[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66334-66345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26037]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0329; FRL-10002-76-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; GA; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Georgia's January 9, 2019, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
good neighbor provision requires each state's implementation plan to
address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is
proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve the January 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the requirements
of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0329 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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 EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be
reached via phone number (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires
states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP
submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These
submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2), as applicable.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
[[Page 66335]]
On January 9, 2019, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD),
submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve GA EPD's January 9, 2019, SIP
submission because the State demonstrated that Georgia will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Georgia
were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In an October 22, 2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on
July 25, 2014, GA EPD submitted SIP revisions addressing all
infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
\2\ EPA acted on the other elements of Georgia's October 22,
2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 28, 2016 (81 FR 25355).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail
in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief summary of
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
included here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that as to impacts, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other
states, not to prevention of nonattainment in designated
nonattainment areas or any similar formulation requiring that
designations for downwind nonattainment areas must first have
occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211
(Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding
SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR
69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation of the
prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations
for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable,'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator
has insufficient information to make these designations by that
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of
designations (``round 1'') \4\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated air
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally-enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by
December 31, 2020 (``round 4'').\5\ EPA signed Federal Register notices
of promulgation for round 2 designations \6\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR
45039 (July 12, 2016)), and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December
13, 2016)), and round 3 designations \7\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR
1098 (January 9, 2018)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). This March 2, 2015, consent decree
requires EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register notices
of the Agency's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31,
2020 (``round 4'').
\6\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the
round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\7\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to round
3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there are no nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Georgia. One area in Floyd County, Georgia,
will be designated in round 4.\8\ The remaining counties in Georgia
were designated as attainment/unclassifiable in rounds 2 and round 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 10: Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Georgia at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/10-ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also
Technical Support Document: Chapter 10: Proposed Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Georgia at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in
that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant
impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source. However,
ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as
quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted
SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does
not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner similar
to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly, while
the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5
transport are too regionally focused, the approach for Pb transport is
too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is
therefore a unique case and requires a different approach. In
SO2 transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 kilometer (km)-
wide zone because the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that
drop off with distance.
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD identified a distance
threshold to reflect the transport properties of SO2. GA EPD
selected a spatial scale with dimensions from four to 50 km from point
sources--the ``urban scale''--as appropriate in assessing trends in
both
[[Page 66336]]
area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution
control strategies at such point sources. GA EPD supported this choice
of transport distance threshold with references to the March 1, 2011,
EPA memorandum titled ``Additional Clarification Regarding Application
of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' and noted that GA EPD believes that
this guidance memorandum can be applied to 1-hour SO2
analyses.\9\ In its January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD included a
quote from page 16 of this March 1, 2011, EPA memorandum: ``Even
accounting for some terrain influences on the location and gradients of
maximum 1-hour concentrations, these considerations suggest that the
emphasis on determining which nearby sources to include in the modeling
analysis should focus on the area within about 10 kilometers of the
project location in most cases. The routine inclusion of all sources
within 50 kilometers of the project location, the nominal distance for
which the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is applicable, is likely to produce an
overly conservative result in most cases.'' In addition, the State
indicated that GA EPD conducted modeling for the DRR which showed that
the highest impacts from sources are typically within 2-5 km from the
source and that the impacts past 10 km are ``insignificant.'' GA EPD
believes that based on EPA's March 11, 2011, guidance memorandum and GA
EPD's SO2 modeling, an appropriate transport distance for
SO2 from Georgia to neighboring states is 10 km. However, GA
EPD stated that Georgia ``will use an extremely conservative transport
distance of 50 km in this demonstration to match the distance for which
AERMOD is applicable.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA's March 1, 2011, memorandum, Additional Clarification
Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/appwno2_2.pdf.
\10\ See page 3 of Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP submission in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees
with Georgia's selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-
wide air quality that might impact downwind states.\11\ As discussed
further in section III.B, EPA believes that Georgia's selection of the
urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide air
quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control
strategies at SO2 point sources. EPA's notes that Georgia's
selection of this transport distance for SO2 is consistent
with 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ``Urban scale,'' which
states that measurements in this scale would be used to estimate
SO2 concentrations over large portions of an urban area with
dimensions from four to 50 km. AERMOD is EPA's preferred modeling
platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of emissions
for distances up to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA
is proposing to concur with Georgia's application of the 50-km
threshold to evaluate emission source impacts into neighboring states
and to assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State's border,
which is discussed further in section III.C.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate transport
of SO2, see EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking on
Connecticut's SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352,
21354 (May 8, 2017).
\12\ Because EPA concurs with Georgia's application of the 50-km
threshold, EPA is not addressing Georgia's assertion that impacts of
SO2 beyond 10 km are insignificant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed
Georgia's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of
SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the
analysis, and the conclusions drawn by the State. EPA then conducted a
weight of evidence analysis based on a review of the State's submission
and other available information, including SO2 air quality
and available source modeling for monitors and sources in Georgia and
in neighboring states within 50 km of the Georgia border.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action, and does not
prejudge any future EPA action that may make other determinations
regarding the air quality status in Georgia and downwind states. Any
such future action, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will
be based on their own administrative records and EPA's analyses of
information that becomes available at those times. Future available
information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's DRR and information
submitted to EPA by states, air agencies, and third-party
stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Georgia's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis
A. State Submission
On January 9, 2019, GA EPD submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Georgia conducted a weight of
evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the
State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
GA EPD reviewed the following information to support its conclusion
that Georgia does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states: Annual SO2 99th percentile values (2015,
2016, and 2017) and 2017 design values (DVs) \14\ at monitors in
Georgia and adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia's border;
SO2 emissions trends in Georgia and adjacent states from
1990 to 2017; the fact that EPA designated all counties within 50 km of
Georgia's border as attainment/unclassifiable with the exception of
Haywood County in North Carolina and a portion of Nassau County in
Florida \15\ (GA EPD's analysis of Haywood County, North Carolina, and
Nassau County, Florida, is described in section III.C.3.a of this
notice); and established federal and State control measures which
reduce SO2 emissions in the present and future. Based on
this weight of evidence analysis, the State concluded that emissions
within Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. EPA's evaluation of Georgia's submission is detailed
in sections III.B, C, and D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The DV for the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
values for a monitoring site. The interpretation of the primary 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS including the data handling conventions
and calculations necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS
can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50. The 2017 DV is
calculated based on the three year average from 2015-2017.
\15\ On April 24, 2019, EPA approved Florida's request,
submitted on June 7, 2018, to redesignate the Nassau County area to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the
accompanying SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the
area. See 84 FR 17085. EPA's redesignation of the Nassau Area was
based, in part, on a modeled attainment demonstration that included
permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and emissions
limits at the Rayonier and WestRock facilities showing attainment of
the 2010 SO2 standard by the statutory deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology
EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which
sources and emissions activities in Georgia are likely to impact
downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is by using information in EPA's National
[[Page 66337]]
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\16\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources
that is updated every three years using information provided by the
states and other information available to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA evaluated data from the 2014 NEI (version 2), the most recently
available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI. As shown
in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in Georgia
originate from fuel combustion at point sources.\17\ In 2014,
SO2 emissions from point sources \18\ in Georgia comprised
approximately 91 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the
State, with 81 percent of the State's total SO2 emissions
coming from fuel combustion point sources. Because emissions from the
other listed source categories are more dispersed throughout the State,
those categories are less likely to cause high ambient concentrations
when compared to a point source on a ton-for-ton basis. In addition,
EPA considered 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data in
Georgia's SIP submission, which showed that fuel combustion by electric
generating units (EGUs) and industrial processes comprised
approximately 57 percent of the State's SO2 emissions in
2017.\19\ Based on EPA's analysis of the 2014 NEI and GA EPD's
evaluation of 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data by certain
source categories, EPA believes that it is appropriate to focus the
analysis on SO2 emissions from Georgia's larger point
sources (i.e., emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017),
including fuel combustion point sources, which are located within the
``urban scale,'' i.e., within 50 km of one or more state borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Residential fuel combustion is considered a nonpoint
source, and thus, residential fuel combustion data is not included
in the point source fuel combustion data and related calculations.
\18\ Georgia's point sources listed in Table 1, for the purposes
of this action, are comprised of all of the ``Fuel Combustion''
categories and ``Industrial Processes (All Categories).''
\19\ See Table 2 on p.7 of Georgia's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission.
Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI (Version 2) SO2 Data for Georgia by Source
Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Category Emissions total SO2
(tpy) emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: EGUs (All Fuel Types).. 65,464.40 64
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/ 14,152.46 14
Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/ 2,833.38 3
Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel 140.30 0
Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)... 10,789.15 11
Mobile Sources (All Categories)......... 3,077.47 3
Fires (All Types)....................... 4,772.53 5
Waste Disposal.......................... 919.03 1
Solvent Processes....................... 0.28 0
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial).......... 5.57 0
-------------------------------
SO2 Emissions Total................. 102,154.57 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in Section II, because the physical properties of
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an
emissions source that drop off with distance, in SO2
transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone. Thus, EPA focused
its evaluation on Georgia's point sources of SO2 emissions
located within approximately 50 km of another state and their potential
impact on neighboring states.
As discussed in section I.B., EPA's current implementation strategy
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to
characterize air quality for stationary sources subject to the DRR via
either data collected at ambient air quality monitors sited to capture
the points of maximum concentration, or air dispersion modeling
(hereinafter referred to as the ``DRR monitor''). EPA's assessment of
SO2 emissions from Georgia's point sources located within
approximately 50 km of another state and their potential impacts on
neighboring states (section III.C.1. of this notice) and SO2
air quality data at monitors within 50 km of the Georgia border
(section III.C.3. of this notice) is informed by all available data at
the time of this rulemaking.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in this proposed
rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or
any future rulemaking for Georgia, depending on available
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an
assessment of Georgia's satisfaction of the prong 1 and 2 requirements
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based upon evaluating the
downwind impacts of SO2 emissions from Georgia's point
sources, including fuel combustion sources, located within
approximately 50 km of another state and upon any regulations intended
to address Georgia's point sources.
C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires states' plans to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. GA EPD confirms in its submission that
Georgia sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in
any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard. To evaluate Georgia's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed
the State's implementation plan with respect to the following factors:
(1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Georgia on neighboring states based on available air
dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 ambient air quality and
emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states; (3) SIP-approved
regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (4) federal
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. A detailed discussion
of Georgia's SIP submission with respect to each of these factors
follows.\21\ EPA proposes that these factors, taken together, support
the Agency's proposed
[[Page 66338]]
determination that Georgia will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
EPA also notes that the Agency does not have information indicating
that there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
the surrounding states. Also, 2017 SO2 emissions for
Georgia's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2
within 50 km of another state are at distances or emit levels of
SO2 that make it unlikely that these SO2
emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the
neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in these states. In addition, the
downward trends in SO2 emissions and DVs for air quality
monitors in the State, the fact that the highest annual 99th percentile
daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration values observed at
the only DRR monitor within 50 km of the Georgia border were well below
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 2017 and 2018, combined with
federal and State SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2
emissions of Georgia's sources, further support EPA's proposed
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA has reviewed Georgia's submission, and where new or
more current information has become available, is including this
information as part of the Agency's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
a. State Submission
In its SIP revision, GA EPD references modeling done by the State
for the DRR when discussing SO2 transport. Regarding source-
specific modeling under the DRR, EPA evaluated and summarized the
modeling results for Georgia's DRR sources within 50 km of the State's
border in Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
b. EPA Analysis
EPA evaluated available DRR modeling results for sources in Georgia
and in the adjacent states that are within 50 km of the Georgia
border.\22\ The purpose of evaluating modeling results in adjacent
states within 50 km of the Georgia border is to ascertain whether any
nearby sources in Georgia are impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As discussed in section I.B., Georgia used air dispersion
modeling to characterize air quality in the vicinity of certain
SO2 emitting sources to identify the maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations in ambient air which informed EPA's
round 3 SO2 designations. EPA's preferred modeling
platform for regulatory purposes is AERMOD (Appendix W of 40 CFR
part 51). In these DRR modeling analyses using AERMOD, the impacts
of the actual emissions for one or more of the recent 3-year periods
(e.g., 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016) were considered, and in some
cases, the modeling was of currently effective limits on allowable
emissions in lieu of or as a supplement to modeling of actual
emissions. The available air dispersion modeling of certain
SO2 sources can support transport related conclusions
about whether sources in one state are potentially contributing
significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard in other states. While
AERMOD was not designed specifically to address interstate
transport, the 50-km distance that EPA recommends for use with
AERMOD aligns with the concept that there are localized pollutant
impacts of SO2 near an emissions source that drop off
with distance. Thus, EPA believes that the use of AERMOD provides a
reliable indication of air quality for transport purposes.
\23\ EPA established a non-binding technical assistance document
to assist states and other parties in their efforts to characterize
air quality through air dispersion modeling for sources that emit
SO2 titled, ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling
Technical Assistance Document.'' This draft document was first
released in spring 2013. Revised drafts were released in February
and August of 2016 (see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling results for the modeled
DRR sources \24\ in Georgia which are located within 50 km of another
state: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products--Savannah River Mill (Savannah
River Mill); Georgia Power Company--Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen); Georgia
Power Company--Plant McIntosh (Plant McIntosh); Georgia Power Company--
Plant Wansley (Plant Wansley); and International Paper--Savannah. The
modeling analysis resulted in no modeled violations of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS within the modeling domain for each facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The DRR modeling results for Georgia's DRR sources may be
found in the proposed and final round 3 technical support documents
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/10-ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. Georgia Power
Company--Plant Kraft is a DRR source in Georgia located less than 5
km from the South Carolina border which has shut down as of October
13, 2015, and its operating permit was formally revoked on November
9, 2016. Georgia Power--Plant Yates (Plant Yates) is a DRR source in
Georgia located approximately 34 km from the Alabama border. Plant
Yates accepted a federally enforceable emissions limit as its
pathway to satisfy the DRR. Units 1-5 at Plant Yates were
permanently shut down on April 15, 2015, and units 6 and 7 were
converted from coal-fired to natural gas-fired by the same date, in
accordance with an April 29, 2014, title V permit revision to comply
with the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. The facility then added permit
condition 3.2.1, restricting all fuel burning to natural gas, in its
title V operating permit effective January 10, 2017.
Table 2--Georgia Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th percentile
Approximate distance Other facilities daily maximum 1-hour SO2 Model grid extends
DRR source County from source to included in modeling concentration (ppb) into another
adjacent state (km) state?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper--Savannah... Chatham............... <5 (SC)............... None.................... 66.0 (based on 2011-2013 Yes--into SC
actual and allowable/ (western portion
potential-to-emit (PTE) of Jasper County,
emissions). SC).
Plant Bowen..................... Bartow................ 45 (AL)............... None.................... 57.6 (based on 2014-2016 No.
actual emissions).
Plant McIntosh (Modeled with Effingham............. <5 (SC)............... Effingham County Power, 71.6 for both Plant Yes--extends into
Savannah River Mill). LLC facility (GA); GA McIntosh and Savannah western portion
Pacific--Savannah River River Mill (based on of Jasper County,
Mill (GA); * South 2012-2014 actual SC.
Carolina Electric & Gas emissions for the steam
(SCE&G) Jasper generating unit at
Generating Station (SC) Plant McIntosh;
(based on allowable/PTE combustion turbines at
emissions for Effingham Plant McIntosh were
County Power and Jasper modeled at PTE).
Generating Station).
[[Page 66339]]
Plant Wansley................... Heard................. 17 (AL)............... Plant Yates, Municipal 15 (based on 2012-2014 No.
Electric Authority of actual emissions for
Georgia, Chattahoochee Plant Wansley and
Energy, and Wansley allowable/PTE emissions
Combined-Cycle for the nearby sources).
Generating Plant (GA).
Savannah River Mill (Modeled Effingham............. <5 (SC)............... Effingham County Power, 71.6 for both Plant Yes--extends into
with Plant McIntosh). LLC facility (GA); McIntosh and Savannah western portion
Plant McIntosh (GA); * River Mill * (based on of Jasper County,
SCE&G Jasper Generating 2012-2014 actual South Carolina.
Station (SC) (based on emissions for the steam
allowable/PTE emissions generating unit at
for Effingham County Plant McIntosh;
Power and Jasper combustion turbines at
Generating Station). Plant McIntosh were
modeled at PTE).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Savannah River Mill's 2010 1-hour SO2 modeled DV is based on 2012-2014 actual emissions for three primary power boilers and allowable/PTE emissions
for 13 emissions units at Savannah River Mill. For more details, see pp. 67-68 of EPA's Technical Support Document: Chapter 10 Proposed Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Georgia located at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
Table 3 provides a summary of the modeling results for the modeled
DRR sources in neighboring states which are located within 50 km of
Georgia: \25\ Continental Carbon Company--Phenix City Plant
(Continental Carbon) in Alabama and JEA--Northside/St. Johns River
Power Park (SJRPP); \26\ WestRock CP, LLC--Fernandina Beach Mill
(WestRock); and White Springs Agricultural Chemical--Swift Creek
Chemical Complex (White Springs) in Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Two DRR sources in adjacent states within 50 km of the
Georgia border were not modeled. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--
Widows Creek Fossil Plant, located in Alabama, has shut down.
Therefore, Alabama did not characterize this source via monitoring
or modeling pursuant to the DRR. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC--W.S. Lee
Steam Station (Lee Station), located in South Carolina 42 km from
the Georgia border, accepted federally-enforceable permit limits to
exempt out of the DRR requirements. The station closed two coal-
fired units at the facility in 2014 and converted a coal-fired unit
to natural gas in 2015. See, e.g., EPA, Technical Support Document:
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Dec. 2017), pp. 62
and 64, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0611 at
www.regulations.gov.
\26\ Units 1 and 2 at Florida's DRR source, St. John River Power
Park, shut down effective December 31, 2017.
Table 3--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
distance from Modeled 99th percentile
DRR source County (state) source to Other facilities daily maximum 1-hour SO2 Model grid extends
Georgia border included in modeling concentration (ppb) into another state?
(km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Carbon.................. Russell (AL)........ 1 IIG MinWool LLC (AL)... 60.63 (based on PTE Yes, into GA (the
emissions). southwestern portion
of Muscogee County,
GA, and the
northwestern portion
of Chattahoochee
County, GA).
SJRPP............................... Duval (FL).......... 35 Cedar Bay/Generating 56.22 (based on 2012-2014 No.
Plant, Renessenz actual emissions for SJRPP
Jacksonville Facility, and Renessenz Jacksonville
Anchor Glass Facility; PTE rates for
Jacksonville Plant, Cedar Bay, Anchor Glass,
and IFF Chemical and IFF Chemical
Holdings (FL). facilities).
WestRock \27\....................... Nassau (FL)......... <5 Rayonier Performance 66.09 (based on 2012-2014 Yes (approximately 3
Fibers (FL). actual emissions for km into a portion of
WestRock and Rayonier; southern Georgia).
three minor sources at
WestRock were modeled
based on PTE).
White Springs....................... Hamilton (FL)....... 16 PCS Suwannee River 56.34 (based on 2012-2014 No.
Plant * (FL). actual emissions for White
Springs sulfuric acid
plants E & F and permitted
allowable emissions for
PCS Suwanee River Plant
and the remaining sources
at White Springs).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PCS Suwannee River Plant shut down most of its operations in 2014.
[[Page 66340]]
EPA believes that the modeling results summarized in Tables 2 and
3, weighed along with the other factors in this notice, support EPA's
proposed conclusion that sources in Georgia will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any
modeled 2010 1-hour SO2 violations in the neighboring states
due to SO2 emissions from Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As discussed in footnote 15, EPA's redesignation of the
Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment
demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2
controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock
facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
As discussed above, GA EPD provided 2017 statewide SO2
emissions data by certain source categories, which showed that fuel
combustion by EGUs and industrial processes comprised approximately 57
percent of the State's SO2 emissions in 2017. In addition,
GA EPD provided in Georgia's January 9, 2019, submission in Appendix A
and displayed in a figure SO2 emission trends in Georgia
from 1990 to 2017 and notes that SO2 emissions decreased by
95 percent during that time period.\28\ GA EPD also analyzed and
displayed in a figure in Georgia's January 9, 2019, submission
SO2 emission trends in the adjacent states of Alabama,
Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee from 1990 to
2017.\29\ From the State's analysis of these emissions data, GA EPD
concludes that there has been a significant reduction in SO2
emissions in Georgia and its neighboring states from 2007 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Figures 3 and 4 on p.6 and 7, respectively, of
Georgia's submission which includes statewide SO2
emission trends in Georgia from 1990 to 2017.
\29\ See Figure 4 on p.7 of Georgia's submission which includes
statewide SO2 emission trends in Georgia and the adjacent
states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee from 1990 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed the SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017
for Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.\30\ Georgia's statewide
SO2 emissions decreased from 985,445 tons in 1990 to 50,606
tons in 2017. EPA agrees that statewide SO2 emissions for
these six states, including Georgia, have decreased significantly over
this time period and notes that these reductions show a similar
downward trend.\31\ EPA also notes that SO2 emissions from
fuel combustion at Georgia EGUs decreased from 875,451 tons in 1990 to
13,794 tons in 2017 and that SO2 emissions from fuel
combustion due to industrial processes in Georgia declined from 54,570
tons in 1990 to 14,706 tons in 2017.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of
Tier 1 emission source categories from 1990 to 2017 are available
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
\31\ See Figure 4 on p.7 of Georgia's submission.
\32\ See Appendix A of Georgia's submission. This data is also
available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III.B, EPA finds that it is appropriate to
examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources
emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in Georgia in
distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from the sources. Therefore, in
addition to the sources addressed in section III.C.1.b of this notice,
EPA also assessed the potential impacts of SO2 emissions
from stationary sources not subject to the DRR and located up to 50 km
from Georgia's borders using 2017 emissions data and to evaluate
whether the SO2 emissions from these sources could interact
with SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring
state in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Table 4 lists sources in Georgia
not subject to the DRR that emitted greater than 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State's
border.
Currently, EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting
that the states of Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina are impacted by
SO2 emissions from the nine Georgia sources listed in Table
4. All 10 Georgia sources are located over 50 km from the nearest non-
DRR sources in another state emitting over 100 tons of SO2.
EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km between sources make
it unlikely that SO2 emissions from the 10 Georgia sources
could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-state
sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment
in Alabama, Florida, or South Carolina.
Table 4--Georgia Non-DRR SO2 Sources Within 50 km of the Georgia Border Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
2017 Annual Approximate distance to Nearest neighboring state
SO2 emissions distance to nearest non-DRR SO2 source & 2017
Georgia source (tons) Georgia Closest neighboring state neighboring emissions (>100 tons SO2)
border (km) state SO2
source (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Cellulose LLC................. 281.4 50 Florida........................... 88 Symrise (824.9 tons).
Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC....... 511.6 <5 Alabama........................... 75 Mineral Manufacturing
Corporation (182.3 tons).
Graphic Packaging International, LLC 253.3 <5 South Carolina.................... 88 SCE&G Cope Station
(formerly International Paper--Augusta (1,165.6 tons).
Mill).
Imperial-Savannah, L.P.................. 191.0 <5 South Carolina.................... 130 Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
(241.0 tons).
PCA Valdosta Mill....................... 471.1 7 Florida........................... 76 Foley Cellulose LLC
(1,537.6 tons).
Savannah Acid Plant LLC................. 163.0 <5 South Carolina.................... 130 Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
(241.0 tons).
Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer.. 581.4 <5 South Carolina.................... 130 Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
(241.0 tons).
Thermal Ceramics........................ 1,150.2 <5 South Carolina.................... 90 SCE&G Cope Station
(1,165.6 tons).
Weyerhaeuser NR Port Wentworth.......... 524.1 <5 South Carolina.................... 130 Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
(241.0 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66341]]
Based on the declining SO2 emissions trends statewide in
Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee, and the Agency's analysis of the Georgia
sources in Table 4, EPA believes that Georgia's potential for
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
a. State Submission
In its SIP submission, GA EPD included a table showing that the six
SO2 monitors in Georgia and six monitors in the adjacent
states of Florida and South Carolina within 50 km of Georgia's border
with complete, valid DVs for the 2015-2017 time period have 2017 DVs of
52 ppb or less, well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\33\ GA
EPD also summarized EPA's round 3 designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for Georgia and adjacent states. GA EPD notes that
EPA designated all counties within 50 km of Georgia's border as
attainment/unclassifiable in round 3 with the exception of Haywood
County in North Carolina and a small portion of Nassau County in
Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Table 1 of Georgia's SIP submission also presents 2015,
2016, and 2017 annual 99th percentile SO2 concentrations
in ppb (appears as ``ppm'' in the submission) for four monitors
within 50 km of Georgia's border which do not have complete valid
data to calculate a DV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Haywood County, North Carolina, GA EPD explains
that Haywood County will be designated in round 4. The only
SO2 source in Georgia within 50 km \34\ of Haywood County,
North Carolina, is Multitrade Rabun Gap. According to the State, the
2014 SO2 emissions from this facility were 25.1 tpy.\35\ In
the January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD concluded that Multitrade
Rabun Gap will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Haywood County, North Carolina, due
to the amount of these emissions and the distance from Haywood County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ EPA notes that Multitrade Rabun Gap is located
approximately 55 km from Haywood County.
\35\ EPA notes that Multitrade Rabun Gap emitted 28.1 tons of
SO2 in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Nassau County, Florida, GA EPD summarized the
status of this area as follows. On August 5, 2013,\36\ EPA designated
an area in Nassau County, Florida, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS based on ambient SO2 monitoring data in
the area over the three-year period 2009-2011. Florida submitted an
attainment demonstration for Nassau County on April 3, 2015, and EPA
fully approved this demonstration on July 3, 2017. GA EPD notes that
the SO2 monitor in Nassau County has a 2017 SO2
DV of 43 ppb. Florida submitted a redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the Nassau County SO2 nonattainment area on June 7,
2018. Thus, GA EPD concluded that because Nassau County currently has a
3-year DV well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and, at the
time of Georgia's SIP development, was in the process of being
redesignated to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
SO2 emission sources in Georgia do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in Nassau County, Florida.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 78 FR 47191 (effective October 4, 2013).
\37\ As discussed in footnote 15, EPA has redesignated the
Nassau County area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
Since the time of development of Georgia's SIP submission,
certified monitoring data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) \38\
(``AQS monitors'') have become available for Georgia and the
surrounding states. EPA has summarized the DVs from 2013 to 2018 for
AQS monitors in Georgia within 50 km of another state in Table 5 and
AQS monitors in neighboring states within 50 km of Georgia in Table 6
using relevant data from EPA's AQS DV reports for recent and complete
3-year periods. The 2010 1-hour SO2 standard is violated at
an ambient air quality monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion
modeling, at an ambient air quality receptor location) when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with
Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ EPA's AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by
EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. This
data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
Table 5--Trend in 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Georgia Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
distance to
County AQS Site code (ID) 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 Georgia
border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham.................................. 13-051-0021 66 * ND * ND * ND 32 32 7.1 (SC).
Chatham.................................. 13-051-1002 79 78 70 52 48 45 2.8 (SC).
Floyd.................................... 13-115-0003 67 46 35 42 * ND * ND 12.6 (AL).
Richmond................................. 13-245-0091 * ND * ND 61 60 52 52 6.2 (SC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ND indicates ``No Data'' due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.
** The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003) was discontinued in 2016.
As shown in Table 5, DVs for the four non-DRR monitoring sites in
Georgia within 50 km of another state's border have remained well below
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2011-2013 through 2016-
2018 time periods.\39\ The monitor located in Floyd County maintained
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS DVs well below the NAAQS for the 2011-
2013 through 2014-2016 time periods, and was then relocated to a nearby
site in 2016 to characterize the area pursuant to the DRR; therefore,
no DVs are available for this monitor after the 2014-2016 time
period.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The Muscogee County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-215-008)
is not shown in Table 5 because it was discontinued in 2012, and
therefore, has no DVs for the 2011-2013 through the 2016-2018 time
periods.
\40\ The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003)
shown in Table 5 of this notice was relocated in January 2017 to the
opposite side of the International Paper-Rome facility to
characterize the area of expected maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration near the source pursuant to the DRR. This DRR monitor
in Floyd County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13-115-0006), is shown in Table 7
of this notice and does not have a valid 2015-2017 DV because the
monitor was relocated. The data from the original monitor (AQS ID:
13-115-0003) and the relocated monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) were
not combined to calculate a DV because the relocated monitor (AQS
ID: 13-115-0006) was installed to characterize the air quality in
the area under the DRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66342]]
There is one AQS monitor in South Carolina and six AQS monitors in
Florida that are located within 50 km of Georgia. As shown in Table 6,
the DVs from 2013 to 2018 for these monitors are generally trending
downward, and the 2018 DVs are well below the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the Hamilton County,
Florida monitor which has no data for the 2016-2018 DV time period. The
Hamilton County monitor has 2012 and 2013 DVs of 23 and 25 ppb,
respectively, and incomplete data for the remaining DV time periods
(2014-2018).
Table 6--2010 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors With Complete, Valid Data Within 50 km of Georgia in Adjacent States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
distance to
State County AQS ID 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 Georgia
border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida..................... Duval.......... 12-031-0032 17 17 16 16 16 18 39
Florida..................... Duval.......... * 12-031-0080 11 17 17 17 10 ** ND 37
Florida..................... Duval.......... 12-031-0081 29 27 23 20 12 11 38
Florida..................... Duval.......... * 12-031-0097 21 21 23 18 14 ** ND 43
Florida..................... Hamilton....... 12-047-0015 25 ** ND ** ND ** ND ** ND ** ND 19
Florida..................... Nassau......... 12-089-0005 70 57 58 51 43 37 6
South Carolina.............. Oconee......... 45-073-0001 ** ND ** ND 3 2 2 2 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... No AQS monitors within 50 km of Georgia,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina.............. No AQS monitors within 50 km of Georgia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA approved the shutdown of two SO2 monitors in Duval County (AQS IDs: 12-031-0080 and 12-031-0097) in 2018.
** ND indicates ``No Data'' due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.
EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for DRR
monitors either located in Georgia within 50 km of another state's
border or in other states within 50 km of the Georgia border that were
established to characterize the air quality around specific sources
subject to EPA's DRR to inform the Agency's future round 4 designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in lieu of modeling. There are
no DRR monitors located in other states within 50 km of the Georgia
border. There is one DRR monitor in Georgia which is within 50 km of
the border, and it is located approximately 12 km from Alabama in Floyd
County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) and is sited in the vicinity of
the International Paper--Rome facility, a DRR source. Table 7 lists the
2017 and 2018 99th percentile SO2 concentration data for
this DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The Floyd County, Georgia DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0006)
does not have three or more years of complete data to establish DVs.
Table 7--Annual 99th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO2 Concentrations for Round 4 DRR Monitors in Georgia Within 50 km of Another State's Border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 99th 2018 99th
percentile percentile Approximate
County (state) Round 4 monitored source AQS ID concentration concentration distance to
(ppb) (ppb) Alabama (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd (GA).................................... International Paper--Rome........ 13-115-0006 22 15 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations shown in Table 7 are not directly
comparable to a DV for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which is
in the form of the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour values, EPA notes that the highest annual 99th
percentile daily maximum 1-hour values observed at the Floyd County DRR
monitor in 2017 and 2018 were 22 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively, which
are well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Floyd County
DRR monitor did not measure any daily exceedances of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS during 2017 or 2018.
After careful review of the State's assessment and all available
monitoring data, EPA believes that the AQS monitoring data and the
preliminary data from the Floyd County DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-
0006) further support EPA's proposed conclusion that Georgia will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
a. State Submission
Georgia identified the following SIP-approved measures which help
ensure that SO2 emissions in the State do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.03.--
Permits. Amended, contains provisions addressing construction permits
(391-3-1-.03(1)); operating permits (391-3-1-.03(2)); new source review
(NSR) (391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and
[[Page 66343]]
(g)); permit by rule (391-3-1-.03(11)); and generic permits (391-3-
1-.03(12)). Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(7)
addresses Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements,
which apply to all new major sources and major modifications in
attainment, unclassifiable, or undesignated areas.\42\ Georgia Rules
for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(g)--Sulfur Dioxide and 391-3-
1-.02(13)--Cross State Air Pollution Rule SO2 Annual Trading
Program also reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ There are currently no nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, GA EPD listed the following State-enforceable rules
not approved into the Georgia SIP which control SO2
emissions: Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)--
Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and
391-3-1-.02(2)(uuu)--SO2 Emissions from Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units.
b. EPA Analysis
EPA believes that Georgia's SIP-approved measures which establish
emission limits, permitting requirements, and other control measures
for SO2 effectively address emissions of SO2 from
sources in the State. For the purposes of ensuring that SO2
emissions at new major sources or major modifications at existing major
sources in Georgia do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS, the State has a SIP-approved major NSR program. Georgia
Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.03.--Permits. Amended, which
includes NSR requirements under 391-3-l-.03(8)(c) and (g), regulates
the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification
at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The State's SIP-approved
PSD regulation, 391-3-1-.02.--Provisions. Amended, which includes PSD
requirements under 391-3-1-.02(7), applies to the construction of any
new major stationary source or major modification at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable
or not yet designated. SIP-approved Georgia Rules for Air Quality
Control 391-3-1-.03(1)--Construction (SIP) Permit governs the
preconstruction permitting of minor modifications and the construction
of minor stationary sources. These major and minor NSR rules ensure
that SO2 emissions due to major modifications at existing
major stationary sources, modifications at minor stationary sources,
and the construction of new major and minor sources subject to these
rules will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Georgia
a. State Submission
GA EPD did not identify any specific federal regulations that
address SO2 emissions in its SIP submission. Thus, EPA lists
in section III.C.5.b several federal regulations which have reduced
SO2 emissions in Georgia and will continue to do so in the
future.
b. EPA Analysis
The following federal control measures reduce SO2
emissions from various sources: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain
Program; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; Mercury Air Toxics Rule;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; New Source
Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 Mobile
Source Rules. EPA believes that these federal measures will lower
SO2 emissions, which, in turn, are expected to continue to
support EPA's proposed conclusion that SO2 emissions from
Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
6. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP
submission satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This proposed determination is based on the
following considerations: Modeling for the six Georgia DRR sources
within 50 km of another state's border shows that the areas around
these facilities are not exceeding the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS; DVs for 2013 through 2018 for the four currently
operating non-DRR monitoring sites in Georgia within 50 km of another
state's border have remained well below the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS; 2017 and 2018 99th percentile SO2 concentrations at
the DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia, are well below the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS; the DVs for five of the six non-DRR monitors
in Florida \43\ and the one non-DRR monitor South Carolina that are
located within 50 km of Georgia are trending downward overall and have
remained below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from
the 2011-2013 to 2016-2018 time periods; SO2 emissions from
Georgia sources not subject to the DRR emitting over 100 tons of
SO2 in 2017 are not likely interacting with SO2
emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a bordering state in
such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama,
Florida, or South Carolina; downward SO2 emissions trends in
Georgia and the Agency's analysis of the non-DRR Georgia sources
emitting over 100 tpy in 2017 in Table 4 suggest that Georgia's
potential for contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially;
and current Georgia SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control
programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources
within Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Hamilton County, Florida monitor (AQS ID: 12-047-0015)
has no data to calculate DVs for the 2012-2014 through the 2016-2018
time periods due to invalidated data for those years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the analysis provided by Georgia in its SIP submission and
EPA's analysis of factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes to
find that sources within Georgia will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state.
1. State Submission
In its January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD confirms that
Georgia will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. GA EPD bases its conclusion
for prong 2 on the following: Annual SO2 99th percentile
values (2015, 2016, and 2017) and the 2015-2017 DVs at monitors in
Georgia and within 50 km of Georgia's border; SO2 emissions
trends in Georgia and adjacent states from 1990 to 2017; and the SIP-
approved measures discussed in sections III.C.4.a of this notice.
2. EPA Analysis
In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the
regulating authority must give prong 2 ``independent significance''
from prong 1 by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of
future nonattainment. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C.
Cir.
[[Page 66344]]
2008). EPA interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential
impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring
clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality.
Therefore, in addition to the analysis presented by Georgia, EPA has
also reviewed additional information on SO2 air quality and
emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Georgia will
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the emissions trends
provided by Georgia for the State, evaluated air quality data, and
assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed through
existing SIP-approved and federal regulations. Given the continuing
trend of decreasing SO2 emissions from sources within
Georgia and the fact that all areas in other states within 50 km of the
Georgia border have DVs attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
(with the exception of Florida's Duval County monitor (AQS ID: 12-031-
0080) which does not have a 2018 DV), EPA believes that evaluating
whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time is a
reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within Georgia do not
interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to air quality data trends, the 2018 DVs for AQS
SO2 monitors both in Georgia within 50 km of another state's
border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia's border are
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Further, modeling results
for DRR sources both within the State and in neighboring states within
50 km of Georgia's border demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, and thus, demonstrate that Georgia's largest
point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
As discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, EPA believes that
federal and SIP-approved State regulations that both directly and
indirectly reduce emissions of SO2 in Georgia help ensure
that the State does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state. SO2 emissions from future major modifications
and new major sources will be addressed by Georgia's SIP-approved major
NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, Georgia's
SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.03(1)--Construction
(SIP) Permit governs the preconstruction permitting of modifications,
construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of
major stationary sources. The permitting regulations contained within
these programs ensure that emissions from these activities do not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
the State or in any other state.
3. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP
submission satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following
considerations: Modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Georgia's
border both within the State and in neighboring states demonstrate that
Georgia's largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state; SO2 emissions statewide from 1990 to 2017 in
Georgia have declined significantly and, weighed along with the
Agency's analysis of the Georgia non-DRR sources emitting greater than
100 tpy in 2017 listed in Table 4 of this notice, indicate that
Georgia's potential for interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially;
current Georgia SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control
programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources
within Georgia, including Georgia's SIP-approved NSR permit programs
which address future large and small SO2 sources in the
State; DVs for the 2011-2013 through 2016-2018 time periods for AQS
SO2 monitors both in Georgia within 50 km of another state's
border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia's border are well
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and trending
downward; and the relatively low 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum SO2 concentrations for 2017 and 2018 at the Floyd
County, Georgia, DRR monitor. Based on the analysis provided by Georgia
in its SIP submission and EPA's supplemental analysis of the factors
described in section III.C and III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to
find that emission sources within Georgia will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Proposed Action
Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that
Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the January 9, 2019, SIP
revision as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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. This 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:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
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; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
[[Page 66345]]
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 21, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-26037 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P