[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24385-24392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9719]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-1043; A-1-FRL-9652-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Maine State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first planning period
from 2008 through 2018. It was submitted by the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) on December 9, 2010, with
supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011, and November 9, 2011.
This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future, and remedy any
existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program'').
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on May 24, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2010-1043. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health
Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697,
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On November 29, 2011, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of Maine. See 76 FR 73956. The NPR proposed
approval of the Maine State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses
regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. It
was submitted by the Maine DEP on December 9, 2010, with supplemental
submittals on September 14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. Specifically,
EPA proposed to approve Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP revision, and its
supplements, as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found
in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA also proposed to approve Maine's Best Achievable
Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for several sources and to
incorporate the license conditions that implement those determinations
into the SIP. In addition, EPA proposed to approve Maine's low sulfur
fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA Sec. 603-A, sub-Sec. 2(A), and to
incorporate this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is
also proposed to approve the following Maine state regulation and
incorporate it into the SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions
from Outdoor Wood Boilers.
A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs,
as well as EPA's analysis of Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal was
provided in the NPR and is not restated here.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received a number of comments on our proposal to approve
Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments were received from the
citizen's group Credo Action and the National Park Service (NPS). A
joint letter from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA),
the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), the Conservation
[[Page 24386]]
Law Foundation (CLF), and the Natural Resources Council of Maine
(collectively ``NPCA'') was also submitted. Many of the NPCA comments
echoed comments submitted by NPS. The U.S Forest Service reiterated
previous comments submitted on Maine's proposed rulemaking and
acknowledge the work that the State of Maine has accomplished and
encouraged the State of Maine to continue to reduce regional haze. The
following discussion summarizes and responds to the relevant comments
received on EPA's proposed approval of Maine's Regional Haze SIP.
Comment: NPCA commented that in light of the $/ton limits accepted
by other States (e.g., $7,300/ton in Oregon, $5,000/ton in Colorado,
and $7,000-$10,000/ton in Wisconsin), Maine lacks a State cost
effectiveness threshold in its Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) determinations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NPS also compared Maine's determinations of cost
effectiveness to the determinations made by these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: While States have the option to develop a cost
effectiveness threshold, the Regional Haze Rule does not require States
to set a bright line threshold for cost effectiveness. Pursuant to
Section 51.308(e)(A), the State is required to consider five factors
when determining the appropriate level of BART control: The cost of
compliance; the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts; any
pollution control equipment in use at the source; the remaining useful
life of the source; and the degree of improvement which may be
reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology. Even
though the cited States adopted a dollar per ton threshold, controls
with costs below the established cost threshold were sometimes rejected
when considered in conjunction with the other factors. In Oregon, only
one BART-eligible source was subject to BART: The PGE Boardman coal-
fired EGU. Although the technology option of new Low NOX
Burners with modified over-fire air (NLNB/MOFA) plus selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) could be considered cost effective ($1,816/
ton) for the PGE Boardman, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) rejected this technology option because adding SNCR only
provided an additional 0.18 deciview (dv) of visibility improvement
over NLNB/MOFA at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area and because ODEQ was
concerned with the potential for excess ammonia emissions from the SNCR
(commonly referred to as ammonia slip) which could result in increased
rates of secondary particulate matter (ammonium sulfate). In addition,
ODEQ rejected Semi-dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (SDFGD) at a cost of
$5,535/ton SO2 removed ($7,200/ton incremental cost) in
favor for Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) at $3,370/ton SO2
removed. See 76 FR 12651. The State of Colorado also rejected BART
controls with a cost of control less than $5,000/ton (e.g., DSI at a
cost of $2,482/ton SO2 removed) due to minimal expected
visibility improvement. In the case of Wisconsin, the State only has
one non-EGU subject to BART. The BART level of control selected by the
State for this source is $1,580/ton SO2 removed and $1,868/
ton NOX removed with a combined visibility improvement of
2.68 dv at the highest impacted Class I Area and 5.03 dv visibility
improvement across all four Class I Areas impacted by this BART source.
See 77 FR 11928 (February 28, 2012). In addition, all three of the
States cited by NPCA applied a 0.5 dv minimum visibility impact
threshold for determining what BART-eligible sources would be subject
to BART. Maine instead decided that all BART-eligible sources,
regardless of their impact on Class I Areas, would be subject to BART.
Therefore, the cost effectiveness thresholds cited by NPCA are not
comparable to Maine's determinations. The Regional Haze Rule does not
require States to use a set threshold in evaluating cost effectiveness
and the lack of a cost effectiveness threshold does not render Maine's
BART determinations unreasonable.
Comment: NPS commented that the analysis of lower sulfur fuel oil
for Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 is incomplete, inaccurate,
and does not follow BART Guidelines or the MANE-VU recommendations. NPS
suggested that EPA should at least evaluate the lower sulfur residual
oils for the Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers.
Response: According to Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines), ``[F]or
sources other than 750 MW power plants, however, States retain the
discretion to adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines.'' See
70 FR 39156 (July 6, 2005). Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and paper
plant and Maine's analysis is therefore not required to follow the BART
Guidelines. Maine has flexibility in addressing the five factors of the
BART analysis.
The MANE-VU recommended level of control for industrial boilers is
the use of 0.5% sulfur in fuel 6 oil. Maine's BART limit for
Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 requires the reduction from
1.8% sulfur in fuel oil to the use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil by
January 1, 2013. The source will, however, be subject to the MANE-VU
recommended 0.5% sulfur in fuel limit by no later than January 1, 2018,
pursuant to Maine's low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA Sec. 603-
A, sub-Sec. 2(A) \2\ which will become federally enforceable under
today's action. Therefore these boilers will be required to meet the
MANE-VU recommended level of control during the first planning period
as part of the long term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/title38sec603-A.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPS commented that in its analysis of the switching to
natural gas, Verso Androscoggin assumed $9.43 per thousand cubic feet
(MCF) which is more than double the current price. NPS claimed that EPA
must reevaluate the costs of switching to natural gas using current
cost information.
Response: The Verso Androscoggin analysis of switching to natural
gas assumed $9.43/MCF based on 2009 data. The most recent data from
U.S. Energy Information Administration indicates an increase in the
2010 annual industrial price of natural gas to $11.23/MCF \3\ and
monthly industrial prices are in the range of $8.61 to $12.08/MCF for
the second half of 2011.\4\ Therefore, the use of $9.43/MCF is
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SME_a.htm.
\4\ www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SME_m.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPS commented that Maine DEP improperly dismissed
application of FGR (Flue Gas Recirculation) at Verso Androscoggin from
further evaluation on the premise that it would result in minimal
reductions in NOX emissions. NPS commented that FGR was
determined to be technically feasible by Verso Androscoggin and must be
fully evaluated if SNCR is not selected as BART.
Response: The State of Maine has flexibility as to how the factors
of the BART analysis are weighed and is not required to conduct an
analysis that conforms to the requirements of BART Guidelines because
Verso Androscoggin is not a 750 MW power plant. The State determined
that the installation of flue gas recirculation at Verso Androscoggin
would require the enlargement of the burner openings in both boilers.
When combined with the existing Low NOX burners, the FGR is
only expected to result in a maximum of seven percent reduction in
NOX emissions which would not be expected to provide
[[Page 24387]]
substantial visibility improvement.\5\ EPA finds that Maine reasonably
rejected the installation of FGR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ If FGR were installed at the facility without the already
installed Low NOX burners it would achieve the maximum
15% reduction in NOX. However, when combined with the
already installed Low NOX burners, the FGR only achieves
a further reduction of 7% from the already lower NOX
levels generated by the Low NOX burners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPS commented that Verso Androscoggin did not follow the
EPA's Cost Control Manual (CCM) method for evaluating add-on controls
and Verso Androscoggin's capital recovery factor is inflated. NPS
recalculated the cost effectiveness of the SNCR using a capital
recovery factor using 7% interest over a 20-year life as opposed to
12.4% interest over a 10-year life used by the State. NPS found the
revised cost to be $5,553/ton NOX removed instead of the
Maine DEP value of $5,973/ton NOX removed. However, due to
the assumption of low utilization, NPS suggested that the cost-
effectiveness be reevaluated should boiler utilization increase.
Response: The Regional Haze Rule does not require States to use
EPA's CCM to evaluate the costs of control technologies, though it
represents a good reference tool. See 70 FR 39104, 39127 (July 6,
2005). The analysis provided by NPS, which used the CCM procedure for
coal-fired EGUs (including a lower capital recovery factor than the
State used) and EPA's IPM model, was only $420/ton less than Maine's
cost determination, supporting the reasonableness of Maine's
evaluation. EPA does not believe that this relatively small difference
calculated in cost effectiveness calls into question the reasonableness
of the State's analysis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA rejected a similar argument in regards to the PGE
Boardman coal-fired EGU in Oregon. In that case, use of the CCM lead
to a cost $725/ton less than that used by Oregon. We similarly
rejected that difference in cost effectiveness as inconsequential to
the State's final decision. See 76 FR 38997, 39000 (July 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must determine BART eligibility and controls only during
this first planning period and therefore Maine is not required to
reevaluate its BART determination if utilization of the boiler
increases. The Regional Haze Rule however makes clear that after a BART
determination is made, the source is subject to the core requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d). Therefore, consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
Maine may in subsequent planning periods reevaluate the controls and
visibility impact of Verso Androscoggin as part of the State's long
term strategy. EPA finds that Maine reasonably concluded that based on
the current boiler 20% utilization, SNCR is not a cost effective
control for Power Boilers 1 and 2 at Verso Androscoggin.
Comment: NPS commented that if EPA uses incremental cost to
override an average cost-effectiveness value (which was at a level
found to be reasonable in the Four Corners BART proposal), it must show
how the incremental costs of switching to lower sulfur fuels at the
Verso Androscoggin mill are higher than other incremental costs that
have been accepted.
Response: The Regional Haze Rule grants States the authority to
make the initial determination of what constitutes BART. EPA reviews
that determination to ensure the appropriate factors were considered
and that the determination is reasonable. The Four Corners BART
proposal cited by NPS was an EPA proposal for a federal implementation
plan (FIP), where EPA has the role of initially determining BART, and
is therefore not comparable to EPA's role in approving Maine's SIP. For
the Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers, EPA did not rely on the
incremental cost in making its determination. Rather, EPA evaluated
Maine's determination that with minimal visibility improvement beyond
what would be achieved with 0.7% sulfur 6 fuel oil, the
conversion to 2 fuel oil or natural gas was not justified. In
addition, as noted above, the Power Boilers at Verso Androscoggin will
be subject to a 0.5% sulfur limit no later than January 1, 2018, as
part of Maine's long term strategy. EPA finds Maine's determination
that 0.7% sulfur fuel oil represents BART for Verso Androscoggin to be
reasonable.
Comment: NPS commented that the average cost effectiveness of
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for the Verso Androscoggin WFI is
about $4,200/ton, which is much lower than EPA determined to be
acceptable at Four Corners, and is lower than the benchmark $/ton
values used by New York, Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin. NPS commented
that Maine DEP/US EPA are essentially relying upon the cost of controls
versus the resulting visibility improvement in reaching their
conclusion. NPS claimed to have shown that the cost/dv for SCR on the
Verso Androscoggin Waste Fuel Incinerator (WFI) falls well below the
nationwide average, is reasonable, and should constitute BART for the
Verso Androscoggin WFI.
Response: The limited usefulness of the thresholds for Colorado,
Oregon, and Wisconsin is discussed above. EPA has not yet proposed
action on the New York submittal. Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and
paper facility. The BART Guidelines do not include a presumptive level
of control for this type of facility and Maine is not required to
follow the BART Guidelines for setting BART for this unit. Four Corners
is a 2,040 MW coal-fired EGU. The presumptive level of control for this
type of facility is outlined in the BART Guidelines. The BART
Guidelines do not include a presumptive level of control for pulp and
paper facilities like Verso Androscoggin. The greatest visibility
impact at any Class I Area due to NOX from Four Corners is
5.95 dv,\7\ whereas, the highest visibility impact from the WFI at
Verso Androscoggin is 0.4 dv. The highest visibility impact from the
WFI at Verso Androscoggin is less than the threshold for applying BART
to BART-eligible sources established by many States, including
Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin which use a 0.5 dv threshold. EPA
estimates that the cost of installation of SCR for Units 1 through 5 at
Four Corners ranges from $2,515/ton-$3,163/ton.\8\ NPS estimated a cost
of control for the Four Corners units on the order of $1,326/ton-
$1,882/ton NOX removed, with an expected visibility
improvement of 2.43 dv at the highest impacted Class I Area.\9\ The
determination of BART for Four Corners is not directly comparable to
EPA's approval of Maine's determinations because of the much greater
expected visibility improvement and, as noted above, the fact that the
Four Corners proposal is a FIP. EPA finds that Maine reasonably
determined that for an expected visibility improvement of 0.4 dv (SCR)
or 0.1 dv (SNCR), the installation of SCR at a cost of $4,200/ton or
SNCR at a cost of $4,950/ton on the 48 MW WFI at Verso Androscoggin is
cost prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 75 FR 64230, October 19, 2010--EPA's Proposed Source
Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available
Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPS commented that based on recalculated visibility
benefits at several of the nearest Class I Areas on the highest
impacting visibility days, NPS determined that lower sulfur (0.5% &
0.3%) fuels at Wyman Station Units 3 and 4 would
improve cumulative visibility by a total of 2.0-3.4 dv. This results in
a cumulative cost-effectiveness value of $0.8-$2.1 million/dv, which
NPS claimed is relatively inexpensive compared to the average $18
million/dv that they are seeing accepted by States and sources that are
proposing reductions under BART. NPS claimed that because neither Maine
DEP nor EPA had presented any benchmark
[[Page 24388]]
against which to compare their cost/dv estimates, EPA must agree that
BART for Wyman boilers 3 and 4 is the use of 0.3%
sulfur residual oil. In addition, NPS claimed that EPA should require
the use of 0.3% sulfur fuel oil to meet the 90% reduction in the MANE-
VU ``Ask''.
Response: The Maine BART limit for Wyman Station requires the
reduction from 2.0% sulfur in fuel oil in boiler 3 to the use
of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil and the continued use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel
in boiler 4 by January 1, 2013. In addition, as part of
Maine's long term strategy, both boilers, along with the two other
boilers on site, will be required to meet a further reduction to 0.5%
sulfur limit by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 MRSA Sec. 603-A, sub-
Sec. 2(A), which will become federally enforceable under today's final
action. This reduced sulfur limit will result in at least the
additional 2.0 dv cumulative visibility improvement indicated in the
NPS comments.
While it is helpful additional information in some cases, the BART
Guidelines do not require the use of cumulative visibility impact when
addressing the visibility factor. NPS calculated that the reduction
from 0.5% sulfur to 0.3% sulfur fuel oil would only result in 0.37 dv
visibility improvement at the highest impacted area from boiler
3 and 0.41 dv visibility improvement from boiler 4,
incurring an annual fuel cost increase of at least $886,844 and
$4,103,863, respectively.\10\ However, NPS's calculations improperly
compare the implementation cost based on lower utilization (most recent
two years) with visibility benefits calculated using a higher
utilization, suggesting that the true cost effectiveness values at
lower utilization values may be higher than those calculated by NPS.
Maine reasonably determined that 0.7% sulfur is BART for Wyman Station
Units 3 and 4.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Appendix W to the NPS comment.
\11\ NPS also claimed that analysis of Wyman must be conducted
on the same basis as the analysis conducted at Verso Androscoggin.
However, as discussed more fully below, States have discretion in
determining the baseline period so long as it represents a
reasonable determination of anticipated emissions from the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPS recommends that emission controls for two Maine
sources, Dragon Cement, a Portland cement manufacturing facility, and
SD Warren Company (SAPPI), an integrated pulp and paper mill, be
evaluated under the reasonable progress provisions of the Regional Haze
Rule. Initial BART modeling for these two sources demonstrated that
they cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Acadia National
Park. These two sources were subsequently found not to be subject to
BART. NPS contends that, consistent with EPA Region 6's partial
disapproval of Arkansas' Regional Haze SIP (Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-
2008-0727), these Maine sources must be considered in Maine's
reasonable progress analysis.
Response: Under EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress
Goals under the Regional Haze Program (``Reasonable Progress
Guidance''), States may identify key pollutants and source categories
for the first planning period.\12\ MANE-VU and Maine determined that
the key pollutant which contributes to visibility impairment in the
Maine Class I Areas is SO2. Therefore, in accordance with
EPA's guidance,\13\ Maine and MANE-VU focused on SO2 for the
first planning period. As a result of the four factor analysis for
reasonable progress, MANE-VU and Maine agreed to pursue the following
emission reductions strategies to ensure reasonable progress for the
first planning period: Timely implementation of BART; 90% reduction in
SO2 emissions from the 167 highest visibility impacting
electrical generating units; a reduction in the sulfur in fuel content
of distillate and residual oil; and continued evaluation of other
emission reduction strategies. These reduction strategies (the MANE-VU
Ask) represent individual reasonable progress goals, to be expressed in
deciviews, which MANE-VU States committed to achieving (i.e., each
State modeled what reductions would be achieved with these strategies
and then converted those reductions into visibility improvement to set
their reasonable progress goals). Each State is responsible for
crafting a long term strategy that is intended to meet these reasonable
progress goals. The SAPPI Power Boiler 1 is subject to control
under Maine's long term strategy under the State's low sulfur fuel oil
legislation, 38 MRSA Sec. 603-A, sub-Sec. 2(A). This law limits the
SAPPI Power Boiler 1 to burning 0.5% sulfur fuel oil no later
than January 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, p. 3-1 (2007), www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf.
\13\ ``In deciding what amount of emission reductions is
appropriate in setting the RPG, you (the State) should take into
account that the long-term goal of no manmade impairment encompasses
several planning periods. It is reasonable for you to defer
reductions to later planning periods in order to maintain a
consistent glidepath toward the long-term goal.'', Id. p. 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's partial disapproval of the Arkansas SIP was due to a lack of
four factor analyses for reasonable progress. However, a full four
factor analysis was undertaken at a regional level as part of Maine's
role in MANE-VU; this resulted in the MANE-VU Ask discussed above. See
76 FR 73956. The approval of Maine's SIP is therefore not inconsistent
with the partial disapproval of Arkansas' SIP. Consistent with the
Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, Maine was
not required to evaluate additional controls for Dragon Products and
SAPPI during this first planning period in setting its reasonable
progress goals.
Comment: NPS commented that while Power Boiler 1 at SAPPI
is not BART-eligible, MANE-VU modeling across the four Class I Areas
modeled in and near Maine shows that Power Boiler 1 has a
cumulative impact of 1.8 dv, with 1.4 dv attributable to sulfates. The
greatest impact (0.8 dv) occurs at Acadia National Park. With respect
to SAPPI Power Boiler 1, NPS suggested that EPA should
evaluate additional emission reductions as required by the reasonable
progress provisions of the Regional Haze Rule.
Response: Under Maine's long term strategy, Power Boiler 1
at SAPPI will be required to reduce the current sulfur content of the
residual oil from 2.0% to 0.5% by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 MRSA
Sec. 603-A, sub-Sec. 2(A) which will become federally enforceable in
today's action. When developing the emission projection for modeling
future visibility conditions resulting from the various control
strategies, Maine had originally projected that BART control on Power
Boiler 1 would result in an emission reduction of 1,442 tons
per year. Maine clarified that the expected reductions from the
application of BART are still being met via operation changes. This
projection is separate from the additional reductions which will be
achieved by the application of the low sulfur fuel oil requirements of
Maine's long term strategy. As noted above, Maine's decision to not
include controls in addition to the MANE-VU Ask on the SAPPI Power
Boiler 1 during this first planning period is consistent with
the Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance.
Comment: NPS commented that while they agree that Dragon (kiln) is
a reconstructed source, they believe that the reasonable progress
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule require that Dragon reduce
NOX emissions by 45% as expeditiously as possible.
Response: As noted above, Maine conducted a full four factor
analysis to set its reasonable progress goals, resulting in the MANE-VU
Ask. The long term strategy provision establishes enforceable limits
that the State will
[[Page 24389]]
undertake to meet the reasonable progress goals. We are interpreting
NPS's comment as requesting that EPA require Maine to evaluate
additional reductions from Dragon Products as part of its long term
strategy.
Dragon Products currently operates selective non-catalytic
reduction to reduce NOX emissions from the kiln. The
estimated efficiency of the current system is 18%-22% NOX
emission reductions. EPA agrees that the kiln is a candidate for future
emission reductions as part of Maine's long term strategy during
subsequent planning periods. However, consistent with the Regional Haze
Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, during this first planning
period Maine is reducing the visibility impacts from SO2,
which is the greatest visibility impacting pollutant at its Class I
Areas. The major pollutant of concern from Dragon Products is
NOX. In subsequent planning periods, Maine will once again
determine the pollutant(s) with the greatest impact on visibility and
implement appropriate emission reduction measures as part of Maine's
long term strategy for future planning periods. Maine was not required
to include emissions reductions from Dragon Products during this first
planning period.
Comment: NPCA commented that the Dragon Products kiln was not
considered subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at
the time of its modifications. NPCA claims that Dragon Products was
appropriately classified as a BART-eligible source and should be
subject to the BART determination reached by Maine in its earlier
regional haze submittal.
Response: As noted in the proposal, in a letter dated September 14,
2011, Maine DEP informed EPA that it had determined that Dragon
Products was a reconstructed source and not obliged to meet BART.\14\
EPA's BART Guidelines state that ``any emission unit for which
reconstruction `commenced' after August 7, 1977, is not BART-
eligible.'' See 70 FR 39104, 39160 (July 6, 2005). However, as noted
above, the BART Guidelines are only mandatory for 750 MW power plants.
Therefore, Maine has discretion to follow the BART Guidelines
interpretation of BART-eligible or to choose a different, reasonable
interpretation. Maine's decision that, as a source that was
reconstructed after August 7, 1977, Dragon Products is not BART-
eligible is reasonable and not inconsistent with the Regional Haze Rule
or the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Maine DEP's letter refers both the concepts of BART
``eligibility'' and being ``subject to BART,'' which are slightly
different concepts under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). The letter focuses
primarily on BART eligibility, and, as explained in this response,
Maine had discretion to determine that Dragon Products is not BART-
eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Dragon Products may not have been subject to the NSPS at the
time of reconstruction is irrelevant for this purpose. Dragon Products
was undisputedly subject to the more stringent Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standard, and therefore was exempt from the
substantive requirements of the NSPS.\15\ This does not affect the
reasonableness of Maine's determination that Dragon Products is not
BART-eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a
different emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or
operator of the affected facility must comply with the most
stringent emission limit or requirement and is exempt from the less
stringent requirement.'' 40 CFR 63.1356(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPCA commented that Maine's determinations must be judged
as to their cost effectiveness in the context of other determinations;
they cannot be deemed ``not cost effective'' without such comparison.
NPCA states that the proposed determinations do not include any
comparison to a State threshold, cost effectiveness determination from
other States, or other comparative metric to justify rejection of
reasonable costs. NPCA also notes that it is precisely because of the
comparative nature of a cost effectiveness determination that the
values must be calculated by the same method, as well as calibrated to
the same period (present day value).
Response: BART determinations are developed based on the five
factor analysis, of which cost effectiveness is only one factor. For
sources other than 750 MW power plants, States retain the discretion to
adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines. See earlier response
on cost thresholds.
Comment: NPCA commented that in several of the BART determinations,
cost effectiveness determinations relied heavily on significantly lower
usage (~20%) of the source in question (e.g., Verso Androscoggin Power
Boilers, FPL Wyman), claiming that this results in much higher cost
effectiveness values than otherwise would have occurred. NPCA commented
that if these capacities are relied upon in BART or reasonable progress
determinations, they must be made enforceable, with permit conditions
limiting the hours of operation or automatically requiring additional
controls in the event that specific annual usage is exceeded.
Response: According to the BART Guidelines, when calculating the
average cost of control, ``The baseline emission rate should represent
a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source.
In general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate
the anticipated annual emissions from a baseline period. In the absence
of enforceable emission limitations, you calculate baseline emissions
based upon continuation of past practices.'' On the other hand, the
BART Guidelines require enforceable limitations if the utilization or
other parameters used to determine future emissions differ from past
practice. BART Guidelines Section D. Step 4.d. See 70 FR 39156, 39167.
The reduced utilization of Wyman Station is based on past practice and
is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As EPA noted in our proposal, for Verso Androscoggin we are
not relying on the reduced utilization rate as part of our analysis
of Maine's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA received a comment letter signed by 911 members of
Credo Action stating ``As a Maine resident, I urge you to greatly
reduce haze pollution at Maine's national parks. Unfortunately, the
plan EPA is currently considering doesn't go far enough. To protect the
health of children, communities and our parks, Maine and EPA must do
more to hold polluters in the state accountable and require adequate
emission reductions.'' In addition to the comment letter, 122 signators
provided additional comments. Twenty-eight people requested that we
protect Maine's air quality, and an additional thirty-eight
specifically mentioned Acadia National Park. Twenty-seven people cited
health concerns in regards to the current air quality, twenty-three
people expressed a need to reduce air pollution, and twenty-one people
stated that we need stronger rules to reduce air pollution.
Response: EPA agrees that it is important to reduce the visibility
and health impacts from man-made pollution at the Federal Class I
Areas, such as Acadia National Park. EPA's approval of Maine's SIP will
result in significant reductions in emissions and improvement in
visibility. This represents only the first step towards meeting the
national goal of natural conditions in federal Class I Areas.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP revision as meeting
the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is
also approving the following license conditions and incorporating them
into the SIP: Conditions (16) A, B, G, and H of license amendment A-
406-77-3-M
[[Page 24390]]
for Katahdin Paper Company issued on July 8, 2009; license amendment A-
214-77-9-M for Rumford Paper Company issued on January 8, 2010; license
amendment A-22-77-5-M for Verso Bucksport, LLC issued November 2, 2010;
license amendment A-214-77-2-M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly Domtar)
issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-388-77-2-M for FPL Energy
Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV, LLC issued November 2, 2010; license amendment
A-19-77-5-M for S. D. Warren Company issued November 2, 2010; license
amendment A-203-77-11-M for Verso Androscoggin LLC issued November 2,
2010; and license amendment A-180-77-1-A for Red Shield Environmental
LLC issued November 29, 2007.
In addition, EPA is approving Maine's low sulfur fuel oil
legislation, 38 MRSA Sec. 603-A, sub-Sec. 2(A), and incorporating
this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is approving the
following Maine state regulation and incorporating it into the SIP:
Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers.
IV. 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 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 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 Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 14, 2012.
Signed:
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart U--Maine
0
2. Section 52.1020 is amended by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Chapter 150'' in numerical order to the table
in paragraph (c);
0
b. Adding an entry for ``38 MRSA Sec. 603-A sub Sec. 2(A)'' at the
end of the table in paragraph (c);
0
c. Adding eight entries at the end of the table in paragraph (d); and
0
d. Adding an entry at the end of the table in paragraph (e).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) EPA-approved regulations.
EPA-Approved Maine Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective EPA approval date
State citation Title/subject date and citation \1\ Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Chapter 150..................... Control of 4/11/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ..................
Emissions from Federal Register
Outdoor Wood page number where
Boilers. the document
begins].
[[Page 24391]]
* * * * * * *
38 MRSA Sec. 603-A sub Sec. ``An Act To Improve 9/12/2009 4/24/2012 [Insert Only approving
2(A). Maine's Air Federal Register Sec. 1. 38 MRSA
Quality and Reduce page number where Sec. 603-A, sub-
Regional Haze at the document Sec. 2, (2)
Acadia National begins]. Prohibitions.
Park and Other
Federally
Designated Class I
Areas''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements.
EPA-Approved Maine Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective EPA approval date
Name of source Permit No. date and citation \2\ Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Katahdin Paper Company........... A-406-77-3-M 7/8/2009 4/24/2012 [Insert Approving license
Federal Register conditions (16) A,
page number where B, G, and H.
the document
begins].
Rumford Paper Company............ A-214-77-9-M 1/8/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
Verso Bucksport, LLC............. A-22-77-5-M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
Woodland Pulp, LLC............... A-214-77-2-M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV, A-388-77-2-M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
LLC. Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
S. D. Warren Company............. A-19-77-5-M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
Verso Androscoggin, LLC.......... A-203-77-11-M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
Red Shield Environmental, LLC.... A-180-77-1-A 11/29/2007 4/24/2012 [Insert ...................
Federal Register
page number where
the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(e) Non-regulatory.
Maine Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State submittal
Name of non regulatory SIP geographic or date/effective EPA approved date Explanations
provision nonattainment area date and citation \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maine Regional Haze SIP and its Statewide......... 12/9/2010; 4/24/2012 [Insert ....................
supplements. supplements Federal Register
submitted 9/14/ page number
2011 11/9/2011. where the
document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[[Page 24392]]
[FR Doc. 2012-9719 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P