Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; Regional Haze, 73956-73982 [2011-30650]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73956
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–1043; A–1–FRL–
9496–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Maine;
Regional Haze
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing approval of
a revision to the Maine State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (Maine DEP) on December 9,
2010, with supplemental submittals on
September 14, 2011 and November 9,
2011, that addresses regional haze for
the first planning period from 2008
through 2018. This revision addresses
the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA’s rules that require
States to prevent any future, and remedy
any existing, manmade impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants
from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as
the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before December 29,
2011.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R01–OAR–2010–1043 by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0047.
4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification
Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–1043
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit,
5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail
code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–
3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air
Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05–
2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2010–
1043. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through https://
www.regulations.gov, or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your email address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
In addition, copies of the state
submittal are also available for public
inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the Bureau of
Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, First Floor of
the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental
Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME
04333–0017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail
Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109–
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed
action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
regional haze
II. What are the requirements for the regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to the
regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
B. Remand of the CAIR
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially
Affected by the CAIR Remand and
Promulgation of CSAPR
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Maine’s
regional haze SIP submittal?
A. Maine’s Affected Class I Area
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and
Current Visibility Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to
Visibility Impairments
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls
3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act
Factors in the Reasonable Progress
Analysis
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
1. Identification of all BART Eligible
Sources
2. Identification of Sources Subject to
BART
3. Modeling to Demonstrate Source
Visibility Impact
4. Maine BART Analysis Protocol
5. Source Specific BART Determinations
6. Enforceability of BART
E. Long-Term Strategy
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
2. Modeling to Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’
4. Additional Considerations for the LTS
F. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
V. What Action is EPA Proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
I. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
fine particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in
some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust), which
also impair visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also
cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid
deposition.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring
network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range in many Class I
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the Western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. (64 FR 35715, (July
1, 1999))
B. Background Information
In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 1 which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.’’
On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment’’ (RAVI), (45 FR 80084).
These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility
impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. In 1993, the National Academy
of Sciences determined that current
knowledge of regional haze was
adequate and that existing technologies
were available to protect visibility. (64
FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999)). EPA
promulgated a rule to address regional
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR
69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Although states and Tribes may designate
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use
the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73957
haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), the
Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze
Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements are summarized in
section II. The requirement to submit a
regional haze SIP applies to all 50
States, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands. Section 51.308(b)
requires States to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007. On
January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37
States, the District of Columbia and the
U.S. Virgin Islands failed to submit this
required implementation plan. (74 FR
2392, (Jan. 15, 2009)). In particular, EPA
found that Maine failed to submit a plan
that met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308. (74 FR 2393). On December 6,
2010, the Air Bureau of the Maine DEP
submitted revisions to the Maine SIP to
address regional haze as required by 40
CFR 51.308. Supplemental
documentation was submitted on
September 14, 2011 and November 9,
2011. EPA has reviewed Maine’s
submittal and finds that it is consistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308
outlined in section II.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among
States, Tribal governments and various
federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively
address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, States need
to develop strategies in coordination
with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one
jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the States and
Tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73958
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
technical information to better
understand how their States and Tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a
collaborative effort of state governments,
Tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the
Northeastern United States. Member
state and Tribal governments include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island,
and Vermont.
II. What are the requirements for
regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations require States
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology controls for the
purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview
(dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is
determined by measuring the visual
range (or deciview), which is the
greatest distance, in kilometers or miles,
at which a dark object can be viewed
against the sky. The deciview is a useful
measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility, because each
deciview change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
human eye. Most people can detect a
change in visibility at one deciview.2
The deciview is used to: Express
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals
towards meeting the national visibility
goal); define baseline, current, and
natural conditions; and track changes in
visibility. The regional haze SIPs must
contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by manmade air
pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air
pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program and as
part of the process for determining
reasonable progress, States must
calculate the degree of existing visibility
impairment at each Class I area within
the state at the time of each regional
haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway
through each 10-year planning period.
To do this, the RHR requires States to
determine the degree of impairment (in
deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20
percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’)
visibility days over a specified time
period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, States must also develop an
estimate of natural visibility conditions
for the purposes of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural
visibility is determined by estimating
the natural concentrations of pollutants
that cause visibility impairment and
then calculating total light extinction
based on those estimates. EPA has
provided guidance to States regarding
how to calculate baseline, natural and
current visibility conditions in
documents titled, Guidance For
Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Under the Regional Haze Rule,
September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005),
available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/
memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf
[hereinafter EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance], and Guidance for
Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA–454/
B–03–004), available at www.epa.gov/
ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf [hereinafter EPA’s
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance].
2 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999)).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days at the time the regional
haze program was established. Using
monitoring data from 2000 through
2004, States are required to calculate the
average degree of visibility impairment
for each Class I area within the state,
based on the average of annual values
over the five year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs from the
States that establish RPGs for Class I
areas for each (approximately) 10-year
planning period. The RHR does not
mandate specific milestones or rates of
progress, but instead calls for States to
establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions for their Class I areas. In
setting RPGs, States must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days over the (approximately)
10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least
impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in the CAA and in EPA’s
RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the time necessary for compliance; (3)
the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance;
and (4) the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting
the RPGs for the best and worst days for
each applicable Class I area. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1,
2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting
the RPGs, States must also consider the
rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to
as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘glide path’’) and the emission
reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the 10-year
period of the SIP. The year 2064
represents a rate of progress which
States are to use for analytical
comparison to the amount of progress
they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs,
each state with one or more Class I areas
(‘‘Class I State’’) must also consult with
potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e.,
other nearby states with emission
sources that may be affecting visibility
impairment at the Class I State’s areas.
(40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
States to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, the CAA
requires States to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain
categories of existing stationary sources
built between 1962 and 1977 procure,
install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available
Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by
the state.(CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).3 States are
directed to conduct BART
determinations for such sources that
may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Rather than requiring
source-specific BART controls, States
also have the flexibility to adopt an
emissions trading program or other
alternative program as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable
progress towards improving visibility
than BART.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist States in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
3 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART are listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
applicability determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with
a total generating capacity in excess of
750 megawatts (MW), a state must use
the approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate
matter (PM). EPA has stated that States
should use their best judgment in
determining whether volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3)
and ammonia compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
The RPOs provided air quality
modeling to the States to help them in
determining whether potential BART
sources can be reasonably expected to
cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area. Under the
BART Guidelines, States may select an
exemption threshold value for their
BART modeling, below which a BART
eligible source would not be expected to
cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. The
state must document this exemption
threshold value in the SIP and must
state the basis for its selection of that
value. Any source with emissions that
model above the threshold value would
be subject to a BART determination
review. The BART Guidelines
acknowledge varying circumstances
affecting different Class I areas. States
should consider the number of emission
sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources’ impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews
(70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005)).
In their SIPs, States must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their BART control
determination analyses. The term
‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the
BART Guidelines means the collection
of individual emission units at a facility
that together comprises the BARTeligible source. (70 FR 39161, (July 6,
2005)). In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires
that States consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance;
(3) any existing pollution control
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73959
technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and
(5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of
such technology. States are free to
determine the weight and significance
to be assigned to each factor. (70 FR
39170, (July 6, 2005)).
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP, as required in the
CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and in the RHR
(40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to
what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source. States
have the flexibility to choose the type of
control measures they will use to meet
the requirements of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR
requires that States include a LTS in
their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation
of all control measures a state will use
to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS
must include ‘‘enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve
the reasonable progress goals’’ for all
Class I areas within, or affected by
emissions from, the state. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with the contributing States
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. (40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that
it has included in its SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the
RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs
have provided forums for significant
interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be
required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two States belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile, and
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73960
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
area sources. At a minimum, States
must describe how each of the seven
factors listed below is taken into
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)).
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must
provide for a periodic review and SIP
revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission
of the state’s first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment,
which was due December 17, 2007, in
accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On
or before this date, the state must revise
its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing reasonably attributable and
regional haze visibility impairment, and
the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional
haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and
periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively.
The periodic reviews of a state’s LTS
must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
participation in the IMPROVE network.
The monitoring strategy is due with the
first regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other States;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A state
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires
control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the
year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those
strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years
thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of section
51.308(d) with the exception of BART.
The BART provisions of section
51.308(e), as noted above, apply only to
the first implementation period.
Periodic SIP revisions will assure that
the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that States consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR
51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
III. What is the relationship of the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) to the regional haze
requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
CAIR, as originally promulgated,
required 28 States and the District of
Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX that significantly contributed
to, or interfered with maintenance of,
the 1997 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates
and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour
ozone in any downwind state. (70 FR
25162, (May 12, 2005)). CAIR
established emissions budgets for SO2
and NOX for States found to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
downwind States and required these
States to submit SIP revisions that
implemented these budgets. States had
the flexibility to choose which control
measures to adopt to achieve the
budgets, including participation in EPAadministered cap-and-trade programs
addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and NOXozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA
promulgated FIPs for all States covered
by CAIR to ensure the reductions were
achieved in a timely manner.
B. Remand of the CAIR
On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit
issued its decision to vacate and remand
both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs
in their entirety. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008).
However, in response to EPA’s petition
for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR
rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in
order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR’’
until EPA replaces it with a rule
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
consistent with the court’s opinion. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at
1178. The Court directed EPA to
‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with
its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined
to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. EPA
subsequently issued a new rule to
address interstate transport of NOX and
SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., the
Transport Rule, also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). (76 FR
48208, (August 8, 2011)). EPA explained
in that action that EPA is promulgating
the Transport Rule as a replacement for
(not a successor to) CAIR’s SO2 and NOX
emissions reduction and trading
programs.
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements
Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand and Promulgation of CSAPR
The following is a summary of the
elements of the regional haze SIPs that
are potentially affected by the remand of
CAIR. As described above, EPA
determined in 2005 that States opting to
participate in the CAIR cap-and-trade
program need not require BART for SO2
and NOX at BART-eligible Electric
Generating Units (EGUs). (70 FR 39142–
39143). Many States relied on CAIR as
an alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX
for subject EGUs, as allowed under the
BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Additionally, several States established
RPGs that reflect the improvement in
visibility expected to result from
controls planned for or already installed
on sources within the State to meet the
CAIR provisions for this
implementation period for specified
pollutants. Many States relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs
for their States to provide the legal
requirements which lead to these
planned controls, and did not include
enforceable measures in the LTS in the
regional haze SIP submission to ensure
these reductions. States also submitted
demonstrations showing that no
additional controls on EGUs beyond
CAIR would be reasonable for this
implementation period.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Maine’s
regional haze SIP submittal?
On December 6, 2010, Maine DEP’s
Air Bureau submitted revisions to the
Maine SIP to address regional haze as
required by 40 CFR 51.308.
Supplemental documentation was
submitted on September 14, 2011 and
November 9, 2011. EPA has reviewed
Maine’s submittal and finds that it is
consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308 outlined in section II. A
detailed analysis follows.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
Maine is responsible for developing a
regional haze SIP which addresses
visibility in Maine’s Class I areas. They
are Acadia National Park, Moosehorn
Wilderness Area, and Roosevelt
Campobello International Park. The
State must also address Maine’s impact
on any other nearby Class I areas.
A. Maine’s Affected Class I Area
Maine is home to three Class I areas:
(1) Acadia National Park (‘Acadia’); (2)
Moosehorn Wilderness Area
(‘Moosehorn’); and (3) Roosevelt
Campobello International Park
(‘Roosevelt Campobello’). In addition to
these areas, the MANE–VU RPO
contains four other Class I areas in three
States: The Lye Brook, Presidential
Range/Dry River, and Great Gulf
Wilderness Areas in New Hampshire;
and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in
New Jersey.
The Maine regional haze SIP
establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at its Class I areas and a
LTS to achieve those RPGs within the
first regional haze implementation
period ending in 2018. In developing
the RPGs for each Class I area, Maine
considered both emission sources inside
and outside of Maine that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
Maine’s Class I areas. The State also
identified and considered emission
sources within Maine that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
Class I areas in neighboring States as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The
MANE–VU RPO worked with the State
in developing the technical analyses
used to make these determinations,
including state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I
areas, which included the three areas in
Maine and those areas affected by
emissions from Maine.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural
and Current Visibility Conditions
As required by the RHR and in
accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Maine calculated
baseline/current and natural conditions
for its Class I areas.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions
Natural background refers to visibility
conditions that existed before human
activities affected air quality in the
region. The national goal, as set out in
the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural
conditions.
Estimates of natural visibility
conditions are based on annual average
concentrations of fine particle
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73961
components. The IMPROVE 4 equation
is a formula for estimating light
extinction from species measured by the
IMPROVE monitors. As documented in
EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance,
EPA determined, with concurrence from
the IMPROVE Steering Committee, that
States may use a ‘‘refined approach’’ to
the then current IMPROVE formula to
estimate the values that characterize the
natural visibility conditions of the Class
I areas. The purpose of the refinement
to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to
provide more accurate estimates of the
various factors that affect the calculation
of light extinction. The new IMPROVE
equation takes into account the most
recent review of the science 5 and it
accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction
efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic
carbon. It also adjusts the mass
multiplier for organic carbon
(particulate organic matter) by
increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms
are added to the equation to account for
light extinction by sea salt and light
absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide.
Site-specific values are used for
Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light
due to atmospheric gases) to account for
the site-specific effects of elevation and
temperature. Separate relative humidity
enhancement factors are used for small
and large size distributions of
ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the
remaining contributors, elemental
4 The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative
measurement effort governed by a steering
committee composed of representatives from
Federal (including representatives from EPA and
the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring
program was established in 1985 to aid the creation
of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the
objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical
species and emission sources responsible for
existing man-made visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant
in visibility-related research, including the
advancement of monitoring instrumentation,
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
5 The science behind the revised IMPROVE
equation is summarized in numerous published
papers. See, eg., J. L. Hand & W. C. Malm, Review
of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient
Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report, March
2006 (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State
University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at https://
vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/
GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/
IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural
Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE
Alogrithm to Natural Species Concentrations
Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels
II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup, Sept. 2006, available at https://
vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/
GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/
naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73962
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not
change between the original and new
IMPROVE equations. Maine opted to
use this refined approach, referred to as
the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for all of
its areas.
Natural visibility conditions using the
new IMPROVE equation were calculated
separately for each Class I area by
MANE–VU. EPA finds that the best and
worst 20 percent natural visibility
values for Acadia, Moosehorn, and
Roosevelt Campobello as shown in
Table 1 were calculated using the EPA
guidelines.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
The Roosevelt Campobello
International Park and the Moosehorn
Wilderness Area do not contain an
IMPROVE monitor. In cases where
onsite monitoring is not available, 40
CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires States to
use the most representative monitoring
available for the 2000–2004 period to
establish baseline visibility conditions,
in consultation with EPA. Maine used,
and EPA concurs with the use of, 2000–
2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor
located one mile northeast from the
Moosehorn Wilderness Area as
representing Moosehorn and Roosevelt
Campobello.
As explained in section III.B, for the
first regional haze SIP, baseline
visibility conditions are the same as
current conditions. A five-year average
of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was
calculated for each of the 20 percent
worst and 20 percent best visibility days
for Acadia National Park and
Moosehorn/Roosevelt Campobello.
IMPROVE data records for the period
2000 to 2004 meet the EPA
requirements for data completeness.
(See page 2–8 of EPA’s 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance.)
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions
For the Maine Class I areas, baseline
visibility conditions on the 20 percent
worst days are 22.89 deciviews at
Acadia National Park and 21.72
deciviews at Moosehorn/Roosevelt
Campobello. Natural visibility
conditions for these areas are estimated
to be 12.43 dv and 12.01 dv,
respectively, on the 20 percent worst
visibility days. The natural and
background conditions for the Acadia
National Park and Moosehorn
Wilderness Area/Roosevelt Campobello
International Park for both the 20
percent worst and 20 percent best days
are presented in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACADIA NATIONAL PARK AND MOOSEHORN
WILDERNESS AREA/ROOSEVELT CAMPOBELLO INTERNATIONAL PARK
2000–2004 Baseline (dv)
Natural conditions (dv)
Class I area
Worst 20%
Acadia National Park .......................................................................................................
Moosehorn Wilderness Area and Roosevelt Campobello International Park .................
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, Maine considered
the uniform rate of progress needed to
reach natural visibility conditions by
2064 (‘‘glide path’’) and the emission
reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the period of
the SIP to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in
EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance
document, the uniform rate of progress
is not a presumptive target, and RPGs
may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to
the glide path.
For Acadia National Park, the overall
visibility improvement necessary to
reach natural conditions is the
difference between the baseline
visibility of 22.89 dv and natural
background visibility of 12.43 dv, or an
improvement of 10.46 dv for the 20
percent worst visibility days. For
Moosehorn Wilderness area and
Roosevelt Campobello International
Park, the overall visibility improvement
necessary to reach natural conditions is
the difference between the baseline of
21.72 dv and natural background
visibility of 12.01 dv, or an
improvement of 9.71 dv for the 20
percent worst visibility days. Maine
DEP must also ensure no degradation in
visibility for the best 20 percent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
22.89
21.72
visibility days over the same period in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
Maine’s SIP submittal presents two
graphs, one for the 20 percent best days,
and one for the 20 percent worst days,
for each Class I area. Maine constructed
the graphs for the worst days (i.e., the
glide path) in accordance with EPA’s
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by
plotting a straight graphical line from
the baseline level of visibility
impairment for 2000–2004 to the level
of natural visibility conditions in 2064.
For the best days, the graphs include a
horizontal, straight line spanning from
baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018
to depict no degradation in visibility
over the implementation period of the
SIP. Maine’s SIP shows that the State’s
RPG for its Class I areas provide for
improvement in visibility for the 20
percent worst days over the period of
the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the 20
percent best visibility days over the
same period in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
As a state containing a Class I area, 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the RHR requires
Maine to develop the reasonable
progress goals for visibility
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Best 20%
8.77
9.15
Worst 20%
12.43
12.01
Best 20%
4.66
5.01
improvement during the first planning
period.
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants
to Visibility Impairments
An important step toward identifying
reasonable progress measures is to
identify the key pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, MANE–VU
developed emission sensitivity model
runs using EPA’s Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) air quality model 6
to evaluate visibility and air quality
impacts from various groups of
emissions and pollutant scenarios in the
Class I areas on the 20 percent worst
visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most
significantly impacting visibility in the
MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s
contribution assessment demonstrated
that sulfate is the major contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid6 CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The
model uses simulations of chemical reactions,
emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, and the
Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological
Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations.
For more information, see https://www.epa.gov/
asmdnerl/CMAQ/cmaq_model.html.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Atlantic Region.7 Sulfate particles
commonly account for more than 50
percent of particle-related light
extinction at northeastern Class I areas
on the clearest days and for as much as,
or more than, 80 percent on the haziest
days. For example, at the Brigantine
National Wildlife Refuge Class I area
(the MANE–VU Class I area with the
greatest visibility impairment), on the
20 percent worst visibility days in 2000
through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66
percent of the particle extinction. After
sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently
accounts for the next largest fraction of
light extinction. Organic carbon
accounted for 13 percent of light
extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days for Brigantine, followed
by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of
light extinction.
The emissions sensitivity analyses
conducted by MANE–VU predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements
in visibility in the Class I areas in the
MANE–VU region, more than any other
visibility-impairing pollutant. As a
result of the dominant role of sulfate in
the formation of regional haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region,
MANE–VU concluded that an effective
emissions management approach would
rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United
States.
Through source apportionment
modeling MANE–VU assisted States in
determining their contribution to the
visibility impairment of each Class I
area in the MANE–VU region. Maine
and the other MANE–VU States adopted
a weight-of-evidence approach which
relied on several independent methods
for assessing the contribution of
different sources and geographic source
regions to regional haze in the
northeastern and mid-Atlantic portions
of the United States. Details about each
technique can be found in the
NESCAUM Document Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006
[hereinafter MANE–VU Contribution
Report].8
7 See the NESCAUM Document ‘‘Regional Haze
and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
States,’’ January 31, 2001.
8 The August 2006 NESCAUM document
‘‘Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic United States’’ has been provided
as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
The MANE–VU Class I States
determined that any state contributing
at least 2% of the total sulfate observed
on the 20 percent worst visibility days
in 2002 were contributors to visibility
impairment at the Class I area.
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and the District of Columbia were
determined to contribute less than 2%
of sulfate at any of the MANE–VU Class
I areas. States found to contribute 2% or
more of the sulfate at any of the MANE–
VU Class I areas were: Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The contribution of Maine emissions
to the total sulfate was determined to
impact the visibility in not only the
Maine Class I areas, but the Great Gulf
Wilderness area in New Hampshire as
well. The impact of sulfate on visibility
is discussed in greater detail below.
EPA finds that Maine DEP has
adequately demonstrated that emissions
from Maine sources cause or contribute
to visibility in nearby Class I Areas.
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls
In developing the 2018 reasonable
progress goal, Maine relied primarily
upon the information and analysis
developed by MANE–VU to meet this
requirement. Based on the contribution
assessment, MANE–VU focused on SO2
as the dominant contributor to visibility
impairment at all MANE–VU Class I
areas during all seasons. In addition, the
Contribution Assessment found that
only 25 percent of the sulfate at the
MANE–VU Class I areas originate in the
MANE–VU States. Sources in the
Midwest and Southeast regions were
responsible for 15 to 25 percent,
respectively. Point sources dominated
the inventory of SO2 emissions.
Therefore, MANE–VU’s strategy
includes additional measures to control
sources of SO2 both within the MANE–
VU region and in other States that were
determined to contribute to regional
haze at the MANE–VU Class I Areas.
Based on information from the
contribution assessment and additional
emission inventory analysis, MANE–VU
and Maine identified the following
source categories for further
examination for reasonable controls:
• Coal and oil-fired EGUs;
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73963
• Point and area source industrial,
commercial and institutional boilers;
• Cement and Lime Kilns;
• Heating Oil; and
• Residential wood combustion.
MANE–VU analyzed these sources
categories as potential sources of
emission reductions for making
reasonable progress based on the ‘‘four
statutory factors’’ according to 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(V).
3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act
Factors in the Reasonable Progress
Analysis
As discussed in II.C above, Maine
must consider the following factors in
developing the RPGs: (1) Cost of
compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected
sources. MANE–VU’s four factor
analysis can be found in ‘‘Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze
in MANE–VU Class I Areas,’’ July 9,
2007, otherwise known as the
Reasonable Progress Report. This report
has been included as part of the docket
for this rulemaking.
Maine and the other MANE–VU
States reviewed the Reasonable Progress
Report, consulted with one another
about possible controls measures, and
agreed to the following measures as
recommended strategies for making
reasonable progress: Implementation of
the BART requirements, a 90 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions from 167
EGUs identified as causing the greatest
visibility impact 9 (or other equivalent
emission reduction), and a reduction in
the sulfur content of fuel oil. These
measures are collectively known as the
MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’
MANE–VU used model projections to
calculate the RPG for the Class I areas
in the MANE–VU area. Additional
modeling details are provided in section
IV.E.2. The projected improvement in
visibility due to emission reductions
expected by the end of the first period,
2018, is shown in Table 2.
9 MANE–VU identified these 167 units based on
source apportionment modeling using two different
meteorological data sets. From each of the modeling
runs, MANE–VU identified the top 100 units which
contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in
model output resulted in a total of 167 units being
identified for further control.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73964
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—PROJECTED REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS FOR MAINE CLASS I AREAS
FROM NESCAUM 2018 VISIBILITY PROJECTIONS IN DECIVIEWS
2000–2004
Baseline
Acadia National Park ...........................................
2018
Projection
URP
Natural
background
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
At the time of MANE–VU modeling
some of the other States with sources
potentially impacting visibility, in the
Class I areas in both Maine and the rest
of the MANE–VU domain, had not yet
made final control determinations for
BART, and thus, these controls were not
included in the modeling prepared by
MANE–VU and used by Maine. This
modeling demonstrates that the 2018
control scenario (2018 projection)
provides for an improvement in
visibility greater than the uniform rate
of progress for the Maine Class I areas
for the most impaired days over the
period of the implementation plan and
ensures no degradation in visibility for
the least impaired days over the same
period.
The modeling supporting the analysis
of these RPGs is consistent with EPA
guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The
regional haze provisions specify that a
state may not adopt a RPG that
represents less visibility improvement
than is expected to result from other
CAA requirements during the
implementation period. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(vi)). Therefore, in
estimating the RPGs for 2018, many
States took into account emission
reductions anticipated from CAIR.
MANE–VU initially reduced emissions
from highest impacting 167 EGUs by
ninety percent. However, many of the
units targeted for the 90% reduction
were part of the CAIR program. Since
the 90% reduction was larger, in total
tons of emissions reduced, than the
reductions expected from CAIR, MANE–
VU added the excess emissions back
into the inventory to account for trading
of the emission credits across the
modeling domain. This way, MANE–VU
States would not overestimate the
emission reductions in case States used
the CAIR program as their response to
the MANE–VU’s ‘‘Ask’’ of ninety
percent reduction from the 167 EGUs in
the eastern United States.
The RPGs for the Class I areas in
Maine are based on modeled projections
of future conditions that were
developed using the best available
information at the time the analysis was
completed. While MANE–VU’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
22.9
8.8
21.7
19.4
8.3
19.0
19.4
12.4
4.7
12.0
20% Best Visibility Days ..................
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge/Roosevelt
Campobello International Park.
20% Worst Visibility Days ...............
20% Best Visibility Days ..................
20% Worst Visibility Days ...............
9.2
8.6
............
5.0
emission inventory used for modeling
included estimates of future emission
growth, projections can change as
additional information regarding future
conditions becomes available. It would
be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to
continually adjust the RPG every time
an event affecting these future
projections changed.
EPA recognized the problems of a
rigid requirement to meet a long-term
goal based on modeled projections of
future visibility conditions, and
addressed the uncertainties associated
with RPGs in several ways. EPA made
clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a
mandatory standard which must be
achieved by a particular date. (64 FR at
35733). At the same time, EPA
established a requirement for a fiveyear, midcourse review and, if
necessary, correction of the States’
regional haze plans. (40 CFR 52.308(g)).
In particular, the RHR calls for a fiveyear progress review after submittal of
the initial regional haze plan. The
purpose of this progress review is to
assess the effectiveness of emission
management strategies in meeting the
RPG and to provide an assessment of
whether current implementation
strategies are sufficient for the state or
affected states to meet their RPGs. If a
state concludes, based on its
assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I
area will not be met, the RHR requires
the state to take appropriate action. (40
CFR 52.308(h)). The nature of the
appropriate action will depend on the
basis for the state’s conclusion that the
current strategies are insufficient to
meet the RPGs. In its SIP submittal,
Maine commits to the midcourse review
and submitting revisions to the regional
haze plan where necessary.
EPA is proposing to approve Maine’s
RPG for the first regional haze planning
period. Maine has demonstrated that the
emission controls in the MANE–VU
‘‘Ask’’—timely installation of BART
Controls, a 90 percent reduction in SO2
emissions from EGUs and a low sulfur
fuel oil strategy are reasonable measures
for the reduction of visibility
impairment as required by EPA’s RHR.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20.4
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
1. Identification of All Bart Eligible
Sources
Determining BART-eligible sources is
the first step in the BART process. The
Maine BART-eligible sources were
identified in accordance with the
methodology in Appendix Y of the
Regional Haze Rule, Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to
Identify BART-Eligible Sources, (70 FR
39104, 39156 (July 6, 2005)).
The BART Guidelines requires States
to address SO2, NOX, and particulate
matter. States are allowed to use their
best judgment in deciding whether VOC
or ammonia emissions from a source are
likely to have an impact on visibility in
the area. The Maine DEP addressed SO2,
NOx, and used particulate matter less
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) as
an indicator for particulate matter to
identify BART eligible units, as the
Guidelines require. Consistent with the
Guidelines, the Maine DEP did not
evaluate emissions of VOCs and
ammonia in BART determinations due
to the lack of impact on visibility in the
area due to anthropogenic sources. The
majority of VOC emissions in Maine are
biogenic in nature, especially near the
Maine Class I areas. Therefore, the
ability to further reduce total ambient
VOC concentrations at Class I areas is
limited. Point, area, and mobile sources
of VOCs in Maine are already
comprehensively controlled as part of
ozone attainment and maintenance
strategy. In respect to ammonia, the
overall ammonia inventory is very
uncertain, but the amount of
anthropogenic emissions at sources that
were BART-eligible is relatively small.
The identification of BART sources in
Maine was undertaken as part of a
multi-state analysis conducted by the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM).
NESCAUM worked with Maine DEP
licensing engineers to review all sources
and determine their BART eligibility.
Maine DEP identified 10 sources as
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
73965
BART-eligible. These sources are shown
in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3—BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN MAINE
National emission inventory
(NEI) identification code
Location
FPLE Wyman Station .......................................
Boiler #3 ....................................................
Boiler #4 ....................................................
Woodland Pulp, LLC ........................................
Power Boiler #9 ........................................
Lime Kiln ...................................................
Dragon Products 10 ..........................................
Red Shield Acquisition, LLC ............................
Recovery Boiler #4 ...................................
Lime Kiln ...................................................
Verso Bucksport ...............................................
Boiler #5 ....................................................
SD Warren .......................................................
Recovery Boiler .........................................
Smelt Tanks #1 and #2 ............................
Lime Kiln ...................................................
Verso Androscoggin .........................................
Power Boiler #1 ........................................
Power Boiler #2 ........................................
Waste Fuel Incinerator ..............................
Recovery Boilers #1 and #2 .....................
Smelt Tank #1 ...........................................
Smelt Tank #2 ...........................................
Lime Kiln A ................................................
Lime Kiln B ................................................
Flash Dryer ...............................................
Katahdin Paper ................................................
Power Boiler #4 ........................................
Lincoln Paper and Tissue ................................
Recovery Boiler #2 ...................................
Rumford Paper .................................................
Power Boiler #5 ........................................
Yarmouth, ME .........................
.................................................
.................................................
Woodland, ME ........................
.................................................
.................................................
Thomaston, ME ......................
Old Town, ME .........................
.................................................
.................................................
Bucksport, ME ........................
.................................................
Hinckley, ME ...........................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
Jay, ME ...................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
Millinocket, ME ........................
.................................................
Lincoln, ME .............................
.................................................
Rumford, ME ...........................
.................................................
The initial list of BART-eligible
sources complied by NESCAUM
included SAPPI Somerset #1 Power
Boiler. This unit was subsequently
determined to not be BART eligible due
to a federally enforceable permit
condition which limits the operation of
this unit to less than 250 million BTUs
per hour heat input. Additionally, boiler
#1 is not considered integral to the Kraft
pulp process since it only provides
steam and power to the facility.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Source and unit
pollutant, then it shall be subject BART
requirements.
Cap-Outs
BART applies to sources with the
potential to emit 250 tons or more per
year of any visibility impairing
pollutant. (70 FR 39160). BART-eligible
sources that adopt a federally
enforceable permit limit to permanently
limit emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants to less than 250 tons per year
may thereby ‘‘cap-out’’ of BART. Three
Maine sources capped out of BART by
taking such limits:
1. Katahdin Paper Company, LLC
2. Rumford Paper Company
3. Verso Bucksport, LLC
These sources have actual emissions
of visibility impairing pollutants of less
than 250 tons per year, but are BARTeligible because their potential
emissions exceed the 250 tons per year
threshold. Pursuant to the requests of
these sources, the Maine DEP has
established federally enforceable permit
conditions that limit the potential to
emit (PTE) of these units to less 250 tons
per year for all visibility impairing
pollutants. As a result, Maine has
concluded that these sources are not
BART eligible.
Federally enforceable terms and
conditions were established for each
source that limits the PTE for SO2, PM10
and NOX to less than 250 TPY. If, in the
future, a source requests an increase in
its PTE above the 250 tons per year
threshold for a visibility impairing
10 On October 1, 2010 and November 8, 2010,
Dragon Products, LLC submitted documentation
asserting that the facility (kiln) qualifies as a
reconstructed source. After reviewing the
documentation and conferring with EPA, via a letter
dated September 14, 2011, Maine DEP found the
facility meets the criteria of a ‘‘reconstructed
source’’ and therefore is not BART eligible.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:09 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2300500135
–004
–005
2302900020
–001
–002
2301300028
2301900034
–002
–004
2300900004
–001
2302500027
–003
–007
–004
2300700021
–001
–002
–003
–004/005
–009
–010
–007
–008
–018
2301900056
–004
2301900023
–002
2301700045
–003
BART Source category
SC 1—Fossil fuel fired electric plants.
SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.
SC 4—Portland cement plants.
SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.
SC 22—Fossil fuel fired boilers.
SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.
SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.
SC 22—Fossil fuel fired boilers.
SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.
SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.
2. Identification of Sources Subject to
BART
Maine, working with MANE–VU,
found that every MANE–VU state with
BART-eligible sources contributes to
visibility impairment at one or more
Class I areas to a significant degree (See
the MANE–VU Contribution Report). As
a result, Maine found that all BART
eligible sources within Maine are
subject to BART. The Maine DEP
utilized this option for demonstrating its
sources are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas for three
reasons: (1) The BART sources represent
an opportunity to achieve greater
reasonable progress; (2) additional
public health and welfare benefits will
accrue for the resulting decreases in fine
particulate matter; and (3) to
demonstrate its commitment to federal
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73966
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
land managers and other RPOs as it
seeks the implementation of reasonable
measures in other States.
According to Section III of the
Guidelines, once the state has compiled
its list of BART-eligible sources, it needs
to determine whether to make BART
determinations for all of the sources or
to consider exempting some of them
from BART because they may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area.
Based on the collective importance of
BART sources, Maine decided that no
exemptions would be given for sources;
a BART determination will be made for
each BART-eligible source.11
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
3. Modeling to Demonstrate Source
Visibility Impact
MANE–VU conducted modeling
analyses of BART-eligible sources using
the EPA approved air quality model,
California Pollution Model (CALPUFF),
in order to provide a regionallyconsistent foundation for assessing the
degree of visibility improvement which
could result from the installation of
BART controls.12 While this modeling
analysis differed slightly from the
guidance, it was intended to provide a
first-order estimate of the maximum
visibility benefit that could be achieved
by eliminating all emissions from a
BART source, and provides a useful
metric for determining which sources
are unlikely to warrant additional
controls to satisfy BART.
The MANE–VU modeling effort
analyzed 136 BART-eligible sources in
the MANE–VU region using the
CALPUFF modeling platform and two
meteorological data sets: (1) A wind
field based on National Weather Service
(NWS) observations; and (2) a wind
field based on the Pennsylvania State
University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale
Meteorological Model (MM5) version
3.6. Modeling results from both the
NWS and MM5 platforms include each
BART eligible unit’s maximum 24-hr,
8th highest 24-hr, and annual average
impact at the Class I area. These
visibility impacts were modeled relative
to the 20 percent best, 20 percent worst,
and average annual natural background
11 Maine’s decision that all BART eligible sources
are subject to BART should not be misconstrued to
mean that all BART-eligible sources must install
controls. Maine’s approach simply requires the
consideration of each of the five statutory factors
before determining whether or not controls are
warranted.
12 The MANE–VU modeling protocol can be
found in the NESCAUM ‘‘BART Resource Guide,’’
dated August 23, 2006, (https://www.nescaum.org/
documents/bart-resource-guide/bart-resourceguide-08-23-06-final.pdf/).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:09 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
conditions. In accordance with EPA
guidance, which allows the use of either
estimates of the 20 percent best or the
annual average of natural background
visibility conditions as the basis for
calculating the deciview difference that
individual sources would contribute for
BART modeling purposes, MANE–VU
opted to utilize the more conservative
best conditions estimates approach
because it is more protective of
visibility.
The 2002 baseline modeling provides
an estimate of the maximum
improvement in visibility at Class I
Areas in the region that could result
from the installation of BART controls
(the maximum improvement is
equivalent to a ‘‘zero-out’’ of emissions).
In virtually all cases, the installation of
BART controls would result in less
visibility improvement than what is
represented by a source’s 2002 impact,
but this approach does provide a
consistent means of identifying those
sources with the greatest contribution to
visibility impairment.
In addition to modeling the maximum
potential improvement from BART,
MANE–VU also determined that 98
percent of the cumulative visibility
impact from all MANE–VU BART
eligible sources which corresponds to a
maximum 24-hr impact of 0.22 dv from
the NWS-driven data and 0.29 dv from
the MM5 data. As a result, MANE–VU
concluded that, on the average, a range
of 0.2 to 0.3 dv would represent a
significant impact at MANE–VU Class I
areas, and sources having less than 0.1
dv impact are unlikely to warrant
additional controls under BART.13
4. Maine BART Analysis Protocol
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires
that, for each BART-eligible source
within the state, any BART
determination must be based on an
analysis of the best system of
continuous emission control technology
available and the associated emission
reductions achievable. In addition to
considering available technologies, this
analysis must evaluate five specific
factors for each source: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
13 As an additional demonstration that sources
whose impacts were below the 0.1 dv level were too
small to warrant BART controls, the entire MANEVU population of these units was modeled together
to examine their cumulative impacts at each Class
I area. The results of this modeling demonstrated
that the maximum 24-hour impact at any Class I
area of all modeled sources with individual impacts
below 0.1 dv was only a 0.35 dv change relative to
the estimated best days natural conditions at Acadia
National Park. This value is well below the 0.5 dv
impact used by most RPOs and States for
determining whether a BART-eligible source
contributes to visibility impairment.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of visibility
improvement which may reasonably be
anticipated from the use of BART.
Although Maine did not exempt any
BART-eligible sources from a BART
determination, it did utilize the MANE–
VU zero-out modeling as a surrogate for
estimating the visibility improvement
reasonably expected from the
application of controls. There are eight
BART-eligible sources with less than 0.1
deciview impact at any Class I area,
with impacts ranging from 0.01
deciviews to 0.0651 deciviews. These
sources are: SD Warren smelt tanks #1
and #2; SD Warren lime kiln; Verso
Androscoggin smelt tank #1 and #2;
Verso Androscoggin lime kilns A and B;
and Verso Androscoggin flash dryer.
Maine noted that the majority of these
units have existing controls in place that
would likely satisfy the BART
requirements. Given this and the fact
that zero-out modeling shows that the
elimination of all emissions from these
sources would provide only
insignificant visibility benefits at nearby
Class I areas, Maine used a streamline
approach for the BART determinations
for these sources.
5. Source Specific BART Determinations
The following section discusses the
BART determinations for sources in
Maine.
a. Woodland Pulp LLC (Formerly
Domtar Maine, LLC)
i. Background
The Woodland Pulp facility is a pulp
mill, which utilizes the Kraft Pulping
process and produces market pulp. The
Mill also operates support facilities
including woodyards, wastewater
treatment plant, sludge press, pulp
production labs, environmental labs,
finishing, shipping, and receiving
operations, storage areas, a landfill, and
a power boiler.
There are two BART eligible units at
the facility; Power boiler #9 and the
lime kiln.
Power boiler #9 is rated at 625
MMBtu/hr and was placed into
operation in 1971. Power boiler #9 is
fueled primarily by biomass but is also
licensed to burn #6 fuel oil, sludge, tire
derived fuel (TDF), specification waste
oil, high volume low concentration
(HVLC) gas, low volume high
concentration (LVHC) non-condensable
gas, mill yard waste, oily rags, stripper
off-gas, and propane. Emissions are
controlled using a variable-throat wet
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
venturi scrubber and low-NOX burners
(LNBs). The lime kiln is rated at 75
MMBtu/hr and was placed into
operation in 1966. Emissions are
controlled using a variable-throat wet
venturi scrubber and a Ceilcote crossflow scrubber. The lime kiln is fueled by
#6 fuel oil.
ii. Power Boiler #9
(1) PM BART Review: Maine
evaluated the use of fabric filters, wet
electrostatic precipitator (WESP), dry
electrostatic precipitator (DESP), and
wet scrubbers to control PM at power
boiler #9. Fabric filters were found not
technically feasible due to fire risk from
combustible fly-ash, while WESP is not
technically feasible due to operational
difficulties with multi-fuel boilers. A
DESP could not be installed postscrubber due to excess moisture levels
in the exhaust stream, but could be
installed upstream. An upstream DESP
was evaluated and found to provide a
98–99% control efficiency for biomass
and a 90% efficiency for oil for PM. For
comparison, a wet scrubber provides an
85–98% control efficiency for PM.
Maine estimated the cost for DESP
installation at $4,640 per ton of PM
removed. Maine concluded that the
addition of DESP with the existing wet
venturi scrubber is not a cost-effective
option and determined that current
controls represent BART for PM for
power boiler #9.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Power boiler #9
is currently controlled through the use
of a wet scrubber. In addition, the boiler
is fueled primarily by biomass, a
naturally low sulfur fuel. Maine
concluded that the combination of a wet
scrubber in use with primarily biomass
is the maximum level of control
available for this type of unit. Maine
determined that current controls
represent BART.
(3) NOX BART Review: Maine
identified a number of potential NOX
control strategies for use on power
boiler #9, including NOX tempering,
flue gas recirculation (FGR), selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR),
selective catalytic reduction (SCR),
LNBs and good combustion practices.
The State found that several potential
NOX controls were technically
infeasible and did not warrant further
investigation. Maine concluded that
NOX tempering is not technically
feasible due to reduced thermal
efficiency and that SCR is not
technically feasible due to the increased
frequency of catalyst fouling from multifuel boilers. FGR was determined to be
not technically feasible based on
previous failed FGR trials conducted on
power boiler #9. SNCR, with a 30–40%
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
control efficiency, and LNBs, with 10%
control efficiency, were identified as
technically feasible control strategies.
Maine estimated the cost-effectiveness
of SNCR at $7,360 per ton and noted
that SNCR has a reduced effectiveness
on boilers with significant load swings
(such as the Power Boiler #9). Given the
low cost-effectiveness of SNCR, Maine
determined the continued use of LNBs
represent BART for the power boiler #9.
iii. Lime Kiln
(1) PM BART Review: The lime kiln is
subject to the Maximum Available
Control Technology (MACT) standard
for PM found in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
MM. The BART Guidelines state that for
sources subject to a MACT standard,
‘‘[u]nless there are new technologies
subsequent to the MACT standards
which would lead to cost-effective
increases in the level of control, you
may rely on the MACT standards for
purposes of BART.’’ (50 FR 39164, (July
6, 2005)) Maine determined that there
are no new technologies for control of
this source and therefore that
compliance with MACT therefore
represents BART for the lime kiln.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine
identified the use of a wet scrubber and
in-process capture as feasible
technologies for the control of SO2 from
the lime kiln. Both technologies are
currently employed by Woodland Pulp
(including two wet scrubbers).
Therefore, current controls were
determined to be BART.
(3) NOX BART Review: A number of
potential NOX control strategies were
identified for the lime kiln, including:
SNCR, SCR, non-selective catalytic
reduction (NSCR), FGR, LNBs, and good
combustion practices. Maine
determined the impracticality of
installing chemical injection nozzles
inside a rotating kiln drum makes SNCR
technically infeasible. Maine also
concluded that SCR and NSCR are not
feasible due to the known presence of
catalyst fouling substances in the lime
kiln. The State found that FGR is not
feasible as it reduces the temperature in
the flame zone, thus hindering the
chemical reaction taking place in the
lime kiln. The State also concluded that
LNBs are a non-demonstrated
technology and are not listed in the EPA
BACT/RACT/LEAR Clearinghouse for
lime kiln emissions control. Maine
concluded that good combustion
practices are the only feasible option for
controlling NOX which is already
employed at the lime kiln. Therefore,
current controls were determined to
represent BART for the lime kiln.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73967
iv. EPA Assessment
EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and
conclusions for the BART emission
units located at the Woodland Pulp LLC
facility are reasonable. EPA has
reviewed the Maine analyses and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines.
b. FPL Energy Wyman, LLC
i. Background
FPL Energy Wyman is an 850megawatt electric generating facility
located on Cousins Island in Yarmouth,
Maine. The plant consists of four
generation units, all of which fire #6
residual fuel oil. A fifth unit is a smaller
oil-fired auxiliary boiler which provides
building heat and auxiliary steam and a
sixth unit is an emergency backup
diesel generator that provides electricity
for use on-site. There are two BART
eligible units at the facility—boiler #3
and boiler #4.
Boiler #3 is a Combustion Engineering
boiler, installed in 1963, with a
maximum design heat input capacity of
1,190 MMBtu/hr firing #6 fuel oil (with
2.0% sulfur content by weight). The
boiler is equipped with multiple
centrifugal cyclones for control of
particulate matter and optimization and
combustion controls for NOX. Boiler #4
is a Foster Wheeler boiler, installed in
1975, with a maximum design heat
input capacity of 6,290 MMBtu/hr firing
#2 or #6 fuel oil (with 0.7% sulfur). The
boiler is equipped with an electrostatic
precipitator for control of particulate
matter and optimization and
combustion controls for NOX.
ii. Boilers #3 and #4
(1) PM BART Review: Emissions of
PM from oil fired boilers are a function
of the efficiency of the fuel firing.14 Both
boilers #3 and #4 have high efficiency
combustion systems in conjunction with
PM control devices. Boiler #3 has a
Multiclone dust collectors. Boiler #4 has
an ESP, the most stringent control
available. The cost analysis of installing
an ESP on boiler #3 resulted in a
pollutant removal cost effectiveness of
$19,000/ton of PM removed and a
visibility improvement cost
effectiveness of $143 million per
deciview of visibility improvement.
This was determined to be not cost14 It is estimated from the MANE–VU August
2006 document Contributions to Regional Haze in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, Tools
and Techniques for Apportioning Fine Particle/
Visibility Impairment in MANE–VU (pages 3–2, 4–
7, 4–8) that coarse particulate matter is responsible
for typically less than 4% of the contribution to
visibility impairment at the MANE–VU Class I
areas.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73968
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
effective. Therefore, Maine determined
that current controls on boiler #3
represent BART. Maine determined the
ESP on boiler #4 represents BART
because it is the most stringent control
available.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Emissions of
SO2 from oil fired boilers are related to
the sulfur in the fuel. Maine identified
the following available retrofit control
technologies for reducing SO2 emissions
from boilers #3 and #4: Low sulfur #2
fuel oil, reduced sulfur #6 fuel oil, and
wet or dry scrubbers. The use of low
sulfur #2 fuel oil (0.05% down to
0.0015% sulfur by weight) and reduced
sulfur #6 fuel oil (1% or less sulfur by
weight) were considered technically
feasible options. The application of post
combustion controls of wet or dry
scrubbers on large, oil-fired boilers was
researched by Maine. The state found
that, generally such controls were
typically applied only to coal-fired
boilers. As a general matter, the use of
scrubbers on oil-fired boilers is
considered cost prohibitive. As a result,
Maine did not consider wet or dry
scrubbers as a BART option.
Maine performed a cost analysis on
lowering the sulfur content in the fuel
used in both boilers. Boiler #3 currently
fires 2% sulfur by weight oil and boiler
#4 currently fires 0.7% sulfur by weight
oil. The annual costs were calculated to
be the following (based on the
differential fuel costs):
TABLE 4—SO2 CONTROL COSTS ANALYSIS FOR WYMAN #3 AND #4
Boiler #3
Boiler #4
Annual
costs
(in millions)
% Sulfur
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
Maine also estimated the visibility
cost effectiveness, incremental visibility
improvement, and incremental visibility
cost effectiveness from switching from
2% sulfur by weight to reduced sulfur
content fuel oil for boiler #3. In
estimating these values, Maine used the
cumulative visibility benefits at several
$0.68
0.80
3.2
5.7
% Sulfur
Annual
costs
(in millions)
....................
....................
0.5
0.3
....................
....................
$9.2
18.3
of the nearest Class I areas on the
highest impacting visibility day. Maine
estimated the following:
TABLE 5—SO2 CONTROL VISIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR WYMAN UNIT #3
Visibility cost
effectiveness
($/deciview)
(in millions)
% Sulfur
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
The visibility cost effectiveness,
incremental visibility improvement, and
incremental visibility cost effectiveness
from switching from 0.7% sulfur to
$0.69
0.56
1.82
2.64
Incremental
visibility
improvement
Incremental
visibility cost
effectiveness
($/deciview)
(in millions)
........................
0.44 dv
0.35 dv
0.37 dv
........................
$0.27
6.97
6.59
reduced sulfur content fuel oil for boiler
#4 was the following:
TABLE 6—SO2 CONTROL VISIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR WYMAN UNIT #4
Visibility cost
effectiveness
($/deciview)
(in millions)
% Sulfur
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
0.5 ................................................................................................................................................
0.3 ................................................................................................................................................
Based on the information above,
Maine determined 0.7% sulfur by
weight fuel oil for boiler #3 beginning
in 2013, and the current limit of 0.7%
sulfur by weight fuel oil for boiler #4
represents BART for these units.
(3) NOX BART Review: In order to
meet the ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS)
requirement, FPL Energy Wyman
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
installed combustion control
technologies pursuant to Maine’s
Chapter 145, NOX Control Program
Regulation. FPL Energy Wyman
installed combustion control technology
upgrades, including low NOX fuel
atomizers, improved swirler design, and
overfire and interstage air ports. The
burners were optimized and fuel/air
flows were balanced to the burners on
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$22.3
19.5
Incremental
visibility
improvement
Incremental
visibility cost
effectiveness
($/deciview)
(in millions)
........................
0.53 dv
........................
$17.3
each unit. The combustion control
technology upgrades were completed in
April 2003 and reductions in NOX
emissions of 29–35% have been
documented with boiler #3 and
reductions of 24–47% have been
documented with boiler #4 depending
on each unit’s load. These reductions
are equivalent to the reductions that
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
could be achieved through the use of
SNCR on the boilers.
The cost analysis of installing
additional NOX controls of regenerative
selective catalytic reduction (RSCR) on
the boilers in addition to the current
combustion controls resulted in a
pollutant removal cost effectiveness of
$125,000/ton and $83,000/ton of NOX
removed for boiler #3 and boiler #4,
respectively. Maine concluded that such
controls are not cost effective.
Therefore, Maine determined the
current combustion controls represent
BART for these units.
iii. EPA Assessment
EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and
conclusions for the BART emission
units located at the FPL Energy Wyman,
LLC facility are reasonable. Although
EPA does not generally recommend that
States rely solely on $/deciview
consideration in making BART
determinations, EPA does not believe
that broader analysis of the costs and
visibility benefits associated with
changing the sulfur content of the fuel
used in boiler #3 and #4 would have
resulted in a different BART
determination in this case. EPA has
reviewed the remaining Maine analyses
for FPL Energy Wyman, LLC and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines.
c. Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
i. Background
Lincoln Paper & Tissue (LPT) is an
integrated Kraft pulp and paper mill.
Currently, LPT operates a hardwood
digester and a softwood sawdust
digester to produce pulp with
approximately 50% recycled content.
LPT uses one recovery boiler and a lime
kiln in the recaust process for
reclamation of the pulping chemicals.
Also, LPT has three oil-fired boilers and
one multi-fuel boiler to supply the mill
with steam. The two paper machines
produce specialty paper and the two
tissue machines produce multi-ply dyed
tissue. The pulp dryer machine
produces bailed pulp which is either
used by LPT or sold to other paper
manufacturers.
At LPT, the only BART-eligible source
is the recovery boiler #2, which is used
to recover the pulping chemicals and
produce steam. Emissions exit through
two identical 175 foot stacks.
The recovery boiler is a straight fire
unit burning black liquor, typically
without combustion support from fossil
fuel. Normally, oil is used only during
start-ups and shutdowns and to stabilize
operation of the boiler. Recovery boiler
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
#2 is exhausted to an ESP to control
particulate emissions. This unit also
serves to re-introduce salt cake into the
black liquor which further concentrates
the solids content.
ii. Recovery Boiler #2
(1) PM BART Review: PM emissions
are currently controlled with the ESP to
levels meeting compliance with MACT
standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
MM). Since the unit is meeting the
MACT standard, Maine determined that
these controls represent BART.
(2) SO2 and NOX BART Review: SO2
and NOX emissions are controlled by
proper operation of the recovery boiler,
including a three-level staged
combustion air control system, and
limitations on fuel oil use and the sulfur
content. As no new control technologies
are available for further control of these
pollutants from a recovery boiler,
current controls constitute BART for
this unit.
iii. EPA Assessment
EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and
conclusions for the BART emission unit
located at the Lincoln Paper and Tissue,
LLC facility are reasonable. EPA has
reviewed the Maine analyses and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines. Current NOX and SO2
emission limits are federally enforceable
via the Maine Air License A–177–71–A/
R issued under Maine’s EPA approved
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program.
d. SD Warren Company, Somerset
i. Background
SD Warren Company (SDW) is an
integrated Kraft pulp and paper mill.
Whole logs, chips, and other biomass,
are delivered to the mill by truck and/
or train. The logs are sawn, debarked,
chipped and stored in the mill’s
woodyard. The biomass is stored in
piles and then conveyed to the boilers.
The chips are stored in piles and then
conveyed to the chip bin, chip steaming
vessel, and then the digester. SDW
operates one Kamyr continuous digester
to produce pulp (hardwood, softwood,
or any combination thereof), one
recovery boiler and one lime kiln in the
recaust process for reclamation of the
pulping chemicals. There are two multifuel boilers and an oil fired package
boiler to supply the mill with steam.
SDW has three paper machines which
produce paper. There are also two pulp
machines. One pulp machine has a
steam operated dryer and both machines
produce bailed pulp. The mill also
operates support facilities, including the
wood yard, wastewater treatment plant,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73969
sludge presses, pulp and paper
production labs, environmental labs,
roll wrapping, shipping and receiving
operations, and a landfill.
There are four emissions units that
were determined to be BART eligible at
this facility: the recovery boiler, smelt
tanks #1 and #2, and the lime kiln.
ii. Recovery Boiler
The recovery boiler was installed in
1975–1976. It is used to recover
chemicals from spent pulping liquors
and to produce steam for mill
operations. The recovery boiler is
licensed to fire black liquor (spent
pulping liquor), residual (#6) fuel oil,
distillate (#2) fuel oil, and used oil. The
recovery boiler is also licensed to
combust low volume-high concentration
(LVHC) and high volume-low
concentration (HVLC) gases produced at
various points in the pulping process.
The licensed maximum black liquor
firing rate is 5.5 million pounds per day
of BLS. The recovery boiler is subject to
MACT standards for Chemical Recovery
Combustion Sources at Kraft Soda,
Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical
Pulp Mills (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
MM).
(1) PM BART Review: SDW currently
operates a three-chamber electrostatic
precipitator on the recovery boiler.
Maine identified the following available
retrofit technologies for control of PM
from Kraft mill recovery boilers:
Electrostatic precipitators, wet
scrubbers, and fabric filters. Wet
scrubbers were eliminated as a feasible
control strategy because the ESP
currently installed is capable of a greater
degree of emissions control at a lower
operating cost. Fabric filters are
generally considered to be equivalent to
ESPs in regards to pollution control;
however, fabric filters have not been
applied to recovery boilers at Kraft
mills. Maine therefore eliminated fabric
filters as a feasible control alternative
and concluded that the current control,
specifically operation of the ESP,
represents BART for this unit.
(2) SO2 BART Review: SDW’s recovery
boiler is currently equipped with a fourlevel staged combustion air system.
SDW identified staged combustion
systems and wet scrubbers as available
retrofit technologies for control of SO2
from Kraft mill recovery boilers. SO2
emissions from recovery boilers occur
due to the volatilization and subsequent
oxidation of sulfur compounds that are
present in the black liquor. Proper
operation of the recovery boiler
maximizes the conversion of sulfur
compounds in the liquor to the
principal constituents of the pulping
chemicals. This occurs through capture
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73970
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
of these sulfur compounds in the
combustion zone of the boiler by
sodium fume released from the smelt
bed. Consequently, proper combustion
control achieved through the use of
staged combustion air systems results in
effective control of SO2 emissions. The
only available alternative for SO2
emission control is a wet scrubber.
However, recovery boilers with a
properly operated staged air combustion
system operate at much lower
concentrations of SO2 in the flue gas
than emission units to which wet
scrubbers are routinely applied. Given
the already low SO2 levels, the
installation and use of a scrubber would
be prohibitively expensive. The
maximum modeled visibility
impairment from this unit due to SO2 is
0.02 dv. Maine determined therefore
that current control represents BART for
this unit.
(3) NOX BART Review: SDW’s
recovery boiler is upgraded to a fourlevel staged combustion air system.
Maine identified the following available
retrofit technologies for control of NOX
from Kraft mill recovery boilers: Staged
combustion systems, SNCR, SCR, LNBs,
Flue Gas Recirculation, and LowTemperature Oxidation. Emission
controls which have been demonstrated
on conventional steam boilers,
including SNCR, SCR, FGR, and LNBs
have not been demonstrated to be
feasible on Kraft mill recovery boilers.
There has been some small-scale work
done on ‘‘low-temperature oxidation’’
where pure oxygen is injected into the
evaporation process to drive ammonia
from the black liquor. However, the
company currently looking into this
technology has advised Maine that they
are not aware of any commercial size
units where this technology has been
used. Maine did not consider this
technology to be technically feasible.
Maine concluded that there are no
technically feasible alternatives for
control of NOX emissions from recovery
boilers other than proper operation of
the boiler and the staged combustion
control system. Since the controls
already in place are considered the most
stringent available, Maine determined
that these controls represent BART for
this unit.
iii. Smelt Tanks #1 and #2
SDW operates two smelt tanks which
were installed in 1975–1976. The smelt
tanks operate in conjunction with the
recovery boiler. Recovered sodiumbased pulping chemicals, in the form of
molten salts, are discharged from the
bottom of the recovery boiler into the
smelt tanks, where they are mixed with
a water/caustic solution to form green
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
liquor. The smelt tanks are subject to
MACT standards (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MM).
(1) PM BART Review: SDW currently
operates a wetted fan scrubber on each
of the smelt tanks for control of
particulate emissions. The scrubbing
media for the scrubbers is either water
or weak wash from the white liquor
clarification system. Maine identified
the following potential retrofit
technologies for control of PM from
smelt tanks: ESPs, wet scrubbers, fabric
filters, and mist eliminators. The most
common PM emission control system
employed on smelt tanks is wet
scrubbers. The use of wet scrubbers also
provides a secondary environmental
benefit by controlling reduced sulfur
compound emissions. The high
moisture content of the smelt tank
exhaust gases makes dry PM control
systems, including fabric filters and dry
ESPs, technically infeasible on this type
of emission unit. The only remaining
control technology, mist eliminators,
provides a lower degree of PM emission
control than the use of wet scrubbers.
Therefore, Maine determined that the
current operation of the wet scrubbers
represents BART for these units.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Since no
combustion takes place within smelt
tanks, SO2 is not generated within the
emission unit. Maine has found that SO2
emissions from the smelt tanks are
dependent on how much sulfur carries
over from the respective recovery
boilers with the smelt. SO2 emissions
from both smelt dissolving tanks
combined are very low at approximately
10.5 tons per year, primarily because the
wet scrubber used for PM control also
reduces SO2 emissions. Maine
determined that BART for SO2
emissions from smelt tanks #1 and #2 is
no additional control based on the
following: (1) SO2 emissions from the
smelt dissolving tanks during the BART
baseline period were, and are expected
to continue to be, extremely low (∼10.5
TPY, combined); (2) the smelt
dissolving tanks and associated
scrubbers are designed and operated to
minimize SO2 emissions; (3) SO2
emissions from the smelt dissolving
tanks have a minimal impact on
visibility (<0.004 deciviews); and (4)
additional control of SO2 emissions
from the smelt dissolving tanks would
have a minimal impact on overall
visibility. Therefore, Maine determined
that current controls represent BART for
these units.
(3) NOX BART Review: Since no
combustion takes place within smelt
tanks, NOX is not generated within the
emission unit. Therefore, Maine
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determined that current controls
represent BART for these units.
iv. Lime Kiln
The lime kiln was installed in 1975–
1976. It is used to convert lime mud
(principally calcium carbonate) to lime
(calcium oxide). Fuel is fired in the lime
kiln to generate the heat that is needed
to convert lime mud to lime. The lime
kiln is licensed to fire residual (#6) fuel
oil, distillate (#2) fuel oil, used oil, and
propane. The lime kiln is also licensed
to combust LVHC gases and foul
condensate streams.
(1) PM BART Review: Particulate
emissions from the lime kiln are
currently controlled by a variable throat
venturi scrubber system followed by a
cyclone separator. Maine identified the
following available retrofit technologies
for control of PM from lime kilns:
Electrostatic precipitators, wet
scrubbers, and fabric filters. Fabric
filters have never been applied to Kraft
pulp mill lime kilns. They are generally
deemed to be technically infeasible on
lime kilns. ESPs provide a greater
degree of particulate matter control than
venturi scrubbers. However, the
possible annual reduction in emissions
to be gained by replacing the existing
scrubber with an ESP is relatively small
(estimated at under 40 tons/year).
Additionally, the scrubber also helps
control emissions of SO2 and reduced
sulfur compounds. This beneficial
removal of other pollutants is not
available to lime kilns equipped with
ESPs. Consequently, replacement of the
existing scrubber with an ESP would be
expected to result in higher Total
Reduced Sulfur (TRS) and SO2
emissions from the lime kiln.
Furthermore, any potential
improvement in visibility impacts
associated with retrofitting an ESP on
the lime kiln, the modeling result for
current PM emissions from the Lime
Kiln was 0.0463 dv; well below the
State’s de minimis level of 0.1 dv.
Therefore, Maine determined that the
current operation of the scrubber
represents BART for the lime kiln.
(2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 forms in
the lime kiln from either the combustion
of sulfur in the fuel or combustion of
TRS compounds in the LVHC gases.
Currently, emissions of SO2 are
controlled by using a combination of the
inherent sulfur removal provided by
operation of the kiln itself (i.e. extensive
contact between burner exhaust gases
and the calcium compounds in the kiln)
enhanced through the use of a venturi
wet scrubber (post-combustion). SDW
also uses a caustic scrubber (precombustion) on the LVHC gases fired in
the boiler. Firing of LVHC gases in the
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
lime kiln without pre-treatment with the
caustic scrubber causes formation of
rings within the lime kiln leading to
excessive down-time of the equipment.
Emissions of SO2 from the lime kiln can
vary significantly based on the amount
of LVHC gases being fired and whether
or not the caustic scrubber is in
operation. Maine identified the
following available retrofit technologies
for control of SO2 from lime kilns: Lime
kiln operation and wet scrubbers. Since
these controls are already in place,
Maine determined that current controls
represent BART for this unit.
(3) NOX BART Review: NOX emissions
from the lime kiln are currently
controlled by good combustion controls
and operation of the unit’s combustion
air system. The maximum modeled
visibility impairment on a Class I area
is 0.06 dv. Maine identified the
following potential retrofit technologies
for control of NOX from lime kilns:
Combustion Air Systems controls,
SNCR, SCR, LNBs, and FGR. However,
Maine’s analysis concluded there are no
technically feasible alternatives for
control of NOX from lime kilns beyond
the measures currently employed. LNBs
negatively impact the efficiency, energy
use, and calcining capacity of a lime
kiln. Post combustion controls, such as
SCR and SNCR, are not feasible for lime
kilns. The temperature window
necessary for the SNCR process (1500–
2000 °F) is unavailable in a Kraft lime
kiln. The high PM load at the exit of the
kiln precludes the placement of the
catalyst grid needed for the SCR process
upstream of the PM control device, and
the requisite temperature window
required for this process (550–750 °F) is
not available downstream of the PM
control system. Therefore, Maine
determined that current controls
represent BART for this unit.
v. EPA Assessment
EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and
conclusions for the BART emission
units located at the SD Warrant
Company, Somerset facility are
reasonable. EPA has reviewed the Maine
analyses and concluded they were
conducted in a manner consistent with
EPA’s BART Guidelines.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
e. Verso Androscoggin
i. Background
The Verso Androscoggin pulp mill in
Jay, Maine, produces bleached Kraft
pulp and groundwood pulp. The
bleached pulp is produced in two
separate process lines, designated ‘‘A’’
and ‘‘B.’’ Groundwood pulp is produced
in another separate process line. Logs
and wood chips are received in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
Woodyard area, where they are stored
and processed for eventual use in the
Pulp Mill or Groundwood Mill. The
Pulp Mill consists of two separate,
parallel Kraft chemical pulping process
lines. Pulp produced at the Verso Jay
Mill is either used in the paper mill area
or dried in the Flash Dryer for storage
and/or sale.
The Paper Mill consists of all the
equipment and operations used to
convert pulp to paper, including stock
preparation, additive preparation,
coating preparation, starch handling,
finishing, storage, and paper machines.
Non-condensable gases (NCGs) collected
throughout the process from certain
units in the Pulp Mill are sent to the
lime kilns for combustion. The HVLC
emission streams from certain other
units are collected and sent to the
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer where
they are incinerated. The Mill produces
steam and electric power for mill
operations with power boilers #1 and #2
and the waste fuel incinerator (WFI).
There are ten BART-eligible units at
Verso Jay: (1) Power boiler #1; (2) power
boiler #2; (3) waste fuel incinerator; (4)
recovery boiler # 1; (5) recovery boiler
#2; (6) smelt tank #1; (7) smelt tank #2;
(8) lime kiln A; (9) lime kiln B; and (10)
flash dryer.
ii. Power Boilers #1 and #2
Power boilers #1 and #2 are each
rated at 680 MMBtu/hr and began
operation in 1965 and 1967,
respectively. Power boilers #1 and #2
are licensed to fire #6 fuel oil, #2 fuel
oil, and used oil. The license currently
limits the sulfur content of the fuel oil
to no more than 1.8%, by weight. In
addition, each boiler is equipped with
LNBs. The operation of the two boilers
is related to whether or not and how the
cogeneration plant (three natural gas
fired turbines) at the Mill is operating.
Typically, when the cogeneration plant
is operating, power boilers #1 and #2 do
not operate. When the cogeneration
plant is not operating, both boilers are
operated; however, one boiler will
typically carry the bulk of the load and
the other boiler will be idled or run at
a low load. There are occasions when
both boilers operate at high load but this
is not a routine operating mode.
(1) PM BART Review: Maine found
that PM10 emissions from power boilers
#1 and #2 are low and have minimal
impact on visibility. The maximum
modeled visibility impact on a Class I
area due to PM10 is 0.03 dv. As the
boilers are subject to the final ‘‘Boiler
MACT’’ standards (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart DDDDD) promulgated in 2011,
Maine did not further consider
additional controls in its BART analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73971
and determined that compliance with
these standards represents BART for
power boilers #1 and #2.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine
identified and evaluated low sulfur
fuels, wet scrubbing, dry scrubbing, and
semi-dry scrubbing as potential control
technologies in the reduction of SO2
emissions from power boilers #1 and #2.
Dry and semi-dry scrubbing control
technologies were evaluated; however,
the control effectiveness levels would be
low (<25%), downstream particulate
matter control devices such as an ESP
and/or fabric filter would need to be
installed to collect and re-circulate the
scrubbing material, and no applications
of these technologies on fuel oil fired
boilers like power boilers #1 and #2
were identified during research of
potential control technologies. Low
sulfur fuels and wet scrubbing control
technologies were found to be
technically feasible and were evaluated
further. Switching to natural gas, #2 fuel
oil, and wet scrubbing were estimated to
cost between $2,200 and $3,300 per ton
SO2 removed with a visibility
improvement of 1.5 dv. Switching to
0.7% sulfur #6 fuel oil was estimated to
cost $631 per ton SO2 removed with a
visibility improvement of 0.9 dv.
The cost effectiveness numbers above
are based on the highest estimated two
year average of annual emissions
between 2002 and 2008. In recent years
(2008 and 2009) these boilers have been
operating close to only 20% of the time.
This would result in an actual cost
effectiveness for wet scrubbing of
between $4,920 and $7,133 per ton of
SO2 removed. The use of low sulfur
fuels or a wet scrubber has the potential
to reduce visibility impacts from power
boilers #1 and #2 by a perceptible
amount; however, there are significant
cost differences among the three low
sulfur containing fuels evaluated by
Maine and the wet scrubber. Maine
concluded that the use of 0.7% sulfur by
weight #6 fuel oil is a feasible and
justifiable cost at $631 per ton of SO2
reduced. The incremental cost of
switching to natural gas from 0.7%
sulfur by weight #6 fuel oil is $7,492 per
ton and the incremental cost of
switching to wet scrubbing from 0.7%
sulfur by weight #6 fuel is $4,811 per
ton. Maine determined that these costs
were not justifiable for an additional 0.6
dv improvement. In addition, Maine’s
low sulfur legislation will require the
facility to use 0.5% sulfur by weight #6
oil by 2018. At that time, the price of the
0.5% sulfur by weight oil will be
reduced due to increased supply to the
State. Therefore, Maine determined that
the use of lower sulfur (0.7% sulfur by
weight) #6 fuel oil in place of the higher
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73972
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sulfur (1.8% sulfur by weight) #6 fuel
oil currently fired, represents BART for
control of SO2 emissions from power
boilers #1 and #2.
(3) NOX BART Review: Maine
identified and evaluated SCR, LNB,
SNCR, and combustion control methods
(including an overfire air (OFA) system
and a flue gas recirculation (FGR)
system) as potential control
technologies for the reduction of NOX
emissions from power boilers #1 and #2.
SCR and SNCR control technologies
were found to be technically feasible
and were evaluated further. LNBs are
currently installed and used on power
boilers #1 and #2, and are estimated to
provide a 15% reduction in NOX
emissions, so were not evaluated
further. Combustion control methods
were evaluated; however, none were
found to be viable control options for
power boilers #1 and #2. Maine found
that the size and design of power boilers
#1 and #2 would provide little room for
the installation of an overfire air system
and that the application of a flue gas
recirculation system would result in
minimal reductions (7% to 15%) in
NOX emissions. The cost effectiveness
of SCR is $5,271 per ton NOX removed
with a visibility improvement of 1.7 dv.
The cost effectiveness of SNCR is $5,973
per ton NOX removed for a visibility
improvement of 1.4 dv.
The cost effectiveness numbers
presented above are based on
controlling NOX emissions from power
boilers #1 and #2 from the highest
estimated two-year average annual
emissions between 2002 and 2008. In
recent years (2008 and 2009) these
boilers have been operating close to
only 20% of the time, which for
example, would result in an actual cost
effectiveness of $16,313 per ton of NOX
removed with the installation of SCR.
Although the use of SCR or SNCR has
the potential to reduce visibility impacts
by a perceptible amount, Maine
concluded that the cost effectiveness
levels are not economically justifiable
based on the limited use of power
boilers #1 and #2 in recent years.
Therefore, Maine determined that the
current use of LNBs represents BART
for control of NOX emissions from
power boilers #1 and #2 and that no
additional level of control is justifiable
as BART.
iii. Waste Fuel Incinerator Boiler
The waste fuel incinerator (WFI) is
rated at 480 MMBtu/hr on biomass and
240 MMBtu/hr on oil and began
operation in 1976. While the WFI
primarily fires biomass, fuel oils (#6 and
#2 fuel oils, waste oil, and oily rags) can
also be fired in the boiler. Sulfur
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
dioxide and particulate matter
emissions are controlled using a
variable throat venturi scrubber and
demister arrangement. When #6 fuel oil
is fired in significant amounts, caustic is
used in the wet scrubber to meet the
applicable SO2 emission limit. In
addition, the WFI is equipped with a
combustion system designed to ensure
the optimal balance between control of
NOX and limitation of CO and VOC.
(1) PM BART Review: The maximum
modeled visibility impact due to PM10
from the WFI is 0.06 dv. The WFI is
subject to EPA’s ‘‘Boiler MACT’’
standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
DDDDD). Maine determined that current
controls represent BART.
(2) SO2 Bart Review: Maine identified
and evaluated low sulfur fuels, wet
scrubbing, dry scrubbing, and semi-dry
scrubbing as potential control
technologies in the reduction of SO2
emissions from the WFI. While using
low sulfur fuels is technically feasible,
Maine believes that it is not a practically
feasible option for the WFI based on the
limited amount of fuel oil typically used
in the boiler (less than 10% of the
annual fuel oil heat input capacity). The
WFI currently uses a water based wet
scrubbing system for PM control with
the addition of caustic to meet SO2
emission limits when firing #6 fuel oil
in significant amounts. Dry and semidry scrubbing control technologies were
not considered by Maine to be either
practical or technically feasible for the
WFI due to the fact that they could not
find any applications of these
technologies on any other biomass-fired
grate type boilers like the WFI. Maine
also states that removing the existing
wet scrubber and replacing it with a dry
or semi-dry scrubbing system and a new
ESP and/or fabric filter would be costly.
The only remaining viable SO2 control
technology (adding caustic to the
existing wet scrubbing system) has a
cost effectiveness of $21,800 per ton SO2
removed with an expected visibility
improvement of less than 0.01 dv.
The WFI has very low baseline SO2
emissions (∼50 tons per year) and a
maximum modeled SO2 visibility
impact of less than 0.01 dv, due to the
inherent low sulfur content and
alkalinity of the primary fuel (biomass)
and the small amount of fuel oil used in
the WFI. In addition, during the limited
amount of time that #6 fuel oil is used
to provide a significant portion of the
heat input to the WFI, caustic is added
to the wet scrubber to control SO2
emissions. Therefore, Maine determined
that additional control of SO2 emissions
from the WFI cannot be justified as
BART due to the imperceptible effect it
would have on visibility. Maine
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
concluded that current controls
represent BART for this unit.
(3) NOX BART Review: Maine
identified and evaluated SCR, LNB,
SNCR, and combustion control methods
(including an overfire air system and
FGR) as potential control technologies
in the reduction of NOX emissions from
the WFI. SCR and SNCR control
technologies were found to be
technically feasible and were evaluated
further. Because the WFI primarily fires
biomass on the grate, LNBs would not
be effective for the majority of the time
that the WFI operates. Combustion
control methods were evaluated;
however, none were found to be viable
control options for the WFI due to the
limited NOX removal potential (<15%),
potential impacts to other pollutants
and boiler equipment, and the limited
amount of room available for the
installation of control equipment. Maine
determined that SCR, SNCR and FGR
have a cost effectiveness ranging from
$4,676 to $17,010 per ton NOX removed,
with capital costs ranging from $3 to
$7.6 million, and a resulting maximum
visibility improvement of only 0.3 dv.
Maine concluded that the cost
effectiveness levels are not
economically justifiable for any of the
control technologies evaluated given the
maximum visibility improvement
resulting from the use of these
technologies. Maine determined that
current combustion control represents
BART for the WFI.
iv. Recovery Boilers #1 and #2
Recovery boilers #1 and #2 generate
steam while regenerating chemicals
used in the wood pulping process, and
began operation in 1965 and 1976,
respectively. Recovery boilers #1 and #2
have rated processing capacities of 2.50
and 3.44 million pounds per day of dry
black liquor solids (BLS), respectively.
Inorganic material (smelt) from the
bottoms of the recovery boilers is used
to produce green liquor, which is a
solution of sodium sulfide and sodium
carbonate salts, when it is dissolved in
water or weak wash in the smelt
dissolving tanks (#1 and #2). Although
the recovery boilers primarily fire black
liquor, they also fire small quantities of
#2 and #6 fuel oils during startup,
shutdown, and load stabilization
conditions. The facility’s license
currently limits the sulfur content of the
fuel oils to no more than 0.5%, by
weight. Particulate matter emissions
from both recovery boilers are currently
controlled using an ESP.
(1) PM BART Review: PM emissions
from recovery boilers #1 and #2 are
currently controlled by an existing
shared/common ESP. Recovery boilers
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
#1 and #2 are subject to MACT
standards pursuant to 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MM. Maine reviewed the
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) and found that the current
control configuration is the most
effective control technology in use on
recovery boilers and that there are no
new, more effective technologies
subsequent to the MACT standard that
should be considered. Therefore, Maine
determined current controls represent
BART for recovery boilers #1 and #2.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has
found that SO2 emissions from recovery
boilers #1 and #2 are variable due to
several factors including black liquor
properties (e.g., sulfidity, sulfur to
sodium ratio, heat value, and solids
content), combustion air, liquor firing
patterns, furnace design features, and
type of startup fuel used. Although each
recovery boiler has the ability to utilize
#2 fuel oil, #6 fuel oil, and used/waste
oil for startup, shutdown, and load
stabilizing conditions, fuel oil firing is
not a typical operating scenario for the
recovery boilers. Maine identified and
evaluated wet scrubbing, dry scrubbing,
and semi-dry scrubbing as potential
control technologies in the reduction of
SO2 emissions from recovery boilers #1
and #2; however, none of these
technologies were found to have been
applied to recovery boilers. Therefore,
Maine determined that existing
combustion controls represent BART for
the control of SO2 emissions from
recovery boilers #1 and #2.
(3) NOX BART Review: Kraft recovery
boilers are a unique type of combustion
source that inherently produce low
levels of NOX emissions. Most of the
NOX emissions produced by recovery
boilers can be attributed to fuel based
NOX resulting from the partial oxidation
of the nitrogen contained in the black
liquor. Both recovery boilers #1 and #2
operate with a reducing zone in the
lower part of the boiler and an oxidizing
zone in the region of the liquor spray
guns designed to provide secondary and
tertiary staged combustion zones to
complete combustion of the black liquor
and minimize NOX emissions.
Maine identified and evaluated SCR,
LNB, SNCR, and combustion control
methods (including the addition of a
fourth level or quaternary air system
and a flue gas recirculation system) as
potential control technologies in the
reduction of NOX emissions from
recovery boilers #1 and #2. SCR has not
been applied or demonstrated
successfully on any recovery boilers. It
is unknown how the unique
characteristics of recovery boiler
exhaust gas constituents would react
with a SCR catalyst, so there was no
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
further evaluation of this control
technology. Maine’s evaluation of LNB
technology is that it is not technically
feasible to use this technology in the
firing of black liquor given its tar-like
qualities and the method by which it is
injected into the boiler and that it would
have minimal results in the firing of fuel
oils given the small amounts of fuel oils
that are fired in the recovery boilers.
Maine’s evaluation of SNCR control
technologies resulted in a finding that
there have been no applications of this
technology on recovery boilers in the
United States for a variety of reasons,
including safety concerns associated
with the risk of a smelt/water explosion
should boiler tube walls corrode and
leak near urea injection points and risks
associated with an ammonia handling
system for the SNCR. Operational
concerns associated with SNCR were
found to include the potential formation
of acidic sulfates that could result in
corrosion and a catastrophic boiler tube
failure. Recovery boilers #1 and #2 are
currently designed and operated using
low excess air combined with three
levels of staged combustion to minimize
NOX emissions. Additional combustion
control methods were evaluated by
Maine, however none were found to be
viable control options for recovery
boilers #1 and #2 due to the limited
amount of space in the boilers to install
a fourth or quaternary air system and
due to the technical challenges recirculating recovery boiler exhaust gases
in a FGR system due to the unique
characteristics of the exhaust gases.
Therefore, Maine concluded that
additional control of NOX emissions
from recovery boilers #1 and #2 are not
technically feasible and the existing
combustion control methods represent
BART for these units.
v. Smelt Tanks #1 and #2
Smelt dissolving tank #1 is rated at
2.50 million pounds per day of dry BLS
and began operation in 1965. Smelt
dissolving tank #2 is rated at 3.44
million pounds per day of dry BLS and
began operation in 1975. Inorganic
materials from the recovery boiler floors
drain into smelt dissolving tanks #1 and
#2 as molten smelt. In the smelt
dissolving tanks, the smelt is mixed
with weak wash to form green liquor
which is pumped to the causticizing
area. SO2 and PM10 emissions from
smelt dissolving tank #1 are controlled
with a dual-nozzle wet cyclonic
scrubber which utilizes an alkaline
scrubbing solution and was installed in
1983. SO2 and PM10 emissions from
smelt dissolving tank #2 are controlled
with a triple-nozzle wet cyclonic
scrubber which utilizes an alkaline
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73973
scrubbing solution and was installed in
1976.
(1) PM BART Review: PM emissions
from smelt dissolving tanks #1 and #2
are currently controlled by existing wet
cyclonic scrubbers. Smelt dissolving
tanks #1 and #2 are subject to MACT
standards under 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MM. After review of the RACT/
BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, Maine
determined that the current control
configuration is the most current control
technology in use on smelt dissolving
tanks and represent BART for smelt
dissolving tanks #1 and #2.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has
found that SO2 emissions from smelt
dissolving tanks #1 and #2 are
dependent on how much sulfur carries
over from the respective recovery
boilers with the smelt. Controlled smeltwater explosions in the smelt dissolving
tanks can create SO2 as a result of the
oxidation of the sulfur in the smelt. SO2
emissions from both smelt dissolving
tanks combined are very low at
approximately 5 tons per year. Maine
determined that BART for SO2
emissions from smelt dissolving tanks
#1 and #2 is no additional control based
on the following:
(1) SO2 emissions from the smelt
dissolving tanks during the BART
baseline period were and are expected
to continue to be extremely low (∼5
TPY, combined); (2) the smelt
dissolving tanks and associated
scrubbers are designed and operated to
minimize SO2 emissions; (3) SO2
emissions from the smelt dissolving
tanks have a minimal impact on
visibility (< 0.1 deciviews); and (4)
additional control of SO2 emissions
from the smelt dissolving tanks would
have a minimal impact on overall
visibility.
(3) NOX BART Review: Smelt Tanks
#1 and #2 do not emit NOX.
vi. Lime Kilns A and B
The ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns process
lime mud (calcium carbonate) from the
causticizing area to regenerate calcium
oxide. Inside the lime kilns, the lime
mud is dried and heated to a high
temperature where the lime mud is
converted to lime. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime
kilns are each rated at an operating rate
of 248 tons of calcium oxide per day
and a heat input of 72 MMBtu/hr and
began operation in 1965 and 1975,
respectively. The lime kilns are licensed
to fire #6 fuel oil, #2 fuel oil, propane,
and used/waste oil. The facility’s
license currently limits the sulfur
content of the fuel oil to no more than
1.8%, by weight. The ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime
kilns also serve as an incineration
device (control device) for select sources
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73974
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of low volume high concentration
(LVHC) non-condensable gases (NCG)
from pulping operations at the mill.
Particulate matter emissions are
controlled from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime
kilns using a fixed throat venturi
scrubber.
(1) PM BART Review: PM10 emissions
from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns consist
primarily of dust entrained from the
combustion section of the kilns. This
dust consists of sodium salts, calcium
carbonate, and calcium oxide. PM10
emissions are currently controlled by
existing venturi scrubbers. These units
are also subject to MACT Standards
under section 112 of the CAA, and 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart MM. Maine
reviewed the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse and concluded that there
are two control technologies that
represent the most stringent PM control
(ESPs and venturi scrubbers). Both ESPs
and venturi scrubbers have been used to
control PM emissions from lime kilns
and both are capable of a high level of
control. Maine determined that use of
the existing venturi scrubbers to control
PM10 emissions from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’
represents BART for the following
reasons: (1) The existing venturi
scrubbers maintain compliance with the
MACT emission limits; (2) the
replacement of the existing venturi
scrubbers with dry ESPs could increase
SO2 emissions from the lime kilns when
compared to use of the venturi
scrubbers; (3) the replacement of the
existing venturi scrubbers with wet
ESPs would result in high capital costs
($1.5 million per kiln); and (4)visibility
impacts from the lime kilns are minimal
(0.03–0.04 dv) and installation of
additional control would result in
inconsequential improvement in
visibility.
(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has
found that a significant portion of the
SO2 formed during the combustion
process in the lime kilns is removed as
the regenerated quicklime in the kilns
functions as a scrubbing agent. In
addition, the non-condensable gas
(NCG) collection system is equipped
with a scrubber that uses white liquor
(sodium hydroxide or NaOH) and thus
the sulfur loading from the NCGs is
minimized. SO2 emissions from both
lime kilns combined are very low at less
than 4 tons per year primarily due to the
alkalinity of the lime. Maine determined
that BART for SO2 emissions from the
‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns is no additional
control based on the following: (1) SO2
emissions from the lime kilns during the
BART baseline period were and are
expected to continue to be extremely
low (<4 TPY, combined); (2) there are
no control technologies available for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
lime kilns that are more cost effective
than the inherent scrubbing that occurs
for SO2 due to the alkalinity of the lime
in the process; (3) SO2 emissions from
the smelt dissolving tanks have a
minimal impact on visibility (<0.1
deciviews); and (4) additional control of
SO2 emissions from the lime kilns
would have a minimal impact on overall
visibility.
(3) NOX BART Review: Maine
identified and evaluated SCR, LNB, and
SNCR as potential NOX control
technologies. Maine’s evaluation of SCR
and SNCR as potential NOX control
technologies revealed that they have not
been installed on any lime kilns in the
pulp and paper industry, and were also
found to be technically infeasible.
Maine’s research with respect to lime
kilns and LNB technology revealed that
the technology is actually a combination
of passive combustion control measures
used to minimize NOX formation
primarily from thermal NOX and to a
lesser extent fuel NOX. These
combustion control measures include
careful design of the fuel feed system in
order to ensure proper mixing of the
fuel with air and burner ‘‘tuning’’ or
optimization which impacts fuel
burning efficiency and overall flame
length. Verso Androscoggin already
incorporates burner ‘‘tuning’’ in the
operation and maintenance of the ‘‘A’’
and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns to optimize the
relationship between NOX emissions
and operating efficiency. Maine
determined that the current use of LNB
represents BART for control of NOX
emissions from ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns
and that no additional level of control
is technically feasible. Maine also notes
in the BART analysis that existing NOX
emissions from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime
kilns have a minimal impact on
visibility (< 0.1 deciviews) and that
additional control of NOX emissions
would have a minimal impact on the
overall improvement to visibility.
vii. Flash Dryer
The flash dryer is used to dry pulp for
resale or for storage and future use on
one of Verso Androscoggin’s paper
machines. The flash dryer has a rated
heat input capacity of 84 MMBtu/hr and
began operation in 1964. The flash dryer
is licensed to fire #2 fuel oil, which
contains a maximum sulfur content of
0.5%. Particulate matter emissions are
controlled using a wet shower system
and SO2 emissions are limited through
the firing of #2 fuel oil.
(1) PM BART Review: Particulate
matter emissions from the flash dryer
are currently controlled by the use of a
wet shower system. Maine concluded
that the application of add-on controls
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and the use of cleaner fuels are not
practical considerations for controlling
PM emissions from the flash dryers and
that with potential visibility impacts
from the flash dryer being extremely
low, any emission reductions would
have an inconsequential impact on
visibility improvement (less than 0.1
dv). Therefore, Maine determined that
current controls represent BART for the
flash dryer.
(2) SO2 BART Review: The flash dryer
is limited by license conditions to firing
#2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur
content of 0.5%, by weight and so has
relatively low SO2 emissions. Although
Verso Androscoggin could replace the
use of #2 fuel oil with lower sulfur
containing fuels such as low sulfur
(0.05%) diesel fuel or natural gas, the
flash dryer is predicted to have peak
visibility impacts of 0.1 deciviews or
less. Therefore, Maine determined that
current controls represent BART.
(3) NOX BART Review: The flash
dryer is not equipped with any NOX
control equipment. NOX emissions from
the flash dryer are primarily generated
from the nitrogen component in the fuel
oil. Verso Androscoggin currently uses
good maintenance practices to minimize
NOX emissions from the flash dryer.
Maine’s investigation of conventional
NOX combustion controls (e.g., LNB,
OFA, and FGR) lead to a finding that
they are either unavailable for
installation on the flash dryer or are not
feasible for a combustion source as
small as the flash dryer. Therefore,
Maine determined that controls are
sufficient for BART.
viii. EPA Assessment
EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and
conclusions for the BART emission
units located at the Verso Androscoggin
facility are reasonable. EPA guidance
gives the States wide latitude in the
application of the five factors. EPA
believes that Maine’s approach is
reasonable for determining that current
controls are sufficient for recovery
boilers #1 and #2, WFI, smelt tanks #1
and #2, lime kilns A and B, the flash
dryer. EPA finds, with respect to the
power boilers #1 and #2, that Maine’s
determination that natural gas, #2 oil, or
wet scrubbing technology are not
economically justifiable, is reasonable.15
15 Maine’s SIP revision submittal is unclear as to
whether Maine judged the cost effectiveness of
these technologies based on the longer, 2002–2008,
timeframe or the shorter, 2008–2009, timeframe.
States have broad discretion in setting BART, and
EPA finds that Maine could have reasonably
concluded that even the lower cost of these
technologies under the 2002–2008 timeframe was
not economically justifiable given the incremental
visibility benefits associated with the more
stringent technology.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
EPA also finds that Maine’s
determination that #6 oil with 0.7%
sulfur content and current NOX controls
represent BART is reasonable.16 EPA
has reviewed the Maine analyses and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines.
f. Red Shield Environmental, LLC
i. Background
Red Shield operates a pulp mill in
Old Town, Maine. Pulp production at
the facility begins with wood chips
entering the facility, where they are
conveyed to, and ‘‘cooked’’ in an
impregnation vessel followed by a
digester. In the digester, white liquor is
used to dissolve the lignin from around
the wood fibers. The pulp from the
digester is then washed in the
brownstock washer system to remove
residual spent cooking liquor. After
bleaching the pulp to the desired
brightness, it is the dried. There are two
BART eligible units at the facility;
recovery boiler #4, and the lime kiln.
These units are similar to those already
discussed above at SD Warren and
Verso Androscoggin, and Maine
similarly concluded that current
controls represent BART at Red Shield
Environmental.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
ii. Recovery Boiler #4
Recovery boiler #4, manufactured by
Babcock & Wilcox, was originally
installed in 1971. However, in June of
1987, a smelt bed explosion damaged
the boiler. Recovery boiler #4 was
repaired and returned to operation by
December of 1987. Recovery boiler #4
has the capability of firing black liquor,
either alone or in combination with #6
fuel oil, and is limited to firing 2.57
MMlbs of black liquor solids per day.
The total heat input capacity of firing #6
fuel alone in the boiler is 375 MMBtu/
hr (2500 gal/hr). An ESP controls
particulate matter from the unit.
(1) PM BART Review: Recovery boiler
#4 is equipped with an ESP for
particulate matter, and a limit of 0.028
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf) 17 has been established pursuant to
16 The MANE–VU recommended limit for these
types of units is 0.5% sulfur content. However,
under a state provision, 38 M.R.S.A. § 603–A, sub§ 8—that was not submitted as part of the SIP
revision and is not currently being considered by
EPA—Maine DEP is limited to either requiring 1%
sulfur content or a 50% reduction. Because States
have broad discretion in setting BART, EPA finds
that requiring 0.7% sulfur content is reasonable;
however it should be noted that under 38 M.R.S.A.
§ 603–A, sub-§ 2(A), which EPA is proposing to
approve today, these units will be required to use
0.5% sulfur content fuel by January 1, 2018.
17 The narrative that accompanies Maine’s SIP
revision submittal lists this limit as 0.044 gr/dscf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
MACT, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM.
Therefore, Maine determined current
controls were determined to represent
BART.
(2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 emissions
from the recovery boiler #4 are limited
through the use of low sulfur (0.5% fuel
sulfur content limit) as established by
air emission license amendment A–180–
71–Z–A and required by the facility’s
Part 70 air emission license (A–180–70–
A–I). Therefore, Maine determined the
current controls represent BART.
(3) NOX BART Review: Recovery
boiler #4 is subject to Maine’s federally
enforceable Chapter 138—Reasonably
Available Control Technology for
Facilities that Emit Nitrogen Oxides (69
FR 66748) which contains the
applicable NOX ppm limit (150 ppm).
The unit is also subject to a best
practical treatment (BPT) NOX limit of
154.4 pounds per hour (lb/hr) when
firing black liquor, and a 188.2 lb/hr
limit when firing oil. The maximum
visibility impact from this source on a
Class I area is minimal, 0.2631 dv,
0.2070 dv impact due to NOX.
Therefore, Maine determined the
current controls represent BART.
iii. Lime Kiln
The lime kiln, lime mud clarifier,
storage tanks, precoat filter, and
scrubber are all part of the lime kiln
system. Lime mud (CaCO3) from the
recausticizing slaker system is
processed back into lime (CaO) through
the lime kiln system. The lime kiln was
installed in 1974 and is controlled with
a venturi scrubber system. The lime kiln
burner has a rating of 64 MMBtu/hr and
fires primarily #6 fuel oil with a 2%
sulfur content. Propane is used only for
the pilot flame. Low volume high
concentration (LVHC) gases are also
fired in the lime kiln.
(1) PM BART Review: The lime kiln is
equipped with a venturi scrubber
system for particulate matter, and is
subject to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM,
which contains an applicable PM
emission limit of 0.064 gr/dscf.
However, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM
also allows Red Shield to propose an
alternative PM limit (0.13 gr/dscf),
which takes into account facility
emissions from the #4 Recovery Boiler
and #4 Smelt Tank. Maine also
established an applicable PM emission
limit of 32.9 lb/hr under Maine’s BPT
However, the associated Table 10–9 BART
Determination Summary for Red Shield
Environmental, LLC of the SIP submittal and the
license amendment issued by Maine DEP that EPA
is proposing to approve into Maine’s SIP lists the
limit as 0.028 gr/dscf. Therefore this limit is the
enforceable limit.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73975
program. Therefore, Maine determined
current controls represent BART.
(2) SO2 BART Review: The lime kiln
is subject to Maine’s BPT with an
applicable limit of 7.1 lb/hr. Therefore,
Maine determined that current controls
represent BART.
(3) NOX BART Review: The lime kiln
is subject to Maine’s Chapter 138 which
contains the applicable NOX ppm limit
(170 ppm on a dry basis). The
applicable NOX lb/hr emission limit is
36.0 lb/hr. The maximum visibility
impact from this source on a Class I area
is minimal, 0.1338 dv, 0.085 dv impact
due to NOX. Therefore, Maine
determined that current controls
represent BART.
iv. EPA Assessment
Under EPA Guidance, States have
wide discretion as to how they assess
the BART five factors. Visibility
modeling indicates the maximum
visibility impairment from the #4
recovery boiler and the lime kiln is 0.26
dv and 0.13 dv, respectively. The
sources at Red Shield Environmental are
similar to units at Verso Androscoggin
and several other facilities. Maine
analyzed the potential for add on
controls for recovery boilers and lime
kilns for Verso Androscoggin, finding
additional controls for those units to be
technologically infeasible. Based on that
analysis, EPA finds that Maine’s
conclusion that the current controls are
sufficient for BART is reasonable. EPA
has reviewed the Maine analyses and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines.
6. Enforceability of BART
As noted above, some of the BART
units are subject to MACT standards
that are federally enforceable. In
addition, as part of the Maine’s
December 6, 2010 Regional Haze SIP
submittal, Maine DEP included source
specific permits which detail emission
limits, and record keeping and reporting
requirements associated with the
installation of the identified BART
controls. EPA is proposing to approve
the submitted license conditions as part
of this rulemaking action. If finalized, as
proposed, these conditions will become
federally enforceable.
E. Long-Term Strategy
As described in Section II. E of this
action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by
the state to obtain its share of emission
reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and New Jersey, the nearby
Class I area States. Maine’s LTS for the
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73976
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
first implementation period addresses
the emissions reductions from federal,
state, and local controls that take effect
in the State from the baseline period
starting in 2002 until 2018. Maine
participated in the MANE–VU regional
strategy development process. As a
participant, Maine supported a regional
approach towards deciding which
control measures to pursue for regional
haze, which was based on technical
analyses documented in the following
reports: (a) The MANE–VU Contribution
report; (b) Assessment of Reasonable
Progress for Regional Haze in MANE–
VU Class I Areas, available at
www.marama.org/visibility/RPG/
FinalReport/RPGFinalReport_070907.
pdf; c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART–
Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for
Conducting BART Determinations,
available at www.nescaum.org/
documents/bart-final-memo-06-2807.pdf; and d) Assessment of Control
Technology Options for BART–Eligible
Sources: Steam Electric Boilers,
Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and
Paper, and Pulp Facilities, available at
www.nescaum.org/documents/bartcontrol-assessment.pdf.
The LTS was developed by Maine, in
coordination with MANE–VU,
identifying the emissions units within
Maine that are currently likely have the
largest impacts on visibility at nearby
Class I areas, estimating emissions
reductions for 2018, based on all
controls required under federal and
state regulations for the 2002–2018
period (including BART), and
comparing projected visibility
improvement with the uniform rate of
progress for the nearby Class I area.
Maine’s LTS includes measures
needed to achieve its share of emissions
reductions agreed upon through the
consultation process with MANE–VU
Class I States and includes enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures
necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals established by New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey
for their Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses was
developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU
with assistance from Maine. The 2018
emissions inventory was developed by
projecting 2002 emissions, and
assuming emissions growth due to
projected increases in economic activity
as well as applying reductions expected
from federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART
guidelines direct States to exercise
judgment in deciding whether VOC and
NH3 impair visibility in their Class I
area(s). As discussed further in Section
IV.C.1 above, MANE–VU demonstrated
that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates
are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass
and visibility impairment at Class I
areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
region. It was also determined that the
total ammonia emissions in the MANE–
VU region are extremely small.
MANE–VU developed emissions
inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point
sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3)
off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road
mobile sources. The New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the
entire MANE–VU region. Stationary
point sources are those sources that emit
greater than a specified tonnage per
year, depending on the pollutant, with
data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are
relatively small, but due to the large
number of these sources, the collective
emissions from the source category
could be significant. Off-road mobile
sources are equipment that can move
but do not use the roadways. On-road
mobile source emissions are
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles
that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are
estimated by vehicle type and road type.
Biogenic sources are natural sources like
trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay
of plants. Stationary point sources
emission data is tracked at the facility
level. For all other source types,
emissions are summed on the county
level.
There are many federal and state
control programs being implemented
that MANE–VU and Maine anticipate
will reduce emissions between the
baseline period and 2018. Emission
reductions from these control programs
were projected to achieve substantial
visibility improvement by 2018 at all of
the MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess
emissions reductions from ongoing air
pollution control programs, BART, and
reasonable progress measures, MANE–
VU developed emissions projections for
2018 called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The
emissions inventory provided by the
Maine DEP for the ‘‘Best and Final’’
2018 projections is based on expected
control requirements.
Maine relied on emission reductions
from the following ongoing and
expected air pollution control programs
as part of the state’s long term strategy.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Maine’s EGU Regulation (Chapter 145
NOX Control Program) limits the NOX
emission rate to 0.22 lb NOX/MMBtu for
fossil fuel-fired units greater than 25
MW built before 1995 with a heat input
capacity between 250 and 750 MMBtu/
hr, and also limits the NOX emission
rate to 0.17 lb NOX/MMBtu for fossil
fuel-fired units greater than 25 MW built
before 1995 with a heat input capacity
greater than 750 MMBtu/hr.
Non-EGU point source controls in
Maine include: 2-year, 4-year, 7-year,
and 10-year MACT Standards;
Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engine (RICE)
MACT; Industrial Boiler/Process Heater
MACT.18
On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District
Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur
and remand of the Industrial Boiler
MACT Rule.19 This MACT was vacated
since it was directly affected by the
vacatur and remand of the Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator
(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed
a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to
address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75
FR 32006) and issued a final rule on
March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608).
Maine’s modeling included emission
reductions from the vacated Industrial
Boiler MACT rule. Maine did not redo
its modeling analysis when the rule was
re-issued. However, the expected
reductions in SO2 and PM resulting
from both the vacated and revised
MACT rule are a relatively small
component of the Maine inventory. The
expected emission reductions from the
revised MACT rule are comparable to
the modeled reductions from the
vacated MACT rule. In addition, the
new MACT rule requires compliance by
2014 and therefore the expected
emission reductions will be achieved
prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018.
Controls on area sources expected in
2018 include the following Maine state
regulations: architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (06–096 CMR
Chapter 151) and solvent cleaning (06–
096 CMR Chapter 130); mobile
equipment repair and refinishing (06–
096 CMR Chapter 153); and VOC control
measures for portable fuel containers
(06–096 CMR Chapter 155) and
consumer products (06–096 CMR
Chapter 152). All of these rules have
been incorporated into the Maine SIP.
18 The inventory was prepared before the MACT
for industrial Boilers and Process Heaters was
vacated. Control efficiency was assumed to be 4
percent for SO2 and 40 percent for PM. The overall
effects of including these reductions in the
inventory are estimated to be minimal.
19 NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
See www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/
sips/sips_me.html.
Controls on mobile sources expected
in 2018 include: Stage I vapor recovery
systems at gasoline dispensing facility
in the state and Stage II vapor recovery
at any gasoline dispensing facility in
York, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc
counties (06–096 CMR Chapter 118); 20
Federal On-Board Refueling Vapor
Recovery (ORVR) Rule; Federal Tier 2
Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Requirements; Federal
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission
Standards for Trucks and Buses; and
Federal Emission Standards for Large
Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines and
Recreation Vehicles.
Controls on non-road sources
expected by 2018 include the following
federal regulations: Control of Air
Pollution: Determination of Significance
for Nonroad Sources and Emission
Standards for New Nonroad
Compression Ignition Engines at or
above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, June
17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air
Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines
(63 FR 56967, October 23, 1998);
Control of Emissions from Nonroad
73977
Large Spark-Ignition Engines and
Recreational Engines (67 FR 68241,
November 8, 2002); and Control of
Emissions of Air Pollution from
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69
FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
Tables 4 and 5 are summaries of the
2002 baseline and 2018 estimated
emissions inventories for Maine. The
2018 estimated emissions include
emissions growth as well as emission
reductions due to ongoing emission
control strategies and reasonable
progress goals.
TABLE 7—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MAINE
[Tons per year]
NH3
NOX
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Mobile .......................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
EGU Point ................................................................................................
Non-EGU Point ........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
Biogenics ..................................................................................................
1,468
11
145
700
8,747
................
54,687
9,820
7,831
12,108
7,360
2,018
1,239
1,437
1,169
6,120
168,953
................
934
1,329
888
4,899
32,774
................
1,804
917
9,299
14,412
13,149
................
23,037
31,144
842
4,477
100,621
600,205
Totals ................................................................................................
11,071
93,824
178,919
40,825
39,581
760,327
VOC
TABLE 8—2018 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MAINE
[Tons per year]
NH3
NOX
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
Mobile .......................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
EGU Point ................................................................................................
Non-EGU Point ........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
Biogenics ..................................................................................................
1,715
15
139
859
12,312
................
12,828
6,543
1,827
14,137
7,036
2,018
272
1,086
296
7,477
57,411
................
266
978
279
5,922
18,877
................
894
82
21 6,806
13,082
1,127
................
10,414
21,988
53
5,708
90,866
600,205
Totals ................................................................................................
15,041
44,390
22 66,542
26,321
21,991
729,235
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
2. Modeling to Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE–VU performed modeling for
the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast States and the
District of Columbia. The modeling
analysis is a complex technical
evaluation that began with selection of
the modeling system. MANE–VU used
the following modeling system:
• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State
University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5)
version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model
routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and
regional haze regulatory modeling
studies.
• Emissions Model: The Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system
is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated
emission inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic
emission sources for photochemical grid
models.
• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s
Models-3/Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a
photochemical grid model capable of
addressing ozone, PM, visibility and
acid deposition at a regional scale.
• Air Quality Model: The Regional
Model for Aerosols and Deposition
20 Maine recently revised Chapter 118 to no
longer require Stage II vapor recovery controls as of
January 1, 2012. The previous version of the rule,
however, is still currently included in the Maine
SIP. Maine DEP is currently developing a SIP
submittal for the revised rule which would ensure
that Clean Air Act antibacksliding requirements are
met. The SIP submittal must provide for equivalent
or greater reductions than under the currently
approved Stage II program. Therefore, consideration
of these reductions in the model is reasonable.
21 The 2018 Final Modeling Inventory SO
2
emissions estimates for the EGU sector includes
adjustments to the EGU sector, including: (1)
Assessing the implementation of BART at eight
BART-eligible units, including Maine’s Wyman
Station; (2) implementation of the MANE–VU EGU
strategy; (3) increases in SO2 emissions to estimate
the effect of emissions trading under the CAIR
program; and (4) emissions increases in the MANE–
VU region to reflect state’s best estimates that some
sources predicted by the IPM model to be closed
would continue to operates, and information about
where and when emission controls would be
installed. The net result of these adjustments was
an increase in SO2 emissions from EGUs in Maine.
22 An adjustment factor was applied during the
processing of emissions data to restate fugitive
particulate matter emissions. Grid models have
been found to overestimate fugitive dust impacts
when compared with ambient samples; therefore,
an adjustment is typically applied to account for the
removal of particles by vegetation and other terrain
features. The summary emissions for PM10 in Table
8 reflect this adjustment. A comparable adjustment
was not made to the PM10 value listed in Table 7.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73978
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(REMSAD) is a Eulerian grid model that
was primarily used to determine the
attribution of sulfate species in the
Eastern US via the species-tagging
scheme.
• Air Quality Model: The California
Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a
non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model
used to access the contribution of
individual States’ emissions to sulfate
levels at selected Class I receptor sites.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in
the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018
was carried out on a grid of 12x12
kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11
MANE–VU States (Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of
Columbia and States adjacent to them.
This grid is nested within a larger
national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36
km grid cells that covers the continental
United States, portions of Canada and
Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans along the east and west
coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for
evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the
selection of the entire year of 2002
(January 1–December 31) as the best
period of meteorology available for
conducting the CMAQ modeling. The
MANE–VU States’ modeling was
developed consistent with EPA’s
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April
2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002), available at
www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/
guide/final-03-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf,
and EPA document, Emissions
Inventory Guidance for Implementation
of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations, August 2005 and updated
November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001),
available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/
eidocs/eiguid/ [hereinafter
EPA’s Modeling Guidance].
MANE–VU examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The
modeling assessment predicts future
levels of emissions and visibility
impairment used to support the LTS
and to compare predicted, modeled
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
visibility levels with those on the
uniform rate of progress. In keeping
with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality
model performance was evaluated using
graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles,
and acid deposition from various
monitoring networks and databases for
the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a
diverse set of statistical parameters from
the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress
and examine the model and modeling
inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable,
MANE–VU used the model to assess the
2018 RPGs using the current and future
year air quality modeling predictions,
and compared the RPGs to the uniform
rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), the Maine DEP provided
the appropriate supporting
documentation for all required analyses
used to determine the State’s LTS. The
technical analyses and modeling used to
develop the glide path and to support
the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR,
and interim and final EPA Modeling
Guidance. EPA finds the MANE–VU
technical modeling to support the LTS
and determine visibility improvement
for the uniform rate of progress
acceptable because the modeling system
was chosen and used according to EPA
Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with
the MANE–VU model performance
procedures and results, and that the
CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the
regional haze assessments for the Maine
LTS and regional haze SIP.
enforceable operation restrictions.
However, Maine demonstrated that the
SO2 emissions reductions assumed in
the modeling were reasonable since an
additional, federally enforceable Title V
license condition limits the amount of
time boiler #1 can be used to incinerate
total reduced sulfur gases. This limit
compensates for the initial assumption
of 1,442 ton per year reduction in SO2.
3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’
Maine in cooperation with the
MANE–VU States developed the
MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ to provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility at the MANE–VU Class
I areas. The ‘‘Ask’’ included: (a) Timely
implementation of BART requirements;
(b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2
emissions from each of the EGU stacks
identified by MANE–VU comprising a
total of 167 stacks; (c) adoption of a low
sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d)
continued evaluation of other control
measures to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions.
c. Maine Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil
strategy includes two phases. Phase I of
the strategy requires the reduction of
sulfur in distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by
weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) by
no later than 2014. Phase II requires
reductions of sulfur in #4 residual oil to
0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than
2018; in #6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur
by weight by no later than 2018; and a
further reduction in the sulfur content
of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018.
The Maine Low Sulfur Oil Program,
as established in statute at 38 M.R.S.A.
§ 603–A, sub-§ 2, instituted the
following restrictions on fuel sulfur
content for residual (#4, #5, and #6) and
distillate oil:
(1) Beginning January 1, 2018; a
person may not use residual oil with a
sulfur content greater than 0.5% by
weight;
(2) Beginning January 1, 2016, a
person may not use distillate oil with a
sulfur content greater than 0.005% by
weight; and
a. Timely Implementation of BART
The Maine BART determinations are
discussed in section IV.D. In the
modeling to demonstrate the sufficiency
of the LTS to achieve the RPGs, Maine
assumed a 1,442 ton per year reduction
in SO2 from SAPPI Somerset Power
Boiler #1 due to BART control. Maine
later determined that this unit was not
BART eligible due to federally
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2
Emissions From Each of the Electric
Generating Unit (EGU) Stacks Identified
by MANE–VU Comprising a Total of
167 Stacks
Maine has one EGU stack identified
by MANE–VU as a top contributor to
visibility impairment in any of the
MANE–VU Class I areas, FPL Energy
Wyman Station boiler #4.
Boiler #4 is a peaking unit, and
operated at an average annual capacity
factor of less than 10 percent between
2002 and 2009, with annual SO2
emissions of 1,170 tons in 2002.
Although FGD through the use of a
wet, semi-dry or dry scrubber is
technically feasible, this technology is
cost prohibitive due to the low-capacity
factor of this unit. In lieu of requiring
add-on controls, Maine will be utilizing
its low-sulfur fuels program meet the
‘‘Ask’’ at this unit. The Maine Low
Sulfur Fuel Program requires the use of
low-sulfur fuel containing no more than
0.5% sulfur beginning January 1, 2018,
providing an 84 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from its baseline
emissions based on the use of 3.0%
sulfur fuel.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(3) Beginning January 1, 2018, a
person may not use distillate oil with a
sulfur content greater than 0.0015% by
weight.
In addition to the low sulfur
requirements for distillate and residual
oil, the program contains two elements
not included in the MANE–VU Low
Sulfur Oil Strategy. These elements are
an exemption from the low sulfur
content limits for sources using
distillate fuel for manufacturing
purposes and an equivalent alternative
sulfur reduction program. Neither
element is included in Maine’s
implementation plan submittal or
approved by EPA.
Maine DEP does not believe that the
low sulfur content limit exemption for
manufacturing purposes will have a
significant impact on the emission
reductions afforded by this strategy for
2018 and beyond. While the exemption
allows the continued use of highsulfur 23 distillate oil at several
manufacturing facilities, there are
structural impediments to the actual use
of these fuels. First, since there is only
a limited potential market for highsulfur distillate 24 the Maine DEP
believes that this fuel will not be readily
available, and will likely be more
expensive than the more widely used 15
ppm distillate. Distributors and
wholesalers of distillate fuels have
noted that supplying high-sulfur
distillate to a limited market introduces
additional costs to their industry in the
form of segregated storage and
transportation/delivery systems, since
even incidental contamination (comingling) can lead to non-compliance
issues.25
Recognizing the potential for
incidental contamination of ULSD,
segregated storage and transportation/
delivery systems are probably the only
mechanisms that can assure compliance
with federal and state ULSD
requirements for the petroleum
marketing industry. Given the low
demand, and additional storage,
transportation and delivery costs, Maine
DEP does not believe that high sulfur
distillate fuel will be widely used by the
manufacturing sector in 2018 and
later.26
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
23 Containing
2,000–5,000 ppm sulfur.
other users of distillate (diesel) fuel in
Maine will be subject to the 15 ppm sulfur limits
(including general use and space heating at
manufacturing facilities).
25 For example, only 7 gallons of a 5,000 ppm
sulfur fuel added to 7,500 gallons of ULSD would
raise the sulfur content by 5.0 ppm.
26 As noted above, Maine believes that future
(2018) use of distillate fuel by the manufacturing
sector will be limited due to cost and compliance
concerns. Nevertheless, projected 2018 SO2
emissions for Maine have been adjusted to address
24 All
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
d. Continued Evaluation of Other
Control Measures To Reduce SO2 and
NOX Emissions
While Maine DEP continues to
evaluate other control measures to
reduce SO2 and NOX emission, Maine
has adopted a program to reduce wood
smoke emissions from outdoor wood
and pellet boilers.
Maine’s Control of Emissions From
Outdoor Wood Boilers Rule (06–096
CMR 150) includes EPA’s recommended
Phase I particulate emission limit of
0.60 lbs/MMBtu/hr heat input as the
standard for new outdoor wood-fired
hydronic heaters (OWHH), also known
as outdoor wood boilers, sold in Maine
beginning April 1, 2008. Beginning
April 1, 2010 new OWHH sold in Maine
were required to meet a more stringent
particulate emission standard of 0.32
lbs/MMBtu heat output (Phase II). The
rule also establishes setback, stack
height, particulate emission limits, and
fuel requirements for outdoor wood
boilers. Chapter 150 was subsequently
amended to control the sale,
installation, use, and siting of outdoor
wood boilers that combust biomass
pellets as fuel. Maine has submitted this
rule to EPA for incorporation as part of
the Regional Haze SIP.
Maine did not include emission
reductions which result from the
promulgation of the outdoor wood
boilers rule in the visibility modeling to
ensure reasonable progress. However,
Maine is including this program in its
regional Haze SIP as a SIP enhancement,
or strengthening measure. EPA finds
that Maine has sufficiently addressed
the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ by means of
Maine’s Low Sulfur Fuel oil strategy,
control on Wyman Unit #4, the
submitted BART determinations, and
the outdoor wood boiler control
strategy.
4. Additional Considerations for the
LTS
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires States
to consider the following factors in
developing the long term strategy:
a. Emission reductions due to ongoing
air pollution control programs,
including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment;
b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities;
c. Emission limitations and schedules
for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goal;
d. Source retirement and replacement
schedules;
this exemption, and its impact on non-EGU point
source emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73979
e. Smoke management techniques for
agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently
exist within the State for these
purposes;
f. Enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and
g. The anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in
point area, and mobile source emissions
over the period addressed by the longterm strategy.
a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI
No source in Maine has been
identified as subject to RAVI. An
exhaustive list of Maine’s ongoing air
pollution control programs is included
in section IV.E.1.
b. Construction Activities
The Regional Haze Rule requires
Maine to consider measures to mitigate
the impacts of construction activities on
regional haze. MANE–VU’s
consideration of control measures for
construction activities is documented in
‘‘Technical Support Document on
Measures To Mitigate the Visibility
Impacts of Construction Activities in the
MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 20,
2006.’’27
The construction industry is already
subject to requirements for controlling
pollutants that contribute to visibility
impairment. For example, federal
regulations require the reduction of SO2
emissions from construction vehicles.
At the state level, Maine currently
regulates emissions of fugitive dust
through Maine’s Chapter 101, Visible
Emissions rules, which establishes
opacity limits for emissions from several
categories of air contaminant sources,
including fugitive emissions from
construction activities. This rule has
been incorporated into the Maine SIP.
See www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/
sips/me/2003_ME_ch101.pdf.
MANE–VU’s Contribution
Assessment found that, from a regional
haze perspective, crustal material
generally does not play a major role. On
the 20 percent best-visibility days
during the 2000–2004 baseline period,
crustal material accounted for 6 to 11
percent of the particle-related light
extinction at the MANE–VU Class I
Areas. On the 20 percent worst-visibility
days, however, the ratio was reduced to
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal
fraction is largely made up of pollutants
of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt)
that are not targeted under the Regional
27 ‘‘Technical Support Document on Measures to
Mitigate the Visibility Impacts of Construction
Activities in the MANE–VU Region, Draft, October
20, 2006’’ has been provided as part of the docket
to this proposed rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73980
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal
fraction at any given location can be
heavily influenced by the proximity of
construction activities; and construction
activities occurring in the immediate
vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could
have a noticeable effect on visibility.
For this regional haze SIP, Maine
concluded that its current regulations
are currently sufficient to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities. Any
future deliberations on potential control
measures for construction activities and
the possible implementation will be
documented in the first regional haze
SIP progress report in 2012. EPA has
determined that Maine has adequately
addressed measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules
for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
In addition to the existing CAA
control requirements discussed in
section IV.E.1, Maine has adopted a low
sulfur fuel oil strategy consistent with
the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ The compliance
date for Phase I will be in 2016 and the
compliance date for Phase II will be in
2018.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
d. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedule
Section 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of
the Regional Haze Rule requires Maine
to consider source retirement and
replacement schedules in developing
the long term strategy. Source
retirement and replacement were
considered in developing the 2018
emissions. EPA has determined that
Maine has satisfactorily considered
source retirement and replacement
schedules as part of the LTS.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
The Regional Haze Rule requires
States to consider smoke management
techniques related to agricultural and
forestry management in developing the
long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s
analysis of smoke management in the
context of regional haze is documented
in ‘‘Technical Support Document on
Agricultural and Smoke Management in
the MANE–VU Region, September 1,
2006.’’ 28
Maine does not currently have a
Smoke Management Program (SMP).
However, SMPs are required only when
smoke impacts from fires managed for
resources benefits contribute
significantly to regional haze. The
emissions inventory presented in the
above-cited document indicates that
28 ‘‘Technical
Support Document on Agricultural
and Smoke Management in the MANE–VU Region,
September 1, 2006’’ has been included as part of the
docket to this proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
agricultural, managed and prescribed
burning emissions are very minor; the
inventory estimates that, in Maine,
those emissions from those source
categories totaled 7.8 tons of PM10, 6.7
tons of PM2.5 and 0.5 tons of SO2 in
2002, which constitute 0.08%, 0.2% and
0.006% of the total inventory for these
pollutants, respectively.
Source apportionment results show
that wood smoke is a moderate
contributor to visibility impairment at
some Class I areas in the MANE–VU
region; however, smoke is not a large
contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class
I areas on either the 20% best or 20%
worst visibility days. Moreover, most of
the wood smoke is attributable to
residential wood combustion. Therefore,
it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large
impacts on visibility in any of the Class
I areas in the MANE–VU region. On rare
occasions, smoke from major fires
degrades air quality and visibility in the
MANE–VU area. However, these fires
are generally unwanted wildfires that
are not subject to SMPs. Therefore, an
SMP is not required for Maine. EPA
agrees that it is not necessary for Maine
to have an Agricultural and Forestry
Smoke Management Plan to address
visibility impairment at this time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations
and Control Measures
All emission limitations included as
part of Maine’s Regional Haze SIP are
either currently federally enforceable or
will become federally enforceable if this
action is finalized as proposed.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on
Visibility
MANE–VU used the best and final
emission inventory to model progress
expected toward the goal of natural
visibility conditions for the first regional
haze planning period. All of the MANE–
VU Class I areas are expected to achieve
greater progress toward the natural
visibility goal than the uniform rate of
progress, or the progress expected by
extrapolating a trend line from current
visibility conditions to natural visibility
conditions.29
In summary, EPA is proposing to find
that Maine has adequately addressed the
LTS regional haze requirements.
29 Projected visibility improvements for each
MANE–VU Class I area can be found in the
NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ‘‘2018
Visibility Projections’’ (www.nescaum.org/
documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-1308.pdf/).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
F. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU
State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation
Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context
of regional phase planning, and was
intended to create greater certainty and
understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU
States held ten consultation meetings
and/or conference calls from March 1,
2007 through March 21, 2008. In
addition to MANE–VU members
attending these meetings and conference
calls, participants from the Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)
RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant
Federal Land Managers were also in
attendance. In addition to the
conference calls and meeting, the FLMs
were given the opportunity to review
and comment on each of the technical
documents developed by MANE–VU.
On May 27, 2010, Maine submitted a
draft Regional Haze SIP to the relevant
FLMs for review and comment pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLMs
provided comments on the draft
Regional Haze SIP in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments
received from the FLMs were addressed
and incorporated in Maine’s SIP
revision. Most of the comments were
requests for additional detail as to
various aspects of the SIP. These
comments and Maine’s response to
comments can be found in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
On August 12, 2010, Maine published
a notice of agency rulemaking—
proposal. This initiated a 30-day
comment period and the opportunity to
request a public hearing. Maine DEP
received comments from EPA, the
United States Department of Fish and
Wildlife Service, the United States
Department of Agriculture, and Florida
Power and Light Company. Maine’s
response to comments is included as an
attachment to the SIP submittal.
To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), Maine commits in their SIP
to ongoing consultation with the FLMs
on Regional Haze issues throughout the
implementation.
EPA is proposing to find that Maine
has addressed the requirements for
consultation with States impacting
Maine’s Class I areas and with the
Federal Land Managers.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional
Haze Rule requires a monitoring strategy
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for measuring, characterizing, and
reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Areas within the
State of Maine. The monitoring strategy
relies upon participation in the
IMPROVE network.
The State of Maine participates in the
IMPROVE network, and will evaluate
the monitoring network periodically
and make those changes needed to be
able to assess whether reasonable
progress goals are being achieved in
each of Maine’s mandatory Class I
Areas. In its SIP submittal, Maine is
committing to continued support of the
IMPROVE network at Acadia National
Park and Moosehorn National Wildlife
Refuge.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires States
to establish additional monitoring sites
or equipment as needed to assess
whether reasonable progress goals are
being achieved toward visibility
improvement at mandatory Class I areas.
At this time, the current monitors are
sufficient to make this assessment.
In its SIP submittal, Maine commits to
meet the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA
visibility data for each of Maine’s Class
I Areas annually.
The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(vi)) requires the inclusion
of other monitoring elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures, necessary to assess and report
visibility. While the Maine DEP has
concluded that the current IMPROVE
network provides sufficient data to
adequately measure and report progress
toward the goals set for MANE–VU
Class I sites to which the State
contributes, the State has also found
additional monitoring information
useful to assess visibility and fine
particle pollution in the region in the
past. Examples of these data include
results from the MANE–VU Regional
Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN),
which provides continuous, speciated
information on rural aerosol
characteristics and visibility parameters;
the EPA Clean Air Status and Trends
Network (CASTNET), which has
provided complementary rural fine
particle speciation data at non-class I
sites; the EPA Speciation Trends
Network (STN), which provides
speciated, urban fine particle data to
help develop a comprehensive picture
of local and regional sources; stateoperated rural and urban speciation
sites using IMPROVE or STN methods;
and the Supersites program, which has
provided information through special
studies that generally expands our
understanding of the processes that
control fine particle formation and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
transport in the region. Maine plans to
continue to utilize these and other
data—as they are available and fiscal
realities allow—to improve their
understanding of visibility impairment
and to document progress toward our
reasonable progress goals under the
Regional Haze Rule.
H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
Consistent with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g), Maine has committed
to submitting a report on reasonable
progress (in the form of a SIP revision)
to the EPA every five years following
the initial submittal of its regional haze
SIP. The reasonable progress report will
evaluate the progress made towards the
RPGs for the MANE–VU Class I areas,
located in Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and New Jersey.
Section 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires the
Maine DEP to submit periodic revisions
to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31,
2018, and every ten years thereafter.
Maine DEP acknowledges and agrees to
comply with this schedule.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v),
Maine DEP will also make periodic
updates to the Maine emissions
inventory. Maine DEP plans to complete
these updates to coincide with the
progress reports. Actual emissions will
be compared to projected modeled
emissions in the progress reports.
Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h),
Maine DEP will submit a determination
of adequacy of its regional haze SIP
revision whenever a progress report is
submitted. Maine’s regional haze SIP
states that, depending on the findings of
its five-year review, Maine will take one
or more of the following actions at that
time, whichever actions are appropriate
or necessary:
• If Maine determines that the
existing State Implementation Plan
requires no further substantive revision
in order to achieve established goals for
visibility improvement and emissions
reductions, Maine DEP will provide to
the EPA Administrator a negative
declaration that further revision of the
existing plan is not needed.
• If Maine determines that its
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress as a result of emissions from
sources in one or more other state(s)
which participated in the regional
planning process, Maine will provide
notification to the EPA Administrator
and to those other state(s). Maine will
also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process
for the purpose of developing additional
strategies to address any such
deficiencies in Maine’s plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73981
• If Maine determines that its
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress as a result of emissions from
sources in another country, Maine will
provide notification, along with
available information, to the EPA
Administrator.
• If Maine determines that the
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress as a result of emissions from
sources within the state, Maine will
revise its implementation plan to
address the plan’s deficiencies within
one year from this determination.
V. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve of
Maine’s December 9, 2010 SIP revision
as meeting the applicable implementing
regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
following license conditions and
incorporate them into the SIP:
Conditions (16) A, B, G, and H of license
amendment A–406–77–3–M for
Katahdin Paper Company issued on July
8, 2009; license amendment A–214–77–
9–M for Rumford Paper Company
issued on January 8, 2010; license
amendment A–22–77–5–M for Verso
Bucksport, LLC issued November 2,
2010; license amendment A–214–77–2–
M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly
Domtar) issued November 2, 2010;
license amendment A–388–77–2–M for
FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV,
LLC issued November 2, 2010; license
amendment A–19–77–5–M for S. D.
Warren Company issued November 2,
2010; license amendment A–203–77–
11–M for Verso Androscoggin LLC
issued November 2, 2010; and license
amendment A–180–77–1–A for Red
Shield Environmental LLC issued
November 29, 2007.
EPA is proposing to approve Maine’s
low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA
§ 603–A, sub-§ 2(A), and to incorporate
this legislation into the Maine SIP.
Furthermore, EPA is also proposing to
approve the following Maine state
regulation and incorporate it into the
SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of
Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
73982
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 15, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England.
[FR Doc. 2011–30650 Filed 11–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM
29NOP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73956-73982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30650]
[[Page 73955]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 229
November 29, 2011
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine;
Regional Haze; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 73956]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-1043; A-1-FRL-9496-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Maine State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) on December 9, 2010, with
supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011 and November 9, 2011,
that addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008
through 2018. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future,
and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous
sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the
``regional haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable
progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 29,
2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2010-1043 by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2010-1043 Anne
Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2010-1043. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through https://www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection,
First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute
Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697,
email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing regional haze
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to the
regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
B. Remand of the CAIR
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand and Promulgation of CSAPR
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Maine's regional haze SIP submittal?
A. Maine's Affected Class I Area
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility
Impairments
[[Page 73957]]
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls
3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act Factors in the
Reasonable Progress Analysis
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
1. Identification of all BART Eligible Sources
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
3. Modeling to Demonstrate Source Visibility Impact
4. Maine BART Analysis Protocol
5. Source Specific BART Determinations
6. Enforceability of BART
E. Long-Term Strategy
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling to Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
4. Additional Considerations for the LTS
F. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What Action is EPA Proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance
that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the
eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is
less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that
would exist under estimated natural conditions. (64 FR 35715, (July 1,
1999))
B. Background Information
In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
\1\ which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December
2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment
in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source
or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI), (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Although states and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). (42 U.S.C.
7602(i)). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences determined that
current knowledge of regional haze was adequate and that existing
technologies were available to protect visibility. (64 FR 35714, 35714
(July 1, 1999)). EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze
Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in section II. The requirement to submit a
regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia
and the Virgin Islands. Section 51.308(b) requires States to submit the
first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA
found that 37 States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin
Islands failed to submit this required implementation plan. (74 FR
2392, (Jan. 15, 2009)). In particular, EPA found that Maine failed to
submit a plan that met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. (74 FR 2393).
On December 6, 2010, the Air Bureau of the Maine DEP submitted
revisions to the Maine SIP to address regional haze as required by 40
CFR 51.308. Supplemental documentation was submitted on September 14,
2011 and November 9, 2011. EPA has reviewed Maine's submittal and finds
that it is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 outlined
in section II.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, Tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the States and Tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
[[Page 73958]]
technical information to better understand how their States and Tribes
impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the
development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of
PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO is a
collaborative effort of state governments, Tribal governments, and
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. Member
state and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology controls for the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview),
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used to: Express Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal); define baseline, current, and natural conditions; and
track changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions
that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air pollution would no longer
impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program and as part of the process for
determining reasonable progress, States must calculate the degree of
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area within the state at
the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review
progress every five years midway through each 10-year planning period.
To do this, the RHR requires States to determine the degree of
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for the purposes of comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has
provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, Guidance
For Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005), available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf [hereinafter EPA's 2003
Natural Visibility Guidance], and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-004), available at
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf [hereinafter EPA's
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance].
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data from 2000
through 2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of
visibility impairment for each Class I area within the state, based on
the average of annual values over the five year period. The comparison
of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain
natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions
to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress
made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time
from which improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the States that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each
(approximately) 10-year planning period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions for
their Class I areas. In setting RPGs, States must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in the CAA and
in EPA's RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst
days for each applicable Class I area. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)).
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors
into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's
[[Page 73959]]
Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William
L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting
the RPGs, States must also consider the rate of progress needed to
reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the
``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glide path'') and the emission
reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-
year period of the SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of progress
which States are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one
or more Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult with
potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with
emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I State's areas. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology'' as determined by the state.(CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).\3\ States
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources.
States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3)
and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them
in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I
area. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption
threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible
source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption
threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold
value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class
I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews (70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005)).
In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source.
(70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005)). In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to
be assigned to each factor. (70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005)).
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP, as required in the CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and in the RHR (40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source. States have the
flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to
meet the requirements of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that States include a LTS
in their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a
state will use to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must include
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state. (40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and
[[Page 73960]]
area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how each of the seven
factors listed below is taken into account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,
including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state
must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs,
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic reviews of a state's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation
in the IMPROVE network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will
be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires control strategies to cover
an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above, apply
only to the first implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will
assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will
continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to the regional haze
requirements?
A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
CAIR, as originally promulgated, required 28 States and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contributed to, or interfered with
maintenance of, the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for fine particulates and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in any
downwind state. (70 FR 25162, (May 12, 2005)). CAIR established
emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX for States
found to contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind States
and required these States to submit SIP revisions that implemented
these budgets. States had the flexibility to choose which control
measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participation in
EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season emissions. In
2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR to ensure the
reductions were achieved in a timely manner.
B. Remand of the CAIR
On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its decision to vacate and
remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule
[[Page 73961]]
consistent with the court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d at 1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws''
consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined to impose a
schedule on EPA for completing that action. EPA subsequently issued a
new rule to address interstate transport of NOX and
SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., the Transport Rule,
also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). (76 FR 48208,
(August 8, 2011)). EPA explained in that action that EPA is
promulgating the Transport Rule as a replacement for (not a successor
to) CAIR's SO2 and NOX emissions reduction and
trading programs.
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR Remand
and Promulgation of CSAPR
The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze
SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. As described
above, EPA determined in 2005 that States opting to participate in the
CAIR cap-and-trade program need not require BART for SO2 and
NOX at BART-eligible Electric Generating Units (EGUs). (70
FR 39142-39143). Many States relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART
for SO2 and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed
under the BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several
States established RPGs that reflect the improvement in visibility
expected to result from controls planned for or already installed on
sources within the State to meet the CAIR provisions for this
implementation period for specified pollutants. Many States relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their States to provide the
legal requirements which lead to these planned controls, and did not
include enforceable measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP
submission to ensure these reductions. States also submitted
demonstrations showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR
would be reasonable for this implementation period.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Maine's regional haze SIP submittal?
On December 6, 2010, Maine DEP's Air Bureau submitted revisions to
the Maine SIP to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308.
Supplemental documentation was submitted on September 14, 2011 and
November 9, 2011. EPA has reviewed Maine's submittal and finds that it
is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 outlined in
section II. A detailed analysis follows.
Maine is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP which
addresses visibility in Maine's Class I areas. They are Acadia National
Park, Moosehorn Wilderness Area, and Roosevelt Campobello International
Park. The State must also address Maine's impact on any other nearby
Class I areas.
A. Maine's Affected Class I Area
Maine is home to three Class I areas: (1) Acadia National Park
(`Acadia'); (2) Moosehorn Wilderness Area (`Moosehorn'); and (3)
Roosevelt Campobello International Park (`Roosevelt Campobello'). In
addition to these areas, the MANE-VU RPO contains four other Class I
areas in three States: The Lye Brook, Presidential Range/Dry River, and
Great Gulf Wilderness Areas in New Hampshire; and the Brigantine
Wilderness Area in New Jersey.
The Maine regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at its Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within
the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In
developing the RPGs for each Class I area, Maine considered both
emission sources inside and outside of Maine that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in Maine's Class I areas. The State
also identified and considered emission sources within Maine that may
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in
neighboring States as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The MANE-VU RPO
worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to make
these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the
three areas in Maine and those areas affected by emissions from Maine.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Maine calculated baseline/current and natural
conditions for its Class I areas.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Natural background refers to visibility conditions that existed
before human activities affected air quality in the region. The
national goal, as set out in the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural
conditions.
Estimates of natural visibility conditions are based on annual
average concentrations of fine particle components. The IMPROVE \4\
equation is a formula for estimating light extinction from species
measured by the IMPROVE monitors. As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, EPA determined, with concurrence from the IMPROVE
Steering Committee, that States may use a ``refined approach'' to the
then current IMPROVE formula to estimate the values that characterize
the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. The purpose of
the refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more
accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation
of light extinction. The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the
most recent review of the science \5\ and it accounts for the effect of
particle size distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate,
nitrate, and organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for
organic carbon (particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4
to 1.8. New terms are added to the equation to account for light
extinction by sea salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen
dioxide. Site-specific values are used for Rayleigh scattering
(scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) to account for the site-
specific effects of elevation and temperature. Separate relative
humidity enhancement factors are used for small and large size
distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea
salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental
[[Page 73962]]
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do
not change between the original and new IMPROVE equations. Maine opted
to use this refined approach, referred to as the ``new IMPROVE
equation,'' for all of its areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a
steering committee composed of representatives from Federal
(including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The
IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the
creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources
responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment. The IMPROVE
program has also been a key participant in visibility-related
research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation,
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and
source attribution field studies.
\5\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in numerous published papers. See, eg., J. L. Hand & W.
C. Malm, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light
Extinction Coefficients--Final Report, March 2006 (Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado
State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural Haze
Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Alogrithm to Natural
Species Concentrations Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze
Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup,
Sept. 2006, available at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were
calculated separately for each Class I area by MANE-VU. EPA finds that
the best and worst 20 percent natural visibility values for Acadia,
Moosehorn, and Roosevelt Campobello as shown in Table 1 were calculated
using the EPA guidelines.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
The Roosevelt Campobello International Park and the Moosehorn
Wilderness Area do not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where
onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires
States to use the most representative monitoring available for the
2000-2004 period to establish baseline visibility conditions, in
consultation with EPA. Maine used, and EPA concurs with the use of,
2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor located one mile northeast from
the Moosehorn Wilderness Area as representing Moosehorn and Roosevelt
Campobello.
As explained in section III.B, for the first regional haze SIP,
baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. A
five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated
for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days
for Acadia National Park and Moosehorn/Roosevelt Campobello. IMPROVE
data records for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for
data completeness. (See page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance.)
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
For the Maine Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions on the
20 percent worst days are 22.89 deciviews at Acadia National Park and
21.72 deciviews at Moosehorn/Roosevelt Campobello. Natural visibility
conditions for these areas are estimated to be 12.43 dv and 12.01 dv,
respectively, on the 20 percent worst visibility days. The natural and
background conditions for the Acadia National Park and Moosehorn
Wilderness Area/Roosevelt Campobello International Park for both the 20
percent worst and 20 percent best days are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area/
Roosevelt Campobello International Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2004 Baseline (dv) Natural conditions (dv)
Class I area ---------------------------------------------------
Worst 20% Best 20% Worst 20% Best 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park........................................ 22.89 8.77 12.43 4.66
Moosehorn Wilderness Area and Roosevelt Campobello 21.72 9.15 12.01 5.01
International Park.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, Maine considered the uniform rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (``glide path'')
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance
document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive target, and
RPGs may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to the glide path.
For Acadia National Park, the overall visibility improvement
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between the
baseline visibility of 22.89 dv and natural background visibility of
12.43 dv, or an improvement of 10.46 dv for the 20 percent worst
visibility days. For Moosehorn Wilderness area and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, the overall visibility improvement necessary to
reach natural conditions is the difference between the baseline of
21.72 dv and natural background visibility of 12.01 dv, or an
improvement of 9.71 dv for the 20 percent worst visibility days. Maine
DEP must also ensure no degradation in visibility for the best 20
percent visibility days over the same period in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
Maine's SIP submittal presents two graphs, one for the 20 percent
best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, for each Class I
area. Maine constructed the graphs for the worst days (i.e., the glide
path) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by
plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level of
visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of natural visibility
conditions in 2064. For the best days, the graphs include a horizontal,
straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to
depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of
the SIP. Maine's SIP shows that the State's RPG for its Class I areas
provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the 20 percent best visibility days over the same period
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
As a state containing a Class I area, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the
RHR requires Maine to develop the reasonable progress goals for
visibility improvement during the first planning period.
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairments
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using EPA's Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) air quality model \6\ to evaluate visibility and air
quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The model uses
simulations of chemical reactions, emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors, and the Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological
Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations. For more
information, see https://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/CMAQ/cmaq_model.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-
[[Page 73963]]
Atlantic Region.\7\ Sulfate particles commonly account for more than 50
percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as much as, or more than, 80 percent
on the haziest days. For example, at the Brigantine National Wildlife
Refuge Class I area (the MANE-VU Class I area with the greatest
visibility impairment), on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2000
through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 percent of the particle
extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts
for the next largest fraction of light extinction. Organic carbon
accounted for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts for 9
percent of light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the NESCAUM Document ``Regional Haze and Visibility in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
Through source apportionment modeling MANE-VU assisted States in
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. Maine and the other MANE-VU States
adopted a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several
independent methods for assessing the contribution of different sources
and geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic portions of the United States. Details about each
technique can be found in the NESCAUM Document Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, August
2006 [hereinafter MANE-VU Contribution Report].\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The August 2006 NESCAUM document ``Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States'' has been
provided as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any state contributing
at least 2% of the total sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2002 were contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I area. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District
of Columbia were determined to contribute less than 2% of sulfate at
any of the MANE-VU Class I areas. States found to contribute 2% or more
of the sulfate at any of the MANE-VU Class I areas were: Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The contribution of Maine emissions to the total sulfate was
determined to impact the visibility in not only the Maine Class I
areas, but the Great Gulf Wilderness area in New Hampshire as well. The
impact of sulfate on visibility is discussed in greater detail below.
EPA finds that Maine DEP has adequately demonstrated that emissions
from Maine sources cause or contribute to visibility in nearby Class I
Areas.
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls
In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, Maine relied
primarily upon the information and analysis developed by MANE-VU to
meet this requirement. Based on the contribution assessment, MANE-VU
focused on SO2 as the dominant contributor to visibility
impairment at all MANE-VU Class I areas during all seasons. In
addition, the Contribution Assessment found that only 25 percent of the
sulfate at the MANE-VU Class I areas originate in the MANE-VU States.
Sources in the Midwest and Southeast regions were responsible for 15 to
25 percent, respectively. Point sources dominated the inventory of
SO2 emissions. Therefore, MANE-VU's strategy includes
additional measures to control sources of SO2 both within
the MANE-VU region and in other States that were determined to
contribute to regional haze at the MANE-VU Class I Areas.
Based on information from the contribution assessment and
additional emission inventory analysis, MANE-VU and Maine identified
the following source categories for further examination for reasonable
controls:
Coal and oil-fired EGUs;
Point and area source industrial, commercial and
institutional boilers;
Cement and Lime Kilns;
Heating Oil; and
Residential wood combustion.
MANE-VU analyzed these sources categories as potential sources of
emission reductions for making reasonable progress based on the ``four
statutory factors'' according to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(V).
3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act Factors in the Reasonable
Progress Analysis
As discussed in II.C above, Maine must consider the following
factors in developing the RPGs: (1) Cost of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources. MANE-VU's four factor analysis can
be found in ``Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in
MANE-VU Class I Areas,'' July 9, 2007, otherwise known as the
Reasonable Progress Report. This report has been included as part of
the docket for this rulemaking.
Maine and the other MANE-VU States reviewed the Reasonable Progress
Report, consulted with one another about possible controls measures,
and agreed to the following measures as recommended strategies for
making reasonable progress: Implementation of the BART requirements, a
90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from 167 EGUs
identified as causing the greatest visibility impact \9\ (or other
equivalent emission reduction), and a reduction in the sulfur content
of fuel oil. These measures are collectively known as the MANE-VU
``Ask.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ MANE-VU identified these 167 units based on source
apportionment modeling using two different meteorological data sets.
From each of the modeling runs, MANE-VU identified the top 100 units
which contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in model
output resulted in a total of 167 units being identified for further
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU used model projections to calculate the RPG for the Class I
areas in the MANE-VU area. Additional modeling details are provided in
section IV.E.2. The projected improvement in visibility due to emission
reductions expected by the end of the first period, 2018, is shown in
Table 2.
[[Page 73964]]
Table 2--Projected Reasonable Progress Goal and Uniform Rate of Progress for Maine Class I Areas From NESCAUM
2018 Visibility Projections in Deciviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2004 2018 Natural
Baseline Projection URP background
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park................ 20% Worst Visibility 22.9 19.4 20.4 12.4
Days.
20% Best Visibility 8.8 8.3 ....... 4.7
Days.
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge/ 20% Worst Visibility 21.7 19.0 19.4 12.0
Roosevelt Campobello International Days.
Park.
20% Best Visibility 9.2 8.6 ....... 5.0
Days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of MANE-VU modeling some of the other States with
sources potentially impacting visibility, in the Class I areas in both
Maine and the rest of the MANE-VU domain, had not yet made final
control determinations for BART, and thus, these controls were not
included in the modeling prepared by MANE-VU and used by Maine. This
modeling demonstrates that the 2018 control scenario (2018 projection)
provides for an improvement in visibility greater than the uniform rate
of progress for the Maine Class I areas for the most impaired days over
the period of the implementation plan and ensures no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent
with EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional haze
provisions specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that represents
less visibility improvement than is expected to result from other CAA
requirements during the implementation period. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(vi)). Therefore, in estimating the RPGs for 2018, many
States took into account emission reductions anticipated from CAIR.
MANE-VU initially reduced emissions from highest impacting 167 EGUs by
ninety percent. However, many of the units targeted for the 90%
reduction were part of the CAIR program. Since the 90% reduction was
larger, in total tons of emissions reduced, than the reductions
expected from CAIR, MANE-VU added the excess emissions back into the
inventory to account for trading of the emission credits across the
modeling domain. This way, MANE-VU States would not overestimate the
emission reductions in case States used the CAIR program as their
