```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 92038-92066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26977]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220; FRL-10407-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Second Period Regional Haze Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection 
Division (GA EPD), dated August 11, 2022 (``Haze Plan'' or ``2022 
Plan''), as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze 
program's second planning period. Georgia's SIP submission addresses 
the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term 
strategies (LTS) for making reasonable progress toward the national 
goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, 
anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I 
areas''). The SIP submission also addresses other applicable 
requirements for the second planning period of the regional haze 
program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of 
the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective December 23, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information (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 through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estelle Bae, Air Permitting Section, 
Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 
Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9143. 
Ms. Bae can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 11, 2022, GA EPD submitted a revision to its SIP to 
address regional haze for the second planning period.1 2 GA 
EPD made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's 
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308. EPA has determined that the 
Georgia regional haze SIP submission for the second planning period 
meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus 
approving Georgia's submission into its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The August 11, 2022, SIP submission, with exception of the 
supporting modeling files and CBI, is included in the docket for 
this rulemaking. Due to size and compatibility limitations of the 
Federal Docket Management System, the supporting modeling files for 
Georgia's Regional Haze Plan are instead available at the EPA Region 
4 office. To request these files, please contact the person listed 
in this rulemaking under the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    \2\ On November 1, 2023, Georgia supplemented its August 11, 
2022, Haze Plan by submitting the final permits for each of the 
three sources selected for an emissions control analysis. This 
supplemental submission, received November 1, 2023, along with GA 
EPD's November 17, 2023, clarification email, is included in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on June 
3, 2024 (89 FR 47481), EPA proposed to approve Georgia's Haze Plan as 
satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning 
period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA described its 
rationale for proposing approval of the Haze Plan in the June 3, 2024, 
NPRM. Comments on the June 3, 2024, NPRM were due on or before July 3, 
2024. EPA received two sets of comments on the NPRM. One set of 
comments received is not relevant to this action, and the other set of 
comments is addressed below. Both sets of comments are available in the 
docket for this action.

II. Response to Comments

    In response to the NPRM, EPA received a comment letter signed by 
the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, the 
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and the Southern 
Environmental Law Center. Collectively, these groups will be referred 
to as the ``Commenters.'' In general, the Commenters state in their 
comment letter that Georgia, in its SIP submittal, and EPA, in its 
proposed approval of the SIP submittal, failed to

[[Page 92039]]

satisfy the requirements of the Act and the RHR. The Commenters thus 
request that EPA disapprove Georgia's SIP revision. Summaries of the 
significant comments received from the Commenters and EPA's responses 
to these comments are below.
    Comment 1: The Commenters state that in 2021 they informed the 
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 
(VISTAS) and EPA via letter of ``significant errors'' in the visibility 
modeling conducted by VISTAS for the VISTAS states--including Georgia--
and that EPA did not acknowledge these errors in the NPRM. These 
alleged errors are addressed in Comments 1.a through 1.c below.
    Comment 1a: The Commenters contend that the VISTAS modeling 
significantly underpredicted the contribution of sulfates to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas on the 20 percent most impaired days and 
that this underprediction, while prevalent across all seasons, was 
largest during the summer months.\3\ The Commenters also assert that 
these errors resulted in the modeling not meeting VISTAS' model 
performance goals and modeling acceptance criteria for a number of 
Class I areas. The Commenters further assert that although Georgia 
claims that it corrected for this underprediction through the use of 
relative response factors (RRFs), neither Georgia nor EPA assessed 
whether use of RRFs adequately corrected for errors in the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal 
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. CAA 
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to 
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is 
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1.a: Regarding the 2021 letter described by the 
Commenters,\4\ EPA disagrees with the Commenters that there are 
significant flaws in Georgia's 2028 visibility modeling that resulted 
in excluding major sources of haze-forming pollution from evaluation 
via Four-Factor Analyses (FFAs) for the second planning period. As the 
Commenters state, Georgia relied upon the photochemical visibility 
modeling performed by VISTAS to project the impact of the State's 2028 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emissions on visibility in both in-state and out-of-state Class I 
areas. VISTAS performed the modeling in accordance with the principles 
described within EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze'' (2018 
Modeling Guidance).\5\ In 2018, EPA approved \6\ the Quality Assurance 
Project Plan prepared by VISTAS for performing the modeling and also 
reviewed and provided comments on the VISTAS Modeling Protocol. EPA 
also reviewed the VISTAS final modeling reports and data relied upon by 
Georgia and found them acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exhibit 10 of the Conservation Groups' comments contains the 
May 12, 2021, letter regarding the VISTAS regional haze modeling for 
the second planning period.
    \5\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for 
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,'' EPA 454/R-18-009, 
November 29, 2018, (hereafter ``2018 Modeling Guidance'') is 
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/o3-pm-rh-modeling_guidance-2018.pdf.
    \6\ The April 3, 2018, Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 
VISTAS II Regional Haze Project is located in Appendix A-1 of the 
Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters assert that, due to errors, the modeling failed to 
meet VISTAS' model performance goals and modeling acceptance criteria 
for a number of Class I areas. Specifically, the Commenters assert that 
the VISTAS modeling significantly underpredicted the contribution of 
sulfate to visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired days 
and that the largest underprediction was during the summer months when 
visibility is most problematic at Class I areas. Figure 6-7 in 
Georgia's Haze Plan shows the results of the normalized mean bias and 
normalized mean error statistical model performance tests for sulfates.
    Model bias and error, either high or low, is not uncommon in 
photochemical modeling analyses due to uncertainties in model inputs 
and the scientific model formulation, and the fact that all air quality 
models are simplified approximations of the complex phenomena of 
atmospheric chemistry, fate, and transport of pollutants. Section 6.0 
of EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance discusses uncertainties that may affect 
model results and provides recommendations to mitigate modeling bias 
and uncertainty. Georgia acknowledges that model performance is biased 
low on the 20 percent most impaired days and provided an explanation of 
why this modeling was appropriate for its regulatory determinations in 
the Haze Plan. Georgia references the 2018 Modeling Guidance, which 
states that it is not appropriate to use a ``bright-line test'' for 
distinguishing between adequate and inadequate photochemical model 
performance for a single performance test statistic. EPA's 2018 
Modeling Guidance instead recommends using a ``weight of evidence'' 
approach for evaluating model performance holistically.
    As discussed in Section 5.2(d) of EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality 
Models'' contained in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, there are no specific 
levels of any model performance metric that indicate acceptable model 
performance. The decision regarding acceptability is heavily influenced 
by professional judgment of the reviewing authority, which is EPA in 
this case. Based upon the overall performance of the model for all 
pollutants affecting visibility, considered holistically, EPA agrees 
with Georgia's conclusions that the modeling is acceptable for use in 
the regional haze SIP analyses, and the model bias was adequately 
explained by Georgia and therefore the source selection outcomes using 
the VISTAS' methodology were reasonable.
    Just as importantly, Georgia took appropriate steps to correct for 
this model bias. The Haze Plan explains that the model is applied in a 
relative sense through the calculation of RRFs following the procedures 
in 2018 Modeling Guidance for calculating 2028 future year visibility 
impacts, which helps alleviate concerns about the low bias in the 
sulfate model predictions. As described in EPA's 2018 Modeling 
Guidance, RRFs are ``the fractional change in air quality 
concentrations that is simulated due to emissions changes between a 
base and a future year emissions scenario.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2018 Modeling Guidance at p. 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees with Georgia that applying the model in a relative sense 
using the RRFs is an important tool in alleviating the impacts of the 
sulfate modeling underpredictions in the 2011 baseline year on the 
model projections for the 2028 future year. Section 4.1 of the 2018 
Modeling Guidance provides a detailed explanation of why EPA recommends 
photochemical modeling be applied in a relative sense and explains that 
problems posed by model bias are expected to be reduced when using the 
relative approach. Section 7.2.5.1 of Georgia's Haze Plan explains the 
calculation of 2028 visibility estimates using the RRF approaches 
contained in EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance. Using the RRF approach with 
an average of five years of Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) \8\ data on the 20 percent most impaired days 
and 20 percent clearest days along with the relative percent modeled 
change in all of the particulate matter (PM) species between 2011 and 
2028 reduces the influence of

[[Page 92040]]

the bias in sulfate-modeled (and other PM species) values in the 2011 
baseline year. The 2028 visibility impairment projection is derived 
primarily from the five-year average of actual IMPROVE monitoring data 
in 2009-2013 that was then scaled in a relative sense by the modeling 
results. If the model was being applied in an absolute sense, the low 
bias in the sulfate modeled values would have a larger impact on the 
2028 visibility projections. For these reasons, Georgia's use of RRFs 
adequately minimized the impacts of model bias, and therefore, 
Georgia's source selection using the VISTAS' methodology was 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ IMPROVE visibility monitoring data is available at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1.b: The Commenters also discuss several other alleged 
deficiencies with VISTAS' modeling. They state that VISTAS relied on an 
``outdated'' 2011 baseline year for its 2028 future year emissions 
projections and assumed that electric generating units (EGUs) would 
operate in the exact same manner in 2028 as they did in 2011. Thus, the 
Commenters assert that this model assumption is incorrect because EGUs 
are likely to have different load utilization in 2028 than in 2011.
    Response 1.b: Regarding the Commenters' comments about Georgia's 
use of a 2011 base emissions inventory year to project emissions out to 
2028 (the end of the second planning period), EPA finds the 2011 
baseline year acceptable in this instance. Although it is always 
preferable to use the most recent information available for modeling, 
the 2011 baseline year inventory used by VISTAS was the latest region-
wide inventory available at the time that Georgia's SIP submittal was 
being developed during the VISTAS technical work, which took place from 
December 2017 to February 26, 2021.\9\ In EPA's experience, 
coordination among states such as those in the VISTAS region takes 
time, and the modeling involved is time-consuming, highly technical, 
and resource intensive. The modeling generally requires hundreds of 
hours of time to gather the model input data (e.g., emissions, 
meteorology, land-use, etc.), prepare modeling protocols, perform the 
modeling, and analyze the results. The computational resources to run 
photochemical models are also very large. ``Mainframe'' clusters of a 
large number of computer processors are required to run the models, and 
even using these powerful computers, it takes weeks of computer run-
time for a full-year model simulation. Additionally, EPA's newer 2016-
based modeling platform only became available in September 2019, after 
VISTAS had already invested a considerable amount of time and money 
into the regional haze modeling analysis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Timeline'' for the VISTAS II Regional Haze Project at: 
https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-project-intro.
    \10\ See ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Updated 2028 
Regional Haze Modeling'' at: https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-support-document-epas-updated-2028-regional-haze-modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA develops the National Emission Inventory (NEI) suitable for use 
in such models every three years.\11\ By design, the regional haze 
program requires states to spend significant time in the planning 
phase, and this generally necessitates the use of a baseline year that 
is substantially earlier than the date the state submits its SIP to 
EPA. Here, it is reasonable that Georgia utilized the 2011 emissions 
inventory year on which to base the technical work for the following 
reasons. There is no RHR requirement regarding the baseline year for 
regional photochemical modeling (nor is photochemical modeling 
required). GA EPD justifies the use of this particular baseline year 
and states that the 2011 emissions inventory was the most recently 
available quality assured statewide emissions inventory when the VISTAS 
project began for the second planning period. Moreover, prior to using 
this data, GA EPD discussed the selection of this baseline year 
emissions inventory and received confirmation from EPA to use this 
emissions inventory.\12\ Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA finds 
the use of the 2011 baseline year by VISTAS, and thus Georgia, 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For more information on the NEI, see: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
    \12\ See the January 29, 2018, email from EPA (Richard Wayland) 
regarding use of a 2011 base year by VISTAS for regional haze in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2011 emissions inventory was used to estimate emissions of 
visibility impairing pollutants in 2028 to develop the 2028 
projections. VISTAS applied reductions expected from federal and state 
regulations to the visibility impairing pollutants NOX, PM, 
and SO2. Georgia's 2028 emissions projections are based on 
the State's technical analysis of the anticipated emissions rates and 
level of activity for EGUs, other point sources, non-point sources, on-
road sources, and off-road sources based on their emissions in the 2011 
base year, considering growth and additional emissions controls to be 
in place by 2028. In addition, the VISTAS emissions inventory for 2028 
accounts for post-2011 emission reductions from promulgated federal, 
state, local, and site-specific control programs.
    Although Georgia used the 2011 year as its emissions inventory base 
year, as required by the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Georgia also 
examined more recent emissions inventory information for SO2 
and NOX for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 and compared 
these emissions to the 2028 emission projections that were used for 
modeling purposes in Section 7.6.5 and Tables 7-32 and 7-33 of its Haze 
Plan. This helps to ensure that the State adequately considered more 
recent emissions inventory information when developing its LTS. The 
technical information provided in the docket demonstrates that the 
emissions inventory in the Haze Plan adequately reflects projected 2028 
conditions. Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA finds the use of the 
2011 baseline year by VISTAS (and thus Georgia) reasonable.
    Comment 1.c: The Commenters state that VISTAS used ``outdated'' 
monitoring data for its 2028 future year projections that did not 
reflect an observed shift in nitrate contribution to visibility 
impairment in the southeastern United States in the recent past. 
Consequently, the Commenters assert that Georgia improperly excluded 
major sources of haze-forming pollution from FFAs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The amount of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is 
based on applying the four statutory factors in CAA section 
169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options for sources 
of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a 
``four-factor analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1.c: Regarding the Commenters' claims that the 2009-2013 
modeling base period did not reflect more recent changes in nitrate 
contributions, EPA discussed its views on this issue in detail in the 
NPRM. Nitrates are also discussed in Response 3, below. EPA agrees that 
after the 2009-2013 timeframe, nitrate impacts have become more 
significant on some of the 20 percent most impaired days, especially 
taking into account the significant decrease in SO2 
emissions and measured sulfate concentrations as acknowledged in the 
NPRM. EPA nonetheless agrees with Georgia's conclusion that for the 
second planning period, sulfates remain the dominant visibility 
impairing pollutant at the Class I areas affected by Georgia, and 
therefore, it is reasonable for Georgia to focus on SO2 
emitting sources during this period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Out-of-state Class I areas affected by Georgia sources are: 
Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Figures 2-8 
and 2-9 of the Haze Plan provide the 2014-2018 IMPROVE data for the 
VISTAS Class I areas.

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

[[Page 92041]]

    Comment 2: The Commenters assert that Georgia's source selection 
process was unreasonable and too restrictive, based, in part, on their 
concerns summarized in Comment 1. Additionally, the Commenters state 
that Georgia's use of VISTAS' multi-step source screening process using 
Area of Influence (AoI) and Particulate Matter Source Apportionment 
Technology (PSAT) analysis was unreasonable. They therefore contend 
that EPA's proposal to approve the State's source selection method is 
arbitrary and capricious. The Commenters' specific comments on this 
topic are addressed in Comments 2.a through 2.f, below.
    Comment 2.a: The Commenters also claim that the State employed 
unreasonably high source selection thresholds for AoI, which were too 
restrictive and resulted in the identification of only five sources at 
that step. The Commenters assert that by using a percentage source 
selection threshold (for AoI and PSAT), the calculated threshold in 
absolute visibility impact terms was higher for Class I areas with the 
most severe visibility impairment. This in turn, they contend, meant 
that fewer sources were identified at the AoI step for Class I areas 
with the worst visibility impairment. The Commenters state that for the 
areas with the worst visibility impairment, more sources should be 
selected to make progress toward the natural visibility goal. In 
addition, the Commenters assert that neither Georgia nor EPA provide 
any justification for doubling the AoI threshold for out-of-state 
sources compared to in-state sources.
    Response 2.a: Concerning the Commenters' argument that the State's 
source selection threshold is unreasonable, as explained in the NPRM, 
the RHR does not require states to consider controls for all sources, 
all source categories, or any or all sources in a particular source 
category. Nor does the RHR expressly specify criteria for minimum 
source selection thresholds.
    These flexibilities are, however, not unbounded. The RHR requires 
that ``[t]he State should consider evaluating major and minor 
stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area 
sources. The State must include in its implementation plan a 
description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or 
groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken into 
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term 
strategy.'' \15\ In addition, the technical basis for source selection 
must also be documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). Thus, 
states must utilize a reasonable source selection methodology,\16\ and 
whatever choices states make regarding source selection should be 
reasonably explained.\17\ Georgia met these requirements. Specifically, 
Georgia discussed the criteria it used to determine which sources or 
groups of sources were evaluated by the State, including the use of AoI 
analysis, photochemical modeling (e.g., PSAT), and associated source 
selection thresholds for AoI and PSAT tagging in its Haze Plan. Georgia 
documented its use of these approaches in extensive detail within 
Section 7.5 of the Haze Plan and Appendices D-1 and D-2 of the Haze 
Plan (relating to AoI analysis) and Section 7.6 of the Haze Plan and 
Appendices E-1a, E-1b, E-2a, E-2b, E-2c, E-2d, E-2e, E-2f, E-3, E-4, E-
5, E-6, E-7a, E-7b, and E-8 of the Haze Plan (relating to PSAT 
modeling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    \16\ As explained in the July 8, 2021, EPA memorandum containing 
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans 
for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications 
Memo''), a reasonable source selection process ``should be designed 
and conducted to ensure that source selection results in a set of 
pollutants and sources the evaluation of which has the potential to 
meaningfully reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 
See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3 available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
    \17\ See 89 FR 47481, 47493 (June 3, 2024); see also Sections 2 
and 2.1 of 2021 Clarifications Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's documentation adequately demonstrates why its source 
selection methodology--including the use of an AoI threshold of two 
percent \18\ for in-state sources for follow-up PSAT tagging, and a one 
percent PSAT threshold on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis for source 
selection--is reasonable. For the reasons stated in the NPRM (89 FR 
47497), EPA finds that Georgia's source selection methodology was 
reasonable and resulted in the selection of a reasonable set of sources 
contributing to visibility impairment at Class I areas affected by 
Georgia's sources. The State's methods for selecting sources for a 
control analysis and the State's AoI and PSAT analyses identified 
sources in Georgia having the highest impact on visibility at Class I 
areas at the end of the second planning period and identified sources 
outside of Georgia having the largest impacts on visibility at Class I 
areas in the State. A specific source selection approach is not 
required by the RHR.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The State's use of a four percent AoI threshold for out-of-
state sources is discussed below in Response 2.a.
    \19\ Both of these approaches (AoI and PSAT) are example methods 
in EPA's August 20, 2019, guidance titled: ``Guidance on Regional 
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation 
Period'' (``2019 Guidance'') which is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/8-20-2019_-_regional_haze_guidance_final_guidance.pdf. See subsection ``b) 
Estimating baseline visibility impacts for source selection'' on 
pages 12-15 of the 2019 Guidance. PSAT is a type of photochemical 
modeling which is item 4 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance. VISTAS' 
AoI analyses involve items 1-3 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of this methodology were reasonable as well. On the 
whole, SO2 emissions from the three in-state sources 
selected by Georgia for FFAs--Georgia Power Company's Plant Bowen 
(``Plant Bowen''), International Paper's Savannah Mill (``IP-
Savannah''), and Brunswick Cellulose--are projected to impact 
visibility at Class I areas as described in Table 1 below.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ No sources met Georgia's Nitrate PSAT threshold of greater 
than or equal to one percent on the 20 percent most impaired days.

  Table 1--Sulfate PSAT Contributions (%) for Plant Bowen, IP-Savannah,
  and Brunswick Cellulose at Class I Areas on 20% Most Impaired Days *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    IP-       Brunswick
        Class I area **           Plant Bowen     Savannah    Cellulose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta National National                 2.13  ...........  ...........
 Wilderness Area (Cohutta)
 (GA).........................
Okefenokee National Wilderness            2.30         1.04  ...........
 Area (Okefenokee) (GA).......
Wolf Island National                      2.33         1.54         1.76
 Wilderness Area (Wolf Island)
 (GA) ***.....................
Chassahowitzka National                   2.28  ...........  ...........
 Wilderness Area (FL).........
St Marks National Wilderness              4.89  ...........  ...........
 Area (FL)....................
Linville Gorge National                   1.13  ...........  ...........
 Wilderness Area (NC).........
Shining Rock National                     1.29  ...........  ...........
 Wilderness Area (NC).........
Swanquarter National                      1.03  ...........  ...........
 Wilderness Area (NC).........

[[Page 92042]]

 
Cape Romain National                      3.53         1.28  ...........
 Wilderness Area (SC).........
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock                    1.11  ...........  ...........
 National Wilderness Area (TN
 and NC)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that fields in the above table left blank indicate that
  visibility impacts are below one percent.
** The Class I areas listed in Table 1, above, are included because the
  Georgia facilities in this table have a sulfate PSAT contribution of
  one percent or more at one or more of these areas.
*** Wolf Island has no IMPROVE monitor. Visibility at Wolf Island is
  assumed to be the same as the nearest Class I area monitor located at
  Okefenokee.

    Although these three sources are the largest contributors within 
Georgia to visibility impairment at Class I areas, Table 1 shows 
Sulfate PSAT visibility impacts from these sources range from 
approximately one to five percent at the selected Class I areas. This 
is due to the fact that most anthropogenic impacts to visibility at 
these Class I areas come from outside of Georgia. In fact, they 
primarily come from outside of the VISTAS states. This is illustrated 
in Table 7-4 of the Haze Plan, which provides the contributions from 
2028 SO2 and NOX emissions to visibility 
impairment from all source sectors for the 20 percent most impaired 
days in units of inverse megameters (Mm-1). The entries in 
Table 2, below, show the contributions made from Georgia, all other 
VISTAS states, and other Regional Planning Organizations to Georgia's 
Class I areas.

 Table 2--Contributions of 2028 SO2 and NOX Emissions From All Source Sectors to Visibility Impairment for the 20 Percent Most Impaired Days for Class I
                                                                    Areas in Georgia
                                                                       [Mm-\1\] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Projected 2028
                                                    impairment on               All other      CENRAP       LADCO       MANE-VU      WRAP region within
                 Class I area **                      20% most          GA        VISTAS     region ***   region ***   region ***     VISTAS modeling
                                                    impaired days                 states                                                 domain ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COHU............................................             45.28       1.04         5.19         1.76         6.88         0.87                   2.30
OKEF............................................             54.66       2.17         7.57         2.27         3.60         1.01                   2.84
WOLF............................................             53.59       2.57         6.56         2.15         3.44         1.15                   3.41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As noted in Georgia's Haze Plan, the columns to the right of ``Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days'' do not add up to the values in
  the ``Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days'' column due to international emissions and boundary emissions.
** ``COHU'' refers to Cohutta; ``OKEF'' refers to Okefenokee; and ``WOLF'' refers to Wolf Island.
*** ``CENRAP'' refers to Central Regional Air Planning Association (which is associated with the Central States Air Resource Agencies (CENSARA));
  ``LADCO'' refers to Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium; ``MANE-VU'' refers to Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union; ``WRAP'' refers to Western
  Regional Air Partnership. See also: https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-regional-planning-organizations.

    Table 2, above, illustrates that Georgia's in-state emissions 
account for a relatively small fraction of total visibility impairment 
at Georgia's Class I areas. This fraction is approximately 2.29 percent 
for Cohutta, 3.97 percent for Okefenokee, and 4.79 percent for Wolf 
Island.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ These percentages were calculated by dividing the ``GA'' 
column by the ``Projected 2028 20% Most Impaired Days Column'' and 
multiplying by 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the PSAT Tag Results spreadsheet in Appendix E-7A of the 
Haze Plan shows the visibility impacts on a facility-by-facility basis 
due to SO2 emissions. Specifically, Appendix E-7A shows the 
following SO2 visibility impacts to Georgia's Class I areas 
on the 20 percent most impaired days in units of Mm-1.

                              Table 3--SO2 Visibility Impacts to Georgia Class I Areas on the 20 Percent Most Impaired Days
                                                                        [Mm-\1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Total of                      All sources
                                                          Plant Bowen     IP-Savannah        Brunswick        Georgia    Georgia total   (including out-
                     Class I area                        contribution    contribution    Cellulose to 20%    selected     contribution      of-state)
                                                                                           contribution       sources                      contribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COHU..................................................           0.282           0.038               0.002       0.322            0.803             15.6
OKEF..................................................           0.308           0.140               0.077       0.525            1.669             16.4
WOLF..................................................           0.302           0.200               0.228       0.458            2.124             16.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above data in Table 3 further supports that Georgia's source 
selection thresholds and source selection methodology were reasonable. 
Specifically, on the 20 percent most impaired days, Georgia's selected 
in-state sources are responsible for approximately 40 percent of 
Georgia's total in-state SO2 visibility impairment at 
Cohutta, 31.5 percent of total in-state SO2 visibility 
impairment at Okefenokee, and 21.6 percent of total in-

[[Page 92043]]

state SO2 visibility impairment at Wolf Island.\22\ States 
are not required by the RHR to select every source in the state, and 
the state selected the in-state sources with the largest visibility 
impacts on in-state and nearby Class I areas. The selection of the 
above sources captured sufficient visibility-impairing emissions to 
allow Georgia to ensure that FFAs conducted for this planning period 
had the potential to meaningfully reduce emissions (and thus, 
associated visibility impacts at Class I areas) from in-state sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ These percentages were calculated by dividing the ``Total 
of Selected Georgia Sources'' column by the ``Georgia Total 
Contribution'' column and multiplying by 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 also shows that most emissions of visibility-impairing 
sulfates that impact Georgia's Class I areas on the 20 percent most 
impaired days are emitted from outside of Georgia. The same general 
pattern holds for the 20 percent least impaired days as well. Georgia 
does not have jurisdiction through its SIP to regulate sources outside 
of state boundaries. Georgia did, however, request FFAs from other 
states for an additional 14 facilities outside of Georgia through the 
interstate consultation process.\23\ The ``regional'' nature of the 
regional haze program necessarily requires Georgia to rely on 
reasonable progress made by other states, just as other states must 
rely on Georgia to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Haze Plan Section 7.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters also argue that neither Georgia nor EPA provided 
justification for doubling the AoI threshold for out-of-state sources. 
In its Haze Plan, Georgia explained that use of an AoI contribution of 
four percent or more to tag sources for PSAT captures large sources 
outside of Georgia. When selecting out-of-state sources, 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii) applies. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires states to 
``consult with those States that have emissions that are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory 
Class I Federal area.'' The use of the four percent AoI threshold 
allowed Georgia to identify ``emissions that are reasonably anticipated 
to contribute to visibility impairment'' \24\ at Class I areas within 
Georgia that are emitted from out-of-state, and indeed, using this 
methodology combined with follow-up PSAT tagging and modeling, Georgia 
sought interstate consultation for 14 such sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Turning to the Commenters' other source selection comments, they 
assert that by using a percentage threshold for AoI and PSAT, the 
calculated threshold in absolute visibility impact terms was higher for 
Class I areas with the most severe visibility impairment, which 
resulted in fewer sources being evaluated for reasonable progress for 
the most visibility-impaired Class I areas. Thus, the Commenters assert 
that the use of a percentage threshold was unreasonable.
    EPA disagrees. Regardless of whether a relative or absolute 
threshold is used, the number of sources selected depends on the chosen 
value of the threshold. A percentage threshold, rather than one using 
inverse megameters or deciviews, may capture more sources at areas with 
less visibility impairment or areas where no or few sources exceed an 
absolute visibility impairment threshold. When using an absolute value 
threshold instead of a percentage threshold, Class I areas with less 
visibility impairment might not have any sources selected at all that 
impact those areas. Thus, in general, the use of a percentage threshold 
is consistent with the requirement to make reasonable progress toward 
remedying visibility impairment in each Class I area. As noted above, 
states have flexibility to adopt any source selection methodology so 
long as the methodology is reasonable, and the states' choices are 
reasonably explained. EPA finds that Georgia's source selection method 
is reasonable and adequately explained for the reasons discussed above.
    Comment 2.b: The Commenters also state in their comments that 
VISTAS considered sulfate and nitrate separately in model analyses, 
which the Commenters allege does not align with how these pollutants 
actually function in the atmosphere. They state that sulfate and 
nitrate act in combination in the atmosphere, along with other haze 
precursors, to contribute to visibility impairment. As a result, they 
argue that VISTAS likely underestimated the overall visibility impact 
of individual sources in its PSAT analysis.
    Response 2.b: Regarding the Commenters' assertion that VISTAS 
considered sulfate and nitrate separately in model analyses, which led 
to underestimating the visibility impacts in the PSAT analyses, EPA 
disagrees. In the AoI screening analysis, VISTAS used the combined 
sulfate plus nitrate values to select sources to tag for the refined 
PSAT source apportionment modeling analyses. Section 7.5.5 of the Haze 
Plan explains how Georgia used the results of the AoI analysis to 
select sources for further evaluation with PSAT. This section shows 
that facilities contributing more than two percent (in-state) or four 
percent (out-of-state) of sulfate plus nitrate were selected for PSAT 
tagging. See Tables 7-8 through 7-10 for the specific sources with 
sulfate plus nitrate values greater than Georgia's AoI source selection 
thresholds.
    Also, contrary to the Commenters' assertion, sulfates and nitrates 
were modeled together in the PSAT modeling with the other PM species 
that impact visibility (e.g., direct PM, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, etc.). Section 7.6.2 of Georgia's Haze Plan summarizes the 
results of the PSAT modeling. This section states that: ``The adjusted 
PSAT results were used to calculate the percent contribution of each 
tagged facility to the total sulfate and nitrate point source (EGU + 
non-EGU) contribution at each Class I area.'' Tables 7-16 through 7-18 
contain the specific PSAT results for each of Georgia's Class I areas. 
It is true that Georgia considered the PSAT modeled results for sulfate 
and nitrate separately to compare against its selected one percent 
threshold to identify a reasonable number of sources for reasonable 
progress analyses. EPA agrees with the State that this approach is 
reasonable for the reasons discussed above and was adequately justified 
in the Haze Plan.
    Comment 2.c: The Commenters state that VISTAS used an outdated 2028 
emissions projection to ``tag'' sources. They note that although VISTAS 
documented that the initial 2028 emission inventory projections were 
updated for the final modeling, the associated PSAT modeling did not 
use the final 2028 inventory. The Commenters state that VISTAS scaled 
predicted sulfate and nitrate to the corresponding changes in 
SO2 and NOX emissions using a linear relationship 
between SO2 and NOX emissions and sulfate and 
nitrate concentrations. They argue that there is a non-linear 
relationship between emissions and sulfate/nitrate concentrations. 
These factors all are argued by the Commenters to have introduced 
errors into the VISTAS modeling. Moreover, the Commenters argue the 
PSAT tagging process was entirely unnecessary, as the AoI step would 
have already identified the sources that contributed to impairment at 
Class I areas.
    Response 2.c: VISTAS used the original 2028 emissions inventory to 
perform the PSAT modeling and the original PSAT results were linearly 
scaled to reflect the updated 2028 emissions. Although linear scaling 
introduces some uncertainty to the final PSAT results, EPA agrees with 
VISTAS and Georgia that adjusting the results to account for VISTAS' 
updated 2028

[[Page 92044]]

emissions inventory using linear scaling is a reasonable approach to 
account for VISTAS' updated 2028 emissions projections and is a better 
approach than relying on the original PSAT modeling. Linear scaling of 
photochemical modeling results to account for changes in emissions is, 
in most cases, reasonable and is an accepted practice by EPA. As an 
example, EPA guidance recommends using EPA's Modeled Emission Rates for 
Precursors (MERPs) for evaluating secondary particulate matter of 2.5 
micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) impacts in 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) modeling analyses and 
allows for and recommends scaling of photochemical modeling results 
based on emissions.\25\ This guidance recommends an approach where the 
PM2.5 impacts are estimated using an archived national-scale 
photochemical modeling analysis, performed using Comprehensive Air 
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) and Community Multiscale Air 
Quality (CMAQ) \26\ photochemical models, that uses hypothetical 
emissions sources, and then linearly scaling the photochemical modeling 
results using the ratio of the PSD project-specific source emissions to 
the modeled emissions from the hypothetical source (see Equation 1 on 
page 3 of the referenced April 30, 2024, MERPs memorandum). This 
approach is widely used and accepted by state air quality agencies and 
EPA to account for secondarily formed PM2.5 from precursor 
emissions (SO2 and NOX) for PSD modeling 
analyses. Since the VISTAS analyses used for regional haze modeling use 
linear scaling with CAMx and for the same PM2.5 precursors 
(SO2 and NOX) as the MERPs analyses, EPA finds 
the method of linear scaling of PM precursor emissions conducted by 
VISTAS to be acceptable practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Clarification on the Development of Modeled Emission 
Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool for 
Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD Permitting Program,'' April 
30, 2024, Memorandum from Tyler Fox to Regional Office Modeling 
Contacts is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454_r-19-003.pdf.
    \26\ See https://www.epa.gov/cmaq for further information on 
CMAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Commenters' assertion that the PSAT tagging process 
was unnecessary because the AoI step already identified the sources 
that contributed to impairment at Class I areas, EPA disagrees with the 
premise of this comment. The standard is not whether the state's source 
selection approach is necessary or required, but rather, whether the 
approach is reasonable and is reasonably explained.\27\ The two-step 
process of screening with the AoI analysis and then applying the more 
refined PSAT source apportionment modeling to sources that met the 
initial AoI screening criteria is a sound technical approach for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. Elements of 
Georgia's AoI approach are discussed in EPA's 2019 Guidance as a viable 
method to assess sources' visibility impacts to Class I areas.\28\ 
Georgia, along with many of the VISTAS states, also relied upon the AoI 
initial screening approach in its first planning period Haze Plan.\29\ 
VISTAS used the AoI analysis as an initial screening step because it is 
a much simpler and less resource intensive approach than using PSAT 
tagging to model hundreds to thousands of potential sources. The AoI 
screening approach identified a smaller subset of sources that could 
undergo refined analysis using PSAT modeling. EPA finds the two-step 
process of first screening with the AoI analysis followed by use of the 
more refined PSAT source apportionment modeling to sources is valid and 
reasonable. Also, as discussed above, states have discretion under the 
RHR regarding choice of source selection methodology. Georgia's 
approach is acceptable for these reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), (iii); 89 FR 47481, 47493 (June 
3, 2024); see also Sections 2 and 2.1 of 2021 Clarifications Memo.
    \28\ EPA's 2019 Guidance, pages 12-14, describe components of 
Georgia's AoI approach, including Q/d, trajectory analyses, 
residence time analyses, and source apportionment photochemical 
modeling (e.g., CAMx PSAT).
    \29\ See e.g., 77 FR 1163 published February 27, 2012, for a 
description of Georgia's AoI approach in the first planning period. 
On May 4, 2018, EPA fully approved Georgia's first period regional 
haze plan, effective June 4, 2018. See 83 FR 19637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2.d: The Conservation Groups note that Georgia relied on 
the PSAT modeling results for its multiple in-state sources that are 
located less than 50 kilometers (km) from a Class I areas and claim 
that PSAT modeling has been shown to be unreliable for sources that are 
within a short distance from a Class I area, referencing Federal Land 
Manager (FLM) \30\ guidance that addresses regional grid models. The 
Commenters assert that this caused Georgia to improperly screen out 
sources. Specifically, the Commenters argue that the FLMs' Air Quality 
Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Guidance indicates that photochemical 
grid models are not the preferred model for evaluating visibility 
impacts from sources less than 50 km from Class I areas and reference 
the use of direct plume impact models.\31\ According to the 
Conservation Groups, this guidance shows that regional grid models are 
not preferred for sources located close to Class I areas and that the 
grid size used by VISTAS is too small to produce accurate results for 
those sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as ``the 
Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal Class I 
area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park Commission.'' See 40 CFR 51.301. The 
U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are collectively referred to 
as the ``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this 
document.
    \31\ Conservation Groups cite to the FLAG Guidance at 2024 
Kordzi Report at pp. 7-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2.d: The Commenters do not provide any specific model 
performance information demonstrating that the CAMx model nor the PSAT 
source apportionment tool have poor model performance for evaluating 
visibility impacts from sources located within 50 km of any of the 
Class I areas located in Georgia.
    The Commenters take the FLMs' FLAG guidance out of context. The 
FLAG reference to direct plume models (e.g., Plume Visibility Model) 
\32\ is for evaluating visibility impacts under the New Source Review 
(NSR)/PSD permitting regulations and not for regional haze analyses. 
EPA's regional haze regulations do not require evaluations of direct 
plume impacts separate from the photochemical modeling analyses used 
for regional haze visibility analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Plume Visibility Model ``PLUVUE'' is used for 
estimating visual range reduction and atmospheric discoloration 
caused by plumes resulting from the emissions of particles, nitrogen 
oxides, and sulfur oxides from a single source. See ``PLUVUE II'' 
at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-alternative-models. The User's Guide is available at: https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/other/pluvueii/PluvueUG.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters assert that since the horizontal grid size used in 
the VISTAS CAMx modeling was 12 km, it is insufficient to resolve the 
details of emissions plumes from facilities within 50 km of a Class I 
area and that the model performance degrades substantially at close-in 
distances. The general statement from the Commenters that model 
performance substantially degrades within 50 km is not supported by any 
specific evidence in the comments. Moreover, the Commenters' position 
is belied by the fact that one of the three sources selected by 
Georgia--Brunswick Cellulose--is 27.9 km from the nearest Class I area 
(Wolf Island). EPA thus reaffirms that Georgia's CAMx PSAT modeling was 
appropriate for selecting sources for reasonable progress analyses.

[[Page 92045]]

    The Commenters separately argue that Georgia's correlation analysis 
of the sulfate AoI versus PSAT presented in Section 7.6.3 of the Haze 
Plan is flawed. The Commenters in the Kordzi Report point out the 
scatter in the AoI/PSAT ratio data for distances less than 100 km in 
Figure 7-42 of the Georgia Haze Plan and argue this makes the State's 
correlation conclusions invalid. Also, the Commenters refer to the 
scatter in the sulfate fractional bias values in Figure 7-43 in the 
Haze Plan and argue the AoI versus PSAT correlation is invalid.
    EPA disagrees. Georgia's Figure 7-43 has a coefficient of 
determination (R\2\) that appears to have a strong correlation, and the 
Commenters provided no new information that Georgia's correlation 
results were flawed. While there is more scatter between the data 
points less than 100 km from the Class I area, there is clearly a trend 
that the AoI values are much larger than the PSAT values within 100 km 
compared to the ratios for further distances. There is logic to this 
result due to the way the AoI metric is calculated using the Extinction 
Weighted Residence Times (EWRT) multiplied by the Emissions divided 
Distance (EWRTxQ/d). The EWRT is calculated using the frequency that 
winds (represented by Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated 
Trajectory (HYSPLIT) back trajectories) pass over a specific geographic 
area (represented by a modeling grid cell) on the path to the Class I 
area.\33\ For sources located less than 100 km from a Class I area, 
there is likely to be a higher frequency of the HYSPLIT back 
trajectories passing over the 12 km grid cell containing the source, 
thus the EWRT and AoI value will be larger. The CAMx PSAT modeling is a 
more refined photochemical modeling approach that calculates the 
atmospheric fate and transport of the PM precursors and their chemical 
reactions to form visibility impairing pollutants (e.g., ammonium 
sulfate). Therefore, compared to the AoI screening process, the refined 
PSAT technique is less likely to overestimate the visibility impacts 
for sources located within 100 km of the Class I area. Regarding the 
scatter of the data resulting in the AoI to PSAT fractional bias 
correlation, EPA acknowledges that there is scatter in the data which 
is reflected in the 0.72 R\2\ value shown in Figure 7-43 in the Haze 
Plan. However, this level of correlation is not uncommon in these types 
of modeling data analyses, and the results are reasonable. For these 
reasons, Georgia's correlation approach is valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This is explained in much greater detail in Section 7.5 of 
the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The photochemical modeling employed by VISTAS and Georgia is the 
most refined methodology available for evaluating regional haze 
visibility impacts. Moreover, Georgia's AoI screening process 
identified sources located within 50 km of its Class I areas, including 
the Brunswick Cellulose facility located approximately 30 km from Wolf 
Island that met the PSAT source selection criteria and underwent an FFA 
to evaluate reasonable progress. As discussed above, Georgia 
demonstrated in Section 7.6.3 of the Haze Plan that the AoI screening 
technique overestimates visibility impacts for sources located within 
100 km of a Class I area. Based upon this AoI overestimation, in 
Section 7.6.4 of the Haze Plan, Georgia explains why sources (with the 
exception of Brunswick Cellulose which is located 27.9 km from Wolf 
Island) that are located less than 100 km from its Class I areas were 
not tagged for PSAT modeling and thus were not selected for FFAs. EPA 
finds that Georgia adequately justified why the other sources within 
100 km of Class I areas were not selected for FFAs.
    Comment 2.e: The Commenters also note that EPA stated in guidance 
\34\ that use of a source selection threshold that captures only a 
small portion of a state's contribution to visibility impairment in 
Class I areas is more likely to be unreasonable. The Commenters assert 
that to ensure Georgia captured a meaningful portion of in-state 
sources, a different selection method with a lower threshold should 
have been used, such as a ``Q/d'' (emissions (Q) divided by distance to 
a Class I area (d)). The Commenters assert that utilizing this method 
with a threshold of five or lower might have resulted in up to 21 
sources in Georgia being selected for an FFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period.'' https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2.e: Regarding the Commenters' argument that the State 
should have adopted a different selection method (such as Q/d) with a 
lower threshold to select more sources, as discussed above, a state is 
not required to evaluate all sources of emissions in each planning 
period. Instead, a state may reasonably select a set of sources for an 
analysis of control measures. Selecting a set of sources for analysis 
of control measures in each planning period is also consistent with the 
RHR, which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a 
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a 
given SIP revision. See 2019 Guidance at 9. Moreover, use of Q/d (which 
simply involves dividing the quantity of emissions by the distance to a 
Class I area) does not consider transport direction/pathway, dispersion 
and photochemical processes, or the particular days that have the most 
anthropogenic impairment due to all sources. 2019 Guidance at 13. 
Therefore, compared to photochemical modeling, using a simple Q/d 
technique as Commenters suggest would have resulted in a less accurate 
quantification of visibility impacts on Class I areas. As for the use 
of specific source selection thresholds (including Commenters' 
suggested Q/d threshold of above five), as discussed in detail above, 
Georgia's source selection methodology and thresholds were well 
documented and reasonable.
    Comment 2.f: The Commenters also assert that EPA's position that 
Georgia's source selection method is reasonable given the specific 
circumstances present in Georgia, including that Georgia is not 
contributing to visibility impairment at any Class I areas above the 
Uniform Rate of Progress (URP), is not a valid basis on which EPA can 
approve the State's selection method.\35\ Specifically, the Commenters 
note that the glidepath (i.e., URP) is not a ``Safe Harbor'' to avoid 
requiring additional reasonable progress measures for Class I areas. 
Separately, the Commenters take issue with EPA's statement in the NPRM 
that Georgia's source selection methodology is also reasonable given 
the ``specific circumstances present in Georgia'' which precedes a 
factual recitation of the improvements in visibility since the 2000-
2004 baseline and Georgia's lack of contribution to any Class I area 
above the URP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The URP (also commonly referred to as the ``glidepath'') is 
the linear rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility 
conditions, assuming a starting point of baseline visibility 
conditions in 2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064. The 
URP is used as a tracking metric to help States assess the amount of 
progress they are making toward the national visibility goal over 
time in each Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2.f: EPA agrees that the URP is not a ``safe harbor'' to 
avoid requiring additional reasonable progress measures. However, being 
below the URP is relevant to whether a state needs to perform a 
``robust demonstration'' based on the requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). Therefore, the 
factual

[[Page 92046]]

information that all Georgia and nearby Class I areas are below the URP 
is needed to inform that requirement. Additionally, other information 
about measured progress towards natural conditions can be relevant in 
evaluating the source selection process and LTS. For example, 
significant improvements in visibility at impacted Class I areas since 
the beginning of the second planning period (starting in 2019) is 
relevant context to whether a state is making progress towards the 
national goal and how many additional sources needed to be analyzed in 
order to determine what is necessary for reasonable progress in the 
second planning period. Therefore, what progress the state has already 
achieved in the second planning period is a relevant factor that EPA 
may consider regarding the reasonableness of a state's source selection 
thresholds. Even ignoring the fact that the visibility at Class I areas 
impacted by Georgia has greatly improved, EPA would still reach the 
same conclusion that Georgia's source selection methodology and 
thresholds for this second planning period are reasonable for the 
reasons stated earlier in this Response.
    Comment 3: The Commenters assert that EPA incorrectly endorses 
Georgia's decision to exclude consideration of NOX controls 
in any FFAs. They contend that VISTAS modeling did not accurately 
reflect the shift in the 20 percent most impaired days and the 
corresponding increase in the contribution of nitrate to visibility 
impairment at Southeastern Class I areas such as Cohutta, especially in 
winter months and at coastal sites. The Commenters state that EPA's 
expectation is that states will, at a minimum, consider both 
SO2 and NOX in this planning period, and that 
there are multiple sources of significant NOX emissions that 
Georgia should have analyzed for NOX controls.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with this comment. The RHR does not 
prescribe which visibility impairing pollutants must be evaluated in 
the FFAs. EPA's 2019 Guidance on page 11 states: ``When selecting 
sources for analysis of control measures, a state may focus on the PM 
species that dominate visibility impairment at the Class I areas 
affected by emissions from the state and then select only sources with 
emissions of those dominant pollutants and their precursors.'' Section 
2.2 of EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo recommends that states which do 
not evaluate SO2 and NOX in both source selection 
and control evaluations show why such consideration of these pollutants 
would be unreasonable, especially if the state considered both of these 
pollutants in the first planning period.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Georgia considered SO2 for FFAs conducted in the 
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia followed these recommended approaches in the development of 
its Haze Plan. Georgia considered both SO2 emissions (via 
sulfate's visibility impacts) and NOX emissions (via 
nitrate's visibility impacts) in the source selection process. As part 
of the Haze Plan, GA EPD presented the results of PSAT modeling 
conducted by VISTAS to estimate the projected impact of statewide 
SO2 and NOX emissions across all emissions 
sectors in 2028 on total light extinction for the 20 percent most 
impaired days in all Class I areas in the VISTAS modeling domain. The 
modeling showed that SO2/sulfate visibility impacts from 
point sources were in general much larger than NOX/nitrate 
impacts. Applying the modeling results to individual sources resulted 
in relatively large sulfate visibility impacts for a small number of 
in-state SO2 sources, but much smaller nitrate impacts from 
NOX emissions. Therefore, several sources were selected for 
SO2 control analysis determinations, but no sources in 
Georgia met the same source selection threshold for nitrate, and 
therefore Georgia did not select any sources for a NOX 
emissions control evaluation. Contrary to the Commenters' assertion 
that Georgia made a ``decision'' to exclude consideration of 
NOX controls in any FFA, it was Georgia's objective 
application of its source selection process in combination with data 
and modeling showing that SO2 and not NOX is the 
dominant visibility impairing pollutant that resulted in Georgia 
selecting only sources for SO2 emissions control analyses.
    This approach was reasonable. IMPROVE monitoring data shows that 
ammonium sulfate remains the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at 
Georgia's Class I areas as well as at those Class I areas outside of 
the State that are impacted by Georgia as discussed in Section 2.5.2 of 
the Haze Plan (particularly Figures 2-4 through 2-6 for the 2009-2013 
period and Figures 2-7 through 2-9 for the 2014-2018 period). Recent 
2015-2019 IMPROVE monitoring data cited within the Haze Plan identifies 
the relative contributions of PM species contributing to the total 
visibility impairment at the Georgia Class I areas, which are shown in 
Table 4, below. In spite of increased nitrate contributions on the 20 
percent most impaired days in more recent years (as the Commenters 
note, often on winter days), as indicated in Table 4, ammonium nitrate 
contributions to regional haze at the State's Class I areas remain 
relatively low at 8 to 15 percent of the total visibility impairment as 
compared to ammonium sulfate at 55 to 58 percent.

                                 Table 4--Sec.  2015-2019 Speciated IMPROVE Monitoring Data for Georgia's Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Ammonium     Ammonium     Organic    Coarse mass   Elemental     Fine sea    Fine soils
                                                               sulfate (%)  nitrate (%)   carbon (%)      (%)       carbon (%)    salt (%)       (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta......................................................           55           15           19            5            5            0            1
Okefenokee...................................................           58            8           19            6            5            2            1
Wolf Island..................................................           58            8           19            6            5            2            1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, in Tables 7-5 through 7-7 of the Haze Plan, the State 
provided a calculation of the sulfate and nitrate EWRT used in the AoI 
analysis for Cohutta and Okefenokee for the 20 percent most impaired 
days from 2011 to 2016, demonstrating that the sulfate EWRT is 
significantly higher than the nitrate EWRT. This further supports the 
importance of focusing on SO2 emissions reductions for this 
planning period.
    The State's rationale for focusing on SO2 controls in 
the FFAs is summarized in Georgia's SIP submittal and the NPRM. See 
Haze Plan, Section 7.10; 89 FR 47491, 47493-47494. EPA gave careful 
consideration to Georgia's rationale and reaffirms that Georgia's 
justification for not evaluating sources selected for SO2 
emission control

[[Page 92047]]

analyses for a separate NOX emission control analysis is 
reasonably justified for this planning period. The trend of increasing 
nitrate contribution to visibility impairment as a total percent of all 
visibility impairment at Class I areas over time highlighted by the 
Commenters is something that will continue to be evaluated in future 
planning periods. If the data warrants further consideration of 
NOX/nitrate in future planning periods, EPA expects that 
Georgia will address potential NOX controls in future 
regional haze SIP revisions.
    Comment 4: The Commenters assert that EPA ignores that Georgia 
unreasonably excluded sources from FFAs. The Commenters state that EPA 
must require Georgia to prepare FFAs for 16 additional EGU and non-EGU 
industrial sources identified by U.S. National Park Service (NPS) and 
the Commenters which have emissions that likely contribute to 
impairment in Class I areas in Georgia and other states.
    The Commenters describe four of these facilities in greater detail. 
These specific arguments are addressed in Comments 4.a through 4.c, 
below.
    Comment 4.a: Regarding Georgia Power--Plant Scherer (Plant 
Scherer), the Commenters state that this facility is not well 
controlled for NOX and that NOX emissions ``can 
be cut in half at no capital cost whatsoever by simply requiring 
Georgia Power to operate its existing SCRs continuously throughout the 
year.'' The Commenters also state that although the SO2 
emission rate at each Plant Scherer unit is often very low, that at 
times the SO2 emission rates are as much as ten times 
higher, and that the current controls are not consistently achieving 
the level of control that they are capable of. Therefore, the 
Commenters assert that EPA must require Georgia to prepare an FFA for 
this facility.
    Response 4.a: As discussed in Response 2, Georgia's source 
selection methodology was reasonable and was adequately documented in 
its Haze Plan. The fact that certain sources, including the 16 sources 
identified by the Commenters, were not selected for FFAs for either 
SO2 or NOX for this planning period is the result 
of the reasonable application of Georgia's source selection process and 
source selection thresholds. In other words, if sources were selected 
by the State, they were selected because the data supported the 
selection of that source. The inverse is also true regarding sources 
that were not selected. As discussed in Response 3, NOX 
impacts were considered by the State, but no sources were selected for 
NOX controls (including these sources highlighted by the 
Commenters) because visibility impacts did not exceed the State's 
source selection threshold. To the extent that the 16 sources 
identified by Commenters were not selected by Georgia, the Responses to 
Comments 2 and 3 generally address why these sources were not selected 
and why EPA agrees with the State that it was reasonable for this 
planning period to not select these sources. To summarize, Georgia 
selected a sufficient number of sources under Georgia's jurisdiction to 
ensure that sources responsible for the largest visibility impacts to 
Class I areas completed FFAs for this planning period. Georgia has 
discretion under the RHR to determine its source selection methodology 
and Georgia's source selection process, and the sources that Georgia 
selected were reasonable and the Haze Plan complied with the CAA and 
RHR for this planning period. While Georgia could have used its 
discretion to select other sources in addition to those screened in 
during its source selection process, including some or all of the 
sources that the Commenters highlight, Georgia was not required to do 
so.
    Throughout the Commenters' discussion of these 16 sources, however, 
the Commenters raise several additional points that have not yet been 
fully addressed in prior responses. Regarding the comment that Plant 
Scherer is not well-controlled for NOX, this was not a 
relevant consideration for Georgia's source selection process. Plant 
Scherer did not meet Georgia's two percent combined sulfate plus 
nitrate AoI threshold for visibility impacts and therefore was not 
selected for further PSAT analysis during the State's initial screening 
process. Specifically, Georgia's (through VISTAS' modeling) AoI 
analysis found that Plant Scherer's combined sulfate and nitrate 
impacts would be 0.79 percent for Cohutta, 0.71 percent for Okefenokee, 
and 0.56 percent for Wolf Island. See Haze Plan, Appendix E-7b. These 
numbers fell below Georgia's two percent AoI threshold for visibility 
impacts, and therefore, the State did not consider this source for 
further PSAT analysis (or an FFA). By way of comparison, Georgia 
calculated Plant Bowen's (another Georgia Power facility) combined 
nitrate and sulfate AoI impacts as 20.74 percent for Cohutta, 14.67 
percent for Okefenokee, and 11.78 percent for Wolf Island, which is why 
Plant Bowen was considered for further PSAT tagging and was ultimately 
selected for an FFA for SO2, while Plant Scherer was not. 
EPA agrees with Georgia's combined nitrate and sulfate AoI calculations 
and finds the State's methodology and the results of this methodology 
reasonable.
    Regarding the Commenters' comments that variability in the 
emissions at Plant Scherer warrant an emission limit of 0.01 to 0.02 
pound (lb)/million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu), as noted above, 
Georgia did not select Plant Scherer for an FFA because the visibility 
impacts from this source were well below Georgia's source selection 
thresholds. As Plant Scherer was not selected for an FFA, consistent 
with the requirements under the RHR, Georgia does not have to address 
the limits at the source as suggested by the Commenters.
    Comment 4.b: Regarding Georgia Power--Plant Wansley (Plant 
Wansley), the Commenters state that while the facility has ceased to 
operate, nothing in the SIP submission prevents Plant Wansley from 
restarting operations with corresponding increases in emissions in the 
future. Separately, the Commenters express concerns that the 
documentation of the shutdown of Plant Wansley described in the NPRM 
does not adequately prevent Plant Wansley from restarting operations. 
The Commenters assert that this shutdown must be incorporated into the 
Haze Plan.
    Response 4.b: Even if EPA were to assume that Plant Wansley had not 
shut down, Georgia still would not have selected this source because 
the combined sulfate and nitrate AoI impacts based on VISTAS' 2028 
projections for this facility, which project emissions without this 
shutdown, are 1.09 percent for Cohutta, 0.67 percent for Okefenokee, 
and 0.77 percent for Wolf Island, all of which are well below the 
State's two percent AoI threshold. Therefore, even if the shutdown 
documentation for Plant Wansley was inadequate as asserted by the 
Commenters (which is not the case, as explained below), Georgia 
satisfied its RHR obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and considered 
and reasonably explained the methodology by which it selected sources 
for FFAs that contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas.
    However, Georgia did not just revoke the Part 70 operating permit 
for Plant Wansley as stated by the Commenters. Rather, Georgia's 
December 28, 2022, letter to Georgia Power states that it revoked ``all 
Georgia Air Quality Permits previously issued to this facility,'' which 
would include both the facility's preconstruction permits and the 
facility's Part 70 permit that contains applicable requirements 
(including those originating from the

[[Page 92048]]

preconstruction permits). Restarting the facility--a concern raised by 
the Commenters--could not be accomplished without the submission of an 
application for a permit, as specified in Paragraph 391-3-1-.03 of the 
Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control \37\ and issuance of an entirely 
new preconstruction permit, which would likely need to be a major 
source NSR permit. These major NSR permits generally require Best 
Available Control Technology for a PSD Permit or Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate for a Nonattainment New Source Review permit. The 
Commenters appear to agree and state that ``Any attempt to restart a 
boiler at Plant Wansley would require a new construction or major 
modification permit including either a prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) or new source review (NSR) analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03. ``Permits. Amended'' is available 
at: https://rules.sos.ga.gov/GAC/391-3-1-.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4.c: In regards to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 
Compressor Station 120, the Commenters state that this facility emitted 
2,283.57 tons of NOX in 2020 and likely impacts 12 Class I 
areas, and that there are likely feasible and cost-effective controls 
available to reduce this facility's NOX emissions. 
Therefore, the Commenters assert that EPA must require Georgia to 
conduct an FFA of potential controls for Compressor Station 120. 
Regarding CEMEX Southeast, LLC, the Commenters state that this facility 
emits 1,424.37 tons per year (tpy) of NOX and 130.87 tpy of 
SO2 and likely impacts eight Class I areas, and that there 
are likely available controls that could reduce haze-forming emissions 
from CEMEX Southeast, LLC that Georgia failed to consider in its SIP 
revision.
    As for the 12 additional sources identified by the Commenters, all 
12 of the listed sources have reported NOX and/or 
SO2 emissions in the 2020 NEI and, according to the 
Commenters' analysis, have a Q/d value above five for multiple Class I 
areas in the Southeast. For example, the Commenters state that Rome 
Linerboard Mill has a Q/d value of as high as 28.80 for Cohutta in 
Georgia and that NPS has noted in its consultation materials that the 
facility ranked third for haze contributions to VISTAS Class I areas 
based on cumulative AoI screening results and was in the top 80 percent 
of total AoI impact for five Class I areas. Additionally, Commenters 
assert that Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC is another paperboard 
mill that Georgia did not select but should have selected. The 
Commenters state that this facility emits 2,461.26 tpy of 
NOX and 338.2 tpy of SO2 and likely impacts 16 
Class I areas.
    Response 4.c: For the same reasons as stated above in Responses 2 
and 3 regarding the adequacy of Georgia's source selection methodology, 
EPA also disagrees that Georgia should have selected Transcontinental 
Gasoline Company LLC--Compressor Station 120; CEMEX Southeast, LLC; 
Green Power Solutions; International Paper Co.--Temple Inland Rome 
Linerboard Mill (Temple-Inland--Rome Lumber Mill); Georgia Pacific 
Cedar Springs LLC; Interstate Paper LLC; Georgia Pacific Consumer 
Products LP--Savannah River Mill; Rayonier Performance Fibers LLC; PCA 
Valdosta Mill; C-E Minerals Plants 1, 2, and 6; Graphic Packaging Macon 
Mill; Weyerhaeuser NR Port Wentworth; Pinova, Inc.; and Thermal 
Ceramics. GA EPD identified and evaluated these sources as part of its 
AoI screening approach and did not select them for FFAs because they 
did not meet Georgia's source selection thresholds.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See ``Individual VISTAS Class I Areas Results'' available 
at: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/task-5-area-influence-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: The Commenters assert that Georgia's cost effectiveness 
analyses are arbitrary and that ``[a]lthough EPA acknowledges that 
Georgia relied on the Arkansas Excel document for its cost-
effectiveness determinations, EPA does not address whether it was 
reasonable for Georgia to do so.'' Additionally, they state that ``to 
provide a reasoned basis for its decisions, Georgia must first 
establish a threshold, or explain and justify some other objective 
measure, for determining cost effectiveness that is in line with other 
states' chosen measures and apply that threshold consistently across 
its Four-Factor Analyses.''
    According to the Commenters, there are three specific problems with 
Georgia's reliance on the Arkansas Excel spreadsheet. First, the 
Commenters assert that this spreadsheet does not consider that Round 
one cost-effectiveness measures were considered alongside visibility 
benefits and cite to EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo's statement that 
``a state should not use visibility to summarily dismiss cost-effective 
potential controls.'' \39\ Second, the Commenters state that they 
expect that with each successive planning period, the cost of controls 
should increase because the lowest cost emission reductions would have 
already been implemented, and therefore, the Commenters assert that 
relying on first planning period costs to guide second planning period 
costs is improper. Third, Commenters state that the ``Arkansas' 
spreadsheet fails to include the high end of first round cost-
effectiveness values up to $10,000/ton.'' In addition to this last 
point, the Commenters assert that ``Arkansas wrongfully included [in 
its spreadsheet] some cost-effectiveness data that is too old to 
escalate according to EPA's Control Cost Manual.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ``Round one'' and ``Round two'' refer to the first and 
second planning periods, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters instead suggest that Georgia should have adopted a 
firm cost threshold such that controls below the threshold would be 
selected and controls above the threshold would not be selected. 
Alternatively, the Commenters state that Georgia ``should have 
explained or justified some other objective measure.'' The Commenters 
also contend that EPA must reject Georgia's use of this approach 
because it would be inconsistent with EPA's reasoning in its proposal 
to partially disapprove Arizona's SIP revision in which Arizona used a 
cost threshold of $6,500/ton. Finally, the Commenters state (in the 
Kordzi Report) that data from Florida River Power Plants 1 and 2 are 
missing from this spreasheet and should have been included and 
considered.
    Response 5: There is no requirement in the CAA or the RHR for 
states to establish bright line cost effectiveness thresholds when 
evaluating control costs in FFAs. The CAA and the RHR instead require 
states to evaluate the costs of compliance, and EPA's 2019 Guidance 
recommends that states follow the recommendations in EPA's ``Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual'' (CCM) \40\ to facilitate apples-to-
apples comparisons of different controls options for the same source, 
and comparisons across different sources. 2019 Guidance at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ EPA's ``Air Pollution Control Cost Manual'' is available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Section 7.7 of the Haze Plan, for the cost of 
compliance factor, Georgia EPD did not set a specific cost per ton 
threshold, but rather analyzed each facility using the information in 
EPA's CCM and 2019 Guidance to determine whether a given control 
measure is cost-effective based on a number of factors, including the 
historical range of cost/ton values. The historical cost information 
was derived from an Excel spreadsheet assembled by Arkansas Department 
of Environmental Quality that compared the cost of

[[Page 92049]]

compliance from the first planning period for SO2 and 
NOX in dollars per ton for various types of industrial 
emission units (e.g., EGU Boiler, Industrial Boiler, Kiln, Smelter, all 
Non-EGU). The spreadsheet was updated with VISTAS data (Appendix G-4) 
and presents the maximum and minimum cost/ton and various statistical 
percentile values. While Georgia did not choose a bright-line cost 
effectiveness threshold, Georgia's use of this spreadsheet was an 
objective measure by which Georgia determined the reasonableness of 
control costs for this second planning period.
    EPA acknowledges the Arkansas cost spreadsheet includes Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control determination costs that 
considered the visibility benefits of the controls pursuant to the CAA 
and RHR under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).\41\ However, this fact does 
not change EPA's position that Georgia's use of this spreadsheet was 
reasonable. First, Georgia did not consider visibility in making its 
control determinations for this planning period. Just as importantly, 
while EPA agrees in general with the Commenters that data from the 
first planning period is necessarily an imperfect yardstick by which to 
determine the reasonableness of control measures for this second 
planning period--in part because the first planning period included 
BART determinations whereas the second planning period does not--the 
information is nonetheless highly relevant. Moreover, Georgia did not 
set a cost threshold based on the low-end or mean (or median) cost of 
first planning period controls. In fact, all controls rejected by 
Georgia were more costly than the 98th percentile of all first planning 
periods costs. This also addresses the Commenters' contention that with 
each planning period, control costs should increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A): ``. . . the State must take 
into consideration . . . the remaining useful life of the source, 
and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be 
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, regarding the Commenters' third concern with Georgia's use 
of the Arkansas spreadsheet that the spreadsheet may include missing 
data, EPA has reviewed the concern raised in the Kordzi \42\ report 
that the Florida Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 determinations 
were excluded from this spreadsheet. According to the Kordzi Report 
cited by the Commenters, the Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 
determinations required the source to either (1) install dry flue gas 
desulfurization (FGD) and SCR at a cost-effectiveness of $10,000/ton 
for SO2 BART and $8,224/ton for NOX BART or (2) 
retire by December 31, 2020. This is not accurate. While both options 
were considered in the Florida first planning period regional haze 
NPRM, the final rule selected only the shutdown option based upon the 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection's decision to adopt this 
shutdown in a SIP supplement. See 78 FR 53,262 (August 29, 2013). For 
this reason, there was no add-on control adopted, and therefore no cost 
to consider. Although EPA was not involved in the preparation of the 
Arkansas spreadsheet, this may explain why the Crystal River Power 
Plant facility was not included in the spreadsheet. In any event, EPA 
concludes that Georgia's decision not to consider this facility was 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Joe Kordzi, A Review of EPA's Proposed Approval of the 
Georgia Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (June 2024) 
(hereinafter referred to as ``Kordzi Report'') included in the 
docket for this action as Exhibit 1 in the Conservation Group letter 
(July 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Commenters' assertions that Georgia's approach is 
unreasonable when compared to states such as Colorado and Nevada, which 
elected to set cost effectiveness thresholds of $10,000/ton of 
pollutant removed, and to Arizona, which elected to set a cost 
effectiveness threshold of $6,500/ton of pollutant removed, Georgia was 
not required by the CAA or RHR to adopt a similar bright-line cost 
effectiveness threshold. Moreover, the Commenters themselves do not 
suggest a specific bright-line threshold, let alone provide rationale 
to support such a threshold. Georgia applied its chosen methodology in 
a way that is reasonable by rejecting controls with cost-effectiveness 
values above the 98th percentile of first planning period costs.
    As for the Commenters' position that approval of Georgia's plan 
would be inconsistent with the rationale within EPA's proposed 
disapproval of Arizona's plan regarding the importance of adequate 
state justification, EPA disagrees. In EPA's proposed disapproval of 
Arizona's regional haze SIP, EPA stated that Arizona ``did not provide 
an adequate justification for how this threshold resulted in a 
reasonable set of control measures,'' and in several instances in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that Arizona ignored its own 
threshold without justification. See 89 FR 47,429 (May 31, 2024). That 
is quite different than Georgia, which did not use a bright-line 
threshold at all and instead consistently applied the statistical 
methods in the Arkansas spreadsheet to only reject control costs that 
exceed the 98th percentile of first planning period costs identified 
within that spreadsheet.
    Comment 6: The Commenters assert that EPA shirks its duty to review 
Georgia's source-specific FFAs. The Commenters state that EPA proposes 
to merely ``rubber stamp'' the State's SIP submission, without engaging 
in any meaningful, independent, analysis of Georgia's FFAs for the 
three facilities the State selected. Additionally, the Commenters 
assert that ``[d]espite EPA's stated expectations for this planning 
period, Georgia does not require any of the sources to adopt additional 
control measures to make reasonable progress.''
    Response 6: EPA's proposed approval of Georgia's Haze Plan is a 
proper exercise of EPA's authority under the CAA. Congress crafted the 
CAA to provide for states to take the lead in developing implementation 
plans, but balanced that decision by requiring EPA to review the plans 
to determine whether a SIP meets the requirements of the CAA. When 
reviewing SIPs, EPA must consider not only whether the state considered 
the appropriate factors in making decisions, but acted reasonably in 
doing so. In undertaking such a review, EPA does not usurp the state's 
authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised.
    Contrary to the comment that the Agency ``shirks'' its CAA 
obligations, EPA has performed its duties with diligence. EPA carefully 
evaluated the Haze Plan and the associated record and engaged in a 
thorough analysis of each control option, including each of the 
underlying cost assumptions used in the calculations. Georgia conducted 
extensive technical work in support of its SIP submittal, and 
therefore, EPA independently evaluated each FFA, including costs, and 
compared each FFA's control determination against the CCM. In the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) to the NPRM, EPA documented the cost 
assumptions that the State relied upon in its FFAs for transparency to 
the public.
    Each of the FFAs are discussed in more detail in the responses to 
comments that follow, but EPA notes that Georgia did adopt important 
control measures into the SIP as necessary for reasonable progress for 
the second planning period, including the coal burning prohibition at 
IP-Savannah. While that facility had voluntarily elected to stop 
burning coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler, this prohibition was not 
federally enforceable and permanent until incorporated into the Georgia 
SIP. In the absence of placing this prohibition into the SIP, the 
facility could have lawfully restarted burning coal at any time, which 
is inconsistent with making reasonable progress under the CAA and RHR. 
EPA's specific

[[Page 92050]]

analyses for each FFA are addressed in responses to comments below that 
address each of the three facilities selected by Georgia.
    Comment 7: The Commenters assert that ``Plant Bowen's 
SO2 emission rates have increased since round one of 
regional haze, which is contrary to the intent of the Regional Haze 
Program.'' The Kordzi Report describes how, although Plant Bowen was 
reviewed for BART in the first round of regional haze planning, Georgia 
relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy BART for 
SO2 and NOX for EGUs and did not include any 
enforceable mechanism to ensure Plant Bowen's emissions did not 
increase, citing to projected emissions from Plant Bowen and Q/d 
values.
    Response 7: Although the combined SO2 emission rates at 
Plant Bowen for Units 1-4 have increased since the first planning 
period as discussed below, focusing only on these emission rates from 
these units ignores the significant declines in total facility-wide 
SO2 emissions from this facility. EPA also does not agree 
with the Commenters that an increase in emission rates within permitted 
levels during the first planning period, on its own, is contrary to the 
intent of the regional haze program.
    In 2010, after wet scrubbers had been installed to control 
SO2 emissions at Plant Bowen's four units, this facility's 
annual average SO2 emission rates were approximately 0.068 
lb/MMBtu based on Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD) reviewed by 
EPA. In 2023, the annual average emission rate was 0.13 lb/MMBtu. This 
increase was primarily due to a change in coal used at the facility 
from Central Appalachian bituminous coal (CAPP coal) to Illinois Basin 
coal (IB coal), with IB coal containing a higher sulfur content.\43\ 
These coal types are discussed in more detail in EPA's responses to 
later comments regarding Plant Bowen's FFA along with discussion as to 
why switching back to CAPP coal is not cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Appendix G-1b, at p. 13 (noting that Plant Bowen 
switched to IB coal in 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While emission rates are an important consideration because FFAs 
generally yield emission controls that result in updated emission 
rates, in this instance, only considering emission rates as the 
Commenters propose would ignore an important aspect of the problem. 
Here, the total amount of SO2 emissions is also important. 
The first regional haze planning period spanned the period from 2000-
2018, with SIPs due in 2007. Plant Bowen's SO2 annual 
emissions in 2007 were approximately 197,000 tpy prior to the 
installation of wet scrubbers to control SO2 emissions. 
Plant Bowen installed wet scrubbers between 2008 and 2010 at Units 1 
through 4. After these wet scrubbers were installed, Plant Bowen's 
total facility-wide SO2 emissions dropped to approximately 
7,618 tpy in 2010, and in 2023, SO2 total emissions from 
Plant Bowen were 7,143 tpy.\44\ EPA acknowledges that there is year-to-
year variability in Plant Bowen's emission rates and total emissions 
due to changes in demand for electricity, sulfur content of the fuel 
used at Plant Bowen, and scrubber efficiency. However, the general 
trend at this facility has been a significant reduction in total 
SO2 emissions during the first planning period. Contrary to 
the Commenters' assertions, the fact that SO2 emission rates 
have varied to some extent at this facility during the first planning 
period is not contrary to the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Facility and unit emissions and emissions rate data is from 
EPA's CAMPD available at: https://campd.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: As a general matter, the Commenters contend that EPA did 
not scrutinize Georgia's analysis of Plant Bowen and did not consider 
the comments submitted by the Commenters to Georgia, including the 
Stamper report.\45\ Specifically, the Commenters assert that Georgia 
greatly overstated the costs of switching back to lower sulfur CAPP 
coal for three primary reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The July 25, 2022, Stamper Report, ``Review and Comments on 
Reasonable Progress Four-Factor Analyses Evaluated as Part of the 
Georgia Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period,'' 
is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix H-3a of the Haze Plan which is 
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 8: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. Regarding the 
Commenters' assertion that EPA did not scrutinize the FFA or consider 
the Commenters' state-level comments provided to Georgia, that is not 
correct. EPA evaluated Georgia's entire SIP submittal, including the 
FFAs, the state-level comments, and the State's responses to those 
comments.
    Comment 8.a: First, the Commenters argue that Georgia's assumption 
of an SO2 rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu when burning CAPP coal was 
improper because Plant Bowen averaged 0.05 lb/MMBtu or lower for many 
years when combusting CAPP coal.
    Response 8.a: The Commenters are incorrect. The data submitted by 
the Commenters in the Kordzi Report contains emission data for Plant 
Bowen Units 1 through 4 including for the years 2010 through 2014. As 
previously stated, Plant Bowen began to transition to IB coal in 2014. 
EPA was not able to reproduce the 0.05 lb/MMBtu average in the Kordzi 
Report. Based on the information submitted by the Commenters, the 
actual average SO2 emissions in lb/MMBtu across all four 
boilers from 2010-2013 is 0.065 lb/MMBtu (i.e., prior to any switch to 
IB coal), not 0.05 lb/MMBtu as stated by the Commenters. The average 
for all four boilers from 2010 through 2014 is 0.069 lb/MMBtu. These 
numbers are very close to the SO2 emission rate of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu assumed by Georgia if Plant Bowen were to switch to CAPP coal. 
EPA further confirmed these numbers by reviewing information from EPA's 
CAMPD.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ CAMPD data is available at: https://campd.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8.b: Second, the Commenters argue that Georgia assumed in 
its analysis that CAPP coal has a higher sulfur content than most of 
the CAPP coal that Plant Bowen previously burned.
    Response 8.b: This is not correct based on the data provided by the 
Commenters. The statement cited by the Commenters in the Kordzi Report 
states that ``Bowen's estimate assumes a coal sulfur content of 1.1 
percent. As shown above, this is slightly higher than most of the 
previous CAPP coal it burned.'' However, taking a simple average of the 
sulfur content of all coal combusted across all four boilers contained 
within Table 2 of the Kordzi Report yields an average of 1.08 percent 
sulfur content for CAPP coal combusted from 2010-2013 and 1.19 percent 
for CAPP coal combusted from 2010-2014. Again, these numbers are very 
close to what Georgia relied upon for the Plant Bowen FFA, and EPA 
agrees with Georgia's assumption regarding the sulfur content of CAPP 
coal given the averages discussed above.
    Comment 8.c: Third, the Commenters--and specifically the Kordzi 
Report provided as an attachment to the comments--state that based upon 
publicly available Energy Information Agency (EIA) Form 923 data, 
railroad-transportable CAPP coal with a sulfur content of 1.05 percent 
or less is available to purchase from Kentucky, Virginia, and West 
Virginia at delivered prices (i.e., including both fuel costs and 
transportation costs) that are lower per MMBtu than what Plant Bowen 
currently pays for IB coal of a higher sulfur content. Based on this 
information, the Commenters argue that EPA must reject Georgia's FFA 
for Plant Bowen.

[[Page 92051]]

    Response 8.c: EPA also disagrees with the Commenters' contention 
that Plant Bowen could purchase CAPP coal from mines in Kentucky, 
Virginia, and/or West Virginia at prices that are less expensive than 
the higher sulfur IB coal that Plant Bowen primarily relies upon. Table 
4 within the Kordzi Report contains information obtained from EIA Form 
923 for the year 2023, which includes coal production and sale 
information such as coal mine name, quantity sold, average heat content 
of the coal, average sulfur content of the coal, fuel cost in cents per 
MMBtu, total cost of each purchase of coal, and whether the purchase 
was pursuant to a contract or was made on the spot market. Based upon 
this data, the Kordzi Report tabulated the total cost of coal per MMBtu 
from mines that met the following criteria: the mines were only within 
Kentucky, Virginia, or West Virginia; the mines were capable of 
transporting coal by railroad; and the coal sold by the mine had sulfur 
content below 1.05 percent. Based upon this data, the Commenters 
conclude that the average cost of such coal is $4.89/MMBtu. The 
Commenters also conclude that this is less expensive than the average 
cost of Plant Bowen's coal purchases in 2023, which the Commenters 
assert is $5.33/MMBtu.
    First, EPA reviewed the unredacted fuel cost information contained 
in the technical appendix submitted by Georgia to EPA prior to 
publishing the NPRM, and EPA affirms that the information in that 
technical appendix supports the State's and EPA's conclusions that 
procuring CAPP coal would be significantly more costly than Plant 
Bowen's current purchases of IB coal. Second, there is inadequate 
supply of coal fitting the type preferred by the Commenters to supply a 
facility as large as Plant Bowen. According to the EIA 923 form data 
cited by the Commenters, in 2012, Plant Bowen purchased 4,737,780 tons 
of coal. In that same year, 32,145,400 tons of coal were sold meeting 
the criteria preferred by the Commenters (from Kentucky, Virginia, or 
West Virginia; no greater than 1.05 percent sulfur content; and 
railroad-transportable). But in 2023, only 4,900,885 tons of coal 
meeting the criteria preferred by Commenters were sold to all 
facilities combined. In other words, if Plant Bowen were to switch to 
CAPP coal, the demand for CAPP coal created by Plant Bowen alone would 
almost exceed the entire supply of such coal put into commerce in 2023.
    Comment 8.d: Additionally, the Commenters assert that Plant Bowen's 
cost-effectiveness calculation contains an annual fuel cost of $86 
million to switch to CAPP coal that is ``completely undocumented.'' 
Commenters argue that although Plant Bowen claimed this fuel cost as a 
trade secret and therefore submitted it to EPA as CBI, EPA is required 
to review this information and declare whether EPA finds that this 
information meets the documentation requirements contained in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iii). The Commenters assert that some of the information 
may not be CBI, including certain fuel cost data, and that EPA must 
evaluate whether this information is CBI to provide the public with 
sufficient information to fully evaluate the proposal.
    Response 8.d: The costs for switching to CAPP coal were included in 
the Haze Plan under Appendix A and Appendix B to Appendix G-1b. Georgia 
Power submitted this cost information under a claim of business 
confidentiality and provided redacted versions of its proposed four 
factor analysis, including Appendix B to Appendix G-1b for public 
release.
    Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, a company may assert a 
business confidentiality claim covering information furnished to EPA. 
See 40 CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted, the Agency must consider 
the information to be confidential and must treat it accordingly unless 
the Agency finds in a CBI determination that the material is not CBI. 
See 40 CFR 2.205, 2.301(g). Under 40 CFR 2.204(a), EPA is required to 
make a CBI determination when the Agency (1) learns that it is 
responsible for responding to a request under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) for the release of business 
information; (2) desires to determine whether business information in 
its possession is entitled to confidential treatment, even though no 
request for release of the information has been received; or (3) 
determines that it is likely that EPA eventually will be requested to 
disclose the information at some future date and thus will have to 
determine whether the information is entitled to confidential 
treatment. EPA's regulations set forth the specific procedures that EPA 
must follow when making a CBI determination. 40 CFR 2.204, 2.205, and 
2.301(g). Under the regulations, EPA must provide the affected 
businesses with notice and, usually, an opportunity to comment on the 
impending CBI determination or release, including an opportunity to 
justify their CBI claims. See, e.g., 40 CFR 2.204(e), 2.209(d), and 
2.301(g)(2). Considering the nature of the comments regarding a switch 
to CAPP coal, the mechanism by which the Commenters requested that EPA 
make a CBI determination (i.e., via rulemaking comment instead of via 
FOIA), EPA's review of the CBI information in evaluating the 
reasonableness of the FFA, and EPA's refutation of the Commenters' 
concerns regarding the costs of switching to CAPP coal, EPA is 
exercising its discretion under 40 CFR 2.204(a) to not perform a CBI 
determination at this time. Therefore, EPA is obligated to protect the 
confidentiality of that information, which precludes the Agency from 
publicly posting this in the docket at regulations.gov.
    Plant Bowen submitted a signed affidavit \47\ to substantiate its 
CBI claim and provided a public disclosure version of Technical 
Appendix A and Technical Appendix B to Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan, 
with the CBI information redacted. As noted in the public disclosure 
materials, the redacted information consists of material including 
``2019 IRP Capacity Planning Documentation,'' ``Delivered Fuel Cost 
Estimates for PRB and CAPP Coals, ``CSX Transportation Contract 
Language,'' ``CSX Pricelist Inforormation,'' and variable operating and 
maintenance costs for switching to CAPP coal such as including the 
costs from ``hydrated lime adjustment,'' ``ammonia adjustment,'' ``fuel 
additive adjustment,'' and ``activated carbon adjustment'' as it 
relates to CAPP coal. Upon review of the assumptions and information 
contained in Appendix G used in the cost analyses, including the 
unredacted information, EPA finds the cost-effectiveness calculations 
for switching to CAPP coal to be appropriately documented and 
reasonable based on the available information, justifications, and 
support for each assumption used in the cost calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The affidavit is located in Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 9: The Commenters state that in 2014, Plant Bowen switched 
from lower-sulfur CAPP coal to IB coal, which they state has a high 
sulfur content. The Commenters assert that Georgia greatly overstated 
the costs of switching to Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. Instead of 
requiring a switch to PRB coal, the Commenters contend that EPA 
accepted Georgia's and Georgia Power's claims at face value that such a 
switch would be cost prohibitive. The Commenters argue that Georgia 
Power's cost analysis contains several problems that cause it to be 
overinflated.
    First, the Commenters argue that Georgia Power wants to earn a 6.04 
percent rate of return for electricity that it must purchase to make up 
for lost capacity. In referencing the Stamper

[[Page 92052]]

report, they contend that this cost should not be a capital expense but 
rather should be treated as an operating expense (such as fuel costs) 
that is not entitled to such returns.
    Second, the Commenters argue that Georgia does not make a fair 
comparison by assuming operating time will increase at the same time it 
will need to purchase $51 million worth of electricity to cover lost 
capacity. The Commenters contend that the FFA does not account for 
revenue from additional sales of electricity due to increased hours of 
operation. Additionally, the Commenters argue that the FFA already 
accounts for an increase in fuel costs in a different line item in the 
cost analysis, so they argue that Georgia Power is at least, in part, 
double counting the increased fuel usage of PRB coal.
    The Commenters state that even assuming the switch to PRB coal will 
decrease maximum hourly generating capacity, Georgia Power's cost 
analysis appears to overstate the need (and cost) for replacement 
energy. The Commenters contend that based on 2019 plantwide generation 
rates, Georgia Power would need to purchase only 134,982 megawatt-hour 
(MWh) to make up for the switch to PRB coal. The Commenters cite to 
Table A2.2 of the FFA for the proposition that Georgia Power estimated 
that the switch ``would require the purchase of approximately 8,000,000 
MWh of energy to replace the deficit'' as a result of the assumption 
that the capacity penalty would apply during all hours of operation. In 
contrast, the Commenters provide an exhibit that they argue 
demonstrates that switching to PRB would only impact the peak hours of 
plant operation, which equates to 5.8 percent of the time according to 
the Commenters. Even assuming above-average energy prices ($40/MWh), 
the Commenters assert that with the switch to PRB coal, the company 
would consequently need to only spend $5 million annually, instead of 
Georgia Power's assumed $51.7 million.
    The Commenters also assert that to the extent that Georgia Power 
suggests it needs to purchase or build replacement capacity to meet 
peak demands and reserve margin requirements, the FFA fails to provide 
the ``robust'' technical support for this position. As with the energy 
deficit discussed above, the Commenters contend that Georgia Power 
fails to establish that it actually has a projected capacity need in 
any such year. Additionally, the Commenters assert that Georgia Power 
fails to provide any documentation for current ``market rate'' or 
``cost of new construction.'' As a result, the Commenters contend it is 
impossible to verify the needed capacity replacement and cost 
associated with switching to PRB. The Commenters state that EPA must 
review Georgia Power's cost assumptions and confirm that the Company's 
capacity penalty calculations are appropriate.
    The Commenters also state that Georgia refuses to make available 
for public review the calculations and supporting documentation for the 
cost analysis of switching to PRB coal. The Commenters assert that 
Georgia and EPA are obligated by the documentations requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to review this information and declare whether 
they have found it acceptable, but neither Georgia nor EPA has 
indicated if they have reviewed the information and found it 
acceptable. The Commenters argue that a failure by EPA to make an 
independent determination as to whether this information satisfies the 
requirements for CBI violates the CAA and the RHR.
    Finally, the Commenters contend that Georgia's calculated costs of 
$6,424/ton of SO2 reduced to switch to PRB coal is cost 
effective, and this cost-effectiveness value is lower than thresholds 
used by other states such as Colorado ($10,000/ton), New Mexico 
($7,000/ton), and Arizona ($6,500/ton). Moreover, the Commenters state 
that cost effectiveness should be lower to reflect that switching to 
PRB coal would result in 46 percent lower NOX emission rates 
without changing Plant Bowen's use of NOX controls. They 
argue that the NOX reductions of switching to PRB coal would 
result in a cost-effectiveness of $4,749/ton of combined SO2 
and NOX removed.
    Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argument that EPA 
did not scrutinize GA EPD's analysis of Plant Bowen and did not 
consider the public comments submitted at the state level.
    Regarding the Commenters' argument that in 2014 Plant Bowen 
switched from lower-sulfur CAPP coal to IB coal which has a higher 
sulfur content, EPA acknowledges that the sulfur content for IB coal is 
higher and SO2 emissions have increased with the switch to 
IB coal. This switch is also discussed in Response 8.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argument that Georgia greatly 
overstated the costs of switching to 100 percent PRB coal. With a fuel 
switch to PRB coal, there would be a 27 percent facility derate based 
on the average heat content of PRB coal ((8,800 British thermal units 
per pound (Btu/lb)) in comparison to the current coal being used at 
Plant Bowen, which is IB coal with an average heat content of 12,002 
Btu/lb.\48\ This derate resulting from the reduced heat content of PRB 
coal would result in Plant Bowen having 27 percent less total 
electricity generation capacity. This is a real cost that Georgia was 
correct to account for in the FFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Section 4.4.1.1 on p. 15 of the Haze Plan in Appendix 
G-1b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through a letter to GA EPD dated August 8, 2022, Georgia Power 
responded directly to similar comments submitted by the Commenters to 
GA EPD. This letter was included as part of Georgia's submittal and is 
located within Appendix G-1e to the Haze Plan. Within that letter, 
Georgia Power explained that ``[t]he capacity penalty costs in the 
Plant Bowen FFA represented the costs to replace the derated unit 
capacity to meet the reserve margin required in the Southern Company 
system.'' Georgia Power also cited to the FFA, which notes that ``Plant 
Bowen Units 1-4 provide capacity value by supporting system reliability 
and by avoiding costs associated with replacement capacity that would 
be required to meet customer peak demands and reserve margin 
requirements in the absence of such Plant Bowen units. Without these 
units, Georgia Power would have to procure short-term and long-term 
replacement capacity in order to restore Georgia Power and the Southern 
Company system to a comparable level of reliability that the system 
currently holds.''
    The Commenters conflate two distinct electric generation concepts: 
capacity and generation. They are not the same. Nor are the financial 
costs and revenues associated with each the same. According to the EIA, 
``[e]lectricity generation capacity is the maximum electric output an 
electricity generator can produce under specific conditions.'' \49\ 
``Electricity net generation,'' on the other hand, ``is the amount of 
gross electricity generation a generator produces minus the electricity 
used to operate the power plant.'' \50\ It is this incorrect conflation 
of concepts that leads the Commenters to incorrectly conclude that 
Georgia Power could make up for any lost capacity at Plant Bowen by 
simply purchasing 134,982 MWh of electricity annually. In general, the 
electrical grid can experience high periods of demand for short 
durations. This is known as ``peak'' electricity demand. To ensure 
reliability of the electrical grid, electric utilities must have 
sufficient capacity available to

[[Page 92053]]

ensure that these peak loads can be met. The Commenters' suggestion 
that Georgia Power could simply purchase 134,982 MWh of generated 
electricity does not account for the need for Georgia Power to also 
have adequate capacity available for the grid, even at times of peak 
demand. Georgia Power refers to this concept as the ``reserve margin'' 
in its August 8, 2022, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=101&t=3.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees with Georgia's assessment that requiring PRB coal would 
result in a capacity derate, and that this capacity derate would impact 
electrical reliability by reducing peak available capacity to a 
sufficient extent that Georgia Power would have to ``procure short-term 
and long-term replacement capacity.'' Over the long-term, this would 
likely result in the need for Georgia Power to construct new generation 
capacity equivalent to the capacity derate, which would be a capital 
cost and not an operating expenditure. EPA thus does not agree with the 
Commenters that this capacity derate was mis-classified within the FFA 
as an operating expense. Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2 each have a maximum 
capacity of 724 megawatts (MW), and Units 3 and 4 have a maximum 
capacity of 892 MW. See Haze Plan Appendix G-1b, Note 1 to Table A2.2. 
Combined, these four units have a maximum capacity of 3,232 MW if 
combusting IB coal. A 27 percent derate of these units associated with 
a switch to PRB coal would reduce the maximum capacity of Plant Bowen 
to 2,359 MW. The difference between these two numbers is 873 MW, which 
is the total capacity that Georgia Power would no longer have available 
to put onto the grid.
    Moreover, according to a recent IRP Update submitted by Georgia 
Power to the Georgia Public Service Commission (GA PSC), ``the 
Company's current projections reflect load growth of 6,600 MW through 
the winter of 2030/2031, which is approximately 17 times greater than 
that previously forecasted.'' \51\ Due to this projected growth, 
Georgia Power requested that the GA PSC approve the construction of 
1,400 MW of new generation capacity at Plant Yates, the authority to 
develop, own, and operate up to 1,000 MW of battery energy storage 
systems, the long term purchase of 750 MW of capacity from Mississippi 
Power through a power purchase agreement, and the long term purchase of 
230 MW of capacity from Santa Rosa Energy Center through a power 
purchase agreement.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Georgia Power ``2023 Integrated Resource Plan Update,'' at 
p. 1, available at: https://georgiapower.com/content/dam/georgia-power/pdfs/company-pdfs/2023-irp-update-main-document.pdf.
    \52\ Id. at pp. 15-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 26, 2024, the GA PSC issued an order in which it took 
action on Georgia Power's IRP Update filing. In that order, the GA PSC 
approved much of Georgia Power's IRP Update filing, with certain 
modifications subject to a stipulation adopted by the GA PSC. 
Critically, within the GA PSC's April 26, 2024, order, the GA PSC 
stated the following as a finding of fact:

    Substantial empirical evidence shows that the load projected by 
the Company is indeed coming to Georgia. There is a large economic 
development pipeline made up of businesses seeking to locate in 
Georgia, and the Company has continued to see progress from large 
load customers included in its forecast, as well as accelerated 
customer load ramps and other tangible evidence of growth. The 
number of committed Georgia Power customers continues to increase. 
As of the 2023 IRP Update filing, the Company had already been 
chosen to serve over 3,600 MW of load from the approximately 17,000 
MW pipeline of economic development, nearly 3,000 MW of which is 
already under construction. (Rebuttal Hearing Tr. 2031.) Since the 
2023 IRP Update filing in October of 2023, the economic development 
pipeline has grown from 17,000 MW to 21,000 MW, and Georgia Power 
has been selected to serve an additional 2,602 MW. The large load 
customers included in the Company's forecast are moving forward and 
making progress without material delay. The Stipulation will allow 
Georgia Power to reliably serve both its existing customers and the 
new ones.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ GA PSC Order Adopting Stipulated Agreement, at pp. 7-8, 
available at: https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=218484.

    On August 29, 2024, the GA PSC took further action within this IRP 
Update docket by granting Georgia Power a certificate of convenience 
and public necessity for the construction of Plant Yates Units 8-10, 
and the PSC noted that ``time is of the essence and the Commission 
declines to accept any further delay in putting these assets in 
place,'' and ``[i]n light of . . . the state of Georgia's recent 
extraordinary economic growth, and its citizens and business' pressing 
need for economical and reliable energy to meet this growth, the 
Commission agrees with the Company and Staff that certification of 
Plant Yates Units 8-10 is reasonable and appropriate.'' \54\ Plant 
Yates Units 8-10 would provide Georgia Power with approximately 1,400 
MW of additional generation capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ GA PSC Order Granting Certification of Plant Yates Units 8-
10, available at: https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=219790.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These recent actions by the GA PSC are highly relevant to the 
Commenters' assertions. Specifically, the Commenters argue that the 
Plant Bowen FFA's conclusion is unsubstantiated regarding the need for 
Georgia Power to construct or otherwise acquire additional generation 
capacity to replace the 873 MW of lost capacity if Plant Bowen were 
required to utilize lower sulfur, lower heat content PRB coal. Based on 
the recent factual findings of the GA PSC, which EPA acknowledges, EPA 
does not agree with the Commenters. While requiring Plant Bowen to 
switch to PRB coal would reduce SO2 emissions, it would do 
so at the expense of generation capacity, and the need to construct or 
procure new generation capacity was therefore properly considered 
within the FFA. EPA therefore agrees with Georgia's conclusions that 
this capacity derate should be classified as a capital expenditure 
since it would result in the need to construct or procure access to new 
capital, i.e., 873 MW of generation capacity. EPA also agrees that the 
financial and energy costs associated with this capacity derate are not 
reasonable under the RHR. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    The CBI filings provided by Georgia Power as part of the Plant 
Bowen FFA further support EPA's conclusion. Regarding the Commenters' 
request that EPA determine whether these materials are in fact CBI, for 
the same reasons stated in Response 8, EPA is exercising its discretion 
to not make a formal CBI determination regarding the redacted materials 
contained within the Plant Bowen FFA at this time and disagrees with 
the Commenters' assertion that EPA is required to make such a 
determination here. Nonetheless, throughout this rulemaking process, 
EPA has reviewed the unredacted indirect costs that GA EPD submitted in 
Technical Appendix B of Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan (along with all 
other components of the Haze Plan). As requested by Commenters, EPA 
confirms that it reviewed this CBI information during the review of the 
Haze Plan and finds that it provides adequate technical justification 
in support of the submittal. Because the capacity derate would result 
in the need for Georgia Power to construct or procure new long-term 
generation capacity, EPA also agrees that Georgia Power would 
reasonably be entitled to a rate of return on this capital, which 
Georgia Power substantiated in its FFA.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The Commenters also incorrectly note that Georgia Power is 
entitled to a 6.04 percent rate return. This 6.04 percent figure is 
identified in Table A1.2 as Georgia Power's firm-specific interest 
rate as authorized by the Georgia Public Service Commission. This is 
not the same as the rate of return that Georgia Power is entitled 
to. The rate of return that Georgia Power is entitled to is 
identified in the same rate case cited to in support of Table A1.2. 
That rate of return (referred to by the Georgia Public Service 
Commission as ``return on equity'') is set forth in the Georgia 
Public Serivce Commission's December 31, 2019, Short Order Adopting 
Settlement Agreement as Modified and ranges from 9.5 percent to 12.0 
percent. This order is available at https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=179339.

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

[[Page 92054]]

    The Commenters contend that there is a mismatch in assumptions in 
the FFA because the FFA assumes operating time will increase if 
combusting PRB coal at the same time as Plant Bowen would need to 
purchase $51 million worth of electric generating capacity to cover 
lost capacity due to the derate associated with reduced heat content of 
PRB coal. The Commenters are incorrect. The Plant Bowen FFA states that 
``the level of unit capacity derate does not impact the annual 
SO2 emissions reduction since the analysis assumes that the 
2019 baseline annual heat input is achievable at this derated unit 
capacity with an increased amount of operating time.'' The FFA properly 
assumed an increase in operating time when comparing SO2 
emissions if combusting PRB coal compared to IB coal because those 
emissions are based on projected 2028 emissions. The 2028 emission 
projections, in turn, are based in part upon projections about the 
quantity of electricity that will actually be generated. The Plant 
Bowen FFA reasonably increased operating hours in 2028 when modeling 
SO2 emissions if operating on PRB coal to ensure that the 
same quantity of electricity was generated in both the PRB scenario and 
the IB coal scenario. Again, the concept of total generation capacity 
of the plant that is available to provide load to the grid as needed is 
separate and distinct from electricity that is actually generated and 
placed onto the grid. EPA thus disagrees that there is a ``mismatch'' 
in assumptions in the FFA.
    Regarding the comment that the cost of $6,424/ton of SO2 
reduced associated with a switch to PRB coal is cost-effective because 
it is lower than thresholds used by other states (Colorado--$10,000/
ton, New Mexico--$7,000/ton, and Arizona--$6,500/ton), EPA disagrees. 
Flexibility afforded to states has long been a hallmark of the regional 
haze program. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078, 3088 (January 10, 2017) (``While 
these final revisions to the RHR continue to provide states with 
considerable flexibility in evaluating the four reasonable-progress 
factors, we expect states to exercise reasoned judgment when choosing 
which sources, groups of sources or source categories to analyze.''); 
2019 Guidance at p. 4 (``States have discretion to balance these 
factors and considerations in determining what control measures are 
necessary to make reasonable progress.''). Inherent in this flexibility 
is that different states may choose bright-line cost effectiveness 
thresholds, and some may instead choose to adopt a different 
methodology to determine whether controls are cost effective (i.e., 
Georgia's approach). For those states that do choose to use bright-line 
cost-effectiveness thresholds, those thresholds may differ from state-
to-state. Different states will take different approaches to comply 
with the RHR, and various methods of complying with the rule may be 
reasonable depending on a number of facts and circumstances (e.g., 
number of sources in the state; magnitude of emissions of visibility 
impairing pollutants from sources in the state; visibility impairment 
at impacted Class I areas).
    Due to this flexibility, EPA disagrees with the premise of the 
Commenters' assertion, which appears to be that cost effectiveness 
thresholds in one state should be determinative of whether controls are 
cost-effective in another state. Taken to its logical conclusion, the 
Commenters' position seems to be that EPA's determinations regarding 
the approvability of bright-line cost-effectiveness thresholds in 
states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona should serve to set a 
nationwide cost-effectiveness floor. The RHR requires no such thing, 
and indeed, the Commenters cite to no legal authority for their 
position.
    As discussed in Response 5, Georgia relied on a spreadsheet of 
first planning period costs developed by Arkansas with input from other 
states and supplemented with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia determined 
based on that spreadsheet that a cost of $6,424/ton of SO2 
removed, as determined for the 2019 cost year, would exceed the 98th 
percentile of all costs incurred by sources to control emission in the 
first planning period. On this basis, Georgia determined that a cost of 
$6,424/ton of SO2 removed was not a reasonable cost of 
control. EPA reaffirms that Georgia's conclusions were reasonable under 
the CAA and RHR.
    While the Commenters state that a switch to PRB coal would result 
in 46 percent lower NOX emission rates and taking the 
NOX reductions into account would result in a cost-
effectiveness of $4,749/ton for SO2 and NOX, 
combined, because the facility did not exceed Georgia's AoI/PSAT 
threshold for NOX, Georgia did not conduct a control 
analysis for NOX due to its determination that 
SO2 is the dominant pollutant in this planning period for 
Class I areas impacted by Georgia sources. For the reasons discussed 
earlier in Response 3, EPA has concluded that Georgia's approach is 
reasonable. As set forth in that response, PSAT source apportionment 
modeling clearly demonstrates that contributions from Georgia's point 
source NOX emissions are significantly below Georgia's 
source selection thresholds. As stated in Tables 7-16, 7-17, and 7-18 
of the Haze Plan, the modeled visibility impacts on a pollutant-by-
pollutant basis for Plant Bowen were as follows: 2.13 percent 
SO2 and 0.07 percent NOX for Cohutta; 2.77 
percent for SO2 and 0.01 percent for NOX for 
Okefenokee; and 2.35 percent for SO2 and 0.14 percent for 
NOX for Wolf Island, which results in SO2 
visibility impacts approximately 17 times greater than NOX 
visibility impacts at each of the Georgia Class I areas. The nitrate 
impacts from this facility are far below Georgia's source selection 
thresholds. As EPA has consistently stated, ``When selecting sources 
for analysis of control measures, a state may focus on the PM species 
that dominate visibility impairment at the Class I areas affected by 
emissions from the state and then select only sources with emissions of 
those dominant pollutants and their precursors.'' 2019 Guidance, at p. 
11. Additional rationale can be found in the Response 3, which 
discusses the dominant nature of SO2 emissions in Georgia on 
visibility impairment at Class I areas compared to NOX 
emissions.
    Comment 10: The Commenters assert that EPA must require Georgia to 
consider year-round operation of the Selective Catalytic Reduction 
(SCR) systems at each of Plant Bowen's emissions units within the FFA. 
They state that ignoring NOX pollution and controls and 
EPA's proposal to approve Georgia's decision are not supported by the 
record. Instead, they argue EPA must require Georgia to evaluate 
options to reduce NOX emissions at Plant Bowen. The 
Commenters argue that although Plant Bowen is equipped with low 
NOX burners, separated overfire air, and SCR, Plant Bowen 
operates the SCR optimally only during ozone season, that they 
``severely underperform,'' and that year-round operation of SCR could 
cut NOX emissions in half. The Commenters therefore state 
that EPA must require Georgia to evaluate readily implementable 
NOX controls, such as year-round SCR systems operation on a 
30-boiler operating day average NOX

[[Page 92055]]

emission limit of between 0.05 lb/MMBtu and 0.07 lb/MMBtu.
    Response 10: EPA finds the Commenters' assertions that EPA must 
require Georgia to analyze year-round operation of the SCR systems at 
Plant Bowen's Units 1-4 unfounded because, as discussed in Response 3 
and in the NPRM, EPA agrees with Georgia's decision to focus on 
SO2 controls in this planning period given, among other 
things, IMPROVE monitoring data from the 2014-2018 and 2015-2019 five-
year periods showing that ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility 
impairing pollutant contributing to regional haze at the Class I areas 
impacted by Plant Bowen. As also discussed in Response 9, the modeled 
visibility impacts on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis for Plant Bowen 
show that modeled visibility impacts from SO2 are 17 times 
higher compared to modeled visibility impacts from NOX in 
each of the Class I areas in Georgia. Based on these modeled visibility 
impacts, Plant Bowen did not meet Georgia's source selection threshold 
for NOX due to low NOX impacts. Therefore, EPA 
finds that Georgia appropriately focused on evaluating SO2 
emissions controls only for Plant Bowen for this planning period.
    Comment 11: The Commenters contend that EPA cannot approve the 
incorporation of Plant Bowen's Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 (2023 
Permit Amendment) into Georgia's SIP due to an unlawful startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption and emergency affirmative 
defense provisions in Plant Bowen's 2019 title V renewal permit 4911-
015-0011-V-04-0 (2019 title V Permit) that could apply to the 
SO2 regional haze SO2 emission limit. The 
Commenters state the ``Excess Emission'' permit condition (i.e., 
Condition 8.14.4 of the 2019 title V permit) could allow Plant Bowen to 
exceed its regional haze SO2 limit contained in the 2023 
Permit Amendment during SSM events. Additionally, the Commenters argue 
that Plant Bowen's ``emergency'' affirmative defense provision (i.e., 
condition 8.13.2 of the 2019 title V permit) would allow Plant Bowen to 
argue an affirmative defense in any enforcement action brought for an 
alleged violation of the facility's SO2 regional haze limit 
contained in the 2023 permit amendment. Thus, the Commenters assert 
that EPA's proposal to incorporate Plant Bowen's 2023 Permit Amendment 
into Georgia's SIP violates the CAA and the RHR.
    Response 11: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. The Agency is 
incorporating the 2023 Permit Amendment into the Georgia SIP and is not 
incorporating into the SIP any portion of the 2019 title V Permit. 
Therefore, the provisions of the 2023 Permit Amendment will be 
federally enforceable via the SIP as specifically provided for in that 
permit, which contains work practice requirements that apply during 
startup and shutdown. See 2023 Permit Amendment, Condition 3.3.8. 
Additionally, Condition 8.14.4 of Plant Bowen's 2019 title V Permit, 
referenced by the Commenters, is substantively the same as Georgia Rule 
391-3-1-.02(2)(a)7 of the State's federally approved SIP. Because this 
rule is already in Georgia's SIP and further because EPA is not 
adopting Condition 8.14.4 into the SIP in this action, the Commenters' 
concerns are without merit. Likewise, Condition 8.13.2 of Plant Bowen's 
2019 title V Permit, also referenced by the Commenters, is derived from 
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(d)7, which is a rule that is currently 
approved into Georgia's title V rules. Specifically, that rule states 
that ``40 CFR part 70.6(g) is hereby incorporated and adopted by 
reference.'' On July 21, 2023, EPA removed 40 CFR 70.6(g) from the Code 
of Federal Regulations as ``inconsistent with the EPA's interpretation 
of the enforcement structure of the Clean Air Act.'' Id. In accordance 
with the EPA's July 21, 2023, rulemaking, Georgia is likewise required 
to remove this provision from the State's title V rules. See 88 FR 
47029. Upon removal of this rule from Georgia's title V program, 
Georgia would then be obligated to remove conditions such as Plant 
Bowen's Condition 8.13.2 from the facility's title V permit. EPA also 
disagrees that the Condition 8.13.2 would allow Plant Bowen to argue an 
affirmative defense in any enforcement action brought for an alleged 
violation of the facility's SO2 regional haze limit 
contained in the 2023 permit amendment. Rather, an affirmative defense 
may only be argued for emergencies that meet the specific criteria of 
paragraphs a. though d. of Condition 8.13.2.
    Comment 12: The Commenters assert that EPA cannot approve Georgia's 
FFA for Brunswick Cellulose and must require the facility to install 
cost-effective controls. They state that due to the facility's 
``significant'' NOX emissions, EPA must require Georgia to 
conduct an FFA for NOX controls. In addition, the Commenters 
argue that Georgia's FFA, as it pertains to SO2 controls, is 
``riddled with errors that EPA neither acknowledges nor addresses.''
    The Commenters state that NPS found that Georgia did not follow 
EPA's CCM in its analyses of wet scrubber and dry sorbent injection 
(DSI) controls for the No. 4 Power Boiler and No. 5 and 6 Recovery 
Furnaces. The Commenters thus contend that to meet its regional haze 
requirements, as well as the requirement that EPA must act consistently 
across SIP actions, EPA must determine that these deviations from EPA's 
CCM in its analyses of controls for Brunswick Cellulose violate the CAA 
and RHR.
    The Commenters also assert that Georgia inappropriately rejected a 
wet scrubber for the No. 4 Power Boiler. They contend that ``based even 
on Georgia's flawed analyses for Brunswick, a wet scrubber would likely 
reduce SO2 emissions from the No. 4 Power Boiler by 141 tpy 
at a cost-effectiveness of $10,330/ton of pollution reduced,'' which 
they argue is within the range of cost thresholds adopted by other 
states.
    Response 12: Regarding the Commenters' assertion that EPA cannot 
approve GA EPD's FFA for Brunswick Cellulose and must require the 
facility to conduct NOX control analyses given its 
NOX emissions and to install cost-effective controls for 
NOX, see Response 2 and Response 3. In the Haze Plan, GA EPD 
evaluated Brunswick Cellulose's contributions to visibility impairment 
at Class I areas and concluded that SO2 contributions to 
visibility impairment from this facility exceeded State's AoI and PSAT 
screening thresholds and that NOX emissions did not exceed 
the State's screening thresholds. Therefore, Brunswick Cellulose was 
selected for an SO2 FFA, but not for a NOX FFA. 
As discussed in Response 2 and Response 3, Georgia's approach was 
reasonable and complies with the RHR.
    Regarding the Commenters' arguments that GA EPD's FFA of 
SO2 controls for Brunswick Cellulose is ``riddled with 
errors'' and not properly substantiated, the Commenters do not discuss 
any errors with any specificity. Instead, the Commenters cite to the 
NPS's June 22, 2022, letter to GA EPD,\56\ in which NPS noted that 
``the indirect operating costs do not reflect the most recent CCM wet 
scrubber chapter methods.'' The Commenters omit, however, that NPS also 
``agree[d] with several revisions made to the cost analyses.'' While 
the Commenters focus on several concerns raised by NPS regarding 
Georgia's rationale, the Commenters omit that in spite of these 
concerns, NPS agreed with Georgia's

[[Page 92056]]

ultimate conclusion that ``[g]iven that the fuel switch is estimated to 
result in a cost savings (even at higher natural gas prices), the NPS 
reviewers concur that the incremental costs of selecting a scrubber 
system in lieu of a fuel switch are not justified from a cost 
standpoint.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Haze Plan, Appendix H-1b, NPS Regional Haze SIP feedback 
for Georgia EPD (June 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on EPA's evaluation of Brunswick Cellulose's cost analyses, 
EPA noted several discrepancies, including the addition of property tax 
values to the total indirect operating costs. As alluded to in the NPS 
letter cited by the Commenters, these discrepancies were addressed 
prior to Georgia's final SIP submittal. The State's final SIP submittal 
to EPA included a revised cost calculation which was nearly identical 
to EPA's calculations. In the Haze Plan, the State's cost per ton 
calculation was marginally lower than EPA's calculation due to EPA's 
use of a lower 3.25 percent bank prime interest rate, as recommended by 
the CCM. Although EPA recognizes that GA EPD's cost calculations 
produced slightly lower values compared to EPA's own evaluation in 
accordance with the CCM, the differences in the total cost per ton of 
SO2 removed would not have changed the outcome of the FFA. 
In Appendix G-3 of the Haze Plan, GA EPD included documentation and 
explained the assumptions that the State used in the Brunswick 
Cellulose FFA, including the use of the current bank prime rate, a 30-
year equipment life, and control efficiency assumptions used in the 
scrubber and DSI cost analyses. EPA thus does not agree with the 
Commenters that the FFA was not properly substantiated.
    The Commenters also argue that Georgia inappropriately rejected a 
cost-effective control for the No. 4 Power Boiler ($10,330/ton of 
SO2 reduced for the installation of a wet scrubber), 
considering the cost-effectiveness is within the range of cost 
thresholds adopted by other states for the second planning period. 
Commenters raised a very similar argument regarding Plant Bowen, and 
for the same reasons that EPA disagreed with the Commenters' position 
in Response 9 (regarding Plant Bowen), EPA disagrees here as well. 
Furthermore, the $10,330/ton value exceeds the highest state cost 
threshold identified by the Commenters ($10,000/ton for Colorado).
    As discussed in Response 5, Georgia relied on a spreadsheet of 
first planning period costs developed by Arkansas with input from other 
states and supplemented with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia determined 
based on that spreadsheet that a cost of $10,330/ton of SO2 
removed would exceed the 98th percentile of all costs incurred by 
sources to control emission in the first planning period. On this 
basis, Georgia determined that a cost of $10,330/ton of SO2 
removed for the installation of a wet scrubber at Brunswick Cellulose 
was not a reasonable cost of control. Given that the State is not 
required to set a bright-line cost threshold by the RHR, the discretion 
afforded to the state to determine whether costs are reasonable, and 
the even-handed and consistent methodology applied by Georgia to 
determine whether control costs were reasonable for this planning 
period, EPA reaffirms that Georgia's conclusions were reasonable under 
the CAA and RHR.
    Comment 13: The Commenters assert that, at a minimum, Brunswick 
Cellulose's existing measures for the No. 5 and 6 Recovery Furnaces are 
necessary for reasonable progress. The Commenters note that EPA has 
explained that a state can demonstrate that a source will continue 
implementing its existing measures such that they are not necessary for 
reasonable progress ``based on data and information on: (1) The 
source's past implementation of its existing measures and its 
historical emission rate, (2) the source's projected emissions and 
emission rate, and (3) any enforceable emissions limits or other 
requirements related to the source's existing measures.'' The 
Commenters state that the expected emission ranges provided by Georgia 
for these furnaces are ``very wide, with the top of the range being 
more than double the bottom.'' Additionally, the Commenters state that 
nothing in the SIP revision demonstrates that emissions will remain the 
same at these units. The Commenters state that EPA explains that 
Georgia submitted a supplement to its SIP revision providing that the 
No. 5 Recovery Furnace's emissions fluctuated from 2016 to 2020 and 
argued that ``the emission rate for the unit is within a consistent 
range limited by the Permit.'' The Commenters therefore contend that 
EPA's own justification for its determination underscores that existing 
permit limits for the facility are necessary to make reasonable 
progress.
    Response 13: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. EPA requested 
supplemental information from Georgia regarding emissions for the No. 5 
Recovery furnace, which has higher emissions than the No. 6 Recovery 
Furnace. Based on 2016 to 2020 emissions data provided by Georgia to 
EPA that was cited in the NPRM and included in the docket, emissions at 
the No. 5 Recovery Furnace ranged from 0.125 to 0.152 tons 
SO2/1,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil burned, demonstrating a 
reasonably consistent SO2 emission rate during this time 
period. The increase in total SO2 emissions discussed by the 
Commenters is attributable to increased fuel oil burned in the unit and 
is not attributable to an inconsistent emission rate. Based on 2016 to 
2020 emissions data, SO2 emissions decreased from 21.7 tpy 
in 2016 to 7.8 tpy in 2020. Because emissions remain consistent at the 
No. 5 Recovery Furnace, EPA is not requiring Georgia to adopt existing 
measures for this emission unit into the SIP. This position is also 
consistent with EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo. See 2021 Clarifications 
Memo, at p. 9. Regarding the No. 6 Recovery Furnace, EPA likewise 
requested supplemental information from Georgia. This supplemental 
information is in the docket.\57\ While there is somewhat more 
variability in the emissions rate for this unit, the unit's 
SO2 emissions are extremely low, and therefore existing 
measures at this unit are not necessary for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See October 29, 2024, GA EPD email and attached file 
transmitting supplemental emissions information for the Brunswick 
Cellulose No. 6 Recovery Furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 14: The Commenters assert that the Brunswick Cellulose 
permit that EPA proposes to incorporate into Georgia's SIP does not 
include practically enforceable emission limits. More specifically, 
they argue the Brunswick Cellulose permit does not contain sufficient 
measures to ensure the facility complies with the 15 tpy SO2 
limit for the No. 4 Power Boiler and the No. 6 fuel oil burning 
condition during adverse wood/bark conditions. The Commenters contend 
that the permit states that Brunswick Cellulose ``shall use emission 
factors'' but does not specify what emission factors Brunswick 
Cellulose must use.\58\ The Commenters note that in an April 24, 2024, 
email from GA EPD to EPA, GA EPD stated that Brunswick Cellulose will 
use an AP-42 emission factor of 157 S lb/Mgal (where S is the fuel 
sulfur content by weight as a percentage per million gallons of 
fuel).\59\ However, the Commenters contend that AP-42 factors

[[Page 92057]]

do not reliably predict emissions and therefore are insufficient to 
determine compliance. The Commenters note that EPA has cautioned that 
the AP-42 factors ``are not likely to be accurate'' and ``[u]se of 
these factors as source-specific permit limits . . . is not 
recommended.'' \60\ The Commenters further argue that since neither EPA 
nor Georgia can rely on these AP-42 factors to establish or demonstrate 
compliance, the 15 tpy SO2 emission limit is not practically 
enforceable and EPA's proposal to incorporate it into the SIP violates 
the CAA and the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Ga. Dept Nat. Res., Air Quality--Part 70 Operating Permit, 
Brunswick Cellulose LLC, Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3 at 3 (Oct. 
25, 2023), Document No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220-0011 (providing that 
Condition 6.2.52 ``demonstrate[s] compliance with Condition 
3.2.25'') [hereinafter ``Brunswick Permit''].
    \59\ Email from James Boylan, Chief, Air Prot. Branch, Ga. Env't 
Prot. Div., to Estelle Bae, Air Permits Sec., Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Div., Env't Prot. Agency 
Region 4 (Apr. 15, 2024), Document No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220-0109; 
Ga. Env't Prot. Div., Response to EPA Regional Haze Questions at 1 
(April 14, 2024), Document No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220-0110.
    \60\ EPA, ``Enforcement Alert: Reminder About Inappropriate Use 
of AP-42 Emission Factors,'' Publication No. EPA 325-N-20-001 (Nov. 
2020), available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/ap42-enforcementalert.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 14: EPA disagrees with the Commenters. GA EPD's April 24, 
2024, clarification email stated that the facility used the 157 S lb/
Mgal emission factor contained within Table 1.3-1 of AP-42 in its title 
V permit application.\61\ The use of interpretive letters to clarify 
ambiguity or perceived ambiguity in the provisions in a SIP submission 
is a permissible, and sometimes necessary, approach under the CAA.\62\ 
So long as the interpretive letters and EPA's reliance on them is 
properly explained and documented, regulated entities, regulators, and 
the public can readily ascertain the existence of interpretive letters 
relied upon in EPA's approval that would be useful to resolve any 
perceived ambiguity. By virtue of being part of the stated basis for 
EPA's approval of that provision in a SIP submission, interpretive 
letters necessarily establish the correct interpretation of any 
arguably ambiguous SIP provision. In other words, the rulemaking record 
should reflect the shared state and EPA understanding of the meaning of 
a provision at issue at the time of the approval, which can then be 
referenced should any question about the provision arise in a future 
enforcement action. In this action, EPA is approving the Brunswick 
Cellulose emission limit and incorporating it into the SIP based on 
Georgia's interpretation that the phrase ``shall use emissions 
factors'' in Condition 6.2.52 means that the source shall use an 
emissions factor of 157 S lb/Mgal to calculate SO2 emissions 
from the unit for comparison with the 15 tpy emission limit.\63\ EPA 
will include an entry for this Brunswick Cellulose permit in the 
Georgia source-specific SIP table at 40 CFR 52.570(d) with text in the 
explanation column stating that ``shall use emissions factors'' refers 
to the use of a 157 S lb/Mgal, from AP-42, Chapter 1, Section 1.3: Fuel 
Oil Combustion. For these reasons, EPA views the use of this emissions 
factor as a federally-enforceable requirement which renders the 
emission limit practically enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3, Condition 6.2.52, requires 
the source to use the emission factors and the records required by 
Condition 6.2.51 to ensure compliance with the 15 tpy SO2 
emission limit specified in Condition 3.2.25 for the No. 4 Power 
Boiler. On April 15, 2024, GA EPD supplemented its August 11, 2022, 
Haze Plan by providing clarification on the specific emission factor 
that the source will use for calculating compliance with Condition 
3.2.25. This April 15, 2024, email containing the supplemental 
clarification is included in the docket for this action.
    \62\ See, e.g., Discussion of interpretive letters in ``State 
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; 
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33840, 33884-89 (June 12, 2015).
    \63\ On October 16, 2024, GA EPD provided a letter to EPA with 
an interpretation of the phrase ``The Permittee shall use emissions 
factors'' in Condition 6.2.52. GA EPD stated in this letter that 
this phrase in Permit Condition 6.2.52 means that Brunswick 
Cellulose will use the same AP-42 emission factor as was used to 
calculate emissions for their permit application. The emission 
factor used by Brunswick Cellulose for No. 6 Fuel Oil in No. 4 Power 
Boiler (U700) is 157 S lb/Mgal, where S is the fuel content as a 
percentage. This emission factor was taken from Table 1.3-1 of AP-
42. This October 16, 2024, letter containing the supplemental 
clarification of the emission factor is included in the docket for 
this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the Commenters' argument regarding the use of AP-42 as the 
basis for this emissions factor, the Commenters seem to suggest that 
AP-42 emission factors can never be used in permitting. While AP-42 
emission factors should be used with caution because source-specific 
data is always more reliable than industry-wide averages compiled in 
AP-42, EPA has consistently stated that ``AP-42 emission factors may be 
used to demonstrate compliance with emission limits in certain 
circumstances'' and that ``[w]hether and how a permit must account for 
uncertainty in AP-42 emission factors (including the AP-42 emission 
factor at issue here) is a fact-specific decision, as with essentially 
all other decisions concerning compliance assurance.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC Pasadena Terminal, 
Title V Order No. VI-2023-13, at p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters do not raise any specific facts to suggest that the 
use of AP-42 emission factors here is inappropriate. Instead, they 
simply assert that EPA has ``cautioned'' against the use of such 
emission factors in permitting, and the Commenters then make a blanket 
statement that therefore such emission factors cannot be used in 
permitting at all. As applied here, the Commenters contend that the use 
of an AP-42 emission factor rendered the 15 tpy emission limit 
practically unenforceable and therefore unlawful under the CAA and RHR.
    EPA disagrees. The AP-42 emission factor used by GA EPD, which is 
located in Table 1.3-1 of AP-42, is rated ``A'' by EPA, which is the 
best rating available and means that the test quality data used by EPA 
to develop this emission factor was ``performed by a sound methodology 
and are reported in enough detail for adequate validation.'' \65\ An 
``A'' rating also means that the ``Factor is developed from A- and B-
rated source test data taken from many randomly chosen facilities in 
the industry population. The source category population is sufficiently 
specific to minimize variability.'' \66\ The 157 S lb/Mgal AP-42 
emission factor, is a commonly used and appropriate representation of 
the SO2 emitted from a fuel-burning unit, as SO2 
emissions are almost entirely dependent on the sulfur content of the 
fuel, conservatively assuming that 95 percent of the fuel sulfur is 
converted to SO2.\67\ Scenarios where EPA has raised 
concerns about the use of AP-42 emission factors generally involve 
scenarios such as synthetic minor permitting limits used to avoid major 
source permitting where the synthetic minor limit is near the major 
source threshold. For example, EPA is aware of many scenarios where 
permitting agencies have imposed emission limits of 249 tpy to avoid 
the 250 tpy potential to emit major source PSD threshold in CAA 169(1). 
In such instances, precision in any emission factors used to develop 
the emission limit and to ensure compliance with the limit are 
essential because small errors in such emission factor relative to the 
source's actual emission could result in a facility exceeding pertinent 
major source thresholds. As noted by Commenters, EPA issued a 
compliance alert to this effect in November of 2020.\68\ The 
circumstances discussed in that compliance alert, however, are not 
present here because under the regional haze program, there is not a 
specific numeric threshold, such as a PSD major source threshold, that 
is applicable. Under the specific factual circumstances

[[Page 92058]]

present here, EPA finds that GA EPD's use of this AP-42 emission factor 
was appropriate and that the Commenters' concerns that deviations in 
Brunswick Cellulose's actual emissions from those assumed in the 
emission factor are without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ AP-42, Introduction, p. 9.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1: External 
Combustion Sources, 1.3: Fuel Oil Combustion, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.3_fuel_oil_combustion.pdf.
    \68\ See EPA Reminder About Inappropriate Use of AP-42 Emission 
Factors, available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/ap42-enforcementalert.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 15: The Commenters assert that the most recently renewed 
Brunswick Cellulose title V permit (April 2023) is also affected by the 
same SSM exemption and affirmative defense provisions that were 
detailed above in the 2019 Plant Bowen title V permit. The Commenters 
contend that the Brunswick Cellulose SSM exemption also states that the 
exemption does not apply to ``sources'' subject to New Source 
Performance Standards requirements, and so, it is not clear whether 
that provision applies to Brunswick Cellulose's 15 tpy limit for the 
No. 4 Power Boiler. However, the Commenters state if that provision 
applies to the 15 tpy limit, it renders the 15 tpy limit unlawful and 
not practically enforceable for the same reasons raised by the 
Commenters regarding the identical permit conditions for Plant Bowen. 
The Commenters thus assert that EPA's proposal to incorporate the 15 
tpy limit into Georgia's SIP violates the CAA and RHR.
    Response 15: EPA disagrees with the Commenters for the same reasons 
stated in Response 11.
    Comment 16: The Commenters assert that the Brunswick Cellulose 
title V permit that EPA would be adopting into Georgia's SIP does not 
contain necessary reporting requirements, but instead only requires the 
facility to maintain documents ``kept as part of the record'' 
reflecting its fuel use and emission calculations. The Commenters note 
that the permit makes reference to a requirement that Brunswick 
Cellulose report its excess emissions, exceedances, or excursions in 
accordance with ``the report required in Condition 6.1.4'' of the 
permit. However, the Commenters state that the permit as included in 
EPA's docket does not contain Condition 6.1.4., and thus, the 
Commenters argue that the provisions EPA proposes to incorporate into 
the SIP do not meet the requirements of the CAA or the RHR.
    Response 16: Permit condition 6.1.7, as incorporated, requires 
Brunswick Cellulose to report excess emissions, exceedances, or 
excursions from the 15 tpy SO2 emission limit and fuel 
burning limitations in accordance with permit condition 6.1.4. Permit 
condition 6.1.4 requires Brunswick Cellulose to submit a written report 
each quarter that contains any excess emissions, exceedances, or 
excursions, and any monitor malfunctions during each quarterly 
reporting period. If none of these occurred, Brunswick Cellulose must 
still submit a report stating that there were no excess emissions, 
exceedances, excursions, or monitor malfunctions during the quarterly 
reporting period. Condition 6.1.4. exists in a federally enforceable 
title V permit and is referenced in the reporting requirement in 
Condition 6.1.7 that is being approved into the SIP.
    Comment 17: The Commenters assert that EPA shirks its duty to 
review Georgia's source-specific FFA for IP-Savannah. The control 
measure at IP-Savannah that Georgia determined is necessary to make 
reasonable progress is a requirement that the facility no longer burn 
coal at its No. 13 Power Boiler. The Commenters contend that EPA cannot 
approve Georgia's reliance on the cessation of coal burning at the No. 
13 Power Boiler because it is not a new control and will not reduce IP-
Savannah's emissions. The Commenters note that IP-Savannah ceased 
burning coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler in 2017, three years before the 
facility submitted its FFA to the State and five years before Georgia 
finalized its SIP revision, and contend that the measure is therefore 
neither ``new'' nor ``additional.'' The Commenters state that EPA's 
conclusion that the control would achieve any emission reductions, let 
alone more reductions than other controls analyzed, is misleading at 
best. The Commenters contend that IP-Savannah's baseline emissions for 
its control analysis used 2018 and 2019 emissions and that because 
these years already accounted for the cessation of coal burning, EPA's 
assertion that this control measure would achieve additional reductions 
in SO2 is ``inappropriate double counting.'' Nonetheless, 
the Commenters agree with EPA and GA EPD that this measure should be 
adopted into Georgia's SIP, but the Commenters state that cessation of 
coal combustion at the No. 13 boiler should be classified as an 
existing measure.
    Response 17: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argue that IP-
Savannah's cessation of burning coal at the No. 13 Power Boiler in 2017 
is neither ``new'' nor ``additional.'' Although IP-Savannah stopped 
burning coal voluntarily in 2017, IP-Savannah was still permitted to 
burn coal and the facility did not physically modify the No. 13 Power 
Boiler to remove the capability to burn coal. This restriction is a new 
control for regional haze purposes because incorporating it into 
Georgia's SIP will result in the permanent cessation of coal combustion 
at the No. 13 Power Boiler. Without this incorporation into the SIP, 
the source could request a permit modification to begin combusting coal 
again, which would be inconsistent with the requirement to achieve 
reasonable progress under the CAA and RHR. The removal of coal as a 
fuel in the No. 13 Power Boiler will result in the permanent reduction 
of approximately 2,662 tpy of SO2 emissions reductions per 
year (see column ``SO2 tpy Reductions'' in Table 7-35 of the 
Haze Plan). EPA finds that the selected control option is necessary for 
reasonable progress for the second period and is therefore adopting 
this measure into the SIP. In response to the Commenters' assertion of 
the ``inappropriate double counting'' of SO2 reductions, the 
characterization of the whether these are ``additional'' reductions is 
irrelevant. The cessation of coal burning is simply a measure that EPA 
is adding to the SIP and is a part of the LTS.
    Comment 18: Instead of the cessation of burning coal, the 
Commenters assert that EPA must require IP-Savannah to install cost-
effective circulating dry scrubber (CDS) or DSI controls. The 
Commenters argue that Georgia's analysis of these controls for the No. 
13 Power Boiler contain multiple errors and unsupported costs, which 
are detailed below.
    First, the Commenters contend that the facility's 20-year 
``economic life'' deviates from the CCM, where the remaining useful 
life for these controls is 30 years. Second, the Commenters contend 
that IP-Savannah provided only vague statements or justifications in 
support of its retrofit factor, that this retrofit factor was at the 
top of EPA's recommended range, and that Georgia should have used an 
average retrofit factor of one when considering CDS and DSI controls. 
The Commenters also similarly contend that the capacity factor of 59 
percent for the No. 13 Power Boiler is unsupported in the FFA, and that 
Georgia and EPA should have not accepted this number without further 
documentation. The Commenters state that information in the facility-
submitted FFA indicates that the actual capacity factor is very likely 
much higher at 76.4 percent. The Commenters state that Georgia did not 
require or provide any documentation to support (1) IP-Savannah's 
argument that it would have to expand its solid waste disposal site to 
accommodate CDS or DSI controls, or (2) the cost of expanding the waste 
disposal site. The Commenters contend that the facility's claimed costs 
for waste disposal are not reliable, as the facility escalated the 
costs for expanding its disposal site

[[Page 92059]]

from 2007 to 2021 dollars despite the fact that the CCM states that 
costs should not be escalated more than five years.
    The Commenters also assert that beyond the above-described alleged 
cost analysis errors for CDS and DSI, Georgia accepted an unreasonably 
low 90 percent removal efficiency for CDS from the facility-submitted 
cost analysis. According to the Commenters, the CCM states that CDS 
systems can achieve at least 95 percent and possibly over 98 percent 
removal efficiency. They further contend that Georgia acknowledged in 
the SIP revision that CDS systems can achieve 98 percent control in its 
response to comments, but the State still stated, without any support 
or explanation, that ``it supports IP-Savannah's choice to use 90 
percent as an appropriate efficiency factor.''
    Separately, the Commenters assert that Georgia accepted the same 
waste disposal cost for both CDS and DSI even though IP-Savannah's 
calculated waste rate for CDS was significantly lower than that for 
DSI. Therefore, they argue that Georgia should have used a lower waste 
disposal cost in its analysis for CDS. In total, the Commenters contend 
that each of these alleged errors resulted in artificially inflated 
control costs for CDS and DSI and, therefore, artificially inflated 
cost-effectiveness values. The Commenters state that, according to the 
Stamper report attached to the Commenters' comments, by correcting some 
of the noted errors identified by the Commenters in Georgia's analysis, 
CDS and DSI are cost-effective controls at $3,790/ton and $5,920/ton of 
SO2 removed, respectively.
    Related to these points, the Commenters assert that Georgia 
violated the RHR's requirement that it adequately document and support 
the technical basis for its control determinations, and that EPA does 
not acknowledge or address any of the many errors in Georgia's control 
analyses. They also contend that in response to comments, Georgia 
admits that ``the costs associated with [CDS and DSI] were not looked 
at in depth due to [the removal of coal burning] being an obvious path 
forward.'' The Commenters contend that EPA's argument that Georgia 
followed a reasonable cost analysis method and followed the CCM is 
unsupported. The Commenters state that in proposed rulemaking on the 
Arizona regional haze SIP, EPA proposes to conclude the FFAs for 
numerous sources were unreasonable because the State based its control 
determinations on, among other things, inappropriate emission rates for 
the controls analyzed and unsubstantiated deviations from the CCM. The 
Commenters therefore state that EPA must treat the errors in Georgia's 
SIP revision consistently with how it has proposed to treat these same 
errors in Arizona's SIP revision.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See CAA 301(a)(2) and 40 CFR 56.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 18: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' argument that the 
Agency must require Georgia to ``correct'' its cost analyses, or 
``correct'' those analyses itself, and require the installation of 
either CDS or DSI on the No. 13 Power Boiler at IP-Savannah to make 
reasonable progress. Georgia's selection of cessation of coal 
combustion as a control met the requirements of the RHR and was 
consistent with EPA's recommended process to select controls discussed 
in the 2019 Guidance and the 2021 Clarifications Memo. Georgia was not 
required to select multiple controls for IP-Savannah's No. 13 Power 
Boiler and applied its reasonable discretion to require IP-Savannah to 
implement the most cost-effective control. Moreover, even if assuming 
the Commenters' technical arguments above regarding items such as 
retrofit factors, capacity factors, removal efficiency, and waste rate 
are accurate (EPA has not made a determination on those points), the 
cost of the other potential controls would still be positive, whereas 
cessation of coal combustion has a negative cost while still resulting 
in substantial permanent emission reductions. Because Georgia was not 
required to select multiple controls for the No. 13 Power Boiler and 
further because EPA agrees with Georgia's selection of cessation of 
coal combustion as reasonable for this planning period, the Commenters' 
comments regarding other potential control options are without merit.
    EPA also disagrees with the Commenters' argument that EPA did not 
evaluate the CDS and DSI in depth due to the removal of coal burning 
being an obvious path forward. EPA evaluated each assumption used in 
the cost analyses as part of the pre-hearing process and throughout the 
Haze Plan development process.
    Comment 19: The Commenters further assert that even using Georgia's 
cost analyses, following the cessation of burning coal, CDS (removing 
3,674 tpy of SO2 at a cost of $5,564/ton) and DSI (removing 
2,653 tpy of SO2 at a cost of $6,245/ton) to control 
emissions from the No. 13 Power Boiler are cost effective because 
``[t]hese costs are well within the range of costs that other states 
have determined are cost effective for the second planning period.'' 
The Commenters argue that EPA's proposal to approve Georgia's 
determination that these controls are not cost effective based on the 
State's application of the Arkansas cost spreadsheet is arbitrary and 
capricious.
    Response 19: Commenters raised a very similar argument regarding 
Plant Bowen, and for the same reasons stated in Response 9 (regarding 
Plant Bowen), EPA disagrees here as well. As discussed in Response 5 
and as noted by the Commenters, Georgia relied on a spreadsheet of 
first planning period costs developed by Arkansas with input from other 
states and supplemented with VISTAS-specific data. Georgia determined 
based on that spreadsheet that costs of $5,564/ton of SO2 
removed for CDS and $6,245/ton of SO2 removed for DSI would 
exceed the 98th percentile of all costs incurred by sources to control 
emission in the first planning period. On this basis, Georgia 
determined that these were not reasonable costs to control emissions 
for this planning period. Given that the State provided a detailed 
documentation and justification, and is not required to set a bright-
line cost threshold by the RHR, the discretion afforded to the State to 
determine whether costs are reasonable, the consistent methodology 
applied by Georgia to determine whether control costs were reasonable 
for this planning period, and the flexibility discussed in Response 9, 
EPA reaffirms that Georgia's conclusions were reasonable under the CAA 
and RHR.
    Georgia selected the most cost-effective control option for IP-
Savannah, which is the permanent cessation of coal combustion at the 
No. 13 Power Boiler. The selection of this control is consistent with 
EPA's recommended process to select controls as discussed in the 2019 
Guidance and the 2021 Clarifications Memo. The selection of the most 
cost-effective control is also consistent with Georgia's approach to 
selection of controls. In short, Georgia was not required to select 
multiple controls for IP-Savannah's No. 13 Power Boiler and applied its 
reasonable discretion to require IP-Savannah to implement the most 
cost-effective control. This approach is consistent with the CAA's and 
RHR's requirements that the state selects emission controls based upon 
four factors, including cost. See CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(i).
    Comment 20: The Commenters also assert that Georgia and EPA failed 
to consider other available controls to reduce IP-Savannah's haze-
forming emissions, namely packed bed scrubbers. The Commenters contend

[[Page 92060]]

that packed bed scrubbers are a common SO2 control option 
for many industrial sources, including paperboard mills like IP-
Savannah, and that these scrubbers are demonstrated to achieve up to 
99.99 percent control efficiency. The Commenters note that the CCM 
includes a module for assessing packed bed scrubber controls, and the 
Commenters conclude that while the record does not contain sufficient 
information to provide a cost analysis for these packed bed scrubbers, 
examples provided in the CCM indicate that packed bed scrubbers are 
likely a highly cost-effective control option for IP-Savannah.
    Response 20: EPA disagrees with the Commenters that GA EPD did not 
consider packed bed scrubbers in IP-Savannah's FFA. Packed tower 
scrubbers (also known as packed bed or packed column scrubbers) are a 
type of wet scrubber, and wet scrubbers were explicitly considered in 
IP-Savannah's FFA and were rejected by GA EPD as not feasible due to 
the additional offsets to the facility's water use and freshwater 
demand. See Haze Plan, Appendix G-2b, at p. 2-7 and 2-8. Thus, for the 
reasons stated in Responses 17 and 18, EPA disagrees.
    Packed tower scrubbers can achieve high removal efficiencies, 
handle high liquid rates, and have relatively lower water consumption 
requirements than other types of gas absorbers. However, packed towers 
may also have high system pressure drops, high clogging and fouling 
potential, and extensive maintenance costs due to the presence of 
packing materials. Installation, operation, and wastewater disposal 
costs may also be higher for packed bed scrubbers than for other 
absorbers.\70\ In addition to pump and fan power requirements and 
solvent costs, packed towers have operating costs associated with 
replacing damaged packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/wet_and_dry_scrubbers_section_5_chapter_1_control_cost_manual_7th_edition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wet scrubbers such as packed tower scrubbers have water use and 
water discharge requirements that can make these controls not feasible 
in certain situations. According to GA EPD, treated wastewater from IP-
Savannah is discharged to the Savannah River. IP-Savannah's 2019 
National Pollutant Discharge Permit currently limits this facility's 
wastewater discharge, and the facility has since committed to meet 
biologically based Ultimate Oxygen Demand limits which represent an 
approximately 85 percent reduction from its current permit limits. The 
facility is also limited on how much groundwater can be withdrawn, and 
its water withdrawal permit limits will be lower starting in 2025, 
which will cause any projects requiring additional water use to be 
offset by water-savings projects.\71\ Thus, a wet scrubber, which would 
represent 10 percent of the facility's freshwater demand, was deemed 
not feasible by GA EPD. EPA agrees with GA EPD that adding a packed 
tower scrubber to control SO2 emissions from IP-Savannah 
would not be reasonable based upon Georgia's technical determinations 
that this control is not feasible. Because this control is not 
feasible, neither GA EPD nor EPA performed a cost analysis for this 
control option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Section 7.8.1. International Paper--Savannah Mill in 
the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees that Georgia did not consider other available control 
options for reducing SO2. Georgia also evaluated the 
feasibility of a dry scrubber for the No. 13 Power Boiler. While a dry 
scrubber does not have the same additional needs for water as a wet 
scrubber, EPA agrees with Georgia's determination that a dry scrubber 
was considered not technically feasible due to costs from the 
additional solid waste and wastewater generated and the expansion of 
the existing mill-owned landfill.
    Comment 21: The Commenters argue that IP-Savannah is a significant 
source of NOX pollution. The commenters contend that EPA 
must require Georgia to conduct an FFA for NOX controls on 
the facility's emission units to ensure that the State requires a 
reasonable range of controls to make progress.
    Response 21: For the reasons stated in Response 2 and Response 3, 
EPA disagrees with the Commenters. In the Haze Plan, GA EPD evaluated 
IP-Savannah's contributions to visibility impairment at Class I areas 
and concluded that SO2 contributions to visibility 
impairment from this facility exceeded State's AoI and PSAT screening 
thresholds and that NOX contributions did not exceed the 
State's screening thresholds. Therefore, IP-Savannah was selected for 
an SO2 FFA but not for a NOX FFA. As discussed in 
Response 3, Georgia's approach was reasonable and complies with the 
RHR.
    Comment 22: The Commenters assert that EPA ignores that the IP-
Savannah title V permit that Georgia proposes to incorporate into its 
SIP does not include necessary reporting requirements. The Commenters 
argue that IP-Savannah's permit, as reproduced in EPA's docket, only 
includes provisions requiring the facility to ``measure and record'' 
information reflecting fuel use for the No. 13 Power Boiler. The permit 
makes reference to a requirement that IP-Savannah report its excess 
emissions, exceedances, or excursions in accordance with ``the report 
required in Condition 6.1.4'' of the permit. However, the Commenters 
state that the permit does not contain Condition 6.1.4, and therefore 
the provisions EPA proposes to incorporate into the SIP do not include 
necessary reporting provisions and do not meet the requirements of the 
CAA or RHR.
    Response 22: Permit condition 6.1.7, as incorporated, requires IP-
Savannah to report excess emissions, exceedances, or excursions in 
accordance with permit condition 6.1.4, as it relates to the burning of 
coal in the No. 13 Power Boiler. Permit condition 6.1.4 requires IP-
Savannah to submit a written report each quarter that contains any 
excess emissions, exceedances, or excursions, and any monitor 
malfunctions during each quarterly reporting period. If none of these 
occurred, IP-Savannah must still submit a report stating that there 
were no excess emissions, exceedances, excursions, or monitor 
malfunctions during the quarterly reporting period. Condition 6.1.4 
exists in a federally enforceable title V permit and is also referenced 
in the portions of the permit being approved into the SIP.
    Comment 23: The Commenters assert that EPA ignores that Georgia's 
SIP does not address measures necessary to prevent future impairment as 
is required at Class I areas by the CAA and RHR. The Commenters contend 
that EPA has historically relied on new source permitting programs, 
``like the [PSD] and [NSR] programs,'' to address the CAA's prevention 
of future impairment mandate, but these programs ``have changed 
dramatically over the decades.'' The Commenters state that current PSD 
rules, as well as the nonattainment NSR rules, now exempt many 
modifications at existing major sources that were previously subject to 
PSD review. As a result, the Commenters state that the PSD and NSR 
rules do not provide as comprehensive Class I area visibility 
protections as they previously did. The Commenters thus contend that it 
is imperative that Georgia's LTS include measures to prevent future 
visibility impairment from new sources, as well as new modifications at 
existing sources of haze pollution.
    More specifically, the Commenters assert that Georgia does not 
discuss anywhere in its SIP revision (1) the programs it has in place 
to address any potential future increases in emissions or (2) any 
pending air permit applications for sources that may contribute to 
future impairment at Class

[[Page 92061]]

I areas in Georgia or other states. As an example, the Commenters state 
that Georgia is currently reviewing a permit application and draft 
permit from Twin Pines Minerals which proposes to locate a mine just 
three miles from Okefenokee. Although Twin Pines Minerals' permit 
application indicates that the mine's emissions would be relatively 
low, the Commenters state that the application is missing information 
on emission sources and potential emission levels. As a result, the 
Commenters state that it is nearly impossible for the public to 
determine exactly what kind of impact the proposed mine may have on air 
quality at Okefenokee. The Commenters state that the SIP revision does 
not address this facility, or any other proposed new sources or 
modifications. They assert that this underscores the need for the State 
to address measures to prevent future impairment to ensure that it is 
meeting the CAA's natural visibility goal. Furthermore, they state that 
nowhere in EPA's proposed approval does the Agency acknowledge or 
address the fact that Georgia's SIP revision entirely omits any 
discussion of measures to prevent future impairment. Finally, they 
contend that EPA's proposal to approve Georgia's SIP is therefore 
arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the CAA and RHR.
    Response 23: Contrary to the Commenters' assertions, there is no 
requirement in the CAA or for states' second planning period regional 
haze plans to assess and/or adopt emission reduction measures into the 
SIP for hypothetical new emissions sources that do not yet exist (e.g., 
those which have not yet been constructed and/or are not yet in 
operation) to prevent future visibility impairment at Class I areas. 
Nor do the Commenters cite to legal authority suggesting that the CAA 
or RHR require this. Instead, the Commenters cite to CAA section 
169A(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.300(a), and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B).
    None of these statutes and regulations support the Commenters' 
assertions. CAA section 169A(a)(1) states the ``national goal'' 
underlying the regional haze program ``the prevention of any future, 
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' In support of this goal, Congress required EPA to 
``promulgate regulations to assure (A) reasonable progress toward 
meeting the national goal specified in paragraph (1), and (B) 
compliance with the requirements of this section.'' EPA has done so by 
promulgating the RHR, which the Commenters also cite to. 40 CFR 
51.300(a), cited by the Commenters, is entitled ``Purpose and 
applicability'' and restates the national goal from CAA section 
169A(a)(1). This provision, while providing important context to the 
RHR, contains no independent requirements that states must meet and 
therefore does not support the Commenters' position.
    The remaining citation to the RHR provided by the Commenters, 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), similarly does not support the Commenters' 
position. That provision states in full as follows: ``The State must 
consider the following additional factors in developing its long-term 
strategy: Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities.'' Contrary to the Commenters' assertions, Georgia plainly 
addressed this requirement in its Haze Plan. See Haze Plan, at p. 221 
(noting that ``Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities'' are addressed in Section 7.9.2 of the Haze Plan); see also 
Haze Plan Section 7.9.2 (discussing ``Dust and Fine Soil from 
Construction Activities'').
    At bottom, the RHR addresses ``the prevention of any future'' 
visibility impairment by ensuring that reasonable progress measures are 
adopted into states' SIPs. In this way, the RHR renders such measures 
permanent, which necessarily prevents future visibility impairment from 
those emission sources. Because neither the CAA nor RHR requires 
further measures to address future construction, the Commenters' 
comments regarding the Twin Pines Minerals permit are acknowledged, but 
are not relevant.
    Comment 24: The Commenters argue that EPA's proposal to approve 
Georgia's RPGs violate the CAA and RHR. The Commenters maintain that in 
EPA's SIP planning sequence, states first identify their LTS controls, 
which is followed by the development of RPGs. However, the Commenters 
contend that EPA fails to acknowledge that Georgia's established RPGs 
for its three in-state Class I areas are based on VISTAS modeling 
results which were conducted in 2020. They comment this was completed 
before conducting FFAs or finalizing the State's LTS controls in 2022. 
Therefore, the Commenters assert that Georgia impermissibly reversed 
the SIP planning sequence and that Georgia's RPGs are based on modeling 
results which do not meet the RHR requirement that RPGs must be based 
on enforceable SIP measures. The Commenters argue that Georgia's 
response to comments ignored the problems raised regarding the RPGs and 
that Georgia's response that the State's RPGs ``are representative of 
all known control measures necessary to make reasonable progress'' is 
unfounded.
    Additionally, the Commenters assert that Georgia ``cherry-picked'' 
a statement from EPA's 2019 Guidance in response to the concerns 
raised, i.e., EPA's statement that states may conduct modeling to 
establish RPGs before ``the outcome of some final state decisions on 
emission control measures [are] known.'' The Commenters state Georgia 
ignored other parts of EPA's 2019 Guidance explaining that if a state 
conducted modeling for RPGs before finalizing LTS control 
determinations, the state must adjust its RPGs to reconcile the 
scenarios before the SIP revision with the RPGs is submitted. The 
Commenters argue that nothing in Georgia's SIP revision or EPA's 
proposal indicates that Georgia made adjustments to its RPGs after its 
FFA and finalizing its LTS, which the Commenters argue is contrary to 
EPA's 2019 Guidance. Thus, the Commenters contend that EPA must not 
approve Georgia's RPGs for its three Class I areas and must require 
that Georgia adjust those goals to properly reflect enforceable 
emission limitations adopted in the LTS portion of Georgia's SIP.
    Response 24: EPA disagrees that Georgia's RPGs must be disapproved 
on the basis that they do not reflect any new measures resulting from 
the three FFAs. EPA reiterates that the process for establishing RPGs 
for each Class I area is prescribed in the RHR and its amendments and 
discussed in related guidance.72 73 74 The RPGs established 
by the states with Class I areas are not directly enforceable but will 
be considered by the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the 
measures in the implementation plan in providing for reasonable 
progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions at that area. 
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). As explained in footnote 34 of the NPRM 
of the Georgia Haze Plan, RPGs are intended to reflect the projected 
impacts of the measures all contributing

[[Page 92062]]

states include in their LTS. However, due to the timing of analyses, 
control determinations by other states, and other ongoing emissions 
changes, a particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures 
and emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the 
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 40 CFR 51.308; 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999; and 82 FR 
3078, January 10, 2017.
    \73\ See ``Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans 
for the Second Implementation Period'' available at: www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
    \74\ See ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' 
available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the air quality modeling to calculate RPGs is resource 
intensive and time consuming, EPA does not always expect the modeling 
to be repeated after a subsequent change in the content of a state's 
own LTS or another state's LTS that impacts the host state's Class I 
area(s). 2019 Guidance at 47-48.
    Adjustment of the RPGs once modeling is completed to reflect new 
FFA outcomes is not required. However, the 2019 Guidance provides 
recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when 
states are developing their LTS on disparate schedules and for 
adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. The outcome of a state's 
source selection process and subsequent evaluation of technically 
feasible and cost-effective emissions controls as part of FFAs 
determine what constitutes the state's LTS for that particular planning 
period. If a state's source selection process and evaluation of 
technically feasible and cost-effective controls results in a LTS that 
includes the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules 
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, then 
the requirements of the RHR are satisfied for that planning period. Any 
additional emissions reductions resulting from new FFA measures not 
included in the 2028 RPGs serve to provide further assurance that the 
State's Class I areas and those areas affected by the State's sources 
will achieve their 2028 RPGs.
    Comment 25: The Commenters assert that EPA's proposal to approve 
Georgia's state-to-state consultations violates the CAA and RHR. They 
specifically mention EPA's 2017 amendments to the RHR stating ``states 
must exchange their four factor analyses and the associated technical 
information that was developed in the course of devising their long-
term strategies.''
    The Commenters contend that EPA treats the consultation process as 
a box-checking exercise. Additionally, they argue that EPA's proposal 
and TSD only recites what Georgia provided regarding its consultation, 
without conducting an independent analysis, and that EPA only mentioned 
that Georgia documented its consultation with other states. The 
Commenters assert that Georgia failed to independently assess whether 
additional controls on out-of-state sources are needed to achieve 
reasonable progress. Therefore, both Georgia and EPA will need to 
independently evaluate all information in the record, as well as 
provide an explanation for their final determinations.
    The Commenters state that Georgia recognizes that sources from 
other states are projected to impact visibility in Georgia's Class I 
areas, and the State requested FFAs from Florida, South Carolina, 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. However, the 
Commenters state that few of the out-of-state sources are adopting new 
control measures as a result of the FFAs. Furthermore, the Commenters 
assert that Georgia failed to critically evaluate whether additional 
controls are warranted from out-of-state sources to ensure reasonable 
progress.
    The Commenters assert that EPA must require that Pennsylvania 
optimize or upgrade controls at the Keystone Generating Station 
(Keystone Station). The Commenters state that the Keystone Station is 
not exempt from an FFA simply because it has systems (FGD and SCR) in 
place that meet the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule. 
Additionally, the Commenters contend that the scrubbers currently in 
place are underperforming and do not achieve at least 95 percent 
control efficiency, let alone the 98 percent control efficiency that a 
modern wet scrubber system is capable of continuously achieving. The 
Commenters state that of the control measures that Keystone Station did 
consider in FFA, running one more level of recycle pumps would be cost-
effective ($413/ton of NOX), and must be required. The 
Commenters argue that modern SCR systems have been shown to operate at 
an average monthly NOX emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or 
lower, whereas the current SCR systems in Units 1 and 2 of the Keystone 
Station in 2019 have higher NOX emissions rates of 0.104 and 
0.103 lb/MMBtu, respectively. In response to the Keystone Station's 
assertion that optimization of the current SCR systems will be 
addressed in a future case-by-case NOX reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) analysis, the Commenters contend that a 
future RACT analysis is not an offramp from the regional haze 
requirements that apply now. Furthermore, the Commenters argue that the 
outcome of the RACT analysis will likely be different and less 
stringent because the analysis applies a different set of factors. 
Therefore, the Commenters assert that EPA must require Pennsylvania to 
direct the Keystone Station to evaluate additional cost-effective 
control measures, and the agency must ensure that the accuracy of cost-
effectiveness arguments regarding the new controls are supported and 
documented.
    The Commenters also assert EPA must require that Ohio direct the 
Gavin Power Plant (Plant Gavin) to optimize or upgrade controls. The 
Commenters argue that Ohio failed to show that NOX emissions 
from Plant Gavin are effectively controlled since the State did not 
show that an FFA for NOX control on the facility would be 
futile. Furthermore, the Commenters contend that nothing in the RHR 
itself permits the states to exclude sources from an FFA on the basis 
that they are ``effectively controlled.'' Moreover, the Commenters 
argue that Plant Gavin's FFA of SO2 controls contain errors, 
and that there are feasible and cost-effective controls available that 
can reduce SO2 emissions from the facility. The Commenters 
maintain that because Plant Gavin likely contributes to the impairment 
to both Georgia's and Ohio's Class I areas, EPA must require Ohio to 
perform an FFA of NOX controls and implement available and 
cost-effective SO2 controls for Plant Gavin.
    The Commenters further assert that EPA cannot approve Georgia's 
consultation with Indiana. The Commenters state that Georgia disagreed 
with Indiana's response to not require FFAs from its EGUs (including 
Gibston Station and AEP Rockport Generating Station), and Georgia's 
consultation record is incomplete because ``there is no record of the 
Indiana disagreement in the Georgia SIP.'' If Georgia does disagree 
with Indiana, the Commenters argue that 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) would 
apply, which requires Georgia to ``describe the actions taken to 
resolve the disagreement'' and EPA ``take this information into 
account.'' The Commenters assert that EPA cannot approve of Georgia's 
state-to-state consultation because Georgia has not adequately 
documented its disagreement and resolution of the disagreement with 
Indiana, which the Commenters state is in violation of the CAA and the 
RHR.
    Response 25: 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides that a ``State must 
consult with those States that have emissions that are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory 
Class I Federal area to develop coordinated emission management 
strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to make 
reasonable progress.'' If the state disagrees, the state must describe 
the actions taken to resolve the disagreement (40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C)).

[[Page 92063]]

    Consultation may include efforts to reach agreement on the 
measures that each state will apply to its sources, or agreement on 
decision thresholds and other decision approaches, but it does not 
require such effort by any state and does not require that 
agreements be reached. If neither consulting state has sought an 
agreement about measures to be included in their SIP revision, 
neither state is required to include in its implementation plan the 
description mentioned in this requirement. However, if one state has 
formally asked another state to adopt a particular measure for a 
particular source, and the second state has not adopted that measure 
and also has not adopted an equivalent measure(s) as described in 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A), then both states are subject to this 
requirement to describe the actions taken to resolve the 
disagreement. This provision does not specify that any particular 
actions towards resolution be taken. If the two states submit SIP 
revisions that disagree on the controls in each state that are 
needed for reasonable progress, the RHR provides for EPA to consider 
the technical information and explanations presented by both states 
when considering whether to approve each state's SIP.

2019 Guidance, at p. 53.

    EPA's review of Georgia's interstate consultation process was 
hardly a box checking exercise, as EPA independently reviewed all of 
the consultation documentation provided by Georgia within its Haze 
Plan. Those materials are primarily contained in Appendix F of the Haze 
Plan, and EPA affirms that GA EPD properly complied with 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii) by consulting with Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio and requesting FFAs for 
facilities located within those states with visibility impacts to 
Georgia Class I areas exceeding one percent for SO2 or 
NOX. Specifically, five facilities are located in Florida, 
one facility is located in Kentucky, two facilities are located in 
South Carolina, one facility is located in Tennessee, two facilities 
are located in Indiana, two facilities are located in Ohio, and one 
facility is located in Pennsylvania. Regarding Indiana specifically, 
Georgia documented communications between Georgia and Indiana in 
Appendix F-2b of the Haze Plan, and on pages 243-244 of the Haze Plan 
narrative, Georgia indicated that Indiana ``is not requiring 4-factor 
analyses from its EGUs.'' Georgia does not explicitly state its 
disagreement with Indiana, but based on the record, the states appear 
to disagree based on Georgia's request for FFAs at Plant Gibson and AEP 
Rockport along with Georgia's documentation within its Haze Plan that 
Indiana will not be preparing FFAs for these two facilities. As noted 
elsewhere in Georgia's Haze Plan, AEP Rockport's SO2 impact 
on visibility at Cohutta is 4.68 percent, and Plant Gibson's 
SO2 impact on visibility at Cohutta is 2.31 percent. In 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), Georgia has adequately 
documented its position and Indiana's position, including in a letter 
VISTAS sent to Indiana on behalf of Georgia dated June 22, 2020, 
requesting FFAs for these facilities, as well in follow-up emails. See 
Haze Plan, Appendix F-2b.
    In regards to the Commenters' contention that EPA must require 
controls at facilities outside of Georgia in this action on Georgia's 
regional haze SIP, this action is not the appropriate forum to submit 
such comments. To the extent that Commenters have concerns about 
facilities outside of Georgia, such as those facilities in 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, any public comments related to out-of-
state sources should be provided during the public comment periods 
regarding those states' haze plans. Georgia lacks authority to regulate 
these out-of-state sources, and therefore EPA cannot require other 
states to implement control measures through the Georgia regional haze 
SIP.
    Comment 26: The Commenters assert that EPA must disapprove 
Georgia's SIP because the State failed to engage in meaningful FLM 
consultation. The Commenters state that while Georgia did summarize and 
respond to the FLMs' comments, it did not meaningfully consider or 
incorporate the suggestions into the SIP. The Commenters contend that 
``[c]ontrary to the CAA and RHR, Georgia treated the consultation as a 
box-checking exercise'' and released the draft of the SIP revision for 
public comments only two days after it closed the formal consultation 
with FLMs. The Commenters argue that Georgia made only minor edits to 
the SIP based upon the FLMs' comments and did not fully respond to the 
many concerns raised. Some concerns included screening thresholds that 
led to very few Georgia sources for analysis, exclusion of 
NOX from FFAs, lack of FFAs for multiple facilities (Plant 
Wansley, Plant Scherer, the Rome Linerboard Mill, Brunswick Cellulose, 
and IP-Savannah), concerns about the FFA for SO2 at Plant 
Bowen, and concerns about the VISTA modeling approach. Therefore, the 
Commenters assert that EPA must reject Georgia's SIP revision on that 
basis that the State failed to meet the CAA's and RHR's requirement to 
``engage in meaningful FLM consultation.'' Additionally, the Commenters 
argue that because EPA must disapprove of Georgia's source selection 
method, FFA, and RPGs, the Agency must also disapprove of Georgia's FLM 
consultation on the basis that the FLM consultation was based upon a 
SIP revision that did not meet the statutory and regulatory 
requirements of the CAA and RHR.
    Response 26: The FLMs play important roles in addressing visibility 
at Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires states to include a 
description of how they address any comments provided by the FLMs. 
However, neither the CAA nor the RHR requires the state to agree with 
the FLM recommendations, nor do they specify the degree of 
consideration that must be given to those comments. Rather, 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(3) requires the State to ``include a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land Managers.''
    Georgia complied with this requirement by documenting how it 
addressed the FLMs' comments in 21 pages of single-spaced responses to 
the FLMs' comments contained within Appendix H-4a of its Haze Plan. The 
Commenters do not identify any specific FLM comments that Georgia did 
not respond to. EPA reviewed GA EPD's responses and finds that they 
comply with the RHR requirement to describe how the state addressed 
comments provided by the FLMs. EPA thus disagrees with the Commenters 
that GA EPD did not fully respond to the FLMs' comments.
    The timing of this consultation was also compliant with the RHR. 
FLM-State consultation must take place at least 60 days prior to the 
state public comment period on any haze plan or plan revision pursuant 
to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). GA EPD complied this RHR requirement by 
initiating consultation with the FLMs on April 22, 2022, which was 62 
days before the opening of the State's public comment period on June 
24, 2022. In addition, GA EPD met with NPS upon request on June 14, 
2022, to discuss NPS' feedback in more detail.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ FWS, FS, and EPA representatives were also in attendance at 
the June 14, 2022, Georgia-NPS consultation meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 27: The Commenters assert that EPA must consider the 
environmental justice (EJ) impacts of Georgia's SIP revision. The 
Commenters state that EPA states it can ignore EJ implications of 
Georgia's SIP revision, and that the Agency contravenes directives from 
the current presidential administration, as well as EPA's commitments 
and action plans. The Commenters contend that EPA cannot argue to 
prioritize EJ while also disavowing any need to consider the 
disproportionate impacts of haze pollution sources in Georgia and its 
own actions on Georgia's SIP revision.

[[Page 92064]]

    The Commenters assert that executive orders (EOs), as well as EPA's 
own commitments and action plans direct the Agency to consider EJ 
implications. The Commenters state that EOs in place since 1994 require 
EPA to incorporate EJ as ``part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing . . . disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities,'' which 
they argue to be applicable to regional haze SIP actions on minority 
populations and low-income populations. Additionally, the Commenters 
argue the directive to incorporate EJ into all of the Agency's actions 
was reaffirmed by the Biden Administration in 2021 through back-to-back 
EOs directed to federal agencies, including EPA, and again in 2023 when 
the Administration issued the ``Executive Order on Revitalizing Our 
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The ``Executive Order on Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All'' is available at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/04/21/executive-order-on-revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters state that Administrator Regan recognized that EPA 
has a lead role in coordinating EJ efforts across the country and 
``urged all EPA offices to take `affirmative steps to incorporate 
environmental justice consideration into their work . . . in regulatory 
development processes and to consider regulatory options to maximize 
benefits to these communities,' '' and the Commenters argue that EPA's 
Equity Action Plan \77\ issued in 2022 makes equity, EJ, and civil 
right a centerpiece of the agency's regulatory work, which includes 
actions on regional haze SIPs. Furthermore, the Commenters assert that 
the determination of which sources to selected for an FFA and the 
reasonable progress measure to require for a source should incorporate 
EJ and equity into technical analyses, citing EPA's 2019 Guidance, 
which specifies that ``[s]tates may also consider any beneficial non-
air quality environmental impacts,'' as well as the 2021 Clarification 
Memo issued by the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, E.O. 13985 Equity Action Plan at 
4-11 (Apr. 2022), see https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/epaequityactionplanapril2022508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenters contend that EPA ignores the previously mentioned 
EOs, plans, and commitments when concluding that it is not required to 
consider EJ impacts of pollutants that contribute to regional haze from 
Georgia's sources and actions on the SIP revision. The Commenters state 
that the same pollutants that affect visibility at national parks and 
wilderness areas also cause significant public health impacts, 
particularly those who live closest to the facilities.
    Drawing from EJScreen data,\78\ the Commenters state that emissions 
from sources of concern raised by NPS and the Commenters in their 
comments to Georgia are likely impacting areas characterized by higher 
percentages of low income and people of color. Specifically, within a 
10-mile radius of Plant Bowen, the Commenters state that 32 percent of 
the population are low-income and 25 percent as people of color, with 
the community surround the plant in the 73rd percentile for the PM EJ 
Index and 67th percentile for ozone EJ Index when compared to the rest 
of the country. The Commenters state that analysis conducted by a Clean 
Air Task Force, based on 2019 emissions, shows that Plant Bowen's 
emissions are responsible for ``59 deaths, 7 hospital admissions, 13 
asthma ER visits, 28 heart attacks, 34 cases of acute bronchitis, 637 
asthma attacks, and 3020 lost work days each year.'' The Commenters 
also highlight the community surrounding IP-Savannah, which they state 
is 37 percent low-income and 59 percent people of color, as well as 
being in the 77th percentile for the PM EJ index when compared to the 
rest of the country. Additionally, the Commenters argue that the 
population surrounding the Rome Linerboard Mill, a facility that 
Georgia did not select or analyze in its SIP revision and EPA does not 
discuss in its proposal, is comprised of 44 percent low-income and 40 
percent people of color, and in the 82nd percentile for PM EJ index and 
71st percentile for ozone EJ index. The Commenters contend that the 
sources from the facilities identified above are likely adversely 
impacting those communities and assert that EPA can and must hold 
Georgia accountable to consider EJ impacts of haze pollution from in-
state sources, as well as analyze the potential disparate impacts of 
its action on Georgia's SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ EJScreen, an EJ screening and mapping tool, is available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 27: EPA disagrees with this comment but acknowledges the 
EJScreen information provided by the Commenters. The regional haze 
statutory provisions do not explicitly address considerations of EJ and 
neither do the regional haze regulatory requirements of the second 
planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of 
explicit direction does not preclude a State's SIP consideration of EJ 
in its SIP submittal. As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance 
Environmental Justice,'' \79\ the CAA provides states with the 
discretion to consider EJ in developing rules and measures related to 
regional haze. While a state may consider EJ under the reasonable 
progress factors, neither the statute nor the regulation requires 
states to conduct an EJ analysis for EPA to approve a SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice'', 
May 2022, available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, Georgia elected not to consider EJ under the 
reasonable progress factors. In Appendix H of the Haze Plan, in 
response to an EJ comment received from the NPCA and Sierra Club, GA 
EPD states that the purpose of the RHR is to improve visibility in the 
Class I areas, not to look at health impacts from criteria pollutants 
in areas outside Class I areas, which is addressed through the 
implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In 
addition, GA EPD notes that it has not identified any EJ communities 
living in any Class I areas whose visibility would be 
disproportionately impacted by GA EPD's selection of reasonable 
progress controls.
    As discussed in the NPRM and in this notice of final rulemaking, 
EPA has evaluated Georgia's SIP submission against the statutory and 
regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it satisfies 
those minimum requirements. Furthermore, the CAA and applicable 
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an 
evaluation of EJ with a regional haze SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is 
finalizing the incorporation by reference into Georgia's SIP GA EPD 
Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 for Bowen Steam-Electric Generating 
Plant (State effective September 6, 2023), GA EPD Permit No. 2631-051-
0007-V-04-1 for International Paper--Savannah (State effective October 
20, 2023), and GA EPD Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3 for Brunswick 
Cellulose LLC (State effective October 25, 2023). EPA has made, and 
will continue to make, these materials generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER

[[Page 92065]]

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). 
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in 
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are 
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will 
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Georgia's August 11, 2022, SIP submission as 
satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning 
period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). Thus, EPA is adopting into 
Georgia's SIP GA EPD Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 for Bowen Steam-
Electric Generating Plant, GA EPD Permit No. 2631-051-0007-V-04-1 for 
International Paper--Savannah, and GA EPD Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-
07-3 for Brunswick Cellulose LLC.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rulemaking does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on communities with EJ concerns to the 
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
    Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on 
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the 
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of 
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or 
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that 
affect human health and the environment.
    Georgia EPD did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of 
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral 
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. 
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there 
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of 
E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2025. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 14, 2024.
Cesar Zapata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570(d), amend ``Table 2 to Paragraph (d)'' by adding 
entries for ``Bowen Steam-Electric Generating Plant'', ``International 
Paper-Savannah'', and ``Brunswick Cellulose LLC'' at the end of the 
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

[[Page 92066]]

                   Table 2 to Paragraph (d)--EPA-Approved Georgia Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
         Name of source                 Permit No.            effective    EPA approval  date       Comments
                                                                date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bowen Steam-Electric Generating      4911-015-0011-V-04-3        9/6/2023  11/21/2024,         .................
 Plant.                                                                     [Insert first
                                                                            page of Federal
                                                                            Register
                                                                            citation].
International Paper--Savannah..      2631-051-0007-V-04-1      10/20/2023  11/21/2024,         .................
                                                                            [Insert first
                                                                            page of Federal
                                                                            Register
                                                                            citation].
Brunswick Cellulose LLC........      2631-127-0003-V-07-3      10/24/2023  11/21/2024,         In Condition
                                                                            [Insert first       6.2.52, the
                                                                            page of Federal     phrase ``shall
                                                                            Register            use emissions
                                                                            citation].          factors'' means
                                                                                                ``shall use an
                                                                                                emissions factor
                                                                                                of 157 S lb/
                                                                                                Mgal.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.570(e), amend the table by adding an entry for 
``Regional Haze Plan--Second Planning Period'' at the end of the table 
to read as follows:
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or     State submittal
           provision               nonattainment      date/effective   EPA approval date        Explanation
                                        area               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan--Second       Georgia..........            8/11/22  11/21/2024,        ......................
 Planning Period.                                                       [Insert first
                                                                        page of Federal
                                                                        Register
                                                                        citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2024-26977 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```