# - ATA 

# - NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality 

### Beverly Eaves Perdue B. Keith Overcash, P.E. 

### Dee Freeman Governor

Richard A. Schutt Air Planning Branch Chief USEPA Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Director August 2 1,2009 

### Secretary

Subject: Region 4 EPA Comments for Hickory and 

### Greensboro/Winston-SalemIHigh Point PM2.5Attainment Demonstration
Dear Mr. Schutt:
Thank you for your letter dated May 19,2009, transmitting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4's comments on the pre-hearing draft of the attainment demonstration for the Greensboro/Winston-Salmigh Point (referred to as the Triad) and Hickory fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment areas. This letter is to provide the North Carolina Division ofAir Quality (NCDAQ) response to those comments.
Kev Comments: 1. EPA Comment: On December 23,2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the Clean Air InterstateRule (CAIR) to EPA without vacatur, directing the Agency to remedy the rule's flaws in accordance with the Court's July 11,2008, opinion in the case of North Carolina v. EPA, 53 1 F.3d 896,901 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Ifthe submission relies upon anticipated CAIR reductions, it may need to be revised consistent with EPA's new final action when the Agency responds to the Court's remand. NCDAQ Response: The PM2.~ attainment demonstration relied on emission reductions achieved through the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) that reduced both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (SO2)emissions from the coal-fire utilities in North Carolina. The CAIR Phase I caps for SO2do not start until 2010,and since both regions have alreadyattained the standard with the 2006-2008ambient data, the NCDAQ does not believe our attainment demonstrationis reliant upon CAIR.
2. 

### EPA Comment: It isunclear how the controls and emissions reductions, from the power plants as part of the CSA, that appear to be needed for attainment are federally enforceable. To the extent that these emission reductions are being relied on for attainment for Hickory and Greensboro for the 1997PM2.5 standard, this discussion will be needed in the SIP submittals to support the demonstrations.

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604 Phone: 919-733-3340\ FAX: 919-715-7175\ Internet:www.daq.state.nc.us1
An Equal Opportunity\ ARirmativeAction EmployerMr. Schutt August 2 1,2009 Page 2

NCDAQ Response: Aspart the final attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) submiital;! the NCDAQ will request that the portion ofthe CSA that establishes the system-wide emission caps be incorporated into the North Carolina federally approved SIP.
3. EPA Comment: The CSA appears to have a Director's discretion prohibition relating to the North Carolina Commission and revisions to the Title 

### IVpermit. The followingis from the 

## csa: , "Section 2(c) The Commission shall have thepower: (I) Togrant and renew a permit with such any conditions attached as that the Commission believes necessary to achieve the purposes ofthis section Article or the requirements ofthe Clean AirAct and implementing regulations adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. " The highlighted portion appears to be in conflict with delegationsthat might be for the EPA Administrationonly. We are highlighting this consideration in the event that portions of CSA are submitted for approval in the North Carolina SIP. NCDAQ Response: The NCDAQ believes that EPA has misinterpreted the CSA language. It is through the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (referred to in the CSA as the Commission) that the NCDAQ has the authority to issue Title Vpermitsand to adopt and implement rules. This section ofthe CSA was added so that theNCDAQ could go beyond the CSA emission reductions ifthey were required to meet a national ambient air quality standard or meet requirements in regulations promulgated by the EPA. TheNCDAQ does not intend to request this section ofthe CSA be incorporated into the North Carolina federally approved SIP.
4. EPA Comment: The contingencymeasures also need to be federally enforceable. Since the CSA has not been submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP you would either need to submit CSA, or submit the individual permits adopted under CSA for incorporation into the SIP, or show that the adopted permit limits are enforceable under CAIR. The incorporation of
measures into title V permits does not satisfy the necessitythat they originate from a federally enforceable requirement. NCDAQ Response: Aspart oftheJinal attainment demonstration SIP submittal, theNCDAQ will request that the portion of the CSA that establishes the system-wide emission caps be incorporated into theNorth Carolina federally approved SIP.
Other Comments: 1. EPA Comment: The SIP narrative states on page 40 that the Clean Air Bill, the NOx SIP Call Rule, the CSA, and the Open Burning Rule were modeled in the attainment demonstration. However, the summary of these regulationsthat follows in sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5 includes CAIR. For consistency of paragraph 5.2 State Control Measures, please add "Clean Air Interstate Rule". NCDAQ Response: The appropriate language has been added in the SIP Narrative.Mr. Schutt August 21,2009 Page 3



### 2. EPA 

### Comment: 

### In the SIP narrative, air quality data up to 

### 2006 arepresented. We recommend that the air quality trend analyses for the annual averages and design values at each monitor also include data from 

### 2007 and 

### 2008. Section 6.3.3 mentions the use ofpreliminary 

### 2007 data. This data should be officially submitted to EPA and preliminary 

### 2008 data shouldbe available to use in the SIP. It is important to seehow air quality is respondingto emissions controls in these more recent years, especially since it already is the 

### 2009 attainment year being requested. NCDAQ Response: The appropriate tables have been updated in the SIP Narrative and the corresponding appendix.
3. 

### EPA Comment: 

### The SIP narrative does not include a discussion ofthe changes in emissions and reductions that are associated with air quality improvement in the 

### 2007 to 

### 2009 period. We recommend that a table and/or chart with accompanying discussions of the emissions trends and implementation dates of controls related to the attainment ofthe areas by the proposed 

### 2009 attainmentyear be included in the final submittal. NCDAQ Response: The appropriate language has been added in the SIP Narrative.


### 4. EPA 

### Comment: 

### EPA guidance requires states to adopt "contingency measures equal to approximately one year's worth ofreductionsnecessary to achievereasonable further progress for the area." The purpose is to provide a one year ofreductions if the area does not attain. Attainment demonstrations are based on modeling of sulfur dioxide reductions from sources outside the nonattainment area, the inventorybased assessment in the guidance does not make this requirement. We do not believe reliance on the ozone guidance meets the intent ofthis requirement. Please provide tangible evidence that the emission reductions attributableto CSA will contributeto attainment ifthese are being relied upon as a contingency measure.
We recommend modelingthe facilities with 

### 2009-201 0 reductionsplanned or reviewing existing modeling to develop sensitivity data that demonstratesthe impact controlling these units will have on the ambient levels at the monitoring sites. Since the baseline design value for the Triad area is 

### 15.8ug/m3, and the baseline design value for the Hickory area is 

### 15.5 ug/m3, one years' progress would be about 

### 0.1 ug/m3 

### ((1 5.8 - 

### l5.0)/7)for the Triad area and also about 

### 0.1 uglm3 

### ((1 5.5 - 

### 15.0)/7)for the Hickory area. NCDAQ Response: The purpose ofcontingency measures is toprovide further reductions in the event that an area does not attain the standard by the prescribed attainment date. Since both nonattainment areas inNorth Carolina have already attained the 1997annual PM2.3standard with the 2006-2008 ambient data, one year earlier than required, the necessity ofcontingency
measures is unlikely. However, for thepurposes ofthis submittal, the NCDAQ has added to the documentation back trajectories and current ambient air quality data to demonstrate that reductions in SOz emissions from thepowerplants in North Carolina have an impact on the monitors in the nonattainment areas.Mr. Schutt August 2 1,2009 Page 4

5. EPA 

### Comment: 110(a)(2)Submittal. For Section 7.7 please clarifythat the discussion in this submissionis related to the 1997

### PM2.5 standard and not the 2006 standard. It is our understanding that North Carolinais in the process of developing a submission for 11O(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2006 standard and that this submission will be submitted later this year. NCDAQ Response: The appropriate language has been added in the SIP Narrative.


### 6. EPA 

### Comment: Page 1970of the Adobe Acrobat file containingAppendices A-Q appears to be the location of a new document which we believe may be the North Carolina "Clean SmokestacksAct." If this is correct, we recommend adding a title page identifying the document 

### and adding it to the bookmark index. NCDAQ Response: The Clean SmokestacksAct ispart of Appendix 

### M and is properly identified in the Table of Contents for Appendix M. TheNCDAQ does not believe that this section of Appendix 

### M requires its own title page.

Thank you for your review of our pre-hearing draft. We look forward to working with EPA Region 4 during your review of our official 

### SIP submittalfor this area. If you have questions, please contact Laura Boothe of my staff at (919) 733-1488.

cc: Lynorae Benjamin, USEPA Nacosta Ward, USEPA Donnie Redmond, NCDAQ Laura Boothe,NCDAQ