STATE OF DELAWARE

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

655 S. Bay Road, Suite 5N

DOVER, DELAWARE 19901

December 21, 2012

Molla Sarros

Maryland Department ofthe Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

1800 Washington Boulevard, Ste. 730

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Telephone: (302) 739 9402

Fax No.: (302) 739 3106

Subject: Delaware's comments on Maryland's § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) State Implementation Plan

(SIP) Draft for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

Dear Ms. Sarros,

Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on Maryland's proposed SIP revision

titled, "Implementation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard State Implementation Plan," dated December, 2012. The State of

Maryland's air pollution control program is to be commended for its tine work and progress in

improving air quality over the years. Maryland is truly a leader in addressing regional air

pollution eoneerns. Like Maryland, Delaware has endured unhealthy air quality relative to the

pollutant ozone for more than 40-years.

Delaware has eontrolled its emission sources at eonsiderable expense, yet it is still

monitoring nonattainment for the most recent 2008 0.075 ppm ozone NAAQS. Much of

Delaware's ozone problems are due to emissions from outside of Delaware. In fact, based on

EPA modeling as much as 90% of Delaware's ozone problems are attributable to emissions from

outside of Delaware. EPA Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 2012 base case modeling

indicates that emissions from Maryland eontribute more than 23 ppb to ozone concentrations in

Delaware - almost one third of the NAAQS. EPA has determined that any impact greater than

I% of the standard is significant, so based on CSAPR modeling emissions from Maryland

significantly impact Delaware (i.e., 23 ppb is greater than 0.75 ppb).
Molla San'os

Deeember 21, 2012

Page 2

eAA § II 0(a)(2)(D) requires Maryland's SIP to eontain adequate provisions prohibiting

any souree or other type of emissions aetivity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in

amounts whieh will eontribute signifkantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenanee

by, any other state with respeet to any sueh NAAQS. We have reviewed Maryland's draft SIP,

and aeknowledge that Maryland has implemented many measures to reduee the emission of

volatile organie eompound (YOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, sueh as

Maryland's Clean Car program and Healthy Air Aet. However, the draft SIP does not

appear to provide information suffieient for Delaware to determine if Maryland has

eomplied with II 0(a)(2)(D).

Relative to 110(a)(2)(D), Maryland's draft SIP doeument appears to be a listing of the

eontrol measures Maryland has adopted, rather than an evaluation or demonstration as to how

these eontrol measures satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D). For example, there appears to

be no substantive evaluation of the effeetiveness of the listed eontrol measures in redueing

emissions, and no identifieation and evaluation of the eost effeetiveness of additional measures

Maryland eould adopt to reduee its emissions and to further mitigate its impaet on downwind

states including Delaware. Without this type of analysis Delaware eannot eonclude whether or

not Maryland has adequate measures in its SIP that prohibit its emission sourees from

eontributing signifieantly to downwind states' non-attainment or maintenanee issues under the

2008 0.075 ppb standard.

Delaware requests that Maryland eonduet an analysis that I) identifies the emissions from

all non-trivial voe and NOx emitting sourees and souree eategories in Maryland, 2) identifies

potential additional eontrol measures that Maryland eould adopt to reduee emissions fl'om eaeh

of those sourees and souree eategories, and 3) evaluates the eost effeetiveness of the identified

potential additional measures to demonstrate the level of eontrol Maryland's eurrent SIP

measures provide. Delaware believes that in order to demonstrate that Maryland has met its

obligations under II 0(a)(2)(D) is must demonstrate that additional opportunities for eontrolling

emissions are either outside of Maryland's regulatory authority, impraetieal as a "Maryland

only" initiative, or earry an additional ineremental eost in exeess of at least $5,000 per ton. Note

that Delaware has eondueted this same type of analysis and has reeommended that the EPA

establish it and a $5,000 per ton eost threshold as eriteria for evaluating all transport SIPs.

In addition to eondueting the analysis diseussed above, Delaware believes the following

speeifie measures in Maryland's SIP may not be suffieient to mitigate the impaets from the State

of Maryland upon the air quality in Delaware, and eneourages Maryland to eonsideI' additional

air pollution eontrol requirements, with state-wide applieability, sueh as:

I. Adopting all of the OTe model rules and model rule updates that Maryland has not

yet adopted. These modcl rules are regional measures to reduee voe and NOx

emissions, and full implementation of these measures in Maryland may reduee

Maryland's ozone impaet on Delaware.
Molla Sarros

December 21,2012

Page 3

2. Revising Maryland's distributive generator regulation to not allow, without

exception, uncontrolled diescl generators to peak shave except during power outages.

Uncontrolled diesel generators used for peak shaving do not operate many hours per

year, but are]) very high NOx emitters, 2) often operatc at times conducive to ozone

formation, and 3) are projected to be utilizcd and relied upon much more in the future

than in the past. Delaware believes Maryland could make their distributive

generation regulation better by closing a loop-hole that allows diesel generators to

operate as load shaving units, uncontrolled, for up to ]0 hours during the ozone

season (i.e., May ] through September). For example, consider the operation of

uncontrolled diesel generators in the context of Maryland's excellent Clean Cars

Program.

• Maryland has estimated their Clean Cars Program will provide in 2020 about

2.9 tons per day morc NOx reductions when compared to existing federal Tier

2 standards.

• An uncontrolled] MW diesel generator emits about 32.2 Ibs of NOx per hour

of operation.

• This means that it would take only about ]80 ofthese generators operating for

] hour to fully negate the 2020 benefit of Maryland's Clean Cars program on

the day they operate.

In addition, Maryland provides an alternative compliance method that allows load

shaving units to, in lieu of installing emission controls, achieve compliance by

securing ozone season NOx allowances, at a 3:] or 5: I discounted rate, to offset NOx

emittcd for load shaving that is beyond the exempted 10 hours. Delaware believes

any type of allowance purchase, regardless of the discount rate, may completely

negate the effectiveness ofthe program because allowance cost is very low relative to

control cost and relative to the financial benefit achieved from peak shaving.

Building on the example above:

• 2.9 tons of NOx emissions would require about 15 ozone season NOx

allowances be secured and retired.

• Based on an allowance cost of $350, this alternative compliance method

would cost ahout $5,250.

• In comparison, the financial benefit for a ] MW generator participating in a

PJM peak shaving program is on the order of $60,000 to $80,000 per year.

Delaware recommends Maryland consider removing the ]0 hour exemption and the

alternative compliance method from its regulation, which would reduce Maryland's

ozone impact on Delaware.

3. Revising the requirements of Maryland's Healthy Air Act to include short term

average emission limitations. It is Delaware's opinion that NOx control regulations

should include a short term NOx emissions rate limit protective of National Ambient
Molla Sarros

Deeember 21, 2012

Page 4

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). For ozone, the NAAQS is based on a 8-hour

averaging period. Long term emission limits, such as annual or seasonal NOx mass

emissions eaps, do not ensure that NOx emissions from subject sourees are emitted at

rates that do not eompromise eomplianee with short term NAAQS. Without a short

term enforceable NOx emissions rate limitation, a subject unit's potential to emit is

the only emissions limiting factor over the short term. NOx emissions rate limits with

short averaging periods (no greater than rolling 24-hour periods) should be included

to ensure protection ofthe short term ozone NAAQS in downwind states.

For example, Maryland's Healthy Air Act includes annual and ozone season NOx

mass emissions caps for subject units. However, the Healthy Air Act does not

include any short term NOx emission rate limits for those units. While the Healthy

Air Aet ensures control of NOx emissions reductions over annual and ozone season

periods, the Healthy Air act may not ensure that NOx emission rates over any given

short period are representative of the annual and seasonal requirements. This can be

seen in the NOx emissions rate data for some of Maryland's coal-fired units for 2011

taken from the EPA's AMPD. The data below represents the individual unit's daily

average NOx emission rates only for those days where the data indicates that the unit

operated for entire 24-hours in the respective calendar day. The value for average of

2011 daily NOx rates was calculated as the average of all of the respective unit's

daily NOx emission rates when the unit operated for all 24 hours in the calendar day,

not simply the average ofthe low and high values.

2011 low 2011 High

DailyNOx DailyNOx Average of 2011 Days Days

Rate Rate Daily NOx Rates Below Above

Fadlity Wit (Ib/MVBTU (Ib/MVBTU (Ib/MVBU) Average Average

Brandon Shores 1 0.0345 0.4979 0.1558 1ffi 94

Brandon Shores 2 0.0585 0.6268 0.1655 232 00

CPo Crane 1 0.2134 0.7051 0.4344 85 79

CPo Crane 2 0.1817 0.7482 0.3865 lCE 75

HA llltagner 2 0.2776 0.5675 0.3624 172 113

H.A. llltagner 3 0.0486 0.2962 0.1029 153 52

RP. Srrith 11 0.183 0.4389 0.2959 31 22

d1alkPoint 1 o.Oll 0.3705 0.18a3 122 114

d1alkPoint 2 0.1495 0.4541 0.2423 207 98

Didkerson 1 0.2219 0.3548 0.2702 88 59

Didkerson 2 0.21CE 0.3712 0.2735 99 76

Didkerson 3 0.2027 0.3712 0.2689 105 74

IVbrgantown 1 0.014 0.2024 0.0351 175 120

IVbrgantown 2 0.0168 0.1316 0.0322 183 144
Molla Sarros

December 21, 2012

Page 5

It can be seen in the data that there is a wide range of low to high daily average NOx

emission rates, sometimes on an order of magnitude difference. In several cases the low

daily NOx emission rate values are indicative of well controlled units, while for the same

unit the high daily NOx emission rate value is more representative of a unit with few

NOx controls. The number of days with the respective unit operating above and below

average value is an indication that the existing long term mass emissions limitations do

not assure unit operation with NOx control as a priority on a full time basis. It is

Delaware's opinion that appropriate short term NOx emission rate limits would serve to

require operation of the respective units more consistently in a manner appropriate to

good NOx emissions control. Delaware believes adding short term limits would make

Maryland's excellent Healthy Air Act even better, and would reduce Maryland's ozone

impact on Delaware.

We appreciate the effective air pollution controls Maryland has in place, the

extensive research work Maryland has done relative to transported air pollution,

and Maryland's continued efforts to support the development of necessary federal

and regional measures to meet and maintain the ozone standard. Thank you for the

oppOliunity to comment upon your draft SIP. Should you have any questions, please call me

at (302) 73 9-9402, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

/\

! i , !

Ron Amirikian

Planning Branch Manager