# Appendix D:

Written Comments and Responses

## Consultation Letters

Below is a list of the consultation letters to date.

August 1, 2011: Southeastern State Regional Haze Periodic Report Strategy (SEMAP)...3

60-Day Consultation Communications:

Example Email: 07/26/2012, Maeve Mason (DHEC), Draft Periodic Update SIP and

Appendices for FLM/EPA contacts for review and consultation ......................................11

Letter: 07/26/2012, Robert Brown (DHEC) to Mr. Tim Allen (U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service), Draft Periodic Update SIP a nd Appendices for FLM/EPA review and

consultation................................................................................................................... .....12

Letter: 07/26/2012, Robert Brown (DHEC) to Mr. Bill Jackson (USDA Forest Service),

Draft Periodic Update SIP and Appendices for FLM/EPA review and consultation........13

Letter: 07/26/2012, Robert Brown (DHEC) to Ms. Michele Notari anni (US EPA Region

4), Draft Periodic Update SIP and Appendices for FLM/EPA review and consultation...14

Letter: 07/26/2012, Robert Brown (DHEC) to Ms. Patricia Brew er (National Park

Service), Draft Periodic Update SIP a nd Appendices for FLM/EPA review and

consultation................................................................................................................... .....15

Letter: 07/26/2012, Robert Brown (DHEC) to Mr. Ron Methier (Metro 4/SESARM),

Draft Periodic Update SIP and Appendices for FLM/EPA review and consultation........16

60-Day Consultation Communication - Responses:

Email: 08/07/2012, Patricia Brew er (National Park Service) to Maeve Mason (DHEC),

Comments on Draft Periodic Update SIP and Appendices ...............................................17

Email: 09/12/2012, Bill Jackson (USDA Forest Service) to Maeve Mason (DHEC),

Comments on Draft Periodic Update SIP and Appendices ...............................................23

Email: 09/17 and 9/25/2012, Michele Notaria nni (US EPA Region 4) to Maeve Mason

(DHEC), Comments on Draft Period ic Update SIP and Appendices................................25

Letter: 9/20/2012, Kristin Bail (USDA Forest Service) to Robert Brown (DHEC)

concurrence with Draft Periodic Update............................................................................27

Letter: 9/25/2012, Meredith Bond for Sandra V. Silva (U.S. Fish & W ildlife Service) to

Robert Brown (DHEC) concurrenc e with Draft Periodic Update .....................................28

Letter: 9/25/2012, Wick Havens (MANE-VU) to Robert Brown (DHEC), regarding

impacts of South Carolina on Brigantine Wilderness Area, NJ and comments on Draft

Periodic Update................................................................................................................ ..29

### 30-Day Pre-hearing SIP Revision Comments:

Letter: 11/26/2012, Scott Davis (US EPA Re gion 4) to Robert Brown (DHEC),

Comments on Pre-hearing Periodi c Update SIP and Appendices .....................................31

30-Day Pre-hearing SIP Revision Responses:

Response to EPA’s Comment on Pre-heari ng Periodic Update SIP and Appendices.......33

## Regional Haze Periodic Reporting

Southeastern States Strategy

August 1, 2011

I. Introduction and Background.

This s trategy outlines plans to assist with development of periodic regional haze reasonable

progress reports for the SEMAP states. This strategy includes recommendations for

assessing current visibility conditions, tracking emission inventory changes, and

determining the status of emission reductions outlined in the southeastern states’ regional

haze state implementation plans (SIPs). It also outlines collaboration and consultation that

will occur between the SEMAP states and various interested parties.

References are made in this strategy to “VISTAS” and “SEMAP.” These are acronyms for

two sout heastern regional air quality analysis projects:

 Visibility Improvement

– State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS). This

wa s the original regional haze project conducted by the southeastern states. This project

ope rated pursuant to regional haze regulations under the regional planning organization

(RP O) concept designed by EPA. Air quality analysis work was conducted during the

V ISTAS project to support the submittal of regional haze SIPs for the ten participating

state s.

 Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning Project (SEMAP). This multi-purpose

pha se of regional air quality analysis work was initiated in 2009 to support future

criteria pollutant attainment demonstrations and to meet the next round of requirements

for regional haze. It is ongoing.

The VISTAS and SEMAP projects have been managed by Southeastern States Air

Resource Managers, Inc. in cooperation with the local agency membership of Metro 4, Inc.

and the surrounding states of Virginia and West Virginia.

II. Regulatory Requirements.

Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 51, Subpart P, Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308)

contains the regional haze program requirements which establish obligations the states

must meet. 40 CFR 51.308(g) contains the requirements for periodic reports. These reports

a re to describ e progress towards the reasonable progress goals outlined in the initial

regional haze SIPs. This federal regulation may be found in its entirety in Appendix A to

thi s strategy.

40 CFR 51.308 requires that periodic reports must be every five years starting five years

fr om submittal of the original haze SIPs. The reports must describe the status of

### Page 2 of 8

implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP. Emission reductions

a chieved through implementation of the regional haze SIP must be summarized. An

a ssessment must be conducted of the most impaired and least impaired days for the

following:

 current visibility conditions;

 the difference between current and baseline visibility conditions; and

 the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.

C hanges in emissions contributing to visibility impairment must be identified from all

sources and activities in each state. Emission changes must be identified by source type or

activity. Emission analyses must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory

with esti mates projected forward to account for changes during the reporting period. An

a ssessment is required of significant emission changes within or outside a state that have

occurred over the past five years and that have limited or impeded progress in reducing

emissions and improving visibility. The sufficiency of current SIP elements and strategies

to m eet reasonable progress goals must be assessed. States must review their visibility

moni toring strategies and identify any necessary modifications.

At the same time that the progress reports are due, states are to determine the adequacy of

existing regional haze SIPs. They may provide a negative declaration to the EPA

a dministrator if revisions to the regional haze SIP are not needed. If inadequacies are

identified due to emissions from one or more sources in another state, the state must notify

the E PA administrator and the other state as well as collaborate with that state to develop

additional strategies to address the SIP deficiencies. SIP revisions are required within one

year of identifying an inadequacy in the regional haze SIP due to emissions from sources

within the state.

Consultation with federal land managers (FLMs) is required during the process.

III. Schedule.

Periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals for the haze

program are required of each state every five years with the first report due five years from

submittal of the initial SIP. The initial SIP submittal will be considered the date that each

fina l regional haze SIP was submitted by a state to EPA.

R egional haze SIPs were submitted by the VISTAS states over the course of nearly three

years. The North Carolina and South Carolina SIPs were submitted in December 2007. The

fir st periodic reports for these states will be due in December 2012. The final SIPs within

the V ISTAS region were submitted by Florida, Georgia, and Virginia in 2010. The periodic

reports for these states will due in 2015.

### Page 3 of 8

The southeastern states will produce a consolidated regional analysis and report template

with t he following EPA expectations in mind:

 Periodic reports are to be submitted by individual states on or before the due date

a pplicable to each state, and

 Any submittals to EPA that are substantially beyond the development of the

c onsolidated report may require updating to reflect current information at the time of

submittal.

In order to support the first state deadlines for the periodic reports, all necessary

collaborative regional work must be completed by June 2012.

IV. Strategy for Assessment of Current Visibility Conditions.

Current visibility conditions will be assessed for each Class I area. Available IMPROVE

measurements for the most impaired and least impaired days at each Class I area will be

obtained from the VIEWS website. IMPROVE measurements can take up to one year to be

posted to the VIEWS website. The most recently available data sets will be obtained and

used for this analysis. For progress reports due in December 2012, 2011 IMPROVE data

will be used if available. 2010 IMPROVE data will be used if 2011 data is not available.

The se measurements will be used to calculate five-year averages of the annual averages for

the most impaired and least impaired days. This analysis will be summarized in tables for

e ach Class I area. Differences between current and baseline visibility conditions for the

most impaired and least impaired days will be identified. Also, changes in visibility

impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past five years will be

highlighted. Graphs will be presented of annual time series and five-year averages for

2000- 2010.

Ne xt, this data will be plotted on the original glide slope plots that were created in the

VISTAS project. In addition, the modeled 2009 and 2018 visibility conditions for the most

im paired and least impaired days at each Class I areas will be added to these plots. The

most recent IMPROVE measurements for the most impaired and least impaired days at

each Class I area will be compared against the glide slope values for the previous five years

and the modeled 2009 visibility conditions. Cases where the latest IMPROVE

measurements are above the original glide slope or the modeled 2009 visibility conditions

will be noted. In these cases, a support ing analysis will examine the components of

regional haze to try to relate reductions in individual components; e.g., sulfate, with

precursor emission reductions; e.g., SO 2



### .

Finally, each state will review its visibility monitoring strategy and recommend any

modifications to the strategy that are necessary. Each state will provide an update regarding

any monitoring sites that have been added, removed, or modified.

### Page 4 of 8

V. Strategy for Assessment of Emission Inventory Changes.

An e missions tracking report will be generated that analyzes the changes in emissions over

the pa st five years for all pollutants, disaggregated by source category and state. This report

will be based primarily on the most recently updated emissions inventory. Although the

2008 air emissions reporting requirements (AERR) inventory will soon be available, the

2007 S EMAP inventory should be of higher quality and will be used instead of the 2008

AERR inventory. The 2007 SEMAP inventory will be compared to the VISTAS 2002,

VISTAS 2009 (projected), and VISTAS 2018 (projected) inventories. Since the 2007

inventory is based on information available five years before the earliest periodic reports

a re due (and even longer for any states that choose to submit their reports later), the latest

availab le ; e.g., 2010, annual AERR inventory data and continuous emissions monitoring

data for the electric generating unit (EGU) sector will be examined. This will ensure that

the pe riodic reports reflect the most current available information on progress made in the

EGU sector to install additional controls required by various federal and state programs.

Emi ssions in each state will be categorized by pollutant ( NH 3 

### , NO

x 

### , PM 2.5 

### , PM 10, 

### SO 2 

### , and

VOC s) and source category (area sources, fire sources, on-road and non-road mobile

sourc es, and EGU and non-EGU point sources). If any pollutant or source category

c ombination in the 2007 SEMAP inventory is significantly higher compared to the 2009

VISTAS inventory and if the pollutant and source category combination; e.g., SO 2 

### from

EGU point sources, is deemed to be significantly contributing to visibility impairment

within the state, additional analysis will be performed. Additional analysis w ill involve

looking at source classification code level changes in emissions activity.

VI. Strategy for Assessment of the Status of Emission Controls.

The status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for

achieving reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both within and outside the state will

be summarized. This summary will include:

 A table listing federal programs ; e.g., status of the Tier 2 federal motor vehicle

program, various Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations, and

non -road engine standards that were included in the reasonable progress goals and,

where possible, a comparison of the emission reductions used in 2018 modeling against

actual emission reductions achieved.

 A table listing all EGU units in the state (and neighboring state(s) as appropriate) that

had controls assigned to the units in 2018, the current status of those control

assignments, and the resulting emission reductions.

 A table listing all Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART ” units in the state (and

neighboring state(s) as appropriate) that had controls assigned to the units in 2018, the

required compliance date, the current status of those control assignments, and the

resulting emission reductions.

### Page 5 of 8

 A table listing all Reasonable Progress units in the state (and neighboring state(s) as

appropriate) that had controls assigned to the units in 2018, the required compliance

date, the current status of those control assignments, and the resulting emission

reductions.

 A table listing any other units in the state (and neighboring state(s) as appropriate) that

had controls assigned to the units in 2018, the required compliance date, the current

status of those control assignments, and the resulting emission reductions.

 A table listing additional emission reductions (emission control equipment, plant

closures, decreased activity, etc) in the state (and neighboring state(s) as appropriate)

that were not considered or accounted for in the 2018 inventory.

In cases where controls have already been added and appropriate information is available,

spec ific unit emission reductions will be quantified and compared to the 2018 emission

pr ojections for that unit. In cases where controls have not been added yet, the proposed

controls will be applied to unit emissions from the 2007 SEMAP inventory or 2010 annual

AERR inventory and compared to the 2018 emission projections for that unit. This

comparison will be performed for SO 2 

### and direct PM 2.5 

### from EGU and non-EGU point

sources contained in the tables developed consistent with the bullets above. In cases where

sig nificant discrepancies exist, additional analyses will be performed.

VII. Strategy for Assessment of Current SIPs.

An assessment will be performed to determine whether the current SIP elements and

strategies are sufficient to enable the state, or other states with Class I areas affected by

emissions from that state, to meet all established reasonable progress goals. The assessment

will evaluate current visibility conditions, emission inventory changes, and the status of

emission controls and reductions. If a state determines the current SIP is sufficient, it will

pr ovide to the EPA a negative declaration that further revision of the existing SIP is not

needed at this time.

If a state determines that a SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress, the

state will provide notification to the respective EPA region and to the other states and

FLMs that participated in the regional planning process. These states will collaborate

through the regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to

address the SIP deficiencies. Where a state determines that the SIP is or may be inadequate

to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the state, the state will

revise its SIP to address the plan’s deficiencies in accordance with its SIP process to meet

federal requirements. If the SIP is inadequate due to emissions from sources in another

country, the state will provide notification, along with available information, to EPA.

### Page 6 of 8

VIII. Strategy for Collaboration.

This strategy will be shared with various interested stakeholders. Discussions with

surr ounding states and RPOs, EPA regions, and FLMs will occur in an effort to promote

the most effective and efficient process. Amendments to this strategy may be necessary as

thi s process is initiated and completed.

The SEMAP states are committed to conformance with the SIP process requirements

mandated by 40 CFR 51.308 for the periodic review of progress within the regional haze

pr ogram. This includes collaboration with the following:

 EPA Regions 3 and 4 prior to initiating the formal SIP process by sharing findings and

conclusions and during the SIP process by submitting draft, proposed, and final SIP

information.

 FLMs, with whom consultation will occur during the five-year review and during the

for mal SIP process at the conclusion of the review.

 Other regional planning organizations and affected states with whom consultation will

oc cur during the regional air quality analysis process to ensure that the impacts on the

SEMAP states are identified, and impacts that the SEMAP states may be having on

other states and regions are discussed.

 Other stakeholders such as industries, trade associations, and environmental groups that

will receive periodic updates throughout the analysis and SIP process es , provided that

they have an interest in the information.

IX. Report Preparation and Submittal.

This strategy will be implemented, as stated earlier, with the goal of delivering to the

participating states a thorough analysis meeting all general requirements of each individual

state. Development of a report template containing applicable information and analysis is

a nticipated to be a primary work product of this effort.

States will be expected to take the general information and personalize it as necessary to

conform to the requirements and needs of each state. Each state will proceed individually

throug h its SIP development process with the goal of filing the completed period ic report

on or before the five-year anniversary date of submittal of the original regional haze SIP.

Th is strategy has been developed in consultation with the participating SEMAP states and EPA. Questions may be

directed to John Hornback, Metro 4/SESARM executive director; or Ron Methier, SEMAP Project Technical

Coordinator.

### Page 7 of 8 Appendix A

Regional Haze Program Periodic Reporting Regulatory Language

40 CFR 51.308

The regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308 that is pertinent to periodic progress reports is

reproduced below for ease of reference relative to the southeastern strategy:

(g) Requirements for periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals. Each State

identified in § 51.300(b)(3) must submit a report to the Administrator every 5 years evaluating progress towards

the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each

mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the

State. The first progress report is due 5 years from submittal of the initial implementation plan addressing

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The progress reports must be in the form of implementation plan revisions

that comply with the procedural requirements of § 51.102 and § 51.103. Periodic progress reports must contain

at a minimum the following elements:

(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for

achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.

(2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the

measures described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State must assess the following visibility

conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5-year

averages of these annual values.

(i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days ;

(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and

baseline visibility conditions;

(iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5

years;

(4) An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility

impairment from all sources and activities within the State. Emissions changes should be identified by type

of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with

estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the

applicable 5-year period.

(5) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have

occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and

improving visibility.

(6) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable

the State, or other States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet

all established reasonable progress goals.

(7) A review of the State’s visibility monitoring strategy and any mo difications to the strategy as necessary.

(h) Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan. At the same time the State is required to submit

any 5-year progress report to EPA in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, the State must also take one

of the following actions based upon the information presented in the progress report:

### Page 8 of 8

(1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this

time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State

must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing

implementation plan is not needed at this time.

(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress

due to emissions from sources in another State(s) which participated in a regional planning process, the

State must provide notification to the administrator and to the other State(s) which participated in the

regional planning process with the States. The State must also collaborate with the other State(s) through

the regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan’s

deficiencies.

(3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along with

available information, to the Administrator.

(4) Wh ere the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources within the State, the State shall revise its implementation plan to

address the plan’s deficiencies within one year.

(i) What are the requirements for State and Federal Land Manager coordination?

(1) By November 29, 1999, the State must identify in writing to the Federal Land Managers the title

of the official to which the Federal Land Manager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can

submit any recommendations on the implementation of this subpart including, but not limited to:

(i) Identification of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s); and

(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by §

51.305 and this section.

(2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person

and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on an implementation plan (or plan

revision) for regional haze required by this subpart. This consultation must include the opportunity

for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their:

(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area; and

(ii) Recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goal and on the

development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.

(3) In developing any implementation plan (or plan revision), the State must include a description of

how it addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land Managers.

(4) The plan (or plan revision) must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State

and Federal Land Manager on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by

this subpart, including development and review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year

progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to

impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.M a s o n

, M a e v e < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



## S C D r a f t P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e w

M a s o n

, M a e v e < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v > T h u

, J u l 2 6

, 2 0 1 2 a t 8 : 4 5 A M

T

o : t i m

_ a l l e n @ f w s

. g o v

C c : " D a v i s

. S c o t t r @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v " < d a v i s

. s c o t t r @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v >

, " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

,

" R e e c e

, M y r a C

. " < r e e c e m c @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



### G

o o d M o r n

i n g

,

A s y o u k n o w t h e R e g i o n a l H a z e R u l e r e q u i

r e m e n t s a t 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) r e q u i

r e p e r i o d i c r e p o r t s e v a l u a t i n g

p

r o g r e s s t o w a r d s t h e r e a s o n a b l e p r o g r e s s g o a l s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e S t a t e I m p l

e m e n t a t i o n P l a n ( S I P )

. A b s e n t

a n y f e d e r a l g u i d a n c e o n t h e s e s u b m i s s i o n s

, b u t i n o r d e r t o m e e t t h e r e q u i

r e d d e a d l i n e

, S o u t h C a r o l i n a h a s

p

r e p a r e d i t s d r a f t p e r i o d i c u p d a t e f o

r t h e C a p e R o m a i

n W i l d

e r n e s s a r e a

. T h i s d r a f t S I P i s a t t a c h e d f o

r r e v i e w

. A h a r d c o p y w i l l b e m a i

l e d t o d a y v i a U S P S

. D H E C r e q u e s t s t h a t y o u a c k n o w l e d g e t h

i s s u b m i s s i o n a s t h e

f

o

r m a l c o m m

e n c e m e n t o f t h e r e q u i

r e d 6 0

- d a y r e v i e w / c o n s u l t a t i o n

. A s s u c h

, w e w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e y o u r

c o m m

e n t s o n o r b e f o

r e S e p t e m b e r 2 5

, 2 0 1 2

. S h o u l d y o u h a v e a n y f u

r t

h e r q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g S o u t h

C a r o l i n a ’ s r e g i o n a l h a z e S I P d e v e l o p m e n t

, p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e

.

T h a n k y o u

.

- -

M a e v e S

. R

. M a s o n

, M a n a g e r

R e g u l a t i o n & S I P M a n a g e m e n t

B u r e a u o f A i r Q u a l i t y

, S C D H E C

2 6 0 0 B u l l S t r e e t

C o l u m b i a

, S C

. 2 9 2 0 1

8 0 3

. 8 9 8

. 2 2 3 0

5 a t t a c h m e n t s

P S H a z e U p d a t e 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f

7 9 K

S C R e g i o n a l H a z e M i d C o u r s e R e v i e w D r a f t

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f

1 3 1 2 K

S C R e g i o n a l H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e D r a f t

_ A p p A

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f

1 7 7 1 K

S C R e g i o n a l H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e D r a f t

_ A p p B

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f

2 8 7 K

2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7 L t r t o T i m A l l e n R H R P e r i o d i c U p d a t e C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h F L M A g e n c i e s

. p d f

5 4 4 KM a s o n

, M a e v e < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



## S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e w

P a t r i c i a

_ F

_ B r e w e r @ n p s

. g o v < P a t r i c i a

_ F

_ B r e w e r @ n p s

. g o v > T u e

, A u g 7

, 2 0 1 2 a t 3 : 5 9 P M

T

o : " M a s o n

, M a e v e " < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

C c : " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, " R e e c e

, M y r a C

. " < r e e c e m c @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, h o r n b a c k @ m e t r o 4

-

s e s a r m

. o r g

M a u v e

,

W e l l d o n e

. I d i d a q u i c k r e a d t h r o u g h a n d w a n t e d t o t e l l y o u I t h i n k y o u r

d r a f t p r o g r e s s r e p o r t i s e x c e l l e n t ! I a m p r o u d t o s e e S C f i r s t i n

s u b m i t t i n g d r a f t r e p o r t

.

I w o u l d r e c o m m e n d m o v i n g T a b l e 5 a n d t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f a l l S C E G U a n d a l l

p l a n n e d S O 2 c o n t r o l s b e f o r e T a b l e 1 a n d 2

. B e c a u s e a s s o o n a s I s a w T a b l e

1 a n d 2

, I w a n t e d t o a s k y o u t o a d d c o n t r o l t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e d a t a I f o u n d

i n T a b l e 5

. I t w o u l d b e e a s i e r j u s t t o d i s c u s s S C E G U f i r s t a n d t h e n S C

s o u r c e s t h a t i m p a c t N C a n d G A C l a s s I a r e a s

. A n d s i n c e E G U S O 2 c o n t r o l s

a r e t h e m a j o r i t y o f c o n t r o l s i n c l u d e d i n t h e l o n g t e r m s t r a t e g y

, t h o s e a r e

t h e c o n t r o l s t h a t y o u w a n t t o b e a b l e t o d e t a i l

.

I w a s g l a d t o s e e t h a t y o u l o o k e d a t i n d i v i d u a l d a y s ( F i g u r e 1 1 ) a s w e l l a s

a v

e r a g e o f a l l 2 0 % w o r s t d a y s o v e r 5 y e a r s

. T h e i n d i v i d u a l d a y s t e l l y o u

m o r e a b o u t h o w i m p o r t a n t i n d i v i d u a l p o l l u t a n t s a r e

. A l s o t h e f i g u r e

i n s e r t e d b e l o w i s h e l p f u l

. I t i s f r o m t h e I M P R O V E 2 0 1 1 r e p o r t

, A p p e n d i x G

,

o n I M P R O V E w e b s i t e

h t t p : / / v

i s t a

. c i r a

. c o l o s t a t e

. e d u / I M P R O V E / P u b l i c a t i o n s / R e p o r t s / 2 0 1 1 / 2 0 1 1

. h t m

.

I w i l l s e n d y o u p d f w i t h m y c o m m e n t s i n m a r g i n s

, b u t a l l t h e c o m m e n t s a r e

h o w t o i m p r o v e

. Y o u a r e o n t r a c k

, w e l l d o n e

.

( E m b e d d e d i m a g e m o v e d t o f i l e : p i c 1 1 1 0 6

. j p g )

t a k e c a r e

, P a t

P a t B r e w e r

N a t i o n a l P a r k S e r v

i c e

A i r R e s o u r c e D i v i s i o n

3 0 3

- 9 6 9

- 2 1 5 3

" M a s o n

, M a e v e "

< m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

.

g o v > T o

p a t r i c i a

_ f

_ b r e w e r @ n p s

. g o v

0 7 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0 7 : 3 7 c cA M " R e e c e

, M y r a C

. "

< r e e c e m c @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

S u b j e c t

S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r

R e v i e w

[ Q u o t e d t e x t h i d d e n ]

8 0 3

. 8 9 8

. 2 2 3 0 [ a t t a c h m e n t " 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7 L t r t o P a t B r e w e r R H R P e r i o d i c U p d a t e

C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h F L M A g e n c i e s

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y P a t r i c i a F

B r e w e r / D E N V E R / N P S ] [ a t t a c h m e n t " P S H a z e U p d a t e 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y

P a t r i c i a F B r e w e r / D E N V E R / N P S ] [ a t t a c h m e n t " S C R e g i o n a l H a z e M i d C o u r s e

R e v i e w D r a f t

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y P a t r i c i a F B r e w e r / D E N V E R / N P S ]

[ a t t a c h m e n t " S C R e g i o n a l H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e D r a f t

_

A p p A

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f "

d e l e t e d b y P a t r i c i a F B r e w e r / D E N V E R / N P S ] [ a t t a c h m e n t " S C R e g i o n a l H a z e

P e r i o d i c U p d a t e D r a f t

_

A p p B

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y P a t r i c i a F

B r e w e r / D E N V E R / N P S ]

p i c 1 1 1 0 6

. j p g

4 3 KM a s o n

, M a e v e < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



## S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e w

J a c k s o n

, B i l l

- F S < b j a c k s o n 0 2 @ f s

. f e d

. u s > W e d

, S e p 1 2

, 2 0 1 2 a t 2 : 5 4 P M

T

o : " M a s o n

, M a e v e " < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

C c : " F l y n n

, T h o m a s " < f l y n n t j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



### H i M a e v e

,

S o r r y

, I d i d n o t g e t t h e s e t o y o u e a r l i e r t o d a y

. H e r e a r e m y c o m m e n t s a n d w e c a n t a l k t o m o r r o w i f y o u

w o u l d l i k e t h e m s u b m i t t e d a s o f f i c i a l c o m m e n t s

. I a m p r o v i d i n g t h e m a t t h i s t i m e a s a f e l l o w c o o p e r a t o r

.

I a m m e e t i n g w i t h t h e F L M n e x t M o n d a y t o d i s c u s s m y r e v i e w

. I t h i n k t h e o f f i c i a l F o r e s t S e r v i c e

c o m m e n t s f r o m t h e F L M f o r J o y c e K i l m e r

, L i n v i l l e G o r g e

, a n d S h i n i n g R o c k s h o u l d b e i f w e a g r e e t h a t t h e

e m i s s i o n s r e d u c t i o n s i n S C a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o t e c t r e a s o n a b l e p r o g r e s s a t t h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e C l a s s I a r e a s

i n N o r t h C a r o l i n a

.

L o o k i n g f o r w a r d t o t a l k t o y o u t o m o r r o w

, a n d p l e a s e c a l l m e a t 8 2 8

- 2 5 7

- 4 8 1 5

.

B e s t r e g a r d s

,

B i l l J a c k s o n

A i r R e s o u r c e S p e c i a l i s t

U S D A F o r e s t S e r v i c e

A s h e v i l l e

, N C

8 2 8

- 2 5 7

- 4 8 1 5

F r o m : M a s o n

, M a e v e [ m a i l t o : m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v ]

S e n t : M o n d a y

, S e p t e m b e r 1 0

, 2 0

1 2 8 : 3 8 A M

T o : J a c k s o n

, B i l l

- F S

C c : F l y n n

, T h o m a s ; B r o w

n

, R o b b i e

S u b j e c t : R e : S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e wB i l l

,

S o r r y t o b o t h e r y o u

, b u t t h o u g h t I w o u l d t o u c h b a s e a g a i n s i n c e w e ' v e a s k e d f o r c o m m e n t s b y S e p t 2 5

. I f y o u

h a v e s o m e t i m e t o c h a t p r i o r t o t h e n a b o u t y o u r p r e v i o u s e m a i l

, w e w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e i t

. I f n o t

, w e ' l l l o o k f o r w a r d

t o r e c e i v i n g y o u r m o r e f o r m a l c o m m e n t s i n a f e w w e e k s

. T h a n k s a g a i n !

- -

M a e v e S

. R

. M a s o n

, M a n a g e r

R e g u l a t i o n & S I P M a n a g e m e n t

B u r e a u o f A i r Q u a l i t y

, S C D H E C

2 6 0 0 B u l l S t r e e t

C o l u m b i a

, S C

. 2 9 2 0 1

8 0 3

. 8 9 8

. 2 2 3 0

[ Q u o t e d t e x t h i d d e n ]

J a c k s o n

_ c o m m e n t s

_ S C R H M i d C o u r s e R e v i e w

_ 0 9 1 2 1 2

. d o c x

2 1 KDraft comments

– Bill Jackson

1 Page 6 “... as in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside South Carolina that may be affected

by emissions from South Carolina sources .” It appears that Cohutta Wilderness has not been included in

the SC analysis, but I think it is within 20 0 km.

Page 8

‐ Table 1, does the documents state later which facilities in bold in Table 1 have already or have

plans to implement controls to meet the CAIR or CSAPR rules? [This may be shown in Table 10 and 11]

Page 15

– I am suggesting a sentence be in cluded in the CSAP R section on the number of tons of SO2

and NOx were anticipated with CAIR.

Page 17

– I think it will be helpful to the readers to also describe how TVA’s current plans compare to

the emission estimates for 2018 by VISTAS.

Page 18

– Ta ble 5 is a littl e hard to follow. I am thinking that the table should include a column stating

what VISTAS estimated the emissions to be in 2018. I do recommend keeping the “Estimated Ton

Reduced column (but include the year the reductions are anticipated) and the “Actual Emissions (2011

CAMD).

Page 20

– I was thinki ng a 200 km radius was used to identify BART eligible sources during the

development of the SC RH SIP. If so, then Figure 2 should show the 200 km radius.

Page 26 Figure 3

– suggest the two SO2 results with two different red colors, NO x as two different blues,

heat input as a green line.

Page 26

– Do you think the economic down turn contributed to the emissions reductions? I would

suggest a brief discussion on how the economy may have affected emissions after2008. Otherwise,

some people may want to argue that it was the economic crisis th at cause d the improvements in

visibility.

Page 28

– Please include a brief description as a footnote of what each of the bars represent.

Page 31

– I am thinking the Duke Energy

– W. S. Lee switch to natural gas will also benefit Cohutta

Wilderness in Geo r gia.

Page 35

– I am recommending another table be added that shows the VISTAS estimates for 2002 in the

same format as 2009 and 2019.

Page 38

– I think it would be worthwhile to repeat any finding in the SC RH SIP regarding prescribed and

wildfire e missions to visibility at Cape Romain, especially when VISTAS did a modeling analysis (probably

2018) that included increasing emissions from prescribed fires. I do agree that increase in POC and EC

maybe attributed to burning wildland fires and the concern is worth noting, but also that land clearing

and agricultural burning may also be a fac t or. At this time, I do not think the HYSPLIT analysis supports

the findings, but maybe the satellite images and blog information do a better job.

Appendix A

Page 2

– It appears that your data does not have a normal distribution (i.e. it is skewed) and you should

focus on dis c ussing the median values.Draft comments

– Bill Jackson

2 Page 4

– “Spikes seen in the POM time graph suggest impacts from fires and will be discussed in the next

section.” I would suggest “Spikes seen in the POM and EC time graph...”, but it does not look like you

have spikes at the same ti me.

Page 7

– I do use th e PC

‐ HYSPLIT model. I am not sure that I agree with how the analysis was

conducted. The smoke released at 10 meters maybe below the tree tops and I would not anticipate the

majority of these emissions traveling more than a co uple of miles downwind be cause most of the

particles will be deposited out.

I am not completely clear (hard to read first value on the bottom graphic) on the time step for each

point on the HYSPLIT graphics (is it six hours?). The graphics show where particles may have originated

that arrived at the monitor at 2000 UTC. However, I think your n eed multipl e runs to show where the

particles are estimated to have come from for each hour (24 total) at the IMPROVE site on the day of

interest. My suggestion is the HYSPLIT graphics should be removed.

I do think you can make a case with the Smog Blog entries tha t there was smoke in the region on the

days smoke was detected by satellites. Looking at the HYSPLIT results for November 19, 2010 there is

no mention in the blog of high level smoke originating in Ohio, West Virginia an d Virginia th at could be

impacting the monitoring site and yet some readers may think smoke is coming from these areas.

On April 2, 2010 the particles impacting the IMPROVE site are from the coast of Georgia, but the other

data does not show fires occurring at that location. However, one of th e im ages seems to indicate there

was smoke originating in South Carolina.

I think an important piece of information is missing and hopefully can be obtained from the South

Carolina Forestry Commission. Perhaps the information can presented to as to how many acres of

prescribed fire or wildfire were occurring at various distances from the monito r. Were there any fires on

the Cape Romain NWR or Francis Marion NF on any of these five days? Were there any major wildfires

in the region (like south GA and north FL) on any of the five days of interest?

Appendix B

Page 3 Tabl e 1

– Please exp lain how the (rolling) average is calculated in the text. Also, please note the

column heading as a rolling (how many years?) average.

Page 4, Figure 2

– Please tell your reader what is meant by “ARP.”

For figures 4

– 7, I thi nk it would be helpful to have a point (no line drawn) at 2018 of where the VISTAS

estimated the SO2 emissions will be in 2018.M a s o n

, M a e v e < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



## S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e w

M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i < N o t a r i a n n i

. M i c h e l e @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v > M o n

, S e p 1 7

, 2 0 1 2 a t 5 : 3 5 P M

T

o : " M a s o n

, M a e v e " < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

C c : " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, L y n o r a e B e n j a m i n < B e n j a m i n

. L y n o r a e @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v >

, R i c h a r d

W o n g < W o n g

. R i c h a r d @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v >

H e l l o M a e v e

,

F o r o u r S C / E P A m o n t h l y c a l l o n S e p t e m b e r 1 9

, r e g a r d i n g t h e r e g i o n a l h a z e t o p i c

, b e l o w a r e s o m e p r e l i m i n a r y

t h o u g h t s r e g a r d i n g t h e S t a t e ' s d r a f t R e g i o n a l H a z e P e r i o d i c P r o g r e s s R e p o r t S I P

. W e c a n d i s c u s s t h e s e f u r t h e r

o n o u r c a l l a s w e l l a s a d d i t i o n a l f e e d b a c k

. I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s p r i o r t o S e p t e m b e r 1 9

, p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o

g i v e L y n o r a e B e n j a m i n o r m y s e l f a c a l l

.

1

. 

### 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 4 ) : W e b e l i e v e t h

a t a d d i t i o n a l i n

f o r m

a t

i o n i s n e c e s s a r

y t o f u

l l y a d d r e s s t h

e

r

e q u i r e m e n t i

n 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 4 ) t o t r a c k e m i s s i o n c h a n g

e s o v e r t h

e p a s t f i v

e y e a r s

. W e w i l l

w o r k w i t h y o u t o a d d r e s s t h

i s c o m m

e n t

.

2

. 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 5 ) : S t a r

t i n

g o n p a g e 3 5

, t h

e s u b m i t t a l p r o v i d e s a n a n a l

y s i s o f w h e t

h

e r t h

e r

e a r e

e m i s s i o n s c h a n g

e s t h

a t p o t e n t i a l

l y h a v e i m

p e d e d v i s i

b i

l i t y p r o g r e s s

. T o f u

l l y a d d r e s s 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g )

( 5 )

, p l e a s e i n

c l

u

d e a n e x p l

i c i

t s t a t e m e n t a n d a n e x p l

a n a t

i o n w h i c h i n

d i

c a t e s w h e t

h

e r t h

e r e a r e s i g

n

i f i c a n t

c h a n g

e s i n a n t h

r o p o g e n i c e m i s s i o n s o f c o n c e r n t h

a t h a v e l i m

i t e d o r i m

p e d e d p r o g r e s s i n r e d u c i

n

g

p o l l u

t a n t e m i s s i o n s a n d i m

p r o v i n

g v i s i

b i

l i t y

.

3

. 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 6 ) : T h

e S t a t e a s s e s s e s w h e t

h

e r i t s c u r

r

e n t r e g i o n a l h a z e S I P i s s u f f i c i

e n t t

o m e e t

r e a s o n a b l e p r o g r e s s g o a l s ( R P G s ) a f f e c t e d b y S o u t h C a r o l i n

a s o u r c e s t o a d d r e s s 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 6 )

.

W e b e l i e v e t h

a t a d d i t i o n a l i n

f o r m

a t

i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o f u

l l y a d d r e s s t h

i s r e q u i r e m e n t

. W e w i l l w o r k w i t h

y

o u t o a d d r e s s t h

i s c o m m

e n t

.

4

. C o n s e n t D e c r e e s : T h

e S I P r e v i s i

o n i n

c l

u

d e s a g e n e r a l s t a t u s o f c o n t r o l s f o r c e r t a i n c o m p a n i e s u n

d e r

c o n s e n t d e c r e e s t h

a t a f f e c t t w o o r m o r e s t a t e s ( i

. e

. , S a n t e e C o o p e r

, I N V I S T A

, a n d L a f a

r g

e )

. W e

b e l i e v e t h

a t a d d i t i o n a l i n

f o r m

a t

i o n i s n e e d e d t o f u

l l y a d d r e s s 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 2 ) t o c l a

r

i f y t h

e

c o n t r

i b u t i o n s f r o m t h

e s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d i n S o u t h C a r o l i n

a

. W e w i l l w o r k w i t h y o u t o a d d r e s s t h

i s

c o m m

e n t

.

M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i

R e g i o n a l H a z e P r o g r a m

U

. S

. E P A

- R e g i o n 4

4 0 4

- 5 6 2

- 9 0 3 1 ( p h o n e )

n o t a r i a n n i

. m i c h e l e @ e p a

. g o v ( e

- m a i l )

" M a s o n

, M a e v e "

- - - 0 7 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0 8 : 4 8 : 5 4 A M

- - - G o o d M o r n i n g

, A s y o u k n o w t h e R e g i o n a l H a z e R u l e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a t 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) r e q u i r eF r o m : " M a s o n

, M a e v e " < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

T o : M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i / R 4 / U S E P A / U S @ E P A

C c : S c o t t R D a v i s / R 4 / U S E P A / U S @ E P A

, " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, " R e e c e

, M y r a C

. " < r e e c e m c @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

D a t e : 0 7 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0 8 : 4 8 A M

S u b j e c t : S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e w

[ Q u o t e d t e x t h i d d e n ]

[ Q u o t e d t e x t h i d d e n ]



### 8 0 3

. 8 9 8

. 2 2 3 0 [ a t t a c h m e n t " 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7 L t r t o M i c h e l l e N o t a r i a n n i R H R P e r i o d i c U p d a t e

C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h F L M A g e n c i e s

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i / R 4 / U S E P A / U S ]

[ a t t a c h m e n t " P S H a z e U p d a t e 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i / R 4 / U S E P A / U S ]

[ a t t a c h m e n t " S C R e g i o n a l H a z e M i d C o u r s e R e v i e w D r a f t

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y M i c h e l e

N o t a r i a n n i / R 4 / U S E P A / U S ] [ a t t a c h m e n t " S C R e g i o n a l H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e D r a f t

_ A p p

A

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i / R 4 / U S E P A / U S ] [ a t t a c h m e n t " S C R e g i o n a l

H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e D r a f t

_ A p p B

_ 2 0 1 2 0 7 2 7

. p d f " d e l e t e d b y M i c h e l e

N o t a r i a n n i / R 4 / U S E P A / U S ]M a s o n

, M a e v e < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >



## S C D r a f t H a z e P e r i o d i c U p d a t e f o r R e v i e w

M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i < N o t a r i a n n i

. M i c h e l e @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v > T u e

, S e p 2 5

, 2 0 1 2 a t 2 : 0 1 P M

T

o : " B r o w n

, R o b b i e " < b r o w n r j @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

C c : " M a s o n

, M a e v e " < m a s o n m r @ d h e c

. s c

. g o v >

, L y n o r a e B e n j a m i n < B e n j a m i n

. L y n o r a e @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v >

, R i c h a r d

W o n g < W o n g

. R i c h a r d @ e p a m a i l

. e p a

. g o v >



### H e l l o M a e v e

,

W e a p p r e c i a t

e t h

e o p p o r t u

n

i t y t o p r o v i d e y o u w i t h o u r p r e l

i m

i n

a r

y t h

o u g

h

t s o n S o u t h C a r o l i n

a ’ s d r a f t S t a t e

I m p l

e m e n t a t i o n P l a n ( S I P ) r e v i s i

o n a d d r e s s i n

g t h

e f i r s t p e r i o d i c p r o g r

e s s r e p o r t u n

d e r t h

e r e g i o n a l h a z e

p r o g r a m

. A s r e q u e s t e d d u r

i n

g o u r S e p t e m b e r 1 9

, 2 0 1 2

, c a l l

, w e h a v e u p d a t e d o u r S e p t e m b e r 1 7

, 2 0 1 2

, e

m

a i

l w i t h p o s s i b l

e a p p r o a c h e s t h

a t t h

e S t a t e c o u l d c o n s i d e r w h e n a d d r e s s i n

g t h

e i n

f o r m

a l c o m m

e n t s i n

c l

u

d e d

i n o u r p r i o r e m a i

l a n d r e p e a t e d b e l o w

.

A s w e n o t

e d o n o u r c a l l

, t

h

e U

. S

. C o u r

t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h

e D

. C

. C i r c u i t ( D

. C

. C i r c u i t ) r e m a n d e d t h

e C l e a n

A

i r I n t e r s t a t e R u

l e ( C A I R )

, w i t h

o u t v a c a t u

r

, b a c k t o E P A o n D e c e m b e r 2 3

, 2 0 0 8

. I n r e s p o n s e t o t h

e

r e m a n d o f C A I R

, E P A p r o m u

l g a t e d a n e w r u

l e t o a d d r e s s i n

t e r s t a t e t r a n s p o r t

– t h

e “ C r o s s S t a t e A i r

P o l l u

t i o n R u

l e ” ( C S A P R )

– o n A u

g

u s t 8

, 2 0 1 1

. O n D e c e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 1 1

, C S A P R w a s s t a y e d b y t h

e D

. C

. C i r c u i t a n d C A I R w a s l e f

t i

n p l a c e

. E P A i s r e v i e w i n

g t h

e c o u r

t d e c i s i

o n a n d w i l l n o t

i f y t h

e S t a t e o f t h

e

i m

p l

i c a t i o n s o f t h

i s d e c i s i

o n o n c e t h

e A g e n c y ’ s r e v i e w i s c o m p l

e t

e

. T h

e f o l

l o w i n

g a r e s o m e o f o u r o t h

e r

p r e l i m

i n

a r

y t h

o u g

h

t s o n y o u r d r a f t S I P r e v i s i

o n

.

1

. 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 4 ) : A d d i t i o n a l i n

f o r m

a t

i o n i s n e c e s s a r

y t o f u

l l y a d d r e s s t h

e r e q u i r e m e n t i

n 4 0 C F R

5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 4 ) t o t r a c k e m i s s i o n c h a n g

e s o v e r t h

e p a s t f i v

e y e a r s

. A t a m i n

i m

u

m

, e m i s s i o n s f r o m a n o t

h

e r

“

l o o k b a c k ” y e a r a r e n e e d e d t o c o m p a r e a g a i n s t t h

e u p d a t e d e m i s s i o n s i n

v

e n t o r y y e a r o f 2 0 0 7 f o r a l l

e m i s s i o n s s o u r

c e c a t e g o r i e s i n

c l

u

d e d t h

e r e i n ( e

. g

. , s t a t i o n a

r

y p o i n

t a n d a r e a

, n o n r o a d a n d o n r o a d m o b i l e

s o u r c e s )

. T h

e S t a t e c o u l d u s e e x i s t

i n

g e m i s s i o n s i n

v

e n t o r y d a t a f o r t h

e y e a r 2 0 0 2 f r o m i t s 2 0 0 7 r e g i o n a l h a z e

S I P t o s e r v

e a s a “ l o o k b a c k ” y e a r t o c o v e r a f i v

e

- y e a r p e r i o d f r o m 2 0 0 2

- 2 0 0 7

. I n a d d i t i o n

, t h

e S t a t e m i g

h

t

c o n s i d e r i n

c l

u

d i

n

g e x i s t

i n

g d a t a m o r e r e c e n t t

h

a n 2 0 0 7 a n d

/ o r r e f

e r

e n c i

n

g o t h

e r p o r t i o n s o f t h

e S I P n a

r

r a t i v

e

w i t h m o r e r e c e n t d a t a

. F o r e x a m p l

e

, t h

e S t a t e c o u l d c o n s i d e r i n

c l

u

d i

n

g t h

e e x i s t

i n

g e m i s s i o n s i n

v

e n t o r y

p r o j e c t i o n d a t a f o r t h

e y e a r 2 0 0 9 f r o m i t s 2 0 0 7 r e g i o n a l h a z e S I P a n d s h o w h o w t h

i s i

n

f o r m

a t

i o n c o m p a r e s

t o e m i s s i o n s d a t a f r o m e a r

l i e r t i m

e p e r i o d s

. A l s o

, w h

e r e a c t u

a l e m i s s i o n s d a t a i s a v a i

l a

b l

e s h o w i n

g c h a n g

e s

t h

a t h a v e o c c u r

r e d s i n

c e 2 0 0 7 ( e

. g

. , E G

U S O 2 

### e m i s s i o n s a v a i l a b l e f r o m E P A )

, i t w o u l d b e h e l

p f

u

l t

o d i s c u s s

h

o w t h

i s i

n

f o r m

a t

i o n i l l u s t r a t e s e m i s s i o n s t r

e n d s c l o s e r t o t h

e p r e s e n t t

i m

e p e r i o d

. F o r e x a m p l

e

, t h

e S O 2



### e m i s s i o n s d a t a f o r E G

U s p r o v i d e d i n T a b l e s 1 0 a n d 1 1 c o u l d b e r e f e r e n c e d i n t h

i s d i s c u s s i o n

. F o r s o u r c e

c a t e g o r i e s w h

e r e p o s t

- 2 0 0 7 n u

m

e r

i c a l e m i s s i o n s d a t a o r p r o j e c t i o n s a r e n o t r e a d i l y a v a i

l a

b l

e

, a q u a l

i t a t i v

e

d i

s c u s s i o n w o u l d b e h e l

p f

u

l

.

2

. 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 5 ) : T o f u

l l y a d d r e s s 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 5 )

, p l e a s e i n

c l

u

d e a n e x p l

i c i

t s t a t e m e n t a n d

a n e x p l

a n a t

i o n i n

d i

c a t i n

g w h e t

h

e r t h

e r e a r e s i g

n

i f i c a n t c h a n g

e s i n t h

e a n t h

r o p o g e n i c e m i s s i o n s o f c o n c e r n t h

a t

h

a v e l i m

i t e d o r i m

p e d e d p r o g r e s s i n r e d u c i

n

g p o l l u

t a n t e m i s s i o n s a n d i m

p r o v i n

g v i s i

b i

l i t y

.

### 3

. 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 6 ) : T h

e S t a t e a s s e s s e s w h

e t

h

e r i t s c u r r e n t r e g i o n a l h a z e S I P i s s u f f i c i

e n t t

o m e e t

r e a s o n a

b l

e p r o g r

e s s g o a l s ( R P G s ) a f f e c t e d b y S o u t h C a r o l i n

a s o u r

c e s t o a d d r e s s 4 0 C F R 5 1

. 3 0 8 ( g ) ( 6 )

.

W e b e l i e v e t h

a t a d d i t i o n a l i n

f o r m

a t

i o n i s n e c e s s a r

y t o f u

l l y a d d r e s s t h

i s r e q u i r

e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t t

h

e S t a t e ’ s

d e t e r

m

i n

a t

i o n

. T o s u p p o r t i

t s d e t e r

m

i n

a t

i o n

, t h

e S t a t e c o u l d c o n s i d e r r e f e r e n c i

n

g r e l

e v a n t d i s c u s s i o n s / a n a l

y s i s

i n o t h

e r p a r

t s o f t h

e S I P N a r

r a t i v

e

, i n

c l

u

d i

n

g g r a

p h s i l l u s t r a t i n

g t r e n d s i n v i s i

b i

l i t y i m

p a i r

m

e n t

. A l t e r

n

a t

i v

e l

y

,

t h

e S t a t e c o u l d s u m

m

a

r

i z

e o v e r a l l t

r

e n d s i n v i s i

b i

l i t y i m

p a i r

m

e n t a t C l a s s I a r e a s t h

a t S o u t h C a r o l i n

a s o u r c e s

i m

p a c t a n d e m i s s i o n s f r o m t h

e s e s o u r c e s

, a n d a s s e s s q u a l

i t a t i v

e l

y w h e t

h

e r t h

e e m i s s i o n s a n d v i s i

b i

l i t y t r e n d s

s u g

g

e s t d e f i c i

e n c i

e s a f f e c t i n

g a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h

e R P G s

. W e w i l l c o n t i n

u

e t o w o r k w i t h y o u t o a d d r e s s t h

i s

c o m m

e n t

.

4

. C o n s e n t D e c r e e s ( p p

. 1 3

- 1 4 ) : T h

e S I P r e v i s i

o n i n

c l

u

d e s a g e n e r a l s t a t u s o f c o n t r o l s f o r c e r t a i n

c o m p a n i e s u n

d e r c o n s e n t d e c r e e s t h

a t a f f e c t t w o o r m o r e s t a t e s ( i

. e

. , S a n t e e C o o p e r

, I N V I S T A

, a n d

L a f a

r g

e )

. P l e a s e i n

c l

u

d e a d d i t i o n a l i n

f o r m

a t

i o n o n t h

e s t a t u s a n d d a t e s o f t h

e i m

p l

e m e n t a t i o n o f c o n t r o l s

,

c u r

r

e n t c o m p l

i a n c e s c h e d u l e s

, a n d e m i s s i o n s r e d u c t

i o n s a c h i e v e d f o r t h

e e m i s s i o n s u n

i t s a t t h

e S o u t h

C a r o l i n

a f a c i l i t i e s s u b

j e c t t o t h

e d e c r e e s

.

T

h

a n k y o u f o r g i v

i n

g u s a n a d v a n c e d o p p o r t u

n

i t y t o r e v i e w t h

e d r a f t S I P r e v i s i

o n

. W e l o o k f o r w a r d t o

r e v i e w i n

g t h

e f i n

a l p r e h e a r i n

g s u b m i s s i o n d u r

i n

g t h

e o f f i c i

a l 3 0

- d a y p u b l

i c c o m m

e n t p e r i o d

. P l e a s e c o n t a c t

L

y

n

o r a e o r m e i f y o u h a v e q u e s t i o n s

.

M i c h e l e N o t a r i a n n i

R e g i o n a l H a z e P r o g r a m

U

. S

. E P A

- R e g i o n 4

4 0 4

- 5 6 2

- 9 0 3 1 ( p h o n e )

n o t a r i a n n i

. m i c h e l e @ e p a

. g o v ( e

- m a i l )reduced at the facility. Pages 8

‐ 9 of the draft SIP include past and projected emissions at the Jeffries

plant but do not identify what pollutant is being addressed. Page 18 indicates the SIP assumed no

additional controls but that units 1 and 2 would shut down. Please provide more specifics on the

dates and ty pe of control installed at the Jeffries plant, if any, as well as the pollutants reduced and

levels of reductions.

 Page 19, Table 5 of the draft SIP includes control date information and status of controls for the

Williams plant. The “Control Date” field specifies “2002” and the “Status of Controls” field says

“Began Oper ation in 2010”. Page 9 of Appendix B of the draft SIP includes Table 7 with SO 2 tons

and the associated year. It appears that emissions sharply decreased in 2010. Is the 2002

“Control Date” specified on page 19 in error or is that referring to the scrubber listed in the

“Emission Control Included in SIP” field of Table 5? Was FGD installed in 2010, as suggested by

the BART Determination on page 22? Please clarify.

 On page 30 of the SIP, Table 10 shows that the Wateree plant installed a scrubber in 2010,

significantly reducing SO 2 emissions. The Wateree plant is also mentioned on pages 8 and 9 of

Appendix B showing recent significant decreases in SO 2 emissions, but it is not clear what

“annual average” means as opposed to “annual actual.” Clarification of these terms in that

context would be helpful. Should the Wateree plant be included in Table 5 (pp. 18

‐ 19)?

 A Santee Cooper

– Winyah plant is mentioned on pages 18, 22, and 30, with i ndications th at the

plant added scrubbers on four units after 2002, and that SO 2 emissions were significantly

reduced at two units. This information is helpful.

 MANE

‐ VU suggests revising the discussion of CAIR and CSAPR consistent with the status of

Homer City at the time the progress report is finalized, particularly with regard to the reliance on

CAIR for meeting BART requirements.

 Please provide a table of emissions by sector by year corresponding to Figur e 5 page 28. This

information will assist MANE

‐ VU Class I states in assessing changes in emissions from states

outside MANE

‐ VU that contribute to visibility impairment in MANE

‐ VU Class I areas.

Thank you for this opportunity to provi de co mments on your draft Progress Report SIP.

Sincerely,

Wick Havens

Interim Executive Director

Cc: John Hornback, SESARM

### EPA’s Pre-hearing Comments & Department Responses

I. Key Comments:

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), Page 43: The State assesses whether its current regional haze SIP is

sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals (RPGs) affected by South Carolina sources

to address 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) on page 43 of the SIP Narrative. We believe that citing

additional information is nece ssary to fully address this requirement and support the

State's determination. The State could consider expanding references to existing relevant

discussions/analysis in other pa rts of the SIP to support this determination. Alternatively,

the State could summarize and assess qualita tively whether the em issions and visibility

trends are sufficient in addressing achie vement of the RPGs. We appreciate the

additional, clarifying email dated Nove mber 21, 2012, from Ms. Maeve Mason, South

Carolina Department of Health and Envi ronmental Control, regarding 40 CFR

51.308(g)(6) and we understand that the State will be incorpor ating this information in

the final submission to address this comment.

Response :

In communication with EPA on August 1, 2011, the Department (as part of the

Southeastern States), communicated that we would not be conducting any additional

modeling associated with the periodic update , but rather (as required), states would

perform an assessment of current conditions using the latest 2010 IMPROVE data to

calculate five-year averages of the annual averages for the most impaired and least

impaired days. The cumulative assessment would also address and evaluate current

visibility conditions, emission i nventory changes, and the stat us of emission controls and

reductions. The Department has addressed th ese requirements and this comment on page

43 of the narrative. Furthermore, the inform ation presented in the entire SIP package to

include Tables 6, 10, and 11 as well as in A ppendix B provide a clea r rationale for the

assessment that the Department’s strategies as outlined are sufficient to meet the RPGs

both for SC and surrounding states.

II. Other Comments:

1. Table 12, Page 33: Table 12 provides for the 20 percent best days an updated RPG and

baseline visibility data. Please clarify if the State is, in this SIP submittal, formally

adopting this change to th e RPGs for the best days.

Response :

The Department has clarified the text at page 33 to say that we would like to formally

adopt the change (albeit slight ) to the RPGs for the best da ys to reflect the most up-todate visibility data.

2. Section 6.1, Page 33: Under Section 6.1 on page 33, please clarify if the 40 CFR

51.308 reference is intended to be 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).

Response :

The Department has clarified the text under Section 6.1 to site the reference as 40 CFR

51.308(g)(3).

### 3. Figures 7 and 8, Pages 35-36: For Figures 7 and 8, it appears that the figure titles may

be reversed for the best and worst da ys. Please confirm these figure titles.

Response :

The titles to Figures 7 and 8 have been sw itched such that they now correspond to the

correct information.

4. 2009 Base G4 Modeled Inventory, Pages 39-40: On page 39, the submittal indicates

that a table follows which depicts the “2009 Base G4 modeled inventory,” however there

is no corresponding table. Please clarify.

Response :

The reference to the 2009 Base G4 Modeled Inventory on page 39 of the text has been

removed.