ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

ii . As set forth at 40 N.J.R. at 4420, the reason why the Department is 

requiring the roof landing operating scenarios to be listed separately in 

the emissions statements is to enable the Department to electronically 

search the New Jersey Environmental Management System database for 

the roof landing emissions for each tank . This is important because roof 

landings may account for most of a tank's VOC emissions, and having 

the electronic search capability will help the Department in evaluating its 

progress towards emission reduction goals . Therefore, the Department is 

not modifying N.J.A.C . 7:27-21 .5(j)1 as requested . 

184. COMMENT: The information required by N.J .A.C . 7 :27-21 .5(j)2 

is extremely onerous and its additional value to the Department over the 

Emission Statement data is questionable . Were the reporting costs 

associated with annual preparation of this document incorporated into the 

cost-effectiveness evaluation done by the Department? (2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 

15, 29, 30, 38 and 43) 

RESPONSE: The Department estimates that floating roof landing 

emissions may have accounted for over 50 percent of the total annual 

floating roof tank emissions in past years . The emission data are 

incomplete because not all facilities reported their emissions from roof 

landings prior to the inclusion of the roof landing methodology into AP42 in 2006. The New Jersey specific data collected will help the 

Department in evaluating its progress towards emission reduction goals 

and serve as a source of information for technical analyses in future 

rulemaking. 

The collection and public availability of environmental information 

has been an effective incentive for sources to reduce their emissions . 

When companies collect emissions information, they learn about the 

nature and magnitude of their emissions . Therefore, the relatively low 

costs incurred by compiling this information yields substantial 

environmental benefits and the costs are minimal in the context of the 

overall cost of implementing the amendments of N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2 . 

185 . COMMENT: The requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(o) should 

only apply to Range III tanks . (2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 29, 30, 38 and 43) 

RESPONSE: N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(m) through (p) regulate roof landing 

cycles . (See 40 N.J .R. at 4406.) N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(o) relates specifically 

to roof landings of an internal floating roof tank. A tank's range depends 

on its capacity, in thousands of gallons, as set forth in N.J .A.C . 7:27-

16 .2(b), Table 2A. Range III tanks are the larger tanks that store high 

vapor pressure VOCs, such as gasoline . Range III tanks are located at 

refineries, terminals and pipeline breakout stations . (See 40 N.J .R at 

4400.) As set forth in the notice of proposal Summary (see 40 N.J .R. at 

4407), the management practices at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(o) are intended to 

apply to all in-service roof landing cycles to minimize VOC emissions . 

As discussed in the Response to Comment 117, even with the adoption of 

these rules, New Jersey is projected to continue to exceed the new EightHour 75 ppb Ozone NAAQS, so keeping VOC emissions to a minimum 

is important . Because of the importance of minimizing VOC emissions 

and because the commenter does not provide any justification for why 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(o) should apply only to Range III tanks, the 

Department has not made the requested modification . 

186. COMMENT: There should also be an exemption included in the 

rule from the requirement to operate air pollution controls during 

degassing operations should an emergency situation arise that needs 

immediate attention. (37 and 38) 

RESPONSE: Emergency situations are provided for under existing 

provisions for Affirmative Defense at N.J .S .A. 26:2C-19.1 . Therefore, the 

Department has not adopted the requested exemption . 

187. COMMENT: the Department should adopt the provisions of the 

degassing rule SCACMD Rule 1149 provided by the New Jersey Storage 

Tank Coalition . (37 and 38) 

RESPONSE: The version of SCAQMD 1149 provided by the New 

Jersey Storage Tank Coalition dates back to 1995 . As set forth in the 

notice of proposal Summary (40 N.J .R . at 4407), the Department based 

the provisions of the N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(q) on the more recent SJUAPCD 

Rule 4623, last amended in 2005, which is a more current regulation . 

188 . COMMENT: The Department's basis for requiring domes on 

external floating roof tanks at N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .2(1)4 is more akin to the 

stringent analysis applied to major new sources or sources undergoing 

major modifications, rather than a proper RACT analysis requiring 

retrofit technology for an existing source . 

A determination of what control technologies constitute RACT in ;, 

given instance is required to consider both technological and economic 

feasibility . This expansive standard stands in contrast to more stringent 

standards associated with selecting technology for new major sources that 

preclude consideration of factors that must be considered under a RACT 

' analysis, in particular economic feasibility . For example, major new _~; 

sources or existing sources undergoing major modifications are required 

to employ technology that achieves the "lowest achievable emission rate" 

or "LAER" in non-attainment areas. LAER is defined as, "the most 

stringent emission limitation which is contained in the implementation 

plan of any State for such class or category of source . . . or the most 

stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class 

or category of source ." 

Similarly, in attainment areas, these sources are required to employ 

"best available control technology" or "BACT." BACT is defined in 

pertinent part as "an emission limitation . . . based on the maximum 

degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under the 

Clean Air Act which would be emitted from any proposed major 

stationary source or major modification which the Administrator, on a : 

case by case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and = 

economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such . 

source or modification . . ." 

In addition, New Jersey imposes its own requirement upon new or 

modified significant sources by requiring such sources to perform a topdown "State of the Art" or "SOTA" analysis. Under this analysis, the 

most effective control technology for a source is deemed appropriate 

unless the applicant can demonstrate that such technology should be 

eliminated based on technological feasibility, environmental impacts, 

economic feasibility or energy impacts . Of the four control technology 

selection standards described above, it is clear that a RACT analysis is 

the most expansive in scope, requiring a broad review of control 

technology employed across a wide number sources nationwide. Rather 

than describe and review the reasonableness of requiring the installation 

of domes on external floating roof tanks as compared to VOC retrofit 

control technology employed in other states as part of an ozone 

attainment strategy, the Department appears to have zeroed in on the 

requirements applicable to stationary storage tanks in California's South 

Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), specifically 

SCAQMD Rule 1178(d)(2)(A) . Other than SCAQMD Rule 1178, 

however, there do not appear to be any RACT rules at the state or 

regional levels that require stationary storage tanks with external floating 

roofs to be retrofitted with domes. The Department's rule proposal 

indicates that several states, including California and New York, require 

that existing petroleum storage tanks with external floating roofs be 

retrofitted with domes. The current requirements at 6 NYCRR §229.3(b) 

do not list domes as a required control for external floating roof 

petroleum storage tanks and New York's SIP for the 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS states that NYSDEC determined that the RACT rules currently 

in place satisfy the Eight-Hour Ozone criteria . More details about the 

New York and other state rules that require external floating roof tanks to 

be retrofitted with domes are requested. 

For example, VOC RACT rules for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 

promulgated by California's Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 

California's San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

and the Texas Council on Environmental Quality (for the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria area) do not require stationary storage tanks with 

external floating roofs to be retrofitted with domes. In addition, as noted 

previously, retrofitting external floating roof tanks with domes was not 

one of the strategies developed by the OTC to reduce interstate pollution . 

The Department's decision essentially to adopt SCAQMD Rule 1178 

as a RACT rule for New Jersey is particularly inappropriate due to the 

unique non-attainment issues facing the Southern California area . Rule 

1178 was adopted as part of the settlement of litigation initiated by three 

environmental organizations . That settlement required SCAQMD to 

develop rules that achieved one ton per day VOC reductions starting in 

2006 and three tons per day by 2008. As EPA has noted, RACT 

determinations are supposed to be performed on a case-by-case basis and 

thus control technology that is considered "reasonably available" in light 

of the strict and severe mandatory reductions applicable in Southern 

California will necessarily differ from what is "reasonably available" to 

(CITE 41 N.J .R.1790) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
address ozone attainment issues across New Jersey. The singular nature 

of the SCAQMD tank regulations is reinforced by a search of the 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, which does not indicate any 

instances where a dome retrofit program has been adopted for external 

floating roof tanks as part of an attainment strategy for the 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS. In sum, the Department's reliance upon rules adopted by the 

SCAQMD to the apparent exclusion of RACT strategies in other areas 

calls into question the sufficiency of the Department's RACT 

determination with respect to dome retrofits . 

The Department has previously responded to concerns that its RACT 

evaluation was more akin to a BACT, LAER or SOTA evaluation by 

referencing a 1995 EPA memo stating that "RACT requirements can, in 

some instances, be more stringent than . . . LAER or BACT." This quote, 

however, was in response to the question as to whether a source that had 

already installed BACT or LAER in accordance with a previous 

technology review was required to meet revised RACT rules . In these 

instances, EPA asserted that control technology may have advanced such 

that new RACT was more stringent than what was previously considered 

BACT or LAER, and thus a current RACT study was necessary. This 

position, however, does not address our concern about the Department's 

RACT study with respect to domes, namely that the Department's 

process by which it determined that domes constituted RACT was 

essentially a LAER, BACT or SOTA evaluation . In other words, while in 

some instances it may be possible for a RACT study to result in RACT 

that is more stringent than what was previously considered BACT or 

LAER, is not proper for a RACT study to impose more stringent control 

measures by conducting what amounts to a BACT or LAER review. (37) 

RESPONSE: With regard to the commenter's concerns about the 

RACT review process being similar to a LAER, BACT or SOTA 

analysis, a RACT analysis is separate and distinct from, and serves a 

different purpose than, a LAER, BACT or SOTA analysis . The purpose 

of a LAER, BACT or SOTA analysis is to minimize the degradation of 

air quality by a new or modified source . RACT, on the other hand, is 

intended to improve air quality and bring New Jersey into attainment with 

the NAAQS by reducing emissions from existing sources . While 

economic feasibility has to be considered, a RACT analysis does not have 

to result in less expensive measures than a LAER, BACT or SOTA 

analysis if the emission reductions from the RACT measures are 

necessary to achieve attainment with the NAAQS. See the Responses to 

Comments 117 and 119 for further discussion of costs and the 

determination of reasonableness . 

With regard to the question raised about the statement in the rule 

proposal that New York requires domes (See 40 N.J .R . at 4405) the 

Department concurs that New York has no regulations that mandate the 

installation of domes on external floating roof tanks and the Department's 

statement was an error . However, the Department reviewed the New 

York Title V permits for petroleum facilities and found no external 

floating roof tanks, so New York would not achieve any emission 

reductions by requiring external floating roof tanks to be retrofitted with 

domes . 

With regard to commenter's statement that adopting SCAQMD Rule 

1178 as a RACT rule for New Jersey is inappropriate due to the unique 

non-attainment issues facing southern California, see the Response to 

Comment 117 with regard to the appropriateness of modeling New 

Jersey's rules on from other jurisdictions with similar air quality 

problems . 

With regard to the commenter's statement that the 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse does not indicate any instances 

where a dome retrofit program has been adopted for external floating roof 

tanks as part of an attainment strategy for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, the 

RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse contains information exclusively on 

case-by-case RACT/BACT/LAER determinations at individual facilities 

and therefore should not be expected to contain any information on dome 

retrofits required by a RACT rule as part of an attainment strategy for a 

nonattainment area. 

With regard to the commenter's statement that "the Department's 

reliance upon rules adopted by the SCAQMD to the apparent exclusion of 

PACT strategies in other areas calls into question the sufficiency of the 

Department's RACT determination with respect to_ dome retrofits," the 

commenter is incorrect in asserting that the Department excluded RACT 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Strategies from other areas . As set forth in the notice of proposal 

Summary (40 N.J .R. at 4407), certain parts of the roof landing provisions 

at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(m) through (p) were based on Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality (TCEQ regulations, and the tank cleaning and 

degassing provisions at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(q) were based on SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4623. Also, as discussed in Response to Comment 117, in addition 

to the fact that domes are required by SCAQMD Rule 1178, the 

Department considers doming external floating roofs to be RACT 

because domes are already widely used in New Jersey . 

189. COMMENT: The Department's cost effectiveness analysis relies 

too heavily upon an outdated California analysis and does not accord 

proper weight to emissions and cost information provided by us. 

1n the notice of proposal (40 N.J.R. at 4425) the Department takes the 

position that installing domes upon VOC stationary storage tanks with 

external floating roofs is a cost effective control based upon conclusions 

from a 2001 study conducted by the SCAQMD. The Department argues 

that it is appropriate to use the 2001 California cost data for purposes of 

evaluating 2008 through 2010 New Jersey cost data because vendor 

charges and labor costs are similar between the two locations . Using this 

study, the Department concludes that the cost-effectiveness of installing 

domes on external floating roof tanks is $12,036 per ton VOC in 2001 

dollars (which is approximately $14,100 per ton in 2008 dollars .) 

It is not apparent, however, that costs of 2001 dome retrofits in 

California accurately reflect the cost of dome retrofits performed in New 

Jersey between now and 2010 (the current compliance date) . There is no 

discussion as to whether the costs of materials may have increased greater 

than the rate of inflation between 2001 and today. Further, there is no 

explicit basis for the Department's assertion that the costs of materials 

and labor in California are similar to those same costs in the Northeast 

and New Jersey specifically . In addition, the SCAQMD study 

acknowledges that it did not take into account the costs of emptying, 

purging and refloating the tank . Moreover, it is unclear whether the 

SCAQMD provided an incremental cost effectiveness for dome retrofits, 

taking into account the other control technology improvements required 

by Rule 1178, many of which are already employed at our refinery. 

Perhaps more importantly, however, there is no discussion about the 

cost effectiveness data that we supplied to the Department during this rule 

development process . The data provided to the Department highlights 

two key points . First, the potential reductions for any given external 

floating roof tank at our refinery as a result of dome installation is, at 

most, approximately three tons per year . This is particularly important in 

light of the fact, as noted above, the SCAQMD analysis does not appear 

to perform an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of dome retrofits . 

Second, the incremental cost effectiveness at most of our tanks exceeds 

RACT thresholds announced by the Department in other contexts . 

Specifically, in the context of the refinery's wastewater treatment plant 

(WWTP) permit application from 2002, the Department asserted that its 

guidance for cost effectiveness factor for VOC control was $10,000 per 

ton . In the context of the refinery's subsequent VOC RACT plan for the 

WWTP in 2006, the Department upped its threshold to $20,000 per ton (a 

figure that arguably exceeds more stringent BACT cost-effectiveness 

thresholds used by EPA). In almost every instance, the cost-effectiveness 

data recently supplied exceeds both of these Department guidance 

thresholds . 

In light of the disparity between the SCAQMD study and the figures 

provided, it is incumbent upon the Department, at a minimum, to analyze 

and make conclusions about the relative strength of the data provided . 

Instead, however, the Department has chosen to adopt the conclusions of 

the SCAQMD 2001 cost-effectiveness data and dismiss, without 

explanation, the current cost-effectiveness data supplied. Moreover, the 

Department has failed to acknowledge its previously announced VOC 

RACT cost-effectiveness thresholds, nor has it provided a basis for 

potentially abandoning those thresholds with respect to retrofitting 

external floating roof tanks with domes. (37) 

RESPONSE: The New Jersey Storage Tank Coalition letter to which 

the commenter refers did not provide any cost information to refute the 

information in the 2001 SCAQMD Staff Report for Rule 1178. The 

figure quoted from the California Staff Report, $12,036 per ton reduced, 

was calculated after the reductions from deck fittings and seals were 

accounted for, so the cost effectiveness was based on the incremental 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R. 1791) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

reduction . The average incremental reduction per tank California used in 

those calculations was 1 .66 tons per year per tank (324 .21 tons per year 

for 195 tanks) was less than average incremental reduction from doming 

presented by the New Jersey Storage Tank Coalition letter of September 

24, 2007 for 12 selected external floating roof storage tanks (21 .57 tons 

per year for 12 tanks or 1 .8 tons per year per tank) . 

A cost effectiveness calculation that the commenter provided to the 

Department contained an error that substantially increased in the cost per 

ton of reductions the commenter reported . The error consisted of double 

counting the cost of dome purchase. When the Department corrected the 

error and recalculated the costs, assuming a 20-year life for the domes 

and a four percent real (adjusted for inflation) interest rate, as the 

SCAQMD staff report used, the overall cost effectiveness for doming the 

external floating roof storage tanks was $19,600 per ton . The cost 

effectiveness for doming wastewater storage tanks was as high as 

$125,441 per ton. If the wastewater tanks are excluded from the doming 

requirement, the overall cost effectiveness becomes $17,500 per ton . The 

cost effectiveness of $17,500 per ton is within the cost effectiveness 

range reported for other measures the Department is adopting, which are 

up to $29,000 per ton (in 2001 dollars), as set forth in the Economic 

Impact (40 N.J .R. at 4424) . 

The Department's cost figures are valid even when factoring in the 

variations in the cost of labor and materials between California in 2001 

and New Jersey in 2008. The costs of raw materials have varied widely in 

recent years . For example the price per pound of aluminum, which is 

used to manufacture domes, decreased over 40 percent in the last six 

months of 2008 (httn ://futures .tradingcharts .com/nrintchardAL/M ) . Also, 

the increase in unemployment during 2008 should maintain labor costs at 

steady levels. As a result, the "dollars per ton of VOC controlled" 

provides a representation of the costs given the fluctuations in the 

economy. 

The primary factor in determining RACT is technical feasibility. The 

widespread use of existing domes in New Jersey demonstrates that they 

are used in practice and are effective in controlling VOC, and suggests 

that it is economically feasible to do so . See the Responses to Comments 

117 and 119 for discussions of how technical feasibility, cost thresholds 

and other factors are used to determine RACT. 

See the Response to Comment 134 with regard to the Department 

modifying N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(f)4 on adoption to exempt from N.J.A.C . 

7:27-16 .2(1)4 any tank that stores slop oil or oily wastewater subject to 40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart QQQ. 

190 . COMMENT: The provision of N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)4 requiring 

domes on external floating roof tanks to be installed by May 1, 2020 

significantly shortens the 20-year internal inspection schedule prescribed 

by existing Department regulations, which will necessarily result in 

unanticipated unavailability of certain tanks . 

The proposed rule requires owners and operators to retrofit their 

external floating roof tanks no later than May 1, 2020. In order to retrofit 

an external floating roof tank with a dome, it must be emptied, taken outof-service, cleaned, verified to be in a safe condition to allow worker 

entry and then undergo an interior inspection. Under New Jersey's 

discharge prevention regulations at N.J .A.C . 7:1E-2.16, petroleum 

storage tanks are required to perform internal inspections in accordance 

with American Petroleum Standard 653 (API 653), Section 6.4 .2, which, 

among other things, allows for an internal inspection at least every 20 

years. In an effort to have as few tanks as possible off-line at any given 

time due to internal inspections, thereby causing the minimum amount of 

disruption to fuel supplies in the region, we perform internal inspections 

of its tanks according to a predetermined schedule, consistent with the 

permitted timetable set by API 653. 

By requiring dome retrofits to be in place by 2020, the Department is 

in effect mandating that a certain number of tanks be taken offline to 

undergo an internal inspection before they would be required to under 

API 653 . More specifically, any tank that was shut down to undergo an 

internal inspection after May 1, 2000 and before the effective date of the 

proposed VOC RACT rule would be required to be emptied and be 

subject to an internal inspection before its regularly scheduled API 653 

inspection. Thus, as part of complying with the May 1, 2020 compliance 

date, more tanks than usual may be off-line . at any given time . Any limits 

upon the ability of the refinery to store gasoline necessarily reduces the 

ability of the refinery to produce gasoline, which in tam could affect fuel 

supplies in the region . (37) 

RESPONSE: N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16.2(1)4 is generally based on the 

provisions of SCAQMD Rule 1178. SCAQMD Rule 1178 allows 

facilities a six-year window (2002 through 2008) for doming the 

applicable external floating roof tanks and all applicable tanks are also 

subject to API 653. The SCAQMD cost-effectiveness calculations 

referred to in the Department's Economic Impact (40 N.J.R. at 4425) 

included a component for loss of use . As set forth in the notice of 

proposal Summary (40 N.J.R. at 4405), the Department is allowing New 

Jersey facilities up to l l years (until May l, 2020) to install domes on 

applicable tanks . Therefore, New Jersey facilities will have more 

flexibility in scheduling the installation of the domes than was given to 

SCAQMD facilities . Also, in some cases domes may be installed while a 

tank is in service . As discussed in the Response to Comment 117, even 

with the adoption of these rules, New Jersey is projected to continue to 

exceed the new Eight-Hour 75 ppb Ozone NAAQS, so it is important to 

obtain VOC emission reductions expected by installing domes over the 

10 year schedule . 

See the Response to Comment 134 for a discussion of the 

Department's modification of N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(f)4 to exempt any tank 

that stores slop oil or oily wastewater subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

191 . COMMENT: Retrofitting external floating roof tanks with domes 

in accordance with the N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)4 unnecessarily increases the 

risks to persons working at or around the VOC stationary storage tanks. 

Any rule requiring the installation of domes on top of existing external 

floating roof storage tanks results in increased worker safety concerns as 

a result of, among other things, the need for inspections and repairs to the 

dome or external floating roof to be performed in a confined space. For 

example, any inspection or repair of an external floating roof tank with=a 

dome will require fresh air to be pumped into the confined space, so as to 

provide workers with sufficient oxygen. 

In addition, state of the art fire fighting foam systems on external 

floating roof tanks are designed to fight fires that range from small hatch 

and seal fires, to fully engulfed tank fires . Stationary monitors are located 

around the perimeter of the tank, as well as near the gauge pole, and the 

gauge pole monitor can rotate to allow foam application around the 

interior of the tank for small hatch or seal fires . The installation of a dome 

would prevent the application of foam from the gauge pole monitor to 

extinguish small hatch or seal fires, thereby potentially increasing the risk 

of a significant tank fire event. 

While reducing these risks will necessarily increase a facility's costs 

associated with rule, the main point of this comment is to highlight the 

potentially significant increased risk to workers as a result of a pollution 

control technology that even the Department estimates will only reduce 

pollution by 130 tons per year, or approximately 10 pounds of VOCs per 

day, per tank. (37) 

RESPONSE: The Department considers an emission reduction of 130 

tons per year significant enough to justify the rule amendment . As 

internal floating roof tanks and domed tanks already outnumber external 

floating roof tanks in New Jersey, the Department is confident that issues 

with worker safety are not insurmountable. As set forth in the notice of 

proposal Summary at 40 N.J .R . at 4408, entry into the tank for inspection 

is only required when the tank is emptied and degassed (no less than 

every 10 years) . N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16.2(r)6 does not require confined-space 

inspections when the tank contains organic liquid. (See the Responses to 

Comments 171 and 180 for a more detailed discussion of this issue .) 

Also, it is generally accepted that domes reduce the risk of seal fires and 

provide other benefits, such as protecting the floating roof and seals from 

rain, snow and ice, thus reducing the need for repair and reducing the risk 

of product contamination. 

192. COMMENT: The requirement at N.J.A.C . 7:27-16.2(1)2 to make 

tank fittings "leak-free," as opposed to "vapor tight," is a significant 

difference between the New Jersey rule and Federal NSPS standards . The 

Department makes clear in the notice of proposal that it understands the 

difference between the two terms (40 N.J .R. at 4404) . The NSPS term 

vapor tight means a fitting is designed to be just that, vapor tight . One 

would not expect a fitting that was designed to be vapor tight (generally 

bolted and gasketed) to leak . Gasoline and other light liquid tanks do not 

(CITE 41 N.J.R. 1792) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

experience the type of service conditions with respect to temperature, 

corrosivity or other conditions that would cause a gasket to deteriorate . 

Yet, the Department is insisting on verifying the leak free status of every 

fitting on many of these tanks . This is, by definition, a highly labor 

intensive practice as each component must either be monitored with a 

total vapor analyzer using EPA Method 21 or physically proved to have 

no gaps greater than 0 .06 inches . The Department has not presented the 

cost effectiveness of this practice. The Department adopted the practice 

from the SCAQMD. The emission reductions from the extensive 

monitoring is likely to be insignificant thus making the cost effectiveness 

nearly infinite. 

Throughout the rulemaking process the Department assured 

stakeholders that the final rule would generally mirror the NSPS. While 

the final rule "generally" follows the NSPS regulations, this deviation is a 

huge departure and one which should not have waited until the rule was 

published to have been presented to industry . No cost effectiveness data 

was provided to demonstrate that it is necessary and reasonable . Sharing 

rule language throughout the process would have prevented this huge 

surprise to stakeholders . The Department should present a cost 

effectiveness demonstration as was done with most other portions of the 

rule. (26) 

RESPONSE: With regard to the commenter's concern about the 

requirement to make tank fittings "leak-free," at N.J .A.C .7 :27-16 .2(r) use 

of EPA Method 21 to monitor for a leak-free condition is presented as an 

alternative to checking the gap widths . (See the Response to Comment 

135 regarding the Department's modification of the definition of "visible 

gap" from 1/16-inch to 1/8-inch at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .1) If a gasket is 

shown to have no visible gaps, it does not have to be inspected with EPA 

Method 21 . 

The Department disagrees with the commenter's statement that 

gaskets are not expected to deteriorate . Gaskets may be exposed to rain, 

snow, ice, freeze-thaw cycles and sunlight, as well as the product 

contained in the tank. All of these factors can cause a gasket to 

deteriorate over time . Therefore, the inspection requirements (either 

checking for visible gaps or verifying the gasket is leak-free) at N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .2(r)5 through 9 are not being modified in response to this 

comment . 

With regard to the commenter's question about the cost effectiveness 

calculations, the dollars per ton for upgraded (that is covered and 

gasketed with no visible gaps) deck fittings set forth in the Economic 

Impact statement at 40 N.J .R . at 4424 ($29,000 per ton for external 

floating roof tanks and $6,000 per ton for internal floating roof tanks) 

were based on the SCAQMD Staff Report for Rule 1178 . The cost 

effectiveness calculations in that staff report included annual operating 

and labor costs associated with those fittings . Because gaskets can 

deteriorate over time, as indicated above, the labor costs associated with 

periodic inspections are necessary to assure that the emission reductions 

from the enhanced deck fitting requirements are maintained. 

With regard to the commenter's concern about information provided to 

stakeholders prior to the rule proposal, in September 2007 the 

Department provided the New Jersey Storage Tank Coalition an outline 

of the proposed rules, which clearly stated the inspection requirements 

would be based on those at SCAQMD Rule 1178. The response to that 

outline (letter dated September 24, 2007 from State Street Associates on 

behalf of the Storage Tank Coalition to the Department) raised no issues 

with basing the inspection requirements on SCAQMD Rule 1178. 

193 . COMMENT: The Department has determined that all external 

floating roof tanks storing material with a vapor pressure greater than 

three psia should have domes installed on them using cost effectiveness 

data from SCAQMD in lieu of data provided to the Department from 

New Jersey facilities (40 N.J .R. at 4425). Stakeholders provided the 

Department with both cost and emission reduction data specific to the 

tanks they own and operate within the State . This data spanned a wide 

range of tanks. In general, the cost effectiveness factors developed using 

stakeholder data was five to 10 times higher than the data cited in the 

notice of proposal Summary. The Department did not reference the 

stakeholder data, did not mention whether it was considered and if not, 

why it was rejected . These data were actually requested by the 

Department and took a great deal of effort on behalf of stakeholders to 

compile it . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The Department should use the data that it requested. At the very least, 

the Department should determine and report why such a large 

inconsistency exists . Stakeholder data is more current and was modeled 

to reflect actual New Jersey emissions . When the Department continues 

to request information representing that the data will be used to assist in 

developing rules and standards and that data thus collected and submitted 

is not even addressed in the Summary of the rule it makes it more 

difficult to justify collecting data in the future . 

The Department projects in the Economic Impact statement that only 

about 70 tanks in the State will require domes to be installed . (See 40 

N.J .R. at 4427.) This number should be very easy to determine from 

permit information. About 30 of the tanks at the commenter's facility will 

require domes. Less than half of these tanks are gasoline tanks . It would 

be surprising if the commenter's facility accounted for nearly half of the 

tanks in New Jersey that are affected by the rules . (26) 

RESPONSE: The data presented to the Department (letter dated 

September 24, 2007 from State Street Associates on behalf of the Storage 

Tank Coalition to the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection) were emission reductions expected from doming a selected 

group of 12 external floating roof tanks . The average reductions from 

doming those 12 tanks (21 .57 tons per year for 12 tanks, or 1 .8 tons per 

year per tank) actually exceeded the average emission reductions per tank 

from doming presented in the 2001 SCAQMD Staff Report for Rule 1178 

(324 .21 tons per year for 195 tanks, or 1 .66 tons per year per tank) . Also, 

the New Jersey Storage Tank Coalition presented no cost data for domes 

or cost-effectiveness calculations to refute those presented in the 

SCAQMD report. 

With regard to the commenter's statement about the Department's 

underestimating the number of tanks expected to be affected by the 

doming provisions at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16.2(1)4, in light of the 30 tanks at 

the commenter's facility, the Department's estimate of "at least 70" tanks 

was a conservative estimate used in the Environmental Impact. (See 40 

N.J .R . at 4427.) The air quality permits for some facilities' external 

floating roof tanks allow them to contain any material with a vapor 

pressure less than 11 psia, regardless of what they actually store and some 

of those facilities do not report the specific contents of individual tanks 

on their emission statements . This creates difficulty in determinin g the 

exact number of tanks that would be affected by the doming provisions at 

N.J .A.C. 7:27-16.2(1)4 . Also, the Department is modifying N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .2(f)4 on adoption to exempt certain tanks that store slop oil or oily 

wastewater, as discussed in the Response to Comment 134. This will 

reduce the number of tanks subject to doming. 

194. COMMENT: The Department is proposing at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2(1)4 to allow approximately 10 years to install domes on all the tanks 

in New Jersey. Refiners typically follow a 20-year tank turn around cycle 

for tanks corresponding to the inspection schedule allowed by API 653 . If 

domes are required on tanks and the present schedule becomes the rule 

then several tanks will need to have domes installed outside of their 

normal turnaround window (less than 20 years) . This means they will be 

taken out of service sooner than otherwise required and the degassing 

emissions will be greater in the short-term than under the current 

schedules . This will also put those tanks out of cycle with respect to other 

tanks at a facility . For a refinery, with nearly 200 tanks that must be 

managed, this is significant. While in some cases domes can be installed 

while a tank is in service, this presents safety issues . In addition, this can 

only be done if sufficient open area exists in the vicinity of the tank to 

construct a large dome on the ground . Not all facilities have this luxury . 

(26) 

RESPONSE: See the Response to Comment 190 for a discussion of 

why the timeframe for installing domes at N.J .A.C. 7:27-16 .2(1)4 is 

reasonable. 

195. COMMENT: Proposed N.J .A.C. 7 :27-16.2 includes all or parts of 

rules from several jurisdictions including SCAQMD, SJVUAPCD, TCEQ 

and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Although 

the Department is applauded for seeking information from other areas 

that have faced similar issues, the Department did not investigate 

requirements that were rejected by certain jurisdiction in lieu of others . 

For example, BAAQMD rejected domes on tanks because it found the 

domes were not cost effective after all other controls were implemented. 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R 1793) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The array of choices available to reduce emissions from tanks contains 

some amount of overlap . For example, if one looks at the effect of domes 

on a tank without other controls installed it will appear to be a very cost 

effective solution . However, if the Department requires controls on tank 

fittings (for example slotted guidepole controls), improved seals and 

other measures, the cost effectiveness of the domes is greatly diminished 

because emissions that would be reduced by the domes are now being 

reduced by other, cheaper means. In effect, the emissions reductions are 

double counted. This can occur when various provisions, all of which 

reduce VOC emissions to some degree, are being proposed for 

incorporation into the rule . Different jurisdictions have chosen to require 

some of these provisions and have concluded that not all were necessary . 

The information from Texas and California is valuable and can be 

tailored to meet the needs of New Jersey tank owners. However, all of the 

rules must be viewed in combination rather than being considered 

additive in nature. (26) 

RESPONSE: The model for all of the seal, deck fitting and doming 

requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2 was SCAQMD Rule 1178. Certain 

parts of the roof landing provisions were taken from TCEQ regulations 

and the tank cleaning and degassing provisions were based on 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4623. The Department did not base its rules on the 

BAAQMD rules. 

The environmental benefits from seals, deck fittings and domes are 

generally not affected by cleaning and degassing or roof landings (though 

domes are effective in reducing roof landing emissions) . The SCAQMD 

Final Staff Report for Rule 1178 was very thorough and counted only the 

emissions reductions from domes that would occur in addition to the 

emission reductions from the deck fitting and seal requirements when 

determining the expected emission reductions and cost effectiveness. The 

anticipated environmental impact of domes, as set forth in the 

Department's notice of proposal (130 tons per year reduced after 10 

years), was estimated after the deck fitting and seal reductions were 

accounted for (the domes reduced 63 percent of the remaining emissions) . 

(See 40 N.J.R. at 4427 .) This estimate matches well with the average tons 

per year per tank reduction (1 .8 tons per year per tank) given by the New 

Jersey Storage Tank Coalition, multiplied by an estimated 70 tanks (70 

tanks times 1 .8 tons per year per tank equals 126 tons per year) . If the 70 

tanks affected by doming is a low estimate, as indicated in Comment 193, 

then the expected reductions from that measure should be greater . 

196. COMMENT: The purpose of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(I) is to apply 

additional controls to floating roof deck fittings, other floating roof 

appurtenances and rim spaces . The EPA has already provided NSPS 

Subpart Kb and MACT Subpart WW for storage tanks . It would be 

reasonable for the Department to simply adopt these EPA regulations to 

all applicable storage tanks in New Jersey instead of adopting N.J .A.C . 

7:27-16 .2(1), which is full of redundancies, confusing terms, requirements 

found no where else in the U.S . and contains certain requirements that are 

technically impossible to comply with. (31) 

RESPONSE: The conditions at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1) are based on the 

SCAQMD Rule 1178, which is more stringent than NSPS Subpart Kb (40 

CFR 60.110b through 60.117b) and MACT Subpart WW (40 CFR 

63.1060 through 63 .1067) . It is the Department's intent to be more 

stringent than Federal rules because New Jersey requires additional 

measures to achieve attainment with the Federal ozone NAAQS. The 

commenter fails to provide specifics on the claim that N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2(1) has "redundancies, confusing terms, requirements found nowhere 

else in the U.S . and contains certain requirements that are technically 

impossible to comply with" for N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1). Without specific 

citations, the Department has nothing on which it can focus a response . 

197 . COMMENT: The Department should adopt the Federal NSPS 

rules, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb or the MACT rules, 40 CFR Part 63 

Subpart WW that specifically include double wiper seals as an acceptable 

alternative to liquid mounted or mechanical shoe seals, rather than 

maintain the language proposed in N.J .A.C 7 :27-16 .2(1)3, 9 and 10 . The 

proposed regulation adopts SCAQMD 1178 language regarding rim seal 

options in N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3, 9 and 10 without offering the full range 

of alternatives identified under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb or 40 CFR 

Part 63 Subpart WW. The specified Federal rules should be adopted 

completely with regard to rim seals or at a minimum the New Jersey rules 

ADOPTIONS 

should specifically allow for double wiper seals as an acceptable 

alternative. 

This position is supported with reports written by three independent 

industry experts, provided to the Department. These reports indicate that 

liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe seals are problematic on tanks with 

lab-welded or riveted horizontal seams. Liquid mounted seals tend to be 

damaged easily and mechanical shoe seals may get caught on a seam and 

damage or sink the roof. A report also suggested that the "liquidmounted" wiper seal types indicated at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)9 and 10 

were inappropriate, that any wiper seals are vapor-mounted . (7, 8 and 37) 

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the commenter that it is 

appropriate to use vapor-mounted wiper seals on internal floating roof 

tanks with riveted or lap-welded shell seams because the rivets or lapwelds can damage a liquid-mounted seal, rendering it ineffective and can 

cause a mechanical shoe seal to get stuck, causing a floating roof to sink. 

Therefore, the requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)5ii and 7iv are being 

modified on adoption to allow vapor mounted wiper primary seals for 

existing domed or internal floating roof tanks with horizontal lap-welded 

or riveted seams. Because of the modification of N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)5ii 

and 7iv, the Department is also modifying N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)5ii on 

adoption to separate it into two conditions at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)5ii(1) 

and (2) . Adopted N.J .A.C . 7 :27-7 :27-16 .2(1)5ii(l) contains requirements 

for liquid-mounted primary seals and adopted N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)5ii(2) 

contains requirements for mechanical-shoe or vapor-mounted primary 

seals . Similarly, the Department is modifying N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)7iv on 

adoption to divide it into two conditions, N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)7iv(1) and 

(2) . Adopted N.J .A.C . 7 :27-7 :27-16 .2(1)7iv(1) contains requirements for 

liquid-mounted primary seals and adopted N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)7iv(2) 

contains requirements for mechanical-shoe or vapor-mounted primary 

seals . The requirements at N.J .A.C 7:27-16 .2(1)9 and 10 are being deleted 

on adoption in response to Comment 152, because they are redundanf 

with N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3 and 7. 

198. COMMENT: The floating roof seal designs proposed by the 

Department in N.J .A.C. 7:27-16 .2(1)9i and iii should not be listed as 

"liquid-mounted." These single and multiple wiper designs are currently 

utilized by storage tank operators but they are a "vapor-mounted" design . 

National floating roof designers claim that this "liquid-mounted wiper 

seal" design is only a conceptual design. Furthermore, there is no mention 

of a "liquid mounted wiper" in the USEPA TANKS 4 .09d emissions 

software . The liquid-mounted seal in TANKS refers to the foam log 

primary seal . The Department should provide the emission reduction 

benefits of a conceptual liquid-mounted wiper seal compared to a vapormounted seal . 

Because the liquid-mounted wiper seal described in N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

16.2(1)9i and iii is a conceptual design, it may not be a realistic option 

when replacing a floating roof seal. 

If they do not have the option of using a vapor-mounted wiper seal, 

those tanks constructed with a riveted shell will have to chose from either 

the mechanical shoe seal or the foam log (wiper) seal and each of these 

designs is incompatible with the riveted tank shell design. The 

mechanical shoe seal will not maintain a seal when the shoe rides on the 

rivets allowing vapors to pass between the shoe seal and tank shell. The 

mechanical shoe seal is also not recommended because the shoe can get 

hung up on the riveted courses of the tank shell and damage the seal or 

sink the floating roof. The foam log seal is not recommended because the 

riveted courses of the tank shell have been shown to tear the foam log 

seal resulting in premature degradation of the foam log seal . The 

replacement of a riveted shell tank with a welded shell tank would cost 

approximately $2,000,000 . The entire reconstruction of a storage tank is 

not justified for even a modest air emission reduction. 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)9i and iii should be modified to allow for either 

liquid or vapor-mounted wiper seals or allow for vapor-mounted wiper 

seals to be utilized in riveted shell tanks. (21) 

RESPONSE: See the Response to Comment 197 for a discussion of 

the Department's modification of N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)5ii and 7iv on 

adoption to allow vapor mounted wiper primary seals for domed or 

internal floating roof tanks with lap-welded or riveted seams. The 

requirements at N.J .A.C 7:27-16 .2(1)9 and 10 are being deleted on 

adoption in response to Comment 152, because they are redundant with 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3 and 7 . 

(CITE 41 N.J .R.1794) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

199. COMMENT: Will vacuum trucks and pipeline purges be required 

to be degassed and vapor controlled? The Department's notice of 

proposal Summary references the SCAQMD rules, which contain such 

requirements . (40) 

RESPONSE: Vacuum trucks used for tank degassing and cleaning are 

receiving vessels and pursuant to N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(q)3i would be 

required to have 95 percent control during the ozone season if the sludge 

is removed from a tank that stores a VOC with a vapor pressure equal to 

or greater than 1 .5 psia. As indicated in the notice of proposal Summary 

(40 N.J .R . at 4407), this provision is based on the SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 

(Storage of Organic Liquids), not on the provisions of the May 2, 2008 

Amendment of SCAQMD Rule 1149. The Department has not proposed 

new requirements for controlling purging or degassing of pipelines . 

200. COMMENT: Will sludge processing and handling operations 

require permits? Do they already require permits? Sludge handling and 

processing will be centrifuge processing units, frac tanks (that is, 

temporary tanks used for storing and mixing) and the tank itself when the 

roof lands . (40) 

RESPONSE: Sludge handling and processing units (for example, 

centrifuges and mixing tanks) require permits if they can process more 

than 50 pounds of sludge in any one hour pursuant to existing N.J .A.C . 

7 :27-8 and 22. Also, the VOC emissions from such equipment are subject 

to N.J .A.C. 7 :27-16.16 (Other Source Operations) . As for a temporary 

storage tank or a floating roof tank, any V OC storage tank needs a permit 

if its capacity is over 2,000 gallons and it stores material with a vapor 

pressure greater than 0 .02 psia at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, pursuant to 

N.J.A.C . 7:27-8 and 22. 

201. COMMENT: All storage tanks that contain any amount of VOC 

would be affected by the inspection requirements at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r) 

and that this would be excessively expensive for small storage tanks that 

contain VOC mixed with water . There should be a de minimis threshold 

for requiring storage tank inspections, such as having a minimum volume 

and vapor pressure similar to that found at NSPS Subpart Kb (40 CFR 

Part 60, Subpart Kb) that would trigger the requirement for tank 

inspections . The suggested triggers are: 75 m3 if VOC vapor pressure or 

sum of VOC partial pressures >= 15 .0 kPa (2 .18 psia); 75 m3 - 151 m3 if 

VOC vapor pressure or sum of VOC partial pressures >=3 .5 kPa (0 .51 

psia) and < 15 .0 kPa; and 151 m3 if VOC vapor pressure or sum of VOC 

partial pressures < 3.5 kPa (0 .51 psia) . (2) 

RESPONSE: The Economic Impact statement (40 N.J .R. at 4425) 

states that the Department expects costs for inspections to be minimal 

because owners or operators are already required to perform inspections 

under the Department's DPCC program rules and Federal NSPS and/or 

MACT. The tanks described in the comment (small tanks containing 

water mixed with small amounts of VOC) most likely would not be 

required to be inspected under DPCC rules, NSPS or MACT. 

The specific inspection procedures at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r)5 through 9 

refer to Range III floating roof tanks or fixed roof tanks subject to 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)9 (proposed N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16.2(1)11) . Further, in 

response to Comment 153, N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)9 (proposed N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16.2(1)11) is modified on adoption to apply only to Range III fixed 

roof tanks . Range III tanks are large tanks containing VOC with high 

vapor pressure and are usually found at refineries, petroleum storage 

terminals and pipeline breakout stations . All Range III tanks are subject 

to the Department's Discharge Prevention rules (N.J .A.C . 7aE) and most 

are now subject to NSPS and/or MACT as well . 

Therefore, in order to limit the scope of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) to tanks 

that would also be subject to the Discharge Prevention rules, NSPS 

and/or MACT, and not to impose significant additional expenses on 

owners of tanks not subject to inspection requirements of those rules, the 

Department is modifying N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r) on adoption to indicate it 

only applies to Range III tanks . All Range III tanks have a minimum 

capacity of 40,000 gallons, in accordance with Table 2A, N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .2, and 151 m3 is equivalent to 40,000 gallons, assuming a conversion 

factor of 264.17 gallons per cubic meter. In addition, in order for a tank 

with a 40,000 gallon capacity to be classified in Range III, its contents 

must have a vapor pressure of at least 11 .5 psia (79.2 kPa). Consequently, 

the tanks affected by adopted N.J .A .C . 7:27-16.2(r) are within the 

capacity and vapor pressure thresholds that the commenter suggests . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

202. COMMENT: The Department proposes to require that only an 

"authorized inspector" at N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16 .1 can perform the annual 

inspection . "Authorized inspector" is defined as "someone who is 

certified as an Aboveground Storage Tank Inspector in accordance with 

Appendix D of API 653." The basis for this requirement is not clear. To 

begin, not all storage tanks that will be subject to proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .2(r) are also subject to API-653 . Some are, for example, subject to 

API-510 or SP001. If the Department does not reduce the applicability of 

N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r), there will be thousands of storage tanks throughout 

the State that are not subject to any integrity standard . 

In addition, the Department requires that EPA Reference Method 21 

be used to measure the emissions from the fittings and valves on the tank . 

Tank integrity inspectors are certified to conduct API inspections and are 

not the professionals that are most familiar with EPA reference test 

methods . 

It appears that the Department felt that it needed to require some form 

of certification because the SCAQMD does so in Rule 1178. However, 

EPA does not require certified individuals for any' of the air emission test 

programs . In addition, the Department does not require certified 

inspectors for any of its air emission programs. For other N.J .A .C. 7:27-

16 programs (such as N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .18), the Department stipulates 

only that the testing be conducted in accordance with the reference 

methods. In the proposed rule, the Department lists no reasons for 

abandoning this long held practice . The Department should delete the 

requirement to have an "authorized inspector" perform the N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

16 .2(r) inspections . (2) 

RESPONSE: See the Response to Comment 124 regarding the 

modified definition of "authorized inspector" at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .1 . As 

modified, the definition of "authorized inspector" does not require the 

inspector to be someone who is certified as an Aboveground Storage 

Tank Inspector in accordance with Appendix D of API 653. Also, 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r) is modified on adoption to apply only to Range III 

tanks in response to Comment 201 above, so inspections pursuant to 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) are not required for tanks outside of Range III . 

203. COMMENT: The Department has proposed to make N.J .A.C . 

7:27-16 .2(s) applicable to every "stationary storage tank that stores VOC, 

or that stores VOC and non-VOC, except as set forth in (e) and (f) 

below." This will impose these requirements onto tanks for which this 

rule does not make environmental or economic sense . For example, there 

is no reason that a drinking water storage tank operator should have 

records of the VOC that are stored therein . The applicability criteria for 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s) should be analogous to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb 

(40 CFR 60.115b) . (2) 

RESPONSE: N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(s)2 through 4 refer to floating roof 

tanks storing VOC. N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s)6 applies to tanks that meet the 

applicability criteria at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16.2(q) . The Department is 

modifying N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s)5 on adoption in response to Comment 

204 below to indicate that it applies only to tanks subject to the inspection 

requirements at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r), which are Range III Tanks. (See 

the Response to Comment 201 regarding the modification of N.J.A.C . 

7 :27-16 .2(r) on adoption to apply only to Range III tanks .) The 

Department is also modifying N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(s)7 on adoption in 

response to Comment 204 to indicate it applies only to Range III tanks . 

Therefore, the only requirement at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s) to apply to all 

VOC storage tanks is N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s)1, the requirement to maintain 

records of tank contents and vapor pressure. N.J .A.C . 7:27-16.2(s)1 is not 

a new requirement. As set forth in the notice of proposal Summary (40 

N.J .R . at 4408), it is an existing requirement that is being relocated from 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .2(k) . Other than its relocation, the Department proposed 

no change to that requirement and is not modifying it on adoption . 

204 . COMMENT: In N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s)5, the Department has 

proposed to require that "all inspection reports" be maintained on site . 

This requirement is too ambiguous to allow compliance . The Department 

should clarify this provision to require only that the inspections that are 

required under N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2 be included in the records under this 

part. 

In N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(s)7, the Department proposes to create a 

duplicative requirement to maintain the inspection records that are 

generated under the Discharge Prevention rules at N.J .A .C . 7:1E. There is 

no benefit to duplicate the recordkeeping requirements of N.J .A .C . 7:IE. 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R. 1795) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

In fact, the recordkeeping requirements of N.J .A.C . 7:1E are more 

stringent than those that are created in N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2, inasmuch as 

N.J .A.C . 7 :IE-2 .15(d) requires that the integrity inspections be 

maintained for the life of the tank . N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(s)7, therefore, has 

no environmental benefit, yet creates another confusing provision for 

which the Department can impose penalties . The proposed rules at 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s)7 should be deleted . (2) 

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the commenter that 

requiring all inspection reports to be maintained on site pursuant to 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16.2(s)5 is redundant with the requirements of N.J.A.C . 

7:1E-2.15(d) with regard to tank integrity inspection reports . The 

Department is therefore modifying N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16.2(s)5 on adoption to 

require all inspection reports required pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) 

be maintained on site. This limits the scope of the inspection reports 

required to be maintained pursuant to N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s)5 to reports 

related to air pollution, the emissions of concern at N.J.A.C . 7:27 . 

N.J .A .C 7 :27-16 .2(s)7 requires facilities to keep records of the tank 

integrity test schedules, but does not require new tests . Records of the test 

schedules are an important component of all the records required under 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s). The rule does not impose any additional 

recordkeeping burden upon the facility because N.J .A.C . 7:lE-4 .2(c)lv 

already requires the tank integrity schedules to be kept . These schedules 

are relevant to air pollution control because requiring the tank integrity 

testing schedules to be kept assists in the confirmation that the tank 

inspections pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(r) will be implemented in the 

required timeframes . This is because a tank has to be emptied and 

degassed before tank integrity tests and the tank inspections required by 

N.J .A .C . 7 :1E-4 .2(c)lv and 7 :27-16 .2(r) can be performed, so the 

integrity tests and tank inspections pursuant to N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) will 

usually occur in the same time frame. 

In response to Comment 201, the Department is modifying N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .2(r) on adoption to state that it applies only to Range III tanks . 

Therefore, the Department is modifying N.J .A .C 7 :27-16 .2(s)7 on 

adoption to indicate it only applies to Range III tanks as well, because of 

the relationship between the tank integrity schedules and N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2(r) described above . 

205. COMMENT: The definition of "capacity" at N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .1 

is ambiguous. To clarify, the definition should be based on the working 

volume of the tank . The applicable permit and or manufacturers 

specifications could specify working volume and or shell volume, which 

are not equivalent. For the purpose of determining compliance 

requirements, the capacity must be based on working volume. Capacity 

means the working volume of a tank based on equipment specifications 

and/or calculations maintained by the permittee and made readily 

available to any authorized representative of the Department upon 

request . Change the definition to "`Capacity' means the working volume 

of a tank based on equipment specifications and/or calculations 

maintained by the permittee and made readily available to any authorized 

representative of the Department upon request." (17) 

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the commenter that the 

definition of "capacity" at N.J .A .C. 7 :27-16 .1 is ambiguous because the 

applicable permit or manufacturer's specifications could specify shell 

volume or working volume. The Department does not agree that working 

volume is the appropriate definition because, in the case of a floating roof 

tank, the working volume excludes the minimum volume required to keep 

a floating roof in float, while the shell volume includes that minimum 

volume. That minimum volume, which is the volume below a landed 

floating roof, is an important factor for determining roof landing 

emissions and should be included in the tank capacity . Therefore, to 

eliminate the ambiguity, the Department is modifying the definition of 

"capacity" at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .1 on adoption to conform to the definition 

at MACT Subpart WW (40 CFR 63 .1061), which is the internal cross 

sectional area multiplied by the internal height of the shell (which is the 

shell volume). 

206. COMMENT: N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(f)6 exempts floating roofs from 

landing loss emission control requirements of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(p) if 

Federally enforceable potential to emit is less than five tons per year . This 

exemption is arbitrary and subsequently, provides a competitive 

advantage to gasoline blending facilities with floating roof tanks of 

smaller capacities . Specifically, a smaller diameter tank will be afforded 

ADOPTIONS 

additional roof leg landing events as compared to a larger diameter tank, 

based on the proposed flat exemption rate of five tons per year per tank . 

In some cases, this competitive advantage will be significant. 

A gasoline blending facility requires the ability to generate different 

gasoline blends, as dictated by market demand. To do this, the liquid 

level in the tank must be lowered and most times the roof is taken off. 

float . As proposed, a 200-foot diameter tank could be limited to two to 

three roof leg landing events per year, which significantly restricts 

blending capability resulting in losses of revenue. In addition, in many 

cases, such tanks may not be easily equipped with roof leg landing 

control devices, if possible at all, due to the physical limitations of that 

property . Therefore, the proposed five tons per year per tank exemption is 

not fair and equitable because all floating roof tanks are not the same 

capacity. As a means to establish a fair and equitable exemption, the 

exemption must be derived and specified in units of mass per volume 

(that is, pounds per barrel of tank capacity) . (17) 

RESPONSE: If a facility commits itself to implementing the control 

requirements at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(q)lii for a non-exempt tank, the rule 

places no restriction on roof landing emissions, though that tank is still 

subject to its permit limits . Historically, the Department decides to 

require controls for a piece of equipment based in part on the potential 

emissions of that piece of equipment. The five-ton per year threshold for 

roof landings is the same as the five-ton per year threshold that triggers 

state-of-the-art control requirements for new or modified equipment at 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-22 .35 and 8 .12 . Economies of scale usually apply to 

controlling emissions . It is typically more cost effective to control 

emissions from a piece of equipment if the uncontrolled emissions from 

that piece of equipment are high, because the resulting benefits in 

emissions reductions are also high . For example, the 1987 SCAQMD 

staff report for its degassing rule (Rule 1149) indicates that the dollars perr, 

ton (reduced) for controlling degassing emissions (which is similar to : 

controlling roof landing emissions) decreases with increasing size of the 

tank and increasing vapor pressure of the contents . Therefore, the 

Department expects that controlling roof landing emissions for large 

tanks containing material with high vapor pressure will be cost effective, 

and the facility could conduct blending operations as needed if it 

equipped its tank with the necessary controls . However, if site-specific 

circumstances make installing those controls technically infeasible, the 

facility can apply for an alternative VOC control plan pursuant to 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .17 . 

207. COMMENT: The requirement at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(o)2 is 

unnecessary . The rule already establishes an applicability threshold of 

five tons per year per tank . It may be necessary for some facilities to 

lower their leg heights as a means to emit less than five tons . However, 

some facilities may rarely, if ever, land their roof legs and would never 

approach a landing loss total of five tons per tank, regardless of leg 

height. Such facilities will incur an unwarranted financial burden 

associated with raising and relowering the roof legs each time tank 

cleaning and or maintenance is required . This requirement should be 

deleted. (17) 

RESPONSE: The five-ton threshold at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16.2(f)6 exempts 

the facility from controlling roof landing emissions or physically 

modifying the tank. The requirement to use the lowest height setting for 

in-service landings does not require any physical tank modifications and 

minimizes emissions from those landings . As set forth at 40 N.J.R. 4407, 

the Department intends that, at a minimum, all floating roof tanks that 

perform in-service landings will minimize their emissions by using the 

lowest height setting . As discussed in the Response to Comment 117, 

even with the adoption of these rules, New Jersey is projected to continue 

to exceed the new Eight-Hour 75 ppb Ozone NAAQS, so keeping VOC 

emissions to a minimum is important . Therefore, the Department is not 

modifying N.J .A.C. 7 :27-16 .2(o)2 as requested . 

208. COMMENT: There is a negligible emission reduction to be 

realized from controlling degassing and cleaning emissions for any tank 

with a vapor pressure less than two psia. The cost to clean and degas a 

tank ranges between $30,000 and $100,000 . The requirements at N.J .A .C . 

7:27-16 .2(q) should be restricted to Range III tanks, as a means to ensure 

that the emission reduction justifies the significant cost of controlling 

degassing and cleaning emissions . (I7, 37 and 38) 

(CITE 41 N.J.R 1796) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

RESPONSE: Data provided by the commenters indicate that for a 

Range I fixed-roof tank containing contents with a vapor pressure less 

than two psia, the emission reductions from controlling a degassing and 

cleaning event is less than 200 pounds and that for a Range I or Range II 

floating roof tank containing gasoline, the maximum emission reduction 

would be less than 60 pounds . The Final Staff Report for the May 2008 

Amendments of SCAQMD Rule 1149 indicated a minimum cost of 

$10,000 to control degassing and cleaning emissions . This would result in 

an abatement cost greater than $100,000 per ton for a fixed-roof Range I 

tank containing material with vapor pressure less than two psia, and for a 

Range II (or Range I) floating roof tank . The cost effectiveness ratio for 

controlling degassing and cleaning emissions for these tanks is three 

times the cost effectiveness ratio underlying the inclusion of these control 

measures for aboveground VOC stationary storage tanks . See the 

Economic Impact statement at 40 N.J.R. at 4424 ($29,000 per ton of 

VOC in 2001 dollars) . 

As set forth in the rule proposal Summary (see 40 N.J .R . at 4427), it is 

expected that the uncontrolled emissions from degassing and cleaning a 

typical tank are approximately 6.7 tons of VOC. An emission reduction 

of 6 .37 tons would result from 95 percent control of the cleaning and 

degassing emissions from that typical tank . As indicated above, the 

emission reductions expected from controlling cleaning and degassing 

emissions from Range I fixed-roof tanks containing VOC with a vapor 

pressure less than two psia at standard conditions and Range I or Range II 

floating roof tanks are less than 200 pounds, or less than two percent of 

6 .37 tons . Given the cost effectiveness ratio and the limited emissions 

reductions achieved compared to controlling emissions from tanks with 

higher uncontrolled cleaning and degassing emissions, it is not 

considered cost effective to require facilities to control cleaning and 

degassing emissions from Range I fixed-roof tanks containing VOC with 

a vapor pressure less than two psia at standard conditions and Range I or 

Range II floating roof tanks Therefore, the Department is modifying 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(f)2 on adoption to extend the exemption from the 

cleaning and degassing requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(q) to any 

Range I fixed-roof tank containing VOC with a vapor pressure less than 

two psia at standard conditions and any Range I or Range II floating roof 

tank . 

209 . COMMENT: The proposed emissions averaging plan at N.J .A.C . 

7:27-16 .2(p)2iii as it is currently written will cause certain facilities 

within the State to have a competitive advantage over others, especially 

for-hire gasoline blending terminals of similar capacity with a large 

number of small tanks rather than a small number of large tanks . 

For example, there are two independent terminals with a total Range 

III storage capacity of 2,000,000 barrels (42 gallons per barrel) each . The 

first facility has 27 tanks that average approximately 75,000 barrels per 

tank . In the first year of the emission averaging, the facility would be 

allowed to emit 135 tons of VOC during roof landing events . A second 

facility has 13 tanks that average approximately 150,000 barrels per tank. 

In the first year of emission averaging, the facility would be limited to 65 

tons of VOC during roof landing events . Both terminals are equivalent in 

terms of capacity, but are simply constructed differently for any number 

of different reasons . The second terminal has now been put at a 

competitive disadvantage because it will not be able deliver the same 

service as the first because its ability to blend and transfer different 

grades and varieties of gasoline will be limited to half the number of the 

first. 

The averaging plan should be revised to include emissions averaging 

based on capacity, not on the number of storage tanks. A very simple 

transition can be made to relate tons per tank to tons per barrel of shell 

capacity . For example, assuming that the average Range III tank in the 

State is 100,000 barrels and the limit in the first year of averaging is five 

tons, a simple conversion can be made to arrive at an allowable emission 

factor of 0.05 tons/1,000 barrels . Using this method will allow those 

facilities with a small number of large tanks remain competitive with 

terminals that have a large number of small tanks . Over the course of 

time this emission factor can be reduced, similar to the current notice of 

proposal . (35) 

RESPONSE: If a facility commits to controlling roof-landing 

emissions for all of its non-exempt tanks, pursuant to N.J .A.C . 7:27-

16 .2(q)2ii, then the rule does not restrict the annual roof landing 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

emissions from those tanks or from the facility, though all emissions still 

must be permitted . The averaging plan requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .2(q)2iii are intended as an alternative to the control plan requirements 

at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(q)2ii, and requires a facility choosing that option to 

meet an average tons per tank on a fixed schedule. Facilities are free to 

choose the approach that works best for them. 

The first terminal in the commenter's example may find it 

advantageous to submit a control plan pursuant to N.J .A.C . 7:27-

16 .2(q)2ii for all of its non-exempt tanks, as economies of scale usually 

apply to controlling emissions . It is generally more cost effective to 

control emissions from a piece of equipment if the uncontrolled 

emissions from that piece of equipment are high . For example, the 1987 

SCAQMD staff report for its degassing rule (Rule 1149) indicates that the 

dollars per ton (reduced) for controlling degassing emissions (which is 

similar to controlling roof landing emissions) decreases with increasing 

size of the tank and increasing vapor pressure of the contents . 

210. COMMENT: N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(q), which requires control of 

degassing emissions only during the period May 1 through September 30, 

will create a perverse incentive that in the end will do nothing to reduce 

the annual pollutant emissions. The change from abatement of any VOC 

vapors to abatement only between May 1 and September 30 will result in 

the unnecessary release of tons of VOCs. The fact that winter conditions 

reduce New Jersey's pollution levels is not a reason to allow emissions 

that harm the public . "Attainment" during certain months of the year 

should not be a justification for allowing the unnecessary release of 

VOCs, which contain the carcinogen benzene, into the air that New 

Jersey residents breathe. This health menace is also an environmental 

justice issue because of the general location of storage tanks in areas of 

low income and minority demographics . In addition to the respiratory 

risks to humans and those medical issues noted above, emissions of 

VOCs pollute New Jersey's surface waters. 

The Department's assumption that tanks are generally cleaned only 

annually is incorrect. Degassing may take place for numerous reasons, 

including changes in the stored product and changes in ownership or 

control . Consequently, the Department's estimate of VOCs resulting from 

degassing is grossly underestimated. In addition, the "law of unintended 

consequences" is certain to prevail. To avoid the cost of abatement, 

whenever possible, companies will schedule degassing outside of the 

May to September time frame, resulting in even more VOC releases . 

Other states recognize these points and have adopted rules to require 

year-round abatement of VOCs. The revisions that are now proposed for 

New Jersey will allow industrial entities to shift economic externalities to 

the public and particularly the immediate neighbors who are least able to 

bear them. These externalized costs will continue to be reflected in health 

care costs and lost productivity. The requirements at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

16 .2(q) should be met year round. (36) - 

RESPONSE: Although the Department agrees that VOC emissions 

outside of ozone season create health risks, it is not modifying N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16.2(q) to be applicable year round. This rule is a major milestone 

towards the Department's overall emission reduction and attaimnent 

goals . Its primary focus is ozone reductions . Controlling tank degassing 

and cleaning emissions during the ozone season is a good start to 

reducing emissions from this type of operation. The Department usually 

requires RACT control measures for NO, and VOC emissions to be 

applied year-round and not just during ozone season. An exception was 

made for degassing and cleaning emissions because bringing in enough 

control contractors in New Jersey to control those emissions year-round 

would be problematic during the first year or two of the rule. After it 

gains experience with the controlling of degassing during the ozone 

season, the Department will consider controlling degassing and cleaning 

emissions year round. One of the primary considerations of future 

rulemaking will be benzene and other air toxic emissions that are emitted 

during the non-ozone season, as pointed out in this comment . 

211. COMMENT: N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(f)6 exempts tanks that emit less 

than five tons per year from N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(p) . Given the levels of 

non-attainment in this State and the hazardous nature of VOCs, all tanks 

should be required to comply with VOC control plan . The rule could 

cause a perverse incentive for facility to install tanks that emit less than 

five tons, but install more of them, so as to avoid this compliance 

requirement. (36) 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R. 1797) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

RESPONSE: Historically, the Department decides to require controls 

for a piece of equipment based on the potential emissions of that piece of 

equipment. The five-ton per year threshold for roof landings is similar to 

the five-ton per year threshold that triggers SOTA control requirements 

for new or modified equipment at N.J .A.C . 7:27-22 .35 . (Any new tank 

that would emit over five tons per year of VOC must include SOTA 

control measures and will not be able to avoid control.) Economies of 

scale usually apply to controlling emissions . It is generally more cost 

effective to control emissions from a piece of equipment if the 

uncontrolled emissions from that piece of equipment are high. For 

example, the 1987 SCAQMD staff report for its degassing rule (Rule 

1149) indicates that the dollars per ton (reduced) for controlling 

degassing emissions (which is similar to controlling roof landing 

emissions) decreases with increasing size of the tank and increasing 

vapor pressure of the contents . 

With regard to the perverse incentive to install greater numbers of 

small-emitting tanks (presumably because they have smaller capacities), 

emission increases resulting from any new or modified tanks are subject 

to permit requirements . Part of the permit review process is to determine 

if the potential emissions from the proposed new or modified equipment 

triggers N.J.A.C . 7:27-18, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from 

New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality (Emission Offset Rules) . A net facility-wide increase of 25 tons per year of VOC would 

trigger the requirements of those rules and the facility would have to 

obtain emission offsets and document that the new or modified tanks 

have the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). LAER would require 

the most stringent controls achieved in practice, without regard to cost. 

The Department believes that the LAER requirements of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

18 have given facilities a disincentive to build multiple new tanks that 

would not be subject to N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(p), as these new tanks would 

be subject to more rigorous control requirements . 

212. COMMENT: The intention of the RACT amendments is to 

reduce VOC and NO, emissions from stationary sources to facilitate New 

Jersey's compliance with the national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. With like intentions, 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts 

BBBBBB, CCCCCC and R already cover every gasoline terminal and 

pipeline tank requiring them to demonstrate compliance with emission 

limitations and management practices . Generally Available Control 

Technology (GACT) and MACT regulations specifically reference 40 

CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb, or 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WW, regulating 

every gasoline tank and therefore the State's rule at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2 is 

redundant in nature . 

Should gasoline terminals and pipeline facilities remain in the rule, 

then it is suggested that the option of either complying with 40 CFR Part 

60 Subpart Kb or 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WW be made available as 

alternative options to the wording put forth in the draft regulation . It 

appears to have been the intent of the Department to mirror much of 

NSPS Subpart Kb, however, by not taking the wording of NSPS in its 

context and inserting new terminology (such as "leak free") the rule is 

substantially different than NSPS Subpart Kb in its proposed form and 

beyond what appears to be reasonable . 

In summary, gasoline terminals already subject to GACT and MACT 

regulations should be excluded from the proposed RACT applicability in 

light of the Gasoline Distribution GACT and Gasoline Distribution 

MACT regulations already in place, or add an option to comply with 

NSPS Subpart Kb or MACT Subpart WW as another alternative . (41) 

RESPONSE: See the Response to Comment 119 for a discussion of 

how reasonableness is determined. The conditions at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-

16.2(1)7 are based on the conditions at SCAQMD Rule 1178. SCAQMD 

Rule 1178 is more protective than the Federal rules at 40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart Kb and WW and it was the Department's intent to be more 

protective because of New Jersey's ozone non-attainment. (See 40 N.J.R. 

at 4428.) 

213. COMMENT: N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16.3 should include a specific 

designation for the individual who performs the testing of Stage I and 

Stage II vapor recovery systems. This designation should be consistent 

with the certification outlined in N.J .A.C . 7:14B-13 Certification of 

Individuals and Business Firms . Such a designation is necessary since 

individuals who perform the testing of Stage I and Stage II vapor 

ADOPTIONS 

recovery systems would not meet the proposed definition of "authorized inspector" at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .1 . (12) 

RESPONSE: The definition of "authorized inspector" in N.J .A,C. 7:27-16 .1 pertains to tanks subject to the inspection requirements at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r) and not tanks with Stage I and Stage II vapor 

recovery systems subject to N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .3 . No changes to the vapor 

recovery equipment testing requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .3 were 

proposed and, therefore, were not open for comment. Accordingly, the comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking . 

214. COMMENT: A statement should be added to the rule language that tanks operating under the provisions of Gasoline Dispensing Facilities at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .3 are not subject to the proposed rulemaking provisions. It must be made clear that these facilities are not subject to an additional inspection and testing regiment under N.J .A .C. 7 :27-16.2 . (28) 

RESPONSE: The addition of a statement that tanks operating under the provisions of Gasoline Dispensing Facilities at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .3 are not subject to the rules is not necessary . Adopted N.J .A .C. 7 :27-16 .2(f)lii exempts from N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(b) stationary storage tanks that are equipped with a vapor control system reducing by at least 98 percent the weight of VOC emissions to the outdoor atmosphere. Gasoline stationary 

storage tanks that are used to accept gasoline from delivery vessels and then dispense it to vehicular fuel tanks are regulated by N.J .A.C . 7 :27- 16.3, Gasoline transfer operations and any applicable regulations of 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2 . Since gasoline stationary storage tanks must meet the "98 percent vapor control system" . requirement, pursuant to N.J.A .C . 

7 :27-16 .3(d)li(1), they will be exempt from N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(b) . 

Stationary storage tanks exempt from N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(b) cannot be 

classified as Range III tanks . 

Since the regulations at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)1 through 8 apply only to 

floating roof tanks, the Department is modifying N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)11 (adopted N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)9) on adoption in response to Comment 

153 to apply only to Range III fixed-roof tanks . The Department is 

modifying N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16.2(r) in response to Comment 201 and 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s)5 and 7 in response to Comment 204 on adoption to 

state that these provisions are applicable to tanks in Range III only. 

Consequently, the Gasoline Dispensing Facilities regulated under 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .3 will not be subject to the adopted rules . 

215. COMMENT: Proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-16.1 includes the definition 

of "authorized inspector" to mean someone who is certified as an 

Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Inspector in accordance with 

Appendix D of API 653 and who is an employee of an authorized 

inspection agency . At the same time, the rulemaking at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

16 .2 provides some exemptions for fixed roof tanks of 40,000 gallons and 

less, which are appropriate . The Department is certainly aware that 

operators of aboveground storage tanks are subject to numerous 

regulations in addition to those proposed here. Specifically Federal spill 

prevention, containment and countermeasure (SPCC) rules and the 

State's Discharge Prevention rules (N.J .A.C. 7 :1E) have inspection 

requirements for the inspection of aboveground storage tanks containing 

petroleum products and other hazardous substances . The Federal SPCC 

rules recognize inspectors certified by the Steel Tank Institute for the 

inspection of `shop fabricated tanks' 30,000 gallons or less in capacity . 

The requirements of the SP001 AST inspection standard developed 

jointly by EPA and the Steel Tank Institute specifies monthly, quarterly, 

annual and five-year inspection schedules for shop fabricated ASTs. 

The Department, in this rulemaking, should be consistent with other 

regulations mandating inspection of ASTs by including the provision that 

Steel Tank certified inspectors be authorized to perform the inspection 

requirements for shop fabricated ASTs of 30,000 gallon or less capacity, 

which are set for in the N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) . Operators of these tanks, 

which are not utilized or regulated as Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, 

should not have a redundant annual inspection requirement when the 

inspections required at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r) could be performed in 

conjunction with the annual inspections which are currently being 

performed. (28) 

RESPONSE: In response to Comment 201, the Department is 

modifying N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) on adoption to indicate it applies only to 

Range III tanks . This exempts the shop fabricated aboveground storage 

tanks with a capacity of 30,000 gallons or less from N.J .A .C . 7 :27- 

(CITE 41 N.J.R 1798) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

16 .2(r), since a tank has to have a capacity of at least 40,000 gallons to be 

in Range 111 . See the Response to Comment 124 for a discussion of the 

modification of the definition of "authorized inspector" at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

16 .1 . 

216. COMMENT: Proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(h) contains 

a typographical error in language proposed to be added in the second line . 

The reference should be.to "Table 2A," not to "Table 2 ." (39) 

RESPONSE: The Department is modifying N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(h) on 

adoption to correct the cross-reference. 

217. COMMENT: To comply with the emissions averaging plan in 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(p)2iii, an average of eight percent of the gasoline 

stored will have to remain in the applicable tanks at all times . This would 

impact a facility's ability to respond to price fluctuations and also result 

in supply disruptions . (7 and 8) 

RESPONSE: If no controls are applied to the facility's floating roof 

tanks, then an average of approximately eight percent of all gasoline 

stored on site would have to be retained in the tank to maintain the float. 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(p)2ii, which requires a facility-wide tank VOC 

control plan to be implemented and N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(p)2iii, which 

requires an emission averaging plan to be implemented for gasoline 

tanks, do not restrict the allowable number of landings . For both rules, 

vapor control measures can be used to increase the allowable number of 

landings . This would effectively reduce the volumes that would have to 

be maintained to keep the roofs floating . 

Phased Compliance 

218. COMMENT: Proposed N .J .A .C . 7:27-19 .22 would allow utilities 

to obtain credit for reductions through energy efficiency, demand 

response and renewable energy measures . These measures may be 

currently required by law. The Department should be sure that these 

proposed measures result in additional reductions beyond what is already 

required . (36) 

RESPONSE: N.J.A.C . 7:27-9 .22(b)2 provides that the phased in 

compliance plan must comply with N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29, 2009 HEDD 

Emission Reduction Compliance Demonstration Protocol . N.J .A.C . 7:27-

19.29(d)2 requires that these measures must result in real, quantifiable, 

enforceable and surplus reductions and are not required by any other 

"State or Federal permit, regulation, enforceable agreement, or high 

electric demand day emission reduction program." Also, N.J.A.C . 7 :27-

19 .29(d)2 provides a list of allowable measures, including energy 

efficiency, demand response and renewable energy measures that may be 

considered to obtain the required emission reductions "as long as the 

measure was not committed to prior to the operative date of these 

amendments ." Therefore, these adopted rules ensure reductions beyond 

what may be already required by law. 

Summary of Agency-Initiated Changes: 

In addition to the changes in response to comments explained above, 

the Department is modifying the following provisions on adoption : 

At N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .1, the Department is adding a definition of "hotwork" because this term is used in an agency-initiated change to N.J .A.C . 

7 :27-16 .2(f)3 described below. The definition is the same as that found in 

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations at 29 

CFR 1917.152(a) . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .1, the Department is adding the definition of 

"reconstruction" because this term is used in adopted N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .17 . The adopted definition of "reconstruction" is identical to the 

definition of this term in N.J .A .C . 7 :27-8 and 22. 

The Department is deleting the acronym "psi" from N.J .A.C . 7:27-

16 .1 because that acronym is not used in Subchapter 16 . 

The Department is adding a definition of "psia" at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .1 

to make the words of this commonly used acronym clear . 

At N.J .A.C. 7:27-16 .2(f)3, the Department is adding the phrase "or 

other hot-work must be performed" after the phrase "must be welded to 

the fitting ." This is because, as set forth in the rule proposal (40 N.J .R. at 

4404), the purpose of N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2f(3) is to prevent explosions by 

exempting external floating roof tanks from the requirements at N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .2(1) until the next time a tank is degassed if welding is necessary 

to comply with those requirements . Because there are other activities that 

may present an explosion risk, such as riveting or flame cutting, the 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Department is extending the exemption to include any necessary "hotwork" activities on an external floating roof tank until that tank's next 

degassing event. Hot-work is an inclusive term that includes activities, 

such as riveting or flame cutting. 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3x the Department is replacing the phrase "no 

visible gaps" with "as required at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)3iii and iv above." 

The Department is basing the adopted definition of "visible gap" on 

SCAQMD Rule 1178. The SCAQMD Rule 1178 definition of "visible 

gap" incorporated the seal gap criteria adopted at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2(1)3iii and iv . However, it is clearer to refer to these two conditions 

directly in N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3x, rather than incorporate those 

conditions in the definition of "visible gap." 

The Department is adding the phrase "meeting the requirements for 

primary seals at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)3iii, vii and x above and having no 

tears or openings" to modified N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)5ii(1) and to (1)7iv(1) 

to clarify which conditions applied specifically to liquid-mounted 

primary seals . The Department is replacing the term "specifications" with 

the term "requirements" at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)7iv(2) to be consistent 

with the use of the term elsewhere in the rules . Also, the phrase "required 

at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3v above" appearing after "mechanical shoe seal" 

is deleted, because N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3v is a specification for 

mechanical shoe seals, but does not require tanks to have mechanical 

shoe seals . The Department is modifying N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)7iv(2) to 

indicate specifications for mechanical shoe seals "instead of meeting the 

requirement at (1)3v above." 

The Department is modifying N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16.2(r)6i to clarify that it 

would be the organic vapor that would be measured. This clarification is 

consistent with the notice of proposal Summary at 40 N.J .R. at 4408, 

which explains that the explosimeter is measuring volatile organic 

compound leaks . These leaks consist of organic vapors . 

The Department is modifying N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r)6i and iii by 

deleting the unnecessary term "by" because it is repetitive . 

The Department is modifying N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(t)1 to correct a 

spelling error . 

The Department is adding a recordkeeping requirement at N.J.A.C . 

7 :27-16 .7(r)5, so that the provisions at adopted N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7(r)2 

through 4 will be enforceable . Similarly, the Department is adding a 

recordkeeping requirement at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .7(s)3, so that the 

provisions at adopted N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .7(s)1 and 2 will be enforceable. 

As proposed, the rule did not provide any mechanism to verify 

compliance. The Department intended that all recommendations 

incorporated in the rule taken from the "Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letter Press Printing" (EPA 453/R06-002) (CTG) be subject to recordkeeping requirements, as evidenced 

by the remaining provisions of N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .7, and the notice of 

proposal Summary, 40 N.J.R. at 4395 . For example, N.J.A.C. 7 :27-

16 .7(t)5 requires the recording and maintenance of on-site logs to verify 

the implementation of best management practices . The notice of proposal 

Summary (40 N.J.R. at 4409) states that the cleaning solution 

requirements at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(r)2 through 4 and the fountain 

solution requirements at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(s) were derived from the 

CTG document. Without such recordkeeping requirements, N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .7(r)2 through 4 and (s) would not be Federally enforceable . 

According to the notice of proposal Summary (40 N.J .R at 4395) "The 

Clean Air Act, Section 182(b)(2) (42 U.S .C . §7511(b)(2)), requires states, 

such as New Jersey, that have nonattainment areas to revise their SIPS to 

include reasonably available control technology for sources of VOC 

emissions covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area's date of 

attainment." Consequently, the recordkeeping requirements must be 

contained in the rules . 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .17, the Department is adding "and facilityspecific" to the heading. The additional words make it clear that any 

owner or operator with a site-specific approval is still subject to this 

section. For the same reason, the Department is adding "or facilityspecific" throughout N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .17 . 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .17(a)1, the Department is adding "whose owner 

or operator seeks approval of a facility-specific VOC control plan that 

would apply to any source operation or equipment" to clarify the 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R. 1799) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

applicability requirement. This is consistent with language regarding 

similar requirements for NO, at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13 . 

At N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16.17(b)2ii, the Department is clarifying that this 

provision applies to a facility-specific VOC control plan for a major 

facility not regulated elsewhere in Subchapter 16 . When this rule was 

adopted in 1994, the notice of proposal (25 N.J .R. 3339(a), 3354) stated 

that N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16.17 applied to both facility-specific cases (where a 

facility is not regulated elsewhere in Subchapter 16), as well as 

alternative cases (where a facility is seeking alternative requirements to 

Subchapter 16 existing requirements for that source operation) . The 

notice of proposal (25 N.J .R. 6002(a), 3354, Alternative means of 

compliance), as well as the adopted rule text (see 25 N.J.R. at 6009), 

confusingly used the term "alternative" to mean using the facility-specific 

requirement at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .17(b)2ii as an alternative to the facilityspecific requirement at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16.17(b)2i, instead of as an 

alternative to an existing Subchapter 16 requirement for that source 

operation . The existing rule at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .17(b)2ii referred to this 

facility-specific meaning in the phrase "alternative VOC control plan" 

when it should have used the phrase "facility-specific VOC control plan ." 

On adoption, the Department is replacing the word "alternative" with the 

word "facility-specific" to end this confusion . As modified, N.J .A .C . 

7:27-16 .17(b) applies only to facility-specific VOC control plans . The 

Department is modifying subsection (b) to include only requirements for 

facility-specific emission limits . 

At N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .17(c), the Department is adding the words 

"pursuant to (a)2 or 3 above" to clarify the applicability requirement due 

to the amendment to subsection (a) that added paragraph (a)3 . At the end 

of N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16.17(c)3, the Department is correcting punctuation . 

At N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .17(c)3i, the Department is correcting grammar. 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .17(c)4, the Department is adding "and," which 

was inadvertently omitted from the notice of proposal . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .17(d) and (d)li, the Department is modifying 

cross-references to be consistent with the adopted rules . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .17(q), the Department is correcting a cross 

reference . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .17(s), the Department is modifying the 

Department's contact information . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-16, Appendix II, the Department is adding an 

explosivity meter to the list of equipment needed to conduct a tank 

inspection . This is consistent with N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16, Appendix II, 

Inspection Form, Section E. 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16, Appendix II, Inspection Form, Section F the 

Department is correcting the numbering of a provision. 

At N.J .A.C. 7:27-19 .8(e)5, the Department is correcting the 

Department's website address at which Technical Manual 1004 is 

located . 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .13, in the heading the Department is replacing 

"rates" with "limits ." A limit can be a limit of the rate or concentration of 

air pollutant emissions, as well as some other prescribed parameter for a 

source operation . A limit can be a maximum allowable rate, a maximum 

allowable concentration or some other parameter. Therefore, "limit" is 

the appropriate term to use in the heading, and was the term used in the 

heading prior to this adoption. For the same reason, throughout adopted 

N.J .A.C 7 :27-19.13, the Department is replacing "rate" with "limit" and 

deleting the words "maximum allowable" to state the more appropriate 

terms "limit," "emission limit," "alternative emission limit" and "facilityspecific emission limit ." 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13(a), as well as throughout N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .13, 

the Department is adding the various parameters than can be an emissions 

limit. As the previous paragraph above explained, an emissions limit can 

be a maximum allowable rate, a maximum allowable concentration, or 

some other parameter . 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(a)1, the Department is adding the acronym 

FSEL, which is commonly used to describe this type of emission limit . 

Also the Department is replacing "rate" with "FSEL" to clarify that, in 

this instance, this type of limit may not necessarily be an emission rate 

but some other type of limit . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13(a)2, in the last sentence of the paragraph the 

Department is adding "alternative" because the Department is referencing 

an alternative limit and not a source category limit specified in 

ADOPTIONS =}~ 

Subchapter 19 . Also, the Department is adding the acronym AEL, which _ is commonly used to describe this type of emission limit. 

At N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .13(b)1, the Department is adding 

reference to subsection (j) . 

a cross. 

At N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(b)2, the Department is adding a cross- reference to subsection (k), adding "as applicable" because either paragraph (b)6 or subsection (k) may apply and deleting the duplicative 

reference to paragraph (b)6 . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13(b)4, the Department is adding that the information at subsection (c) must be included in the request for an 

alternative emission limit, and deleting the cross-reference to subsection (d), which subsection (c) already requires be included in the request. 

At N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19.13(b)5i, the Department is adding that the information at subsection (c) must be included in the proposed facility . 

specific NO. control plan and deleting the cross-reference to subsection (d), which subsection (c) already requires be included in the plan. 

At N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .13(b)6, the Department is replacing the word 

"start" with "start-up" to accurately describe when the termination of any 

existing alternative or facility-specific emission limit takes effect . 

At N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .13(b)7, the Department is clarifying that this 

requirement applies to an alternative emission limit . 

At N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(d), the Department is adding "facility . 

specific" to clarify that this NO, control plan is a facility-specific No. 

control plan . 

At N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(h), the Department is correcting a 

capitalization error . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13(i), the Department is correcting a crossreference . 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13(m)3, the Department is correcting a crossreference . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .13(o), the Department is modifying the 

Department's contact information . 

The Department inadvertently proposed to delete the word "for" from 

N.J.A.C. 7 :27-19 .15(b), making the first sentence grammatically 

incorrect. The Department is correcting this by reinserting the word "for." 

At recodified N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(b)2, the Department is adding "at (b)5" to clarify the submittal address location . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(b)5, the Department is correcting the submittal 

address . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(c), the Department is replacing "achieve" with 

"obtain" to make subsection (c) consistent with N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(b)3, 

which requires the owner or operator to "obtain" emission reductions . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(c), the Department is adding "pursuant to (b)3 

above" to clarify the rule provision that requires the owner or operator to 

obtain the emission reductions . 

At N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .29(c), the Department is replacing "USEPA" with 

"EPA" in two locations to be consistent with references elsewhere in 

Subchapter 19 . 

At N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(c), the Department is modifying one of the 

factors used in Equation 1 . Equation 1, used to calculate the emission 

reductions that an owner or operator subject to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29 needs 

to achieve on any given high electric demand day, may require an owner 

or operator to achieve more reductions if the owner or operator installs a 

new HEDD unit without removing an existing HEDD unit from service . 

In the equation [ER = (BE / EF) * RF], the required emission reductions 

(ER) is dependant on three factors . The emission factor (EF) is a fixed 

number that represents the total tons of NO, emitted by that owner or 

operator's HEDD units on July 26, 2005. The reduction factor (RF) is 

also a fixed number that is based on the level of NO,; control that was 

being utilized on each of the owner or operator's HEDD units that were 

operated on July 26, 2005. The baseline emission factor (BE) is a value 

that will vary from one high electric demand day to another. The BE is 

the total tons of NO, that would have been emitted on a given high 

electric demand day, if the owner or operator did not implement their 

2009 Protocol and is based on the HEDD units that are actually operated 

on a given high electric demand day . As proposed, the description of BE 

would require an owner or operator to include all HEDD units operated 

on a given high electric demand day. The proposed definition of HEDD 

unit at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .1 included new units, as well as existing units 

that were operated less than or equal to an average of 50 percent of the 

(CITE 41 N.J.R. 1800) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

time during the immediately preceding three ozone seasons. See the 

Response to Comment 46 for changes to the definition of HEDD unit) . 

Equation 1 was designed to require certain owners and operators to 

achieve emission reductions, based on the operation of their uncontrolled 

or under-controlled HEDD units . If an owner or operator installs a new 

electric generating unit without removing an existing HEDD unit from 

service, the owner or operator could operate its entire existing high 

electric demand day fleet plus the new unit, which would increase the BE 

factor and therefore increase the required ER. This is not the intended 

result because a new electric generating unit would have to comply with 

state-of-the-art requirements at N.J .A.C . 7:27-8 .12 and 22.35, lowest 

achievable emission rate requirements at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-18 and best 

available control technology requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, if applicable . 

Therefore, the installation of this new, additional unit would increase the 

number of emission reductions that the owner or operator was required to 

obtain while not leaving the owner or operator any options for obtaining 

those reductions on the new electric generating unit, because the new unit 

is already well controlled . In order to correct this condition, the 

Department is modifying the description of the BE factor to include only 

HEDD units (upon adoption the definition of HEDD unit is modified to 

include only those electric generating units that commenced operation 

prior to May 1, 2005) and any electric generating unit installed to replace 

a HEDD unit . New EGUs that are installed as replacement units for 

existing HEDD units remain in the determination of BE because Equation 

1 divides BE by EF, which is the total NO, emitted by the owner's or 

operator's HEDD units on July 26, 2005. This means that the BE factor 

will be reduced by the emissions from all HEDD units operated on July 

26, 2005, including the ones that have been replaced. The required 

reductions would be biased low if the replaced HEDD units simply 

dropped out of the determination of BE. By including the replacement 

units in the determination of BE, the emissions from the power that 

would have been generated by these replaced HEDD units are still being 

considered. However, since a new unit will emit less NO, than an HEDD 

unit, the required emission reductions will be lower . Also, the difference 

in NO,; emitted between the replaced HEDD unit and the new EGU can 

be considered as part of the required emission reduction, for replacement 

units . However, for additional generating units, the owner or operator 

does not get any credit for the low emission rate of the unit because the 

emissions are in addition to the owner or operator's HEDD unit fleet, and 

therefore are not reducing emissions from HEDD units . 

At N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(g), the Department is adding "Department's" 

to clarify that it is an action by the Department of which the Department 

will notify the owner or operator . 

At N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .29(h)1, (i), (j) and (k) the Department is 

clarifying cross-references to N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(b)5 . 

At N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .30(a), the Department is correcting an address . 

At several locations at N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .30(b), the Department is 

replacing "shut down" with the Department's intended meaning to 

permanently take a HEDD unit out of service . The phrase "shut down" 

could erroneously be interpreted at N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .30(b) as temporarily 

not operating a HEDD unit. 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .30(c), the Department is changing the date by 

which the owner or operator must submit each annual 2015 Plan update 

to January 30 after the calendar year of the update. Proposed N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-19.30(c) required this report to be submitted with the annual 

compliance certification. This change is being made in order to clarify 

when the report must be submitted by including a date in the rule . 

January 30 of the next calendar year was chosen in order to make this 

requirement consistent with the submittal of the 2009 Protocol annual 

report, which also must be submitted by January 30 of the next calendar 

year . This date allows the owner or operator 30 days to prepare each 

report. 

The Department proposed to amend N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(h), but 

inadvertently proposed to delete the corresponding penalty from N.J .A.C . 

7 :27A-3 .10(m)16 . In the notice of proposal Summary (40 N.J .R. at 4420), 

the Department stated that it proposed to delete penalty provisions for 

violations of those portions of N.J .A.C . 7 :27 that were proposed to be 

deleted . The Department did not propose to delete N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(h) ; 

accordingly, the penalty provision should not have been shown as deleted 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

in the rule text. The Department is, therefore, not adopting the proposed 

amendment to N.J .A .C . 7 :27A-3 .10(m)16 . 

The Department proposed to delete the provisions at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2(k) and reserve this subsection, but inadvertently did not propose to 

delete the corresponding penalty from N.J .A.C . 7:27A-3 .10(m)16 . On 

adoption the Department is deleting this penalty, for the same reason 

discussed above, and set forth at 40 N.J .R . 4420. 

Federal Standards Analysis 

Executive Order No. 27 (1994) and N.J .S .A. 52:14B-1 et seq . (P .L . 

1995, c . 65) require State agencies that adopt, readopt or amend State 

regulations that exceed any Federal standards or requirements to include 

in the rulemaking document a Federal standards analysis . 

The adopted new rules and amendments are needed to fulfill a Federal 

Clean Air Act requirement that New Jersey adopt control measures to 

reduce NO., VOC, SOZ and particulate emissions to attain the ozone and 

fine particulate national ambient air quality standards . Therefore, 

adoption of the new rule and amendments are consistent with Federal 

requirements . 

Based on its review of Federal regulations, the Department has 

determined that the adopted new rules and amendments for the following 

source categories do not contain any standards or requirements that are 

comparable to Federal law: alternative and facility-specific VOC control 

requirements, alternative and facility-specific NO, emission limits, 

asphalt pavement production plants, the source categories affected by the 

adopted control techniques guidelines, and glass manufacturing furnaces . 

Accordingly, Executive Order No. 27 (1994) and N.J .S .A . 52:14B-1 et 

seq. (P .L . 1995, c . 65), do not require any further analysis for these 

source categories . 

The Clean Air Act, Section 182(b)(2) (42 U.S .C . §7511(b)(2)), 

requires states, such as New Jersey, that have nonattainment areas to 

revise their SIPs to include reasonably available control technology for 

sources of VOC emissions covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area's 

date of attainment . In September 2006, the EPA issued CTG documents 

for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing (EPA 453/R-06-

002), flexible package printing (EPA 453/R-06-003), and flat wood 

paneling coatings (EPA 453/R-06-004) . (See http://www.epa.eov/ttn/ 

naaqs/ozone/ctg acU.) The adopted amendments are equivalent to and are 

not more stringent than these CTGs. Accordingly, Executive Order No. 

27 (1994) and N.J .S .A . 52:14B-1 et seq . (P .L . 1995, c . 65), do not require 

any further analysis for these source categories . 

Based on its review of comparable Federal regulations, the 

Department has determined that the adopted new rules and amendments 

for the following source categories contain standards or requirements that 

exceed the standards or requirements imposed by Federal law: asphalt 

used for paving, boilers that serve electric generating units, high electric 

demand day units, ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers, 

municipal solid waste incinerators, and VOC stationary storage tanks. 

However, as stated above, all of these adopted new rules and amendments 

are needed to fulfill a requirement, imposed by EPA pursuant to the 

Federal Clean Air Act, Section 182(b)(2) 42 U.S .C . §§7401 et seq ., that 

New Jersey adopt sufficient control measures to meet the NAAQS for 

ozone and fine particulates . Therefore, the adopted new and amended 

rules are necessary for the State to comply with Federal requirements . 

Failure to achieve these reductions could subject the State to Federal 

sanctions. 

Despite the fact that the adopted new rules and amendments are 

necessary if the State is to meet Federal Requirements, a Federal 

Standards Analysis follows below by source category . 

Asphalt Used for Paving 

In 1979 EPA recommended a seven percent VOC content limit for 

emulsified asphalt used during the ozone season. The Department is 

adopting a more stringent VOC content limit (0 .1 percent VOC by 

weight; or 6.0 milliliter of oil distillate in accordance with the ASTM 

Method D244 or AASHTO T 59) for emulsified asphalt used during the 

period April 16 through October 14 . The entire state of New Jersey is not 

in attainment with the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. The 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R. 1801) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

purpose of the adopted more stringent VOC content limit is to help bring 

the State into attainment . 

The Department has investigated various emission sources to determine 

where further VOC emission reductions can be achieved. The storage, use 

or application of emulsified asphalt is one of these emission sources . 

Emulsified asphalts with a lower VOC content than is in EPA's Asphalt 

CTG exist and are currently being used by the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation. EPA's Asphalt CTG has not been revised since 1979 

(almost 30 years ago) and is outdated. In 1993, the state of Delaware 

prohibited VOC in emulsified asphalt manufactured, mixed, used or applied 

during the ozone season. The OTC has recommended that each state in the 

OTC region adopt a rule for emulsified asphalt and issued white papers to 

help states develop rules . On December 12, 2007 the state of Connecticut 

re-proposed a rule . The Department's adopted VOC content limit for 

emulsified asphalt is the same as Connecticut's re-proposed limit. 

The adopted rules could affect manufacturers of emulsified asphalt. 

The adopted rules may also affect some asphalt paving contractors and 

some municipalities in New Jersey, as users of emulsified asphalt. The 

Department has analyzed the potential costs and benefits, based on 

compliance in 2009. As discussed in the Economic Impact above, the 

Department anticipates that the cost to manufacturers of producing 

emulsified asphalt with the more stringent VOC content limit will be 

relatively low and that compliant emulsified asphalt is available at prices 

comparable to high VOC content asphalt mixtures . 

The Department anticipates that the adopted new rules and 

amendments will result in a direct benefit to public health of 3.6 tpd of 

VOC reduced during the ozone season, and 420 tpy during the regulated 

period (April 16 through October 14) as well as other benefits described 

in the Environmental Impacts section . 

The 1979 EPA-recommended VOC content limit for emulsified 

asphalt is outdated. Emulsified asphalts that would comply with the 

adopted VOC content limit exist and are in use at prices comparable to 

asphalts with a high VOC content. The adoption's requirement to 

manufacture and use compliant asphalt is not anticipated to pose a 

financial burden to emulsified asphalt manufacturers or users . 

The benefits to public health and the environmental outweigh any cost 

to manufacturers and users in order to help bring the State into attainment 

with the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone . 

Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units 

The Department has compared adopted N.J .A .C . 7 :27-4 .2, 10.2(c) and 

19.4(a) with analogous Federal regulations, namely New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR Part 60 . 

Based on its review of these Federal regulations (40 CFR 60.40 and 

60.40Da), the Department has determined that the adopted new rules and 

amendments are more stringent than some of the standards or 

requirements imposed by the Federal regulations . Standards of 

ADOPTIONS 

Performance for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators for which 

construction is commenced after August 17, 1971 (40 CFR 60.40 -

Subpart D) do not apply to boilers that were constructed prior to August 

17, 1971, and not modified or reconstructed since ; therefore Subpart D 

does not impose any emission limit for particulates, SOZ or NO. on these 

sources. Similarly, Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units for which construction is commenced after September 

18, 1978 (40 CFR 60.40Da - Subpart Da) do not apply to boilers that 

were constructed prior to September 18, 1978, and not modified or 

reconstructed since ; therefore Subpart Da does not impose any emission 

limit for particles, SOZ or NO, on these sources . 

The amendments being adopted by the Department will require all 

coal-fired boilers in the State to comply with the adopted particle and SOZ 

emission limits and all boilers serving electric generating units to comply 

with the adopted NO, emission limits, regardless of installation date and 

whether or not the source has been modified or reconstructed . 

Particles 

The adopted rules would set a maximum particle emission rate of 0 .0300 

pounds/IvIIvIBtu for all existing coal-fired boilers in the State and a 

maximum particulate emission rate of 0 .0150 pounds/MMBtu for any coalfired boiler that is constructed, installed, reconstructed or modified on or 

after the operative date of the rule. These maximum emission rates are more 

stringent than NSPS for sources that were installed prior to August 18, 1971 

because neither 40 CFR 60.40 nor 40 CFR 60.40Da apply to these boilers . 

The adopted 0 .0300 pounds/MMBtu emission rate is also more stringent 

than the NSPS for sources that were constructed, reconstructed or modified 

starting August 18, 1971 through September 18, 1978, and not subsequently 

reconstructed or modified. The Federal rule at 40 CFR 60.40 requires an 

emission limit of 0 .10 pounds/MMBtu for these sources . Also, for sources 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after February 28, 2005, 40 CFR 

60.42Da allows a less stringent alternative to the 0.0150 pounds/MMBtu 

emissions limit of 0 .030 pounds/MMBtu, as long as the emission reduction 

is at least 99.8 percent for sources modified after February 28, 2005, or 99.9 

percent for sources constructed or reconstructed after February 28, 2005 . 

However, if the construction, reconstruction or modification of the source 

triggers the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule at 40 

CFR 52.21, PSD regulations will require the installation of BACT on the 

source, which would be capable of achieving the adopted maximum 

emission rate. Therefore, the adopted maximum emission rate is not more 

stringent than Federal rules for a new or modified coal-fired boiler that is 

subject to PSD. 

Table 6 below compares the maximum particulate emission rates 

imposed by Federal NSPS regulations with the adopted maximum 

particle emission rates as applicable to boilers that were constructed, 

reconstructed or modified at various times . 

TABLE 6 

Comparison of Federal Particulate Emission Limits and Adopted Particle Emission Limits for Boilers 

Date Source Was 

Constructed 

Reconstructed 

or Modified Prior to 8/18/71 

No Applicable Federal 

Rules 

Federal Regulations 

(for coal-fired only) 

Adopted Emission Rates 

None 

Starting 8/18/71 through 

9/18/78 

40 CFR 60.40 NSPS Subpart 

D 

0 .10 pounds/ IvIMBtu 

Starting 9/19/78 through 

2/28/05 On or after 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 

Subpart Da Subpart Da 

Coal: 

0.03 pounds/ MMBtu and 

99 percent reduction 

Boiler existing as of the Operative Date: 

0 .14 pounds/MWh 

or 

0.015 pounds/IvIMBtu 

or 

Modification : 

0.03 pounds/MMBtu 

and 

99.8 percent reduction 

or 

Construction or 

Reconstruction: 

0.03 pounds/MMBtu 

and 

99.9 percent reduction 

(CITE 41 N.J.R. 1802) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

(for coal-fired only) 

' Or as specified in a permit if a more 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

0.0300 pounds/MMBtu' 

If Constructed, Reconstructed or Modified after Operative Date: 

0.0150 pounds/MMBtu' 

stringent limit is imposed due to SOTA or PSD applicability 

SO, 

The adopted rules would require a maximum SOZ emission rate of 

0.150 pounds/MMBtu (based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average) and 

0.250 pounds/MMBtu (based on a 24-hour emission rate) for all sources 

in the State that combust solid fuel . These limits are more stringent than 

the NSPS for sources that were installed prior to August 18, 1971, 

because neither 40 CFR 60.40 nor 40 CFR 60.40Da apply to these 

sources . The adopted emission limits are also more stringent than the 

NSPS for sources that were constructed, reconstructed or modified 

starting August 18, 1971 through September 18, 1978, and not 

subsequently reconstructed or modified . The Federal regulation at 40 

CFR 60 .40 requires an emission limit of 1 .2 pounds/MMBtu for these 

sources . These limits are also more stringent than NSPS for sources that 

were constructed, reconstructed or modified starting September 19, 1978 

through February 28, 2005, and not subsequently reconstructed or 

modified (40 CFR 60.40Da requires an emission limit of 1 .20 

pounds/MMBtu along with an SOZ reduction of 90 percent or an emission 

limit of 0.60 pounds/MMBtu along with an SOZ reduction of 70 percent 

for these sources) . 

For sources that are reconstructed or modified after February 28, 2005, 

40 CFR 60.42Da requires an emission limit of 0.150 pounds/MMBtu 

based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average, which the adopted rule also 

requires. However, the adopted rule also requires an emission limit of 

0 .250 pounds/MMBtu based on a 24-hour emission rate, which could be 

more stringent than the Federal 0 .150 pounds/MMBtu emission limit 

based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average . Therefore, the adopted rule 

could be more stringent than the Federal regulation. Also, NSPS allows 

an alternative emission limit of 1 .4 pounds/MWh or an SOZ reduction 

ranging from 90 percent to 95 percent for a source depending on whether 

the source is constructed, reconstructed or modified after February 28, 

2005. If the construction, reconstruction or modification of the source 

triggers the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, these Federal PSD 

regulations will require the installation of BACT on the source, which 

would be capable of achieving the adopted maximum emission rates . 

Therefore, the adopted maximum emission rates are not more stringent 

than Federal regulations for a new, reconstructed or modified coal-fired 

boiler that is subject to PSD. If the Federal PSD regulations are not 

triggered the adopted emission rates may or may not be more stringent 

than the Federal regulations, depending on the characteristics of the 

combustion unit. 

Table 7 below compares the maximum S02 emission rates imposed by 

Federal NSPS regulations with the adopted maximum SOZ emission rates 

as applicable to boilers that were constructed, reconstructed or modified 

at various times . 

TABLE 7 

Comparison of Federal S02 Emission Limits and Adopted S02 Emission Limits for Boilers 

Date Source was 

Constructed 

Reconstructed 

or Modified Prior to 8/18/71 

No Applicable Federal 

Rules 

Federal Regulations 

(for coal-fired only) 

Adopted Emission Rates 

(for coal-fired only) 

None 

Starting 8/18/71 through 

9/18/78 

40 CFR 60.40 NSPS Subpart 

D 

1 .2 pounds/MMBtu 

0.150 pounds/MMBtu'°Z 

0 .250 pounds/MMBtuZ'3 

' 30-calendar-day rolling average basis 

Z Or as specified in a permit if a more stringent limit is imposed due to SOTA or PSD applicability 

' 24-hour emission rate 

NO. 

The Department's adopted new rules and amendments would require a 

maximum allowable NO. emissions rate of 1 .50 pounds/MWh operative 

on December 15, 2012 for coal-fired boilers, 2 .00 pounds/MWh operative 

on May 1, 2015 for heavier than No. 2 fuel oil-fired boilers, 1 .00 

pound/MWh operative on May 1, 2015 for No. 2 and lighter fuel oil-fired 

boilers, and 1 .00 pounds/MWh operative on May 1, 2015 for gas-fired 

boilers . These maximum emission rates are more stringent than NSPS for 

sources that were installed prior to August 18, 1971, because neither 40 

CFR 60.40 nor 40 CFR 60.40Da applies to these sources . 

Starting 9/19/78 Through 

2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 

Subpart Da 

1 .20 pounds/MMBtu 

and 

90 percent reduction 

or 

0 .60 pounds/MMBtu 

and 

70 percent reduction 

After 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 

Subpart Da 

Construction : 

1 .4 pounds/MWh' 

or 

95 percent reduction' 

Reconstruction : 

1 .4 pounds/MWh' 

or 

0.15 pounds/MMBtu' 

or 

95 percent reduction 

Modification : 

1 .4 pounds/MWh' 

or 

0.15 pounds/MMBtu' 

or 

90 percent reduction' 

The adopted maximum allowable emission rates are also more 

stringent than NSPS for sources that were constructed, reconstructed or 

modified starting August 18, 1971 through September 18, 1978, and not 

subsequently reconstructed or modified. The Federal regulation at 40 

CFR 60.40 requires an emission limit of 0.70 pounds/MMBtu for coalfired boilers, 0.30 pounds/MMBtu for oil-fired boilers and 0.20 

pounds/MMBtu for gas-fired boilers . As explained earlier in this 

adoption, to convert pounds/MMBtu to pounds/MWh, the Department 

uses a generic heat rate of 10,000 British thermal units per kilowatt hour 

(Btu/KWh). 

The adopted maximum allowable emission rates are also more 

stringent than NSPS for sources that were constructed, reconstructed or 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J .R 1803) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

modified starting September 19, 1978 through July 9, 1997 . The Federal 

rule at 40 CFR 60.40Da requires an emission limit of 0 .50 to 0 .60 

pounds/MMBtu, based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average, along with a 

65 percent NO,; reduction for coal-fired boilers ; 0.30 pounds/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average, along with a 30 percent NO, 

reduction for oil-fired boilers ; and 0.20 pounds/MMBtu, based on a 30-

calendar-day rolling average, along with a 25 percent NO, reduction for 

gas-fired boilers . 

The adopted maximum emission rates are also more stringent than 

NSPS for coal-fired, No. 2 fuel oil-fired, lighter than No. 2 fuel oil-fired, 

or gas-fired boilers that were constructed starting July 10, 1997 through 

February 28, 2005. The Federal rule at 40 CFR 60 .40Da requires an 

emission limit of 1 .6 pounds/MWh, based on a 30-calendar-day rolling 

average, for these sources . The adopted maximum emission rates are also 

more stringent than NSPS for boilers that combust No. 2 fuel oil, lighter 

than No. 2 fuel oil, or gas that were reconstructed starting July 10, 1997 

through February 28, 2005. The adopted maximum emission rates are 

Oil : 

0.30 pounds/MMBtu 

Table 8 

Comparison of Federal Maximum Allowable NOx Emission Rates and Adopted Maximum Allowable NO, Emission Rates for Boilers 

Date Source Was 

Constructed 

Reconstructed Starting 8/18/71 

or Modified Prior to 8/18/71 through 9/18/78 

No Applicable 40 CFR 60.40 NSPS 

Federal Rules Subpart D 

Coal: 

0.70 pounds/MMBtu 

None 

Adopted Emission 

Rates 

Gas: 

0 .20 pounds/MMBtu 

also more stringent than NSPS for boilers that combust coal, No. 2 fuel 

oil, lighter than No. 2 fuel oil, or gas that were modified starting July 10, 

1997 through February 28, 2005. The adopted maximum emission rates 

are also more stringent than NSPS (40 CFR 60.42Da) for boilers that 

combust No. 2 and lighter fuel oil or that combust gas that are modified 

after February 28, 2005. 

However, if the construction, reconstruction or modification of the 

boiler triggers the Federal PSD rule at 40 CFR 52.21, PSD regulations 

will require the installation of BACT on the boiler, which would be 

capable of achieving the adopted maximum emission rates . Therefore, the 

adopted maximum emission rates are not more stringent than Federal 

regulations for a new, reconstructed or modified coal-fired boiler that is 

subject to PSD. 

Table 8 below compares the NO, emission rates imposed by Federal 

NSPS regulations with the adopted NO emission rates as applicable to 

boilers that were constructed, reconstructed or modified at various times, 

Starting 9/19/78 through 

7/9/97 

40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 

Subpart Da 

Coal: 

0 .50-0.60 

pounds/MMBtu' 

and 

65 percent reduction 

Oil : 

0.30 pounds/MMBtu' 

and 

30 percent reduction 

Starting 7/10/97 

Through 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da 

NSPS Subpart Da 

Construction: 

1 .6 pounds/MWh' 

Reconstruction : 

0.15 pounds/MMBtuI 

After 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.401)a 

NSPS Subpart Da 

Construction: 

1 .0 pound/MWh' 

Gas: 

0.20 pounds/MMBtu' 

and 

25 percent reduction 

Modification : 

1 .4 pounds/MWh' 

or 

0 .15 

pounds/MMBtu` 

Coal: 1 .50 pounds/MWh2,1 

Heavier than No. 2 Oil: 2.00 pounds/MWh3' s 

No. 2 and lighter Oil : 1 .00 pound/MWh3'5 

Gas: 1 .00 pound /MWh4, s 

' 30-day rolling average basis 

Z 1 .50 pounds/MWh is based on 0 .15 pounds/MMBtu 

3 2 .00 pounds/MWh is based on 0 .20 pounds/MMBtu 

° 1 .00 pound/MWh is based on 0.10 pounds/MMBtu 

Or as specified in a permit if a more stringent limit is imposed due to SOTA or PSD applicability 

The adopted new rules and amendments are needed to fulfill a 

requirement, imposed by EPA pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S .C . §§7401 et seq ., that New Jersey adopt sufficient control measures 

to attain the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone and the Federal 

1997 annual NAAQS for PM2.5 . Therefore, adoption of these new rules 

and amendments is necessary for the State to comply with Federal air 

quality requirements. 

The Department's estimated emission reductions are based on 

particulate, SOz and NO, inventory emissions and the control efficiencies 

of the reasonably available control technologies . The Department has 

determined that the control technologies are technologically feasible, 

based on several sources that have already installed, or are in the process 

of installing control apparatus that will bring the units into compliance 

with the adopted maximum emission rates . The emission reductions from 

these adopted rules and amendments are expected to be approximately 

2,571 tpy (7 .04 tpd) of S02 emission reductions and 788 tpy (2 .16 tpd) of 

NO, emission reductions by 2013 . 

The adopted maximum allowable emission rates are already being 

complied with by some of the affected boilers in New Jersey and are 

required to be complied with by other boilers by the ACD and ACO. The 

adopted rules would ensure that all coal-fired power plants in New Jersey 

install up-to-date air pollution controls . 

The adopted new rules and amendments will primarily affect unit 6/8 

at the Conectiv Deepwater Generating Station, which will have to install 

an SOZ control apparatus, such as a scrubber, and install a NO, control 

apparatus, such as a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system . There 

is only one boiler serving an EGU in the State that is not an HEDD unit 

and that does not combust coal . Instead, it combusts kerosene and natural 

gas . This boiler currently complies with the adopted maximum allowable 

NO, emission rate, and therefore would not be impacted by the adopted 

amendments . 

As discussed in more detail in the Economic Impact (40 N.J .R. at 

4423) the adopted amendment to the maximum allowable emission rate 

for particles is not expected to have an economic impact, the estimated 

cost-effectiveness of S02 emission reductions is expected to be less than 

(CITE 41 N.J .R. 1804) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

$4,800 per ton of SOz reductions in 2007 dollars, and the estimated costeffectiveness of NO, emission reductions is expected to be less than 

$1,250 per ton of NO,; reductions in 2007 dollars. Control costs are likely 

to be passed on to the consumer in the form of somewhat higher 

electricity generating rates . 

Companies that design, build and install these emission control 

systems could benefit from the adopted amendments as they will 

experience an increase in demand for their products and services . 

The Department anticipates the benefits of the adopted new rules and 

amendments to be an increase in the quality of life and protection of 

human health, the environment and agriculture. The Department expects 

the adopted new rules and amendments to have a significant positive 

environmental impact . The primary environmental benefit will be a 

reduction in the emission of NO, emissions, which are precursor 

emissions that lead to the formation of ground level ozone . See the 

Social, Environmental and Agriculture Industry Impact statements for an 

explanation of the health, environmental and agriculture impacts, 

respectively, of ground level ozone. The Department also expects the 

adopted rules to significantly reduce emissions of SO2. The Department is 

adopting these new rules and amendments to meet EPA air quality 

standards . Failure to achieve these air quality standards could subject 

New Jersey to economic sanctions, which would adversely affect all 

businesses and taxpayers in the State. 

In adopting these amendments and new rules the Department has 

balanced the need to protect the environment and public health and to 

comply with the EPA requirements against any economic impacts of the 

rule. Based on similar sources that currently meet these requirements and 

similar sources that have committed to meet these requirements, the 

Department has determined that these amendments are achievable with 

currently available technology and are cost-effective . By setting 

maximum emission standards for all New Jersey electrical generating 

units, the Department will set a precedent for other states to do the same. 

The Department has determined that establishing these adopted emission 

standards, even though more stringent than the Federal rules, is necessary 

in order to attain air quality standards and to protect the environment and 

public health . 

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Units 

The Department has performed a comparison of adopted N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-19 with analogous Federal regulations, namely NSPS. 

HEDD Boilers 

Based on its review of these Federal regulations for boilers (40 CFR 

60.40 and 60.40Da), the Department has determined that the adopted new 

rules and amendments exceed many of the standards or requirements 

imposed by the Federal regulations . Standards of Performance for Fossil 

Fuel Fired Steam Generators for which construction is commenced after 

August 17, 1971 (40 CFR 60.40 - Subpart D) do not apply to boilers that 

were constructed on or before August 17, 1971 and not modified or 

reconstructed since that time, and, therefore, Subpart D does not impose 

any maximum allowable NO,; emission rate on these sources . 

Similarly, Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units for which construction is commenced after September 

18, 1978 (40 CFR 60.40Da - Subpart Da) do not apply to boilers that 

were constructed on or before September 18, 1978 and not modified or 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

reconstructed since . Therefore, Subpart Da does not impose any 

maximum allowable NO. emission rate on these sources . 

However, the adopted new rules and amendments will require all 

HEDD units which are boilers serving electric generating units to comply 

with the adopted maximum allowable NO, emission rates, regardless of 

installation date and whether or not the source has been modified or 

reconstructed. 

The Department's adopted new rules and amendments require a 

maximum allowable NO, emission rate of 2 .00 pounds/MWh for heavier 

than No. 2 fuel oil-fired boilers, 1 .00 pound/MWh for No. 2 and lighter 

fuel oil-fired boilers and 1 .00 pound/MWb for gas-fired boilers . These 

maximum allowable emission rates are more stringent than NSPS for 

boilers that were installed prior to August 17, 1971 because neither 40 

CFR 60.40 nor 40 CFR 60.40Da apply to these boilers . 

The adopted maximum allowable emission rates are also more 

stringent than NSPS for boilers that were constructed, reconstructed or 

modified Starting August 18, 1971 through September 18, 1978 and not 

reconstructed or modified thereafter. The Federal rule at 40 CFR 60.40 

requires an emission limit of 0.30 pounds/MMBtu for oil-fired boilers 

and 0.20 pounds/MMBtu for gas-fired boilers . The adopted maximum 

allowable NO. emission rates are also more stringent than NSPS for 

boilers that were constructed or reconstructed starting September 19, 

1978 through July 9, 1997; and for boilers that were modified starting 

September 19, 1978 through February 28, 2005 and not reconstructed or 

modified thereafter . The Federal rule at 40 CFR 60.40Da requires an 

emission limit of 0.30 pounds/MMBtu, based on a 30-calendar-day 

rolling average, along with a 30 percent NO, reduction for oil-fired 

boilers ; and 0.20 pounds/MMBtu, based on a 30-calendar-day rolling 

average, along with a 25 percent NO, reduction for gas-fired boilers . 

The adopted maximum allowable NO. emission rates are also more 

stringent than NSPS for No. 2 fuel oil-fired or gas-fired boilers that were 

installed starting July 10, 1997 through February 28, 2005 and not 

reconstructed or modified thereafter. The Federal rule at 40 CFR 60.40Da 

requires an emission limit of 1 .6 pounds/MWh, based on 30-calendar-day 

rolling average, for these boilers . The adopted NO,; emission rates are 

more stringent than the Federal rule emission rates for No, 2 fuel oil-fired 

or gas-fired boilers that were reconstructed starting July 10, 1997 through 

February 28, 2005 and not reconstructed or modified thereafter . The 

Federal rule at 40 CFR 60 .40Da requires an emission limit of 0.15 

pounds/MMBtu, based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average, for these 

boilers . 

For sources that are modified after February 28, 2005, 40 CFR 

60.42Da requires 1 .4 pounds/MWhr or 0 .15 pounds/MMBtu, based on a 

30-calendar-day rolling average, which is less stringent than the adopted 

maximum allowable NO,; emission rate for No.2 and lighter fuel oil or for 

gas . However, if the construction, reconstruction or modification of the 

source triggers the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

rule at 40 CFR 52.21, PSD regulations will require the installation of best 

available control technology (BACT) on the source, which would be 

capable of achieving the adopted maximum allowable NO, emission 

rates . 

Table 9 below compares the NO. emission limits imposed by Federal 

NSPS regulations with the Department's adopted maximum allowable 

NO, emission rates as applicable to boilers that were constructed, 

reconstructed or modified at various times . 

TABLE 9 

Comparison of Federal NO. Emission Limits and 

Adopted Maximum Allowable NO, Emission Rates for Boilers 

Date Source Was 

Constructed 

Reconstructed Starting 8/18/71 

or Modified Prior to 8/18/71 through 9/18/78 

No Applicable 40 CFR 60.40 NSPS 

Federal Rules Subpart D 

Starting 9/19/78 Starting 7/10/97 

through 7/9/97 Through 2/28/05 After 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da 40 CFR 60.401)a 40 CFR 60.401)a 

NSPS Subpart Da NSPS Subpart Da NSPS Subpart Da 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J.R. 1805) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

None 

Adopted Emission 

Rates 

' 30-day rolling average basis 

Z 2.00 pounds/MWh is based on 0 .20 pounds/MMBtu 

3 1 .00 pound/MWh is based on 0 .10 pounds/MMBtu 

Effective on and after the Operative Date of Adopted Amendments 

Heavier than No. 2 Oil: 2 .00 pounds/MWh2 

No. 2 and lighter Oil : 1 .00 pound/MWh3 

Gas: 1 .00 pound/MWh3 

HEDD Turbines 

Based on its review of the Federal regulations for turbines (40 CFR 

60.330 and 60.4300), the Department has determined that the adopted 

new rules and amendments exceed many of the standards or requirements 

imposed by the Federal regulations . Standards of Performance for 

stationary gas turbines (40 CFR 60.330 - Subpart GG) do not apply to 

turbines that were constructed on or before October 3, 1977 and not 

modified or reconstructed since and therefore do not impose any emission 

limit for NO,; on these sources . Similarly, Standards of Performance for 

stationary combustion turbines (40 CFR 60.4300 - Subpart KKKK) do 

not apply to turbines that were constructed on or before February 18, 

2005 and not modified or reconstructed since . The Federal rules do not 

impose any emission limit for NO. on these sources . Also, Subparts GG 

and KKKK do not regulate turbines that have a heat input of less than 10 

MMBtu/hr . However, the adopted new rules and amendments require all 

turbines to comply with the adopted maximum allowable NOx emission 

rates, regardless of installation date and whether or not the source has 

been modified or reconstructed. 

The Department's adopted new rules and amendments require that on 

and after May 1, 2015, all HEDD turbines comply with the following 

maximum allowable NO,; emission rates: 0.75 pounds/MWh for gas-fired 

combined cycle turbines ; 1 .20 pounds/MWh for oil-fired combined cycle 

turbines ; 1 .00 pound/MWh for gas-fired simple cycle turbines ; and 1 .60 

pounds/MWh for oil-fired simple cycle turbines . The adopted maximum 

allowable NO, emission rates are more stringent than NSPS for turbines 

that were installed prior to October 3, 1977, because neither 40 CFR 

60.330 nor 40 CFR 60.4300 applies to these turbines . It is difficult to 

determine whether the adopted maximum allowable NO,; emission rates 

are more stringent than NSPS emission limits for turbines that were 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after October 3, 1977, but on or 

before February 18, 2005 and not reconstructed or modified since . The 

Federal rule at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK does not apply to these 

turbines, and the 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG applicable NO,; emission 

limit is dependent on the manufacturer's rated heat input for the specific 

turbine. Therefore, there is no general emission limit that can be used for 

comparison with the adopted maximum allowable NO, emission rates . 

All turbines with a heat input greater than 10 MMBtu/hr that are 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after February 18, 2005 are 

subject to subpart KKKK. 

or 

0.15 pounds/MMB 

The adopted standards for simple cycle and combined cycle gas-fired turbines with a heat input equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and less than or equal to 50 MMBtu/hr that are constructed after February I8 ; 

2005 are more stringent than the Federal rule at 40 CFR 60 .4300, which 

establishes an emission limit of 2 .3 pounds/MWh for these turbines. The adopted standards for both simple cycle and combined cycle gas-fired 

turbines with a heat input greater than 50 MMBtu/hr and less than or equal to 850 MMBtu/hr that are constructed, reconstructed or modified 

are more stringent than the Federal standards at 40 CFR 60.4300, which 

established an emission limit of 1 .2 pounds/MWh for such turbines that 

are constructed, and an emission limit of 2 .0 pounds/MWh for such 

turbines that are reconstructed or modified. The adopted standards for 

both simple cycle and combined cycle oil-fired turbines with a heat input 

equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and less than or equal to 50 

MMBtu/hr that are constructed, reconstructed or modified are, likewise, 

more stringent than the Federal standards at 40 CFR 60.4300, which 

establish an emission limit of 5 .5 pounds/MWh for constructed turbines, 

and an emission limit of 8.7 pounds/MWh for reconstructed or modified 

turbines . 

The adopted rules for both simple cycle and combined cycle oil-fired 

turbines with a heat input greater than 50 MMBtu/hr and less than or 

equal to 850 MMBtu/hr that are constructed, reconstructed or modified 

are more stringent than the Federal standards at 40 CFR 60.4300, which 

require an emission limit of 3 .6 pounds/MWh for constructed turbines, 

and an emission limit of 4.7 pounds/MWh for reconstructed or modified 

turbines . The adopted rules for simple cycle and combined cycle oil-fired 

turbines with a heat input greater than 850 MMBtu/hr that are 

constructed, reconstructed or modified are more stringent than the 

Federal rules at 40 CFR 60.4300, which require an emission limit of 1 .3 

pounds/MWh for these turbines . 

Additionally, if the construction, reconstruction or modification of the 

source triggers Federal PSD review under 40 CFR 52.21, the source will 

be required to install the best available control technology (BACT) 

capable of achieving the adopted maximum allowable NOx emission rate. 

Table 10 below shows the NO, emission limits that are imposed by 

Federal NSPS regulations and the Department's adopted maximum 

allowable NO, emission rates as applicable to sources that were 

constructed, reconstructed or modified at various times . 

TABLE 10 

Comparison of Federal NOa Emission Limits and 

Adopted Maximum Allowable NOx Emission Rates for Turbines On or before 10/3/77 Starting 10/4/77 throug h 2/18/05 

Oil : 

0.30 pounds/ MMBtu 

Gas: 

0.20 pounds/ MMBtu 

oil : 

0 .30 pounds/MMBtu' 

and 

30 percent reduction 

Gas: 

0.20 pounds/MMBtu' 

and 

25 percent reduction 

Construction : 

1 .0 pound/IviW]1' . ._ ` 

Reconstruction: 

1 .0 pound/MWhl 

or 

0 .11 pounds/MMBtu' 

Construction : 

1 .6 pounds/MWh' 

Reconstruction : 

0 .15 pounds/MMBtu' 

Modification : 

1 .4 pounds/MWh' 

After 2/18/05 

(CITE 41 N.J.R 1806) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

Federal Regulations 

for All Simple and 

Combined Cycle 

Turbines with Heat 

Input 

> 10 MMBtu 

No applicable Federal 

rules 

NSPS Subpart GG Dependant on 

manufacturer's rated heat input 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

NSPS Subpart KKKK 

Gas: 

Construction : 

<_ 50 MMBtu/hr : 2 .3 pounds/MWh or 42 ppm 

>50 and <_ 850 MMBtu/hr : 1 .2 

pounds/MWh or 25 ppm 

>850 MMBtu/hr : 0.43 pounds/MWh or 

15 ppm 

Reconstruction : 

>50 and <_ 850 MMBtu/hr : 2.0 

pounds/MWh or 42 ppm 

>850 MMBtu/hr : 0.43 pounds/MWh or 

15 ppm 

Modification : 

>50 and :5 850 MMBtu/hr : 2.0 

pounds/MWh or 42 ppm 

>850 MMBtu/hr: 0.43 pounds/MWh or 

15 ppm 

Oil : 

Construction : 

<_ 50 MMBtu/hr: 5 .5 pounds/MWh or 96 

ppm 

>50 and <_ 850 MMBtu/hr: 3.6 

pounds/MWh or 74 ppm 

>850 MMBtu/hr: 1 .3 pounds/MWh or 42 

ppm 

Reconstruction : 

<_ 50 MMBtu/hr: 8 .7 pounds/MWh or 

150 ppm 

>50 and _< 850 MMBtu/hr: 4.7 

pounds/MWh or 96 ppm 

>850 MMBtu/hr : 1 .3 pounds/MWh or 42 

ppm 

Modification : 

_< 50 MMBtu/hr: 8 .7 pounds/MWh or 

150 ppm 

>50 and <_ 850 MMBtu/hr: 4.7 

pound/MWh or 96 ppm 

>850 MMBtu/hr : 1 .3 pound/MWh or 42 

Adopted Emission 

Rates 

(non-HEDD 

Turbines of any Heat 

Input) 

Adopted Emission 

Rates 

(HEDD Turbines of 

any Heat Input) 

Effective on and after *[one day after the operative 

date of these amendments]* *May 20, 2009* 

Combined Cycle (Gas) : 1 .3 pounds/MWh 

Combined Cycle (Oil) : 2 .0 pounds/MWh 

Simple Cycle (Gas) : 2.2 pounds/MWh 

Simple Cycle (Oil) : 3 .0 pounds/MWh 

Effective on and after May l, 2015 

Combined Cycle (Gas) : 0.75 pounds/MWh' 

Combined Cycle (Oil) : 1 .20 pounds/MWh' 

Simple Cycle (Gas) : 1 .00 pound/MWh' 

Simple Cycle (Oil) : 1 .60 pounds/MWh' 

ppm 

'Gas rates based on 25 ppm; Oil rates based on 42 ppm; Simple cycle rates based on 35 percent efficiency ; Combined cycle rates based on 46 percent efficiency. 

The adopted new rules and amendments require each owner or 

operator of a HEDD unit (turbine or boiler) to submit a 2015 HEDD 

Emission Limit Achievement Plan (2015 Plan) to the Department by May 

1, 2010, and an annual update on the progress in achieving the 2015 Plan. 

The purpose of the 2015 Plan is to ensure that the owner or operator has a 

preliminary plan for achieving compliance for each HEDD unit by 2015. 

The purpose of the annual update is to allow the Department to monitor 

the progress of the owner or operator in implementing the 2015 Plan and 

to provide an opportunity for the owner or operator to revise the 2015 

Plan. There is no Federal regulation with a similar requirement ; therefore, 

this part of the adopted rules is more stringent than the Federal 

requirements . 

Due to the large number of HEDD units that will be affected by the 

adopted amendments, the Department has allowed a substantial period of 

time for these HEDD units to comply with the adopted limits . The 

Department expects that each owner or operator will be planning for 

compliance with the 2015 maximum allowable NO, emission rates . The 

Department, through the adopted rules, is requiring the owner or operator 

to share the plan and the status of implementing it with the Department 

periodically, in order to keep the lines of communications open between 

the owner or operator and the Department . In this way, the parties can 

address potential issues early in the process and not delay compliance . 

Finally, the adopted new rules and amendments require each of the 

three major owners or operators of HEDD units to reduce NO, emissions 

on high electric demand days during the interim period. The owners or 

operators may obtain these NO. emission reductions from any source that 

is approved by the Department. The adopted new rules and amendments 

suggest some emission reduction strategies (N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(d)2) . 

The adopted new rules and amendments do not require the reductions to 

come from any specific source, nor do they require any specific source to 

meet a given emission limit . There is no similar Federal regulation. 

The adopted new rules and amendments are needed to fulfill a 

requirement, imposed by EPA pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S .C . §§7401 et seq ., that New Jersey adopt sufficient control measures 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J .R.1807) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

to attain the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone . Therefore, the 

adopted new rules and amendments are necessary for the State to comply 

with Federal requirements . 

Technological feasibility of the adopted maximum allowable NO, 

emission rates is based on several sources that have already installed a 

control apparatus to bring the EGUs into compliance with the adopted 

NOx emission rates, or installed new sources that will comply with the 

adopted maximum allowable NO, emission rates . The NO, emission 

reductions from these adopted new rules and amendments are expected to 

be approximately 19 .8 tons per high electric demand day by 2009, and 

63.7 tons per high electric demand day by 2015. 

The adopted new rules and amendments would primarily affect 

electric generating companies that have boilers serving electric 

generating units or turbines that commenced operating prior to May 1, 

2005, are capable of generating 15 MW or more of electrical power, and 

operated less than or equal to an average of 50 percent of the time during 

the 2005 through 2007 ozone seasons . Also potentially affected would be 

the companies that design, build and install these control apparatus 

systems and turbines, consumers of the power generated, and all people 

who live, work or travel in New Jersey . 

As discussed in more detail in the Economic Impact (40 N.J .R . at 

4423) the estimated cost-effectiveness of emission reduction for the 

boilers is expected to be approximately $600.00 to $18,000 per ton of 

NO, emission reductions. The cost-effectiveness of installation of water 

injection on turbines is expected to be approximately $44,000 per ton of 

mostly ozone day NOx emission reductions, which is equivalent to 

approximately $4,400 per ton for calendar year NO, emission reductions . 

The estimated cost of replacing existing turbines is expected to be 

approximately $0.5 to $0 .8 million per MW. The Department anticipates 

the adopted new rules and amendments will result in an increase in the 

quality of life and protection of human health, the environment and 

agriculture . The Department expects the adopted new rules and 

amendments to have a significant positive environmental impact. The 

primary environmental benefit will be a reduction in NO, emissions, 

which are precursor emissions that lead to the formation of ground level 

ozone. As discussed earlier, ground level ozone is breathed by people and 

animals and comes into contact with crops and other vegetation, as well 

as man made structures and surfaces. This exposure can cause a variety of 

adverse effects . It is estimated that these adopted new rules and 

amendments will result in an emission reduction of 19 .8 tons per high 

electric demand day by 2009 and an emission reduction of 63.7 tons per 

high electric demand day by 2015. 

In addition to the environmental and health benefits, economic 

benefits, which are difficult to quantify, may also be realized . Owners 

and employees of businesses will enjoy the environmental, health and 

other social benefits of the new amendments. A reduction in air pollution 

will lead to healthier and more productive workers . 

Finally, the Department is adopting these new rules and amendments 

to meet EPA requirements . Failure to achieve these reductions could 

subject New Jersey to economic sanctions, which would adversely affect 

all businesses and taxpayers in the State . 

ADOPTIONS ; 

In adopting these new rules and amendments the Department has, , 

balanced the need to protect the environment and public health and to 

comply with EPA requirements against any economic impacts of the .;~ 

adopted new rules and amendments . Based on similar sources that ~' 

currently meet the adopted requirements, the Department has determined =~ 

that these adopted new rules and amendments are achievable undercurrent technology and are cost effective . The Department has :-

determined that adopting the adopted new rules and amendments, even ` 

though more stringent than the Federal rules, is necessary in order to -= 

attain the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone and to protect the : 

environment and public health. 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers or other Indirect Heat 

Exchangers 

The Department compared the adopted new rules and amendments at 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .7 to the NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60, and the Acid Rain 

NO, Emission Reduction Program, 40 CFR Part 76. The Department 

determined that the adopted new rules and amendments are more 

stringent than the Federal regulations for boilers greater than 100 

MMBtu/hr firing liquid fuels . 

The purpose of the adopted new rules and amendments for the ICI 

boilers and other indirect heat exchangers source category is to help bring 

the State into attainment with the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for 

ozone . The Department investigated various source categories to 

determine where further NO, emission reductions can be achieved . The 

Department identified ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers as 

having a Statewide potential of reducing NOa emissions by nearly 1,000 

tpy by 2011, assuming compliance is achieved by optimizing each 

boiler's combustion processes . This 2011 estimate would be lower if 

some small ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers comply by 

installing control devices because the adopted new rules and amendnients 

would allow an extra year to comply. 

The adopted new rules and amendments will affect industry, 

commercial operations, and institutions that own or operate boilers or 

other indirect heat exchangers that are equal to or greater than 25 

MMBtu/hr rated heat input . Beginning on May 1, 2010 and phased-in 

over the next two years, allowing smaller units more time to comply, this 

source category must meet the adopted maximum allowable emission 

rates at adopted new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .7(i) Table 9 . Adopted new Table 9 

establishes emission rates for 10 categories based on heat input rate and 

fuel type. The Federal NSPS have not established emission rates for 

seven of these categories . The Department's adopted emission rates for 

the other three categories are more stringent than the Federal NSPS 

emission rates . These three categories are for fuel types natural gas only, 

No. 2 fuel oil, and other liquid fuels for ICI boilers or other indirect heat 

exchangers with a heat input rate of 100 MMBtu/hr or greater. 

Table 11 below compares by heat input and fuel type, the maximum 

allowable NOx emission rates adopted by New Jersey, existing in New 

Jersey prior to the adopted rates, recommended by the Ozone Transport 

Commission, and existing in the Federal NSPS regulations . 

TABLE 11 

Maximum Allowable NO, Emission Rates (in pounds per million BTU) 

for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers or other Indirect Heat Exchangers 

Fired by Gas or Liquid Fuels 

Heat Input Rate 

(MMBtu/hr) Fuel Tyne Adopted NJ Rates 

At least 25 but < Natural gas only 0.05 

100 

No. 2 Fuel oil only 0.08 

Other gaseous fuels (except 0.20 

refinery fuel gas) 

Other liquid fuels 0.20 

Dual fuel using fuel oil and 0.12 

natural gas 

100 or greater Natural gas only 0.10 

No. 2 Fuel oil only 0.10 

Other gaseous fuels (except 0.20 

refinery fuel gas) 

NJ Rates Before OTC Recommended Federal NSPS 

Adopted NJ Rates Rates Rates 

0 .101 0 .05 None 

0.12' 0.08 None 

0.20' NA None 

0.30' 0.20 None 

0.12 NA None 

0 .10 0 .10 0.10-0.20 

0.20 0 .20 0.30-0.40 

0 .20 NA None 

(CITE 41 N.J.R 1808) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 
ADOPTIONS 

Other liquid fuels 0.20 

Dual fuel using fuel oil and 0.20 

natural gas 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

0.20 0.20 0.30-0.40 

0.20 to 0.43 0.20 No limits 

` Existing rates apply to units between 50 and 100 MMBtu/hr. There are no existing rates for units between 25 to less than 50 MMBtu/hr. 

As explained in the Economic Impact (40 N.J .R . at 4424), the costeffectiveness is expected to range from $600.00 to $18,000 per ton of 

NO, reduced with the typical cost effectiveness being less than $5,000 

per ton . 

The Department examined the stack test results for 46 boilers in the 

three categories in which the Department proposes a more stringent 

standard than the Federal regulations . All the results were below the 

adopted more stringent emission rates. Therefore, the adopted more 

stringent rates are technologically feasible . 

The Department has determined that measures to reduce NO, 

emissions from ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers beyond 

those that are required by existing Federal regulations are necessary to 

achieve the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. The adopted new 

rules and amendments are more stringent than the EPA's requirements 

because the State's ozone air quality exceedance is higher than in most 

areas in the United States and in the Ozone Transport Region. Therefore, 

given the demonstrated success of achieving these rates, as explained in 

the Background (40 N.J .R. at 4399), and New Jersey's need to reduce 

NO, emissions to protect public health, it is reasonable to require that all 

sources in these three categories meet the Department's adopted 

maximum allowable emission rates . 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Incinerators 

The Department compared the adopted N.J .A.C. 7:27-19 .12 new rules 

with the Federal NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Cb and finds that the 

adopted new rules are more stringent than the Federal regulations. 

The purpose of the adopted new rules for MSW incinerators is to help 

bring the State into attainment with the Federal 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone . The Department investigated various emission sources to 

determine where further NO, emission reductions can be achieved and 

concluded that MSW incinerators is one of these source categories . The 

Department estimated that further control of NO, emissions from MSW 

incinerators would yield a Statewide NO, reduction of greater than 100 

tpy by 2011 . 

These adopted rules would affect 13 MSW incinerators located at five 

facilities . Currently these facilities all comply with the Federal NSPS 

NO, emission standard of 205 ppm (at seven percent oxygen) on a daily 

average . Ten of the 13 units, located at four of the five facilities, have 

already installed selective non-catalytic reduction to control NO, 

emissions. The technology exists for optimizing the performance of these 

existing systems and achieving further NO, reductions . The Department 

expects that a maximum allowable NO, emission concentration of 150 

ppmvd (at seven percent oxygen) is readily achievable, and expects that 

actual NO, emission concentrations will average 130 ppmvd. 

Achieving the adopted maximum allowable emission concentration of 

150 ppmvd (at seven percent oxygen) will require the use and 

optimization of SNCR on each MSW incinerator . Only three of the 

existing 13 units in the State do not have a SNCR system installed. These 

three units are located at the Camden County Resource Recovery Facility . 

As explained in the Economic Impact (40 N.J .R. at 4424), the estimated 

capital cost to install an SNCR system on an MSW incinerator is 

approximately $1,500 per MMBtu/hr, and the estimated cost to operate 

an SNCR system on an MSW incinerator is between $950.00 and $1,675 

in 2006 dollars . 

The primary health benefit will be through a reduction in the emission 

of NO,; . The health and environmental benefits are explained in the Social 

Impact (40 N.J.R. at 4420) and Environmental Impact (40 N.J .R. at 

4427). The Department has determined that these adopted measures to 

reduce NO, from MSW incinerators beyond that which is required by 

existing Federal rules and regulations are necessary to achieve the 

Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone needed to protect the health 

and quality of life of New Jersey's citizens . 

VOC Stationary Storage Tanks 

The Department performed a comparison of the adopted rules and 

amendments to N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2 to analogous Federal regulations, 

namely, 40 CFR 60.110b to 60.117b, New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for VOC Storage Tanks for which construction, reconstruction or 

modification commenced after July 23, 1984. These Federal regulations 

were promulgated pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act and set forth the 

substantive Federal standards . Based on its review of Federal regulations, 

the Department has determined that the adopted rules and amendments 

are more stringent than the Federal regulations . 

Based on the research and surveys done by BAAQMD, SCAQMD, 

SJWAPCD and TCEQ, the Department has determined that the adopted 

new rules and amendments are achievable using current technology and 

are cost effective . 

The Department identified control measures based on the 

Department's VOC emissions inventory, disclosures of previously 

unreported roof landing emissions, potential emission reductions 

achievable, and technological feasibility of the adopted measures based 

on research and surveys conducted by TCEQ, BAAQMD, SCAQMD, 

and SJVUAPCD. The adopted new rules and amendments for storage 

tanks would primarily affect refineries, terminals, and pipeline companies 

that produce, store, and transport gasoline . In order to comply with the 

rules, as explained in the proposal Summary (40 N.J .R . at 4404-4408), 

those facilities will have to retrofit their tanks with upgraded deck fittings 

and seals, change work practices, and/or install controls for floating roof 

landings . Potentially affected are businesses that supply equipment to 

these facilities, market and distribute the products of these facilities, and 

consumers. 

As explained in the Social Impact (40 N.J.R. at 4420-4421) and 

Environmental Impact (40 N.J .R. at 4427), the Department anticipates the 

benefits of the adopted rules and amendments to be an increase in the 

quality of life and protection of human health, the environment and 

agriculture. The primary environmental benefit will be a reduction in the 

emission of VOCs, which are precursor emissions that lead to the 

formation of ground-level ozone, exposure to which can cause a variety 

of adverse effects . The adopted new rules and amendments are also 

expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants and toxic 

substances . The Department estimates that the adopted new rules and 

amendments will achieve a 2,000-ton VOC emissions reduction by 2019, 

beyond the current Federal rules . This equates to a VOC emission 

reduction of approximately 6 .5 tpd by 2019. 

As discussed in more detail in the Economic Impact (40 N.J.R. at 

4424-4425), the Department's estimated cost-effectiveness of emission 

reduction ranges from $3,000 to $29,000 per ton of VOC reduced, there 

may be less than a one-cent per gallon increase in gasoline prices at the 

pump, distributors and retailers may be impacted, and the industry's 

annualized compliance cost-effectiveness would be a maximum of 

$58,000,000 for 2,000 tons per year of VOC reductions in 2019. 

Economic benefits may also be realized . Owners and employees of 

businesses will enjoy the environmental, health, and other social benefits 

of the adopted new rules and amendments. A reduction in air pollution 

will lead to healthier and more productive workers . 

The adopted new rules and amendments are needed to fulfill a 

requirement, imposed by EPA pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S .C . §§7401 et seq ., that New Jersey adopt sufficient control measures 

to address additional VOC (ozone precursor) emission reductions 

identified by EPA as being needed for New Jersey to attain the eight-hour 

ozone standard . Therefore, adoption of these new rules and amendments 

are necessary for the State to comply with Federal requirements . Failure 

to achieve these reductions could subject New Jersey to economic 

sanctions, which would adversely affect all businesses and taxpayers in 

the State . 

In adopting these new rules and amendments, the Department has 

balanced the need to protect the environment and the public health and to 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 (CITE 41 N.J .R. 1809)