[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11452-11476]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4516]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936-201150, FRL-9637-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Georgia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the
Georgia state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Georgia through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on February 11, 2010, as
supplemented on November 19, 2010, that addresses regional haze for the
first implementation period. This SIP

revision, as supplemented, addresses the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and
remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions
of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic
area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the
regional haze requirements for Georgia on the basis that the revision,
as a whole, strengthens the Georgia SIP. EPA has previously proposed a
limited disapproval of the Georgia regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
Consequently, EPA is not proposing to take action in this rulemaking to
address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0936, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0936.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michele Notarianni can be
reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's regional haze submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions To Visibility Impairment: Pollutants,
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in Georgia and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable
Progress Analysis
    A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject To Reasonable
Progress Analysis
    B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject To Reasonable
Progress Analysis
    6. BART

    A. BART-Eligible Sources
    B. BART-Subject Sources
    C. BART Determinations
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. What action is EPA proposing To take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010,
SIP revision and November 19, 2010, SIP supplement, addressing regional
haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because these revisions,
as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. Throughout this document,
references To Georgia's ``regional haze SIP'' or ``SIP submittal'' or
``SIP revision'' collectively refer To Georgia's original February 11,
2010, SIP revision and the supplement to this February 2010 SIP
revision submitted on November 19, 2010. This proposed rulemaking and
the accompanying Technical Support Document \1\ (TSD) explain the basis
for EPA's proposed limited approval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled ``Technical Support
Document for Georgia Regional Haze SIP Submittal,'' is included in
the public docket for this action.
    \2\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the
Georgia regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR
to meet certain regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219 (December
30, 2011). EPA is not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on
issues associated with Georgia's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze
SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Georgia's
regional haze SIP are accepted at the docket for EPA's December 30,
2011, proposed rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729). The
comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is
scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas
\4\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In
accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with
the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I area is the responsibility
of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term
``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a ``mandatory
Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires
states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments,
tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the

2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement
in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states
with emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required,
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4)); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005

revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain
subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 need
not require affected BART-eligible electrical generating (EGUs) to
install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address
direct emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.
Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA.
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1175 (DC Cir. 2008).
    EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport
of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219.
Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year,

emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and
estimates of future projected emissions. A state must also make a
commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's regional haze submittal?

    On February 11, 2010, GA EPD submitted revisions to the Georgia SIP
to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as required by
EPA's RHR. The State supplemented this February 2010 submittal on
November 19, 2010, with title V permit amendments that contain
emissions limitations for three facilities.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Georgia has three Class I areas within its borders: Cohutta
Wilderness Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf Island Wilderness
Area. Georgia is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that
addresses these Class I areas and for consulting with other states that
impact Georgia's Class I areas.
    The Georgia regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those
RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in
2018. In developing the LTS for each area, Georgia considered both
emissions sources inside and outside of Georgia that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in Georgia's Class I areas. The
State also identified and considered emissions sources within Georgia
that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas
in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS
RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to
make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the
three areas in Georgia and those areas affected by emissions from
Georgia.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Georgia calculated baseline/current and natural
visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as summarized
below (and as further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of
EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light
extinction. Georgia opted to use the default estimates for the natural
concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation'' for all of
its areas. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the
new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area
by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to
aid the creation of Federal and state implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emissions sources
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity

enhancement factors are used for small and large size distributions of
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for
the remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon),
fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original
and new IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in numerous published papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006.
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    GA EPD estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Georgia
Class I areas using available monitoring data from two IMPROVE
monitoring sites, one in the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and the other
in the Cohutta Wilderness Area. The Wolf Island Wilderness Area does
not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not
available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most
representative monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to
establish baseline visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA.
Georgia used, and EPA concurs, with the use of 2000-2004 data from the
IMPROVE monitor at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area for the Wolf Island
Wilderness Area. The IMPROVE Steering Committee considers the IMPROVE
monitor at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area to be representative of
visibility at Wolf Island. Okefenokee is the nearest Class I area to
Wolf Island, and they possess similar characteristics, such as
meteorology and topography.
    As explained in section III.B, baseline visibility conditions are
the same as current conditions for the first regional haze SIP. A five-
year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for
each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at
each Georgia Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Okefenokee for the
period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for data
completeness.\10\ IMPROVE data for Cohutta did not meet completeness
criteria in the years 2000, 2001, and 2003. Data records for 2001 and
2003 were filled using data substitution procedures.\11\ There was too
little data in 2000 to perform data filling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance, page 2-8.
    \11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix B.1 of the Georgia regional haze SIP lists the 20 percent
best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 for the
Okefenokee and Cohutta areas. This data is also provided at the
following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the Georgia Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions on
the 20 percent worst days range between approximately 27 and 30.5
deciviews. Natural visibility in these areas is predicted to be between
approximately 10.5 and 11.5 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The
natural and baseline conditions for Georgia's Class I areas for both
the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''

 Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for Georgia's Class
                                 I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Average for 20    Average for 20
            Class I area                percent worst     percent best
                                       days  (dv \12\)     days  (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Natural Background Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta Wilderness Area.............             10.78              4.32
Okefenokee Wilderness Area..........             11.21              5.31
Wolf Island Wilderness Area.........             11.21              5.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta Wilderness Area.............             30.25             13.77
Okefenokee Wilderness Area..........             27.13             15.23
Wolf Island Wilderness Area.........             27.13             15.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Georgia considered the uniform rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``glidepath'') and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater than, less than, or
equivalent to the glidepath.
    The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one
for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days,
for its three Class I areas. Georgia constructed the graph for the
worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of
visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064
for its three areas. For the best days, the graph includes a
horizontal, straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out
to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation
period of the SIP. Georgia's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for its
areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst
days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same
period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the Cohutta Class I area, the overall visibility improvement
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between
baseline visibility of 30.25 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days
and natural conditions of 10.78 deciviews, i.e., 19.47 deciviews. Over
the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average
improvement of 0.325 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions.
Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve
visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of
progress for the 20 percent worst days at the Cohutta Wilderness Area,
Georgia would need to project at least 4.55

deciviews (approximately) over the first implementation period (i.e.,
0.325 deciviews x 14 years = 4.55 deciviews) of visibility improvement
from the 30.25 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility
levels at or below approximately 25.7 deciviews in 2018. As discussed
below in section IV.C.7, ``Reasonable Progress Goals,'' Georgia
projects a 7.45 deciview improvement to visibility in the Cohutta
Wilderness Area from the 30.25 deciview baseline to 22.8 deciviews in
2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 2.02 deciview
improvement to 11.75 deciviews from the baseline visibility of 13.77
deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.
    For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas, the overall
visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the
difference between baseline visibility of 27.13 deciviews for the 20
percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.21 deciviews, i.e.,
15.92 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would
require an average improvement of 0.265 deciviews per year to reach
natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in
order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the
uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at the
Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas, Georgia would need to
project at least 3.71 deciviews (approximately) over the first
implementation period (i.e., 0.265 deciviews x 14 years = 3.71
deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 27.13 deciviews baseline
in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 23.42 deciviews in
2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, ``Reasonable Progress
Goals,'' Georgia projects a 3.31 deciview improvement to visibility for
the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas from the 27.13 deciview
baseline to 23.82 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired
days, and a 1.31 deciview improvement to 13.92 deciviews from the
baseline visibility of 15.23 deciviews for the 20 percent least
impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state
for achieving its RPGs. Georgia's LTS for the first implementation
period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and
local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Georgia LTS was
developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an
evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the
emissions units within Georgia and in surrounding states that likely
have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's three
Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on
all controls required or expected under Federal and state regulations
for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the
State's Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory
factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified
emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were
required.
    In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA proposed a limited
disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP
relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not taking action on that
aspect of Georgia's regional haze SIP in this rulemaking. Comments on
the December 30, 2011, proposed determination are accepted at Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The comment period for EPA's December 30,
2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Georgia. The 2018
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in
section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while
emissions inventories were also developed for NH3 and VOC,
and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Georgia's
regional haze analyses, Georgia did not further evaluate NH3
and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or
reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source
classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year,
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions from the source category could be significant.
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road)
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the
countywide level.
    There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented
that VISTAS and Georgia anticipate will reduce emissions between the
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility
improvement by 2018 in the Georgia Class I areas. The control programs
relied upon by Georgia include: CAIR; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel
(2007) engine standards for on-road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2
tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark ignition
and recreational vehicle controls; EPA's non-road diesel rules; Georgia
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy), ``Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major
Sources'' requiring NOX reasonably available control
technology for subject sources in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone non-
attainment area; Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss), ``Multipollutant
Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units;'' and
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 1-hour
ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky. Controls
from various Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules
were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emissions inventory
projections. These MACT rules include the industrial boiler/process
heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial Boiler MACT''), the combustion
turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, and the
VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards.

    Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\13\ This MACT was vacated
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and Georgia did not redo its
modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though Georgia's
modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, the
State's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be affected because the
expected reductions due to the vacated rule were relatively small
compared to the State's total SO2, PM2.5, and
coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e.,
0.1 to 0.7 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018
SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus,
EPA does not expect that differences between the vacated and final
Industrial Boiler MACT emissions limits would affect the adequacy of
the existing Georgia regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address
discrepancies between projected emissions reductions from the vacated
Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21,
2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Georgia to do so in the State's five-
year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Georgia.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Tables 2 and 3 exclude biogenic emissions data provided in
the February 2010 Georgia regional haze SIP submittal.

                                       Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Georgia (tons per year (tpy))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3            SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................................        34,964.3       197,376.9        22,531.7        33,077.3         3,669.2      571,410.9
Area.....................................................       333,044.8        49,987.4       159,437.8       757,656.1        83,066.0       60,370.2
On-Road Mobile...........................................       283,420.6       307,731.7         5,167.8         7,245.9        10,546.2       12,183.5
Off-Road Mobile..........................................        85,965.4        97,961.4         8,226.4         8,617.9            60.4        9,005.4
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................       737,395.1       653,057.4       195,363.7       806,597.2        97,341.8      652,970
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Georgia (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................        43,097.8       125,680.0        36,297.4        48,005.1         6,474.4       127,863.6
Area....................................................       353,224.5        55,518.5       180,697.2       944,009.4       102,112.4        62,636.2
On-Road Mobile..........................................       109,763.3       102,179.2         2,380.2         4,843.6        14,873.2         1,457.0
Off-Road Mobile.........................................        56,760.7        64,578.8         5,729.7         6,015.1            78.6         1,708.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       562,846.3       347,956.5       225,104.5     1,002,873.2       123,538.6       193,665.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10
southeastern states, including Georgia. The modeling analysis is a
complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling
system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for
urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional
haze regulatory modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated emissions inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emissions sources for
photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was
also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the
10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells that covers the continental
United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection
of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating
baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air
quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants.
VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection
of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period
of meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located
at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001,
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Georgia
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA's RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA proposes to accept the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS
and to determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of
progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated according
to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS model
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate
tool for the regional haze assessments for the Georgia LTS and regional
haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emissions sensitivity model runs
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75
to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I
areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light
extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS
states. In particular, for the Okefenokee and Cohutta Wilderness Areas,
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions contribute
roughly 69 and 84 percent, respectively, to the calculated light
extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate
contributed five percent or less of the calculated light extinction at
VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 percent or
less of the light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days at
the VISTAS Class I areas.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'')
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain,
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region and to describe
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types
of Class I areas. The Cohutta Class I area is considered an ``inland''
area and the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas are both
``coastal'' areas.
    Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the three Georgia areas.
Georgia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and
non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest
visibility benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. Because ammonium
nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the inland Class I areas in
VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX and NH3
emissions at these sites are small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore,
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little,
if any, visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region,
including those in Georgia. The sensitivity analyses also show that
reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or
fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS
Class I areas.
    Georgia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and
in section III.E of this action to develop its LTS as described below.
Georgia, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that
elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines,
agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires) and fine soils
(a product of construction activities and activities that generate
fugitive dust), are relatively minor contributors to visibility
impairment at the Class I areas in Georgia. Additionally, the State, in
conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated that the benefits of reducing
point source ammonia emissions are small. With regard to area source
ammonia emissions, while reducing ammonia emissions would be relatively
more beneficial for Georgia's two coastal Class I areas than the
Cohutta area, these emissions are primarily from agricultural activity,
specifically fertilizing operations and animal farming. The State
explains in its SIP that because there are no economically feasible
options for controlling these types of area sources of ammonia
emissions, and GA EPD does not have regulatory authority to control
these sources, Georgia did not further evaluate this source category
for control.
    Georgia considered agricultural and forestry smoke management
techniques to address visibility impacts from elemental carbon. On July
11, 2008, GA EPD entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
Georgia Forestry and Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife
Resources Division adopting a smoke management program that utilizes
basic smoke management practices and addresses the issues laid

out in the EPA's 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the State considered
those activities that generate fugitive dust, including construction
activities. Georgia's Rules for Air Quality Control include
requirements for precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming
airborne and to limit the opacity of fugitive emissions to less than 20
percent. The requirements of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(n), ``Fugitive
Dust,'' include preventive measures for construction activities.
    EPA preliminarily concurs with the State's technical demonstration
showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not
significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I areas,
and therefore, proposes to find that Georgia has adequately satisfied
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action and
Georgia's SIP provide more details on the State's consideration of
these factors for Georgia's LTS.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to Georgia, the VISTAS sensitivity
analysis projects visibility benefits in the Georgia Class I areas and
Class I areas outside the State impacted by Georgia sources from
SO2 reductions from EGUs in the VISTAS states. Additional,
smaller benefits are projected from SO2 emissions reductions
from non-utility industrial point sources. SO2 emissions
contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions are
comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states' contributions,
and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS region is predicted
to provide less significant improvements in visibility in the Class I
areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration,
Georgia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and
non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the greatest
visibility benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. The State chose to
focus solely on evaluating certain SO2 sources contributing
to visibility impairment to the State's Class I areas for additional
emissions reductions for reasonable progress in this first
implementation period (described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this
action). EPA proposes to agree with the State's analyses and
conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories that
most contribute to visibility impairment in the Georgia Class I areas,
and proposes to find the State's approach to focus on developing a LTS
that includes largely additional measures for point sources of
SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
    SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in Georgia and Surrounding Areas
    As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action, through
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\15\ the VISTAS states concluded that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions account for
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas
in VISTAS states, including those in Georgia. Utility and non-utility
boilers are the main sources of SO2 emissions within the
southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology for Georgia
that enables the State to focus its reasonable progress analysis on
those geographic regions and source categories that impact visibility
at each of its Class I areas. Recognizing that there was neither
sufficient time nor adequate resources available to evaluate all
emissions units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each of
the Class I areas that Georgia's sources impact, the State established
a threshold to determine which emissions units would be evaluated for
reasonable progress control. In applying this methodology, GA EPD first
calculated the fractional contribution to visibility impairment from
all emissions units within the SO2 AOI for each of its Class
I areas, and those surrounding areas in other states potentially
impacted by emissions from emissions units in Georgia. The State then
identified those emissions units with a contribution of one half (0.5)
percent or more to the visibility impairment at that particular Class I
area, and evaluated each of these units for control measures for
reasonable progress using the following four ``reasonable progress
factors'' required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of
compliance; (ii) time necessary for compliance; (iii) energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (iv) remaining
useful life of the emissions unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated
with FLMs, EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia
to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's SO2 AOI methodology captured greater than 70
percent of the total point source SO2 contribution to
visibility impairment in two of Georgia's three Class I areas and
required an evaluation of more than 30 units. At the remaining area,
Cohutta Wilderness Area, the 0.5-percent threshold represents 69
percent of the total SO2 contribution to visibility
impairment and required an evaluation of 38 units. Capturing a
significantly greater percentage of the total contribution would
involve an evaluation of many more emissions units that have
substantially less impact. EPA believes the approach developed by
VISTAS and implemented for the Class I areas in Georgia is a reasonable
methodology to prioritize the most significant contributors to regional
haze and to identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control
in the State's Class I area. The approach is consistent with EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and
Georgia was objective and based on several analyses including the
evaluation of a large universe of emissions units within and
surrounding the State of Georgia and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I
areas. It also included an analysis of the VISTAS emissions units
affecting nearby Class I areas surrounding the VISTAS states that are
located in other RPOs' Class I areas.

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress
Analysis
    Under Georgia's state rule 391-3-1-.02(13), ``Clean Air Interstate
Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program,'' SO2 emissions
from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70-percent
reduction from 2002 actual emissions. GA EPD concluded that additional
EGU control for SO2 during this time period is not
reasonable for the EGU sources that contribute greater than 0.5 percent
to visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to
meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress in 2018. However, for five
EGUs at three facilities owned by Georgia Power (see Table 4) that meet
the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation at
Class I areas not clearly at or below the glidepath (Okefenokee and
Wolf Island Wilderness Areas), GA EPD did consider additional controls.
    GA EPD initially identified 24 additional non-EGU emissions units
at 13 facilities in Georgia (see Table 4) which meet the State's
minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation (i.e.,
because they were modeled to fall within the SO2 AOI of any
Class I area and have a 0.5 percent or greater contribution to the
sulfate visibility impairment in at least one Class I area).\16\ GA EPD
later determined, based on updated data, that of these 24 non-EGU
units, seven units at four facilities would not contribute 0.5 percent
or greater of the total sulfate visibility impairment at any Class I
area in 2018 and thus, these seven units were not subject to a
reasonable progress control evaluation. In addition, six units at three
facilities requested and received emissions limits to reduce the
projected sulfate visibility impairment from each emissions unit to
less than 0.5 percent. Finally, one of the emissions units is subject
to BART review under the RHR. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress
Guidance, since the BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment
of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the
RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that any control
requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-
related requirements for source review in the first implementation
period.\17\ Therefore, reasonable progress control reviews were
conducted on the remaining 10 non-EGU emissions units at five
facilities and five EGUs at three facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from
the Georgia SIP, Appendix H.2.
    \17\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4.3.

   Table 4--Georgia Facilities Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Georgia Pacific--Brunswick
                                         Cellulose, Power Boiler 4 (F1),
                                         Recovery Boiler R407 (M24).
                                        Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs,
                                         Power Boilers U500, U501,
                                         Recovery Boiler R402.
                                        Georgia Pacific--Savannah River
                                         Mill, Boilers B001, B002, B003.
                                        Georgia Power--Plant Kraft,
                                         Steam Generators (SG) 1, 2, 3.
                                        Georgia Power--Plant Mitchell,
                                         SG 3.
                                        Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh,
                                         SG 1.
                                        International Paper--Savannah
                                         Mill, Power Boiler 13.
                                        Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard,
                                         Power Boiler 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject to Reasonable Progress
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Non-EGUs Subject to BART
                                           Interstate Paper, Power
                                            Boiler F1.
                                        Not Subject to Evaluation Based
                                         on Updated Information
                                           Miller Brewing, Boilers B001,
                                            B002.
                                           Mount Vernon Mills, Boilers E
                                            U 03, E U 04.
                                           Savannah Sugar Refinery,
                                            Boiler U161.
                                           Mohawk Industries, Boilers
                                            BL06, BL07.
                                        Exempted With Additional
                                         Emission Limits
                                           Packaging Corporation of
                                            America, C E Boiler.
                                           Rayonier Performance Fibers--
                                            Jessup Mill, Power Boilers
                                            2, 3, Recovery Furnace 1,2.
                                           Southern States Phosphate and
                                            Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid
                                            Plant 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Facilities with Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis

    The RHR requires that states consider the following factors and
demonstrate how these factors were taken into consideration in
selecting the RPGs: costs of compliance; time necessary for compliance;
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and
remaining useful life of any potentially-affected sources. As stated
previously, GA EPD performed reasonable progress control analyses for
15 emissions units. The results of GA EPD's analyses are summarized
below, followed by EPA's assessment.
1. Georgia Pacific--Brunswick Cellulose
(a). Power Boiler 4 (F1)
    Georgia Pacific's Brunswick Cellulose facility is located in Glynn
County near the Georgia coast. Power Boiler No. 4 is an 800 million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) boiler that burns primarily
No. 6 fuel oil and wood waste, including bark. The boiler is also
permitted to burn tire-derived fuel (TDF) and wastewater treatment
sludge. The sulfur content of the fuel oil is three percent or less.
    Power Boiler 4 at the Brunswick Cellulose facility meets Georgia's
minimum threshold for reasonable progress control evaluation. The unit
contributes to the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I
areas (i.e., approximately 12.6 percent at Wolf Island and 3.9 percent
at Okefenokee). The State noted in its SIP that these contributions are
the highest level of visibility impairment contribution to any Class I
area caused by any single emissions unit that GA EPD analyzed. The 2018
projected SO2 emissions developed by VISTAS are 1,642 tpy.
However, the boiler had already

reduced emissions to approximately 1,099 tpy due to a 2002 modification
achieving higher efficiency.
    The reasonable progress control analysis reviewed wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), in-duct sorbent injection, and a limitation on
fuel oil usage coupled with lower sulfur content fuel oil (2.2 percent
and 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil). Of these control measures, the fuel
oil changes could take place prior to 2012 and the wet FGD and in-duct
sorbent injection could be installed before 2013. The remaining useful
life of the unit extends past 2018 and past the control equipment
amortization period. The wet FGD would have an impact on water usage
and wastewater discharge, and in-duct sorbent injection would result in
additional solid waste. The company did not identify any significant
energy impacts for any of the options.
    Of the control options considered, both in-duct sorbent injection
and a switch to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil coupled with a five million
gallon-per-year oil usage limit were considered reasonably cost
effective. The costs are $3,562 per ton of SO2 removed ($/
ton SO2) and $20.7 million per inverse megameter (MM/Mm-1)
at Wolf Island for in-duct sorbent injection, and $3,228/ton
SO2 and $18.8 MM/Mm-1 at Wolf Island for 1.0 percent sulfur
fuel oil. These controls were considered cost effective due to the
relatively high visibility impact on two Class I areas and the fact
that neither of these Class I areas are projected to be clearly at or
below the glidepath. Both in-duct sorbent injection and 1.0 percent
sulfur fuel oil achieve approximately the same amount of SO2
emissions reductions (769 tpy for sorbent injection and 731 tpy for 1.0
percent sulfur fuel oil) from the current emissions level of 1,099 tpy
SO2. Implementation of the more cost effective of these two
options would reduce SO2 emissions to 368 tons of
SO2 per 12-consecutive months (i.e., 1,099 tpy - 731 tpy =
368 tpy SO2).
    Supplemental information provided by the facility indicated that
the two controls deemed to be reasonable would control emissions from
oil combustion but would not affect SO2 emissions from
combustion of wood waste and TDF. The facility requested an allowance
for an additional 200 tons of emissions based on calculations of
historical emissions from wood waste and TDF. This request was also
supported by the facility's assertion that the sulfur content of
locally available TDF may be above what has been burned historically.
GA EPD concurred with the facility's request and established an
SO2 emissions limit in the facility's title V permit for the
power boiler of 568 tpy SO2 (368 + 200 = 568 tpy) for
reasonable progress with a compliance date of 2012. The revised permit
is included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze submittal.
(b). Recovery Boiler R407 (M24)
    Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) contributes approximately 1.3 percent to
the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Wilderness
Area. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions are 193 tpy. Georgia
Pacific's reasonable progress control analysis found combustion control
and wet FGD to be the only technically feasible control options. The
company stated that emissions of SO2 of 38 parts per million
(ppm), as measured in a 2006 stack test, are too low of a load for
effective operation of a FGD. Therefore, the company ruled out this
control technology.
    Combustion control, the other technically feasible control option,
is already included in the boiler design. Because this emissions unit
only contributes to visibility impairment at one Class I area and has a
relatively low 2018 projected emissions level, the State determined
that no additional controls are required for reasonable progress for
the Recovery Boiler R407 at Georgia Pacific--Brunswick Cellulose.
2. Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs
(a). Power Boiler U500 (``Power Boiler 1'') and Power Boiler U501
(``Power Boiler 2'')
    Power Boilers 1 and 2 at the Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs
facility are two nearly identical power boilers. Each of these units
contributes approximately 1.1 percent to the total sulfate visibility
impairment at the Saint Marks Class I area in Florida. The 2018
projected SO2 emissions are 1,976 tpy for each boiler.
    The reasonable progress control analyses for these units reviewed
six options: (1) Wet FGD, (2) addition of spray towers and caustic to
the existing venturi scrubbers, (3) adding caustic to the existing
venturi scrubbers (resulting in a 79 percent SO2 reduction),
(4) in-duct sorbent injection, (5) coal washing, and (6) coal
switching. In addition to these control measures, Georgia Pacific
submitted two variations of option 3 as part of their BART exemption
modeling request that included the addition of lower amounts of caustic
to their existing scrubbers (resulting in approximately a 68 percent
and 37 percent SO2 reduction for these two variations). All
of the control options could be installed prior to 2012 except the wet
FGD, which could be installed before 2013. All three of the scrubber
options (i.e., wet FGD, adding spray towers and caustic to the existing
scrubbers, and adding caustic to the existing venturi scrubbers) would
generate approximately 15,000 tpy of solid waste. The company did not
identify any significant energy impacts associated with the scrubber
options. The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and
past the control equipment amortization period.
    Out of all the control options considered, adding caustic to the
existing venturi scrubber and installing in-duct sorbent injection were
considered reasonably cost effective. The costs were $1,675/ton
SO2 and $849.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks Class I area for
adding caustic to the scrubber, and $1,663/ton SO2 and
$843.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks area for in-duct sorbent injection.
These figures were considered cost effective even with a relatively low
visibility impact on only one Class I area because the Saint Marks area
is not clearly at or below the uniform rate of progress. Since the
company submitted control options for three different levels of caustic
use (resulting in 79 percent, 68 percent, and 37 percent SO2
reduction), GA EPD analyzed the information to determine which level of
caustic use was considered reasonable. In comparison, in-duct sorbent
injection achieves approximately 70 percent SO2 reduction,
which is within the range of control efficiencies for caustic
scrubbing. GA EPD concluded that a 70 percent SO2 reduction
was reasonable for this unit. As part of Georgia Pacific's BART
exemption modeling, the company proposed SO2 emissions
limits to avoid being subject to BART of 135 pounds of SO2
per hour (lb SO2/hr) for each power boiler, along with
additional SO2 limits on Recovery Boiler R402 (``Recovery
Boiler 3'') as discussed below. The State agreed with this limit of 135
lb SO2/hr, which would result in maximum annual emissions of
591 tpy of SO2 (a 70 percent reduction from current
emissions), and determined that this limit satisfies reasonable
progress. The actual annual reduction is expected to be even higher
since the power boilers are not anticipated to emit SO2 at
the maximum allowable level for an entire year. A copy of the revised
title V permit is included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze
SIP submittal.
(b). Recovery Boiler 3
    This unit contributes approximately 0.8 percent to the sulfate
visibility impairment at the Saint Marks Class I area. The 2018
projected SO2 emissions are 1,726 tpy. However, the State
notes

that Georgia Pacific's 2006 and 2007 SO2 emissions were
significantly lower than this 2018 projected SO2 emissions
level at 462 and 741 tpy SO2, respectively. The facility
accepted a limit of 350 ppm SO2 on this unit when firing
black liquor solids to avoid being subject to BART.
    The reasonable progress control analyses reviewed three additional
options: (1) Switching from No. 6 residual fuel oil (1.8 percent
sulfur) to No. 2 distillate fuel oil (0.5 percent sulfur); (2)
switching to lower sulfur No. 6 residual fuel oil (1.0 percent sulfur);
and (3) the installation of a new concentrator and new multi-level air
system. The company did not provide any indications that any of the
control options could not be installed prior to 2012. No negative
energy impacts or non-air quality environmental impacts were identified
by the company. Remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and
past the control equipment amortization periods.
    Of the control options considered, none were considered reasonable
because their implementation would have a visibility impact of less
than 0.01 inverse megameter (Mm-1) on a single Class I area. Therefore,
no additional controls were required for reasonable progress for
Recovery Boiler 3 at the Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs facility.
3. Georgia Pacific--Savannah River Mill, Boilers B001, B002, and B003
    Boilers B001, B002, and B003 at the Georgia Pacific--Savannah River
Mill facility are three relatively similar boilers, with B002 and B003
being almost identical. The emissions units exceed Georgia's minimum
threshold for reasonable progress evaluation at one Class I area
(approximately 1.1 percent, 0.9 percent, and 0.8 percent of the total
sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Wilderness Area for
B001, B002, and B003, respectively). The 2018 projected SO2
emissions for B001, B002, and B003 are 1,659 tpy, 1,195 tpy, and 1,190
tpy, respectively. All three of these boilers are relatively well
controlled, re-circulating fluidized bed boilers with limestone
injection in the combustion chamber. B001 currently achieves
approximately 87 percent SO2 removal and Boilers B002 and
B003 achieve approximately 90 percent SO2 removal.
    The reasonable progress control analyses reviewed wet FGD,
circulating fluidized bed scrubber, switching from petroleum coke to
coal, increased limestone injection, and rotating opposed fire air. Of
all the proposed changes, only increased limestone injection could
occur prior to 2012. All other control measures could not be installed
until after 2012, although estimated control dates were not provided.
Wet FGD controls would result in increased water use and wastewater
discharges. No significant energy impacts were identified by the
company. Remaining useful life of the emissions units extended past
2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods. Increased
limestone injection would result in increased solid waste generation.
Georgia Pacific conducted trial operations with increased limestone
injection rates and found that SO2 removal could only be
increased by an additional two percent (from 87 percent to 89 percent
for B001 and from 90 percent to 92 percent for B002 and B003). Revised
cost estimates were also derived from the trial operations.
    Of the control options considered, none were considered reasonable
given their low control efficiencies and a visibility impact of less
than 0.01 Mm-1 on a single Class I area that would result from their
implementation. Therefore, no additional controls were required for
reasonable progress.
4. Georgia Power--Plant Kraft, SGs 1, 2, and 3
    Emissions units SG 1, 2, and 3 at Georgia Power--Plant Kraft are
three coal-fired steam generating units (i.e., boilers) rated at 50,
54, and 104 MW, respectively. Units 1 and 2 each contribute to the
total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Class I area by
approximately 0.5 percent. Unit 3 was initially determined to
contribute to the total sulfate visibility impairment at three Class I
areas (approximately 3.3 percent at Wolf Island, 0.9 percent at
Okefenokee, and 0.8 percent at Cape Romain). However, with projected
reductions in SO2 emissions by 2018, the visibility impacts
on Okefenokee and Cape Romain Class I areas from Units 1, 2, and 3 are
expected to drop below Georgia's minimum threshold for reasonable
progress evaluation, and the visibility impact at Wolf Island should
drop below two percent. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions for
Units 1, 2, and 3 were initially estimated by VISTAS at 691 tpy, 704
tpy, and 4,474 tpy, respectively. As part of the supporting
documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses, Georgia
Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for these units, which
indicates that SO2 emissions for Units 1, 2, and 3 will be
632 tpy, 889 tpy, and 2,455 tpy, respectively. While the heat inputs
provided by Georgia Power for Units 1 and 2 are similar to the VISTAS
2018 projections, Georgia Power's projection for Unit 3 represents a 45
percent reduction in heat input and SO2 emissions from the
VISTAS projections. This was explained by Georgia Power as the result
of additional capacity coming on-line elsewhere between 2010 and 2017.
The reduction in heat input for Plant Kraft is expected to occur around
2015. GA EPD utilized these revised heat inputs in conducting the
reasonable progress control analyses, and GA EPD plans to verify the
heat input reduction during development of the next regional haze SIP
(due in 2018).
    The following control measures were analyzed for the four statutory
factors for all three units: Wet FGD, coal switching (i.e., using a
coal with a lower sulfur content), and coal washing (i.e., mechanically
removing pyritic sulfur from powdered coal by a flotation process,
which does not separate organic sulfur from the coal). Wet FGD could
not be installed until 2016 because of required control device
installations scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The
company did not address the implementation time for the other control
options, so GA EPD assumed the controls could be implemented by January
1, 2012. All three control options would require additional energy
usage. Wet FGD and coal washing would result in increased water usage
and wastewater discharges as well as additional solid waste generation.
The remaining useful life of the units extends past 2018 and past the
control equipment amortization periods.
    The cost effectiveness of wet FGD and coal switching were $3,216 to
$8,161/ton SO2 and $56.9 MM to $144.5 MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD
and $4,041 to $4,306/ton SO2 and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal
switching. Coal washing cost effectiveness was $1,839 to $1,847/ton
SO2 and $32.5 to $32.7 MM/Mm-1; the control efficiency is
six percent. Regarding non-air environmental impacts, the company
indicated that coal washing could possibly reduce boiler efficiency,
would use up to 7,500 gallons (at Unit 3) per day of water, would
result in acidic wastewater requiring treatment, and would result in
coal refuse in the amount of approximately five percent of the total
coal consumption. Emissions reductions from these control options are
projected to achieve very little visibility improvement at the Wolf
Island Wilderness Area.
    Based on the control efficiency of coal washing, the negative non-
air environmental impacts, and the visibility impact of less than 0.01
Mm-1, the State determined that this control option is not reasonable.
The State eliminated coal switching and FGD from

consideration due to the cost effectiveness considerations. Based on
the above considerations, no additional controls were required for any
of the Georgia Power--Plant Kraft units.
5. Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh, SG 1
    Emissions unit SG 1 at Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh is a coal-
fired steam generating unit rated at 178 MW. The 2018 projected
SO2 emissions were initially estimated by VISTAS at 7,015
tpy. As part of the supporting documentation for the reasonable
progress control analyses, Georgia Power provided projected heat input
through 2018 for this unit. Those projections indicate that
SO2 emissions will drop to 1,860 tpy by 2018. Georgia
Power's projection represents a 73 percent reduction in heat input and
SO2 emissions. This was explained by Georgia Power as a
result of additional capacity coming on line elsewhere between 2010 and
2017. The State initially determined that this unit impacts visibility
at five Class I areas (4.1 percent at Wolf Island, 1.2 percent at
Okefenokee, 0.6 percent at Saint Marks, 1.5 percent at Cape Romain, and
0.7 percent at Swanquarter). However, with the projected reduction in
SO2 emissions by 2018, the visibility impacts on all of
these areas except Wolf Island are expected to drop below Georgia's 0.5
percent evaluation threshold, and the impact at Wolf Island is expected
to drop to approximately one percent. The reduction in heat input for
Plant McIntosh is to occur between around 2011 and 2016. GA EPD
utilized this revised SO2 emission rate in conducting the
reasonable progress control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify the heat
input reduction during development of the next regional haze SIP.
    Georgia Power analyzed the following control measures: Wet FGD,
coal switching, and coal washing. Wet FGD could not be installed until
2016 because required control device installations are scheduled up
until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the
time necessary for compliance for the other control options so GA EPD
assumed the controls could be implemented by January 1, 2012. All three
control options would require additional energy usage. Wet FGD and coal
washing would result in increased water usage and wastewater discharges
as well as additional solid waste generation. The remaining useful life
of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment
amortization periods. The cost effectiveness of all the control
operations is $7,131/ton SO2 and $118.5 MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD,
$4,306/ton SO2 and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal switching, and
$5,334/ton SO2 and $91.9 MM/Mm-1 for coal washing. Based on
these factors, GA EPD required no additional controls for SG 1 at
Georgia Power's Plant McIntosh.
6. Georgia Power--Plant Mitchell, SG 3
    SG 3 at Georgia Power's Plant Mitchell is a coal-fired steam-
generating unit rated at 163 MW and is the only remaining operational
boiler at Plant Mitchell. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions
were initially estimated by VISTAS at 4,930 tpy. As part of the
supporting documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses,
Georgia Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for this unit.
Those projections indicate that SO2 emissions will drop to
1,189 tpy by 2018. The State initially determined this unit to impact
the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I areas at
approximately 0.8 percent at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and
approximately 2.7 percent at the Saint Marks Class I area in Florida.
However, with the projected reduction in SO2 emissions by
2018, the visibility impact at Okefenokee is expected to drop below
Georgia's 0.5 percent reasonable progress evaluation threshold and the
impact on Saint Marks is predicted to drop to below one percent.
Georgia Power's projection represents a 76 percent reduction in heat
input and SO2 emissions. This was explained by Georgia Power
as a result of additional capacity coming online elsewhere else
starting in 2010. The reduction in heat input for Plant Mitchell is to
occur between around 2008 and 2010. GA EPD utilized this revised
SO2 emissions rate in conducting the reasonable progress
control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify the heat input reduction
during the regional haze periodic progress review described in section
IV.G of this action.
    Georgia Power analyzed wet FGD and coal switching as possible
control measures at SG 3. Wet FGD could not be installed until 2016
because required control device installations are scheduled up until
2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the time
necessary for compliance for coal switching so GA EPD assumed this
control could be implemented by January 1, 2012. Both control options
would require additional energy usage. Georgia Power did not indicate
any additional water use, wastewater discharge, or solid waste
generation issues for any of the control options. The remaining useful
life of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment
amortization periods. The cost effectiveness for wet FGD was $9,119/ton
SO2 and $148.5 MM/Mm-1, and the cost effectiveness for coal
switching was $2,347/ton SO2 and $38.2 MM/Mm-1; the control
efficiency was at 43 percent. Based on these factors, including the
projected significant utilization drop within the next few years,
Georgia required no additional controls for SG 3 at Georgia Power--
Plant Mitchell.
7. International Paper--Savannah Mill, Power Boiler 13
    International Paper's Savannah Mill Power Boiler 13 is a 1,280
MMBtu/hr coal, oil, and wood waste-fired boiler. The unit also combusts
both low-volume high-concentration (LVHC) and high-volume low-
concentration (HVLC) non-condensable gases from the pulping process as
well as stripper off-gas (SOG) from the stripper used to control
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from wastewater streams. The
2018 projected SO2 emissions are 8,578 tpy with
approximately 1,944 tpy of this amount coming from the combustion of
LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The State identified this unit as significantly
contributing to sulfate visibility impairment at five Class I areas
(approximately 6.4 percent at Wolf Island, 1.7 percent at Okefenokee,
0.7 percent at the Saint Marks area in Florida, 1.6 percent at the Cape
Romain area in South Carolina, and 0.9 percent at the Swanquarter area
in North Carolina). The State noted in its SIP that this is the highest
number of Class I areas significantly impacted by any single emissions
unit of all those reviewed by Georgia.
    The reasonable progress control analysis reviewed the following
control options: (1) Wet FGD (packed tower), (2) FGD (wet limestone
spray tower), (3) semi-dry lime spray tower, (4) fuel switching to
natural gas, (5) dry sorbent injection, and (6) a stand-alone
regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) with SO2 scrubbing for
the control of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The RTO control option was
presented as three different options for LVHC, HVLC, and SOG
combustion. International Paper also suggested an SO2
reduction of 2,000 tpy (a reduction in the SO2 emissions
limit from 8,758 tpy to 6,758 tpy) as a control option that would
provide maximum flexibility for compliance. Except for the 2,000 tpy
SO2 reduction alternative, all of these control options
could be implemented by 2012. International Paper requested a 2016
compliance date for the 2,000 tpy SO2 reduction alternative
in order for the company to take into consideration any reductions that
will occur as a result of

the Industrial Boiler MACT and the uncertainty surrounding the final
requirements of that standard.
    The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and past
the control equipment amortization period. The wet FGD and all three
RTO sub-options increased water usage and wastewater discharge. GA EPD
evaluated the potential water usage and wastewater discharges
associated with these controls. One additional consideration was to
ensure that there would be no additional dissolved oxygen load on the
Savannah River due to a problem with the dissolved oxygen load in the
Savannah River. Because of strict limitations on any additional
dissolved oxygen load to the river, any projects that could possibly
increase dissolved oxygen load were not considered reasonable at this
time. Based on the type of chemicals that would be associated with
effluent from a wet FGD (packed tower option) and the semi-dry lime
spray tower, GA EPD eliminated these options from further consideration
because they could potentially increase dissolved oxygen load. FGD (wet
limestone spray tower), semi-dry lime spray tower, and dry sorbent
injection also resulted in additional solid waste generation. There
were energy impacts associated with all but the fuel switching option.
These energy costs were factored into the overall control cost
effectiveness.
    Regarding the company's cost effectiveness estimates, GA EPD's
review indicated that the cost estimates for a packed tower wet FGD and
wet FGD limestone spray tower were higher than expected based on the
following factors: The costs per actual cubic feet per minute are about
four times higher than other units of comparable size, the company's
estimate is three to eight times higher than results from EPA cost
estimation software, and International Paper used a conservative
retrofit factor with a cost estimation model not recommended by EPA. In
a letter to International Paper dated December 27, 2007, GA EPD
requested site-specific cost analyses for these control options. In
that letter, GA EPD stated that if site-specific estimates were not
provided, control option recommendations would be made with the
understanding that the cost estimates may be overstated. In response,
International Paper chose not to provide site-specific cost estimates
as requested. GA EPD completed its evaluations and determined that the
cost effectiveness of the FGD--wet limestone spray tower ($4,391/ton
SO2) was not cost effective in this case. Wet FGD--packed
tower was not considered reasonable because of the possible impact on
dissolved oxygen load to the Savannah River. Fuel switching to natural
gas ($9,506/ton SO2), and dry sorbent injection ($5,223/ton
SO2) were determined not to be reasonable because of cost
effectiveness.
    Another cost effective control option that GA EPD evaluated is an
emissions limit of 6,758 tpy SO2 proposed by the company.
The 6,758 tpy SO2 limit was determined by reducing the
projected 2018 SO2 emissions level of 8,758 tpy
SO2 by 2,000 tons. GA EPD reviewed recent SO2
emissions data and determined that the projected 8,758 tpy
SO2 level is reasonable. No specific emissions reduction
methodologies were associated with this control option. However,
certain control methodologies are under consideration. A compliance
date of 2016 was proposed in order to take into consideration any
controls that will be required under EPA's Industrial Boiler MACT
currently under development (discussed in section IV.C.1). A 2016
compliance date should provide sufficient time for the MACT to be
proposed and promulgated, provide the three years required for
compliance with the standard, and provide time to determine an
appropriate method for complying with the 6,758 tpy SO2
emissions limit for Power Boiler 13 following compliance with this MACT
standard.
    Of the control options considered, GA EPD determined that the 2,000
tpy SO2 reduction alternative, which results in an emissions
limit of 6,758 tpy SO2, was reasonably cost effective. This
limit will include SO2 emissions resulting from the
combustion of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG, whether they are combusted in Power
Boiler 13 or some other combustion device. In order to provide
flexibility for the facility, an emissions limit of 6,578 tons
SO2/12-consecutive months is required for Power Boiler 13 as
a requirement for reasonable progress with a compliance date of 2016. A
copy of the revised title V permit was included in Appendix M of the
Georgia regional haze submittal.
8. Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard, Power Boiler 4
    Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard's Power Boiler 4 is a 565 MMBtu/hr
coal- and oil-fired boiler. The State identified this unit as
significantly contributing to the total sulfate visibility impairment
at two Class I areas (4.4 percent at Cohutta and 1.0 percent at Joyce
Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina/Tennessee).
    The company's reasonable progress control analysis reviewed: (a)
Two wet FGD configurations (magnesium enhanced lime) and limestone
forced oxidation; (b) dry FGD (lime absorbent); (c) fuel switching; and
(d) dry sorbent injection. All of these control options could be
implemented by 2012. The remaining useful life of the power boiler
extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization period.
    The wet FGD options had an impact on water usage. GA EPD notes that
the mill had sufficient capacity within their currently permitted water
withdrawal permit to adequately handle the increased water use
associated with wet FGD. All of the control options resulted in
additional solid waste generation, and there were energy impacts
associated with all of the control options. These energy costs were
factored into the overall control cost effectiveness.
    The State determined that none of the control options considered
for Power Boiler 4 are reasonable at this time. A key factor in
determining what was considered ``reasonable'' for reasonable progress
requirements for this source is that the affected Class I areas
impacted by this unit are predicted to meet the uniform rate of
progress in 2018 with controls that are already required. This
determination may be revisited at the periodic SIP progress review or
when determining future RPGs for subsequent implementation periods.
9. EPA Assessment
    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have
wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements
for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state
to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. States
must consider the four statutory factors, at a minimum, in determining
reasonable progress, but states have flexibility in how to take these
factors into consideration.
    GA EPD applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for identifying
appropriate sources to be considered for additional controls under
reasonable progress for the implementation period addressed by this
SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology, GA EPD first
identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an
impact on visibility in the State's and neighboring Class I areas.
Units with emissions of SO2 with a relative contribution to
total sulfate visibility impairment of at least 0.5 percent
contribution at any Class I area were then subject to a reasonable
progress control analysis, except for utilities subject to Georgia's
state rule 391-3-1-.02(13), ``Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2
Annual Trading Program,'' that only

impacted visibility at Class I areas projected to be below the uniform
rate of progress line.
    Having reviewed GA EPD's methodology and analyses presented in the
SIP materials prepared by GA EPD, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
reasonable progress determinations. EPA preliminarily agrees with the
State's approach of identifying the key pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment at its Class I areas, and proposes to consider
the State's methodology to identify sources of SO2 most
likely to have an impact on visibility on any Class I area to be an
appropriate methodology for narrowing the scope of the State's
analysis. In general, EPA also proposes to find Georgia's evaluation of
the four statutory factors for reasonable progress to be reasonable and
believes that the Georgia regional haze SIP ensures reasonable
progress. EPA also proposes that, given the emissions reductions
resulting from CAIR, Georgia's BART determinations, the measures in
nearby states, and the visibility improvements projected for the
affected Class I areas, these emissions reductions are in excess of
that needed to be on the glidepath for the Cohutta Wilderness Area, and
are close to the glidepaths for the Wolf Island and Okefenokee
Wilderness Areas.
    In addition, EPA proposes to find that Georgia fully evaluated all
control technologies available at the time of its analysis and
applicable to these facilities. EPA also proposes to find that Georgia
consistently applied its criteria for reasonable compliance costs, and
where it diverged, the State included justification for the other
factors influencing the control determination.

B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject to Reasonable Progress
Analysis

1. EGUs Subject to CAIR
    In concert with VISTAS, GA EPD applied its reasonable progress
methodology and identified 20 Georgia Power Company emissions units at
seven facilities that contributed greater than 0.5 percent of the total
sulfate visibility impairment at a Class I area: (1) Plant Bowen SG 01,
SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (2) Plant Hammond SG 04; (3) Plant Mitchell SG 03;
(4) Plant Scherer SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (5) Plant Yates SG 02, SG
03, SG 04, SG 05, SG 06, SG 07; (6) Plant Kraft SG 01, SG 02, SG 03;
and (7) Plant McIntosh SG 01. Georgia, as part of its long-term
reasonable progress analysis to consider potential sources contributing
to visibility impairment, examined other CAA requirements such as CAIR
and Georgia state rule 391-3-1-.02(13). Under Georgia's rule,
SO2 emissions from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140
tons in 2015, a 70 percent reduction from 2002 actual emissions. In
addition, a 70 percent reduction of SO2 emissions is
expected during this time period across all CAIR-affected EGUs in 28
eastern states due to CAIR. Since EGUs will be reducing their
SO2 emissions by approximately 70 percent through these
programs and based on detailed analyses in EPA's May 2, 2005, CAIR, GA
EPD concluded that additional EGU control during this time period is
not reasonable for sources that significantly contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to meet or
exceed the uniform rate of progress in 2018. However, for sources that
significantly contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas not
clearly meeting the uniform rate of progress (Okefenokee and Wolf
Island), GA EPD considered additional controls at CAIR-affected units.
The Cohutta Class I area is expected, based on modeling, to clearly
meet/exceed the glidepath in 2018. GA EPD has therefore concluded that
CAIR constitutes reasonable measures for Georgia EGUs that
significantly impact visibility in Cohutta during this first assessment
period (between baseline and 2018). Thus, GA EPD concluded that no
additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for the remaining four
identified Georgia Power facilities (Plants Bowen, Hammond, Scherer,
and Yates) for SO2 for the first implementation period
ending in 2018. Because the Okefenokee, Wolf Island, and Saint Marks
Class I areas are not expected to clearly meet or exceed the glidepath
in 2018, controls required under CAIR have not been deemed to
constitute reasonable measures for Georgia EGUs that significantly