Massachusetts Regional Haze

State Implementation Plan

August 9, 2012

Executive Summary

The federal Clean Air Act, in sections 169A and 169B, contains
requirements for the protection of visibility in 156 national parks,
forests and wilderness areas that have been federally designated as
Class I areas and include some of our nation’s most treasured public
lands.  Unfortunately, enjoyment of the scenic vistas in these pristine
areas is significantly impaired by regional haze.  In the eastern U.S.,
the average visual range has decreased from 106 miles (under natural
conditions) to 24 - 44 miles today.

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
regulations known as the Regional Haze Rule, which requires states to
develop State Implementation Plans to reduce haze-causing pollution to
improve visibility in Class I areas.  The overall goal of the regional
haze program is to restore natural visibility conditions at Class I
areas by 2064.

Regional haze is caused by fine particle pollution that impairs
visibility over a large region by scattering or absorbing light.  Fine
particle pollution also adversely impacts human health, especially for
children, the elderly, and people with heart or respiratory conditions.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has
prepared this State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address Massachusetts
sources that contribute to regional haze.

Class I Areas

Although Massachusetts has no Class I areas, emissions from
Massachusetts sources contribute to visibility degradation in Class I
areas in several other states.  These include Lye Brook Wilderness Area
(Vermont), Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Presidential
Range-Dry River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Acadia National Park
(Maine), Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge (Maine), and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park (Maine/Canada).

In the first round of SIPs, states with Class I areas must set
reasonable progress goals for 2018 for improving visibility in their
Class I areas.  States affecting Class I areas (including Massachusetts)
must submit SIPs with long-term strategies for meeting the 2018
reasonable progress goals.  SIPs also must include control measures for
certain existing sources placed into operation between 1962 and 1977
(known as Best Available Retrofit Technology or BART).  States must
update their SIPs in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter and must
evaluate progress every 5 years.

Regional Planning Efforts

EPA established five regional planning organizations across the nation
to coordinate regional haze efforts.  Massachusetts is a member of one
of these regional organizations, the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU), comprised of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states, tribes,
and federal agencies.  Massachusetts developed this SIP by participating
in a regional planning process coordinated by MANE-VU.  Together, the
MANE-VU members established baseline and natural visibility conditions,
determined the primary contributors to regional haze, identified
reasonable progress goals and long-term strategies, and facilitated a
consultation process with states, other regional planning organizations,
and federal land managers.

As a MANE-VU member state, Massachusetts adopted the “Statement of
MANE-VU Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Within
MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress” at the MANE-VU Board
meeting on June 7, 2007.  This Statement outlines a strategy for
reducing regional haze at MANE-VU Class I areas for the first ten-year
planning period and forms the basis for the actions Massachusetts has
included in this SIP.

Elements of Massachusetts’ SIP for Regional Haze

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b), Massachusetts submits this SIP to
meet the requirements of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule.  This SIP addresses
the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d).  These actions include:

Best Available Retrofit Technology - EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires
the control of emissions from certain stationary sources placed into
operation between 1962 and 1977 through the implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) or an alternative to BART that
achieves greater emission reductions.  Massachusetts identified 5
electric generating unit (EGU) facilities, 1 municipal waste combustor,
and 1 industrial boiler as BART-eligible facilities whose 2002 emissions
(the baseline year for this SIP) contributed significantly to visibility
impairment.  For the EGUs, Massachusetts has adopted an Alternative to
BART program that achieves greater emissions reductions than
source-by-source BART.  For the municipal waste combustor, Massachusetts
has made a source-specific BART determination.  For the industrial
boiler, no BART determination is needed since the facility has accepted
an emissions cap that makes it no longer BART-eligible.

Targeted EGU strategy - MANE-VU identified 167 EGU stacks at power
plants whose sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions significantly impaired
visibility at one or more MANE-VU Class I areas, including stacks at 5
Massachusetts power plants.  Massachusetts agreed to reduce SO2
emissions from these specific power plants stacks by 90 percent from
2002 levels by 2018, or to pursue equivalent, alternative measures.
Each of these EGUs already has reduced SO2 emissions due to
Massachusetts air quality regulations.  Based on MassDEP’s existing
regulations, and additional reductions that will result from MassDEP’s
Alternative to BART, EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, and EGU
closures, MassDEP estimates that SO2 emissions in 2018 will be up to 87%
lower than 2002 emissions.

Sulfur in Fuel Oil - MANE-VU determined that states could
cost-effectively achieve significant reductions in SO2 emissions by
requiring lower sulfur content fuel oils, including #2 distillate oil
(home heating oil) and #4 and #6 residual oils (used in power plants and
industrial and commercial boilers).  Refineries already have made
significant capital investments to produce low and ultra-low sulfur
diesel, which is the same product as #2 distillate oil, and lower sulfur
residual oils also are readily available.  To implement the regional
MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy, MassDEP has adopted regulations
that lower allowable sulfur content in fuel oils, ultimately achieving
15 parts per million sulfur for #2 oil and 0.5 percent sulfur by weight
for #4 and #6 residual oils by 2018.

The regulatory and technical basis for this proposed SIP is found in
Sections 1 – 7.  The prescriptive elements of this proposed SIP –
BART, reasonable progress goals, and long-term strategy – are found in
Sections 8 – 10.

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-5" \h \z    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869099"  Executive Summary
 PAGEREF _Toc329869099 \h  ii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869100"  Table of Contents	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869100 \h  ii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869101"  List of Figures	  PAGEREF _Toc329869101
\h  ii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869102"  List of Tables	  PAGEREF _Toc329869102
\h  ii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869103"  List of Appendices	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869103 \h  ii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869104"  Acronyms and Abbreviations	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869104 \h  ii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869105"  1.	Background and Overview of the
Federal Regional Haze Regulation	  PAGEREF _Toc329869105 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869106"  1.2.	The Basics of Haze	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869106 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869107"  1.3.	Regulatory Framework	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869107 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869108"  History of Federal Regional Haze Rule
PAGEREF _Toc329869108 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869109"  State Implementation Plan	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869109 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869110"  2.	Regional Planning and State/Tribe and
Federal Land Manager Coordination	  PAGEREF _Toc329869110 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869111"  2.2.	Regional Planning	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869111 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869112"  2.3.	Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU)	  PAGEREF _Toc329869112 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869113"  2.4.	Class I Areas Within MANE-VU
PAGEREF _Toc329869113 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869114"  2.5.	Area of Influence for MANE-VU Class
I Areas	  PAGEREF _Toc329869114 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869115"  2.6.	Massachusetts Impact on MANE-VU
Class I Areas	  PAGEREF _Toc329869115 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869116"  2.7.	Regional Haze Planning after the
Remand of CAIR	  PAGEREF _Toc329869116 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869117"  2.8.	Regional Consultation and the
“Ask”	  PAGEREF _Toc329869117 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869118"  2.9.	Meeting the “Ask” – MANE-VU
States	  PAGEREF _Toc329869118 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869119"  2.10.	Meeting the “Ask” –
Massachusetts	  PAGEREF _Toc329869119 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869120"  2.11.	Meeting the “Ask” – States
Outside of MANE-VU	  PAGEREF _Toc329869120 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869121"  2.12.	Technical Ramifications of
Differing Approaches	  PAGEREF _Toc329869121 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869122"  2.13.	Federal Land Manager Coordination
 PAGEREF _Toc329869122 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869123"  3.	Assessment of Baseline AND Natural
Conditions	  PAGEREF _Toc329869123 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869124"  3.2.	Calculation Methodology	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869124 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869125"  3.3.	MANE-VU Baseline and Natural
Visibility	  PAGEREF _Toc329869125 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869126"  4.	Monitoring Strategy	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869126 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869127"  4.2.	IMPROVE Program Objectives
PAGEREF _Toc329869127 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869128"  4.3.	Monitoring Information for
Massachusetts	  PAGEREF _Toc329869128 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869129"  4.4.	Monitoring Information for MANE-VU
Class I Areas Impacted by Emissions from Massachusetts	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869129 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869130"  Acadia National Park, Maine	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869130 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869131"  Great Gulf Wilderness Area, New
Hampshire	  PAGEREF _Toc329869131 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869132"  Presidential Range - Dry River
Wilderness, New Hampshire	  PAGEREF _Toc329869132 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869133"  Lye Brook Wilderness, Vermont	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869133 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869134"  Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Maine
PAGEREF _Toc329869134 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869135"  Roosevelt/Campobello International Park,
New Brunswick, Canada	  PAGEREF _Toc329869135 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869136"  5.	Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc329869136 \h
2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869137"  5.2.	Meteorology	  PAGEREF _Toc329869137
\h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869138"  5.3.	Emissions Data Preparations
PAGEREF _Toc329869138 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869139"  5.4.	Model Platforms	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869139 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869140"  CMAQ	  PAGEREF _Toc329869140 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869141"  REMSAD	  PAGEREF _Toc329869141 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869142"  CALGRID	  PAGEREF _Toc329869142 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869143"  CALPUFF	  PAGEREF _Toc329869143 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869144"  6.	Emissions Inventory	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869144 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869145"  6.2.	Baseline and Future Year Emission
Inventories for Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc329869145 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869146"  MANE-VU Regional Baseline Inventory
PAGEREF _Toc329869146 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869147"  Massachusetts Baseline Inventory
PAGEREF _Toc329869147 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869148"  Future Year Emission Control Inventories
  PAGEREF _Toc329869148 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869149"  6.3.	Emission Processor Selection and
Configuration	  PAGEREF _Toc329869149 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869150"  6.4.	Inventories for Specific Source
Types	  PAGEREF _Toc329869150 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869151"  Stationary Point Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869151 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869152"  6.5.	Electric Generating Units	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869152 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869153"  6.6.	Non-EGU Point Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869153 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869154"  Stationary Area Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869154 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869155"  Non-Road Mobile Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869155 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869156"  On-Road Mobile Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869156 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869157"  Biogenic Emission Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869157 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869158"  6.7.	Summary of MANE-VU 2002 and 2018
Emissions Inventory	  PAGEREF _Toc329869158 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869159"  6.8.	Summary of Massachusetts 2002 Base
and 2018 Projected Emissions and Reductions	  PAGEREF _Toc329869159 \h
2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869160"  7.	Understanding the Sources of
Visibility-Impairing Pollutants	  PAGEREF _Toc329869160 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869161"  7.2.	Visibility-Impairing Pollutants
PAGEREF _Toc329869161 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869162"  Contributing States and Regions
PAGEREF _Toc329869162 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869163"  7.3.	Emissions Sources and
Characteristics	  PAGEREF _Toc329869163 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869164"  Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869164 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869165"  Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
PAGEREF _Toc329869165 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869166"  Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869166 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869167"  Primary Particle Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
  PAGEREF _Toc329869167 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869168"  Ammonia Emissions (NH3)	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869168 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869169"  8.	Best Available Retrofit Technology
PAGEREF _Toc329869169 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869170"  8.2.	BART Overview	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869170 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869171"  8.3.	BART-Eligible Sources in
Massachusetts	  PAGEREF _Toc329869171 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869172"  8.4.	Determination of which
BART-eligible sources are subject to BART	  PAGEREF _Toc329869172 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869173"  8.5.	Pollutants Covered by BART
PAGEREF _Toc329869173 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869174"  8.6.	Modeling of BART Visibility Impacts
  PAGEREF _Toc329869174 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869175"  8.7.	Visibility Impacts of Massachusetts
BART-Eligible Sources	  PAGEREF _Toc329869175 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869176"  8.8.	Overview of Massachusetts
BART-Eligible Sources	  PAGEREF _Toc329869176 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869177"  “Cap Out” Source	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869177 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869178"  Sources that Contribute to Visibility
Impairment	  PAGEREF _Toc329869178 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869179"  8.9.	BART Determination for Wheelabrator
- Saugus	  PAGEREF _Toc329869179 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869180"  8.10.	Alternative to BART for EGUs
PAGEREF _Toc329869180 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869181"  8.11.	BART for PM10 Emissions	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869181 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869182"  8.12.	Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment	  PAGEREF _Toc329869182 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869183"  9.	Reasonable Progress Goals	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869183 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869184"  10.	Long-Term Strategy	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869184 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869185"  10.2.	Overview of the Long-Term Strategy
Development Process	  PAGEREF _Toc329869185 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869186"  10.3.	Technical Basis for Strategy
Development	  PAGEREF _Toc329869186 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869187"  10.4.	2018 Emission Reductions Due to
Ongoing Air Pollution Controls	  PAGEREF _Toc329869187 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869188"  EGU Emissions Controls Expected by 2018
 PAGEREF _Toc329869188 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869189"  Non-EGU Point Source Controls Expected
by 2018	  PAGEREF _Toc329869189 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869190"  Area Source Controls Expected by 2018
PAGEREF _Toc329869190 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869191"  Onroad Mobile Source Controls Expected
by 2018	  PAGEREF _Toc329869191 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869192"  Nonroad Sources Controls Expected by
2018	  PAGEREF _Toc329869192 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869193"  Additional Controls Analyzed as Part of
Ozone SIPs	  PAGEREF _Toc329869193 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869194"  10.5.	Additional Reasonable Strategies
PAGEREF _Toc329869194 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869195"  Rationale for Determining Reasonable
Controls	  PAGEREF _Toc329869195 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869196"  MANE-VU Statement of June 20, 2007
PAGEREF _Toc329869196 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869197"  Best Available Retrofit Technology
PAGEREF _Toc329869197 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869198"  Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869198 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869199"  Targeted EGU Strategy	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869199 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869200"  10.6.	Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules	  PAGEREF _Toc329869200 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869201"  10.7.	Measures to Mitigate the Impacts
of Construction Activities	  PAGEREF _Toc329869201 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869202"  10.8.	Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management	  PAGEREF _Toc329869202 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869203"  Regulation of Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
PAGEREF _Toc329869203 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869204"  10.9.	Estimated Impacts of Long-Term
Strategy on Visibility	  PAGEREF _Toc329869204 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869205"  Additional Measures Included in Best and
Final Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc329869205 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869206"  Visibility Impacts of Additional
Reasonable Controls from Best and Final Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc329869206
\h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869207"  10.10.	Massachusetts’ Share of
Emissions Reduction	  PAGEREF _Toc329869207 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869208"  10.11.	Emission Limitations and
Compliance Schedules	  PAGEREF _Toc329869208 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869209"  10.12.	Enforceability of Emission
Limitations and Control Measures	  PAGEREF _Toc329869209 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869210"  10.13.	Prevention of Significant
Deterioration	  PAGEREF _Toc329869210 \h  2

List of Figures

  TOC \h \z \c "Figure"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869211"  Figure 1:
Locations of Federally Protected Mandatory Class I Areas	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869211 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869212"  Figure 2: US EPA Designated Regional
Planning Organizations	  PAGEREF _Toc329869212 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869213"  Figure 3: Class I Areas within MANE-VU
PAGEREF _Toc329869213 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869214"  Figure 4: Map of CAIR States	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869214 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869215"  Figure 5: MANE-VU Principles for
Regional Haze Planning	  PAGEREF _Toc329869215 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869216"  Figure 7: Acadia National Park on Clear
and Hazy Days	  PAGEREF _Toc329869216 \h  2

 HYPERLINK "July 2012 Draft Final Regional Haze SIP.doc" \l
"_Toc329869217" Figure 6: Map of Acadia National Park Showing	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869217 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869218"  Figure 8: Map of Great Gulf and
Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness Areas Showing IMPROVE Monitor
Location	  PAGEREF _Toc329869218 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869219"  Figure 9: Great Gulf Wilderness Area on
Clear and Hazy Days	  PAGEREF _Toc329869219 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869220"  Figure 10: Location of Lye Brook
Wilderness Monitor	  PAGEREF _Toc329869220 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869221"  Figure 11: Lye Brook Wilderness Area on
Clear and Hazy Days	  PAGEREF _Toc329869221 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869222"  Figure 12: Map of the Baring and Edmunds
Divisions of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Showing the IMPROVE
Monitor Location	  PAGEREF _Toc329869222 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869223"  Figure 13: Moosehorn Wilderness Area on
a Clear and a Hazy Day	  PAGEREF _Toc329869223 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869224"  Figure 14: Map of Roosevelt/Campobello
International Park	  PAGEREF _Toc329869224 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869225"  Figure 15: Roosevelt/Campobello
International Park on Clear and Hazy Days	  PAGEREF _Toc329869225 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869226"  Figure 16: Modeling domains used in
MANE-VU air quality modeling studies with CMAQ.	  PAGEREF _Toc329869226
\h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869227"  Figure 17: Examples of processed
model-ready emissions: a) SO2 from Point, b) NO2 from Area, c) NO2 from
On-road, d) NO2 from Non-road, e) ISOP from Biogenic, f) SO2 from all
source categories	  PAGEREF _Toc329869227 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869228"  Figure 18: Contributions to PM2.5
Extinction at Seven Class I Sites	  PAGEREF _Toc329869228 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869229"  Figure 19: Ranked state percent sulfate
contributions to Northeast Class I receptors based on emissions divided
by distance (Q/d) results	  PAGEREF _Toc329869229 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869230"  Figure 20: Ranked state percent sulfate
contributions to Mid-Atlantic Class I receptors based on emissions
divided by distance (Q/d) results	  PAGEREF _Toc329869230 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869231"  Figure 21: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Brigantine	  PAGEREF _Toc329869231 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869232"  Figure 22: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Lye Brook	  PAGEREF _Toc329869232 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869233"  Figure 23: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Great Gulf and Presidential Range/Dry River
Wilderness	  PAGEREF _Toc329869233 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869234"  Figure 24: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Acadia	  PAGEREF _Toc329869234 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869235"  Figure 25: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Moosehorn and Roosevelt Campobello International
Park	  PAGEREF _Toc329869235 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869236"  Figure 26: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Shenandoah	  PAGEREF _Toc329869236 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869237"  Figure 27: Modeled 2002 Contributions to
Sulfate by State at Dolly Sods	  PAGEREF _Toc329869237 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869238"  Figure 28: Trends in Annual Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869238 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869239"  Figure 29: 2002 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
(SO2) by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869239 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869240"  Figure 30: 2002 Volatile Organic Carbon
(VOC) Emissions by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869240 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869241"  Figure 31: Trends in Annual Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx) Emissions by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869241 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869242"  Figure 32: 2002 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
Emissions by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869242 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869243"  Figure 33: Trends in Primary Coarse
Particle (PM10) Emissions by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869243 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869244"  Figure 34: Trends in Primary Fine
Particle (PM2.5) Emissions by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869244 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869245"  Figure 35: Wood Smoke Source Regional
Aggregations	  PAGEREF _Toc329869245 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869246"  Figure 36: 2002 Primary PM10 Emissions
by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869246 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869247"  Figure 37: 2002 Primary PM2.5 Emissions
by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869247 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869248"  Figure 38: Trends in Ammonia Emissions
by State	  PAGEREF _Toc329869248 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869249"  Figure 39: 2002 NH3 Emissions by State
PAGEREF _Toc329869249 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869250"  Figure 40: Average Change in 24-hr PM2.5
Due to Low Sulfur Fuel Strategies Relative to OTB/OTW (g/m3)
PAGEREF _Toc329869250 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869251"  Figure 41: 167 Targeted EGU Stacks
Affecting MANE-VU Class I Areas	  PAGEREF _Toc329869251 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869252"  Figure 42: Average Change in 24-hr PM2.5
due to 90 Percent Reduction in SO2 Emissions from 167 EGU Stacks
Affecting MANE-VU	  PAGEREF _Toc329869252 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869253"  Figure 43: Projected Visibility
Improvement at Acadia National Park Based on 2018 Visibility Projections
  PAGEREF _Toc329869253 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869254"  Figure 44: Projected Visibility
Improvement at Great Gulf Wilderness Area Based on 2018 Visibility
Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc329869254 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869255"  Figure 45: Projected Visibility
Improvement at Lye Brook Wilderness Area Based on 2018 Visibility
Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc329869255 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869256"  Figure 46: Projected Visibility
Improvement at Moosehorn Wilderness Area Based on 2018 Visibility
Modeling 	  PAGEREF _Toc329869256 \h  2

 List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869257"  Table 1: MANE-VU
Members	  PAGEREF _Toc329869257 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869258"  Table 2: States that Contribute to
Visibility Impairment at One or More of the MANE-VU Class I Areas of
Acadia, Moosehorn, Roosevelt-Campobello, Great Gulf, Presidential
Range-Dry River, Lye Brook, and Brigantine	  PAGEREF _Toc329869258 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869259"  Table 3: Class I Federal Areas Affected
by Emissions from Massachusetts	  PAGEREF _Toc329869259 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869260"  Table 4: IMPROVE Monitors for MANE-VU
Class I Areas	  PAGEREF _Toc329869260 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869261"  Table 5: Summary of Baseline Visibility
and Natural Visibility Conditions for the 20 Percent Best and 20 Percent
Worst Visibility Days at MANE-VU Class I Areas	  PAGEREF _Toc329869261
\h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869262"  Table 6: MANE-VU 2002 Emissions
Inventory Summary (tons)	  PAGEREF _Toc329869262 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869263"  Table 7: MANE-VU 2018 Emissions
Inventory Summary (in tons)	  PAGEREF _Toc329869263 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869264"  Table 8: Massachusetts 2002 Base Year
and 2018 Projected Emissions and Reductions (in tons)	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869264 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869265"  Table 9: Percent of Annual Average
Modeled Sulfate Due to Emissions from Listed States	  PAGEREF
_Toc329869265 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869266"  Table 10: BART-Eligible Facilities in
Massachusetts	  PAGEREF _Toc329869266 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869267"  Table 11: CALPUFF Visibility Modeling
Results using MM5 Platform	  PAGEREF _Toc329869267 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869268"  Table 12: CALPUFF Visibility Modeling
Results using NWS Platform	  PAGEREF _Toc329869268 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869269"  Table 13: Massachusetts Sources with De
Minimis Visibility Impact	  PAGEREF _Toc329869269 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869270"  Table 14: Overview of BART-Eligible EGUs
& MWCs	  PAGEREF _Toc329869270 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869271"  Table 15: MANE-VU BART Workgroup
Recommended BART Emission Limits for SO2 and NOx for non-CAIR EGUs
PAGEREF _Toc329869271 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869272"  Table 16: BART Benchmark for SO2
PAGEREF _Toc329869272 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869273"  Table 17:  Alternative to BART for SO2
PAGEREF _Toc329869273 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869274"  Table 18: BART Benchmark for NOx
PAGEREF _Toc329869274 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869275"  Table 19:  Alternative to BART for NOx
PAGEREF _Toc329869275 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869276"  Table 20: Massachusetts PM10 BART
Sources, Emissions and Controls	  PAGEREF _Toc329869276 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869277"  Table 21: Uniform Rate of Progress
Calculation (all values in deciviews)	  PAGEREF _Toc329869277 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869278"  Table 22: Reasonable Progress Goals -
20% Worst Days (all values in deciviews)	  PAGEREF _Toc329869278 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869279"  Table 23: Reasonable Progress Goals -
20% Best Days (all values in deciviews)	  PAGEREF _Toc329869279 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869280"  Table 24: Summary of Results from the
Four-Factor Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc329869280 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc329869281"  Table 25: Massachusetts Targeted EGUs
PAGEREF _Toc329869281 \h  2

List of Appendices

Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United
States: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Contribution
Assessment. NESCAUM, August 2006.

Final Interim Principles for Regional Planning. MANE-VU, June 2006.

  Statement(s) of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States/EPA Within/Outside
MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress. MANE-VU, June 7, 2006.

  Federal Land Manager and EPA Comments and State Responses on
Pre-Public Hearing Draft Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP (Appendices D-1
– D5), Public Comments and State Responses on Public Hearing Draft SIP
(Appendices D6 – D15), and Public Comments and State Responses on
Public Hearing Draft SIP Revision (Appendices D16 – D31).

  Baseline and Natural Background Visibility Conditions: Considerations
and Proposed Approach to the Calculation of Baseline and Natural
Background Visibility Conditions at MANE-VU Class I Areas. NESCAUM,
December 2006.

  MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals: Model Performance
Evaluation, Pollution Apportionment, and Control Measure Benefits.
NESCAUM, February 2008.

2018 Visibility Projections. NESCAUM, March 2008.

  Meteorological Modeling Using Penn State/NCAR 5th Generation Mesoscale
Model (MM5). NYSDEC TSD-1a, February 2006.

  Emissions Processing for the Revised 2002 OTC Regional and Urban 12 km
Base Case Simulations. NYSDEC TSD-1c, September 2006.

  CMAQ Model Performance and Assessment, 8-Hr OTC Ozone Modeling. NYSDEC
TSD-1e, February 2006.

  Eight Hour Ozone Modeling using the SMOKE/CMAQ system. NYSDEC TSD-1d,
February 2006.

  Modeling Protocol for the OTC CALGRID Screening-Level Modeling
Platform for the Evaluation of Ozone. NHDES, May 2007.

  Technical Support Document for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories,
Version 3. E.H. Pechan & Associates for MANE-VU, November 2006.

  Development of Emissions Projections for 2009, 2012, 2018 for Non-EGU
Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region. MACTEC, February
2007.

  Development of MANE-VU Mobile Source Projection Inventories for
SMOKE/MOBILE6 Application. NESCAUM, June 2006.

  Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States.
NESCAUM, January 2001.

  Technical Support Document on Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management in the MANE-VU Region. MANE-VU, September 2006.

  Five Factor Analysis of BART Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for
Conducting BART Determinations. NESCAUM, June 2007.

R-1.	CalPuff BART Modeling Results (MM5)

R-2.	CalPuff BART Modeling Results (NWS)

  Comparison of CAIR and CAIR Plus Proposal using the Integrated
Planning Model®. ICF, May 2007.

  Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I
Areas. MACTEC, July 2007.

T-1. Addendum for Residual Oil.  MANE-VU, April 2011.

  Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources:
Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper and
Pulp Facilities. NESCAUM, March 2005.

  The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality Problems
in the MANE-VU Region:  A Conceptual Description. NESCAUM, November
2006.

  Documentation of 2018 Emissions from Electric Generating Units in the
Eastern U.S. for MANE-VU’s Regional Haze Modeling. Alpine Geophysics,
April 2008.

  Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the Visibility
Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region. MANE-VU,
October 2006.

  Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States:  An Overview of
Benefits, Costs, and Implementation Issues.  NESCAUM, December 2005.

  SNCR Optimization Report, Wheelabrator Saugus Inc., WTE Units 1 & 2,
Two 750 TPD MSW Combustors. Fuel Tech, January 2010.

AA. Public Health Benefits of Reducing Ground-level Ozone and Fine
Particle matter in the Northeast U.S. – A Benefits Mapping and
Analysis Program (BenMAP) Study. NESCAUM, January 2008.

BB.  Approval of General Electric Aviation NOx Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Modified Emission Control Plan.  MassDEP,
March 2011.

CC.  310 CMR 7.26(50) through (54): Outdoor Hydronic Heaters.  MassDEP,
December 2008.

DD.  310 CMR 7.29, Emissions Standards for Power Plants. MassDEP

EE.   Mt. Tom Station - Amended Emission Control Plan Final Approval.
MassDEP, May 2009.

FF.   Salem Harbor – Amended Emission Control Plan Final Approval.
MassDEP, March 2012.

GG.  Brayton Point – Amended Emission Control Plan Final Approval.
MassDEP, April 2012.

HH.  Somerset Power – Letter Revoking Permits. MassDEP, June 2011.

II.     310 CMR 7.05: Fuels All Districts. MassDEP, August 2012.

JJ.	Wheelabrator-Saugus – Emission Control Plan Modified Final
Approval. MassDEP, March 2012

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACAD1		Acadia National Park IMPROVE monitor

BART		Best Available Retrofit Technology

BEIS-3		Biogenic Emission Inventory System (3 version 0.9)

BOTW 		Beyond on the Way (controls)

BTU 		British Thermal Unit

CAA 		Clean Air Act

CAIR 		Clean Air Interstate Rule

CALGRID	California Grid Model

CEED		Center for Energy and Economic Development

CENRAP	Central Regional Air Planning Association

CERR 		Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule

CFR 		Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ 		Community Multi-scale Air Quality Modeling System

CO 		Carbon Monoxide

dv 		Deciview

EGU 		Electric Generating Unit

EPA 		Environmental Protection Agency

FLM		Federal Land Manager

GCVTC		Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

GRGU1	Great Gulf Wilderness Area IMPROVE monitor; also monitors
Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area

HAP		Hazardous Air Pollutant

ICI 		Industrial/Commercial/Institutional

IMPROVE	Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IPM		Integrated Planning Model

LADCO		Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

LYBR1		Lye Brook Wilderness Area IMPROVE monitor

MassDEP	Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MANE-VU 	Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

MARAMA 	Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

MM5 		Mesoscale Meteorological Model

MMBtu 		Million British Thermal Units

MOOS1	Moosehorn Wilderness Area IMPROVE monitor; also monitors
Roosevelt/Campobello International Park

MOBILE6.2 	EPA’s On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Estimation Model

MRPO		Midwest Regional Planning Organization

MW 		Megawatt

MWh 		Megawatt Hour

MWC		Municipal Waste Combustor

N/A		Not Applicable

NAAQS		National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCAR		National Center for Atmospheric Research

NEI		National Emissions Inventory

NET		National Emissions Trend

NESCAUM 	Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NH3		Ammonia

NOx 		Oxides of Nitrogen

NONROAD	EPA’s Non-Road Emissions Estimation Model 2005 Version

NSPS 		New Source Performance Standards

NTI		National Toxics Inventory

NYSDEC 	New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NWS		National Weather Service

OC		Organic Carbon

OTC 		Ozone Transport Commission

OTB/W		On the Books/On the Way (controls)

PM2.5 	Fine Particulate Matter; particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers

PM10 		Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers

QA		Quality Assurance

RACT		Reasonably Available Control Technology

REMSAD	Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition

RFP 		Reasonable Further Progress

RH		Regional Haze

RPO		Regional Planning Organization

SIP		State Implementation Plan

SLAMS/ 	State & Local Air Monitoring System and

NAMS		National Air Monitoring System

SCC		Source Category Code

SMOKE		Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

SMP		Smoke Management Plan

SOA 		Secondary Organic Aerosol

SO2		Sulfur Dioxide

TPY		Tons per year

TSC		Technical Support Committee (of MANE-VU)

TSD		Technical Support Document

USEPA		United States Environmental Protection Agency

UMD		University of Maryland

VIEWS		Visibility Information Exchange Web System

VISTAS		Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast

VOC		Volatile Organic Compound

WRAP		Western Regional Air Partnership

Background and Overview of the Federal Regional Haze Regulation

The Basics of Haze

Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by the cumulative emission
of air pollutants from numerous sources over a wide geographic area.
The primary cause of regional haze is the scattering and absorption of
light by fine particles.  Fine particle air pollution also adversely
impacts human health, especially the respiratory and cardiovascular
systems of people at increased risk, including children, the elderly,
and people with heart or respiratory conditions.

Regional haze obscures views in pristine areas such as national parks,
forests and wilderness areas (156 of which have been designated Federal
Class I areas).  In parks in the eastern U.S., the average visual range
has decreased from 106 miles (under natural conditions) to 24- 44 miles
today.

Visibility impairment can be quantified using three different, but
mathematically related measures: visual range (i.e., how far one can
see); light extinction per unit distance (e.g., Mm-1); and deciviews
(dv), a useful metric for measuring increments of visibility change that
are just perceptible to the human eye.  Each can be estimated from the
ambient concentrations of individual particle constituents, taking into
account their unique light-scattering (or absorbing) properties, and
making appropriate adjustments for relative humidity.  Assuming natural
conditions, visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is estimated to
be about 106 miles, which corresponds to 23 Mm-1 or 8 dv.  Under current
polluted conditions in the region, average visibility ranges from 24
miles in the south to 44 miles in the north; these values correspond to
103 Mm-1 to 55 Mm-1 or 23 to 17 dv, respectively.  On the worst 20
percent of days, visibility impairment in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
Class I areas ranges from 21.7 to 29 dv (a visual range of about 30 to
14 miles).

The fine particles that commonly cause hazy conditions in the eastern
U.S. are primarily composed of sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon,
elemental carbon (soot), and crustal material (e.g., soil dust, sea
salt, etc.).  Sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon are secondary
pollutants that form in the atmosphere from precursor pollutants,
primarily sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), respectively.  Sulfate, formed from SO2
emissions, is the dominant contributor to fine particle pollution
throughout the eastern U.S. and therefore most eastern regional control
efforts are directed at reducing SO2 emissions.

Regulatory Framework

In amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1977, Congress added Section
169 (42 U.S.C. 7491) setting forth the following national visibility
goal:

Congress hereby declares 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 man-made
air pollution.

The "Class I" designation was given to each of 158 areas in existence as
of August 1977 that met the following criteria:

all national parks greater than 6000 acres,

all national wilderness areas and national memorial parks greater than
5000 acres, and

one international park.

In 1980, Bradwell Bay, Florida, and Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin, were
excluded for purposes of visibility protection as federal Class I areas.
 Today, 156 national park and wilderness areas remain as Class I
visibility protection areas (  REF _Ref203279927 \h  Figure 1 ).

Over the following years, modest steps were taken to address the
visibility problems in Class I areas.  The control measures taken mainly
addressed “plume blight” from specific pollution sources and did
little to address regional haze issues in the Eastern United States.

When the CAA was amended in 1990, Congress added Section 169B (42 U.S.C.
7492), authorizing further research and regular assessments of the
progress made.  In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that
“current scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are
available for taking regulatory action to improve and protect
visibility.”

In addition to authorizing creation of visibility transport commissions
and setting forth their duties, Section 169B(f) of the CAA mandated
creation of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) to
make recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for the region affecting the visibility of the Grand Canyon National
Park.  The GCVTC submitted its report to EPA in June 1996, following
four years of research and policy development.  This report, as well as
the many research reports prepared by the Commission, contributed
invaluable information to EPA in its development of regulations for
visibility improvement.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 : Locations of Federally Protected
Mandatory Class I Areas

History of Federal Regional Haze Rule

The federal requirements that states must meet to achieve national
visibility goals are contained in Title 40: Protection of Environment,
Part 51 – Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal Of
Implementation Plans, Subpart P – Protection of Visibility (40 CFR
51.300-309).  Known more simply as the Regional Haze Rule, these
regulations were adopted on July 1, 1999, and went into effect on August
30, 1999.  The rule seeks to address the combined visibility effects of
various pollution sources over a large geographic region.  This
wide-reaching pollution net means that many states – even those
without Class I Areas – are required to participate in haze reduction
efforts.  The specific requirements for States’ Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) are set forth in 40 CFR 51.308, Regional
Haze Program Requirements.

In consultation with the states and tribes, EPA designated five Regional
Planning Organizations (RPOs)  to assist with the coordination and
cooperation needed to address the haze issue. The Mid-Atlantic /
Northeast states, including the District of Columbia, formed the
Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU).

EPA’s adoption of the Regional Haze Rule was challenged by the
American Corn Growers Association.  On May 24, 2002, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, D.C. District Court, ruled on the challenge and remanded to EPA
the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) provisions of the rule,
but denied industry’s challenge to the haze rule’s goals of natural
visibility and no degradation requirements.  On June 15, 2005, EPA
finalized a rule addressing the court’s remand.

On February 18, 2005, the Appeals Court issued another ruling vacating
the Regional Haze Rule in part and sustaining it in part.  For more
information see Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, #
03-1222, (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2005; “CEED v. EPA”).  In this case,
the court granted a petition challenging provisions of the Regional Haze
Rule governing the optional emissions trading program for certain
Western States and Tribes (the WRAP Annex Rule).

EPA’s subsequent final rulemaking provided the following changes to
the Regional Haze Regulations:

Revised the regulatory text in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i) in response to the
CEED court’s remand to remove the requirement that the determination
of BART “benchmark” be based on cumulative visibility analyses, and
to clarify the process for making such determinations, including the
application of BART presumptions for Electric Generating Units (EGUs) as
contained in Appendix Y to 40 CFR 51.

Added new regulatory text in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi) to provide minimum
elements for cap and trade programs in lieu of BART.

Revised regulatory text in 40 CFR 51.309 to reconcile the optional
framework for certain Western States and Tribes to implement the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission with
the CEED decision.

State Implementation Plan

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b), Massachusetts submits this SIP to
meet the requirements of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule.  This SIP addresses
the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d).  In addition, this SIP
addresses requirements pertaining to regional planning and state/tribe
and Federal Land Manager (FLM) coordination and consultation.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), Massachusetts also commits to making
periodic updates to the Massachusetts emissions inventory (Section 6).
Massachusetts proposes to complete these updates to coincide with the
progress reports.

40 CFR 51.308(f) requires Massachusetts to submit revisions to its
Regional Haze SIP every ten years.  The first milestone for reasonable
progress is 2018.  Massachusetts commits to submitting a revision to its
Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018.

40 CFR 51.308(g) requires Massachusetts to submit a report to EPA every
5 years that evaluates progress toward the reasonable progress goal for
each Class I area located within the state and each mandatory Class I
area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from
within the state.  Massachusetts commits to submitting the first
progress report in 2013.

Finally, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), Massachusetts will submit a
determination of adequacy of its Regional Haze SIP whenever a progress
report is submitted.

Regional Planning and State/Tribe and Federal Land Manager Coordination

Regional Planning

In 1999, EPA and affected states/tribes agreed to create five Regional
Planning Organizations (RPOs) to facilitate interstate coordination on
Regional Haze SIPs.    REF _Ref196884438 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Figure 2
shows a map of the five RPOs: MANE-VU (Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union), VISTAS (Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of
the Southeast), MRPO (Midwest Regional Planning Organization), CenRAP
(Central Regional Air Planning Association), and WRAP (Western Regional
Air Partnership).  As part of regional planning, the RPOs and states and
tribes within each RPO are required to consult on the development of
emission management strategies.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 : US EPA Designated Regional Planning
Organizations

Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)

MANE-VU’s work is managed by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and
carried out by the OTC, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA), and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Quality Management (NESCAUM).  Members of MANE –VU are listed in   REF
_Ref191278736 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 1 .  The states and tribes,
along with federal agencies and professional staff from OTC, MARAMA and
NESCAUM, are members of the various committees and workgroups
established by MANE-VU.  Policy decisions are made by the MANE-VU Board
of Directors, composed of senior staff from each member state, tribe, or
agency.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : MANE-VU Members

Connecticut 	Pennsylvania

Delaware 	Penobscot Nation

District of Columbia 	Rhode Island

Maine 	St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

Maryland 	Vermont

Massachusetts 	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

New Hampshire 	U.S. National Park Service*

New Jersey	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service*

New York	U.S. Forest Service*

		* Non-voting member

Since its inception on July 24, 2001, MANE-VU established an active
committee structure to address both technical and non-technical issues
related to regional haze.  One of the primary committees is the
Technical Support Committee (TSC), charged with assessing the nature and
magnitude of the regional haze problem within MANE-VU, interpreting the
results of technical work, and reporting on such work to the MANE-VU
Board.  It has three standing working groups, broken down by topic area:
Emissions Inventory, Modeling, and Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroups.
The TSC has evolved to function as a valuable sounding board for all the
technical projects and processes of MANE-VU and has established a
process to ensure that important regional haze-related projects are
completed in a timely fashion and members are kept informed of all
MANE-VU tasks and duties.

The second primary committee is the Communications Committee, charged
with developing approaches to inform the public about the regional haze
problem in the region and making any recommendations to the MANE-VU
Board to facilitate that goal.  It oversaw the development of
MANE-VU’s newsletter and outreach tools, both for stakeholders and for
the public, regarding regional issues within MANE-VU.

Policy decisions are made by the MANE-VU Board.  MANE-VU established a
Policy Advisory Group to provide advice to decision-makers on policy
questions.  Federal Land Managers, EPA, states, and tribes are
represented on the Policy Advisory Group, which met on an as-needed
basis.

Class I Areas Within MANE-VU

MANE-VU contains seven Federal Class I areas in four states (Figure 3).
Massachusetts does not contain any Class I areas.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  3 : Class I Areas within MANE-VU

Area of Influence for MANE-VU Class I Areas

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule requires states to
determine their respective contribution to visibility impairment at
Class I areas.  Through source apportionment modeling (more fully
described in Section 7), MANE-VU has identified and evaluated the major
contributors to regional haze at MANE-VU Class I areas as well as Class
I areas in nearby RPOs.  The complete findings are contained in a report
produced by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Quality Management
(NESCAUM) entitled, “Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic United States,” otherwise known as the Contribution
Assessment (Appendix   SEQ Appendix \* ALPHABETIC  A ).  Based on that
work, MANE-VU concluded that it was appropriate to define an area of
influence including all of the states participating in MANE-VU, plus
other states that modeling indicated contributed at least 2 percent of
the sulfate ion at MANE-VU Class I areas in 2002.  MANE-VU identified
the states in Table 2 as causing or contributing to visibility
impairment in one or more of the following Class I areas: Acadia
National Park, Brigantine Wildlife Refuge, Great Gulf Wilderness Area,
Lye Brook Wilderness Area, Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge, Presidential
Range-Dry River Wilderness Area, and Roosevelt-Campobello International
Park.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 : States that Contribute to Visibility
Impairment at One or More of the MANE-VU Class I Areas of Acadia,
Moosehorn, Roosevelt-Campobello, Great Gulf, Presidential Range-Dry
River, Lye Brook, and Brigantine

State 	RPO

Connecticut	MANE-VU

Delaware	MANE-VU

Maine	MANE-VU

Maryland	MANE-VU

Massachusetts	MANE-VU

New Hampshire	MANE-VU

New Jersey	MANE-VU

New York	MANE-VU

Pennsylvania	MANE-VU

Rhode Island	MANE-VU

Vermont	MANE-VU

Georgia	VISTAS

Kentucky	VISTAS

North Carolina	VISTAS

South Carolina	VISTAS

Tennessee	VISTAS

Virginia	VISTAS

West Virginia	VISTAS

Illinois	MRPO

Indiana	MRPO

Michigan	MRPO

Ohio	MRPO

Massachusetts Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas

Emission sources within Massachusetts had measurable impacts on
visibility at Class I areas within MANE-VU in the 2002 baseline year.
The magnitude of these impacts is described in detail in Section 7 and
MANE-VU’s Contribution Assessment (Appendix   REF _Ref191968764 \r \h
\* MERGEFORMAT  A ).  Table 3 lists the Class I areas affected by
emissions sources in Massachusetts.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 : Class I Federal Areas Affected by
Emissions from Massachusetts

Class I Federal Area	State

Acadia National Park	Maine

Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge	Maine

Roosevelt Campobello International Park	Maine/Canada

Great Gulf Wilderness Area	New Hampshire

Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area	New Hampshire

Lye Brook Wilderness Area	Vermont

Regional Haze Planning after the Remand of CAIR

On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
This important federal rule was designed to achieve major permanent
reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions in the eastern United States through
a cap-and-trade system using emission allowances.  CAIR would
permanently cap emissions originating in 28 eastern states and the
District of Columbia (  REF _Ref236628047 \h  Figure 4 ).  Although
Massachusetts was only designated as a participating CAIR state for the
ozone season, this program would have greatly affected future air
quality in the state.

According to EPA’s CAIR website, SO2 emissions in the affected states
would be reduced by more than 70 percent and NOx emissions by more than
60 percent from 2003 levels upon full implementation of CAIR (see
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/cair/"  http://www.epa.gov/cair/ ).

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  4 : Map of CAIR States

On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit found that CAIR violated basic provisions of the Clean Air Act.
The court vacated CAIR in its entirety and remanded it to EPA in order
to promulgate a new rule consistent with the court’s opinion.  EPA
appealed the decision amid widespread concern that, despite its flaws,
some form of CAIR was preferable to the sudden regulatory void created
by the Court’s decision.  Upon reconsideration, on December 23, 2008,
the Court stayed the vacatur of CAIR but maintained the remand to EPA to
promulgate a new rule consistent with the Court’s July 11, 2008,
opinion.

Because CAIR formed the regulatory underpinnings for most of the
emission reductions that were to produce visibility improvements in
mandatory Class I areas, the vacatur of CAIR would have represented a
major difficulty for the individual states in attempting to comply with
the Regional Haze Rule.  While all eastern states have depended in
varying degree on CAIR in the preparation of their regional haze SIPs,
some Southeast states have relied almost entirely on CAIR to demonstrate
compliance with the rule.  The vacatur of CAIR also called into question
the validity of MANE-VU’s (and other RPOs’) emission inventories and
air quality modeling studies already completed for the member states’
Regional Haze SIPs.

The CAIR Phase I requirements remained in place through 2011.  On August
8, 2011, EPA published the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to
replace CAIR.  CSAPR requires 28 states in the eastern half of the
United States to significantly improve air quality by reducing SO2 and
NOx emissions from power plant emissions that cross state lines and
contribute to ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution in other
states.   Massachusetts is not included in CSAPR.

Future emission controls under CSAPR are similar to those as CAIR
originally would have obtained.  Therefore, Massachusetts expects that
future emissions and air quality levels are likely to be not very
different from values predicted by MANE-VU’s completed modeling, even
though that modeling was based on implementation of CAIR as it was
before CSAPR.  Consequently, the long-term strategy developed for
Massachusetts’ SIP represents a reasonable starting point from which
to go forward with measures to improve visibility at MANE-VU’s Class I
Areas.  These measures will be reviewed at the mid-point review in 2013
in consultation with Class I states, who may at that time reassess their
reasonable progress goals.

Regional Consultation and the “Ask”

40 CFR Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires Massachusetts to consult with
other states/tribes to develop coordinated emission management
strategies.  Massachusetts consulted with other states and tribes
through participation in the MANE-VU and inter-RPO processes that
developed the technical information necessary for the development of
coordinated strategies.

On May 10, 2006, MANE-VU adopted the Inter-RPO State/Tribal and FLM
Consultation Framework.  A full copy of MANE-VU’s Final Interim
Principles for Regional Planning can be found in Appendix   REF
_Ref192042296 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  B .  That document sets forth the
principles listed in   REF _Ref203281748 \h  Figure 5 .  MANE-VU states
and tribes applied these principles to the regional haze consultation
and SIP development processes.  Issues addressed included regional haze
baseline assessments, natural background levels, and development of
reasonable progress goals – described at length in later sections of
this SIP.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  5 : MANE-VU Principles for Regional Haze
Planning

All State, Tribal, RPO, and Federal participants are committed to
continuing dialogue and information sharing in order to create
understanding of the respective concerns and needs of the parties.

Continuous documentation of all communications is necessary to develop a
record for inclusion in the SIP submittal to EPA.

States alone have the authority to undertake specific measures under
their SIP. This inter-RPO framework is designed solely to facilitate
needed communication, coordination, and cooperation among jurisdictions,
but does not establish binding obligation on the part of participating
agencies.

There are two areas which require State-to-State and/or State-to-Tribal
consultations (“formal” consultations): (i) development of the
reasonable progress goal for a Class I area, and (ii) development of
long-term strategies. While it is anticipated that the formal
consultation will cover the technical components that make up each of
these policy decision areas, there may be a need for the RPOs, in
coordination with their State and Tribal members, to have informal
consultations on these technical considerations.

During both the formal and informal inter-RPO consultations, it is
anticipated that the States and Tribes will work collectively to
facilitate the consultation process through their respective RPOs, when
feasible.

Technical analyses will be transparent, when possible, and will reflect
the most up-to-date information and best scientific methods for the
decision needed within the resources available.

The State with the Class I area retains the responsibility to establish
reasonable progress goals. The RPOs will make reasonable efforts to
facilitate the development of a consensus between the State with a Class
I area and other States affecting that area. In instances where the
State with the Class I area cannot agree with such other States that the
goal provides for reasonable progress, actions taken to resolve the
disagreement must be included in the State’s regional haze
implementation plan (or plan revisions) submitted to the EPA
Administrator as required under 40 CFR §51.308(d)(1)(iv).

All States whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area must provide the Federal Land
Manager (“FLM”) agency for that Class I area with an opportunity for
consultation, in person, on their regional haze implementation plans.
The States/Tribes will pursue the development of a memorandum of
understanding to expedite the submission and consideration of the
FLM’s comments on the reasonable progress goals and related
implementation plans. As required under 40 CFR §51.308(i)(3), the plan
or plan revision must include a description of how the State addressed
any FLM comments.

States/Tribes will consult with the affected FLMs to protect the air
resources of the State/Tribe and Class I areas in accordance with the
FLM coordination requirements specified in 40 CFR §51.308(i) and other
consultation procedures developed by consensus.

The consultation process is designed to share information, define and
document issues, develop a range of options, solicit feedback on
options, develop consensus advice if possible, and facilitate informed
decisions by the Class I States.

The collaborators, including States, Tribes and affected FLMs, will
promptly respond to other RPO’s/States’/Tribes’ requests for
comments.

The following points highlight many of the ways MANE-VU member states
and tribes have cooperatively addressed regional haze:

Budget Prioritization: MANE-VU developed a process to coordinate MARAMA,
OTC, and NESCAUM staff in developing budget priorities, project
rankings, and the eventual federal grant requests.

Issue Coordination: MANE-VU established a conference call and meeting
schedule for each of its committees and workgroups.  In addition,
MANE-VU Air Directors regularly discussed pertinent issues.

SIP Policy and Planning: MANE-VU states/tribes collaborated on the
development of a SIP Template.

Capacity Building: To educate its staff and members, MANE-VU included
technical presentations on conference calls and organized workshops with
nationally recognized experts.  Presentations on data analysis, BART
work, inventory topics, modeling, control measures, etc., were an
effective education and coordination tool.

Routine Operations:  MANE-VU staff at OTC, MARAMA, and NESCAUM
established a coordinated approach to budgeting, grant
deliverables/due-dates, workgroup meetings, inter-RPO feedback, etc.

In addition to having a set of guiding principles for consultation,
MANE-VU needed a consistent technical basis for emission control
strategies to reduce regional haze to meet the reasonable progress goals
for 2018.  After much research and analysis, on June 20, 2007, MANE-VU
adopted the following pair of documents, which provide the technical
basis for consultation among the interested parties and define the basic
strategies for controlling pollutants that cause visibility impairment
at Class I areas in the eastern United States.  Together, these
documents are known as the MANE-VU “Ask” (Appendix   REF
_Ref194379259 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  C ).

“Statement of the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable
Progress,” and

“Statement of the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States outside of MANE-VU
toward Assuring Reasonable Progress.”

The consultations among MANE-VU states and other states/tribes and
provinces occurred through much of 2007.  Documentation of consultation
meetings and calls between MANE-VU Class I States and states/tribes both
within and outside MANE-VU can found on the MANE-VU website at
HYPERLINK "http://www.otcair.org/manevu/consultations.asp?fview=2"
www.otcair.org/manevu/consultations.asp?fview=2 .  A summary of the
consultation process follows.

MANE-VU Intra-Regional Consultation, March 1, 2007

At this meeting, MANE-VU members reviewed requirements for regional haze
plans, preliminary modeling results, work being done to prepare the
MANE-VU report on reasonable progress factors, and control strategy
options under review.

MANE-VU Intra-State Consultation, June 7, 2007

At this meeting the MANE-VU Class I states adopted a statement of
principles, and all MANE-VU members discussed draft statements
concerning reasonable controls within and outside of MANE-VU.  Federal
Land Managers also attended the meeting, which was open to stakeholders.

MANE-VU Conference Call, June 20, 2007

On this call, the MANE-VU states concluded discussions of statements
concerning reasonable controls within and outside MANE-VU and agreed on
the statements called the MANE-VU “Ask,” including a statement
concerning controls within MANE-VU, a statement concerning controls
outside MANE-VU, and a statement requesting a course of action by EPA.
Federal Land Managers also participated in the call.  Upon approval, all
statements as well as the statement of principles adopted on June 7 were
posted and publicly available on the MANE-VU web site.

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

On this call, the MANE-VU / New Hampshire “Ask” was presented to
states in other RPOs, RPO staff, and Federal Land Managers, and an
opportunity was provided to request further information.  This call was
intended to provide information to facilitate informed discussion at
follow-up meetings.

MANE-VU Consultation Meeting with MRPO, August 6, 2007

This meeting was held at LADCO offices in Chicago, Illinois and was
attended by representatives of MANE-VU and MRPO states, as well as
staff.  The meeting provided an opportunity to formally present the
MANE-VU “Ask” to MRPO states and to consult with them regarding the
reasonableness of the requested controls.  Federal Land Manager agencies
also attended the meeting.

MANE-VU Consultation Meeting with VISTAS, August 20, 2007

This meeting was held at State of Georgia offices in Atlanta and was
attended by representatives of MANE-VU and VISTAS states, as well as
staff.  The meeting provided an opportunity to formally present the
MANE-VU “Ask” to VISTAS states and to consult with them regarding
the reasonableness of the requested controls.  Federal Land Manager
agencies also attended the meeting.

MANE-VU – Midwest RPO Consultation Conference Call, September 13, 2007

This call was a follow-up to the meeting held on August 6 in Chicago and
provided an opportunity to further clarify what was being asked of the
MRPO states, including explanation of the flexibility in the “Ask.”
Both MRPO and MANE-VU staff agreed to work together to facilitate
discussion of further controls on ICI boilers and EGUs.

MANE-VU Air Directors’ Consultation Conference Call, September 26,
2007

This call allowed MANE-VU members to clarify their understanding of the
“Ask” and to provide direction to modeling staff as to how to
interpret the “Ask” for purposes of estimating visibility impacts of
the requested controls.

MANE-VU Air Directors’ Conference Call, March 31, 2008

On this call, NESCAUM presented the results of the final 2018 modeling
and described the methods used to represent the impacts of the measures
agreed to by the Class I States.  Federal Land Manager agencies also
participated in this call.

Meeting the “Ask” – MANE-VU States

The member states of MANE-VU have stated their intention to meet the
terms of the “Ask” in their SIPs.  The “Ask” for member states
commits each state to pursue the adoption 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 States (New Jersey, New
York, Delaware and Pennsylvania, or portions thereof) to reduce the
sulfur content of: distillate oil to 0.05 percent sulfur by weight (500
ppm) by no later than 2012, of #4 residual oil to 0.25 percent sulfur by
weight by no later than 2012, of #6 residual oil to 0.3 – 0.5 percent
sulfur by weight by no later than 2012, and to further reduce the sulfur
content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2016; and

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

A 90 percent or greater reduction in sulfur dioxide  (SO2) emissions
from each of the top 100 electric generating units (EGUs) identified by
MANE-VU (comprising a total of 167 stacks) as reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in each mandatory Class
I Federal area in the MANE-VU region.  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 including energy
efficiency, alternative clean fuels, and other measures to reduce SO2
and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from all coal-burning facilities by
2018 and new source performance standards for wood combustion.  These
measures and other measures identified will be evaluated during the
consultation process to determine if they are reasonable and
cost-effective.

Massachusetts supports the SIPs of each of its fellow MANE-VU states
provided that these SIPs incorporate these commitments.

Meeting the “Ask” – Massachusetts

As a MANE-VU member state, Massachusetts also adopted the “Ask” at
the MANE-VU Board meeting on June 7, 2007.  Massachusetts is meeting the
terms of this agreement by implementing an alternative to BART as
described in Section   REF _Ref196801005 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  8 , and
by ensuring reductions in SO2 emissions from the Massachusetts Targeted
EGU stacks, implementing low-sulfur fuel oil regulations, and
implementing controls on outdoor wood-fired boilers as described in
Section   REF _Ref191969839 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  10 .  Massachusetts
also will pursue other reasonable and cost-effective measures as needed.

Meeting the “Ask” – States Outside of MANE-VU

For consulting states outside the MANE-VU region, the MANE-VU “Ask”
requests the pursuit of the adoption and implementation of the following
control strategies, as appropriate and necessary:

timely implementation of BART requirements;

A 90 percent or greater reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from
each of the top 100 electric generating units (comprising a total of 167
stacks) impacting any mandatory Class I Federal area in the MANE-VU
region, or an equivalent SO2 reduction within each State;

the application of reasonable controls on non-EGU sources resulting in a
28 percent reduction in non-EGU SO2 emissions, relative to on-the-books,
on-the-way 2018 projections used in regional haze planning, by 2018,
which is equivalent to the projected reductions MANE-VU will achieve
through its low sulfur fuel oil strategy;

continued evaluation of other measures including measures to reduce SO2
and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from all coal-burning facilities by
2018 and promulgation of new source performance standards for wood
combustion. These measures and other measures identified will be
evaluated through consultation processes to determine if they are
reasonable.

Massachusetts recognizes that non-MANE-VU states may choose not to adopt
the MANE-VU “Ask” due to associated costs, conflicts, and relative
lack of benefit within their jurisdictions.  During consultations, some
non-MANE-VU states were considering not pursuing reductions beyond CAIR
controls and other measures pertaining to BART.  EPA’s CSAPR will
provide reductions similar to CAIR and it is hoped that states in the
mid-west and southeast RPOs will adopt other additional controls.
Ultimately, the approvability of all states’ SIPs will be determined
by EPA.

Technical Ramifications of Differing Approaches

MANE-VU states intended to develop a modeling platform that was common
in terms of meteorology and emissions with each of the other nearby
RPOs.  The RPOs worked diligently to form a common set of emissions with
similar developmental assumptions.  Even with the best of intentions, it
became difficult to keep up with each RPO’s updates and corrections.
Each rendition of emissions inventory improved its quality, but because
each update made to one RPO’s emissions meant that the other RPOs
needed to incorporate the updates into the full emission set for all the
RPOs and then reprocess them, there was a continuous modeling effort
where each one outdated the last.  Because each rendition put previous
modeling efforts out of date, and a single modeling run could take more
than a month to complete, inventory updates contributed to SIP delays.
The emission inventory conflicts were excessively time consuming and
caused most states to miss the official SIP filing date of December 17,
2007.

The RPOs also took differing perspectives on which version of the EGU
dispatching model (Integrated Planning Model or IPM) to use.  At the
beginning of the process, IPM version 2.1.9 was available and EPA agreed
to its use for emissions preparation.  Since then, IPM version 3.0
became available and it became EPA’s preferred version since it had
updated fuel costs.  MRPO adopted IPM v3.0 for its use, but VISTAS
stayed with IPM v2.1.9.  Rather than develop non-comparative datasets
for its previous IPM analyses, MANE-VU also stayed with IPM v2.1.9.
Therefore, of the three eastern RPOs, differing emissions assumptions
eventually worked their way into the final set of modeling assumptions.

MANE-VU’s best and final modeling not only considers
on-the-way/on-the-books emissions programs for 2018 (listed in Section
10), but also includes additional reasonable controls in its region,
including those contained in the MANE-VU “Ask”.  It should be noted
that other RPOs may not have included such measures in their final
modeling.  In these cases, the modeling results of states in these RPOs
will be inconsistent with meeting the terms of the MANE-VU “Ask” –
a situation that may not be adequately addressed in their SIPs.  These
inconsistencies will need to be resolved by EPA.

Federal Land Manager Coordination

Massachusetts will continue to coordinate and consult with the Federal
Land Managers (FLMs) during the development of future progress reports
and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs
having the potential to contribute to visibility improvement in the
Class I areas.

Section 51.308(i) of the Regional Haze Rule requires coordination
between states/tribes and the FLMs.  Opportunities have been provided by
MANE-VU for FLMs to review and comment on each of the technical
documents developed by MANE-VU and included in this SIP.  Massachusetts
has provided agency contacts to the FLMs as required.  In the
development of this Plan, the FLMs were consulted in accordance with the
provisions of 51.308(i)(2).

MassDEP provided previous drafts of this SIP, or portions thereof, to
FLMs and EPA for review and comment on November 25, 2008 and July  31,
2009, and published the draft SIP for public hearing and comment on
January 11, 2011.  MassDEP also published a draft SIP revision for
public hearing and comment on February 17, 2012.  MassDEP provided the
FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days
prior to holding a public hearing on the SIP.  The comments submitted by
the FLMs were both general and specific. The reviewing agencies found
Massachusetts’ draft Regional Haze SIP to be well written and
comprehensive.  The uncertainty surrounding CAIR and discrepancies in
modeling (especially inclusion of the MANE-VU Ask) between MANE-VU and
other RPOs were identified as broad topics for further discussion
through the consultation process.  Comments of a specific nature were
focused primarily on requesting additional information in support of
initial BART analyses.  In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), MassDEP
has addressed comments from FLMs regarding the SIP in Appendix   REF
_Ref198002546 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  D  of this plan, as well as
comments submitted by EPA.

Section 51.308(i)(4) requires procedures for continuing consultation
between states/tribes and FLMs on the implementation of the visibility
protection programs.  In particular, consultations will be conducted
with the designated visibility protection program coordinators for the
National Park Service, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.
Forest Service.  MassDEP will consult periodically with the FLMs as
necessary on the status of the following implementation items:

Implementation of emissions strategies identified in the SIP as
contributing to achieving improvement in the worst-day visibility.

Summary of major new source permits issued.

Status of Massachusetts actions to meet commitments for completing any
future assessments or rulemakings on sources identified as likely
contributors to visibility impairment, but not directly addressed in the
most recent SIP revision.

Any changes to the status of the monitoring strategy or monitoring
stations that may affect tracking of reasonable progress.

Work underway for preparing the 5-year review and / or 10-year revision.

Items for FLMs to consider or provide support for in preparation for any
visibility protection SIP revisions (based on the 5-year review or the
10-year revision schedule).

Summaries of discussions (meetings, emails, other records) covered in
ongoing communications between MassDEP and FLMs regarding implementation
of the visibility program.

Assessment of Baseline AND Natural Conditions

Under the Clean Air Act, the Regional Haze SIPs must contain measures to
make reasonable progress toward the goal of achieving natural
visibility.  Section 51.308(d)(2) of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires
each state containing a Class I area to determine baseline and natural
visibility conditions for their Class I area in consultation with FLMs
and states identified as containing sources whose emissions contribute
to visibility impairment in Class I areas.  Comparing baseline
conditions to natural visibility conditions determines the uniform rate
of progress that must be considered as states set reasonable progress
goals for each Class I area.

The requirement to assess baseline and natural conditions within Class I
Areas is a responsibility of the state containing those areas.
Massachusetts does not contain any Class I Areas; however, assessment of
baseline and natural visibility conditions for MANE-VU Class I Areas is
included here as reference.

Calculation Methodology

The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
program was established in 1985 to provide the data needed to assess
current visibility conditions, track changes in visibility, and help
determine the causes of visibility impairment in Class I Areas (see
Section 4 for more detailed information about IMPROVE).  IMPROVE data
was used to calculate baseline and natural conditions for MANE-VU Class
I areas.

The IMPROVE monitors listed in   REF _Ref203288011 \h  Table 4  provide
data that are representative of Class I Areas in MANE-VU.  As described
in the Monitoring Section (Section 4) of this SIP, Massachusetts accepts
IMPROVE designation of these sites as representative of Class I areas in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i).

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 : IMPROVE Monitors for MANE-VU Class I
Areas

Class I Area	IMPROVE Site	Location (latitude and longitude)	State

Acadia National Park	ACAD1	44.38, -68.26	Maine

Moosehorn Wilderness Area	MOOS1	45.13, -67.27	Maine

Roosevelt/Campobello International Park	MOOS1	45.13, -67.27	Maine

Great Gulf Wilderness Area	GRGU1	44.31, -71.22	New Hampshire

Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness	GRGU1	44.31, -71.22	New
Hampshire

Lye Brook Wilderness Area	LYBR1	43.15, -73.13	Vermont

Brigantine Wilderness Area	BRIG1	39.47, -74.45	New Jersey

	Source: VIEWS (  HYPERLINK "http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/"
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/ ), prepared on 7/06/06

In September 2003, EPA issued guidance for the calculation of natural
background and baseline visibility conditions.  The guidance provides a
default method and describes certain refinements that states may wish to
evaluate to tailor these estimates to a specific Class I area if it is
poorly represented by the default method.  At that time, MANE-VU
calculated natural visibility for each of the MANE-VU Class I areas
using the default method for the 20 percent best and worst visibility
days.  MANE-VU also evaluated ways to refine the estimates.  Potential
refinements included: increasing the multiplier used to calculate
impairment attributed to carbon, adjusting the formula used to calculate
the 20 percent best and worst visibility days, and accounting for
visibility impairment due to sea salt at coastal sites.  However,
MANE-VU found that these refinements did not significantly improve the
accuracy of the estimates, and MANE-VU states desired a consistent
approach.  Therefore, default estimates were used with the understanding
that this would be reconsidered when better scientific knowledge
warranted.

Once the technical analysis was complete, MANE-VU provided an
opportunity to comment to federal agencies and stakeholders.  The
proposed approach was posted on the MANE-VU website on March 17, 2004
and a stakeholder briefing was held on the same day.  Comments were
received from the Electric Power Research Institute, the Midwest Ozone
Group, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the National Parks Conservation
Association, the National Park Service, and the US Forest Service.

Several comments supported the proposal and other comments addressed
four main topics: the equation used to calculate visibility, the
statistical technique used to estimate the 20 percent best and worst
visibility days, the inclusion of transboundary effects and fires, and
the timing of when new information should be included.  All comments
were reviewed and summarized by MANE-VU.  The MANE-VU Board was briefed
on comments and proposed response options.

The MANE-VU position on natural background conditions was issued in June
2004, and stated that, “Refinements to other aspects of the default
method (e.g., refinements to the assumed distribution or treatment of
Rayleigh extinction, inclusion of sea salt, and improved assumptions
about the chemical composition of the organic fraction) may be warranted
prior to submission of SIPs depending on the degree to which scientific
consensus is formed around a specific approach…”

In 2006, the IMPROVE Steering Committee adopted an alternative
reconstructed extinction equation to revise certain aspects of the
default method. The aspects revised were scientifically well understood,
and the Committee determined that revisions improved the performance of
the equation at reproducing observed visibility at Class I sites.

In 2006, NESCAUM conducted an assessment of the default and alternative
approaches for calculation of baseline and natural background conditions
at MANE-VU Class I areas.  (See the MANE-VU document, Baseline and
Natural Background Visibility Conditions: Considerations and Proposed
Approach to the Calculation of Baseline and Natural Background
Visibility Conditions at MANE-VU Class I Areas, Appendix   REF
_Ref191968946 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  E .)  Corresponding visibility
improvement targets for 2018 using each approach also were presented in
the document (see Table 3-3 of Appendix   REF _Ref191968946 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  E ).  Results suggest that the alternative approach leads
to very similar uniform rates of progress in New England with slightly
greater visibility improvement required in the Mid-Atlantic region
relative to the default approach.  Based on that assessment, in December
2006, MANE-VU recommended adoption of the alternative reconstructed
extinction equation for use in SIPs.  MANE-VU will continue to
participate in further research efforts on this topic and will
reconsider the calculation methodology as scientific understanding
evolves.

MANE-VU Baseline and Natural Visibility

The IMPROVE program has calculated the 20 percent best and 20 percent
worst baseline (2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions using the
EPA-approved alternative method described above for each MANE-VU Class I
Area.  The data are posted on the Visibility Information Exchange Web
System (VIEWS) operated by the regional planning organizations.  The
information can be accessed at   HYPERLINK
"http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/"
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/  and is summarized in   REF
_Ref199901597 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5  below.  Units are expressed
in deciviews, a log function of the light scattering and absorption
extinction coefficient, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2).  Generally,
a one deciview change in the haze index is likely to be perceptible
under ideal conditions regardless of background visibility conditions.
Displayed are the five-year average baseline visibility values for the
period 2000-2004, natural visibility levels, and the difference between
baseline and natural visibility values for each of the MANE-VU Class I
areas.  The difference columns (best and worst) are of particular
interest because they describe the magnitude of visibility impairment
attributable to manmade emissions, which are the focus of the Regional
Haze Rule.

The five-year averages for 20 percent best and worst visibility were
calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2), as detailed in
NESCAUM’s Baseline and Natural Background document found in Appendix
REF _Ref191968946 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  E .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 : Summary of Baseline Visibility and
Natural Visibility Conditions for the 20 Percent Best and 20 Percent
Worst Visibility Days at MANE-VU Class I Areas

Class I Area(s)	2000-2004 Baseline (deciviews)	Natural Conditions
(deciviews)	Difference

(deciviews)

	Best

20%	Worst 20%	Best

20%	Worst 20%	Best

20%	Worst 20%

Acadia National Park	8.8	22.9	4.7	12.4	4.1	10.5

Moosehorn Wilderness and

Roosevelt Campobello International Park	9.2	21.7	5.0	12.0	4.1	9.7

Great Gulf Wilderness and

Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness 	7.7	22.8	3.7	12.0	3.9	10.8

Lye Brook Wilderness	6.4	24.5	2.8	11.7	3.6	12.7

Brigantine Wilderness	14.3	29.0	5.5	12.2	8.8	16.8

Source: VIEWS (  HYPERLINK "http://vista.circa.colostate.edu/views/"
http://vista.circa.colostate.edu/views/ ), prepared on 6/22/2007

Monitoring Strategy

Section 51.308(d)(4) of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule  requires a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of Class I
areas within a state, and allows compliance with this requirement to be
met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program.

In the mid-1980’s, the IMPROVE program was established to measure
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas throughout the United
States.  The monitoring sites are operated and maintained through a
formal cooperative relationship between EPA, National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest
Service.  In 1991, several additional organizations joined the effort:
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (which now goes by
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies), Western States Air
Resources Council, Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.

IMPROVE Program Objectives

The IMPROVE program provides scientific documentation of the visual air
quality of America’s wilderness areas and national parks.  Many
individuals and organizations – land managers, industry planners,
scientists (including university researchers), public interest groups,
and air quality regulators – use the data collected at IMPROVE sites
to understand and protect the visual air quality resources in Class I
areas.  Major objectives of the IMPROVE program include:

Establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I
areas,

Identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment,

Document long-term trends for assessing progress towards national
visibility goals,

Provide regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected
federal Class I areas where practical, as required by EPA’s Regional
Haze Rule.

Monitoring Information for Massachusetts

Section 51.308(d)(4)(iii) of the Regional Haze Rule requires for a state
with no Class I areas, such as Massachusetts, the inclusion of
procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in
determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to
regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas outside the state.
Massachusetts’ contribution is documented in the contribution
assessment analysis completed by NESCAUM entitled, Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States (Contribution
Assessment) found in Appendix   REF _Ref191968764 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
A .  The NESCAUM study used various tools and techniques to assess the
contributions of individual states and regions to visibility degradation
in Class I areas within and outside MANE-VU.

Massachusetts agrees that NESCAUM is providing quality technical
information by using the IMPROVE program data and the Visibility
Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) site.  Information about the use
of the default and alternative approaches to the calculation of baseline
and natural background conditions can be found in Section 3 of this SIP.

Massachusetts does not contain any Class I Areas; therefore no
monitoring plan is required under Section 51.308(d)(4) or Section 51.30
of the Regional Haze Rule.  Massachusetts does, however, have three
IMPROVE monitors that were used in the regional haze modeling: Cape Cod
(CACO), Martha’s Vineyard (MAVI), and Quabbin summit (QURE).  The CACO
IMPROVE monitor is located at Cape Cod National Seashore in Truro and is
operated and maintained by the National Park Service.  It is located
near MassDEP’s monitoring site at latitude 41:58 and longitude -70:01.
 The QURE IMPROVE monitor is located at the Quabbin Reservoir in Ware,
at latitude 42:17 and longitude –72:20, and is operated and maintained
by MassDEP.  The MAVI IMPROVE monitor is located on Martha’s Vineyard
and is operated by the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).
Massachusetts commits to continuing these monitoring programs and to
working with the National Park Service, Wampanoag Tribe, and EPA towards
this end.

The following information is for monitoring within Class I areas
determined to be impacted by Massachusetts sources by the Contribution
Assessment contained in Appendix   REF _Ref191968764 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  A .

Monitoring Information for MANE-VU Class I Areas Impacted by Emissions
from Massachusetts

Acadia National Park, Maine

rbor, Maine, at elevation 157 meters, latitude 44.38˚, and longitude
-68.26˚ (see Figure 6).  This monitor is operated and maintained by the
National Park Service.  Massachusetts considers the ACAD1 site as
adequate for assessing reasonable progress toward visibility goals at
Acadia National Park, and no additional monitoring sites or equipment
are necessary at this time.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  7 : Acadia National Park on Clear and
Hazy Days

  HYPERLINK "http://www.hazecam.net/class1/acadia.html"
http://www.hazecam.net/class1/acadia.html

Great Gulf Wilderness Area, New Hampshire

, latitude 44.31˚, and longitude of -71.22˚ (see Figure 8).  This
monitor, which also represents the Presidential Range - Dry River
Wilderness (see Figure 8), is operated and maintained by the U.S. Forest
Service.  Massachusetts considers the GRGU1 site as adequate for
assessing reasonable progress toward visibility goals at the Great Gulf
Wilderness, and no additional monitoring sites or equipment are
necessary at this time.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  8 : Map of Great Gulf and Presidential
Range - Dry River Wilderness Areas Showing IMPROVE Monitor Location

   HYPERLINK
"http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/meteorology/images/NHclass1.jpg"
http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/meteorology/images/NHclass1.jpg

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  9 : Great Gulf Wilderness Area on Clear
and Hazy Days

  HYPERLINK "http://www.wilderness.net/"  http://www.wilderness.net/

Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness, New Hampshire

The IMPROVE monitor for the Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness is
also the monitor for Great Gulf Wilderness (GRGU1), as described above.
Massachusetts considers the GRGU1 site as adequate for assessing
reasonable progress toward visibility goals at the Presidential Range -
Dry River Wilderness, and no additional monitoring sites or equipment
are necessary at this time.

Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness in Autumn

http://www.wilderness.net

Lye Brook Wilderness, Vermont

3.15˚, and longitude of -73.13˚ (see Figure 10).  The monitor does not
lie within the wilderness area but is situated on a mountain peak across
the valley to the west of the wilderness area.  The IMPROVE site and the
Lye Brook Wilderness are at similar elevations.  The monitor is operated
and maintained by the U.S. Forest Service.  Massachusetts considers the
LYBR1 site as adequate for assessing reasonable progress toward
visibility goals at the Lye Brook Wilderness, and no additional
monitoring sites or equipment are necessary at this time.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  10 : Location of Lye Brook Wilderness
Monitor

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=NH&ma
p=menhvt"
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=NH&map
=menhvt

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  11 : Lye Brook Wilderness Area on Clear
and Hazy Days

  HYPERLINK "http://www.hazecam.net/class1/lye.html"
http://www.hazecam.net/class1/lye.html

Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Maine

The IMPROVE monitor for the Moosehorn Wilderness (MOOS1) is located near
McConvey Road, about one mile northeast of the National Wildlife Refuge
Baring (ME) Unit Headquarters, at elevation 78 meters, latitude 45.13˚,
and longitude -67.27˚ (see Figure 12). This monitor also represents the
Roosevelt Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Canada.  The
monitor is operated and maintained by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Massachusetts considers the MOOS1 site as adequate for assessing
reasonable progress toward visibility goals at the Moosehorn Wilderness,
and no additional monitoring sites or equipment are necessary at this
time.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  12 : Map of the Baring and Edmunds
Divisions of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Showing the IMPROVE
Monitor Location

   source: The Refuge Manager at Moosehorn Wilderness

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  13 : Moosehorn Wilderness Area on a Clear
and a Hazy Day

source: Martha Webster, Maine Department of Environmental Protection –
Bureau of Air Quality

Roosevelt/Campobello International Park, New Brunswick, Canada

The IMPROVE monitor for Roosevelt Campobello International Park is also
the monitor for the Moosehorn Wilderness (MOOS1), as described above.
Massachusetts considers the MOOS1 site as adequate for assessing
reasonable progress toward visibility goals at Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, and no additional monitoring sites or equipment are
necessary at this time.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  14 : Map of Roosevelt/Campobello
International Park

  HYPERLINK "http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/meteorology/images/rcip.jpg"
http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/meteorology/images/rcip.jpg

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  15 : Roosevelt/Campobello International
Park on Clear and Hazy Days

source: Chessie Johnson, Roosevelt Campobello International Park
Commission

Modeling

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) of the Regional Haze Rule requires states to
document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and
emissions information, on which the state is relying to determine its
apportionment of emissions reduction obligations necessary for achieving
reasonable progress in each Class I area it affects.

Air quality modeling to assess regional haze has been done cooperatively
between Massachusetts and its regional planning organization, MANE-VU,
with major modeling efforts being conducted by NESCAUM and screening
modeling being conducted by the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services.  These modeling efforts include emissions
processing, meteorological input analysis, and chemical transport
modeling to conduct regional air quality simulations for calendar year
2002 and several future periods, including the primary target period for
this SIP, calendar year 2018.  Modeling was conducted in order to assess
contribution from upwind areas, as well as Massachusetts’ contribution
to Class I areas in downwind states.  Further, the modeling evaluated
visibility benefits of control measures being considered for achieving
reasonable progress goals and establishing a long-term emissions
management strategy for MANE-VU Class I areas.

The modeling tools utilized for these analyses include the following:

The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Mesoscale Model (MM5) was used to derive the
required meteorological inputs for the air quality simulations.

The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) emissions modeling
system was used to process and format the emissions inventories for
input into the air quality models.

The Community Mesoscale Air Quality model (CMAQ) was used for the
primary SIP modeling.

The Regional Model for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) was used during
contribution apportionment.

The California Grid Model (CALGRID) and its associated EMSPROC6
emissions processor were used to screen specific control strategies.

The California Puff Model (CALPUFF) was used to assess the contribution
of individual states’ emissions to sulfate levels at selected Class I
receptor sites.

Each of these tools has been evaluated and found to perform adequately.
The pertinent SIP modeling underwent full performance testing and the
results were found to meet the specifications of EPA modeling guidance.

For more details on the regional haze modeling, please refer to the
NESCAUM report MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals, Model
Performance Evaluation, Pollution Apportionment, and Control Measure
Benefits (Appendix   REF _Ref201032634 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  F ).  The
detailed modeling approach for the best and final 2018 projected
scenario can be found in the NESCAUM report 2018 Visibility Projections
(Appendix   REF _Ref201032635 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  G ).

Meteorology

The meteorological inputs for the air quality simulations were developed
by the University of Maryland (UMD) using the MM5 meteorological
modeling system.  Meteorological inputs were generated for 2002 to
correspond with the baseline emissions inventory and analysis year.  The
MM5 simulations were performed on a nested grid as illustrated in Figure
16.  As shown in the figure, the modeling domain is comprised of a
36-km, 145 x 102 continental grid and a nested 12-km, 172 x 172 grid
encompassing the eastern United States and parts of Canada.  In
cooperation with the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC),
an assessment was made to compare the MM5 predictions with observations
from a variety of data sources, including:

surface observations from the National Weather Service (NWS) and the
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet),

wind-profiler measurements from the Cooperative Agency Profilers (CAP)
network,

satellite cloud image data from the UMD Department of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Science, and

precipitation data from the Earth Observing Laboratory at NCAR.  This
assessment was performed for the period covering May through September
2002.

Further details regarding the MM5 meteorological processing and the
modeling domain can be found in Appendix   REF _Ref197831308 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  H , NYSDEC’s Meteorological Modeling Using Penn
State/NCAR 5th Generation Mesoscale Model and Appendix   REF
_Ref201032634 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  F , NESCAUM’s MANE-VU Modeling
for Reasonable Progress Goals.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  16 : Modeling domains used in MANE-VU
air quality modeling studies with CMAQ.

Outer (blue) domain grid is 36 km and inner (red) domain is 12 km grid.
The gridlines are shown at 180 km intervals (5x5 for 36 km cells/15×15
for 12 km cells).

Emissions Data Preparations

Emissions data were prepared for input into the CMAQ and REMSAD air
quality models using the SMOKE emissions modeling system.  SMOKE
supports point, area, mobile (both on-road and non-road), and biogenic
emissions.  The SMOKE emissions modeling system uses flexible processing
to apply chemical speciation as well as temporal and spatial allocation
to the emissions inventories.  SMOKE incorporates the Biogenic Emission
Inventory System (BEIS) and EPA’s MOBILE6 motor vehicle emission
factor model to process biogenic and on-road mobile emissions,
respectively.  Vector-matrix multiplication is used during the final
processing step to merge the various emissions components into a single
model-ready emissions file.  Examples of processed emissions outputs are
shown in   REF _Ref199909485 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Figure 17 .

Further details on the SMOKE processing that was done in support of the
air quality simulations is provided in Appendix   REF _Ref197831308 \r
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  H  and Appendix   REF _Ref194465893 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  I , NYSDEC’s Emission Processing for the Revised 2002 OTC
Regional and Urban 12 km Base Case Simulations.  Additional details on
the emission inventory preparation can be found in Section   REF
_Ref194463253 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6 .

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  17 : Examples of processed model-ready
emissions: a) SO2 from Point, b) NO2 from Area, c) NO2 from On-road, d)
NO2 from Non-road, e) ISOP from Biogenic, f) SO2 from all source
categories

Model Platforms

Two regional-scale air quality models, CMAQ and REMSAD, were used for
the air quality simulations that directly supported the Regional Haze
SIP effort.  CMAQ was developed by EPA and was used to perform the
primary SIP-related modeling.  The CMAQ modeling simulations also were
an important tool for the 8-hour ozone SIP process.  REMSAD was
developed by ICF Consulting/Systems Applications International with
support from EPA.  REMSAD was used by NESCAUM to perform a source
apportionment analysis.  All of the air quality simulations that were
used in the SIP efforts were performed on the 12-km eastern modeling
domain shown in Figure 16 above.

NESCAUM performed a model performance evaluation for PM2.5 species,
aerosol extinction coefficient, and the haze index, which is provided in
Appendix   REF _Ref201032634 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  F .  NYSDEC also
performed a model performance analysis to evaluate CMAQ model
predictions against observations of ozone, PM2.5, and other chemical
species, which is contained in Appendix   REF _Ref194465983 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  J , CMAQ Model Performance and Assessment, 8-Hr OTC Ozone
Modeling.

CMAQ

The CMAQ air quality simulations were performed cooperatively between
five modeling centers, including NYSDEC, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in association with Rutgers University,
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), UMD, and
NESCAUM.  NYSDEC also performed an annual 2002 CMAQ simulation on the
36-km domain shown in Figure 16; this simulation was used to derive the
boundary conditions for the inner 12-km eastern modeling domain.
Boundary conditions for the 36-km simulations were obtained from a run
of the GEOS-Chem (Goddard Earth Observing System) global chemistry
transport model that was performed by researchers at Harvard University.
 The technical options that were used in performing the CMAQ simulations
are described in detail in Appendix   REF _Ref194466049 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  K , NYSDEC’s Eight-Hour Ozone Modeling using the
SMOKE/CMAQ system. Further technical details regarding the CMAQ model
and its execution are also provided in Appendix   REF _Ref201032634 \r
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  F .

REMSAD

The REMSAD modeling simulations were used to satisfy the haze rule
requirement that a pollution apportionment be performed to assess
contribution to visibility improvement by geographic region or source
sector.  REMSAD’s species tagging capability makes it an important
tool for this purpose.  This allowed for a rough estimation of the total
contribution from elevated point sources in each state to simulated
sulfate concentrations at eastern receptor sites.  Using identical
emission and meteorological inputs to those prepared for the Integrated
SIP (CMAQ) platform, REMSAD was used to simulate the annual average
impact of each state’s SO2 emission sources on the sulfate fraction of
PM2.5 over the northeastern United States using the same 12-km eastern
modeling domain as shown in Figure 16.  Appendix   REF _Ref201032634 \r
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  F  further describes the REMSAD model and its
application to the Regional Haze SIP efforts.

CALGRID

In addition to the SIP-quality modeling platforms described above, an
additional modeling platform was developed for use as a screening tool
to evaluate additional control strategies or to perform sensitivity
analyses.  The CALGRID model was selected as the basis for this
platform. CALGRID is a grid-based photochemical air quality model that
is designed to be run in a Windows environment.  In order to make the
CALGRID model the best possible tool to supplement the SIP-quality CMAQ
and REMSAD modeling, the current version of the CALGRID platform was set
up to be run with the same set of inputs as the SIP-quality models.  The
CALGRID air quality simulations were run on the same 12-km eastern
modeling domain that was used for CMAQ and REMSAD.  This model’s
performance was relative to the performance of the already evaluated
CMAQ and REMSAD models and was thus determined to perform adequately.

Conversion utilities were developed to re-format the meteorological
inputs, the boundary conditions, and the emissions for use with the
CALGRID modeling platform.  Pre-merged SMOKE emissions files were
obtained from the modeling centers and re-formatted for input into
EMSPROC6, the emissions pre-processor for the CALGRID modeling system.
EMSPROC6 allows the CALGRID user to adjust emissions temporally,
geographically, and by emissions category for control strategy analysis.
 The pre-merged SMOKE files that were obtained from the modeling centers
were broken down into the biogenic, point, area, non-road, and on-road
emissions categories.  These files by component were then converted for
use with EMSPROC6, thus giving CALGRID users the flexibility to analyze
a wide variety of emissions control strategies.  Additional information
on the CALGRID modeling platform can be found in Appendix   REF
_Ref194466396 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  L , NHDES’ Modeling Protocol for
the OTC CALGRID Screening-Level Modeling Platform for the Evaluation of
Ozone.

CALPUFF

CALPUFF is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model that simulates the
dispersion, transport, and chemical transformation of atmospheric
pollutants.  Two parallel CALPUFF modeling platforms were developed by
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) and the
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The VTDEC CALPUFF modeling
platform utilized meteorological observation data from the National
Weather Service (NWS) to drive the CALMET meteorological model.  The MDE
platform utilized the same MM5 meteorological inputs that were used in
the modeling done in support of the ozone and Regional Haze SIPs.  These
two platforms were run in parallel to evaluate individual states’
contributions to sulfate levels at Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Class I
areas.  The CALPUFF modeling effort is described in detail in Appendix
REF _Ref191968764 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  A .

Emissions Inventory

Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the Regional Haze Rule requires a statewide
emission inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
area.  The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, future
(projected) year, and the most recent year for which data are available.
 Massachusetts’ baseline year is 2002.  The pollutants inventoried by
Massachusetts for 2002 include volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine
particles (PM2.5), coarse particles (PM10), and ammonia (NH3).  The
emission inventory consists of the following source categories:
stationary point, area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, and biogenics.
These source categories are discussed further below and in Section 7.

Baseline and Future Year Emission Inventories for Modeling

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires
Massachusetts to identify the baseline emission inventory on which
strategies are based.  The baseline inventory is used to assess progress
in making emissions reductions.  Based on EPA guidance entitled, 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze Programs, which identifies 2002 as the anticipated
baseline emission inventory year for regional haze, MANE-VU and
Massachusetts used 2002 as the baseline year.  Future year inventories
were developed for the years 2009 and 2018 based on the 2002 base year.
These future year emission inventories include emissions growth due to
projected increases in economic activity, as well as the emissions
reductions due to the implementation of control measures.  In many
instances, states already have submitted their 2002 base year SIP
inventories to EPA due to their planning obligations under the ozone
and/or PM programs.  Massachusetts submitted its 2002 inventory to EPA
on January 31, 2008.

Emission inventories are not static documents, but are constantly
revised and updated to reflect the input of better emission estimates as
they become available.  Therefore, even though the 2002 “SIP”
inventories and the 2002 “modeling” inventories both represent
emissions from 2002, they may contain slightly different emission
estimates due to the different time frames they were made available, and
the different purposes each serves.

Accurate baseline and future emissions inventories are crucial to the
analyses required for the Regional Haze SIP process.  These emissions
inventories were used to drive the air quality modeling simulations that
were performed to assess the visibility improvement of potential control
measures.  Air quality modeling also was used to perform a pollution
apportionment, which evaluates the contribution to visibility impairment
by geographic region and by emission sector.  In order to be used in the
air quality modeling simulations, the baseline and future year emissions
inventories were processed with SMOKE emissions pre-processor for
subsequent input into CMAQ and REMSAD air quality models that were
described in Section 5.

MANE-VU Regional Baseline Inventory

The starting point for the 2002 baseline emissions inventory was the
2002 inventory submittals that were made to EPA by state and local
agencies as part of the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR).
With contractor assistance (E.H. Pechan & Associates), MANE-VU
coordinated and quality assured the 2002 inventory data, and prepared it
for input into the SMOKE emissions model.  The 2002 emissions from
non-MANE-VU areas within the modeling domain were obtained from other
Regional Planning Organizations for their corresponding areas.  These
RPOs included VISTAS, MWRPO, and CenRAP.

The 2002 baseline inventory went through several iterations.  Work on
Version 1 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory began in April 2004, and the
final inventory and SMOKE input files were finalized during January
2005.  Work on Version 2 (used from April through September 2005)
involved incorporating revisions requested by some MANE-VU state/local
agencies on the point, area, and on-road categories.  Work on Version 3
(used from December 2005 through April 2006) included additional
revisions to the point, area, and on-road categories as requested by
some states.  Thus, the Version 3 inventory for point, area, and on-road
sources was built upon Versions 1 and 2.  This work also included
development of the biogenic inventory.  In Version 3, the non-road
inventory was completely redone because of changes that EPA made to the
NONROAD2005 non-road mobile emissions model.

Version 3 of the 2002 base year emissions inventory was used in the
regional air quality modeling simulations.  Further description of the
data sources, methods, and results for this version of the 2002 baseline
inventory is presented in a technical support document, Appendix   REF
_Ref198002744 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  M .  Emissions inventory data files
are available on the MARAMA website at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.marama.org/visibility/EI_Projects/index.html"
www.marama.org/visibility/EI_Projects/index.html .

After release of Version 3.0 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory,
Massachusetts revised its inventory of area source heating oil emissions
due to two changes.  First, the sulfur percent used to derive the
emissions factors was adjusted from 1.0 to 0.3 because the Massachusetts
draft 2002 SO2 emissions methodology for commercial and residential
distillate fuel used the EPA default sulfur content of 1% instead of the
correct 0.3% value that was implemented in 2001 according Massachusetts
regulation 310 CMR 7.05(1) and (2).  Second, the latest DOE-EIA 2002
fuel use data was used instead of the previous version used in 2001.
These two changes significantly altered the 2002 SO2 emissions for area
source heating oil combustion.  Massachusetts provided revised 2002 PE
and EM tables, which MACTEC used in preparing the 2009/2012/2018
projection inventories.

Massachusetts Baseline Inventory

Massachusetts submitted to EPA in January 2008 its comprehensive 2002
Base Year Emissions Inventory that serves as a baseline for its 8-Hour
Ozone, Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Regional Haze SIPS.  The 2002 Inventory
was estimated for a typical summer day for the ozone precursors VOC, NOx
and CO.  CO also was estimated for a typical winter day for the CO SIP.
Annual emissions were estimated for VOCs, NOx, CO, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, and
NH3, as required as a baseline for this Regional Haze SIP.

The complete MA 2002 Base Year Inventory is part of the Massachusetts
8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP and is available on
MassDEP’s web site at:   HYPERLINK "
http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/priorities/sip.htm"
http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/priorities/sip.htm .   It contains an
extensive narrative explaining the methodology for the development of
the inventory and the extensive data files supporting the emission
estimates.

Massachusetts originally submitted emissions inventory data
electronically to the EPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) system and
subsequently made revisions as a result of Quality Assurance (QA)
procedures.  The point source submittal included detailed facility level
information, activity data down to the segment level, and annual VOCs,
NOx, CO, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, and NH3 emissions.  Massachusetts also
electronically submitted area source activity data, emission factors,
temporal factors, control factors, annual emissions for all pollutants,
and typical summer day (VOC, NOx and CO) and winter day (CO only)
emissions.  Emissions data for point and area sources were submitted to
EPA in its required NEI format.

For on-road and off-road mobile emissions, Massachusetts estimated
typical summer and winter day emissions in the 2002 Base Year Inventory.
 However, for annual emissions Massachusetts relied on MANE-VU
contractors to perform the twelve monthly model runs from EPA’S
MOBILE6.2 for on-road emissions and the NONROAD model for off-road
emissions.  In order to estimate annual emissions from on-road mobile
sources, Massachusetts submitted to the MANE-VU contractor the necessary
MOBILE6.2 inputs such as monthly temperature and I/M scenarios together
with other transportation parameters such as daily vehicle miles
travelled, vehicle registration data, and speeds by county roadway
class.  Massachusetts also provided temperature and other inputs to
MANE-VU contractors for running the NONROAD model in order to estimate
annual emissions.  The resulting on-road mobile and off-road mobile
annual emissions generated by the MANE-VU contractor were used in the
2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.

EPA estimated 2002 Biogenic emissions for all counties in the US using
its Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS-3) and Massachusetts used
these summer day and annual emissions in the 2002 Base Year Emission
Inventory for VOC, NOx, and CO.

The emissions data submitted to EPA-NEI was accessed, analyzed, and
summarized by the MANE-VU contractors and modelers initially as part of
the QA process and modeling for 8-hour Ozone and Regional Haze.

A summary of the Massachusetts 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory is
presented in   REF _Ref196790899 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 8 , which is
contained in Section 6.5.  The 2018 projected Massachusetts emissions in
  REF _Ref196790899 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 8  were adapted from a
MANE-VU summary based on growth and control factors from 2002.

Future Year Emission Control Inventories

A technical support document for the future year inventories is included
in Appendix   REF _Ref191969187 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  N  and explains
the data sources, methods, and results for future year emission
forecasts for three years, five emission sectors, three emission control
scenarios, seven pollutants, and eleven states plus the District of
Columbia.  The following is a summary of the future year inventories
that were developed:

Projection years:  2009, 2012, and 2018;

Emission source sectors:  point-source electric generating units (EGUs),
point-source non-electric generating units (non-EGUs), area sources,
non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources.

Emission control scenarios:

A combined on-the-books/on-the-way (OTB/OTW) control strategy accounting
for emission control regulations already in place as of June 15, 2005,
as well as some emission control regulations that were not yet
finalized, but were expected to achieve additional emission reductions
by 2009; and

A beyond-on-the-way (BOTW) scenario to account for controls from
potential new regulations that may be necessary to meet attainment and
other regional air quality goals, mainly for ozone.

An updated scenario (sometimes referred to as “best and final”) to
account for additional potentially reasonable control measures.  For the
MANE-VU region, these include: SO2 reductions at a set of 167 EGU stacks
that were identified as contributing to visibility impairment at
northeast Class I areas; implementation of a low-sulfur fuel strategy
for non-EGU sources; and implementation of a BART strategy for
BART-eligible sources not controlled under other programs.

(Note:  Refer to Section 10, Long-Term Strategy, for detailed
descriptions of specific control strategies, including the uncertainty
inherent in OTB and BOTW strategies)

Pollutants:  ammonia, carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5, sum of filterable and condensable
components), and coarse particulate matter (PM10, sum of filterable and
condensable components).

States:  Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont, plus the District of Columbia (all members of the MANE-VU
region).

Emission Processor Selection and Configuration

The SMOKE Processing System is principally an emissions processing
system, as opposed to a true emissions inventory preparation system, in
which emissions estimates are simulated from “first principles.”
This means that, with the exception of mobile and biogenic sources, its
purpose is to provide an efficient, modern tool for converting emissions
inventory data into the formatted emissions files required for a
photochemical air quality model. (SMOKE does generate emissions for
on-road mobile and biogenic emissions, however, by driving the MOBILE6
and BEIS emissions models.)

Inside the MANE-VU region, the modeling inventories were processed by
NYSDEC and NESCUAM using the SMOKE (Version 2.1) processor to provide
inputs for the CMAQ model.  A detailed description of all SMOKE input
files such as area, mobile, fire, point and biogenic emissions files,
and the SMOKE model configuration are provided in Appendix   REF
_Ref194466049 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  K .

Inventories for Specific Source Types

There are five emission source classifications in the emissions
inventory:

stationary point

stationary area

non-road mobile

on-road mobile

biogenic

Stationary point sources are large sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year. Stationary area sources are those whose
emissions from individual sources are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources the collective emissions could be
significant (i.e., dry cleaners, service stations, agricultural sources,
fire emissions, etc.).  Non-road mobile sources are equipment that can
move, but do not use the roadways (i.e., lawn mowers, construction
equipment, railroad locomotives, aircraft, etc.)  On-road mobile sources
are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system.
The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road
type.  Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, grasses,
and the natural decay of plants.  For stationary point sources,
emissions data is tracked at the facility level.  For all other source
types, emissions are summed on the county level.  All emissions were
prepared for modeling in accordance with EPA guidance.

Stationary Point Sources

Point source emissions are emissions from large individual sources.
Generally, point sources have permits to operate and their emissions are
individually calculated based on source specific factors on a regular
schedule.  The largest point sources are inventoried annually.  These
are considered to be major sources having emissions of ≥ 50 to100 tons
per year (tpy) of a criteria pollutant, ≥ 10 tpy of a single hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) or ≥ 25 tpy of total HAPs. Emissions from smaller
stationary point sources in Massachusetts also are calculated
individually, but less frequently, on a triennial basis.  Point sources
are grouped into EGU sources and other non-EGU industrial point sources.

Electric Generating Units

The base year inventory for EGU sources used 2002 continuous emissions
monitoring (CEM) data reported to EPA in compliance with the Acid Rain
program or 2002 hourly emission data provided by stakeholders.  These
data provide hourly emissions profiles that can be used in the modeling
of SO2 and NOx emissions from these large sources.  Emission profiles
are used to estimate emissions of other pollutants (volatile organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, ammonia, and fine particles) based on
measured emissions of SO2 and NOx.

Future year inventories of EGU emissions for 2009 and 2018 were
developed using the IPM model to forecast growth in electric demand and
replacement of older, less efficient and more polluting power plants
with newer, more efficient and cleaner units.  While the output of the
IPM model predicts that a certain number of older plants will be
replaced by newer units to meet future electricity growth and
state-by-state NOx and SO2 caps, Massachusetts did not directly rely
upon the closure of any particular plant in establishing the 2018
inventory upon which the reasonable progress goals were set.

The IPM model results are not the basis upon which to reliably predict
plant closures. Preliminary modeling was thus performed with unchanged
IPM 2.1.9 model results.  However, prior to the Best and Final Modeling
(Appendix G), future year EGU inventories were modified.

First, IPM predictions were reviewed by MANE-VU permitting and
enforcement staff.  In many cases, staff felt that the IPM shutdown
predictions were unlikely to occur.  In particular, IPM predicted that
many oil-fired EGUs in urban areas would be shutdown.  Similar source
information was solicited from states in both VISTAS and MRPO.  As a
result of this model validation, the IPM modeling output was adjusted
before the Best and Final modeling (Appendix G) to reflect staff
knowledge of specific plant status in MANE-VU, VISTAS, and MRPO states.
Where EGU operating status was contrary to what was predicted by IPM
modeling, the future year emissions inventory was adjusted to reflect
the operation of those plants expected by state staff.

Second, as a result of inter- and intra- RPO consultations, MANE-VU
agreed to pursue certain control measures as described in the Long-Term
Strategy section.  For EGUs, the agreed upon approach was to reduce
emissions from 167 stacks located in MANE-VU, MRPO and VISTAS by 90
percent, as described further in the Long-Term Strategy.

Non-EGU Point Sources

The primary basis for the 2002 baseline non-EGU emissions were those
that were reported by state and local agencies for the CERR.  As
described above, MANE-VU’s contractor, E.H. Pechan & Associates
(Pechan) coordinated the QA of the inventory and prepared the necessary
files for input into the SMOKE emissions model.  Further information on
the preparation of the MANE-VU 2002 baseline point source modeling
emissions inventory can be found in Chapter II of the Technical Support
Document for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories (Appendix   REF
_Ref198002744 \r \h  M ).

Projected non-EGU point source emissions were developed for the MANE-VU
region by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. under contract to MARAMA.  The
specific methodologies that were used are described in Appendix   REF
_Ref191969187 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  N , Development of Emissions
Projections For 2009, 2012, and 2018 For NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad
Source In the MANE-VU Region.  MACTEC used state-supplied growth factor
data where available to project future year emissions.  Where
state-supplied data was not available, MACTEC used EPA’s Economic
Growth and Analysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) to develop applicable
growth factors for the non-EGU component.  MACTEC also incorporated the
applicable federal and state emissions control programs to account for
the expected emissions reductions that will take place under the OTB/OTW
and BOTW scenarios.

Stationary Area Sources

Stationary area sources include sources whose individual emissions are
relatively small but due to the large number of these sources, their
collective emissions are significant.  Some examples include dry
cleaners, service stations, and the combustion of fuels for heating.
Area source emissions are estimated by multiplying an emission factor by
some known indicator of collective activity, such as fuel use, number of
households, or population.

The area source emissions inventory submittals made for the CERR became
the basis for the area source portion of the 2002 baseline inventory.
Similar to the point source category, Pechan, on behalf of MANE-VU,
prepared the area source modeling inventory using the CERR submittals as
a starting point.  Pechan quality assured the inventory and augmented it
with additional data, including MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for
categories such as residential wood combustion and open burning.
Detailed information on the preparation of the MANE-VU 2002 baseline
area source modeling emissions inventory can be found in Chapter III of
Appendix   REF _Ref198002744 \r \h  M .

Similar to non-EGU point sources, future year area source emissions were
projected for the MANE-VU region by MACTEC.  The specific methodologies