1 

Appendix C: 

Contingency Measure Calculations 

Chapter 6 outlines the State’s contingency plans, needed in the event that either New Jersey 

associated nonattainment area is unable to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 health standard by its 

required attainment date. These plans require the implementation of the following measures 

(nine State measures and one Federal): 

1) Diesel idling rule changes, 

2) Municipal Waste Combustor (Incinerator) NOx Rule, 

3) Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (State and Federal) (Fleet turnover 

2010), 

4) Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010), 

5) Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 (portion not 

modeled), 

6) NOx RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled), 

7) Asphalt production plants rule, and 

8) Controls from EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO2), and 

9) Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco and Valero) 

A detailed description of all these measures is included in Chapter 4 (a brief description is 

also provided in this appendix as well) and the estimated benefits from these measures are 

included in Chapter 6. The remainder of this appendix provides the detailed calculations 

used to determine the emission benefits from these measures. Since some of the measures 

are already implemented and it is the State and Federal government’s intention to implement 

the remainder of these measures as soon as practical, regardless of their need in the 

contingency plans, these additional benefits provide further confidence that New Jersey will 

attain the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by 2009. By following 

the USEPA’s guidance that encourages early implementation of contingency measures and 

relying on measures already implemented or under development, New Jersey is ensuring that 

no additional contingency measures will need to be developed and implemented beyond 

those identified.1

 

1. New Jersey Diesel Idling Rule Changes Calculations 

Emission reductions will be realized through implementation of rule changes to Subchapter 

14, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles, adopted 

in May 2007. These changes included clarifying the language on some exemptions; 

eliminating other exemptions, such as “sun setting” the sleeper berth exemption in 2010; and 

other associated changes such as enforcement, education, outreach, and legislative changes. 

Emission Reduction Calculation Methodology:

The following emission reduction estimates are calculated for use as credits for contingency 

measure purposes only. They are based on the amount of idling emissions implicit in the 

 

1

 72 Fed. Reg. 20642-43 (April 25, 2007). 
2 

MOBILE6 model. This methodology differs from that used for estimating emission benefits 

during the rulemaking process. 

Emission benefits were estimated by: 

1. Starting with the MOBILE6 based value2 for the percent of heavy duty truck 

emissions that result from idling: Idling emissions from onroad (class 8) heavy 

duty highway trucks represent approximately 3.4 percent of total emissions; 

2. Applying an idling reduction percent assumption: Assuming that New Jersey’s 

actions will reduce idling by 50 percent; and 

3. Applying this to the New Jersey 2009 inventory emissions for class 8 heavy duty 

highway trucks. 

The 50 percent reduction in idling from class 8 vehicles is estimated to be achieved from the 

following sources: 

o Subchapter 14 rule revision (which includes eliminating / tightening many 

exemptions, the phasing-in of idling alternates such as auxiliary power 

units and sun setting the sleeper berth exemption in 2010); 

o Increased enforcement through a legislative language change (N.J.S.A. 

39:3-70.2), which allows State and local police to clearly enforce this rule; 

o Education and outreach; 

o Idling sweeps by the Compliance and Enforcement group; and 

o Sales of “No Idling” signs, yielding increased awareness of the regulation. 

The 2009 Emission Inventory for class 8 onroad diesel heavy duty vehicles attributable to 

long duration truck idling is 8 tpy of PM2.5 and 435 tons per year (tpy) of NOx for the New 

Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 4 

tpy of PM2.5 and 223 tpy of NOx for the New Jersey portion of the Southern New 

Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area. A 50 percent reduction yields approximately 4 tpy 

of PM2.5 and 218 tpy of NOx for the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New 

York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 2 tpy of PM2.5 and 112 tpy of NOx for the New 

Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area. 

2. Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NOx Rule

The NJDEP proposed a NOx standard of 150 ppm for municipal solid waste combustors 

(MSW), based upon the capability of existing selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

emission controls to reduce emissions more than are now being achieved. New Jersey has 

four resource recovery facilities located in the following counties: Essex, Union, (both in the 

Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area), Camden, and Gloucester 

(both in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area). There are 11 municipal 

waste combustors (MWC) at these four facilities. There is one facility in Warren County that 

would be subjected to this rule but Warren County is not part of the 1997 PM2.5 

 

2

 USEPA. Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions in State 

Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA420-B-04-001, January 2004. 
3 

nonattainment area so those benefits are not included for the contingency measure in this 

proposed SIP revision. The NJDEP anticipates a NOx emission reduction of 240 tons per 

year in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area.

Table C1: Estimated Reductions from Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) 

Calculated for the 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 

Municipal Solid Waste 

Plant 

Air Flow 

Rates in 

Actual 

Cubic 

Feet per 

Minute 

(ACFM) 

Air Flow 

Rates in 

Dry 

Standard 

Cubic Feet 

per Minute 

(DSCFM) 

Pounds per 

hour using 100 

ppm NOx limit

Pounds per hour 

using 130 ppm 

NOx limit 

Pounds per 

hour using 150 

ppm NOx limit 

1997 PM2.5

NNJ/NY/CT 

NAA 

1997 PM2.5

SNJ/PA NAA

Essex 237,900 60867 44 57 65 x 

Essex 220,000 56287 40 52 60 x 

Essex 229,000 58590 42 55 63 x 

Average ACFM 228,967 58581 

Camden 97,409 24922 18 23 27 x 

Camden 99,064 25346 18 24 27 x 

Camden 101,495 25967 19 24 28 x 

Average ACFM 99,323 25412 

Union 128,029 32756 23 30 35 x 

Union 131,191 33565 24 31 36 x 

Union 130,767 33457 24 31 36 x 

Average ACFM 129,996 33259 

 

Warren 50,005 12794 9 12 14 

Warren 55,702 14251 10 13 15 

Average ACFM 52,854 13523 

 

Gloucester 62,820 16072 12 15 17 x 

Gloucester 72,130 18454 13 17 20 x 

Average ACFM 67,475 17263 

 

Total pounds per hour = 296 385 444 

NNJ/NY/CT NAA 197 256 296 

SNJ/PA NAA 79 103 119 
4 

Warren 19 25 29 

 

Total tons per year = 1296 1685 1944 

NNJ/NY/CT NAA 864 1123 1296 

SNJ/PA NAA 347 452 521 

Warren 85 110 127 

 

Assumption: 15% oxygen in the stack and 300 degrees F stack temperature 

Actual 2002 NOx in 

tons per year = 1,803 

Expected 

reductions 

= 

507 118 -141 

NNJ/NY/CT NAA 787 None None None 

SNJ/PA NAA 761 414 309 240 

Warren 255 170 145 128 

 

Permitted NOx = 3,541 

Emission Reduction Calculation Methodology:

The NJDEP calculated the estimated emission reductions for this measure, assuming a 150 

ppm NOx limit, by: 

• Estimating emissions from each municipal solid waste plant in pounds per hour. 

• Converting the pounds per hour estimate to tons per year estimate: 

(lbs/hr)(8760 hours/year)/2000 lbs/ton = tons/year 

(444 lbs/hr)(8760 hours/year)/2000 lbs/ton = 1944 tons/year 

• Calculating estimated emission reductions: 

 Expected reductions in emissions from MSW plants in tons/year = 

 (Actual 2002 NOx emissions from MSW plants in tons/year) – (Estimated emissions 

from the MSW plants in tons/year) 

 = (1803 tons/year) – (1944 tons/year) 

= -141 tons/year statewide 

• Reductions by nonattainment area: 

NNJ/NY/CT NAA – Emissions for Essex and Union counties are showing an increase 

because these numbers are based on permitted air flow rates and do not reflect actual 

emissions. As shown in Table C1, actual emissions in 2002 (1,803 tpy) are lower 

than the calculated ones (1,944 tpy). 

SNJ/PA NAA: 

Actual NOx Emissions (2002) – Calculated NOx Emissions using the 150 ppm limit 
5 

761 tpy – 521 tpy = 240 tpy 

The NJDEP estimated these benefits based upon permitted airflow rates at each facility. 

These emissions are higher than the actual emissions reported by the facility because, in 

general, the facilities operate at air flow rates below the permitted level. For this reason, 

there are no additional reduction benefits in the 1997 PM2.5 New Jersey portion of the

Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area. 

When New Jersey set an emission limit in the proposed rules at 150 ppm, actual emissions 

were estimated to be maintained around 130 ppm. Also, the NJDEP anticipates that the 

facilities will decrease their emissions due to optimizing their existing NOx control systems 

(i.e., either injecting more ammonia or adding more nozzles). Finally, the NJDEP expects 

that the Camden County Resource Recovery facility will need to install a new NOx control to 

comply with the proposed rules. Therefore, the NJDEP expects that the estimated benefits 

will be even greater than those calculated. 

3. Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (State and Federal) (Fleet turnover 2010)

The turnover of the onroad fleet of cars, trucks, and buses (i.e., the rate a which newer 

vehicles replace older ones in the overall fleet population) will result in additional direct 

PM2.5 and NOx emission benefits in 2009 and beyond because the new vehicles have 

significantly lower emission standards than the vehicles they are replacing, due to existing 

Federal regulations. Onroad fleet turnover will result in a PM2.5 decrease of 76 tpy (51 tpy in 

the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment 

area and 25 tpy in the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia 

nonattainment area); it will result in a NOx decrease of 7,421 tpy (5,613 tpy in the New 

Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 

1,808 tpy in the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment 

area). 

The New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (NJLEV) program (which is more stringent than the 

Tier 2 Federal standards), also contributes to the fleet turnover emission benefits. The new 

vehicle emission standards are also lower because of a number of Federal rules such as the 

2007 Heavy Duty Diesel standards for large diesel highway trucks. In order to estimate the 

emission benefits for fleet turnover between mid-2009 and mid-2010, the NJDEP made a 

number of assumptions, because the activity data (vehicle miles traveled (VMT), speeds, 

etc.) obtained from the Metropolitan Planning Organizations’ (MPOs’) travel demand models 

were not yet available for 2010. The 2010 emissions were estimated by performing 

MOBILE6 runs for 2010 using 2009 activity levels. The results from these runs were 

adjusted for VMT growth by assuming that the VMT growth rate between 2009 and 2010 

was similar to the average annual VMT growth rate between 2002 and 2009. The emission 

benefits for fleet turnover were calculated as the difference between the 2009 emissions and 

the 2010 emissions based on the estimated 2010 VMT. Calculation details and the 

MOBILE6 runs are provided in Attachment 1. 
6 

4. Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010)

The turnover of many of the nonroad equipment types included in the USEPA Nonroad 

Emission Equipment Model (NNEM), version 2005c, will also result in additional direct 

PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 emission benefits in 2009 and beyond because the newer nonroad 

equipment has to meet significantly lower emission standards than the equipment that they 

are replacing and the new nonroad diesel fuel standard begins in 2010. Nonroad fleet 

turnover will result in a PM2.5 decrease of 41 tpy (34 tpy in the New Jersey portion of the 

Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 7 tpy in the New Jersey 

portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area), a NOx decrease of 

1231 tpy (1065 tpy in the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New 

York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 166 tpy in the New Jersey portion of the Southern 

New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area), and a SO2 decrease of 217 tpy (185 tpy in the 

New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area 

and 32 tpy in the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment 

area). 

The new nonroad equipment emission standards are lower primarily because of a number of 

Federal rules such as the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Rule and the benefits of the small gasoline 

engine standards through Phase 2. In order to estimate the emission benefits for nonroad 

equipment turnover it was necessary to run the NNEM model for 2009 and 2010. The 

emission benefits for nonroad equipment turnover was then calculated as the difference 

between the 2009 and the 2010 emissions generated by these two model runs. Calculation 

details and the NNEM runs are provided in Attachment 2. 

5. ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (portion not modeled)

The beyond on the way (BOTW) ICI boiler rule, discussed in detail in Chapter 4, was 

included in the 2009 BOTW modeling. However, New Jersey has determined that the 

implementation of this rule will result in additional emission reductions beyond the 0.1 tpd 

that was included for the modeling. 

Currently, New Jersey ICI boilers are regulated according to size, fuel and boiler type. 

New Jersey’s existing NOx rules generally apply only to ICI boilers at least 50 MMBtu/hr 

located at major sources. New Jersey intends to propose amendments to its current ICI boiler 

rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.7. New Jersey plans on reducing the NOx emission limits for ICI 

boilers between 25-100 MMBtu/hr. Under the anticipated rule proposal, there are 

approximately 388 ICI boilers that are assumed to achieve a 50% reduction in NOx emissions 

due to the lowering of the emission rate. By 2009, NOx emission reduction benefits will total 

approximately 6.8 tons per day. New Jersey estimates additional NOx reductions beyond 

those included in the 2009 BOTW modeling – 681 tpy in the Northern New Jersey/New 

York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 193 tpy in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia 

nonattainment area. The emission benefits were allocated to each nonattainment area based 

on the percent of point source emissions in each nonattainment area. 
7 

6. NOx RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled)

The 2006 RACT NOx rule, discussed in detail in Chapter 4, was included in the 2009 BOTW 

modeling. However, New Jersey has determined that the implementation of this rule will 

result in additional emission reductions beyond the 0.1 tpd that was included for the 

modeling. 

The estimated emission reductions from the New Jersey 2006 amendments to Subchapter 19 

“Additional NOx controls” that were included in the attainment demonstration modeling were 

calculated in 2001 by E.H. Pechan.3

 However, as discussed in the New Jersey rule proposal 

dated September 20, 2004, additional reductions were estimated from annual tune-ups for 

boilers. Specifically, while the benefits of the NOx RACT rule (2006) included in the 

regional attainment modeling were 7 tons per summer day (tpsd) (point and area sources);4

the benefits included in the New Jersey 2006 rule proposal were 13.3 tpsd.5

 The additional 

emission reductions, for point sources, are approximately 4.7 tpsd statewide. Based upon 

location, 66 percent of the emissions are in the northern part of the State and 34 percent of 

the emissions are in the southern part of the State. For details on how the State calculated its 

benefits from the implementation of this rule, see New Jersey Register 36 N.J.R. 4228(a); 

September 20, 2004.

 

For the purposes of contingency for this proposed PM2.5 SIP revision, the additional 

statewide emission reductions were estimated to tons per year (tpy) and reduced to the 1997 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas as follows: 

1. Emission Benefits Statewide (all counties) = 4.7 tpsd 

2. New Jersey Portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut 

nonattainment area: 

a. 0.66 * 4.7 tpsd = 3.1 tpsd 

b. 3.1 tpsd * 0.48 = 1.5 tpsd * 365 days/year = 547.5 tpy 

(48% of New Jersey’s counties are in the 1997 PM2.5 Northern New Jersey/New 

York/Connecticut nonattainment area) 

3. New Jersey Portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area:

a. 0.34 * 4.7 tpsd = 1.6 tpsd (also 4.7 tpsd – 3.1 tpsd = 1.6 tpsd) 

b. 1.6 tpsd * 0.14 = 0.22 tpsd * 365 days/year = 81.76 tpy 

(14% of New Jersey’s counties are in the 1997 PM2.5 Southern New 

 

3

 E.H. Pechan. Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules. 

Prepared for the Ozone Transport Commission by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Springfield, VA, 

01.02.001/9408.000, March 31, 2001. 

4

 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Final. New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, October 29, 2007. 

5

 New Jersey Register 36 N.J.R. 4228(a); September 20, 2004. 
8 

Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area) 

7. Asphalt Production Plants Rule

The NJDEP intends to propose amendments to its rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.9 in order to 

lower NOx emissions from asphalt production facilities. The proposed amendments, based 

on an OTC model rule, would pursue control measures to achieve at least a 35% reduction of 

NOx emissions from asphalt production plants from current levels, with the inclusion of 

emission limits based on type of fuel combusted and implementation of Best Management 

Practices (BMP) requirements. 

NOx Emission Reduction Calculations Methodology: 

Basis: 

1. NJDEP had complied asphalt pavement production plant stack emission test data between 

2001 and 2006 for 29 burners from 22 facilities. A total of 119 test results were reviewed 

from 38 test events. There are 51 asphalt pavement production plants in New Jersey 

consisting of 70 asphalt dryers. 

2. Industry total, plant average, and monthly production information were obtained from the 

asphalt pavement production industry. 

Limits

Anticipated proposed limits are the average of actual stack test data less 35%. Basic statistics 

were reviewed in the calculation. The new limits are based on fuel type and will replace the 

current limit of 200 parts per million, volumetric dry (ppmvd) at 7% oxygen for all plants. 

Table C2 presents the anticipated proposed new limits. These limits are 37.5%, 50%, and 

62.5% lower than the current limit for natural gas, #2 and #4 fuel oil, and heavier fuel oil/onspecification used oil, respectively. 

Table C2: A Comparison of New Jersey Proposed Limits to OTC Recommended Limits 

NJ Proposed limits OTC Recommended Limits 

Natural Gas – 75ppmvd @7% Oxygen Natural Gas (Batch and Drum) – 

0.020 lb/Ton 

Fuel Oil (#2) – 100ppmvd @7% Oxygen 

Used Oil and Fuel Oil #4 and higher – 125ppmvd 

@7% Oxygen @7% Oxygen 

Fuel Oil/Waste Oil (Batch) – 0.090 

lb/Ton 

Fuel Oil/Waste Oil (Drum) – 0.040 

lb/Ton 

The equivalent “lb NOx/ton” asphalt produced are: natural gas- 0.025 lb/ton, #2 fuel oil –

0.040 lb/ton, #4 fuel oil or heavier fuel oils/on-specification used oil 0.050 lb/ton. 

Tons per Year (tpy) Reduction

Stack test data (average fuel use and average emissions) and production information were 
9 

used to calculate total annual emissions and annual emissions reduction for the State. 

Total NOx emissions of 378 tpy and NOx emission reduction of 132 tpy were estimated for 

2011. Average dryer emissions and emission reductions were calculated by county using the 

statewide number of dryers (i.e., 70). County numbers were totaled by nonattainment area 

for 2010 to derive the emission reductions for contingency purposes. Zero growth factor was 

adopted in the calculations. 

Ozone Season Tons per Day (tpd) Reduction

Monthly production information available for limited plants was used to calculate the percent 

monthly production, which in turn was used to calculate monthly emission reduction for the 

State. This information, along with the average production days per month (23), was used in 

calculating tons per day emission reduction during ozone season. The estimated NOx

reduction during ozone season was 0.64 tpd. 

Compliance with the new limits is expected to be phased-in over a period of three years 

based on the asphalt production dryers with the highest maximum gross heat input rates 

coming into compliance first. Each year, approximately 1/3 of the sources will achieve 

compliance with the new standards. 

1. For an asphalt pavement production dryer with a maximum gross heat input of at 

least 120 MMBtu/hr or greater shall comply by May 1, 2009. 

Total NOx reduction in 2009: 43 tpy; 

0.21 tpd ozone season 

2. For an asphalt pavement production dryer with a maximum gross heat input of at 

least 100 MMBtu/hr, but less than 120 MMBtu/hr, shall comply by May 1, 2010. 

Total NOx reduction in 2010: 86 tpy; 

0.42 tpd ozone season 

3. For an asphalt pavement production dryer with a maximum gross heat input rate 

of less than 100 MMBtu/hr, shall comply by May 12, 2011. 

Total NOx reduction in 2011: 132 tpy; 

0.64 tpd ozone season 

Ozone Season NOx Reduction by County

Average production per plant and number of plants per county was the basis for the tpd per 

county calculations. 

8. Controls from EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO2)

Emission reductions will be realized between 2006 and 2011 from a settlement with Public 

Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) at its coal-fired power plants in Jersey City 
10 

(Hudson) and Hamilton (Mercer), New Jersey.6,7 The settlement required additional air 

pollution controls, lower sulfur coal, lower emissions, and environmental projects. These 

additional control measures are enforceable in an amended consent decree. The NOx control 

reductions were included in the attainment demonstration. A portion of the SO2 reductions 

were not included in the modeling and are being relied upon for contingency purposes. 

The additional measures include: 

 Achieving an emission rate on its selective catalytic reduction devices (SCRs) at 

Mercer Units 1 and 2 of 0.100 lbs/MMBtu on a 90 day rolling average, by January 1, 

2007; 

 Advanced installation and operation of an flue gas desulfurization (FGD) device (also 

known as a “scrubber”) FGD on Mercer Unit 2 starting in 2010, instead of 2012; 

 Operating two new baghouses to control PM and mercury emissions from Mercer 

Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2008; 

 Limiting fuel to 100% ultra low-sulfur coal by May 1, 2007, comply with a lower 

interim SO2 emission rate, and meet annual tonnage caps for SO2 and NOx at Hudson 

Unit 2 until PSE&G installs a scrubber; 

 Installing carbon injection systems to achieve a 90% reduction in mercury emissions 

at Hudson Unit 2, Mercer Unit 1, and Mercer Unit 2; 

 Shutting down Kearny Units 7 and 8 (two uncontrolled oil-fired units), and surrender 

any SO2 allowances allocated to those units in excess of the operational needs for 

PSE&G’s compliance; and 

 Installing PM and Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS).8

Table C3 summarizes the pollution controls in the amended consent decree compared to 

the 2002 consent decree. 

 

6

 USEPA. United States and New Jersey Announce Clean Air Act Settlement with PSE&G Fossil LLC for 

Violations of 2002 Consent Decree; Utility Required to Pay Significantly Increased Penalties and Reduce 

Emissions. Accessed from: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1ef7cd36224b565785257359003f533f/c59ece80a8a072d1852572360

065c298!OpenDocument. November 30, 2006. 

7

 State of New Jersey v. PSEG Fossil LLC, Amendment to Consent Decree, Newark Division, New Jersey, U.S. 

District Court (November 30, 2006). Accessible at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/amended/psegfossil-amended-cd.pdf. 8

 USEPA. PSEG Fossil L.L.C. Civil Judicial Settlement, 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/psegllc.html. Fact sheets, press releases, and consent 

decrees are available on this site. 
11 

Table C3: Summary of Controls Required in the 2002 Consent Decree Compared to the 

Amended Consent Decree 

Hudson Unit 2 Mercer Unit 1 Mercer Unit 2

 2002 

Consent 

Decree 

Amendment 2002 

Consent 

Decree 

Amendment 2002 

Consent 

Decree 

Amendment

SO2

Controls 

FGD Interim: use of ultra low 

sulfur coal until FGD 

FGD No change FGD No change 

SO2

Control 

Installation 

Date 

12/31/06 12/31/2010 12/31/2010 No change 12/31/2012 12/31/2010 

SO2

Emission 

Rate

0.15 lbs/ 

MMBtu on 

30-day avg; 

0.25 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hr 

avg. 

Interim: Overall annual 

SO2 emissions cap and 

an SO2 emissions rate 

(30 day average) based 

on the use of ultra low 

sulfur coal until the 

FGD is installed: 

≤0.216 lbs/MMBtu - 30 

day rolling average 

emission rate based on 

one calendar day block 

basis 

≤0.310 lbs/MMBtu - 30 

day rolling average 

emission rate based on 

one calendar day block 

basis, when PSEG is not 

able to get ultra low 

sulfur coal Adaro coal 

or coal from Indonesian 

mines. 

Final: 0.150 lbs/MMBtu 

on 30-day average; 

0.250 lbs/MMBtu on 

24-hour average 

0.15 lbs/ 

MMBtu on 

30-day 

avg; 0.25 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hr 

avg. 

Final: 0.150 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 30-day 

average; 

0.250 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hour 

average 

0.15 lbs/ 

MMBtu on 

30-day 

avg; 0.25 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hr 

avg. 

Final: 0.150 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 30-day 

average; 

0.250 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-

houraverage 

NOx

Controls 

 SCR Interim: use of ultra low 

sulfur coal and SNCR 

year round 

SCR No change SCR No change 

NOx

Control 

Installation 

Date 

5/1/07 SNCR operation by 

1/1/2007; SCR 

installation and 

operation by 12/31/2010 

5/1/05 No change 5/1/04 No change 
12 

Hudson Unit 2 Mercer Unit 1 Mercer Unit 2

 2002 

Consent 

Decree 

Amendment 2002 

Consent 

Decree 

Amendment 2002 

Consent 

Decree 

Amendment

NOx

Emission 

Rate 

0.10 lbs/ 

MMBtu on 

30-day avg; 

0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hr 

avg. 

Interim: Overall interim 

annual NOx emissions 

cap and a NOx emission 

rate (30 day average) 

based upon the use of 

ultra low sulfur coal 

until SCR is installed. 

≤0.300 lbs/MMBtu - 30 

day rolling average 

emission rate based on 

one calendar day block 

basis 

Final: SCR NOx rate of 

0.100 lbs/ MMBtu on 

30-day avg; 0.150 

lbs/MMBtu on 24-hr 

avg. 

0.13 lbs/ 

MMBtu on 

30-day 

avg; 0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hr 

avg. 

In addition 

to existing 

NOx

emission 

rates, 0.100 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 90-day 

avg. by 

1/1/2007 

0.13 lbs/ 

MMBtu on 

30-day 

avg; 0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 24-hr 

avg. 

In addition 

to existing 

NOx

emission 

rates, 0.100 

lbs/MMBtu 

on 90-day 

avg. by 

1/1/2007 

PM 

Controls 

Optimize 

ESP and 

install 

polishing 

baghouse 

Install Full size 

baghouse to replace ESP 

Optimize 

and/or 

upgrade 

existing 

ESP 

Install new 

baghouse to 

replace ESP 

Optimize 

and/or 

upgrade 

existing 

ESP 

Install new 

baghouse to 

replace ESP 

PM 

Control 

Installation 

Date 

Optimization 

by 12/31/02; 

Baghouse by 

12/31/06 

Operate existing ESP 

and fly ash conditioner 

by 1/7/2006; Install and 

operate baghouse by 

12/31/2010 

12/31/02 

(est.) 

12/31/2008 12/31/02 

(est.) 

12/31/2008 

PM 

Emission 

Rate 

0.015 

lbs/MMBtu 

0.0150 lbs/MMBtu 0.03 

lbs/MMBtu 

0.0150 

lbs/MMBtu 

0.03 

lbs/MMBtu 

0.0150 

lbs/MMBtu 

Continuous 

Emission 

Monitoring 

Systems 

(CEMS) 

Mercury or 

PM CEMS 

Mercury and PM CEMS Mercury or 

PM CEMS 

Mercury and 

PM CEMS 

Mercury or 

PM CEMS 

Mercury and 

PM CEMS 

Mercer 

Controls 

None Carbon Injection by Dec 

31, 2010 

None Carbon 

Injection by 

Jan 1, 2007 

None Carbon 

Injection by 

Jan 1, 2007 
13 

Paragraph 123 of the original Consent Decree required PSE&G Hudson (Unit 2) and Mercer 

(Units 1 and 2) to comply with the following annual NOx and SO2 emission levels which 

were based on permitted levels at that time. 

Total NOx emissions: 16,444 tpy in any calendar year after December 31, 2005 for 

Hudson Unit 2, Mercer Unit 1, and Mercer Unit 2. 

Total SO2 emissions: 29,948 tons of SO2 in any calendar year after December 31, 

2006 for Hudson Unit 2, Mercer Unit 1, and Mercer Unit 2. 

Based upon the amended consent decree, Hudson (Unit 2) is required to meet the lower 

interim annual emission caps for NOx and SO2: 

Table C4: Interim Annual NOx and SO2 Emission Limits for Hudson (Unit 2) 

For contingency purposes, emission reductions from the interim SO2 annual emission caps 

and the use of ultra-low sulfur coal for Hudson (Unit 2) are used. The calculations are 

provided below: 

SO2:

In order to determine emission reductions from the settlement caps, the consent decree 

interim annual emissions cap was subtracted from the previous permitted limit, which are 

listed. 

o Hudson Permitted SO2 emissions = 56,394 tpy 

o Amended Consent Decree SO2 emissions limit in 2010 = 5,270 tpy 

o Total SO2 emission benefits for Hudson: 56,394 tpy – 5,270 tpy = 51,124 tpy 

The interim SO2 control measures for Hudson 2 were not included in the photochemical 

modeling to demonstrate attainment (see Chapter 5), and therefore can be used for 

contingency. The emission reductions are relied upon for contingency in the final SIP 

revision. 

Additional SO2 and PM control measures in the 2002 consent decree and amendments that 

are required by 2010 will also provide future emission reductions (refer to Table C3). As 

part of the settlement, PSE&G will fund $3.25 million in diesel engine retrofit/replacement 

projects for New Jersey. These projects involve the upgrade of three CSX switcher 

Year SO2 (tpy) NOx (tpy) 

2007 5,547 3,486 

2008 5,270 3,486 

2009 5,270 3,486 

2010 5,270 3,486 
14 

locomotives from Tier 0 to Tier 3 nonroad engines plus diesel particulate filters on all three. 

Thus, there will be more emission reductions achieved in the future to ensure attainment of 

the 15 μg/m3 annual NAAQS and to provide progress toward the New Jersey goal of 12 

μg/m3

. 

9. Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco and Valero)

As discussed in Chapter 4, the USEPA and various state and local agencies have negotiated 

Consent Decrees with major refineries to elicit emission reductions from five major refinery 

processes: Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs), Process 

Heaters and Boilers, Flare Gas Recovery, Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR), and 

Benzene/Wastewater. The estimated emission reductions for PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 are shown 

in Table C5. The emission reduction calculations are shown in Table 3.1 (Emission 

Inventory for Boilers/Heaters) and Appendix A (Methodology from Estimating Emission 

Reductions from Model Rules) of the MARAMA Refinery report,9

 which can be found in 

Appendix A4 and at http://www.marama.org/Projects/. The consent decrees are included in 

Attachments 3-5 of Appendix C. Additional emission reductions from VOC are also 

anticipated that are not shown in Table C5. 

Table C5: Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reductions 

 Emission Reductions 2009 (tpy) 

Refinery Process Refinery County Nonattainment Area PM2.5 NOx SO2

Fluid Catalytic 

Cracking Units 

(FCCUs) 

Sunoco Gloucester SNJ/Phila. 34 56 86 

 Valero Gloucester SNJ/Phila. 0 0 3,425 

 ConocoPhillips Union NNJ/NY/CT 0 561 0 

Flares Sunoco Gloucester SNJ/Phila. 0 0 0 

 Valero Gloucester SNJ/Phila. 0 0 0 

 ConocoPhillips Union NNJ/NY/CT 0 0 0 

Boilers and Process 

Heaters 

Sunoco Gloucester SNJ/Phila. 0 407 25 

 Valero Gloucester SNJ/Phila. 0 275 0 

 ConocoPhillips Union NNJ/NY/CT 0 534 0 

 TOTAL 34 1,833 3,536 

 TOTAL SNJ/Phila. NAA 34 738 3,536 

Notes: 

1. Source of Emission Reductions: "Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic 

Region: Final Technical Support Document." Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., January 31, 2007, Table 3.1 (Emission Inventory for Boilers/Heaters) and 

Appendix A (Methodology from Estimating Emission Reductions from Model Rules). 

 

9

 MARAMA. Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic 

Region: Final Technical Support Document. Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management 

Association (MARAMA) by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., January 31, 2007. Accessible at 

http://www.marama.org/Projects/. 
15 

2. Additional reductions are attained that are not shown because these numbers do not have emissions from growth removed. 

The refinery consent decrees were included in the attainment demonstration photochemical 

modeling for PM2.5. For the purposes of satisfying the contingency requirements, New 

Jersey is allocating 738 tpy of the emission reductions provided by the refinery consent 

decrees in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area. An analysis of how the 

attainment demonstration photochemical modeling indicates more emission reductions than 

needed to attain the PM2.5 standard and why these modeled measures can also be used as 

contingency is presented in the following section. 

Modeling Differential for Contingency

In addition to the eight measures listed in Table 6.1, to meet the contingency requirements 

for PM2.5, New Jersey is also using emission reductions that are above and beyond what is 

needed for attainment (“modeled differential”) for the New Jersey portion of the Southern 

New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area. Some of the modeling differential can be 

assigned to the emission reductions achieved from the refinery consent decrees. The analysis 

of how New Jersey is meeting the contingency requirement using this approach is outlined 

here. 

STEP 1: Compare Modeling Concentrations and Emission Inventories at New Jersey

Monitoring Sites

New Jersey monitors that were modeled for the attainment demonstration in the New Jersey 

portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New 

Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas showed a decrease in the annual concentrations of 

PM2.5 from 2002 to 2009. The associated emissions of direct PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 within 

each New Jersey county that has a monitor from 2002 to 2009 demonstrate that significant 

emission reductions were achieved to produce an air quality benefit at the monitors.
16 

Table C6: 

Modeling Concentrations and Emissions Inventory by County for 2002 and 2009 at the New Jersey M

Site ID Monitoring Site Name County Modeling 

2002 

Average 

Annual 

Baseline 

Conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Projected 

2009 

Annual 

Conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Air 

Quality 

Change 

(2002-

2009 

Modeled) 

(μg/m3) 

2002 County Emissions (tpy) 

Direct 

PM2.5 

NOx SO2 

340011006 Atlantic City Atlantic 11.5 9.9 -1.6 1,010 8,330 880 340030003 Fort Lee Library Bergen 13.7 11.9 -1.8 1,801 26,840 1,739 340070003 Camden Camden 14.3 12.3 -2.0 1,289 15,372 1,908 340071007 Pennsauken Camden 14.3 12.4 -1.9 340130015 Newark Cultural Center Essex 13.9 11.8 -2.1 1,520 24,594 4,316 340130016 Newark Lab Essex 14.7 12.5 -2.1 340155001 Clarksboro Gloucester 13.7 11.8 -1.8 1,303 14,515 7,169 340171003 Jersey City Primary Hudson 14.9 13.0 -1.9 2,002 22,047 21,409 340172002 Union City Hudson 16.2 14.1 -2.1 340210008 Trenton Mercer 13.9 11.8 -2.1 1,236 25,520 15,508 340218001 Washington Crossing Mercer 11.9 10.1 -1.8 340230006 New Brunswick Middlesex 12.5 10.5 -2.0 1,977 26,835 2,115 340270004 Morristown Morris 12.4 10.5 -1.9 1,663 15,708 1,234 340273001 Chester Morris 11.1 9.4 -1.7 340292002 Toms River Ocean 11.5 9.7 -1.8 2,256 10,421 1,074 340310005 Paterson Passaic 13.2 11.2 -2.0 1,021 9,836 760 340390004 Elizabeth Union 15.7 13.3 -2.4 1,380 18,850 3,503 340390006 Elizabeth Downtown Union 13.5 11.6 -2.0 340392003 Rahway Union 13.1 11.2 -2.0 340410006 Phillipsburg Warren 13.4 11.7 -1.7 1,031 5,250 565 
17 

STEP 2: Calculate Average Modeling Concentrations for the New Jersey Portion of the 

Nonattainment Areas

The average 2002 and 2009 modeled PM2.5 annual concentrations were calculated for the 

New Jersey portions of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New 

Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas, respectively. The modeling predicted an average 

2.0 and 1.9 μg/m3

 decrease in PM2.5 at New Jersey monitors in the New Jersey portion of the 

Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia 

nonattainment areas, respectively. The 2002 modeling inventory and the projected 2009 

modeling inventory (refer to Chapter 5 for additional information on the emission inventories 

used for this final SIP revision) for the New Jersey counties in each nonattainment area 

demonstrates significant emission reductions associated with the improved air quality 

benefits predicted. 

Table C7: 

Average Modeling Concentrations for the New Jersey Portion of the Nonattainment 

Areas 

New Jersey 2002 NAA Emissions (tpy) 2009 NAA Emissions (tpy) 

Portion of 

NAA 

Average 

Modeling 

2002 

Average 

Annual 

Baseline 

Conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Average 

Projected 

2009 

Annual 

Conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Model 

Predicted 

Change in DV 

from 2002 to 

2009 (μg/m3) 

Direct 

PM2.5 

NOx SO2 Direct 

PM2.5 

NOx SO2 

NNJ/NY/CT 13.6 11.6 -2.0 15,797 198,518 52,889 14,752 113,690 26,811 

SNJ/Phila. 14.1 12.2 -1.9 4,485 48,409 12,506 4,336 30,928 5,712 

STEP 3: Calculate an Average Ratio of Emission Inventory Reductions to Modeling Design 

Values for the New Jersey Portion of the Nonattainment Areas (tpy/μg/m3)

In order to determine the modeled differential in tons per year using the predicted change in 

PM2.5 concentration, a ratio of the predicted change in emissions inventory from 2002 to 

2009 to the predicted change in the modeled design values (DVs) was calculated for each 

PM2.5 precursor using the following equation: 

[2002 emissions (tpy)] - [2009 emissions (tpy)] / [2002 modeling DV (μg/ m3

)] - [2009 

modeling DV (μg/m3

)] = Change in emissions inventory (tpy) / Predicted change in modeled 

DVs (μg/ m3

) 

Table C8: 

Ratio of Emissions from New Jersey Portion of Nonattainment Areas to Average 

Modeling Design Values (tpy/μg/m3

) 

New Jersey 

Portion of NAA 

PM2.5

(tpy/μg/m3

) 

NOx 

(tpy/μg/m3) 

SO2

(tpy/μg/m3

) 

NNJ/NY/CT NAA 525 42,630 13,105

SNJ/Phila. NAA 77 9,053 3,518
18 

STEP 4: Apply Conversion Factor from Step 3 to Contingency Requirements

The conversion factors calculated from Step 3 were applied to the air quality benefits in each 

New Jersey portion of the nonattainment areas that were achieved below the PM2.5 annual 

standard of 15.0 μg/m3

. The process to calculate the modeled differential is outlined here: 

1. The modeled average PM2.5 annual concentration for 2009 for New Jersey monitors in 

the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia 

nonattainment areas are 11.6 and 12.2 μg/m3

, respectively. 

 

2. The PM2.5 annual standard is 15.0 μg/m3

. 

 

3. Therefore, the measures modeled for 2009 provided more reductions than needed to meet 

the annual standard. 

 

4. The 2009 modeling scenario provided an additional air quality benefit of 3.4 and 2.8 μg/ 

m3

 above the standard in the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New 

York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas, 

respectively. 

 

5. Applying the conversion factor from Step 3, the additional air quality benefit can be 

converted to tpy for each PM2.5 precursor. 

Table C9: 

Modeled Differential 

 New Jersey Portion of Nonattainment Areas 

New Jersey 

Portion of NAA

NNJ/NY/CT 

NAA 

SNJ/Phila. 

NAA 

 

Direct PM2.5: 1,785 216 tpy modeled differential 

emission reductions 

NOx: 144,943 25,348 tpy modeled differential 

emission reductions 

SO2: 44,559 9,851 tpy modeled differential 

emission reductions 

STEP 5: Compare Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reductions to Modeled Differential

Emissions to Determine Compliance with Contingency Requirements

In order to meet the contingency requirement for the New Jersey portion of the Southern 

New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area (refer to Chapter 6 for complete details), 738 

tpy of total emission reductions remain that were not achieved by the eight contingency 

measures listed in Table 6.1. The modeled differential (calculated in Step 4) can be partly 

attributed to the emission reductions achieved by the refinery consent decrees at Sunoco and 

Valero. New Jersey is relying upon 738 tpy of the emission reductions that are above and 

beyond what is needed for attainment from those refinery consent decrees to meet 

contingency requirements. 
19 

Table C10: 

 Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reductions Compared to Modeled Differential 

Emissions to Determine Compliance with Contingency Requirements 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 TOTAL 

Contingency Requirement (1/7) (tpy) (for New Jersey portion of 

SNJ/Phila. NAA) (see Chapter 6) 

21 2,497 971 3,489 

Emission Reductions from Proposed Contingency Measures 

except for Refinery Consent Decrees (tpy) 

34 2,685 32 2,751 

Remaining Emission Reductions Needed to Meet 

Contingency Requirement (tpy) 

-13 -188 939 738 

Modeled Differential Emission Reductions Available for New 

Jersey portion of SNJ/Phila. NAA (tpy) 

216 25,348 9,851 35,415 

Emission Reductions for New Jersey portion of SNJ/Phila. NAA 

from Refinery Consent Decrees (tpy) (Table C5) 

34 738 3,536 4,308 

Emission Reductions Allocated as Contingency from 

Refinery Consent Decrees (tpy) 

0 0 738 738 

Remaining Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reductions (tpy) 

(not needed for contingency) 

34 738 2,798 3,570 

Remaining Modeled Differential Emission Reductions for New 

portion of SNJ/Phila. NAA (tpy) 

216 25,348 9,113 34,677