Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 48765-48777 [2018-21006]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
such emissions trading program would
satisfy.
§ 51.122
[Amended]
3. Section 51.122 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), removing the
text ‘‘pursuant to a trading program
approved under § 51.121(p) or’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (e), italicizing the
heading ‘‘Approval of ozone season
calculation by EPA.’’.
■
■
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
4. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 52.38
[Amended]
5. In § 52.38, paragraphs (b)(8)(ii),
(b)(8)(iii)(A)(2), (b)(9)(ii), and
(b)(9)(iii)(A)(2) are amended by
removing the text ‘‘§ 51.121(p)’’ and
adding in its place the text ‘‘§ 51.121’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2018–20858 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0595; A–1–FRL–
9984–00—Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. This revision addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the
good neighbor provision, with respect to
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
This action proposes to approve New
Hampshire’s demonstration that the
State is meeting its obligations regarding
the transport of SO2 emissions into
other states.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2017–0595 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
biton.leiran@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,
Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5
Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston,
MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the person 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 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leiran Biton, Air Permits, Toxics and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite
100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1267, email
biton.leiran@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Basis for the Proposed
Action
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate
Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical
Approaches for Criteria Pollutants
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48765
B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate
Transport Requirements for the 2010
Primary SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire
C. Prong 1 Analysis—Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
1. Emissions Trends
2. Ambient Air Quality
3. Assessment of Potential Ambient
Impacts of SO2 Emissions From Certain
Sources Based on Air Dispersion
Modeling and Other Information
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Specific to
SO2
5. Other SIP-Approved or FederallyEnforceable Regulations
6. Conclusion
D. Prong 2 Analysis—Interference With
Maintenance of the NAAQS
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA
promulgated a revised primary NAAQS
for SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within such shorter period
as EPA may prescribe.1 These SIPs,
which EPA has historically referred to
as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs,’’ are to provide
for the ‘‘implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement’’ of such NAAQS, and
the requirements are designed to ensure
that the structural components of each
state’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibility under the CAA. A
detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale of these SIPs and their
requirements can be found, among other
citations, in EPA’s May 13, 2014 (79 FR
27241) proposed rule titled, ‘‘Approval
and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin;
Infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS’’ in the section,
‘‘What is the scope of this rulemaking?’’
Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised
NAAQS, but the contents of individual
state submissions may vary depending
upon the facts and circumstances, and
may also vary depending upon what
provisions the state’s approved SIP
already contains.
1 This requirement applies to both primary and
secondary NAAQS, but EPA’s approval in this
notice applies only to the 2010 primary NAAQS for
SO2 because EPA did not establish in 2010 a new
secondary NAAQS for SO2.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48766
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
EPA has implemented the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in multiple stages or ‘‘rounds.’’
In our first round of implementation,
EPA identified a monitored violation
based on 2009–2011 monitoring data for
an area around Merrimack Station, a
coal-fired power plant in Bow, New
Hampshire. Subsequently on August 5,
2013 (78 FR 47191), in concurrence
with New Hampshire’s recommendation
for the area, EPA established the Central
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. On January 31,
2017, EPA received a SIP submittal from
the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Service (NHDES) for the
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area. The central component of the plan
is a set of new permit limitations on SO2
emissions from Merrimack Station. On
September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45242), EPA
proposed to approve the State’s January
31, 2017 SIP submittal as meeting all
applicable requirements for a
nonattainment area SIP submittal. EPA
issued a final rule approving New
Hampshire’s SIP submittal for the
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922). No
other areas in New Hampshire or any
neighboring state were designated for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the first or
second rounds of designations. All other
areas in New Hampshire and
neighboring states have since been
designated as Attainment/Unclassifiable
as part of EPA’s third round of
designations on January 9, 2018 (83 FR
1098).
On September 13, 2013, NHDES
submitted a revision to its SIP,
certifying its SIP meets most of the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. However, this submittal did
not address the transport elements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On July 8,
2016 (81 FR 44542) and May 25, 2017
(82 FR 24085), EPA approved NHDES’s
certification that its SIP was adequate to
meet most of the program elements
required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
However, EPA did not take action
related to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because
New Hampshire’s September 13, 2013
infrastructure SIP submittal did not
include provisions for this element.
On June 16, 2017, NHDES submitted
a SIP revision for the transport elements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. The title of
the State’s SIP submittal is
‘‘Amendment to New Hampshire 2010
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure
SIP to Address the Good Neighbor
Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).’’ In this action, EPA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
proposing to approve the State’s June
16, 2017 submission to address the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final
action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by
following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.
II. State Submittal
New Hampshire presented several
facts in its SIP submittal on the effect of
SO2 emissions from sources within New
Hampshire on both adjacent states’ air
quality and their ability to attain and
remain in attainment with the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. The SIP submittal notes that
SO2 ambient monitoring data within
New Hampshire and in adjacent states
were substantially below the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Specifically, the SIP submittal
provided the SO2 ‘‘design value’’
(DV),2 i.e., the ambient concentration
statistic appropriate for comparison
with the NAAQS, for each monitoring
site in New Hampshire, based on the
2013–2015 period. These 2013–2015
DVs were considerably below the
NAAQS at all sites, including the two
monitors within the Central New
Hampshire Nonattainment Area during
that period. The highest DV reported by
NHDES for that period was 29 ppb,
which is about 39% of the NAAQS, at
the Peirce Island monitor in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In
addition, the submittal provided sourcespecific and county-level emissions
trends information for 2013–2015 and
longer-term statewide trends. Finally,
the SIP submittal described air quality
modeling information for Schiller
Station, a coal- and biomass-fired power
plant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
and nearby Newington Station, an oilfired power plant in Newington, New
Hampshire, which indicated that
emissions allowed under new, federallyenforceable emissions limits included in
state air permits for those facilities
would not result in a violation of the
NAAQS in New Hampshire, Maine, or
Massachusetts.
2 A DV is a statistic that describes the air quality
status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010
SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 ppb) including the data
handling conventions and calculations necessary
for determining compliance with the NAAQS can
be found in appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Summary of the Basis for the
Proposed Action
This proposed approval of New
Hampshire’s SIP addressing interstate
transport of SO2 is based on our
assessment that the State is meeting its
obligations regarding CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relative to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.3 Interstate transport
requirements for all NAAQS pollutants
prohibit any source—or other type of
emissions activity—in one state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. As part of this analysis, and as
explained in detail below, EPA has
taken several approaches to addressing
interstate transport in other actions
based on the characteristics of the
pollutant, the interstate problem
presented by emissions of that
pollutant, the sources that emit the
pollutant, and the information available
to assess transport of that pollutant.
Despite being emitted from a similar
universe of point and nonpoint sources,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the
transport of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) or ozone in that SO2 is not a
regionally-mixing pollutant for which
emissions from multiple sources
commonly contribute to widespread
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS over
a large (and often multi-state) area.
While transport of SO2 is more
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb)
because its physical properties result in
localized pollutant impacts very near
the emissions source, the physical
properties and release height of SO2 are
such that impacts of SO2 do not
experience the same sharp decrease in
ambient concentrations as rapidly and
as nearby as for Pb. Emissions of SO2
travel further and have sufficiently
wider-ranging impacts than emissions of
Pb to require a different approach than
for handling Pb transport, but not far
enough to be treated in a manner similar
to regional transport pollutants such as
PM2.5 or ozone.
Put simply, a different approach is
needed for interstate transport of SO2:
3 This proposed approval of New Hampshire’s SIP
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the
information contained in the administrative record
for this action, and does not prejudge any other
future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding New Hampshire’s air
quality status. Any such future actions, such as area
designations under any NAAQS, will be based on
their own administrative records and EPA’s
analyses of information that becomes available at
those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
information submitted to EPA by states, air
agencies, and third party stakeholders such as
citizen groups and industry representatives.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb
transport (described for background in
section IV) are too tightly circumscribed
to the source, and the approaches for
PM2.5 or ozone transport (also described
for background in section IV) are too
regionally focused. SO2 transport is
therefore a unique case, and EPA’s
evaluation of whether New Hampshire
has met its transport obligations was
accomplished in several discrete steps.
First, EPA evaluated what universe of
sources are likely to be responsible for
SO2 emissions that could contribute to
interstate transport. An assessment of
the 2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) for New Hampshire made it clear
that the vast majority of SO2 emissions
in New Hampshire are from fuel
combustion at point and nonpoint
sources and that emissions from other
sources are small in the absolute sense
as well, and therefore it would be
reasonable to evaluate the downwind
impacts of emissions from the combined
fuel combustion source categories to
help determine whether the State has
met its transport obligations.
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale—
essentially, the geographic area and
distance around the point sources in
which we could reasonably expect SO2
impacts to occur—that would be
appropriate for our analysis, ultimately
settling on utilizing an ‘‘urban scale’’
with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers
(km) from point sources given the
usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and
the effectiveness of pollution control
strategies at those point sources. As
such, EPA utilized an assessment
approach that extended to 50 km from
fuel-combustion point sources when
considering possible transport of SO2
from New Hampshire to downwind
states.
Third, EPA assessed all available data
at the time of this rulemaking regarding
SO2 emissions in New Hampshire and
their possible impacts in downwind
states, including: SO2 ambient air
quality; SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2
regulations and permitting
requirements; available air dispersion
modeling; and other SIP-approved or
federally promulgated regulations that
may yield reductions of SO2 at New
Hampshire’s fuel-combustion point and
nonpoint sources.
Fourth, using the universe of
information identified in steps 1–3 (i.e.,
emissions sources, spatial scale and
available data, and modeling results and
enforceable regulations), EPA then
conducted an analysis under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate
whether fuel-combustion sources in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
New Hampshire would significantly
contribute to nonattainment in other
states, and then whether they would
interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in other states.
Based on the analysis provided by the
State in its SIP submittal and EPA’s
assessment of the information in that
submittal, and EPA’s assessment of
other relevant information available at
the time of this rulemaking, for each of
the factors discussed at length below in
this action, EPA proposes to find that
sources or emissions activity within
New Hampshire will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment, nor will
they interfere with maintenance of, the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate
Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical
Approaches for Criteria Pollutants
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs
to include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from emitting any
air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in another
state. The two clauses of this section are
referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with maintenance
of a NAAQS).
EPA’s most recent infrastructure SIP
guidance, the September 13, 2013
memorandum, entitled ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 4 did
not explicitly include criteria for how
the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submittals intended
to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).5
4 Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-12/documents/guidance_on_
infrastructure_sip_elements_multipollutant_final_
sept_2013.pdf.
5 At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance
was issued, EPA was litigating challenges raised
with respect to our Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR), (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) designed
to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements with respect to the
1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7. EPA
subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit’s
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted
in June 2013. As EPA was in the process of
litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP
guidance was issued, EPA did not issue guidance
specific to that provision. The Supreme Court
subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision
and remanded the case to that court for further
review. 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014). On July 28, 2015, the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision upholding CSAPR,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48767
With respect to certain pollutants, such
as particulate matter and ozone, EPA
has addressed interstate transport in
eastern states in the context of regional
rulemaking actions that quantify state
emission reduction obligations.6 In
other actions, such as the EPA action on
western state SIPs addressing
particulate matter and ozone, EPA has
considered a variety of factors on a caseby-case basis to determine whether
emissions from one state significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state. In such actions, EPA has
considered available information such
as current air quality, emissions data
and trends, meteorology, distance
between states, and topography.7
For Pb, EPA has suggested the
applicable interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
can be met through a state’s assessment
as to whether emissions from Pb sources
located in close proximity to its borders
have emissions that impact a
neighboring state such that they
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in that state. For example,
EPA noted in an October 14, 2011
memorandum, entitled ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ 8 that the
physical properties of Pb prevent its
emissions from experiencing the same
travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5
or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease
in Pb concentrations, at least in the
coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while
it may be possible for a source in a state
to emit Pb in a location and in
quantities that may contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any
other state, EPA anticipates that this
would be a rare situation, e.g., where
but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
6 NO SIP Call (63 FR 57371, October 27, 1998);
X
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25172, May
12, 2005); CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011).
7 See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; Regional
Haze and Interstate Transport; Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference
with Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule (76
FR 14616, 14616–14626, March 17, 2011); Final
Rule (76 FR 34872, June 15, 2011); Approval and
Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State
of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule (80 FR
27121, 27124–27125, May 12, 2015); Final Rule (80
FR 47862, August 10, 2015).
8 Available online at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_
lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
48768
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
2014 was about 75% of all nonpoint fuel
combustion, this means that the
reduction in all nonpoint fuel
combustion will be around 75% even
with considering an expected decline in
commercial/institutional emissions.
However, commercial/institutional
Emissions
Category
(tons per year) emissions will also decline because of
the new limits on fuel oil sulfur content
Total ..................................
8,560 of 0.25% by weight for number 4 oil
* ‘‘Other’’ fuel combustion is nonpoint and in- (compared to a 2014 limit of 1%), and
cludes 3,180 tons per year from residential 0.5% by weight for numbers 5 and 6 oils
fuel oil combustion, 1,077 tons per year from (compared to 2014 limits ranging
commercial/institutional fuel oil combustion, between 2% and 2.2% depending on
and 182 tons per year from combustion of
other fuel types from residential and commer- county). Also, the diffuse nature of
emissions from these nonpoint sources
cial/institutional sources.
† Miscellaneous includes prescribed fires, makes it unlikely that the current and
wildfires, and non-combustion industrial future emissions from nonpoint
B. Approach for Addressing the
emissions.
Interstate Transport Requirements for
combustion of fuel oil in New
EPA observes that according to the
the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in New
Hampshire will contribute to an
2014 NEI, the vast majority of SO2
Hampshire
exceedance of the NAAQS in a
emissions (7,900 tons of 8,560 tons
neighboring state. Based on this
As previously noted, section
overall, or 92.3%) in New Hampshire
reasoning, EPA concludes that these
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation
originate from fuel combustion at point
nonpoint sources are not significantly
of how emissions from any source or
and nonpoint stationary sources. The
contributing to nonattainment or
other type of emissions activity in one
emissions from other categories (waste
interfering with maintenance in another
state may impact air quality in other
disposal and recycling, mobile sources,
state. Accordingly, we do not further
states. One reasonable starting point for
and miscellaneous) are also small in an
address nonpoint fuel combustion
determining which sources and
absolute sense, and widely distributed
sources in this notice.
emissions activities in New Hampshire
rather than concentrated at a few release
Regarding the evaluation of impacts
are likely to impact downwind air
points; accordingly, these categories are from fuel combustion by point sources
quality with respect to the SO2 NAAQS
not further addressed in this notice.
(electrical generation and industrial
is by using information in the NEI.10
Therefore, an assessment of New
sources), the definitions contained in
The NEI is a comprehensive and
Hampshire’s satisfaction of all
appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 entitled
applicable requirements under section
detailed estimate of air emissions of
‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 are helpful indicators of the transport
criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based
and fate of SO2 originating from
upon evaluating the downwind impacts stationary sources in the context of the
from air emissions sources, and is
updated every 3 years using information of emissions from the combined fuel
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. Notably,
combustion categories (i.e., electric
provided by the states. At the time of
section 4.4 of this appendix provides
11
utilities, industrial, and other
this rulemaking, the most recently
definitions for SO2 spatial scales for
combustion sources).
available comprehensive dataset is the
middle scale and neighborhood scale
Fuel-combustion units in residences
2014 NEI (version 2), and the state
monitors. The middle scale generally
and commercial/institutional facilities
summary for New Hampshire is
represents air quality levels in areas 100
are considered nonpoint sources.
included in Table 1 below.
meters to 500 meters from a facility, and
Although SO2 emissions from
may include locations of maximum
residential and commercial/institutional expected short-term concentrations due
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NAfuel oil combustion accounted for 50%
to proximity of major SO2 point,
TIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA
of all 2014 SO2 emissions in the NEI for nonpoint, and non-road sources. The
FOR SO2 EMISSION SOURCE CATNew Hampshire, SO2 emissions from
neighborhood scale characterizes air
EGORIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
these nonpoint sources are now much
quality conditions between 500 meters
lower due to a provision of state law,
and 4 km from a facility; emissions from
Emissions
RSA 125 C:10–d. As of July 2018, fuel
Category
stationary point sources may under
(tons per year)
oil sold in the State is subject to stricter
certain plume conditions result in high
fuel sulfur limits, and New Hampshire
Fuel Combustion: Electric
SO2 concentrations at this scale. Based
Generation ........................
2,642 plans to incorporate these limits into the on these definitions, we conclude that it
Fuel Combustion: Industrial ..
817 state regulations Env–1600, entitled
is appropriate to examine the impacts of
Fuel Combustion: Other * .....
4,440 ‘‘Fuel Specifications.’’ The new limit for emissions from electric utilities and
number 2 home heating oil of 0.0015%
Waste Disposal and Recyindustrial processes in New Hampshire
cling ...................................
263 by weight will achieve a 98.5%
at locations that are up to 50 km from
Highway Vehicles .................
134 reduction in residential fuel combustion
an emitting facility. In other words, SO2
Off-Highway ..........................
257 emissions compared to emissions under
emissions from stationary point sources
Miscellaneous † ....................
6 the limit of 0.4% that applied in 2014.
in the context of the 2010 primary SO2
Because residential fuel combustion in
NAAQS do not exhibit the same longdistance travel, regional transport, or
9 Id. at pp 7–8.
11 As indicated in the notes for Table 1, the
formation phenomena as either PM2.5 or
10 Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/air‘‘other’’ category of fuel combustion in New
ozone; rather, these emissions behave
emissions-inventories/national-emissionsHampshire is comprised mostly of residential
inventory-nei.
heating through fuel oil combustion.
more like Pb with localized dispersion.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.9 Our rationale and
explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport
requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, consistent with EPA’s
interpretation of the October 14, 2011
guidance document, can be found,
among other instances, in the May 13,
2014 proposed approval (79 FR 27241
and 27249) and a subsequent July 16,
2014 final approval (79 FR 41439) of
interstate transport SIPs submitted by
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA
FOR SO2 EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE—Continued
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, an assessment of point fuel
combustion sources within 50 km of a
border between New Hampshire and an
adjacent state would be useful for
assessing whether sources in New
Hampshire significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in the adjacent state.12
Our current implementation strategy
for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS
includes the flexibility to characterize
air quality for stationary point sources
via either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the
points of maximum concentration, or air
dispersion modeling.13 Our assessment
of SO2 emissions from fuel combustion
point sources in New Hampshire and
their potential impact on neighboring
states is informed by all available data
at the time of this rulemaking,
specifically: SO2 ambient air quality;
SO2 emissions and SO2 emissions
trends; SIP-approved SO2 regulations
and permitting requirements; available
air dispersion modeling; and, other SIPapproved or federally promulgated
regulations which may limit emissions
of SO2. This notice describes EPA’s
evaluation of New Hampshire’s June 16,
2017 SIP submittal of the transport
infrastructure elements of the CAA for
the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS to satisfy
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).14
C. Prong 1 Analysis—Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor
provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another state. EPA proposes
to find that New Hampshire’s SIP meets
the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1
for the 2010 SO NAAQS, as discussed
below. In order to evaluate New
Hampshire’s satisfaction of prong 1,
EPA evaluated the State’s SIP submittal
with respect to the following five
factors: (1) SO2 emissions information
and trends for New Hampshire and
neighboring states, i.e., Maine,
Massachusetts, and Vermont; (2) SO2
ambient air quality; (3) potential
ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from
certain facilities in New Hampshire
(identified as being of interest from a
transport perspective as part of our
evaluation of SO2 emissions trends) on
neighboring states based on available air
dispersion modeling results and other
information; (4) SIP-approved
regulations specific to SO2 emissions;
48769
and (5) other SIP-approved or federallyenforceable regulations that, while not
directly intended to address or reduce
SO2 emissions, may limit emissions of
the pollutant. A discussion of each of
these factors is provided below. In this
evaluation, EPA did not identify any
current air quality problems in nearby
areas in the adjacent states relative to
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and we propose
to find that New Hampshire will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
1. Emissions Trends
As part of the SIP submittal, New
Hampshire indicated that for the 2013–
2015 period, no sources emitted greater
than 2,000 tons per year (tpy), which the
State noted was the threshold
established in the August 21, 2015 (80
FR 51052) SO2 Data Requirements Rule
(DRR), above which sources were
required to be characterized. Further,
the State provided an inventory of
individual point sources in New
Hampshire with emissions greater than
10 tpy, and total county point source
emissions from 2013–2015. These
emissions are presented in Tables 2 and
3, below.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 2—SO2—POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TONS PER YEAR (tpy) FOR 2013–2015 FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE FACILITIES
WITH EMISSIONS IN ANY SINGLE YEAR FOR 2013–2015 EXCEEDING 10 tpy, AS PROVIDED IN THE STATE’S SIP SUBMITTAL
2013
Emissions
County
Facility name
Belknap ..................
Cheshire .................
Cheshire .................
Cheshire .................
Cheshire .................
Coos .......................
Coos .......................
Coos .......................
Coos .......................
Grafton ...................
Grafton ...................
Grafton ...................
Grafton ...................
Grafton ...................
Grafton ...................
Hillsborough ...........
Hillsborough ...........
Hillsborough ...........
Hillsborough ...........
Merrimack ...............
Merrimack ...............
Merrimack ...............
Rockingham ...........
Rockingham ...........
Tilton School ...........................................................................................
Cheshire Medical Center ........................................................................
Keene State College ...............................................................................
Markem Corporation ...............................................................................
The Cheshire Medical Center .................................................................
Burgess Biopower LLC ...........................................................................
Fraser NH LLC ........................................................................................
Mount Carberry Landfill ..........................................................................
Mount Washington Hotel ........................................................................
Dartmouth College ..................................................................................
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center .....................................................
Freudenberg-Nok General Partnership-Bristol .......................................
North Country Environmental Services Inc .............................................
Plymouth State University .......................................................................
Unifirst Corporation .................................................................................
Four Hills Landfill ....................................................................................
Monadnock Paper Mill ............................................................................
Nylon Corporation ...................................................................................
Warwick Mills Inc ....................................................................................
Environmental Soils Management Inc ....................................................
Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH)—Merrimack Station ............
Wheelabrator Concord Company LP ......................................................
Granite Ridge Energy LLC .....................................................................
New NGC d/b/a National Gypsum Company .........................................
12 EPA recognizes in section A.1 of appendix A
to EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (‘‘the
Guideline’’), i.e., 40 CFR 51, appendix W, that
EPA’s regulatory AERMOD model is appropriate for
predicting pollutant concentrations up to 50 km.
Section 4.1 of the Guideline on Air Quality Models
also suggests that 50 km is the maximum distance
for which such models should be applied.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
13 See the EPA April 23, 2014 memorandum (EPA
2014) entitled ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,’’ available
online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_
nonattainment_sip.pdf (hereafter, ‘‘EPA’s April
2014 guidance’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.0
13.8
30.9
17.6
13.8
1.6
28.8
20.1
15.5
241.7
124.6
34.1
42.9
28.1
12.2
14.4
156.1
2.3
12.6
9.8
1,401.4
52.2
7.7
15.3
2014
Emissions
3.3
9.3
33.1
5.8
9.3
11.5
29.4
13.1
14.2
245.6
16.7
23.3
33.1
15.2
11.1
11.1
147.9
13.7
5.8
16.0
1,044.0
56.6
7.8
16.0
2015
Emissions
11.7
0.2
34.0
5.8
0.2
14.6
26.2
6.6
14.4
241.1
2.8
4.1
50.2
0.6
12.4
4.3
80.4
0.0
1.1
10.9
636.0
50.9
10.1
17.0
14 EPA notes that the evaluation of other states’
satisfaction of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS can be informed by similar factors
found in this proposed rulemaking, but may not be
identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for New Hampshire, depending on
available information and state-specific
circumstances.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
48770
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—SO2—POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TONS PER YEAR (tpy) FOR 2013–2015 FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE FACILITIES
WITH EMISSIONS IN ANY SINGLE YEAR FOR 2013–2015 EXCEEDING 10 tpy, AS PROVIDED IN THE STATE’S SIP SUBMITTAL—Continued
2013
Emissions
County
Facility name
Rockingham ...........
Rockingham ...........
Strafford ..................
Strafford ..................
Sullivan ...................
Sullivan ...................
PSNH—Newington Station .....................................................................
PSNH—Schiller Station ..........................................................................
Turnkey Recycling & Environmental Enterprises ...................................
University of New Hampshire—Durham .................................................
APC Paper Company .............................................................................
Wheelabrator Claremont Company LP ...................................................
330.6
1,428.1
31.7
12.7
30.3
17.0
2014
Emissions
316.1
1,243.2
56.3
18.7
13.6*
0.0
2015
Emissions
294.8
856.8
30.4
15.7
2.1
0.0
* The 2014 NEI reports emissions of 153.1 tpy for APC Paper Company.
TABLE 3—SO2 TOTAL POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TONS PER YEAR (tpy) FOR 2013–2015 FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNTIES WITH EMISSIONS IN ANY SINGLE YEAR FOR 2013–2015 EXCEEDING 10 tpy, AS PROVIDED IN THE STATE’S SIP
SUBMITTAL
2013
Emissions
County
2015
Emissions
Belknap ........................................................................................................................................
Carroll ..........................................................................................................................................
Cheshire .......................................................................................................................................
Coos .............................................................................................................................................
Grafton .........................................................................................................................................
Hillsborough .................................................................................................................................
Merrimack ....................................................................................................................................
Rockingham .................................................................................................................................
Strafford .......................................................................................................................................
Sullivan ........................................................................................................................................
6.2
14.3
99.1
75.5
514.2
220.1
1,484.8
1,797.4
58.5
49.5
3.6
13.8
79.6
74.1
370.5
201.7
1,138.2
1,597.8
91.8
16.2
12.0
9.4
64.2
66.2
331.1
107.8
713.7
1,191.8
57.5
4.7
Total ......................................................................................................................................
4,319.5
3,587.3
2,558.6
Table 3 indicates that total SO2
emissions from point sources in the 10
listed counties have decreased by 1,761
tpy, or about 41%, over the time period
from 2013 to 2015. However, as stated
above, our focus when reviewing New
Hampshire’s submittal is on sources
within 50 km of the border with another
state, not on county-wide or state-wide
emissions.
Six facilities listed in Table 2 have
emissions greater than 100 tpy and are
within 50 km of a border between New
Hampshire and another state. Three of
these are electric generating stations:
Schiller Station, Merrimack Station, and
Newington Station. In particular,
Schiller Station and Newington Station
are within 1 km of one another and
within 0.5 km of the New HampshireMaine border. These electric generating
facilities were the three highest point
source emitters in each of the 3 years in
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2014
Emissions
New Hampshire. The combined changes
in emissions from these three sources
account for 78% of the total decrease in
point source emissions during this
period. Specifically, based on the
information presented in Table 2,
combined SO2 emissions from Schiller
Station, Merrimack Station, and
Newington Station were 3,160 tpy in
2013 compared to 1,788 tpy in 2015, a
net decrease of 1,373 tpy.
The three other major fuel combustion
point sources (i.e., sources with
emissions higher than 100 tpy) in New
Hampshire listed in Table 2 that are
within 50 km of the state border are
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc. in
Bennington in Hillsborough County
(147.9 tpy—33 km from Massachusetts,
42 km from Vermont), APC Paper
Company Inc. in Claremont in Sullivan
County (153.1 tpy—4 km from
Vermont), and Dartmouth College in
Hanover in Grafton County (245.6 tpy—
1 km from Vermont). These three
sources are discussed in greater detail in
section IV.C.3 of this notice. While
Table 2 provides information on SO2
emissions between 2013 and 2015 for
the highest emitting sources based on
the State’s point source inventory, an
emissions summary for all electric
utilities within the State subject to the
Federal Acid Rain Program provides
more current information on statewide
SO2 emissions from all electric utilities.
Data for this purpose can be found in
the most recent EPA Air Markets
Program Data (AMPD).15 The AMPD is
an application that provides both
current and historical data collected as
part of EPA’s emissions trading
programs. A summary of all 2016 and
2017 SO2 emissions from electric
utilities in New Hampshire subject to
the Acid Rain Program is below.
15 Available online at: https://ampd.epa.gov/
ampd/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
48771
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—2016 AND 2017 AMPD DATA FOR ALL NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN TONS PER YEAR
[tpy]
2016 SO2
Emissions
(tpy)
2017 SO2
Emissions
(tpy)
County
Facility name
Coos .......................
Rockingham ...........
Merrimack ..............
Rockingham ...........
Rockingham ...........
Rockingham ...........
Burgess BioPower ...............................................................................................................
Granite Ridge Energy ..........................................................................................................
Merrimack Station ...............................................................................................................
Newington Station ...............................................................................................................
Newington Energy * .............................................................................................................
Schiller Station ....................................................................................................................
21.5
7.3
228.2
40.6
2.9
272.3
15.4
5.9
143.6
41.3
4.3
262.6
Total ................
..............................................................................................................................................
572.7
473.1
* In 2013 to 2015, Newington Energy had emissions below the State’s 10 tpy threshold for the inventory of individual point sources shown in
Table 2.
Table 4 provides two key pieces of
information. First, SO2 emissions have
generally continued to decrease in 2016
and 2017 for Schiller Station,
Merrimack Station, and Newington
Station since the State’s SIP submittal
which analyzed 2013 through 2015
emissions. Second, aggregate SO2
emissions for New Hampshire facilities
reporting to AMPD have continued to
decrease.
In addition to the emissions
information for New Hampshire sources
provided by the State, EPA also
compiled 2014 NEI information for
major sources in the adjacent states
within 50 km of the New Hampshire
border. This information, presented in
Table 5 below, indicates that major
sources in neighboring states near the
New Hampshire border are distant from
most sources in New Hampshire. (Note
that there are no major SO2 sources in
Vermont within 50 km of the New
Hampshire border based on the 2014
NEI data.) Based on these 2014 data, the
only source in New Hampshire (Mount
Carberry Landfill in Berlin, New
Hampshire) that is within 50 km of a
major source (i.e., a source emitting
greater than 100 tpy) in a neighboring
state (Catalyst Paper Operators in
Richmond, Maine) emitted around 13
tpy and is at a distance of 49 km.
Furthermore, there are relatively few
major SO2 sources in nearby states. This
information supports the conclusion
that New Hampshire sources within 50
km of a border and emitting below 100
tpy, and thus not including the six
major sources already identified, are
unlikely to contribute to nonattainment
in neighboring states, confirming our
focus on the six identified major
sources.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SO2 MAJOR POINT SOURCES WITHIN 50 km OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BORDER AND POTENTIAL
INTERACTIVE NEW HAMPSHIRE SOURCES
2014
Emissions
(tpy)
State
Source
Massachusetts ........
Massachusetts ........
Massachusetts ........
Maine ......................
Mystic Station—Boston ............................................
Logan Airport—Boston .............................................
Veolia Energy Boston LLC—Boston ........................
Catalyst Paper Operators—Richmond ....................
Sources in New Hampshire within 50 km
910
222
115
824
None.
None.
None.
Mount Carberry Landfill—Berlin (13 tpy, 49 km).
Data retrieved from 2014 NEI.
2. Ambient Air Quality
Data collected at ambient air quality
monitors indicate the monitored values
of SO2 in the State have remained below
the NAAQS since at least 2013. New
Hampshire included DVs for 2013–2015
in its SIP submittal. EPA compiled
relevant data from Air Quality System
(AQS) DV reports for this period and
three additional 3-year periods at New
Hampshire SO2 monitoring stations; this
information is summarized in Table 6
below.16
TABLE 6—TREND IN SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR AQS MONITORS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
AQS monitor site
33–013–1007
33–015–0018
33–013–1006
33–011–5001
33–015–0014
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Monitor location
2012–2014 DV
(ppb)
2013–2015 DV
(ppb)
2014–2016 DV
(ppb)
2015–2017 DV
(ppb)
9
5
23
5
28
8
6
20
5
29
7
5
20
3
22
* NA
4
15
3
16
Concord—Hazen Drive ...............................................
Londonderry—150 Pillsbury Road ..............................
Pembroke—Pleasant Street ........................................
Peterborough—Pack Monadnock Summit ..................
Portsmouth—Peirce Island .........................................
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.
16 Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/air-quality-design-values.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
48772
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Table 6 above, the DVs
for the periods from 2012–2014 through
2015–2017 show overall decreases in
SO2 concentrations. The highest DV in
New Hampshire for 2015–2017 is 16
ppb, which is well below the NAAQS,
at the Peirce Island monitor in
Portsmouth very close to the border
with Maine. An analysis of DV data
from these monitors, along with
additional data sources (as further
discussed below), can partially inform
the evaluation of SO2 transport from
New Hampshire.
TABLE 7—DISTANCES BETWEEN THE LARGEST SO2 EMISSION SOURCES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND REGULATORY
MONITORS
Facility
Schiller Station .......
Newington Station ..
Merrimack Station ..
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Distance to
closest AQS
monitor in
New
Hampshire
(km)
Closest AQS
monitor in
New Hampshire
Portsmouth—Peirce Island.
Portsmouth—Peirce Island.
Pembroke—Pleasant
Street.
The monitors closest to Merrimack
Station (i.e., the Pembroke monitor,
AQS no. 33–013–1006) and both
Schiller Station and Newington Station
(i.e., the Peirce Island monitor, AQS no.
33–015–0014) may not be sited in the
area to adequately capture points of
maximum concentration from the
facilities. However, Table 7 indicates
that these monitors are located in the
neighborhood spatial scale in relation to
the facilities, i.e., emissions from
stationary and point sources may under
certain plume conditions result in high
SO2 concentrations at this scale. EPA’s
monitoring regulations at 40 CFR part
58, appendix D, section 4.4.4(3) define
neighborhood scale as ‘‘characterize[ing]
air quality conditions throughout some
relatively uniform land use areas with
dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 km range.’’
The Pembroke monitor has, in prior
years, recorded SO2 levels in excess of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS resulting from
emissions from Merrimack Station. For
example, the DV at the Pembroke
monitor was 221 ppb for the 2009–2011
monitoring period. Similarly, the Peirce
Island monitor has recorded 1-hour SO2
concentrations higher than the level of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in prior years,
with peak 1-hour impacts in 2006 of 93
ppb and a DV of 60 ppb during the
2005–2007 period, reflecting previous
impacts from emissions from Schiller
Station and Newington Station. These
historic values illustrate the extent to
which the Pembroke and Peirce Island
monitors were capable of recording high
pollutant levels resulting from
emissions from Merrimack Station and
Schiller and Newington Stations,
respectively. However, these three
facilities are no longer expected to emit
at high levels because each is subject to
federally-enforceable requirements that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
Spatial scale
2013–2015 DV
(ppb)
2014–2016 DV
(ppb)
2015–2017 DV
(ppb)
3.9
Neighborhood .................
29
22
16
4.4
Neighborhood .................
29
22
16
1.3
Neighborhood .................
20
20
15
limit allowable SO2 emissions.
Therefore, EPA no longer expects high
SO2 readings at the Pembroke and
Peirce Island monitors. As presented in
Table 7, the most recently available DVs
at both monitors are now well below the
NAAQS based on 2013–2015 data
included in the State’s SIP submittal
and on updated DV data reviewed by
EPA.
However, the absence of a violating
ambient air quality monitor within the
State is insufficient to demonstrate that
New Hampshire has met its interstate
transport obligation. While the very low
DVs and the spatial relationship
between the sources of interest and two
of the monitoring sites support the
notion that emissions originating within
New Hampshire are not contributing to
a violation of the NAAQS, prong 1 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically
addresses the effects that sources within
New Hampshire have on air quality in
neighboring states. Therefore, the
evaluation and analysis of SO2
emissions data from facilities within the
State, as previously presented, together
with ambient data in neighboring states,
as will be presented next, is appropriate.
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire
provided 2013–2015 SO2 DVs for all
monitors in neighboring states, noting
that two such monitors reside in
counties adjacent to New Hampshire,
and also that there are currently no
designated nonattainment or
maintenance areas for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in states surrounding New
Hampshire. Table 8 contains the 2013–
2015 through 2015–2017 SO2 DVs for
monitors in the three states neighboring
New Hampshire, i.e., Maine,
Massachusetts, and Vermont, also
noting whether the county is adjacent to
New Hampshire. (The State supplied
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the 2013–2015 DVs in its SIP submittal,
and EPA updated the State’s analysis to
include the 2014–2016 and 2015–2017
SO2 DVs for these monitors.) Several
monitors in this dataset have
incomplete data for at least one of the
DV periods; DVs are reported as ‘‘NA’’
for periods with incomplete data. All of
the valid DVs for the monitoring sites
listed in Table 8 are well below the
NAAQS.
One monitor with a DV listed as
‘‘NA’’ for the relevant time periods
included in the State’s SIP submittal is
the Sawgrass Lane monitor, AQS site
23–031–0009, located in Eliot, Maine.
The Sawgrass Lane monitor collected
SO2 concentration data from October 24,
2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1hour SO2 concentration observed from
this monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8,
2015, when winds came from the
direction of Schiller Station and the
power plant was operating at nearmaximum capacity.17 Though a single
maximum 1-hour concentration is not
directly comparable to the SO2 NAAQS,
17 The Town of Eliot had previously submitted a
petition to EPA in August 2013 pursuant to section
126 of the CAA regarding alleged violations of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS within the Town’s political
boundary due to emissions from Schiller Station.
The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an area
expected to experience peak SO2 impacts based on
modeling information submitted by the Town with
the section 126 petition. On November 9, 2017,
following the Sawgrass Lane monitoring study, and
in light of new permit limitations on SO2 emissions
at Schiller Station (described in section IV.C.3.a)
and EPA’s August 22, 2017 letters stating EPA’s
intention to designate the Maine and New
Hampshire seacoast areas as not being in violation
of the NAAQS, the Town of Eliot withdrew its
August 2013 section 126 petition. Additional
background and results of the Sawgrass Lane
monitoring study are described in the report,
‘‘Review of 2014–2016 Eliot, Maine Air Quality
Monitoring Study,’’ EPA, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, and NHDES (September
2016).
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
48773
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
which is in the form of the 3-year
average of the 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour values, EPA notes that
the highest concentration observed at
the Sawgrass Lane monitor was
approximately 50% of the level of the
NAAQS,
Based on the monitoring data in
neighboring states, EPA proposes to
conclude that these monitoring data do
not provide evidence of violations in the
neighboring states.
TABLE 8—SO2 DVS FOR AQS MONITORS IN NEIGHBORING STATES AND ADJACENCY TO NEW HAMPSHIRE OF THE
COUNTY IN WHICH MONITOR IS LOCATED
Monitor location
2013–2015
SO2 DV
(ppb)
2014–2016
SO2 DV
(ppb)
2015–2017
SO2 DV
(ppb)
Presque Isle ...................................
State Street, Portland .....................
Hancock County .............................
Pray Street, Gardiner .....................
Sawgrass Lane, Eliot .....................
Globe Street, Fall River ..................
Liberty Street, Springfield ...............
Quabbin Summit, Ware ..................
Kenmore Square, Boston ...............
Dudley Square, Roxbury ................
Summer Street, Worcester .............
Harvey Road, Underhill ..................
State Street, Rutland ......................
3 ....................
12 ..................
2 ....................
12 ..................
NA* ................
28 ..................
8 ....................
5 ....................
9 ....................
11 ..................
7 ....................
3 † ..................
9 ....................
3 ....................
11 ..................
1 ....................
NA* ................
NA* ................
10 ..................
NA* ................
4 ....................
6 ....................
9 ....................
6 ....................
2 ....................
6 ....................
NA* ................
9 ....................
1 ....................
NA* ................
NA* ................
9 ....................
NA* ................
3 ....................
4 ....................
6 ....................
5 ....................
2 ....................
2 ....................
AQS monitor
site
State
Maine ......................
Massachusetts ........
Vermont ..................
23–003–1100
23–005–0029
23–009–0103
23–011–2005
23–031–0009
25–005–1004
25–013–0016
25–015–4002
25–025–0002
25–025–0042
25–027–0023
50–007–0007
50–021–0002
County
adjacent to
New Hampshire?
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.
† Value as reported by NH DES. EPA’s AQS database indicates no valid DV at this monitor for this year range.
3. Assessment of Potential Ambient
Impacts of SO2 Emissions From Certain
Sources Based on Air Dispersion
Modeling and Other Information
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Schiller Station, Newington Station, and
Merrimack Station
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire
referenced air dispersion modeling
conducted for Schiller Station and
Newington Station used to support the
State’s recommendation for designations
under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and to meet
the State’s obligation under the SO2
DRR. The State used the modeling to
establish maximum allowable SO2
emission limits for Schiller Station in
the June 15, 2017 Title V Operating
Permit (TV–0053) and for Newington
Station in the December 22, 2016
temporary permit TP–0197. A detailed
description of EPA’s assessment of the
modeling, and associated visualizations,
are available in Chapter 27 of the
Technical Support Document for EPA’s
September 5, 2017 (82 FR 41903)
Intended Round 3 Area Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for New
Hampshire, and this description is
hereby incorporated for purposes of this
action.18 EPA’s assessment of the State’s
18 In referencing EPA’s Intended Round 3 Area
Designations, EPA is not reopening the SO2 area
designations action nor incorporating any other
materials from those designations into the record
for this proposal other than those explicitly
described as incorporated. A notice of the final rule
for these designations was published on January 9,
2018 (83 FR 1098). Chapter 27 of the Technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
modeling indicates that it is suitable for
use in evaluating impacts in Maine and
Massachusetts from the allowable
emissions from Schiller Station and
Newington Station under federallyenforceable emission limits for those
facilities. The modeling also included
representative actual emissions from
nearby sources. The maximum
predicted concentrations, which are at a
level of 74.8 ppb, in the State’s
modeling based on full load using
maximum allowable emissions are
located in Eliot, Maine. The modeling
also predicted SO2 concentrations in
areas of northeast Massachusetts, where
levels were predicted to be around 24
ppb. Based on our assessment of this
modeling information, EPA proposes to
conclude that the federally-enforceable
emissions limits for Schiller Station and
Newington Station ensure that
emissions activity from these sources
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in
Maine or Massachusetts.
The State also referenced air
dispersion modeling conducted to
establish federally-enforceable SO2
emission limits for Merrimack Station in
Bow, New Hampshire. The State relied
upon these limits with supporting
modeling analysis in the attainment
demonstration for the Central New
Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment Area, as
described in the Federal Register on
Support Document can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/
documents/27_nh_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45242).19
Merrimack Station was explicitly
modeled in this attainment
demonstration, while Schiller Station
and Newington Station were
represented by the selected background
concentration. EPA’s assessment of the
State’s modeling indicates that it is
suitable for use in evaluating impacts in
Maine and Massachusetts under
federally-enforceable emission limits
from Merrimack Station. The modeling
predicted maximum impacts from
Merrimack Station of around 11 ppb in
Maine and Massachusetts. Based on our
assessment of this modeling
information, EPA proposes to conclude
that the federally-enforceable emissions
limits for Merrimack Station ensure
emissions activity from this source will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in
Maine or Massachusetts.
The modeling results demonstrate
that the points, outside of New
Hampshire, of maximum potential
impact for Merrimack Station, Schiller
Station, and Newington Station are
located in Maine, which neighbors New
Hampshire to the east, and that these
impacts are below the level of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA expects
the actual impacts will be no higher
19 In referencing EPA’s approval of New
Hampshire’s plan and attainment demonstration for
the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area,
EPA is not reopening the nonattainment area plan
approval action. A notice of the final rule for the
plan approval was published on June 5, 2018 (83
FR 25922).
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
48774
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
than the potential impacts shown in the
State’s analysis.
To additionally evaluate the
expectation that Schiller Station,
Newington Station, and Merrimack
Station will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in
Maine or Massachusetts, EPA assessed
the proximity of these facilities to major
SO2 emission sources in neighboring
states that may cause areas of higher
concentration in those states. To do so,
EPA examined emissions data for major
sources of SO2 emissions in Maine and
Massachusetts. (There are no major
sources in Vermont within 50 km of the
New Hampshire border, so Vermont was
excluded this portion of the analysis.20)
A summary of this information, as it
relates to the sources in New Hampshire
discussed here, is presented in Table 9
below. Based on the information in
Table 9, the distance between the
sources modeled by New Hampshire
and major sources in nearby states are
at least 73 km. Therefore, the large
distances between Merrimack Station,
Schiller Station, and Newington Station
and the nearest major SO2 sources
within Maine, Massachusetts, and
Vermont, indicate that impacts from
New Hampshire are appropriately
characterized by the State’s modeling,
and are very unlikely to contribute
significantly to problems with
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
these neighboring states.
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF MAJOR EMISSION SOURCES IN STATES ADJACENT TO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THEIR
CORRESPONDING DISTANCE TO MERRIMACK STATION, NEWINGTON STATION, AND SCHILLER STATION
2017
emissions
(tpy) *
New Hampshire source
Merrimack Station .........................................
Newington Station .........................................
Schiller Station ..............................................
Distance to
New HampshireMassachusetts
border
(km)
Distance to
New HampshireMaine border
(km)
44
25
25
46
<1
<1
143.6
41.3
262.6
Distance to
nearest neighboring state
major SO2 source
(km)
89 (Mystic Station in Boston, Mass.) ............
73 (S D Warren Co in Westbrook, Maine) ...
73 (S D Warren Co in Westbrook, Maine) ...
Neighboring
state source
2014
emissions
(tpy)
910.4
426.8
426.8
* CAMD data for 2017; see Table 4.
† Data retrieved from 2014 NEI.
Based on the modeling provided by
New Hampshire and the reasoning
presented above, EPA proposes to
conclude that SO2 emissions from
Merrimack Station, Schiller Station, and
Newington Station do not have the
potential to violate the 2010 SO2
NAAQS based on currently effective
and federally-enforceable permit
conditions.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc., APC Paper
Company Inc., and Dartmouth College
Regarding Monadnock Paper Mills,
APC Paper Company Inc, and
Dartmouth College, EPA does not have
information at this time suggesting that
either Massachusetts or Vermont is
impacted by emissions from these
sources or other emissions activity
originating in New Hampshire in
violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA reviewed available information to
assess whether these sources may result
in such a violation. Specifically, as
described below, EPA examined wind
rose information, distances from state
borders and from major sources in the
adjacent states (if any), and the relative
emission levels of these three sources.
EPA examined wind roses for
meteorological stations representative of
the areas around these three other major
sources in New Hampshire, i.e.,
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc., APC Paper
Company Inc., and Dartmouth
College.21 For the meteorological
20 EPA notes that according to the 2014 NEI,
Agrimark Inc. in Middlebury, Vermont, at about 79
km from the New Hampshire border, 168 km from
Merrimack Station, and 220 km from Shiller Station
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
significantly to nonattainment in
Massachusetts or Vermont. These three
sources are all at least 85 km from any
part of Maine, so EPA is also proposing
to determine that emissions from these
three sources in New Hampshire will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Maine.
stations nearest to Monadnock Paper
Mills Inc. and APC Paper Company Inc.,
the wind roses indicate the predominant
winds to be away from the state border,
as opposed to toward the state border
which would be conducive to interstate
transport. For Dartmouth College, the
wind rose for a nearby meteorological
station indicates a prevailing northsouth wind pattern, i.e., along the state
border with Vermont, as opposed to an
east-west pattern that would be most
conducive to interstate transport.
Additionally, EPA also notes that
there are no major SO2 sources in the
adjacent states within 50 km of these
three New Hampshire sources, which
indicates that there are unlikely to be
high SO2 concentrations in the adjacent
state arising mostly from in-state
sources to which these three New
Hampshire sources are contributing.
Furthermore, Monadnock Paper Mills
Inc. is located approximately 30 km
from the nearest state border, which
indicates that the likelihood of high
impacts in another state is extremely
low. Finally, all three of these sources
are in the range of 100–250 tpy,
indicating that these sources have
emissions only slightly above the
threshold of 100 tpy used by EPA to
identify sources for additional analysis.
Based on this information, EPA is
proposing to determine that emissions
from these three sources in New
Hampshire will not contribute
The State has provisions and
regulations to limit SO2 emissions.
Notably, the New Hampshire Revised
Statutes Annotated (RSA) section 125–
O, ‘‘Multiple Pollutant Reduction
Program,’’ requires the reduction of
mercury emissions by at least 80% from
baseline mercury input beginning in
July 2013 at Merrimack Station in Bow,
New Hampshire. This state requirement
resulted in the installation and
operation of a flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) unit at Merrimack Station, and
the removal of SO2 occurs as a cobenefit of mercury removal with an
FGD. New Hampshire permit TP–0008
contains enforceable conditions for the
removal of SO2 by the FDG, and this
permit was approved into the SIP as
part of the State’s Regional Haze SIP on
August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602).
Additionally, New Hampshire issued
permit TP–0189 in 2016 which
incorporated a 7-boiler operating day
average combined emission limit for
Merrimack’s two utility boilers of 0.39
and Newington Station, is the nearest major SO2
source in Vermont to the New Hampshire border
and the major sources in New Hampshire.
21 The wind rose data are available in a
memorandum to the docket for this action, which
can be found on https://www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Specific to
SO2
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
lb/MMBtu as enforceable conditions of
the permit. EPA approved these
conditions from this permit into the SIP
on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922) as part
of New Hampshire’s Nonattainment
Plan for the Central New Hampshire
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area.
The State has SIP-approved
regulations limiting the sulfur content
in fuel. The current federallyenforceable fuel specifications include
limits on the sulfur content of liquid
fuel (oil), gaseous fuel (natural and
manufactured gas), and solid fuel (coal)
purchased or used for heat or power
generation. Current federallyenforceable limits on liquid fuel (oil) are
0.4% sulfur by weight for number 2 oil,
1.0% sulfur by weight for number 4 oil,
and 2.0% sulfur by weight for numbers
5 and 6 oil and crude oil (except in Coos
County where the limit is 2.2% sulfur
by weight). (As previously mentioned, a
recent state law lowers these limits
effective July 2018.) Limits on coal
sulfur content include a maximum of
2.8 lb/MMBtu gross heat content for
devices existing as of April 15, 1970, or
1.5 lb/MMBtu gross heat content for
sources placed in operation after that
date. See 40 CFR 52.1520(c), ‘‘EPAApproved New Hampshire
Regulations.’’
5. Other SIP-Approved or FederallyEnforceable Regulations
In addition to the State’s SIPapproved regulations, EPA observes that
facilities in New Hampshire are also
subject to the federal requirements
contained in regulations such as the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters. This regulation limits acid
gases, and effectively also reduces SO2
emissions.
6. Conclusion
As discussed in more detail above,
EPA has considered the following
information in evaluating the State’s
satisfaction of the requirements of prong
1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) EPA has not identified any current
air quality problems in nearby areas in
the adjacent states (Maine,
Massachusetts, and Vermont) relative to
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on
emissions trends or ambient monitoring
data;
(2) New Hampshire demonstrated
using air dispersion modeling that
permitted emissions from its three
largest stationary source SO2 emitters, in
combination with other nearby sources
and background SO2 concentrations, are
not expected to cause SO2 air quality
violations in other states relative to the
2010 SO2 NAAQS;
(3) consideration of available
information on the only other major
sources within 50 km of another state
indicates that these sources are unlikely
to contribute to NAAQS violations in
other nearby states; and
(4) current SIP provisions and other
federal programs will effectively limit
SO2 emissions from sources within New
Hampshire.
Based on the analysis provided by the
State in its SIP submission and based on
48775
each of the factors listed above, EPA
proposes to find that sources and other
emissions activity within the State will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 primary SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
D. Prong 2 Analysis—Interference With
Maintenance of the NAAQS
Prong 2 of the good neighbor
provision requires state implementation
plans to prohibit emissions that will
interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS
in another state.
Given our proposed conclusion that
sources within New Hampshire are not
contributing significantly to NAAQS
violations in adjacent states because
there are no NAAQS violations in the
adjacent states, based on the
consideration of the factors discussed
earlier, EPA believes that a reasonable
investigation as to whether sources or
emissions activity originating within
New Hampshire may interfere with its
neighboring states’ ability to maintain
the NAAQS consists of evaluating
whether emissions of sources in New
Hampshire and the adjacent states are
effectively prevented from increasing in
the future.
The State’s SIP submittal provides
statewide SO2 emissions trends for
multiple source categories. EPA
reviewed 2005 and 2014 NEI data to
confirm the State’s assessment of trends,
and these values are summarized below
in Table 10. EPA also considered
emissions trend information from the
states neighboring New Hampshire, as
presented in Table 11.
TABLE 10—SO2 EMISSIONS IN TONS PER YEAR (tpy) AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2005 AND 2014
FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE BY SOURCE CATEGORY
Data Category *
2005
2014
Percent
change in
emissions
Non-electric generating unit point sources ..................................................................................
Electric generating unit point sources .........................................................................................
Nonpoint sources .........................................................................................................................
Nonroad mobile sources ..............................................................................................................
Onroad mobile sources ...............................................................................................................
5,571
51,461
4,275
819
630
2,230
2,642
3,296
257
134
¥60
¥95
¥23
¥69
¥79
Total ......................................................................................................................................
62,757
8,558
¥86
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
* Excludes emissions from wild fires.
TABLE 11—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS FROM 2002 TO 2014 FOR STATES NEIGHBORING NEW HAMPSHIRE, IN TONS PER
YEAR
State
2002
Maine .......................................................
Massachusetts .........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
2005
33,585
156,778
PO 00000
Frm 00046
2008
32,114
144,140
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23,386
76,263
2011
2014
15,555
51,372
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
11,276
18,904
SO2 emissions
change
2002–2014
(%)
¥66
¥88
48776
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 11—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS FROM 2002 TO 2014 FOR STATES NEIGHBORING NEW HAMPSHIRE, IN TONS PER
YEAR—Continued
State
2002
Vermont ....................................................
2005
4,988
2008
4,682
2011
4,052
2014
3,449
SO2 emissions
change
2002–2014
(%)
1,511
¥70
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Data retrieved from the 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI datasets.
The data show statewide SO2
emissions have decreased substantially
over time. This trend of decreasing SO2
emissions does not by itself demonstrate
that areas in New Hampshire and
neighboring states will not have issues
maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
However, as a piece of this weight of
evidence analysis for prong 2, it
provides further indication (when
considered alongside low monitor
values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. Since
actual SO2 emissions from sources in
New Hampshire have decreased overall
between 2005 and 2014, because these
decreases are substantial in every source
category, and because these decreases
are largely the result of state regulatory
actions, EPA does not expect current or
future emissions from New Hampshire
to interfere with neighboring states’
ability to maintain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
SO2 emissions from point and
nonpoint sources combusting fuel oil in
New Hampshire will not increase to
historical levels and in fact will be
lower due to a provision of state law,
RSA 125 C:10–d. As of July 2018, fuel
oil sold in the State is subject to stricter
fuel sulfur limits, and New Hampshire
plans to incorporate these limits into the
state regulations Env–1600, entitled
‘‘Fuel Specifications.’’ The state law
limits the sulfur content in fuel to
0.0015% by weight for number 2 home
heating oil, 0.25% by weight for number
4 oil, and 0.5% by weight for number
5 and 6 oils as of July 1, 2018. These
limits decrease current SO2 emissions
from point or nonpoint sources
combusting fuel oil.
Lastly, any new large sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by New
Hampshire’s SIP-approved new source
review (NSR) and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program.
New minor sources of SO2 emissions
will be addressed by the State’s minor
new source review permit program. The
permitting regulations contained within
these programs are expected to ensure
that ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont do
not exceed the NAAQS as a result of
new facility construction or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
modification of sources in New
Hampshire. The State’s SIP-approved
NSR and PSD programs are contained in
Env–A 600, entitled ‘‘Statewide Permit
System,’’ under sections 618 and 619,
respectively, as approved in the Federal
Register on September 25, 2015 (80 FR
57722). These regulations ensure that
SO2 emissions due to new facility
construction or modifications at existing
facilities will not adversely impact air
quality in New Hampshire or in
neighboring states.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 2, EPA has incorporated
additional information into our
evaluation of New Hampshire’s
submission. In doing so, EPA reviewed
information about emission trends in
Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, as
well as the technical information
considered for interstate transport prong
1. We find that the combination of the
absence of current NAAQS violations in
the neighboring states, the large
distances between cross-state SO2
sources, the downward trend in SO2
emissions from New Hampshire and
neighboring states, more stringent limits
on fuel sulfur content, and state
measures that prevent new facility
construction or modification in New
Hampshire from causing SO2
exceedances in downwind states,
indicates no interference with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
from New Hampshire. Accordingly, we
propose to determine that New
Hampshire SO2 emission sources will
not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
V. Proposed Action
In light of the above analyses, EPA is
proposing to approve New Hampshire’s
June 16, 2017 infrastructure submittal
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as it pertains
to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final
action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments to this proposed rule by
following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
New Hampshire’s June 16, 2017 SIP
submittal, entitled ‘‘Amendment to New
Hampshire 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
Infrastructure SIP to Address the Good
Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),’’ described in
section II of this preamble. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, this
document generally available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VII. 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.
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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant
under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Sulfur oxides.
Dated: September 20, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018–21006 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0588; FRL–9984–
57—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota;
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units and Other Solid
Waste Incineration Units Negative
Declarations for Designated Facilities
and Pollutants
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is notifying the public
that we have received negative
declarations from Minnesota pertaining
to the presence of Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
(CISWI) units and Other Solid Waste
Incineration (OSWI) units in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) submitted its CISWI
negative declaration by letter dated
February 3, 2017, and its OSWI negative
declaration by letter dated June 21,
2017. MPCA notified EPA in its negative
declaration letters that there are no
CISWI or OSWI units subject to the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act)
currently operating in Minnesota.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2018–0588, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
cain.alexis@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48777
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret Sieffert, Environmental
Engineer, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 353–1151,
sieffert.margaret@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
A. Sections 111 and 129 of the Act
B. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
C. Other Solid Waste Incineration Units
II. Negative Declarations and EPA Analysis
A. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
B. Other Solid Waste Incineration Units
III. Proposed EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Sections 111 and 129 of the Act
Sections 111 and 129 of the Act set
forth EPA’s statutory authority for
regulating new and existing solid waste
incineration units. Section 111(b)
directs EPA to publish and periodically
revise a list of categories of stationary
sources which cause or significantly
contribute to air pollution, and to
establish new source performance
standards (NSPS) within these
categories. Section 111(d) grants EPA
statutory authority to require states to
submit to the agency implementation
plans for establishing performance
standards applicable to existing sources
belonging to those categories established
in section 111(b).
Section 111(d) of the Act requires
states to submit plans to control certain
pollutants (designated pollutants) at
existing facilities (designated facilities)
whenever standards of performance
have been established under section
111(b) for new sources of a source
category and EPA has established
emission guidelines (EGs) for designated
facilities. 40 CFR 60.21(a) and (b).
Section 129 of the Act is specific to
solid waste combustion, and requires
EPA to establish performance standards
pursuant to section 111 of the Act for
each category of solid waste
incineration units, which includes the
categories addressed in today’s action.
The regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B, contain general provisions
applicable to the adoption and submittal
of state plans for the control of
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48765-48777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21006]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0595; A-1-FRL-9984-00--Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Transport Element for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Hampshire. This revision addresses the interstate
transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the
good neighbor provision, with respect to the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This
action proposes to approve New Hampshire's demonstration that the State
is meeting its obligations regarding the transport of SO2
emissions into other states.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0595 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor
Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leiran Biton, Air Permits, Toxics and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region
1, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1267, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Basis for the Proposed Action
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire
C. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
1. Emissions Trends
2. Ambient Air Quality
3. Assessment of Potential Ambient Impacts of SO2
Emissions From Certain Sources Based on Air Dispersion Modeling and
Other Information
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Specific to SO2
5. Other SIP-Approved or Federally-Enforceable Regulations
6. Conclusion
D. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary
NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb),
based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\
These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure
SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibility
under the CAA. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale of
these SIPs and their requirements can be found, among other citations,
in EPA's May 13, 2014 (79 FR 27241) proposed rule titled, ``Approval
and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon
states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but
the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances, and may also vary depending upon what
provisions the state's approved SIP already contains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This requirement applies to both primary and secondary
NAAQS, but EPA's approval in this notice applies only to the 2010
primary NAAQS for SO2 because EPA did not establish in
2010 a new secondary NAAQS for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48766]]
EPA has implemented the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in multiple
stages or ``rounds.'' In our first round of implementation, EPA
identified a monitored violation based on 2009-2011 monitoring data for
an area around Merrimack Station, a coal-fired power plant in Bow, New
Hampshire. Subsequently on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), in concurrence
with New Hampshire's recommendation for the area, EPA established the
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. On January 31, 2017, EPA received a SIP submittal from the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Service (NHDES) for the Central
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The central component of the plan is
a set of new permit limitations on SO2 emissions from
Merrimack Station. On September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45242), EPA proposed to
approve the State's January 31, 2017 SIP submittal as meeting all
applicable requirements for a nonattainment area SIP submittal. EPA
issued a final rule approving New Hampshire's SIP submittal for the
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922).
No other areas in New Hampshire or any neighboring state were
designated for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the first or second
rounds of designations. All other areas in New Hampshire and
neighboring states have since been designated as Attainment/
Unclassifiable as part of EPA's third round of designations on January
9, 2018 (83 FR 1098).
On September 13, 2013, NHDES submitted a revision to its SIP,
certifying its SIP meets most of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, this
submittal did not address the transport elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44542) and May 25, 2017 (82
FR 24085), EPA approved NHDES's certification that its SIP was adequate
to meet most of the program elements required by section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, EPA did
not take action related to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because New Hampshire's September 13,
2013 infrastructure SIP submittal did not include provisions for this
element.
On June 16, 2017, NHDES submitted a SIP revision for the transport
elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS. The title of the State's SIP submittal is
``Amendment to New Hampshire 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure
SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).'' In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the
State's June 16, 2017 submission to address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
II. State Submittal
New Hampshire presented several facts in its SIP submittal on the
effect of SO2 emissions from sources within New Hampshire on
both adjacent states' air quality and their ability to attain and
remain in attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The SIP
submittal notes that SO2 ambient monitoring data within New
Hampshire and in adjacent states were substantially below the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, the SIP submittal provided the
SO2 ``design value'' (DV),\2\ i.e., the ambient
concentration statistic appropriate for comparison with the NAAQS, for
each monitoring site in New Hampshire, based on the 2013-2015 period.
These 2013-2015 DVs were considerably below the NAAQS at all sites,
including the two monitors within the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area during that period. The highest DV reported by NHDES
for that period was 29 ppb, which is about 39% of the NAAQS, at the
Peirce Island monitor in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In addition, the
submittal provided source-specific and county-level emissions trends
information for 2013-2015 and longer-term statewide trends. Finally,
the SIP submittal described air quality modeling information for
Schiller Station, a coal- and biomass-fired power plant in Portsmouth,
New Hampshire, and nearby Newington Station, an oil-fired power plant
in Newington, New Hampshire, which indicated that emissions allowed
under new, federally-enforceable emissions limits included in state air
permits for those facilities would not result in a violation of the
NAAQS in New Hampshire, Maine, or Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A DV is a statistic that describes the air quality status of
a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. The
interpretation of the primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS (set at 75
ppb) including the data handling conventions and calculations
necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS can be found in
appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of the Basis for the Proposed Action
This proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP addressing interstate
transport of SO2 is based on our assessment that the State
is meeting its obligations regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
relative to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\3\ Interstate transport
requirements for all NAAQS pollutants prohibit any source--or other
type of emissions activity--in one state from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. As part of this analysis, and as explained in detail below, EPA
has taken several approaches to addressing interstate transport in
other actions based on the characteristics of the pollutant, the
interstate problem presented by emissions of that pollutant, the
sources that emit the pollutant, and the information available to
assess transport of that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the information contained in
the administrative record for this action, and does not prejudge any
other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding
New Hampshire's air quality status. Any such future actions, such as
area designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own
administrative records and EPA's analyses of information that
becomes available at those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and information
submitted to EPA by states, air agencies, and third party
stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone in that
SO2 is not a regionally-mixing pollutant for which emissions
from multiple sources commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment
of the SO2 NAAQS over a large (and often multi-state) area.
While transport of SO2 is more analogous to the transport of
lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in localized pollutant
impacts very near the emissions source, the physical properties and
release height of SO2 are such that impacts of
SO2 do not experience the same sharp decrease in ambient
concentrations as rapidly and as nearby as for Pb. Emissions of
SO2 travel further and have sufficiently wider-ranging
impacts than emissions of Pb to require a different approach than for
handling Pb transport, but not far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to regional transport pollutants such as PM2.5 or
ozone.
Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport
of SO2:
[[Page 48767]]
The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb transport (described for
background in section IV) are too tightly circumscribed to the source,
and the approaches for PM2.5 or ozone transport (also
described for background in section IV) are too regionally focused.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case, and EPA's
evaluation of whether New Hampshire has met its transport obligations
was accomplished in several discrete steps. First, EPA evaluated what
universe of sources are likely to be responsible for SO2
emissions that could contribute to interstate transport. An assessment
of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for New Hampshire made
it clear that the vast majority of SO2 emissions in New
Hampshire are from fuel combustion at point and nonpoint sources and
that emissions from other sources are small in the absolute sense as
well, and therefore it would be reasonable to evaluate the downwind
impacts of emissions from the combined fuel combustion source
categories to help determine whether the State has met its transport
obligations.
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale--essentially, the geographic
area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably
expect SO2 impacts to occur--that would be appropriate for
our analysis, ultimately settling on utilizing an ``urban scale'' with
dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point sources given the
usefulness of that range in assessing trends in both area-wide air
quality and the effectiveness of pollution control strategies at those
point sources. As such, EPA utilized an assessment approach that
extended to 50 km from fuel-combustion point sources when considering
possible transport of SO2 from New Hampshire to downwind
states.
Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this
rulemaking regarding SO2 emissions in New Hampshire and
their possible impacts in downwind states, including: SO2
ambient air quality; SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2 regulations and
permitting requirements; available air dispersion modeling; and other
SIP-approved or federally promulgated regulations that may yield
reductions of SO2 at New Hampshire's fuel-combustion point
and nonpoint sources.
Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3
(i.e., emissions sources, spatial scale and available data, and
modeling results and enforceable regulations), EPA then conducted an
analysis under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether fuel-
combustion sources in New Hampshire would significantly contribute to
nonattainment in other states, and then whether they would interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states.
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submittal
and EPA's assessment of the information in that submittal, and EPA's
assessment of other relevant information available at the time of this
rulemaking, for each of the factors discussed at length below in this
action, EPA proposes to find that sources or emissions activity within
New Hampshire will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor
will they interfere with maintenance of, the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a
NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance of a NAAQS).
EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13,
2013 memorandum, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' \4\ did not explicitly include criteria for
how the Agency would evaluate infrastructure SIP submittals intended to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\5\ With respect to certain
pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, EPA has addressed
interstate transport in eastern states in the context of regional
rulemaking actions that quantify state emission reduction
obligations.\6\ In other actions, such as the EPA action on western
state SIPs addressing particulate matter and ozone, EPA has considered
a variety of factors on a case-by-case basis to determine whether
emissions from one state significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In such
actions, EPA has considered available information such as current air
quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, distance between
states, and topography.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/guidance_on_infrastructure_sip_elements_multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf.
\5\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to our Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) designed to
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S.Ct. 1584
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
\6\ NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57371, October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25172, May 12, 2005); CSAPR
(76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011).
\7\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference with
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule (76 FR 14616, 14616-14626,
March 17, 2011); Final Rule (76 FR 34872, June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule (80 FR 27121, 27124-27125, May
12, 2015); Final Rule (80 FR 47862, August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's
assessment as to whether emissions from Pb sources located in close
proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state
such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in that state. For example, EPA noted in an October
14, 2011 memorandum, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS),'' \8\ that the physical properties of Pb prevent its
emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as
PM2.5 or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease in Pb
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source
in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation, e.g., where
[[Page 48768]]
large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries.\9\ Our
rationale and explanation for approving the applicable interstate
transport requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, consistent with EPA's interpretation of the October 14, 2011
guidance document, can be found, among other instances, in the May 13,
2014 proposed approval (79 FR 27241 and 27249) and a subsequent July
16, 2014 final approval (79 FR 41439) of interstate transport SIPs
submitted by Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Available online at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
\9\ Id. at pp 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire
As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an
evaluation of how emissions from any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state may impact air quality in other states. One
reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions
activities in New Hampshire are likely to impact downwind air quality
with respect to the SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the
NEI.\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and
hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, and is updated
every 3 years using information provided by the states. At the time of
this rulemaking, the most recently available comprehensive dataset is
the 2014 NEI (version 2), and the state summary for New Hampshire is
included in Table 1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
Table 1--Summary of 2014 National Emissions Inventory Data for SO2
Emission Source Categories in New Hampshire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
Category (tons per
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generation.................... 2,642
Fuel Combustion: Industrial............................. 817
Fuel Combustion: Other *................................ 4,440
Waste Disposal and Recycling............................ 263
Highway Vehicles........................................ 134
Off-Highway............................................. 257
Miscellaneous [dagger].................................. 6
---------------
Total................................................. 8,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Other'' fuel combustion is nonpoint and includes 3,180 tons per year
from residential fuel oil combustion, 1,077 tons per year from
commercial/institutional fuel oil combustion, and 182 tons per year
from combustion of other fuel types from residential and commercial/
institutional sources.
[dagger] Miscellaneous includes prescribed fires, wildfires, and non-
combustion industrial emissions.
EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority of
SO2 emissions (7,900 tons of 8,560 tons overall, or 92.3%)
in New Hampshire originate from fuel combustion at point and nonpoint
stationary sources. The emissions from other categories (waste disposal
and recycling, mobile sources, and miscellaneous) are also small in an
absolute sense, and widely distributed rather than concentrated at a
few release points; accordingly, these categories are not further
addressed in this notice. Therefore, an assessment of New Hampshire's
satisfaction of all applicable requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may be
reasonably based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of emissions from
the combined fuel combustion categories (i.e., electric utilities,
industrial, and other \11\ combustion sources).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As indicated in the notes for Table 1, the ``other''
category of fuel combustion in New Hampshire is comprised mostly of
residential heating through fuel oil combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel-combustion units in residences and commercial/institutional
facilities are considered nonpoint sources. Although SO2
emissions from residential and commercial/institutional fuel oil
combustion accounted for 50% of all 2014 SO2 emissions in
the NEI for New Hampshire, SO2 emissions from these nonpoint
sources are now much lower due to a provision of state law, RSA 125
C:10-d. As of July 2018, fuel oil sold in the State is subject to
stricter fuel sulfur limits, and New Hampshire plans to incorporate
these limits into the state regulations Env-1600, entitled ``Fuel
Specifications.'' The new limit for number 2 home heating oil of
0.0015% by weight will achieve a 98.5% reduction in residential fuel
combustion emissions compared to emissions under the limit of 0.4% that
applied in 2014. Because residential fuel combustion in 2014 was about
75% of all nonpoint fuel combustion, this means that the reduction in
all nonpoint fuel combustion will be around 75% even with considering
an expected decline in commercial/institutional emissions. However,
commercial/institutional emissions will also decline because of the new
limits on fuel oil sulfur content of 0.25% by weight for number 4 oil
(compared to a 2014 limit of 1%), and 0.5% by weight for numbers 5 and
6 oils (compared to 2014 limits ranging between 2% and 2.2% depending
on county). Also, the diffuse nature of emissions from these nonpoint
sources makes it unlikely that the current and future emissions from
nonpoint combustion of fuel oil in New Hampshire will contribute to an
exceedance of the NAAQS in a neighboring state. Based on this
reasoning, EPA concludes that these nonpoint sources are not
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance in another state. Accordingly, we do not further address
nonpoint fuel combustion sources in this notice.
Regarding the evaluation of impacts from fuel combustion by point
sources (electrical generation and industrial sources), the definitions
contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 entitled ``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria'' are helpful indicators of the
transport and fate of SO2 originating from stationary
sources in the context of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
Notably, section 4.4 of this appendix provides definitions for
SO2 spatial scales for middle scale and neighborhood scale
monitors. The middle scale generally represents air quality levels in
areas 100 meters to 500 meters from a facility, and may include
locations of maximum expected short-term concentrations due to
proximity of major SO2 point, nonpoint, and non-road
sources. The neighborhood scale characterizes air quality conditions
between 500 meters and 4 km from a facility; emissions from stationary
point sources may under certain plume conditions result in high
SO2 concentrations at this scale. Based on these
definitions, we conclude that it is appropriate to examine the impacts
of emissions from electric utilities and industrial processes in New
Hampshire at locations that are up to 50 km from an emitting facility.
In other words, SO2 emissions from stationary point sources
in the context of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS do not exhibit
the same long-distance travel, regional transport, or formation
phenomena as either PM2.5 or ozone; rather, these emissions
behave more like Pb with localized dispersion.
[[Page 48769]]
Therefore, an assessment of point fuel combustion sources within 50 km
of a border between New Hampshire and an adjacent state would be useful
for assessing whether sources in New Hampshire significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in the adjacent
state.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA recognizes in section A.1 of appendix A to EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models (``the Guideline''), i.e., 40 CFR
51, appendix W, that EPA's regulatory AERMOD model is appropriate
for predicting pollutant concentrations up to 50 km. Section 4.1 of
the Guideline on Air Quality Models also suggests that 50 km is the
maximum distance for which such models should be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air
quality for stationary point sources via either data collected at
ambient air quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum
concentration, or air dispersion modeling.\13\ Our assessment of
SO2 emissions from fuel combustion point sources in New
Hampshire and their potential impact on neighboring states is informed
by all available data at the time of this rulemaking, specifically:
SO2 ambient air quality; SO2 emissions and
SO2 emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2
regulations and permitting requirements; available air dispersion
modeling; and, other SIP-approved or federally promulgated regulations
which may limit emissions of SO2. This notice describes
EPA's evaluation of New Hampshire's June 16, 2017 SIP submittal of the
transport infrastructure elements of the CAA for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See the EPA April 23, 2014 memorandum (EPA 2014) entitled
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions,'' available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf (hereafter, ``EPA's April
2014 guidance'').
\14\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can
be informed by similar factors found in this proposed rulemaking,
but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for New Hampshire, depending on available information and
state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire's
SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO NAAQS, as discussed below.
In order to evaluate New Hampshire's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA
evaluated the State's SIP submittal with respect to the following five
factors: (1) SO2 emissions information and trends for New
Hampshire and neighboring states, i.e., Maine, Massachusetts, and
Vermont; (2) SO2 ambient air quality; (3) potential ambient
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in New
Hampshire (identified as being of interest from a transport perspective
as part of our evaluation of SO2 emissions trends) on
neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results
and other information; (4) SIP-approved regulations specific to
SO2 emissions; and (5) other SIP-approved or federally-
enforceable regulations that, while not directly intended to address or
reduce SO2 emissions, may limit emissions of the pollutant.
A discussion of each of these factors is provided below. In this
evaluation, EPA did not identify any current air quality problems in
nearby areas in the adjacent states relative to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, and we propose to find that New Hampshire will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
1. Emissions Trends
As part of the SIP submittal, New Hampshire indicated that for the
2013-2015 period, no sources emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year
(tpy), which the State noted was the threshold established in the
August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052) SO2 Data Requirements Rule
(DRR), above which sources were required to be characterized. Further,
the State provided an inventory of individual point sources in New
Hampshire with emissions greater than 10 tpy, and total county point
source emissions from 2013-2015. These emissions are presented in
Tables 2 and 3, below.
Table 2--SO2--Point Source Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) for 2013-2015 for New Hampshire Facilities With
Emissions in Any Single Year for 2013-2015 Exceeding 10 tpy, as Provided in the State's SIP Submittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Facility name 2013 Emissions 2014 Emissions 2015 Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belknap............................. Tilton School............. 0.0 3.3 11.7
Cheshire............................ Cheshire Medical Center... 13.8 9.3 0.2
Cheshire............................ Keene State College....... 30.9 33.1 34.0
Cheshire............................ Markem Corporation........ 17.6 5.8 5.8
Cheshire............................ The Cheshire Medical 13.8 9.3 0.2
Center.
Coos................................ Burgess Biopower LLC...... 1.6 11.5 14.6
Coos................................ Fraser NH LLC............. 28.8 29.4 26.2
Coos................................ Mount Carberry Landfill... 20.1 13.1 6.6
Coos................................ Mount Washington Hotel.... 15.5 14.2 14.4
Grafton............................. Dartmouth College......... 241.7 245.6 241.1
Grafton............................. Dartmouth-Hitchcock 124.6 16.7 2.8
Medical Center.
Grafton............................. Freudenberg-Nok General 34.1 23.3 4.1
Partnership-Bristol.
Grafton............................. North Country 42.9 33.1 50.2
Environmental Services
Inc.
Grafton............................. Plymouth State University. 28.1 15.2 0.6
Grafton............................. Unifirst Corporation...... 12.2 11.1 12.4
Hillsborough........................ Four Hills Landfill....... 14.4 11.1 4.3
Hillsborough........................ Monadnock Paper Mill...... 156.1 147.9 80.4
Hillsborough........................ Nylon Corporation......... 2.3 13.7 0.0
Hillsborough........................ Warwick Mills Inc......... 12.6 5.8 1.1
Merrimack........................... Environmental Soils 9.8 16.0 10.9
Management Inc.
Merrimack........................... Public Service of New 1,401.4 1,044.0 636.0
Hampshire (PSNH)--
Merrimack Station.
Merrimack........................... Wheelabrator Concord 52.2 56.6 50.9
Company LP.
Rockingham.......................... Granite Ridge Energy LLC.. 7.7 7.8 10.1
Rockingham.......................... New NGC d/b/a National 15.3 16.0 17.0
Gypsum Company.
[[Page 48770]]
Rockingham.......................... PSNH--Newington Station... 330.6 316.1 294.8
Rockingham.......................... PSNH--Schiller Station.... 1,428.1 1,243.2 856.8
Strafford........................... Turnkey Recycling & 31.7 56.3 30.4
Environmental Enterprises.
Strafford........................... University of New 12.7 18.7 15.7
Hampshire--Durham.
Sullivan............................ APC Paper Company......... 30.3 13.6* 2.1
Sullivan............................ Wheelabrator Claremont 17.0 0.0 0.0
Company LP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 2014 NEI reports emissions of 153.1 tpy for APC Paper Company.
Table 3--SO2 Total Point Source Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) for 2013-2015 for New Hampshire Counties With
Emissions in any Single Year for 2013-2015 Exceeding 10 tpy, as Provided in the State's SIP Submittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2013 Emissions 2014 Emissions 2015 Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belknap......................................................... 6.2 3.6 12.0
Carroll......................................................... 14.3 13.8 9.4
Cheshire........................................................ 99.1 79.6 64.2
Coos............................................................ 75.5 74.1 66.2
Grafton......................................................... 514.2 370.5 331.1
Hillsborough.................................................... 220.1 201.7 107.8
Merrimack....................................................... 1,484.8 1,138.2 713.7
Rockingham...................................................... 1,797.4 1,597.8 1,191.8
Strafford....................................................... 58.5 91.8 57.5
Sullivan........................................................ 49.5 16.2 4.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4,319.5 3,587.3 2,558.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 indicates that total SO2 emissions from point
sources in the 10 listed counties have decreased by 1,761 tpy, or about
41%, over the time period from 2013 to 2015. However, as stated above,
our focus when reviewing New Hampshire's submittal is on sources within
50 km of the border with another state, not on county-wide or state-
wide emissions.
Six facilities listed in Table 2 have emissions greater than 100
tpy and are within 50 km of a border between New Hampshire and another
state. Three of these are electric generating stations: Schiller
Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station. In particular,
Schiller Station and Newington Station are within 1 km of one another
and within 0.5 km of the New Hampshire-Maine border. These electric
generating facilities were the three highest point source emitters in
each of the 3 years in New Hampshire. The combined changes in emissions
from these three sources account for 78% of the total decrease in point
source emissions during this period. Specifically, based on the
information presented in Table 2, combined SO2 emissions
from Schiller Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station were
3,160 tpy in 2013 compared to 1,788 tpy in 2015, a net decrease of
1,373 tpy.
The three other major fuel combustion point sources (i.e., sources
with emissions higher than 100 tpy) in New Hampshire listed in Table 2
that are within 50 km of the state border are Monadnock Paper Mills
Inc. in Bennington in Hillsborough County (147.9 tpy--33 km from
Massachusetts, 42 km from Vermont), APC Paper Company Inc. in Claremont
in Sullivan County (153.1 tpy--4 km from Vermont), and Dartmouth
College in Hanover in Grafton County (245.6 tpy--1 km from Vermont).
These three sources are discussed in greater detail in section IV.C.3
of this notice. While Table 2 provides information on SO2
emissions between 2013 and 2015 for the highest emitting sources based
on the State's point source inventory, an emissions summary for all
electric utilities within the State subject to the Federal Acid Rain
Program provides more current information on statewide SO2
emissions from all electric utilities. Data for this purpose can be
found in the most recent EPA Air Markets Program Data (AMPD).\15\ The
AMPD is an application that provides both current and historical data
collected as part of EPA's emissions trading programs. A summary of all
2016 and 2017 SO2 emissions from electric utilities in New
Hampshire subject to the Acid Rain Program is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Available online at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
[[Page 48771]]
Table 4--2016 and 2017 AMPD Data for all New Hampshire Electric Utilities in Tons per Year
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 SO2 2017 SO2
County Facility name Emissions Emissions
(tpy) (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coos........................................ Burgess BioPower.................. 21.5 15.4
Rockingham.................................. Granite Ridge Energy.............. 7.3 5.9
Merrimack................................... Merrimack Station................. 228.2 143.6
Rockingham.................................. Newington Station................. 40.6 41.3
Rockingham.................................. Newington Energy *................ 2.9 4.3
Rockingham.................................. Schiller Station.................. 272.3 262.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... .................................. 572.7 473.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In 2013 to 2015, Newington Energy had emissions below the State's 10 tpy threshold for the inventory of
individual point sources shown in Table 2.
Table 4 provides two key pieces of information. First,
SO2 emissions have generally continued to decrease in 2016
and 2017 for Schiller Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station
since the State's SIP submittal which analyzed 2013 through 2015
emissions. Second, aggregate SO2 emissions for New Hampshire
facilities reporting to AMPD have continued to decrease.
In addition to the emissions information for New Hampshire sources
provided by the State, EPA also compiled 2014 NEI information for major
sources in the adjacent states within 50 km of the New Hampshire
border. This information, presented in Table 5 below, indicates that
major sources in neighboring states near the New Hampshire border are
distant from most sources in New Hampshire. (Note that there are no
major SO2 sources in Vermont within 50 km of the New
Hampshire border based on the 2014 NEI data.) Based on these 2014 data,
the only source in New Hampshire (Mount Carberry Landfill in Berlin,
New Hampshire) that is within 50 km of a major source (i.e., a source
emitting greater than 100 tpy) in a neighboring state (Catalyst Paper
Operators in Richmond, Maine) emitted around 13 tpy and is at a
distance of 49 km. Furthermore, there are relatively few major
SO2 sources in nearby states. This information supports the
conclusion that New Hampshire sources within 50 km of a border and
emitting below 100 tpy, and thus not including the six major sources
already identified, are unlikely to contribute to nonattainment in
neighboring states, confirming our focus on the six identified major
sources.
Table 5--Summary of SO2 Major Point Sources Within 50 km of the New Hampshire Border and Potential Interactive
New Hampshire Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014
State Source Emissions Sources in New Hampshire
(tpy) within 50 km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts........................ Mystic Station--Boston...... 910 None.
Massachusetts........................ Logan Airport--Boston....... 222 None.
Massachusetts........................ Veolia Energy Boston LLC-- 115 None.
Boston.
Maine................................ Catalyst Paper Operators-- 824 Mount Carberry Landfill--
Richmond. Berlin (13 tpy, 49 km).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data retrieved from 2014 NEI.
2. Ambient Air Quality
Data collected at ambient air quality monitors indicate the
monitored values of SO2 in the State have remained below the
NAAQS since at least 2013. New Hampshire included DVs for 2013-2015 in
its SIP submittal. EPA compiled relevant data from Air Quality System
(AQS) DV reports for this period and three additional 3-year periods at
New Hampshire SO2 monitoring stations; this information is
summarized in Table 6 below.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
Table 6--Trend in SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitors in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014 DV 2013-2015 DV 2014-2016 DV 2015-2017 DV
AQS monitor site Monitor location (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-013-1007................. Concord--Hazen 9 8 7 * NA
Drive.
33-015-0018................. Londonderry--150 5 6 5 4
Pillsbury Road.
33-013-1006................. Pembroke--Pleasant 23 20 20 15
Street.
33-011-5001................. Peterborough--Pack 5 5 3 3
Monadnock Summit.
33-015-0014................. Portsmouth--Peirce 28 29 22 16
Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the
NAAQS.
[[Page 48772]]
As shown in Table 6 above, the DVs for the periods from 2012-2014
through 2015-2017 show overall decreases in SO2
concentrations. The highest DV in New Hampshire for 2015-2017 is 16
ppb, which is well below the NAAQS, at the Peirce Island monitor in
Portsmouth very close to the border with Maine. An analysis of DV data
from these monitors, along with additional data sources (as further
discussed below), can partially inform the evaluation of SO2
transport from New Hampshire.
Table 7--Distances Between the Largest SO2 Emission Sources in New Hampshire and Regulatory Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to
Closest AQS monitor in closest AQS 2013-2015 DV 2014-2016 DV 2015-2017 DV
Facility New Hampshire monitor in New Spatial scale (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
Hampshire (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiller Station.................. Portsmouth--Peirce Island 3.9 Neighborhood............. 29 22 16
Newington Station................. Portsmouth--Peirce Island 4.4 Neighborhood............. 29 22 16
Merrimack Station................. Pembroke--Pleasant Street 1.3 Neighborhood............. 20 20 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitors closest to Merrimack Station (i.e., the Pembroke
monitor, AQS no. 33-013-1006) and both Schiller Station and Newington
Station (i.e., the Peirce Island monitor, AQS no. 33-015-0014) may not
be sited in the area to adequately capture points of maximum
concentration from the facilities. However, Table 7 indicates that
these monitors are located in the neighborhood spatial scale in
relation to the facilities, i.e., emissions from stationary and point
sources may under certain plume conditions result in high
SO2 concentrations at this scale. EPA's monitoring
regulations at 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4.4(3) define
neighborhood scale as ``characterize[ing] air quality conditions
throughout some relatively uniform land use areas with dimensions in
the 0.5 to 4.0 km range.'' The Pembroke monitor has, in prior years,
recorded SO2 levels in excess of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS resulting from emissions from Merrimack Station. For example, the
DV at the Pembroke monitor was 221 ppb for the 2009-2011 monitoring
period. Similarly, the Peirce Island monitor has recorded 1-hour
SO2 concentrations higher than the level of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in prior years, with peak 1-hour impacts in 2006
of 93 ppb and a DV of 60 ppb during the 2005-2007 period, reflecting
previous impacts from emissions from Schiller Station and Newington
Station. These historic values illustrate the extent to which the
Pembroke and Peirce Island monitors were capable of recording high
pollutant levels resulting from emissions from Merrimack Station and
Schiller and Newington Stations, respectively. However, these three
facilities are no longer expected to emit at high levels because each
is subject to federally-enforceable requirements that limit allowable
SO2 emissions. Therefore, EPA no longer expects high
SO2 readings at the Pembroke and Peirce Island monitors. As
presented in Table 7, the most recently available DVs at both monitors
are now well below the NAAQS based on 2013-2015 data included in the
State's SIP submittal and on updated DV data reviewed by EPA.
However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor
within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that New Hampshire has
met its interstate transport obligation. While the very low DVs and the
spatial relationship between the sources of interest and two of the
monitoring sites support the notion that emissions originating within
New Hampshire are not contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, prong 1
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses the effects that
sources within New Hampshire have on air quality in neighboring states.
Therefore, the evaluation and analysis of SO2 emissions data
from facilities within the State, as previously presented, together
with ambient data in neighboring states, as will be presented next, is
appropriate.
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire provided 2013-2015
SO2 DVs for all monitors in neighboring states, noting that
two such monitors reside in counties adjacent to New Hampshire, and
also that there are currently no designated nonattainment or
maintenance areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in states
surrounding New Hampshire. Table 8 contains the 2013-2015 through 2015-
2017 SO2 DVs for monitors in the three states neighboring
New Hampshire, i.e., Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, also noting
whether the county is adjacent to New Hampshire. (The State supplied
the 2013-2015 DVs in its SIP submittal, and EPA updated the State's
analysis to include the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 SO2 DVs for
these monitors.) Several monitors in this dataset have incomplete data
for at least one of the DV periods; DVs are reported as ``NA'' for
periods with incomplete data. All of the valid DVs for the monitoring
sites listed in Table 8 are well below the NAAQS.
One monitor with a DV listed as ``NA'' for the relevant time
periods included in the State's SIP submittal is the Sawgrass Lane
monitor, AQS site 23-031-0009, located in Eliot, Maine. The Sawgrass
Lane monitor collected SO2 concentration data from October
24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration observed from this monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8,
2015, when winds came from the direction of Schiller Station and the
power plant was operating at near-maximum capacity.\17\ Though a single
maximum 1-hour concentration is not directly comparable to the
SO2 NAAQS,
[[Page 48773]]
which is in the form of the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of
daily maximum 1-hour values, EPA notes that the highest concentration
observed at the Sawgrass Lane monitor was approximately 50% of the
level of the NAAQS,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Town of Eliot had previously submitted a petition to
EPA in August 2013 pursuant to section 126 of the CAA regarding
alleged violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS within the
Town's political boundary due to emissions from Schiller Station.
The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an area expected to
experience peak SO2 impacts based on modeling information
submitted by the Town with the section 126 petition. On November 9,
2017, following the Sawgrass Lane monitoring study, and in light of
new permit limitations on SO2 emissions at Schiller
Station (described in section IV.C.3.a) and EPA's August 22, 2017
letters stating EPA's intention to designate the Maine and New
Hampshire seacoast areas as not being in violation of the NAAQS, the
Town of Eliot withdrew its August 2013 section 126 petition.
Additional background and results of the Sawgrass Lane monitoring
study are described in the report, ``Review of 2014-2016 Eliot,
Maine Air Quality Monitoring Study,'' EPA, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, and NHDES (September 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the monitoring data in neighboring states, EPA proposes to
conclude that these monitoring data do not provide evidence of
violations in the neighboring states.
Table 8--SO2 DVs for AQS Monitors in Neighboring States and Adjacency to New Hampshire of the County in Which Monitor Is Located
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS monitor 2013-2015 SO2 DV 2014-2016 SO2 DV 2015-2017 SO2 DV County adjacent to
State site Monitor location (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) New Hampshire?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine........................ 23-003-1100 Presque Isle........ 3................... 3.................. NA*................ No.
23-005-0029 State Street, 12.................. 11................. 9.................. No.
Portland.
23-009-0103 Hancock County...... 2................... 1.................. 1.................. No.
23-011-2005 Pray Street, 12.................. NA*................ NA*................ No.
Gardiner.
23-031-0009 Sawgrass Lane, Eliot NA*................. NA*................ NA*................ Yes.
Massachusetts................ 25-005-1004 Globe Street, Fall 28.................. 10................. 9.................. No.
River.
25-013-0016 Liberty Street, 8................... NA*................ NA*................ No.
Springfield.
25-015-4002 Quabbin Summit, Ware 5................... 4.................. 3.................. No.
25-025-0002 Kenmore Square, 9................... 6.................. 4.................. No.
Boston.
25-025-0042 Dudley Square, 11.................. 9.................. 6.................. No.
Roxbury.
25-027-0023 Summer Street, 7................... 6.................. 5.................. Yes.
Worcester.
Vermont...................... 50-007-0007 Harvey Road, 3 [dagger].......... 2.................. 2.................. No.
Underhill.
50-021-0002 State Street, 9................... 6.................. 2.................. No.
Rutland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.
[dagger] Value as reported by NH DES. EPA's AQS database indicates no valid DV at this monitor for this year range.
3. Assessment of Potential Ambient Impacts of SO2 Emissions
From Certain Sources Based on Air Dispersion Modeling and Other
Information
Schiller Station, Newington Station, and Merrimack Station
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire referenced air dispersion
modeling conducted for Schiller Station and Newington Station used to
support the State's recommendation for designations under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and to meet the State's obligation under the
SO2 DRR. The State used the modeling to establish maximum
allowable SO2 emission limits for Schiller Station in the
June 15, 2017 Title V Operating Permit (TV-0053) and for Newington
Station in the December 22, 2016 temporary permit TP-0197. A detailed
description of EPA's assessment of the modeling, and associated
visualizations, are available in Chapter 27 of the Technical Support
Document for EPA's September 5, 2017 (82 FR 41903) Intended Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for New Hampshire, and this description is
hereby incorporated for purposes of this action.\18\ EPA's assessment
of the State's modeling indicates that it is suitable for use in
evaluating impacts in Maine and Massachusetts from the allowable
emissions from Schiller Station and Newington Station under federally-
enforceable emission limits for those facilities. The modeling also
included representative actual emissions from nearby sources. The
maximum predicted concentrations, which are at a level of 74.8 ppb, in
the State's modeling based on full load using maximum allowable
emissions are located in Eliot, Maine. The modeling also predicted
SO2 concentrations in areas of northeast Massachusetts,
where levels were predicted to be around 24 ppb. Based on our
assessment of this modeling information, EPA proposes to conclude that
the federally-enforceable emissions limits for Schiller Station and
Newington Station ensure that emissions activity from these sources
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in Maine or Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In referencing EPA's Intended Round 3 Area Designations,
EPA is not reopening the SO2 area designations action nor
incorporating any other materials from those designations into the
record for this proposal other than those explicitly described as
incorporated. A notice of the final rule for these designations was
published on January 9, 2018 (83 FR 1098). Chapter 27 of the
Technical Support Document can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/27_nh_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also referenced air dispersion modeling conducted to
establish federally-enforceable SO2 emission limits for
Merrimack Station in Bow, New Hampshire. The State relied upon these
limits with supporting modeling analysis in the attainment
demonstration for the Central New Hampshire SO2
Nonattainment Area, as described in the Federal Register on September
28, 2017 (82 FR 45242).\19\ Merrimack Station was explicitly modeled in
this attainment demonstration, while Schiller Station and Newington
Station were represented by the selected background concentration.
EPA's assessment of the State's modeling indicates that it is suitable
for use in evaluating impacts in Maine and Massachusetts under
federally-enforceable emission limits from Merrimack Station. The
modeling predicted maximum impacts from Merrimack Station of around 11
ppb in Maine and Massachusetts. Based on our assessment of this
modeling information, EPA proposes to conclude that the federally-
enforceable emissions limits for Merrimack Station ensure emissions
activity from this source will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Maine or Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In referencing EPA's approval of New Hampshire's plan and
attainment demonstration for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area, EPA is not reopening the nonattainment area plan approval
action. A notice of the final rule for the plan approval was
published on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeling results demonstrate that the points, outside of New
Hampshire, of maximum potential impact for Merrimack Station, Schiller
Station, and Newington Station are located in Maine, which neighbors
New Hampshire to the east, and that these impacts are below the level
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA expects the actual
impacts will be no higher
[[Page 48774]]
than the potential impacts shown in the State's analysis.
To additionally evaluate the expectation that Schiller Station,
Newington Station, and Merrimack Station will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Maine or
Massachusetts, EPA assessed the proximity of these facilities to major
SO2 emission sources in neighboring states that may cause
areas of higher concentration in those states. To do so, EPA examined
emissions data for major sources of SO2 emissions in Maine
and Massachusetts. (There are no major sources in Vermont within 50 km
of the New Hampshire border, so Vermont was excluded this portion of
the analysis.\20\) A summary of this information, as it relates to the
sources in New Hampshire discussed here, is presented in Table 9 below.
Based on the information in Table 9, the distance between the sources
modeled by New Hampshire and major sources in nearby states are at
least 73 km. Therefore, the large distances between Merrimack Station,
Schiller Station, and Newington Station and the nearest major
SO2 sources within Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont,
indicate that impacts from New Hampshire are appropriately
characterized by the State's modeling, and are very unlikely to
contribute significantly to problems with attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in these neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ EPA notes that according to the 2014 NEI, Agrimark Inc. in
Middlebury, Vermont, at about 79 km from the New Hampshire border,
168 km from Merrimack Station, and 220 km from Shiller Station and
Newington Station, is the nearest major SO2 source in
Vermont to the New Hampshire border and the major sources in New
Hampshire.
Table 9--Summary of Major Emission Sources in States Adjacent to New Hampshire and Their Corresponding Distance to Merrimack Station, Newington Station,
and Schiller Station
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to New Neighboring
2017 emissions Hampshire- Distance to New Distance to nearest neighboring state source
New Hampshire source (tpy) * Massachusetts Hampshire- Maine state major SO2 source (km) 2014 emissions
border (km) border (km) (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Station............................... 143.6 44 46 89 (Mystic Station in Boston, 910.4
Mass.).
Newington Station............................... 41.3 25 <1 73 (S D Warren Co in Westbrook, 426.8
Maine).
Schiller Station................................ 262.6 25 <1 73 (S D Warren Co in Westbrook, 426.8
Maine).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CAMD data for 2017; see Table 4.
[dagger] Data retrieved from 2014 NEI.
Based on the modeling provided by New Hampshire and the reasoning
presented above, EPA proposes to conclude that SO2 emissions
from Merrimack Station, Schiller Station, and Newington Station do not
have the potential to violate the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on
currently effective and federally-enforceable permit conditions.
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc., APC Paper Company Inc., and Dartmouth
College
Regarding Monadnock Paper Mills, APC Paper Company Inc, and
Dartmouth College, EPA does not have information at this time
suggesting that either Massachusetts or Vermont is impacted by
emissions from these sources or other emissions activity originating in
New Hampshire in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA reviewed
available information to assess whether these sources may result in
such a violation. Specifically, as described below, EPA examined wind
rose information, distances from state borders and from major sources
in the adjacent states (if any), and the relative emission levels of
these three sources.
EPA examined wind roses for meteorological stations representative
of the areas around these three other major sources in New Hampshire,
i.e., Monadnock Paper Mills Inc., APC Paper Company Inc., and Dartmouth
College.\21\ For the meteorological stations nearest to Monadnock Paper
Mills Inc. and APC Paper Company Inc., the wind roses indicate the
predominant winds to be away from the state border, as opposed to
toward the state border which would be conducive to interstate
transport. For Dartmouth College, the wind rose for a nearby
meteorological station indicates a prevailing north-south wind pattern,
i.e., along the state border with Vermont, as opposed to an east-west
pattern that would be most conducive to interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The wind rose data are available in a memorandum to the
docket for this action, which can be found on https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EPA also notes that there are no major SO2
sources in the adjacent states within 50 km of these three New
Hampshire sources, which indicates that there are unlikely to be high
SO2 concentrations in the adjacent state arising mostly from
in-state sources to which these three New Hampshire sources are
contributing. Furthermore, Monadnock Paper Mills Inc. is located
approximately 30 km from the nearest state border, which indicates that
the likelihood of high impacts in another state is extremely low.
Finally, all three of these sources are in the range of 100-250 tpy,
indicating that these sources have emissions only slightly above the
threshold of 100 tpy used by EPA to identify sources for additional
analysis. Based on this information, EPA is proposing to determine that
emissions from these three sources in New Hampshire will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in Massachusetts or Vermont. These three
sources are all at least 85 km from any part of Maine, so EPA is also
proposing to determine that emissions from these three sources in New
Hampshire will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in Maine.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Specific to SO2
The State has provisions and regulations to limit SO2
emissions. Notably, the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA)
section 125-O, ``Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program,'' requires the
reduction of mercury emissions by at least 80% from baseline mercury
input beginning in July 2013 at Merrimack Station in Bow, New
Hampshire. This state requirement resulted in the installation and
operation of a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit at Merrimack
Station, and the removal of SO2 occurs as a co-benefit of
mercury removal with an FGD. New Hampshire permit TP-0008 contains
enforceable conditions for the removal of SO2 by the FDG,
and this permit was approved into the SIP as part of the State's
Regional Haze SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602). Additionally, New
Hampshire issued permit TP-0189 in 2016 which incorporated a 7-boiler
operating day average combined emission limit for Merrimack's two
utility boilers of 0.39
[[Page 48775]]
lb/MMBtu as enforceable conditions of the permit. EPA approved these
conditions from this permit into the SIP on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922)
as part of New Hampshire's Nonattainment Plan for the Central New
Hampshire Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area.
The State has SIP-approved regulations limiting the sulfur content
in fuel. The current federally-enforceable fuel specifications include
limits on the sulfur content of liquid fuel (oil), gaseous fuel
(natural and manufactured gas), and solid fuel (coal) purchased or used
for heat or power generation. Current federally-enforceable limits on
liquid fuel (oil) are 0.4% sulfur by weight for number 2 oil, 1.0%
sulfur by weight for number 4 oil, and 2.0% sulfur by weight for
numbers 5 and 6 oil and crude oil (except in Coos County where the
limit is 2.2% sulfur by weight). (As previously mentioned, a recent
state law lowers these limits effective July 2018.) Limits on coal
sulfur content include a maximum of 2.8 lb/MMBtu gross heat content for
devices existing as of April 15, 1970, or 1.5 lb/MMBtu gross heat
content for sources placed in operation after that date. See 40 CFR
52.1520(c), ``EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations.''
5. Other SIP-Approved or Federally-Enforceable Regulations
In addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA observes
that facilities in New Hampshire are also subject to the federal
requirements contained in regulations such as the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. This
regulation limits acid gases, and effectively also reduces
SO2 emissions.
6. Conclusion
As discussed in more detail above, EPA has considered the following
information in evaluating the State's satisfaction of the requirements
of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) EPA has not identified any current air quality problems in
nearby areas in the adjacent states (Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont)
relative to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on emissions trends or
ambient monitoring data;
(2) New Hampshire demonstrated using air dispersion modeling that
permitted emissions from its three largest stationary source
SO2 emitters, in combination with other nearby sources and
background SO2 concentrations, are not expected to cause
SO2 air quality violations in other states relative to the
2010 SO2 NAAQS;
(3) consideration of available information on the only other major
sources within 50 km of another state indicates that these sources are
unlikely to contribute to NAAQS violations in other nearby states; and
(4) current SIP provisions and other federal programs will
effectively limit SO2 emissions from sources within New
Hampshire.
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submission
and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA proposes to find
that sources and other emissions activity within the State will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
D. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state
implementation plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.
Given our proposed conclusion that sources within New Hampshire are
not contributing significantly to NAAQS violations in adjacent states
because there are no NAAQS violations in the adjacent states, based on
the consideration of the factors discussed earlier, EPA believes that a
reasonable investigation as to whether sources or emissions activity
originating within New Hampshire may interfere with its neighboring
states' ability to maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether
emissions of sources in New Hampshire and the adjacent states are
effectively prevented from increasing in the future.
The State's SIP submittal provides statewide SO2
emissions trends for multiple source categories. EPA reviewed 2005 and
2014 NEI data to confirm the State's assessment of trends, and these
values are summarized below in Table 10. EPA also considered emissions
trend information from the states neighboring New Hampshire, as
presented in Table 11.
Table 10--SO2 Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) and Percent Change in Emissions Between 2005 and 2014 for New
Hampshire by Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
Data Category * 2005 2014 in emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-electric generating unit point sources...................... 5,571 2,230 -60
Electric generating unit point sources.......................... 51,461 2,642 -95
Nonpoint sources................................................ 4,275 3,296 -23
Nonroad mobile sources.......................................... 819 257 -69
Onroad mobile sources........................................... 630 134 -79
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 62,757 8,558 -86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes emissions from wild fires.
Table 11--SO2 Emissions Trends From 2002 to 2014 for States Neighboring New Hampshire, in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions
change 2002-
State 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2014 (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine................................................... 33,585 32,114 23,386 15,555 11,276 -66
Massachusetts........................................... 156,778 144,140 76,263 51,372 18,904 -88
[[Page 48776]]
Vermont................................................. 4,988 4,682 4,052 3,449 1,511 -70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data retrieved from the 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI datasets.
The data show statewide SO2 emissions have decreased
substantially over time. This trend of decreasing SO2
emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in New Hampshire
and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence
analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered
alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. Since actual SO2 emissions
from sources in New Hampshire have decreased overall between 2005 and
2014, because these decreases are substantial in every source category,
and because these decreases are largely the result of state regulatory
actions, EPA does not expect current or future emissions from New
Hampshire to interfere with neighboring states' ability to maintain the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
SO2 emissions from point and nonpoint sources combusting
fuel oil in New Hampshire will not increase to historical levels and in
fact will be lower due to a provision of state law, RSA 125 C:10-d. As
of July 2018, fuel oil sold in the State is subject to stricter fuel
sulfur limits, and New Hampshire plans to incorporate these limits into
the state regulations Env-1600, entitled ``Fuel Specifications.'' The
state law limits the sulfur content in fuel to 0.0015% by weight for
number 2 home heating oil, 0.25% by weight for number 4 oil, and 0.5%
by weight for number 5 and 6 oils as of July 1, 2018. These limits
decrease current SO2 emissions from point or nonpoint
sources combusting fuel oil.
Lastly, any new large sources of SO2 emissions will be
addressed by New Hampshire's SIP-approved new source review (NSR) and
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. New minor
sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by the State's
minor new source review permit program. The permitting regulations
contained within these programs are expected to ensure that ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont
do not exceed the NAAQS as a result of new facility construction or
modification of sources in New Hampshire. The State's SIP-approved NSR
and PSD programs are contained in Env-A 600, entitled ``Statewide
Permit System,'' under sections 618 and 619, respectively, as approved
in the Federal Register on September 25, 2015 (80 FR 57722). These
regulations ensure that SO2 emissions due to new facility
construction or modifications at existing facilities will not adversely
impact air quality in New Hampshire or in neighboring states.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has
incorporated additional information into our evaluation of New
Hampshire's submission. In doing so, EPA reviewed information about
emission trends in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, as well as the
technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We
find that the combination of the absence of current NAAQS violations in
the neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state
SO2 sources, the downward trend in SO2 emissions
from New Hampshire and neighboring states, more stringent limits on
fuel sulfur content, and state measures that prevent new facility
construction or modification in New Hampshire from causing
SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no
interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from New
Hampshire. Accordingly, we propose to determine that New Hampshire
SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
V. Proposed Action
In light of the above analyses, EPA is proposing to approve New
Hampshire's June 16, 2017 infrastructure submittal for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS as it pertains to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of
the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference New Hampshire's June 16, 2017 SIP submittal, entitled
``Amendment to New Hampshire 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure
SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' described in section II of this preamble. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, this document generally available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
VII. 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.
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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions
[[Page 48777]]
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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: September 20, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-21006 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
