MEMORANDUM TO:

The Honorable

Collin

P. O’Mara Cabinet Secretary,

Dept.

of Natural Resources

aid Environmental

Control FROM:

Lisa

A. Vest’/ Public Hearing Officer, Office

of the Secretary Department

of Natural Resources

and Environmental

Control RE:

Proposed Supplement

to Delaware’s

Sept.

16, 2009 CAA Section

110, “Infrastructure”

State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Submission DATE:

March

11, 2011 I. Background: A public hearing

was held

on Tuesday, February

1, 2011,

at 6:00 p.m.

at the Department

of Natural Resources

and Environmental

Control (“DNREC”, “Department”),

89 Kings Highway,
Dover, Delaware auditorium

to receive comment

on a proposed

State Implementation

Plan (SIP) document

that will

be submitted

by DNREC to the Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”)

to supplement Delaware’s September 16, 2009 CAA Section

110 “Infrastructure”

State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Submission. The Department’s

previous

SIP submission

of September

16, 2009, titled State Implementation

Plan
for Meeting

the Infrastructure Requirements

of the Clean

Air Act for Fine Particulate

Matter,

was submitted

to the EPA

to satisfy

the requirements

of Section

1 10(a)(l)

and

1 l0(a)(2)

of the Clean

Air Act (“CAA”) regarding

the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)

for Fine Particles (PM2.5) promulgated

by the EPA

on October

17, 2006

(71 FR6 1224).Delaware’sSeptember16,2009SIPrevisionexplained,amongotherthings,howDelawarehassatisfiedtherequirementsofCAA110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)forinterstatetransport.TheSIPrevisionthattheDepartmentiscurrentlyproposingsupplementstheSeptember16,2009SIPrevisionbyaddingatechnicalanalysisthatexplainsanddemonstratesinadditionaldetailhowDelawarehassatisfiedtherequirementsofCAA110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),addressinginterstatetransportbydemonstratingthatDelawarehasfulfilleditsrequirementstocontrolsourcesthatcontributesignificantlytonon-attainmentin,orinterferewithmaintenanceby,anyotherStatewithrespecttoanysuchnationalprimaryorsecondaryambientairqualitystandard(s)whichaddressdownwindcontributions(interstatetransport)fromDelawaresources.ItshouldbenotedthatonDecember8,2010,theDepartmentsubmittedthesamesupplementaltechnicalanalysisthatitiscurrentlyproposingtotheEPA,andrequestedthatEPAprocessitinparallelwithanyrulemakingonitsSeptember16,2009SIPsubmissionwhileDNRECcompletesthepublicparticipationproceduresnecessarytomakeaformalSIPrevisionrequest.Thisisknownas“parallelprocessing”,andisdetailedin40CFRPart51Appendixvat2.3.1.ThiswasdonetoenableEPAtoconsiderthistechnicalanalysisinanyrulemakingittakesonDelaware’sSeptember16,2009submittalbetweennowandthedatethecompleteformalsubmittalofthisSIPsupplementismadebyDNRECtoEPA.ItshouldbenotedthattheDepartmentreceivednopubliccommentatanyphaseofthispromulgationprocess,including,butnotlimitedto,atthetimeofthepublichearingonFebruary1,2011.Propernoticeofthehearingwasprovidedasrequiredbylaw.2II. Summary

of Hearing Record: At the time

of the hearing

on February

1, 2011,
Ron Amirikian, Planning Branch Manager

of the Department’s

Division

of Air Quality Management

(AQM), offered

the Department’s

six

(6) exhibits pertaining

to the aforementioned supplemental

SIP submission,

and this Hearing Officer entered

them

into

the formal hearing record developed

in this matter. Included
within those Departmental

exhibits

were copies

of the legal notices regarding

the availability

of these documents

for public
view

and
the holding

of this public hearing

on February

1, 2011,

and copies

of the actual proposed supplemental

SIP submission

as referenced

above. Following

the inclusion

of the Department’s

six

(6) exhibits

into

the public hearing record,

the floor was then open

for acceptance

of public comment concerning

the same.

As noted previously,

no public comments

were received

by the Department concerning

this matter. For
the Secretary’s

review,

and

in order

for the Secretary

to gain

an in-depth understanding

of this proposed promulgation,

a copy

of the supplemental

SIP submission is formally attached hereto

as Appendix

“A”,
and the same

is expressly incorporated

into this Hearing Officer’s Report. It should

be noted

that

the Department

adhered

to all appropriate Delaware statutes

and
the regulatory development

process

in this matter,

and that
the Department has met
the required
public notice obligations regarding

this proposed amendment.

It should

also

be noted

that
the Department

has reviewed

this proposed amendment

in the light

of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act,
and believes

the same

to be lawful, feasible

and 3Sdesirable,andthattherecommendationsasproposedshouldbeapplicabletoallDelawarecitizensequally.III.ConclusionsandRecommendations:Basedontherecorddevelopedinthismatter,IconcludethattheDepartmenthasprovidedappropriatereasoningregardingtheneedfortheproposedSupplementtoDelaware’sSeptember16,2009CAASection110“Infrastructure”StateImplementationPlan(SIP)Submission.Accordingly,IrecommendpromulgationofthisproposedsupplementalSIPsubmissioninthecustomalymannerprovidedbylaw.Further,Irecommendthefollowingfindings:1.TheDepartmenthasjurisdictionunderitsstatutoryauthority,7Del.C.,Chapter60,tomakeadeterminationinthisproceeding;2.TheDepartmentprovidedadequatepublicnoticeoftheproceedingandthepublichearinginamannerrequiredbythelawandregulations;3.TheDepartmentheldapublichearinginamannerrequiredbythelawandregulations;4.TheDepartmentconsideredalltimelyandrelevantpubliccommentsinmakingitsdetermination;5.TheDepartmenthasreviewedtheseproposedpromulgationinthelightoftheRegulatoryFlexibilityAct,andbelievesthesametobelawful,feasibleanddesirable,andthattherecommendationsasproposedshouldbeapplicabletoallDelawarecitizensequally;46. Promulgation

of this supplemental

SIP submission

will enable

the Department to supplement

its September

16, 2009

SIP revision

by adding

a technical analysis

that explains

and demonstrates

in additional

detail how Delaware

has satisfied

the requirements

of CAA

11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
addressing interstate transport

by demonstrating

that Delaware

has fulfilled

its requirements

to control sources

that contribute significantly

to non-attainment

in,

or interfere with maintenance

by, any other State with respect

to any such national primary

or secondary ambient

air quality standard(s)

which address downwind contributions (interstate transport)

from Delaware sources; 7.

The Department

has

an adequate
record

for
its decision,

and

no further public hearing

is appropriate

or necessary; 8.

The Department’s
proposed supplemental

SIP submission,

as published

in the January

1, 2011 Delaware Register

of Regulations

and

as set forth within Appendix

“A” hereto,

is adequately supported,

not arbitrary

or capricious,

and is consistent

with

the applicable

laws
and regulations. Consequently,

it should be approved

as

a final regulation,

which
shall

go into effect

ten days after their publication

in the next available

issue

of the Delaware Register

of Regulations;

and

59.TheDepartmentshallsubmittheproposedsupplementalSIPsubmissionasfinaltotheDelawareRegisterofRegulationsforpublicationinitsnextavailableissue,andshallprovidewrittennoticetothepersonsaffectedbytheOrder.A.VESTPHearingOfficer/ahearlSuppl.toDESept.09CAASect.!10Infrastr.SIPrevision20116APPENDIX“A”Proposed Delaware State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Revision Supplement

to Delaware’s September

17, 2009 CAA Section

110 “Infrastructure”

State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Submission Delaware Department

of Natural Resources

and Environmental

Control December

7, 20101.1.11.22.3.3.13.1.13.1.23.1.33.1.43.1.54.4.14.1.14.1.24.1.34.1.44.1.55.6.7.8.9.TableofContents3577899991011111212161618232324293031SummaryandPurposeBackground—ResponsibilitiesTransportRuleModelingandContributionAssessmentEmissions2005SourceSectorDiscussion——EGUs—Non-EGUPoint—--------------------NonpointNonroad—---—----—---——Onroad-----2012Projections2012SourceSectorDiscussionEGUs-‘—Non-EGUPoint—-NonpointNonroadOnroadDelawareMeetsProposedTransportRuleBudgetsMonitoringDataShowsAttainmentControlMeasuresSummaryAppendices21. SUMMARY

AND PURPOSE A State Implementation

Plan (“SIP”)

is

a state plan that identifies

how that state will attain

and maintain

air quality

that conforms

to each primary

and secondary National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”).

The
SIP

is

a complex,

fluid document containing regulations,

sourcespecific requirements,

and non-regulatory

items such

as plans

and emission inventories. Delaware’s

initial

SIP was approved

by the EPA

on May

31, 1972. Since

this initial approval, the Delaware

SIP has been revised numerous

times

to address

air quality non-attainment

and maintenance

issues.

This
was done

by updating

plans

and inventories,

and adding

new
and revised regulatory

control requirements. Delaware’s

SIP

is compiled

at 40 C.F.R.

Part

52 Subpart

I. This document

is

a revision

to Delaware’s

SIP.

The purpose

of this
SIP revision

is

to supplement

our September

17, 2009

SIP revision

that was submitted

to satisfy

the requirements of Section 1l0(a)(1)

and 110(a)(2)

of the Clean

Air Act (the Act) pursuant

to the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

for Fine Particles (PM 2 . 5 ) promulgated

by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

on October

17, 2006

(71 FR 61224). Under

the CAA, States

are required

to submit

SIP revisions

to satisfy Section

11 0(a)(

1) and 11 0(a)(2)

by no later than three years from

the date EPA promulgates

a new

or revised NAAQS or face findings

of failure

to submit. Therefore,

the September

17, 2009

SIP submission

made by the Department

was timely. However,

on September

25, 2009, EPA issued

a guidance document entitled, “Guidance

on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections

11 0(a)(1)

and

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour

Fine Particle (PM 2 . 5 ) National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” which provided guidance

on addressing

the “infrastructure”

elements

for SIPs required

under Sections

1 10(a)(1)

and

1 10(a)(2)

of the Act
for the 2006 24-hour
PM 2 . 5 NAAQS. According

to this guidance document,

any state’s

SIP submission

to address

the infrastructure

element related to interstate transport

found

at

11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

must

be supported

by
an “adequate technical analysis.”

This guidance document
further states
that

it
is EPA’

s intention

to complete

a rule

to address interstate transport

in the eastern portion

of the continental

United States

(the Transport Rule).

This rule would replace

the vacated
Clean

Air Interstate Transport

Rule (CAIR)

and would assist states with obligations

to address interstate transport

that significantly contributes

to nonattainment

in another

state. However, Delaware

could

not wait

for EPA’s

SIP guidance

or the CAIR replacement

rule without facing findings

of failure

to submit

for not meeting

the October

17, 2009

due date

for submittal

of the

1 l0(a)(1)

and

1 l0(a)(2) infrastructure

SIP elements pursuant

to EPA’s October 17, 2006 promulgation

of the 24-hour NAAQS

for PM 25 . Therefore, Delaware

made

a timely SIP submission

in which

the Department

cited

to its own SIP-approved regulations

to reduce PM 2 . 5 precursor emissions

of sulfur dioxide
(SO 2 )

and nitrogen
oxides (NOx)
from electric 3generatingunits,industrialboilers,andpeakingunitstoaddresstheinterstatetransportrequirementsof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).Tobeclear,Delaware’sSeptember17,2009SIPsubmittaldidnotincludethe“technicalanalysis”calledforinEPA’sSeptember25,2009guidancedocumentbecause1)theEPAguidancewasissuedtoolateintheprocess,asdiscussedabove,and2)becauseafterreviewoftheguidanceDelawarebelievedtheEPArequiredtechnicalanalysiswasinlinewithananalysisofwhetherornotemissionfromthestatesignificantlyimpactanyarea,withtheresultoftheanalysisbeingeithertheydoortheydonotimpact.And,iftheydoimpactthenthestatemusttakeactiontoaddresstheimpact.InthedevelopmentofDelaware’sSIP-approvedregulationstoreducePM2.5precursoremissionsofSO2andNOxfromelectricgeneratingunits,industrialboilers,andpeakingunitstoaddresstheinterstatetransportrequirementsof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),Delawarestartedwiththeassumptionthatitdidsignificantlyimpactdownwindareas.Withthisassumption,DelawaremovedforwardandregulatedNOxandSO2emissionsfromitslargeEGUandindustrialboilers,toincludeEGUswithsmallannualemissionbuthighdailyemissions(i.e.,typicallyreferredtoashighenergydemanddayunits)withBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT)levelcontrols.BecauseofthisDelawarebelievedithasclearlymitigatedsignificanttransportandadequatelyaddressedCAA110requirements.’SincethetimeofourSeptember17,2009SIPsubmittal,EPAproposedtheTransportRule(August2,2010).Inthatproposal,EPAconcludedthattheStateofDelawarewastobeincludedamongthestatescoveredbytheTransportRule.GivenDelaware’sstringentSIP-approvedEGU,peakingunitandlargeboilercontrolregulations,thiswasnotexpected.OnOctober1,2010,theDepartmentsubmittedtimelycommentstoEPA’srulemakingdocketfortheproposedTransportRuleincludingextensivetechnicaldataandinformationtosupportourcontentionthatDelawareshouldnotbeincludedintheTransportRule.Itisourbeliefthatthecomments,data,andinformationwesubmittedontheproposedTransportRulearemorethansufficienttosatisfyEPA’sSeptember25,2009guidancethataSIPsubmittedtoaddress1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)includeanadequatetechnicalanalysis.Despitetheabove,inthebestinterestsoftheStateofDelaware,theDepartmentisherebyusingthecomments,data,andinformationwesubmittedontheTransportRuletoformthebasisofatechnicalanalysisinsupportofourSeptember17,2009SIPrevisiontocomplywithEPA’sSeptember25,2009guidancedocument.UponcompletionoftheCAA’srequiredpublicThisdoesnotimplythatDelawarebelievestransportislimitedtoEGUandlargeboileremissions.Tothecontrary,Delawarebelievesprogramslikereasonablyavailablecontroltechnology(RACT),newsourcereview(NSR),transportationconformity,etc.areneededinallupwindareastomitigatetransport.ThispositionisportrayedclearlyinDelaware’sDecember2009CAA126petition.However,inthecontextofEPAtransportrule,whichistheimpetusforthisSIPrevision,BACTlevelcontrolsonEGUsareclearlyadequatetomitigatesignificantimpactondownwindstates.4participation procedures,

the Department

will formally submit

this technical analysis

as

a supplement

to its September

17, 2010

SIP submission

to address satisfy

11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

for interstate transport

along with

the associated administrative
materials required

by 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix

v. 1.1 BACKGROUND This document supplements

our September

17, 2009

SIP

by adding
more detail

as

to how Delaware

meets

the requirements

of Clean

Air Act (“CAA”)

§ 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 2
addressing interstate transport

by demonstrating

that Delaware

has fulfilled

its requirements

to control sources

that contribute significantly

to non-attainment

in,

or interfere

with maintenance

by, any other State with respect

to any such national primary

or secondary ambient

air quality standard
which address downwind contributions (interstate transport)

from Delaware sources. Delaware’s September

17, 2009 submittal indicated

that

its implementation

plan
and recently submitted

SIP revisions presently contain adequate provisions prohibiting

sources

from emitting air pollutants

in amounts
which

will contribute significantly

to non-attainment

or interfere

with maintenance

with
any NAAQS

and

to prevent interference

with measures related

to preventing significant deterioration

of air quality

or which have

to date proved adequate

to protect visibility and

to address interstate

and international
pollutant abatement. Specifically,

under 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

major stationary sources

for the annual

and 24-hr PM 2 . 5 NAAQS

are currently subject

to Nonattainment

New Source Review (NNSR)

and Prevention

of Significant sDeterioration

(PSD) permitting programs

under

the PSD
and EOP provisions

of

7 DE Admin. Code 1125, Preconstruction

Review.

As provided

in the PM 25 NSR Implementation

Rule

(73 FR 28321), NNSR

in New Castle County

for PM 2 . 5

will continue

to be administered

under

the provisions

of Appendix

S until

no later than May

16, 2011 when

the EOP section

of

7 DE Admin.

Code
1125
and
the Delaware

SIP have been revised

to reflect

the provisions

of 73 FR 28321.
Also,

in Kent
and Sussex counties,

PM 25 PSD activities

will continue

to be administered using PM 10

as

a surrogate

for PM 25 , without consideration

of precursors,

until

no later than May 16, 2011 when changes

to

7 DE Admin.

Code
1125
and the SIP have been completed. Delaware has complied

with §110(a)(2)(D)

through promulgation

of

7 DE Admin.

Code 1146, Electric Generating

Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation;

7 DE Admin.

Code 1142, Section

2, Control

of NO Emissions

from Industrial Boilers

and Process Heaters

at Petroleum Refineries;

and

7 DE Adnzin.

Code
1148, Control

of Stationary Combustion

Turbine Electric Generating

Unit 2

§ O(a)(2)(D)(i)(J)

states, “Contain adequate provisions— (i) prohibiting, consistent

with

the provisions

of this title,
any source

or other type

of emissions activity within

the State from emitting

any

air pollutant

in amounts which

will- (I) contribute significantly

to non-attainment

in,
or interfere

with maintenance

by, any other State with respect

to any such national primary

or secondary ambient

air quality standard,

or (II) interfere

with measures required

to be included

in the applicable implementation

plan

for any other State under

part

C to prevent significant deterioration

of air quality

or

to protect visibility,

(ii) insuring compliance

with

the applicable requirements

of sections

126 and
115 (relating

to interstate

and international pollution abatement).” 5Emissions;whichsignificantlyreduceemissionsfromDelaware’slargestEGUs,industrialboilers,andpeakingunits.TheseregulationsimposeBACTlevelcontrols,andhavebeenapprovedbytheEPAasrevisionstoDelaware’sSIP.Asmentionedpreviously,onSeptember25,2009EPAissuedaMemo3whichincludesguidanceonthetechnicalanalysis.TheMemodiscussestheanalysis,elementsthereinandstates,“Informationtosupportthestatesdeterminationwithrespecttosignjficantcontributiontononattainmentmightinclude,butnotlimitedto,informationconcerningemissionsinthestate,meteorologicalconditionsinthestateandthepotentiallyimpactedstates,monitoredambientconcentrationsinthestateandthepotentiallyimpactedstates,thedistancetothenearestareathatisnotattainingthestandard,andairqualitymodeling.”Therefore,thisanalysiswilldiscuss:•EvaluationofEPA’sproposedTransportRule(TR)modelingtohelpprovideweight-ofevidencethatDelawareisnotasignificantcontributortodownwindstates•Delawarevs.EPATRemissionsanalysistohelpprovideweight-of-evidencethatDelawareisnotasignificantcontributortodownwindstates•Monitoringdata•RecentandsignificantDelawarecontrolmeasuresthatmitigatetransportWhilereadingthisanalysis,weaskthereadertorememberthat:1.DelawareEGUprojectionsarelessthantheEGUbudgetsintheproposedTR.SincethosebudgetsarethelevelofSO2andNOxemissionsthatstatesmustmeettoremedytheir“significantcontribution,”basedonEPAmodeling,andwedemonstrateDelawareEGUswillmeetthosebudgetsin2012,itfollowsthatDelawarehasmetitsrequirementstoaddressdownwindtransport.2.Delawaredoesnothavethestafforresourcestogatherregionaldata,projectemissions,andsubsequentlymodeldownwindcontributionsfromsourcestoeverydownwindcountyintheeasternU.S.Delawarefurtherbelievesthatexpectationforsuchananalysistobeconductedbyeverystateisentirelyunreasonableandtechnicallyimpractical.Therefore,forpurposesofthistechnicalanalysisDelawareDivisionofAirQuality(DAQ)willcombineanEPA-DelawareemissionanalysiswithEPA’smodelingusedfortheTR.GuidanceonSIPElementsRequiredUnderSections110(a)(1)and(2)forthe200624-HourFineParticle(PM25)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS),”61.2 Responsibilities. The agency

with direct responsibility

for preparing

and submitting

this document

is Delaware Department

of Natural Resources

and Environmental

Control (DNREC), Division

of Air Quality (DAQ),
under

the Division Director,

Mi Mirzakhalili,

P.E.

The working responsibility

for Delaware’s

air quality planning

falls within DAQ’s Planning Branch,
under

the Program Manager, Ronald Amirikian.

The Planning Branch

is instrumental

in completing

this document. Specifically,

• Jack Sipple, M.S.,

is the project leader

and responsible

for emission projections,

as well as principal
author

of this SIP revision; • Ron Amirikian, Planning Branch Manager,

QAV • Dave Fees,
P.E., Managing Engineer,

DAQ Emission Inventory Program,

is the supporting

lead

for the 2005 base year emission inventory; • Bob Clausen,

EGU analysis

and projections; • Betsy Frey, M.S.,

is the supporting

lead
for PM 2 . 5 monitoring

data; Mark Prettyman, Environmental

Scientist, supporting

staff and data management 2. TRANSPORT

RULE MODELING

AND CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT On August

2, 2010 EPA proposed

the TR

to address downwind contributions

of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides.

In that Rule, EPA 2012 “Base Case” emissions

were modeled

to determine whether

States

met

a threshold

for “linkage”

and thus meet

the criteria

for “significant contribution

to, and/or interference

with maintenance”

to downwind

areas.

The results

of EPA’s modeling

in Table

1 suggest

that Delaware’s downwind contribution

exceeds

one

or both

of these thresholds.

The “significant” thresholds

are 0.20
and 0.35 ug/m3

for the annual

and 24-hr NAAQS, respectively. Table

1. Delaware’s

largest contribution

to downwind

areas based

on EPA modeling

in the TR Largest

Largest

Affected Counties Affected Counties Downwind
Downwind

(Linkages)

for (Linkages)

for Contribution

to Contribution

to Nonattainment

Maintenance Nonattainment Maintenance (uglm3)

(uglm3) NAAQS

7Annual0.200.14Lancaster,PANone.York,PADaily0.500.36Union,PACumberland,PADauphin,PANewYork,NYAswewillshowlaterinthisdocument,the2005baseyearthatEPAusedintheprojectionswasflawed,becausethoseemissionsweresignificantlyhigherthanwhatDelawaresubmittedinits2005PeriodicEmissionsInventory.Furthermore,theEPA2012projectionswerebasedonthoseEPA2005inflatednumbers,whichresultedininflated2012numbers.Andfinally,becauserecentDelawarecontrolinitiativeswerenotincludedintheEPA’s2012projectionstheywereevenfurtherinflated.Subsequently,theseinflatedprojectionswereusedbyEPAtomodelandassesswhetherstatessignificantlycontribute.Butinflatedprojectionsusedinanycontributionassessmentyieldsinflatedcontributions.Therefore,DelawarebelievesthatifEPAusedup-todateandaccurateemissionsdata(i.e.theDelawarePEIandrecentDelawarecontrolmeasures),EPAmodelingwouldhaveshownthatDelawaredoessignificantlycontributetodownwindareas.3.EMISSIONSDelawarecomparedits2005PeriodicEmissionsInventory(PET)withEPA’s2005NEI(and2002)emissionsusedintheirassessmentofsignificantcontributionsfortheTR.Delawarethenprojectedits2005PEIemissionsto2012,andcomparedthemtoEPA’s2012BaseCaseemissions.Delaware’ssulfurdioxide(SO2)andnitrogenoxides(NOx)emissionsaresignificantlyoverstatedintheTRcontributionassessment.2005and2012emissionscanbefoundintheattachmentstothisdocument(attachment1containstheemissionsummarytables).EPAusedthe2005NationalEmissionsInventory(NEI),Version2forpointsources,and2002emissionsforafewothercategories,suchasnonpointsources.Alternatively,DAQusedamorerecentandrefined2005inventoryPEIforthe2005emissionsanalysis.EPAalsousedNMIMandMOVES,whicharediscussedinmoredetailbelow.Theresultsofourcomparisonshowthat2005emissionsdifferencesbetweenEPA’sTR2005emissionsandDAQ’s2005PETareinsignificantforEGUsandnon-EGUpointsources,butsignificantinthenonpointandnonroadcategories.EPAapparentlyuseda“top-down”approachforthenonpointandmarinevessels.Delawareusedstate-specificdata,i.e.a“bottom-up”approach.Bottom-upapproacheshave8always

been

the preferred method

for emission calculations.

Table

2 summarizes

the 2005 differences,

with

a discussion

of each sector afterwards. Table

2 2005 Emissions I

2005 S02

EGU N0nEGU Nonpoint
Nonroad

Onroad

Total Transport

Rule

32,378

34,859!.

5,859

11,’648

422 85,166 DE PEt Emissions

31,745

34,686,

1,034

2,755:

422 70,642 DE Emission Difference

(tpy)

-633

-173

-4,825

-8,893

( -14,524 % Difference

2%:

0%

82%

76%

0%—
17% 2005 NOX

EGU NonEGU Nonpoint
Nonroad

Onroad

Total Transport

Rule

11,917

5,567

3,259

15,567

22,569

58,879 DE PEI Emissions

11,397

5,999:

2,31T

11,728

22,569

54,010 DE Emission Difference

-520

432

-942

-3,839

C -4,86 %Difference

4%

-8%

29%’

25%!

0%

8% 3.1
2005 Source Sector Discussion 3.1.1 EGUs:

EPA
and Delaware

PET EGUs emission differences

are insignificant

for 2005. 3.1.2 Non-EGU

Point:

No difference

in 2005. 3.1.3 Nonpoint:

The nonpoint category

in Table

2 shows significant differences between

EPA and DAQ 2005 emissions.

The large discrepancy

most likely

lies with differences

in how

the several

fuel combustion categories (industrial, commercial,

and residential)

were calculated. EPA assumed

2002 emissions

for the TR 2005
fuel combustion
sources, without growth. 5 DAQ calculated

its emissions

using Delaware-specific

2005
fuel sales data obtained

from

the US Department

of Energy’s Energy Information Administration

(EIA) publications

and emission factors obtained

from AP-42

and other EPA documents. Delaware

also backs

out fuel usage already reported
under

the point source

or nonroad
source sectors.

EPA may have doublecounted

the fuel combustion emissions. Another possible reason

for the difference between

DAQ methods

for fuel combustion

and those employed

by EPA,

is that
we concluded

(since

the 2002 inventory)

that fuel used

by industrial and commercial non-stationary equipment (forklifts,

aerial
lifts, floor sweepers/scrubbers,

etc.) was contained

in the EIA state energy industrial

and commercial

sector usages, instead

of
in the DAQ emission
tables

can

be found

in the attachments (summaries,

EGUs, non-EGUs,

marine vessels

and fuel combustion). Technical Support Document

(7SD)

for the Transport

Rule Docket.

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-049

1. Table

2-1. Sectors
Used

in the TR Emissions Modeling Platform.

9off-highwaysector.SinceemissionsfromtheseequipmenttypesareincludedintheNONROADmodel,weneededtobacktheirfuelusageoutoftheETAtotal.Thisdidhaveafairlysignificanteffect.3.1.4Nonroad:Thenonroad2005emissiondifferenceswereverylarge,particularlyforSO2asshowninTable2.Aswillbediscussedlater,thisisduetodifferingmethodsformarinevesselcalculations.However,allofthenon-roadcategoriesareaddressedhere:-1.Nonroadequipment(theNMIMmodel):EPAusedNMIM,butDelawarecouldnotfinddataonEPA’swebsitewherebywecould“separate”non-roadequipmentemissionsfrommarine,aircraftandlocomotive(MAR).However,sinceDAQalsousedNMIMfor2005(andnationaldefaultsforthebiggerNOxsub-categories),webelievethat2005EPAvs.DAQemissionsdifferencesinnonroadequipment(NMIM)categoryaremostlikelyinsignificant,andthusnotakeyfactorinthetotalnonroademissionsdifferences.2.Locomotivesandnon-C3Marine:EPAused2002emissions.6Delawarehasrefinedthe2005PETtousemorerecentemissionfactorsandactivitydata.3.AircraftEmissions:EPAusedthe2005NEIversion.Delawarehasrefinedits2005PEItousemorerecentemissionfactorsand/oractivitydata.4.C3MarineVessels:Thisisthesub-categorylikelyresponsibleforthelargedifferencesbetweenEPAandDAQnonroad2005numbers(andthus2012),i.e.,EPA2005SO2is11,648tpywhileDAQis2,755tpy.EPA2005NOxis15,567tpyandDAQ’sis11,728tpy.DelawareknowsfromexperiencethatthiscategoryislargelyresponsibleforSO2emissionsfromnonroadsources,andalittlelesssoforNOx.Infact,marinevesselSO2emissionsrankonlybehindEGUsandlargeindustrialboilers.EPAobtainedtheir2005emissionsfortheTRfromtheEPArulecalled“ControlofEmissionsfromNewMarineCompression-IgnitionEnginesatorAbove30LitersperCylinder”,usuallydescribedastheEmissionsControlArea(ECA)study,originallycalledSO2(“5”)ECA.7BecauseEPAreliedonruledevelopmentemissions,DAQbelievesEPA’smethodisa“topdown”approach,anddoesnotestimateemissionstothelevelofdetailundertakenbyDelawareDAQstaff,whichuseslocalactivitydata.Moreimportantly,DelawarehaslearnedfromdiscussionswithOAQPSthatEPAallocatedC3marinevesselstoStatesoutto200nauticalmiles.Thatiswellbeyondourstateboundaries.BelowisasummaryofDelaware’smethods,6TechnicalSupportDocument(TSD)fortheTransportRuleDocket.IDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.Table2-1.SectorsUsedintheTREmissionsModelingPlatform.‘TechnicalSupportDocument(7D)fortheTransportRuleDocket.IDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.Table2-1.SectorsUsedintheTREmissionsModelingPlatform.10including improvements

to the methodology

for 2005

as compared

to Delaware’s

2002 inventory. The Delaware inventory

for CMVs includes exhaust emissions

from ocean-going

vessels,

tow and
tug boats, ferries,

and dredges,

and

is reported

to EPA under

the following

SCCs: 2280002100, 2280002200, 2280003100,

and 2280003200.

Delaware accounts

for vessel cruising, maneuvering,

and hoteling time-in-mode

and engine energy output

in kilowatt-hours. For most

of the length

of the Delaware

Bay and River, emissions

are split between Delaware

and New Jersey since

the state boundary coincides

with

the shipping channel.

The state boundary

for the northern portion

of New Castle County extends

to low mean time

on the New Jersey

side

of the river

and thus

all emissions

from vessel traveling

this stretch

of river

are included

in Delaware’s inventory. Delaware obtains individual

ship movement

data from

the Maritime Exchange,

and

is able

to use this information

to determine

which vessels
berth

at Delaware

ports

and which vessels transit Delaware

waters

on their way

to ports

in Philadelphia,
Camden,

and other ports north

of the Delaware

state line.
The use

of individual

ship movement

data was first obtained

and used

for the 2005 inventory. Previous inventories

relied

on annual

ship movement

data obtained

from the
US Army Corps

of Engineers’ (USACE) Waterborne Commerce

of the United States publication.

The use

of the Maritime Exchange

data enabled Delaware

to determine
vessels

that made multiple
berths within

the Delaware

River

and Bay. Prior

to 2005, each vessel movement provided

by the USACE publication

was treated

as

a separate transit

of Delaware

waters
from the mouth

of the Delaware

Bay

to the Delaware/Pennsylvania

state line. A second important change

to the methodology

was

to eliminate

the assumption

that every vessel traveling

up and down

the Delaware

River

and Bay was escorted

by

a tug boat.

In conversations with personnel

at the Maritime Exchange,

few vessels receive

an escort

the length

of the bay. CMVs

are met

by

a tug

a few miles before reaching

port

in order

to assist

the vessel maneuvering

into port and

up

to its berth. As

a result

of these important changes,

the 2005 emissions

were reduced

by 40%

or more from 2002 estimates, suggesting
another reason

why

the large discrepancies

exist between

the EPA

TR 2005

and DAQ’s

PET. 3.1.5 Onroad: Delaware

does
not have

the ability

to run MOVES

in time

for the comment

due date. Therefore,

we accept EPA’s
2005 onroad emissions

as-is

for purposes

of this analysis. 4.0 Delaware

2012 Projections

(as projected

by DAQ) DAQ used

our 2005
PET

as the base year

for the 2012 projections.

EPA used

the 2005 NET version

2, 2002 emissions, MOVES

and NMIM

in the base year,

as described

above. Because we have shown

that EPA’s nonroad

and nonpoint emissions

are significantly

higher

for SO 2 and 11NOxin2005,itfollowsthatEPA’s2012projectionsforthosecategorieswouldlikelybehighertoo.Table3illustratesthemagnitudeofthosedifferences.Eachsourcesectorisdiscussedafterwardsinmoredetail.Table32012ProjectedEmissions2012S02EGUN0nEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule7,841:10,9745,85814,1939838,9&1DEProjections7,3565,9411,034:2,201916,631DEEmissionDifference-485-5,033-4,824-11,992(-22,334%Difference6%46%82%84%0%57%2012NOXEGUNonEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule4,6395,5673,248i15,5111O,7X39,665DEProjections2,4184,5042,315!10,370.10,730,307DEEmissionDifference-2,221-1,O63-933-5,141-9,35%Difference48%r19%29%33%0%24%4.12012SourceSectorDiscussion4.1.1EGUsEPAused1PM,whichisatoolforpredictingfutureregionalstrategiesandemissions.DAQ’sunderstandingofthe1PMusedfortheTRisthatitprojectscurrentcontrolsusinganoutdatedDelawareNEEDSdatabase,regionalgrowthaswellasnon-enforceablecontrols(ex.newunitsthatweknowwon’tcomeonlineorcurrentunitsshuttingdownthatweknowwon’tshutdown,suchasUnit3atConectiv).DAQEGUprojectionsusedessentiallythesamemethodsinherentto1PM,exceptwehavestatespecificdataandinfonuationbasedondiscussionswithDelawaresources,whichwebelieveisbetterthantheEPAdata.InaccordancewiththedefinitionofEGUintherule,Delaware’spopulationofEGU’sconsistsofthefollowingunits:ChristianaUnits11and14,EdgeMoorUnits1,2,3,and4,HayRoadUnits1,2,3,5,6,and7,VanSant11,McKeeRunUnit3,NRGDoverUnits2and3,IndianRiverUnits1,2,3and4,andBeasleyUnit1.TheseunitsareprincipallycomprisedofmunicipalandmerchantgeneratingunitsthatoperatewithinthePJMnetwork.Operationofthegeneratingunitsisprimarilyonaneconomicdispatchbasis,whichincludesoperationalincentiveinthesouthernpartoftheDelmarvaPeninsulathatexperiencestransmissionconstraintsduringasignificantportionoftheyear.Thenorthernpartofthestatealsosufferssometransmissionconstraintissues,primarilyduringhighdemandperiods.Delawareasastateis&netimporterofelectricity,typicallygeneratinglessthan50%oftheelectricloadwithintheDelawareborders.12For this review,

2009
was selected

as the base year

for two reasons;

1) 2009 represented

the latest available

data and included

EGU operation

in compliance

with recent

state regulatory requirements,

and

2) region-specific infonnation

was available

from PJM

to predict

2012 generation requirements.

For determining

the 2009 generation

and emissions

data

for the population

of Delaware’s generating

units,

data from EPA’s CAMD database

was utilized. Generation

data

for each

of the units came from annual CAMD

data.

In order

to be more representative

of emission controls

that came
into effect

for some

of the units

on May

1, 2009

in response

to Delaware regulatory requirements,

NOx

and SO 2 emission

data was taken

to be the 2009 CAMD ozone season

data.

To determine

the electric demand increase,
PJM’s January 2010 Load Forecast Report

was consulted. Delaware

is part

of PJM’s
DPL region.

In PJM report,

PJM predicted increases

in annual electric consumption

for the: 1.4% above 2009

for 2010,
1.4% above 2010

for 2011,

and 1.5% above 2011

for 2012. These increases

along with
the 2009 CAMD

data were utilized

to estimate

the 2012 generation

for the Delaware

EGUs

on

a facility

and unit basis. For
the purpose

of this evaluation,

the 2012 generation

for the Christiana

Units

11 and

14 was assumed

to be that grown
from

the 2009 data.

The 2012 NOx

and SO 2 emission

rates were assumed

to remain

the same

as the 2009 data,

as there

are

no known
plans

for changes

in emission controls

for these units through
2012. The recent

new owner

of Edge Moor Unit

3 has indicated

that Edge Moor Unit

3 will

no longer fire coal fuel,
but will operate

on
its current alternate

fuels

of residual

fuel
oil, natural

gas, and landfill

gas. Because

this unit also

is the normal steam supply

for
an adjacent industrial

plant,

its operation

is not

as directly dependent

upon economic dispatch

as other units

in the region.

As the unit will already

be
on line

for support

of the industrial
facility

and
not subject

to startup/shutdown

costs,

it will remain

able

to pick

up economic dispatch/opportunity

load, tending

to keep

the overall capacity
factor

at approximately

historic levels

in spite

of

a change

in fuel costs. Regarding

NOx emissions,

the unit was assumed

to come

in compliance

with

the requirements

of Delaware’s

7 DE Admin
Code 1146, 0.125

lb. /MMBTU. Regarding

SO 2 emissions,

it was assumed

that
the SO 2 emission

rate would

be that demonstrated

by Edge Moor Unit

5 during 2009,

as Edge Moor Unit

5 already

fired

the same

set
of fuels that Edge Moor

3 will

be utilizing

with similar

fuel costs

and constraints. The recent

new owner

of Edge Moor
Unit

4 has indicated

that
the Edge Moor Unit

4 will

no longer

fire coal fuel,
but will operate

in its current alternate

fuels

of residual

oil, natural

gas, and landfill

gas. Because

of the increase

in fuel costs,

it
is assumed

that this unit’s position

in the economic dispatch hierarchy

will change

and the unit will

be called

on PJM
less frequently.

For this review,

Edge Moor Unit

4’s annual capacity
factor

was assumed

to be 3%, which

is similar to other oil/gas steam units

in the area. Regarding

NOx emissions,

the unit was assumed

to come in compliance

with

the requirements

of Delaware’s

7 DE Admin

Code 1146, 0.125

lb. /MMBTU. Regarding

SO 2 emissions,

it was assumed

that
the SO 2 emission

rate would

be that 13demonstratedbyEdgeMoorUnit5during2009,asEdgeMoorUnit5alreadyfiredthesamesetoffuelsthatEdgeMoor4willbeutilizingwithsimilarfuelcostsandconstraints.Thedropingenerationfromthe2009levelforthisunitisassumedtobepickedupevenlybytheadjacentsixHayRoad1-6combustionturbinesandassociatedcombinedcyclesteamunits.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012generationforEdgeMoorUnit5wasassumedtobethatgrownfromthe2009data.The2012SO2emissionrateswereassumedtoremainthesameasthe2009data,astherearenoknownplansforchangesinSO2controlsforthisunitthrough2012.RegardingNOxemissions,theunitwasassumedtocomeincompliancewiththerequirementsofDelaware’s7DEAdminCode1146,0.125lb./MMBTU.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012generationforeachofthesixHayRoadunitswasthe2009valuesincreasedforgenerationgrowthandtoalsoincludethegenerationdroppedfromEdgeMoorUnit4asdescribedabove(thegenerationincreasewasevenlysplitbetweenthesixunits).NOxandSO2emissionratesfor2012wereassumedtoremainthesameasthe2009valuesastherearenoknownplansfortheadditionofanycontrolspriorto2012.IndianRiverUnits1and2wereassumedtobemothballedpriorto2012incompliancewithanexistingconsentdecree.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,generationlevelsforIndianRiverUnit3and4wereevaluatedtogethertoaccountforthelossingenerationassociatedwiththeIndianRiverUnits1and2duetoIR1&2shutdown,andtoaccountfortransmissionconstraintsduringhighelectricdemandwithIndianRiverUnits1and2outofservice.Thereforethe2012generationlevelsforbothIndianRiverUnits3&4increasednoticeablyduetobothgenerationgrowthandtoaccountforthemakeupfortheIndianRiverUnitsIand2shutdowns.Theevaluationindicatedthattherewere1008hourswherethegenerationrequirementsappearedtoexceedtheabilityOfIndianRiverUnits3and4.ItwasassumedthatthisshortfallingenerationhadtobemadeupbyKentCountyunitsduetogridreliability,stability,andvoltagecontrolreasons.McKeeRunUnit3wasevaluatedtobeabletoassume80,976MWhoftheestimatedshortfall,andtheremainingshortfall(16,267MWh)wasassignedevenlytothetwoNRGDoverCTunits.The2012generationvaluesforMcKeeRunUnit3andNRGDoverUnits2and3wererevisedtoreflecttheseincreases.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012IndianRiverUnit3SO2andNOxemissionrateswereassumedtobeunchangedfromthe2009values.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012IndianRiverUnit4NOxandSO2emissionrateswereassumedtocomplywithanexistingconsentdecree’semissionratelimitationsof0.2Ib/MMBTUforSO2and0.1lb/MMBTUforNOx.14For the purposes

of this evaluation,

the 2012 generation

from McKee

Run Unit

3 was assumed

to increase

from 2009

due

to both generation
growth

and
the shortfall related

to the Indian River units,

as discussed

above.

The 2012 NOx

and SO 2 emission

rates were assumed

to be the same as 2009

as there

are
no known plans

for additional emission controls

prior

to 2012. For
the purposes

of this evaluation,

the 2012 VanSant

Unit

11 generation

was increased

from 2009

due

to generation
growth,

and the 2012 NOx

and SO 2 emission

rates were assumed

to be the same

as 2009

as there

are
no known plans

for additional emission controls

prior

to 2012. For
the purposes

of this evaluation,

the 2012 generation

for NRG Dover Units

2 and

3’ was increased

from 2009

due

to both generation
growth

and
the shortfall

from

the Indian River facility

as discussed

above (shortfall

was evenly

split between

the two units).

The 2012 NOx and SO 2 emission

rates were assumed

to remain

the same

as 2009

as there

are
no known plans for additional emission controls

prior

to 2012. For
the purposes

of this evaluation,

the 2012 generation

for the Beasley

Unit

I was increased from 2009

due

to generation
growth.

The 2012 NOx

and SO 2 emission

rates were assumed

to remain

the same

as 2009

as there

are
no known plans

for additional emission controls

prior

to 2012. 2012 EGU emissions

are summed

in Table

3. Detailed

data

is available

in the attachment

1 to this doãüment. Table

4 shows

that even

if DAQ EGU 2012 emissions

are assumed

tO be the same

as EPA’s 2012
1PM projections,

which

is not

a good assumption

given

the Delaware. specific

data discussed

above,

the overall differences

are still significant

(The table
also reflects removal

of OTW NOx CAPS

at the refinery

in the non-EGU sector). Table

4

2012 Projected Emissions Substituting

EPA 1PM runs

for DE projected

EGUs 2012502

EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad

Total— Transport

Rule

7,841
10,974

5,858
14,193

98 38,964 DE Projections

7,841

5,941

1,034

2,201

98 17,115 DE Emission Difference

0 -5,033

-4,824 -11,992

0 -21,849 % Difference

0%

46%

82%

84%

0%

56% I____________________________________ 2012 NOX

EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad

Total Transport

Rule

4,639

5,567

3,248
15,511

10,700
39,665 DE Projections

4,639

4,934

2,315
10,370

10,700
32958 DE Emission Difference

0

-633

-933
-5,141

0 -6,707 % Difference

0%

11%

29%

33%

0%

17% 154.1.2Non-EGUPointSourcesDAQfollowedEPA’smethodsandassumedzerogrowthfornon-EGUpointsources,andthenappliedcontrolsasdiscussedshortly.ThereisasignificantdifferenceinSO2andNOx,asshowninTable3.Thisisduetocontrolstrategieswhjchwillbediscussedlaterinthisdocument,whichpresumablytheEPAwasunawareofwhendevelopingtheRule.Non-EGUPointSourceControlsThefollowingisalistofsignificantS02andNOxcontrols,whichDelawarehasadoptedtofurtherreduceemissionsby2012.•AMay2010agreementbetweentheDepartmentandtheDelawareCityRefiningCompanyplacingafacility-wideNOxcapof2,225tonsperyear(WY).Thisyieldsa10%reductionby2012anda40%reductionby2014.•DoverAirForceBase-CeasedusingresidualfueloilinMarch2010;willreplacecentralboilerplantwithsmallnaturalgas-firedpackageboilers.BoilersNo.1—4retired.•DuPontStine-HaskellLaboratory-RemovedBoilers3and4(fueloil#6)•DuPontWilmingtonOfficeBuilding-Issuedconstructionpermitsfornaturalgasconversionwith#6fuelasbackup(permittedupto10%#6usage)•MountaireFarmsofDelawareInc.-Milisboro-SwitchingtoNatGas•SPIPoly-OLs-BoilerNo.Iremoved•Invista-Boilers1and3(coal)willberetiredby2012,Boiler2(coal/#6)wasretiredon12/09(ConsentDecree)•DowReichholdSpecialtyLatexLLC—Shutdownsof:Flare,#6FuelOilFiredBoiler,NaturalGasFuelOilFiredBoiler,EmergencyGenerator4.1.3NonpointSourcesDelawaredidnotgroworcontrolnonpointsourceemissionsforthe2012projections—our2012projectionsarethesameasour2005PEI.Previously,wediscussedhowSO2andNOxwereprimarilyfromfuelcombustionforDelawareareasources.NotethatDAQhashistoricalsalesinformationfromtheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)whichshows2009distillateandresidualfuel-salesinDelawarehavedecreasedby45%and57%,respectivelysince2000.SeeFigures1and2.Regardless,DAQassumedzerogrowthforthosecategoriestobeconservative.Ifweincludedthenegativegrowthinourprojections,the2012emissionswouldbeevenless.Butwetooktheconservativeapproach.16Delaware

Total Distillate Sales/Deliveries

to Residential/Commercial

Consumers (Thousand Gallons) Figure

2 : Delaware Residual

Fuel

Oil Adj Sales/Deliveries

Total

to End Users (Thousand Gallons) 330000- 30000-------- 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008 Figure

1 65000 60000 55000 50000 45000 40000 35000 30000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008 174.1.4NonroadMobileSourcesLocomotivesandnon-C3Marine:Delawareassumednogrowthandcontrols.Therefore,the2012emissionsarethesameas2005.Thisresultsinaconservativeprojection,sincetheNonroadRuleisnottakenintoaccount.AircraftEmissions:Delawareassumednogrowthandcontrols,becausethelargemajorityofNOxisfromDoverAirForceBase(aircraftSO2emissionsareinsignificant).Wedetermineda2007-2013growthfactorof1.00forDoverAirForceBaseaspartofour2006PM2.5andOzoneSIPdevelopmentprocess.Therefore,weassume2012emissionsarethesameas2005.NonroadEquipmentNonroadequzpment(NMIM):Delawarereliedupon2012projectionsdevelopedaspartofMANEVU’sconsultationprocessforRegionalHazeSIPsforthiscategory,duetotimeconstraints.Thoseestimateswerepeer-reviewedbyOTC/MANEVUstates.EPA’sNMIM2005modelandNONROAD2005modelwasusedtoestimateannualemissionprojectionsofnon-roadenginesinallMANEVUstates,includingDelawareaspartoftheRegionalHazeconsultationprocess.AContractorwashiredtofacilitatetheprojections(MACTEC).Thecontrolsfornon-roadmobileengines(exceptaircraft,locomotives,andmarinevessels)thatwereappliedwhenprojecting2012emissionsincludeallrelevantfederalrules,suchasfuelsulfurcontentrule,gasolineReidVaporPressure(RVP)requirements,andreformulatedfuelprograms.Controlsforthe2012emissionsincludeallrelevantfederalrulesandrequirements,asoutlinedbelow.(1)PhaseIandPhaseIIEmissionsStandardsforGasoline-PoweredNon-RoadUtilityEngines,FederalRuleThisstandardpromulgatedbytheEPAappliestoVOCemissionsfromsmallnon-road,spark-ignition(i.e.,gasoline-powered)utilityengines,asauthorizedunder42U.S.C.§7547.Themeasureaffectsgasoline-powered(orotherspark-ignition)lawnandgardenequipment,constructionequipment,chainsaws,andothersuchutilityequipmentaschippersandstumpgrinders,woodsplitters,etc.,ratedatorbelow19kilowatts(anequivalentof25orfewerhorsepower).Phase2oftheruleappliedfurthercontrolsonhandheldandnon-handheldoutdoorequipment.SeeReferences4-2,4-3,and4-4.(2)EmissionsStandardsforDiesel-PoweredNon-RoadUtilityEnginesof50orMoreHorsepower,FederalRule18This standard promulgated

by the EPA applies

to VOC

and NOX emissions

from nonroad, compression-ignition

(i.e., diesel-powered)

utility engines,

as authorized

under

42 U.S.C.

§ 7547.

The measure
affects diesel-powered

(or other compression-ignition) construction equipment, industrial equipment,

etc., rated

at or above

37 kilowatts

(37 kilowatts

is approximately

equal

to 50 horsepower).

See References

4-5, 4-6, and 4-7. (3) Emissions Standards

for Spark Ignition

(SI) Marine Engines, Federal

Rule This standard promulgated

by the EPA applies

to exhaust

PM, VOC

and NOx emissions from
new spark-ignition

(SI) gasoline marine engines, including outboard engines, personal watercraft engines,

and jet boat engines.

Of nonroad sources studied

by EPA, gasoline marine engines

were found

to be one

of the largest contributors

of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions

(30 percent

of the nationwide nonroad
total). (4) Emissions Standards

for Large Spark Ignition Engines, Federal

Rule This EPA measure controls

VOC

and NOx emissions

from several groups

of previously unregulated
nonroad engines, including

large industrial spark-ignition

engines. The starting
point

for the emission projections

was Version

3 of the MANE_VU

2002 Nonroad emission inventory (Documentation

of the MANE-

VU 2002 Nonroad
Sector Emission Inventory, Version

3, Draft Technical Memorandum,

March 2006). MACTEC’s approach

to developing emission projections

for these sources

was

to use combined
growth

and control factors developed

from emission projections

for U.S. EPA’s Clean

Air Interstate

Rule (CAIR) development

effort. MACTEC obtained emission projections developed

for the CAIR
rule. MACTEC

then calculated

the combined
growth

and control factors

by determining

the ratio

of emissions between

2002

and each

of the MANE-VU projection

years (2009, 2012,

and 2018). The CAIR emissions

were available

for 2001, 2010, 2015

and 2020. Thus,
they developed intermediate

year estimates

using linear interpolation

between

the actual CAIR years

and the MANE-VU

years. Using

this approach MACTEC developed State/county/SCC/pollutant

growthlcontrol

factors

for use

in projecting

the MANE-VU

base year data

to the out-years.

These values
were then used

to multiply

times

the base year value

to obtain

the projected values.
Since

the development

of the CAIR factors included

both growth

and controls,

no separate control factors
were developed

for these sources except where exceptions

to this method

were used

for States

that requested alternative growthlcontrol

methods. Because emissions

from aircraft, commercial

marine vessels,

and locomotives

are not projected

by the NONROAD

model, emission projections

for these sources

were developed separately,

as described
below. 19CommercialMarineVessels:C3MarineVessels:EPAgrewbaseyear2002emissionsweregrowntofutureyearswithoutEmissionsControlArea(ECA)orInternationalMarineOrganization(IMO)globalNOxandSO2controls.8Delawaregrew2005emissionsto2012toincludegrowthandcontrolsperEPA“RegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsofAirPollutionfromCategory3MarineDieselEngines,EPA42O-R-09-019.”Forthepurposeofemissionregulations,marineenginesaredividedintothreecategoriesbasedondisplacement(sweptvolume)percylinder.Category1andCategory2marinedieselenginestypicallyrangeinsizefromabout500to8,000kW(700to11,000hp).Theseenginesareusedtoprovidepropulsionpoweronmanykindsofvesselsincludingtugboats,pushboats,supplyvessels,fishingvessels,andothercommercialvesselsinandaroundports.Theyarealsousedasstand-alonegeneratorsforauxiliaryelectricalpoweronmanytypesofvessels.Category3marinedieselenginestypicallyrangeinsizefrom2,500to70,000kW(3,000to100,000hp).Theseareverylargemarinedieselenginesusedforpropulsionpoweronoc’ean-goingvesselssuchascontainerships,oiltankers,bulkcarriers,andcruiseships.Themajorityofvesselsinthiscategoryarepoweredbydieselenginesthatareeitherfueledwithdistillateorresidualfueloilblends.Forthepurposeofemissioninventories,EPAhasassumedthatCategory3vesselsprimarilyuseresidualblendswhileCategory1and2vesselstypicallyuseddistillatefuels.•EPAdevelopedregionalemissioninventoriesforCategory1&2vesselandCategory3vesselsforcalendaryears2002through2040.ThedataDAQusedtodevelopthe2012emissionprojections(forbothabaselineandcontrolledscenario)aredocumentedinRegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlorEmissionsofAirPollutionfromLocomotiveEnginesandMarineCompressionEnginesLessthan30LitersPerCylinder,EPA42O-R-08-OOla(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroadl42or08001a.pdf),RegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsofAirPollutionfromCategory3MarineDieselEngines,EPA42O-R-09-019(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroadlmarine/ci/420r09019.pdf)andProposaltoDesignateanEmissionsControlAreaforNitrogenOxides,SulfurOxides,andParticulateMatter,EPA-420-R09-007(http:/fwww.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroadlmarine/ci/420r09007-chap2.pdf).DAQusedtheEPAdatafromtheseRIAstodevelopseparategrowthandcontrolfactorsforCategory1&2vessels(diesel)andCategory3vessels(residual).CMVDieselGrowthFactorsEPAusedavarietyofdatasourcestoprojectfuelconsumptionbyCategory1&2engines,accountfortheimpactofexistingengineregulations(i.e.,the2004CleanAirNonroadDieselTechnicalSupportDocument(TSD)fortheTransportRuleDocket.IDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.Page12.20Rule that will decrease

the allowable

levels

of sulfur

in fuel used

in locomotives

by
99 percent) and marine vessel
fleet composition

to develop baseline inventory projections

for
all years

up

to 2040. Using

the EPA-provided

baseline inventory projections,

we calculated
growth factors

for each pollutant

based

on the ratio

of the future
year baseline emissions

(2012)

to the 2005 estimated emissions (emissions

data from EPA 420-R-08-OOla,

May 2008).

CMV Diesel Control Factors In March 2008, EPA fmalized

a three part program

that will dramatically

reduce emissions

from marine diesel engines below

30 liters

per cylinder displacement.

The 2008 final rule includes

the first-ever national emission standards

for existing marine diesel engines, applying

to engines larger
than 600kW when they

are remanufactured.

The rule also sets Tier

3 emissions standards for newly-built
engines

that
are phasing

in from 2009. Using

the EPA-provided
controlled inventory projections,

we calculated controlled

factors

for each pollutant (emissions

data from EPA 420-R-08-OOla,

May 2008). CMV Residual

Oil Growth Factors EPA’s Emissions

TSD, states “Class

3 commercial

marine vessel sector (secac3):

base year 2002 emissions
grown

to future years without Emissions Control

Area (ECA)

or International Marine Organization

(IMO) global NOX
and SO 2 controls

and did not apply sulfur controls

for C3 marine engines

in 2012.

“9 DAQ re-projected

this category’s emissions

using

our 2005 PEI. EPA used

a variety

of data sources

to project

fuel consumption

by Category

3 engines,

to account

for the impact

of existing engine regulations

(i.e.,

the 2003 Tier

1 Marine Diesel Engines

rule and marine vessel

fleet composition

to develop baseline inventory projections

for

all years

up

to 2040.
EPA projected emissions

for nine U.S. regions.

The East Coast Region extends roughly

from

the Florida
Keys to the Maine/Canada

border. Using

the EPA-provided

baseline inventory projections

for the East Coast Region

in EPA42O-R-09-019,

DAQ calculated
growth factors

for each pollutant

based

on the ratio

of the 2012 East Coast baseline emissions

in 2012

to the 2005 estimated emissions. CMV Residual

Oil Control Factors On December

22nd, 2009, EPA announced

final emission standards

under

the Clean

Air Act
for new marine diesel engines

with per-cylinder displacement

at or above

30 liters (called Category 3 marine
diesel engines) installed

on U.S.-flagged

vessels.

The final engine standards

are equivalent

to those adopted

in the amendments

to Annex

VI

to the International Convention

for the Prevention

of Pollution

from Ships

(a treaty called “MARPOL”).

The emission standards apply

in two stages: near-term standards

for newly-built

engines

will apply beginning

in 2011, Technical Support Document

(TSD)

for the Transport

Rule Docket.

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.

Page

12, bullet

2.

21andlong-termstandardsrequiringan80percentreductioninnitrogen.dioxides(NOx)willbeginin2016.EPAalsoadoptedchangestothedieselfuelprogramtoallowfortheproductionandsaleofdieselfuelwithupto1,000ppmsulfurforuseinCategory3marinevessels.Theregulationsgenerallyforbidproductionandsaleoffuelswithmorethan1,000ppmsulfurforuseinmostU.S.waters,unlessoperatorsachieveequivalentemissionreductionsinotherways.OnMarch26,2010,theInternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO)officiallydesignatedwatersoffNorthAmericancoastsasanemissionscontrolarea(ECA)inwhichstringentinternationalemissionstandardswillapplytoships.Inpractice,implementationoftheECAmeansthatshipsenteringthedesignatedareawouldneedtousecompliantfuelforthedurationoftheirvoyagethatiswithinthatarea,includingtimeinportaswellasvoyageswhoseroutespassthroughtheareawithoutcallingonaport.TheNorthAmericanECAincludeswatersadjacenttheAtlanticextendingupto200nauticalmilesfromeastcoastoftheUnitedStates.ThequalityoffuelthatcomplieswiththeECAstandardwillchangeovertime.FromeffectivedateinAugust,2012until2015,fuelusedbyallvesselsoperatingindesignatedareascannotexceed1.0percentsulfur(10,000ppm).(Beginningin2015,fuelusedbyvesselsoperatingintheseareascannotexceed0.1percentsulfur(1,000ppm.Beginningin2016,NOxaftertreatmentrequirementsbecomeapplicable).UsingtheEPAinventoryprojectionsinEPA420-R-09-019,wecalculated2005-2012NOxcombinedgrowthandcontrolfactors.Thegrowthandcontrolfactorcalculationsareprovidedinthespreadsheets.DAQtookasomewhatdifferentapproachforSO2,however.DAQcontactedU.S.EPA,OfficeofTransportationandAirQuality,AssessmentandStandardsDivision(ASD)andlearnedthat10,000ppm(1%)sulfurlimitswillnot“enterintoforce”untilAugust1,2012.Asaresult,weusedEPA420-R-09-019todeterminegrowth,butdevelopedourowncontrolfactorbasedonexistingresidualfuelaveragesof2.7%sulfur.’°Dividingthe1%limitsthattakeeffectonAugust1,2012by2.7%givesacontrolfactorof0.37.DAQmultipliedthegrowthfactorbythecontrolfactor(1.00)to2005PEIemissionstogive1,536tpyfromJanuary1throughJuly31,2012,andthecontrolfactor(0.37)bythegrowthfactortogive406tpyfortheremainderoftheyear,foratotalof1,804tpy.SeeTable5.‘°U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyCurrentMethodologiesinPreparingMobileSourcePort-RelatedEmissionInventories,FinalReport,Table2-9.April2009.ICFInternational22Table

5 C-3 Marine Engine

SO 2 Emissions

from residual

fuel

oil 2005

0512

Control

Growth

+ Date Emissions

Growth

Factor

Control

2012

tpy Jan

1 -July31 tons

1,100

1.40

1.00

1.40

1,536 Augi -Dec31 tons

786

1.40

0.37

0.52

406 Totals

1,886

1,942 4.1.5 Onroad Mobile Sources: EPA used

the MOVES
model

to estimate Delaware

2005 emissions

and 2012 projections.

Due to time constraints, Delaware Division

of Air Quality (DAQ) assumed

for purposes

of this study that
the mobile emissions generated

by MOVES

are accurate

for 2005

and 2012. Therefore,

no differences

occur

as shown

in Tables

2 and

3. 5. DELAWARE

MEETS PROPOSED TRANSPORT

RULE BUDGETS Despite

that EPA inventories

for DE
are inflated, EPA’s

TR indicates

that Delaware

has met

its obligations

to mitigate transport,

i.e.: Without variability

limits, EPA proposes

at 40 CFR 97.4

10

a 2012 Delaware

NOx budget of 6,206 TPY,

and

at 40 CFR 97.710

a 2012 Delaware

SO 2 budget

of 7,784 TPY.
EPA has indicted

that

a state’s emissions
budget“...

is the quantity

of emissions

that would remain

in that state from covered sources

after elimination

of that portion

of each state

‘s significant contribution

and interference

with maintenance

that EPA

has identified

in today’s proposal,

before accounting

for

the inherent variability

in power system operations...

The state emissions
budget

is

a mechanism

for converting

the quantity

of emissions

that

a state must reduce

(i.e.,

the state’s significant contribution

and interference

with maintenance)

into enforceable

control requirements.

In other words,

it provides

a quantity

of emissions

to use

in developing

a remedy...” EPA’s
2012 base case emissions

for Delaware
EGU’s

are 4,639 TPY

for NOx

and 7,841 TPY for SO 2 , Since

the EPA

is establishing Delaware’s

EGU budgets

at

a level that

is not less than its 2012 base case emissions, Delaware

has already

met

its obligation

to remedy downwind contributions

for NOx
and SO 2 , using EPA’s

own numbers. Furthermore, Delaware calculated

its own 2010 EGU projections,

which

are more accurate

than EPA’s

1PM method (DAQ

has first-hand knowledge

of our sources plans, recent permits

and The difference between

the EPA 2012 base case S02 inventory

and
the budget

for Delaware

is 57 TPY.

By Delaware correcting

the problems

with

the inventory

1) overall modeled contributions

would

be much

less given that EPA’s
2012 S02 projections

are inflated

on the order

of 57%,

and

2) Delaware’s

2012 EGU projection

will

be less than

the budget.

23agreeements).Ascanbeseenintable3,DAQ2012projectionsare7,356tpyand2,418for502andNOx,respectively.ThesearelessthanEPA’sbudgetsintheTR(7,784tpySO2and6,206tpyNOx),andthusprovideadditionalevidencetoEPA’sprojectionsofourEGUs,thatDelawarehasmitigateditssignificantcontributiontodownwindsources.6.MONITORINGDATASHOWSATTAINMENTTheEPAGuidanceMemosuggeststhatStatesincludeadiscussionofmonitorsintheiranalysis.AscanbeseenfromTables6-11allmonitorsinDE,NJ,SoutheasternPAandtheNYCMSAareattainmentusing2007-2009designvalues,12includingthosecountiesforwhichtheTRshowedalinkagetoDelaware.13DNRECemphasisesthatallofthesecountIesareinattainmentpriorto:•Delaware’sPhaeII(SO2controls)multi-pollutantregulationtakingeffectin2012•InvistacoalunitshutdownforUnits1.and2•IndianRiverUnits1,2and3coal-unitshutdowns•ConnectivEdgemoorPowerPlant—Unit3and4switchingfromcoaltonaturalgas/#6oilbackup•ReductionsfromimplementationofthefinaltransportruleTable6Delaware2007-2009annualmonitoringdataNewCastle.KentSussexPM2.5valuesCountyCountyCountyMLKNwrkBlifie-a-aLumsDoverKillensSeaford200713.414.413.412.512.112.113.2200813.013.512.611.611.211.312.2200910.211.210.610.09.49.59.712AfewmonitorsinPA,NYandNJwereeithershutdownorhadincompletedataforoneyear.However,thelatestdatashowsthosemonitorsinattainmentnonetheless.Also,allmonitorsinMDareinattainment,basedondiscussionswithMARAMA.TheDauphinCounty,PAmonitorwasnotoperationalin2009soDAQaveraged2007-2008forpurposesofthisanalysis.NOTE:thisaverageisnotmeanttomean“designvalue”forthatmonitor.NonethelessthedatashowscompliancewiththeNAAQSfor2009(seeTables12and13).24Table

7 Delaware
annual

3-yr design values 2007-2009 New Castle

Kent

Sussex PM2.5 design values County

County

County ML Nwrk Blifte

K-a

-a
Lums Dover Killens Seaford 2007-2009

12.2

13.0

12.2

11.3

10.9

11.0

11.7 Table

8 Delaware

24-hr 2007-2009 monitoring

data New Castle

Kent

Sussex County

County

County MLK- Nwrk PM2.5

98th percentiles

Blifte

a

a Lums

Dover

Killens Seaford 2007

32.3

33.6

31.0

29.6

30.2

30.9

32.5 2008

30.1

34.8

28.6

28.1

28.7

27.6

27.0 2009

23.2

28.4

23.4

20.6

19.4

20.7

20.2 Table

9 Delaware

24-hr
3-yr design values 2007-2009 New Castle

Kent

Sussex County

County

County PM2.5

3-yr

MLK- Nwrk-

Lum

Killen Averages

Bllfte

a

a

s Dover

s Seaford 2007-2009

29

32

28

26

26

26

27 Table

10 Philadelphia

CMSA monitoring

data— daily

and annual PHILADELPHIA NONATTAINMENT

AREA

Daily PM2.5

Annual PM2.5 Stat..

AQS

200

200
2009 2007-09

200

200
2009 2007-09 e

ounty
Monitor

Site Monitor

ID

7

8*

DV

7

8*

DV 13.6 NJ camden

Camden Trailer

34

34

37

35

12.2

13.7

(no

13.1 camden Pennsauken

35

28

25

29

14.0

11.8

9.5

11.7 Gloucester Gibbstown

15

31

27

22

27
13.4

11.5

9.3

11.4 25DENewCastleBellefonte100031003NewCastleLumsPABucks3230232913.413.010.212.2New10003MLK-aCastle20043435283214.413.511.213New10003Nwrk-aCastle10123129232813.412.610.612Bristol1000310073028214201700123531262612.511.610.03113.013.510.81112.4420293414.114.714.214.3ChesterNewGarden0100420453014.514.712.113.7DelawareChester000227MontgomerNorristown420912713.112.110.411.9y0013302427PhiladelphiLAB421013535263213.713.010.912.5a0004PhiladelphiNEA421013431263012.912.09.911.6a0024PhiladelphiCHS,BroadSt.3214.413.511.113.0a42101•0047353329PhiladelphiRIT-F42101NA3529NANA13.511.3NAa0055PhiladelphiFAB-FA421013333283112.013.311.112.1a0057—PhiladelphiElmwood,42101aAmtrak013632NANANA13.3NANANANotes98thpercentilefortheyear,notfinalV-=DesignValue=averageofthreeyearperiod,notfinal.ThreeyearsofannualmeanconcentrationsforPM2.5areusedto-calculatethedesignvalueatamonitor.NA=DataNotAvailableSD=MonitorShutdownVVDatasourcesareeitherfromtheStateAgencyorAirData(EPA’Spublicquerysystern.:thataccessesAQS)Table11NewYorknonattainmentareaNEWYORKNONATTAINMENTAREADailyPM2.5AnnualPM2.5AQSStateCountyMonitorSiteMonitor070809*070809*07-09IDCTFairfieldRooseveltSchool0900100103032313112.711.910.211.609001VFairfieldDanbury11233028323012.011.79.611.109001FairfieldNorwalk3226313011.911.89.911.23005—09001FairfieldWestport2931343110.910.29.510.29003—09009NewHavenWoodwardAvenue3031343111.611.59.811.00026—09009NewHavenJamesStreet3132353211.511.310.211.00027—09009NewHavenStateStreet3132353212.312.110.411.6V1123—09009NewHavenNewHaven2925292810.810.68.910.12008—26UnionUnionBronxIWestchesteMamaroneckIr340390006340392003_____36005008036361191002*98thpercentilefortheyear,notfinal**=DesignValue=averageofthreeyearperiod,notfinal.ThreeyearsofannualmeanconcentrationsforPM2.5areusedNJNewHavenBankStreetBergenFortLee09009212334003000328j34323212.011.727HudsonUnionCity31EssexNewarkCultural340133529SDNA13.413.7SDCenter001534017HudsonJerseyCityPrimary10023532293213.212.113.39.89.011.6340172002332511.2J11.3NA11.913.010.810.33315.113.310.7MercerTrenton340213331232912.111.29.2Mercer0008Washington34021Crossing80012728252710.210.07.89.3isMorristown34023MiddlesexJNewBrunswick3029212712.310.98.010.40006340273224222611.59.48.19.70004MorrisChester340273124212610.48.87.18.8300134031jPassaicPaterson3729263013.511.48.911.30005UnionElizabethTurnpike3403934283213.912.911.212.7Primary0004-ElizabethDowntownRahway36Morrisania31263113.130252913.23312.49.33011.612.09.33315.611.513.512.713.9NYNotesI200thStreetAnd36005BronxSouthernBlvd,0083/01333NA27..3013.211.710.011.6BotanicalGarden336005BronxE.156thSt.3433313212.711.810.811.80110—36047BrooklynJHS12601223431273113.912.010.712.236059NassauCedarhurst2929262811.110.99.010.3000836061NewYorkPS593733NANA16.115.9NANA0056PostOffice,35036061NewYork35NANANA15.8NANANACanalStreet006236061NewYorkJHS453433293213.612.410.512.2007936061NewYorkPS193826293115.613.112.013.6012836061NewYorkPS1243732293313.313.211.612.70134Newburgh,5536071Queens3031212710.69.67.99.4Broadway000236081QueensQueensCollege01243231273011.411.09.610.7Staten36085PortRichmond3329252913.012.19.811.6Island0055Staten360852928232711.510.88.510.3IslandSusanWagnerHS0067East36103SuffolkFamlingdale/Babylo00012927222610.910.18.19.7•n3131272911.711.09.110.627tocalculatethedesignvalueatamonitor.NA=DataNotAvailableSDMonitorShutdownDatasourcesareeitherfromtheStateAgencyorAirData(EPAspublicquerysystemthataccessesAQS)Table12DelawareLinkages2007-200924-hrdesignvalues/average2007200820092007-09AVGUnion,NJ3234-039-0004Dauphin,PA35.634.3NA35(07-08avg)42-043-0401Lancaster,PA3542-071-0007York,PA•3242-133-0008Cumberland,PA3342-041-0101NewYork,NY3236-061-0079Table13DelawareLinkages2007-2009annualdesignvalue/average2007200820092007-09AVGUnion,NJ1334-039-0004Dauphin,PA1414.2813.28NA42-043-0401(07-08avg)28Lancaster,

PA

14 42-071-0007 York,

PA

14 42-133-0008 Cumberlanci,

PA

13 42-041-0101 New York,

NY

12 36-061-0079 From Table

1, we saw that
the TR says that Delaware

will significantly contribute

to Lancaster, PA; York,

PA, Union,

PA; Dauphin,

PA, Cumberland,

PA and New York,

NY

in 2012

(i.e. “Linkages”). However,

these counties

are already

in attainment

as shown

in shown

in Tables

13 and

14. Futhermore,

because

all the monitors

in Delaware,

and the CMSAs

for Philadephia

and New York have

a 2007-2009

design value meeting

both

the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,

we fmd

it difficult

to believe

that
we would contribute

0.50 ug/m3

in 2012

per table

1- to any downwind area.

To
do

so would require

our worst year (2007-2009)

to be much higher

than MLK’s

2008 98 th percentile

of 34.8 ug/m 3
(see Table

9). DAQ

also notes

that
the nearest nonattaining

monitor

using 2007-2009

data

is
in Allegheny County,

PA (approximately

250

mi from central Delaware).

14 However, Delaware

is not “linked”

to Allegheny County. 7. CONTROL MEASURES Delaware

has complied

with

§ 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

through promulgation

of: •

7 DE Admin.
Code 1146, Electric Generating

Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation, •

7 DE Admin.

Code 1142, Section

2, Control

of NO Emissions

from Industrial
Boilers and Process Heaters

at Petroleum Refineries,

and •

7 DE Admin.
Code 1148, Control

of Stationary Combustion

Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions Each

of the above

is based

on Best Available Control Technology
(BACT),

and significantly reduces emissions

from Delaware’s

largest EGUs, industrial boilers,

and peaking

units. These regulations

have been approved

by the EPA

as revisions

to Delaware’s

SIP. 14 Based

on air travel distance between Dover

to Pittsburgh.

Both cities

are the approximate
centroid

to Delaware, and Allegheny County. http://www.travelrnath.com!f1iht-distance/frorn!Dover.+DE/to/Pittsburgh.+PA

298.SUMMARY:EPA-IPM2012EGUNOxemissionprojectionsforDelawarearelessthanthebudgetsintheEPA’sproposedTransportRule.EPA-JPM2012EGUSO2emissionprojectionsforDelawareare57tpyhigherthanthebudgetsintheEPA’sproposedTransportRule(butwehaveshownEPA2012SO2projectionsarealsoapproximately22,000tpyover-estimated).DelawareDAQ2012projectionsforNOxandSO2arelessthanthebudgetsintheproposedTransportRule.TheEPATRbudgetsarethose2012EGUemissionlevelsthatwhenmet;demostratethatStateshavemitigatedtheirsignjficantdownwindcontributionstononattainmentareasand/orinterferewithmaintenanceoftheNAAQS.Therefore,consideringthetransportSbudgetsalone,Delawarehasmitigateditssignificantcontributiontodownwindareas.DelawarebelievesthatifEPAusedup-to-dateandaccurateemissionsdata(i.e.theDelawarePEI),andprojectedrecentDelawarecontrolmeasures,theTRmodelingwouldhaveshownthatDelawaredoesnotsignificantlycontributetodownwindareasThecountiesshowninEPA’sTRthathave“linkages”toDelawarehavebeeninattainmentforthelastthreeyears’5.Infact,allcountiesinDelaware,andtheNewYorkandPhiladelphiaCMSAshave2007-2009designvaluesthatmeetboththe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQS.Eight(8)ofnine(9)coalunitsoperating,thatwereoperatingin2005,..willbeshutdownorswitchingtocleanerfuelsduringtheyears2009to2014.Theremainingunit(IndianRiverUnit4)willbecontrolledbySCRforNOxandscrubbersforS02.Delawarehascompliedwith§11O(a)(2)(D)throughpromulgationof:7DEAdmin.Code1146,ElectricGeneratingUnitMulti-PollutantRegulation;7DEAdmin.Code1142,Section2,ControlofNOEmissionsfromIndustrialBoilersandProcessHeatersatPetroleumRefineries;and7DEAdmin.Code1148,ControlofStationaryCombustionTurbineElectricGeneratingUnitEmissions;whichsignificantlyreduceemissionsfromDelaware’slargestEGUs,industrialboilers,andpeakingunits.TheseregulationsimposeBACTlevelcontrols,andhavebeenapprovedbytheEPAasrevisionstoDelaware’sSIP.Fortheabovereasons,andwiththeabovetechnicalanalysis,DelawarebelievesithasdemonstratedthatithasmitigateditssignificantdownwindtransportandsatisfiedCAA110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)requirements.15DauphinCountydidnothavemonitordatafor2009.However,2007-2008annualdatawasinattainmentandin2008(latestyearofdata)wasinattainmentforthe24-hrNAAQS,withtrendsgoingdownwardfrom2006.30Appendices 1.0 Emission

Table Summaries,

EGUs,

and Projections Fuel Combustion 2

a Commercial

Fuel Combustion 2
b Residential

Fuel Combustion 2

c Industrial_Fuel_Combustion Nonroad (marine vessels) 3

a Commercial_Marine_Vessel 3

b Towboats_&jugboats 3

c Dredging 3

d Ferries 4. Permit Changes Croda Boiler Dupont

Stine Haskell

Blr

3 Montaire
Fanns

fuel switch Invista Permit Cancel 5 Invista Consent Decree 6 Final Agreement— DNREC

and DE City Refmery 31