SC DHEC Transport Rule Oral Testimony Page 1 of 4 Testimony of Robert Brown, Director, Divi sion of Air Assessment, Innovation and Regulations, Bureau of Air Quality, SC Department of Health and Environmental Control, on the US EPA’s proposal, Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (75 FR 45210, August 2, 2010) Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491 Atlanta Public Hearing, September 1, 2010.
Good Afternoon. My name is Robert Brown, a nd I represent the Bureau of Air Quality, within the South Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control. I would like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to provide comments on EPA’s proposed rule entitled Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Tran sport of Fine Partic ulate Matter and Ozone , commonly called the Transport Rule. The South Carolina Department of Health a nd Environmental Control is the public health agency for the State of South Carolina, and we are committed to promoting and protecting the health of the public and the environment for the State of South Carolina. We generally support the proposed Transport Rule, and its important pub lic health benefits, but we have concerns about its implementation and the potential negati ve impact on air quality in South Carolina. In my testimony today, I will focus on just a few of the comments that South Carolina has for the EPA on this proposal. We will make our full response in our comment letter. First, the proposed Transport Rule offers further evidence that the current uncoordinated approach to setting the National Ambient Air Qua lity Standards, or NAAQS, is inefficient. The EPA intends to revise the Transport Rule w ith each new revision to a relevant NAAQS. Presumably, this means that the EPA will tight en the budgets with each NAAQS revision: Ozone this fall, PM 2.5 in 2011, and so forth. South Carolina certainly welcomes the ultimate public health and environmental benefits that these new tightened budge ts could bring, but revising theSC DHEC Transport Rule Oral Testimony Page 2 of 4 Transport Rule according to the unaligned schedules of NAAQS revisions is unnecessarily complex and benefits to public health and th e environment could be delayed as rules and regulations are litigated. In addition this approach would hamper the long-term planning on which the emissions trading scheme depends. South Carolina supports making the necessary improvements to the Air Quality Management proce ss that will ultimately involve state and local air agencies, as well as other stakeholders, in de veloping a comprehensive approach to air quality management that provides an opportunity for integrated multi -pollutant planning. Our second comment centers on the increases inallowable sulfur di oxide and oxides of nitrogen (SO X and NO x , respectively) budgets that some stat es are to receive under the proposed Transport Rule. These possible increases in allowable NO x and SO 2 emissions are troubling, especially given the recently lowered NO x and SO 2 primary NAAQS, the current reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard and the imminent review of the fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5 , NAAQS. While we understand the technical reasons for why this happened, it is hard to contemplate why the EPA is not taking this oppo rtunity to address the more stringent NAAQS and bring about the public healthand environmental benefits that the NAAQS are intended to address. The budgeting process in the Transpor t Rule considered downwind nonattainment, and interference with maintenan ce; and the proposed budgets are the modeled amounts of NO x and
SO 2 that sources can emit without significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance downwind. However, the EPA did not account for the way a larger budget could potentially impact local air quali ty. For example, there is a pr oposed 103 % increase in South Carolina’s SO 2 budget from the CAIR to the Transport Rule. Under the CAIR, South Carolina sources were allowed a budget of 57,271 tons of SO 2 per year. However, in the proposed Transport Rule South Carolina sources w ould be given a budget of 111,342 tons of SO 2 per year.SC DHEC Transport Rule Oral Testimony Page 3 of 4 This proposal to increase allowable emissions seems to contradict the spirit of anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, the EPA assumed a stationary s ource universe without existing Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) controls in the Transport Rule modeling. S outh Carolina contends that the EPA’s modeling should recognize the limits and contro ls put in place to meet the requirement of CAIR because utilities are not operating in a worl d without the CAIR. South Carolina’s utilities (and their rate payers) committed considerable re sources to installing and operating controls on several coal-fired units to meet the requirement s of the CAIR, and the EPA’s Transport Rule modeling should take into account the operation of these CAIR-based controls To address these unintended consequences South Carolina contends that the final Transport Rule should include provisions to require sources to maintain existing controls installed to comply with the CAIR. Our third comment is that South Carolina is concerned about the Federal Implementation Plan proposal and the lack of specific State Implementation Pl an, or SIP, guidance in the proposal. A FIP implies that a stat e has failed to meet its obligation and this is just not the case. South Carolina, would prefer th e opportunity to implement these requirements through the SIP process. It is unclear why ther e is such urgency to replace ou r CAIR program in South Carolina with a less stringent Transport ru le, only to have to update this rule to address the soon to be revised Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Further, there is little specificity in this proposal on how States would develop an appropriate SIP to replace the Transport Rule FIP. As this information has not been included in the proposal, would a re -proposal be required be fore a final rule? The EPA has delayed many decisions, includ ing SIP approvals, givi ng the reason that it could not rely on emissions controls installed to comply with the re manded yet still in place CAIR. Including more explanation on this question in the final rule is nece ssary to provide moreSC DHEC Transport Rule Oral Testimony Page 4 of 4 clarity and consistency than the EPA would achie ve by relying on the 10 EPA regions to develop their own guidance. Our fourth comment concerns the 2010 Ozone Standard. We trust that, even with the recently announced delay in the release of the revised standar d, the EPA will adhere to its commitment to promulgate a proposed revision to the Transport Rule in 2011 to address the finalized 2010 Ozone Standard, so that pollutio n from upwind states does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interference with maintenan ce, downwind, for this lower standard. As a result, and considering our earlier comments, South Carolina may wait until the 2011 Transport Rule to incorporate this rule in our SIP. We do not have the resources to continually update our SIP to address these uncoord inated federal actions particularly where they backslide or don’t bring about a dditional air quality improvement. This is yet another example of where EPA could demonstrate its commitment to reforming the SIP process to focus limited resources on air quality improvement and not process for the sake of process. South Carolina trusts that the EPA will re spond to these comments in the final rule. Again, South Carolina generally supports the pro posed Transport Rule an d the public health and environmental benefits that it provides. Th ank you again for the opportunity to provide oral comments on this rulemaking. I will be happy to answer any questi ons that you may have.