# The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Certification

For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements

in the Clean Air Act

for

35 μg/m 3 

# 24-Hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

January 2010ii 

### Preface

The State of New Jersey is submitting a certific ation document (“Certifi cation”) to address the

requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110( a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air

Act) for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). On February 25 , 2008, New Jersey submitted an Infrastructure

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) addressing the requirements under Secti on 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone

and the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The USEPA published findings on this SIP revi sion on October

22, 2008 but there has been no further action taken on this SIP revision. In addition, since there

has been no change in authority with respect to th e infrastructure requirements, the focus of this

document is on 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (Section 110(a)(2)(D)) that addresses interstate

transport and those sections which were a ffected by the USEPA fi ndings which include

Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting; Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans; and

Consultation, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) (42 U.S.C.

§ 7410(a)(2)(C), (G), and (J) (Sectio ns 110(a)(2)(C), (G), and (J))).

Acknowledgements

The New Jersey Department of Environmen tal Protection acknowledges the efforts and

assistance of the agencies and individuals w hose contributions were instrumental in the

preparation of this Certificati on. In particular, the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection wishes to acknowledge the individua ls within the United States Environmental

Protection Agency Region 2 for their assistance on this matter.iii 

### Table of Contents

PREFACE........................................................................................................................ ............ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................i ii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ......iv

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ .....v

LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................................................. .vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................viii

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1

A. Background on Infrastructure Elements of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Sec tion 110(a)(2)) 2

II. Infrastructure Elements of the Clean Air Act Under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Section

110(a)(2))

............................................................................................................................... 3

A. Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C) (Section

110(a)(2)(C)).................................................................................................................. ..4

B. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and International Pollution Abatement

– 

### 42

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (S ection 110(a)(2)(D))...............................................................7

i. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ..............................................................................................7

1) New Jersey’s Significant Contributions to Other States ......................................8

a) Contributing Significantly to a Nonatta inment Area or Interference with

the Maintenance of the NAAQS in Another State ......................................8

b) Interference with Measures Required to Meet the Implementation Plan

for Any Other State Related to Prev ention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)...........................................................................................................9

c) Interference with Measures Required to Meet the Implementation Plan

for Any Other State Related to Regional Haze and Visibility ....................10

d) New Jersey’s Remedy to its PM 2.5 

### Interstate Contributions .......................12

2) Other States’ Significant Impacts on New Jersey ................................................16

ii. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).............................................................................................18

C. Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(G) (Section

110(a)(2)(G)).................................................................................................................. ..19

D. Consultation, Public Notification, and Pr evention of Significant Deterioration – 42

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J) (Section 110(a)(2)(J)) .................................................................20

i. Consultation and Public Notification.........................................................................20

ii. Prevention of Significant Deterioration.....................................................................21

III. Conclusion

............................................................................................................................... 21iv 

### List of Tables

Table 1.1 : Infrastructure Elements Required un der the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2) (Section 110(a)(2))...................................................................................1

Table 1.2 : Summary of New Jersey’s Significant Contri butions to Other Stat es’ Fine Particulate

Matter Concentrations................................................................................................8

Table 1.3 : New Jersey’s Recently Adopted Contro l Measures to Reduce Emissions of PM 2.5 

### and

its Precursors..............................................................................................................12

Table 1.4 : Control Measures Under Evaluation ..........................................................................13

Table 1.5 : Summary of Significant Contributions from Other States’ to New Jersey’s Fine

Particulate Matter Nonatta inment and Maintenance..................................................17v 

### List of Figures

Figure 1.1 : States to which New Jersey Significantly C ontributes with respect to Fine Particulate

Concentrations based upon a Weight-of-Evidence Approach...................................9

Figure 1.2 : Modeled EGU Emission Control Ra tes by the State Collaborative..........................14

Figure 1.3 : Daily PM 2.5 

### Air Quality Improvement for 2012 .......................................................15

Figure 1.4 : Daily PM 2.5 

### Concentrations in 2012..........................................................................15vi 

### List of Appendices

Appendix A – Infrastructure Elements Not Including Sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (G), or (J)

Appendix B – New Jersey Department of Environmen tal Protection Transport SIP Letter dated

December 22, 2006

Appendix C – USEPA Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)

for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) National Ambient Air Qu ality Standards (NAAQS)

dated September 25, 2009

Appendix D – State Collaborati ve Documentation

Appendix E – New Jersey’s Significant Contribution An alysis to Meet Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)vii 

### Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg/m 3 

### Micrograms per cubic meter

AELs Alternative Emission Limits

AQRV Air Quality Related Value

AQS Air Quality System

BART Best Availabl e Retrofit Technology

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

EGUs Electric Generating Units

Fed. Reg. Federal Register

FLM Federal Land Manager

FSELs Facility-Specific Emission Limits

HEDD High Electrical Demand Day

I/M Inspection and Maintenance

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

km kilometer

lb/mmBTU Pounds per million British Thermal Units

LADCO Lake Michigan Area Directors Consortium

MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Northeast-Visibility Union

MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NESCAUM Northeast States for C oordinated Air Use Management

N.J.A.C. New Jersey Administrative Code

N.J.R. New Jersey Register

N.J.S.A. New Jersey Statutes Annotated

NO

x 

### Oxides of Nitrogen

NSR New Source Review

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

OBD On-board Diagnostics

OTC Ozone Transport Commission

PM Particulate Matter

PM 10 

### Coarse Particulate Matter

PM 2.5 

### Fine Particulate Matter

ppb Parts per billion

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

RACT Reasonably Ava ilable Control Technology

RAVI Reasonably Attributab le Visibility Impairment

SHL Significant Harm Level

SIL Significant Increment Level

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMC Significant Monitoring Concentration

SO 2 

### Sulfur Dioxide

U.S.C. United States Code

USEPA United States Envir onmental Protection Agency

VOC Volatile Organic Compoundviii 

### Executive Summary

When the United States Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA) establishes a new or makes

a revision to a National Ambient Air Quality St andards (NAAQS), the Federal Clean Air Act

requires the states to submit to the USEPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 1 

### or

certification indicating that the State has the authority to deve lop, implement, and enforce an air

quality management program that provides fo r attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

These elements are sometimes compiled and submitte d separately in what is referred to as an

“Infrastructure” SIP. For the purposes of the 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### ) 24-hour

(2006) Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ) NAAQS, the USEPA guidance allows a state to submit a

certification letter without holding an additional publ ic hearing if that stat e determines that it

meets the requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the

Federal Clean Air Act) without further revising its existing SIP. 2



### Since the USEPA promulgated a revised pa rticulate matter (PM) NAAQS on September 21,

2006, the State of New Jersey is submitting a certif ication document (“Certification”) to address

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110( a)(1) and (2) of the Federal

Clean Air Act) for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The February 2008

Infrastructure SIP addressed the 1997 8- hour ozone standard and the 1997 annual PM 2.5



### standard. 3 

### New Jersey certifies compliance with thes e elements through its existing SIP, and as

described in this Certification.

Since the 2008 SIP revision, the only statutory authority for air quality management in New

Jersey enacted addressed global warming. Thus , no changes to the basi c program authorities

occurred. However, on October 22, 2008, the US EPA published findings for New Jersey’s 2008

Infrastructure SIP affecting Enforcement and St ationary Source Permitting; Emergency Powers

and Contingency Plans; and Consultation, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) (42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C), (G), and (J) (S ections 110(a)(2)(C), (G), and

(J))). 4 

### Based upon guidance from the USEPA on these sections, and the othe r required elements

under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) listed in Table ES1, this Ce rtification focuses on the sections that

the USEPA published findings for in October 2008 and Section 110(a)(2)(D) that addresses

interstate transport. 5 

### Table ES1 provides the citations for New Jersey’s authority in the State’s

statutes, including the Ai r Pollution Control Act.

1 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).

2 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

3 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan Revision for Meetin g the Infrastructure Requiremen ts of the Clean Air Act.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, February 2008. Other than the findings from the USEPA on

October 22, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 62904), there has been no further action taken on this SIP revision.

4 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

5 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).ix 

### Table ES1 : Infrastructure Elements Required under the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

§ 7410(a)(2) (Section 110(a)(2))

Section

110(a)(2)

Element Summary of Element New Jersey Authority

110(a)(2)(A) Enforceable Em ission Limitations and Other

Control Measures N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19

N.J.A.C. 7:27

110(a)(2)(B) Air Quality Monitoring, Compilation, Data

Analysis, and Reporting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.a.

110(a)(2)(C) Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19

N.J.A.C. 7:27 and 7:27A

110(a)(2)(D) Interstate Tr ansport of Air Pollution and

International Pollution Abatement N.J.A.C. 7:27

N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.11(k)

N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8.11

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9

110(a)(2)(E) Resources, Conflict of Interest, and Emergency

Backstop N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq.

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-22

110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Emissions Monitoring and

Reporting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2

N.J.A.C. 7:27

110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans N.J.S.A. 26:2C-26 et seq.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-12

110(a)(2)(H) State Implementation Plan Revision For Revised

Air Quality Standards or New Attainment

Methods N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

110(a)(2)(I) State Implementation Plan for Nonattainment

Areas N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

110(a)(2)(J) Consultation, Public Notification, and Prevention

of Significant Deterioration N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.

110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Reporting N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.5 and 22.8

110(a)(2)(L) Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31

110(a)(2)(M) Consultation with Local Entities N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.



### Regarding the Part C PSD permit program for PM 2.5 

### , in absence of the USEPA final rule PM 2.5 

### increments, significant impact levels (SILs), and significant monitoring c oncentrations (SMCs), 6



### at the time of this Certification, New Jersey is implementing its own interim permitting and

modeling procedures for sources emitting PM 2.5 

### emissions. The inte rim procedures require

inclusion of both filter able and condensable PM 2.5 

### emissions in the air quality modeling

evaluation and compares the c onservative determination of PM 2.5 

### emissions (based on PM 10 

### , including condensable particulate matter) to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. New Jersey does not follow the

USEPA’s 1997 PM 10 

### surrogate policy for PM 2.5 

### . New Jersey’s approach is more protective of

health and the environment than the interim Federal approach.

In order to assess the State’s significant co ntributions to the downwind nonattainment or

maintenance areas of the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, New Jersey utilizes a weight-of-evidence

6 72 Fed. Reg. 54112-54156 (September 21, 2007).x 

### approach, using the best data avai lable. This analysis indicates that New Jersey significantly

contributes to Connecticut, Delaware, Maryla nd, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,

and Pennsylvania. While the methods analyzed did not identify Delaware as a state that New

Jersey impacts, the methods did identify all of the states surrounding Delaware. Hence, New

Jersey includes Delaware among the other states to which New Jersey si gnificantly contributes,

as shown in Figure ES1.

Figure ES1 : States to which New Jersey Significan tly Contributes with respect to Fine

Particulate Concentrations based upon a Weight-of-Evidence Approach

New Jersey has taken a numb er of recent actions, as well as meas ures that have been in place for

many years to address its contribution to downw ind areas. With these actions, New Jersey is

confident that it is adequately addressi ng its contribution to the downwind areas.

New Jersey is also proposing or evaluating additional measures that would further reduce PM 2.5 

### emissions. New Jersey will consider any addi tional measures, implemented by the neighboring

upwind and downwind states, if they would provide additional emi ssion reductions in the State.

Thus, New Jersey is complying with the Federal Clean Air Act requirements regarding interstate

transport as it relates to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and is doing more to ensure that it is not interfering

with the ability of its neighboring st ates to attain and maintain that standard or visibility goals.

Applying the same weight-of-evidence approach, the states shown in Ta ble ES2 significantly

contribute to New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in its thirteen ( 13) counties designated as not

attaining the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and interfere with the maintenance of

attainment in the remaining eight (8) counties.xi 

### Table ES2 : Summary of Significant Contributions fr om Other States’ to New Jersey’s Fine

Particulate Matter Nonattainment and Maintenance

Analysis PM 2.5 CAIR

Modeling 8-Hour

Ozone CAIR

Modeling NO

x SIP Call

Modeling Re g ional Haze

Modeling 1 State

Collaborative

Modeling Significant

Contribution?

(Y/N)

State(s)/Area(s) NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NNJ/NY/CT 2

Canada x Y

CENRAP 3 _WRAP 4 _South x Y

Connecticut x

(combined with

Rhode Island) Y

Delaware x x x x Y

District of Columbia x Y

Georgia x Y

Illinois x x x Y

Indiana x x x Y

Kentucky x x x Y

Maryland x

(combined with

D.C.) x

(combined

with D.C.) x x x

(combined with

D.C.) Y

Massachusetts x Y

Michigan x x x x x Y

New York x x x x x Y

North Carolina x x x Y

Ohio x x x x x Y

Pennsylvania x x x x x Y

South Carolina x Y

Tennessee x Y

Virginia x x x x x Y

West Virginia x x x x x Y

1. Contributing states included those with a sulfate contribution >2%; Illinois and New York are also included based upon other

modeling techniques (see New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP).

2. Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area

3. CENRAP = Central Regional Air Planning Association. CENRAP is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies. The states

included are Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

4. WRAP = Western Regional Air Partnership. The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes, and federal agencies. The states are

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,

and Wyoming.



### New Jersey is meeting the contingency plan por tion of section 110(a)(2)(G) element concerning

emergency powers and adequate contingency plans according to 40 C.F.R. 51.150 and Federal

guidance. According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, 7 

### New Jersey is not required to have a

7 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Qu ality Standards (NAAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see

Appendix C).xii 

### contingency plan at this time, given that the existing monitored levels of 24-hour PM 2.5 

### have not

exceeded 140.4 μg/m 3 

### since 2006; however, New Jersey ha s rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-12 for

emergency episodes for particulate matter. The US EPA is also using thes e conditions to resolve

the finding of failure to submit issued for the annual (1997) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (see Appendix C).

Through this Certification, the State of New Jersey is demonstrating that the infrastructure and

transport requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Secti on 110(a)(1) and (2) of the

Clean Air Act) for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS have been satisfied.1 

### I. Introduction

When the United States Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA) establishes a new or makes

a revision to a National Ambient Air Quality St andards (NAAQS), the Federal Clean Air Act

requires the states to submit to the USEPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 1 

### or

certification indicating that the State has the authority to deve lop, implement, and enforce an air

quality management program that provides fo r attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

These elements are sometimes compiled and submitte d separately in what is referred to as an

“Infrastructure” SIP. By Federal statute at 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) (Section 110(a)(1)), SIPs

meeting the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three

(3) years after promulgation of a new or revise d standard. Table 1.1 pr ovides the citations for

New Jersey’s authority in the State’s stat utes, including the Air Pollution Control Act.

Table 1.1 : Infrastructure Elements Required under the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2) (Section 110(a)(2))

Section

110(a)(2)

Element Summary of Element New Jersey Authority

110(a)(2)(A) Enforceable Em ission Limitations and Other

Control Measures N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19

N.J.A.C. 7:27

110(a)(2)(B) Air Quality Monitoring, Compilation, Data

Analysis, and Reporting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.a.

110(a)(2)(C) Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19

N.J.A.C. 7:27 and 7:27A

110(a)(2)(D) Interstate Tr ansport of Air Pollution and

International Pollution Abatement N.J.A.C. 7:27

N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.11(k)

N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8.11

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9

110(a)(2)(E) Resources, Conflict of Interest, and Emergency

Backstop N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq.

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-22

110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Emissions Monitoring and

Reporting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2

N.J.A.C. 7:27

110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans N.J.S.A. 26:2C-26 et seq.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-12

110(a)(2)(H) State Implementation Plan Revision For Revised

Air Quality Standards or New Attainment

Methods N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

110(a)(2)(I) State Implementation Plan for Nonattainment

Areas N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

110(a)(2)(J) Consultation, Public Notification, and Prevention

of Significant Deterioration N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.

110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Reporting N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.5 and 22.8

110(a)(2)(L) Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31

110(a)(2)(M) Consultation with Local Entities N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.

1 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).2 

### For the purposes of the 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### ) 24-hour (2006) Fine Particulate

Matter (PM 2.5 

### ) NAAQS, the USEPA guidance allows a stat e to submit a cert ification letter

without holding an additional public hearing if that state determines that it meets the

requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110(a)(1 ) and (2) of the Federal Clean

Air Act) without further revising its existing SIP. 2 

### The State submitted a SIP revision providing

these authorities in February 2008. 3 

### Since the 2008 SIP revision, the only statutory authority

related to air quality management in New Jersey enacted addressed global warming. 4 

### Thus, no

changes to the basic program authorities o ccurred. However, on October 22, 2008, the USEPA

published findings for New Jersey’s 2008 Infras tructure SIP affecting Enforcement and

Stationary Source Permitting; Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans; and Consultation,

Public Notification, and Prevention of Si gnificant Deterioration (PSD) (42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2)(C), (G), and (J) (Sectio ns 110(a)(2)(C), (G), and (J))). 5 

### Based upon guidance from

the USEPA on these sections, and the other required elements under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)

listed in Table 1.1, this certification document (“Ce rtification”) discusses the sections that the

USEPA published findings for in October 2008 and Section 110(a)(2)(D) that addresses

interstate transport. The other required elements listed in Table 1.1 are discussed in Appendix A.

A. Background on Infrastructure Elements of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Section 110(a)(2))

On September 21, 2006, the USEPA promulgated a revised Particulat e Matter (PM) NAAQS,

which became effective December 18, 2006. 6 

### This revised standard di d not result in any changes

to the annual PM 2.5 

### standard (15.0 μg/m 3 

### ) established in 1997, but resu lted in a 24-hour standard

change from 65 μg/m 3 

### to 35 μg/m 3 

### . In New Jersey, the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) standard is

more controlling or stringent than the annual st andard, based on an evaluation of monitoring

data. The revision of the 24-hour (2006) sta ndards requires the stat es to submit revised

Infrastructure/Transport SIPs by September 21, 2009.

On February 25, 2008, New Jersey submitted an Infrastructure SIP to the USEPA, which

addressed the remaining requirements under Sect ion 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone

and the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 7 

### New Jersey’s 2008 Infrastruc ture SIP revision followed the

USEPA’s 2007 guidance. 8 

### New Jersey fulfilled the interstate transport requirements of Section

2 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

3 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan Revision for Meetin g the Infrastructure Requiremen ts of the Clean Air Act.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, February 2008. Other than the findings from the USEPA on

October 22, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 62904), there has been no further action taken on this SIP revision.

4 State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Governor Signs Global Warming Response Act. Available at

http://www.nj.gov/globalwarming/home/news/approved/070706.html. July 7, 2007.

5 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

6 71 Fed. Reg. 61144-233 (October 17, 2006).

7 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan Revision for Meetin g the Infrastructure Requiremen ts of the Clean Air Act.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, February 2008. Other than the findings from the USEPA on

October 22, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 62904), there has been no further action taken on this SIP revision.

8 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” October 2, 2007.3 

### 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 NAAQS, as allowed per the USEPA 2006 guidance, 9 

### through: 1) a

letter sent to the USEPA Regi onal Administrator on December 22, 2006 stating the intention to

submit an abbreviated Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP, but noting that the CAIR SIP was

not enough to address New Jersey’s interstate transport concerns (Appendix B); and 2) the

submission of a CAIR SIP to the USEPA on J une 26, 2007 that was subsequently approved by

the USEPA on September 28, 2007.

On October 22, 2008, the USEPA pub lished a “Finding of failure to submit specific elements of

Section 110(a)(2), pertaining to the fine partic ulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS” concluding that the

State’s Infrastructure SIP fails to address the following two elements:

 A plan “addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J ) pertaining to the Part C Prevention of

Significant Deterioration ( PSD) permit program,” and

 “The contingency plan portion section 110 (a)(2)(G) element concerning emergency

powers and adequate contingency plans.” 10



### On September 25, 2009, the USEPA released guidance for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### standards (see Appendix C). 11



### This Infrastructure Certification addresses the elements summarized in Table 1.1, while

specifically discussing the tran sport requirements under Sec tion 110(a)(2)(D) for the 35 μg/m 3



### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and the October 22, 2008 USEPA findings for the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

II. Infrastructure Elements of the Clean Air Act Under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Section

110(a)(2))

The infrastructure elements that are required under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Sect ion 110(a)(2))

are listed in Table 1.1. There ha s been no change in authority with respec t to most of the

infrastructure requirements, since the previous infrastructure SIP revision submitted in 2008. In

its 2009 guidance, the USEPA acknowledges that a state’s existing infras tructure SIP may be

adequate to satisfy the all of the requirements under Section 110( a)(2). New Jersey certifies

compliance with these elements through its existing SI P, and as described in this Certification.

This Certification also is addr essing the following sections:

• Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting – Section 110(a)(2)(C);

• Interstate Transport – Section 110(a)(2)(D);

9 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance fo r State Implementation Plan (SIP) Subm issions to Meet Current Outstanding

Obligations Under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency,” August 15, 2006.

10 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

11 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).4 

### • Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans – Section 110(a)(2)(G); and

• Consultation, Public Notifica tion, and Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration – Section

110(a)(2)(J).

The remaining sections listed in Table 1.1 ha ve no changes from the NJDEP February 25, 2008

Infrastructure SIP (with the exception of minor administrative changes) and are discussed in

Appendix A.

A. Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C) (Section

110(a)(2)(C))

States are required under the Federal Clean Air Act to implement a program providing for

enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary

sources to meet PSD and nonattainment area ne w source review (NNSR) requirements. New

source review (NSR) necessitate s programs in nonattainment and attainment areas. PSD is

required in attainment areas, while NNSR is required in nonattainment areas.

New Jersey has implemented enforcement and permitting programs that meet the Clean Air Act

requirements. New Jersey’s enforcement of all control measures, including the air permitting

program for regulating stationary sources, is go verned by the State’s Air Pollution Control Act

(N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19). New Jersey’s enforcement and permitting programs operate under rules

designated in N.J.A.C. 7:27 and N.J.A.C. 7:27A.

On October 22, 2008, the USEPA pub lished a “Finding of failure to submit specific elements of

Section 110(a)(2), pertaining to the fine partic ulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS” concluding that the

State’s Infrastructure SIP fails to address a plan “addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)

pertaining to the Part C Prevention of Si gnificant Deterioration (PSD) permit program.” 12



### On September 25, 2009, the USEPA published guidance on how states can meet the

requirements for NSR and PSD programs pertai ning to interstate transport under U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2)(D(i) (Sectio n 110(a)(2)(D)(i)). 13



### All areas are currently required to have some form of preconstruction permitting program for

PM 2.5



### . 14 

### With respect to the PM 2.5 

### standards, New Jersey has bot h attainment and nonattainment

areas throughout the State, necessita ting both PSD and NNSR programs for PM 2.5 

### , respectively.

This section explains the sepa rate regulatory actions the USEP A has taken to implement these

programs and how New Jersey plans to implement its programs for the PM 2.5 

### health-based

standards.

12 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

13 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

14 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).5 

### Federal Regulatory History on PSD and NSR for PM 2.5



### On April 25, 2007, the USEPA finalized its implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 15



### The USEPA decided to address NSR separately, so no final PM 2.5 

### requirements for the NSR

program were included. Prior to the implemen tation of that rule, the USEPA issued interim

guidance calling for use of co arse particulate matter (PM 10 

### ) as a surrogate for PM 2.5 

### in the PSD

and NNSR programs until NSR rules were finalized. 16,17 

### Due to the lack of PM 2.5 

### NSR rules,

PM 10 

### was used as a surrogate in both attainment and nonattainment areas. Under the surrogate

approach, compliance with a pplicable requirements for PM 10 

### was assumed to satisfy PM 2.5 

### requirements.

On September 21, 2007, the USEPA proposed a rule on increments, significant impact levels

(SILs), and significant monito ring concentrations (SMCs). 18 

### The proposal has not been finalized

as of the time that this Certification was devel oped. The final rule is anticipated in the summer

of 2010. Hence, it is not possible for states to finalize their PSD or NNSR programs for PM 2.5



### .

On May 16, 2008, the USEPA issued a portion of the NSR rule for PM 2.5



### . 19 

### That rule changed

the Federal rule for PSD, Appendix S of 40 C.F.R. Part 51 for PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas, and the

Federal guidance for state PSD and NNSR SIPs. The May 1 6, 2008 rule was challenged. 20 

### The

USEPA granted the petition for reconsideration on April 24, 2009 and stayed the grandfathering

provision of the rule until June 1, 2010. 21 

### In the USEPA guidance issued on September 25,

2009, the deadline for adopting and submitting PM 2.5 

### SIPs for NSR/PSD is May 2011. 22



### The September 25, 2009 USEPA guid ance also states that “all ar eas are currently required to

have some form of pre-construction permitting program for PM 2.5 

### . This program may include a

transitional program or a program that conforms with the minimum requirements of EPA’s May

2008 final rule on implementation of the NSR program for PM 2.5 

### .” 23 

### New Jersey relies on

Appendix S as a transitional pr ogram as discussed below.

15 72 Fed. Reg. 20586-20667 (April 25, 2007).

16 USEPA Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5 Nonattainment Areas,”

April 5, 2005.

17 USEPA Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional

Air Directors, “Interim Implementa tion of New Source Review for PM 2.5 ,” October 23, 1997.

18 72 Fed. Reg. 54112-54156 (September 21, 2007).

19 73 Fed. Reg. 28321-28350 (May 16, 2008).

20 NRDC filed petition for exemption for condensable par ticulate matter in applicability as well as BACT/LAER

determinations. EJ filed for reconsideration.

21 Proposed Rule at 74 Fed. Reg. 36427-36430 (July 23, 2009), Final Rule at 74 Fed. Reg. 48153-48156 (September

22, 2009).

22 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

23 ibid.6 

### New Jersey’s PSD and NNSR Programs for PM 2.5



### In absence of the USEPA final rule increments, SILs, and SMCs, 24 

### New Jersey developed

interim permitting and modeling procedures for sources emitting PM 2.5 

### emissions. The interim

procedures are not affected by the recent USEPA decision on PM 2.5 

### reconsideration and stay of

the grandfathering provision. Ne w Jersey’s approach is more protective of health and the

environment than the USEPA approach for two reas ons. First, New Jersey’s interim procedures

require inclusion of both f ilterable and condensable PM 2.5 

### emissions in the air quality modeling

evaluation. When PM 2.5 

### data are not available to provide for actual PM 2.5 

### data, the PM 2.5



### emissions must be conservati vely determined based on PM 10 

### , including the condensable portion.

Secondly, New Jersey's approach compares the conservative determination of PM 2.5 

### emissions

(based on PM 10 

### , including condensable particulate matter) to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and interim

PM 2.5 

### SILs. New Jersey does not follow the USEPA’s 1997 PM 10 

### surrogate policy for PM 2.5 

### , which compared PM 10 

### impacts to the PM 10 

### NAAQS and PM 10 

### SILs. Hence, New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

### NNSR procedures do not grandfather PM 2.5 

### emissions for either condensable PM 2.5 

### or

compliance with the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

PSD Requirements in New Jers ey’s Attainment Counties:

For attainment areas implementing the Federal PM 2.5 

### PSD program through delegation, where

the Federal government or a delegated state issues PSD permits, the PM 2.5 

### PSD rule changes

published on May 16, 2008 became effective as of July 15, 2008. New Jersey is a PSD

delegated state. According to that rule, the May 16, 2008 changes to the Federal rule for PSD for

New Jersey’s attainment counties implementing the Federal PSD program through delegation

were effective as of July 15, 2008. The 2005 PM 10 

### surrogate policy, ther efore, no longer applied

after July 15, 2008, to PSD permits. Ne w Jersey’s interim procedures for PM 2.5 

### for state permit

requirements continue to ensure that th e PSD permit is protective of air quality.

Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) Requirements in New Jersey’s Nonattainment Counties:

Currently in New Jersey, the USEPA’s Appendix S (40 C.F.R. Part 51) applies until New

Jersey’s NSR rules for PM 2.5 

### become effective, which is e xpected in 2012 or later depending

upon the USEPA and court actions. The PM 2.5 

### NSR rule allows up to three (3) years for states to

revise their regulations and SIP. New Jersey expects the th ree-year clock to be triggered once

the USEPA takes final actions on its repeal and recons ideration of federal rules by adopting the

remaining components of the Federal PM 2.5 

### NSR implementation rule, wh ich is expected by the

summer of 2010. New Jersey expects to devel op NNSR rule strategies in 2010, propose a NNSR

rule revision in 2011, and adopt a revised NNSR rule in 2012, or no later than three (3) years

after the USEPA completes its rulemaking.

New Jersey also expects to a dopt New Jersey specific PSD rules in the same timeframe.

Currently, New Jersey implements most of the Federal PSD rules under a delegation agreement

and will continue to do so until New Jersey PSD rule s are effective. New Jersey certifies that it

has a PSD program in place.

24 72 Fed. Reg. 54112-54156 (September 21, 2007).7 

### B. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and International Pollution Abatement – 42

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (Section 110(a)(2)(D))

i. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (Section 110(a) (2)(D)) requires states to include provisions

prohibiting any source or othe r type of emissions activity in one state from:

1) Contributing significantly to nonattai nment of the NAAQS for areas in another

state or interfere with the maintenanc e of the NAAQS in another state;

2) Interfere with measures required to m eet the implementation plan for any other

state related to PSD; or,

3) Interfere with measures required to m eet the implementation plan for any other

state related to Regiona l Haze and Visibility.

In order to address interstate pollution, New Jersey coordinates with the nearby states on regional

control measures as part of planning organiza tions, such as the Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC), Northeast States for Coordinate d Air Use Management (NESCAUM), MidAtlantic/Northeast-Visibility Union (MANE-VU), and Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management

Association (MARAMA). New Jersey will continue to work regionally through these

organizations.

To meet the interstate transport provi sions for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, the USEPA allowed the states to rely on the CAIR. 25 

### The U.S. Court of Appeals

determined the CAIR does not meet this oblig ation and remanded the rule back to the USEPA. 26



### As the USEPA works to develop a replacement rule for the CAIR, the states in the eastern

United States have been working together to develop recommendations to the USEPA regarding

the replacement rule, including the issues of upwind transport and addressing Section

110(a)(2)(D)(i). This effort is commonly referre d to as the ‘State Co llaborative’ (materials

produced from this effort are included in Appe ndix D). On September 2, 2009, 17 states within

the Ozone Transport Commission and the Lake Michigan Area Directors Consortium (LADCO)

submitted a letter (see Appendix D) to the USEP A containing recommendations for the USEPA

to consider as it develops the CAIR replacem ent rule. The recommendations follow through on

the commitment made by these states in the March 9, 2009 Framework Do cument, contained in

Appendix D, to work together to address the tr ansport requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D) of

the Clean Air Act, and to attain the ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Based on the State Collaborative

work and past USEPA practice, New Jersey determin es that a state significantly contributes to a

downwind state if its contribution is one percent (1%) or greater of the applicable NAAQS. In

this case, one pe rcent (1%) of the 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS is 0.35 μg/m 3 

### . In developing

25 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance fo r State Implementation Plan (SIP) Subm issions to Meet Current Outstanding

Obligations Under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency,” August 15, 2006.

26 The Federal CAIR program, as established in the Federal rules, was vacated by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court”) on July 11, 2008 (State of North Carolina v. Environmental Protection

Agency, supra). On December 23, 2008, the Court remande d the CAIR to the USEPA wi thout vacatur of CAIR “so

that EPA may remedy CAIR’s flaws in accordance with ” the Court’s July 2008 opinion vacating CAIR.8 

### the CAIR, the USEPA used a similar threshold. New Jersey uses a weight-of-evidence approach

combining several analyses to determine signifi cant contributions. The following discussion is a

summary of Appendix E.

1) New Jersey’s Significant Contributions to Other States

a) Contributing Significantly to a Nona ttainment Area or Interference with the

Maintenance of the NAAQS in Another State

According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, 27 

### a state’s conclusion regarding its impact on

nonattainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state must be supported by

“adequate technical analysis.” In order to asse ss New Jersey’s significant contributions to the

downwind nonattainment and mainte nance areas of the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in other states,

New Jersey utilizes a weight-of-evidence approac h, using the best data available. Table 1.2

provides a summary of the results of the modeling analyses used in this approach and New

Jersey’s determination of significant contribution to interstate transport by New Jersey sources.

While the methods analyzed did not identify Delawa re as a state that Ne w Jersey impacts, the

methods did identify all of the states surroun ding Delaware. Hence, New Jersey includes

Delaware among the other states to which New Jers ey significantly contributes. In addition, a

review of ambient air quality monitoring data was used in th e determination of significant

contributions to other states, as discussed in Appendix E. The weight-of-evidence approach

indicates New Jersey signi ficantly contributes to Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Penns ylvania, as shown in Table 1.2 and Figure

1.1. The details of the analyses are in Appendix E.

Table 1.2 : Summary of New Jersey’s Significant Contributions to Other States’ Fine

Particulate Matter Concentrations

Analysis PM 2.5 CAIR

Modeling 8-Hour

Ozone

CAIR

Modeling NO

x SIP

Call

Modeling Regional

Haze

Modeling 1 State

Collaborative

Modeling Significant

Contribution?

(Y/N)

State(s) NJ Only NJ+DE NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only

Connecticut x x x Y

Delaware Y

Maryland x Y

Massachusetts x Y

New Hampshire x Y

New York x x x x Y

Pennsylvania x x x Y

1. The regional haze analyses concluded that New Jersey did not significantly impact any of the other states with Class I

areas analyzed in the study.

27 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Qu ality Standards (NAAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see

Appendix C).9 

### Figure 1.1 : States to which New Jersey Significan tly Contributes with respect to Fine

Particulate Concentrations based upon a Weight-of-Evidence Approach

b) Interference with Measures Required to Meet the Implementation Plan for Any

Other State Related to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

The previous subsection summarizes the states New Jersey significantly impacts related to

attainment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) also requires protections to prevent further degradation of attainment and

maintenance areas. According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, “this requirement is satisfied for

PM 2.5 

### if a state’s SIP includes preconstruction revi ew programs for major sources that satisfy the

requirements of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(b)(1) and 40 C.F.R. 51.166” (NSR and PSD, respectively). 28



### The USEPA guidance also states, “Unless th e area has known outstanding permit program

deficiencies, it is not necessary, at this time, fo r states to make a SIP submission containing rule

changes specifically to address secti on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

If this is the case, the state can submit an appropr iate certification as described previously in this

guidance.” 29 

### In addition, notwithstanding the ab sence of PSD increments for PM 2.5 

### , the USEPA

believes that states may continue to rely upon their existing PSD and NNSR permitting programs

to prevent significant deterioratio n of air quality within their own boundaries and in adjacent

28 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Qu ality Standards (NAAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see

Appendix C).

29 ibid.10 

### states until such increments are established. New Jersey’s existing PSD and NSR programs and

subsequent revisions provide and will continue to provide these protections for new or modified

sources. The details of these prog rams are discussed in Section A. New Jersey certifies that it

has a PSD program in place.

c) Interference with Measures Required to Meet the Implementation Plan for Any

Other State Related to Region al Haze and Visibility

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Secti on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ) requires protec tions to protect

visibility. According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, this requirement consists of two phases of

visibility protection, i.e., reasona bly attributable visi bility impairment (RAVI) (Phase 1) and

regional haze (Phase 2). 30 

### RAVI is visibility impairment a ttributable to a single source/small

group of sources and regional haze is impairment from a multitude of sources over a large area.

New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP 31 

### addresses both regional h aze and RAVI. The following

discussion provides an explanat ion of how New Jersey is meeting these requirements.

Reasonably Attributable Visi bility Impairment (RAVI)

Under the 1980 Federal regulations, currently at 40 C.F.R. 51.300-51.307, New Jersey was

included in the 35 states that were required to submit SIPs to address RAVI at 40 C.F.R.

51.300(b)(2). At 40 C.F.R. 52.1606, New Jersey is under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

for visibility monitoring (requirement at 40 C.F.R. 51.305 and provisions at 40 C.F.R. 52.26),

New Source Review (requirement at 40 C.F.R. 51.307 and provisions at 40 C.F.R. 52.28), and a

long-term strategy (pro visions at 40 C.F.R. 52.29). New Jersey has addressed these components

in its Regional Haze SIP. 32 

### This document outlines New Jersey’s long-term plan (2018) for

addressing visibility-impairing air pollution within its bor ders and from out-of -state sources that

impact New Jersey’s Federally prot ected visibility area or Class I area, the Brigantine Wilderness

Area. The following section from the Regiona l Haze SIP addresses the RAVI requirement:

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 appl icable Federal rules

for review of the impacts on Class I areas.

New Jersey’s PSD program prevents new an d modified sources from significantly

30 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

31 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.

32 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.11 

### impacting visibility. The PSD program include s a requirement that evaluates the new

source's visibility impact on any nearby Class I areas (Brigantine in New Jersey’s case).

In some cases, the Federal Land Manage r may exempt smaller, more distant PSD

sources from having to do the visibility analysis , but the larger sources with the greatest

chance of adversely impacting visibility at Br igantine will have to address the issue. In

addition, older sources are expected to shut down with time, and new source emissions

are minimized, thereby improving air quality and enhancing visibil ity 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' Ai r 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

PM10 emissions in tons per year, and then divides by the dist ance to the Class I area in

kilometers (km). If the result is greater than 10, a visibility analys is must be done. The

non-PSD sources will be reviewed on a case by case basis depending on the emissions

and the distance.

10.2.2 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 progress reports and State plan

revisions.

New Jersey certifies that no source within the St ate emits pollutants that interfere with RAVI

measures included in the applicable implementation plan of another state.

Regional Haze

New Jersey is meeting the regional haze requirement through its Regional Haze SIP. The latest

revision was submitted to the USEPA on July 29, 2009. 33 

### As discussed in Appendix E, the

contribution assessment performed for the Regi onal Haze SIP concluded that New Jersey does

not significantly contribute to visibility impairme nt, based on sulfate impacts at the Class I areas

in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermon t, West Virginia, and Virginia. 34 

### Maine, New Hampshire,

and Vermont included New Jersey as a contributi ng state in their Regional Haze SIPs, based on

an agreement that all MANE-V U states would be included as impacting MANE-VU Class I

areas. 35,36,37

33 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.

34 Refer to the “Regional Haze Modeling Analysis” section for more details.

35 Maine’s regional haze SIP is not yet available but electronic communication w ith Maine supports that New Jersey

does not significantly contribute to its Class I Areas.

36 NHDES. New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision, Final Draft. New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services , November 3, 2008.

37 VTDEC. Vermont State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision Regional Haze, Draft. State of Vermont,

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), January 15, 2009.12 

### d) New Jersey’s Remedy to its PM 2.5 

### Interstate Contributions

New Jersey has taken a number of recent actions as well as measures that have been in place for

many years to address its contri bution to downwind areas. Table 1.3 lists New Jersey’s recently

adopted control measures that reduce PM 2.5 

### , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), oxides of nitrogen (NO

x 

### ), and

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. 38 

### Some of these SIP measures are approved by the

USEPA, as listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 52, Subpart FF, while other measures are pending approval

by the USEPA.

Table 1.3 : New Jersey’s Recently Adopted Contro l Measures to Reduce Emissions of PM 2.5



### and its Precursors

Measure Pollutant Reduced

PM 2.5 SO 2 NO

x VOC*

Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units

(EGUs) (Coal) x x x

Boilers Serving EGUs (Oil and Gas) x

CAIR/NO

x Budget x x

Refinery Consent Decrees x x x x

PSEG-Consent Decree x x x

Asphalt Production x

NO

x Reasonably Available Control Technology)

(RACT) Rule (2006) x

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers

(2009) x

Glass Manufacturing x

Municipal Waste Combustor NO

x rule x

Case by Case NO

x (Facility-Specific Emission

Limits (FSELs)/Alternative Emission Limits

(AELs)) x

High Electrical Demand Day (HEDD) x

Sewage sludge incinerators x

On-board Diagnostics (OBD) I/M x

Diesel Vehicle Idling x x

Diesel Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) x x

Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program x

Architectural Coatings 2005 x

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 x

Consumer Products 2005 x

Consumer Products 2009 x

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 x

Adhesives & Sealants x

Petroleum Storage x

Case by Case VOC (AELs) x

Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified) x

38 Although the USEPA does not consider VOC as a PM 2.5 precursor for SIP and conformity purposes, New Jersey

anticipates a PM 2.5 benefit from the implementation of these measures.13 Measure Pollutant Reduced

PM 2.5 SO 2 NO

x VOC*

Group 1: Printing x

Energy Master Plan x x x x

Mercury Rule x x x

* Although the USEPA does not consider 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.

New Jersey has not quantified this benefit and is including the VOC measures in this list for

informational purposes.



### New Jersey is also proposing or evaluati ng additional measures that would reduce PM 2.5



### emissions. These are summarized in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4 : Control Measures under Evaluation

Measure Current Status of Measure

Low sulfur distillate and residual fuel strategies Proposed 11/16/2009 (41 N.J.R.

4156(a)), Implementation in 2014 with

2016 as Phase 2

Fugitive Dust at Stationary Sources Analysis underway

Open Burning Permit Revisions Analysis underway

#6 Fuel Oil-Fired Boilers To be evaluated

Stationary Diesel Engines To be evaluated

Residential Wood Burning Strategies To be evaluated

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Proposed

Refineries Analysis underway



### As part of its evaluation of potential control meas ures, New Jersey worked with other states in

the OTC and LADCO and reached a consen sus through the State Collaborative on

recommendations to the USEPA on a framewor k that the USEPA shoul d follow to develop a

replacement rule for the CAIR (see Appendix D). This framework include d potential controls

not only for national rules involving significantly contributing states that combine statewide

emission caps and complementary regional tradi ng programs but support for a Federal program

that also requires substantial regional emissi on reductions from mob ile and area sources.

Quantitative analyses performed showed that New Jersey could reduce its impact if controls are

applied to EGUs. In one of the assessments conducted by the OTC, applying EGU emission

control rates of 0.07 pounds per million Brit ish Thermal Units (lb/mmBTU) for NO

x 

### and 0.15

lb/mmBTU for SO 2 

### in New Jersey would reduce emissi ons by 27 percent (%) (2,483 tons) and

33 percent (%) (6,934 tons) for 2008, respectiv ely (see Appendix D, “OTC CAIR Replacement

Rule Recommendation Technical Support Document”) . Using that assessment as a guide to

determine what EGU emission control rates to recommend, similar rates were modeled for 2012

and 2018, as shown in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.3 shows the improvement in daily PM 2.5 

### concentrations across the region for 2012. Figure 1.4 shows that only five (5) counties in the

Northeast, including counties in New Je rsey, are not attaining the daily PM 2.5 

### standard in 2012.

Thus, the regional modeling performed shows that an EGU-based strategy would have a positive

impact on PM 2.5 

### air quality in the region and that while nearby sources have the greatest impact,

significant contribution to levels of PM 2.5 

### can come from states several hundred miles away.

This modeling demonstrates that Ne w Jersey would reduce its daily PM 2.5 

### significant14 

### contributions through a future EGU-based control st rategy prior to the expe cted attainment date

of 2014 for the 35 μg/m 3 

### daily PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. This control strategy proposal is similar to

performance standards adopted by New Jersey on March 20, 2009, 39 

### which will be effective by

December 2012. New Jersey’s emission rate for SO 2 

### is as stringent as modeled. The NO

x 

### emission rates are comparable to the rate modeled, i.e., 0.125 lb/mmBTU, depending upon the

averaging times relevant for the model. Thus, the estimated EGU reductions from the rule are

anticipated to be similar to the reductions a ssumed in the modeling scenario described above.

Figure 1.2 : Modeled EGU Emission Control Ra tes by the State Collaborative*

* Refer to Appendix D for more details.

39 Adopted Rules Published in NJ Register - 41 N.J.R. 1752(a). 0 1,500,000 3,000,000 4,500,000 6,000,000 7,500,000 9,000,000 Eastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (tpy)



## SO 2 

## NO

x

Scenario E Scenario F

(2012) (2018)

0.125 lb/MMBTU 0.07 Scenario E Scenario F

(2012) (2018)

0.25 lb/MMBTU 0.10

2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C

2012-E 2018-F 2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C

2012-E 2018-F15 

### Figure 1.3 : Daily PM 2.5 

### Air Quality Improvement for 2012*

*Refer to Appendix D for more details.



### Figure 1.4 : Daily PM 2.5 

### Concentrations in 2012*

* Refer to Appendix D for more details.



### New Jersey is complying with the Federal Clean Air Act’s requirements regarding interstate

transport as it relates to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and is doing more to ensure that it is not interfering

with the ability of its neighboring states to attain and maintain that standard or visibility goals.

While many of New Jersey’s existing control measures listed in Tables 1.5 and 1.6 are already16 

### more stringent than the existing pollution cont rol requirements in many neighboring states, New

Jersey will consider any additional measures , which will be implemented by the neighboring

upwind and downwind states, if they woul d provide additional emission reductions.

The control measures implemented in New Jers ey address its contributions to the downwind

areas, ensuring that its sources’ em issions do not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of

the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS or measures that prevent si gnificant deterior ation and protect

visibility in another state. Ne w Jersey expects the other signifi cantly contributing states to the

downwind areas of interest to timely implemen t reasonable measures, including measures similar

to New Jersey’s, to address their contributions and to help bring the areas into attainment of the

PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, preserving the maintenance of the standard, and meeting visibility goals.

2) Other States’ Significant Impacts on New Jersey

Applying the same weight-of-evid ence approach, the states in Ta ble 1.5 significan tly contribute

to New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in its thirteen (13) c ounties designated as not attaining the

35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and interfere with the maintenance of attainment in the

remaining eight (8) counties. The details of this analysis are in Appendix E.17 

### Table 1.5 : Summary of Significant Co ntributions from Other Stat es’ to New Jersey’s Fine

Particulate Matter Nonattainment and Maintenance

Analysis PM 2.5 CAIR

Modeling 8-Hour

Ozone CAIR

Modeling NO

x SIP Call

Modeling Re g ional Haze

Modeling 1 State

Collaborative

Modeling Significant

Contribution?

(Y/N)

State(s)/Area(s) NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NNJ/NY/CT 2

Canada x Y

CENRAP 3 _WRAP 4 _South x Y

Connecticut x

(combined with

Rhode Island) Y

Delaware x x x x Y

District of Columbia x Y

Georgia x Y

Illinois x x x Y

Indiana x x x Y

Kentucky x x x Y

Maryland x

(combined with

D.C.) x

(combined

with D.C.) x x x

(combined with

D.C.) Y

Massachusetts x Y

Michigan x x x x x Y

New York x x x x x Y

North Carolina x x x Y

Ohio x x x x x Y

Pennsylvania x x x x x Y

South Carolina x Y

Tennessee x Y

Virginia x x x x x Y

West Virginia x x x x x Y

1. Contributing states included those with a sulfate contribution >2%; Illinois and New York are also included based upon other

modeling techniques (see New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP).

2. Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area

3. CENRAP = Central Regional Air Planning Association. CENRAP is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies. The states

included are Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

4. WRAP = Western Regional Air Partnership. The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes, and federal agencies. The states are

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,

and Wyoming.18 

### New Jersey requests that the USEPA, when it eval uates the SIPs from these states, ensure that

they are not hindering the attain ment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in New Jersey or in

the multi-state nonattainment areas. With regard to regional haze, New Je rsey expects that the

USEPA and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) w ill monitor and ensure the emission reductions

from the contributing st ates to achieve the 2018 reasonable progress goals set for the Brigantine

Wilderness Area. As discussed in detail in Appendix D, New Jersey requests that the USEPA

consider recommendations made by the Stat e Collaborative and the OTC as the USEPA

develops a replacement rule for the CAIR.

ii. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Clean Air Ac t ensures compliance with the applicable

requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7426 (Section 126) and 42 U.S.C. § 7415 (Section 115) (relating to

interstate and international pol lution abatement, respectively).

Section 126 of the Clean Air Act

Section 126(a) requires each SIP to require that all major sources (new or modified) provide

written notice to all surrounding st ates regarding the source’s im pact on air pollution levels at

least 60 days prior to commencem ent of construction. Those sour ces must also identify major

existing stationary sources that would also impact air pollution le vels. The sour ces subject to

this requirement are those major sources subject to Part C of the Clean Air Act and those that

contribute to pollution levels in areas above the NAAQS.

New Jersey sends communications to all the su rrounding states regarding all Title V operating

permit actions: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware , New York, and Connecticut, in accordance

with N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.11(k).

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act requ ires that states revise their SIPs in the case that pollutants

emitted from the state endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country.

In the case that the USEPA makes a finding that a state’s plan is inadequate under Section

126(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Clean Air Ac t in response to an internationa l agency’s reports, surveys, or

studies, Section 115(b) of the Cl ean Air Act requires the applicab le state plan be revised to

reduce the pollution endangering public hea lth or welfare in a foreign country. New Jersey has

the authority to revise its SIP under N.J.A.C. 26:2C-8.11 and conduct any further research as

needed under N.J.A.C. 26:2C-9.

Modeling performed by the State Collaborative, as di scussed in Section D(i) of this Certification,

demonstrated that emission sources in Canada impact the air quality in New Jersey (see Table

1.5). New Jersey’s impacts on Canada were no t assessed. Even though New Jersey does not

anticipate that its emissions signi ficantly impact any foreign count ry, New Jersey will revise its

SIP accordingly and protect the public health and welfare in foreign countries should the State

receive such a notification.19 

### C. Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(G) (Section

110(a)(2)(G))

States are to provide for authority comparable to that in Section 303 of the Clean Air Act, which

provides legal authority to halt th e emission of air pollutants causing or contributing to injury to

public or welfare. In ad dition, states are to provide for adeq uate contingency plans to implement

such authority.

This authority is provided in New Jersey’s Air Pollution Emergency Control Act (N.J.S.A.

26:2C-26 et seq.), which is implemented through New Jersey’s rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-12. New

Jersey’s emergency episode plan s/contingency plans ar e contained in New Jersey’s rules at

N.J.A.C. 7:27-12, which are consistent with the USEPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 51,

Subpart H, and the example rule in Appendix L.

On October 22, 2008, the USEPA pub lished a “Finding of failure to submit specific elements of

Section 110(a)(2), pertaining to the fine partic ulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS” concluding that the

State’s Infrastructure SIP “fails to address th e contingency plan portio n of section 110(a)(2)(G)

element concerning emergency powers and adequate contingency plans.” 40 

### This appears to be an

error as discussed below.

According to 40 C.F.R. 51.150, New Jersey is classified as a Priority III region for particulate

matter because its ambient air concentrations for particulate matter do not meet the criteria for a

Priority I (95 μg/m 3 

### annual geometric mean; 325 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour maximum) or II (60–95 μg/m 3



### annual geometric mean; 150–325 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour maximum) region. According to 40 C.F.R.

51.152(c) “Areas classified Priority III do not need to develop episode plans” for PM 2.5 

### . Also,

New Jersey has rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-12 for emergency episodes for particulate matter.

According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, New Jersey is not requir ed to establish a contingency

plan at this time, given that the existing monitored levels of 24-hour PM 2.5 

### have not exceeded

140.4 μg/m 3 

### since 2006. 41 

### The USEPA is also using these conditions to resolve the finding of

failure to submit issued for the annual (1997) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (see Appendix C). Quality-assured

ambient air quality data available in the Air Qu ality System (AQS) indicate that New Jersey’s

24-hour PM 2.5 

### concentrations do not come close to 140.4 μg/m 3 

### . A review of the ambient air

quality data from 2006-2008 shows th at most of the highest 24-hour PM 2.5 

### concentrations

recorded in New Jersey typically range from 40-59 μg/m 3 

### , with a maximum value of 91.0 μg/m 3



### recorded in 2006 in Atlantic C ity. Recognizing that single episodes may cause significantly

higher concentrations, a review of the ambient air quality monitored du ring the 2002 Canadian

forest fires (northern Quebec) shows that even during this extreme ev ent the maximum 24-hour

PM 2.5 

### concentration reached 106.7 μg/m 3 

### , which is well below 140.6 μg/m 3 

### . Since New Jersey

never exceeded 140.4 μg/m 3 

### since 2006, New Jersey certifies that it has the appropriate authority

40 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

41 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).20 

### to address PM 2.5 

### related episodes, and that no specific emergency episode plans are necessary at

this time, given existing monitored levels.

D. Consultation, Public Notification, and Prev ention of Significant Deterioration – 42

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J) (Section 110(a)(2)(J))

States are required to meet the applicable requi rements of Clean Air Act Section 121 (relating to

consultation), Section 127 (relating to public notification), and Part C (relating to prevention of

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).

i. Consultation and Public Notification

States are required to meet the applicable requi rements of Clean Air Act Section 121 (relating to

consultation), Section 127 (relating to public notification), and Part C (relating to prevention of

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).

Clean Air Act Section 121 requires that states pr ovide a satisfactory proce ss of consultation with

general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local

governments, and any affected federal land manager in carrying out the Clean Air Act

requirements. New Jersey provides the opportunity to the public to participate in the public

comment period and public hearing for rule making and SIP proposals, in accordance with

applicable rules and regulations, as described in Section M (see Appendix A). Another avenue

of consultation with the public and the regu lated community is th rough workshops. In

preparation for the attainment demonstration SI P revisions for the 85 parts per billion (ppb) 8-

hour ozone and 15 μg/m 3 

### annual PM 2.5 

### , New Jersey consulted with representatives of civic,

environmental, and industrial groups, as we ll as other interested parties through the ongoing

Reducing Air Pollution Together Initiative that began with a workshop on June 29, 2005 and the

formation of the six air quality workgroups. Th e public had an opportunity to provide feedback

on the workshop and on white papers on various control options drafted by New Jersey (This

initiative is further discussed at h ttp://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp /rapt/rapt.html).

In addition, New Jersey met with the federal land manager, regional orga nizations, and affected

states for the purpose of the Regional Haze SIP. 42 

### Also, New Jersey consults with the

Metropolitan Planning Organi zations regularly to di scuss transportation-related air quality issues

as required by the Transporta tion Conformity Rule.

Clean Air Act Section 127 requires the states to provide measures which will be effective to

notify the public on a regular basi s of instances or areas in whic h any air quality standard is

exceeded during the preceding calendar year, to advise the public of the health hazards

associated with such pollution, and to enhance pub lic awareness of measures that can be taken to

prevent such standards from being exceeded. Ne w Jersey has a standard operating procedure by

which notification of NAAQS ex ceedances is sent to the news media. Additionally, the

notification of NAAQS exceedance s is posted on the State’s website (http://www.nj.gov/dep).

The State’s website also contains information for the public on the health hazards associated with

42 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.21 

### such pollution and measures that can be taken to help preven t such standards from being

exceeded. When an exceedance or unhealthy air is fo recasted, the information is also sent out to

participants of the State’s Air Advisory listser v, an e-mail service that is used to broadcast

information. New Jersey certifies compliance with this element.

ii. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

On October 22, 2008, the USEPA pub lished a “Finding of failure to submit specific elements of

Section 110(a)(2), pertaining to the fine partic ulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS” concluding that the

State’s Infrastructure SIP fails to address a plan “addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)

pertaining to the Part C Prevention of Si gnificant Deterioration (PSD) permit program.” 43



### The PSD program and the finding are discussed in Section C of this Certification. New Jersey

certifies that it has a PSD program in place. Fo r visibility improvement, New Jersey included all

the necessary requirements in its recent Regional Haze SIP. 44



### III. Conclusion

Regarding the Part C PSD permit program for PM 2.5 

### , in absence of the USEPA final rule PM 2.5 

### increments, significant impact levels (SILs), a nd significant monitoring c oncentrations (SMCs), 45



### at the time of this Certification, New Jersey is implementing its own interim permitting and

modeling procedures for sources emitting PM 2.5 

### emissions. The inte rim procedures require

inclusion of both filter able and condensable PM 2.5 

### emissions in the air quality modeling

evaluation and compares the c onservative determination of PM 2.5 

### emissions (based on PM 10 

### , including condensable particulate matter) to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. New Jersey does not follow the

USEPA’s 1997 PM 10 

### surrogate policy for PM 2.5 

### . New Jersey’s approach is more protective of

health and the environment than the interim Federal approach.

New Jersey is complying with the USEPA’s requi rements regarding interstate transport as it

relates to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and is not interferi ng with the ability of it s neighboring states to

attain and maintain that standard. In order to assess the State’s significant contributions to the

downwind nonattainment or mainte nance areas of the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, New Jersey

utilizes a weight-of-evidence approa ch using the best data available. This analysis indicates that

New Jersey significantly contributes to the PM 2.5 

### concentrations in Connecticut, Delaware,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshir e, New York, and Pennsylvania.

New Jersey has taken a numb er of recent actions, as well as meas ures that have been in place for

many years to address its contribu tion to transport. With these actions, New Jersey is confident

that it is adequately addressing its contribution to the downwind areas.

43 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

44 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.

45 72 Fed. Reg. 54112-54156 (September 21, 2007).22 

### New Jersey is also proposing or evaluating additional measures that would further reduce PM 2.5 

### emissions. New Jersey will consider any addi tional measures, implemented by the neighboring

upwind and downwind states, if they would provide additional emission reductions in the State.

New Jersey applied the same weight-of-evidence approach used in its significant contribution

analysis to determine other states ’ contributions to New Jersey. Nineteen (19) states identified

by applying this method significantly contribute to the State’s PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in its thirteen

(13) counties designated as not attaining the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and

interfere with the maintenance of attainment in the remaining eight (8) counties.

New Jersey is meeting the contingency plan por tion of section 110(a)(2)(G) element concerning

emergency powers and adequate contingency plans according to 40 C.F.R. 51.150 and Federal

guidance. According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidan ce, New Jersey is not required to have a

contingency plan at this time, given that the existing monitored levels of 24-hour PM 2.5 

### have not

exceeded 140.4 μg/m 3 

### since 2006; however, New Jersey ha s rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-12 for

emergency episodes for particulate matter. The US EPA is also using thes e conditions to resolve

the finding of failure to submit issued for the annual (1997) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

Through this Certification, the State of New Jersey is demonstrating that the infrastructure and

transport requirements for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS have been satisfied.

# The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Certification

For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements

in the Clean Air Act

for

35 μg/m 3 

# 24-Hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

Appendix A : Infrastructure Elements Not Including

Sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (G), or (J)

January 2010ii 

### Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................i i

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ......iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................iv

I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

A. Background on Infrastructure Elements of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section

110(a)(1) and (2))............................................................................................................. 1

II. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) (S ection 110(a)(1)) ..........................................................................4

III. Infrastructure Elements of the Clean Air Act Under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Section

110(a)(2))

............................................................................................................................... 6

A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A) (Section

110(a)(2)(A)).................................................................................................................. ..6

B. Air Quality Monitoring, Compilation, Data Analysis, and Reporting – 42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2)(B) (Sect ion 110(a)(2)(B))..............................................................................6

C. Resources, Conflict of Interest, and Emergency Backstop – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)

(Section 110 (a)(2)(E)).....................................................................................................6

D. Stationary Source Emissions Monitoring and Reporting – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)

(Section 110(a)(2)(F))......................................................................................................7

E. State Implementation Plan Revision For Revised Air Quality Standards or New

Attainment Methods – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(H) (Sect ion 110(a)(2)(H)).....................7

F. State Implementation Plan for Nonattainment Areas – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(I) (Section

110(a)(2)(I)) .................................................................................................................. ...8

G. Air Quality Modeling an d Reporting – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(K) (Section 110(a)(2)(K))

............................................................................................................................... ...........8

H. Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(L) (Section

110(a)(2)(L)).................................................................................................................. ..9

I. Consultation with Local Entities – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(M) (Section 110(a)(2)(M)).9

IV. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................10iii 

### List of Tables

Table A1 : Infrastructure Elements Required un der the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2) (Section 110(a)(2))...................................................................................5iv 

### Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg/m 3 

### Micrograms per cubic meter

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

FIP Federal Implementation Plan

MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NESCAUM Northeast States for C oordinated Air Use Management

N.J.A.C. New Jersey Administrative Code

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

N.J.S.A. New Jersey Statutes Annotated

NO

x 

### Oxides of Nitrogen

OTC Ozone Transport Commission

PM Particulate Matter

PM 2.5 

### Fine Particulate Matter

ppm Parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO 2 

### Sulfur Dioxide

U.S.C. United States Code

USEPA United States Envir onmental Protection Agency1 

### I. Introduction

The purpose of this Certification appendix is to discuss the infrastructure elements required

under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110( a)(1) and (2)) for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour

(2006) Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) that

remained consistent with New Jersey ’s 2008 Infrastructure SIP revision. 1 

### Administrative

changes to these sections are minor and entail clarifications from the 2008 SIP revision. The

elements discussed in this appendix do not include 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C), (D), (G), or (J)

(Sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (G), or (J)), as they are addressed in the main document.

A. Background on Infrastructu re Elements of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section

110(a)(1) and (2))

On July 18, 1997, the United States Environmen tal Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated

revised and new NAAQS for ozone and PM 2.5 

### , respectively. For ozone , the USEPA revised the

NAAQS to 0.08 parts per million (ppm) with an 8-hour averaging period (versus the 0.12 ppm

standard with a 1-hour averaging period for the pre-existing NAAQS). 2 

### The USEPA also

promulgated new 24-hour and new annual NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### or particles

with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers) of 65

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### ) and 15 μg/m 3 

### , respectively. 3,4



### For every new or revised NAAQS, the Federal Clean Air Act requires the states demonstrate the

ability to implement, maintain, and enforce that standard. 5 

### By Federal statute, State

Implementation Plans (SIPs) meeting the require ments of Section 110(a)(1 ) and (2) are to be

submitted by states within three (3) years after pr omulgation of a new or revised standard. This

being the case, states were requ ired to submit such SIPs for the 1997 standards to the USEPA no

later than July 2000. Howeve r, intervening litigation ove r the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed and states did not submit SIPs to meet the

infrastructure requirements enumerat ed in Section 110(a)(1) and (2).

In March of 2004, Earth Justice in itiated a lawsuit against the US EPA for failure to take action

against states that had not made revisions to their SIPs to meet the requirement of Section

110(a)(1) and (2), i.e., failure to make a “finding of failure to submit.” On March 10, 2005, the

USEPA entered into a Consent Decree with Eart h Justice that obligated the USEPA to make

official findings whether states had made required implementa tion plan submissions by dates

1 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan Revision for Meetin g the Infrastructure Requiremen ts of the Clean Air Act.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, February 2008. Other than the findings from the USEPA on

October 22, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 62904), there has been no further action taken on this SIP revision.

2 62 Fed. Reg. 38855-38896 (July 18, 1997).

3 62 Fed. Reg. 38652-38760 (July 18, 1997).

4 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” October 2, 2007.

5 Under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110(a)(1) and (2)), all states are required to submit plans to

demonstrate states’ ability and authority to implement, main tain, and enforce the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate

matter standards. Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) states are required to address basic state implementation plan

requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of

the standards.2 

### certain. The Consent Decree obligated the USEPA to determine whether states have made SIP

submissions required to meet Sec tion 110(a)(1) and (2) related to interstate transport by no later

than March 15, 2005. The Consent Decree also ob ligated the USEPA to make a determination

whether states have made submissions necessary to meet the remaining requirements under

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) by December 15, 2007, for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, and by

October 5, 2008, for the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 6 

### It should be noted that the latter determinations

pertain only to whether the submissions are co mplete, pursuant to Sect ion 110(k)(1)(A), and do

not constitute USEPA approval or disapprova l of such submissions. In addition, the

determinations required by the Consent Decree explicitly exclude any determinations regarding:

(i) submissions required by Sectio n 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent th at subsection pertains to a

nonattainment area new source review permit program in Part D Title I of the Clean Air Act; and

(ii) submissions required by Section 110(a)(2)(I) for Part D Title I nonattainment area plans.

In accordance with the Cons ent Decree, on April 25, 2005, the USEPA published a finding that

all fifty states failed to submit re visions to their SIPs addressing interstate trans port for the 1997

8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, as required by Section 110( a)(2)(D)(i) of the Federal Clean

Air Act. 7 

### That finding initiated a two-year d eadline for the promulgation of a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) by the USEPA for each such state unless, prior to that time, each state

made a submission to meet the requirement s of Section 110(a)(2)( D)(i) and the USEPA

approved such submission.

On May 12, 2005, the USEPA published the Clean Ai r Interstate Rule (C AIR) which included

the USEPA’s analysis of the degree to which emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) and oxides of

nitrogen (NO

x 

### ) in certain states significantly contribu te to nonattainment of, or interfere with

maintenance of, the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in downwind states, and the

reductions that must be achieved in those states to eliminate such contributions.

On August 15, 2006, the USEPA issued guidance for st ates to meet the requirements of Section

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 8 

### This guidance indicated that states

within the CAIR region, which includes New Jers ey (the State), could satisfy the requirements

under Section 110(a)(2)(D) by satisfying the requi rements of the CAIR, and addressed what

other states that are outside of the CAIR region should consider doing to meet the “significant

contribution” and “interfere with maintenan ce” requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the

1997 standards. This guidance also addressed what all fi fty states should c onsider in making SIP

submissions to meet the “prevention of signif icant deterioration” a nd “protect visibility”

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

6 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” October 2, 2007.

7 70 Fed. Reg. 21147 (April 25, 2005).

8 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance fo r State Implementation Plan (SIP) Subm issions to Meet Current Outstanding

Obligations Under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency,” August 15, 2006.3 

### New Jersey fulfilled the interstate transport re quirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997

NAAQS, as allowed per the USEPA 2006 guidance, 9 

### through: 1) a letter sent to the USEPA

Regional Administrator on December 22, 2006 stati ng the intention to su bmit an abbreviated

CAIR SIP, but that the CAIR SIP was not enough to address New Jersey’s interstate transport

concerns (Appendix B); and 2) the submission of a CAIR SIP to the USEPA on June 26, 2007

that was subsequently approved by the USEPA on September 28, 2007.

On September 21, 2006, the USEPA promulgated a revised Particulat e Matter (PM) NAAQS,

which became effective December 18, 2006. 10 

### This revised standard did not result in any

changes to the annual standard (15.0 μg/m 3 

### ) established in 1997, but resulted in a 24-hour

standard change from 65 μg/m 3 

### to 35 μg/m 3 

### . In New Jersey, the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006)

standard is more controlling or stringent than the annual standard, based on an evaluation of

monitoring data. The revision of the 24-hour (2006) standards requ ires the states to submit

revised Infrastructure/Trans port SIPs by September 21, 2009.

On October 2, 2007, the USEPA issu ed guidance for states to co mplete their requirements under

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) fo r the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 11



### On February 25, 2008, New Jersey submitted an Infrastructure SIP to the USEPA, which

addressed the remaining requirements under Sect ion 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone

and the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 12



### On October 22, 2008, the USEPA pub lished a “Finding of failure to submit specific elements of

Section 110(a)(2), pertaining to the fine partic ulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS” concluding that the

State’s Infrastructure SIP fails to address the following two elements:

 A plan “addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J ) pertaining to the Part C Prevention of

Significant Deterioration ( PSD) permit program,” and

 “The contingency plan portion section 110 (a)(2)(G) element concerning emergency

powers and adequate contingency plans.” 13



### On September 25, 2009, the USEPA released guidance for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### standards (see Appendix C). 14 

### In the 2009 gu idance, the USEPA acknow ledges that a state’s

9 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance fo r State Implementation Plan (SIP) Subm issions to Meet Current Outstanding

Obligations Under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency,” August 15, 2006.

10 71 Fed. Reg. 61144-233 (October 17, 2006).

11 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” October 2, 2007.

12 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan Revision for Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean Air Act.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, February 2008. Other than the findings from the USEPA on

October 22, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 62904), there has been no further action taken on this SIP revision.

13 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

14 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to4 

### existing infrastructure SIP may be adequate to satisfy the all of the requirements under Section

110(a)(2). Accordingly, this infrastructure cer tification document (“Cer tification”) will address

the elements summarized in Table 1.1, while sp ecifically discussing the transport requirements

under Section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and the October 22,

2008 USEPA findings for the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

II. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1 ) (Section 110(a)(1))

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) addresses the timing requirement of the submissions of SIP revisions. By

submitting this Infrastructure Certification to the USEPA, New Jersey will have satisfied the

timing requirement to submit a plan within 3 years after the promul gation of the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-

hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (September 21, 2006).

III. Infrastructure Elements of the Clean Air Act Under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Section

110(a)(2))

The infrastructure elements that are required under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (Sect ion 110(a)(2))

are listed in Table A1. There has been no change in authority with respect to the infrastructure

requirements, since the previous infrastructu re SIP revision submitted in 2008. In its 2009

guidance, the USEPA acknowledges that a state’s ex isting infrastructure SIP may be adequate to

satisfy the all of the requirements under Section 110( a)(2). New Jersey certifies compliance with

these elements through its existing SIP, and as de scribed in this Certification. This appendix

discusses the elements listed in Table A1 expect for:

• Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting – Section 110(a)(2)(C);

• Interstate Transport – Section 110(a)(2)(D);

• Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans – Section 110(a)(2)(G); and

• Consultation, Public Notifica tion, and Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration – Section

110(a)(2)(J).

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).5 

### Table A1 : Infrastructure Elements Required under the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2) (Section 110(a)(2))

Section

110(a)(2)

Element Summary of Element New Jersey Authority

110(a)(2)(A) Enforceable Emission Limitations and

Other Control Measures N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19

N.J.A.C. 7:27

110(a)(2)(B) Air Quality M onitoring, Compilation,

Data Analysis, and Reporting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.a.

110(a)(2)(C) Enforcement and Stationary Source

Permitting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19

N.J.A.C. 7:27 and 7:27A

110(a)(2)(D) Interstate Trans port of Air Pollution and

International Pollution Abatement N.J.A.C. 7:27

N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.11(k)

N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8.11

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9

110(a)(2)(E) Resources, Conflict of Interest, and

Emergency Backstop N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq.

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-22

110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Emissions Monitoring

and Reporting N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2

N.J.A.C. 7:27

110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers and Contingency

Plans N.J.S.A. 26:2C-26 et seq.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-12

110(a)(2)(H) State Implementation Plan Revision For

Revised Air Quality Standards or New

Attainment Methods N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

110(a)(2)(I) State Implementation Plan for

Nonattainment Areas N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9

110(a)(2)(J) Consultation and Public No tification N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19

N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.

110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Reporting N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.5 and 22.8

110(a)(2)(L) Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31

110(a)(2)(M) Consultation with Lo cal Entities N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8

N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.

The following discussions address the infrastructure elements required under Section 110(a)(2)

for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### health-based NAAQS, 15 

### with the exception of the

sections listed previously.

15 The USEPA’s 2007 Guidance stated that Infrastructure State Implemen tation Plan requirements for the 2006

National Ambient Air Quality Standards would be addressed separately but that the requirements would be similar

to those for the 1997 standards. At the time of this State Implementation Plan revision, there is no separate guidance

available addressing the 2006 standards.6 

### A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A) (Section

110(a)(2)(A))

States are required to establish enforceable emi ssion limits and other control measures, means, or

techniques, as well as schedules for compliance and other related matters.

The timing requirement for this section is dependent on 42 U.S.C. § 7502 (Section 172) of the

Clean Air Act. Such authority for establis hing emission limits under Section 110(a)(2)(A) can

be found in the State’s Air Pollution Control Act at N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8, 9, and 19. New Jersey’s

air rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27 establish emission limits, control measures and other means by which

to control air pollution and how to implement th e measures. New Jersey certifies compliance

with this element.

B. Air Quality Monitoring, Compilation, Da ta Analysis, and Reporting – 42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2)(B) (Sect ion 110(a)(2)(B))

States are required to establish and operate devices, methods, systems, and procedures to

monitor, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data and to provide the data to the USEPA.

New Jersey’s ambient air monitoring program is required by the State’s Air Pollution Control

Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.a.) and the Federal Clean Air Act. New Jersey has an extensive air

quality monitoring network that collects air quality data that are compiled, analyzed, and

reported to the USEPA. The State’s website co ntains up-to-date information about air quality

monitoring, including a descrip tion of the network and inform ation about monitoring of PM 2.5



### . See http://www.nj.gov/dep/airmon/i ndex.html with links to all el ements of the program. New

Jersey commits to retaining, and continuing to ope rate its monitoring netw ork, subject to a joint

annual review process by both th e State and the USEPA. New Je rsey certifies compliance with

this element.

C. Resources, Conflict of Interest, a nd Emergency Backstop – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)

(Section 110 (a)(2)(E))

States are required to provide assurances th at: (i) adequate personnel, funding, and legal

authority will be available to carry out the SIP; (ii) a majority of its state board members

represent the public interest and do not derive a significant portion of their income from entities

that are subject to permits, and that conflicts of interest of members be adequately disclosed; and

(iii) the State has responsibility for ensuring ad equate implementation of plan provisions to be

carried out by local districts.

New Jersey’s Air Pollution Control Act at N.J.S. A. 26:2C-8 provides the authority to carry out

the SIP. New Jersey’s statute under N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9 is the authority and provides guidance on

dedicating personnel and funds for the State to ca rry out the responsibilit ies under the SIP. The

State relies on the federal grant allocated unde r Section 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for

carrying out the SIP respons ibilities, as well as an annual State appropriation.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is th e only entity that

approves permits and enforcement orders in New Je rsey. There is no board that carries out these7 

### duties. New Jersey has a Conflicts of Interest Law at N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq. The NJDEP

has a Code of Ethics policy th at supplements the Conflicts of Interest Law and establishes

procedures for reporting any work conducted by a state employee outside of the NJDEP. New

Jersey has established the Clean Air Council as re quired in the Air Pollution Control Act. This

Council is comprised of representatives from government, industry, and the public advocate

groups. The Council makes recommendations to the Commissioner of the NJDEP on air

pollution issues.

All 21 counties have a contract and/or grant with the NJDEP in which they are delegated

authority to enforce various re gulations under the County Envi ronmental Health Act. The

County Environmental Health Act allows the delegated counties to act as the NJDEP’s

representatives during investigat ions and can issue enforcement actions, assess and collect

penalties, and settle cases. The Air Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-22) includes

provisions for the relation of local ordinances or regulations to State law. New Jersey certifies

compliance with this element.

D. Stationary Source Emissions Moni toring and Reporting – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)

(Section 110(a)(2)(F))

States are to require the installation, maintena nce, and replacement of equipment to monitor

stationary sources of emissions by the owners or operators of these sour ces and the provision of

periodic reports on these emissions.

The State’s Air Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2) gives New Jersey the authority to

require emissions monitoring and reporting for stationary sources. New Jersey has adopted rules

to implement the Federal requirements for stat ionary source emissions monitoring and reporting

at N.J.A.C. 7:27. Monitoring and reporting requirements are included throughout N.J.A.C. 7:27,

specifically in subchapters 8 and 22 as they relate to permits, subchapter 21 as they relate to

emission statement reporting. In addition, seve ral other subchapters within N.J.A.C. 7:27

regulate stationary sources and contain requirements for monitori ng and reporting. New Jersey

certifies compliance with this element.

E. State Implementation Plan Revision Fo r Revised Air Quality Standards or New

Attainment Methods – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(H) (S ection 110(a)(2)(H))

States are required to provide fo r revision of a SIP from time to time when air quality standards

are revised or new attain ment methods become available or when the USEPA informs states that

current SIPs are inadequate to attain standards or to comply with additional requirements under

the Clean Air Act.

New Jersey’s statute under N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9 gives New Jersey the authority to revise the SIP in

response to changes in the NAAQS , availability of improved me thods for attaining the NAAQS,

or in response to an USEPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. For example, New

Jersey submitted attainment de monstration SIPs to the USEP A on October 29, 2007 for the 19978 

### 8-hour ozone NAAQS and for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 16,17 

### New Jersey certifies

compliance with this element.

F. State Implementation Plan for Nonattainment Areas – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(I) (Section

110(a)(2)(I))

States are required to submit a SIP or SIP revision for nonatta inment areas that meet the

requirements of Part D - Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas under Clean Air Act Title I

- Air Pollution Prevention and C ontrol. Part D of the Clean Air Act specifies both general

requirements and specific requirements for differe nt criteria pollutants, for SIPs addressing

nonattaiment areas.

New Jersey’s statute under N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9 gives New Jersey the authority to submit a SIP or

SIP revision in accordance with Part D of the Clean Air Act

. New Jersey has in the past

submitted SIPs, SIP revisions, and designation reco mmendations for nonattainment areas. The

SIP examples cited in Section H both address nonattainment areas in New Jersey. New Jersey

certifies compliance with this element.

G. Air Quality Modeling and Reporting – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(K) (Section 110(a)(2)(K))

States are required to provide for the use of air quality modeling to predict the effect of

emissions on ambient air quality and to submit data related to such modeling when requested by

the USEPA.

New Jersey’s air quality modeling work complie s with USEPA’s final guidance (April 2007) on

the use of models in attainment dem onstrations for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

### standards. This

is a rapidly evolving field in which New Jersey endeavors to use the latest methodology and

techniques, and documents information that it s staff uses when conducting modeling or when

evaluating the performance of air quality models used for this pur pose. New Jersey consults and

works with regional organizations that conduct the regional air quality modeling. The regional

modeling for New Jersey was included in the October 2007 8-Hour Ozone Attainment

Demonstration/SIP revision, the July 2009 Re gional Haze SIP, and the March 2009 PM 2.5



### Attainment Demonstration/SIP revision.

Currently, the Ozone Transpor t Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air

Management Association (MARAMA) are coor dinating the development of new regional

emission inventories for the Northeastern United States to be used in the required modeling

analyses, control strategy assessments, and othe r air quality management needs. The regional

inventories and modeling will be used to conc urrently address requirements for the 2008 ozone

and 2006 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and to evaluate progress toward s long-term regional haze goals. The

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

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

Environmental Protection, October 29, 2007.

17 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Fine Particulate

Matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard; PM 2.5 Attainment Demonstration, Final. New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, March 2009.9 

### emissions inventories will be used in a single integrated, one- atmosphere air quality modeling

platform to support state air quali ty attainment demonstrations.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.5 and 22.8 contai n air quality modeling requirements for stationary sources for

the State’s Air Permitting Program. New Jersey certifies compliance with this element.

H. Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(L) (Section

110(a)(2)(L))

States are required to assess the owner or opera tor of each major stati onary source with fees

sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of revi ewing and acting upon any application for such a

permit, and if a permit is granted, the reasonabl e costs of implementing and enforcing the terms

and conditions of the permit. Owners or operat ors are also required to comply with the fee

provisions of Title V Sections 501 – 507 of the Cl ean Air Act. Such fees are required to be

payable to the permitting authority.

Under N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31 (Operating Permits Fees), major stationary s ources are required to

pay fees to the State to sufficiently cover th e cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and

enforcing a permit. New Jersey cer tifies compliance with this element.

I. Consultation with Local Entities – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(M) (Sec tion 110(a)(2)(M))

States are required to provide for consultation and participation by loca l political subdivisions

affected by the plan.

New Jersey provides the opportunity for consu ltation and participati on to local political

subdivisions during the public co mment period of a proposed SIP or rulemaking. The Federal

Clean Air Act requires that states include a public proce ss in the SIP. New Jersey’s Air Pollution

Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8) and Administra tive Procedure Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.)

requires a public process for any rulemaking. Th e State offers the opport unity to the public to

participate in the public process for a SIP or ru lemaking. This includes a public comment period

and a public hearing. Notices for the commenting period and the public hearing are circulated in

newspapers, public libraries, and the State’s Regional Enforcement Offices. The notices are also

mailed through the United States Postal Service and through State listser vs (electronic mailing

system) to other states, regional organizations an d interested parties that have signed up for the

mailing, which includes the League of Municipalities. All 566 municipalities in New Jersey are

members of the League of Municipalities, a vol untary association created to help communities

do a better job of self-government through pooling information resources and brain power. The

State assures that all comments and testimonies ar e seriously considered in rulemaking and when

finalizing the SIP.

New Jersey is in constant communication with ot her State agencies and planning boards, such as

New Jersey’s Department of Tr ansportation, Department of Health and Senior Services,

Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Va lley Regional Planning Commission, the Northern

New Jersey Transportation Planning Authorit y, and Southern New Jersey Transportation10 

### Planning Authority, on issues in th e SIP. New Jersey also briefs the Stat e’s Clean Air Council

on air issues, including the SIP. New Jersey certifies compliance with this element.

IV. Conclusion

The State submitted a SIP revision in Februa ry 2008 providing for the authorities under 42

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110(a)(1) and (2 ) of the Clean Air Act) to develop,

implement, and enforce an air quality manageme nt program that provid es for attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS. Since the only auth ority for air quality management enacted since

the previous SIP submittal addressed global warm ing, this Certification appendix certifies the

infrastructure elements for the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

# The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Certification

For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements

in the Clean Air Act

for

35 μg/m 3 

# 24-Hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Appendix B : New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection Transport SIP Letter dated December 22,

2006

January 2010

# The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Certification

For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements

in the Clean Air Act

for

35 μg/m 3 

# 24-Hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Appendix C : USEPA Guidance on SIP Elements

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

# ) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) dated September 25, 2009

January 2010

# The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Certification

For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements

in the Clean Air Act

for

35 μg/m 3 

# 24-Hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

Appendix D : State Collaborative Documentation

January 2010

### March 9, 2009

Page 1 of 3 FRAMEWORK FOR THE STATES IN THE CAIR REGION TO DEVELOP A MULTI

‐ POLLUTANT

STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS OF THE OZONE AND PARTICULATE

MATTER (PM 2.5 

### ) STANDARDS

The undersigned states identified below commit to expeditiously undertake air quality

modeling to support recommendations regarding a multi

‐ pollutant strategy to obtain the

public health benefits associated with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM) by: (1) achieving levels of nitrogen oxides

(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions from the EGU sector in the 28

‐ state Clean Air

Interstate Rule (CAIR) region that will satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act to

attain the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS; and (2) pursuing the

development of a long

‐ term multi

‐ pollutant strategy (beyond 2010) to achieve additional

reductions that address both the transport requirements under Section 110 (a)(2)(D) of

the Clean Air Act and attainment and maintenance of the new ozone and PM NAAQS.

Short term strategies and recommendations

In the short term (approximately three months) the states will assemble data, perform

modeling and develop strategies that are intended to achieve the 1997 ozone and the

1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and to assist EPA in designing an interstate air pollution

transport program in response to the U.S. Court of Appeal’s decision to remand the CAIR

rule. Such efforts will include the following:

• Identification of the ozone season NOx reductions from EGUs that are needed for

each state to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 ozone standard when

combined with reductions from other sectors; and to satisfy each state’s

obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D); and

• Identification of the NOx and SO 2 

### reductions from EGUs that are needed for each

state to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards when

combined with reductions from other sectors; and to satisfy each state’s

obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D).

The states anticipate offering recommendations regarding the use of interstate trading in

the interstate air pollution transport program developed by EPA in response to the CAIR

remand, subject to the following key conditions:

• Any interstate trading mechanisms that are developed must be justified through

legal and air quality modeling analyses to ensure and demonstrate compliance

with section 110(a)(2)(D);

### March 9, 2009

Page 2 of 3 • Appropriate geographic coverage and, as necessary, any geographic limitation,

will be addressed; and

• 

### An intrastate remedy that satisfies section 110(a)(2)(D) will be specified as a back

‐

up for each state that takes part in the interstate trading.

The states will endeavor to finalize the short term strategies and recommendations by

April 30, 2009.

Long term strategy

The states will contemporaneously work together to develop a long

‐ term multi

‐ pollutant

strategy (beyond 2010) to identify air quality impacts from various source sectors to

achieve emission reductions necessary for every state to meet the 2008 ozone and 2006

PM 2.5 NAAQS (to the extent not addressed in the short term strategies and

recommendations), and may incorporate emissions trading, and/or performance

standards, as appropriate, in keeping with the conditions specified above.

_____________ _________ _____________ __________ Connecticut Delaware

_____________ _________ _____________ ___________ District of Columbia Illinois

_____________ __________ _____________ __________ Indiana Maine

_____________ _________ _____________ _________ Maryland Massachusetts

_____________ _________ _____________ __________ Michigan New Hampshire

### March 9, 2009

Page 3 of 3 _____________ _________ _____________ _________ New Jersey New York

_____________ _________ _____________ __________ Ohio Pennsylvania

_____________ _________ _____________ _________ Rhode Island Vermont

_____________ _________ _____________ _________ Virginia Wisconsin4/24/20091Regional Modelingin the Eastern U.S.:intheEasternU.S.:Preliminary Results1April 27, 2009CAUTION!This modeling provides, at best,Thismodelingprovides,atbest,ballpark estimates and is meantonly to be directionally correct.It is not intended for regulatoryor legal purposes2orlegalpurposes.Overview of Today’s Presentation• Background• Model Performance• Attainment Analyses• Base Scenario (“C”)• EGU Control Scenarios (“E” and “F”)A fI t t3•Areas ofInterest• Source Apportionment AnalysesNote: (1) Will show a subset of available results(2) Analyses based one approach (others should be considered)Bk dacground44/24/20092Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to...“... contain adequate provisions – (i) prohibiting...anysource or other type of emissions activity within the Statef itti i ll t t i t hi h illfrom emitting any air pollutantin amounts whichwill–(I) contributesignificantly to nonattainmentin,orinterfere with maintenanceby, any other Statewith respect to any (NAAQS)..., or(II)interfere with measuresrequired to be included5interferewithmeasuresrequiredtobeincludedin the applicable implementation plan for any otherState under part C to prevent significant deteriorationof air quality orto protect visibility...”Note: EGU measures alone are not expected to eliminate significant contributionPurposes of Modeling• Support on-going State Collaborative policydiscussions• Help develop state recommendations on EGUs to EPA onCAIR replacement rule• Estimate interstate impacts, per section 110(a)(2)(D)•Begin to assess additional control programs needed6Begintoassessadditionalcontrolprogramsneededfor new O3and PM2.5NAAQSSpecific Caveats• Scope of modeling analysis limited• Geographic scope not complete – this is NOT a national analysis;focus is on OTC SESARM and LADCO regionsfocusisonOTC,SESARM,andLADCOregions• Attainment assessment not definitive – this is NOT intended as SIPquality attainment demonstration• Source apportionment analyses notcomprehensive – only one ofseveral methods considered• Emissions not perfect – several assumptions were made with respectto data and emissions processing• Nevertheless, model estimates are reasonable7• Remember - purpose is to supportstatepolicy discussions• EPA will do their own modeling for a CAIR replacement ruleAir Quality ModelingModel: CAMxDomain/Grid: Eastern U.S.(36 km-PM2.5,12 km-O3)Base Year: 2005Meteorology: 2005 (and 2002)12 k836 kmMeteorology:2005(and2002)Future Years: 2009,2012,2018(existing control programs)12km4/24/20093Existing Control Programs•On-Highway Mobile Sources– Tier II/Low sulfur fuel– Inspection/Maintenance programs (nonattainment areas)– Reformulated gasoline (nonattainment areas)•Off-Highway Mobile SourcesF d l t l i t d i t NONROAD d l ( d di l l ) l–FederalcontrolprogramsincorporatedintoNONROADmodel(e.g., nonroaddieselrule), plusthe evaporative Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle standards– Heavy-duty diesel (2007) engine standard/Low sulfur fuel– Federal railroad/locomotive standards– Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards•Power Plants– See Scenario C slide•Other Point Sources– VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards–Combustion turbine MACT9– Industrial boiler/process heater/RICE MACT– Miscellaneous consent decrees and settlement agreements•Area Sources– Aerosol coatings (new rule)– Architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings (amendments)– Household and institutional consumer products (amendments)– Portable fuel containers (Mobile Source Air Toxics rule)Scenario C• Base: 2007 CEM emissions data• Growth: Growth factors based on EIA data byNERC region and by fueltype (e.g., IN, KY, MI,OH = ECAR; 2007-2018=13.5%)• Control: All legally enforceable controls identifiedby states plus other controls expected for10bystatesplusothercontrolsexpectedforcompliance with CAIR (i.e., EPA’s NEEDS list)M d l P fModel Performance11PM2.5NortheastFull DomainMidwest Southeast124/24/20094OzoneCutoff = 80 ppbCutoff = 60 ppb%13Summary: most values within +15%M d l R ltModel ResultsAttainment Test14Attainment TestFY D.V. = BY D.V. x RRFFuture Year Base Year Relative ReductionDesign Value Design Value Factor(Monitoring data) (Modeling data)If FY D.V. > NAAQS, thennonattainmentIf FY D V < NAAQS thtt i t15IfFYD.V.<NAAQS,thenattainmentPM2.5AnnualConcentrationsDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT2009162012 2018Based on 2005 meteorology4/24/20095PM2.5Annual:ExpectedImprovement(relative to BY monitored values)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT(relativetoBYmonitoredvalues)2009172012 2018Based on 2005 meteorologyPM2.5DailyConcentrationsDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT2009182012 2018Based on 2005 meteorologyPM2.5Daily:ExpectedImprovement(relative to BY monitored values)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT(relativetoBYmonitoredvalues)2009192012 2018Based on 2005 meteorologyOzone 8-HourConcentrationsDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT2009202012 2018Based on 2005 meteorology4/24/20096Ozone 8-HourConcentrations2009DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT2012201821Based on 2005 meteorologyOzone:ExpectedImprovement(relative to BY monitored values)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT2009(relativetoBYmonitoredvalues)222012 2018Based on 2005 meteorologyEGU Control StrategiesScenario E Scenario F(2012) (2018)NO0 125 lb/MMBTU0 076,000,0007,500,0009,000,000NOx0.125lb/MMBTU0.07SO20.25 0.10NOx SO2Eastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (TPY)2301,500,0003,000,0004,500,000Reference: “Options for EGU Controls in the Eastern U.S.: White Paper”, October 3, 2008, State Collaborative Technical Workgroup2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C2012-E 2018-F2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C2012-E 2018-FScenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018)v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)PM2.5Annual: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT24Average Improvement: PM2.5Annual = 1.0 ug/m3 (Scen.E); 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. F)Based on 2005 meteorology4/24/20097PM2.5Annual ConcentrationsScenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT25PM2.5Daily: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTScenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018)v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)26Average Improvement: PM2.5Daily = 1.1 ug/m3(Scen. E); 1.3ug/m3 (Scen. F)Based on 2005 meteorologyPM2.5Daily ConcentrationsScenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT27Ozone: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTScenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018)v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)28Average Improvement: Ozone = 1.6 ppb(Scen. E); 2.4 ppb (Scen. F)Based on 2005 meteorology4/24/20098Ozone 8-Hour ConcentrationsScenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018)29A f I t tAreasof Interest30Proposed Areas of Interest• Significance Contribution TestC(’06’08)i d d i l NAAQS•urrent-monitoreddesign value >NAAQS,and/or• 2009, 2012, or 2018modeled value > NAAQS• Interference with Maintenance Test• Current(’06-’08)monitored design value >0.95x31()gNAAQS,and/or• 2009, 2012, or 2018modeled value >0.95x NAAQSThresholdsNonattainment Maintenance*PMA l11 /314 3 /3PM2.5-Annual>15.1ug/m3>14.3ug/m3PM2.5-Daily >35.5 ug/m3>33.7 ug/m3Ozone-85ppb >85 ppb >81 ppb32Ozone-75 ppb >76 ppb >72 ppb* Based on 95% of NAAQS4/24/200992009 PM2.5AnnualMon or Mod Mon and Mod33based on 2005-2007 monitoring data2012 PM2.5AnnualMon or Mod Mon and Mod34based on 2005-2007 monitoring data2009 PM2.5DailyMon or Mod Mon and Mod35based on 2005-2007 monitoring data2012 PM2.5DailyMon or Mod Mon and Mod36based on 2005-2007 monitoring data4/24/2009102009 OzoneMon or Mod Mon and Mod37based on 2005-2007 monitoring data2009 OzoneMon or Mod Mon and Mod38based on 2006-2008 monitoring data2012 OzoneMon or Mod Mon and Mod39based on 2005-2007 monitoring data2012 OzoneMon or Mod Mon and Mod40based on 2006-2008 monitoring data4/24/200911Summary: Nonattainmentand Maintenance Areas of InterestDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT250Number of Counties in Eastern U.S.5010015020041050Nonattainment MaintenancePM2.5-annualPM2.5-dailyOzone-85 ppbOzone-75 ppbAnother Approach for Interferencewith Maintenance: Example42Pros: Accounts for ‘historic variability’ based on mon. dataUses NAAQS as thresholdPM2.5Areas of Interest(based on criteria for significant contribution)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT43DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTOzone Areas of Interest(based on criteria for significant contribution)444/24/200912M d l R ltModel ResultsSource Apportionment45Evaluating Significant ContributionEPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule46Cite: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySource Regions:(see map)Source Groups:Evaluating Significant ContributionsState Collaborative ModelingSourceGroups:EGU PointNon-EGU PointAreaOn-roadNon-roadBiogenics/Ammonia47PSAT/OSAT Results• Contributions as a function of...• Source region(33): states orgroups of states(see map)() g ( )• Source sector (7): EGU point, non-EGU point, area, on-road,non-road, biogenics/ammonia, BC/IC• Pollutants: ozone - VOC, NOxPM2.5- SO4, NO3, NH4,POC, EC,FPRM• Absolute (ug/m3or ppb) and relative (%)contributions48• Results processed with standard modelprograms• Ozone: APCA algorithm allocates ozone productions toanthropogenic emissions (EPA used this algorithm in CAIR)• Alternative methods could be used to incorporate monitoringdata4/24/200913Annual PM Daily PM OzoneModeling Period Jan 1 – Dec 31 Jan 1 – Dec 31 Jun 1 – Sep 30Calculation of Average over all Average over all Average over allProcessing and Analysis of PSAT/OSAT Information from CAMxAbsolute PSAT/OSATContributions*8,760 hourly PSATvalueshourly PSAT valuesfrom days where thesimulated 24-hraverage total PM2.5conc. > 30 ug/m3hourly OSAT valuesfor hours where thehourly predicted O3conc. > 75 ppbCalculation ofRelative PSAT/OSATContributionsNormalized by modelpredicted annualaverage total PM2.5mass at each locationNormalized byaverage of modelpredicted daily totalPM2.5from all daysNormalized byaverage of modelpredicted hourlyozone values from all492.5used to calculate theabsolute PSATcontributions at eachlocationhours used tocalculate the absoluteOSAT contributions ateach location*CAMx provides PSAT/OSAT values ateach grid cell for each hour for eachpollutant, source region, and source sectorOzone SourceApportionment Results:Source Sectors(2005 base)New York, NYDRAFT DRAFT DRAFTHolland, MIAtlanta, GAKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby mobile sources (at least 60%)50Ozone SourceApportionment Results:Source Regions(2005 base)New York, NYDRAFT DRAFT DRAFTHolland, MIAtlanta, GAKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring states55%51Based on 2005 meteorologyPM2.5Annual SourceApportionment Results:Source Sectors(2005 base)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTNew York, NYDetroit MIAtlanta, GA52Based on 2005 meteorology4/24/200914PM2.5Annual SourceApportionment Results:Source Sectors(2012 Scenario C)New York, NYDRAFT DRAFT DRAFTKey Findings:• All source categories are important contributors• Relative amount of contribution varies by areaDetroit MIAtlanta, GA53Based on 2005 meteorologyPM2.5Daily SourceApportionment Results:Source Sectors(2012 Scenario C)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTNew York, NYDetroit MIAtlanta, GAKey Findings:• All source categories are important contributors• Relative amount of contribution varies by area54Based on 2005 meteorologyPM2.5Annual SourceApportionment Results:Source Regions(2005 base)New York, NYDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT11%Detroit MIAtlanta, GA51%14%42%55Based on 2005 meteorology50%PM2.5Annual SourceApportionment Results:Source Regions(2012 Scenario C)New York, NYDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT12%Detroit MIAtlanta, GAKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring states55%13%45%56Based on 2005 meteorology54%4/24/200915PM2.5Daily SourceApportionment Results:Source Regions(2012 Scenario C)New York, NYDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT14%Detroit MIAtlanta, GAKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring states49%18%38%57Based on 2005 meteorology50%Average Contributions% %58Based on 20-30 key monitors in NE, SE, and MWPM2.5Annual: Contributing States (%)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT592012 “C”2005 metPM2.5Annual: Contributing States (ug/m3)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT602012 “C”2005 metChanges relative to 2012 C, 2005 met (% version):deletions (cross-outs), additions (bold red)4/24/200916PM2.5Annual: Contributing States (%)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT612012 “C”2002 metChanges relative to 2012 C, 2005 met (% version):deletions (cross-outs), additions (bold red)2002 v. 2005 Meteorology62Key Findings:•2002 and 2005 transport patterns similar•2002 met produces higher concentrations compared to 2005 metPM2.5Daily: Contributing States (%)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT632012 “C”2005 metPM2.5Daily: Contributing States (ug/m3)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT642012 “C”2005 met4/24/200917Ozone: Contributing States (%)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT652012 “C”2005 metOzone: Contributing States (ppb)DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT662012 “C”2005 metKey Findings• Model Performance– PM2.5: Generally reasonable, although organic carbon substantially underestimated,(summer) sulfate underestimated, and (winter) nitrate slightly overestimatedOzone: Generally reasonable (mostly within+15%)–Ozone:Generallyreasonable(mostlywithin• Attainment– Only a few areas not meeting PM2.5 and 85 ppb ozone standards; lots of areas notmeeting for 75 ppb ozone standard– Additional EGU emission reductions effective in lowering PM2.5 and ozone• Source Apportionment– Source Regions: “Home” state generally has the largest impact; neighbor statesgenerally have next largest impact (i.e., impacts decrease with distance)– Source Sectors: Mobile sources dominatefor ozone, point/mobile/area all importantf PM2 567forPM2.5– Similar "linkages" with either a relative or absolute metric, and a lower significancethreshold brings in more states• Other:– Despite differences in meteorology, 2002 and 2005 meteorology produce similarresults (with higher concentrations for 2002)Supplemental Information684/24/200918100.080.090.06960.070.01997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20081Regional Modelingin the Eastern U.S.:Preliminary ResultsApril 28, 20092CAUTION!This modeling provides, at best,ballpark estimates and is meantonly to be directionally correct.It is not intended for regulatoryor legal purposes.3Overview of Today’s Presentation• Attainment Analyses• Base Scenario (“C”)• EGU Control Scenarios (“E” and “F”)• Areas of Interest• Source Apportionment Analyses4Model ResultsAttainment Test5PM2.5AnnualConcentrations200920122018DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorology6PM2.5DailyConcentrations200920122018DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorology7Ozone 8-HourConcentrations200920122018DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorology801,500,0003,000,0004,500,0006,000,0007,500,0009,000,000EGU Control StrategiesScenario EScenario F(2012)(2018)NOx0.125 lb/MMBTU0.07SO20.250.10Reference: “Options for EGU Controls in the Eastern U.S.: White Paper”, October 3, 2008, State Collaborative Technical WorkgroupNOxSO22005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C2012-E 2018-F2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C2012-E 2018-FEastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (TPY)9Average Improvement: PM2.5Annual = 1.0 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. F)Scenario E (2012)Scenario F (2018)v. Scenario C (2012)v. Scenario C (2018)PM2.5Annual: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorology10Average Improvement: PM2.5Daily = 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.3 ug/m3 (Scen. F)PM2.5Daily: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorologyScenario E (2012)Scenario F (2018)v. Scenario C (2012)v. Scenario C (2018)11Average Improvement: Ozone = 1.6 ppb (Scen. E); 2.4 ppb (Scen. F)Ozone: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorologyScenario E (2012)Scenario F (2018)v. Scenario C (2012)v. Scenario C (2018)12Areas of Interest13Proposed Areas of Interest• Significance Contribution Test• Current(’06-’08)monitored design value > NAAQS,and/or• 2009, 2012, or 2018modeled value > NAAQS• Interference with Maintenance Test• Current(’06-’08)monitored design value >0.95xNAAQS,and/or• 2009, 2012, or 2018modeled value >0.95x NAAQS142012 OzoneMon or ModMon and Modbased on 2006-2008 monitoring data15PM2.5Areas of Interest(based on criteria for significant contribution)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT16DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTOzone Areas of Interest(based on criteria for significant contribution)17Model ResultsSource Apportionment18Ozone SourceApportionment Results:Source Sectors(2005 base)New York, NYHolland, MIAtlanta, GAKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby mobile sources (at least 60%)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT19Ozone SourceApportionment Results:Source Regions(2005 base)Holland, MIAtlanta, GANew York, NYKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring statesBased on 2005 meteorology55%DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT20PM2.5Annual SourceApportionment Results:Source Sectors(2012 Scenario C)New York, NYKey Findings:• All source categories are important contributors• Relative amount of contribution varies by areaDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTBased on 2005 meteorologyDetroit MIAtlanta, GA21PM2.5Annual SourceApportionment Results:Source Regions(2012 Scenario C)New York, NYDetroit MIAtlanta, GAKey Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring statesDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT12%55%Based on 2005 meteorology54%13%45%22Average ContributionsBased on 20-30 key monitors in NE, SE, and MW% %23PM2.5Annual: Contributing States (%)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT2012 “C”2005 met24PM2.5Annual: Contributing States (ug/m3)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT2012 “C”2005 metChanges relative to 2012C, 2005 met (% version):deletions (cross-outs), additions (bold red)25PM2.5Annual: Contributing States (%)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT2012 “C”2002metChanges relative to 2012C, 2005 met (% version):deletions (cross-outs), additions (bold red)26Ozone: Contributing States (%)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT2012 “C”2005 met27Ozone: Contributing States (ppb)DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT2012 “C”2005 metModeling Performed in 2009 by LADCO for the State Collaborative Effort

FOR DAILY PM2.5

Met: 2005, unless noted 36 km grid CAMx

ICBC Boundary Conditions

ASOA Anthropogenic Secondary Organic Aerosols

BSOA Biogenic Secondary Organic AerosolsNonattainment Area Lancaster York Baltimore New YorkN.New JerseyLong Island New York City New Haven

State(s) PA PA MD NY-NJ-CT NY CT

24-Hour PM 2.5 Contribution (>0.35) 1.38 1.31 1.48 15.82 5.29 1.94

Annual PM 2.5 Contribution (>0.15) 0.59 0.43 0.38 6.07 2.22 0.40

New York-N.New Jersey-Long Island

NY-NJ-CT

340390004

24-Hour PM2.5

Contribution

(>0.35) Annual PM2.5

Contribution

(>0.15)

Indiana 0.63 0.19

Ohio 1.31 0.47

Michigan 0.47 0.32

North Carolina 0.78 0.19

Virginia 1.34 0.30

West Virginia 0.61 0.17

Maryland_DC 1.21 0.28

Delaware 0.62 0.25

Pennsylvania 5.43 1.98

New Jersey 15.82 6.07

New York 5.38 2.20

Connecticut_Rhode Island 0.89 0.20

Massachusetts 0.98 0.25

Canada 0.60 0.44

Illinois 0.42 NS

CENRAP_WRAP_South 0.37 NS

Kentucky 0.47 NS2005 DAILY Birmingham Atlanta Floyd County Macon Hamilton Charleston untingon-Ashla n

AL GA GA GA TN WV WV-KY-OH

10730023 130630091 131150005 130210007 470650031 540391005 540110006

Illinois 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.00

Indiana 0.98 0.61 0.39 0.51 1.47 0.21

Ohio 3.21 1.68 3.26 5.89 7.23 8.93

Michigan 0.39 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.43 0.04

Wisconsin 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00

Iowa 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00

Minnesota 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NorthDakota 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

Missouri 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00

CENRAP_WR A 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00

CENRAP_WR A 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.15 0.02

Alabama 13.93 0.61 1.36 0.25 0.04 0.01

Mississippi 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

Georgia 3.64 13.89 9.37 4.37 0.02 0.06

Florida 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

SouthCarolina 0.37 0.82 0.72 0.18 0.03 0.04

NorthCarolina 1.57 2.94 3.85 1.24 0.10 0.18

Tennessee 2.17 1.19 2.39 3.26 0.20 0.08

Kentucky 1.45 0.64 1.28 2.03 1.90 2.30

Virginia 0.73 0.94 1.65 1.60 0.65 0.72

WestVirginia 1.47 1.00 2.13 3.95 9.31 5.46

Maryland_DC 0.22 0.40 0.53 0.30 0.17 0.26

Delaware 0.11 0.15 0.23 0.11 0.05 0.08

Pennsylvania 1.99 2.12 3.13 4.95 5.30 10.42

NewJersey 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.17

NewYork 0.26 0.40 0.42 0.56 0.56 1.49

Connecticut_R h 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.07

Massachusetts 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.13

Vermont 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05

NewHampshir e 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.10

Maine 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04

Canada 0.31 0.10 0.16 0.29 0.25 0.59

ICBC 0.31 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.30

ASOA 0.75 1.13 0.54 0.45 1.08 0.32

BSOA 1.88 2.71 1.21 1.14 2.80 0.89

PM25 36.44 32.28 33.11 31.57 32.89 33.002005 DAILY

Illinois

Indiana

Ohio

Michigan

Wisconsin

Iowa

Minnesota

NorthDakota

Missouri

CENRAP_WR A

CENRAP_WR A

Alabama

Mississippi

Georgia

Florida

SouthCarolina

NorthCarolina

Tennessee

Kentucky

Virginia

WestVirginia

Maryland_DC

Delaware

Pennsylvania

NewJersey

NewYork

Connecticut_R h

Massachusetts

Vermont

NewHampshir e

Maine

Canada

ICBC

ASOA

BSOA

PM25 Louisville a go-Gary-Lake C Gary St. Louis Muscatine Indianapolis D etroit-Ann Arb o

KY-IN IL-IN IN MO-IL IA IN MI

180190006 170310052 180890022 171191007 191390015 180970081 261630033

1.18 17.87 8.38 12.98 8.14 2.07 2.01

4.26 5.12 10.78 1.72 1.53 11.17 2.52

6.27 2.30 2.25 2.10 1.43 6.87 7.19

0.72 2.84 3.68 1.17 2.70 2.80 13.50

1.08 1.37 0.84 0.72 6.09 0.28 0.68

0.39 0.89 1.05 0.97 8.92 0.19 0.43

0.33 0.29 0.28 0.92 3.20 0.10 0.24

0.07 0.10 0.12 0.26 0.32 0.05 0.09

0.39 1.29 1.57 8.02 1.18 0.80 0.68

0.18 0.82 1.12 1.65 1.52 0.36 0.62

0.32 0.84 0.96 0.60 0.84 0.63 0.78

0.14 0.17 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.30

0.02 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.08

0.26 0.12 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.26 0.23

0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.03

0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.04

0.22 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.22 0.13

0.51 0.38 0.51 0.05 0.11 0.52 0.52

7.14 1.03 1.21 0.34 0.26 1.65 1.14

0.33 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.25 0.17

1.93 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.37 1.16 0.65

0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09

0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05

3.70 0.84 0.72 0.85 0.57 2.57 1.49

0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04

0.61 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.75 0.78

0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.68 0.65 0.85 0.70 0.66 1.82 2.58

0.60 1.02 0.87 1.02 1.05 0.63 0.91

0.29 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.10

1.01 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.04 0.32 0.16

32.91 39.50 37.06 35.22 39.35 36.27 38.282005 DAILY

Illinois

Indiana

Ohio

Michigan

Wisconsin

Iowa

Minnesota

NorthDakota

Missouri

CENRAP_WR A

CENRAP_WR A

Alabama

Mississippi

Georgia

Florida

SouthCarolina

NorthCarolina

Tennessee

Kentucky

Virginia

WestVirginia

Maryland_DC

Delaware

Pennsylvania

NewJersey

NewYork

Connecticut_R h

Massachusetts

Vermont

NewHampshir e

Maine

Canada

ICBC

ASOA

BSOA

PM25 C anton-Masillo n i ncinnati-Hamilt o v eland-Akron-L o e ubenville-Weir t Milwaukee Green Bay Lancaster

OH OH-KY-IN OH OH-WV WI WI PA

391510017 390618001 390350038 540090005 550790026 550090005 420710007

0.48 1.36 0.66 0.27 5.95 4.79 0.29

1.06 3.56 1.07 0.59 1.66 1.02 0.46

17.16 15.02 19.71 6.05 1.15 0.71 1.44

1.91 1.94 2.63 0.97 2.18 1.72 0.38

0.15 0.33 0.37 0.16 24.00 21.86 0.13

0.08 0.28 0.11 0.07 1.24 2.21 0.09

0.12 0.24 0.16 0.07 1.28 1.59 0.08

0.05 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.29 0.28 0.05

0.22 0.31 0.25 0.13 1.04 1.51 0.16

0.13 0.23 0.12 0.11 0.98 1.86 0.14

0.35 0.23 0.36 0.06 0.75 0.91 0.21

0.22 0.31 0.26 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.13

0.07 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.03

0.12 0.15 0.27 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.29

0.10 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

0.02 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21

0.10 0.23 0.17 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.73

0.27 0.44 0.34 0.08 0.18 0.14 0.20

1.06 2.62 0.83 5.27 0.50 0.41 0.37

0.45 0.24 0.26 0.48 0.04 0.03 2.05

1.48 1.04 0.95 4.60 0.27 0.17 0.89

0.44 0.07 0.15 0.54 0.02 0.00 4.62

0.05 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.84

7.28 2.08 3.42 11.33 0.49 0.27 19.26

0.15 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.01 0.00 1.38

1.17 0.50 1.13 1.00 0.11 0.10 1.83

0.05 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.36

0.08 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.49

0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.18

0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.12

1.79 1.31 2.76 1.10 0.54 0.56 0.49

0.69 0.59 0.79 0.71 1.14 1.01 0.87

0.15 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.25

0.36 0.47 0.51 0.47 0.19 0.06 0.58

37.90 34.03 37.84 34.91 44.31 41.44 39.682005 DAILY

Illinois

Indiana

Ohio

Michigan

Wisconsin

Iowa

Minnesota

NorthDakota

Missouri

CENRAP_WR A

CENRAP_WR A

Alabama

Mississippi

Georgia

Florida

SouthCarolina

NorthCarolina

Tennessee

Kentucky

Virginia

WestVirginia

Maryland_DC

Delaware

Pennsylvania

NewJersey

NewYork

Connecticut_R h

Massachusetts

Vermont

NewHampshir e

Maine

Canada

ICBC

ASOA

BSOA

PM25 Liberty-Clairtonburgh-Beaver V York Baltimore N.New Jersey- L New York City New Haven

PA PA PA MD NY-NJ-CT NY CT

420030064 420070014 421330008 245100040 340390004 360610056 90090018

0.30 0.46 0.26 0.33 0.42 0.38 0.17

0.74 1.17 0.44 0.53 0.63 0.55 0.30

7.07 7.53 1.21 1.25 1.31 1.26 0.75

0.87 0.98 0.29 0.36 0.47 0.57 0.26

0.07 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.08

0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.07

0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.13 0.04

0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.02

0.19 0.23 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.17

0.15 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.19

0.09 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.37 0.31 0.34

0.04 0.24 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.08

0.01 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02

0.05 0.14 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.23 0.10

0.00 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01

0.01 0.02 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.22 0.05

0.07 0.09 0.78 0.94 0.78 0.65 0.38

0.12 0.31 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.20 0.20

1.59 1.77 0.39 0.46 0.47 0.36 0.32

0.57 0.47 2.24 2.58 1.34 1.06 0.85

2.85 2.28 0.86 0.76 0.61 0.54 0.53

0.66 0.56 4.12 14.78 1.21 0.88 0.65

0.15 0.06 0.87 0.82 0.62 0.48 0.29

13.84 14.78 18.89 8.26 5.43 3.76 2.74

0.28 0.23 1.31 1.48 15.82 5.29 1.94

0.83 0.86 1.67 2.22 5.38 18.43 5.22

0.09 0.08 0.32 0.45 0.89 0.99 10.85

0.12 0.11 0.46 0.62 0.98 0.82 3.45

0.02 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.53

0.03 0.04 0.15 0.21 0.33 0.25 1.20

0.02 0.03 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.16 0.60

0.91 0.87 0.48 0.69 0.60 0.58 1.36

0.77 0.77 0.93 1.00 1.23 1.14 1.38

0.32 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.29

0.91 0.39 0.45 0.26 0.24 0.32 0.36

33.90 35.61 38.41 40.47 41.82 40.84 35.80September 2, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code 1101A

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

On behalf of 17 states in the eastern half of the U.S., we wish to provide the following

recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider as it

develops a replacement rule for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), in light of the

December 23, 2008, remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The recommendations follow through on the commitment we made in the March 9, 2009,

Framework Document to work together to address the transport requirements of Section

110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and to attain the ozone and PM2.5 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Please understand that in preparing these

recommendations our fundamental air quality objective is to achieve attainment and

ensure maintenance of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.

As the result of our collaboration, we recommend for your consideration a framework,

which is based on in-depth technical evaluations and a sincere and concerted effort by

all states to reach common ground on an overall approach to addressing transport. This

comprehensive framework comprises national ru les involving significantly contributing

states that combine statewide emissions caps and complementary regional trading

programs with a state-led planning process to address transport in a multi-pronged and

layered approach. While the undersigned states have reached consensus on this

suggested framework, there are some regional differences concerning the timing and

stringency of electric generating unit (EGU) reductions, and the criteria for determining

which states are included in the state-led planning process. In addition, the states differ

in their perspectives on whether performance based standards should be part of the

strategy.

The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) and the Ozone Transport

Commission (OTC) will be submitting separat e letters to explain their perspectives on

these areas of regional differences on implementation of the framework.

Many areas in the eastern U.S. are designated as nonattainment for the current ozone

and PM2.5 standards (1997 version), and it is expected that even more areas will not be

in compliance with 2008 ozone and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Numerous data analysis and

modeling studies have shown that some (not all) of these nonattainment problems are

strongly influenced by inter-state transport.

Additional regional emission reductions will be necessary to help states meet the new air

quality standards. A timely and robust federal program that requires substantial regional

emission reductions from mobile sources, area sources and large point sources such asPage 2 of 6 EGUs is an essential component of any strategy to reduce interstate transport of air

pollution. These reductions are necessary to attain and maintain compliance with the

NAAQS.

The undersigned states recommend a 3-step approach, as further discussed below, to

establish a framework from which to address the requirements of CAA section

110(a)(2)(D):

1. Identifying areas of interest (i.e., those not meeting the standards and those

struggling to maintain the standards);

2. Identifying, based on specific criteria, upwind states which contribute to

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in these areas of interest; and

3. Implementing a multi-sector remedy to meet CAA requirements.

Step 1 - Identifying Areas of Interest

A. While the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D) apply to all areas, most attention

should be given to those areas not meeting or struggling to maintain the NAAQS.

These "areas of interest" should be i dentified using monitoring and modeling

data.

B. Specifically, areas with both base monitored design values and future modeled

design values above the applicable NAAQS should be designated as areas of

interest. The monitored design values are based on the maximum design value

from the periods 2003-2005 through the most recent three-year period, and the

future modeled values are based on future year modeling which reflects legally

enforceable control measures and a conservative model attainment test - i.e.,

use of maximum design values rather than average design values.

1. The use of maximum design values and a conservative model attainment test

are intended to account for historic variability, which is necessary to ensure

maintenance. An alternative means of accounting for historic variability is to

conduct a statistical analysis of the year-to-year variation in meteorology.

2. Requiring a more conservative model attainment test will necessitate a

change in EPA's modeling guidance. EPA should also establish performance

criteria to insure that the modeling is capturing transport appropriately.

3. EPA's approach in CAIR also reflects a "monitored and modeled" test to

identify areas of interest.

Step 2 - Identifying Upwind States that Significantly Contribute to Nonattainment

or Interfere with Maintenance

A. An upwind state significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with

maintenance in a downwind area of interest if its total impact from all source

sectors equals or exceeds 1% of the applicable NAAQS.Page 3 of 6 B. Individual state contributions should be determined through a weight-of-evidence

approach, including source apportionment modeling.

C. Use of 1% of the NAAQS as the signif icance threshold is consistent with EPA's

approach in CAIR.

Step 3 - Implementing a Multi-Sector Remedy to Meet Clean Air Act Requirements

A two-part process is recommended consisting of: (A) a national/regional control

program adopted by EPA for EGUs and additional federal control measures for

other sectors, and (B) state-led efforts to develop, adopt, and implement federally

enforceable plans for each area of interest that is not expected to attain the

standards even after implementation of the national/regional program.

A. National/Regional Control Program

A significantly contributing state (i.e., a state which contributes at least 1% to a

downwind area of interest) must comply with the national/regional control

program described below.

1. EGU point source strategy (applicable to units > 25 MW)

In adopting a CAIR replacement rule EPA should:

(a) make federally enforceable through appropriate mechanisms all

nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) controls to comply

with the original CAIR Phase I program;

(b) make federally enforceable through appropriate mechanisms

optimization by no later than early 2014 of existing NOx and SO 2 controls;

(c) make federally enforceable through appropriate mechanisms

application by 2015 of low capital cost NOx controls;

(d) establish statewide emission caps by no later than 2017 for all

fossil fuel-fired units ≥ 25MW. The caps should reflect an analysis

of NOx and SO 2 controls on coal-fired units ≥ 100 MW which, in

combination with the three measures above, will achieve rates

that are not expected to exceed 0.25 lb/MMBTU for SO 2 (annual

average for all units ≥ 25 MW) and 0.11 lb/MMBTU for NOx (ozone

seasonal and annual average for all units ≥ 25 MW) and which will

result in lower rates in some states. Previously banked emissions

under the Title IV or CAIR programs shall not be used to comply

with the state-wide emission caps; and

(e) to the fullest extent allowed under the Clean Air Act, EPA should

work with the states to establish regional emissions caps with full

emissions trading to replace the caps currently applicable under

CAIR.Page 4 of 6 Again, there are regional differences on some elements of the EGU point

source strategy, including mechanisms for achieving reductions prior to

2017. Further recommendations will be provided in separate letters by

LADCO and OTC.

2. Non-EGU point source strategy

a. EPA should identify and prioritize other categories of point

sources with major emissions of NOx and/or SO 2 (e.g., cement

plants) based on a review of available emissions inventories and

other information, such as source apportionment studies.

b. For the non-EGU point sources, EPA should identify and evaluate

control options for reducing NOx and/or SO 2 emissions. The

evaluation should consider the technological, engineering, and

economic feasibility of each control option.

c. At a minimum, EPA should evaluate the technological,

engineering, and implementation feasibility, and cost-effectiveness

of controlling SO 2 and NOx emissions from industrial, commercial,

and institutional boilers > 100 MMBTU/hour.

3. Mobile source strategy, such as new engine standards for on-highway

and off-highway vehicles and equipment, and a single consistent

environmentally-sensitive formulated fuel.

4. Area source strategy, such as new federal standards for consumer

products and architectural, industrial and maintenance coatings as

originally promised by EPA in 2007

B. State- Led Attainment Planning

The undersigned states recommend the use of a state-led attainment planning

process concurrent with developing the transport SIP to address areas of interest

that are not expected to attain after implementation of the national/regional

control program. The state-led planning effort should involve a key subset of

significantly contributing states to develop, adopt, and implement an appropriate

attainment strategy. EPA should work with the states to establish criteria for

determining which significantly contributing states should be involved in the stateled planning process. Additionally EPA should work with the states to determine

the appropriate criteria for each state to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). The

advantages of this state-led planning effort include:

• A one-size-fits-all federal solution cannot provide the most appropriate

and cost-effective solution for each area;

• Attainment planning is more effective and more likely to succeed if it is

done on a non-attainment area basis with a key subset of contributing

states;

• Additional controls are identified where they are needed; and

• States maintain their responsibility under the Clean Air Act to establish

state implementation plans.Page 5 of 6 Further recommendations on this issue will be provided in separate letters by

LADCO and OTC.

The comprehensive framework outlined above represents the culmination of our

collaborative work over the past six months. We look forward to working with you further

as EPA develops its CAIR replacement rule.

Sincerely,



### ______________________ _______________________ Connecticut District of Columbia

______________________ ________________________ Illinois Indiana

_______________________ _______________________ Maine Maryland

______________________ ______________________ Massachusetts Michigan

______________________ _______________________ New Hampshire New Jersey

______________________ ______________________ New York Ohio

______________________ _______________________ Pennsylvania Rhode IslandPage 6 of 6 

### ______________________ ______________________ Vermont Virginia

______________________ WisconsinOTC appreciates the efforts put forth by EPA to work with all interested

stakeholders in developing a CAIR replacem ent rule based on sound science. OTC

further acknowledges that air pollutant transport within the OTC region is a significant

issue that EPA should also address. The CAIR replacement rule should also recognize

that our planning processes continue to evolve in the face of ever-tightening standards

and newly uncovered air quality concerns, such as the impact of peaking unit emissions

on high electricity demand days (HEDD). As such, OTC recommends that EPA propose

measures to address HEDD emissions in the CAIR replacement rule.

Our recommendations are provided below in three parts. OTC considers these

recommendations feasible, practicable and oper able within the framework of the existing

Clean Air Act, all of which facilitate a rapid adoption process as directed by the D.C.

Circuit Court of Appeals in remanding CAIR. The CAIR replacement rule offers an

opportunity for transformational change over incremental improvement. Providing

regulatory certainty to America’s electric generating sector promotes transformational

change through business decisions that support our air quality goals. A summary of the

technical analyses conducted by the OTC States and provided as support

documentation for the recommendations provided in this letter and the September 2,

2009 letter is attached to support these recommendations.

A. Achievable EGU Limitations

The OTC States recommend that EPA consider a comprehensive, multi-layered,

hybrid approach for obtaining further reductions from EGUs. This hybrid approach

combines state and regional caps with phased-in performance standards to costeffectively reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. The

components of this strategy (enforceable conditions, state-by-state reductions, regional

trading caps/program and phased performance standards), should coordinate with each

other and other EGU control initiatives such as federal MACT standards and greenhouse

gas reduction programs.

A national strategy for EGUs should be implemented in phases. The first phase

should combine federally enforceable NOx and SO 2 reductions from each state with a

regional trading program. A later phase should include performance standards to

achieve continuing reductions from the EGU sector over the course of the regulatory

time frame for implementation of the 2008 ozone and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Timing is essential to meet attainment obligations. Three years of data are

needed to demonstrate attainment; therefore reductions are needed three years prior to

the attainment deadline. While we recognize that full implementation of all controls may

not be achieved in that time frame, it is essential that enforceable mechanisms be

provided to lock in controls that are achi evable. The OTC-LADCO submission reflects

the participating states’ agreement on state-specific caps that would be applicable no

later than 2017. Years prior to 2017 may be critical for many states to demonstrate

attainment with the applicable NAAQS. The OTC States seek to work with EPA to

develop mechanisms for achieving interim reductions in the 2012-16 time period,

including the possibility of interim state-specific caps in addition to a regional cap-andtrade program.Page 3 of 6 Since CAIR was not sufficient for attaining and maintaining the 1997 ozone

NAAQS, EPA will need to make the limits in the CAIR replacement rule stricter to enable

compliance with the recently revised ozone and PM NAAQS and any tighter standards

that EPA enacts after reconsideration of those standards. The state caps are also

necessary to ensure that each State contributes fully to the needed reductions.

Specifically, the OTC States propose that EPA include phased state-by-state

reductions, complementary regional emission trading caps as early as possible (but no

later than 2014), and performance standards as follows:

1. State-by-State Reductions

The September 2, 2009 letter recommends the implementation of state

caps by no later than 2017 that reflect the emission rates that would be achieved

through installation of SCR and FGD controls on all coal-fired EGUs of 100 MW

or larger in all significantly contributing states. In addition, the participating states

recommend in that letter a number of interim measures including operation and

optimization of all controls currently in place or being installed to meet other

requirements, and installation and operation of all feasible, low capital cost NOx

controls such as selective non-cataly tic reduction (SNCR) and low NOx burners

(LNB) not currently installed or in use on existing EGUs on a unit basis by 2015.

The OTC States recommend that EPA analyze and determine the stateby-state reductions needed prior to 2017 in order to address CAA Section

110(a)(2)(D) requirements to address interstate transport from EGUs within the

NAAQS timeframe. The OTC States see interim state-by-state reductions prior

to 2017 as a key part of addressing the Court of Appeals concerns over what is

needed to satisfy the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D).

2. Regional Trading Programs for NOx and SO 2

.

As explained in the September 2, 2009 submission, the second key

element of the OTC-LADCO agreed framework for a CAIR replacement rule is

the implementation of regional trading programs for both NOx and SO 2 , to

complement the state-by-state caps described above. The OTC States

recommend that EPA consider the following in developing the regional caps:

• The new regional caps should be im plemented as early as possible

and set at a level that will drive deeper regional NOx and SO 2 reductions than the regional reductions that would result from the

implementation of the state-by-state caps by themselves. This pairing

of state-by-state caps with an aggressive regional trading program will

guarantee specific reductions in each state while also using market

forces to further reduce regional emissions at lowest cost.

• OTC’s analysis (attached) and the analysis that EPA recently

prepared for Senator Carper show that stringent regional trading caps

for NOx and SO 2 , implemented as early as possible (but no later than

2014), would provide significant public health benefits that

substantially outweigh the costs.

• Banking and inter-state trading would continue to be allowed in the

regional trading program.Page 4 of 6 • To be creditable under Section 110(a)(2)(D), controls installed in

response to the regional trading program should be made federally

enforceable through an appropriate mechanism.

3. Performance Standards

We understand that EPA is also considering a hybrid approach in its

CAIR replacement rule involving regi onal emissions trading and unit-specific

performance standards (cite: July 9, 2009, testimony by R. McCarthy before the

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and

Public Works, U.S. Senate).

The OTC States request that EPA work with the states to develop and

phase in unit-specific performance standards that owners of fossil fuel-fired units

should comply with between 2017 and 2025, or earlier if EPA’s technical analysis

demonstrates that an earlier date is reasonable. Performance standards should

either be output-based or transition to output-based standards to reward

efficiency. Such performance standards will give regulatory certainty to EGU

owners and encourage transformational change in the energy market. In

developing these performance standards:

• EPA should consider fuels, types and sizes of EGUs, the timing of

other requirements included in this and the September 2, 2009 letter,

cost-effectiveness and the pollution control equipment already in

place on the existing fleet of EGUs.

• EPA should phase-in the performance standards to maximize

efficiency and minimize costs to affected sources. For example:

o The performance standards for coal-fired units greater than

100 MW should be coordinated with the state-by-state caps

that are recommended for no later than 2017.

o The performance standards for units subject to the upcoming

federal MACT requirements should be coordinated with the

MACT requirements.

• In later phases (2020 to 2025), the performance standards should be

coordinated with greenhouse gas reduction programs and other

energy efficiency initiatives and be output-based.

• OTC’s analysis (attached) shows that performance standards on

larger fossil-fuel fired EGUs (based on a 30-day rolling average) are

feasible and should be implemented on an aggressive timeframe (as

early as 2017).

• EPA should consider including incent ives (e.g., alternative compliance

schedules not to exceed three years) , to promote the repowering or

replacement of existing units.

• After the adoption and implementation of performance standards,

EPA should evaluate the feasibility of eliminating the state-by-state

caps.Page 5 of 6 B. State-led Planning Process

The OTC States recommend that the state-led planning effort include all

significantly contributing states (i.e., 1% of the NAAQS or greater impact) unless each

state in the affected nonattainment area chooses to reduce the number of states

involved.

• The OTC believes that this is the most appropriate way to identify

those states that are required to participate in the state-led planning

process as model performance (related to long-range transport) varies

from one nonattainment area to another and the meteorology that

affects some nonattainment areas is very complex.

• The states in the nonattainment area would use monitoring data,

modeling and other information on ozone transport, meteorology,

emissions, control programs, geography and chemistry to decide

which significantly contributing stat es, if any, should be excused from

the state-led planning process.

• Two scenarios are outlined below:

o If the states in a nonattainment area have technical data that

show that the state-led planning process for that area should

be limited to just three or four states, that would be

appropriate.

o If the states in a nonattainment area are subject to highly

complex transport patterns, it is most likely necessary to

include all significantly contributing states in the state-led

planning process.

• The OTC believes that the most appropriate way to address transport

is through a suite of aggressive national programs to reduce NOx,

VOC and SO 2 emissions from EGUs, other stationary sources, area

sources and off-road and on-road mobile sources and that the role of

the state-led planning process should be secondary.

• The OTC continues to have serious concerns over model

performance related to long-range, aloft transport. It is critical for EPA

to establish and implement performance criteria related to aloft

transport to ensure that the process for identifying significantly

contributing states is credible.

• As indicated in the September 2, 2009 joint letter, additional controls

may be required where needed.

C. Eliminating Significant Contribution

The OTC States recommend that under the state-led attainment planning

process, both the upwind states and EPA rema in accountable to address contributions

to downwind areas’ nonattainment of both the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS by the relevant

attainment dates, without designing any new “off-ramp” that avoids direct and timely

action to reduce emissions that are in violation of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D).

In addition to a program of controls for EGUs, OTC also urges EPA to address

interstate transport through the development and implementation of national rules inPage 6 of 6 2012 or as early as feasible for additional controls on non-EGU sources, as supported in

prior statements of the OTC to EPA. ( See

, e.g., Statement on the Need for National

Rulemaking and Implementation of Ozone Control Measures, November 14, 2007).

In acting on these recommendations, EPA can use the CAIR replacement rule to

provide regulatory certainty to the EGU sector, which will enable business decisions that

will move us many steps toward improved air quality and a more efficient electricity

generating sector. We look forward to talking with you further about our

recommendations for the CAIR replacement rule, and working with your staff as you

expeditiously develop this important air quality and public health program.

Sincerely,



### ______________________ _______________________ Connecticut District of Columbia



### _______________________ _______________________ Maine Maryland



### ______________________ ______________________ Massachusetts New Hampshire



### ______________________ _______________________ New Jersey New York



### ______________________ _______________________ Pennsylvania Rhode Island



### ______________________ Vermont

EnclosuresSeptember 10, 2009

1 OTC CAIR Replacement Rule Recommendation Technical Support Document

The OTC is providing technical information in support of the recommendations to EPA on a CAIR

replacement rule included in the September 2, 2009 joint letter from OTC and LADCO and the additional

recommendations in the September 10, 2009 letter fr om OTC. The supporting materials provided below

are organized as follows:

• Assessments and Rationale for Electricity Generating Units (EGUs)

o EGU Emission Rates

o Timing

o Cost of Controls

o Air Quality Benefits

• Assessments and Rationale for Other Sectors

o Other Stationary Source Measures

o Mobile Source Measures

• Appen dix I

– EGU Rates

• Appendix II

– Timing

• Appendix III

– Cost of Controls

• Appendix IV

– Air Quality Benefits

• Appendix V

– Other Sectors

The technical information included in this support document is based on studies and analyses conducted

recently by the OT C, and where noted, by LADCO.

Assessments and Rationale for Electricity Generating Units (EGUs)

In its earliest response to EPA’s proposed transport rule

‐ first the Interstate Air Quality Rule (IAQR), and

later, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

‐ OTC provided comments and analyses showing that

additional NOx and SO 2 reductions beyond those the rule provided would be needed for areas in the

OTR to come into attainment with the ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). In response to the IAQR and CAIR, the OTC states developed a multi

‐ pollutant position in 2004,

using several different analyses of potential EGU control rates as a basis for developing national caps for

NOx and SO 2 that were more stringent and earlier than those provided in CAIR.

The analysis used in OTC’s recent review of the 2004 multi

‐ pollutant position, along with evaluations of

the current state of controls on EGUs and rate information extracted from recent American Electric

Power Service Corp. (AEP) settlements and consent decrees was provided to the state collabo rative

process. Additional support for the timeframes and flexibility provisions in the OTC additional

recommendations are provided in a short case study on the experiences of the Maryland Department of

Environment (MDE) with its Healthy Air Act (HAA), as well as experiences in other states with their own

state rules and addi tional information contained in the AEP settlements/consent decrees. Recent

evaluations of control cost data that OTC has conducted for potential control strategies, including

analyses for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and boilers serving EGUs, provide data for

relative cost/ton comparison between EGU and other sector NO x and SO 2 controls. An additional

sensitivity analysis using OTC’s latest SIP modeling runs, in tandem with the results from the StateSeptember 10, 2009

2 Collaborative modeling runs, demonstrate the need for the air quality benefits that can be achieved

from the rates and structure of the OTC recommendations.

EGU Emission Rates

In developing its 2004 position, OTC relied heavily on an analysis conducted by the National Association

of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) to support of its 2002 Principles for a Multi

‐ Pollutant Strategy for Power

Plants. The NACAA analysis demonstrated that reductions in the range of 82

‐ 88% by 2013 for SO 2 and

73

‐ 81% for NOx from a 2001 baseline were technologically feasible. Reductions within this range would

yield emission rates as follows:

• NOx: 0.07 for new source BACT; 0.10 for retrofit BACT; and

• SO 2 : 0.10 for new source BACT; 0.15 for retrofit BACT.

In comparison, the average emission rates for 2001 as reported by EPA were 0.37 lb/mmBtu for NOx and

0.84 lb/mmBtu for SO 2 (the 2001 baseline would not have included the NOx SIP Call).

OTC continued to work on and refine its position on EGU rates, based on additional analyses. In a 2007

review, the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup performed an analysis to determine revised NOx and SO 2 cap levels.

Assessment 1

. In the 2007 review of the OTC multi

‐ pollutant position for EGUs, the OTC Multi

‐ P

Workgroup performed an analysis using the EPA Acid Rain database and information from the

Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) to examine reasonably cost

‐ effective post

‐

combustion EGU control technologies and determine fleet

‐ wide average NO x and SO 2 emission rates for

the fossil fuel

‐ fired EGUs in the lower 48 states. The OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup concluded that for NOx, a

0.08 lbs/mmBtu fleet wide average emission rate would be achievable by 2018, along with an interim

hard cap in 2012 based on a 0.125 lbs/mmBtu fleet

‐ wide average. For SO 2 the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup

concluded that a 0.15 lb/mmBtu fleet wide average emission rate was achievable by 2018, along with an

interim hard cap in 2012 based on a 0.25 lb/mmBtu fleet

‐ wide average. The methodology applied by the

OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup included the assumptions in Table I

‐ 1 be low (also shown in Appendix I):

Table I

‐ 1. Control Assumptions for the Methodology Applied by the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup

EGU Size Emission reduction assumed

25MW

‐

<100MW 100MW

‐

<200MW

<50% input

capacity 100MW

‐

<200MW

>50% input

capacity 200MW or

greater For EGUs with existing

“assumed” add

‐ on

controls For EGUs applying

“new” add

‐ on

controls

NOx

SNCR SNCR SCR SCR Remains same as 2008

controlled level 90% SCR

355 SNCR

55% SNCR to SCR

increment

SO2 DSI DSI FGD FGD Remains same as 2008

controlled level 95% FGD

60% DSI

Control Technologies: DSI (Duct Sorbent Injection); FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization); SCR (Selective Catalytic

Reduction); SNCR (Selective Non

‐ Catalytic Reduction)

* For EGUs identified as already incorporating the technology applied in the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup’s

methodology their NOx emission rates were assumed to remain the same as their 2008 Ozone Season controlledSeptember 10, 2009

3 emission rates and their SO 2 emission rates were assumed to remain the same as their annual 2008 controlled

emission rates.

**For each NOx and SO 2 control technology a 0.06 lb/MMBTU “basement” level (i.e., maximum control level) was

assumed.

When these assumptions are applied to coal units (all coal and coal>100 MW) on a statewide average

ozone season basis in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), the result is a range of rates for NOx between

0.06 and 0.23 lb/mmBtu. A similar application in the LADCO states on a statewide average ozone season

basis yields NO x rates in the range of 0.06 and 0.14 lb/mmBtu. Similarly, when the SO 2 assumptions are

applied in the OTR on a statewide annual basis, the result is a range of rates for SO 2 between 0.06 and

0.32 lb/mmBtu. Following suit in the LADCO states on a statewide annual basis yields SO 2 rates in the

range of 0.06 and 0.31 lb/mmBtu. Statewide rates for each state based on this analysis are outlined in

Tables I

‐ 2 through I

‐ 5 in Appendix I.

This analysis does not include emissions from units in the states that use other fuels, such as natural gas,

that would lo wer the overall statewide average emission rate. It also shows that some states with

higher percentages of coal in their overall fuel mix will need flexibility in the regulatory structure and

timing to achieve those rates.

Assessment 2

. In a second assessment of potential EGU rates, OTC compiled information for each of the

states in the eastern U.S. to show the average NOx and SO 2 emission rates from EPA’s 2008 Clean Air

Market Division (CAMD) database, based on units 25 MW and above for all fuels. Then the incremental

NOx and SO 2 rates within the ranges discussed by the State Collaborative were calculated for each state,

from 0.07

‐ 0.125 lb/mmBtu for NOx and from 0.15

‐ 0.30 lb/mmBtu for SO 2

. The tons reduced at each

control level increment and the percent reduction from 2008 levels is calculated for each state. The

results are shown in Tables I

‐ 6 and I

‐ 7 in Appendix I, along with Tables I

‐ 8 and I

‐ 9 showing LADCO’s

data on achievable average annual emission rates ba sed on their plant

‐ level, unit

‐ level analysis of coal

fired units greater than 100 MW, and the timing of projected post

‐ combustion controls installations.

Comparing the OTC tables based on the CAMD data with the LADCO table, the 2008 rates are very close,

despite the fact that the CAMD da ta includes all fuels and the LADCO data is for coal units only.

Assessment 3

. Using a third data set to assess potential EGU emission rates, the OTC examined the

recent consent decree signed by American Electric Service Corp. (AEP) which requires the installation of

SCR and FGD controls on EGUs in a number of states including Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia and

West Virginia. The consent decr ee requires several of these units to meet a federally

‐ enforceable 30

‐ day

rolling average emission rate of 0.100 lb/mmBtu for NOx and a 30

‐ day rolling average emission rate of

0.100 lb/mmBtu for SO 2

. Furthermore, repowering requirements as stipulated in the consent decree

state that the technology achieve “equivalent environmental performance that at a minimum achieves

and maintains a 30

‐ day rolling average emission rate of 0.100lb/mmBtu or a 30

‐ day rolling average

removal efficiency of at least 95% for SO 2 and a 30

‐ day rolling average emission rate of 0.070 lb/mmBtu

for NOx.

The limits specified in the AEP consent decree provide additional support for the technical feasibility and

cost effectiveness of the NOx and SO 2 emission rates “observed by” the State Collaborative EGU

Technical Workgroup presented at the State Collaborative meetings held on October 7, 2008 and April

27

‐ 28, 2009. AEP would not have signed this consent decree if it was not certain that it could comply

with all of its terms. Note that the NO x and SO 2 emission rates in the consent decree are more stringent

than the NOx and SO 2 emission rates in the OTC recommendations because they are based on unitSeptember 10, 2009

4 specific, 30

‐ day rolling average emission rates rather than statewide average emission rates. If EGU

retrofits can achieve the NOx and SO 2 rates specified in the AEP consent decree on a unit specific basis,

then it should be feasible for other EGUs to achieve these emission rates on a statewide average basis.

Timing

Timing flexibility is a key issue in developing an EGU control strategy. If the regulatory structure is

designed correctly, it will provide incentives to get controls installed quickly. One example of this is

provided by the Maryland Department of Environment’s (MDE) experience with their Healthy Air Act

(HAA), which was passed in 2006, with final rules iss ued in January 2007 (see MDE case study in

Appendix II). MDE’s experience with the HAA demonstrates that it is possible to achieve simultaneous,

rather than sequential, installation of controls in less than 3 years after promulgation of the rules

requiring those controls.

• In Maryland, 3 SCRs and 6 SNCRs on coal uni ts ranging in size from 125

‐ 600 MW, and 6 FGD on

9 coal

‐ fired units ranging in size from 200

‐ 700 MW are installed or will have completed

installation by the end of 2009, or less than 3 years after the HAA rules wer e promulgated. Four

SCRs had been installed on coal

‐ fired power plants in Maryland prior to the HAA.

• MDE included a waiver for units that could not meet the control levels by the date required,

providing additional time for them to install controls. The waiver was not utilized by any EGU.

• The i nstallations responding to the HAA rules occurred at the same time that controls were

being required for CAIR and a number of consent decrees on EGUs. Despite these competing

interests, there were no delays in construction or installation due to labor or equipment

constraints.

More spe cific information can be found in Appendix II, Example 1 on the MDE HAA case study, including

a schematic of the timeline of installations on specific EGUs in response to the rule.

In another example from Delaware, the state established phased NOx and SO 2 limits in Regulation 1146,

promulgated in December 2006, with the first phase of controls required to be operational in May 2009.

This provided a 2.5

‐ year window from promulgation of the rule to installation and operation of controls

for the first phase of NOx and SO 2 controls. The emission rates and timing for the reductions required by

Delaware’s Regulation 1146 is applicable to coal

‐ fired and residual oil

‐ fired units 25 MW and above are

as follows:

• NOx = 0.15 lb/mmBtu on all units beginning May 1, 2009 through December 2011, with a

second, more stringe nt limit on the same units of 0.125 lb/mmBtu for the period January 1,

2012 and beyond (limits are on a rolling 24

‐ hour basis);

• SO 2 = 0.37 lb/mmBtu on all units beginning May 1, 2009 through December 2011, with a second,

more stringent limit on coal

‐ fired units of 0.26 lb/mmBtu for the period January 1, 2012 and

beyond (limits are on a rolling 24

‐ hour basis); and

• Residual oil

‐ fired units may not accept residual fuel oi l for combustion that has a sulfur content

in excess of 0.5% by weight from January 1, 2009 and beyond.

More information on Delaware’s Regulation 1146 can be found at:

http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/1000/1100/1146.shtmlSeptember 10, 2009

5 Finally, data collected on controls resulting from EPA’s NOx SIP Call show that a over 75 percent of the

SCR units installed occurred within a 4

‐ year window, between 2003 to 2007, with more than 50 percent

of the installations occurring in the 2003

‐ 2004 timeframe. Mo re information on the installation of SCR

controls in response to EPA’s NOx SIP Call can be found in Appendix II, Example 2.

Cost of Controls

EPA needs to perform a comprehensive cost analysis for the CAIR replacement rule; however, in the

interim the data show that aggressive controls on EGUs continues to be the most cost

‐ effective option

available to the states in meeting the ozone and PM 2.5 standards.

Table III

‐ 1 in Appendix III provides recently developed cost estimates for various NOx and SO 2 controls in

2008 dollars, including selective non

‐ catalytic reduction (SCR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), flue

gas desulfurization, low NOx burners (LNB)and combinations of these controls on coal

‐ fired, residual oil

‐ fired, distillate oil

‐ fired and natural gas

‐ fired boilers. The data shows that the cost for controls caps out

at $4,900 per ton of NOx re moved for an SCR and $3,600 per ton of SO 2 removed for a dry FGD system

(dry scrubber) installed on a 250 mmBtu/hr (approximately 73 MW) coal

‐ fired boiler operating at 66

percent capacity. The NOx control costs for 250 mmBtu/hr fossil fuel

‐ fired boilers serving EGUs range

from $1,100 to $8,700 per ton of NOx removed and the SO 2 control costs for 250 mmBtu/hr coal

‐ fired

boilers serving EGUs range from $1,400 to $3,600 per ton of SO 2 removed.

OTC is conducting an extensive examination of potential control measures to consider as additional

strategies in their ozone and PM 2.5 SIPs. The costs of several of these controls on a $/ton basis far

exceed the cost of EGU controls, as shown in Tables III

‐ 2 and III

‐ 3 in Appendix III.

Air Quality Benefits

The State Collaborative effort has produced modeling analyses to examine the impact that a CAIR

replacement rule might have on air quality in the Eastern United States. These regional modeling results

show that an EGU based strategy would have a positive impact on PM 2.5 and ozone air quality in the

region and that while nearby sources have by far the greatest impact, significant contribution to levels

of ozone and PM 2.5 can come from states several hundred miles away. This effort also shows that with

an EGU strategy that approximates CAIR and other currently adopted measures many areas are still

above the current ozone (0.075 ppm) and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Furthermore, the State Collaborative modeling also show that even with the most stringent NOx (0.07

lb/mmBtu) and SO 2 (0.10 lb/mmBtu) emission control rates applied on a unit

‐ by

‐ unit basis, a number of

areas remain in non

‐ attainment

. Under these emission limits the modeling shows 23 counties in non

‐

attainment for the 75 ppb ozone standard, 10 counties not meeting the PM 2.5 daily standard, and 3

counties in non

‐ attainment for the PM 2.5 annual standard. The State Collaborative modeling is not “SIP

quality,” so it was conducted to provide, at best, ballpark estimates that are only meant to be

directionally correct. Even with the substantial improvement in air quality shown in the 2018 modeling

results, however, approximately 37 million people will still be exposed to u nhealthy levels of air

pollution. Results from the State Collaborative air quality modeling are summarized in the charts and

maps on pages 1

‐ 2 of Appendix IV.

To ascertain the level of reductions that might be necessary to meet the current ozone NAAQS, the OTC

performed sensitivity modeling. This se nsitivity modeling employed across

‐ the

‐ board reduction in NOxSeptember 10, 2009

6 emissions (point, area and mobile sources). This sensitivity modeling indicates that by reducing NOx

emissions by 40 % from all sectors attainment with the current ozone NAAQS is possible. While it is

likely impossible to reduce NOx emissions by 40 % from all sectors, this provides a path way to

determine the level of emissions reductions needed for planning purposes. The ultimate decision on the

measures chosen will be based on feasibility (both technical and cost) and effectiveness. Results from

the OTC sensitivity modeling are summarized in the maps and charts on pages 3

‐ 5 of Appendix IV

.

Assessments and Rationale for Other Sectors

The states in the eastern U.S. have affirmed that emission reductions beyond what is achievable from

EGU sources alone will be necessary to comply with the ozone and PM 2.5 standards, and to address

transport and regional haze. Both the joint OTC

‐ LADCO recommendation of September 2, 2009 and the

additional recommendations provided by OTC in the September 20, 2009 letter put forward potential

EGU emission rates for consideration by EPA that go beyond the original CAIR levels. It is important that

significan t reductions are also obtained from sources in the area and mobile source sectors to bring

areas into attainment with air quality standards and mitigate transport of air pollutants and their

precursors from one part of the country into another.

Other Stationary and Area Source Measures

The OTC states have taken actions beyond the EGU sector during the past 10 years to reduce NOx and

VOC emissions from non

‐ EGU stationary and area sources including consumer products, architectural

and industrial maintenance coatings, adhesives and sealants, solvents, portable fuel containers, asphalt

paving, distributed generators, cement kilns, glass furnaces an d industrial, commercial and institutional

(ICI) boilers. The model rules developed in 2001 and 2006 for these source categories have been

developed and implemented by many of the OTC states as outlined in Tables V

‐ 1 through V

‐ 4 in

Appendix V.

The OTC has long advocated to EPA that these r ules be applied nationally, and EPA has taken national

action in some areas, e.g., consumer products. The ICI boiler model rule was used in last year’s State

Collaborative discussions with LADCO to help develop a joint set of recommendations for a national ICI

boiler strategy to EPA. Further, in the current planni ng work occurring in the OTR for the new ozone and

PM 2.5 SIPs, the OTC is continuing to drill down into other non

‐ EGU stationary and area source categories

to find additional reductions, as outlined in the potential measures illustrated in Tables III

‐ 2 and III

‐ 3 in

Appendix III.

Mobile Source Control Measures

The OTC states have also implemented numerous programs to reduce ozone precursor emissions from

mobile sources. The majority of the states have adopted California Low Emission Vehicle standards

applicable to new vehicles, which are more stringent than federal standards. To address emissions from

in

‐ use vehicles, the states have implemented Insp ection and Maintenance Programs and aggressive

diesel retrofit programs.

States have also exercised their option to opt

‐ in to federal reformulated gasoline as part of their State

Implementation Plans (SIPs). To counter growth in vehicle miles traveled, states in the region have

included transportation control measure in their SIPs (e.g., improved p ublic transit) and haveSeptember 10, 2009

7 implemented many air quality improvement projects through the conformity review process to ensure

mobile source emission budgets are met.

The OTC Mobile Source Committee is currently working on additional mobile measures as part of the

2008 ozone standard regional attainment planning process. It is supporting the adoption of national

measures in areas where the states are pre

‐ empted fr om taking action. For example, it has submitted a

letter of support for the ocean going vessels Emission Control Areas (ECA) designation to reduce

emissions from port areas. And it has encouraged EPA to issue guidance from EPA on its Af termarket

Catalyst Replacement Standards policy. The OTC is also advocating for EPA to address backsliding with

regard to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), to ensure that phase 2 of the program does not further

exacerbate criteria pollutant impacts that have occurred in Phase 1 of the program.

Other mobile measures th at are under review in the OTC and NESCAUM states are:

• Offshore lightering for ships (VOC reductions)

• Seaports strategy (PM strategy primarily)

• Adoption and enforcement of non

‐ road idling requirements (VOC, NOx and GHG reductions)

• Regional fuel for OTC states/areas that have not yet adopted RF G (i.e. large parts of PA and NY))

• Heavy duty diesel strategies such as Inspection and Maintenance Programs for Diesels and

expansion of diesel retrofit programs

• Additional VMT

‐ reduction strategies that will result in ozone precursor and GHG reductions

In the context of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the OTC states have bee n involved in numerous actions

that will result in the overall reduction of ozone precursors as well as GHG emissions. The litigation of

Mass v. EPA, joined by many OTC states, and the active support of OTC

‐ member states for the

integration of motor vehicle efficiency standards and GH G emission standards into a new federal policy

endorsed by President Obama are examples. The RGGI States, with PA, are also working on the

development of a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS ), including the potential to improve the infrastructure

for electric vehicles that may be part of that strategy, and smart gr owth/VMT and land use measures to

reduce mobile emissions.

## Appendix I

– EGU Rates

Assessment 1

The methodology applied by the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup and used for this assessment is included the

assumptions in Table 1

‐ 1 below:

Table I

‐ 1. Control Assumptions for the Methodology Applied by the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup

EGU Size Emission reduction assumed

25MW

‐

<100MW 100MW

‐

<200MW

<50% input

capacity 100MW

‐

<200MW

>50% input

capacity 200MW or

greater For EGUs with existing

“assumed” add

‐ on

controls For EGUs applying

“new” add

‐ on

controls

NOx

SNCR SNCR SCR SCR Remains same as 2008

controlled level 90% SCR

355 SNCR

55% SNCR to SCR

increment

SO2 DSI DSI FGD FGD Remains same as 2008

controlled level 95% FGD

60% DSI

Control Technologies: DSI (Duct Sorbent Injection); FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization); SCR (Selective Catalytic

Reduction); SNCR (Selective Non

‐ Catalytic Reduction)

* For EGUs identified as already incorporating the technology applied in the OTC Multi

‐ P Workgroup’s

methodology their NOx emission rates were assumed to remain the same as their 2008 Ozone Season controlled

emission rates and their SO 2 emission rates were assumed to remain the same as their annual 2008 controlled

emission rates.

**For each NOx and SO 2 control technology a 0.06 lb/MMBTU “basement” level (i.e., maximum control level) was

assumed.

Based on the above assumptions, the “predicted” statewide average ozone season NOx emission rates

are shown below:

Table I

‐ 2. All Coal

State Predicted

NOx

Mass 2008 O.S.

Heat Input Predicted

Avg NOx

Rate State Predicted

NOx

Mass 2008 O.S.

Heat Input Predicted

Avg NOx

Rate

CT 395 13,163,750 0.0600 IL 13,297 443,240,475 0.0600

DE 1,863 20,145,049 0.1850 IN 12,814 427,135,645 0.0600

MA 1,569 40,324,189 0.0778 MI 12,645 208,348,933 0.1214

MD 5,345 112,279,215 0.0952 OH 19,156 274,909,447 0.1394

NH 1,754 15,347,558 0.2286 WI 34,845 627,665,733 0.1110

NJ 2,438 30,586,717 0.1594

NY 4,321 76,120,595 0.1135

PA 25,880 446,215,793 0.1160

VA 6,070 119,264,709 0.1018

I- 1If only coal

‐ fired units with a nameplate rating of 100MW or greater are to be considered, the

“predicted” statewide average ozone season NOx emission rates are shown below:

Table I

‐ 3. >100 MW Coal

State Predicted

NOx

Mass 2008 O.S.

Heat Input Predicted

Avg NOx

Rate State Predicted

NOx

Mass 2008 O.S.

Hea t I nput Predicted

Avg NOx

Rate

CT 395 13,163,750 0.0600 IL 12,817 417,656,155 0.0614

DE 1,863 20,145,049 0.1850 IN 23,368 492,447,671 0.0949

MA 1,298 35,899,623 0.0723 MI 13,082 278,933,070 0.0938

MD 5,127 110,241,907 0.0930 OH 26,348 519,802,282 0.1014

NH 1,362 11,735,819 0.2321 WI 7,293 185,704,212 0.0785

NJ 2,284 29,350,532 0.1556

NY 3,828 68,614,070 0.1116

PA 24,430 430,902,559 0.1134

VA 4,918 107,929,830 0.0911

Based on the above assumptions, the “predicted” statewide average annual SO2 emission rates for all

coal

‐ fired EGUs are shown below:

Table I

‐ 4. All Coal

State SO 2 Mass Heat Input SO 2 Rate State SO 2 Mass Heat Input SO 2 Rate

CT 915 30,494,774 0.0600 IL 52,260 1,032,913,414 0.1012

DE 6,877 53,729,573 0.2560 IN 184,979 1,183,751,273 0.3125

MA 15,976 101,700,315 0.3142 MI 30,911 714,421,520 0.0865

MD 12,891 255,974,177 0.1007 OH 149,190 1,291,957,283 0.2310

NH 3,560 38,335,281 0.1857 WI 21,100 453,687,252 0.0930

NJ 4,226 62,812,030 0.1346

NY 20,848 181,042,512 0.2303

PA 133,087 1,068,514,484 0.2491

VA 18,790 279,184,954 0.1346

If only coal

‐ fired units with a nameplate rating of 100MW or greater are to be considered, the

“predicted” statewide average annual SO2 emission rates are shown below:

Table I

‐ 5. >100 MW Coal

State SO 2 Mass Heat Input SO 2 Rate State SO 2 Mass Heat Input SO 2 Rate

CT 915 30,494,774 0.0600 IL 42,489 991,323,073 0.0857

DE 6,877 53,729,573 0.2560 IN 159,449 1,149,099,381 0.2775

MA 14,861 93,738,547 0.3171 MI 21,018 653,861,186 0.0643

MD 11,412 250,831,639 0.0910 OH 130,335 1,241,187,821 0.2100

NH 1,565 30,332,534 0.1032 WI 15,199 432,619,948 0.0703

NJ 3,582 59,793,990 0.1198

NY 15,695 160,893,978 0.1951

PA 119,772 1,034,993,798 0.2314

VA 15,312 250,443,277 0.1223

I- 2Assessment 2

Table I

‐ 6. NOx Table

State NOx

Tons NOx

Rate 0.125 Red.

0.125 %

Red.

0.125 0.1 Red.

0.10 %

Red.

0.10 0.07 Red.

0.07 %

Red.

0.07 Heat Input

IL 119967 0.226 66295 53672 45 53036 66931 56 37125 82842 69 1060713465

IN 196135 0.306 80199 115935 59 64159 131975 67 44912 151223 77 1283188639

MI 103474 0.275 46998 56476 55 37598 65875 64 26319 77155 75 751966181

OH 235126 0.355 82817 152309 65 66254 168872 72 46378 188749 80 1325072026

WI 47343 0.190 31099 16244 34 24879 22464 47 17415 29927 63 497577808

LADCO

TOTAL 702043 0.285 307407 394636 56 245926 456117 65 172148 529895 75 4918518119

PA 175218 0.286 76626 98592 56 61301 113917 65 42911 132308 76 1226016925

NY 30871 0.109 30871 0 0 28384 2487 8 19869 11002 36 567686169

NJ 9143 0.096 9143 0 0 9143 0 0 6659 2483 27 190267033

MD 35922 0.263 17048 18875 53 13638 22284 62 9547 26376 73 272761427

VA 43017 0.237 22652 20365 47 18122 24895 58 12685 30332 71 362431406

MA 9353 0.068 9353 0 0 9353 0 0 9353 0 0 274620434

NH 4641 0.096 4641 0 0 4641 0 0 3373 1268 27 96364833

CT 3116 0.067 3116 0 0 3116 0 0 3116 0 0 92717786

DE 8936 0.279 4003 4934 55 3202 5734 64 2241 6695 75 64042015

ME 680 0.022 680 0 0 680 0 0 680 0 0 61863689

DC 94 0.280 42 52 55 33 60 64 23 70 75 668330

RI 462 0.017 462 0 0 462 0 0 462 0 0 55392442

VT 296 0.140 263 32 11 211 85 29 147 148 50 4214041

OTC

TOTAL 321749 0.197 204315 117434 36 163452 158297 49 114417 207333 64 3269046530

AL 112614 0.240 58697 53917 48 46958 65656 58 32870 79744 71 939155771

FL 155451 0.197 98770 56681 36 79016 76435 49 55311 100140 64 1580319063

GA 105894 0.221 59900 45994 43 47920 57974 55 33544 72350 68 958401269

KY 157847 0.319 61918 95929 61 49535 108312 69 34674 123173 78 990691497

MS 41917 0.237 22110 19807 47 17688 24229 58 12381 29535 70 353752142

NC 54652 0.144 47283 7369 13 37826 16826 31 26478 28174 52 756524591

SC 42045 0.190 27615 14430 34 22092 19953 47 15465 26581 63 441843531

TN 85543 0.294 36392 49151 57 29114 56430 66 20380 65164 76 582275154

WV 97331 0.228 53329 44002 45 42663 54668 56 29864 67467 69 853266499

Other

State

Total 853294 0.229 466014 387280 45 372811 480483 56 260968 592326 69 7456229518

TOTAL 1877087 0.240 977737 899350 48 782190 1094897 58 547533 1329554 71 15643794167

I- 3TableI‐7.SO2TableStateSO2tonsSO2Rate 0.3 Red. 0.3%Red.0.3 0.23Red.0.23% Red.0.23 0.2Red.0.20% Red.0.20 0.15Red.0.15% Red.0.15 Heat InputIL257431 0.485 159107 98324 38 121982 135449 53 106071 151360 59 79554 177877 69 1060713465IN593154 0.925 192478 400676 68 147567 445587 75 128319 464835 78 96239 496915 84 1283188639MI326501 0.868 112795 213706 65 86476 240024 74 75197 251304 77 56397 270103 83 751966181OH709995 1.072 198761 511234 72 152383 557611 79 132507 577487 81 99380 610614 86 1325072026WI129695 0.521 74637 55058 42 57221 72473 56 49758 79937 62 37318 92376 71 497577808LADCOTOTAL2016775 0.820 737778 1278997 63 565630 1451145 72 491852 1524923 76 368889 1647886 82 4918518119PA831915 1.357 183903 648012 78 140992 690923 83 122602 709313 85 91951 739964 89 1226016925NY65427 0.231 65427 0 0 65284 143 0 56769 8658 13 42576 22850 35 567686169NJ21204 0.223 21204 0 0 21204 0 0 19027 2177 10 14270 6934 33 190267033MD227198 1.666 40914 186283 82 31368 195830 86 27276 199921 88 20457 206740 91 272761427VA125985 0.695 54365 71620 57 41680 84306 67 36243 89742 71 27182 98803 78 362431406MA46347 0.338 41193 5154 11 31581 14766 32 27462 18885 41 20597 25751 56 274620434NH36895 0.766 14455 22440 61 11082 25813 70 9636 27259 74 7227 29668 80 96364833CT3955 0.085 3955 0 0 3955 0 0 3955 0 0 3955 0 0 92717786DE31808 0.993 9606 22202 70 7365 24444 77 6404 25404 80 4803 27005 85 64042015ME1041 0.034 1041 0 0 1041 0 0 1041 0 0 1041 0 0 61863689DC212 0.634 100 111 53 77 135 64 67 145 68 50 162 76 668330RI18 0.001 18 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 55392442VT2 0.001 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4214041OTCTOTAL1392007 0.852 436183 955825 69 355648 1036359 74 326905 1065102 77 245178 1146829 82 3269046530AL357547 0.761 140873 216673 61 108003 249544 70 93916 263631 74 70437 287110 80 939155771FL263745 0.334 237048 26697 10 181737 82008 31 158032 105713 40 118524 145221 55 1580319063GA514539 1.074 143760 370779 72 110216 404323 79 95840 418699 81 71880 442659 86 958401269KY344356 0.695 148604 195753 57 113930 230427 67 99069 245287 71 74302 270055 78 990691497MS65317 0.369 53063 12254 19 40681 24635 38 35375 29941 46 26531 38785 59 353752142NC227030 0.600 113479 113551 50 87000 140030 62 75652 151378 67 56739 170291 75 756524591SC157190 0.712 66277 90914 58 50812 106378 68 44184 113006 72 33138 124052 79 441843531TN208069 0.715 87341 120728 58 66962 141107 68 58228 149842 72 43671 164398 79 582275154WV301574 0.707 127990 173584 58 98126 203449 67 85327 216248 72 63995 237579 79 853266499OtherStateTotal2439368 0.654 1118434 1320933 54 857466 1581901 65 745623 1693745 69 559217 1880150 77 7456229518TOTAL5848149 0.748 2292395 3555755 61 1778744 4069405 70 1564379 4283770 73 1173285 4674865 8015643794167I-4LADCO Analysis

Based on this plant

‐ level, unit

‐ level analysis of coal

‐ fired units, the LADCO States identified the following

achievable annual average emission rates:

Table I

‐ 8. NOx and SO 2 Analysis

NOx

Year Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

2008 0.23 0.305 0.29 0.36 0.21

2013 0.11

– 0.12 0.297 0.18 0.24 0.13

2014 0.11

– 0.12 0.171 0.15 0.18 0.12

2015 0.11

– 0.12 0.165 0.13 0.17 0.10

2017 0.11

– 0.12 0.114 0.11 0.12 0.09

SO2

Year

2008 0.50 0.93 0.91 1.09 0.57

2013 0.24

– 0.44 0.67 0.58 0.75 0.39

2014 0.20

‐ 0.43 0.66 0.45 0.65 0.39

2015 0.19

– 0.28 0.66 0.37 0.65 0.25

2017 0.15

– 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.256 0.16

It should be noted that the analysis is based on coal

‐ fired units. Consideration of all units (coal, oil, gas,

and biomass) will result in emission rates slightly below those indicated above.

The number of post

‐ combustion controls assumed in this analysis is provided below. The total amount

of mega

‐ wattage controlle d in each state is on the order of 80

‐ 90%.

Table I

‐ 9. Analysis of Post

‐ combustion Controls by Year

NOx SO2

SCR SNCR ALL FGD

IL IN MI OH WI IL IN MI OH WI IL IN MI OH WI IL IN MI OH WI

2008 23 3 19 1 4 0 15 1 17 27 3 34 2 6 23 2 16 1

2013 23 7 25 5 7 0 11 8 32 30 7 36 13 20 29 7 25 6

2014 23 12 26 5 7 0 11 8 34 30 12 37 13 29 29 12 33 6

2015 23 17 27 5 17 0 11 15 36 40 17 38 20 35 29 17 33 6

2017 32 25 34 8 17 0 14 15 36 49 27 48 23 37 48 27 41 13

Note: IL and OH numbers reflect number of units controlled, and IN and WI numbers reflect number of

installations (which may cover several units).

I- 5

### II- 1 

## APPENDIX II

– Timing

Example 1: Case Study

Maryland Healthy Air Act

Deadlines and the Installation of Control Equipment

BACKGROUND

In April of 2006, the Maryland General Assembly adopted the Maryland Healthy Air Act. The bill

was signed into law on April 6, 2006. In general, the law required significant reductions in

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Mercury (HG) from electricity generating units

(EGUs) in Maryland. It also required Maryland to join th e Region al Greenhouse Gas Initiatve

(RGGI), the first cap

‐ and

‐ trade program to tackle CO2 in the Country.

Portions of Maryland are nonattainment for the federal Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. NOx

reductions were a critical part of Maryland’s plan to reduce ground level ozone. Reductions in

SO2 and NO x are both important to the States plans to lower fine particle levels. Maryland also

had multiple issues with mercury and the Chesapeake Bay.

The Healthy Air Act was driven by the concept that the emission reductions from the Healthy Air

Act would be important to the States own efforts to solve its air quality proble ms. It did,

however, recognize that Maryland had a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to reduce

pollution to also help downwind neighbors.

The implementing regulations were put on a fast track and were adopted on January 18 th

, 2007.

The Healthy Air Act includes two phases of reductions: 2009 and 2012 for NOx and 2010 and

2012 for SO2 and mercury. Table 1 below summarizes the additional NOx and SO2 reductions

required in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

Table 1

Maryland Healthy Air Act Emission Reductions

2009 2010 2012 2013

NOx 70% 75%

SO2 80% 85%

Mercury 80% 90%

Because of pre

‐ 2006 control programs like the OTC NOx Budget Rule, total NOx reductions from

Maryland EGUs between 1990 and 2012 are estimated to be over 85%.

### II- 2 THE DEADLINES

While the Healthy Air Act was being debated, there was considerable concern raised

over the issue of timing. In general, Maryland’s two major power generators argued

that the 2 years to install NOx controls and the 2 1⁄2 to 3 years to install SO2 and Mercury

controls were a huge and perhaps impossible challenge. Over 60% of Maryland’s

electricity come s from coal.

Maryland’s largest generator (3 plants

– 9 units) argued that the only feasible way to

install the controls required by the Healthy Air Act was to go in series (plant

‐ by

‐ plant)

and that a plant

‐ by

‐ plant approach could take over 6 years.

As a result of this debate, the law included several waiver provisions to allow affected

sources more time, without penalty, if such delays could be justified. For Phase 1 (2009

for NOx and 2010 for SO2 and HG) there have been no requests for waivers. Both of

Maryland’s major generators have installed their controls in parallel, not in series (plant

‐ by

‐ plant).

Becaus e of the Healthy Air Act, by 2010, over $2 Billion will have been invested in new

control equipment (6 scrubbers, 3 SCRs, 6 SNCRs). Four SCRs and numerous combustion

modifications had been installed on coal fired power plants in the Maryland prior to the

Healthy Air Act.

Table 2 below summarizes the planning and installation schedules for the six largest

plants in the State.

Construction schedules for the FGD ran approximately 28 months each. Engineering

economies were realized by using the same size FGD for the four Mirant installations.

While the number of units served by each FGD in the three plants in the Mirant system

varied, the total MW of capacity feeding each FGD was approximately the same at about

600 MW. This allowed the same engineering design to be used for each FGD. The two

FGD at Brandon Shores are also identical to each other.

While the use of two FGD designs assisted with the timely completion of the six

projects, material handling design and ductwork to and from the FGDs were different at

each site. Three of the FGD projects had to deal with SCR construction occurring

simultaneous to the FGD construction, and accommodations for crane availability had to

be carefully scheduled. All of the FGD’s required new stacks with fiber glass liners. The

liners were constructed on site and the equipment installed to fabricate the liners the

required perm its to construct from MDE.

### II- 3

### II- 4 OTHER MID

‐ ATLANTIC STATES

Between 2006 and 2009 there were other very significant efforts taking place in the Mid

‐

Atlantic area to add scrubbers, SCRs and SNCRs. Because of state programs and the Clean Air

Interstate Rule (CAIR), Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia and North Carolina all had

significant control technology installation efforts taking plac e between 2006 an d 2009.



### CONCLUSION

With the appropriate regulatory structure, very significant pollution control systems, including

FGDs, SCRs and SNCRs, can be installed in multiple plants owned by the same company, in

parallel, in a relatively short timeframe.

Supplemental Information:

• Law: http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0154e.pdf

• Regulation: http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/26

‐ 11

‐ 27_MD_Healthy_Air_Act.pdfII-5Example2:InstallationofSCRUnitsfromEPA’sNOxSIPCall55.5%of Units22.3%of UnitsSCR Units Over TimePhase IMinimal SCR UnitsExpect Minimal NOxReductionsPhase IILarge Number of SCR Units InstalledExpect SIGNIFICANT NOxReductionsEspecially after 2003-2004Ground-level ozoneshould decrease dramaticallyData courtesy of TheInstitute of Clean Air Companies(ICAC).77.8% of Units Installedbetween 2003-2007Scheduled Startup UnitsAppendixIII–CostofControlsTableIII‐1.AvailableEmissionControlDevices,EmissionReductionsandEstimatedCosts1FuelTypePollutantAvailableControlDeviceExpectedEmissionReduction(%)ControlCostEstimatea($/tonremoved)Coal‐FiredNOxSelectiveNon‐CatalyticReduction(SNCR)SelectiveCatalyticReduction(SCR)45%85%$2,500‐$3,000$1,600‐$4,900SO2FlueGasDesulfurization(FGD)system(dryscrubber)WetFGDsystem(wetscrubber)95%95%$1,500‐$3,600$1,400‐$3,400ResidualOil‐FiredNOxLowNOxBurners(LNB)LNBplusFlueGasRecirculation(FGR)SelectiveNon‐CatalyticReduction(SNCR)LNBplusSNCRSelectiveCatalyticReduction(SCR)50%60%50%65%85%$1,100‐$4,400$2,600‐$5,400$3,100‐$4,000$3,500‐$6,400$2,600‐$8,300DistillateOil‐FiredNOxLowNOxBurners(LNB)50%$2,200‐$8,700Gas‐FiredNOxLowNOxBurners(LNB)50%$2,200‐$8,700Note:aCostestimatesshownarein2008dollarsfora250MMBtu/hrboiler(≈73MW)operatingat66percentcapacityandoperating8,760hoursperyear1NewHampshireDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices(October2008)DraftICIBoilerNOxandSO2ControlCostEstimates[PowerPointslides].(AndyBodnarik,2009)III-1TableIII‐2StationaryandAreaSourceMeasuresNOx MeasureState RulesNationalMeasureEmissionsReductionCostBoilers serving EGUsDE, NJ,MA,MD*413 TPDOTR$1,100 - 8,700 per tonNew Small Gas BoilersCA, TX*53 TPDOTR$3,300 to $16,000 per tonMunicipal wasteincineratorsNJ, MD*14 TPDOTR$2,140 per ton (SNCR)HEDD EGUsNJ*TBD$45,000 to $300,000 per unitStationary GeneratorRegulation (DG)DE, MA,MD, NJ*TBD$39,700 to $79,700 per TPDMinor New SourceReviewDE, CT, MD,MA, NJ, RI*TBD$600 to $18,000 per tonEnergy security /Energy efficiencyTBD*TBDTBDIII-2TableIII‐3StationaryandAreaSourceVOCMeasuresVOC MeasureState RulesNationalMeasureEmissionsReductionCostAIM ruleCA*50 TPD OTR$2,240 per tonAuto RefinishingCA*21 TPD OTR$2,860 per tonConsumer Products2006CA*19 TPD OTR$7,700 per tonLower VOC SolventDegreaserMD, CA*13 TPD OTR$1,400 per tonGas StationsTBD*TBDTBDLarge VOC StorageTanksMD, NJ*TBD$2,288 to $29,000 per tonMinor New SourceReviewDE, CT,MD, MA,NJ, RI*TBDTBDIII-3

## Appendix IV

– Air Quality Benefits

State Collaborative Modeling Results

19 

# Ozone 8-Hour

Concentrations

2009

2012 2018 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Based on 2005 meteorology

17 

# PM

2.5 

# Daily

Concentrations

2009

2012 2018 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Based on 2005 meteorology

IV- 115 

# PM

2.5 

# Annual

Concentrations

2009

2012 2018 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Based on 2005 meteorology

IV- 2OTCSensitivityModelingRuns:40%NOxEmissionReduction,AllSectorsDVF2012BOTB/BOTW“NOCAIR”Minus40%Across‐the‐BoardAnthropogenicNOxIV-3MANE-VUAnnualTotal NOx Emissions by Source Category262,477 265,925 265,925 261,057 261,057 263,033156,634431,630353,219 353,219321,934 321,934280,006193,1611,376,365745,736 745,736551,846 551,846303,957331,107673,505406,721547,432381,248537,673374,947322,6040500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0002002 2009 CAIR 2009 No CAIR 2012 CAIR 2012 No CAIR 2018 2012 No CAIRN40V00

tons/yrPointMobileNonroadAreaIV-4MANE-VUAnnualTotal NOx Emissions (All Categories) and Highest O3 8-hr Design Value in the NYCMSA2,744,1331,774,4431,518,9271,221,9451,003,50698.3908680740500000100000015000002000000250000030000002002200920122018 2012 NoCAIRN40V00

NOx Emissions (tons/year)020406080100120 O3 Design Value (ppb)NOx MANEVU TotalsO3 DV Max NYCMSAIV-5AppendixV–OtherSectorsTableV‐1.StatusReportonOTCStateEffortstoPromulgateRegulationsBasedonOTC2001ModelRules(asofMay19,2009)ConsumerProductsArchitecturalandIndustrialMaintenanceCoatingsPortableFuelContainersMobileEquipmentRepair andRefinishingSolventCleaningAdditionalNOxControlsDistributedGenerationStandardsState Contacts and Links to RulesCTEffective Effective EffectiveEffective(similar rule)EffectiveAlternativerequirementsin effectEffectiveContact:Susan Amarello 860-424-3442http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2684&q=331196&depNav_GID=1619DEEffectiveSee 2006ruleEffectiveSee 2006ruleEffective Effective EffectiveEffective1/11/06Contact: Gene Pettingill 302-323-4542 Reg. 24, 41, 42, and 1144http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/air/aqm_page/regs.htmhttp://www.dnrec.state.de.us/air/aqm_page/pro_regs.htmDCEffective EffectiveSee 2006ruleEffective EffectiveNOx RACTAlready inplaceIn progressl(202)535MEEffective EffectiveSee 2006ruleEffective EffectiveEffectiveContact: Jeff Crawford 207-287-2437http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/regulations/index.htmMDEffective(COMAR26.11.32)Effective(COMAR26.11.33)See 2006ruleEffective(similar rule)Effective(similar rule)In progress In progressContact: Gene Higa 410-631-3353PFC: Eddie DurantConsumer Products: Husain Waheed410-537-3240http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/26_Chapters.htmMAAdopted CPrule (PhaseII)10/19/2007;newstandardseffective1/1/2009Rule adopted10/19/2007;new standardseffective1/1/2009See 2006ruleEffective(similar rule)Rule adopted3/06/2009;newstandardseffective9/06/2009.Effective(similar rule)Rule finalized9/2005Contacts:Consumer products; AIM Coatings; solvents: Azin Kavianazin.kavian@state.ma.usDistributed Generation: Robert.donaldson@state.ma.usProposed regulations: http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/publiche.htmFinal regulations: http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/laws/regulati.htmNHAdopted(EffectiveJanuary 1,2007)Adopted(7/27/06)See 2006ruleNotconsideringAdopted Under reviewEffective (notbased onOTC modelrule)Contact: Mike Fitzgerald 603-271-6390 Solvents:http://www.des.state.nh.us/rules/env-a1200.pdfDG:http://www.des.state.nh.us/rules/env-a3700.pdfV-1TableV‐2.StatusReportonOTCStateEffortstoPromulgateRegulationsBasedonOTC2001ModelRules(asofMay19,2009)ConsumerProductsArchitecturaland IndustrialMaintenanceCoatingsPortableFuelContainersMobileEquipmentRepair andRefinishingSolventCleaningAdditionalNOxControlsDistributedGenerationStandardsState Contacts and Links to RulesNJEffective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective EffectiveContacts: CP, PFCs: Judy Rand 609-984-1950Additional NOx Controls, DG: Allan Willinger 609-633-1120NYEffective Effective See 2006 rule Effective Effective EffectiveIn progress(Targeteffective date07/01/10)Contact: Ron Stannard 518-402-8396CP:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/ch3.htm(Part 235) AIM:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/part205_new.htmlPFC:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/239.htmMERR:ftp://www.dec.state.ny.us/dar/library/text228.pdfSC:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/part226.htmlANC:ftp://www.dec.state.ny.us/dar/library/xpt227.pdfPAEffective EffectiveSee 2006status report;Will rely onFed PFC ruleadopted byEPA onFebruary 26,2007.72 FR 8427Similar rule isalready inplaceEffective Effective Will considerContact: Susan Hoyle,shoyle@state.pa.us; 717-772-2329Additional NOx Controlshttp://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol34/34-50/2176.htmlMERR:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.75.htmlSC:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.63.htmlPFC:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter130/subchapAtoc.htmlCP:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter130/subchapBtoc.htmlAIM:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter130/subchapCtoc.htmlRIEffective 7/09, Effective 7/09 See 2006 ruleEffective(similar rule)Effective(similar rule)Updated10.08Will considerEffective(similar rule)Contact: Barbara Morin 401-222-2808VTWill consider RACT** See 2006 rule RACT** RACT** RACT** In progressVAEffective Effective See 2006 rule Effective EffectiveContact: Gary Graham (804) 698-4103gegraham@deq.virginia.govAIM:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/pdf/airregs/449.pdfPFC:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/pdf/airregs/442.pdfMERR:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/pdf/airregs/448.pdfSC:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/pdf/airregs/447.pdfCP: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/pdf/airregs/450.pdfCP Info:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/consumerprod.html** RACT determination required at the time of renewal of operating permit by state lawV-2TableV‐3.StatusReportonOTCStateEffortstoPromulgateRegulationsBasedonOTC2006ModelRules(asofMay19,2009)ConsumerProducts(Phase II)Adhesives andSealantsPortable FuelContainers(w/Kerosene)Diesel ChipReflashAsphaltPavingRegionalFuelAdditionalNOxControlsState Contacts and Links to RulesCTEffective Effective EffectiveDeveloping anintegratedheavy-dutydiesel truckstrategyRule adoptionproceeding.EffectivestatewideUnderevaluation aspart of amulti-pollutantplanning effortContact:Susan Amarello 860-424-3442http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2684&q=331196&depNav_GID=1619DEEffectiveApril 11, 2009EffectiveApril 11, 2009Relying onfederal ruleDevelopingstrategySimilar rulealready in effectAlready ineffectstatewideEffective onJuly 11, 2007Adhesives, PFC, Asphalt, Consumer Products: Gene Pettingill 302-323-4542Regional Fuel, Chip Reflash: Phil Wheeler (302) 739-9402Additional NOx Controls:Frank Gao (302)0323-4542http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/1000/1100/1141.shtml#TopOfPageDCProposedMay 2007;addressingpubliccommentsProposed May2007;addressingpublic commentsProposed May2007No Action No Action No Action No Action Contact: Cecily Beall (202) 535-2626MERule adopted,Standardseffective Jan1, 2009Scheduled foradoption 5/21/09Draft ruleunderdevelopmentNo actionScheduled forpublic hearing6/18/09No ActionNo ActionContact: Jeff Crawford 207-287-2437http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/regulations/index.htmMDProposalpublication03/31/07;Hearing5/1/07;Final RegPub 06/08/07;Effective06/18/07Rule adoptedFebruary 5,2008; newstandardseffective April 7,2008.Single Ply RoofAmendment:Adopted04/29/09;Published05/22/09;Effective06/01/09Proposalpublication03/31/07;Hearing5/1/07;Final Reg Pub06/08/07;Effective06/18/07No action Under reviewPresently innonattainment areas, willconsiderregional fuelforattainmentareasDistributedGenerationregulation:Proposalpublication10/24/08;Hearing11/25/08;Final Reg Pub05/08/09;Effective05/18/09Partial HEDDconsent order2008.Contacts:PFC: Eddie DurantConsumer Products, Adhesives: Husain WaheedDG: Randy Mosier410-537-3240MARule adopted10/19/2007;newstandardseffective1/1/2009Rule underdevelopment.Will rely on2007 FederalPFC rule (72FR 8427) .No actionRule underdevelopment.Already haveRFGstatewideUnder reviewContacts: Consumer products; Adhesives and Sealants; Asphalt Paving : Azin

Kavian azin.kavian@state.ma.us Proposed regulations: http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/publiche.htm Final regulations: http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/laws/regulati.htmV-3TableV‐4.StatusReportonOTCStateEffortstoPromulgateRegulationsBasedonOTC2006ModelRules(asofMay19,2009)ConsumerProducts(phase II)Adhesives andSealantsPortableFuelContainers(w/Kerosene)Diesel ChipReflashAsphaltPavingRegionalFuelAdditionalNOxControlsState Contacts and Links to RulesNHDraft rule underdevelopment(on hold)Draft rule underdevelopment(on hold)Adopted No action Under reviewUnderconsiderationUnder reviewContact: Mike Fitzgerald 603-271-6390 Solvents:http://www.des.state.nh.us/rules/env-a1200.pdfDG:http://www.des.state.nh.us/rules/env-a3700.pdfSend annual date code update information to: airfiles@des.nh.govNJAdopted10/30/08Adopted10/30/08Adopted10/30/08No actionAdopted3/20/09RFG in placestate wideAdopted3/20/09http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/Contacts: CP, PFCs, Adhesives: Judy Rand 609-984-1950.Asphalt Paving: Stella Oluwaseun-Apo 609-777-0430Diesel Chip Reflash: John Gorgol 609-292-1413Additional NOx Controls: Allan Willinger 609-633-1120NYProposedHearings 7/09In progressAdopted06/30/09Evaluatingcourt decisionIn progressUnderconsiderationIn progressContact: Ron Stannard 518-402-8396PAFinalrulemakingscheduled forEnvironmentalQuality BoardconsiderationJune 16, 2008;Anticipatedeffective datefor newcategories isJan 1, 2009ProposedRulemakingschedule forEnvironmentalQuality BoardconsiderationAugust 17,2008;Anticipatedeffective date isMay 1, 2009Will rely onFed PFC ruleadopted byEPA onFebruary 26,2007.72 FR 8427No plans topursue at thistime.UnderconsiderationUnderconsiderationCement Kilnand GlassFurnaceregulations’publiccommentperiods closeJune 23,2008;Anticipatedeffective dateis May 1,2009Contact: Susan Hoyle 717-772-2329shoyle@state.pa.uswww.depweb.state.pa.us/pubpartcenter/site/default.aspwww.pacode.com/www.pabulletin.com/RIRule AdoptedMay 2009,limits effective7/1/09Rule AdoptedMay 2009, limitseffective 7/1/09Will rely onfederal rule.No plans topursueHearing onrule 2/09,limits will beeffective 5/10RFG in placestate wideNo plans atthis time toimplement thismeasure.Contact: Barbara Morin 401-222-2808barbara.morin@dem.ri.govVTNo plan toadoptPlan to pursue Plan to pursuePlan to pursuedepending onlegal basisConsideringUnderconsideration,would adopt iftruly regionalNo plans atthis time toimplement thismeasure.VANotice ofintendedregulatoryactionNotice ofintendedregulatory actionNotice ofintendedregulatoryactionNo currentplans topursue.No currentplans topursue.No currentplans topursue.No currentplans topursue.Contact: Gary Graham (804) 698-4103gegraham@deq.virginia.govV4Performance Standards: We understand that EPA is considering a hybrid approach in its

CAIR replacement rule involving regional emissions trading and unit-specific performance

standards (cite: July 9, 2009, testimony by Regina McCarthy before the Subcommittee on

Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate).

As discussed in the September 2, 2009, joint letter, we strongly support and encourage EPA

to include regional emissions trading to the fullest extent allowed under the Clean Air Act.

We believe, however, that unit-specific performance standards go beyond the requirements

of section 110 and the scope of a CAIR replacement rule; inhibit trading; and that

performance standards with a near-term compliance timeframe, such as 2017, are not

practical for all EGUs. Although we firmly believe that it is not appropriate to include

performance standards in a CAIR replacement rule, if EPA decides to consider including

performance standards, then EPA should work with the states to take into account the basis

and timing of the requirements identified in the September 2, 2009, joint letter, cost

effectiveness, site specific factors (such as space limitations) and the pollution control

equipment already in place on the existing fleet of EGUs. Specifically, on this last point, we

believe that EPA should not require replacement or repowering of units or control systems

that are sound technology and operating at a reasonable effectiveness.

LADCO Recommendation 2

B. State- Led Attainment Planning

We recommend the use of a state-led attainment planning process concurrent with developing

the transport SIP to address areas of interest that are not expected to attain after

implementation of the national/regional control program. The advantages of this state-led

planning effort include:

 A one-size-fits-all federal solution cannot provide the most appropriate and cost-effective

solution for each area;

 Attainment planning is more effective and more likely to succeed if it is done on a nonattainment area basis with a limited number of states;

 Additional controls are identified where they are needed; and

 States maintain their responsibility under the Clean Air Act to establish state

implementation plans.

A major contributing state (i.e., a state which contributes at least 4% to a downwind area of

interest that is not expected to attain after implementation of the national/regional program)

must also either:

1. In conjunction with other major contributing states, develop, adopt, and implement an

appropriate attainment strategy for the area of interest, as follows:

a. An upwind state’s responsibility for achieving air quality benefits in a downwind area

should be commensurate with the magnitude of the upwind state’s contribution to the

downwind air quality problem.

b. To facilitate flexibility in developing control programs and reduce control costs, state

planning efforts should accommodate interstate emissions trading to the fullest extent

allowed by the Clean Air Act.

c. Photochemical modeling, performed in accordance with EPA modeling guidance,

should be conducted to determine the amount of emission reduction needed to provide2. In th

be a

emi s

com

The s

cate

con t

Enclose d

If you wi s

A ir Direc

Sincerel y

Douglas

Director,

Protecti o

Steven E

Director,

Environ m

Matthew

Secretar y

Natural R

Enclosu r

c: Regi n

Bhar a

Cher y for attainm e

sectors, an d

e event tha t

a ble to satisf y

s sion reduct i

mensurate w

s e measure s

gories that c

t rol measur e

d please fin d

s h clarificati o

tors Consor t

y

,

P. Scott

Illinois Envi

o n Agency

E . Chester

Michigan D

m ental Quali t

J. Frank

y , Wisconsi n

R esources

r e

n a McCarthy

a t Mathur, A c

y l Newton, D e nt and the r

d to assess c

t the multi-s t

y its section

i ons measu r

w ith a Reas o

s should be

c ontribute t o

e s for the co n

d supporting

o n of these c

t ium.

ronmental

epartment o

t y

n Departme n

, Assistant A

c ting Regio n

D irector, Air a r elative cont r

c andidate c o

t ate plannin g

110(a)(2)( D

r es for signi f

o nably Avail

determined

o the air qua l

n tributing s o

materials f o

c omments, t

of

n t of

A dministrat o

n al Administ

a nd Radiati o r ibutions of t

o ntrol meas u

g effort is un

D ) obligation

f icantly cont r

able Contro

by first iden

l ity problem,

o urce categ o

o r these rec o

t hen please

Tho

Co m

of E

Chr i

Dir e

A g e

o r, Office of A

rator, U.S. E

o n Division, t he particip a

u res.

successful,

if it can de m

r ibuting sou r

l Measure a

tifying key p

and then i d

o ries.

o mmendatio

contact Mic

mas Easterl

m missioner,

nvironment a

i stopher Ko r

e ctor, Ohio E

e ncy

A ir and Radi

E PA, Regio n

U.S EPA, R e a ting states a

then each 4

m onstrate to

r ce categori e

nalysis for t h

p ollutants an

d entifying an

ns.

hael Koerb e

y

Indiana De p

a l Manage m

r leski

E nvironment a

ation, U.S. E

n V

e gion V a nd source

4 % state ma y

EPA that it

e s that are

h e affected a

d source

d evaluatin g

e r, Lake Mic h

p artment

m ent

a l Protectio n

E P A y still

has

a rea.

g

h igan

nSeptember 10 , 2009

1 

# Supporting Materials

LADCO Recommendations to EPA on a CAIR Replacement Rule

The purpose of this document is to review LADCO ’s recommendations to EPA on a CAIR

replacement rule, along with the rationale and any supporting materials.

Introduction

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to...

“... contain adequate provisions

– (i) prohibiting...any source or other type of emissions

activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

–

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or int erfere with maintenance by, any

other State with respect to any (NAAQS)..., or

(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation

plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality

or to protect visibility ...”

I n its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected EPA’s approach in CAIR in

which it gave “interfere with maintenance” much the same meaning as “contribute significantly

to nonattainment”. The Court discussed t he problem of areas struggling to meet the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS )

– i.e., areas which “could fall back into nonattainment

because of the historic variability ” in their air quality levels. It is, therefore, necessary for EPA to

ind ependent ly address the “contribute significantly to nonattainment” and “interfere with

measures” provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D).

To ease the administrative (and technical) burden , LADCO recommends that a necessary first

step in addressing significant contribution and interference with maintenance is to identify the

downwind areas of interest. (Note: LADCO’s recommended test is broad enough to consider

“historic variability”, as instructed by the Court.) For those areas, a threshold level is proposed

to determine which upwind states need to be considered for emission reductions. A 2

- part,

multi

- sector process is then recommended to meet Clean Air Act requirements.

In summary, a 3

- step approach is proposed to address the transport requirements of secti on

110(a)(2)(D):

(1) identify areas of interest;

(2) identify upwind states which contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere

with maintenance in these areas, and

(3) implement a multi

- sector approach, as necessary, to provide an appropriate remedy

to meet Clean Air Act requirements.September 10 , 2009

2 Identifying Areas of Interest

LADCO Recommendation

A. While the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D) apply to all areas, most attention should be

given to those areas not meeting or struggling to maintain the NAAQS . These "areas of

interest" should be identified using monitoring and modeling data. :

B. Specifically, these are areas with both base monitored design values and future modeled

design values above the applicable NAAQS should be designated as areas of inter est. The

monitored design values are based on the maximum design value from the periods 2003

- 2005 through the most recent three

- year period, and the future modeled values are based

on future year modeling which reflects legally enforceable control measure s and a

conservative model attainment test

- i.e., use of maximum design values rather than

average design values.

1. The use of maximum design values and a conservative model attainment test are

intended to account for historic variability, which is necessa ry to ensure maintenance.

An alternative means of accounting for historic variability is to conduct a statistical

analysis of the year

- to

- year variation in meteorology.

2. Requiring a more conservative model attainment test will necessitate a change in EP A's

modeling guidance. EPA should also establish performance criteria to insure that the

modeling is capturing transport approp r iately.

3. EPA's approach in CAIR also reflects a "monitored and modeled" test to identify areas

of interest.

Discussion

EPA was challenged by the State of North Carolina on its test to identify areas of interest. North

Carolina argued that EPA’s test should address areas that are currently monitoring

nonattainment. The Court found that EPA’s approach in CAIR was identical to its approach in

the NOx SIP call and that EPA’s approach was reasonable. It denied North Carolina’s petition

on this issue. As such, LADCO recommends that EPA continue to use a modeled plus

monitored test to identify areas of interest. Howe ver, the test will need to deal with both areas

not meeting and those struggling to maintain the air quality standards. In particular, as

instructed by the Court, the test will need to account for historic variability in air quality levels. : I n the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), EPA relied on a “modeled plus monitored”

test to identify the areas of interest. Specifically, a county had to have both a measured design

value for the most recent period of available ambient data (i.e., 2001

- 2003) a nd a modeled

value for the 2010 base case above the air quality standard to qualify “as the downwind

receptors for determining which upwind States make a significant contribution” in downwind

States. EPA identified 62 counties for PM2.5 and 40 counties fo r ozone.

We considere d t wo methods , which assume similar approaches for ‘significant contribution to

nonattainment’ and ‘interference with maintenance’ . I n the first method

, a statistical analysis of

the year

- to

- year variabili ty in meteorology was conducted using the method developed by Cox

and Chu (1993) . Under this method

, a threshold value slightly below the NAAQS could be used

to address maintenance.September 10 , 2009

3 A second method to address maintenance uses the year

- to

- year variability already reflected in

the ambient measurements. Under this method, areas of interest would be identified based on

t he monitoring data for the highest of the last three 3

- year periods and the future year modeled

values (based on the highest of the three 3

- year periods included in the modeled attainment

test, rather than the average of these three periods, which is what EPA’s modeling guidelines

currently recommend )

. An area would be on the list if the monitored and modeled value s both

exceed the NAAQS

. K ey advantage s of this method are that it accounts for historic variability

based on actual monitoring data , and i t uses the NAAQS as the threshold

. For these reasons,

w e recommend this approach be used.

Identifying Upwind States that Significantly Contribute to Nonattainment or Interf ere with

Maintenance

A. An upwind state significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance in

a downwind area of interest if its total impact from all source sectors equals or exceeds 1%

of the applicable NAAQS. LADCO Recommendation:

B. Individual state contributions should be determined throug h a weight

- of

- evidence approach,

including source apportionment modeling

C. Use of 1% of the NAAQS as the significance threshold is consistent with EPA's approach in

CAIR.

Discussion:

EPA was challenged by the State of North Carolina on its significance threshold for PM2.5,

including its rounding to 0.2 ug/m3. The Court found that EPA’s approach was reasonable and

denied North Carolina’s petition on this issue. As such, LADCO recommends that EPA continue

to rely on significance values c onsistent with its prior rulemakings. Given that the ozone and

PM2.5 standards have changed since these rulemakings, a reasonable approach would be to

assume a specific percentage of the NAAQS as the significance threshold. Taken as a whole,

the prior ru lemakings suggest a value on the order of 1

– 1.5% of the NAAQS. For simplicity,

we recommend a value of 1% of the NAAQS for a state to be deemed significant and included

in the applicability of a CAIR replacement rule

. In the NOx SIP Call, EPA assumed a significance threshold for ozone of 2 ppb

, which represented about 1.5% of the 1

- hour ozone standard and 2.5% of the 8

- hour standard

( 1997 version)

. I n the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR ), EPA relied on this same threshold for

ozo ne and assumed a significance threshold for PM2.5 initially based on 1% of the 15 ug/m3

annual standard. EPA subsequently rounded this value to 0.2 ug/m3 , which is 1.3% of the

NAAQS

.September 10 , 2009

4 Implementing a Multi

- Sector Remedy to M e et Clean Air Act Requirements

A two

- part process is recommended consisting of: (A) a national/regional control program

adopted by EPA for electrical generating units ( EGUs ) and additional federal control measures

for othe r sectors, and (B) state

- led efforts to develop, adopt, and implement federally

enforceable plans for each area of interest that is not expected to attain the standards even

after implementation of the national/regional program. LADCO Recommendation:

A. National/Regional Control Program

A significantly contributing state (i.e., a state which contributes at least 1% to a downwind

area of interest) must comply with the national/regional control program described below.

1. EGU point source strategy (applicable to units > 25 MW )

In adopting a CAIR replacement rule, EPA should:

(a) make federally enforceable through appropriate mechanism s all NOx and SO 2 control s to comply with the original CAIR Phase I program;

(b) make federally enforceable through appropriate mechanisms optimization by no later

than early 2014 of existing NOx and SO 2 controls;

(c) make federally enforceable through appropriate mechanisms application by 2015 of

low capital cost NOx controls;

(d) establish statewide emission caps by no later than 2017 for all fossil fuel

- f ired units

≥25MW. The caps should reflect an analysis of NOx and SO 2 controls on coal

- fired

units ≥ 100 MW which, in combination with the three measures above, will achieve

rates that are not expected to exceed 0.25 lb/MMBTU for SO 2 (annual average for all

units ≥25 MW) and 0.11 lb/MMBTU for NOx (ozone seasonal and annual average for

all units ≥25 MW) and which will result in lower rates in some states. Previously

banked emissions under the Title IV or CAIR programs shall not be used to comply

with the stat e

- wide emission caps; and

(e) to the fullest extent allowed under the Clean Air Act, EPA should work with the states

to establish regional emissions caps with full emissions trading to replace the caps

currently applicable under CAIR.

We believe that regional emissions caps for any earlier year (e.g., 2015) should not

be established, either in addition to or in lieu of a 2017 cap. We conducted a state

by

- state analysis of what level of EGU control for NOx and SO2 is achievable over

the next several years. A fundamental assumption in our analysis is a July 2012

start date for the planning, engineering, and construction of any new NOx and SO2

controls. This date reflects a January 2011 promulgation date for a CAIR

replacement rule and a nother 18 months for adoption of state rules. Four “layers” ofSeptember 10 , 2009

5 control were considered: (1) all NOx and SO2 controls to comply with the original

CAIR Phase I program, (2) optimization of existing NOx and SO2 controls by 2014,

(3) application of low capita l cost NOx controls (e.g., combustion modifications) by

2015, and (4) installation of new NOx and SO2 controls (e.g., SCRs for NOx and

FGDs for SO2) by 2017. We believe that the first three measures identified above

are all that can be done by 2015.

We u nderstand that EPA is considering a hybrid approach in its CAIR replacement

rule involving regional emissions trading and unit

- specific performance standards

(cite: July 9, 2009, testimony by Regina McCarthy before the Subcommittee on

Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.

Senate). As noted above, we strongly support and encourage EPA to include

regional emissions trading to the fullest extent allowed under the Clean Air Act.

We believe, however, that unit

- specific performanc e standards go beyond the

r equirements of section 110 and the scope of a CAIR replacement rule; inhibit

trading; and that performance standards with a near

- term compliance timeframe,

such as 2017, are not practical for all EGUs. Although we firm ly believe that is not

appropriate to include performance standards in a CAIR replacement rule, if EPA

decides to consider including performance standards, then EPA should work with the

states to take into account the basis and timing of the requirements i dentified above,

cost effectiveness, site specific factors (such as space limitations) and the pollution

control equipment already in place on the existing fleet of EGUs. Specifically, on this

last point, we believe that EPA should not require replacement or repowering of units

or control systems that are sound technology and operating at a reasonable

effectiveness.

2. Non

- EGU point source strategy

a. EPA should identify and prioritize other categories of point sources with major

emissions of NOx and/or SO 2 (e.g., cement plants) based on a review of available

emissions inventories and other information, such as source apportionment studies.

b. For the non

- EGU point sources, EPA should identify and evaluate control options for

reducing NOx and/or SO 2 emissions. The evaluation should consider the

technological, engineering, and economic feasibility of each control option.

c. At a minimum, EPA should evaluate the technological, engineering, and

implementation feasibility, and cost

- effectiveness of controlling SO 2 and NOx

emissions from industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers > 100 MMBTU/hour.

3. Mobile source strategy, such as new engine standards for on

- highway and off

- highway

vehicles and equipment, and a single consistent environmentally

- sensitive formu lated

fuel.September 10 , 2009

6 4. Area source strategy, such a s new federal standards for consumer products and

architectural, industrial and maintenance coatings as originally promised by EPA in

2007

.

B. State

- Led Attainment Planning

We recommend the use of a state

- led atta inment planning process concurrent with

developing the transport SIP to address areas of interest that are not expected to attain after

implementation of the national/regional control program. The advantages of this state

- led

planning effort include:

• A one

- size

- fits

- all federal solution cannot provide the most appropriate and cost

effective solution for each area;

• Attainment planning is more effective and more likely to succeed if it is done on a

non

- attainment area basis with a key subset of contribu ting states;

• Additional c ontrols are identified where they are needed; and

• States maintain their responsibility under the Clean Air Act to establish state

implementation plans.

A major contributing state (i.e., a state which contributes at least 4% to a downwind area of

interest that is not expected to attain after implementation of the national/regional program)

must also either:

1. In conjunction with other major contributing states, develop, adopt, and implement an

appropriate attainment strategy for the area of interest, as follows:

a. An upwind state’s responsibility for achieving air quality benefits in a downwind area

should be commensurate with the magnitude of the upwind state’s contribution to the

downwind air quality problem.

b. To facilitate flexi bility in developing control programs and reduce control costs, state

planning efforts should accommodate interstate emissions trading to the fullest

extent allowed by the Clean Air Act.

c. Photochemical modeling, performed in accordance with EPA modeling gui dance,

should be conducted to determine the amount of emission reduction needed to

provide for attainment and the relative contributions of the participating states and

source sectors, and to assess candidate control measures.

2. In the event that the mul ti

- state planning effort is unsuccessful, then each 4% state may

still be able to satisfy its section 110(a)(2)(D) obligation if it can demonstrate to EPA that

it has emission reductions measures for significantly contributing source categories that

are co mmensurate with a Reasonably Available Control Measure analysis for the

affected area. These measures should be determined by first identifying key pollutants

and source categories that contribute to the air quality problem, and then identifying and

evalu ating control measures for the contributing source categories.September 10 , 2009

7 Discussion:

Regional air quality modeling conducted by the State Collaborative demonstrates the need for a

multi

- sector approach (“Regional Modeling for the Eastern U.S.: Technical Support Document”,

July 9, 2009). This modeling shows f or ozone, mobile sources (on

- road and off

- road) are the

dom inant contributors (about 60%), and f or PM2.5, point, area, and mobile sources are all

important contributors

– see Figure 1 . Thus, a complete remedy to section 110(a)(2)(D) must

d eal with EGUs and other important source sectors

. A 2

- part , multi

- sector process is recommended consisting of: (1) a national/regional

control program adopted by EPA for EGUs and additional federal control measures for other

sectors, and (2) state

- led efforts to develop, adopt, and implement appropriate attainment plans

for each nonat tainment and maintenance area of interest.

Figure 1 . Source sector contributions for ozone PM2.5

- annual, and PM2.5

- daily based on 20

- 30

select (high concentration) monitors

National/Regional Control Program: A key part of the recommended national/regional control

program covers EGUs, which, a s seen in Figure 2

, contribute about 10% (on average) for ozone

and 20% (on average) for PM2.5. The LADCO States examined the level of EGU control for

NOx and SO2 that is achievable ove r the next seve ral years

– see , for example, Attachment I

. A fundamental assumption in the LADCO analysis is a July 2012 start date for the planning,

engineering, and construction of any new NOx and SO2 controls. This date reflects a January

2011 promulgation date for a CAIR replacement rule and another 18 months for adoption of

state rules.

Achievable state

- wide average NOx and SO2 emission rates (annual average) we re determined

for four future years: 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017.September 10 , 2009

8 Four “layers” of control we re considered on a plant

- by

- plant basis:

1. Current “in the pipeline” controls pursuant to CAIR Phase I; state rules; state permits;

or Consent Decrees

2. By 2014, optimization of existing NOx and SO2 controls to achieve 90% (SCRs) and

95% or more (FGDs) reduction , respectively

3. By 2015, application of low capit a l cost NOx controls (e.g., combustion modifications)

4. By 2017, installation of new NOx and SO2 controls (e.g., SCRs for NOx and FGDs

for SO2) on units > 100 MW to support state

- wide average emissions rate s

Based on this plant

- level, unit

- level analysis of coal

- fired units, the LADCO States identified the

following achievable annual average emission rates:

Table 1

. Results of LADCO analysis of achievable emission rates (lb/MMBTU)

NOx

Year Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

2008 0.23 0.305 0.29 0.36 0.21

2013 0.11

- 0.12 0.297 0.18 0.24 0.13

2014 0.11

- 0.12 0.171 0.15 0.18 0.12

2015 0.11

- 0.12 0.165 0.13 0.17 0.10

2017 0.11

- 0.12 0.114 0.11 0.12 0.09

SO2

Year Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

2008 0.50 0.93 0.91 1.09 0.57

2013 0.24

- 0.44 0.67 0.58 0.75 0.39

2014 0.20

- 0.43 0.66 0.45 0.65 0.39

2015 0.19

- 0.28 0.66 0.37 0.65 0.25

2017 0.15

- 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.256 0.16

It should be noted that the analysis is based on coal

- fired units. Consideration of all units (coal,

oil, gas, and biomass) will result in emission rates slightly below those indicated above. The

number of post

- combustion controls assumed in this analysis is provided in Table 2 . The total

amount of mega

- wattage controlled in each state is on the order of 80

- 90%.September 10 , 2009

9 Table 2

. Number of controls assumed in LADCO analysis of achievable emission rates

NOx SO2

SCR SNCR ALL FGD

IL IN MI OH WI IL IN MI OH WI IL IN MI OH WI IL IN MI OH WI

2008 23 3 19 1 4 0 15 1 17 27 3 34 2 6 23 2 16 1

2013 23 7 25 5 7 0 11 8 32 30 7 36 13 20 29 7 25 6

2014 23 12 26 5 7 0 11 8 34 30 12 37 13 29 29 12 33 6

2015 23 17 27 5 17 0 11 15 36 40 17 38 20 35 29 17 33 6

2017 32 25 34 8 17 0 14 15 36 49 27 48 23 37 48 27 56 13

Note: IL and OH numbers reflect number of units controlled, and IN and WI numbers reflect number of

installations (which may cover multiple units)

Based on the above analysis, the LADCO States recommend the federal control program for

EGU s reflect the state

- wide average e mission rates not to exceed 0.25 lb/MMBTU for SO2

(annual average) and 0.11 lb/MMBTU for NOx (ozone seasonal average).

To supplement t he r egional air quality modeling conducted by the State Collaborative (see

“Regional Modeling for the Eastern U.S.: Technical Support Document”, July 9, 2009) , LADCO

conducted modeling for two additional EGU control scenarios 1 :

NOx SO2

(lb/MMBTU) (lb/MMBTU)

Scenario E (2018) 0.125 0.25

Scenario E2 (2018) 0.11 0.25

The average improvement in air quality concentrations for the EGU scenarios (for 2018) is as

follows:

Table 3

. Domainwide average change in air quality concentrations between EGU scenarios

PM

- annual PM

- dail y Ozone

C v. E C v. E2 C v. E C v. E2 C v. E C v. E2

NE 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.0

MW 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.8

SE 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.2

Domain 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.8

1 The base control scenario, which reflects all existing (“on the books”) controls (including all legally

enforceable EGU controls and all planned EGU controls pursuant to CAIR, as identified by EPA), is

referred to as Scenario C.September 10 , 2009

10 The amount of improvement varies spatially, as shown in Figure 2

. Based on these results, two

key findings should be noted:

• Scenario E2, which is consistent with the LADCO proposal for EGUs in the

national/regional strategy, provides considerable air quality benefit.

• S cenario E2 provides similar air quality benefit compared to other EGU control

strategies considered in the regional air quality modeling.

Figure 2. Change in PM2.5

- annual,

PM2.5

- daily, and ozone concentrations,

Scenario E2 v. Scenario CSeptember 10 , 2009

11 State

- led Planning: A major contributing state (i.e., a state which contributes at least 4% to a

downwind area of interest) must, in conjunction with other major contributing states, develop,

adopt, and i mplement an appropriate attainment strategy fo r the area of interest. The selection

of 4% or more as the definition of a major contributing state was based on available contribution

in formation, which showed : (1) a 4% threshold is sufficient to capture most of the total impact at

key monitoring sites in eastern nonattainment areas , and (2) a 4% threshold results in a

manageable number of states, which is important for a success ful planning process , yet

includes the necessary states specific to each residual nonattainment area. These focused,

manageable state

- led planning efforts will produce air quality benefits farther downwind as well,

assisting farther downwind nonattainment are as in achieving the NAAQS

. Specific justification

is summarized below.

T he r egional air quality modeling conducted by the State Collaborative was reviewed to

determine state and source region contribution s . From a regional perspective, the home region

i s the dominant contributor

– see Figure 3 . From an individual state perspective, states with a

4% or more contribution make

- up a large portion (70

- 80%) of the total concentration in the

areas of interest

– see Table 4

.

Figure 3 . Source region contributions for ozone PM2.5

- annual, and PM2.5

- daily based on 20

- 30

select (high concentration) monitorsSeptember 10 , 2009

12 Table 4

. Average (%) state

- level contributions for 20

- 30 select monitors

In

State Out

State Total Out

- of

- state Contribution

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

PM2.5

- A nnual

2005 40 60 94 86 77 71 67 89 75 58 50 42

2012 43 57 94 85 77 72 68 89 72 58 49 42

PM2.5

- Daily

2005 38 62 95 89 83 78 75 91 82 71 63 57

2012 43 57 95 90 83 78 74 91 81 70 60 52

Ozone

2005 25 75 93 83 76 69 64 90 77 66 57 50

2012 26 74 92 84 78 71 66 93 78 68 59 52

Additional information on which states are important contributors to nonattainment problems is

available from analyses of measurement data:

• Back trajectory analyses were generated by LADCO based on 2003 ozone air quality

data for select locations in the eastern half of the U.S. Example results are

presented in Figure 4 . These contour plots are based on 72

- hour, concentration

weighted back tr ajectories for a 500 m relea se height and noon start time. Upwind

areas most associated with higher concentrations reflect darker red shading.

Consistent with the modeling , higher concentrations are associated with the home

states and nearby neighboring states (e.g., for Chicago, important upwind areas

include IL, IN, and MO; and for Baltimore, MD, PA, VA, WV, and OH). Note, the

plots are meant to be more qualitative than quantitative, and should not be over

analyzed to yield individual state contributions.

• Maryland Department of Environment recently presented a conceptual model of

ozone formation and transport in the Northeast ( Maryl and Department of the

Environment, 2009, and N ESCAUM, 2006). The conceptual model identifies multiple

transport features, including long

- range transport (from sources to the south and

west of the OTR), regional

- scale transport within the OTR from channele d flows in

nocturnal low

- level jets, and local

- scale transport along coastal shores due to sea

and lake breezes. Evidence of an aloft ozone reservoir is based on aloft aircraft

measurements and higher altitude monitoring sites. An educated estimated of t he

relative impacts for Baltimore suggests 30

- 40% from westerly transport, 10

- 20% from

southerly nocturnal low

- level jets, 10

- 20% from city

- to

- city local transport, and 10

-

20% local. T hese estimates generally agree with the regional modeling

- based

source apportionment, which ascribes 30

- 40% from states to the west (mostly, VA,

WV, and PA), 20

- 30% from MD, 5

- 10% from states to the south, and 20% from

background.September 10 , 2009

13 Figure 4 . Contour plots of back trajectories for high concentration days for Chicago (upper left), Boston (upper right, Baltimore (lower

left), and Richmond (lower right)

Note: the plots are meant to be more qualitative than quantitative and do not reflect specific individual state contributions.September 10 , 2009

14 • Preliminary analysis of aircraft data during the August 2003 blackout period in the

Northeast was conducted by the University of Maryland ( Marufu, et al, 2004)

. Comparison of aircraft spirals over central PA on August 15, 2003 and August 4,

2002 indicate aloft ozone about 50% lower and surface ozone about 38 ppb lower.

The limited nature of this analysis (e.g., comparison of only two days) suggests the

need for a more rigorous analysis. LADCO intends to examine further this event by

conducting ambient da ta analyses (e.g., back trajectories ) and applying a regional air

quality model. Source apportionment methods (trajectory

- based and model

- based)

will be used to determine the relative source sector contributions. The results of this

analysis will be prov ided to EPA later this year. We believe this analysis will provide

useful information on the effect of a large reduction in EGU emissions on air quality

concentrations, and on the model’s ability to simulate transport in the eastern U.S.

• Over a period fr om 1987 to 2003, LADCO sponsored the collection of aloft ( aircraft )

data for ozone, ozone precursors, and PM chemical species (2002

- 2003 only). An

overview of the data, along with limited analyses, is presented in “Data Processing

and Analysis of Aloft Ai r Quality Data Collected in the Upper Midwest”, prepared for

LADCO by Sonoma Technology, Inc.., August 5, 2004. Based on a case study

analysis of the August 13

- 20, 2003, period , which included the blackout event noted

above, key findings included: (1) bac kground ozone levels (i.e., air entering the

LADCO region) were usually about 60

- 70 ppb, (2) these background levels were

low er than those observed in the 1991 LMOS field program when boundary

conditions were about 70

- 100 ppb during episodes, and (3) local contributions were

generally on the order of 20

- 40 ppb (and as high as 60 ppb). Furthermore the report

stated that “it is not clear from this analysis whether the shutdown of power plants

had any influence on air quality in the Midwest.”

The regional ai r quality modeling conducted by the State Collaborative was also reviewed to

determine which states contribute at different threshold levels

– 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5% of the

NAAQS. Tables 5

– 7 summarize the states which contribute to the areas of interest for PM2.5

-

annual, PM2.5

- daily, and ozone. (Note, Table 8 includes a representative set of ozone areas of

interest relative to the 75 ppb NAAQS.) The tables show that the number of 4% or more states

is generally on the order of 3

- 4, while the number 1% or more states is 10

- 15. This shows that

a threshold on the order of 4% will provide for a manageable number of states, which is

important for a successful planning effort.September 10 , 2009

15 Table 5 . Areas of interest and contributing states (at different thresholds) for PM2.5

- annual

>0.15 ug/m3 >0.30 >0.45 >0.60 >0.75

Southeast

* Atlanta, GA IN, OH, AL, GA.

SC, NC, TN, KY AL, GA, SC, TN AL, GA GA GA

* Macon, GA (M) IN, OH, AL, GA,

FL, SC, NC, TN,

KY, VA AL, GA, SC, NC GA GA GA

Midwest

* Cleveland, OH IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

KY, WV, PA, NY,

CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WV,

PA, CAN IN, MI, OH, PA,

CAN MI, OH, PA, CAN MI, OH, PA, CAN

* Detroit, MI IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MN, MO, KY,

WV, PA, NY, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

PA, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH,

CAN IN, MI, OH, CAN MI, OH, CAN

* Granite City, IL IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

IA, MN, MO, TN,

KY IL, IN, MI, IA, MO IL, IN, MO IL, MO IL, MO

* Cincinnati, OH (M) IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MO, TN, KY,

WV, PA, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, KY IL, IN, MI, OH, KY IN,OH, KY IN, OH, KY

* Chicago, IL (M) IL, IN, MI. OH, WI,

IA, MN, MO, KY,

CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MO IL, IN, MI, WI IL, IN, MI, WI IL, IN, MI, WI

* Indianapolis, IN (M) IL, IN, MI. OH, WI,

IA, MN, MO, TN,

WV, PA, KY, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

MO, KY IL, IN, MI, OH, KY IL, IN, MI, OH, KY IL, IN, OH

Northeast

* Liberty

- Clairton, PA IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

KY, WV, VA, PA,

NY,CAN IN, OH, MI, KY,

WV, PA, CAN MI, OH, WV, PA OH, WV, PA OH, WV, PA

* New York, NY OH, MI, VA, MD,

PA, NY, NJ, CT/RI,

MA, CAN PA, NY, NJ, CAN PA, NY, NJ PA, NY, NJ PA, NY, NJSeptember 10 , 2009

16 Table 6 . Areas of interest and contributing states (at dif ferent thresholds) for PM2.5

- daily

>0.35 ug/m3 >0.75 >1.05 >1.5 >1.75

Southeast

* Birmingham, AL

(M) IN, OH, GA, SC,

NC, TN, KY, VA,

WV, PA, NY IN, OH, GA, TN,

KY, VA, WV, PA OH, GA, TN, KY,

WV, PA OH, GA, TN, KY,

WV, PA OH, GA, KY, WV,

PA

Midwest

* Chicago, IL IL, IN, MI. OH, WI,

IA, MO, KY, PA,

CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MO, KY IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

MO IL, IN, MI IL, IN, MI

* Cleveland, OH IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

KY, WV, PA, NY,

CAN IN, MI, OH, PA,

NY, CAN IN, MI, OH, PA,

CAN MI, OH, PA, CAN MI, OH, PA, CAN

* Detroit, MI IL, IN, MI. OH, WI,

IA, MO,TN, KY,

WV, PA, NY, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, KY,

PA, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, KY,

CAN IL, IN, MI, OH,

CAN IN, MI, OH, CAN

* Milwaukee, WI IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MN, MO, KY,

CAN IL, IN, MI, WI, IA,

MN, MO IL, IN, MI, WI IL, IN, MI, WI IL, WI

* Green Bay, WI IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MN, MO, KY,

CAN IL, IN, MI, WI, IA,

MN, MO IL, IN, MI, WI, IA,

MN, MO IL, MI, WI, IA IL, MI, WI, IA

* Granite City, IL (M) IL, IN, OH, MI. WI,

IA, MN, ND, MO,

PA, CAN IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

IA, MN, MO IL, IN, OH, MI, IA,

MO IL, MO IL, MO

* Muscatine , IA (M) IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

IA, MN, ND. WV.

PA, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

IA, MN, MO IL, IN, MI, WI, IA,

MN, MO IL, IN, MI, WI, IA,

MN IL, IN, MI, WI, IA,

MN

Northeast

* Baltimore, MD IN, OH, NC, VA,

WV, MD, DE, PA,

NY, NJ, KY, CT/RI,

MA, CAN OH, VA, WV, MD,

PA, NY, NJ VA, MD, PA, NY,

NJ VA, MD, PA, NY VA, MD, PA

* Lancaster, PA IN, MI, OH, NC,

VA, WV, MD, DE,

PA, NY, NJ, CT/RI,

MA, CAN OH, VA, MD, PA,

NY, NJ VA, MD, PA, NY,

NJ VA, MD, PA, NY,

NJ MD, PA, NY

* Liberty

- Clairton, PA IL, IN, MI, OH, KY,

WV, PA, NY, VA,

MD, CAN IN, MI, OH, KY,

WV, PA, NY OH, KY, WV, PA OH, WV, PA OH, WV, PA

* New York, NY IN, MI, OH, VA,

WV, MD, PA, NY,

NJ, MA, CT/RI, DE,

NC, CAN OH, VA, MD, PA,

NY, NJ, MA, CT/RI PA, NY, NJ PA, NY, NJ PA, NY, NJSeptember 10 , 2009

17 Table 7 . Areas of interest and contributing states (at different thresholds) for ozone

>0.85 ppb >1.70 >2.55 >3.40 >4.25

Southeast

* Atlanta, GA AL, MS, GA, FL,

SC, NC, TN, KY,

VA AL, GA, SC, NC,

TN AL, GA, SC, TN AL, GA AL, GA

* Charlotte, NC IN, OH, AL, GA,

SC, NC, TN, KY,

VA. WV SC, NC, TN, KY,

VA SC, NC, TN, VA SC, NC, TN, VA SC, NC

Midwest

* Chicago, IL

(Kenosha, WI) IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

MO, KY, WV,

CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

MO, KY, CAN IL, IN, MI, OH, WI,

MO, KY IL, IN, MI, WI, MO IL, IN

* Holland, MI IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

IA, MO, TN, KY,

PA, CAN IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

MO IL, IN, MI, WI, MO IL, IN, MI, WI, MO IL, IN, MI, MO

* St. Louis, MO IL, IN, OH, MI,

MO, MS, KY, TN,

IA IL, IN, OH, MO,

TN, KY IL, IN, MO, KY IL, IN, MO IL, MO

* Cleveland, OH IL, IN, OH, MI,

MO, TN, KY, VA,

WV, PA, NY, CAN IL, IN, OH, MI,

KY, PA, CAN IL, IN, OH, MI,

KY, PA, CAN IN, OH, MI, KY,

PA, CAN IN, OH, MI, PA

* Cincinnati, OH

(Campbell, KY) IL, IN, MI, OH,

MO, TN, KY WV,

PA, CAN IL, IN, OH, MO,

TN, KY IL, IN, OH, TN, KY OH, KY OH, KY

* Sheboygan, WI IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

MO, TN, KY, VA,

WV, PA, CAN IL, IN, OH MI, WI,

MO, KY IL, IN, OH, MI, WI,

MO, KY IL, IN, MI, WI IL, IN, WI

Northeast

* Washington, DC IN, OH, MI, NC,

KY, VA, WV, MD,

PA, NJ, NY, CAN OH, NC, VA, WV,

MD, PA, NY OH, VA, WV, MD,

PA OH, VA, MD, PA VA, MD, PA

* Baltimore, MD IN, OH, MI, NC,

TN, KY, VA,

WWV, MO, PA,

NJ, NY, CAN OH, KY, VA, WV,

MD, PA, NY OH, VA, WV, MD,

PA VA, WV, MD, PA VA, MD, PA

* Philadelphia , PA IL, IN, OH, MI,

NC, KY, VA, WV,

MD, DE, PA, NJ,

NY, CAN OH, VA, MD, WV,

PA, NJ, NY, CAN MD, DE, PA, NJ,

NY NY, PA, NJ NY, PA, NJ

* Springfield, MA OH, NC, KY, VA,

WV, MD, PA, NJ,

NY, CT/RI, MA,

CAN OH, NC, VA, MD,

PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI, MA, CAN MD, VA, PA, NJ,

NY, CT/RI, MA VA, PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI, MA PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI, MA

* Greater

Connecticut OH, NC, KY, VA,

WV, MD, PA, NJ,

NY, CT/RI, MA,

CAN OH, NC, VA, MD,

PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI, CAN VA, NC, PA, NJ,

NY, CT/RI VA, PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI PA, NJ, NY, CT/RI

* New York, NY

(Danbury, CT) IN, OH, NC, KY,

VA, WV, MD, PA,

NJ, NY, CT/RI,

CAN OH, NC, VA, MD,

PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI, CAN VA, PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI VA, PA, NJ, NY,

CT/RI PA, NJ, NY, CT/RISeptember 10 , 2009

18 References

Cox, W.M. and S.H.Chu, 1993, “Meteorologically Adjusted Ozone Trends in Urban Areas: A

Probabilistic Approach”, Atmospheric Environment 27B(4):424

- 434 (1993).

M arufu, L.T., B.F. Taubman, B. Bloomer, C.A. Piety, B.G. Doddridge, J.W. Sther, and R.R.

Dickerso n, 2004, “ The 2003 North American electrical blackout: An accidental experiment in

atmospheric chemistry”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol, 31, L13106, 2004

.

Maryland Department of the Environment, 2009, “Where does the air pollution in the OTR come

from and what do we need to do to fix it?”, PowerPoint presentation from the June 9 and 10,

2009 Annual OTC Meeting.

“Regional Modeling for the Eastern U.S.: Technical Support Document”, July 9, 2009, State

Collaborative Modeling Workgroup.

N ESCAUM, 2006, “The Nature of the Ozone Air Quality Problem in the Ozone Transport

Region: A Conceptual Description”, prepared for t he OTC by NESCAUM, October 2006.

STI, 2004, “Data Processing and Analysis of Aloft Air Quality Data Collected in the Upper

Midwest”, prepared f or LADCO by Sonoma Technology, Inc.., August 5, 2004September 10 , 2009

19 

### Attachment I

State

- Level Analysis of Achievable EGU Emission Rates in the LADCO Region

Illinois

– see State of Illinois’ Multi

- Pollutant Standard/Combined Pollutant Standard (Illinois

Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225)

Indiana

– copy attached

Michigan

Ohio

– copy attached

Wisconsin

– copy attachedSeptember 10 , 2009

20 Indiana Analysis

SO2

1. Incorporated changes/controls that occurred or are projected to occur between the baseline

year and the year 2013. Due to the timing of the controls that were installed between the years

2005 and the year 2008, 2005 was chosen the base year for analysis to capture the effect of

controls installed. One power plant is projected to switch to IGCC and three coal

- fi red units are

projected to shutdown. During this time

, interval scrubbers were installed on several units and

the scrubbers on several units were upgraded. Several more controls are projected to be

installed.

2. By the year 2015, several pre

- 2005 with re ported efficiencies less than 95% were assumed to

be upgraded to 95%.

3. By the year 2017, new scrubbers were installed on units in order of their capacities and

emissions. Units >100 MW were considered for installation and an efficiency equal to 95% or a

floor rate equal to 0.06 lb/MMBtu was assumed. The projected emission rates are given below:

Year Emission rate (lb/MMBtu)

2005 1.31

2006 1.27

2007 1.08

2008 0.93

2013 0.67

2015 0.68

2017 0.25

NOx

1. Incorporated ch anges/controls that occurred or are projected to occur between the baseline

year and the year 2013. The year 2008 was chosen as the base year for analysis. One power

plant is projected to switch to IGCC and three coal

- fired units are projected to shutdow n.

SNCRs are projected to be installed on three units.

2. In the year 2014, existing post

- combustion controls were assumed to begin year round

operation. Emission rates equal to 0.25 lb/MMBtu for SNCRs and 0.06 lb/MMBtu were

assumed.

3. In the year 2015 , low capital cost controls were applied. SNCRs were considered for units

<200 MW at an efficiency equal to 35% or at a floor rate equal to 0.25 lb/MMBtu. Controls were

installed on units in order of their capacities and emissions.

4. In the year 2017, SCRs on units >200 MW at a control efficiency equal to 90% or at a floor

emission rate equal to 0.06 lb/MMBtu were applied. Controls were installed on units in order of

their capacities and emissions. The projected emissions are given below:September 10 , 2009

21 Year Emission rate (lb/MMBtu)

2008 0.305

2013 0.297

2014 0.171

2015 0.165

2017 0.114September 10 , 2009

22 Ohio Analysis 2

• Incorporated reductions in rates based upon in the pipes controls that are locked in by

the companies based on company provided schedule. SO2

o If consent decree required retire, retrofit or repower in the future we assumed a

retrofit level of control would be applied.

• Incorporated additional control requirements for units where the company has not

indicated future control:

o Required scru bbers installed by 2017.

o Required optimization by 2014 if it was to meet 95% or by 2017 if it was to

achieve greater than 95% efficiency based on 2008 base year.

• Required continuous operation for all controls upon installation or by 2015

- 2017

(assessed on unit

- by

- unit basis).

• Applied rates of 0.20 for scrubbers which would equate to approximately 97+% control

for higher sulfur coals or 95% control for blends.

o This rate was still applied to sources currently controlled whose baseline rates

were below 0.20 in 2008 to provide a safety margin so that coal use would not be

limited.

o This rate was also applied to sources currently controlled whose baseline rates

were above 0.20 in 2008 but we had reason to believe optimization is realistic.

See next bullet for exce ption.

• Applied rates of 0.25 to known high sulfur units based upon factors such as: company

indications of continuing to use high sulfur coals, recently installed scrubbers, company

indications of 95% efficiencies during 2007 and 2008, etc.

• Applied rates o f 0.30 to two small units currently controlled (120 MW each) with known

higher rates.

• Did not require control on the following units based upon size and fuel use

characteristics. However, required these sources to maintain use of lower S coal/blends

or be gin use of lower S coal/blends. This was a unit

- by

- unit analysis of 2008 base year

rates, S content used and company indications of future coal use:

o Four units at 100 MW and below

– no changes.

2 This identifies the meth odology that was used to arrive at interim and final 2017 rates. Use of

terminology such as “required” does not imply these exact strategies and cutoffs will be used to

implement said rates.September 10 , 2009

23 NOx

• Incorporated reductions in rates based upon in the pipes controls that are locked in by

the companies based on company provided schedule.

o If consent decree required retire, retrofit or repower in the future we assumed a

retrofit level of control would be applied.

• Incorporated additional control requirements for units where the company has not

indicated future control:

o Required SCR or SNCR installed by 2017.

 SCR required for sources roughly greater than 250 MW. Assumed a 0.08

rate could be achieved ( assessed on unit

- by

- unit basis).

• This rate was still applied to sources currently controlled whose

baseline rates were below 0.08 in 2008 to provide a safety margin.

• This rate was also applied to sources currently controlled whose

baseline rates were above 0.09 in 2008 but we had reason to

believe optimization is reali stic.

• This required some sources to upgrade from SNCR to SCR.

 SNCR required for sources roughly between 130 and 250 MW. Assumed

50% reduction in rate over base year. Rates ranged from 0.11 to 0.25

(higher end rare).

• Required low NOx burners by 2015 for t hose missing regardless of size (assumed 30%

reduction over base year).

• Required optimization by 2014 of existing controls where it appeared realistic (assessed

on unit

- by

- unit basis).

• Required continuous operation for all controls upon installation or by 2015

- 2017

(assessed on unit

- by

- unit basis).

• Did not require SCR or SNCR on units roughly at 150 MW or below ( assessed on unit

by

- unit basis).September 10 , 2009

24 The following rates achieved applying the above, through the requested years, is outlined

below:

NOx

(annual/oz one)

Year Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

2008 0.36/0.19

2013 0.24/0.17

2014 0.18/0.16

2015 0.17/0.16

2017 0.12/0.115

SO2

Year Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

2008 1.09

2013 0.75

2014 0.65

2015 0.65

2017 0.256

The table below summarizes the number of controls assumed over time:

2008 2013 2014 2015 2017

# total MW

controlled % total

MW # total MW

controlled % total

MW # total MW

controlled % total

MW # total MW

controlled % total

MW # total MW

controlled % total

MW

SCR 19 11274 51% 25 13751 63% 26 14422 66% 27 14731 67% 34 17173 78%

SNCR 15 4335 20% 11 2823 13% 11 2823 13% 11 2823 13% 14 2737 12%

FGD 16 10049 46% 25 12636 58% 33 15261 70% 33 15261 70% 56 20933 95%September 10 , 2009

25 Wisconsin Analysis

SOx (lbs/mmBtu) 2008 2013 2014 2015 2017 2017

Existing In Pipeline Improve

existing

controls Controls

without major

investment With available

FGD High Control

State Average (approved CAs) 0.57 0.39 0.39 0.25 0.16 0.16

Large Utilities

2013 Base (approved CAs) 0.23

- 0.93 0.12

- 0.77 0.12

- 0.77 0.12

- 0.77 0.12

- 0.26 0.12

- 0.26

2013 Base (w/ pending CAs) 0.26

- 0.77 0.12

- 0.59 0.12

- 0.59 0.12

- 0.43 0.06

- 0.16 0.03

- 0.07

Small Utilities

2013 Base (approved CAs) 0.41

- 2.18 0.00

- 0.53 0.00

- 0.53 0.00

- 0.17 0.00

- 0.17 0.00

- 0.17

notes

1) Dry FGD (95% efficiency) control assumed for many utilities, due to small unit sizes at plant sites and/or timing constrai nts.

2) This is a "best case" analysis using FGD technology. Alternative controls

- such as lime injection or substituting more low

- sulfur coal

- may be

used in practice at some utilities in order to avoid deep controls, but still be below 0.25 #/MMBtu.

NOx (lbs/mmBtu) 2008 2013 2014 2015 2017 2017

Existing In Pipeline Improve

existing

controls Controls

without major

investment With available

SCR High Control*

State Average (approved CAs) 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07

Large Utilities

2013 Base (approved CAs) 0.13

- 0.36 0.08

- 0.24 0.08

- 0.24 0.08

- 0.14 0.08

- 0.10 0.06

- 0.09

2013 Base (pending CAs) / Possible 0.13

- 0.36 0.08

- 0.15 0.07

- 0.15 0.07

- 0.13 0.07

- 0.09 0.05

- 0.06

Small Utilities 0.19

- 0.55 0.06

- 0.25 0.06

- 0.25 0.06

- 0.2 0.06

- 0.2 0.06

- 0.2September 10 , 2009

26 notes

1) "CA"

- Certificate of Authorization

2) Controls without major investment include combustion modifications, LNBs, and SNCR

3) The 2015 control levels reflect the WeEnergies consent decree, NOx RACT, and approved CAs for major controls.

4) The schedule for installing SCRs is built around the schedule for installing dFGDs.

5) Accommodating an SCR installation in the needed timeframe may require altering the schedule for a major

outage which occurs every 5 to 10 years. An SCR tie

- in usually requires major outage as it impacts existing

ductwork in typically restricted space as compared to dF GD.

6) The default control for SCR is 0.06 lbs/mmbtu to reflect average accounting for less efficient operation during winter to

prevent ammonium sulfate buildup.

7) "*"

- Reflects pushing SCR control to 90% control on a year

- round basis

8) "Possible"

- This case addresses a p otentially accelerated schedule for SCR installations

# The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Certification

For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements

in the Clean Air Act

for

35 μg/m 3 

# 24-Hour (2006) Fine Particulate Matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

Appendix E : New Jersey’s Significant Contribution Analysis

to Meet Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

January 20101 

### Appendix E : New Jersey’s Significant Contribution Analysis to Meet Section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)

A. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution – 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) (Section

110(a)(2)(D))(i)

i. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (Section 110(a)(2)(D)) requ ires states to include provisions

prohibiting any source or othe r type of emissions activity in one state from:

1) Contributing significantly to nonattainm ent of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for areas in another state or interfer e with the maintenance of

the NAAQS in another state;

2) Interfere with measures required to m eet the implementation plan for any other

state related to Prevention of Si gnificant Deterioration (PSD); or,

3) Interfere with measures required to m eet the implementation plan for any other

state related to Regiona l Haze and Visibility.

In order to address interstate pollution, New Jersey coordinates with the nearby states on regional

control measures as part of planning organiza tions, such as the Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC), Northeast States for Coordinate d Air Use Management (NESCAUM), MidAtlantic/Northeast-Visibility Union (MANE-VU), and Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management

Association (MARAMA). New Jersey will continue to work regionally through these

organizations.

To meet the interstate transport provi sions for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, the USEPA allowed the states to rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 1 

### The

U.S. Court of Appeals determined the CAIR does not meet this obligation and remanded the rule

back to the USEPA. 2 

### As the United States Environmenta l Protection Agency (USEPA) works to

develop a replacement rule for the CAIR, the stat es in the eastern United States have been

working together to develop recommendations to the USEPA regarding the replacement rule,

including the issues of upwind transport and addressing Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This effort is

commonly referred to as the ‘State Collaborative’ (materials produced from this effort are

included in Appendix D). On September 2, 2009, 17 states within the Ozone Transport

Commission and the Lake Michigan Area Dire ctors Consortium (LADCO) submitted a letter

(see Appendix D) to the USEPA containing reco mmendations for the USEPA to consider as it

develops the CAIR replacement rule. The recommendations follow through on the commitment

made by these states in the March 9, 2009 Fram ework Document, contained in Appendix D, to

1 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance fo r State Implementation Plan (SIP) Subm issions to Meet Current Outstanding

Obligations Under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency,” August 15, 2006.

2 The Federal CAIR program, as established in the Federal rules, was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit on July 11, 2008 (State of North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, supra).

On December 23, 2008, the court rema nded the CAIR to the USEPA without vacatur of CAIR “so that EPA may

remedy CAIR’s flaws in accordance with” the co urt’s July 2008 opinion vacating CAIR.2 

### work together to address the transport require ments of Section 110(a)( 2)(D) of the Clean Air

Act, and to attain the ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Based on the State Collaborative work and past

USEPA practice, New Jersey determines that a state significantly cont ributes to a downwind

state if its contribution is one pe rcent (1%) or greater of the applicable NAAQS. In this case, one

percent (1%) of the 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS is 0.35 μg/m 3 

### . In developing the CAIR, the

USEPA used a similar threshold. New Jersey uses a weight-of-evidence approach combining

several analyses in this SI P revision to determine significant contributions.

1) New Jersey’s Significant Contributions to Other States

a) Contributing Significantly to a Nona ttainment Area or Interference with the

Maintenance of the NAAQS in Another State

According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, a st ate’s conclusion regarding its impact on

nonattainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state must be supported by

“adequate technical analysis.” 3 

### In order to assess New Jersey’s significant contributions to the

downwind nonattainment or mainte nance areas of the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in other states,

four main modeling analys es are used: CAIR (PM 2.5 

### and ozone), NO

x 

### SIP Call, Regional Haze,

and the State Collaborative. New Jersey is using th e best data available at this time to determine

its impact on other states. An explanation of each analysis and how it demonstrates New

Jersey’s contributions are provided in this section.

PM 2.5 

### CAIR Analysis

In its March 2005 analysis in support of the CAIR, 4 

### the USEPA used a criterion of 0.2 μg/m 3 

### for

determining whether sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) and oxides of nitrogen (NO

x 

### ) emissions in a state make

a significant contribution to PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in another state. Rounding the value of 0.15,

the nearest single digit co rresponding to about one pe rcent (1%) of the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS is

0.2 μ g/m 3



### . 5 

### The data used in this an alysis were for the annual PM 2.5 

### standard. The results of the

CAIR analysis demonstrated that New Je rsey is not a signifi cant contributor to PM 2.5 

### nonattainment, for the 15 μ g/m 3 

### annual NAAQS, in any other state (because its transported

contribution of PM 2.5 

### is less than 0.2 μ g/m 3 

### ).

In a separate rulemaking on April 28, 2006, 6 

### the USEPA included Delaware and New Jersey in

the CAIR for PM 2.5 

### , based on its assessment that, when combined, New Jersey and Delaware

contribute significantly to a downwind state’s nonattainment of the annual 15 μ g/m 3 

### PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Air quality modeling performed to dete rmine the contribution fr om the projected 2010

SO 2 

### and NO

x 

### emissions in Delaware and New Jersey combined to PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in

3 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

4 USEPA. Technical Support Document for the Final Clea n Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling, Air Quality

Modeling Analyses – VII: Modeling to Assess Interstate PM 2.5 Contributions. United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triang le Park, NC, March 2005.

5 70 Fed. Reg. 25191 (May 12, 2005).

6 71 Fed. Reg. 25288 (April 28, 2006).3 

### downwind states, showed that the largest cont ribution from Delaware and New Jersey was 0.23

μ g/m 3 

### to PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in New York County, New York (Manhattan in New York City). 7



### This amount exceeded the USEPA’s PM 2.5 

### significance criterion of 0.2 μ g/m 3



### .

Ozone Modeling Analyses

For the purpose here, ozone wi ll be used as a surrogate transported pollutant for PM 2.5 

### since NO

x 

### (i.e., nitrates) are precursors to PM 2.5 

### . The transport of the nitrates is occurring with the transport

of ground-level ozone and PM 2.5 

### . Thus, reducing NO

x 

### in New Jersey will also reduce the

formation and transport of PM 2.5 

### . The results of the 8-hour ozone CAIR and the NO

x 

### SIP Call

modeling analyses are applied he re to assess New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

### contribution to the

nonattainment and attainment/maintenance of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in other states.

8-Hour Ozone CAIR

In order to quantify a state’s contribution to downwind 8-hour ozone nonattainment to support

controls required under the USEPA’s CAIR, air quality modeling for ozone was conducted by

the USEPA using the Comprehensive Air Qualit y Model with Extensions (CAMx), version

3.10. 8 

### CAMx is a non-proprietary computer mode l that simulates the formation and fate of

photochemical oxidants including ozone for an input set of meteorological conditions and

emissions. CAMx also contains a source appor tionment tool which is designed to attribute

ozone concentrations predicted at a given set of receptors to emissions from individual source

areas, as specified by the user.

These air quality modeling techniques, i.e., zero -out and source apportionment, were used to

assess the impact of each upwind State’s entire inventory of NO

x 

### and VOC emissions on

downwind nonattainment for 2010 and 2015. 9 

### The USEPA determined that upwind NO

x 

### emissions contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment as of the year 2010. Therefore,

the USEPA projected NO

x 

### emissions to the year 2010, assumi ng certain required controls (but

not controls required under CAIR), and then m odeled the impact of those projected emissions

(termed the base case inventor y) on downwind 8-hour ozone nona ttainment in that year.

Projected 8-hour ozone design values in 2010 and 2015 were estimated by combining the relative

change in model predicted ozone from 2001 to the future scenario with an estimate of the base

year ambient 8-hour ozone design value. 10 

### Emissions from an upwind State contributed

significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment if the maximum contribution was at least 2 parts per

billion (ppb), the average contribution was greater than one percent, and certain other numerical

criteria were met. 11 

### The USEPA determined that as of 2010, 25 upwind States and the District of

Columbia will have contributions to downwind nonattainment area s that are sufficiently high to

meet the air quality factor of the transport test. If the upwind State’s impact exceeded these

7 Revised modeling based on comments received by the USEPA changed the combined contribution of New Jersey

and Delaware on downwind fine particulate matter nonattainment to 0.21 μ g/m 3

. 8 USEPA. Technical Support Document for the Final Clea n Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling, Air Quality

Modeling Analyses – VII: Modeling to Assess Interstate PM 2.5 Contributions. United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triang le Park, NC, March 2005.

9 70 Fed. Reg. 25175 (May 12, 2005).

10 70 Fed. Reg. 25243 (May 12, 2005).

11 70 Fed. Reg. 25175 (May 12, 2005).4 

### thresholds, then the USEPA conducted a further evaluation to determine if the impact was high

enough to meet the air quality portion of the “contribute signi ficantly” standard. 12 

### In doing so,

the USEPA organized the outputs of the two modeling techniques into a set of “metrics.” The

metrics reflect three ke y contribution factors:

• The magnitude of the contribu tion (actual amount of ozone contributed by emissions in

the upwind State to nonattainme nt in the downwind area);

• The frequency of the contribu tion (how often contributions above certain thresholds

occur); and

• The relative amount of the contribution (the total ozone contribut ed by the upwind State

compared to the total amount of nonattainment ozone in the downwind area).

Based upon these criteria, the USEPA concluded th at New Jersey significan tly contributes to 8-

hour ozone nonattainment in four (4) states, as listed in Table E1. 13,14 

### This table does not include

all of the USEPA’s criteria to determine significant contribu tions. The counties listed under

“Other Contributions” in Table E1 that show Ne w Jersey’s contribution is equal to or greater

than one percent to 8-hour ozone nonattainment were determined by the USEPA to not have a

significant link to New Jersey. Thus, New Jersey di d not include those states in its determination

of significant contributions fo r interstate transport of PM 2.5



### .

12 70 Fed. Reg. 25191 (May 12, 2005).

13 70 Fed. Reg. 25249 (May 12, 2005).

14 USEPA. Technical Support Document for the Final Clea n Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling, Air Quality

Modeling Analyses – VII: Modeling to Assess Interstate PM 2.5 Contributions. United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triang le Park, NC, March 2005.5 

### Table E1 : New Jersey’s Contributions to Projected 2010 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment in

Downwind Areas as Demonstrated by th e 8-Hour Ozone CAIR Modeling Analysis

State County 2010 8-Hour Ozone

Base (ppb) Percent of 8-Hour

Ozone due to

Transport 2010 NJ Maximum

8-hr ppb

Contribution 1 Percent NJ

Contribution

Significant Contributions

Connecticut Fairfield 92 80% 23 25%

Middlesex 90 93% 22 24%

New Haven 91 95% 23 25%

New York Erie 87 37% 5 6%

Richmond 87 55% 52 60%

Suffolk 91 52% 39 43%

Westchester 85 56% 35 41%

Pennsylvania Bucks 94 35% 27 29%

Chester 85 39% 15 18%

Montgomery 88 47% 11 13%

Philadelphia 90 55% 14 16%

Rhode Island Kent 86 88% 18 21%

Other Contributions

Delaware New Castle 85 37% 3 4%

Georgia Fulton 86 24% 1 1%

Maryland Anne Arundel 88 45% 1 1%

Cecil 89 35% 1 1%

Harford 93 31% 1 1%

Kent 86 47% 1 1%

Michigan Macomb 85 43% 0 0%

Ohio Geauga 87 47% 0 0%

Texas Denton 87 N/A N/A N/A

Galveston 85 37% 0 0%

Harris 97 36% 0 0%

Jefferson 85 50% 0 0%

Tarrant 87 N/A N/A N/A

Virginia Arlington 86 39% 0 0%

Fairfax 85 33% 2 2%

Washington DC Washington DC 85 38% 1 1%

Wisconsin Kenosha 91 37% 0 0%

Ozaukee 86 81% 0 0%

Sheboygan 88 74% 0 0%

1. The maximum 8-hour ozone ppb contribution was only one metric from the USEPA's modeling analysis. Other criteria were

met to make the final determination on significant contributions.

2. Data obtained from the CAIR modeling TSD, Table VI-2. Percent contribution to 8-hour ozone nonattainment due to transport

from upwind States.6 

### NO

x 

### SIP Call

In 1998, the USEPA finalized a regulation (known as the NO

x 

### SIP Call) requiring 22 States and

the District of Columbia to submit SIPs that address the regional tr ansport of ground-level

ozone. 15 

### The plans required reducing emissions of NO

x 

### (a precursor to ozone formation as well

as PM 2.5 

### ), to decrease the transport of ozone across state boundaries in the eastern half of the

United States. In the development of the NO

x 

### SIP Call, the USEPA performed a number of air

quality analyses to support the multi-factor appr oach to identify upwind areas that contribute

significantly to ozone nonattain ment in downwind areas.

For the modeling analyses conducted for the NO

x 

### SIP Call, the USEPA made a determination

that “significant contribution” includes both air quality factor s relating to amounts of upwind

emissions and their ambient impact downwind, as well as cost fact ors relating to the costs of the

upwind emission reductions. 16 

### Full details on the modeling analyses can be found in the

modeling technical su pport document (TSD). 17 

### The additional modeling for the assessment of

contributions consisted of Stat e-by-State zero-out modeling usi ng UAM-V (Variable Grid Urban

Airshed Model) and State-by-State sour ce apportionment modeling using the CAMx

(Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Exte nsions) Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability

Assessment (APCA) technique. The modeling result s showed that New Jersey contains sources

which significantly impact ozone nonattainment in the following downwind states: Connecticut,

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The

quantitative modeling results are summarized in Table E2.

15 63 Fed. Reg. 57356 (October 28, 1998).

16 63 Fed. Reg. 57356 (October 28, 1998).

17 USEPA. Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Regional NO

x SIP Call. Office of Air and

Radiation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, September 23, 1998.7 

### Table E2 : New Jersey’s Contributions to Ozon e Nonattainment in Downwind States

According to the NO

x 

### SIP Call Modeling Analyses 1

Downwind

State/Area Maximum

Contribution

(ppb) Highest

Daily

Average

Contribution

(ppb) Frequency of Contributi on Relative Amount

(% of total manmade

ppb:

≥ 125 ppb (1-hr)

≥ 85 ppb (8-hr))

1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr

Western

Massachusetts (1-hr)

Massachusetts (8-hr) 30 39 23 - 10 ppb to

100% of

exceedances 10 ppb to 59%

of exceedances 16 16

Boston, Massachusetts 42 - 25 - 5 ppb to 52%

of exceedances - 7 -

Greater Connecticut

(1-hr)

Connecticut (8-hr) 62 54 45 30 10 ppb to 99%

of exceedances 10 ppb to 81%

of exceedances 26 23

Portland, Maine (1-hr)

Maine (8-hr) 9 21 9 10 5 ppb to 39%

of exceedances 5 ppb to 48% of

exceedances 4 7

Rhode Island 48 36 38 19 10 ppb to

100% of

exceedances 10 ppb to 61%

of exceedances 30 20 (on the

highest

day)

New Hampshire - 26 - - - 5 ppb to 45% of

exceedances;

10 ppb to 23%

of exceedances - 9

New York - 64 - 37 - 10 ppb to 81%

of exceedances - 31

Pennsylvania - 40 - 17 - 2 ppb to 5% of

exceedances - 19 (on the

highest

day)

1. This table was compiled using Appendices C and D in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s report

entitled, “Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Regional NO

x SIP Call,” September 23, 1998.



### To summarize the ozone modeling analyses a pplied to New Jersey’s weight-of-evidence

approach, ozone is being used as a surrogate transported pollutant for PM 2.5 

### since NO

x 

### (i.e.,

nitrates) are precursors to PM 2.5 

### . The results of these analyses indicate that New Jersey impacts

the air quality in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampsh ire, New York, Pennsylvania,

and Rhode Island.

Regional Haze Modeling Analysis

Visibility impairment caused by the collection of air pollutants (primarily PM 2.5 

### ) emitted by

sources over a broad geographic area is known as regional haze. 18 

### Particulate matter is the major

cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the United States. As part of the regional haze SIP 19



### coordination in the Northeastern United States, a regional assessment was conducted to establish

18 64 Fed. Reg. 35714 (July 1, 1999).

19 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.8 

### the baseline and natural visibi lity conditions at Class I 20 

### areas, to identify the states which

contribute to visibility impair ment at Class I areas, and to establish the 2018 Reasonable

Progress Goal. New Jersey relied upon the c ontribution assessment work performed for MANEVU by NESCAUM. NESCAUM used several techniques, rather than rely upon one single

method, to assess which states contribute to visi bility impairment in MANE-VU Class I areas.

These techniques included: evaluating emission i nventories, sulfur dioxide emissions divided by

distance, emissions times upwind probability, the dispersion model CA LPUFF, and the grid

model Regulatory Modeling System for Aeroso ls and Deposition (REMS AD). A summary of

those techniques is di scussed in New Jersey’s regional haze SIP. 21 

### Since the assessment for the

visibility goals used only the Class I areas as the receptors, the analysis was only performed for

seven (7) Class I areas in Maine, New Hampsh ire, New Jersey, Vermont, Virginia, and West

Virginia. For example, since C onnecticut does not have a Cla ss I area, the impacts from New

Jersey and other states were not evaluated.

MANE-VU applied the following three criteria to identify states and regions for the purposes of

consultation on regional haze:

1. Any state/region th at contributed 0.1 μ g/m 3 

### sulfate or greater on the 20 percent worst visibility

days in the base year (2002),

2. Any state/region that c ontributed at least 2 percent of tota l sulfate observed on the 20 percent

worst visibility days in 2002, and

3. Any state/region among the top ten contributo rs on the 20 percent worst visibility days in

2002.

For the purposes of deciding how broadly to consu lt, the MANE-VU States settled on the second

of the three criteria: an y state/region that contributed at le ast 2 percent of to tal sulfate observed

on the 20 percent worst vi sibility days in 2002. 22 

### New Jersey did not meet the criteria and it was

concluded to not significantly co ntribute to visibility impairment in any of the Class I areas

identified. Table E3 summarizes New Jersey’s impact on the annual sulfate concentrations in

these areas by analysis.

20 Class I areas are defined as any national park larger than 6,000 acres in size, national wilderness areas or

memorial parks greater than 5,000 acres in size, and all in ternational parks which were in existence on August 7,

1977.

21 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.

22 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia were not identified as being among the

political or regional units contributing at least 2 percent of sulfate at any of the seven Class I areas. However, as

participants in MANE-VU, those entities have agreed to pursue adoption of regional control measures aimed at

visibility improvement on the haziest days and prevention of visibility degradation on the clearest days. This is why

MANE-VU states identified other MANE-VU states that did not contribute the 2 percent as contributing to them as

MANE-VU members.9 

### Table E3 : New Jersey’s Contributions by Percent (%) to the Annual Sulfate Concentration

in Class I Areas by Analysis 1

Class I Area

Modeling

Analysis Acadia,

ME Brigantine,

NJ Dolly

Sods,

WV Great

Gulf,

NH Lye

Brook,

VT Moosehorn,

ME Shenandoah,

VA

REMSAD (%) 1.40 4.04 0.27 0.89 1.44 1.03 0.48

Q/D 2 (%) 0.76 4.22 0.43 3.11 0.75 0.48 1.82

CALPUFF 3

(NWS 4

Observations)

(%) 0.98 3.37 0.28 0.63 0.67 0.75 0.52

CALPUFF

(MM5 5 ) (%) 0.97 3.60 NA NA 0.91 NA 0.49

Percent time

upwind method

(%) 1.02 6.01 0.99 1.39 0.78 0.49

1. Full details on the modeling analyses can be found at: MANE-VU. Contributions to Re gional Haze in the Northeast

and Mid-Atlantic: Mid-Atla ntic/Northeast Visibility Un ion (MANE-VU) Contribution Assessment United States.

Prepared by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast

Visibility Union (MANE-VU), August 2006.

2. Q/D = Empirical emissions divided by distance approach

3. CALPUFF = Lagrangian dispersion model developed by EarthTech, Inc.

4. NWS = National Weather Service

5. MM5 = Fifth Generation Mesoscale Model



### The full details of the modeling analyses lis ted can be found in the regional contribution

assessment report. 23 

### There is substantial consistency acro ss a variety of analysis methods using

techniques based on disparate chemical, mete orological, and physical principles. Taken

together, these findings create a strong weight-of-e vidence case for the preliminary identification

of the most significant contributor s to visibility impairment in the MANE-VU Class I areas.

These findings are relevant to the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### standards because PM 2.5 

### is the primary

component of regional haze as they suggest that an effective emissions management approach

would rely heavily on broad-based regional SO 2 

### control efforts in the eastern United States

aimed at reducing summertime PM 2.5 

### concentrations.

The Regional Haze assessment concluded that Ne w Jersey does not significantly contribute to

visibility impairment, based on sulfate impacts, to the Class I areas in Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, West Virginia, and Virginia. Main e, New Hampshire, and Vermont included New

Jersey as a contributing state in their Region al Haze SIPs, based on an agreement that all

MANE-VU states would be included as impacting MANE-VU Class I areas.

23 MANE-VU. Contributions to Re gional Haze in the Northeast and Mi d-Atlantic: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast

Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Contribution Assessment Un ited States. Prepared by Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Vi sibility Union (MANE-VU),

August 2006.10 

### State Collaborative Modeling Analysis

The Midwestern, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern st ates agreed to work together to develop a

framework to achieve the public health goals of the ozone and particulate matter standards in

March 2009 (see Appendix D). Some of the Southeastern states also participat ed in the technical

effort. This became known as the State Collabor ative effort. A significant modeling effort was

undertaken to support on-going State Collaborativ e policy discussions, estimate interstate

impacts according to 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) (Section 110(a)(2 )(D)(i)), and to assess future

control programs for more stringe nt ozone and particulate matter standards. While this effort

was intended to inform the Collaborative proce ss, it was not intended for regulatory or legal

purposes. Thus, the results are only meant to provide reasonable estimates of significant

contributions and emission reductions (discussed later) that can support state policy making. The

weight-of-evidence approach allows for the in corporation of the Stat e Collaborative modeling

results to better inform New Jersey’s decisi ons with respect to interstate transport.

The modeling analyses demonstrated that New Jers ey significantly contri butes to the annual and

24-hour PM 2.5 

### levels for 2005 in the following nonatt ainment areas: Lancaster and York,

Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Mary land; Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut; New York

City, New York; and New Haven, Connecticut (refer to Appendix D). The criteria for

significance used was equivalent to one percent (1%) of the st andard. Table E4 lists New

Jersey’s contribution to bot h the annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 

### concentrations to those nonattainment

areas.

Table E4 : New Jersey’s Contributions to Annua l and 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter

Nonattainment Demonstrated by the Stat e Collaborative Modeling Analysis for 2005

Nonattainment Area Lancaster York Baltimore New YorkN.New

Jersey-Long

Island New

York

City New

Haven

State(s) PA PA MD NY-NJ-CT NY CT

24-Hour PM 2.5 

### Contribution

( ≥ 0.35 μg/m 3 

### ) 1.38 1.31 1.48 15.82 5.29 1.94

Annual PM 2.5 

### Contribution

( ≥ 0.15 μg/m 3 

### ) 0.59 0.43 0.38 6.07 2.22 0.40

Summary of the Modeling Analyses

The four modeling analyses applie d in addressing New Jersey’s si gnificant contri butions to the

24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS represent a weight-of-evidence appr oach to satisfying this requirement.

Table E5 provides a summary of the results of th e modeling analyses used in this approach.11 

### Table E5 : Summary of New Jersey’s Contribution s to Other States’ Fine Particulate

Matter Concentrations by Analysis

Analysis PM 2.5 

### CAIR

Modeling 8-Hour

Ozone

CAIR

Modeling NO

x 

### SIP

Call

Modeling Regional

Haze

Modeling 1 

### State

Collaborative

Modeling

State(s) NJ

Only NJ+DE NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only

Connecticut x x x

Maine x

Maryland x

Massachusetts x

New Hampshire x

New York x x x x

Pennsylvania x x x

Rhode Island x x

1. The regional haze analyses concluded that New Jers ey did not significantly im pact any of the states

with Class I areas analyzed in the study.



### Other Factors in Significa nt Contribution Assessment

New Jersey’s weight-of-evidence appro ach uses the best data available. 24 

### As better tools become

available, to the extent necessary, New Jersey will re-evaluate its determinations. While the

methods analyzed did not identify Delaware as a state that New Jersey impacts, the methods did

identify all of the states surrounding Delaware . Hence, New Jersey includes Delaware among

the other states to which New Jersey significantly contributes.

States listed in Table E5 that are not part of a PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area, i.e.,

attainment/maintenance areas, include Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode

Island. The ambient air quality data shown in Tabl e E6 shows that although these states continue

to meet the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, there are states that are “close to,” i.e.,

within five (5) percent the standard. Th e USEPA defined the WOE range for the 65 μg/m 3 

### 24-

hour (1997) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS for attainment modeling purposes as between 62 and 68 μg/m 3



### , which is five (5) percent of the standard. 25 

### Applying this same approach to New Jersey’s

contribution analysis, Maine and Rhode Island do not have monitors that are demonstrating 24-

hour PM 2.5 

### concentrations close to the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

24 The modeling analyses presented do not accurately model emissions on high electrical demand days (HEDDs),

which are hot, summer days on which the electrical demand is high and supplemented with uncontrolled electrical

generating units that produce a significant amount of NO

x . 25 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 Prot ection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Ai r Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007.).12 

### Table E6 : 2005-2008 Ambient Air Quality Data for 24-Hour PM 2.5 

### in Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont Compared to the 35 μg/m 3



### 24-Hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS

24-Hour PM 2.5 Monitored

Design Values ( μ g/m 3 ) 1 Percent within the 35 μg/m 3

24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (%)

State Monitor Site AQS

Monitor ID 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008

ME Lewiston - CKP 23-001-0011 29 26 24 26 17 26 31 25

Madawaska - Tang's Palace 23-003-0013 25 25 22 24 29 29 37 31

Presque Isle - Riverside St reet 23-003-1011 24 24 21 20 31 31 40 43

Portland - Tukey's Bridge 23-005- 0015 N/A N/A N/A 22 N/A N/A N/A 37

Portland - EMPACT 23-005-0027 31 27 N/A N/A 11 23 N/A N/A

Acadia NP - McFarland Hill 23-009-0103 23 22 22 20 34 37 37 43

Augusta - Lincoln St School 23-011-0016 28 26 24 26 20 26 31 26

Rumford - Rumford Avenue Parking

Lot 23-017-2001 30 29 25 32 14 17 29 9

MA Pittsfield 25-003-5001 34 30 30 27 3 14 14 N/A

Fall River-Globe St 25-005-1004 N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 29

Lynn 25-009-2006 33 26 27 27 6 26 23 N/A

Haverhill 25-009-5005 N/A 27 27 27 N/A 23 23 N/A

Lawrence 25-009-6001 N/A 28 28 27 N/A 20 20 N/A

Chicopee 25-013-0008 N/A 27 28 28 N/A 23 20 20

Springfield-Liberty P-Lot 25-013-0016 N/A 32 31 31 N/A 9 11 11

Chelmsford 25-017-0009 N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 29

Brockton 25-023-0004 29 28 29 28 17 20 17 20

Boston-Kenmore Sq 25-025-0002 N/A 29 30 29 N/A 17 14 18

Boston-One City Sq 25-025-0027 N/A 30 N/A 28 N/A 14 N/A 21

Boston-Harrison Ave 25-025-0042 N/A 29 N/A 29 N/A 17 N/A 17

Boston-North St 25-025-0043 34 31 31 28 3 11 11 20

Worcester-Washington St 25-027-0016 N/A 30 30 29 N/A 14 14 17

Worcester-Summer St 25-027-0023 N/A 31 N/A N/A N/A 11 N/A N/A

NH Laconia-Green St 33-001-2004 20 21 20 18 43 40 43 50

Keene 33-005-0007 31 31 29 34 11 11 17 3

Berlin 33-007-0014 27 26 N/A N/A 23 26 N/A N/A

Lebanon 33-009-0010 N/A N/A 23 21 N/A N/A 34 39

Manchester-Pearl St 33-011-0020 29 N/A N/A N/A 17 N/A N/A N/A

Nashua-Crown St 33-011-1015 N/A N/A 27 27 N/A N/A 23 23

Peterborough 33-011-5001 26 N/A N/A N/A 26 N/A N/A N/A

Pembroke 33-013-1006 N/A 26 25 24 N/A 26 29 31

Portsmouth-Pierce Island 33-015-0014 N/A 26 25 24 N/A 26 29 31

Claremont 33-019-0003 N/A 30 26 25 N/A 14 26 28

RI West Greenwich 44-003-0002 N/ A N/A N/A 22 N/A N/A N/A 36

Providence-Prairie Ave 44-007-0022 N/A N/A 29 29 N/A N/A 17 18

Providence-Eddy St 44-007-0028 N/A N/A N/A 27 N/A N/A N/A 22

East Providence 44-007-1010 N/ A N/A N/A 27 N/A N/A N/A 24

1. The 2005-2007 data are quality-assured. The 2008 data are use for comparison and should not be applied

as official numbers.

2. N/A = Data Not Available



### Conclusion for New Jersey’s Significant Contributions

In conclusion, New Jersey determines that with respect to the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS that it significantly contributes to Connecticut, De laware, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania , as shown in Table E7 and Figure E1.13 

### Table E7 : Summary of New Jersey’s Significant Contributions to Other States’ Fine

Particulate Matter Concentrations

Analysis PM 2.5 CAIR

Modeling 8-Hour

Ozone

CAIR

Modeling NO

x SIP

Call

Modeling Regional

Haze

Modeling 1 State

Collaborative

Modeling Significant

Contribution?

(Y/N)

State(s) NJ Only NJ+DE NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only

Connecticut x x x Y

Delaware Y

Maryland x Y

Massachusetts x Y

New Hampshire x Y

New York x x x x Y

Pennsylvania x x x Y

1. The regional haze analyses concluded that New Jersey did not significantly impact any of the other states with Class I

areas analyzed in the study.



### Figure E1 : States to which New Jersey Significan tly Contributes with respect to Fine

Particulate Concentrations in Other Stat es based upon a Weight-of-Evidence Approach14 

### b) Interference with Measures Required to Meet the Implementation Plan for Any

Other State Related to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

The previous subsection summarizes the states New Jersey significantly impacts related to

attainment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) also requires protections to prevent further degradation of attainment and

maintenance areas. According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, “this requirement is satisfied for

PM 2.5 

### if a state’s SIP includes preconstruction revi ew programs for major sources that satisfy the

requirements of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(b)(1) and 40 C.F.R. 51.166” (NSR and PSD, respectively). 26



### The USEPA guidance also states, “Unless th e area has known outstanding permit program

deficiencies, it is not necessary, at this time, fo r states to make a SIP submission containing rule

changes specifically to address secti on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

If this is the case, the state can submit an appropr iate certification as described previously in this

guidance.” 27 

### In addition, notwithstanding the ab sence of PSD increments for PM 2.5 

### , the USEPA

believes that states may continue to rely upon their existing PSD and NNSR permitting programs

to prevent significant deterioratio n of air quality within their own boundaries and in adjacent

states until such increments are established. New Jersey’s existing PSD and NSR programs and

subsequent revisions provide and will continue to provide these protections for new or modified

sources. The details of these prog rams are discussed in Section A. New Jersey certifies that it

has a PSD program in place.

c) Interference with Measures Required to Meet the Implementation Plan for Any

Other State Related to Region al Haze and Visibility

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Secti on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ) requires protections to protect

visibility. According to the USEPA’s 2009 guidance, this requirement consists of two phases of

visibility protection, i.e., reasona bly attributable visi bility impairment (RAVI) (Phase 1) and

regional haze (Phase 2). 28 

### RAVI is visibility impairment a ttributable to a single source/small

group of sources and regional haze is impairment from a multitude of sources over a large area.

New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP 29 

### addresses both regional h aze and RAVI. The following

discussion provides an explanat ion of how New Jersey is meeting these requirements.

Reasonably Attributable Visi bility Impairment (RAVI)

Under the 1980 Federal regulations, currently at 40 C.F.R. 51.300-51.307, New Jersey was

included in the 35 states that were required to submit SIPs to address RAVI at 40 C.F.R.

26 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

27 ibid.

28 USEPA Memorandum from William T. Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Directors, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-

Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS),” September 25, 2009. (see Appendix

C).

29 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.15 

### 51.300(b)(2). At 40 C.F.R. 52.1606, New Jersey is under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

for visibility monitoring (requirement at 40 C.F.R. 51.305 and provisions at 40 C.F.R. 52.26),

New Source Review (requirement at 40 C.F.R. 51.307 and provisions at 40 C.F.R. 52.28), and a

long-term strategy (pro visions at 40 C.F.R. 52.29). New Jersey has addressed these components

in its Regional Haze SIP. 30 

### This document outlines New Jersey’s long-term plan (2018) for

addressing visibility-impairing air pollution within its bor ders and from out-of -state sources that

impact New Jersey’s Federally prot ected visibility area or Class I area, the Brigantine Wilderness

Area. The following section from the Regiona l Haze SIP addresses the RAVI requirement:

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 appl icable Federal rules

for review of the impacts on Class I areas.

New Jersey’s PSD program prevents new an d modified sources from significantly

impacting visibility. The PSD program include s a requirement that evaluates the new

source's visibility impact on any nearby Class I areas (Brigantine in New Jersey’s case).

In some cases, the Federal Land Manage r may exempt smaller, more distant PSD

sources from having to do the visibility analysis , but the larger sources with the greatest

chance of adversely impacting visibility at Br igantine will have to address the issue. In

addition, older sources are expected to shut down with time, and new source emissions

are minimized, thereby improving air quality and enhancing visibil ity 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' Ai r 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

PM10 emissions in tons per year, and then divides by the dist ance to the Class I area in

kilometers (km). If the result is greater than 10, a visibility analys is must be done. The

non-PSD sources will be reviewed on a case by case basis depending on the emissions

and the distance.

10.2.2 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 progress reports and State plan

revisions.

New Jersey certifies that no source within the St ate emits pollutants that interfere with RAVI

measures included in the applicable implementation plan of another state.

30 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.16 

### Regional Haze

New Jersey is meeting the regional haze requirement through its Regional Haze SIP. The latest

revision was submitted to the USEPA on July 29, 2009. 31 

### As discussed in subsection 1 above,

the contribution assessment performed for the Regional Haze SIP concluded that New Jersey

does not significantly contribute to visibility impairment, based on sulfate impacts at the Class I

areas in Maine, New Hampshire, Ve rmont, West Virginia, and Virginia. 32 

### Maine, New

Hampshire, and Vermont included New Jersey in their Regional Haze SIPs, based on an

agreement that all MANE-VU states would be included as impacting MANE-VU Class I areas.

33,34,35



### d) New Jersey’s Remedy to its PM 2.5 

### Interstate Contributions

New Jersey has taken a number of recent actions as well as measures that have been in place for

many years to address its contribution to downwind areas. Table E8 lists New Jersey’s recently

adopted control measures that reduce PM 2.5 

### , SO 2 

### , NO

x 

### , and VOC emissions. 36 

### Some of these

SIP measures are approved by the USEPA, as listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 52, Subpart FF, while

other measures are pending approval by the USEPA.

31 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.

32 Refer to the “Regional Haze Modeling Analysis” section for more details.

33 Maine’s regional haze SIP is not yet available but electronic communication w ith Maine supports that New Jersey

does not significantly contribute to its Class I Areas.

34 NHDES. New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision, Final Draft. New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services , November 3, 2008.

35 VTDEC. Vermont State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision Regional Haze, Draft. State of Vermont,

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), January 15, 2009.

36 Although the USEPA does not consider VOC as a PM 2.5 precursor for SIP and conformity purposes, New Jersey

anticipates a PM 2.5 benefit from the implementation of these measures.17 

### Table E8 : New Jersey’s Recently Adopted Contro l Measures to Reduce Emissions of PM 2.5



### and its Precursors

Measure Pollutant Reduced

PM 2.5 SO 2 NO

x VOC*

Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units

(EGUs) (Coal) x x x

Boilers Serving EGUs (Oil and Gas) x

CAIR/NO

x Budget x x

Refinery Consent Decrees x x x x

PSEG-Consent Decree x x x

Asphalt Production x

NO

x Reasonably Available Control Technology)

(RACT) Rule (2006) x

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers

(2009) x

Glass Manufacturing x

Municipal Waste Combustor NO

x rule x

Case by Case NO

x (Facility-Specific Emission

Limits (FSELs)/Alternative Emission Limits

(AELs)) x

High Electrical Demand Day (HEDD) x

Sewage sludge incinerators

x

On-board Diagnostics (OBD) I/M x

Diesel Vehicle Idling x x

Diesel Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) x x

Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Program

x

Architectural Coatings 2005 x

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 x

Consumer Products 2005 x

Consumer Products 2009 x

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 x

Adhesives & Sealants x

Petroleum Storage x

Case by Case VOC (AELs) x

Asphalt Paving (cutback and emulsified) x

Group 1: Printing x

Energy Master Plan

x x x x

Mercury Rule

x x x

* Although the USEPA does not consider 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.

New Jersey has not quantified this benefit and is including the VOC measures in this list for

informational purposes.



### New Jersey is also proposing or evaluati ng additional measures that would reduce PM 2.5



### emissions. These are summarized in Table E9.18 

### Table E9 : Control Measures under Evaluation

Measure Current Status of Measure

Low sulfur distillate and residual fuel strategies Proposed 11/16/2009 (41 N.J.R.

4156(a)), Implementation in 2014 with

2016 as Phase 2

Fugitive Dust at Stationary Sources Analysis underway

Open Burning Permit Revisions Analysis underway

#6 Fuel Oil-Fired Boilers To be evaluated

Stationary Diesel Engines To be evaluated

Residential Wood Burning Strategies To be evaluated

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Proposed

Refineries Analysis underway



### As part of its evaluation of potential control meas ures, New Jersey worked with other states in

the OTC and LADCO and reached a consen sus through the State Collaborative on

recommendations to the USEPA on a framewor k that the USEPA shoul d follow to develop a

replacement rule for the CAIR (see Appendix D). This framework include d potential controls

not only for national rules involving significantly contributing states that combine statewide

emission caps and complementary regional tradi ng programs but support for a Federal program

that also requires substantial regional emissi on reductions from mob ile and area sources.

Quantitative analyses performed showed that New Jersey could reduce its impact if controls are

applied to EGUs. In one of the assessments conducted by the OTC, applying EGU emission

control rates of 0.07 pounds per million Brit ish Thermal Units (lb/mmBTU) for NO

x 

### and 0.15

lb/mmBTU for SO 2 

### in New Jersey would reduce emissi ons by 27 percent (%) (2,483 tons) and

33 percent (%) (6,934 tons) for 2008, respectiv ely (see Appendix D, “OTC CAIR Replacement

Rule Recommendation Technical Support Document”) . Using that assessment as a guide to

determine what EGU emission control rates to recommend, similar rates were modeled for 2012

and 2018, as shown in Figure E2. Figure E3 shows the improvement in daily PM 2.5 

### concentrations across the region for 2012. Figure E4 shows that only five (5) counties in the

Northeast, including counties in New Je rsey, are not attaining the daily PM 2.5 

### standard in 2012.

Thus, the regional modeling performed shows that an EGU-based strategy would have a positive

impact on PM 2.5 

### air quality in the region and that while nearby sources have the greatest impact,

significant contribution to levels of PM 2.5 

### can come from states several hundred miles away.

This modeling demonstrates that Ne w Jersey would reduce its daily PM 2.5 

### significant

contributions through a future EGU-based control st rategy prior to the expe cted attainment date

of 2014 for the 35 μg/m 3 

### daily PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. This control strategy proposal is similar to

performance standards adopted by New Jersey on March 20, 2009, 37 

### which will be effective by

December 2012. New Jersey’s emission rate for SO 2 

### is as stringent as modeled. The NO

x 

### emission rates are comparable to the rate modeled, i.e., 0.125 lb/mmBTU, depending upon the

averaging times relevant for the model. Thus, the estimated EGU reductions from the rule are

anticipated to be similar to the reductions a ssumed in the modeling scenario described above.

37 Adopted Rules Published in NJ Register - 41 N.J.R. 1752(a).19 

### Figure E2 : Modeled EGU Emission Control Ra tes by the State Collaborative*

* Refer to Appendix D for more details.



### Figure E3 : Daily PM 2.5 

### Air Quality Improvement for 2012*

*Refer to Appendix D for more details. 0 1,500,000 3,000,000 4,500,000 6,000,000 7,500,000 9,000,000

2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C

2012-E 2018-F 2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C

2012-E 2018-F Eastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (tpy)



## SO 2 

## NO

x

Scenario E Scenario F

(2012) (2018)

0.125 lb/MMBTU 0.07 Scenario E Scenario F

(2012) (2018)

0.25 lb/MMBTU 0.1020 

### Figure E4 : Daily PM 2.5 

### Concentrations in 2012*

* Refer to Appendix D for more details.



### New Jersey is complying with the Federal Clean Air Act’s requirements regarding interstate

transport as it relates to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and is doing more to ensure that it is not interfering

with the ability of its neighboring states to attain and maintain that standard or visibility goals.

While many of New Jersey’s existing control meas ures listed in Tables E8 and E9 are already

more stringent than the existing pollution cont rol requirements in many neighboring states, New

Jersey will consider any additional measures , which will be implemented by the neighboring

upwind and downwind states, such as those modele d by the State Collaborative, if they would

provide additional emission reductions.

The control measures implemented in New Jers ey address its contributions to the downwind

areas, ensuring that its sources’ em issions do not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of

the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS or measures that prevent si gnificant deterior ation and protect

visibility in another state. Ne w Jersey expects the other signifi cantly contributing states to the

downwind areas of interest to timely implemen t reasonable measures, including measures similar

to New Jersey’s, to address their contributions and to help bring the areas into attainment of the

PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, preserving the maintenance of the st andard, and meeting vi sibility goals.

2) Other States’ Significant Impacts on New Jersey

Applying the same weight-of-evid ence approach, New Jersey assessed the significant impact that

other states have on New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in its thirteen (13) counties designated as

not attaining the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and interfere with the maintenance of

attainment in the remaining eight (8) counties. These analyses represent the best available data

at the time of this SIP revision.21 

### PM 2.5 

### CAIR Analysis

The USEPA’s modeling analysis in support of th e CAIR indicated that the following states

significantly contribute to PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in New Jersey’s associated PM 2.5 

### multi-state

nonattainment areas: 38



###  Maryland/Washington, D.C.,

 Michigan,

 New York,

 Ohio,

 Pennsylvania,

 West Virginia, and

 Virginia.

The same analysis indicates that the followi ng upwind states significantly contribute to PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in Union County, New Jersey: 39



###  Maryland/Washington, D.C.,

 Michigan,

 New York,

 Ohio,

 Pennsylvania, and

 West Virginia.

Table E10 summarizes the annual average PM 2.5 

### significant contributions from the upwind states

on Union County’s nonattainment for the annual standard.

Table E10 : Fine Particulate Matter Significant Contributions to Union County in 2010

According to CAIR Modeling 1



### Upwind State PM 2.5 

### Contribution (μg/m 3 

### )

Maryland/D.C. 0.25

Michigan 0.20

New York 0.34

Ohio 0.51

Pennsylvania 0.81

West Virginia 0.25

1. Data Source: Appendix H - PM 2.5 Contributions to Each

Nonattainment County in 2010, Technical Support Document for the

Final Clean Air Interstate Rule Ai r Quality Modeling. United States

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 2005.

38 USEPA. Technical Support Document for the Final Clea n Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling, Air Quality

Modeling Analyses – VII: Modeling to Assess Interstate PM 2.5 Contributions. United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triang le Park, NC, March 2005.

39 Union County was the only New Jersey county identified in nonattainment by the USEPA’s CAIR analysis.22 

### Whereas the CAIR modeling analyses addressed th e combined significant impacts of Delaware’s

and New Jersey’s emissions on other states, it di d not analyze the impact s from other states on

Delaware and New Jersey combined.

Ozone Modeling Analysis

As discussed in the previous subsection on New Jersey’s significant contributions, ozone will be

used as a surrogate transported pollutant for PM 2.5 

### since NO

x 

### (i.e., nitrates) are precursors to

PM 2.5



### .

8-Hour Ozone CAIR

The modeling results from the 8-hour ozone CAIR analysis showed that several upwind states

contribute to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in New Jersey counties projected to be in

nonattainment in 2010 and 2015. Table E11 lists thes e counties, the percent of 8-hour ozone due

to transport, and the upw ind contributing states.

Table E11 : Upwind Contributing Stat es to Projected 2010 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment

in New Jersey Counties as Demonstrated by the 8-Hour Ozone CAIR Modeling Analysis

New Jersey

County 2010 Base

8-Hour

Ozone

(ppb) Percent of 8-

Hour

Ozone due to

Transport Contributing States 1



### Bergen 86 38% MD/DC, MI, OH, PA , VA, WV

Camden 91 57% DE, MD/DC, MI, OH, PA , VA,

WV

Gloucester 91 62% DE, MD/DC , MI, OH, PA, VA,

WV

Hunterton 89 26% DE, MD/DC, OH, PA , VA, WV

Mercer 95 36% DE, MD/DC, MI, NY, OH, PA

, VA, WV

Middlesex 92 62% DE, MD/DC, MI, NY, OH, PA

, VA, WV

Monmouth 86 65% DE, MD/DC, MI, NY, OH, PA

, VA, WV

Morris 86 63% DE, MD/DC, MI, NY, OH, PA

, VA, WV

Ocean 100 82% DE, MD/DC, MI, NY, OH, PA

, VA,WV

1. The most contributi ng state is noted in bold and is underlined

.

Based upon this modeling analysis, most of the 8-hour ozone calculated at the New Jersey

monitors is due to transport w ith Pennsylvania as the major contributing state in most cases.23 

### NO

x 

### SIP Call

The modeling results from the NO

x 

### SIP Call analysis showed that several upwind states contain

sources which significantly impact ozone nonattainment in New Jersey. 40 

### The upwind states

identified were Delaware, Di strict of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,

Michigan, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl vania, Virginia, and We st Virginia. Tables

E12 and E13 summarize the quantitative results from this modeling. Full details on the modeling

results are discussed in the USEPA’s report en titled, “Air Quality Modeling Technical Support

Document for the Regional NO

x 

### SIP Call,” September 23, 1998.

40 63 Fed. Reg. 57356 (October 28, 1998).24 

### Table E12 : Others States’ Contributions to 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment in New Jersey

According to the NO

x 

### SIP Call Modeling Analyses 1,2

Upwind State/Area

Model Type Maximum

Contribution

(ppb) Highest Daily

Average

Contribution (ppb) Frequency of Contributi on Relative Amount

(% of total manmade

ppb ≥ 85 ppb (8-hr)

Illinois:

UAM-V

CAMx 3

8 -

5 2 ppb to 3% of exceedances

2 ppb to 37% of exceedances

5 ppb to 10% of exceedances 3

2

Indiana:

UAM-V

CAMx 3

8 -

- 2 ppb to 4% of exceedances

2 ppb to 34% of exceedances 3

2

Kentucky:

UAM-V

CAMx 4

8 -

7 2 ppb to 7% of exceedances

- 3

2

Maryland/DC/Delaware:

CAMx 71 31 10 ppb to 60% of exceedances 20

Michigan:

UAM-V

CAMx 7

10 -

7 2 ppb to 11% of exceedances

2 ppb to 35% of exceedances

5 ppb to 9% of exceedances 4

2

North Carolina:

UAM-V

CAMx 18

25 -

7 2 ppb to 9% of exceedances

5 ppb to 3% of exceedances

2 ppb to 11% of exceedances

5 ppb to 4% of exceedances 4

3

New York:

CAMx 24 22 2 ppb to 7% of exceedances 25 (on that highest

day)

Ohio:

UAM-V

CAMx 9

17 -

6 2 ppb to 38% of exceedances

5 ppb to 5% of exceedances

2 ppb to 39% of exceedances

5 ppb to 11% of exceedances 10

12 (on that highest

day)

Pennsylvania:

CAMx 62 31 10 ppb to 71% of exceedances 26

Virginia:

UAM-V

CAMx 32

38 -

20 5 ppb to 22% of exceedances

10 ppb to 27% of exceedances 19

9

West Virginia:

UAM-V

CAMx 15

16 -

9 5 ppb to 37% of exceedances

10 ppb to 11% of exceedances

2 ppb to 39% of exceedances

5 ppb to 11% of exceedances 18

5

1. This table was compiled using Appendix D in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s report entitled,

“Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Regional NO

x SIP Call,” September 23, 1998.

2. 8-ozone nonattainment is only presented in this tabl e because New Jersey was not modeled as a separate

nonattainment area for 1-hour ozone. It was a part of the Philadelphia and New York City nonattainment areas.25 

### Table E13 : Percent Contribution from Upwind States to 8-Hour Nonattainment in New

Jersey based upon the NO

x 

### SIP Call Modeling Analyses26 

### Regional Haze Modeling Analysis

In New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP, states we re identified as contri buting to visibility

impairment to New Jersey’s Class I area, based on the MANE-VU assessment discussed

previously, which used a combination of several techniques or based on th eir involvement in the

MANE-VU Planning Organiza tion. A summary of the states id entified using these methods is

shown in Figure E5.

Figure E5 : States Identified as Cont ributing to Visibility Impair ment in New Jersey’s Class

I Area

New Jersey Illi no is

G e or gi a M ic hi ga n

K e ntuck y

Te n ne ssee

South C arolina M ic higa n

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

V irg in ia I ndia na 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

Alabam 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 N o 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



### The regional assessment performed for MANE- VU by NESCAUM, as well as other analyses

used in New Jersey’s regional haze plan, conclude d that sulfates were the predominant pollutant

responsible for causing visibility impairment in the Northeastern United States in the period,

2000 - 2004. 41 

### Sulfur dioxide, the primary precursor for PM 2.5 

### , is the primary precursor pollutant

for sulfate particles. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than 50 percent of particlerelated light extinction at northeastern Class I areas on the clearest days and for as much as or

more than 80 percent on the haziest days. 42



### The NESCAUM Assessment used the Eulerian grid model, REMSAD, as one of the methods in

the assessment. This type of model is likely to yield a more definitive assessment of contribution

from different sources. Eulerian or “grid” m odels strive to provide a comprehensive accounting

of the impacts from the emissions by consid ering the meteorological dynamics, chemical

production, transformation, and destruction as we ll as wet and dry deposition and microphysical

processes. With this degree of sophistication also comes a ttendant uncertain ty, thus the

41 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (S IP) for Regional Haze, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, July 2009.

42 NESCAUM. Contributions to Regional Haze in th e Northeast and Mid-Atlan tic: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast

Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Contribution Assessment Un ited States. Prepared by Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Vi sibility Union (MANE-VU),

August 2006.27 

### consideration of more than one analysis system . REMSAD was used with a 12 kilometer grid in

the eastern United States domain. The air qual ity was modeled using 22 vertical layers with

hourly temporal resolution for the entire calendar year 2002. RE MSAD has simplified chemistry

but allows for emissions tracking of sulfate, ni trate, and mercury thr ough a tagging feature that

calculates the contribution of specific sources to ambient concentrations, visibility impacts, and

wet or dry deposition. REMSAD m odel was used primarily for attr ibution of sulfate species in

the Eastern United States via the species-tagging scheme included in Version 7.10 and newer

versions of the model. Sulfate is the focus of the regional haze plan for the first milestone period

year (2018) in the MANE-VU Class I states.

The left side of Figure E6 presen ts the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

(IMPROVE) monitored data by species for 2000-2004 (the baseline years), the center provides

the REMSAD modeling results for 2002 indicating the contributions of the measured sulfate

concentrations by states and regions, and, on the right, three maps indicating meeting the

following criteria:

1. States/regions th at contributed 0.1 μg/m 3 

### sulfate or greater on the 20 percent worst

visibility days in the base year (2002).

2. States/regions that contributed at least 2 percent of total sulfate observed on 20 percent

worst visibility days in 2002.

3. The top ten contributing states on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2002.

Figure E6 : Modeled 2002 Contributions to Sulfate by State and Canada 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 CANADA

CENRAP

SE_BC

W_BC

N_BC

VT

RI

ME

DC

MS

CT

NH

MA

WI

NY

AL

IL

SC

MI

KY

TN

IN

NJ

DE

GA

WV

MD

VA

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

# # #



### Figure E7 demonstrates the 2018 REMSAD modele d results of sulfate contributions to

Brigantine by the MANE-VU states. The grap h compares the contributions on the 20 percent

best and worst visibility days to the annual average sulf ate concentration. Th e main contributory

states besides New Jersey in this comparis on are Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware.28 

### Figure E7 : Modeled 2018 Percent Sulfate Contributio ns by MANE-VU State at Brigantine

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTPercent Sulfate Contribution 2018 Worst 20%

2018 Annual Ave

2018 Best 20%



### For the purposes of deciding how broadly to cons ult to achieve visibility goals, the MANE-VU

States settled on the following criteria: any state/ region that contributed at least 2 percent of total

sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2002 was defined as a “contributor” to

visibility impairment (see Figure E6). Connect icut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of

Columbia were not identified as being among the political or regional units contributing at least

2 percent of sulfate at any of the seven Class I areas. However, as participants in MANE-VU,

those entities have agreed to pursue adoption of regional control measur es aimed at visibility

improvement on the haziest days and prevention of visibility de gradation on the clearest days.

For the purposes of achieving visibility goals, this is why MANE-VU states identified other

MANE-VU states that did not c ontribute the 2 percen t as contributing to them as MANE-VU

members but New Jersey did not include these states as significant contributors to the

nonattainment or maintenance of the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, according to 42 U.S.C. §

7410(a)(2)(D)(i) (Sectio n 110(a)(2)(D))(i).

State Collaborative Analysis

The State Collaborative modeling analyses for PM 2.5 

### showed significant c ontributions from other

states on PM 2.5 

### concentrations in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment

area for 2005 (see Appendix D). The criteria for si gnificance used was equivalent to 1 percent of

the standard, as discussed above. Table E14 lists both the annual an d 24-hour concentrations

associated with other states and areas that contribute to the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut nonattainment area. There ar e 14 geographical areas that contribute to

nonattainment for both the 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 

### standards.29 

### Table E14 : Contributions to Annual and 24-Hour Fi ne Particulate Matter in the Northern

New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Demonstrated by the State

Collaborative Modeling Analysis for 2005

Contributing Area 24-Hour PM 2.5



### Contribution

( ≥ 0.35 μg/m 3 

### ) Annual PM 2.5



### Contribution

( ≥ 0.15 μg/m 3 

### )

Indiana 0.63 0.19

Ohio 1.31 0.47

Michigan 0.47 0.32

North Carolina 0.78 0.19

Virginia 1.34 0.30

West Virginia 0.61 0.17

Maryland_DC 1.21 0.28

Delaware 0.62 0.25

Pennsylvania 5.43 1.98

New Jersey 15.82 6.07

New York 5.38 2.20

Connecticut_Rhode Island 0.89 0.20

Massachusetts 0.98 0.25

Canada 0.60 0.44

Illinois 0.42 NS 1



### CENRAP 2 

### _WRAP 3 

### _South 0.37 NS 1



### Kentucky 0.47 NS 1

1. NS = Not significant.

2. CENRAP = Central Regional Air Planning Association. CENRAP is an

organization of states, tribes, federa l agencies. The states included are

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas,

and Louisiana.

3. WRAP = Western Regional Air Partnership. The WRAP is made up of

western states, tribes, and federal agen cies. The states are Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.



### Conclusion for Other States’ Significant Impacts on New Jersey

The four modeling analyses applied in addressing other states ’ significant contributions to New

Jersey’s 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS represent a weight-of-evidence approach, using the best data

available.

The results from the four different analyses su mmarized in Table E15 show that these states

significantly contribute to New Jersey’s PM 2.5 

### nonattainment in its thirteen (13) counties

designated as not attaining the 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour (2006) PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and interfere with the

maintenance of attainment in the remaining eight (8) counties.30 

### Table E15 : Summary of Significant Contributions fr om Other States’ to New Jersey’s Fine

Particulate Matter Nonattainment and Maintenance by Analysis

Analysis PM 2.5 CAIR

Modeling 8-Hour

Ozone CAIR

Modeling NO

x SIP Call

Modeling Regional Haze

Modeling 1 State

Collaborative

Modeling Significant

Contribution?

(Y/N)

State(s)/Area(s) NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NJ Only NNJ/NY/CT 2

Canada x Y

CENRAP 3 _WRAP 4 _South x Y

Connecticut x (combined with

Rhode Island) Y

Delaware x x x x Y

District of Columbia x Y

Georgia x Y

Illinois x x x Y

Indiana x x x Y

Kentucky x x x Y

Maryland x (combined with

D.C.) x (combined

with D.C.) x x x (combined with

D.C.) Y

Massachusetts x Y

Michigan x x x x x Y

New York x x x x x Y

North Carolina x x x Y

Ohio x x x x x Y

Pennsylvania x x x x x Y

South Carolina x Y

Tennessee x Y

Virginia x x x x x Y

West Virginia x x x x x Y

1. Contributing states included those with a sulfate contribution >2%; Illinois and New York are also included based upon other

modeling techniques (see New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP).

2. Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area

3. CENRAP = Central Regional Air Planning Association. CENRAP is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies. The states

included are Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

4. WRAP = Western Regional Air Partnership. The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes, and federal agencies. The states are

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,

and Wyoming.31 

### New Jersey requests that the USEPA, when it eval uates the SIPs from these states, ensure that

they are not hindering the attain ment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in New Jersey or in

the multi-state nonattainment areas. With regard to regional haze, New Je rsey expects that the

USEPA and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) w ill monitor and ensure the emission reductions

from the contributing st ates to achieve the 2018 reasonable progress goals set for the Brigantine

Wilderness Area. As discussed in detail in Appendix D, New Jersey requests that the USEPA

consider recommendations made by the Stat e Collaborative and the OTC as the USEPA

develops a replacement rule for the CAIR.