50602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the Providence moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20390 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50603 

1New Hampshire’s additional modeling ‘‘6–2012 

Revised BART Modeling Results—V2.pdf’’ is 

available in the docket to this rulemaking. 

2See 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. 

3This document is available in the docket to this 

rulemaking. 

4See Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program, NH 

RSA 125–O:11–18. 

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). 

TABLE 1—COST AND VISIBILITY IMPACTS PROJECTED FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF SO2 CONTROL USING THE REVISED

NHDES VISIBILITY MODELING

% Sulfur 

Increased cost/hr $/ton SO2 reduced Visibility 

improvement 

at acadia 

(dv) 

Cumulative 

visibility 

improvement 

(dv) Low High Low High 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

5 Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 

51. 

6The 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. 

7For the ‘‘bubble,’’ the combined emission rate if 

both units are operating is 377 lb/hr: 

0.08 lb/MMBtu × 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 × 3,473 MMBtu/hr) + (0.27 lb/ 

MMBtu × 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50605 

8Sierra 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. 

9See 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. 

10See 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. 

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 BARTderived 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 BARTeligible 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

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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50606 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

11The annual 2002 SO2 emissions from Schiller 

Station Unit 5 and Fraser LLC were 2,796 tons and 

638 tons, respectively. 

12For 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. 

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. 

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 hazecausing 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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50607 

13See PSNH Merrimack Station Temporary 

Permit TP–008 Table 4, Item 8, condition a. This 

document is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

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

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 EnvA 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] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 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: 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) EPA approved regulations. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50608 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

Env-A 2300 .............................. Mitigation of Regional Haze .... 1/8/11 8/22/12 [Insert 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

Name of source Permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date 2 Additional explanations/ § 52.1535 citation 

*******

PSNH Merrimack Station ........ TP–0008 7/8/2011 8/22/2012 [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the document begins].

Flue Gas Desulfurization System. 

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

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/effective 

date EPA approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

New Hampshire Regional Haze 

SIP and its supplements.

Statewide ......................... 1/29/2010; supplements submitted; 1/14/2011, 8/26/2011.8/22/2012 [Insert Federal Register page number where 

the document begins].

........................

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20271 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0620; A–1–FRL– 

9719–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire on January 28, 2005. 

Specifically, EPA is approving a 

revision to New Hampshire’s regulation 

Env-A 2703.02 for hot mix asphalt 

plants. This rule establishes and 

requires limitations on visible emissions 

from all hot mix asphalt plants. This 

revision is consistent with the 

maintenance of all National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in New 

Hampshire. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 22, 2012, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 21, 2012. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012–0620 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0620’’, 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES