Response
to
Comments
Inclusion
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
(
May
12,
2005)

Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
(
June
21,
2005)

Docket
#
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053
March
15,
2005
2
Table
of
Contents
I.
Comments
on
the
Inclusion
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
II.
General
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
III.
Comments
on
the
NODA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
IV.
Comments
Outside
the
Scope
of
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Include
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
I.
Comments
on
the
Inclusion
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR
Commenter:
State
of
Delaware,
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Control
(
EPAHQ
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2204)

Comment:
The
EPA
is
proposing
to
cover
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
under
the
CAIR
for
annual
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
and
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOX)
requirements.
In
the
CAIR,
the
EPA
determined
that
upwind
States
that
contribute
0.2
Fg/
m3
or
more
to
a
downwind
fine
particulate
(
PM2.5)
non­
attainment
area
are
potentially
deemed
to
contribute
significantly
to
non­
attainment0.
EPA
is
proposing
this
action
because
it
believes
Delaware
and
New
Jersey,
combined,
contribute
0.23
Fg/
m3
to
the
New
York
County,
New
York
PM2.5
nonattainment
[
Delaware
does
not
agree
with
EPA's
0.2
Fg/
m3
threshold.
Emissions
from
upwind
sources
must
be
mitigated
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they
are
located
in
a
state
with
a
total
contribution
of
0.2
Fg/
m3
or
more.]
(
p.
1)

All
of
Delaware
is
designated
as
moderate
non­
attainment
with
regard
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
and
all
of
Delaware
is
within
an
ozone
transport
region
established
by
CAA
Section
184.
New
Castle
County,
Delaware
is
designated
non­
attainment
for
the
fine
particulate
matter
NAAQS,
and
the
remainder
of
Delaware
marginally
attains
this
NAAQS.
All
of
Delaware
is
significantly
impacted
by
emissions
from
upwind
states
relative
to
both
ozone
and
fine
particulate
matter.
DNREC
is
submitting
these
comments
to
1)
reiterate
its
belief
that
CAIR
does
not
fully
address
the
upwind
transport
problem,
2)
show
that
this
EPA
determination
is
based
on
incomplete
technical
information
and,
3)
despite
these
first
two
reasons,
support
the
end
result
of
EPA's
proposal
(
i.
e.,
controls
on
Delaware
air
pollution
sources
relative
to
the
transport
of
fine
particulate
matter).
(
p.
2)
3
Delaware
Supports
End
Result:
Not
withstanding
the
above
comments,
we
believe
that
inclusion
of
Delaware
in
the
CAIR
program
is
directionally
correct,
and
supports
the
EPA
proposal.
(
p.
3)

EPA
Response:
See
comments
and
EPA
responses
in
sections
below
"
Comments
on
NODA"
and
"
Comments
Outside
the
Scope
of
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Include
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR."

Commenter:
NRG
Energy,
Inc,
Princeton,
NJ
(
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2188)

Comment:
The
following
comments
address
our
concerns
with
the
Agency's
inclusion
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR.
(
p.
1)

CAIR
Applicability
 
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
Inclusion:
NRG
requests
reconsideration
of
EPA's
proposed
rule
for
inclusion
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
by
expanding
CAIR
applicability
methodology.
Two
states
were
combined
to
form
one
applicable
region.
(
p.
2)

Although
NRG
agrees
with
EPA's
determination
for
CAIR
applicability
in
the
final
CAIR
rule,
we
request
reconsideration
of
EPA's
proposed
rule
for
inclusion
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey.
Expanding
the
CAIR
applicability
methodology
by
combining
two
states
to
form
one
subject
region
sets
an
arbitrary
precedent
for
future
rulemakings.
(
p.
2)

Based
on
EPA's
existing
applicability
requirements,
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
are
not
significant
contributors
for
fine
particulate
matter
and
would
not
be
included
in
this
portion
of
CAIR.
NRG
requests
that
the
established
applicability
rules
be
followed
and
that
EPA
reconsider
its
proposed
additional
rule
for
inclusion
of
New
Jersey
and
Delaware.
(
p.
2)

Due
to
the
lack
of
comments
on
combining
the
states
and
areas
for
applicability
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
EPA
justified
changing
the
rules
of
applicability.
However,
it
is
probable
that
voluminous
comments
were
not
received
because
the
effected
states
were
already
in
the
Ozone
Transport
Region
and
subject
to
their
own
NOx
Budget
program;
this
lack
of
comments
should
not
be
taken
by
the
EPA
as
acquiescence
to
the
arbitrary
imposition
of
additional
standards
through
bringing
New
Jersey
and
Delaware
into
the
ambit
of
CAIR.

EPA
Response:
The
EPA
believes
that
aggregating
New
Jersey
and
Delaware
emissions
for
purposes
of
assessing
significance
of
contribution
is
reasonable,
for
the
reasons
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
Moreover,
to
the
extent
the
commenter
is
suggesting
that
EPA
cannot
alter,
or
supplement,
its
approach
to
assessing
significance
of
contribution,
the
commenter
is
mistaken.
The
term
`
significant
contribution'
has
no
absolute
fixed
4
meaning.
State
of
Michigan
v.
EPA,
213
F.
3d
663,
674
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999).
EPA
may
thus
reasonably
interpret
the
term
in
response
to
different
factual
circumstances.

Comment:
Second,
significant
emissions
that
could
reasonably
and
cost
effectively
be
controlled
on
sources
other
than
Electric
Generating
Units
(
EGU's)
will
remain.
These
include
emissions
that
could
be
reduced
by
Control
Technology
Guideline
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
(
RACT),
Vehicle
Inspection
and
Maintenance
programs,
Ozone
Transport
Commissions
Architectural
and
Industrial
Maintenance
(
AIM)
Coating
and
Consumer
Products
model
rules,
etc.
These
emissions
must
be
controlled
in
all
upwind
states,
including
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
order
for
areas
to
attain
and
maintain
compliance
with
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM2.5
NAAQS.
Delaware
urges
the
EPA
to
initiate
rulemaking
to
mitigate
these
upwind
emissions.
(
p.
2)

EPA
Response:
The
EPA's
rationale
for
not
including
emissions
reductions
of
SO2
and
NOx
for
sources
other
than
EGUs
in
the
model
trading
program
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
IV.
B
of
the
final
Clean
Air
Interstate
rule.
(
See
pages
70
FR
25213­
25215,
May
5,
2005).

Some
of
the
suggested
emission
reductions
described
in
this
comment
(
AIM,
coatings,
consumer
products
rules,
etc)
would
involve
emissions
reductions
of
VOC.
EPA's
rationale
for
not
requiring
VOC
emission
reductions
in
the
CAIR
rule
are
described
in
Section
III
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
beginning
on
70
FR
25179,
May
5,
2005).

Finally,
as
discussed
in
the
final
CAIR
rule,
particularly
on
70
FR
25203­
25204,
May
5,
2005,
EPA
notes
that
future
efforts
will
determine
the
combination
of
control
strategies
necessary
to
reach
attainment
of
the
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
standards,
and
the
geographic
areas
for
which
those
strategies
will
be
targeted.

Commenter:
State
of
New
Jersey,
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
Trenton,
NJ
(
EPA­
HQOAR
2003­
0053­
2188)

Comment:
This
letter
is
to
request
an
extension
to
the
commenting
period
for
this
proposed
rule,
which
ends
on
June
27,
2005.
The
Department
is
requesting
this
extension
because
the
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
is
still
not
available
and
the
Department
finds
it
impossible
to
comprehensively
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
without
first
reviewing
and
understanding
the
technical
data
which
forms
the
basis
for
this
rule.
Because
the
Department
is
expecting
the
NODA
for
this
proposed
rule
to
be
voluminous
and
complicated,
I
am
requesting
a
60­
day
extension
from
June
27,
2005,
to
allow
the
Department
to
conduct
a
complete
and
thorough
review
of
the
technical
data
and
submit
comments
as
appropriate.
(
p.
1)

EPA
Response:
On
June
28,
2005,
we
published
a
notice
of
data
availability
(
NODA),
"
Availability
of
Additional
Information
Supporting
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Include
Delaware
and
New
5
Jersey
in
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule,
and
Extension
of
Comment
Period
For
the
Proposed
Rule."
The
original
45­
day
comment
period
for
the
May
12,
2005
proposal
ended
on
June
27,
2005.
The
extension
published
on
June
28,
2005
extended
to
comment
period
21
days
to
coincide
with
the
end
of
comment
period
for
the
NODA.
Your
letter
expressed
concern
that
the
NODA
would
be
"
voluminous
and
complicated"
and
would
require
an
additional
60
days
to
prepare
comments.
Your
request
was
sent
prior
to
publication
of
the
NODA,
therefore,
you
were
unaware
that
the
additional
information
was
contained
in
a
2­
page
table.
We
feel
that
the
21­
day
extension
was
sufficient
for
review
of
this
new
material.

II.
General
Comments
Commenter:
NRG
Energy,
Inc.,
Princeton
NJ
(
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2188)

Comment:
NRG
is
party
to
comments
on
the
original
IAQR
(
now
CAIR)
submitted
by
the
Class
of
`
85
Regulatory
Response
Group
("
Class
of
`
85")
and
the
Electric
Power
Supply
Association
("
EPSA")
as
well
as
NRG's
independent
comments
filed
on
March
30,
2004.
Within
those
comments,
NRG
stated
its
overall
support
for
CAIR
on
the
bases
that:
(
I)
regionally
coordinated
pollutant
emission
control
programs
are
required
to
effectively
address
ambient
air
quality
issues
caused
in
part
by
long­
range
transport,
transformation
and
deposition
of
air
pollutants,
(
ii)
such
market­
based
emissions
trading
provide
the
most
cost­
effective
means
for
reductions,
and
(
iii)
if
properly
implemented,
will
ultimately
help
provide
the
regulatory
certainty
long
sought
after
by
companies
like
NRG
that
operate
across
numerous
jurisdictions.
Our
position
as
reflected
in
those
comments
has
not
changed
and
is
merely
supplemented
by
these
comments.
(
p.
1)

We
also
want
to
highlight
that
the
promulgated
rule
contains
a
serious
potential
liability
as
a
result
of
what
we
see
as
a
flawed
nitrogen
oxide
allocation
approach.
(
p.
1)

NOx
Allocation
Methodology:
NRG
is
taking
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
methodology
now
as
it
was
not
published
in
the
IAQR
or
presented
to
the
public
until
the
final
version
of
CAIR
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
(
p.
2)

NRG
asserts
that
the
fuel
adjustment
factors
that
disadvantage
oil
and
gas
facilities
should
be
reduced
and/
or
eliminated
and
that
the
Compliance
Supplement
Pool
needs
to
be
expanded
and
distributed
to
all
states
due
to
the
following
flaws
in
the
allocation
methodology.

The
NOX
allocation
methodology
has
significant
flaws
because
of
three
key
issues:
1)
the
fuel
adjustment
factor,
2)
the
lack
of
non­
acid
rain
sources
in
the
initial
caps,
and
3)
the
lack
of
evaluation
against
weather­
related
load.
NRG
recommends
that
EPA
reevaluates
the
potential
effects
of
those
flaws
to
determine
necessary
changes.
(
p.
2)
6
The
first
issue
is
the
fuel
adjustment
factor.
The
adjustment
factors
applied
under
CAIR
are:
1.0
for
coal,
0.4
for
gas
and
0.6
for
oil,
and
are
used
to
ultimately
give
more
NOX
allocations
to
coal­
fired
sources.
These
fuel­
adjustment
factors
arbitrarily
assign
weighting
factors
for
coal,
oil
and
gas
to
"
reflect
the
inherently
higher
emissions
rate
of
coal­
fired
plants,
and
consequently
the
greater
burden
on
coal
plants
to
control
emissions."
There
is
no
justification
for
the
specific
factors
and
this
adjustment
disadvantages
the
allocation
for
states
with
significant
oil
and
gas
generation.
EPA's
reliance
on
the
IPM
model
results
to
predict
future
emissions
without
adequate
review
by
stakeholders
has
led
to
a
situation
where
the
real
impacts
of
this
adjustment
have
been
under­
estimated.
(
pp.
2­
3)

The
second
issue
is
that
EPA
did
not
include
non­
Acid
Rain
program
sources
in
their
initial
cap
calculation.
The
proposed
rule
should
not
have
been
promulgated
until
these
sources
were
included
in
the
cap
calculations.
Failure
to
do
so
could
have
significant
consequences.

Finally,
EPA
did
not
evaluate
whether
its
cap
allocation
methodology
appropriately
addresses
variations
in
weather­
related
load.
This
means
the
EPA
allocation
will
be
insufficient.
The
initial
CAIR
cap
was
calculated
by
"
determining
the
highest
recent
Acid
Rain
Program
(
ARP)
heat
input
from
years
1999­
2002
for
each
affected
State,
summing
the
highest
State
heat
inputs
into
a
region
wide
heat
input,
and
multiplying
the
region
wide
heat
input
by
0.15
lb/
mmBtu
and
0.125
lb/
mmBtu
for
2009
and
2015,
respectively".
The
analysis
contained
in
Exhibit
2
[
see
docket
number
2188,
p.
5]
shows
that
the
CAIR
baseline
of
1999­
2002
does
not
adequately
represent
climatological
variations
for
the
majority
of
the
31
sites
analyzed
for
the
annual
data
but
does
represent
the
ozone
season
variations
sufficiently.
(
p.
3)

In
response
to
comments,
EPA
used
the
choice
of
their
baseline
methodology
to
address
one
of
the
short­
comings
of
their
approach.
In
response
to
comments
it
was
stated,
"
EPA
believes
that
the
use
of
the
highest
annual
heat
input
provides
for
a
reasonable
adjustment
to
reflect
that
there
are
some
non­
Acid
Rain
units
that
operate
in
these
States
that
will
be
subject
to
the
NOx
budgets".
While
that
may
be
a
reasonable
assumption,
it
casts
doubt
whether
the
highest
annual
heat
input
provides
a
reasonable
adjustment
for
both
the
non
Acid
Rain
units
and
weather­
related
variations.
Due
to
these
flaws
in
allocation
methodology,
NRG
asserts
that
the
fuel
adjustment
factor
effect
should
be
reduced
and/
or
eliminated
and
that
the
Compliance
Supplement
Pool
needs
to
be
expanded
and
distributed
to
all
states.
(
p.
3)

EPA
Response:
The
EPA
addresses
the
use
of
fuel
adjustment
factors
in
section
III.
B
of
the
CAIR
Notice
of
Final
Action
on
Reconsideration.
See
also
the
final
CAIR
preamble
and
the
final
CAIR
FIP
preamble.
These
factors
were
not
assigned
"
arbitrarily"
as
the
commenter
suggests,
but
rather
were
based
differences
in
average
emissions
rates
over
the
three
fuels,
as
discussed
in
section
V
of
the
final
CAIR
preamble.
7
The
EPA
did
not
reopen
the
region­
wide
NOx
budgets.
The
commenter's
points
(
1)
and
(
2)
are
discussed
in
detail
in
section
IV
of
the
final
CAIR
preamble.
EPA
believes
that
the
many
flexibilities
provided
in
the
CAIR
cap­
and­
trade
programs,
particularly
the
ability
to
bank
allowances
without
restriction,
as
well
as
the
compliance
supplement
pool,
will
provide
sufficient
flexibility
to
sources
in
the
case
of
weather­
related
load
increases
in
certain
years.

While
the
chosen
allocation
methodology
can
affect
the
distribution
of
compliance
costs
under
the
cap­
and­
trade
program,
it
will
have
little
effect
on
overall
compliance
costs
or
environmental
outcome,
as
the
commenter
appears
to
suggest.
This
is
because
the
incentives
provided
by
cap­
and­
trade
encourage
economically
efficient
compliance
over
the
entire
region.

III.
Comments
on
the
NODA
Commenter:
State
of
Delaware,
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Control
(
EPAHQ
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2186;
2187
is
a
duplicate
letter)

Comment:
Incomplete
Technical
Information:
EPA's
proposal
is
based
solely
on
Delaware
and
New
Jersey,
combined,
having
an
impact
of
greater
than
0.20
Fg/
m3
on
a
downwind
nonattainment
area.
If
this
criteria
were
not
met,
would
the
EPA
then
believe
that
it
makes
sense
to
keep
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
out
of
CAIR
(
i.
e.,
create
an
illogical
hole)?
As
EPA
points
out
in
the
proposal,
and
Delaware
agrees,
this
would
not
make
sense,
and
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
should
be
covered
by
the
rule
regardless
of
whether
or
not
their
modeled
impact
is
greater
or
less
than
0.20
Fg/
m3,
and
regardless
of
whether
the
Rule
is
adequate
in
magnitude
and
coverage
to
accomplish
an
attainment
status.
(
p.
3)

In
the
NODA
the
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
modeling
information
used
to
show
that
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
have
a
combined
impact
of
greater
than
0.20
Fg/
m3
on
a
downwind
non­
attainment
area.
In
this
modeling,
Delaware
is
projected
in
2010
to
have
base
statewide
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
of
107,322,
and
48,699
tons
per
year
respectively.
This
modeling
does
not
include
reductions
resulting
from
a
joint
EPA/
DNREC
enforcement
action
against
the
largest
SO2
source
in
the
State.
Under
this
action
federally
enforceable
requirements
are
in
place
in
Consent
Decrees
and
final
permits
that
require
a
27,000
tons
per
year
(
TPY)
SO2
reduction
from
the
Premcor
refinery
in
Delaware
prior
to
2008.
A
27,000
TPY
SO2
reduction
in
DE
is
very
significant,
and
not
accounting
for
this
reduction
inflates
Delaware's
entire
base
2010
SO2
inventory
by
more
than
one
third.
As
this
reduction
is
associated
with
a
joint
action
initiated
by
the
EPA;
is
enforceable
by
the
EPA,
and
will
occur
prior
to
2010,
there
is
no
reason
why
the
EPA
should
have
not
considered
it
in
this
rulemaking.
(
p.
3)

What
is
not
known
is
the
impact
of
this
27,000
TPY
reduction
in
SO2
on
modeled
downwind
concentrations.
Delaware's
position
is
that
it
shouldn't
matter.
Emission
transport
is
a
known
problem,
and
EPA
must
require
consistent
controls
across
the
8
eastern
U.
S.,
to
address
it.
This
means
cost
effective
controls
on
all
source
categories,
not
just
EGU's.
(
p.
3)

EPA
Response:
See
our
response
in
Section
III
of
the
rule
to
include
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR.

IV.
Comments
Outside
the
Scope
of
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Include
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
in
the
CAIR
The
comments
in
this
section
are
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
and
relate
to
CAIR
rather
than
this
proposal.
EPA
is
not
reconsidering
or
otherwise
reopening
the
CAIR
in
this
proposed
rulemaking..

Commenter:
State
of
New
Jersey,
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Trenton,
NJ
(
EPA­
HQOAR
2003­
0053­
2191
Comment:
The
final
CAIR
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
unfortunately,
it
is
neither
stringent
enough
nor
soon
enough
to
provide
the
relief
New
Jersey
needs
from
transported
power
plant
air
pollution.
(
p.
1)

The
USEPA
made
some
helpful
changes
to
CAIR
after
the
original
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
("
NPR")
and
the
supplemental
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
"
SNPR").
Those
changes
include
retaining
an
ozone
season
NOx
cap­
and­
trade
program,
in
addition
to
the
annual
NOx
program;
the
acceleration
of
the
NOx
Phase
I
year
from
2010
to
2009;
and
deleting
proposed
language
that
would
have
changed
other
regulations/
programs,
such
as
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7426
(
Sect.
126
Petitions)
and
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7502(
c)(
5),
7503
(
New
Source
Review),
as
well
as
Best
Available
Retrofit
Technology
requirements.
(
p.
1)

Unfortunately,
the
USEPA
also
made
changes
to
CAIR
that
hinder
efforts
to
attain
the
ozone
and
fine
particulate
health
standards.
Those
changes
include
the
200,000
tons
NOx
supplemental
compliance
pool;
the
arbitrary
rounding
of
the
significant
contribution
criterion
upward
to
0.2
Fg/
m3;
and
the
use
of
the
"
fuel
weight
allocation"
for
different
fuel
when
calculating
the
state
budget
(
1.0
for
coal,
0.4
for
gas,
and
0.6
for
oil),
which
disproportionately
subsidizes
coal­
fired
power
plants.
(
p.
2)

The
USEPA
also
passed
up
other
opportunities
to
improve
CAIR,
most
importantly
by
setting
stricter
emission
caps
that
would
still
have
been
considered
highly
cost­
effective
under
the
standards
previously
applied
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
The
USEPA
characterization
of
its
caps
as
"
highly
cost
effective"
may
be
true
for
the
power
industry,
but
these
caps
are
clearly
not
cost
effective
when
considering
overall
societal
costs
aid
benefits,
including
public
health
costs.
In
addition,
the
USEPA
declined
to
use
electricity
output
or
consumption
as
a
basis
for
calculating
the
state
budgets,
instead
using
heat
input
and
thus
9
subsidizing
the
states
with
less
energy­
efficient
electric
generation.
The
USEPA
also
chose
not
to
employ
flow
control,
which
would
have
limited
plants'
ability
to
accumulate
allowances
in
years
with
low
demand
for
electricity
and
then
use
those
allowances
in
later
years
to
support
emissions
far
greater
than
the
CAIR
caps.
Similarly,
the
USEPA
chose
to
preserve
the
full
value
of
the
enormous
amount
of
SO2
allowances
banked
before
2010.
(
p.
2)

EPA
Response:
This
comment
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule.

Comment:
The
rule
proposal
to
include
New
Jersey
in
CAIR
would
not
have
been
necessary
if
the
USEPA
had
used
a
more
appropriate
significant
contribution
criterion
for
PM2.5.
Instead
of
using
0.2
Fg/
m3,
the
USEPA
should
have
stayed
with
the
proposed
0.15
Fg/
m3
as
originally
written
in
the
NPR.
The
rounding
to
0.2
Fg/
m3
had
no
scientific
basis
since
significant
contributions
are
determined
by
air
quality
modeling
which
can
predict
impacts
lower
than
the
sensitively
of
air
monitors.
(
p.
2)

EPA
Response:
This
comment
is
likewise
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule.

Comment:
The
USEPA
should
not
limit
states'
rights
to
require
more
emissions
reduction
than
CAIR,
while
at
the
same
time
participating
in
CAIR.
I
understand
the
USEPA's
concern
on
being
able
to
have
workable
cap­
and­
trade
programs
by
limiting
variations
to
the
mechanics
of
the
program.
However,
there
are
any
number
of
ways
for
states
to
achieve
greater
reductions
in
emissions
than
what
CAIR
will
yield,
without
interfering
with
the
smooth
operation
of
CAIR
trading
markets.
States
will
certainly
find
that
additional
reductions
beyond
CAIR
are
cost
effective
when
compared
to
other
regional
and
local
control
measures
which
will
be
required
for
states'
attainment
demonstrations.
The
USEPA
should
allow
and
encourage
the
use
of
CAIR
to
obtain
the
cost­
effective
control
of
EGU's
without
states
having
to
develop
a
completely
separate
control
program
from
CAIR.
Unfortunately,
USEPA
staff
has
been
non­
committal
about
whether
particular
state
measures
to
achieve
greater
reductions
in
emissions
would
disqualify
a
state
from
participating
in
CAIR,
advising
that
it
will
not
be
ripe
to
consider
such
measures
until
a
state
both
outlines
the
measures
specifically
and
also
demonstrates
the
need
for
the
measures.
(
p.
2).

I
urge
the
USEPA
to
take
the
opportunity
in
the
Supplemental
CAIR
Rule
Proposal
to
clarify
the
ability
of
states
and
regions
to
participate
in
CAIR
in
ways
that
will
achieve
further
emission
reductions
to
protect
the
citizens
of
New
Jersey
and
other
states
that
need
further
cost
effective
emission
reductions
to
help
attain
the
NAAQS.
CAIR
is
the
right
direction
to
mitigate
air
pollution,
but
it
can
be
and
must
be
improved
in
order
to
achieve
clean
air.
(
p.
3)
10
Commenter:
State
of
Delaware,
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Control,
Dover,
DE
(
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2204)

Comment:
At
the
outset,
we
want
to
reiterate
our
support
for
the
overall
goals
for
the
CAIR
program,
as
we
commented
in
2004,
especially
the
overall
goal
of
address
interstate
and
regional
contributions
to
state
pollution
problems.
Nonetheless,
we
have
serious
concerns
about
the
specifics
of
the
CAIR
program,
and
hope
that
EPA
takes
our
comments
seriously
and
commits
to
working
together
as
a
constructive
partner
to
make
CAIR
work
more
effectively
in
achieving
our
mutual
goal
of
cleaning
up
our
air.
(
p.
1)

Comment:
Mitigating
Upwind
Transport:
CAIR
applicability,
relative
to
PM2.5,
is
based
on
zero
out
modeling
using
projected
2010
emissions.
States
are
included
in
CAIR
if
their
modeled
impact
is
greater
than
a
0.20
Fg/
m3
threshold.
The
EPA
notes
that
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
fail
this
test.
This
result
does
not
make
sense,
so
the
EPA
is
creating
new
criteria
that
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
satisfy.
Delaware
agrees
with
the
EPA
that
it
does
not
make
sense
for
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
to
be
left
out
of
the
CAIR
relative
to
PM2.5
but
does
not
agree
that
EPA's
action
fully
addresses
the
problem.
Delaware
has
never
been
part
of
New
Jersey,
and
has
no
intention
of
beginning
now.
Prior
to
the
Revolutionary
War,
Delaware
was
referred
to
as
the
"
lower
counties"
of
Pennsylvania.
As
The
First
State,
we
take
great
exception
to
being
grouped
with
New
Jersey
for
the
convenience
of
EPA
modeling
to
produce
a
desired
(
in
the
modelers
minds,
perhaps)
effect
of
producing
a
resultant
0.23
Fg/
m3
impact.
Please
note
also
that
Newark
is
properly
pronounced
NewARK'.
(
p.
2
)

The
problem
EPA
is
attempting
to
address
with
this
rulemaking
is
that
they
don't
believe
all
of
the
emissions
that
significantly
contribute
to
downwind
non­
attainment
are
being
mitigated
by
CAIR.
The
EPA
has
arbitrarily
limited
this
problem
to
emissions
from
DE
and
NJ.
The
EPA
states
in
the
proposal
that
"
ignoring
the
contributions
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
could
result
in
both
air
quality
detriments
and
cost
inefficiencies
and
inequities."
EPA
is
proposing
to
fix
this
by
creating
criteria
to
bring
DE
and
NJ
into
CAIR.
Delaware
does
not
believe
this
fixes
the
problem
(
i.
e.,
that
all
emissions
that
significantly
contribute
to
downwind
non­
attainment
will
be
mitigated).
Upwind
emissions
far
greater
in
magnitude
than
those
being
addressed
by
this
Delaware/
New
Jersey
proposal,
and
that
significantly
contribute
to
downwind
non­
attainment
will
remain.
First,
the
emissions
due
to
the
lack
of
adequate
stringency
of
the
CAIR
NOx
and
SO2
caps
will
remain.
This
has
been
discussed
extensively
in
the
past,
and
many
states
are
now
working
together
to
address
this
shortcoming
of
CAIR.
Delaware
urges
the
EPA
to
work
with
the
states
in
this
effort.
(
p.
2)

Comment:
As
indicated
above,
Delaware
is
now
working
with
other
eastern
and
mid­
western
States
on
a
rule
to
more
adequately
address
transport.
DNREC
agrees
with
the
basic
structure
of
CAIR,
and
is
hopeful
that
a
rule
can
be
developed
which
uses
the
CAIR
as
a
11
foundation
but,
for
example,
alters
SO2
and
NOX
retirement
ratios
to
ensure
transport
from
EGU's
is,
in
fact,
mitigated.
Delaware
urges
the
EPA
to
work
with
the
States
in
the
development
of
this
concept,
to
quickly
approve
resultant
rules,
and
to
help
administer
the
resultant
rules
through
the
CAIR
framework.
(
p.
3)

EPA
Response:
These
comments
are
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule.
