
page 3 of the referenced April 30, 2024, MERPs memorandum). This
approach is widely used and accepted by state air quality agencies and
EPA to account for secondarily formed PM2.5 from precursor
emissions (SO2 and NOX) for PSD modeling
analyses. Since the VISTAS analyses used for regional haze modeling use
linear scaling with CAMx and for the same PM2.5 precursors
(SO2 and NOX) as the MERPs analyses, EPA finds
the method of linear scaling of PM precursor emissions conducted by
VISTAS to be acceptable practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Clarification on the Development of Modeled Emission
Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool for
Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD Permitting Program,'' April
30, 2024, Memorandum from Tyler Fox to Regional Office Modeling
Contacts is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454_r-19-003.pdf.
\26\ See https://www.epa.gov/cmaq for further information on
CMAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Commenters' assertion that the PSAT tagging process
was unnecessary because the AoI step already identified the sources
that contributed to impairment at Class I areas, EPA disagrees with the
premise of this comment. The standard is not whether the state's source
selection approach is necessary or required, but rather, whether the
approach is reasonable and is reasonably explained.\27\ The two-step
process of screening with the AoI analysis and then applying the more
refined PSAT source apportionment modeling to sources that met the
initial AoI screening criteria is a sound technical approach for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. Elements of
Georgia's AoI approach are discussed in EPA's 2019 Guidance as a viable
method to assess sources' visibility impacts to Class I areas.\28\
Georgia, along with many of the VISTAS states, also relied upon the AoI
initial screening approach in its first planning period Haze Plan.\29\
VISTAS used the AoI analysis as an initial screening step because it is
a much simpler and less resource intensive approach than using PSAT
tagging to model hundreds to thousands of potential sources. The AoI
screening approach identified a smaller subset of sources that could
undergo refined analysis using PSAT modeling. EPA finds the two-step
process of first screening with the AoI analysis followed by use of the
more refined PSAT source apportionment modeling to sources is valid and
reasonable. Also, as discussed above, states have discretion under the
RHR regarding choice of source selection methodology. Georgia's
approach is acceptable for these reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), (iii); 89 FR 47481, 47493 (June
3, 2024); see also Sections 2 and 2.1 of 2021 Clarifications Memo.
\28\ EPA's 2019 Guidance, pages 12-14, describe components of
Georgia's AoI approach, including Q/d, trajectory analyses,
residence time analyses, and source apportionment photochemical
modeling (e.g., CAMx PSAT).
\29\ See e.g., 77 FR 1163 published February 27, 2012, for a
description of Georgia's AoI approach in the first planning period.
On May 4, 2018, EPA fully approved Georgia's first period regional
haze plan, effective June 4, 2018. See 83 FR 19637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2.d: The Conservation Groups note that Georgia relied on
the PSAT modeling results for its multiple in-state sources that are
located less than 50 kilometers (km) from a Class I areas and claim
that PSAT modeling has been shown to be unreliable for sources that are
within a short distance from a Class I area, referencing Federal Land
Manager (FLM) \30\ guidance that addresses regional grid models. The
Commenters assert that this caused Georgia to improperly screen out
sources. Specifically, the Commenters argue that the FLMs' Air Quality
Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Guidance indicates that photochemical
grid models are not the preferred model for evaluating visibility
impacts from sources less than 50 km from Class I areas and reference
the use of direct plume impact models.\31\ According to the
Conservation Groups, this guidance shows that regional grid models are
not preferred for sources located close to Class I areas and that the
grid size used by VISTAS is too small to produce accurate results for
those sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as ``the
Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal Class I
area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park Commission.'' See 40 CFR 51.301. The
U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are collectively referred to
as the ``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this
document.
\31\ Conservation Groups cite to the FLAG Guidance at 2024
Kordzi Report at pp. 7-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2.d: The Commenters do not provide any specific model
performance information demonstrating that the CAMx model nor the PSAT
source apportionment tool have poor model performance for evaluating
visibility impacts from sources located within 50 km of any of the
Class I areas located in Georgia.
The Commenters take the FLMs' FLAG guidance out of context. The
FLAG reference to direct plume models (e.g., Plume Visibility Model)
\32\ is for evaluating visibility impacts under the New Source Review
(NSR)/PSD permitting regulations and not for regional haze analyses.
EPA's regional haze regulations do not require evaluations of direct
plume impacts separate from the photochemical modeling analyses used
for regional haze visibility analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Plume Visibility Model ``PLUVUE'' is used for
estimating visual range reduction and atmospheric discoloration
caused by plumes resulting from the emissions of particles, nitrogen
oxides, and sulfur oxides from a single source. See ``PLUVUE II''
at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-alternative-models. The User's Guide is available at: https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/other/pluvueii/PluvueUG.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters assert that since the horizontal grid size used in
the VISTAS CAMx modeling was 12 km, it is insufficient to resolve the
details of emissions plumes from facilities within 50 km of a Class I
area and that the model performance degrades substantially at close-in
distances. The general statement from the Commenters that model
performance substantially degrades within 50 km is not supported by any
specific evidence in the comments. Moreover, the Commenters' position
is belied by the fact that one of the three sources selected by
Georgia--Brunswick Cellulose--is 27.9 km from the nearest Class I area
(Wolf Island). EPA thus reaffirms that Georgia's CAMx PSAT modeling was
appropriate for selecting sources for reasonable progress analyses.
[[Page 92045]]
The Commenters separately argue that Georgia's correlation analysis
of the sulfate AoI versus PSAT presented in Section 7.6.3 of the Haze
Plan is flawed. The Commenters in the Kordzi Report point out the
scatter in the AoI/PSAT ratio data for distances less than 100 km in
Figure 7-42 of the Georgia Haze Plan and argue this makes the State's
correlation conclusions invalid. Also, the Commenters refer to the
scatter in the sulfate fractional bias values in Figure 7-43 in the
Haze Plan and argue the AoI versus PSAT correlation is invalid.
EPA disagrees. Georgia's Figure 7-43 has a coefficient of
determination (R\2\) that appears to have a strong correlation, and the
Commenters provided no new information that Georgia's correlation
results were flawed. While there is more scatter between the data
points less than 100 km from the Class I area, there is clearly a trend
that the AoI values are much larger than the PSAT values within 100 km
compared to the ratios for further distances. There is logic to this
result due to the way the AoI metric is calculated using the Extinction
Weighted Residence Times (EWRT) multiplied by the Emissions divided
Distance (EWRTxQ/d). The EWRT is calculated using the frequency that
winds (represented by Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory (HYSPLIT) back trajectories) pass over a specific geographic
area (represented by a modeling grid cell) on the path to the Class I
area.\33\ For sources located less than 100 km from a Class I area,
there is likely to be a higher frequency of the HYSPLIT back
trajectories passing over the 12 km grid cell containing the source,
thus the EWRT and AoI value will be larger. The CAMx PSAT modeling is a
more refined photochemical modeling approach that calculates the
atmospheric fate and transport of the PM precursors and their chemical
reactions to form visibility impairing pollutants (e.g., ammonium
sulfate). Therefore, compared to the AoI screening process, the refined
PSAT technique is less likely to overestimate the visibility impacts
for sources located within 100 km of the Class I area. Regarding the
scatter of the data resulting in the AoI to PSAT fractional bias
correlation, EPA acknowledges that there is scatter in the data which
is reflected in the 0.72 R\2\ value shown in Figure 7-43 in the Haze
Plan. However, this level of correlation is not uncommon in these types
of modeling data analyses, and the results are reasonable. For these
reasons, Georgia's correlation approach is valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ This is explained in much greater detail in Section 7.5 of
the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The photochemical modeling employed by VISTAS and Georgia is the
most refined methodology available for evaluating regional haze
visibility impacts. Moreover, Georgia's AoI screening process
identified sources located within 50 km of its Class I areas, including
the Brunswick Cellulose facility located approximately 30 km from Wolf
Island that met the PSAT source selection criteria and underwent an FFA
to evaluate reasonable progress. As discussed above, Georgia
demonstrated in Section 7.6.3 of the Haze Plan that the AoI screening
technique overestimates visibility impacts for sources located within
100 km of a Class I area. Based upon this AoI overestimation, in
Section 7.6.4 of the Haze Plan, Georgia explains why sources (with the
exception of Brunswick Cellulose which is located 27.9 km from Wolf
Island) that are located less than 100 km from its Class I areas were
not tagged for PSAT modeling and thus were not selected for FFAs. EPA
finds that Georgia adequately justified why the other sources within
100 km of Class I areas were not selected for FFAs.
Comment 2.e: The Commenters also note that EPA stated in guidance
\34\ that use of a source selection threshold that captures only a
small portion of a state's contribution to visibility impairment in
Class I areas is more likely to be unreasonable. The Commenters assert
that to ensure Georgia captured a meaningful portion of in-state
sources, a different selection method with a lower threshold should
have been used, such as a ``Q/d'' (emissions (Q) divided by distance to
a Class I area (d)). The Commenters assert that utilizing this method
with a threshold of five or lower might have resulted in up to 21
sources in Georgia being selected for an FFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period.'' https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2.e: Regarding the Commenters' argument that the State
should have adopted a different selection method (such as Q/d) with a
lower threshold to select more sources, as discussed above, a state is
not required to evaluate all sources of emissions in each planning
period. Instead, a state may reasonably select a set of sources for an
analysis of control measures. Selecting a set of sources for analysis
of control measures in each planning period is also consistent with the
RHR, which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision. See 2019 Guidance at 9. Moreover, use of Q/d (which
simply involves dividing the quantity of emissions by the distance to a
Class I area) does not consider transport direction/pathway, dispersion
and photochemical processes, or the particular days that have the most
anthropogenic impairment due to all sources. 2019 Guidance at 13.
Therefore, compared to photochemical modeling, using a simple Q/d
technique as Commenters suggest would have resulted in a less accurate
quantification of visibility impacts on Class I areas. As for the use
of specific source selection thresholds (including Commenters'
suggested Q/d threshold of above five), as discussed in detail above,
Georgia's source selection methodology and thresholds were well
documented and reasonable.
Comment 2.f: The Commenters also assert that EPA's position that
Georgia's source selection method is reasonable given the specific
circumstances present in Georgia, including that Georgia is not
contributing to visibility impairment at any Class I areas above the
Uniform Rate of Progress (URP), is not a valid basis on which EPA can
approve the State's selection method.\35\ Specifically, the Commenters
note that the glidepath (i.e., URP) is not a ``Safe Harbor'' to avoid
requiring additional reasonable progress measures for Class I areas.
Separately, the Commenters take issue with EPA's statement in the NPRM
that Georgia's source selection methodology is also reasonable given
the ``specific circumstances present in Georgia'' which precedes a
factual recitation of the improvements in visibility since the 2000-
2004 baseline and Georgia's lack of contribution to any Class I area
above the URP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The URP (also commonly referred to as the ``glidepath'') is
the linear rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility
conditions, assuming a starting point of baseline visibility
conditions in 2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064. The
URP is used as a tracking metric to help States assess the amount of
progress they are making toward the national visibility goal over
time in each Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2.f: EPA agrees that the URP is not a ``safe harbor'' to
avoid requiring additional reasonable progress measures. However, being
below the URP is relevant to whether a state needs to perform a
``robust demonstration'' based on the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). Therefore, the
factual
[[Page 92046]]
information that all Georgia and nearby Class I areas are below the URP
is needed to inform that requirement. Additionally, other information
about measured progress towards natural conditions can be relevant in
evaluating the source selection process and LTS. For example,
significant improvements in visibility at impacted Class I areas since
the beginning of the second planning period (starting in 2019) is
relevant context to whether a state is making progress towards the
national goal and how many additional sources needed to be analyzed in
order to determine what is necessary for reasonable progress in the
second planning period. Therefore, what progress the state has already
achieved in the second planning period is a relevant factor that EPA
may consider regarding the reasonableness of a state's source selection
thresholds. Even ignoring the fact that the visibility at Class I areas
impacted by Georgia has greatly improved, EPA would still reach the
same conclusion that Georgia's source selection methodology and
thresholds for this second planning period are reasonable for the
reasons stated earlier in this Response.
Comment 3: The Commenters assert that EPA incorrectly endorses
Georgia's decision to exclude consideration of NOX controls
in any FFAs. They contend that VISTAS modeling did not accurately
reflect the shift in the 20 percent most impaired days and the
corresponding increase in the contribution of nitrate to visibility
impairment at Southeastern Class I areas such as Cohutta, especially in
winter months and at coastal sites. The Commenters state that EPA's
expectation is that states will, at a minimum, consider both
SO2 and NOX in this planning period, and that
there are multiple sources of significant NOX emissions that
Georgia should have analyzed for NOX controls.
Response 3: EPA disagrees with this comment. The RHR does not
prescribe which visibility impairing pollutants must be evaluated in
the FFAs. EPA's 2019 Guidance on page 11 states: ``When selecting
sources for analysis of control measures, a state may focus on the PM
species that dominate visibility impairment at the Class I areas
affected by emissions from the state and then select only sources with
emissions of those dominant pollutants and their precursors.'' Section
2.2 of EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo recommends that states which do
not evaluate SO2 and NOX in both source selection
and control evaluations show why such consideration of these pollutants
would be unreasonable, especially if the state considered both of these
pollutants in the first planning period.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Georgia considered SO2 for FFAs conducted in the
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia followed these recommended approaches in the development of
its Haze Plan. Georgia considered both SO2 emissions (via
sulfate's visibility impacts) and NOX emissions (via
nitrate's visibility impacts) in the source selection process. As part
of the Haze Plan, GA EPD presented the results of PSAT modeling
conducted by VISTAS to estimate the projected impact of statewide
SO2 and NOX emissions across all emissions
sectors in 2028 on total light extinction for the 20 percent most
impaired days in all Class I areas in the VISTAS modeling domain. The
modeling showed that SO2/sulfate visibility impacts from
point sources were in general much larger than NOX/nitrate
impacts. Applying the modeling results to individual sources resulted
in relatively large sulfate visibility impacts for a small number of
in-state SO2 sources, but much smaller nitrate impacts from
NOX emissions. Therefore, several sources were selected for
SO2 control analysis determinations, but no sources in
Georgia met the same source selection threshold for nitrate, and
therefore Georgia did not select any sources for a NOX
emissions control evaluation. Contrary to the Commenters' assertion
that Georgia made a ``decision'' to exclude consideration of
NOX controls in any FFA, it was Georgia's objective
application of its source selection process in combination with data
and modeling showing that SO2 and not NOX is the
dominant visibility impairing pollutant that resulted in Georgia
selecting only sources for SO2 emissions control analyses.
This approach was reasonable. IMPROVE monitoring data shows that
ammonium sulfate remains the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at
Georgia's Class I areas as well as at those Class I areas outside of
the State that are impacted by Georgia as discussed in Section 2.5.2 of
the Haze Plan (particularly Figures 2-4 through 2-6 for the 2009-2013
period and Figures 2-7 through 2-9 for the 2014-2018 period). Recent
2015-2019 IMPROVE monitoring data cited within the Haze Plan identifies
the relative contributions of PM species contributing to the total
visibility impairment at the Georgia Class I areas, which are shown in
Table 4, below. In spite of increased nitrate contributions on the 20
percent most impaired days in more recent years (as the Commenters
note, often on winter days), as indicated in Table 4, ammonium nitrate
contributions to regional haze at the State's Class I areas remain
relatively low at 8 to 15 percent of the total visibility impairment as
compared to ammonium sulfate at 55 to 58 percent.
Table 4--Sec. 2015-2019 Speciated IMPROVE Monitoring Data for Georgia's Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonium Ammonium Organic Coarse mass Elemental Fine sea Fine soils
sulfate (%) nitrate (%) carbon (%) (%) carbon (%) salt (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta...................................................... 55 15 19 5 5 0 1
Okefenokee................................................... 58 8 19 6 5 2 1
Wolf Island.................................................. 58 8 19 6 5 2 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in Tables 7-5 through 7-7 of the Haze Plan, the State
provided a calculation of the sulfate and nitrate EWRT used in the AoI
analysis for Cohutta and Okefenokee for the 20 percent most impaired
days from 2011 to 2016, demonstrating that the sulfate EWRT is
significantly higher than the nitrate EWRT. This further supports the
importance of focusing on SO2 emissions reductions for this
planning period.
The State's rationale for focusing on SO2 controls in
the FFAs is summarized in Georgia's SIP submittal and the NPRM. See
Haze Plan, Section 7.10; 89 FR 47491, 47493-47494. EPA gave careful
consideration to Georgia's rationale and reaffirms that Georgia's
justification for not evaluating sources selected for SO2
emission control
[[Page 92047]]
analyses for a separate NOX emission control analysis is
reasonably justified for this planning period. The trend of increasing
nitrate contribution to visibility impairment as a total percent of all
visibility impairment at Class I areas over time highlighted by the
Commenters is something that will continue to be evaluated in future
planning periods. If the data warrants further consideration of
NOX/nitrate in future planning periods, EPA expects that
Georgia will address potential NOX controls in future
regional haze SIP revisions.
Comment 4: The Commenters assert that EPA ignores that Georgia
unreasonably excluded sources from FFAs. The Commenters state that EPA
must require Georgia to prepare FFAs for 16 additional EGU and non-EGU
industrial sources identified by U.S. National Park Service (NPS) and
the Commenters which have emissions that likely contribute to
impairment in Class I areas in Georgia and other states.
The Commenters describe four of these facilities in greater detail.
These specific arguments are addressed in Comments 4.a through 4.c,
below.
Comment 4.a: Regarding Georgia Power--Plant Scherer (Plant
Scherer), the Commenters state that this facility is not well
controlled for NOX and that NOX emissions ``can
be cut in half at no capital cost whatsoever by simply requiring
Georgia Power to operate its existing SCRs continuously throughout the
year.'' The Commenters also state that although the SO2
emission rate at each Plant Scherer unit is often very low, that at
times the SO2 emission rates are as much as ten times
higher, and that the current controls are not consistently achieving
the level of control that they are capable of. Therefore, the
Commenters assert that EPA must require Georgia to prepare an FFA for
this facility.
Response 4.a: As discussed in Response 2, Georgia's source
selection methodology was reasonable and was adequately documented in
its Haze Plan. The fact that certain sources, including the 16 sources
identified by the Commenters, were not selected for FFAs for either
SO2 or NOX for this planning period is the result
of the reasonable application of Georgia's source selection process and
source selection thresholds. In other words, if sources were selected
by the State, they were selected because the data supported the
selection of that source. The inverse is also true regarding sources
that were not selected. As discussed in Response 3, NOX
impacts were considered by the State, but no sources were selected for
NOX controls (including these sources highlighted by the
Commenters) because visibility impacts did not exceed the State's
source selection threshold. To the extent that the 16 sources
identified by Commenters were not selected by Georgia, the Responses to
Comments 2 and 3 generally address why these sources were not selected
and why EPA agrees with the State that it was reasonable for this
planning period to not select these sources. To summarize, Georgia
selected a sufficient number of sources under Georgia's jurisdiction to
ensure that sources responsible for the largest visibility impacts to
Class I areas completed FFAs for this planning period. Georgia has
discretion under the RHR to determine its source selection methodology
and Georgia's source selection process, and the sources that Georgia
selected were reasonable and the Haze Plan complied with the CAA and
RHR for this planning period. While Georgia could have used its
discretion to select other sources in addition to those screened in
during its source selection process, including some or all of the
sources that the Commenters highlight, Georgia was not required to do
so.
Throughout the Commenters' discussion of these 16 sources, however,
the Commenters raise several additional points that have not yet been
fully addressed in prior responses. Regarding the comment that Plant
Scherer is not well-controlled for NOX, this was not a
relevant consideration for Georgia's source selection process. Plant
Scherer did not meet Georgia's two percent combined sulfate plus
nitrate AoI threshold for visibility impacts and therefore was not
selected for further PSAT analysis during the State's initial screening
process. Specifically, Georgia's (through VISTAS' modeling) AoI
analysis found that Plant Scherer's combined sulfate and nitrate
impacts would be 0.79 percent for Cohutta, 0.71 percent for Okefenokee,
and 0.56 percent for Wolf Island. See Haze Plan, Appendix E-7b. These
numbers fell below Georgia's two percent AoI threshold for visibility
impacts, and therefore, the State did not consider this source for
further PSAT analysis (or an FFA). By way of comparison, Georgia
calculated Plant Bowen's (another Georgia Power facility) combined
nitrate and sulfate AoI impacts as 20.74 percent for Cohutta, 14.67
percent for Okefenokee, and 11.78 percent for Wolf Island, which is why
Plant Bowen was considered for further PSAT tagging and was ultimately
selected for an FFA for SO2, while Plant Scherer was not.
EPA agrees with Georgia's combined nitrate and sulfate AoI calculations
and finds the State's methodology and the results of this methodology
reasonable.
Regarding the Commenters' comments that variability in the
emissions at Plant Scherer warrant an emission limit of 0.01 to 0.02
pound (lb)/million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu), as noted above,
Georgia did not select Plant Scherer for an FFA because the visibility
impacts from this source were well below Georgia's source selection
thresholds. As Plant Scherer was not selected for an FFA, consistent
with the requirements under the RHR, Georgia does not have to address
the limits at the source as suggested by the Commenters.
Comment 4.b: Regarding Georgia Power--Plant Wansley (Plant
Wansley), the Commenters state that while the facility has ceased to
operate, nothing in the SIP submission prevents Plant Wansley from
restarting operations with corresponding increases in emissions in the
future. Separately, the Commenters express concerns that the
documentation of the shutdown of Plant Wansley described in the NPRM
does not adequately prevent Plant Wansley from restarting operations.
The Commenters assert that this shutdown must be incorporated into the
Haze Plan.
Response 4.b: Even if EPA were to assume that Plant Wansley had not
shut down, Georgia still would not have selected this source because
the combined sulfate and nitrate AoI impacts based on VISTAS' 2028
projections for this facility, which project emissions without this
shutdown, are 1.09 percent for Cohutta, 0.67 percent for Okefenokee,
and 0.77 percent for Wolf Island, all of which are well below the
State's two percent AoI threshold. Therefore, even if the shutdown
documentation for Plant Wansley was inadequate as asserted by the
Commenters (which is not the case, as explained below), Georgia
satisfied its RHR obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and considered
and reasonably explained the methodology by which it selected sources
for FFAs that contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas.
However, Georgia did not just revoke the Part 70 operating permit
for Plant Wansley as stated by the Commenters. Rather, Georgia's
December 28, 2022, letter to Georgia Power states that it revoked ``all
Georgia Air Quality Permits previously issued to this facility,'' which
would include both the facility's preconstruction permits and the
facility's Part 70 permit that contains applicable requirements
(including those originating from the
[[Page 92048]]
preconstruction permits). Restarting the facility--a concern raised by
the Commenters--could not be accomplished without the submission of an
application for a permit, as specified in Paragraph 391-3-1-.03 of the
Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control \37\ and issuance of an entirely
new preconstruction permit, which would likely need to be a major
source NSR permit. These major NSR permits generally require Best
Available Control Technology for a PSD Permit or Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate for a Nonattainment New Source Review permit. The
Commenters appear to agree and state that ``Any attempt to restart a
boiler at Plant Wansley would require a new construction or major
modification permit including either a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) or new source review (NSR) analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03. ``Permits. Amended'' is available
at: https://rules.sos.ga.gov/GAC/391-3-1-.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4.c: In regards to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC,
Compressor Station 120, the Commenters state that this facility emitted
2,283.57 tons of NOX in 2020 and likely impacts 12 Class I
areas, and that there are likely feasible and cost-effective controls
available to reduce this facility's NOX emissions.
Therefore, the Commenters assert that EPA must require Georgia to
conduct an FFA of potential controls for Compressor Station 120.
Regarding CEMEX Southeast, LLC, the Commenters state that this facility
emits 1,424.37 tons per year (tpy) of NOX and 130.87 tpy of
SO2 and likely impacts eight Class I areas, and that there
are likely available controls that could reduce haze-forming emissions
from CEMEX Southeast, LLC that Georgia failed to consider in its SIP
revision.
As for the 12 additional sources identified by the Commenters, all
12 of the listed sources have reported NOX and/or
SO2 emissions in the 2020 NEI and, according to the
Commenters' analysis, have a Q/d value above five for multiple Class I
areas in the Southeast. For example, the Commenters state that Rome
Linerboard Mill has a Q/d value of as high as 28.80 for Cohutta in
Georgia and that NPS has noted in its consultation materials that the
facility ranked third for haze contributions to VISTAS Class I areas
based on cumulative AoI screening results and was in the top 80 percent
of total AoI impact for five Class I areas. Additionally, Commenters
assert that Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC is another paperboard
mill that Georgia did not select but should have selected. The
Commenters state that this facility emits 2,461.26 tpy of
NOX and 338.2 tpy of SO2 and likely impacts 16
Class I areas.
Response 4.c: For the same reasons as stated above in Responses 2
and 3 regarding the adequacy of Georgia's source selection methodology,
EPA also disagrees that Georgia should have selected Transcontinental
Gasoline Company LLC--Compressor Station 120; CEMEX Southeast, LLC;
Green Power Solutions; International Paper Co.--Temple Inland Rome
Linerboard Mill (Temple-Inland--Rome Lumber Mill); Georgia Pacific
Cedar Springs LLC; Interstate Paper LLC; Georgia Pacific Consumer
Products LP--Savannah River Mill; Rayonier Performance Fibers LLC; PCA
Valdosta Mill; C-E Minerals Plants 1, 2, and 6; Graphic Packaging Macon
Mill; Weyerhaeuser NR Port Wentworth; Pinova, Inc.; and Thermal
Ceramics. GA EPD identified and evaluated these sources as part of its
AoI screening approach and did not select them for FFAs because they
did not meet Georgia's source selection thresholds.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See ``Individual VISTAS Class I Areas Results'' available
at: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/task-5-area-influence-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: The Commenters assert that Georgia's cost effectiveness
analyses are arbitrary and that ``[a]lthough EPA acknowledges that
Georgia relied on the Arkansas Excel document for its cost-
effectiveness determinations, EPA does not address whether it was
reasonable for Georgia to do so.'' Additionally, they state that ``to
provide a reasoned basis for its decisions, Georgia must first
establish a threshold, or explain and justify some other objective
measure, for determining cost effectiveness that is in line with other
states' chosen measures and apply that threshold consistently across
its Four-Factor Analyses.''
According to the Commenters, there are three specific problems with
Georgia's reliance on the Arkansas Excel spreadsheet. First, the
Commenters assert that this spreadsheet does not consider that Round
one cost-effectiveness measures were considered alongside visibility
benefits and cite to EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo's statement that
``a state should not use visibility to summarily dismiss cost-effective
potential controls.'' \39\ Second, the Commenters state that they
expect that with each successive planning period, the cost of controls
should increase because the lowest cost emission reductions would have
already been implemented, and therefore, the Commenters assert that
relying on first planning period costs to guide second planning period
costs is improper. Third, Commenters state that the ``Arkansas'
spreadsheet fails to include the high end of first round cost-
effectiveness values up to $10,000/ton.'' In addition to this last
point, the Commenters assert that ``Arkansas wrongfully included [in
its spreadsheet] some cost-effectiveness data that is too old to
escalate according to EPA's Control Cost Manual.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Round one'' and ``Round two'' refer to the first and
second planning periods, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters instead suggest that Georgia should have adopted a
firm cost threshold such that controls below the threshold would be
selected and controls above the threshold would not be selected.
Alternatively, the Commenters state that Georgia ``should have
explained or justified some other objective measure.'' The Commenters
also contend that EPA must reject Georgia's use of this approach
because it would be inconsistent with EPA's reasoning in its proposal
to partially disapprove Arizona's SIP revision in which Arizona used a
cost threshold of $6,500/ton. Finally, the Commenters state (in the
Kordzi Report) that data from Florida River Power Plants 1 and 2 are
missing from this spreasheet and should have been included and
considered.
Response 5: There is no requirement in the CAA or the RHR for
states to establish bright line cost effectiveness thresholds when
evaluating control costs in FFAs. The CAA and the RHR instead require
states to evaluate the costs of compliance, and EPA's 2019 Guidance
recommends that states follow the recommendations in EPA's ``Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual'' (CCM) \40\ to facilitate apples-to-
apples comparisons of different controls options for the same source,
and comparisons across different sources. 2019 Guidance at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ EPA's ``Air Pollution Control Cost Manual'' is available
at: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section 7.7 of the Haze Plan, for the cost of
compliance factor, Georgia EPD did not set a specific cost per ton
threshold, but rather analyzed each facility using the information in
EPA's CCM and 2019 Guidance to determine whether a given control
measure is cost-effective based on a number of factors, including the
historical range of cost/ton values. The historical cost information
was derived from an Excel spreadsheet assembled by Arkansas Department
of Environmental Quality that compared the cost of
[[Page 92049]]
compliance from the first planning period for SO2 and
NOX in dollars per ton for various types of industrial
emission units (e.g., EGU Boiler, Industrial Boiler, Kiln, Smelter, all
Non-EGU). The spreadsheet was updated with VISTAS data (Appendix G-4)
and presents the maximum and minimum cost/ton and various statistical
percentile values. While Georgia did not choose a bright-line cost
effectiveness threshold, Georgia's use of this spreadsheet was an
objective measure by which Georgia determined the reasonableness of
control costs for this second planning period.
EPA acknowledges the Arkansas cost spreadsheet includes Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control determination costs that
considered the visibility benefits of the controls pursuant to the CAA
and RHR under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).\41\ However, this fact does
not change EPA's position that Georgia's use of this spreadsheet was
reasonable. First, Georgia did not consider visibility in making its
control determinations for this planning period. Just as importantly,
while EPA agrees in general with the Commenters that data from the
first planning period is necessarily an imperfect yardstick by which to
determine the reasonableness of control measures for this second
planning period--in part because the first planning period included
BART determinations whereas the second planning period does not--the
information is nonetheless highly relevant. Moreover, Georgia did not
set a cost threshold based on the low-end or mean (or median) cost of
first planning period controls. In fact, all controls rejected by
Georgia were more costly than the 98th percentile of all first planning
periods costs. This also addresses the Commenters' contention that with
each planning period, control costs should increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A): ``. . . the State must take
into consideration . . . the remaining useful life of the source,
and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding the Commenters' third concern with Georgia's use
of the Arkansas spreadsheet that the spreadsheet may include missing
data, EPA has reviewed the concern raised in the Kordzi \42\ report
that the Florida Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 determinations
were excluded from this spreadsheet. According to the Kordzi Report
cited by the Commenters, the Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2
determinations required the source to either (1) install dry flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and SCR at a cost-effectiveness of $10,000/ton
for SO2 BART and $8,224/ton for NOX BART or (2)
retire by December 31, 2020. This is not accurate. While both options
were considered in the Florida first planning period regional haze
NPRM, the final rule selected only the shutdown option based upon the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection's decision to adopt this
shutdown in a SIP supplement. See 78 FR 53,262 (August 29, 2013). For
this reason, there was no add-on control adopted, and therefore no cost
to consider. Although EPA was not involved in the preparation of the
Arkansas spreadsheet, this may explain why the Crystal River Power
Plant facility was not included in the spreadsheet. In any event, EPA
concludes that Georgia's decision not to consider this facility was
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Joe Kordzi, A Review of EPA's Proposed Approval of the
Georgia Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (June 2024)
(hereinafter referred to as ``Kordzi Report'') included in the
docket for this action as Exhibit 1 in the Conservation Group letter
(July 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Commenters' assertions that Georgia's approach is
unreasonable when compared to states such as Colorado and Nevada, which
elected to set cost effectiveness thresholds of $10,000/ton of
pollutant removed, and to Arizona, which elected to set a cost
effectiveness threshold of $6,500/ton of pollutant removed, Georgia was
not required by the CAA or RHR to adopt a similar bright-line cost
effectiveness threshold. Moreover, the Commenters themselves do not
suggest a specific bright-line threshold, let alone provide rationale
to support such a threshold. Georgia applied its chosen methodology in
a way that is reasonable by rejecting controls with cost-effectiveness
values above the 98th percentile of first planning period costs.
As for the Commenters' position that approval of Georgia's plan
would be inconsistent with the rationale within EPA's proposed
disapproval of Arizona's plan regarding the importance of adequate
state justification, EPA disagrees. In EPA's proposed disapproval of
Arizona's regional haze SIP, EPA stated that Arizona ``did not provide
an adequate justification for how this threshold resulted in a
reasonable set of control measures,'' and in several instances in the
notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that Arizona ignored its own
threshold without justification. See 89 FR 47,429 (May 31, 2024). That
is quite different than Georgia, which did not use a bright-line
threshold at all and instead consistently applied the statistical
methods in the Arkansas spreadsheet to only reject control costs that
exceed the 98th percentile of first planning period costs identified
within that spreadsheet.
Comment 6: The Commenters assert that EPA shirks its duty to review
Georgia's source-specific FFAs. The Commenters state that EPA proposes
to merely ``rubber stamp'' the State's SIP submission, without engaging
in any meaningful, independent, analysis of Georgia's FFAs for the
three facilities the State selected. Additionally, the Commenters
assert that ``[d]espite EPA's stated expectations for this planning
period, Georgia does not require any of the sources to adopt additional
control measures to make reasonable progress.''
Response 6: EPA's proposed approval of Georgia's Haze Plan is a
proper exercise of EPA's authority under the CAA. Congress crafted the
CAA to provide for states to take the lead in developing implementation
plans, but balanced that decision by requiring EPA to review the plans
to determine whether a SIP meets the requirements of the CAA. When
reviewing SIPs, EPA must consider not only whether the state considered
the appropriate factors in making decisions, but acted reasonably in
doing so. In undertaking such a review, EPA does not usurp the state's
authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised.
Contrary to the comment that the Agency ``shirks'' its CAA
obligations, EPA has performed its duties with diligence. EPA carefully
evaluated the Haze Plan and the associated record and engaged in a
thorough analysis of each control option, including each of the
underlying cost assumptions used in the calculations. Georgia conducted
extensive technical work in support of its SIP submittal, and
therefore, EPA independently evaluated each FFA, including costs, and
compared each FFA's control determination against the CCM. In the
Technical Support Document (TSD) to the NPRM, EPA documented the cost
assumptions that the State relied upon in its FFAs for transparency to
the public.
Each of the FFAs are discussed in more detail in the responses to
comments that follow, but EPA notes that Georgia did adopt important
control measures into the SIP as necessary for reasonable progress for
the second planning period, including the coal burning prohibition at
IP-Savannah. While that facility had voluntarily elected to stop
burning coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler, this prohibition was not
federally enforceable and permanent until incorporated into the Georgia
SIP. In the absence of placing this prohibition into the SIP, the
facility could have lawfully restarted burning coal at any time, which
is inconsistent with making reasonable progress under the CAA and RHR.
EPA's specific
[[Page 92050]]
analyses for each FFA are addressed in responses to comments below that
address each of the three facilities selected by Georgia.
Comment 7: The Commenters assert that ``Plant Bowen's
SO2 emission rates have increased since round one of
regional haze, which is contrary to the intent of the Regional Haze
Program.'' The Kordzi Report describes how, although Plant Bowen was
reviewed for BART in the first round of regional haze planning, Georgia
relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy BART for
SO2 and NOX for EGUs and did not include any
enforceable mechanism to ensure Plant Bowen's emissions did not
increase, citing to projected emissions from Plant Bowen and Q/d
values.
Response 7: Although the combined SO2 emission rates at
Plant Bowen for Units 1-4 have increased since the first planning
period as discussed below, focusing only on these emission rates from
these units ignores the significant declines in total facility-wide
SO2 emissions from this facility. EPA also does not agree
with the Commenters that an increase in emission rates within permitted
levels during the first planning period, on its own, is contrary to the
intent of the regional haze program.
In 2010, after wet scrubbers had been installed to control
SO2 emissions at Plant Bowen's four units, this facility's
annual average SO2 emission rates were approximately 0.068
lb/MMBtu based on Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD) reviewed by
EPA. In 2023, the annual average emission rate was 0.13 lb/MMBtu. This
increase was primarily due to a change in coal used at the facility
from Central Appalachian bituminous coal (CAPP coal) to Illinois Basin
coal (IB coal), with IB coal containing a higher sulfur content.\43\
These coal types are discussed in more detail in EPA's responses to
later comments regarding Plant Bowen's FFA along with discussion as to
why switching back to CAPP coal is not cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Appendix G-1b, at p. 13 (noting that Plant Bowen
switched to IB coal in 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While emission rates are an important consideration because FFAs
generally yield emission controls that result in updated emission
rates, in this instance, only considering emission rates as the
Commenters propose would ignore an important aspect of the problem.
Here, the total amount of SO2 emissions is also important.
The first regional haze planning period spanned the period from 2000-
2018, with SIPs due in 2007. Plant Bowen's SO2 annual
emissions in 2007 were approximately 197,000 tpy prior to the
installation of wet scrubbers to control SO2 emissions.
Plant Bowen installed wet scrubbers between 2008 and 2010 at Units 1
through 4. After these wet scrubbers were installed, Plant Bowen's
total facility-wide SO2 emissions dropped to approximately
7,618 tpy in 2010, and in 2023, SO2 total emissions from
Plant Bowen were 7,143 tpy.\44\ EPA acknowledges that there is year-to-
year variability in Plant Bowen's emission rates and total emissions
due to changes in demand for electricity, sulfur content of the fuel
used at Plant Bowen, and scrubber efficiency. However, the general
trend at this facility has been a significant reduction in total
SO2 emissions during the first planning period. Contrary to
the Commenters' assertions, the fact that SO2 emission rates
have varied to some extent at this facility during the first planning
period is not contrary to the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Facility and unit emissions and emissions rate data is from
EPA's CAMPD available at: https://campd.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: As a general matter, the Commenters contend that EPA did
not scrutinize Georgia's analysis of Plant Bowen and did not consider
the comments submitted by the Commenters to Georgia, including the
Stamper report.\45\ Specifically, the Commenters assert that Georgia
greatly overstated the costs of switching back to lower sulfur CAPP
coal for three primary reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The July 25, 2022, Stamper Report, ``Review and Comments on
Reasonable Progress Four-Factor Analyses Evaluated as Part of the
Georgia Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period,''
is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix H-3a of the Haze Plan which is
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 8: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. Regarding the
Commenters' assertion that EPA did not scrutinize the FFA or consider
the Commenters' state-level comments provided to Georgia, that is not
correct. EPA evaluated Georgia's entire SIP submittal, including the
FFAs, the state-level comments, and the State's responses to those
comments.
Comment 8.a: First, the Commenters argue that Georgia's assumption
of an SO2 rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu when burning CAPP coal was
improper because Plant Bowen averaged 0.05 lb/MMBtu or lower for many
years when combusting CAPP coal.
Response 8.a: The Commenters are incorrect. The data submitted by
the Commenters in the Kordzi Report contains emission data for Plant
Bowen Units 1 through 4 including for the years 2010 through 2014. As
previously stated, Plant Bowen began to transition to IB coal in 2014.
EPA was not able to reproduce the 0.05 lb/MMBtu average in the Kordzi
Report. Based on the information submitted by the Commenters, the
actual average SO2 emissions in lb/MMBtu across all four
boilers from 2010-2013 is 0.065 lb/MMBtu (i.e., prior to any switch to
IB coal), not 0.05 lb/MMBtu as stated by the Commenters. The average
for all four boilers from 2010 through 2014 is 0.069 lb/MMBtu. These
numbers are very close to the SO2 emission rate of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu assumed by Georgia if Plant Bowen were to switch to CAPP coal.
EPA further confirmed these numbers by reviewing information from EPA's
CAMPD.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ CAMPD data is available at: https://campd.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8.b: Second, the Commenters argue that Georgia assumed in
its analysis that CAPP coal has a higher sulfur content than most of
the CAPP coal that Plant Bowen previously burned.
Response 8.b: This is not correct based on the data provided by the
Commenters. The statement cited by the Commenters in the Kordzi Report
states that ``Bowen's estimate assumes a coal sulfur content of 1.1
percent. As shown above, this is slightly higher than most of the
previous CAPP coal it burned.'' However, taking a simple average of the
sulfur content of all coal combusted across all four boilers contained
within Table 2 of the Kordzi Report yields an average of 1.08 percent
sulfur content for CAPP coal combusted from 2010-2013 and 1.19 percent
for CAPP coal combusted from 2010-2014. Again, these numbers are very
close to what Georgia relied upon for the Plant Bowen FFA, and EPA
agrees with Georgia's assumption regarding the sulfur content of CAPP
coal given the averages discussed above.
Comment 8.c: Third, the Commenters--and specifically the Kordzi
Report provided as an attachment to the comments--state that based upon
publicly available Energy Information Agency (EIA) Form 923 data,
railroad-transportable CAPP coal with a sulfur content of 1.05 percent
or less is available to purchase from Kentucky, Virginia, and West
Virginia at delivered prices (i.e., including both fuel costs and
transportation costs) that are lower per MMBtu than what Plant Bowen
currently pays for IB coal of a higher sulfur content. Based on this
information, the Commenters argue that EPA must reject Georgia's FFA
for Plant Bowen.
[[Page 92051]]
Response 8.c: EPA also disagrees with the Commenters' contention
that Plant Bowen could purchase CAPP coal from mines in Kentucky,
Virginia, and/or West Virginia at prices that are less expensive than
the higher sulfur IB coal that Plant Bowen primarily relies upon. Table
4 within the Kordzi Report contains information obtained from EIA Form
923 for the year 2023, which includes coal production and sale
information such as coal mine name, quantity sold, average heat content
of the coal, average sulfur content of the coal, fuel cost in cents per
MMBtu, total cost of each purchase of coal, and whether the purchase
was pursuant to a contract or was made on the spot market. Based upon
this data, the Kordzi Report tabulated the total cost of coal per MMBtu
from mines that met the following criteria: the mines were only within
Kentucky, Virginia, or West Virginia; the mines were capable of
transporting coal by railroad; and the coal sold by the mine had sulfur
content below 1.05 percent. Based upon this data, the Commenters
conclude that the average cost of such coal is $4.89/MMBtu. The
Commenters also conclude that this is less expensive than the average
cost of Plant Bowen's coal purchases in 2023, which the Commenters
assert is $5.33/MMBtu.
First, EPA reviewed the unredacted fuel cost information contained
in the technical appendix submitted by Georgia to EPA prior to
publishing the NPRM, and EPA affirms that the information in that
technical appendix supports the State's and EPA's conclusions that
procuring CAPP coal would be significantly more costly than Plant
Bowen's current purchases of IB coal. Second, there is inadequate
supply of coal fitting the type preferred by the Commenters to supply a
facility as large as Plant Bowen. According to the EIA 923 form data
cited by the Commenters, in 2012, Plant Bowen purchased 4,737,780 tons
of coal. In that same year, 32,145,400 tons of coal were sold meeting
the criteria preferred by the Commenters (from Kentucky, Virginia, or
West Virginia; no greater than 1.05 percent sulfur content; and
railroad-transportable). But in 2023, only 4,900,885 tons of coal
meeting the criteria preferred by Commenters were sold to all
facilities combined. In other words, if Plant Bowen were to switch to
CAPP coal, the demand for CAPP coal created by Plant Bowen alone would
almost exceed the entire supply of such coal put into commerce in 2023.
Comment 8.d: Additionally, the Commenters assert that Plant Bowen's
cost-effectiveness calculation contains an annual fuel cost of $86
million to switch to CAPP coal that is ``completely undocumented.''
Commenters argue that although Plant Bowen claimed this fuel cost as a
trade secret and therefore submitted it to EPA as CBI, EPA is required
to review this information and declare whether EPA finds that this
information meets the documentation requirements contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). The Commenters assert that some of the information
may not be CBI, including certain fuel cost data, and that EPA must
evaluate whether this information is CBI to provide the public with
sufficient information to fully evaluate the proposal.
Response 8.d: The costs for switching to CAPP coal were included in
the Haze Plan under Appendix A and Appendix B to Appendix G-1b. Georgia
Power submitted this cost information under a claim of business
confidentiality and provided redacted versions of its proposed four
factor analysis, including Appendix B to Appendix G-1b for public
release.
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, a company may assert a
business confidentiality claim covering information furnished to EPA.
See 40 CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted, the Agency must consider
the information to be confidential and must treat it accordingly unless
the Agency finds in a CBI determination that the material is not CBI.
See 40 CFR 2.205, 2.301(g). Under 40 CFR 2.204(a), EPA is required to
make a CBI determination when the Agency (1) learns that it is
responsible for responding to a request under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) for the release of business
information; (2) desires to determine whether business information in
its possession is entitled to confidential treatment, even though no
request for release of the information has been received; or (3)
determines that it is likely that EPA eventually will be requested to
disclose the information at some future date and thus will have to
determine whether the information is entitled to confidential
treatment. EPA's regulations set forth the specific procedures that EPA
must follow when making a CBI determination. 40 CFR 2.204, 2.205, and
2.301(g). Under the regulations, EPA must provide the affected
businesses with notice and, usually, an opportunity to comment on the
impending CBI determination or release, including an opportunity to
justify their CBI claims. See, e.g., 40 CFR 2.204(e), 2.209(d), and
2.301(g)(2). Considering the nature of the comments regarding a switch
to CAPP coal, the mechanism by which the Commenters requested that EPA
make a CBI determination (i.e., via rulemaking comment instead of via
FOIA), EPA's review of the CBI information in evaluating the
reasonableness of the FFA, and EPA's refutation of the Commenters'
concerns regarding the costs of switching to CAPP coal, EPA is
exercising its discretion under 40 CFR 2.204(a) to not perform a CBI
determination at this time. Therefore, EPA is obligated to protect the
confidentiality of that information, which precludes the Agency from
publicly posting this in the docket at regulations.gov.
Plant Bowen submitted a signed affidavit \47\ to substantiate its
CBI claim and provided a public disclosure version of Technical
Appendix A and Technical Appendix B to Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan,
with the CBI information redacted. As noted in the public disclosure
materials, the redacted information consists of material including
``2019 IRP Capacity Planning Documentation,'' ``Delivered Fuel Cost
Estimates for PRB and CAPP Coals, ``CSX Transportation Contract
Language,'' ``CSX Pricelist Inforormation,'' and variable operating and
maintenance costs for switching to CAPP coal such as including the
costs from ``hydrated lime adjustment,'' ``ammonia adjustment,'' ``fuel
additive adjustment,'' and ``activated carbon adjustment'' as it
relates to CAPP coal. Upon review of the assumptions and information
contained in Appendix G used in the cost analyses, including the
unredacted information, EPA finds the cost-effectiveness calculations
for switching to CAPP coal to be appropriately documented and
reasonable based on the available information, justifications, and
support for each assumption used in the cost calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The affidavit is located in Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: The Commenters state that in 2014, Plant Bowen switched
from lower-sulfur CAPP coal to IB coal, which they state has a high
sulfur content. The Commenters assert that Georgia greatly overstated
the costs of switching to Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. Instead of
requiring a switch to PRB coal, the Commenters contend that EPA
accepted Georgia's and Georgia Power's claims at face value that such a
switch would be cost prohibitive. The Commenters argue that Georgia
Power's cost analysis contains several problems that cause it to be
overinflated.
First, the Commenters argue that Georgia Power wants to earn a 6.04
percent rate of return for electricity that it must purchase to make up
for lost capacity. In referencing the Stamper
[[Page 92052]]
report, they contend that this cost should not be a capital expense but
rather should be treated as an operating expense (such as fuel costs)
that is not entitled to such returns.
Second, the Commenters argue that Georgia does not make a fair
comparison by assuming operating time will increase at the same time it
will need to purchase $51 million worth of electricity to cover lost
capacity. The Commenters contend that the FFA does not account for
revenue from additional sales of electricity due to increased hours of
operation. Additionally, the Commenters argue that the FFA already
accounts for an increase in fuel costs in a different line item in the
cost analysis, so they argue that Georgia Power is at least, in part,
double counting the increased fuel usage of PRB coal.
The Commenters state that even assuming the switch to PRB coal will
decrease maximum hourly generating capacity, Georgia Power's cost
analysis appears to overstate the need (and cost) for replacement
energy. The Commenters contend that based on 2019 plantwide generation
rates, Georgia Power would need to purchase only 134,982 megawatt-hour
(MWh) to make up for the switch to PRB coal. The Commenters cite to
Table A2.2 of the FFA for the proposition that Georgia Power estimated
that the switch ``would require the purchase of approximately 8,000,000
MWh of energy to replace the deficit'' as a result of the assumption
that the capacity penalty would apply during all hours of operation. In
contrast, the Commenters provide an exhibit that they argue
demonstrates that switching to PRB would only impact the peak hours of
plant operation, which equates to 5.8 percent of the time according to
the Commenters. Even assuming above-average energy prices ($40/MWh),
the Commenters assert that with the switch to PRB coal, the company
would consequently need to only spend $5 million annually, instead of
Georgia Power's assumed $51.7 million.
The Commenters also assert that to the extent that Georgia Power
suggests it needs to purchase or build replacement capacity to meet
peak demands and reserve margin requirements, the FFA fails to provide
the ``robust'' technical support for this position. As with the energy
deficit discussed above, the Commenters contend that Georgia Power
fails to establish that it actually has a projected capacity need in
any such year. Additionally, the Commenters assert that Georgia Power
fails to provide any documentation for current ``market rate'' or
``cost of new construction.'' As a result, the Commenters contend it is
impossible to verify the needed capacity replacement and cost
associated with switching to PRB. The Commenters state that EPA must
review Georgia Power's cost assumptions and confirm that the Company's
capacity penalty calculations are appropriate.
The Commenters also state that Georgia refuses to make available
for public review the calculations and supporting documentation for the
cost analysis of switching to PRB coal. The Commenters assert that
Georgia and EPA are obligated by the documentations requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to review this information and declare whether
they have found it acceptable, but neither Georgia nor EPA has
indicated if they have reviewed the information and found it
acceptable. The Commenters argue that a failure by EPA to make an
independent determination as to whether this information satisfies the
requirements for CBI violates the CAA and the RHR.
Finally, the Commenters contend that Georgia's calculated costs of
$6,424/ton of SO2 reduced to switch to PRB coal is cost
effective, and this cost-effectiveness value is lower than thresholds
used by other states such as Colorado ($10,000/ton), New Mexico
($7,000/ton), and Arizona ($6,500/ton). Moreover, the Commenters state
that cost effectiveness should be lower to reflect that switching to
PRB coal would result in 46 percent lower NOX emission rates
without changing Plant Bowen's use of NOX controls. They
argue that the NOX reductions of switching to PRB coal would
result in a cost-effectiveness of $4,749/ton of combined SO2
and NOX removed.
Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argument that EPA
did not scrutinize GA EPD's analysis of Plant Bowen and did not
consider the public comments submitted at the state level.
Regarding the Commenters' argument that in 2014 Plant Bowen
switched from lower-sulfur CAPP coal to IB coal which has a higher
sulfur content, EPA acknowledges that the sulfur content for IB coal is
higher and SO2 emissions have increased with the switch to
IB coal. This switch is also discussed in Response 8.
EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argument that Georgia greatly
overstated the costs of switching to 100 percent PRB coal. With a fuel
switch to PRB coal, there would be a 27 percent facility derate based
on the average heat content of PRB coal ((8,800 British thermal units
per pound (Btu/lb)) in comparison to the current coal being used at
Plant Bowen, which is IB coal with an average heat content of 12,002
Btu/lb.\48\ This derate resulting from the reduced heat content of PRB
coal would result in Plant Bowen having 27 percent less total
electricity generation capacity. This is a real cost that Georgia was
correct to account for in the FFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Section 4.4.1.1 on p. 15 of the Haze Plan in Appendix
G-1b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through a letter to GA EPD dated August 8, 2022, Georgia Power
responded directly to similar comments submitted by the Commenters to
GA EPD. This letter was included as part of Georgia's submittal and is
located within Appendix G-1e to the Haze Plan. Within that letter,
Georgia Power explained that ``[t]he capacity penalty costs in the
Plant Bowen FFA represented the costs to replace the derated unit
capacity to meet the reserve margin required in the Southern Company
system.'' Georgia Power also cited to the FFA, which notes that ``Plant
Bowen Units 1-4 provide capacity value by supporting system reliability
and by avoiding costs associated with replacement capacity that would
be required to meet customer peak demands and reserve margin
requirements in the absence of such Plant Bowen units. Without these
units, Georgia Power would have to procure short-term and long-term
replacement capacity in order to restore Georgia Power and the Southern
Company system to a comparable level of reliability that the system
currently holds.''
The Commenters conflate two distinct electric generation concepts:
capacity and generation. They are not the same. Nor are the financial
costs and revenues associated with each the same. According to the EIA,
``[e]lectricity generation capacity is the maximum electric output an
electricity generator can produce under specific conditions.'' \49\
``Electricity net generation,'' on the other hand, ``is the amount of
gross electricity generation a generator produces minus the electricity
used to operate the power plant.'' \50\ It is this incorrect conflation
of concepts that leads the Commenters to incorrectly conclude that
Georgia Power could make up for any lost capacity at Plant Bowen by
simply purchasing 134,982 MWh of electricity annually. In general, the
electrical grid can experience high periods of demand for short
durations. This is known as ``peak'' electricity demand. To ensure
reliability of the electrical grid, electric utilities must have
sufficient capacity available to
[[Page 92053]]
ensure that these peak loads can be met. The Commenters' suggestion
that Georgia Power could simply purchase 134,982 MWh of generated
electricity does not account for the need for Georgia Power to also
have adequate capacity available for the grid, even at times of peak
demand. Georgia Power refers to this concept as the ``reserve margin''
in its August 8, 2022, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=101&t=3.
\50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees with Georgia's assessment that requiring PRB coal would
result in a capacity derate, and that this capacity derate would impact
electrical reliability by reducing peak available capacity to a
sufficient extent that Georgia Power would have to ``procure short-term
and long-term replacement capacity.'' Over the long-term, this would
likely result in the need for Georgia Power to construct new generation
capacity equivalent to the capacity derate, which would be a capital
cost and not an operating expenditure. EPA thus does not agree with the
Commenters that this capacity derate was mis-classified within the FFA
as an operating expense. Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2 each have a maximum
capacity of 724 megawatts (MW), and Units 3 and 4 have a maximum
capacity of 892 MW. See Haze Plan Appendix G-1b, Note 1 to Table A2.2.
Combined, these four units have a maximum capacity of 3,232 MW if
combusting IB coal. A 27 percent derate of these units associated with
a switch to PRB coal would reduce the maximum capacity of Plant Bowen
to 2,359 MW. The difference between these two numbers is 873 MW, which
is the total capacity that Georgia Power would no longer have available
to put onto the grid.
Moreover, according to a recent IRP Update submitted by Georgia
Power to the Georgia Public Service Commission (GA PSC), ``the
Company's current projections reflect load growth of 6,600 MW through
the winter of 2030/2031, which is approximately 17 times greater than
that previously forecasted.'' \51\ Due to this projected growth,
Georgia Power requested that the GA PSC approve the construction of
1,400 MW of new generation capacity at Plant Yates, the authority to
develop, own, and operate up to 1,000 MW of battery energy storage
systems, the long term purchase of 750 MW of capacity from Mississippi
Power through a power purchase agreement, and the long term purchase of
230 MW of capacity from Santa Rosa Energy Center through a power
purchase agreement.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Georgia Power ``2023 Integrated Resource Plan Update,'' at
p. 1, available at: https://georgiapower.com/content/dam/georgia-power/pdfs/company-pdfs/2023-irp-update-main-document.pdf.
\52\ Id. at pp. 15-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2024, the GA PSC issued an order in which it took
action on Georgia Power's IRP Update filing. In that order, the GA PSC
approved much of Georgia Power's IRP Update filing, with certain
modifications subject to a stipulation adopted by the GA PSC.
Critically, within the GA PSC's April 26, 2024, order, the GA PSC
stated the following as a finding of fact:
Substantial empirical evidence shows that the load projected by
the Company is indeed coming to Georgia. There is a large economic
development pipeline made up of businesses seeking to locate in
Georgia, and the Company has continued to see progress from large
load customers included in its forecast, as well as accelerated
customer load ramps and other tangible evidence of growth. The
number of committed Georgia Power customers continues to increase.
As of the 2023 IRP Update filing, the Company had already been
chosen to serve over 3,600 MW of load from the approximately 17,000
MW pipeline of economic development, nearly 3,000 MW of which is
already under construction. (Rebuttal Hearing Tr. 2031.) Since the
2023 IRP Update filing in October of 2023, the economic development
pipeline has grown from 17,000 MW to 21,000 MW, and Georgia Power
has been selected to serve an additional 2,602 MW. The large load
customers included in the Company's forecast are moving forward and
making progress without material delay. The Stipulation will allow
Georgia Power to reliably serve both its existing customers and the
new ones.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ GA PSC Order Adopting Stipulated Agreement, at pp. 7-8,
available at: https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=218484.
On August 29, 2024, the GA PSC took further action within this IRP
Update docket by granting Georgia Power a certificate of convenience
and public necessity for the construction of Plant Yates Units 8-10,
and the PSC noted that ``time is of the essence and the Commission
declines to accept any further delay in putting these assets in
place,'' and ``[i]n light of . . . the state of Georgia's recent
extraordinary economic growth, and its citizens and business' pressing
need for economical and reliable energy to meet this growth, the
Commission agrees with the Company and Staff that certification of
Plant Yates Units 8-10 is reasonable and appropriate.'' \54\ Plant
Yates Units 8-10 would provide Georgia Power with approximately 1,400
MW of additional generation capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ GA PSC Order Granting Certification of Plant Yates Units 8-
10, available at: https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=219790.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These recent actions by the GA PSC are highly relevant to the
Commenters' assertions. Specifically, the Commenters argue that the
Plant Bowen FFA's conclusion is unsubstantiated regarding the need for
Georgia Power to construct or otherwise acquire additional generation
capacity to replace the 873 MW of lost capacity if Plant Bowen were
required to utilize lower sulfur, lower heat content PRB coal. Based on
the recent factual findings of the GA PSC, which EPA acknowledges, EPA
does not agree with the Commenters. While requiring Plant Bowen to
switch to PRB coal would reduce SO2 emissions, it would do
so at the expense of generation capacity, and the need to construct or
procure new generation capacity was therefore properly considered
within the FFA. EPA therefore agrees with Georgia's conclusions that
this capacity derate should be classified as a capital expenditure
since it would result in the need to construct or procure access to new
capital, i.e., 873 MW of generation capacity. EPA also agrees that the
financial and energy costs associated with this capacity derate are not
reasonable under the RHR. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
The CBI filings provided by Georgia Power as part of the Plant
Bowen FFA further support EPA's conclusion. Regarding the Commenters'
request that EPA determine whether these materials are in fact CBI, for
the same reasons stated in Response 8, EPA is exercising its discretion
to not make a formal CBI determination regarding the redacted materials
contained within the Plant Bowen FFA at this time and disagrees with
the Commenters' assertion that EPA is required to make such a
determination here. Nonetheless, throughout this rulemaking process,
EPA has reviewed the unredacted indirect costs that GA EPD submitted in
Technical Appendix B of Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan (along with all
other components of the Haze Plan). As requested by Commenters, EPA
confirms that it reviewed this CBI information during the review of the
Haze Plan and finds that it provides adequate technical justification
in support of the submittal. Because the capacity derate would result
in the need for Georgia Power to construct or procure new long-term
generation capacity, EPA also agrees that Georgia Power would
reasonably be entitled to a rate of return on this capital, which
Georgia Power substantiated in its FFA.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The Commenters also incorrectly note that Georgia Power is
entitled to a 6.04 percent rate return. This 6.04 percent figure is
identified in Table A1.2 as Georgia Power's firm-specific interest
rate as authorized by the Georgia Public Service Commission. This is
not the same as the rate of return that Georgia Power is entitled
to. The rate of return that Georgia Power is entitled to is
identified in the same rate case cited to in support of Table A1.2.
That rate of return (referred to by the Georgia Public Service
Commission as ``return on equity'') is set forth in the Georgia
Public Serivce Commission's December 31, 2019, Short Order Adopting
Settlement Agreement as Modified and ranges from 9.5 percent to 12.0
percent. This order is available at https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=179339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 92054]]
The Commenters contend that there is a mismatch in assumptions in
the FFA because the FFA assumes operating time will increase if
combusting PRB coal at the same time as Plant Bowen would need to
purchase $51 million worth of electric generating capacity to cover
lost capacity due to the derate associated with reduced heat content of
PRB coal. The Commenters are incorrect. The Plant Bowen FFA states that
``the level of unit capacity derate does not impact the annual
SO2 emissions reduction since the analysis assumes that the
2019 baseline annual heat input is achievable at this derated unit
capacity with an increased amount of operating time.'' The FFA properly
assumed an increase in operating time when comparing SO2
emissions if combusting PRB coal compared to IB coal because those
emissions are based on projected 2028 emissions. The 2028 emission
projections, in turn, are based in part upon projections about the
quantity of electricity that will actually be generated. The Plant
Bowen FFA reasonably increased operating hours in 2028 when modeling
SO2 emissions if operating on PRB coal to ensure that the
same quantity of electricity was generated in both the PRB scenario and
the IB coal scenario. Again, the concept of total generation capacity
of the plant that is available to provide load to the grid as needed is
separate and distinct from electricity that is actually generated and
placed onto the grid. EPA thus disagrees that there is a ``mismatch''
in assumptions in the FFA.
Regarding the comment that the cost of $6,424/ton of SO2
reduced associated with a switch to PRB coal is cost-effective because
it is lower than thresholds used by other states (Colorado--$10,000/
ton, New Mexico--$7,000/ton, and Arizona--$6,500/ton), EPA disagrees.
Flexibility afforded to states has long been a hallmark of the regional
haze program. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078, 3088 (January 10, 2017) (``While
these final revisions to the RHR continue to provide states with
considerable flexibility in evaluating the four reasonable-progress
factors, we expect states to exercise reasoned judgment when choosing
which sources, groups of sources or source categories to analyze.'');
2019 Guidance at p. 4 (``States have discretion to balance these
factors and considerations in determining what control measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress.''). Inherent in this flexibility
is that different states may choose bright-line cost effectiveness
thresholds, and some may instead choose to adopt a different
methodology to determine whether controls are cost effective (i.e.,
Georgia's approach). For those states that do choose to use bright-line
cost-effectiveness thresholds, those thresholds may differ from state-
to-state. Different states will take different approaches to comply
with the RHR, and various methods of complying with the rule may be
reasonable depending on a number of facts and circumstances (e.g.,
number of sources in the state; magnitude of emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants from sources in the state; visibility impairment
at impacted Class I areas).
Due to this flexibility, EPA disagrees with the premise of the
Commenters' assertion, which appears to be that cost effectiveness
thresholds in one state should be determinative of whether controls are
cost-effective in another state. Taken to its logical conclusion, the
Commenters' position seems to be that EPA's determinations regarding
the approvability of bright-line cost-effectiveness thresholds in
states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona should serve to set a
nationwide cost-effectiveness floor. The RHR requires no such thing,
and indeed, the Commenters cite to no legal authority for their
position.
As discussed in Response 5, Georgia relied on a spreadsheet of
first planning period costs developed by Arkansas with input from other
states and supplemented with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia determined
based on that spreadsheet that a cost of $6,424/ton of SO2
removed, as determined for the 2019 cost year, would exceed the 98th
percentile of all costs incurred by sources to control emission in the
first planning period. On this basis, Georgia determined that a cost of
$6,424/ton of SO2 removed was not a reasonable cost of
control. EPA reaffirms that Georgia's conclusions were reasonable under
the CAA and RHR.
While the Commenters state that a switch to PRB coal would result
in 46 percent lower NOX emission rates and taking the
NOX reductions into account would result in a cost-
effectiveness of $4,749/ton for SO2 and NOX,
combined, because the facility did not exceed Georgia's AoI/PSAT
threshold for NOX, Georgia did not conduct a control
analysis for NOX due to its determination that
SO2 is the dominant pollutant in this planning period for
Class I areas impacted by Georgia sources. For the reasons discussed
earlier in Response 3, EPA has concluded that Georgia's approach is
reasonable. As set forth in that response, PSAT source apportionment
modeling clearly demonstrates that contributions from Georgia's point
source NOX emissions are significantly below Georgia's
source selection thresholds. As stated in Tables 7-16, 7-17, and 7-18
of the Haze Plan, the modeled visibility impacts on a pollutant-by-
pollutant basis for Plant Bowen were as follows: 2.13 percent
SO2 and 0.07 percent NOX for Cohutta; 2.77
percent for SO2 and 0.01 percent for NOX for
Okefenokee; and 2.35 percent for SO2 and 0.14 percent for
NOX for Wolf Island, which results in SO2
visibility impacts approximately 17 times greater than NOX
visibility impacts at each of the Georgia Class I areas. The nitrate
impacts from this facility are far below Georgia's source selection
thresholds. As EPA has consistently stated, ``When selecting sources
for analysis of control measures, a state may focus on the PM species
that dominate visibility impairment at the Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state and then select only sources with emissions of
those dominant pollutants and their precursors.'' 2019 Guidance, at p.
11. Additional rationale can be found in the Response 3, which
discusses the dominant nature of SO2 emissions in Georgia on
visibility impairment at Class I areas compared to NOX
emissions.
Comment 10: The Commenters assert that EPA must require Georgia to
consider year-round operation of the Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) systems at each of Plant Bowen's emissions units within the FFA.
They state that ignoring NOX pollution and controls and
EPA's proposal to approve Georgia's decision are not supported by the
record. Instead, they argue EPA must require Georgia to evaluate
options to reduce NOX emissions at Plant Bowen. The
Commenters argue that although Plant Bowen is equipped with low
NOX burners, separated overfire air, and SCR, Plant Bowen
operates the SCR optimally only during ozone season, that they
``severely underperform,'' and that year-round operation of SCR could
cut NOX emissions in half. The Commenters therefore state
that EPA must require Georgia to evaluate readily implementable
NOX controls, such as year-round SCR systems operation on a
30-boiler operating day average NOX
[[Page 92055]]
emission limit of between 0.05 lb/MMBtu and 0.07 lb/MMBtu.
Response 10: EPA finds the Commenters' assertions that EPA must
require Georgia to analyze year-round operation of the SCR systems at
Plant Bowen's Units 1-4 unfounded because, as discussed in Response 3
and in the NPRM, EPA agrees with Georgia's decision to focus on
SO2 controls in this planning period given, among other
things, IMPROVE monitoring data from the 2014-2018 and 2015-2019 five-
year periods showing that ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant contributing to regional haze at the Class I areas
impacted by Plant Bowen. As also discussed in Response 9, the modeled
visibility impacts on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis for Plant Bowen
show that modeled visibility impacts from SO2 are 17 times
higher compared to modeled visibility impacts from NOX in
each of the Class I areas in Georgia. Based on these modeled visibility
impacts, Plant Bowen did not meet Georgia's source selection threshold
for NOX due to low NOX impacts. Therefore, EPA
finds that Georgia appropriately focused on evaluating SO2
emissions controls only for Plant Bowen for this planning period.
Comment 11: The Commenters contend that EPA cannot approve the
incorporation of Plant Bowen's Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 (2023
Permit Amendment) into Georgia's SIP due to an unlawful startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption and emergency affirmative
defense provisions in Plant Bowen's 2019 title V renewal permit 4911-
015-0011-V-04-0 (2019 title V Permit) that could apply to the
SO2 regional haze SO2 emission limit. The
Commenters state the ``Excess Emission'' permit condition (i.e.,
Condition 8.14.4 of the 2019 title V permit) could allow Plant Bowen to
exceed its regional haze SO2 limit contained in the 2023
Permit Amendment during SSM events. Additionally, the Commenters argue
that Plant Bowen's ``emergency'' affirmative defense provision (i.e.,
condition 8.13.2 of the 2019 title V permit) would allow Plant Bowen to
argue an affirmative defense in any enforcement action brought for an
alleged violation of the facility's SO2 regional haze limit
contained in the 2023 permit amendment. Thus, the Commenters assert
that EPA's proposal to incorporate Plant Bowen's 2023 Permit Amendment
into Georgia's SIP violates the CAA and the RHR.
Response 11: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. The Agency is
incorporating the 2023 Permit Amendment into the Georgia SIP and is not
incorporating into the SIP any portion of the 2019 title V Permit.
Therefore, the provisions of the 2023 Permit Amendment will be
federally enforceable via the SIP as specifically provided for in that
permit, which contains work practice requirements that apply during
startup and shutdown. See 2023 Permit Amendment, Condition 3.3.8.
Additionally, Condition 8.14.4 of Plant Bowen's 2019 title V Permit,
referenced by the Commenters, is substantively the same as Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(2)(a)7 of the State's federally approved SIP. Because this
rule is already in Georgia's SIP and further because EPA is not
adopting Condition 8.14.4 into the SIP in this action, the Commenters'
concerns are without merit. Likewise, Condition 8.13.2 of Plant Bowen's
2019 title V Permit, also referenced by the Commenters, is derived from
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(d)7, which is a rule that is currently
approved into Georgia's title V rules. Specifically, that rule states
that ``40 CFR part 70.6(g) is hereby incorporated and adopted by
reference.'' On July 21, 2023, EPA removed 40 CFR 70.6(g) from the Code
of Federal Regulations as ``inconsistent with the EPA's interpretation
of the enforcement structure of the Clean Air Act.'' Id. In accordance
with the EPA's July 21, 2023, rulemaking, Georgia is likewise required
to remove this provision from the State's title V rules. See 88 FR
47029. Upon removal of this rule from Georgia's title V program,
Georgia would then be obligated to remove conditions such as Plant
Bowen's Condition 8.13.2 from the facility's title V permit. EPA also
disagrees that the Condition 8.13.2 would allow Plant Bowen to argue an
affirmative defense in any enforcement action brought for an alleged
violation of the facility's SO2 regional haze limit
contained in the 2023 permit amendment. Rather, an affirmative defense
may only be argued for emergencies that meet the specific criteria of
paragraphs a. though d. of Condition 8.13.2.
Comment 12: The Commenters assert that EPA cannot approve Georgia's
FFA for Brunswick Cellulose and must require the facility to install
cost-effective controls. They state that due to the facility's
``significant'' NOX emissions, EPA must require Georgia to
conduct an FFA for NOX controls. In addition, the Commenters
argue that Georgia's FFA, as it pertains to SO2 controls, is
``riddled with errors that EPA neither acknowledges nor addresses.''
The Commenters state that NPS found that Georgia did not follow
EPA's CCM in its analyses of wet scrubber and dry sorbent injection
(DSI) controls for the No. 4 Power Boiler and No. 5 and 6 Recovery
Furnaces. The Commenters thus contend that to meet its regional haze
requirements, as well as the requirement that EPA must act consistently
across SIP actions, EPA must determine that these deviations from EPA's
CCM in its analyses of controls for Brunswick Cellulose violate the CAA
and RHR.
The Commenters also assert that Georgia inappropriately rejected a
wet scrubber for the No. 4 Power Boiler. They contend that ``based even
on Georgia's flawed analyses for Brunswick, a wet scrubber would likely
reduce SO2 emissions from the No. 4 Power Boiler by 141 tpy
at a cost-effectiveness of $10,330/ton of pollution reduced,'' which
they argue is within the range of cost thresholds adopted by other
states.
Response 12: Regarding the Commenters' assertion that EPA cannot
approve GA EPD's FFA for Brunswick Cellulose and must require the
facility to conduct NOX control analyses given its
NOX emissions and to install cost-effective controls for
NOX, see Response 2 and Response 3. In the Haze Plan, GA EPD
evaluated Brunswick Cellulose's contributions to visibility impairment
at Class I areas and concluded that SO2 contributions to
visibility impairment from this facility exceeded State's AoI and PSAT
screening thresholds and that NOX emissions did not exceed
the State's screening thresholds. Therefore, Brunswick Cellulose was
selected for an SO2 FFA, but not for a NOX FFA.
As discussed in Response 2 and Response 3, Georgia's approach was
reasonable and complies with the RHR.
Regarding the Commenters' arguments that GA EPD's FFA of
SO2 controls for Brunswick Cellulose is ``riddled with
errors'' and not properly substantiated, the Commenters do not discuss
any errors with any specificity. Instead, the Commenters cite to the
NPS's June 22, 2022, letter to GA EPD,\56\ in which NPS noted that
``the indirect operating costs do not reflect the most recent CCM wet
scrubber chapter methods.'' The Commenters omit, however, that NPS also
``agree[d] with several revisions made to the cost analyses.'' While
the Commenters focus on several concerns raised by NPS regarding
Georgia's rationale, the Commenters omit that in spite of these
concerns, NPS agreed with Georgia's
[[Page 92056]]
ultimate conclusion that ``[g]iven that the fuel switch is estimated to
result in a cost savings (even at higher natural gas prices), the NPS
reviewers concur that the incremental costs of selecting a scrubber
system in lieu of a fuel switch are not justified from a cost
standpoint.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Haze Plan, Appendix H-1b, NPS Regional Haze SIP feedback
for Georgia EPD (June 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on EPA's evaluation of Brunswick Cellulose's cost analyses,
EPA noted several discrepancies, including the addition of property tax
values to the total indirect operating costs. As alluded to in the NPS
letter cited by the Commenters, these discrepancies were addressed
prior to Georgia's final SIP submittal. The State's final SIP submittal
to EPA included a revised cost calculation which was nearly identical
to EPA's calculations. In the Haze Plan, the State's cost per ton
calculation was marginally lower than EPA's calculation due to EPA's
use of a lower 3.25 percent bank prime interest rate, as recommended by
the CCM. Although EPA recognizes that GA EPD's cost calculations
produced slightly lower values compared to EPA's own evaluation in
accordance with the CCM, the differences in the total cost per ton of
SO2 removed would not have changed the outcome of the FFA.
In Appendix G-3 of the Haze Plan, GA EPD included documentation and
explained the assumptions that the State used in the Brunswick
Cellulose FFA, including the use of the current bank prime rate, a 30-
year equipment life, and control efficiency assumptions used in the
scrubber and DSI cost analyses. EPA thus does not agree with the
Commenters that the FFA was not properly substantiated.
The Commenters also argue that Georgia inappropriately rejected a
cost-effective control for the No. 4 Power Boiler ($10,330/ton of
SO2 reduced for the installation of a wet scrubber),
considering the cost-effectiveness is within the range of cost
thresholds adopted by other states for the second planning period.
Commenters raised a very similar argument regarding Plant Bowen, and
for the same reasons that EPA disagreed with the Commenters' position
in Response 9 (regarding Plant Bowen), EPA disagrees here as well.
Furthermore, the $10,330/ton value exceeds the highest state cost
threshold identified by the Commenters ($10,000/ton for Colorado).
As discussed in Response 5, Georgia relied on a spreadsheet of
first planning period costs developed by Arkansas with input from other
states and supplemented with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia determined
based on that spreadsheet that a cost of $10,330/ton of SO2
removed would exceed the 98th percentile of all costs incurred by
sources to control emission in the first planning period. On this
basis, Georgia determined that a cost of $10,330/ton of SO2
removed for the installation of a wet scrubber at Brunswick Cellulose
was not a reasonable cost of control. Given that the State is not
required to set a bright-line cost threshold by the RHR, the discretion
afforded to the state to determine whether costs are reasonable, and
the even-handed and consistent methodology applied by Georgia to
determine whether control costs were reasonable for this planning
period, EPA reaffirms that Georgia's conclusions were reasonable under
the CAA and RHR.
Comment 13: The Commenters assert that, at a minimum, Brunswick
Cellulose's existing measures for the No. 5 and 6 Recovery Furnaces are
necessary for reasonable progress. The Commenters note that EPA has
explained that a state can demonstrate that a source will continue
implementing its existing measures such that they are not necessary for
reasonable progress ``based on data and information on: (1) The
source's past implementation of its existing measures and its
historical emission rate, (2) the source's projected emissions and
emission rate, and (3) any enforceable emissions limits or other
requirements related to the source's existing measures.'' The
Commenters state that the expected emission ranges provided by Georgia
for these furnaces are ``very wide, with the top of the range being
more than double the bottom.'' Additionally, the Commenters state that
nothing in the SIP revision demonstrates that emissions will remain the
same at these units. The Commenters state that EPA explains that
Georgia submitted a supplement to its SIP revision providing that the
No. 5 Recovery Furnace's emissions fluctuated from 2016 to 2020 and
argued that ``the emission rate for the unit is within a consistent
range limited by the Permit.'' The Commenters therefore contend that
EPA's own justification for its determination underscores that existing
permit limits for the facility are necessary to make reasonable
progress.
Response 13: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. EPA requested
supplemental information from Georgia regarding emissions for the No. 5
Recovery furnace, which has higher emissions than the No. 6 Recovery
Furnace. Based on 2016 to 2020 emissions data provided by Georgia to
EPA that was cited in the NPRM and included in the docket, emissions at
the No. 5 Recovery Furnace ranged from 0.125 to 0.152 tons
SO2/1,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil burned, demonstrating a
reasonably consistent SO2 emission rate during this time
period. The increase in total SO2 emissions discussed by the
Commenters is attributable to increased fuel oil burned in the unit and
is not attributable to an inconsistent emission rate. Based on 2016 to
2020 emissions data, SO2 emissions decreased from 21.7 tpy
in 2016 to 7.8 tpy in 2020. Because emissions remain consistent at the
No. 5 Recovery Furnace, EPA is not requiring Georgia to adopt existing
measures for this emission unit into the SIP. This position is also
consistent with EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo. See 2021 Clarifications
Memo, at p. 9. Regarding the No. 6 Recovery Furnace, EPA likewise
requested supplemental information from Georgia. This supplemental
information is in the docket.\57\ While there is somewhat more
variability in the emissions rate for this unit, the unit's
SO2 emissions are extremely low, and therefore existing
measures at this unit are not necessary for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See October 29, 2024, GA EPD email and attached file
transmitting supplemental emissions information for the Brunswick
Cellulose No. 6 Recovery Furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14: The Commenters assert that the Brunswick Cellulose
permit that EPA proposes to incorporate into Georgia's SIP does not
include practically enforceable emission limits. More specifically,
they argue the Brunswick Cellulose permit does not contain sufficient
measures to ensure the facility complies with the 15 tpy SO2
limit for the No. 4 Power Boiler and the No. 6 fuel oil burning
condition during adverse wood/bark conditions. The Commenters contend
that the permit states that Brunswick Cellulose ``shall use emission
factors'' but does not specify what emission factors Brunswick
Cellulose must use.\58\ The Commenters note that in an April 24, 2024,
email from GA EPD to EPA, GA EPD stated that Brunswick Cellulose will
use an AP-42 emission factor of 157 S lb/Mgal (where S is the fuel
sulfur content by weight as a percentage per million gallons of
fuel).\59\ However, the Commenters contend that AP-42 factors
[[Page 92057]]
do not reliably predict emissions and therefore are insufficient to
determine compliance. The Commenters note that EPA has cautioned that
the AP-42 factors ``are not likely to be accurate'' and ``[u]se of
these factors as source-specific permit limits . . . is not
recommended.'' \60\ The Commenters further argue that since neither EPA
nor Georgia can rely on these AP-42 factors to establish or demonstrate
compliance, the 15 tpy SO2 emission limit is not practically
enforceable and EPA's proposal to incorporate it into the SIP violates
the CAA and the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Ga. Dept Nat. Res., Air Quality--Part 70 Operating Permit,
Brunswick Cellulose LLC, Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3 at 3 (Oct.
25, 2023), Document No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220-0011 (providing that
Condition 6.2.52 ``demonstrate[s] compliance with Condition
3.2.25'') [hereinafter ``Brunswick Permit''].
\59\ Email from James Boylan, Chief, Air Prot. Branch, Ga. Env't
Prot. Div., to Estelle Bae, Air Permits Sec., Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Div., Env't Prot. Agency
Region 4 (Apr. 15, 2024), Document No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220-0109;
Ga. Env't Prot. Div., Response to EPA Regional Haze Questions at 1
(April 14, 2024), Document No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220-0110.
\60\ EPA, ``Enforcement Alert: Reminder About Inappropriate Use
of AP-42 Emission Factors,'' Publication No. EPA 325-N-20-001 (Nov.
2020), available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/ap42-enforcementalert.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 14: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. GA EPD's April 24,
2024, clarification email stated that the facility used the 157 S lb/
Mgal emission factor contained within Table 1.3-1 of AP-42 in its title
V permit application.\61\ The use of interpretive letters to clarify
ambiguity or perceived ambiguity in the provisions in a SIP submission
is a permissible, and sometimes necessary, approach under the CAA.\62\
So long as the interpretive letters and EPA's reliance on them is
properly explained and documented, regulated entities, regulators, and
the public can readily ascertain the existence of interpretive letters
relied upon in EPA's approval that would be useful to resolve any
perceived ambiguity. By virtue of being part of the stated basis for
EPA's approval of that provision in a SIP submission, interpretive
letters necessarily establish the correct interpretation of any
arguably ambiguous SIP provision. In other words, the rulemaking record
should reflect the shared state and EPA understanding of the meaning of
a provision at issue at the time of the approval, which can then be
referenced should any question about the provision arise in a future
enforcement action. In this action, EPA is approving the Brunswick
Cellulose emission limit and incorporating it into the SIP based on
Georgia's interpretation that the phrase ``shall use emissions
factors'' in Condition 6.2.52 means that the source shall use an
emissions factor of 157 S lb/Mgal to calculate SO2 emissions
from the unit for comparison with the 15 tpy emission limit.\63\ EPA
will include an entry for this Brunswick Cellulose permit in the
Georgia source-specific SIP table at 40 CFR 52.570(d) with text in the
explanation column stating that ``shall use emissions factors'' refers
to the use of a 157 S lb/Mgal, from AP-42, Chapter 1, Section 1.3: Fuel
Oil Combustion. For these reasons, EPA views the use of this emissions
factor as a federally-enforceable requirement which renders the
emission limit practically enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3, Condition 6.2.52, requires
the source to use the emission factors and the records required by
Condition 6.2.51 to ensure compliance with the 15 tpy SO2
emission limit specified in Condition 3.2.25 for the No. 4 Power
Boiler. On April 15, 2024, GA EPD supplemented its August 11, 2022,
Haze Plan by providing clarification on the specific emission factor
that the source will use for calculating compliance with Condition
3.2.25. This April 15, 2024, email containing the supplemental
clarification is included in the docket for this action.
\62\ See, e.g., Discussion of interpretive letters in ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33840, 33884-89 (June 12, 2015).
\63\ On October 16, 2024, GA EPD provided a letter to EPA with
an interpretation of the phrase ``The Permittee shall use emissions
factors'' in Condition 6.2.52. GA EPD stated in this letter that
this phrase in Permit Condition 6.2.52 means that Brunswick
Cellulose will use the same AP-42 emission factor as was used to
calculate emissions for their permit application. The emission
factor used by Brunswick Cellulose for No. 6 Fuel Oil in No. 4 Power
Boiler (U700) is 157 S lb/Mgal, where S is the fuel content as a
percentage. This emission factor was taken from Table 1.3-1 of AP-
42. This October 16, 2024, letter containing the supplemental
clarification of the emission factor is included in the docket for
this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Commenters' argument regarding the use of AP-42 as the
basis for this emissions factor, the Commenters seem to suggest that
AP-42 emission factors can never be used in permitting. While AP-42
emission factors should be used with caution because source-specific
data is always more reliable than industry-wide averages compiled in
AP-42, EPA has consistently stated that ``AP-42 emission factors may be
used to demonstrate compliance with emission limits in certain
circumstances'' and that ``[w]hether and how a permit must account for
uncertainty in AP-42 emission factors (including the AP-42 emission
factor at issue here) is a fact-specific decision, as with essentially
all other decisions concerning compliance assurance.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC Pasadena Terminal,
Title V Order No. VI-2023-13, at p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters do not raise any specific facts to suggest that the
use of AP-42 emission factors here is inappropriate. Instead, they
simply assert that EPA has ``cautioned'' against the use of such
emission factors in permitting, and the Commenters then make a blanket
statement that therefore such emission factors cannot be used in
permitting at all. As applied here, the Commenters contend that the use
of an AP-42 emission factor rendered the 15 tpy emission limit
practically unenforceable and therefore unlawful under the CAA and RHR.
EPA disagrees. The AP-42 emission factor used by GA EPD, which is
located in Table 1.3-1 of AP-42, is rated ``A'' by EPA, which is the
best rating available and means that the test quality data used by EPA
to develop this emission factor was ``performed by a sound methodology
and are reported in enough detail for adequate validation.'' \65\ An
``A'' rating also means that the ``Factor is developed from A- and B-
rated source test data taken from many randomly chosen facilities in
the industry population. The source category population is sufficiently
specific to minimize variability.'' \66\ The 157 S lb/Mgal AP-42
emission factor, is a commonly used and appropriate representation of
the SO2 emitted from a fuel-burning unit, as SO2
emissions are almost entirely dependent on the sulfur content of the
fuel, conservatively assuming that 95 percent of the fuel sulfur is
converted to SO2.\67\ Scenarios where EPA has raised
concerns about the use of AP-42 emission factors generally involve
scenarios such as synthetic minor permitting limits used to avoid major
source permitting where the synthetic minor limit is near the major
source threshold. For example, EPA is aware of many scenarios where
permitting agencies have imposed emission limits of 249 tpy to avoid
the 250 tpy potential to emit major source PSD threshold in CAA 169(1).
In such instances, precision in any emission factors used to develop
the emission limit and to ensure compliance with the limit are
essential because small errors in such emission factor relative to the
source's actual emission could result in a facility exceeding pertinent
major source thresholds. As noted by Commenters, EPA issued a
compliance alert to this effect in November of 2020.\68\ The
circumstances discussed in that compliance alert, however, are not
present here because under the regional haze program, there is not a
specific numeric threshold, such as a PSD major source threshold, that
is applicable. Under the specific factual circumstances
[[Page 92058]]
present here, EPA finds that GA EPD's use of this AP-42 emission factor
was appropriate and that the Commenters' concerns that deviations in
Brunswick Cellulose's actual emissions from those assumed in the
emission factor are without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ AP-42, Introduction, p. 9.
\66\ Id.
\67\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1: External
Combustion Sources, 1.3: Fuel Oil Combustion, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.3_fuel_oil_combustion.pdf.
\68\ See EPA Reminder About Inappropriate Use of AP-42 Emission
Factors, available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/ap42-enforcementalert.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 15: The Commenters assert that the most recently renewed
Brunswick Cellulose title V permit (April 2023) is also affected by the
same SSM exemption and affirmative defense provisions that were
detailed above in the 2019 Plant Bowen title V permit. The Commenters
contend that the Brunswick Cellulose SSM exemption also states that the
exemption does not apply to ``sources'' subject to New Source
Performance Standards requirements, and so, it is not clear whether
that provision applies to Brunswick Cellulose's 15 tpy limit for the
No. 4 Power Boiler. However, the Commenters state if that provision
applies to the 15 tpy limit, it renders the 15 tpy limit unlawful and
not practically enforceable for the same reasons raised by the
Commenters regarding the identical permit conditions for Plant Bowen.
The Commenters thus assert that EPA's proposal to incorporate the 15
tpy limit into Georgia's SIP violates the CAA and RHR.
Response 15: EPA disagrees with the Commenters for the same reasons
stated in Response 11.
Comment 16: The Commenters assert that the Brunswick Cellulose
title V permit that EPA would be adopting into Georgia's SIP does not
contain necessary reporting requirements, but instead only requires the
facility to maintain documents ``kept as part of the record''
reflecting its fuel use and emission calculations. The Commenters note
that the permit makes reference to a requirement that Brunswick
Cellulose report its excess emissions, exceedances, or excursions in
accordance with ``the report required in Condition 6.1.4'' of the
permit. However, the Commenters state that the permit as included in
EPA's docket does not contain Condition 6.1.4., and thus, the
Commenters argue that the provisions EPA proposes to incorporate into
the SIP do not meet the requirements of the CAA or the RHR.
Response 16: Permit condition 6.1.7, as incorporated, requires
Brunswick Cellulose to report excess emissions, exceedances, or
excursions from the 15 tpy SO2 emission limit and fuel
burning limitations in accordance with permit condition 6.1.4. Permit
condition 6.1.4 requires Brunswick Cellulose to submit a written report
each quarter that contains any excess emissions, exceedances, or
excursions, and any monitor malfunctions during each quarterly
reporting period. If none of these occurred, Brunswick Cellulose must
still submit a report stating that there were no excess emissions,
exceedances, excursions, or monitor malfunctions during the quarterly
reporting period. Condition 6.1.4. exists in a federally enforceable
title V permit and is referenced in the reporting requirement in
Condition 6.1.7 that is being approved into the SIP.
Comment 17: The Commenters assert that EPA shirks its duty to
review Georgia's source-specific FFA for IP-Savannah. The control
measure at IP-Savannah that Georgia determined is necessary to make
reasonable progress is a requirement that the facility no longer burn
coal at its No. 13 Power Boiler. The Commenters contend that EPA cannot
approve Georgia's reliance on the cessation of coal burning at the No.
13 Power Boiler because it is not a new control and will not reduce IP-
Savannah's emissions. The Commenters note that IP-Savannah ceased
burning coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler in 2017, three years before the
facility submitted its FFA to the State and five years before Georgia
finalized its SIP revision, and contend that the measure is therefore
neither ``new'' nor ``additional.'' The Commenters state that EPA's
conclusion that the control would achieve any emission reductions, let
alone more reductions than other controls analyzed, is misleading at
best. The Commenters contend that IP-Savannah's baseline emissions for
its control analysis used 2018 and 2019 emissions and that because
these years already accounted for the cessation of coal burning, EPA's
assertion that this control measure would achieve additional reductions
in SO2 is ``inappropriate double counting.'' Nonetheless,
the Commenters agree with EPA and GA EPD that this measure should be
adopted into Georgia's SIP, but the Commenters state that cessation of
coal combustion at the No. 13 boiler should be classified as an
existing measure.
Response 17: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argue that IP-
Savannah's cessation of burning coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler in 2017
is neither ``new'' nor ``additional.'' Although IP-Savannah stopped
burning coal voluntarily in 2017, IP-Savannah was still permitted to
burn coal and the facility did not physically modify the No. 13 Power
Boiler to remove the capability to burn coal. This restriction is a new
control for regional haze purposes because incorporating it into
Georgia's SIP will result in the permanent cessation of coal combustion
at the No. 13 Power Boiler. Without this incorporation into the SIP,
the source could request a permit modification to begin combusting coal
again, which would be inconsistent with the requirement to achieve
reasonable progress under the CAA and RHR. The removal of coal as a
fuel in the No. 13 Power Boiler will result in the permanent reduction
of approximately 2,662 tpy of SO2 emissions reductions per
year (see column ``SO2 tpy Reductions'' in Table 7-35 of the
Haze Plan). EPA finds that the selected control option is necessary for
reasonable progress for the second period and is therefore adopting
this measure into the SIP. In response to the Commenters' assertion of
the ``inappropriate double counting'' of SO2 reductions, the
characterization of the whether these are ``additional'' reductions is
irrelevant. The cessation of coal burning is simply a measure that EPA
is adding to the SIP and is a part of the LTS.
Comment 18: Instead of the cessation of burning coal, the
Commenters assert that EPA must require IP-Savannah to install cost-
effective circulating dry scrubber (CDS) or DSI controls. The
Commenters argue that Georgia's analysis of these controls for the No.
13 Power Boiler contain multiple errors and unsupported costs, which
are detailed below.
First, the Commenters contend that the facility's 20-year
``economic life'' deviates from the CCM, where the remaining useful
life for these controls is 30 years. Second, the Commenters contend
that IP-Savannah provided only vague statements or justifications in
support of its retrofit factor, that this retrofit factor was at the
top of EPA's recommended range, and that Georgia should have used an
average retrofit factor of one when considering CDS and DSI controls.
The Commenters also similarly contend that the capacity factor of 59
percent for the No. 13 Power Boiler is unsupported in the FFA, and that
Georgia and EPA should have not accepted this number without further
documentation. The Commenters state that information in the facility-
submitted FFA indicates that the actual capacity factor is very likely
much higher at 76.4 percent. The Commenters state that Georgia did not
require or provide any documentation to support (1) IP-Savannah's
argument that it would have to expand its solid waste disposal site to
accommodate CDS or DSI controls, or (2) the cost of expanding the waste
disposal site. The Commenters contend that the facility's claimed costs
for waste disposal are not reliable, as the facility escalated the
costs for expanding its disposal site
[[Page 92059]]
from 2007 to 2021 dollars despite the fact that the CCM states that
costs should not be escalated more than five years.
The Commenters also assert that beyond the above-described alleged
cost analysis errors for CDS and DSI, Georgia accepted an unreasonably
low 90 percent removal efficiency for CDS from the facility-submitted
cost analysis. According to the Commenters, the CCM states that CDS
systems can achieve at least 95 percent and possibly over 98 percent
removal efficiency. They further contend that Georgia acknowledged in
the SIP revision that CDS systems can achieve 98 percent control in its
response to comments, but the State still stated, without any support
or explanation, that ``it supports IP-Savannah's choice to use 90
percent as an appropriate efficiency factor.''
Separately, the Commenters assert that Georgia accepted the same
waste disposal cost for both CDS and DSI even though IP-Savannah's
calculated waste rate for CDS was significantly lower than that for
DSI. Therefore, they argue that Georgia should have used a lower waste
disposal cost in its analysis for CDS. In total, the Commenters contend
that each of these alleged errors resulted in artificially inflated
control costs for CDS and DSI and, therefore, artificially inflated
cost-effectiveness values. The Commenters state that, according to the
Stamper report attached to the Commenters' comments, by correcting some
of the noted errors identified by the Commenters in Georgia's analysis,
CDS and DSI are cost-effective controls at $3,790/ton and $5,920/ton of
SO2 removed, respectively.
Related to these points, the Commenters assert that Georgia
violated the RHR's requirement that it adequately document and support
the technical basis for its control determinations, and that EPA does
not acknowledge or address any of the many errors in Georgia's control
analyses. They also contend that in response to comments, Georgia
admits that ``the costs associated with [CDS and DSI] were not looked
at in depth due to [the removal of coal burning] being an obvious path
forward.'' The Commenters contend that EPA's argument that Georgia
followed a reasonable cost analysis method and followed the CCM is
unsupported. The Commenters state that in proposed rulemaking on the
Arizona regional haze SIP, EPA proposes to conclude the FFAs for
numerous sources were unreasonable because the State based its control
determinations on, among other things, inappropriate emission rates for
the controls analyzed and unsubstantiated deviations from the CCM. The
Commenters therefore state that EPA must treat the errors in Georgia's
SIP revision consistently with how it has proposed to treat these same
errors in Arizona's SIP revision.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See CAA 301(a)(2) and 40 CFR 56.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 18: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argument that the
Agency must require Georgia to ``correct'' its cost analyses, or
``correct'' those analyses itself, and require the installation of
either CDS or DSI on the No. 13 Power Boiler at IP-Savannah to make
reasonable progress. Georgia's selection of cessation of coal
combustion as a control met the requirements of the RHR and was
consistent with EPA's recommended process to select controls discussed
in the 2019 Guidance and the 2021 Clarifications Memo. Georgia was not
required to select multiple controls for IP-Savannah's No. 13 Power
Boiler and applied its reasonable discretion to require IP-Savannah to
implement the most cost-effective control. Moreover, even if assuming
the Commenters' technical arguments above regarding items such as
retrofit factors, capacity factors, removal efficiency, and waste rate
are accurate (EPA has not made a determination on those points), the
cost of the other potential controls would still be positive, whereas
cessation of coal combustion has a negative cost while still resulting
in substantial permanent emission reductions. Because Georgia was not
required to select multiple controls for the No. 13 Power Boiler and
further because EPA agrees with Georgia's selection of cessation of
coal combustion as reasonable for this planning period, the Commenters'
comments regarding other potential control options are without merit.
EPA also disagrees with the Commenters' argument that EPA did not
evaluate the CDS and DSI in depth due to the removal of coal burning
being an obvious path forward. EPA evaluated each assumption used in
the cost analyses as part of the pre-hearing process and throughout the
Haze Plan development process.
Comment 19: The Commenters further assert that even using Georgia's
cost analyses, following the cessation of burning coal, CDS (removing
3,674 tpy of SO2 at a cost of $5,564/ton) and DSI (removing
2,653 tpy of SO2 at a cost of $6,245/ton) to control
emissions from the No. 13 Power Boiler are cost effective because
``[t]hese costs are well within the range of costs that other states
have determined are cost effective for the second planning period.''
The Commenters argue that EPA's proposal to approve Georgia's
determination that these controls are not cost effective based on the
State's application of the Arkansas cost spreadsheet is arbitrary and
capricious.
Response 19: Commenters raised a very similar argument regarding
Plant Bowen, and for the same reasons stated in Response 9 (regarding
Plant Bowen), EPA disagrees here as well. As discussed in Response 5
and as noted by the Commenters, Georgia relied on a spreadsheet of
first planning period costs developed by Arkansas with input from other
states and supplemented with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia determined
based on that spreadsheet that costs of $5,564/ton of SO2
removed for CDS and $6,245/ton of SO2 removed for DSI would
exceed the 98th percentile of all costs incurred by sources to control
emission in the first planning period. On this basis, Georgia
determined that these were not reasonable costs to control emissions
for this planning period. Given that the State provided a detailed
documentation and justification, and is not required to set a bright-
line cost threshold by the RHR, the discretion afforded to the State to
determine whether costs are reasonable, the consistent methodology
applied by Georgia to determine whether control costs were reasonable
for this planning period, and the flexibility discussed in Response 9,
EPA reaffirms that Georgia's conclusions were reasonable under the CAA
and RHR.
Georgia selected the most cost-effective control option for IP-
Savannah, which is the permanent cessation of coal combustion at the
No. 13 Power Boiler. The selection of this control is consistent with
EPA's recommended process to select controls as discussed in the 2019
Guidance and the 2021 Clarifications Memo. The selection of the most
cost-effective control is also consistent with Georgia's approach to
selection of controls. In short, Georgia was not required to select
multiple controls for IP-Savannah's No. 13 Power Boiler and applied its
reasonable discretion to require IP-Savannah to implement the most
cost-effective control. This approach is consistent with the CAA's and
RHR's requirements that the state selects emission controls based upon
four factors, including cost. See CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i).
Comment 20: The Commenters also assert that Georgia and EPA failed
to consider other available controls to reduce IP-Savannah's haze-
forming emissions, namely packed bed scrubbers. The Commenters contend
[[Page 92060]]
that packed bed scrubbers are a common SO2 control option
for many industrial sources, including paperboard mills like IP-
Savannah, and that these scrubbers are demonstrated to achieve up to
99.99 percent control efficiency. The Commenters note that the CCM
includes a module for assessing packed bed scrubber controls, and the
Commenters conclude that while the record does not contain sufficient
information to provide a cost analysis for these packed bed scrubbers,
examples provided in the CCM indicate that packed bed scrubbers are
likely a highly cost-effective control option for IP-Savannah.
Response 20: EPA disagrees with the Commenters that GA EPD did not
consider packed bed scrubbers in IP-Savannah's FFA. Packed tower
scrubbers (also known as packed bed or packed column scrubbers) are a
type of wet scrubber, and wet scrubbers were explicitly considered in
IP-Savannah's FFA and were rejected by GA EPD as not feasible due to
the additional offsets to the facility's water use and freshwater
demand. See Haze Plan, Appendix G-2b, at p. 2-7 and 2-8. Thus, for the
reasons stated in Responses 17 and 18, EPA disagrees.
Packed tower scrubbers can achieve high removal efficiencies,
handle high liquid rates, and have relatively lower water consumption
requirements than other types of gas absorbers. However, packed towers
may also have high system pressure drops, high clogging and fouling
potential, and extensive maintenance costs due to the presence of
packing materials. Installation, operation, and wastewater disposal
costs may also be higher for packed bed scrubbers than for other
absorbers.\70\ In addition to pump and fan power requirements and
solvent costs, packed towers have operating costs associated with
replacing damaged packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/wet_and_dry_scrubbers_section_5_chapter_1_control_cost_manual_7th_edition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet scrubbers such as packed tower scrubbers have water use and
water discharge requirements that can make these controls not feasible
in certain situations. According to GA EPD, treated wastewater from IP-
Savannah is discharged to the Savannah River. IP-Savannah's 2019
National Pollutant Discharge Permit currently limits this facility's
wastewater discharge, and the facility has since committed to meet
biologically based Ultimate Oxygen Demand limits which represent an
approximately 85 percent reduction from its current permit limits. The
facility is also limited on how much groundwater can be withdrawn, and
its water withdrawal permit limits will be lower starting in 2025,
which will cause any projects requiring additional water use to be
offset by water-savings projects.\71\ Thus, a wet scrubber, which would
represent 10 percent of the facility's freshwater demand, was deemed
not feasible by GA EPD. EPA agrees with GA EPD that adding a packed
tower scrubber to control SO2 emissions from IP-Savannah
would not be reasonable based upon Georgia's technical determinations
that this control is not feasible. Because this control is not
feasible, neither GA EPD nor EPA performed a cost analysis for this
control option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Section 7.8.1. International Paper--Savannah Mill in
the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that Georgia did not consider other available control
options for reducing SO2. Georgia also evaluated the
feasibility of a dry scrubber for the No. 13 Power Boiler. While a dry
scrubber does not have the same additional needs for water as a wet
scrubber, EPA agrees with Georgia's determination that a dry scrubber
was considered not technically feasible due to costs from the
additional solid waste and wastewater generated and the expansion of
the existing mill-owned landfill.
Comment 21: The Commenters argue that IP-Savannah is a significant
source of NOX pollution. The commenters contend that EPA
must require Georgia to conduct an FFA for NOX controls on
the facility's emission units to ensure that the State requires a
reasonable range of controls to make progress.
Response 21: For the reasons stated in Response 2 and Response 3,
EPA disagrees with the Commenters. In the Haze Plan, GA EPD evaluated
IP-Savannah's contributions to visibility impairment at Class I areas
and concluded that SO2 contributions to visibility
impairment from this facility exceeded State's AoI and PSAT screening
thresholds and that NOX contributions did not exceed the
State's screening thresholds. Therefore, IP-Savannah was selected for
an SO2 FFA but not for a NOX FFA. As discussed in
Response 3, Georgia's approach was reasonable and complies with the
RHR.
Comment 22: The Commenters assert that EPA ignores that the IP-
Savannah title V permit that Georgia proposes to incorporate into its
SIP does not include necessary reporting requirements. The Commenters
argue that IP-Savannah's permit, as reproduced in EPA's docket, only
includes provisions requiring the facility to ``measure and record''
information reflecting fuel use for the No. 13 Power Boiler. The permit
makes reference to a requirement that IP-Savannah report its excess
emissions, exceedances, or excursions in accordance with ``the report
required in Condition 6.1.4'' of the permit. However, the Commenters
state that the permit does not contain Condition 6.1.4, and therefore
the provisions EPA proposes to incorporate into the SIP do not include
necessary reporting provisions and do not meet the requirements of the
CAA or RHR.
Response 22: Permit condition 6.1.7, as incorporated, requires IP-
Savannah to report excess emissions, exceedances, or excursions in
accordance with permit condition 6.1.4, as it relates to the burning of
coal in the No. 13 Power Boiler. Permit condition 6.1.4 requires IP-
Savannah to submit a written report each quarter that contains any
excess emissions, exceedances, or excursions, and any monitor
malfunctions during each quarterly reporting period. If none of these
occurred, IP-Savannah must still submit a report stating that there
were no excess emissions, exceedances, excursions, or monitor
malfunctions during the quarterly reporting period. Condition 6.1.4
exists in a federally enforceable title V permit and is also referenced
in the portions of the permit being approved into the SIP.
Comment 23: The Commenters assert that EPA ignores that Georgia's
SIP does not address measures necessary to prevent future impairment as
is required at Class I areas by the CAA and RHR. The Commenters contend
that EPA has historically relied on new source permitting programs,
``like the [PSD] and [NSR] programs,'' to address the CAA's prevention
of future impairment mandate, but these programs ``have changed
dramatically over the decades.'' The Commenters state that current PSD
rules, as well as the nonattainment NSR rules, now exempt many
modifications at existing major sources that were previously subject to
PSD review. As a result, the Commenters state that the PSD and NSR
rules do not provide as comprehensive Class I area visibility
protections as they previously did. The Commenters thus contend that it
is imperative that Georgia's LTS include measures to prevent future
visibility impairment from new sources, as well as new modifications at
existing sources of haze pollution.
More specifically, the Commenters assert that Georgia does not
discuss anywhere in its SIP revision (1) the programs it has in place
to address any potential future increases in emissions or (2) any
pending air permit applications for sources that may contribute to
future impairment at Class
[[Page 92061]]
I areas in Georgia or other states. As an example, the Commenters state
that Georgia is currently reviewing a permit application and draft
permit from Twin Pines Minerals which proposes to locate a mine just
three miles from Okefenokee. Although Twin Pines Minerals' permit
application indicates that the mine's emissions would be relatively
low, the Commenters state that the application is missing information
on emission sources and potential emission levels. As a result, the
Commenters state that it is nearly impossible for the public to
determine exactly what kind of impact the proposed mine may have on air
quality at Okefenokee. The Commenters state that the SIP revision does
not address this facility, or any other proposed new sources or
modifications. They assert that this underscores the need for the State
to address measures to prevent future impairment to ensure that it is
meeting the CAA's natural visibility goal. Furthermore, they state that
nowhere in EPA's proposed approval does the Agency acknowledge or
address the fact that Georgia's SIP revision entirely omits any
discussion of measures to prevent future impairment. Finally, they
contend that EPA's proposal to approve Georgia's SIP is therefore
arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the CAA and RHR.
Response 23: Contrary to the Commenters' assertions, there is no
requirement in the CAA or for states' second planning period regional
haze plans to assess and/or adopt emission reduction measures into the
SIP for hypothetical new emissions sources that do not yet exist (e.g.,
those which have not yet been constructed and/or are not yet in
operation) to prevent future visibility impairment at Class I areas.
Nor do the Commenters cite to legal authority suggesting that the CAA
or RHR require this. Instead, the Commenters cite to CAA section
169A(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.300(a), and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B).
None of these statutes and regulations support the Commenters'
assertions. CAA section 169A(a)(1) states the ``national goal''
underlying the regional haze program ``the prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' In support of this goal, Congress required EPA to
``promulgate regulations to assure (A) reasonable progress toward
meeting the national goal specified in paragraph (1), and (B)
compliance with the requirements of this section.'' EPA has done so by
promulgating the RHR, which the Commenters also cite to. 40 CFR
51.300(a), cited by the Commenters, is entitled ``Purpose and
applicability'' and restates the national goal from CAA section
169A(a)(1). This provision, while providing important context to the
RHR, contains no independent requirements that states must meet and
therefore does not support the Commenters' position.
The remaining citation to the RHR provided by the Commenters, 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), similarly does not support the Commenters'
position. That provision states in full as follows: ``The State must
consider the following additional factors in developing its long-term
strategy: Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities.'' Contrary to the Commenters' assertions, Georgia plainly
addressed this requirement in its Haze Plan. See Haze Plan, at p. 221
(noting that ``Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities'' are addressed in Section 7.9.2 of the Haze Plan); see also
Haze Plan Section 7.9.2 (discussing ``Dust and Fine Soil from
Construction Activities'').
At bottom, the RHR addresses ``the prevention of any future''
visibility impairment by ensuring that reasonable progress measures are
adopted into states' SIPs. In this way, the RHR renders such measures
permanent, which necessarily prevents future visibility impairment from
those emission sources. Because neither the CAA nor RHR requires
further measures to address future construction, the Commenters'
comments regarding the Twin Pines Minerals permit are acknowledged, but
are not relevant.
Comment 24: The Commenters argue that EPA's proposal to approve
Georgia's RPGs violate the CAA and RHR. The Commenters maintain that in
EPA's SIP planning sequence, states first identify their LTS controls,
which is followed by the development of RPGs. However, the Commenters
contend that EPA fails to acknowledge that Georgia's established RPGs
for its three in-state Class I areas are based on VISTAS modeling
results which were conducted in 2020. They comment this was completed
before conducting FFAs or finalizing the State's LTS controls in 2022.
Therefore, the Commenters assert that Georgia impermissibly reversed
the SIP planning sequence and that Georgia's RPGs are based on modeling
results which do not meet the RHR requirement that RPGs must be based
on enforceable SIP measures. The Commenters argue that Georgia's
response to comments ignored the problems raised regarding the RPGs and
that Georgia's response that the State's RPGs ``are representative of
all known control measures necessary to make reasonable progress'' is
unfounded.
Additionally, the Commenters assert that Georgia ``cherry-picked''
a statement from EPA's 2019 Guidance in response to the concerns
raised, i.e., EPA's statement that states may conduct modeling to
establish RPGs before ``the outcome of some final state decisions on
emission control measures [are] known.'' The Commenters state Georgia
ignored other parts of EPA's 2019 Guidance explaining that if a state
conducted modeling for RPGs before finalizing LTS control
determinations, the state must adjust its RPGs to reconcile the
scenarios before the SIP revision with the RPGs is submitted. The
Commenters argue that nothing in Georgia's SIP revision or EPA's
proposal indicates that Georgia made adjustments to its RPGs after its
FFA and finalizing its LTS, which the Commenters argue is contrary to
EPA's 2019 Guidance. Thus, the Commenters contend that EPA must not
approve Georgia's RPGs for its three Class I areas and must require
that Georgia adjust those goals to properly reflect enforceable
emission limitations adopted in the LTS portion of Georgia's SIP.
Response 24: EPA disagrees that Georgia's RPGs must be disapproved
on the basis that they do not reflect any new measures resulting from
the three FFAs. EPA reiterates that the process for establishing RPGs
for each Class I area is prescribed in the RHR and its amendments and
discussed in related guidance.72 73 74 The RPGs established
by the states with Class I areas are not directly enforceable but will
be considered by the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the
measures in the implementation plan in providing for reasonable
progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions at that area.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). As explained in footnote 34 of the NPRM
of the Georgia Haze Plan, RPGs are intended to reflect the projected
impacts of the measures all contributing
[[Page 92062]]
states include in their LTS. However, due to the timing of analyses,
control determinations by other states, and other ongoing emissions
changes, a particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures
and emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See 40 CFR 51.308; 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999; and 82 FR
3078, January 10, 2017.
\73\ See ``Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
for the Second Implementation Period'' available at: www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
\74\ See ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period''
available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air quality modeling to calculate RPGs is resource
intensive and time consuming, EPA does not always expect the modeling
to be repeated after a subsequent change in the content of a state's
own LTS or another state's LTS that impacts the host state's Class I
area(s). 2019 Guidance at 47-48.
Adjustment of the RPGs once modeling is completed to reflect new
FFA outcomes is not required. However, the 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when
states are developing their LTS on disparate schedules and for
adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. The outcome of a state's
source selection process and subsequent evaluation of technically
feasible and cost-effective emissions controls as part of FFAs
determine what constitutes the state's LTS for that particular planning
period. If a state's source selection process and evaluation of
technically feasible and cost-effective controls results in a LTS that
includes the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, then
the requirements of the RHR are satisfied for that planning period. Any
additional emissions reductions resulting from new FFA measures not
included in the 2028 RPGs serve to provide further assurance that the
State's Class I areas and those areas affected by the State's sources
will achieve their 2028 RPGs.
Comment 25: The Commenters assert that EPA's proposal to approve
Georgia's state-to-state consultations violates the CAA and RHR. They
specifically mention EPA's 2017 amendments to the RHR stating ``states
must exchange their four factor analyses and the associated technical
information that was developed in the course of devising their long-
term strategies.''
The Commenters contend that EPA treats the consultation process as
a box-checking exercise. Additionally, they argue that EPA's proposal
and TSD only recites what Georgia provided regarding its consultation,
without conducting an independent analysis, and that EPA only mentioned
that Georgia documented its consultation with other states. The
Commenters assert that Georgia failed to independently assess whether
additional controls on out-of-state sources are needed to achieve
reasonable progress. Therefore, both Georgia and EPA will need to
independently evaluate all information in the record, as well as
provide an explanation for their final determinations.
The Commenters state that Georgia recognizes that sources from
other states are projected to impact visibility in Georgia's Class I
areas, and the State requested FFAs from Florida, South Carolina,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. However, the
Commenters state that few of the out-of-state sources are adopting new
control measures as a result of the FFAs. Furthermore, the Commenters
assert that Georgia failed to critically evaluate whether additional
controls are warranted from out-of-state sources to ensure reasonable
progress.
The Commenters assert that EPA must require that Pennsylvania
optimize or upgrade controls at the Keystone Generating Station
(Keystone Station). The Commenters state that the Keystone Station is
not exempt from an FFA simply because it has systems (FGD and SCR) in
place that meet the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule.
Additionally, the Commenters contend that the scrubbers currently in
place are underperforming and do not achieve at least 95 percent
control efficiency, let alone the 98 percent control efficiency that a
modern wet scrubber system is capable of continuously achieving. The
Commenters state that of the control measures that Keystone Station did
consider in FFA, running one more level of recycle pumps would be cost-
effective ($413/ton of NOX), and must be required. The
Commenters argue that modern SCR systems have been shown to operate at
an average monthly NOX emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or
lower, whereas the current SCR systems in Units 1 and 2 of the Keystone
Station in 2019 have higher NOX emissions rates of 0.104 and
0.103 lb/MMBtu, respectively. In response to the Keystone Station's
assertion that optimization of the current SCR systems will be
addressed in a future case-by-case NOX reasonably available
control technology (RACT) analysis, the Commenters contend that a
future RACT analysis is not an offramp from the regional haze
requirements that apply now. Furthermore, the Commenters argue that the
outcome of the RACT analysis will likely be different and less
stringent because the analysis applies a different set of factors.
Therefore, the Commenters assert that EPA must require Pennsylvania to
direct the Keystone Station to evaluate additional cost-effective
control measures, and the agency must ensure that the accuracy of cost-
effectiveness arguments regarding the new controls are supported and
documented.
The Commenters also assert EPA must require that Ohio direct the
Gavin Power Plant (Plant Gavin) to optimize or upgrade controls. The
Commenters argue that Ohio failed to show that NOX emissions
from Plant Gavin are effectively controlled since the State did not
show that an FFA for NOX control on the facility would be
futile. Furthermore, the Commenters contend that nothing in the RHR
itself permits the states to exclude sources from an FFA on the basis
that they are ``effectively controlled.'' Moreover, the Commenters
argue that Plant Gavin's FFA of SO2 controls contain errors,
and that there are feasible and cost-effective controls available that
can reduce SO2 emissions from the facility. The Commenters
maintain that because Plant Gavin likely contributes to the impairment
to both Georgia's and Ohio's Class I areas, EPA must require Ohio to
perform an FFA of NOX controls and implement available and
cost-effective SO2 controls for Plant Gavin.
The Commenters further assert that EPA cannot approve Georgia's
consultation with Indiana. The Commenters state that Georgia disagreed
with Indiana's response to not require FFAs from its EGUs (including
Gibston Station and AEP Rockport Generating Station), and Georgia's
consultation record is incomplete because ``there is no record of the
Indiana disagreement in the Georgia SIP.'' If Georgia does disagree
with Indiana, the Commenters argue that 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) would
apply, which requires Georgia to ``describe the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement'' and EPA ``take this information into
account.'' The Commenters assert that EPA cannot approve of Georgia's
state-to-state consultation because Georgia has not adequately
documented its disagreement and resolution of the disagreement with
Indiana, which the Commenters state is in violation of the CAA and the
RHR.
Response 25: 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides that a ``State must
consult with those States that have emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory
Class I Federal area to develop coordinated emission management
strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to make
reasonable progress.'' If the state disagrees, the state must describe
the actions taken to resolve the disagreement (40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C)).
[[Page 92063]]
Consultation may include efforts to reach agreement on the
measures that each state will apply to its sources, or agreement on
decision thresholds and other decision approaches, but it does not
require such effort by any state and does not require that
agreements be reached. If neither consulting state has sought an
agreement about measures to be included in their SIP revision,
neither state is required to include in its implementation plan the
description mentioned in this requirement. However, if one state has
formally asked another state to adopt a particular measure for a
particular source, and the second state has not adopted that measure
and also has not adopted an equivalent measure(s) as described in 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A), then both states are subject to this
requirement to describe the actions taken to resolve the
disagreement. This provision does not specify that any particular
actions towards resolution be taken. If the two states submit SIP
revisions that disagree on the controls in each state that are
needed for reasonable progress, the RHR provides for EPA to consider
the technical information and explanations presented by both states
when considering whether to approve each state's SIP.
2019 Guidance, at p. 53.
EPA's review of Georgia's interstate consultation process was
hardly a box checking exercise, as EPA independently reviewed all of
the consultation documentation provided by Georgia within its Haze
Plan. Those materials are primarily contained in Appendix F of the Haze
Plan, and EPA affirms that GA EPD properly complied with 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) by consulting with Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio and requesting FFAs for
facilities located within those states with visibility impacts to
Georgia Class I areas exceeding one percent for SO2 or
NOX. Specifically, five facilities are located in Florida,
one facility is located in Kentucky, two facilities are located in
South Carolina, one facility is located in Tennessee, two facilities
are located in Indiana, two facilities are located in Ohio, and one
facility is located in Pennsylvania. Regarding Indiana specifically,
Georgia documented communications between Georgia and Indiana in
Appendix F-2b of the Haze Plan, and on pages 243-244 of the Haze Plan
narrative, Georgia indicated that Indiana ``is not requiring 4-factor
analyses from its EGUs.'' Georgia does not explicitly state its
disagreement with Indiana, but based on the record, the states appear
to disagree based on Georgia's request for FFAs at Plant Gibson and AEP
Rockport along with Georgia's documentation within its Haze Plan that
Indiana will not be preparing FFAs for these two facilities. As noted
elsewhere in Georgia's Haze Plan, AEP Rockport's SO2 impact
on visibility at Cohutta is 4.68 percent, and Plant Gibson's
SO2 impact on visibility at Cohutta is 2.31 percent. In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), Georgia has adequately
documented its position and Indiana's position, including in a letter
VISTAS sent to Indiana on behalf of Georgia dated June 22, 2020,
requesting FFAs for these facilities, as well in follow-up emails. See
Haze Plan, Appendix F-2b.
In regards to the Commenters' contention that EPA must require
controls at facilities outside of Georgia in this action on Georgia's
regional haze SIP, this action is not the appropriate forum to submit
such comments. To the extent that Commenters have concerns about
facilities outside of Georgia, such as those facilities in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, any public comments related to out-of-
state sources should be provided during the public comment periods
regarding those states' haze plans. Georgia lacks authority to regulate
these out-of-state sources, and therefore EPA cannot require other
states to implement control measures through the Georgia regional haze
SIP.
Comment 26: The Commenters assert that EPA must disapprove
Georgia's SIP because the State failed to engage in meaningful FLM
consultation. The Commenters state that while Georgia did summarize and
respond to the FLMs' comments, it did not meaningfully consider or
incorporate the suggestions into the SIP. The Commenters contend that
``[c]ontrary to the CAA and RHR, Georgia treated the consultation as a
box-checking exercise'' and released the draft of the SIP revision for
public comments only two days after it closed the formal consultation
with FLMs. The Commenters argue that Georgia made only minor edits to
the SIP based upon the FLMs' comments and did not fully respond to the
many concerns raised. Some concerns included screening thresholds that
led to very few Georgia sources for analysis, exclusion of
NOX from FFAs, lack of FFAs for multiple facilities (Plant
Wansley, Plant Scherer, the Rome Linerboard Mill, Brunswick Cellulose,
and IP-Savannah), concerns about the FFA for SO2 at Plant
Bowen, and concerns about the VISTA modeling approach. Therefore, the
Commenters assert that EPA must reject Georgia's SIP revision on that
basis that the State failed to meet the CAA's and RHR's requirement to
``engage in meaningful FLM consultation.'' Additionally, the Commenters
argue that because EPA must disapprove of Georgia's source selection
method, FFA, and RPGs, the Agency must also disapprove of Georgia's FLM
consultation on the basis that the FLM consultation was based upon a
SIP revision that did not meet the statutory and regulatory
requirements of the CAA and RHR.
Response 26: The FLMs play important roles in addressing visibility
at Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires states to include a
description of how they address any comments provided by the FLMs.
However, neither the CAA nor the RHR requires the state to agree with
the FLM recommendations, nor do they specify the degree of
consideration that must be given to those comments. Rather, 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3) requires the State to ``include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land Managers.''
Georgia complied with this requirement by documenting how it
addressed the FLMs' comments in 21 pages of single-spaced responses to
the FLMs' comments contained within Appendix H-4a of its Haze Plan. The
Commenters do not identify any specific FLM comments that Georgia did
not respond to. EPA reviewed GA EPD's responses and finds that they
comply with the RHR requirement to describe how the state addressed
comments provided by the FLMs. EPA thus disagrees with the Commenters
that GA EPD did not fully respond to the FLMs' comments.
The timing of this consultation was also compliant with the RHR.
FLM-State consultation must take place at least 60 days prior to the
state public comment period on any haze plan or plan revision pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). GA EPD complied this RHR requirement by
initiating consultation with the FLMs on April 22, 2022, which was 62
days before the opening of the State's public comment period on June
24, 2022. In addition, GA EPD met with NPS upon request on June 14,
2022, to discuss NPS' feedback in more detail.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ FWS, FS, and EPA representatives were also in attendance at
the June 14, 2022, Georgia-NPS consultation meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 27: The Commenters assert that EPA must consider the
environmental justice (EJ) impacts of Georgia's SIP revision. The
Commenters state that EPA states it can ignore EJ implications of
Georgia's SIP revision, and that the Agency contravenes directives from
the current presidential administration, as well as EPA's commitments
and action plans. The Commenters contend that EPA cannot argue to
prioritize EJ while also disavowing any need to consider the
disproportionate impacts of haze pollution sources in Georgia and its
own actions on Georgia's SIP revision.
[[Page 92064]]
The Commenters assert that executive orders (EOs), as well as EPA's
own commitments and action plans direct the Agency to consider EJ
implications. The Commenters state that EOs in place since 1994 require
EPA to incorporate EJ as ``part of its mission by identifying and
addressing . . . disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities,'' which
they argue to be applicable to regional haze SIP actions on minority
populations and low-income populations. Additionally, the Commenters
argue the directive to incorporate EJ into all of the Agency's actions
was reaffirmed by the Biden Administration in 2021 through back-to-back
EOs directed to federal agencies, including EPA, and again in 2023 when
the Administration issued the ``Executive Order on Revitalizing Our
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The ``Executive Order on Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All'' is available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/04/21/executive-order-on-revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters state that Administrator Regan recognized that EPA
has a lead role in coordinating EJ efforts across the country and
``urged all EPA offices to take `affirmative steps to incorporate
environmental justice consideration into their work . . . in regulatory
development processes and to consider regulatory options to maximize
benefits to these communities,' '' and the Commenters argue that EPA's
Equity Action Plan \77\ issued in 2022 makes equity, EJ, and civil
right a centerpiece of the agency's regulatory work, which includes
actions on regional haze SIPs. Furthermore, the Commenters assert that
the determination of which sources to selected for an FFA and the
reasonable progress measure to require for a source should incorporate
EJ and equity into technical analyses, citing EPA's 2019 Guidance,
which specifies that ``[s]tates may also consider any beneficial non-
air quality environmental impacts,'' as well as the 2021 Clarification
Memo issued by the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, E.O. 13985 Equity Action Plan at
4-11 (Apr. 2022), see https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/epaequityactionplanapril2022508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenters contend that EPA ignores the previously mentioned
EOs, plans, and commitments when concluding that it is not required to
consider EJ impacts of pollutants that contribute to regional haze from
Georgia's sources and actions on the SIP revision. The Commenters state
that the same pollutants that affect visibility at national parks and
wilderness areas also cause significant public health impacts,
particularly those who live closest to the facilities.
Drawing from EJScreen data,\78\ the Commenters state that emissions
from sources of concern raised by NPS and the Commenters in their
comments to Georgia are likely impacting areas characterized by higher
percentages of low income and people of color. Specifically, within a
10-mile radius of Plant Bowen, the Commenters state that 32 percent of
the population are low-income and 25 percent as people of color, with
the community surround the plant in the 73rd percentile for the PM EJ
Index and 67th percentile for ozone EJ Index when compared to the rest
of the country. The Commenters state that analysis conducted by a Clean
Air Task Force, based on 2019 emissions, shows that Plant Bowen's
emissions are responsible for ``59 deaths, 7 hospital admissions, 13
asthma ER visits, 28 heart attacks, 34 cases of acute bronchitis, 637
asthma attacks, and 3020 lost work days each year.'' The Commenters
also highlight the community surrounding IP-Savannah, which they state
is 37 percent low-income and 59 percent people of color, as well as
being in the 77th percentile for the PM EJ index when compared to the
rest of the country. Additionally, the Commenters argue that the
population surrounding the Rome Linerboard Mill, a facility that
Georgia did not select or analyze in its SIP revision and EPA does not
discuss in its proposal, is comprised of 44 percent low-income and 40
percent people of color, and in the 82nd percentile for PM EJ index and
71st percentile for ozone EJ index. The Commenters contend that the
sources from the facilities identified above are likely adversely
impacting those communities and assert that EPA can and must hold
Georgia accountable to consider EJ impacts of haze pollution from in-
state sources, as well as analyze the potential disparate impacts of
its action on Georgia's SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ EJScreen, an EJ screening and mapping tool, is available
at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 27: EPA disagrees with this comment but acknowledges the
EJScreen information provided by the Commenters. The regional haze
statutory provisions do not explicitly address considerations of EJ and
neither do the regional haze regulatory requirements of the second
planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of
explicit direction does not preclude a State's SIP consideration of EJ
in its SIP submittal. As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance
Environmental Justice,'' \79\ the CAA provides states with the
discretion to consider EJ in developing rules and measures related to
regional haze. While a state may consider EJ under the reasonable
progress factors, neither the statute nor the regulation requires
states to conduct an EJ analysis for EPA to approve a SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice'',
May 2022, available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, Georgia elected not to consider EJ under the
reasonable progress factors. In Appendix H of the Haze Plan, in
response to an EJ comment received from the NPCA and Sierra Club, GA
EPD states that the purpose of the RHR is to improve visibility in the
Class I areas, not to look at health impacts from criteria pollutants
in areas outside Class I areas, which is addressed through the
implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In
addition, GA EPD notes that it has not identified any EJ communities
living in any Class I areas whose visibility would be
disproportionately impacted by GA EPD's selection of reasonable
progress controls.
As discussed in the NPRM and in this notice of final rulemaking,
EPA has evaluated Georgia's SIP submission against the statutory and
regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it satisfies
those minimum requirements. Furthermore, the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation of EJ with a regional haze SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is
finalizing the incorporation by reference into Georgia's SIP GA EPD
Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 for Bowen Steam-Electric Generating
Plant (State effective September 6, 2023), GA EPD Permit No. 2631-051-
0007-V-04-1 for International Paper--Savannah (State effective October
20, 2023), and GA EPD Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3 for Brunswick
Cellulose LLC (State effective October 25, 2023). EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
[[Page 92065]]
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving Georgia's August 11, 2022, SIP submission as
satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning
period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). Thus, EPA is adopting into
Georgia's SIP GA EPD Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 for Bowen Steam-
Electric Generating Plant, GA EPD Permit No. 2631-051-0007-V-04-1 for
International Paper--Savannah, and GA EPD Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-
07-3 for Brunswick Cellulose LLC.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rulemaking does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with EJ concerns to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that
affect human health and the environment.
Georgia EPD did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2025. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: November 14, 2024.
Cesar Zapata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart L--Georgia
0
2. In Sec. 52.570(d), amend ``Table 2 to Paragraph (d)'' by adding
entries for ``Bowen Steam-Electric Generating Plant'', ``International
Paper-Savannah'', and ``Brunswick Cellulose LLC'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.570 Identification of plan.
(d) * * *
[[Page 92066]]
Table 2 to Paragraph (d)--EPA-Approved Georgia Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective EPA approval date Comments
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Bowen Steam-Electric Generating 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 9/6/2023 11/21/2024, .................
Plant. [Insert first
page of Federal
Register
citation].
International Paper--Savannah.. 2631-051-0007-V-04-1 10/20/2023 11/21/2024, .................
[Insert first
page of Federal
Register
citation].
Brunswick Cellulose LLC........ 2631-127-0003-V-07-3 10/24/2023 11/21/2024, In Condition
[Insert first 6.2.52, the
page of Federal phrase ``shall
Register use emissions
citation]. factors'' means
``shall use an
emissions factor
of 157 S lb/
Mgal.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.570(e), amend the table by adding an entry for
``Regional Haze Plan--Second Planning Period'' at the end of the table
to read as follows:
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State submittal
provision nonattainment date/effective EPA approval date Explanation
area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan--Second Georgia.......... 8/11/22 11/21/2024, ......................
Planning Period. [Insert first
page of Federal
Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-26977 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P