FinalSubmittalDelawareSlateImplementationPlan(SIP)RevisionSupplementtoDelaware’sSeptember16,2009CAASection110“Infrastructure”StateImplementationPlan(SIP)SubmissionDelawareDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControlApril11,20111.1.11.22..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.TableofContents35778.9911111212.1616182323242930319910SummaryandPurpose——Background—Responsibilities—————---TransportRuleModelingandContributionAssessment——Emissions—-----—------.—-----------—-----—-2005SouroeSectorDiscussion--------------—--EGUs—------------------------_--------_-----------_-------Non-EGUPoint------------------------—-—-----------Noiipoint—-----------___Nonroad-----------------------—----------—--------------Onroad---------------------———----------------—____2Ol2Projections----------—-----—-—---———------.----------—--——---------2012SourceSectorDiscussion—-—-----------.--____EGUs—------------------——--•-—-----—---__.Non-EGUPoint----------—..NonpointNonroad—OnroadDelawareMeetsProposedTransportRuleBudgets—MonitoringDataShowsAttainment----------—----------------—ControlMeasures———Summary—-_—--------Appendices--—---------------—-----—--------------—---21. 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

11 0(a)(1)

and

11 0(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

1 10(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

1 10(a)(1)

and

(2)

for the 2006 24-Hour

Fine Particle

(PM 25 ) 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 CAR replacement

rule without

facing findings

of failure

to submit

for

not meeting

the October

17, 2009

due

date

for submittal

of

the 110(a)(l)

and 110(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’sSeptember25,2009guidancethataSIPsubmittedtoaddress110(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

satisf’

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

for interstate

transport

along

with

the associated administrative

materials

required

by

40 CFR

Part 51 Appendixv. 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 1 10(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 Deterioration

(PSD) permitting

programs

under

the PSD

and EOP provisions

of

7 DE Admin. Code

1125, Preconstruction

Review.

As provided

in the PM 2 . 5

NSR Implementation

Rule

(73 FR 28321),

NNSR

in New Castle County

for PM 25

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 2 . 5

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

§

11 0(a)(2)(D)

through promulgation

of

7 DE Admin.

Code

1146, Electric Generating

Unit Multi-Pollutant

Regulation;

7 DE Aclmin.

Code

1142, Section

2, Control

of NOx Emissions

from Industrial

Boilers

and Process

Heaters

at Petroleum

Refineries;

and

7 DE Admin.

Code

1148, Control

of Stationary Combustion

Turbine

Electric Generating

Unit 2

§ O(a)(2)(D)(i)(1)

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 nonattainment

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,“Informationtosupportthestatesdeterminationwithrespecttosign/icantcontributiontononattainmentmightinclude,butnotlimitedto,informationconcerningemissionsinthestate,meteorologicalconditionsinthestateandthepotentiallyimpactedstates,monitoredambientconcenfrationsinthestateandthepotentiallyimpactedstates,thedistancetothenearestareathatisnotattainingthestandard,andairqualitymodeling”Therefore,thisanalysiswilldiscuss:•EvaluationofEPA’sproposedTransportRule(TR)modelingtohelpprovideweight-ofevidencethatDelawareisnotasignificantcontributortodownwindstates•Delawarevs.EPATRemissionsanalysistohelpprovideweight-of-evidencethatDelawareisnotasignificantcontributortodownwindstates•Monitoringdata•RecentandsignificantDelawarecontrolmeasuresthatmitigatetransportWhilereadingthisanalysis,weaskthereadertorememberthat:1.DelawareEGUprojectionsarelessthantheEGUbudgetsintheproposedTR.SincethosebudgetsarethelevelofSO2andNOxemissionsthatstatesmustmeettoremedytheir“signfficantcontribution,”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,

Ali 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,

QA • 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,PANoneYork,PADaily0.500.36Union,PACumberland,PADauphin,PANewYork,NYAswewillshowlaterinthisdocument,the2005baseyearthatEPAusedintheprojectionswasflawed,becausethoseemissionsweresignificantlyhigherthanwhatDelawaresubmittedinits2005PeriodicEmissionsInventor)r.Furthermore,theEPA2012projectionswerebasedonthoseEPA2005inflatednumbers,whichresultedininflated2012numbers.Andfinally,becauserecentDelawarecontrolinitiativeswerenotincludedintheEPA’s2012projectionstheywereevenfurtherinflated.Subsequently,theseinflatedprojectionsWereusedbyEPAtomodelandassesswhetherstatessignificantlycontribute.Butinflatedprojectionsusedinanycontributionassessmentyieldsinflatedcontributions.Therefore,DelawarebelievesthatifEPAusedup-todateandaccurateemissionsdata(i.e.theDelawarePEIandrecentDelawarecontrolmeasures),EPAmodelingwouldhaveshownthatDelawaredoessignificantlycontributetodownwindareas.3.EMISSIONSDelawarecomparedits2005PeriodicEmissionsInventory(PEI)withEPA’s2005NET(and2002)emissionsusedintheirassessmentofsignificantcontributionsfortheTR.Delawarethenprojectedits2005PETemissionsto2012,andcomparedthemtoEPA’s2012BaseCaseemissions.Delaware’ssulfurdioxide(SO2)andnitrogenoxides(NOx)emissionsaresignificantlyoverstatedintheTRcontributionassessment..2005and2012emissionscanbefoundintheattachmentstothisdocument(attachment1containstheemissionsummarytables).EPAusedthe2005NationalEmissionsInventory(NEI),Version2forpointsources,and2002emissionsforafewothercategories,suchasnonpointsources.Alternatively,DAQusedamorerecentandrefined2005inventoryPETforthe2005emissionsanalysis.EPAalsousedNMIMandMOVES,whicharediscussedinmoredetailbelow.Theresultsofourcomparisonshowthat2005emissionsdifferencesbetweenEPA’sTR2005emissionsandDAQ’s2005PEIareinsignificantforEGUsandnon-EGUpointsources,butsignificantinthenonpointandnonroadcategories.EPAapparentlyuseda“top-down”approachforthe.nonpointandmarinevessels.Delawareusedstate-specificdata,i.e.a“bottom-up”approach.Bottom-upapproacheshave8alwaysbeenthepreferredmethodforemissioncalculations.Table2summarizesthe2005differences,withadiscussionofeachsectorafterwards.‘Table22005Emissions I200550211EGUN0nEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule32,37834,859.5,859k11,64842285,166DEPEIEmissions31,74534,6861,03412,75542270,642DEEmissionDifference(tpy)-633-173-4,825-8,893C44,521%Difference2%0%82%76%0%17%2005NOXEGUNonEGUNonpointNonroadOnroad-TotalTransportRule11,9175,5673,25915,56722,56958879DEPEIEmissions11,397

5,999T2,31711,72822,56954,010DEEmissionDifference-520432-942-3,839(-4,869%Difference4%-8%29%25%0%8%3.12005SourceSectorDiscussion3.1.1EGUs:EPAandDelawarePEIEGUsemissiondifferencesareinsignificantfor2005.3.1.2Non-EGUPoint:Nodifferencein2005..3.1.3Nonpoint:ThenonpointcategoryinTable2showssignificantdifferencesbetweenEPAandDAQ2005emissions.Thelargediscrepancymostlikelylieswithdifferencesinhowtheseveralfuelcombustioncategories(industrial,commercial,andresidential)werecalculated.EPAassumed2002emissionsfortheTR2005fuelcombustionsources,withoutgrowth.5DAQcalculateditsemissionsusingDelaware-specific2005fuelsalesdataobtainedfromtheUSDepartmentofEnergy’sEnergyInformationAdministration(ETA)publicationsandemissionfactorsobtainedfromAP-42andotherEPAdocuments.Delawarealsobacksoutfuelusagealreadyreportedunderthepointsourceornonroadsourcesectors.EPAmayhavedoublecountedthefuelcombustionemissions.AnotherpossiblereasonforthedifferencebetweenDAQmethodsforfuelcombustionandthoseemployedbyEPA,isthatweconcluded(sincethe2002inventory)thatfuelusedbyindustrialandcommercialnon-stationaryequipment(forklifts,aeriallifts,floorsweepers/scrubbers,etc.)wascontainedintheETAstateenergyindustrialandcommercialsectorusages,insteadofintheDAQemissiontablescanbefoundintheattachments(summaries,EGUs,non-EGUs,marinevesselsandfuelcombustion).TechnicalSupportDocument(75’D)fortheTransportRuleDocket.IDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.Table2-1.SectorsUsedintheTREmissionsModelingPlatfoim.9off-highwaysector.SinceemissionsfromtheseequipmenttypesareincludedintheNONROADmodel,weneededtobacktheirfuelusageoutoftheEIAtotal.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.6Delawarehasrefinedthe2005PHtousemorerecentemissionfactorsandactivitydata.3.AircraftEmissions:EPAusedthe2005NETversion.Delawarehasrefinedits2005PETtousemorerecentemissionfactorsand/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(7’SD)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 strçtch

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 toeliminate

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

NEI 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.Table32012ProjectedEmissions2012502EGUNonEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule7,841.10,9745,85214,1939838,964DEProjections7,356:59411,034,2,2019816,630DEEmissionDifference-425-5,033-4,824-11,9920-22,334%Difference6%46%82%84%;0%57%2012NOXEGUNonEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule4,6395,5673,24215,51110,70039,665DEProjections2,418.4,5042,315.10,37010,70030,307DEEmissionDifference-2,221-1,063-933-5,141C-9,358%Difference48%19%29%33%0%24%4.12012SourceSectorDiscussion4.1.1EGUsEPAused1PM,whichisatoolforpredictingfutureregionalstrategiesandemissions.DAQ’sunderstandingofthe1PMusedfortheTRisthatitprojectscurrentcontrolsusinganoutdatedDelawareNEEDSdatabase,regionalgrowthaswellasnon-enforceablecontrols(ex.newunitsthatweknowwon’tcomeonlineorcurrentunitsshuttingdownthatweknowwon’tshutdown,suchasUnit3atConectiv).DAQEGUprojectionsusedessentiallythesamemethodsinherentto1PM,exceptwehavestatespecificdataandinformationbasedondiscussionswithDelawaresources,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.12Forthisreview,2009wasselectedasthebaseyearfortworeasons;1)2009representedthelatestavailabledataandincludedEGUoperationincompliancewithrecentstateregulatoryrequirements,and2)region-specificinfonnationwasavailablefromPJMtopredict2012generationrequirements.Fordeterminingthe2009generationandemissionsdataforthepopulationofDelaware’sgeneratingunits,datafromEPA’sCAMDdatabasewasutilized.GenerationdataforeachoftheunitscamefromannualCAMDdata.InordertobemorerepresentativeofemissioncontrolsthatcameintoeffectforsomeoftheunitsonMay1,2009inresponsetoDelawareregulatoryrequirements,NOxandSO2emissiondatawastakentobethe2009CAMDozoneseasondata.Todeterminetheelectricdemandincrease,PJM’sJanuary2010LoadForecastReportwasconsulted.DelawareispartofPJM’sDPLregion.InPJMreport,PJMpredictedincreasesinannualelectricconsumptionforthe:1.4%above2009for2010,1.4%above2010for2011,and1.5%above2011for2012.Theseincreasesalongwiththe2009CAMDdatawereutilizedtoestimatethe2012generationfortheDelawareEGUsonafacilityandunitbasis.Forthepurposeofthisevaluation,the2012generationfortheChristianaUnits11and14wasassumedtobethatgrownfromthe2009data.The2012NOxandSO2emissionrateswereassumedtoremainthesameasthe2009data,astherearenoknownplansforchangesinemissioncontrolsfortheseunitsthrough2012.TherecentnewownerofEdgeMoorUnit3hasindicatedthatEdgeMoorUnit3willnolongerfirecoalfuel,butwilloperateonitscurrentalternatefuelsofresidualfueloil,naturalgas,andlandfillgas.Becausethisunitalsoisthenormalsteamsupplyforanadjacentindustrialplant,itsoperationisnotasdirectlydependentuponeconomicdispatchasotherunitsintheregion.Astheunitwillalreadybeonlineforsupportoftheindustrialfacilityandnotsubjecttostartup/shutdowncosts,itwillremainabletopickupeconomicdispatch/opportunity’load,tendingtokeeptheoverallcapacityfactoratapproximatelyhistoriclevelsinspiteofachangeinfuelcosts.RegardingNOxemissions,theunitwasassumedtocomeincompliancewiththerequirementsofDelaware’s7DEAdminCode1146,0.125lb./MMBTU.RegardingSO2emissions,itwasassumedthattheSO2emissionratewouldbethatdemonstratedbyEdgeMoorUnit5during2009,asEdgeMoorUnit5alreadyfiredthesamesetoffuelsthatEdgeMoor3willbeutilizingwithsimilarfuelcostsandconstraints.TherecentnewownerofEdgeMoorUnit4hasindicatedthattheEdgeMoorUnit4willnolongerfirecoalfuel,butwilloperateinitscurrentalternatefuelsofresidualoil,naturalgas,andlandfillgas.Becauseoftheincreaseinfuelcosts,itisassumedthatthisunit’spositionintheeconomicdispatchhierarchywillchangeandtheunitwillbecalledonPJMlessfrequently.Forthisreview,EdgeMoorUnit4’sannualcapacityfactorwasassumedtobe3%,whichissimilartootheroil/gassteamunitsinthearea.RegardingNOxemissions,theunitwasassumedtocomeincompliancewiththerequirementsofDelaware’s7DEAdminCode1146,0.125lb./MMBTU.RegardingSO2emissions,itwasassumedthattheSO2emissionratewouldbethat13demonstratedbyEdgeMoorUnit5during2009,asEdgeMoorUnit5alreadyfiredthesamesetoffuelsthatEdgeMoor4willbeutilizingwithsimilarfuelcostsandconstraints.Thedropingenerationfromthe2009levelforthisunitisassumedtobepickedupevenlybytheadjacentsixHayRoad1-6combustionturbinesandassociatedcombinedcyclesteamunits.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012generationforEdgeMoorUnit5wasassumedtobethatgrownfromthe2009data.The2012SO2emissionrateswereassumedtoremainthesameasthe2009data,astherearenoknownplansforchangesinSO2controlsforthisunitthrough2012.RegardingNOxemissions,theunitwasassumedtocomeincompliancewiththerequirementsofDelaware’s7DEAdminCode1146,0.125lb.IMMBTU.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012generationforeachofthesixHayRoadunitswasthe2009valuesincreasedforgenerationgrowthandtoalsoincludethegenerationdroppedfromEdgeMoorUnit4asdescribedabove(thegenerationincreasewasevenlysplitbetweenthesixunits).NOxandSO2emissionratesfor2012wereassumedtoremainthesameasthe2009valuesastherearenoknownplansfortheadditionofanycontrolspriorto2012.IndianRiverUnits1and2wereassumedtobemothballedpriorto2012incompliancewithanexistingconsentdecree.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,generationlevelsforIndianRiverUnit3and4wereevaluatedtogethertoaccountforthelossingenerationassociatedwiththeIndianRiverUnits1and2duetoJR1&2shutdown,andtoaccountfortransmissionconstraintsduringhighelectricdemandwithIndianRiverUnits1and2outofservice.Thereforethe2012generationlevelsforbothIndianRiverUnits3&4increasednoticeablyduetobothgenerationgrowthandtoaccountforthemakeupfortheIndianRiverUnits1and2shutdowns.Theevaluationindicatedthattherewere1008hourswherethegenerationrequirementsappearedtoexceedtheabilityOfIndianRiverUnits3and4.ItwasassumedthatthisshortfallingenerationhadtobemadeupbyKentCountyunitsduetogridreliability,stability,andvoltagecontrolreasons.McKeeRunUnit3wasevaluatedtobeabletoassume80,976MWhoftheestimatedshortfall,andtheremainingshortfall(16,267MWh)wasassignedevenlytothetwoNRGDoverCTunits.The2012generationvaluesforMcKeeRunUnit3andNRGDoverUnits2and3wererevisedtoreflecttheseincreases.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012IndianRiverUnit3SO2andNOxemissionrateswereassumedtobeunchangedfromthe2009values.Forthepurposesofthisevaluation,the2012IndianRiverUnit4NOxandSO2emissionrateswereassumedtocomplywithanexistingconsentdecree’semissionratelimitationsof0.21bIMMBTUforSO2and0.11bIMMBTUforNOx.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

VanS

ant 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

1 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 document. 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 refmery

in the non-EGU

sector). Table

4

2012 Projected Emissions Substituting

EPA

1PM

runs

for

DE projected

EGUs2012502EGUNonEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule7,84110,9745,85814,1939838,964DEProjections

7,8415,9411,0342,2019817,115DEEmissionDifference0-5,033-4,824-11,9920-21,849%Difference0%46%82%84%0%56%2012N0XEGUNonEGUNonpointNonroadOnroadTotalTransportRule4,6395,5673,24815,51110,70039,665DEProjections4,6394,9342,31510,37010,70032,958DEEmissionDifference0-633-933-5,1410-6,707%DifferenceO%11%29%33%0%17%154.1.2Non-EGUPointSourcesDAQfollowedEPA’smethodsandassumedzerogrowthfornon-EGUpointsources,andthenappliedcontrolsasdiscussedshortly.ThereisasignificantdifferenceinSO2andNOx,asshowninTable3.Thisisduetocontrolstrategieswhichwillbediscussedlaterinthisdocument,whichpresumablytheEPAwasunawareofwhendevelopingtheRule.Non-EGUPointSourceControlsThefollowingisalistofsignificant502andNOxcontrols,whichDelawarehasadoptedtofurtherreduceemissionsby2012.•AMay2010agreementbetweentheDepartmentandtheDelawareCityRefiningCompanyplacingafacility-wideNOxcapof2,225tonsperyear(TPY).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.1removed•Invista-Boilers1and3(coal)willberetiredby2012,Boiler2(coall#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.16Figure16500060000550005000045000400003500030000DelawareTotalDistillateSales/DeliveriestoResidential/CommercialConsumers(ThousandGallons>200020012002200320042005200620072008Figure2.DelawareResidualFuelOilAdjSalesjDeliveriesTotaltoEndUsers(ThousandGallons)330000830000--——r————1-——200020012002200320042005200620072008174.1.4NonroadMobileSourcesLocomotivesandnon-C3Marine:Delawareassumednogrowthandcontrols.Therefore,the2012emissionsarethesameas2005.Thisresultsinaconservativeprojection,sincetheNonroadRuleisnottakenintoaccount.AircraftEmissions:Delawareassumednogrowthandcontrols,becausethelargemajorityofNOxisfromDoverAirForceBase(aircraftSO2emissionsareinsignificant).Wedetermineda2007-2013growthfactorof1.00forDoverAirForceBaseaspartofour2006PM25andOzoneSIPdevelopmentprocess.Therefore,weassume2012emissionsarethesameas2005.NonroadEquipmentNonroadequipment(NMIM):Delawarereliedupon2012projectionsdevelopedaspartofMANEVU’sconsultationprocessforRegionalHazeSIPsforthiscategory,duetotimeconstraints.Thoseestimateswerepeer-reviewedbyOTC/MANEVUstates.EPA’sNMIM2005modelandNONROAD2005modelwasusedtoestimateannualemissionprojectionsofnon-roadenginesinallMANE_VUstates,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

growth/control

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 growth/control

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. 19

# Commercial

Marine

Vessels: C3 Marine

Vessels:

EPA

grew

base

year

2002 emissions

were grown

to future

years without Emissions

Control

Area (ECA)

or International

Marine Organization

(IMO)

global

NOx

and

SO 2 controls. 8

Delaware

grew

2005 emissions

to 2012

to include

growth

and controls

per EPA “Regulatory

Impact Analysis:

Control

of Emissions

of Air Pollution

from Category

3 Marine Diesel Engines, EPA42O-R-09-0l

9.” For

the purpose

of emission regulations,

marine

engines

are divided

into three categories

based on displacement

(swept volume)

per cylinder.

Category

1 and Category

2 marine

diesel engines typically

range

in size from

about

500

to 8,000

kW

(700

to 11,000

hp). These engines

are used to provide propulsion

power

on many

kinds

of vessels including

tugboats,

push

boats,

supply vessels,

fishing

vessels,

and other commercial

vessels

in and around

ports.

They

are also

used

as stand-alone

generators

for auxiliary

electrical

power

on many

types

of vessels.

Category

3 marine

diesel engines typically

range

in size from

2,500

to 70,000

kW (3,000

to 100,000

hp). These

are very

large marine

diesel engines

used

for propulsion

power

on ocean-going

vessels such

as container

ships,

oil tankers,

bulk carriers,

and cruise

ships. The majority

of vessels

in this category

are powered

by diesel engines

that

are either

fueled

with distillate

or residual

fuel

oil blends.

For

the purpose

of emission inventories,

EPA

has assumed that Category

3 vessels primarily

use residual

blends

while Category

1 and

2 vessels typically used distillate

fuels. EPA developed

regional

emission inventories

for Category

1

&

2 vessel

and Category

3 vessels for calendar

years

2002 through

2040.

The

data

DAQ

used

to develop

the 2012 emission projections

(for

both

a baseline

and controlled

scenario)

are documented

in Regulatory

Impact Analysis:

Control

or Emissions

of

Air Pollution

from Locomotive

Engines

and Marine Compression

Engines

Less

than

30

Liters

Per Cylinder, EPA42O-R-08-OOla (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroadJ42OrO800

1 a.pdf), Regulatory

Impact Analysis:

Control of Emissions

of Air Pollution

from Category

3 Marine

Diesel Engines, EPA42O-R-09-0

19 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci1420r090

I 9.pdf

)and Proposal

to Designate

an Emissions

Control

Area

for Nitrogen

Oxides,

Sulfur Oxides,

and Particulate

Matter,EPA-420-R09-007 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroadlmarine/ci1420r09007-chap2.pdf).

DAQ

used

the EPA

data

from

these

RIAs

to develop

separate

growth

and control

factors

for Category

1 &2 vessels

(diesel)

and Category

3 vessels (residual). CMV Diesel Growth

Factors EPA

used

a variety

of data sources

to project

fuel consumption

by Category

1

&

2 engines, account

for

the impact

of existing

engine regulations

(i.e.,

the 2004

Clean

Air Nonroad

DieselTechnicalSupportDocument(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 (seca_c3):

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-09-0

19, 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

(7SD)

for

the Traiuport

Rule Docket.

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

Page

12, bullet

2.

21andlong-termstandardsrequiringan80percentreductioninnitrogendioxides(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-09-0l9todeterminegrowth,butdevelopedourowncontrolfactorbasedonexistingresidualfuelaveragesof2.7%sulfur.’°Dividingthe1%limitsthattakeeffectonAugust1,2012by2.7%givesacontrolfactorof0.37.DAQmultipliedthegrowthfactorbythecontrolfactor(1.00)to2005PETemissionstogive1,536tpyfromJanuary1throughJuly31,2012,andthecontrolfactor(0.37)bythegrowthfactortogive406tpyfortheremainderoftheyear,foratotalof1,804tpy.SeeTable5.‘°U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyCurrentMethodologiesinPreparingMobileSourcePort-RelatedEmissionInventories,FinalReport,Table2-9.April2009.ICFInternational22Table5C-3MarineEngineSO2Emissionsfromresidualfueloil200505_12ControlGrowth+DateEmissionsGrowthFactorControl2012tpyJan1-July31tbns1,1001.401.001.401,536Augl-Dec31tons7861.400.370.52406Totals1,8861,9424.1.5OnroadMobileSources:EPAusedtheMOVESmodeltoestimateDelaware2005emissionsand2012projections.Duetotimeconstraints,DelawareDivisionofAirQuality(DAQ)assumedforpurposesofthisstudythatthemobileemissionsgeneratedbyMOVESareaccuratefor2005and2012.Therefore,nodifferencesoccurasshowninTables2and3.5.DELAWAREMEETSPROPOSEDTRANSPORTRULEBUDGETSDespitethatEPAinventoriesforDEareinflated,EPA’sTRindicatesthatDelawarehasmetitsobligationstomitigatetransport,i.e.:Withoutvariabilitylimits,EPAproposesat40CFR97.410a2012DelawareNOxbudgetof6,206TPY,andat40CFR97.710a2012DelawareSO2budgetof7,784TPY.EPAhasindictedthatastate’semissionsbudget“...isthequantityofemissionsthatwouldremaininthatstatefromcoveredsourcesaftereliminationofthatportionofeachstate‘ssignj/IcantcontributionandinterferencewithmaintenancethatEPAhasidentjfIedintoday‘sproposal,beforeaccountingfortheinherentvariabilityinpowersystemoperations...Thestateemissionsbudgetisamechanismforconvertingthequantityofemissionsthatastatemustreduce(i.e.,thestate’ssignflcantcontributionandinterferencewithmaintenance)intoenforceablecontrolrequirements.Inotherwords,itprovidesaquantityofemissionstouseindevelopingaremedy...”EPA’s2012basecaseemissionsforDelawareEGU’sare4,639TPYforNOxand7,841TPYforSO2,SincetheEPAisestablishingDelaware’sEGUbudgetsatalevelthatisnotlessthanits2012basecaseemissions,DelawarehasalreadymetitsobligationtoremedydownwindcontributionsforNOxandSO2,usingEPA’sownnumbers.Furthermore,Delawarecalculateditsown2010EGUprojections,whicharemoreaccuratethanEPA’s1PMmethod(DAQhasfirst-handknowledgeofoursourcesplans,recentpermitsandThedifferencebetweentheEPA2012basecaseS02inventoryandthebudgetforDelawareis57TPY.ByDelawarecorrectingtheproblemswiththeinventory1)overallmodeledcontributionswouldbemuchlessgiventhatEPA’s2012S02projectionsareinflatedontheorderof57%,and2)Delaware’s2012EGUprojectionwillbelessthanthebudget.23agreeements).Ascanbeseenintable3,DAQ2012projectionsare7,356tpyand2,418forSO2andNOx,respectively.ThesearelessthanEPA’sbudgetsintheTR(7,784tpySO2and6,206tpyNOx),andthusprovideadditionalevidencetoEPA’sprojectionsofourEGUs,thatDelawarehasmitigateditssignificantcontributiontodownwindsources.6.MONITORINGDATASHOWSATTAINMENTTheEPAGuidanceMemosuggeststhatStatesincludeadiscussionofmonitorsintheiranalysis.AscanbeseenfromTables6-11allmonitorsinDE,NJ,SoutheasternPAandtheNYCMSAareattainmentusing2007-2009designvalues,12includingthosecountiesforwhichtheTRshowedalinkagetoDelaware.’3DNRECemphasisesthatallofthesecountiesareinattainmentpriorto:•Delaware’sPhaeII(SO2controls)multi-pollutantregulationtakingeffectin2012•InvistacoalunitshutdownforUnits1and2•IndianRiverUnits1,2and3coal-unitshutdowns•ConnectivEdgemoorPowerPlant—Unit3and4switchingfromcoaltonaturalgas/#6oilbackup•ReductionsfromimplementationofthefinaltransportruleTable6Delaware2007-2009annualmonitoringdataNewCastleKentSussexPM2.5valuesCountyCountyCountyMLKNwrkBllfte-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,allmonitorsinMl)areinattainment,basedondiscussionswithMARAMA.13TheDauphinCounty,PAmonitorwasnotoperationalin2009soDAQaveraged2007-2008forpurposesanalysis.NOTE:thisaverageisnotmeanttomean“designvalue”forthatmonitor.Nonethelessthedatashowscompliancewiththe.NAAQSfor2009(seeTables12and13).24Table7Delawareannual3-yrdesignvalues2007-2009NewCastleKentSussexPM2.5designvaluesCountyCountyCountyMLNwrkBlifteK-a-aLumsDoverKillensSeaford2007-200912.213.012.211.310.911.011.7Table8Delaware24-hr2007-2009monitoringdataNewCastleKentSussexCountyCountyCountyMLK-NwrkPM2.598thpercentilesBlifteaaLumsDoverKillensSeaforci200732.333.631.029.630.230.932.5200830.134.828.628.128.727.627.0200923.228.423.420.619.420.720.2Table9Delaware24-hr3-yrdesignvalues2007-2009‘NewCastleIKentSussexCountyCountyCountyPM2.53-yrMLK-Nwrk-LumKillenAveragesBIfteaasDoversSeaford2007-200929322826262627Table10PhiladelphiaCMSAmonitoringdata—dailyandannualPHILADELPHIANONATTAINMENTAREADailyPM2.5AnnualPM2.5Stat..AQS20020020092007-0920020020092007-09eountyMonitorSiteMonitorID78*DV78*DV13.6NJCamdenCamdenTrailer3434373512.213.7(no13.1CamdenPennsauken3528252914.011.89.511.7GloucesterGibbstown

f3127222713.411.59.311.425PhiladeiphiElmwood,aAmtrak*98thpercentilefortheyear,notfinal**=DesignVa(ue=averageofthreeyearperiod,notfinal.ThreeyearsofannualmeanconcentrationsforPM2.5areusedtocalculatethedesignvalueatamonitor.NA=DataNotAvailableSD=MonitorShutdown-DatasourcesareeitherfromtheStateAgencyorAirData(EPA’spublicquerysystem.thataccessesAQS)Table11NewYorknonattainmentarea09001FairfieldRooseveltSchool0010DEINewBellefonte100033230232913.413.010.212.2Castle1003PABucksBristolNew10003MLK-aCastle20043435283214.413.511.213New10003Nwrk-aCastle10122813.412.610.612New10003CastleLums10073028214201700123531262612.511.610.03113.013.510.81112.4420293414.114.714.214.3ChesterNewGarden010031420453014.514.712.113.7DelawareChester000227MontgomerNorristown420912713.112.110.411.9y0013302427PhiladelphiLAB421013535263213.713.010.912.5a0004PhiladelphiNEA421013431263012.912.09.911.6a0024PhiladelphiCHS,BroadSt.3214.413.511.113.0a421010047353329PhiladelphiRIT-F42101NA3529NANA13.511.3NAa0055PhiladeiphiFAB-FA421013333283112.013.311.112.1a0057Notes42101013632NANANA13.3NANANANEWYORKNONATTAINMENTAREACTAQS07-09StateCountyMonitorSiteMonitor070809*070809*07-09DV**IDDailyPM2.5AnnualPM2.53032313112.711.910.211.6090013028323012.011.79.611.1FairfieldDanbury1123—09001FairfieldNorwalk3226313011.911.89.911.23005—090012931343110.910.29.510.2FairfieldWestport9003—09009NewHavenWoodwardAvenue3031343111.611.59.811.0002609009NewHavenJamesStreet3132353211.511.310.211.0002709009NewHavenStateStreet3132353212.312.110.411.6112309009NewHavenNewHaven2925292810.810.68.910.1200826NewHavenBankStreet090093328343212.011.79.811.2__________________________2123_________________________________________NJBergenFortLee340033532273113.311.69.011.30003EssexNewarkCultural340133529SDNA13.413.7SDNACenter001534017HudsonJerseyCityPrimary10023532293213.212.110.311.934017HudsonUnionCity20029333253315.113.310.713.034021MercerTrenton3331232912.111.29.210.80008MercerWashington340212728252710.210.07.89.3Crossing800134023MiddlesexNewBrunswick3029212712.310.98.010.4.0006—34027MorrisMorristown3224222611.59.48.19.7000434027MorrisChester3124212610.48.87.18.83001340313729263013.511.48.911.3PassaicPaterson0005ElizabethTurnpike340393534283213.912.911.212.7UnionPrimary0004—Elizabeth34039Union3631263113.112.49.311.6Downtown0006340393330252913.212.09.311.5UnionRahway2003_______________________________—______36005NYBronxMorrisania3633303315.613.512.713.90080200thStreetAnd36005—BronxSouthernBlvd,0083101333NA27.3013.211.710.011.6BotanicalGarden3—36005BronxE.156thSt.3433313212.711.810.811.8011036047BrooklynJHS12601223431273113.912.010.712.236059NassauCedarhurst2929262811.110.99.010.30008—36061NewYorkPSS93733NANA16.115.9NANA0056—PostOffice,35036061NewYork35NANANA15.8NANANACanalStreet0062—360613433293213.612.410.512.2NewYorkJHS450079—36061NewYorkPS193826293115.613.112.013.60128—36061NewYorkPS1243732293313.313.211.612.70134QueensNewburgh,55360713031212710.69.67.99.4Broadway000236081QueensQueensCollege01243231273011.411.09.610.7Staten36085PortRichmond3329252913.012.19.811.6Island0055—Staten360852928232711.510.88.510.3SusanWagnerHS0067—IslandEast36103SuffolkFarmingdalelBabylo00012927222610.910.18.19.7n—Westcheste36119Mamaroneck3131272911.711.09.110.6I1002____________________________Notes*=98thpercentilefortheyear,notfinal**=DesignValue=averageofthreeyearperiod,notfinal.ThreeyearsofannualmeanconcentrationsforPM2.5areused27tocalculatethedesignvalueatamonitor.NA=DataNotAvailableSD=MonitorShutdownDatasourcesareeitherfromtheStateAgencyorAirData(EPAspublicquerysystemthataccessesAQS)Table12DelawareLinkages2007-200924-hrdesignvalues/average2007200820092007-09AVGUnion,NJ3234-039-0004Dauphin,PA35.634.3NA35(07-O8avg)42-043-0401Lancaster,PA3542-071-0007York,PA3242-133-0008Cumberland,PA.3342-041-0101NewYork,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 Cumberland,

PA

13 42-041-0101 New

York,

NY

12 36-061-0079 From

Table

I, 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 find

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 uglrn 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

§1 10(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.‘ Based

on

air travel distance

between

Dover

to Pittsburgh.

Both

cities

are

the approximate

centroid

to Delaware, and Allegheny

County. http:u/www.travelrnath.corn!flight-distance!frorn!Dover.±DE/to!Pittsburgh.±PA

298.SUMMARY:EPA-IPM2012EGUNOxemissionprojectionsforDelawarearelessthanthebudgetsintheEPA’sproposedTransportRule.EPA-IPM2012EGUSO2emissionprojectionsforDelawareare57tpyhigherthanthebudgetsintheEPA’sproposedTransportRule(butwehaveshownEPA2012SO2projectionsarealsoapproximately22,000tpyover-estimated).DelawareDAQ2012projectionsforNOxandSO2arelessthanthebudgetsintheproposedTransportRule.TheEPATRbudgetsarethose2012EGUemissionlevelsthatwhenmet;demostratethatStateshavemitigatedtheirsignj/icantdownwindcontributionstononattainmentareasand/orinterferewithmaintenanceoftheNAAQS.Therefore,consideringthetransportbudgetsalone,Delawarehasmitigateditssignificantcontributiontodownwindareas.DelawarebelievesthatifEPAusedup-to-dateandaccurateemissionsdata(i.e.theDelawarePET),andprojectedrecentDelawarecontrolmeasures,theTRmodelingwouldhaveshownthatDelawaredoessignificantlycontributetodownwindareasThecountiesshowninEPA’sTRthathave“linkages”toDelawarehavebeeninattainmentforthelastthreeyears’5.Infact,allcountiesinDelaware,andtheNewYorkandPhiladelphiaCMSAshave2007-2009designvaluesthatmeetboththe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQS.Eight(8)ofnine(9)coalunitsoperating,thatwereoperatingin2005,willbeshutdownorswitchingtocleanerfuelsduringtheyears2009to2014.Theremainingunit(IndianRiverUnit4)willbecontrolledbySCRforNOxandscrubbersforSO2..•Delawarehascompliedwith§11O(a)(2)(D)throughpromulgationof:7DEAdmin.Code1146,ElectricGeneratingUnitMulti-PollutantRegulation;.7DEAdrnin.Code1142,Section2,.ControlofNOxEmissionsfromIndustrialBoilersandProcessHeatersatPetroleumRefineries;and7DEAdmin.Code1148,ControlofStationaryCombustionTurbineElectricGeneratingUnitEmissions;whichsignificantlyreduceemissionsfromDelaware’slargestEGUs,industrialboilers,andpeakingunits.TheseregulationsimposeBACTlevelcontrols,andhavebeenapprovedbytheEPAasrevisionstoDelaware’sSIP.Fortheabovereasons,andwiththeabovetechnicalanalysis,DelawarebelievesithasdemonstratedthatithasmitigateditssignificantdownwindtransportandsatisfiedCAA110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)requirements.‘DauphinCountydidnothavemonitordatafor2009.However,2007-2008annualdatawasinattainmentandin2008(latestyearofdata)wasinattainmentforthe24-hrNAAQS,withtrendsgoingdownwardfrom2006.30Appendices1.0EmissionTableSummaries,EGUs,andProjectionsFuelCombustion2aCommercialFuelCombustion21,Residential_Fuel_Combustion2cIndustrialFuelCombustionNonroad(marinevessels)3aCommercialMarineVessel3bTowboats_&_Tugboats3cDredging3dFerries4.PermitChangesCrodaBoilerDupontStineHaskellBlr3MontaireFarmsfuelswitchInvistaPermitCancel5InvistaConsentDecree6FinalAgreement-UNRECandDECityRefmery31