DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalControlAirQualityManagementSection(AQMS)responsestoUnitedStatesDepartmentofInterior,FishandWildlifeServiceJune27,2008CommentsonDelaware’sDRAFTVisibilityStateImplementationPlan(SIP)Comment1:Page22,bullet(3)(i)—Astatementismadeindicatingtheinclusionofemissionreductions“...notyetfinalizedbutlikelytoachieveadditionalreductions...”inthe“on-theway/on-the-books”(OTW/OTB)emissioninventories.Pleaseaddresstheuncertaintyofreasonableprogressgoalsandmodeledvisibilityprogressconsideringthelackofenforceabilityofemissionreductions.Response:ThedraftSIPhasbeenrevisedtoclarifythatDEisnotrelyingonanycontrolmeasurethatisnotyetfinalized.ThedraftSIPnowclearlystatesthatDelaware’s2018emissionsprojectionsarebasedonlyonadoptedandfinalizedcontrolmeasures,andarelessthanMANE-VUmodeledOTB/OTWemissions.Assuch,thereisnouncertaintyregardingthelackofenforceabilityofemissionreductionsintheDESIP.Comment2:Page23,secondparagraph-ThefirstsentencereferstothevisibilitySIPasan“attainment”demonstration.TheStateonlyhastodemonstrateprogresstowardstheNation’svisibilitygoals.Thisisnotanattainmentdemonstration.Pleaseconsiderrewordingthissection.Response:ThedraftSIPhasbeenrewordedassuggested.Comment3:Comment#1applieshereaswell“Page22,bullet(3)(i)—Astatementismadeindicatingtheinclusionofemissionreductions“...notyetfinalizedbutlikelytoachieveadditionalreductions...”inthe“on-the-way/on-the-books”(OTW/OTB,)emissioninventories.Pleaseaddresstheuncertaintyofreasonableprogressgoalsandmodeledvisibilityprogressconsideringthelackofenforceabilityofemissionreductions.”Response:ThedraftSIPlanguagehasbeenclarified.SeeresponsetoComment1above.Comment4:Comment#2applieshereaswell“Page23,secondparagraph—ThefirstsentencereferstothevisibilitySIPasan“attainment”demonstration.TheStateonlyhastodemonstrateprogresstowardstheNation‘svisibilitygoals.Thisisnotanattainmentdemonstration.Pleaseconsiderrewordingthissection.”Response:ThedraftSIPhasbeenrewordedassuggested.Comment5:Page25,firstparagraph,secondtolastsentence—Itissuggestedthataircraft,railroad,andcommercialmarineemissionsaregrownandcontrolledintothefutureconsistentwithCleanAirInterstateRule(CAIR)analysis.Pleaseexplainhowthiswasdoneandwhetherthesecontrolsareenforceable.Response:ThedraftSIPhasbeenclarifiedtostatethatAircraft,railroad,andcommercialmarineemissionsweregrownandcontrolledusingcombinedgrowthandcontrolfactorstakendirectlyfromEPAsCleanAirInterstateRule(CAIR)analysis,andthatnochangesoradjustmentsweremadetotheEPAmethodology.Anycontrolmeasuresreliedonforthesecategoriesarebasedsolelyonadoptedandenforceablefederalrules.Comment6:Pages26-36-TheSIPdraftshowsfigurescomparingNEI1996,NET1999,andMV2002v.2emissioninventories.Itisnotclearhowthiscomparisonofpre-baselineinventoriesrelatetotheSIP.ItisnotclearwhyMV2002v.2isreferencedconsideringMV2002v.3isidentifiedasthefinal2002inventoryonpage37.Response:DelawarebelievesthatemissionsinventorytrendanalysisrelatestothisSIPasitisavaluabletoolinemissionscharacterizationandforevaluatingprogressinairpollutioncontrolonaper-pollutantbasis.Forexample,thiscomparisonofinventoriesclearlyshowthatsulfurdioxideourlargestemittedvisibilityimpairingpollutant.AllreferencestoMV2002v.2havebeenupdatedtoMC2002v.3assuggested.Comment7:Page28,firstparagraph—secondtolastsentence—indicatesthat“Recenteffortstoreducemanmadeorganiccarbonemissionhavebeenundertaken....“OrganicCarbon(OC)isidentifiedasthesecondmostsignificantcontributorinMANE-VU.CanyouexpandyourdiscussiononwhateffortsweremadetocontrolOC?Pleaserelatethistothewoodstovediscussiononpage86.Response:Organiccarbon(OC)compoundsareasubsetofvolatileorganiccompounds(VOCs.)Delawarehasadopted,implemented,andenforcednumerous(VOC)controlmeasuresoverthepast40years,toincludemeasuresthatcoverthirtyeight(38)sourcecategoriesunderDERegulation1124.Thesemeasuresareprojectedtoreduce2018emissionsby12,306tonsperyear(a32%decrease)from2002levels.Tables7-4and7-5presentthisinformation.BasedonthiscommentchangesweremadetothenarrativetoexpanddiscussiononVOC/OCcontrols.VOCRegulationswhichareadoptedandineffectarenowlistedinanewAppendix7-6oftheproposedSIP.Regardingwoodstoves,thedraftSIPhasbeenrevisedtonotethatresidentialwoodstovesarecontrolledthroughfederalNewSourcePerformanceStandards,40C.F.R.Part60SubpartAAA.Comment8:Page71—Similartocommentsonpage22,astatementindicatesthatthe2018“beyondontheway”(BOTW)emissionsinventoryincludescontrolsthatare“notyetfinalizedbutarelikely.”ThisstatementshouldbediscussediftheStatereliedonthisinventoryforplanningpurposes.PleasesummarizehowthisinventorywasusedbytheStateandconsideradditionaldiscussionifnecessary.Response:DelawarehasrevisedthedraftSIPtospecificallyreflectDelaware’semissionsinventorybasedonlyonfinalizedandenforceablecontrolmeasures.ThedraftSIPnowclearlyshowsthatcurrentDelaware/federalrulesandregulationsdemonstratethatDelawaremeetsitsfairshareofthereasonableprogressgoals.Section11discussesthesemeasuresindetail.Comment9:TheBARTdeterminationforIndianRiver,LLC,utilized98thpercentile(8thhighperyear)modelingresultsinconjunctionwithMANE-VUgeneratedCALMETfields.These2dataareusedtoevaluatevisibilitybenefitsfromemissioncontroloptions.ThisapproachisinconsistentwithmethodsidentifiedbyMANE-VU’sBARTevaluationprocess/protocol.Theconceptofusing8thhighresultswithCALMET/CALPUFFmodelingisidentifiedbyEPArule/guidanceforBARTexemption.EPAfurtherprovidesguidance(initsQ&Adocument)indicatingitsacceptanceofdeltadeciviewbased8thhighvaluesforBARTdeterminations.EPAdoesnotaddresshowmodelingthatdoesnotmeetBARTexemptionor40CFRPart51AppendixWguidancewouldbeconsidered.TheFWShasastrongconcernthatMANE-VUgeneratedCALMETdatasetsarenotofsufficientquantityorqualitytoaddressBARTexemptionordeterminationexpectations.MANE-VUdidnotintendthismodelingforexemptionpurposeandvoluntarilyusedlShighresults(andpossibly20%bestbackgroundvalues)forallofitsassessments.TheFWSwassatisfiedwithMANE-VU’suseofconservativeassumptionstosatisfymodelingconcerns.However,eliminationoftheseconservativemeasuresnegatesouracceptanceoftheMANE-VUmodelingapproach.IftheStateintendstouse8thhighresultsfromtheCALMET/CALPUFFmodelingsystem,theFWSexpectsmodelingofsufficientquantityandqualitytomeettheguidanceprovidedforBARTexemptionstandards.Response:Delawareagreeswiththiscomment,andthedraftSIPhasbeenrevisedtoreflectIndianRiver’sBARTanalysisbasedonthenewassumptionof1sthighestday(i.e.,themostconservativeapproach).AnAddendumtoNRG-IndianRiver’sBARTanalysishasbeenaddedtoAppendix8.Theresultsofthere-analysisshowthatproperoperationoftheexistingelectrostaticprecipitatorconstitutesBARTcontrolsforparticulatematter.Comment10:ThreefacilitieslocatedinDelawareweredeterminedtobeBART-eligibleandsubmittedBARTdeterminations.ThethreefacilitiesaretheCityofDover—McKeeRunGeneratingStation,IndianRiverOperations,LLC—IndianRiverGeneratingStationandConectivDelmarvaGeneration,Inc.—EdgeMoorPowerPlant.Allthreeareelectricgenerationunits(EGUs)andsinceDelawareisaffectedbytheCleanAirInterstateRule(CAIR),theDNRECisonlyrequiredtoperformaBARTdeterminationforPM10.Additionalsource-specificBARTrecommendationsareasfollows:a.IndianRiverOperations,LLC—IndianRiverGeneratingStationandConectivDelmarvaGeneration,Inc.—EdgeMoorPowerPlantBothofthesefacilitiesdeclaredthatthePM10controlequipmentalreadyinplacewasdeemedtobestate-of-the-art,bestavailablecontroltechnologyormaximumachievablecontroltechnology.Assuch,thesefacilitiesdidnotneedtofinishthecostanalysisportionofaBARTdetermination,buteachwentontodemonstrateexcessivecostpertonandcostperdeciviewofalternativecontrols.IfDNRECagreeswiththecompanies’conclusions,itshouldmakeanaffirmativestatementintheRegionalHazeSIPdocumentthatthecontroltechnologycurrentlydeployedisconsideredtobeBART.3b.CityofDover—McKeeRunGeneratingStationTheCityofDoverperformedaBARTdeterminationfortheMcKeeRunGeneratingStationinanefforttoshowthat,basedonexcessivecost,thatadditionalBARTcontrolswouldnotberequired.Section3.2.2discussesthatBoiler3willberequiredtoreducethesulfurcontentofthefueloiltocomplywithDelaware’sMulti-PointregulationforSO2andthatthisactionisconsideredacontroloptionforPM10.Section5,item4statesthatsinceBoiler3willberequiredunderDelaware’sMulti-PointregulationforSO2tomeetthe0.5%sulfurinresidualfuelrequirement,“Therefore,theconsiderationofBARTcontrolsforBoiler3shouldbecomparedaboveandbeyondthecontrollevelexpectedfromcompliancewiththefuelsulfurspecificationofDelaware’sMulti-Pollutantregulations.ItshouldbenotedthataBARTdeterminationisrequiredtobeperformedusinga‘pre-control’baseline,ratherthanabaselineassumptionthatincludesayet-to-be-installedimprovedsulfurcontentfuelemployedforpurposesofanotherregulatoryprogram.Awetelectrostaticprecipitator(ESP)isconsideredasaBARTalternative,butcostanalysisofthealternativeisnotperformed.Itisstatedatthebottomofpage3-8thatthewetESPalternativewillnotbeanalyzedsinceitoffersasimilarorlesserlevelofPM10controlthanthosealreadyidentifiedinthefuelswitchingoptions,butwhenallfuelswitchingalternativesarelaterdeemedtobetooexpensiveforBART,thewetESPisneveranalyzedseparately.ThecostofawetESPshouldbeanalyzedasaBARTalternative.Eventhougha0.5%sulfurinresidualfuelrequirementwasdeemedtooexpensivetobeconsideredBART,itwillneverthelessbedeployedunderDelaware’sMulti-PointregulationforSO2.Ina‘backdoor’fashionthiswillresultinsomevisibilityimprovement,eventhoughitisnottechnicallyaBARTcontrol.WesuggestthatDEdocumentthiscontrolwithintheBARTdiscussionoftheSIPnarrativeaswell.Response:Delawareagreeswiththesecomments,andhasupdatedSection8-BARTrevisions,andAppendix8-2oftheproposedSIPaccordingly.Comment11:Page8,secondtolastparagraph;Page10,Table1-2;and,Page54,thirdparagraph—Inthesesections,DEcommunicatesthattheStateisacontributortovisibilityimpactsatShenandoahNationalParkandtheDollySodsWildernessArea.Yet,theVISTASassessmentconcludesthatDEdoesnotcontributetovisibilityimpactsattheseClassIareas.TheStateshouldconsidertheVISTASassessmentwhichdoesnotidentifyDEasasignificantcontributortotheseareas.BecauseVirginia(VA)andWestVirginia(WV)aretheStatessettingthereasonableprogressgoalsfortheseClassIareas,itisconsistenttoaddressyourattributionasdescribedbyVISTAS.PleaseevaluateandsummarizetheAreaofInfluence(AOl)informationproducedbyVISTASandidentifiedbyVAandWV.IfDEcontinuestoconsideritsemissionsascontributing,itshoulddocumentconsultationbetweenitselfandbothVAandWV.Response:Delawareagreeswiththiscomment,andwiththeanalysisofVAandWVthat4concludethatDEdoesnotsignificantlycontributetovisibilityimpactatShenandoahNationalParkandtheDollySodsWildernessArea.ThedraftSIPhasbeenrevisedtoclearlyindicatethatDEonlycontributessignificantlytotheBrigantineClass1area.Comment12:Page11—PleaseaddamapshowingtheClassIareasinVAandWV.Response:Basedoncomment11abovealldiscussionsrelatedtonon-BrigantineClassIareashavebeendeletedfromtheproposedSIP.BecauseofthisamapincludingVAandWVisnotrelevantandhasnotbeenaddedtotheproposedSIP.Comment13:Page59,firstparagraph—ThedescriptionofQ/d(emissions/distance)datamultipliedbya“prevailingwindfactor”shouldberenamedwhendisplayingdataidentifiedinfollowingfigures.Q/disanestablishedratioforBARTandRHuse.Ifmodifiedwithanadditionalmodifyingfactor,anewnamerepresentingtheunitlabelshouldbeconsideredtoavoidconfusion.Response:SinceREMSADmodelingofannualaveragepercentsulfatewasthechosenmethodologyindeterminingcontributionstoClassIareas,theproposedSIPhasbeenrevisedtoreflectthatQ/dmultipliedbytheprevailingwindfactorisnotrelevanttothisproposedSIP.Allreferencestoprevailingwindshavebeendeleted.Comment14:Page68,fourthparagraph—AsmallreferenceisofferedsuggestingMANE-VUairqualitymodelperformancemeetsEPAguidance.Modelperformanceisacriticalelementtoestablishwhenusinganon-guidelinemodelforairqualitypurposes.TheRegionalPlanningOrganization(RPO)andStaterelyonmodelanalysisandsubsequentpredictionsastheprimarybasisfordemonstratingprogress.TheAugust,2006,NPS/FWSlettertotheStatesidentifiedmodelperformanceevaluationasapriorityelement.PleaseprovidesufficientdiscussionandconclusionsataregionalandlocallevelregardingmodelperformanceinthemainbodyoftheSIP.Response:WeagreewiththiscommentandhaveaddedadiscussionregardingmodelperformanceintheproposedSIP(seenewSection9.6)Comment15:Page78,Section10.4—Thereferenceto40CFRSection51.308(d)(3)(v)isincorrect.TherequirementforeachStatetoevaluatereasonableprogressisstatedinStatute169A(b)(2).Referencesin51.308fornon-ClassIStatestoevaluatereasonableprogresscontrolsusingthe4factorsisindirectlyimplied.WeencouragetheStatetokeepthestatementtoreviewreasonableprogressintheSIP.PleaseconsiderreferencingtheStatute.Response:Delawareagreesthatthereferenceto40CFRSection51.308(d)(3)(v)isincorrect.ThedraftSIPhasbeenchangedtoreferencethat“40CFRSection51.308(d)(1),waspromulgatedundertheauthorityofsection169A(b)(2)ofthefederalCleanAirActandrequiresClassIstates...”Comment16:Page79,followingbullets—PleasesummarizehowDEwilladoptandapplythepreviousMANE-VUbulletedstatementsinthissection.5Response:InresponsetothiscommentDelawarehassignificantlyrevisedthediscussionsonhowDelawarerespondstotheRPGgoals.WehaveaddedanentirenewSection,Section11—HowDelawareAchievestheReasonableProgressGoals,totheproposedSIP.ThisnewsectiongoesintomuchdetailabouthowDelawareaddresseseachoftheMANE-VU“bulletedstatements.”Comment17:Page86,secondtolastparagraph—WoodsmokeisconsideredanegligibleorlowcontributortovisibilityimpairmentatthenearbyClassIareasbecauseitaccountsto“lessthan10%.”Itisnotclearwhatthis“10%”means.Inpriordiscussion,MANE-VUdeterminedthatallStateswithcontributiongreaterthan2%ofsulfuronthe20%worstvisibilitydaysweresignificant.Pleaseaddresswhat10%isrelatedto(i.e.,20%bestorworstvisibilitydays?Alldata?Etc...)andwhysuchahighapportionmentisnecessarywhendealingwiththesecondmostapportionedpollutant.Response:BasedonthiscommentDelawarehassignificantlyrevisedthissection.EmissioninventoriesandsourceapportionmentstudiesinDelawaredonotshowwoodsmokeasignificantsource.Allreferencesto“lessthan10%”havebeendeleted,sincethatdidnotreflectDelaware,orBrigantinesourceapportionmentofwoodsmoke..Comment18:Page88-90—Figureswithglideslopeinformationaretoocoarsetoread.Fromwhatwecansee,thechartsindicatehowtheMANE-VUmodelspredictvisibilityprogressattheaffectedClassIareas.Thereistoolittleinformationdescribingwhatthefiguresareintendedtorepresentandhowtoreadthem.Arethesechartspresentingdirectmodelresultsorrelativeresponsefactors?Pleasedescribethisimportantdatawithawide,non-technicalaudienceinmind.Response:AnewfigureshowingglideslopeinformationforBrigantinehasbeenaddedtotheproposedSIP.Thisfigurewasexpandedinsizetoincreaseresolutionandaddressthe“coarseness”.Inaddition,subsection9.9hasbeenrevisedtodescribewhatthefiguresareintendedtorepresentandhowtoreadthem.Comment19:PSDpermitreviewshouldbediscussedastohowthisprogramwillbenefitvisibility.PleasemakedirectstatementsonhowDEhascommittedtoreviewPSDactionsinawaythatsupportsprogressgoalsintheregionalhazeprogram.Response:Section3ofDelaware’sRegulation1125containsDelaware’sPSD(PreventionofSignificantDeterioration)program,andrequiresDelawaretoreviewPSDactionswithconsiderationofvisibilityimpacts.Itisdesignedtopreventaddingnew(ormodified)sourceemissionsincreaseswithoutdeterminingiftheywillimpactairqualityorClassIareasadversely.TheproposedSIPhasbeenrevisedtoreflectthis.Comment20:Page87—TheStateprovidesagooddescriptiononprescribedburning.CanyoudiscusswhethervisibilityimpactsatClassIareasareconsideredwhenissuingaburningauthorization?Ifnot,wouldtheStateconsideraddingthisprovisiontomakeamoredirectconnectionbetweenvisibilityprotectionandprescribedburningactivities?6Response:Sourceapportionmentstudiesandemissionsinventorydatashowthatagriculturalandforestrymanagementwoodsmokeisinsignificantrelativetovisibility.BecauseofthisDelawaredoesnotbelievethatitisnecessarytospecificallyconsidervisibilityimpactsfromagriculturalandforestrybumswhenissuingburnauthorizations.Comment21:FinalmodelingbyNortheastStatesforCoordinatedAirUseManagement(NESCAUM)isidentifiedfor2008.Significantissueshavebeenraisedregardingthesefinalruns.TheserunsseemtocontradictassumptionsandpossiblygoagainstknowncontrolsinotherStates.Pleaseaddasignificantdiscussiononthesedifferencesinregardstoemissioninventoryassumptions,uncertainty,anddifferencesfrombothMANE-VUandVISTASresults.Response:DelawarehasrevisedtheproposedSIPtoclarifythatDelawaredoesnotsignificantlyimpactanyofVISTASClassIareas(seeresponsetocomment11above).AllnonBrigantineClassIareareferenceshavebeendeleted.Becauseofthosedeletions/revisions,thecommentisnolongerapplicabletothisproposedSIP.Comment22:AdetaileddiscussionofemissionlmodelinguncertaintyandtheconflictwiththeVISTASmodelingisneeded.ThefinalmodelingconductedbyMANE-VUisnotenoughforDE.InclusionofVISTASmodeling,performance,andAOlisimportanttotheimpactssinceDEcontributestoClassIareasinWV.Thelatest“BestandFinal”MANE-VUmodelingrunsindicatethataClassIareainWVmaynotbemeetingtheURP.DelawaremustexplainthisdiscrepancyandcoulddiscussitinthecontextthatVISTASconcludedthattheURPwouldbemet.Response:DelawarehasrevisedtheproposedSIPtoclarifythatDelawaredoesnotsignificantlyimpactanyofVISTASClassIareas.Seeresponsetocomment21above.Comment23:Section12oftheDraftSIPdiscussestheoptionsforactionfollowingthefiveyearreview.However,thedocumentdoesnotprovideanycriteriathatDEwilluseinevaluatingthefive-yearprogressreporttodecidewhichofthelistedactionswouldbeindicated.PleaseincludediscussionoftheanticipatedcriteriathatDEwillusetobothevaluatetheprogressatthefive-yearreviewandtoselectthecourseofactionthatwillbetakenbaseduponthatreview.Response:Section12ofthedraftSIPreferstoafutureSIPsubmittal,tobesubmittedtoEPAfive(5)yearsafterthisSIP.DelawaredoesnotagreethatitisnecessarytoincludecriteriatobeusedinafutureSIPwithinthisSIP.Comment24:Page16,thirdparagraph—TheFish&WildlifeServiceandNationalParkServicereceivedtheDelawareSIPonApril28,2008.PleaseadjustthedateindicatingthestartofDFsFLMdraftSIPreview.Response:April28,2008isthedateinthedraftSIP.7