## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page 3 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# FIGURE 1. Proposed Central New Ha mpshire 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area

Central New Hampshire 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area

SO2 Monitor Exceeding 1-Hour NAAQS SO2 Monitor Meeting the 1-Hour NAAQS 

# New Hampshire

Pe lham H uds on Na s hua Holli s B rook line M as on Ne w Ips wic h R indge W indha m Sal em A tk inson Ne wton Sout h Ha mpt on Se abrook Hampton North Ha mpton Ry e Port s mout h Ne w C as tle

Ha mpst ea d D erry San dow n Da n Vill e Ki ngs

t on Ea st Kings ton Ke ns

ington

Ha mp ton Fall s Exe te r St ra t ham B re nt W oo d Fre mont

Epping New mark et New fi elds G ree n la nd N ew ing ton Durha m Madbury Dov er

R ol lingsf ord Sommers worth R oc hes te r

Ba rri ngt on

Milt on

Fa rmi ngt on

Straf ford

N ott ingha m Lee Nort hwood

De erfi eld

Ra ymond Ca ndi a

Auburn Ches te r

London D erry M anc he st er H ook se t Concord

A lle ns t own Bow Pe mbrok e H opk inton

W ea re

Goff st own

B edford

A mhe rst Me rrima ck
Lit chf iel d Ne w Bos ton

Lynde borough Mt. Ve rnon

Mi lford Wilt on Te mple Dunba rton

Fit zw illi am Ri chmound W inches te r Hins da le

Ches te rfie ld

Wes t more land Ke ene

Sw anz ey Troy Ja ff re y Dublin Marl borough Rox bury Harris vil le
Peter borough

Sha ron

G ree nl and Fra nce s town Ha nnoc k Be nning ton De ering Ant ri m Stodda rd

Ne lson Sulliv an Gils um Surry Wal pole Ac worth Le mpst er

Langdon Charle s town

A lst ea d M arlow Was hingt on Hill sborough He nnik er Bradf ord Wa rne r N ew bury G os hen Unity C laremont

Corni sh

Pl antf ie ld

Lebanon

H anove r Enfie ld

Enf ie ld

Grant ha m
Croydon

Ne wport Sunape e Springf ie ld G ra ft on

Orange

Da nbury Ale xa ndria

Wil mot

N ew London

Sutt on Sali bury Andove r H ill

Bris tol H ebron B ri dge w at er Ne w Ha mpt on M eredit h

Sanbornton

Frank lin
Northfi eld

W ebst er C ant erbury Loudon

Eps om Pi tt sfiel d G ilma nton B el mont Til ton Lac onia Gi lford

Alton

Ba rns te ad Ne w Durham

Brook fie ld

Middl e tow n W ak ef iel d W ol fboro M oul ton borough Tuft onboro O ss ipee Ly me

Orford

Pie rmont

H av erhill Ba th

Warren B enton

Went worth

Dorches te r G rot on R umne y

Ells worth

W ood st o ck Linc oln Ea st on Landa ff Monroe Ly man Lisbon Suga r Hil l Franconia Bet hlehe m Little ton Ca rroll

Li vermore

Wa te rv ille Val ley Thornton

C ampton

Ply mout h Holde rne ss

As hl and Sa ndw ic h

H ebron A lbany

Ta mworth Fre edom

Eff ingha m Conwa y

Ma di son Eat on He bron

Ja ck son Cha tha m Be ans Purc has e Sargents Purc ha se Craw fords Purc has e Low&B urbank s Gra nt

Bea ns Grant Ma rtins Loc. Gre ens Grant Pink hams G ra nt

Ha les Loc at ion Dal ton White fi eld Je ffers on La nc as te r North Umbe rl and K ilk enny

R andol ph Be rlin

Gorham Shelburne Suc es s Mi lan Sta rk Stra tford

C ol umbia

C ol ebrook Ste wa rts town

Di xv ille

Mill sfield Ode ll

Dummer Ca mbridge Errol Went worths Location

Sec ond Colle ge Grant D ixs G rant A tk inson & Gil manton

A ca demy Gra nt Cl arks vi lle Pit tburg

Ervings Loc at ion

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page 4 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011

# ATTACHMENT A
TECHNICAL ATTACHMENT Rationale for New Hampshire’s 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area Boundaries

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-1 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# Rationale for New Hampshire’s 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area Boundaries

The recommendations contained in this letter are fully compliant with Section 107(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) which defines a nona ttainment area as any area that (1) does not meet a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”), or (2) contributes to ambient NAAQS violations in a nearby area. The New Hampshire recommended nonattainment area boundaries fulfill these requirements and exercise s the flexibility allowed in the guidance, including considerati on of: existing air quality, emissi on patterns, prevailing meteorology, topography and terrain, and jurisdic tional boundaries. To a limited degree, airflow trajectories were also considered. The starting point of attainme nt area boundary designations is the examination of existing monitoring data. Table A1 contains the most re cent 4 years of quality assured monitoring data for 1-hour average SO 2 

# in New Hampshire. The locations of these monitors are marked in Figure 1 (above) and Figure A1 (below). 

# TABLE A1. Estimated 2007 – 2010 1-Hour SO 2 

# Design Values by Monitor, in parts per billion (ppb) Location Monitor ID 2007 98 th 

### Percentile 

## 2008 98 th 

### Percentile 

## 2009 98 th 

### Percentile 

## 2010 98 th 

### Percentile 

## 2007- 2009 Design Value 2008- 2010 Design Value SO 2 

## NAAQS

( 

# ppb )

Concord 

## 33-013-1007



## -- -- -- 

# 46

-- 46 75 Manchester 

## 33-011-0020 

# 58 48 50 57 52.0 51.7 75 Pembroke 

## 33-013-1006 

## 165 141 222 

# 217 176.0 193.3 75 Portsmouth 

## 33-015-0014 

# 59 62 42 45 54.3 49.7 75 State Maximum 

# -- 165 141 222 217 176.0 193.3 75


# All but one of the New Hampshire SO 2 

# monitors indicate attainment of the new SO 2 

# NAAQS. Monitors located in Manchester and Portsmouth ha ve recent 3-year design values of about twothirds the level of the new NAAQS. A monitor lo cated in Concord does not have 3 years’ worth of data, or even a full single year of data, but the 98 th 

# percentile of the da ta that does exist suggests that the monitor is likely to also meet the level of the new NAAQS. Only the Pembroke monitor fails to meet the level of the new SO 2 

# NAAQS. This monitor is located about 0.4 miles to the southeast of a coal-fired power plant and is strategically located to capture the power plant’s worst-case air pollution impacts. The power plant, Merrimack Station, is subject to a state air pollution law that requires the installation of a sc rubber system for the reductio n of mercury emissions and SO 2 

# emissions (as part of a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement in the New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP). This scrubber system is unde r construction and is reportedly ahead of its construction schedule. Since the existing stacks for the station are relatively short, there is relatively poor dispersion of air pollutants. Part of the pollution cont rol project includes

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-2 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# FIGURE A1. Presumptive Norm – Merrimack County Boundary

SO2 Monitor Exceeding 1-Hour NAAQS SO2 Monitor Meeting the 1-Hour NAAQS



# New Hampshire

SO2 Monitors (2008-2010)

Merrimack County

Pe lham H uds on Na s hua Holli s B rook line Mas on Ne w Ips wic h R in dge W indha m Sal em A tk in son Ne wton Sout h Ha mpt on Se abrook Hampton North Ha mpton Ry e Port s mout h Ne w C as tle

Ha mpst ea d D erry San dow n Da n Vill e Ki ngs

t on Ea st Kings ton Ke ns

ington

Ha mp ton Fall s Exe te r St ra t

ham B re nt W ood Fre mont

Epping New mark et New fi elds G ree n la nd N ew ing ton Durha m Madbury Dov er

R ol lingsf ord Sommers worth R oc hes te r

Ba rri ngton

Milt on

Fa rmi ngt on

Straf ford

N ott ingh a m Lee Nort hwood

De erfi eld

Ra ymond Ca ndi a

Auburn Ches te r

London D erry Manc he ster H oo k se t Concord

A lle ns t own Bow Pe mbrok e H opk into n

W ea re

Goffstown

B ed ford

A mhe rst M e rrima ck
Lit chf iel d Ne w Bos ton

Lynde borough Mt. Ve rnon

Mi lford Wilton Te mple Dunba rton

Fit zw illi am Ri chmound W inches te r Hins da le

Ches te rfie ld

Wes t more land Ke ene

Sw anz ey Troy Ja ffre y Dublin Ma rl borough Rox bury Harris vil le
Pet er borough

Sha ron

G ree nl and Fra nce s town Ha nnoc k Be nning ton De ering Ant ri m Stodda rd

Ne lson Sulliv an Gils um Surry Wal pole Ac worth Le mpst er

Langdon Charle s town

A lst ea d Marlow Was hingt on Hill sborough He nnik er Bradford Wa rne r N ew bury G os hen Unity C laremo nt

Corni sh

Pl antfie ld

Le banon

H anove r Enfie ld

Enf ie ld

Grantha m
Croydon

Ne wport Sunape e Springf ie ld G ra ft on

Orange

Da nbury Ale xa ndria

Wil mot

N ew London

Sutt on Sali bury Andove r

H ill

Bris tol H ebron B ri dge w at er Ne w Ha mpton Meredit h

Sanbornton

Frank lin
Northfi eld

W eb st er C an t erbury Loudon

Eps om Pi tt sf iel d G ilma nton B el mon t Til ton Lac onia Gi lford

Alt on

Ba rns te ad Ne w Durham

Brook fie ld

M iddl e tow n W ak ef iel d W ol fb oro M oul ton borough Tuft onboro O ss ipee Ly me Orford Pie rmont

H av erhill Ba th

Warren B ento n

Went worth

Dorches te r G rot on R umne y

Ells worth

W oodst ock Linc oln Ea st on Landa ff Monroe Ly man Lisbon Suga r Hil l Franconia Bet hlehe m Little ton Ca rroll

Li ve rmore

Wa te rv ille Val ley Thornton

C ampton

Ply mout h Holde rne ss

As hl and Sa ndw ic h

H ebro n A lb any

Ta mworth Fre edom

Eff ingha m Conwa y

M a di son Eat on He bron

Ja ck son Cha tha m Be ans Purc has e Sargents Purc ha se Craw fords Purc has e Low&B urbank s Gra nt

Bea ns Grant Ma rtins Loc . Gre ens Grant Pink hams G ra nt

Ha les Loc at ion Dal ton White fi eld Je ffers on La nc as te r North Umbe rl and K ilk en ny

R an dol ph Be rlin

Gorham Shelburne Suc es s Mi lan Sta rk Stra tford

C ol umbia

C ol eb roo k Ste wa rts town

Di xv ille

Mill sfield Ode ll

Dummer Ca mbridge Errol Went worths Loc ation

Sec ond Colle ge Grant D ixs G rant A tk in son & Gil man ton

A ca demy Gra nt Cl arks vi lle Pit tburg

Ervings Loc at ion

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-3 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# construction of a new Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack for optimal dispersion. Stacks shorter than GEP allow for po llutant downwash, which brings air pollution down to the ground near the stack. The elimination of down wash combined with the benefits of SO 2 

# emission reductions from the scrubber system s hould greatly diminish power plant SO 2 

# impacts in the vicinity of the Pembroke monitor as soon as the new control system is operational. Once operation of this new system is required and a modeling demonstration shows compliance, the existing monitoring data for the Pembroke mon itor showing nonattainment will be out of date and no longer representative of conditions in th e vicinity of the power plant. EPA guidance suggests that if either mon itoring data or dispersion mode ling exceeds the NAAQS, the area should be defined as nonattainment. NHDES sugge sts that once the opera tion of the scrubber system becomes enforceable, the value of the modeling data should supersede the monitoring data. 

# Evaluation of the Degree of No nattainment in New Hampshire During pre-designation discussions between NHDES and EPA, EPA expressed concern that if New Hampshire followed the presumptive nor m (county boundaries), portions of nearby counties may be excluded from the nonattainment ar ea when there is likelihood that these areas could exceed the new SO 2 

# NAAQS. Conversely, the presumptive norm boundaries would include the remote western portion of Merr imack County, which has a low likelihood of exceeding the SO 2 

# standard. NHDES agrees that the presumptive norm boundary would present a nonattainment boundary that is off-centered and pr obably not a realistic estimate of estimated areas of concern. Through th e flexibility allowed under the designation guidance, NHDES is providing the following information in order to improve on the presumptive norm boundaries and provide a more real istic estimate of SO 2 

# nonattainment area boundaries. The discussion that follows is consistent with the five factors specified in Section 107(d) (1)(A) provisions of the Clean Air Act, and considers benefits lik ely to be achieved for the requirements. Five Factors for Evaluating Designation Boundaries 1. Air Quality data 2. Emissions-related data 3. Geography and topography 4. Meteorology and transport patterns 5. Jurisdictional boundaries (counties, existing nonattainment area boundaries, MPOs, etc.) 

# Central New Hampshire Nonatt ainment Area Discussion 1. Air Quality Data New Hampshire’s analyses starts with the iden tification of the EPA presumptive norm area for the county containing the Pembroke monitor (see Figure A1 above). The Pembroke monitor is indicated as a red dot while th e Manchester and Portsmouth mon itors, which are both meeting the new NAAQS are identified as green dots.

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-4 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011


# 2. Emissions Related Data Sulfur Dioxide emissions generally come from bu rning fossil fuels containing sulfur. Sulfur-rich fuels generally produce higher SO 2 

# emissions. Fuels rich in sulfur include coal and oil compounds, but in each case the su lfur content varies depending on source and fuel processing or refining. In New Hampshire, the use of truly high sulfur coal or oil is rare. The sulfur content of fuel oils is on the decline and likely to continue decreasing in the future in order to continue progress towards air pollution and re gional haze goals. For the most part, the sulfur content of fuel oil is not important to a unit that burns it. There is generally a higher cost for the fuel oil which can be off-set by lower cleaning to maintenance costs for maintaining optimal performance. On the other hand, the sulfur c ontent of coal can matter to th e unit combusting it, so simply requiring the use of low-sulfur coal to produce SO 2 

# emission reductions may not be a viable control strategy. The point here is that a quick fuel switch may not always be a workable strategy. In the case of the pow er plant near the Pembroke m onitor, coal switching to lower sulfur coals is unlikely to be a viable quick solution since many coals don’t burn efficiently in the boilers. Instead, the power plant is construc ting a scrubber system to control its emissions, and that work is nearing completion. Since th e plant currently burns a mix of low- and midsulfur coal, emissions of SO 2 

# are lower than they could be, but the power plant is still a significant source of SO 2 

# . While there are other sources of SO 2 

# in the area, they are consistent with emission levels throughout most of the rema inder of the state, including areas near the Manchester and Portsmouth monitors which ar e both measuring levels well below the new SO 2 

# NAAQS. There is no reason to believe that the Pembroke monitor would exceed the new SO 2 

# NAAQS without the nearby proximi ty of Merrimack Station. 3. Geography and Topography
The SO 2 

# monitor located in Pembroke is located n ear the Merrimack River, which roughly runs from the north-northwest to the south-southeast in the area. The prevailing winds in the Pembroke area tend to flow in either direc tion up or down stream, following the river valley (Figure A2). For the most part, the land is ro lling and hills reaching 1000 feet above sea level rise in almost every direction from the monitor. 4. Meteorology and Transport Patterns Following the logic that SO 2 

# emissions from Merrimack Station play a major role in the SO 2 

# monitoring values in Pembroke, then the dispersi on patterns of those emissions can be estimated in order to form boundaries that reasonably capture areas likely to exceed the level of the new SO 2 

# NAAQS. Ultimately, modeling will be perf ormed to more precisely define these boundaries, but until this work is complete, estimated boundaries ar e being provided to extrapolate monitoring data values with dispersi on assumptions. To start this work, prevailing wind patterns and terrain features were examined. In specific, terrain features with elevations near and above stable plume heights for Merrimack Station in each direction from the plant were identified. Stable plume heights of 783 to 1019 f eet above seal level for the two boilers provide a target for terrain of similar elevation. In many cases, such terrain could be found within 10

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-5 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# miles of the power plant, and th e goal was to include these locations in the current nonattainment designation recommendation. For lower level areas, a fairly simple measure wa s applied. The monitoring station in Concord is about 6 miles to the north of Merrimack Station and the Manchester monitor is located 10 miles to the south. Since both monitors currently show SO 2 

# levels at about two-thirds the level of the NAAQS, this 10 mile distance was applied as a co nservative ruler and all towns within about 10 miles of Merrimack Station were included in the New Hampshire nonattainment boundary recommendations. The City of Manchester is the lone exception to this 10 mile rule, and it was excluded because it has 3-years of monito ring data showing compliance with the NAAQS. According to the presumptive norm presented by EPA designation guidance, the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area would extend westward into remote and upwind portions of Merrimack County. This western portion of th e county would require east and southeast winds to carry power plant emissions up and over mounta inous terrain before r eaching the area. Wind roses for central New Hampshire (Figures A3 and A4) indicate that prevailing winds rarely blow in such a direction, five percen t or less of the time per year. The most common wind directions are from the northwest or north-northwest (about 35% of the year) or from the south or southsoutheast (about 20% or the year). Such wind pa tterns suggest that there is a greater likelihood of elevated SO 2 

# values to the southeast and the north of the Pembroke monitor, rather than the western portion of Merrimack County. Further, it should be noted that a band of terrain near 1000 feet above sea level separa te eastern Merrimack County from the western portion, forming a physical barrier protecting lower elev ations beyond these mountains from SO 2 

# emissions from Merrimack Station. The end re sult of this technical approa ch is that the recommended nonattainment area is better centered on Me rrimack station than the presumptive norm boundaries would suggest and more consistent w ith prevailing wind pattern s in the area (Figure A5).
5. Jurisdictional Boundaries The use of county boundaries appears to provide for an awkward nonattainment area boundary. While several physical boundary options are availa ble, NHDES finds the traditional use of Town jurisdictional boundaries makes for effective boundaries for nonattainment areas in New Hampshire. Where physical or topographical f eatures may be more scientific, NHDES will use those physical features and tr anslate them to Town boundaries for designation recommendations. In summary, New Hampshire recommends that ba sed on monitoring data and the application of dispersion science, a single nonattainment area s hould be designated in the south-central portion of the state near a large coal -fired power plant. NHDES reco mmends that this nonattainment area be named the Central New Hampshire SO 2 

# Nonattainment Area. The remainder of the state should be designated as unclassifiable until the requisite dispersion modeling can be completed as according to EPA guidance, as requested in EPA’s guidance (and consistent with how designations are iden tified in Part 81 of the Code of Federal Regulations), attainment/nonattainment information is provided in Table A2. This information, along with digitized longitude and latitude coordinates for mapping purposes, a nd electronic versions of this data and associated maps will be provided.

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-6 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# Figure A2: Map of Bow Meteorology Station Demonstrating how Prevailing Wind Patterns Follow Direction of the River

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-7 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# Figure A3: Wind Frequency Di agram for Bow New Hampshire Indicates percent of time the wind comes from a certain direction and with what s p ee d

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-8 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# Figure A4: Wind Frequency Di agram for Bow New Hampshire

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-9 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# TABLE A2. Proposed Designation of Ar eas for 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Nonattainment in New Hampshire

NEW HAMPSHIRE – SO2 (1-HOUR STANDARD) Designation Classification 

# Designated Area Type Type New Hampshire: Hillsborough County Goffstown Nonattainment -- All remaining towns Unclassifiable -- Merrimack County Allenstown 

# Nonattainment -- Bow Nonattainment -- Chichester Nonattainment -- Concord Nonattainment -- Dunbarton Nonattainment -- Epsom Nonattainment -- Hooksett Nonattainment -- Loudon Nonattainment -- Pembroke Nonattainment -- Pittsfield Nonattainment -- All remaining towns Unclassifiable -- Rockingham County Candia Nonattainment -- Deerfield Nonattainment -- Northwood Nonattainment -- All remaining towns Unclassifiable -- All remaining counties Unclassifiable --

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-10 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# TABLE A3. Town s in Presumptive Norm Boundaries of Merrimack County that are Not Included in the Recommended

Nonattainment Area County Town Notes** State Totals -- 

# Merrimack County EPA Presumptive Norm for 1-Hour SO 2 

## Nonattainment Boundaries


# Andover More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Boscawen More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Bradford More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Canterbury More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Danbury More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Franklin More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Henniker More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Hopkinton More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# New London More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Newbury More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Northfield More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Salisbury More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Sutton More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Warner More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Webster More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation 

# Wilmot More than 10 miles and beyond terrain of plume height elevation



# TABLE A4. Towns Outs ide the Presumptive Norm Boundaries of Merrimack County that Are Included in the Recommended Nonattainment Area County Town Notes** State Totals -- 

# Hillsborough County Goffstown First occurrence of plume height terrain within 10 miles - Uncanoonuc Mountains 

# Rockingham County Candia Plume height terrain near areas that previous modeling indicated possible impact from Merrimack Station 

# Deerfield Plume height terrain near areas that previous modeling indicated possible impact from Merrimack Station 

# Northwood Plume height terrain near areas that previous modeling indicated possible impact from Merrimack Station

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-11 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011 

# FIGURE A5. Comparison of Presumptiv e Norm Boundary with the New Hampshire Recommended Boundary

Central New Hampshire 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area

SO2 Monitor Exceeding 1-Hour NAAQS SO2 Monitor Meeting the 1-Hour NAAQS



# New Hampshire

Merrimack County

Pe lham H uds on Na s hua Holli s B rook line Mas on Ne w Ips wic h R in dge W indha m Sal em A tk in son Ne wton Sout h Ha mpt on Se abrook Hampton North Ha mpton Ry e Port s mout h Ne w C as tle

Ha mpst ea d D erry San dow n Da n Vill e Ki ngs

t on Ea st Kings ton Ke ns

ington

Ha mp ton Fall s Exe te r St ra t

ham B re nt W ood Fre mont

Epping New mark et New fi elds G ree n la nd N ew ing ton Durha m Madbury Dov er

R ol lingsf ord Sommers worth R oc hes te r

Ba rri ngton

Milt on

Fa rmi ngt on

Straf ford

N ott ingh a m Lee Nort hwood

De erfi eld

Ra ymond Ca ndi a

Auburn Ches te r

London D erry Manc he ster H oo k se t Concord

A lle ns t own Bow Pe mbrok e H opk into n

W ea re

Goffstown

B ed ford

A mhe rst M e rrima ck
Lit chf iel d Ne w Bos ton

Lynde borough Mt. Ve rnon

Mi lford Wilton Te mple Dunba rton

Fit zw illi am Ri chmound W inches te r Hins da le

Ches te rfie ld

Wes t more land Ke ene

Sw anz ey Troy Ja ffre y Dublin Ma rl borough Rox bury Harris vil le
Pet er borough

Sha ron

G ree nl and Fra nce s town Ha nnoc k Be nning ton De ering Ant ri m Stodda rd

Ne lson Sulliv an Gils um Surry Wal pole Ac worth Le mpst er

Langdon Charle s town

A lst ea d Marlow Was hingt on Hill sborough He nnik er Bradford Wa rne r N ew bury G os hen Unity C laremo nt

Corni sh

Pl antfie ld

Le banon

H anove r Enfie ld

Enf ie ld

Grantha m
Croydon

Ne wport Sunape e Springf ie ld G ra ft on

Orange

Da nbury Ale xa ndria

Wil mot

N ew London

Sutt on Sali bury Andove r

H ill

Bris tol H ebron B ri dge w at er Ne w Ha mpton Meredit h

Sanbornton

Frank lin
Northfi eld

W eb st er C an t erbury Loudon

Eps om Pi tt sf iel d G ilma nton B el mon t Til ton Lac onia Gi lford

Alt on

Ba rns te ad Ne w Durham

Brook fie ld

M iddl e tow n W ak ef iel d W ol fb oro M oul ton borough Tuft onboro O ss ipee Ly me Orford Pie rmont

H av erhill Ba th

Warren B ento n

Went worth

Dorches te r G rot on R umne y

Ells worth

W oodst ock Linc oln Ea st on Landa ff Monroe Ly man Lisbon Suga r Hil l Franconia Bet hlehe m Little ton Ca rroll

Li ve rmore

Wa te rv ille Val ley Thornton

C ampton

Ply mout h Holde rne ss

As hl and Sa ndw ic h

H ebro n A lb any

Ta mworth Fre edom

Eff ingha m Conwa y

M a di son Eat on He bron

Ja ck son Cha tha m Be ans Purc has e Sargents Purc ha se Craw fords Purc has e Low&B urbank s Gra nt

Bea ns Grant Ma rtins Loc . Gre ens Grant Pink hams G ra nt

Ha les Loc at ion Dal ton White fi eld Je ffers on La nc as te r North Umbe rl and K ilk en ny

R an dol ph Be rlin

Gorham Shelburne Suc es s Mi lan Sta rk Stra tford

C ol umbia

C ol eb roo k Ste wa rts town

Di xv ille

Mill sfield Ode ll

Dummer Ca mbridge Errol Went worths Loc ation

Sec ond Colle ge Grant D ixs G rant A tk in son & Gil man ton

A ca demy Gra nt Cl arks vi lle Pit tburg

Ervings Loc at ion

## New Hampshire Revised Sulfur Dioxide Page A-12 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation July 6, 2011


# Areas of Influence In accordance with EPA guidance, New Hampshir e has investigated the influence of New Hampshire emissions on 1-hour SO 2 

# attainment/nonattainment w ithin and beyond the state’s borders. Based on data currently available, there is no indication of a New Hampshire SO 2 

# source causing or contributing to monitore d nonattainment outside of the Central New Hampshire area. All monitors in north ern New England are meeting the new SO 2 

# NAAQS during the three most recent available monitori ng years (2008-2010); however , this in itself does not ensure attainment until disp ersion modeling is completed. Contributions of New Hampshire sources will be reassessed with modeling as requi red by EPA guidance. Until this new work is complete, New Hampshire recommends designation of unclassifiable for such cases.