1 MANE-VU Consultation Appendix

Summary of MANE-VU Class I States’ Consultations

In 2007, New Hampshire provided other states in th e Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), Midwest Regional Planning Organization ( MRPO) and Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) region s with the results of technical analyses that illus trated which states in those regions have emissions that a re reasonably anticipated to contribute to impairment in one or more of New Hampshire’s Class I areas, including Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (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 t o discuss ideas on the types and amounts of emissions reductions that are reasonable and, there fore, necessary to achieve reasonable progress in improving visibility at New Hampshire’s Class I are as. The consultation calls and meetings that New Hampshire engaged in with our counterparts in the M ANE-VU. MWRPO, and VISTAS regions served as a platform for comparing technical work and findings, discussing any adjustments that might be appropriate, and developing mutually beneficial sol utions.

Representatives from the MANE-VU states have been having discussions with the other regional planning organizations (RPOs) periodically since 20 00 on technical information and analyses. The MANE-VU states established a more formal consultati on 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 regional haz e rule and how to define reasonable progress in Class I areas. The states also discussed potential control options which, if determined to be reasona ble, would be considered as part of the Class I states’ long term strategy for making reasonable progress toward achieving natural conditions by 2064. This was followed by a second in-person consultation in Providence, RI on June 7, 2007. This second meetin g comprised a review of technical analyses completed to date, discussion of a resolution outli ning the principles the Class I states would 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 than2

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; and

• 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 emission management strategies outlined in the statements on the June 2 0 th call, they confirmed the set of actions the MANEVU states will pursue in their state implementation plans (SIPs) to provide reasonable progress toward improved visibility by 2018, the first milestone in meeting the long-term regional haze goals for each Class I area.

Once the statements were accepted via the internal MANE-VU consultation process, the MANEVU states initiated their consultation process with the MRPO and VISTAS states. The MANE-VU Class I states held an Open Technical Call on July 19, 2007 to provide the other regions with a review of the technical information and analyses performed by MAN E-VU that were used in determining which states were contributing to impairment in the Class I area s and to discuss the approach the MANE-VU Class I areas planned to take on consultations. The MANE-V U Class I states then held in-person meetings with the contributing states from each of the other RPOs . The MANE-VU/MRPO consultation meeting occurred on August 6, 2007 in Chicago, IL, and the MANE-VU/VISTAS consultation meeting occurred on August 20, 2007 in Atlanta, GA. MANE-VU and the MR PO held an additional conference call on September 13, 2007, and the two RPOs continue to wo rk on initiatives that came out of the consultation discussions through the MANE-VU/MRPO State Collabor ative process. MANE-VU anticipates that some of the VISTAS states that participated in the consu ltations will also join in these collaborative init iatives in the near future.

The MANE-VU Air Directors also held additional intr a-MANE-VU consultation discussions on issues concerning the emission management strategie s outlined in the statements on three subsequent conference calls. During the September 26, 2007 ca ll, participants discussed how to interpret the emission management strategies in the statements fo r purposes of estimating visibility impacts via air quality modeling. On February 28, 2008 the MANE-VU states received the results of the final 20183

modeling runs. Finally, on the March 21, 2008 call the states discussed the process for establishing reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I a reas.

Summaries of the individual meetings and calls refe renced above follow, with the intra-MANEVU consultation documentation first, then the MRPO consultation documents and finally the VISTAS consultation summaries. Copies of the final MANE-V U Class I states’ resolution and statements appear at the end of this appendix.

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. MANE-VU Class I States’ Consultation Open Technical Call Summary, July 19, 2007

6. MANE-VU/MRPO Consultation Meeting Summary, August 6 , 2007, Chicago, IL

7. MANE-VU/MRPO call

8. MANE-VU/VISTAS Consultation Meeting Summary, August 20, 2007, Atlanta, GA

9. 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, 2007

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 reasonable 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 – Deidre 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 manda tory 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 spe nding of more than $127 million in 2005, and survey s 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 are6

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-VU 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 and non-air qua lity 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 of7

SO2 reductions in 2018 from non-EGU control measure s, primarily from ICI coal and oil-fired sources, a 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
,8

however, that the positive co-benefits of greater f urnace efficiency and therefore lower GHG emissions 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, considering that the primary pollutants of concern are organic carbon an d direct particulate matter, and not sulfur which i s the primary regional haze pollutant within MANE-VU for the first planning milestone in 2018.

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

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 Conference Call Summary

March 31, 2008 MANE-VU Air Directors

States: 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.15 MANE-VU Class I States’ Consultation Open Technical Call Summary July 19, 2007

Introduction & Purpose of Call (A. Garcia, MANE-VU)

Anna Garcia opened the call at 10 am (EDT) with a welcome and roll call by all 3 RPOs (see attached list of participants). She then reviewed the purpose of today’s call, including:

After asking for general questions about the agend a and call purpose, the MANE- VU representatives began the substance of the call wit h an overview of the technical work to be discussed as organized in the MANE-VU briefing books provided for the call.

MANE-VU Contribution Assessment (G. Kleiman, NESCAU M)

Gary Kleiman provided a brief summary of the contr ibution assessment work that MANE-VU conducted to help them determine which states the C lass I states would request be involved in consultation (see Tabs 4 & 5 of briefing book).

Discussion :

• M. Koerber (MRPO): Requested documentation of 2018 projections – MANE-VU work seems consistent with MRPO analyses. Also, it looks as if the Northeast states will be below the glide path for uniform progress by 2018.

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM): There seems to be pretty good consistency across all the RPOs in terms of their modeling work. Also, VISTAS new emission inve ntory with GA reductions is not in the MANEVU modeling. It also includes MANE-VU’s 500 ppm low sulfur fuel strategy, but not the 15 ppm level.

• R. Papalski (NJ): So the modeling does take into ac count 500 ppm sulfur fuel oil?

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM): Yes, and that is significant (not including VT or DE).

• M. Koerber (MRPO): I notice that in 2018 organic c arbon is more significant, and may be as significant as sulfate. This issue is very complex , especially in urban areas. Where is MANE-VU’s organic carbon coming from? MRPO will be interested in what our control measures analysis says for organic carbon.

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM): There is some uncertainty wit h regard to what the modeling is indicating about organic carbon in 2018 – that is why MANE-VU is focusing on sulfate now.

• P. Wishinski (VT): Sulfate dominates extinction. Or ganic carbon does not contribute as much to extinction as sulfate in the MANE-VU region.

• P. Brewer (VISTAS): After discussion with Gary at M ARAMA Science Meeting, our approach was more understandable.

• B. Lopez (WI): This work was based on IPM 2.1.9 – what is expected if put in context of EPA’s IPM 3.0 runs?

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): IPM 3.0 results were not avai lable at the time this analysis was done, so we used 2.1.9 with updated gas curves.

• L. Nixon (NH): On state by state basis sulfur leve ls from EPA 3.0 model runs. Liz, took a quick look at 3.0 and same SO 4 increases that look problematical.16

MANE-VU Reasonable Progress Project Summary (S. Wie rman, MARAMA)

Susan Wierman provided a brief summary of the reas onable progress work that MANE-VU conducted to help them develop long-term strategies and control measures for the 2018 state implementation plans(see Tab 7 – A, B and C - of br iefing book).

Discussion :

• J. Hornback (SESARM): Are costs in 1999 dollars? If so, how do they compare in current dollars?

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): Yes, these are reflected in 19 99 dollars. If converted to 2006 dollars the cost figures would be higher – multiply 1999 by 1.1 86 to go from 1999 $ to 2006 $.

• D. MacLeod (VA): Regarding the MANE-VU statement, h ow would disagreements between a Class I State and a non MANE-VU state be handled in the SIP ?

• Garcia (MANE-VU): The statements that MANE-VU issu ed are the request for the kinds of measures that our Class I states believe are needed based on the technical work we have done. In the consultations these requests are a starting point f or discussion, and provide a basis for looking at the work the other RPOs have done in comparison to our work to determine what may be needed and is reasonable. According to the rule, the consu ltations are not expected to result in agreement on everything, but the areas of agreement and disag reement that occur via consultation are to be documented in the SIP.

• J. Johnson (GA): Regarding EGUs, is there a relati onship between what is on pages 68-78 and CAIR+? And does MANE-VU have any idea of what level of red uctions would result from CAIR+?

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): We have not done an analysis o f CAIR+ and its impact on visibility. Impact on visibility is not one of the 4 factors and so is not applicable.

• M. Koerber (MRPO): Isn’t there a 5 th factor in guidance - $/deciview?

• S.Wierman (MARAMA) – EPA expects that we will look at visibility improvement, but still not a factor regarding reasonableness. MANE-VU is planning on lo oking at visibility improvement of the control measures we initially looked at as reasonable.

• S. Holman (NC): Modeling on visibility – are you do ing CMAQ modeling for 2018? Or CALPUFF?

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM): We are doing a CMAQ sensitivi ty run –not a full annual run, but for select periods, with tagging mechanism for different contr ol measures.

• S. Holman (NC): In NC, 11 of 12 EGUs will have scru bbers - need to reflect units that have scrubbers on in VISTAS base G.

MANE-VU Long-Term Strategy/Statements

As discussions proceeded after the reasonable prog ress overview, participants began to ask questions about the MANE-VU resolution and statemen ts (see Tab 3 of briefing book). These documents outline how MANE-VU is approaching the co nsultation process and a request that states pursue strategies in various sectors that MANE-VU b elieves are needed for its Class I areas, as a star ting point for consultation discussions.

Discussion :

• F. Durham (WV): Regarding the low sulfur fuel strat egy, will regulatory impact analyses for this measure be done on state or regional basis?

• G.Kleiman (NESCAUM), S.Wierman (MARAMA) & Ray Papal ski (NJ): That will be done on state basis, but with coordination across the MANE-VU states. N J will be doing an analysis, but there is also a federal role in terms of any national rulemakings t hat may happen on low sulfur fuel.17

• J. Johnston (GA): What is the basis for saying tha t the low sulfur fuel strategy is reasonable for States outside MANE-VU?

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM), S. Wierman (MARAMA), A.Garcia (MANE-VU): Actually the Class I states are looking for equivalent reductions to what they are doing in the low sulfur fuel strategy – not necessarily expecting that MRPO and VISTAS states w ill pursue a low sulfur fuel strategy. We are asking you to look at what is reasonable in terms o f making equivalent reductions, which is the point of having the consultations. We know the MRPO and VISTAS states are looking at reasonable measures for your own Class I areas. During the con sultation we anticipate comparing what you are looking at as reasonable with what we are requestin g as a starting point for what is “potentially” reasonable.

• J. Johnston (GA): Is there flexibility to get more reductions from EGUs and fewer reductions from non-EGUs? What if, for example, we get more sulfate reductions from EGU sources equivalent to the amount of non-EGU MANE-VU reductions?

• P.Wishinski (VT), A. Garcia (MANE-VU): VT would su pport that kind of alternative. MANE-VU does envision that flexibility in our consultation discu ssions.

• M. Koerber (MRPO): An issue they have been looking at is actually setting a reasonable progress goal - what is MANE-VU’s process for that?

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM), A. Garcia (MANE-VU): A deciv iew number will come out of our CMAQ sensitivity runs, and agreed-to reductions after co nsultations, with full CMAC run. There may still b e some overlap between what may and may not be agreed to and what the Class I states want to include as reasonable in CMAQ final run.

• M. Koerber (MRPO): There are very different EGU pr edictions between IPM 2.1.9, IPM 3.0, and what his states say will actually happen. Will it b e possible to have further discussions after August 6 th and August 20 th consultations to refine and sync up EGU reductions and possible modeling run inputs?

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM), A. Garcia (MANE-VU): It would be helpful for MRPO and VISTAS to share with us their information on their EGU inventory, s o we can make sure our modeling for reasonable progress reflects their work and so that our states can understand what they will be doing. The inperson meetings are not the end of the consultation process. Our states are interested in having a continued dialogue, beyond the August in-person mee tings.

• M. Koerber (MRPO): On page 61, is WI in or out? (in VT letter due to its CALPUFF runs)

• P. Wishinski (VT): VT CALPUFF modeling indicated th at WI contributed >2% of emissions, so VT wants to include WI in consultation process, even t hough there are no WI EGUs on 167 list

• L. Bruss (WI): Please give him or Kevin Kessler a c all (608) 266-0603

• D. Valentinetti (VT): We agree with Mike that this is an ongoing process for best science

• D. Andrews (KY): The two EGU modeling runs in the table of 167 stacks do not show much correlation – why?

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): Because the modeling for each of the different runs is based on different days, there were different meteorological inputs to each model and variability in wind fields (shows importance of meteorology).

MWRPO Overview (M. Koerber, LADCO)

• The MRPO states have moved ahead with some of their own state rules (consumer products, AIM, etc.). They also have PM SIPS to do.

• We updated our modeling to use 2005 as base year an d made changes to IPM 3.0 based on what we know will actually happen – will be quite a bit dif ferent from 2.1.9 (not ready by Aug. 6 th )

• Would hope modeling would form basis for a collabor ative on future control strategies18

• MRPO internal consultation process for the Northern Class I states has been ongoing for over a year – completed a great deal of technical work.

• Their reasonable progress project by EC/R is finish ed. It looked at the four factors, plus visibility improvement. Examined similar strategies as those that MACTEC did for MARAMA analysis. Now completing report - will send out later.

• Requirement to address regional haze Class I areas in state and outside state. Have done more work on who is contributing. Will provide MRPO states wi th a list of who they impact.

Discussion :

• A. Garcia (MANE-VU): Will MRPO states be looking fo r any national measures?

• M. Koerber (MRPO): Our Class I areas are still abov e the glidepath, so may need some regional/national reductions. We are looking at tha t – may have something as develop, but will not have it by Aug. 6 th . Note that MANE-VU sites are at uniform progress with control measures but MRPO states are above uniform line.

• D. Littell (ME): How much of the contribution at th eir Class I sites is coming from Canada?

• M. Koerber (MRPO): On the 20% worst days, the contr ibutions are mainly from the south.

• A. Garcia (MANE-VU): Would it be possible to includ e Canada (primarily Ontario) at the August 6 th consultation? They have expressed an interest, and our northern Class I states would like to invite them to hear our discussions.

• M. Koerber (MRPO): That would be ok.

VISTAS Overview (Pat Brewer, VISTAS)

• In VISTAS we the focus is on sulfate as well.

• Started with IPM 2.1.9 – in Base G, took account of results supplied by utilities – created hybrid between 2.1.9 and ground – truthing in summer 2006 (somewhere between versions 2.1.9 and 3.0) – pretty close to MV CAIR+ results. Base G2 has som e changes in GA & FL

• See improvements at Southwest and Appalachian sites – mountain sites below the uniform progress line; less improvement at coastal sites – very clos e to uniform progress. Smaller reductions in units affecting relative reductions over whole year. GA and FL are working closely together on those sites.

• Distributed reasonable progress approach to stakeho lders - looked at areas of influence.

• Reasonable progress analysis based on area of influ ence approach shows sulfate from EGUs and other sources dominated – most responses from sulfa te reductions. When looking at areas of influence, we looked at their sulfate sources

• In modeling we included Brigantine and other sites

• Look at cost of controls, what are sulfate emission s after implementing the on-the-way controls. After 2018, EGUs still contribute 40% of emissions. Coal burning ICI boilers are the next largest at 20-30% of emissions, also a small percent from glas s, pulp and paper, etc. Know by SEC code what kind of sources and costs of typical measures (AirC ontrol.net). Will be using MARAMA 4- Factor analysis to inform their process.

• Delivered lists of sources in areas of influence in November. VISTAS states consultation occurred in December 2006 - agreed on approach to take on 4- Fa ctor analysis. Got back together in May and repeated our process. Some states sent letters ask ing them to look at certain kinds of sources -- “tell us what you decide when you do your analysis of these sources on your Class I areas.” Provided schedules on next steps of SIP process.

• VISTAS has interstate consultations going on in sou thern states - May 2007 consultation, too, plus June FLM/EPA meeting, intrastate consultations . No w consultation has started with MANE-VU19

• FLM/EPA feedback is commitment to good mid-course r eview in 2012 to see where EGU reductions are actually occurring .

Discussion :

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): Please elaborate on your comm ent that IPM run with Base G are “close to” MANE-VU CAIR+ run?

• P. Brewer (VISTAS): There are similarities with MAC TEC top 30 for VISTAS EGUs

• A. Garcia (MANE-VU): We/ MANE-VU received similar look-back comments from our FLMs

• J. Hornback (SESARM): Everyone should look at emiss ions reductions that are already in place. Substantial reductions have occurred already, not j ust what’s going to occur in 2018. Benefits from additional controls for upcoming NAAQS will help re gional haze, too – substantial reductions in the southeast.

• T. Allen (FWS): CAIR uncertainly can be addressed b y communicating with EGUs and can include in SIP instead of waiting for look-back

• G. Kleiman (NESCAUM): IPM projections a moving targ et, but info on controls on 167 stacks important to bring to consultation – we may not be very far apart. Any information that the RPOs and states can provide about controls on 167 Stacks would be very valuable. We also recognize that states are looking at their own measures. Any info on control measure decisions that you have made for your own sources may show we are closer - by August 6th and August 20 th meeting.

• R. Papalski (NJ) Is the material from the VISTAS Ju ne meeting available?

• P. Brewer (VISTAS): Yes, all presentations from th e June meeting are posted on VISTAS’ website.

• J. Hornback (SESARM): More on 28% reduction – ICI s ulfur goes up from 10% to 24% nationwide and could be possible national rule John H – 16% of sul fur from ICI boilers in 2002 up to 24% after CAIR. As we move into next round of fine particle work – ask whether we have enough info re ICI boilers. Impact, concern and what control options/cost are – talk to EPA? Uncontrolled/inadequately controlled sources

• A. Garcia (MANE-VU): Our states have done some work on ICI boilers and have some information developed already. We would be glad to work with MR PO and VISTAS on this issue.

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): It may be possible to include something on ICI boilers as a potential amendment to the MANE-VU National ask statement. Mi ght be possible for it to come out of consultations.

• J. Hornback (SESARM): We should continue to collect data and be ready to move forward.

• S. Wierman (MARAMA): We would appreciate feedback a t the consultation on joining MANE-VU on its request for a Phase 3 CAIR

Comments from FLMs

• Pay attention to mid course review – look at where you will be in 2012 compared to where you expected to be.

• Regarding the 2012 look back – discussions of sourc e can be helpful and included in this SIP, with recognition of uncertainty.

EPA

• John Summerhays (EPA Region 5) and Michelle Notaria nni (EPA/OAQPS), expressed their appreciation for being invited to participate on th e call and on future consultations.20

Outcomes & Next Steps

• R. Papalski (NJ): Asked that all RPOs bring a list of the 167 EGUs and any planned controls on those units to the August meeting.

• P. Wishinski (VT): To confirm, VT will be asking WI to participate in the August 6 th meeting – will be calling WI to ask them to attend.

• A. Garcia (MANE-VU): Gave a brief overview of the u pcoming consultation meetings on August 6 th and 20 th – asked for any further comments/changes to the ag endas to be sent to her next week.

• T.Aburn (MD): Opportunity to work with EPA on CAIR “Phase 3” for 2018/2020 would be a great outcome of consultations – Ann, Strengthen numbers – Tad, can we talk about PM? Mike, very relevant and need to look ahead

Adjournment Anna Garcia thanked everyone for their participatio n and promised to circulate a draft summary of the call for comment – asked that each RPO share their attendance lists for the open call all around via email. Information on this and other MANE-VU consu ltations will be posted on the consultation page of the MANE-VU website, www.manevu.org

.

Attendees

MANE-VU : Maine (Class I state) – Jeff Crawford, Tom Downs New Hampshire (Class I state) – Bob Scott, Jeff Und erhill New Jersey (Class I state) – Chris Salmi, Ray Papal ski, Sandy Krietzman Vermont (Class I state) – Dick Valentinetti, Paul W ishinski Connecticut – Wendy Jacobs Delaware – Jack Sipple Maryland – Tad Aburn, Andy Hiltebridle Massachusetts – Eileen Hiney New York – Matt Reis, Diana Rivenburgh Penobscot Tribe – Bill Thompson EPA Region I – Anne Arnold, Anne McWilliams EPA Region II – Bob Kelly EPA Region III – Ellen Wentworth, LaKeshia Robertso n FLM - Forest Service – Ann Mebane FLM – Fish & Wildlife Service – Tim Allen FLM – National Park Service – Bruce Polkowsky, Holl y Salazer MARAMA – Susan Wierman, Julie McDill NESCAUM – Gary Kleiman OTC – Anna Garcia, Doug Austin

MRPO : Illinois – Rob Kaleel Indiana – Chris Pederson, Ken Ritter Michigan – Vince Helwig, Cynthia Hodges Ohio – Bill Spires Wisconsin – Larry Bruss, Bob Lopez LADCO – Mike Koerber21

VISTAS : Georgia – Jimmy Johnston, Heather Abrams Kentucky – John Lyons, Diana Andrews, Lona Brewer, Martin Luther North Carolina – Keith Overcash, Sheila Holman, Lau ra Booth, George Bridgers South Carolina – Renee Shealy, John Glass, Maeve Ma son, Stacey Gardner Tennessee – Barry Stephens, Quincy Styke, Julie Asl inger Virginia – Tom Ballou, Doris MacLeod, Mike Kiss West Virginia – Fred Durham, Bob Betterton, Laura C rowder EPA Region IV – Brenda Johnson EPA OAQPS – Michelle Notarianni Metro 4/SESARM – John Hornback VISTAS- Pat Brewer22 MANE-VU/MRPO Consultation Meeting Summary

August 6, 2007 Rosemont, IL

On Monday, August 6, 2007, the Mid-Atlantic/Northe ast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Class I states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Jers ey) held a consultation with several of the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) state s (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin)

. The following summary documents the discussions tha t took place during the consultation.
Summary of Today’s Consultation Agreements

1. Define next steps for multi-pollutant approach to r educe regional haze, PM 2.5, and ozone 2. Discuss crafting a revised national ask among inter ested MANE-VU and MRPO states regarding needs for national action on EGUs, including poten tial multi-pollutant control levels for CAIR Phase III with emission rates and output-based options; 3. Pursue discussions on options for reducing SO2 (and NOx) emissions from ICI boilers, including:

• Reconvening the MANE-VU/MRPO ICI boiler workgroup t o re-examine the workgroup’s January 2007 straw proposal;

• Developing a process for sharing information on SO2 RACT for ICI boilers, and examining potential SO2 control measures;

• Contacting NACAA regarding expansion of the Boiler MACT model rule work to address SO2 and NOx; and

• Discuss crafting a national ask among interested MA NE-VU and MRPO states regarding national action on ICI boilers. 4. Discuss crafting a national ask regarding low sulfu r fuel for all off-road sources, and share information on biodiesel. 5. Continue to share modeling assumptions and analyses , and continue dialogue between MANE-VU and MRPO states regarding SIP submittals. 6. Define next steps to gather information on controls for locomotives and ocean-going vessels. 7. Develop list of controls for units that will be scr ubbed, not just MANE-VU’s list of 167 stacks.

Attendees

MANE-VU States : Maine (Class I state) – David Littell, Jeff Crawfor d New Hampshire (Class I state) – Tom Burack, Bob Sco tt New Jersey (Class I state) – Chris Salmi Vermont (Class I state) – Justin Johnson, Dick Vale ntinetti, Paul Wishinski

MRPO States : Illinois – Laurel Kroack, Scott Leopold Indiana – Tom Easterly, Ken Ritter Michigan – Vince Hellwig, Cynthia Hodges, Bob Irvin e Ohio – Bob Hodanbosi Wisconsin – Larry Bruss23

Multi-State Organizations : OTC/MANE-VU – Anna Garcia, Doug Austin MARAMA/MANE-VU – Susan Wierman, Julie McDill NESCAUM/MANE-VU – Gary Kleiman LADCO/MRPO – Mike Koerber

Federal Land Managers : National Park Service – Bruce Polkowsky Forest Service – Anne Mebane, Chuck Sams, Rich Fish er Fish & Wildlife Service – Tim Allen

Environmental Protection Agency : Region I – Anne Arnold Region II – Bob Kelly Region III – Ellen Wentworth, Neil Bigioni (by phon e) Region V – John Summerhays OAQPS – Todd Hawes, Michelle Notarianni (by phone)

Consultation Meeting Presentations and Discussions
Welcome and Introductions – Goals for Today’s Meeti ng - David Littell, Maine DEP

• Presented goals for today’s consultation:

- 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 for joint work between regions;

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

- Identify links between haze and PM that help define what is reasonable;

- Examine reasonable progress for MRPO and MANE-VU Cl ass I areas in terms of control measure options; and

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

• Compare our request for what we need in terms of re ductions to improve visibility at our Class I areas with what the MRPO states have done to addres s their own Class I areas and regional haze/PM issues

• Find out how close we are, what gaps may still rema in, and discuss how we may address them together.

Overview of Open Technical Call & Consultation Brie fing Book – Anna Garcia, MANE-VU

• Open Technical Call discussions provided a good tec hnical basis for today’s meeting.

• MANE-VU staff is developing draft documentation of the Open Call and of today’s discussions, and will circulate the drafts for comment and make the final documentation available to all states for use in their state implementation plans (SIPs).24

Summary of Reasonable Progress Work and Development of “Asks” for MANE-VU Class I Areas – Chris Salmi, New Jersey DEP

Presentation :

• Provided a review of MANE-VU Class I states’ Resolu tion on Principles;

• Showed focus for MANE-VU is on sulfate reductions f or the 2018 milestone;

• Gave an overview of MANE-VU’s four factor analysis ;

• Outlined how MANE-VU Class I states developed the “ asks” for the MANE-VU and MPRO regions;

• Provided a comparative analysis of the MANE-VU regi on “ask” with that of the MRPO “ask”;

• Outlined the specifics of each of the asks, includi ng for MRPO:

- Timely implementation of BART requirements;

- A focused strategy for the electricity generating u nits (EGUs) comprising a 90% reduction of sulfate emissions from 2002 levels from 167 stacks that modeling indicates affect visibility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas;

- A 28% reduction from non-EGU sector emissions based on 2002 levels; and

- Continued evaluation of other measures, including m easures to reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from coal-burning facilities by 2018.

• Within MANE-VU, the Class I states have the followi ng commitment:

- Timely implementation of BART requirements;

- A focused strategy for the electricity generating u nits (EGUs) comprising a 90% reduction of sulfate emissions from 2002 levels from 167 stacks that modeling indicates affect visibility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas;

- A low sulfur fuel oil strategy with different imple mentation timeframes for inner zone states versus outer zone states, that results in a 38% red uction from non-EGU sector emissions in the MANE-VU region; and

- Continued evaluation of other measures, including m easures including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels and other measures to reduc e SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 2018.

• Also outlined the national “ask” MANE-VU plans to m ake of the US EPA, for a Phase 3 of CAIR that reduces SO2 by at least an additional 18%.

• From presentation, next steps are:

- Consult within and outside MANE-VU about which cont rol strategies are reasonable;

- Open a dialogue with the USEPA concerning a possibl e Phase 3 of CAIR;

- Define strategies to include in the final modeling;

- Determine goals based on the final modeling;

- SIPs are due 12/17/07;

- Adopt enforceable emissions limits & compliance sch edules; and

- Progress evaluation due in 5 years.

Discussion :

• **Question (Tom Easterly, Indiana)** : Are there emission rate targets instead of a flat 90% reduction?

- **Answer (Chris Salmi, New Jersey)** : No, and no net reductions.

• **Question (Tom Easterly, Indiana)** : Where do the emissions go?

- Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM): MANE-VU EGU red uction on the order of 68,000 TPY would be “rearranged.” They are spread out between all EGUs proportionately, except for those in the 167 stacks, to maintain the cap.25

• **Question (Tom Easterly, Indiana)** : Did MANE-VU use the 0.5dV exemption threshold for BART sources?

- **Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : MANE-VU did not exempt any BART sources from the BART determination process.

• **Question (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : What is the source of the MANE-VU numbers?

- **Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : They are from MARAMA’s inventory work. National ask for EGU sector based on IPM results and increasing the SO2 ratios.

• **Comment (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : The MANE-VU numbers are close to his, but we need to sync them
up.

• **Comment (Tom Easterly, Indiana)** : Companies make economic analyses for installation of controls and we keep changing the rules on them.

- **Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : They are spread out between all EGUs proportiona tely, except for those in the 167 stacks, to maintain the cap.

Summary of Reasonable Progress Work for MRPO Class I Areas – Mike Koerber, MRPO

Presentation:

• MRPO results consistent with MANE-VU analyses.

• MRPO states still looking at strategies for their 4 northern Class I areas, nitrates a bigger share of visibility impairment, visibility impacts mostly fr om southerly transport.

• With OTB measures, we are above glide path in 2018 for all 4 Class I areas.

• Review of MRPO 5-Factor Analysis (including degree of visibility improvement) for reasonable
progress.

• Review of new visibility metric of $/dV improvement , additional control measures comparable in costs to existing OTB controls, most visibility imp rovement obtained from MRPO’s EGU1 (0.3dV) and EGU2 (0.4dV) strategies.

• MRPO analysis regional in nature, not a focused EGU strategy like MANE-VU due to different source / receptor relationships.

• Review of projected visibility levels, Seney above glide path in 2018, a lot more SO2 will need to be “squeezed” out of the system to achieve 2064 natura l conditions.

• Review of MRPO source apportionment analysis, MRPO contributes 10-15% of visibility impairment at Lye Brook in Vermont.

• Conclusions and key findings from MRPO analyses:

- Many Class I areas in the eastern half of U.S. expe cted to be below the glide path in 2018 (with existing controls), including those in the No rtheast;

- Contribution analyses show closer states have large r impacts; and

- Regional emission reductions (in 2013-2018 timefram e), such as those identified in MANEVU’s June 2007 resolutions, may be necessary to mee t reasonable progress goals in the MRPO Class I areas and provide for attainment of ne w tighter PM2.5 and possibly tighter ozone standards in the MRPO states.

Discussion:

• **Question (Tom Easterly, Indiana)**  : How do we deal with ammonia?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : EPA won’t touch it and ammonia is included in the analyses for completeness.

• **Question (Jeff Crawford, Maine)** : Are mobile measures included?26

• - **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : Only bundled measures including chip reflash and diesel retrofits where the states are not preempted from doing such measures.

• **Question (Tom Easterly, Indiana)** : Would a monthly electric bill of $150 be doubled?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : Yes, at least doubled.

• **Question (Dave Littell, Maine)** : Are ammonia controls from the agricultural sector assumed?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : Yes, assumes 10% ammonia reductions from best pra ctices.

• **Question (Jeff Crawford, Maine)** : How much of the ammonia comes from CAFOs versus f ertilizer application?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : Two-thirds to three-quarters comes from CAFOs, bu t urban ammonia sources are also important.

• **Question (Tim Allen, F&W Service)** : How much benefit is there from ammonia controls?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : The analysis shows that a 10% ammonia decrease th at may be cost-effective will result in greater than a 0.1 0dV improvement.

• **Comment (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : 10% is a lot.

• **Comment (Larry Bruss, Wisconsin)** : There is a lot of uncertainty when it comes to th e effects of ammonia reductions.

• **Question (Doug Austin, MANE-VU)** : Is the $/dV analysis based on three states or nin e?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : It is based on three states, and a nine-state ana lysis would be higher

• **Comment (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : MANE-VU saw almost identical MRPO contributions i n the 10- 15% range.

• **Comment (Chris Salmi, New Jersey)** : New Jersey is looking at performance standards fo r the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and a potentially tighter ozone stan dard.

• **Comment (Laurel Kroack, Illinois)** : Illinois would be interested if New Jersey could share that information.

EPA and FLM Perspectives on RPGs and Reasonable Mea sures Work – Bruce Polkowsky, NPS; Chuck Sams, Forest Service; John Summerhays, EPA Region V ; Todd Hawes, EPA - OAQPS

Bruce Polkowsky, National Park Service Tomorrow is the 30 th anniversary of the passage of the 1977 Clean Air Ac t Amendments that enacted section 169A and established the regional haze prog ram.

• The uniform progress line is “useful,” but the 4-Fa ctor analyses are most important from FLM perspective.

• Don’t forget the 20% clean days reasonable progress goal (VISTAS getting 1 dv improvement).

• Are states being overly optimistic in their CAIR co ntrols scenarios? Information coming in from state s seems to be pointing to predicting a higher level o f controls than what CAIR predicts.

• The location of controls is important for visibilit y as seen in the MANE-VU 167 stack analysis.

• The 2013 progress report is key, and it is importan t to know about new sources, too.

• PM 2.5, ozone and regional haze issues are all comi ng together in the 2013-2018 timeframe. The PM2.5 SIPs should take into account what the region al haze measures will achieve. Strategies should be coordinated to maximize their effectiveness for both regional haze, PM2.5, and ozone SIPs.

• The FLMs encourage states to be as detailed as poss ible in their regional haze SIPs, including dates, for control measure development. It is up to EPA t hrough the approval and disapproval process as to how they will react to state promises to pursue con trol measures in the regional haze SIPs.27

Chuck Sams, Forest Service

• There should be one hard copy of the regional haze SIP per FLM reviewer.

• The FLM goal is for comments back to the states 30 days before their public hearings.

• The FLMs need the SIPs as soon as possible for thei r 60-day review.

• The FLMs would appreciate a summary sheet that prov ides a cross-reference as to when the specific items on their checklist can be found in the SIP.

• There is an FLM expectation for ongoing consultatio n.

John Summerhays, EPA Region V

• There are three main requirements of the Regional H aze Rule:

- (1) Reasonable Progress – lots of questions about w hat conclusions and questions about what EPA will have as a requirement to the differen t scenarios;

- (2) BART – haven’t seen much control taken on BART. EPA is thinking about how to ensure consistency in BART determinations by different sta tes. EPA asks the RPOs to try to insure consistency across their states; and

- (3) Consultations - RPOs have done valuable work in technical analyses and facilitating consultations.

• EPA appreciates being part of the current process a nd continuing that participation into the future.

Todd Hawes, EPA – OAQPS

• While EPA is not in a position to initiate consulta tions as required by the Regional Haze Rule, today’ s meeting is a good representation of what they envis ioned the consultation process would be.

• EPA is getting lots of questions from states about the regional haze SIPs. Some states are saying they are not going to set reasonable progress goals, whi le some say they are only going to do BART, use it for their reasonable progress goal with no analysis

.
• EPA is legally bound and expecting full SIPs on 12/ 17/2007 that include all of the required elements. It is not acceptable for states to say they do not have the time or resources, or that the SIP cannot be done by December 17.

• The EPA lawyers are working on “what if” scenarios

.

Discussion:

• **Question to FLMs and EPA (Dick Valentinetti)** : Will the Federal agencies comment on the extent of agreement and disagreement on strategies?

- **Answer (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : Yes, they will.

• **Comment (Tim Allen, F&W Service)** : They will also be looking for regional consisten cy and that the various emission reductions for meeting the Class I reasonable progress goals are proportional between the states. They may comment more on any d isagreements between RPOs.

• **Comment (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : The continuing consultation requirement is in 308 (i)(4). The MANE-VU states have provided input on format and fr equency. The monitoring aspects are crucial and especially important to consult about.

• **Question to EPA (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : The long-term strategy is a 10-year strategy fro m rule adoption, but are promises to look at reductions ap provable?

- **Answer (Todd Hawes, EPA)** : Realistically, we have to see what comes in Decem ber. They realize that they will not get 100% approvable SIPS in December 2007 and will have to see then what they will do about it.28

• **Comment (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : FLMs would rather have a SIP later that has all e lements rather than one that is on time that does not.

• **Question to EPA (Susan Wierman, MARAMA)** : Can EPA process the BART SIPs first to start BAR T clock?

- **Answer (Todd Hawes, EPA)** : Yes, they are discussing BART severability, and i t would be easier to consider BART first if they get a complete SIP.

• **Comment (Susan Wierman, MARAMA)** : Holding up BART approvals due to incompleteness of the rest of SIP would be unfortunate. Glad to hear EPA disc ussing this issue.

• **Comment (Todd Hawes, EPA)** : They have 6 months to deem complete.

• **Question to MANE-VU (John Summerhays, EPA)** : How are BART compliance dates set in M-V?

- **Answer (Susan Wierman, MARAMA)** : Some states are setting the date to be “as expeditiously as practicable.” The states need to be doing their best to get BART controls in place as we do not want a repeat of the NOx SIP cal l delays. The BART requirement is one of the best ways in the Clean Air Act for getting old facilities controlled.

• **Question to MRPO (Todd Hawes, EPA)** : Can I get clarification on the $/dV metric devel oped by MRPO? Is there any cost-effectiveness breakpoint?

- **Answer (Mike Koerber, MRPO)** : It is a reference point.

• **Question to EPA (Chris Salmi, New Jersey)** : How will EPA react to inconsistencies between st ate SIPs?

- **Answer (Todd Hawes, EPA)** : The rule says EPA is the arbiter of any disagreem ent and there is little guidance beyond that. EPA would lean heavil y on consultation documentation, but EPA will ultimately have to decide.

• **Comment to EPA and FLMs (Chris Salmi, New Jersey)** : It is one of the MANE-VU Class I States principles that the FLMs will help identify and EPA will act upon any inconsistencies.

Roundtable Discussion on Reasonable Progress Goals and Reasonable Measures

States continued the consultation with a roundtabl e discussion open on all issues raised during the Open Technical Call and this consultation meeti ng. Most of the discussion focused on the substance of the MANE-VU statements, or “asks” from the MRPO states and from the U.S. EPA.

ICI Boilers, MACT and NOx/SO2 RACT

During the Open Technical Call it was suggested th at there may be an opportunity to examine the scope of the ICI boiler sector and potential em ission reductions from that source category. Sever al states brought up the recent vacatur of the Boiler MACT in terms of the possibility for states to work together on this sector. NACAA is discussing with its members and the Ozone Transport Commission and Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Manage ment an effort to develop a Boiler MACT model rule. While for Boiler MACT this effort would focu s on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including vol atile organic compounds (VOCs), it may be possible to inc lude in that project a parallel process to gather information on NOx and SO2 emissions from the boile r sector and develop options for control strategies
, separate from the MACT levels.

MANE-VU states also inquired about what MRPO state s are doing for PM 2.5 attainment. Many of the MRPO states are focusing on local sources fo r urban excess, and it appears that EPA is discouraging a focus on regional strategies. Illino is informed the group that it has a multi-pollutant agreement including scrubbers. Illinois also has a statewide NOx RACT proposal with stringent levels a nd is working on SO2 RACT, such as low sulfur diesel f or non-road and refinery SO2 reductions. These RACT29

proposals are working their way through Illinois’ r egulatory processes, so they are not yet included i n SIPs and are not reflected in MRPO’s modeling. Mich igan may also look at statewide RACT under the new PM2.5 standard.

In addition to the work done by the ICI boiler wor kgroup, OTC has completed some regional inventory work on its ICI boilers and NESCAUM is co mpleting a study on ICI boilers that was sponsored by EPA. All of this work can be included in the re view of this sector.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Reconvene MANE-VU/MRPO ICI Workgroup that was initi ated under the State Collaborative to reexamine ICI boiler work and define next steps;

• Contact NACAA about possible addition to Boiler MAC T model rule work to examine potential for NOx and SO2 reductions and identify strategies; and

• Look at pursuing SO2 RACT regionally, as well as as king EPA again for an ICI national rule.

Low Sulfur Fuels

In addition to the low sulfur fuel measures that MA NE-VU is pursuing, the states discussed other areas of opportunity for low-sulfur fuels, includin g nonroad low-sulfur diesel. Illinois indicated th at they will be talking to their four refineries about non- road low-sulfur diesel Michigan indicated that they are looking at a possible executive order mandating low -sulfur non-road diesel for state contracts. MRPO states also expressed interest in low-sulfur fuel f or locomotives.

New Hampshire inquired as to whether the cost for biodiesel is similar to low-sulfur diesel, and suggested that we share information on biodiesel as an option. New Jersey expressed interest in oceangoing vessels as a source sector for low-sulfur fue l opportunities. The National Park Service folks indicated that there is a recent World Trade Organi zation agreement that could be of use in this regar d, and that this is a sector that the VISTAS and WRAP states are also looking into.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Look at federal rules that are in the works for non -road, locomotive and marine engines to see if there are gaps or opportunities that MANE-VU and MR PO could explore together; and

• Share information on biodiesel as a low-sulfur fuel option.

State/Regional EGU Strategy

States discussed the EGU strategy proposed by the MANE-VU Class I areas, regarding a focus to pursue reductions of 90% or greater from the 167 st acks identified on the MANE-VU list. The MANE-VU states have agreed to pursue 90% EGU reductions and a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. MRPO states will continue to examine what the potential for reductio ns are at these units, and provide information abou t which sources in their states are putting controls on, to better inform the process and our modeling. According to the information MRPO has at this time, over 70% of the emissions from the 167 stacks on the list will be scrubbed. The question remains wh ether that will be enough, or whether MRPO will sti ll need to address the remaining 30% even if it has a very low impact. Another issue was raised regardin g whether it would be acceptable for MRPO states to s ubstitute reductions from the non-EGU sector that go beyond the 28% level for reductions that may not be obtainable in the EGU sector. MANE-VU states indicated that this would likely be acceptable, dep ending on the location and type of non-EGU source.30

MANE-VU states raised the question as to whether t he 70/30 split is the same for the rest of the EGUs, i.e. those in the MRPO region that are not pa rt of the 167 stacks on the list. MRPO responded that they can get that information and provide it t o MANE-VU. For example, IPM indicates that Rockport will be getting controls, while MRPO’s inf ormation from the source is that they will not. The re is also a concern that cumulatively, the controls t hat the EGU sources say are going on will be larger than what is required by CAIR, i.e., it will not reflect reductions that will be “sold” on the trading mark et, or what units they will be sold to, to keep emissions at the CAIR budget level.

Another concern was raised regarding the addition of controls to older EGUs and how they can be permitted given NSR issues for increases in othe r emissions. Some states responded that it has bee n possible to add scrubbers to older units and addres s increases in other emissions by fine-tuning the control systems.

Generally, while the concept is feasible, MRPO sta tes anticipate needing more assistance and information from the MANE-VU Class I areas to under stand the justification for controls on these units

. In addition, it will be helpful to look at ways to incentivize the retirement/closing of old units and their replacement with cleaner technology, such as throug h output-based standards. We will also need to work together to craft language that will work in o ur SIPs to reflect the approach that MANE-VU is requesting that will be acceptable to EPA.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Continue to share specific information about what M ANE-VU and MRPO sources are anticipating as controls on EGUs as compared to what is indicated i n IPM modeling;

• Update our inventories and databases accordingly so that our information is “synched”; and

• Continue dialogue on approaches for addressing this sector to meet the 90% reduction target for the 167 stacks and on equivalent alternatives.

National “Ask” for CAIR Phase III

There is interest from some MRPO states in joining MANE-VU in its “ask” for a Phase III of CAIR. All of the MRPO states will review and consider the option as we continue our consultation process. Fo r many MRPO states the real concern is obtaining PM 2 .5 reductions; regional haze is not their primary concern. As we continue to discuss the national “a sk” we need to develop control levels that will hel p all of our states with attainment for ozone, PM and regional haze. MANE-VU based its request on the recent IPM modeling work done on the levels that ca me out of the state collaborative work. Those level s are not as stringent as those that are in the origi nal OTC multi-pollutant position, and we are in the process of reviewing them.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• MANE-VU to revisit its multi-pollutant strategy;

• MRPO and MANE-VU to have discussions on potential m ulti-pollutant control levels for a CAIR Phase III; and

• Craft a revised national “ask” to reflect revised l evels, as appropriate.31 NEXT STEPS

In addition to the agreements reached during the di scussions (listed at the beginning and in the roundtable discussion sections of this document) th e MANE-VU Class I states and the MRPO states agreed to continue the consultation dialogue on the upcoming State Collaborative call, scheduled for 10:00 am CDT, 11:00 am EDT on Thursday, August 16 th . The states will continue discussions from today’s meeting, bring forth additional issues as n ecessary, and have a first opportunity to review an d discuss the draft documentation of the consultation

.32 MANE-VU/MRPO Consultation Conference Call Summary

September 13, 2007

On Thursday, September 13, 2007, the Mid-Atlantic/N ortheast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Class I states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Jersey) hel d a consultation conference call with the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) state s (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin)

. The conference call came about as a result of the A ugust 6, 2007 in-person consultation between the MANE-VU Class I states and the MRPO states who agre ed to continue the consultation dialogue with respect to issues identified in the August 6 th consultation. The following summary documents the discussions that took place during the consultation conference call.

Summary of Today’s Consultation Conference Call Agr eements

 Continue sharing necessary EGU emissions inventory and control equipment data.

 The individual MRPO states will respond by letter t o the MANE-VU Ask.

 Reconvene the ICI Boiler Workgroup effort from earl ier this year to provide technical direction. Invite interested VISTAS states. Start out by look ing at the Workgroup’s early 2007 straw proposal.

 Continue beyond-CAIR discussions on the state colla borative calls. Form a small EGU policy group to provide policy direction towards developing a feder al EGU Ask.

Conference Call Attendees

MANE-VU States : Maine (Class I state) – Jim Brooks, Jeff Crawford, Tom Downs New Hampshire (Class I state) – Jeff Underhill, And y Bodnarik, Liz Nixon New Jersey (Class I state) – Chris Salmi, Ray Papal ski Vermont (Class I state) – Justin Johnson, Paul Wish inski Connecticut – Wendy Jacobs Delaware – Jack Sipple Maryland – Tad Aburn Massachusetts – Glenn Keith New York – Rob Sliwinski, Matt Reis, Diana Rivenbur gh, Scott Griffin

MRPO States : Illinois – Rob Kaleel Indiana – Dan Murray, Ken Ritter, Scott Deloney, Ch ris Pederson Michigan – Bob Irvine, Cynthia Hodges Ohio – Bob Hodanbosi, Bill Spires

Multi-State Organizations : OTC/MANE-VU – Anna Garcia, Doug Austin MARAMA/MANE-VU – Susan Wierman, Julie McDill NESCAUM/MANE-VU – Arthur Marin, Gary Kleiman LADCO/MRPO – Mike Koerber33

Federal Land Managers : National Park Service – Bruce Polkowsky Forest Service – Anne Mebane

Consultation Conference Call Discussions

Clarification of the MANE-VU “Ask” After the August 6, 2007 in-person consultation, th e MRPO states had remaining questions relative to the MANE-VU Ask statements. One of the primary pur poses of the consultation conference call was to address those questions.

One of the uncertainties expressed by MRPO was how to quantify the SO2 reductions from the EGU sector that MANE-VU requested. MRPO stated that th ey were working with MARAMA and NESCAUM to clarify the EGU SO2 inventories of the 50 MRPO stac ks on the larger list of 167 stacks in the eastern U.S that were previously identified as locationally sig nificant in terms of their visibility impacts on MA NE-VU Class I areas.

MRPO also asked if MANE-VU meant that 90% SO2 reduc tions, on average, on all of the 50 stacks within the MRPO states was expected. MANE-VU replied affi rmatively, while emphasizing the flexibility within the Ask statement wherein if the 90% average SO2 re ductions from the 50 MRPO EGU stacks could not be realized then the shortfall could be made up by SO2 reductions from other in-state EGUs. Additiona l flexibility in the Ask statement is that the shortf all could be made up from SO2 reductions from the n onEGU sector that are in excess of the 28% reductions requested by MANE-VU from this sector. Vermont added that this flexibility is the least preferred since SO2 reductions from taller EGU stacks are mor e important to reducing visibility impairment than SO 2 reductions from shorter non-EGU stacks. Finally, flipping the last flexibility scenario around, Wisc onsin asked if they could substitute less expensive EGU SO2 reductions for more expensive non-EGU SO2 reduc tions, and Vermont replied that that would be most welcome for the same reason that tall stack re ductions have a greater visibility benefit than sho rt stack reductions.

Within this flexibility framework, a brief discussi on followed on equivalent reductions versus equival ent impact. Vermont said it was of two minds on the to pic in that although ideally they would like to see reductions from the flexibilities that have an equi valent impact on visibility as the 90% SO2 reductio ns from the 50 MRPO EGU stacks, they were willing to a ccept EGU reductions from EGUs outside the 50 as automatically equivalent, and they were also willin g to accept EGU SO2 reductions in place of non-EGU SO2 reductions so long as the EGU emission reductio ns did not go somewhere else under CAIR. Maine agreed and emphasized that they were looking for ad ditive reductions, not re-arranged emissions. Wisconsin stated that it would be difficult to make the case for equivalent visibility impact to management.

The discussion moved on to the MANE-VU Ask for a 28 % reduction in SO2 emissions from the non-EGU sector. MRPO inquired whether BART reductions coul d be applied to the 28% non-EGU MANE-VU Ask. MANE-VU replied that they separated BART reductions out as additive to the other Asks. MRPO reiterated that that was not the understanding goin g in to this call. New Jersey replied that slide # 16 of its presentation at the August 6 th in-person consultation clearly shows BART reductio ns as separate. MANE-VU added that the 28% target came from the MAN E-VU non-EGU low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. New Jersey clarified that if, after going through t he BART determination process, the state determined34

that no controls were needed for regional haze purp oses, but reductions were made for PM2.5 purposes, then those reductions could be applied to the 28% non-EGU Ask.

MRPO Response to the MANE-VU Ask MRPO and MANE-VU jointly posed the question of how to respond to the Ask. MANE-VU added that they needed to perform its last modeling run based on either RPO feedback or the default Ask levels.

MRPO said that the July 30, 2007 letter from MANE-V U formalized the Ask, so it was up to the MRPO states to respond, probably individually and with t he hope for regional consistency. MRPO added that some further technical discussions may be needed as well as drafting a federal EGU Ask and reconvening the ICI Boiler Workgroup. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin all agreed that they were not ready to make any formal commitments on reductions. Wiscons in added that a personnel change at the Commissioner level could result in a delayed respon se.

Maryland inquired whether the federal EGU Ask shoul d somehow be included in the regional haze SIPs or should it arise out of a separate process. MRPO added that the air quality needs of all of the sta tes on the call are much larger than regional haze, and that all states will need more EGU reductions for ozone and PM2.5 as long as they remain more cost-ef fective than reductions from other sectors. Most states agreed that they were unlikely to put such a federal EGU ask in their regional haze SIPs.

Next Steps MANE-VU posed the question of how to keep moving th e consultation process forward adding that the VISTAS states had showed some interest in joining a reconvened ICI Boiler Workgroup at the August 20 th in-person consultation. MRPO replied that they wer e interested in reconvening the ICI Boiler Workgroup noting that West Virginia has interest as well. MRPO suggested having the Workgroup start out by looking at the OTC / MRPO straw proposal fro m earlier in 2007. Other potential sources of information include the National Association of Cle an Air Agencies (NACAA) boiler Maximum Achievable Control technology (MACT) effort and a NESCAUM ICI boiler study sponsored by EPA.

As for the federal EGU ask, MANE-VU stated that the re is a need to keep the policy discussions alive o n the state collaborative calls. MANE-VU added that they are in the process of reviewing the 2004 multi

pollutant position, and will look at forming a smal l EGU policy group.

MANE-VU asked whether there should be another consu ltation conference call. MRPO replied that MANE-VU should wait for MRPO follow-up to the MANE- VU Asks via individual state letters to the MANE-VU Class I states.35 MANE-VU/VISTAS Consultation Meeting

August 20, 2007 Atlanta, GA

On Monday, August 20, 2007, the Mid-Atlantic/North east Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Class I states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Jers ey) held a consultation with several of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) states (Alabama, Florida
, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Sou th Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, th e Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and Knox County, Tennessee). The following summary documents the discussions that took place during the consulta tion.

Summary of Today’s Consultation Agreements

1. Continue to share information and sync up our techn ical analyses. 2. Share information on biodiesel and biofuels, as wel l as what states are doing with respect to biomass boilers and outdoor wood boilers. 3. Continue dialogue on a potential CAIR Phase III pol icy position and the MANE-VU National “Ask.” 4. Share information already developed on the ICI Boil er Sector, refine information on controls and costs, and engage in the upcoming National Associat ion of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Boiler MACT work. Enlarge the non-EGU definition beyond boiler s to include kilns. 5. Share information on locomotives and ocean-going ve ssels to see if there are more emission reduction opportunities. 6. Look at expanding the National "Ask” to include low -sulfur fuel oil. 7. John Hornback and Anna Garcia will discuss how to c ontinue the dialogue, including conference calls and workgroup participation.

Attendees

MANE-VU States : Maine (Class I state) – David Littell, Jeff Crawfor d New Hampshire (Class I state) – Jeff Underhill New Jersey (Class I state) – Ray Papalski Vermont (Class I state) – Justin Johnson, Dick Vale ntinetti, Paul Wishinski Pennsylvania - Tim Leon-Guerrero Penobscot Nation – Bill Thompson

VISTAS States : Georgia - Carol Couch, Heather Abrams, Jim Boylan, Chuck Mueller Kentucky – Diana Andrews, Lona Brewer, John Lyons, Cheryl Taylor North Carolina – Laura Boothe, Sheila Holman, Keith Overcash South Carolina – Myra Reece, Renee Shealy Tennessee – Julie Aslinger, Tracy Carter, Quincy St yke Virginia – Jim Sydnor, Tom Ballou West Virginia – John Benedict, Laura Crowder, Fred Durham36

Multi-State Organizations : OTC/MANE-VU – Anna Garcia, Doug Austin MARAMA/MANE-VU – Susan Wierman NESCAUM/MANE-VU – Gary Kleiman VISTAS – John Hornback, Pat Brewer

Federal Land Managers : National Park Service – Bruce Polkowsky Forest Service – Cindy Huber, Chuck Sams, Andrea St acy Fish & Wildlife Service – Tim Allen

Environmental Protection Agency : Region I – Anne McWilliams Region II – Bob Kelly Region III – LaKeshia Robertson, Ellen Wentworth Region IV – Beverly Banister, Rick Gillam, Brenda J ohnson, Kay Prince OAQPS – Michelle Notarianni

Consultation Meeting Presentations and Discussions

Welcome and Introductions – Goals for Today’s Meeti ng - David Littell, Maine DEP

• Presented goals for today’s consultation:

- 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 for joint work between regions;

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

- Identify links between haze and PM that help define what is reasonable;

- Examine reasonable progress for VISTAS and MANE-VU Class I areas in terms of control measure options; and

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

• Carol Crouch, Georgia, welcomed the attendees stati ng that today’s dialogue seeking clarification and understanding on regional air quality issues by so many states is notable. The Georgia Resource Board just adopted a rule for multi-pollutant contr ols for their EGU sector that will see 22 of 32 uni ts controlled including SO2 emissions reductions of 89 % from 2002 base emissions. Ms. Crouch added that she hopes that today’s discussions will highli ght additional emission reduction opportunities.

Overview of Open Technical Call & Consultation Brie fing Book – Anna Garcia, MANE-VU

• Open Technical Call discussions provided a good tec hnical basis for today’s meeting.

• Ms. Garcia noted that recent MANE-VU sensitivity mo deling results form the basis for the various “ask” levels (within MANE-VU, outside of MANE-VU, a nd a national “ask”) as reflected in the MANEVU statements. The MANE-VU Class I states develope d these statements to outline the reasonable measures that comprise a long term strategy for ach ieving reasonable progress at the MANE-VU Class I areas. These statements, also informally r eferred to as the “asks” that MANE-VU Class I state s are making of the MANE-VU states, and states outsid e of MANE-VU that have been determined to37

reasonably contribute to visibility impairment at M ANE-VU Class I areas, and the US EPA for additional reductions from EGU sources on a nationa l basis.

• MANE-VU staff will developing draft documentation o f the Open Call and of today’s discussions, and will circulate the drafts for comment and make the final documentation available to all states for use in their state implementation plans (SIPs).

Summary of Reasonable Progress Work and Development of “Asks” for MANE-VU Class I Areas – Paul Wishinski, Vermont DEC

Presentation :

• Provided a review of MANE-VU Class I states’ Resolu tion on Principles;

• Showed focus for MANE-VU is on sulfate reductions f or the 2018 milestone;

• Gave an overview of MANE-VU’s four factor analysis ;

• Outlined how MANE-VU Class I states developed the “ asks” for the MANE-VU and VISTAS regions;

• Provided a comparative analysis of the MANE-VU regi on “ask” with that of the VISTAS “ask”;

• Outlined the specifics of each of the “asks,” inclu ding for VISTAS:

- Timely implementation of BART requirements;

- A focused strategy for the electricity generating u nits (EGUs) comprising a 90% reduction of sulfate emissions from 2002 levels from 167 stacks that modeling indicates affect visibility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas;

- A 28% reduction from non-EGU sector emissions based on 2002 levels; and

- Continued evaluation of other measures, including m easures to reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from coal-burning facilities by 2018.

• Within MANE-VU, the Class I states have the followi ng commitment:

- Timely implementation of BART requirements;

- A focused strategy for the electricity generating u nits (EGUs) comprising a 90% reduction of sulfate emissions from 2002 levels from 167 stacks that modeling indicates affect visibility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas;

- A low sulfur fuel oil strategy with different imple mentation timeframes for inner zone states versus outer zone states, that results in a 38% red uction from non-EGU sector emissions in the MANE-VU region; and

- Continued evaluation of other measures, including m easures including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels and other measures to reduc e SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 2018.

• Also outlined the national “ask” MANE-VU plans to m ake of the US EPA, for a Phase 3 of CAIR that reduces SO2 by at least an additional 18%.

• From presentation, next steps are:

- Consult within and outside MANE-VU about which cont rol strategies are reasonable;

- Open a dialogue with the USEPA concerning a possibl e Phase 3 of CAIR;

- Define strategies to include in the final modeling;

- Determine goals based on the final modeling;

- SIPs are due 12/17/07;

- Adopt enforceable emissions limits & compliance sch edules; and

- Progress evaluation due in 5 years. Discussion :

• **Question (John Benedict, West Virginia)** : Is there geographical variability in MANE-VU’s l ow-sulfur fuel oil strategy?38

- **Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : There are baseline levels for fuel oil usage wit hin each state, but the fuel oil markets are regional in nat ure.

- **Comment (David Littell, Maine)** : The issue in Maine is peak oil usage by EGUs in the winter since they can get fuel oil from Venezuela and the USSR.

• **Question (John Benedict, West Virginia)** : What is the current distillate sulfur level?

- **Answer (Paul Wishinski, Vermont)** : Between 220-2500 ppm.

• **Question (Tom Ballou, Virginia)** : Could you explain the rearrangement of the EGU em issions?

- **Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : They are spread out between all EGUs proportiona tely, except for those in the 167 stacks, to maintain the cap.

• **Question (Pat Brewer, VISTAS)** : Were adjustments made in the recent CMAQ sensiti vity runs?

- **Answer (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM)** : Yes, for the tags. [Note: tagging is a modeling technique that identifies the benefits of individual control strategies].

Summary of VISTAS Reasonable Progress Work – Pat Brewer, VISTAS

Presentation:

• Provided both an overview and response to the MANE- VU “asks” including updates the VISTAS states received from their utilities last summer. The VIS TAS Base G inventory may already satisfy the MANE-VU EGU “ask,” and the 2018 Base G2 inventory i ncludes the recent EGU controls enacted by Georgia. VISTAS’ Base G2 and MANE-VU’s CAIR+ runs l ook similar.

• VISTAS visibility problems and areas tend to overla y their PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

• VISTAS currently doing a 4-factor analysis for non- EGU sources.

• The SO2 focus for the 2018 SIPs are for both the 20 % best and worst days. The coastal Class I sites have non-summer days in the 20% worst. Even on the 20% best days, VISTAS has a sulfur story.

• Organic carbon is 2 nd in importance regarding regional haze.

• VISTAS realizing 70% EGU reductions from EGU sector between 2002 and 2018. Eight scrubbers are now in operation in North Carolina. Even with scru bbers, the large EGUs still have SO2 emissions on the order of 5,000 tons per year.

• All of the VISTAS Class I mountain sites will have better than uniform progress. Mammoth cave and Sipsey see more wintertime nitrate than the others.

• The SO2 reductions will result in no degradation fo r the 20% best days.

• VISTAS’ reasonable progress analysis was developed in fall 2006, and started with source sector sensitivity analyses confirming the need for SO2 re ductions for the greatest visibility benefits.

• Large ammonia contributions seen at the coastal sit es (Cape Romaine and Brigantine). Recirculation of these ammonia emissions out to the ocean and rec irculation back characterized as boundary conditions.

• VISTAS consultations to date include a 12/2006 and 5/2007 Air Directors’ meetings including letters to contributing states, a 6/2007 meeting with EPA a nd the FLMs, and North Carolina and South Carolina have submitted draft SIPs to the FLMs for their preliminary review.

• As for VISTAS states’ contribution to MANE-VU Class I areas, VISTAS and MANE-VU have arrived at different conclusions of impacts on Brigantine, Lye Brook, and Acadia using different methodologies. [Note: MANE-VU used percent sulfate contribution me thodology, whereas VISTAS used the Area of Influence (AOI) and residence time methodology.]

• As for responses to MANE-VU “asks,” (1) BART satisf ied within VISTAS, e.g, most BART sources meet exemption modeling criteria, some sources taking em ission limits, most EGUs reducing SO2 and NOx under CAIR; (2) for 167 EGU list, VISTAS states wil l review EGU progress in 2012 to see where39

emissions are versus the 90% target; and (3) for no n-EGU, this is a ripe area for further discussion – VISTAS has lots of chemical plants and pulp and pap er facilities.

• Wondering how the MANE-VU stakeholders have reacted to the low-sulfur fuel oil strategy since VISTAS analysis shows little visibility benefit fro m non-EGU sector and low-sulfur fuel oil strategies within VISTAS.

• There are large costs for SO2 emissions reductions from the coal-fired non-EGU sector.

• Conclusions and key findings from VISTAS analyses:

- The greatest visibility benefits come from EGU and non-EGU SO2 reductions.

- The VISTAS stakeholders asked “which sources?” To answer them, the AOI analyses looked at 100 km and 200 km radii with emissions weighted by residence time. AirControlNet used for all sources meeting both Q/d >5 and >10% reside nce time criteria to allow each state to prioritize for their 4-factor analysis.

- Reasonable progress will be at least as stringent a s the Base G2 controls.

Discussion:

• Comment **(Susan Wierman, MARAMA)** : If Base G2 inventory is correct and these SO2 red uctions were not predicted by IPM, then it is essentially a beyond-CAIR strategy.

• **Question (Jeff Underhill, New Hampshire)** : Could upcoming modeling be clarified? **- Answer (Pat Brewer, VISTAS)** : There will be a full run this fall with Base G2 ( it will also include any available controls for BART sources and other r eductions identified by States through 4- factor reasonable progress analyses), and they hav e done sensitivity runs for BOTW reductions (30% beyond 2009).

• **Comment (Jeff Underhill, New Hampshire)** : Glad to see VISTAS is using Q/d, but not sure ab out depending on residence time. Also, after MRPO cons ultation, may be working together on non-EGU sector analysis, and VISTAS states join in if inter ested.

• **Question (Tad Aburn, Maryland)** : How have the new NAAQS standards impacted VISTAS?

- **Answer (Pat Brewer, VISTAS)** : The PM2.5 problem areas are Birmingham, Atlanta, Kentucky, and West Virginia in 2009

• **Question (Ray Palpaski, New Jersey)** : Will the reductions for those PM2.5 areas also be in the regional haze SIPs?

- **Answer (Pat Brewer, VISTAS)** : Yes, for North Carolina and Georgia, but not sure about the CAIR states.

• **Comment (Ray Palpaski, New Jersey)** : We need to get enforceable reductions for the CAI R states.

EPA and FLM Perspectives on RPGs and Reasonable Mea sures Work – Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service; Bruce Polkowsky, National Park Service; Ch uck Sams, Forest Service; Michelle Notarianni, EPA - OAQPS

Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service

• The Fish and Wildlife and National Park Services ar e reviewing the regional haze SIPs as a team, and the Forest Service is conducting a separate review.

• In general, the FLMs are mainly concerned with cont ent, and would like to see a SIP or long term strategy with a satisfactory conclusion. They are also concerned with the uncertainty of emissions growth, so they would also like the states to revie w the certainty level of identified emissions reductions.

• States should talk with EPA about the timing of reg ional haze SIP submissions. From the FLMs perspective, it would be better to have a more comp lete SIP, even if that means it would result in a40

submittal that is slightly delayed beyond the deadl ine. The FLMs have seen three SIP submissions thus far – from NC, SC and CO.

• If a state would like expedited review, highlight k ey sections. Also, highlight any new technical information that they have not yet seen from consul tations and that will require extra review time.

• For the 20% best days non-degradation goal, states should consider Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) as part of their regional haze SIPs. The BART elimination test may be used for PSD.

• An observation from the MANE-VU/MRPO consultation i s that the equivalent reductions process embodied in the MANE-VU “ask” works for reaching th e visibility goals.

Bruce Polkowsky, National Park Service

• A reminder that thirteen days ago was the 30 th anniversary of the passage of the 1977 Clean Air Ac t Amendments that enacted section 169A and establishe d the regional haze program.

• The regional haze SIPs are the beginning of folding in protection of Class I areas to the nation’s air quality effort.

• We may be getting to the point where a beyond-CAIR program is achievable. Given the additional 800,000 tons of emissions that are in the “ask”, if states are getting them already, is this really th at far from an additional phase of CAIR? If we can get SO2 reductions from EGUs, they should be permanent.

Chuck Sams, Forest Service

• He concurs with the perspectives presented by FWS a nd NPS.

• The Forest Service will be sending a document on SI P submissions to MANE-VU.

• Note that the 20% best days level will be a new bas eline for the following 10-year period.

• Residual oil SO2 controls, especially marine, is an area ripe for more analysis and inter-RPO agreement.

• States should avoid the concept of the “committal S IP,” but focus on “commitments.” The FLMs would like to see as many emission reduction commit ments as possible.

Michelle Notarianni, EPA – OAQPS

• Ms. Notarianni opened the floor for questions.

• **Question (Jeff Underhill, New Hampshire)** : Is EPA pushing to have regional convergence on re gional haze SIP issues, i.e., how will EPA regional office s coordinate their review of these SIPs?

- **Answer (Michelle Notarianni, EPA)** : There are ongoing discussions amongst the EPA Re gions at a national level through the national workgroup, an d it is anticipated that inter-regional discussions will occur on specific SIPs, similar to how the Regions handle multi-state ozone attainment SIPs.

• **Question (Dick Valentinetti, Vermont)** : Is there an EPA SIP approval process for SIPs tha t are inter-related but come in at different times?

- **Answer (Michelle Notarianni, EPA)** : EPA is looking at that issue right now, but they also must act within 18 months of receipt of each SIP submitt al under the Clean Air Act.

• **Question (Tad Aburn, Maryland)** : Have there been any internal EPA discussions on t he MANE-VU national “ask” or a next phase of CAIR? **- Answer (Michelle Notarianni, EPA)** : She is not aware of any but will follow-up. (Anna Garcia later provided the names of OAQPS representatives t hat MANE-VU has been in contact with on this topic.)41

**- Comment (John Hornback, VISTAS)** : We need to show EPA enough information on costs a nd benefits, and the burden is on the states to make t he case. **- Comment (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : The MANE-VU / MRPO agreement from the consultatio n two weeks ago is to accomplish exactly that, and he hopes the VISTAS states will join the effort.

• **Question (Bill Thompson, Penobscot Nation)** : How far along are other tribes with their regiona l haze SIPs? Is there any information available? **- Answer (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : No activity from the Western tribes that he know s of.

• **Question (Bruce Polkowsky, NPS)** : Since state regulations will not be in place by S IP submittal and since these are 10-year SIPs, can EPA find a way to allow commitments?

- **Answer (Michelle Notarianni, EPA)** : There are legal problems with that approach. In general, commitments in SIPs are allowed in a very narrow se t of circumstances according to EPA’s General Counsel. Exclusion of control measures due to lack of time, authority, or funding are not acceptable justifications for use of this appro ach.

- **Comment (Anna Garcia, MANE-VU)** : MANE-VU will be trying to develop draft SIP lang uage that will pass EPA muster on this issue, and would like EPA feedback.

- **Comment (Rob Sliwinski, New York)** : The reality is that these are non-enforceable SIP s, and despite the requirements EPA will be getting commit tal SIPs from all states.

- **Comment (Michelle Notarianni, EPA)** : EPA has no flexibility to change the regional haz e SIP deadline due to statutory constraints, and they wil l have to see what is submitted and react accordingly. States should contact their Regional O ffice if they expect their SIP to be late.

- **Comment (Beverly Banister, EPA)** : There is a meeting of the EPA Region III Air Dire ctors in midSeptember. These issues are foremost on the agenda, and she will share the discussion results afterwards if there is anything new to add to what was discussed today..

• **Question (Rob Sliwinski, New York)** : Will EPA do regional haze FIPs?

- **Answer (Michelle Notarianni, EPA)** : I have no answer on that at this time. The Agenc y has made no decision at this point as to how it will ha ndle late regional haze SIPs. Again, States should contact their Regional Office if they expect their SIP to be late.

• **Comment (Susan Wierman, MARAMA)** : EPA should consider providing incentives outside of the SIP process like Early Action Compacts for ozone attain ment. Also, EPA does not have the time to do regional haze FIPs.

• **Comment (Michelle Notariani, EPA)** : Thank you for your comment. We can share this wi th the national EPA workgroup. Note that Region 8 is prese ntly working on a FIP for Montana.

Presentation by Susan Wierman, MARAMA

• Review of IPM emissions bar charts and future EGU s trategies showing that it is feasible to do more than CAIR.

Roundtable Discussion on Reasonable Progress Goals and Reasonable Measures

States continued the consultation with a roundtabl e discussion on all issues raised during the Open Technical Call and this consultation meeting. Most of the discussion focused on the substance of the MANE-VU statements, or “asks” from the VISTAS s tates and from the U.S. EPA. Anna Garcia, MANEVU, noted that MANE-VU will have health benefits in formation related to regional haze strategies in th e fall.42

Boiler MACT, ICI Boilers, and Pulp and Paper Sector During the Open Technical Call it was suggested th at there may be an opportunity to examine the scope of the ICI boiler sector and potential em ission reductions from that source category. Sever al states brought up the recent vacatur of the Boiler MACT in providing the possibility for states to wor k together on this sector. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) is discussing with it s members and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) an d Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) an effort to develop a Boiler MACT model rule. While for Boiler MACT this effort would focus on hazardous air pollutants (HAP s), including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), it may be possible to include in that project a parall el process to gather information on NOx and SO2 emissions from the boiler sector and develop option s for control strategies, separate from the MACT levels.

MANE-VU opened up the discussion on ICI boilers no ting the recent agreement with the MRPO states to reconvene the ICI Boiler Workgroup for a collaborative effort in that sector and how VISTAS had indicated on the Open Technical Call was an are a of interest to them. MANE-VU inquired whether VISTAS states would be interested in joining in suc h a collaborative effort. VISTAS expressed intere st, inquiring as to whether policy or technical work wo uld be needed and noting that it is very difficult to justify higher costs to the ICI sector when more co st-effective EGU reductions are still available. M ANEVU indicated that there will be a need for more cos t and inventory work and possibly some health benefits analysis in order to build a case for ICI boiler reductions, and that there is an opportunity for coordination with NACAA on the upcoming Boiler MACT work. NESCAUM indicated that they will have a draft study on this sector out by the end of the ye ar, and MANE-VU offered to share information and continue discussions to see what approaches states in both regions may be interested in taking.

VISTAS inquired whether MANE-VU had had any stakeho lder feedback on the 4-factor analysis. MANE-VU replied that there had been no specific com ments on the analysis; however, the Northeast states have been engaged in discussions with the oi l industry on low-sulfur fuel oil. Maine added tha t it has had discussions with its sources that use resid ual oil. New Hampshire also noted that at a recent Council of Industrial Boilers meeting, most of the attendees accepted that it is only a matter of time before more reductions will be expected from this s ector.

The ICI sector discussion moved to the pulp and pa per industry. Georgia stated that they are getting comments from that industry questioning the level of control costs that is considered to be co steffective, and noted that the state has not made an y decisions on a bright line. New York commented that it does not make sense for states to pursue tr ying to define bright line costs individually, so w e should keep the lines of communication open between our regions. VISTAS informed the group that EPA currently has a pulp and paper sectors strategy process with a multi-pollutant aspect, so it is a good time to get involved in that process. According to EPA, a draft preamble and model rule language for that process is due out towards the end of Septembe r. New York cautioned that states should understand what is contained in that pulp and paper model rule to see if any facilities are given a pa ss.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Identify VISTAS states interested in participating with MANE-VU and MRPO states on a boiler workgroup to examine potential sector controls, cos ts and health benefits;

• Review draft preamble and model rule language of EP A’s pulp and paper sector strategy for discussion and comment; and

• Coordinate with NACAA’s Boiler MACT effort.43

Locomotive and Marine Sectors MANE-VU then moved the discussion to focus on poten tial opportunities for emissions reductions from locomotives and ocean-going vessels . According to VISTAS, those emissions represent <1% of total SO2 emissions, so they are not importa nt in the big picture, and that ,in fact, in the Gu lf states those emissions may be blowing out of the do main. They noted, however, that it is also important to look at ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment issues in port cities, including inland Mississippi River ports, where reductions of those emissions ma y be more important but have ancillary benefits for regional haze. Maine added that an outcome from th e MRPO consultation was that benefits from reductions from these sources are important to the MRPO states. MANE-VU suggested that a unified inter-RPO position for a national “ask” for this se ctor may be possible

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Examine potential for ancillary benefits for region al haze from potential controls on port emission sources to reduce ozone and PM 2.5.

The National “Ask,” and EGU and non-EGU Sectors The group then turned to the EGU sector and a discu ssion of the potential for an inter-RPO dialogue on beyond-CAIR issues. The National Park Service noted that, given that the total EGU SO2 reductions identified by VISTAS states in correctin g IPM output was less than the CAIR budget, that VISTAS states may want to consider supporting a nat ional “ask” concept outlined by MANE-VU. EPA Region IV asked whether MANE-VU had discussed the n ational “ask” with anyone in EPA, and MANE-VU explained that the “ask” is based on a CAIR Plus an alysis presented at an OTC meeting attended by Sam Napolitano, Bill Harnett, and Peter Tsirigotis, and that the OTC modeling analysis showed that a progr am that includes the entire CAIR domain is needed for an effective beyond-CAIR program. The OTC is currently re-examining its multi-pollutant position . Some VISTAS states did express interest in explo ring the idea of a next phase of CAIR, and continuing di scussions with MANE-VU on the national “ask,” notin g that additional reductions will be needed later fo r attainment of the new ozone and 24-hour PM standards.

Discussion followed on what information would be ne eded to help the VISTAS states in reviewing a national “ask” calling for a third phas e of CAIR. One critical piece of information ident ified by VISTAS is a better understanding of the ozone be nefits that a CAIR Plus strategy would yield since regional haze may provide insufficient leverage as a driver for a beyond-CAIR strategy. For those sta tes ozone and/or the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard is a mo re significant driver. It was noted, however, by MANE-VU that regional haze can be the driver if su pplemented by information on reductions in premature mortality that yield benefits of at least a factor of ten as compared to costs, and that the MRPO states interested in supporting the national “ ask” are mainly looking at it for PM 2.5 benefits.

During the discussion about the MANE-VU “ask” for a 90% reduction from EGUs on the list of 167 stacks, MANE-VU states indicated that it would be helpful to also see an updated list of controls for the list of 167 units as well as any large non-EGUs not on the list.

As the focus of discussions turned to non-EGUs, VIS TAS commented that at this time only two states have completed their BART determinations. MANE-VU added that their states are also still in t he process of completing their BART determinations.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• MANE-VU to revisit its multi-pollutant strategy;44

• MANE-VU to provide benefits and other information o n beyond-CAIR strategy to VISTAS;

• MANE-VU and interested VISTAS states to explore pos sibility of CAIR Phase III;

• Craft a revised national “ask” to reflect revised l evels, as appropriate; and Exchange lists on updated controls anticipated on a ll EGUs.

Other Sectors MANE-VU brought up the topic of alternative fuels, explaining that there was discussion with MRPO about biofuels and asking if there was interes t in VISTAS in this area. Kentucky and Georgia expressed interest, and Tennessee informed the grou p that they are looking to become a leader in cellulosic ethanol production.

New Jersey raised a question about the possibility of developing a model rule for residential wood combustion that would be more stringent than E PA’s rule for new fireplace units. VISTAS responded that residential wood combustion is not a big issue for them. The Forest Service noted that outdoor wood boilers are poorly controlled, with wh ich Maine and New York agreed, commenting that larger commercial wood boilers are primarily a PM i ssue. However, it was pointed out by Vermont that particulate control is not cost-effective for small er outdoor wood boilers.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Look at federal rules that are in the works for non -road, locomotive and marine engines to see if there are gaps or opportunities that MANE-VU and MR PO could explore together; and Share information on biodiesel as a low-sulfur fuel option.

Wrap-Up As the consultation drew to a close MANE-VU asked whether the VISTAS states had any requests to make of MANE-VU states, as the intent of the mee ting is for an exchange between the two RPOs. VISTAS requested that MANE-VU share any 2018 data t hat differs from the MANE-VU version 3 emission inventory. MANE-VU confirmed that they would provi de information on the low-sulfur fuel oil strategy, the EGU strategy, and BART controls to VISTAS.

Follow up items from this discussion include:

• Continue to share specific information about what M ANE-VU and VISTAS sources are anticipating as controls on EGUs as compared to what is indicated i n IPM modeling;

• Update our inventories and databases accordingly so that our information is “synched”; and

• Continue dialogue on approaches for addressing this sector to meet the 90% reduction target for the 167 stacks and on equivalent alternatives.

Next Steps

In addition to the agreements reached during the d iscussions (listed at the beginning and in the roundtable discussion sections of this document) th e MANE-VU Class I states and the VISTAS states agreed to continue the consultation dialogue over t he next weeks and months. The states will continue discussions from today’s meeting, bring forth addit ional issues as necessary, and have a first opportu nity to review and discuss the draft documentation of th e consultation.