Source: http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/april2011/general/14%20DE%20Reg%201111%2004-01-11.htm
Timestamp: 2018-08-19 17:56:13
Document Index: 32416349

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 51', 'art 51', '§110', '§110', '§110', '§110']

14 DE Reg 1111 04-01-11
Secretary’s Order No.: 2011-A-0020
Date of Issuance: March 16, 2011
Effective Date of the Amendment: April 11, 2011
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision: Supplement to Delaware's September 17, 2009 CAA Section 110 "Infrastructure" State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission.
This Order considers the proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) document that will be submitted by DNREC to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to supplement Delaware’s September 16, 2009 CAA Section 110 “Infrastructure” State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission. The Department’s previous SIP submission of September 16, 2009, titled State Implementation Plan for Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean Air Act for Fine Particulate Matter, was submitted to the EPA to satisfy the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for Fine Particles (PM2.5) promulgated by the EPA on October 17, 2006 (71 FR61224).
Delaware’s September 16, 2009 SIP revision explained, among other things, how Delaware has satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for interstate transport. The SIP revision that the Department is currently proposing supplements the September 16, 2009 SIP revision by adding a technical analysis that explains and demonstrates in additional detail how Delaware has satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), addressing interstate transport by demonstrating that Delaware has fulfilled its requirements to control sources that contribute significantly to non-attainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard(s) which address downwind contributions (interstate transport) from Delaware sources.
It should be noted that on December 8, 2010, the Department submitted the same supplemental technical analysis that it is currently proposing to the EPA, and requested that EPA process it in parallel with any rulemaking on its September 16, 2009 SIP submission while DNREC completes the public participation procedures necessary to make a formal SIP revision request. This is known as “parallel processing”, and is detailed in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix v at 2.3.1. This was done to enable EPA to consider this technical analysis in any rulemaking it takes on Delaware’s September 16, 2009 submittal between now and the date the complete formal submittal of this SIP supplement is made by DNREC to EPA.
It should be noted that the Department received no public comment at any phase of this promulgation process, including, but not limited to, at the time of the public hearing on February 1, 2011. Proper notice of the hearing was provided as required by law.
The Department published the proposed supplemental SIP submission in the January 1, 2011 Delaware Register of Regulation and held a public hearing on February 1, 2011. The Department’s presiding hearing officer, Lisa A. Vest, prepared a Hearing Officer’s Report dated March 8, 2011 (Report). The Report recommends certain findings and the adoption of the proposed supplemental SIP submission as attached to the Report as Appendix A.
I find that the proposed supplemental SIP submission is well-supported by the record developed by the Department, and adopt the Report to the extent it is consistent with this Order. The Department’s expert developed the record and drafted the proposed supplemental SIP. Throughout the entire regulatory development process regarding this promulgation, the Department received no public comments from the regulated community, as noted in the Report.
I find that the Department’s DAQ expert fully developed the record to support adoption of this proposed supplemental SIP submission. With this adoption of this promulgation, the Department will be enabled to supplement its September 16, 2009 SIP revision by adding a technical analysis that explains and demonstrates in additional detail how Delaware has satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), addressing interstate transport by demonstrating that Delaware has fulfilled its requirements to control sources that contribute significantly to non-attainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard(s) which address downwind contributions (interstate transport) from Delaware sources.
2.) The Department provided adequate public notice of the proposed supplemental SIP submission, and provided the public with an adequate opportunity to comment on the same, including at a public hearing;
3.) The Department held a public hearing on February 1, 2011 on the proposed supplemental SIP submission in order to consider public comments before making any final decision, however, the Department received no public comments concerning this matter;
4) The Department’s Hearing Officer’s Report, including its recommended record and the recommended supplemental SIP submission as set forth in Appendix A, are adopted to provide additional reasons and findings for this Order;
5.) The recommended supplemental SIP submission does not reflect any substantive change from the proposed supplemental SIP submission as published in the February 1, 2011, Delaware Register of Regulations;
6.) The recommended supplemental SIP submission should be adopted as final because Delaware will then be enabled to supplement its September 16, 2009 SIP revision by adding a technical analysis that explains and demonstrates in additional detail how Delaware has satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), addressing interstate transport by demonstrating that Delaware has fulfilled its requirements to control sources that contribute significantly to non-attainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard(s) which address downwind contributions (interstate transport) from Delaware sources. Moreover, the supplemental SIP submission is well supported by documents in the record; and
7.) The Department shall submit this Order approving the final supplemental SIP submission to the Delaware Register of Regulations for publication in its next available issue, and provide such other notice as the law and regulation require and the Department determines is appropriate.
A State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) is a [sS]tate plan that identifies how that state will attain and maintain air quality that conforms to each primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (”NAAQS”). The SIP is a complex, fluid document containing regulations, source-specific requirements, and non-regulatory items such as plans and emission inventories.
This document is a revision to Delaware’s SIP. The purpose of this SIP revision is to supplement our September 1[76], 2009 SIP revision that was submitted to satisfy the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) pursuant to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Fine Particles (PM2.5) promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61224).
Under the CAA, States are required to submit SIP revisions to satisfy Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) by no later than three years from the date EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS or face findings of failure to submit. Therefore, the September 1[76], 2009 SIP submission made by the Department was timely. However, on September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” which provided guidance on addressing the “infrastructure” elements for SIPs required under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Act for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. According to this guidance document, any state’s SIP submission to address the infrastructure element related to interstate transport found at 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be supported by an “adequate technical analysis.” This guidance document further states that it is EPA’s intention to complete a rule to address interstate transport in the eastern portion of the continental United States (the Transport Rule). This rule would replace the vacated Clean Air Interstate Transport Rule (CAIR) and would assist states with obligations to address interstate transport that significantly contributes to nonattainment in another state.
However, Delaware could not wait for EPA’s SIP guidance or the CAIR replacement rule without facing findings of failure to submit for not meeting the October 17, 2009 due date for submittal of the 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements pursuant to EPA’s October 17, 2006 promulgation of the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. Therefore, Delaware made a timely SIP submission in which the Department cited to its own SIP-approved regulations to reduce PM2.5 precursor emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from electric generating units, industrial boilers, and peaking units to address the interstate transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
To be clear, Delaware’s September 1[76], 2009 SIP submittal did not include the “technical analysis” called for in EPA’s September 25, 2009 guidance document because 1) the EPA guidance was issued too late in the process, as discussed above, and 2) because after review of the guidance Delaware believed the EPA required technical analysis was in line with an analysis of whether or not emission from the state significantly impact any area, with the result of the analysis being either they do or they do not impact. And, if they do impact then the state must take action to address the impact.
In the development of Delaware’s SIP-approved regulations to reduce PM2.5 precursor emissions of SO2 and NOx from electric generating units, industrial boilers, and peaking units to address the interstate transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Delaware started with the assumption that it did significantly impact downwind areas. With this assumption, Delaware moved forward and regulated NOx and SO2 emissions from its large EGU and industrial boilers, to include EGUs with small annual emission but high daily emissions (i.e., typically referred to as high energy demand day units) with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) level controls. Because of this Delaware believed it has clearly mitigated significant transport and adequately addressed CAA 110 requirements.
Since the time of our September 1[76], 2009 SIP submittal, EPA proposed the Transport Rule (August 2, 2010). In that proposal, EPA concluded that the State of Delaware was to be included among the states covered by the Transport Rule. Given Delaware’s stringent SIP-approved EGU, peaking unit and large boiler control regulations, this was not expected. On October 1, 2010, the Department submitted timely comments to EPA’s rulemaking docket for the proposed Transport Rule including extensive technical data and information to support our contention that Delaware should not be included in the Transport Rule. It is our belief that the comments, data, and information we submitted on the proposed Transport Rule are more than sufficient to satisfy EPA’s September 25, 2009 guidance that a SIP submitted to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) include an adequate technical analysis.
Despite the above, in the best interests of the State of Delaware, the Department is hereby using the comments, data, and information we submitted on the Transport Rule to form the basis of a technical analysis in support of our September 1[76], 2009 SIP revision to comply with EPA’s September 25, 2009 guidance document. Upon completion of the CAA’s required public participation procedures, the Department will formally submit this technical analysis as a supplement to its September 1[76], 20[1009] SIP submission to address satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for interstate transport along with the associated administrative materials required by 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix v.
This document supplements our September 1[76], 2009 SIP by adding more detail as to how Delaware meets the requirements of Clean Air Act (“CAA”) §110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), addressing interstate transport by demonstrating that Delaware has fulfilled its requirements to control sources that contribute significantly to non-attainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard which address downwind contributions (interstate transport) from Delaware sources.
Delaware’s September 1[76], 2009 submittal indicated that its implementation plan and recently submitted SIP revisions presently contain adequate provisions prohibiting sources from emitting air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to non-attainment or interfere with maintenance with any NAAQS and to prevent interference with measures related to preventing significant deterioration of air quality or which have to date proved adequate to protect visibility and to address interstate and international pollutant abatement. Specifically, under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) major stationary sources for the annual and 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS are currently subject to Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting programs under the PSD and EOP provisions of 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, Preconstruction Review. As provided in the PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule (73 FR 28321), NNSR in New Castle County for PM2.5 will continue to be administered under the provisions of Appendix S until no later than May 16, 2011 when the EOP section of 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 and the Delaware SIP have been revised to reflect the provisions of 73 FR 28321. Also, in Kent and Sussex counties, PM2.5 PSD activities will continue to be administered using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, without consideration of precursors, until no later than May 16, 2011 when changes to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 and the SIP have been completed. Delaware has complied with §110(a)(2)(D) through promulgation of 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation; 7 DE Admin. Code 1142, Section 2, Control of NOX Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries; and 7 DE Admin. Code 1148, Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions; which significantly reduce emissions from Delaware’s largest EGUs, industrial boilers, and peaking units. These regulations impose BACT level controls, and have been approved by the EPA as revisions to Delaware’s SIP.
As mentioned previously, on September 25, 2009 EPA issued a Memo which includes guidance on the technical analysis. The Memo discusses the analysis, elements therein and states, “Information to support the states determination with respect to significant contribution to nonattainment might include, but not limited to, information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and the potentially impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and the potentially impacted states, the distance to the nearest area that is not attaining the standard, and air quality modeling.” Therefore, this analysis will discuss:
• Evaluation of EPA’s proposed Transport Rule (TR) modeling to help provide weight-of-evidence that Delaware is not a significant contributor to downwind states
• Delaware vs. EPA TR emissions analysis to help provide weight-of-evidence that Delaware is not a significant contributor to downwind states
• Monitoring data
• Recent and significant Delaware control measures that mitigate transport
1. Delaware EGU projections are less than the EGU budgets in the proposed TR. Since those budgets are the level of SO2 and NOx emissions that states must meet to remedy their “significant contribution,” based on EPA modeling, and we demonstrate Delaware EGUs will meet those budgets in 2012, it follows that Delaware has met its requirements to address downwind transport.
2. Delaware does not have the staff or resources to gather regional data, project emissions, and subsequently model downwind contributions from sources to every downwind county in the eastern U.S. Delaware further believes that expectation for such an analysis to be conducted by every state is entirely unreasonable and technically impractical. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis Delaware Division of Air Quality (DAQ) will combine an EPA-Delaware emission analysis with EPA’s modeling used for the TR.
The agency with direct responsibility for preparing and submitting this document is [the] Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), under the Division Director, Ali Mirzakhalili, P.E. The working responsibility for Delaware’s air quality planning falls within DAQ’s Planning Branch, under the Program Manager, Ronald Amirikian. The Planning Branch is instrumental in completing this document. Specifically,
• Jack Sipple, M.S., is the project leader and responsible for emission projections, as well as principal author of this SIP revision;
• Ron Amirikian, Planning Branch Manager, QA[;]
• Dave Fees, P.E., Managing Engineer, DAQ Emission Inventory Program, is the supporting lead for the 2005 base year emission inventory;
• Bob Clausen, EGU analysis and projections;
• Betsy Frey, M.S., is the supporting lead for PM2.5 monitoring data;
• Mark Prettyman, Environmental Scientist, supporting staff and data management
On August 2, 2010 EPA proposed the TR to address downwind contributions of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. In that Rule, EPA 2012 “Base Case” emissions were modeled to determine whether States met a threshold for “linkage” and thus meet the criteria for “significant contribution to, and/or interference with maintenance” to downwind areas. The results of EPA’s modeling in Table 1 suggest that Delaware’s downwind contribution exceeds one or both of these thresholds. The “significant” thresholds are 0.20 and 0.35 ug/m3 for the annual and 24-hr NAAQS, respectively.
Table 1. Delaware’s largest contribution to downwind areas based on EPA modeling in the TR
As we will show later in this document, the 2005 base year that EPA used in the projections was flawed, because those emissions were significantly higher than what Delaware submitted in its 2005 Periodic Emissions Inventory. Furthermore, the EPA 2012 projections were based on those EPA 2005 inflated numbers, which resulted in inflated 2012 numbers. And finally, because recent Delaware control initiatives were not included in the EPA’s 2012 projections they were even further inflated. Subsequently, these inflated projections were used by EPA to model and assess whether states significantly contribute. But inflated projections used in any contribution assessment yields inflated contributions. Therefore, Delaware believes that if EPA used up-to-date and accurate emissions data (i.e. the Delaware PEI and recent Delaware control measures), EPA modeling would have shown that Delaware does not significantly contribute to downwind areas.
Delaware compared its 2005 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) with EPA’s 2005 NEI (and 2002) emissions used in their assessment of significant contributions for the TR. Delaware then projected its 2005 PEI emissions to 2012, and compared them to EPA’s 2012 Base Case emissions. Delaware’s sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions are significantly overstated in the TR contribution assessment. 2005 and 2012 emissions can be found in the attachments to this document (attachment 1 contains the emission summary tables).
EPA used the 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), Version 2 for point sources, and 2002 emissions for a few other categories, such as nonpoint sources. Alternatively, DAQ used a more recent and refined 2005 inventory PEI for the 2005 emissions analysis. EPA also used NMIM and MOVES, which are discussed in more detail below. The results of our comparison show that 2005 emissions differences between EPA’s TR 2005 emissions and DAQ’s 2005 PEI are insignificant for EGUs and non-EGU point sources, but significant in the nonpoint and nonroad categories. EPA apparently used a “top-down” approach for the nonpoint and marine vessels. Delaware used state-specific data, i.e. a “bottom-up” approach. Bottom-up approaches have always been the preferred method for emission calculations. Table 2 summarizes the 2005 differences, with a discussion of each sector afterwards.
3.1.3 Nonpoint: The nonpoint category in Table 2 shows significant differences between EPA and DAQ 2005 emissions. The large discrepancy most likely lies with differences in how the several fuel combustion categories (industrial, commercial, and residential) were calculated. EPA assumed 2002 emissions for the TR 2005 fuel combustion sources, without growth.
DAQ calculated its emissions using Delaware-specific 2005 fuel sales data obtained from the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) publications and emission factors obtained from AP-42 and other EPA documents. Delaware also backs out fuel usage already reported under the point source or nonroad source sectors. EPA may have double-counted the fuel combustion emissions.
1. Nonroad equipment (the NMIM model): EPA used NMIM, but Delaware could not find data on EPA’s website whereby we could “separate” non-road equipment emissions from marine, aircraft and locomotive (MAR). However, since DAQ also used NMIM for 2005 (and national defaults for the bigger NOx sub-categories), we believe that 2005 EPA vs. DAQ emissions differences in nonroad equipment (NMIM) category are most likely insignificant, and thus not a key factor in the total nonroad emissions differences.
2. Locomotives and non-C3 Marine: EPA used 2002 emissions. Delaware has refined the 2005 PEI to use more recent emission factors and activity data.
4. C3 Marine Vessels: This is the sub-category likely responsible for the large differences between EPA and DAQ nonroad 2005 numbers (and thus 2012), i.e., EPA 2005 SO2 is 11,648 tpy while DAQ is 2,755 tpy. EPA 2005 NOx is 15,567 tpy and DAQ’s is 11,728 tpy. Delaware knows from experience that this category is largely responsible for SO2 emissions from nonroad sources, and a little less so for NOx. In fact, marine vessel SO2 emissions rank only behind EGUs and large industrial boilers.
EPA obtained their 2005 emissions for the TR from the EPA rule called “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder”, usually described as the Emissions Control Area (ECA) study, originally called SO2 (“S”) ECA. Because EPA relied on rule development emissions, DAQ believes EPA’s method is a “top-down” approach, and does not estimate emissions to the level of detail undertaken by Delaware DAQ staff, which uses local activity data. More importantly, Delaware has learned from discussions with OAQPS that EPA allocated C3 marine vessels to States out to 200 nautical miles. That is well beyond our state boundaries. Below is a summary of Delaware’s methods, including improvements to the methodology for 2005 as compared to Delaware’s 2002 inventory.
The Delaware inventory for CMVs includes exhaust emissions from ocean-going vessels, tow and tug boats, ferries, and dredges, and is reported to EPA under the following SCCs: 2280002100, 2280002200, 2280003100, and 2280003200. Delaware accounts for vessel cruising, maneuvering, and hoteling time-in-mode and engine energy output in kilowatt-hours. For most of the length of the Delaware Bay and River, emissions are split between Delaware and New Jersey since the state boundary coincides with the shipping channel. The state boundary for the northern portion of New Castle County extends to low mean ti[md]e on the New Jersey side of the river and thus all emissions from vessel traveling this stretch of river are included in Delaware’s inventory.
Delaware obtains individual ship movement data from the Maritime Exchange, and is able to use this information to determine which vessels berth at Delaware ports and which vessels transit Delaware waters on their way to ports in Philadelphia, Camden, and other ports north of the Delaware state line. The use of individual ship movement data was first obtained and used for the 2005 inventory. Previous inventories relied on annual ship movement data obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Waterborne Commerce of the United States publication. The use of the Maritime Exchange data enabled Delaware to determine vessels that made multiple berths within the Delaware River and Bay. Prior to 2005, each vessel movement provided by the USACE publication was treated as a separate transit of Delaware waters from the mouth of the Delaware Bay to the Delaware/Pennsylvania state line.
As a result of these important changes, the 2005 emissions were reduced by 40% or more from 2002 estimates, suggesting another reason why the large discrepancies exist between the EPA TR 2005 and DAQ’s PEI.
3.1.5 Onroad: Delaware does not have the ability to run MOVES in time for the comment due date. Therefore, we accept EPA’s 2005 onroad emissions as-is for purposes of this analysis.
DAQ used our 2005 PEI as the base year for the 2012 projections. EPA used the 2005 NEI version 2, 2002 emissions, MOVES and NMIM in the base year, as described above. Because we have shown that EPA’s nonroad and nonpoint emissions are significantly higher for SO2 and NOx in 2005, it follows that EPA’s 2012 projections for those categories would likely be higher too. Table 3 illustrates the magnitude of those differences. Each source sector is discussed afterwards in more detail.
EPA used IPM, which is a tool for predicting future regional strategies and emissions. DAQ’s understanding of the IPM used for the TR is that it projects current controls using an out-dated Delaware NEEDS database, regional growth as well as non-enforceable controls (ex. new units that we know won’t come online or current units shutting down that we know won’t shutdown, such as Unit 3 at Conectiv). DAQ EGU projections used essentially the same methods inherent to IPM, except we have state specific data and information based on discussions with Delaware sources, which we believe is better than the EPA data.
In accordance with the definition of EGU in the rule, Delaware’s population of EGU’s consists of the following units: Christiana Units 11 and 14, Edge Moor Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Hay Road Units 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, VanSant 11, McKee Run Unit 3, NRG Dover Units 2 and 3, Indian River Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Beasley Unit 1. These units are principally comprised of municipal and merchant generating units that operate within the PJM network. Operation of the generating units is primarily on an economic dispatch basis, which includes operational incentive in the southern part of the Delmarva Peninsula that experiences transmission constraints during a significant portion of the year. The northern part of the state also suffers some transmission constraint issues, primarily during high demand periods. Delaware as a state is a net importer of electricity, typically generating less than 50% of the electric load within the Delaware borders.
For this review, 2009 was selected as the base year for two reasons; 1) 2009 represented the latest available data and included EGU operation in compliance with recent state regulatory requirements, and 2) region-specific information was available from PJM to predict 2012 generation requirements. For determining the 2009 generation and emissions data for the population of Delaware’s generating units, data from EPA’s CAMD database was utilized. Generation data for each of the units came from annual CAMD data. In order to be more representative of emission controls that came into effect for some of the units on May 1, 2009 in response to Delaware regulatory requirements, NOx and SO2 emission data was taken to be the 2009 CAMD ozone season data. To determine the electric demand increase, PJM’s January 2010 Load Forecast Report was consulted. Delaware is part of PJM’s DPL region. In PJM report, PJM predicted increases in annual electric consumption for the: 1.4% above 2009 for 2010, 1.4% above 2010 for 2011, and 1.5% above 2011 for 2012. These increases along with the 2009 CAMD data were utilized to estimate the 2012 generation for the Delaware EGUs on a facility and unit basis.
The recent new owner of Edge Moor Unit 3 has indicated that Edge Moor Unit 3 will no longer fire coal fuel, but will operate on its current alternate fuels of residual fuel oil, natural gas, and landfill gas. Because this unit also is the normal steam supply for an adjacent industrial plant, its operation is not as directly dependent upon economic dispatch as other units in the region. As the unit will already be on line for support of the industrial facility and not subject to startup/shutdown costs, it will remain able to pick up economic dispatch/opportunity load, tending to keep the overall capacity factor at approximately historic levels in spite of a change in fuel costs. Regarding NOx emissions, the unit was assumed to come in compliance with the requirements of Delaware’s 7 DE Admin Code 1146, 0.125 lb. /MMBTU. Regarding SO2 emissions, it was assumed that the SO2 emission rate would be that demonstrated by Edge Moor Unit 5 during 2009, as Edge Moor Unit 5 already fired the same set of fuels that Edge Moor 3 will be utilizing with similar fuel costs and constraints.
The recent new owner of Edge Moor Unit 4 has indicated that the Edge Moor Unit 4 will no longer fire coal fuel, but will operate in its current alternate fuels of residual oil, natural gas, and landfill gas. Because of the increase in fuel costs, it is assumed that this unit’s position in the economic dispatch hierarchy will change and the unit will be called on PJM less frequently. For this review, Edge Moor Unit 4’s annual capacity factor was assumed to be 3%, which is similar to other oil/gas steam units in the area. Regarding NOx emissions, the unit was assumed to come in compliance with the requirements of Delaware’s 7 DE Admin Code 1146, 0.125 lb. /MMBTU. Regarding SO2 emissions, it was assumed that the SO2 emission rate would be that demonstrated by Edge Moor Unit 5 during 2009, as Edge Moor Unit 5 already fired the same set of fuels that Edge Moor 4 will be utilizing with similar fuel costs and constraints. The drop in generation from the 2009 level for this unit is assumed to be picked up evenly by the adjacent six Hay Road 1-6 combustion turbines and associated combined cycle steam units.
For the purposes of this evaluation, the 2012 generation for Edge Moor Unit 5 was assumed to be that grown from the 2009 data. The 2012 SO2 emission rates were assumed to remain the same as the 2009 data, as there are no known plans for changes in SO2 controls for this unit through 2012. Regarding NOx emissions, the unit was assumed to come in compliance with the requirements of Delaware’s 7 DE Admin Code 1146, 0.125 lb./MMBTU.
For the purposes of this evaluation, the 2012 Indian River Unit 4 NOx and SO2 emission rates were assumed to comply with an existing consent decree’s emission rate limitations of 0.2 lb/MMBTU for SO2 and 0.1 lb/MMBTU for NOx.
Table 4 shows that even if DAQ EGU 2012 emissions are assumed to be the same as EPA’s 2012 IPM projections, which is not a good assumption given the Delaware specific data discussed above, the overall differences are still significant (The table also reflects removal of OTW NOx CAPS at the refinery in the non-EGU sector).
DAQ followed EPA’s methods and assumed zero growth for non-EGU point sources, and then applied controls as discussed shortly. There is a significant difference in SO2 and NOx, as shown in Table 3. This is due to control strategies which will be discussed later in this document, which presumably the EPA was unaware of when developing the Rule.
• A May 2010 agreement between the Department and the Delaware City Refining Company placing a facility-wide NOx cap of 2,225 tons per year (TPY). This yields a 10% reduction by 2012 and a 40% reduction by 2014.
• Dover Air Force Base - Ceased using residual fuel oil in March 2010; will replace central boiler plant with small natural gas-fired package boilers. Boilers No. 1 – 4 retired.
• DuPont Stine-Haskell Laboratory - Removed Boilers 3 and 4 (fuel oil # 6)
• DuPont Wilmington Office Building - Issued construction permits for natural gas conversion with # 6 fuel as back up (permitted up to 10% # 6 usage)
• Mountaire Farms of Delaware Inc. -Millsboro - Switching to Nat Gas
• SPI Poly-OLs - Boiler No. 1 removed
• Invista - Boilers 1 and 3 (coal) will be retired by 2012, Boiler 2 (coal/# 6) was retired on 12/09 (Consent Decree)
• Dow Reich hold Specialty Latex LLC – Shutdowns of: Flare, #6 Fuel Oil Fired Boiler, Natural Gas & #6 Fuel Oil Fired Boiler, Emergency Generator
Delaware did not grow or control nonpoint source emissions for the 2012 projections – our 2012 projections are the same as our 2005 PEI. Previously, we discussed how SO2 and NOx were primarily from fuel combustion for Delaware area sources.
Note that DAQ has historical sales information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) which shows 2009 distillate and residual fuel-sales in Delaware have decreased by 45% and 57%, respectively since 2000. See Figures 1 and 2. Regardless, DAQ assumed zero growth for those categories to be conservative. If we included the negative growth in our projections, the 2012 emissions would be even less. [But we took the conservative approach.]
Aircraft Emissions: Delaware assumed no growth and controls, because the large majority of NOx is from Dover Air Force Base (aircraft SO2 emissions are insignificant). We determined a 2007-2013 growth factor of 1.00 for Dover Air Force Base as part of our 2006 PM2.5 [NAAQS SIP] and Ozone SIP development process. Therefore, we assume 2012 emissions are the same as 2005.
Nonroad equipment (NMIM): Delaware relied upon 2012 projections developed as part of MANEVU’s consultation process for Regional Haze SIPs for this category, due to time constraints. Those estimates were peer-reviewed by OTC/MANEVU states.
EPA’s NMIM2005 model and NONROAD2005 model was used to estimate annual emission projections of non-road engines in all MANE_VU states, including Delaware as part of the Regional Haze consultation process. A Contractor was hired to facilitate the projections (MACTEC).
The starting point for the emission projections was Version 3 of the MANE_VU 2002 Nonroad emission inventory (Documentation of the MANE-VU 2002 Nonroad Sector Emission Inventory, Version 3, Draft Technical Memorandum, March 2006). MACTEC’s approach to developing emission projections for these sources was to use combined growth and control factors developed from emission projections for U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) development effort. MACTEC obtained emission projections developed for the CAIR rule. MACTEC then calculated the combined growth and control factors by determining the ratio of emissions between 2002 and each of the MANE-VU projection years (2009, 2012, and 2018). The CAIR emissions were available for 2001, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Thus, they developed intermediate year estimates using linear interpolation between the actual CAIR years and the MANE-VU years.
C3 Marine Vessels: EPA grew base year 2002 emissions were grown to future years without Emissions Control Area (ECA) or International Marine Organization (IMO) global NOx and SO2 controls. Delaware grew 2005 emissions to 2012 to include growth and controls per EPA “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-09-019.”
EPA’s Emissions TSD, states “Class 3 commercial marine vessel sector (seca_c3): base year 2002 emissions grown to future years without Emissions Control Area (ECA) or International Marine Organization (IMO) global NOX and SO2 controls and did not apply sulfur controls for C3 marine engines in 2012.”
DAQ re-projected this category’s emissions using our 2005 PEI. EPA used a variety of data sources to project fuel consumption by Category 3 engines, to account for the impact of existing engine regulations (i.e., the 2003 Tier 1 Marine Diesel Engines rule and marine vessel fleet composition to develop baseline inventory projections for all years up to 2040. EPA projected emissions for nine U.S. regions. The East Coast Region extends roughly from the Florida Keys to the Maine/Canada border. Using the EPA-provided baseline inventory projections for the East Coast Region in EPA420-R-09-019, DAQ calculated growth factors for each pollutant based on the ratio of the 2012 East Coast baseline emissions in 2012 to the 2005 estimated emissions.
DAQ took a somewhat different approach for SO2, however. DAQ contacted U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD) and learned that 10,000 ppm (1%) sulfur limits will not “enter into force” until August 1, 2012. As a result, we used EPA 420-R-09-019 to determine growth, but developed our own control factor based on existing residual fuel averages of 2.7% sulfur. Dividing the 1% limits that take effect on August 1, 2012 by 2.7% gives a control factor of 0.37. DAQ multiplied the growth factor by the control factor (1.00) to 2005 PEI emissions to give 1,536 tpy from January 1 through July 31, 2012, and the control factor (0.37) by the growth factor to give 406 tpy for the remainder of the year, for a total of 1,804 tpy. See
Despite that EPA inventories for DE are inflated, EPA’s TR indicates that Delaware has met its obligations to mitigate transport, i.e.:
Without variability limits, EPA proposes at 40 CFR 97.410 a 2012 Delaware NOx budget of 6,206 TPY, and at 40 CFR 97.710 a 2012 Delaware SO2 budget of 7,784 TPY. EPA has indicted that a state’s emissions budget “…is the quantity of emissions that would remain in that state from covered sources after elimination of that portion of each state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance that EPA has identified in today’s proposal, before accounting for the inherent variability in power system operations... The state emissions budget is a mechanism for converting the quantity of emissions that a state must reduce (i.e., the state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance) into enforceable control requirements. In other words, it provides a quantity of emissions to use in developing a remedy..."
EPA’s 2012 base case emissions for Delaware EGU’s are 4,639 TPY for NOx and 7,841 TPY for SO2, Since the EPA is establishing Delaware’s EGU budgets at a level that is not less than its 2012 base case emissions, Delaware has already met its obligation to remedy downwind contributions for NOx and SO2, using EPA’s own numbers.
Furthermore, Delaware calculated its own 201[02] EGU projections, which are more accurate than EPA’s IPM method (DAQ has first-hand knowledge of our sources plans, recent permits and agreeements). As can be seen in table 3, DAQ 2012 projections are 7,356 tpy and 2,418 for SO2 and NOx, respectively. These are less than EPA’s budgets in the TR (7,784 tpy SO2 and 6,206 tpy NOx), and thus provide additional evidence to EPA’s projections of our EGUs, that Delaware has mitigated its significant contribution to downwind sources.
The EPA Guidance Memo suggests that States include a discussion of monitors in their analysis. As can be seen from Tables 6 - 11 all monitors in DE, NJ, Southeastern PA and the NY CMSA are attainment using 2007-2009 design values, including those counties for which the TR showed a linkage to Delaware. DNREC emphasises that all of these counties are in attainment prior to:
• Delaware’s Phase II (SO2 controls) multi-pollutant regulation taking effect in 2012
• Invista coal unit shutdown for Units 1 and 2
• Indian River Units 1, 2 and 3 coal-unit shutdowns [(Unit 3 shuts down in 2013)]
• Connectiv Edgemoor Power Plant – Unit 3 and 4 switching from coal to natural gas/# 6 oil backup
• Reductions from implementation of the final transport rule
Table 10 Philadelphia CMSA monitoring data – daily and annual
From Table 1, we saw that the TR says that Delaware will significantly contribute to Lancaster, PA; York, PA, Union, PA; Dauphin, PA, Cumberland, PA and New York, NY in 2012 (i.e. “Linkages”). However, these counties are already in attainment as shown in shown in Tables 13 and 14.
Futhermore, because all the monitors in Delaware, and the CMSAs for Philadephia and New York have a 2007-2009 design value meeting both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we find it difficult to believe that we would contribute 0.50 ug/m3 in 2012 per table 1 - to any downwind area. To do so would require our worst year (2007-2009) to be much higher than MLK’s 2008 98th percentile of 34.8 ug/m3 (see Table 9).
DAQ also notes that the nearest nonattaining monitor using 2007-2009 data is in Allegheny County, PA (approximately 250 mi from central Delaware). However, Delaware is not “linked” to Allegheny County.
• 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation,
• 7 DE Admin. Code 1142, Section 2, Control of NOX Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries, and
• 7 DE Admin. Code 1148, Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions
Each of the above is based on Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and significantly reduces emissions from Delaware’s largest EGUs, industrial boilers, and peaking units. These regulations have been approved by the EPA as revisions to Delaware’s SIP.
EPA-IPM 2012 EGU NOx emission projections for Delaware are less than the budgets in the EPA’s proposed Transport Rule. EPA-IPM 2012 EGU SO2 emission projections for Delaware are 57 tpy higher than the budgets in the EPA’s proposed Transport Rule (but we have shown EPA 2012 SO2 projections are also approximately 22,000 tpy over-estimated). Delaware DAQ 2012 projections for NOx and SO2 are less than the budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. The EPA TR budgets are those 2012 EGU emission levels that when met; demostrate that States have mitigated their significant downwind contributions to nonattainment areas and/or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, considering the transport budgets alone, Delaware has mitigated its significant contribution to downwind areas.
The counties shown in EPA’s TR that have “linkages” to Delaware have been in attainment for the last three years. In fact, all counties in Delaware, and the New York and Philadelphia CMSAs have 2007-2009 design values that meet both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Delaware has complied with §110(a)(2)(D) through promulgation of: 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation; 7 DE Admin. Code 1142, Section 2, Control of NOX Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries; and 7 DE Admin. Code 1148, Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions; which significantly reduce emissions from Delaware’s largest EGUs, industrial boilers, and peaking units. These regulations impose BACT level controls, and have been approved by the EPA as revisions to Delaware’s SIP.
6 Final Agreement – DNREC and DE City Refinery
14 DE Reg. 1111 (04/01/11)
This does not imply that Delaware believes transport is limited to EGU and large boiler emissions. To the contrary, Delaware believes programs like reasonably available control technology (RACT), new source review (NSR), transportation conformity, etc. are needed in all upwind areas to mitigate transport. This position is portrayed clearly in Delaware’s December 2009 CAA 126 petition. However, in the context of EPA transport rule, which is the impetus for this SIP revision, BACT level controls on EGUs are clearly adequate to mitigate significant impact on downwind states.
§110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) states, “Contain adequate provisions – (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will - (I) contribute significantly to non-attainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, (ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).”
Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),"
DAQ emission tables can be found in the attachments (summaries, EGUs, non-EGUs, marine vessels and fuel combustion).
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule Docket. ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. Table 2-1. Sectors Used in the TR Emissions Modeling Platform.
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule Docket. ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. Page 12.
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule Docket. ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. Page 12, bullet 2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, Final Report, Table 2-9. April 2009. ICF International
The difference between the EPA 2012 base case SO2 inventory and the budget for Delaware is 57 TPY. By Delaware correcting the problems with the inventory 1) overall modeled contributions would be much less given that EPA’s 2012 SO2 projections are inflated on the order of 57%, and 2) Delaware’s 2012 EGU projection will be less than the budget.
A few monitors in PA, NY and NJ were either shut down or had incomplete data for one year. However, the latest data shows those monitors in attainment nonetheless. Also, all monitors in MD are in attainment, based on discussions with MARAMA.
The Dauphin County, PA monitor was not operational in 2009 so DAQ averaged 2007-2008 for purposes of this analysis. NOTE: this average is not meant to mean “design value” for that monitor. Nonetheless the data shows compliance with the NAAQS for 2009 (see Tables 12 and 13).
Based on air travel distance between Dover to Pittsburgh. Both cities are the approximate centroid to Delaware, and Allegheny County. http://www.travelmath.com/flight-distance/from/Dover,+DE/to/Pittsburgh,+PA
Dauphin County did not have monitor data for 2009. However, 2007-2008 annual data was in attainment and in 2008 (latest year of data) was in attainment for the 24-hr NAAQS, with trends going downward from 2006.