~bde of ~ efu JjerselZ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION 

ENVIRONMENTAL MAN AG EM ENT 

CHRIS CHRISTIE 

Governor 

KIM GUADAGNO 

Lt. Governor 

Richard Ruvo, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

E_nvironmental Protection Agency 

Region 2 Office 

290 Broadway 

25th Floor 

New York, New York 10007-1866 

Mail Code 401-03B 

P.O. Box420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

TEL (609) 292-2795 

FAX (609) 777-1330 

June 12, 2014 

Docket ID Number: EPA-R02-0AR-2014-0251 

BOB MARTIN 

Commissioner 

RE: Request to Withdraw "Rescission of Determination of Attainment and Call for 

Attainment Plans for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Ozone 

Nonattainment Area" 

Dear Mr. Ruvo: 

The purpose of this letter is to transmit comments on the proposed Rescission of Determination 

of Attainment and Callfor Attainment Plans for New York, New Jersey and Connecticutfor the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Ozone 

Nonattainment Area at 79 FR 27830 (May 15, 2014). I respectfully request that USEPA 

withdraw the proposed requirement for New Jersey to submit a revised State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). 

This significant action would require New Jersey to invest resources in responding to a SIP Call 

that is based on a soon-to-be moot, and less protective ozone standard. Any exceedance of the 

old 85 ppb ozone standard results from the USEP A's failure to timely address interstate transport 

of ozone and its precursors. USEPA should focus its attention on reducing emissions from 

upwind sources of ozone precursors so that New Jersey can meet the current 75 ppb ozone 

standard. New Jersey is disappointed that USEPA has focused its efforts on a proposed SIP Call 

that ultimately results in a paperwork exercise that will have little or no meaningful impact on air 

quality or ozone transport. 

New Jersey is an Equal Opporlunity Employer, Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable 
Background 

New Jersey is part of the New York City-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-Connecticut 

ozone nonattainment area (Metropolitan Area). On June 18, 2012, USEPA determined that the 

Metropolitan Area had attained the 85 ppb ozone health standard and met its attainment deadline. 

Based on recent air quality data in Connecticut,, the USEP A is proposing to rescind the 

attainment determination, determine that New Jersey's SIP for the 85 ppb standard is 

substantially inadequate, and require that the three states submit revised SIPs within 18 months 

of the final SIP Call. 

USEP A Analysis Shows the Area Will Attain the Old 85 ppb Standard 

USEPA should not require this SIP Call because USEPA's analysis to support the recentlyfinalized Tier 3 vehicle rule demonstrates that the Metropolitan Area will meet attainment by 

2018 - much sooner than any action that may result from the proposed SIP Call. Additionally, 

the reinstatement of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CS APR), if modified by USEP A to 

require operation of air pollution controls in other states, will also bring the area into attainment 

based on USEPA's CSAPR analysis. · 

Ozone Transport 

The USEP A should focus its resources on the real solution to the ozone problem in the eastern 

United States, reducing ozone transport from upwind states and addressing daily emissions of 

NOx. USEP A is already aware that maximum daily NOx levels in some upwind states to the 

west of the Metropolitan Area are increasing. This is due in large part to electric generating units 

in those states not running their emissions controls during the ozone season because it is cheaper 

for them to comply with emissions requirements by purchasing NOx allowances than purchasing 

chemicals to run their emissions controls. With the recent, United States Supreme Court 

decision on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), it makes sense to not move forward 

with the proposed SIP Call, but to instead wait for the 75 ppb Ozone Implementation Rule and 

USEPA's future revisions of CSAPR to address the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS. Coming into 

attainment for the 75 ppb standard will, of course, mean that New Jersey has also attained the 85 

ppb ozone standard. 

Conclusion 

New Jersey has aggressively cut emissions of ozone precursors from stationary sources, mobile 

sources and area sources over the last two decades. Also, New Jersey is implementing seyeral 

adopted requirements that will result in even further NOx and VOC reductions by the summer of 

2015. Our emission performance standards on power plants include daily applicable 

performance standards during the ozone season and are among the most stringent in the United 

States. And New Jersey has one of the toughest vehicle emissions control programs in the 

country. There are no ''big" emissions reductions left in New Jersey. We can nibble around the 

edges (e.g., cutting VOCs from more area sources), but that will not solve the regional ozone 

problem. Reducing ozone transport from upwind neighbors during high ozone episodes is 

imperative. 
I respectfully ask that USEP A forgo action on the proposed SIP Call and instead focus its 

resources - and state resources - on implementation of the 75 ppb ozone standard and ozone 

transport. More detailed comments on the proposed SIP Call are attached to this letter. 

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact William 

O'Sullivan, Director, Division of Air Quality at (609) 984-1484. 

Jane Kozinski, Esq. 

Assistant Commissioner 

c: Bob Martin, Commissioner 

Judith Enck, USEP A Regional Administrator 

Attachments 
Attachment 1 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule 

"Rescission of Determination of Attainment and Call for Attainment Plans for New York, 

New Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area" 

Docket ID No. EPA-R02-0AR-2014-0251 

June 12, 2014 
1. The Northern New Jersey-New York City-Connecticut (NNJ-NYC-CT) 

nonattainment area will attain the old 85 ppb ozone standard before any actions 

resulting from the proposed 85 ppb SIP Call will be implemented. The USEPA has 

this information before it; the proposed SIP Call should be withdrawn. 

The air quality benefits resulting from the SIP Call will not be realized until approximately 2019-

2021 because of the time necessary to implement new emission reduction requirements in 

response to the SIP Call. The proposed SIP Call requires New Jersey to revise its State 

Implementation Plan for the old 85 ppb ozone standard I within 18 months of final action. This 

would require a response to the SIP Call by 2016. Typically, implementation of new control 

measures to provide additional emissions reductions takes three (3) to five (5) years for sources 

to design, build, and implement them after rules requiring such reductions are established. 

USEPA's own analysis demonstrates that ozone levels in the NNJ-NYC-CT area will be 

significantly below the old 85 ppb standard in 20182

, see Table 1, well before implementation of 

any new measures that may result from the SIP Call. 

Table 2 is a timeline comparing the actions that would occur in response to the 85 ppb ozone SIP 

Call to the implementation of existing federal and state emissions reduction requirements . The 

area can expect to attain the old 85 ppb standard with current measures one to three years before 

the SIP Call actions are implemented. 

The analysis, shown in Table 1, includes the benefits from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

and the Final Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS). This analysis assumed emission 

reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) because the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court at the time of the USEPA performed the 

analysis. 3 The USEPA's analysis for the proposed Tier 3 rule, however, included the benefits of 

CSAPR, which likewise predicted future ozone design values below the old 85 ppb standard.4 

USEPA's analyses did not include the emission reductions from Phase 2 of the New Jersey 

Reasonably Available Control Technology rules5 addressing High Electric Demand Day 

(HEDD) emissions beginning May 1, 2015. The rule is expected to reduce NOx emissions 

additionally by approximately 25 to 40 tons per day as compared to 2013 emissions. These units 

tend to operate during high ozone episodes when these reductions are most needed and well 

before any SIP Call measures would be implemented. Additionally, there will be further 

emission reductions as a result of the recently updated Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) rules in New York6 beginning in July 2014. 

1 79 FR 27830 (May 15, 2014). 2 Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Standards, EPA-454/R14-002, February, 2014 ("EPA Tier 3 Analysis"). 

3 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. USEPA, December 30, 2011 decision by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (December 30, 2011). 4 Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: Proposed Tier 3 Emission Standards, EPA-454/R-13-006, 

March 2013. 5 NJ.AC. 7:27-19.30 6 6 NYCRR Part 227-2 
Table 1: 2018 Ozone Design Values for NNJ-NYC-CT Nonattainment Area Counties 

Including the Benefits of the Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Program 

NNJ-NYC-CT 2018 Tier 3 Control Meets the Old 85 ppb 

State Nonattainment Area Ozone Design Values Ozone Standard 

Counties (oob) 

Connecticut Fairfield 75 Yes 

Connecticut Middlesex 74 Yes 

Connecticut New Haven 72 Yes 

New Jersey Hudson 75 Yes 

New Jersey Hunterdon 70 Yes 

New Jersey Middlesex 73 Yes 

New Jersey Monmouth 70 Yes 

New Jersey Morris 68 Yes 

New Jersey Passaic 68 Yes 

New York Bronx 66 Yes 

New York New York 68 Yes 

New York Queens 68 Yes 

New York Richmond 71 Yes 

New York Suffolk 79 Yes 

New York Westchester 79 Yes 

Highest Value 79 Yes 

Table 2: Timeline of Actions in Response to the 85 ppb Ozone SIP Call and Implementation 

of Existing Emissions Reductions Requirements that will Lead to Attainment of the 

85 ppb Standard 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2021 

85 ppb Ozone 2Q - SIP Call IQ-New Implementation 

SIP Call Proposed by Jersey's of New Control 

USEPA SIP Measures Set 

Revision Forth in the SIP 

3Q - SIP Call Due Revision 

Finalized by 

USEPA 

Existing Ozone 3Q-NY 3Q-NJ EPA EPA Analysis 

Reductions RACT Rules HEDD Tier 3 shows all 

Requirements Phase 2 Vehicles areas meet SS 

& Fuel ppb stnd 1D01t 

Rules meet7Sppb 

lltncl 

The proposed USEPA SIP Call is not needed because ozone levels in the NNJ-NYC-CT area 

will be well below the old 85 ppb ozone standard in 2018 due to emission reductions 

requirements already in the pipeline. These measures will be implemented well ahead of any 

new control measures resulting from the SIP Call. No further emission reductions will be needed 

for the area to meet the old 85 ppb ozone standard. Therefore, the USEP A SIP Call proposal 

should be withdrawn. 

2 
2. The USEPA should withdraw the SIP Call as it is premature to require additional state 

action given the USEPA expects the area to attain the 75 ppb standard by 2015. 

The USEPA lowered the ozone standard to 75 ppb in 20087 and determined the NNJ-NYC-CT 

area would meet the new 75 ppb ozone standard by 2015, based on its analysis to support the 

marginal classification. The Clean Air Act envisions that marginal areas (like the NNJ-NYC-CT 

nonattainment area8

) will come into compliance with minimal actions. Thus, the USEPA's 

classification of the NNJ-NYC-CT area as marginal reflects its conclusion that the area will 

attain the 75 ppb standard by the attainment deadline (2015).9 Table 3 lists the projected ozone 

values that the USEPA determined the area would meet in 2015, when it classified the area as 

marginal. These values are well below 85 ppb with the highest predicted ozone value of 80 ppb. 

Based on USEPA's analysis, the NNJ-NYC-CT area will meet the 85 ppb standard by 2015, well 

before any measures implemented as a result of this SIP call would take place. 

Yet, the proposed SIP Call would require New Jersey to develop a SIP revision to meet a soonto-be revoked, less protective standard - the 85 ppb standard - which USEPA's own analysis 

shows it will meet by 2015, which is well before a new 85 ppb SIP could be developed, adopted 

and implemented. 

Table 3: USEPA 2015 Projected Ozone Values for NNJ-NYC-CT Nonattainment Area 

State Monitor Name 

CT Danbury 

CT Greenwich 

CT Madison 

CT Middletown 

CT New Haven-Criscuolo Pk 

CT Stratford 

CT Westport 

NJ Bayonne 

NJ Chester 

NJ Fleminqton 

NJ Monmouth Universitv 

NJ Ramapo 

NJ Rutqers University 

NY Babvlon 

NY. Convent Ave. 

NY Holtsville 

NY pfizer Lab 

NY Queens 

NY Riverhead 

NY Susan Waqner 

NY White Plains 

Highest Value 

7 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) 

8 77 FR 30088 (May 21 , 2012) 

2015 Projected Ozone 

Design Value (pob) 

76 

74 

72 

72 

63 

72 

76 

74 

70 

72 

75 

69 

72 

78 

69 

80 

69 

70 

72 

72 

73 

80 

9 "Nonattainment Area Projections of2008-2010 Design Values to 2015," EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0011. 

3 
3. The USEPA should not subiect the NNJ-NYC-CT nonattainment area to a different 

procedure than it does for similar air quality areas in the nation. 

New Jersey is not aware ofUSEPA issuing a SIP Call for any other area in the country with 

similar air quality challenge and requiring them to submit an attainment plan for the old 85 ppb 

ozone standard. The USEPA should not subject the NNJ-NYC-CT nonattainment area to a 

different procedure than it does the other areas in the nation. Table 4 lists 11 areas that have 

exceeded the old 85 ppb ozone standard in 2012 and 2013. Of those 11 areas, a proposed SIP 

Call has only been issued to one, the NNJ-NYC-CT nonattainment area. 

Table 4: Design Values for Areas Violating the old 85 ppb Ozone NAAQS 

2012 2012 2013 2013 

Designated Area Design Violates Preliminary Exceeds SIP Call 

Value 85 ppb Design 85 ppb Proposed 

(ppb) Standard? Value (ppb) Standard? 

Northern New Jersey-New York 87 Yes 89 Yes Yes City-Connecticut, NNJ-NY-CT 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, 88 Yes 87 Yes No TX 

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 87 Yes 87 Yes No 

Allegan County, Ml 84 No 86 Yes No 

Baltimore, MD 93 Yes 85 Yes No 

Sheboygan, WI 87 Yes 85 Yes No 

Philadelphia-Wilmington- 87 Yes 84 No No Atlantic City, PA-DE-NJ-MD 

Louisville, KY-IN 86 Yes 82 No No 

St Louis, MO-IL 86 Yes 82 No No 

Washington, DC-MD-VA 87 Yes 79 No No 

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 85 Yes 79 No No 

4 
4. The SIP Call is not necessary and is a burden on state resources. The USEP A should 

focus its efforts on the implementation of the 75 ppb ozone standard. 

In 2013, the USEPA proposed the 75 ppb Ozone Implementation Rule that revokes the old 85 

ppb ozone standard and subjects states to anti-backsliding requirements with respect to the old 85 

ppb standard. This proposal reflects the USEPA's intent to put to rest the old 85 ppb standard 

and move forward with the implementation of the more protective 75 ppb standard. That path 

forward makes sense, both in terms of air quality improvements and prudent use of diminishing 

state resources. USEP A should finalize that decision and focus its resources on the finalization 

of the 75 ppb ozone Implementation Rule and not finalize this 85 ppb SIP Call. 

In the 75 ppb proposed Implementation Rule, USEPA emphasized the importance of providing 

flexibility and reducing the administrative burden on the states as they implement the rule 

requirements. 10 

USEPA is "mindful that the requirements to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

comes at a time when many states are facing substantial resource challenges ... 

and is "committed to working in partnership with states ... to share the burden of 

implementing the [75 ppb ozone standard] by promulgating a number of national 

regulations that will provide significant reductions in ozone precursors." 

In proposing the 85 ppb SIP Call, USEPA is also failing to recognize that national measures will 

also provide significant reductions to assist states in meeting the old 85 ppb ozone standard. 

New Jersey supports the USEPA's focus on efforts to reduce administrative burdens and 

improve efficiency ofSIPs by developing SIP submissions that "achieve the goals of both the 

[85 ppb] and the [75 ppb] ozone NAAQS." 11 The proposed SIP Call runs counter to USEPA's 

mission to "coordinate efforts and avoid overlapping and redundant planning efforts." 12 

The USEPA should follow its announced intention in the 75 ppb Ozone Implementation rule by 

withdrawing the SIP Call and finalizing the Implementation Rule. 

10 78 FR34180 (June 6, 2013). 

11 78 FR 34215 (June 6, 2013). 12 78 FR34215 (June 6, 2013). 

5 
5. The SIP Call is Not the Appropriate Mechanism to Address What is a Larger Regional 

Ozone Transport Problem. A mere three-state SIP Call is the wrong solution to address 

ozone nonattainment - the USEP A must address ozone transport on a regional level. 

It will take more than a three state SIP Call to address the high ozone levels in Connecticut - it 

will require a larger regional solution to ozone transport. 

The 85 ppb NAAQS would not have been exceeded if the USEPA had adequately addressed 

regional transport. Both the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) failed to address daily NOx emissions. USEPA's analysis of air quality 

improvements, that would be achieved if CSAPR NOx reductions w~re implemented every day, 

demonstrated that the NNJ-NYC-CT nonattainment area would meet the old 85 ppb ozone 

standard by 2014. 13 A summary of USEPA's CSAPR analysis is set forth in Table 5. The 

analysis assumed implementation of state-level CSAPR caps, and compliance by power plants 

with the CSAPR caps every summer, including operation of installed air pollution controls. 

However, as indicated in Table 6, some states exceed their CSAPR ozone season caps because of 

the flaws in the current USEP A transport rules. By contrast, emissions from power plants in 

New Jersey are well below the CSAPR caps, and New Jersey's NOx emission limits are 

applicable every day of the ozone season. 

Further, USEP A has announced its intent to propose a new transport rule to address the 

interstate transport of ozone and its precursors to enable downwind areas to meet the 75 ppb 

ozone NAAQS. An improved transport rule is the appropriate mechanisms for addressing the 

85 ppb ozone exceedance in Connecticut, not a SIP Call for just three States. 

13 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, June 2011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140. 

6 
Table 5: 2014 Ozone Design Values for the NNJ-NYC-CT Nonattainment Area 

C oun f 1es me l u d. mg th e B ene fit 1 so f th e CSAPR 

State County 2014 Average Design Value (ppb) Meets the Old 85 ppb 

- Test for Attainment Ozone Standard 

Connecticut Fairfield 79 Yes 

Connecticut Fairfield 82 Yes 

Connecticut Fairfield 81 Yes 

Connecticut Fairfield 79 Yes 

Connecticut Hartford 72 Yes 

Connecticut Middlesex 79 Yes 

Connecticut New Haven 71 Yes 

Connecticut New Haven 81 Yes 

New Jersey Bergen 78 Yes 

New Jersey Hudson 79 Yes 

New Jersey Hunterdon 77 Yes 

New Jersey Middlesex 77 Yes 

New Jersey Monmouth 78 Yes 

New Jersey Morris 73 Yes 

New Jersey Passaic 71 Yes 

New York Bronx 67 Yes 

New York Bronx 69 Yes 

New York Queens 62 Yes 

New York Queens 72 Yes 

New York Richmond 81 Yes 

New York Suffolk 82 Yes 

New York Suffolk 76 Yes 

New York Suffolk 82 Yes 

New York Westchester 80 Yes 

Highest Value 82 Yes 

Table 6: Ozone Season Actual NOx Emissions (Tons) and CSAPR NOx Emission Budgets 

(T ODS )f, or C onnectlcut, N ew J ersey, N Y k ew or an dP ennsy l vama 

(tons) Actual Emissions 14 CSAPR Bud2ets 

State 2010 2011 2012 2013 2012-2013 2014 

CT1

:, 1,846 854 709 579 NA NA 

NJ 5,453 3,800 3,50 1 2,869 4,128 3,731 

NY 18,202 15,534 12,358 10,849 10,369 10,369 

PA 59,935 67,473 62,916 58,686 52,20 1 51 ,912 

14 Based on data submitted to USEPA's Clean Air Markets Division at http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ 

15 CT is not included in CSAPR 

7 

(CSAPR 2014 -

2013 Actual) 

NA 

-862 

480 

6,774 
6. The Proposed SIP Call Unfairly Burdens the States that Have Significantly Reduced 

their NOx Emissions While Other States Have Increased Ozone Season NOx Emissions. 

Ozone season NOx emissions from power plants has been decreasing over time in New Jersey, 

New York and Connecticut, but not in Pennsylvania, which is a nearby, significant contributor to 

high ozone levels in Connecticut. 16 See Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Power Plant Ozone Season NOx Emissions for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 

York and Connecticut (2003 - 2013) 

80,000 

50,000 

• s 

-; 40,000 0 

z 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

2003 2004 

PA, NJ, NY, and CT Ozone Season NOx Emissions 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

I CPA ONJ • NY •CTI 

In June 2010, New York updated its Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules. 17 

It projected that the updated rules would reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by almost 

30,000 tons per year and almost 80 tons/day from 2007 levels beginning in July 2014. 18 

In 2009, New Jersey updated its Reasonable Available Control Technology rules. 19 The air 

quality benefits from these rules can partially be seen in the reduced ozone levels in New Jersey, 

16 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, June 2011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140. 17

6 NYCRR Part 227-2 

18 78 FR 21306 (April 10, 2013). 

19 40 N.J.R. 4390(a) and 41 N.J.R l 752(a) (March 20, 2009). 

8 
see Figure 2. Phase 2 of the power plant performance standards takes effect on May 1, 2015. 

These Phase 2 rules will significantly reduce emissions from the.combustion turbines which 

operate on high electric demand days (HEDD), and therefore, this rule will provide significant 

ozone reductions on high ozone days. It is expected 3, 700 MW of old, dirty boilers and singlecycle turbines will be replaced with new, lower-emitting units, and that 1,400 MW of the 

existing units will reduce their emissions by installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control 

technology, installing dry low-NOx burners, or other NOx reduction measures. The Phase 2 

HEDD rule is expected to additionally reduce emissions by approximately 25 to 40 tons/day 

relative to 2013 emissions. These reductions will occur on the days with high ozone levels. 

Figure 2: New Jersey 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality 1986 - 2013 

(Based on 3 year Average of 4th Highest Daily 8-hour Maximum - Design Values) 

c 

~ ii 

~ 

~ 

a "' 

Q) 

c: 

0 

~ 

:5 

0 

r 

d:, 

150 2011-2013 Design Values are Preliminary 

140 - Maximum Site 

130 -···-·· Median Site 

- Minimum Site 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 !75 ppb NAAQS ! 

60 

50 

40 +-~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 

'86- ·a1- ·ea- '69- ·90- ·91. '92- ·93_ '94- '95- '96- '97- '98- ·99_ ·oo- ·01 - ·02- ·03. ·04. ·05. '06- 01- oa- 09- 10- 11 -

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 

In contrast to New Jersey and New York, Pennsylvania ozone season power plant NOx emissions 

are increasing. This increase is due to certain power plants not operating, or not optimally 

operating, their emissions control technology. For example, Figure 3, shows the ozone season 

emission rate for selected facilities. The facilities achieved emission rates around 0.05 pounds 

per million BTU after they installed and operated SCR, but beginning in 2009, the NOx emission 

rates significantly increased to pre-SCR control levels. This indicates that the facilities' NOx 

emissions controls are not being operated. These facilities are complying with NOx emissions 

limits by buying NOx allowances in the CAIR market instead of running their emissions 

controls. Although this practice is lawful under the cap and trade framework of the CAIR, as 

well as regulations in Pennsylvania, it significantly contributes to ozone during ozone season. 

And that contributes to ozone problems in states downwind of Pennsylvania. New Jersey 

prohibits this practice by requiring that power plants comply with daily emission rates during the 

ozone season. 

9 
Pennsylvania recently proposed updates to its Reasonably Available Control Technology 

Rules.20 Unfortunately, this proposal would, if implemented, fail to solve the increase in NOx 

emissions from Pennsylvania power plants during ozone season because it would not subject the 

power plants to daily emissions rates or require full operation of existing SCR NOx control. 

The proposed 85 ppb ozone SIP Call will not solve the problem and imposes burdensome 

paperwork obligations on the very states that have consistently taken action to keep the NNJNYC-CT area in attainment for the 85 ppb standard. Solving the high ozone levels in 

Connecticut requires broader, regional action. 

Figure 3: Pennsylvania Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units Turn Off Their NOx 

Emissions Controls During the Worst of Ozone Season 

0.45 

0.4 

0.35 

0.3 

0.25 

s:! 

ID 0.2 E 

! 

:e 0.15 -----

0.1 

0.05 

0 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

HomerCity -.-Keystone - Montour 

20 44 Pa.B. 2392 (April 19, 2014) 

10 
7. To solve the air quality issues identified in the proposed SIP Call, the USEPA must shift 

its focus to daily emissions, not on ozone season emissions. The USEPA's failure to 

recognize the nature of ozone formation in its policies continues to lead to unhealthy air 

quality and health impacts on the citizens of this nation. 

To reach attainment, it will be necessary to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced every day 

during the ozone season. Unfortunately, USEP A and some states have regulatory frameworks 

for NOx emissions that do not focus on the daily nature of the ozone problem. 

Unlike "traditional" air pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere from 

emission sources. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by complex chemical reactions of oxides 

of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds. Adding to this complexity, and largely 

ignored by the USEP A in its regulatory approaches to date, is the fact that the emissions do not 

stand still, they move with the wind where new emissions are added. Air pollution can travel 

hundreds of miles, depending on such factors as wind and weather patterns. 

To get elevated levels of ozone typically requires strong sunlight for the chemical reactions to 

occur and warmer temperatures. In the NNJ-NYC-CT area, the conditions for elevated levels of 

ozone occur during the late spring through the summer. The sea breezes found along the coasts 

also add to the complexity of the ozone formation in the nonattainment area, as well as, the 

presence of "nocturnal jets" of ozone carryin'i winds. This air pollution, transported at night at 

levels 1,000 feet from the surface, was found I to slowly mix down to the surface in the morning. 

As this transported air pollution combines with the locally generated air pollution, it affects the 

day's air quality. A portion of this daily-formed ozone will become part of the next night's 

transported aloft ozone, continuing a cycle of transport. The past approaches to address elevated 

ozone levels have not been sufficient as they have not addressed the emissions on days leading 

up to and on high days, including the meteorological reasons for ozone formation and transport. 

For example, high levels of ozone occurred in the NNJ- NYC-CT nonattairunent area and 

throughout the northeast region on June 20 - 21, 2012. See Figures 4 and 5. On June 20, 2012, 

the 8-hour ozone levels in the NNJ-NYC-CT area reached a maximum of97 ppb at Stratford, 

CT. June 21 , 2012 also saw high ozone values (maximum of90 ppb at Madison). 

21

http://www.mde.maryland.gov/programs/ResearchCenter/ReportsandPublications/eMDE/Pages/researchcenter/pub 

lications/general/eMDE/vol5no2/ Article l .aspx 

11 
Figure 4: Ozone Level in the Eastern U.S. on June 20, 2012 

June 20, 2012 

• 

• 

• 

••• 

••• 

• < 64 

65-69 

• 70 - 74 

• 75-84 

• > 85 

Daily Max 8hr Ozone (ppb) 

Figure 5: Ozone Level in the Eastern U.S. on June 21, 2012 

June 21, 2012 

• < 64 

65- 69 

• 70- 74 

• ••• • 75-84 

• > 85 

Daily Max 8hr Ozone (ppb) 

12 
Hourly NOx emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs) at power plants in New Jersey, 

Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania during these high ozone days are shown in Figures 6 -

9. These figures are based on data available from EPA's Clean Air Markets Program Data 

(CAMPD). 

For each state, there is an increase in NOx emissions that starts in the mid-late morning. 

However, the sources of the NOx increases differ by state. On these high ozone days, NOx 

emissions from dirty turbines in New York increase in the late morning by a factor of two over 

earlier in the day. See Figure 6. NOx emissions also increase from other power plants, but not 

as dramatically. 

Pennsylvania's NOx emission profile on high ozone days is quite different. See Figure 7. In 

particular, power plants that are already generating electricity increase production during the 

period between morning and evening. Many of these power plants do not have up-to-date 

emissions controls. If the poorly controlled coal power plants had SCR controls, the total 

emissions from all power plants would decrease by approximately 35%. If SCRs were installed 

on the poorly controlled units and the existing SCRs were operated, then total power plant NOx 

emissions would decrease by up to 80%. 

New Jersey has taken significant steps to decrease emissions during high ozone days by 

establishing performance standards for all power plants for each day of operation. This is 

reflected in New Jersey's high ozone day emissions profile, see Figure 8. Also, the dirty turbine 

peak emissions shown in Figure 8 will be mostly eliminated with our HEDD NOx limits for 

turbines effective in 2015. New Jersey's daily enforceable emission limitations better address 

ozone nonattainment than emissions trading programs that allow the averaging ofNOx emissions 

over the entire summer. The five month compliance periods in CAIR and CSAPR are 

insufficient to ensure attainment of the ozone NAAQS because emissions can be high on days 

when ozone levels are high. Five month averaging does not sufficiently lower emissions on the 

hottest summer days when peak electric demand and peak ozone levels occur. 

To reduce elevated ozone levels, NOx emissions from power plants must be controlled every day. 

The USEP A must change its policies to focus on reducing the daily emissions, rather than 

allowing higher NOx emissions to occur on the hottest, summer days of greatest potential ozone 

formation and transport to downwind areas that record the unhealthful ozone levels from upwind 

emissions. The USEPA's failure to address the daily nature of ozone formation in its policies 

continues to lead to unhealthy air quality and health impacts on the citizens of this nation. The 

three state SIP Call does nothing to address the problem. 

13 
Figure 6: New York Power Plant NOx Emissions During a High Ozone Episode 

70 ,000 ...------------------------·------------

60,000 ~-----------------------·--------------- ------·· ·- ·--· ----·--

so.coo 

& 

z: 

~ 

! 40,000 ... 

& 

~ 

& ]! 30,000 

~ 

0 

z 

20,000 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

Hour 

The descriptive terms used in the figures are defined as follows: 

• Dirty Turbines: Combustion turbines with no post-combustion controls that emit NOx at a 

rate greater than 0.125 lb NOx /mmBTU that fire either natural gas or diesel oil; 

• Clean Turbines: Combustion turbines that emit NOx at a rate less than 0.125 lb 

NOx/mmBTU; 

• NG Boilers: Natural gas-fired Electric Generating Boilers; 

• Residual Oil Boilers: Power plant boilers firing residual oil: 

• Combined Cycle: Combined cycle Electric Generating Units, which fire almost exclusively 

with natural gas; 

• Poorly Controlled Coal: Coal-fired Electric Generating Unit boilers that do not have 

Selective Catalytic Reduction installed; 

• Shutdown or Curtailed Controls Coal: NOx emissions from coal-fired Electric Generating 

Unit boilers that installed Selective Catalytic Reduction and are either not operating it or 

operating it at a greatly reduced capacity with respect to previously demonstrated degrees of 

reduction; and, 

• Well Controlled Coal: NOx emissions from coal-fired Electric Generating Unit boilers 

operating with post combustion Selective Catalytic Reduction systems and emitting at less 

than 0.15 lb NOx/mmBTU. 

14 
Figure 7: Pennsylvania Power Plant NOx Emissions During a High Ozone Episode 

70,000 -

::, 

0 

.,: 

60,000 

50,000 

! 40,000 ... 

i 

.. 

5 

? 30,000 

e 

w 

0 

z 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314 151617181920212223 

Hour 

15 
Figure 8: New Jersey Power Plant NOx Emissions During a High Ozone Episode 

& 

.c 

~ 

.. 

70,000 ~-------------------------------------

60,000 ----------------------------------------------- - ------ ---------------

50,000 +-------

;40,000 

c 

& 

.s 

g 

i 30,000 +---------

~ 

0 

z 

0 

Poorly Controlled 

Coal 

Clean Turbines 

Well Controlled 

Coal Dirty Turbines 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

Hour 

16 
Figure 9: Connecticut Power Plant NOx Emissions During a High Ozone Episode 

;; 

0 

.c 

.; 

. ···-··· ·-··-----·-----·-- --------------------·--------

70,000 

60,000 ---

50,000 

:!° 40,000 · .., 

I 

l_ 

c 

i 

~ 

c i 30,000 - ... -- . - - -· - --- ----- ·------ ---.----··· - --- ----- ···- ----·-·-------------------------· _____________________ .. __ 

E 

.... 

r5 

z 

20,000 · - .. - ----·--·-· -- . --------- --------··--·. -----------·-·- -------------- -------· .. . -----------·------

10,000 · -- ···--- -----· --··-· ---- - - ···-··-----·-· --·· ·······------ --·--·---------------- ---·----- -----· -----------····--------· --·-·-------

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

Hour 

• Poorly Co ntrolled Coal • Combined Cycle • Residual Oil Boilers • NG Boilers • Dirty Turbines • Clean Turbines 

17 
8. New Jersey Should be Removed from the SIP Call Because New Jersey Has Existing 

Rules that will Further Reduce Ozone and its Precursors. 

Many ofNew Jersey's rules to control air emissions are more stringent than similar rules in other 

states. New Jersey will further cut NOx emissions after the summer of 2013, when the high 

ozone levels were detected in Connecticut. For example, to comply with New Jersey NOx 

RACT rules, about 5,000 MW of New Jersey turbines that operate on High Electric Demand 

Days (HEDD) will be replaced or will install NOx emissions controls by May 1, 2015. Since 

High Electric Demand Days generally coincide with high ozone days, this change in New 

Jersey's peak demand power plants will have a significant ozone benefit. A list of all the New 

Jersey control measures that will contribute to emissions reductions after 2013 is included in 

Table 7. 

Since 1990, New Jersey has reduced its total summer NOx and VOC emissions over 60%. New 

Jersey has enforceable performance standards for NOx and VOC emissions from power plants 

and other sources, which are among the most effective air pollution control regulations in the 

country. The following is a list of some of New Jersey's measures to control emissions of ozone 

precursors: 

• NOx RACT rules include 3-hour or 24-hour ozone season emission limits for existing 

sources ofNOx, including all existing coal, oil and gas-fired power plants. 

• New and modified major facilities are subject to more stringent NOx emission limits than 

RACT to meet federal and State new source review (NSR) requirements as required by 

the Clean Air Act. Such major new equipment must achieve the lowest achievable 

emission rates. 

• Advances in the art of air pollution control for significant equipment at minor facilities 

must be applied to new, significant VOC and NOx sources of air pollution, including 

domes on new gasoline storage tanks (LAER). 

• All major facility permits for new sources issued in New Jersey limit NOx emissions 

based on 3-hour or 24-hour averaging times. These shorter averaging times lower NOx 

emissions on a daily basis during the summertime (when they are needed to control 

outdoor ozone levels), rather than allowing facilities to emit high levels ofNOx during a 

summer day, while still meeting an annual or ozone season cap. 

• The NOx RACT and NSR requirements in New Jersey more effectively control ozone 

levels than do the USEPA's air transport rules (Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)) because New Jersey's facilities must meet daily 

NOx performance standards for all units, while facilities in other States may, under the 

federal rules, purchase allowances to cover their excess emissions on high ozone days. 

• New Jersey's NOx RACT performance standards require advanced NOx emission 

controls for existing power plants that operate on High Electric Demand Days (HEDD) . 

The HEDD units in New Jersey typically are fueled with gas or oil. 

18 
• New Jersey has one of the most stringent Motor Vehicle Control programs allowed by 

law. New car and trucks must use the most stringent emission standards established. 

Gasoline must meet the federal reformulated gasoline specification. Diesel fuel must 

meet the federal low sulfur fuel requirements. 

• New Jersey has a statewide motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance program that 

ensures New Jersey's motor vehicles operate with acceptable levels of emissions. 

• New Jersey has statewide restrictions limiting engine idling for both diesel and gasoline 

on-road vehicles and non-road mobile sources. 

New Jersey should not be included in the SIP Call considering the effectiveness of its rules for 

reducing emissions of ozone precursors. If other contributing states adopted similar NOx and 

VOC rules, then the NNJ-NYC-CT nonattainment area likely would have continued to meet the 

old 85 ppb ozone standard and possibly the current 75 ppb ozone standard. 

Table 7: Actions and Measures with Expected NOx and VOC Emission 

R d e UC t• Ions ID ' N ew J ersey a f ter 2013 

State or 

Federal Actions and Measures Pollutant 

New Jersey EGU: BL England Administrative Consent Order Phase 2 NOx 

New Jersey EGU Rule (other than consent decrees and ACOs) NOx 

New Jersey EGU: High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Phase 2 Power Plant NOx 

Performance Standards (Dirty Turbines) 

New Jersey Large Gasoline Storage Tanks voe 

New Jersey New Jersey Clean Construction Program NOx 

Federal and Onroad Motor Vehicle Fleet Turnover NOx, voe 

New Jersey 

Federal and Refinery Consent Decree (Hess) NOx, voe 

New Jersey 

Federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) NOx 

Coal- and oil-fired EGUs 

Nonroad Diesel Engines: 

Federal ~ 50 hp NOx, voe 

All engine sizes 

s; 50 hp 

Federal Nonroad: Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Category 3 Tier 3 NOx, voe 

Federal Nonroad: Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition NOx, voe 

Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder Tier 4 

Federal Nonroad Equipment and Vehicle Turnover NOx, voe 

Federal RICE MACT NOx 

Legend/Notes: 

EGU - Electric Generating Unit (Power Plant) 

RICE = Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

MACT = Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

19 
9. The Proposed SIP Call Should be Withdrawn Because it is Contrary to the President's 

Initiative for "Common Sense" Regulation and to USEPA's Desire to Streamline the SIP 

Process 

In 2011 , President Obama directed federal agencies22 to "offer and support flexible, common 

sense approaches" toward improving regulation and regulatory review. The proposed SIP Call 

is contrary to the President's direction in that it would, if finalized, direct state and federal 

resources on an outdated ozone standard and divert them from the more protective 75 ppb ozone 

standard. 

The issuance of this SIP Call is also contradictory to the USEPA's SIP streamlining efforts to 

avoid unnecessary process and paperwork. Since 2010, the USEPA has been working with the 

states through the NACAA-ECOS-EPA SIP Reform Workgroup (SRWG)23 to refine the SIP 

process and improve its efficiency and effectiveness, while ensuring that statutory 

responsibilities to attain the health and welfare standards as expeditiously as practicable are met. 

By this 85 ppb SIP Call, the USEPA is proposing to require states in the NNJ-NYC-CT area to 

develop attainment plans for an old ozone standard, a standard that USEP A has proposed to 

revoke upon promulgation of the 75 ppb Ozone Implementation Rule. Further, given that 

USEPA's own work to support the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards rule 

indicate the area will meet the old 85 ppb standard in the near future (2018), imposing the 85 ppb 

SIP Call on New Jersey, New York and Connecticut makes no sense and seems to be nothing but 

a paperwork exercise with no actual air quality benefit. 

The USEPA recognizes the streamlining opportunity associated with the implementation of75 

ppb standard, and should finalize its proposed implementation rule24 for the 75 ppb standard 

expeditiously. The proposed implementation rule includes requirements that would better 

address ozone than any action that would result from the proposed SIP Call. The proposed SIP 

Call for the old 85 ppb NAAQS should be withdrawn. 

22 76 FR 3821 (January 2 1, 2011), Executive Order 13563 ofJanuary 18, 2011. 23 The workgroup included representatives from state air agencies, USEPA Regional Offices, and members of the 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) and Environmental Council of States (ECOS.) 24 78 FR 34178 (June 6, 2013). 

20