# Appendix O.1

FWS and NPS Comments on Draft Prehearing SIPINREPLYREFER TO: 

# United States

# Department ofthe Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE

### SERVICE National WildlifeRefuge System Branchof Air Quality 7333W. Jefferson Ave., Suite375 Lakewood, CO 80235-2017



### February 11,2009

Mr. James P. Johnston, Program Manager Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Air Protection Branch, Planning and SupportProgram 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, Georgia 30354

Dear Mr. Johnston: 

# AIR PROTECTION 

# Fg Planning&-Sipport

On December 22,2008, the State of Georgia submitted for comment proposed revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan, describing its proposal to improve air quality regional haze impacts at mandatory Class 

### I areas across your region. We appreciatethe opportunityto work closely with the State through the initial evaluation, development, and, now, subsequentreview of this plan. Cooperative efforts such as these ensure that, together, we will continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act's goal of natural visibility conditions at all of our most pristine National Parks and Wilderness Areas for future generations. 

# -

This letter acknowledges that the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in coordination with the National Park Service (NPS), have received and conducted a substantive review of your proposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in fulfillment of your requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Please note, however, that only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can make a final determination regarding the document's completeness and, therefore, ability to receive federal approval from EPA. In addition, this letter acknowledges the productive conference call on January 22,2009, during which all of the comments presented in the enclosure to this letter were discussed.

As outlined in a letter to each State dated August 1,2006, our review focused on eight basic content areas. The content areas reflect priorities for the Federal Land Manager agencies,and we have enclosed comments associated with these priorities. We look forward to your response, as per section 40 CFR 

### 51.308(i)(3). For further information, please contact Tim Allen (FWS) (303) 914-3802.

### Mr. James P. Johnston Page 2

The State of Georgia should be commendedfor the high quality of work and clear and concise writing of proposed Regional Haze SIP. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State of Georgia and compliment you on your hard work and dedicationto significant improvement in our nation's air quality values and visibility. Sincerely,

Sandra

### V. Silva, Chief Branch of Air Quality Fish and Wildlife Service

Enclosure

cc:
James A. Capp, Air Branch Chief Georgia Department ofNatural Resources Environmental Protection Division 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, Georgia 30354 Kay Prince, Chief Air Planning Branch US EPA Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Michele Notarianni US EPA Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Annette Sharp, Executive Director CENRAP 10005 S.Pennsylvania, Ste. C Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73 159 Christine 

### L. Shaver, Chief Air Resources Division National Park ServiceMr. James P. Johnston Page 3

VISTAS Technical Coordinator 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778

Brian McManus Chief, Branch of Fire Management US Fish & Wildlife Service National Interagency Fire Center 3833 South Development Ave. Boise, Idaho 83705
Jon Andrew, Chief Southeast Region National Wildlife Refuge System 1875 Century Center Atlanta, Georgia 30345 George Constantino Project Leader Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Route 2, Box 3330 Folkston, GA 3 1537
Jane Griess Project Leader Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge Savannah Coastal Refuges Parkway Business Center 1000 Business Center Drive, Suite 10 Savannah, Georgia 31405
James Burnett Refuge Manager St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 68 St. Marks, Florida 32355

James Kraus Refuge Manager Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge 1502 SE Kings Bay Drive Crystal River, Florida 34429-466 1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sewice and National Park Sewice (NPS) Comments Regarding Georgia Draft Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan
On December 22,2008, the State of Georgia submitted a draft Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Regional Haze Program, pursuant to the requirements codified in Federal rule at 40 CFR 

### 5 1.308(i)(2),to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS). The air program staff of the FWS has conducted a substantive review ofthe Georgia draftplan and provides the comments listed below.

We areproviding these comments to the State and wish them to be placed in the official public record. We look forward to your response as per section 40 CFR 5 1.308(i)(3),and we are willing to work with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD) staff towards addressing any of the issues discussed in this letter. For further information, please contact Tim Allen with FWS at (303) 914-3802.

Overall Comments
Overall the Georgia draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) is comprehensive and well written. This SIP is a good example for other states to follow. International Impairment On page 58, a modified glide slope is presented. This glide slope is based on removing the international emissions. However, the international component was not removed from the natural conditions. The result effect is minor, but shouldbe corrected in the final version ofthe SIP.

Rest Available Ketrofit Technologv (BAKT) and Reasonable Progress (RP)

On page 78, the draft SIP states, 

### "In accordance with Environmental Protection Agency guidance, emission units subject to BART review are not subjectto reasonable progress goal review." The State does have the option of requiring additional controls, if BART is not sufficient enough to reach reasonable progress goals. Smoke Management Plan On page 103,the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) shouldbe referenced in a summaryparagraph and the SMP should be included as an Appendix to the SIP. The summary paragraph should include whether the SMP is voluntary or mandatory and whether the SMP includes Class

### I areas as a sensitive receptor. Additionally, some basic statements should be included as to whether emissions from fire are anticipated to shrink, stay the same, or increase over the ten year planning period. It is recommended that the SMP should be referenced in a manner that does not require SIP updates each time the SMP is updated.ConstructionActivity

The draft SIP does not contain a discussion on State limits on emissions resulting from construction activity. This is a required element of the Regional Haze SIP. Impact on out-of-State Class I areas

The draft SIP should contain a few statements on Georgia's impact on out-of-State Class I areas.
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Provisions of the Georrria Regional Haze SIP Appendix H of the Georgia Regional Haze State Implementation Plan -Draft 

### (RH SIP) contains BART Exemption Modeling Reports for a number of facilities, but such reports are not included for eight BART-eligible sources. They are: DSM Chemicals North America, Georgia PacificBrunswick Cellulose, Owens Corning, PCA, PCS Nitrogen, Prayon, Inc., Rayonier and TronoxJKerr-McGee. Please provide these reports in the record as evidence to confirm that none ofthe above facilities impact any Class I area by 0.5 deciviews or greater.

It is important that the RH SIPbe clear that the Georgia EPD is the entity that accepts and adopts required emission controls, because the EPA BART Guidelines require that permit conditions be finalized and included in the RH SIP.' Section 7.7.3 implies that Interstate Paper in Riceboro developed the BART determination in the reference, "Their BART determination results



### . . ." However, on a January 22,2009 conference call Georgia EPD stated that the BART determination was developed by the State. Thus, the wording should be clear that the Required Control Options displayed in Table 7.7.3-1 are the conclusions of Georgia EPD, rather than merely results presented by Interstate Paper. In the next-to-last paragraph of Section 7.7.2, relatingto Georgia Pacific 

### - Cedar Springs, Georgia EPD should make it clear that the stated emission limits are accepted and adoptedby the State.

The "model plant" criteria for International Paper - Savannah and Lafarge Building Materials - Atlanta should be documented. Table 7.7.2-2 makes reference to exempting these facilities from BARTbased on "Model Plant Criteria", but the term has not been defined in the 

### RH SIP. The EPA BART Guidelines define what could be accepted by a state as a model plant criteria2, but allows a state to develop its own criteria. The 

### RH SIP should state or reference the State's definition of "Model Plant Criteria" and it should also show the definitive distance and emission characteristics of the above two facilities so as to confirm their meeting the "Model Plant Criteria".

I See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized it's BART Guidelines on June 15,2005, and published the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005. The rulemaking action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled "Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule." See Section V. 

### '

Ibid, Section III.A.3.0ption 2.Regarding the BART determination for Interstate Paper-Riceboro, Table 7.7.3-1, under the heading "Required Control Option" for the Lime Kiln states, "No cost effective control options Available." As discussed below there are cost-effective (i.e., cost per ton) control options available for the lime kiln, but as you clarified on a January 22,2009, conference call, the lack of cost-effectiveness was on the basis of excessive cost of visibility improvement. Please clarify this in Section 7.7.3. For the record it should be noted that cost-effective (i.e., cost per ton) control options are available for the lime kiln. The control alternatives of SNCR-NH3 based, SNCR-Urea based and Low NOxburner are all under $1,500per ton ofNOxreduced. It should be noted that only summary cost data were presented. More detailed cost information shouldbe included in BART determinations so that third-party reviewers can more thoroughly review the costs and methodologies that were used.