EPA-450/3-74-074
DECEMBER 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
MAINE
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-74-074
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
MAINE
AS REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J. F- Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
800 Foil in Lane, SE, Vienna, Virginia 22180
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1974
-------
MAINE
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Table of Contents Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 5
2.1 Summary 5
2.2 Air Quality Setting -- State of Maine 6
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current State
Implementation Plan 9
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEWS 11
3.1 Androscoggin Valley Interstate AQCR 107 11
3.2 Aroostook Intrastate AQCR 108 14
3.3 Down East Intrastate AQCR 109 15
3.4 Metropolitan Portland Intrastate AQCR 110 16
3.5 Northwest Maine Intrastate AQCR 111 18
APPENDIX A - State Implementation Plan Background
APPENDIX B - Regional Air Quality Assessment
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessment
APPENDIX D - Industrial, Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review each State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made to control regula-
tions for stationary fuel combustion sources without interfering with the
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA report to the State on whether
control regulations might be revised, ESECA provides that EPA must approve
or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel burning stationary
sources within three months after they are submitted to EPA by the States.
The States may, as in the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implementa-
tion Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require States to change any
existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with informa-
tion on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of ESECA
is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of conserving
low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or natural gas to coal.
EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore, has been to try
to establish if emissions from combustion sources may be increased. Where
an indication can be found that emissions from certain fuel burning sources
can be increased and still attain and maintain NAAQS, it may be plausible
that fuel resource allocations can be altered for "clean fuel savings" in
a manner consistent with both environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel EPA's policy on clean
fuels. The Clean Fuels Policy has consisted of reviewing implementation
plans with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the primary sulfur
dioxide air quality standards were not exceeded, to encourage States to
either defer compliance regulations or to revise the S02 emission regulations,
The States have also been asked to discourage large scale shifts from coal
to oil where this could be done without jeopardizing the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
-------
To date, EPA's fuels policy has addressed only those States with the
largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or are
currently in the process of revising S02 regulations. These States are
generally In the Eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States
and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment
and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are (1) The use of the example region approach in developing
State-wide air quality control strategies; (2) the existence of State Air
Quality Standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and (3) the "hot
spots" in only part of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) which have been
used as the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these
situations affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with
current national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans
is a logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in
1972. At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the
attainment of NAAQS or_ more stringent state air quality standards. Also,
at that time an acceptable method for formulating control strategies was
the use of an example region for demonstrating the attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region (AQCR) and adopt control regulations
which would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an
example region, it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other
AQCR's of the State if the control regulations were applied to similar
sources. The problem with the use of an example region is that it can
result in excessive controls, especially in the utilization of clean fuels,
for areas of the State where sources would not otherwise contribute to
NAAQS violations. For instance, a control strategy based on a particular
region or source can result in a regulation requiring 1 percent sulfur
oil to be burned state-wide where the use of 3 percent sulfur coal would
be adequate to attain NAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's limi-
tations. The findings of this report are by no means conclusive and are
neither intended nor adequate to be the sole basis for SIP revisions; they
do, however, represent EPA's best judgment and effort in complying with
the ESECA requirements. The time and resources which EPA has had to pre-
pare the reports has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics,
and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there have been only limited disper-
sion modeling data available by which to address individual point source
emissions. Where the modeling data for specific sources were found, how-
ever, they were used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based are the most
currently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that
the States possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality. Therefore,
those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's
findings. In developing a suitable plan, it is suggested that States select
control strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources into
perspective with all sources of emissions such as smelters or other indus-
trial processes. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact
which the potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations
for combustion sources might have on their future control programs. This
may include air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration,
increased TSP, NOX, and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and other
potential air pollution situations such as sulfates.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attainment
of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended particu-
late matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SC^) emissions. This is because sta-
tionary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of SC>2 emission
and are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the S02 and TSP emission tolerance within each of the various AQCR's. The
regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only measure
of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP. The tolerance assessments
have been combined in Section 2 and Appendix B with other regional air
quality "indicators" in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's
candidacy for changing emission limitation regulations. In conjunction
with the regional analysis, a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources
(power plants, industrial sources, and area sources) has been carried out
in Appendices C, D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan for the State of Maine has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion, emission
limiting, regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR SO?. THERE ARE TWO AQCR's. ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY AND DOWN EAST WHICH
INDICATE SOME POTENTIAL FOR REVISION OF FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION
LIMITING REGULATIONS.
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES, THERE IS ONLY ONE AQCR. METROPOLITAN
PORTLAND, WHICH INDICATES ANY POTENTIAL FOR REVISING FUEL COMBUSTION
SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, THIS POTENTIAL IS
LIMITED DUE TO THE RELATIVELY LOW VOLUME OF FUEL BURNED IN THE REGION.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
Maine currently uses very little coal for fuel combustion. Almost all
fuel combustion in the State uses fuel oil. In most cases the use of
low sulfur coal and existing emission control technology would be more
consistent with national energy policies.
Considerably more data are needed concerning the air quality in Maine,
particularly in the Aroostook and Northwest Maine AQCR's. It is highly
possible that additional clean fuel savings could be realized in these
regions if more were known about their air quality status.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will depend
on many factors. For example:
Does the State have air quality standards which are more stringent
than NAAQS?
Does the State have emission limitation regulations for control of
(1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, (3) area sources?
t Did the State use an example region approach for demonstrating the
attainment of NAAQS or^ more stringent State standards?
Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion source
emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels
Policy?
Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
t Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring sites
within a region?
t Is there an expected 1975 attainment data for NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported violations
ff NAAQS?
t Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications of a toler-
ance for increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
proportionally lower than those of other sources?
Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the region?
t Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show a
potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when
there are affirmative responses to the above.
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,
was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
-------
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations. Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to
provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission limiting
regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characterization
of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial sources,
and area sources) has been carried out in Appendices C, D, E.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. Table 2-1 summarizes the State Implementation Plan Review.
The remaining portion of the report supports this summary with explanations.
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTINGSTATE OF MAINE
The State of Maine is divided into five AQCR's. These are AQCR 107,
Androscoggin Valley Interstate (Maine and New Hampshire); AQCR 108,
Aroostook Intrastate; AQCR 109, Down East Intrastate; AQCR 110, Metropolitan
Portland Intrastate; and AQCR 111, Northwest Maine Intrastate (Figure 2-1).
A summary of the Federal and Maine air quality standards for particu-
lates, S02, and N02 is presented in Table A-3. It should be noted that
the standards adopted by Maine are more stringent than the respective
Federal standards in all cases except N02 where they are identical.
Air quality monitoring in Maine is limited, particularly in AQCR's
108 and 111 where there is no monitoring. There are only six continuous
S02 monitors in the entire state, one each in Augusta and Lewiston (AQCR
107), two in Bangor (AQCR 109), and two in Portland (AQCR 110). There are
21 additional stations in the state with both particulate and S02 24-hour
bubbler monitors. These, however, are distributed throughout only three
of the five regions: 107, 109, and 110. One additional particulate moni-
toring station is located in Portland (AQCR 110).
A summary of Maine Air Quality Status is presented in Tables A-4 and
A-5. The number of stations exceeding the standards are presented by AQCR.
It is significant to note from the tables that during 1973, there were no
violations of any particulate standards within the State of Maine. All
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
"Indicators"
Maine
TSP SO,
Androscoggin
Valley
AQCR 107
TSP SO?
Aroostook
AQCR 108
TSP SO?
Down East
AQCR 109
TSP SO?
Metropolitan
Portland
AQCR 110
TSP S02
Northwest
Maine
AQCR 111
TSP SOj
Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1. Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or more
stringent State standards?
Has the State not initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
Are there no^ proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment data
for NAAQS?
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there
no reported violations of NAAQS?
Based on (1973) Air Ouality Data, are there
indications of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources proportionally lower than those
of other sources?
Do modeling results for fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
"ust emission limiting regulations be revised
to accomodate significant fuel switching?
Based on the above indicators, what is the poten-
tial for revising fuel combustion source emission
limiting regulations?
Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes1
No
Yes
NA
No
Poor
N<
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Good
D
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
Marg
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
No
NA
Yes
. Marg.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
NA
Yes
Marg .
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
Yes
, Good
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MA
Yes
Good
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NA
Yes
Poor
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
No
NA
No
Marg.
M
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
No
NA
Yes
Marg
lo
1
There were violations in the New Hampshire Portion of the reaion.
'"Not a significant amount
-------
Figure 2-1 MAINE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
NORTHWEST
MAINE
INTRASTATE
AROOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
DOWN EAST
INTRASTATE
ANDROSCOGGIN
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(MAINE-
NEW HAMPSHIRE)
METROPOLITAN
PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
-------
participate violations in AQCR 107 occurred in New Hampshire. Only one
violation of an S02 standard (annual) occurred in Maine. That violation,
at a site in Portland, only exceeded the standard by less than seven percent.
A summary of significant Maine emission sources is presented in Table
A-6. The table shows the number of sources by type and AQCR, as well as
the total particulate and S0£ emissions. The percentage of the total emis-
sions contributed by Maine fuel combustion sources is also shown. Tables A-7
and A-8 follow from Table A-6 by giving a more detailed analysis of existing
emissions . It is interesting to note that the Maine portion of AQCR 107
contributes by far the greatest quantity of emissions, while the highest
air quality measurements occur in the more highly populated Metropolitan
Portland AQCR (110).
In general, Maine's air pollution tends to be concentrated in the
southern and south-central portion of the state. A high percentage of SOo
emissions are accounted for by fuel combustion sources, while about two-
thirds of the particulate emissions can be attributed equally to fuel com-
bustion, and the wood products industry.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The SIP control strategies and regulations were based on the example
region approach. Example regions are used when ambient air quality data is
available for one but not all of several air quality control regions that
have similar emissions. The strategies and regulations thus developed are
then applied to the similar regions as well as the example region.
The Metropolitan Portland AQCR was used as the example region for the
entire state for particulate matter. The City of Augusta was selected as
the example region for S02 in the Androscoggin Valley and Down East AQCR's.
This region was selected because ambient air quality data were available and
this region contains a sulfite pulp mill, a primary source of sulfur dioxide.
The Metropolitan Portland AQCR was considered separately for S02 control
All emissions data taken from NEDS.
-------
since this region has no single large source of sulfur dioxide.
The regulation adopted for the control of particulate matter from fuel
combustion sources is based on the rated capacity of the fuel burning equip-
ment. The regulation is applicable to all fuel burning equipment in the
state with a rated capacity greater than three million BTU per hour, and
is displayed graphically in Figure A-l.
A sulfur content limitation is used to control sulfur dioxide emissions
from fuel combustion sources in Maine. Sources in the Metropolitan Portland
AQCR are limited to a maximum of 1.5 percent sulfur in all fuels burned; the
maximum is 2.5 percent for sources in the other four regions.
Maine has no regulations for the control of N02.
10
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEWS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the available information
for the State of Maine and determine the feasibility of revisions to the
SIP which would result in clean fuel conservation. The assessments will be
made by AQCR addressing each type of fuel combustion source: power plants,
large industrial and commercial/institutional sources, and area sources.
The assessments must be made for each pollutant separately and are made on
the basis of seven criteria: (1) 1973 air quality violations; (2) expected
NAAQS attainment dates; (3) proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA)
designations; (4) total emissions; (5) portion of emissions from Maine fuel
combustion sources; (6) regional tolerance for emissions increase; and (7)
pollutant priority classifications. Tables B-l and B-2 tabulate these cri-
teria for each AQCR for TSP and S02> respectively.
The AQCR's are grouped into good, marginal, and poor candidates for
regulation relaxation based on the evaluation of all the presented informa-
tion. Using available data, any AQCR which displays a 1973 air quality vio-
lation would probably be given a poor ranking. Conversely, a region with
no violations, no proposed AQMA designations, low to moderate emissions, a
positive emission tolerance, and/or a small fraction of emissions from Maine
fuel combustion sources would receive a good ranking. All other regions with
varying indicators or incomplete or missing data would be evaluated separ-
ately and grouped in the appropriate class, most likely a marginal ranking.
The source type groups are evaluated separately using such variables
for criteria as modeling results, emissions data from the SIP and/or NEDS,
and air quality data.
3.1 ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY INTERSTATE AQCR 107
3.1.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
The Androscoggin Valley AQCR is ranked as a poor candidate for modi-
fication of particulate regulations for several reasons. Primary among these
is the fact that there were high levels of TSP reported in 1973. Most high
11
-------
levels occurred in the New Hampshire portion of the region. Since the ori-
ginal basis used by EPA in establishing the AQCR's was that air quality at
any point in a region is affected only by sources in the region, Maine's
sources may be having an adverse effect on the air quality levels in New
Hampshire. Therefore, further analysis is required. If and only if it can
be proven that New Hampshire's air quality is independent of Maine's sources,
then this region would probably have the potential for regulation modification.
Other negative factors include the relatively large total regional emissions,
and a negative tolerance for emissions increase.
This AQCR is ranked as a good candidate for modification of S02 regula-
tions mainly because of its high tolerance for S02 emissions increase based
on 1973 air quality data. Other influencing factors are: no proposed AQMA
designations and a relatively low percentage of emissions due to fuel com-
bustion.
3.1.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are three electric generation facilities in the region. One
is a residual oil burning gas turbine in New Hampshire. One is a distillate
oil-fired gas turbine located at Farmingdale, Maine, and used only for emer-
gency peaking use. The third plant is a 147 megawatt residual oil fired
steam generating plant located at Wiscasset, Maine.
The plant at Wiscasset, Central Maine Power Company's Mason Plant,
is currently burning 2.2 percent sulfur oil. Even though the Maine air pol-
lution control regulations allow this plant to burn 2.5 percent sulfur fuel,
modeling results indicate that maximum ground level concentrations of S02
may exceed the air quality standards if units three and four switch to 2.5
percent sulfur fuel. The following table shows these results.
12
-------
Table 3-1. Mason Plant Modeling Results (yg/m3)a
Maximum Maximum
24-hr Concentration Annual Concentration
TSP S02 TSP S02
Nominal Load 172 768 48 8
Maximum Load 175 924
a Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conversion (Group IV),
Walden Research Division of Abcor Inc., Sept. 12,1974
Since the Mason Plant burns oil, the Maine particulate regulation
allows it a large increase in particulate emissions. However, air quality
measurements (as discussed in the regional assessment, Section 3.1.1) pro-
hibit any increase in particulate emissions.
3.1.3 Industrial and Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
There are 14 significant fuel combustion particulate sources, and
six S02 sources in this category. They contribute one tenth of the Maine
portion of the particulate emissions, and one half of the S02. Existing
regulations allow an increase in both particulate and S02 emissions, but
again the air quality data indicate that this would only be reasonable in
the case of S02. No modeling results are available for sources of this
type, and therefore no statement can be made concerning the maximum sulfur
content which would be acceptable without exceeding the standards.
3.1.4 Area Source Assessment
In this region, Maine fuel combustion area sources contribute about
five percent of the particulate emissions and about 20 percent of the S02
emissions from sources in Maine. As explained in Section 3.1.1, the air
quality prohibits any increase in particulate emissions in this region.
There is, however, some room for an increase in S02 emissions, but without
detailed area source data and modeling results, it is impossible at this
time to make a final assessment of the regulation modification potential for
area sources.
13
-------
3.2 AROOSTOOK INTRASTATE AQCR 108
3.2.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
This region received a marginal rating for both particulate and S02
regulation modification. This rating was based on the fact that there are
no air quality monitors located in the region, and therefore it is impossible
to evaluate the impact of any fuel switching plan. The region is classified
Priority 3 for both pollutants and has no proposed AQMA designations, both
indicative of a good regulation modification candidate. Total emissions are
also low for both pollutants but fuel combustion sources contribute a rela-
tively high percentage of the emissions, particularly for SC^. For these
reasons, the region appears qualitatively to be a very good candidate; how-
ever, some air quality data must be obtained before a quantitative judgment
can be reached.
3.2.2 Power Plant Assessment
There is one small (19 megawatt) power plant located in AQCR 108. This
is an oil burning steam generation plant currently burning 2.27 percent sul-
fur residual oil. Switching the fuel at this plant to the maximum allowable
(2.5 percent) sulfur content would increase the S02 emissions by approximately
10 percent, but the impact on air quality cannot be estimated due to the lack
of any air quality monitoring data. There is an allowable increase in par-
ticulate emissions, but again the impact of this change cannot be evaluated
without air quality data.
3.2.3 Industrial and Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
About one sixth of the particulate emissions and almost one half of
the 502 emissions in AQCR 108 can be attributed to significant sources in
this category. Existing Maine fuel combustion regulations allow an increase
in both particulate and S02 emissions from industrial and commercial/insti-
tutional sources. It would be unwise, however, to state without qualifica-
tion, that the regulations could be modified until air quality data and
modeling results are available for analysis.
14
-------
3.2.4 Area Source Assessment
Area sources in this region account for one fifth and one third of
the particulate and S02 emissions, respectively. Without detailed area
source fuel parameter information, it is impossible to estimate the impact
of compliance with existing regulations. Even if this data were available,
the advisability of regulation modification cannot be assessed without air
quality data.
3.3 DOWN EAST AQCR 109
3.3.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
AQCR 108 was given a marginal rating for particul ate and a good rating
for S02 regulation modification. Even though there were no 1973 violations
of the particulate standards, no proposed particulate AQMA designations, and
only moderate particulate total emissions, the tolerance for emissions increase
is very small and, therefore, it was felt that this region was only a marginal
candidate for particulate regulation modification. There were no violations
of the S02 standards in 1973, no proposed S02 AQMA designations, moderate
total emissions, and a high tolerance for S02 emissions increase. Therefore,
this region was rated as a good candidate for S02 regulation modification
in spite of its somewhat higher than average contribution of total emissions
from fuel combustion sources.
3.3.2 Power Plant Assessment
One 57.5 megawatt power plant is located in AQCR 109. The plant burns
2.28 percent sulfur residual oil in five boilers, and 0.05 percent sulfur
distillate oil in a gas turbine. Maine air pollution control regulations
allow an increase in both particulate and S02 emissions from this plant. No
modeling data is available for the plant, and, therefore, it is very difficult
to evaluate the impact of increased emissions on the local air quality. It
is recommended that modeling be accomplished and the results analyzed prior
to any decision to increase emissions from this plant. As was discussed
in the air quality assessment for this region, the tolerance (based on 1973
air quality data) for increased particulate emissions is very small, but it
may be possible, due to the plant's location and prevailing meteorology, that
increased emissions will not affect an already critical area.
15
-------
3.3.3 Industrial and Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
Significant sources in this category contribute about one third of
the region's particulate emissions and almost three quarters of the S02
emissions. They are similar to the power plant discussed above in that
compliance with existing regulations would result in increased particulate
and S02 emissions. These sources are also similar to the power plant in
that modeling is required before any definite policy of increased emissions
can be formulated.
3.3.4 Area Source Assessment
The area source contribution is about ten percent of both the parti-
culate and S02 total. No assessment of the feasibility of regulation modi-
fication can be made at this time due to a lack of detailed area source data.
3.4 METROPOLITAN PORTLAND INTRASTATE AQCR 110
3.4.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
The Metropolitan Portland AQCR is ranked as a good candidate for modi-
fication of the particulate regulations and a poor candidate for S02. The
particulate ranking is based on no 1973 air quality standard violations, no
proposed AQMA designations, moderate total emissions, a low ratio of fuel
combustion emissions to total emissions, and a relatively high tolerance for
emission increase. The only negative aspect of the particulate assessment
is the Priority 1 classification, but this is overshadowed by the fact that
there were no reported air quality violations in 1973. There is an S02
problem in this region. Because of this, the existing state regulations
are more stringent on sources located in this region; imposing a maximum
sulfur content limitation of 1.5 percent as opposed to 2.5 percent for the
remainder of the state. In this study, AQCR 110 is rated as a poor S02
candidate for three primary reasons: (1) an air quality violation during
1973; (2) a high contribution of S02 emissions from fuel combustion; and
(3) a negative tolerance for increased S02 emissions.
3.4.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are two power plants in this region, the Cape Plant and the
Wyman Plant, both operated by Central Maine Power Co. The Cape Plant is
16
-------
a 22.5 megawatt oil fired plant, burning 2.2 percent sulfur residual oil
(there are also two oil fired gas turbines at the plant). The plant is
currently exceeding the maximum of 1.5 percent sulfur fuel, a reduction to
which would lower S02 emissions by over 1000 tons per year. Strict compliance
with the particulate regulation would increase the Cape Plant's particulate
emissions by almost 500 tons per year.
The Hyman Plant is a much larger plant with a generating capacity of
214 megawatts. It burns 2.17 percent sulfur residual oil, with the capability
of burning coal. Changing this plant to the maximum allowable sulfur content
of 1.5 percent would decrease S02 emissions by over 5000 tons per year. The
Wyman Plant can increase its particulate emissions by over 2000 tons per
year and still be within the Maine particulate regulations.
3.4.3 Industrial and Commercial/Institutional Sources
A comparison of the emissions from the significant sources in this
category with the emissions allowed by the regulations indicate that there
would be a negligible reduction in particulate emissions (no significant
particulate sources) and a large reduction in S02 emissions. With no modeling
results, it is again impossible to ascertain whether or not strict compliance
with existing regulations is necessary to prevent violation of the standards.
It may be true for these sources as well as for the power plants that the
S02 regulation could be modified and the resultant air quality still meet
the standards assuming every source complied with the less stringent regula-
tion. But this possibility can only be explored by a thorough analysis of
air quality data, modeling results, and the interactions between plants
influencing the air quality in critical areas.
3.4.4 Area Source Assessment
Area sources in this region contribute about one tenth of the regional
particulate emissions and almost one third of the S02. Sufficient area source
data are not available to make a complete analysis of the potential for regu-
lation modification from this category of sources.
17
-------
3.5 NORTHWEST MAINE INTRASTATE AQCR 111
3.5.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
The Northwest Maine AQCR was given a marginal rating for both partic-
ulate and S02 due primarily to the fact that no air quality data is available.
All criteria indicate qualitatively that the region would be an excellent
candidate for both particulate and SC>2 regulation modification. The region
is classified Priority 3 for both pollutants; no AQMA's are proposed for
either pollutant; total emissions are both extremely low; and the fuel com-
bustion contribution of both pollutants to the total is moderate. However,
without the benefit of air quality data, a quantitative assessment is impos-
sible at this time.
3.5.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are no power plants in this AQCR.
3.5.3 Industrial and Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
Emissions from significant sources in this category comprise almost
two thirds of the regional particulate and SC>2 emissions. Enforcement of
the existing regulations would produce reduction in particulate emissions,
but no reduction in S02. The latter is due to the fact that all significant
industrial and commercial/institutional emissions are from the combustion
of wood and bark. Again, no detailed assessment of the regulation modifica-
tion potential can be made at this time due to the lack of air quality data.
3.5.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source emissions in this region are unavailable for both parti-
culates and S02.
18
-------
APPENDIX A
State Implementation Plan Background
-------
TABLE A-l
MAINE AQCR PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION AND AQMA'S
AQCR Priority
AQCR Name
Androscoggin
Val1eyb
Aroostook
Down East
Metro. Portland
Northwest Maine
Fed #
107
108
109
110
111
Part9
1
3
1
1
3
SO/
1
3
1
2
3
NO/
3
3
3
3
3
rupu i ciiiun
1975
358,000
96,400
200,500
359,200
84,800
Proposed
AQMA Designations
TSP Counties
0
0
0
0
0
SOX Counties
0
0
0
0
0
Criteria based on maximum measured (or estimated) pollution concentration in area:
Priority
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean
24 - hour maximum
Particulate matter :
Annual geometric mean
24 - hour maximum
1
Greater than
100
455
95
325
2
From -
60 -
260 -
60 -
150 -
To
100
455
95
325
3
Less than
60
260
60
150
Interstate region
-------
TABLE A-2 ATTAINMENT DATES
AQCR #
Name
Particulate
Attainment
Dates
Primary Secondary
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment
Dates
Primary Secondary
107
108
109
no
in
Androscoggin Valley
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
7/75
(a)
7/75
7/75
(a)
7/75
(a)
7/75
7/75
(a)
7/75
(a)
7/75
7/75
(a)
7/75
(a)
7/75
7/75
(a)
a Air quality levels presently below standards
b Interstate region
-------
TABLE A-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(yg/m3)
Total Suspended Sulfur Oxides
Particul ate
Nitrogen
Oxides
Annual 24 hr Annual 24 hr
3 hr
Annual
Federal
Primary 75^ 260(2)
Secondary 60^ 150(2)
1300(2)
100(3)
Maine
Primary
Secondary
100
57(3)
230
1150
100(3)
(1) Annual Geometric Mean
(2) Maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than
once a year
(3) Annual Arithmetic Mean
-------
TABLE A-4. I1AINE AQCR AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), TSPe
(u9/m3)
TSP Concentration
Name
Androscoggin Valley^'
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
2nd j Stations Violating Federal Reduction
# Highest Ambient Air Quality Standards Required
Stations Highest Reading Reading Primary Secondary to Meet
AQCR # Reporting Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr Annual 24-Hr^ Annual % 24-HrC % Standardsd
6 107 13 83 291 231 10 1 8 3 23 +39
108 0 -- -000000-
109 8 NA 150 138 NA 0 NA - 0 0 -11
110 9 43 185 99 00 0000 -69
1110 -- -000000-
Standard
on Which
Reduction
Is Based
Annual
-
24-hour
24-hour
-
a 1973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank as of June 7, 1974.
b Interstate
c Violations
d Formula:
or:
region .
based on 2nd highest reading at any station.
(2nd Highest 24-hr - 24-hr Secondary Standard) x 100
2nd Highest 24-hr - Background
(Annual - Annual Secondary Standard) x 100
Annual - Background
whichever is most stringent.
e All noted values occurred in New Hampshire.
NA Not available.
-------
TABLE A-5. I1AINE AQCR AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), S02a
SO, CONCENTRATION
Name
Androscoggin Valleyb
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
a
b
c
d
1973 air quality
AQCR #
107
108
109
110
in
data in
#
Stations
Reporting
24-Hr
(Bubbler)
8
0
8
8
0
National
(u9/m
#
Stations
Reporting Highest Reading
(Contin.) Annual 24-Hr
3 NA 173
0
2 NA 82
2 85 391
0
Air Data Bank as of July 29
3)
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-Hr
66
-
74
96
-
, 1974.
%
# Stations Violating Reduction^
Ambient Air Quality Stds. Required
Primary Secondary To Meet
Annual 24-Hrc 3-Hr Standards
NA 0 NA -453
000
NA 0 NA -393
10 NA +6
000
Standard
on Which %
Reduction
Is Based
24-Hr
-
24-Hr
Annual
-
Interstate region.
Violations based
Formula: (2n(J
on 2nd
Highest
highest reading at any station.
24-hr -
2nd highest
24-hr Standard) x 100
24-hr
or: (Annual - Annual Standard) x 100
Annual
whichever is most stringent.
NA Not available
-------
TABLE A-6
MAINE FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE SUMMARY
Other Fuel Combustion Total Emissions %Emissions From Maine
Power Point Sources'3 Area (10^ Tons/Year)d Fuel Combustion Sources
AQCR NAME AQCR No. Plants3 TSP SO? Sourcesc TSP SO? TSP S0_2
Androscoggin Valley6 107 2 149 69 8 30.0 68.6 18 69
Aroostook 108 1 4f 3f 1 2.6 7.2 34 96
Down East 109 1 69 89 4 12.1 49.0 41 92
Metropolitan Portland 110 2 O9 59 8 11.8 47.1 21 97
Northwest Maine 111 0 2f 2f 6 0.2 0.01 66 62
a - Maine power plants only
b - Maine plants in addition to power plants
c - Full counties, partial counties and towns, Maine only
d - AQCR total
e - Interstate region
f - All significant point sources, when combined with power plants, contribute at least 90% of the total emissions from fuel combustion point sources
g - All significant point sources, when combined with power plants, contribute less than 90% of the total emissions from fuel combustion point sources
-------
TABLE A-7
MAINE EMISSIONS SUMMARY, TSP
Total
AQCR Name AQCR No. Tons/Year
Androscoggin Valley 107 29,979
Maine Portion 27,464
N.H. Portion 2,515
Aroostook 108 2,560
Down East 109 12,128
Metropolitan Portland 110 11,796
Northwest Maine 111 235
Percent
Fuel Combustion
20
20 a
21 a
34
41
21
66
Electricity Generation
Point Sources
Tons/Year %b
645
459
186
32
98
139
0
7a
1
1
1
0
Other
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
Tons/Year
3536
3349
187
349
3778
927
155
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
Tons/Year
12
1 2a
7a
14
31
8
66
1 ,853
1,708
145
478
1,057
1,388
0
6
6a
6a
19
9
12
0
a - Percentage based only on the portion within the indicated state
b - Percentage of total emissions
-------
TABLE A-8
MAINE EMISSIONS SUMMARY, S02
AQCR Name AQCR No.
Androscoggin Valley 107
Maine Portion
N.H. Portion
Aroostook 108
Down East 109
Metropolitan Portland 110
Northwest Maine 111
Total
Tons/Year
68,618
56,413
12,205
7,200
48,986
47,099
13
Percent
Fuel Combustion
85
84 a
94a
96
92
97
62
18,997
10,966
8,031
1,438
4,385
20,672
0
Electricity Generation
Point Sources
Tons/Year %b
28
iga
663
20
9
44
0
Other
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
Tons/Year %b
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
Tons/Year %b
29,191
26,660
2,531
3,159
36,113
11,376
8
43
47a
21 a
44
74
24
62
10,430
9,517
913
2,326
4,791
13,616
0
15
173
7a
32
10
29
0
a - Percentage based only on the portion within the indicated state.
b - Percentage of total emissions
-------
TABLE A-9
MAINE FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION REGULATIONS3
Region Name
Androscoggin Valley
Aroostook
Down East
Northwest Maine
Region No. Particulates
107 Fig. A-l for all fuel-
108 burning equipment that is
109 fired at a range of 3 million
111 BTU per hour or greater
regardless of fuel type
SO
Maximum sulfur content
of any fuel is 2.5%
Metropolitan Portland
110 Fig. A-l for all fuel-
burning equipment that is
fired at a range of 3 million
BTU per hour or greater
regardless of fuel type
Maximum sulfur contect
of any fuel is 1.5%
a From Maine Air Pollution Control Laws as amended by Public Laws of 1971, 1972 and 1973
-------
Figure A-1 MAINE PARTICULATE ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
10 or
less
4 5 6 7 6 9
100
1000
3 4 6 b ' b
10,000
or more
Equipment Capacity Rating
(106 BTU/Hr. Input)
-------
APPENDIX B
Regional Air Quality Assessment
-------
TABLE B-l
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF TSP REGULATIONS
AQCR Name
Androscoggin Valley3
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
AQCR No.
107
108
109
no
m
No. of Stations
Violating
Reporting Standards
13
0
8
9
0
3
0
0
0
0
Expected
Attainment
Date
7/75
b
7/75
7/75
b
Tolerance
Any for
Proposed Total % Emission Emissions
AQMA Emissions from Maine Fuel Increase
Designations? (lO^Tons/Year) Combustion (!03Tons/Year)
No
No
No
No
No
30.0
2.6
12.1
11.8
0.2
18
34
41
21
66
-11.7
-
+1.3
+8.1
-
a Interstate region
b Air quality levels presently below standards
-------
TABLE B-2
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF S02 REGULATIONS
AQCR Name
Androscoggin Valley3
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
AQCR No.
107
108
109
no
in
No. of
Reporting
8
0
8
8
0
Stations
Violating
Standards
0
0
0
1
0
Expected
Attainment
Date
7/75
b
7/75
7/75
b
Any
Proposed
AQMA
Designations?
No
No
No
No
No
Total
Emissions
(10JTons/Year)
68.6
7.2
49.0
47.1
0.01
% Emission
from Maine Fuel
Combustion
69
96
92
97
62
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(103Tons/Year
+310.8
-
+192.6
-2.8
_
a Interstate region
b Air quality levels presently below standards
-------
APPENDIX C
Power Plant Assessment
-------
TABLE C-l
EXISTING MAINE POWER PLANTS
AQCR Name AQCR
Androscoggin Valley 107
Aroostook
Down East
107
108
109
Metropolitan Portland 110
Northwest Maine
110
111
Plant Name
Central Maine Power Co.
Mason
Central Maine Power Co.
Farmingdale
Maine Public Service Co.
Caribou
Bangor Hydroelectric Co.
E. M. Graham
Central Maine Power Co.
Cape
Central Maine Power Co.
Wyman
None
1975
Capacity
MW
147
c
19
57.5
22.5
214
Fuel
Type
oil
oil
oil
oil
oil
Est. 1975
Quantity
103 Bbl
1662
129d
582d
21 8d
2442
%S by
Regul ation
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1 .5
Al lowable
I Sa
2.2b
NA
NA
NA
NA
Boi ler Also
Designed
for Coal?
No
No
No
No
Yes
S will violate standards.
a Determined by modeling results
b Currently operating on 2.2% S oil. Modeling results indicate an increase to 2.E
c Distillate oil gas turbine. Emergency use only.
d 1972 data from Steam Electric Plant Factors, 1973 Edition, National Coal Association, Washington, D. C.
-------
TABLE C-2
MAINE POWER PLANT SUMMARY BY AQCR
so
AQCR Name
Androscoggin Valley 107
Aroostook
Down East
Northwest Maine
108
109
Metropolitan Portland no
m
1975 Fuel Required
Fuel
Type
coal
oil
gas
coal
oil
gas
coal
oil
gas
coal
oil
gas
coal
oil
gas
by Regulations3
1-2%S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2660
0
0
0
0
2%S
0
1662
0
0
129
0
0
582
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emission
Reduction
Tons/Year0
-2150
-146
-424
6417
0
1975 Fuel
by Model
1-2%S
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Required
ing°
>2%S
0
1662
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Emission
Reduction
Tons/Year^
NA
NA
NA
TSP
1975 Emission
Reduction
From Existing
Regulations
(Tons/Year)
-1457
-153
-465
-2661
a Coal in tons/year, oil in 103 bbl/year, gas in 10 cu. ft./year
b Currently operating on 2.2% S oil. Modeling results indicate an increase to 2.5% S will violate standards.
c Based on application of existing regulations.
d Based on modeling results.
NA Not available
-------
APPENDIX D
Industrial, Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
-------
TABLE D-l MAINE SIGNIFICANT SOURCES3
NEDS
TSP Emissions
NEDS
S0 Emissions
Reduction under
existing regulations (T/Yr)
% NEDS TSP
Emissions
AQCR NAME
Androscoggin Valley
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
AQCR No
107
108
109
110
in
(T/Yr)
3331
335
3193
0
155
(T/Yr)
16,716
3,065
30,246
8,313
8
TSP
-1129
- 281
- 510
0
+ 121
so2
-3042
-1572
-1297
+2663
0
From Coalb
(before regulations)
0
52
0
0
0
a See table A-6.
b Only for significant sources not including power plants.
-------
TABLE D-2 MAINE SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES
AQCR Name AQCR No.
Androscoggin 107
Valley6
Aroostook 108
Down East 109
Metropolitan 110
Portland
Northwest Maine 111
Particulate Sources3
Plant Name
Scott Paper Co.
International Paper Co. (Androscoggin Mill)
Oxford Paper Co.
Diamond Match
Diamond Match
Forster Mfg. Co. (Strong)
Statler Industries
Marine Colloids
Forster Mfg. Co. (East Wilton)
International Paper Co. (Otis Mill)
Dirigo Dowel , Inc.
Stowell - MacGregor
Burnham Div. of Ethan Allen
Stowell Silk Spool Co.
Loring A.F.B.
Vahlsing Inc.
Sherman Lumber Co.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
G. Pacific Corp.
Great North - Nekoosa Paper (Millinocket)
Great North - Nekoosa Paper (E. Millinocket)
Penobscot Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Forster Mfg. Co.
County
Kennebec
Frank! in
Oxford
Kennebec
Oxford
Frankl in
Kennebec
Knox
Franklin
Franklin
Somerset
Oxford
Waldo
Oxford
Aroostook
Aroostook
Aroostook
Androscoggin
Washington
Penobscot
Penobscot
Penobscot
Penobscot
Penobscot
No significant points
J. M. Huber Corp.
Forster Mfg. Co.
Penobscot
Frankl in
SO,, Sources3
Plant Name
International Paper Co.
(Androscoggin Mill )
Oxford Paper Co.
International Paper Co. (Otis Mill)
Statler Industries
Keyes Fiber Co.
Marine Colloids
Vahlsing Inc.
Loring A.F.B.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Great North - Nekoosa Paper (Millinocket)
County
Franklin
Oxford
Franklin
Kennebec
Kennebec
Knox
Aroostook
Aroostook
Androscoggin
Penobscot
Great North - Nekoosa Paper (E. Millinocket)
Ga. Pacific Corp.
Penobscot Co.
St. Regis Paper
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Eastern Fine Paper Co.
Eastland Woolens Co.
Scott Paper
Portsmouth Naval Yard
Pejepscot Paper
Pepperell
Brooks Woollen Co.
J. M. Huber Corp.
Forster Mfg. Co.
Washington
Penobscot
Hancock
Penobscot
Penobscot
Penobscot
Cumberland
York
Sagadahoc
York
York
Penobscot
Frankl in
Listed in descending order of emissions.
-------
APPENDIX E
Area Source Assessment
-------
APPENDIX E
Table E-l presents area source fuel combustion data as contained in
NEDS. In the cases where a Maine county is partially contained in two or
more AQCR's, it appears that the entire county's data are listed as if the
county was contained totally in the lower numbered AQCR. Since AQCR 111,
Northwest Maine, is both the highest numbered AQCR in Maine and also is
composed entirely of counties which are also located in other (lower num-
bered) AQCR's all area source data for the region appear in NEDS as zero.
-------
TABLE E-1
MAINE AREA SOURCES3
Fuel Burned
Emissions
AQCR Name
Androscoggin Valley
AQCR No. Type
107 Coal:
Anthracite
Bituminous
Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Gas:
Natural
Process
Wood :
Amountb
3,160
1,000
165,570
30,960
1,430
0
36,700
% Sc Range of % S
0.7
0.6
0.4 0.2-0.5
2.2 1.9-2.3
___ __ _ _
TSP
24
28
828
356
13
0
459
1708
S02
41
12
4086
5370
0
0
9
9518
Aroostook
108
Coal:
Anthracite
Bituminous
Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Gas:
Natural
Process
Wood:
960
0
44,530
6,670
380
0
13,500
0.7
0.3
2.6
6
0
223
77
4
0
13
0
948
1361
0
0
169 3
479 2325
-------
TABLE E-l (cont.)
Fuel Burned
Emissions
AQCR Name AQCR No. Type
Down East 109 Coal:
Anthracite
Bituminous
Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Gas:
Natural
Process
Hood :
Metropolitan Portland 110 Coal:
Anthracite
Bituminous
Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Gas:
Natural
Process
Wood :
Northwest Maine 111 Coal:
Anthracite
Bituminous
Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Gas:
Natural
Process
Wood:
Amountb % Sc Range of % S
1,850 0.7
0
97,780 0.4 0.2-0.4
16,150 2.3 2.0-2.4
580
0
29,000 -
4,150 0.7
0
145,480 0.7 0.3-0.9
39,400 2.1 1.8-2.2
1,560 -
0
13,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TSP
15
0
489
186
5
0
362
1057
30
0
727
452
15
0
164
1388
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SO?
26
0
1808
2949
0
0
7
4790
54
0
6991
6567
0
0
3
13615
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dNEDS data.
DCoal in tons; oil in 1000 gals.; gas in MCF; wood in tons,
cAverage weighted sulfur content.
------- |