50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

April 9, 2012

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Glenn Keith

Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Waste Prevention

One Winter Street, 7th Floor

Boston, MA 02108

glenn.keith@state.ma.us

RE: Proposed Revision to Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan to Address Best Available Retrofit Technology for Electric 

Generating Units

Dear Mr. Keith:

Please accept the following comments submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club, the 

Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Conservation Law Foundation (―CLF‖) 

regarding the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (―Mass DEP’s‖) 

proposed revision to the Massachusetts regional haze state implementation plan (―SIP‖)

to address Best Available Retrofit Technology (―BART‖) requirements for electric 

generating units (―EGUs‖). 

For the reasons set forth herein, Mass DEP’s proposed plan to address BART 

requirements for EGUs does not comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(―CAA‖) and EPA’s implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. Pt. 51. Mass DEP 

impermissibly seeks to rely on a handful of state regulations as an alternative to requiring 

source-specific BART emission limits for subject-to-BART EGUs in Massachusetts.

However, not only does the plain language of the Clean Air Act preclude the use of such 

alternatives, but Massachusetts has also failed to meet its specific obligations under 

EPA’s regional haze regulations to justify the use of these regulations to replace sourcespecific BART limits. 

First and most fundamentally, Mass DEP has not included or referenced in its SIP 

revision the statutorily required source-by-source BART analysis for each emission unit 

subject to BART. Consequently, Mass DEP cannot actually substantiate whether its 

proposed BART alternative results in greater reductions of haze-forming pollutants than 

would be achieved under source-by-source BART, as is required for Mass DEP to rely on 

a BART alternative. EPA has promulgated detailed BART guidelines that lay out the 

five-step process that must be followed to determine BART for units at facilities with a 

capacity greater than 750 MW. Mass DEP must follow that process here for Brayton 

Point, Canal, Mystic and Salem Harbor and must include these analyses in its SIP. In 
Mr. Keith

Page 2 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

addition, for units at smaller facilities, the statute and regulations set forth factors that 

Mass DEP must consider in establishing BART. These analyses are missing from Mass 

DEP’s proposed regional haze SIP, and this deficiency must be remedied before Mass 

DEP can purport to rely on its proposed BART alternative. 

Second, in seeking to demonstrate that its proposed BART alternative produces 

emissions benefits relative to source-specific BART, Mass DEP improperly compared

emissions reductions under its proposed BART alternative to those under MANE-VU’s 

categorically derived presumptive BART. But presumptive BART is not BART, and is 

not a substitute for analyses that comply with the regional haze rule and BART guidelines 

for each subject-to-BART source. Because source-specific BART limits are often 

significantly lower than those identified by EPA as presumptive BART, Mass DEP’s 

comparison of its BART alternative to presumptive BART is impermissibly skewed in 

favor of the BART alternative. Mass DEP must redo its analysis and compare emission 

reductions under the proposed alternative to those produced by full source-specific 

BART analyses. Mass DEP must include in this analysis an evaluation of the impact of 

source-specific emission reductions on each affected Class I area.

Third, Mass DEP cannot establish that its proposed BART alternative results in 

greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural baseline visibility conditions in 

Class I areas than would properly conducted source-by-source BART. Mass DEP’s 

comparison of the sulfur dioxide (―SO2‖) and nitrogen oxide (―NOx‖) emission 

reductions under its proposed alternative and source-specific BART is fatally flawed 

because the agency ignores emission reductions already being achieved at subject-toBART units and ignores enforceable emission reductions at units subject to its BART 

alternative that should be included as well in the source-specific BART benchmark case. 

Correcting these errors reveals that in 2018 source-specific BART would result in SO2 

emissions reductions at least 8,600 tons greater than under the BART alternative and 

NOx emissions at least 3,200 tons greater than under Mass DEP’s proposed alternative to 

BART. Consequently, Mass DEP cannot demonstrate that its proposed BART alternative 

would result in greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural baseline visibility 

conditions in the areas protected by the regional haze rule.

Fourth, the Massachusetts SIP revision fails to demonstrate that the distribution of 

emission reductions under its proposed BART alternative will be similar to that under 

source-specific BART or conduct dispersion modeling showing that the BART 

alternative results in greater reasonable progress in areas protected by the regional haze 

rule. Although Mass DEP asserts that the distribution of emissions is similar, its rationale 

is flawed and a further demonstration is required. 

In addition, Mass DEP has not demonstrated that the state will achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by MANE-VU for 2018. MANE-VU includes as a 

reasonable progress goal emission reductions of 90% from each of the 167 power plant 

stacks in the MANE-VU region whose SO2 emissions were determined to significantly 

impair visibility in one or more MANE-VU Class I areas. The Massachusetts regional 
Mr. Keith

Page 3 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

haze SIP fails to put the state on a path to achieve those reductions, even under the 

optimistic projections made by Mass DEP, and fails to require enforceable commitments 

to achieve these reductions. To remedy this deficiency, the SIP at a minimum should 

include enforceable requirements that Mount Tom and Brayton Point operate their sulfur 

dioxide controls continuously and require an enforceable SO2 emission limit of zero for 

Salem Harbor Units 1 and 2 consistent with the consent decree requiring the shutdown of 

the Salem Harbor facility as a coal-fired power plant. 

Massachusetts sources contribute substantially to visibility impairment at a 

number of national parks and wilderness area. In evaluating the cost-effectiveness of 

BART controls, Mass DEP should fully account for the cumulative emission reductions 

that these can achieve for visibility across vistas at all impacted national parks and 

wilderness areas. Massachusetts should give particular consideration to the substantial 

adverse impact that Dominion’s Brayton Point power plant is having on visibility at 

Maine’s Acadia National Park, and every effort should be made to reduce the plant’s 

visibility impact on this remarkable and beautiful area on the Maine coast.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Clean Air Act’s Visibility Program

The Clean Air Act’s visibility program requires elimination of visible air 

pollution at the country’s national parks, wilderness areas, and other premier public lands 

(―Class I areas‖), encompassing a total of 156 protected public lands that include many of 

the nation’s most iconic vistas. Preservation of these views has an obvious and 

demonstrable intrinsic value; as National Park Service studies confirm, visitors’ 

enjoyment of a national park is tied to visibility.1 Preserving visibility also helps sustain 

the healthy tourism industry centered on visits to the nation’s iconic landmarks. The 

same National Parks Service surveys demonstrate that visibility conditions affect the 

amount of time and money visitors are willing to spend at national parks.2 In 2010 alone, 

national parks tourism contributed approximately $31 billion to the United States 

economy, sustaining over 250,000 jobs.3 Massachusetts received over 9.7 million 

recreation visits in 2009 and $384 million in non-local visitor spending.4 And more than 

 

1 National Parks Service, Visibility Effects of Air Pollution: Importance of Visual Air Quality to Visitor

Experience, http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/AQBasics/visibility.cfm. 

2

Id.

3

Southwick Associates, The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources 

Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States, at 17 (Oct. 10, 2011), available at

www.nfwf.org/Content/ContentFolders/NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation/HomePage/ConservationSpotl

ights/TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation.pdf; United States Department of the Interior, Office of 

Policy Analysis, The Department of the Interior’s Economic Contributions, at 9 (June 21, 2011), available 

at www.doi.gov/ppa/upload/DOI-Econ-Report-6-21-2011.pdf. 

4 Nat’l Park Service, Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 

2009 at Table A-4 (Jan. 2011), attached as Ex. 1.
Mr. Keith

Page 4 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

2.2 million people visit Acadia National Park each year5resulting in $161 million in 

visitor spending.

6

 Despite the economic importance of these Class I areas, EPA has 

recognized that longstanding visibility problems continue to mar the landscape and 

obscure views of our most treasured landmarks. In most of the eastern National Parks of 

the United States, ―the average visual range is less than 20 miles, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions.‖ Regional Haze: 

Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans, 76 Fed. Reg. 82219, 82222 (Dec. 30, 2011).

While the visibility program primarily seeks to preserve the iconic vistas across 

the country, the program provides important ancillary health and environmental cobenefits as well. Haze is caused predominantly by fine particles, which absorb and 

scatter sunlight. Haze-forming pollutants, including SO2 and NOx, contribute to health 

problems, meaning that any program that requires controls to target and reduce these 

pollutants will also improve public health. For example, SO2 and particulate matter 

(―PM‖) are associated with serious lung and heart ailments, including premature death, 

while NOx is a precursor to ground level ozone, or smog, which is associated with 

respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased lung function. In 2011, there were 

more than 262 exceedances of the EPA’s ozone air pollution standard at national parks—

the highest number of exceedances since 2008. Even healthy adults are urged to limit 

outdoor exercise on days with high ozone. Given the overlap between the haze forming 

pollutants and health, EPA has estimated that in 2015, reductions in SO2 and NOx

resulting from the Regional Haze Rule will prevent 1,600 premature deaths, 2,200 nonfatal heart attacks, 960 hospital admissions, and over 1 million lost school and work days, 

benefits valued at $8.4 - $9.8 billion annually. 

Recognizing that manmade haze diminishes visibility and degrades the integrity 

of many of the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas, Congress in 1977 amended 

the Clean Air Act, ―declar[ing] as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas 

which impairment results from manmade air pollution.‖ See 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1); see 

also 40 C.F.R. pt. 81, subpt. D (listing the 156 protected Class I areas, including certain 

national parks, wilderness areas, and national memorial parks, as well as certain 

international parks). Among other things, Congress mandated that EPA adopt regulations 

that would require states to develop SIPs containing measures necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national goal of improving visibility, including 

installation and operation of BART at BART-eligible sources7that could be reasonably 

 

5 Hardner & Gulison, The U.S. National Parks: An Economic Asset at Risk (May 30, 2006), at 13, Table 5, 

attached as Ex. 2.

6

Id. at Table A-1. 

7 A source is BART-eligible if it is a stationary source within one of 26 enumerated categories, was not in 

operation before August 7, 1962 but was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 

tons per year or more of any pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(7).
Mr. Keith

Page 5 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(4), 

(b)(2)(A).

In 1999, EPA expanded the visibility program, promulgating the Regional Haze 

Rule. Regional Haze Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 35714 (July 1, 1999). Under that Rule, 

states are directed to submit SIPs containing emissions limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance for each BART-eligible source that may be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. See 40 C.F.R. 

§ 51.308(e). BART is determined for each source based on a case-by-case analysis. Id.

§ 51.308(e)(1)(ii). Thus, a source may have to install BART as required to combat 

regional haze. The EPA further elaborated on requirements for determining BART in its 

BART guidelines, published on July 6, 2005. See Regional Haze Regulations and 

Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, 70 Fed. Reg. 

39104 (July 6, 2005) (hereinafter ―BART Guidelines‖).

1. Best Available Retrofit Technology

EPA’s Part 51 regulations require states to submit implementation plans 

―containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with 

BART for each BART–eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.‖ 40 

C.F.R. § 51.308(e). At the same time, however, the regulations purport to permit states 

develop alternatives to source-specific BART where the state demonstrates that an 

emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions.‖ Id.; see also id. § 51.308(e)(2). Where a state 

seeks to rely on an alternative to source-specific BART, the state’s SIP must include, 

among other things, a demonstration that the alternative program ―will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of 

BART at all sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative

program.‖ Id. § 51.308(e)(2)(i). This demonstration must be based on: 

 A list of all BART–eligible sources within the State;

 A list of all BART–eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by 

the alternative program; 

 An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology 

available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source within 

the State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program. Subject to 

limited exceptions, this analysis must be conducted by making a determination of 

BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program 

as provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; 
Mr. Keith

Page 6 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

 An analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the 

alternative program; and

 A determination based on the clear weight of evidence that the trading program or 

other alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources.

Id. § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A)-(E). 

To determine whether a State program satisfies the latter requirement, the State 

must determine whether the distribution of emissions is substantially different than under 

BART. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct 

dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading 

program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. Id. 

§ 51.308(e)(3). The modeling is deemed to demonstrate ―greater reasonable progress‖ if 

both of the following two criteria are met:

 Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and

 There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the 

average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I 

areas.

Id. § 51.308(e)(3)(i) & (ii).

EPA has provided guidance regarding the method by which sources subject to 

BART must conduct their BART determinations. See generally BART Guidelines; 40 

C.F.R. Pt. 51, App. Y (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze 

Rule). The guidelines are mandatory for making BART determinations for sources that 

are part of power plants of at least 750 MW, but are not strictly required for other types 

of sources. 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Y § I.F. Pursuant to the guidelines, subject to BART 

sources must undergo a five-step BART analysis. Id. § IV.D. 

 Step 1--Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies: The guidelines 

explain that in identifying ―all‖ options, the source must identify the most 

stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a 

comprehensive list of available technologies. Id. § IV.D.

 Step 2--Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options: Pursuant to the guidelines, 

control technologies are technically feasible if either (1) they have been installed 

and operated successfully for the type of source under review under similar 

conditions, or (2) the technology could be applied to the source under review. Id. 

Claims of technical infeasibility must be documented and must explain , based on 

physical, chemical, or engineering principles, why technical difficulties would 
Mr. Keith

Page 7 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

preclude the successful use of the control option on the emissions unit under 

review. Id. § IV.D.2.

 Step 3--Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control Technologies: The 

guidelines require that the analysis express the degree of control using a metric 

that ensures an ―apples to apples‖ comparison of emissions performance levels 

among options, and gives appropriate treatment and consideration of control 

techniques that can operate over a wide range of emission performance levels. Id.

§ IV.D.3.

 Step 4--Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results: The guidelines require a 

four-part impact analysis that includes evaluating: (1) the cost of compliance; (2) 

energy impacts; (3) non-air quality environmental impacts; and (4) remaining 

useful life of the source. Id. § IV.D.4. This requires an evaluation of cost 

effectiveness, including average cost-effectiveness. Id.

 Step 5--Evaluate Visibility Impacts: The guidelines outline the modeling 

requirements and considerations for evaluating visibility impacts for the control 

technologies included in Step 4. Id. § IV.D.5. 98th percent days should be 

compared for the pre- and post-control runs. Id.

Even where application of the BART guidelines is not mandatory, the State is still 

required to take a number of factors into consideration in evaluating BART for a source. 

These mandatory factors include: ―the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at 

the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.‖ 

42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2). 

2. Reasonable Progress Goals and Long-term Strategy

In addition to requiring an evaluation and determination of BART for all subject 

to BART sources, the Clean Air Act’s visibility provisions require that states establish 

reasonable progress goals and demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attaining 

natural visibility conditions in Class I areas by 2064. In establishing reasonable progress 

goals, ―the State must consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the 

emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the 

implementation plan.‖ 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). ―For the period of the 

implementation plan, if the State establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides for 

a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain 

natural conditions by 2064, the State must demonstrate, based on the factors in paragraph 

(d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, that the rate of progress for the implementation plan to attain 

natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the progress goal adopted by the 

State is reasonable.‖ Id. § 51.308(d)(1)(ii). ―The State must provide to the public for 
Mr. Keith

Page 8 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

review as part of its implementation plan an assessment of the number of years it would 

take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement continues at the rate of progress 

selected by the State as reasonable.‖ Id. § 51.308(d)(1)(ii). The EPA must consider the 

reasonable progress goals established by the State in evaluating the adequacy of the 

measures in the implementation plan to achieve the progress goal adopted by the State. 

Id. § 51.308(d)(1)(v). ―If the State has participated in a regional planning process, the 

State must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.‖ Id. § 51.308(d)(3)(ii).

After setting reasonable progress goals, the state must also develop a long-term 

strategy that relies on enforceable emissions limitations and other measures ―as necessary 

to achieve the reasonable progress goals.‖ Id. § 51.308(d)(3). In establishing its longterm strategy for regional haze, the regional haze rule requires at the very least a 

consideration of the following factors: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 

emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress 

goal; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as 

currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed 

by the long-term strategy. Id. § 51.308(d)(3)(iv). In addition, the long term strategy must 

be reflective of emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance 

with BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment in visibility at in or out of state class I areas which in-state 

sources impair visibility, unless the state can demonstrate that an emissions trading 

program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions. Id. § 51.308(e). The state must also have submitted a monitoring 

strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility impairment 

at impacted Class I areas. Id. § 51.308(d)(4).

3. 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 7.19 and 7.29

Massachusetts has promulgated regulations that address emissions of SO2 and 

NOx from certain sources that are also subject to regulation under EPA’s regional haze 

rule. Specifically, 310 CMR Section 7.19 establishes reasonably achievable control 

technology (―RACT‖) standards for NOx for a variety of categories of sources while 310 

CMR Section 7.29 establishes emissions standards for power plants. Pursuant to Section 

7.19, large boilers—those with a heat rate greater than 100 MMBtu/hr—are required to 

achieve and maintain continuous compliance with specified NOx emission limits 

expressed in pounds per MMBtu. 310 CMR 7.19(4)(a). Sources also have the option of 

electing to comply with an alternative emissions rate set forth in 310 CMR 7.19(4)(c). 

Pursuant to Section 7.29, owners and operators of power plants are responsible for 

ensuring that affected facilities comply with emission rates for NOx and SO2 that are set 
Mr. Keith

Page 9 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

forth in 310 CMR 7.29(5). See id. 7.29(4)(a); 7.29(5)(a). For both NOx and SO2, the 

applicable emission rates are established in pounds per MWh,8and include a rolling 12-

month average limits as well as a monthly limit. See id. 7.29(5)(a)1. and (5)(a)2. 

B. The Massachusetts Revised Regional Haze SIP

Although Massachusetts contains no Class I areas within its borders, sources of 

air emissions from Massachusetts have a significant impact on visibility in a number of 

Class I areas outside of the State. Class I areas significantly impacted by emissions from 

Massachusetts include Acadia National Park and the Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine, 

the Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area in New Hampshire, the Lye Brook 

Wilderness in Vermont, and Roosevelt Campobello International Park in Maine/Canada. 

Mass. Reg. Haze SIP at ii. Individual emission sources in Massachusetts played a large 

role in visibility impairment. For example, emissions from Brayton Point modeled using 

the MM5 Platform indicated an 11.15 deciview visibility impairment at Acadia National 

Park on the worst days relative to 20% best natural conditions. Id. at 75, Table 12. Using 

the NWS Platform, modeled emissions from Brayton Point resulted in a 7.200 deciview 

impairment at Moosehorn Wilderness on the worst days relative to the 20% best natural 

conditions. Id. at 75, Table 12. Modeling using the MM5 Platform, also predicted a 

6.643 deciview impairment at Acadia National Park form Mirant’s Canal Station and 

impacts of around 1 deciview each from Mystic Station and Salem Harbor. Id. at 75, 

Table 11. 

As the table below illustrates, SO2 emissions from power plants are the ―single 

largest sector contributing to the visibility impairment experienced in the Northeast’s 

Class I areas.‖ Mass. Reg. Haze SIP at 13. ―Sulfate formed through atmospheric 

processes from SO2 emissions are responsible for over half the mass and approximately 

70-80 percent of the light extinction on the worst visibility days.‖ Id. However, power 

plant NOx emissions in Massachusetts also contribute significantly to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. See BART Chapter of Draft Mass. Reg. Haze SIP (July 31, 

2009), at 20, Table 9 (NO3 emissions from Brayton Point alone contributes an over 3.3 

deciview impairment). 

 

8 According to Mass DEP, ―3.0 lbs/MWh . . . is roughly equivalent to 0.3 lbs/MMBtu.‖ Mass. Reg. Haze 

SIP Rev. at 16. 
Mr. Keith

Page 10 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

Source: Mass. Reg. Haze SIP at 59, Fig. 29.

In order to reduce emissions of haze-forming pollutants to comply with the Clean 

Air Act’s regional haze requirements, Massachusetts developed a SIP, which was

released on December 30, 2011. Massachusetts initially intended to meet its regional 

haze emission reduction requirements for EGUs by relying on reductions contained in 

EPA’s transport rule, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (―CSAPR‖). 

Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 1. However, EPA declined to include Massachusetts in the 

final version of CSAPR. Id. Rather than include source-specific BART analyses for 

each subject to BART source in Massachusetts,9 Mass DEP relied on generic 

recommendations made by MANE-VU regarding categorical BART emission rates for 

EGUs for SO2 and NOx. Mass DEP then compared these emission reductions to those 

that would be achieved through 310 CMR 7.19 and 7.29, coupled with certain permit 

restrictions for Brayton Point, Salem Harbor and Mount Tom, and the retirement of the 

Somerset power plant. See id. According to Mass DEP, the emission reductions 

achieved through its proposed BART alternative exceeded those under the MANE-VU 

recommended BART limits by 4,234 tons of SO2/year, id. at 8, and 297 tons of 

 

9

It is clear from the July 31, 2009 ―BART Chapter of Draft Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP‖ that Mass 

DEP did initially give some consideration to specific BART control technologies at individual subject-toBART units in the state. However, these analyses were not included in the appendices to the draft SIP or 

SIP revision and do not appear to have been relied up on in determining the BART baseline. 
Mr. Keith

Page 11 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

NOx/year, id. at 10. Mass DEP did not quantify differences in the distribution of 

emissions under source-specific BART and the proposed BART alternative, or model 

whether these differences would affect reasonable progress toward achieving natural 

baseline visibility conditions in affected Class I areas. 

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Plain Language of the Clean Air Act Precludes Sweeping Alternative

Programs to Replace Source-Specific BART Limits

EPA cannot authorize states to rely on alternative programs to opt out of BART. 

Under the Clean Air Act, BART is a mandatory measure that must be implemented to 

achieve reasonable progress toward restoration of natural visibility conditions. Section 

169A(b)(2)(A) expressly requires states to adopt SIPs that ―contain such emission limits, 

schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national goal . . . including‖ installation and operation of 

BART at BART-eligible sources that emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area. See 

42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The only permissible exemption from 

BART is expressly set forth in § 169A(c). See 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c). Under § 169A(c), a 

source can be exempt from BART only if EPA, by rule promulgated with sufficient 

notice and opportunity for public comment, determines that the source does not either by 

itself or in combination with other sources ―emit any air pollutant which may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to a significant impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory class I federal area.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c)(1). Further, EPA cannot exempt a 

fossil-fuel fired power plant with a design capacity of 750 megawatts or more, unless the 

owner or operator of the plant can demonstrate that the power plant is located far enough 

away from the class I areas that it satisfies the exemption criteria above. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7491(c)(2). Likewise, the appropriate Federal Land Manager or managers must agree 

with the exemption before it can go into effect. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c)(3). Thus, EPA’s 

authority to exempt sources from BART is very narrowly defined. Nowhere in Section 

169A did Congress contemplate or sanction sweeping alternative programs that would 

operate in lieu of source specific BART, and there is no statutory authority for EPA 

regulations that purport to allow for reliance on alternative programs in place of BART. 

See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2). Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has 

upheld such regulations, concluding that BART is not mandatory but rather one of many 

available options that EPA and state agencies may impose at their discretion to achieve 

reasonable progress. See Center for Energy & Economic Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 

(D.C. Cir. 2005) (―CEED‖) (holding that § 169A did not require use of BART); Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (―UARG‖) (relying 

on CEED for the proposition that ―EPA may leave states free to implement BARTalternatives so long as those alternatives also ensure reasonable progress‖). In so 

holding, CEED and UARG effectively read mandatory BART requirements out of the 

Clean Air Act. Because these cases cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the 
Mr. Keith

Page 12 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

Clean Air Act, Massachusetts should not rely on them to exempt itself from 

implementing BART. 

B. Mass DEP’s Proposed BART Alternative Is Not an Acceptable 

Alternative to Source-Specific BART Limits

1. Mass DEP Has Not Included in Its SIP the Required Source-Specific 

BART Analysis for Each Subject-to-BART Source in the State and Each 

Source the Emissions from Which Mass DEP Purports to Rely on in Its 

BART Alternative

EPA regulations make clear that a state seeking to rely on an alternative to sourcespecific BART must conduct a BART analysis for all sources subject to BART and all 

sources included in its BART alternative and submit these analyses as part of its SIP. 

However, Mass DEP has not included such analyses in its SIP for any sources in the 

state. This failure precludes reliance on Mass DEP’s proposed BART alternative. 

For any alternative to BART that a state proposes, the state must submit an 

implementation plan that contains ―[a]n analysis of the best continuous emission control 

technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable for each source

within the State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program.‖ 40 C.F.R. 

§ 51.308(e)(2)(C) (emphasis added). This analysis must be conducted ―by making a 

determination of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative 

program,‖ as described in the regulations. Id. (emphasis added). The regulations specify 

that for subject-to-BART units at facilities with a total generating capacity exceeding 750 

MW, the unit’s BART analyses be conducted pursuant to the BART guidelines 

promulgated under 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2). Moreover, 

the Clean Air Act requires that, for all sources, the source-specific BART analysis must 

take into consideration ―the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at 

the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.‖ 

42 U.S.C. § 7491(g) (emphasis added). Each of these factors is specific to the source and 

necessitates individualized consideration of each subject-to-BART source. Because the 

Massachusetts regional haze SIP contains no source-specific BART analyses, it fails to 

comply with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s regional haze regulations. 

2. Mass DEP’s Comparison of Emission Reductions Under Its Proposed 

BART Alternative to Presumptive BART Emissions Is Improper and 

Skews the Agency’s Analysis in Favor of the Proposed BART Alternative

Source-specific BART analyses are not merely a procedural nicety under EPA’s 

regional haze regulations; they are also necessary for Mass DEP to be able to evaluate 

whether its proposed emission reductions will actually result in greater reasonable 
Mr. Keith

Page 13 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas than would be 

achieved under source-by-source BART as required by 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)(i). 

Mass DEP’s approach of comparing emission reductions under its proposed BART 

alternative to generic emission limits for entire source categories was impermissible and 

artificially inflates the relative benefits of the BART alternative. 

To support the use of its proposed BART alternative, Mass DEP compared SO2 

and NOx emissions under its proposed BART alternative to a ―BART benchmark‖ that 

was calculated using ―recommended‖ BART limits derived by MANE-VU. As Mass 

DEP explained in its SIP revision, its BART benchmark for SO2 and NOx are based

upon EPA’s Appendix Y BART Guidelines, which set forth ―presumptive‖ BART limits 

for generic categories of sources. Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 5. The ―presumptive 

BART‖ emission limits for EGUs included in EPA’s BART Guidelines were based on 

EPA’s broad review of the control technologies and emission limits that could be met 

cost effectively at a wide range of coal-fired power plants. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Y, 

§ IV.E.4 and 5. They do not represent de facto BART standards. See Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan; Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan to Address Pollution Affecting 

Visibility and Regional Haze; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 14604, 14609 (Mar. 12, 2012) 

(―[T]he presumption in the BART Rule is not that the presumptive limits will be BART 

in every case. Rather, the presumption in the BART Rule is more accurately interpreted 

to be that the controls reflected by the presumptive limits are cost-effective and will result 

in considerable visibility improvement.‖).

Reliance on presumptive BART tends to skew the comparison in favor of the 

Mass DEP’s proposed alternative. See BART Guidelines at 39171 (―While [presumptive 

SO2 BART] may represent current control capabilities, we expect that scrubber 

technology will continue to improve and control costs continue to decline. You should 

be sure to consider the level of control that is currently best achievable at the time that 

you are conducting your BART analysis.‖). Recent actual BART determinations are 

often one half or one third of the presumptive limits, given the demonstrated ability of 

available air pollution control technology to reduce emissions at increasingly high levels 

of control efficiency. For example, EPA partially approved Oklahoma’s SIP and issued a 

partial FIP for Oklahoma adopting SO2 BART limits of 0.06 lb/MMBtu for several 

EGUs, a control that is 60% lower than presumptive BART of 0.15 lb/MMBtu that 

applies to scrubbed units that achieve less than 95% efficiency. See 76 Fed. Reg. 81728, 

81730 (Dec. 28, 2011) (adopting the 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit for Units 4 and 5 of the 

OG&E Muskogee plant, Units 1 and 2 of the OG&E Sooner plant, and Units 3 and 4 of 

the AEP/PSO Northeastern plant). For unscrubbed units, presuming that SO2 BART 

limits will be commensurate with installing a scrubber with 95% efficiency likewise 

underrepresents BART; modern scrubbers today reduce SO2 emissions by 99%. See

Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 16168, 16188 (March 22, 2011) (EPA Region 6 partial 

approval of Oklahoma SIP; noting that according to an industry contractor, ―[w]et 

scrubbing is the predominant technology for large-scale utility applications in most parts 
Mr. Keith

Page 14 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

of the world‖).10 Similarly, EPA has required emission limits that go beyond NOx limits 

imposed as presumptive BART. Table 2-1 in the Technical Support Document sets forth 

the presumptive BART NOx emission limits based on boiler configuration, and the 

lowest limit, imposed on cyclone boilers firing bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite 

coal, was 0.10 lb/MMBtu. Yet EPA has required San Juan Units 1-4 to install SCR and 

meet a NOx limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day operating average. 76 Fed. Reg. 52388, 

52388 (Aug. 22, 2011). These requirements and limits, which represent BART based on 

EPA’s own source-specific analyses, go well beyond EPA’s presumptive NOx BART 

limits. 

Because presumptive BART is not a substitute for source-specific BART 

determinations, Mass DEP erred by failing to compare the emission reductions under its 

proposed BART alternative to properly-conducted source-specific BART. 

3. Mass DEP Has Not Established That Its BART Alternative Results in 

Greater Emissions Reductions for SO2 and NOx Than Would Be 

Achieved Under Properly Conducted Source-Specific BART

The BART emissions benchmarks for SO2 and NOx included in Tables 16 and 18 

of the SIP appear to significantly underpredict emission reductions that would be 

achieved under properly conducted source-specific BART. As a result, Mass DEP has 

not established that its proposed BART alternative would actually result in greater 

reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions than BART. 

i. SO2

The BART baseline for SO2 significantly underestimates the emission reductions 

achievable under BART for Brayton Point and Salem Harbor. According to EIA Form 

923 for 2010, the SO2 control technology already installed at Brayton Point was 

achieving an SO2 removal rate of 90% and 91% for Units 1 and 2 respectively in 2010. 

According to Table 16, the SO2 emission rates for Units 1 through 3 in 2002 were: Unit 1 

= 1.09 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 = 1.11 lb/MMBtu. If these units merely continued to 

achieve their present, already demonstrated rate of at least 90% control efficiency, the

units would have control efficiencies of 0.109 lb/MMBtu and 0.111 lb/MMBtu rather 

 

10 Other technical sources likewise indicate that modern scrubbers can achieve SO2 reduction efficiencies 

up to 99%. See, e.g., Sargent & Lundy LLC, Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation, Project 

No. 11311-001 §§ 1.3.1-.2, at 10 (May 2006) (explaining that ―[r]ecent contracts for LSFO [Limestone 

Forced Oxidation or conventional wet scrubber] technology in the US market have included guarantees of 

99%,‖ and that ―MEL [Magnesium Enhanced Lime] forced oxidation systems have achieved a better level 

of performance than the LSFO process, with SO2 removal efficiencies between 98% and 99% in power 

plants also firing a variety of high- and low-sulfur coals‖), attached as Ex. 3; Kevin Smith, William Booth, 

& Stephane Crevecoeur, Evaluation of Wet FGD Technologies to Meet Requirements for Post CO2 

Removal of Flue Gas Streams, Mega Paper No. 49 (2008), attached as Ex. 4; Chuck Dene, Lesley A. Baker 

& Robert J. Keeth, FGD Performance Capability, Mega Paper No. 62 (2008) (identifying several 

technologies that have achieved or are capable of achieving 99% SO2 control), attached as Ex. 5 (Dene et 

al. 2008). 
Mr. Keith

Page 15 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

than the presumptive BART emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Correcting these emission 

rates downward in Table 16 demonstrates that, even absent further improvements in 

control efficiency, emissions from these two units should be at most 1,811 tons, not 2,467 

tons as Mass DEP presumes, an overestimate of 656 tons. 

Brayton Point Unit 3’s BART emissions are also significantly overestimated. 

Mass DEP projects that Unit 3 will emit 2,725 tons of SO2 in 2018 under presumptive 

BART. However, Dominion is installing a dry scrubber and fabric filter on Unit 3 that 

will be operational in 2014 and that it projects will reduce annual SO2 emissions far 

below the 2,725 tpy presumed by Mass DEP. See Fact Sheet: Closed Cycle Cooling 

Tower and Unit 3 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter Projects (EPA Draft Permit Number 052-

120-MA13). The fact sheet lists the projected actual emissions of SO2 as 1,485 tpy. Id. 

at 12. Even assuming that BART would merely hold Unit 3 to the SO2 emissions that the 

plant projects for itself, Mass DEP has overestimated BART by 1,240 tons. Moreover, 

the vendor has identified the SO2 removal for Brayton Point Unit 3 with its dry scrubber 

as 96-98% depending on the sulfur content of the coal.11 At 1% S, the removal efficiency 

is 98%, while at 2.5% S, the SO2 removal is 96%. According to Mass DEP, the sulfur 

content of the coal at Brayton Point Unit 3 is 1.5%, see BART Chapter of Draft Mass. 

Reg. Haze SIP (July 31, 2009) at 10, Table 5, so the removal efficiency should be in the 

96% and 98% range with 96% at the conservative end. At 96% removal efficiency, using 

on the 2002 baseline of 19,450 tpy, the 2018 SO2 emissions should be 778 tons. 

Compared to the 2,725 tons of SO2 in 2018 presumed by Mass DEP, 778 tpy represents 

an overestimate of 1,947 tons.

Next, Mass DEP presumes the closure of Salem Harbor Unit 4 in its BART 

alternative while assuming that this unit would generate 1,013 tons of SO2 in 2018 under 

source-specific BART. This is not defensible. Salem Harbor Unit 4 is subject to an 

enforceable consent decree between the Conservation Law Foundation, Healthlink and 

Dominion that requires Dominion to cease operating the unit as a coal-fired unit no later 

than June 1, 2014. Conservation Law Found. v. Dominion Energy, Case No. 1:10-cv11069, Consent Decree at ¶ 26 (D. Mass. Dec. 21, 2011). Moreover, BART limits for a 

source are required to take into consideration the remaining useful life of the source. 42 

U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). Here, Dominion has requested an 

Amended Emission Control Plan that includes an enforceable shutdown of Salem Harbor 

Unit 4 by June 1, 2014. See Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 6. The unit’s remaining useful 

life is clearly less than 7 years. Consequently, source-specific BART for this unit should 

likewise involve closure of the plant prior to 2018 and zero emissions of SO2 in 2018. 

Mass DEP therefore impermissibly credits its BART alternative with an unwarranted 

addition 1,013 tons of SO2 reductions. 

Further, in Table 17 Mass DEP credits its BART alternative with 9,998 tons of 

SO2 reductions from Salem Harbor Units 1, 2 and 3. This is improper. Each of these 

units is subject to an enforceable consent decree between Conservation Law Foundation, 

 

11 See Alden, The Wet vs. Dry Question for Scrubbers (Dec. 8. 2011), at slide 24, attached as Ex. 6.
Mr. Keith

Page 16 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

Healthlink, and Dominion requiring the complete shutdown of Salem Harbor as a coalfired power plant no later than June 1, 2014.12

 Conservation Law Found. v. Dominion 

Energy, Case No. 1:10-cv-11069, Consent Decree at ¶ 26 (D. Mass. Dec. 21, 2011). 

Consequently, these emission reductions would have occurred under the source-specific 

BART scenario just as they occur in Mass DEP’s BART alternative. EPA’s regulations 

concerning alternatives to BART clearly require a ―demonstration that the . . . alternative 

measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the 

installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State and 

covered by the alternative program.‖ 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)(i). Mass DEP therefore 

cannot consider the emissions reductions occurring at Salem Harbor Units 1 through 3 

only for its BART alternative, but must include the enforceable emission reductions for 

these units in its analysis of source-specific BART as well. 

In sum, Mass DEP has overestimated the 2018 projected SO2 emissions under 

source-specific BART in Table 16 by at least 2,909 tons,13 thereby understating the 

reduction in SO2 that would be achieved under BART by this amount. And at the same 

time, Mass DEP has failed to acknowledge at least 9,998 tons of SO2 reductions from 

Salem Harbor that would occur under either BART or Mass DEP’s proposed BART 

alternative and improperly credited these emission reductions exclusively to the BART 

alternative. The net result is that, rather than the proposed BART alternative resulting in 

4,234 tons more SO2 emissions than would occur under source-specific BART, as Mass 

DEP claims, see Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 8, Mass DEP’s proposed alternative would 

result in at least 8,673 tons less reductions in SO2 in 2018 than under source-specific 

BART. Consequently, Mass DEP’s proposed BART alternative for SO2 is impermissible 

under 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2), which expressly requires that the BART alternative 

―achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.‖

ii. NOx

Likewise for NOx, Mass DEP both underestimates the emission reductions that 

would be achieved under source-specific BART and improperly credits its proposed 

BART alternative with achieving thousands of tons of NOx reductions from Salem 

Harbor that would occur under either scenario. 

According to Mass DEP, its proposed BART alternative results in 297 tons of 

additional NOx emissions as compared to source-specific BART. Mass. Reg. Haze SIP 

at 10. But for each of the units at Salem Harbor, Mass DEP improperly credits its BART 

alternative for emissions that are required to occur separate and apart from this SIP. For 

 

12 The consent decree, attached as Ex. 7, leaves Dominion the option to repower the units to a non-coal 

fuel. However, even if Dominion elected to repower to gas, the SO2 emissions from the plant would be 

negligible, and would come nowhere near offsetting the massive SO2 emission reductions that must 

necessarily occur pursuant to the consent decree by requiring Dominion to cease operating Salem Harbor as 

a coal-fired power plant. 

13 656 + 1,420 + 1,013 = 2,909. Using the 1,947 ton overestimate rather than the 1,420 ton overestimate for 

Brayton Point Unit 3 would yield a total overestimate of 656 + 1,947 + 1,013 = 3,616 tons. 
Mr. Keith

Page 17 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

Unit 4, Mass DEP unjustifiably projects emissions of 307 tons of NOx in 2018 in the 

BART benchmark despite the existence of an enforceable consent decree requiring the 

complete shutdown of Salem Harbor as a coal-fired power plant no later than June 1, 

2014. Reducing the BART NOx benchmark by just the 307 improperly added tons from 

Unit 4 would result in greater emission reductions under source-specific BART (13,127) 

than Mass DEP’s proposed BART alternative (13,117). 

Moreover, for Units 1 through 3 Mass DEP credits the emission reductions that 

must occur at these units only for its BART alternative despite the existence of the 

consent decree. This is improper. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)(i) (requiring 

―demonstration that the . . . alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources 

subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative program.‖). 

In addition, Mass DEP has not provided sufficient information in its regional haze 

SIP to evaluate or eliminate selective catalytic reduction (―SCR‖) or selective noncatalytic reduction (―SNCR‖) as control technologies for NOx for Brayton Point Unit 2. 

Unlike the other two coal units at Brayton Point, Unit 2 continues to lack any postcombustion controls for NOx. Although Mass DEP in an earlier draft of its BART SIP 

identified SCR and SNCR as mid-cost options with respective ranges of $1,000-1,500 

and $500-$700/ton of NOx removed, Mass DEP declined to require either of these 

controls for Brayton Point Unit 2. See BART Chapter of Draft Mass. Reg. Haze SIP 

(July 31, 2009) at 21. Mass DEP claimed instead that the estimated costs for SCR and 

SNCR for this unit were ―significantly higher than average because of physical space 

constraints‖ and asserted that that SNCR would achieve a control efficiency of only 15% 

(0.22 lb/MMBtu) at a cost of $5,929/ton NOx and $33.5 million/deciview, while SCR 

would achieve only 80% control efficiency (0.10 lb/MMBtu) at a cost of $20,670/ton 

NOx and $157.5 million/deciview. Id. at 24. The analyses leading to these costeffectiveness conclusions were not included in the draft or final versions of the SIP. 

As discussed above, it is necessary for Mass DEP to include the five-step BART 

analysis for Brayton Point Unit 2 in its regional haze SIP. Without being able to review 

the various assumptions that went into Mass DEP’s conclusions, it is not possible to fully 

evaluate their accuracy. However, even from the information provided there is reason to 

be concerned about the calculations leading to these conclusions. For example, the 

control efficiencies associated with SCR and SNCR are significantly understated. 

According to EPA’s Technical Support Document for the Transport Rule (Dkt. ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) at 7, Table 1, for SCR or SNCR, NOx emissions should be 

no higher than 0.06 lb/MMBtu. This is 40% below the presumed 0.10 lb/MMBtu 

assumed by Mass DEP, and even this emission rate would represent only a 75% control 

efficiency from the 0.23 lb/MMBtu NOx emission rate that Unit 2 achieved in 2007. See 

BART Chapter of Draft Mass. Reg. Haze SIP (July 31, 2009) at 20, Table 9. Given that 

SCR is typically designed to achieve at least 90% control efficiency, significantly lower 

emissions are likely. Indeed, permitting agencies have required lower NOx limits in 

recent BACT determinations, with many proposed and required BACT limits of 0.05 
Mr. Keith

Page 18 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

lb/MMBtu or lower. The Plant Washington PSD permit, issued in April 2010, requires 

that unit to meet a 0.03 lb/MMBtu annual average NOx limit as BACT.14 The Desert 

Rock PSD permit includes a NOx BACT limit as low as 0.035 lb/MMBtu.15 Recent 

National Park Service comments note emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu determined by 

U.S. EPA for the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico. See NPS, Comments on 

Proposed BART for Nebraska Public Power District Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 

and 2 (Mar. 30, 2012), at 5. Mass DEP also needs to justify its reliance on a15% 

assumed control efficiency for SNCR, which is below the 25-40% range identified by 

Mass DEP with no explanation offered. BART Chapter of Draft Mass. Reg. Haze SIP 

(July 31, 2009) at 22. Increasing the assumed control efficiency for SNCR would into 

this range would greatly improve its apparent cost-effectiveness. 

It also appears that Mass DEP took an unduly narrow view of the range of 

acceptable costs for NOx controls. Keeping in mind that the visibility impairment 

attributable to NOx from Brayton Point is very great—3.354 deciviews according to 

Mass DEP, see id. at 20, Table 9—even the inflated costs identified by Mass DEP in the 

2009 draft BART SIP are likely to be cost-effective for SNCR. As EPA recently 

concluded in the context of the Montana regional haze SIP for the Corette Power Plant in 

Billings, Montana, the $4,491/ton-NOx cost effectiveness for overfire air plus SCR ―is 

well within the range of values we have considered reasonable for BART and that states 

have considered reasonable for BART.‖ See Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule (signed) (Mar. 20, 2012) at 143-44. See also 

Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available Retrofit 

Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation; Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 

64221, 64227 (Oct. 19, 2010) (―[E]ven if EPA had decided to accept APS's worst-case 

cost estimates of $4,887 - $6,170/ton of NOx removed, EPA considers that estimate to be 

cost effective for the purpose of proposing an 80% reduction in NOx, achievable by 

installing and operating SCR as BART at [Four Corners].‖). Before reaching any 

ultimate conclusions about NOx BART for Brayton Point Unit 2, Mass DEP must 

provide a complete and transparent five-step BART analysis for Brayton Point Unit 2 that 

fully evaluates both SNCR and SCR as BART for NOx emissions from that unit. When 

this is done in a manner that accurately accounts for costs and incorporates the full 

emissions reductions achievable for SCR and SNCR, it is likely that BART will entail 

significantly greater NOx reductions from Unit 2. 

Because Mass DEP’s assumptions about SO2 and NOx reductions achievable 

under source-specific BART are dramatically understated and actual SO2 and NOx 

reductions under source-specific BART exceed those under Mass DEP’s BART 

alternative, Mass DEP’s BART alternative fails to meet the basic requirements of 40 

C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2). 

 

14 A copy of the Plant Washington permit is included as Ex. 8.

15

 The Desert Rock Energy Facility permit requires the facility to achieve, after a NOx optimization period, 

a NOx emission rate of 0.035 lb/MMBtu on a 365 day rolling average and an emission rate of 

0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. (Ex. 9). 
Mr. Keith

Page 19 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

4. Mass DEP Has Not Demonstrated That the Distribution of Emissions 

Under Its BART Alternative Is Substantially Similar to That Under BART

or Conducted Dispersion Modeling to Show the BART Alternative 

Results in Greater Reasonable Progress Toward Achieving Natural 

Baseline Visibility Conditions in Affected Class I Areas

Even if it were the case that the emission reductions under Mass DEP’s proposed 

BART alternative exceeded those under properly-conducted source-specific BART, Mass 

DEP must still demonstrate that the distribution of emissions under the alternative 

program are similar to those under source-specific BART, or, if they are not, must 

conduct dispersion modeling to show that the alternative program benefits visibility in 

Class I areas. While Mass DEP asserts that the distribution of emission reductions is 

similar, the logic it relies on in making this claim is flawed. And Mass DEP has not 

presented the requisite dispersion modeling to show that the alternative program 

achieves greater reasonable progress in Class I areas. 

Under EPA’s haze regulations, it is insufficient to simply compare the total 

emissions reductions from source-specific BART and a state’s BART alternative; the 

state must also take into consideration the location of these emission reductions. Where 

the distribution of emissions under BART and the alternative are substantially different, 

the state proposing to rely on a BART-alternative must conduct dispersion modeling to 

show the difference in visibility under each program for each impacted Class I area on 

the worst and best 20 percent of days. See id. The modeling will demonstrate greater 

reasonable progress only if: (1) ―Visibility does not decline in any Class I area‖; and (2) 

―There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average 

differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.‖ Id. 

§ 51.308(e)(3)(i)-(ii). 

Mass DEP does not offer dispersion modeling to compare the visibility 

improvements resulting from source-specific BART and its proposed BART alternative. 

Instead the agency claims that ―the Alternative to BART achieves greater emissions 

reductions than BART and the geographic distribution of emissions reductions is nearly 

identical since all of the units subject to BART are included in the Alternative to BART.‖ 

Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 8. But this reasoning is flawed. The mere fact that the 

subject to BART units are a subset of the alternative BART units says nothing about the 

similarity of emission reduction distributions under each scheme. Instead, to assess 

emission distributions Mass DEP would have to compare the magnitude of emission 

reductions at units common to both schemes and evaluate whether the additional units 

covered by the BART alternative are proximate to subject to BART sources. Mass DEP 

has not done so, and therefore cannot presume that its BART alternative produces a 

similar distribution of emission reductions. 
Mr. Keith

Page 20 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

C. The Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Impermissibly Fails to Include a 

Plan to Achieve the Reasonable Progress Goals Established by MANEVU for 2018

Mass DEP has not demonstrated that the state will achieve the reasonable 

progress goals established by MANE-VU for 2018. MANE-VU states adopted as a 

reasonable progress goal emission reductions of 90% from each of the 167 power plant 

stacks in the MANE-VU region whose sulfur dioxide (―SO2‖) emissions were 

determined to significantly impair visibility in one or more MANE-VU Class I areas. 

The Massachusetts regional haze SIP fails to put the state on a path to achieve those 

reductions, even under the optimistic forecasts made by Mass DEP. This must be 

remedied. 

In an effort to properly target controls on EGUs, MANE-VU conducted modeling 

to identify the hundred largest contributors to visibility impairment for each Class I are in 

the MANE-VU region. Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 13. Through this modeling, 

MANE-VU identified 167 EGU stacks to target for emission reductions, including stacks 

at ten units and five sources in Massachusetts: Brayton Point Units 1-3, Canal Station 

Units 1-2, Mount Tom Unit 1, Salem Harbor Units 1, 3, and 4, and Somerset Unit 8. Id.

at 13, 15. As Mass DEP recognized, ―[g]iven the magnitude of their potential impact, 

controlling emissions from these stacks is important to improving visibility at MANEVU

Class I areas.‖ Id. at 13. MANE-VU adopted as a reasonable progress goal the 

reduction in SO2 emission from these stacks by 90% from 2002 baseline levels by 2018. 

Id. 

Where a state has participated in a regional planning process, ―the State must 

ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.‖ 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

However, under Mass DEP’s proposed SIP, the state is not projected to achieve the 90% 

SO2 reduction target by 2018 at major EGUs. Instead, Mass DEP projects emission 

reductions of between 67 and 87% from the affected units. This is unacceptable given its 

regulatory obligation, and particularly in light of the levels of SO2 emissions costeffectively achievable from these units. 

As Mass DEP notes, many of the affected units in the state already have or are 

required to shortly install SO2 controls. Id. at 15-16. Brayton Point Units 1 and 2 have 

spray dry absorbers which, according to EIA Form 923 for 2010, were achieving 90 and 

91% control efficiencies at Units 1 and 2 respectively. These sulfur controls, however, 

were only in service 6,039 hours at Unit 1 and 5,475 hours at Unit 2 in 2010. Id. In 

order to ensure that these units meet the MANE-VU reasonable progress goal of 90% 

SO2 emission reductions by 2018, Mass DEP must require as an enforceable operating 

condition the continuous operation of the spray dry absorbers. Only then can Mass DEP 

ensure that these units will achieve and maintain the requisite 90% SO2 reductions. 
Mr. Keith

Page 21 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

In addition, Brayton Point Unit 3 is scheduled to install and operate a dry scrubber 

by 2013. Consequently, SO2 emission reductions on the order of 96-98% should be costeffectively achievable.16

 Mass DEP should include as an enforceable condition of Unit 

3’s operating permit a requirement that the unit continuously operate its dry scrubber and 

enforce at least 96% control efficiency from this unit. 

Maximizing the enforceable emission reductions at Brayton Point is particularly 

important in light of the enormous visibility impact that Brayton Point has on Maine’s 

Acadia National Park, an estimated 7.2 to 11.15 deciviews on the worst days depending 

on the modeling platform. See Mass. Reg. Haze SIP at 75, Table 12. 

Like Brayton Point Units 1 and 2, Mount Tom has installed at dry scrubber at its 

coal-fired unit. See Mass. Reg. Haze SIP Rev. at 15. Continuously operating this control 

technology should enable Mount Tom to achieve the 90% SO2 emission reduction from 

MANE-VU’s reasonable progress goals. Continuous operation of the dry scrubber at 

Mount Tom should therefore be included as an enforceable condition in Mount Tom’s 

operating permit. 

When coupled with an enforceable shutdown of all units at Salem Harbor and the 

shutdown of Somerset Unit 8, the requirement of continuous operation of SO2 controls at 

Brayton Point and Mount Tom should enable Massachusetts to meet its obligation of 

achieving an enforceable 90% reduction in SO2 emissions from the stacks covered by the 

MANE-VU reasonable progress goal. 

III.CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Mass DEP must conduct source-specific BART 

analyses before it can seek to rely on its proposed alternative to BART. The BART 

analysis for Brayton Point Unit 2 should carefully consider the requirement that Brayton 

Point install SCR at this unit. In addition, in order to comply with MANE-VU’s 

reasonable progress goals for SO2 emissions from EGUs, Mass DEP should include 

enforceable conditions in the operating permits for Brayton Point and Mount Tom 

requiring continuous operations of the SO2 emission controls at these units. 

Respectfully submitted,

Joshua Berman

Associate Attorney

Sierra Club

50 F St. NW, 8th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

 

16 See supra note 11.
Mr. Keith

Page 22 of 22

April 9, 2012

50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

Tel: (202) 650-6062

Fax: (202 ) 547-6009

Email: Josh.Berman@sierraclub.org

James McCaffrey, Director

Massachusetts Sierra Club

10 Milk Street, Suite 632

Boston MA 02108

Tel: (617) 423-5775

Fax: (617) 890-0338

www.sierraclubmass.org

Email: James.McCaffrey@SierraClub.org

Shanna Cleveland

Staff Attorney

Conservation Law Foundation

62 Summer Street

Boston, MA 02110

Tel: (617) 850-1716

Email: scleveland@clf.org