# Appendix H.4 EPA Guidance for Setting Resonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze ProgramJotED STq~ .~s

Alk UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

z W

MEMORANDUM WASHINGTON, D .C

. 20460



### JUN - 120aT OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

SUBJECT : Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze

Program FROM : William L
. Wehrum /!` ~~ Acting Assistant Adminisk~at~'y \ TO : Regional Administrators,

EPA Regions 1-10

Please find attached the final Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program
. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to States and Tribes in developing their regional haze State or Tribal implementation plans due by December 17, 2007
. It provides information on setting Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs), and determining those measures necessary to meet these RPGs

. Setting the RPGs is a critical element of reaching the national goal of preventing future, and remedying existing, visibility impairment in our nation's Class I Federal areas . Please share the document with your States, Tribes, Regional Planning Organizations, and other interested parties

. If you have further questions regarding this guidance document, please contact me or have your staff contact Rhea Jones of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at (919) 541-2940 or jones .rhea@epa .gov . Attachment
cc : Stephen D

. Page, OAQPS William Harnett, AQPD Air Division Directors, EPA Regions 1-10

Internet Address (URL) * http //www epa .gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperJune 1, 2007 rev



### Guidanc e for Se tting Reasonable Progres s Goals Und er the R

egional Haz e Progra m

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy

Division Geographic Strategies Gr oup Research Triangle Park, NCGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

i TABLE OF CO NTENTS Abbr eviat ions and A crony ms .................................................. iii 1.0 I NTRODUCTI ON ...................................................... 1 - 1 1.1 Legislative and Regulatory History ............................... 1 - 1 1.2 Meaning of the Term “Reasonab le Pro gress G oal” .................. 1 - 2 1.3 Relations hip of Reasona ble Pro gress to

BART and the Long Term Strategy ........................................ 1 - 4
2.0 O VER VI EW O F THE P ROCESS FOR D EVELOPING THE RPG ................... 2 - 1 2.1 Establish Bas eline and Na tural Visi

bility Condit

ions ................ 2 - 1 2.2 Deter mine the

Glidepath, or Unifor m Rate of Progr ess ............... 2 - 2 2.3 Identify and A nalyze the Measure s Aimed

at Achie ving the Uniform

Rate of P rogress .................................... 2 - 3 2.4 Estab lish a RPG ............................................... 2 - 4
3.0 I DENTI FYIN G K EY P OLLUTANT S AND S OURCE C ATEGORIES FOR THE F IRST P LANNING P ERIOD ............................................................. 3 - 1 3.1 Identificat

ion of Source

Categor ies Fro m Which The se Pollut ants and Their Precursors Are Emitte d ................................ 3 - 1
4.0 I DENTI FY C ONTROL M EASURE S FOR C ONTRIB UTING S OURCE C ATEGORI ES F OR THE F IRST P LANNING P ERIOD .............................................. 4 - 1 4.1 Consideration of Emissions Reductions from State, Federal, and Local Control Measures ..................................... 4 - 1Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

ii

4.2 Identification of Additional Emission Control Strategies for the Source Categories Identified ..................................... 4 - 2
5.0 A PPL YING S TATUTORY F ACTORS T O P OTENTI ALLY A FFE CTED S TATI ONARY S OURCES ........................................................... 5 - 1 5.1 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (a): Costs of Compliance ....... 5 - 1 5.2 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (b): Time Necessary for Com pliance

............................................................. 5 - 2 5.3 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (c): Energy and Non-Air Impacts 5 - 2 5.4 Reasonable

Progr ess Statutory Fac tor (d): The Rem aining Useful L ife of the Source ....................................................... 5 - 3Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

iii Abbr eviat ions and A crony ms BACT - Best A vaila ble Co ntrol Techno logy BART - Best A vaila ble Re trofi t Tech nolo gy CAA- Clean Air Act CAIR - Clean Air Interstate Rule CFR - Code of Federal Regulations dv - Deciviews EPA - Environmental Protection Agency FLM - Federal L and Manager FR - Federal Register NOx - A mixture of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), nitric oxide (NO), and other nitrogen oxide gases NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standa rd OAQPS - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards PM 2.5 - Par

ticul ate M atter of 2 .5 mic ronsor le ss in s ize RHR - Regional Haze R

ule RPG - Reasonable Progress Goal RPO - Regional Planning Organization SIP - State Implementation Plan yr - YearGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

1 CAA § 169A (b)(2).

1 - 1 1.0 I NTRODUCTI ON The purp ose of thi s documen t is to provi de guid

ance to St ates in se tting re asonable progre ss goals

(RPGs) as

part of their regional haze state impl ementati on plans ( SIPs)and in deciding those mea sures ne cessar

y to meet thes e goals . We empha size that th is docume

nt is merely guidance and that States or the Envi ronmenta l Protecti on Agen

cy (EPA) ma

y e lect to follow or deviate from this guidance, as appropr iate. The ultimate determination of whether a given SIP submission by

a State meets the statutory r equirements of sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 - 309 will be accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking in which the facts and circumstances of each State submission will be evaluated by EPA. Under the Tribal Authority Rule, 40 CFR part 49, Tribes have the authority to seek “treatment as a State” for purposes of administering certain CAA programs, including the region al haze pr ogram. Whether T

ribes se ek this au

thority or not, EPA

encoura ges Tr ibes to participate in the regional planning e fforts to address visibility and to consult with neighbor ing States as they deve lop their regional haze SIPs. We hope that this guida nce will provide Tribes with an understanding of the process for e stablishing RPGs that will assist them in the consulta tion proc ess. 1.1 Legislative and Regulatory History The CAA was amended in August 1977, and a new section 169A was added for the protect ion of visib ility

in mandat

ory class I Feder al area s (Class I

areas) of gre at sceni c importanc e. I

n section 169A(a) (1), Cong

ress esta blished the nationa

l goal f or visibili ty protect ion: Congress hereby declares as a national goal 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. Section 16 9A(a)(

4), in par t, requir es EPA to “

promulg ate reg

ulations to

assure r easonab le progre ss toward

meeting the national goa

l.” The CA

A also re quires Sta

tes to submi

t SIPs containing such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measure s as may be necessa ry to make r

easonab le prog

ress towa rd meetin g the g oal. 1Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

2 64 F R 3 571 4 (co dified a t 40 C FR 51.3 00-3 09)
. 3 40 C FR 51.3 08( d)(1 ). 4 40 C FR 51.3 08( d)(3 ). 5 40 C FR 51.3 08( e). 6 70 F R 3 910 4 (Ju ly 6, 20 05)
. 7 40 C FR 51.3 08( d)(1 ).
1 - 2 In the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congr ess added section 169B to strengthen and reaffi rm the natio nal goa l. Se ction 169B(e ) call s for E PA to “carry out the Ad mini strat or's regula tory responsi bilities un

der [section 169A], i

ncluding criteri a for me asuring

‘reasonable progress’ toward the national g oal.” In response to these mandate s, EPA promulgated the regional haze rule ( RHR) on July 1, 1999. 2 Under se ction 51.3 08(d)(1 ) of this r ule, State s must “est

ablish g oals (expr

essed in decivie ws) that provide f

or reas onable pr

ogress towards a

chieving natural visibility condition s” for eac h Class I area within a Stat

e. These RPGs must pr

ovide for an improv ement in visibility for the most impaired day s over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no deg radation in visibility for the least impaired day s over the same period. 3 The RHR also requires States to submit a long-term strategy that includes such measures as are necessary

to achieve the RPG for each Class I area. 4 The reg

ulations r equire St ates to consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area source s in developing their long-term strategies. I n addition, States must submit a SIP that contains either emission limitations

repres enting b est avai lable re trofit te chnolog

y (BART) f

or cert ain sourc es put into operation between 1962 and 1977 or alterna tive meas ures tha t provide for gr eater r easonab le progress than BART. 5 The BART require ments wer

e addre ssed in a r

ule revi sing ce

rtain provision s of the r

egulat ions in section 51.308 (e) and promulg ating the BART G uideline s. 6 1.2 Meaning of the Term “Reasonab le Pro gress G oal” States must establish RPGs, measured in deciviews (dv), for each Class I area for the purpose of improving visibility on the haziest day s and ensuring no degrada tion in visibility on the clearest days over the period of each implementation plan. 7 RPGs are interim goals that represent incremental visibility improvement over time toward the goal of natural ba ckground conditions and are developed in consultation with other affecte d States and Federal L andGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

8 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and 51.30 8(i).
9 CA A §1 69A (g)(1 ); 40 C FR 51.3 08( d)(1 )(i)(A)
. 10 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
1 - 3 Managers (FL

M). 8 In determining wha

t would constitute reasonable progress, section 169A(g ) of the CAA require s States to c onsider t he follow ing four factor s:

• The costs of compliance;

• The time necessary for compliance;

• The energy

and non-air quality e

nvironmental impacts of compliance; and

• The rema

ining use ful life o f existing sources that cont ribute to v

isibility impairme

nt. 9 States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors ar e taken into consideration in selecting the RPG for each Class I ar ea in the State. The discussion of the statutory fa ctors in this guidance is largely aimed at helping States apply these fa

ctors in considering measures for point sources. States may find that the factors can be a pplied to s ources other tha n point sour

ces; the meaning of the fa ctors, however, should not be unduly strained in order to fit non-point sources. In other words, if c ommon sense dictates that a particular statutory

factor cannot be applied to a particular sour ce category

, then the State’s analysis may

reflect that fact, and emissions reductions from such source s may still be included in the SI P. As noted above, the RHR establishes an additional analy tical requirement for States in the process of establishing the RPG. This analy tical requirement requires States to determine the rate of improveme

nt in visibil ity needed to

reach natural c onditions by 20 64, and to set each RPG taking t his “gli depath”

into acc ount. 10 (The process for determining the g lidepath is discussed later in this document.) EPA adopted this approach, in part, to ensure that States use a c ommon analy tical fr amework that acc ounts for

the regional diff

erence s affecting visib ility and, in pa

rt, to ensure an informed and equitable decision making process. The glidepath is not a presumptive targe t, and Stat

es may establish a RPG that provides f

or gre ater, le sser, or

equivale nt visibility improvement as that described by the glidepath.Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

11 40 C FR 51.3 08( d)(3 ),
1 - 4 In deciding wha

t amount of emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, y ou should take into account the fact that the long-term goal of no manmade impairment encompasses several planning periods. I t is reasonable for y

ou to defer reductions to later planning periods i n order t o maintain

a consist ent glid epath toward the l ong-te

rm goal
. 1.3 Relationship of Reasonable Progress to BART and the Long-Term Strategy The RPGs, the long-term strategy , and BART (or alternative measures in lieu of B ART) are the three main elements of the reg ional haze SIPs that States are required to submit by December 17, 2007. The long-term stra tegy and BART emissions limitations or other alternative measures, including cap-and-tra de programs or other economic ince ntive approaches, are inheren tly r elated to the RPG. The long- term stra tegy is the comp ilation of

“enfor ceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessar y to achieve

the [RPGs],” 11 and is the

means thr

ough wh ich the Sta

te ensur es that its RPG will be met. BART emissions l imits (or a

lternati ve measu res in lie u of BART , such as t

he Clean Air I nterstat e Rule (CAIR)) are one

set of measures that must be included in the SIP to ensure tha t an area makes reasonable progress toward the national goal, and the visibility improveme nt resulting from BART (or a BART alternative) is included in the de velopment of the RPG.Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

12 64 F R at 3 573 0.
13 For more detail on determining baseline and natur al conditions, you can review the preamble and regulations in the RH R, 64 F R at 35 728 – 357 30, 40 CFR 51.30 8(d)(2 ), EPA ’s Gu idanc e for Track ing Pro gress Un der th e Re gion al H aze R ule , EPA-454/B-03-004 (September 2003) avai lable a t www. epa.g ov/t

tn/ oarpg/ t1/memoranda/rh

_tpur hr_gd. pdf

, an d EP A’s Gu idan ce for E stima ting N atura l Visibility Co nditio ns U nde r the R egio nal H aze R ule , EPA-454/B-03-005 (September 2003) avai lable a t www. epa.g ov/t

tn/ oarpg/ t1/memoranda/rh

_envcurhr_g d.pdf

.

2 - 1 2.0 O VER VI EW O F THE P ROCESS FOR D EVELOPING THE RPG Development of the RPG for each Class I area should be a collaborative proce ss among State, local, and Tribal authorities, Regional Planning Org anizations (RPOs), and FLMs. Steps for deve loping RPG s will be br iefly outlined in

this secti on of the g

uidance , along

with references to other guida

nce and rules where additional detail can be found. The remaining sections of this g uidance expand on p articula

r aspects of these

steps. I n addition , as this is guidance for States in developing RPGs, the use of “ you” throug

h the rest of the document refers to States. 2.1 Establish Bas eline and Na tural Visi

bility Condit

ions To track progre ss toward

the national goa

l, the RHR, a

mong othe

r things , requir

es y ou to establish the “bas eline conditions” repres enting v

isibility for the b est and worst day s at the time the regional haze program is established f or each Class I ar

ea. Once established, the baseline repres ents the s tarting

point from which re asonable progre ss will be me asured. The RHR al so require s yo

u to estima

te “natu ral cond itions” for each C lass I

area that repr

esents th e visiblity condition s that woul d exist in the absence of man-ma

de impair ment. As explaine d in the RHR, the base line for e ach Class I ar ea is the average visibility

(in dv) for the 20 percent most impaired day s, or “worst day s”, and for the 20 percent least impaired days, or “be st days,” for the years 2000 throug

h 2004. 12 Using available monitoring data for the 2000 to 2004 time period, you are required to calculate the baseline by averaging the annua

l values (in dv) for the 20 percent worst day s in each ye ar (yr

) to produce a single value (in dv) that represents the baseline conditions for the worst day s. You should follow the same approach for determining the value that represents the base line conditions for the best days. Na tural conditions at each Class I are a are also expressed by reference to the level of visibility (in dv) for the 20 per

cent most i

mpaired and least impaire d day s. 13Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

2 - 2

Figure 1 2.2 Deter mine the

Glidepat h, or Unifor m Rate of Progr ess By compa

ring baseline conditions with natural conditions, y ou can determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement, or prog ress, needed to reach natural conditions by 2064 for each Class I area. Fig

ure 1, below, illustrates the basic steps in the process for calc ulating the uniform rate of progre ss toward

natural condition s for the

first pla nning pe riod at a hyp othetica

l Class I area.

Figure 1 Exam ple of a U niform Rate of Pro gress

• Compare baseline conditions to natural conditions. The difference be tween these two repres ents the a

mount of pr

ogress needed to reach natura

l visibility

condition s. In

this example, the State has determined that the baseline for the 20 perce nt worst days for the Class I area is 29 dv and estimated that na tural background is 11 dv, a differenc e of 18 dv.

• Calculate the annual average visibility improvement needed to reac h natural conditions by 2064 by

dividing the total amount of improvement needed by 60 years (

the period between 2004 and 2064). I n this example, this value is 0.3 dv/yr.Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

2 - 3

• Multiply the annual avera ge visibility improvement nee ded by the number of years in the first planning period (the period from 2004 until 2018). I n this example, this value is 4.2 dv. This is the uniform rate of progress that would be neede d during the first planning period to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. If y ou were to achie ve this ste ady

improveme

nt in visibil ity over the next 60 y ears, y ou would reach the national goal by 2064. 2.3 Identify and Analyze the Measures Aimed at Achieving the Uniform Rate of Progress. The next step in setting an RPG is to identify and analy ze the measures aimed at achievi ng the u niform ra te of pro gress a

nd to dete rmine whe

ther the se measu

res are reasona ble based on the statutory f

actors identified in Section 1.2 above. To meet this requirement, we sugge st the foll owing a

pproach which en sures tha

t States consider a

ll reason able mea sures in developi ng their regional haze SI

Ps:

• Ide

ntify the key pollutants

and sourc es and/or

source c ategor

ies that a re contr ibuting t o visibility impairme

nt at eac h Class I area. T he sourc es of impa

irment for the most impaired and least impaire d day s may differ. Section 3 d

iscusses this proc ess.

• Ide

ntify the contr ol measur es and as sociate d emission r eduction s that are

expected to result fr om complia

nce with e

xisting rul es and

other available measures for the source s and sourc e categories tha t contribu te signi ficantly

to visibility

impairme

nt. This is covered in more detail in Section 4.

• Determine what additional control measures would be rea sonable based on the statutory factors and other relevant factors for the sources and/or source cate gories y ou have identified.

• Estimate t

hrough the use of

air qual ity m

odels the improveme

nt in visibil ity t

hat would result from implementation of the control measures y ou have found to be reasonable and compare this to the u

niform ra te of pro gress. Another possible approach that some States and RPOs are using is to “bac k out” the measures necessary

to achieve the uniform rate of progr ess. In this process, States are using dispersio n modeling

to estimat

e the visib ility

impacts of

a specif ic perc entage

reducti on in visibility impairing pollutants. The resulting visibility conditions are then compared to the unifo rm rat e of pro gress. Using t his p rocess , Sta tes wi ll be a ble to ident ify a percen tageGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

14 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
15 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
2 - 4 reduction in visibility impairing pollutants that would provide prog ress at or bey

ond the uniform rate of progress. I

n a separate step, States would consider the statutory factors along with other relevant factors to select appropriate me asures to achieve the identified reduction in emissions. States can thus identify the mea sures that would be needed to achieve the uniform ra te of progress at a Class I

area and determine whether suc h measures are reasonable. 2.4 Estab lish a RPG In developing a RPG, y

ou must consult with other States with emissions sources that may reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas in y our State. 14 The regulations anticipate that States may not always ag

ree on what measures would be reasonable or on the appropriateness of a RPG. We encourage States to work together e arly and often to resolve such issues. In addition, the F LMs may provide insight and assistance to States in identifying re gional approaches to address the RPG. The improvement in visibility resulting from implementation of the me asures you ha ve found to be reasonable, considering the unifor m rate of progress, is the amount of prog ress that repres ents y

our RPG. The regi onal haze rule re quires y

ou to clea rly support y

our RPG determination in your SI

P submission based on the statutory factors. 15Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

16 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
3 - 1 3.0 I DENTI FYIN G K EY P OLLUTANT S AND S OURCE C ATEGORIES FOR THE F IRST P LANNING P ERIOD This process begins with the identification of key pollutants and source categories that contribute to visibility impairment at the Class I area. Such analysis has been the subject of consider able stud y over the pa st decad

e, includ ing studi es by

the Gran d Cany on Visibilit

y Transport Commission and ong oing wor k by RPOs. For

the purpo se of this d

ocument, it is assumed that analyse s identifying the ke y pollutants contributing to visibility impairment have been conducted for each Class I area. 3.1 Identificat

ion of Source

Categor ies Fro m Which The se Pollut ants and Their Precursors Are Emitted Once the key

pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I area have been identified, the sources or source ca tegories responsible for emitting these pollutants or pollutant precursors can also be determined. There are several tools and techniques being employed by

the RPOs to do so, including analysis of emission inventories, sourc e apportionment, tra

jectory analy sis, and a tmospher ic modelin

g. Technical g

uidance on these t

ools and techniques is bey

ond the scope of this document. Instead, this document foc uses on policy considerations relevant to the identification of which source c ategories should be considered as part of the regional haze SI P development process. When identifying the sourc es or source categories r esponsible for regional haze, y ou should consider the relationship between the RPG and the requirements for long -term strategies. The reg ulations r equire St ates to c onsider major and minor stat

ionary sources , as well a s mobile and are a source s, in deve loping long-ter m strateg ies. 16 At a minimum, the regulations require you to con sider severa l fact ors wh en dev elopi ng a lon g-term strat egy, inclu ding t he fol lowi ng:

• Emissions reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment and those taken to attain t he fine p articula

te matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standa rds (NAAQS).

• Measure s to mitiga te the impa

ct of con struction

activitie s.

• Smoke management techniques for ag ricultural and forestry

management purposes .Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

17 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
3 - 2 • Anticipated visibility effects fr om changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions. 17 As illustrated by these fa

ctors, States should consider a broad array of sources and activitie s when de ciding w hich sour ces or so urce ca tegori es contr

ibute sig nifican tly t o visibility impairme nt.Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

18 40 C FR 51.3 08( d)(1 )(vi) . 19 40 C FR 5 1.308 (d)(3)(iii) provid es that the baseline emission inve ntory year is presume d to be the m ost recen t y ear of

the consol idat ed emis sion s i nvent ory f or th e SIP. A memoran dum fr om OAQPS, enti tl ed 200 2 Ba se Year E mission In ventory S IP Pla nning : 8-hr O zone, P M 2 .5, and Regio nal H aze Pro gram s ( November 18, 2002) (“20 02 E I M emo ”), iden tifies 200 2 as the anticipa ted b aseline emissio n inven tory yea r for reg ional h aze. See www. epa.g ov/t

tn/ oarpg/ t1/memoranda/2002by e_gm.pdf
20 2002 EI Memo at 3- 4.
4 - 1 4.0 I DENTI FY C ONTROL M EASURE S FOR C ONTRIB UTING S OURCE C ATEGORI ES F OR THE F IRST P LANNING P ERIOD There are numerous possible conceptual appr oaches that you c an use to identify control measures for the long-term strateg y and the re lated RPG. We suggest beginning by concentrating on possible

emissions r

eduction s of seve

ral pollut ant spec ies from a

few sele cted sour

ce sect ors, focusing on those so

urce ca tegori es that ma

y ha ve the g reates t impact on

visibility at Class I areas, considering cost and the other factors discussed further in Section 5.0. 4.1 Consideration of Emissions Reductions from State, Federal, and Local Control Measures One impor

tant factor to kee

p in mind whe

n establishing a RPG

is that y ou canno t adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from the implement

ation of o ther CAA r

equirements. 18 You must therefore determine the amount of emission r

eduction s that ca

n be expected from i dentifie d source s or sourc e categories as a result of requirements at the local, State, and federa l levels during the planning period of the SI P and the resulting improvements in visibility at Class I areas. Given the significant emissions reductions that we anticipate to result from BART, the CAI R, and the implementation of other CAA prog

rams, inc luding the ozone an d PM 2.5 NAAQS, for many States this will be an important step in de

termining you r RPG, and

it may be all tha t is nece ssary

to achie ve reas onable progress in the first planning period for some States. The first step in this process is to identify the base line emissions inventory y ear on which your strateg

ies are based. For the first RHR SI P, we anticipate that States will use 2002 as the baseline ye ar for e

mission inve

ntories. 19 If you do use 2 002, you m ay take cred it in your longterm strategy

for emission reductions achieved after 2002. This includes emission reductions from mea sures impl emented to attain t

he ozone a

nd PM 2.5 NAAQS, 20 and Federal progra ms, such as the na tional mobi le sourc e prog ram and f ederal standar ds for ha zardous a ir polluta nts (air toxics).Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

21 Inform ation o n AirC ontro lNE Tc an be found at www. epa. gov/ tt n/ ecas /ec ont ool. ht ml . The RA CT /BA CT /LAE R C learing hous e is loca ted at http://cfpu b.ep a.gov /rblc/htm /bl02 .cfm
. 4 - 2 4.2 Identification of Additional Emissions Control Strategies for the Source Categories Identified After de termining the amoun

t of emissi ons reduc

tions of vis ibility

impairing

pollutants that may be expected f

rom implementation of other CAA programs, y ou will be ready to identify any additional measur

es that are reasonable. The RHR give s States wide latitude to determine additional control requirements, and there are many ways to approa

ch identifying

additional reasonable measures; however, y ou must at a minimum, consider the four statutory fa ctors. Based on the contribution from certain source c ategories and the magnitude of the ir emissions you may determine that little additional analysis is require d to determine further controls are not warran ted for that cate gory . As discu ssed fur ther in se ction 5, y

ou have c onsidera

ble flexibi lity in how y ou take these fac

tors into c onsidera

tion. I n addition

to source -specif

ic contr ols, emissions cap-and-trade progra ms may be considere d. Sources of information on control techniques for specific source cate gories include the RACT/BACT/LA ER Clearinghouse and EPA’s AIRControlNet database. 21 One appr oach tha t yo u could ta ke to stre amline what could b e an extre mely complex task would be to first identify alterna tive control scenarios with different levels of stringe ncy. Eac h control scenario would assume application of specific control leve ls or measures to the sources or source categories y

ou have identified as the significant sources of visibility impairment. As indicate d previou sly

in section

4.1, the st

arting point for this asses sment is the

visibility improvement achieved as a result of BART, the CAI R, and the implementation of other CAA progra ms, includ

ing othe r measur es for a ttainment of the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Yo u would then consider whether any additional control scenarios are reasonable based on your consider ation of the statutor

y f actors a nd any other fa ctors y ou have d etermine d are re levant. Another approac h yo u could ta ke, cons istent with

the “bac k out” app

roach di scussed i

n section 2.3, would involve identifying the set of emissions control measures that achieves the target percentag e reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants associate d with progress at or beyond the uniform ra

te of progress. The selection of control measures to include in this set would be guided by

your considera

tion of the statutory factors and any other factors you ha

ve determined are r

elevant
. Note that for some sources determined to be subject to BART, the State w ill already have completed a BART analysis. Since the BART analy sis is based, in part, on an assessment of many of the sa me factors that must be addr essed in e stablishin

g the RPG , it is rea sonable t oGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

4 - 3

conclude that any

control requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for source re view in the first RPG planning period. Hence, y ou may conclude that no ad

ditional e missions controls ar

e neces sary

for thes e source s in the first planning period.Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

22 As no ted ab ove , app lication o f the cos t factor to non-p oint so urces is beyo nd the scop e of this gu idanc e. This is also true for mo bile sources. 5 - 1 5.0 A PPL YING S TATUTORY F ACTORS T O P OTENTI ALLY A FFE CTED S TATI ONARY S OURCES In de termining reasona ble prog ress, CAA

§169A(g )(1) re quires Sta

tes to take

into consider ation a nu mber of f actors. Howeve

r, y ou have f lexibility in how to ta

ke into consideration these statutory factors and any

other factors that y

ou have determined to be relevant. For example, the factors could be used to sele ct which sources or activities should or should not b e regu

lated, or they could be u sed to det

ermine the level or string ency of contr ol, if any, for se lected sources or activities, or some combination of both. The factors may be considered both individually and/or in combination. As noted in sec tion 4.1, given the significant emissions reductions that we anticipate to result from BART, the CAI R, and the implementation of other CAA programs, these reductions may be all that is necessary

to achieve reasona ble prog ress in the

first pla nning pe riod for some State s. Also, a s noted in s ection 4. 2, it is not nec essary

for y ou to rea ssess the

reasona ble prog ress fa ctors for source s subject

to BART for whic h yo u have a lready complete d a BART a

nalysis. 5.1 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (a): Costs of Compliance The first factor to take into consideration is the “costs of compliance .” In this context we believe that the cost of compliance factor ca n be interpreted to encompass the cost of compliance for individual sour

ces or so urce ca tegori es, and more broa

dly the implic ation of c omplianc e costs to the hea lth and vita

lity of industr

ies within a state. For add

itional g uidance on apply ing the c ost of complia

nce fac tor to stat ionary sources , yo

u may wish to con sult the B ART guid elines, referenced above. To assess compliance costs for individual sources or source c ategories potentially subject to emission limitations, we suggest that you use established control cost analy sis techniques. For stati onary sou rces, ge nerall y this in volv es the follo wing: 22 a) Identify

the emissions units to be controlled; b) Identify

the design parameters for emissions controls; and c) Develop

cost estimates bas ed upon those desig n parame ters.Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

23 Any additional inf

ormation used for the cost cal culations, including any information suppli ed by vendors that aff ects your ass umpti ons r egardi

ng pur chas ed equi pment cost s, equipme nt l if e, r eplac ement

of maj or components, and any ot her el ement of the cal culat ion th at dif fers from th e Co ntrol C ost M anu al, shoul d be docu mented . EPA ’s Control Cost Manual

is locate d at: www.e pa.go v/ttncatc 1/pr odu cts.html# cccin fo

. 5 - 2 You should evaluate both average a nd incremental costs. To maintain and improve consistency wherev er possib le, cost e stimates should be b ased on EPA’s Air Pollutio n Control Cos t Manual
. 23 In considering the c ost of compliance factor, y ou should keep in mind that different pollutants differently impact visibilityimpairment. For example, on a ton basis, sulfur dioxiderelated particles have a gr eater impact on visibility impairment than cr ustal material. Therefore, in ass essin g addit ional emiss ions reduct ion s trate gies fo r sour ce cate gories or ind ivid ual, l arge scale sources, simple cost effectiveness estimates ba sed on a dollar-per-ton calculation may not be as meaningful as a dollar-per -deciview calculation, especially if the strategies reduce diffe rent groups of polluta

nts. 5.2 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (b): Time Necessary for Com pliance The second factor is the “time necessar y for complianc e.” It may be appropriate for y

ou to use this f

actor to adjust the

RPG to ref

lect the d egree of improv ement in visibility achieva ble within the period of the first SIP if the time needed for full implementation of a control measure (or measures) will extend bey ond 2018. For example, if you a nticipate that constraints on the availability of construction labor will preclude the installation of controls at all sources of a particu lar cate gory

by 2 018, the visibility

improveme

nt anticip ated fr

om installa

tion of controls at the pe rcenta ge of so urces that could be controlled within the strategy period should be considered in setting the RPG and in establishing the SI P requirements to meet the RPG. 5.3 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (c): Energy and Non-Air Impacts The th ird fa ctor i s “ener gy and non- air env ironm ental impac ts.” In a ssess ing ene rgy impacts, you may

want to consider whether the energ y require ments associated with a control technology

result in energy

penalties. For example, controls on diesel engines may decrease the engine’s fuel efficiency

, leading to an increase in diesel fuel c onsumption. Or, a particular control may re quire a fuel unavailable in the area. To the extent that these considerations are quantifia ble they should be i

ncluded i n the engineerin

g analy ses suppor

ting com pliance cost estimate s. Some examples of non-air environmental impacts that y ou may wish to consider, ar e the effects of the waste stream that may be generated by

a particular control technology , and/or otherGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program

5 - 3

resource consumption rates such as water, wa ter supply, and wa ste water disposal. To the extent that these considerations are quantifiable, they should also be included in the analy ses supporting compliance cost e stimates. For add itional g uidance on apply ing this f actor to stationar y so urces, y ou may wish to consult the BART Guidelines, referenced a bove. 5.4 Reasonable Progress Statutory Factor (d): The Remaining Useful Life of the Source The four th statutor

y f actor is “ the rema ining use ful life o f any

existing so

urce sub ject to [reasonable progress] requirements.” This fac tor is generally

best treated as one element of the overall cost analy sis. The “remaining useful life” of a sourc e, if it represents a relatively short time period, may af

fect the annualized costs of retrofit controls. For example, the methods for calcula ting ann ualized c osts in EPA’ s Air Pollution Control Cost Manualrequire the use of a specified time period for amortization that varies based upon the ty pe of control. If the remaining useful life of the source will clea rly exceed this time period, the re maining useful life factor has essentially

no effect on control costs and on the reasonable pr ogress determination process. Where the remaining useful life of the source is less than the time period for amortizing the costs of the re trofit control, y

ou may wish to use

this shorte

r time per iod in y our cost calcula tions. For add itional g uidance on apply ing this f actor to stationar y so urces, y ou may wish to consult the BART Guidelines, referenced a bove.