STATE OF DELAWARE 

D EPARTMENT OF NATURAL R ESOURCES 

& E NVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

DIVISION OF A IR QUALITY 

655 S. Bay Road, Suite 5N 

DOVER, D ELAWARE 19 901 

October 1,2010 

EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mail Code: 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OAR- 2009- 0491 

Telephone: (302) 739 - 9402 

Fax No.: (302) 739 - 3106 

In the August 2,2010, Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 147) the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) proposed revisions to 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97, Federal Implementation Plans 

to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone. The State of Delaware 

welcomes the opportunity to provide comments regarding this proposed rule. 

Delaware has complied with the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i) 

by effectively controlling emissions sources within Delaware so that those sources do not 

contribute significantly to downwind states' non-attainment or interference with downwind 

states' maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs). However, 

Delaware's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQSs is significantly hampered by emissions 

from sources in upwind states that have not taken measures to control their air pollutant 

emissions. This is discussed in detail in Delaware's December 15, 2008 CAA 126 petition to the 

EPA. 

Delaware provides the following eleven (II) comments on the proposed transpoli rule. 

1. Delaware believes that it has been inappropriately named as a State that needs to be 

covered by the proposed transport rule. According to the proposed rule the EPA 

modeled their 2012 Base Case emission projections to determine whether States met a 

threshold for "linkage" and thus "significant contribution to, and/or interference with 

maintenance" to downwind areas. The results of EPA's 2012 Base Case modeling show 

that Delaware's downwind contribution exceeds one or more of these thresholds for the 

ozone, annual and daily fine particulate matter NAAQSs. Consequently, the EPA 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October I, 2010 

Page 2 

concluded that Delaware needed to be included in the transport rule. Delaware does not 

agree with this conclusion for the following reasons: 

• Delaware's sulfur dioxide (S02) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emiSSIOns are 

significantly overstated in the proposed transport rule analysis. Delaware compared 

its 2005 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEl) with EPA's 2005 emissions used in the 

proposed transport rule. Delaware then projected its 2005 PEl emissions to 2012, and 

compared them to the proposed transport rules 2012 Base Case emissions. The 

results, which are summarized in Table I and Table 2 below, indicate that EPA's 

NOx and S02 emissions are inflated for 2005 and both NOx and S02 are 

significantly inflated in 2012. 1 

Table I 2005 Emissions 

1 20055021 EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Total 

Transport Rule 32,378 34,859 5,859 11,648 422 85,166 

DE PEl Emissions 31,745 34,686 1,034 2,755 422 70,642 

DE Emission Difference (tpy) -633 -173 -4,825 -8,893 0 -14,524 

% Difference 2% 0"';'; 82% 76% 0"';'; 17% 

2005NOX EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Total 

Transport Rule 11,917 5,567 3,259 15,567 22,569 58,879 

DE PEl Emissions 11,397 5,999 2,317 11,728 22,569 54,010 

DE Emission Difference -520 432 -942 -3,839 0 -4,869 

% Difference 4% -8% 29% 25% 0"';'; 8% 

Table 2 2012 Projected Emissions 

2012502 EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Total 

Transport Rule 7,841 10,974 5,858 14,193 98 38,964 

DE Projections 7,356 5,941 1,034 2,201 98 16,630 

DE Emission Difference -485 -5,033 -4,824 -11,992 0 -22,334 

% Difference 6% 46% 82% 84% 0"';'; 57% 

2012NOX EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Total 

Transport Rule 4,639 5,567 3,248 15,511 10,700 39,665 

DE Projections 2,418 4,504 2,315 10,370 10,700 30,307 

DE Emission Difference -2,221 -1,063 -933 -5,141 0 -9,358 

% Difference 48% 19% 29% 33% 0"';'; 24% "-- - -,,, .. . . ..~.~-. 

_ ... . -,~ .. ~ .. -.-- . ". -.---,~"'.-

J Delaware's 2012 projections' assumptions and methods are discussed in Attachment 1 to this letter, "Delaware 

Division qf Air Quality (DAQ) Technical Support Dacumentfor Emission-related Comments on the Proposed 

Transport Rule." 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October 1, 2010 

Page 3 

Because EPA's 2005 and 2012 emiSSIOns inventories are inflated Delaware 

believes that EPA's modeling of 2012 base case emission over-states Delaware's 

contributions to downwind areas (i.e., over-estimated emissions inventories result 

in over-estimated contributions to downwind areas). 

Much of the inventory differences are due to control measures Delaware has 

implemented that are not reflected in the EPA analysis. 2 Delaware believes that 

once the EPA inventories are corrected, modeling will show that it is not 

necessary to subject Delaware to the transport rule. 

• Despite that EPA inventories for DE are inflated (see above and Attachment I to this 

letter), EPA's inventories themselves indicate that it is not necessary to include 

Delaware in the transport rule, i.e.: 

Without variability limits, EPA proposes at 40 CFR 97.410 a 2012 Delaware NOx 

budget of 6,206 TPY, and at 40 CFR 97.710 a 2012 Delaware 802 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 inteiference with maintenance) into 

enforceable control requirements. In other word~, it provides a quantity of 

emissions to use in developing a remedy ... " 

However, EPA's 2012 base case emissions for Delaware EGU's are 4,639 TPY for 

NOx and 7,841 TPY for 802, 8ince the EPA is establishing Delaware's EGU 

budgets at a level that is not less than its 2012 base case emissions 3, Delaware has 

already met its obligation to remedy downwind contributions for NOx and 802. 

Given the above, Delaware should not be included in the final Transport Rule, since our 

current control strategies have already mitigated our significant contributions to 

downwind areas. 

2 See Attachment 1 to this letter for a detailed discussion of these control measures. 

3 The difference between the EPA 2012 base case S02 inventory and the proposed budget for Delaware is 57 TPY. 

Once the EPA corrects the problems with the inventory I) overall modeled contributions will 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 proposed budget. 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October 1,2010 

Page 4 

2. The establishment or annual and/or seasonal EGU cap-and-trade programs and mass 

emissions budgets alone is insufficient. In the proposed rule, EPA has proposed to 

establish a cap-and-trade program for annual S02, annual NOx, and seasonal NOx for the 

purpose of mitigating the transport of fine particulate matter and ozone. A centerpiece of 

this proposal is the establishment of cap- and- trade programs: a S02 cap-and-trade 

program with annual state-by-state S02 mass emissions caps and provisions for 

unlimited intrastate trading and limited regional trading; a NOx cap-and-trade program 

with annual state-by-state NOx mass emissions caps and unlimited intrastate and regional 

trading; and a NOx cap-and-trade program with ozone season NOx mass emissions caps 

and unlimited intrastate and regional trading. In the preamble to the proposed rule the 

EPA also indicated that it was soliciting comments on two alternatives. The first 

alternative is the implementation of a program similar to proposed cap-and-trade program 

that excludes the regional trading aspects of the proposed program but stilI permits 

intrastate trading. The second alternative is a program based on establishing unit-specific 

emission rate limits based on historic emission rates and installation of controls, while 

maintaining state-specific mass emission caps similar to the proposed option. This 

second alternative also requests comment on including averaging for units owned by a 

common company in that state. 

It is Delaware's opinion that establishment of annual and/or seasonal EGU cap-and-trade 

programs and mass emissions budgets alone is insufficient to mitigate transport and 

assure the elimination of contribution of upwind states to downwind state noncompliance with short term NAAQS. Delaware believes that instead of allowing a capand-trade program's market forces to determine which EGUs are controlled, well 

controlled, or not controlled, all EGUs should be subject to compliance with both short 

term emission rate limits/performance standards (that are supportive of applicable short 

term NAAQS) and longer term annual and seasonal mass emissions caps. Short term 

emission rate limits/performance standards should be established on the basis of technical 

and economic feasibility, on a unit-by-unit basis, such that the limits/standards are 

supportive of the short term NAAQS. These short term emission rate limits/performance 

standards would also be expected to help alleviate episodic air quality excursions. Given 

this opinion, Delaware is generally supportive of the EPA further developing and 

implementing its second alternative, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, 

(i.e., a program based on establishing unit-specific emission rate limits and installation of 

controls) as the focus of this rulemaking effort. 

Delaware generally agrees with the concept presented for EPA's second alternative to the 

proposed program that includes establishing unit-by-unit performance standards/emission 

rates along with an overlaying cap-and-trade program, but recommends EPA consider 

some revisions to the process presented by the EPA for that second alternative. 

• The first recommendation is that EPA reconsiders the use of the most recent quarterly 

data from the period 2007 through 2009 as the baseline. It is popularly viewed that 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October I, 20 I 0 

Page 5 

calendar year 2007 is the last calendar year that has little effect from the current 

economic downturn. As such, it is assumed that the operation of EGUs in 2007 is 

more representative of expected normal operation for the units that operated during 

that period. For many of the units not incorporating post-combustion controls, unit 

hourly loading and average capacity factor can have a noticeable effect on emission 

rates (in terms of Ib/MMBTU or lb/MW). Therefore, it is Delaware's opinion that 

utilizing 2007 operating data would provide a more accurate indication of both the 

units' uncontrolled emission rate and the emission rate resulting from the theoretical 

installation of emission controls. For units that did not operate in 2007, such as new 

units, emissions data from the earliest of 2008 or 2009, as applicable to the individual 

unit, could be utilized. 

• The second recommendation is that EPA reconsiders the use of averaging the 

emission rate of all of a single company's EGUs in a given state as a compliance 

alternative. While Delaware agrees that this concept has merit in providing a 

company flexibility in control installation planning and compliance strategy, 

Delaware also believes that this flexibility could result in a number of smaller and/or 

low capacity factors to continue operation with little or no controls. The existence of 

such units contributes to transport issues and compliance with short term NAAQS. If 

EPA retains the concept of permitting same- company averaging for compliance, 

Delaware recommends that EPA consider doing so for only a small number of 

compliance periods to provide some initial flexibility for control installation planning 

until transitioning to a true unit-specific compliance requirement. 

In the TSD State Budgets, Unit Allocations, and Unit Emissiolls Rates, Section 4, 

Direct Control Rate Limits, EPA indicates that, "The unit-level rates which sources 

must comply with under this approach are determined analogously to unit-level 

allocations - each unit's proposed allocation is divided by the reported or projected 

heat input associated with that tonnage." It is not clear that the modeling inputs are 

adequate to perform a proper evaluation. Further, it appears that the emission rate 

limits would still be determined primarily on an economic basis, thereby still 

allowing some units to operate with little or no emission controls. It is Delaware's 

opinion that this methodology does not adequately evaluate, on a unit- by-unit basis, 

the technical or economic feasibility of installation of cost-effective emission 

controls for these units. The methodology therefore may not adequately determine 

realistic emission rate limits for all of these units. It is Delaware's opinion that unitby-unit technical evaluations are necessary to properly set such emission rate limits 

for every EGU in the program. Such evaluations must take into account the unit 

types, fuel(s) combusted, unit size, unit historic capacity factor, projected additional 

lifetime, existing emissions controls, commercially available controls for retrofit, etc. 

• Delaware is also concerned with EPA's concept of providing I-year and 3-year 

average variability mass emission provisions that could serve to allow upwind states 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October 1,2010 

Page 6 

to increase their emissions above the limit that EPA has calculated to be required to 

fully eliminate that state's significant contribution or interfere with maintenance in a 

downwind state. It is Delaware's understanding that EPA has considered the use of 

this variability concept in order to help address concerns regarding the variability in 

electric demand and to prevent impact on electric grid reliability. While Delaware 

understands the need to maintain grid reliability, it is Delaware's concern that under 

this scenario any given upwind state, or group of upwind states, could potentially 

emit on a routine basis at levels that exceed the values calculated by the EPA as 

needed to eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance in a 

downwind state. It is Delaware's opinion that the proposed variability concept be 

eliminated or revised such that any revision would preclude the potential for and 

upwind state or group of upwind states to significantly contribute to a downwind 

state's inability to comply with applicable NAAQS, or interfere with maintenance of 

thatNAAQS. 

3. Co-generation Unit Exemption. In the preamble to the proposed rule EPA requested 

comments regarding the length of the historic period that would be appropriate for a 

"look back" to determine if a unit met the efficiency and generation requirements to be 

eligible for the co-generation unit exemption provided for in the proposed rule. EPA is 

proposing the use of November 15, 1990 or the date on which the unit first produces 

electricity, whichever is later, as the date for which the unit must have started meeting the 

efficiency and generation requirements to be defined as a co-generation unit. In the 

preamble to the proposed rule EPA indicates that it may be difficult for some units to 

produce historic data of that age, and requests comments on utilization of a later date. 

Delaware agrees that the "look back" period for co-generation unit exemption 

determination should be shorter than the EPA has included in the proposed rule. 

Specifically, Delaware believes the "look back" period for determination of eligibility for 

the co-generation unit exemption should be the later of the calendar year prior to the 

effective date of the rule or the first full calendar year after the unit first produces 

electricity. Using this one year "look back" for determination of co-generation 

exemption eligibility would make this requirement more consistent with proposed rule's 

requirement for co-generation units to re-qualify for the exemption on an annual basis. 

4. State Contribution Thresholds. In Section III. A. of the preamble to the proposed rule, 

EPA discusses that the proposed methodology of the rule uses air quality analysis to 

determine whether a state's contribution to downwind air quality problems is above 

specific thresholds. EPA states, "If a state's contribution exceeds those thresholds, EPA 

takes a second step that uses a multi-factor analysis that takes into account both air 

quality and cost considerations to identify the portion of a state's contribution that is 

significant or that interferes with maintenance." This statement is troubling to Delaware. 

It is Delaware's opinion that an upwind state's emissions contribution is significant or 

interferes with maintenance in a downwind state based on the emissions and their effect 

on air quality, and is independent of cost considerations. It is Delaware's opinion that 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October I, 2010 

Page 7 

cost considerations are relevant when selecting the source category or population of 

sources that are to be targeted for control, not in determining if the emissions contribute 

to significant contribution or interference with maintenance in a downwind state. 

5. EGU Inventories. During review of EPA's technical support documents for budgets and 

allocations for the proposed rule, Delaware has identified a number of problems with the 

inventory of EGU's included by EPA in the development of the budget and allocation 

levels for Delaware. 4 The problems noted during Delaware's review include the 

following: 

• EPA's proposed rule unit inventory has included III Delaware's unit inventory a 

number of units that are co-generation units. 

• By combining sources of data and information concerning units, as discussed in 

EPA's TSD State Budgets, Unit Allocations, and Unit Emissions Rates, EPA 

"double counted" emissions among three Delaware units, by accounting for emissions 

for two header supplied steam turbine- generators from one data source, and then 

from another data source accounting for emissions from a boiler that supplies that 

steam header for the two header supplied steam turbine-generators. 

EPA's emissions data and allowance allocations have included header steam turbine 

generating units that are supplied by multiple non-fired heat recovery steam 

generating units. As the boilers are not fired, it is uncertain how they would produce 

emissions given that the emissions associated with related combustion turbines are 

attributed directly to those combustion turbines. 

• EPA excluded two Delaware units from the proposed program, apparently due to the 

EPA's data assigning the units output ratings less than 25 MW. It appears that the 

EPA based this rating on data that indicates that these units have "summer" ratings of 

22 MW on a net output basis. However, these particular units have "nameplate" 

ratings in excess of 25 MW, and also have "winter" ratings of 25 MW on a net basis. 

There are three apparent issues demonstrated within this problem. 

o The first apparent issue is the use of "summer" output ratings, which includes the 

effect of higher summer temperatures reducing the output of the unit, which is 

contrary to the definition of nameplate rating included in the EPA's proposed 

rule which states, "Nameplate capacity means, starting from the initial 

installation of a generator, the maximum electrical generating output (in MWe) 

that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during 

4 Because of the generic nature of some of these apparent problems, Delaware is of the opinion that similar issues 

may exist for some other states subject to this proposed rule. These problems that appear to have the potential to 

generic in nature should be investigated by EPA and corrected as necessary in establishing fin al emissions budgets, 

al locations, etc. 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October I, 2010 

Page 8 

continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings) as of 

such installation as specified by the manufacturer ofthe generator ... " 

o The second apparent issue with the use of "summer" output ratings, is that the 

"summer" output ratings includes the effect of higher summer temperatures that 

. tend to reduce the output of some units (combustion turbines and steam units). 

This appears to be contrary to EPA's definition in the proposed rule, as noted 

above, that indicates that the nameplate rating should not include any capacity 

restrictions due to "seasonal or other deratings". 

o The third apparent issue is the use of these values that are "net" unit electrical 

outputs, or the electrical output available to the grid after subtracting any 

electrical energy that is utilized by the unit in the generation of the total electrical 

energy. The definition of nameplate capacity in EPA's proposed rule, as noted 

above, clearly indicates that EPA intends that nameplate capacity be the gross 

electrical output, or total electrical output from the generator. 

6. Allowance Distribution Methodolof!V. In the EPA's proposed rule and supporting 

technical support documents, EPA proposes an allowance distribution methodology for 

distributing allowances to individual units. The proposed unit-specific allowance 

allocations will be made on the basis of each unit receiving its proportional share of its 

state budget based on that unit's share of state emissions assumed in developing the 

budget. Using this methodology, the units that historically had the highest emissions (in 

percentage of the state's total) would be allocated that same percentage of the states 

allocation. It appears that such a methodology provides a negative benefit to those units 

that either had a lower emission rate by design or installed controls to achieve a lower 

emission rate in the past. It is Delaware's opinion that it would be more appropriate to 

allocate allowances on the basis of a specific unit's historic heat input, as a percentage of 

the entire heat input that resulted in the state's total allowance allocation. It is 

Delaware's opinion that this would establish a fuel-neutral allocation methodology that 

does not provide a negative benefit to those units that had previous reduced their 

emission rates. 

7. Non-EGU Emission Reductions. EPA has requested comments on whether non-EGU 

emissions reductions should be required and on the specific control measures that would 

serve as the basis for those reductions. It is Delaware's opinion that EPA should consider 

requiring emissions reductions for some non-EGU categories. Included in this view are 

fossil-fuel fired electric generating units with a nameplate rating between IS MW and 25 

MW, fossil-fuel fired co-generation units serving a generator with a nameplate rating of 

IS MW or greater, and fossil-fuel fired industrial and commercial (lCI) boilers with a 

heat input capacity rating of 250 MMBTUIhr or greater. It appears that these categories 

of units can contribute to air quality excursions and impact a downwind state's ability to 

attain NAAQS. It is Delaware's experience that the small EGUs «25MW nameplate) 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October 1, 2010 

Page 9 

tend to operate most during periods of high electric demand which often coincide with 

ambient air quality excursions in downwind states. While co-generation units tend to 

operate with a more constant capacity, there is some data that indicates those units' 

loading may increase during periods of high electric demand to capitalize on 

opportunities for increased income from electric sales during high cost periods or to 

offset the purchase of additional electric at high relative cost. The large ICI boilers also 

tend to operate with a relatively constant capacity factor, which would also include 

operation during the periods of high electric demand that may coincide with air quality 

excursions in downwind states. 

It is Delaware's opinion that cost-effective emissions reduction technologies are proven 

and commercially available for these types of units. For boilers serving EGUs with 

nameplate ratings of 15 MW or larger (including co-generation units) or ICI applications, 

commercially available cost effective controls for retrofit include fuel switching in some 

cases for S02 and NOx reduction, 10w-NOx burners and SNCR and SCR for NOx 

control, and wet and dry scrubbers and sorbent injection for S02 controls. For 

combustion turbines driving generators with nameplate ratings greater than 15 MW, 

including both EGU and co-generation application, commercially available cost effective 

controls for retrofit include fuel switching in some cases for S02 and NOx control, and 

dry 10w-NOx burners, water injection, and SCR for NOx reduction. The March 2006 

STAPP AI ALAPCO document "Controlling Fine Particulate Matter under the Clean Air 

Act: A Menu of Options" provides considerable discussion regarding the applicability of 

emissions controls for these units. . 

Delaware has also experienced some considerable success with its state rulemakings that 

resulted in control installations similar to those discussed above. One such rulemaking 

resulted in the addition of water injection for NOx control on all fossil-fired combustion 

turbines driving electric generators with a nameplate rating greater than 15 MW (but less 

than 25 MW) that had not been previously controlled. The affected units tend to operate 

as peaking units and operate primarily during periods of high electric demand. Post 

installation testing indicated significant N Ox emission rate reductions were achieved by 

all of the affected units. 

8. Opt-in Provisions. Somewhat related to the issue of including the smaller size units in a 

proposed program is the concept of opt-in provisions in the proposed rule. EPA has 

requested comments regarding the appropriateness of the proposed rule's opt-in 

provisions. While Delaware does not necessarily oppose the opt-in provisions, Delaware 

is skeptical that the opt-in provisions would provide sufficient incentive for a source to 

make the commitment to perform an emission reduction project that would not have 

occurred anyway without the opt-in provisions. In this event, additional allowances 

would have been created without any environmental benefit as a direct result of the rule. 

In any event, it is Delaware's opinion that if the proposed rule addresses the smaller units 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October I, 20 I 0 

Page 10 

(EGUs 15MW<>25 MW, co-generation units> 15MW, and ICI boilers> 250 

MMBTU/hr) then the population of likely opt-in units will be greatly reduced. 

9. The EPA proposal is unnecessarily complex. Delaware is supportive of EPA's efforts to 

propose a rule that effectively eliminates an upwind state's significant contribution or 

interference of maintenance with a NAAQS in downwind states. The EPA has provided 

much complex information and analysis in their proposal and technical support 

documents. Delaware has gleaned from the EPA documents that there are two main 

determinations being made: I) a determination of whether a state significantly interferes 

with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS in a downwind state, and 2) a 

determination of the remedy for the states that do significantly interfere. Delaware has 

spent considerable time studying the EPA proposal, and participating on telephone calls 

and meetings with others discussing the proposal, and has concluded that both EPA's 

characterization of the problem and the proposed solution have been made unnecessarily 

complex and difficult to understand and evaluate. This is a very important proposal to 

downwind states like Delaware. The health and welfare of Delaware citizens has and 

continues to be negatively impacted by emissions from upwind states, and those 

emissions must be mitigated. This unnecessary complexity has required Delaware to 

expend significant resources to review and understand the proposal, but even after 

spending many man-hours reviewing it is not clear that the rule will result in emission 

reductions once it is fully implemented. 

10. An EGU Cap-and-Trade Program alone is not sufficient to mitigate a states impact on 

downwind states. Delaware understands the bottom line of the EPA proposal is that the 

control of EGUs is all that is needed in order for a state to mitigate its significant impact 

on downwind states. This conclusion is inconsistent with much of the information 

Delaware has learned in its efforts to address the ozone problem over the past 40 years, 

and the more recent fine particulate matter problems. The installation of all reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) on all volatile organic, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur 

dioxide emitting sources is needed. In addition, advanced best available control 

technology (BACT) level controls on EGUs and other large sources stationary sources is 

needed. And, based on Delaware's experience the timing associated with the design, 

permitting and construction of advanced emission controls on EGUs is relatively short; 

on the order of 24-months. If upwind states were to implement these measures (i.e., 

RACT on all sources, and BACT on all large stationary sources), as Delaware already 

has, attainment of the current and upcoming ozone and PM2.5 NAAQSs would be in 

reach. Delaware believes these measures must be added as required elements of this 

proposal. 

II. The proposal does not offer necessary reliefto downWind states. Delaware understands 

that the EPA is in this proposal segregating transport related to the 0.08ppm ozone 

NAAQS from the lower 75ppb ozone NAAQS promulgated last year, and from the new 

lower ozone NAAQS anticipated to be finalized by the EPA later this month. This does 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) 

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

October I, 2010 

Page II 

not seem reasonable to states like Delaware who, despite having already subjected its 

sources to advanced and costly emissions control requirements, continues to be impacted 

by unhealthy air from upwind states. And, Delaware will continue to be impacted by this 

unhealthy air long into the future. Given the low level of the new ozone NAAQSs 

relative to current air quaiity, and the overwhelming impact of transported emissions, 

further delay in installing and operating appropriate emission controls in upwind states is 

not warranted. 

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. We look forward to the EPA 

promulgation of a rule that provides full mitigation of upwind emissions that continue to 

negatively impact public health and welfare in Delaware, and Delaware's ability to attain and 

maintain compliance with national anlbient air quality standards. 

Sincerely, 

111.L/j 0 a)~_, 

"fi,'/- Ali Mirzakhalili, P .E. 

Director 

Attachment