CDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCESANDENVIRONMENTALCONTROLOFFICEOFTHE89KINGSHIGHWAYPHONE:(302)739-9000SECRETARYDOVER,DELAWARE19901FAX:(302)739-6242RECE!VEDApril3,2008APR82008RECEflrEI)ionUirectoi(3tPUO)Mr.DonaldS.Welsh(3RAOO)RegionalAdministratoro82008U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency‘IRegionIIIEPA.REGIONIII1650ArchStreet)CEOFREGIONALADMINISTRA1Philadelphia,PA19103-2029DearMr.Welsh:IampleasedtosubmittheenclosedrevisiontotheStateofDelawareStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM25)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS).ThisrevisionisinresponsetoEPA’sApril,2005non-attainmentdesignationforthePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DEMetropolitanStatisticalArea,whichincludesNewCastleCounty,Delaware,underthePM25NAAQS.TheeffectivedateofthisrevisionisApril1,2008.Delaware’sproposedSIPforAttainmentofthePM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandardwilldothefollowing:1)Demonstratethatwithallexistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM25monitorswillshowattainmentby2010;2)DemonstratethattheentirePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattainthePM25NAAQSin2009;3)EstablishDelaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and4)TreatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,as“emitted.”TherequirementsoftheCAASection110(a)(2)(A)havebeenmetthroughthenormalpublichearingprocessestablishedbytheStateofDelawarewithpropernotification(30days)priortotheconveningofthepublichearing.ApublichearingwasheldonMarch4,2008.AttachmentsAandBarecopiesofaffidavitsasproofofpropernotification.ItisthepositionoftheStateofDelawarethatallminimumrequirementssetforthinthe1990CleanAirActAmendmentshavebeenmet.Ve€aa4vie‘49oodtazciedefteid4otøafSTATEODELAWARELMr.DonaldS.WelshApril3,2008Page2WelookforwardtocontinuingthecooperativeeffortbetweenDelawareandEPAinthisimportantwork.Asalways,feelfreetocontactmeorAuMirzakhalili,Administrator,(302)739-9402,ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningtheencloseddocuments./Sincerely,/IJohnA.Hugh’eSecretaryEnclosurecc:JudyKatz,EPAw/encl.AliMirzakhalili

# DELAWARE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FOR ATTAINMENT OF THE PM

2.5



# NATIONAL AMBIENT AI R QUALITY STANDARD

Attainment Demonstration



# March 20, 2008

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary

------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------ 4

Acronym List

------------------- ------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------ 6

List of Tables

------------------ ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------- 8

List of Figures

------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------ 10

List of Appendixes

------------------ ----------------- ------------------------------ ----------- 11

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 Purpose of this document

---------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------- 12

1.2 What is PM 2.5 

# ? --------------

------------------ ----------------- --------------- ---------- 12

1.3 Health effects and welfare impacts of PM 2.5 

# -------------- --------------- ----------- 13

1.4 Emissions Addressed in this SIP: Direct PM 2.5 

# and Precursors ---------------- 14

1.5 Identification of Non-attainment Areas

------------------ ----------------- ----------- 16

1.6 Responsibilities ---------

------------------------------------ ----------------- ----------- 17

2. PM 2.5 

# Air Quality Status and Trend Analysis

2.1 Delaware PM 2.5 

# Federal Reference Method (FRM ) Monitoring Network ------- 18

2.2 Delaware PM 2.5 

# Design Values --------

----------------- ------------------ ------------- 20

2.3 Ambient PM 2.5 

# Concentration Trends

------------------------------------------ ------- 21

2.4 Speciation Data -------------

------------------ ----------------- --------------- ----------- 25

2.5 Other monitors in the Philadelphia Non- attainment area -------

------------ ------- 32

3. Delaware 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory

3.1 2002 PM 2.5 

# and Precursor Inventory Overview

--------------- --------------------- 34

3.2 Emissions Summary--------

------------------ ----------------- --------------- ----------- 34

3.3 Stationary Point Sources--

----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------- 39

3.4 Stationary Non-Point Sources------------

------------------ ----------------- ----------- 43

3.5 On-Road Mobile Sources---

---------------------------------- --------------- ----------- 47

3.6 Non-Road Mobile Sources------------------

---------------------------------- ---------- 48

3.7 Natural Sources-------------

------------------ ----------------- ------------------ --------- 50

4. Control Measures and 2009 Emission Projections for Attainment

4.1 Point Source Controls and 2009 Projection Inventory ----------- ------------------- 52

4.2 Non-Point Source Controls and 2009 Emi ssion Projections-------- ---------------- 57

4.3 Non-Road Mobile Source Controls and 2009 Emission Projecti ons--------------- 59

4.4 On-Road Mobile Source Controls and 2009 Emission Projections ---------------- 62

4.5 Summary of Delaware’s Overall Projec ted 2009 Inventory --- ---------------------- 63

5. 2009 Emissions Attainment Targets--

------------------- --------------------------- ------- 64

6. Attainment Demonstration

6.1 Background and Objectives-----------------

----------------- --------------- ----------- 66

6.2 Conceptual Model ----------

------------------ ----------------- --------------- ----------- 68

6.3 Modeling Domain and Photochemical M odeling System---------

------------- ---- 69

6.4 Model Performance Evalua tion-------------

----------------- --------------- ----------- 71

2

# 6.5 Attainment Demonstration----------------

------------------ ----------------- ---------- 80

6.6 Unmonitored Area Analysis

---------------- ----------------- --------------- ----------- 85

6.7 Local Area Analysis-------

------------------ ----------------- --------------- ----------- 90

6.8 Supplemental Analyses and Weight of Ev idence Determination ----------------- 91

6.9 Conclusions---------

--------------- --------------------------------------------- --------- 92

7. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM ) and Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT)

7.1 Background and Requirements ---------------

----------------- --------------- ---------- 93

7.2 Post 2002 RACT and RACM Measures -----

----------------- --------------- ---------- 93

7.3 Additional RACM/RACT Evaluation ------

--------------------------------- ----------- 96

8. Mobile Budgets for Transportation Conformity

8.1 Introduction to Transportation Conformity ----------

------------------------------ ---- 100

8.2 Mobile Budgets for 2009, the Attainment Y ear ------------

------------------ --------- 100

9. Contingency Measures

9.1 Quantification of Contingency Reductions Required------------ --------------------- 102

9.2 Demonstration that Contingency Requireme nt is Met------------

------------ -------- 103

10. Appendices

-------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- 105

3

# Executive Summary

In April 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated 126 areas of the

country as “non-attainment” under the fine particle (PM 2.5 

# ) National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). Among those non-attainment areas is the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJDE Non-Attainment Area (NAA). This NAA include s one county in Delawa re, five counties in

southeastern Pennsylvania, and three counties in New Jersey. 1 

# According to the federal Clean

Air Act (CAA) and the EPA Implementation Rule 2 

# , this entire NAA must attain compliance with

the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS by 2010.

Particle pollution, especially fine particles, contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets

that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause seri ous health problems.

Numerous scientific studies have linked partic le pollution exposure to a variety of problems,

including:

• 

# increased respiratory symptoms, such as irr itation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty

breathing;

• 

# decreased lung function;

• 

# aggravated asthma;

• 

# development of chronic bronchitis;

• 

# irregular heartbeat;

• 

# non-fatal heart attacks and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.

People with heart or lung diseases, children and older adults are th e most likely to be

affected by exposure to particle pollution. However, even hea lthy individuals may experience

temporary symptoms from exposure to el evated levels of particle pollution.

In addition to these public hea lth impacts, fine particles ar e the major cause of reduced

visibility in parts of the United States, incl uding many of our treasured national parks and

wilderness areas. Also, particles are transporte d over long distances by wind and then settle on

the ground or water. The effects of this settling include making lakes and streams acidic,

changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters a nd large river basins, depl eting the nutrients in

soil, damaging sensitive forests and farm crops , and affecting the diversity of ecosystems.

In response to the April 2005 non-attainment designation Delaware has developed this

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. This SIP:

• Demonstrates that with a ll existing and propos ed controls, all of Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# monitors

will show attainment in 2009.

• Demonstrates that the entire Philadelphia- Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE non-attainment area will

attain the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS in 2009.

1 

# See Figure 1-1.

2 

# Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule , 40 CFR Part 51, March 29,

2007.



# 4

# • Establishes Delaware’s 2009 mobile source budgets for transpor tation conformity

determinations under Regulation N o. 1132, Transportation Conformity.

• Treats emission reduction credits (ERCs) banked under Regulation No. 34, Emissions

Banking and Trading Program, as “emitted.” As such, the future use of these credits is

consistent with, and will not interfere with any calculation or pr ovision of this SIP.

5

# Acronym List

AQMS - Air Quality Management Section of DNREC

BOTW - Beyond-on-the-way

CAAA - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CAIR - Clean Air Interstate Rule

CMSA - Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area

DelDOT - Delaware Depart ment of Transportation

DNREC - Delaware Department of Na tural Resources and Environmental

Control

DOE - US Department of Energy

EGAS - Economic Growth Analysis System

EGU - Electric Generating Unit

EIA - Energy Information Administration

EID - Emission Inventory Development Program of AQMS

EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

I/M - Inspection and Maintenance Program

IPM - Integrated Planning Model

MANE_VU - Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Visibility Union

MARAMA - Mid-Atlantic Regiona l Air Management Association

NESCUAM - Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization

mmBTU - Million British Thermal Unit

NAA - Non-Attainment Area

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NEI - National Emission Inventory

NIF - National emission inventory Input Format

NLEV - National Low Emission Vehicle

NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen

OTB - On-the-book

OTW - On-the-way

PM 2.5 

# - Particulate Matter with an aerodyna mic diameter of 2.5 microns or less

PM 10 

# - Particulate Matter with an aerodyna mic diameter of 10 microns or less

POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works

QA-QC - Quality Assurance-Quality Control

RACM - Reasonably Ava ilable Control Measure

RACT - Reasonably Ava ilable Control Technology

RFP - Reasonable Further Progress

RPO - Regional Planning Organization

RRF - Relative Response Factor

RVP - Reid Vapor Pressure

SANDWICH - Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, De rived Water, Inferred Carbonaceous Material

Balance

SCC - Source Classification Code

SIC - Standard Industrial Classification

SIP - State Implementation Plan

6

# SMOKE - Sparse Matrix Operator Kern el Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System

SO 2 

# - Sulfur Dioxide

TIP - Transportation Improvement Program

TSD - Technical Supporting Document

VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC - Volatile Organic Compound

7

# List of Tables

Table 2-1 Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# Monitoring Site General Information

Table 2-2 Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# Monitor Site Specific Information

Table 2-3 Delaware Monitors - Three-year PM 2.5 

# average of annual averages

Table 2-4 Delaware Monitors - Three-year PM 2.5 

# average 98 th 

# percentiles

Table 2-5 Annual Average PM 2.5 

# Concentrations, All Sites

Table 2-6 98 th 

# Percentiles

Table 2-7 PM 2.5 

# Speciation – Annual average component mass, ug/m 3



# Table 2-8 PM 2.5 

# Speciation – Annual averag e as percent of total mass

Table 2-9 Philadelphia CMSA estimated de sign values (three-year averages), excluding

Delaware

Table 3-1 2002 PM 2.5 

# and Precursor Emissions by County

Table 3-2 2002 Statewide Emissions by Source Sector

Table 3-3 2002 New Castle C ounty Emissions by Source Sector

Table 3-4 Point Source Facilities in Delaware 2002 Base Year Inventory

Table 3-5 Non-Point Sources in Delaware 2002 Base Year Inventory

Table 3-6 Summary of 2002 Statewide Emissions from Non-point Sources

Table 3-7 Summary of 2002 Non-point Emissions for New Castle County

Table 3-8 2002 Annual Emissions and VM T for On-road Mobile Sources by County

Table 3-9 2002 Annual PM Exhaust, Brak e Wear, and Tire Wear Emissions by County

Table 3-10 2002 Statewide Annual Emissions and VMT for On-road Mobile Sources by

Vehicle Type

Table 3-1 1 2002 Statewide Emissions from Non-road Sources

Table 3-12 2002 Statewide Annual Emissions for NONROAD Equipment

Table 3-13 2002 Emissions for Natural Sources by County

Table 4-1 EGU emission projections calcu lated by the Integrated Planning Model (IPM)

Table 4-2 2009 EGU emi ssions – Delaware calculated

Table 4-3 Facility and Unit shutdowns

Table 4-4 Emission Reduction Credits and Holding Facilities/Agency

Table 4-5 Summary of the MACTEC 2009 No n-EGU Point Source Projection

Table 4-6 Summary of the Un-Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-EGU Point

Source Projection

Table 4-7 Summary of th e Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-EGU Point Source

Projection

Table 4-8 Summary of the Delawa re Non-EGU Point Source Projection

Table 4-9 Summary of Delaware 2009 EGUs and non-EGUs Point Source Projection

Table 4-10 Summary of the MAC TEC 2009 Non-Point Source Projection

Table 4-11 Summary of the Un-Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Point Source

Projection

Table 4-12 Summary of th e Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Point Source

Projection

Table 4-13 Summary of the Delawa re Non-Point Source Projections

Table 4-14 Summary of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Road Mobile Source Projection

8

# Table 4-15 Summary of the Un-Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Road Mobile

Source Projection

Table 4-16 Summary of the Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Road Mobile Source

Projection

Table 4-17 Summary of the Delaware Non-Road Mobile Source Projection

Table 4-18 (NESCAUM/NY) 2009 Mobile Projections

Table 4-19 Delaware 2009 Mobile projecti ons using the most up-to-date VMT and speeds

Table 4-20 2009 projections – all sectors – MANEVU

Table 4-21 2009 projections – all sectors – Delaware

Table 5-1 CMAQ Modeled 2009 Emi ssions, i.e. Attainment Targets

Table 5-2 DE Projected 2009 Em issions (Control Strategy Emissions)

Table 5-3 Attainment Demonstration (CM AQ Modeled 2009 Emissions minus DE Projected

2009 Emissions)

Table 5-4 SO 2 

# “surplus/shortfall”

Table 6-1 PA-NJ-DE Designations for the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS

Table 6-2 EPA PM 2.5 

# Modeling Performance Goals

Table 6-3 MANE-VU PM 2.5 

# Modeling Performance Goals

Table 6-4 Annual SMAT Results for PA-N J-DE Nonattainment Area 2009 On-The-BooksOn-The-Way Control Measures

Table 6-5: 24-Hour Mode ling Attainment Test Usi ng EPA SMAT Methodology 2009 OnThe-Books/On-The-Way Control Measures

Table 7-1 DE 2002 and Projected 2009 Emissions

Table 7-2 CMAQ Modeled 2009 Emissions, Delaware

Table 7-3 2009 Statewide Emission Reductions attributable to Delaware Reg. 1146 (TPY)

Table 7-4 2009 Emissions Proj ection, Conservatively Low Estimate

Table 7-5 Delaware SO 2 

# Emissions, Source Categories Covering 95% of Total Emissions

Table 8-1 On-Road Mobile primary and Precursor PM 2.5 

# Emissions as a Percent of Total

Projected Inventory New Castle County

Table 8-2 On-Road Mobile Source Emission Projections for 2009Tons/Year

Table 9-1 Attainment Targets

Table 9-2 Delaware 2002 Base Year

Table 9-3 Contingency Requirement

Table 9-4 Delaware 2009 Projection

Table 9-5 Contingency – SO 2 

# “surplus and shortfalls”

9

# List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Philadelphia-Wilmingt on, PA-DE-NJ Non-attainment Area

Figure 2-1 Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# Monitoring Site Locations

Figure 2-2 Annual Average PM 2.5 

# Concentrations, All Sites

Figure 2-3 Design value – 3-year average of annual average PM 2.5 

# Concentrations

Figure 2-4 98 th 

# Percentile Trends

Figure 2-6 Three-year average 98 th 

# percentile - design values

Figure 2-7 2006 Annual Average Concen trations, Percent of Total Mass

Figure 2-8 Major component trends

Figure 2-9 Seasonal Components of PM 2.5 

# Figure 2-10 Estimated design values for Philadelphia CMSA monitors

Figure 3-1 PM 2.5 

# Emissions by County

Figure 3-2 SO 2 

# Emissions by County

Figure 3-3 NOx Emissions by County

Figure 3-4 NH 3 

# Emissions by County

Figure 3-5 PM 2.5 

# Emissions by Source Sector

Figure 3-6 SO 2 

# Emissions by Source Sector

Figure 3-7 NOx Emissions by Source Sector

Figure 3-8 NH 3 

# Emissions by Source Sector

Figure 6-1 The Philadelphia-Wilmin gton (PA-NJ-DE) nonattainment area

Figure 6-2 PM 2.5 

# Modeling Domains at 36- and 12-km for the OTR

Figure 6-3 FRM Locations Used for th e Model Evaluation Across the OTR+ Region

Figure 6-4 Composite FRM Time Series across the OTR+ Region (264 monitors)

Figure 6-5 MFE and MFB Time Series for FRM PM 2.5 

# across the OTR+ Region

Figure 6-6 MFE Bugle Plot for FRM PM 2.5 

# across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-7 MFE Bugle Plot for SO 4 

# across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-8 MFE Bugle Plot for NO 3 

# SO 4 

# across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-9 MFE Bugle Plot for NH 4 

# across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-10 MFE Bugle Plot for EC across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-11 MFE Bugle Plot for OM across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-12 MFE Bugle Plot for Soil/Crustal across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-13 Empirical variogram fitted with different models for the annual standard

Figure 6-14 Map of kriging estimates for the a nnual standard fitted with weighted least

squares model and nugget set to 0.15

Figure 6-15 Empirical variogram fitted with different models for the daily standard

Figure 6-16 Map of kriging estimates for the daily standard fitted with weighted least squares

model and nugget set to 0.15

Figure 6-17 Trend in Annual PM 2.5 Design Values (2000 through 2006)

Figure 6-18 Trend in Daily PM 2.5 Design Values (2000 through 2006)

10

# List of Appendices

A collection of the listed appendixes, stored on CD, is available upon request. Contact

Delaware’s Air Quality Management Secti on at 156 South State Street, Dover, DE 19901.

Appendix 4-1 Development of Emission Pr ojections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for Non-EGU

Point, Area, and Non-road Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Draft Final

Technical Support Document, Prepared for Mid-Atlantic Regional Air

Management Association (MARAMA) by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.,

December 7, 2006.

Appendix 4-2 The 2009 Corrected Emission Projec tions of Delaware EGU, Non-EGU, NonPoint and Non-Road Mobile Sources.

Appendix 4-3 The 2009 Emission Projections for De laware’s Point, Non-Point, Onroad, and

Non-Road Mobile Sources.

Appendix 4-4 Part 1: MOBILE6.2 Input and Outp ut Files for Delaware 2009 Mobile Source

Emission

Part 2: Calculations of 2008 and 2009 On-Road Mobile Source Emission

Projections

Appendix 6-1 The Nature of th e Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality Problems in

the MANE-VU Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM, November

2006) and

Appendix 6-2 The Development of PM 2.5 

# Forecasting Tools for Selected Cities in the

MARAMA Region (ICF, September 2004)

Appendix 6-3 The New York State DEC, Divisi on of Air Resources, performance evaluation

of the 2002 base case CMAQ simulation

Appendix 6-4/a SANDWICH Method

Appendix 7-1 EPA List of Control Measures

Appendix 8-1 Example 2009 Mobi le Emission Projection Calculations

11

# Section 1 - Introduction & Background

On July 18, 1997 the US Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) es tablished a health

based fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

# ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at 15.0

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), annual average. 3 

# New Castle County, Delaware was

designated by the EPA as being in non-attainment for the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS in April 2005 4 

# . Kent

and Sussex Counties were designated as attainme nt; however, sources within these counties emit

PM 2.5 

# and PM 2.5 

# precursors which contribute to PM 2.5 

# non-attainment in New Castle County.

This document contains Delaware’s State Im plementation Plan (SIP) revision for meeting

attainment of the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS, and is hereafter refe rred to as “Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# SIP revision,”

or simply as “the PM 2.5 

# SIP.”

1.1 Purpose of this document

Once an area is designated as non-attainment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that area

to, within three years of the designation e ffective date, submit to the EPA a SIP which

demonstrates how that area will attain compliance with the NAAQS. This SIP is due to the EPA

in April 2008, and attainment of the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS must be demonstrated by 2010.

On March 30, 2007, the EPA finalized a PM 2.5 

# Implementation Rule (h ereafter referred to

as the “Rule”), which sets forth the requirements that SIPs must meet to satisfy CAA

requirements. The Rule requires:

o an attainment demonstration (which incl udes associated air quality modeling),

o adopted State regulations that are re lied upon to reduce emissions of PM 2.5 

# and PM 2.5 

# precursors, and

o a demonstration that the area will attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable.

This document demonstrates that all of the CAA and Rule requirements associated with

the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS have been met; and that Delaware and the entire Philadelphia-WilmingtonDE-PA-NJ non-attainment area will at tain compliance with the 1997 PM 2.5 

# NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, and not later than 2010.

1.2 What is PM 2.5 

# ?

PM 2.5 

# is defined as those particles with a nom inal aerodynamic diameter of two and one

half (21⁄2) micrometers or less. PM 2.5 

# is composed of a complex mixture of particles: sulfate

(SO 4 

# ), nitrate (NO 3 

# ) and ammonium (NH 4 

# ) particles; particle-bound water; black carbon (also

3 The annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS is set at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μ/m 3 

# ), based on a 3-year

average of annual mean PM 2.5 

# concentrations. Recently, the 24 -hour NAAQS was lowered to 35μ/m 3 

# , and

under this lowered NAAQS attainment/non-attainment re commendations will be submitted to the EPA by states

in late 2008, or possibly early 2009. Because Delaware has not yet been designated under this new NAAQS,

this new NAAQS is not addressed in this SIP.

4 

# 70 FR 944 , January 5, 2005



# 12

# known as elemental carbon); a great variety of organic compounds (or VOCs); and crustal

materials. PM 2.5 

# is broadly categorized as primary PM 2.5 

# and secondary PM 2.5 

# :

• Primary: PM 2.5 

# is referred to as “primary” if it is directly emitted into the air as a solid or

liquid particle and its chemical form is stable. PM 2.5 

# formed near its source by

condensation processes in the atmosphe re is also considered primary PM 2.5



# .

Primary fine particles include soot from di esel engines, a wide variety of organic

compounds condensed from incomplete co mbustion or cooking operations, and

compounds such as arsenic, selenium, and zinc that condense from vapor formed during

combustion or smelting. The metals are a subset of crustal materials. The concentration

of primary PM 2.5 

# in the air depends on source emi ssion rates, transport and dispersion,

and removal rate from the atmosphere. Primary PM 2.5 

# is considered the "local"

component of Delaware's PM 2.5 

# problem, meaning that it is the portion of the PM 2.5 

# levels

produced locally that contribute to monitore d violations of the standard in Delaware.

• Secondary: PM 2.5 

# that is formed by chemical reactions of gases in the atmosphere is

referred to as "secondary" PM 2.5 

# . These reactions form condensable vapors that either

generate new particles or conde nse onto other particle s in the air. Most of the sulfate,

nitrate and a portion of the organic compounds in the atmosphere are formed by such

chemical reactions. As suc h, these compounds are known as PM 2.5 

# precursors.

Secondary PM 2.5 

# formation depends on numerous factor s including the concentrations of

precursors and other gaseous reactive species such as ozone, hydroxyl radicals, peroxy

radicals, or hydrogen peroxi de. Contributing atmospheri c conditions include solar

radiation and relative humidit y, along with the interactions of the precursors and preexisting particles with cloud or fog droplets or in the liquid f ilm on solid particles.

Depending on the PM 2.5 

# precursor, they can have either a "local" or "regional" impact, or

some combination, on PM 2.5 

# concentrations. A regional impact means that the emissions

produced locally form secondary PM 2.5 

# emissions over time as they are transported

through the atmosphere, and by the time those secondary particles are fully formed, they

no longer contribute to the mon itored violations of the sta ndard in the State where the

precursors were initially emitted. However, th ey will have an impact on the monitored

violations in other states downwind.

1.3 Health effects and welfare impacts of PM 2.5



# .

The PM 2.5 

# NAAQS were established by the EP A based on evidence from numerous

health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated wi th exposure to elevated

levels of PM 2.5 

# . Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations

between elevated PM 2.5 

# levels and premature mortality. Othe r important effects associated with

PM 2.5 

# exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascul ar diseases (as indicated by

increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and

restricted activity days), change s in lung function and increased re spiratory symptoms, as well as

new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardi ovascular health. Indi viduals particularly

13

# sensitive to PM 2.5 

# exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and

children.

Even small reductions in PM 2.5 

# levels have been demonstrated to yield substantial health

benefits on a population level. For example, in a moderate-sized metropolit an area with a design

value of 15.5 ug/m3, efforts to improve annual average air quality down to the level of the

standard (15.0 ug/m3) are estimated to result in as many as 25-50 fewer mo rtalities per year due

to air pollution exposure. In a smaller city, the same air quality improvements from 15.5 to 15.0

ug/m 3 

# are estimated to result in a number of avoided mortalities per year.

In both 1997 and 2006 EPA established welfare- based (secondary) standards identical to

the levels of the primary standards. The secondary standards are designed to protect against

major environmental effects of PM 2.5 

# such as visibility impairment, crop damage, soil and water

quality impacts from deposition, and materials damage.

1.4 Emissions Addressed in this SIP: Direct PM 2.5 

# and Precursors.

The Rule requires non-attainment areas to evaluate and consider, at a minimum, control

strategies for sources of direct PM 2.5 

# emissions, and for sources of the precursor sulfur dioxide

(SO 2 

# ). As such, both of these two pollutants are re gulated pollutants under this SIP. In addition,

consistent with EPA presumption in the Rule, and as explained in subsections 1.4.1 through 1.4.3

below, nitrogen oxide (NO X 

# ) is also a regulated pollutant under this SIP, while volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 

# ) are not 5



# .

1.4.1 Nitrogen Oxides (NO X 

# ).

For the precursor NO X 

# the Rule makes the presumption that NO X 

# emission must be

addressed in the SIP, and that this presumption is valid unless a technical demonstration to the

contrary is made by the State or EPA. Cons istent with the Rule presumption, and because

nitrates make up a signif icant percentage of PM 2.5 

# concentrations in Delaware (see Section 2 of

this Document for a detailed discussion), NO X 

# is specifically addressed in this SIP, and is a

regulated pollutant under this SIP.

1.4.2. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).

For the precursor VOC, the Rule presumptivel y requires that VOC em issions do not need

to be regulated pollutants under this SIP. This presumption is valid unless a technical

demonstration to the contrary is made by the State or EPA. The organic component of ambient

particles is a complex mixture of hundreds or even thousands of organic compounds. These

organic compounds are either emitted directly from sources (i.e., primary organic aerosol) or are

formed by reactions in the ambient air (i.e., sec ondary organic aerosol, or SOA). VOCs are key

precursors in the formation processes for bot h SOA and ozone. The re lative importance of

organic compounds in the formation of secondary organic particles varies from area to area,

5 

# While VOC and NH 3 

# are not specifically regulated un der this SIP, certain VOC and NH 3 

# emission control

measures are included in the attainment modeling which is part of this SIP. As such, emissions of these

pollutants and the associated control m easures are discussed in this SIP.



# 14

# depending upon factors such as local emissions sources, atmos pheric chemistry, and the season

of the year.

Despite significant advances in understanding the origins and properties of SOA, it

remains probably the leas t understood component of PM 2.5 

# . The reactions forming secondary

organics are complex, and the number of in termediate and final compounds formed is

voluminous. Some of the best efforts to unra vel the chemical composition of ambient organic

aerosol matter have been able to quantify the concentrations of hundred s of organic compounds

representing only 10–20 percent of the total organic aerosol mass. For this reason, SOA

continues to be a significant topi c of research and investigation.

Current scientific and technical information cl early shows that carbonaceous material is a

significant fraction of total PM 2.5 

# mass in most areas, that cert ain VOC emissions are precursors

to the formation of SOA, and that a considerab le fraction of the total carbonaceous material is

likely from local as opposed to regional sources. However, while significant progress has been

made in understanding the role of gaseous or ganic material in the formation of organic

particulate matter, this relationship remains co mplex. The Department recognizes that further

research and technical tools are needed to better charac terize emissions inve ntories for specific

VOC compounds, and to determine the extent of the contribution of specific VOC compounds to

organic particulate matter mass.

In light of these factors Delaware is not regulating VOC emissions as PM 2.5 

# precursors

under this SIP. However, since all of Delawa re is currently design ated as being in nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and since VOC emissions are a precursor regulated

under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, emission control m easures for VOCs that have and are being

implemented throughout the state will provide a PM 2.5 

# benefit.

1.4.3 Ammonia (NH 3 

# ).

The Rule presumptively requires that ammonia emissions do not need to be addressed as

a PM 2.5 

# precursor. This presumption is valid unless a technical demonstration to the contrary is

made by the State or EPA.

Ammonia (NH 3 

# ) is a gaseous pollutant that is emitted by natural and anthropogenic

sources. Ammonia serves an im portant role in neutralizing aci ds in clouds, pr ecipitation and

particles. In particular, am monia neutralizes sulfuric acid and nitric acid, the two key

contributors to acid deposition (acid rain). Howe ver, despite this benefit, deposited ammonia

contributes to problems of eutr ophication in water bodies, and deposition of ammonium particles

may effectively result in acidification of soil as ammonia is taken up by plants. The NARSTO

Fine Particle Assessment 6 

# indicates that reducing amm onia emissions where sulfate

concentrations are high may reduce PM 2.5 

# mass concentrations, but may also increase the acidity

of particles and precipitation. An increase in particle acidity is suspected to be linked with

human health effects and with an increase in the formation of secondary organic compounds.

6 

# P. McMurry, M.Shepherd, and J. Vickery, eds., Particulate Matter Assessment for Policy Makers: A NARSTO

Assessment . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. ISBN 0 52 184287 5 NARSTO (2004)



# 15

# Based on the above information, and furthe r insights gained fr om the NARSTO Fine

Particle Assessment, it is apparent that the ro le of ammonia emissions in the formation of

particles is complex and nonlin ear. Though recent studies have improved our understanding of

the role of ammonia in aerosol formation, ongoi ng research is required to better determine the

relationships between ammonia em issions and particulate matter c oncentrations. Techniques and

analytical tools to quantify the impact of re ducing ammonia emissions on atmospheric aerosol

formation are evolving. Area-specifi c data is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing

ammonia emissions on lowering the PM 2.5 

# concentrations in different areas, and to determine

where ammonia reduction may increase the acidity of pa rticles and precipitation.

Also, emissions inventories for ammonia are considered to be among the most uncertain

of any species related to PM. This further comp licates the task of assessing the potential impacts

of ammonia emissions reductions on particulat e matter concentrations. In addition, data

necessary to understand the atmospheric composition and balance of ammonia and nitric acid in

an area are not widely available across PM 2.5 

# non-attainment areas, making it difficult to predict

the results of potential ammonia emission reductions. Ammonia reductions may be effective and

appropriate for reducing PM 2.5 

# concentrations in selected locations, but in other locations such

reductions may lead to minimal reductions in PM 2.5 

# concentrations and increased atmospheric

acidity.

Because ammonia emission inventories and the other “tools” discussed above need much

more refinement, Delaware is not regulating ammonia as a PM 2.5 

# precursor under this SIP.

1.5 Identification of Non-attainment Areas.

Effective April 5, 2005 the EPA designated 47 areas, composed of 224 counties and the

District of Columbia as “non-attainment” under the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS ( 70 FR 944 , January 5,

2005). Among those non-attainment areas is the Philadelphia-Wilmington-PA-DE-NJ NonAttainment Area (NAA) that includes one county in Delaware, five counties in southeastern

Pennsylvania and three counties in New Jerse y, as shown in Figure 1-1. Since the NAA is

centered on Philadelphia, it is referred to as “Philadelphia NAA.” According to the CAA, the

entire Philadelphia NAA must attain the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, and not

later than 2010.

16

# Figure 1-1. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-DE-NJ Non-attainment Area

1.6 Responsibilities.

The agency with direct responsibility fo r preparing and submitting this document is

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ( DNREC), Division of

Air and Waste Management, Air Quality Mana gement Section (AQMS), under the Section

Administrator, Ali Mirzakhalili, P.E. The wo rking responsibility for Delaware’s air quality

planning falls within AQM’s Planning Branch, unde r the Program Manager, Ronald Amirikian.

The Planning Branch is instrumental in completing this document. Specifically,

• John L. Sipple, M.S., is the project leader, and principal author of this SIP revision;

• Mohammed A. Majeed, Ph.D. and P.E., is th e modeling and weight of evidence analysis

lead, and the principal author of Section 6 of this SIP revision;

• David F. Fees, P.E., Program Manager, AQMS Emission Inventory Program, is the

supporting lead for the 2002 base year emission inventory;

• Betsy Frey, M.S., is the supporting lead for PM 2.5 

# monitoring data and trend analysis;

• Phillip A. Wheeler, Planner and Deanna Moro zowich, Engineer, are the supporting leads

for the on-road mobile source emission projections;

• John L. Sipple and Mark Prettyman, Scientis ts, are the coordinator and supporting staff

for future-year emission pr ojection inventories.

Specific responsibilities of other programs, ag encies and contractors are discussed in the

relevant sections of this document.

17

# Section 2 - PM 2.5 

# Air Quality Status and Trend Analysis

2.1 Delaware PM 2.5 

# Federal Reference Method (FRM) Monitoring Network.

Delaware began official PM 2.5 

# monitoring in 199 9. Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# network consists of

seven (7) monitoring sites, one of which employs a collocated monitor. There are four (4) sites

in New Castle County, two (2) in Kent County a nd one (1) in Sussex County. Table 2.1 lists the

PM 2.5 

# sites in Delaware, including the nature of th e area, and general site descriptions. Table 2.2

contains more specific information for each PM 2.5 

# monitoring site.

The primary goal of the PM 2.5 

# monitoring network in Delaware is to determine the status of

the ambient air with respect to the 24-hour and annual average PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. In accordance

with federal regulations, state agencies must op erate at least the minimum number of required

PM 2.5 

# sites listed in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D Table D-5. Thes e required monitoring stations

or sites must be sited to re present community-wide air qualit y. In addition, the following

specific criteria also apply:

(1) At least one monitoring station is to be sited in a popul ation-oriented area of expected

maximum concentration.

(2) For areas with more than one required station, a monitoring station is to be sited in an

area of poor air quality.

(3) Each State shall install and operate at least one PM 2.5 

# site to monitor for regional

background and at least one PM 2.5 

# site to monitor regional transport.

Figure 2.1 shows the locations of Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# monitors. All data from these monitors

is measured using U.S. EPA approve d federal reference methods. All PM 2.5 

# sites are sited

appropriately and are eligible for co mparison to the annual NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m 3



# .

The standard monitoring schedule is one in three days, with one site (MLK-Wilmington)

monitoring every day. MLK is also the designated collocated site, with the collocated monitor

designated as MLK-b operating on a one in six day schedule. All data is submitted to EPA’s Air

Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner in acc ordance to the schedule prescribed by EPA.

Chemical speciation is encouraged at sites where the chemically resolved data would be

useful in developing State implementation plans and supporting atmospheri c or health effects

related studies. These sites in Delaware ar e MLK in Wilmington and Dover in Kent County.

The PM 2.5 

# chemical speciation sites include analysis for elements, selected anions and cations,

and carbon.

18

# Figure 2.1 Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# Monitoring Site Locations

Table 2.1 Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# Monitoring Site General Information

Site Name & AQS ID Land Use Setti ng Metropolitan Statistical Area

Killens Pond

10-001-0002 Agricultural Rural NA

Dover

10-001-0003 Residential Suburban Dover

Bellefonte

10-003-1003 Residential Suburban P hiladelphia - Wilmington

MLK

10-003-2004 Commercial Urban Philadelphia - Wilmington

Newark

10-003-1012 Residential Suburban Ph iladelphia - Wilmington

Lums Pond

10-003-1007 Agricultural Rural Philadelphia - Wilmington

Seaford

10-005-1002 Residential Suburban Seaford - Micropolitan



# 19

# Table 2.2 Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# Monitor Site Specific Information

Site Name & AQS ID Parameter Start Date Objective

Killens Pond

10-001-0002 PM 2.5 

# 1/1/1999 General/Background.

Attainment Status

PM 2.5 

# 1/1/1999 Population Exposure,

Attainment Status Dover

10-001-0003

PM 2.5 

# speciation 6/1/2001 PM 2.5 

# Characterization

Bellefonte

10-003-1003 PM 2.5 

# 1/1/1999 Population Exposure,

Attainment Status

PM 2.5 

# 1/1/1999 Maximum concentration,

Attainment Status

PM 2.5 

# speciation 6/1/2001 PM 2.5 

# Characterization MLK

10-003-2004

Black Carbon 1/1/2001 Diesel PM 2.5 

# Indicator

Newark

10-003-1012 PM 2.5 

# 12/15/1999 Population Exposure,

Attainment Status

Lums Pond

10-003-1007 PM 2.5 

# 1/1/1999 Transport/Background,

Attainment Status

Seaford

10-005-1002 PM 2.5 

# 1/1/1999 Population Exposure,

Attainment Status



# 2.2 Delaware PM 2.5 

# Design Values.

Under the PM 2.5 

# annual average NAAQS, Delaware’s New Castle County was designated

as a non-attainment area based on its three-year annual average data (2001 – 2003). New Castle

County is also considered part of the greater Philadelphia CMSA which has been designated

non-attainment for PM 2.5



# . 7



# Table 2.3 shows the three-year average of the annual average PM 2.5 

# concentration for

each monitoring site in a ll three counties in Delaware from 1999 through 2006. This is the value

that is comparable to the annual average NAAQS and is referred to as the Design Value.

7 

# See Section 1 of this document for additional discussion.



# 20

# Table 2.3 Delaware Mon itors - Three-year PM 2.5 

# average of annual averages

Annual Average NAAQS = 15 ug/m 3 

# 3-year average

New Castle County Kent County Sussex

County

Years Bllfte MLK-a Nwrk-a Lums Dover Killens Seaford

1999-2001 15.1 16.5 15.1 14.1 13.5 12.8 14.5

2000-2002 15.0 16.3 15.2 13.9 13.1 12.9 14.0

2001-2003 14.8 16.0 15.0 13.6 12.9 12.7 13.4

2002-2004 14.2 15.0 14.6 13.2 12.4 12.6 13.0

2003-2005 14.3 15.1 14.6 13.4 12.7 12.8 13.3

2004-2006 13.5 14.8 13.9 12.8 12.5 12.6 13.5



# Table 2.4 shows the three-year average of the an nual 98th percentiles for each monitoring site,

which is the value that is comparable to the 98 th 

# percentile NAAQS.

Table 2.4 Delaware Mon itors - Three-year PM 2.5 

# average 98 th 

# percentiles

98th percentile NAAQS = 65 ug/m 3 

# 3-year average (modified in 2007 to 35 ug/m 3 

# )

New Castle County Kent County Sussex

County

Bllfte MLK-a Nwrk-a Lums Dover Killens Seaford

1999-2001 37.3 40.0 38.2 35.3 34.0 32.4 37.5

2000-2002 37.6 41.0 40.3 34.3 33.9 35.3 40.5

2001-2003 36.8 40.4 39.1 34.3 36.2 34.2 38.8

2002-2004 34.0 37.4 35.7 32.6 33.1 33.1 36.6

2003-2005 34.4 36.3 33.5 34.5 32.5 32.3 33.5

2004-2006 32.7 36.4 31.5 31.9 30.8 32.1 34.4



# 2.3 Ambient PM 2.5 

# Concentration Trends.

2.3.1 Annual Averages

The annual average concentratio n is calculated from the four calendar quarterly averages

at each monitoring site. This annual average is th e basic statistic used in determining trends and

compliance with the annual average NAAQS.

Table 2.5 shows the annual average PM 2.5 

# concentration at each monitoring site. Figure

2.2 is a graph of that same data, which shows tre nds over the eight years of monitoring that have

been conducted.

21

# Table 2.5 Annual Average PM 2.5 

# Concentrations, All Sites

Annual Average NAAQS = 15 ug/m 3



# New Castle County Kent County Sussex

County

Year Bllfte MLK-a Nwrk-a Lums Dover Killens Seaford

1999 14.2 15.6 14.3 13.6 13.5 12.3 14.6

2000 15.4 16.4 15.4 14.2 12.9 13.2 14.3

2001 15.6 17.6 15.8 14.5 14.0 13.0 14.4

2002 14.0 14.8 14.3 13.0 12.4 12.4 13.2

2003 14.8 15.5 14.8 13.3 12.3 12.7 1 2.5



# 2004 13.9 14.9 14.5 13.2 12.6 12.6 13.4

2005 14.3 15.0 14.4 13.8 13.1 13.2 14.1

2006 12.3 14.7 12.7 11.4 11.8 11.8 12.8



# Figure 2.2 Annual Average PM 2.5 

# Concentrations, All Sites

PM2.5 Annual Avgerages

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Yearsug/m3 

# Bllfte MLK-a Nwrk-a Lums Dover Killens Seaford



# Using the 3-year average of the a nnual averages, the trend in annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS compliance

is seen in Figure 2.3.

22

# Figure 2.3 Design value – 3-year average of annual average PM 2.5 

# Concentrations

have declined

since th

.3.2 98 Percentile NAAQS

The 98 percentile value is calc ulated from the total numb er of daily samples in a

calenda

able 2.6 98 Percentiles

98th percentiles PM2.5 Design Values - 3-year Avg Ann Avg

10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

Yearsug/m3 

# Bllfte MLK-a Nwrk-a Lums Dover Killens Seaford NAAQS



# Overall, annual averages showed the highest concentrations in 2001 and

en. The trends are clear er in Figure 2.3 which shows the de sign value concentrations for

each site. The only exception to the downward trend may be Seaford in Sussex County, which

appears to show an increase in the most r ecent two 3-year periods (2003-2005 and 2004-2006).

However, the long term trend remains downwar d, and a downward trend is anticipated to

continue based on yet to be implemented statewid e and regional control strategies discussed in

Section 4 of this SIP.

th 

# 2

th



# r year. Table 2.6 shows the 98 th 

# percentile value for each monitoring site for each year.

th 

# T

New Castle County Kent County Sussex

County

Bllfte Lums ens MLK-a Nwrk-a Dover Kill Seaford

1999 33.1 37.5 35.4 33.5 36.0 28.5 35.0

2000 38.2 39.3 39.8 36.4 27.8 34.4 36.0

2001 40.7 43.2 39.5 35.9 38.3 34.4 41.6



# 23

# 2002 33.8 40.6 41.5 30.6 35.5 37.1 44.0

2003 35.8 37.4 36.4 36.5 34.9 31.2 30.7

2004 32.5 34.1 29.1 30.8 28.9 31.0 35.1

2005 34.8 37.4 35.0 36.2 33.6 34.6 34.7

2006 30.9 37.7 30.5 28.8 29.9 30.7 33.3



# igure 2.4 shows the data that was pres ented in Table2.6 in graphic format.

igure 2.4 98 Percentile Trends F

th 

# F

PM2.5 Design Values - 98th Percentiles

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Yearsug/m3 

# Bllfte

MLK-a

Nwrk-a

Lums

Dover

Killens

Seaford

NAAQS

NAAQS new



# The 98 th 

# percentile NAAQS is a 3-year aver age concentration. The original PM 2.5 

# NAAQ S promulgated in 1999 was 65 ug/m 3 

# . All monitoring sites in Delaware indicate

compliance with this NAAQS. As indicted in Section 1 of this document, in December 2006 this

NAAQS was revised from 65 ug/m 3 

# down to 35 ug/m 3 

# . Figure 2.6 shows the trends in the 3-year

average 98 th 

# percentile values for each monitoring site in Delaware. The most recent 3-year

average shows the MLK site in Wilmington exceeds the 98 th 

# percentile NAAQS. 8

8 

# This data is provided for information only. Because Delaware has not been design ated relative to the new 35

ug/m 3 

# NAAQS, this SIP does not address that NAAQS. However, control measures and strategies described in

this SIP will reduce ambient PM 2.5 

# concentrations relative to this new NAAQS.



# 24

# F igure 2.6 Three-year average 98 th 

# percentile - design values

PM2.5 Design Values - 3-year AVg 98th Percentiles

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

99-01 00-02 01-03 02-04 03-05 04-06

Yearsug/m3 

# Bllfte

MLK-a

Nwrk-a

Lums

Dover

Killens

Seaford

NAAQS

NAAQS new



# Using a 3-year average value smoothes out some of the year to year variability of the

daily c

.4 Speciation Data.

When EPA revised and promul gated the standards for PM 2.5 

# they also included regulatory

require

The programmatic objectives of the speciation network are to:

• Identify annual and seasonal spa tial characteriza tion of aerosols

ms

ols and the application of source

• isibility oncentrations and can make trends easier to detect. Fi gure 2.6 shows th at Delaware’s

monitors have generally decrea sing concentrations since monitoring began in 1999. The most

recent 3-year periods (2003–2005 and 2004–2006) may show a leveling off or slight increase in

daily concentrations, but more data will be needed to determine the validity of this change.

2

ments for monitoring the chemical compos ition or speciation of these particles. The

monitors used for this purpose are referred to as speciation monitors.

• Identify air quality trends and track the progress of control progra

• Aid in the development of emission control strategies

• Support the development of predictive mode ling to

apportionment modeling for control strategy development (e.g., SIPs)

Support programs aimed at improving envir onmental welfare, such as v

• Support health effects and exposure research studies

25

# T he PM 2.5 

# Speciation program incorporates Nati onal Speciation Trends Network (STN)

sites as

The speciation samplers collect 24-hour integrated samples. The samplers use TeflonTM,

nylon,

The state/local agencies are responsible for siting and ope rations of the field monitors.

Analys

.4.1 PM 2.5 

# Speciation Data

Delaware began the speciation monitoring in 200 1, with the first full year of data being

collecte

able 2.7 PM 2.5 

# Speciation – Annual average component mass, ug/m 3



# Site/Year Nitrate Sulfate Ammonium Organic Elemental Crustal

com 

# well as supplemental sites. The supplem ental sites are State and Local Air Monitoring

Sites (SLAMS) deployed by State, Local and Tribal agencies to allow flexibility in meeting local

air monitoring needs. Both type s of speciation sites are located primarily in urban areas with

expected high PM 2.5 

# concentrations, and a smaller number of sites located in more rural or

transport areas. In Delaware, there are two supplemental SLAMS speciation sites: MLK and

Dover.

and quartz filter media for th e collection of target analytes. The TeflonTM filter is used to

collect particles for the analys is of mass and metals compositi on, samples analyzed for carbon

components of particles are collected on the quartz filters, and samples for ion analysis are

collected on nylon filters.

is of the samples for the target analytes is performed by a contract laboratory. All valid

data from the speciation samplers is submitted to the national ambient air quality system (AQS)

database.

2

d in 2002. The following tables show the results for Delaware’s PM 2.5 

# speciation

program from 2002 through 2006.

T

carbon carbon ponent

2002 2.399 4.942 2.278 5.443 0.772 0.509

2003 2.529 5.004 2.327 4.212 0.793 0.547

2004 2.164 4.454 2.107 3.475 0.655 0.684

2005 2.395 4.741 2.238 4.105 0.799 0.957 MLK

MLK

MLK

MLK

MLK 2006 2.118 4.391 2.081 4.053 0.799 1.333

Dover 2002 1.881 4.747 1.983 4.701 0.506 0.430

Dover 2003 1.762 4.205 1.720 3.076 0.436 0.392

Dover 2004 1.704 4.281 1.773 2.986 0.365 0.327

Dover 2005 1.967 4.207 1.903 3.398 0.459 0.316

Dover 2006 1.542 4.098 1.738 3.072 0.375 0.351



# 26

# T able 2.8 PM 2.5 

# Speciation – Annual average as percent of total mass

Site/Year Nitrate Sulfate Ammonium Organic Elemental Crustal

c carbon carbon omponent

MLK 2002 15% 30% 14% 33% 5% 3%

MLK 2003 16% 32% 15% 27% 5% 4%

MLK 2004 16% 33% 16% 26% 5% 5%

MLK 2005 16% 31% 15% 27% 5% 6%

MLK 2006 14% 30% 14% 27% 5% 9%

D over 2002 13% 33% 14% 33% 4% 3%

Dover 2003 15% 36% 15% 27% 4% 3%

Dover 2004 15% 37% 16% 26% 3% 3%

Dover 2005 16% 34% 16% 28% 4% 3%

Dover 2006 14% 37% 16% 27% 3% 3%



# Most eastern US speciation sites are dominat ed by sulfate, which is also the dominant

species

Figure 2.7 2006 Annual Average Concen trations, Percent of Total Mass at both MLK and Dover as shown in Figure 2.7. At MLK, the crustal component is

elevated in 2006 due to nearby construction activities. Otherwise, annual component

percentages of total mass are si milar at both MLK and Dover.

MLK

2006

Average Concentration (μg/m3)

Nitrate

14%

Sulfate

31%

Ammonium

14% Organic carbon

27% Elemental carbon

5%

Crustal component

9%



# 27

# Dover

2006

Average Concentration (μg/m3)

Nitrate

14%

Sulfate

37%

Ammonium

16% Organic carbon

27% Elemental carbon

3% Crustal component

3%



# 28

# 2 .4.2 Speciation trends and seasonal patterns

in figur e 2.8. Overall, there is a slight downward

end in sulfates, nitrates, and organic carbon at both MLK and Dover. There is an increase in

the cru

Seasonal patterns are also a characteristic of PM 2.5 

# speciation data. As with most eastern

US cities, sulfate is highest in the summer and n itrate is highest in the winter at both MLK and

Dover.

2.9.

M 2.5 

# is provided in Section 6-7 of this Docume nt, which presents a conceptual model for the

regiona Trends in major components are shown

tr

stal component at ML K due to nearby construction.

Figure 2.8 Major component trends

Annual Avg PM2.5 Sulfate



# Organic carbon is highest in the summer and fairly cons tant in other seasons at both

sites. In general, relative composition of PM 2.5 

# is similar at both MLK and Dover. Seasonal

average major components as percent total mass at the MLK monitor are presented in Figure

Additional information and discussion on the major components and characteristics of

P

l and local partic ulate matter sources. Annual Avg PM2.5 Organic Carbon (unadjusted)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Yearug/m3 

# MLK Dover 

# Annual Avg PM2.5 Nitrate

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Yearug/m3 

# MLK Dover

MLK Dover

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Yearug/m3



# Annual Average PM2.5 Crustal Component

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearAverage ug/m3 

# MLK Dover



# 29

# F igure 2.9 Seasonal Components of PM 2.5



# Average Winter Sulfate Co ncentration at MLK

Sulfate

21%

Nitrate

24%

A mmonium

14% EC

7% OC

30% Crustal

4%



# Average Spring Sulfate Concentrations at MLK

Sulfate

31%

Nitrate

19% A mmonium

16% EC

5% OC

24% Crustal

5%



# 30

# A verage Fall Sulfate Concentrations at ML K

Sulfate

29%

Nitrate

15

%

A mmonium

13

% EC

6% OC

31% Crustal

6%



# A verage Summer Sulfate Concentrations at ML K

Sulfate

43%

Nitrate

7% A mmonium

16% EC

4% OC

27% Crustal

3%



# 31

# 2.5 Other monitors in the Phila delphia Non-attainment Area

As stated previously, Delaware is part of the Philadelphia based PM 2.5 

# non-attainment

area. To compare Delaware’s monitors with ot hers in the CMSA, the estimated design values

(three-year averages of the annua l averages) were calculated us ing data from the national AQS

database. The data was not adjusted for missing data, so the values listed are estimates only and

not official design values. The th ree-year average design values were then plotted in Figure 2.10

for each individual monitor.

Table 2.9 Philadelphia CMSA estimated design values (three-year averages), excluding

Delaware

YearsFairhillAtl. CityCamdenM-D WTPGibbstownBristolChes-terNorristownAMS labBelmont AveWTPNE AirportS.Broad St.Amtrak/Elmwood



# 2000-2002 13.4 11.4 14.5 14.8 14.2 14.1 15.5 14.0 15.3 14.6 14.3 16.6 15.2

2001-2003 13.0 11.6 14.9 14.3 13.8 14.3 15.3 14.1 15.2 14.3 13.8 16.2 14.9

2002-2004 12.8 11.4 14.5 13.9 13.1 13.9 15.0 13.2 14.4 13.8 13.2 15.4 13.6

2003-2005 13.2 11.5 14.7 13.8 13.5 13.9 15.6 12.8 14.3 14.4 13.0 15.2 13.7

2004-2006 12.8 11.6 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.2 15.2 12.2 13.9 14.7 12.7 15.0 13.4



# 32

# 33 Figure 2.10 Estimated design values for Philadelphia CMSA monitors

ture rate, and do not Design Values: 3-Year Averages All Monitors Philadelphia CMSA

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006ug/m3 

# Fairhill

Atlantic City

Camden

Morris-Delair WTP

Gibbstown

Bristol

Chester

Norristown

AMS lab

Belmont Ave WTP

NE Airport

South Broad St.

Amtrak/Elmwood

Bellefonte

MLK

Newark

Lums Pond

Dover

Killens Pond

Seaford



# Note: Design values were calculated for each site regardless of data cap

represent final or official design values and are shown for comparison purposes only.

# Section 3 - Delaware 2002 Bas e Year Emission Inventory

3.1 2002 PM 2.5 

# and Precursor Inventory Overview.

EPA established calendar year 2002 as the base year inventory for the PM 2.5 

# standard.

This requires states with PM 2.5 

# non-attainment areas to submit to the EPA no later than three

years after designation, as part of their State Implementati on Plan (SIP), a statewide

comprehensive, accurate, and current base year inventory of actual emissions of PM 2.5 

# and its

precursors.

This section summarizes Delaware ’s 2002 statewide inventory of PM 2.5 

# and PM 2.5 

# precursors for all sources, which are categorized into the following five major source sectors:

stationary point, stationary non-point, on-road mobile, non-road mobile, and natural. For

additional information on methods, data co llection and QA procedures, refer to 2002 Base Year

State Implementation Plan Emissions Inventory for PM 2.5 

# and Precursors , Delaware Department

of Natural Resources and Environmental Contro l, Air Quality Management Section, Dover,

Delaware, April 2007; hereafte r referred to as the “2002 base year inventory.”

The parameters defined by the 2002 base ye ar inventory included the following:

• Inventory year – calendar year 2002;

• Pollutants – particulate matter and partic ulate matter precursors, which include PM 10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , SO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , NH 3 

# , and VOCs;

• Source coverage – all sources, including poi nt, stationary non-point, on-road mobile,

non-road, and natural sources;

• Geographic coverage – en tire State of Delaware;

• Temporal resolution – annual emissions.

3.2 Emissions Summary.

The following emission summaries present the entire 2002 emission inventory for PM 10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , SO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , NH 3 

# , and VOCs, broken down by county and s ource sector. Natural sources of

emissions are presented separately from anth ropogenic sources of emissions. Throughout this

document, annual emissions are repo rted in tons per year (TPY). 9



# Table 3-1 2002 PM 2.5 

# and Precursor Emissions by County

Annual Emissions (TPY)

County PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Kent 3,991 1,097 4,062 10,314 2,841 5,296

New Castle 8,604 3,430 50,237 30,748 1,384 18,062

Sussex 6,758 2,575 25,552 16,060 10,057 10,251

Statewide 19,353 7,102 79,852 57,122 14,284 33,610

9 

# Note that the totals may not match the sum of the individual values due to independent rounding



# 34

# Table 3-2 2002 Statewide Emissions by Source Sector

Annual Emissions (TPY)

Source Sector PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Point 3,859 3,161 73,708 16,372 179 4,773

Non-point 13,870 2,580 1,330 2,427 13,194 10,254

On-road 581 415 584 21,341 903 10,564

Non-road 1,043 946 4,230 16,982 8 8,019

All Sectors 19,353 7,102 79,852 57,122 14,284 33,610



# Table 3-3. 2002 New Castle Count y Emissions by Source Sector

Annual Emissions (TPY)

Source Sector PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Point 2,168 1,733 47,070 9,157 118 2,687

Non-point 5,674 1,073 780 1,513 710 6,198

On-road 304 209 326 11,799 552 5,762

Non-road 458 415 2,061 8,279 4 3,415

All Sectors 8,604 3,430 50,237 30,748 1,384 18,062

Figure 3-1. PM

2.5 

# Emissions by County

Ken t

15%

New Castle

49% Sussex

36%



# 35

# Figure 3-2. SO 2 

# Emissions by County

Kent

5%

New Castle

63% Sussex

32%



# Figure 3-3. NO

x 

# Emissions by County

Kent

18%

New Castle

54% Sussex

28%



# 36

# Figure 3-4. NH 3 

# Emissions by County

Kent

20%

New Castle

10%

Sussex

70%



# Figure 3-5. PM

2.5 

# Emissions by Source Secto r

Point

45% Non-point

36% On-road

6%

Non-road

13%



# 37

# Figure 3-6. SO 2 

# Emissions by Source Secto r

Point

92% Non-road

5% Non-point

2%

On-road

1%



# Figure 3-7. NO

x 

# Emissions by Source Secto r

Point

29%

Non-point

4%

On-road

37% Non-road

30%



# 38

# Figure 3-8. NH 3 

# Emissions by Source Secto r

Non-point

93% Point

1% Non-road

< 1% On-road

6%



# 3.3 Stationary Point Sources.

The point source inventory represents faci lity-specific data for Delaware’s larger

stationary sources. Point source s typically include large industr ial, commercial and institutional

facilities. Manufact uring facilities, within th e industrial sector, compri se the majority of all

reporting point sources. The institutional sector includes hospitals, universities, prisons, military

bases, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants. Table 3-4 presents a listing of Delaware’s 136

point sources.

Table 3-4 Point Source Facilities in Delaware 2002 Base Year Inventory

# 

# Facility Location Facility ID Facility Name

1 

# Kent County, DE 1000100026 BAYHEALTH MED CENTER KENT GENERAL HOSP

2 

# 1000100154 BURRIS LOGISTICS HARRINGTON

3 

# 1000100099 CAMDEL METALS CORPORATION

4 

# 1000100002 CITY OF DOVER - MCKEE RUN GENERATING STA

5 

# 1000100076 CITY OF DOVER VAN SANT GENERATING STA

6 

# 1000100121 COLOR-BOX LLC

7 

# 1000100068 DE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SANDTOWN

8 

# 1000100066 DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY

9 

# 1000100001 DOVER AIR FORCE BASE

10 

# 1000100016 DOW REICHHOLD SPECIALTY LATEX LLC



# 39

# 11 

# 1000100024 HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION

12 

# 1000100012 HARRIS MANUFACTURING CO INC

13 

# 1000100067 HIRSH INDUSTRIES

14 

# 1000100011 ILC DOVER INC.

15 

# 1000100007 KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA

16 

# 1000100178 LEHIGH VALLEY DAIRY

17 

# 1000100127 NRG ENERGY CENTER DOVER LLC

18 

# 1000100075 PERDUE FARMS INC - MILFORD

19 

# 1000100004 PROCTOR AND GAMBLE DOVER WIPES COMPANY

20 

# 1000100157 QUALITY KITCHEN CORP

21 

# 1000100006 TILCON DELAWARE - BAY ROAD

22 

# 1000100014 TILCON DELAWARE - HORSEPOND ROAD

23 

# 1000100087 TRAPPE PACKING CORPORATION

24 

# 1000100161 UNITED STATES COLD STORAGE

25 

# 1000100152 WARREN F BEASLEY POWER STATION

26 

# New Castle County, DE 1000300377 AGILENT TECHNOILOGIES

27 

# 1000300064 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA L P

28 

# 1000300131 ALFRED I DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN

29 

# 1000300029 AMETEK INC CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION

30 

# 1000300288 AMI ASSET ACQUISITION CO

31 

# 1000300023 AMTRAK WILMINGTON MAINTENANCE FACILITY

32 

# 1000300059 ARLON, INC.

33 

# 1000300106 ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP-FAIRFAX

34 

# 1000300612 BURRIS LOGISTICS - NEW CASTLE

35 

# 1000300080 CHRISTIANA CARE - CHRISTIANA HOSPITAL

36 

# 1000300024 CHRISTIANA CARE - WILMINGTON HOSPITAL

37 

# 1000300068 CHRISTIANA MATERIALS

38 

# 1000300003 CIBA SPECIA LTY CHEMICALS CORP

39 

# 1000300063 CLAYMONT STEEL

40 

# 1000300290 CLEAN EARTH OF NEW CASTLE

41 

# 1000300317 CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-CHRISTIANA

42 

# 1000300005 CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-DEL CITY

43 

# 1000300007 CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-EDGE MOOR

44 

# 1000300388 CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-HAY ROAD

45 

# 1000300046 CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-MADISON ST

46 

# 1000300006 CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-WEST_SUBST

47 

# 1000300066 CONTRACTORS MATERIALS LLC HOT MIX PLT

48 

# 1000300128 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

49 

# 1000300365 DASSAULT FALCON JET-WILMINGTON CORP

50 

# 1000300111 DE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CHERRY ISLAND

51 

# 1000300086 DE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY PIGEON POINT

52 

# 1000300090 DELAWARE CORRECTIONAL CENTER - SMYRNA

53 

# 1000300415 DELAWARE RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS INC



# 40

# 54 

# 1000300613 DELAWARE R EFRIGERATED SERVICES

55 

# 1000300077 DEPT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER

56 

# 1000300069 DIAMOND MATERIALS LLC

57 

# 1000300126 DUPONT CHESTNUT RUN

58 

# 1000300010 DUPONT EDGEMOOR

59 

# 1000300011 DUPONT EXPERIMENTAL STATION

60 

# 1000300279 DUPONT STINE - HASKELL LABORATORY

61 

# 1000300049 DUPONT WILMINGTON OFFICE BUILDING

62 

# 1000300073 E-A-R SPECIALTY COMPOSITES

63 

# 1000300040 EDGEMOOR MATERIALS INC

64 

# 1000300051 FMC BIOPOLYMER

65 

# 1000300027 FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION

66 

# 1000300037 FP INTERNATIONAL INC

67 

# 1000300500 GE ENERGY (USA) LLC

68 

# 1000300032 GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

69 

# 1000300015 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

70 

# 1000300513 HARDCORE COMPOSITES, DIV. OF HARRIS SPEC

71 

# 1000300017 HERCULES INCORPOR ATED RESEARCH CENTER

72 

# 1000300038 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

73 

# 1000300367 INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CORP OF DELAWARE

74 

# 1000300102 JOHNSON CONTROLS BATTERY GROUP INC

75 

# 1000300350 KANEKA DELAWARE CORPORATION

76 

# 1000300129 LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC

77 

# 1000300028 LAIDLAW CORPORATION

78 

# 1000300104 MACDERMID INC

79 

# 1000300291 MAGELLAN TERMINALS HOLDINGS, L.P.

80 

# 1000300383 MEDAL A DIV OF AIR LIQUIDE ADV TECH US

81 

# 1000300074 METACHEM PRODUCTS LLC

82 

# 1000300324 NORAMCO INC

83 

# 1000300018 NVF COMPANY INC - YORKLYN FACILITY

84 

# 1000300030 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

85 

# 1000300282 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

86 

# 1000300016 PREMCOR DELAWARE CITY REFINERY

87 

# 1000300404 PREMCOR TERMINAL

88 

# 1000300093 PRINTPACK INC

89 

# 1000300382 PTFE COMPOUNDS INC

90 

# 1000300463 PURE GREEN INDUSTRIES INC

91 

# 1000300033 ROHM & HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS CMP TE

92 

# 1000300381 SPATZ FIBERGLASS PRODUCTS

93 

# 1000300426 SPI POLYOLS INC

94 

# 1000300133 ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL

95 

# 1000300021 SUNOCO INC MARCUS HOOK REFINERY

96 

# 1000300092 THE CROWELL CORPORATION



# 41

# 97 

# 1000300696 THE POND ICE ARENA

98 

# 1000300048 TILCON DELAWARE - TERMINAL AVENUE

99 

# 1000300058 UNIQEMA

100 

# 1000300067 UNISOURCE WORLDWIDE INC

101 

# 1000300022 UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE NEWARK

102 

# 1000300127 VPI FILM LLC

103 

# 1000300121 WESTVACO CORPORATION

104 

# 1000300004 WILMINGTON PIECE DYE CO

105 

# 1000300389 WILMINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

106 

# Sussex County, DE 1000500013 ALLEN FAMILY FOODS INC

107 

# 1000500016 ALLEN'S HATCHE RY INC ALLEN'S MILLING

108 

# 1000500036 BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CTR - MILFORD MEMORIAL

109 

# 1000500187 CANNON COLD STORAGE

110 

# 1000500029 CITY OF LEWES POWER PLANT

111 

# 1000500108 CITY OF SEAFORD-ELECTRIC POWER PLANT

112 

# 1000500099 DE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SOUTHERN

113 

# 1000500120 EDWARD J. KAYE CONSTRUCTION

114 

# 1000500001 INDIAN RIVER GENERATING STATION

115 

# 1000500002 INVISTA

116 

# 1000500183 J G TOWNSEND

117 

# 1000500006 JOHNSON POLYMER INC

118 

# 1000500066 JUSTIN TANKS LLC

119 

# 1000500027 LEWES DAIRY INC

120 

# 1000500093 MARITRANS

121 

# 1000500028 MIL-DEL CORPORATION

122 

# 1000500004 MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE INC-MILLSBOR

123 

# 1000500073 MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELMARVA - SELBYVILLE

124 

# 1000500012 MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELMARVA FRANKFORD

125 

# 1000500121 MULTI-TECH INC

126 

# 1000500011 ORIENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA

127 

# 1000500003 PERDUE FARMS - BRIDGEVILLE

128 

# 1000500075 PERDUE FARMS INC - GEORGETOWN

129 

# 1000500146 PERDUE-AGRIRECYCLE LLC

130 

# 1000500025 PICTSWEET COMPANY

131 

# 1000500071 PINNACLE FOODS CORPORATION - VLASIC PLNT

132 

# 1000500009 SEA WATCH INTERNATIONAL LTD

133 

# 1000500188 SEAFORD ICE INC

134 

# 1000500196 THE MARBLE WORKS

135 

# 1000500130 TILCON DELAWARE - GEORGETOWN

136 

# 1000500026 TILCON DELAWARE GUMBORO



# 42

# 3.4 Stationary Non-Point Sources.

Stationary non-point sources 10 

# represent a large and divers e set of individual emission

source categories. A non-point s ource category is either represented by small facilities too

numerous to individually inventory, such as restaurants (c ommercial cooking), or is a common

activity, such as fugitive dust from construction and agricultural production. Emissions from the

non-point source categories were es timated at the county level.

There are many stationary non-point source categories which emit fine particulate (PM 2.5 

# )

and/or PM 2.5 

# precursors. These are grouped in to the following category types:

• Fuel Combustion – The combustion of fuels in industrial, commerci al, institutional,

and residential furnaces, engines, boilers, wood stoves, and fireplaces create emissions

of PM 2.5 

# and precursors.

• Open Burning – Open burning creates emissions of PM 2.5 

# and precursors. “Open

burning” loosely refers to trash burning, pr escribed burning, burning of land clearing

material, wildfires, and house and vehicle fires.

• Fugitive Dust – Primary crustal particulate is created from construction activities,

agricultural production, and as a result of vehi cle traffic. Fugitive dust is largely

coarse material, with only a small pe rcentage being fine particulate.

• Ammonia Sources – Several categories contribute ammonia emissions, including

agricultural fertilizer application, animal husbandry, a nd wastewater treatment plants.

• VOC Sources – Many products used by ho meowners and businesses contain VOC

solvents. Paints, cleaners, pesticides, personal care products, and inks are a few

examples of products that contain VOC solven ts. The distribution and use of gasoline

in vehicles and other gaso line-powered engines is another large source of VOC

emissions.

Table 3-5 presents a listing of Delaware’s statio nary non-point source categories. Note that there

were several source categories evaluated, but no t included, in the stationary non-point source

inventory. These source cat egories, and the reason for not including them, are:

• Agricultural Burning – No activity for the burning of either crop residue was

identified. The Delaware Department of Agriculture has indicated this activity is not

practiced in Delaware. Crop residues are left to biodegrade in pla ce or are tilled under

at the time of planti ng of the next crop.

• Breweries, Wineries, and Distilleries – De laware is home to only a few very small

wineries and several microbreweries. Ther e are no distilleries in Delaware. Since

emission estimates for this source category in past inventories have been negligible

10 

# Stationary Non-Point Sources have form erly been termed as “area sources.”



# 43

# (less than one ton of VOCs per year), th e category was eliminated from further

consideration.

• Crematories – While there are at least a dozen human/pet crematories and several

laboratory animal incinerators in Delawa re, AQMS was unable to locate emission

factors for PM 2.5 

# and precursors. Emissions from fu els used at these facilities are

included in the commercial fuel combustion category.

• Dover Speedway – An attempt was made to quantify emissions from racing vehicles

participating in the two majo r race weekends that are held at the speedway each year.

However, there were no emission factors a ssociated with the unique engines, fuels,

and operating conditions associated with r acing vehicles. Applyi ng uncontrolled (i.e.,

non-catalyst) light-duty truck emission factors yielded neg ligible emissions for the

four races performed each year.

• Feed Mills and Concrete Plants - These industry sectors were considered a source of

particulate matter, both from material handling processes and fugitive dust (i.e.,

storage piles). Several large feed mills in Delaware already met the criteria for

reporting as a Title V facility due to com bustion emissions from process boilers and

grain dryers, and are included in the point source portion of the 2002 BY. The lack of

quality emissions data (i.e., emission fact ors) for feed mills persuaded AQMS to not

specifically inventory smaller feed mills. Lack of data was also the reason for not

further considering concrete plants.

• Slash Burning - No activity for the burni ng of slash from logging for future

silvicultural operations was identified. Th is was confirmed by th e Delaware Division

of Forestry. However, recently logged lands are occasionally converted to agriculture.

This activity, previously reported as sl ash burning, is now re ported under the land

clearing debris burning category.

Table 3-5. Non-Point Sources in De laware 2002 Base Year Inventory

Agricultural Fertilizer Applic ation Industrial Surface Coatings

Agricultural Pesticides Land Clearing Debris Burning

Agricultural Production Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

AIM Coatings Miscellaneous Ammonia Source

Animal Husbandry Paved & Unpaved Road Dust

Asphalt Paving Prescribed Burning

Auto Refinishing Publicly-Owned Treatment Works

Bakeries Residential Construction

Catastrophic/Accidental Releases Residential Fuel Combustion

Commercial Construction Residential Open Burning

Commercial Cooking Resi dential Wood Combustion

Commercial & Consumer Products Road Construction

Commercial Fuel Combustion Sand & Gravel Operations

44

# Dry Cleaning Solvent Cleaning

Gasoline (Petroleum) Marketing Structure Fires

Graphic Arts Traffic Markings

Inactive Landfill Vehicle Fires

Industrial Adhesives Wildfires

Industrial Fuel Combustion

Table 3-6 provides a statewide summary of the 2002 annual (tons per year, TPY) emissions for

each non-point source category, and Table 3-7 provide s this information for New Castle County.

Table 3-6. Summary of 2002 Statewide Emissions from Non-point Sources

PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO X 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Source Categories TPY TPY TPY TPY TPY TPY

FUEL COMBUSTION

Commercial/Institutional 15 14 233 405 25 19

Industrial 9 7 122 715 40 28

Residential Fossil Fuel 66 58 946 1,140 118 52

Residential Wood 796 796 11 75 42 679

Fuel Combustion Total 886 874 1,313 2,335 225 777

OPEN BURNING

Residential Open Burning 48 42 3 14 1 27

Land Clearing Debris Burning 74 74

--- 22

--- 51

Prescribed Burning 139 119 8 31 6 67

Structure Fires 24 22

--- 3

--- 25

Vehicle Fires 6 6

--- < 1

--- 2

Wildfires 99 85 6 22 5 48

Open Burning Total 390 349 17 92 12 219

FUGITIVE DUST

--- --- --- --- Agricultural Production 1,670 370

Commercial Construction 810 81

--- --- --- --- Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 7,951 499

--- --- --- ---

Residential Construction 246 25

--- --- --- ---

Road Construction 1,635 163

--- --- --- --- Sand & Gravel Operations 62 15

--- --- --- ---

Fugitive Dust Total 12,374 1,154

--- --- --- ---

AMMONIA SOURCES

Agricultural Fertilizer Application

--- --- --- --- 1,247

--- Animal Husbandry

--- --- --- --- 11,662

---

Miscellaneous Ammonia Sources

--- --- --- --- 41

---

45

# Ammonia Sources Total

--- --- --- --- 12,950

---

OTHER SOURCES

Bakeries

--- --- --- --- --- 1

Catastrophic/Accidental Releases

--- --- --- < 1 < 1 1

Commercial Cooking 219 203

--- --- --- 30

Gasoline Marketing

-- --- --- --- --- 2,116

Landfills (Inactive)

-- --- --- --- --- 42

Leaking UST Remediations

-- --- --- --- --- 13

POTWs

-- --- --- --- 7 1

Solvent Use

-- --- --- --- --- 7,054

Other Sources Total 219 203

--- < 1 7 9,258

NON-POINT SECTOR TOTAL 13,870 2,580 1,330 2,427 13,194 10,254

Table 3-7. Summary of 2002 Non-point Emissions for New Castle County

PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO X 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Source Categories TPY TPY TPY TPY TPY TPY

FUEL COMBUSTION

Commercial/Institutional 9 8 136 298 20 14

Industrial 6 4 79 465 21 18

Residential Fossil Fuel 35 31 550 679 94 34

Residential Wood 446 446 7 41 24 364

Fuel Combustion Total 496 489 772 1,484 158 430

OPEN BURNING

Residential Open Burning 13 12 1 4 < 1 8

Land Clearing Debris Burning 0 0

--- 0

--- 0

Prescribed Burning 109 94 7 24 5 53

Structure Fires 8 7

--- 1

--- 8

Vehicle Fires 3 3

--- < 1

--- 1

Wildfires < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Open Burning Total 134 116 7 29 5 70

FUGITIVE DUST

Agricultural Production 238 53

--- --- --- ---

Commercial Construction 607 61

--- --- --- --- Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 3,380 158

--- --- --- ---

Residential Construction 91 9

--- --- --- ---

Road Construction 570 57

--- --- --- --- Sand & Gravel Operations 22 4

--- --- --- ---

Fugitive Dust Total 4,908 341

--- --- --- ---

AMMONIA SOURCES

Agricultural Fertilizer Application

--- --- --- --- 158

---

46

# Animal Husbandry

--- --- --- --- 362

---

Miscellaneous Ammonia Sources

--- --- --- --- 26

---

Ammonia Sources Total

--- --- --- --- 546

---

OTHER SOURCES

Bakeries

--- --- --- --- --- 1

Catastrophic/Accidental Releases

--- --- --- < 1

--- 1

Commercial Cooking 137 127

--- --- --- 19

Gasoline Marketing

-- --- --- --- --- 1,145

Landfills (Inactive)

-- --- --- --- --- 2

Leaking UST Remediations

-- --- --- --- --- 2

POTWs

-- --- --- --- < 1 < 1

Solvent Use

-- --- --- --- --- 4,529

Other Sources Total 137 127

--- < 1 < 1 5,698

NON-POINT SECTOR TOTAL 5,674 1,073 780 1,513 710 6,198

3.5 On-Road Mobile Sources.

The 2002 base year emission inventory of the on-road mobile source sector was

conducted by Pechan, with technical support from the EID staff. The on-road mobile sources

cover all highway vehicles incl uding passenger cars, light-duty tr ucks, sport utility vehicles,

heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles, whic h traveled on Delaware ’s roadways in 2002.

The AQM mobile sources lead and EID staff gathered the actual vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) on Delaware’s roadways and vehicle mix data from the Delaware Department of

Transportation (DelDOT), and eval uated all information about c ontrol measures effective in

2002. With the vehicle mix data and contro l information, Pechan used EPA’s MOBILE6.2

model to generate emission factors for each vehi cle type traveling on each of the 11 functional

road classes. The emission factors and the VMT data were then used to calculate PM 2.5 

# and

precursor emissions for each vehicle type on each road class. The end products of the

calculations were sums of PM 2.5 

# and precursor emissions for all vehicles on all road classes in

each of the three counties in Delaware. Af ter two rounds of QC/QA reviews and revision by

Pechan’s staff and EID staff, the emission data was finalized, and included in the final 2007 base

year inventory.

On-road mobile source inventory information is presented in Table 3-8, Table 3-9, and

Table 3-10.

47

# Table 3-8. 2002 Annual Emissions and VM T for On-road Mobile Sources by County

Annual Emissions (TPY)

County PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO2 NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC 10 6 

# miles

Kent 118 89 105 4,182 139 1,737 1,406

New Castle 304 209 326 11,799 552 5,762 5,338

Sussex 159 117 152 5,360 211 3,065 2,091

Total 581 415 584 21,341 903 10,564 8,835



# Table 3-9. 2002 Annual PM Exhaust, Brake Wear, and Tire Wear Emissions by County

PM 10 

# Emissions (TPY) PM 2.5 

# Emissions (TPY)

County Exhaust Brake

Wear Tire

Wear Total Exhaust Brake

Wear Tire

Wear Total

Kent 84 19 15 118 77 8 4 89

New Castle 179 74 52 304 164 31 13 209

Sussex 109 29 21 159 100 12 5 117

Total 371 122 88 581 341 52 22 415



# Table 3-10 2002 Statewide Annual Emissions and VMT for On-road Mobile Sources by Vehicle

Type

Annual Emissions (TPY)

Vehicle Type PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Light-duty Gasoline Vehicles 129 63 167 5,789 484 5,538

Light-duty Gasoline Trucks 111 57 187 5,028 386 4,195

Heavy-duty Gasoline Vehicles 28 20 25 1,423 13 319

Motorcycles 2 1 1 71 1 116

Light-duty Diesel Vehicles 2 2 < 1 9 < 1 5

Light-duty Diesel Trucks 3 3 2 23 < 1 11

Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicles 307 269 201 8,996 18 379

Total 581 415 584 21,341 903 10,564



# 3.6 Non-Road Mobile Sources.

Non-road mobile sources incl ude a large and diverse set of off-road vehicles and nonstationary equipment. Non-road vehicles and equipment were grouped into four source category

types for the purpose of developing emi ssion estimates. These groups are:

1. Aircraft – Commercial, military, and private aircraft are considered under this source

category.

48

# 2. Locomotives – Commercial line haul and yard locomotives are considered under this

source category.

3. Commercial Marine Vessels (CMVs) – Vari ous types of vessels that navigate the

Delaware Bay and River and the Chesapeak e and Delaware Cana l are included under

this source category. Recreational boats were included in the next category.

4. Other Off-road Vehicles and Equipment – All other off-road emission sources were

accounted for through the use of EPA’s NONROAD model. The NONROAD model

compiles off-road equipment pertinent to Delaware into the following subcategories:

o Recreational (land-based);

o Construction and Mining;

o Industrial;

o Lawn and Garden;

o Agricultural;

o Commercial;

o Logging;

o Airport Ground Support;

o Recreational Marine; and

o Railway Maintenance.

Emissions from aircraft, locomotives, and CMVs were calculated using appropriate

emission factors and emission controls in effect in 2002. Emissions of al l other non-road sources

(i.e., the 4 th 

# group in the list above) were estimat ed using EPA’s NONR OAD model, which

further divided these vehicles and equipment by fuel types, including 2-str oke gasoline, 4-stroke

gasoline, diesel, liquefied petr oleum gas (LPG), and compressed natural gas (CNG). After two

rounds of QC/QA reviews and revision by Pechan’s staff and EID staff, the emission data were

finalized, and included in the fina l SIP 2002 base year inventory.

Table 3-11 and Table 3-12 present a summary of Delaware’s 2002 base year inventory

for the non-road mobile source sector.

Table 3-11. 2002 Statewide Emissions from Non-road Sources

Source Categories PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

NONROAD Model Equipment 570 525 513 5,798 5 7,531

Aircraft 28 20 30 970

--- 291

Locomotives 29 26 63 1,097 < 1 57

Commercial Marine Vessels 415 374 3,624 9,118 3 140

NON-ROAD SECTOR TOTAL 1,043 946 4,230 16,982 8 8,019



# 49

# Table 3-12. 2002 Statewide Annual Emissions for NONROAD Equipment

Annual Emissions (TPY)

Fuel Type Equipment Category PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Recreational 19 17 1 23 < 1 612

Construction 7 6 < 1 24 < 1 166

Industrial 1 1 < 1 54 < 1 58

Lawn & Garden 75 69 6 330 1 2,805

Agriculture < 1 < 1 < 1 8 < 1 18

Light Commercial 5 5 2 96 < 1 413

Logging < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3

Airport Support < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Railway Maintenance < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 Gasoline

Recreational Marine 44 40 4 201 1 2,726

Recreational 1 1 < 1 3 < 1 1

Construction 234 215 299 2,415 2 279

Industrial 41 37 56 403 < 1 44

Lawn & Garden 12 11 13 108 < 1 16

Agriculture 102 94 92 828 < 1 101

Light Commercial 21 19 21 167 < 1 29

Logging < 1 < 1 1 6 < 1 <1

Airport Support 1 1 1 8 < 1 1

Railway Maintenance 1 1 1 8 < 1 2 Diesel

Recreational Marine 3 3 14 108 < 1 4

LPG All Equipment 4 4 1 920 0 249

CNG All Equipment < 1 < 1 < 1 87 0 1

All Fuels Total 570 525 513 5,798 5 7,531



# 3.7 Natural Sources.

Natural sources of emissions of primary particulate matter and particulate matter

precursors were included in the 2002 inventory to gain a more complete picture of fine

particulate emissions. For Delaware, natural sources include biogenic source emissions (VOCs

and NO

x 

# ), NO

x 

# emissions due to li ghtning, and PM10 and PM 2.5 

# -PRI from wind-blown dust.

Note that the wildfire category was not included as a natural source, but was instead included in

the non-point section because the few wildfires in De laware are a result of human activities (i.e.,

untended fire, discarded cigarette butt, arson). Em issions for natural sources are reported for the

following activities:

• Biogenic source emissions resulting from bi ological activity represent a significant

portion of the natural source emissions. The biological activity of plants, especially

50

# trees, emit a significant amount of VOCs in Delaware, which can react to form

secondary organic aerosols. Microbial ac tivity within soil is responsible for

emissions of nitrogen-containing compounds, including n itrogen oxides (NO

x 

# ).

• Lightning is a source of nitric oxide ( NO). Lightning forms NO through a high

temperature reaction from the energy releas ed during a lightning fl ash. Lightning can

release about 10 5 

# Joules per meter (J/m), and pr oduce temperatures of about 30,000

degrees Kelvin (°K). NO is in thermodynamic equilibrium with nitrogen and oxygen

at temperatures above 2300°K, and as the heated air rapidly cools below 2000°K, NO

becomes a steady-state species.

• Particulate emissions also re sult from wind erosion of vaca nt lands, such as tilled

agricultural land and other disturbed land w ithout vegetative cover. Wind-blown dust

emissions from vacant agricultural lands ar e believed to be the only significant

natural source in Delaware. Therefore, th is is the only type of land use that was

covered. Emissions were calculated at the county level using cr op acreage data from

the Delaware Agricultural St atistics Service (DASS).

Table 3-13 provides a summary of Delaware’s 2002 emission from natural sources, by

county.

Table 3-13. 2002 Emissions for Natural Sources by County

Annual Emissions (TPY)

County PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# NO

x 

# NH 3 

# VOC

Kent 7,457 1,119

--- 251

--- 9,139

New Castle 3,007 451

--- 159

--- 6,332

Sussex 10,218 1,439

--- 354

--- 11,109

Statewide 20,682 3,009

--- 764

--- 26,580



# References

3-1. 2002 Base Year State Implementation Plan Emissions Inventory for PM 2.5 

# and

Precursors, Delaware Department of Natura l Resources and Environmental Control, Air

Quality Management Section, Dover, Delaware, December 15, 2007

51

# Section 4 - Control Measures and 2009 Emission Projections

As indicted in Section 1 of this Document , Delaware and the en tire Philadelphia NAA are

required to attain compliance with the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS by April 2010. Since the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS is

both an annual and a 24-hr standard, this effectively require s Delaware and the Philadelphia

NAA to attain the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS in 2009 (i.e., 2009 is the last fu ll year prior to the April 2010

attainment date).

This Section presents a projection of th e level Delaware expects emissions of PM 2.5 

# and

PM 2.5 

# precursors to be in 2009. This projection give s consideration to fact ors such as growth

that will occur between 2002 (i.e., Delaware base year) and control strategies that Delaware and

the EPA have adopted which are not included in the 2002 base year, and which will reduce

emissions in 2009. This 2009 projection will be ev aluated in Sections 5 and 6 of this document

to show that emission levels will be sufficiently low in 2009 to yield attainment of the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS.

A complete 2009 projection inventory was coordinated by MANEVU in 2005. This

included 2009 emissions projections:

• For non-EGU point sources, non-point sour ces, and non-road mobile sources,

which were conducted under contract by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

(hereafter referred to as MACTEC). 11



# • For EGU emissions, which were projected under contract by ICF, Inc. using the

Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 12



# • For on-road mobile emissions, which were projected by NESCAUM and New

York via SMOKE, using state specific inpu ts, to include Delaware Department of

Transportation VMT and speed data. 12



# Delaware is basing its 2009 emission projection for th is SIP on this work that was coordinated by

MANEVU, except as describe d in this Section.

4.1 Point Source Controls and 2009 Projection Inventory.

4.1.1. Electric Generating Unit (E GU) Emission Projections

The MANE-VU 2002 point source inventory contains a cr oss-reference table that

matches IPM emission unit identifiers (ORISPL plant code and BLRID emission unit code) to

MANE-VU NIF emission unit iden tifiers (FIPSST state code, FIPSCNTY county code, State

11 The MACTEC 2009 emission projections are explained in detail in the technical support document at Appendix

4-1 to this document.

12 Note that while these projections were used in th e modeling that was relied upon in this SIP, they were

determined to not be the best estimates of 2009 emission available. The 2009 Electric Generating Unit (EGU)

and mobile source emission projections that Delaware has used in this SIP are discussed in detail in Section 4.1

and 4.4 of this document, respectively. The impact of the difference between the modeled emission levels and

Delaware’s projected 2009 emission levels are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of this document.



# 52

# Plant ID, State Point ID). Initi ally, MACTEC used this cross-re ference table to split the point

source file into the EGU and non-EGU components . When there was a match between the IPM

ORISPL/BLRID and the MANE-VU emission unit ID, the unit was assigned to the EGU

inventory; all other emission units we re assigned to the non-EGU inventory.

After performing this initial splitting of the MANE-VU 2002 point s ource inventory into

EGU and non-EGU components, MACTEC prepared several ad-hoc QA-QC queries to verify

that there was no double-counting of emissi ons in the EGU and non-EGU inventories:

• The IPM parsed files to identify EGUs accounted for in IPM. This list of emission units

to the non-EGU inventory derived from the MANE-VU cross-reference table was

verified so that units accounted for in IPM were not double-c ounted in the non-EGU

inventory.

• The non-EGU inventory was reviewed to identify remaining emission units with a

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of “4911 Electrical Services” or Source

Classification Code of “1-01-xxx-xx External Combustion Boiler, Electric Generation”.

The list of sources meeting these selection cr iteria was then compared to the IPM parsed

file to ensure that these units were not double-counted.

• The number of records for each NIF table in the original 2002 point source file was

verified to equal the 2002 EGU and 2002 non- EGU files. The sum of the number of

records in the EGU file and th e number of records in the non-EGU file were then verified

to equal the number of records in the original 2002 point source file.

• The emissions by pollutant in the original 2002 point source file we re compared to the

2002 EGU file and 2002 non-EGU files. The su m of the emissions in the EGU file and

the emissions in the non-EGU file were verifi ed to equal that of the original 2002 point

source file.

As a result of this procedur e, MACTEC created separate sets of NIF tables for 2002

EGUs: units accounted for in IPM (i.e., EGUs), and non-EGUs.

The non-EGU set of 2002 NIF tables are used in this SIP to project 2009 Delaware nonEGU point source emissions. This is discussed in detail in Se ction 4.1.2 of this document.

However, after reviewing the IPM results, AQMS found that EGU projections were unrealistic.

For example, IPM predicted all of Delaware’s oil-burning EGUs would have no emissions in

2009. Contrary to this, Delaware’s oil-burning EGUs have indicted to the Department that that

the oil-burning units will be operating for the foreseeable future. Therefore, Delaware

determined that the IPM method was not an accura te method of projected future emissions from

EGUs in Delaware, and re-projected EGU em issions using Departme nt of Energy growth

factors. Afterwards, Delaware-specific contro ls from post-2002 regulations were applied. The

source of data for determining growth was: Energy Information Admini stration (EIA), Annual

Energy Review 2004 (mid-Atlantic), DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington, DC, August 2005).

Using 2002 as the baseline, 2009 growth factor s were derived by taki ng 2009 projected energy

53

# consumption by sector (Energy Consumption) a nd source (fuel type-quadrillion Btu), and then

dividing that by 2003 growth rates.

The following is a list of controls for EGUs, which Delaware has adopted, and which will

reduce emissions after 2002 and by 2009. Table 4-1 pr esents EGU emissions that are calculated

by the IPM model.:

(1). Reg. 1144, Control of Sta tionary Generator Emissions, SO 2 

# , PM, VOC and NO X 

# emission control, State-wide, Effective January 2006;

(2). Reg. 1146, EGUs, Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation, SO 2



# and NO X 

# emission control, State-wide, Effective December 2007;

(3). Regulation No. 1148, Control of Stationa ry Combustion Turbine Electric Generating

Unit Emissions, NO X 

# emission control, State-wide, Effective January, 2007.

Table 4-1 EGU emission projections calculated by the Integrated Planning Model (IPM)

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 1 474 123 117 1106 3

New Castle 15 1871 475 357 4056 24

Sussex 38 8758 2078 1733 25733 75

Totals 54 11103 2677 2208 30895 102

Table 4-2 is a summary of Delaware 2009 proj ection of emissions from EGUs, projected

by AQMS staff using the procedure detailed a bove and applying reduc tions realized by

Regulations 1144, 1146, and 1148.

Table 4-2 2009 EGU emissions – Delaware calculated

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 5 803 171 153 2628 7

New Castle 39 3590 781 632 6146 65

Sussex 10 4119 1556 1379 9282 43

Totals 54 8512 2508 2164 18056 115

4.1.2 Non-EGU Point Source Controls and 2009 Emission Projections

The following is a list of point source cont rols that Delaware has adopted, and which will

reduce emissions after 2002 and by 2009:

(1). Reg. 24. Sec. 46, Crude Oil Lightering Operations, VOC emission control, Sussex

County, Effective May 2007;

(2) Regulation 1142, Section 1, Control of NO X 

# Emissions from Industrial Boilers, NO X 

# emission control, Effective December 2001.

(3). Regulation 1142, Section 2, Control of NO X 

# Emissions From Industrial Boilers and

Process Heaters at Pe troleum Refineries, NO X 

# emission control, New Castle County,

Effective July 2007.

54

# (4) Consent Decree with Premcor Refinery at Delaware City (formerly Motiva

Enterprises), New Castle County, Control of SO 2 

# , and NO X 

# Emission from Boilers

and Heaters, Effective 2008.

(5) Facility and Unit shutdo wns, as shown in Table 4-3

Table 4-3 Facility and Unit shutdowns

NOx PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# County Facility Name 2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009

Kent TILCON DELAWARE - HORSEPOND ROAD 8 0 4 0 5 0

New Castle AMETEK INC CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION 2 0 0 0 0 0

New Castle CONECTIV DELMARVA GENERATION-MADISON ST 1 0 0 0 0

New Castle GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 91 0 17 0 340 0

New Castle KANEKA DELAWARE CORPORATION 5 0 6 0 4 0

New Castle LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC 69 0 11 0 1 0

New Castle METACHEM PRODUCTS LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Castle VPI FILM LLC 5 0 1 0 0 0

New Castle WESTVACO CORPORATION 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Castle WILMINGTON PIECE DYE CO 2 0 0 0 0 0

Sussex CITY OF LEWES POWER PLANT 3 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS = 186 0 40 0 350 0

Among the above shutdown facilities, some have applied for and obtained emission

reduction credits (ERCs) pursuant to Regulat ion No. 34, Emission Banking and Trading

Program. Table 4-4 is a list of the f acilities/agency that hold ERCs.

Table 4-4 Emission Reduction Cred its and Holding Facilities/Agency

ERC Holding Facility/Agency NOx (TPY)

Kaneka Shutdown 2

Lafarge Shutdown 37

VPI Mirrex Shutdown 2

Delaware Economic Development Office 72

Total 113

In addition, Premcor Refinery (formerl y Motiva Enterprises) is under a Consent

Agreement that indicates that 250 TPY of NOx reductions will remain available for Premcor

Refinery to use as emissions offsets. Thus, the total NOx emission reductions from a facility/unit

shutdown, modification and the Premcor Consent D ecree that are available for the SIP planning

are: (113 + 250) = 363 TPY

These 363 TPY NOx ERCs were added back in to the Delaware-adj usted 2009 tables and

calculations, since the banked or authorized ERCs are treated as “emitted emissions” in the

55

# context of this SIP revision. As such, the future use of these cred its is consistent with, and will

not interfere with any calculation or provision of this SIP document.

For the non-EGU point source sector Delawa re has substantially relied upon the 2009

projection of emissions done by MACTEC. This projection is summarized earlier in this

document, and a detailed description is provided in Appendix 4-1 to this document. However,

there are several instances wher e MACTEC’s projections have been revised by AQMS staff.

The reasons for each such revision are provided in Appendix 4-2 of this document. The final

2009 projections are detailed in Appendix 4-3.

Table 4-5 provides a summary of the 2009 MACTEC non-EGU point source projection.

Table 4-5 Summary of the MACTEC 2009 Non-EGU Point Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 18 184 52 32 170 105

New Castle 71 3566 1270 1138 5787 1718

Sussex 56 326 163 86 1160 1164

Totals 145 4076 1485 1256 7117 2987

Table 4-6 provides a summary of the n on-EGU point source emissions where

MACTEC’s projections are not revised by the Department.

Table 4-6 Summary of the Un-RevisedPortion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-EGU

Point Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 18 170 44 25 154 96

New Castle 71 3355 493 361 5782 1404

Sussex 26 324 162 85 1160 60

Totals 115 3849 699 471 7096 1560

Table 4-7 is a summary of Delaware 2009 projection of emissions from non-EGU point

sources, where MACTEC’s projections are revi sed by AQMS staff. Reasons for each such

revision are provided in Appendix 4-2.

Table 4-7 Summary of the Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-EGU Point

Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 0 8 2 1 0 6

New Castle 0 113 573 476 28 1311

Sussex 1 1 1 0 0 1034

Totals 1 122 576 477 28 2351

56

# Table 4-8 provides a summary of Delaware’s projected 2009 emissions from non-EGUs

(i.e., the sum of Table 4-6 and Table 4-7).

Table 4-8 Summary of the Delaware Non-EGU Point Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 18 177 46 26 154 102

New Castle 71 3467 1066 837 5811 2715

Sussex 28 325 163 85 1160 1094

Totals 117 3969 1275 949 7125 3911

4.1.3 EGU and Non-EGU Point Source 2009 Emission Projections Summary

Delaware’s total projected 2009 point source emissions are the sum of the EGU point

source projections (i.e., Table 4- 2), the non-EGU point source proj ections(i.e., Table 4-8) and the

ERCs (363 TPY NOx). This summa tion is presented in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9 Summary of De laware 2009 EGUs and non-EGUs Point Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 22 981 217 178 2782 110

New Castle 110 *7420 1847 1469 11957 2780

Sussex 38 4444 1719 1465 10442 1138

Totals 170 12845 3783 3112 25181 4028

* Includes ERC adjusted emissions



# 4.2 Non-Point Source Controls and 2009 Emission Projections

The following is a list of non-point source cont rols that Delaware has adopted, and which

will reduce emissions after 2002 and by 2009:

(1). Reg. 24 Sec. 33, Solvent Cleaning and Dr ying, VOC emission c ontrol, Statewide,

Effective November, 2002.

(2). Reg. 24 Sec. 11, Mobile Equipment Repa ir and Refinishing, VOC emission control,

State-wide, Effective October, 2003.

(3). Reg. 41 Sec. 3, Portable Fuel Contai ners, VOC emission control, State-wide,

Effective January 2003.

(4). Reg. 41 Sec. 2, Consumer Products, VOC emission control, State-wide, Effective

January 2005.

(5). Reg. 41 Sec 1, Architectur al and Industrial Maintena nce Coatings, VOC emission

control, State-wide, Effective January 2005.

(7). Federal Residential Woodstove N SPS, VOC, PM and NOx emission control.

(8). Reg. 1113, Open Burning, PM, VOC and NO x emission control, State-wide, Revised

and Effective April 2007.

57

# For the non-point source sector Delaware has substantially relied upon the 2009

projection of emissions done by MACTEC. This projection is summarized earlier in this

document, and a detailed description is provided in Appendix 4-1 to this document. However,

there are several instances wher e MACTEC’s projections have been revised by AQMS staff.

The reasons for each such revisions are provided in Appendix 4-2 of this document. Final 2009

projections are detail ed in Appendix 4-3.

Table 4-10 is a summary of MACTEC’s 2009 Em issions from All Non-Point Sources.

Table 4-10 Summary of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Point Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 2033 439 3429 774 289 2660

New Castle 1312 1313 4847 1208 796 7338

Sussex 9971 1069 5652 1405 513 4245

Totals 13316 2821 13928 3387 1598 14243

Table 4-11 provides a summar y of the non-point source emissions where MACTEC’s

projections are not revise d by the Department.

Table 4-11 Summary of the Un-Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Point

Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 28 62 152 112 20 779

New Castle 78 78 472 411 67 2996

Sussex 33 45 109 96 21 915

Totals 139 185 733 619 108 4690

Table 4-12 is a summary of Delaware 2009 projection of emissions from non-point

sources, where MACTEC’s projections are revi sed by AQMS staff. Reasons for each such

revision is are provide d in Appendix 4-2.

Table 4-12 Summary of the Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Point

Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 2657 326 2595 461 211 722

New Castle 666 1616 3111 654 716 2096

Sussex 9777 518 3520 693 296 1013

Totals 13100 2460 9226 1808 1223 3831

Table 4-13 provides a summary of Delaware’s projected 2009 emissions from non-point

sources (i.e., the sum of Table 4-11 and Table 4-12).

58

# Table 4-13 Summary of the Dela ware Non-Point Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 2685 388 2747 573 231 1501

New Castle 743 1694 3583 1065 782 5092

Sussex 9810 564 3629 789 316 1928

Totals 13238 2646 9959 2427 1329 8521

4.3 Non-Road Mobile Source Controls and 2009 Emission Projections

The controls for non-road mobile engines (except aircraft, locomotives, and marine

vessels) that were applied when projecting their 2009 emissions include all relevant federal rules,

such as fuel sulfur content rule, gasoline Reid Vapor Pre ssure (RVP) requirements, and

reformulated fuel programs. MACTEC used EPA’s NMIM2005 model and NONROAD2005

model to estimate annual emission projections of non-road engines in all MANE_VU states,

including Delaware (see MAC TEC’s TSD, Appendix 4-1).

In addition to the non-road engines, MACTEC also conducted 2009 annual emission

projections for aircraft, locomotives and marine vessels for all MANE-VU states. Controls for

the 2009 emissions include all relevant federal rules and requirements, as outlined below.

(1) Phase I and Phase II Emissions Standa rds for Gasoline-Powered Non-Road Utility

Engines, Federal Rule

This standard promulgated by the EPA a pplies to VOC emissions from small nonroad, spark-ignition (i.e., gasoline-powered) utility engines, as authorized under 42

U.S.C. §7547. The measure affects gasoline-powered (or other spark-ignition) lawn

and garden equipment, construction equipm ent, chain saws, and other such utility

equipment as chippers and stump grinders, wo od splitters, etc., rated at or below 19

kilowatts (an equivalent of 25 or fewer horsepower). Phase 2 of the rule applied

further controls on handheld and non-handhe ld outdoor equipment. See References 4-

2, 4-3, and 4-4.

(2) Emissions Standards for Diesel-Powered Non-Road Utility Engines of 50 or More

Horsepower, Federal Rule

This standard promulgated by the EPA a pplies to VOC and NOX emissions from

non-road, compression-ignition (i .e., diesel-powered) utilit y engines, as authorized

under 42 U.S.C. § 7547. The measure affect s diesel-powered (o r other compressionignition) construction equipment, industrial equipment, etc., rated at or above 37

kilowatts (37 kilowatts is approximately eq ual to 50 horsepower). See References 4-

5, 4-6, and 4-7.

59

# (3) Emissions Standards for Spark Igniti on (SI) Marine Engines, Federal Rule

This standard promulgated by the EPA applies to exhaust PM, VOC and NOx

emissions from new spark-ignition (SI) ga soline marine engines, including outboard

engines, personal watercraft engines, a nd jet boat engines. Of nonroad sources

studied by EPA, gasoline marine engine s were found to be one of the largest

contributors of hydrocarbon (H C) emissions (30 percent of the nationwide nonroad

total).

(4) Emissions Standards for Large Spar k Ignition Engines, Federal Rule

This EPA measure controls VOC and NOx emissions from several groups of

previously unregulated nonroad engines, including large industr ial spark-ignition

engines.

Since emissions from aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotives are not

projected by the NONROAD model, emission pr ojections for these sources were developed

separately. The starting point for the emi ssion 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 projecti ons 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 St ate/county/SCC/pollutant growth/control

factors for use in projecting the MANE-VU base y ear data to 2009. 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 contro ls, no separate control factors were developed

for these sources except where exce ptions to this method were us ed for States that requested

alternative growth/contr ol methods (see below).

Once the CAIR factors were developed, MACTEC compared the SCCs contained in the

CAIR inventory with those used in MANE-VU. In some cases th ere were differences. In cases

where a similar SCC in the CAIR inventory co uld be assigned to the SCC in the MANE-VU

inventory the State/County/SCC/pollutant growth and control factor for the substitute was

assigned to the MANE-VU SCC. If no corresp onding county SCC substitution could be found, a

State or MANE-VU regional average value for th e substitute SCC was developed and assigned

for use in projecting emissions. The substitution scheme was to use State values first, then

MANE-VU regional values if the State value couldn’t be used.

60

# For the non-road mobile source sector De laware has substan tially relied upon the 2009

projection of emissions done by MACTEC, as described above. However, there are several

instances where MACTEC’s projections have b een revised by AQMS staff. The reasons for

each such revision are provided in Appendix 4-2 of this document.

Table 4-14 is a summary of MANEVU 2009 Emissions from All Non-road Sources.

Table 4-14 Summary of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Road Mobile Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 1 4251 223 201 618 1394

New Castle 2 7436 423 382 1297 2543

Sussex 2 3752 301 274 935 2503

Totals 5 15439 947 857 2850 6440

Table 4-15 provides a summary of the no n-road mobile source emissions where

MACTEC projections are not revi sed by the Department.

Table 4-15 Summary of the Un-Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Road

Mobile Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 1 3272 201 181 556 1383

New Castle 2 3131 249 225 294 2486

Sussex 2 3123 290 264 901 2498

Totals 5 9526 740 670 1751 6367

Table 4-16 is a summary of Delaware 2009 projection of emissions from non-road

mobile sources, where MACTEC’s projections are revised by AQM S staff. Reasons for each

such revision is are provided in Appendix 4-2.

Table 4-16 Summary of the Revised Portion of the MACTEC 2009 Non-Road

Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 0 1235 28 25 79 13

New Castle 1 4658 186 169 1052 63

Sussex 0 753 13 11 42 6

Totals 1 6646 227 205 1173 82

Table 4-17 provides a summary of Delaware’s projected 2009 emissions from non-road

mobile sources (i.e., the sum of Table 4-15 and Table 4-16).

61

# Table 4-17 Summary of the Delaware Non-Road Mobile Source Projection

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 2 4508 229 206 635 1396

New Castle 3 7789 435 394 1345 2549

Sussex 2 3876 304 276 943 2504

Totals 7 16173 968 876 2923 6449

4.4 On-Road Mobile Source Controls and 2009 Emission Projections

The on-road mobile source emission proj ections have been conducted by AQM staff

members using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model. Dela ware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)

provided vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on Delaware ’s roadways and vehicle mix data for 2009.

The on-road mobile source contro ls in the input files for the 2009 MOBILE6.2 runs include the

following:

(1) Low enhanced I/M program of model ye ars 1968 and newer, Kent and New Castle.

(2) On-Board Diagnostic checks of model years 1996 and newer, statewide.

(3) Anti-tampering program of model years of 1975 and newer, statewide.

(4) NLEV program, statewide.

(5) Low emission vehicle program/Tier 2 emissi on standards/low sulfur rule, statewide.

(6) Heavy Duty Diesel Rule/low Sulfur rule, statewide.

Table 4-18 is a summary of on-road m obile emissions calculated by NESCAUM and

New York using the SMOKE model.

Table 4-18 (NESCAUM/NY) 2009 Mobile Projections

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 179 3206 93 61 17 1426

New Castle 711 8862 278 163 63 4854

Sussex 281 4096 131 83 27 2512

Totals 1171 16164 502 307 107 8792

The above emissions were calculated with data the Department submitted to MANVU in

October, 2006. Projected VMT and vehicle speed data for 2009 were prepared by the Delaware

Department of Transportation in July, 2005 for the NESCAUM and New York using the

SMOKE model.

The Department recalculated 2009 on-road mobile source emission projections, using

updated VMT and speeds provided by DELDOT that the Department received in the spring of

62

# 2007. The input files of the 2009 MOBILE6.2 runs, th e emission factors generated and relevant

calculations for emission projections are presente d in Appendices 4-4. Sample calculations are

provided in Appendix 8-1. The updated VMT and speed s data accounts for the differences in the

two tables.

Table 4-19 Delaware 2009 Mobile projecti ons using the most up-to-date VMT and

speeds

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 178 1922 60 32 16 1223

New Castle 610 4904 174 87 51 3466

Sussex 256 2707 79 41 23 1988

Totals 1044 9533 313 160 90 6677

Section 4.5 Summary of Delaware’ s Overall Projected 2009 Inventory

Tables 4-20 and 4-21 are the sum of 2009 projec tions that were coordinated by MANEVU and

the result of the revisions made by Delawa re, as explained above, respectively.

Table 4-20 2009 projections – all sectors – MANEVU

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 2233 8554 3448 1185 2201 5587

New Castle 2112 23048 6379 3249 12001 16478

Sussex 10347 18001 5756 3581 28368 10499

Totals 14691 49602 15583 8014 42569 32564

Table 4-21 2009 projections – all sectors – Delaware

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

Kent 2887 7799 3253 989 3664 4230

New Castle 1466 21807 6039 3015 14135 13887

Sussex 10106 11591 5731 2571 11724 7558

Totals 14459 41197 15023 6575 29523 25675

63

# Section 5 – 2009 Emissions Attainment Targets

Delaware is required by th e CAA and the March 30, 2007 PM 2.5 

# Implementation Rule to

demonstrate how it, and the associated non-atta inment area, will attain compliance with PM 2.5 

# NAAQS by 2010. This demonstration is substantially discussed in Section 6 of this document.

Section 6 of this document presents a detail ed Weight of Evidence (WOE) analysis, which

includes CMAQ modeling. This CMAQ modeling is a core component of the WOE analysis,

and a significant inpu t to the model is 2009 emission levels.

The 2009 modeling inventory is the 2009 projec tion inventory that was coordinated by

MANEVU in 2005. This 2009 projection inventory was discussed in Section 4 of this document,

and is presented in detail in Appendix 4-3 to this document. Table 4-20, 2009 projections – all

sectors – MANEVU, shows the New Castle Count y emission levels that were modeled with

CMAQ for 2010. For convenience, the information from Table 4-20 has been copied to this

section and named table 5-1.

Table 5-1 CMAQ Modeled 2009 Emissions , i.e. Attainment Targets

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

New Castle 2112 23048 7294 3249 12001 16478

The Departments WOE analysis, which includ es CMAQ using the emission levels in

Table 5-1, demonstrates that both Delaware and th e entire Philadelphia Non-attainment area will

be in attainment with the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS in 2010. Therefore, the em ission levels in Table 5-1 are

the targeted level of emissions needed for attainment.

As discussed in Section 4 of this doc ument, Delaware has updated MACTEC’s 2009

projection inventory based on the la test information available. Table 4-21, 2009 projections – all

sectors – Delaware, shows the emission levels that are projected for 2009. For convenience, the

information from Table 4-21 has been copied to this section and named table 5-2.

Table 5-2 New Castle Projected 2009 Emissions (Control Strategy Emissions)

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

New Castle 1466 21807 6039 3015 14135 13887

Table 5-3 below presents the Atta inment Targets (i.e., Table 5-1) minus the DE Control

Strategy Emissions (i.e., Table 5- 2). Positive values indicated that DE projects emissions in

2009 to be lower than the levels that are need ed for attainment. Conversely, negative values

indicate that DE projects emissions in 2009 to be higher than levels that are needed for

attainment.

64

# Table 5-3 Attainment Demonstration (C MAQ Modeled 2009 Emissions minus DE

Projected 2009 Emissions)

County NH 3 

# NOx PM 10 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# VOC

New Castle 646 1,241 1255 234 -2134 2591

Table 5-3 indicates that emission levels in New Castle County for all pollutants except

for SO 2 

# are projected to be below th e levels that are necessary for attainment. Relative to SO 2 

# there is a projected 2,134 TPY shortfall.

Because of the regional nature of secondarily -formed sulfate and nitrate, and the broad

modeling domain of the CMAQ modeling, which in cluded all of Delaware , emission reductions

from Kent and Sussex counties w ill contribute to attainment w ithin New Castle County and the

Philadelphia NAA. Kent and Suss ex counties are within the Stat e of Delaware, contiguous to

New Castle County, and are less than 200 kilometers away. The PM 2.5 

# Implementation Rule

allows states to consider in-state NO X 

# and SO 2 

# credits in their SIPs from sources up to 200

kilometers away from the non-attainment area. 13



# Table 5-4 shows that there is a statewide SO 2 

# “surplus” of 13,047 TPY relative to the

emission levels that are consistent with attainment. This indica tes that while New Castle County

(i.e., Delaware’s only area designated non- attainment with respect to the annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS)

is not projected to have reductions in SO 2 

# consistent with attainme nt (i.e., 2,134 shortfall based

on CMAQ modeling), overall DE SO 2 

# emissions levels are cons istent with attainment..

Table 5-4 SO 2 

# “surplus/shortfall”

CMAQ 2009

Modeled SO 2 

# Inventory (TPY) DE 2009 Projected

SO 2 

# Emissions

(TPY) Surplus/

Shortfall

(TPY)

Kent 2201 3664 -1463

New Castle 12001 14135 -2134

Sussex 28368 11724 16644

Total 42569 29523 13047

In summary, Delaware projec ts that its 2009 emissi on levels of all po llutants considered

in its attainment demonstration and WOE analysis, which is discussed in detail in Section 6 of

this document, will be below the levels necessary for attainment.

13 

# PM 2.5 

# Implementation Rule, pp. 300-301



# 65

# Section 6: Attainment Demonstration

6.1 Background and Objectives

The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) th at adequately protect the public health. In

1997, EPA established new standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

# ), which include an annual

standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 

# ) based on the 3-year average of annual mean

PM 2.5 

# concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 μ g/m 3 

# based on the 3-year average of the

98th percentile of 24-ho ur concentrations.

On December 17, 2004, the EPA designated areas for the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. The

Philadelphia-Wilmington (PA-NJ-DE) nonattainment area (NAA) has been classified as a

nonattainment area for PM 2.5 

# with an attainment date of April 5, 2010. The PA-NJ-DE

nonattainment area for PM 2.5 

# includes one county in Delaware , five counties in Pennsylvania,

and three counties in New Jersey being in nonattainment for the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. Table 6-1

identifies all jurisdictions that EPA has designated as nonattainment for PM 2.5 

# within the PA-NJDE NAA.

Table 6-1: PA-NJ-DE Designations for the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS

Jurisdiction Counties Classification Maximum

Attainment Date

Delaware New Castle

Pennsylvania 

# Bucks

Chester

Delaware

Montgomery

Philadelphia

New Jersey 

# Burlington

Camden

Gloucester Nonattainment April 5, 2010



# Once an area is designated as nonattainment, the Clean Air Act requires the submittal of

an implementation plan to EPA within three year s. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are due in

April 2008. States may also propose an attainment date extension for up to five years. Those

areas for which EPA approves an extension must achieve clean air as soon as possible, but no

later than April 5, 2015.

Figure 6-1 provides a graphical representation of the Philadelphia-Wilmington (PA-NJ-DE)

nonattainment area.

66

# Figure 6-1: The Philadelphia-Wilmin gton (PA-NJ-DE) nonattainment area

The Agencies responsible for making the atta inment demonstration for the PhiladelphiaWilmington (PA-NJ-DE) nonattainment area are the Delaware Department of Natural Resources

and Environmental Control (DNREC), the Pe nnsylvania Department of the Environment

67

# (PADEP), and the New Jersey Department of th e Environment (NJDEP). These agencies are

responsible for preparing and s ubmitting their SIPS to the EPA.

This modeling study demonstrates that the PA-NJ-DE nonattainme nt area attains the

PM 2.5 

# standards by April 5, 2010. The procedures followed in this modeling study are in

accordance with the EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

# , and Regional Haze (EPA454/B-07-002, April 2007)

.

The State Agencies (DNREC, PADEP, NJ DEP) are also members of the Ozone

Transport Commission (OTC) m odeling committee. The OTC m odeling centers, which include

New York State Department of Environmenta l Conservation (NYSDEC), the University of

Maryland (UMD), the Northeast States for C oordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and

the Virginia Department of Environmenta l Quality (VADEQ), performed the modeling.

Modeling inventories were developed, updated a nd shared among the regional modeling centers

and provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) and MidAtlantic North East Visibility Union (MANE-V U) Regional Planning Or ganization (RPO). The

Policy and Technical Advisory Committees oversaw the modeling work. These Committees

provided reports through regular briefings and offered information in cases where specific

technical decisions had policy implications.

6.2 Conceptual Model

EPA recommends that a conceptu al description of the area’s PM 2.5 

# problem be developed

prior to the initiation of any air quality modeling study. A “c onceptual description” is a

qualitative way of characterizin g the nature of an area’s nona ttainment problem. Within the

conceptual description of a particular modelin g exercise, it is recommended that the specific

meteorological parameters that influence air qu ality be identified and qualitatively ranked in

importance.

The conceptual model for this st udy consists of two documents - The Nature of the Fine

Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality Probl ems in the MANE-VU Region: A Conceptual

Description (NESCA UM, November 2006) and The Development of PM 2.5 

# Forecasting Tools for

Selected Cities in the MARAM A Region (ICF, September 2004). The first document was

prepared by NESCAUM for use by the OTC memb er States, and it provides the conceptual

description of the fine particle issues in the OT C states, consistent with the EPA’s guidance. The

second document is prepared by ICF for MARA MA and is the basis of the MARAMA PM 2.5 

# forecasting tool for nine cities in the MARAMA region. The nine cities for which the PM 2.5 

# forecasting tool was developed are - Charlotte, North Carolina; Bristol, Roanoke, and Richmond,

Virginia; Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Wilmington,

Delaware; and Newark/Elizabeth, New Jersey . The study included the analysis of PM 2.5 

# and

meteorological data using Classifi cation and Regression Tree (CAR T) analysis software and the

development, testing, and evaluation of interac tive forecasting tools for each area. Data and

information gathered throughout the course of th e project were used, together with the CART

analysis results, to describe the re lationships between meteorology, and PM 2.5 

# concentration and

specifically, the conditions associated with high PM 2.5 

# events in each forecast area. Both of these

documents are provided in Appendices 6-1 and 6-2.

68

# 6.3 Modeling Domain and Photochemical Modeling System

6.3.1 Episode Selection

Due to the fact that the attainment dem onstration is being conduc ted using a resource

intensive photochemical grid model, EPA accepts the use of a single, recent “representative”

year to be used for an annual model simulation. Two factors were used in selecting 2002 as the

“representative” year - the observed annual mean concentrations of PM 2.5 

# are close to the 3-year

observed design value at all, or mo st monitoring sites, and the patte rn of quarterly mean values is

similar to the pattern of quarterly mean concentrations averaged over 3 years.

6.3.2 Photochemical Modeling Domain

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) modeling committee selected the EPA’s

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) m odel for this modeling effort. The CMAQ

model is also recommended by the Guidance on the Use of Mode ls and Other Analyses for

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

# , and Regional Haze (EPA454/B-07-002, April 2007) . Two CMAQ modeling domains were defined - the outer domain at

a 36-km horizontal grid resolution covering the c ontinental U.S. and the inner domain at 12-km

horizontal grid resolution covering the OTR (s ee Figure 6-2). The outer domain with 36-km

horizontal grid resolution is the same nati onal grid adopted by the Regional Planning

Organizations (RPOs) for the or iginal purpose of mode ling regional haze SIP demonstrations but

also serves the purpose of ozone evaluation. Ho wever, the inner domain, with 12-km horizontal

grid resolution in the northeastern U.S., is the focus of and the justification for all activities

pursuant to demonstrating attainment of the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. The CMAQ domain is nested in the

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) domain. A larger MM5 domain was selected for both

MM5 simulations to provide a buffer of severa l grid cells around each boundary of the CMAQ

36-km domain. This was designed to eliminat e any errors in the meteorology from boundary

effects in the MM5 simulation at the interface of the MM5 model. The CMAQ vertical structure

is primarily defined by the vertical grid used in the MM5 modeling.

69

# Figure 6-2: PM 2.5 

# Modeling Domains at 36- and 12-km for the OTR

6.3.3 Initial and Boundary Conditions

The objective of a photochemical grid model is to estimate the air quality given a set of

meteorological and emissions conditions. When initializing a modeling simulation, the exact

concentration fields are unknown in every grid ce ll for the start time. Therefore, typically

photochemical grid models are started with clean conditions within the domain and allowed to

stabilize before the period of in terest is simulated. In practice this is accomplished by starting the

model several days prior to the period of interest.

The winds move pollutants into, out of, a nd within the domain. The model handles the

movement of pollutants within th e domain and out of the domain. An estimate of the quantity of

pollutants moving into the domain is needed. Th ese are called boundary c onditions. To estimate

the boundary conditions for the modeling study, three-hourly boundary conditions for the outer

36-km domain were derived from an annual m odel run performed by researchers at Harvard

University using the GEOS-CHE M global chemistry transport model. The influence of

boundary conditions was minimized by using a 15- day ramp-up period which is sufficient to

establish pollutant levels that are encountered in the beginning of an air pollution episode.

70

# 6.3.4 Meteorological Model Selection

The Pennsylvania State University/Nati onal Center for Atmospheric Research

(PSU/NCAR) Mesoscale Meteorological Model ( MM5) was selected for application in the

modeling analysis. MM5 is a non-hydrostatic, prognostic meteorol ogical model routinely used

for urban- and regional-scale photochem ical regulatory modeling studies.

6.3.5 Emissions Inventories

Emissions processing necessary for the 2002 base case and 2009 future case modeling

required coordination amongst the Regional Pla nning Organizations (RPOs). Each RPO was

responsible for processing of both its anthropogenic and biogenic emissions. The emissions data

for 2002 was generated by individual states within the OTR and then assembled and processed

through the MANE-VU. These emissions were then processed by the NYSDEC using Sparse

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system, an emissions processor for

CMAQ, to provide model-ready inputs. The 2002 emissions for the non- OTR areas within the

modeling domain were obtained from the co rresponding RPOs and were processed using

SMOKE.

Emissions inventories for 2009 needed fo r the MANE-VU RPO are developed by a

number of entities. A contractor (MACTEC) in consultation with the states developed the

necessary growth and control factors and applie d them to the 2002 inventory. Mobile source

emissions are developed by VADEQ and NESC AUM. The inter-RPO workgroup developed the

state and unit-level emissions by utilizing the Integrated Pl anning Model (IPM). The 2009

emissions inventories utilized in modeled attainment demonstr ations are identified as 2009 onthe-books/on-the-way (2009OTB/OTW) inventories as they represen t all control measures that

were promulgated or would beco me effective on or before 2009.

6.4 Model Performance Evaluation

6.4.1 Overview

A critical component of every air quality modeling study is the model performance

evaluation where the modeled estimates for the cu rrent year base case are compared against

observed values to assess the model’s accuracy and provide an indication of its reliability. This

section lays out the pro cedures and results of the evaluation. It should be noted that the other

parts of the modeling process, the emissions and meteorology, also undergo an evaluation. It is

with this knowledge and the desire to keep the report concise, that the air quality model became

the primary focus of this section.

The first step in the modeling process is to verify the model’s performance in terms of its

ability to predict the PM 2.5 

# and its individual components (i.e ., sulfate, nitrate, ammonium,

organic carbon, elemental carbon and other PM 2.5 

# ) in the right locations and at the right levels.

To do this, the model predictions for the base ye ar simulation are compared to the ambient data

observed in the historical episode. This verification is a combinat ion of statistical and graphical

evaluations. If the model appears to be producing PM 2.5 

# in the right locations for the right

reasons, then the model can be used as a predictive tool to evaluate various control strategies and

their effects on PM 2.5



# .

71

# The results of a model performance evaluati on were reviewed prior to using modeling to

support the attainment demonstration. The New York State DEC, Division of Air Resources,

conducted a performance evaluation of the 2002 base case CMAQ simulation on behalf of the

OTC member States. Appendix 6-3 provides comprehensive operational and diagnostic

evaluation results, including spreadsheets containing the assumptions made to compute statistics.

Highlights of this evaluation are prov ided in the following sections.

6.4.2 Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation

The issue of model performance goals for PM 2.5 

# is an area of ongoing research and

debate. To evaluate model perf ormance, EPA recommends that several statistical metrics be

developed for air quality modeling. Performance goals refer to targets that a good performing

model should achieve, whereas performance be nchmarks are based on historical model

performance measures for the best performing si mulations. Performance goals are necessary in

order to provide consistency in model applicati ons and expectations ac ross the country and to

provide standardization in how much weight may be accorded modeling study results in the

decision-making process.

When EPA’s guidance was first developed nearly four (4) years ago, an interim set of fine

particulate modeling performance goals were suggested for aggr egated mean normalized gross

error and mean normalized bias as defined in Table 6-2:

Table 6-2: EPA PM 2.5 

# Modeling Performance Goals

Pollutant Gross Error Normalized Bias



# PM 2.5 

# ~30-50% ~10%

Sulfate ~30-50% ~20-30%

Nitrate ~20-70% ~15-50%

EC ~15-60% NA

OC ~40-50% ~38%

Because regional-scale PM 2.5 

# modeling is an evolving science, and considerable practical

application and performance testing has transpir ed in the intervening years since these goals

were postulated, they are consider ed as general guidelines. It may also be possible to adopt

levels of model performance goals for bias and gro ss error as listed in Table 6-3 to help evaluate

model performance.

Table 6-3: MANE-VU PM 2.5 

# Modeling Performance Goals

Fractional Bias Fractional Error Comment



# ≤ ±15% ≤ 35% Ozone model performance goal for which PM 2.5 

# model

performance would be considered good.



# ≤ ±30% ≤ 50% A level of model performance that we would hope

each PM 2.5 

# species could meet.

≤ ±60% ≤ 75% At or above this level of performance indicates

fundamental problems with the modeling system.

72

# It does not mean that these pe rformance goals should be generally adopted or that they are the

most appropriate goals to use. Rather, the goals are being used to frame and put the PM 2.5 

# model

performance into context and to facilitate mode l performance across episodes, species, models

and sensitivity tests.

As noted in EPA’s PM 2.5 

# modeling guidance, less abundant PM 2.5 

# species should have

less stringent performance goals. Accordingly, pe rformance goals that ar e a continuous function

of average observed concentrations such as those proposed by Dr. James Boylan at the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources have the following features:

• Asymptotically approaching proposed performance goals or criteria when the mean of

the observed concentrations are greater than 2.5 ug/m 3



# .

• Approaching 200% error and ± 200% bias when the mean of the observed

concentrations are extremely small.

The above goals and criteria are not regarded as a pass/fail test, but ratheras a basis of intercomparing model performance across studies, sensitivity tests and models.

The OTC model performance evaluation wa s initially conducted by NYSDEC on the

summer ozone season data only. VADEQ has extended the evaluation to incl ude the entire year

of 2002 observations. Four sta tistical parameters, two recomm ended by EPA (Table 6.2) and

two adopted by VISTAS (Table 6.3), pertinent to model performance evaluation were computed

for FRM PM 2.5 

# mass and for individual species of SO 4 

# , NO3, NH 4 

# , EC, OM (1.8* blankcorrected OC), soil or crustal material (sum of ox ides of Ca, Fe, Si, and Ti). The statistics were

organized into two categories: a) by date and b) by site.

For statistics by date, the parameters were cal culated on a given day for any valid pairs of

observed/predicted data across all FRM and speciation monitors that fall within the OTR

modeling domain plus all of Virginia monitors (referred to as OTR+). Data collected from three

different monitoring networks, FRM, STN, and IMPR OVE, were used in the statistics. It is

important to note that predicted data used for the model performance evaluation were extracted

from CMAQ outputs at the exact grid cells where m onitors are located. This is in contrast to the

design value calculations where predictions are ba sed on the average of the surrounding nine grid

cells (see Section 6.5).

For statistics by site, parameters were co mputed at a given FRM, STN, or IMPROVE

monitor for any valid pairs of observed/predicte d data over a period of one calendar year. Again,

the full year of 2002 data was used in this “m onitor-based composite peri od" analysis, except for

the dates between July 6 and July 9 due to the exceptional event caused by the Quebec forest

fires.

Figure 6-3 depicts the location of the FRM, STN and IMPROVE monitor locations used

for the model evaluation across the OTR+ region.

73

# Figure 6-3: FRM ( ● , 264), STN ( ■ , 50), and IMPROVE ( ▲ , 21)

Locations Used for the Model Evaluation Across the OTR+ Region

A composite FRM time series across the OTR+ re gion (264 monitors) is provided in Figure 6-4.

This figure indicates that there is an overall m ean bias of approximately 4 μg/m3. There is a

general over-prediction during wi nter months and an under-pred iction during summer months.

There is excellent agreement during the mid-August air pollution episode.

74

# Figure 6-4: Composite FRM Time Series across the OTR+ Region (264 monitors)

Figure 6-5 is a plot of the FRM mean frac tional error (MFE) and mean fractional bias

(MFB) across the OTR+ region. MFE ranges from 17% to 88% with an average of

approximately 45%. MFB ranges fro m -82% to +88% with an aver age of approximately +24%.

These values are generally consistent with similar studies listed in the Guidance on the Use of

Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,

PM 2.5 

# , and Regional Haze (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007)

.

Figure 6-5: MFE and MFB Time Series for FRM PM 2.5 

# across the OTR+ Region

Figure 3-3: FRM MFE and MFB across the OTR+ Region

An MFE bugle plot for FRM PM 2.5 

# across OTR+ region is provided in Figure 3-4. “Goal” curves

are the best a model can be expected to achieve while the “criteria” curves are considered

acceptable for model performance. 258 of 264 site s satisfy “criteria” re striction on an annual

average basis. Mean fractional error & Mean fractional bias

-90 -7 -6 -4 -1

20

0 20 0 11

2

0 020123

20020 03

20

0 2 2

14

20

02

0 22

5

0 020308

20020 19

20

0 20

33

0

0 02

0 410

2 0 020421

20020 02

20

0 20

51

3

0 02

0 524 20020604

20

0 20

6 15

20

02

0 62

6

0 02

0 707 20020718

20

0 20

7 29

20

02

0 80

9

0 020820

20020 31

20

0 2 9

1



# 5 0 5 -30

5 0 15 30 45 60 75 90

1 01

20

02

2 2 0

2 3

2 5

2 2 2 8 0 1

2 0 1

2 20

02

0 92

2

0 021003

20021 14

20

0 2 02 5

0 02

1 1 05 20021 1 16 20021 1

2 0 02

2002%



# 27

20

0 21

20

8

1 219 1230



# MFE MFB



# 75

# An MFE bugle plot for FRM PM2.5 across OT R+ region is provided in Figure 6-6.

“Goal” curves are the best a model can be exp ected to achieve while the “criteria” curves are

considered acceptable for model performance. 258 of 264 sites satisfy “cri teria” restriction on an

annual average basis.

Figure 6-6: MFE Bugle Plot for FRM PM 2.5 

# across OTR+ Region

FRM PM 2.5



# 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# FRM Goal Criteria



# MFE bugle plots were also generated for SO 4 

# , NO 3 

# , and NH 4 

# , EC, OM, and soil/crustal

across OTR+ region and are provided in Figures 6-7 through 6-12. As can be seen from the

results, the performance for individual species is generally consistent with the criteria necessary

for acceptable model performance.

Figure 6-7: MFE Bugle Plot for SO 4 

# across OTR+ Region

Figure 6-8: MFE Bugle Plot for NO 3 

# across OTR+ Region Sulfate

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# STN IMPROVE Goal Criteria



# 76

# Figure 6-8: MFE Bugle Plot for NO 3 

# SO 4 

# across OTR+ Region

Nitrate

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# STN IMPROVE Goal Criteria



# Figure 6-9: MFE Bugle Plot for NH 4 

# across OTR+ Region

Ammonium

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# STN IMPROVE Goal Criteria



# 77

# Figure 6-10: MFE Bugle Plot for EC across OTR+ Region

Elemental Carbon

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# STN IMPROVE Goal Criteria



# Figure 6-11: MFE Bugle Plot for OM across OTR+ Region

Organic Mass

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# STN IMPROVE Goal Criteria



# 78

# Figure 6-12: MFE Bugle Plot for Soil/Crustal across OTR+ Region

Soil/crustal

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200



# 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Observed, μ g/m 3MFE, %



# STN IMPROVE Goal Criteria



# The following is a list of several PM 2.5 

# statistics for the OTC domain that have also been

provided in Appendix 6-4 and 6-4a.

1. Statistical evaluation of daily average PM 2.5 

# mass from FRM sites across the OTR+

domain. Statistics are computed by date a nd by site (across the OTR+). [Figure 6-4,

Figure 6-5 (by date). Figure 6-6 (by site).]

2. Statistical evaluation of daily average PM 2.5 

# , SO 4 

# , NO 3 

# , NH 4 

# , EC, OM, and

crustal/soil mass at EPA STN sites. Statisti cs are computed by date and by site

(across the OTR+). [Figure 6- 7 to Figure 6-12 (by site).]

3. Statistical evaluation of daily average PM 2.5 

# , SO 4 

# , NO 3 

# , EC, OM, and crustal/soil

mass at IMPROVE sites. Statistics are co mputed by date and by site (across the

OTR+). [Figure 6-7 to Figure 6-12 (by site).]

4. Statistical evaluation of daily average PM 2.5 

# mass from FRM sites. Statistics are

computed by date and by site.

6.4.3 Summary of Model Performance

CMAQ was employed to simulate PM 2.5 

# for the calendar year 2002. A review of PM 2.5 

# and its individual species wa s conducted for the study domain.

The CMAQ model performance for surface PM 2.5 

# is good with acceptable bias and error.

Several observations can be made with respect to model performance, including the following:

1. Approximately 80-90% of OM is in the prim ary fraction. Observed OM has distinct

maximum during summer when secondary formation is highest; CMAQ exhibits

substantial under-prediction in secondar y organic aerosols (SOA). The predicted

primary OM is highest during the winter.

2. CMAQ captures seasonal variation in SO 4 

# well.

79

# 3. CMAQ appears to overestimate primary PM 2.5 

# components (EC, soil, primary OM),

especially during colder months.

4. CMAQ appears to underestimate s econdary OM during the summer.

These issues are not of great regulatory conc ern since attainment tests are based on the

application of relative response factors. In summary, the regi onal and local model performance

is acceptable for PM 2.5 

# . While there are some differences between the spatial data between subregions, there is nothing to suggest a tendency for the model to respond in a systematically

different manner between regions. Examination of the statistical metrics by sub-region confirms

the absence of significant performance problems aris ing in one area but not in another, building

confidence that the CMAQ modeling system is operating consistently across the full OTC

domain. This confidence in the modeling results allows for the modeling system to be used to

support the State Implementation Plan to meet the 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS.

6.5 Attainment Demonstration

6.5.1 Overview

As previously mentioned, the PA-NJ-DE PM 2.5 

# nonattainment area has an attainment date

of April 5, 2010. The PM 2.5 

# NAAQS include an annual standard of 15 μ g/m 3 

# based on the 3-year

average of annual mean PM 2.5 

# concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 μ g/m 3 

# based on the

3-year average of the 98th per centile of 24-hour concentrations.

This section summarizes the procedures that are used to demonstrate attainment of the

PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. As described in EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

# , and Regional Haze (EPA454/B-07-002, April 2007) , an attainment demonstration consis ts of (a) analyses which estimate

whether selected emissions reductions will resu lt in ambient concentrations that meet the

NAAQS, and (b) an identified set of control measures which will result in the required emissions

reductions. The necessary emi ssion reductions for both of thes e attainment demonstration

components may be determined by relying on results obtained with air quality models.

EPA guidance recommends applying a modele d attainment test to the air quality

modeling results to determine if the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS will be met. Additional technical or

corroboratory analyses may also be used as part of a “supplemental analysis” or a more stringent

“weight of evidence” determination to supplement the modeled attainment test and to further

support a demonstration of attainment of the NAAQS.

The modeled attainment test and additiona l corroborative analyses are described in

further detail in the remaini ng portions of this section.

6.5.2 Model Attainment Test

The purpose of a modeling assessment is to dete rmine if control strategies currently being

implemented (“on the books”) and proposed control strategies will lead to attainment of the

NAAQS for PM 2.5 

# by the attainment year of 2009. The mode ling is applied in a relative sense,

similar to the 8-hour ozone atta inment test. However, The PM 2.5 

# attainment test is more

80

# complicated and reflects the fact that PM 2.5 

# is a mixture. In the test, ambient PM 2.5 

# is divided into

major components, with a separate relative resp onse factor (RRF) and future design value (DVF)

calculated for each of the PM 2.5 

# components. Since the attainment test is calculated on a per

species basis, the attainment test for PM 2.5 

# is referred to as the Speciated Modeled Attainment

Test (SMAT). The following sections outline the process to determine that 2009 projections of

PM 2.5 

# will meet the NAAQS from regional modeling, as suggested in EPA’s modeling guidance.

6.5.2.1 Determine Baseline Design Values

The first step in any attainment test proce ss is to determine the baseline design value

(DVB). EPA guidance recommends using a DVB that is the average of the three design value

periods that straddle the baseline invent ory year (i.e., the average of the 2000-2002, 2001-2003,

and 2002-2004 design value periods for a 2002 baseline inventory year). This works out to a 5-

year weighted average, with the baseline ye ar having the heaviest weight (i.e., {[2000] +

2*[2001] + 3*[2002] + 2*[2003] + [2004]}/9).

For the SMAT process, a mean PM 2.5 

# DVB is determined, as well as component specific

DVB for each quarter. The following section will detail the calculation of baseline design values

needed for the PM2.5 attainment test.

Mean PM 2.5 

# Baseline Design Values

To begin the SMAT process, a mean PM 2.5 

# DVB is calculated on a quarterly basis for

each Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor in the PM 2.5 

# nonattainment areas.

Concentrations are calculated based on calendar qua rters (Q1: January - March; Q2: April - June;

etc.) as the NAAQS is calculated for a calendar year , and the quarters need to fit evenly within a

year. Also, calculating the attainment test on a quarterly basis allows states to examine the

differences in PM 2.5 

# composition that occur durin g the different seasons.

Speciated Baseline Conditions

The monitored attainment test for PM 2.5 

# utilizes both PM 2.5 

# and individual PM 2.5 

# component

species. A separate RRF is calculated for each PM 2.5 

# species. In order to perform the

recommended modeled attainment test, States should divide observed mass concentrations of

PM 2.5 

# into 7 components (plus passive mass):

1. Mass associated with sulfates (SO 4 

# )

2. Mass associated with nitrates (NO 3 

# )

3. Mass associated with ammonium (NH 4 

# )

4. Mass associated with organic carbon (OC)

5. Mass associated with elemental carbon (EC)

6. Mass associated with pa rticle bound water (PBW)

7. Mass associated with “other” primary inorganic particulate matter (Crustal)

8. And passively collected mass or the mass of the blank filter

The second part of the process is to use the quarterly mean PM 2.5 

# DVBs with speciated data

to calculate the quarterly mean concentrations of these 7 components at the FRM sites. This

need to speciate the FRM data presents two issues:

81

# 1. FRM measurements and speciated PM 2.5 

# measurements do not always measure the same

mass.

2. Not all FRM monitoring sites have co -located STN speciation monitors.

The following sections will explain how these is sues were overcome to produce the speciated

values needed for this at tainment demonstration.

SANDWICH

As EPA guidance notes, recent data analyses have noted that the FRM monitors do not

measure the same components and do not retain all of the PM 2.5 

# that is measured by routine

speciation samplers and therefore cannot be directly compared to speciation measurements from

the Speciation Trends Network (STN). By desi gn, the FRM mass measurement does not retain

all ammonium nitrate and other se mi-volatile materials (negative sa mpling artifacts) and includes

particle bound water associated with sulfates, nitrates and ot her hygroscopic species (positive

sampling artifacts). This results in concentr ations (and percent contributions to PM 2.5 

# mass),

which may be different than th e ambient levels of some PM 2.5 

# chemical constituents.

To resolve the differences between FRM a nd STN total mass, EPA recommends using

the “sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, in ferred carbonaceous material balance approach” or

SANDWICH approach. With the SANDWICH appro ach, nitrate mass is adjusted to account for

volatilization based on hourly meteorology parameters. Subse quently, quarterly average nitrate,

sulfate, elemental carbon, and crustal mass can be calculated, as well as the Degree of

Neutralization (DON) of sulf ates. Quarterly average NH 4 

# can then be calculated from the

adjusted nitrate mass, sulfate mass, and DON of su lfate. Next the mass of particle bound water

can be calculated from the previously obtained DON, sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium values.

Finally, organic carbon is calculated by ta king the difference between the total PM 2.5 

# mass as

measured at the FRM monitor, and the calcula ted component mass (i.e., OC from mass balance

([OCMmb] = PM2.5 FRM 

# :{[EC] + [SO4] + [NO3] + [NH4] + [water] + [crustal material] +

[passive mass]}), where the passive mass is the FRM sampling artifact normally set equal to

0.5}.

To allow for simple presentations and anal yses, however, SANDWICH data can also be

presented by major components of PM2.5 mass. In this approach, wa ter and nitrates are

combined with [SO4] and [NO3]. Then th e FRM and STN masses are reconciled by: PM2.5=

[SANDWICH sulfate mass] + [SANDWICH nitrate mass] + [S ANDWICH TCMmb] +

[SANDWICH Crustal Mass] + [Passive mass]. EPA Region 3 office provided SANDWICHed

data for all monitors in the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment area. For a description and use of

the SANDWICH method see the EPA documents (Appendix C).

Speciated Profiles

While the SANDWICH method reconciles the differences between FRM and STN, a

lingering issue is that not all FRM monitoring s ites have co-located STN monitors to provide

speciated data. EPA guidance suggests four measur es that can be taken to resolve the lack of

speciated data:

82

# 1. Use of concurrent data from a near by speciated monitor

2. Use of representative data (f rom a different time period)

3. Use of interpolation technique s to create a spatial field using ambient speciation data

4. Use of interpolation technique s to create spatial fields, a nd gridded modeling outputs to

adjust the species concentrations

Of the four methodologies, the EPA recommends using one of the sp atial interpolation

techniques to estimate species concentrations at FRM sites that do not have speciation data

(numbers 3 and 4 above). To assist in this ta sk, the EPA is developing a software tool called

“Modeled Attainment Test Software” (or MATS) that will perform the spatial analysis of

described options number 3 and 4. However, the MATS tool is not available at this time. In

trying to pursue the EPA recommended course of ac tion, option 1, that is, use of concurrent data

from a nearby speciated monitor is utilized.

6.5.2 Relative Response Factor Calculations

The calculation of relative response factor s (RRFs) for this study was performed using

the EPA recommended method for “nearby” grid cells for a 12-kilometer horizontal grid

resolution, with a 3x3 grid cell ar ray for 12-km resolution modeling. The relative response factor

used in the modeled attainment test is computed by taking the ratio of the mean of the

predictions in the future to the mean predictions with baseline emissions, over all relevant days.

For the 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS, the spatially averaged value of the nearby

predictions (mean value of the gr id cell array) was used. Each component-specific RRF was used

in the modeled attainment test by taking the ratio of the mean of the spatially averaged daily

predictions in the future to the mean of the sp atially averaged daily predictions with current

emissions.

The basis for this approach is as follows:

1. Consequence of a control strategy may be “migra tion” of a predicted peak. If a State were

to confine its attention only to the cell containing a monitor, it might underestimate the

RRF (i.e., overestimate the effects of a control strategy).

2. Uncertainty in the formulation of the mode l and the model inputs is consistent with

recognizing some leeway in the precision of the predicted locati on of concentrations.

3. Standard practice in defining a gridded mode ling domain is to start in the southwest

corner of the domain, and determine grid ce ll location from there. Considering several

cells “near” a monitor rather than the singl e cell containing the monitor diminishes the

likelihood of inappropriate results whic h may occur from the geometry of the

superimposed grid system.

4. The area does not exhibit strong spatial c oncentration gradients of observed primary

PM 2.5



# .

83

# 6.5.3 Annual SMAT Results

Table 6-4 presents the results of the annual SMAT results for the PA-NJ-DE

nonattainment area. The SMAT results demonstrate that the projected aver age annual arithmetic

mean PM 2.5 

# concentration calculated at each FRM monitor attains the annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS.

Specifically, all future design value (DVF) calculations are less than15 μ g/m 3 

# . Table 6-4

presents the results of the annual SMAT result s for a suite of regiona l modeling runs conducted

by OTC each representing OTB/OTW – “On the Books, On the Way” control measures. All

runs demonstrate compliance with the annual NAAQS.

Table 6-4: Annual SMAT Results for PA-NJ-DE Nonattainment Area

2009 On-The-Books-On-The-Way Control Measures

2000-2004 DVB 2009

AIRS ID Site Name County State Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 DVF

10-003-1003 Bellefonte New Castle DE 14.91 15.54 15.45 13.02 12.3

10-003-1007 Lums Pond New Castle DE 13.30 14.49 15.69 11.10 11.4

10-003-1012 Newark New Castle DE 15.56 15.00 15.75 13.57 12.5

10-003-2004 MLK New Castle DE 16.79 15.60 16.66 14.26 13.3

34-007-0003 Copewood E Davis Camden NJ 13.5 14.3 16.6 12.7 12.1

34-007-1007 Pennsauken TWP Camden NJ 14.0 14.0 15.7 13.6 12.2

34-015-0001 Gibbstown Municipal Bldg. Gloucester NJ 13.9 13.4 16.0 11.4 11.7

42-017-0012 Bristol Bucks PA 14.14 13.68 14.70 13.82 12.4

42-029-0100 Belmont Avenue Chester PA 14.44 14.07 16.72 14.12 12.8

42-045-0002 Chester Delaware PA 15.07 15.96 16.35 12.63 13.3

42-091-0013 Norristown Montgomery PA 13.61 13.77 14.90 12.71 12.0

42-101-0004 Philadelphia AMS Philadelphia PA 14.13 13.86 16.20 12.83 12.5

42-101-0020 Philadelphia Belmont Ave Philadelphia PA 14.0 14.4 15.4 13.1 12.0

42-101-0024 Philadelphia North East Philadelphia PA 12.43 12.37 15.56 11.45 11.0

42-101-0047 Philadelphia Broad Street Philadelphia PA 15.54 14.88 16.89 13.25 12.8

42-101-0136 Philadelphia Elmwood Philadelphia PA 13.75 13.04 15.75 11.93 11.5



# 6.5.4 24-Hour SMAT Results

Table 6-5 presents the result s of the 24-hour SMAT results for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment

area. Some difficulties presented in estimating the future design values include - missing FRM

data for 2000 and 2001 at some monitors and th e limitation of the SANDWICH data provided by

Region 3 office to the period 2002–2 004. Therefore, the 2009 projec ted design values are for the

period 2002-2004. The SMAT results demonstrate th at the projected average annual arithmetic

mean PM 2.5 

# concentration calculated at each FRM monitor attains the 24-hour PM 2.5 

# NAAQS.

All future design value (DVF) calculations are well below 65 μ g/m 3



# .

84

# Table 6-5: 24-Hour Modeling Attainme nt Test Using EPA SMAT Methodology

2009 On-The-Books/On-The-Way Control Measures

24-Hour 98 th 

# Percentile DVB 2009

AIRS ID Site Name County State 

# 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 DVF

10-003-1003 Bellefonte New Castle DE 

# 32.4 38.7 33.3 35.7 29.7 25.2

10-003-1007 Lums Pond New Castle DE 

# 31.7 35.1 28.2 32.6 30.6 22.8

10-003-1012 Newark New Castle DE 

# 37.2 39.3 38.0 35.5 28.8 26.3

10-003-2004 MLK New Castle DE 

# 38.4 40.5 35.6 37.4 32.4 28.4

34-007-0003 Copewood E Davis Camden NJ 

# 31.0 36.7 35.3 42.8 34.2 26.3

34-007-1007 Pennsauken TWP Camden NJ 

# 32.8 37.6 34.8 35.7 32.0 25.6

34-015-0001 Gibbstown Municipal Bldg. Gloucester NJ 

# 31.8 36.3 28.0 32.7 27.6 23.4

42-017-0012 Bristol Bucks PA 

# 36.6 33.2 37.0 37.4 28.7 26.4

42-029-0100 Belmont Avenue Chester PA 

# NA NA 33.7 37.7 32.7 26.5

42-045-0002 Chester Delaware PA 

# 34.2 38.8 30.7 37.0 30.5 26.5

42-091-0013 Norristown Montgomery PA 

# 30.0 38.0 33.6 33.6 27.0 24.1

42-101-0004 Philadelphia AMS Philadelphia PA 

# 39.6 39.3 37.1 39.5 32.3 29.5

42-101-0020 Philadelphia Belmont Ave Philadelphia PA 

# 26.9 34.3 31.6 35.1 29.1 25.7

42-101-0024 Philadelphia North East Philadelphia PA 

# 32.2 35.1 33.7 32.8 32.0 26.3

42-101-0047 Philadelphia Broad Street Philadelphia PA 

# 34.2 37.1 34.5 38.3 30.1 26.7

42-101-0136 Philadelphia Elmwood Philadelphia PA 

# 36.0 42.9 35.2 34.7 29.3 26.7



# 6.6 Unmonitored Area Analysis

The modeled attainment test does not address fu ture air quality at locations where there is

not a PM 2.5 

# monitor nearby. To guard against the possibi lity that air quality levels could exceed

the standard in areas with limited monitoring, EP A suggests that additional review is necessary,

particularly in nonattainment areas where the PM 2.5 

# monitoring network just meets or minimally

exceeds the size of the network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS). This

review is intended to ensure that a co ntrol strategy leads to reductions in PM 2.5 

# and its constituent

pollutants at other locations that could have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the

NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. The test is called an “unmonitored area analysis”. The

purpose of the analysis is to use a combinati on of model output and am bient data to identify

areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located there.

It is important to note that Delaware currently operates a network of seven PM 2.5



# monitors. Four of these monitors are in New Castle County, which is part of the PA-NJ-DE

nonattainment area. Some of thes e monitors were established as State and Local Air Monitoring

Stations (SLAMS). These SLAMS monitors we re selected based on specific monitoring

objectives (background concentration, area of hi ghest concentration, high population, source

impact, transport, and rural impact) as requi red by EPA and siting scales (micro, middle,

neighborhood, urban, and regional) established by EPA.

It is believed that the dens ity of the monitoring network in New Castle County relieves

the necessity of applying this additional analys is. Despite being confident the monitoring

network is robust enough to cover the New Castle County, once the final version of the MATS

tool has been released, and after sufficient p eer review and proper guidance documentation for

the analysis of the results is provided, th e TAC Modeling Committee will evaluate the MATS

85

# tool output. However, we presen t here a geostatistical spatial anal ysis that shows attainment of

the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS for the entire PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area.

The geostatistical spatial analysis extends the projected design values at the monitors by

interpolating them to provide spatial fields in the monitored and unmonitore d areas. The spatial

fields will provide an indication of concentrations in monito red and unmonitored areas. But a

simple interpolation of the data cannot identif y unmonitored areas with higher concentrations

than those projected at the monitors. The inte rpolated concentration between monitors will

generally be the same or lower than the project ed concentration at the monitors unless more

sophisticated statistical techniques, such as a dding a nugget effect or a trend surface, are used.

The geostatistical spatial analysis that we adopted here calculates empirical variograms

that provide distances and the estimated semi-variances. Theoretical and empirical variograms

can be plotted and visually compared. Theo retical variograms are computed by parameter

estimation by some methods, such as the ma ximum likelihood (ML), restricted maximum

likelihood (REML), ordinary and we ighted least squares (OLS & WL S), Bayesian kriging, etc.

When using the parameter estimatio n the nugget effect can either be estimated or set to a fixed

value. The same applies to smoothness, anisot ropy and transformation parameters. Options for

taking trends into account ar e also accounted for by specifyi ng polynomial functions of the

coordinates and/or linear functions of given covariates. Conventi onal spatial inte rpolation, i.e.

kriging, can be performed with opt ions for – simple kriginng, ordi nary kriging, trend (universal)

kriging, external trend kriging, etc. A dditional options can be provided by Box-Cox

transformation, back transformation of the results, and anisotropic models. Simulations can be

drawn from the resultin g predictive distributions covering the domain. Bayesian analysis for

Gaussian models can be performed fo r different degrees of uncertainty.

First, we present here geostatistical spatial analysis for the annual standard and show that

the standard is met everywhere in the nonattainment area. Pr ojected design values at the

monitors in the PA-NJ-DE nonattain ment area form the basis of th is analysis. Theoretical and

empirical variograms can be plotted and visu ally compared. When using the parameter

estimation for the theoretical variograms, the nugget effect can either be fixed or estimated.

Figure 6-13 shows how empirical variograms can be fitted with different models with the options

of fixed or estimated nugget parameter. Next a m odel that fits the data can be chosen to predict

on a grid covering the area that may or may not include the nugget effect. However, ordinary

kriging, without the sophisticated statistical techniques such as adding the nugget effect or a

trend surface, would interpolate the concentrations between the monitors to generally lower or

the same as projected design values at the mon itors. Therefore, we performed the prediction

with the nugget effect set to 0.15 and the weight ed least squares (WLS) model. The resulting

map Figure 6-14 shows that the entire PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area w ill attain the annual

standard; furthermore, it shows somewhat elevated concentrations in the northern portion of the

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area than the southern portion; this is in agreement with the

monitoring data in the PA-NJ-DE NAA.

86

# 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.00.20.40.60.8 

# fixed τ 2



# = 0

Di st a n ceSemi-variance



# ML

REML

OLS

WLS



# 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.00.20.40.60.8 

# fixed τ 2



# = 0.15

Di st a n ceSemi-variance



# ML

REML

OLS

WLS



# 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.00.20.40.60.8 

# estimated τ 2



# Di st a n ceSemi-variance



# ML

REML

OLS

WLS



# Figure 6-13: Empirical variogram fitted with different models for the annual standard

87

# -76.0 -75.8 -75.6 -75.4 -75.2 -75.0 -74.8 -74.638.8 39.0 39.2 39.4 39.6 39.8 40.0



# LonLat



# Figure 6-14: Map of kriging estimates for the annual standard fitted with weighted least

squares model and nugget set to 0.15

Next, we consider the same approach for the da ily standard and show that the standard is

met everywhere in the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. Figure 6- 15 shows the effect of fitting

the empirical variogram with different models with the op tions of fixed or estimated nugget

parameter. Figure 6-16 shows a map for the en tire PA-NJ-DE NAA for the daily standard that

results from predicting with the WLS model and nugget effect set to 0.15. The figure shows the

entire PA-NJ-DE NAA will a ttain the daily standard.

88

# 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.001234567 

# fixed τ 2



# = 0

Di st a n ceSemi-variance



# ML

REML

OLS

WLS



# 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.001234567 

# fixed τ 2



# = 0.15

Di st a n ceSemi-variance



# ML

REML

OLS

WLS



# 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.001234567 

# estimated τ 2



# Di st a n ceSemi-variance



# ML

REML

OLS

WLS



# Figure 6-15: Empirical variogram fitted with different models for the daily standard

89

# -76.0 -75.5 -75.0 -74. 538.8 39.0 39.2 39.4 39.6 39.8 40.0



# L o nLat



# Figure 6-16: Map of kriging estimates for the daily standard fitted with weighted least

squares model and nugget set to 0.15

6.7 Local Area Analysis

Base on review of final EP A modeling guidance, the local area analysis is designed to

identify local primary PM 2.5 

# sources that are thought to be contributing to a monitor and causing

non-attainment of the NAAQS. At this time, no monitors within the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment

area are projected to exceed the NAAQS so it does not appear to be a necessary requirement in

this circumstance to conduct the local area anal ysis. Furthermore, existing monitoring data

suggests a uniform regional pa ttern with respect to PM 2.5 

# concentrations rather than any “hot

spot” monitor.

90

# 6.8 Supplemental Analyses and Weight of Evidence Determination

All models, including the CMAQ, model have inherent uncertainti es. Over or under

prediction may result from uncertainties associat ed with emission inventories, meteorological

data, and representation of PM 2.5 

# chemistry in the model. Ther efore, EPA modeling guidance

provides for other evidence to address these model uncertainties so that proper assessment of the

probability to attain the applicable standards can be made.

EPA modeling guidance states that those modeling analyses that show that attainment

with the NAAQS will be reached in the future with some margin of safety (i.e., estimated

concentrations below 14.5 μ g/m 3 

# for annual PM 2.5 

# and 62 μ g/m 3 

# for 24-hour PM 2.5 

# ) need more

limited supporting material.

Due to the fact that the modeling results pr esented in Tables 6-4 and 6-5 fall well below

the aforementioned “weight of evidence” threshol ds established by EPA, a limited supplemental

analysis was deemed necessary to su pport the 2009 attainment demonstration.

Trends in PM 2.5 

# Design Values

Figure 6-17 below show trends for the period 2000-2006 in annual PM2.5 design value

for all monitors in the PA-NJ-DE NAA including the monitors in Kent and Sussex Counties. It

is clear from this figure that all the monitors show a downward trend in the annual PM2.5 design

value. It is noteworthy that 2004-2006 design values at all monitors, with the exception of

Chester monitor, already met the annual PM2.5 standard.

Design Values: 3-Year Averages All Monitors Philadelphia CMSA

11 13 15 17

2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006ug/m3



# Camden Bristol Chester Norristown AMS lab Belmont Ave WTP

NE Airport South Broad St. Amtrak/Elmwood Bellefonte MLK Newark

Lums Pond Dover Killens Pond Seaford



# 91

# Figure 6-17. Trend in Annual PM2. 5 Design Values (2000 through 2006)

Figure 6-18 below show trends for the pe riod 2000 - 2006 in daily PM2.5 design value

for all monitors in Delaware nonattainment area including the monitors in Kent and Sussex

Counties. It is clear from this figure that a ll the monitors show a dow nward trend in the daily

PM 2.5 

# design value. It is notewor thy that the at all monitors al ready met the daily standard in

2006; they also met the new daily PM 2.5 

# standard (35 μg/m 3 

# ) with the exception of Camden,

South Broad Street, and MLK.

A downward trend in bo th annual and daily PM 2.5 

# design values indicate that the control

measures implemented during this period have been providing PM 2.5 

# reduction benefits. With

more controls anticipated in coming years, this trend is exp ected to continue.

PM2.5 Daily Design Values for monitors in PA-NJ-DE NAA

30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

2000 - 2002 2001 - 2003 2002 - 2004 2003 - 2005 2004 - 2006PM2.5 (ug/m^3)



# Camden Bristol Chester Norristown AMS lab Belmont Ave WTP

NE Airport South Broad St. Amtrak/Elmwood Bllfte MLK-a Nwrk-a

Lums Dover Killens Seaford



# Figure 6-18. Trend in Daily PM2.5 Design Values (2000 through 2006)

6.9 Conclusions

The results from the modeling as well as the supplemental analyses present

overwhelming evidence that the PA-NJ-DE n onattainment area will attain the 24-hour and

annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS by April 5, 2010. Based on air qual ity measurements and future predicted

air quality modeling results the projected design valu es are below the NAAQS attainment criteria

of 15.0 μ g/m 3 

# for annual PM 2.5 

# and 65 μ g/m 3 

# for 24-hour PM 2.5



# .

92

# Section 7 - Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT)

7.1 Background and Requirements

This section discusses Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources of pollutants regulated under this SIP (i.e.,

primary fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

# ), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

# )) 14



# .

In accordance with Section 51.1010 of the PM 2.5 

# Implementation Rule 15 

# , “ the State shall

submit with the attainment dem onstration a SIP revision demons trating that it has adopted all

reasonably available control measures (includi ng RACT for stationary sources) necessary to

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as pr acticable and to meet any RFP requirements. The

SIP revision shall contain the list of the pot ential measures consider ed by the State, and

information and analysis sufficient to support the State’s judgment that it has adopted all

RACM, including RACT .”

For primary PM 2.5 

# RACM, the Department evaluated measures which would be limited

to the boundaries of the non-attainment area, i. e. New Castle County. However, because SO 2 

# and NOx can be transported over considerable distances to form PM 2.5 

# , they were assessed on a

state-wide basis (s ee Appendix 7-1 for EPA List of Control Measures evaluated). Also, while

not specifically regulated under th is SIP, several VOC measures ar e discussed in th is section, as

they are included in the modeling associat ed with this attainment demonstration.

7.2 Post-2002 RACT and RACM Measures

Since 2002, Delaware and EPA have implemented numerous measures that have resulted

in NOx, SO 2 

# and PM 2.5 

# reductions throughout the State. These measures represent

RACM/RACT, and in some cases, requireme nts that go beyond RACM/RACT requirements,

and will result in more than a 50% reduction in overall emissions between 2002 and 2009. Years

2002 and 2009 are compared, by county, in Table 7-1 below.

Table 7-1 DE 2002 and Projected 2009 Emissions

NO

x 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2 

# County

2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009

Kent 10,314 7799 1097 989 4,062 3664

New Castle 30,748 21,807 3430 3015 50,237 14135

Sussex 16060 11591 2575 2571 25,552 11724

Totals 57,122 41,197 7,102 6,575 79,852 29,523

Sections 7.2.1 through 7.2.5 present a list ing of these post-2002/pre-2010 state and

federal measures that fulfill Delaware’s RACT/RACM obligations.

14 

# See Section 1.4 of this SIP for a discussion of the pollutants that are regulated under this SIP.

15 

# Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 40 CFR Part 51, March 29, 2007



# 93

# 7.2.1 Point Sources:

 40 CFR Parts 51, 72, et al. Rule to Reduce Inters tate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule)

 “Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in th e Clean Air Interstate Rule” 71 Fed. Reg.

25288 April 28, 2006.

 Consent Decree. Premcor Refinery, Delaware City (formerly Motiva Enterprises) New

Castle County. Control of SO 2 

# , and NO X 

# Emission from Boilers and Heaters

 Regulation 1146, EGUs, Electric Generating Un it (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation,

SO 2 

# and NOx emission control (effective December 11, 2006)

 Regulation No. 1148, Control of Stationary Co mbustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit

Emissions, NOx emission control

 Regulation 1144, Control of Statio nary Generator Emissions, SO 2 

# , PM, VOC and NOx

emission control

 Regulation 1142, Section 1, Control of NOx Emissions from Industrial Boilers, NOx

Emission Control

 Regulation 1142, Section 2, Control of NOx Emissions from Industrial Boilers and

Process Heaters at Petroleu m Refineries, NOx emission co ntrol, New Castle County

 Regulation 24 Sec. 46, Crude Oil Lighteri ng Operations, VOC emission control,

 Facility and Unit shutdowns (see Table 4-3)

7.2.2 Non-Point Sources:

 Regulation 24 Sec. 33, Solvent Cleani ng and Drying, VOC emission control

 Regulation 24 Sec. 11, Mobile Equipment Repa ir and Refinishing, VOC emission control

 Regulation 41 Sec. 3, Portable Fuel Containers, VOC emission control

 Regulation 41 Sec. 2, Consumer Products, VOC emission control

 Regulation 41 Sec 1, Architectural and Indus trial Maintenance Coatings, VOC emission

control

 Regulation 24 Sec. 36, Stage II Vapo r Recovery, VOC Emission control

94

#  Residential Woodstoves 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subpart AAA New Source Performance

Standards (“NSPS”) for PM, VOC and NOx emission control.

 Regulation 1113, Open Burning, PM, VOC and NOx emission control

7.2.3 Non-Road Sources:

 Phase I and Phase II Emissions Standards for Gasoline-Powered Non-Road Utility

Engines, Federal Rule

 Emissions Standards for Diesel-Powered N on-Road Utility Engines of 50 or More

Horsepower, Federal Rule

 Emissions Standards for Spark Ignition (S I) Marine Engines, Federal Rule

 Emissions Standards for Large Spark Ignition Engines, Federal Rule

 Reformulated Gasoline Use in Non-Road Moto r Vehicles and Equipment, Federal Rule,

“Control of Emissions from New Marine Comp ression-Ignition Engines at or above 30

liters per Cylinder; Final Rule,” 68 Fed. Reg. 9746 (February 28, 2003), at pp.9755-56

(hereinafter “EPA C3 Rule”)

7.2.4 On-Road Mobile

 Regulation No. 31, Low Enhanced Insp ection and Maintenance Program

 Regulation No. 1132, Transportati on Conformity Regulation

 40 CFR Parts 80, 85, and 86 Control of Air Po llution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2

Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gaso line Sulfur Control Requirements; Final

Rule

 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86 Control of Air Po llution from New Motor Vehicles: HeavyDuty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control

Requirements; Final Rule.

 Regulation 1145, Excessive Idling of Heavy Duty Vehicles

 Regulation No. 40, NLEV Program

7.2.5 Other Measures

Delaware has implemented many other SO 2 

# , NOx, VOC and PM 2.5 

# control measures. These

measures include mandatory epis odic prohibition of lightering on ozone action days (Reg. 1124,

Section 36), and reduction of emissions from hi gh electric demand day electric generation (Reg.

1146 and Reg. 1148). Other voluntary measures that will take effect by 2010 include:

95

# • Brandywine School District Bus Retrofits

• Delaware Ride Share

• Ozone Action Days (voluntary curtailment of ac tivities that contribute to air pollution)

• Use Biodiesel (B20) in state-run equipment

• Best Workplaces for Commuters and SmartWay Transport programs.

• Implement an anti-idling outreach programs for schools and school districts

• Clean State Program – focusing on greater us e of alternative transportation fuels

• Installation of E85 sta tion in Delaware

• Continue to identify and implement energy ef ficiency programs for the residential and

commercial sectors. Energy efficiency programs include:

o Energy efficiency/conservation educati on, outreach, technical assistance.

o Energy An$wers Program

o Home Appliances

o Business

o Home Performance

o Energy Star Program

o Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU)

7.3 Additional RACM/RACT Evaluation

Delaware’s attainment date for the NAAQS is April 2010 16 

# . However, states are required

to demonstrate attainment as e xpeditiously as practicable, whic h would be at least one year

earlier than the attainment year , e.g. April, 2009. Attainment by April 2009 would be based on

ambient air PM 2.5 

# concentrations in calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008, so in order to attain at

least one year early adequate em ission reductions would need to o ccur, at the latest, by January,

2008.

Section 6 of this SIP demonstrates th e CMAQ modeled emission levels that are

consistent with attainment; emission levels higher than these levels are not adequate to attain.

Statewide CMAQ modeled Delaware emissions levels for the polluta nts regulated under this SIP

are:

Table 7-2 CMAQ Modeled 2009 Emissions, Delaware

SO 2 

# PM 2.5 

# NOx

42,569 8,014 49,602

16 

# See Section 1.1 for a detailed discussion.



# 96

# In order to demonstrate attainment in 2009, De laware’s 2008 emissions would need to be

at or below the levels specified in Table 7-1. The following analysis demonstrates that Delaware

has adopted RACT/RACM and be yond RACT/RACT measures (i.e., the measures identified in

Section 7.2 above) that demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, and that

advancement of the attainment date to April 2009 or earlie r is not feasible.

1.) Many of the adopted control measures deta iled in 7.2 above do not go into full effect

until 2009. One significant Delaware meas ure is Regulation No. 1146, EGU Multipollutant Regulation. The approximate quan tity of Delaware 2009 reductions that will

not occur in 2008 17 

# as a result of Reg. 1146 not being effective in 2008 are detailed in

Table 7-3:

Table 7-3 2009 Statewide Emission Reductions attributable to De laware Reg. 1146 (TPY)

SO 2 

# PM 2.5 

# NOx

19,229 -218 18 

# 3,147

2.) As indicated in table 7-3, Regulation No. 1146 is a significant control measure for SO 2 

# and NOx. It is not possible to advance th e compliance date of Regulation No. 1146 from

2009 to 2008; it was determined during the regu latory adoption proce ss that the earliest

feasible compliance date of Reg. 1146 was 20 09. Conservatively assuming that all other

planned 2009 reductions, other than Re g. 1146, would occur by 2008 Delaware’s 2008 19



# emission projection would be:

Table 7-4 2008 Emissions Projec tion**, Conservatively Low Estimate

SO 2 

# PM 2.5 

# NOx

48,752 6,357 44,344

** Sum of Table 7-1 and 7-3.



# 3.) Comparison of Tables 7-2 and 7-4 indicates that implementation of RACT/RACM and

beyond RACT/RACM controls in Delaware ma y result in Delaware’s 2008 emission

levels being below the levels that are consistent with attainment relative to both direct

PM 2.5 

# and NO X 

# , but that they will be at least 6,183 TPY high relative to SO 2



# .

4.) Step 3 above indicates that in order for De laware to do its part in advancing the

attainment date to April 2009 it wo uld need to further reduce SO 2 

# emissions by at least

6,183 TPY by the beginning of 2008. To determine if this was possible, Delaware sorted

17 

# Delaware’s Multi-Pollutant regulation (Reg. 1146) does not go into effect until 2009

18 

# Reg. 1146 did not specifically address direct PM2.5 emi ssions, so 2009 PM2.5 emissions are projected to increase

between 2002 and 2009 due to growth. Actual control technology installed to meet Reg. 1146 NOX, SO2, and Hg

emission limitations may result in changes in PM2.5 emission rates, but such changes are not required by Reg. 1146

19 

# This is a conservatively low estimate, as many measures (e.g., on-road mobile) gain reductions as time goes

forward due to factors such as fleet turnover. Delaware’s actual 2008 emissions would likely be higher than this

estimate.



# 97

# its entire SO 2 

# inventory from highest emitting source to lowest emitting source, and

developed a list that identifies the source cate gories that cover 95% of Delaware’s overall

SO 2 

# emissions. That list is presented in Table 7-5.

Table 7-5 Delaware SO 2 

# Emissions, Source Categories Covering 95% of

Total Emissions

Source Description Source Sector 2002 2009

Combined Distillate Oil Combustion Total Point & Nonpoint 1,333 1,288

EGU Boiler - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal

Total Point 27,712 8,954

EGU Boiler - Residual Oil Total Point 5,280 3,270

ICI Boiler - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal

Total Point 4,824 5,606

ICI Boiler - CO Boiler Total Point 29,748 537

ICI Boiler - Residual Oil Total Point 2,891 3,846

Industrial Processes - Fluid Coking Unit

Incinerator 20 

# Point 1,133 1,045

Marine Vessels, Commercial - Diesel -

Underway emissions Total Nonroad 1,255 269

Marine Vessels, Commercial - Residual -

Underway emissions Total Nonroad 2,025 2,248

Totals = 76,201 27,062

Complete Inventory Totals = 79,852 29,525

% of Complete Inventory = 95.4% 91.7%



# The four (4) source categories that are highlighted in Table 7-5 are those that have not

been controlled, relative to SO 2 

# , by post-2002 control measures . These are the source

categories, that are projected to emit 11,785 TPY of SO 2 

# in 2009, which Delaware could

theoretically control to advance the attainment date (i.e., Delaware would need to reduce

this 11,785 TPY of SO2 by at least 53% by 2008). Delaware is currently evaluating and

developing measures to reduce SO 2 

# emissions from these three categories as regional

measures, but such actions will not be complete by and effective by 2008.

Further, Delaware does not believe advancemen t of the attainment date to April 2008 in

the Philadelphia CMSA is possible for the following additional reasons:

• Transport of SO 2 

# and NOx from measures such as th e Clean Air Interstate Rule will

not be mitigated in 2008

• Emission benefits from fleet turnovers (onroad, offroa d, lawnmowers, etc.) will be

less in 2008 than 2009

• Significant requirements like Delawa re Regulation 1142 (Refinery Boiler

Regulation), and Regulation 1146 (EGU Multi-Po llutant Regulation) do not go into

effect until 2009

20 

# This is emission release point an incinerator, i.e. co ntrol device, which only emits when the scrubber on the CO

Boiler shuts down (unplanned).



# 98

# In summary, Delaware’s Regulation No. 1146 is a significant control measure in this SIP.

Regulation No. 1146 reductions will not occur until 2009, and while Delaware has, and

continues to evaluate additional SO 2 

# , NO X 

# , and PM 2.5 

# control measures, there are not enough

emissions under Delaware’s control to cover with early control requirements to compensate for

Reg. 1146 not being effective until 2009. Further, the timing of the development of emission

controls for these other categories is not consistent with early atta inment (i.e., reductions are not

possible in 2008). Based on this Delaware has demonstrated that attainment by April 2010 is as

expeditiously as practical, and that it ha s implemented sufficient RACM/RACT control

requirements.

99

# Section 8 - Mobile Budgets for Transportation Conformity

8.1 Introduction to Transportation Conformity

Section 176 of the Clean Air Act requires th at highway transporta tion projects funded or

approved by the federal government conform to a ny applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP)

adopted to provide for the attainment of any Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standard. In general,

this requirement specifies that (1) states esta blish, in their SIP, mobile source emission budgets

for the attainment year, and submit the mobile budgets to EPA for appr oval, (2) upon adequacy

determination or approval of EPA, states must conduct transportation c onformity analysis for

their Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long range tr ansportation plans to ensure

that future highway vehicle emi ssions will not exceed relevant mobile budgets, and (3) failure of

demonstrating such transportation conformity in TIPs and long range plans will lead to

conformity lapse(s), resulting in freezing of fe deral highway funds and all federal highway

projects in the lapsed area.

8.2 Mobile Budgets for 2009, the Attainment Year

The mobile emissions budget 2009 attainment is based on the projected 2009 mobile

source emissions, accounting for all relevant mobile source controls including all federal controls

and Delaware specific controls as described in Section 4. The 2009 mobile emissions were

projected using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 for obtaining emission factors and the “Peninsula Travel

Demand Model” for predicting future vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The MOBILE6.2 runs

were conducted by AQM’s staff using the most recently available vehicle registration data

(2007), and projected speed estimates (2009). Ex amples of how to calcu late the 2009 mobile

emission projections are pr esented in Appendix 8-1.

8.2.1 Mobile Budgets for 2009 Attainment Year

Table 8-1 is a summary of 2009 mobile source emission proj ections for each pollutant,

PM 2.5 

# and NOx in New Castle County. PM 2.5 

# is the criteria air pollutant that New Castle County

is designated as being in non- attainment for. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.102, a motor vehicle

emission budget must be established for this pollutant.

In addition, precursor pollutants to PM 2.5 

# must also be analyzed as to whether motor

vehicle budgets must be established for these pollutants. These pollu tants include volatile

organic compounds, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Table 8-1 illustrates the onroad mobile source fraction of the total 2009 inventory for each precursor pollutant.

100

# Table 8-1 On-Road Mobile primary and Precursor PM 2.5 

# Emissions as a Percent of

Total Projected Inventory New Castle County

2009 NOx VOC NH 3 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2



# On-Road Mobile

Source Projected

Inventory 4904 3466 610 87 51

Total Projected

Emission

Inventory 21444 13887 1466 3015 14135

Percent of Total

Projected 2009

Inventory 22.9% 25.0% 41.6% 2.9% 0.4%

NOx is the only precursor pollutant that must have a budget established, unless both the

EPA Regional Administrator and th e director of the state air ag ency have determined that

transportation-related emissions of NOx within the non-attainment area are not a significant

contributor to the PM 2.5 

# non-attainment problem, and so notified the MPO and DOT, that the

applicable implementation plan (or implementa tion plan submission) does not establish an

approved (or adequate) budget for such emissions as part of the reasonable further progress or

attainment.

Pursuant to 72 FR 20595 states must demonstrate that on-road mobile SO 2 

# emissions

are not inhibiting the states’ ability to attain the PM 2.5 

# applicable standard. As Table 8.1 indicates

above, on-road mobile SO 2 

# emissions only accounts for 0.4% of the total New Castle County

2009 projected SO2 emissions. Except for NOx, th e other precursor pollutants do not need a

motor vehicle emissions budget unle ss either the state air agency director or the EPA Regional

Administrator makes a finding that motor vehicle emissions budgets must be established in order

to attain the NAAQS for PM 2.5 

# . No applicable finding has been made for any of the other

precursor pollutants of PM 2.5 

# and therefore the State Implementa tion Plan is only establishing

motor vehicle emission budgets for PM 2.5 

# and NOx.

This summary herein estab lishes New Castle County PM 2.5 

# and NOx emission budgets as

specified in Table 8-2 for the attainment year 2009.

Table 8-2 On-Road Mobile Source Emission Projections for 2009

Tons/Year

2009 Emissions

PM 2.5 

# NOx

New Castle

87 4904

101

# Section 9 - Contingency Measures

Under subpart 1 of the CAA, all PM 2.5 

# non-attainment areas must include in their SIPs

contingency measures consistent with section 172(c)(9). Con tingency measures are additional

control measures to be implemented in the event th at an area fails to eith er meet RFP or attain

the standards by its attainment date.

These contingency measures must be fully ad opted rules or control measures that are

ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the

standard by its attainment date. States may also use as contingency measures one or more

Federal or local measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in excess of the

reductions required by the attainme nt demonstration or RFP plan.

9.1 Quantification of Contingency Reductions Required

The Rule requires that the quantity of emissi on reductions needed to satisfy contingency

requirements is an amount equal to one year’s worth of required reductions. Required reductions

are the amount of reductions needed to attain compliance with the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. 2002

emissions are the base year emissions (see sect ion 3 of this Document), and the CMAQ modeled

2009 emissions are the emission levels that necessa ry for attainment (see Section 5 of this

Document), so the difference between these emission levels is the total quantity of reductions

required for attainment. Since there are seven years between 2002 and 2009, the total quantity of

reductions required for attainment is divided by seven to determine 1-year’s worth of required

reductions (i.e., the contingency requirement).

9.1.1 CMAQ Modeled 2009 Emissions, i.e. Attainment Targets

Table 5-1 shows the 2009 emission levels that are necessary for attainment (i.e., the

attainment targets). The values of Table 5-1 ar e repeated in Table 9-1 below. These are the

emission reductions accounted for in the CMAQ model, which showed attainment in 2010 for

the Philadelphia CMSA (see Section 6 of this document for details).

Table 9-1 Attainment Targets (TPY)

Year County NO X 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2



# 2009 New Castle 23048 3249 12001

9.1.2 2002 Delaware Base Year

Table 9-2 shows Delaware’s 2002 base year emissions (see Section 3 of this document

for details).

Table 9-2 Delaware 2002 Base Year

County NO X 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2



# New Castle 30748 3430 50237

102

# 9.1.3 Contingency Requirement

Table 9-3 shows one year’s worth of re quired emission reductions (i.e., the amount

required for contingency). This was calculated by subtracting the attainment targets (Table 9-1)

from the 2002 base year (Table 9-2), and dividing the difference by 7 years.

Table 9-3 Contingency Requirement

County NO X 

# PM 2.5 

# SO 2



# New Castle 1100 26 5462

9.2 Demonstration that Contingency Requirement is Met

Table 9-4 shows Delaware’s projected 2009 emission levels for NOx and PM 2.5 

# (see

Section 4 of this document for details).

Table 9-4 Delaware 2009 Projection

County NO X 

# PM 2.5



# New Castle 21807 3015

Delaware shows that it has met the cont ingency requirement if the projected 2009

emission levels (Table 9-4) are lower than those n eeded for attainment (Table 9-1) by at least the

amount of the contingency requirement (Table 9- 3). Subtracting the amounts in Table 9-4 from

the amounts in Table 9-1 shows that Delaware c ontrol measures have reduced NOx and primary

PM 2.5 

# by more than is necessary to attain compliance with the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS. Specifically,

emissions reductions of 1,241 NOx and 234 PM 2.5 

# TPY have been made that are above and

beyond that necessary for attainment. And, these excess reductions which are “ in place and

provide reductions that are in excess of the redu ctions required by the attainment demonstration

or RFP plan” are greater than the contingenc y requirement of 1,100 NOx and 26 PM 2.5 

# TPY

(Table 9-3). This demonstrates that the conti ngency requirement has been met relative to the

pollutants NOx and primary PM 2.5. 

# Specific contingency measures are:

NOx – Delaware Reg. 1146 21 

# : Delaware estimates th at 2009 statewide EGU NOx

emissions are 5,933 TPY less than the MANE VU IPM calculations, owing to Delaware

Reg. 1146. Therefore, to meet the 1,100 TP Y NOx required for contingency, we

apportion 1,100 TPY for 2011 contingency meas ures from Delaware Reg. 1146 and the

remaining 4,833 TPY back into the model.

21 

# Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution No. 1146 Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant

Regulation , Delaware Department of Natural Resources and En vironmental Control, Dover, Delaware, Effective

12/11/06.



# 103

# PM 2.5 

# – Consent Decree with Premcor Refinery 22 

# : Delaware gains additional

reductions in New Castle County beyond t hose modeled by MANEVU, of 234 TPY.

This is partly due to the MANEVU 2009 projections over-estimating the 2009 PM2.5

emissions from Coker Off-Gas at the Premco r Refinery by 233 TPY. The Unit is covered

under a consent decree with Premcor Refi nery, Delaware City (formerly Motiva

Enterprises) New Castle County, Control of SO 2 

# , and NO

x 

# Emission from Boilers and

Heaters. Therefore, to meet the 26 TPY PM 2.5 

# required for contingency, from the Coker

Off-Gas over-estimates, we apportion 26 TP Y for 2011 contingency measures and the

remaining 197 back into the model.

The circumstances are dissimilar for SO 2 

# . Table 9-5 (taken from Ta ble 5-4) indicates that

there is an attainment shortfall of 2,134 TPY for SO 2 

# in New Castle. Ho wever, because of

several new regulations in place by 2010, and as discussed in Sectio ns 4 and 6 of this document,

Delaware has a statewide surplus 13,047 TPY of SO 2



# .

Table 9-5 Contingency – SO 2 

# “surplus and shortfalls”

CMAQ

Modeled SO 2



# Inventory

(TPY) DE 2009

Projected SO 2



# Emissions

(TPY) SO 2 

# Surplus/

Shortfall

(TPY)

Kent 2201 3664 -1463

New Castle 12001 14135 -2134

Sussex 28368 11724 16644

Total 42569 29525 13047

The 13,047 TPY overall SO 2 

# reductions are above and beyond those needed for

attainment, e.g., since 13,047 TPY is greater than 5,462 TPY, Dela ware has demonstrated that

the contingency requirement relative to SO 2 

# has been met, and will sp ecifically implement 2011

SO 2 

# contingency measures as follows:

SO 2 

# – Delaware Reg. 1146: Delaware estimates th at statewide 2009 EGU SO 2 

# emissions are 18,476 TPY less than the MANEVU IPM calculations, owing to Delaware

Reg. 1146. Therefore, to meet the 5,462 TPY SO 2 

# required for contingency, we

apportion 5,462 TPY for 2011 contingency m easures from Regulation 1146, and the

remaining 13,014 back into the model.

22 

# Consent Decree with Premcor Refinery at Delaware C ity (formerly Motiva Enterprises), New Castle County,

Control of NOx Emission from Boilers and Heaters, Effective 2008



# 104

# Section 10 - Appendices

A collection of the listed appendixes, stored on CD , is available upon request. Contact Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and Environmen tal Control - Air Quality Management Section

at 156 South State Street, Dover, DE 19901.

Appendix 4-1 Development of Emission Pr ojections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for Non-EGU

Point, Area, and Non-road Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Draft Final

Technical Support Document, Prepared for Mid-Atlantic Regional Air

Management Association (MARAMA) by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.,

December 7, 2006.

Appendix 4-2 The 2009 Corrected Emission Projec tions of Delaware EGU, Non-EGU, NonPoint and Non-Road Mobile Sources.

Appendix 4-3 The 2009 Emission Projections for De laware’s Point, Non-Point, Onroad, and

Non-Road Mobile Sources.

Appendix 4-4 Part 1: MOBILE6.2 Input and Outp ut Files for Delaware 2009 Mobile Source

Emission

Part 2: Calculations of 2008 and 2009 On-Road Mobile Source Emission

Projections

Appendix 6-1 The Nature of th e Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality Problems in

the MANE-VU Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM, November

2006) and

Appendix 6-2 The Development of PM 2.5 

# Forecasting Tools for Selected Cities in the

MARAMA Region (ICF, September 2004)

Appendix 6-3 The New York State DEC, Divisi on of Air Resources, performance evaluation

of the 2002 base case CMAQ simulation

Appendix 6-4/a Sandwich Method

Appendix 7-1 EPA List of Control Measures

Appendix 8-1 Example 2009 Mobi le Emission Projection Calculations

105STATEOFDELAWAREDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCESANDENVIRONMENTALCONTROLOFFICEOFTHE89KINGsHIGHWAYPHONE:(302)739-9000SECRETARYDOVER,DELAWARE19901tFAX:(302)739-6242Secretary’sOrderNo.:2008-A-OO11RE:ApprovalasFinalPlantheProposedRevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)DateofIssuance:April1,2008EffectiveDateoftheAmendment:April1,2008VI.BackgroundOnTuesday,March4,2008,apublichearingwasheldinthePriscillaBuildingConferenceRoomofDNRECinDovertoreceivepubliccommentonproposedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(hereinafterreferredtoas“NAAQS”).TheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(“EPA”)delegatedauthoritytotheDepartmenttoadministercertainresponsibilitiesinDelawareunderthefederalCleanAirAct,asamended,42US.C.74O1etseq.(“CAA”).ThedelegationincludedpreparingDelaware’sStateImplementationPlan(“SIP”),whichisrequiredbyEPA’sregulationsknownastheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(“NAAQS”).De€a4iae4T’taaiedcfreüoInAprilof2005,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)designated126areasofthecountryas“non-attainment”underthePM2.5NAAQS.Amongthosenon-attainmentareasisthePhiladelphiaWilmington,PA-NJ-DNon-AttainmentArea(NAAJ.ThisNAAincludesNewCastleCountyinDelaware,andfederallawrequirestheNAAtoattaintheNAAQSbyApril,2010.Inresponsetothenon-attainmentdesignation,DelawarehasdevelopedtheSIPrevisionforDelaware’sproposedplanforAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NAAQS.ThepurposeofthisSIPisto:(1)demonstratethatwithallexistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM2,5monitorswillshowattainmentin2009;(2)demonstratethattheentirePhiladelphiaWilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattainthePM2.5NAAQSin2009;(3)establishDelaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and(4)treatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,as“emitted.”WrittencommentsregardingthisproposedSIPrevisionwerereceivedbytheDepartmentduringthepre-hearingphaseofthismatter,aswellasnumerouswrittenandverbalcommentsreceivedatthetimeofthehearingitself.AllpubliccommentswerethoroughlyaddressedintheDepartment’sResponseDocument,whichwasattachedtotheHearingOfficer’sReportandexpresslyincorporatedtherein.Asaresultofsome2ofthewrittencommentsreceivedfromEPA,theDepartmentmadeseveralnon-substantivechangestotheSIPrevisions.RonAmirikianandJackSippleoftheDepartment’sDivisionofAirandWasteManagement,AirQualityManagementSection,developedtherecordatthehearing.Propernoticeofthehearingwasprovidedasrequiredbylaw.Afterthehearing,theDepartmentperformedanevaluationoftheevidenceenteredintotherecordinthismatter.Thereafter,theHearingOfficerpreparedherreportandrecommendationin.theformofaHearingOfficer’sReporttotheSecretarydatedMarch31,2008,andthatreportisexpresslyincorporatedhereinbyreference.II.FindingsandConclusions:Onthebasisoftherecorddevelopedinthismatter,itappearsthatAQMhasprovidedasoundbasisfortheproposedrevisiontotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)withrespecttoStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.s)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS).Baseduponthepublicrecord,IagreethattheproposedSIPrevisionshouldbeapprovedastheDepartment’sfinalplanandsubmittedtotheEPAtocomplywiththeCAAandEPA’sCAAregulations.OrderItisherebyorderedthatAQM’ssuggestedrevisionswithrespecttotheStateImplementationPlan(“SIP”)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)bemade,3andthattheproposedrevisionsbepromulgatedinfinalform,inaccordancewiththecustomaryandestablishedrule-makingprocedurerequiredbylaw.IV.RehsonsThisrevisiontotheSIPwilldemonstratethat,withallexistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM2.5monitorswillshowattainmentin2009,andwilldemonstratethattheentirePhiladelphiaWilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattainthePM2.5NAAQSin2009.Moreover,thisSIPwillestablishDelaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity,andwilltreatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,as“emitted”.Forallthereasonsabove,thisSIPrevisionwithrespecttotheattainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)demonstratesDelaware’soverallstrategyforattainingtheNAAQSbytheyear2009,infurtheranceofthepolicyandpurposesof7Del.C.,Ch.60.nA.HugsSecretaryAhear\SIP.Attain.PM2.5NAAQS.08.ORD4HEARING OFFICER’S

REPORT Regarding:

Proposed

Revisions

to the State Implementation

Plan

(SIP)

for

the Attainment

of the Fine Particle

(PM2.5) National

Ambient

Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS),

and for Delaware’s

2002

Base

Year

PM2.5

SIP Emission

Inventory Lisa

A. Vest Hearing

Officer March

31, 2008I.Background:OnTuesday,March4,2008,apublichearingwasheldinthePriscillaBuildingConferenceRoomofDNRECinDovertoreceivepubliccommentonproposedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(hereinafterreferredtoas“NAAQS”).InAprilof2005,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)designated126areasofthecountryas“non-attainment”underthePM2.5NAAQS.AmongthosenonattainmentareasisthePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DENonAttainmentArea(NAA).ThisNAAincludesNewCastleCountyinDelaware,andfederallawrequirestheNAAtoattaintheNAAQSbyApril,2010.Inresponsetothenon-attainmentdesignation,DelawarehasdevelopedtheSIPrevisionforDelaware’sproposedplanforAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NAAQS.ThepurposeofthisSIPisto:(1)demonstratethatwithallexistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM2.5monitorswillshowattainmentin2009;(2)demonstratethattheentirePhiladelphiaWilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattainthePM2.sNAAQSin2009;(3)establishDelaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and(4)treatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,as“emitted.”2With regard

to Delaware’s

2002

Base

Year

PM2.5

SIP Emission Inventory,

this

SIP revision

will provide

a complete

and accurate

calendar year

2002

Base

Year Emissions

Inventory

for

all Delaware

counties

of PM 2 . 5 emissions

and emissions

of precursor

pollutants

that contribute

to

the formation

of PM 2 . 5 , including

sulfur dioxide,

oxides

of nitrogen,

volatile organic compounds,

and ammonia.

It will

also

serve

as the primary

source of data

used

in the projection

of future

year emissions. Written comments

regarding

this proposed

SIP revision

were received

by

the Department

during

the pre-hearing

phase

of this matter, as well

as numerous

written

and verbal comments

received

at the time

of the hearing

itself,

all

of which

will

be addressed

below

in this report. Proper

notice

of the hearing

was provided

as required

by law. II. Summary

of Hearing

Record: A. Exhibits: Exhibit

No.

1:

Copy

of

the Delaware

State Implementation

Plan

for attainment

of

the PM2.5 National Ambient

Air Quality Standard— Attainment Demonstration; Exhibit

No.

2:

Copy

of

the Delaware

State Implementation

Plan

for attainment

of

the PM2.5 National Ambient

Air Quality

Standard— 2002

Base

Year

SIP Emissions

Inventory

for PM2.5

and precursors; 3-1ExhibitNo.3:EPACommentsonDelawareStateImplementationPlanforattainmentofthePM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard—AttainmentDemonstration;ExhibitNo.4:DelawareRegisterPublicationforDelaware’sPM2.5AttainmentDemonstrationSIP,andDelaware’s2002baseyearPM2.5SIPInventorydatedFebruary1,2008;ExhibitNo.5:CopyoftheNewsJournalAffidavitofthenoticeofthispublichearingpublishedonJanuary27,2008;ExhibitNo.6:CopyoftheDelawareStateNewsAffidavitofthenoticeofthispublichearingpublishedonJanuary27,2008;ExhibitNo.7:CopyoftheStateofDelawarePublicMeetingCalendarnoticeofthispublichearingforDelaware’sPM2.5AttainmentDemonstrationSIP,andDelaware’s2002baseyearPM2.5SIPinventorypostedtheweekofJanuary28,2008;ExhibitNo.8:CopyoftheNewsJournalAffidavitoflocationchangeforthispublichearing,publishedonFebruary17,2008;andExhibitNo.9:CopyoftheDelawareStateNewsAffidavitoflocationchangeforthispublichearing,publishedonFebruary17,2008.4B.FindingsofFact:Itshouldbenotedthat,priortotheDepartmentpersonnelsubmittingtheaforementionednineexhibitstothisHearingOfficerforinclusionintotheheringrecordinthismatter,theDepartmentreadastatementsummarizingthehistorybehindDelaware’sSIPprocessinanattempttohelpthoseinattendanceunderstandbetterthesubjectmatterandscopeofthehearingthatevening.Followingthereadingofthatstatement,theopportunitywasgivenbytheDepartmenttogoofftherecord,togivethoseinattendanceanopportunitytoaskDepartmentpersonnelpresentatthehearinganyquestionstheymighthaveregardingairqualitymattersandpublicconcernsregardingthesamewhichwereoutsidethescopeofthishearing.Thoseinattendancedidnotwishthehearingtogoofftherecord,andsotheDepartmentproceededtosubmitthenineexhibitsintotheformalhearingrecordasnotedabove.Forbrevity’ssake,andfortheSecretary’sunderstandinginthismatter,atranscriptofthatstatement(whichprovidesextensivefactualbackgroundinformationastothehistoryofthedevelopmentofDelaware’sSIPmatters,aswellasaspecificbreakdownofexactlywhatthescopeofthispublichearingconcerned)isattachedheretoasAttachment“A”,andisexpresslyincorporatedhereintothisHearingOfficer’sreport.5C.Comments!Questions:Asnotedabove,therewerenumerousmembersofthepublicwhoattendedthishearing,manyofwhichwhowantedtomakecommentstobeincludedintheformalhearingrecord.AlsopresentatthishearingwerenumerousmembersoftheDepartment,specifically,fromtheDepartment’sAirQualityManagementSection,allofwhomoffereddetailedfactualresponsestothepublic’squestionsandconcerns.ItistruethatthescopeofthishearingwasverylimitedtothetwoSIPmattersathand,towit:(1)theSIPrevisionforDelaware’sproposedplanforAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NAAQS;and(2)revisionstoDelaware’s2002BaseYearPM2.5SIPEmissionInventory.Nevertheless,duetothelevelofpassionintheroomwithregardtopublicconcernoverDelaware’sairqualitymatters,thisHearingOfficerallowedthoseinattendancetoaskquestionsandoffercommentsonthehearingrecord,eventhoughmostoftheverbalcommentsofferedwereoutsidethenarrowscopeofthishearing.Subsequenttotheconclusionofthishearing,Departmentstafftookgreatpainstoscrutinizeeachandeveryquestionand/orcommentraisedatthehearing,andprovidedthisHearingOfficerwithaverydetailedandthoroughResponseDocumentconcerningthesame.AQM’sResponseDocumentencompassesthefullrangeofallcommentscontainedintherecord,includingthosefromthe6public

and

from

EPA.

Each comment

was meticulously

organized according

to

its source

(e.g., public comment,

letter,

etc.), followed

by a thorough

and rational discussion

of the issue

based

on

the record. In addition,

AQM offered

its recoirimendation

as

to how

each

of these issues

should

be resolved.

In most instances,

no changes

were warranted,

in AQM’s

view,

but

in

a few other situations

involving EPA comments

received

by

the Department,

minor amendments were desirable

to reflect existing

realities

or

to clarify wording.

None of these changes

were deemed substantial,

or- sufficient

to require another

hearing. After reviewing

AQM’s Response Document,

it

is my view

that the Department

has

done

an excellent

job

of identifying

all

of the relevant

issues

and discussing

them

in

a thorough

and balanced manner

which accurately

reflects

the information

in

the record. Therefore,

the Secretary

may

get

an in-depth understanding

of this record

by reading

AQM’s Response

Document,

which

is attached hereto

as Attachment

“B”

and expressly incorporated

into

this report.

Lastly, attached

hereto

as Attachment

“C”

is the final

SIP revision document,

reflecting

the minor amendments

made

by

the Department

as

a result

of EPA’s comments

on

the same,

which

is also being expressly incorporated

into

this report

at this time. 7III.ConclusionsandRecommendedFindings:Onthebasisoftherecorddevelopedinthismatter,Ifindandconcludethattherecordsupportsapproval,infinalform,oftheDepartment’sproposedSIPrevisionswhichwerethesubjectofthepublichearingheldonMarch4,2008.IfurtherfindthatAQMhasprovidedasoundbasisfortheproposedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)withrespecttothetwoSIPmattersathand,towit:(1)theSIPrevisionforDelaware’sproposedplanforAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NAAQS;and(2)revisionstoDelaware’s2002BaseYearPM2.5SIPEmissionInventory.Asnotedearlier,theResponseDocumentnotonlycapturestherelevantaspectsoftherecordgeneratedinthismatter,butalsoprovidesathoroughdiscussionoftheissuesathand,alongwitharecommendedresolutionofeach.ThisHearingOfficerfoundthedimensionsofAQM’sResponseDocumenttobeveryrationalandeven-handed,andtheproposedresolutionstobereasonableandconsistentwiththerecord.Insteadofrepeatingallofthatinformationherein,IrecommendthattheDepartment’sproposedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlanbemade,andthattheproposedamendmentsbepromulgatedinfinalform,inaccordancewiththecustomaryandestablishedrule-makingprocedurerequiredbylaw.8Ifurtherrecommendthefollowingadditionalfindings:1.Propernoticeofthehearingwasprovided,asrequiredbylaw.2.InAprilof2005,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)hasdesignated126areasofthecountryas“non-attainment”underthePM2.5NAAQS.Amongthosenon-attainmentareasisthePhiladelphiaWilmington,PA-NJ-DENon-AttainmentArea(NAA).ThisNAAincludesNewCastleCountyinDelaware,andfederallawrequirestheNAAtoattaintheNAAQSbyApril,20103.Inrespbnsetothenon-attainmentdesignation,DelawarehasdevelopedtheSIPrevisionforDelaware’sproposedplanforAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NAAQS.4.AdoptionoftheproposedrevisionstotheSIPrevisionforDelaware’sproposedplanforAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NAAQSwill(1)demonstratethatwithallexistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM2.5monitorswillshowattainmentin2009;(2)demonstratethattheentirePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattainthePM2.5NAAQSin2009;(3)establishDelaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and(4)treatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,as“emitted.”95.WithregardtoDelaware’s2002BaseYearPM2.5SIPEmissionInventory,thisSIPrevisionwillprovideacompleteandaccuratecalendaryear2002BaseYearEmissionsInventoryforallDelawarecountiesofPM2.5emissionsandemissionsofprecursorpollutantsthatcontributetotheformationofPM2.5,includingsulfurdioxide,oxidesofnitrogen,volatileorganiccompounds,andammonia.Itwillalsoserveastheprimarysourceofdatausedintheprojectionoffutureyearemissions.6.TheResponseDocumentasprovidedbyAQMprovidesathrough,accurateandbalancedsummaryoftherecord,andhasbeenincorporatedhereinexpresslyforthatpurpose.7.AQM’srecommendedconclusionswithrespecttoeachissuearewell-reasonedandbasedontherecord.Assuch,theyaresufficienttoserveasspecificfindingsforthatpurpose.8.TheproposedSIPrevisions,asamendedtoreflectcommentsintherecord,shouldbeissuedinfinalformandadoptedastheDepartment’sfinalaction,andbepublishedasaNoticeintheDelawareRegisterofRegulationsinthenextavailableissue.7’.LisaA..VtHearjngOfficer\ahear\SIP.Attain.PM2.5.NAAQS.and02BaseYearPM2.5SIPEmiss.Inv.0810ATTACHMENT“A”TonighttheDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControl,AirQualityManagementSectionwillconductapublichearingonproposedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan,fortheAttainmentoftheAnnualFineParticle,NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard.PleasestopmeifIuseanacronymthatyoudonotunderstand;therearealotoftheminourbusiness.Forexample,sofarIthinkthatJhaveavoidedusingthem,butIhaveusedsometermsthataregenerallycoveredbyacronyms:•DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControl(DNREC)•StateImplementationPlan(SIP)•FineParticulateMatter(PM25)•NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS).OnJuly18,1997theEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyestablishedahealthbasedfineparticulatematter,PM2.5,NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard,NAAQS,at15.0microgramspercubicmeter,annualaverage.Then,effectiveApril5,2005theEPAdesignated126areasofthecountryas“non-attainment”underthisNAAQS.Amongthosenon-attainmentareasisthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea.ThePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentareaincludesNewCastleCountyinDelaware,fivecountiesinsoutheasternPennsylvania,andthreecountiesinNewJersey.KentandSussexCountyarenotincludedinthisarea;onlyNewCastleCounty.ThefederalcleanairactrequirestheareatoattaincompliancewiththeNAAQSbyApril,2010.Particlepollution,especiallyfineparticles,containsmicroscopicsolidsorliquiddropletsthataresosmallthattheycangetdeepintothelungsandcauseserioushealthproblems.Numerousscientificstudieshavelinkedparticlepollutionexposuretoavarietyofproblems,including:•Increasedrespiratorysymptoms,suchasirritationoftheairways,coughing,ordifficultybreathing;•Decreasedlungfunction;•Aggravatedasthma;•Developmentofchronicbronchitis;•Irregularheartbeat;•Non-fatalheartattacksandprematuredeathinpeoplewithheartorlungdisease.Peoplewithheartorlungdiseases,childrenandolderadultsarethemostlikelytobeaffectedbyexposuretoparticlepollution.However,evenhealthyindividualsmayexperiencetemporarysymptomsfromexposuretoelevatedlevelsofparticlepollution.Inadditiontothesepublichealthimpacts,fineparticlesarethemajorcauseofreducedvisibilityinpartsoftheUnitedStates,includingmanynationalparksandwildernessareas.Also,particlesaretransportedoverlongdistancesbywindandthensettleonthegroundorwater.Theeffectsofthissettlingincludemakinglakesandstreamsacidic,changingthenutrientbalanceincoastalwatersandlargeriverbasins,depletingthenutrients

in soil, damaging

sensitive

forests

and farm crops,

and affecting

the diversity

of ecosystems. Once

an area

is designated

as non-attainment—

as New Castle County

and

the

rest

of the Philadelphia

based non-attainment

area

have

been— the Clean

Air

Act requires

that

area to, within

three

years

of

the designation

effective

date, submit

to

the EPA

a State Implementation

Plan,

or SIP, which demonstrates

how

that

area

will attain compliance with

the NAAQS. The

SIP

is

a complex,

fluid document

containing

regulations, source-specific 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

nonattainment

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. As indicted

earlier,

this

SIP revision

is

to address

the EPA non-nonattainment

designation of New Castle County.

This

SIP revision

is due

to the EPA

in April

2008,

and attainment of the annual

PM 2 . 5 NAAQS

must

be demonstrated

by 2010. On March

30, 2007,

the EPA finalized

a PM 2 . 5 Implementation

Rule which

sets forth

the requirements

that

SIPs

must

meet

to satisfy

CAA requirements.

The federal

Rule

is prescriptive,

and requires: •

An attainment demonstration

(which includes associated

air quality modeling), • Adopted

State regulations

that

are relied

upon

to reduce emissions

of PM 2 . 5

and PM 2 . 5 precursors,

and •

A demonstration

that

the

area

will

attain

the standards

as expeditiously

as practicable. Tonight’s

hearing

is

on two

SIP documents

that

are proposed

to

be added

to Delaware’s SIP—

an Attainment Demonstration

for

the Philadelphia

based non-attainment

area, which includes

New Castle County, Delaware,

and Delaware’s

2002

base

year inventory. The

first document

that

we

are holding

the hearing

on tonight

is Delaware’s

PM 25 Attainment Demonstration

SIP

for

the Philadelphia

based non-attainment

area, which demonstrates

that

all

of

the CAA

and prescriptive

federal Implementation

Rule requirements

associated

with

the annual

PM 2 . 5 NAAQS

have

been

met;

and

that

New Castle

County

and

the

rest

of

the Philadelphia

based non-attainment

area

will attain compliance

with

the annual

PM 2 . 5 NAAQS

by 2010.

As such,

the

SIP covers,

and

this public hearing

is

to request comment

on,

the following

topics: 1) Delaware’s

2002 base-year

PM 2 , 5

SIP inventory.

The complete

inventory document

is

the second

item

that

is being discussed

tonight

to

be added

toDelaware’sSIP.Notethat2002baseinventoryyearwassetbytheEPA,asistheemissionsyearuponwhich2009attainmentyearemissionprojectionsarebased.2)FederalandStateemissioncontrolstrategiesthatwillresultinpost2002emissionreductionsby2009.Therelieduponcontrolmeasuresfocusonsecondarysulfateandnitrate,andmobilesourceemissionreductions,asthemonitoringnetworkindicatesthattheseareamaindriverofPM2.5concentrationsinthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea.3)CMAQmodelingandotheranalysistoestimatewhat2009PM2.5concentrationswillbeinthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea.Thismodelinganalysisdemonstratesthatwithallexistingandproposedcontrols,NewCastleCountyandtherestofthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentareaPM2.5willattainthePM25NAAQSin2009;4)Delaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and5)NOxemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,beingtreatedas“emitted”toensurethatanyfutureusewillnotinterferewithattainmentofthePM25NAAQS.Notethatthishearingisnotonthetopicssuchasthefollowing:•CommentsdealingwiththeadequacyofDelaware’smonitoringnetworkinKentandSussexCounty,asthesecountiesarenotincludedintheEPAidentifiedandestablishedPhiladelphianon-attainmentarea,whichisthesubjectofthisSIP.•Commentsdealingwithcancer,asthisSIPaddressescompliancewiththePM2.5NAAQSinNewCastleCountyandthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea.•CommentsdealingwithairpollutantemissionsinKentandSussexCounty,excepttotheextentthatthoseemissionsmustbemitigatedtoensureattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQSinthePhiladelphianon-attainmentarea,again,becausethepurposeoftheSIPistodemonstrateattainmentoftheEPAidentifiedandestablishedPhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea.•CommentsdealingwiththeadequacyofDelaware’smonitoringnetworkinNewCastleCounty,totheextentthatsuchmonitoringisnotadequatetoidentifynonattainment,asNewCastleCountyisinitsentiretyhasbeendesignatedbytheEPAasbeinginnon-attainmentrelativetothePM2.5NAAQS.However,commentsregardingwhetherornotanyportionofthePhiladelphianonattainmentareawillattaintheNAAQSby2009arethesubjectofthishearing.TheseconddocumentthatweareholdingthehearingontonightisDelaware’s2002BaseYearPM2.5SIPEmissionInventorySIP.ThisSIPrevisionprovidesacompleteandaccurate

calendar

year

2002

Base

Year Emissions

Inventory

for

all Delaware

counties

of PM 2 . 5 emissions

and emissions

of precursor

pollutants

that contribute

to the formation

of PM 2 . 5 , including

sulfur dioxide,

oxides

of nitrogen,

volatile

organic compounds,

and ammonia.

As

I indicated

earlier,

this inventory

document

also served

as

the primary source

of data

used

in the projection

of future

year emissions. The inventory

SiP

is organized

by source

sector: Stationary

Point Sources, Stationary Non-Point

Sources,

On-Road

Mobile

Sources, Non-Road

Mobile

Sources,

and Natural Sources.ATTACHMENT“B”DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControlAirQualityManagementSection(AQMS)responsetocommentsonDelaware’sStateImplementationPlan(SIP)forAttainmentofthePM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandardTheAQMSheldapublichearingonMarch4,2008onaproposedrevisiontoitsSIP,whichisinresponsetoanApril2005EPAPM2.5non-attainmentdesignation.TheEPAnonattainmentdesignationcoveredaPhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,whichincludedNewCastleCounty,Delaware.Thisnon-attainmentareaisfullydescribedintheproposedSIP(DepartmentExhibit1)onpages16and17.TheDepartmentdoesnotbelievethatallofthepubliccommentreceivedattheMarch4,2008publichearingisgermanetothisSiPrevision.SuchareasaresonotedintheAQMSresponsesprovidedbelow.Notethatdespitethisbelief,AQMSdoesagreewithmanyofthecommentsthatairpollutionisaseriousmatter.Whilewemaybelievethatsomeoftheinformationpresentedinthepubliccommentisnotgermanetothisspecificactionwedonotnecessarilydisagreewiththeinformationpresented,norbelievethattheinformationisnotimportant.ThisresponsedocumentisinnowayintendedtodownplayorunderminetheseriousnatureoftheimpactofPM2.5airpollution,orairpollutioningeneral,onpublichealth.Commenter1:AustinExhibit#1-CommentsmadebyMr.JohnAustin,representingtheCitizensforCleanPower(CCP).Comment1:Mr.AustinindicatesthattheDepartmentdidnotconductanUnmonitoredAreaAnalysis(UAA)oraLocalAreaAnalysis(LAA),andthattheseanalysesmustbedone.AOMSResponse:TheAQMSdoesnotagreewithMr.AustinthattheDepartmentdidnotconductanUAA.TheAQMSagreeswithMr.AustinthattheDepartmentdidnotconductaLAA,butdisagreesthataLAAwasnecessary.•UAA:TheAQMSdoesnotagreewithMr.AustinthattheDepartmentdidnotconductanUAA.TheDepartmentclearlypresentedanUAAonpages86through90oftheproposedSIPdocument.TheUAAcoveredtheentirePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarearelativetoboththeannualand24-hourPM2.5NAAQS,andevenextendedbeyondthenon-attainmentareaboundariesintoSussexCounty,Delaware.Theanalysisclearlyindictedthatallareasofthenon-attainmentarea,andbeyond,willattain(orremaininattainment)ofthePM2.5NAAQSin2010,withthehighestconcentrationsinthecovereddomainbeingontheorderof13.2ug/m3and28.5ug/m3forannualand24-hourPM2.5NAAQS,respectively.•LAA:TheAQMSagreeswithMr.AustinthattheDepartmentdidnotconductaLAAintheproposedSIP.Thisanalysiswasnotconductedbecausetheconditionsthattriggerthistypeofanalysiswerenotaresultofthemodeling.ThepurposeofaLAAistoidentifylocalprimaryPM2.5sourcesthatarethoughttobecontributingtoamonitorandcausingnon-attainmentoftheNAAQS.If,forexample,theCMAQmodelinghadpredictedthat2010PM2.5concentrationsatoneoftheDelawaremonitorswouldbeabovethe15.0ug/m3NAAQS,theDepartmentwouldhavebeenrequiredtoconductaLAAtodetermineifalocalsourcenearthatmonitorwascausingthehighconcentrations.However,sinceCMAQmodelingdidnotpredictanymonitorinthenon-attainmentareatoexceedtheNAAQSin2010itwouldnotbepossibleforalocalsourcetocauseaiexceedance(i.e.,localemissionsplustransportplusbackgroundatallmonitorsinthenon-attainmentareaareprojectedtoproducePM2.5concentrationsconsistentwithattainmentin2010).Becauseofthisitisnotnecessary,orevenpossible,toconductaLAA.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment2:Mr.AustinpresentedananalysiswherehecomparedtheincidenceofadversehealtheffectsassociatedwithhighPM2.5concentrationsataZIPcodelevel.Mr.Austin’sanalysiswasbasedonhistoricalhealtheffectdataforyears1992through2005.Mr.AustinindicatedthatadirectwayinwhichtoassessDelaware’sairmonitoringnetworkistoexamineDelaware’smonitoringnetworkinrelationtotheoccurrenceofinfantdeaths,stroke,heartdisease,andheartattacks.AfterrankingtheincidenceofthesediseasesbyZIPcode,Mr.AustinhypothesizedthatareaswithdiseaseincidenceabovethoseintheZIPcodewhichcontainsDelaware’sMartinLutherKingBoulevard(MLK)monitoringsitearepresumedtobeinmoresignificantnonattainmentforPM2.5thantheairqualityattheMLKsite.BasedonthisanalysisMr.Austinconcludedthat:•PM2.5concentrationsatanumberofareasinDelawarecurrentlyexceedthePM2.5concentrationsatDelaware’sPM2.5monitoringsites,andthattheseareaswillcontinuetoremaininnonattainmentdespitetheproposedSIP.•MuchofSussexCountyisinnon-attainmentofthePM2.5NAAQS,andinparticularmuchofSussexdownwindoftheIndianRiverPowerPlant.•AdditionalPM2.5monitoringsitesareneededinNewport,DelawareCity,PortPenn,northofDoverAirForceBase,Frederica,Laurel,LongNeckandOceanView,andLewes.•TheStateshighestpriorityshouldbetoreduceemissionsattheInvistafacility,whichareneededforSussextoattaincompliancewiththePM2.5NAAQS.AQMSResponse:ItappearsthatthisanalysispresentedbyMr.AustinwasintendedtobeanUnmonitoredAreaAnalysis(UAA)(referencethelinesIthrough15ofpage22ofthehearingtranscript),whichheconductedbecausehedidnotbelievethattheDepartmentitselfhadconductedanUAA.First,theDepartmentdidconductanUAAinitsproposedSIP(seeresponsetocomment1above).Second,AQMShasreviewedMr.Austin’sUAAandhasreachedthefollowingconclusions.•Mr.AustinindicatesthathebelievesthattheDepartmentmustreviseitsproposedSIPbasedonhisanalysis.TheproposedSIPthatMr.Austinisreferringto(i.e.,theSIPdocumentthatwasthesubjectoftheMarch4,2008publichearing)isanattainmentdemonstrationSIPwhichprojectsthatthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,whichincludesNewCastleCounty,Delaware,willattaincompliancewiththePM2.5NAAQSin2010.Inthiscontext,AQMSunderstandsMr.AustintoberecommendingthattheproposedSIPberevisedbecauseheprojectsthatportionsofDelawarewillnotattainthePM2.5NAAQSin2010,basedonhistoricalhealthdata.AQMSdoesnotagreewithMr.Austin’sconclusionbecausehisanalysisisbasedonhistoricaldata(i.e.,1999through2005data),andhistoricaldatadoesnotconsiderthemorethan74,541tonsperyearofPM2.5andPM2.5precursoremissionreductionsthattheSIPprojectswilloccurbetween2002and2009.Theseemissionreductionsareverysignificant,astheyrepresentasixty-one(61)percentreductionfrom2002levelsthatwilloccurasaresultofenforceablestateandfederalcontrolmeasures.AsexplainedintheproposedSIP,theseemissionreductionsarecentraltotheDepartment’sconclusionthatattainmentwillberealizedin2010,andtheDepartmentdoesnotbelievethatitispossibletopredict2010PM2.5concentrationswithoutconsideringthesesignificantemissionsreductions.•Mr.AustinconcludesthatunmonitoredareasinNewCastleCounty,Delawarehavehistorically,andcurrently,exceedthePM2.5NAAQS.TheDepartmentagreeswiththisconclusionbecauseNewCastleCounty,initsentirety,hasbeendesignatedbytheEPAasbeinginnon-attainmentrelativetothePM2.5NAAQS.NotethatwhileAQMSdoesagreewithMr.Austin’sconclusionthatunmonitoredareasinNewCastleCounty,Delawaremayhave,orcurrentlydoexceedthePM2.5NAAQS,wedonotnecessarilyagreewiththemethodologyusedbyMr.Austintoreachthisconclusion.AreasaredesignatedpursuanttoEPArequirementsthatarebasedoncensusdataandEPAapprovedambientmonitoringnetworks.Mr.Austin’smethodologyofdirectlyrelatinghealtheffects,suchasstrokeandinfantmortality,tothePM2.5statusofanarearelativetoafederalambientairqualitystandardis,totheAQMS’sknowledge,notapeerreviewedscientificapproach.AQMSunderstandsthatthePM2.5concentrationsinanareacontributetoadversehealtheffects,butlookingatittheoppositeway,asMr.Austinis(i.e.,concludingthatahigheroccurrenceofadversehealtheffectsinoneareacomparedtoanothermeansthatPM2.5concentrationsinthatareaarehigherthantheother)isnotintuitive.ThehealthimpactsnotedbyMr.Austinhavenumerouscauses,andthehypothesisthattheentiredeviationinhealthimpactoccurrencefromoneareatoanotherisduetoPM2.5concentrationsdoesnotseemvalid.However,despitetheabove,significantreductionsinPM5andPM2.5precursoremissionsareprojectedtobeachievedby2010basedonenforceablefederalandStateemissioncontrolmeasures,andbasedontheDepartmentsmodelinganalysis,whichincludesanUAA,theentirePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,whichincludesNewCastleCounty,DelawareisprojectedtoattaincompliancewiththeNAAQSby2010.•Mr.AustinalsoconcludedfromhisanalysisthatareasofKentandSussexCounty,DelawarearenotincompliancewiththePM25NAAQS.Thesecommentsarenotrelatedtothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,whichdoesnotincludeeitherKentorSussexCounty;andinadditionthispublicrecorddoesnotdealwithareadesignations.WhilenotrelatedtothispublicrecordtheAQMSnotesthatareadesignationsfortheentireStatewerecompletedbytheEPAin2005basedonapprovedambientmonitoringnetworksandtheproceduresin40CFRPart50,AppendixN,andthemonitoringdatainKentandSussexCountywasatthattimeconsistentwithattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQS,andhasremainedatlevelsconsistentwithattainmentsincethattime.Inaddition,theAQMSdoesnotagreethatthetypeofanalysisthatMr.AustinusedtoreachthisconclusionisappropriateforareadesignationsrelativetoaNAAQS,asindicatedabove.•RegardingMr.Austin’srecommendationthatadditionalairmonitorsshouldbeplacedinspecifiedareasthroughoutthestate,thesecommentsarenotgermanetothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andnotonDelaware’sairmonitoringnetworkdesign.Mr.Austin’scommentshavebeenforwardedtotheAQMAirSurveillanceBranchforconsiderationinthenextmonitoringplanupdate.•TheAQMSdoesnotagreewithMr.Austin’srecommendationthatitmustreduceemissionsattheInvistafacilityinorderforSussexCountytoattaincompliancewiththePM2.5NAAQS.First,emissionreductionsfromtheInvistafacilityarenotdemonstratedasbeingneededforanypartofthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentareatoattaincompliancewiththePM2.5NAAQSby2010,andbecauseofthisAQMSdoesnotbelievethatthiscommentisgermanetothispublicrecord(i.e.,thispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea).However,whileoutsideofthispublicrecord,theAQMSnotesthatitiscurrentlyworkingtoreduceInvistaemissionsby2009underactionsnotrelatedtothisproposedSIP.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment3:Mr.Austinbelievesthatmoresophisticatedparticulatespeciationanalysisneedstobeperformedintheareasofhighcancerincidence,specificallytheValeroRefineryandtheIndianRiverPowerPlanttoassessthecarcinogenicityofparticulatematterintheseareas.AQMSResponse:AQMSdoesnotbelievethatthiscommentisgermanetothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedSIPdocumentonattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQSinthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andnotonmonitoringtoidentifythecarcinogenicityofspeciatedparticulatematter.However,theAQMSnotesthatitiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralstate-widecancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium.Also,theAQMSdevelopedastrategicplanningprocessandcontinuestoundertakeactivitiestoreducegaseousandparticulatecarcinogensandotherairtoxicsemissionsfrombothmobileandstationarysources.Inaddition,DelawaredoesconductlimitedmonitoringofPM2.5constituentsorspeciesincompliancewithfederalguidelinesatitsMLKandDoversites.ResearchintotheidentificationofcarcinogenicPM2.5speciesisnotaprimaryfunctionofthemonitoringnetworkandisnotfundedbyEPAatthistime.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment4:Mr.AustinbelievesthatspecificEPAmonitoringrequirementsarenotmet.Heindicatesthatnetworkdesigncriteriarequireatleastonemonitoringstationtobesitedinapopulation-orientedareaofexpectedmaximumconcentration,andthatforthepopulationexposedtothestate’slargestsource,thereisnomonitoring.HeindicatedthatadditionalsitesareneededtocovertheValeroRefinery,DAFB,andIndianRiverPowerPlant.AQMSResponse:AQMSdoesnotbelievethatthiscommentisgermanetothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedSIPdocumentonattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQS,andnotonDelaware’smonitoringnetworkdesign.However,forcompleteness,AQMSprovidesthefollowinginformationontsmonitoringnetwork:•Delaware’soriginalPM2.5monitoringnetworkdesignandmonitorsitingwerecompletedinaccordancewithEPArequirementsandguidanceasstatedin40CFRPart58AppendicesDandE,andtheEPAOAQPSdocument“GuidanceforNetworkDesignandOptimumSiteExposureforPM2.5andPM10”(U.S.EPA1997a).FinalnetworkdocumentsweresubmittedtoEPARegion3inJune1998,andEPAapprovedDelaware’sPM2.5monitoringnetwork.•AnnualAmbientAirMonitoringNetworkReviews,includingPM25,havebeencompletedeachyearinaccordancewith40CFRPart58AppendixDandsubsequentlysubmittedtoEPARegion3forapproval.•Infulfillmentofthefederal103GrantRequirements,DelawaresubmitsannualDataQualityAssessmentsforPM2.5speciationdataandPM2.5FRMdatatoEPARegion3.Alldatacomplywithappropriatefederalandstaterequirements,including40CFRPart50AppendicesLandN,and40CFRPart58AppendixA.•Infulfillmentofthefederal103GrantRequirements,DelawarealsosubmitsannualPM2.5SpeciationMonitoringNetworkReviewandMonitoringStrategyreportstoEPARegion3.ThePM2.5speciationnetworkdesignandmonitorsitingfollowsEPArequirementsandguidanceasstatedin40CFRPart58AppendicesDandE,andthedocuments“GuidanceforNetworkDesignandOptimumSiteExposureforPM2.5andPM10”(U.S.EPA1997a),“ParticulateMatter(PM2.5)SpeciationGuidance”(U.S.EPA1999),and“GuidelineonSpeciatedParticulateMonitoring”(U.S.EPA1999a).Mr.Austin’scommentshavebeenforwardedtotheAQMAirSurveillanceBranchforconsiderationinthenextmonitoringplanupdate.Inadditiontotheabove,theAQMSnotesthatitsAirSurveillanceBranchiscurrentlyconductingaspecialPM2.5monitoringstudyneartheIndianRiverPowerPlanttoverifythatPM2.5concentrationsmeasuredattheSeafordsitearerepresentativeofthoseintheMilisboroarea.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment5:Mr.AustinnotesthatitisDelaware’sobligationtoinsurethateachofitscitizenshascleanairtobreathe,andthatDelawareremainsobligatedtoassureallDelawareisinattainmentoftheNAAQS.AQMSResponse:TheAQMSfullyconcurswiththiscomment,asthisisamainreasonwhyithasdevelopedthisproposedSIP.TheproposedSIPdocumentsthesignificantemissionreductionsthatwilloccurthroughouttheStateofDelaware,andprojectsthatallNewCastleCountyandallareasofthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,bothmonitoredandunmonitored,willattaintheNAAQSin2010.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Insummary,theDepartmentbelievesthatnochangestotheproposedSIPareneededrelativetothecommentsprovidedbyMr.Austin.TheDepartmentbelievesthattheproposedSIPmeetsallrequirementsassetforthintheCleanAirAct,theEPAPM2.5ImplementationRule,andthusfulfillsEPArequirementstodemonstrateattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQSinthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,toincludeNewCastleCounty,by2010.Commenter2:CommentsmadebyNancyFeichtl.Ms.Feichtlpresentspersonalexperienceswherebysheandothershaveexperiencednegativehealtheffects.Theseincludepersonalandfamilyexperiencewithcancer,asthma,pacemakerandstrokes.Inaddition,Ms.FeichtlcitesincreasingratesofrespiratorydiseasesintheCapeHenlopenSchoolDistrictsincethe1980s,whichsheattributedtoambientparticulatematterconcentrations.Ms.Feichtlpresentedacostanalysisoftheamountofmoneyspenttohelpeducatechildrenwithdisabilities,particularlyseveredisabilitiessuchasautism,andheranalysisindicatedthat$79millionayearcouldbesavedifwejustcleanedupourair.VAQMSResponse:AQMSagreesthattherearenegativehealtheffectsassociatedwithPM2.5non-attainment.PublichealthisthemainreasonwhytheDepartmentdevelopedthisproposedSIP.TheproposedSIPdocumentsthereductionof74,541tonsperyearofPM2.5andPM2.5precursoremissionsby2010,whichcorrespondstoasixty-one(61)percentreductionfrom2002emissionlevelsthatwilloccurthroughouttheStateofDelaware.Basedonthesesignificantreductions,andtheenforceablereductionsfromotherareasinthemodelingdomain,theproposedSIPprojectsthatallNewCastleCountyandallareasofthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,bothmonitoredandunmonitored,willattaincompliancewiththeNAAQSin2010.AlthoughthispublicrecorddoesnotdealwithareasoutsideofthePhiladelphiabasednonattainmentarea,allareasofDelawarewillbenefitfromtheemissionreductionsuponwhichtheproposedSIPisbased.Inaddition,theAQMSnotesthatitiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralcancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium,andaspecialPM2.5monitoringstudyaroundtheIndianRiverPowerPlanttoverifythatPM2.5concentrationsmeasuredattheSeafordsitearerepresentativeofthoseintheMillsboroarea.Also,theAQMSdevelopedastrategicplanningprocessandcontinuestoundertakeactivitiestoreducegaseousandparticulatecarcinogensandotherairtoxicsemissionsfrombothmobileandstationarysources.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter3:CommentsmadebyIsabelBenson.Ms.BensondiscussedtheStateofDelaware’shighhealthcarecostsassociatedwithcancerpatientcare,andindicatedthatitwouldbecosteffectivefortheStatetoinvestinadditionalmonitor(s)tohelpdeterminehowmuchofanimpactairqualityishavingonthequantityofcancercasesintheState.AQMSResponse:Ms.Benson’srecommendationsarenotgermanetothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPforthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andnotonDelaware’sairmonitoringnetworkdesign.However,Ms.Benson’scommentshavebeenforwardedtotheAQMAirSurveillanceBranchforconsiderationinthenextmonitoringplanupdate.Inaddition,theAQMSnotesthatitiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralcancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium.Also,theAQMSdevelopedastrategicplanningprocessandcontinuestoundertakeactivitiestoreducegaseousandparticulatecarcinogensandotherairtoxicsemissionsfrombothmobileandstationarysources.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposdSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter4:CommentsmadebyNeilKubala.Mr.KubalaisacancersurvivorandtheRadiologymanagerofBeebeMedicalCenter.Mr.Kubalastatedthateveryweekheseespatientswithcancerproblems,andindicatedthatwemustdosomethingtostopcancer.AOMSResponse:AQMSagreesthatcancerisaterribledisease.ThispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasedPM2.5nonattainmentarea.Whilenotpartofthispublicrecord,theAQMSnotesthatitiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralcancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium.Also,theAQMSdevelopedastrategicplanningprocessandcontinuestoundertakeactivitiestoreducegaseousandparticulatecarcinogensandotherairtoxicsemissions.frombothmobileandstationarysources.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter5:CommentsmadebyCherrieRich.Ms.RichhasbeentheDirectoroftheTunnelCancerCenterforthepasteightyears.Ms.Richindictedthatshehasseenthenumberofcancercasesincreasesignificantlyoverthepasteightyears.Ms.Richindicatedthatalthoughcurrenttreatmentsareverygoodweneedbetterstrategiesforaddressingprevention.Ms.RichrecommendedthatAQMSinstallairmonitorsinareaswithcancerclusterstohelpindevelopingthosestrategies.AQMSResponse:Ms.Rich’srecommendationsthatadditionalairmonitorsbeinstalledaspartofanoverallstrategytoreducecancerarenotrelatedtothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPforthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andnotonDelaware’sairmonitoringnetworkdesign.However,Ms.Benson’scommentshavebeenforwardedtotheAQMAirSurveillanceBranchforconsiderationinthenextmonitoringplanupdate.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter6:PrescottExhibits.CommentsmadebyJamesPrescott.Mr.PrescottreferencedaneditorialwrittenbyDr.DonaldKennedy.Mr.PrescottindicatesthatthiseditorialconcludesthattheU.S.regulatorysystemfortoxicindustrialchemicalsisnoteffectiveandisathreattopublichealth,andMr.PrescottindicatedthathebelievesthisconclusionappliestotheStateofDelaware.Mr.Prescottalsodiscussedanarticlethatdiscussedhowtheperiodsofembryonic,fetalandinfantdevelopmentareverysusceptibletotoxicexposures.Heindictedthatthearticleconcludedthat1)themother’schemicalbodyburdenwillbesharedwithherfetus,andthechildmaybeexposedtolargerdosesrelativetobodyweight,2)thatsusceptibilitytoawiderangeofadverseeffectsisincreasedduringdevelopmentfrompreconceptionthroughadolescence,and3)thatdevelopmentalexposurescanleadtolifelongfunctionaldeficitsanddisease.Mr.PrescottalsopresentedinformationthatindictedDelawarehasoneoftheworstrecordsofinfantmortality,andthatisunconscionableandnotacceptable.BasedonallofthisinformationMr.PrescottrecommendedthatDNREC:•EstablisheffectivemonitorsofalltoxicemissionsproducedbytheIndianRiverandEdgemoorPowerPlants.Reportconsequencesoftoxicemissionsbyzipcodeforhealthcomplicationsanddeathsperbelow;•SupportlegislativeeffortstorequiretheDivisionofPublicHealthtoreportinfantmortalityrates,infantmortalityrates,fetalandperinatalmortalityrates;childmortalityrates;infantandchildhospitalizations;e.g.respiratoryimpairments;cancerdeathsandotherhealthfatalitiesbyzipcode.AOMSResponse:AQMSfullyagreesthattoxicchemicalsarebadfortheenvironmentandpublichealth,andthatnegativehealthimpactsasaresultofexposuremayberealizedthroughoutone’slife.TothisendDNREChasintroducedandimplementedmanycontrolmeasurestoreducepublicexposuretoairemissions.Infact,thereasonforthisSIPistoanalyzethemanyemissioncontrolmeasuresthathavereducedPM2.5andPM2.5prccursoremission,andtoassesstheirimpactontheNewCastleCountyPM2.5non-attainmentproblem.Further,AQMSiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralcancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium,whichincludelookingintothesourcesofandmagnitudeoftoxicchemicalsfromtoxicemitters.Also,theAQMSdevelopedastrategicplanningprocessandcontinuestoundertakeactivitiestoreducegaseousandparticulatecarcinogensandotherairtoxicsemissionsfrombothmobileandstationarysources.However,AQMSdoesnotbelievethatMr.Prescott’srecommendationsthatairmonitorsbeinstalledtomeasuretoxicairpollutantsbyIndianRiverandEdgemoorPowerPlants,oritssupportforfuturelegislationaregermanetothispublicrecord.ThispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPofPM2.5onthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andisnotonDelaware’sairmonitoringnetworkdesign.However,Mr.Prescott’scommentshavebeenforwardedtotheAQMAirSurveillanceBranchforconsiderationinthenextmonitoringplanupdate.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter7:GearityExhibits.CommentsmadebyPatGearityrepresentingtheCitizensforCleanPower.Comment1:Ms.GearityintroducedintothepublicrecordapersonalletterfromSylviaDavisPinkett,withthesubjectline:“PollutionoftheAirandWaterSurroundingtheIndianRiverPowerPlantinSussexCounty,DE.”ThelettertalksabouthowtheairandwaterqualityintheIndianRiverareahavedeterioratedsincethe1940’s,andlistsmanypeoplethatsherecallsfromtheIndianRiverareaashavingdiedfrom,orsurvivedcancer.Ms.SylviaDavisPinketts’letterindicatedthathergreatestconcernnowispollutionoftheairbytheIndianRiverPowerplant.AOMSResponse:AQMSagreesthatairandwaterpollutioncancauseorcontributetoserioushealthproblems.ThatisamainreasonwhytheDepartmentdevelopedthisSIP.TheproposedSIPdocumentsthereductionof74,541tonsperyearofPM2,5andPM2,5precursoremissionsby2010,whichcorrespondstoasixty-one(61)percentreductionfrom2002emissionlevelsthatwilloccurthroughouttheStateofDelaware.Inaddition,theproposedSIPdocumentssignificantemissionreductionsthathavebeenrequiredattheIndianRiverPowerplant.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment2:AsaresultofseeingMr.Austin’sdataandattendingpublichearingsMs.GearitybesiegestheDepartmenttodosomethingabouttheairqualityinthestate.Ms.GearityindicatedthatshebelievesthatareasaroundWilmington,DelawareCityandtheareaaroundIndianRivermeritemergencyhealthmeasurestoprotectthepeople.Ms.Gearityrefers,totheimpactsofpollutionasexpressedbyothercommenter’sattheMarch4,2008hearing,andaskstheDepartmenttobearinmindthedeathsofinfantsandcancerpatientsaswecommunicatewithPublicHealth.AOMSResponse:ThepurposeofthisproposedSIPistodocumentthemeasuresthatarenecessaryforNewCastleCountyandthePhiladelphiabasedPM2.5non-attainmentareatoattaincompliancewiththePM2,5NAAQS.TheAQMSbelievesSection7oftheproposedSIPdocumentssomeoftheDepartmentseffortstocleantheairinthestate;asitliststwentynine(29)enforceablecontrolmeasuressince2002thatwillreducestatewideairpollutionby74,541tonsperyearofPM2.5andPM2.5precursorby2009.Thiscorrespondstoasixty-one(61)percentreductionfrom2002levels.Inaddition,AQMSiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralcancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium,whichincludelookingintothesourcesofandmagnitudeoftoxicchemicalsfromtoxicemitters.Also,theAQMSdevelopedastrategicplanningprocessandcontinuestoundertakeactivitiestoreducegaseousandparticulatecarcinogensandotherairtoxicsemissionsfrombothmobileandstationarysources.And,manyotherregulatorydevelopment,permitting,complianceandenforcementactivitiesareon-goingseparatefromthetopicofthispublicrecord,toprovideforcleanairinthestate.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter8:FurtadoExhibits.CommentsmadebyKimFurtadorepresentingtheCitizensforCleanPower.Comment1:Ms.FurtadoindicatedconcernthattheproposedSIPdoesnotincludeincreasedairmonitoringinSussexCounty.Ms.FurtadonotedthattherearenospeciationmonitorsinSussex,andnomonitornearthelargestpointsourcepolluterinSussex.Ms.FurtadorecommendedthattheSIPbeadjustedtoexpandtheairmonitoringnetwork.InsupportofthisrecommendationMs.Furtadopresentedclinicalbodyburdendataandinformationonclustersofcancer,infantdeathandheartdiseaseneartheIndianRiverPowerPlant.Ms.Furtadopresenteddatawhichindicatedheavymetalconcentrationsinindividualsthatwereabovethereferencerangeforacertainnumberofheavymetalsthatarecombustioncoalproducts.SherelatedthistotheproximityoftheIndianRiverpowerplantandshowedarelationshiptohigherlevelsthanthoseoutsideproximitytotheplant.AOMSResponse:RegardingMs.Furtado’srecommendationthatadditionalairmonitorsshouldbeplacedinSussexCounty,thesecommentsarenotrelatedtothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andnotonDelaware’airmonitoringnetworkdesign.Ms.Furtado’scommentshavebeenforwardedtotheAQMAirSurveillanceBranchforconsiderationinthenextmonitoringplanupdate.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment2:Ms.Furtad.oindicatedthataproperlydesignedmultifactorialinvestigationofthepollutionburdeninSussexCountyisnecessary.Ms.Furtadopresentedclinicalbodyburdendataandinformationonclustersofcancer,infantdeathandheartdiseasetosupportthisrecommendation.Inaddition,Ms.Furtadonotedthatgalliumisamarkerforcoalcombustion,andthatitcouldbeincludedinourdesign,toaidinunderstandingwhattheparticulatematteristhatisactuallybeingaffectedontothepopulation.Insummary,Ms.Furtadoindicatedthatbioburdendata,compoundedwithambientmonitoringdata,toincludespeciationdata,frommultipleSussexlocationsisanaccurate,scientificwaytoassesstheparticulatematterburdenandpublichealthrisks.AQMSResponse:RegardingMs.Furtado’srecommendationthattheStateundertakeamultifactorialinvestigationofthepollutionburdeninSussexCounty,thesecommentsarenotrelatedtothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea.Ms.FurtadoindicatedthatsimilarcommentshavealreadybeenmadetotheDepartmentofPublicHealth,andAQMSagreesthatPublicHealthistheappropriateagencytoaddressthisissue.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment3:Ms.FurtadoindicatedthattheSIPisinadequatebecauseitfailstorecognizetheexistenceofacancerclusteraroundtheIndianRiverPowerplant,andbecauseitfailstoaccountfortheconcernraisedbydiseaseclustersandpresentedbodyburdendata.SheindicatedthatparticulatematterpollutionimpactsarewelldocumentedanddeservemoreactionthanaregivenintheproposedSIP.AQMSResponse:AQMSdoesnotbelievethatthesecommentsaregermanetothispublicrecord,asthepublicrecorddealswithaproposedSIPdocumentonattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQSinthePhiladelphiabasednon-attainmentarea,andnotonthecarcinogenicityofspeciatedparticulatematter.However,theAQMSnotesthatitiscurrentlyinvolvedinseveralcancerrelatedinitiatives,toincludetheDelawareAirToxicsAssessmentStudy,andinitiativesassociatedwiththeDelawareCancerConsortium,Inaddition,DelawaredoesconductlimitedmonitoringofPM2.5constituentsorspeciesincompliancewithfederalguidelinesattwosites-MLKandDover.ResearchintotheidentificationofcarcinogenicPM2.5speciesisnotaprimaryfunctionofthemonitoringnetworkandisnotfundedbyEPAatthistime.Further,AQMSdoesnotagreewithcommentstotheeffectthattheproposedSIPdoesnotadequatelyconsiderthenegativehealthimpactsofparticulatepollution.Infact,theproposedSIPconsidersthemorethan74,541tonsperyearofPM2.5andPM2.5precursoremissionreductionsthatareprojectedtooccurbetween2002and2009,whichcorrespondstoasixtyone(61)percentreductionfrom2002levels.Thesesignificantemissionreductionswilloccurasaresultofenforceablestateandfederalcontrolmeasures,andthesereductionsarecentraltotheDepartment’sconclusionthatattainmentwillberealizedin2010.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Comment4:Ms.FurtadoindicatedthatshehasconsiderablequestionsastowhetherSussexCountyisinattainment.SheindicatedthatshedoesnotacceptthecomputermodelingthattheSIPisbasedon.AQMSResponse:Thesecommentsarenotrelatedtothispublicrecord,asthispublicrecorddealswithaproposedattainmentdemonstrationSIPonthePhiladelphiabasednonattainmentarea,whichdoesnotincludeeitherKentorSussexCounty;andinadditionthispublicrecorddoesnotdealwithareadesignations.WhilenotrelatedtothispublicrecordtheAQMSnotesthatareadesignationswerecompletedbytheEPAin2005basedonapprovedambientmonitoringnetworksandtheproceduresin40CFRPart50,AppendixN,andthemonitoringdatainKentandSussexCountywasatthattimeconsistentwithattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQS,andhasremainedatlevelsconsistentwithattainmentsincethattime.TheAQMSrecommendsnochangestotheproposedSIPbasedonthiscomment.Commenter9:CommentsmadebyRoseQuintoandDennisLohman,representingtheRegion3Office(Philadelphia)oftheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA)Comment1:“ThetitlefortheSIPismisleading.TheplanmustbeforattainmentofthePM2.5nationalambientairqualitystandard(NAAQS),notjusttheannualstandard.ThenonattainmentdesignationsweremadeforPM2.5anddidnotspecifyonlytheannualstandard.ThePMImplementationRule(72FR20600,April25,2007)explicitlyreferstodeterminingattainmentoftheannualand24-hourstandards.”AOMSResponse:AQMSconcurswithEPA,andtheword“annual”willberemovedfromthetitle.Comment2:ThefirstsentenceofthefirstparagraphoftheExecutiveSummaryincorrectlystates,“InApril2005theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)designated126areasofthecountryas“non-attainment”undertheannualfineparticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS).”TheareasweredesignatedasnonattainmentforPM2.5NAAQS,notjusttheannualNAAQS.AQMSResponse:AQMSconcurswithEPA,andtheword“annual”willberemovedfromthefirstsentenceofthefirstparagraphoftheExecutiveSummarytitle.Comment3:The4thparagraphoftheExecutiveSummary,2’bulletincorrectlystates,“DemonstratesthattheentirePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattaintheannualPM2.5NAAQSin2009.”TheareasweredesignatedasnonattainmentforPM2.5NAAQS,notjusttheannualNAAQS.AQMSResponse:AQMSconcurswithEPA,andtheword“annual”willberemovedfromthe4thparagraphoftheExecutiveSummary,2tdbullet.Comment4:Section1containstheincorrectstatement,“NewCastleCounty,DelawarewasdesignatedbytheEPAasbeinginnon-attainmentforthisannualPM2.5NAAQSinApril2005.”NewCastleCounty,aspartofthePhiladelphiaarea,wasdesignatedasbeinginnonattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQS,notjusttheannualPM2.5NAAQS.AOMSResponse:AQMSconcurswithEPA,andtheword“annual”willberemovedfromtheSection1statement:“NewCastleCounty,DelawarewasdesignatedbytheEPAasbeinginnon-attainmentforthisannualPM2.5NAAQSinApril2005.”Comment5:Theconcludingparagraphofsection1.1isincomplete.Theparagraphreads,“ThisdocumentdemonstratesthatalloftheCAAandRulerequirementsassociatedwiththeannualPM2.5NAAQShavebeenmet;andthatDelawareandtheentirePhiladelphiaWilmington-DE-PA-NJnon-attainmentareawillattaincompliancewiththeannualPM2.5NAAQSasexpeditiouslyaspracticable,andnotlaterthan2010.“Thedocumentmust,inadditiondemonstratethatalloftheCAAandRulerequirementsassociatedwiththe1997PM2.5NAAQShavebeenmet;andthatDelawareandtheentirePhiladelphia-WilmingtonDE-PA-NJnon-attainmentareawillattaincompliancewiththe1997PM2.5NAAQSasexpeditiouslyaspracticable,andnotlaterthan2010.AOMSResponse:AQMSconcurswithEPA,andtheword“annual”willberemovedfromparagraph1.1.Comment6:Section1.5,paragraphsIand3areincomplete.Theparagraphsread,“EffectiveApril5,2005theEPAdesignated47areas,composedof224countiesandtheDistrictofColumbiaas“nonattainment”underthePM2.5annualNAAQS(70FR944,January5,2005)....“AccordingtotheCAA,theentirePhiladelphiaNAAmustattainthePM2.5annualNAAQSasexpeditiouslyaspracticable,andnotlaterthan2010.”Thedocumentmust,inadditiondemonstratethatalloftheCAAandRulerequirementsassociatedwiththe1997PM25NAAQShavebeenmet;andthatDelawareandtheentirePhiladelphia-Wilmington-DE-PA-NJnon-attainmentareawillattaincompliancewiththe1997PM2.5NAAQSasexpeditiouslyaspracticable,andnotlaterthan2010.AQMSResponse:AQMSconcurswithEPA,andtheword“annual”willberemovedfromSection1.5,paragraphs1and3.Comment7:TheAttainmentDemonstrationasdescribedinSection6satisfiesEPA’srequirements.AQMSResponse:AQMSagreesthatSection6satisfiesEPA’srequirements.Comment8:HasRegulation1142,Section2,ControlofNOxEmissionsfromIndustrialBoilersandProcessHeatersatpetroleumRefineries,NOxemissioncontrol,NewCastleCountybeenadoptedbyDelaware?AOMSResponse:Yes.Regulation1142,Section2,ControlofNOxEmissionsfromIndustrialBoilersandProcessHeatersatpetroleumRefineries,NOxemissioncontrol,NewCastleCountywaseffectiveonJuly,2007.Comment9:EPArequestedAQMStolistthespecificcontingencymeasurestobeundertakeniftheareafailstomakeRFPortoattainthePM2.5NAAQSbyitsattainmentdate?NocontingencymeasureswerelistedintheSIP.AQMSResponse:AQMSbelievesthatbydemonstratingthattheemissionreductionsnecessarytodemonstratingattainmentwereexceeded,thisSIPrequirementwasmet.However,theAQMSdoesunderstandthisEPAcomment,andwehaveadjustedthelanguageaccordinglyandlistedthespecificmeasuresthatsatisfythisEPArequest.Section9willbeupdatedbyaddingthefollowinglanguage:Specificcontingencymeasuresare:NOxDelawareReg.1146Delawareestimatesthat2009statewideEGUNOxemissionsare5,933TPYlessthantheMANEVU1PMcalculations,owingtoDelawareReg.1146.Therefore,tomeetthe1,100TPYNOxrequiredforcontingency,weapportion1,100TPYfor2011contingencymeasuresfromDelawareReg.1146andtheremaining4,833TPYbackintothemodel.PM2.5-ConsentDecreewithPremcorRefinery2:DelawaregainsadditionalreductionsinNewCastleCountybeyondthosemodeledbyMANEVU,of234TPY.ThisispartlyduetotheMANEVTJ2009projectionsover-estimatingthe2009PM2.5emissionsfromCokerOff-GasatthePremcorRefineryby223TPY.TheUnitiscoveredunderaConsentDecreewithPremcorRefinery,DelawareCity(formerlyMotivaEnterprises)NewCastleCounty,ControlofSO2,andNOEmissionfromBoilersandHeaters.Therefore,tomeetthe26TPYPM2.5requiredforcontingency,fromtheCokerOff-Gasover-estimates,weapportion26TPYfor2011contingencymeasuresandtheremaining197backintothemodel.“...willspecificallyimplement2011SO2contingencymeasuresasfollows:S02-DelawareReg.1146:Delawareestimatesthatstatewide2009EGUSO2emissionsare18,476TPYlessthantheMANEVU1PMcalculations,owingtoDelawareReg.1146.Therefore,tomeetthe5,463TPYSO2requiredforcontingency,weapportion5,463TPYfor2011contingencymeasuresfromRegulation1146,andtheremaining13,013backintothemodel.Thisisanon-substantivechange,asitisconsistentwithinformationthatwasalreadyintheproposedSIPdocument.RegulationsGoverningtheControlofAirPollutionNo.1146ElectricGeneratingUnit(EGU)Multi-PollutantRegulation,DelawareDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControl,Dover,Delaware,Effective12/11/06.2ConsentDecreewithPremcorRefineryatDelawareCity(formerlyMotivaEnterprises),NewCastleCounty,ControlofNOxEmissionfromBoilersandHeaters,Effective2008STATEOFDELAWAREDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES&ENVIRONMENTALCONTROLDIVISIONOFAIR&WASTEMANAGEMENTAIRQUALITYMANAGEMENT156S.STATESTREETTELEPHONE:(302)739-9402SECTIONDOVER,DELAWARE19901F<No.:(302)739-3106CERTIFICATIONApril2,2008IherebycertifythatapublichearingwasheldMarch4,2008,onaproposedrevisiontotheStateofDelawareStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS).ThisrevisionisinresponsetoEPA’sApril,2005non-attainmentdesignationforthePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DEMetropolitanStatisticalArea,whichincludesNewCastleCounty,Delaware,underthePM25NAAQS.TheeffectivedateofthisrevisionisApril1,2008.Delaware’sproposedSIPforAttainmentofthePM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandardwilldothefollowing:1)Demonstratethatwithallexistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM2.5monitorswillshowattainmentby2010;2)DemonstratethattheentirePhiladelphiaWilmington,PA-NJ-DEnonattainmentareawillattainthePM2.5NAAQSin2009;3)EstablishDelaware’s2009mobilesourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and4)TreatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,as“emitted.”IfurthercertifythatthehearingwasheldinaccordancewiththenoticerequiredbySubsection51.102of40CFR51.AuMirzakhäfili,P.E.AdministratorAirQualityManagementDivisionofAirandWasteManagementPRINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPERVe€a44eJtaaeDeftetd4ooa1Independent

Newspapers,

Inc. P.O.

Box

7001 ‘Dover, Delaware’

19903’ 1-800-282-8556 State

of Delaware:

ss. Counties

of Kent: Before

me,

a Notary

Public,

for

the County

and State aforesaid,

Wanda Ford-Waring, known

to me

to

be such,

who being

sworn according

to law deposes

and

says

that

she

is an officer

of Independent

Newspaper

mc,

the Publisher

of the

The Delaware

State News,

a daily newspaper

published

at Dover,

County

of Kent,

and State

of Delaware,

and that

the notice,

a copy

of which

is ereto attached,

as ublished

in the

The Delaware State

News

in

its issue

of

(7 Sworn

to and subscribed

before

me

this

/ 7 Day

A.D. ____I Independent

Newspapers,

Inc. P.O.

Box

7001

Dover Delaware

• 19903• 1-800-282-8586 State

of Delaware:

:ss.

1hn11-

14 Counties

of Kent: Before

me,

a Notary

Public,

for

the County

and State aforesaid,

Wanda Fond-Waring, known

to me

to

be such,

who being

sworn according

to law deposes

and

says

that

she

is an officer

of Independent

Newspaper

mc,

the Publisher

of the

The Delaware

State News,

a daily newspaper

published

at Dover,

County

of Kent,

and State

of Delaware,

and that

the notice,

a copy

of wli

is hereto attached,

as published

in the

The Delaware State

News

in

its issue Sworn

to and subscribe

efore

me

this Day

of

VYUA WUrI

A.D.

fi(

Jo Independent

News]

c7f U

a

# Air Quality Management

Section• LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING The Department

of Natural Resources

and Environmental

Control (DNREC),

Air Quality Manage n,ent Section

will conduct

a public hearing

on proposed

revisions

to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)

for

the Attainment

of the Annual

Fine Particle

(PM2.5)

National

Ambient

Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). In April

2005

the Environmental

Protection

Agency

(EPA) designated

126 areas

of the country

as non-attainment

under

the annual PM2.5NAAQS.

Among

those non-attainment

areas

is the Philadelphia-Wilmington,

PA-NJ-DE Non-Attainment

Area (NAA).

This

NM includes

New Casde County

in Delaware,

and federal

law requires

the NAA

to attain

the NAAQS

by April,

2010.

In re sponse

to the non-attainment

designation

Delaware

has developed

this

SIP revision. * Delaware’s

proposed

SIP

for Attainment

of the Annual

PM2.5 National

Ambient

Air f1uality Standard The purpose

of this

SIP

is

to:

1) Demonstrate

that

with

all exisfing

and proposed

controls,

all

of Delaware’s

PM2.5 monitors

will show attainment

in 2009;

2) Demonstrate

that

the entire

Phila delphia-Wilmington,

PA-NJ-DE nonattainment

area

will attain

the annual

PM2

5 NAAQS

in 2009; 3) Establish Delaware’s

2009 mobile

source budgets

for transportahon

conformity

determina tions

under Regulabon

No. 1132, Transportation

Conformity;

and

4) Treat emission

reduction credds

banked

under Regulation

No.

34, Emissions

Banking

and Trading Program,

as ernitted. * Delaware’s

2002

Base

Year PM2.5

SIP Emission

Inventory This

SIP revision

will provide

a complete

and accurate

calendar

year

2002

Base

Year Emissions Inventory

for

all Delaware

counties

of PM2,5 emissions

and emissions

of precursor

pollutants that contribute

to the formaUon

of PM2.5, including

sulfur dioxide,

oxides

of nitrogen,

volatile organic compounds,

and ammonia,

And,

it will serve

as the primary

source

of data

used

in the pro(ection

of future

year emissions.

:-. The public hearing

will

be held Tusday,

March 4,2008, beginning

at 6:00

p.m.

in the DNREC Auditorium,

89 Kings Highway,

Dover,

DE 19901. The proposed amendment

may

be inspected

atthe Department’s

offices

located

at 156

S. State Street,

Dover

and

715 Grantham

Lane,

New Castle

or viewed

on

the Departments

web

site

at htto:/!www.awm.delaware.aov/lnfo/RegslAQMPlansReos.htm.

For additional information

on the PM2.5 Attainment

Sl please contact

Jack Sipple,

and

the 2002

Base

Year Emissions

In ventory,

Dave

Fees,

in Dover

at (302) 739-9402. Statements

and testimony

may

be presented

either

orally

or

in writing

at the public hearing.

Inter ested parties

may submit comments

in writing

to: DNREC

Air Quality Management

Section,

156 South

State Street,

Dover, Delaware

19901.

.:,-..,.,. ONREC- Air Quality Management

Section...-.



# : 156 South

State Street Dover,

DE 19901 

# THIS

IS THE fflY

TIME

THIS NOTICE

WILL APPEAR. 258471

DSN 1/27/08%hm1-

-61\lailing:TheNewsjournalP0Box15505Wilmington,DE19850SundayNewsJournalStreetTheNewsjournalTheNewsJournal95(1W.BasinRoadNewCastle,DE19720(302)324-250(1 The News Journal AFFIDAVIT

OF PUBLICATIONSTATEOFDELAWARECOUNTYOFNEWCASTLEPersonallyappearedbeforemethis28dayofJanuary,2008:I,KristinSegner,oftheNEWSJOURNALCOMPANY,adailynewspaperprintedandpublishedintheCountyofNewCastleCounty,StateofDelaware,who,beingdulyswornstatesthattheadvertisementofS/DDNRECAirResource—LegalNotice—PublicHearingwaspublishedinTHENEWSJOURNALonN/Aand/orTHESUNDAYNEWSJOURNALonJanuary27,2008______________________________LegalCoordinatorNameTitleSworntobeforemethis28thdayofJanuary,2008dtarub1ic-t‘“°DNREQ/AIRQUALITY_____*MANAGEMENT.[ .:t’LEGAL

NOTICEPUBLICHEARINGTheDepartmentotNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalContrut(DNREC),AirQualityManagementSectionwiltconductapublichearingonproposedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAnainmentottheAnnualFineParticle(PMw)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS),t-InAprit2005theEnvironrndhtgtProtectionAgency(EPA)deaignated126areasofthecountryas“nonattainment”undertheannualPM,NAAQSSAmongthosenon-aaainmentareasisthehiladelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DENon-AttainmentArea(NAA).ThisNMincludesNewCastleCountyinDelaware,andtederallawrequirestheNAAtoattaintheNAAQSbyApril,2010.Inresponsetothenon-attainmentdesignationDelawarehasdevelopedthisSIPrevision.Delaware’sproposedSIPforAttainmentoftheAnnualPMNationalAmbientAirQualItyStandardThepurposeofthisSIPisto:1)Demonstratethatwithaltesistingandproposedcontrols,allofDelaware’sPM,monitorswillshowattainmentin2009;2)DemonsratethattheentirePhiladelphia-Wilmington,PANJ-BEnonattainmeniareawiltattaintheannualPMNAAQSin2009;3)EstablishDelaware’s2009mobi(esourcebudgetsfortransportationconformitydeterminationsunderRegulationNo.1132,TransportationConformity;and4)TreatemissionreductioncreditsbankedunderRegulationNo.34,EmissionsBankingandTradingProgram,nittedYDelawares2002BaseYearPMSIPEmissiontnventoryThisSIPrevisionwillprovideacompleteandaccuratecalendaryear2002EaseYearEmissionsInventoryforallDelawarecountiesofPMemissionsandemissionsofprecursorpollutantsthatbontributetothelormationofPM2,,includingsulfurdioxide,oxidesofnitrogerivolatileorganiccompounds,andammonia.And,itwiltsenseastheprimarysourceoldatausedintheprojectionoffutureyearemissions.‘;ZiiN.-.-:‘.-ThepubichearingwillbeheldTuesday,March4,2008,beginningat6.00p.m.intheDNRECAuditorium,89KingsHighway,Dover,DE19901..-TheproposedamendmentthayinaetedattheDepartment’sofficeslocatedat(56:S.StateSireet,Doverand715QranthamLane,NewCastle,or,’4ewedontheDepartment’swebsiteathttp://wwwathm.delaware.ooe/lnto/RegslAQMPlansReos.htm.ForadditionalintormationonthePMAnainmentSIP,pleasecontactJackSipple,andthelb02BaseYearEmissionsInventory,DaveFees,inDoverat(302)739-9402.Statementsndtestimonymay’bepresentedeilherorallyorinwritingatthepublichearing.Interestedpartiesmaysubmitcommentsinwritingto:DNRECAirQualityManagementSection,156SouthStateStreet,Dover,Delaware19901.‘‘:-•0/27NJ‘.*.‘-‘‘MailingTheNewsJournalP0Box15505Wilmington,DR19850SundayNewsJournalStreetTheNewsJournalTheNewsJournal950W.BasinRoadNewCastle,DR19720(302)324-2500TheNewsJournalAFFIDAVITOFPUBLICATIONSTATEOFDELAWARECOUNTYOFNEWCASTLEPersonallyappearedbeforemethis18thdayofFebruary,2008:I,KristinSegner,oftheNEWSJOURNALCOMPANY,adailynewspaperprintedandpublishedintheCountyofNewCastleCounty,StateofDelaware,who,beingdulyswornstatesthattheadvertisementofS/DDNRECAirResource—LegalNotice—LocationChangeForPublicHearingwaspublishedinTHENEWSJOURNALonN/AandlorTHESUNDAYNEWSJOURNALonFebruary17,20081j1A4”t)t99’ZfLegalCoordinatorNameTitleSworntobeforemethis18thdayofFebruary,2008DNREC-AirQuality:MánagementSection..:.otaiyUvilc.LEGALNOTICELOCATIONCHANGEFORPUBLICHEARINGTheDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControl(DNREC),AirQualityManagementSectionspublichearingonpropoaedrevisionstotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentoftheAnnualFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)andDelaware’s2002BaseYearM2.5SIPEmissionInventorywasscheduledtobeheldTuesday,March4,2008,beginningat6:00p.m.intheDNRECAuditorium,89KingsHighway.Dover.DE19901.THEHEARINGLOCATiONHASBEENCHANGEDTOAIRQUALITYMANAGEMENT’SOFFICEAT156S.STATESTREET,DOVER.ForfurtherinformationcontactMr.JackSipple,inDoverat(302)7399402/AirQualityManagementSection156SouthStateStreetDoverDE199012117-NJ(0-0110553428)