[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73956-73982]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30650]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 229

November 29, 2011

Part VI

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine;
Regional Haze; Proposed Rule

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 Cross-State 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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
long-term 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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 BART-eligible 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

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
EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone 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

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000-2004 Baseline (dv)   Natural conditions (dv)
                        Class I area                         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               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                  21.72         9.15        12.01         5.01
 International Park.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CMAQ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
Mid-

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the NESCAUM Document ``Regional Haze and Visibility in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MANE-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

  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       2018                  Natural
                                                                 Baseline     Projection     URP     background
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park................  20% Worst Visibility             22.9          19.4     20.4          12.4
                                       Days.
                                      20% Best Visibility               8.8           8.3  .......           4.7
                                       Days.
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge/   20% Worst Visibility             21.7          19.0     19.4          12.0
 Roosevelt Campobello International    Days.
 Park.
                                      20% Best Visibility               9.2           8.6  .......           5.0
                                       Days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 resource-intensive 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 five-year, midcourse
review and, if necessary, correction of the States' regional haze
plans. (40 CFR 52.308(g)). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year
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

BART-eligible. These sources are shown in Table 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On 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.

                                     Table 3--BART-Eligible Sources in Maine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         National
                                                                         emission
                                                                         inventory
             Source and unit                       Location                (NEI)         BART Source category
                                                                      identification
                                                                           code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPLE Wyman Station......................  Yarmouth, ME..............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 1--Fossil fuel fired
                                                                                electric plants.
    Boiler 3...................  ..........................            -004
    Boiler 4...................  ..........................            -005
Woodland Pulp, LLC......................  Woodland, ME..............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 3--Kraft pulp mills.
    Power Boiler 9.............  ..........................            -001
    Lime Kiln...........................  ..........................            -002
Dragon Products \10\....................  Thomaston, ME.............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 4--Portland cement
                                                                                plants.
Red Shield Acquisition, LLC.............  Old Town, ME..............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 3--Kraft pulp mills.
    Recovery Boiler 4..........  ..........................            -002
    Lime Kiln...........................  ..........................            -004
Verso Bucksport.........................  Bucksport, ME.............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 22--Fossil fuel fired
                                                                                boilers.
    Boiler 5...................  ..........................            -001
SD Warren...............................  Hinckley, ME..............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 3--Kraft pulp mills.
    Recovery Boiler.....................  ..........................            -003
    Smelt Tanks 1 and 2.
    Lime Kiln...........................  ..........................            -004
Verso Androscoggin......................  Jay, ME...................<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 3--Kraft pulp mills.
    Power Boiler 1.............  ..........................            -001
    Power Boiler 2.............  ..........................            -002
    Waste Fuel Incinerator..............  ..........................            -003
    Recovery Boilers 1 and       ..........................        -004/005
     2.
    Smelt Tank 1...............  ..........................            -009
    Smelt Tank 2...............  ..........................            -010
    Lime Kiln A.........................  ..........................            -007
    Lime Kiln B.........................  ..........................            -008
    Flash Dryer.........................  ..........................            -018
Katahdin Paper..........................  Millinocket, ME...........<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 22--Fossil fuel fired
                                                                                boilers.
    Power Boiler 4.............  ..........................            -004
Lincoln Paper and Tissue................  Lincoln, ME...............<PHONE_NUMBER>  SC 3--Kraft pulp mills.
    Recovery Boiler 2..........  ..........................            -002
Rumford Paper...........................  Rumford, ME...............<PHONE_NUMBER>  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 BART-eligible
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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Maine'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 regionally-consistent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 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-resource-guide-08-23-06-final.pdf/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As an additional demonstration that sources whose impacts
were below the 0.1 dv level were too small to warrant BART controls,
the entire MANE-VU 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 cross-flow 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 post-scrubber 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 multi-fuel 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 cost-

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Annual                    Annual
             % Sulfur               costs (in     % Sulfur    costs (in
                                    millions)                 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Incremental
                                                                    Visibility                      visibility
                                                                       cost         Incremental        cost
                            % Sulfur                               effectiveness    visibility     effectiveness
                                                                   ($/deciview)     improvement    ($/deciview)
                                                                   (in millions)                   (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Incremental
                                                                    Visibility                      visibility
                                                                       cost         Incremental        cost
                            % Sulfur                               effectiveness    visibility     effectiveness
                                                                   ($/deciview)     improvement    ($/deciview)
                                                                   (in millions)                   (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

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
multi-fuel 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 four-level 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

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 four-
level 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 Low-Temperature 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
sodium-based 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 (pre-combustion) on the LVHC gases
fired in the boiler. Firing of LVHC gases in the

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 [deg]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 [deg]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

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
semi-dry 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

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