[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50602-50608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20271]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0599 ; A-1-FRL-9716-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the New Hampshire State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018. The revision was submitted by
the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) on
January 29, 2010, with supplemental submittals on January 14, 2011, and
August 26, 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 September 21, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0599. 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 Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6
Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109--3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-
0697, email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 February 28, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of New Hampshire. See 77 FR 11809. The NPR proposed
approval of the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. It was submitted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES) on January 29, 2010, with supplemental submittals on
January 14, 2011, and August 26, 2011. Specifically, EPA proposed to
approve New Hampshire's January 29, 2010 SIP revision, and its
supplements, as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found
in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA also proposed to approve, and incorporate into
the New Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 2300 Mitigation
of Regional Haze and a permit for Public Service of New Hampshire
(PSNH) Merrimack Station.
A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs,
as well as EPA's analysis of New Hampshire'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 New
Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments were received from
NHDES, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service (NPS), and
the Sierra Club. The following discussion summarizes and responds to
the relevant comments received on EPA's proposed approval of New
Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP.
Comment: The U.S Forest Service commented that they are pleased
that current permit conditions require Merrimack Station to submit
calendar monthly emission rates for the preceding twelve months by
December 31, 2014, in order to determine the maximum sustainable rate
of control for the facility. In addition, they acknowledged the work
that the State of New Hampshire has accomplished and encouraged the
State of New Hampshire to continue to reduce regional haze.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment from the U.S. Forest
Service.
Comment: NHDES noted that EPA incorrectly referred to the New
Hampshire Air Toxic Control Act, NH Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA)
125-I, and the regulations promulgated thereunder as requiring the
installation of the wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system for
mercury removal on the two coal-fired boilers at PSNH Merrimack
Station. The correct citation is NH RSA 125-O, the Multiple Pollutant
Reduction Program statute. The sections of the law that specifically
address mercury removal and require a FGD system are RSA 125-O:11-18.
Response: EPA agrees that there was an error in the citation of the
law requiring the FGD system.
Comment: NPS commented that the Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) modeling and interpretation did not follow EPA's BART modeling
guidelines or the methods recommended by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) States and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs).
NPS stated that since only one year of meteorological data was modeled,
NHDES should have used the 20% best natural background visibility
conditions in the modeling and reported the maximum visibility impact
at the Class I areas due to the source's baseline emissions and
emissions control options. NPS noted that in NHDES's August 2011
revision, the BART modeling was partially corrected to use the natural
background visibility, but still incorrectly reports the visibility
impact for the 20% worst days and the 20% best days rather than the
single day with the maximum visibility impact. NPS stated that while
correcting the modeling results may not change the BART control
decisions, EPA should
[[Page 50603]]
not propose to approve methods and interpretations that are not
consistent with the correct applications by the other MANE-VU States
and States in other regions. NPS recommended that NHDES and EPA
correctly report the maximum visibility impact from the BART units for
baseline emissions and emissions control options.
Response: Upon further inspection of the model output, NHDES
confirmed that the single day with the maximum visibility impact was
used when determining the visibility improvement expected from the
installation of potential BART control. The highest impact for the 20%
worst natural days was used as the baseline condition for the
determination of pre-control visibility impact and post-control
visibility impact. The 20% worst natural visibility days were used
instead of the 20% best natural visibility days because meteorological
conditions prevalent during the 20% best natural visibility days are
not conducive for transport from the New Hampshire BART sources to the
nearby Class I Areas.
However, in response to the NPS's comment, NHDES did undertake a
modeling analysis to rerun the pre- and post-BART emission scenarios
using the 20% best natural visibility days as the baseline to determine
the greatest visibility impact from the BART sources.\1\ As an example
of the revised modeling, Table 1 provides the updated visibility
improvement in deciviews (dv) expected from the various sulfur dioxide
(SO2) control strategies that were assessed for Newington
Station NT1 (specifically the lowering of the sulfur content of the
fuel oil used).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New Hampshire's additional modeling ``6-2012 Revised BART
Modeling Results--V2.pdf'' is available in the docket to this
rulemaking.
Table 1--Cost and Visibility Impacts Projected From Implementation of SO2 Control Using the Revised NHDES Visibility Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased cost/hr $/ton SO2 reduced Cumulative
---------------------------------------------------------------- Visibility visibility
% Sulfur improvement at improvement
Low High Low High acadia (dv) (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2% to 1%................................................ $0.00 $2,993 0 $1,030 0.4 0.79
2% to 0.7%.............................................. 1,346 4,712 402 1,407 .............. ..............
2% to 0.5%.............................................. 2,020 6,059 528 1,583 0.62 1.21
2% to 0.3%.............................................. 2,693 11,445 627 2,664 0.70 1.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When using the 20% worst natural visibility days, the days in which
the BART unit NT1 actually impacts the visibility in the nearby Class I
areas, the visibility improvement between the selected level of
SO2 control (lowering the SO2 emission limit to
the equivalent of requiring 0.5% sulfur fuel oil) and the more
stringent level of SO2 control (lowering the SO2
emission limit to the equivalent of requiring 0.3% sulfur fuel oil) is
0.06 dv (0.11 dv cumulative).\2\ The corresponding visibility
improvement using the 20% best natural visibility days is 0.08 dv (0.16
dv cumulative). Thus, the NPS comment has been addressed. EPA finds
that the NHDES modeling is consistent with the methods recommended by
MANE-VU and the FLMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See EPA's NPR on New Hampshire SIP revision, 77 FR 11809,
for the visibility impact using the 20% worst natural visibility
background conditions for the Newington Station NT1 BART
SO2 analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Sierra Club referenced EPA's proposal to approve the New
Hampshire determination that BART for Merrimack is wet scrubbers and a
90% reduction in SO2 emissions, based on ``[c]urrent permit
conditions.'' Sierra Club asserted that while it is correct that wet
scrubbers are BART for Merrimack, the SIP sets far too lax an emission
standard for SO2. Sierra Club also referenced the BART
analysis for Merrimack Station which notes that SO2 removal
efficiencies for wet scrubbers in general range up to 97%, and for
``new Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems * * * the presumptive norm
is 95 percent reduction of SO2 emissions.'' Similarly, MANE-
VU analysis ``recommends [a] limit of 95% reduction in SO2
emissions.''
Furthermore, Sierra Club included a progress report developed by
the operator of Merrimack, which states that the newly-installed
scrubbers are actually removing far more than 90% of the SO2
from the plant's exhaust stream. In the report, PSNH notes that the
scrubbers are demonstrating ``exceptional success'' and that ``[s]ulfur
dioxide removal from boiler flue-gas is approximately 96-98%.'' See
Public Service Company of New Hampshire Merrimack Station Scrubber
Project Progress Report (March 22, 2012).\3\ Sierra Club concludes that
there is no justification for the SIP's determination that BART for
Merrimack consists of a mere 90% reduction in SO2 emissions,
when the presumptive standard would involve releasing half as much
SO2, and the facility is already claiming to emit less than
a third as much. Sierra Club recommends that BART for Merrimack Station
MK2 should involve at least a 97% SO2 reduction rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This document is available in the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The installation of the wet scrubber is the result of
state legislation requiring the reduction of mercury emissions from
Merrimack Station Units MK1 and MK2.\4\ The wet scrubber has the co-
benefit of reducing SO2 emissions, a visibility impairing
pollutant. The wet scrubber has been configured to maximize the mercury
emission reduction. It was not known at the time of the BART
determination what the SO2 control efficiency would be under
the current configuration. Current permit conditions require the
facility to submit calendar monthly emission rates for the preceding 12
months by December 31, 2014. At that time, New Hampshire will determine
the maximum sustainable rate of control. As specified by permit
conditions, in no case may this rate be less than 90% control. As
supported by preliminary reports, it is expected that the scrubber will
provide greater than 90% SO2 control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program, NH RSA 125-O:11-
18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the MK2 BART determination, NHDES considered the existing
control, the wet scrubber which is calibrated for the removal of
mercury. NHDES selected an approach that reasonably balances mercury
removal with a sustainable level of SO2 removal. EPA finds
that the approach to setting BART level of controls for MK2 taken by
New Hampshire is reasonable.
Comment: The Sierra Club noted that, since the BART analysis for
Merrimack was based in part on Merrimack's actual historical capacity
factors, any increase in Merrimack's capacity factor will
[[Page 50604]]
result in increased emissions and negative impacts on visibility in
ways that the SIP will fail to address. According to Sierra Club, the
SIP should therefore be amended to restrict Merrimack's emissions not
only on a basis of pollutants-per-MMBtu, but also through reference to
Merrimack's actual historical level of operation. Put another way,
Sierra Club suggested that the SIP must be revised to restrict
Merrimack's operation to the capacity factors relied upon in the BART
analysis.
Response: According to the BART Guidelines,\5\ 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. See BART Guidelines Section D. Step 4.d (70 FR 39156, 39167,
July 6, 2005). The utilization and parameters used in the BART analysis
for Merrimack are consistent with baseline conditions and past
practices, therefore the parameters used, including capacity factor,
are not required to be enforceable. On the point of requiring a lb/
MMBtu limit instead of a percent control efficiency limit, the BART
guidelines list the presumptive levels in units of lb/MMBtu or a
percent reduction, and thus we are approving the State's approach of
percent control as being consistent with the guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPS commented that NHDES should have considered Advanced
Separated Overfire Air (ASOFA) as an oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) control option for Merrimack Station MK2 in addition
to the existing SCR. NPS asserted that the addition of ASOFA would
result in a NOX rate of 0.24 lb/MMBtu instead of the
proposed 0.30 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average. NPS indicated that a 25%
NOX reduction would provide 0.5 cumulative deciview of
visibility improvement at Acadia National Park, Great Gulf Wilderness
Area, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area. NPS reviewed four other coal/
lignite-fired cyclone boilers (Kincaid in IL and Leland Olds 2
and Milton R. Young 1 & 2 in ND) that are subject to
BART. NPS noted that the Kincaid electrical generating unit (EGU) is
already equipped with overfire air (and SCR), and the three cyclone
boilers in ND will install ASOFA and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) as BART. NPS cited the estimated NOX emission
reductions from the installation of ASOFA for Leland Olds 2
(LOS2), Milton R. Young 1 (MRY1) and Milton R. Young
2 (MRY2) as 28%, 39.5%, and 37.7%, respectively.
Response: Merrimack Station Unit MK2 is a 320 mega-watt (MW) coal-
fired cyclone boiler. MK2 fires bituminous coal rather than lignite
used in the units discussed by NPS. Bituminous coal ash becomes fluid
at a higher temperature than lignite coal ash. This means that a higher
combustion temperature is needed in bituminous coal boilers to ensure
coal ash remains fluid and is properly removed from the boiler.
Improper removal of coal ash can cause the boiler to plug with coal
ash, shutting down combustion or creating unsafe operating conditions,
and requiring maintenance for coal ash removal.
The installation of ASOFA would lower the combustion temperature
and degrade the performance of the boiler. Due to the different
properties of the fuels used, EPA does not agree that Merrimack Station
Unit MK2 would achieve the same NOX emission reduction from
ASOFA as estimated for the cited units.
In addition, the North Dakota units lacked any NOX
control in the BART baseline, therefore the expected visibility
improvement at the highest impacted Class I area due to installation of
BART control is 2.9 dv for MRY1, 3.379 dv for MRY2, and 3.9 dv for
LOS2. See 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 2011). By comparison, Merrimack
Station MK2 has an existing SCR. The greatest expected visibility
improvement from the installation of ASOFA at MK2, using the NPS
estimate of 25% reduction in NOX, would be 0.2 dv at Acadia,
0.2 dv at Great Gulf, and 0.1 dv at Lye Brook. It is unlikely that the
projected visibility improvement at these Class I areas would be cost-
effective considering the cost of installation of ASOFA, the potential
for degraded performance, and the increase in maintenance costs. EPA
finds that the NHDES determination that SCR represents BART for
Merrimack Station Unit MK2 is reasonable.
Comment: NPS commented that the emission limit for the
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) should reflect the actual
capabilities of the units, 0.019 lb total suspended particulate
(``TSP'') per MMBtu instead of the proposed limit of 0.08 lb TSP/MMBtu.
Response: The BART Guidelines state ``emission limits must be
enforceable as a practical matter.'' The MANE-VU recommended
particulate matter (PM) limit for non-CAIR EGUs, such as MK2, is 0.02-
0.04 lb/MMBtu.\6\ NHDES decided to provide some level of flexibility to
Merrimack Station which has a source subject to BART (MK2) and a source
not subject to BART (MK1). MK2 and MK1 will share a stack with the
installation of the new FGD. If only MK1 operated, the emission limit
required by New Hampshire would represent a decrease of 70.4% from the
MK1 emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu. At worst, when only MK2 is
operating, the emission limit represents a decrease of 64.8% from the
currently permitted limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu. The emission limit chosen
by New Hampshire also results in a lower emission rate from the
combined units than if New Hampshire had only required MK2 to meet the
limit suggested by MANE-VU.\7\ Therefore New Hampshire's proposed BART
control limit for PM is consistent with the MANE-VU recommended
emission limit while providing flexibility to operate a shared stack.
Considering the current controls on emissions from Merrimack Station--
two ESPs in series--as well as the reductions guaranteed by New
Hampshire's limits, EPA finds that NHDES was reasonable in establishing
the TSP emission limit for MK2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The MANE-VU Workgroup Recommended level of BART control can
be found in Attachment W--``MANE-VU Five-Factor Analysis of BART
eligible Sources'' of the New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP submittal
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
\7\ For the ``bubble,'' the combined emission rate if both units
are operating is 377 lb/hr:
0.08 lb/MMBtu x 4,711 MMBtu/hr = 377 lb/hr.
Without the ``bubble,'' the sum of the individual emission rates
applying MANE-VU's presumptive PM emission limit of 0.04 lb/MMBtu
would be 473 lb/hr:
(0.04 lb/MMBtu x 3,473 MMBtu/hr) + (0.27 lb/MMBtu x 1,238 MMBtu/
hr) = 473 lb/hr.
New Hampshire's approach therefore results in a decrease of
almost 100 lb/hr beyond what application of the MANE-VU suggested
limit would require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The Sierra Club commented that the New Hampshire haze SIP
proposes that an emission limit of 0.08 lbs TSP/MMBtu comports with
BART. However, the Sierra Club indicated that this limit is much higher
than what is achievable by the PM controls at Merrimack and with BART.
The Sierra Club cited the MANE-VU analysis which recommends a
``particulate matter limit of 0.02-0.04 lb/MMBtu'' for Merrimack unit
MK2. Similarly, the Merrimack BART Analysis noted that stack tests for
Merrimack have recorded actual PM
[[Page 50605]]
emissions of as low as 0.021 lbs TSP/MMBtu. The Sierra Club concluded
that this would support a determination that an appropriate BART limit
for Merrimack would be 0.02 lbs TSP/MMBtu. However, the SIP proposes an
emission limit of 0.08 lbs TSP/MMBtu for both units which would result
in emissions ``less than the total allowable TSP emissions * * * in
which a limit for Unit MK2 were revised to 0.04 lb/MMBtu and the limit
for Unit MK1 remained unchanged.'' The Sierra Club acknowledged that
while salutary--and potentially necessary to ensure that New Hampshire
meets its reasonable progress goals--the Sierra Club does not think the
implementation of a limit for unit MK1 has any bearing on what BART-
derived limit is consistent with what is ``achievable through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction'' for
MK2. Sierra Club stated that New Hampshire may not quadruple the
emissions from a BART-eligible unit and call it BART just because it
also proposes to limit emissions from another source elsewhere. The
limits applicable to MK2 are derived from what may be achieved from the
best available retrofit technology. Here, that technology supports an
emissions limit of 0.02 lbs TSP/MMBtu; Sierra Club indicated that this
limit, and not 0.08 lbs TSP/MMBtu, should be set as BART in the SIP. In
addition, to ensure that particulate matter emission reductions are
being achieved, the Sierra Club commented that the SIP should require
continuous emissions monitoring for particulate matter.
Response: With the installation of the FGD, MK1 and MK2 share a
common stack and the EPA finds that NHDES has acted reasonably in
setting an emission limit that accounts for, and reduces, emissions
from both units. The permit conditions require stack testing post
emission controls, and therefore the TSP emissions from MK1 must be
considered when developing the TSP emission limit for MK2. Sierra Club
has incorrectly characterized New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP as
allowing emissions from a BART-eligible unit to quadruple. As noted in
the response above, even under the worst case scenario where only MK2
is operating, New Hampshire's approach results in a decrease of
approximately 65% TSP. Assuming dual operation of MK1 and MK2, New
Hampshire's approach results in nearly 100 lb TSP/hr less than the
limit MANE-VU, and Sierra Club, recommend.
As to the Sierra Club suggestion of requiring a CEM for particulate
matter, current federally enforceable permit conditions require the
continuous operation of the existing ESPs. While emission limits must
be enforceable as a practical matter, the BART Guidelines clearly state
that continuous emission monitors (CEMs) are not required in every
instance. See 70 FR 39172, July 6, 2005. Moreover, the BART Guidelines
recognize that monitoring requirements are in many instances governed
by other regulations, such as compliance assurance monitoring.
EPA reiterates that New Hampshire has reasonably developed a
control level of MK2 that provides for significant emissions reductions
and operational flexibility.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sierra Club also commented that EPA should ``address all
particulate matter, not just TSP.'' Total suspended particulates, or
TSP, is the measure of total particulate matter, regardless of size,
and therefore accounts for all particulate matter emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Sierra Club commented that the SIP does not explicitly
include requirements for continuous operation of either the PM or
SO2 controls.
Response: With respect to SO2 controls, the operating
permit submitted as part of the New Hampshire haze SIP states,
``Beginning on July 1, 2013, the Owner shall not operate MK2 unless
MK2-PC7 (the scrubber) is in operation.'' \9\ EPA proposed to approve
this permit and incorporate it into the SIP on Feb 28, 2012. See 77 FR
11809. EPA is approving this permit in today's action. With respect to
PM controls, as discussed in the previous response, the existing
federally enforceable Title V permit requires continuous ESP operation
to meet permit limits.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Public Service of New Hampshire Merrimack Station
Temporary Permit TP-0008 Table 4, Item 7. This document is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
\10\ See Public Service of New Hampshire Merrimack Station Title
V Permit Table 5, Item 7, condition B. This document is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The Sierra Club observed that much of the New Hampshire
haze SIP is based on modeling and other determinations developed as
part of the MANE-VU regional planning organization analysis
incorporating pollution and visibility data from a wide range of states
and tribal entities. MANE-VU member state and tribal governments
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Sierra Club noted that implicit in the New Hampshire haze SIP is the
understanding that each individual entity within MANE-VU will achieve
the reductions specified for each jurisdiction. Accordingly, the limits
and goals for reasonable progress determined in the New Hampshire SIP
are based on the reductions in other jurisdictions being met.
Sierra Club asserted that not all MANE-VU jurisdictions are, in
fact, on target to meet their reductions. According to Sierra Club, to
the extent that the assumptions underpinning the reasonable progress
goals in the New Hampshire haze SIP are thereby impacted, the accuracy
of the analysis in the SIP should be re-examined.
Response: The EPA notes that the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires
States to determine what constitutes reasonable progress by, among
other things, consideration of the four statutory factors. The RHR
states that the determination of what constitutes reasonable progress
can only be made once the necessary technical analyses of emissions,
air quality, and the reasonable progress factors have been conducted.
See 64 FR 35721, July 1, 1999. The RHR states the following: ``Once a
State has adopted a reasonable progress goal and determined what
progress will be made toward that goal over a 10-year period, the goal
itself is not enforceable. All that is `enforceable' is the set of
control measures which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If the
State's strategies have been implemented but the State has not met its
reasonable progress goal, the State could either: (1) Revise its
strategies in the SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet
its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals for the next
implementation period. In either case, the State would be required to
base its decisions on appropriate analyses of the statutory factors
included in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the final rule.'' See
64 FR 35733, July 1, 1999.
Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), New Hampshire has committed to
submit to EPA a progress report, in the form of a SIP revision, every
five years following the initial submittal of the SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I area located within the State and in each mandatory
Class I area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State. At this time, New Hampshire will also
determine the adequacy of the existing implementation plan. See 40 CFR
51.308(h).
Sierra Club is correct to point out that implementation of the
regional haze program in one State is to a certain extent
interconnected with implementation in other States. However, requiring
constant revision to modeled emission levels prior to
[[Page 50606]]
implementation would create indecisiveness and gridlock and would stall
implementation of emissions reductions. EPA adopted the above mentioned
aspects of the Regional Haze Rule to allow adjustments of State
planning goals during, and at the end of, each planning period to
account for any discrepancies between projected and actual emissions
reductions both within the State and from other States. EPA disagrees
with Sierra Club and does not find that New Hampshire must reevaluate
the modeling in its SIP at the present time.
Comment: NPS commented that NHDES is not proposing emission
reductions sufficient to meet the MANE-VU ask. The FLMs disagree with
EPA's proposal to approve New Hampshire's plan and recommend the EPA
disapprove the New Hampshire plan because it does not meet the
reasonable progress goals set by New Hampshire.
Response: New Hampshire, in cooperation with the MANE-VU States,
developed the MANE-VU ``Ask'' that will provide for reasonable progress
towards achieving natural visibility at the MANE-VU Class I areas. The
``Ask'' consists of: (a) Timely implementation of BART requirements;
(b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from each of the
EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks; (c)
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d) continued
evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions. While New Hampshire is not adopting a low
sulfur fuel oil strategy as part of this submittal, it is expected that
the FGD for Merrimack Station MK1 and MK2 will provide greater than 90%
SO2 control. In addition, SO2 emissions in New
Hampshire have been reduced through the conversion of coal-fired Unit 5
at Schiller Station to a biomass-firing unit and the shutdown of Fraser
LLC pulp and paper mill.\11\ The reasonable progress goal developed by
New Hampshire, along with the other MANE-VU States is a goal and not in
of itself enforceable. As noted in the above response, New Hampshire
will have the opportunity to assess the reasonable progress goals and
the State's control strategies as part of the 5-year review. EPA
reiterates that the SO2 emission reductions included in the
New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP are comparable to reductions from the
MANE-VU ``Ask'' and will be sufficient to assure progress toward the
natural visibility goal for the New Hampshire Class I areas for the
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The annual 2002 SO2 emissions from Schiller
Station Unit 5 and Fraser LLC were 2,796 tons and 638 tons,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The Sierra Club commented that the MANE-VU four factor
analysis for reasonable progress determined that ``reductions in
SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in the MANE-VU
region, more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant.'' See 77 FR
11816, February 28, 2012. MANE-VU thus recommended a 90% reduction in
SO2 emissions from EGU emissions points. The Sierra Club
indicated that PSNH Schiller Station in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is
one of the largest sources of SO2 pollution in New
Hampshire, emitting 3,549 tons of SO2 in 2009 and 1,706 tons
in 2010, according to EPA's Clean Air Markets Database. The Sierra Club
also stated that in recent years, Schiller is emitting SO2
at levels below historical norms for operation of the facility and
credited this emission reduction to the recent economic downturn.
Sierra Club continued that while this emission reduction results in
less haze-causing air pollution in New Hampshire, the temporary
emissions reductions owing to the economic downturn and attendant
diminished output capacity at Schiller will not be permanent. Thus,
Sierra Club concluded that if these capacities are relied upon in
reasonable progress determinations for the New Hampshire Class I areas,
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. This is critical
given the historic fluctuations in emission levels at Schiller.
Sierra Club also stated that to the extent that the decreased
SO2 emissions are due to Schiller's conversion of one of its
coal-fired boilers to burn biomass, these reductions should be made
enforceable by requiring that Schiller not burn any coal in that
boiler. Otherwise, should economic conditions change or Schiller's
operator change its mind about what it would like to burn in that
boiler, the visibility gains factored into the SIP's reasonable
progress planning would be jeopardized.
Response: As noted above, the ``Ask'' calls for a 90% reduction in
SO2 emissions from the top 167 impacting electrical
generating units (EGUs). MANE-VU modeling did not indicate that units
at Schiller Station were amongst the highest contributors to visibility
impairment at any nearby Class I area.\12\ The modeling was conducted
using 2002 emissions, prior to any economic downturn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a list of the 167 highest visibility impacting EGUs,
see Attachment Y of the New Hampshire Regional Haze submittal,
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated by Sierra Club, in 2006, Public Service of New
Hampshire converted one of the three 50 MW units from coal burning to
biomass burning. The permit modification to convert to biomass burning
was undertaken through the federally approved permit process and any
modification that increases emissions above the applicable level would
require a federally approved permit. EPA relied upon this conversion to
biomass, and the related emissions reductions, and not on any decreased
utilization of other units at Schiller in evaluating New Hampshire's
plans to achieve reasonable progress.
Comment: NPS observed that EPA states in the NPR: ``New Hampshire
relied on emission reductions from a number of ongoing and expected air
pollution control programs as part of the State's long term strategy.
For electrical generating units (EGUs), New Hampshire's Regulation
Chapter Env-A 3200, NOX Budget Trading Program limits ozone
season NOX emissions on all fossil-fuel fired EGUs greater
than 15 MW located in Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and
Strafford Counties to 0.15 lb/MMBtu. However, a unit can meet this
limit via NOX credits.''
The NPS commented that Clean Air Markets data indicates that MK1 is
not meeting the 0.15 lb/MMBtu target. NPS noted that since New
Hampshire is not included in the NOX State Implementation
Plan Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule, the NPS is not aware of any NOX trading
approach that NHDES is relying on to meet the 0.15 lb/MMBtu target. In
the absence of any discussion by NHDES or EPA regarding additional
control of emissions from MK1, the NPS can only state that a four-
factor reasonable progress analysis is required, and NPS believes it is
likely that they would have similar comments regarding SO2
and NOX emissions from MK1 as they do for MK2.
Response: NHDES and MANE-VU undertook a four factor analysis for
reasonable progress. MANE-VU identified SO2 as the main
contributor to visibility impairment for this first planning period.
The result of the four factor analysis was the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' As part
of the MANE-VU ``Ask,'' New Hampshire agreed to require MK1
[[Page 50607]]
to reduce SO2 emissions by 90%. The operating permit
submitted as part of the New Hampshire SIP requires MK1 to meet at
least 90% reduction with the installation of the wet scrubber.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See PSNH Merrimack Station Temporary Permit TP-008 Table 4,
Item 8, condition a. This document is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS is correct that New Hampshire is not part of the NOX
State Implementation Plan Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule. However, New Hampshire was included in
the earlier NOX Budget Program that was developed via a
Memorandum of Understanding of the Ozone Transport Commission. See 65
FR 68078 (March 9, 2000). Since New Hampshire was not included in the
subsequent trading programs, New Hampshire's program is for all intents
and purposes an intrastate NOX credit trading program. The
New Hampshire NOX Budget program requires MK1 to meet an
ozone season emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu or 75% NOX
control from the 1990 baseline, whichever is less stringent. NPS is
correct in that MK1 is not meeting an ozone season emission limit of
0.15 lb/MMBtu, but is meeting 75% NOX control from the 1990
baseline.
In addition to the ozone season NOX Budget Program, MK1
is subject to the NOX Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology (RACT) program. Pursuant to RACT Order ARD-97-001 issued in
accordance with New Hampshire's Env-A 1211 which was approved into the
SIP on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48033), MK1 is required to meet 18.1 tons
NOX per 24-hour calendar day when MK2 is not in full
operation and 29.1 tons per calendar day when combined with MK2.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving New Hampshire's January 29, 2010 SIP revision and
supplemental submittals on January 14, 2011 and August 26, 2011, as
meeting the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308.
EPA is also approving, and incorporating into the New Hampshire SIP,
New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze and
PSNH Merrimack Station Temporary Permit TP-0008 Flue Gas
Desulfurization System dated March 9, 2009, and reissued August 2,
2010, and July 8, 2011.
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 October 22, 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: July 12, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
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 EE--New Hampshire
0
2. Section 52.1520 is amended by adding a new entry to the Table in
paragraph (c) in alphanumeric order, and by adding new entries to the
end of the Tables in paragraphs (d) and (e), to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) EPA approved regulations.
[[Page 50608]]
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date \1\ Explanations
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Env-A 2300......................... Mitigation of Regional 1/8/11 8/22/12 [Insert ..............
Haze. Federal Register page
number where the
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in the table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements.
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Name of source Permit No. State EPA approval date \2\ explanations/Sec.
effective date 52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
PSNH Merrimack Station............ TP-0008 7/8/2011 8/22/2012 [Insert Flue Gas
Federal Register Desulfurization
page number where System.
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) Nonregulatory.
New Hampshire Nonregulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State submittal EPA approved date Explanations
provision nonattainment area date/effective date \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Statewide.......... 1/29/2010; 8/22/2012 [Insert ..............
and its supplements. supplements Federal Register
submitted; 1/14/ page number where
2011, 8/26/2011. 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 prov
[FR Doc. 2012-20271 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P