## ~bde of**~**

## efu JjerselZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL MAN AG EMENT CHRIS CHRISTIE Governor KIM GUADAGNO Lt. Gov ernor

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 ofDetermination ofAttainment 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 ofthis letter is to transmit comments on the proposed Rescission of D e termination of Attainment and CallforAttainment Plans for New York , Ne w Jersey and Connecticutfor the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NationalAmbientAir Quality Standard for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Ar ea 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 o zone standard. Any exceedance ofthe old 85 ppb o zone standard results from the USEP A ' s failure to timely address interstate transport ofo zone and its precursors. USEPA should focus its attention on reducing emissions from upwind sources ofozone 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 propo sed SIP Call that ultimately results in a paperwork exercise that will have little or no meaningful impact on air quality or o zone transport.

N

e w Jerse y is an Eq ual Opporlunity E m

ployer , P rint ed on Recycl ed Paper and Recyclabl eBackground New Jersey is part ofthe 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 USEPA 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) , ifmodified by USEPA to require operation ofair pollution controls in other states, will also bring the area into attainment based on USEPA's CSAPR analysis. · Ozone Transport The USEPA 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 ofthe 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 ofCSAPR to address the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS. Coming into attainment for the 75 ppb standard will, ofcourse, mean that New Jersey has also attained the 85 ppb ozone standard. Conclusion New Jersey has aggressively cut emissions ofozone 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 ofthe 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 USEPA forgo action on the proposed SIP Call and instead focus its resources - and state resources - on implementation ofthe 75 ppb ozone standard and ozone transport. More detailed comments on the proposed SIP Call are attached to this letter. 

### Ifyou have any questions regarding these comments , please do not hesitate to contact William O'Sullivan, Director, Division ofAir Quality at (609) 984-1484.

Jane Kozinski, Esq. Assistant Commissioner

c: Bob Martin, Commissioner Judith Enck, USEPA 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, 20141. 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 ofthe 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 ofnew 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 2018 2
, 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 ofexisting 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 ofthe 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 ofthe New Jersey Reasonably Available Control Technology rules 5 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 ofthe recently updated Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules in New York 6 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/R

14

-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 ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia 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 J ersey Pas s aic 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 b eca use ozone levels in the NNJ

-NYC-CT area will b e 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 neede d for the area to meet the o ld 85 ppb ozone standard. Therefore, the USEP A SIP Ca ll 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 2008 7 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 ofthe 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 ofthis 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. Ofthose 11 areas, a propo sed 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 Baltim ore, 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 Wa s hington, DC-MD
-VA 87 Yes 79 No No C in c inn ati-Hami lton, OH-KY- IN 85 Yes 79 No No

44. 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 ofthe more protective 75 ppb standard
. That path forward makes sense, both in terms ofair quality improvements and prudent use ofdiminishing state resources. USEPA should finalize that decision and focus its resources on the finalization ofthe 75 ppb ozone Implementation Rule and not finalize this 85 ppb SIP Call. In the 75 ppb proposed Implementation Rule, USEPA emphasized the importance ofproviding 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 [75ppb ozone standard] bypromulgating a number of national regulations that willprovide significant reductions in ozoneprecursors." 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 redundantplanning efforts." 1 2 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 7 8 FR 34215 (June 6, 2013)
. 12 78 FR34215 (June 6, 2013).

55. 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 ifthe 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. 1 3 A summary ofUSEPA's CSAPR analysis is set forth in Table 5
. The analysis assumed implementation ofstate-level CSAPR caps , and compliance by power plants with the CSAPR caps every summer, including operation ofinstalled air pollution controls
. However, as indicated in Table 6 , some states exceed their CSAPR ozone season caps because of the flaws in the current USEPA 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 ofthe ozone season. Further, USEPA has announced its intent to propose a new transport rule to address the interstate transport ofozone 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 -200 9 -0491-4140.

6

### Table 5: 2014 

### Ozone Design Values for the NNJ-NYC-CT Nonattainment Area C f 

### l d. th B fit f 

### th CSAPR

oun 1es me u mg e ene 1 so e 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 8 1 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 7 1 Yes New York Bronx 67 Yes New York Bronx 69 Yes New York Queens 62 Yes New York Queens 72 Yes New York Richmond 8 1 Yes New York Suffolk 82 Yes New York Su ffolk 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 )f, C N 

### J N Y k 

### dP l ODS 

### or onnectlcut, ew ersey, ew or an ennsy vama (ton s) Actual E missions 14 CSAPR Bud2ets State 2010 2011 2012 2013 2012-2013 2014 CT 1 :, 1 ,8 46 854 709 579 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 C lean Air Markets Division at http ://ampd.epa.gov /a

mpd / 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 

## IC P A ONJ • N Y 

## •CT I

In June 2010, New York updated its Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules. 1 7 It projected that the updated rules would reduce emis sions ofoxides ofnitrogen (NOx ) by almost 30,000 tons per year and almost 80 tons/day from 2007 levels beginning in July 2014. 1 8 In 2009, New Jersey updated its Reasonable Available Control Technology rules. 1 9 The air quality benefits from these rules can partially be seen in the reduced ozone levels in New Jersey,

16 Air Quality Modeling Final Rul e Technical Support Document, June 2011 , EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140. 176 NYCRR Part 227-2 18 7 8 FR 21306 (April 10, 2013). 19 40 N.J.R. 4390(a) and 41 N.J.R l 752(a) (March 20, 2009)
.
8see Figure 2. Phase 2 ofthe 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 ofold, dirty boilers and singlecycle turbines will be replaced with new, lower-emitting units, and that 1 ,400 MW ofthe 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- ·9 1
. '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 emiss ions control technology. For example, Figure 3, shows the ozone season emission rate for selected facilities. The faci lities 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 facil ities are complying with NOx emissions limits by buying NOx allowances in the CAIR market instead ofrunning their emissions controls. Although this practice is lawful under the cap and trade framework ofthe CAIR, as well as regulations in Pennsylvania, it significantly contributes to ozone during ozone season. And that contributes to ozone problems in states downwind ofPennsylvania. New Jersey prohibits this practice by requiring that power plants comply with daily emission rates during the ozone season.

9Pennsylvania recently proposed updates to its Reasonably Available Control Technology Rules. 20 Unfortunately, this proposal would , ifimplemented, 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 ofexisting SCR NOx control. The proposed 85 ppb ozone SIP Call will not solve the problem and impo ses 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. 2 3 92 (April 19 , 20 14)

107. 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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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 ofnitrogen (NOx ) and volatile organic compounds. Adding to this complexity, and largely ignored by the USEPA 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 ofmiles, depending on such factors as wind and weather patterns. To get elevated levels ofozone 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 ofthe ozone formation in the nonattainment area, as well as, the presence of "nocturnal jets" ofozone 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 ofthi s daily-formed ozone will become part ofthe next night's transported aloft o zone, continuing a cycle oftransport. 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 ofozone occurred in the NNJ

- NYC-CT nonattairunent area and throughout the northeast region on June 20

- 2 1 , 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).

2 1htt p: //www.mde.maryland.gov/programs/ResearchCenter/ReportsandPublications/eMDE/Pages /researchcenter/ pub lication s/general/eMDE /vol5no2/Articlel .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)

12Hourly 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 ofthe 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 oftwo 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 ofthese 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%. IfSCRs 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 ofoperation. 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 ofthe 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 o zone formation and transport to downwind areas that record the unhealthful ozone levels from upwind emissions. The USEPA's failure to address the daily nature ofozone formation in its policies continues to lead to unhealthy air quality and health impacts on the citizens ofthis nation. The three state SIP Call does nothing to address the problem.

13Figure 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 20,0 00

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

The descriptive te rms used in the figures are defined as follows:

• Dirty Turbines : Com bustion 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: Com bined cy cle Electric Gene rating Units , which fire almost exclus ively with natural gas; • Poorly Controlled Coal: Coal-fired Electr ic Ge ne

rating Unit boilers that do not have Selective Ca talytic Reduction installed ; • Shutdown or C urtailed Cont rols Coal: NOx emis sions from coal-fired Electr ic Generating Unit boilers that installed Selective Catalytic Reduction and are either not operating it or operating it at a greatly red uced ca pacity 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 NO xEmissions During a High Ozone Episode

70 ,000

-

::, 0 .,: 60,000

50,000 

# ! 40,000



## ... 

# i

.. 5 ? 3 0,000 

### 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

1 5

### Figure 8: New Jersey Power Plant NO xEmissions During a High Ozone Episode



### & .c**~** 

# .. 70 , 0 00 ~-------------------------------------

60,000

----------------------------------------------- - ------ ---------------

50, 0 00 +-------

;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

1 6

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

;; 0 .c .; . ···-··· ·- ··-----·-----·-- 

### --------------------·--------

7 0 ,000

60,000

---

50,000
:!° 40 ,000 · ..,



# I 

# l_ c 

## i**~** c 

## i 3 0 ,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
• Poorl y C

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

178. 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 of2013, when the high ozone levels were detected in Connecticut. For example, to comply with New Jersey NOx RACT rules, about 5,000 MW ofNew 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 ofall 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 ofNew Jersey 's measures to control emissions ofozone 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.

1 8• New Jersey has one ofthe 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 ofemissions
.
• 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 ofits rules for reducing emissions ofozone precursors. Ifother 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 t• ' 

### N J f 

### 2013

e UC 

### Ions ID 

### ew ersey a ter 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 E lectric Demand Day (HEDD) Phase 2 Power Plant NOx Performance Standards (Dirty Turbines) New J e rsey Large Gasoline Storage Tanks 

### voe New Jersey New Jersey C lean Constru ction Program NOx Federal a nd Onroad Motor Vehicle Fleet Turnover NOx, 

### voe New Jersey Federal and Refinery Con sent Decree (Hess) NOx, 

### voe New Jersey

Federa l Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) NOx Coa l- and oil-fired EGUs Nonroad Dies el Engines : Federal**~** 50 hp NOx, 

### voe All eng ine si zes s; 50 hp Federal Nonroad: Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Category 3 Tier 3 NOx, 

### voe Federa l Nonroad: Locomotive E ngines and Marine Compress ion-I gn iti on NOx, 

### voe Eng in es Less Than 30 Liters per Cylind er 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

199. 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 agencies 22 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, iffinalized, direct state and federal resources on an outdated ozone standard and divert them from the more protective 75 ppb o zone standard
. The issuance ofthis 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)2 3 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 USEPA has proposed to revoke upon promulgation ofthe 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 w ith 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 , 20 11) , Executive Order 13563 ofJanuary 1 8, 2011. 23 The wor kgroup included representatives from state air agencies, US EPA Regional Offices, and members ofthe National Association of C lean Air Age n cies (NACAA) and Environmental Council of States (ECOS.) 24 78 FR 34 1 78 (June 6 , 20 13).

20