[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