# State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Regional Haze

Final

July 2009Preface

Pursuant to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (Sections 169 and 169A of the Clean Air Act) and the Federal Regional Haze Rules at 40 C.F.R. § 51.308, New Jersey is fi nalizing a revision to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan to addr ess the requirements for improving visibility in the mandatory Class I Federal areas, including th e Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Ref uge. Elements of this State Implementation Plan address the Federal requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d) and the Best Available Retrofit Technology components of 40 C.F.R. 51.308(e). In addition, this State Implementation Plan addresses Regional Planning, State and Federa l Land Manager coordination, and contains a commitment to provide State Implementation Plan revisions and adequacy determinations in the future as required by 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 (f) and (g), which require the State to submit periodicimplementation plan upgrades and progress reports. This document outlines New Jersey’s longterm plan for dealing with visibility-impairing air pollution within its borders and from out-of-state sources that transport emissions to New Jersey’s Federal Clean Air Act defined Class I area.

Acknowledgments

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection acknowledges the efforts and assistance of the many agencies and individu als whose contributions were inst rumental in the preparation of this State Implementation Plan Revision. In particular, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection wishes to acknowledge the many individuals within the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, in particular the staff and management of the Brigantine Wilderness Area and the Air Qualit y Branch; the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2; the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union; the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management; and the Mid-A tlantic Regional Air Management Association; as well as staff within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for their assistance and guidance.

iiTable of Contents

Preface ....................................................................................................................... ................. ii Acknowledgments................................................................................................................ ........... ii
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. .............iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ................ vi List of Figures................................................................................................................ ............... vii List of Appendices ............................................................................................................. ..........viii Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... .... x Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. ....... xiv

1.0 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE REGIONAL HAZE
REGULATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ....1-1 1.2 Description of the Brigantine Wilderness Area .......................................................... 1-2 1.3 Regional Haze in the Brigantine Wilderness Area...................................................... 1-3 1.4 The Regional Haze Visibility Equation....................................................................... 1-6

2.0 GENERAL PLANNING PROVISIONS .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Regional Planning .......................................................................................................2 -1
2.2 State and Federal Land Manager Coordination...........................................................2-2

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE AND NATURAL CONDITIONS WITHIN
THE BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA.............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Requirement, Data and Methods Used........................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Baseline and Natural Visibility at the Brigantine Wilderness Area............................ 3-1 3.3 Visibility Trends at the Brigantine Wilderness Area .................................................. 3-2

4.0 MONITORING STRATEGY FOR VI SIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN THE
BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA ...................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ....4-1 4.2 Monitoring Information and Strategy fo r the Brigantine Wilderness Class I Area ....4-1

5.0 EMISSION INVENTORY.......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Regional Emission Inventory Development................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Regional Emission Inventory Pollutants and Sectors.................................................. 5-3 5.2 Regional Emission Inventory Summary...................................................................... 5-3 5.2.1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).......................................................................... 5-6 5.2.3 Oxides of Nitrogen ..................................................................................................... . 5-8 5.2.4 Primary Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) ........................................................... 5-10 5.2.5 Ammonia Emissions (NH 3 )....................................................................................... 5-13 5.3 Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules ....................................................... 5-16

6.0 BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART)..................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ....6-1

iii6.2 Description of BART-Eligible Sour ces in the State of New Jersey............................6-2 6.3 Determination of BART Requirements for Identified BART-Eligible Sources and Analysis of the Best System of Control for Each Source ....................................6-3 6.4 Analysis of Visibility Improvement Achievable from all BART Sources in the Region ............................................................................................................... 6-6

7.0 CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT OF STATES CAUSING OR
CONTRIBUTING TO VISI BILITY IMPAIRMENT IN THE BRIGANTINE
WILDERNESS AREA................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ....7-1
7.2 Contribution Assessment............................................................................................. 7-1
7.3 Contribution Assessments Based on Emissions Inventories....................................... 7-2
7.3.1 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Divided by Distance..........................................................7-2 7.3.2 Emissions times Up wind Probability ..........................................................................7-4
7.4 Contribution Assessments Based on Dispersion Models............................................7-7
7.5 Contribution Assessments Based on Grid Models...................................................... 7-8
7.5.1 Model Performance Evaluation .............................................................7-10
7.6 Identification of States that Contribute to Visibility Impairment at the Brigantine
Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................ 7-10
7.7 Notification............................................................................................................. ...7-11 7.8 New Jersey’s Contribution to Other Class I Areas....................................................7-12

8.0 REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS AND LONG TERM STRATEGY ............... 8

- 1
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ....8-1 8.2 Brigantine Wilderness Area Visibility Goal ............................................................... 8-1
8.3 The Process............................................................................................................... ...8-1 8.3.1 Identifying Reasonable Controls and the Four Factor Analysis.................................. 8

- 2
8.3.2 Consultation........................................................................................................... ......8-3
8.3.3 “Asks” ................................................................................................................. ........8-4
8.4 Reasonable Measures for Br igantine – Regional Measures........................................8-5

8.4.1 MANE-VU States........................................................................................................ 8 -6
8.4.2 Areas outside MANE-VU ........................................................................................... 8-7 8.5 Reasonable Progress Goal fo r Brigantine Wilderness Area........................................ 8-8

8.6 CAIR Vacatur..................................................................................8-10 8.7 Baseline Inventory and Projections........................................................................... 8-11
8.8 Model Performance Evaluation..............................................................8-11

9.0 NEW JERSEY ACTIONS .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 BART ..................................................................................................................... .....9-1 9.2 EGU Strategy ............................................................................................................. . 9-1 9.3 Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy...................................................................................... 9-2 9.4 Energy Efficiency........................................................................................................ 9-2
9.5 Additional Class I St ate Required Measures............................................................... 9-2 9.5.1 Measures to Mitigate the Imp acts from Construction Activities ................................ 9-3 9.5.2 Fugitive Dust .......................................................................................................... .....9-4 9.5.3 Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management.............................................9-4

iv9.5.3.1 Open burning......................................................................................................... ......9-4 9.5.3.2 Prescribed Burning .................................................................................................... ..9-5 9.5.3.3 Agricultural Management Burning ............................................................................. 9-6 9.6 Residential Wood Burning Strategies .........................................................................9-6 9.7 Measures to Reduce Organic Carbon Emissions............................................9-6

10.0 COMMITMENTS ..................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Control Measure Commitments ................................................................................ 10

- 1
10.2 Other Commitments .................................................................................................. 10

- 3 10.2.1 Visibility............................................................................................................. .......10-3 10.2.2 Consultation with Federal Land Managers ...............................................................10-4 10.2.3 Monitoring............................................................................................................. ....10-4 10.2.4 Emission Inventory........................................................................... 10-4 10.2.5 Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions........................................ 10-4 10.2.6 State Requests of USEPA......................................................................................... 10-4
10.2.6.1 IMPROVE Network ................................................................................................. 10-4 10.2.6.2 New Jersey’s Reliance on Other St ate Actions for Reaching Reasonable Progress Goal ........................................................................................................... 10- 4 10.2.6.3 Federal Funding to Support Regi onal Haze Efforts and the Regional Organizations............................................................................................................. 10 -5 10.2.6.4 Federal Requirement to Obtain Additional Air Pollution Reductions from EGUs, Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers and Other Major Sources..........10-5
10.3 Commitments for Mid-Course Review......................................................10-5

11.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...................................................................................... 11-1

vList of Tables

Table 2.1: Mid-Atlantic/N ortheast Visibility Uni on Members* (MANE-VU) ....................... 2-1 Table 3.1: Visibility Information for the Brigantine Wilderness Area .................................... 3-2 Table 6.1: BART-Eligible Facilitie s in the State of New Jersey...................................6-3 Table 6.2: Anticipated Schedule for BART Determinations........................................6-6
Table 7.1: 2002 SO 2 Emissions over Distance Impact (ug/m 3 ) ............................................... 7-3
Table 7.2: 2002 SO 2 Upwind Probability ................................................................................7-6
Table 7.3: State Invited to Consult on Es tablishing New Jersey's Class I Area 2018
Reasonable Progress Goal..................................................................7-12 Table 8.1: Visibility Goals for the Brigantine Wilderness Area.....................................8-1
Table 8.2: Reasonable Measures for MANE -VU States ("Asks" Within MANE-VU) .........8-6

Table 8.3: Reasonable Measures for non-M ANE-VU States ("Asks" Outside MANE-VU)....8-7

Table 8.4: Reasonable Pr ogress Goals for the Brigantine Wilderness Area..................... .8-9 Table 10.1: Regional Haze State C ontrol Measure Commitments..................................10-1
Table 10.2: Additional State Control Measures that Support Regional Haze Goals..............10-2
Table 10.3: Potential Future State Control Meas ures or Programs that Support Regional Haze
Goals..........................................................................................10-3

viList of Figures

Figure 1.1 Map of Brigantine Wilderness Area...................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1.2 Pictures from Brigantine Wilderness Area............................................................ 1-3 Figure 1.3 Schematic of Visibililty Impairment Due to Light Scattering and Absorption.....1-4 Figure 1.4 Brigantine Wilder ness Area on a Clear Day .........................................................1-5 Figure 1.5 Brigantine Wilder ness Area on a Hazy Day .........................................................1-5 Figure 2.1 Regional Planning Organizati ons for Regional Haze............................................ 2-2 Figure 3.1 Trends in Visibility Levels at the Brigantine Wilderness Area 1993 to 2005 ...... 3-3 Figure 4.1 The IMPROVE Monitor at the Brigantine Wilderness Area – BRIGI ................. 4-2 Figure 5.1 MANE-VU State Level Sulfur Dioxide Emissions............................................... 5-3 Figure 5.2 2002 Annual SO 2 Emissions ................................................................................. 5-4 Figure 5.3 2018 Annual SO 2 Emissions ................................................................................. 5-4 Figure 5.4 MANE-VU State Level VOC Emissions .............................................................. 5-5 Figure 5.5 2002 Annual VOC Emissions .............................................................................. 5-6 Figure 5.6 2018 Annual VOC Emissions .............................................................................. 5-6 Figure 5.7 MANE-VU State Level Nitrogen Oxide Emissions.............................................. 5-7 Figure 5.8 2002 Annual NO X Emissions ................................................................................ 5-8 Figure 5.9 2018 Annual NO

x Emissions ................................................................................. 5-8 Figure 5.10 MANE-VU State Level Primary PM 10 Emissions ................................................ 5-9 Figure 5.11 MANE-VU State Level Primary PM 2.5 Emissions................................................ 5-9 Figure 5.12 2002 Annual Primary PM 10 Emission ................................................................. 5-10 Figure 5.13 2002 Annual Primary PM 2.5 Emissions............................................................... 5-11 Figure 5.14 2018 Annual Primary PM 10 Emissions................................................................ 5-11 Figure 5.15 2018 Annual Primary PM 2.5 Emissions............................................................... 5-12 Figure 5.16 MANE-VU State Leve l Ammonia Emissions .................................................... 5-13 Figure 5.17 2002 Annual NH 3 Emissions............................................................................... 5-14 Figure 5.18 2018 Annual NH 3 Emissions............................................................................... 5-14 Figure 7.1 Role of Sulfate in Visibility Impairme nt at Brigantine Wilderness Area ............. 7-1 Figure 7.2 Cumulative Sulfate Contributions to th e Brigantine Wilderness Area Based on Emission Divided by Distance (Q/d) Results...........................................7-4 Figure 7.3 Cumulative Sulfate Cont ributions to the Brigantine Wilderness Area Based on Emissions times Upwind Proba bility (E x UP) Results ........................................7-6 Figure 7.4 Modeled 2002 Contributions to Sulfate by State at Brigantine.............................7-7 Figure 7.5 Modeled 2002 Contributions to Sulfate by State at Brigantine......................7-8 Figure 7.6 States Identified as Contributing to Visibility Impairment in New Jersey's
Class I Area ................................................................................7- 0 Figure 8.1 Projected Visibility Improvement at Brigantine Wilderness Area Based on Best and Final Modeling ............................................................................ 8-9

viiList of Appendices

Appendix A: Background and History of the Re gional Haze Rule and the Clean Air Act
Amendments Appendix B: Overview of MANE -VU Roles and Responsibilities Appendix C*: Documentation of Consultations Within and Outside MANE-VU Appendix C-1*: Summary of Consulta tions Between the MANE-VU States Appendix C-2*: MANE-VU Inter RPO Consultation Briefing Book Appendix C-3*: Inter-RPO State/Trib al and FLM Consultation Framework Appendix D*: MANE-VU Stat ements and Principles Appendix D-1*: Statement of the Mid-Atlantic /Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Acti on within MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress Appendix D-2*: Statement of the Mid-Atlantic /Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE- VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress Appendix D-3*: Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast-Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action by th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) towa rd Assuring Reasonable Progress Appendix D-4*: MANE-VU Final Inter im Principles for Regional Planning Appendix E*: Baseline and Natural Background Visibility Conditions – Considerations and Proposed Approach to the Calculation of Baseline and Natural Background Visibility Conditi ons at MANE-VU Class I Areas NESCAUM, December 2006) Appendix F*: Emission Inventory Appendix F-1*: Technical Support Docume ntation for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3 (E. H. P echan & Associates, Inc., November 2006) Appendix F-2*: Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for Non- EGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region (MACTEC, February 2007) Appendix F-3*: Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures. OTC Final Technical Support Document (MACTEC, February 28, 2007) Appendix G*: BART Documentation Appendix G-1*: Regional Haze Regulat ions; Final Rule (July 1, 1999) Appendix G-2*: Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinati ons; Final Rule (July 6, 2005) Appendix G-3*: Regional Haze Regulations; Revi sions to Provisions G overning Alternative to Source-Specific Best Av ailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule (October 13, 2006) Appendix G-4*: Five-Factor Analysis of BART -Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting BART Determinations (June 2007) Appendix G-5*: New Jersey Letters to BART Facilities dated November 1, 2006 Appendix G-6: Responses to New Jersey Lette rs to BART Facilities dated November 1,

2006

*Note: These appendices and attachme nts are only available electronically

viiiAppendix G-7*: New Jersey Letters to BART Facilities dated March 3, 2009 Appendix G-8: Responses to New Jersey Lette rs to BART Faciliti es dated March 3, 2009 Appendix G-9*: PSEG Fossil LLC. Consent Decree Appendix G-10*: PSEG Fossil LLC. Amendment to 2002 Consent Decree Fact Sheet (USEPA, November 2006) Appendix G-11*: PSEG Fossil LLC. Amended Consent Decree Appendix G-12*: Coastal Eagle Po int (Sunoco) Consent Decree Appendix G-13*: Coastal Eagle Point (Sunoco) Amended Consent Decree Appendix G-14*: Conoco Phillips Consent Decree Appendix G-15*: Conoco Phillips Company No tice of Lodging of First Amendment to

Consent Decree Appendix H*: MANE-VU Contribution Assessment Appendix H-1*: Contribution to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States (NESCAUM, August 2006) (aka MANE-VU Contribution Assessment Report) Appendix H-1*: Attachment 1 : Appendix A: Application of Tr ajectory Analysis Methods to
Sulfate Source Attribut ion Studies in the Northeast United States Appendix H-1*: Attachment 2 : Appendix A – Brigantine Supplement: Trajectory Analysis Results at Brigantine Appendix H-1*: Attachment 3 : Appendix A – New York City Supplement: Trajectory Analysis Results at Queens College, New York City Appendix H-1*: Attachment 4 : Appendix A – Multiple Site Averages Supplement: Trajectory Analysis Results at Multiple Sites Appendix H-1*: Attachment 5 : Appendix B: Source Attrib ution by Receptor-Based
Methods Appendix H-1*: Attachment 6 : Appendix C: Chemical Trans port Model Results for Sulfate
Source Attribution Studies in the No rtheast United States – Model Description and Performance Evaluation Appendix H-1*: Attachment 7 : Appendix D: Development of Parallel CALPUFF Dispersion Modeling Platforms for Sulfate Sour ce Attribution Studies in the Northeast
United States Appendix I*: Letters of contribution Sent by New Jersey and Responses from States Appendix I-1*: New Jersey Letters to States Appendix I-2*: New Jersey Responses from States Appendix J*: Visibility Modeling Analysis Appendix J-1*: 2018 Visibility Pr ojections (NESCAUM, May 2008) Appendix J-2*: Documentation of 2018 Emissions from Electric Generating Units in the
United States for MANE-VU’s Regional Haze Modeling (Alpine Geophysics LLC, April 2008) (aka Alpine Report) Appendix K*: Comments on MANE-VU Final Modeling Appendix L*: Top 167 EGU Units in the Ea stern United States – Developed by MANE-

VU Appendix M: Control Measure Descriptions

*Note: These appendices and attachme nts are only available electronically

ixAppendix N*: Reference Documentation Appendix N-1*: Assessment of Reasonable Pr ogress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas (MACTEC, July 2007) (aka the Reasonable Progress Report) Appendix N-2*: MANE-VU Modeling fo r Reasonable Progress Goals: Model Performance Evaluation, Pollution Apportionment, and Control Measure Benefits (NESCAUM, February 2008) Appendix O: Public Participation Appendix O-1: Notice of Availability Appendix O-2: Documentation of the Notices that Appeared in the Newspapers and the New Jersey Register Appendix O-3: Response to Comment Document

*Note: These appendices and attachme nts are only available electronically

xAcronyms and Abbreviations

μg/m 3 Micrograms per cubic meter
AL Alabama
APA Administrative Procedures Act
APCA Air Pollution Control Act
AR Arkansas
BART Best Available Retrofit Technology
BC British Columbia BOTW Beyond on the Way
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CARB California Air Resources Board CENRAP Central Regional Air Planning Association CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMU Carnegie Mellon University
CO Carbon monoxide
CT Connecticut
DE Delaware
DC District of Columbia
dv Deciview EGU Electric Generating Unit FLM Federal Land Manager GA Georgia HEDD High Electrical Demand Day HYSPLIT Hybrid Single-Particle La grangian Integrated Trajectory
ICI Industrial/Comme rcial/Institutional I/M Inspection and Maintenance IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
IN Indiana IPM Integrated Planning Model KY Kentucky
LEV Low Emission Vehicle
MA Massachusetts
MACT Maximum Availa ble Control Technology
MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/North east Visibility Union MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MD Maryland
ME Maine MI Michigan MM5 Mesoscale Meteorological Model
MN Minnesota
MO Missouri MS Mississippi MW Megawatt

xiMWRPO Midwest Regional Planning Organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NC North Carolina
ND North Dakota
NE Nebraska NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESCAUM Northeast States for C oordinated Air Use Management NH New Hampshire

NH 3 Ammonia NJ New Jersey N.J.A.C. New Jersey Administrative Code NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection N.J.S.A. New Jersey Statutes Annotated NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle Program
NOAA National Oceanic and A tmospheric Administration

NO 2 Nitrogen dioxide

NO

x Oxides of Nitrogen

NO y Total reactive nitrogen
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NTE Not-To-Exceed
NWS National Weather Service
NY New York
OH Ohio ORVR Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
OTB On the Books OTC Ozone Transport Commission OTW On the Way PA Pennsylvania
PM Particulate Matter

PM 2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (p articles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers)

PM 10 Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers ppm Parts per million PSEG Public Service Enterprise Group RACT Reasonably Availa ble Control Technology REMSAD Regulatory Modeling Syst em for Aerosols and Deposition
RI Rhode Island RPG Reasonable Progress Goal RPO Regional Planning Organization
SC South Carolina
SD South Dakota SIP State Implementation Plan

SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO 4 Sulfate

SO

x Oxides of Sulfur

xiiSOA Secondary organic aerosol

TN Tennessee

TX Texas USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.C. United States Code VA Virginia VISTAS Visibility Improveme nt State and Tribal Association of the Southeast VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VT Vermont
WI Wisconsin WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership WV West Virginia

xiiiExecutive Summary

This revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is New Jersey’s first step to address visibility impairment and meet the Federal Clean Air Act re quirement to reach natural visibility conditions at the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey by 2064. This plan establishes the baseline and natural visibility conditions, identi fies the states which contribute to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area, and establishes the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal. This plan also addresses New Jersey’s contribu tion to visibility impairment in Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine, Great Gu lf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area in New Hampshire, Ly ebrook Wilderness Area in Vermont, and the Brigantine Wilderness Area. Facilities in New Jers ey which are subject to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) are identified, and plans to address determina tions and installation of BART are included in this plan.

Brigantine Wilderness Area

The Brigantine Wilderness Area in the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, in New Jersey, Figure ES.1

, is designated as a Federally protected visibility area or Class I area.

The Brigantine Wilderness Area, a unique and valuable resource, is the home and stop-over point for migratory bird s and water fowl along the eastern coast of our country. Over 290 different species of birds have been observed within the wilderness area. At the peak season for bird migration in early November, concentrations of over 100,000 ducks and geese
have been seen in the saltwater marshes of the refuge. The refuge itself attracts over 300,000 visito rs per year who come to watch the birds or enjoy the scenic views of the Atlantic Ocean, Great Bay, Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Little Egg Harbor area. The exceptional natural character and charm of the Brigantine Wilderness area create an oasis of beauty, Figure ES.2, within the most densely populated state in the nation. Figure ES.1 : Map of Brigantine Wilderness Area

Figure ES.2 : Pictures from the Brigantine Wilderness Area

xivVisibility at Brigantine

Visibility monitoring at the Brigantine Wilderne ss Area is overseen by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and is part of the nationa l Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. Table ES-1 pr esents the baseline vi sibility conditions, the 2018 progress benchmark, the uniform rate of pr ogress, and the 2064 natural background goal.

Table ES.1 : Visibility Information for the Brigantine Wilderness Area

Conditions Deciviews Natural Background Visibility on 20% of worst visibility days (Goal in 2064) 12.2 Average Baseline Visibility on 20% of best visibility days (2000 – 2004) 14.3 Average Baseline Visibility on 20% worst visibility days (2000 – 2004) 29.0 Uniform Rate of Progress in 2018 on the 20% worst visibility days 25.1

Regional Planning Organizations

The USEPA encouraged states to form Regi onal Planning Organizations (RPOs) and work together to address regional haze, Figure ES.3. New Jersey joined with the mid-atlantic and
northeast states to form the Mid-Atlantic – Northeast Visibility Uni on (MANE-VU). MANE-VU and other Regional Planning Organizations worked cooperatively to develop many of the materials utilized
in this SIP revision.

Causes of Visibility Impairment

Visibility impairment is caused by many different pollutants. The largest cont ribution is currently from sulfate, Figure ES.4. For the purposes of the 2018 reasonable progress plan, the SIP focuses on identifying and implementing required measures to reduce sulfate. New Jersey is also implementing measures to reduce carbon emissions, the second largest
contributor to haze. CenRAP WRAP Midwest

VISTAS MANE-VU = OTC

NESCAUM

MARAMA Re gional Planning Organizations for Regional Haz e Figure ES.3 : Regional Planning Organizations for Regional Haze

Figure ES.4 : Role of Sulfate in Visibility Impair ment at Brigantine Wilderness Area

xv 20% Worst Day Mass [2000-2004] 20% Worst Day Haze [2000-2004]

N itrate Soil Coarse

Mass

Soil Elemental

Carbon Elemental
Carbon

Coarse

Mass

Nitrate Organic
Carbon Organic
Carbon Sulfate 20% Worst Day Mass [2000-2004]

SulfateStates Which Contribute to Visibility Impairment

Based on a variety of technical methods, New Jers ey identified 22 states which contributed to visibility impairment at the Brigan tine Wilderness Area, Figure ES.5.

Figure ES.5: States Identified as Contributing to Visibility Impairment in New Jersey’s Class I Area

New Je rsey Illi no is

G e or gi a M ic hi ga n

K entuck y

Te n ne ssee

S outh C arolina M ic higa n

Dela ware Di st rict of C olum bia O hi o

V irg in ia I nd ia n a Ne w Y o rk

P en n sy lva ni a

No r th C a ro lin a W e st V irg in ia M a ryla nd M aine

V er m on t

M a ss ac hu set ts

C on ne ct ic ut

N e w H am p shi re

Rho de Is la nd Iow a

M is so ur i

A rk a ns as

Ala bam a W is co n si n

Louisia na M is si ss ip pi M inne so ta

K ansas

Tex a s N e br a ska Sou th D a ko ta

F lo rid a O k lah o m a No rth D ak ot a

R eason fo r In clu sion

N ot Id entified

MANE-VU Memb er
C ontrib utory to Briga ntin e
New Jersey

Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont determined th at New Jersey contributed to their Class I areas, Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wild erness Area, Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area, a nd Lyebrook Wilderness Area, respectively. These states determined that New Jersey c ontributes to them. Additionally, New Jersey contributes to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

Reasonable Measures and Reasonable Progress Goal

The USEPA regulations set the guidelines for determining the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG). This goal is defined by establishing reas onable measures for New Jersey and the other contributing states to implement to reduce emissi ons. New Jersey worked with the other MANEVU states to identify potential control measures to reduce sulfate emissions from point and area
sources. The State consulted with the other Regional Planning Or ganizations and the contributing
states within MANE-VU regarding the reasonableness of the identified measures. Using input from the consultations, the benefits from the im plementation of the identified measures were modeled to project the 2018 visibility levels. These projections serve as the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal. For the Briganti ne Wilderness Area, the 2018 proj ection is 25.1 deciviews. This projection meets the Uniform Rate of Pr ogress goal set by the USEPA regulations.

The reasonable measures used to set the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal are:

• Timely implementation of the Clean Air Act requirement to install Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) on eligible sources;

• At least 90% SO 2 emission reductions from 2002 levels at the top 100 electric generating unit (EGU) sources that impact the Brigantin e Wilderness Area (for the six MANE-VU visibility protected areas, ther e are 167 different EGU stacks th at impact one or more of these areas);

xvi• For the MANE-VU states, reducing the level of sulfur in fuel oil.

• For the contributing states outside of M ANE-VU, a 28% emission reduction from nonelectric generating un it sources is sought; 1

• Continued evaluation of other measures, incl uding Energy Efficiency, Alternative Clean
Fuels and other measures to reduce SO 2 , PM and NO

x from all coal-burning facilities by 2018, and new source performance standards for wood combustion.

Other measures which were not included in the modeling to determine the 2018 reasonable progress goal are included in New Jersey’s plan s to further improve visibility and reduce fine particle health effects.

New Jersey Actions

• BART

New Jersey identified four petroleum refineries and one electric generating facility as Best Available Retrofit Technology (B ART)-eligible fac ilities potentially subject to those requirements under the Clean Air Act. Existing ru les and consent decrees (CD) are expected to provide most, if not all, BART emission reductions from the affected units. New Jersey sent letters on March 3, 2009, requesting that each facility conduct a BA RT analysis to ensure that
all BART affected units are evaluated for BART and install BART, if not already in place. New Jersey will finalize the BART determinations as single source SIP revisions and also if necessary as operating permit modifications.

• Electric Generating Units

New Jersey is home to four of the 167 EGU stacks identified in the setting of the 2018 reasonable progress goal at Brig antine or one of the five other Class I areas in MANE-VU. New Jersey has addressed emissions from these stacks through ACOs or CDs that require all four facilities to meet performance standards for SO 2 , NO

x , and particulates. For the other electric generating units not sp ecifically identifie d, New Jersey adopted new rules (April 20, 2009 New Jersey Register) to implement a multi-po llutant control strategy to reduce allowable

NO

x , SO 2 , and particulate emissions from all coal-fir ed boilers. Details regarding this rule proposal are available at NJDEP’s website, http:// www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/index.html.

• Sulfur in Fuel Oil

New Jersey intends to propose and adopt rules pursuant to the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (APA), (N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et. Se q.) and the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), (N.J.S.A.26:2C-1 et. Seq.) to modify the sulfur in fuel limits, N.J.A.C. 7:27-9, as outlined in accordance with the definition of reasonable measures, for the MANE-VU strategy. Some areas in New Jersey already meet the MANE-VU limits for heavy oil.

1 New Jersey and the other MANE-VU Class I states are reco mmending that contributing states determine the best way to achieve this level of emission reduction. The 28% repr esents an estimate of the benefits from the MANE-VU fuel oil strategy.

xvii• Energy Master Plan and Greenhouse Gas Plan

New Jersey developed an Energy Master Plan 2 (EMP) to address New Jersey’s electricity and heating challenges. The draft plan was rel eased on April 17, 2008, and finalized on October 22, 2008. One component of the Energy Master Plan addresses ways to increase energy efficiency in the State. New Jersey is also developi ng a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan pursuant to the Global Warming Response Act. Measures which will be implemented as a result of these plans will reduce multiple air contaminants and improve visibility.

• Smoke Management Plan and Construction Activities

Since New Jersey is home to the Federally protected visibility area, the Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey is required by the USEPA rules to:

• Develop and implement a smoke management plan

• Address emissions from construction activities

New Jersey addresses smoke manageme nt through its Open Burning rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-2. New Jersey addresses “fugitive dust” emissions from construction activities through its “Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Standards: Sta ndards for Dust control.” The USEPA has promulgated several regulations which limit exhaus t emissions from non-road vehicles, such as
those used at construction sites. In addition, New Jersey has exis ting rules to limit the idling of vehicles and equipment. New Jersey will consider additional mitigating measures for construction activities on a case-by-case basis depending on the size and nature of the construction work, and the review of the potential emissions on the property in relation to any potential off-site impacts. New Jersey is considering amendm ents to its Open Burning Rule.

• Residential Wood Burning Strategies

Residential wood burning from woodstoves and fireplac es is one of the larg est sources of direct fine particulate matter, PM 2.5 , emissions in New Jersey. New Jers ey is considering strategies to reduce the emissions of wood smoke. Implementation of these strategies w ill reduce fine particle emissions and improve visibility. One strate gy under consideration is a Home Wood Heating Advisory Program, similar to those in Oregon and Washington states. In general, these programs request wood burning be limited during times when unhealthy air quality is forecast or monitored. Other control measures under investigation include woodstove and fireplace change-out programs.

The NJDEP has posted on its website an informa tional webpage regarding techniques for proper wood burning, health effects of wood burning, and links to other useful web pages. 3

2 www.nj.gov/emp

3 http://www.state.nj.us/dep /baqp/woodburning.html

xviii• Measures to Reduce Organic Carbon Emissions

Even though the focus of the Reasonable Progres s Goal is to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, the largest contributor to regional haze, for the 2018 reasonable progress plan, New Jersey is taking actions to reduce emissions of or ganic carbon, the second largest contributor to visibility impairment at Brigantine Wilderne ss Area. Some of New Jersey’s existing and proposed rules which reduce emissions from organic carbon include:

• Existing Diesel Idling (N.J.A.C 7:27-14.3)

o Removes or further limits the exemptions to the State’s idli ng restrictions.

o Removes sleeper berth exemption from vehicles effective May 1, 2010.

o Includes additional idling restrictions for gasoline vehicles

• Existing Open Burning (N.J.A.C 7:27-2)

o One of the most stringent in the na tion to limit or control open burning.

• Existing Industrial, Commercial and Inst itutional (ICI) Boilers (N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.8, - 19.7)

o Sets performance standards for NO

x , CO and VOC which ensure good
combustion.

o Annual tune up requirements which reduces NO

x emission and may also help reduce fuel consumption.

• Existing Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks (N.J.A.C 7:27-14)

o Sets tighter opacity standards for the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

program.

Consultation with the Federal Land Managers

The State of New Jersey coordinated and consulted with the Federal Land Manager for the Brigantine Wilderness Area, which is part of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

, during the development of this SIP, and will continue to do so for future progress reports and plan revisions. Any written comments provided w ill be available for review in the docket.

CAIR Vacatur

On July 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co lumbia Circuit ruled on the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAI R). On December 23, 2008, the court remanded the
CAIR to the USEPA without v acatur of CAIR “so that EPA may remedy CAIR’s flaws in accordance with” the court’s July 2008 opinion vacat ing CAIR. The court gave no deadline for the USEPA rulemaking, but it said:

“[W]e remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fu ndamental flaws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they ma y bring a mandamus petition to this court in the

xixevent that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a ma nner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion.” (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, on re h’g. 550 F.3d 1176 at 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008))

Therefore, the anticipated vacatur no longer appl ies since a mandate was never issued by the court on the July 11, 2008 opinion (State of North Ca rolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). In light of the cour t decisions made after the proposal of the SIP revision, the CAIR remains in full effect at this time.

With the adoption of additional rules on March 20, 2009, NJDEP is not relying on CAIR for emission reductions within New Jersey for the Re gional Haze SIP. NJDEP rules set performance standards for all electric generating units’ sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and direct emissions of particulate matter. This likely addresses BART for EGUs in New Jersey, with the possible exception of other smaller sources, such as coal piles and coal handli ng at the facilities.

In order to address the court’s removal of CAIR, BART a nd other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for EGUs, the USEPA should also adopt performance standards as New Jersey has
done.

xx1.0 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE REGIONAL HAZE
REGULATIONS

1.1 Introduction

The Federal Clean Air Act 4 sets a national goal to restore visi bility to its natu ral conditions in many of the national parks, w ilderness areas and memorial pa rks in the United States of America. New Jersey is home to one of thes e areas, the Brigantine Wilderness Area in the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act of 1977 sets the following national visibility goal:

Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existi ng, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.

The USEPA promulgated rules 5 outlining the requirements for St ates and Tribes to achieve the natural visibility goal by 2064. These rules provide the basis for defining current and future goals for both natural backgr ound and interim milestones, an d a process to achieve the
milestones.

New Jersey is proposing a revision to the New Jers ey State Implementation Plan (SIP) to set the 2018 reasonable progress goals for Brigantine W ilderness Area, and to address New Jersey’s contribution to visibility impairment in Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine, Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presiden tial Range/Dry River Wilderness Area in New Hampshire, Lyebrook Wilderness Area in Vermont, and the Brigantine Wilderness Area. This document outlines New Jersey’s long-term plan ( 2018) for dealing with visibility-impairing air pollution within its borders and from out-of-st ate sources that transport pollution to the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

Elements of this SIP address th e core requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.308(d) and the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) components of 40 C.F.R. 51.308(e). In addition, this SIP addresses regional planning, State and Fede ral Land Manager coordi nation, and contains a commitment to provide SIP revisions and the 2013 progress review as required by 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 (f) and (g) which require the State to su bmit periodic implementation plan upgrades and
progress reports.

Regional Haze is not caused by th e air pollution from any one specific source, but is caused by many air pollution sources located over a wide area. The solution to Regional Haze can only be found by looking at all emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants over a wide geographic area.

More details on the history of the Federal Regional Haze Rule and the 1990 Clean Air Amendments are included in Appendix A. The Federal Regional Haze regulations are included in Appendices G-1, G-2 and G-3.

4 42 U.S.C. § 7491

5 40 C.F.R § 51.300-309

1-11.2 Description of the Br igantine Wilderness Area

The Brigantine Wilderness Area is part of the larger Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and contains areas deserving of special atte ntion as a designated wild erness area and so is protected from human activity and intrusion. The Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. In this document, New Jersey’s Class I area will be called the Brigantine Wilderness Area to mean the smaller area, within the larger Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.

Figure 1.1 : Map of Brigantine Wilderness Area

This unique and valuable resource is the home and stop-over point for migratory birds and water fowl along the eastern coast of our country. Ov er 290 different species of birds have been observed within the wilderness area. At the peak season for bird migration in early November, concentrations of over 100,000 ducks and geese have been seen in the saltwater marshes of the refuge. The refuge itself attracts over 300,000 visito rs per year who come to watch the birds or enjoy the scenic views of the Atlantic Ocean, Great Bay, Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Little Egg
Harbor area.

1-2

# Pictures from the Bri g antine

Wilderness Area Figure 1.2 Pictures from Brigantine Wilderness Area

The nearby attraction of Atlantic City, New Jers ey draws over 35 million visitors per year and the views of the Brigantine Wilderness Area from Atlantic City are enjoyed by all.

The exceptional natural character an d charm of the Brigantine Wilder ness area create an oasis of beauty within the most densely populated state in the nation.

1.3 Regional Haze in the Brigantine Wilderness Area

Regional Haze is caused by the sca ttering or absorption of light par ticles in the atmosphere from air pollution. This absorption a nd scattering effect of fine part icles is illustrated in Figure 1.3.

1-3Figure 1.3

5

This real effect on air quality is further illustra ted on the next page in th e pictures in Figures 1.4 and 1.5 taken at the Brigantine Wilderness Area on a clear day and on a hazy day. Note that the skyline of Atlantic City is visible on the cl ear day and obscured from view on the hazy day.

1-4Figure 1.4 : Brigantine Wilderness Area on a Clear Day 6

Figure 1.5 : Brigantine Wilderness Area on a Hazy Day 9

The haziness seen in the figures represents air pollution arising from local and regional sources to obscure visual range. Diffe rent pollutants have different effects on visibility and a standardized metric (equation) to calculate vi sibility impairment was developed using the known concentrations of the individual pollutants or co mponents. As will be seen in the Regional Haze Visibility Equation in the next section, many of the component s contributing to visibility impairment are the same air pollutants of concern with respect to the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter, namely: sulfat e, nitrate, organic mass and el emental carbon. Fine particulate matter and ozone, formed from oxides of nitroge n and volatile organic co mpounds, are important health concerns in New Jersey as besides contri buting to regional haze and other welfare effects, they also contribute to wide -spread human health effects. 7

6 http://www.hazecam.net/c lass1/brigantine.html

7 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attain ment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Final, October 29, 2007; State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of th e Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality

1-51.4 The Regional Haze Visibility Equation

The degree of visibility impairment is expressed in deciviews, a unitless value. The calculation of visibility impairment utilizes two equations , one to calculate light extinction coefficient (B ext ), and then its transformation into visibility impairme nt as expressed in deciviews (dv). The latest equation, 8 approved by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Steering Committee, to calculate light extinction coefficient is:

B

B ext ≈ 2.2 x f S (RH) x [Small Sulfate] + 4.8 x f L (RH) x [Large Sulfate]
+ 2.4 x f S (RH) x [Small Nitrate] + 5.1 x f L (RH) x [Large Nitrate] + 2.8 x [Small Organi c Mass] + 6.1 x [Large Organic Mass] + 10 x [Elemental Carbon] + 1 x [Fine Soil Mass]
+ 1.7 x f SS (RH) x [Sea Salt Mass] + 0.6 x [Coarse Mass] + Rayleigh Scatte ring (Site Specific) + 0.33 x [NO 2 (ppb)] .........................Equation 1

Where:

B

B ext = The light extinction coeffici ent in inverse megameters [Mm ] -1

f
s (RH) and f L (RH) = Humidity factor associated with small and large mode mass size
distributions

f
ss (RH) = Humidity factor associated with Sea Salt

The on-site air monitoring of visibility causi ng pollutants by the IMPROVE monitoring network
is discussed in more detail in Se ction 4 of this document. In E quation 1, total sulfate, nitrate and organic carbon compound concentr ations are each divided into two particle size fractions, representing small and large si ze particle components. Site -specific Rayleigh scattering is calculated by IMPROVE for the elevation of the site as well as annual average temperature of each IMPROVE monitoring site.

Once light extinction is calculated, visibility leve ls (in deciviews (dv)) can be calculated. The deciview equation is as follows:

Deciviews (dv) = 10 ln (b ext /10)..................................................................Equation 2

where ln is the natural log function and B ext is calculated using the IMPROVE equation previously described. The calculated deciviews are unitless values where the higher the value, the greater amount of visibi lity impairment exists.

Standard, Fine Particulate Matter Attainment Demonstration, Proposal, June 16, 2008.

8 Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients - Final Report Jenny L. Hand and William C. Malm, March 2006

1-6Equations 1 and 2 were used to calculate the baseline a nd projected visibility impairment in the Brigantine Wilderness Area and was used to se t the progress goals as established in this document (see Section 3).

1-72.0 GENERAL PLANNING PROVISIONS

2.1 Regional Planning

When the Regional Haze Rule was promulgate d by the USEPA, it contained a provision to encourage the formation of regional planning gr oups to assist the States in creating their Regional Haze State Implementation Pl ans (SIP). New Jersey agreed to participate in a Regional Planning Organization (RPO).

Using this early direction as a guide, the USEPA a nd affected states/tribes agreed to create five
to facilitate interstate coordi nation on Regional Haze SIPs. New Je rsey is a member of the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO. Members of MANE–VU are listed in Table 2.1. New Jersey continues to work with it s MANE-VU partners to jointly address regional haze issues. Additional background informati on on MANE-VU can be found in Appendix B.

Table 2.1 : Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Members* (MANE-VU)

Connecticut Pennsylvania

Delaware Penobscot Nation

District of Columbia Rhode Island

Maine St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Maryland Vermont
Massachusetts U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New Hampshire U.S. National Park Service New Jersey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

New York U.S. Forest Service
*The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Fish an d Wildlife Service and U.S.
Forest Service are non-voting members.

MANE-VU’s managing body is a Board, composed of the Commissioners or Secretaries of the Environmental Departments and Agencies of th e member states and tribes. This managing Board is responsible for the decision making of the group and sets th e direction and funding priorities for the organization. MANE-VU establ ished an active committee structure, composed of staff members from the part icipating states and tribes, to address both technical and nontechnical issues related to regional haze.

Figure 2.1 shows the other Regional Planning Organi zations (RPOs) and their member States. As discussed in Section 7, New Jersey identified the states in the Midwes t, i.e., states in the Midwest RPO, and southeast, i.e., states in th e VISTAS RPO, as caus ing or contributing to visibility impairment in the Brigantine Wild erness Area. New Jersey consulted with the
Midwest RPO and the VISTAS RPO in accordance with the Regional Haze Rule. 9 The details of the consultation process are descri bed in Section 8 and in Appendix C.

9 40 C.F.R. § 51

2-1CenRAP WRAP Midwest

VISTAS MANE-VU = OTC

NESCAUM

MARAMA 

### Regional Planning Organizations for Regional Haze

MANE-VU Figure 2.1 : Regional Planning Organizations for Regional Haze

On June 20, 2007, the Commissioners of the states with mandatory Class I Federal areas in the MANE-VU region signed a Resolution regarding principles for implementing the regional haze rule. This set of principles include: estab lishing the reasonable progress goals for MANE-VU Class I areas by identifying reasonable measures that can be implemented by 2018; inviting all identified contributing states to review the identi fied measures; and asking that the states make timely emissions reductions. The principles al so call on the USEPA to implement any national or regional measures deemed reasonable through the consultation proce ss in a timely manner,
and a commitment from the states to submit the 5-year progress reports required by the regional
haze rule as a revision to the states’ initial SIP re vision. The Class I states will rely on adequate Federal funding to comply with this Federal re quirement. The signed resolution is documented in Appendix D.

This SIP revision utilizes data analysis, mode ling results and other technical support documents prepared for MANE-VU members to determine the states contributing to the visibility impairment at Brigantine Wilderness Area and to determine the reasonable measures to set the 2018 reasonable progress goal.

2.2 State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

Coordination between States and the Federal Land Managers is required in accordance with 40

C.F.R. § 51.308(i). The Federal Land Manager for the Brigantine Wilderness Area is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior. As required, the State of New Jersey provided the name and title of a contac t person within the NJDEP to the Federal Land Manager. In development of this SIP Revisi on, the Federal Land Manager was consulted in accordance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(i)(2). Additiona lly, the Department of
Environmental Protection staff met with the Fede ral Land Manager at the Brigantine Wilderness Area, and conferred through conference calls. The State of New Jersey will continue to consult with the Federal Land Manager regarding futu re progress reports a nd plan revisions.

2-23.0 ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE AND NATURAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA

3.1 Requirement, Data and Methods Used

Baseline conditions represent the visibility condi tions which existed on the best and worst days at the time the regional haze program was establis hed for each Class I area. The Baseline is the average visibility (in deciviews) on the 20% mo st impaired days, or “worst” days, and on the 20% least impaired days, or “best days,” for the years 2000 through 2004. 10

Natural background visibility conditi ons are the visibility conditions that would exist in absence of human-caused impairment, 11 i.e., the visibility conditions be fore human activities affected air quality in the area.

Each State with a Class I area must establish go als (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress toward the goal of achievi ng natural visibility by 2064. The plans for achieving the reasonable progress goals must provide for an impr ovement in visibility on the most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the le ast impaired days.

The USEPA established procedures for calcula ting visibility levels , using available air monitoring data. 12 On-site air monitoring data at the Brig antine Wilderness Area were collected from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) air monitoring
network and used to calculate th e historic deciview levels as contained in this SIP revision. 13

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Us e Management (NESCAUM) evaluated the data from the IMPROVE monitor at the Brigantine Wilderness Area and calculated the baseline conditions using on-site data gathered within the 5-year period of 2000 to 2004. 14 This value sets the starting point to measur e visibility impairment in the Brigantine Wilderness Area .

3.2 Baseline and Natural Visibility at the Brigantine Wilderness Area

Natural background conditions, the conditions that would exist in the absence of all man-made pollution, represents the visibility goal for each Class I area to achieve in 2064. Natural background concentrations of naturally occurri ng air contaminants were estimated, using the USEPA guidance 15 and Equations 1 and 2. 16 The estimated natural background visibility in the Brigantine Wilderness Area for 20% worst days is 12.2 deciviews. The calculation of this value is described in Appendix E.

10 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Anal yses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. Pg. 76. EPA-454/B-07-002. April 2007

11 NESCAUM. Baseline and Background Vi sibility Conditions. December, 2006

12 40 C.F.R. § 51.301 and 51.308(d)(4)

13 The IMPROVE monitoring network was set-up by the USEPA and the Federal Land Managers to measure air quality in certain national parks and wilderness areas (See Section 4)

14 Ibid

15 USEPA. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under th e Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03- 005, September, 2003

16 40 C.F.R. § 51.301

3-1The five-year average baseline vi sibility, using the on-site mon itoring data from the years 2000 to 2004, for the Brigantine Wilder ness Area is 14.3 deciviews for th e 20 percent best visibility days (least impaired) and 29.0 deci views for the 20 percent worst visi bility days (most impaired). These values were calculated for both best and worst visibility in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(2).

The regulations require that the rate of impr ovement projected for the long range strategy be compared with the uniform rate of progress. The uniform rate of pr ogress is calculated by dividing the level of improvement needed (cu rrent conditions – natura l background goal) by the time to meet the goal, or sixty (60) years. For the 2018 reasonable pr ogress goal, this was
calculated as follows:

29.0 deciviews – 12.2 deciviews / 60 years (difference between 2004 and 2064)

= 0.28 deciviews /year x 14 y ears (between 2004 and 2018)

= 3.9 deciview improvement by 2018

Or as the 2018 goal:

29.0 – 3.9 = 25.1 deciview in 2018

These data are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 : Visibility Information for the Brigantine Wilderness Area

Conditions Deciviews Natural Background Visibility on 20% of wo rst visibility days (Goal in 2064) 12.2 Average Baseline Visibility on 20% of best visibility days (2000 – 2004) 14.3 Average Baseline Visibility on 20% worst visibility days (2000 – 2004) 29.0 Uniform Rate of Progress in 2018 on the 20% worst visibility days 25.1

3.3 Visibility Trends at th e Brigantine Wilderness Area

Figure 3.1 presents the trends in the visibility impairment levels as recorded at the Brigantine Wilderness Area. The figure shows that visibility slightly improved at the Brigantine Wilderness Area between 1993 and 2005. The downward trend impa irment in the levels is most noticeable after the implementation of the first phase of the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Program sulfur dioxide controls in the early 1990’s, but this do wnward trend has leveled off in recent years.

3-2Figure 3.1 : Trends in Visibility Levels at the Brigantine Wilderness Area
1993 to 2005

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.019921994199619982000200220042006Deciviews (dv) 20% Worst Day

2018 Reasonable Progress Goal

20% Best Day

Natural Background

3-34.0 MONITORING STRATEGY FOR VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN THE
BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA

4.1 Introduction

Visibility conditions represen tative of those within the Brigantine Wilderness Area are monitored by the Federally operated Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments program, or also known as the IMPROVE m onitoring program. In 1985, the IMPROVE monitoring program was established to measure visi bility impairment in mandatory Class I areas throughout the United States. This monitoring is designed to aid the cr eation of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Cla ss I areas stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Data from the IMPROVE monitoring program have been collected since the early 1990s at the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

The IMPROVE monitoring sites are operated an d maintained through a formal cooperative relationship between the USEPA, the U.S. Nationa l Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service. In 1991, several additional organizations joined the effort. These organiza tions include the Nationa l Association of Clean Air Agencies (formerly State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Ad ministrators and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Offi cials), Western States Air Resources Council, Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Manage ment Association, and the Nort heast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.

IMPROVE Program Objectives

Data collected at these sites are used by land managers, industry pla nners, scientists, public interest groups, and air quality re gulators to understand and protect the visual air quality resource in Class I areas. Most importantly, the IM PROVE program scientifically documents for American citizens, the visual air quality of thei r wilderness areas and national parks. Program objectives include:

• Establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I areas,

• Identify chemical species and emi ssion sources responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment,

• Document long-term trends for assessing progr ess towards the nationa l visibility goals,

• Provide regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected Federal Class I areas where practical, as required by the USEPA’s Regional Haze Rule.

4.2 Monitoring Information and Strategy for the Brigantine Wilderness Class I Area

A monitoring strategy is required for measur ing, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Area s within the State in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(4). The monitoring st rategy for New Jersey relies upon the continued availability of the IMPROVE network.

The IMPROVE monitor for the Brigantine W ilderness Area (indicated as BRIG1 in the IMPROVE monitoring network database) is loca ted outside the Edwin B. Forsythe National

4-1Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in Oceanville, New Jersey at an elevation of 5 me ters, a latitude of

39.47  ̊ and a longitude of -74.45  ̊

.

Figure 4.1 : The IMPROVE Monitor at the Bri gantine Wilderness Area – BRIGI

Since access to or disturbance of the wilderness area is meant to be limited or non-existent in order to protect the ecological a nd biological resources, the monitoring station is located as close as practicable to, but not within, the wilderness area. Being lo cated as close as practicable to the wilderness area means that the air monitoring data collected is representati ve of the air quality
within the wilderness area but does not distur b the wilderness area ’s ecology, or natural

resources.

The haze data for Brigantine Wilderness Area are collected by an IMPROVE monitor that is operated and maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wild life Service. In 2007, NJDEP established at the same location a monitoring station that measures trace level SO 2 and PM 2.5 using continuous
and Federal reference met hods for sample collection

. A visibility camera was also installed in 2007. NJDEP is currently testing a real time sulfate analyzer, but it is not yet in operation. This station replaces the one previously located near by at the Nacote Creek Research station in Galloway Township.

4-2The NJDEP worked extensively over the past tw o years to consolidate and coordinate the air monitoring sites in the area. The NJDEP plans to monitor the following air contaminants at the Brigantine Wilderness Area and maintain the monitors at this location if s hown to be viable, to produce scientifically valid results , and to provide information need ed to ascertain attainment of any national ambient air quality standard incl uding progress to the national visibility goals.

The planned monitoring at this site includes:

• Continuous Ozone,

• Fine Particulate – PM 2.5 (measured by the Federal Reference Method),

• Fine Particulate – PM 2.5 (measured by a continuous instrument),

• Trace Gas Analyzer for SO 2 ,

• Continuous Sulfate (if proven pr actical by NESCAUM and NJDEP),

• NO

x / NO y 17 (anticipated to be conducted by Stockton State College in NJ),

• An On-Site Camera to observe visibility levels, 18 and a

• Nephelometer.

The NJDEP plans to operate and maintain the mo nitoring site at the Brigantine Wilderness Area for the foreseeable future, although this is con tingent upon continued Fede ral and State funding. Any network changes will be subject to a joint annual review process by both the NJDEP and the

USEPA.

Assuming continued availability of the IMPR OVE monitoring data, New Jersey developed a monitoring strategy that is representative of th e Class I area, and addresses the transport of pollutants from other areas to the Class I area. This program meets the requirements of 40

C.F.R. §51.305. The measurement of ozone and fine particulate concentr ations, as well as

NO

x /NO y , SO 2 and sulfate, along with the continued collection of data by the IMPROVE program, will provide data from this location that can be used to assess transported pollutants
and their sources. Information that can be dir ectly correlated with the on-site Nephelometer /
Camera will be collected and made available for analysis.

17 NO

x is the abbreviation for oxides of nitrogen; NO y is the abbreviation for total reactive nitrogen.

18 The camera results from Brigantine is available on a real time basis at http://www.hazecam.ne t/brigantine.html

4-35.0 EMISSION INVENTORY

5.1 Regional Emission Inventory Development

New Jersey is required to identify the base line emission inventory on which emission reduction strategies to improve visibility are based in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(iii). Based on USEPA guidance, 19 2002 was identified as the baseline emission inventory year for regional haze. New Jersey and the MANE-VU states used 2002 as the baseline year for their Regional Haze SIP. New Jersey worked with other MANE -VU states in contributing to the development of the regional inventory compiled by the Mid-At lantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA). 20 The New Jersey portion of the MARAMA regional modeling inventory was based on the New Jersey 2002 base year inventor y. New Jersey submitted this 2002 base year inventory to the USEPA’s Nati onal Emission Inventory (NEI) 21 database as required by the Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule (CERR) . The New Jersey 2002 inventory was also
included in the “Attainment and Maintenance of the 8-Hour Carbon M onoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Qualit y Standard SIP and the 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory” which can be found on the Department’s website at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep /baqp/sip/siprevs.htm and went through the pu blic review process in March 2006. The USEPA approved the 2002 emi ssion inventory for New Jersey on July 10, 2006. In addition, this 2002 inventory served as th e baseline inventory for New Jersey’s 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration State Implemen tation Plan (SIP), proposed in June 2007 and final in October 2007, and the PM 2.5 Attainment Demonstration SIP, proposed in June 2008 and
final in March 2009.

Some improvements were made to the inventory in the regional developm ent process. Version 3 of the 2002 base year emission inventory was used in the regional modeling exercise. The MARAMA technical support docum entation for the 2002 base year inventory, dated November 20, 2006, is presented in Appendix F-1. Emission inventory data file s are available on the

MARAMA website at: http://www.marama.org/visibi lity/EI_Projects/index.html

. The 2002
emission inventories from non-MANE-VU areas within the modeling domain were obtained from other Regional Planning Organizations for their corresponding areas. The regional planning organizations and inve ntories included the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MWRPO) – version K, and the VI STAS RPO – the G2 inventory.

This Regional Haze SIP also includes a regional inventory for projecte d emissions for 2018 (i.e., the first planning period year). The MANE -VU states used the 2018 MARAMA compiled inventory, version 3, as the futu re year inventory to evaluate emission growth and emission benefits from existing and potentially new cont rol measures. The emission control scenarios used for this future year inventory were as follows:

19 USEPA. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Re gional Haze Regulations. United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Inventory Group, Emissions, Monitoring, and An alysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, Updated November 2005.

20 See http://www.marama.org/visibility

21 65 Fed. Reg. 33268-80 (May 23, 2000) and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cerr/CERR_FR.pdf.

5-11. A combined on-the-books /on-the-way (OTB/OTW) 22 control strategy accounting for emission control regulations already in pl ace as of June 15, 2005, as well as some emission control regulations expected to achieve additional emi ssion reductions by 2009.

2. A beyond-on-the way (BOTW) 23 scenario to account for controls from potential new regulations that may be necessary to meet at tainment and other regional air quality goals, mainly for ozone.

The MARAMA technical support documenta tion for the 2018 (OTB/OTW), and 2018 BOTW inventories, dated February, 2007, is presented in Appendix F- 2. The OTC technical support documentation for the BOTW control measures included in the modeling, dated February 28, 2007, is included in Appendix F-3. Descripti ons of the 2002 and 2018 inventories are also included on pages 1-10 through 1-20 of the report on MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goal (NESCAUM 2008) in Appendix N-2.

Based on MANE-VU’s initial mode ling, contribution assessments and analyses of the four statutorily required factors, MANE-VU selected a number of control measures on which to base the modeling that would be used to develop pr oposed reasonable progress goals. An updated
scenario to account for these additional potentially reasonable c ontrol measures was developed. For the MANE-VU region, these reasonable measures include:

• SO 2 reductions at a set of 167 EGU stacks whic h were identified as contributing to visibility impairment at northeast Class I areas;

• Implementation of a low-sulfur fuel strategy for non-EGU sources, and;

• Implementation of a Best Available Retr ofit Technology (BART) strategy for BARTeligible sources not cont rolled under other programs.

Documentation for the future year estimations of EGUs and the remaining source sectors (nonEGU sectors) is presented in Appendix F-2.

MANE-VU received comments from several stakeholders and anot her RPO suggesting that since the CAIR program and other “on the books” or “on the way” measures are projected to achieve uniform rates of progress as previously m odeled, additional reducti ons to both EGU and nonEGU sectors were unnecessary. New Jersey an d MANE-VU do not agree with this approach because CAIR is a cap and trade program, and th ere is no enforceable mechanism to require that states stay within thei r budget. Thus MANE-VU chose to add back emissions to reflect the CAIR cap. This assumption provides a conserva tive projection of less vi sibility improvement.

22 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Atta inment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Chapter 4 – Control Measures, page 4-1, Final, October 29, 2007

23 ibid.

5-25.1.1 Regional Emission Inventory Pollutants and Sectors

A statewide emission inventory of pollutants, that reasonably anticip ate to cause or contribute to visibility impairment, in any mandatory Class I area, is required in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(4)(v) . As specified in the applicable USEPA guidance, th e pollutants included in the regional modeling inventories for regional haze include:

• sulfur dioxide,

• volatile organic compounds,

• nitrogen oxides,

• fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ),

• coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ), and

• ammonia.

The regional emission inventories also include carbon monoxide (CO) , but this pollutant is not considered a precursor for regional haze.

The emission inventories are a compilation of the emissions from sources of anthropogenic (human-made) and biogenic (natural) pollutants. The sources are divided into five sectors, each making up one component of the inventory: poi nt sources, area sources, onroad sources, nonroad sources and biogenic sources (natural ). Anthropogenic (human-made) sources are
discussed in this SIP.

While the biogenic emissions from the coniferous trees of the Pinelands area are thought to adversely affect visibility, New Je rsey does not need to address them in this SIP for a variety of reasons. The Brigantine Wilder ness Area is surrounded on three side s by the coniferous forests in the Pinelands National Reserve, an internat ionally important ecological region of 1.1 million acres in size and occupying 22 percent (%) of New Jersey’s land area. It is the largest body of open space on the Mid-Atlantic seaboard between Richmond, Virginia and Boston, Massachusetts. The biogenic s ources are not addressed in this SIP because the Congressional goal for visibility requires onl y the absence of all man-made pollution by the year 2064 and not
the reduction or absence of all biogenic emissions. Thus the em issions from biogenic sources are accounted for in setting the natural background target goal to be reached in 2064. Natural background levels assume that a certain degree of visibility impairment is due to biogenic and
other natural sources.

5.2 Regional Emission Inventory Summary

5.2.1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

Figure 5.1 shows SO 2 emissions trends in the MANE-VU states extracted from the regional modeling inventory for 2002 and 2018. 27

, 24 All the states, including New Jersey, show declines
in the 2018 annual SO 2 emissions as compared to the 2002 emissions.

27 USEPA, 2005 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html

24 MARAMA 2004, http://www.marama.org/visib ility/2002%20NEI/index.html

5-3Figure 5.1 : MANE-VU State Level Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTSO2million t/y MV 2002 V3

MV 2018 V3

Note that Figure 5.1 only shows the SO 2 emissions from the MANE- VU states. Sulfur dioxide emissions from the Midwest, VISTAS, and CENRAP states were also in cluded in the modeling to set the progress goal for the Brigantine Wilderness Area and SO 2 emissions from EGUs and gions were included in the re gionally prepared inventories. fuel burning sources in these re Figure 5.2 shows the contribution from different source categorie s to the overall, annual 2002

SO 2 emissions in the MANE-VU states. The chart shows that point sources dominate SO 2 emissions, which primarily consist of stationary combustion sources for generating electricity, industrial energy, and heat. Sm aller stationary combustion sources called “area sources” (primarily commercial and resi dential heating) are another important source category in the MANE-VU states. By contrast, on-road and non-road mobile sources make only a relatively
small contribution to overall SO 2 emissions in the region, 25 except in New Jersey where the
contributions from on-road sources are more than that from area sources.

Figure 5.2 : 2002 Annual SO 2 Emissions

25 NESCAUM, “Regional Haze and Visibility in the Nort heast and Mid-Atlantic States,” January 2001.

5-4Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line Graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4SO2million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

Figure 5.3 : 2018 Annual SO 2 Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line Graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4SO2million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

Figure 5.3 shows that point sources still dominate SO 2 emissions in New Jersey and in the
other MANE-VU states.

5.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

5-5Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are chemi cals or mixtures of organic chemicals that evaporate easily at room temperature. Th e USEPA defines VOC as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which pa rticipates in atmospheri c photochemical reactions

. 26 The VOC regional haze inventory category is of interest primarily from the organic carbon perspective of

PM 2.5 . From a regional haze perspective, there is less concern with the volatile organic gases emitted directly to the atmosphere and more with the secondary organic aerosol (SOA) that the
VOCs form after condensation a nd oxidation processes.

Figure 5.4 : MANE-VU State Level VOC Emissions

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTVOC million t/y MV 2002 V3

MV 2018 V3

Figure 5.4 shows VOC emissions tr ends in the MANE-VU states extracted from the regional modeling inventory for 2002 and 2018. All states show declines in 2018 annual VOC emissions as compared to 2002 emissions.

As seen in Figures 5.5 and 5.6, the VOC inventor y is dominated by area sources. Area sources include a wide variety of categor ies. The categories from area s ources in New Jersey with the highest VOC emissions include consumer products, architectur al coatings, portable fuel containers, adhesives and sealants and industria l surface coatings. VOC emissions from point sources include industrial manufacturing f acilities and petroleum refineries.

Figure 5.5: 2002 Annual VOC Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State

26 United States Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory definition of volatile organic compounds can be
found at 40 C.F.R. 51.100(s).

5-6Line Graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4VOC million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

Figure 5.6: 2018 Annual VOC Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line Graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4VOC million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

5.2.3 Oxides of Nitrogen

5-7Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) emissions contribute directly to vi sibility impairment in the eastern United States by forming light-scattering nitrate particles. Nitrate generally accounts for a substantially smaller fraction of fine particle mass and related li ght extinction than sulfate and organic carbon at northeastern Cla ss I sites. Notably, nitrate may play a more important role at urban sites and in the wintertime. In addition, NO X may have an indirect effect on summertime visibility by virtue of its role in the formation of ozone, which in turn promotes the formation of secondary organic aerosols. 27

Figure 5.7 shows projected NO X emissions at the state level in the MANE-VU region. All states show declines in 2018 annual emissions as compar ed to 2002 emissions. In New Jersey, the projected decrease is primarily due to Federal on-road and off-road control programs, the New Jersey NO

x Budget program, and the consent decree with PSEG.

Figure 5.7 : MANE-VU State Level Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTNOxmillion t/y MV 2002 V3

MV 2018 V3

Figure 5.8 shows that mobile sources dominated the NO

x emissions inventories for the states in 2002. Figure 5.9 shows that in 2018, the emissions are almost evenly distributed among all the

sectors.

Figure 5.8: 2002 Annual NO X Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State

27 NESCAUM, “Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,” January 2001

5-8Line Graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4NOx million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

Figure 5.9: 2018 Annual NO X Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line Graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4NOx million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

5.2.4 Primary Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 )

5-9Directly-emitted or “primary” particles (as distin ct from secondary particles that form in the atmosphere through chemical reactions involving precursor pollutants like SO 2 and NO X ) can also contribute to regional haze. For regulatory purposes, a distinction is made between particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers and smaller par ticles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM 10 and PM 2.5 , respectively). Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11 show PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions, respectively, for the MANE-VU states for the years 2002 and 2018. PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions from all states are projected to decline from 2002 to 2018

Figure 5.10: MANE-VU State Level Primary PM 10 Emissions

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPM10million t/ MV 2002 V3

MV 2018 V3y

Figure 5.11: MANE-VU State Level Primary PM 2.5 Emissions

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPM2.5million t/ MV 2002 V3

MV 2018 V3y

5-10Figures 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 show that area sources dominate the primary PM emissions. 28 The category from the New Jersey area source inventory with the highest PM emissions is residential wood burning. Other ca tegories from the New Jersey area source inventory, in order of 2002 PM emissions, include restaurant operati ons, wildfires, residential and commercial natural gas and distillate oil combustion, prescribed burning and permitted open burning.

Source attribution studies show that wood burning emissions may be a larger component of the total PM mass in rural areas, like the Brigantine Wilderness Area, than in urban areas. In rural areas, wood burning emissions may c ontribute five to ten percent of the total PM mass measured at the monitoring site. Another important consider ation in this regard is that residential wood combustion occurs primarily in the winter m onths, while managed or prescribed burning activities occur largely in other seasons. The latter category in cludes agricultural field-burning activities, prescribed burni ng of forested areas and ot her burning activities.

The relative contribution of larger point sources is larger in the primary PM 2.5 inventory than in the primary PM 10 inventory since the crustal component (w hich consists mainly of larger or “coarse-mode” particles) contri butes mostly to overall PM 10 levels and not to primary PM 2.5 levels. At the same time, pollution control equi pment commonly installed at large point sources is usually more efficient at cap turing coarse-mode particles.

Figure 5.12: 2002 Annual Primary PM 10 Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4PM10 million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

28 The NEI inventory categorizes residential wood combustion and some other combustion sources as area sources.

5-11Figure 5.13: 2002 Annual Primary PM 2.5 Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4PM2.5 million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

Figure 5.14: 2018 Annual Primary PM 10 Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4PM10 million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

5-12Figure 5.15: 2018 Annual Primary PM 2.5 Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4PM2.5 million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

5.2.5 Ammonia Emissions (NH 3 )

Ammonium ion (formed from ammo nia emissions to the atmosphere ) is an important constituent of airborne particulate matter, t ypically accounting for ten to twenty percent of total fine particle mass. According to 1998 estimat es, livestock, agriculture and fertilizer use accounted for approximately 86 percent of all amm onia emissions to the atmosphere. 29 However, better ammonia inventory data for the photochemical mode ls is needed to simulate fine particle formation and transport in the eastern United States. Because the USEPA does not regulate ammonia as a criteria pollutant or as a criteria pollutant precursor, these data do not presently
exist at the same level of de tail or certainty as for NO X and SO 2

.

To address the need for improved ammonia inventories, MARAMA, NESCAUM and USEPA funded research at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh to develop a regional ammonia inventory. 30 This study focused on three issues with respect to current emissions estimates: (1) a wide range of ammonia emission factor values, (2) inadequate temporal and spatial resolution of ammonia emissions estimate s, and (3) a lack of standardized ammonia source categories.

29 USEPA, National Air Pollutant Trends, 1900 – 1998 , EPA 454/R-00-002, available online: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/tr ends/trends98/trends98.pdf , 2000b.

30 Davidson, C., Strader, R., Pandis, S., and Robinson, A., Preliminary Proposal to MARAMA and NESCAUM: Development of an Ammonia Emissions Inventory for the Mid-Atlantic States and New England . Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. 7-Jan. 1999.

5-13The CMU project established an inventory framew ork with source categories, emissions factors, and activity data that are readil y accessible to the user. With this framework, users can obtain data in a variety of formats 31 and can make updates easily, allo wing additional ammonia sources to be added or emissions factors to be repl aced as better information becomes available. 32

, 33

Figure 5.16 shows that estimated ammonia emissi ons were fairly stable in 2002 and 2018 for
MANE-VU states. Area and on-ro ad mobile sources dominate th e ammonia inventory as shown in Figures 5.17 and 5.18. Specifically, area source emissions from agricultural sources and livestock production account for the largest share of estimated ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU region, except in the District of Columbia. The two remaining sources with significant emissions contribution are wastewater treatment systems and gasoline exhaust from highway vehicles.

Figure 5.16: MANE-VU State Level Ammonia Emissions

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTNH3million t/y MV 2002 V3

MV 2018 V3

31 For example, the user will have the flexibility to choose the temporal resolution of the output emissions data or to spatially attribute emissions based on land-use data.

32 Strader, R., Anderson, N., and Davidson, C., Development of an Ammonia Invento ry for the Mid-Atlantic States and New England, Progress Report, October 18, 2000 , available online: http://marama.org/rt_center/MARAMAprogress10-18-00.pdf , 2000.

33 NESCAUM, “Development of an Improved Ammonia Emissions Inventory for the United States,” December

2001.

5-14Figure 5.17
2002 Annual NH 3 Emissions Bar graph: Fraction of Emissi ons by Source Category and State Line graph: Annual Emissions in 10 6 tons per year

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4NH3 million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

Figure 5.18
2018 Annual NH 3 Emissions

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercentage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4NH3 million t/y

AREA NONROAD ONROAD POINT Emission

5-155.3 Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules

New Jersey is required to consider source re tirement and replacement schedules in accordance
with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D). A full listing of the assumptions for equipment replacement in each State can be found in th e documentation for development of the 2018 MANE-VU inventory. 34

In developing the long-term strategy, source retirement and replacement schedules were considered in the following areas when the 2018 inventory was developed:

Mobile Sources: The USEPA’s MOBILE6 model consid ers that a certain number of the
vehicle fleet in each State will be replaced every year by newer, less polluting vehicles. This “fleet turn-over” to less polluting ve hicles that meet the USEPA Tier II motor vehicle standards was a component of the MOBILE6 modeling. These lower emissions have been built into the 2018 inventory as well as the benefits received from lower sulfur gasoline in on-road diesel and gasoline vehicles and the 2007 heavy-duty diesel standards. The reasons for including the bene fits from lower sulfur gasoline in on-road diesel and gasoline vehicles and the 2007 h eavy-duty diesel standards in the emission projections for 2018 are discussed in Secti on 8. All new mobile source measures and standards, as well as any benefits from im plementation of individual State Inspection and Maintenance programs and implementation of statewide Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) standards in applicable stat es, including New Jersey, were used in developing the 2018 inventory.

Electric Generating Units (EGUs): The MANE-VU 2018 inventory was developed using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to forecast growth in electric demand and replacement of older, less efficient and mo re polluting power plants with newer, more efficient and cleaner units. While the output of the IPM model pred icts that a certain number of older plants will be replaced by newe r units to meet future electric growth and state-by-state NO

x and SO 2 caps, New Jersey did not direct ly rely upon the closure of any particular plant in establishing the 2018 inventory upon which the reasonable progress goals were set. The IPM model results are not the basis upon which to reliably predict plant closures and the issues of specific plant closures in New Jersey are addressed in the
“Reasonable Measures” Section of this docum ent (see Section 8 of this document).

Non-Road Sources: The USEPA’s Non-Road model considers that a certain number of non-road sources will be replaced every year by newer, less polluting vehicles and equipment that meet the new USEPA emissi on standards for non-road sources. These
lower emissions were included in the 2018 inve ntory as well as the benefits received from lower sulfur gasoline and diesel in off -road vehicles. Any new or proposed Federal standards for marine or other engine types or fuel standards to lower the sulfur content

34 Development of the Emission Projections for the 2009, 2012, and 2018 for the NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Draft Technical Support Document, Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), Prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., February 2007. http://www.marama.org/vi sibility/Inventory%20Summ ary/MANEVU_Emission_Projections_TSD_022807.pdf

5-16used in these engines were not assumed in creating the 2018 progress goal. The cutoff point for nonroad sulfur cont ent and fuel standards is 2004. 35

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Sources: The 2018 MANE-VU i nventory was prepared with a certain replacement schedul e for better controlled VOC sources which
lead to lower emissions in 2018 due to thes e controls. Examples of new air pollution controls whose effectiveness is dependent upon replacement of the unit include portable fuel containers and consumer products.

Wood-Burning Equipment: The 2018 MANE-VU inventory was prepared with a certain replacement schedule for better cont rolled wood burning sources which lead to lower emissions in 2018 due to the gradual im plementation of these controls. A small fraction of wood burning firepl aces and wood stoves are cha nged out each year in every state and the incremental benefits of this change-out were assumed to accrue to 2018 and beyond.

35 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/sulfur.txt

5-176.0 BEST AVAILABLE RETROF IT TECHNOLOGY (BART)

6.1 Introduction

The Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) re quirement of Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.§7491(b)(2)(A)) and implementi ng rules (40 CFR §51.30 8(e) and 40 CFR §51 Appendix Y) are intended to reduce visibility impairing pollutants emitted from certain existing stationary sources which were grandfathered from the New S ource Review (NSR) requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Federal Regional Haze Federal Register public ations are included in Appendices G-1, G-2 and G-3. The visibility im pairing pollutants are de fined by the USEPA as sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 and 2.5 μm (i.e., PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively). 36 States are required to undertake three key steps to comp ly with the BART requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. These steps include:

1) Determining if a source is BART-eligible; 2) Determining if a source reasonably causes or co ntributes to visibility impairment in any Class I area (subject to BART); 3) Determining if additional controls or emission limits are necessary (BART determination).

Eligibility is limited to sources in one of 26 source categories that have units installed and operating between 1962 and 1977, with the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of a visibility impairing pollutant. The 26 source ca tegories under the Federal Clean Air Act that are eligible for BART include the follo wing types of stationary sources:

(1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric (13) Phosphate rock processing plants, plants of more than 250 million BTUs (14) Coke oven batteries, per hour heat input, ( 15) Sulfur recovery plants, (2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), (16) Carbon black plants (furnace process), (3) Kraft pulp mills, (17) Primary lead smelters, (4) Portland cement plants, (18) Fuel conversion plants, (5) Primary zinc smelters, (19) Sintering plants, (6) Iron and steel mill plants, ( 20) Secondary metal production facilities, (7) Primary aluminum ore reduction plan ts, (21) Chemical process plants, (8) Primary copper smelters, (22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 (9) Municipal incinerators capable of million BTUs per hour heat input, charging more than 250 tons of refuse (23) Petroleum storage and transfer facilities per day, with a capacity exceeding 300,000 (10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and ni tric acid barrels, plants, (24) T aconite ore processing facilities, (11) Petroleum refineries, (25) Glass fiber processing plants, and (12) Lime plants, (26) Charcoal production facilities.

36 40 CFR §51, Appendix Y and 70 Fed

. Reg . 39160 (July 6, 2005)

6-1Based on the MANE-VU contribution assessm ent (NESCAUM, 2006b), every MANE-VU state with BART-eligible sources contributes to visibil ity impairment at a Class I area to a significant degree. Therefore, this supported the decisi on made by the MANE-VU Board in June 2004, that if a source is “eligible ” for BART, it is “subject” to BART . The CAA section 169A(b)2 and 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(ii) provide a state with this discretion as discussed in the Regional Haze revisions at 71 Fed. Reg. 60615 (October 13, 2006).

Once a source has been identified as BART-eligib le and “subject” to BART, it must conduct an analysis to determine the “best system of c ontinuous emission control technology available and
associated emission reductions ach ievable for each BART eligible source that is subject to
BART within the State.” 37 The Federal Regional Haze regulations require 38 consideration of the technology available as well as five additional factors:

(1) the costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollutio n control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of visibility improvement whic h may reasonably be anticipated from the
use of BART.

Given the finding that all of the BART-eligible s ources contribute to visi bility impairment to some degree, New Jersey does not expect the fifth factor to play in the BART control determination process. Appendix Y to 40 CF R §51.308, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule, gives the stat es discretion to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor.

Once the SIP is approved by the USEPA, New Jersey may allow the BART facility up to five years to install the appropriate controls and co mply with the emission levels which result from
the BART determination. 39 Where BART is not already in place, New Jersey plans to set a compliance date on a case-by-case basis through th e operating permit revision process, and with single source SIP revisions. The BART pro cess is discussed in more detail in the MANE-VU Five-Factor Analysis of BART-eligible Sources 40 , included in Appendix G-4.

6.2 Description of BART-Eligible So urces in the State of New Jersey

Five facilities were determined to be BART-eligible and subject to BART based on the
discussion in section 6.1. The fi ve facilities are listed in Table 6.1. These facilities were identified in an analysis conducted by the Nort heast States for Coordina ted Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for New Jersey and other MANE-VU members using the BART guidelines in the
BART Rule. 41 The BART-eligible facilities in New Je rsey fall into two of the 26 targeted

37 40 CFR §51.308(e)(ii)(A)

38 Ibid

39 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(iv)

40 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Regional Planning Organization. “Draft Five-Factor Analysis of BARTEligible Sources.” February 7, 2007

41 40 CFR §51, Appendix Y

6-2categories, petroleum refineries and power plants. A detailed description of each BART-eligible facility is included in the MANE-VU Five-Factor Analysis of BART-eligible Sources 42

.

Other facilities which were in one of the 26 source categories, but were determined to have total potential emissions of less than 250 tons/year of a visibility impairing po llutant are: General Chemical LLC, Kinder Morgan, Shell – Sewaren Te rminal, Bayway Chemical Plant, Colorite and Griffin Pipe Products. Therefore, th ese facilities are not BART eligible.

The NJDEP requested by letter, dated November 1, 2006, that four of the five facilities listed in Table 6.1, not including Chevron (at the time Ch evron was not anticipated to be a BART facility), review and confirm their applicable emissions units. The letters are included in Appendix G-5. The NJDEP received written responses to the November 1, 2006 NJDEP letters from two of the facilities, S unoco and ConocoPhillips, which are included in Appendix G-6. The
NJDEP also conducted a conference call with PSEG regarding BART. Additional discussion regarding the responses to the November 1, 2006 NJDEP letters is also included in Appendix G6.

Table 6.1 : BART-Eligible Facilities in the State of New Jersey

Source Pollutants Location (County) Facility I.D

PSEG – Hudson NO

x , SO 2 , PM Hudson 12202

Chevron NO

x , SO 2 , PM Middlesex 18058

Amerada Hess NO

x , SO 2 Middlesex 17996
ConocoPhillips NO

x , PM, SO 2 Union 41805
Sunoco Eagle Point NO

x , PM, SO 2 Gloucester 55781

6.3 Determination of BART Requirements fo r Identified BART-Eligible Sources and Analysis of the Best System of Control for Each Source

The BART-affected emission units are those with start-up dates be tween August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and having cumulative potential emissions for SO 2 or for NO

x greater than 40 tons per year for such pollutant(s), or for PM 10 greater than 15 tons per year of such pollutant. A case-by-case BART analysis is required to a ddress air pollutio n control measures for each pollutant that exceeds the plant-wide thresholds. 43

In addition to the November 1, 2006 letter discusse d above, New Jersey sent letters to the five BART-eligible facilities listed in Table 6.1, on March 3, 2009, requesting that they perform the required BART determination. The March 3, 2009 letters are included in Appendix G-7. To date, the NJDEP received written responses to th e March 3, 2009 letter from all five facilities: PSEG, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Hess, and S unoco, which are included in Appendix G-8. Additional discussion regarding the respons es is also included in Appendix G-8.

42 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Regional Planning Organization. “Draft Five-Factor Analysis of BARTEligible Sources.” February 7, 2007

43 70 Fed

. Reg . 39117 (July 6, 2005)

6-3Given the State’s adopted rules that are part of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 SIPs, and the consent decree agreements which apply to most major em ission units at BART-eligible facilities, the State does not expect that the BART evaluati ons will identify significant additional emission
reductions.

Beginning in 2000, the USEPA and NJDEP entered into, or continue to negotiate, consent decrees (CDs) addressing air contaminant emi ssions from the petroleum refineries in New Jersey. ConocoPhillips and Sunoco Eagle Point ha ve finalized consent decrees. Amerada Hess is in the process of discussions with USEPA and NJDEP to resolve issues as part of the federal refinery initiative. The consent decrees re quire implementation of control technologies, performance standards, emissions caps, and optim ization plans to achieve significant reductions
of SO 2 , NO

x and PM, as well as reductions of ben zene and VOCs. The focus of the consent decrees include fluidized catalytic cracking un its (FCCUs), heaters and boilers (and fuel gas combustion devices), flares, and sulfur recovery units. The consent decrees are included in Appendices G-9 through 15. Many of the units c overed by the consent decrees have also been
identified as affected units at BART-facilities. All BART-affected units, including those covered by the consent decrees, will be included in a top-down BART analysis, which may result in additional air pollution control being re quired to satisfy BART requirements.

In regard to BART-affected emission units at PSEG – Hudson Generating Station, New Jersey, the emission limits for the Unit 2 coal-fired boiler are consistent with the USEPA’s presumptive
BART limits for SO 2 , 44 and more stringent than those established for NO

x . 45 The PM, NO

x and

SO 2 air pollution controls being in stalled on this coal-fired boile r, pursuant to a consent decree (CD), will satisfy BART requirements. Other lesse r operations at this facility, such as the coal handling systems, are not subject to the presumptive norms, and will need a case-by-case evaluation and may need to reduce emissions to comply with BART requirements.

New Jersey’s preliminary BART evaluation for four of the BART-eligible facilities (PSEGHudson, Amerada Hess, ConocoPhillips, and Sunoco Eagle Point) is as follows:

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) – The major SO 2 emitting equipment at these four facilities are likely to be better than, or equal to, BART cont rol, or there are enforceable ag reements which are likely to be better than, or equal to, BART control.

• All four facilities either have BART scrubbers, or have enforceable commitments for BART scrubbers, on the major SO 2 emitting equipment, which are the refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) and the coal -fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs).

• The future anticipated sulfur in fuel rule will be BART for any oil firing at these facilities. Oil firing is very limited at these facilities.

• The United States Environmental Protection (USEPA) requirements limiting the sulfur content in refinery gas is BART.

• The SO 2 control on desulfurization equipm ent at the refineries is BART.

44 70 Fed

. Reg . 39132 (July 6, 2005)

45 70 Fed

. Reg . 39135 (July 6, 2005)

6-4Nitrogen Oxide (NO

x ) – The control of major NO

x emitting equipment at these facilities, as required by the Consent D ecrees, is likely to be BART for th e coal-fired EGU and also may be
BART for the FCCUs.

• The EGU will have both low NO

x burners and Selective Cata lytic Reduction (SCR), with
an emission limit of 0.1 lb NO

x per million BTU, 30 day average, which is equal to, or better than, BART.

• The Consent Decree NO

x limits for refinery heaters are likely to be BART for most heaters. However, the nationwide averagi ng allowed by the Consent Decrees could result in some heaters remaining with relatively high NO

x limits. Consequently, the refineries are expected to be subject to new rules for NO

x which may require further emission reductions than required by the cons ent decrees, including maximum NO

x emission limits for each heater. These new rules, which will be equal to or better than BART for refinery heaters, are expected to be proposed in 2010

• The consent decree NO

x limits for the FCCUs will be further evaluated to determine if they are BART. The FCCU’s will be subject to the new refinery rules for NO

x which may require further emission reductions than required by some of the Consent Decrees. The new refinery rules for the FCCU’s will be equal to, or better than BART.

Directly Emitted Particulate Matter (PM) – The control of PM em itting major equipment at these facilities will be equal to or better than BART for the coal-fired EGU, and are now likely
BART for the FCCUs at the refineries.

• The coal-fired EGU will be controlled by a baghouse with a particulate emission limit of 0.0150 lb/million btu, which is equal to or better than BART.

• The FCCU’s are all already s ubject to the New Jersey pa rticulate emission limit of 0.02 grains per standard cubic foot of flue gas (gr/scf). This is likely to be BART, but we are asking the refineries to further evaluate the feasibility of lower allowable emission levels
in the BART evaluation.

Minor Emitting Equipment – The vast majority (we ll over 90 per cent (%)) of SO 2 , NO

x , and PM emissions at these four facilities are emitted by the major equipment discussed above, most of which are likely to already have BART, or enfo rceable BART agreements for control that is BART. The Department is requiring these faciliti es to also evaluate a ll the other smaller BART affected equipment at these faci lities, to ensure the smaller e quipment emission limits are also

BART.

New Jersey’s regulations for coal-fired boilers serving EGUs were revised on March 20, 2009. Unless subject to more stringent permit limits or otherwise specified in an enforceable agreement, the regulations require the following limits for coal-fired boilers serving EGUs:

• 0.030 lb/MMBtu PM limit for existing coal-f ired boilers and 0.0150 lb/MMBtu PM limit for new, or reconstructed part iculate control effective May19, 2009,

• 0.150 lb/MMBtu SO 2 limit on 30-calendar-day rolling average and 0.250 lb/MMBtu on 24-hour emission rate effective December 15, 2012, and

• 1.50 lb/MWh NO

x limit on a 24-hour daily ba sis effective May 15, 2012.

6-5New Jersey plans to propose a new refinery rule in 2010, which will consolidate and revise existing rules for FCCUs, flares, heaters and boilers, and Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)

.

BART determinations will be finalized in accordance with the schedule in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 : Anticipated Schedule fo r BART Determinations

Task Anticipated Schedule 1. Facility submits prop osed BART evaluation and control plan to NJDEP July 2009

2. NJDEP determines technical completeness December 2009 3. NJDEP issues public no tice for single source SIP revision, and if necessary, significant modification of facility operating permit February 2010

4. NJDEP addresses public comments, finalizes BART determinations, and submits BART determinations, and if necessary significant modification of facility operating permit, including BART installation deadlines, to USEPA for approval May 2010*

5. Single source SIP revision, and if necessary, operating permit revision, finalized Contingent upon USEPA approval * Barring any extensive comment from the public

6.4 Analysis of Visibility Improvement Achievable from all BART Sources in the Region

One of the factors which can be considered to de termine “subject to” BART is a determination of whether the emissions from the source reasonably cause or contribute to visi bility impairment in any Class I area. MANE-VU used the cumulative assessment of contribution option 46 to analyze the contribution to visibility impairment of all BART-eligible facilities within the region. As a
result of NESCAUM’s cumulative assessment (NESCAUM, 2006b) of the sources in MANEVU, it was determined every BART-eligible facility contributes to visibility impairment to some degree. 47 In June 2004, the MANE-VU Board made a decision 48 that if a source is eligible for BART, it is subject to BART based on the MANE-VU contribution as sessment (NESCAUM, 2006b), that every MANE-VU state with BART-elig ible sources contributes to visibility impairment at a Class I area to a significant degree. The CAA section 169A(b)2 and 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(ii) provide a state with this discreti on as discussed in the Regional Haze revisions at 71 Fed. Reg. 60615 (October 13, 2006). New Jersey agrees with the use of a cumulative assessment and will not include source specific visi bility assessment as an exemption criterion in

46 70 Fed

. Reg . 39163 (July 6, 2005)

47 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Regional Planning Organization. “Draft Five-Factor Analysis of BARTEligible Sources.” February 7, 2007

48 Ibid

6-6its BART analysis. More details regarding NE SCAUM’s visibility modeling can be found in the MANE-VU Five-Factor Analysis of BART-eligible Sources. 49

49 Ibid

6-77.0 CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT OF ST ATES CAUSING OR CONTRIBUTING
TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN THE BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA

7.1 Introduction

The Regional Haze Rule (40 C.F.R. § 51.308 (d)(1)(B)(iv)) requires that New Jersey consult with those states which may reasonably be antici pated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Brigantine Wilderness Area when establishing the progress goal for the area. The identified states are then required to de monstrate that they have included in their implementation plan all measures necessary to ob tain their share of emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area (40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(ii)). New Jersey relied upon the contribution assessment work performed for the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast-Visibility Union (MANE-VU) by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to
determine which states contribute to visibility impairment at th e Brigantine Wilderness area. The contributory assessment is included as Appendix H of this document. MANE-VU used several techniques, rather than rely upon one single method, to assess which states contribute to visibility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas . A summary of those techniques is discussed
in this section.

7.2 Contribution Assessment

MANE-VU’s assessment, as well as those of the VISTAS and Midwest RPO as evidenced in Appendix H of this document, concluded that sulfates were the predominant pollutant responsible for causing visibility impairment in the northeastern United States in the period, 2000 - 2004. See Figure 7.1 for Brigantine. This is due to the hydroscopic and optical properties of the sulfate particles. As a result, sulfates were the focus of the efforts to identify reasonable
measures to set the 2018 reasonable progress goal. New Jersey is also implementing measures to reduce carbon emissions, the second larges t contributor to haze. See Section 9.7.

Figure 7.1: Role of Sulfate in Visibility Impair ment at Brigantine Wilderness Area

20% Worst Day Mass [2000-2004] 20% Worst Day Haze [2000-2004]

Coarse Mass

Sulfate N itrate Organic
Carbon

Elemental

Carbon

Soil Soil

Coarse

Mass Elemental
Carbon

Organic
Carbon

N itrate Sulfate 20% Worst Day Mass [2000-2004]

7-1The techniques used in MANE-VU’s contribut ion assessment are discussed in the next
subsections. These methods are based on emission inventory and meteorologi cal data analysis as
well as three dimensional models which consid ered emissions, meteorology and the atmospheric

process.

7.3 Contribution Assessments Base d on Emissions Inventories

Two data analysis methods were developed that directly combine emission inventory data with meteorological data in order to provide firs t-order contributions to observed sulfate from
individual states. The first a pproach, known as “Q/d,” evaluates the state contribution as a ratio
of the total SO 2 emissions from that state and the distance from the state to the receptor. States and sources were assigned wind sectors to acco unt for prevailing wind patterns in establishing contributions. The second approach, known as “E missions times Upwind Pr obability,” evaluates each state’s contribution by considering wind patter ns. This approach determines the residence times at particular location for the air parcels using back trajectories. See Appendix A of the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment, located in Appendix H-1, for a more detailed description of trajectory methods. The back trajectory-derived residence times for the air parcels were mapped onto a grid to create a “residence time probability field,” which was then multiplied by

an SO 2 emissions field to obtain estimated source contributions. The re sults of these two approaches are computed for Class I areas in and around the MANE-VU region.

7.3.1 Sulfur Dioxide Emission s Divided by Distance

For specific receptor locations, like a Class I visi bility area, relative impacts from an upwind source decrease with increasing distance from the source as pollutants are dispersed in the atmosphere and removed through deposition. For a non-reactive primary pollutant, the relationship between down wind concentrations at a receptor and emissions from a source can be approximated as a function of 1/d 2 , where d represents the distance between the source and the receptor. For secondary pollutant s like sulfate, where reductions in ambient concentrations occur as a result of atmospheric processes other th an dispersion, including deposition of sulfate on surfaces, the relationship between down wind concen trations at a receptor and emissions from a source is better characterized by the function 1/d. 50 During regional sulfat e episodes when sulfur conversion rates are enhanced by the presence of gas and aqueous-phase oxidants, pollutant
concentrations decline even le ss rapidly with distan ce as accelerated aerosol formation rates work to both generate more sulfate and reduce the remaining sulfur av ailable for deposition (deposition rates are roughly an order of magnitude slow er for sulfate than for SO 2 ).

Table 7.1 shows the relative contribution of st ates and Canadian pr ovinces on Brigantine Wilderness area. The principal contributors of sulfate to the Brigantine Wilderness Area, according to the Q/d method, include the mid-west ern states of Indiana and Ohio, as well as Pennsylvania and New York.

50 MANE-VU Contribution Assessment. August 2006

7-2Table 7.1 : 2002 SO 2 Emissions over Distance Impact ( μ g/m 3 ) 51

STATE BRIGANTINE EM ISSIONS Pennsylvania 0.38 1,090,562

Ohio 0.27 1,273,755 Maryland 0.24 292,970 W est Virginia 0.16 573,136

New York 0.15 341,493

Indiana 0.14 914,039

North Carolina 0.14 510,452 Virginia 0.14 309,709 New Jersey 0.14 64,437 Georgia 0.11 605,040
Kentucky 0.11 521,583

Delaware 0.10 83,549

Illinois 0.07 642,264

Tennessee 0.07 423,705

Alabama 0.07 548,054
Michigan 0.06 432,166

Florida 0.06 537,327

Texas 0.05 849,831

South Carolina 0.05 262,867

Missouri 0.05 361,911

Massachusetts 0.03 123,754

W isconsin 0.03 263,040

Kansas 0.01 136,104 New Hampshire 0.01 53,772

Minnesota 0.01 124,151
Mississippi 0.01 126,456

Iowa 0.01 230,676

Connecticut 0.01 41,093

Oklahoma 0.01 139,327

Louisiana 0.01 346,170

Arkansas 0.01 140,096

Maine <0.01 39,423

Nebraska <0.01 46,074

Rhode Island <0.01 2,531

Vermont <0.01 1,575

Dist. of Columbia <0.01 1,715

PROVINCE

Ontario 0.12 5,010 Quebec 0.03 6,567

New Brunswick 0.02 1,261

Nova Scotia 0.02 7,566

Newfoundland <0.01 15,287

Prince Edward Is. <0.01 10,157

51 Emissions were scaled using the CALPUFF model which is a Lagrangian puff model, available from the USEPA, used to calculate ambient air concentrations under given emission scenarios and conditions. See Attachment C-1 to this document for more details on the Scaling method used.

7-3Figure 7.2 shows the cumulative frac tion of the states and provin ces at Brigantine Wilderness

Area

Figure 7.2 : Cumulative Sulfate Contributions to th e Brigantine Wilderness Area based on Emissions divided by Distance (Q/d) Results

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0PAOHMDCanadaWVNYVAINNJNCGAKYDEILTNALMITXSCFLMOMAWSKSCTMSOKNHMNLAIAARMENEDCRIVT

StateCumulative Contribution

The top 14 states from Figure 7.1 contribute about 80 percent of the total sulfate contribution in the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

7.3.2 Emissions times Upwind Probability

The Emissions times Upwind Probability method fo r assessing contribution to pollution involves multiplying the back-trajectory calculated residence time probability for a grid cell with the total emissions from that grid cell and associated w ith a political jurisdiction such as a state.

The back trajectories 52 used in this study were cal culated by the HYSPLIT system. 53

, 54 For this analysis, five years of 72-hour back trajectories were calculate d eight times per day, 14,600 back trajectories in total. The resulting matrix of em issions and air parcel re sidence times contain the

52 A back trajectory is the path that a parcel of air is calcu lated to have taken prior to its arrival at a given receptor (see Chapter 5 of the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment in Appendix H of this document).

53 Draxler, R.D. and Hess, G.D., “Description of the HYSPLIT-4 Modeling System,” NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL, ARL-224 , Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Springs, Maryland, 24 pgs., 1997.

54 Draxler, R.D. and Hess, G.D., “An Overview of the HY SPLIT-4 Modeling System for Trajectories, Dispersion, and Deposition,” Australian Meteorological Magazine , 1998, 47, 295-308.

7-4SO 2 -weighted residence times that are then numeri cally integrated within the boundaries of each
state to define a “contribution” for each state. This provides a relative ranking of contribution by state that can be used to compare with other methods of attribution. 55

The area of analysis included states from Main e to Mississippi. Seve ral states lie on the periphery of the available SO 2 emissions field and were used in the study despite an incomplete inventory of SO 2 emissions for the far edges of each st ate; these included Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. 56 Canada has significant SO 2 emissions in the domain of the

SO 2 grid, hence contributions ha ve been calculated for portions of Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick that were within the SO 2 emission grid. Table 7.2 provides a ranking of state
contributions.

55 Note that the absolute units are expressed as nmole/hr, which represent a fractional contribution of a grid cell’s emission rate that is likely to influence a downwind receptor . The physical meaning of this contribution is not clear, so this has been used in a relative sense only.

56 These states still had significant areas that were not covered by the SO 2 grid. Thus only a fraction of these states’
emissions were included in the total state contri bution. The following ar e estimates of the area not covered by the

SO 2 grid: MO-20%, AR-10%, MS-25%, AL-20%, GA-5%.

7-5Table 7.2 : 2002 SO 2 Upwind Probability

STATE OR COUNTRY BRIGANTINE
Pennsylvania 13%

Ohio 10% West Virginia 9% New Jersey 7% Kentucky 6% Virginia 6%

Indiana 5%

North Carolina 5%

New York 4%

Illinois 4% Georgia 4% Maryland 4% Michigan 2%

Tennessee 2%

Alabama 2%

South Carolina 2%

Delaware 2%

Wisconsin 1%

Missouri 1%

Massachusetts <1% New Hampshire <1%

Minnesota <1%

Connecticut <1%

Maine <1%

Iowa <1%

Dist. Of Columbia <1%

Arkansas <1% Mississippi <1%

Vermont <1%

Louisiana <1%

Rhode Island <1%

Texas <1%

Canada 8%

7-6Figure 7.3 : Cumulative Sulfate Contributions to th e Brigantine Wilderness Area based on Emission times Upwind Probability (E x UP) Results

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1PAOHWVCanadaNJVAKYINNCNYILGAMDMITNSCDEALWSMOMNMADCCTIAARNHMSLAMERIVTTX

StateCumulative Contribution

The top 12 states from Figure 7.3 contribute about 80 percent of the total sulfate contribution in the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

7.4 Contribution Assessments Based on Dispersion Models

The MANE-VU Contribution Assessment also expl ored the use of lagrangian puff dispersion models such as CALPUFF for estimating source contributions and compares two related but
distinct versions of th e CALPUFF modeling system that demonstrate the sensitivity of this tool to emissions and meteorology inputs. Disper sion models are commonly used to study the impacts of pollutant plumes or specific point source emissions on surrounding areas. The scale of these models has traditionally been limited to a few hundred kilometers because of a perceived lack of ability to accurately reproduce horizontal dispersion beyond these distances.
Recent advances in the CALPUFF system including enhancements to its horizontal diffusion and dispersion algorithms as well as the addition of chemical transformation parameterizations have resulted in improved performance over much greater distances.

The CALPUFF modeling domain was designed to be consistent w ith the other modeling systems (e.g., REMSAD, CMAQ) described in Section 7. 5 and the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment report (Appendix H), enabling the comparison of the impacts from sources of sulfate-related visibility impacts in the MANE-VU region. Two di fferent meteorological fi elds were considered

7-7as part of the analysis, one based on the MM5 model 57 and one based on the National Weather Service (NWS) data.

Figure 7.4 : Modeled 2002 Contributions to Sulfate by State or Country at Brigantine

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

MM5-based Meteorology (MDE/MDNR) NWS-based Meteorology (VT DEC) Canada(b)
TX(a)

VT
MS(a)

RI
SD(a)
ND(a)

ME

DC
NE(a)
OK(a)

NH

CT
KS(a)
AR(a)

MN

IA
AL(a)

MO

WI

SC
GA(a)

IL

MA

TN

MI

DE

KY

NJ

NC

NY

IN

VA

WV

MD

OH

PA

Depending upon the meteorological fiel ds, 12 – 14 states contribute 80 percent (%) of the sulfate mass at the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

7.5 Contribution Assessments Based on Grid Models

The MANE-VU Contribution Assessment also us ed the Eulerian grid model, Regulatory Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMS AD), in the analysis. This type of model is likely to yield a more definitive assessment of c ontribution from different sources. Eulerian or “grid” models strive to provide a comprehens ive accounting of the impacts from the emissions by considering the meteorological dynamics , chemical production, transformation, and destruction as well as wet and dry deposition and microphysical processes. With this degree of sophistication also comes attendant uncertainty, thus the considera tion of more than one analysis
system.

57 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/

7-8REMSAD was used with a 12 km grid in the eastern United States domain. The air quality was modeled using 22 vertical layers with hourly te mporal resolution for the entire calendar year 2002. REMSAD has simplified chemistry but allows for emissions tracking of sulfate, nitrate, and mercury through a tagging feat ure that calculates the contri bution of specific sources to ambient concentrations, visibility impacts, a nd wet or dry deposition. REMSAD model was used primarily for attribution of sulfate species in the eastern United States via the species-tagging
scheme included in Version 7.10 and newer versions of the model. Sulfat e is the focus of the regional haze plan for the first milestone peri od year (2018) in the MANE-VU Class I states.

The left side of Figure 7.5 presents the IMPR OVE monitored data by species for 2000-2004 (the baseline years), the center provides the REMS AD modeling results fo r 2002 indicating the
contributions of the measured sulfate concentr ations by states and regions, and, on the right, three maps indicating meeti ng the following criteria:

1. States/regions that contributed 0.1 μg/m 3 sulfate or greater on th e 20% worst visibility days in the base year (2002)

2. States/regions that contribut ed at least 2% of total sulfate observed on 20% worst visibility days in 2002

3. The top ten contributing states on th e 20% worst visibility days in 2002.

Figure 7.5 : Modeled 2002 Contributions to Sulfate by State or Country at Brigantine



# Brigantine

20% Worst Days

0 5 10 15 20 25

Brigantine

Sulfate Nitrate EC OC Sea Salt Soil

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Brigantine CA NA DA

CENRA P

SE_BC

W_BC

N_BC

V T

RI

ME

DC

MS

CT

NH

MA

WI

NY

A L

IL

SC

MI

KY

TN

IN

NJ

DE

GA

WV

MD

V A

NC

OH

PA 0.1 μg/m 3 Sulfate

2 % of Sulfate #

Top 10 States

IMPROVE mass 00-04 Threshold options REMSAD 2002 Contribution to Sulfateμg/m3 #

#

7-97.5.1 Model Performance Evaluation

The first step in the modeling process is to verify the model’s performance in terms of its ability to predict fine particles and othe r airborne pollutant concentration fields in the right locations and at the right levels. To do this, model predictions for the base year simulation are compared to the
actual ambient data observed in the historical episode. This verificati on is a combination of statistical and graphical evaluati ons. If the model appears to be predicting fine particles and other airborne pollutants in the right locations for the right reas ons, then the model can be used as a predictive tool to evaluate various control strategies and their eff ects on regional haze.

The Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) is a three-dimensional Eulerian model designed to support a better unde rstanding of the distributions, sources, and removal processes relevant to fine particles and other airborne pollutants. It calculates the concentrations of both inert and chemically reactive pollutants by simulating the physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere th at affect pollutant concentrations.

The results of a model performance were examin ed prior to using REMSAD’s results to support MANE-VU’s contribution assessment. The pe rformance of REMSAD was evaluated and found to meet the performance criteria set in USEPA guidance. 58 Modeling results were compared with IMPROVE measurement, and showed that REMSAD’s simulation field is well-matched
with measurement data.

7.6 Identification of States that Contribute to Visibility Impairment at the Brigantine
Wilderness Area

The different methods employed in the Contributi on analysis yield similar results. The same states appear as the greatest contributors to su lfate levels in the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

For the purposes of the first progress goal ( 2018) for the Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey identified the states causing or contributin g to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area using the techniques listed in Table 7.3.

58 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Anal yses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze . United States Environmental Protection Agency, office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007

7-10Figure 7.6 : States Identified as Contributing to Visibility Impairment in Ne w Jersey’s Class I Area

New Jersey Illi no is

Georgi a M ichi gan

Kentuck y

Ten nessee

South Carolina M ic higan

Delaware Di st rict of Columbia Ohi o

Virginia I ndiana New York

Pennsy lvania

North C arolina West Virginia Maryland Maine

Vermon t

Mass achu set ts

Con nect icut

New H amp shi re

Rho de Is land Iowa

Mis so uri

Ark ans as

Alabama Wis co n si n

Louisiana Mis si ss ip pi M inneso ta

Kansas

Tex as N ebraska Sou th D ako ta

Flo rid a Ok lah o ma No rth Dak ot a

Reason for Inclusion

Not Id entified

MANE-VU Memb er
Contributory to Briga ntine
New Jersey

Figure 7.6 shows the states identified as contributi ng to visibility impairment in the Brigantine Wilderness Area for this first round of Regional Haze SIP planning or that were identified by New Jersey because of their involvement in the MANE-VU Planning Organization.

New Jersey believes that many sources in more states will eventually need to address the transport of their emissions to the Brigantine Wilderness Area to help achieve the natural visibility goal.

7.7 Notification

On January 18, 2007, the NJDEP Commissi oner Lisa Jackson sent a lett er to 22 states identified as causing or contributing to regional haze in the Brigantine Wilderness Area or that are members of the MANE-VU Regional Planning Organi zation. These states are listed in Table 7.3, and the copies of the letters can be found in Appendix I-1. New Jersey received responses from the majority of the states that were cont acted expressing their w illingness to consult and work together with New Jersey to address regi onal haze. The states also provided a contact person for their regional haze efforts. However, some states (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia) in the Visibility Improvement – Stat e and Tribal Asso ciation of the Southeast (VISTAS) Regional Pl anning Organization (RPO) conclu ded that based on VISTAS’ assessment, they do not reasonably contribute to the visibility impairment at Brigantine. The
differences between the MANE-VU and VIST AS assessments were discussed during consultation (See section 8.3.2).

New Jersey does not expect that states that were identified because they were MANE-VU members, and did not meet the criteria fo r contribution of a greater than 0.1 ug/m 3 or greater than two percent sulfate contribution to the Briganti ne Wilderness Area, will need to document in their Regional Haze Plan that they have obtaine d their share of emission reductions necessary to reach the first progress goal for the Brigantine Wilderness Area, unless any of the top 167 EGU stacks is located in the states. Rather, New Je rsey would like to see these MANE-VU members, not identified as contributing to meet the 2018 reasonable progress goal, propose and adopt

7-11through their administrative pr ocesses the agreed upon Reasonabl e Measures. See Section 8.4.1 for more specifics.

Table 7.3 : States Invited to Consult on Establ ishing New Jersey’s Class I Area 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal

State Name (alphabetical order) Technique / Reason for Inclusion
Connecticut MANE-VU member
Delaware > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution, MANE-VU
member
District of Columbia > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution, MANE-VU
member Georgia > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution
Illinois > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution
Indiana 3 of 5 techniques (Q/D, CALPUFF 1 & 2) Kentucky > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution
Maine MANE-VU member Maryland 4 of 5 technique s (Q/D, REMSAD, CALPUFF1 &2)
Massachusetts MANE-VU member Michigan > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution New Hampshire MANE-VU member
New York 4 of 5 technique s (Q/D, REMSAD, CALPUFF 1 &2)
North Carolina 4 of 5 technique s (Q/D, REMSAD, CALPUFF1 &2)
Ohio All techniques Pennsylvania All techniques
Rhode Island MANE-VU member
South Carolina > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution

Tennessee > 0.1 ug/m 3 or > 2% Sulfate Contribution

Vermont MANE-VU member Virginia 4 of 5 techniques (Q/D, REMSAD, Calpuff 1 &2) West Virginia All techniques

7.8 New Jersey’s Contribution to Other Class I Areas

New Jersey was identified as a MANE-VU member contributing to visibility impairment in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont Class I areas . New Jersey’s contri bution to visibility impairment in these states is relatively small. Ne w Jersey believes that it is contributing its fair share to improve visibility in these states, base d on its control measure commitments, especially New Jersey’s performance standards for E GUs, discussed in Chapter 10 (Commitments).

7-128.0 REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS AND LONG TE RM STRATEGY

8.1 Introduction

New Jersey is required to establish the natural visibility conditions and reasonable progress goals to provide for progress towards achieving natura l visibility in 2064, for Brigantine Wilderness

Area. 59 The goals must be set in such a way to provide improvement in visibility on the most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the least impaired days.

In defining the reasonable progress goals, Ne w Jersey determined reasonable measures, considering the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of the existing sources subject to such requirements. 60 In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, New Jersey relied upon information and analyses developed by MANE-VU to meet the requirements.

New Jersey consulted with states identified as contributing to the Brigantine Wilderness Area (see Section 7) through a process in volving the states and the Fede ral Land Managers to set the natural background conditions and the 2018 progress goal.

This Section presents the goals and describes the process used by New Jersey to set them.

8.2 Brigantine Wilderness Area Visibility Goal

Table 8.1 summarizes the existing visibility conditions and the goals as described in Section 3.

The uniform rate of improvement needed to achieve the reasonable progress goal on 20% of worst visibility days by 2018 is 3.9 deciviews, or an average baseline visibility of 25.1 deciviews on 20% of worst visibility days.

Table 8.1 : Visibility Goals for the Brigantine Wilderness Area

Conditions Deciviews Natural Background Visibility on 20% of wo rst visibility days (Goal in 2064) 12.2 Average Baseline Visibility on 20% of be st visibility days (2000 – 2004) 14.3 Average Baseline Visibility on 20% of worst visibility days (2000 – 2004) 29.0 Uniform Rate of Progress in 2018 on the 20% worst visibility days 25.1

8.3 The Process

This subsection discusses the process that New Je rsey and the other Cla ss I states in MANE-VU used to develop the reasonable progress goals in MANE-VU Class I ar eas, which include the

59 40 C. F. R. § 51.308 (d)(1)

60 40 C. F. R. § 51.308 (d)(1)(i)

8-1Brigantine Wilderness area. New Jersey utilized USEPA guidance 61 in setting the reasonable progress goal for Brigantine.

8.3.1 Identifying Reasonable Controls and the Four Factor Analysis

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 (d)(1)(i)(A), when establishing reasonable progress goals for each Class I area, the state must consider th e costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The SIP must include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consid eration in setting the goal. These factors are sometimes termed the “four statutory factors,” si nce their consideration is required by the Clean
Air Act. 62

As discussed in Section 7, sulf ate currently causes the most vi sibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area. New Jersey considers it reasonable to focus on SO 2 emissions reduction measures in setting the 2018 reasonable progress goal. Based on information from the
contribution assessment and additional emissi on inventory analyses, MANE-VU identified the following source categories for further examination as reasonable measures:

• Coal and oil-fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

• Point and area source industrial, commercial and institutional boilers

• Cement and Lime Kilns

• Heating oil, and

• Residential wood combustion

MANE-VU analyzed these potential source catego ries based on the “four statutory factors” according to 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(v). Detailed informati on on control technologies assessed is presented in the MANE-VU Reasonable Progress Report, 63 Appendix N.

MANE-VU determined that due to the complexiti es of the individual units and the lack of specific data, a generalized dete rmination of emission reductions from the cement and lime kiln category was not reasonable at this time. However, specific contro ls at individual cement plants or lime kilns may be reasonable under source specific control programs (i.e., BART). Additionally, MANE-VU determined for similar reasons that it was not reasona ble at this time to develop a regional residential wood combustion program. New Jersey agrees with these determinations as they apply to the region. New Jersey has no cement and lime kilns. New Jersey will consider state specific wood burning provisions as describe d in section 9.6. ICI boilers were not specifically included on the list of Reasonabl e Measures for MANE-VU States for Regional Haze, because it is not an SO 2 reduction measure. However, ICI boilers were included as an OTC regional measure as discu ssed in the OTC February 28, 2007 report included in Appendix F-3, and was included in the BOTW modeling for New Jersey.

61 USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program. June 1, 2007.

62 Section 169A (g)(1) [42. U.S.C. 7491]

63 “Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas” (MACTEC, July 9, 2007)

8-2After identifying potential control measures a nd performing the four f actor analysis, MANE-VU performed initial modeling which showed the visi bility impacts from the implementation of the measures. The initial modeling results showed that the projected 2018 visibility on the 20% worst days at the Brigantine Wilderness area wa s better than the uniform rate of progress. Details of MANE-VU’s initial modeling were later documented in the MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals report. 64 Based on the modeling results and other analysis performed by MANE-VU, the MANE-VU states develope d “Asks”, which are “emission management” strategies. These strategies se rved as the basis for the consu ltation with the other states.

8.3.2 Consultation

The regulations at 40 C.F.R. 51.308 (d)(1)(iv) requires states w ith Class I areas to develop reasonable progress goals in cons ultation with any state that ma y reasonably cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area. The rule states:

In developing each reasonable progress goal, th e State must consult with those States which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area. In any situation in which the State cannot agree with another such State or group of States that a goal provides for reasonable progress,
the State must describe in its submittal the ac tions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing the State's implementation plan s ubmittal, the Administrator will take this information into account in determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions.

As stated in Section 7, as part of this consultation process, NJDEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson
sent a letter to the 22 eastern states identified as contributing to regional haze in the Brigantine Wilderness Area. New Jersey received responses from the majority of the states that were contacted expressing their willingness to consult and work toge ther with New Jersey to address regional haze. The states also provided a c ontact person for their re gional haze efforts. However, some states (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia) in the Visibility Improvement – State and Tribal Association of th e Southeast (VISTAS) Regional Planning Organization (RPO) concluded that based on VISTAS’ assessment, they do not reasonably contribute to the visibility impairment at Brigantine. Copies of the letters sent by NJDEP to other states and responses from some states are provided in Appendix I of this plan.

New Jersey consulted with contributing states in the MANE-VU, MWRPO and VISTAS regions through conference calls and in -person meetings in 2007, to compare technical work and findings, discuss any adjustments that might be appropriate, and develop mutually beneficial solutions. During consultation, the MANE-VU Class I states established a resolution setting out the principles by which the regional haze rule will be implemented. Th e MANE-VU states also agreed through formal statements to pursue th e adoption and implementa tion of the reasonable
measures discussed in Section 8.4. These cons ultations are documented in more detail in Appendix C.

64 MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals. February 7, 2008

8-3Some of the key discussions of these consulta tions include discussions of emission inventory issues and modeling assumptions, and a review and identification of controls at the EGUs (actual vs. IPM estimated). There was no specific guida nce by the other RPOs regarding any expected
reductions from non-EGUs sources , and there was conceptual agreement to explore the development of an agreement to seek additional national control programs. Based on the consultations, changes were made to the definitio n of reasonable measures for inclusion in the final modeling, including changes to the definition of controls on the 167 stacks. The modified emission control strategies used to define reasonable measures and the 2018 reasonable progress goal are discussed in the Section 8.4.

Additionally, MANE-VU conducted several public mee tings with stakeholde rs as part of the consultation effort to discuss the progress and resu lts of the collaborative regional efforts. These meetings are described in Appendix C.

Some issues that were raised during consultation include the Midwest RPO’s concern regarding substituting reductions from the EG U sector for reductions that ma y not be obtainable from the non-EGU sector and West Virginia’s concern regarding MANE-VU’s requested 28 percent (%) reduction from the non-EGU sector (See Sub-sec tion 8.4.2 (Areas Outside MANE-VU)). West Virginia, Reliant Energy, VISTAS and Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) also expressed concern on MANE-VU’s final modeling (See S ub-section 8.5 (Reasonable Progress Goal for Brigantine Wilderness Area)).

8.3.3 “Asks”

After reviewing the four factor analysis, MANE- VU determined its reasonable measures to begin
consultation with the other states. These were labeled as the “asks.” These ” asks ” were documented in two separate statements that were agreed to as a regional strategy at the June 20, 2007 MANE-VU Board meeting. They apply to th e states within and outside MANE-VU who were identified as contributing to visibility im pairment in any of the MANE-VU Class I areas, including the Brigantine Wilderness Area. The statements are presented in Appendices D-1 and
D-2 and are summarized below.

• “Asks” within MANE-VU

o Timely implementation of BART requirements

o 90 percent (%) or greater SO 2 emission reductions from each of the 167 electric generating unit (EGUs) stacks identified by MANE-VU

o Low sulfur fuel oil strategy

o Continued evaluation of other measur es, including measures to reduce SO 2 and

NO

x emissions from all coal-burning fac ilities and promulgation of new source performance standards for wood combustion

• “Asks” outside MANE-VU

o Timely implementation of BART requirements

8-4o 90 percent (%) or greater SO 2 emission reductions from each of the 167 electric generating units (EGUs) identified by MANE-VU

o 28 percent ( %) reduction 65 from non-EGU sources

o Continued evaluation of other measur es, including measures to reduce SO 2 and NOx emissions from all coal-burning f acilities and promulgation of new source performance standards for wood combustion

The majority of the sulfate responsible for visi bility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas is from electric generating sources . MANE-VU, through modeling, 66 identified the 167 separate EGU stacks that significantly impact at leas t one MANE-VU Class I ar ea. MANE-VU states
determined that it was reasonable to seek at least a 90 percent reduction 67 in SO 2 emissions relative to their 2002 CEMS-reporte d emission levels from each of these 167 EGU stacks. The MANE-VU “ask” recognized that it may not be feasible to achieve the emission reductions requested at every stack. Thus, the MANE -VU “ask” includes a provision allowing the contributing state to pursue alternative measures to achieve the same level of emission reduction elsewhere if controls at a specific stack were found not to be feasible.

The 28 percent (%) emission reduction from non-EGU sources is intended to represent a similar
emission reduction as the MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fu el Oil strategy in the areas inside of MANEVU. This strategy intentionally does not define a specific control measure. It was the intention of the MANE-VU states to enable the contributing states to define how they would achieve this additional reduction in a way th at is most reasonable for the sources in their state.

The next step was for MANE-VU to finalize the definition of the reasonable measures and to perform modeling to establish the 2018 reasonable progress goal . The details on the MANE-VU modeling and the 2018 reasonable progre ss goal are discussed in Section 8.5.

8.4 Reasonable Measures for Brigantine – Regional Measures

This section presents the reasonable measures de termined by New Jersey after consultation with contributing states and used to establish the 2018 reasonable progress goal for the Brigantine Wilderness area. This long-term strategy to re duce and prevent regional haze will allow each state time to pursue adoption and implementati on of these reasonable and cost-effective SO 2 measures in a reasonable timeframe. It is e xpected that the measures will be in place as expeditiously as practicable, but no later th an December 31, 2017, to ensure the visibility
benefits will be seen in the 2018 milestone year.

65 Based on MANE-VU’s initial analysis of available projectio n inventories for 2018, these targets were estimated as 151,000 and 308,000 tons per year reduction in non-EGU SO2 emissions from the Midwest RPO and VISTAS RPO respectively. MANE-VU reached a consensus with the Mi dwest RPO during the consultation process that 131,6000 tons per year was a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of a 28 percent reduction relative to their projected 2018 non-EGU SO2 emissions of 470,000 tons per year.

66 See Appendix D of the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment which describes two CALPUFF platforms that were used to model 2002 CEM emissions for approximately 800 eastern U.S. EGUs.

67 In practice, installation of stack control devices such as SO 2 Scrubbers can achieve as high as 98 percent SO 2 reduction, thus the 90 percent SO 2 reduction from the 167 EGU stacks was determined to be reasonable.

8-58.4.1 MANE-VU States

The reasonable emission control st rategies to be implemented in the MANE-VU states to achieve the reasonable progress goal at Brigantine Wilderness Area by 2018 are listed in Table 8.2. During consultation, the MANE- VU states agreed through a statement (See Appendix D) to pursue the adoption and implementation of the re asonable measures in Table 8.3. New Jersey requests that MANE-VU members expeditiously propose and adopt, throu gh their administrative processes, the agreed upon Reasona ble Measures. New Jersey expect s any state that is home to any of the 167 EGU stacks, identified by MANE-VU as contributing to haze in Class I areas, to
address the emissions from the stack in their haze SIP. New Jersey recognizes that a 90 percent (%) reduction may not be feasible for every stack iden tified. If a state finds that such a reduction is not feasible, then New Jersey expects the stat e to identify the alternative measures the state will pursue to provide for equivalent emission re ductions and document those measures in their

SIP.

Table 8.2 : Reasonable Measures for MANE-VU States (“Asks” Within MANE-VU)

BART Timely implementation of BART requirements

EGU A 90% or greater reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions* from each of the 167 stacks identified by

MANE-VU

Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy S-1 S-2

Low Sulfur Oil - inner Zone (NJ, NY, PA) Distillate 500 ppm 15 ppm

#4 0.25% sulfur 0.25% sulfur

#6 0.3-0.5 %
sulfur 0.3-0.5 %
sulfur

Low Sulfur Oil - outerzone (rest of MANEVU) Distillate 500 ppm 15 ppm

#4 0.25% sulfur

#6 0.3-0.5 %
sulfur

Additional Controls ** Continued evaluation of other measures, including Energy Efficiency, Alternative Clean Fuels and
other measures to reduce SO 2 and NO

x from all coal-burning facilities by 2018, and new source performance standards for wood combustion

* If it is infeasible for a state to achieve this level of reduction from a unit, alternative measures
will be obtained. ** Not included in the Modeling

8-6After consideration of the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental im pacts of compliance, and the useful life of existing sources that contribute to visibility impairment, New Jersey and the MANE-VU states believe that the
reduction measures in Table 8.3 constitute reasonab le progress and are necessary to achieve the Reasonable Progress Goal.

Section 9 discusses the actions New Jersey will be taking to implement these reasonable

measures.

8.4.2 Areas outside MANE-VU

The states, outside of the MANE-VU states, f ound to contribute to ha ze at the Brigantine Wilderness Area for the 2018 milestone year are Geor gia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Te nnessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 68 The reasonable measures needed to improve visibility by th e 2018 goal, developed by the MANE-VU states, during the consultation process, fo r the areas outside of the MANE- VU states, are listed in Table

8.3.

Table 8.3 : Reasonable Measures for non-MANE- VU states (“Asks” Outside MANE-VU)

BART Timely implementation of BART requirements

EGU A 90% or greater reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions* from each of the 167 stacks identified by

MANE-VU

Non-EGU - 28 percent non-EGU SO 2 reduction by 2018 for each contributing State

Additional Controls** Continued evaluation of other measures, including
measures to reduce SO 2 and NO

x from all coal-burning facilities by 2018, and prom ulgation of new source performance standards for wood combustion

* If it is infeasible for a state to achieve this leve l of reduction from a unit, the state must identify alternative measures for equivalent emission reductions. ** Not included in the modeling.

New Jersey and the MANE-VU states considered th e costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environm ental impacts of compliance, and the useful life of existing sources that contri bute to visibility impairment, and determined that the measures listed in Table 8.3 constitute reasonable progre ss and are necessary to achieve the Reasonable Progress Goal.

During consultation, an issue was raised regarding whether it w ould be acceptable for Midwest
RPO states to substitute re ductions from the EGU sector fo r reductions that may not be

68 In addition, the State of Vermont identified at least one source in the State of Wisconsin as a significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Lye Brook Wilderness Class I Area.

8-7obtainable in the non-EGU sector. MANE-VU states indicated that this would be acceptable, depending on the location and type of the EGU source.

West Virginia expressed concer n that MANE-VU included a 28 pe rcent (%) reduction from the non-EGU sector, indicating that they did not have any measures to meet this additional reduction burden. West Virginia also indicated that the additional emission reductions from the EGUs not captured in the MANE-VU modeling could cove r the non-EGU sector reduction modeled. To
the extent that the additional emission reductions are achieved from the EGUs and the reductions are not offset by increases by another E GU under the CAIR cap and trade program, 69 New Jersey would accept these reductions to meet the non-E GU emission reduction measure included in the
definition of reasonable measures for the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

8.5 Reasonable Progress Goal fo r Brigantine Wilderness Area

To determine the reasonable progress goal (RPG) in deciviews, MANE-VU conducted an updated model simulation with refined representati ons of the reasonable control measures as determined through the consultati on process. See Section 8.4.

The final modeling included the non-EGU me asure emission reductions (See Table 8.3) outside
MANE-VU which were not reflecte d in the initial modeling, as well as updated information for the 167 EGU stacks. The EGU emission projections with the 90% control at the 167 stacks were less than the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (C AIR) cap. Emissions were added back into the modeling emission inventory to maintain the CAIR cap. New Jersey and other MANE-VU
states consider additional EGU controls beyond CAIR as reasonable and necessary. A description of how the emissions controls were modeled to determine the visibility impact of the
MANE-VU reasonable measures are documented in the MANE-VU 2018 Visi bility Projections Report, 70 and the Alpine Geophysics Report, 71 included in Appendix J. Section 8.7 discusses the performance of the modeling system used to set the 2018 reasonable progress goal.

The reasonable measures included in the fi nal modeling would result in a 3.9 deciview improvement on the 20 percent worst days and 2. 1 deciview improvement on the 20 percent best days, Table 8.4. The results indicate that th e uniform rate of progress will be achieved.

69 The CAIR cap and trade program was vacated on July 11 , 2008, by the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. New Jersey is currently evaluating its legal options to address the loss in emission reductions from the upwind sources. New Jersey will address this is sue during its 2013 evaluation required by the visibility
rule.

70 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Regional Planni ng Organization. “Draft 2018 Visibility Projections Report.” March 31, 2008

71 Alpine Geophysics “Documentation of 2018 Emissions from Electric Generating Units in the Eastern U.S. for MANE-VU’s Regional Haze Modeling” April 2008

8-8Table 8.4 : Reasonable Progress Goals for th e Brigantine Wilderness Area (all values expressed as deciviews)

Baseline Visibility (2000-2004) Natural Background
Conditions in 2064 Reasonable Progress Goal
for 2018 2018 CMAQ Projections

20% Worst Days 29.0 12.2 25.1 25.1

20% Best Days 14.3 5.5 14.3 12.2

The MANE-VU final modeling results were de veloped using the CMAQ modeling platform
described in the MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Report , Appendix N.

Figure 8.1 illustrates the predicted visibil ity improvement by 2018, resulting from the implementation of the reasonable measures.

Figure 8.1 : Projected Visibility Improvement at Brigantine Wilderness Area Based on Best and Final Modeling

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3519851990199520002005201020152020202520302035204020452050205520602065

YearDecivews 20% Worst Observed
20% Best Observed
20% Worst Baseline
20% Best Baseline Uniform Progress No Degradation CMAQ 20% Worst CMAQ 20% Best
20% Best 'Natural'

In establishing the reasonable progress goal fo r 2018, New Jersey recognizes that contributing states have the flexibility to submit SIP revisions between now and 2018, as they adopt reasonable control measures as expeditiously as practicable to achie ve the 2018 reasonable progress goal at Brigantine Wilderne ss Area. It is expected that the measures will be in place no later than December 31, 2017, to ensure the visibili ty benefits will be seen in the 2018 milestone

year.

MANE-VU received comments from West Virginia, Reliant En ergy, VISTAS, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) on the final mode ling. West Virginia, Reliant Energy and VISTAS objected to MANE-VU not using the sa me modeling emission inventory as VISTAS, specifically for the EGUs. The UARG comments focused on the fact that the MANE-VU 2018 visibility modeling report included control meas ures and emission reductions that went beyond currently existing regulations. They claimed th at since the CAIR program and other “on the books” or “on the way” measures are projecte d to achieve uniform rates of progress as

8-9previously modeled, additional reductions to both EGU and non-EGU sectors were unnecessary. The comments regarding the MANE-VU final modeling are documented in Appendix K.

The USEPA rules require states to identify al l reasonable measures, including potential point,
area and mobile source controls to set the 2018 reasonable progress goa l. New Jersey and MANE-VU’s analysis indicate that identifie d measures are reasonable and thus were appropriately used to set the 2018 progress goal, even if better than uniform rate of progress is achieved. The final modeling for the Brigantine Wilderness Area indicates that even with the additional reasonable measures, the uniform rate of progress benchmark will just be achieved in the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

MANE-VU did not use the VISTA RPO emission i nventory because the CAIR program is a cap and trade program. During the consultation, there was no enforceable mechanism to require that states stay within thei r budget. Thus MANE-VU chose to add back emissions to reflect the CAIR cap. This assumption provides a conservativ e projection of less visi bility improvement. New Jersey supports enforceable measures in state haze SIPs to require at least 90% SO 2 reduction at all 167 EGUs without offs etting emission increases elsewhere.

8.6 CAIR Vacatur

On July 11, 2008, the United States Court of App eals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated the federal Clean Air Interstate Ru le (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, the court
remanded the CAIR to the USEPA without vacatu r of CAIR “so that EPA may remedy CAIR’s flaws in accordance with” the court’s July 2008 opinion vacating CAIR. The court gave no deadline for the USEPA rulemaking, but it said:

“[W]e remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental fl aws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition
to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion.” (Order at 1, Dec. 23, 2008.)

Therefore, the anticipated vacatur no longer applies since a mandate by the court was never issued on the July 11, 2008 opinion ( State of North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). CAIR remains in full effect.

The implementation of CAIR alone will not be suffi cient to address interstate transport issues, especially for the Northeastern and Mid-Atla ntic United States to meet the attainment requirements. To address transport and other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, New Jersey expects the USEPA to establish pe rformance standards to apply to each EGU, as well as more stringent caps to achieve progress towards those performance standards and achieve additional
emission reductions.

8-108.7 Baseline Inventory and Projections

New Jersey is required to identify the baseli ne inventory on which th e long-term strategy is based in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3 )(iii). For the MANE-VU region, New Jersey used the 2002 MARAMA inventory Version 3.0 as its baseline inventory. Th is inventory as well as the projection inventories used in the modeling, are discussed in Section 5 of this SIP. The regional MARAMA report documenting the devel opment of the 2002 base year inventory is included in Appendix F-1. The regional MARAMA report documenting the development of the future year inventories for the non-EGU, area and non-road sectors, is included in Appendix F-2. The 167 EGU stacks and their baseline emissions are listed in Appendix L.

For other regions, MANE-VU used inventories developed by the RPOs for those regions, including VISTAS Base G2, MWRPO’s Base K, and CENRAP’s emissions inventory as obtained. (Specific files are identified in the MANE-VU re port, “Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals” on page 1-18).

VISTAS modeling for E GU’s projected total SO 2 emissions for the MWRPO, MANE-VU and VISTAS to be below the CAIR cap. New Je rsey supports VISTAS EGU emission inventory approach, but as previously st ated, does not find a regulatory mechanism to reduce the CAIR cap, thus the rationale to the add back emissions. If the additiona l reductions are realized, then the interim reasonable progress goal may be achieved sooner and more progress made to reduce
haze.

8.8 Model Performance Evaluation

To set the 2018 reasonable progress goal, the CM AQ modeling system was utilized. One of the steps in the modeling process is to assess the modeling system’s ability to predict pollutant
concentration fields in the correct locations and at the right levels and time. To do this, model predictions for the base year simulation are compar ed to the actual ambient data observed. This
assessment involves the evaluation of statistical and graphical information. If the model appears to be predicting pollutant concentration fields ap propriately, then the model can be used as a predictive tool to evaluate va rious control strategies and th eir effects on visibility.

The results of a model performance evaluation were examined in accordance with the USEPA Modeling Guidance 72 prior to using CMAQ’s results to support achieving the 2018 reasonable progress goal. NESCAUM conducted a perfor mance evaluation of the 2002 base case CMAQ simulation for the pollution of interest on behalf of the MANE-VU member states. MANE-VU’s performance evaluation found the mo deling tools to meet the perf ormance criteria set in the USEPA modeling guidance. Predicted PM 2.5 sulfate and measured sulfate are in 1:1 linear relationship between the model and observa tions. Appendix H pr ovides comprehensive
evaluation of the results.

72 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Anal yses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmen tal Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007

8-11The CMAQ air quality simulations were perfor med cooperatively among five modeling centers: New York State Department of Environmenta l Conservation (NYSDEC), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in association with Rutgers University, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), University of Maryland (UMD), and NESCAUM. The modeling was conducted on the 12-km resolution domain for the years of 2002, 2009 and 2018. The model performance for vi sibility was examined based on the 2002 annual CMAQ run. Measurements from IMPROVE and STN networks were used for the
evaluation.

Regional haze modeling also requires a CMAQ performance evaluation for aerosol extinction coefficient (B ext ) and the haze index. CMAQ prediction of the aerosol extinction coefficient at
all Class I sites in the eastern United States agrees well with IMPROVE observation because CMAQ performs well on sulfate, which dominates aerosol extinction.

Overall, MANE-VU CMAQ modeling for 2002 accurately portrays sulfate, PM 2.5 , aerosol extinction coefficient, and the Haze Index. Fo r more details on CMAQ performance evaluation, see Appendix C of the MANE-VU Contribution Assessment report, presented in Appendix H of this report.

8-129.0 NEW JERSEY ACTIONS

New Jersey is required to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal ar ea within and outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within th e State in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3). The long-term strategy must include enforceable em issions limitations, compliance schedules and other measures necessary to achieve the reasona ble progress goals established by states where
the Class I areas are located. Th is section describes how New Jersey plans to meet the long-term strategy requirements.

New Jersey sources contribute to visibility im pairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area, a Class I area located in New Jersey. New Jersey is also home to four (4) of the 167 EGU stacks
identified for reasonable controls. Add itionally, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont determined that New Jersey contributed to their Class I areas, Acad ia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Great Gulf Wilder ness Area and Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area, and Lyebrook Wilderness Area, respectively. To address the contributions, New Jersey is committed to take action to reduce the impact of these and other sources in New Jersey. New Jersey is basing its actions in part on the measures in the MANE-VU final modeling 73

.

9.1 BART

New Jersey identified four petroleum refineries and one electric generating facility as Best Available Retrofit Technology (B ART)-eligible fac ilities potentially subject to those requirements under the Clean Air Act. Existing rules and consent decree requirements already address the majority of BART requirements. New Jersey has sent letters dated March 3, 2009, requesting that each facility conduct a BART anal ysis. New Jersey will finalize the BART determinations as single source SIP revisions and also if necessary as operating permit modifications. New Jersey’s discussion re garding BART is included in Section 6.

9.2 EGU Strategy

• 167 EGU Stacks – Four of the 167 EGU stacks iden tified by MANE-VU as contributing to visibility impairment are located in New Jersey . They are located in the following facilities: BL England, PSEG - Hudson, and PSEG – Mercer. These facilities all have coal-fired EGU boilers. The BL England facility is u nder an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) 74 to meet performance standards for SO 2 , NO

x , and PM. The Hudson and Mercer facilities are under a

Consent Decree 75 to also meet performance standards for SO 2 , NO

x and PM. 76 These orders/decrees will require more than a 90 percent (%) SO 2 emission reduction by 12/15/2012,
in addition to about 90% reduction of NO

x and PM.. New Jersey has also adopted a mercury

73 On a recent MANE-VU call (date) of the State Air Director Representative, the MANE-VU Class I states indicated that they were all defining their 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal based on the final MANE-VU modeling.

74 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Administrative Consent Order (ACO) NEA 040002-73001. Effective January 24, 2006

75 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decr ees/amended/psegfossil-amended-cd.pdf

76 The Hudson and Mercer facilities will meet 90 percent SO 2 reduction by 2010

9-1rule 77 that sets performance standards for coal-fired boilers, for companies which choose the multi-pollutant strategy in that rule. All four of the167 EGU stacks located in New Jersey are committed to multi-pollutant controls, as part of their mercury rule compliance plan.

• Electric Generating Units (EGU) Boilers – In addition to the mercury rule multipollutant control incentive, New Jersey adopted performance standards to reduce allowable NO

x , SO 2 and particulate emissions from all ten coal -fired boilers in New Jersey. Lowering the maximum allowable emission rates of particles, NO

x and SO 2 from these coal-fired boilers will help reduce regional haze. The NJDEP anticipates compliance by 2012 (2013, if the Department grants a one year extension due to a demonstrated need), as most of the required emission reductions are included in enforcement agreements or the existing multi-pollutant provisions of the mercury rule for coal-fired boilers at N.J. A.C. 7:27-27.7(d). New Jersey also adopted more stringent NO

x emission standards for gas and oil-fired boilers serving EGUs in advance of the reasonable progress goal milestone date.

9.3 Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

New Jersey intends to propose and adopt rules in accordance with the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et. se q.) and the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-1 et seq.) to modify the sulfur in fuel limits in accordance with the definition of reasonable measures, outlined in Subsection 8.4.1, for the MANE-VU strategy. N.J.A.C. 7:27 – 9 already meets the #6 fuel oil sulfur levels in parts of the state.

9.4 Energy Efficiency

New Jersey issued a draft Energy Master Plan 78 (EMP) to address New Jersey's electricity and heating challenges. Components of the Energy Master Plan address wa ys to increase energy efficiency in the State.

On July 6, 2007, Governor Corzine signed the Global Warming Response Act. The Act requires New Jersey to reduce greenhouse gas emi ssions by 20 percent (%) by 2020 and by 80 percent (%) by 2050. Measures to meet thes e requirements will also help reduce SO 2 , PM,
and NO

x emissions and improve visibility. A Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan was proposed on December 15, 2008

.

9.5 Additional Class I State Required Measures

The Clean Air Act and the USEPA Rule require st ates with Class I areas to address emissions from construction activities and implement smoke management plans. This subsection describes New Jersey’s action for these categories.

77 N.J.A.C 7:27-27.7

78 www.nj.gov/emp

9-29.5.1 Measures to Mitigate the Impacts from Construction Activities

New Jersey is required to consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B). Construction activities are sources of crustal (or inorganic) forms of directly emitted particulate matter (PM), or “fugitive dust”, as well as dir ectly emitted carbonaceous PM from the exhaust emissions of the construction equipment. While much of the wind blown emissions are coarse PM, smaller particles are also present. During hi gh wind events, fine crustal PM has been shown to be transported over very long distan ces, and contribute to regional haze.

New Jersey has standards 79 that reduce “fugitive dust” emi ssions from construction. These Standards were adopted by the New Jersey De partment of Transportation and New Jersey Department of Agricultures under the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards: Standards
for Dust control.” The Standard covers the c ontrol of dust on constructio n sites and roads, the control of flowing sediment from accessing cons truction sites, and th e control of on-site
construction traffic to mini mize land disturbance.

To address exhaust emissions, the USEPA has prom ulgated regulations that will limit the sulfur
content of diesel fuel for on-road and non-road vehicles and equipment to 15 ppm before 2018. Additionally, the USEPA recently promulgated ru les to require lower emissions from new nonroad diesel engines. 80 New Jersey has existing rules to limit the idling of vehicles and equipment. New Jersey has also proposed a rule to further reduce allowable smoke from on-road diesel engines. 81 These measures will help redu ce haze emissions and regional haze.

Additionally, New Jersey will consider additional mitigating measures for construction activities on a case-by-case basis depending on the size and na ture of the construction being done and the review of the potential emissions on the property in relation to a ny potential off-site impacts. To implement these requirements, the NJDEP can use existing authority under the Waterfront Development Rules, as well as Environmental Impact Statements required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Ac t and/or Executive Order. In addition, any unreasonable offsite air quality impacts during construction can be addressed by New Jers ey’s general prohibition of air pollution at N.J.A.C. 7:27-5 et seq. Miti gation measures would be required if construction activities unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.

As an example, mitigation of construction emis sions in New Jersey was included as a permit condition for a large commercial development in th e northern part of the State. The project
included the construction of offi ce buildings, an amusement park, a shopping mall and an indoor ski slope. One of the prime contractors was requ ired to reduce particulat e matter (PM) emissions from their construction equipment and their subcontractors' construction equipment by 35 percent. A variety of retrofit devices and fuel s were used to achieve this reduction: diesel particulate filters, diesel oxidation catalysts, clos ed crankcase filtration systems, and the use of ultra low (15ppm sulfur content) and low sulfur diesel (500ppm sulfur content).

79 Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. Promulgated by the New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee. Adopted July 1999.

80 Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 124, June 29, 2004.

81 http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqm/CPR-041708.pdf

9-3Emission reductions obtained th rough the implementation of m easures required by the Federal conformity regulation will also reduce emissions from projects and help reduce regional haze.
The Clean Air Act 82 requires that Federal actions conform to a state’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically the Clean Air Act requires that the action/activity will not:

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any area;

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any area;

or,

• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emission reductions or any other milestones in any area.

Federal actions taken in New Je rsey must comply with the Federal General Conformity Rules 83

for PM 2.5 in the 13 counties in nonattainment of the PM 2.5 standard and in the entire State for 8- hour ozone. The General Conformity Rule requires that VOC, NO

x , and PM 2.5 direct and indirect emissions from a project that exceed de minimis levels be mitigated, unless the activities
are exempt.

9.5.2 Fugitive Dust

New Jersey intends to further address fugitive dust 84 emissions in a new rule. The rule as currently envisioned would esta blish provisions requiring dust ma nagement plans for certain source categories and any facility with a hist ory of dust emissions. Requiring dust management plans for these facilities will help control dus t emissions to eliminate nuisance dust, improve visibility, and improve the health of the citizens of New Jersey. As with any rule, the New Jersey Air Pollution Control and Administrative Procedures Act requirements will be followed.

9.5.3 Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management

New Jersey is required to consider smoke management t echniques for the purposes of agricultural and forestry management in de veloping reasonable progress goals in accordance
with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). New Jersey a ddresses smoke management through its Open Burning rules, as discussed in Section 9.5.3.1. 85

9.5.3.1 Open Burning

New Jersey has one of the most stringent ope n burning rules in the nation. The existing New Jersey rules limit all types of ope n burning within the State, N.J.A.C. 7:27-2 et seq. These rules have been in effect since 1956, w ith subsequent revisions further restricting open burning. The rules prohibit most open burning, limit other types of open burning, and have been successful in

82 42 U.S.C. 7506

83 40 C.F.R 93.150

84 Fugitive dust is made up of suspended particles caused by human activities and wind. Typical sources of fugitive dust include wind erosion, construction, roads, and agriculture. Industrial activities such as quarries and mineral processing can also emit fugitive dust.

85 N.J.A.C. 7:27-2

9-4minimizing burning throughout the State. The lim ited instances where open burning is allowed, only after a person obtains an ai r pollution control and Forest Fire Service permit, include:

- Prescribed burning,

- Limit agricultural management burning as follows:

- Infested plant life,

- Herbaceous plant life and hedgerows,

- Orchard prunings and cullings,

- Land clearing for farming,

- Emergencies,

- Dangerous material.

New Jersey plans to propose amendments to the current rules to require that any permit issued for open burning in the State would prohibit open burning on days forecasted as unhealthy for air quality. This condition is currently envisione d to apply in all but emergency situations.

New Jersey commits to coordinate with Forest Fi re Service to consider the effects on Brigantine when reviewing open burning permit applications for certain areas near Brigantine, especially for prescribed burning.

New Jersey’s periodic area source emissions inventory includes estimated emissions from burning by county using data obtained from severa l sources, including th e New Jersey Division of Fire Safety and the NJDEP Bureau of Forest Fire Management, Divisions A, B, and C. New Jersey’s 2002 area source inventory can be found at http://www.state.nj.us/dep /baqp/sip/siprevs.htm in the “Attainment a nd Maintenance of the 8-
Hour Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard SIP and the 2002 Periodic Em ission Inventory” dated May 2006.

MANE-VU prepared a report on Open Burning in Residential Areas, prepared by E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., dated January 31, 2004. This report analyzed munici pal solid waste, leaf, brush and municipal yard waste bur ning. Since this type of burni ng is essentially banned in New Jersey, the report concluded it to be a minor c ontributor to organic carbon emissions in New Jersey.

9.5.3.2 Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning is one of the few categorie s where open burning is allowed by permit in New Jersey, as discussed above, under specific condit ions for public safety reasons. Prescribed burning is conducted or supervised by the Bureau of Forest Fire Management, to ensure public safety. Prescribed burning, when properly conduc ted, minimizes the potential future threat of large and serious uncontrolled wildfires whic h could seriously jeopardize human life and property. In addition, it reduces th e number of wildfires and the vi sibility impairment associated
with uncontrolled wildfire.

9-59.5.3.3 Agricultural Management Burning

A few other categories where open burning is curr ently allowed with a permit in New Jersey, but limited in its scope, are conducted on agricultural lands. These categories include infested plant life, herbaceous plant life and hedgerows, orch ard prunings and cullings and land clearing for agricultural purposes. NJDEP i ssues open burning permits to agricultural operations and establishments and ensures through these permits that only certain materials are burned.

9.6 Residential Wood Burning Strategies

Residential wood burning from woodstoves and fireplac es is one of the larg est sources of direct fine particulate matter, PM 2.5 , emissions in New Jersey. With the high price of conventional heating fuels, the onset of cold weather brings a dramatic increase in the use of fireplaces and woodstoves. This results in larg e quantities of particulate matter be ing released into the local air
shed. Wood smoke contains over 200 chemical s and compound groups, many considered as air
toxics.

New Jersey is considerin g strategies to reduce the emissions of wood smoke. Implementation of these strategies would reduce fine particle em issions and improve visibility. One strategy under
consideration is a Home Wood Heating Advisory Program, sim ilar to those in Oregon and Washington states. In general, these program s require the limitation of burning during times when unhealthy air quality is forecast or monitore d. Other strategies under investigation include woodstove and fireplace change-out programs. Financial incentives might be provided to help home owners to replace their older, more polluti ng fire box or stove with a newer, less polluting

one.

The NJDEP has posted on its website an informa tional webpage regarding techniques for proper wood burning, health effects of wood burning, and links to other useful web pages. 86

9.7 Measures to Reduce Organic Carbon Emissions

Organic carbon is the second larg est contributor to visibility impairment. In addition to SO 2 , PM precursors include NO

x and potentially volatile organi c compounds (VOCs). VOCs form secondary organic aerosol (SOA) after condensat ion and oxidation processes in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to the organi c fraction of visibility impair ment. New Jersey is taking
actions to reduce these emissions as di scussed in the following sub-section:

1. Boilers (N.J.A.C 7:27-16.8)

The existing rule sets VOC and Carbon Monoxide (CO) limits for indirect heat exchanges (boilers and furnaces). Lower levels for VOC and CO are being considered by NJDEP for Industrial, Commercial and In stitutional (ICI) boilers as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).

86 http://www.state.nj.us/dep /baqp/woodburning.html

9-62. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Other Indirect Heat Exchangers (N.J.A.C 7:27-19.7)

The existing rule, N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.7 (g), requires annual tune-ups for any
industrial/commercial/institutional boiler or othe r indirect heat exchanger with a maximum gross heat input rate of at least 10 million BTU per hour and greater, beginning in 2008, and expands to any unit of at least 5 million BTU per hour and greater, beginning in 2010. This rule will reduce organic carbon emissions. Re vised rules adopted on March 20, 2009, reduce
NOx emissions from certain boilers and furn aces. The revised RACT rule requires low NO

x burners (LNBs) or ot her reasonable cost NO

x technologies, and is expected to reduce NO

x emissions by about 50 percent (%) from affect ed units between 25 and 50 million BTUs per hour. Larger boilers were previously required to implement such measures.

3. Diesel Idling Rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27-14.3)

The existing rule removes exemptions in the previous rule and eliminates the sleeper berth exemption in 2010.

4. Diesel Retrofit Program (N.J.A.C 7:27-32)

The existing rule requires the installation of retrofit emissi on control technology on certain garbage trucks, commercial buses and public ly owned on-road vehicles and off-road equipment. The retrofits are scheduled to occur between 2008 and 2015. These rules will reduce the emissions of fine particles. The program regulates publicly-owned and certain privately-owned fleets. As of 2009, an estimated retrofit population of 24,000 on-road vehicles and off-road equipment will be affected by the mandatory retrofit program.

5. Control and Prohibition of Open Burning (N.J.A.C 7:27-2)

See Section 9.5.3.1 of this SIP revision for a di scussion regarding New Jersey’s open burning
rules.

6. Heavy Duty Trucks (N.J.A.C. 7:27-14)

On April 3, 2009, the NJDEP adopted rules that requi re tighter opacity limits to be used in the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program. This rule will reduce emissions of organic
carbon.

7. VOC Measures

The State is implementing several VOC control m easures that were adopted as discussed in
the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP. 87 Although the USEPA does not

87 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision fo r the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Proposal. Ne w Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, June 15, 2007.

9-7consider VOC as a PM 2.5 precursor for SIP and conformity purposes, New Jersey anticipates

some PM 2.5 benefit from the implementation of these measures.

9-810.0 COMMITMENTS

Attaining the 2018 Reasonable Prog ress Goal is contingent upon the continued implementation and enforcement of existing control measures, th e implementation of a number of new State and Federal control measures, as well as the implem entation of the “ask” reasonable measures by the contributing states and tribes. The remainde r of this section summ arizes New Jersey’s commitments, as well as New Jersey’s requests of the USEPA with respect to regional haze improvement, to reduce SO 2 , PM and NO

x emissions.

10.1 Control Measure Commitments

Table 10.1 provides a summary of control measur e commitments by New Jersey necessary to achieve the Reasonable Progress Go al for visibility improvement in the Class I Areas based on the modeling and analyses put forth in this SIP. New Jersey expects that the control measure commitments in Table 10.1 will be in effect pr ior to the 2018 regional haze reasonable progress milestone. New Jersey will evaluate progress in implementing these measures and the reasonableness of additional measures necessary to meet the Reasonable Progress Goal as part of the mid-course review. For a detailed explan ation of each of these control measures, see Appendix M.

Table 10.1 : Regional Haze State Control Measure Commitments

Control Measures Status Notes EGU Consent Decrees (PSEG) Filed July 26, 2002; amended November 30, 2006 PM, SO 2 and NO

x reductions EGU-BL England ACO Effective January 24, 2006 PM, SO 2 and NO

x reductions

EGUs-Coal-fired Boilers Rule adopted March 20, 2009 PM, SO 2 and NO

x reductions

Industrial/Commercial/Institutio nal (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009* Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions

NOx RACT Rule 2006* Rule adopted September 8, 2005 NO

x reductions Refinery Consent Decrees* (ConocoPhillips and Sunoco) Filed (Final) PM, SO 2 and NO

x reductions

Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Standards Existing Department of Agriculture
standards Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy Rule Proposal anticipated in 2009 S-1** Strategy anticipated in 2014 S-2** Strategy anticipated in 2016 SO 2 and NO

x reductions

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) NJDEP sent letters to facilities on March 3, 2009 regarding determinations. Expect to complete analysis in 2010 * Included in the BOTW modeling run
** See Table 8.2 for definition

10-1The NJDEP has adopted several a dditional control measures as pa rt of the efforts to reduce
ozone and PM 2.5, which will also help achieve the regional haze goals. These additional control
measures for PM 2.5, NOx or SO 2 are included in Table 10.2. The VOC control measures can be found in the Departments ozone SIP. 88

Table 10.2 : Additional State Control Measure s that Support Regional Haze Goals

Control Measures Status Notes Diesel Idling Rule Changes Rule adopted May 25, 2007 Direct PM 2.5 and NO

x reductions High Electrical Demand Day
units Rule adopted March 20, 2009 SO 2 and NO

x reductions

Oil and gas Fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs) Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions

Sewage Sludge Incinerators Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions Case by Case NO

x Emission
Limit Determinations (FSELs/AELs) Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions

Glass Manufacturing Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions but mostbenefits will occur post2010 Municipal Waste Combustor (Incinerator) NO

x Rule Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions

Asphalt Production Plants Rule adopted March 20, 2009 NO

x reductions Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes Rule adopted April 3, 2009 PM 2.5 and NO

x reductions

Onroad New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program Adopted November 28, 2005 VOC, NO

x , SO 2 , and
direct PM 2.5 reductions

Energy Master Plan Finalized October 22, 2008

The NJDEP anticipates proposal of additional control measures or programs which will also help achieve the regional haze goals. These additi onal strategies are in cluded in Table 10.3.

88 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attain ment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Final, October 29, 2007; State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of th e Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Fine Particulate Matter Attainment Demonstration, Proposal, June 16, 2008.

10-2Table 10.3 : Potential Future State Contro l Measures or Programs that Support Regional Haze Goals

Control Measures Status Notes Fugitive Dust Emission Rule Analysis Underway PM 2.5 reductions

Open Burning Permit Rule
Revisions Analysis Underway PM 2.5 , VOC and CO
reductions Refinery Rules Analysis Underway PM 2.5, SO 2 and NO

x , reductions

#6 Fuel Oil-Fired Boilers PM
Limits To be Evaluated PM 2.5 reductions

Stationary Diesel Engines To be Evaluated PM 2.5 , and NOx
reductions Residential Wood Burning Strategies To be Evaluated PM 2.5 , SO2, NOx, VOC
and CO reductions

Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Plan Proposed

10.2 Other Commitments

10.2.1 Visibility

New Jersey commits to continue carrying out the required review of proposed sources impact on visibility under 40 C.F.R. § 52.26 and 52.28, by implementing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit requirements for new or modified major sources of air pollutants
located within 100 kilometers of the Class I area, or within a larger radius on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with all applicable Federal rules for review of the impacts on Class I areas.

New Jersey’s PSD program prevents new and mo dified sources from significantly impacting visibility. The PSD program includes a requirement that evaluates the new source's visibility impact on any nearby Class I areas (Brigantine in Ne w Jersey’s case). In some cases, the Federal Land Manager may exempt smaller, more distant PSD sources from having to do the visibility analysis, but the larger sources with the greate st chance of adversely impacting visibility at Brigantine will have to address th e issue. In addition, older s ources are expected to shut down with time, and new source emissions are minimized, thereby improving air quality and enhancing visibility at Brigantine.

The Federal Land Manager is expected to finalize guidance for determining whether a PSD source addresses visibility impacts in mid 2010. This will be part of a new guidance document known as Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group 2 (FLAG 2). There will be an equation that adds the total NO

x , SO 2 , sulfuric acid mix, and

PM 10 emissions in tons per year, and then divi des by the distance to the Class I area in kilometers (km). If the result is greater than 10, a visibility analysis must be done. The
non-PSD sources will be reviewed on a cas e by case basis depending on the emissions
and the distance.

10-310.2.2 Consultation with Federal Land Managers

New Jersey commits to coordinate on-going co nsultation with the appropriate Federal Land Manager and the USEPA regarding future pr ogress reports and State plan revisions.

10.2.3 Monitoring

The NJDEP commits to operate and maintain the monitoring site at the Brigantine Wilderness Area for the foreseeable future, although this is contingent upon continued Federal and State funding. Any network changes will be subject to a joint annu al review process by both the
NJDEP and the USEPA.

10.2.4 Emission Inventory

New Jersey commits to update the emission inve ntory periodically in accordance with the requirements of the USEPA.

10.2.5 Comprehensive Periodic Impl ementation Plan Revisions

New Jersey commits to revise and submit a re gional haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter, in accordance with the requirements listed in Section 51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional haze, contingent on the availability of Federal funds to support the regional organizations and MANE-VU. Section 51.308(f) requires that each state identified in Section 51.300(b) (3) revise and submit its regional haze implementation plan revision to the USEPA by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafte r. Section 51.308(f) also states what the states are required to include in the SIP revisions . To meet this commitment, New Jersey expects to rely on the collaborative re gional organization efforts which require continued Federal funding. See section 10.2.6.3.

10.2.6 State Requests of USEPA

10.2.6.1 IMPROVE Network

As discussed in Section 4.1, the monitoring strate gy for the State of New Jersey, as required by

40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(4), relies upon the continued av ailability of the IMPROVE network. New Jersey requests that the USEPA continue to provide support to the upkeep and maintenance of the IMPROVE network for the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

10.2.6.2 New Jersey’s Reliance on Other State Ac tions for Reaching Reasonable Progress
Goal

For the Brigantine Wilderness Area to achieve reasonable progress by 2018, the contributing states must take action to implement reasonable control measures. New Jersey expects that the
FLMs and the USEPA will monitor and ensure the emission reductions necessary to achieve this goal.

10-410.2.6.3 Federal Funding to Support Regional Haze Efforts and the Regional Organizations

New Jersey is relying on and expects that the USEPA will continue to provide funds to support Regional Haze efforts and the regional organizations, including MANE-VU.

10.2.6.4 Federal Requirement to Obtain Additional Air Pollution Reductions from EGUs, Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (I CI) Boilers and Other Major Sources

New Jersey requests that the USEPA set perfor mance standards for all EGUs, ICI boilers and other major sources to achieve substantially mo re emission reductions than the CAIR program.

10.3 Commitments for Mid-Course Review

New Jersey commits to address the follo wing in its Mid-Cour se Review report:

1. Address any uncertainties encountered during regional haze planning process.

2. Report on the progress of th e BART analysis, determinations, and implementation.

3. Report on the progress of the Low Sulfur Fuel Strategy.

4. Report on whether additional potential actions listed in Table 10.3 will be implemented and the status of those efforts.

This commitment is contingent on the availabi lity of Federal funds to support the regional organizations and MANE-VU or their successor.

10-511.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

New Jersey has documented the public particip ation process, including formal comments submitted to the State of New Jersey by the Federal Land Manager, the USEPA and ConocoPhillips in Appendix O of this SIP revision.

11-1