Proposed Rule2025-14476
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Second Planning Period Regional Haze Plan
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 31, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) dated March 3, 2022, as satisfying the applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second planning period. South Carolina's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies 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. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second planning period of the regional haze program. EPA is proposing this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 145 (Thursday, July 31, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 145 (Thursday, July 31, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36005-36023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0367; FRL-10406-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Second Planning Period
Regional Haze Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) dated March 3, 2022, as satisfying the applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional
Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second planning period. South
Carolina's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must
periodically revise their long-term strategies 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. The SIP
submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second
planning period of the regional haze program. EPA is proposing this
action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 29,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0367, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full
[[Page 36006]]
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit <a href="http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Bloemer, Multi-Air Pollutant
Coordination 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. Mr. Bloemer can be
reached via telephone at (404) 562-9653 or electronic mail at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c082acafa5ada5b2ee8da1b4b4a8a5b780a5b0a1eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f4d63606a626a7d21426e7b7b676a784f6a7f6e21686079">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning
Period
A. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
B. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the RPGs
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM)
Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of South Carolina's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Planning Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP
C. LTS for Regional Haze
D. RPGs
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward
the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On March 3, 2022, South Carolina DHEC \1\ submitted a revision to
its SIP to address regional haze for the second planning period (Haze
Plan). South Carolina DHEC made the SIP submission to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina's Haze Plan as satisfying applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On July 1, 2024, DHEC was restructured into a health agency,
the Department of Public Health, and an environmental agency, the
Department of Environmental Services (DES). In a letter dated June
20, 2024, South Carolina represented to EPA that all the functions,
powers, and duties of the environmental divisions, offices, and
programs of DHEC, including the authority to administer and enforce
state implementation plans, are retained and continued in full force
and effect under DES. The letter is in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking. The state agency will simply be referred to as the State
or South Carolina for the remainder of this document.
\2\ In a letter dated August 15, 2022, EPA found that South
Carolina's Haze Plan meets the completeness criteria outlined in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V. A completeness determination does not
constitute a finding on the merits of the submission or whether it
meets the relevant criteria for SIP approval. The August 15, 2022,
letter is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is
provided in prior EPA proposal actions.\3\ For additional background on
the 2017 RHR revisions, please refer to Section III. Overview of
Visibility Protection Statutory Authority, Regulation, and
Implementation of ``Protection of Visibility: Amendments to
Requirements for State Plans'' of the 2017 RHR.\4\ The following is an
abbreviated history and background of the regional haze program and
2017 RHR as it applies to the current proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 90 FR 13516 (March 24, 2025).
\4\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017), located at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/10/2017-00268/protection-of-visibility-amendments-to-requirements-for-State-plans#h-16">www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/10/2017-00268/protection-of-visibility-amendments-to-requirements-for-State-plans#h-16</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\5\ See CAA
section 169A. The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' See CAA section 169A(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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. See
CAA section 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter, PM<INF>2.5</INF>), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric defined and used by the RHR. Under many
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived by the
human eye to be the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to
its being scattered and absorbed as it passes through the
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used
for expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>). See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. See CAA section 169A(b)(2); \7\ see also 40
CFR 51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative
regional haze SIP revisions); 64 FR at 35768 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 FR
3078) that apply for the second and subsequent planning periods. The
reasonable progress requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking
(referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR
51.308(f).
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and
[[Page 36007]]
the emissions that impact visibility in those areas. To address
regional haze, states need to develop strategies in coordination with
one another, considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction
on the air quality in another. Five regional planning organizations
(RPOs),\8\ which include representation from state and Tribal
governments, EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first
planning period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from state and Tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants
leading to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation
requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one
of the five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
and local agencies and Tribal governments established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeast. SESARM's
coalition to conduct regional haze work is referred to as Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\9\
The member states, local air agencies, and Tribal governments of VISTAS
are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the local air
agencies, represented by the President of Metro 4 or designee; \10\ and
the Tribes located within the VISTAS region, represented by the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner members of VISTAS are
EPA, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The technical analyses for the development of the Haze Plan
were conducted by VISTAS under SESARM and they are available at this
website: <a href="https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program">https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program</a>.
\10\ Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which represents the
local air pollution control agencies in EPA's Region 4 in the
Southeast. See <a href="https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us">https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us</a>.
\11\ The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively referred to as the
``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
planning period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each
state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy (LTS) for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what
constitutes their LTSs, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps
in the reasonable progress analysis \12\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that the Agency was
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' See 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas
within the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in
which visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are
the Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state
must then calculate the baseline (five-year average period of 2000-
2004, current), and natural visibility conditions (i.e., visibility
conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area,
as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the ``uniform
rate of progress'' (URP). The URP 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. This linear interpolation is used as a tracking
metric to help states assess the amount of progress they are making
towards the national visibility goal over time in each Class I area.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop an LTS that includes the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable progress determination
is based on applying the four factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to
sources of visibility impairing pollutants that the state has selected
to assess for controls for the second planning period.
Additionally, as further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors'' \13\
that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential emission reduction
measures for those selected sources and determines which are necessary
to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then incorporated into
the state's LTS. After a state has developed its LTS, it then
establishes RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling
the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end
of the second planning period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of
other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress
controls not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is
located, but also for sources in other states that contribute to
visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the
baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is
being made towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and
remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I
areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3). There are additional
requirements in the rule, including FLM consultation, that apply to all
visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR
51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
While states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second planning
period.\14\ This is accomplished
[[Page 36008]]
by considering the four factors--``the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any existing source subject to such requirements.'' See CAA section
169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the four-factor analysis (FFA) is an
assessment of potential emission reduction measures (i.e., control
options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance' and `subject to
such requirements' in CAA section 169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that
Congress intended the relevant determination to be the requirements
with which sources would have to comply in order to satisfy the CAA's
reasonable progress mandate.'' See 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for each source
a state has selected for an FFA,\15\ it must consider a ``meaningful
set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. See CAA section 169A(g)(1). However, in addition
to four-factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a state may also consider additional emission
reduction measures for inclusion in its LTS, e.g., from other newly
adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for sources
not selected for FFA for the second planning period.
\15\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' See 82
FR at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, states have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.\16\ Ultimately, while states have discretion to
reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is
needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state ``must include in
its implementation plan a description of how the four factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in its
long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186,
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's LTS and in its SIP. If the outcome of an FFA is
that an emissions reduction measure is necessary to make reasonable
progress towards remedying existing or preventing future anthropogenic
visibility impairment, that measure must be included in the SIP.
The characterization of information on each of the factors is also
subject to the documentation requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The reasonable progress analysis is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and EPA can comprehend and evaluate
the information and analysis the state relied upon to determine what
emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable
progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling,
monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the
state relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \17\ that states must consider in
developing their LTSs: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably
attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts
of construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. If a
state, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures (e.g., a
certain emission limitation) are necessary to make reasonable progress
at a Class I area, it must include those measures in its SIP. See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). Additionally, the RHR requires that states
that contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I area
consider the emission reduction measures the other contributing states
have identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress for
their own sources. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been
asked to consider or adopt certain emission reduction measures, but
ultimately determines those measures are not necessary to make
reasonable progress, that state must document in its SIP the actions
taken to resolve the disagreement. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
Under all circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission
all substantive consultations with other contributing states. See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
B. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
RPGs ``measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the
control measures states have determined are necessary to make
reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.'' See 82 FR at
3091. For the second planning period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs
are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While states are
not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.''
RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making toward the national visibility goal. To
support this approach, the RHR requires states with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if
visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the
baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064).
If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if
visibility conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described
by the URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based on the FFA required under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction measures
would be reasonable to include in its LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii).
To this end, 40 CFR
[[Page 36009]]
51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state contributing to visibility
impairment in a Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly
than the URP provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting
the criteria used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources
were evaluated and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i)
were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion
in its long-term strategy.''
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this section apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. Compliance with the monitoring strategy
requirement may be met through a state's participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv).
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas, as well as a statewide inventory documenting
such emissions. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii), (v). All states'
SIPs must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the
RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first planning period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and EPA about a state's
implementation of its existing LTS and whether such implementation is
in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR
26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), 82 FR 3119 (January 10, 2017). To this end,
every state's implementation plan revision for the second planning
period is required to assess changes in visibility conditions and
describe the status of implementation of all measures included in the
state's LTS, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first planning period, and the resulting emissions
reductions. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that states ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For EPA to evaluate whether
FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has occurred, the
SIP submission should include documentation of the timing and content
of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to EPA must also
describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. See
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA's Evaluation of South Carolina's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Planning Period
On March 3, 2022, South Carolina submitted a revision to the South
Carolina SIP to address the State's regional haze obligations for the
second planning period, which runs through 2028, in accordance with CAA
section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f).\18\ The following
sections contain EPA's evaluation of South Carolina's Haze Plan with
respect to the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second planning
period of the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of South
Carolina's first planning period regional haze plan submitted to EPA
dated December 17, 2007 (77 FR 38509). On June 7, 2012, EPA
finalized a limited disapproval of the State's December 17, 2007,
submission and promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) with reliance on the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (77 FR 33642). On September 24, 2018, EPA
converted the limited approval/limited disapproval of South
Carolina's first period regional haze plan, as amended on September
5, 2017, to a full approval and removed the FIP for South Carolina
which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR (83 FR
48237). On October 12, 2017 (82 FR 47385), EPA approved South
Carolina's progress report for the first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina has one Class I area, Cape Romain National
Wilderness Area (Cape Romain). The following sections describe South
Carolina's Haze Plan, including analyses conducted by VISTAS and South
Carolina's determinations based on those analyses, South Carolina's
assessment of progress made since the first planning period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at its Class I area and nearby Class I areas. This
document also contains EPA's evaluation of South Carolina's Haze Plan
against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second planning
period of the regional haze program.
A. Identification of Class I Areas
1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each
state in which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR
implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which
provides that each state's plan ``must address regional haze in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State,'' and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
which requires each state's plan to include an LTS that addresses
regional haze in such Class I areas. To develop a state's LTS, a state
must first determine which Class I areas may be affected by its own
emissions. Out-of-state Class I area visibility impacts on a statewide
basis are discussed in Section IV.A.2 below and impacts on a source-
[[Page 36010]]
specific basis are discussed in Section IV.C.2 below.
2. State Assessment: To address 40 CFR 51.308(f), South Carolina
identified Class I areas affected by South Carolina's statewide
emissions of the visibility impairing pollutants \19\ and then
consulted with states with Class I areas affected by South Carolina
statewide emissions. Specifically, South Carolina presented the results
of Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) \20\
modeling which VISTAS conducted to estimate the projected impact of
statewide SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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.\21\ In Table 10-3 of the Haze Plan, South Carolina identified
the top 10 Class I areas outside of South Carolina impacted by the
State's projected 2028 emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>,
provided South Carolina's percent contributions to each Class I area,
and ranked the areas by absolute impact in in Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>.\22\
South Carolina's top three highest sulfate plus nitrate impairment
impacts to out-of-state Class I areas are: Wolf Island National
Wilderness Area (Wolf Island) (1.38 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>); Okefenokee
National Wilderness Area (Okefenokee) (1.15 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>); and
Cohutta National Wilderness Area (Cohutta) (0.59 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>) in
Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The primary visibility impairing pollutants are
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and direct PM. Anthropogenic sources
of VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> do not contribute significantly to
regional haze in Class I areas affected by the VISTAS states,
including South Carolina.
\20\ PSAT is Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology,
which is an option in the photochemical visibility impact modeling
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to track the fate of both
primary and secondary PM. PSAT allows emissions to be tracked
(``tagged'') for individual facilities as well as various
combinations of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of each of the tagged
sources or groups of sources to the total visibility impacts.
\21\ South Carolina did not include primary PM (directly
emitted) data in this analysis because the PSAT analyses performed
by VISTAS tagged statewide emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> and did not tag primary PM emissions in the analysis
after concluding that emissions of the PM precursors SO<INF>2</INF>
and NO<INF>X</INF>, particularly from point sources, are projected
to have the largest impact on visibility impairment in 2028 and that
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> are the most significant
visibility impairing pollutants from controllable anthropogenic
sources.
\22\ See Table 10-3 on p. 211 of the Haze Plan. Table 10-3
includes South Carolina's statewide impacts on the State's Class I
area for comparison only. See also Figure 10-1 on p. 212 of the Haze
Plan providing the 2028 projected relative contribution to sulfate
and nitrate visibility impairment from SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from all anthropogenic and natural sources
for Class I areas in and outside of the VISTAS region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding South Carolina's consultation with the states whose Class
I areas are identified in Table 10-3, South Carolina consulted with all
the VISTAS states throughout the SIP development process. In addition,
Georgia consulted with South Carolina regarding two facilities, Santee
Cooper Cross Generating Station (Cross) and WestRock Charleston Kraft,
LLC (WestRock-Charleston),\23\ that potentially impact Wolf Island and
Okefenokee in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ WestRock-Charleston was formerly known as Kapstone
Charleston Kraft, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that South Carolina
adequately addressed the elements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) regarding
identification of its statewide visibility impacts to Class I areas
outside of the State and consultation with states with Class I areas
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility due to South Carolina's emissions. The State's
approach of focusing on SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> impacts from
South Carolina is reasonable on the basis that for current visibility
conditions evaluated for the 2014-2018 period, ammonium sulfate is the
dominant visibility impairing pollutant at most of the VISTAS Class I
areas followed by organic carbon and ammonium nitrate (depending on the
area).\24\ VISTAS focused on controllable emissions from point sources,
and thus, initially considered impacts from sulfates and nitrates on
regional haze at Class I areas affected by VISTAS states. EPA finds
that South Carolina adequately identified Class I areas outside of
South Carolina that may be affected by emissions from within the State
and consulted with affected states because the State analyzed its
statewide sulfate and nitrate contributions to total visibility
impairment at out-of-state Class I areas in Table 10-3 of the Haze
Plan; all of the Class I areas identified in Table 10-3 have 2028 RPGs
on the 20 percent most impaired days below the URP; and the State
completed consultation with VISTAS via the RPO processes and, in some
cases, on a state-to-state basis and documented those consultations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Figures 2-8 and 2-9 of the Haze Plan for the VISTAS
Class I areas. See also Sections IV.C.2.a and IV.C.3.a of this
document including Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to
determine the following for ``each mandatory Class I Federal area
located within the State'': baseline visibility conditions for the
clearest days and most impaired days, natural visibility conditions for
clearest days and most impaired days, progress to date for the clearest
days and most impaired days, the differences between current visibility
conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP. This section
also provides the option for states to propose adjustments to the URP
line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts from
anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or the impacts from
wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, specified
objectives. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
2. State Assessment: In the Haze Plan, South Carolina presents the
baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) in Table 2-3; current
visibility conditions (2014-2018) in Table 2-5; and natural visibility
conditions in Table 2-2 for the 20 percent clearest days and 20 percent
most impaired days in deciviews for Cape Romain, as shown in Table 1
below, and surrounding Class I areas.
Table 1--Baseline, Current and Natural Visibility Conditions in South Carolina's Class I Area
[dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Current Natural
Baseline most Current most Natural most
Class I area clearest impaired clearest impaired clearest impaired
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Romain....................... 14.29 25.25 11.80 17.67 5.93 9.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36011]]
South Carolina also calculated the actual progress made for Cape
Romain toward natural visibility conditions since the baseline period
(current minus baseline), and the additional progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions from current conditions (natural minus
current), in deciviews, as shown in Table 2-6 (for the 20 percent most
impaired days) and Table 2-7 (for the 20 percent clearest days) for
Cape Romain. See Table 2, below.
Table 2--Actual Progress for Visibility Conditions in South Carolina's Class I Area
[dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current minus Current minus Natural minus Natural minus
Class I area baseline for baseline for most current for clearest current for most
clearest 20% impaired 20% 20% impaired 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Romain -2.49 -7.58 -5.87 -7.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Figure 3-1 of the Haze Plan provides the URP on the
20 percent most impaired days for Cape Romain. The URP was developed
using EPA guidance \25\ and used data collected from the IMPROVE
monitoring network which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. Cape Romain is projected to be below the 2028 URP
value for the second planning period based on modeling done by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.'' EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(December 20, 2018), available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing to find that South Carolina's
Haze Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) because the
State provided for Cape Romain: baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions for the 20 percent clearest days and most
impaired days; progress to date for the 20 percent clearest days and
most impaired days; differences between the current visibility
conditions and natural visibility conditions; and the URP.
C. LTS for Regional Haze
1. RHR Requirement: Each state having a Class I area within its
borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must
develop an LTS for making reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). After considering the
four statutory factors, all measures that are determined to be
necessary to make reasonable progress must be in the LTS. In developing
its LTS, a state must also consider the five additional factors in 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable progress
determinations, the state must describe the criteria used to determine
which sources or group of sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to
FFA) for the second planning period and how the four factors were taken
into consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for FFAs and to satisfy the
documentation requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has
performed source selection and/or FFAs (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Sections 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress. The documentation requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states may meet their obligations to
document the technical bases on which they are relying to determine the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress through an RPO, as long as the process has been ``approved by
all State participants.''
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period for
newly submitted data.
2. State Assessment: To develop South Carolina's LTS, the State set
criteria to identify sources to evaluate for potential controls using
the four factors outlined in Section III.A, selected sources based on
those criteria, considered the four factors for the selected sources,
and evaluated the five additional factors at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i), South Carolina, through VISTAS, used a two-step source
selection process: (1) Area of Influence (AoI) analysis, and (2) PSAT
\26\ modeling. Both sulfates and nitrates were considered in the source
selection process. Sources that met the State's AoI threshold \27\ were
tagged for PSAT modeling. Sources that met the State's PSAT threshold
were then selected for an emissions control analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical modeling which
quantifies individual facility visibility impacts to an area. See
footnote 20. South Carolina applied its PSAT threshold by facility
whereas in the first planning period, the State applied the
threshold by emissions unit at selected facilities.
\27\ The AoI represents the geographical area around a Class I
area in which emissions sources located in the AoI have the
potential to contribute to visibility impairment at that Class I
area. Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then evaluated to
determine which of those sources are most likely contributing to
visibility impairment at that Class I area. VISTAS used AoI analysis
for all point source facilities in the VISTAS modeling domain to
determine the relative visibility impairment impacts at each Class I
area associated with sulfate and nitrate. The results of the
facility-level AoI analyses were then used to rank and prioritize
facilities for further evaluation via PSAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36012]]
To identify sources having the most impact on visibility at Class I
areas for PSAT modeling, South Carolina used an AoI threshold of
greater than or equal to three percent for nitrate or greater than or
equal to two percent for sulfate at Cape Romain. South Carolina also
used an AoI threshold of four percent for sulfate plus nitrate for all
sources outside of the State, but it did not identify any sources above
this threshold.\28\ Sources in South Carolina selected at the AoI
screening step for PSAT modeling are listed in Table 7-15 of the Haze
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Section 7.6.1 of the Haze Plan describes South Carolina's
AoI thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina, in coordination with the other VISTAS states, set a
PSAT threshold of greater than or equal to one percent for sulfate or
nitrate. Sources both within and outside of South Carolina that were
selected for an emissions control analysis based on the State's PSAT
threshold are listed in Tables 7-16, 7-17, and 7-18 of the Haze Plan.
Nine sources exceeded the PSAT threshold, five of which are located in
South Carolina: Century Aluminum of South Carolina Inc. (Century),
International Paper--Georgetown Mill (IP-Georgetown), Cross, Santee
Cooper Winyah Generating Station (Winyah), and WestRock-Charleston.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Century is an aluminum smelter in Goose Creek, South
Carolina. IP-Georgetown and Westrock-Charleston are pulp and paper
mills in Georgetown, South Carolina, and North Charleston, South
Carolina, respectively. Cross and Winyah are power plants in
Berkeley County, South Carolina, and Georgetown, South Carolina,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina states that the VISTAS model projections demonstrate
that ammonium sulfate is expected to remain the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant through 2028 at Cape Romain and other VISTAS Class
I areas.\30\ In Section 7.4 of the Haze Plan, South Carolina explains
the VISTAS analyses relied upon to support the State's focus on
SO<INF>2</INF> control evaluations. Additionally, Section 10.4.2 and
Appendix H-1 provide the State's responses to FLM comments regarding
the exclusion of NO<INF>X</INF> control evaluations from the FFAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Figures 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 10-2, and 10-3. Figures 2-4
through 2-3 provide 2009-2013 speciated PM data for South Carolina's
and surrounding states' Class I areas showing that ammonium sulfate
is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant. Figure 10-2 provides
speciated PM data for Cape Romain from 2010-2018 and Figure 10-3
compares ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate for the 2009-2013 vs.
2015-2019 periods for the 20 percent most impaired days at VISTAS
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although ammonium nitrate contributions to light extinction have
increased in recent years (2016-2018), South Carolina states that
sulfate is still the highest contributor to visibility impairment in
the VISTAS Class I areas. The State provided light extinction data on
the 20 percent most impaired and 20 percent clearest days for the
VISTAS (including Cape Romain) and neighboring Class I areas for the
2009-2013 modeling base period and the 2014-2018 current conditions
period and stated that ammonium sulfate continues to be the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant on the 20 percent most impaired
visibility days during the 2009-2013 period and 2014-2018 period.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Section 2.5.2 of the Haze Plan; see also Figures 2-1
through 2-3 and Figures 2-7 through 2-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Consideration of the Four Factors: South Carolina considered
each of the four CAA factors for Century, Cross, and IP-Georgetown and
described how the four factors were taken into consideration in
evaluating potential emission reduction measures. For Winyah, South
Carolina determined that there are no technically feasible control
measures beyond the existing measures to further reduce SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and thus, no new measures were evaluated using the four
factors. The following subsections summarize the State's evaluation of
these facilities. WestRock-Charleston permanently shut down after South
Carolina submitted its Haze Plan; therefore, the State's FFA for this
source is no longer relevant.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ On November 14, 2024, South Carolina sent an email to EPA
Region 4 containing a letter of air permit rescission dated April
15, 2024, for all permitted sources at the WestRock-Charleston
facility except for the Wastewater Treatment System. The November
14, 2024, email and the April 14, 2024, permit rescission letter are
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Century: The Century FFA evaluated technically feasible
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls for the Bake Oven (Unit 01) and four
Potrooms (Units 02, 03, 04, 05) at Century, as these emissions units
constitute 99.95 percent of Century's permitted SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions. The remaining emissions units at the facility were excluded
from the FFA because, combined, they contribute only 0.05 percent to
the facility's total SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Regarding the baseline
emissions used in the FFA cost calculations, Century used estimated
annual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2028 for the Bake Oven (294 tons per
year (tpy)) and the four Potrooms 02, 03, 04, and 05 (864 tpy each) for
a total of 3,750 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> for these units combined.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Table 7-21 on p. 164 of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Century FFA evaluated wet scrubbers and dry sorbent injection
(DSI) as potential SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls applicable to the
Bake Oven and the four Potrooms. Both control systems were considered
technically feasible. As shown in Table 3 below, the cost/ton of the
wet scrubber and DSI was calculated to be $7,485/ton and $10,323/ton,
respectively. These control costs are based on an interest rate of five
percent for the wet scrubber option and 5.5 percent for the DSI
option.\34\ Regarding the control efficiency assumed for each control,
Century assumed a 99 percent SO<INF>2</INF> control efficiency for the
wet scrubber option and a 90 percent SO<INF>2</INF> control efficiency
for the DSI option.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Century initially calculated the control costs using an
interest rate of 5.5 percent and an equipment life of 20 years;
however, based on comments from the State, revised the interest rate
to five percent for the wet scrubber option and used an equipment
life of 30 years for the wet scrubber. See p. 164 of the Haze Plan.
\35\ Century initially assumed a 93 percent control efficiency
for the wet scrubber. Based on comments from the State requesting
use of a 98 percent control efficiency, Century revised the FFA with
a 99 percent control efficiency.
Table 3--Century FFA Control Evaluation Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions
Control technology (SO2 reductions Cost effectiveness
Emissions units control efficiency) (tpy) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bake Oven, Potrooms 02-05................. DSI (90%).................... 3,379 $10,323
Bake Oven, Potrooms 02-05................. Wet Scrubber (99%)........... 3,716 7,485
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, the use of a wet scrubber and DSI would require electricity
and consumable reagent to operate and create waste products.\36\ A wet
scrubber system
[[Page 36013]]
increases energy usage, water usage, wastewater generation, and solid
waste generation and requires chemicals. Non-air environmental impacts
include solid, liquid, and hazardous waste generation. A wet scrubber
system generates wastewater and sludge that must be treated and/or
disposed of. A wastewater system would need to be constructed at
Century to collect, convey, and treat wet scrubber blowdown
wastewaters, which are a byproduct of the scrubbing process, prior to
discharge to the local publicly owned treatment works. DSI generates
solid waste that must be collected by PM control devices and disposed
of at a landfill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The reference to Appendix II on p. 165 of the Haze Plan
refers to Appendix II, Cost Analysis Supporting Information, of the
FFA contained in Appendix G-2 of the 2022 Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century used an equipment life of 30 years for the wet scrubber and
20 years for DSI. The remaining useful life of the Bake Oven and
Potrooms 02-05 is assumed to be longer than 30 years.
Regarding the time necessary to comply, Century states that sources
are generally given between two and five years to implement changes for
compliance with new regulations and provides several examples. Affected
sources would require time to design, purchase, and install selected
control options in addition to the time needed to obtain an air
construction permit for the control equipment. Century states that a
compliance timeframe of four to five years is needed to comply with any
new control measures. This includes a year to obtain construction
permits (both air and wastewater construction permits would be
required) and three to four years to contract, design, fabricate,
deliver, construct, and make operational the control equipment and
ancillary wastewater treatment plant. Century also notes that this
timeframe is consistent with the compliance timeframes allowed for in
the majority of first planning period regional haze SIPs.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ First period regional haze plans included BART measures.
Each source subject to BART is required under the RHR to install and
operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later
than five years after approval of the implementation plan revision.
See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Century, South Carolina determined that the Bake Oven (Unit 1)
and the four Potline Potrooms (Units 2, 3, 4, 5) are well controlled
and additional controls are not needed for the purpose of remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment at Cape Romain.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Anode Forming Equipment and various natural gas-fired
fuel burning sources are inconsequential sources of SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions at Century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Cross: The Cross FFA evaluated switching from the use of coal
with a sulfur content of 2.65 percent to coal with a one percent sulfur
content for the four coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs), Units
1-4, as a technically feasible control measure where the percent sulfur
in coal is decreased from 2.65 percent to one percent. Units 1-4 are
equipped with wet scrubbers and subject to the limit of 0.20 pound (lb)
of SO<INF>2</INF> per million British thermal units (MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule.\39\ The wet
scrubber systems on Units 1, 3, and 4 are required to achieve a 30-day
rolling average removal efficiency for SO<INF>2</INF> of at least 95
percent.\40\ The wet scrubber on Unit 2 is designed to achieve a 91
percent SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency and is required to maintain
at least an 87 percent SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency.\41\
Compliance is measured with a SO<INF>2</INF> continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) certified under 40 CFR part 75. Based on this
information and considering that Cross is meeting the MATS 0.2 lb/MMBtu
emission limit for SO<INF>2</INF>, South Carolina stated that it is
unlikely an analysis of control measures (other than a sulfur content
fuel switch) for these emission units would conclude that more
stringent control of SO<INF>2</INF> is necessary to make reasonable
progress.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUUUU, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Electric Generating Units, also known
as MATS.
\40\ See Haze Plan at p. 182.
\41\ Id.
\42\ See Table 7-26 on p. 182 of the Haze Plan. South Carolina
relied on EPA's Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD) from 2016-
2020 to demonstrate that Cross is meeting the 0.2 lb/MMBtu emission
limit for SO<INF>2</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost/ton of the fuel sulfur control option for Units 1-4 was
calculated to be $31,451/ton with estimated emissions reductions of
2,434 tpy SO<INF>2</INF>. Regarding the baseline emissions used in the
FFA cost calculations, Cross used 2018 actual monthly SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions (annualized by unit) equal to a total of 3,910 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF> for Units 1-4.\43\ The control effectiveness of fuel
sulfur control is estimated to be 62 percent resulting in a cost
effectiveness of $31,451/ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Table 2-2 on page 2-4 of the Cross FFA in Appendix G-2
of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the other statutory factors, the State addresses the
remaining useful life of Units 1-4 by stating that the units are
expected to operate through at least 2039. The equipment life for a
switch to lower sulfur fuels is the same as the source/unit's life.
Regarding energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, the State notes that use of lower sulfur coal adds minimal
power demand and has similar environmental impacts to the coal that
Cross currently uses. For the time necessary to comply, the State
proposes that a compliance timeframe of two years from the effective
date of an EPA determination that a switch to lower sulfur coal would
be required because Cross has coal contracts in place and is required
to honor the timeframes for these contracts.
For Cross, the State determined that Cross Units 1-4 are well
controlled and additional controls are not needed for the purpose of
remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment at Cape
Romain.
iii. IP-Georgetown: The IP-Georgetown FFA evaluated emissions
controls for the following emissions units as the primary sources of
SO<INF>2</INF>: No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers and No. 1 Recovery Boiler.
Units exempted from the FFA include: (a) the No. 1 and No. 2 Lime Kilns
because in 2011 they emitted 1.19 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> and 1.59 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF>, respectively, and (b) No. 1 and No. 2 Smelt Dissolving
Tanks because they emitted 2.15 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> and 1.66 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF>, respectively. Regarding the baseline emissions used in
the FFA cost calculations, the State requested that the facility use
2011 actual emissions in the cost analysis for all emissions units. The
FFA notes that emissions reductions have occurred since 2011, and
therefore, also presents 2019 emissions as more representative of
actual current emissions. Thus, both 2011 and 2019 emissions were used
for the cost analyses for the No. 1 and No. 2 Power Boilers for
evaluating wet and dry scrubbers.\44\ Only 2019 emissions were used for
the No. 1 Recovery Boiler cost analysis because 2011 emissions are not
considered representative for this unit. Table 4, below, provides the
2011 and 2019 actual emissions of the units evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Table 7-23 of the Haze Plan for the 2011, 2019, and
2028 projected SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the IP-Georgetown units.
[[Page 36014]]
Table 4--IP-Georgetown 2011 and 2019 Actual and 2028 Projected SO2 Emissions
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions unit 2011 Emissions 2019 Emissions 2028 Projected emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 Power Boiler............................... 921.01 480.54 951.42
No. 2 Power Boiler............................... 947.01 479.09 1137.32
No. 1 Recovery Boiler............................ 680.05 76.56 637.96
No. 2 Recovery Boiler............................ 68.26 65.98 32.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the No. 1 and No. 2 Power Boilers, wet flue gas
desulfurization (wet FGD or WFGD) and dry FGD (spray dryer absorber
system (SDA) and DSI) were evaluated. Currently these power boilers
have no add-on existing SO<INF>2</INF> emission controls; however,
certain operational practices, namely their exclusion from South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.96, Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program,
limit fossil fuel use in the boilers which is kept to less than 50
percent on an annual heat input basis.\45\ Additionally, wood/bark is
the primary fuel used in the power boilers which also helps control
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions while use of coal has been replaced with
natural gas in recent years. In 2011, the No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers
combined burned approximately 28,000 tons of coal whereas in 2019, the
two boilers burned only 1,760 tons of coal. Regarding the No. 1
Recovery Boiler, South Carolina evaluated a wet scrubber (i.e., WFGD)
control option.\46\ The FFA states that there currently is no add-on
scrubber used to control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from recovery boilers
at paper mills and that, while the technology is technically feasible,
it may not perform at an optimal control efficiency given the
limitations of the processes at the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See p. 170 of the Haze Plan.
\46\ No additional control analysis was conducted on No. 2
Recovery Boiler because the State determined that it is already well
controlled. See Haze Plan at pp.168-169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP-Georgetown used a 5.5 percent interest rate in the cost
calculations in the September 23, 2020, FFA.\47\ The State inquired why
the bank prime interest rate (at that time in 2020) of 3.25 percent was
not used in the FFA. IP-Georgetown stated that the higher interest rate
is more representative of the opportunity cost of capital and returns
on real estate that may be not otherwise be realized. The State concurs
with IP-Georgetown's justification for the 5.5 percent interest rate.
The cost analyses for the wet and dry FGD control options for the No. 1
and 2 Power Boilers and the wet FGD for the No. 1 Recovery Boiler used
an interest rate of 5.5 percent, an SO<INF>2</INF> control efficiency
of 98 percent, and an equipment life of 30 years. Table 5, below,
compares the cost effectiveness values of all SO<INF>2</INF> control
options evaluated using 2011 and 2019 emissions in the cost
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Haze Plan at Appendix G. The final cost analyses are
contained in the Revision 1 dated March 31, 2021, located in
Appendix G-2 of the Haze Plan. The State summarizes the results of
these revised cost analyses in Table 7-24 of the Haze Plan.
Table 5--IP-Georgetown Cost Effectiveness Values for 2011 and 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Cost
effectiveness effectiveness Tons SO2 Tons SO2
Emissions units SO2 control technology using 2011 using 2019 removed (tpy) removed (tpy)
emissions ($/ emissions ($/ (2011 emissions) (2019 emissions)
ton) ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1, 2 Power Boilers......................... Wet FGD.......................... $7,700 $14,400 1,831 941
No. 1, 2 Power Boilers......................... SDA (dry FGD).................... 7,400 13,800 1,831 941
No. 1, 2 Power Boilers......................... DSI (dry FGD).................... 5,200 7,900 1,831 941
No. 1 Recovery Boiler.......................... Wet FGD.......................... 3,100 19,200 N/A 75.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, the State noted that additional costs will be incurred to
provide electricity to wet scrubbers and there is freshwater usage.
Additionally, wet scrubbers will incur costs associated with wastewater
disposal and dry scrubbers will require disposal of dry sorbent (e.g.,
spent lime).
The remaining useful life for the No.1 and 2 Power Boilers is
assumed to be 30 years because no retirement date has been set. Both of
these boilers were commissioned in 1982 and are over 40 years old. The
remaining useful life for the No. 1 Recovery Boiler is assumed to be 30
years. This boiler was installed in 1963 and is over 60 years old. The
equipment life used in the cost calculations was 20 years for dry FGD
and 30 years for wet FGD.
Regarding the time necessary to comply for the No. 1 and 2 Power
Boilers, the FFA states that the time necessary to install a wet or dry
FGD system would be at least five years after the effective date of an
EPA determination that a wet or dry FGD system is required as time will
be needed for design, permitting, procurement, installation, and
startup of the control system. If minimal retrofit issues are
encountered, a wet or dry FGD system could be installed by 2028.
Regarding the time necessary to comply for the No. 1 Recovery
Boiler, the FFA estimates that if a wet FGD were required on the No. 1
Recovery Boiler, it would take approximately five years to install
after the effective date of an EPA determination that a wet FGD system
is required, noting that installation by 2028 could be achieved as
needed.
For IP-Georgetown, South Carolina concludes that the No. 1 and No.
2 Power Boilers and No. 1 and No. 2 Recovery Boilers at IP-Georgetown
are well controlled and additional controls are not needed to address
any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment at Cape Romain.
iv. Winyah: The State did not perform an FFA for Winyah because it
determined that Units 1-4 at the facility have existing, effective
controls for SO<INF>2</INF> given that all four units have wet
scrubbers which operate year-round, achieve over 90 percent control
[[Page 36015]]
efficiency, and are subject to and in compliance with the
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu under the MATS rule.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Table 7-28 on p. 186 of the Haze Plan. South Carolina
relied on EPA's CAMPD data from 2016-2020 to demonstrate that Winyah
is meeting the 0.20 lb/MMBtu emission limit for SO<INF>2</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to emissions
information documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section
4 of the Haze Plan explains the State's use of emissions inventories to
develop the plan with additional documentation provided in Appendix B.
South Carolina, through VISTAS, developed a 2011 statewide base year
emissions inventory in Table 4-1 which was used to project emissions
out to 2028, the end of the second planning period. This 2011 statewide
emissions inventory was also relied upon to satisfy 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(v). South Carolina also evaluated emissions data from
2017, the year of the most recent triennial emissions data available at
the time of the development of the Haze Plan.\49\ The State also
provided annual, statewide anthropogenic SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> data from 2011 through 2019 for Table 13-15 and Figures
13-6 (SO<INF>2</INF>) and 13-7 (NO<INF>X</INF>) of the Haze Plan. Table
7-1 of the Haze Plan contains 2011 actual and 2028 emissions
projections for select sources in the VISTAS states, including South
Carolina, for various pollutants, including: SO<INF>2,</INF>
NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, NH<INF>3</INF>, coarse PM (PM<INF>10</INF>), and
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Tables 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 of the Haze Plan
provide statewide PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions data, respectively, from the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), 2017 NEI, and projected 2018 emissions inventory for
South Carolina from the first period (``VISTAS 2018G4''). The 2028
emissions projections were used to develop the 2028 RPGs for Cape
Romain. Table 13-14 provides South Carolina EGU SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions data for the years 2014-2019 which show a decline in
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 26,122 tpy in 2014 to 5,731 tpy in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 2017 emissions data is included in the following tables and
figures in the Haze Plan: Table 7-19 (SO<INF>2</INF>) for certain
sources in South Carolina; Tables 13-11 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), 13-12
(NO<INF>X</INF>), and 13-13 (SO<INF>2</INF>) for statewide emissions
of these pollutants; Table 13-14 (SO<INF>2</INF>) for units
reporting to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD); Table 13-15
(SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> for all RPOs); Figure 13-5
(SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VISTAS CAMD Emissions); and Figures
13-6 and 13-7 (SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> for all RPOs and
VISTAS states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to modeling information documentation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Sections 5 and 6 of the Haze Plan describe the
modeling methods used to develop the plan with additional documentation
provided in Appendix E and results of the RPG modeling in Section 8 of
the plan. Appendix D contains AoI analyses documentation.
With respect to cost and engineering information documentation
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section 7.8 of the Haze Plan
details the State's analysis of proposed FFAs for Century, WestRock-
Charleston, IP-Georgetown, and Cross. The FFAs proposed by these
sources that are located in Appendix G evaluated the four factors,
including the cost of compliance factor, and provided detailed cost
calculations for potential new control measures assessed as part of the
engineering analyses.
With respect to monitoring information documentation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State assessed baseline (2000-2004), current
(2014-2018), and natural visibility conditions for Cape Romain in
Section 2 of the Haze Plan with supporting information located in
Appendix C.
d. Assessment of Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv): With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), South
Carolina considered each of the five additional factors in developing
the State's LTS for the second planning period. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), South Carolina referenced the State's emissions
inventory development for the base year of 2011 as projected out to
2028 for the requirement to assess emission reductions due to ongoing
air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI).
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), South Carolina
summarized the State's existing regulations that mitigate the impacts
of construction activities in Section 7.10.2 of the Haze Plan. South
Carolina explained that fine soils were a relatively minor contributor
to visibility impairment at Cape Romain during the baseline period of
2000-2004 and continue to be only a minor contributor to visibility at
Cape Romain during the most current period of monitoring data (2014-
2018).
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), South Carolina
considered source retirement and replacement schedules in Section 7.2.5
(retirements accounted for in the 2028 inventory/RPGs), and in 7.2.1.2
(MATS Rule) which lists seven facilities which either retired the
emissions units or switched the emissions units from coal-fired to
natural gas-fired. Planned source retirements are accounted for in the
2028 projected emissions.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), South Carolina
summarized the State's basic smoke management practices for prescribed
fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management in
Section 7.10.1 of the Haze Plan. The South Carolina Forestry Commission
(``SCFC'') has developed a Smoke Management Guideline for Vegetative
Debris Burning Operations, which serves to regulate vegetative debris
burning for forestry, agriculture, and wildlife purposes.\50\ South
Carolina's Bureau of Air Quality has developed state air pollution
control regulations that prohibit open burning except when meeting
certain criteria. South Carolina notes that when weighed together,
these documents address all sources of fire used for land management
purposes within South Carolina and effectively minimize visibility
impacts while recognizing the important ecological role that prescribed
fires can and do play. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E),
South Carolina assessed the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the LTS in development of the RPGs for Cape Romain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Appendix G-4 of the Haze Plan includes the SCFC Smoke
Management Guideline and a memorandum of understanding between the
SCFC and DHEC (so named at the time). Appendix G-4 is included for
reference only and is not being proposed for adoption into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Interstate Consultation: South Carolina consulted with states
\51\ and RPOs that identified South Carolina sources as impacting those
states' (or states within the RPOs') Class I areas, and the State
consulted with the three states (Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) with
one or more sources exceeding South Carolina's PSAT threshold at Cape
Romain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Georgia is the only state that requested consultation with
South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation with South Carolina: On
November 24, 2020, Georgia requested that South Carolina perform a
reasonable progress analysis (i.e., FFA) for two facilities, Cross and
WestRock-Charleston, to address their potential visibility impacts at
Wolf Island and Okefenokee in Georgia. South Carolina honored these
requests and sent an email to Georgia providing FFAs of these
sources.\52\ South Carolina did not find any new measures to be
necessary for reasonable progress for Cross or WestRock-
[[Page 36016]]
Charleston.\53\ No other states requested an FFA of South Carolina
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ On November 17, 2021, South Carolina sent an email to
Georgia providing FFA information for Cross and WestRock-Charleston.
The November 17, 2021, email is included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
\53\ See Section IV.C.2.b.ii of this document regarding the FFA
for Cross. WestRock-Charleston has permanently shut down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. South Carolina's Requests for Consultation with Other States:
Table 10-1 of the Haze Plan provides a summary of the VISTAS and non-
VISTAS states to which a letter was sent and identifies the total
number of facilities impacting Cape Romain. Table 10-2 of the Haze Plan
lists the specific out-of-state facilities which exceed the State's
PSAT threshold: Georgia Power Company--Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen) and
International Paper--Savannah (IP-Savannah) located in Georgia; Genon
NE Mgmt Co/Keystone Station (Keystone) located in Pennsylvania; and
General James M. Gavin Power Plant (Gavin Plant) located in Ohio. The
documentation of these letters is summarized in Table 10-2 and Appendix
F of the Haze Plan. Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania provided FFAs of
their respective sources to VISTAS.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Section 10.1.1 of the Haze Plan. Details of all this
correspondence can be found on p. 210 of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2020, South Carolina requested that Georgia provide
FFAs of Plant Bowen and IP-Savannah.\55\ At the time of South
Carolina's final plan submission in March of 2022, Georgia was in the
process of finalizing its conclusions related to these facilities and
had not yet issued its proposed haze plan for public comment.\56\
Georgia provided a copy of the FFAs for Plant Bowen and IP-Savannah in
an email from Georgia to South Carolina dated November 18, 2021.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Section 10.1.1 of the Haze Plan and Appendix F-1 contain
correspondence between South Carolina and Georgia regarding the FFAs
for these facilities.
\56\ On August 11, 2022, Georgia submitted a final regional haze
plan. On June 3, 2024, EPA proposed action on the Georgia Haze Plan.
See 89 FR 47481. The proposed rule explains that the Plant Bowen
Units 1-4 have wet scrubbers and are subject to the MATS
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu. For Plant Bowen's Units 1-4,
the State concluded that existing SO<INF>2</INF> measures are
necessary for reasonable progress for the second planning period.
Georgia determined for IP-Savannah that the removal of coal as a
fuel in the No. 13 Power Boiler is a measure necessary for
reasonable progress for the second planning period. EPA approved
Georgia's regional haze plan on November 21, 2024 (89 FR 92038).
\57\ On November 18, 2021, Georgia sent an email to South
Carolina providing FFA information for Plant Bowen and IP-Savannah.
The November 18, 2021, email is included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Keystone FFA, on June 22, 2020, VISTAS sent a letter
requesting reasonable progress analyses for Pennsylvania sources
impacting VISTAS class I areas. On January 11, 2021, Pennsylvania sent
to VISTAS the FFA for Keystone concluding that emissions of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> from Units 1 and 2 at the Station are
already well controlled by WFGD and selective catalytic reduction.
Regarding the Gavin Plant FFA, on June 22, 2020, VISTAS sent a
letter requesting reasonable progress analyses for certain Ohio
sources, including the Gavin Plant, impacting visibility at specific
VISTAS Class I areas. Cape Romain was identified in this letter as one
of the Class I areas impacted by the Gavin Plant in Ohio. On October
29, 2020, Ohio sent a letter to VISTAS which concluded that the two
boilers are effectively controlled due to existing FGDs with 95 percent
control efficiency.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Appendix F-2d of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA has reviewed South Carolina's source
selection criteria, consideration of the four factors, determinations
of controls necessary for reasonable progress, documentation of
technical basis, interstate consultation, and consideration of the five
additional factors. Based on this review, EPA proposes to find that the
LTS meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA proposes to find that South
Carolina has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) with
respect to including a description of the criteria that the State used
to determine which sources the State evaluated for emissions controls
by providing: Appendix B which details how the State, in conjunction
with VISTAS, created emissions inventories relied upon by the State for
its Haze Plan; Appendix C which provides monitoring and meteorological
data used to support selection of sources; and Appendix D which
provides analyses supporting the AoI approach. In addition, the State
summarized in the Haze Plan the specific data that South Carolina used
for its source selection analyses, including the AoI and PSAT analyses
and results.
EPA also proposes to find that South Carolina's selection of in-
state sources for analysis under the four statutory factors has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). AoI and PSAT are
acceptable and well-established methods for selecting sources for a
control analysis and they enable the identification of the sources that
have the largest impacts on visibility at Class I areas in South
Carolina and neighboring states.\59\ Using an AoI threshold \60\ and a
one percent PSAT threshold, the State identified five South Carolina
sources for a control evaluation that are projected to have the highest
impact on visibility at both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas at
the end of the second planning period.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The State used the AoI process because it identifies the
largest sources with potential visibility impacts to Class I areas
and then used sophisticated photochemical source apportionment
modeling to identify specific sources for control evaluations.
\60\ South Carolina used an AoI threshold of greater than or
equal to three percent for nitrate or greater than or equal to two
percent for sulfate at Cape Romain. South Carolina also used an AoI
threshold of four percent for sulfate plus nitrate for all sources
outside of the State.
\61\ As discussed above, WestRock--Charleston permanently ceased
operations in April 2024. The additional emissions reductions from
this shutdown have not been reflected in the 2028 emissions
projections and 2028 RPGs. Table 7-19 of the Haze Plan identifies
projected 2028 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from WestRock--Charleston as
1,864 tpy and 2019 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions as 1,145 tpy. See
footnote 32 regarding documentation for the shutdown of this
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific to second planning period visibility improvement,
visibility conditions at Cape Romain in 2028 are estimated to improve
since the 2014-2018 period by 1.03 deciview. When considered in
relation to the amount of visibility improvement needed to reach
natural conditions starting from the 2014-2018 period, this projected
visibility improvement expected during the second planning period
represents approximately a 13.1 percent improvement in progress.\62\
Based upon a comparison of the most recently available 20 percent most
impaired days IMPROVE data (2018-2022) \63\ to the 20 percent most
impaired days data from the end of the first planning period (2014-
2018),\64\ in the first four years of the second planning period, Cape
Romain has already achieved 15.65 percent of additional progress
towards
[[Page 36017]]
natural conditions.\65\ Also, South Carolina focused on controlling
point source SO<INF>2</INF> emissions based on data showing that
ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at Cape
Romain and other Class I areas impacted by South Carolina's
sources.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See visibility data for the 20 percent most impaired days
data from Tables 2-6 and 8-1 of the Haze Plan. Percentage of
progress toward natural conditions = [((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-
(2028 RPG))/((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-(Natural visibility
conditions))] x 100. Example calculation for Cape Romain [(17.67-
16.64)/(17.671-9.78)] x 100 = 13.1 percent.
\63\ The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most impaired
days at Cape Romain was obtained from under the header ``Means for
Impairment Metric:''. The IMPROVE data includes visibility
monitoring data for each Class I area. This data was filtered for
each Class I area, listed as ``ROMA1'' (Cape Romain), (in column
``A'', titled ``site''). Then data was filtered for the years 2018
through 2022 (using column ``B'' titled ``year''). These data points
were then filtered for the 20 percent most impaired days, indicated
by ``90'' (in column ``C'' titled ``impairment_Group''). The
resulting data points for each Cape Romain within the ``haze_dv''
column ``AK'', corresponding to each of the five years, were
averaged to determine the 20 percent most impaired days for the
2018-2022 five-year period which is 16.44 deciviews.
\64\ The 2014-2018 IMPROVE data was provided by South Carolina
in Table 2-6 of the Haze Plan.
\65\ Percentage of progress toward natural conditions = [((2014-
2018 IMPROVE data)-(2018-2022 IMPROVE data))/((2014-2018 IMPROVE
data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x 100. Example calculation
for Cape Romain: [(17.67-16.44)/(17.67-9.78)] x 100 = 15.65 percent.
\66\ See Figures 2-4 and 2-5 of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009-2013 IMPROVE data on the 20 percent most impaired
visibility days for Cape Romain are: 71 percent sulfate, five percent
nitrate, and 13 percent organic carbon. EPA also evaluated 2015-2019
IMPROVE data on the 20 percent most impaired days for Cape Romain in
Table 6 below and confirmed that ammonium sulfate is the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant at this area during that time period. As
indicated in that table, ammonium nitrate contributions to regional
haze at the State's Class I area remain relatively low at eight percent
of the total visibility impairment as compared to ammonium sulfate at
56 percent.
Table 6--2015-2019 Speciated IMPROVE Monitoring Data for Cape Romain
[%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonium Ammonium Organic Coarse Elemental Fine sea Fine
sulfate nitrate carbon mass carbon salt soils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Romain.................. 56 8 19 7 5 3 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors: In this section of the
document, EPA evaluates South Carolina's LTS against the requirements
of the CAA and RHR for the second planning period. As detailed further
below, EPA proposes to approve South Carolina's LTS under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).
In this proposed action, EPA notes that it is the Agency's policy,
as announced in the recent proposed action for West Virginia's Regional
Haze SIP for the second planning period, that, where visibility
conditions for a Class I area impacted by a State are below the URP and
the State has evaluated potential control measures and considered the
four statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated
reasonable progress for the second planning period for that
area.<SUP>67 68</SUP> EPA acknowledges that this proposed action
reflects a change in policy from current guidance as to how the URP
should be used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning
period SIPs. EPA has the discretion and authority to change policy. In
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court plainly
stated that an agency is free to change a prior policy and ``need not
demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy are better than
the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and
that the agency believes it to be better.'' 566 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)
(referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also Perez v.
Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). EPA believes that this
policy aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is
achieving ``reasonable'' progress, not maximal progress, toward
Congress' natural visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 90 FR 16478, 16483 (April 18, 2025).
\68\ See also EPA's May 14, 2025 proposed action for South
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP for the second planning period (90 FR
20425).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), EPA
established the concept of the URP for each Class I area. As discussed
above, for each Class I area, there is a regulatory requirement to
compare the projected visibility impairment (represented by the RPG) at
the end of each planning period to the URP (e.g., in 2028 for the
second planning period).\69\ In the 2017 RHR Revisions, EPA addressed
the role of the URP as it relates to a state's development of its
second planning period SIP. See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be
considered a ``safe harbor'' and relieve states of any obligation to
consider the four statutory factors, EPA explained that the URP was not
intended to be such a safe harbor. EPA summarized such comments as
follows: ``Some commenters stated a desire for corresponding rule text
dealing with situations where RPGs are equal to (``on'') or better than
(``below'') the URP or glidepath. Several commenters stated that the
URP or glidepath should be a ``safe harbor,'' opining that states
should be permitted to analyze whether projected visibility conditions
for the end of the implementation period will be on or below the
glidepath based on on-the-books or on-the-way control measures, and
that in such cases a four-factor analysis should not be required.''
\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ EPA notes that RPGs are a regulatory construct that EPA
developed to address statutory mandate in CAA section 169B(e)(1),
which required our regulations to include ``criteria for measuring
`reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' Under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii), RPGs measure the progress that is projected to be
achieved by the control measures a state has determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress. Consistent with the 1999 RHR,
the RPGs are unenforceable, though they create a benchmark that
allows for analytical comparisons to the URP and mid-implementation-
period course corrections if necessary. See 82 FR at 3091-3092
(January 10, 2017).
\70\ 82 FR 3099 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other 2017 RHR comments indicated a similar approach, such as ``a
somewhat narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if
current visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-
period point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be
required.'' \71\ EPA was clear in its response: ``We do not agree with
either of these recommendations.'' EPA explained its position as
follows: ``The CAA requires that each SIP revision contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress, and that in determining
reasonable progress states must consider the four statutory factors.
Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be inconsistent with the
statutory requirement that states assess the potential to make further
reasonable progress towards natural visibility goal in every
implementation period.'' \72\ In EPA's new policy, if the Class I areas
impacted by a state are below the URP and the State considers the four
factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated it has made
reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area.
Indeed, EPA believes this policy also recognizes the considerable
improvements in visibility impairment that have been made by a wide
variety
[[Page 36018]]
of state and federal programs in recent decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Id.
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying this new policy in EPA's evaluation of South Carolina's
SIP and as further detailed in the paragraphs that follow, no
additional measures for South Carolina's LTS are necessary for this
planning period to achieve reasonable progress towards natural
visibility at Class I areas impacted by emissions from South Carolina
sources.<SUP>73 74</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ On June 4, 2025, the State requested that EPA fully approve
its Haze Plan pursuant to the new policy, stating that South
Carolina considered the four statutory factors, that projected 2028
visibility conditions for Class I areas impacted by emissions from
South Carolina sources are all below the URP, and that therefore,
under this policy, the Haze Plan meets the requirements of the CAA
for demonstrating reasonable progress and no additional or existing
measures need to be adopted into the SIP as part of the long-term
strategy for this planning period. See June 4, 2025 letter from Myra
C. Reese, DES to Kevin J. McOmber, EPA Region 4. The letter is in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\74\ South Carolina's request in Section 7.9 of the Haze Plan to
incorporate permit conditions into the SIP is moot under the new
policy because, if the proposed approval is finalized, South
Carolina will have demonstrated reasonable progress without the need
for additional measures in the LTS. Furthermore, the Haze Plan lacks
enforceable measures because the permit conditions in the Haze Plan
identified for incorporation into the SIP for IP-Georgetown, Cross,
and Winyah are in draft form and because EPA does not have permit
conditions for incorporation into the SIP for Century. South
Carolina withdrew the permit conditions for Century from the Haze
Plan on December 12, 2024. See December 12, 2024, letter from Myra
C. Reece, DES, to Jeaneanne Gettle, EPA Region 4. The letter is in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking. The State does not intend
to submit enforceable, final permit conditions to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP via a subsequent regional haze SIP
revision for these facilities. See June 4, 2025 letter from Myra C.
Reese, DES to Kevin J. McOmber, EPA Region 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Century: Regarding Century, South Carolina concluded that no
additional SO<INF>2</INF> controls at Century's Bake Oven (Unit 1) and
the four Potline Potrooms Units 2, 3, 4, and 5 are necessary for
reasonable progress for the second planning period. The State evaluated
available and technically feasible SO<INF>2</INF> controls that were
based on, where applicable, estimated values of capital costs,
annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission reductions, consistent
with recommendations in EPA's ``Air Pollution Control Cost Manual''
(Cost Manual).\75\ South Carolina reasonably evaluates additional
controls and concludes that WFGD and DSI for the Bake Oven and the four
Potrooms at a cost effectiveness of $7,485/ton (WFGD) and $10,323/ton
(DSI), respectively, are not necessary to make reasonable progress.
Because South Carolina considered the four statutory factors for
Century and visibility conditions at all Class I areas to which South
Carolina contributes are below the URP, EPA finds that South Carolina
has demonstrated that it has made reasonable progress for the second
planning period without any additional measures for Century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ EPA's Cost Manual is available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Cross: Regarding Cross, South Carolina concluded that no
additional SO<INF>2</INF> measures at Cross' Units 1-4 are necessary
for reasonable progress. The State evaluated available and technically
feasible SO<INF>2</INF> controls that were based on, where applicable,
estimated values of capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton
of emission reductions, consistent with recommendations in EPA's Cost
Manual. South Carolina's control evaluation concluded that fuel sulfur
control for Units 1-4 at a cost effectiveness of $31,451/ton is not
necessary for reasonable progress. These units are subject to the MATS
rule alternative SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu and are
equipped with WFGD that routinely achieve a high SO<INF>2</INF> control
effectiveness (approximately 91.6 to 98.3 percent yearly average
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiencies based on 2017-2023 data during
times when coal is one of the fuel sources consumed), with a seven-year
average (2017-2023) SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency of 97.5
percent.\76\ Because South Carolina considered the four statutory
factors for Cross and visibility conditions at all Class I areas to
which South Carolina contributes are below the URP, EPA finds that
South Carolina has demonstrated that it has made reasonable progress
for the second planning period without any additional measures for
Cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Between 2017 to 2023, when coal is one of the fuel sources
consumed, the yearly average FGD SO<INF>2</INF> control efficiencies
for Cross Unit 1 ranged from 96.8 to 98.1 percent, Unit 2 ranged
from 91.6 to 95.5 percent, Unit 3 ranged from 97.2 to 98.3 percent,
and Unit 4 ranged from 97.6 to 98.3 percent. See South Carolina
Santee Cooper scrubber efficiency data file titled ``SC EGU Scrubber
Efficiency 2017-2023'' that is included in the docket for this
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. IP-Georgetown: South Carolina concluded that no additional
SO<INF>2</INF> measures at IP-Georgetown at the No. 1 and 2 Power
Boilers and the No. 1 Recovery Boiler are necessary for reasonable
progress. The State evaluated available and technically feasible
SO<INF>2</INF> controls that were based on, where applicable, estimated
values of capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission
reductions, consistent with recommendations in EPA's Cost Manual. South
Carolina's control evaluation concluded that the cost effectiveness of
WFGD at $14,400/ton, SDA at $13,800/ton, and DSI at $7,900/ton for the
No.1 and 2 Power Boilers and WFGD at $19,200/ton for the No. 1 Recovery
Boiler are not necessary for reasonable progress. Because South
Carolina considered the four statutory factors for IP-Georgetown and
visibility conditions at all Class I areas to which South Carolina
contributes are below the URP, EPA finds that South Carolina has
demonstrated that it has made reasonable progress for the second
planning period without any additional measures for IP-Georgetown.
iv. Winyah: South Carolina concluded that Winyah's Units 1-4 are
effectively controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> because all four units have
wet scrubbers which operate year-round, achieve over 90 percent control
efficiency, and are subject to and in compliance with the
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu under the MATS rule.\77\ These
WFGD routinely achieve a high SO<INF>2</INF> control effectiveness
(approximately 94.1 to 98.3 percent yearly average SO<INF>2</INF>
removal efficiencies during times when coal is one of the fuel sources
consumed), with a seven-year average (2017-2023) SO<INF>2</INF> removal
efficiency of 96.9 percent.\78\ Therefore, EPA finds that South
Carolina considered the four statutory factors and has demonstrated
that Winyah has adequate existing controls and has made reasonable
progress for the second planning period. Because additional measures
for Winyah are not necessary, there is no need for South Carolina to
conduct a full four-factor analysis of this facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See EPA's ``Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (August 20, 2019) at p.
23 (providing several scenarios in which EPA believes it may be
reasonable for a state not to select a particular source for a full
four factor analysis, including a coal-fired EGU that has add-on FGD
and meets the applicable alternative SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit
of 0.20 lb/MMBtu in the MATS rule), available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>.
\78\ Between 2017 to 2023, the yearly average FGD SO<INF>2</INF>
control efficiencies for Winyah Unit 1 ranged from 96.8 to 98.3
percent, Unit 2 ranged from 95.5 to 98.3 percent, Unit 3 ranged from
94.1 to 96.8 percent, and Unit 4 ranged from 96.3 to 97.9 percent.
See South Carolina Santee Cooper scrubber efficiency data file
titled ``SC EGU Scrubber Efficiency 2017-2023'' that is included in
the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), South Carolina's documentation regarding cost,
engineering, emissions, modeling, and monitoring information to
determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
is adequate for the following reasons. Regarding emissions information,
as required by the RHR, the State included the required years of the
most recent triennial emissions inventory (2017) and
[[Page 36019]]
the most recent annual emissions data (2019) at the time of the
development of the Haze Plan pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
South Carolina also provided statewide actual emissions inventory data
for 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 in its Haze Plan.
Additionally, the State provided 2028 projected emissions data used in
the source selection process.
Regarding cost and engineering information, the State provided the
underlying cost calculations associated with the cost summaries in
Section 7.8 of the plan for Century, Cross, IP-Georgetown, and
WestRock-Charleston, and the proposed FFAs in Appendix G provide
engineering analyses evaluating potential new control measures.
Regarding monitoring data, the State provided IMPROVE data for the
modeling base period plus baseline, current (2014-2018), and natural
conditions for all VISTAS Class I areas with more detailed data
provided for the South Carolina Class I area (Cape Romain).
Regarding modeling information, the State documented the modeling
input and outputs and assumptions in the Haze Plan and the results of
the modeling related to RPGs and PSAT source impacts at Class I areas.
d. Assessment of Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv): South Carolina satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) because the State has considered each of the five
additional factors under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing South
Carolina's LTS, discussed the measures the State has in place to
address each (or discussed why such measures are not needed), and,
where relevant, explained how each factor informed VISTAS' technical
analysis for the second planning period.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), South Carolina
adequately addressed the requirement to assess emission reductions due
to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to
address RAVI, through the State's emissions inventory work for the base
year of 2011 as projected out to 2028.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), South Carolina
adequately addressed this requirement to evaluate measures to mitigate
the impacts of construction activities by explaining that fine soils
were a relatively minor contributor to visibility impairment at Cape
Romain during the 2000-2004 baseline period as demonstrated in Figure
2-2, and that no VISTAS Class I areas experienced significant
visibility impairment from soils during the baseline timeframe as
demonstrated in Figure 2-3. As demonstrated by Figures 2-7, 2-8, and 2-
9, soils continued to be a minor contributor to visibility impairment
at Cape Romain and other VISTAS Class I areas through the 2014-2018
time period.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), South Carolina
adequately addressed source retirement and replacement schedules by
describing how the 2028 projected year emissions inventory of
visibility impairing pollutants was developed from the base year 2011
by accounting for source retirement and replacements. See Section 7.2
of the Haze Plan. For example, in Section 7.2.1.2, South Carolina
states that the following facilities either retired the units or
switched the units from coal-fired to natural gas-fired: Santee Cooper
Grainger, Santee Cooper Jefferies, Progress Energy Robinson, Duke
Energy W.S. Lee Steam Station, SCE&G Canadys, SCE&G (now Dominion)
McMeekin, and SCE&G (now Dominion) Urquhart.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), South Carolina
adequately addressed the requirement to consider the State's basic
smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural
and wildland vegetation management in Section 7.10.1 of the Haze Plan.
In that section, South Carolina states that the SCFC has developed a
Smoke Management Guideline for Vegetative Debris Burning Operations,
which serves to regulate vegetative debris burning for forestry,
agriculture, and wildlife purposes \79\ and that the State's Bureau of
Air Quality has developed a state air pollution control regulation that
prohibits open burning except when meeting certain criteria. South
Carolina states that when weighed together, these two documents address
all sources of fire used for land management purposes within South
Carolina and effectively minimize visibility impacts while recognizing
the important ecological role that prescribed fires can and do play.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Appendix G-4 of the Haze Plan includes the SCFC Smoke
Management Guideline and a memorandum of understanding between the
SCFC and the former South Carolina DHEC. Appendix G-4 is included
for reference only and is not being proposed for adoption into the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), South Carolina
adequately assessed the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the LTS in development of the 2028 RPGs for South
Carolina's Class I area. The State used the 2011 base year emissions
inventory to project emissions from various source sectors to 2028, the
end of the second planning period. South Carolina, through VISTAS,
completed CAMx modeling to estimate visibility impairment in 2028 based
on projected 2028 emissions from the 2011 base year inventory and using
IMPROVE monitoring data for 2009-2013.\80\ For South Carolina,
estimated visibility improvements by 2028 at Cape Romain are based on
estimated emissions reductions associated with existing Federal and
state measures implemented or expected to be implemented during the
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ In preparing the 2028 emissions for point sources, South
Carolina started with a 2011 base year inventory which includes
emission reductions associated with Federal and state control
programs and consent agreements for surrounding states included in
the LTS for the first planning period. A summary of these agreements
can be found in Section 7.2 of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Interstate Consultation: With respect to interstate consultation
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), South Carolina met the
requirements to consult with those states with Class I areas that South
Carolina emissions impact for visibility and to consult with those
states whose sources are impacting South Carolina's Class I areas.
D. RPGs
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i)
requires a state in which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--
one each for the most impaired and clearest days--reflecting the
visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end of the planning
period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states'
LTSs, as well as implementation of other CAA requirements. The LTSs, as
reflected by the RPGs, must provide for an improvement in visibility on
the most impaired days relative to the baseline period and ensure no
degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline period.
Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a Class I
area's RPG for the most impaired days represents a slower rate of
visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress calculated
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the
state in which a mandatory Class I area is located establishes an RPG
for the most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of
visibility improvement than the URP, the state must demonstrate that
[[Page 36020]]
there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic
sources or groups of sources in the state that would be reasonable to
include in its LTS. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a
state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state, and the RPG
for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP, the
upwind state must provide the same demonstration.
2. State Assessment: South Carolina identified 2028 RPGs for Cape
Romain in deciviews for the 20 percent most impaired days and the 20
percent clearest days in Tables 8-1 and 8-2, respectively, of the Haze
Plan, which are all below the URP. Table 7 summarizes the 2028 RPGs and
2028 URP for Cape Romain.
Table 7--South Carolina's Class I Area RPGs for 2028 in Deciviews
[dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028 RPG for 20% 2028 RPG for 20% most
Class I area clearest days impaired days 2028 URP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Romain....................................... 11.42 16.64 19.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figures 3-1 and 7-9 of the Haze Plan show the URP for the 20
percent most impaired days for Cape Romain. In their Haze Plan, South
Carolina provided the top 10 Class I areas affected by the state
sources (Table 10-3) and the State further demonstrated that all of
these Class I areas are currently below the URP (Figure 7-10).
3. EPA Evaluation: South Carolina provided 2028 RPGs for its Class
I area for the most impaired and clearest days. The State established
2028 RPGs expressed in deciviews that reflect the visibility conditions
that are projected to be achieved by the end of the second planning
period as a result of implementation of the LTS and other CAA
requirements. South Carolina's RPGs provide for an improvement in
visibility for the 20 percent most impaired days since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and demonstrate that there is no degradation in
visibility for the 20 percent clearest days since the baseline period.
Any additional unanticipated emissions reductions provide further
assurances that the State's Class I area will achieve its 2028 RPGs.
For these reasons, the 2028 RPGs for Cape Romain are reasonable.
Additionally, South Carolina has adequately demonstrated that all Class
I areas both in South Carolina and out-of-state Class I areas to which
South Carolina may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility are all below the URP. Therefore the
``robust demonstration'' provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) are not
applicable to this action. Therefore, EPA is proposing to determine
that South Carolina has satisfied all applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3).
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each
comprehensive revision of a state's regional haze SIP must contain or
provide for certain elements, including monitoring strategies,
emissions inventories, and any reporting, recordkeeping and other
measures needed to assess and report on visibility. A main requirement
of this section is for states with Class I areas to submit monitoring
strategies for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility
impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
participation in the IMPROVE network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I
areas within the state are being achieved. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii)
requires SIPs to provide for procedures by which monitoring data, and
other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at
mandatory Class I areas both within and outside the state. Section
51.308(f)(6)(iii) applies only to states that do not have mandatory
Class I areas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for
the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the state. Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for the most
recent year for which data are available and estimates of future
projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to
include estimates of future projected emissions and include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. Under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4), if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has advised
a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess RAVI, the state
must include in its SIP revision for the second planning period an
appropriate strategy for evaluating such impairment.
2. State Assessment: With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), South
Carolina states that the existing IMPROVE monitor for the State's Class
I area is adequate and does not believe any additional monitoring sites
or equipment are needed to assess whether the RPGs for Cape Romain are
being achieved. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), data from this
IMPROVE monitor will be used for future haze plans and progress
reports. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to South Carolina
because it has a Class I area. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv),
NPS manages and oversees the IMPROVE monitoring network and reviews,
verifies, and validates IMPROVE data before its submission to EPA's Air
Quality System. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), South Carolina
states in the Haze Plan that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v)
are addressed in Section 4, Section 7.2.4, and Section 13.1 of the Haze
Plan. South Carolina provided a statewide baseline emissions inventory
of pollutants for the year 2011 in Table 4-1 of the Haze Plan which
includes the following pollutants: carbon monoxide, NH<INF>3</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and
PM<INF>10</INF>. In addition, South Carolina provided in Tables 13-11,
13-12, and 13-13 statewide 2014 and 2017 NEI emissions inventory data
for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>, respectively,
by source category. The State will periodically update its statewide
emissions inventories and will continue to participate in SESARM/VISTAS
efforts for projecting future emissions and continue to comply with the
requirements of the AERR to periodically update emissions
[[Page 36021]]
inventories.\81\ With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi), South
Carolina affirms that there are no elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, or other measures, necessary to address and report on
visibility for Cape Romain or Class I areas outside the State that are
affected by sources in South Carolina. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4), the State did not include a strategy for evaluating RAVI
for any Class I areas because no Federal agency requested additional
monitoring to assess RAVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See Haze Plan at p. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to determine that South Carolina
has satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) and 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6) related to RAVI, visibility monitoring, and emissions
inventories. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), EPA proposes to find
that this requirement does not apply to South Carolina at this time
because neither EPA nor the FLMs requested additional monitoring to
assess RAVI at Cape Romain.
EPA proposes to determine that South Carolina satisfied 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6), which is generally met by the State's continued
participation in the IMPROVE monitoring network and the VISTAS RPO, for
the following reasons. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), South
Carolina stated that the existing IMPROVE monitor relied upon for Cape
Romain is adequate, and thus, additional monitoring sites or equipment
are not needed to assess whether the RPGs for Cape Romain are being
achieved. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), South Carolina is
complying with procedures by which monitoring data and other
information are used to determine the contribution of emissions from
within the State to regional haze at Class I areas both within and
outside the State through South Carolina's continued participation in
VISTAS' regional haze work. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii),
this provision is applicable for states with no Class I areas and does
not apply to South Carolina. Regarding the reporting of visibility
monitoring data to EPA at least annually for each Class I area in the
State pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv), EPA proposes to find that
South Carolina's participation in the IMPROVE Steering Committee and
the IMPROVE monitoring network addresses this requirement. With respect
to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), EPA proposes to find that South Carolina's
continued participation in VISTAS' efforts for projecting future
emissions and continued compliance with the requirements of the AERR to
periodically update emissions inventories satisfies the requirement to
provide for an emissions inventory for the most recent year for which
data are available. EPA proposes to find that South Carolina adequately
documented that no further elements are necessary at this time for the
State to assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi).
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the
RPGs
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic
comprehensive revisions of states' regional haze plans also address the
progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The
purpose of these requirements is to evaluate progress towards the
applicable RPGs for each Class I area within the state and each Class I
area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within
that state. Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and
require a description of the status of implementation of all measures
included in a state's first planning period regional haze plan and a
summary of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of
those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class
I areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first planning period progress
report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and requires an
analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period
addressed by the first planning period progress report. This provision
further specifies the year or years through which the analysis must
extend depending on the type of source and the platform through which
its emission information is reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5),
which also applies to all states, requires an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
state have occurred since the period addressed by the first planning
period progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated
and whether they have limited or impeded expected progress towards
reducing emissions and improving visibility.
2. State Assessment: With respect to the progress report elements
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), the State addressed these elements in
Section 13 of the Haze Plan for the end of the first period since 2013,
with additional attention given to 2011 and 2012 due to data quality
issues in 2013.\82\ South Carolina outlines its approach to addressing
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) in Section 13.2 of the
Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ South Carolina's first planning period progress report
covered the period 2008-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), the State
describes the status of the implementation of the measures of the LTS
from the first planning period in Section 13.3.1 of the Haze Plan.
Tables 13-4 and 13-5 provide a summary of the emission reductions
achieved by implementing those measures.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), the Haze Plan identifies key
Federal and state emissions control measures in Section 13.3.1 that the
State relied upon for other emission reduction actions included in the
LTS of South Carolina's first regional haze plan submitted on December
17, 2007 (``2007 Haze Plan''). Section 13.3.2 identifies measures that
contributed to emission reductions during the first planning period but
were not a part of the LTS for the first period.\83\ In Section
13.3.1.1 of the Haze Plan, South Carolina summarized Federal and state
programs which contributed to reductions of EGU and certain non-EGU
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in South Carolina and surrounding states over
the 2013-2018 period. The programs examined include, but are not
limited to, the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Phase I
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, and consent agreements and voluntary
agreements with regional EGUs. In Section 13.3.1.2 of the Haze Plan,
the State summarized state EGU control measures which contributed to
reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Georgia. The programs examined included the 2002 North
Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act and the 2007 Georgia Multi-Pollutant
Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Lastly, in Section
13.3.1.3 of the Haze Plan, South Carolina summarized its reasonable
progress and BART control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ For the first planning period, visibility conditions were
determined for the average of the 20 percent most impaired
visibility days (referred to as the ``worst'' days) and the 20
percent least impaired visibility days (referred to as the ``best''
days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), South Carolina continued to
focus on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions because the State
determined that ammonium sulfate was the most important contributor to
visibility impairment and fine particle mass on the 20 percent best
[[Page 36022]]
and 20 percent worst days in the first planning period. South Carolina
reported on emission reductions achieved by Federal and state measures
relied upon to project the 2018 RPGs for the first period haze plan,
including 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, Tier 2
Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, the North Carolina Clean
Smokestacks Act, and the Georgia Multi-Pollutant Control for Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units. In addition, the State provided
emission reductions for sources evaluated for controls in the first
period haze plan as follows. Table 13-4 of the Haze Plan lists the
facilities that had units for which a reasonable progress determination
was made and the current status of emissions. Table 13-5 lists the
recent emissions of sources for which a BART control determination was
made.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), South Carolina addressed the
visibility conditions at Cape Romain and summarized these results in
Tables 13-6 and 13-7. Specifically, the State identified current
visibility conditions (2014-2018); the difference between current
visibility conditions compared to the baseline; and the change in
visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days over the
period from 2014-2018. South Carolina concluded that IMPROVE monitoring
data for 2014-2018 shows that Cape Romain is below the 2018 RPG for the
20 percent worst days and there is no degradation on the 20 percent
best/clearest days which is illustrated in Figures 13-2 and 13-3 of the
Haze Plan.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in Section 13.5 of the Haze Plan,
Tables 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 address the current status of these
measures and the reductions that they have achieved. South Carolina
summarized stationary point, area (non-point), non-road mobile, onroad
mobile, fires, and sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Between 2014-2017, statewide emissions were
reduced for all three pollutants, including a PM<INF>2.5</INF>
reduction from 70,649 tpy to 68,566 tpy (Table 13-11), a NO<INF>X</INF>
reduction from 178,086 tpy to 153,314 tpy (Table 13-12), and an
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction of 52,794 tpy to 23,440 tpy (Table 13-13).
These emissions values remained well below the projected 2018 values
from the first planning period of 108,328 tpy of PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
196,821 tpy of NO<INF>X</INF>, and 164,444 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF>.
Additionally, in Table 13-14, South Carolina provided yearly 2014-2019
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from South Carolina EGUs reporting to EPA's
CAMPD which shows a general decline through the period. The State
elected to compare the 2017 NEI total emissions data to the 2018
emissions projections (``VISTAS 2018G4'') from the State's first period
haze plan and concluded that statewide emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> are below first period haze plan
2018 projected emissions by 75, 12, and 20 percent, respectively. In
addition, the State provided SO<INF>2</INF> emissions trends for South
Carolina EGUs reporting to CAMPD for the 2014-2018 period and included
the year 2019 in Table 13-14 which shows a decrease from 26,122 tpy in
2014 to 5,731 tpy in 2019, a decrease of 78 percent. The State also
notes that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions decreased from 16,567 tpy in 2014
to 10,909 tpy in 2019, a decrease of 34 percent. Regarding 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5), South Carolina reviewed anthropogenic SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions trends based on emissions included in the
2011, 2014, and 2017 NEIs for the VISTAS states and all of the RPOs.
The data show a decline in SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from 2011 through 2017 in all regions of the country as shown in Table
13-15 and Figures 13-6 (SO<INF>2</INF>) and 13-7 (NO<INF>X</INF>) of
the Haze Plan.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that South Carolina has met
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(5) because the Haze Plan
adequately describes the status of the measures included in the LTS
from the first planning period and the emission reductions achieved
from those measures; the visibility conditions and changes at Cape
Romain; an analysis tracking the changes in emissions since the first
planning period progress report using emissions data for the 2014-2018
reporting period, including the 2017 NEI data which is the most recent
triennial emissions inventory submission from South Carolina prior to
submission of the Haze Plan; and assessed whether any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that
have occurred since the end of the period addressed by South Carolina's
first planning period progress report, including whether these changes
in anthropogenic emissions were anticipated in that most recent plan
and whether they have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility. Thus, EPA is proposing to find that
South Carolina has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination
1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(d) of the CAA requires states to
consult with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed
regional haze SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, the FLM
consultation provision of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) requires a state to
provide the FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early
enough in the state's policy analyses of its emission reduction
obligation so that information and recommendations provided by FLMs can
meaningfully inform the state's decisions on its LTS. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough. Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least 60 days before a public hearing or public comment
period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two
substantive topics on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to
discuss with states: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I
area and recommendations on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3)
requires states, in developing their implementation plans, to include a
description of how they addressed FLMs' comments. Section 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4) requires that the regional haze SIP revision provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program.
2. State Assessment: As required by CAA section 169A(d), South
Carolina consulted with the FLMs prior to opening the State public
comment period on its proposed Haze Plan. The conclusions and
recommendations of the FLMs on the proposed plan are included in
Section 10.4 and Appendix H-1.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), South Carolina offered to the
three FLM agencies the opportunity to consult on the draft Haze Plan
from July 27, 2021, to September 27, 2021. A summary of this
consultation process is discussed and documented in Section 10.4 of the
Haze Plan (responses to FLM comments) with supporting information in
Appendix H-1 (FLM comments received) and Appendix F. Appendix F-3
contains VISTAS stakeholder materials which include data and analyses
for South Carolina that were presented to the FLMs (and EPA). In
addition, through VISTAS, South Carolina participated in a series of
conference calls where the FLMs and EPA were given the opportunity
review and provide feedback regarding technical analyses developed by
VISTAS. South Carolina also
[[Page 36023]]
participated in calls hosted by VISTAS with other RPOs, FLMs, and EPA
to discuss VISTAS' approaches to source selection and other related
topics. See Appendix F of the Haze Plan.
To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), South Carolina provided responses
to comments received from FWS, NPS, and USFS in Section 10.4 and
Appendix H of the Haze Plan.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), South Carolina has established
ongoing consultation procedures with the FLMs and ``formally commits to
follow the FLM consultation procedures as prescribed in 40 CFR
51.308(i) in making these future implementation plan reviews and
revisions.'' See Section 1.6 of the Haze Plan.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that South Carolina
addressed all FLM consultation requirements in the CAA and RHR. With
respect to CAA section 169A(d), South Carolina consulted with the FLMs
prior to the State's public comment period and included a summary of
the conclusions and recommendations of the FLMs in the proposed plans
issued for public review.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ A description of South Carolina's response to FLM comments
can be found in Section 10.4 and under the public participation
section of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina fully addressed the requirement for FLM consultation
under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) because the State offered the draft South
Carolina Haze Plan on July 27, 2021, prior to the start of the public
comment period which opened on November 26, 2021, and closed on January
5, 2022. EPA proposes to find that South Carolina has met its
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) to consult with the FLMs on its
Haze Plan for the second planning period. EPA proposes to find that
South Carolina satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) by providing responses to
the FLM comments in Section 10.4 of the Haze Plan.
EPA proposes to find that South Carolina satisfied 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4) by establishing in its Haze Plan continuing consultation
procedures as summarized above.
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's March 3, 2022, SIP
submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second
planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).
VI. 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
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
Because this Haze Plan merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this Haze Plan for the
State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore,
this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN)
Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to
impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies,
in accordance with the Settlement Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 18, 2025.
Kevin McOmber,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2025-14476 Filed 7-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 31, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.