# United States Department ofthe Interior

Mr. John Hughes, Secretary Delaware Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington, D.C. 20240 

### JUN 27 2008
Natural Resources and Environmental Contro l 89 Kings Highway Dover, Delaware 1990 I Dear Mr. Hughes: On April 28, 2008, the State of Delaware submitted a draft implementation plan describing its proposal to improve air quality regional haz.e impacts at mandatory Class I areas across your region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) appreciates the opportunity to work closely with the State of Delaware through the initial evaluation, development, and subsequent review of this plan. Cooperative efforts such as these ensure that, together, we will continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act's goat of natural visib ility conditions at all ofour most pristine National Parks and Wilderness Areas for future generations. This letter acknowledges that the U.S
. Department ofthe Interi or, and the Service, in consultation with the National Park Service, has received and co nducted a substantive review of the proposed Regional Haze Rule implementation plan in fulfillment of the requirements under the federal regulations 40 CFR 51 J08(iX2). Please note, however, that only the U.S
. Environmental Protection Agency can make a final detennination regarding the document's completeness and ability to receive federal approval. As outlined in a previous letter to each State dated August 1,2006, our review focused on eight basic content areas. These content areas reflect priorities for the Federal Land Management agencies, and we have attached comments associated with these priorities. Note that we have highlighted comments in bold face that we feel warrant additional consultation prior to public release. We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State of Delaware and compliment you on your hard work and dedication to achieving signi ficant improvement in our nation's air quality values and visibility. We look forward to your response as per section 40 CFR SI.308(i)(3). If you have further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me or Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 202

-208

-4717.



### Enclosure

# ~~~~ Assistant Secretary for Fish

and Wildlife and Parks



### TAKE PRIDE°i:f=: 1**INAMERICA~**U.S. Fish and \Vildlife Service Comments Delaware Draft Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan June 5, 2008 On April 28, 2008, the State of Delaware (DE) submitted a draft. Regional Haze Rule State implementation plan (SIP), pursuant to the requirements codified in federal rule at 40 CFR SI.308(i)(2), to the U.S. Department of the Interi o r, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Fish and Wildlife Service Branch of Air Quality staff, in co nsultation with the National Park Service's (NPS) Air Resources Division, has conducted a substantive review of the DE draft plan, and provides the comments listed below. It is our opinion that the concerns that are described below are significant enough in nature to warrant discussion. We look forward to your respons e as per section 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), and would be willing to work with the DE Department of Natural Reso urces and Environmental Control, Division of Air And Waste Management staff toward s resolving the major issues discussed below. For further infonnation, please contact Tim Allen, FWS Regional Haze lead at (303) 914- 3802. Overall Comment The FWS has a significant concern that the information provided in the DE SIP revision for the Regional Haze Program fails to describe or address content clements required by the Regional Haze Rule. These major clements of concern are:
• deficient analysis of Reasonable Progress (RP) and Long Term Strategy (LTS) for regional haze that is specific to DE • general references to MANE-VU documents without specific explanation as to how the information applies to DE including how , what, and why DE is using the information In some cases, the State makes statements that it adopts and depends upon MANE-V U analyses and conclusions for meeting sufficient emission controls to "reasonable" levels. The State even goes to the extent to acknowledge the requirement each State must evaluate and meet these levels. Delaware needs to add a specific sub-section to the LTS section to specificaUy summarize, provide reasoning, and declare Delaw are's belief that it meets reasonable control levels to address progress. The State has the responsibility to review and permit New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) modification applications. This permitting system has the ability to allow emission growth and relocation in ways that can have a profound effect on regional haze progress. The State should include a sub-section in the LTS section discussing the State's commitment to ensure NSRlPSD permitting activity wHl consider and support State haze commitments. We ask that the DE review the eight elements identified by the Fish & Wildlife Service letter dated, August 1, 2006 ( see enclosure 1), and expand its discussion in the document regarding how the State approached, evaluated, and drew conclusions on these important rule clements.

### The remaining comments below are organized acco rding to the pri ori ties that we presented in our August 1,2006, letter (referenced a bove). Many of the fo ll owing comments will also provide direction towards building the narrative of the Draft S IP to satisfy the documentation and content area deficiencies noted above. Baseline, Natural Co nditions , Uniform Rate I. P age 22, b ullet (3 )(i) - A statcment is made indicating the inclusion of emission reduc tio ns "
. . .n ot ye t finalized but likely to achievc additi onal redu ctions
.. ." in th e " on-the-way/on-the-books " (OT\V/OTB) emission invcntories
. Plea se a ddres s th e u ncerta inty of rea sonable progres s goals and modeled vis ibility prog ress con siderin g th c lack of enfo rce abili ty of emissi o n reductions. 

### 2. Page 23, second paragraph

- The first sente nce ref ers to the visib ility S IP as an "attainment" demonstration
. The State onl y has to demonstrate progress towards the Nation's visibility goals. This is not an attain ment demonstration. Please consider rewording this section. Emi ssi on In ve ntories 

### 3. Comment # 1 applies here as well " Page 

### 22, bullet (3)(i )

- A stat em ent is mad e indicating th e inclus ion of emission redu ctiolls "
... IIot yet finaliz ed but likel y to ach ieve addition al redu ction So
. . " ill th e "o ll-th e-way l oll-th e-books" (OTW IOTB ) emission in ventories. Please address the Iln ce rta illty of r

easonable progr es!J'goals alld mod eled vi!J' ibility progress consid ering th e la ck o f enfor ceability of emission r edu ctio"s. " 

### 4. Comment #2 applies here as well "Page 

### 23, secondparagraph

- Thefirst semel/ce refers to the visibility SIP as an "attainment" demonstration. The State only has to demonstrate progress 10wards the Nation's visibility goals. This is nOI an attainment demonstration. Please consider rewording Ihis section. " 

### 5. Page 25, first paragraph, second to last sentence - It 

### is suggested that aircraft, railroad, and commercial marine emissions are grown and co ntrolled into the future consistent with Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) analysis. Please explain how this was done and whether these controls are enforceable. 6. Pages 26-36

- The SIP draft shows fi gures compari ng E I 1996, NE I 1999, and MV 2002 v.2 emission inventories
. It 

### is not clear how t his compari son ofpre-baseline inventories relate to the SIP. It 

### is not clear why MV 

### 2002 v.2 is referenced cons idering MV2002 v.3 is identified as the fi nal 2002 inventory on page 37. 7. Page 28, first paragraph

- second to last sentence - indi cates that "Recent efforts to reduce manmade organic carbon emiss ion have been und ertaken
.... " Organic Carbon (DC) 

### is identified as the seco nd most significant contrib utor in MANE - VU. 

### Can you expand your discussion on what efforts were made to co ntro l OC? Please relate this to the wood stove discussion on page 86. 8. P age 71

- S imil a r to comments on page 22 , a statement indicates that the 2018 

### 2"beyond on the way" (BOT\V) emissions invento ry includes controls that are "not yet finalized but are likely." T his s tatement should be discussed ifthe State relied on this inventory for planning purposes. Please summarize how this inventory was used by the State and consider additional discussion 

### if necessary. Best Available Retrofit Technologv (BART) 9. The BART determination for Indian River, LLC, utilized 98 th percentile (8 th high per year) modeling results in conjunction with MANE-VU generated CALMET fields. These data arc used to evaluate visib ili ty benefits from emission control options. This ap proach is inconsistent with methods identified by MANE-VU's BART evaluation process/protocol. The concept of using 8 th high results with CALMET/C ALPUFF modeling is identified by EPA rule/guidance for BART exemption. EPA further provides guidance (in its Q&A doc ument) indicating its acceptance of delta deciview based on 8 th high val ues for BART determinations. EPA docs not address how modeling that docs not meet BART exemption or 40 CFR Part 5 I Appendix \V guidance would be considered. The F\VS has a strong concern that MANE-VU ge n erated CALM ET data sets are not of s ufficient quantity or quality to address BART exemption or determination expectations. MANE-VU did not intend this modeling for exemption purpose and voluntarily used 1 $ 1 high results (and possibly 20 % best background values) for all of its assessments. The F\VS was satisfied with MANE

- VU's use of conservative assumptions to satisfy modeling concerns. Howe ver, elimination of these conservative measures negates our acceptance of the MANE- VU modeling approach. If the State intends to use 8 t h high results from the CALMET /CALPUFF modeling system, the FWS expects modeling of suffi cient quantity and quality to meet the guidance provided for BART exe mp t ion standards. 10. Three facilities located in Delaware were detennined to be BART-eligible and submitted BART detenninations. The three facilities are the City of Dover

- McKee Run Generating Station, Indian River Operations, LLC

- Indian River Generating Station and Conecti v Delmarva Generation, Inc.

- Edge Moor Power Plant. All three are electric generation units (EGUs) and since Delaware is affected by the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the DNREC is only required to perfonn a BART detennination for PM JO
. Additional source-specific BART recommendations are as follows:
a. Indian River Operations, LLC

- Indian River Generating Station and Conectiv Delmarva Generation , Inc.

- Edge Moor Power Plant Both of these facilities declared that the PMJO contro l equipment already in place was deemed to be state
-of -the·art, best available control technology or maximum achievable control technology. As such, these facilities did not need t o finish the co st analysis portion ofa BART detennination, but each went on to demonstrate excess ive co st per ton and cost per deciview of alternative controls. If DNREC agrees with the companies ' conclusions, it should make an affinnative statement in the Regional Haze 3SIP document that the control technology currently deployed is considered to be BART. h. City of Dover

- McKee Run Generating Station The City of Dover performed a BART determination for the McKee Run Generating Station in an effort to show that, based on excessive cost, that additional BART controls would not be required
. Section 3.2.2 discusses that Boiler 3 will be required to reduce the sulfur content of the fuel oil to comply with Delaware's Multi -Point regulatio n for S02 and that this action is considered a control option for PM 10. Section 5, item 4 states that si nce Boiler 3 will be required under Delaware 's Multi-Point regulation for S02 to meet the 0.5% sulfur in residual fuel requirement, "Therefore, the consideration of BART controls for Boiler 3 should be compared above and beyond the control level expected from compliance with the fuel sulfur specification of Delaware 's Multi-Pollutant regulations. It should be noted that a BART determination is required to be performed using a ' pre-control' baseline, rather than a baseline assumption that includes a yet -to be-installed improved sulfur content fuel employed for purposes of another regulatory program. A wet electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is considered as a BART alternative, but cost analysis of the alternative is not performed. It is stated at the bottom of page 3

- 8 that the wet ESP alternative will not be analyzed since it offers a similar or lesser level of PMIO control than those already identified in the fuel switching options, but when all fuel switching alternatives are later deemed to be too expensive for BART, the wet ESP is never analY.led separately. The cost ofa wet ESP should be analyzed as a BART alternative. Even though a 0.5% sulfur in residual fuel requirement was deemed too expensive to be considered BART, it will nevertheless be deployed under Delaware's Multi-Point regulati on for S02. In a 'backdoor' fashion this will result in so me vis ibility improvement, even though it is not technically a BART control. We suggest that DE document this control within the BART discussion of the SIP narrative as well. Area of Influence II. Page 8, second to last paragraph; Page 10, Table 1-2; and , Page 54, third paragraph

- In these sections, DE communicates that the State is a contributor to vis ibility impacts at Shenandoah National Park and the DoUy Sods Wilderness Area. Yet, the VISTAS assessment concludes that DE does not contribute to visibility impacts at these C la ss I areas. The State should consider the VISTAS assessment which does not identify DE as a significant contributor to these areas. Because Virg inia (VA) and '''est Virg inia (\VV) are the States setting the reasonable progress goals for these Class I areas , it is consis tent to address yo ur attribution as described by VISTAS. Please evaluate and summarize the Area of Lnfluence (AOI) information produced by VISTAS and identified by VA and WV
. If DE continues to consider its emissions as contributing, it should document consultation between itself a nd both VA and WV. 412. Page II

- Please add a map showing the C lass I areas in VA and WV. Reasonable Proe.ress Goa ls and Long Term Strategy 13. Page 59, first paragraph

- The description ofQ /

d (emissions/distance) data multiplied by a "prevailing wind factor" should be renamed when displaying data identified in following figures. Q /

d is an established ratio for BART and RH use. If modified with an additional modifying factor. a new name representing the unit label should be considered to avoid confusion. 14. Page 68, fourth paragraph

- A small reference is offered suggesting MANE

- VU air quality model performance meets EPA guidance. Model performan ce is a critical element to establish when using a non-guideline model for air quality purposes. The Regional Planning Organization (RPO) and State rely on model analysis and subsequent predictions as the primary basis for demonstrating progress. The August, 2006 , NPS/F\VS letter to the States identified model performance evaluation as a priority clement. Please provide suffic ient discussion and conclusions at a regional and local level regarding model performance in the main body of the SIP. 15. Page 78, Section 10.4

- The reference to 40 eF R Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) is incorrect. The requirement for each State to evaluate reasonable progress is stated in Statute 169A (b)(2). References in 51
. 308 for non- C la ss I States to evaluate reasonable progress controls using the 4 factors is indirectl y implied. We encourage the State to keep the statement to review reasonable progress in the SIP. Please consider referencing the Statute. 16. Page 79, following bullets

- Please summarize how DE will adopt and apply the previous MANE- VU bulleted statements in this section. 17. Page 86, second to last paragraph

- Wood smoke is considered a negli gible or low contributor to visibility impairment at the nearby Class I areas because it accounts to " less than 10%." It is not clear what this "10%" means. In prior discussion, MANE-VU determined that all States with contribution greater than 2% of sulfur on the 20% worst visibility days were significant
. Please address what 10% is related to (i.e. , 20% best or worst visibility days ? all data? etc ... ) and why such a high apportionment is necessary when dealing with the second most apportioned po llutant. 18. Page 88 · 90

- Figures with glide slope information are too coarse to read. From what we can see, the charts indicate how the MANE- VU models predict visibil ity progress at the affected Class I areas. There is too little information describing what the fif,'llres are intended to represent and how to read them. Are these charts presenting direct model results or relative response factors? Please describe this important data with a wide, nontechnical audience in mind. 19. PSD pennit review should be discu ssed as to how this program will benefit visibility. Please make direct statements on how DE has committed to review PSD actions in a way that supports progress goals in the regional haze program.


### 520. Page 87

- The State provides a good descripti on on prescribed burning
. Can you di sc uss whether visibility impacts at Class I areas arc con si dered when issuing a burning authorization? Ifnot , wo uld the State consider adding thi s provi sion to make a more direct co nn ection between visib ility protecti on and prescribed burnin g act iviti es? Regional Cons istency 21. Final modeling by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) is identified for 2008. Significant issues have been raised regarding these final runs. These runs seem to contradict assumptions and possibly go against known controls in other States. Please add a significant discussion on these differences in regards to emission inventory assumptions , uncertainty, and d ifferences from both MANE-VU and VISTAS results. 22. A detailed discussion of emission/modeling uncertainty and the conflict with the VISTAS modeling is needed
. The final modeling conducted by MANE-VU is not enough for DE. Inclusion of VISTAS modeling, performance, and AOI is important to the impacts since DE contributes to Class I areas in WV. The latest " Best and Final" MANE-VU modeling runs indicate that a Class I area in WV may not be meeting the URP. Delaware must explain this discrepancy and could discuss it in the context that VISTAS concluded that the URP would be met. Ve rification and Co ntingencies 23. Section 12 ofthe Draft S[P discusses the options for action following the five

- year review. However, the document does not provide any criteria th at DE will use in evaluating the five

-year progress report to decide which of the li sted actions wou ld be indicated
. Please include discussion of the anticipated criteri a that DE will use to both eval uate the progres s at the five

- year review and to select the course o f action that will be taken based upon that rev iew. Con sultation 24. Page 16 , third paragraph

- The Fish & Wildlife Service and National Park Service received the Delaware SIP on April 28, 2008. Please adjust the date indicating the start of DE's FLM draft SIP review.



### 6