SC DHEC Transport Rule Oral Testimony Page 1 of 4 

Testimony of Robert Brown, Director, Division 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, and I represent the Bureau of Air Quality, 

within the South Carolina Department of Health and 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 Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 

commonly called the Transport Rule. 

 The South Carolina Department of Health and 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 public health benefits, but we have concerns 

about its implementation and the potential negative 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 Quality Standards, or NAAQS, is inefficient. The 

EPA intends to revise the Transport Rule with each new revision to a relevant NAAQS. 

Presumably, this means that the EPA will tighten the budgets with each NAAQS revision: Ozone 

this fall, PM2.5 in 2011, and so forth. South Carolina certainly welcomes the ultimate public 

health and environmental benefits that these new tightened budgets could bring, but revising the 
SC 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 the 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 process that will ultimately involve state and local 

air agencies, as well as other stakeholders, in developing a comprehensive approach to air quality 

management that provides an opportunity for integrated multi-pollutant planning. 

Our second comment centers on the increases in allowable sulfur dioxide and oxides of 

nitrogen (SOX and NOx, respectively) budgets that some states are to receive under the proposed 

Transport Rule. These possible increases in allowable NOx and SO2 emissions are troubling, 

especially given the recently lowered NOx and SO2 primary NAAQS, the current reconsideration 

of the 2008 ozone standard and the imminent review of the fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, 

NAAQS. While we understand the technical reasons for why this happened, it is hard to 

contemplate why the EPA is not taking this opportunity to address the more stringent NAAQS 

and bring about the public health and environmental benefits that the NAAQS are intended to 

address. The budgeting process in the Transport Rule considered downwind nonattainment, and 

interference with maintenance; and the proposed budgets are the modeled amounts of NOx and 

SO2 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 quality. For example, there is a proposed 103 % increase in South 

Carolina’s SO2 budget from the CAIR to the Transport Rule. Under the CAIR, South Carolina 

sources were allowed a budget of 57,271 tons of SO2 per year. However, in the proposed 

Transport Rule South Carolina sources would be given a budget of 111,342 tons of SO2 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 source universe without existing Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) controls in the Transport Rule modeling. South Carolina contends that the 

EPA’s modeling should recognize the limits and controls put in place to meet the requirement of 

CAIR because utilities are not operating in a world without the CAIR. South Carolina’s utilities 

(and their rate payers) committed considerable resources to installing and operating controls on 

several coal-fired units to meet the requirements 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 Plan, or SIP, guidance in the 

proposal. A FIP implies that a state has failed to meet its obligation and this is just not the case. 

South Carolina, would prefer the opportunity to implement these requirements through the SIP 

process. It is unclear why there is such urgency to replace our CAIR program in South Carolina 

with a less stringent Transport rule, only to have to update this rule to address the soon to be 

revised Ozone and PM2.5 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 before a final rule? 

The EPA has delayed many decisions, including SIP approvals, giving the reason that it 

could not rely on emissions controls installed to comply with the remanded yet still in place 

CAIR. Including more explanation on this question in the final rule is necessary to provide more 
SC DHEC Transport Rule Oral Testimony Page 4 of 4 

clarity and consistency than the EPA would achieve 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 standard, 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 pollution from upwind states does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, or interference with maintenance, 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 uncoordinated federal actions particularly where they 

backslide or don’t bring about additional 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 respond to these comments in the final rule. 

Again, South Carolina generally supports the proposed Transport Rule and the public health and 

environmental benefits that it provides. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide oral 

comments on this rulemaking. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.