STAT E O F DELA WARE D E PART ME N T OF NATU RAL R E S O U R CES & E N V I RONME N TAL CONTROL DI V I S I O N OF A I R QU A LIT Y

6 5 5 S

. Bay Road , S u it e 5 N D OV ER , D ELAW ARE 1 9 901

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 Te l ep ho ne: (302) 739 - 9 402 Fax No
. : (302) 739 - 3 10 6

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 c ontribut e s ig nific antly to downwind s tates ' non - att ainm ent or inte rf ere n ce with do wnwind s tates ' maintenanc e of National Ambi e nt Air Q uality Standard s (NAAQSs). Howev er, Del a ware's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQSs i s significantly hampered by e mi ss ion s from so urces in up w in d s tate s that h ave no t ta ken mea s ure s to co ntro l th e ir a ir p o llu tant e mi ss ion s . This i s discu s sed in detail in Delaware' s Decemb e r 15 , 2008 C AA 1 26 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 cove r ed by th e propo s ed tran s port r ule. Ac co rding to the propo s ed rule th e E PA modeled their 2012 Ba se C a s e e mi ss io n proj e ction s to d e termin e whether State s met a threshold for " linkage " and thu s " si g nificant 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 EPAEPA 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 thatEPA 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 th e las t calendar year that ha s littl e effect from the c urrent econo mic downturn

. As s uch , it i s assumed that the opera ti on of EGUs in 2007 is more representative of expected normal operation for the unit s th at operated during that period. For many of the unit s not incorporating po st

-co mbu stion controls, unit hourly loading and average capacity factor can have a noticeabl e effect on emi ss ion rates (in terms of Ib/MMBTU or lb/MW). Therefore , it is Del aware's opinion that utilizing 2007 operating data would provide a more accurate indication of both the units ' uncontrolled emission rat e and the emission rate re s ulting from the theoretical installation of emission controls. For units that did not operate in 2007, s uch as new units , emissions data from the ear li es t of 2008 or 2009, as applicable to the individual unit , could be utili ze d.

• The second recomm end ation is that EPA recon si der s the u se of averaging the emission rate of all of a single company's EGUs in a given state as a co mpliance alternative. While Delaware agrees that this concept ha s merit in providing a company flexibility in control in stallation planning and compliance strategy, D elaware also beli eves that thi s fl ex ibility could result in a number of s maller 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 numb er 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 indi cates that , "The unit

- leve l rates which so urce s mu st co mp ly w ith under th i s approach are determi ne d ana logo u s ly to un it- leve l all ocations

- each unit's proposed all ocation 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 eva luation

. Further , it appears that the emission rate limit s wo uld s till b e dete rm ined pri mar il y o n an eco no mi c bas is, there by sti ll a llowing some units to operate with littl e or no emiss ion controls. It is Delaware ' s opinion that this m ethodology does not adequately evaluate, on a unit- by-unit bas i s, the technical or economic feasibility of installation of cost-effective emission controls for thes e units. The methodology therefore may not adequately determin e realistic emission rate limit s for all of th ese uni ts. It i s Delaware's o pini on th at unitby-unit technical eva lu at ions are necessary to properly set suc h emission rate limits fo r every EGU in the program . S uc h eva l uati o n s mu s t take into acco un t th e un it types , fu e l(s ) co mbu s ted , un it s ize, unit hi s toric cap ac ity fac tor, pro j ec ted add itio na l lifetime , existing emiss ions contro l s , commerciall y avai lable contro ls 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 state sEPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009-0491 October 1,2010 Page 6

to incre a se their emissions abov e the limit that EPA has calculate d to be required to full y eliminate th at s tate' s significant contribution or interf ere with maintenan ce 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 re garding the variability in electric demand and to prevent impact on electric grid reliability

. While Delaware under s tands 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 leve l s that exceed the values calculated by the EPA as needed to elimin ate 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 applicab le NAAQS , or interfere with maintenance of thatNAAQS

. 

### 3

. C o-generation Unit Exemption. In the preamble to the proposed rule EPA requested comments regarding th e length of th e historic period that would b e 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 Nov ember 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 me eting 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 ha s included in the propos ed rule

. S pecific a ll y, D elaware b eli e ves the " look back " period fo r determin ation o f e li g ibility f o r the co-generation unit exe mp tion s ho ul d b e the late r o f the ca lend ar year pri or to th e effective date of the rule or the first full calendar year after the unit first produces electricity. Using this one year " loo k back" for determination of co-generation ex emption eli g ibili ty wo uld mak e this re qui re ment mo re c ons istent with pro po sed rul e's re quirement f o r co-ge nerati o n unit s to re- quali fy fo r the exe mption o n an annu a l bas i s. 

### 4

. State C ontribution Thresholds

. In Section III

. A. of the preamb le to the proposed rul e, EPA discusses that the proposed methodology of the rule uses air quality analy s i s to determin e whether a s tate 's contribution to downwind air quality probl ems is abov e spec ific thres hold s. EPA state s , " If a state's c ontribution exce ed s tho se thres hold s, EPA takes a se cond step that uses a mu lti-factor ana lysis that takes into acco unt both air qual ity and cost considerations to identi f y the portion of a state 's contribution that i s sign ifican t or that inte rf eres wi th ma inten ance." Thi s statement i s tro ublin g to De law are. 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 thatEPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) Docket ID No

. EPA-HQ

- OAR

- 2009-0491 October I , 2010 Pag e 7

cos t c onsid erati ons are re lev ant wh en se lectin g the s ourc e c ateg ory or populati on of s ources th at are to be targ ete d for c ontrol , not in determining if th e emi ss ion s co ntribute to s ignificant contribution or interf e rence with maintenance in a downwind state
. 5. EG U 

### Inventories. Durin g revi e w of EPA's techni c al s upport document s for bud get s and allocations for the propo se d rul e , Delaware has id entified a numb er of probl em s with the inv entory of EGU 's included by EPA in the development of the budget and alloc ation lev els for D elaware

. 4 The probl ems noted during Delaware ' s review include th e following :

• EPA ' s propos ed rul e unit inv entory ha s included III D elaware 's unit inv entory a number of units that are co-generation units

.
• By combining sources of data and information conc erning units , as di scu sse d in EPA ' s TSD 

### State Budgets, Unit Allocations, and Unit Emissions Rates , EPA
" double counted " emissions among thre e Delaware units , by accounting for emi ss ion s for two head er supplied ste am turbine- generators from one data sourc e, and then from another data source accounting for emissions from a boiler that supplie s that steam header for the two header supplied steam turbine

- generators. EPA ' s emissions data and allowance allocations have included header ste am turbine generating units that are supplied by multiple non-fired heat recovery s team g enerating units. As the boilers are not fired , it is uncertain how they would produce em i ssions given that the em i ssions as s ociated with relate d combustion turbines are attribute d directly to those combustion turbine s .
• EPA excluded two Delaware units from the proposed program , apparently due to the EPA's d ata assigning the units o utp ut ratings less than 25 MW. It appears that the EPA based this rating on data that indicates that these units have " summer " ratin g s of 22 MW on a ne t o utp ut ba si s. However , these parti cular units have "namep late " ratings in excess of 25 MW , and also have " winter " ratings of 25 MW on a net basi s . T here are three apparent is s ues demon strate d w ithin th i s probl em .
o Th e first apparent issue is th e use of "s ummer " output rating s, which include s the effect of higher summ er temp eratures re ducing the output of the unit , whi c h i s contrary to the definition of nam eplate ratin g includ e d in the EPA's pro p ose d ru le w hic h states, " Namep late capac ity means , starting from the ini tial installation of a generator , the maximum elec t rical generating output (in MWe ) that the generator is capab le of producing on a steady state basis and d uring

4 B ec a u se of the gen e ric nature of s om e o f the se apparent probl em s , Delaware is of the opinion that s imila r is s ues may exi st for s ome other s tate s s ubject to thi s propo sed rul e . Th e s e problem s that appear to have the potenti a l to g eneric in nature s hould b e investigated by EPA and correct e d a s nec e s sa ry in esta blishing fin a l emi s sion s bud ge t s , al l

ocati o n s, 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 h i storic 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 tho s e 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 f

ossil-fuel fired electric generatin g un its with a nameplate ratin g betwe en IS MW and 25 MW , f ossil

- fu e l fired c o-generation units serving a generator w ith a nameplate rating of IS MW or greater , and fos s il

- fu e l fired industrial and commercial (lCI) boil ers 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 capitali ze 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 re sulted in the additio n of w ater inj ec t io n for NOx c ontrol o n a ll 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 ins tallat ion testing indicated sign ificant N Ox emission rate red uct ion s we re 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 oppo s e the opt

- in provisions , D elaware i s skepti cal that the o pt-i n pro vis ion s w o uld prov ide s uffic ient ince ntiv e f or a so u rce to make the commitm ent to perf o rm an emission reduction proje c t that would no t hav e occurred anyw a y without the opt-in provisions

. In this e vent , addit ional allow anc e s 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 doesEPA 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,



# 1

1 1.L/j 

# 0**a)~_,** "fi,'/- Ali Mirzakhalili, P .E. Director
Attachment