73956 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–1043; A–1–FRL– 

9496–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Maine State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection (Maine DEP) on December 9, 

2010, with supplemental submittals on 

September 14, 2011 and November 9, 

2011, that addresses regional haze for 

the first planning period from 2008 

through 2018. 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’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 29, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–1043 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://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–2010–1043 

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 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2010– 

1043. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. 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 in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

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. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Bureau of 

Air Quality Control, Department of 

Environmental Protection, First Floor of 

the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental 

Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 

04333–0017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

regional haze 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to the 

regional haze requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

B. Remand of the CAIR 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially 

Affected by the CAIR Remand and 

Promulgation of CSAPR 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Maine’s 

regional haze SIP submittal? 

A. Maine’s Affected Class I Area 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairments 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73957 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Although states and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls 

3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act 

Factors in the Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

1. Identification of all BART Eligible 

Sources 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

3. Modeling to Demonstrate Source 

Visibility Impact 

4. Maine BART Analysis Protocol 

5. Source Specific BART Determinations 

6. Enforceability of BART 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling to Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

4. Additional Considerations for the LTS 

F. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. What Action is EPA Proposing? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. (64 FR 35715, (July 

1, 1999)) 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI), (45 FR 80084). 

These regulations represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. In 1993, the National Academy 

of Sciences determined that current 

knowledge of regional haze was 

adequate and that existing technologies 

were available to protect visibility. (64 

FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999)). EPA 

promulgated a rule to address regional 

haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), the 

Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze 

Rule revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section II. The requirement to submit a 

regional haze SIP applies to all 50 

States, the District of Columbia and the 

Virgin Islands. Section 51.308(b) 

requires States to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. On 

January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 

States, the District of Columbia and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands failed to submit this 

required implementation plan. (74 FR 

2392, (Jan. 15, 2009)). In particular, EPA 

found that Maine failed to submit a plan 

that met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. (74 FR 2393). On December 6, 

2010, the Air Bureau of the Maine DEP 

submitted revisions to the Maine SIP to 

address regional haze as required by 40 

CFR 51.308. Supplemental 

documentation was submitted on 

September 14, 2011 and November 9, 

2011. EPA has reviewed Maine’s 

submittal and finds that it is consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

outlined in section II. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, Tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the States and 

Tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73958 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999)). 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and Tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a 

collaborative effort of state governments, 

Tribal governments, and various federal 

agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

Northeastern United States. 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. 

II. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology controls for the 

purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.2

The deciview is used to: Express 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal); define baseline, current, and 

natural conditions; and track changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, States must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area within 

the state at the time of each regional 

haze SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years midway 

through each 10-year planning period. 

To do this, the RHR requires States to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purposes of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, Guidance For 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005), 

available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf 

[hereinafter EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance], and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004), available at www.epa.gov/ 

ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf [hereinafter EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance]. 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data from 2000 through 

2004, States are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area within the state, 

based on the average of annual values 

over the five year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish RPGs for Class I 

areas for each (approximately) 10-year 

planning period. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions for their Class I areas. In 

setting RPGs, States must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the CAA and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73959 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, States must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glide path’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. The year 2064 

represents a rate of progress which 

States are to use for analytical 

comparison to the amount of progress 

they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, 

each state with one or more Class I areas 

(‘‘Class I State’’) must also consult with 

potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., 

other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility 

impairment at the Class I State’s areas. 

(40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, the CAA 

requires States to revise their SIPs to 

contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by 

the state.(CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).3 States are 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, States 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts (MW), a state must use 

the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). EPA has stated that States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them in 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, States may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART 

eligible source would not be expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. The 

state must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews 

(70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005)). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. (70 FR 39161, (July 6, 

2005)). In making BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that States consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

to be assigned to each factor. (70 FR 

39170, (July 6, 2005)). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required in the 

CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and in the RHR 

(40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to 

what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. States 

have the flexibility to choose the type of 

control measures they will use to meet 

the requirements of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR 

requires that States include a LTS in 

their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a state will use 

to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS 

must include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the state. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. (40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73960 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the seven 

factors listed below is taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On 

or before this date, the state must revise 

its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing reasonably attributable and 

regional haze visibility impairment, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic reviews of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires 

control strategies to cover an initial 

implementation period extending to the 

year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 

thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must 

meet the core requirements of section 

51.308(d) with the exception of BART. 

The BART provisions of section 

51.308(e), as noted above, apply only to 

the first implementation period. 

Periodic SIP revisions will assure that 

the statutory requirement of reasonable 

progress will continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 

51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. What is the relationship of the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) to the regional haze 

requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

CAIR, as originally promulgated, 

required 28 States and the District of 

Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2

and NOX that significantly contributed 

to, or interfered with maintenance of, 

the 1997 national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates 

and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour 

ozone in any downwind state. (70 FR 

25162, (May 12, 2005)). CAIR 

established emissions budgets for SO2

and NOX for States found to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in 

downwind States and required these 

States to submit SIP revisions that 

implemented these budgets. States had 

the flexibility to choose which control 

measures to adopt to achieve the 

budgets, including participation in EPAadministered cap-and-trade programs 

addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and NOXozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA 

promulgated FIPs for all States covered 

by CAIR to ensure the reductions were 

achieved in a timely manner. 

B. Remand of the CAIR 

On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit 

issued its decision to vacate and remand 

both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs 

in their entirety. See North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). 

However, in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing, the Court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR 

rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in 

order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the 

environmental values covered by CAIR’’ 

until EPA replaces it with a rule 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73961 

4The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal (including representatives from EPA and 

the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring 

program was established in 1985 to aid the creation 

of Federal and State implementation plans for the 

protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the 

objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical 

species and emission sources responsible for 

existing man-made visibility impairment. The 

IMPROVE program has also been a key participant 

in visibility-related research, including the 

advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

5The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in numerous published 

papers. See, eg., J. L. Hand & W. C. Malm, Review 

of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient 

Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report, March 

2006 (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State 

University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ 

GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural 

Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE 

Alogrithm to Natural Species Concentrations 

Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels 

II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 

Workgroup, Sept. 2006, available at http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/ 

GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

consistent with the court’s opinion. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 

1178. The Court directed EPA to 

‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with 

its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined 

to impose a schedule on EPA for 

completing that action. EPA 

subsequently issued a new rule to 

address interstate transport of NOX and 

SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., the 

Transport Rule, also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). (76 FR 

48208, (August 8, 2011)). EPA explained 

in that action that EPA is promulgating 

the Transport Rule as a replacement for 

(not a successor to) CAIR’s SO2 and NOX

emissions reduction and trading 

programs. 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements 

Potentially Affected by the CAIR 

Remand and Promulgation of CSAPR 

The following is a summary of the 

elements of the regional haze SIPs that 

are potentially affected by the remand of 

CAIR. As described above, EPA 

determined in 2005 that States opting to 

participate in the CAIR cap-and-trade 

program need not require BART for SO2

and NOX at BART-eligible Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs). (70 FR 39142– 

39143). Many States relied on CAIR as 

an alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX

for subject EGUs, as allowed under the 

BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Additionally, several States established 

RPGs that reflect the improvement in 

visibility expected to result from 

controls planned for or already installed 

on sources within the State to meet the 

CAIR provisions for this 

implementation period for specified 

pollutants. Many States relied upon 

their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs 

for their States to provide the legal 

requirements which lead to these 

planned controls, and did not include 

enforceable measures in the LTS in the 

regional haze SIP submission to ensure 

these reductions. States also submitted 

demonstrations showing that no 

additional controls on EGUs beyond 

CAIR would be reasonable for this 

implementation period. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Maine’s 

regional haze SIP submittal? 

On December 6, 2010, Maine DEP’s 

Air Bureau submitted revisions to the 

Maine SIP to address regional haze as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308. 

Supplemental documentation was 

submitted on September 14, 2011 and 

November 9, 2011. EPA has reviewed 

Maine’s submittal and finds that it is 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308 outlined in section II. A 

detailed analysis follows. 

Maine is responsible for developing a 

regional haze SIP which addresses 

visibility in Maine’s Class I areas. They 

are Acadia National Park, Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area, and Roosevelt 

Campobello International Park. The 

State must also address Maine’s impact 

on any other nearby Class I areas. 

A. Maine’s Affected Class I Area 

Maine is home to three Class I areas: 

(1) Acadia National Park (‘Acadia’); (2) 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area 

(‘Moosehorn’); and (3) Roosevelt 

Campobello International Park 

(‘Roosevelt Campobello’). In addition to 

these areas, the MANE–VU RPO 

contains four other Class I areas in three 

States: The Lye Brook, Presidential 

Range/Dry River, and Great Gulf 

Wilderness Areas in New Hampshire; 

and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in 

New Jersey. 

The Maine regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at its Class I areas and a 

LTS to achieve those RPGs within the 

first regional haze implementation 

period ending in 2018. In developing 

the RPGs for each Class I area, Maine 

considered both emission sources inside 

and outside of Maine that may cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Maine’s Class I areas. The State also 

identified and considered emission 

sources within Maine that may cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in neighboring States as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 

MANE–VU RPO worked with the State 

in developing the technical analyses 

used to make these determinations, 

including state-by-state contributions to 

visibility impairment in specific Class I 

areas, which included the three areas in 

Maine and those areas affected by 

emissions from Maine. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, Maine calculated 

baseline/current and natural conditions 

for its Class I areas. 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background refers to visibility 

conditions that existed before human 

activities affected air quality in the 

region. The national goal, as set out in 

the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural 

conditions. 

Estimates of natural visibility 

conditions are based on annual average 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. The IMPROVE 4 equation 

is a formula for estimating light 

extinction from species measured by the 

IMPROVE monitors. As documented in 

EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, 

EPA determined, with concurrence from 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee, that 

States may use a ‘‘refined approach’’ to 

the then current IMPROVE formula to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. The purpose of the refinement 

to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to 

provide more accurate estimates of the 

various factors that affect the calculation 

of light extinction. The new IMPROVE 

equation takes into account the most 

recent review of the science 5 and it 

accounts for the effect of particle size 

distribution on light extinction 

efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic 

carbon. It also adjusts the mass 

multiplier for organic carbon 

(particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73962 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The 

model uses simulations of chemical reactions, 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, and the 

Pennsylvania State University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological 

Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations. 

For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ 

asmdnerl/CMAQ/cmaq_model.html. 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. Maine opted to 

use this refined approach, referred to as 

the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for all of 

its areas. 

Natural visibility conditions using the 

new IMPROVE equation were calculated 

separately for each Class I area by 

MANE–VU. EPA finds that the best and 

worst 20 percent natural visibility 

values for Acadia, Moosehorn, and 

Roosevelt Campobello as shown in 

Table 1 were calculated using the EPA 

guidelines. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

The Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park and the Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area do not contain an 

IMPROVE monitor. In cases where 

onsite monitoring is not available, 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires States to 

use the most representative monitoring 

available for the 2000–2004 period to 

establish baseline visibility conditions, 

in consultation with EPA. Maine used, 

and EPA concurs with the use of, 2000– 

2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor 

located one mile northeast from the 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area as 

representing Moosehorn and Roosevelt 

Campobello. 

As explained in section III.B, for the 

first regional haze SIP, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions. A five-year average 

of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was 

calculated for each of the 20 percent 

worst and 20 percent best visibility days 

for Acadia National Park and 

Moosehorn/Roosevelt Campobello. 

IMPROVE data records for the period 

2000 to 2004 meet the EPA 

requirements for data completeness. 

(See page 2–8 of EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance.) 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the Maine Class I areas, baseline 

visibility conditions on the 20 percent 

worst days are 22.89 deciviews at 

Acadia National Park and 21.72 

deciviews at Moosehorn/Roosevelt 

Campobello. Natural visibility 

conditions for these areas are estimated 

to be 12.43 dv and 12.01 dv, 

respectively, on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. The natural and 

background conditions for the Acadia 

National Park and Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area/Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park for both the 20 

percent worst and 20 percent best days 

are presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACADIA NATIONAL PARK AND MOOSEHORN

WILDERNESS AREA/ROOSEVELT CAMPOBELLO INTERNATIONAL PARK

Class I area 

2000–2004 Baseline (dv) Natural conditions (dv) 

Worst 20% Best 20% Worst 20% Best 20% 

Acadia National Park ....................................................................................................... 22.89 8.77 12.43 4.66 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area and Roosevelt Campobello International Park ................. 21.72 9.15 12.01 5.01 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, Maine considered 

the uniform rate of progress needed to 

reach natural visibility conditions by 

2064 (‘‘glide path’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the period of 

the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glide path. 

For Acadia National Park, the overall 

visibility improvement necessary to 

reach natural conditions is the 

difference between the baseline 

visibility of 22.89 dv and natural 

background visibility of 12.43 dv, or an 

improvement of 10.46 dv for the 20 

percent worst visibility days. For 

Moosehorn Wilderness area and 

Roosevelt Campobello International 

Park, the overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between the baseline of 

21.72 dv and natural background 

visibility of 12.01 dv, or an 

improvement of 9.71 dv for the 20 

percent worst visibility days. Maine 

DEP must also ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the best 20 percent 

visibility days over the same period in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

Maine’s SIP submittal presents two 

graphs, one for the 20 percent best days, 

and one for the 20 percent worst days, 

for each Class I area. Maine constructed 

the graphs for the worst days (i.e., the 

glide path) in accordance with EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by 

plotting a straight graphical line from 

the baseline level of visibility 

impairment for 2000–2004 to the level 

of natural visibility conditions in 2064. 

For the best days, the graphs include a 

horizontal, straight line spanning from 

baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 

to depict no degradation in visibility 

over the implementation period of the 

SIP. Maine’s SIP shows that the State’s 

RPG for its Class I areas provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best visibility days over the 

same period in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

As a state containing a Class I area, 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the RHR requires 

Maine to develop the reasonable 

progress goals for visibility 

improvement during the first planning 

period. 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairments 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using EPA’s Community Multiscale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) air quality model 6

to evaluate visibility and air quality 

impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM 29NOP3

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73963 

7See the NESCAUM Document ‘‘Regional Haze 

and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

States,’’ January 31, 2001. 8The August 2006 NESCAUM document 

‘‘Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States’’ has been provided 

as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

9MANE–VU identified these 167 units based on 

source apportionment modeling using two different 

meteorological data sets. From each of the modeling 

runs, MANE–VU identified the top 100 units which 

contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in 

model output resulted in a total of 167 units being 

identified for further control. 

Atlantic Region.7 Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as, 

or more than, 80 percent on the haziest 

days. For example, at the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

(the MANE–VU Class I area with the 

greatest visibility impairment), on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 2000 

through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

Through source apportionment 

modeling MANE–VU assisted States in 

determining their contribution to the 

visibility impairment of each Class I 

area in the MANE–VU region. Maine 

and the other MANE–VU States adopted 

a weight-of-evidence approach which 

relied on several independent methods 

for assessing the contribution of 

different sources and geographic source 

regions to regional haze in the 

northeastern and mid-Atlantic portions 

of the United States. Details about each 

technique can be found in the 

NESCAUM Document Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 

[hereinafter MANE–VU Contribution 

Report].8

The MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that any state contributing 

at least 2% of the total sulfate observed 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days 

in 2002 were contributors to visibility 

impairment at the Class I area. 

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

and the District of Columbia were 

determined to contribute less than 2% 

of sulfate at any of the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. States found to contribute 2% or 

more of the sulfate at any of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas were: Georgia, Illinois, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

The contribution of Maine emissions 

to the total sulfate was determined to 

impact the visibility in not only the 

Maine Class I areas, but the Great Gulf 

Wilderness area in New Hampshire as 

well. The impact of sulfate on visibility 

is discussed in greater detail below. 

EPA finds that Maine DEP has 

adequately demonstrated that emissions 

from Maine sources cause or contribute 

to visibility in nearby Class I Areas. 

2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls 

In developing the 2018 reasonable 

progress goal, Maine relied primarily 

upon the information and analysis 

developed by MANE–VU to meet this 

requirement. Based on the contribution 

assessment, MANE–VU focused on SO2

as the dominant contributor to visibility 

impairment at all MANE–VU Class I 

areas during all seasons. In addition, the 

Contribution Assessment found that 

only 25 percent of the sulfate at the 

MANE–VU Class I areas originate in the 

MANE–VU States. Sources in the 

Midwest and Southeast regions were 

responsible for 15 to 25 percent, 

respectively. Point sources dominated 

the inventory of SO2 emissions. 

Therefore, MANE–VU’s strategy 

includes additional measures to control 

sources of SO2 both within the MANE– 

VU region and in other States that were 

determined to contribute to regional 

haze at the MANE–VU Class I Areas. 

Based on information from the 

contribution assessment and additional 

emission inventory analysis, MANE–VU 

and Maine identified the following 

source categories for further 

examination for reasonable controls: 

• Coal and oil-fired EGUs; 

• Point and area source industrial, 

commercial and institutional boilers; 

• Cement and Lime Kilns; 

• Heating Oil; and 

• Residential wood combustion. 

MANE–VU analyzed these sources 

categories as potential sources of 

emission reductions for making 

reasonable progress based on the ‘‘four 

statutory factors’’ according to 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(V). 

3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act 

Factors in the Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

As discussed in II.C above, Maine 

must consider the following factors in 

developing the RPGs: (1) Cost of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. MANE–VU’s four factor 

analysis can be found in ‘‘Assessment of 

Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze 

in MANE–VU Class I Areas,’’ July 9, 

2007, otherwise known as the 

Reasonable Progress Report. This report 

has been included as part of the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Maine and the other MANE–VU 

States reviewed the Reasonable Progress 

Report, consulted with one another 

about possible controls measures, and 

agreed to the following measures as 

recommended strategies for making 

reasonable progress: Implementation of 

the BART requirements, a 90 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 167 

EGUs identified as causing the greatest 

visibility impact 9 (or other equivalent 

emission reduction), and a reduction in 

the sulfur content of fuel oil. These 

measures are collectively known as the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ 

MANE–VU used model projections to 

calculate the RPG for the Class I areas 

in the MANE–VU area. Additional 

modeling details are provided in section 

IV.E.2. The projected improvement in 

visibility due to emission reductions 

expected by the end of the first period, 

2018, is shown in Table 2. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73964 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—PROJECTED REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS FOR MAINE CLASS I AREAS

FROM NESCAUM 2018 VISIBILITY PROJECTIONS IN DECIVIEWS

2000–2004 

Baseline 

2018 

Projection URP Natural background 

Acadia National Park ........................................... 20% Worst Visibility Days ............... 22.9 19.4 20.4 12.4 

20% Best Visibility Days .................. 8.8 8.3 4.7 

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge/Roosevelt 

Campobello International Park.

20% Worst Visibility Days ............... 21.7 19.0 19.4 12.0 

20% Best Visibility Days .................. 9.2 8.6 ............ 5.0 

At the time of MANE–VU modeling 

some of the other States with sources 

potentially impacting visibility, in the 

Class I areas in both Maine and the rest 

of the MANE–VU domain, had not yet 

made final control determinations for 

BART, and thus, these controls were not 

included in the modeling prepared by 

MANE–VU and used by Maine. This 

modeling demonstrates that the 2018 

control scenario (2018 projection) 

provides for an improvement in 

visibility greater than the uniform rate 

of progress for the Maine Class I areas 

for the most impaired days over the 

period of the implementation plan and 

ensures no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same 

period. 

The modeling supporting the analysis 

of these RPGs is consistent with EPA 

guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The 

regional haze provisions specify that a 

state may not adopt a RPG that 

represents less visibility improvement 

than is expected to result from other 

CAA requirements during the 

implementation period. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(vi)). Therefore, in 

estimating the RPGs for 2018, many 

States took into account emission 

reductions anticipated from CAIR. 

MANE–VU initially reduced emissions 

from highest impacting 167 EGUs by 

ninety percent. However, many of the 

units targeted for the 90% reduction 

were part of the CAIR program. Since 

the 90% reduction was larger, in total 

tons of emissions reduced, than the 

reductions expected from CAIR, MANE– 

VU added the excess emissions back 

into the inventory to account for trading 

of the emission credits across the 

modeling domain. This way, MANE–VU 

States would not overestimate the 

emission reductions in case States used 

the CAIR program as their response to 

the MANE–VU’s ‘‘Ask’’ of ninety 

percent reduction from the 167 EGUs in 

the eastern United States. 

The RPGs for the Class I areas in 

Maine are based on modeled projections 

of future conditions that were 

developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

completed. While MANE–VU’s 

emission inventory used for modeling 

included estimates of future emission 

growth, projections can change as 

additional information regarding future 

conditions becomes available. It would 

be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to 

continually adjust the RPG every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions, and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 

mandatory standard which must be 

achieved by a particular date. (64 FR at 

35733). At the same time, EPA 

established a requirement for a fiveyear, midcourse review and, if 

necessary, correction of the States’ 

regional haze plans. (40 CFR 52.308(g)). 

In particular, the RHR calls for a fiveyear progress review after submittal of 

the initial regional haze plan. The 

purpose of this progress review is to 

assess the effectiveness of emission 

management strategies in meeting the 

RPG and to provide an assessment of 

whether current implementation 

strategies are sufficient for the state or 

affected states to meet their RPGs. If a 

state concludes, based on its 

assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I 

area will not be met, the RHR requires 

the state to take appropriate action. (40 

CFR 52.308(h)). The nature of the 

appropriate action will depend on the 

basis for the state’s conclusion that the 

current strategies are insufficient to 

meet the RPGs. In its SIP submittal, 

Maine commits to the midcourse review 

and submitting revisions to the regional 

haze plan where necessary. 

EPA is proposing to approve Maine’s 

RPG for the first regional haze planning 

period. Maine has demonstrated that the 

emission controls in the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’—timely installation of BART 

Controls, a 90 percent reduction in SO2

emissions from EGUs and a low sulfur 

fuel oil strategy are reasonable measures 

for the reduction of visibility 

impairment as required by EPA’s RHR. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

1. Identification of All Bart Eligible 

Sources 

Determining BART-eligible sources is 

the first step in the BART process. The 

Maine BART-eligible sources were 

identified in accordance with the 

methodology in Appendix Y of the 

Regional Haze Rule, Guidelines for 

BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to 

Identify BART-Eligible Sources, (70 FR 

39104, 39156 (July 6, 2005)). 

The BART Guidelines requires States 

to address SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter. States are allowed to use their 

best judgment in deciding whether VOC 

or ammonia emissions from a source are 

likely to have an impact on visibility in 

the area. The Maine DEP addressed SO2, 

NOx, and used particulate matter less 

than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) as 

an indicator for particulate matter to 

identify BART eligible units, as the 

Guidelines require. Consistent with the 

Guidelines, the Maine DEP did not 

evaluate emissions of VOCs and 

ammonia in BART determinations due 

to the lack of impact on visibility in the 

area due to anthropogenic sources. The 

majority of VOC emissions in Maine are 

biogenic in nature, especially near the 

Maine Class I areas. Therefore, the 

ability to further reduce total ambient 

VOC concentrations at Class I areas is 

limited. Point, area, and mobile sources 

of VOCs in Maine are already 

comprehensively controlled as part of 

ozone attainment and maintenance 

strategy. In respect to ammonia, the 

overall ammonia inventory is very 

uncertain, but the amount of 

anthropogenic emissions at sources that 

were BART-eligible is relatively small. 

The identification of BART sources in 

Maine was undertaken as part of a 

multi-state analysis conducted by the 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM). 

NESCAUM worked with Maine DEP 

licensing engineers to review all sources 

and determine their BART eligibility. 

Maine DEP identified 10 sources as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73965 

10On October 1, 2010 and November 8, 2010, 

Dragon Products, LLC submitted documentation 

asserting that the facility (kiln) qualifies as a 

reconstructed source. After reviewing the 

documentation and conferring with EPA, via a letter 

dated September 14, 2011, Maine DEP found the 

facility meets the criteria of a ‘‘reconstructed 

source’’ and therefore is not BART eligible. 

BART-eligible. These sources are shown 

in Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3—BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN MAINE

Source and unit Location 

National emission inventory 

(NEI) identification code 

BART Source category 

FPLE Wyman Station ....................................... Yarmouth, ME ......................... 2300500135 SC 1—Fossil fuel fired electric plants. 

Boiler #3 .................................................... ................................................. –004 

Boiler #4 .................................................... ................................................. –005 

Woodland Pulp, LLC ........................................ Woodland, ME ........................ 2302900020 SC 3—Kraft pulp mills.

Power Boiler #9 ........................................ ................................................. –001 

Lime Kiln ................................................... ................................................. –002 

Dragon Products 10 .......................................... Thomaston, ME ...................... 2301300028 SC 4—Portland cement plants. 

Red Shield Acquisition, LLC ............................ Old Town, ME ......................... 2301900034 SC 3—Kraft pulp mills. 

Recovery Boiler #4 ................................... ................................................. –002 

Lime Kiln ................................................... ................................................. –004 

Verso Bucksport ............................................... Bucksport, ME ........................ 2300900004 SC 22—Fossil fuel fired boilers. 

Boiler #5 .................................................... ................................................. –001 

SD Warren ....................................................... Hinckley, ME ........................... 2302500027 SC 3—Kraft pulp mills. 

Recovery Boiler ......................................... ................................................. –003 

Smelt Tanks #1 and #2 ............................ ................................................. –007 

Lime Kiln ................................................... ................................................. –004 

Verso Androscoggin ......................................... Jay, ME ................................... 2300700021 SC 3—Kraft pulp mills. 

Power Boiler #1 ........................................ ................................................. –001 

Power Boiler #2 ........................................ ................................................. –002 

Waste Fuel Incinerator .............................. ................................................. –003 

Recovery Boilers #1 and #2 ..................... ................................................. –004/005 

Smelt Tank #1 ........................................... ................................................. –009 

Smelt Tank #2 ........................................... ................................................. –010 

Lime Kiln A ................................................ ................................................. –007 

Lime Kiln B ................................................ ................................................. –008 

Flash Dryer ............................................... ................................................. –018 

Katahdin Paper ................................................ Millinocket, ME ........................ 2301900056 SC 22—Fossil fuel fired boilers. 

Power Boiler #4 ........................................ ................................................. –004 

Lincoln Paper and Tissue ................................ Lincoln, ME ............................. 2301900023 SC 3—Kraft pulp mills. 

Recovery Boiler #2 ................................... ................................................. –002 

Rumford Paper ................................................. Rumford, ME ........................... 2301700045 SC 3—Kraft pulp mills. 

Power Boiler #5 ........................................ ................................................. –003 

The initial list of BART-eligible 

sources complied by NESCAUM 

included SAPPI Somerset #1 Power 

Boiler. This unit was subsequently 

determined to not be BART eligible due 

to a federally enforceable permit 

condition which limits the operation of 

this unit to less than 250 million BTUs 

per hour heat input. Additionally, boiler 

#1 is not considered integral to the Kraft 

pulp process since it only provides 

steam and power to the facility. 

Cap-Outs 

BART applies to sources with the 

potential to emit 250 tons or more per 

year of any visibility impairing 

pollutant. (70 FR 39160). BART-eligible 

sources that adopt a federally 

enforceable permit limit to permanently 

limit emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants to less than 250 tons per year 

may thereby ‘‘cap-out’’ of BART. Three 

Maine sources capped out of BART by 

taking such limits: 

1. Katahdin Paper Company, LLC 

2. Rumford Paper Company 

3. Verso Bucksport, LLC 

These sources have actual emissions 

of visibility impairing pollutants of less 

than 250 tons per year, but are BARTeligible because their potential 

emissions exceed the 250 tons per year 

threshold. Pursuant to the requests of 

these sources, the Maine DEP has 

established federally enforceable permit 

conditions that limit the potential to 

emit (PTE) of these units to less 250 tons 

per year for all visibility impairing 

pollutants. As a result, Maine has 

concluded that these sources are not 

BART eligible. 

Federally enforceable terms and 

conditions were established for each 

source that limits the PTE for SO2, PM10

and NOX to less than 250 TPY. If, in the 

future, a source requests an increase in 

its PTE above the 250 tons per year 

threshold for a visibility impairing 

pollutant, then it shall be subject BART 

requirements. 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

Maine, working with MANE–VU, 

found that every MANE–VU state with 

BART-eligible sources contributes to 

visibility impairment at one or more 

Class I areas to a significant degree (See 

the MANE–VU Contribution Report). As 

a result, Maine found that all BART 

eligible sources within Maine are 

subject to BART. The Maine DEP 

utilized this option for demonstrating its 

sources are reasonably anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas for three 

reasons: (1) The BART sources represent 

an opportunity to achieve greater 

reasonable progress; (2) additional 

public health and welfare benefits will 

accrue for the resulting decreases in fine 

particulate matter; and (3) to 

demonstrate its commitment to federal 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73966 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11Maine’s decision that all BART eligible sources 

are subject to BART should not be misconstrued to 

mean that all BART-eligible sources must install 

controls. Maine’s approach simply requires the 

consideration of each of the five statutory factors 

before determining whether or not controls are 

warranted. 

12The MANE–VU modeling protocol can be 

found in the NESCAUM ‘‘BART Resource Guide,’’ 

dated August 23, 2006, (http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-resource-guide/bart-resourceguide-08-23-06-final.pdf/). 

13As an additional demonstration that sources 

whose impacts were below the 0.1 dv level were too 

small to warrant BART controls, the entire MANEVU population of these units was modeled together 

to examine their cumulative impacts at each Class 

I area. The results of this modeling demonstrated 

that the maximum 24-hour impact at any Class I 

area of all modeled sources with individual impacts 

below 0.1 dv was only a 0.35 dv change relative to 

the estimated best days natural conditions at Acadia 

National Park. This value is well below the 0.5 dv 

impact used by most RPOs and States for 

determining whether a BART-eligible source 

contributes to visibility impairment. 

land managers and other RPOs as it 

seeks the implementation of reasonable 

measures in other States. 

According to Section III of the 

Guidelines, once the state has compiled 

its list of BART-eligible sources, it needs 

to determine whether to make BART 

determinations for all of the sources or 

to consider exempting some of them 

from BART because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. 

Based on the collective importance of 

BART sources, Maine decided that no 

exemptions would be given for sources; 

a BART determination will be made for 

each BART-eligible source.11

3. Modeling to Demonstrate Source 

Visibility Impact 

MANE–VU conducted modeling 

analyses of BART-eligible sources using 

the EPA approved air quality model, 

California Pollution Model (CALPUFF), 

in order to provide a regionallyconsistent foundation for assessing the 

degree of visibility improvement which 

could result from the installation of 

BART controls.12 While this modeling 

analysis differed slightly from the 

guidance, it was intended to provide a 

first-order estimate of the maximum 

visibility benefit that could be achieved 

by eliminating all emissions from a 

BART source, and provides a useful 

metric for determining which sources 

are unlikely to warrant additional 

controls to satisfy BART. 

The MANE–VU modeling effort 

analyzed 136 BART-eligible sources in 

the MANE–VU region using the 

CALPUFF modeling platform and two 

meteorological data sets: (1) A wind 

field based on National Weather Service 

(NWS) observations; and (2) a wind 

field based on the Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research Mesoscale 

Meteorological Model (MM5) version 

3.6. Modeling results from both the 

NWS and MM5 platforms include each 

BART eligible unit’s maximum 24-hr, 

8th highest 24-hr, and annual average 

impact at the Class I area. These 

visibility impacts were modeled relative 

to the 20 percent best, 20 percent worst, 

and average annual natural background 

conditions. In accordance with EPA 

guidance, which allows the use of either 

estimates of the 20 percent best or the 

annual average of natural background 

visibility conditions as the basis for 

calculating the deciview difference that 

individual sources would contribute for 

BART modeling purposes, MANE–VU 

opted to utilize the more conservative 

best conditions estimates approach 

because it is more protective of 

visibility. 

The 2002 baseline modeling provides 

an estimate of the maximum 

improvement in visibility at Class I 

Areas in the region that could result 

from the installation of BART controls 

(the maximum improvement is 

equivalent to a ‘‘zero-out’’ of emissions). 

In virtually all cases, the installation of 

BART controls would result in less 

visibility improvement than what is 

represented by a source’s 2002 impact, 

but this approach does provide a 

consistent means of identifying those 

sources with the greatest contribution to 

visibility impairment. 

In addition to modeling the maximum 

potential improvement from BART, 

MANE–VU also determined that 98 

percent of the cumulative visibility 

impact from all MANE–VU BART 

eligible sources which corresponds to a 

maximum 24-hr impact of 0.22 dv from 

the NWS-driven data and 0.29 dv from 

the MM5 data. As a result, MANE–VU 

concluded that, on the average, a range 

of 0.2 to 0.3 dv would represent a 

significant impact at MANE–VU Class I 

areas, and sources having less than 0.1 

dv impact are unlikely to warrant 

additional controls under BART.13

4. Maine BART Analysis Protocol 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires 

that, for each BART-eligible source 

within the state, any BART 

determination must be based on an 

analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available and the associated emission 

reductions achievable. In addition to 

considering available technologies, this 

analysis must evaluate five specific 

factors for each source: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of visibility 

improvement which may reasonably be 

anticipated from the use of BART. 

Although Maine did not exempt any 

BART-eligible sources from a BART 

determination, it did utilize the MANE– 

VU zero-out modeling as a surrogate for 

estimating the visibility improvement 

reasonably expected from the 

application of controls. There are eight 

BART-eligible sources with less than 0.1 

deciview impact at any Class I area, 

with impacts ranging from 0.01 

deciviews to 0.0651 deciviews. These 

sources are: SD Warren smelt tanks #1 

and #2; SD Warren lime kiln; Verso 

Androscoggin smelt tank #1 and #2; 

Verso Androscoggin lime kilns A and B; 

and Verso Androscoggin flash dryer. 

Maine noted that the majority of these 

units have existing controls in place that 

would likely satisfy the BART 

requirements. Given this and the fact 

that zero-out modeling shows that the 

elimination of all emissions from these 

sources would provide only 

insignificant visibility benefits at nearby 

Class I areas, Maine used a streamline 

approach for the BART determinations 

for these sources. 

5. Source Specific BART Determinations 

The following section discusses the 

BART determinations for sources in 

Maine. 

a. Woodland Pulp LLC (Formerly 

Domtar Maine, LLC) 

i. Background 

The Woodland Pulp facility is a pulp 

mill, which utilizes the Kraft Pulping 

process and produces market pulp. The 

Mill also operates support facilities 

including woodyards, wastewater 

treatment plant, sludge press, pulp 

production labs, environmental labs, 

finishing, shipping, and receiving 

operations, storage areas, a landfill, and 

a power boiler. 

There are two BART eligible units at 

the facility; Power boiler #9 and the 

lime kiln. 

Power boiler #9 is rated at 625 

MMBtu/hr and was placed into 

operation in 1971. Power boiler #9 is 

fueled primarily by biomass but is also 

licensed to burn #6 fuel oil, sludge, tire 

derived fuel (TDF), specification waste 

oil, high volume low concentration 

(HVLC) gas, low volume high 

concentration (LVHC) non-condensable 

gas, mill yard waste, oily rags, stripper 

off-gas, and propane. Emissions are 

controlled using a variable-throat wet 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73967 

14 It is estimated from the MANE–VU August 

2006 document Contributions to Regional Haze in 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, Tools 

and Techniques for Apportioning Fine Particle/ 

Visibility Impairment in MANE–VU (pages 3–2, 4– 

7, 4–8) that coarse particulate matter is responsible 

for typically less than 4% of the contribution to 

visibility impairment at the MANE–VU Class I 

areas. 

venturi scrubber and low-NOX burners 

(LNBs). The lime kiln is rated at 75 

MMBtu/hr and was placed into 

operation in 1966. Emissions are 

controlled using a variable-throat wet 

venturi scrubber and a Ceilcote crossflow scrubber. The lime kiln is fueled by 

#6 fuel oil. 

ii. Power Boiler #9 

(1) PM BART Review: Maine 

evaluated the use of fabric filters, wet 

electrostatic precipitator (WESP), dry 

electrostatic precipitator (DESP), and 

wet scrubbers to control PM at power 

boiler #9. Fabric filters were found not 

technically feasible due to fire risk from 

combustible fly-ash, while WESP is not 

technically feasible due to operational 

difficulties with multi-fuel boilers. A 

DESP could not be installed postscrubber due to excess moisture levels 

in the exhaust stream, but could be 

installed upstream. An upstream DESP 

was evaluated and found to provide a 

98–99% control efficiency for biomass 

and a 90% efficiency for oil for PM. For 

comparison, a wet scrubber provides an 

85–98% control efficiency for PM. 

Maine estimated the cost for DESP 

installation at $4,640 per ton of PM 

removed. Maine concluded that the 

addition of DESP with the existing wet 

venturi scrubber is not a cost-effective 

option and determined that current 

controls represent BART for PM for 

power boiler #9. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Power boiler #9 

is currently controlled through the use 

of a wet scrubber. In addition, the boiler 

is fueled primarily by biomass, a 

naturally low sulfur fuel. Maine 

concluded that the combination of a wet 

scrubber in use with primarily biomass 

is the maximum level of control 

available for this type of unit. Maine 

determined that current controls 

represent BART. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Maine 

identified a number of potential NOX

control strategies for use on power 

boiler #9, including NOX tempering, 

flue gas recirculation (FGR), selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR), 

LNBs and good combustion practices. 

The State found that several potential 

NOX controls were technically 

infeasible and did not warrant further 

investigation. Maine concluded that 

NOX tempering is not technically 

feasible due to reduced thermal 

efficiency and that SCR is not 

technically feasible due to the increased 

frequency of catalyst fouling from multifuel boilers. FGR was determined to be 

not technically feasible based on 

previous failed FGR trials conducted on 

power boiler #9. SNCR, with a 30–40% 

control efficiency, and LNBs, with 10% 

control efficiency, were identified as 

technically feasible control strategies. 

Maine estimated the cost-effectiveness 

of SNCR at $7,360 per ton and noted 

that SNCR has a reduced effectiveness 

on boilers with significant load swings 

(such as the Power Boiler #9). Given the 

low cost-effectiveness of SNCR, Maine 

determined the continued use of LNBs 

represent BART for the power boiler #9. 

iii. Lime Kiln 

(1) PM BART Review: The lime kiln is 

subject to the Maximum Available 

Control Technology (MACT) standard 

for PM found in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

MM. The BART Guidelines state that for 

sources subject to a MACT standard, 

‘‘[u]nless there are new technologies 

subsequent to the MACT standards 

which would lead to cost-effective 

increases in the level of control, you 

may rely on the MACT standards for 

purposes of BART.’’ (50 FR 39164, (July 

6, 2005)) Maine determined that there 

are no new technologies for control of 

this source and therefore that 

compliance with MACT therefore 

represents BART for the lime kiln. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine 

identified the use of a wet scrubber and 

in-process capture as feasible 

technologies for the control of SO2 from 

the lime kiln. Both technologies are 

currently employed by Woodland Pulp 

(including two wet scrubbers). 

Therefore, current controls were 

determined to be BART. 

(3) NOX BART Review: A number of 

potential NOX control strategies were 

identified for the lime kiln, including: 

SNCR, SCR, non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR), FGR, LNBs, and good 

combustion practices. Maine 

determined the impracticality of 

installing chemical injection nozzles 

inside a rotating kiln drum makes SNCR 

technically infeasible. Maine also 

concluded that SCR and NSCR are not 

feasible due to the known presence of 

catalyst fouling substances in the lime 

kiln. The State found that FGR is not 

feasible as it reduces the temperature in 

the flame zone, thus hindering the 

chemical reaction taking place in the 

lime kiln. The State also concluded that 

LNBs are a non-demonstrated 

technology and are not listed in the EPA 

BACT/RACT/LEAR Clearinghouse for 

lime kiln emissions control. Maine 

concluded that good combustion 

practices are the only feasible option for 

controlling NOX which is already 

employed at the lime kiln. Therefore, 

current controls were determined to 

represent BART for the lime kiln. 

iv. EPA Assessment 

EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and 

conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at the Woodland Pulp LLC 

facility are reasonable. EPA has 

reviewed the Maine analyses and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. 

b. FPL Energy Wyman, LLC 

i. Background 

FPL Energy Wyman is an 850- 

megawatt electric generating facility 

located on Cousins Island in Yarmouth, 

Maine. The plant consists of four 

generation units, all of which fire #6 

residual fuel oil. A fifth unit is a smaller 

oil-fired auxiliary boiler which provides 

building heat and auxiliary steam and a 

sixth unit is an emergency backup 

diesel generator that provides electricity 

for use on-site. There are two BART 

eligible units at the facility—boiler #3 

and boiler #4. 

Boiler #3 is a Combustion Engineering 

boiler, installed in 1963, with a 

maximum design heat input capacity of 

1,190 MMBtu/hr firing #6 fuel oil (with 

2.0% sulfur content by weight). The 

boiler is equipped with multiple 

centrifugal cyclones for control of 

particulate matter and optimization and 

combustion controls for NOX. Boiler #4 

is a Foster Wheeler boiler, installed in 

1975, with a maximum design heat 

input capacity of 6,290 MMBtu/hr firing 

#2 or #6 fuel oil (with 0.7% sulfur). The 

boiler is equipped with an electrostatic 

precipitator for control of particulate 

matter and optimization and 

combustion controls for NOX. 

ii. Boilers #3 and #4 

(1) PM BART Review: Emissions of 

PM from oil fired boilers are a function 

of the efficiency of the fuel firing.14 Both 

boilers #3 and #4 have high efficiency 

combustion systems in conjunction with 

PM control devices. Boiler #3 has a 

Multiclone dust collectors. Boiler #4 has 

an ESP, the most stringent control 

available. The cost analysis of installing 

an ESP on boiler #3 resulted in a 

pollutant removal cost effectiveness of 

$19,000/ton of PM removed and a 

visibility improvement cost 

effectiveness of $143 million per 

deciview of visibility improvement. 

This was determined to be not costVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29NOP3.SGM 29NOP3

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73968 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

effective. Therefore, Maine determined 

that current controls on boiler #3 

represent BART. Maine determined the 

ESP on boiler #4 represents BART 

because it is the most stringent control 

available. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Emissions of 

SO2 from oil fired boilers are related to 

the sulfur in the fuel. Maine identified 

the following available retrofit control 

technologies for reducing SO2 emissions 

from boilers #3 and #4: Low sulfur #2 

fuel oil, reduced sulfur #6 fuel oil, and 

wet or dry scrubbers. The use of low 

sulfur #2 fuel oil (0.05% down to 

0.0015% sulfur by weight) and reduced 

sulfur #6 fuel oil (1% or less sulfur by 

weight) were considered technically 

feasible options. The application of post 

combustion controls of wet or dry 

scrubbers on large, oil-fired boilers was 

researched by Maine. The state found 

that, generally such controls were 

typically applied only to coal-fired 

boilers. As a general matter, the use of 

scrubbers on oil-fired boilers is 

considered cost prohibitive. As a result, 

Maine did not consider wet or dry 

scrubbers as a BART option. 

Maine performed a cost analysis on 

lowering the sulfur content in the fuel 

used in both boilers. Boiler #3 currently 

fires 2% sulfur by weight oil and boiler 

#4 currently fires 0.7% sulfur by weight 

oil. The annual costs were calculated to 

be the following (based on the 

differential fuel costs): 

TABLE 4—SO2 CONTROL COSTS ANALYSIS FOR WYMAN #3 AND #4 

Boiler #3 Boiler #4 

% Sulfur 

Annual 

costs 

(in millions) 

% Sulfur 

Annual 

costs 

(in millions) 

1.0 ............................................................................................................................................................ $0.68 .................... ....................

0.7 ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.80 .................... ....................

0.5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3.2 0.5 $9.2 

0.3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 5.7 0.3 18.3 

Maine also estimated the visibility 

cost effectiveness, incremental visibility 

improvement, and incremental visibility 

cost effectiveness from switching from 

2% sulfur by weight to reduced sulfur 

content fuel oil for boiler #3. In 

estimating these values, Maine used the 

cumulative visibility benefits at several 

of the nearest Class I areas on the 

highest impacting visibility day. Maine 

estimated the following: 

TABLE 5—SO2 CONTROL VISIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR WYMAN UNIT #3 

% Sulfur 

Visibility cost 

effectiveness 

($/deciview) 

(in millions) 

Incremental 

visibility 

improvement 

Incremental 

visibility cost 

effectiveness 

($/deciview) 

(in millions) 

1.0 ................................................................................................................................................ $0.69 ........................ ........................

0.7 ................................................................................................................................................ 0.56 0.44 dv $0.27 

0.5 ................................................................................................................................................ 1.82 0.35 dv 6.97 

0.3 ................................................................................................................................................ 2.64 0.37 dv 6.59 

The visibility cost effectiveness, 

incremental visibility improvement, and 

incremental visibility cost effectiveness 

from switching from 0.7% sulfur to 

reduced sulfur content fuel oil for boiler 

#4 was the following: 

TABLE 6—SO2 CONTROL VISIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR WYMAN UNIT #4 

% Sulfur 

Visibility cost 

effectiveness 

($/deciview) 

(in millions) 

Incremental 

visibility 

improvement 

Incremental 

visibility cost 

effectiveness 

($/deciview) 

(in millions) 

0.5 ................................................................................................................................................ $22.3 ........................ ........................

0.3 ................................................................................................................................................ 19.5 0.53 dv $17.3 

Based on the information above, 

Maine determined 0.7% sulfur by 

weight fuel oil for boiler #3 beginning 

in 2013, and the current limit of 0.7% 

sulfur by weight fuel oil for boiler #4 

represents BART for these units. 

(3) NOX BART Review: In order to 

meet the ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

requirement, FPL Energy Wyman 

installed combustion control 

technologies pursuant to Maine’s 

Chapter 145, NOX Control Program 

Regulation. FPL Energy Wyman 

installed combustion control technology 

upgrades, including low NOX fuel 

atomizers, improved swirler design, and 

overfire and interstage air ports. The 

burners were optimized and fuel/air 

flows were balanced to the burners on 

each unit. The combustion control 

technology upgrades were completed in 

April 2003 and reductions in NOX

emissions of 29–35% have been 

documented with boiler #3 and 

reductions of 24–47% have been 

documented with boiler #4 depending 

on each unit’s load. These reductions 

are equivalent to the reductions that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73969 

could be achieved through the use of 

SNCR on the boilers. 

The cost analysis of installing 

additional NOX controls of regenerative 

selective catalytic reduction (RSCR) on 

the boilers in addition to the current 

combustion controls resulted in a 

pollutant removal cost effectiveness of 

$125,000/ton and $83,000/ton of NOX

removed for boiler #3 and boiler #4, 

respectively. Maine concluded that such 

controls are not cost effective. 

Therefore, Maine determined the 

current combustion controls represent 

BART for these units. 

iii. EPA Assessment 

EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and 

conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at the FPL Energy Wyman, 

LLC facility are reasonable. Although 

EPA does not generally recommend that 

States rely solely on $/deciview 

consideration in making BART 

determinations, EPA does not believe 

that broader analysis of the costs and 

visibility benefits associated with 

changing the sulfur content of the fuel 

used in boiler #3 and #4 would have 

resulted in a different BART 

determination in this case. EPA has 

reviewed the remaining Maine analyses 

for FPL Energy Wyman, LLC and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. 

c. Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC 

i. Background 

Lincoln Paper & Tissue (LPT) is an 

integrated Kraft pulp and paper mill. 

Currently, LPT operates a hardwood 

digester and a softwood sawdust 

digester to produce pulp with 

approximately 50% recycled content. 

LPT uses one recovery boiler and a lime 

kiln in the recaust process for 

reclamation of the pulping chemicals. 

Also, LPT has three oil-fired boilers and 

one multi-fuel boiler to supply the mill 

with steam. The two paper machines 

produce specialty paper and the two 

tissue machines produce multi-ply dyed 

tissue. The pulp dryer machine 

produces bailed pulp which is either 

used by LPT or sold to other paper 

manufacturers. 

At LPT, the only BART-eligible source 

is the recovery boiler #2, which is used 

to recover the pulping chemicals and 

produce steam. Emissions exit through 

two identical 175 foot stacks. 

The recovery boiler is a straight fire 

unit burning black liquor, typically 

without combustion support from fossil 

fuel. Normally, oil is used only during 

start-ups and shutdowns and to stabilize 

operation of the boiler. Recovery boiler 

#2 is exhausted to an ESP to control 

particulate emissions. This unit also 

serves to re-introduce salt cake into the 

black liquor which further concentrates 

the solids content. 

ii. Recovery Boiler #2 

(1) PM BART Review: PM emissions 

are currently controlled with the ESP to 

levels meeting compliance with MACT 

standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

MM). Since the unit is meeting the 

MACT standard, Maine determined that 

these controls represent BART. 

(2) SO2 and NOX BART Review: SO2

and NOX emissions are controlled by 

proper operation of the recovery boiler, 

including a three-level staged 

combustion air control system, and 

limitations on fuel oil use and the sulfur 

content. As no new control technologies 

are available for further control of these 

pollutants from a recovery boiler, 

current controls constitute BART for 

this unit. 

iii. EPA Assessment 

EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and 

conclusions for the BART emission unit 

located at the Lincoln Paper and Tissue, 

LLC facility are reasonable. EPA has 

reviewed the Maine analyses and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. Current NOX and SO2

emission limits are federally enforceable 

via the Maine Air License A–177–71–A/ 

R issued under Maine’s EPA approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

program. 

d. SD Warren Company, Somerset 

i. Background 

SD Warren Company (SDW) is an 

integrated Kraft pulp and paper mill. 

Whole logs, chips, and other biomass, 

are delivered to the mill by truck and/ 

or train. The logs are sawn, debarked, 

chipped and stored in the mill’s 

woodyard. The biomass is stored in 

piles and then conveyed to the boilers. 

The chips are stored in piles and then 

conveyed to the chip bin, chip steaming 

vessel, and then the digester. SDW 

operates one Kamyr continuous digester 

to produce pulp (hardwood, softwood, 

or any combination thereof), one 

recovery boiler and one lime kiln in the 

recaust process for reclamation of the 

pulping chemicals. There are two multifuel boilers and an oil fired package 

boiler to supply the mill with steam. 

SDW has three paper machines which 

produce paper. There are also two pulp 

machines. One pulp machine has a 

steam operated dryer and both machines 

produce bailed pulp. The mill also 

operates support facilities, including the 

wood yard, wastewater treatment plant, 

sludge presses, pulp and paper 

production labs, environmental labs, 

roll wrapping, shipping and receiving 

operations, and a landfill. 

There are four emissions units that 

were determined to be BART eligible at 

this facility: the recovery boiler, smelt 

tanks #1 and #2, and the lime kiln. 

ii. Recovery Boiler 

The recovery boiler was installed in 

1975–1976. It is used to recover 

chemicals from spent pulping liquors 

and to produce steam for mill 

operations. The recovery boiler is 

licensed to fire black liquor (spent 

pulping liquor), residual (#6) fuel oil, 

distillate (#2) fuel oil, and used oil. The 

recovery boiler is also licensed to 

combust low volume-high concentration 

(LVHC) and high volume-low 

concentration (HVLC) gases produced at 

various points in the pulping process. 

The licensed maximum black liquor 

firing rate is 5.5 million pounds per day 

of BLS. The recovery boiler is subject to 

MACT standards for Chemical Recovery 

Combustion Sources at Kraft Soda, 

Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical 

Pulp Mills (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

MM). 

(1) PM BART Review: SDW currently 

operates a three-chamber electrostatic 

precipitator on the recovery boiler. 

Maine identified the following available 

retrofit technologies for control of PM 

from Kraft mill recovery boilers: 

Electrostatic precipitators, wet 

scrubbers, and fabric filters. Wet 

scrubbers were eliminated as a feasible 

control strategy because the ESP 

currently installed is capable of a greater 

degree of emissions control at a lower 

operating cost. Fabric filters are 

generally considered to be equivalent to 

ESPs in regards to pollution control; 

however, fabric filters have not been 

applied to recovery boilers at Kraft 

mills. Maine therefore eliminated fabric 

filters as a feasible control alternative 

and concluded that the current control, 

specifically operation of the ESP, 

represents BART for this unit. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: SDW’s recovery 

boiler is currently equipped with a fourlevel staged combustion air system. 

SDW identified staged combustion 

systems and wet scrubbers as available 

retrofit technologies for control of SO2

from Kraft mill recovery boilers. SO2

emissions from recovery boilers occur 

due to the volatilization and subsequent 

oxidation of sulfur compounds that are 

present in the black liquor. Proper 

operation of the recovery boiler 

maximizes the conversion of sulfur 

compounds in the liquor to the 

principal constituents of the pulping 

chemicals. This occurs through capture 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73970 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of these sulfur compounds in the 

combustion zone of the boiler by 

sodium fume released from the smelt 

bed. Consequently, proper combustion 

control achieved through the use of 

staged combustion air systems results in 

effective control of SO2 emissions. The 

only available alternative for SO2

emission control is a wet scrubber. 

However, recovery boilers with a 

properly operated staged air combustion 

system operate at much lower 

concentrations of SO2 in the flue gas 

than emission units to which wet 

scrubbers are routinely applied. Given 

the already low SO2 levels, the 

installation and use of a scrubber would 

be prohibitively expensive. The 

maximum modeled visibility 

impairment from this unit due to SO2 is 

0.02 dv. Maine determined therefore 

that current control represents BART for 

this unit. 

(3) NOX BART Review: SDW’s 

recovery boiler is upgraded to a fourlevel staged combustion air system. 

Maine identified the following available 

retrofit technologies for control of NOX

from Kraft mill recovery boilers: Staged 

combustion systems, SNCR, SCR, LNBs, 

Flue Gas Recirculation, and LowTemperature Oxidation. Emission 

controls which have been demonstrated 

on conventional steam boilers, 

including SNCR, SCR, FGR, and LNBs 

have not been demonstrated to be 

feasible on Kraft mill recovery boilers. 

There has been some small-scale work 

done on ‘‘low-temperature oxidation’’ 

where pure oxygen is injected into the 

evaporation process to drive ammonia 

from the black liquor. However, the 

company currently looking into this 

technology has advised Maine that they 

are not aware of any commercial size 

units where this technology has been 

used. Maine did not consider this 

technology to be technically feasible. 

Maine concluded that there are no 

technically feasible alternatives for 

control of NOX emissions from recovery 

boilers other than proper operation of 

the boiler and the staged combustion 

control system. Since the controls 

already in place are considered the most 

stringent available, Maine determined 

that these controls represent BART for 

this unit. 

iii. Smelt Tanks #1 and #2 

SDW operates two smelt tanks which 

were installed in 1975–1976. The smelt 

tanks operate in conjunction with the 

recovery boiler. Recovered sodiumbased pulping chemicals, in the form of 

molten salts, are discharged from the 

bottom of the recovery boiler into the 

smelt tanks, where they are mixed with 

a water/caustic solution to form green 

liquor. The smelt tanks are subject to 

MACT standards (40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart MM). 

(1) PM BART Review: SDW currently 

operates a wetted fan scrubber on each 

of the smelt tanks for control of 

particulate emissions. The scrubbing 

media for the scrubbers is either water 

or weak wash from the white liquor 

clarification system. Maine identified 

the following potential retrofit 

technologies for control of PM from 

smelt tanks: ESPs, wet scrubbers, fabric 

filters, and mist eliminators. The most 

common PM emission control system 

employed on smelt tanks is wet 

scrubbers. The use of wet scrubbers also 

provides a secondary environmental 

benefit by controlling reduced sulfur 

compound emissions. The high 

moisture content of the smelt tank 

exhaust gases makes dry PM control 

systems, including fabric filters and dry 

ESPs, technically infeasible on this type 

of emission unit. The only remaining 

control technology, mist eliminators, 

provides a lower degree of PM emission 

control than the use of wet scrubbers. 

Therefore, Maine determined that the 

current operation of the wet scrubbers 

represents BART for these units. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Since no 

combustion takes place within smelt 

tanks, SO2 is not generated within the 

emission unit. Maine has found that SO2

emissions from the smelt tanks are 

dependent on how much sulfur carries 

over from the respective recovery 

boilers with the smelt. SO2 emissions 

from both smelt dissolving tanks 

combined are very low at approximately 

10.5 tons per year, primarily because the 

wet scrubber used for PM control also 

reduces SO2 emissions. Maine 

determined that BART for SO2

emissions from smelt tanks #1 and #2 is 

no additional control based on the 

following: (1) SO2 emissions from the 

smelt dissolving tanks during the BART 

baseline period were, and are expected 

to continue to be, extremely low (∼10.5 

TPY, combined); (2) the smelt 

dissolving tanks and associated 

scrubbers are designed and operated to 

minimize SO2 emissions; (3) SO2

emissions from the smelt dissolving 

tanks have a minimal impact on 

visibility (<0.004 deciviews); and (4) 

additional control of SO2 emissions 

from the smelt dissolving tanks would 

have a minimal impact on overall 

visibility. Therefore, Maine determined 

that current controls represent BART for 

these units. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Since no 

combustion takes place within smelt 

tanks, NOX is not generated within the 

emission unit. Therefore, Maine 

determined that current controls 

represent BART for these units. 

iv. Lime Kiln 

The lime kiln was installed in 1975– 

1976. It is used to convert lime mud 

(principally calcium carbonate) to lime 

(calcium oxide). Fuel is fired in the lime 

kiln to generate the heat that is needed 

to convert lime mud to lime. The lime 

kiln is licensed to fire residual (#6) fuel 

oil, distillate (#2) fuel oil, used oil, and 

propane. The lime kiln is also licensed 

to combust LVHC gases and foul 

condensate streams. 

(1) PM BART Review: Particulate 

emissions from the lime kiln are 

currently controlled by a variable throat 

venturi scrubber system followed by a 

cyclone separator. Maine identified the 

following available retrofit technologies 

for control of PM from lime kilns: 

Electrostatic precipitators, wet 

scrubbers, and fabric filters. Fabric 

filters have never been applied to Kraft 

pulp mill lime kilns. They are generally 

deemed to be technically infeasible on 

lime kilns. ESPs provide a greater 

degree of particulate matter control than 

venturi scrubbers. However, the 

possible annual reduction in emissions 

to be gained by replacing the existing 

scrubber with an ESP is relatively small 

(estimated at under 40 tons/year). 

Additionally, the scrubber also helps 

control emissions of SO2 and reduced 

sulfur compounds. This beneficial 

removal of other pollutants is not 

available to lime kilns equipped with 

ESPs. Consequently, replacement of the 

existing scrubber with an ESP would be 

expected to result in higher Total 

Reduced Sulfur (TRS) and SO2

emissions from the lime kiln. 

Furthermore, any potential 

improvement in visibility impacts 

associated with retrofitting an ESP on 

the lime kiln, the modeling result for 

current PM emissions from the Lime 

Kiln was 0.0463 dv; well below the 

State’s de minimis level of 0.1 dv. 

Therefore, Maine determined that the 

current operation of the scrubber 

represents BART for the lime kiln. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 forms in 

the lime kiln from either the combustion 

of sulfur in the fuel or combustion of 

TRS compounds in the LVHC gases. 

Currently, emissions of SO2 are 

controlled by using a combination of the 

inherent sulfur removal provided by 

operation of the kiln itself (i.e. extensive 

contact between burner exhaust gases 

and the calcium compounds in the kiln) 

enhanced through the use of a venturi 

wet scrubber (post-combustion). SDW 

also uses a caustic scrubber (precombustion) on the LVHC gases fired in 

the boiler. Firing of LVHC gases in the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73971 

lime kiln without pre-treatment with the 

caustic scrubber causes formation of 

rings within the lime kiln leading to 

excessive down-time of the equipment. 

Emissions of SO2 from the lime kiln can 

vary significantly based on the amount 

of LVHC gases being fired and whether 

or not the caustic scrubber is in 

operation. Maine identified the 

following available retrofit technologies 

for control of SO2 from lime kilns: Lime 

kiln operation and wet scrubbers. Since 

these controls are already in place, 

Maine determined that current controls 

represent BART for this unit. 

(3) NOX BART Review: NOX emissions 

from the lime kiln are currently 

controlled by good combustion controls 

and operation of the unit’s combustion 

air system. The maximum modeled 

visibility impairment on a Class I area 

is 0.06 dv. Maine identified the 

following potential retrofit technologies 

for control of NOX from lime kilns: 

Combustion Air Systems controls, 

SNCR, SCR, LNBs, and FGR. However, 

Maine’s analysis concluded there are no 

technically feasible alternatives for 

control of NOX from lime kilns beyond 

the measures currently employed. LNBs 

negatively impact the efficiency, energy 

use, and calcining capacity of a lime 

kiln. Post combustion controls, such as 

SCR and SNCR, are not feasible for lime 

kilns. The temperature window 

necessary for the SNCR process (1500– 

2000 °F) is unavailable in a Kraft lime 

kiln. The high PM load at the exit of the 

kiln precludes the placement of the 

catalyst grid needed for the SCR process 

upstream of the PM control device, and 

the requisite temperature window 

required for this process (550–750 °F) is 

not available downstream of the PM 

control system. Therefore, Maine 

determined that current controls 

represent BART for this unit. 

v. EPA Assessment 

EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and 

conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at the SD Warrant 

Company, Somerset facility are 

reasonable. EPA has reviewed the Maine 

analyses and concluded they were 

conducted in a manner consistent with 

EPA’s BART Guidelines. 

e. Verso Androscoggin 

i. Background 

The Verso Androscoggin pulp mill in 

Jay, Maine, produces bleached Kraft 

pulp and groundwood pulp. The 

bleached pulp is produced in two 

separate process lines, designated ‘‘A’’ 

and ‘‘B.’’ Groundwood pulp is produced 

in another separate process line. Logs 

and wood chips are received in the 

Woodyard area, where they are stored 

and processed for eventual use in the 

Pulp Mill or Groundwood Mill. The 

Pulp Mill consists of two separate, 

parallel Kraft chemical pulping process 

lines. Pulp produced at the Verso Jay 

Mill is either used in the paper mill area 

or dried in the Flash Dryer for storage 

and/or sale. 

The Paper Mill consists of all the 

equipment and operations used to 

convert pulp to paper, including stock 

preparation, additive preparation, 

coating preparation, starch handling, 

finishing, storage, and paper machines. 

Non-condensable gases (NCGs) collected 

throughout the process from certain 

units in the Pulp Mill are sent to the 

lime kilns for combustion. The HVLC 

emission streams from certain other 

units are collected and sent to the 

Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer where 

they are incinerated. The Mill produces 

steam and electric power for mill 

operations with power boilers #1 and #2 

and the waste fuel incinerator (WFI). 

There are ten BART-eligible units at 

Verso Jay: (1) Power boiler #1; (2) power 

boiler #2; (3) waste fuel incinerator; (4) 

recovery boiler # 1; (5) recovery boiler 

#2; (6) smelt tank #1; (7) smelt tank #2; 

(8) lime kiln A; (9) lime kiln B; and (10) 

flash dryer. 

ii. Power Boilers #1 and #2 

Power boilers #1 and #2 are each 

rated at 680 MMBtu/hr and began 

operation in 1965 and 1967, 

respectively. Power boilers #1 and #2 

are licensed to fire #6 fuel oil, #2 fuel 

oil, and used oil. The license currently 

limits the sulfur content of the fuel oil 

to no more than 1.8%, by weight. In 

addition, each boiler is equipped with 

LNBs. The operation of the two boilers 

is related to whether or not and how the 

cogeneration plant (three natural gas 

fired turbines) at the Mill is operating. 

Typically, when the cogeneration plant 

is operating, power boilers #1 and #2 do 

not operate. When the cogeneration 

plant is not operating, both boilers are 

operated; however, one boiler will 

typically carry the bulk of the load and 

the other boiler will be idled or run at 

a low load. There are occasions when 

both boilers operate at high load but this 

is not a routine operating mode. 

(1) PM BART Review: Maine found 

that PM10 emissions from power boilers 

#1 and #2 are low and have minimal 

impact on visibility. The maximum 

modeled visibility impact on a Class I 

area due to PM10 is 0.03 dv. As the 

boilers are subject to the final ‘‘Boiler 

MACT’’ standards (40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart DDDDD) promulgated in 2011, 

Maine did not further consider 

additional controls in its BART analysis 

and determined that compliance with 

these standards represents BART for 

power boilers #1 and #2. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine 

identified and evaluated low sulfur 

fuels, wet scrubbing, dry scrubbing, and 

semi-dry scrubbing as potential control 

technologies in the reduction of SO2

emissions from power boilers #1 and #2. 

Dry and semi-dry scrubbing control 

technologies were evaluated; however, 

the control effectiveness levels would be 

low (<25%), downstream particulate 

matter control devices such as an ESP 

and/or fabric filter would need to be 

installed to collect and re-circulate the 

scrubbing material, and no applications 

of these technologies on fuel oil fired 

boilers like power boilers #1 and #2 

were identified during research of 

potential control technologies. Low 

sulfur fuels and wet scrubbing control 

technologies were found to be 

technically feasible and were evaluated 

further. Switching to natural gas, #2 fuel 

oil, and wet scrubbing were estimated to 

cost between $2,200 and $3,300 per ton 

SO2 removed with a visibility 

improvement of 1.5 dv. Switching to 

0.7% sulfur #6 fuel oil was estimated to 

cost $631 per ton SO2 removed with a 

visibility improvement of 0.9 dv. 

The cost effectiveness numbers above 

are based on the highest estimated two 

year average of annual emissions 

between 2002 and 2008. In recent years 

(2008 and 2009) these boilers have been 

operating close to only 20% of the time. 

This would result in an actual cost 

effectiveness for wet scrubbing of 

between $4,920 and $7,133 per ton of 

SO2 removed. The use of low sulfur 

fuels or a wet scrubber has the potential 

to reduce visibility impacts from power 

boilers #1 and #2 by a perceptible 

amount; however, there are significant 

cost differences among the three low 

sulfur containing fuels evaluated by 

Maine and the wet scrubber. Maine 

concluded that the use of 0.7% sulfur by 

weight #6 fuel oil is a feasible and 

justifiable cost at $631 per ton of SO2

reduced. The incremental cost of 

switching to natural gas from 0.7% 

sulfur by weight #6 fuel oil is $7,492 per 

ton and the incremental cost of 

switching to wet scrubbing from 0.7% 

sulfur by weight #6 fuel is $4,811 per 

ton. Maine determined that these costs 

were not justifiable for an additional 0.6 

dv improvement. In addition, Maine’s 

low sulfur legislation will require the 

facility to use 0.5% sulfur by weight #6 

oil by 2018. At that time, the price of the 

0.5% sulfur by weight oil will be 

reduced due to increased supply to the 

State. Therefore, Maine determined that 

the use of lower sulfur (0.7% sulfur by 

weight) #6 fuel oil in place of the higher 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73972 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

sulfur (1.8% sulfur by weight) #6 fuel 

oil currently fired, represents BART for 

control of SO2 emissions from power 

boilers #1 and #2. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Maine 

identified and evaluated SCR, LNB, 

SNCR, and combustion control methods 

(including an overfire air (OFA) system 

and a flue gas recirculation (FGR) 

system) as potential control 

technologies for the reduction of NOX

emissions from power boilers #1 and #2. 

SCR and SNCR control technologies 

were found to be technically feasible 

and were evaluated further. LNBs are 

currently installed and used on power 

boilers #1 and #2, and are estimated to 

provide a 15% reduction in NOX

emissions, so were not evaluated 

further. Combustion control methods 

were evaluated; however, none were 

found to be viable control options for 

power boilers #1 and #2. Maine found 

that the size and design of power boilers 

#1 and #2 would provide little room for 

the installation of an overfire air system 

and that the application of a flue gas 

recirculation system would result in 

minimal reductions (7% to 15%) in 

NOX emissions. The cost effectiveness 

of SCR is $5,271 per ton NOX removed 

with a visibility improvement of 1.7 dv. 

The cost effectiveness of SNCR is $5,973 

per ton NOX removed for a visibility 

improvement of 1.4 dv. 

The cost effectiveness numbers 

presented above are based on 

controlling NOX emissions from power 

boilers #1 and #2 from the highest 

estimated two-year average annual 

emissions between 2002 and 2008. In 

recent years (2008 and 2009) these 

boilers have been operating close to 

only 20% of the time, which for 

example, would result in an actual cost 

effectiveness of $16,313 per ton of NOX

removed with the installation of SCR. 

Although the use of SCR or SNCR has 

the potential to reduce visibility impacts 

by a perceptible amount, Maine 

concluded that the cost effectiveness 

levels are not economically justifiable 

based on the limited use of power 

boilers #1 and #2 in recent years. 

Therefore, Maine determined that the 

current use of LNBs represents BART 

for control of NOX emissions from 

power boilers #1 and #2 and that no 

additional level of control is justifiable 

as BART. 

iii. Waste Fuel Incinerator Boiler 

The waste fuel incinerator (WFI) is 

rated at 480 MMBtu/hr on biomass and 

240 MMBtu/hr on oil and began 

operation in 1976. While the WFI 

primarily fires biomass, fuel oils (#6 and 

#2 fuel oils, waste oil, and oily rags) can 

also be fired in the boiler. Sulfur 

dioxide and particulate matter 

emissions are controlled using a 

variable throat venturi scrubber and 

demister arrangement. When #6 fuel oil 

is fired in significant amounts, caustic is 

used in the wet scrubber to meet the 

applicable SO2 emission limit. In 

addition, the WFI is equipped with a 

combustion system designed to ensure 

the optimal balance between control of 

NOX and limitation of CO and VOC. 

(1) PM BART Review: The maximum 

modeled visibility impact due to PM10

from the WFI is 0.06 dv. The WFI is 

subject to EPA’s ‘‘Boiler MACT’’ 

standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

DDDDD). Maine determined that current 

controls represent BART. 

(2) SO2 Bart Review: Maine identified 

and evaluated low sulfur fuels, wet 

scrubbing, dry scrubbing, and semi-dry 

scrubbing as potential control 

technologies in the reduction of SO2

emissions from the WFI. While using 

low sulfur fuels is technically feasible, 

Maine believes that it is not a practically 

feasible option for the WFI based on the 

limited amount of fuel oil typically used 

in the boiler (less than 10% of the 

annual fuel oil heat input capacity). The 

WFI currently uses a water based wet 

scrubbing system for PM control with 

the addition of caustic to meet SO2

emission limits when firing #6 fuel oil 

in significant amounts. Dry and semidry scrubbing control technologies were 

not considered by Maine to be either 

practical or technically feasible for the 

WFI due to the fact that they could not 

find any applications of these 

technologies on any other biomass-fired 

grate type boilers like the WFI. Maine 

also states that removing the existing 

wet scrubber and replacing it with a dry 

or semi-dry scrubbing system and a new 

ESP and/or fabric filter would be costly. 

The only remaining viable SO2 control 

technology (adding caustic to the 

existing wet scrubbing system) has a 

cost effectiveness of $21,800 per ton SO2

removed with an expected visibility 

improvement of less than 0.01 dv. 

The WFI has very low baseline SO2

emissions (∼50 tons per year) and a 

maximum modeled SO2 visibility 

impact of less than 0.01 dv, due to the 

inherent low sulfur content and 

alkalinity of the primary fuel (biomass) 

and the small amount of fuel oil used in 

the WFI. In addition, during the limited 

amount of time that #6 fuel oil is used 

to provide a significant portion of the 

heat input to the WFI, caustic is added 

to the wet scrubber to control SO2

emissions. Therefore, Maine determined 

that additional control of SO2 emissions 

from the WFI cannot be justified as 

BART due to the imperceptible effect it 

would have on visibility. Maine 

concluded that current controls 

represent BART for this unit. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Maine 

identified and evaluated SCR, LNB, 

SNCR, and combustion control methods 

(including an overfire air system and 

FGR) as potential control technologies 

in the reduction of NOX emissions from 

the WFI. SCR and SNCR control 

technologies were found to be 

technically feasible and were evaluated 

further. Because the WFI primarily fires 

biomass on the grate, LNBs would not 

be effective for the majority of the time 

that the WFI operates. Combustion 

control methods were evaluated; 

however, none were found to be viable 

control options for the WFI due to the 

limited NOX removal potential (<15%), 

potential impacts to other pollutants 

and boiler equipment, and the limited 

amount of room available for the 

installation of control equipment. Maine 

determined that SCR, SNCR and FGR 

have a cost effectiveness ranging from 

$4,676 to $17,010 per ton NOX removed, 

with capital costs ranging from $3 to 

$7.6 million, and a resulting maximum 

visibility improvement of only 0.3 dv. 

Maine concluded that the cost 

effectiveness levels are not 

economically justifiable for any of the 

control technologies evaluated given the 

maximum visibility improvement 

resulting from the use of these 

technologies. Maine determined that 

current combustion control represents 

BART for the WFI. 

iv. Recovery Boilers #1 and #2 

Recovery boilers #1 and #2 generate 

steam while regenerating chemicals 

used in the wood pulping process, and 

began operation in 1965 and 1976, 

respectively. Recovery boilers #1 and #2 

have rated processing capacities of 2.50 

and 3.44 million pounds per day of dry 

black liquor solids (BLS), respectively. 

Inorganic material (smelt) from the 

bottoms of the recovery boilers is used 

to produce green liquor, which is a 

solution of sodium sulfide and sodium 

carbonate salts, when it is dissolved in 

water or weak wash in the smelt 

dissolving tanks (#1 and #2). Although 

the recovery boilers primarily fire black 

liquor, they also fire small quantities of 

#2 and #6 fuel oils during startup, 

shutdown, and load stabilization 

conditions. The facility’s license 

currently limits the sulfur content of the 

fuel oils to no more than 0.5%, by 

weight. Particulate matter emissions 

from both recovery boilers are currently 

controlled using an ESP. 

(1) PM BART Review: PM emissions 

from recovery boilers #1 and #2 are 

currently controlled by an existing 

shared/common ESP. Recovery boilers 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73973 

#1 and #2 are subject to MACT 

standards pursuant to 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart MM. Maine reviewed the 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

(RBLC) and found that the current 

control configuration is the most 

effective control technology in use on 

recovery boilers and that there are no 

new, more effective technologies 

subsequent to the MACT standard that 

should be considered. Therefore, Maine 

determined current controls represent 

BART for recovery boilers #1 and #2. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has 

found that SO2 emissions from recovery 

boilers #1 and #2 are variable due to 

several factors including black liquor 

properties (e.g., sulfidity, sulfur to 

sodium ratio, heat value, and solids 

content), combustion air, liquor firing 

patterns, furnace design features, and 

type of startup fuel used. Although each 

recovery boiler has the ability to utilize 

#2 fuel oil, #6 fuel oil, and used/waste 

oil for startup, shutdown, and load 

stabilizing conditions, fuel oil firing is 

not a typical operating scenario for the 

recovery boilers. Maine identified and 

evaluated wet scrubbing, dry scrubbing, 

and semi-dry scrubbing as potential 

control technologies in the reduction of 

SO2 emissions from recovery boilers #1 

and #2; however, none of these 

technologies were found to have been 

applied to recovery boilers. Therefore, 

Maine determined that existing 

combustion controls represent BART for 

the control of SO2 emissions from 

recovery boilers #1 and #2. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Kraft recovery 

boilers are a unique type of combustion 

source that inherently produce low 

levels of NOX emissions. Most of the 

NOX emissions produced by recovery 

boilers can be attributed to fuel based 

NOX resulting from the partial oxidation 

of the nitrogen contained in the black 

liquor. Both recovery boilers #1 and #2 

operate with a reducing zone in the 

lower part of the boiler and an oxidizing 

zone in the region of the liquor spray 

guns designed to provide secondary and 

tertiary staged combustion zones to 

complete combustion of the black liquor 

and minimize NOX emissions. 

Maine identified and evaluated SCR, 

LNB, SNCR, and combustion control 

methods (including the addition of a 

fourth level or quaternary air system 

and a flue gas recirculation system) as 

potential control technologies in the 

reduction of NOX emissions from 

recovery boilers #1 and #2. SCR has not 

been applied or demonstrated 

successfully on any recovery boilers. It 

is unknown how the unique 

characteristics of recovery boiler 

exhaust gas constituents would react 

with a SCR catalyst, so there was no 

further evaluation of this control 

technology. Maine’s evaluation of LNB 

technology is that it is not technically 

feasible to use this technology in the 

firing of black liquor given its tar-like 

qualities and the method by which it is 

injected into the boiler and that it would 

have minimal results in the firing of fuel 

oils given the small amounts of fuel oils 

that are fired in the recovery boilers. 

Maine’s evaluation of SNCR control 

technologies resulted in a finding that 

there have been no applications of this 

technology on recovery boilers in the 

United States for a variety of reasons, 

including safety concerns associated 

with the risk of a smelt/water explosion 

should boiler tube walls corrode and 

leak near urea injection points and risks 

associated with an ammonia handling 

system for the SNCR. Operational 

concerns associated with SNCR were 

found to include the potential formation 

of acidic sulfates that could result in 

corrosion and a catastrophic boiler tube 

failure. Recovery boilers #1 and #2 are 

currently designed and operated using 

low excess air combined with three 

levels of staged combustion to minimize 

NOX emissions. Additional combustion 

control methods were evaluated by 

Maine, however none were found to be 

viable control options for recovery 

boilers #1 and #2 due to the limited 

amount of space in the boilers to install 

a fourth or quaternary air system and 

due to the technical challenges recirculating recovery boiler exhaust gases 

in a FGR system due to the unique 

characteristics of the exhaust gases. 

Therefore, Maine concluded that 

additional control of NOX emissions 

from recovery boilers #1 and #2 are not 

technically feasible and the existing 

combustion control methods represent 

BART for these units. 

v. Smelt Tanks #1 and #2 

Smelt dissolving tank #1 is rated at 

2.50 million pounds per day of dry BLS 

and began operation in 1965. Smelt 

dissolving tank #2 is rated at 3.44 

million pounds per day of dry BLS and 

began operation in 1975. Inorganic 

materials from the recovery boiler floors 

drain into smelt dissolving tanks #1 and 

#2 as molten smelt. In the smelt 

dissolving tanks, the smelt is mixed 

with weak wash to form green liquor 

which is pumped to the causticizing 

area. SO2 and PM10 emissions from 

smelt dissolving tank #1 are controlled 

with a dual-nozzle wet cyclonic 

scrubber which utilizes an alkaline 

scrubbing solution and was installed in 

1983. SO2 and PM10 emissions from 

smelt dissolving tank #2 are controlled 

with a triple-nozzle wet cyclonic 

scrubber which utilizes an alkaline 

scrubbing solution and was installed in 

1976. 

(1) PM BART Review: PM emissions 

from smelt dissolving tanks #1 and #2 

are currently controlled by existing wet 

cyclonic scrubbers. Smelt dissolving 

tanks #1 and #2 are subject to MACT 

standards under 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart MM. After review of the RACT/ 

BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, Maine 

determined that the current control 

configuration is the most current control 

technology in use on smelt dissolving 

tanks and represent BART for smelt 

dissolving tanks #1 and #2. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has 

found that SO2 emissions from smelt 

dissolving tanks #1 and #2 are 

dependent on how much sulfur carries 

over from the respective recovery 

boilers with the smelt. Controlled smeltwater explosions in the smelt dissolving 

tanks can create SO2 as a result of the 

oxidation of the sulfur in the smelt. SO2

emissions from both smelt dissolving 

tanks combined are very low at 

approximately 5 tons per year. Maine 

determined that BART for SO2

emissions from smelt dissolving tanks 

#1 and #2 is no additional control based 

on the following: 

(1) SO2 emissions from the smelt 

dissolving tanks during the BART 

baseline period were and are expected 

to continue to be extremely low (∼5 

TPY, combined); (2) the smelt 

dissolving tanks and associated 

scrubbers are designed and operated to 

minimize SO2 emissions; (3) SO2

emissions from the smelt dissolving 

tanks have a minimal impact on 

visibility (< 0.1 deciviews); and (4) 

additional control of SO2 emissions 

from the smelt dissolving tanks would 

have a minimal impact on overall 

visibility. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Smelt Tanks 

#1 and #2 do not emit NOX.

vi. Lime Kilns A and B 

The ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns process 

lime mud (calcium carbonate) from the 

causticizing area to regenerate calcium 

oxide. Inside the lime kilns, the lime 

mud is dried and heated to a high 

temperature where the lime mud is 

converted to lime. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime 

kilns are each rated at an operating rate 

of 248 tons of calcium oxide per day 

and a heat input of 72 MMBtu/hr and 

began operation in 1965 and 1975, 

respectively. The lime kilns are licensed 

to fire #6 fuel oil, #2 fuel oil, propane, 

and used/waste oil. The facility’s 

license currently limits the sulfur 

content of the fuel oil to no more than 

1.8%, by weight. The ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime 

kilns also serve as an incineration 

device (control device) for select sources 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73974 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

15Maine’s SIP revision submittal is unclear as to 

whether Maine judged the cost effectiveness of 

these technologies based on the longer, 2002–2008, 

timeframe or the shorter, 2008–2009, timeframe. 

States have broad discretion in setting BART, and 

EPA finds that Maine could have reasonably 

concluded that even the lower cost of these 

technologies under the 2002–2008 timeframe was 

not economically justifiable given the incremental 

visibility benefits associated with the more 

stringent technology. 

of low volume high concentration 

(LVHC) non-condensable gases (NCG) 

from pulping operations at the mill. 

Particulate matter emissions are 

controlled from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime 

kilns using a fixed throat venturi 

scrubber. 

(1) PM BART Review: PM10 emissions 

from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns consist 

primarily of dust entrained from the 

combustion section of the kilns. This 

dust consists of sodium salts, calcium 

carbonate, and calcium oxide. PM10

emissions are currently controlled by 

existing venturi scrubbers. These units 

are also subject to MACT Standards 

under section 112 of the CAA, and 40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart MM. Maine 

reviewed the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse and concluded that there 

are two control technologies that 

represent the most stringent PM control 

(ESPs and venturi scrubbers). Both ESPs 

and venturi scrubbers have been used to 

control PM emissions from lime kilns 

and both are capable of a high level of 

control. Maine determined that use of 

the existing venturi scrubbers to control 

PM10 emissions from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ 

represents BART for the following 

reasons: (1) The existing venturi 

scrubbers maintain compliance with the 

MACT emission limits; (2) the 

replacement of the existing venturi 

scrubbers with dry ESPs could increase 

SO2 emissions from the lime kilns when 

compared to use of the venturi 

scrubbers; (3) the replacement of the 

existing venturi scrubbers with wet 

ESPs would result in high capital costs 

($1.5 million per kiln); and (4)visibility 

impacts from the lime kilns are minimal 

(0.03–0.04 dv) and installation of 

additional control would result in 

inconsequential improvement in 

visibility. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Maine has 

found that a significant portion of the 

SO2 formed during the combustion 

process in the lime kilns is removed as 

the regenerated quicklime in the kilns 

functions as a scrubbing agent. In 

addition, the non-condensable gas 

(NCG) collection system is equipped 

with a scrubber that uses white liquor 

(sodium hydroxide or NaOH) and thus 

the sulfur loading from the NCGs is 

minimized. SO2 emissions from both 

lime kilns combined are very low at less 

than 4 tons per year primarily due to the 

alkalinity of the lime. Maine determined 

that BART for SO2 emissions from the 

‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns is no additional 

control based on the following: (1) SO2

emissions from the lime kilns during the 

BART baseline period were and are 

expected to continue to be extremely 

low (<4 TPY, combined); (2) there are 

no control technologies available for 

lime kilns that are more cost effective 

than the inherent scrubbing that occurs 

for SO2 due to the alkalinity of the lime 

in the process; (3) SO2 emissions from 

the smelt dissolving tanks have a 

minimal impact on visibility (<0.1 

deciviews); and (4) additional control of 

SO2 emissions from the lime kilns 

would have a minimal impact on overall 

visibility. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Maine 

identified and evaluated SCR, LNB, and 

SNCR as potential NOX control 

technologies. Maine’s evaluation of SCR 

and SNCR as potential NOX control 

technologies revealed that they have not 

been installed on any lime kilns in the 

pulp and paper industry, and were also 

found to be technically infeasible. 

Maine’s research with respect to lime 

kilns and LNB technology revealed that 

the technology is actually a combination 

of passive combustion control measures 

used to minimize NOX formation 

primarily from thermal NOX and to a 

lesser extent fuel NOX. These 

combustion control measures include 

careful design of the fuel feed system in 

order to ensure proper mixing of the 

fuel with air and burner ‘‘tuning’’ or 

optimization which impacts fuel 

burning efficiency and overall flame 

length. Verso Androscoggin already 

incorporates burner ‘‘tuning’’ in the 

operation and maintenance of the ‘‘A’’ 

and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns to optimize the 

relationship between NOX emissions 

and operating efficiency. Maine 

determined that the current use of LNB 

represents BART for control of NOX

emissions from ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime kilns 

and that no additional level of control 

is technically feasible. Maine also notes 

in the BART analysis that existing NOX

emissions from the ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ lime 

kilns have a minimal impact on 

visibility (< 0.1 deciviews) and that 

additional control of NOX emissions 

would have a minimal impact on the 

overall improvement to visibility. 

vii. Flash Dryer 

The flash dryer is used to dry pulp for 

resale or for storage and future use on 

one of Verso Androscoggin’s paper 

machines. The flash dryer has a rated 

heat input capacity of 84 MMBtu/hr and 

began operation in 1964. The flash dryer 

is licensed to fire #2 fuel oil, which 

contains a maximum sulfur content of 

0.5%. Particulate matter emissions are 

controlled using a wet shower system 

and SO2 emissions are limited through 

the firing of #2 fuel oil. 

(1) PM BART Review: Particulate 

matter emissions from the flash dryer 

are currently controlled by the use of a 

wet shower system. Maine concluded 

that the application of add-on controls 

and the use of cleaner fuels are not 

practical considerations for controlling 

PM emissions from the flash dryers and 

that with potential visibility impacts 

from the flash dryer being extremely 

low, any emission reductions would 

have an inconsequential impact on 

visibility improvement (less than 0.1 

dv). Therefore, Maine determined that 

current controls represent BART for the 

flash dryer. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: The flash dryer 

is limited by license conditions to firing 

#2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur 

content of 0.5%, by weight and so has 

relatively low SO2 emissions. Although 

Verso Androscoggin could replace the 

use of #2 fuel oil with lower sulfur 

containing fuels such as low sulfur 

(0.05%) diesel fuel or natural gas, the 

flash dryer is predicted to have peak 

visibility impacts of 0.1 deciviews or 

less. Therefore, Maine determined that 

current controls represent BART. 

(3) NOX BART Review: The flash 

dryer is not equipped with any NOX

control equipment. NOX emissions from 

the flash dryer are primarily generated 

from the nitrogen component in the fuel 

oil. Verso Androscoggin currently uses 

good maintenance practices to minimize 

NOX emissions from the flash dryer. 

Maine’s investigation of conventional 

NOX combustion controls (e.g., LNB, 

OFA, and FGR) lead to a finding that 

they are either unavailable for 

installation on the flash dryer or are not 

feasible for a combustion source as 

small as the flash dryer. Therefore, 

Maine determined that controls are 

sufficient for BART. 

viii. EPA Assessment 

EPA finds that Maine’s analyses and 

conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at the Verso Androscoggin 

facility are reasonable. EPA guidance 

gives the States wide latitude in the 

application of the five factors. EPA 

believes that Maine’s approach is 

reasonable for determining that current 

controls are sufficient for recovery 

boilers #1 and #2, WFI, smelt tanks #1 

and #2, lime kilns A and B, the flash 

dryer. EPA finds, with respect to the 

power boilers #1 and #2, that Maine’s 

determination that natural gas, #2 oil, or 

wet scrubbing technology are not 

economically justifiable, is reasonable.15


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73975 

16The MANE–VU recommended limit for these 

types of units is 0.5% sulfur content. However, 

under a state provision, 38 M.R.S.A. § 603–A, sub- 

§ 8—that was not submitted as part of the SIP 

revision and is not currently being considered by 

EPA—Maine DEP is limited to either requiring 1% 

sulfur content or a 50% reduction. Because States 

have broad discretion in setting BART, EPA finds 

that requiring 0.7% sulfur content is reasonable; 

however it should be noted that under 38 M.R.S.A. 

§ 603–A, sub-§ 2(A), which EPA is proposing to 

approve today, these units will be required to use 

0.5% sulfur content fuel by January 1, 2018. 

17The narrative that accompanies Maine’s SIP 

revision submittal lists this limit as 0.044 gr/dscf. 

However, the associated Table 10–9 BART 

Determination Summary for Red Shield 

Environmental, LLC of the SIP submittal and the 

license amendment issued by Maine DEP that EPA 

is proposing to approve into Maine’s SIP lists the 

limit as 0.028 gr/dscf. Therefore this limit is the 

enforceable limit. 

EPA also finds that Maine’s 

determination that #6 oil with 0.7% 

sulfur content and current NOX controls 

represent BART is reasonable.16 EPA 

has reviewed the Maine analyses and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. 

f. Red Shield Environmental, LLC 

i. Background 

Red Shield operates a pulp mill in 

Old Town, Maine. Pulp production at 

the facility begins with wood chips 

entering the facility, where they are 

conveyed to, and ‘‘cooked’’ in an 

impregnation vessel followed by a 

digester. In the digester, white liquor is 

used to dissolve the lignin from around 

the wood fibers. The pulp from the 

digester is then washed in the 

brownstock washer system to remove 

residual spent cooking liquor. After 

bleaching the pulp to the desired 

brightness, it is the dried. There are two 

BART eligible units at the facility; 

recovery boiler #4, and the lime kiln. 

These units are similar to those already 

discussed above at SD Warren and 

Verso Androscoggin, and Maine 

similarly concluded that current 

controls represent BART at Red Shield 

Environmental. 

ii. Recovery Boiler #4 

Recovery boiler #4, manufactured by 

Babcock & Wilcox, was originally 

installed in 1971. However, in June of 

1987, a smelt bed explosion damaged 

the boiler. Recovery boiler #4 was 

repaired and returned to operation by 

December of 1987. Recovery boiler #4 

has the capability of firing black liquor, 

either alone or in combination with #6 

fuel oil, and is limited to firing 2.57 

MMlbs of black liquor solids per day. 

The total heat input capacity of firing #6 

fuel alone in the boiler is 375 MMBtu/ 

hr (2500 gal/hr). An ESP controls 

particulate matter from the unit. 

(1) PM BART Review: Recovery boiler 

#4 is equipped with an ESP for 

particulate matter, and a limit of 0.028 

grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ 

dscf) 17 has been established pursuant to 

MACT, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM. 

Therefore, Maine determined current 

controls were determined to represent 

BART. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 emissions 

from the recovery boiler #4 are limited 

through the use of low sulfur (0.5% fuel 

sulfur content limit) as established by 

air emission license amendment A–180– 

71–Z–A and required by the facility’s 

Part 70 air emission license (A–180–70– 

A–I). Therefore, Maine determined the 

current controls represent BART. 

(3) NOX BART Review: Recovery 

boiler #4 is subject to Maine’s federally 

enforceable Chapter 138—Reasonably 

Available Control Technology for 

Facilities that Emit Nitrogen Oxides (69 

FR 66748) which contains the 

applicable NOX ppm limit (150 ppm). 

The unit is also subject to a best 

practical treatment (BPT) NOX limit of 

154.4 pounds per hour (lb/hr) when 

firing black liquor, and a 188.2 lb/hr 

limit when firing oil. The maximum 

visibility impact from this source on a 

Class I area is minimal, 0.2631 dv, 

0.2070 dv impact due to NOX.

Therefore, Maine determined the 

current controls represent BART. 

iii. Lime Kiln 

The lime kiln, lime mud clarifier, 

storage tanks, precoat filter, and 

scrubber are all part of the lime kiln 

system. Lime mud (CaCO3) from the 

recausticizing slaker system is 

processed back into lime (CaO) through 

the lime kiln system. The lime kiln was 

installed in 1974 and is controlled with 

a venturi scrubber system. The lime kiln 

burner has a rating of 64 MMBtu/hr and 

fires primarily #6 fuel oil with a 2% 

sulfur content. Propane is used only for 

the pilot flame. Low volume high 

concentration (LVHC) gases are also 

fired in the lime kiln. 

(1) PM BART Review: The lime kiln is 

equipped with a venturi scrubber 

system for particulate matter, and is 

subject to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM, 

which contains an applicable PM 

emission limit of 0.064 gr/dscf. 

However, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM 

also allows Red Shield to propose an 

alternative PM limit (0.13 gr/dscf), 

which takes into account facility 

emissions from the #4 Recovery Boiler 

and #4 Smelt Tank. Maine also 

established an applicable PM emission 

limit of 32.9 lb/hr under Maine’s BPT 

program. Therefore, Maine determined 

current controls represent BART. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: The lime kiln 

is subject to Maine’s BPT with an 

applicable limit of 7.1 lb/hr. Therefore, 

Maine determined that current controls 

represent BART. 

(3) NOX BART Review: The lime kiln 

is subject to Maine’s Chapter 138 which 

contains the applicable NOX ppm limit 

(170 ppm on a dry basis). The 

applicable NOX lb/hr emission limit is 

36.0 lb/hr. The maximum visibility 

impact from this source on a Class I area 

is minimal, 0.1338 dv, 0.085 dv impact 

due to NOX. Therefore, Maine 

determined that current controls 

represent BART. 

iv. EPA Assessment 

Under EPA Guidance, States have 

wide discretion as to how they assess 

the BART five factors. Visibility 

modeling indicates the maximum 

visibility impairment from the #4 

recovery boiler and the lime kiln is 0.26 

dv and 0.13 dv, respectively. The 

sources at Red Shield Environmental are 

similar to units at Verso Androscoggin 

and several other facilities. Maine 

analyzed the potential for add on 

controls for recovery boilers and lime 

kilns for Verso Androscoggin, finding 

additional controls for those units to be 

technologically infeasible. Based on that 

analysis, EPA finds that Maine’s 

conclusion that the current controls are 

sufficient for BART is reasonable. EPA 

has reviewed the Maine analyses and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. 

6. Enforceability of BART 

As noted above, some of the BART 

units are subject to MACT standards 

that are federally enforceable. In 

addition, as part of the Maine’s 

December 6, 2010 Regional Haze SIP 

submittal, Maine DEP included source 

specific permits which detail emission 

limits, and record keeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

installation of the identified BART 

controls. EPA is proposing to approve 

the submitted license conditions as part 

of this rulemaking action. If finalized, as 

proposed, these conditions will become 

federally enforceable. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in Section II. E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state to obtain its share of emission 

reductions to support the RPGs 

established by Maine, New Hampshire, 

Vermont, and New Jersey, the nearby 

Class I area States. Maine’s LTS for the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73976 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

18The inventory was prepared before the MACT 

for industrial Boilers and Process Heaters was 

vacated. Control efficiency was assumed to be 4 

percent for SO2 and 40 percent for PM. The overall 

effects of including these reductions in the 

inventory are estimated to be minimal. 

19NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250. 

first implementation period addresses 

the emissions reductions from federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. Maine 

participated in the MANE–VU regional 

strategy development process. As a 

participant, Maine supported a regional 

approach towards deciding which 

control measures to pursue for regional 

haze, which was based on technical 

analyses documented in the following 

reports: (a) The MANE–VU Contribution 

report; (b) Assessment of Reasonable 

Progress for Regional Haze in MANE– 

VU Class I Areas, available at 

www.marama.org/visibility/RPG/ 

FinalReport/RPGFinalReport_070907. 

pdf; c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART– 

Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations, 

available at www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28- 

07.pdf; and d) Assessment of Control 

Technology Options for BART–Eligible 

Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities, available at 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bartcontrol-assessment.pdf. 

The LTS was developed by Maine, in 

coordination with MANE–VU, 

identifying the emissions units within 

Maine that are currently likely have the 

largest impacts on visibility at nearby 

Class I areas, estimating emissions 

reductions for 2018, based on all 

controls required under federal and 

state regulations for the 2002–2018 

period (including BART), and 

comparing projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for the nearby Class I area. 

Maine’s LTS includes measures 

needed to achieve its share of emissions 

reductions agreed upon through the 

consultation process with MANE–VU 

Class I States and includes enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals established by New 

Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey 

for their Class I areas. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU 

with assistance from Maine. The 2018 

emissions inventory was developed by 

projecting 2002 emissions, and 

assuming emissions growth due to 

projected increases in economic activity 

as well as applying reductions expected 

from federal and state regulations 

affecting the emissions of VOC and the 

visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, 

PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART 

guidelines direct States to exercise 

judgment in deciding whether VOC and 

NH3 impair visibility in their Class I 

area(s). As discussed further in Section 

IV.C.1 above, MANE–VU demonstrated 

that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates 

are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass 

and visibility impairment at Class I 

areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

region. It was also determined that the 

total ammonia emissions in the MANE– 

VU region are extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3) 

off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road 

mobile sources. The New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. Off-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways. On-road 

mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types, 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Maine anticipate 

will reduce emissions between the 

baseline period and 2018. Emission 

reductions from these control programs 

were projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 at all of 

the MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

reasonable progress measures, MANE– 

VU developed emissions projections for 

2018 called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The 

emissions inventory provided by the 

Maine DEP for the ‘‘Best and Final’’ 

2018 projections is based on expected 

control requirements. 

Maine relied on emission reductions 

from the following ongoing and 

expected air pollution control programs 

as part of the state’s long term strategy. 

Maine’s EGU Regulation (Chapter 145 

NOX Control Program) limits the NOX

emission rate to 0.22 lb NOX/MMBtu for 

fossil fuel-fired units greater than 25 

MW built before 1995 with a heat input 

capacity between 250 and 750 MMBtu/ 

hr, and also limits the NOX emission 

rate to 0.17 lb NOX/MMBtu for fossil 

fuel-fired units greater than 25 MW built 

before 1995 with a heat input capacity 

greater than 750 MMBtu/hr. 

Non-EGU point source controls in 

Maine include: 2-year, 4-year, 7-year, 

and 10-year MACT Standards; 

Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT; Industrial Boiler/Process Heater 

MACT.18

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur 

and remand of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule.19 This MACT was vacated 

since it was directly affected by the 

vacatur and remand of the Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed 

a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to 

address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 

FR 32006) and issued a final rule on 

March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). 

Maine’s modeling included emission 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule. Maine did not redo 

its modeling analysis when the rule was 

re-issued. However, the expected 

reductions in SO2 and PM resulting 

from both the vacated and revised 

MACT rule are a relatively small 

component of the Maine inventory. The 

expected emission reductions from the 

revised MACT rule are comparable to 

the modeled reductions from the 

vacated MACT rule. In addition, the 

new MACT rule requires compliance by 

2014 and therefore the expected 

emission reductions will be achieved 

prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. 

Controls on area sources expected in 

2018 include the following Maine state 

regulations: architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings (06–096 CMR 

Chapter 151) and solvent cleaning (06– 

096 CMR Chapter 130); mobile 

equipment repair and refinishing (06– 

096 CMR Chapter 153); and VOC control 

measures for portable fuel containers 

(06–096 CMR Chapter 155) and 

consumer products (06–096 CMR 

Chapter 152). All of these rules have 

been incorporated into the Maine SIP. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73977 

20Maine recently revised Chapter 118 to no 

longer require Stage II vapor recovery controls as of 

January 1, 2012. The previous version of the rule, 

however, is still currently included in the Maine 

SIP. Maine DEP is currently developing a SIP 

submittal for the revised rule which would ensure 

that Clean Air Act antibacksliding requirements are 

met. The SIP submittal must provide for equivalent 

or greater reductions than under the currently 

approved Stage II program. Therefore, consideration 

of these reductions in the model is reasonable. 

21The 2018 Final Modeling Inventory SO2

emissions estimates for the EGU sector includes 

adjustments to the EGU sector, including: (1) 

Assessing the implementation of BART at eight 

BART-eligible units, including Maine’s Wyman 

Station; (2) implementation of the MANE–VU EGU 

strategy; (3) increases in SO2 emissions to estimate 

the effect of emissions trading under the CAIR 

program; and (4) emissions increases in the MANE– 

VU region to reflect state’s best estimates that some 

sources predicted by the IPM model to be closed 

would continue to operates, and information about 

where and when emission controls would be 

installed. The net result of these adjustments was 

an increase in SO2 emissions from EGUs in Maine. 

22An adjustment factor was applied during the 

processing of emissions data to restate fugitive 

particulate matter emissions. Grid models have 

been found to overestimate fugitive dust impacts 

when compared with ambient samples; therefore, 

an adjustment is typically applied to account for the 

removal of particles by vegetation and other terrain 

features. The summary emissions for PM10 in Table 

8 reflect this adjustment. A comparable adjustment 

was not made to the PM10 value listed in Table 7. 

See www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/ 

sips/sips_me.html. 

Controls on mobile sources expected 

in 2018 include: Stage I vapor recovery 

systems at gasoline dispensing facility 

in the state and Stage II vapor recovery 

at any gasoline dispensing facility in 

York, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc 

counties (06–096 CMR Chapter 118); 20

Federal On-Board Refueling Vapor 

Recovery (ORVR) Rule; Federal Tier 2 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and 

Gasoline Sulfur Requirements; Federal 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission 

Standards for Trucks and Buses; and 

Federal Emission Standards for Large 

Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreation Vehicles. 

Controls on non-road sources 

expected by 2018 include the following 

federal regulations: Control of Air 

Pollution: Determination of Significance 

for Nonroad Sources and Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad 

Compression Ignition Engines at or 

above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, June 

17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

(63 FR 56967, October 23, 1998); 

Control of Emissions from Nonroad 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreational Engines (67 FR 68241, 

November 8, 2002); and Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution from 

Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 

FR 38958, June 29, 2004). 

Tables 4 and 5 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Maine. The 

2018 estimated emissions include 

emissions growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies and reasonable 

progress goals. 

TABLE 7—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MAINE

[Tons per year] 

NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Mobile ....................................................................................................... 1,468 54,687 1,239 934 1,804 23,037 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 11 9,820 1,437 1,329 917 31,144 

EGU Point ................................................................................................ 145 7,831 1,169 888 9,299 842 

Non-EGU Point ........................................................................................ 700 12,108 6,120 4,899 14,412 4,477 

Area .......................................................................................................... 8,747 7,360 168,953 32,774 13,149 100,621 

Biogenics .................................................................................................. ................ 2,018 ................ ................ ................ 600,205 

Totals ................................................................................................ 11,071 93,824 178,919 40,825 39,581 760,327 

TABLE 8—2018 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MAINE

[Tons per year] 

NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Mobile ....................................................................................................... 1,715 12,828 272 266 894 10,414 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 15 6,543 1,086 978 82 21,988 

EGU Point ................................................................................................ 139 1,827 296 279 21 6,806 53 

Non-EGU Point ........................................................................................ 859 14,137 7,477 5,922 13,082 5,708 

Area .......................................................................................................... 12,312 7,036 57,411 18,877 1,127 90,866 

Biogenics .................................................................................................. ................ 2,018 ................ ................ ................ 600,205 

Totals ................................................................................................ 15,041 44,390 22 66,542 26,321 21,991 729,235 

2. Modeling to Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast States and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and 

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73978 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(REMSAD) is a Eulerian grid model that 

was primarily used to determine the 

attribution of sulfate species in the 

Eastern US via the species-tagging 

scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual States’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU States (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and States adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 

2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002), available at 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/final-03-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf, 

and EPA document, Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005 and updated 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001), 

available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

eidocs/eiguid/index.html [hereinafter 

EPA’s Modeling Guidance]. 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the Maine DEP provided 

the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glide path and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA finds the MANE–VU 

technical modeling to support the LTS 

and determine visibility improvement 

for the uniform rate of progress 

acceptable because the modeling system 

was chosen and used according to EPA 

Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with 

the MANE–VU model performance 

procedures and results, and that the 

CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the 

regional haze assessments for the Maine 

LTS and regional haze SIP. 

3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

Maine in cooperation with the 

MANE–VU States developed the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ to provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility at the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. The ‘‘Ask’’ included: (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. 

a. Timely Implementation of BART 

The Maine BART determinations are 

discussed in section IV.D. In the 

modeling to demonstrate the sufficiency 

of the LTS to achieve the RPGs, Maine 

assumed a 1,442 ton per year reduction 

in SO2 from SAPPI Somerset Power 

Boiler #1 due to BART control. Maine 

later determined that this unit was not 

BART eligible due to federally 

enforceable operation restrictions. 

However, Maine demonstrated that the 

SO2 emissions reductions assumed in 

the modeling were reasonable since an 

additional, federally enforceable Title V 

license condition limits the amount of 

time boiler #1 can be used to incinerate 

total reduced sulfur gases. This limit 

compensates for the initial assumption 

of 1,442 ton per year reduction in SO2. 

b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2

Emissions From Each of the Electric 

Generating Unit (EGU) Stacks Identified 

by MANE–VU Comprising a Total of 

167 Stacks 

Maine has one EGU stack identified 

by MANE–VU as a top contributor to 

visibility impairment in any of the 

MANE–VU Class I areas, FPL Energy 

Wyman Station boiler #4. 

Boiler #4 is a peaking unit, and 

operated at an average annual capacity 

factor of less than 10 percent between 

2002 and 2009, with annual SO2

emissions of 1,170 tons in 2002. 

Although FGD through the use of a 

wet, semi-dry or dry scrubber is 

technically feasible, this technology is 

cost prohibitive due to the low-capacity 

factor of this unit. In lieu of requiring 

add-on controls, Maine will be utilizing 

its low-sulfur fuels program meet the 

‘‘Ask’’ at this unit. The Maine Low 

Sulfur Fuel Program requires the use of 

low-sulfur fuel containing no more than 

0.5% sulfur beginning January 1, 2018, 

providing an 84 percent reduction in 

SO2 emissions from its baseline 

emissions based on the use of 3.0% 

sulfur fuel. 

c. Maine Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes two phases. Phase I of 

the strategy requires the reduction of 

sulfur in distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by 

weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) by 

no later than 2014. Phase II requires 

reductions of sulfur in #4 residual oil to 

0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 

2018; in #6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur 

by weight by no later than 2018; and a 

further reduction in the sulfur content 

of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018. 

The Maine Low Sulfur Oil Program, 

as established in statute at 38 M.R.S.A. 

§ 603–A, sub-§ 2, instituted the 

following restrictions on fuel sulfur 

content for residual (#4, #5, and #6) and 

distillate oil: 

(1) Beginning January 1, 2018; a 

person may not use residual oil with a 

sulfur content greater than 0.5% by 

weight; 

(2) Beginning January 1, 2016, a 

person may not use distillate oil with a 

sulfur content greater than 0.005% by 

weight; and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73979 

23Containing 2,000–5,000 ppm sulfur. 

24All other users of distillate (diesel) fuel in 

Maine will be subject to the 15 ppm sulfur limits 

(including general use and space heating at 

manufacturing facilities). 

25For example, only 7 gallons of a 5,000 ppm 

sulfur fuel added to 7,500 gallons of ULSD would 

raise the sulfur content by 5.0 ppm. 

26As noted above, Maine believes that future 

(2018) use of distillate fuel by the manufacturing 

sector will be limited due to cost and compliance 

concerns. Nevertheless, projected 2018 SO2

emissions for Maine have been adjusted to address 

this exemption, and its impact on non-EGU point 

source emissions. 

27 ‘‘Technical Support Document on Measures to 

Mitigate the Visibility Impacts of Construction 

Activities in the MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 

20, 2006’’ has been provided as part of the docket 

to this proposed rulemaking. 

(3) Beginning January 1, 2018, a 

person may not use distillate oil with a 

sulfur content greater than 0.0015% by 

weight. 

In addition to the low sulfur 

requirements for distillate and residual 

oil, the program contains two elements 

not included in the MANE–VU Low 

Sulfur Oil Strategy. These elements are 

an exemption from the low sulfur 

content limits for sources using 

distillate fuel for manufacturing 

purposes and an equivalent alternative 

sulfur reduction program. Neither 

element is included in Maine’s 

implementation plan submittal or 

approved by EPA. 

Maine DEP does not believe that the 

low sulfur content limit exemption for 

manufacturing purposes will have a 

significant impact on the emission 

reductions afforded by this strategy for 

2018 and beyond. While the exemption 

allows the continued use of highsulfur 23 distillate oil at several 

manufacturing facilities, there are 

structural impediments to the actual use 

of these fuels. First, since there is only 

a limited potential market for highsulfur distillate 24 the Maine DEP 

believes that this fuel will not be readily 

available, and will likely be more 

expensive than the more widely used 15 

ppm distillate. Distributors and 

wholesalers of distillate fuels have 

noted that supplying high-sulfur 

distillate to a limited market introduces 

additional costs to their industry in the 

form of segregated storage and 

transportation/delivery systems, since 

even incidental contamination (comingling) can lead to non-compliance 

issues.25

Recognizing the potential for 

incidental contamination of ULSD, 

segregated storage and transportation/ 

delivery systems are probably the only 

mechanisms that can assure compliance 

with federal and state ULSD 

requirements for the petroleum 

marketing industry. Given the low 

demand, and additional storage, 

transportation and delivery costs, Maine 

DEP does not believe that high sulfur 

distillate fuel will be widely used by the 

manufacturing sector in 2018 and 

later.26

d. Continued Evaluation of Other 

Control Measures To Reduce SO2 and 

NOX Emissions 

While Maine DEP continues to 

evaluate other control measures to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emission, Maine 

has adopted a program to reduce wood 

smoke emissions from outdoor wood 

and pellet boilers. 

Maine’s Control of Emissions From 

Outdoor Wood Boilers Rule (06–096 

CMR 150) includes EPA’s recommended 

Phase I particulate emission limit of 

0.60 lbs/MMBtu/hr heat input as the 

standard for new outdoor wood-fired 

hydronic heaters (OWHH), also known 

as outdoor wood boilers, sold in Maine 

beginning April 1, 2008. Beginning 

April 1, 2010 new OWHH sold in Maine 

were required to meet a more stringent 

particulate emission standard of 0.32 

lbs/MMBtu heat output (Phase II). The 

rule also establishes setback, stack 

height, particulate emission limits, and 

fuel requirements for outdoor wood 

boilers. Chapter 150 was subsequently 

amended to control the sale, 

installation, use, and siting of outdoor 

wood boilers that combust biomass 

pellets as fuel. Maine has submitted this 

rule to EPA for incorporation as part of 

the Regional Haze SIP. 

Maine did not include emission 

reductions which result from the 

promulgation of the outdoor wood 

boilers rule in the visibility modeling to 

ensure reasonable progress. However, 

Maine is including this program in its 

regional Haze SIP as a SIP enhancement, 

or strengthening measure. EPA finds 

that Maine has sufficiently addressed 

the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ by means of 

Maine’s Low Sulfur Fuel oil strategy, 

control on Wyman Unit #4, the 

submitted BART determinations, and 

the outdoor wood boiler control 

strategy. 

4. Additional Considerations for the 

LTS 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires States 

to consider the following factors in 

developing the long term strategy: 

a. Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; 

b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

c. Emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; 

d. Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

e. Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these 

purposes; 

f. Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

g. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point area, and mobile source emissions 

over the period addressed by the longterm strategy. 

a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI 

No source in Maine has been 

identified as subject to RAVI. An 

exhaustive list of Maine’s ongoing air 

pollution control programs is included 

in section IV.E.1. 

b. Construction Activities 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

Maine to consider measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities on 

regional haze. MANE–VU’s 

consideration of control measures for 

construction activities is documented in 

‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Measures To Mitigate the Visibility 

Impacts of Construction Activities in the 

MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 20, 

2006.’’27

The construction industry is already 

subject to requirements for controlling 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. For example, federal 

regulations require the reduction of SO2

emissions from construction vehicles. 

At the state level, Maine currently 

regulates emissions of fugitive dust 

through Maine’s Chapter 101, Visible 

Emissions rules, which establishes 

opacity limits for emissions from several 

categories of air contaminant sources, 

including fugitive emissions from 

construction activities. This rule has 

been incorporated into the Maine SIP. 

See www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/ 

sips/me/2003_ME_ch101.pdf. 

MANE–VU’s Contribution 

Assessment found that, from a regional 

haze perspective, crustal material 

generally does not play a major role. On 

the 20 percent best-visibility days 

during the 2000–2004 baseline period, 

crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 

percent of the particle-related light 

extinction at the MANE–VU Class I 

Areas. On the 20 percent worst-visibility 

days, however, the ratio was reduced to 

2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal 

fraction is largely made up of pollutants 

of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) 

that are not targeted under the Regional 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73980 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

28 ‘‘Technical Support Document on Agricultural 

and Smoke Management in the MANE–VU Region, 

September 1, 2006’’ has been included as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

29Projected visibility improvements for each 

MANE–VU Class I area can be found in the 

NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ‘‘2018 

Visibility Projections’’ (www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13- 

08.pdf/). 

Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 

fraction at any given location can be 

heavily influenced by the proximity of 

construction activities; and construction 

activities occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could 

have a noticeable effect on visibility. 

For this regional haze SIP, Maine 

concluded that its current regulations 

are currently sufficient to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. Any 

future deliberations on potential control 

measures for construction activities and 

the possible implementation will be 

documented in the first regional haze 

SIP progress report in 2012. EPA has 

determined that Maine has adequately 

addressed measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance To Achieve the RPG 

In addition to the existing CAA 

control requirements discussed in 

section IV.E.1, Maine has adopted a low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy consistent with 

the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ The compliance 

date for Phase I will be in 2016 and the 

compliance date for Phase II will be in 

2018. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedule 

Section 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of 

the Regional Haze Rule requires Maine 

to consider source retirement and 

replacement schedules in developing 

the long term strategy. Source 

retirement and replacement were 

considered in developing the 2018 

emissions. EPA has determined that 

Maine has satisfactorily considered 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules as part of the LTS. 

e. Smoke Management Techniques 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

States to consider smoke management 

techniques related to agricultural and 

forestry management in developing the 

long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s 

analysis of smoke management in the 

context of regional haze is documented 

in ‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Agricultural and Smoke Management in 

the MANE–VU Region, September 1, 

2006.’’ 28

Maine does not currently have a 

Smoke Management Program (SMP). 

However, SMPs are required only when 

smoke impacts from fires managed for 

resources benefits contribute 

significantly to regional haze. The 

emissions inventory presented in the 

above-cited document indicates that 

agricultural, managed and prescribed 

burning emissions are very minor; the 

inventory estimates that, in Maine, 

those emissions from those source 

categories totaled 7.8 tons of PM10, 6.7 

tons of PM2.5 and 0.5 tons of SO2 in 

2002, which constitute 0.08%, 0.2% and 

0.006% of the total inventory for these 

pollutants, respectively. 

Source apportionment results show 

that wood smoke is a moderate 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

some Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region; however, smoke is not a large 

contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class 

I areas on either the 20% best or 20% 

worst visibility days. Moreover, most of 

the wood smoke is attributable to 

residential wood combustion. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 

forestry management cause large 

impacts on visibility in any of the Class 

I areas in the MANE–VU region. On rare 

occasions, smoke from major fires 

degrades air quality and visibility in the 

MANE–VU area. However, these fires 

are generally unwanted wildfires that 

are not subject to SMPs. Therefore, an 

SMP is not required for Maine. EPA 

agrees that it is not necessary for Maine 

to have an Agricultural and Forestry 

Smoke Management Plan to address 

visibility impairment at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

All emission limitations included as 

part of Maine’s Regional Haze SIP are 

either currently federally enforceable or 

will become federally enforceable if this 

action is finalized as proposed. 

g. The Anticipated Net Effect on 

Visibility 

MANE–VU used the best and final 

emission inventory to model progress 

expected toward the goal of natural 

visibility conditions for the first regional 

haze planning period. All of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas are expected to achieve 

greater progress toward the natural 

visibility goal than the uniform rate of 

progress, or the progress expected by 

extrapolating a trend line from current 

visibility conditions to natural visibility 

conditions.29

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that Maine has adequately addressed the 

LTS regional haze requirements. 

F. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional phase planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant 

Federal Land Managers were also in 

attendance. In addition to the 

conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 

were given the opportunity to review 

and comment on each of the technical 

documents developed by MANE–VU. 

On May 27, 2010, Maine submitted a 

draft Regional Haze SIP to the relevant 

FLMs for review and comment pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLMs 

provided comments on the draft 

Regional Haze SIP in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments 

received from the FLMs were addressed 

and incorporated in Maine’s SIP 

revision. Most of the comments were 

requests for additional detail as to 

various aspects of the SIP. These 

comments and Maine’s response to 

comments can be found in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

On August 12, 2010, Maine published 

a notice of agency rulemaking— 

proposal. This initiated a 30-day 

comment period and the opportunity to 

request a public hearing. Maine DEP 

received comments from EPA, the 

United States Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the United States 

Department of Agriculture, and Florida 

Power and Light Company. Maine’s 

response to comments is included as an 

attachment to the SIP submittal. 

To address the requirement for 

continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), Maine commits in their SIP 

to ongoing consultation with the FLMs 

on Regional Haze issues throughout the 

implementation. 

EPA is proposing to find that Maine 

has addressed the requirements for 

consultation with States impacting 

Maine’s Class I areas and with the 

Federal Land Managers. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional 

Haze Rule requires a monitoring strategy 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73981 

for measuring, characterizing, and 

reporting regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I Areas within the 

State of Maine. The monitoring strategy 

relies upon participation in the 

IMPROVE network. 

The State of Maine participates in the 

IMPROVE network, and will evaluate 

the monitoring network periodically 

and make those changes needed to be 

able to assess whether reasonable 

progress goals are being achieved in 

each of Maine’s mandatory Class I 

Areas. In its SIP submittal, Maine is 

committing to continued support of the 

IMPROVE network at Acadia National 

Park and Moosehorn National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires States 

to establish additional monitoring sites 

or equipment as needed to assess 

whether reasonable progress goals are 

being achieved toward visibility 

improvement at mandatory Class I areas. 

At this time, the current monitors are 

sufficient to make this assessment. 

In its SIP submittal, Maine commits to 

meet the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA 

visibility data for each of Maine’s Class 

I Areas annually. 

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi)) requires the inclusion 

of other monitoring elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures, necessary to assess and report 

visibility. While the Maine DEP has 

concluded that the current IMPROVE 

network provides sufficient data to 

adequately measure and report progress 

toward the goals set for MANE–VU 

Class I sites to which the State 

contributes, the State has also found 

additional monitoring information 

useful to assess visibility and fine 

particle pollution in the region in the 

past. Examples of these data include 

results from the MANE–VU Regional 

Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN), 

which provides continuous, speciated 

information on rural aerosol 

characteristics and visibility parameters; 

the EPA Clean Air Status and Trends 

Network (CASTNET), which has 

provided complementary rural fine 

particle speciation data at non-class I 

sites; the EPA Speciation Trends 

Network (STN), which provides 

speciated, urban fine particle data to 

help develop a comprehensive picture 

of local and regional sources; stateoperated rural and urban speciation 

sites using IMPROVE or STN methods; 

and the Supersites program, which has 

provided information through special 

studies that generally expands our 

understanding of the processes that 

control fine particle formation and 

transport in the region. Maine plans to 

continue to utilize these and other 

data—as they are available and fiscal 

realities allow—to improve their 

understanding of visibility impairment 

and to document progress toward our 

reasonable progress goals under the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Maine has committed 

to submitting a report on reasonable 

progress (in the form of a SIP revision) 

to the EPA every five years following 

the initial submittal of its regional haze 

SIP. The reasonable progress report will 

evaluate the progress made towards the 

RPGs for the MANE–VU Class I areas, 

located in Maine, New Hampshire, 

Vermont, and New Jersey. 

Section 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires the 

Maine DEP to submit periodic revisions 

to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 

2018, and every ten years thereafter. 

Maine DEP acknowledges and agrees to 

comply with this schedule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), 

Maine DEP will also make periodic 

updates to the Maine emissions 

inventory. Maine DEP plans to complete 

these updates to coincide with the 

progress reports. Actual emissions will 

be compared to projected modeled 

emissions in the progress reports. 

Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), 

Maine DEP will submit a determination 

of adequacy of its regional haze SIP 

revision whenever a progress report is 

submitted. Maine’s regional haze SIP 

states that, depending on the findings of 

its five-year review, Maine will take one 

or more of the following actions at that 

time, whichever actions are appropriate 

or necessary: 

• If Maine determines that the 

existing State Implementation Plan 

requires no further substantive revision 

in order to achieve established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, Maine DEP will provide to 

the EPA Administrator a negative 

declaration that further revision of the 

existing plan is not needed. 

• If Maine determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other state(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, Maine will provide 

notification to the EPA Administrator 

and to those other state(s). Maine will 

also collaborate with the other state(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Maine’s plan. 

• If Maine determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, Maine will 

provide notification, along with 

available information, to the EPA 

Administrator. 

• If Maine determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the state, Maine will 

revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve of 

Maine’s December 9, 2010 SIP revision 

as meeting the applicable implementing 

regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

following license conditions and 

incorporate them into the SIP: 

Conditions (16) A, B, G, and H of license 

amendment A–406–77–3–M for 

Katahdin Paper Company issued on July 

8, 2009; license amendment A–214–77– 

9–M for Rumford Paper Company 

issued on January 8, 2010; license 

amendment A–22–77–5–M for Verso 

Bucksport, LLC issued November 2, 

2010; license amendment A–214–77–2– 

M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly 

Domtar) issued November 2, 2010; 

license amendment A–388–77–2–M for 

FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV, 

LLC issued November 2, 2010; license 

amendment A–19–77–5–M for S. D. 

Warren Company issued November 2, 

2010; license amendment A–203–77– 

11–M for Verso Androscoggin LLC 

issued November 2, 2010; and license 

amendment A–180–77–1–A for Red 

Shield Environmental LLC issued 

November 29, 2007. 

EPA is proposing to approve Maine’s 

low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA 

§ 603–A, sub-§ 2(A), and to incorporate 

this legislation into the Maine SIP. 

Furthermore, EPA is also proposing to 

approve the following Maine state 

regulation and incorporate it into the 

SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of 

Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers. 

VI. 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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
73982 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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. 

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. 

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

Dated: November 15, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30650 Filed 11–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3