1 MANE-VU Consultation Appendix

Summary of Consultation between the MANE-VU States

In early 2007, New Hampshire provided other states in the MANE-VU region with the results of technical analyses that illustrated which states in the region have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to impairment in one or m ore of New Hampshire’s Class I areas, including Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness. NHDES sent a letter to these contributing states, inviting them to participate in consultations with New Hampshire and the other
Class I states in MANE-VU to discuss ideas on the t ypes and amounts of emissions reductions that are reasonable and, therefore, necessary to achieve rea sonable progress in improving visibility at New Hampshire’s Class I areas. The consultation calls and meetings that New Hampshire engaged in with our counterparts in the MANE-VU region over this last y ear served as a platform for comparing technical work and findings, discussing any adjustments that might be appropriate, and developing mutually
beneficial solutions.

Representatives from the MANE-VU states have been meeting periodically since 2000 to review technical information and provide their perspective s and direction on the subsequent iterations of the analyses. The MANE-VU states established a more fo rmal consultation process in 2007, beginning with an in-person meeting of the members in Washington, DC on March 1, 2007. At this meeting the states received information on the requirements of the reg ional haze rule and how to define reasonable progress in Class I areas. The states also discuss ed potential control options which, if determined t o be reasonable, would be considered as part of the Clas s I states’ long term strategy for making reasonabl e progress toward achieving natural conditions by 206 4. This was followed by a second in-person consultation in Providence, RI on June 7, 2007. Th is second meeting comprised a review of technical analyses completed to date, discussion of a resolut ion outlining the principles the Class I states wou ld be following in their consultations with contributing states, and examination of a set of statements developed by the Class I states outlining their req uests for control measures to be pursued by contributing states, both in the MANE-VU region and outside of it, for the purpose of achieving reasonable progress in the MANE-VU Class I areas .

The MANE-VU Class I states made revisions to the r esolution and statements as a result of the
discussions that occurred at the June 7 th meeting. The MANE-VU states then engaged in anoth er consultation via conference call on June20, 2007 to review the revised documents and vote on them. Al l
member states on the consultation call voted to acc ept the resolution and statements, with the exception of New York and Vermont, who were unable to participate on the call. The MANE-VU executive staff followed up with both New York and Vermont by phone and email, and received their
concurrence on the documents as well. Via the stat ement, the MANE-VU member states agreed to a course of action that includes pursuing the adoptio n and implementation of the following emission management strategies, as appropriate and necessary :

• timely implementation of BART requirements; and

• a low sulfur fuel oil strategy in the inner zone St ates (New Jersey, New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania, or portions thereof) to reduce the su lfur content of: distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 ppm) by no later than 2012, of #4 resid ual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 2012, of #6 residual oil to 0.3 – 0.5% sulfur by we ight by no later than 2012, and to further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2 016; and2

• a low sulfur fuel oil strategy in the outer zone St ates (the remainder of the MANE-VU region) to
reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.05 % sulfur by weight (500 ppm) by no later than 2014, of #4 residual oil to 0.25 – 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018, and of #6 residual oil to no greater than 0.5 % sulfur by weight by no later tha n 2018, and to further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018, depending on s upply availability; and

• a 90% or greater reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions from each of the electric generating un it (EGU) stacks identified by MANE-VU (Attachment 1- c omprising a total of 167 stacks – dated June 20, 2007) as reasonably anticipated to cause or con tribute to impairment of visibility in each mandatory Class I Federal area in the MANE-VU regio n. If it is infeasible to achieve that level of reduction from a unit, alternative measures will be pursued in such State; and

• continued evaluation of other control measures incl uding energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels,
and other measures to reduce SO 2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from all coal-bu rning facilities by 2018 and new source performance stand ards for wood combustion. These measures
and other measures identified will be evaluated dur ing the consultation process to determine if they
are reasonable and cost-effective.

In addition, the long-term strategy accepted by the MANE-VU states to reduce and prevent regional haze allows each state up to 10 years to pursue ado ption and implementation of reasonable and costeffective NOx and SO 2 controls.

Through the MANE-VU states’ acceptance of the emiss ion management strategies outlined in
the statements on the June 20 th call, they confirmed the set of actions the MANE-V U states will pursue in their state implementation plans (SIPs) to provi de reasonable progress toward improved visibility b y 2018, the first milestone in meeting the long-term regional haze goals for each Class I area. The MAN EVU Air Directors also consulted on issues concernin g the emission management strategies outlined in the statements on three subsequent conference calls . During the September 26, 2007 call, participants discussed how to interpret the emission management strategies in the statements for purposes of estimating visibility impacts via air quality model ing. On February 28, 2008 the MANE-VU states received the results of the final 2018 modeling run s. Finally, on the March 21, 2008 call the states discussed the process for establishing reasonable p rogress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas.

Summaries of the individual meetings and calls refe renced above follow, along with copies of the final resolution and statements accepted by the MANE-VU member states.

Listing of consultation summary documentation:

1. Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Meeting Summary, March, 1, 2007, Washington, DC

2. Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Meeting Summary, June 7 , 2007, Washington, DC

3. Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Conference Call Summary, June20, 2007

4. Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Conference Call Summary, MANE-VU Air Directors, March 31, 2008

5. Resolution of the Commissioners of States with Mand atory Class I Federal Areas Within the MidAtlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Regar ding Principles for Implementing the Regional Haze Rule, adopted June 20, 20073

6. Statement 1: Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northea st Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action Within MANE-VU Toward Assuring Rea sonable Progress, adopted June 20,

2007

7. Statement 2: Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northea st Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress, adopted June 20, 2007

8. Statement 3: Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northea st Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress, adopted June 20, 2007

9. Attachment to Statements 1 and 2: List of 167 EGU s tacks, dated June 20, 20074 Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Meeting Summary

March 1, 2007 Washington DC

Introduction

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-V U) held an in-person consultation meeting of the region’s states on March 1, 2007 in Washington DC. The purpose of the consultation meeting was to fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(B)( iv) and (3)(i) for Class I states to consult with contributing states on developing reasonable progre ss goals for the region’s seven mandatory federal Class I areas, and for all contributing states to c onsult on the development of coordinated emission management strategies. All MANE-VU states were inv ited to participate along with the region’s Federal Land Managers (FLMs) from the National Park Service , Fish & Wildlife Service, and Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional representatives from Regions I, II, and III.

Topics discussed included:

1) An overview of the regional haze program’s goals an d requirements;

2) A review of the uniform progress glidepaths and an ticipated status of visibility impairment in 2018 in the seven MANE-VU mandatory federal Class I area s; and

3) A review of an analysis based on the Clean Air Act’ s statutory factors of what controls may be considered reasonable, and 4) Discussions of reason able control options by source sector.

Key Outcomes of the Consultation

 As an overriding principle, MANE-VU looks for equiv alent reductions, not equal reductions across source categories.

 A low-sulfur fuel oil strategy is viable as a MANE- VU 2018 control measure, at a 500 ppm sulfur limit in the near-term, and a 15 ppm goal for disti llate in 2018.

 Sulfur limits on #4 and #6 fuel oil require more an alysis, and oil-fired EGUs with scrubbers will need flexibility.

 The ICI boiler sector needs further analysis as to what controls may be reasonable, especially
from small and medium-sized boilers.

 If it is reasonable for MANE-VU to achieve a 40% su lfur reduction in the non-EGU sector, it may also be reasonable that contributing states in othe r RPOs could find equivalent reasonable
reductions.

 There was no real consensus on controls on resident ial wood / open burning as a regional strategy, as what can be achieved in these sectors varies widely from state to state.

 MANE-VU Class I states will conduct a series of sep arate phone calls to develop a proposal for moving forward on consultations and developing reas onable control options.

 The MANE-VU states agreed to keep working towards i mplementing reasonable regional controls, which would be discussed at the next MANE -VU consultation meeting in June 2007.5

Attendees

States and Tribes: Maine (Class I state) – David Littell, Jeff Crawfor d New Hampshire (Class I state) – Jeff Underhill New Jersey (Class I state) – Lisa Jackson, Nancy Wi ttenberg, Chris Salmi Vermont (Class I state) – Justin Johnson, Dick Vale ntinetti, Paul Wishinski
Connecticut – Anne Gobin
Delaware – Ali Mirzakhalili District of Columbia – Diedre Elvis-Peterson, Abrah am Hagos Maryland – Tad Aburn Massachusetts – Arleen O’Donnell, Barbara Kwetz Pennsylvania – Tom Fidler, Joyce Epps, Wick Havens New York – Dave Shaw, Rob Sliwinski

Federal Land Management Agencies and EPA Regional O ffices: National Park Service – Bruce Polkowsky, John Bunya k Forest Service – Anne Mebane, Anne Acheson, Andrea Stacey Fish and Wildlife Service – Sandra Silva, Tim Allen EPA Region I – Anne Arnold EPA Region III – Makeba Morris, Neil Bigioni

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

David Littell, MANE-VU Vice-Chair and Commissioner of Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection, opened the consultation with a welcome and introductions around the room. Mr. Littell followed with a presentation entitled “Bringing Cle ar Views to Acadia National Park and Other Class I
Areas.” Acadia National Park is one of three mand atory Class I areas in Maine while New Hampshire has two, and Vermont and New Jersey each have one. Mr. Littell noted that annual visitation at Acadia is over 2 million visits a year leading to visitor spending of more than $127 million in 2005, and sur veys indicate that a clear vista is a strong factor in a visitor’s positive experience at the park.

Mr. Littell then provided an overview of the goals for today’s consultation, including:

• Review requirements, resources and critical timing issues to ensure all share a common understanding;

• Discuss options for control measures to identify wh at is reasonable in MANE-VU;

• Identify impediments to implementing control measur es and discuss how to address them;

• Identify links between haze, PM, and ozone strategi es that help define what's reasonable;

• Define reasonable progress for MANE-VU Class I Area s in terms of control measure options; and

• Summarize points of agreement and identify issues f or follow-up consultation.

Overview of MANE-VU Consultation

Anna Garcia, MANE-VU Deputy Director, followed with a presentation entitled “Timing, Contribution, and Consultation.” Noting that multiple methods sh ow consistent conclusions about which states are top contributors and that a single MANE-VU consulti ng group offers the best opportunity to engage contributing states in a meaningful consultation pr ocess, Ms. Garcia emphasized that the MANE-VU6

states need to make sure we know what we are asking of the states within MANE-VU before consulting with contributing states outside of MANE-VU. Today ’s consultation is the first formal intra-MANE-VU consultation being held to develop MANE-VU’s “clean hands” position and to start the process of determining reasonable control measures by MANE-VU states for the December 2007 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions.

MANE-VU Regional Haze Goals

Paul Wishinski from Vermont’s Department of Environ mental Conservation followed with a presentation entitled “Overview of Program Requirements for the Regional Haze Rule.” Under the regional haze regulations, both the reasonable progress goals to be set by the Class I states and the long-term coordinated emissions strategies to meet the reason able progress goals require consultations with contributing states and the Federal Land Managers ( FLMs). Mr. Wishinski concluded, as did Ms. Garcia before, that the key next step is for the MANE-VU s tates to agree on what they believe are reasonable control measures for visibility improvement at the MANE-VU Class I areas.

Jeff Underhill from New Hampshire’s Department of E nvironmental Services followed with a presentation entitled “Status of Visibility at MANE -VU Class I sites and Modeling for the Regional Haz e Rule.” Based on modeling results, Mr. Underhill co ncludes that all of MANE-VU’s seven mandatory Class I areas will likely be below the uniform progress l ine in 2018 with “on-the-books” controls plus 500 p pm maximum sulfur limit for #2 distillate, except in D elaware and Vermont. However, more progress can be made through additional reasonable measures, and th e Regional Haze Rule requires us to consider these measures via the consultation process with contribu ting states.

Developing Reasonable Progress for MANE-VU Class I Areas

Art Werner of MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., MANE-V U’s contractor for the four-factor reasonable progress project, followed with a presentation on t he preliminary results of that project. Mr. Werner reviewed the four factors that need to be analyzed to determine which emission control measures are needed to make reasonable progress in improving vis ibility: 1) the costs of compliance, 2) the time necessary for compliance, 3) energy an nonair quali ty environmental impacts of compliance, and 4) the remaining useful life of any source subject to such requirements. Mr. Werner also presented a preliminary marginal cost figure of $1,390/ton (199 9$) of SO2 in 2018 from a recent MANE-VUsponsored IPM run for a “CAIR Plus” policy. The fi nal report due in May will provide a methodology fo r addressing reasonable progress and inform the MANE- VU states on control measure costs for both priority source categories and selected individual sources for upcoming consultations on setting the reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU mandatory Class I areas.

Assessing Control Options

The final presentation by Chris Salmi with New Jers ey’s Department of Environmental Protection entitled “Reasonable Measure Opportunities” emphasi zed that the MANE-VU Class I states intend to
focus their reduction efforts for the 2018 mileston e on sulfur dioxide reductions since they cause, on average, nearly 80% of the visibility impairment on the 20% worst days. Mr. Salmi presented recent control measure analyses showing that MANE-VU sourc es can reasonably achieve over 200,000 tons of
SO2 reductions in 2018 from non-EGU control measure s, primarily from ICI coal and oil-fired sources, a7

low-sulfur distillate strategy, and controls on Bes t Available Retrofit Technology (BART) sources. Mr

. Salmi concluded his presentation by posing two ques tions for the members:

1) What measures does MANE-VU consider reasonable for 2018?, and 2) What measures do we ask others to implement?

The questions began a roundtable discussion initiat ed by Ms. Garcia’s intentionally broad question to the members asking what is reasonable.

Summary of Discussion

NESCAUM suggested, and New Hampshire agreed that as an overriding principle what MANE-VU is looking for is equivalent reductions, not equal reductions across source cat egories. The discussion segued to what MANE-VU can reasonably accomplish fo r a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. The members agreed that this is a prime example of a source cat egory where MANE-VU can make reasonable reductions due the widespread use of distillate for residential and commercial heating. Other states primarily outside of MANE-VU do not have a similar reliance on fuel oil for heating, so they could mak e equivalent reasonable reductions from other source categories to match MANE-VU’s heating oil sulfur
reductions.

Further discussion continued with respect to two po tentially reasonable fuel-oil strategies for the MANE-VU region, dubbed S1 and S2:

 S1 is less stringent and envisions a 75% reduction in sulfur content to 500 ppm by 2018 for home heating / distillate, and 50% reductions in su lfur content for #4 and #6 fuel oils.

 S2 envisions a 99.25% reduction in sulfur content t o 15 ppm by 2018 for home heating / distillate, and the same 50% reductions for #4 and #6 as in S1.

New Hampshire suggested the need to move carefully due to the concerns about price and supply issues. Vermont countered that there is a 10-year timeframe to accomplish a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. Pennsylvania suggested that a 500 ppm st rategy is reasonable, but timing is important.
Vermont added that the Northeast states have been d iscussing low-sulfur fuel oil strategies for ten ye ars already, and that two or three states such as New Y ork, New Jersey, and Connecticut need to go first and pass regulations to catalyze regional negotiati ons with industry. New Jersey noted that New Jersey has started their rulemaking process on low- sulfur fuel oil; New York added that New York has started their rulemaking process for 500 ppm for di stillate by 2018. Connecticut said that Connecticu t’s fuel standards are set by statute, and the statute precludes Connecticut from lowering its fuel-oil standards until neighboring states Massachusetts an d Rhode Island do so as well, presumably for regional supply reasons.

Continuing the low-sulfur fuel oil discussion, Penn sylvania asked if EPA has been approached on a national low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. New Jersey replied that EPA is not focusing on this area, leav ing it to the states. NESCAUM added that the industry bel ieves that part of the deal with EPA for accomplishing the 15 ppm on-road ultra low-sulfur d iesel (ULSD) standard is that there will be no more sulfur reductions expected. MANE-VU noted that in recent discussions, the industry suggested it was possible to achieve a 15 ppm sulfur level for disti llate within a 2014 timeframe. Massachusetts said that it may be difficult for Massachusetts to commit to a 15 ppm sulfur level in distillate by 2018, noting

, however, that the positive co-benefits of greater f urnace efficiency and therefore lower GHG emissions8

might help in instituting a 15 ppm sulfur level in distillate regulation. New Jersey emphasized that we have a decade to accomplish a 15 ppm sulfur standar d for distillate.

MANE-VU asked the group about what might work in te rms of lower sulfur limits in #4 and #6 fuel oils. Pennsylvania said that Pennsylvania has various sul fur limits and they would need more time to analyze such limits. New Jersey noted that these low-sulfu r fuels are already available as some New Jersey counties are already below 5000 ppm sulfur. Maine questioned what limits on #6 fuel oil would mean
for those oil-fired EGUs that have scrubbers.

MANE-VU wrapped up the low-sulfur fuel-oil discussi on asking the group if the S1 strategy was viable a s a MANE-VU 2018 region haze control measure. The co nsensus was that a 500 ppm sulfur limit “nearterm” and a 15 ppm “goal” for distillate in 2018 is viable. For #4 / #6 sulfur limits, the consensus was that more work needs to be done, and that flexibili ty should be provided to states that have scrubbers
on their oil-fired EGUs.

The consultation moved on to sulfur reductions from the coal-fired ICI (Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial) sector and whether MANE-VU can include such reductions in a non-EGU strategy bundle at this time. Pennsylvania suggested that controls fo r small-to-medium size boilers (<100 MM Btu / hour heat input) may not be cost-effective, adding that a 50% reduction in sulfur emissions from coal-fired ICI sources may overestimate what can realistically be achieved. New Hampshire suggested that recent analysis by New Hampshire staff on installation cos ts should be considered. Maine added that this sector may be a viable source for other RPO states to achieve reasonable sulfur reductions from their non-EGU sectors that are equivalent to the 40% sulf ur reductions expected from non-EGU sources
within MANE-VU due to the low-sulfur fuel oil strat egy.

The consensus concerning sulfur reductions from the coal-fired ICI sector was that there is a need for more analysis to determine what is reasonable to ob tain sulfur reductions from small and medium-sized
coal-fired boilers. There was also consensus that if MANE-VU achieves overall reasonable sulfur reductions in the 40% range from the non-EGU sector , then other RPOs could find equivalent reasonable
reductions.

Discussions moved on to other potential regional ha ze control measures within MANE-VU. For lime and cement kilns, both Pennsylvania and New York agreed that there is wide variability in these sources. Pennsylvania suggested that lime kiln controls are not cost-effective, and that an EPA global settleme nt on cement kilns was coming soon anyway. New York a dded that they will be regulating its three cement
kilns as BART sources.

For the residential wood combustion / open burning source category, there was general consensus on including outdoor wood boilers in this category. N ew Jersey encouraged greater use wood stove changeout programs. New Hampshire replied that wha t can be done on wood combustion varies from state to state, and, for example, in New Hampshire new wood stove standards would be acceptable, but not changeout programs. New York added that op en burning bans are unenforceable, especially in
rural areas. There was little consensus on control measures in this source category, especially considering that the primary pollutants of concern are organic carbon and direct particulate matter, a nd not sulfur which is the primary regional haze pollu tant within MANE-VU for the first planning mileston e in 2018.

The Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Meeting adjourned.9 Intra-MANE-VU Consultation Meeting

June 7, 2007 Providence, Rhode Island
Introduction

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-V U) held an in-person consultation meeting of the region’s states on June 7, 2007 in Washington DC. The purpose of the consultation meeting was to fulf ill the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(B)(iv) and (3)(i) for Class I states to consult with contribut ing states on developing reasonable progress goals for the region’s seven mandatory federal Class I areas, and for all contributing states to consult on the d evelopment of coordinated emission management strategies. All MANE-VU states were invited to par ticipate along with the region’s Federal Land Managers (FLMs) from the National Park Service, Fis h & Wildlife Service, and Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional repr esentatives from Regions I, II, and III.

Topics discussed included: 1) the process for setti ng reasonable progress goals by the MANE-VU Class I states; 2) an approach for intra-MANE-VU consultati on including control strategy development within MANE-VU for setting the reasonable progress goals; 3) an approach for consulting with states outside o f MANE-VU on the reasonable progress goals to be esta blished by the MANE-VU Class I states; and 4) the next steps in the consultation process.

Key Outcomes of the Consultation

• All of the MANE-VU states agreed that a resolution setting out the principles by which the Class I states will implement the regional haze rule should go the MANE-VU Board for approval, although the document was to be signed only by the MANE-VU Class I states.

• Two separate draft statements on courses of action by states within and outside MANE-VU for assuring progress towards the MANE-VU Class I State s’ reasonable progress goals were tabled until a corrected list of 167 EGU stacks impacting visibility in the MANE-VU Class I areas could be generated. The MANE-VU states agreed that they wou ld vote by conference call once the
corrected 167 EGU stack list became available.

Attendees

States : Maine (Class 1 state) – David Littell New Hampshire (Class 1 state) – Bob Scott, Jeff Und erhill Vermont (Class 1 state) – Justin Johnson, Dick Vale ntinetti New Jersey (Class 1 state) – Lisa Jackson, Nancy Wi ttenberg, Chris Salmi
Connecticut – Dave Wackter
Delaware – Ali Mirzakalili District of Columbia – Cecily Beall Massachusetts – Arleen O’Donnell, Barbara Kwetz Maryland – Tad Aburn
New York – Dave Shaw Pennsylvania – Tom Fidler, Joyce Epps, Wick Havens Rhode Island – Michael Sullivan, Steve Majkut10

Federal Land Management Agencies and EPA Regional O ffices: National Park Service – Bruce Polkowsky (in person) , Holly Salazar (on phone) Fish & Wildlife Service – Tim Allen (on phone) Forest Service – Ann Mebane, Ann Acheson (on phone) EPA Region III (on phone)

Welcome and Introductions

David Littell, MANE-VU Vice-Chair and Commissioner of Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection, opened the consultation with a welcome and introductions around the room, including those on the phone. Anna Garcia, MANE-VU Deputy Di rector, followed with a brief outline of the goals for the consultation, including an update on recent technical work and discussions of the proposed MANE-VU Class I states resolution on consultation p rinciples, a proposed statement on control measures within the MANE-VU region for achieving re asonable progress goals, and a proposed statement on controls outside of the MANE-VU region for achieving reasonable progress goals.

Status of Technical and Policy Work Issues

Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM, led this session with an upd ate of the recent technical work, including preliminary modeling results. All seven of the MAN E-VU Class I areas will be below the uniform rate o f progress in 2018 according to preliminary modeling results. Tad Aburn, Maryland, asked the Federal land Managers (FLMs) if the MANE-VU technical appro ach is satisfactory. Bruce Polkowsky, National Park Service, replied that the other eastern RPOs a re doing similar work and achieving better than uniform progress but have different approaches to r easonable progress. Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service, commented that MANE-VU is not taking as mu ch of a chemistry-intensive approach as other RPOs, and MANE-VU will likely need to address nitra tes and organics in the next regional haze planning phase after 2018. Mr. Allen added that he is very supportive of obtaining as many reductions as possible now as they will only be more difficult to obtain later.

Chris Salmi, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, followed with a presentation on MANE-VU’s approach to fulfilling the regional haze rule’s reasonable progress requirement. The statutory four-factor analysis for control strategi es for visibility-impairing source sectors provides the
central focus for the Class I states’ determination of what is reasonable. Finally, Anna Garcia ended the session with a brief presentation on the process by which MANE-VU chose the regional source sectors that were included in the four-factor analysis.

Roundtable Discussions

The MANE-VU states began their consultation with a roundtable discussion of the draft resolution by th e MANE-VU Class I states on principles for implementi ng the regional haze rule, including the requiremen t for consulting with contributing states on reasonab le progress. After minor wording changes, the stat es then agreed to seek Board approval although the res olution would be signed only by the MANE-VU Class

I states.

Roundtable discussions ensued on the two proposed s tatements, one on control strategies within the MANE-VU states for assuring reasonable progress, an d the other for states outside MANE-VU. When it
became clear that more work needed to be done so al l states were comfortable with the final list of 16 711

EGU stacks having the greatest visibility impact on the MANE-VU Class I areas, the states agreed to postpone voting on the statements until a later dat e by conference call.

A final discussion on a draft statement on requesti ng further action by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on tightening the CAIR prog ram for assuring reasonable progress also occurred. The states also agreed to table a vote on this stat ement until a conference call.

Consultation Next Steps

A brief discussion on next consultation steps, espe cially with the Regional Planning Organizations outside of MANE-VU also occurred. Those steps incl ude:

• Consulting within and outside MANE-VU about which c ontrol strategies are reasonable;

• Deciding how to include the strategies in the fina l statements in modeling;

• Determining goals based on final modeling;

• Pursuing the adoption of enforceable emissions limi ts & compliance schedules; and

• Evaluating progress in 5 years.12 Intra- MANE-VU Consultation Conference Call Summary

June 20, 2007

Introduction

On June 20, 2007 the MANE-VU Commissioners and Air Directors participated on a conference call to continue consultation discussions on emission manag ement strategies for the region to pursue to achieve reasonable progress toward natural conditio ns in the region’s Class I areas. The MANE-VU stat e Members completed their review of a resolution and three statements proposed by the Class I states to the larger MANE-VU membership, and voted to accept these documents and confirm the set of actions the MANE-VU states will pursue in their state imple mentation plans (SIPs) to provide reasonable progress toward improved visibility b 2018, the fir st milestone in meeting the Class I areas’ long-ter m regional haze goals.

Attendees

States, Tribes and MSOs: Maine (Class 1 state) – David Littell, Jeff Crawfor d New Hampshire (Class 1 state) – Jeff Underhill, And y Bodnarik New Jersey (Class 1 state) – Chris Salmi
Connecticut – Anne Gobin
Delaware – Ali Mirzakalili District of Columbia – Cecily Beall
Massachusetts – Barbara Kwetz Maryland – Tad Aburn, Andy Hiltebridle
New York – Dave Shaw Pennsylvania – Tom Fidler, Joyce Epps, Wick Havens Penobscot Tribe – John Banks, Bill Thompson Rhode Island – Steve Majkut NESCAUM – Arthur Marin, Gary Kleiman

Consultation Discussions

The MANE-VU states voted on and passed three statem ents, which are attached to this summary, with some minor changes. The three statements are entit led as follows:

1. Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action Within MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Pr ogress;

2. Statement of the mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE-VU Towar d Assuring Reasonable Progress; and

3. Statement of the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibilit y Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress.

The final versions of the statements which were acc epted via the vote reflect the following changes:13

- agreement on the list of EGU stacks, which is attac hed to both Statement 1 and 2, and revising the table to remove columns listing plant type, SO2 tons per year and rank, and changing the bottom notes accordingly (see explanation below);

- removal of the phrase "top 100" from the 4th actio n bullet on Statement 1 and the 2nd action bullet on Statement 2 (regarding 90% reduction fro m EGUs);

- correction of the date for 500 ppm low sulfur fuel oil to "by no later than 2012" (I made the error of changing that date to "2014" in translatin g the Consultation comments - it should be 2012 as for the other inner zone fuel requirements) ;

- revision of the last paragraph in Statement 3 to de lete "beyond 2018 CAIR levels" and replace it with "by no later than 2018"; and

- a change in the signature line on all three stateme nts to "Adopted by the MANE-VU States and Tribes on (date)."

In addition, the members agreed to keep the columns that were deleted from the abbreviated “167 stacks” table as part of the larger spreadsheet of the 167 stacks that MARAMA produced and t make that document part of a technical support document to Statements 1 and 2. The columns were deleted to keep the table simple and to reduce confusion ab out tons per year information used in the modeling vs. tons per year information in the Acid Rain Data base, in which there are some differences.
Attachment 1 to the Statements refers to the 2002 t ons per year information from the MANE-VU
Contribution Assessment at the bottom of the table.

The MANE-VU states also confirmed that, if it is in feasible for the oil/gas units that are in New Hampshire and Maine to meet the 90% reduction for E GUs, meeting the low sulfur fuel oil requirements would be sufficient. In addition, the MANE-VU stat es will also credit early state actions (within a f ew years prior to 2002) toward the 90% target of reduc ing emissions from EGUs on the “167 stack” list.

The group also decided that the technical support d ocument for the statements and the consultation
summaries would be circulated to the MANE-VU states for their review and comment, and to get any further corrections to the more comprehensive table of 167 stacks (some states had changes to the plant types on the list).

Voting on the Statements

At the end of the call the states voted on whether they would accept each of the statement. For Statement 1, New Jersey moved that the statement be put up for a vote and Pennsylvania seconded the
motion. All MANE-VU states on the call voted to ac cept Statement 1. On Statement 2, the Penobscot
Tribe moved that it be considered for a vote and Ma ssachusetts seconded the motion. Once again, all MANE-VU states on the call voted to accept Statemen t 2. Finally, for Statement 3, the Penobscot Tribe
moved that it be considered for a vote and New Jers ey seconded the motion. All MANE-VU states on the call voted to accept Statement 3.

New York and Vermont were unable to participate on the consultation conference call, so to ensure that all the MANE-VU member states are in agreement on these actions, the MANE-VU executive staff proposed to contact each state individual by phone and email to get their response to the vote on the statements. Within one day of the consultation con ference call, the MANE-VU executive staff briefed New York and Vermont by phone and email and receive d their confirmation that they accepted all three
statements as revised on the call.14 Intra-MANE-VU Consultation – March 31, 2008 – MANE -VU Air Directors’ Call

States Attending the Consultation

Maine (Class I state) – Jeff Crawford New Hampshire (Class I state) – Jeff Underhill, And y Bodnarik New Jersey (Class I state) – Chris Salmi, Stella Ol uwasuen-Apo, Peg Gardner
Connecticut – Dave Wackter Delaware – Jack Sipple District of Columbia – Cecily Beall Maryland – Roger Thunell, Brian Hug
Massachusetts – Glenn Keith New York – Gopal Sistla, Rob Sliwinski Pennsylvania – Joyce Epps

Representatives of MANE-VU member states met via co nference call on March 31, 2008.

During the call, NESCAUM modeling assumptions and r esults were reviewed, and the three Class I states present (Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey) conf irmed that they would be relying on the results of that modeling to set their reasonable progress targ ets. The targets based on the modeling were included in the MANE-VU SIP Template draft that is posted on the MARAMA web site and will be sent to EPA for review. (Note: sent on 4/2/08)

Ms. Garcia agreed to share the results of the MANE- VU modeling with Virginia and West Virginia before the Stakeholder meeting on Friday, April 4.

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts ha d met with oil companies and distributors concerning the MANE-VU low sulfur oil strategy. St akeholders had expressed some concern about the 0.5% limit for residual oil, but states wanted to g ather more information before deciding whether to make any changes in the MANE-VU strategy.

Participating states reviewed choices concerning th e Long Term Strategy section of the SIP Template, and it was agreed that a document describing those choices would be revised and discussed further with EPA and FLM agency representatives. Individual MAN E-VU states might make different choices with respect to language in their SIPs, and some gave in dications of their preferences.