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 visibility conditions at all of our most pristine 

National Parks and Wilderness Areas for future generations. 

This letter acknowledges that the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Service, in consultation 

with the National Park Service, has received and conducted 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 significant 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 Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

The Fish and Wildlife Service Branch of Air Quality staff, in consultation 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 response as per section 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), and would be 

willing to work with the DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 

Division of Air And Waste Management staff towards 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-VU 

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 L TS section to 

specificaUy summarize, provide reasoning, and declare Delaware'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 

L TS 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 according to the priorities that we presented in our 

August 1,2006, letter (referenced above). Many of the following comments will also provide 

direction towards building the narrative of the Draft SIP to satisfy the documentation and content 

area deficiencies noted above. 

Baseline, Natural Conditions, Uniform Rate 

I. Page 22, bullet (3)(i) - A statcment is made indicating the inclusion of emission 

reductions " ... not yet finalized but likely to achievc additional reductions ... " in the 

" on-the-way/on-the-books" (OT\V/OTB) emission invcntories. Please address the 

uncertainty of reasonable progress goals and modeled visibility progress considering 

thc lack of enfo rceability of emission reductions. 

2. Page 23, second paragraph - The first sentence refers to the visibility SIP as an 

"attainment" demonstration. The State only has to demonstrate progress towards the 

Nation's visibility goals. This is not an attainment demonstration. Please consider 

rewording this section. 

Emission Inventories 

3. Comment #1 applies here as well " Page 22, bullet (3)(i) - A statement is made indicating 

the inclusion of emission reductiolls " ... IIot yet finalized but likely to achieve additional 

reductionSo .. " ill the "oll-the-wayloll-the-books" (OTWIOTB) emission inventories. 

Please address the Ilncertaillty of reasonable progres!J' goals alld modeled vi!J'ibility 

progress considering the lack of enforceability of emission reductio"s. " 

4. Comment #2 applies here as well "Page 23, second paragraph - The first semel/ce refers 

to the visibility SIP as an "attainment" demonstration. The State only has to demonstrate 

progress 10 wards 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 controlled 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 comparing EI 1996, NEI 1999, and MV 2002 

v.2 emission inventories. It is not clear how this comparison of pre-baseline inventories 

relate to the SIP. It is not clear why MV 2002 v.2 is referenced considering MV2002 v.3 

is identified as the fi nal 2002 inventory on page 37. 

7. Page 28, first paragraph - second to last sentence - indicates that "Recent efforts to reduce 

manmade organic carbon emission have been undertaken .... " Organic Carbon (DC) is 

identified as the second most significant contributor in MANE-VU. Can you expand your 

discussion on what efforts were made to control OC? Please relate this to the wood stove 

discussion on page 86. 

8. Page 71 - Similar to comments on page 22, a statement indicates that the 2018 

2 
"beyond on the way" (BOT\V) emissions inventory includes controls that are "not 

yet finalized but are likely." This statement 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 98th percentile (8th high per 

year) modeling results in conjunction with MANE-VU generated CALMET fields. 

These data arc used to evaluate visibility benefits from emission control options. 

This approach is inconsistent with methods identified by MANE-VU's BART 

evaluation process/protocol. 

The concept of using 8th high results with CALMET/CALPUFF modeling is 

identified by EPA rule/guidance for BART exemption. EPA further provides 

guidance (in its Q&A document) indicating its acceptance of delta deciview based on 

8th high values 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 generated CALM ET data sets are 

not of sufficient 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. However, elimination of these 

conservative measures negates our acceptance of the MANE-VU modeling approach. 

If the State intends to use 8th high results from the CALMET/CALPUFF modeling 

system, the FWS expects modeling of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the 

guidance provided for BART exemption 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 

Conectiv 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 control 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 to finish the cost 

analysis portion ofa BART detennination, but each went on to demonstrate excessive 

cost 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 

3 
SIP 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 regulation for S02 and that this action 

is considered a control option for PM 10. Section 5, item 4 states that since 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-tobe-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 

regulation for S02. In a 'backdoor' fashion this will result in some visibility 

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 visibility 

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 Class I areas. The State should consider the VISTAS assessment which does 

not identify DE as a significant contributor to these areas. Because Virginia (VA) 

and '''est Virginia (\VV) are the States setting the reasonable progress goals for these 

Class I areas, it is consistent to address your 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 and both VA and WV. 

4 
12. Page II - Please add a map showing the Class I areas in V A and WV. 

Reasonable Proe.ress Goals 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 performance 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 sufficient 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 eFR 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-Class I States to evaluate reasonable progress 

controls using the 4 factors is indirectly 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 negligible 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 pollutant. 

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 visibility 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 discussed 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. 

5 
20. Page 87 - The State provides a good description on prescribed burning. Can you discuss 

whether visibility impacts at Class I areas arc considered when issuing a burning 

authorization? Ifnot, would the State consider adding this provision to make a more direct 

connection between visibility protection and prescribed burning activities? 

Regional Consistency 

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 

differences 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 Contingencies 

23. Section 12 of the Draft S[P discusses the options for action following the five-year review. 

However, the document does not provide any criteria that DE will use in evaluating the 

five-year progress report to decide which of the listed actions would be indicated. Please 

include discussion of the anticipated criteri a that DE will use to both evaluate the progress 

at the five-year review and to select the course of action that will be taken based upon that 

review. 

Consultation 

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