Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAQ_GEN_PLNG_20220404_SIP_RH-SIP_AppH1-H3Appendix H Federal Land Manager Consultation and Comments Table of Contents Appendix H-1 – Consultation with FLM PowerPoint Presentation (April 20, 2021) Appendix H-2 – Comments received from NPS Air Resources Division (June 4, 2021) Appendix H-3 – Comments received from USFS (June 3, 2021) This page intentionally left blank. Appendix H-1 Consultation with FLM PowerPoint Presentation (April 20, 2021) This page intentionally left blank. Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality April 20, 2021 Federal Land Manager Consultation Regional Haze SIP 18 VISTAS and 6 Nearby Non-VISTAS Class I Areas 2 Department of Environmental Quality Presentation Overview •Introductions and Opening Remarks •Past and Current Visibility Conditions for NC Class I Areas •Air Quality Modeling to Establish Reasonable Progress Goals for 2028 •Reasonable Progress Analysis •Area of Influence (AOI) analysis •Source apportionment analysis with Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) modeling •Four-Factor Analyses •Schedule for completing SIP by July 31, 2021 •Next Steps 3 Department of Environmental Quality Past and Current Visibility Conditions Particle Contributions to Light Extinction and Standard Visual Range (from Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Monitoring Data) 4 Department of Environmental Quality Visibility Improvements (20% Most Impaired Days) Particle Contributions to Light Extinction and Standard Visual Range 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200 250 2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Standard Visual Range (miles)Extinction (Mm-1)GSMNP / Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area 6 Great Smoky Mountains National Park 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 20012002200320042005200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Standard Visual Range (miles)Extinction (Mm-1)Linville Gorge Wilderness Area Visibility Improvements (20% Most Impaired Days) Particle Contributions to Light Extinction and Standard Visual Range 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 250 2001200220032004200520062007200820092012201320142015201620172018Standard Visual Range (miles)Extinction (Mm-1)Shining Rock Wilderness Area Visibility Improvements (20% Most Impaired Days) Particle Contributions to Light Extinction and Standard Visual Range 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2001200220032004200620072009201020112012201320142015201620172018Standard Visual Range (miles)Extinction (Mm-1)Swanquarter Wilderness Area Visibility Improvements (20% Most Impaired Days) Particle Contributions to Light Extinction and Standard Visual Range Annual and Rolling 5-Year Average Data 20% Clearest Days Department of Environmental Quality 9 13.58 5 10 15 20 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020Haziness Index (Deciviews)Great Smoky Mountains 11.11 5 10 15 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Linville Gorge 7.7 0 5 10 15 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Shining Rock 12.34 5 10 15 20 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Swanquarter Historical EGU Emissions 10 Department of Environmental Quality NC SO2 Emissions Trends 11 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 2011 2017NEI 2028VISTASAnnual Emissions in Tons/YearChemical & Allied Product Mfg Fuel Comb. Elec. Util.Fuel Comb. Industrial Fuel Comb. Other Highway Vehicles Metals Processing Miscellaneous Off-Highway Other Industrial Processes Petroleum & Related Industries Solvent Utilization Storage & Transport Waste Disposal & Recycling NC NOx Emissions Trends 12 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 2011 2017NEI 2028VISTASAnnual Emissions in Tons/YearChemical & Allied Product Mfg Fuel Comb. Elec. Util.Fuel Comb. Industrial Fuel Comb. Other Highway Vehicles Metals Processing Miscellaneous Off-Highway Other Industrial Processes Petroleum & Related Industries Solvent Utilization Storage & Transport Waste Disposal & Recycling Conclusions 13 Department of Environmental Quality •For NC and Nearby Class I areas: •Ammonium sulfate continues to be the primary pollutant contributing to visibility impairment on the most impaired and clearest days •Stationary point sources are primary emission sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) •Electricity generating units (EGUs) •Industrial facilities (pulp and paper and phosphate manufacturing) •NOx emissions steadily decreasing but nitrate fraction starting to increase in some Class I areas •Need to evaluate why for next planning period Air Quality Modeling to Establish Reasonable Progress Goals for 2028 14 Department of Environmental Quality VISTAS Modeling Domains 15 Department of Environmental Quality •Started with EPA’s 2011/2028 modeling platform o Version 6.3el o CAMx v6.32 •Replaced CAMx v6.32 with CAMx v6.40 •Used 2011 meteorology •Reasons for using EPA platform o Time limited o Budget limited o Most source sectors acceptably represented in EPA platform VISTAS Air Quality Modeling Platform 16 Department of Environmental Quality Emissions Inventory Development 17 Department of Environmental Quality •Used EPA’s 2011 modeling platform (Version 6.3el) as is •Used EPA’s 2028 emissions for all sectors except for point sources •Revised 2028 point-source emissions •For EGUs, remove effects of Clean Power Plan (vacated) for all states •Each VISTAS state revised its own EGU and non-EGU point emissions •Non-VISTAS state EGU emissions taken from ERTAC v2.7 (for Area of Influence analysis and initial PSAT modeling) but later revised to ERTAC v16.0 or v16.1 for modeling reasonable progress goals •Non-VISTAS state non-EGU emissions revised for some facilities based on state input •Compared model results to observations. Looked at statistics, comparison plots, and spatial plots •Ozone •PM2.5 and light extinction •Wet and dry deposition •Overall, the model performance is generally within the range deemed acceptable for regulatory applications Model Performance Evaluation 18 •Calculation of relative response factors (RRFs) •Gives average percent change in pollutant or species concentrations due to emission changes between 2011 and 2028 •Percent change applied to monitor data (2009 –2013) by species to calculate design values for 2028 (i.e., reasonable progress goals (RPGs) measured in deciviews) VISTAS Future Year (2028) Model Projections 19 Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path 20 27.52 24.66 21.49 18.31 15.13 11.96 10.05 29.11 15.03 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064Haziness Index (Deciviews)Year Glide Path Natural Condition (Most Impaired) Observation (Most Impaired) Model Projection (Most Impaired) Rolling Average (Most Impaired)RPG GSMNP / Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area 20% Most Impaired Days Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path 21 26.52 23.77 20.71 17.65 14.59 11.54 9.70 28.05 14.25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064Haziness Index (Deciviews)Year Linville Gorge Wilderness Area -20% Most Impaired Days Glide Path Natural Condition (Most Impaired) Observation (Most Impaired) Model Projection (Most Impaired) Rolling Average (Most Impaired) RPG Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path 22 26.64 23.96 20.98 18.00 15.02 12.04 10.25 28.13 13.31 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064Haziness Index (Deciviews)Year Shining Rock Wilderness Area -20% Most Impaired Days Glide Path Natural Condition (Most Impaired) Observation (Most Impaired) Model Projection (Most Impaired) Rolling Average (Most Impaired) RPG Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path 23 22.64 20.57 18.28 15.98 13.68 11.39 10.01 23.79 15.27 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064Haziness Index (Deciviews)Year Swanquarter Wilderness Area -20% Most Impaired Days Glide Path Natural Condition (Most Impaired) Observation (Most Impaired) Model Projection (Most Impaired) Rolling Average (Most Impaired) RPG Annual and Rolling 5-Year Average Data 20% Clearest Days Department of Environmental Quality 24 13.58 8.96 5 10 15 20 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028Haziness Index (Deciviews)Great Smoky Mountains 11.11 8.21 5 10 15 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 Linville Gorge 7.7 4.54 0 5 10 15 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 Shining Rock 12.34 10.77 5 10 15 20 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 Swanquarter Selection of Sources for Reasonable Progress Analysis 25 Department of Environmental Quality Reasonable Progress Analysis 26 Department of Environmental Quality •States must identify one or more facilities for reasonable progress analysis to determine if additional controls can be installed to reduce emissions •Four Statutory Factors (Clean Air Act, Section 169B) •Costs of compliance, •Time necessary for compliance, •Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and •Remaining useful life of any potentially affected anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment Reasonable Progress Screening Approach 27 Department of Environmental Quality 1.Started with Area of Influence (AOI) screening (Q/d * EWRT) to rank facilities based on sulfate and nitrate contributions at each Class I area. 2.AOI rankings used to identify facilities for source apportionment (PSAT) tagging to determine sulfate and nitrate contributions from each facility at each Class I area 3.VISTAS states agreed to select facilities for reasonable progress evaluation if PSAT contribution to a Class I area was ≥1.00% for sulfate or nitrate Acronyms: Q/d = tons of 2028 emissions / distance from facility to improve monitor (or centroid of Class I area that does not have an IMPROVE monitor. EWRT = extinction weighted residence time (HYSPLIT model used to determine residence time of wind flow in grid cells. PSAT = Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology in CAMx photochemical grid model. HYSPLIT Trajectories 28 Department of Environmental Quality •Trajectories were run using NAM-12 meteorology for the 20% most impaired days in 2011-2016 at 44 Class I areas •Trajectories were run with starting heights of 100, 500, 1,000, and 1,500 meters •Trajectories were run 72 hours backwards in time for each height at each location •Trajectories were run with start times of 12AM (midnight of the start of the day), 6AM, 12PM, 6PM, and 12AM (midnight at the end of the day) local time •44 Class I areas x 6 years x 24 days/year x 4 heights x 5start times = 126,720 trajectories AOI Screening Summary 29 Department of Environmental Quality State Threshold Notes AL 2%Sulfate only FL 5%Sulfate or nitrate, plus Gulf Crist, Mosaic Bartow, Mosaic New Wales, and Mosaic Riverview GA 2% -4%Sulfate or nitrate, 2% threshold for GA facilities, 4% threshold for facilities outside GA KY 2%Sulfate or nitrate MS 2%Sulfate or nitrate NC 3%Sulfate + nitrate SC 2% -5%2% for sulfate, 5% for nitrate, plus Santee Cooper Winyah, International Paper Georgetown, and SCE&G Williams TN 3%Sulfate + nitrate, plus CEMEX VA 2%Sulfate + nitrate WV 0.2%Sulfate or nitrate NC Facilities with AOI Contributions >3% SO4 + NO3Combined Tagged for PSAT Modeling 30 Department of Environmental Quality County Facility NO3 2028 Contribution (%) SO4 2028 Contribution (%) Combined SO4 and NO32028 Contribution (%) Class I Area Haywood Blue Ridge Paper Products - Canton Mill 6.64 41.28 47.93 SHRO Beaufort PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. -Aurora 0.57 37.89 38.47 SWAN Catawba Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC -Marshall Steam Station 0.41 6.32 6.73 LIGO Burke SGL Carbon LLC 0.01 4.05 4.06 LIGO Martin Domtar Paper Company, LLC 1.02 2.27 3.29 SWAN •Quantifies visibility impacts from individual point sources, source sectors, and geographic regions for SO2 and NOX •Used for further evaluation of AOI results •Refines information on contributions to visibility impairment •Can be used to adjust future year visibility projections to account for additional emission controls PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling 31 PSAT SO2 and NOx Tags (209) 32 State, RPO, and Modeling Boundary Tags •Total SO2 tags for 10 individual VISTAS states + 3 RPOs = 13 tags •Total NOx tags for 10 individual VISTAS states + 3 RPOs = 13 tags •EGU point SO2 tags for 10 individual VISTAS states + 3 RPOs = 13 tags •EGU point NOx tags for 10 individual VISTAS states + 3 RPOs = 13 tags •Non-EGU point SO2 for 10 individual VISTAS states + 3 RPOs = 13 tags •Non-EGU point NOx for 10 individual VISTAS states + 3 RPOs = 13 tags •SO2 and NOx for N/S/W/E boundaries = 8 tags Facility Tags (Total 87 Separate Facilities) •SO2 tags for individual VISTAS facilities = 60 tags •NOx tags for individual VISTAS facilities = 36 tags •SO2 tags for individual non-VISTAS facilities = 17 tags •NOx tags for individual non-VISTAS facilities = 10 tags Great Smoky Mountains National Park 33 Department of Environmental Quality Linville Gorge Wilderness Area 34 Department of Environmental Quality Shining Rock Wilderness Area 35 Department of Environmental Quality Swanquarter 36 Department of Environmental Quality Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NC/TN) (PSAT Modeling Results for Sulfate and Nitrate (≥ 1.00%)) 37 Department of Environmental Quality State Facility ID Facility Name DISTANCE_kmFINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT %FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT %OH 39053-8148511 General James M. Gavin Power Plant (0627010056)400.5 0.520 13.916 3.73%0.003 13.916 0.02% KY 21145-6037011 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) -Shawnee Fossil Plant 465.3 0.183 13.916 1.32%0.011 13.916 0.08% TN 47163-3982311 EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 160.1 0.170 13.916 1.22%0.007 13.916 0.05% PA 42005-3866111 GENON NE MGMT CO/KEYSTONE STA 688.2 0.166 13.916 1.19%0.001 13.916 0.01% IN 18147-8017211 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER DBA AEP ROCKPORT 375.5 0.166 13.916 1.19%0.035 13.916 0.25% IN 18051-7363111 Gibson 456.3 0.146 13.916 1.05%0.037 13.916 0.27% Facilities in VISTAS states are highlighted in red. Linville Gorge Wilderness Area (NC) (PSAT Modeling Results for Sulfate and Nitrate (≥ 1.00%)) 38 Department of Environmental Quality Facilities in VISTAS states are highlighted in red. State Facility ID Facility Name DISTANCE_kmFINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT %FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT %TN 47163-3982311 EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 81.9 0.522 12.884 4.05%0.013 12.884 0.10% OH 39053-8148511 General James M. Gavin Power Plant (0627010056)329.2 0.446 12.884 3.46%0.002 12.884 0.02% PA 42005-3866111 GENON NE MGMT CO/KEYSTONE STA 567.5 0.235 12.884 1.82%0.000 12.884 0.00% KY 21145-6037011 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) -Shawnee Fossil Plant 626.3 0.172 12.884 1.34%0.002 12.884 0.02% TN 47161-4979311 TVA CUMBERLAND FOSSIL PLANT 516.6 0.154 12.884 1.20%0.001 12.884 0.01% GA 13015-2813011 Ga Power Company -Plant Bowen 340.9 0.146 12.884 1.13%0.000 12.884 0.00% IN 18147-8017211 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER DBA AEP ROCKPORT 503.5 0.142 12.884 1.10%0.012 12.884 0.09% IN 18051-7363111 Gibson 582.3 0.138 12.884 1.07%0.008 12.884 0.07% MO 29143-5363811 NEW MADRID POWER PLANT-MARSTON 688.6 0.134 12.884 1.04%0.000 12.884 0.00% VA 51027-4034811 Jewell Coke Company LLP 140.4 0.132 12.884 1.02%0.000 12.884 0.00% Shining Rock Wilderness Area (NC) (PSAT Modeling Results for Sulfate and Nitrate (≥ 1.00%)) 39 Department of Environmental Quality Facilities in VISTAS states are highlighted in red. NC facilities highlighted in green. State Facility ID Facility Name DISTANCE_kmFINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT %FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT %OH 39053-8148511 General James M. Gavin Power Plant (0627010056)397.3 0.297 12.313 2.41%0.001 12.313 0.01% KY 21145-6037011 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) -Shawnee Fossil Plant 573.4 0.201 12.313 1.63%0.003 12.313 0.02% TN 47161-4979311 TVA CUMBERLAND FOSSIL PLANT 454.1 0.162 12.313 1.32%0.002 12.313 0.02% GA 13015-2813011 Ga Power Company -Plant Bowen 241.6 0.159 12.313 1.29%0.001 12.313 0.01% MO 29143-5363811 NEW MADRID POWER PLANT-MARSTON 625.2 0.158 12.313 1.28%0.001 12.313 0.01% IN 18147-8017211 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER DBA AEP ROCKPORT 473.3 0.156 12.313 1.27%0.012 12.313 0.09% PA 42005-3866111 GENON NE MGMT CO/KEYSTONE STA 657.6 0.151 12.313 1.23%0.000 12.313 0.00% IN 18051-7363111 Gibson 554.2 0.151 12.313 1.23%0.008 12.313 0.07% NC 37087-7920511 Blue Ridge Paper Products -Canton Mill 16.9 0.133 12.313 1.08%0.012 12.313 0.10% OH 39025-8294311 Duke Energy Ohio, Wm. H. Zimmer Station (1413090154)406.7 0.129 12.313 1.05%0.002 12.313 0.01% AR 05063-1083411 ENTERGY ARKANSAS INC-INDEPENDENCE PLANT 783.3 0.129 12.313 1.04%0.001 12.313 0.01% TN 47163-3982311 EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 126.9 0.128 12.313 1.04%0.003 12.313 0.02% Swanquarter Wilderness Area (NC) (PSAT Modeling Results for Sulfate and Nitrate (≥ 1.00%)) 40 Department of Environmental Quality Facilities in VISTAS states are highlighted in red. NC facilities highlighted in green. State Facility ID Facility Name DISTANCE_kmFINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Sulfate PSAT %FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT Mm-1FINAL Revised EGU + NEGU Mm-1FINAL Revised Nitrate PSAT %PA 42005-3866111 GENON NE MGMT CO/KEYSTONE STA 640.2 0.375 10.894 3.44%0.009 10.894 0.09% NC 37013-8479311 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. -Aurora 52.5 0.329 10.894 3.02%0.007 10.894 0.06% OH 39053-8148511 General James M. Gavin Power Plant (0627010056)651.5 0.219 10.894 2.01%0.005 10.894 0.05% OH 39081-8115711 Cardinal Power Plant (Cardinal Operating Company) (0641050002)659.6 0.203 10.894 1.86%0.007 10.894 0.06% MD 24001-7763811 Luke Paper Company 512.5 0.191 10.894 1.75%0.008 10.894 0.07% WV 54033-6271711 ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY CO, LLC-HARRISON 568.6 0.186 10.894 1.71%0.013 10.894 0.12% PA 42063-3005211 HOMER CITY GEN LP/ CENTER TWP 620.1 0.151 10.894 1.38%0.008 10.894 0.07% WV 54073-4782811 MONONGAHELA POWER CO-PLEASANTS POWER STA 625.7 0.127 10.894 1.17%0.005 10.894 0.05% GA 13015-2813011 Ga Power Company -Plant Bowen 810.6 0.112 10.894 1.03%0.003 10.894 0.03% NC 37117-8049311 Domtar Paper Company, LLC 69.0 0.109 10.894 1.00%0.022 10.894 0.20% 41 Reasonable Progress Screening Results Department of Environmental Quality •NC facilities selected for 4-factor analysis (≥1.00% PSAT for sulfate) •PCS Phosphate and Domtar Paper Co (Swanquarter Wilderness Area) •Blue Ridge Paper Products (Shining Rock Wilderness Area) •NC facilities below 1.00% PSAT threshold •Duke Energy Marshall and SGL Carbon •No NC facilities with ≥1.00% sulfate or nitrate contribution to Class I Areas in other states •NC Requested Reasonable Progress Analysis for 16 facilities in 10 States: •7 facilities in 5 VISTAS States •9 facilities in 5 Non-VISTAS States 41 •AOI tends to overestimate impacts for facilities near Class I area (<100 km) •AOI tends to underestimate impacts for facilities far away from the Class I area (>100 km) •AOI uses 72-hour back trajectories, sulfate can last for weeks and travel hundreds to thousands of km •PSAT is the most reliable modeling tool for tracking facility contributions to visibility impairment at Class I areas AOI vs. PSAT Summary 4242 Four-Factor Analysis 43 Department of Environmental Quality BRPP -Four-Factor Analysis (Preliminary Results) Department of Environmental Quality 44 Unit 2028 Emissions (tons SO2) Control Technology* SO2Reduction (%) Cost Effectiveness of Control ($/ton SO2)** Riley Coal Boiler 183.77 ULSD Conversion 99%$126,061 Trona DSI 50%$17,042 No. 4 Power Boiler 195.21 ULSD Conversion 99%$167,105 Trona DSI 50%$18,106 Riley Bark Boiler 64.75 ULSD Conversion 85%$185,553 * ULSD = ultra-low sulfur diesel; DSI = dry-sorbent injection ** 2020 dollars BRPP –Four-Factor Analysis (Preliminary Results) •Conclusion •Existing controls demonstrate reasonable progress •SO2 controls installed 2017 –2019 to comply with 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS •Reduced SO2 emissions by 93% (5,470 tons) •SO2 Source-Specific SIP •Additional controls (ULSD and DSI) not cost-effective •RPG Improvement •Shining Rock WA = 0.46 dv (2.87 miles) •GSMNP = 0.04 (0.23 miles) 45 Department of Environmental Quality Domtar -Four-Factor Analysis (Preliminary Results) Department of Environmental Quality 46 Wet Scrubber*Dry Sorbent Injection* Capital Cost $13,341,296 $13,813,979 Annualized Cost $4,106,120 $11,647,397 SO2 Reduction (%)95%50% Annual Emission Reduction 959.1 tons 504.8 tons Cost-effectiveness $4,281/ton $23,074/ton * 2020 dollars Controls Evaluated for No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler (HFB) Domtar –Four-Factor Analysis (Preliminary Results) •Conclusion •No. 1 HFB –Conversion from high-sulfur mill gas to low- sulfur fuel (natural gas or bio-mass) demonstrates best control (did not operate in 2020) •No. 2 HFB –$13MM capital investment for wet scrubber does not justify visibility improvement •RPG Improvement •Swanquarter = 0.03 dv (0.16 mile) 47 Department of Environmental Quality PCS Phosphate -Four-Factor Analysis (Controls Installed 2017-2019 per EPA Consent Decree) Department of Environmental Quality 48 Unit 2028 Emissions (tons SO2) Shutdown date (if applicable) Control Technology SO2Reduction (%) Cost Effectiveness of Control ($/ton SO2) Sulfuric Acid Plant No. 5 792 Unspecified Dual-absorption process 63% $6,097 Sulfuric Acid Plant No. 6 852 Unspecified Dual-absorption process 51% Sulfuric Acid Plant No. 7 1,232 Unspecified Dual-absorption process 24% BRPP –Four-Factor Analysis (Preliminary Results) •Conclusion •Existing controls demonstrate reasonable progress •Reduced SO2 emissions by 37% (1,801 tons) •Additional controls evaluated not technically feasible •RPG Improvement •Swanquarter = 0.02 dv (0.11 mile) 49 Department of Environmental Quality EPA Preliminary Comments on Four-Factor Analyses •Domtar and BRPP •Capital Recovery Factor •Revise interest rate from 4.75% to 3.25% (current prime rate) •Revise equipment life to 30 years from: •DSI –20 years (Domtar and BRPP) •Wet scrubber –15 years (Domtar) 50 Department of Environmental Quality Long Term Strategy (LTS) •Elements of LTS: •Include control programs that will demonstrate “reasonable” progress toward meeting 2028 RPGs •Demonstrate completion of four-factor analyses •Include federal and state control programs included in 2028 projections (build on programs included in first planning period) •Other programs that support progress 51 52 What We’ve Learned Department of Environmental Quality 52 •The major facility landscape continues to change •Shutdowns, fuel switches, additional emission controls •Emissions continue to go down •SO2 emissions are still the major haze contributor •NOx emissions are becoming more important (further research needed) •Regional haze levels continue to be reduced •Visibility improvement is well ahead of schedule Increase in Visual Range on 20% Most Impaired Days Compared to the Uniform Rate of Progress Department of Environmental Quality 53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Great Smoky Mountains Linville Gorge Shining Rock SwanquarterVISUAL RANGE (MILES)Monitored Visual Range, 5-year average Model Projected Visual Range, 2028 URP-Equivalent Visual Range 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2018 2018 2018 2018 2028 2028 2028 2028 Schedule (Preliminary) Department of Environmental Quality 54 Estimated Due Date Milestone Monday, April 5 Pre-draft SIP to FLMs to start 60-day consultation process (also submit to EPA for review) Friday, June 4 Complete FLM 60-day consultation process Monday, June 7 Start Public Comment Period (45 days) July 7-14 Public Hearing Thursday, July 22 Close Public Comment Period Friday, July 30 Final to EPA Next Steps? 55 •NCDAQ: •Complete Section 13 (Progress Report) •Revise four-factor analyses per EPA comments •FLMs •How can DAQ support your review? •Timing for comments Appendix H-2 Comments received from NPS (June 4, 2021) This page intentionally left blank. From: Peters, Melanie <Melanie_Peters@nps.gov> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 3:44 PM To: Strait, Randy P; Bartlett, Joshua W; Manning, Tammy; Tardif, Elliot M; Wylie, Heather K; Abraczinskas, Michael; Pjetraj, Michael Cc: King, Kirsten L; Shepherd, Don; Stacy, Andrea; Miller, Debra C; Cheek, Denesia; Renfro, Jim; Allen, Tim; Ming, Jaron E; Pitrolo, Melanie -FS; Notarianni, Michele; Brian Timin; jeremy.ash@usda.gov Subject:[External] NPS North Carolina Regional Haze Consultation Documentation Attachments: NPS-NC_RH_ConsutlationDocumentation_06.04.2021.pdf CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. Hello Randy, The National Park Service (NPS) appreciates the opportunity to review the April 2021 pre-draft of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for North Carolina Class I Areas (2018– 2028 Planning Period). On May 25, 2021, staff from the NPS Air Resources Division (ARD), NPS Interior Region 2, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park hosted a regional haze SIP review consultation meeting with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality staff to discuss NPS input on the draft North Carolina SIP. Representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also attended. An annotated set of slides shared during this meeting are attached. This email and attachment documents NPS conclusions and recommendations presented during our formal regional haze consultation opportunity, as required by 42 U.S.C. §7491(d). As you know, North Carolina is home to five Class I areas: Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NP), Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, Shining Rock Wilderness Area, and Swanquarter Wilderness Area. Of these, only Great Smoky Mountains NP is managed by the NPS and is the focus of our review–we do not speak for or represent non- NPS Class I areas. We commend North Carolina for developing an organized, detailed SIP, and for engaging with the NPS during the FLM consultation period. We also recognize and appreciate the significant emission reductions and visibility improvements that North Carolina has achieved in the last decade. Still, significant additional progress is necessary before the ultimate visibility goal of no human caused visibility impairment is realized at Great Smoky Mountains NP. It is with this in mind that we provided SIP review feedback during our consultation call, summarized here. In a May 17th, 2021 email to North Carolina and other VISTAS states, NPS ARD outlined several concerns with the VISTAS and North Carolina analysis methods/approaches and outcomes in this round of SIP development. Our primary concerns relevant to the North Carolina draft SIP are the exclusion of NOx from reasonable progress four-factor analyses and the screening thresholds used for source selection. These are briefly outlined below. Please refer to the attachment and our May 17th, 2021 communication for additional details and discussion. Exclusion of NOx Ammonium nitrate from NOx emissions is a significant anthropogenic haze causing pollutant. Over the past ten years the importance of ammonium nitrate on the 20% most-impaired days has increased for many Class I areas in the VISTAS region, including at Great Smoky Mountains NP. As SO2 emissions decline and the seasonality of most-impaired days shifts, NOx emissions are increasingly important for many VISTAS Class I areas. The North Carolina rationale for excluding NOx emissions from reasonable progress four-factor analyses is based on an outdated modeling base year (2011) and associated inaccurate assumptions about the current and future distribution of most-impaired days in the modeling assessment. We recognize that the modeling methods follow EPA guidance and are technically correct, however the result is not representative of current conditions. The importance of ammonium nitrate and the distribution of most-impaired days has changed significantly since the 2011 base year. In 2011, ammonium sulfate-dominated extinction on the 20% most-impaired days which occurred mostly during the warmer, summer months. Currently, ammonium nitrate extinction which is highest during the cooler months of the year is now included among the 20% most-impaired days. As a result, 2028 projections based on the 2011 most-impaired days miss the importance of ammonium nitrate extinction. This is supported by the past five- years of IMPROVE monitoring data. The NPS recommends that North Carolina acknowledge more recent monitoring data in their source selection process and consider NOx emission reduction opportunities as relevant to addressing regional haze during this planning period. Reducing NOx emissions would have additional regional co-benefits for ozone and nitrogen deposition. Great Smoky Mountains NP is currently part of two limited maintenance plans for ozone and has 12 acidified streams on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for pH-impaired surface waters from excessive atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) of nitrogen and sulfur deposition was established to restore these streams which will require additional nitrogen and sulfur reductions to reach these protective critical loads. While much of the region’s NOx emissions come from mobile sources, emissions inventories also show a significant quantity of NOx emissions from point sources in North Carolina that could be addressed under the regional haze program. Source Selection When identifying emission sources to evaluate for haze reduction opportunities, VISTAS and NC evaluated the potential visibility effects of individual facilities on Class I areas using extinction weighted residence times (EWRT) combined with emissions over distance (Q/d) for individual facilities in an area of influence analysis (AoI). Despite NPS concerns regarding 2028 projections (discussed above), we find this approach is more robust than a simple emissions divided by distance (Q/d) approach, as it accounts for meteorology on the 20% most- impaired days. In June 2019 NPS recommended that North Carolina evaluate 20 facilities based upon Q/d). Our source selection concern stems from the screening thresholds used that resulted in the selection of very few sources for analysis and offers less protection for the more-impacted Class I areas. We advised VISTAS states of this concern in April 2020. VISTAS states, including North Carolina, used a two-part screening process. Both steps used an individual-facility-percent-of-total-impact screening metric. This type of metric biases the results against the more-visually- impacted Class I areas. In fact, source impacts would have to be 80 times larger to identify a source for analysis in the most-visually-impaired VISTAS Class I area compared to the least-visually-impaired Class I area. The absolute value of the VISTAS thresholds to identify a source affecting Great Smoky Mountains NP is 19 times higher than was needed to identify a source affecting Everglades NP in Florida (the least-visually-impaired VISTAS Class I area). We recommend that North Carolina reconsider their source selection decisions by using the underlying VISTAS EWRT*Q/d analysis and applying different thresholds. As we shared during our consultation meeting, this approach identifies five Duke Energy facilities in addition to Blue Ridge Paper Products (already identified by North Carolina) as affecting visibility at Great Smoky Mountains NP. We agree that Blue Ridge Paper Products and the Duke Energy sources identified are already effectively controlled for SO2. However, our initial evaluation indicates that NOx controls at these facilities could be improved. We recommend that North Carolina undertake or require full four-factor analysis on the six identified facilities to assess the NOx control opportunities available in this planning period. Specifically, we recommend that North Carolina evaluate options to improve on the current NOx control efficiencies, especially the 35–39% NOx emission control efficiency achieved by the existing SNCR at Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station units 1, 2, and 4. Clean air and clear views are essential to the purpose and enjoyment of our national parks. There is still progress needed to achieve the regional haze goal of no human-caused visibility impairment at Great Smoky Mountains NP and other Class I areas in the VISTAS region. We look forward to continuing working to improve air quality in partnership with North Carolina into the future. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to reach out to us. Also, feel free to let us know if you have any edits to this summary and especially if any corrections are needed. Best, Melanie -- Melanie V. Peters NPS, Air Resources Division Office: 303-969-2315 Cell: 720-644-7632                                                                                                  Our National Parks North Carolina Regional Haze Consultation – 5/25/2021 NPS, Air Resources Division, Great Smoky Mtns NP, SE Region & North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 5/25/2021 NPS  Formal  Consultation  Call  with  North  Carolina  DEQ  for  Regional  Haze  SIP  Development Attendees: • National  Park  Service • Denesia Cheek,  Southeast  Regional  Office  – Atlanta,  GA • Kirsten  King,  Air  Resources  Division  (ARD)  –Denver, CO • Debbie Miller, ARD –Denver, CO • Melanie Peters, ARD –Denver, CO • Jim Renfro, Great Smoky Mountains NP • Don Shepherd, ARD –Denver, CO • Andrea Stacy, ARD –Denver, CO • North Carolina DEP • Michael Abraczinskas • Joshua Bartlett • Tammy Manning • Michael Pjetraj • Randy Strait • Elliot Tardif • Heather Wylie • FWS • Tim Allen • Jaron Ming • USFS • Melanie Pitrolo NPS photos from left to right: Great Smoky Mountains NP, Denali NP, Yellowstone NP, Grand Canyon NP 1                                                                                                    Agenda • Welcome & Introductions • NPS Regional Haze Background • NPS Areas in North Carolina • Great Smoky Mountains National Park • NPS Concerns with VISTAS Approaches to RH & Feedback for North Carolina o Exclusion of NOx/Nitrate o Source Selection o Visibility Benefit and URP Considerations • Next‐Steps We welcome discussion at any time during this presentation. Please feel free to ask questions or add information along the way. NPS Photo, Great Smoky Mountains NP 2                                                                                                                                                  By the Numbers • 423 national park units • 328 million park visitors • $21.0 billion spent in local gateway regions Nationally in 2019 (a 2020 report was not completed due to the pandemic) 328 million park visitors spent an estimated $21 billion in local gateway regions while visiting National Park Service lands across the country. These expenditures supported a total of • 341 thousand jobs, • $14.1 billion in labor income, • $24.3 billion in value added, and • $41.7 billion in economic output in the national economy. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm 3 By the Numbers • 48 Class I areas • In 24 states • 90% of visitors surveyed say that scenic views are extremely to very important • 100% of visitors surveyed rate clean air in the top 5 attributes to protect in national parks                                                                                                                                                                                                        List of Class I areas: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsclass1.htm States with at least one Class I area: AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, HI, ID, KY, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NM, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI, WA, WY Statistics citation: Kulesza C and Others. 2013. National Park Service visitor values & perceptions of clean air, scenic views, & dark night skies; 1988–2011. Natural Resource Report. NPS/NRSS/ARD/NRR—2013/622. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado NPS photo of Great Smoky Mountains NP, NC & TN 4                             1970 Clean Air Act 1916 NPS Organic Act 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The NPS has an affirmative legal responsibility to protect clean air in national parks. • 1916 NPS Organic Act: created the agency with the mandate to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of parks in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This statutory responsibility to leave National Park Service units “unimpaired,” requires us to protect all National Park Service units from the harmful effects of air pollution. • In the 1970 Clean Air Act: authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from both stationary (industrial) sources and mobile sources. The Act also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set air quality standards. • 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments: these amendments to the Clean Air Act provide a framework for federal land managers such as the National Park Service to have a special role in decisions related to new sources of air pollution, and other pollution control programs to protect visibility, or how well you can see distant views. The Act established a national goal to prevent future and remedy existing visibility impairment in national parks larger than 6,000 acres and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres that were in existence when the amendments were enacted. (Class I areas) • 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments: created regulatory programs to address acid rain and expanded the visibility protection and toxic air pollution programs. The acid rain regulations began a series of regional emissions reductions from electric generating facilities and industrial sources that have substantially reduced air pollutant emissions. NPS photo of Washington DC: https://npgallery.nps.gov/AirWebCams/wash 5                                                                   Visibility goal: Restore natural conditions by 2064 Yosemite NP, California and Great Smoky Mountains NP, Tennessee and North Carolina Left to right images illustrate hazy to clear conditions. Haze obscures the color and detail in distant features. NPS photos 6                                                                                          As you know, the NPS is one of three Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with responsibility for the 156 Class I areas nationwide. The NPS manages 48 Class I areas including Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina & Tennessee. NPS map of Class I areas, 2020 7                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            North Carolina by the numbers 10 National Parks 18,230,958 Visitors to National Parks $2,055,500,000 Economic Benefit from National Park Tourism 2 National Heritage Area 2 Wild & Scenic Rivers 3 National Trails 3,031 National Register of Historic Places Listings 39 National Historic Landmarks 13 National Natural Landmarks 1 World Heritage Site ‐nps.gov/state/nc Units managed by the National Park Service in North Carolina 1. Appalachian National Scenic Trail; Maine to Georgia, CT,GA,MA,MD,ME,NC,NH,NJ,NY,PA,TN,VA,VT,WV 2. Blue Ridge Parkway; Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia and North Carolina, NC,VA 3. Cape Hatteras National Seashore; Nags Head, Buxton, Ocracoke, NC 4. Cape Lookout National Seashore; Harkers Island, NC 5. Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site; Flat Rock, NC 6. Fort Raleigh National Historic Site; Manteo, NC 7. Great Smoky Mountains National Park; the states of NC,TN 8. Guilford Courthouse National Military Park; Greensboro, NC 9. Moores Creek National Battlefield; Currie, NC 10. Wright Brothers National Memorial; Kill Devil Hills, NC • Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail; NC,SC,TN,VA • Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail; AL,AR,GA,IL,KY,MO,NC,OK,TN 2019 Visitor Spending Effects ‐Economic Contributions of National Park Visitor Spending ‐Social Science (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) NPS photo of Cades Cove Visitor Center in Great Smoky Mountains NP, May 2013 by Warren Bielenberg. 8 Great Smoky Mountains National Park                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Great Smoky Mountains National Park Ridge straddles the border between North Carolina and Tennessee. With over 500,000 acres, it is world renowned for its diversity of plant and animal life, the beauty of its ancient mountains, and the quality of its remnants of Southern Appalachian mountain culture, this is America's most visited national park, with about 13 million visits annually, providing nearly $1 billion in the local economy. It’s one of the most biologically diverse national parks in the NP system (with approximately 20,000 known species). The park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and an International Biosphere Reserve. The park’s enabling legislation from 1926 states the park was established for the enjoyment of the people. The park’s significance is rooted in its scenery. The park is the finest example of the ruggedness, magnitude, height, and scenic grandeur of the southern Appalachian Mountains, known for its historic landscapes, panoramic mountain vistas and the changing of the seasons. Air quality is the number one Fundamental Resource Value listed in the park’s Foundation Document. The Foundation Document identifies the park's purpose, significance, fundamental resources and values. Air quality contributes to the ecological health of the park’s flora and fauna and is critical to maintaining quality visitor experiences. NPS photo of a summer view near the Boulevard Trail in Great Smoky Mountains NP, June 2016. 9                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Great Smoky Mountains National Park The Views are Getting Clearer! Haziest & Clearest Days, 1990‐2018 1990 2018 There is a long history of visibility monitoring at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (over 40 years!) Monitoring data show significant improvement on both the haziest and clearest days since the late 1990’s. The regional haze metric is now based on most‐impaired days rather than haziest but, it is still interesting to see the range of visibility conditions experienced by park visitors and monitored in the park. Progress has been made since the first Regional Haze planning phase, and we want to continue to make progress over this second planning phase as well. Long term visibility trend graph from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/park‐conditions‐ trends.htm?tabName=trends&parkCode=GRSM&paramCode=Visibility&startYr=1990&endYr=2018 &monitoringSite=GRSM1%20(IMPROVE)&timePeriod=Long‐term 10                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Great Smoky Mountains National Park As Impairment Drops Composition Changes 2009—2019 Annual contributions to light extinction by particle mass type on the most‐impaired days from 2009 through 2019. The relative and absolute contribution of ammonium nitrate to light extinction on the most‐impaired days generally increased during this period. (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/I mprove/aqrv‐summaries/) This annual extinction bar graph shows that over the past last 11 years, as overall impairment improves (decreases), the chemical composition is changing on the 20% most‐impaired days. Sulfate continues to drop, but nitrate is increasing both in the absolute and relative contribution to light extinction on the 20% most‐impaired days. Most‐impaired days annual light extinction composition stacked bar graph from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/ 11                                                                                 Looking at annual light extinction on most‐impaired days since 1990 highlights the massive reductions in ammonium sulfate as well as the recent increase in the importance of ammonium nitrate on most‐impaired days. Most‐impaired days annual light extinction composition stacked bar graph from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/ 12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Percent contributions to light extinction by particle mass type on the most‐impaired days during two five‐year periods, 2009‐2013 (left) and 2015‐2019 (right). The contribution of ammonium nitrate to light extinction increased from 5% during 2009‐2013 to 17% during 2015‐2019. (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/) Great Smoky Mountains National Park 2009—2013 2015—2019 Nitrate is Increasingly Important The relative or percent contribution of ammonium nitrate to light extinction has significantly increased over the past 10 years. During the five‐year period around the 2011 base year, ammonium nitrate accounted for less than 5% of total light extinction. In the most recent five‐year period (2015‐2019) that has increased to 17%. Most‐impaired days haze composition pie charts from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/ 13                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Great Smoky Mountains National Park Seasonal Changes for Impairment 1995 2009— 2013 2015—2019 Monthly distribution of the most‐impaired days during two five‐year periods, 2009‐2013 (left) and 2015‐2019 (right). The number of most‐impaired days occurring in the cooler months (January‐April and October‐December) was higher during 2015‐2019 (46 days) than in 2009‐2013 (30 days). (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/). Note in 1995, most‐impaired days only occurred May‐Sep. Additionally, the annual distribution of when the most‐impaired days occur has changed. Historically the most‐impaired days were concentrated during the summer months. For example, in 1995 all of the 20% most‐impaired days occurred between May and September. As recently as 2009‐2013 (the five‐year period surrounding the 2011 base year used for VISTAS modelling) the most‐impaired days were still concentrated during the warmer months (June‐September). However, in the most recent five‐year period, the 20% most‐impaired days are shown to occur anytime of year and frequently include days in the winter months. This is key to our comments regarding North Carolinas reliance on an outdated base year in their source selection modeling analysis, as it is not likely to capture high nitrate days. Month‐wise distribution of most‐impaired days bar graphs from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/ 14                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Great Smoky Mountains National Park Annual changes in the relative contribution of particles to light extinction on the 20% most‐ impaired days show the reduction in sulfate and the increase in nitrate. Nitrate is now the 2nd largest contributor to the most‐impaired days at GRSM and can be the primary pollutant on some of the most‐impaired days (up to 60% on some days). 2011 monitoring data (the base modeling year) is representative of monitoring data and conditions from 1990‐2011 but is not representative of current data (and likely future days in 2028) as nitrate is playing a much greater role In light extinction on the most‐impaired days throughout the entire year, not just the warmer months. Most‐impaired days haze composition pie charts from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv‐summaries/ 15 2018 NO3 = 26% Nitrate can contribute up to 60% of the light extinction on the most‐impaired days. 2011 NO3 = 3%                                                                                                                                      Nitrate can dominate light extinction on some most‐ impaired days Individual sample days in 2011 were rarely dominated by extinction from ammonium nitrate. However, there were several days in 2018 when light extinction from ammonium nitrate was the single biggest contributor to haze. Sample day light extinction composition stacked bar graph from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/pm‐and‐haze‐composition/ 16                                                                                            VISTAS Approach Concerns Exclusion of NOx/Nitrate • The VISTAS analyses justifying exclusion of NOx do not adequately account for current conditions on the 20% most‐impaired days. • As SO2 emissions decline and the seasonality of most‐impaired days shifts, Nitrate is increasingly important in many VISTAS Class I areas. • States should evaluate NOx and SO2 control opportunities in this planning period. 17                                                                                                                                             This map shows the most recent emissions inventory data (2020‐CAMD/2017‐NEI) for VISTAS sources identified by the earlier (2020) NPS Q/d methodology. Although we are now recommending VISTAS states consider alternate approaches to source selection using the VISTAS EWRT*Q/d results, this map illustrates the current distribution and scale of NOx and SO2 stationary sources in the region. For North Carolina, we observe that the point source emissions are relatively high and predominantly NOx. NPS produced map, April 2021 18                                                                                                                                 19 VISTAS emissions projections for 2028 show that there will be 1.5 million tons of NOx (3 times the amount of SO2) at the end of this planning period. Increasing trends in nitrate haze on most‐ impaired days will likely continue. We encourage North Carolina to expand focus from SO2 and explore opportunities to further reduce NOx emissions in this planning period. VISTAS Graphic (Slide 9 from 8/4/2020 EPA, FLM, RPO Briefing presentation) 19                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       North Carolina Draft SIP Feedback Exclusion of NOx/Nitrate • Ammonium nitrate is a significant anthropogenic haze causing pollutant. • Over the past 10 years the importance of ammonium nitrate on the 20% most‐impaired days has increased at Great Smoky Mountains NP. • North Carolina rationale for excluding NOx emissions from reasonable progress is based on an outdated modeling base year and inaccurate assumptions about the current and future distribution of most‐impaired days. • NPS recommends that North Carolina abandon this rationale and consider NOx emission reduction opportunities in this round of RH SIP development. • Reducing NOx emissions would have additional regional co‐benefits for ozone and acid deposition. Ammonium nitrate from NOx emissions is a significant anthropogenic haze causing pollutant. Over the past 10‐years the importance of ammonium nitrate on the 20% most‐impaired days has increased for many Class I areas in the VISTAS region, including at Great Smoky Mountains NP. As SO2 emissions decline and the seasonality of most‐impaired days shifts, NOx emissions are increasingly important for many VISTAS Class I areas. We find that the North Carolina rationale for excluding NOx emissions from reasonable progress four factor analyses is based on an outdated modeling base year (2011) and inaccurate modeling assumptions about the current and future distribution of most‐impaired days. Based on discussion during the meeting we would like to clarify that we agree the modelling methods by North Carolina and VISTAS follow EPA guidance and are technically correct. The issue is that the importance of ammonium nitrate and the distribution of most‐impaired days has changed significantly since the 2011 base year. As a result, 2028 projections based on the 2011 most‐impaired days (which were ammonium sulfate dominated and occurred during the summer) miss the importance of nitrogen oxide emissions and ammonium nitrate extinction during the cooler months of the year that are now the most‐impaired. NPS recommends that North Carolina acknowledge the relevance of recent monitoring data and consider NOx emission reduction opportunities for additional facilities to address regional haze during this planning period. Reducing NOx emissions would have additional regional co‐benefits for ozone and nitrogen deposition. 20                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          VISTAS Approach Concerns Source Selection • The individual facility percent‐of‐total‐impact metrics are arbitrarily high and inherently less protective of the more‐impacted Class I areas in the VISTAS region. • The threshold for selecting an individual facility is 80 times higher in the most‐impacted Class I area than in the least‐impacted Class I area in the VISTAS region. Our source selection concern stems from the choice to select individual facilities contributing 1% or more to the total of visibility impairing pollutants at a Class I area. Identifying sources based on this metric biases the results against the more visually impacted Class I areas. In fact, source emissions would have to be 80 times larger to identify a source for analysis in the most visually impaired VISTAS Class I area (Dolly Sods Wilderness Area) compared to the least visually impaired Class I area (Everglades NP). The threshold to identify a source affecting Great Smoky Mountains NP is 19 times higher than was needed to identify a source affecting Everglades NP in Florida. 21                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        VISTAS Approach Concerns Source Selection • Underlying EWRT*Q/d analysis * • Updated NPS lists of facilities • 80% of total • Absolute Value Threshold We acknowledge that an EWRT*Q/d approach is more robust than a simple Q/d approach because it also considers extinction and meteorology on the 20%. Accordingly, we updated our approach using the VISTAS EWRT*Q/d results and evaluated two alternative threshold metrics that could be used in lieu of the VISTAS individual facility percent‐of‐total‐impact thresholds. • Clarification Note: While we agree with using AOI approaches as opposed to a simple Q/d, this is not a wholesale endorsement of the VISTAS methods. We still have technical objections to the reliance on an outdated base year that underpins the AOI & CAMx analyses. Because of this, the outdated MIDs used in the analysis likely underestimate the role of NOx and assumes this will be the case into the future—IMPROVE data suggest otherwise. This affects the facility selection process by failing to account for the role of ammonium nitrate on the recent MID and biases the analysis against selecting NOx sources. Adjusting the selection thresholds does not address this issue. Regardless, we used the VISTAS EWRT*Q/d in our revised source screening analyses. Our first approach applied a threshold that captures 80% of the total Class I Area impact (e.g., 80% of the TCI) for sulfate & nitrate, as was recommended in the 2016 draft regional haze guidance. This produced a list of all the facilities that contribute up to 80% of the TCI in a given NPS VISTAS Class I area. We are calling these results the “80% cut‐off results.” The second alternative approach applied an absolute value threshold of [(EWRT(SO4)*Q/d(SO2))+(EWRT(NO3)*Q/d (NOx))] = 0.0067 for an individual facility impact. This was the lowest absolute value of EWRT*Q/d for sources Florida selected for 4FA at Everglades NP— a Mosaic fertilizer plant. We are calling these results the “absolute value threshold results.” Because Everglades NP is the least‐impacted Class I Area in the VISTAS region (based on TCI), this likely represents the lowest absolute value threshold used to select a facility for 4FA within the VISTAS region. Based on calculated efficiency metrics, we recommend the absolute value threshold makes the most sense for Great Smoky Mountains NP. 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            North Carolina Draft SIP Feedback Source Selection • New NPS list of sources for North Carolina: FACILITY NAME NPS Class I Areas Affected 1 Blue Ridge Paper Products ‐Canton Mill GRSM 2 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ‐Belews Creek Steam Station GRSM, SHEN 3 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ‐Cliffside Steam Station GRSM 4 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ‐Marshall Steam Station GRSM, MACA, SHEN 5 Duke Energy Progress, LLC ‐Mayo Electric Generating Plant SHEN 6 Duke Energy Progress, LLC ‐Roxboro Steam Electric Plant GRSM, SHEN • Only one of these was selected by North Carolina. • Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton Mill Using the absolute value threshold approach to analyzing VISTAS source selection data identifies 5 Duke Energy facilities in addition to Blue Ridge Paper Products (already identified by North Carolina) as affecting visibility at Great Smoky Mountains NP and other NPS Class I areas. Acronyms: • GRSM, Great Smoky Mountains NP (North Carolina & Tennessee) • SHEN, Shenandoah NP (Virginia) • MACA, Mammoth Cave NP (Kentucky) Note, our analysis only considered NPS Class I areas. 23                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             North Carolina Draft SIP Feedback Blue Ridge Paper • Four‐factor analysis demonstrates that this source is well controlled for SO2 • NPS agrees with the NC DEQ determination that no new SO2 emission controls are warranted at the Blue Ridge Paper facility during this round of SIP development. • North Carolina did not require a four‐factor analysis for NOx emissions from Blue Ridge Paper. • NPS recommends that North Carolina undertake or require a four‐factor analysis of NOx emission reduction opportunities in this round. • Similar pulp and paper facilities across the country are evaluating NOxemissions and finding technically feasible and cost‐effective emission reduction opportunities. Blue Ridge Paper is the only source evaluated by North Carolina that is relevant to a NPS Class I area (Great Smoky Mountains NP). NPS ARD staff have reviewed the four‐factor analysis for Blue Ridge Paper Products and note the findings above. The Domtar Paper and PCS Phosphate facilities primarily affect non‐NPS class I areas. As such, we have not provided a detailed four‐factor analysis review at this time. 24                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      North Carolina Draft SIP Feedback A closer look at Duke Energy sources Facility Name Unit ID Avg, SO2 (tons) Avg. SO2 Rate (lb/MMBtu) Avg, SO2 Efficiency SO2 Control Avg. NOx (tons) Avg. NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) Avg, NOx Efficiency NOx Control Belews Creek 1 1,583 0.094 92% WLSS 3,410 0.202 80% SCR Belews Creek Belews Creek Cliffside 2 Total 5 1,538 3,121 463 0.100 0.064 92% 96% WLSS WLS 2,393 5,802 1,040 0.155 0.143 84% 70% SCR SCR Cliffside Cliffside Marshall 6 Total 1 767 1,230 579 0.037 0.125 * 91% WLS WLS 1,161 2,201 1,189 0.056 0.258 * 39% SCR SNCR Marshall 2 629 0.132 91% WLS 1,248 0.262 35% SNCR Marshall 3 1,442 0.113 92% WLS 1,678 0.131 69% SCR Marshall Marshall Mayo 4 Total 1A 1,212 3,862 626 0.081 0.146 94% 86% WLS WLS 3,742 7,857 647 0.249 0.151 38% 65% SNCR SCR Mayo Mayo Roxboro 1B Total 1 509 1,134 308 0.149 0.085 86% 94% WLS WLS 499 1,146 492 0.146 0.136 63% 74% SCR SCR Roxboro 2 854 0.109 89% WLS 1,195 0.152 72% SCR Roxboro 3A 537 0.109 92% WLSS 783 0.158 83% SCR Roxboro 3B 545 0.108 93% WLSS 807 0.160 83% SCR Roxboro 4A 645 0.116 89% WLSS 761 0.137 76% SCR Roxboro Roxboro 4B Total 572 3,461 0.121 88% WLSS 661 4,700 0.139 75% SCR This spreadsheet that shows the SO2 and NOx emissions, controls, and control efficiencies for the five additional North Carolina sources, all power plants (consisting of 16 active EGUs) that NPS identified using VISTAS source selection data (EWRT*Q/d) and the Florida absolute value threshold. We used annual CAM data dating back to 1980 to estimate uncontrolled emissions and compared those to the most‐recent three years of emissions (2018‐2020 CAMD) to estimate control efficiency. 25                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   North Carolina Draft SIP Feedback Additional Analysis Recommendations SO2 • All but five EGUs are achieving > 90% control for SO2, and all are below the 0.2 lb/MMBtu MATS off‐ramp. No additional analyses for SO2 are needed. NOx • Our estimates reveal that all but Cliffside Unit #6 have NOx controls that achieve < 90% control and are not effectively‐controlled. • NPS recommends that North Carolina confirm these efficiency estimates and require four factor analyses to evaluate opportunities to improve NOx controls for all sources achieving < 90% control efficiency. • In particular, we recommend that North Carolina explore the technical feasibility and costs associated with upgrading NOx emission controls from SNCR to SCR at Duke Energy’s Marshall Station. NPS recommends that additional analyses for NOx emission reduction opportunities for the point sources identified are warranted and would improve North Carolina’s Round 2 Regional Haze SIP. We note that some of these facilities affect several NPS Class I areas. For instance, Duke Energy’s Marshall station is affecting three NPS Class I areas (Great Smoky Mountains, Shenandoah, and Mammoth Cave NPs). This specific facility is the least effectively controlled with SNCR NOx controls operating at 35‐39% control efficiency. Clarification Note: As discussed during our call, we are not suggesting that VISTAS should revise or redo their modeling analyses at this time. We recognize the timing considerations and the approval deadlines the states are subject to. We also appreciate that the AOI or Q/d analyses are not more robust than photochemical modeling. We are suggesting that given the identified shortcomings in the VISTAS analyses, the states should rely on additional information, including more recent IMPROVE data, to make their source selection and reasonable progress determinations for individual facilities. We recommend that VISTAS states consider alternate screening thresholds to select sources. Specifically, we recommend that North Carolina evaluate whether NOx controls are reasonable using the four statutory factors identified in the CAA for the six sources identified by the NPS. In our view, additional CAMx PSAT modeling is not necessary to make these individual facility decisions, as the degree of visibility improvement is not one of the four statutory factors congress intended regulatory authorities to consider when making reasonable progress determinations. This recognizes the cumulative nature of visibility impairment and the fact that no one source is solely responsible for impairment, but that it is generated by many sources over a large geographic area. Finally, we reiterate that NOx reductions would have additional environmental benefits for Great Smoky Mountains NP, including reductions in pollutant deposition. As noted in the guidance, while “the CAA does not require states to consider air deposition impacts, including effects on water, soils, and vegetation, when determining reasonable progress,” states are not prohibited from considering such benefits in their determinations. As environmental leaders in the southeast region, we urge North Carolina to consider additional reductions in this round of regional haze planning, which will have added benefits in the Class I areas. 26                                                                                                                                             VISTAS Approach Concerns Visibility Benefit & URP Considerations • Emission control decisions should be based upon the four factors identified in the Clean Air Act and not introduce an unintended fifth visibility factor. • 2028 projections below the URP glidepath do not represent a “safe harbor” for avoiding otherwise reasonable emission controls. North Carolina Draft SIP Feedback • North Carolina used this rationale for not implementing new emission controls at Domtar Paper and PCS Phosphate despite finding cost effective SO2 control opportunities for Domtar Paper. 27 National Park Service RHR - Round 2                                                                                                                                                                                                                               • Thank you for meeting with us! • Please share: • Anticipated SIP schedule • How you will respond to NPS comments • Please let us know: • When public comment period opens • If/when a public hearing will be held • The NPS will: • Email call summary & any add’l information • By June 4, 2021 • Share our comments with EPA Region 4 The NPS will submit an email summary of our May 25, 2021 consultation call along with final review comments by June 4, 2021. The NPS requests that the state notify us when the draft SIP will be open for public review and comment, and alert us to any public hearing dates. North Carolina DEQ staff agreed and shared their intent to summarize NPS input and respond to it in the public review draft. 28                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              NPS Contacts Great Smoky Mountains National Park • Jim Renfro; jim_renfro@nps.gov NPS Southeast Region • Denesia Cheek; denesia_cheek@nps.gov Air Resources Division • Melanie Peters; melanie_peters@nps.gov • Don Shepherd; don_shepherd@nps.gov • Andrea Stacy; andrea_stacy@nps.gov Please reach out to us with any questions. For any formal notifications of public documents, please include the above list of NPS staff. NPS acknowledges and very much appreciates the impressive emission reductions that North Carolina has made since the beginning of the Regional Haze program. We also see that there is still significant progress to be made before we can reach the goal of unimpaired visibility. We welcome future opportunities to engage with North Carolina and work together on efforts to reduce haze causing pollution and promote clean air and clear views in our national parks. NPS photo of night sky at Clingmans Dome, March 2018 by Thom McManus, Great Smoky Mountains NP. 29 Appendix H-3 Comments received from USFS (June 3, 2021) This page intentionally left blank. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Forests in North Carolina 160A Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801 828-257-4200 Fax: 828-257-4263 File Code: 2580 Date: June 3, 2021 Mr. Michael Abraczinskas Director, North Carolina Division of Air Quality 1641 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1641 Dear Mr. Abraczinskas: On April 5, 2021, the State of North Carolina submitted a draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan describing your proposal to continue improving air quality by reducing regional haze impacts at mandatory Class I areas across the region. We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with your State through the initial evaluation, development, and subsequent review of this plan. Cooperative efforts such as these ensure that, together, we will continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act’s goal of natural visibility conditions at our Class I areas. This letter acknowledges that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, has received and conducted a substantive review of your proposed Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. This review satisfies your requirements under the federal regulations 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(i)(2). Please note, however, that only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can make a final determination about the document's completeness, and therefore, only the EPA has the authority to approve the document. We have attached comments to this letter based on our review. We look forward to your response required by 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(i)(3). For further information, please contact Melanie Pitrolo (melanie.pitrolo@usda.gov) or Bret Anderson (bret.a.anderson@usda.gov). Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State of North Carolina. The Forest Service compliments you on your hard work and dedication to significant improvement in our nation's air quality values and visibility. Sincerely, JAMES E. MELONAS Forest Supervisor cc: Randy Strait, NC DAQ; Margarett Boley, USFS; Melanie Pitrolo, USFS North Carolina Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (RH SIP) - Specific Comments The USDA Forest Service recognizes and applauds the significant emission reductions made in North Carolina over the past decade that have resulted in substantial improvements in visibility at all Forest Service Class I Areas within the state. We understand that many of the emission reductions have been above and beyond those required by federal rules and regulations, and that North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ) has historically been a leader among state and local regulatory agencies in exemplifying both the letter and the spirit of the Clean Air Act. Further, we appreciate the strong working relationship among our respective staff. Overall, the USDA Forest Service finds that the draft RH SIP is well organized and comprehensive. The Long Term Strategies for this planning period appear to indicate that each NC Forest Service Class I Area will continue to show visibility improvements better than the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) through 2028, and we appreciate the commitment by NC DAQ to evaluate progress in meeting the visibility goals during the 5-year progress reports. However, we offer these specific comments on the draft RH SIP for NC DAQ’s review and consideration. Screening of Sources for Reasonable Progress Evaluation / 4-Factor Analysis Section 7.8 of NC’s draft RH SIP discusses the methodology that NC DAQ used to determine which sources to analyze for additional controls. Sources both within and out of North Carolina were included in the screening (i.e., in the ‘denominator’ of the contribution evaluation), and a source was selected for reasonable progress evaluation / four-factor analysis if the facility was estimated to have a ≥ 1.00% sulfate or ≥ 1.00% nitrate contribution to visibility impairment in 2028 at one or more NC Class I Areas. Three NC facilities were selected for further evaluation, and 12 additional out-of-state facilities were identified as having a ≥ 1.00% sulfate contribution to visibility impairment. USDA Forest Service understands and recognizes that EPA has afforded states the flexibility to screen facilities for additional analysis if that screening is based on reasonable methods. However, we request that NC consider only in-state facilities in the denominator of the contribution equation when screening for sulfate and nitrate visibility contributions at a Class I Area. This methodology would result in a more robust reasonable progress evaluation by focusing on sources permitted by NC DAQ. Additionally, since evaluations / four- factor analyses are time consuming and require additional resources, we would also suggest that NC DAQ consider conducting four-factor analysis on a source category basis rather than on an individual facility basis when warranted. Evaluation of Nitrogen Oxide Emission Sources for Additional Controls The draft RH SIP only evaluates SO2 emission sources for reasonable progress evaluations / four-factor analyses. USDA Forest Service appreciates the discussion within the draft RH SIP regarding nitrate formation in the VISTAS region. We understand that nitrate formation in the VISTAS region is limited by the availability of ammonia (which preferentially reacts with SO2 and sulfates before reacting with NOx) and by temperature, with particle nitrate concentrations highest in the winter months. We also recognize that sulfates have been the main contributor to visibility impairment at Class I Areas within the southern US. Additionally, the substantial emission reductions of both SO2 and NOx from coal-fired power plants over the past decade within NC as a result of the Clean Smokestacks Act are admirable and a model for other states. The emissions data show that most NOx emissions within NC are from the mobile sector. However, the nitrate contribution to visibility impairment is increasing as sulfur dioxide emissions decrease, and there are still significant NOx sources within the point sector in NC. We request that NC DAQ consider evaluating NOx sources, along with SO2 sources, for reasonable progress during this planning period. Prescribed Fire Emissions Fire plays an important role in shaping the vegetation and landscape in western North Carolina. Recurring fire has been a part of the landscape for thousands of years. Aggressive fire suppression, coupled with an array of other disturbances (e.g., logging and chestnut blight), has changed the historic composition and structure of the forests. Periodic prescribed burning and other vegetation management can recreate the ecological role of fire in a controlled manner. Fire and fuels management supports a variety of desired conditions and objectives across the Forests (e.g., community protection, hazardous fuels reduction, native ecosystems restoration, historic fire regimes restoration, wildlife openings, and open woodland creation, etc.). The Land Management Plan for the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests calls for an increase in the use of prescribed fire to increase forest resilience. The 2017 Regional Haze Rule includes a provision to allow states to adjust the glidepath to account for prescribed fire. The draft NC RH SIP states that prescribed fire emissions were taken from the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and were carried forward into the 2028 future year emissions without any changes. Recent data on prescribed fire activity, especially within the USDA Forest Service, show that the number of acres burned in prescribed fires during 2011 were lower than all other recent years. For example, within the southern region of the Forest Service a total of 749,080 acres were treated with prescribed fire in 2011, while the average number of acres treated annually from the years 2007-2019 was 980,422. The 2021 target for treatment by prescribed fire within the USDA Forest Service southern region is well over 1 million acres. Furthermore, the Land Management Plans for each of the southern Forests call for a cumulative total of up to 2.1 million acres per year to be treated with prescribed fire in the future. Therefore, keeping prescribed fire emissions steady from to 2028 undercounts emissions in the VISTAS states by up to fifty percent. At this point in the draft RH SIP review process, a quantitative analysis to adjust the glidepaths for actual prescribed fire projections is not practical. While prescribed fire is currently a minor contributor to visibility impairment on the 20% most impaired days, the USDA Forest Service would like assurances that NC DAQ will continue to recognize the important ecological role of prescribed fire and in the future adjust the glidepath to account for prescribed fire emissions accordingly.