[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11827-11839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4663]
[[Page 11827]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144, FRL-9640-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Maryland through
the Maryland Department the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012,
that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I
areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in
Class I areas. EPA is proposing to determine that the Regional Haze
plan submitted by Maryland satisfies the requirements of the CAA. EPA
is taking this action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. EPA is
also proposing to approve this revision as meeting the infrastructure
requirements relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0144 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: [email protected].
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0144. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814-2037, or
by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 13, 2012, the MDE submitted a
revision to its SIP to address Regional Haze for the first
implementation period. Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Maryland's Regional Haze Submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. LTS/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
4. RPG
5. BART
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in
the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which impairs
visibility by
[[Page 11828]]
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions (64 FR
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background Information
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved. Congress added
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA
promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR
35714), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to
integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the
regional haze requirements are summarized in section II of this notice.
The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\3\ Section 51.308(b)
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning organization. MANE-VU is a
collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility,
and other air quality issues in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor
of the United States. Member states and tribal governments include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont.
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
[[Page 11829]]
(NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could meet such visibility
requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's rationale supporting
this recommendation was that the development of the regional haze SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states,
and that through this process states would coordinate on emissions
controls to protect visibility on an interstate basis. The common
understanding was that, as a result of this collaborative environment,
each state would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied
upon by other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under
the RHR. This interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the
RHR that a state participating in a regional planning process must
include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2).
As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze,
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU states
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been
prepared by the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the
emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the
MANE-VU process.
Maryland submitted a Regional Haze SIP on February 13, 2012, to
address the requirements of the RHR and the related visibility
requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J).
On July 27, 2007, Maryland submitted its original 1997 Ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP and on April 3, 2008, Maryland submitted its
original 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On July 21,
2010, Maryland submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In its Regional Haze SIP, Maryland indicated
that it will meet its obligations related to visibility pursuant to
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including but not limited to, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J). While these SIP submittals
address the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J), the February 13, 2012 submittal supersedes these previous
submittals. EPA has reviewed Maryland's Regional Haze SIP and, as
explained in section IV of this action, proposes to find that
Maryland's Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the
requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
in this notice.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20%
least impaired (``best'') and 20% most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and
[[Page 11830]]
then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA
has provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance'') and Guidance
for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003,
(EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20%
least impaired days and 20% most impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states
are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment
for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the
five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future
comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will
indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does
not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls
for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress''
toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions.
In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the approximately 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired
days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at
the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required,
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other
types of sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as
[[Page 11831]]
``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their BART control
determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to
be assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005).
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)).
Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject
to BART for that pollutant. On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find
that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater
reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the
states in which the Transport Rule applies (76 FR 82219). EPA also
proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to meet the requirements of
an alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading
programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken final action on
that rule.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c).
On or before this date, the state must revise its plan to provide
for review and revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and
regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS
with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and
periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze
[[Page 11832]]
visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the
state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
III. What is EPA's analysis of Maryland's Regional haze submittal?
On February 13, 2012, the MDE submitted revisions to the Maryland
SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders, but has been
identified as influencing the visibility impairment of the following
Class I areas: Acadia National Park, Brigantine National Wildlife
Refuge, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area as well as the Dolly Sods
Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park.
Maryland is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that
addresses these Class I areas, that describes its long-term emission
strategy, its role in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets
the other requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. However,
since Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders, Maryland is not
required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a)
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (b)
establishment of reasonable progress goals; (c) monitoring
requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.
B. LTS/Strategies
As described in section II.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by the impacted Class I area states. Maryland's LTS for the
first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from
federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the State from
the baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. Maryland participated
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant,
Maryland supported a regional approach towards deciding which control
measures to pursue for regional haze, which was based on technical
analyses documented in the following reports: (a) Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States; (b)
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I
Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of
Options for Conducting BART Determinations; and (d) Assessment of
Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric
Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp
Facilities.
The LTS was developed by MANE-VU, in coordination with Maryland,
identifying the emissions units within Maryland that likely have the
largest impacts currently on visibility at the impacted Class I areas,
estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all controls
required under federal and state regulations for the 2002-2018 period
(including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement with
the uniform rate of progress for these impacted Class I areas.
Maryland's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with
the impacted Class I area states and includes enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals established by these Class I area
states.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from
Maryland. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002
emissions, and assuming emissions growth due to projected increases in
economic activity as well as applying reductions expected from federal
and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct states
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in section
III.B.3, of this notice. MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the total ammonia
emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small. In addition, since
VOC emissions are aggressively controlled through the Maryland SIP, the
pollutants Maryland considered under BART are NOX,
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources; (2) area sources; (3)
off-road mobile sources; and (4) on-road mobile
[[Page 11833]]
sources. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also
developed an inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU
region. Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater
than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with
data provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops,
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types
emissions are summed on the county level.
There are many federal and state control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Maryland anticipate will reduce emissions between the
baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement
by 2018 in the impacted Class I areas. To assess emissions reductions
from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and reasonable
progress goals MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections called Best
and Final. The emissions inventory provided by the State of Maryland
for the Best and Final 2018 projections is based on adopted and
enforceable requirements.
The ongoing air pollution control programs relied upon by Maryland
for the Best and Final projections include: Maryland's Healthy Air Act
(HAA); the NOX SIP Call; NOX and/or VOC
reductions from the control rules in the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs
for Maryland; NOX OTC 2001 Model Rule for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers; Federal 2007 heavy duty
diesel engine standards for non-road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2
tailpipe controls for the on-road vehicles; Federal large spark
ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road diesel
rules. Maryland also relied on emission reductions from various federal
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules in the development
of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT rules include
the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines
MACT, the industrial boiler and process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7,
and 10 year MACT standards.
On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\6\ This MACT was
vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition
Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the
vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued a final rule on March
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The MANE-VU modeling included emission
reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Maryland did
not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. However,
the expected reductions in SO2 and PM are small relative to
the Maryland inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the expected reductions of
the new rule acceptable since the final rule requires compliance by
2014, it provides Maryland time to assure the required controls are in
place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018. In
addition, the RHR requires that any resulting differences between
emissions projections and actual emissions reductions that may occur
will be addressed during the five-year review prior to the next 2018
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Maryland. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emission reductions due to ongoing emission control
strategies, BART, and reasonable progress goals as well as emission
growth. As seen in Table 2, the 2018-point source emission estimates
for PM and NH3 are larger than the 2002 baseline, however,
the affected Class I areas are still able to meet the reasonable
progress goals.
Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for Maryland in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 6,184 95,328 5,054 12,752 305 290,927
Area.......................................... 120,254 15,678 30,693 96,176 25,834 12,393
On-Road Mobile................................ 61,846 122,210 2,200 3,168 5,594 4,057
Off-Road Mobile............................... 56,330 37,472 4,357 4,936 28 7,941
Biogenic...................................... 210,104 2,934 ......... ......... ......... .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 454,718 273,622 42,304 117,032 31,761 315,318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for Maryland ``Best and Final'' in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 6,854 33,597 9,934 14,080 845 82,650
Area.......................................... 104,615 17,746 30,153 117,066 38,155 9,118
On-Road Mobile................................ 20,861 29,371 1,045 1,099 7,279 682
Off-Road Mobile............................... 37,969 24,257 3,301 3,814 36 577
Biogenic...................................... 210,104 2,934 ......... ......... ......... .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 380,403 107,905 44,433 136,059 46,315 93,027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11834]]
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid model that was
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU states modeling
was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5,Guidance and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001,
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Maryland
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA accepts the MANE-VU technical modeling to support the LTS and
determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress
because the modeling system was chosen and used according to EPA
Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model performance
procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for
the regional haze assessments for the Maryland LTS and regional haze
SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20% worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than
50% of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I areas
on the clearest days and for as much as or more than 80% on the haziest
days. In particular, for the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class
I area (the most impacted Class I area), sulfate accounted for 66% of
the particle extinction on the 20% worst visibility days in 2000-2004.
After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts for the next
largest fraction of light extinction. Organic carbon accounted for 13%
of light extinction on the 20% worst visibility days for Brigantine,
followed by nitrate that accounts for 9% of light extinction.
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
[[Page 11835]]
4. RPG
Since the State of Maryland does not have a Class I area, it is not
required to establish RPGs. However, Maryland has been identified as
influencing the visibility impairment of the following Class I areas;
Acadia National Park, Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, and Lye
Brook Wilderness Area, as well as, the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter
Creek Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park. As such, Maryland
participated in consultations to discuss the reasonable progress goals
being considered by MANE-VU for the affected Class I areas. As a
result, the MANE-VU Class I area states adopted four RPGs that will
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility:
Timely implementation of BART requirements; a 90% reduction in
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks (12 are located in Maryland);
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and continued evaluation of
other control measures to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions.
In order to address a timely implementation of BART, as described
in section III B.5. of this notice, the Maryland HAA was determined to
be better than BART for NOX and SO2 emissions.
The first phase of the emission limits became effective in 2009/2010
timeframe and the second phase will become effective in the 2012/2013
timeframe. The BART limitation became effective in calendar year 2010
for the PM control strategies identified in section III.B.5.
States were asked to reduce SO2 emissions from the
highest emission stacks in the eastern United States by 90% or if it
was infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, an alternative had
to be identified which could include other point sources. Maryland's
Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2, C.P. Crane Units 1 and 2, Chalk Point
Units 1 and 2, Dickerson Units 1, 2 and 3, Wagner Unit 3 and Morgantown
Units 1 and 2 are twelve of the 167 units identified by MANE-VU as
having the highest emissions in the eastern United States. The 2002
base year SO2 emissions from these twelve units are 235,435
tons per year. A 90% SO2 emission reduction from these
twelve units would result in a reduction of 211,892 tons per year.
However, the SO2 emission reductions that have already
resulted from the implementation of the Maryland HAA for these twelve
units are 257,741 tons per year. These reductions are more than enough
to satisfy the 90% emission reduction from the 2002 baseline
requirements. In addition, the remaining EGU units subject to the HAA
they provide an additional 11,703 of SO2 emission
reductions. Maryland's consideration of all of the emission reductions
from the implementation of the HAA resulted in a surplus of 57,553 tons
per year of SO2 emission reductions.
The low sulfur fuel oil strategy has four requirements for the
State of Maryland. These requirements are to reduce the distillate oil
to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) no later than
2014, 4 residual oil to 0.25%-0.5% sulfur by weight no later
than 2018, 6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight no later
than 2018, and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to
15 ppm by 2018. Table 3 shows the SO2 emission reductions in
tons per year (TPY) that would result from the implementation of a low
sulfur fuel oil strategy in Maryland.
Table 3--Reasonable Progress Goal--Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 SO2 Emissions reductions
Low sulfur fuel oil strategy (TPY) based on the low sulfur
fuel oil strategy request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual and 4 Fuel Oil (assumes 1,344.1
0.5% sulfur)............................
Distillate (15 ppm sulfur)............... 6,129.3
------------------------------
Total................................ 7,473.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in Table 3, since Maryland has not adopted a low sulfur
fuel oil strategy, the state has a deficiency of 7,473.4 TPY of
SO2 emissions. However, as noted above, Maryland has a
surplus of SO2 emission reductions of 57,552 TPY resulting
from the HAA. This surplus accounts for the SO2 emission
reductions needed to meet the requirements of the low sulfur fuel
strategy.
5. BART
BART is an element of Maryland's LTS. The BART Regional Haze
requirement consists of three components: (a) Identification of all the
BART eligible sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BART eligible
sources are subject to BART; and (c) the determination of the BART
controls.
The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the
BART eligible sources. The BART eligible sources were identified by
utilizing the criteria in the BART Guidelines as follows:
Determine whether one or more emissions units at the
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
Determine whether the emission unit(s) was in existence on
August 7, 1977 and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
Determine whether potential emissions of SO2,
NOX, and PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or
more per year.
The BART guidelines recommend addressing SO2,
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment pollutants
and leave it up to the discretion of states to evaluate VOC or ammonia
emissions. Because of the lack of tools available to estimate emissions
and subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility, and
because Maryland is aggressively addressing VOCs through its ozone
SIPs, Maryland determined that SO2, NOX and
PM10/2.5 are the only reasonable contributing visibility
impairing pollutants to target under BART.
Maryland identified seven BART eligible sources (consisting of ten
emission units) as described in Table 4. However, it was later
determined that Mettiki Coal Corporation should not be included in the
BART eligible list since the source was not in existence by August 7,
1977. The source did not meet EPA's definition of ``in existence'' (40
CFR 51.301) since EPA did not grant approval of Mettiki Coal
Corporation's construction application until February 23, 1978.
[[Page 11836]]
Table 4--Maryland's BART Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant capacity in Unit capacity in
Facility and unit megawatts megawatts Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................. Mirant--Chalk Point >750............. 355, 355 and 640. Prince George's.
Units 1, 2 and 3.
2.............................. Mirant--Morgantown >750............. 630 and 630...... Charles.
Units 1 and 2.
3.............................. CPSG--Crane Unit 2.... <750............. 200.............. Baltimore.
4.............................. CPSG--Wagner Unit 3... >750............. 350.............. Anne Arundel.
5.............................. New Page/Westvaco/Luke NA............... NA............... Allegany.
Paper Unit 25.
6.............................. Holcim (Independent/ NA............... NA............... Washington.
St. Lawrence Cement)
Unit 24.
7.............................. *Mettiki Coal NA............... NA............... Garrett.
Corporation Unit 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This source is not BART eligible.
The second component of the BART evaluation is to identify those
BART eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area are subject to
BART. As discussed in the BART guidelines, a state may choose to
consider all BART eligible sources to be subject to BART (70 FR
39.161). Consistent with the MANE-VU Board's decision in June 2004 that
because of the collective importance of BART sources, BART
determinations should be made by the MANE-VU states for each BART
eligible source, unless the sources shutdown or caps-out by accepting a
permit limitation restricting their emissions to less than 250 tons per
year.
The final component of a BART evaluation is making BART
determinations for all BART subject sources. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states
consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. Section (e)(2) of the RHR provides that a state
may opt to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative
measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install,
operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the state must demonstrate that
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART.
Four EGUs in Maryland, the State found to be subject to BART. As
discussed below, Maryland chose to address the BART requirements for
these sources through an alternative program regulated by COMAR
26.11.27.02, the Maryland HAA (73 FR 51599) that limits SO2,
NOX and mercury emissions from fossil fuel fired generating
units. Of the seven EGU facilities subject to the Maryland HAA, only
four are facilities subject to BART, as seen in Table 5. Maryland
required all of the BART subject facilities to complete full BART
analysis, however, Maryland opted to rely on the emission limits from
the HAA for NOX and SO2, as an alternative
measure for BART.
Table 5--Maryland HAA Subject Sources and Maryland BART Subject Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland's BART subject
Maryland's HAA subject sources sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2.............. C.P. Crane Unit 2.
C.P. Crane Units 1 and 2.................. Chalk Point Units 1, 2 and
3.
Chalk Point Units 1 and 2................. Morgantown Units 1 and 2.
Dickerson Units 1, 2 and 3................ H.A. Wagner Unit 3.
H.A. Wagner Units 2 and 3................. ............................
Morgantown Units 1 and 2.................. ............................
* R. Paul Smith Units 3 and 4............. ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This facility is not part of Maryland's alternative measures for BART.
Maryland's HAA became effective on July 16, 2007, with the first
phase requiring reductions in the 2009-2010 timeframe and the second
phase of emission control occurring in the 2012-2013 timeframe. The HAA
affects Maryland's largest coal-burning power plants, which accounts
for 95% of the State's power plant emissions and requires year-round
emission controls. The HAA does not allow facilities to obtain out-of-
state emissions allowances in lieu of adding pollution control locally.
During the first phase of the HAA, NOX emissions were
reduced by approximately 70% in 2009 and SO2 emissions were
reduced by approximately 80% in 2010. At full implementation, the HAA
will reduce NOX emissions by approximately 75% in 2012 from
2002 levels and SO2 emissions will be reduced by
approximately 85% in 2013 from 2002 levels.
In order to determine appropriate NOX and SO2
emission limitations for inclusion in Maryland's HAA, Maryland
collected guidance and information from a number of sources to assist
in its evaluation of appropriate emission limits. The methods Maryland
used to develop the HAA incorporate many of the criteria used in the 5
factor analyses required by the RHR and included the following: (1)
Control technology effectiveness; (2) costs; (3) complexity with
regards to application on cycling units; (4) impact on plant operations
and flexibility; (5) operation and maintenance costs; (6) size of the
affected units; and (7) technical feasibility.
Of the fifteen units subject to Maryland's HAA, six have been
identified as BART units. The HAA incorporates emissions limitations
based on a suite of emission reduction technology capabilities. Tables
6 and 7 show Maryland promulgated emission limitations for
NOX and SO2 in COMAR 26.11.27.02. for the
thirteen units subject to the BART alternative plan.
Table 6--HAA Emission Limitations for NOX in TPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002
Facility Baseline 2012 (TPY)
(TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................. Brandon Shores Unit 1................. 6,329 2,414
[[Page 11837]]
2............................................. Brandon Shores Unit 2................. 6,034 2,519
3............................................. C.P. Crane Unit 1..................... 6,245 686
4............................................. C.P. Crane Unit 2..................... 4,285 737
5............................................. Chalk Point Unit 1.................... 6,327 1,166
6............................................. Chalk Point Unit 2.................... 6,773 1,223
7............................................. Dickerson Unit 1...................... 2,176 554
8............................................. Dickerson Unit 2...................... 2,358 607
9............................................. Dickerson Unit 3...................... 2,694 575
10............................................ H.A. Wagner Unit 2.................... 1,718 555
11............................................ H.A. Wagner Unit 3.................... 2,232 1,115
12............................................ Morgantown Unit 1..................... 10,013 2,094
13............................................ Morgantown Unit 2..................... 8,605 2,079
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ...................................... 65,793 16,324
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--HAA Emission Limitations for SO2 in TPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002
Facility Baseline 2013 (TPY)
(TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................. Brandon Shores Unit 1................. 20,476 5,392
2............................................. Brandon Shores Unit 2................. 19,498 5,627
3............................................. C.P. Crane Unit 1..................... 17,971 1,532
4............................................. C.P. Crane Unit 2..................... 14,415 1,646
5............................................. Chalk Point Unit 1.................... 23,537 2,606
6............................................. Chalk Point Unit 2.................... 25,194 2,733
7............................................. Dickerson Unit 1...................... 10,205 1,238
8............................................. Dickerson Unit 2...................... 11,061 1,355
9............................................. Dickerson Unit 3...................... 12,636 1,285
10............................................ H.A. Wagner Unit 2.................... 10,095 1,239
11............................................ H.A. Wagner Unit 3.................... 6,427 2,490
12............................................ Morgantown Unit 1..................... 37,756 4,678
13............................................ Morgantown Unit 2..................... 32,586 4,646
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ...................................... 241,862 36,468
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland did a comparison of the HAA emission limits for thirteen
of the fifteen units regulated by this rule to the BART presumptive
limits for the seven BART subject units. This comparison resulted in a
surplus of 60,805 tons of SO2 and 16,184 tons of
NOX, primarily because the HAA emission limits are
applicable to more units than the Maryland BART subject units. The
total emissions reductions achieved by the HAA, greatly exceed those
which would be achieved through application of presumptive BART
emissions rate limits on BART subject units only.
For PM, Maryland required the BART facilities to conduct an
analysis of potential BART control in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii). However, five of the units have already installed
high efficiency electro-static precipitors (ESP) to control PM and one
has already installed a fabric filter. The remaining unit has
enforceable operational restriction requiring the burning of natural
gas for 95% of the total heat input during ozone season. With this
existing fuel restriction, it will reduce PM emissions by approximately
90% during ozone season. Mirant Chalk Point Unit 1 is a 355 MW walled
fired, dry bottom, supercritical boiler with coal as the primary fuel.
This unit is equipped with a cold side ESP to control PM emissions by
over 99.5%. Mirant Chalk Point Unit 2 is also a 355 MW walled fired,
dry bottom, supercritical boiler with coal as the primary fuel. This
unit is also equipped with a cold side ESP to control PM emissions by
over 99.5%. Mirant Chalk Point Unit 3 is a 640 MW tangentially fired,
sub-critical unit that fire residual fuel oil or natural gas. This
cycling unit has operated at an average annual capacity factor of 5%
from 2006 to 2009. A consent order requires this unit to operate 95% of
the time using natural gas during ozone season (May-September). Since
this unit operates primarily during ozone season, the operational
restriction on fuel use effectively limit PM emissions by 90%. Mirant
Morgantown Unit 1 is a 630 MW tangentially fired, supercritical boiler
with coal as the primary fuel. This unit is equipped with a cold side
ESP to control PM emissions by over 99.5%. Mirant Morgantown Unit 2 is
also a 630 MW tangentially fired, supercritical boiler with coal as the
primary fuel. This unit is also equipped with a cold side ESP to
control PM emissions by over 99.5%. Crane Unit 2 is a 200 MW utility
boiler fired by four cyclone burners with coal as the primary fuel.
This unit is equipped with a fabric filter to control PM emissions by
over 99%. Wagner Unit 3 is a 350 MW supercritical once-over coal fired
boiler. This unit is equipped with a cold side ESP to control PM
emissions by over 99%. Maryland has determined that existing controls
for PM meet the BART requirement for all of these units since they
reduce PM emissions, are cost-efficient, and have no significant energy
or non-air quality environmental benefit. EPA agrees with Maryland's PM
BART determination for all of BART subject EGUs.
Maryland has two non-EGU BART sources that were required to conduct
BART analyses to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
Holcim (Independent/St. Lawrence Cement) is a cement manufacturing
[[Page 11838]]
plant located in Hagerstown, Maryland. The BART analysis was done for
the long dry Portland cement kiln. Current controls for PM consist of
multi-clones and an electrostatic precipitator. For NOX, the
facility currently utilizes a mid-kiln tire firing system with mixing
air technology and a low-NOX type burner. For SO2
the current controls consist of injection of mixing air and inherent
dry scrubbing. For this unit, Maryland determined the addition of
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is BART for PM and
NOX and current controls are BART for SO2.
New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper is a kraft pulp mill with two BART
subject power boilers (Units 25 and 26) that share a common exhaust
stream and has one recovery boiler (Unit 3). The power boilers are used
as the primary and back-up systems for incineration of emissions from
non-condensable gas and stripper off gas, the recovery boiler is used
to recover chemicals from spent agent pulping liquors and to produce
steam for the mill. Unit 25 burns coal as the primary fuel with natural
gas used as a secondary fuel. Unit 26 originally burned oil as the
primary fuel, but in 1982 was converted to natural gas. Unit 25
currently has a multi-cyclone mechanical collector in series with a
baghouse for control of PM. The boiler is also equipped with an over-
five air system, low-NOX burners and a SNCR, installed in
2006, for controlling NOX emissions during ozone season. In
a letter dated October 31, 2007, the facility committed to install
either a spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry scrubber resulting
in approximately 90% emission reduction from the 2002 baseline. Unit 26
currently has no controls. Unit 3 has a two level staged combustion air
control system for the control of SO2 and NOX
emissions and the three-chamber ESP for the control of PM. Maryland
determined BART for Unit 25 to be the current controls for PM which
consist of multi-cyclones, baghouse and year-round operation of the
existing SNCR, low NOX burners, and overfire air for
NOX controls and the addition of spray dryer absorber or a
circulating dry scrubber for SO2. For Unit 26, the natural
gas fired boiler, Maryland determined BART to be that no add-on
controls were necessary since the use of natural gas results in very
low emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM. For Unit 3,
the recovery boiler, the current controls consist of two level staged
combustion air control system for the control of SO2 and
NOX emissions and the three-chamber ESP for the control of
PM. EPA agrees with MDE's analyses and conclusions for the non-EGU BART
determinations.
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU Air Directors adopted the Inter-RPO
State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional haze planning and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
The MANE-VU states held ten consultation meetings and/or conference
calls from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to the
MANE-VU members attending these meetings and conference calls,
participants from VISTAS, Midwest RPO, and the relevant FLMs were also
in attendance. In addition to the conference calls and meeting, the
FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment on each of the
technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
On September 22, 2008 and November 18, 2011, Maryland submitted a
draft Regional Haze SIP to the relevant FLMs for review and comment
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In a letter dated January 25, 2012,
the FLMs provided comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the FLMs were
addressed and included in Appendix C of the Maryland Regional Haze SIP
submittal.
On January 6, 2012, the MDE provided public notice of the
opportunity to comment on the SIP revision and on February 9, 2012 held
the public hearing. To address the requirement for continuing
consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4),
Maryland commits in their SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on
Regional Haze issues throughout the implementation.
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland has
committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the form of
a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the initial
submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress report will
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the impacted Class I
areas.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland SIP
submitted by the State of Maryland through the MDE on February 13, 2012
that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. EPA
is proposing to make a determination that the Maryland Regional Haze
SIP contains the emission reductions needed to achieve Maryland's share
of emission reductions agreed upon through the regional planning
process. Furthermore, Maryland's Regional Haze Plan ensures that
emissions from the State will not interfere with the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring states' Class I areas. EPA has
determined that the Regional Haze Plan submitted by the State of
Maryland satisfies the requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this
action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is
also proposing to find that this revision meets the applicable
visibility related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) including but
not limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to
visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive
[[Page 11839]]
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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule approving Maryland's Regional Haze
Plan does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-4663 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P