STATEOFDELAWAREDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCESANDENVIRONMENTALCONTROLOFFICEOFTHE89KINGsHIGHWAYPHONE:(302)739-9000SECRETARYDOVER,DELAWARE19901FAX:(302)739-6242February29,2012Mr.ShawnM.GarvinRegion3OfficeAdministratorUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103-2029DearAdmstLe4ThisletterisinresponsetoyourDecember9,2011lettertoGovernorMarkellregardingairqualitydesignationsforthe2008NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)forozone.IamdisappointedthatEPAhaschosentonotconsiderourrecommendationtoestablishnonattainmentboundariesconsistentwiththeozoneproblem.IthasbecomeincreasinglyclearthatthemethodologyEPAcurrentlyusestosetattainmentboundarieshasproveninadequatetoachievetheresultrequiredbytheCleanAirAct(CAA)ofattainingairqualityfreeofunhealthylevelsofozoneinDelaware(andthenortheast).NeitherEPA’snon-attainmentboundariesunderthe19978-hourstandardnortheboundariesproposedherearesufficient.DelawarehasproposedandpriorlettersandanalysisfromDelawaredemonstratethatlargenonattainmentareaboundariesarenecessarytoexpeditiouslyandmostcost-effectivelyprovideforcleanair,arelèasible,andareconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheCAA.ThisletterbuildsuponnumerouspreviouslettersfromDelawareonthetopicofozonedesignations,andexplainswhyEPA’snewestapproach,ofdrawinganevensmallerboundaryislikewiseunreasonablebecauseitwillnotcauseanyforwardprogresstowardsachievingtheNAAQSinDelawareandwillfurtherharmDelawarebusinessesthatarealreadyimplementinggreaterpollutioncontrolmeasuresthananyoftheircompetitorslocatedinupwindstates.DelawarestronglyopposesEPA’sdecisiontonotestablishlargeozonenon-attainmentareaboundaries,anditsintendednon-attainmentdesignationstowardDelaware,WeareparticularlytroubledbywhatappearstobeacursoryreviewbytheEPAofDelaware’srecommendationsandanalysis,withoutsubstantiveconsiderationorcomment.EPA’sreviewofDelaware’srecommendationis,intotal,limitedtothreestatementsinyourDecember9,2011letterandassociatedtechnicalsupportdocument(TSD):I)Delaware’srecommendationisnotinkeepingwithaplainreadingoftheCAAsection107(d)relatedtothecontributionfroma“nearby”areawithwhichwedisagree,2)thereareotherprovisionsoftheCAAthataddresslongerrangetransportofozonepollution,suchassections110(a)(2)(D),126,and184whichwebelieveshouldnotobviatetheneedforproperdesignations,and3)mostofthestatesthatDelawareseekstoincludeaspartofthislargenohattainmentareadidnotmakeasimilarrequestVe€4wa’ze‘4goodTt€aa’edeftoid4o9641ShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page2whichweargueisnotapre-requisite.DelawarehasalreadyaddressedtheseissuesinpriorlettersandanalysisprovidedtoEPA,andhasgiventheEPAsufficientinformationtopursueestablishmentoflargenon-attainmentboundaries.EPA’srejectionoftheconceptwithoutdueconsiderationisnotinkeepingwiththeEPA-statepartnershipsetoutintheCAAnorisitinkeepingwiththeEPA’sScientificIntegrityPolicy.TheComishavegivenanextremedegreeofdeferencetoEPAwhenitisevaluatingscientificdatawithinitstechnicalexpertise,andEPAclearlyhastheabilityandauthoritytoextendtheirinterpretationof“nearby”basedontheirscientificexpertise.(SeePennsylvaniav.EPA,wherethecourtnotesthatalargeareaisonereasonableinterpretationEPAcouldtake.)DelawarebelievesthatEPA’spolicydecisiontopursuetheoppositeapproachofcreatingsmallareasforozonehasrepeatedlyproveninsufficientandthatitcontinuestoperpetuatenonattainmentwithozoneinthenortheastbecauseEPAhasnotadequatelydefinedtheterm“nearby”relativetothepollutantofconcern.Sincetransportissuchanoverwhelmingpartoftheozoneproblem,anyreasonablelegaldefinitionof“nearby”mustincludetheemissionsthatsignificantlycontributetonon-attainmentandinterferewithmaintenanceinotherareas.Bythispolicylogic,headwaterstatesshouldbeexemptedfromrequirementstoreducenutrientpollutionaffectingwaterbodiesoutsideoftheirjurisdiction,liketheChesapeakeBay,becauseNewYorkwouldnotbeconsidered“nearby”MarylandorVirginia.TheauthoritiesoftheCleanWaterActareinfactweakertorequirecross-stateaction,yetEPAhasbroadeneditsinterpretationofexistingCWAauthoritiestoaddresscross-statewaterpollutionwhileitappearstobegoingintheoppositedirectiontoaddresstransport,despitemuchgreaterstatutoryauthorityintheCAAtorequirereductions.Properlydrawingthelinesofthenon-attainmentboundariesinordertobringallthecontributingpartiesontothesame“playingfield”isthefirststeptowardsachievinghealthyairquality.Forthisreason,wehavebeenextremelysupportiveoftheadministration’seffortstofinalizetheCross-StateAirPollutionRulebothpubliclyandintheCourts,despiteourongoingfrustrationthatCSAPRisbuiltuponthenon-healthbased1997NAAQSforozoneof84ppm.Indeed,thosestatescurrentlychallengingEPAincourtovertheCross-StateAirPollutionRuleandotherregulationswouldhavelessincentivetofightpollutioncontrolsiftheyhadtheirownobligationtoreducetheirsignificantcontributionofpollutants.InresponsetoEPA’sproposeddesignationsonDelaware,webelievethattheyarenotreasonablydrawntoleadtocleanairinDelawareorelsewhere.EPA’sproposeddesignationrelativetoSussexCounty,DEwillbeusedasanexample.Briefly,SussexCountyhasalandareaof600,320acres,269,464acres(about45%)ofwhicharedevotedtoagriculture.SussexCountyislargelyrural,withitslargestmunicipality,Seaford,havinga2010populationof6,928.EPAevaluatesintheirTSDSussexCountyrelativeto5-factors’,andconcludes:‘The5-factorsare:1)Airqualitydata,2)Emissionsandemissions-relateddata3),Meteorology,4)Geographyandtopography,and5)Jurisdictionalboundaries.NotethatEPAguidanceidentifies9-factors,andEPAhasreducedthisto5-factorsbycombiningunderfactor2)thefollowing5-factors:Emissionsdata,PopulatIondensityanddegreeofurbanization,Trafficandcommutingpatterns,GrowthRatesandPatterns,andLevelofcontrolofemissionsources.ShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page3“Basedontheassessmentqffactorsdescribedabove,EPAhaspreliminarilyconcludedthatSussexCounty,DelawaremeetstheCleanAirActcriteriaforinclusioninitsownnonattainmentarea,theSeqfordnonattaininentarea.SussexCounty,Delawarehasviolatingmonitorsandthehighestemissions,population,andVMTintheareaofanalysis.EPAhasconcludedthattheothercountiesinthisanalysisarenotlikelytocontributetoozoneviolationsinSussexCounty.Thesecountieshavecomparativelylowemissions,populations,andVMT.KentCounty,Delaware;andCapeMayCounty,NewJerseyhavethenexthighestemissions,butthosecountiesemissionsareabouthalfthatofSussexC’ounty‘s.Dominantozoneseasonwindsarefromthesouth-southwest.ThLcindicatesthatemissionsfromKentCountyandthecountiesinNewJerseyarenotexpectedtocontributetoviolationsattheSussexCounty,Delawaremonitors.Dorchester,Wicomico,andWorcesterCountiesinMarylandareupwindoftheviolatingmonitors.However,emissionsfromthosecountiesarecomparativelylowsuggestingthatemissionsfromthosecountieswouldcontributelittletoviolationsindownwindSussexCounty.Furthermore,theothercountiesintheareaofanalysisarenotlinkedjurisdictionallytoSussexCountyandarenotpartoftheSeqfordMicropolitanStatisticalArea.”First,DelawarenotesthatasignificantdifferencebetweenSussexCountyandallbuttwoofthe“nearby”countiesEPAanalyzedisthatSussexhasozonemonitors.EPA’smethodologydoesnotconsidertheairqualityinanycountythatdoesnothaveanozonemonitor.Forexample,theSeafordmonitorinSussexCountyislocatedonly8.5kilometersfromtheMarylandboarder(seemapbelow),andisarguablyrepresentativeoftheairqualityinDorchesterCounty,MD.EPA’sdeterminationthatDorchesterCounty,MDisattainmentandSussexCounty,DEisnon-attainmentcanonlybeexplainedasEPAignoringscienceorthatthevalueofthedatacollectedatSeaforddoesnotextendbeyond8.5Kilometers.ThislogicindicatesthescopeofthenonattainmentprobleminSussexiswithinacirclewithadiameterof8.5kilometers,centeredontheSeafordmonitor.22areasinSussexCountyhaveozonemonitors;SeafordandLewes.2009-2011designvaluesindicatetheLewisareaisattainingcompliancewiththe0.075ppmozoneNAAQS.ExtentofNon-Attainment?ShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page4Asabsurdasthisoutcomeis,itdemonstratestheillogicalconsequencesofutilizingthecurrentEPAmethodology.EPA’smethodologystartswithareasthatmonitorairpollution.Thecurrentozonemonitoringnetworkisneitherdesignednorisiteffectiveatidentifyingallareaswithpoorairquality.ForareaswithoutmonitorsEPAdoesnotusethemodelingandmonitoringtoolsavailabletothem—theyinsteaddefaulttoattainment.And,underEPA’snarrowinterpretationoftheword“nearby”inCAA107(d),itiscriticalthatallareasthatarenotattainingthestandardbeidentified.Notfirstidentifyingallareas,toincludebothwholeandpartialcounties,thatarenon-attainmentnotonlyresultsinthoseareasbeingincorrectlydesignated,butalsoallareasthatare“nearby.”Forexample,asdiscussedabovetheairqualityinatleastaportionofDorchesterCounty,MDisnon-attaimnentbasedontheSeaford,DEmonitor.Giventhis,evenundertheEPAmethodologythecontributionanalysisshouldbeexpandedfromincludingjustthecountiesthatsurroundSussex,DEtoalsoincludingthosethatsurroundDorchesterCounty,MD.And,giventhatcounties(andprobablypartialcounties)acrosstheChesapeakeBayarenon-attainment,the“nearby”areasEPAwouldanalyzebecomesbroader.Thefactthatanareadoesnothaveamonitor1)doesnotmeantheairqualityinthatareameetstheNAAQS,and2)shouldnotshieldotherareasthatsignificantlyimpactsuchanunmonitoredareafrombeingdesignatednon-attainment.Certainly,itisnotreasonabletoconcludewithoutanalysisthatareascontiguoustononattainmentareaswithoutmonitorsshouldbeclassifiedasattainment.Nevertheless,EPAisproposingtoestablishSussexCountyasastandalonenonattainmentarea.3Asanon-attainmentareaSussexisrequiredbytheCAAtocomeintocompliancewiththeozoneNAAQSassoonaspracticableandnotlaterthan20l5.Asamarginalnon-attainmentareaSussexwillbesubjecttovariousrequirementsundertheCAAintendedtoreduceemissionswithinthenon-attainmentareaboundaries:reasonablyavailablecontroltechnology(RACT)corrections,savingsclauseforvehicleinspectionandmaintenance,non-attainmentNSR,3-yearPEIs,annualemissionsstatementsfromstationarysources,and1:1.1emissionoffsetrequirements.However,Sussexhasalreadymetalloftheserequirements.Belowisalistoftheozonecontrolmeasures(i.e.,controlsforemissionofvolatileorganiccompound(VOC)andnitrogenoxides(NOx))currentlyimplementedandenforcedinSussexCounty:•Constructionandoperatingpermitsarerequiredforanystationarysourceemitting10poundsperdayorgreaterofanyaircontaminant.•NOxemissioncontrolrequirementsareimposedonmajorNOxemittingequipment,andfuelburningequipmentwithmaximumratedheatinputof15millionBTUsorgreater.NotethattheEPAmethodologycouldhaveresultedintwooutcomes,1)Sussexasastandalonearea,or2)Sussexandoneormoreofthesurroundingruralcountiesasanon-attainmentarea.NeitheroftheseoutcomesarecapableofaddressingtheairqualityprobleminSussex!TheattainmentdatewillbebasedonEPA’sfinalimplementationrule.PresumablySussexwillbeclassifiedas“marginalnon-attainment,”withanattainmentdateof2015.ShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page5•EverycoalorresidualoilfiredpowerplantinDelawaremustmeetstringent,unitspecificmulti-pollutantNOx,502,andHgemissionlimitations.•StringentNOxemissionlimitationsapplytoanycombustionturbinethatwasnotappropriatelycontrolledpriorto2007isrequired.•Outdoorburningisbannedduringtheozoneseason.•GeneralVOChandlinganddisposalrequirementsareimposedonallstationarysources,toincludeagenerallyapplicableVOCcontentlimitationof50gIl.•AllVOCemittingoperationsareregulatedforthefollowingsourcecategories:oAerospaceCoatingoMobileEquipmentRepairandRefinishingoSurfaceCoatingofPlasticParts.oAutomobileandLight-DutyTruckCoatingOperationsoCanCoatingoCoilCoating•aPaper,Film,andFoilCoatingoFabricCoatingoVinylCoatingoCoatingofMetalFurnitureoCoatingofLargeAppliancesoCoatingofMagnetWireoCoatingofMiscellaneousMetalPartsoCoatingofFlatWoodPanelingoBulkGasolinePlantsoBulkGasolineTerminals.oGasolineDispensingFacilityStageIVaporRecovery.oGasolineTankTrucksoPetroleumRefinerySourcesoLeaksfromPetroleumRefineryEquipmentoPetroleumLiquidStorageinExternalFloatingRoofTanksoPetroleumLiquidStorageinFixedRoofTanksoLeaksfromNaturalGas/GasolineProcessingEquipmentoSolventCleaningandDrying.oCutbackandEmulsifiedAsphaltoManufactureofSynthesizedPharmaceuticalProductsoStageIIVaporRecoveryoGraphicArtsSystemsoPetroleumSolventDryCleanersoLeaksfromSyntheticOrganicChemical,Polymer,andResinManufacturingEquipment.oManufactureofHigh-DensityPolyethylene,PolypropyleneandPolystyreneResinsShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page6oAirOxidationProcessesintheSyntheticOrganicChemicalManufacturingIndustryoBulkGasolineMarineTankVesselLoadingFacilities.oBatchProcessingOperations.oIndustrialCleaningSolvents.oCrudeOilLighteringOperations.oOffsetLithographicPrintingandLetterpressPrinting.oReactorProcessesandDistillationOperationsintheSyntheticOrganicChemicalManufacturingIndustry.oControlofVolatileOrganicCompoundEmissionsfromVolatileOrganicLiquidStorageVesselsoAnyotherfacilitiesthatemitVOCsthatisnotcoveredabove.•AnynewVOCorNOxsourcewithpotentialemissionsequaltoorgreaterthan5TPYmustbecontrolledbybestavailablecontroltechnology.•AnymajornewormodifiedVOCsourcewithpotentialemissionsgreaterthan50TPY,orNOxemissionsgreaterthan100TPYmustbecontrolledbylowestachievableemissionratetechnology,andmustsecureoffsetsatarateof1.15:1.•On-roadvehiclesaresubjecttocentralizedinspectionandmaintenanceprogramrequirements.•On-roadmobileemissionsaremanagedunderTransportationConformityrequirements.•Federalactionswithemissionincreasesof100TPYNOxor50TPYVOCaresubjecttoGeneralConformityRequirements.•Modelyear2014andnewervehiclesmustbeCALEVIIcertified.•TheallowableVOCcontentofpaintsandcoatingsusedinDelawarearelimitedtolevelsmuchlowerthanthefederalrequirements.•TheallowableVOCcontentofmanyconsumerproducts(e.g.,perfume,bugkiller,nailpolishremover,etc.)usedinDelawarearelimitedtolevelsmuchlowerthanthefederalrequirements.•StringentNOxemissionslimitationsapplytovariousindustrialboilersthatwerenotappropriatelycontrolledpriorto2001isrequired.•Stationarygeneratorsmustmeetstringentemissionlimitations,basedonselectivecatalyticreductiontechnology,inordertooperateindemandresponseprograms.•ExcessiveIdlingofHeavyDutyVehiclesisprohibited.ShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page7ImplementationandenforcementoftheabovecontrolmeasureshavegreatlyreducedVOCandNOxemissionsinSussexCounty—andaresignificantlygreaterthanthecontrolmeasuresrequiredinanyupwindstate.ThetablebelowcomparesVOCandNOxemissionsinSussexfromthe1990and2008periodicemissioninventories,andwheretheyareprojectedtobenow.(i.e.,2012).1990SussexEmissionsIntons/yearAnnualitoris)PollutantPointArea.On-roadOff-roadTotalVOC18914884487781912471NOx1804375952561898259562008SussexEmissionsintons/yearAnnual(tons)PollutantPointAreaOn-roadOff-roadTotalVOC15872361201331409101NOx772457451133109165202012SussexEmissionsintons/yearAnnual(tons)—FPollutantPointAreaOn-roadOff-roadTotalVOC15941925204823407907NOx1701581262638118718TheabovecomparisondemonstratesthatSussexCountyemissionsourcesarealreadywellcontrolled,contributinglessthan4ppbozoneconcentration,andthatthecost-effectiveandtechnicallyfeasiblecontrolmeasuresalreadyinplaceinDelawareareproducingresultsthatcouldbereplicatedupwind.5And,becausetheabovecontrolmeasureshavebeenappliedstatewideandsimilarreductionshaveoccurredintheothertwoDelawarecounties,therearenoreasonableandcost-effectivemeasuresthatDelawarecantaketofurtherreduceozoneconcentrationsinSussex.Socomesthedilemma:theairqualityinSussexCountyisunhealthytobreathe,andtheCAArequiresattainmentasexpeditiouslyaspracticablebutnotlaterthan2015,yetnoreductionsarerequiredinDelawarenorinthestatesthatarecausingtheproblem6.ReducingozonelevelsrequiresreductioninNOxandVOCemissions,EPA’schosenstrategysetinmotionbyitsdecisionsonboundarydesignationswouldcausenosuchreductionsanywherewithinthetimeframemandatedbytheCAA.ThismakesEPAmethodologynonsensicalandonethatisdesignedtofail.However,failurewillonlybringrepercussionstoSussexCounty(whohastakengreatstepstoreducepollution)andnotthecontributingupwindareas(whoarepermittedtopollutewithabandonandtrytoavoidinstallingeventhemostcosteffectiveofpollutioncontrols).EPA’srecentCrossStateAirPollutionRule(CSAPR)modelinghelpsconfirmthatSussexCountyemissionsarewellcontrolled.CSAPR2012basecasemodelingindicatesthatallDelawareanthropogenicemissions(i.e.,statewideemissions)contributelessthan4ppbozoneconcentrationtoSussexCounty.6causeoftheSussexCountyozoneproblemisemissionsfromoutsideofDelaware.Thisisconfirmedbymanymodelingstudies,themostrecentbeingEPA’s2012basecaseCSAPRmodeling.CSAPRmodelingindicatesthatSussexisimpactedby56ppbfromanthropogenicemissionsthatoriginateoutsideofDelawareShawn

M. Garvin February

29, 2012 Page

8 The

EPA suggests

in

its December

9, 2011

letter

that

“the phenomenon

of ozone transport

must

be balanced

against

the need

to have smaller

areas

that

can focus

on local control measures.”

This statement

might

have

made

sense

before

the installation

of stringent

local controls,

but

is completely

backward

at this point

in our journey

towards achieving

clean

air, given Delaware’s

record

of implementing

aLl cost-effective

and technically

feasible

control measures.

Sussex

has already completed

its focus

on local control measures,

and since

the nonattainment

boundaries

do

not extend

beyond

Sussex

County boundaries

no other

areas

will

be required

to focus

on local control measures.

So

the EPA methodology

results

in

the entire problem

of transport

not being addressed.

The EPA

has suggested

in

its December

9, 2011

and associated

TSD

that

CAA sections

11 0(a)(2)(D),

126,

and

184

are

the ways available

to Delaware

to reduce transport. • Section

11 0(a)(2)(D).

SIPs

were

due

in March

2011

that demonstrated

all significant impact

on

DE

has been mitigated.‘ EPA’s historical

approach

has been

to address compliance

with

11 0(a(2)(D)

through

federal transport

rules

and FIPs.

The transport rule

for

the

1997 ozone standard

is now stayed

by

the Courts,

and

the EPA

has

not

yet proposed

a transport

rule

for

the 0.075

ppm ozone NAAQS.

Delaware

agrees

that 11 0(a)(2)(D)

required

upwind

states

to mitigate

their impact

on DE,

and

that

they

have not

yet done

this.

The CAA requires

the EPA

to take action

to require

states

to comply with

11 0(a)(2)(D).

It

is not clear

what action

the EPA

is suggesting

that Delaware

can take under

11 0(a)(2)(D)

to require

upwind reductions. • Section

126. Delaware

has submitted

two CAA

126 petitions

in the past,

and

the EPA has failed

to act

on them.

If we submit another

petition

it will likely

be largely

based

on the work

the EPA

has done

under

CAIR, CSAPR,

etc. Delaware

can submit

another petition,

but since

the EPA

is already obligated

to require

these reductions

under

CAA 11 0(a(2)(D),

and since

we would

be primarily

using

EPA modeling

data

to support

a petition,

and since

the EPA

is the approval

authority

wc

are

not

sure

why

EPA would place

such burden

on

our limited resources

to accomplish

what should

be reasonably accommodated

through appropriate

boundary designation.

If Delaware

does expend resources

to submit

another

126 petition,

as the EPA appears

to

be suggesting,

is the EPA in turn committing

to review

and approve

our third petition

in accordance

with

the timing mandated

in

the CAA?

Under

Section

126

of

the Clean

Air

Act, which addresses interstate

pollution abatement,

any

state

or political subdivision

may petition

the EPA Administrator

for

a finding

that

a major

source

or group

of sources

is violating

the act’s prohibition

of emissions contributing

significantly

to nonattainment

or interfering

with the maintenance

of attainment

in another

state.

EPA

has

60 days

to make

a finding

in response

to such

a petition.

If the Administrator

found

that out-of-state

sources

were significantly

contributing

to

an area’s nonattainment,

the out-of-state

sources

would

have to shut down within

three months

unless

EPA imposed

emission

limits

and

a compliance schedule

of not more

than

three

years. According

to

a March

4, 2010 Congressional‘CAA11O(a)(2)(d)requiredallareasexceptfornon-attainmentareastomitigatetheirimpactbeforeMarch2011.Mitigationfornon-attainmentareasisrequiredinthetimingoftheCAA181.Shawn

M. Garvin February

29, 2012 Page

9 Research

Service

Report, 8

“EPA

has never granted

a Section

126 petition

in the manner outlined

by

the statute.” • Section

184.

The process

of enlarging

the existing

OTR

starts

when

the EPA

or

a State Governor

determines

other

states significantly

impact.

EPA’s

CAIR

and CSAPR modeling

clearly

show upwind

states significantly

impact

the existing

01’R. Delaware can submit

a request,

but given

the EPA

has

the authority

to

do this

on their

own,

and

a DE request

would

be largely

based

on EPA

data,

and since

EPA

is the approval

authority, we

are

not

sure

what

we

will

gain.

Is the EPA suggesting

that

if Delaware

submits

a request

the EPA

will expedite

its approval? Given

the above,

the EPA designation methodology

appears

to leave Delaware

with

no clear options.

Sussex

County

is required

to attain compliance

with

the ozone NAAQS

as expeditiously

as practicable,

but

not later

than 2015,

yet Delaware

does

not have

the authority

to regulate

the emissions

that

are causing

the ozone non-attainment

problem

in Sussex

County. And,

as

a non-attainment

area,

it

is penalized

because

its sources

must comply

with stringent emission regulations,

its new sources

must comply

with stringent limitations

and must acquire scarce

and expensive

emission

offsets,

and

its citizens

continue

to

be exposed

to breathing unhealthy

air.

In comparison,

the upwind

states

that

are

the cause

of

the problem

do

not have any

of these

issues

and enjoy

an unfair competitive

advantage economically

and better

public health outcomes.

EPA

is applying

the CAA

such

that

the victim

is penalized,

and

the upwind contributing

states

are allowed

to continue

and increase

their impact

with impunity.

And

all this stems

from

the EPA’s extremely

narrow

and inaccurate interpretation

of

the word “nearby”

in Section

107(d)

of the CAA. So,

by designating

Sussex

County

as nonattainment,

EPA

has

set

up

a situation

where Delaware

is totally dependent

on

the EPA

to require emission reductions

in upwind

states

to clean

up

the

air

in Sussex

County.

If EPA

does

not require

upwind

states

to mitigate

their impact, Delaware

has

no hope

of attaining

the standard

because

as discussed

above,

it

is the upwind

areas

that

are causing

the

air quality problem

in Sussex.

If Delaware

does

not attain, through

no fault

of

its own,

it will

be bumped

up

to

a higher classification.

Sussex

has already complied

with

the requirements

of

the higher classification

under

prior

ozone NAAQSs

(i.e., reasonable

further progress,

CTG

and non-CTG

RACT, Gasoline

vapor recovery,

Motor

vehicle inspection

and maintenance,

emission

offsets

at 1.15:1).

However,

the reasonable

further progress requirement

would

be applied

again.

Sussex emission

sources

are well controlled

(see above),

yet

a bump-up

would

require

Sussex emissions

to

be reduced

by

at least

an additional 15%.

This result

is patently

unfair

to Delaware

businesses

that

are already

doing

more

to reduce emissions

that competitors

in upwind

states

and which

would

be placed

at

an even greater economic disadvantage

by being required

to

do more.

It

is untenable

that under

the EPA methodology

Delaware

could

be subject

to unhealthy

air quality

and

even higher emission control

costs,

when

the emissions

in upwind

states

that cause

the problem

are

not subject

to appropriate

control. Clean

Air After

the CAIR Decision: Multi-Pollutant

Approaches

to Controlling

Powerplant

Emissions, Congressional Research

ServIce,

7-5700,

March

4, 2010ShawnM.GarvinFebruary29,2012Page10Ourgoalissimple:clean,healthyairforallofourcitizens.Illegalemissionsfromupwindstatesarepreventingthis.WehavecompliedwiththerequirementsoftheCleanAirAct,andwewantournearbystatesthatcauseourairtobeunhealthytoberequiredtodotheirpartsothatwecanactuallybreathethehealthyairouractionsshouldhavealreadyachieved.Wearenotaskinganyonetodoanythingthingthatwehavenotalreadydone.Itisabsolutelyunfair,bothenvironmentallyandeconomically,thatmanyupwindstatesstayuntouchedwhilemanydownwindstatesaretargetedandforcedtostrugglewithcostlycontrolsovertheiralreadywellcontrolledsources.Infact,theEPAmethodologysetsupasituationwheretheupwindstatesreceiveanevengreatercompetitiveadvantagethatwillenablethemtopursueeconomicgrowth(i.e.,increaseemissions)thatwillfurtherimpactDEairquality.DelawareurgesthatEPAreconsideritspreliminaryintentionsof(1)notestablishinglargenonattainmentareaboundariesintheeastpartofthecountry,and(2)designatingDelaware’sthreecountiesintothreedifferentandseparateattainment/non-attainmentareas.EitherofEPA’sintentionswouldinevitablyimposeadditional,unrealisticandunacceptableburdensonDelaware.WelookforwardtoseeingEPA’sseriousandcarefulconsiderationsonourrecommendationsandcomments,andarewillingtocontinueworkingcloselywithEPAonrelevantissues.cc:AliMirzakhaliliDianaEsherSecretary