## The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

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 Demon stration

Final

March 24 , 2009ii Preface

New Jersey is finalizing this revision to its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how the

State’s two shared multi

- state nonattainment areas will come into attainment with the 1997

health

- based annual fine p articulate matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by their attainment date of April 5, 2010. The plan for attainment contained in this document conforms to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) guidance and r ulemaking with respect to PM 2.5 attainment.

Acknowledgements

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) acknowledges the efforts and assistance of the many agencies and individuals whose contributions were instrumental in the

preparat ion of this State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. First, the NJDEP would like to thank the many participants of the NJDEP’s Reducing Air Pollution Together (RAPT) Initiative, whose insight into the prospective control measures and their implementation was most valuable.

The NJDEP would like to acknowledge the many individuals within the New Jersey Department of Transportation, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the United States Enviro nmental Protection Agency Region 2, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources a nd Environmental Control, the Virginia Department

of Environmental Protection , the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Quality , the Maryland Department of the Environment, the University of Maryland, the Ozone Transport Commission, the Mid

- Atlantic R egion for Air Management Association, Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, the Ozone Research Center at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey/Rutgers University , Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and the staff

within the NJDEP for their assistance and guidance.iii Table of Contents

Preface

...... ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... ii Acknowledgements

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. ii

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... iii

List of Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... vi List of Figures

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. viii List of Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. x Acronyms and Abbreviations

................................ ................................ ........................... x ii Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ xvii

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

................................ .................... 1

1.1 Fine Particulate Matter and its Associated Health Standards

............................. 1

1.2 Health and Welfare Impacts of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors

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

1.2.1 Fine Particulate Matter

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

1.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

................................ ................................ .......................... 9

1.2.3 Oxides of Nitrogen (NO

x )

................................ ................................ ................. 10

1.2.4 Other PM 2.5 Precursors

– Volatile Organic Compounds and Ammonia

.......... 11

1.3 Integrating PM 2.5 with Other Air Quality Goals

................................ ............... 12

1.3.1 Environmental Justice in New Jersey

................................ ............................... 13

1.3.2 Air Toxics

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 14

1.3.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

................................ ........................... 16

1.3.4 8

- Hour Ozone

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17

1.3.5 Regional Haze

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17

2.0 AIR QUALITY AMBIENT AND EMISSION INVENTORY DATA

....... 19

2.1 Measuring Fine Particle Pollution in the Atmosphere

– An Introduction to

PM 2.5 Monitoring

................................ ................................ .............................. 19

2.2 USEPA NAAQS for Fine Particle Pollution: Annual PM 2.5

........................... 20

2.2.1 Annual PM 2.5 Mean Concentrations and Design Values

................................ .. 20

2.3 USEPA NAAQS for Fine Particle Pollution: Daily (24

- Hour) PM 2.5

............. 26

2.3.1 Daily PM 2.5 98 th Percentile Average Concentrations and Design Values

........ 26

2.4 Composition of Fine Particle Pollution

– Speciated Monitoring Da ta and

Trends

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 32

2.5 PM 2.5 Source Apportionment

................................ ................................ ............ 35

2.6 Emission Inventory

................................ ................................ ........................... 42

2.7 Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 51

3.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

................................ .... 53

3.1 USEPA PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

................................ ................................ . 53

3.2 Summary of this SIP Revision

................................ ................................ .......... 58

4.0 CONTROL MEASURES

................................ ................................ ............... 59

4.1 Terminolog y

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 59

4.2 On the Books Controls

................................ ................................ ...................... 59

4.2.1 New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 60iv 4.2.2 Fede ral

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 62

4.3 Beyond On The Way Controls

................................ ................................ .......... 68

4.3.1 Identifying Measures

................................ ................................ ........................ 68

4.3.1.1 Regional Activities

................................ ................................ ........................... 68

4.3.1.2 Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)

................................ ............................... 69

4.3.1.3 Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management A ssociation (MARAMA)

................ 72

4.3.1.4 Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU)

................................ ... 74

4.3.1.5 State Specific Efforts

................................ ................................ ........................ 75

4.3.1.5.1 New Jersey Workgroup Efforts

................................ ................................ ........ 76

4.3.1.5.2 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) Energy Master Plan Efforts

... 77

4.3.1.5.3 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

................................ ........ 78

4.3.1.5.4 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis

........................... 78

4.3.1.5.5 Additional Measures

................................ ................................ ......................... 79

4.3.1.5.6 Federal

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 83

4.3.1.5.7 Additional A ctions

................................ ................................ ............................ 84

4.4 VOC Measures

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 87

4.5 Conclusions on Control Measures

................................ ................................ .... 89

5.0 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

................................ .......................... 93

5.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 93

5.2 Photochemical Modeling

................................ ................................ .................. 94

5.2.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 94

5.2.2 “One

- Atmosphere” Air Quality Model

................................ ............................. 95

5.2.2.1 Meteorology Data

................................ ................................ ............................. 96

5.2.2.2 Regional Emission Inventories

................................ ................................ ......... 96

5.2.2.2.1 Base Emission Inventory

................................ ................................ .................. 97

5.2.2.2.2 Emission Control Inventories

................................ ................................ ........... 99

5.2.2.3 Emissions Processor Selection and Configuration

................................ ......... 100

5.2.2.4 Regional Model ing Coordination

................................ ................................ ... 100

5.2.2.5 Domain and Data Base Issues

................................ ................................ ......... 100

5.2.2.5.1 Episode Selection

................................ ................................ ............................ 100

5.2.2.5.2 Size of the Modeling Domain

................................ ................................ ......... 100

5.2.2.5.3 Horizontal Grid Size

................................ ................................ ....................... 101

5.2.2.5.4 Vertical Res olution

................................ ................................ ......................... 101

5.2.2.5.5 Initial and Boundary Conditions

................................ ................................ ..... 102

5.2.2.6 Quality Assurance

................................ ................................ ........................... 102

5.2.2.7 Model Performance Evaluation

................................ ................................ ...... 103

5.2.2.7.1 Summary of Model Performance

................................ ................................ .... 103

5.2.3 Control Measur es Modeled

................................ ................................ ............. 104

5.2.4 Photochemical Modeling Results

................................ ................................ ... 109

5.3 Demonstrations

................................ ................................ ............................... 116

5.3.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 116

5.3.2 Supplemental Analysis/Weight

- of

- Evidence

................................ .................. 117

5.3.2.1 Monitoring Data Shows Trend tow ard Attainment of the Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS

and a Downward Trend in Ambient Air Concentrations

................................ 117v 5.3.2.2 Monitoring Data Shows Progress towards Attainment of the New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/ m 3

................................ ................................ ...................... 118

5.3.2.3 Discussion of Monitoring Results Collected at P.S. 59, Manhattan, New York

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 128

5.3.2.4 The Contribution of Transp ort to Nonattainment

................................ ........... 129

5.3.2.5 SO 2 CAIR Reductions May Provide Early Reductions in PM 2.5

.................... 129

5.3.2.6 Additional Measures Not I ncluded in the 2009 BOTW Attainment Modeling

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 131

5.3.2.6.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 131

5.3.2.6.2 Additional Measures to Improve Air Quality

................................ ................. 132

5.4 Emission Reduction Credits from Shutdowns and Curtailments

.................... 137

5.5 Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 138

5.6 Unmonitored Area Analysis

................................ ................................ ........... 139

5.7 Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 140

6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

................................ ................................ ... 142

6.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 142

6.2 Contingency Measures for the Attainment Demonstration

............................ 143

6.3 Contingency Measure Implementation Schedule

................................ ........... 147

6.4 Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 147

7.0 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

................................ ..................... 148

7.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 148

7.2 Transportation Conformity for PM 2.5

................................ .............................. 151

7.2.1 Interim Tests to be used Prior to the Establishment of Budgets

..................... 151

7.2.2 PM 2.5 Precursors

................................ ................................ .............................. 151

7.2.3 Road Dust and Construction Related Fugitive D ust

................................ ....... 152

7.2.4 Early Budgets for PM 2.5

................................ ................................ .................. 153

7.3 Budgets for Attainment of the Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS

................................ ... 154

8.0 SECTION 110 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

....................... 156

8.1 Introduction and Background

................................ ................................ ......... 156

8.2 Inte rstate Transport (§ 110(a)(2)(D))

................................ .............................. 15 8

8.2.1 Significant Contribution to Nonattainment, or Interference with Maintenance, of a NAAQS in Another State

................................ ................................ ........ 15 8

8.2.2 The Regional Haze and Visibil ity Interference Requirement

......................... 1 59

8.2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Nonattainment New Source Review (PSD/NNSR) Requirement

................................ ................................ ............. 1 6 2

8.3 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 6 3

9.0 COMMITMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ACTION

............. 165

9.1 Control Measure Commitments

................................ ................................ ...... 165

9.2 Transport

- Related Requirements

................................ ................................ .... 168

9.3 State Requests of the USEPA

................................ ................................ ......... 169

10.0 CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ............................. 170vi List of Tables

Table 1.1: 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 Standards

................................ ................................ ......... 5 Table 2.1: Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual

PM 2.5 Means for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 1999

- 2006

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Table 2.2: Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Means for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 1999

- 2006

.................. 23 Table 2.3: Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual

PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State,

2001

- 2006

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 25 Table 2.4: Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006

...... 26

Table 2.5: PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in the 1997 PM 2.5 Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006

................................ ................................ ..... 28

Table 2.6: PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in the 1997 PM 2.5 Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006

................................ ................................ ............................. 29

Table 2.7: Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 Table 2.8: Southern New Jersey/Phila delphia Nonattainment Area Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006

...... 31 Table 2.9: Study Results from the Potential Source Contribution Function ( PSCF) and Conditional Probability Function (CPF) Analyses, Kim and Hopke (2004)

.. 37 Table 4.1: Summary of Emission Standards for Recreational Vehicles

........................... 66 Table 4.2: Final OTC Control Measure Source Categories ,

................................ ............. 70 Table 4.3: Summary of MANE

- VU Planning Targets

................................ ..................... 75

Table 4.4: VOC Control Measures

................................ ................................ ................... 88

Table 4.5: PM 2.5 Control Measure Summary

................................ ................................ .... 89

Table 5.1: Modeled Control Measures Includ ed in the 2009 BOTW Model Run

.......... 106 Table 5.2: Ozone Transport Region

- Wide Modeling Assumptions for the 2009 BOTW

Model Run

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 108

Ta ble 5.3: 2009 Modeled PM 2.5 Design Values for the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Areas

................................ ....................... 113

Table 5.4: 2009 Modeled PM 2.5 Design Values for the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia/Delaware Nonattainment Area

................................ ..... 115

Table 5.5: Annual Ambient PM 2.5 Levels in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area

................................ ........................ 119

Table 5.6: Ambient PM 2.5 Design Values in the Northern New Jersey/New York

Connecticut Nonattainment Area

................................ ................................ .. 121

Table 5.7: Annual Ambient PM 2.5 Levels in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia

Nonattainment Area

................................ ................................ ...................... 123

Table 5.8: Ambient PM 2.5 Design Values in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia

Nonattainment Area

................................ ................................ ...................... 124vii Table 5.9: Averaged Daily PM 2.5 Ambient Levels in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area ( μ g/m 3 )

................................ ........... 125

Table 5.10: Aver aged Daily PM 2.5 Ambient Levels in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area ( μ g/m 3 )

................................ ........ 127

Table 5.1 1 : Reductions from CAIR in 2010 in States that Significantly Contribute to

Ozone or Fine Particulate Levels in New Jersey and the Modeled Contribution

to NYC from those States

................................ ................................ ............. 130

Table 6.1 : PM 2.5 Attainment Contingency Measures for 2009

, New Jersey Portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area (tons per year)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 145

Table 6.2 : PM 2.5 Attainment Contingency Measures for 2009

, New Jersey Portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area (tons per year)

...... 146 Table 7.1: Existing and Updated Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets for PM 2.5 Attainment

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 155

Table 9. 1 : PM 2.5 State Control Measure Commitments Not Yet Adopted and Conti ngency Measures

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 6

Table 9.2: Additional Control Measures

................................ ................................ ......... 167viii List of Figures

Figure 1.1: New Jersey

- Associated 1997 PM 2.5 Nona ttainment Areas

.............................. 4 Figure 2.1: Particulate Monitoring Network in New Jersey

................................ ............. 20 Figure 2.2: Northern New Jersey/ New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual

PM 2.5 Mean Concentrations for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors in Each Associated State, 1999

- 2006

................................ ................................ .. 21 Figure 2.3: Southern New Jersey/Philad elphia Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Mean Concentrations for the Consistently Highest Monitors in Each Associated State, 1999

- 2006

................................ ................................ ............................. 22 Figure 2.4: Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Non attainment Area Annual

PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors in each Associated State, 2001

- 2006

................................ ................................ ........... 24 Figure 2.5: Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Annu al PM 2.5 Design Values for the Consistently Highest Monitors in each Associated State, 2001

- 2006

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 25 Figure 2.6: PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in each Associated State in the 1997 PM 2.5 Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006

................... 27 Figure 2.7: PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Consistently Hi ghest

Monitors in each Associated State in the 1997 PM 2.5 Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006

................................ ..... 28 Figure 2.8: Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highe st Monitors in each Associated State in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Area, 2001

- 2006

................................ ................................ ............................. 30 Figure 2.9: Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Consistently Highest Monitors in each

Asso ciated State in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Area, 2001

- 2006

. 30 Figure 2.10: PM 2.5 Species that Recorded the Highest Concentrations for 2002 and 2006 in New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 32 Figure 2.11: Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at Camden, New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 Figure 2.12: Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 w ith the Highest Concentrations at Chester, New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 Figure 2.13: Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at Elizabeth, New Jersey

................................ ................................ ..................... 34 Figure 2.14: Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at New Brunswick, New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................... 34 Figure 2.15: PM 2.5 Sources Identified at the Monitori ng Site in Brigantine, New Jersey Contributing to the Mean Daily PM 2.5 Mass Concentrations Averaged over

1992

– 2001 using PMF

................................ ................................ .................. 36 Figure 2.16: Seasonal Variations in Source Contributions to Av erage Seasonal PM 2.5 Mass Concentrations from 2001

- 2004 at Four Speciation Monitors in New Jersey, Hopke and Gildemeister (2006)

................................ .......................... 39 Figure 2.17: Major Constituents of PM 2.5 Mass at the Elizabe th, New Jersey Monitoring

Site from 2001

- 2003

................................ ................................ ....................... 41ix Figure 2.18: Comparison of Total PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 Emissions by State in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area , 200 2

- 2009

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 43 Figure 2.19: Comparison of Total PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 Emissions by State in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

............. 44 Figure 2.20: Comparison of PM 2.5 Emissions by Sector in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

................................ ....... 44 Figure 2.21: Comparison of PM 2. 5 Emissions by Sector in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

................................ ..... 45 Figure 2.22: Comparison of NO

x Emissions by Sector in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticu t Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

................................ ....... 45 Figure 2.23: Comparison of NO

x Emissions by Sector in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

................................ ..... 46 Figure 2.24: Comparison of SO 2 Emissions by Sector in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

................................ ....... 46 Figure 2.25: Comparison of SO 2 Emissions by Sector in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area , 2002

- 2009

................................ ..... 47 Figure 2.26: 2002 MANE

- VU Region PM 2.5 Inventory Top 15

................................ ...... 47 Figure 2.27: 2009 MANE

- VU Region PM 2.5 Inventory Top 15

................................ ...... 48 Figure 2.28: 2002 MANE

- VU Region NO

x Inventory Top 15

................................ ........ 48 Figure 2.29: 2009 MANE

- VU Region NO

x Inventory Top 15

................................ ........ 49 Figure 2.30: 2002 MANE

- VU Region SO 2 Inventory Top 15

................................ ......... 49 Figure 2.31: 2009 MANE

- VU Region SO 2 Inventory Top 15

................................ ......... 50 Figure 5.1: Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 12

- Kilometer CMAQ Modeling

Domain

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 101 Figure 5.2: Map of the 1997 PM 2.5 Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut

Nonattainment Area

................................ ................................ ...................... 115 Figure 5.3: Map of Grid Cells Used in Photochemical Modeling Associated Wit h New Jersey Fine Particulate Matter Monitors

................................ ....................... 140 Figure 7.1: USEPA Designations of Nonattainment Areas for the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

................................ ................................ ..................... 149 Figure 7.2: Metropolitan Planning Organizations in New Jersey

................................ ... 150 Figure 8.1: States Identified as Contributing to Visibility Impairment in New Jersey’s

Class I Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 160x List of Appendices

Appendix A1 * : Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation Planning Appendix A2 * : Resolution 06

- 02 of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning Coordination and Implementation of Regional Ozone Control Strategies f or Certain Source Categories Appendix A2 * : Attachment 1 : Addendum to Resolution 06

- 02 of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning Coordination and Implementation of Regional Ozone Control Strategies for Various Sources Appendix A3 * : Identification and Eva luation of Candidate Control Measures Final Technical Support Document Appendix A4 * : Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries

in the Mid

- Atlantic Region Appendix A5 * : Resolution of the Commissioners of States with Mandatory Class I

Federal Areas within the Mid

- Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) Regarding Principles for Implementing the Regional

Haze Rule Appendix A6

- 1 * : Statement of the Mid

- Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

VU) Concerning a Course of Action within MANE

- VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress Appendix A6

- 2 * : Statement of the Mid

- Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

VU) Concerning a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE

- VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress Appendix A6

- 3 * : Statement of the Mid

- Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

VU) Concerning a Course of Action by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toward Assuring Reasonable Progress Appendix A7: Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Appendix A8: Reasonably Availa ble Control Measures (RACM) Appendix A8 * : Attachment 1 : 8

- Hour Ozone RACM Analysis Appendix A8 * : Attachment 2 : RACM Analysis Tables Appendix A8 * : Attachment 3 : NJDOT Project Analysis Appendix A8 * : Attachment 4 : NJDOT Political Feasibility Analysis

A ppendix B1 * : TSD

- 2c: PM 2.5 Modeling Using the SMOKE/CMAQ System over the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) Appendix B2 * : USEPA Modeling Guidance (2007) Appendix B2

- 1 * : TSD

- 5: Baseline and Future PM2.5 Design Values in the New York City Metropolitan Non

- Attainment Area Appendix B3 * : TSD

- 1a: Meteorological Modeling using Penn State/NCAR 5th Generation Mesoscale Model (MM5) Appendix B4 * : Technical Support Document for 2002 MANE

- VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3

*Note: These appendices and attachments are only availa ble electronicallyxi Appendix B5

- 1 * : TSD

- 1f: Future Year Emissions Inventory for 8

- Hr OTC Ozone Modeling

Appendix B5

- 1 * : Attachment 1 : Comparison of CAIR and CAIR Plus Proposal using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM®) Appendix B5

- 1 * : Attachment 2 : Develop ment of MANE

- VU Mobile Source Projection

Inventor ies Appendix B5

- 2 * : Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Source in the MANE

- VU Region, Final Report Appendix B6 * : TSD

- 4: Future Year Emissions Inve ntory for Regional and Urban Modeling over the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) Appendix B7 * : TSD

- 2a: Processing of 2002 Biogenic Emissions for OTC / MANE

VU Regional and Urban Modeling Appendix B8 * : TSD

- 2b: Processing of 2002 Anthropogenic Emissions: OTC Regi onal

and Urban 12km Base Year Simulation Appendix B 9 * : TSD

- 1e: CMAQ Model Performance and Assessment 8

- Hr OTC Ozone Modeling Appendix B10 * : Analysis of the RRF’s in the Grid Cell Containing the Monitor and the

Nine

- Grid Cell Average Appendix B11

- 1 * : TSD

- 3a : Analysis of Ambient PM 2.5 Mass Speciation for the New York Metropolitan Area through 2006 Appendix B11

- 2 * : TSD

- 3b: Analysis of Ambient PM2.5 Mass: CT and NJ portions of the New York City Metropolitan Non

- at tainment Area through 2006 Appendix B12 * : New York’s Weight

- of

- Evidence Discussion for the P.S. 59 Monitor Appendix B13 : Emission Reduction Credits from Shutdowns and Curtailments Appendix C: Contingency Measure Calculations Appendix C * : Attach ment 1 : Onroad Fleet Turnover Calculation Details and

MOBILE6 Runs Appendix C * : Attachment 2 : Nonroad Fleet Turnover Calculation Details and NNEM

Runs Appendix C*: Attachment 3 : Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company Consent Decree Appe ndix C*: Attachment 4 : Valero Refining Company Consent Decree Appendix C*: Attachment 5 : Conoco Phillips Consent Decree Appendix D: Updated Early PM 2.5 Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets Appendix E * : 2008 Infrastructure SIP Letter fro m New Jersey to the USEPA Region

2 Appendix F: Public Participation

Attachment 1 : Notice of Availability

Attachment 2 : Documentation of the Notices that Appeared in the Newspapers and the New Jersey Register

Attachment 3 : Response to Comment Document

*Note: These appendices and attachments are only available electronicallyxii Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg/m 3 Micrograms per meter cubed

ACT Alternative Control Techniques

AEL Alternative Emission Limit

AIM Architectural and Industrial Maintenance

ANSI Amer ican National Standards Institute

APA Administrative Procedures Act

APCA Air Pollution Control Act AQPP Air Quality Permitting Program AQS Air Quality System

ASHRAE The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers

ATPZEV Advanc ed Tech Partial Zero Emission Vehicle

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BAM Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology

BMPs Best Management Practices

BPU New Jersey Board of Public Utilities

BOTW Beyond on the Way

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAAC Clean Air Act Advisory Committee

CAEPA California Environmental Protection Agency

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CARB California Air Resources Board

CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule

CECA Consumer Energy Council of America

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CM Control Measures CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

CO Carbon monoxide

CO 2 Carbon diox ide

CPF Co nditional Probability Function

CT Connecticut

CTGs Control Technique Guidelines DAQ Division of Air Quality

DE Delaware

DON Degree of Neutralization

DV Design Value

DV B

- I Average Annual Baseline Design Value

DV F

- I Projected 2009 Annual Design Va lue

DVMT Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled

DVRPC Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commissionxiii ECPA Energy Conservation and Production Act

EGAS Economic Growth Analysis System

EGU Electric Generating Unit

EMP Energy Master Plan

FCC Fluid Catalytic Cracking

FCCU Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation

FIP Federal Implementation Plan

FMVCP Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

FNL Federal Direct Final Rule Fed. Reg. Federal Register

FRM Federal Reference Method

FSEL Facility

- Specific Emission Limit

GACT Generally Available Control Technology

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GMF Glass Manufacturing Furnace

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HC Hydrocarbon

HDDE Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

HDDV Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle

HEDD High Electrical Demand Day hp Horsepower IAQR Inter state Air Quality Rule

ICE Internal Combustion Engine

ICI Industrial/Commercial/Institutional

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

IESNA The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

I/M Inspection and Maintenance

kW Kilowatt

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

lbs Pounds

LDAR Leak Detection and Repair

LEV Low Emission Vehicle

LNB Low NO

x Burner

MACT Maximum Available Control Technology

MANE

- VU Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Asso ciation

MATS Modeled Attainment Test Software

MDH Minnesota Department of Health

MERR Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing mg/m 3 Milligrams per meter cubed

MM5 Mesoscale Meteorological Model

MMBtu Million British Thermal Units

MOA Memorandum of Agreemen t
MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizationxiv MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MW Megawatt

MWC Municipal Waste Combustor

MWRPO Midwest Regional Planning Organization

MY Model Year

NAA Nonattainment Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quali ty Standards

NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NH 3 Ammonia

NJ New Jersey

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

NJBPU New Jersey Board of Public Ut ilities

NJCEP New Jersey Clean Energy Program

NJDCA New Jersey Department of Community Affairs

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJDHSS New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services

NJDOA New Jersey Department of Agriculture

NJD OT New Jersey Department of Transportation

NJEMP New Jersey Energy Master Plan

NJEMS New Jersey Environmental Management System

NJLEV New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle

N.J.R. New Jersey Register

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

NJTPA North Jersey Trans portation Planning Authority

NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle Program

NMHC Non

- methane Hydrocarbon

NMOG Non

- methane Organic Gases

NNJ/NY/CT Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NO Nitric oxide

N 2 O Nitrous oxide

NO 2 Nitrogen dioxide

NO

x Oxides of Nitrogen

NSPS New Source Performance Standard

NSR New Source Review

NTE Not

- To

- Exceed

NY New York

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

OBD On

- Board Diagnostics

OH Hydroxyl radical

ORVR Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery

OTAG Ozone Transport Assessment Group

OTB On the Booksxv OTC Ozone Transport Commission

OTR Ozone Transport Region

OTW On the Way

PA Pennsylvania

PAMS Photoche mical Assessment Monitoring Station

PFC Portable Fuel Container

PM Particulate Matter

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

PM 10 Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less th an or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers

PMF Positive Matrix Factorization

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PPAQ Post Processor of Air Quality

Pb Lead ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million ppmvd Parts per million by volume dry basis

PSCF Potentia l Source Contribution Function

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSE&G Public Service Electric and Gas Company

PTE Potential to Emit

PZEV Partial Zero Emission Vehicle QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RACM Reasonably Available Control Measur e RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology

RFG Reformulated Gasoline

RFP Reasonable Further Progress

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

ROP Rate of Progress

RPO Regional Planning Organization

RRF Resource Recovery Facility

RRF Relative Reduction Factor

RRF Relative Response Factor

SCC Source Classification Code

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SIP State Implementation Plan

SJTPO South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization

SMAT Speciated Modeled Attai nment Test

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

SNCR Selective Non

- Catalytic Reduction

SNJ/Phila. Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia

SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO 4 Sulfate

SO

x Oxides of Sulfurxvi SOA Secondary Organic Aerosol

SOTA State of the Art

STN Specia tion Trends Network

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle

TBD To Be Determined

TCM Transportation Control Measure

TDM Travel Demand Model

TEA

- 21 Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty

- first Century

TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance

TEU Twenty

- foot Equiv alent Container Units

TOC Technical Oversight Committee tpd Tons per day

tpy Tons per year

TSD Technical Support Document

UCAMPP Urban Community Air Toxics Monitoring Project in Paterson City, New Jersey

UMD University of Maryland

UMDNJ/ORC University of M edicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s Ozone Research

Center

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USDOE United States Department of Energy

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

U.S.C. United States Code

VISTAS Visibility Improvemen t State and Tribal Association of the Southeast

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WOE Weight of Evidence

XRF X

- Ray Fluorescence

ZEV Zero Emission Vehiclexvii Executive Summary

Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) is a serious health probl em in New Jersey . Exposure to PM 2.5 can cause a variety of health problems, such as premature mortality, decreased lung function and difficulty breathing, and asthma attacks, and other effects, such as reduced visibility, loss of biodiversity, and damage to manmade structures, sensitive forests, and farm crops, and contributes to global warming

and the formation of acid rain

. PM 2.5 is referred to as “primary” if it is directly

emitted into the air. PM 2.5 that is formed by chemical reactions of gases in the atmosphere is referred to as “secondary” PM 2.5 . These PM 2.5 precursors can include sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 1

and ammonia.

In 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ) revised the national

health

- based standard for PM

, establishing new health

- based

standards for PM 2.5 that were more protective of human health and welfare. Figures ES.1 and ES.2 show that New Jersey and its

associated multi

- state
nonattainment areas are c lose to meeting the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard even with its highest monitors. These figures

1 According to the USEPA, the VOC policy in the implementation rule for PM 2.5 addresses volatile (the lightest organic molecules with fewer than 6 carbon atoms) and semivolatile (the intermediate organic molecules with 7 to 24 carbon atoms) organic compoun ds (72 Fed. Reg. 20592 (April 25, 2007)). Figure ES.1 : Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in each Associated State, 2001

- 2006

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.5Annual Design Value (μg/m3)

36 061 0056 PS 59, 288 E. 57th Street, Manhattan, NY 36 061 0062 Post Office, 350 Canal Street, NY
9 009 0018 Stiles Street, CT 9 009 1123 715 State Street, CT
34 017 2002 Union City, NJ 34 039 0004 Elizabeth Turnpike Primary, NJ Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS = 15.0 μ g/m 3

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.5Annual Design Value (μg/m3)

34 007 0003 Camden Lab Primary, NJ 34 007 1007 Pennsauken, NJ 34 015 5001 Gibbstown, NJ

42 101 0047 500 South Broad Street, PA 42 045 0002 Front St. & Norris St., PA 10 003 2004 MLK Blvd. & Justison St., DE

10 003 1012 Univ. DE North Campus, DE

Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS = 15.0 μ g/m 3 Figure ES.2 : Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia

Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Design Values for the Consistently Highest Monitors i n each Associated State, 2001

- 2006xviii demonstrate that New Jersey and the multi

- state nonattainment areas are on the right path toward cleaner air but still face the challenge of meeting the 1997 annu al PM 2.5 standard

.

Although New Jersey and the other states that share New Jersey’s 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas have always met the 1997 daily PM 2.5 health

- based standard of 65 μg/m 3 , and the levels continue to decrease since 2001 , New Jersey and the other states still face the challenge of meeting the new 2006 daily PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 , as seen by the monitoring trends at the consistently highest monitors in each nonattainment area shown in Figures ES.3 and ES.4. This Stat e Implementation Plan (SIP) revision will simultaneously help the State meet a number of other particulate matter (PM)

- related goals that compliment the efforts to not only attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by 2010 but improve air quality beyond these

standards . These other goals include:

o Reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions in an effort to help New Jersey meet its obligations under the State’s Global Warming Response Act;

o Continuing to reduce PM 2.5 emissions in an effort to meet the new 2006 daily

PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 and the State’s internal annual goal of 12 μg/m 3 ;

o Supporting the State’s efforts to meet the commitments in its 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, submitted to the United States Environ mental Protection Agency (USEPA) in October 2007;

o Continuing the State’s on

- going efforts to reduce air toxic emissions throughout New Jersey;

o The submittal of a Regional Haze SIP to establish reasonable progress goals to address visibility in the State’s onl y Class I area; and,

o Supporting the State’s overarching Environmental Justice initiatives. Figure ES.3 : Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the

Two Consistent ly Highest Monitors in each Associated State in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Area, 2001

- 2006

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.524-Hour Design Value (μg/m3)

36 061 0056 PS59, 288 E. 57th Street, Manhattan, NY 36 061 0062 Post Office, 350 Canal Street, NY

9 009 0018 Stiles Street, CT 9 009 1123 715 State Street, CT

34 017 2002 Union City, NJ 34 017 1002 Jersey City Primary, NJ Former Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 65.0 μ g/m 3

New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 35.0 μ g/m 3 Figure ES.4 : Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Consistently Highest Monitors in each

Associated State in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Area, 2001

- 2006

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.524-Hour Design Value (μg/m3)

34 007 0003 Camden Lab Primary, NJ 34 007 1007 Pennsauken, NJ

34 015 5001 Gibbstown, NJ 42 101 0004 1501 E. Lycoming Ave. Ams Lab, PA

42 101 0136 Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Ave., PA 10 003 2004 MLK Blvd. & Justison St., DE

10 003 1012 Univ. DE North Campus, DE Former Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 65.0 μ g/m 3

New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 35.0 μ g/m 3xix For the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, New Jersey is part of two multi

state nonattainment areas. Figure

ES.5 shows New Jersey’s two

1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state
nonattai nment areas. Both of New Jersey’s associated PM 2.5 nonattainment areas have an attainment date of April 5, 2010, requiring that their attainment

demonstrations be submitted to the USEPA by April 5, 2008.

The core of this SIP revision is New Jersey’s demo nstration that

its two multi

- state PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will attain

the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by April 5, 2010. The remainder of

the SIP revision addresses the other mandatory SIP elements

for PM 2.5

.

Specifically, the primary components of the SIP revision include:

Attainment Demonstration :

New Jersey and the other states that share New Jersey’s 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas have always met and are in attainment with the 1997 daily PM 2.5 health

- based sta ndard of 65 μg/m 3 . According to the USEPA’s modeling guidance, 2
since these levels are well below the standard and have continued to improve since 2001, the modeled attainment test for the 1997 daily PM 2.5 standard is not needed nor is

included in this at tainment demonstration. This SIP revision demonstrates that the two

multi

- state nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS associated with New Jersey

will attain the annual health

- based standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 by the required April 5, 2010

attainment dat e. The core of this attainment demonstration is the photochemical air quality simulation modeling relied upon for the State’s 8

- hour ozone attainment

demonstration. 3 This ozone season (May 1

– September 30) photochemical modeling was supplemented by addi tional months of air quality modeling to predict attainment of

2 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, pg. 56.

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

Nation al Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, October 29, 2007. BERKS PIKE ORANGE

SUFFOLK LUZERNE

KENT BUCKS

OCEAN CHESTER LANCASTER MONROE SUSSEX FAIRFIELD

BURLINGTON MORRIS

SCHUYLKILL

CECIL WAYNE

ATLANTIC NEW HAVEN

SALEM

KENT COLUMBIA

CARBON

HARFORD LEHIGH WARREN SULLIVAN

WYOMING

MONMOUTH LEBANON

CUMBERLAND HUNTERDON WESTCHESTER

NASSAU MIDDLESEX

BERGEN PUTNAM

MERCER PASSAIC

ESSEX LITCHFIELD

UNION

NEW CASTLE MONTGOMERY LACKAWANNA

SOMERSET

MIDDLESEX

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER NORTHAM PTON

QUEEN ANNES CAPE MAY ROCKLAND

DELAWARE ULSTER

QUEENS

CAROLINE PHILADELPHIA HARTFORD

KINGS HUDSON BRONX

RICHMOND NEW YORK

In Attainment

NY_NJ_LI_CT_nonattainment_area

PA_NJ_DE_nonattainment_area Geographic Areas

DE NJ CT NY

PA

MD In Attainment

NNJ/NY/CT Nonattainment Area

SNJ/P hila. Nonattainment Area Figure ES.5 : New Jersey

- Associated 1997 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areasxx the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. This modeling is dependent upon the implementation of numerous additional control measures, referred to as Beyond on the Way (BOTW) measures, prior to 2009. Since this attainment demonstration will show attainment of the

PM 2.5 standard within five years of the date of designation, the State is not required to submit a separate Reasonable Further Progress Plan. 4

This modeling demonstration shows that all but one of the monitors in the two multi

- state

PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will be in attainment of the 1997 annual standard by April of 2010. Furthermore, the attainment demonstration projects that the one outstanding monitor in New York City will be within the We ight of Evidence (WOE) range as defined by the USEPA, 5 and provides additional analyses that show that the air quality is projected to attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in New York City. Therefore, this attainment demonstration provides additional suppor t that the outstanding New York City monitor, as well as the other monitors in both nonattainment areas, will attain the 1997

annual PM 2.5 standard by their required attainment date. These additional WOE analyses

include:

o Ambient monitoring trends and emi ssion inventory analyses;

o Additional control measures (with quantifiable and non

- quantifiable benefits) not included in the attainment demonstration modeling that deliver air quality benefits; and,

o A discussion of the contribution of transport to nonattain ment.

Although this attainment demonstration clearly shows that both of the multi

- state nonattainment areas associated with New Jersey will attain the 1997 annual health standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 , it does not show that the air quality at all the New Jersey

m onitors will meet New Jersey’s internal annual PM 2.5 health

- based goal of 12 μg/m 3 by the April 5, 2010 attainment date. Also, although all New Jersey’s monitors currently, and will continue to, meet the 1997 24

- hour health

- based PM 2.5 standard of 65 μg/m 3

, almost half of New Jersey’s monitors are exceeding the 2006 24

- hour health

- based PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 . In order to meet New Jersey’s internal annual PM 2.5 goal of 12

μg /m 3 as soon as possible and the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard by April 2015, imp rovements in air quality are still needed. New Jersey is required to submit a SIP for

the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard three years after the effective date of designations. Currently, the USEPA is on track for an expected effective designation date of Apr il 2009. The SIPs would then be due April 2012 (tentative and subject to change).

4 72 Fed. Reg. 20666 (April 25, 2007).

5 The USEPA defines the WOE range for PM 2.5 as between 14.5 and 15 .5 μg/m 3 . See the USEPA Modeling Guidance for more information about WOE (USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United

States Environmental Protecti on Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007.).xxi Analyses of Reasonable Measures:

42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1) ( Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act ) requires states with

nonattainment areas to submit SIPs implementing al l reasonably available control measures (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control

techn ology, as expeditiously as practicable. In order to satisfy this requirement, New Jersey conducted two separate control measure analyses; a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis of e mission control technologies for major stationary sources and a Reasonably Available Control Measures (RA CM) analysis of emission control technologies from all other sources (mobile and area sources).

New Jersey’s PM 2.5 RACT analysis demonstrates that reductions of direct PM 2.5 emissions and its precursors, SO 2 and NO

x , from certain major stationary source categories are reasonable. New Jersey also intends to implement a long

- term regional strategy to reduce the sulfur content of fuel oil consistent with the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) statement. 6

RACM measures, either alone or in co mbination, must advance the attainment date by at least one year. Following the USEPA’s criteria, this SIP revision provides both a RACM and a RACT analysis for direct PM 2.5 and SO 2 . The analyses completed for NO

x were submitted to the USEPA as part of t he State’s 8

- hour ozone SIP submitted in 2007 7 and are included as attachments to this SIP revision. While New Jersey’s RACM analysis did identify several “reasonable” measures, implementation of those measures would not

advance the nonattainment areas’ a ttainment date by one year, to April 5, 2009 (which would require demonstration of attainment by 2008). However, several of the measures identified as part of this analysis are being proposed for implementation by either New Jersey or the federal governme nt to ensure the protection of public health.

Contingency Plans :

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(9) and 7511a(c)(9), New Jersey developed contingency plans that in the event that New Jersey fails to attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2010, control measures will be implemented to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. Each contingency plan must provide for actions to reduce one (1) year of the projected emission reductions from the 2002 base year to the attainment year. The USEPA does not require a separate Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) submittal for areas with 2010 attainment dates and a demonstration that shows attainment (72 Fed. Reg. 20633 (April 25, 2007). Thus, New Jersey does not need to submit a separate contingency plan related

to RF P due to its submittal of an attainment demonstration that satisfies the 2010

6 MANE

- VU. Statement of the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) C oncerning a

Course of Action within MANE

- VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress. Adopted June 20, 2007.

7 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8

- Hour Ozo ne Attainment Demonstration, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, October 29, 2007.xxii deadline. To meet the 2009 attainment contingency milestone, New Jersey relies on

those additional measures that were not included in the attainment demonstration modeling, but will result in emission reductions in 2009 and beyond.

Conformity :

The SIP revision addresses transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey establishes onroad vehicle emission budgets for use by the Metropolitan Pl anning Organizations. Each of the two Metropolitan Planning Organizations that have planning areas that include counties that are located within

nonattainment areas 8 must meet these budgets (once they are approved by the USEPA) in

order to ensure that the ir plans and programs are in conformance with the SIP.

New Source Review (NSR) :

With respect to the PM 2.5 standard, New Jersey has both attainment and nonattainment areas throughout the State, necessitating both a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program with respect to this pollutant. The USEPA finalized its implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS on April 25, 2007 9 N o final PM 2.5 requirements for the NSR program were included. The

USEPA is sued a portion of the NNSR rule for PM 2.5 on May 16, 2008. 10

Prior to the implementation of that rule, t he USEPA issued interim guidance 11

, 12 calling for use of coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ) as a surrogate for PM 2.5 in the PSD and NNSR

programs until NS R rules were finalized

. However, because of the lack of NSR guidance, PM 10 was used as a surro gate in both attainment and nonattainment areas. Under the surrogate approach, compliance with applicable requirements for PM 10 was assumed to satisfy PM 2.5 req uirements. Between July 15, 2008 and t he effective date of New Jersey’s NSR rules for PM 2.5 (expected in 2011)

, the US EPA’s Appendix S (40

C.F.R. pt. 51) appl ies

.

The PM 2.5 NSR rule allows up to three years for states to revise their regulations and SIP. New Jersey expects the three year clock to be triggered once the USEPA adopts the remaining components of its PM 2.5 NSR implementation rules, which are expected by the summer of 2009. The NJDEP expects to develop NNSR rule strategies in 2009, propose

a N NSR rule revision in 2010, and adopt a revised NSR rule in 2011.

8 The two Metropolitan Planning Areas affected are the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley Regional Plannin g Commission (DVRPC).

9 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007).

10 73 Fed. Reg. 28321

- 350 (May 16, 2008).

11 USEPA Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, “Implementation of New Sou rce Review Requirements in PM

- 2.5 Nonattainment Areas,” April 5, 2005.

12 USEPA Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, “Interim Implementation of New Source Review for PM2.5,” Octob er 23, 1997.xxiii The NJDEP also expects to adopt New Jersey specific PSD rules in the same timeframe. Currently, NJDEP implements most of the F ederal PSD rules under a delegation agreement and will continue to do so until New Jersey PSD rules are effective.

Other Components of the SIP Revision :

- Background and introductory information on direct PM 2.5 and its precursors ;

- How New Jersey’s PM 2.5 initiatives support the State’s other PM

- related air quality cha llenges;

- A summary of PM 2.5 ambient air quality and inventory trends data for New Jersey and its associated multi

- state nonattainment areas;

- Detailed descriptions of all the control measures used throughout the SIP revision;

- A reaffirmation of New Jersey’s actions and commitments with respect to transported emissions, as required by Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (and commonly referred to as the transport SIP requirement); and,

- A summary of all New Jersey’s commitments and requests of the US EPA.1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The primary purpose of this state implementation plan ( SIP ) revision is to demonstrate that New Jersey and its associated multi

- state nonattainment areas will attain the 1997 fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) national amb ient air quality standards ( NAAQS ) by April 5, 2010. While New Jersey plans to ful fill its obligations under the F ederal Clean Air Act and the State’s Air

Pollution Control Act with respect to both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 standards (see discussions of

the se standards in this Section 1.1) , the State faces several other air quality related challenges

, including meeting other criteria pollutant NAAQS (such as 8

- hour ozone), reducing diesel and other air toxic emissions, and improving visibility, that are inte rrelated with the PM 2.5 initiative. In determining air quality management plan s, the State must not only meet federal and state requirements, it must also address the local needs and requirements . These needs and requirements are embodied in the State’s Energy Master Plan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Action Plan, the State Development/Redevelopment Plan,

and t he State’s Environmental Justice Plan, to name a few. See Section 1.3 for more information

on how this PM 2.5 SIP revi sion helps meet these air quality related challenges. Significant progress has been made in improving New Jersey ’ s air quality . Even more needs to be done to meet all of these requirements, and it is important that the State coordinate to work toward

con sistency in implementing the most efficient and effective emission reduction strategies. The remainder of this chapter includes:

• A n explanation of PM 2.5 and its associated health standards

• A discussion of the health and welfare impacts associated with P M 2.5 and its likely

precursors

• A discussion of how this SIP revision relates to the State’s other air quality goals

1.1 Fine Particulate Matter and its Associated Health Standards

Fine particulate matter in the atmosphere is composed of a complex mixture of particles: sulfate,

nitrate

, and ammonium particles; particle

- bound water; black carbon (also known as elemental carbon); a great variety of organic compounds (or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)); and

crustal material. Fine particulate matter, also kno wn as PM 2.5 , is referred to as “primary” if it is directly emitted into the air as a solid or liquid particle and its chemical form is stable. PM 2.5 formed near its source by condensation processes in the atmosphere is also considered primary

PM 2.5 . Prim ary PM 2.5 include s soot from diesel engines, a wide variety of organic compounds condensed from incomplete combustion, and compounds such as arsenic, selenium, and zinc that condense from vapor formed during combustion or smelting. The concentration of pr imary

PM 2.5 in the air depends on source emission rates, transport and dispersion, and removal rate from the atmosphere.

PM 2.5 that is formed by chemical reactions of gases in the atmosphere is referred to as “secondary” PM 2.5 . These reactions form con densable matter that either form new particles or condense onto other particles in the air. Most of the sulfate and nitrate and a portion of the organic particles in the atmosphere are formed by such chemical reactions. As such, sulfur2 dioxide (SO 2 ), oxi des of nitrogen (NO

x ), some VOC

, 13 and ammonia can be considered PM 2.5
precursors. 14 Secondary PM 2.5 formation depends on numerous factors including the concentrations of precursors; the concentrations of other gaseous reactive species such as ozone, hydrox yl radicals, peroxy radicals, or hydrogen peroxide; atmospheric conditions including solar radiation and relative humidity; and the interactions of the precursors and pre

- existing particles with cloud or fog droplets or with the liquid film on solid partic les. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recognizes that N O

x , SO 2 , VOCs, and ammonia are precursors of PM 2.5 from a scientific perspective because these pollutants can contribute to the

formation of PM 2.5 in the ambient air. The USE PA has established a polic y regarding PM 2.5 precursors for planning and regulatory purposes in its PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

, 15 which

focuses on NO

x and SO 2 in the Eastern United States. For more information on th is polic y , see Chapter 3

. The health and w elfare impacts of PM 2.5 and its precursors are described in Section 1.2 of this Chapter.

The USEPA, under the authority of the F ederal Clean Air Act , identified PM 2.5 as a criteria air pollutant, and established National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( N AAQS ), for PM 2.5

. Specifically, t he Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C

. § 7409(b)(1) (Section 109(b)(1)) requires the USEPA to set primary NAAQS “ the attainment and maintenance of which

... , based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisi te to protect the public health.” The Clean Air

Act (42 U.S.C

. § 7409(b)( 2 ) (Section 109(b)(2)) further requires the USEPA to set secondary NAAQS “requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the pr esence of such air pollutant in the ambient air.” When an area does not

meet the established NAAQS for a criteria pollutant , the area is subject to a formal designation process by the USEPA, which establishes the area as nonattainment for that pollutant.

1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS :

On July 18, 1997, the USEPA established two new primary NAAQS for fine particles:

o an annual PM 2.5 health

- based standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (annual arithmetic mean) ; and

o a daily (24

- hour) PM 2.5 health

- based sta ndard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (24

- hour average). 16

, 17 (This has since been revised to 35 μg/m 3 )

. Simultaneously, t he USEPA established secondary (welfare

- based) PM 2.5 standards identical to the primary standards. These standards are hereaf ter referred to as the 1997 PM 2.5 standards.

The USEPA set the PM 2.5 standards with 24

- hour and annual averaging times to protect against

13 According to the USEPA, high molecular weight organic compounds (typically 25 carbon atoms or more) are emitted directly as primary organic particles and exist primarily in the condensed phase at ambient temperatures. Accordingly, high mole cular weight organic compounds are considered a primary PM 2.5 emission for the purposes

of the PM 2.5 implementation program (72 Fed. Reg. 20592 (April 25, 2007)).

14 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007).

15 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007).

16 62 Fe d

. Reg

. 38652

- 760 (July 18, 1997).

17 The USEPA also revised the PM 10 NAAQS by revising the 24

- hour form of the PM 10 standard to the 99 th
percentile averaged over 3 years but retaining the 24

- hour PM 10 level (i.e., 150 mg/m 3 ) (62 Fed

. Reg

. 38652 (July
18, 1 997)). In 2006, the USEPA revoked the annual PM 10 standard ( 71 Fed. Reg. 61144 (October 17, 2006)). New Jersey was not designated in nonattainment of the PM 10 NAAQS and continues to meet the revised PM 10 standards.3 effects from short

- and long

- term exposure identified by a number of published epidemiological

studies.

A number o f events delayed implem entation of the 1997 PM 2.5 standard. 18 Specifically, the

USEPA’ s 1997 standards were challenged by the American Trucking Associatio n, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other state and business groups. The Transportation Equity Act f or the Twenty

- first Century (TEA

- 21) revised the deadline to publish nonattainment designations in

orde r to provide additional time to collect three years of air quality monitoring data. In February 2001, the Suprem e Court upheld the USEPA’s authority und er the Clean Air Act to set NAAQS that protect the American public from the harmful effects of air pollution. The Supreme Court also sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve several additional issues. In March 2002, the D

. C

. Cir cuit Court rejected all remaining legal challenges to the US EPA ’ s 1997 ambient air quality standards for PM 2.5

.

Clear of all legal challenges, o n December 17, 2004 , the USEPA finalized attainment/nonattainment designations for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, which became effective on April 5, 2005. 19 Th irteen of New Jersey’s 21 counties were designated as nonattainment for the

1997 PM 2.5 standards, and are associated with two multi

- state nonattainment areas (the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut (NNJ/NY /CT) PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia (SNJ/Phila.) PM 2.5 nonattainment area). Figure 1.1 shows New Jersey’s 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas.

18 USEPA. Fact Sheet: Areas Designated Nonattainment for the Fine Particle National Air Quality Standards

. United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 17, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/documents/final/factsheet.htm , accessed June 28, 2007.

19 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007).4 Figure 1.1 : New Jersey

- Associated 1997 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas

These designations triggered the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) (Section 110(a)(1)), that states submit attainment demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to the USEPA by no later than three years after the pr omulgation of a NAAQS. However, given the delays in finalizing the implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, the USEPA provided supplemental guidance requiring states to submit attainment demonstrations for their 1997 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas to the US EPA by no later than three years from the effective date of designation (that is, April 5, 2008). 20 The primary purpose of this SIP revision is to meet that requirement for the 1997 annual PM 2 .5 standard by presenting New Jersey’s plan for attaining the

an nual PM 2.5 NAAQS by its attainment date of April 5, 2010.

2006 PM 2.5 Standards :

42 U.S.C. § 7409(d) 1 (Section 109(d)) requires the USEPA to review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS for each criteria air pollutant every five years. O n October 16, 2 006, the USE PA promulgated a revised PM 2.5 NAAQS, which became effective December 18, 2006. 21 This revised NAAQS did not result in any changes to the annual standard established in 1997 but resulted in a more stringent daily standard o f 35 μg/m 3

. The 2006 PM NAAQS retained the level

of the annual standard of 15.0 μg/m 3

. These standards are hereafter referred to as the 2006 PM 2.5 standards. Table 1.1 compares the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 standards.

20 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007.

21 71 Fed

. Reg

. 61144

- 233 (October 17, 2006). BERKS PIKE ORANGE

SUFFOLK LUZERNE

KENT BUCKS

OCEAN CHESTER LANCASTER MONROE SUSSEX FAIRFIELD

BURLINGTON MORRIS

SCHUYLKILL

CECIL WAYNE

ATLANTIC NEW HAVEN

SALEM

KENT COLUMBIA

CARBON

HARFORD LEHIGH WARREN SULLIVAN

WYOMING

MONMOUTH LEBANON

CUMBERLAND HUNTERDON WESTCHESTER

NASSAU MIDDLESEX

BERGEN PUTNAM

MERCER PASSAIC

ESSEX LITCHFIELD

UNION

NEW CASTLE MONTGOMERY LACKAWANNA

SOMERSET

MIDDLESEX

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER NORTHAM PTON

QUEEN ANNES CAPE MAY ROCKLAND

DELAWARE ULSTER

QUEENS

CAROLINE PHILADELPHIA HARTFORD

KINGS HUDSON BRONX

RICHMOND NEW YORK

In Attainment

NY_NJ_LI_CT_nonattainment_area

PA_NJ_DE_nonattainment_area Geographic Areas

DE NJ CT NY

PA

MD In Attainment

NNJ/NY/CT Nonattainment Area

SNJ/P hila. Nonattainment Area5 Table 1.1 : 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 Standards

1997 PM 2.5 Standa rds 2006 PM 2.5 Standards Primary Annual 15 μg/m 3 15 μg/m 3 *

Primary Daily 65 μg/m 3 35 μg/m 3

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m 3 15 μg/m 3 *

Secondary Daily 65 μg/m 3 35 μg/m 3

* The form of the annual standard s changed with respect to the criteria for spatial avera ging.

Although fine particulate concentrations have improved since December 2004, New Jersey

recommended that the annual nonattainment boundaries for the 2006 annual standard remain the same as previously designated for the 1997 annual standard since th e State continued to either

exceed the 2006 annual PM 2.5 standard (which remained the same as the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard) or contribute to an exceedance of that standard in an upwind area at the time these recommendations were due (see Figure 1.1).

As with the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, the USEPA must designate areas that are not attaining the

2006 PM 2.5 standards. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A) (Section 107(d)(1)(A)), of the Clean Air Act, each state is allowed to make recommendations to t he USEPA on which areas of their state should be designated nonattainment with respect to any new NAAQS. For the 2006

PM 2.5 standards, states were required to submit their attainment/nonattainment recommendations by December 18, 2007. Although fine parti culate concentrations have improved since December 2004, the air quality in several areas of New Jersey does not meet the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (see Chapter 2 ) or contribute to an exceedance of that standard in an upwind area at the

time these recommend ations were due (see Figure 1.1). New Jersey recommended that the nonattainment boundaries designated for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard also apply for the 2006

24

- hour PM 2.5 standard with one addition. 22 The State requested Knowlton Township in Warren

Co unty be designated nonattainment and be associated with the Allentown

- Bethlehem

- Easton

PM 2.5 nonattainment area in Pennsylvania (which Pennsylvania has recommended include Lehigh and Northampton counties). 23 The final daily PM 2.5 designations will be issue d by the

USEPA by the Spring of 2009

.

As the USEPA goes through the process of officially designating these areas as nonattainment for that new standard, New Jersey need not wait for those designations to address that new standard, particularly since it i s the State’s obligation to meet NAAQS as expeditiously as practical to protect human health and welfare. Therefore, New Jersey considered its need to meet this additional 2006 Federal standard in the near future when developing the action plan

included i n this SIP revision to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Hence, this SIP revision, while

22 For more information on New Jersey’s nonattainment area recommendations, see the letter from N JDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated December 18, 2007

. The letter is posted on the NJDEP’s website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/pm25desig2007.pdf

. 23 PADEP. Recommendations to the U.S. EPA for 24

- Hour Fine Pa rticulate (PM 2.5 ) Attainment/Nonattainment Areas. Bureau of Air Quality, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, December 2007. Accessible

at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/attain/pm25des/2007_PM2.5_Attain

- Non.pdf

.6 focused on achieving the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, will also make progress toward achieving the

24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

In addition to the USEPA, some states , including New Jersey, have the authority to establish air quality standards . These state standards must either be equivalent to or more stringent than those established by the USEPA. While New Jersey has not taken official steps to establish its own air quality standards for PM 2.5 , the NJDEP’s air quality goal for an annual PM 2.5 standard is 12 μg/m 3 . A goal of 12 μg/m 3 is a 20 percent reduction from the Federal annual PM 2.5 NAAQS established in 1997. New Jersey, in commenting on the USEPA’s proposal for revising the

PM 2.5 standard, argued that, given the preponderance of health studies cited in the USEPA Staff Paper, peer

- reviewed and supported by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), that suggest that significant segments of the Unites States population are experiencing adverse health effects from exposures to ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 , even at levels below the

annual standard of 15 μg/m 3 , the USEPA should act decisively on this critical public health issue by decreasing the annual PM 2.5 health standard to 12 μg/m 3

. 24 The USEPA subsequently

decided to retain the annual standard of 15 μg/m 3 . This goal also acknowledges that the

California Air Resources Board ’s (CARB) revised California’s annual PM 2.5 standard to 12 μg/m 3 ( annual mean), which is more stri ngent than the Federal NAAQS established in 1997, and

retained in 2006

. 25

, 26 T he CARB ’ s establishment of a more stringent annual PM 2.5 health

- based standard to provide greater public heal th protection gives reason to re

- evaluate whether or not the

F ederal s tandard of 15 μg/m 3 is protective enough, given that no threshold had been established below which there are no health effects from exposure to particulate emissions. Achieving the NJDEP’s goal of 12 μg/m 3 will provide greater protection of its citizens t han would be achieved

at 15 μg/m 3 ambient levels. The implication of adopting such a goal requires that New Jersey take aggressive action to ensure that PM 2.5 health and welfare impacts are alleviated as soon as possible.

1.2 Health and Welfare Impacts of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors

1.2.1 Fine Particulate Matter

The health effects associated with exposure to fine particles are significant, mainly due to the fact that particles of this size can easily reach into the deepest regions of the lungs

. S ignificant

health effects associated with fine particle exposure include:

• premature mortality ;

• aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease ;

• decreased lung function and difficulty breathing ;

• asthma attacks; and

24 L etter dated December 16, 2005 from then NJDEP Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell to USEPA Region II Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

25 CAEPA. Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter and Sulfates. Prepared by the Staff of the Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency (CAEPA), May 3, 2002.

26 Adopted in 2002, pursuant to the Children’s Environmental Health P rotection Act (Senate Bill 25, Senator Martha Escutia; Stats. 1999, Ch. 731, Sec. 3).7 • serious cardiovascular problems

, such as heart att acks and cardiac arrhythmia. 27

, 28

, 29

The USEPA has estimated that attainment of the 1997 annual and daily PM 2.5 standards nationally would prolong tens of thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of hospital admissions each year. 30 In addition, at tainment of these standards would prevent hundreds of thousands of doctor visits, absences from work and school, and resp iratory illnesses in children. Individuals particularly sensitive to fine particle exposure include older adults, people with heart

an d lung disease, and children. The elderly have been shown to be particularly at risk for premature death from the effects of particulate matter. Health studies have shown that there is no clear threshold below which adverse effects are not experienced by at least certain segments of the population. Thus, some individuals particularly sensitive to fine particle exposure may be adversely affected by fine particle concentrations below those for even the revised 2006 annual and daily standards. Hence, the N JDEP intends to achieve cleaner air than the current NAAQS

to increase health benefits.

Incorporating new scientific literature on premature mortality due to PM 2.5 exposure, an analysis of the relative risk of premature death in California attributed to PM 2.5 conducted by the California Air Resources Board demonstrated that 14,000 to 24,000 premature deaths (uncertainty range: 4,300

– 41,000) occur statewide each year. 31 These estimations were based upon the revised relative risk factor, a 10 percent inc rease in premature death per 10 mg/m 3

increase in PM 2.5 exposures (uncertainty interval: 3 to 20 percent), and the lowest threshold of

ambient PM 2.5 which is associated with premature death, 7 mg/m 3 in a general population.

A particular concern for New Jersey with respect to PM 2.5 is its ability to aggravate asthma. The NJDEP has estimated that approximately 1,900 deaths and 53,000 cases of asthma in the State each year are attributable to exceedances of the PM 2.5 annual standard, with associated medic al costs of approximately $15 billion. 32 According to the last Federal estimate (1998)

, 33 more than 600,000 New Jersey residents have asthma. In 2001, a sthma sufferers in New Jersey accounted for nearly 14,000 hospital admissions, roughly one out of every one hundred hospitalizations . In 1999, the deaths of 80 New Jersey residents were attributed to asthma. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention estimate that 4.5 million children in the United States have asthma. According to the Pediatric/Adult Asthma Coalition of New Jersey (Coalition), “approximately

27 62 Fed

. Reg

. 38652

- 690 (July 18, 1997).

28 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20586

- 87 (April 25, 2007).

29 USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. United States Environmental Pr otection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP, Office of Research and Development; report no. EPA/600/P

– 99/002aF and EPA/600/P

– 99/002bF. October 2004.

30 62 Fed

. Reg

. 38652

- 690 (July 18, 1997).

31 CARB. Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long

- term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California, Draft Staff Report. California Air Resources Board, May 22, 2008. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/healt h/pm

- mort/pm

- mortdraft.pdf

. 32 State of New Jersey. Diesel Retrofit Program Rule Proposal. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality Management, Motor Vehicle Commission, and Department of the Treasury, December 18, 2006. P roposal Number: PRN 2006

- 409

, DEP Docket Number: 22

- 06

- 11/559 . Available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqm/Diesel%20Retrofit%20Program%20Rule%20Proposal.pdf

. 33 NJDHSS. Asthma in New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, February 2003.8 10

- 13% of New Jersey’s students have asthma.” 34 According to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, “children are more likely to be hospitalized with asthma than

adults.” 35 The r i sk of death from asthma increases considerably with age, with the 65

- plus population having the highest rates. 36

In addition to asthma, a recent report by the New Jersey Clean Air Council states that only smoking and obesity outrank particulate matter in the estimated number of premature deaths caused every year. 37 These statistics show that asthma is a significant health risk in the State but there are other serious health impacts from PM 2.5

.

Although fine particulate matter generated from all sources c an cause serious health impacts, particulate matter generated from diesel combustion is particularly harmful

. The concern over diesel particulate matter is two

- fold. First, while diesel engines collectively are large sources of

NO

x and direct fine partic le emissions, they also emit significant amounts of other toxic air pollutants. 38 Diesel exhaust contains many of the hazardous air pollutants that are prevalent in

urban areas , such as acetaldehyde, acrolein, benze ne, 1,3

- butadiene, formaldehyde, and poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The USEPA has recently identified diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases as a Mobile Source Air Toxic and has classified diesel exhaust as a likely human carcinogen when inhaled at environmental exposures. The State of California also identified diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant in 1998, based on its potential carcinogenicity and other health impacts. 39 Therefore, in addition to the premature mortality

associated with the inhalation of f ine particulate matter in general, diesel exhaust has an added cancer risk that makes exposure to it more detrimental to human health. In New Jersey, exposure to diesel PM poses the most cancer risk statewide by an order of magnitude; formaldehyde,

which is also emitted by engines, poses the next most cancer risk. 40

34 State of New Jersey. Diesel Retrofit Program Rule Proposal. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality Management, Motor Vehicle Commission, and Department of the Treasury, December 18, 2006. Proposal Number: PRN 2006

- 409

, DEP Docket Number: 22

- 06

- 11/559 . Available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqm/Diesel%20Retrofit%20Program%20Rule%20Proposal.pdf

. 35 NJDHSS. Asthma in New Jersey Annual Update 2005

. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, September 2005

. Availab le at http://www.state.nj.us/health/fhs/asthma/documents/asthma_update2005.pdf

. 36 State of New Jersey. Diesel Retrofit Program Rule Proposal. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality Management, Motor Vehicle Commission, a nd Department of the Treasury, December 18, 2006. Proposal Number: PRN 2006

- 409

, DEP Docket Number: 22

- 06

- 11/559 . Available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqm/Diesel%20Retrofit%20Program%20Rule%20Proposal.pdf

. 37 Clean Air Council of New Jersey

. Public Hearing

– Fine Particulate Matter in the Atmosphere: Health Impacts in

NJ & Need fo r Control Measures, April 2004. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cleanair.

38 USEPA. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. United States Environmental Prot ection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC,

EPA/600/8

- 90/057F, May 1, 2002.

39 CARB. Summary of Adverse Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter . Air Resources Board, California

Environmenta l Protection Agency, July 2005. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7

- 5

- 05

- 1.pdf , accessed December 19, 2007.

40 NJDEP. New Jersey Statewide Average 1999 NATA Modeled Air Concentrations Compared to Health

Benchmarks . New J ersey Department of Environmental Protection, November 21, 2006, http://www.nj.gov/dep/airtoxics/nj.htm , accessed January 18, 2008.9 Second, the size of diesel particulate matter may add to its health impacts. Almost all of the particles produced by diesel exhaust are fine particulate matter (between 0 and 2.5 μg/m 3 ), much

in the ultra

- fine range (that is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 0.1

micromet er). Since both fine and ultra

- fine particles are respirable, many of these particles are not captured by the human respiratory system’ s defense mechanisms a nd these small particles enter deeply int o the lung. S tudies have shown that ultra

- fine particles are so small that they are capable of penetrating the lungs and other tissue all the way to a cellular level, where they may

induc e structural damage in the body’ s core building blocks.

In addition to health effects , particulate matter is the major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the United States. Visibility impairment caused by the collection of air pollutants (primarily PM 2.5 ) emitted by sou rces over a broad geographic area is known as regional haze. 41

See Section 1. 3.5 for more information on visibility and regional haze initiatives. Other welfare impacts from direct PM 2.5 pollution include harmful effects to vegetation and ecosystems (e.g.

, sedimentation and loss of biodiversity ) , contributions to the formation of acid rain (e.g.

, making soils, lakes and streams more acidic) , aesthetic damage to manmade structures, and damages to

sensitive forests and farm crops

. 42 Excessive fine particles in the air also alter the amount of radiation that penetrates the Earth’s atmosphere, affecting the Earth’s climate. 43 Of special concern, black carbon increases global warming.

1.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

Sulfur dioxide, or SO 2 , c ontribute s to the formation of fine particulates. SO 2 belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SO

x ). Sulfur is prevalent in raw materials such as crude oil, coal

, and metal ores. SO

x gases are formed when fuels containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, are burned, when gasoline i s extracted from oil, or when metals are extracted from ore. The sulfur is

then oxidized and emitted as SO

x gases. SO 2 can be oxidized to form sulfuric acid in three ways: by the hydroxyl radical (OH) to form sulfuric acid, by dissolving in cloud water and oxidized by various oxidants to form sulfuric acid, or by the reactions that take place in the particle

- bound water in the aerosol particles. 44 Sulfate can exist in particles as sulfuric acid, and sulfate is an important contributor to increased concen trations of PM 2.5 around the country.

SO 2 dissolves in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfate particles and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment. SO 2 and the pollutants formed from SO 2 , such as sulfate particles, can be transported over long distances and deposited far from the point of origin , contributing to a ir quality problems far beyond the areas where they were emitted. The associated health effects with exposure to SO 2 include increased respiratory disease

, aggravate d existing heart disease , and temporary breathing

41 64 Fed

. Reg

. 35714 (July 1, 1999).

42 USEPA. Health and Environment, Particulate Matter. United States Environmental Prot ection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html , accessed November 8, 2007.

43 71 Fed

. Reg

. 61203 (October 17, 2006).

44 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20594

- 20595 (April 25, 2007).10 difficulty, particularly for people with asthma

. 45 The elderly and children are at highest risk of health effects from exposure to SO 2

.

With respect to environmental effects, SO 2 h arms vegetation and ecosystems , c ontributes to the formation of acid rain (e.g.

, making soils, lakes

, and streams more acidic) , and damages trees,

crops
, buildings

, and monuments

.

1.2.3 Oxides of Nitrogen (NO

x )

NO

x is a gas

- p has e precursor that contributes t o the formation of PM 2.5 . Oxides of nitrogen consist of a mixture of gases comprised mostly of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). 46 These gases are emitted from the exhaust of motor vehicles, the burning of coal, o il or natural gas, and during industrial processes such as welding, electroplating, and dynamite blasting. Although most NO

x is emitted as NO, it is readily converted to NO 2 in the atmosphere. The primary processes developed in the past century that conv ert unreactive nitrogen to reactive nitrogen are the manufacture of fertilizer, the combustion of fossil fuels, and the planting of nitrogen

- harnessing croplands. 47 The oxidation of atmospheric N 2 during combustion is the source of most of the atmospheric NO

x (i.e., NO, nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and NO 2 ). 48 NO 2 is a

reddish

- brown, highly reactive gas that is formed in the air through the oxidation of NO. In the troposphere , near the Earth’s surface, NO 2 , provides the primary source of the oxygen atoms required for ozone formation.

In addition to contributing to the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone, NO

x is also harmful if directly inhaled. Long

- term exposure to elevated levels of NO

x causes damage to the mechanisms that protect the human respiratory tract and can increase a person’s susceptibility to, and the severity of, respiratory infections and asthma. 49 Long

- term exposure to high levels of NO

x can cause chronic lung disease and may also affect sensory perception. Other health effects of exposure to

NO

x includ e shortness of breath and chest pains.

In addition to harmful health impacts, NO

x is also harmful to the environment. It combines with other pollutants to form ozone and acid rain that harms vegetation and ecosystems. 50 Acid rain

causes deterioration of cars, buildings

, and historical monuments and causes lakes and streams to become acidic and unsuitable for many fish. NO

x contribute s to nutrient overload that impairs

45 USEPA. Health and Environmental Impacts of SO 2 . United States Environm ental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html , accessed November 9, 2007.

46 NJDEP. 2005 Nitrogen Dioxide Summary, 2005 Air Quality Monitoring Report. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Monitoring, 2 006.

47 Aber et al. Nitrogen pollution: sources and consequences in the U.S. Northeast. High Beam Encyclopedia from Environment, September 1, 2003. Accessed at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1

- 107217746.html.

48 Hemond, H. F. and Fechner

- Levy, E. J. Chemical Fate and Transport in the Environment, Second Edition. Academic Press: New York, 2000, pg. 292.

49 Queensland Government EPA. Nitrogen Oxides. Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Decem ber 31, 2006, http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/air/air_quality_monitoring/air_pollutants/nitrogen_oxides/, accessed January 2, 2007.

50 USEPA. Health and Environmental Impacts of NO

x . United States Environmental Protection Agency, http:/ /www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html , accessed November 8, 2007.11 water quality, leads to oxygen depletion

, and reduces fish and shellfish populations. It also contributes to global warming.

1.2.4 Other PM 2.5 Precursors

– Volatile Organic Compounds and Ammonia

On April 25, 2007, the USEPA established a polic y for which PM 2.5 precursors needed to be

considered for PM 2.5 planning and regulatory purposes at thi s time

. This policy specifically

exempts volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) and ammonia (NH 3 ) from consideration as precursors unless a state can make a compelling argument for including either of these

precursors. For more information on the USEPA’s prec ursor policy , see Chapter 3

. Ev en though New Jersey and the states that share its associated nonattainment areas agree with the USEPA’s precursor policy regarding VOC and ammonia, the NJDEP is providing a discussion of the

health effects associated with V OCs and ammonia.

The NJDEP is already regulating VOC emissions as a precursor to ozone. Additionally, h igh molecular weight organic compounds (typically 25 carbon atoms or more) are emitted directly as primary organic particles and exist primarily in th e condensed phase at ambient temperatures. Accordingly, high molecular weight organic compounds are not volatile in nature, and are regulated as primary PM 2.5 emissions for the purposes of the PM 2.5 implementation program. The low molecular weight organi c compounds are VOCs, as they are chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that evaporate easily at room temperature. They include compounds known as hydrocarbons, which only contain carbon and hydrogen, and carbonyls, which contain a carbon

atom double

- bonded to an oxygen atom. VOCs can be found in both indoor and outdoor

environments , and s ome VOCs are more harmful than others. Sources of VOCs include vehicle and industrial exhaust; the evaporation of gasoline; and a variety of consumer products from paints, solvents, and adhesives to ca rpeting, deodorants, cosmetics , hair products, and cleaning fluids; as well as biogenic (naturally occurring) emissions.

In addition to contributing to the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone, many VOCs are also considered

air toxi cs and are harmful if directly inhaled, depend ing upon the concentration. Long

- term exposure to low concentrations of some VOCs includes elevation of serum enzyme levels, mild cellular changes, and changes in lipid metabolism. At higher concentrations, b reathing VOCs may cause irritation of the respiratory tract. 51 Acute effects include eye irritation/watering, nose irritation, throat irritation, headaches, nausea/vomiting, dizziness and asthma exacerbation. Chronic effects include cancer, liver damage, kidney damage and central nervous system damage. 52 In addition, s ome VOCs are substances that cause serious health effects, including cancer, birth defects, nervous system problems and death due to massive accidental releases. 53

See Section 1. 3 for more in formation about New Jersey initiatives to address air toxics.

51 CDPHE. Volatile Organic Compounds Health Effects Fact Sheet. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, November 2000, http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/schlage/vocfactsheet.p df.

52 MDH. Volatile Organic Compounds

– VOCs Fact Sheet. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/voc/, September 2005.

53 USEPA. The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act. United States Environmental Prot ection Agency, Air and Radiation (ANR

- 443), EPA 400

- K

- 93

- 001, April 1993.12 VOCs also negatively impact the environment . The most significant environmental impact of

VOCs is their contribution to the formation of ozone. VOCs can also form PM (specifically, secondary organic aerosol (SOA)). 54 The significance of organic compounds to the formation of SOA depends upon emissions from local sources, atmospheric chemistry, and the season. Studies have shown that SOA can be a major component of carbonaceous PM in the summe r due to the warmer temperatures increasing the chemical reaction rates. The environmental impacts

of PM 2.5 are discussed earlier in this Section. In addition, vegetation is a source of biogenic VOCs, and these naturally occurring VOCs contribute to the haze aerosols formed over forested

areas. 55 VOCs from emission sources can accumulate in plants and have detrimental impacts to protective mechanisms, which then can affect the entire ecosystem.

Ammonia (NH 3 ) is a gaseous pollutant that can also contribut e to the formation of PM 2.5

. Ammonia emissions come from natural and anthropogenic sources. Emission inventories for ammonia are considered to be among the most uncertain of any species related to PM. In addition, t hough recent studies have improved our understanding of the role of ammonia in aerosol formation, ongoing research is required to better describe the relationships between ammonia emissions, particulate matter concentrations, and related impacts. The control techniques for ammonia and the ana lytical tools to quantify the impacts of reducing ammonia emissions on atmospheric aerosol formation are both evolving. A rea

- specific data are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing ammonia emissions on reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in

different areas, and to determine where ammonia decreases may increase the acidity of particles and precipitation. 56 For instance, r educing ammonia emissions where sulfate concentrations are high may increase the acidity of particles and precipitation, which can be associated with adverse health effects and increased concentrations of secondary organic compounds.

Exposure to high levels of ammonia in the air may cause skin, eye, throat, and lung irritation, and may also cause burns and coughing. 57 Extremely high concentrations of ammonia may lead to lung disease and death. Individuals with asthma are more sensitive to ammonia exposure. Ammonia serves an important role in neutralizing acids in clouds, precipitation and particles. In particular, ammonia neutraliz es sulfuric acid and nitric acid, the two key contributors to acid deposition (acid rain) , forming sulfates and nitrates in the process . Deposited ammonia also can contribute to problems of eutrophication in water bodies, and deposition of ammonium partic les may effectively result in acidification of soil as ammonia is taken up by plants.

1.3 Integrating PM 2.5 with Other Air Quality Goals

As discussed in Section 1.0, attaining and maintaining the 1997 PM 2.5 standards is one of many interrelated air qualit y goals that New Jersey is striving to achieve. The actions included in this SIP revision are part of the State’s overall plan for reducing PM

- related emissions. The

remainder of this Section discusses in detail other PM

- related actions anticipated in th e near

54 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20592

- 93 (April 25, 2007).

55 USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Volume I of II. United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 2004, EPA/600 /P

- 99/002aF

. 56 72 Fed. Reg. 20591 (April 25, 2007).

57 ATSDR. ToxFAQsTM: Ammonia. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2004, accessed June 27, 2007.13 future or already in place that comprise the rest of the State’s overall plan for reducing PM

related emissions.

1.3.1 Environmental Justice in New Jersey

While unhealthy air quality can negatively impact human health throughout the northeastern

United S tates and New Jersey, these health risks are higher for populations living near roadways

and in urban areas. Im proving air pollution in these affected areas is one of the NJDEP’s greater challenges , particularly since many of the areas that are currently targeted for redevelopment throughout the State are located in New Jersey’s urban communities. New Jersey is committed to revitalizing these urban areas by mitigating a legacy of environmental degradation, including air pollution, and the resulting advers e consequences to public health and the environment to ensure that all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, live in vibrant communities that are safe from environmental pollution. The actions outlined in this SIP

revision will he lp New Jersey meet this commitment by working to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from the mobile and industrial sources impacting New Jersey’s urban areas.

As stated in Section 1. 2 .1, the health effects associated with exposure to fine particulate matter are sign ificant, and epidemiological studies have shown a significant correlation between elevated fine particle levels and premature mortality. Other significant health impacts include aggravating existing heart and lung diseases, increasing asthma attacks

, and emergency room visits. Urban residents in particular are regularly exposed to greater amounts of PM 2.5 from multiple local sources

, including heavy

- duty diesel t ruck traffic, congested roads , industrial and

commercial operations

, airports, marine ports, t rains, and, junk yards. These sources all

contribute to the forma tion of localized high levels of air pollution.

New Jersey’s 200 9 Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) # 131 58 recognizes these significant health impacts, especially the disproportiona te increase in childhood asthma for Black and Latino/Hispanic children in urban communities, and the link of this increase

, in part

, to poor air quality. Further

, the E xecutive Order # 131 charges the NJDEP and other state agencies

“ involved in decisions t hat affect environmental quality and public health to provide opportunities for input by representatives of low

- income and minority groups. ” The NJDEP reviews and considers all recommendations submitted by the Advisory Council, in fulfillment of

the Execu tive Order, including recommendations for policy and regulatory changes that the NJDEP can undertake to consider and incorporate cumulative impacts into its decision

- making.

As discussed further in Section 1.3 .2 , the NJDEP is working with the USEPA on a n umber of national air toxic reduction programs. To address disproportionate impacts of air toxic hazards

across urban areas on highly exposed population subgroups

, and predominately minority and

low

- income communities

, 59 the NJDEP is developing methods and strategies to assess air

58 NJDEP. Environmental Justice Program. New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro tection, http://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/policy.html , accessed March 17, 2009. EO #131 replaced EO#96 (2004) as of February
17, 2009.

59 USEPA. Fact Sheet, The Air Toxics Strategy. United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/urban/ strategyfs0303.pdf , accessed November 28, 2007.14 impacts from multiple sources at the communi ty scale. These strategies build upon the pilot projects that were initiated in Camden and Paterson, two of New Jersey’s most urbanized areas,

which assess ed community scale air impacts

. The NJDEP is also committed to assessing technical and policy options to address the cumulative impact of multi media exposure (beyond

air pollution exposure) at the local level. Reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in urban areas will help

address environmen tal justice.

1.3.2 Air Toxics

The efforts to reduce PM 2.5 and its precursors in this SIP revision will benefit the efforts to reduce the concentrations of air toxics, e.g., diesel particulates, in the State. Sources of particulate air toxics are the same as some of the sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, i.e., traditional industrial and utility sources, smaller manufacturing and commercial sources, mobile

sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses, and trains), residential activities (such as oil burning for home heating ), and construction equipment. 60 Several State and federal initiatives to reduce the public’s exposure to the health impacts of air toxics have multi

- pollutant benefits. New Jersey is taking action in local communities to address severe air qualit y issues.

The NJDEP generally divides air pollutants that it regulates into two broad categories: criteria pollutants and air toxics. The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants (ozone, particulat e matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead). For the State’s regulatory purposes, other air pollutants that are not criteria pollutants, and that are emitted into the air in quantities that may cause cancer or other

adverse healt h effects, are classified as air toxics. 61 Th ese broad categories are not mutually exclusive, as there is overlap between air toxics and criteria pollutants. For example, m any of

the VOCs that contribute to the formation of ozone and, as discussed later i n this S ection, can also contribute to the formation of PM 2.5 , are also air toxics

. Additionally, p articulate matter can

be air toxics or a “carrier” for certain air toxics that adhere to the particle itself, as is the case

with diesel emissions. L ead (P b) is considered both an air toxic and a criteria pollutant. Given this overlap, efforts to reduce the concentrations of PM 2.5 and its precursors in this SIP revision will also benefit the efforts to reduce many air toxics.

Supporting the effort to ach ieve lower emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors, the NJDEP has a

multi

- pronged approach to decreasing air toxic emissions , including PM and PM precursors in

the State:

60 In addition to these sources, diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of both solid and gaseous material, the visible portion of which is known as particulate matter. Diesel parti culate matter includes many carbon particles (also called soot), as well as gases that become visible as they cool. The major sources of diesel particulate matter are onroad and nonroad vehicles powered by diesel engines; however, diesel engines are

also used in construction vehicles, agricultural equipment, trains, marine vessels, and stationary diesel electric

generators.

61 The USEPA also refers to air toxics as hazardous air pollutants (HAPS), which are listed under 42 U.S.C

. § 74 12 (Section 112). (U SEPA. About Air Toxics. United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 6, 2007, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html , accessed January 4, 2008.)15 1. Permit Review: A combination of control technology (e.g., maximum achievable c ontrol

t echnology (MACT) standards) and risk assessment requirements employed in the air permitting process.

2. Voluntary Reductions: Initiatives that encourage facilities to reduce air toxics emissions through Pollution Prevention opportunities, Right

- to

- Know

, a nd similar disclosure and compliance assistance programs.

3. Traditional Pollutant Control Programs: Air toxics reductions that result from direct regulation or as a side

- benefit of control programs that address ozone precursors, particulat e matter, and ot her pollutants (e.g., point, area, and mobile source controls)

. 4. Air Toxics Initiatives: Risk assessments, dry cleaners, other projects.

Several of these programs address direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, and can be found in Chapter 4 (Control Measures) ; specifically, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV), Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards, and New Jersey’s Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. The projects conducted by the NJDEP Air Toxics Program also help to reduce PM 2.5 emissio n levels in New Jersey. The Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project, a project that began in 2002, was designed to develop tools to assess air quality problems in a community (with a focus on air toxics). In addition, the Urban Community Air

Tox ics Monitoring Project in Paterson City, New Jersey (UCAMPP) is a multi

- faceted air quality monitoring and modeling project.

On a national level, under the F ederal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the USEPA is required to adopt a number of national air t oxic reduction programs

. The NJDEP works with USEPA to implement these programs in New Jersey

. Two of these programs are the adoption of

MACT standards for large sources (such as chemical manufacturing), and the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy and g enerally available control technology (GACT) for small sources (such as hospital sterilizers). To date, the USEPA has promulgated 96 MACT emission standards

, some of which were included in the photochemical modeling used to demonstrate attainment of

the 1 997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (See Chapter 5)

. The US EPA is under a court ordered schedule to promulgate standards for 50 area source categories by June 15, 2009, which will also help to

reduce direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions . Released by the USEPA in July 1999 and discussed in Section 1.3.1, t he Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy is a framework for addressing air toxics in urban areas from stationary, mobile, and indoor sources

. 62 It complements the MACT and GACT standards and other aspects of national ai r toxics initiatives.

With respect to mobile sources, the USEPA finalized the rule “Control of Hazardous Air

Pollutants from Mobile Sources in early 2007 .” 63 This program will lower emissions of air toxics by lowering the benzene (a potential ozone and PM 2.5 precursor) content of gasoline . The USEPA has required or proposed controls for new construction vehicles, agricultural equipment, trains, and marine vessels (see Chapter 4). The USEPA conducts voluntary programs for

62 USEPA. Urban Strategy. States Environmental Protection Agency, August 9, 2007, http://www.epa.go v/ttn/atw/urban/urbanpg.html , accessed January 4, 2008.

63 USEPA. Mobile Source Air Toxics. United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm , accessed November 5, 2007.16 reduction of diesel emissions, wh ich include Clean School Bus USA, the Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program, and the National Clean Diesel C ampaign.

1.3.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

New Jersey is planning to reduce New Jersey ’s carbon footprint and is pushing for mandatory

federal acti on to combat global climate change. All of the measures currently planned to combat Global Warming (and discussed in this section) will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will also have supplemental benefits of reducing PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precurso r emissions, including NO

x and SO 2 , as well as other air contaminants. R educing atmospheric PM 2.5 levels

could also help to slow global warming, because some particles result in darkening effects on

snow and ice

, which causes those areas to absorb sunligh t rather than reflect it.

On February 13, 2007, Governor Jon S. Corzine signed an Executive Order to adopt proactive goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey. 64 The order calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 level s by 2020, an approximately 20 percent

reduction from 2006 , followed by a further reduction of emissions to 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050. These provisions were enacted into law under the Global Warming Response

Act in New Jersey on July 6, 2007, m aking New Jersey the third state in the nation to make greenhouse gas reduction goals law. 65 On December 15, 2008, the State released the Draft Global Warming Response Act Recommendations Report for stakeholder input as required by the New Jersey Global Wa rming Response Act. On January 6, 2009, the State initiated a series of six stakeholder meetings to solicit input on the report.

New Jersey is playing a leadership role in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a

ten

- state cooperative effort to implement a regional mandatory cap

- and

- trade program in the

Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic, addressing CO 2 emissions from power plants. As the first mandatory market

- based program to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S., the program will cap regional power pla nt CO 2 emissions.

Other New Jersey greenhouse gas initiatives include standards for new automobiles and light trucks, the implementation of renewable portfolio standards, and an Energy Master Plan. New Jersey is continuing its interagency planning proce ss that will culminate in the Energy Master Plan, a long

- term energy vision for the state that plans for the State’s energy needs through

2020. 66 Goals include 20 percent of the electricity used in the State to come from Class One renewable energy sources by the Year 2020 and to reduce future electricity consumption by 20 percent from projected 2020 consumption levels.

64 State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Govern or Calls for Sweeping Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in New Jersey . Available at http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20070213a.html. February 13, 2007.

65 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.

66 State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Governor Corzine Announces Initial Phase of Energy Master Plan

. Available at http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/ news/approved/20061003.html. October 3, 2006.17 1.3.4 8

- Hour Ozone

Given the fact that both NO

x and VOCs have the potential to generate ozone and PM 2.5

, 67 the

Northeastern states and associa ted regional agencies considered the impact on all four ozone and

PM 2.5 related pollutants (NO

x , VOC, SO 2 , and direct PM 2.5 ) in selecting control measures. These control measures were considered for inclusion in the modeling analysis used in New Jersey’s (and the other states’) attainment demonstration of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, 68 anticipating the need for a comprehensive modeling analysis that could be used in both the 8

- hour ozone and

1997 PM 2.5 attainment demonstrations. For example, a control measure t hat reduces NO

x will achieve the benefit of reducing both ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations since NO

x is a precursor for both pollutants. The control measures used in this modeling analysis are listed in Table 4 .5 , and discussed in detail in Chapter 4. For more information about the overlap and impact of the implementation of “ozone measures” on PM 2.5 levels throughout the region, see Chapter 5

. For more information about New Jersey’s efforts to attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, refer to its 8

- Hour Ozone Attai nment Demonstration SIP. 69

1.3.5 Regional Haze

The Federal Clean Air Act protects Class I areas, which are usually large parks and wilderness

areas, 70 from visibility impairment due to anthropogenic (manmade) sources ( 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (Section 169A)). 71 The Clean Air Act requires the USEPA to establish regulations to abate regional haze and increase visibility in those areas to protect the scenic vista s. Visibility impairment caused by the collection of air pollutants emitted by sources over a broad geographic

ar ea is known as regional haze. Some particles and gases can either absorb or scatter light causing an effect known as “light extinction.” A hazy condition is created as a result of these processes. The USEPA first promulgated regulations for regional haz e in 1980. These regulations were updated and took effect on August 30, 1999. 72 The regional haze regulations were promulgated to accomplish the integration of air quality management planning for multiple pollutants, i.e., particulate matter (PM) and ozon e, 73 recognizing that these pollutants have common precursors, emission sources, atmospheric processes, transport issues, and geographical

67 Ozone is a highly reactive gas. In the troposphere, it is formed by complex chemical reactions involving oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC s ) in the presence of sunlight. Similar to the PM 2.5 precursors, NO

x and VOC are precursors to ozone.

68 On October 29, 2007, New Jersey submitted its 8

- hour ozone SIP revision to the USEPA for approval. Refer to the letter dated October 29, 2007 from then NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to U SEPA Region II Administrator Alan J. Steinberg. Available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/8hrsip/commissioner's%20letter.pdf

. 69 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality S tandard: 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Final. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, October 29, 2007.

70 64 Fed

. Reg

. 35715 (July 1, 1999): Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977.

71 Other sections of the F ederal Clean Air Act that are part of the visibility protection program include 42 U.S.C

. § §

749 2 and 7410(a)(2)(J) (Section s 169B and 110(a)(2)(J)).

72 On June 15, 2005, the USEPA published its final amendments to i ts July 1999 Regional Haze Rule (70 Fed. Reg.

39104

- 72 (July 6, 2005)).

73 64 Fed

. Reg

. 35714

- 74 (July 1, 1999).18 areas of concern. The regional haze regulations require that states develop plans to protect 156

Class I areas. New Jersey is home to a federally protected Class I area, which is the Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. The control measures contained within the State’s regional air quality protection plan, designed to improve vi sibility in New Jersey’s Class I area and other downwind Class I areas, will also help to reduce direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, since PM 2.5 is the primary component of regional haze.

The plans for regional haze occur in phases to achieve periodic go als. The first regional haze air quality protection plan for New Jersey will be completed this year

. This first regional haze air quality protection plan must establish progress goals and control strategies through 2018. New Jersey must supplement its r egional haze air quality protection plan to show reasonable progress every five years beginning in 2013. Beginning in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter, the State must reevaluate and revise its regional haze air quality protection plan and submit the rev ised plan to the USEPA . The final goal of the federal regional haze regulations is to achieve natural visibility conditions by 2064

. New Jersey proposed its Regional Haze SIP on September 15,

2008. This proposal is based on control measures and modeling developed through t he Mid

A tlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) regional organization. The MANE

- VU process and control measure development is discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and 5.19 2.0 AIR QUALITY AMBIENT AND EMISSION INVENTORY DATA

This chapter provides an analysis of the fine particulate matter and precursor ambient air quality

data for the entire State of New Jersey, as well as for both the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas. The d ata was obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) online database, AirData, 74 which provides data summaries using the Air Quality System (AQS) data subsystem.

AirData was also used to obtain data for the other states that share a nonattainment area with New Jersey. This USEPA data was updated with data provided by the other state agencies,

where available. 75 In general, the p ollutant concentrations presented in this chapter are expressed as micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ) unless otherwise stated

.

2.1 Measuring Fine Particle Pollution in the Atmosphere

– An Introduction to PM 2.5 Monitoring

In order to monitor the levels of PM 2.5 and compare those levels to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the USEPA estab lished criteria for ambient air quality networks

for PM 2.5 at 40 C.F.R. Pt. 58. Figure 2.1 shows the New Jersey Fine Particulate Monitoring Network. Some locations have multiple samplers. There are 19 monitoring sites in New Jersey

where the Federal Ref erence Method sampler (FRM) routinely collects 24

- hour PM 2.5 samples. All sites collect a sample once every three days, with the exception of Elizabeth Lab which samples daily. Ambient air quality monitoring of PM 2.5 began in 1999. As of 2006, nine site s also continuously monitor fine particle concentrations and transmit the data every minute to the Bureau of Air Monitoring’s (BAM’s) central computer, where the data is made available on the BAM’s public website (www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon). In addition, the NJDEP has a Speciation Network which consists of four sites at which filters are collected and analyzed to determine their chemical characteristics. Speciation monitoring is conducted to determine the chemical characteristics of the fine particles. Samples are collected once every three days concurrent with FRM sampling.

74 USEPA. Ai rData: Access to Air Pollution Data, United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html.

75 The New Haven/Stiles St., CT monitor was designated as a “special purpose” monitor, and as such cannot be used

to make an attainm ent or nonattainment designation. The site was found to be overly influenced by micro

- scale phenomena, including heavy duty truck exhaust from trucks leaving the New Haven Terminal area and accelerating uphill on the Interstate

- 95 on

- ramp. The monitor wa s less than twenty feet from the traffic lane. Following a special, multi

- site monitoring study conducted by CTDEP, the Stiles Street monitor was deemed unrepresentative of population exposure in the City of New Haven. In 2006, it was shut down as part o f the I

- 95 bridge reconstruction project. The information on this site, therefore, is for informational purposes only and should not be used to assess

attainment of the standard.20 Figure 2.1 : Particulate Monitoring Network in New Jersey

2.2 USEPA NAAQS for Fine Particle Pollution: Annual PM 2.5

2.2.1 Annual PM 2.5 Mean Concentrations and Design Values

A nonattainment area demonstrates compliance with the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard when the 3

- year average of the exceeding sites’ annual arithmetic mean PM 2.5 concentrations from a monitor is 15.0 μg/m 3 or less. Each 3

- year average is commonly referred to as the design value for that monitoring site. The design value for the nonattainment area is the highest value from all the sites in the nonattainment area. A design value is only valid if minimum data completeness criteria for the monitoring site are m et. With regard to the annual PM 2.5 standard, a site meets National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) completeness criteria if it registered 75 percent or more data capture each quarter of the three year period in question. 76 PM 2.5 annual

means are cal culated from the four calendar quarterly averages at each monitoring site. Refer to the USEPA guidance issued in 1999 for more details on calculations and data handling for

76 For the purposes of presenting the current state of air quality in New Jer sey, data that did not meet the 75 percent completeness requirement were included in this chapter and should not be used to make formal determinations about meeting the NAAQS.21 PM 2.5

. 77 In the multi

- state 1997 PM 2.5 Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainm ent area, there are three New Jersey monitors, and all are plotted in the figures for this section.

Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the annual PM 2.5 mean concentrations for the two consistently highest monitoring sites in each of the states that make up the mult i

- state Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas. 78 In 2006, all

the monitors in both annual PM 2.5 nonattainment areas were below the NAAQS level of 15.0 μg/m 3 in 2006, 79 as seen in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

Figure 2.2 : Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual

PM 2.5 Mean Concentrations for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors in Each Associated State, 1999

- 2006 80

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearPM2.5Annual Mean (μg/m3)

36 061 0056 PS 59, 288 E. 57th Street, Manhattan, NY 36 061 0062 Post Office, 350 Canal Street, NY
9 009 0018 Stiles Street, CT 9 009 1123 715 State Street, CT
34 017 2002 Union City, NJ 34 039 0004 Elizabeth Turnpike Primary, NJ Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS = 15.0 μ g/m 3

77 USEPA. Guidance on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 454/R

- 99

- 008, April

1999.

78 The monitoring data used to develop this chapter include periods when the monitors were shut down. Monitoring prob lems that occurred with the monitor that was used to designate the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area, monitor # 360610056, invalidated the data collected for 2003 and were not included in this analysis. Monitor ing problems that o ccurred with the monitor that was used to designate the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area , i.e., monitor # 421010047

, invalidated the data collected for 2005 and 2006 and were not included in this analysis.

79 2007 data were undergoing qua lity assurance and not available for inclusion in this final SIP revision. The preliminary data indicates the ambient air quality data in the two multi

- state nonattainment areas is below the NAAQS threshold of 15.0 μ g/m 3

. 80 See note 76.22 Figure 2.3 : Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment A rea Annual PM 2.5 Mean

Concentrations for the Consistently Highest Monitors in Each Associated State, 1999

- 2006 81

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearPM2.5Annual Mean (μg/m3)

34 007 0003 Camden Lab Primary, NJ 34 007 1007 Pennsauken, NJ 34 015 5001 Gibbstown, NJ

42 101 0047 500 South Broad Street, PA 42 045 0002 Front St. & Norris St., PA 10 003 2004 MLK Blvd. & Justison St., DE

10 003 1012 Univ. DE North Campus, DE Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS = 15.0 μ g/m 3

Table 2.1 : Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Means for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 1999

- 2006 82

New York Connecticut New Jersey

1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 36

- 061

- 0056 PS 59, New York City 36

- 061

- 0062 Canal Street, New York City 9

- 009

- 0018

Stiles Stree t,

New Haven 9

- 009

- 1123

715 State
Street, New

Haven 34

- 017

- 2002 Union City 34

- 039

- 0004

Elizabeth Turnpike Primary

Year of Highest 2000 2000 2005 2001 1999 2000

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 18.5 17.6 18.9 14.3 19.6 16.9

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2006? Yes Yes No data

available Yes Yes Yes

81 See note 76.

82 S ee note 76.23 Table 2. 2 : Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Means for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 1999

- 2006

New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware

1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 34

- 007

- 0003

Camden Lab

Primary,

Camden 34

- 007

- 1007

Pennsauken Township,

Pennsauken 42

- 101

- 0047

500 South Broad Street, Philadelphia 42

- 045

- 0002

Front Street &

Norris St reet,
Chester 10

- 003

- 2004

MLK Blvd. & Justison Street,

Wilmington 10

- 003

- 1012 University of

Delaware,

Newark

Year of Highest 2003 2000 2000 2005 2001 2001

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 16.3 15.5 17.0 16.5 17.6 15.8

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2 006? Yes Yes No data

available a Yes Yes Yes

a Monitoring problems that occurred with the monitor that was used to designate the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area, i.e., monitor # 421010047, invalidated the data collected for 2005 and 200 6 and were not included in this analysis.

Three years of annual mean concentrations for PM 2.5 are used to calculate the design value at a

monitor. 83 Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show the PM 2.5 design values for the two consistently highest monitoring sites in ea ch of the states that make up the multi

- state Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas. 84 They show much progress has been made to attain the 2007 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, but more reductions are

nece ssary to attain the NAAQS as some sites remain out of compliance. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show

the maximum PM 2.5 design values at these sites, which were included in Figures 2.4 and 2.5, respectively.

83 The design value for a nonattainment area is the maximum monitor design value for all monitors for each 3

- year period.

84 See note 79.24 Figure 2.4 : Northern New Jersey/New York/Co nnecticut Nonattainment Area Annual

PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors in each Associated State,

2001

- 2006 85

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.5Annual Design Value (μg/m3)

36 061 0056 PS 59, 288 E. 57th Street, Manhattan, NY 36 061 0062 Post Office, 350 Canal Street, NY
9 009 0018 Stiles Street, CT 9 009 1123 715 State Street, CT
34 017 2002 Union City, NJ 34 039 0004 Elizabeth Turnpike Primary, NJ Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS = 15.0 μ g/m 3

85 See note 76.25 Figure 2.5 : Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Design

Values fo r the Consistently Highest Monitors in each Associated State, 2001

- 2006

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.5Annual Design Value (μg/m3)

34 007 0003 Camden Lab Primary, NJ 34 007 1007 Pennsauken, NJ 34 015 5001 Gibbstown, NJ

42 101 0047 500 South Broad Street, PA 42 045 0002 Front St. & Norris St., PA 10 003 2004 MLK Blvd. & Justison St., DE

10 003 1012 Univ. DE North Campus, DE Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS = 15.0 μ g/m 3

Table 2. 3 : Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006 86

New York Connectic ut New Jersey

1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 36

- 061

- 0056 PS 59, New York City 36

- 061

- 0062 Canal Street, New York City 9

- 009

- 0018 Stiles Street,

New Haven 9

- 009

- 1123

715 Stat e Street, New

Haven 34

- 017

- 2002 Union City 34

- 039

- 0004

Elizabeth Turnpike Primary

Year of Highest 2002 2002 2005 2001 2001 2001

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 17.6 17.0 17.1 14.1 17.5 16.3

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2006? No Yes 2006 data not

a vailable Yes No Yes

86 See note 76.26 Table 2. 4 : Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Annual PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006

New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware

1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 34

- 007

- 0003

Camden Lab

Primary,

Camden 34

- 007

- 1007

Pennsauken Township,

Pennsauken 42

- 101

- 0047

500 South Broad Street, Philadelphia 42

- 045

- 0002

Front Street & Norris Street,

Chester 10

- 003

- 2004

MLK Blvd. & Justison Street,

Wilmington 10

- 003

- 1012 University of

Delaware,

Newark

Year of Highest 2003 and 2005 2001 2002 2005 2001 2002

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 14.7 14.6 16.6 15.6 16.5 15.2

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2006? Yes Yes Not available a No Yes Yes

a Monitoring problems that occurred with the monitor that was used to designate the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area, i.e., monitor # 421010047, invalidated the data collected for 2005 and 2006 and were no t included in this analysis.

2.3 USEPA NAAQS for Fine Particle Pollution: Daily (24

- Hour) PM 2.5

2.3.1 Daily PM 2.5 98 th Percentile Average Concentrations and Design Values

The former 24

- hour (daily) NAAQS for PM 2.5 was 65 μg/m 3 and the current daily PM 2.5 sta ndard is 35 μg/m 3 . To attain these standards, the 3

- year average of the 98 th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations at each monitor within an area must not exceed 65 μg/m 3 or 35 μg/m 3

. 87 Refer to the USEPA guidance issued in 1999 for more details on calcula tions and data handling for

PM 2.5

. 88 In the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area, there are three New Jersey monitors, and all are plotted in the figures for this section.

Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show that the concentrations in the multi

- state nonattainment areas are well

below the former 65 μg/m 3 standard, but near and above the newer 35 μg/m 3 NAAQS. New Jersey and the other states that share New Jersey’s 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas have always met and are in attainment with the 1997 daily PM 2.5 health

- based standard of 65 μg/m 3

. 89

87 The entire state of New Jersey was in attainment of the 24

- hour PM 2.5 st andard of 65 μg/m 3 in 2004 when USEPA finalized designations.

88 USEPA. Guidance on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 454/R

- 99

- 008, April

1999.

89 The attainment demonstration in this final SIP revision addresses the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard. According to the USEPA’s modeling guidance (USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating

Attainmen t of Air Quality Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 00 2, April 2007, pg. 56), since these levels are well below the standard27 Figure 2. 6 : PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in each Associated State in the 1997 PM 2.5 Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area, 199 9

- 2006 90

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearPM2.524-Hour Average (μg/m3)

36 061 0056 PS59, 288 E. 57th Street, Manhattan, NY 36 061 0062 Post Office, 350 Canal Street, NY

9 009 0018 Stiles Street, CT 9 009 1123 715 State Street, CT

34 017 2002 Union City, NJ 34 017 1002 Jersey City Primary, NJ Former Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 65.0 μ g/m 3

New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 35.0 μ g/m 3

and have continued to improve since 2001, the modeled attainment test for the 1997 daily PM 2.5 standard is no t
needed nor is included in the attainment demonstration.

90 See note 76.28 Figure 2. 7 : PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Consistently Highest Monitors

in each Associated State in the 1997 PM 2.5 Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearPM2.524-Hour Average (μg/m3)

34 007 0003 Camden Lab Primary, NJ 34 007 1007 Pennsauken, NJ

34 015 5001 Gibbstown, NJ 42 101 0004 1501 E. Lycoming Ave. Ams Lab, PA

42 101 0136 Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Ave., PA 10 003 2004 MLK Blvd. & Justison St., DE

10 003 1012 Univ. DE North Campus, DE Former Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 65.0 μ g/m 3

New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 35.0 μ g/m 3

Table 2. 5 : PM 2.5 98th Percent ile 24

- Hour Averages for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in the 1997 PM 2.5 Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006 91

New York Connecticut New Jersey

1 st Highest 2 nd Highest a 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Hi ghest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 36

- 061

- 0056 PS 59, New York City 36

- 061

- 0062 Canal Street, New York City 9

- 009

- 0018 Stiles Street,

New Haven 9

- 009

- 1123

715 State
Street, New

Haven 34

- 017

- 2002 Union City 34

- 017

- 1002 Jersey City

Primary

Year o f Highest 2000 2003 2003 and 2005 2003 1999 1999 and 2003

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 42 46 44 44 50 46

Below 1997 Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS in

2006? Yes Yes 2006 data not

available Yes Yes Yes

Below 2006 Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS in

2006? No No 2006 data not

avai lable No No No

91 S ee note 76.29 a Monitors #36

- 061

- 0010 and #36

- 085

- 0055 also had high 98 th percentile 24

- hour averages twice during the 1999

- 2006 time period but were not shown, as monitor # 36

- 061

- 0062 had the highest average in 2006 and was chosen to be highlighted in t his analysis.

Table 2. 6 : PM 2.5 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Averages for the Two Consistently Highest

Monitors in the 1997 PM 2.5 Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area, 1999

- 2006

New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware

1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Hig hest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest

AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 34

- 007

- 0003

Camden Lab

Primary,

Camden 34

- 007

- 1007

Pennsauken Township,

Pennsauken 42

- 101

- 0004 AMS Lab, Philadelphia 42

- 101

- 0136 Amtrak, Philadelphia 10

- 003

- 2004

MLK Blvd. &

J ustison Street,

Wilmington 10

- 003

- 1012 University of

Delaware,

Newark

Year of Highest 2003 2006 2000 2001 2001 2002

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 43 38 41 46 43 42

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2006? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Below 2006 Daily PM 2. 5 NAAQS in

2006? No No No No No No

The design value for the 24

- hour NAAQS for a monitor is calculated by taking the three year average of the 98 th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations for PM 2.5

. 92 Figures 2.8 and 2.9 show

the multi

- state nonattainment ar eas are well below the former 65 μg/m 3 NAAQS, and above the newer 35 μg/m 3 NAAQS

. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 show the maximum daily PM 2.5 design values at these sites, which were included in Figures 2.8 and 2.9, respectively.

92 The design value for a nonattainment area is the maximum monitor design value for all monitors for each 3

- year period.30 Figure 2.8 : Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors in each

Associated State in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Area, 2001

- 2006 93

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.524-Hour Design Value (μg/m3)

36 061 0056 PS59, 288 E. 57th Street, Manhattan, NY 36 061 0062 Post Office, 350 Canal Street, NY

9 009 0018 Stiles Street, CT 9 009 1123 715 State Street, CT

34 017 2002 Union City, NJ 34 017 1002 Jersey City Primary, NJ Former Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 65.0 μ g/m 3

New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 35.0 μ g/m 3

Figure 2.9 : Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Consistently Highest Monitors in each

Associated State in th e Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Area, 2001

- 2006

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

YearPM2.524-Hour Design Value (μg/m3)

34 007 0003 Camden Lab Primary, NJ 34 007 1007 Pennsauken, NJ

34 015 5001 Gibbstown, NJ 42 101 0004 1501 E. Lycoming Ave. Ams Lab, PA

42 101 0136 Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Ave., PA 10 003 2004 MLK Blvd. & Justison St., DE

10 003 1012 Univ. DE North Campus, DE Former Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 65.0 μ g/m 3

New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS = 35.0 μ g/m 3

93 See note 76.31 Table 2. 7 : Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006 94

New York Connecticut New Jersey

1 st Hi ghest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 36

- 061

- 0056 PS 59, New York City 36

- 061

- 0062 Canal Street, New York City 9

- 009

- 0018 Stiles Street,

New Haven 9

- 009

- 1123

715 State
Street, New

Haven 34

- 017

- 2002 Union City 34

- 017

- 1002 Jersey City

Primary

Year of Highest 2006 2001 2003 2005 2005 2005

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 41 43 42 40 44 41

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2006? Yes Yes 2006 data not

available Yes Yes Yes

Below 2006 Daily P M 2.5 NAAQS in

2006? No No 2006 data not

available No No No

Table 2. 8 : Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area Daily PM 2.5 Design Values for the Two Consistently Highest Monitors by State, 2001

- 2006

New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware

1 st Hi ghest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest 1 st Highest 2 nd Highest
AQS Monitor ID, Site Name

and Location 34

- 007

- 0003

Camden Lab

Primary,

Camden 34

- 007

- 1007

Pennsauken Township,

Pennsauken 42

- 101

- 0004 AMS Lab, Philadelphia 42

- 101

- 0136 Amtrak, Philadelphia 10

- 003

- 2004

MLK Blvd. & Justison Street,

Wilmington 10

- 003

- 1012 University of

Delaware,

Newark

Year of Highest 2005 2005 and 2006 2001

- 2003 2002 2002 2002

Concentration

of Highest

( μg/m 3 ) 39 37 40 41 41 41

Below 1997

Annual PM 2.5

NAAQS in

2006? Yes Yes Yes 2006 data not

available Yes Yes

Below 2006 Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS in

2006? No No No 2006 data not

available No Yes

94 See note 76.32 2.4 Composition of Fine Particle Pollution

– Speciated Monitoring Data and Trends

New Jersey has four monitoring sites that collect PM 2.5 spe ciated data. Speciation is the process of separating PM 2.5 particle mass into individual chemical species components or groups of species. These sites are located in Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, New Jersey. The first full year of speci ated data collection was 2002. Data were collected in 2001 but only for part of the year . The data for each monitor, including each monitoring site’s speciation profile for the eight highest PM 2.5 components from 2002 through 2006, is presented in Figure s 2. 10 through 2.14

. The total mass is presented in the figures and does not equate to the sum of all of the components. 95 The trends for each monitor consistently show that sulfate, organic carbon, nitrate, ammonium, sulfur, and elemental carbon are the largest components of total

PM 2.5 mass. These charts show that organic carbon and sulfate comprise the majority of the

PM 2.5 mass measured at all four sites in both 2002 and 2006. Since the signatures of both organic carbon and sulfate are the highest co mpounds measured at each monitoring site from 2002 through 2006, the NJDEP is confident that these signatures are regional, rather than local,

in nature.

Figure 2.10 : PM 2.5 Species that Recorded the Highest Concentrations for 2002 and 2006 in New Jersey

Total Mass, 14.7

Total Mass, 13.8 Total Mass, 16.0

Total Mass, 11.5 Total Mass, 14.1

Total Mass, 9.3 Total Mass, 18.2

Total Mass, 10.3

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006

Camden Chester Elizabeth New BrunswickConcentration (μg/m3) Others

Iron

Silicon

Sodium

Elemental Carbon

Sulfur

Nitrate

Ammonium

Sulfate
Organic Carbon

Total Mass

95 D ata are collected on three different filters that run independ ently of each another. Th e flow rates may vary slightly between the three sample channels. The total mass that is reported is measured from the Teflon filter. There are also some redundancies in data reporting. For example, sodium and potassium are measured both by X

Ray Fluore scence (XRF) and Ion Chromatography . The XRF results were used in this analysis . Carbon is reported as Elemental Carbon, Organic Carbon, and total Carbon (sum of organic and elemental). If redundancies are

removed

, the reported total mass and sum of all species are relatively close.33 Figure 2.11 : Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at Camden, New Jersey

Total Mass, 16.4 Total Mass, 16.0

Total Mass, 16.1

Total Mass, 14.7 Total Mass, 14.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Concentration (μg/m3) Others

Iron

Silicon

Sodium

Elemental Carbon

Sulfur

Nitrate

Ammonium

Sulfate
Organic Carbon

Total Mass

Figure 2.12 : Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at Chester, New Jersey

Total Mass, 11.1 Total Mass, 10.3

Total Mass, 12.0

Total Mass, 9.3 Total Mass, 10.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Concentration (μg/m3) Others

Potassium

Iron

Silicon

Sodium

Elemental Carbon

Sulfur

Nitrate

Ammonium

Sulfate Organic Carbon

Total Mass34 Figure 2.13 : Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at Elizabeth, New Jersey

Total Mass, 17.4 Total Mass, 18.2

Total Mass, 17.8

Total Mass, 14.1 Total Mass, 15.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Concentration (μg/m3) Others

Iron

Silicon

Sodium

Elemental Carbon

Sulfur

Nitrate

Ammonium

Sulfate
Organic Carbon

Total Mass

Figure 2.14 : Speciated Data from 2002

- 2006 with the Highest Concentrations at New Brunswick, New Jersey

Total Mass, 13.9

Total Mass, 13.8 Total Mass, 13.8

Total Mass, 11.5 Total Mass, 12.5

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Concentration (μg/m3) Others

Iron

Silicon

Sodium

Elemental Carbon

Sulfur

Nitrate

Ammonium

Sulfate
Organic Carbon

Total Mass35 2.5 P M 2.5 Source Apportionment

Another way to look at the data is to attribute the co mposition of the particle mass to its source. This is accomplished using “source apportionment” modeling. 96 For air quality management purposes, source apportionment is complimentary to photochemical modeling and other air quality analyses. In this SIP r evision, one rural and one urban source apportionment study for New Jersey were selected to highlight major sources of PM 2.5

.

Using the Briganti n e monitoring site (a rural location and Class I area), Kim and Hopke ( 2004 ) 97

, 98 show ed that over 60 percent o f the PM 2.5 mass was associated with sulfate aerosol

formation from e lectric g enerating units outside of New Jersey, 13 percent of the mass was from gasoline vehicles, and 4 percent was from diesel vehicles for sources in New Jersey or the nearby Philadelp hia metropolitan area. Results are presented in Figure 2.1 5. Table 2. 9 summarizes the results of additional analyses conducted in this study that provide an estimation of the geographic location/pathway and/or origin of the PM 2.5 sources identified throu gh the positive matrix factorization (PMF) anal ysis.

96 USEPA. Receptor Modeling, Air Quality Management Online Portal, United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/air/aqmportal/management/modeling/receptor.htm, accessed October 22, 2007.

97 Kim, E. and H opke, P. K. Improving Source Identification of Fine Particles in a Rural Northeastern U.S. Area Utilizing Temperature

- resolved Carbon Fractions. Journal of Geophysical Research , 109, D09201, doi:
10.1029/2003JD004199, 2004.

98 D ata from March 1992

- May 2 001 was used in the positive matrix factorization (PMF) model, conditional probability function (CPF)

, and potential source contribution function (PSCF) analyses to identify sources of PM 2.5 and their locations contributing to concentrations at the Brigant ine monitoring site

.36 Figure 2.15 : PM 2.5 Sources Identified at the Monitoring Site in Brigantine, New Jersey Contributing to the Mean Daily PM 2.5 Mass Concentrations Averaged over 1992

– 2001 using PMF*

1% 2% 3%

4%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

13% 48% Sulfate-rich Secondary

Aerosol I

Gasoline Vehicle

Aged Sea Salt

Sulfate-rich Secondary

Aerosol II Nitrate-rich Secondary

Aerosol Sulfate-rich Secondary

Aerosol III

Sea Salt

Airborne Soil

Diesel Emission

Incinerator

Oil Combustion

Source: Kim and Hopke, * The percentages are from Table 2 (Kim and Hopke, 2004) and

are the estimated average source contribution (percent) to PM 2.5 mass ( 11.24 μ g/m 3 , measured over the 1992

- 2001 time period) using PMF. The relative contributions in μ g/m 3 were not provided in the paper.37 Table 2. 9 : Study Results from the Potential Source Contribution Function (PSCF) and Conditional Probability Function (CPF) Analyses, Kim and Hopke (2004)

Analysis PM 2.5 Source(s)

Identified a Source Contributor(s) b Source Location(s )/Pathway(s) (with respect to the Brigantine monitor)

PSCF c Sulfate

- rich secondary

aerosols I and III Coal

- fired power plants • Midwest (i.e., Ohio River Valley)

• Southern Indiana

• Northern Kentucky Petrochemical industry • Louisiana

Not identified • South ern Mississippi

Sulfate

- rich secondary

aerosol II Biogenic emissions from

Canadian forest fires • Hudson Bay, Canada region

Volatile organic carbon (VOC) emissions from biogenic sources • Eastern Tennessee

• Northeastern Georgia

• Western South Carolina

Su lfur emissions • Southern Louisiana

• Mississippi

• Alabama

Airborne soil Dust storms • Asia

• Africa (Sahara)

CPF d Organic carbon Gasoline vehicles North and southwest: close to Highway 9 in New Jersey

Elemental carbon Diesel vehicles Northwest: an area cont aining Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and major highway traffic between Washington, D.C. and New York City.

Nitrate

- rich secondary

aerosol Not identified West and Northwest

– Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Aged and fresh sea salt N/A Atlantic Ocean

Airborn e soil Crustal particles from

onroad traffic Northwest and southwest

Dust storms • Asia

• Africa (Sahara)
Municipal solid waste

incinerator emissions N/A West and northwest

Oil combustion Utilities and industries • New York City (north)

• Atlantic City (sou theast)

• Northeastern urban corridor between Washington, D.C. and Boston,

Massachusetts

a For clarification, researchers also sometimes refer to sources as factors and these terms may be used interchangeably in some

instances. A factor could be associ ated with a source, source type, or source region (Lee, J. H., Poirot, R. L., Lioy, P. J., and Oxley, J. C. Identification of Sources Contributing to Mid

- Atlantic Regional Aerosol. Journal of Air and Waste Management,
52, 1186

- 1205, 2002.).

b A ‘source c ontributor’ identifies the specific category or source type that is the assumed cause of the pollution.

c The PSCF analysis was performed only for the sulfate

- rich secondary aerosols using the PMF estimations and backward trajectories using the HYSPLIT mod el.

d The CPF analysis combined the PMF results with wind direction values measured at the Brigantine monitoring site.38 Building on the PMF analysis conducted in 2004, 99 Hopke and Gildemeister (2006) used PSCF and back trajectory analyses to determine th e seasonal variation in source contributions to PM 2.5 mass measured at the four speciation monitors in New Jersey from 2001

- 2005. 100 These monitors are in urban areas compared to the rural location of the Brigantine monitor discussed in the previous study. Figure 2.16 shows the results of the study by monitor and by season. Significant findings of the study were as follows:

• Similar types of transported aerosols were seen amongst all four sites, notably, secondary sulfate and nitrate, biomass burning, and a ged sea salt.

• Secondary sulfate was the largest contributor to PM 2.5 , especially during the summer.

• Secondary nitrate concentrations reach their highest in the winter.

• Secondary sulfate and nitrate were transported from sources in other states.

• The s ulfate factor was estimated to be from regions with large coal

- fired power plants.

• Elevated nitrate concentrations were shown to be from areas with increased ammonia and some oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) emissions.

• Automotive emissions were the second high est contributor among most of the sites.

• Biomass burning was thought to be due to transport of wood smoke from Canadian boreal forest fires during the summers.

• Railroad traffic was estimated to be the source of iron and steel at New Brunswick.

• Compared t o the summer source contributions, the automotive, nitrate, mixed industrial/Fe and steel, and sea salt factors increase during the winter.

99 Hopke, P. K. and Kim, E. Application of Advanced Factor Analysis Modeling to Apportion PM 2.5 in New Jersey. Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Clarkson University, March 2005.

100 Hopke, P. K. and Gildemeister, A. App lication of Trajectory Ensemble Analysis to Locate PM 2.5 Sources. Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Clarkson University, November 2006.39 Figure 2.16 : Seasonal Variations in Source Contributions to Average Seasonal PM 2.5 Mass Concentrations from 2001

- 2004 at Four Speciation Monitors in New Jersey, Hopke and Gildemeister (2006)

Chester, Summer Chester, Winter

Chester Summer 0.5 μg/m 3 , 4%

0.4 μg/m 3 , 3%

6.2 μg/m 3 , 54%

1.9 μg/m 3 , 17% 1.0 μg/m 3 , 9%

0.6 μg/m 3 , 5%

0.4 μg/m 3 , 4% 0.5 μg/m 3 , 4% Secondary Sulfate

Automotive

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Mixed Industrial

Soil

Sea Salt Total Seasonal Av erage (estimated sum of all components):

Summer = 11.48 μg/m3 Chester Winter

0.3 μg/m 3 , 3%

1.1 μg/m 3 , 11%

0.7 μg/m 3 , 7%

0.5 μg/m 3 , 5%

0.7, μg/m 3 , 7%

1.8 μg/m 3 , 18% 0.5 μg/m 3 , 5%

4.3 μg/m 3 , 44% Secondary Sulfate

Automotive

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Mixed Industrial

Soil

Sea Salt

Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Winter = 9.68 μg/m 3

Camden, Summer Camden, Winter

Camden Summer

2.2 μg/m 3 , 13% 0.6 μg/m 3 , 3% 1.0 μg/m 3 , 6%

1.2 μg/m 3 , 7%

1.3 μg/m 3 , 7% 1.2 μg/m 3 , 7% 0.4 μg/m 3 , 2%

9.0 μg/m 3 , 55% Secondary Sulfate

Gasoline

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Mixed Industrial

Soil

Sea Salt

Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Summer = 16.76 μg/m 3 Camden Winter

2.4 μg/m 3 , 15% 0.5 μg/m 3 , 3%

0.6 μg/m 3 , 4% 1.0 μg/m 3 , 6% 1.0 μg/m 3 , 6%

3.0 μg/m 3 , 19% 2.8 μg/m 3 , 17% 4.8 μg/m 3 , 30% Secondary Sulfate

Gasoline

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Mixed Industrial

Soil

Sea Salt Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Winter = 16.0 μg/m 340 (continued) Figure 2.16 : Seasonal Variations in Source Contributions to Average Seasonal PM 2.5 Mass Concentrations from 2001

- 2004 at Four Speciation Monitors in New Jersey, Hopke and Gildemeister (2006)

Elizabeth, Summer Elizabeth, Winter

Elizabeth Summer
0.5 μg/m 3 , 4%

0.5 μg/m 3 , 4%

0.5 μg/m 3 , 4%

0.6 μg/m 3 , 5%

1.0 μg/m 3 , 9%

1.9 μg/m 3 , 17% 6.0 μg/m 3 , 54% 0.4 μg/m 3 , 3% Secondary Sulfate

Automotive

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Mixed Industrial

Soil

Sea Salt

Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Summer = 11.28 μg/m 3 Elizabeth Winter

0.3 μg/m 3 , 3%

1.0 μg/m 3 , 11%

0.7 μg/m 3 , 7%

0.4 μg/m 3 , 4%

0.6 μg/m 3 , 7%

1.7 μg/m 3 , 19% 4.0 μg/m 3 , 44% 0.4 μg/m 3 , 5% Secondary Sulfate

Automotive

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Mixed Industrial

Soil

Sea Salt

Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Winter = 9.11 μg/m 3

New Brunswick, Summer New Brunswick, Winter

New Brunswick Summer

2.1 μg/m 3 , 15%

0.4 μg/m 3 , 3%

1.4 μg/m 3 , 11%

0.8 μg/m 3 , 6%

0.8 μg/m 3 , 6% 7.5 μg/m 3 , 56% 0.3 μg/m 3 , 3% Secondary Sulfate

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Fe and Steel

Soil

Sea Salt

Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Summer = 13.26 μg/m 3 New Brunswick Winter

0.8 μg/m 3 , 6% 0.6 μg/m 3 , 5%

1.7 μg/m 3 , 15%

0.4 μg/m 3 , 4%

3.1 μg/m 3 , 27% 0.6 μg/m 3 , 5% 4.5 μg/m 3 , 38% Secondary Sulfate

Biomass Burning

Diesel

Nitrate

Fe and Steel

Soil

Sea Salt

Total Seasonal Average (estimated sum of all components): Winter = 11.63 μg/m 341 In a regional analysis 101 of PM 2.5 , the chemical composition measured at the monitor in Elizabeth, New Jersey is shown in Figure 2.17. This analysis was not a source apportionment study but an analysis of the ambient data, which also showed that organic carbon (identified as gasoline

emis sions in Hopke and Gildemeister (2006)) and sulfate were the largest contributors to the

total PM 2.5 mass with sulfate concentrations significantly higher in the summer compared to the winter. Back trajectories used in the Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Manage ment Association (MARAMA) (2006) analysis showed air parcels on the cleanest days (i.e., lowest PM 2.5 concentrations) originating from western Canada, Ontario, Canada, and the ocean. On the dirtiest days showed air trajectories mostly from U.S. regions in the South, Midwest, or

Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic states.

Figure 2. 17 : Major Constituents of PM 2.5 Mass at the Elizabeth, New Jersey Monitoring

Site from 2001

- 2003 102

6.9 μg/m 3 , 36% 2.2 μg/m 3 , 11% 2.3 μg/m 3 , 12% 1.8 μg/m 3 , 9% 0.8 μg/m 3 , 4% 0.3 μg/m 3 , 2%

0.1 μg/m 3 , 1%

4.8 μg/m 3 , 25%

Sulfate

Organic Carbon Mass (1.6) Ammonium

Nitrate

Elemental Carbon

Geological

Trace Elements

Salt

The ambient data analyses consistently show a fairly large sulfate contribution to the PM 2.5 mass collected at the speciation monitors throughout New Jersey, demonstrating that these signatures are regional, rather than local, in nature. The source apportionment modeling studies demonstrate that the major source of this sulfate is prima rily from coal

- fired electric generating units in regions west of New Jersey. The contribution of local sources from gasoline and diesel

powered vehicles and industries in the area are also important contributors to the PM 2.5 mass in New Jersey.

101 MARAMA. An Analysis of Speciated PM 2.5 Data in the MARAMA Region. Prepared by Gillepsie, W G. and

D avis, P. of the Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Baltimore, MD, May 31, 2006.

102 Figure 5

- 65 modified from MARAMA, 2006 (see note 101). A verage reconstructed total PM 2.5 mass = 19.1 μg/m 3 (percentages are based upon this total mass)

Average gravimetric total PM 2.5 mass =
18.0 μg/m 342 2.6 Emissi on Inventory

An emission inventory is a n estimate of the emissions from anthropogenic (human

- made) and biogenic (natural) sources. New Jersey developed an emission inventory for 2002, which is

defined as the base year for future attainment planning purpo ses with respect to 8

- hour ozone,

PM 2.5 , and regional h aze State Implementation Plans (SIPs), as required by the USEPA. 103 The 2002 base year inventory included the pollutants: VOC, NO

x , carbon monoxide, particulate

matter less than 10 micrometers in diame ter (PM 10 ), PM 2.5 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 )

, 104 and ammonia (NH 3 ). The inventory divided the sources into five sectors

, each making up one component of the inventory: point sources, area sources, onroad sources, nonroad sources, and biogenic

sources. The emis sion inventories from all the states in the Northeastern and Mid

- Atlantic states were compiled by the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union ( MANE

- VU), which then created a regional inventory. MANE

- VU consists of the District of Columbia and 11 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This regional inventory was used to perform the regional modeling analysis used in the State’s air quality management plan ning efforts to

attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, the PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the regional haze plans. MANE

- VU, through its contractor, MARAMA, projected the 2002 base year emission inventory to various future years. For the purposes of this PM 2.5 SIP revision, th e 2009 future projections were used

in the regional modeling exercises to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. 105 The regional 2002 and 2009 emission inventories were used as the basis of this SIP

revision.

Comparisons of the 2002 and 2 009 PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NO

x inventories developed by MANE

- VU

are discussed in this section. Detailed information about the emission inventor ies is included in the attainment demonstration summary in Chapter 5. Figures 2.18 and 2.19 compare the total

emission s of direct PM 2.5, NO

x , and SO 2 from 2002 and 2009 for each state in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas, respectively. Figures 2.20 through 2.26 compare the direct PM 2.5, NO

x , and SO 2 emis sions from each sector (i.e., point, area, onroad, and nonroad) in all the states associated with New Jersey’s

PM 2.5 nonattainment areas from 2002 and 2009. The top 15 direct PM 2.5, NO

x , and SO 2 emitting categories in the 2002 and 2009 inventories for the MANE

- VU region are compared in Figures 2.27 through 2.31. In general, for both nonattaiment areas, total emissions for each pollutant are projected to decrease, with emissions from the area source sector increasing while emissions

from the other sectors are projected to decrease. Stationary source emissions are projected to

increase for direct PM 2.5 . The 2009 projections assume the implementation of BOTW measures

103 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 8

- Hour Car bon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard; and the 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory. New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro tection, May 2006.

104 SO 2 has been reported in the inventory instead of SO

x as required in the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule

because the USEPA MOBILE and NON

- ROAD models and the majority of USEPA guidance on emission factors is

based on SO 2 , not SO

x . In addition, the USEPA National Emissions Inventory reports SO 2

. 105 While New Jersey did complete a state

- specific 2002 inventory (submitted to the USEPA February 28, 2006, and approved by the USEPA May 2006), this inventory was not used for this analysi s, as a comparable 2009 inventory was not grown in state.43 (see Chapter 4)

.

Figure 2.18 : Comparison of Total PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 Emissions by State i n the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000

2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009

PM2.5 NOx SO2Emissions (tpy)

New York
New Jersey

Connecticut44 Figure 2.19 : Comparison of Total PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 Emissions by State in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009

PM2.5 NOx SO2Emissions (tpy)

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Delaware

Figure 2.20 : Comparison of PM 2.5 Emissions by Sector in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000 24000 27000 30000

Point Area Onroad Nonroad

SectorEmissions (tpy)

2002 200945 Figure 2.21 : Comparison of PM 2.5 Emissions by Sector in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000 24000 27000 30000

Point Area Onroad Nonroad

SectorEmissions (tpy)

2002 2009

Figure 2.22 : Comparison of NO

x Emissions by Sector in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000 180000 210000 240000 270000 300000

Point Area Onroad Nonroad

SectorEmissions (tpy)

2002 200946 Figure 2.23 : Comparison of NO

x Emissions by Sector in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000 180000 210000 240000 270000 300000

Point Area Onroad Nonroad

SectorEmissions (tpy)

2002 2009

Figure 2.24 : Co mparison of SO 2 Emissions by Sector in the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000

Point Area Onroad Nonroad

SectorEmissions (tpy)

2002 200947 Figure 2.25 : Comparison of SO 2 Emissions by Sector in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area

2002

- 2009

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000

Point Area Onroad Nonroad

SectorEmissions (tpy)

2002 2009

Figure 2. 26 : 2002 MANE

- VU Region PM 2.5 Inventory Top 15

161,137 69,550 60,426 46,127 23,763 21,492 21,016 18,951 15,505 14,016 13,436 10,873 8,721 8,485 8,295

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Residential Mobile Sources-Unpaved Roads

Mobile Sources-Paved Roads Industrial Processes-Construction Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery-Open Burning Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Industrial Mobile Sources-Off-highway Vehicles Diesel External Combustion Boilers-Electric Generation Miscellaneous Area Sources-Agricultural Production-Crops Industrial Processes-Food and Kindred Products Mobile Sources-Highway Vehicles-Diesel

External Combustion Boilers-Industrial Mobile Sources-Highway Vehicles-Gasoline Industrial Processes-Mining and Quarrying Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Commercial/Institutional

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

NonRoad48 Figure 2. 27 : 2009 MANE

- VU Region PM 2.5 Inventory Top 15

105,229 66,253 47,979 37,367 25,470 25,012 18,931 17,331 14,452 13,577 13,090 10,149 9,359 8,056 7,831

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Wood Electric Generating Units (Total Emissions) Mobile Sources - Unpaved Roads

Mobile Sources - Paved Roads Industrial Processes - Construction Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery - Open Burning Miscellaneous Area Sources - Agricultural production-Crops Mobile Sources - Off-highway Vehicles Diesel Industrial Processes - Food and Kindred Products

Mobile Sources - All Onroad (Total Emissions) Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Coal External Combustion Boilers - Industrial Industrial Processes - Mining and Quarrying Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Natural Gas Industrial Processes - Mineral Products

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

NonRoad

Figure 2. 28 : 2002 MANE

- VU Region NO

x Inventory Top 15

798,279 492,533 434,308 224,113 121,124 71,535 57,533 55,775 53,852 52,718 51,966 43,701 33,554 22,042 21,419

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 Mobile Sources-Highway Vehicles-Gasoline

Mobile Sources-Highway Vehicles-Diesel External Combustion Boilers-Electric Generation

Mobile Sources-Off-highway Vehicle Diesel Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Residential Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Commercial/Institutional Industrial Processes-Mineral Products External Combustion Boilers-Industrial

Mobile Sources-Railroad Equipment Mobile Sources-LPG Mobile Sources-Marine Vessels, Commercial Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Industrial Mobile Sources-Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4-Stroke Internal Combustion Engines-Industrial Internal Combustion Engines-Electric Generation

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

NonRoad49 Figure 2. 29 : 2009 MANE

- VU Region NO

x Inventory Top 15

745,736 219,523 182,587 107,211 84,965 66,495 59,455 51,966 51,352 44,121 35,600 34,927 24,485 24,391 22,024

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 Mobile Sources - All Onroad (Total Emissions)

Electric Generating Units (Total Emissions) Mobile Sources - Off-highway Diesel Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Natural Gas Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Distillate Oil Mobile Sources - Railroad Equipment Industrial Processes - Mineral Products Mobile Sources - Commercial Marine Vessels Mobile Sources - LPG External Combustion Boilers - Industrial Mobile Sources - Off-highway vehicle gasoline Internal Combustion Engines - Industrial Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Coal Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Wood

Waste Disposal - Solid Waste Disposal

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

NonRoad

Figure 2. 30 : 2002 MANE

- VU Region SO 2 Inventory Top 15

1,633,336 156,095 145,518 83,170 66,138 47,627 29,674 27,265 26,087 17,173 17,154 15,817 12,191 11,750 4,574

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 External Combustion Boilers-Electric Generation External Combustion Boilers-Industrial Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Residential Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Commercial/Institutional Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Industrial Industrial Processes-Mineral Products Mobile Sources-Off-highway Vehicle Diesel Mobile Sources-Highway Vehicles-Gasoline Mobile Sources-Marine Vessels, Commercial External Combustion Boilers-Commercial/Institutional Industrial Processes-Petroleum Industry Industrial Processes-Primary Metal Production Mobile Sources-Highway Vehicles-Diesel Stationary Source Fuel Combustion-Electric Utility Industrial Processes-In-process Fuel Use

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

NonRoad50 Figure 2. 31 : 2009 MANE

- VU Region SO 2 Inventory Top 15

519,618 165,328 115,253 88,325 56,587 34,643 26,088 22,731 20,414 18,716 7,974 7,457 6,684 5,554 4,750

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Electric Generating Units (Total Emissions) Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Distillate Oil External Combustion Boilers - Industrial Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Coal

Industrial Processes - Mineral Products Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Residual Oil

Mobile Sources - Commercial Marine Vessels Mobile Sources - Off-highway Diesel Internal Combustion Engines - Industrial Industrial Processes - Metal Production Industrial Processes - Petroleum Industry Mobile Sources - All Onroad (Total Emissions) Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Kerosene Waste Disposal - Solid Waste Disposal Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - Wood

Tons per Year Area

Point

OnRoad

NonRoad

Addressing Condensables

Certain commercial or industrial activities involving high temperature processes (fuel combustion, metal processing, cooking operations, etc.) emit g aseous pollutants into the ambient air which rapidly condense into particle form. The constituents of these condensed particles include, but are not limited to, organic material, sulfuric acid, and metals. 106 States are required

under the consolidated emis sions reporting rule (CERR) 107 to report condensable emissions in each inventory revision. For New Jersey’s 2002 PM 2.5 inventory, filterable PM 2.5 and

condensable PM 2.5 emissions were calculated, and then these emissions were added together to produce the f inal PM 2.5 emissions. 108

Addressing Fugitive Dus t

There has been some controversy over state inventory estimates for fugitive dust sources, which primarily consist of dust from paved and unpaved roadways, stock/storage piles, landfill activity, quarry/min ing activity, raw material handling, construction and agricultural tilling. Fugitive

106 72 Fed. Reg. 20586 (April 25, 2007).

107 67 Fed. Reg. 39602 (June 10, 2002).

108 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for the Attainment and Maintenance of the

8

- Hour Carbon Monoxide Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard; and the 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. May 200 6.51 dusts are directly released air contaminants that do not pass through an exhaust pipe, stack, flue,

vent

, or chimney. Specifically, the concern is that the estimated num bers are significantly higher than is evidenced by the ambient data. This discrepancy is supported by a study of fine particle matter near urban roadways which found that emissions of resuspended particulate matter near urban roads calculated using the pr escribed guidance would result in fine particle levels 9 to 20

time s higher than those observed. 109 Further, the USEPA and other regional air quality modeling work have found it necessary to reduce calculated dust

- related emissions by 75

- 90 percent in

order to have the modeling results match monitored PM 2.5 speciated data. In the regional inventory, the states each submitted unadjusted fugitive dust emission numbers to the National Emissions Inventory ( NEI ) /MARAMA. However, these numbers were adjusted prio r to modeling, as documented in the inventory section of the Technical Support Document for modeling (see Appendix B 4 ). In order for the calculated inventory values to more closely match the actual measured levels in New Jersey air quality monitors, a nd m atch their true proportional impacts to human health, New Jersey multiplied its estimated fugitive dust emissions by a dust adjustment factor of 20 percent in its State

- generated base inventory (submitted to USEPA on February 28, 2006, and approved by the USEPA May 2006)

. 110

2.7 Conclusions

Ambient air monitoring networks are in place to measure the levels of fine particulate matter in order to communicate the quality of the air to the public and to track the progress toward meeting the NAAQS. PM 2.5 has been measured in New Jersey and its associated multi

- state nonattainment areas since 1999. A summary of the observations and conclusions from the analyses in this Chapter are as follows:

1) The air quality data in New Jersey and surrounding states indicates att ainment of the former daily PM 2.5 standard (65 μg/m 3 ) and nonattainment of the new daily standard (35 μg/m 3 ).

2) PM 2.5 levels are decreasing.

3) Ambient PM 2.5 speciated data from the New Jersey speciation monitors in Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswi ck show that sulfate and organic carbon are the largest components of total PM 2.5 mass.

4) Analyses of the PM 2.5 speciated data collected at ambient monitors using source apportionment techniques demonstrate that common sources that contribute to PM 2.5 mass included a combination of local and regional sources and biogenic and anthropogenic sources, specifically coal

- fired power plants in regions west of New Jersey, crustal matter, oil combustion sources in Northeast urban areas, sea salt, and motor vehicles ( diesel/gasoline and local/highway).

109 NJDEP. Attachment 2: Fugitive Dust Inventory Discussion and Summary, State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Revisions for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 8

- Hour Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard; and the 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. May 2006.

110 See note 108.52 5) In addition to the ambient monitoring network, emission inventories quantify the sources of

PM 2.5 . In general, for both nonattaiment areas associated with New Jersey , total emissions for each pollutant are projected to decrease

, with emissions from the area source sector increasing , direct PM 2.5 emissions from stationary sources are increasing, and emissions from

the other sectors are decreas ing by 2009

.53 3.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

The primary purpose of thi s State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision is to demonstrate that New Jersey and its associated multi

- state nonattainment areas will attain the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by April 5, 2010.

Ne w Jersey plans to fulfill its obligations under the federal Clean Air Act and the State’s Air Pollution Control Act with respect to both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 standards (see discussions of these standards in Section 1.1). The State faces several other a ir quality related challenges, including meeting other criteria pollutant NAAQS (such as 8

- hour ozone), reducing air toxic emissions to reduce cumulative risk, and improving visibility, that are interrelated with the PM 2.5 initiatives. See Chapter 1 for m ore information on the PM 2.5 reductions from this SIP revision relate to the State’s other air quality related challenges.

As required by 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) (Section 110(a)(1)), the states are required to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS by submitt ing revised State Implementation Plans (SIPs). As discussed in Chapter 1, on July 18, 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established two new primary NAAQS for fine particles:

o an annual fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) health

- b ased standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (annual arithmetic mean) and

o a daily (24

- hour) PM 2.5 health

- based standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (24

- hour average). 111

, 112

On October 16, 2006, the USEPA promulgated a revised PM 2.5 NAAQS, which became effective December 18, 2006. 113 The USEPA retained the existing annual standard established in 1997 and established a more stringent daily standard of 35 μg/m 3 . This SIP revision does not meet the requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS b ut provides progress toward attainment of the 35 μg/m 3 standard.

3.1 USEPA PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

The USEPA published its final rule to implement the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS on April 25, 2007. 114
A state or tribe must develop an implementation plan for any areas that are designated in nonattainment of a NAAQS. For the 1997 daily PM 2.5 standard, New Jersey continues to meet that level as demonstrated by the most current air monitoring data presented in Chapter 2. Thirteen of New Jersey’s 21 counties were designat ed as nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, and are associated with two multi

- state nonattainment areas (the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut (NNJ/NY/CT) PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia (SNJ/Phila.) PM 2.5 non attainment area), as shown in Figure 1.1 (see Chapter 1).

111 62 Fed. Reg. 38652

- 760 (July 18, 1997).

112 The US EPA also revised the PM 10 NAAQS by revising the 24

- hour form of the PM 10 standard to the 99 th
percentile averaged over 3 years but retaining the 24

- hour PM 10 level (i.e., 150 mg/m 3 ) (62 Fed. Reg. 38652 (July 18, 1997)). In 2006, the USEPA revoked the annu al PM 10 standard (71 Fed. Reg. 61144 (October 17, 2006)). New Jersey was not designated in nonattainment of the PM 10 NAAQS and continues to meet the revised PM 10 standards.

113 71 Fed. Reg. 61144

- 233 (October 17, 2006).

114 72 Fed. Reg. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2 007).54 The SIP requirements and elements of the implementation rule are described briefly in this section. Please refer to the associated SIP chapters for additional details.

PM 2.5 Precursor Policy

As discussed in Chapter 1, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia can all contribute to the formation of PM 2.5 . Under the UESPA’s final implementation rule for PM 2.5 , 115 the precursor that nonattainment a reas must
evaluate for control measures to reduce PM 2.5 is SO 2 . Sulfate has a significant regional impact

on PM 2.5 concentrations and is a large component of air quality problems in all areas of the country. Studies show that sulfate is also the largest component of total PM 2.5 mass concentrations in New Jersey, as discussed in Section 2.5. There are presumptive policies for

NO

x , ammonia, and VOC regarding whether or not these pollutants need to be addressed in SIPs; states have the option of reversing t hese policies for these precursors for an area but states must provide a technical demonstration to do so. The presumption is that NO

x should be evaluated in a SIP and for control measures, whereas ammonia and VOC are not required to be evaluated for

stra tegies that will reduce PM 2.5 unless a state demonstrates that either or both of these pollutants are significant contributors to the PM 2.5 problem in an area. New Jersey and the states in its shared nonattainment areas agree with the USEPA’s final polici es for PM 2.5 precursors and did not conduct technical demonstrations to reverse these policies. Hence, New Jersey focuses on

SO 2 , NO

x , and direct emissions of PM 2.5 in this SIP revision.

The USEPA developed similar but not identical precursor policies fo r other PM

- related programs under the federal Clean Air Act (e.g., New Source Review (NSR), regional haze, transportation conformity, and general conformity). 116 NSR and regional haze are discussed in Chapter 4 and transportation and general conformity are discussed in Chapter 7. For transportation conformity, a different approach for a precursor was adopted under the final regulation (i.e., 71 Fed. Reg. 12468). The federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7506(c) (Section 176(c))) requires transportation plans, programs, and projects to conform with a state’s SIP. This requirement ensures that these activities will not contribute to or create any new air quality problems or delay the attainment of a NAAQS. For transportation conformity, four transportation rel ated PM 2.5
precursors

– NO

x , VOCs, SO

x , and ammonia

– must be considered in the conformity process in

PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. 117 The USEPA requirements for the consideration of PM 2.5
precursors are:

• Regional emissions analysis must include NO

x as a PM 2 .5 precursor in all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas, unless the head of the state air agency and the USEPA Regional Administrator make a finding that NO

x is not a significant contributor to the PM 2.5 air quality problem in a given area.

• Regional emissions anal yses are not required for VOC, SO

x , or NH 3 before an approved SIP budget for such precursors is established, unless the head of the state air agency or the USEPA Regional Administrator makes a finding that onroad emissions of any of

115 72 Fed. Reg. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007).

116 72 Fed. Reg. 20590 (April 25, 2007).

117 70 Fed. Reg. 24280

- 92 (May 6, 2005).55 these precursors is a s ignificant contributor.

Details of the criteria for the consideration of PM 2.5 precursors are explained in Chapter 7.

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) The Clean Air Act, the implementation plan must provide for the adoption of RACT, at a

mi nimum, as expeditiously as practicable, in addition to any other plan provisions to attain the NAAQS. New Jersey determined that there are RACT measures that can be reasonably implemented, and expects these emission reduction strategies to also help with future attainment efforts for the more stringent 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard, reduction of air toxics, and other air quality improvement purposes. Refer to Chapter 4 and Appendix A7 for additional details.

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

Control measures that would advance the attainment date are considered RACMs that must be

included in the SIP. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. §7502(c)(1) (Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act), states, as part of their effort to attain the NAAQS, are required to implement all RACMs as expeditiously as practicable. Specifically, the Clean Air Act states:

“In general

– such plan provisions shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including s uch reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”

The p urpose of the RACM analysis is to determine whether or not reasonably available control

measures for all mobile and non

- RACT stationary sources exist that would advance the attainment date for nonattainment areas by one year. Refer to Chapter 4 and Append ix A8 for

additional details.

Emission Inventory Emission inventories for criteria pollutants, including PM 2.5 , and their precursor pollutants are required by the USEPA through its authority under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA requirements are cod ified at 40 C.F.R. Pt. 51, Subpart Q. States need these emission inventories for demonstrating attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. New Jersey submitted its 2002 emission inventory to the USEPA in May 2006 and the USEPA approved it on July 10, 2006. 118

Ne w Jersey’s 2002 emission inventory was provided to the regional organizations for photochemical modeling exercises for the attainment demonstrations of the 8

- hour ozone and

1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and a regional 2002 baseline modeling emission inventory wa s developed for all of the states, incorporating the states’ data, and projected to 2009. The regional 2002 and 2009 modeling emission inventories were used as the basis of this SIP revision. As

118 “The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory May 2006”

submitted to the USE PA as Appendix D of the “The State of New Jersey NJDEP of Environmental Protection State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 8

- Hour Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1

- Hour Ozone National Ambie nt Air Quality Standard, and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard; and the 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory May 2006.” The USEPA approved the 2002 Emission Inventory effective July 10, 2006.56 discussed in Chapter 2, Figures 2.20 and 2.21 show a compar ison of PM 2.5 emissions by sector in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas, respectively. Refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 for additional details.

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

RFP is a requirement that ensures a nonattainment area is progressing toward attaining a standard in a timely fashion. For nonattainment areas with 2010 or earlier PM 2.5 attainment dates (like New Jersey’s associated PM 2.5 nonattainment areas, which both have an a ttainment date of April 2010), no RFP submittal is necessary, as the due date of the SIP, April 5, 2008, is within two years of the attainment date. 119

Attainment Demonstration States with nonattainment areas are required to show through technical analyse s that the standard will be met by the attainment date of April 5, 2010. Refer to Chapter 5 for additional details.

Contingency Measures Contingency measures are required to further reduce emissions in the event an area fails to attain by its attainment date or meet a RFP milestone, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (Section 172(c)(9)). These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures that are ready for implementation quickly without further action by the State or the USEPA upon failure to meet an RFP milestone or reach attainment. 120 By following the USEPA’s guidance that encourages early implementation of contingency measures and relying on measures already implemented or under development, New Jersey is ensurin g that no additional contingency measures will need to be developed and implemented beyond those identified, and is safeguarding itself against failure to meet attainment. Refer to Chapter 6 for

additional details.

Section 110(a) Requirements

Under 42 U. S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act), states are required to submit an implementation plan to the USEPA Administrator that demonstrates states’ ability and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQ S. The USEPA refers to these plans as the infrastructure elements of the SIP. New Jersey submitted its proposed PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP to the USEPA on December 7, 2007. 121 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) ( Section 110(a)(2)) lists the elements that are to comprise the implementation plan.

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) (Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) (hereafter referred to as Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)) is commonly referred to as the transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirement. New Jersey submitted its transport SIP letter on December 22, 2006. 122 The public hearing on New Jersey’s proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 123 held on March 28, 2007, included a discussion of interstate transport as outlined in the December 22, 2006 NJDEP letter

119 72 Fed. Reg. 20633 (April 25, 2007).

120 72 Fed. Reg. 20642

- 43 (April 25, 2007).

121 Letter from NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated December 7, 2007. The letter is posted on the NJDEP’s website at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm.

122 Letter from NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated December 22, 2006. The letter is posted on the NJDEP’s website at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm.

123 39 N.J.R. 300(a) (February 5, 2007).57 to the USEPA. New Jer sey’s CAIR was adopted on June 19, 2007, became effective on July 16, 2007, became operative on August 17, 2007, 124 and the USEPA approved these rules on October 1, 2007. 125 Refer to Chapter 8 for additional details.

Transportation Conformity and General Co nformity The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7506) (Section 176) requires that federal actions conform to a state’s SIP. To implement this requirement the Clean Air Act directed the USEPA to issue rules that governed how conformity determinations would be cond ucted for two categories of actions/activities; a) those dealing with transportation plans, programs, and projects (Transportation Conformity), and b) all other actions, e.g., projects requiring federal permits. This latter category is referred to as Gene ral Conformity. De minimis levels for PM 2.5 were published in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 40420 (July 17, 2006)). Projects whose direct and indirect

emissions exceed the de minimis levels are required to offset their emissions. The Federal Transportation Conform ity Rule (40 C.F.R. Sect. 93.100

- 160) provides the process by which the air quality impact of transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects are analyzed. Refer to Chapter 7 for additional details.

Enforcement and Compliance

Enfo rceable SIP regulations must include specific elements. These elements include the sources or source types subject to the requirements, the requirements, (e.g., emission limits), time frames for compliance, recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, test methods for compliance, 126 and performance and ongoing monitoring of the control measures for those regulations with an applicable emissions limit. The State expects to propose and adopt measures it needs to attain

the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard in accordan ce with the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (N.J.S.A. 52:14B

- 1 et seq.) and the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) (N.J.S.A.

26:2C

- 1 et seq.) (Refer to Chapter 8). Once adopted, these regulations will be fully enforceable by the State.

Ambie nt Monitoring

Federal PM 2.5 monitoring regulations at 40 C.F.R. Pt. 58 that apply to the states’ ambient air quality monitoring programs were revised in 2006 with the revised PM NAAQS. No new requirements or revisions were promulgated with the final imple mentation rule.

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) The final 1997 implementation rule did not include final PM 2.5 requirements for the N NSR program. The USEPA issued a portion of its NNSR rule on May 16, 2008. 127 Refer to Chapter 4

for additional de tails on this program in New Jersey.

124 39 N.J.R. 2637(a) (July 16, 2007). Also, see N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 30.

125 72 Fed. Reg. 55666

- 72 (October 1, 2007).

126 There is no final test method for direct PM 2.5 emissions at this time. The USEPA is collecting information from

stakeholders on such test methods de scribed in the implementation rule and established a period of transition for establishing PM 2.5 emission limits (72 Fed. Reg. 20651

- 55 (April 25, 2007)).

127 73 Fed. Reg. 28321

- 350 (May 16, 2008).58 3.2 Summary of this SIP Revision

The remainder of this SIP revision includes the following:

• A discussion of control measures

• A demonstration of attainment for the year 2010 for both PM 2.5 nonattainment areas

associate d with New Jersey

• A Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis

• A Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) analysis

• A discussion of contingency measures

• A discussion of the State’s obligations in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

• Transport ation conformity budgets

• New Jersey specific declarations and commitments59 4.0 CONTROL MEASURES

This chapter discusses the particulate matter related control measures implemented, or expected to be implemented in New Jersey, in the Northeast/Mid

- Atlantic R egions, and nationally. As discussed in detail in Chapter 1, oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), in addition to direct fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), are the precursors of concern for PM 2.5 SIP

- related activity. This chapter focuses on t hose measures designed to decrease one or more of these pollutants specifically. This section explains the terminology related to control measures used throughout Chapter 5 (the PM 2.5 attainment demonstration chapter); provides a summary of how the contro l measures were identified; and gives a brief synopsis of each control measure considered in Chapter 5. A summary of the identified control measures is shown in Table 4.5. The benefits from the implementation of these measures, and the benefit calculatio ns, are discussed in the State’s attainment demonstration in Chapter 5, contingency plan in Chapter 6, and appendix to Chapter 6. Note that this chapter only provides a discussion of control measures not included in the baseline (2002) emission inventory. Existing controls, such as the New Jersey inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for gasoline vehicles prior to the initiation of mandatory on

- board diagnostic inspections and pre

- 2002 reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules are

not includ ed in this chapter. Those controls are included in the 2002 baseline inventory. In addition to addressing PM 2.5 emissions, the measures discussed in this chapter are also expected to have an impact on controlling regional haze, the primary constituent of which is PM 2.5

.

4.1 Terminology

On The Books (OTB)

– “On the Books (OTB)” control measures (State or Federal) are control measures that were a) adopted before 2002, but have implementation dates after 2002, or obtain additional benefits after 2002, due to turnover of products, equipment, or vehicles (the benefits from these measures are not included in the State’s 2002 base year emissions inventory); or b) adopted and implemented after 2002. An example of an OTB measure for New Jersey is the

NO

x Budget Pro gram, which went into effect May 1, 1999; a lower NO

x emission cap was required effective May 1, 2003

.

Beyond On The Way (BOTW)

– These control measures (state, regional, or Federal) are proposed by New Jersey as part of the effort to reach attainment by April 5, 2010. 128

4.2 On the Books Controls

The following section provides descriptions of the New Jersey and Federal OTB measures that

are included in the State’s attainment demonstration.

128 According to USEPA guidance, areas that have an attainment date of no later than April 5, 2010 must implement

the emission reductions needed for attainment no later than 2009. Source: USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS, United States E nvironmental Protection Agency, October 2005.60 4.2.1 New Jersey

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post

- 2002

– On the books

New Jersey NO

x Budget Program (SIP Call) : On September 27, 1994, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) agreed to develop a regional program to achieve significant reductions in

NO

x emissions from large combustion sources. This program called for the esta blishment of a

NO

x cap and trade program, as well as the establishment of an emissions cap or “budget” for all affected sources that in total must not be exceeded during each control period, beginning in

1999. The NO

x SIP Call is a similar regional NO

x re duction measure designed by the USEPA, in part, as a result of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group’s (OTAG) final recommendation report addressing ozone transport over the Eastern United States. 129 New Jersey adopted its NO

x Budget Program 130 in 1998. The b ase emission budget of 17,340 tons of NO

x was established for the years 1999

- 2002. This was approximately 65 percent less than 1990 emission levels and was termed Phase II. In 2003, the NO

x SIP Call replaced Phase III of the OTC’s program with a

reductio n of the base emission budget to 8,200 tons. The NO

x SIP Call also expanded the geographical area beyond the Ozone Transport Region to the south and the west. The NO

x SIP Call will continue through the ozone season of 2008, at which point it will be supe rseded by the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The NO

x Budget Program covers primarily electric generating units (EGUs) and some non

- EGUs. The equipment covered by the NO

x Budget Program include fossil fuel fired indirect heat exchangers with a maximum rated heat input capacity of at least 250 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour and electric generating units with a rated output of at least 15 megawatts (MW). The USEPA approved the State’s NO

x SIP Call program on May 22, 2001. 131

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) : The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C

. § 7503

, requires new or modified major sources to install the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER) control equipment and obtain greater than one for one emission offsets in order to locate in a nonattainment area. Thus, the NNSR program provides for continual emission reductions to help improve the air quality in the nonattainment area and further downwind. In New Jersey, any significant new, reconstructed, or modified significant source is a lso required to install state of the art (SOTA) control technology (similar to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or LAER for major sources). SOTA, which is a minor NSR program, also results in reductions in

the actual emissions from the facilities. New Jersey’s SOTA requirements, denominated in the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act as “ advances in the art of air pollution control, ” mandate BACT or LAER, as appropriate, if the equipment or control apparatus is subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD ) or Nonattainment New Source Review ( NNSR ) regulations

. 132

129 USEPA. 1998 Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) Final Report. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone Transport Assessment Group. Accessed from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/otag/ finalrpt/.

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

- 31

131 66 Fed. Reg. 28063

- 66 (May 22, 2001).

132 New Jersey’s Air Pollution Control Act (1954).61 Post 2002

– On the books

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

NO

x RACT Rule ( 2006 ) : The NJDEP adopted amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19, Control and

Prohibition of Air Pollution from NO

x , on September 8, 2005. The amendments were based on the OTC’s March 6, 2001 model rules to control NO

x emissions tied to shortfall measures. The OTC model rules were created as the result of the agreement formally set forth in a

“ Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Regarding the Development of Specific Control Measures to Support Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (MOU), which was approved by th e OTC on June 1, 2000. Specifically, the New Jersey amendments apply to owners and operators of certain stationary sources of NO

x emissions, including industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) boilers, combustion turbines, and reciprocating engines.

Owne rs and operators of such sources are required to achieve the emission limit specified in the rules or to comply instead with alternative requirements, such as an emission averaging plan, an alternative maximum allowable emission rate or a plan for phased c ompliance (repowering or use of innovative technology). The amendments also regulate distributed generation 133 of electricity, consistent with the OTC recommendation in its March 28, 2001 “Resolution of the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concernin g the Creation of incentives for Additional Distributed Generation of Electric Power.” The USEPA issued final approval of the New Jersey SIP revision, including these rule amendments on July 31, 2007. 134 The rules became effective August 30, 2007.

New Jer sey Only Measures

New Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules, Including “Not

- To

- Exceed” (NTE) Requirements : The NJDEP adopted new rules and amendments on October 28, 2001 to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 26 that added requirements for new heavy

- duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) equip ped with model year 2005 and newer heavy

- duty diesel engines (HDDEs) sold in New Jersey. Specifically, the rulemaking required these new HDDEs to be certified as meeting California’s HDDE requirements. These requirements include both the federal emission standards applicable to all model year 2004 and newer HDDEs, plus a number of testing procedures which the USEPA required for model year 2007 and newer HDDEs. The NTE test procedure is so called because it is used to demonstrate that an engine does not e xceed, under a wide variety of operating conditions, an emissions cap of 1.25 times the Federal Test Procedure emission standard. For this reason, the California requirements are often referred to as the NTE requirements. California promulgated these NTE requirements to address a temporal gap of two years between the end of the requirements set forth in the consent decrees entered into by seven major HDDE manufacturers and the effective date of equivalent federal testing requirements. It was anticipated that the adoption of the NTE

133 Distributed generation is a system composed of generation located near the energy consumer’s site that may be integrated with the elec tric grid to provide multiple benefits on both sides of the utility meter. Source: CECA. Distributed Generation Facts, Consumer Energy Council of America, http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/DG/DGFacts.html.

134 72 Fed. Reg. 41626

- 41629 (July 31, 2007).62 requirements by states regulating the majority of HDDEs sold in the United States would encourage and provide incentive for engine manufacturers to produce only engines meeting the NTE requirements.

On October 25, 2005, the NJ DEP adopted new rules, rule amendments, recodifications and repeals of rule provisions to clarify and supplement the existing requirements for the sale, for use or registration in New Jersey, of certain HDDVs and HDDEs, model years 2007 and later. The

rul emaking did not impose any new standards for model year 2007 and later HDDEs per se; rather, it served to clarify the finer points of the application of CARB

- certification requirements to model year 2007 and beyond, since CARB’s standards for those model y ears are significantly different from the NTE requirements and standards for model years 2005 and 2006, and were not discussed in the NJDEP’s 2001 rulemaking. In addition, a prohibition of the practice known as “stockpiling” was added. Stockpiling is the practice of purchasing vehicles and/or engines earlier than necessary in order to avoid more stringent emission standards. Finally, the NJDEP added provisions that would, in the event that the provisions of the Federal 2007 rule are not in effect, requir e recordkeeping and reporting of the sale, for use in New Jersey, of model year and later HDDEs. The Federal 2007 rule was promulgated by the USEPA on January 18, 2001 to take effect for model year 2007.

On

- Board Diagnostics (I/M) Program for Gasoline Ve hicles : A number of changes to New Jersey’s I/M program for gasoline vehicles were implemented after 2002. The two program changes that materially impacted vehicle emissions were the extension for the new vehicle emission inspection from one inspection cy cle (i.e., 2 years) to two inspection cycles (i.e., 4 years) and the initiation of mandatory on

- board diagnostic (OBD) inspections for model year 1996 and newer vehicles. The OBD test largely replaced the dynamometer based Acceleration Simulation Mode (AS M5015) exhaust test for these newer vehicles. New Jersey submitted a SIP revision that contained the results of performance standard modeling for these I/M program changes on November 27, 2002. 135 The USEPA subsequently approved this SIP revision. 136

4.2.2 Federa l

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post 2002

– On the books

Residential Woodstove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) : The USEPA New Source Performance emission standards for new wood burning stoves 137 and fireplace inserts were implemented in 1992. These standards are 7.5 grams of particulate matter per hour for non

catalytic controlled units and 4.1 grams of particulate matter per hour for catalytic controlled

135 NJDEP . Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jersey Revised Performance Standard Modeling SIP Revision. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. November 27, 2002. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/4 year/4yrexempt_fin.doc.

136 68 Fed. Reg. 7704

- 06 (February 18, 2003).

137 A wood burning stove is defined as a free standing enclosed wood

- burning unit, vented to the atmosphere, and designed to provide heat to a home. In contrast, a fireplace insert is defin ed as a self

- enclosed unit that sits within a masonry structure, vented to the atmosphere, that is not designed as a primary heating source for a home. The USEPA emission standards do not cover masonry

- constructed fireplaces without fireplace inserts, but these unique fireplaces are thought to account for a very small segment of the wood burning conducted in the New Jersey.63 units. There are no control requirements for fireplace inserts or wood stove units manufa ctured prior to 1992, and these units emit from 30 to 70 grams of particulate matter per hour. The USEPA indicates that they do not have any plans to update the NSPS anytime soon. Instead, the USEPA is choosing to focus on voluntary wood stove change

- out programs, rather than new

standards.

Acid Rain : Title IV of the Clean Air Act set a goal of reducing annual SO 2 emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels. To achieve these reductions, the law required a two

- phase tightening of the restrictions plac ed on fossil fuel

- fired power plants. Phase I began in 1995, and affected 263 units at 110 mostly coal

- burning electric utility plants located in 21 eastern and

mid

- western states. An additional 182 units joined Phase I of the program as substitution or compensating units, bringing the total of Phase I affected units to 445. Phase II, which began in the year 2000, tightened the annual emissions limits imposed on these large, higher emitting plants and also set restrictions on smaller, cleaner plants fire d by coal, oil, and gas, encompassing over 2,000 units in all. The program affects existing utility units serving generators with an output capacity of greater than 25 megawatts and all new utility units.

The Clean Air Act also called for a two million t on reduction in NO

x emissions by the year 2000. This has been superseded with the more stringent NO

x caps in CAIR, discussed below.

The Acid Rain Program utilizes an allowance trading system where affected utility units are

allocated allowances based on their historic fuel consumption and a specific emissions rate. Each allowance permits a unit to emit one ton of SO 2 during or after a specified year. For each

ton of SO 2 emitted in a given year, one allowance is retired, that is, it can no longer be used

. Allowances may be bought, sold, or banked. Anyone may acquire allowances and participate in the trading system. However, regardless of the number of allowances a source holds, it may not

emit at levels that would violate Federal or state limits set un der Title I of the Clean Air Act to protect public health including limits set by SIPs, such as this SIP. During Phase II of the program (now in effect), the Clean Air Act set a ceiling (or cap) of 8.95 million SO 2 allowances

for total annual allowance al locations to utilities.

Tier 1 Vehicle Program : Pursuant to 42 U.S.C

. §7521, the USEPA promulgated regulations which revised the tailpipe standards of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) for light duty vehicles and light duty trucks. 138 Thes e standards, known as Tier 1, were implemented in phases beginning with the 1994 model year. The Tier 1 standards encompassed pollutants previously regulated (that is, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter), as well

as the addition of n on

- methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The standards themselves are a function of vehicle class, pollutant, useful life, engine cycle, and fuel. The Tier 1 rulemaking also

established new intermediate and full useful life 139 levels for air pollution control devic es on light

- duty vehicles and light

- duty trucks, as well as new vehicle weight classes. The regulation affected petroleum and methanol

- fueled motor vehicles.

138 56 Fed. Reg. 25724 (June 5, 1991).

139 Useful life is the number of years that the vehicle is expected to be in use.64 National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) : The NLEV 140 program required automobile

manufacture rs to meet more stringent new car standards, starting with the 1999 model year in the OTC states and starting with the 2001 model year in the remainder of the nation, except for California. New Jersey participated in the NLEV program for the model year 20 06, after which New Jersey came under the Federal Tier 2 program. New Jersey subsequently adopted the Low Emission Vehicle II (LEV II) program, which becomes effective for vehicles delivered for sale in New Jersey on and after January 1, 2009.

Tier 2 V ehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels : On February 10, 2000, the USEPA promulgated rules for its comprehensive Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program. 141 These regulations are designed to treat a vehicle and its fuel as a system, resulting in multiple efforts to redu ce highway source emissions. In addition to requiring new tailpipe emissions standards for all passenger vehicles, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, vans and pick

- up trucks, the USEPA simultaneously promulgated regulations to lower the sulfur stand ard in gasoline. These regulations phased in

between 2004 and 2007.

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement : On October 22, 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice and the USEPA announced a settlement with seven major diesel engine

manufac turers to resolve claims that they installed computer software on 1993 through 1998 model year heavy

- duty diesel engines which was designed to disengage the engine’s emission control system during highway driving. 142 The settlement, involving Caterpillar, I nc., Cummins Engine Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Mack Trucks, Inc., Navistar International Transportation Corporation, Renault Vehicles Industries, S.A., and Volvo Truck Corporation, included an $83.4 million total penalty. The settlement also req uired the manufacturers to offer software updates (chip reflash) at no cost to the truck owners at the time of engine rebuild.

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Engine Standards : 143 On July 31, 2000, the USEPA issued a final rule for the first phase of its two

- part strategy to significantly reduce harmful diesel emissions from heavy

- duty trucks and buses. This rule finalized new diesel engine standards beginning in 2004, for all diesel vehicles over 8,500 pounds. Additional diesel standards and test proced ures in this final rule began in 2007. This new rule required heavy

- duty gasoline engines to meet new, more stringent standards starting no later than the 2005 model year. According to the USEPA, these new standards require gasoline trucks to emit 78 per cent less NO

x and hydrocarbons, and diesel trucks to emit 40 percent less NO

x and hydrocarbons, than current models. The second phase of the program required cleaner diesel fuels and cleaner engines, reducing air pollution from trucks and buses by another 90 percent. The USEPA issued the final rule, to take effect in 2006

- 2007 on January 18, 2001. 144

140 For more inform ation on NLEV, see USEPA website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/lev

- nlev.htm

. 141 65 Fed. Reg. 6698

- 746 (February 10, 2000).

142 For more information, see USEPA’s web page on Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Consent Decree Documents at www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/cas es/civil/caa/diesel/condec.html

. 143 For more information, see the USEPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd

- hwy.htm.

144 66 Fed. Reg. 5002

- 50 (January 18, 2001).65 Nonroad Diesel Engines : In June 1994, the USEPA promulgated regulations to control volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NO

x and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from diesel

- powered compression ignition engines at or greater than 50 horsepower (hp), i.e., bulldozers. 145 These Tier 1 standards phased in from 1996 to 2000. In October 1998, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated regulat ions to control VOC, NO

x and

carbon monoxide emissions from diesel

- powered compression ignition engines for all engine

sizes. 146 This rule includes Tier 1 standards for engines under 50 horsepower (hp) (i.e., lawn tractors), Tier 2 standards for all engine sizes, and more stringent Tier 3 standards for engines rated over 50 hp. The new Tier 3 standards are expected to lead to control technologies similar to those that will be used by manufacturers of highway heavy

- duty engines to comply with the 2004 highwa y engines standards. 147 The new Tier 1 standards were phased in between the years 1999 and 2000, Tier 2 standards between 2001 and 2006, and Tier 3 between 2006 and 2008.

Large Industrial Spark

- Ignition Engines over 19 kilowatts : Spark

- ignition nonroad en gines are mostly powered by liquefied petroleum gas, with others operating on gasoline or compressed natural gas. These engines are used in commercial and industrial applications, including forklifts, electric generators, airport baggage transport vehicle s, and a variety of farm and construction applications.

In September 2002, the USEPA adopted new standards to regulate these engines. 148 The

emission standards are two

- tiered. The Tier 1 standards, which started in 2004, are based on a simple laboratory measurement using steady

- state procedures. The Tier 2 standards, starting in 2007, are based on transient testing in the laboratory, which ensures that the engines will control emissions when they operate under changing speeds and loads in the different k inds of equipment.

Also included is an option for manufacturers to certify their engines to different emission levels to reflect the fact that decreasing NO

x emissions tend to increase carbon monoxide emissions (and vice versa). In addition to these exh aust

- emission controls, manufacturers must take steps starting in 2007 to reduce evaporative emissions, such as using pressurized fuel tanks. Tier 2 engines are also required to have engine diagnostic capabilities that alert the operator to

malfunctions i n the engine’s emission

- control system. The rule also includes special standards to allow for measuring emissions without removing engines from equipment.

Recreational Vehicles : Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off

- highway motorcycles,

and all

- terrain

- vehicles (ATVs). In September 2002, the USEPA adopted new standards to regulate nonroad recreational engines and vehicles. 149 The standards that affect PM 2.5 emissions are presented in Table 4.1. As shown by this table, only the new standards for off

- highway motorcycles and ATVs will reduce NO

x , a PM 2.5 precursor.

145 59 Fed. Reg. 31306 (June 17, 1994).

146 63 Fed. R eg. 56968

- 7023 (October 23, 1998).

147 USEPA. Regulatory Announcement: New Emission Standards for Nonroad Diesel Engines. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources, EPA420

- F

- 98

- 034, August 1998.

148 67 Fed. Reg. 68242

- 447 (Novemb er 8, 2002).

149 67 Fed. Reg. 68242

- 447 (November 8, 2002).66 Table 4.1 : Summary of Emission Standards for Recreational Vehicles

Vehicle Model year Emission standards Phase

- in

HC*+NO

x g/km CO g/km

Off

- highway Motorcycle 2006 2.0 25.0 50%

20 07 and later 2.0 25.0 100%

ATV 2006 1.5 35.0 50%

2007 and later 1.5 35.0 100%
*HC = Hydrocarbon

Federal Compression Ignition Marine Engine Regulations (Commercial Marine Engines) : 150

, 151
In 1999, the USEPA promulgated regulations for commercial marine die sel engines over 37 kilowatts (kW), including engines with per cylinder displacement up to 30 liters. 152 This rule

established VOC and NO

x emission standards, starting in 2004, for new engines with per cylinder displacement up to 2.5 liters. This rule also established standards in 2007 for engines with per cylinder displacement between 2.5 and 30 liters. 153 The engines covered by this rule are divided into two categories: Category 1 : rated power at or above 37 kW

- specific displacement

of less than 5 liters per cylinder. These engines are primarily found in fast ferries. Category 2 : rated power at or above 37 kW

- specific displacement greater than or equal to 5, but less than 30, liters per cylinder. These engines are primarily found in tug and towboats.

Federal Small Spark Ignition Engine Regulations : In July 1995, the USEPA promulgated the first phase of its regulations to control emissions from new nonroad spark ignition engines. 154 This regulation established VOC and carbon monoxide emission standards for all model year 1997 155
and newer nonroad spark ignition engines that have a gross power output at or below 19 kilowatts. These engines are used principally in lawn and garden equipment, including, but not limited to, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers , chainsaws, and generators. In March 1999, the USEPA promulgated Phase 2 regulations to control emissions from new nonroad spark ignition engines. 156 These regulations established tighter VOC and NO

x standards for non

- handheld equipment such as lawn mower s and commercial turf equipment. The new standards were phased in between the years 2001 and 2007. In March 2000, the USEPA promulgated additional Phase 2 regulations to control emissions from new nonroad spark ignition engines. 157 This regulation establi shed tighter VOC, NO

x , and carbon monoxide standards for handheld

150 For more information, see the USEPA’s regulatory announcement on Emission Standards for New Commercial Marine Diesel Engines at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/fr/f99043.pdf

. 151 The USEPA has not finalized Tier 2 standards for Category 3 commercial marine engines. The USEPA will promulgate final Tier 2 standards for Category 3 engines on or before December 17, 2009. (“Category 3” means relating to a marine engine with a specific eng ine displacement greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder).

Source: 40 C.F.R. §§ 94.1, 94.8; 72 Fed. Reg. 20948

- 52 (April 27, 2007).

152 64 Fed. Reg. 73300

- 73 (December 29, 1999).

153 USEPA. Technical Highlights: Organization of Gasoline and Diesel Ma rine Engine Emission Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources, EPA420

- F

- 99

- 046. December 1999.

154 60 Fed. Reg. 34582

- 657 (July 3 , 1995).

155 Ibid; Model year 1997 is defined as “The 1997 model year will run from Janu ary 2, 1996 to December 31, 1997.”

156 64 Fed. Reg. 15208

- 55 (March 30 , 1999).

157 65 Fed. Reg. 24268

- 314 (April 25, 2000).67 equipment such as string trimmers (i.e., weed whackers), leaf blowers and chainsaws. The new standards were phased in between the years 2002 to 2007.

Post 2002

– Federal On the Books

Ind ustrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT : On September 13, 2004, the USEPA established a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) that applies to industrial, commercial, and institutional units firing solid fuel (coal, wood, waste, biomass) which have a desi gn capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and are located at a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 158 See the discussion on HAPs under USEPA MACT Standards. This rule was subsequently vacated by the courts, triggering the Section 112(j) provisions of the Clean Air Act. NJDEP is participating in the National Association of Clean Air Agencies’ (NACAA) efforts to develop MACT guidance for use by states and expects to do case

- by

- case MACT in 2009.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) : The CAIR was the US EPA’s attempt to address the interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate precursors by requiring emission reductions of SO 2 and

NO

x . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled (see Chapter 8) that the CAIR does

not meet the se objectives w ithin and the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and

remanded it to the USEPA. While the USEPA is working on a replacement program, the existing CAIR program remains in place.

The CAIR expects to obtain these reductions from large electric genera ting units (EGUs greater than 25 MW) through three cap

- and

- trade programs: ozone season NO

x , annual NO

x and annual

SO 2 . The CAIR ozone season NO

x cap and trade program essentially replaces the NO

x Budget Program with lower caps and an expanded geographica l region to the south and west of the NO

x SIP Call region. The CAIR also creates new annual NO

x and SO 2 cap and trade programs. The

annual NO

x trading program is modeled after the NO

x Budget Program, expanded for the entire year. New Jersey adopted the new rules for the CAIR NO

x Trading Program on July 16, 2007, and the USEPA approved these rules on October 1, 2007. 159 The new CAIR rules will allow New Jersey to allocate NO

x allowances to New Jersey sources beginning 2009.

New Jersey did not take any act ion on the SO 2 trading program. There is no allocation of SO 2 allowances for CAIR, but instead, CAIR uses the SO 2 allowances allocated under the Acid Rain Program. CAIR reduces the SO 2 emissions from the Acid Rain Phase II level by applying

increased ret irement ratios to the Acid Rain SO 2 allowances. Under the CAIR, pre

- 2010 vintage

SO 2 allowances are worth 1.0 ton of SO 2 emission; 2010

- 2014 vintage SO 2 allowances are worth

0.5 ton of SO 2 emissions; and post

- 2014 vintage SO 2 allowances are worth 0.35 ton of SO 2 emissions. This effectively reduces SO 2 emissions further below the Title IV level without creating a new currency.

Refinery Enforcement Initiative, Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero and ConocoPhi l lips) : The USEPA and various state and local agenc ies have negotiated Consent Decrees with the major refineries to elicit emission reductions from five major refinery processes. The processes are

158 69 Fed

. Reg. 55218

- 86 (September 13, 2004).

159 72 Fed. Reg. 55666

- 72 (October 1, 2007).68 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs), Process Heaters and Boilers, Flare Gas Recovery, Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR), and Benzene/Wastewater. The New Jersey refineries with settlements as of March 2008 include Sunoco, Valero and

ConocoPhil l ips.

For FCCUs/FCUs, the Consent Decree control requirements generally require the insta llation of wet gas scrubbers for SO 2 control, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non

catalytic reduction (SNCR), or other measures to reduce NO

x emissions.

For process boilers/heaters, the control requirements for SO 2 emissions generally r equire the elimination of burning solids/liquid fuels. For NO

x emissions, the control requirements generally apply to units greater than 40 MMBtu per hour capacity or larger. In many cases, the Consent

Decrees establish NO

x emission reduction objectives across a number of refineries that are owned by the same firm. Therefore, the companies decide which individual boilers/heaters to control as well as the control techniques to apply.

The Consent Decrees also included enhanced leak detection and repair pr ograms (e.g., reducing the defined leak concentration) and other VOC requirements. The settlements are expected to produce additional SO 2 , NO

x , and VOC emissions reductions for flare gas recovery and wastewater operations. While the Consent Decrees have various phase

- in dates, significant emission reductions are expected prior to the summer of 2009.

4.3 Beyond On The Way Controls

The following sections discuss how beyond on the way (BOTW) measures (both regional initiatives and state only) were identified and provides descriptions of the BOTW measures

included in the State’s attainment demonstration.

4.3.1 Identifying Measures

New Jersey participated in a wide variety of processes aimed at identifying viable control measures that could be implemented to help the State reach its PM 2.5 attainment goals. The following section briefly discusses those processes, and the measures identified as viable through those processes that the State is moving forward to propose.

4.3.1.1 Regional Activities

New Jersey is an active m ember of four regional organizations, each with a unique focus with respect to either geographic area, air pollution concern or both. These organizations include:

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), a multi

- state organization created under the Clean Ai r Act to advise the USEPA on ozone transport issues and develop and implement regional solutions to the ground

- level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic regions.

Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), a non

- profit associat ion of ten state and local air pollution control agencies whose mission is to strengthen the skills and69 capabilities of member agencies and to help them work together to prevent and reduce air pollution in the Mid

- Atlantic Region.

Northeast States for Co ordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), a nonprofit association of air quality agencies in the Northeast designed to provide scientific, technical, analytical, and policy support to the air quality programs of the eight Northeast states.

The Mid

- Atlantic /Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU), which was formed by the Mid

Atlantic and Northeastern states, tribes, and Federal agencies to coordinate regional haze planning activities for the region.

All of these organizations had an active role in the technica l support work associated with this

SIP revision. MANE

- VU supported the regional inventory work that was utilized in the regional attainment modeling effort (see Chapter 5) and was responsible for coordinating the Regional Haze effort, which resulted in c ontrol measures that will yield PM 2.5 reduction benefits (see Section 4.3.1.4). The efforts of the OTC and MARAMA identified control measures that would result in reductions of ozone, PM 2.5 , and regional haze. The ozone control measures identified by

the se processes are expected to result in PM 2.5 and regional haze benefits due to either shared precursors (NO

x ) or tangent reduction benefits (controls would also result in direct PM 2.5 and/or

SO 2 emission reductions). NESCAUM focused on control measures mo re closely linked with

PM 2.5 and regional haze reductions (mainly low sulfur fuel for industrial, commercial and residential facilities). The efforts of these regional organizations are summarized in the following sections.

4.3.1.2 Ozone Transport Commission (OT C)

New Jersey worked with other jurisdictions in the Ozone Transport Region to explore reasonable control measures for potentially significant emission reductions. To accomplish this, the OTC staff and member jurisdictions formed workgroups to: 1) review mobile, point, and area source categories, 2) identify candidate source categories, and 3) consider potential control strategies for those source categories to reduce NO

x , VOC, and SO 2 emissions.

Each OTC workgroup focused on a different sector (mobile/p oint/area) and compiled a list of viable control measures from sources published by the USEPA and various regional associations,

OTC member state

- specific control strategies already in place, and emission control initiatives

from states outside the Ozone T ransport Region, such as California. Then using 2002 emission inventories as the base year, the workgroups determined projected 2009 emission reductions based on currently existing controls, including Federal rules, adoption of previous OTC model rules by member jurisdictions, enforcement settlements, and other state

- specific control measures, and estimated growth of inventories. Based on the review of the list of control measures and the emission inventories, the workgroups developed a preliminary list 160 of candidate control measures thought to be most effective in reducing emission levels throughout the Ozone Transport Region.

160 To review the preliminary list of OTC

- identif ied control measures that were further evaluated for potential emission reductions, see the OTC web site at http://www.otcair.org/document.asp?fview=Report

.70 From this preliminary list, the OTC workgroups developed white papers, summarizing key facts

about the relevant control alternati ves. The white papers provided information, such as descriptions of source categories and candidate control measures, 2002 base year emissions, 2009 projected emissions after implementation, preliminary cost estimates, current federal and state regulation s, methods of implementation, applicability

, and geographic impact. Some of the papers reflected inter

- regional efforts, such as those by the MARAMA for refineries, by the NESCAUM for heating oil, and by the super

- regional discussions with the Midwest Reg ional Planning Organization (MWRPO) regarding Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) boilers and Electric Generating Units (EGUs). Using a scale of recommendations from one (definitely recommended) to five (not recommended), the member jurisdictio ns ranked the relative importance of the source categories and control strategies based on a qualitative assessment of the information presented in the white papers. After consideration of the estimated costs and magnitude of reductions potentially achiev able for the selected emission sources, the OTC member jurisdictions identified reasonable control measures for a variety of source categories. Both during and after the ranking process, the OTC received written comments from stakeholders, held public mee tings, and interfaced with impacted industries to better understand the source categories and how to regulate them effectively. The final list of source categories recommended by OTC for member jurisdictions to consider for emission reductions are present ed in Table 4.2.

The OTC efforts focused on VOC and NO

x reductions for the purpose of reducing ozone. New Jersey evaluated the control measures identified by the OTC for NO

x measures that would have a

PM 2.5 reduction benefit. Although the OTC efforts di d not have a primary focus on control strategies for direct PM 2.5 , New Jersey evaluated related direct PM 2.5 reduction strategies through its Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) analyses discussed in Sections 4.3.1.5.3 and 4.3.1.5.4, respectively.

Table 4.2 : Final OTC Control Measure Source Categories 161

, 162

Sector Source Category

Area Adhesives, Sealants, Adhesive Primers, and Sealant Primers (Industrial)

Area Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving

Area Consumer Products

Area Portable Fuel Containers

Point Asphalt Production Plants

Point ICI Boilers 100 MMBtu/hour or greater

Area and Point ICI Boilers <100 MMBtu/hour

161 Measures that are shaded are expected to have a NO

x emission reduction benefit in New Jersey.

162 T he following programs that are listed in Table 4.3 are not discussed in New Jersey’s proposed SIP document: 1) Regional Fuel based on Reformulated Gasoline Options is not discussed because there is already a mandatory program required by Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act in New Jersey. 2) Cement Plants are not discussed because there are no cement plants in New Jersey. 3) Diesel Chip Reflash is not discussed because the OTC states, including New Jersey, are considering possible actions to increase the n umber of chip reflash installations of

HDDVs in the Northeast.71 Point Glass Furnaces

Point Cement Plants

Onroad Mobile Diesel Tru ck Chip Reflash

Onroad Mobile Regional Fuel based on Reformulated Gasoline Options

The shaded categories in Table 4.2 are the OTC measures that have a PM 2.5 precursor reduction

benefit. NESCAUM developed a model rule for diesel chip reflash for state use, which was included in the OTC’s final Technical Support Document. New Jersey is still evaluating this

program and seeks comments on how to best achieve the F ederal emission limits . For three of the OTC measures (adhesives and sealant, consumer produ cts and portable fuel containers), the OTC drafted model rules which NJDEP is using to achieve VOC emission benefits. For the remaining measures shown in Table 4.2, the OTC developed emission limits and rule specification guidance. The OTC member states signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Appendix A1) that addresses emissions associated with high electrical demand days (HEDD) to compliment already existing and future cap

- and

- trade programs with respect to electrical generation. This regional HEDD program will address the peak load emissions from the electrical generation sector on a daily basis.

New Jersey and other OTC member jurisdictions have resolved to pursue necessary and appropriate rulemakings to implement the emission reduction percent ages, emission rates

, or technologies for the categories listed in Table 4.2 that are consistent with guidelines found in

OTC Resolution 06

- 02 adopted on June 7, 2006, and amended on November 15, 2006, found in Appendix A2, as well as the High Electrical D emand Days MOU found in Appendix A1. The NJDEP expects to implement most measures that are not already adopted starting May 1, 2009 or later. A brief summary of all the OTC

- identified control measures that have a PM 2.5 emission

reduction benefit is inclu ded in the following subsection. For more information about the OTC control measure identification process, or the control measures identified for implementation through this process, please see Appendix A3.

OTC Identified Beyond on the Way (BOTW) Measur es:

Asphalt Production : The NJDEP proposed amendments to its rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.9 in order

to lower NO

x emissions from asphalt production facilities. The proposed amendments, based on an OTC model rule, would pursue control measures to achieve at least a 35 percent reduction of

NO

x emissions from asphalt production plants from current levels, with the inclusion of emission limits based on type of fuel combusted and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) requirements. The OTC guidance is based on emission rates and percent reductions typically achieved from the installation of low NO

x burners (LNB) and flue gas recirculation (FGR) to reduce NO

x emissions from asphalt plants. A low NO

x burner reduces NO

x by staged combustion. In flue gas recirculation, the flue gas is used to assist in cooling the combustion temperature, which in turn reduces the NO

x generated. The implementation of Best Management Practices would allow for substantial reductions in fuel consumption and corresponding

red uctions in the products of combustion, including NO

x . Best Management Practices include

annual combustor tune

- ups, effective stockpile management to reduce aggregate moisture content, lowering mix temperature, and other maintenance and operational best pr actices. For more details on this future rulemaking, see Appendix A3.72 Glass Manufacturing : New Jersey proposed amendments to its current glass manufacturing rules

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

- 19.10. The proposed amendments, based on OTC guidance, would revise the

NO

x emission rates to reduce emissions consistent with the installation of oxy

- fuel firing, or equivalent measures, at the time of the next furnace re

- build. Although several alternative NO

x control technologies exist, including combustion modifications ( low NO

x burners, oxy

- fuel firing, oxygen

- enriched air staging), process modifications (fuel switching, batch preheat, electric boost), and post combustion modifications (fuel reburn, SNCR, SCR), oxyfiring is

considered the most effective because it not onl y reduces NO

x emissions by as much as 85 percent, but also reduces energy consumption, increases production rates by 10

- 15 percent, and improves glass quality by reducing defects. In addition, oxyfiring is demonstrated technology for the glass industry. Of New Jersey’s 25 glass manufacturing furnaces, five are already equipped with oxy

- fuel firing and nine are electric. For more details on this future rulemaking, see Appendix A3.

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 : 163 ICI boilers c ombust fuel to produce heat and process steam for a variety of applications, including chemical, metals, paper, petroleum, and food production industries, and for space heating in office buildings, hotels, apartment buildings, hospitals, and universities. Industrial boilers are generally smaller than boilers in the electric power industry, and typically have heat inputs in the 10

- 250 MMBtu/hr range; however, industrial boilers can be as large as 1,000 MMBtu/hr or smaller than 1

MMBtu/hr. Most commercial a nd institutional boilers have a heat input less than 100 MMBtu/hr. In New Jersey, 70 percent of the population is smaller than 50 MMBtu/hr.

Currently, New Jersey ICI boilers are regulated according to size, fuel and boiler type. New Jersey’s existing NO

x limits generally apply only to ICI boilers at least 50 MMBtu/hr located at major sources (i.e., point sources). ICI boilers at minor sources (i.e., area sources) are not subject to the maximum allowable emission rates, but are required to adjust the c ombustion process annually in boilers as small as 5 MMBtu/hr, effective as of 2010.

New Jersey proposed amendments to its current ICI boiler rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.7. The proposed amendments would revise the NO

x emission limits for both point and are a source ICI boilers. Under the proposed amendments, owners and operators of any ICI boilers as small as 25 MMBtu/hr would be required to achieve emission limits specified in the rules. For more details on this future rulemaking, see Appendix A3

.

4.3.1.3 Mid

- At lantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)

The MARAMA states concentrated their efforts on identifying and analyzing emissions from all petroleum refinery processes to help states with refineries develop their SIPs for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze. The MARAMA Refinery Technical Oversight Committee (TOC), assisted by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., evaluated emissions and existing requirements for certain sources found at fourteen (14) petroleum refineries in the MARAMA area. Based on that preliminary review, the TOC selected catalytic and thermal cracking units, boilers and process

163 Some categories have 2009 compliance dates; remainder have 2012 compliance dates.73 heaters, flares, equipment leaks, wastewater treatment, storage tanks

, and sulfur recovery plants

for further consideration.

MARAMA evaluated emissions, ex isting requirements, including recent Consent Decrees from 10 of the 14 identified refineries, available control technology options, and typical installation costs for each category. As a result of this study, MARAMA, assisted by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., developed three Model Rules for fluid catalytic cracking units, flares and enhanced monitoring of equipment leaks at petroleum refineries. As part of its 8

- hour ozone RACT committal SIP, the State of New Jersey propose d new rules based in part on MA RAMA’s

model rules. 164 New Jersey expects that the NO

x , SO 2 , PM, and VOC reductions from these

measures will also result in PM 2.5 reduction benefits.

A brief summary of all the MARAMA

- identified control measures is included in the following

subsections. For more information about the MARAMA control measure identification process, or the control measures identified for implementation through this process, please see Appendix

A4.

MARAMA

- Identified Beyond on the Way (BOTW) Measures :

Refineries

- Fluid Cata lytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) : Catalytic cracking units convert middle distillate, gas oil and residuum into primarily gasoline, jet and diesel fuels by using a series of processing steps that literally “crack” large, heavy molecules into smaller, lighter o nes. Heat and catalyst are used to convert the heavier oils to lighter products. With fluid catalytic cracking, a fluidized catalyst is used in the cracking process. Fluid catalytic cracking unit systems are the most widely used cracking process in the MARAMA region and are the largest air contaminant emission sources at the refinery. New Jersey has four gasoline

- producing refineries with fluid catalytic cracking units. These refineries are major facilities with Title V Operating Permits, and

all emit large quantities of criteria pollutants (SO 2 , NO

x , VOCs, carbon monoxide

, and coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ))

, as well as HAPs. New Jersey currently regulates NO

x emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.13.

MARAMA’s model ru le for FCCUs, includes emissions limits for particulate matter, SO 2 , NO

x , and carbon monoxide. The MARAMA Technical Oversight Committee chose to recommend the most stringent limits in recent Consent Decrees or rules in other jurisdictions. Feasible contr ol technologies are summarized in Table 2

- 6 of their Final Report.

Refineries

– Flares : Petroleum refinery flares are intended to be last

- resort control devices used to safely dispose of flammable waste gases from emergency process upsets, as well as du ring

start

- up, shutdown and turnaround operations. The combustion of these gases can emit large quantities of NO

x , SO 2 , and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere and are believed to be

underestimated. New Jersey currently regulates VOC emissions from refin ery flares at N.J.A.C.

7:27

- 16.13.

164 The MARAMA model rules are posted at http://www.marama.org for public review.74 MARAMA’s model rule for petroleum refinery flares includes the control measures designed to

reduce NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, and carbon monoxide emissions. Specifically, the model rule includes requirements for the owner/operators of refinery flares to operate and maintain a flare gas recovery system and to eliminate the flaring of routinely generated refinery fuel gases. Other items included in MARAMA’s flare model rule include operational requirements, monitoring system requirem ents

, and guidelines for calculating flare emissions. Control technology options

for flares are summarized in Table 4

- 5 of the Final Report.

4.3.1.4 Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU)

The MANE

- VU was tasked with identifying reasonable control me asures that would reduce

emissions from within the MANE

- VU region contributing to visibility impairment at Class I areas by 2018 or earlier. To accomplish this task, beginning in 2005, the MANE

- VU reviewed a wide range of potential control measures to red uce emissions from sources contributing to visibility impairment in affected Class I areas, including a “master list” of some 900 potential control measures, originally developed for 8

- hour ozone initiative by the OTC. From this extensive list, the MANE

- V U developed an interim list of Regional Haze control measures, which for regional haze included: beyond

- CAIR sulfate reductions from EGUs, low

- sulfur heating oil (residential and commercial), ICI boilers (both coal and oil

- fired), lime and cement kilns, re sidential wood combustion, and outdoor burning (including outdoor wood boilers).

The next step in the regional haze control measure selection process was to further refine the interim list. The beyond

- CAIR EGU strategy continued to stay on the list since EGU sulfate emissions have, by far, the largest impact on visibility in the MANE

- VU Class I areas. Likewise, a low

- sulfur oil strategy, combining low

- sulfur heating oil (residential and commercial) and the oil

- fired ICI boiler sector control measures for #2, #4, and #6 residual oils,

remained on the list after a NESCAUM

- initiated conference with refiners and fuel

- oil suppliers concluded that such a strategy could realistically be implemented. During MANE

- VU’s internal consultation meeting in March 2007, member states reviewed the updated interim list of control measures to make further refinements. At that time, states determined, for example, that there may be too few coal

- fired ICI boilers in the MANE

- VU states for that to be considered as a “regional” strategy, but that could be a sector pursued by individual states. They also determined that lime and cement kilns, of which there are few in the MANE

- VU region, would likely be handled via state BART determination processes. Residential wood burning an d outdoor wood boilers remain on the list for those states where localized visibility impacts may be of concern.

T he Commissioners of the environmental agencies of the northeastern States with Class I areas met on June 7, 2007 and agreed on a Statement of Principles to guide the direction of the future consultation process for Regional Haze Planning that occurred during the summer of 2007. This Statement of Principles was designed to guide the consultation process, set forth the importance of Regional H aze long

- range planning for all states, and highlighted the critical role that air pollutant transport plays in regional haze and interstate air pollution. The principles that New Jersey and the other MANE

- VU States laid out in this document are included in Appendix A5.

The Commissioners of the MANE

- VU States also agree upon certain long

- range goals for the control of specific source categories within MANE

- VU and agreed on certain specific targets to75 “ask” of other States outside of the MANE

- VU planning r egion and to “ask” of the USEPA. These planning agreements are included in Appendix A6, and summarized in Table 4.3. New Jersey included these targets in its Regional Haze air quality planning document. 165

Table 4.3 : Summary of MANE

- VU Planning Target s

Controls Inside of the MANE

VU Region Controls Outside of MANE

- VU Region National Controls (to “ask” of the USEPA) Timely implementation of BART requirements Timely implementation of BART requirements The MANE

- VU states and tribes request that the USEPA w ork with the eastern Regional Planning Organizations to develop a proposal for tightening the CAIR program to achieve an

additional reduction in SO 2 by no

later than 2018 A 90% or greater reduction in

SO 2 emissions from EGUs identified by MANE

- VU A 90% or greater reduction in

SO 2 emissions from EGUs identified by MANE

- VU Ultra Low sulfur fuel strategy in

the inner zone states Application of reasonable

controls on non

- EGU sources Low sulfur fuel strategy in the

outer zone states

Continued evaluation of other control measures, including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels, and other measures to

reduce SO 2 and NO

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

combustion Continued evaluation of other control measures, including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels, and other measures to

reduce SO 2 and NO

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

combustion

Although emission reducti on benefits from the MANE

- VU efforts that are targeting PM 2.5 precursors (SO 2 and NO

x ) will occur after the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS attainment date (April 5, 2010), the reductions from the measures listed in Table 4.3 will help the State attain the new

2006 24

- ho ur PM 2.5 standard, as well as all the other PM 2.5 - related air quality goals discussed in Chapter 1.

4.3.1.5 State Specific Efforts

In addition to New Jersey’s participation in the regional control measure identification efforts, the State implemented its own out reach initiative, entitled “Reducing Air Pollution Together.” “Reducing Air Pollution Together” was designed to gather control measure ideas and suggestions from the New Jersey public, regulated communities, and other interested parties. In addition, the NJDEP, as required by the Clean Air Act, completed its own internal RACT and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) analyses, to identify viable controls for significant sources within the State. All of these efforts, as well as any control measure s identified from them, are discussed in greater detail below.

165 New Jersey proposed its Reg ional Haze SIP September 15, 2008.76 4.3.1.5.1 New Jersey Workgroup Efforts

The NJDEP began a collaborative effort to discuss the air quality challenges facing New Jersey by hosting a public workshop on June 29, 2005. This workshop se rved to initiate a dialogue between the NJDEP and interested and affected parties about reducing emissions in order to improve air quality in New Jersey. Over 200 persons representing various industries, environmental and civic groups attended. As a resu lt of the “Reducing Air Pollution Together” workshop, the following six air quality workgroups were formed and collaborated over several months to develop recommendations on how to reduce air emissions from their specific source categories:

 Diesel Initiat ives

 Gasoline Cars and Trucks

 Homes and Restaurants

 Non

- Automobile Gasoline Engines

 Stationary Combustion Sources

 Volatile Organic Compounds from Industrial Processes and Consumer

Products

The workgroups identified potential control measures to reduce NO

x , VOC, PM 2.5 , and SO 2 emissions for possible inclusion in the State’s upcoming SIP revisions. Through the cooperative efforts of the NJDEP, federal agencies, industry, consultants, environmental groups, and other members of the regulated community, th e workgroups evaluated available emission inventories, technical information and field data to develop lists of potential air emission control strategies related to their topic area. The criteria used by the workgroups to prioritize control measures

inclu ded technical feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental benefits, and implementation feasibility. The air quality workgroups compiled their recommendations into reports that were submitted to the NJDEP for further consideration on October 31, 2005. The workgroups presented a summary of their recommendations to the NJDEP’s Air Quality Management Team on November 14, 2005. This event was another opportunity for the NJDEP staff and workgroup members to discuss the workgroup recommendations.

The NJDE P’s workgroup leaders and facilitators met with the NJDEP’s Air Quality Management team to review the over 200 workgroup recommendations and identify those control strategies with significant potential emissions reductions. After culling that list down to 60 potential control measures, the NJDEP then generated white papers 166 for each measure. These white papers were posted on the NJDEP’s website for public review and comment. The NJDEP made revisions to individual white paper where appropriate, based on c omment and/or additional information. In addition, the NJDEP invited the public, representatives from local businesses, industry and environmental groups, and others to a follow

- up workshop to discuss potential emission reduction strategies on May 17, 200 6. The purpose of that workshop was for the NJDEP to provide an update on efforts during the past year to address air quality challenges

166 A complete list of white papers, with links to the actual papers, can be found at www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/docs/wp_summary_table_web.xls

.77 facing New Jersey and to share preliminary regulatory and nonregulatory plans to reduce air emissions. Following the May 17, 2006 workshop, the public was asked to provide feedback on the workshop, and on the 60 white papers drafted by the NJDEP and discussed at the workshop. 167

Many of the white paper measures are the same as those identified through the OTC and

MARAMA e fforts, and the State’s own RACT and RACM analyses for both ozone and PM 2.5

. The PM 2.5 RACT and RACM analyses are discussed in more detail in Sections 4.3.1.5.4 and 4.3.1.5.5, respectively.

4.3.1.5.2 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) Energy Master Pla n Efforts

On October 3, 2006, Governor Jon S. Corzine announced the commencement of an interagency planning process that will culminate in an energy master plan, a long

- term energy vision for the state that plans for the state’s energy needs through 2020. 168

The Energy Master Plan (EMP) will address three areas: security, safety, and reliability of prices of energy supply and services; economic impact of energy production, transportation, and end use; and environmental impact associated with the productio n of energy. 169 The main goal of the

EMP is to reduce projected energy use by 20 percent by 2020 and meet 20 percent of the State’s electricity needs with Class 1 renewable energy sources by 2020. 170 Other goals of the EMP are described below:

Goal 1: Secur e, Safe, and Reasonably Priced Energy Supplies and Services

– To provide safe, secure, reasonably priced energy supplies and services to New Jersey’s commercial, industrial, transportation, and residential customers, while reducing dependence on

traditiona l fossil fuels and fossil fuel generation, decreasing electric and natural gas transmission congestion, utilizing efficiency and renewable resources to supplement the State’s energy resources, proactively planning for in

- state electricity generation retire ments, and reducing the demand for energy. 171

Goal 2: Economic Growth and Development

– To encourage and maintain economic growth prospects for the State by recognizing and fostering the multiple functions of energy in the economy. 172

Goal 3: Environmental Pr otection and Impact

– To promote the achievement of Federal and State environmental requirements and objectives in an effective and low

- cost manner and, where possible, provide market

- based incentives to achieve those goals. 173

167 Comments received on the white papers are posted at www.nj.gov/dep/airwor kgroups/comments.html

. 168 State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Governor Corzine Announces Initial Phase of Energy Master Plan

. Available at http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20061003.html. October 3, 2006.

169 State of New Jersey Office of the Governor. Governor Corzine Announces Initial Phase of Energy Master Plan

. Available at http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20061003.html. October 3, 2006.

170 State of New Jersey Energy Master Plan. Energy Master Plan Goals . Available a t: http://www.nj.gov/emp/about/goals.html.

171 Ibid.

172 Ibid.78 Public participation began Oct ober 2006, with a series of stakeholder meetings held throughout

the S tate ; t hat continued with the formation of External Working Groups for energy categories.

More than 500 people have attended EMP meetings, offered input and ideas, and joined the

listse rv. The draft EMP was released in April of 2008 with public hearings held in July of 2008. The final EMP was released on October 22, 2008.

4.3.1.5.3 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

New Jersey’s PM 2.5 reasonably available control technology ( RACT ) analysis was conducted

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1) ( Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act ), which requires states with nonattainment areas to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) implementing all reasonably available control measures (includin g such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) as expeditiously as practicable to attain the NAAQS

.

New Jersey’s RACT analysis demonstrate s that reductions of direct PM 2.5 emissions and its precursors, SO 2 and NO

x , from major stationary source categories are reasonable. New Jersey’s full RACT analysis is included in Appendix A7.

4.3.1.5.4 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis

A Reas onably Available Control Measure, or RACM, is defined by the USEPA as any potential control measure for application to point, 174 area, onroad, and nonroad emission source categories that meets the following criteria:

• The control measure is technologically f easible

• The control measure is economically feasible

• The control measure does not cause “substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts”

• The control measure is not “absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable”

• The control measure can advance the attainme nt date by at least one year

New Jersey’s 2007 PM 2.5 RACM analysis was conducted to fulfill the requirements of Section (c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This analysis addressed the following PM 2.5 precursors: direct

PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NO

x . VOC and ammonia were not addressed, consistent with USEPA guidance.

A total of 628 potential non

- transportation control measures 175 were compiled and reviewed to determine whether or not any of these measures could be considered a RACM that would

173 Ibid.

174 RACM applies only to those point sources not already addressed as part of the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis. The USEPA’s PM 2.5 Implementation Rule (72 Fed. Reg. 20585

- 667 (April 25, 2007)) considers RACT a part of RACM, and not an independent requirement, which is how RACT is considered in the Ozone Implementation Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 71611

- 71705). However, New Jersey determined to conduct these two analyses sep arately, consistent with how it addressed its RACT and RACM requirements for 8

- hour ozone. New Jersey’s separate RACT analysis for PM 2.5 is contained in Appendix A7.79 advance the attainment date fo r the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by at least one year. In order to advance the attainment date by one year, potential RACM measures would have to be implemented by 2008. After pre

- screening, 61 potential non

- transportation control measures (TCMs) were furth er evaluated using the RACM criteria. Seventeen (17) non

- TCMs passed all RACM criteria, but would not be implemented by 2008.

The NJDOT conducted a separate PM 2.5 RACM analysis for TCMs. Twenty

- six TCMs were

identified and evaluated based on the RACM c riteria. One TCM passed all RACM criteria, but would not be implemented by 2008.

It was determined that none of these 18 potential measures could be implemented by 2008. The RACM analysis did identify several promising measures that New Jersey will cons ider implementing at a later date, and confirmed other measures that New Jersey is already addressing.

New Jersey’s full RACM analysis is included in Appendix A8.

4.3.1.5.5 Additional Measures

There are additional State measures that, while not identified speci fically in any of the regional or state control measure initiatives, have been, or will be, implemented in time to provide quantitative PM 2.5 emission reductions prior to and during 2009. The remainder of this section

discusses these measures:

Diesel Idl ing Rule Changes : Since diesel engines are significant contributors of ozone and fine particulate precursors in the State of New Jersey, any efforts to control and reduce those emissions contribute to the State’s attainment of the ozone and fine particulat e matter NAAQS.

O n September 18, 2006, the NJDEP proposed amendments to the existing diesel idling rules. 176
The rules became effective July 25, 2007. These rules address the allowable idling duration for

diesel

- powered motor vehicles, and exemptions to t hat maximum idling limit. The changes reduce the allowable exemptions to a three

- minute diesel idling standard. There were

exe mptions to the idling limit which allowed qualified vehicles to idle for an unlimited length of

time under certain conditions. The revisions to the rule modify these exemptions to further limit idling in cold weather; limit the idling time for vehicles that transport people; clarify the idling rules regarding trucks waiting in line; clarify the type of vehicle which would be consi dered an “emergency motor vehicle

, ” and the times which would be considered “an emergency situation ; ” eliminate the exemption for idling while a vehicle is in for repairs that do not require the engine to be engaged to complete; eliminate the exemption for idling while attaching or detaching a trailer, should it take longer than the allowed three consecutive minutes; and phase out the exemption for sleeper berths.

175 Transportation Control Measures, or TCMs, are transportation strategies specific to onr oad mobile sources, which reduce emissions by reducing the number and/or length of vehicle trips and/or improve traffic flow.

176 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel

- Powered Motor Vehicles Air Administrative Procedures and Penalties Propos ed Amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 14.1, 14.3, 7:27A

- 3.10(m)14. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. September 18, 2006.80 Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes : Like the diesel idling efforts, the NJDEP require ments for the inspection and maintenance (I/M) of diesel vehicles are designed to reduce the emissions from diesel engines, which are significant contributors to ozone, PM 2.5 and its precursors. The NJDEP is currently working to propose amendments to its existing diesel I/M rules to reduce the allowable smoke from heavy

- duty diesel vehicles. Smoke opacity, which is used as a surrogate for particulate matter, is the degree to which a plume of smoke will obstruct transmission of visible light. Smoke opacit y is used as an indicator for mal

- maintenance.

Currently available technology allows diesel engines to emit smoke at rates much lower than the existing cutpoints, when operating in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications. Therefore, it is appr opriate to revise the heavy

- duty diesel vehicle inspection program standards to reflect the current diesel engine technology and ensure appropriate maintenance is performed. Although newer diesel

- powered vehicles and equipment usually operate more cleanly and may contribute less to air quality problems than their predecessors, diesel

- powered trucks and buses tend to remain in service for 20 years or more. Unless the excess emissions due to mal

maintenance or lack of repair are reduced, trucks and buses wi ll continue to emit excess levels of exhaust particles and contribute to air pollution in the State for many years to come. Implementing stricter opacity cutpoints for diesel

- powered vehicles will result in appropriate

maintenance and reduce emissions.

C ase

- by

- Case NO

x Limit Determinations (FSELs/AELs) : Existing RACT rules set performance standards for many source categories. Major NO

x facilities with emission sources having a potential to emit more than 10 tons of NO

x per year where no previous NJDEP RA CT limit has been established in the RACT Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:27

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

- 19), i.e., sources without performance standards, must apply to the NJDEP for a Facility

- Specific Emission Limit (FSEL). When a performance standard exists and the source determines it is not reasonable, they apply to the NJDEP for an Alternative Emission Limit (AEL). FSELs and AELs are determined

on a case

- by

- case basis.

Currently, New Jersey has about 40 of these case

- by

- case FSEL/AEL determinations for sources througho ut the State. New Jersey’s FSEL and AEL provisions for oxides of nitrogen are found

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

- 19.13.

As part of its RACT analysis, the NJDEP reviewed all of its existing FSELs and AELs and found

that many were approved as long ago as 1997. In m any cases, control technologies have advanced sufficiently since that time, warranting the reevaluation of these case

- by

- case determinations. The NJDEP proposes to require all facilities with existing FSELs or AELs to either comply with the existing or re vised RACT limits, where applicable, or demonstrate that a new FSEL/AEL is warranted. The NJDEP further proposes that the newly issued AELs will terminate after a certain number of years, requiring periodic re

- evaluations and determinations,

in an effort to keep these limits current until compliance with specific rule emission limits are

achieved.

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NO

x Rule : New Jersey has five resource recovery facilities (RRF) located in Essex, Union, Camden, Gloucester, and Wa rren Counties,81 respectively. There are 13 municipal waste combustors (MWC) at these five facilities. The NJDEP approved facility specific emission limits (FSELs) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.13 for

each of these MWCs to meet the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS , becau se these facilities qualified as major facilities (i.e., those facilities with the potential to emit more than 25 tons of NO

x per year containing a source operation that has the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year) and the

State did not establi sh specific RACT source requirements for MWCs. The USEPA has adopted Federal Plans for both large and small MWCs. New Jersey is the delegated state authorized to implement and enforce those plans, in accordance with Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs)

between the State and the USEPA. The Federal standard for emissions of NO

x from MWCs, as reflected in the Federal rules dated May 10, 2006, and previous Federal plans, is 205 ppm. 177
Currently, all New Jersey MWCs are in compliance with the Federal standard.

As p art of its ozone RACT analysis, the NJDEP reviewed the Municipal Waste Combustor

FSELs and determined that, when equipped with selective non

- catalytic reduction (SNCR), NO

x controls are capable of more NO

x reductions than are currently being achieved by so me of the municipal solid waste facilities. The ozone RACT rulemaking proposal will eliminate the various MWC FSELs and set a more stringent source category NO

x emission limit, which will

result in further NO

x emission reductions from this source category

.

Refineries

- Process He aters and Boilers : Process heaters and boilers operating at petroleum refineries emit large amounts of NO

x , carbon monoxide, SO 2 , and PM emissions. Boilers are designed to generate steam for use throughout the refinery, while pro cess heaters burn fuels to transfer heat directly to process materials. Boilers and process heaters are similar in that they are indirect combustion devices that burn fuels such as natural gas, fuel oil, and refinery fuel gas. New Jersey currently regula tes NO

x emissions from indirect heat exchangers at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.7.

Available control technologies for controlling NO

x emissions from these units include Ultra Low

NO

x Burners (LNB) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). These control technologies have been successfully applied to both types of equipment achieving emission reductions up to 90 percent. Recent enforcement settlements required some refineries to reduce NO

x emissions to

0.04 lbs NO

x /MMBtu.

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle Program : The NJDEP’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program (or Clean Car Program) rule was adopted on November 28, 2005, with an operative date of January 27, 2006. 178 The rule requires all new vehicles delivered for sale in New Jersey to be

California certified for emiss ions beginning January 1, 2009. This rule also establishes a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales requirement for New Jersey and requires that each auto manufacturer’s sales fleet in New Jersey meet a declining fleet average non

- methane organic gas (NMOG) em ission standard.

The rule is designed, in part, to encourage auto manufacturers to offer the ultra

- low emitting California certified models in New Jersey prior to the 2009 mandatory compliance start date.

177 70 Fed. Reg. 75348

- 69 (May 10, 2006).

178 38 N.J.R. 497(b) (January 17, 2006).82 Auto manufacturers delivering such vehicles to Ne w Jersey can earn ZEV credits that can be used by manufacturers to help transition into the mandatory requirements in 2009 and beyond. Currently, 36 models are certified to the Partial ZEV (PZEV) or Advanced Tech PZEV (ATPZEV) standard, which will generat e such credits if sold in New Jersey. There are 23,493 vehicles that have either received or are currently receiving ZEV credits in New Jersey.

Distillate and Residual Fuel Strategies : Lowering the sulfur content in fuel oil is a part of the long

- term st rategy established by the MANE

- VU states to reduce and prevent regional haze.

The MANE

- VU states in the inner zone (New Jersey, New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania) plan to reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.05 percent sulfur by weight (500 ppm) by 2012, the sulfur content of No. 4 residual oil to 0.3 percent sulfur by weight by 2012, the sulfur content of No. 6 residual oil to 0.3 to 0.5 percent sulfur by weight by 2012, and to further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2016. The MANE

- VU states in the outer zone plan to reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.05 percent sulfur by weight by than 2014, the sulfur content of No. 4 residual oil to 0.25 to 0.5 percent sulfur by weight by 2018, the sulfur

content of No. 6 residual oil to no greater than 0.5 percent sulfur by weight by 2018, and to further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018 (depending on supply availability).

The NJDEP is planning to propose to amend N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 9, Sulfur in Fuels, specifically section 9.2, which specifies sulfur content standards and maximum allowable sulfur dioxide emissions. The potential amendments will affect those who store, offer for sale, sell, deliver or exchange fuel for use in New Jersey, as wel l as the users of these fuels. The anticipated

amendments will reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content in fuel and the maximum

allowable SO 2 emissions from fuel combustion in order to reduce the emissions of SO 2 and other pollutants from the combustio n of fuel in New Jersey.

Currently, maximum allowable sulfur levels in No. 2 and lighter fuel oil in New Jersey are either 2,000 parts per million (ppm) or 3,000 ppm. Maximum allowable sulfur levels in No. 4 fuel ranges from 3,000 ppm (0.3 percent) to 20,000 ppm (2.0 percent). Maximum allowable sulfur levels in No. 5 and No. 6 fuels also range from 3,000 to 20,000 ppm. The NJDEP is evaluating a proposal to reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content of No. 2 and lighter fuel oil to 500 ppm (0.05 perce nt), then 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) statewide; reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content of No. 4 fuel oil to 3,000 ppm (0.3 percent) statewide; and reduce the maximum allowable sulfur content of No. 5, No. 6 and heavier fuel oils to 5,000 ppm (0.5 percent ) in Zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 (the standard will remain 3,000 ppm (0.3 percent) in Zones 4 and 6).

Fleet Turnover : The turnover of the onroad fleet of cars and trucks will result in additional NO

x and PM emission benefits in 2009 and beyond because the new veh icles have significantly lower emission standards than the vehicles they are replacing. The new vehicle emission standards are lower primarily because of a number of Federal rules such as the Tier 2 standards for automobiles and light trucks and the 2007 Heavy Duty Diesel standards for large diesel highway trucks. A number of post

- 2002 New Jersey rules also contribute to the fleet turnover emission benefits, such as the New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (NJLEV) new vehicle program.83 Controls from EGU Consen t Decrees (PSE&G Mercer and Hudson) : On November 30, 2006, the USEPA, U.S. Department of Justice, and the State of New Jersey reached a settlement with PSE&G related to failure to comply with a 2002 consent decree requiring installation of pollution contro ls at its coal

- fired power plants in Jersey City (Hudson) and Hamilton (Mercer), New Jersey. 179

, 180 T he settlement required additional air pollution controls, lower sulfur coal, lower emissions, and environmental projects . At the Hudson plant, PSE&G was requ ired to take interim steps to reduce emissions of NO

x , SO 2 , and PM until the required pollution control equipment was installed as required by the original consent decree or the unit was shut down. These interim measures included year

- round operation of t he existing NO

x control equipment utilizing selective non

- catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce NO

x , use of ultra

- low sulfur coal, compliance with interim annual emission caps for NO

x and SO 2 , and operation of an electrostatic precipitator and a fly ash con ditioning system to control PM. These additional emission control measures will improve air quality in the region. This agreement also included new fabric filters being installed on the PSE&G Mercer generating plant by December 31, 2008. For the period of the consent decree, PSE&G will significantly reduce its emissions of NO

x , SO 2 , and PM in order to achieve the same reductions required under the 2002 Consent Decree.

4.3.1.5.6 Federal

The Federal government plans to implement several measures that will provid e quantitative emission reductions prior to the summer of 2009. The remainder of this section discusses these

measures.

Small Offroad Engine Rule : On May 18, 2007, the USEPA proposed new rules that would set stricter standards for most lawn and garden equipment and small recreational watercraft. 181

, 182
Specifically, the proposal would establish new exhaust emission standards that manufacturers are expected to meet using catalytic converters in many types of small watercraft, lawn, and garden equipment. Th is proposed rule also includes fuel evaporative standards for all the types of equipment and watercraft covered in the rulemaking. The new standards would apply as early as 2011 for most lawn and garden equipment (under 25 horsepower) and 2009 for watercr aft.

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder : On March 14, 2008, the USEPA adopted more stringent exhaust emission standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines. 183 The standards include: tighteni ng emission

179 USEPA. United States and New Jersey Announ ce Clean Air Act Settlement with PSE&G Fossil LLC for Violations of 2002 Consent Decree; Utility Required to Pay Significantly Increased Penalties and Reduce

Emissions. Accessed from: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1ef7cd36224b565785257359003f53 3f/c59ece80a8a072d1852572360065c 298!OpenDocument. November 30, 2006.

180 State of New Jersey v. PSEG Fossil LLC , Amendment to Consent Decree, Newark Division, New Jersey, U.S. District Court (November 30, 2006). Accessible at http://www.epa.gov/compliance /resources/decrees/amended/psegfossil

- amended

- cd.pdf

. 181 72 Fed. Reg. 28098

- 146 (May 18, 2007).

182 For more information about the proposal, visit USEPA’s websites at Lawn and Garden http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip

- ld.htm for lawn and garden equipment and http: //www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm for gasoline boats and personal watercraft.

183 73 Fed. Reg. 25097 (May 6, 2008).84 standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured; setting near

- term engine

- out emission standards (Tier 3 standards) for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines; and setting longer

- term standards (Tier 4 standards) for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines that reflect the application of high

- efficiency aftertreatment technology. The USEPA is also proposing provisions to eliminate emissions from unnecessary locomotive idling.

The standards for remanufactu red locomotives will take effect as soon as certified remanufacture systems are available (as early as 2008). Tier 3 standards for newly

- built locomotive and marine engines would phase in starting in 2009. Tier 4 standards for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines would phase in beginning in 2014 for marine diesel engines and 2015 for

locomotives.

Energy Conservation Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi

- Family High

- Rise Residential Buildings and New Federal Low

- Rise Residential Buil dings : The United States Department of Energy (USDOE) has developed standards for all new Federal commercial and high

- rise multi

- family residential (over three stories in height above ground) buildings and all

new low

- rise residential buildings pursuant to the requirements of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA). The effective date of the rule is January 22, 2008. The rule establishes an energy efficiency baseline for new Federal commercial and multi

- family high rise residential buildings bas ed on referencing ASHRAE 184 Standard 90.1

- 2004 and the 2004 IECC. 185 The standards establish requirements for the structure and major systems of a building, and are mandatory for new Federal buildings. The rule establishes a requirement for new Federal

build ings to achieve a level of energy efficiency 30 percent greater than that of the

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 186 or the 2004 IECC levels when life

- cycle cost

- effective. This rule is expected to reduce NO

x and SO 2 emissions.

4.3.1.5.7 Additional Actions

The State is also takin g the following additional actions to reduce PM 2.5 emissions.

High Electrical Demand Days (HEDD) Program : In March 2007, following a year long process, six of the OTC states committed to pursue reductions in NO

x emissions from electrical generating units that primarily operate on high electrical demand days (HEDD) starting with the

2009 ozone season. 187 On these high electric demand days, increased power generation is needed, usually on short notice. In Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, boi lers and turbines that primarily run to follow electrical load needs supply HEDD power generation. In New Jersey and New York, combustion turbines primarily supply HEDD power generation. The majority of the HEDD units in the six states are not controlled and produce significant NO

x emissions on HEDDs. For example, on a typical summer day (June 4, 2005), NO

x emissions for

184 The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers

185 International Energy Conservation Code

186 American National S tandards Institute/ The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers/ The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

187 Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning the Incorpo ration of High Electrical Demand Day Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation Planning. Ozone Transport Commission, March 2, 2007.85 the six states for all Electric Generating Units (EGUs) were 551 tons per day (tpd). On a HEDD (July 26, 2005), NO

x emissions were 1,3 49 tpd. Most of this increase in emissions is due to power production from uncontrolled HEDD units.

As part of the HEDD initiative, New Jersey plans to reduce NO

x emissions by 19.8 tpd on the nominal high electrical demand days. Specifically, power gene rators in New Jersey will be responsible for securing these reductions and will be required to submit a plan on how they will

reduce NO

x . The generators will have flexibility in securing the 2009 reductions. New Jersey also plans to require that all HEDD units meet performance standards that reflect modern low

NO

x technology by May 1, 2015.

Ports : The Port of New York/New Jersey is the largest port complex on the East Coast of North

America. It is located at the hub of the most concentrated and affluent consumer market in the world, with immediate access to the most extensive interstate highway and rail networks in the region. The Port Authority directly oversees the operation of seven privately owned cargo

terminals in the New York

- New Jersey region (l andlord tenant relationship). Each year, more than 25 million tons of oceanborne general cargo moves through this port, including 4.5 million TEUs (twenty

- foot equivalent container units) of containerized cargo. The Port

Newark/Elizabeth

- Port Authority M arine Terminal complex (NJ), the Port Authority Auto Marine Terminal (NJ), Brooklyn Piers and Red Hook Container Terminal (NY), and Howland Hook Marine Terminal (NY) handle most of the cargo. In addition, there are private operators,

such as Global Marine Terminal and a number of marine terminals, operated by private bulk cargo operators. The Passenger Ship Terminal known as The New York Cruise Terminal is operated by P&O Ports North America for the City of New York.

Containerized cargo volumes in the Po rt of New York and New Jersey rose nearly 8 percent in 2006, to a new record high. The dollar value of all cargo moving through the port in 2006 exceeded $149 billion for the first time, up 13 percent from 2005. In the next 10 years, nearly $2

billion in infrastructure upgrades are planned for marine terminal facilities and for off

- port roads and railways to improve the flow of cargo.

To minimize the impact that this tremendous growth has on our environment, the NJDEP Commissioner outlined the following action item in the document entitled “Priorities and Action Plan,” January 2007. This goal is reiterated in the draft document entitled “Environmental

Justice Priorities for the NJDEP

– May 2007.”

“Target [NJ]DEP efforts to establish a coordinated effor t on protecting the health of urban residents from environmental causes and ensure that [NJ]DEP’s efforts to support economic growth and redevelopment in urban areas results in improved urban environmental health. Specifically, [NJ]DEP will coordinate its efforts at NJ’s two major ports to deliver tangible environmental improvements.”

The NJDEP is working closely with the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the USEPA Region 2, the South Jersey Port Corporation, and the Northeast Diesel Collaborative to develop and i mplement a comprehensive diesel risk reduction strategy for the port areas. Some possibilities include requiring cleaner fuel for oceangoing vessels while at dock or near the port; upgrading the cargo86 handling equipment; reducing idling emissions from shi ps, trains and trucks doing business at the port; and modernizing the drayage truck fleet that calls on the port.

At the South Jersey Port Corporation in Camden, New Jersey, several specific projects are underway at the terminals that they own and operate . First, as part of an enforcement settlement, nearly $400,000 was spent on retrofitting both on

- road and off

- road vehicles in the Camden

Waterfront South area. Second, Clean Air Communities in partnership with NJDEP, the South Jersey Port Corporation, a nd others received a $250,000 grant from the USEPA titled “Community Action for a Renewed Environment.” The grant will be used to work with the project partners to: establish a forum for dialogue with local businesses; and undertake community campaigns, s uch as publishing an environmental justice toolkit for high school students and educating children about environmental health. The NJDEP agreed to supplement the $250,000 grant with $500,000 from an enforcement settlement so that the South Jersey Port

Cor poration could undertake additional diesel emission reduction projects on the diesel equipment that they operate in Camden.

Open burning/Outdoor wood burning

– Smoke Management Plans : New Jersey already has a regulation in place to control emissions from open burning at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 2, Control and Prohibition of Open Burning, 188 and is considering changes to agricultural burning portion of these requirements. This source category is also addressed in the “Smoke Management” section of New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP (including the agricultural and forestry smoke management, prescribed burning, and agricultural management discussions in that SIP proposal). 189 One particulate control measure has already been implemented, namely to limit air pollution control

per mits to prevent open burning on days forecast to be of unhealthful air quality. This permit condition requires the permit holder to delay open burning until forecast meteorological conditions and air quality have improved so that forecasted unhealthful co nditions for that day will not be made worse by this activity. Similarly, New Jersey is considering a seasonal home wood heating advisory program to further curtail wood smoke emissions, similar to the program adopted in Lane County, Oregon. 190 This progra m would advise homeowners when they could heat their homes with wood, according to the current air quality.

Change

- out programs : Control measures might include wood stove and fireplace change

- out programs, and lawn mower replacement programs. Financial i ncentives would be necessary to ensure a productive program. New Jersey would consider implementing a change

- out program
in the future if funds become available.

Fugitive dust emissions : New Jersey has a control strategy in place for the control of sto rmwater runoff from streets under the New Jersey Municipal Stormwater Regulation program 191 that also

188 Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/Sub%2002%20v1994

- 06

- 20.pdf (Accessed November 19, 2007).

189 The first regional haze air quality protection plan for New Jersey will be completed in 2008 (see Chapter 1 for further details).

190 LRAPA. Public Education: Home Wood Heating Programs. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). http://ww w.lrapa.org/public_education/home_wood_heating_programs/, accessed May 14, 2008.

191 2006 Annual Report summary on New Jersey’s Stormwater Regulation program is available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/2006msrpannualreportlong.pdf (Accessed November 1 9, 2007).87 has air quality benefits by the removal of fugitive dust. The strategy includes both mandated and voluntary street sweeping. Some streets are required to be swept monthly.

New Jersey also has standards that reduce fugitive emissions from various sources such as tillage and construction. These standards have been adopted by the NJDOT and New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDOA) under the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards:

Standards for Dust Control.”

This source category has also been identified as a potential PM 2.5 RACT measure for certain facilities throughout the State. For more information, see the PM 2.5 RACT analysis in Appendix

A7.

Energy conservation and “green building” : New Jersey currently provides for rebates and other financial incentives to install energy

- efficiency measures in a home. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA) has minimum design standards for som e appliances. The New Jersey Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) and the New Jersey Energy Master Plan (NJEMP) encourage energy conservation.

Train engines : As of January 1, 2008, New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) has voluntarily implemented an “Idling Reduction Policy” to shut down their diesel passenger locomotives within one hour of stopping to reduce idling at train yards by 70 percent to 90 percent. NJ Transit has also agreed to move forward with a New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) proposa l to evaluate idling reduction technologies.

Truck Stop Electrification : On October 20, 2004, the first Electrified Truck Stop in New Jersey was opened at Paulsboro, New Jersey. The Truck stop has ninety

- eight truck electrification bays equipped with Idl eAire Service Modules. These modules mount on the cab's passenger window to provide heat, ventilation, air conditioning, power for the refrigeration unit and appliances as well as cable TV, telephone and Internet service. New Jersey encourages the use of this technology to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from diesel trucks. Discussions are underway for an electrification project at the Vince Lombardi Rest Area in Ridgefield, Bergen County, New Jersey. New Jersey is considering other locations for electrification , as well.

Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Inspection : New Jersey is evaluating an inspection program for medium duty vehicles with a gross weight between 8,501

– 17,999 pounds. The inspection program would be a combination of OBD and Smoke opacity inspection s, and would help control particulate emissions.

4.4 VOC Measures88 The State is implementing several VOC control measures that were adopted as discussed in the

2007 8

- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP. 192 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. Th e proposed VOC measures are listed in

Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 : VOC Control Measures

Control Measures Sector

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post

- 2002

- On the Books

Federal Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery ( ORVR) beyond Stage II Area/Onroad

Post

- 2002

- On the Books

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort a

Consumer Products 2005 Area

Architectur al Coatings 2005 Area

Portable Fuel Containers 2005 Area and Nonroad Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Area Solvent Cleaning Point and Area

New Jersey Only Measures Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations) Area

Federal

USEP A MACT Standards Point

Post

- 2002

- Beyond on the Way

New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2009 Amendments Area

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 Amendments Area and Nonroad Asphalt Paving Area

Adhesives and Sealant s Area and Point

Refineries

– Fugitive Equipment Leaks Point

New Jersey Only Measures VOC Stationary Storage Tank Measures Point and Area USEPA CTGs (4 categories) Point and Area

192 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Proposal. June 15, 2007.89 Control Measures Sector

Note: a. The VOC measures include On the Way (OTW) measures. T he six “shortfall” measures discussed in the definition of the OTB were developed by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) specifically to address United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

- identified deficiencies in the 1

- hour ozone attainment d emonstrations of several OTC states. This terminology does not apply to New Jersey, as all of the OTC shortfall rules were adopted in New Jersey prior to the development of the modeling in ventory.

4.5 Conclusions on Control Measures

The control measures di scussed in this section make up the core of the State’s PM 2.5 attainment

demonstration and contingency measures. The use of these measures in each of those demonstrations, as well as how the benefits from the implementation of those measures were

calculat ed, is discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. Many of the benefits were determined

from the USEPA MOBILE6 model and the USEPA Nonroad model. Most of the control measure benefits (quantitatively) were included in the attainment modeling. Those that were not included in the attainment modeling are listed and discussed in Chapter 5.

There are a host of other measures that have been, or will be, implemented in and around New Jersey whose benefits cannot be accurately estimated or quantified. These measures are described in Chapter 5. These measures, while not quantified, are providing a benefit to the air quality in New Jersey, as well as its upwind states, 193 and increase the likelihood that the State

will attain the PM 2.5 health standard by its att ainment date of April 5, 2010.

Table 4.5 shows a summary of New Jersey’s control measures and how they are being used to meet SIP requirements.

Table 4.5 : PM 2.5 Control Measure Summary

Control Measures Sector Attainment 2009 Modeling Control Measures

No t Captured in the 2009 Regional

Modeling Attainment (2009) Contingency

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved

Post

- 2002

– On the Books New Jersey

NO

x Budget Program (SIP Call) Point X

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Point X

Pre

- 2002 with benef its achieved

Post

- 2002

– On the Books

Federal

Residential Woodstove NSPS Area X

Acid Rain Point X Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) beyond Stage II* Area/Onroad X

193 Please see Chapter 8 for a discussion of the impact of New Jersey control measures on upwind states.90 Control Measures Sector Attainment 2009 Modeling Control Measures

No t Captured in the 2009 Regional

Modeling Attainment (2009) Contingency

Tier 1 Vehicle Program Onroad X

National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) Onroad X

Tier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur

Fuels Onroad X

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Defeat Device Settlement Onroad X

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Engine Standards Onroad X

Nonroad Diesel Engines Nonroad X Large Industrial Spark

- Ignition Engines over 19 kW Nonroad X

Recreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, off

- highway motorcycles

, and all

- terrain vehicles) Nonroad X

Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kW Nonroad X

Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark

Ignition Handheld E ngines at or

below 19 kW Nonroad X

Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Nonhandheld Engines at or below

19 kW Nonroad X

Post

- 2002

– On the Books New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2005* Area X

Arc hitectural Coatings 2005* Area X

Portable Fuel Containers 2005* Area and

Nonroad X (Area Only) Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing* Area X

Solvent Cleaning* Point and Area X

NO

x RACT Rule ( 2006 ) Point and Area X New Jersey Heavy Duty Di esel Rules Including "Not

- To

- Exceed" (NTE) Requirements Onroad X

Post

- 2002

– On the Books New Jersey Only Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations)* Area X

On

- Board Diagnostics (OBD)

– (I/M) Program for Gasoline

Vehicles Onroad X

Po st

- 2002

– On the Books

Federal91 Control Measures Sector Attainment 2009 Modeling Control Measures

No t Captured in the 2009 Regional

Modeling Attainment (2009) Contingency

USEPA MACT Standards including

Industrial Boiler/Process Heater

MACT Point X

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Point X Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco, Valero, and ConocoPhillips) Point X

Refinery Consent Decree s (Sunoco, Valero) Point X a X a

Post

- 2002

– Beyond on the Way New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2009

Amendments* Area X

Portable Fuel Containers 2009

Amendments* Area and

Nonroad X (Area) Asphalt Paving* Are a X

Adhesives and Sealants* Area and Point X Asphalt Production Plants Rule Point X X

Refineries

– Fugitive Equipment

Leaks* Point X

Glass Manufacturing Point X

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 b Point X High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Program Point X

Post

- 2002

- Beyond on the Way New Jersey Only Fugitive Dust at Stationary Sources Point and Area X

#6 Fuel Oil

- Fired Boilers Point X Stationary Diesel Engines Point X VOC Stationary Storage Tank

Measures* Point X

USEPA CTGs (4 categor ies)* Point X Case by Case NO

x Emission Limit Determinations (FSELs/AELs) Point X

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NO

x portion Point X X

Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) PM portion Point X

Refinery Rules (FCCUs, Flares,

Process Heaters, and Boilers) Point X

New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program Onroad X

Diesel Idling Rule Changes Onroad X X

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes Onroad X

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer) Point X92 Control Measures Sector Attainment 2009 Modeling Control Measures

No t Captured in the 2009 Regional

Modeling Attainment (2009) Contingency

Controls f rom EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson NO

x ) Point X

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 ) Point X X

Post 2002

– Beyond on the Way

Federal New Nonroad Engine Standards Nonroad X Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- Ignition E ngines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder Nonroad X

Energy Conservation Standards for

New Federal Commercial and

Multi

- Family High

- Rise Residential Buildings and New Federal Low

Rise Residential Buildings Area X

Additional 2009 Benefits c

Portabl e Fuel Containers

– portion

not modeled* Area and

Nonroad X (Nonroad Only)

NO

x RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled) Point X X

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 ( portion not

modeled ) Point X X

Smoke Management Area X

Low Sulfur Distillate and Residual

Fuel St rategies Point and Area X

Ports Nonroad X

Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010) Onroad X X

Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010) Nonroad X X

Notes: a . See modeling differential analysis in Appendix C

b. Some categories have 2009 compliance dates; remainder have 2012 compliance dates.

c. These measures are above and beyond what went into the modeling and do not necessarily constitute regulatory action, e.g., corrections to the modeling emissions inve ntory; these measures may also provide additional air quality benefits beyond the 2010 attainment date.

* = measures are VOC only measures93 5.0 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

5.1 Introduction

As discussed in Section 1.0, states are required to submit State Implementa tion Plan (SIP)

revisions that contain attainment demonstrations for their PM 2.5 nonattainment areas within three years after the effective date of the nonattainment designation. The designation date for both the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut n onattainment area and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area was December 17, 2004, with an effective date of April 5, 2005. 194 Therefore, the PM 2.5 attainment demonstration SIP revision was due to the USEPA by April 5, 2008 (40 C.F.R. § 51 .1002; 72 Fed. Reg. 20587, April 25, 2007). These SIPs must demonstrate that the measures and rules contained within them are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In acc ordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, each implementation plan must include:

• A summary of the computations, assumptions, and judgments used to determine the degree of reduction of emissions (or reductions in the growth of emissions) that will

result from the i mplementation of the control strategy;

• A presentation of emission levels expected to result from implementation of each measure of the control strategy;

• A presentation of the air quality levels expected to result from implementation of the

overall cont rol strategy showing expected maximum pollutant concentration;

• A description of the dispersion models used to project air quality and to evaluate control strategies; and

• For interstate regions, the analysis from each constituent state must, where

pract icable, be based upon the same regional emission inventory and air quality

baseline.

The attainment demonstration in this SIP revision addresses the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard. New Jersey and the other states that share New Jersey’s 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- stat e nonattainment areas have always met and are in attainment with the 1997 daily PM 2.5 health

- based standard of 65 μg/m 3 . According to the USEPA’s modeling guidance, 195 since these levels are well below the standard and have continued to improve since 2001 ( see Chapter 2), the modeled attainment test for the 1997 daily PM 2.5 standard is not needed nor is included in this attainment

demonstration.

194 70 Fed. Reg. 944 (January 5, 2005).

195 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United Sta tes Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, page 56.94 Chapter 4 discussed and summarized Federal, New Jersey and regional efforts to identify control

measures. This chapter presents the State’s analyses of the impact that the implementation of the control measures identified for attainment, in combination with existing and already on the way measures, have on the State’s air quality by 2009. Since this attainment dem onstration will show

attainment of the PM 2.5 standard within five years of the date of designation, the State is not required to submit a separate Reasonable Further Progress Plan. 196 Chapter 6 provides for contingencies in the event that either of New Jers ey’s nonattainment areas fails to reach

attainment.

5.2 Photochemical Modeling

5.2.1 Introduction

The USEPA modeling guidance suggests the use of a photochemical model to determine attainment of the fine particulate NAAQS and has created a model which will predic t concentrations of both ozone and fine particulate levels within the same modeling run. 197 As such, New Jersey’s attainment demonstrations for both the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas in clude the same parameters in the photochemical grid modeling as were used in the modeling runs used to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS. This analysis is also supplemented by other

information to demonstrate that all the monitors in both nonattai nment areas are predicted by the photochemical modeling to be in attainment of the PM 2.5 annual health

- based standard by 2010.

The objective of the photochemical modeling test is to enable New Jersey, to analyze the efficacy of various control strategies in reducing air pollution. The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) on behalf of its member states (which include New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and Pennsylvania) undertook a photochemical modeling study to demonstrate compliance with the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for their multi

- state nonattainment areas and built upon these efforts to demonstrate compliance with the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The OTC Modeling Committee directed the 8

- hour ozone attainment modeling study. The OTC Modeling Committee consiste d of the following workgroups: OTC Photochemical Workgroup, OTC Meteorological Modeling Workgroup, OTC Emissions Inventory Development Workgroup, and the OTC Control Strategy Workgroup. The emissions inventory work was performed in conjunction with the Mi d

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union ( MANE

- VU). The OTC Air Directors served on the OTC Oversight Committee and provided oversight of the process. Since the 8

- hour ozone modeling was limited to the ozone season (May 1 through September 30), additional m odeling was needed to demonstrate attainment of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. This additional modeling was performed by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s Ozone Research Center (UMDNJ/ORC), the Northeast States for Coordinated

Air Use Mana gement (NESCAUM) and the University of Maryland (UMD).

196 72 Fed. Reg. 20666 (April 25, 2007).

197 USEPA

. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals

for Ozone

, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Di vision, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007.95 The remainder of this section discusses the model used in this regional modeling analysis, the specific modeling parameters, including inventory development, and the results of that modeling

exercis e.

5.2.2 “One

- Atmosphere” Air Quality Model

The photochemical model selected for the attainment modeling demonstration was the USEPA’s

Models

- 3/Community Multi

- scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. The CMAQ modeling system was selected for the attainment d emonstration primarily because it is a photochemical grid model capable of modeling a variety of pollutants over a range of time and space scales, i.e., a “one

- atmosphere” photochemical grid model. Not only was CMAQ used to model ozone formation, but also was used to model the components that make up the particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers ( PM 2.5 ) and Regional Haze in the Northeast. The model is capable of calculating the formation of secondary

aerosols w hich are a prime component of fine particulate matter in the northeastern United States. The model is also recommended in the USEPA’s Modeling Guidance. 198 All of the regional modeling was conducted in accordance with the USEPA’s Modeling Guidance.

Under the direction of the OTC Modeling Committee, s everal states and modeling centers performed the regional modeling runs and/or contributed to the preparation of technical information for the regional modeling effort. Those organizations included:

1) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 2) Ozone Research Center at University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ/Rutgers University (ORC), 3) University of Maryland (UMD), 4) Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 5) Northeast States for Coordinate d Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 6) Maryland Department of the Environment, 7) New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and 8) Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Agency (MARAMA).

The lead agency for coordinating the running of the CMAQ model and perfo rming the modeling

runs for the OTC was the NYSDEC. 199 The NYSDEC ran the CMAQ model using the protocol in Appendix B1 for the May 1 through September 30 ozone season, which was supplemented by modeling runs performed by the UMDNJ/ORC (March and April), NES CAUM (October, November, December), and the University of Maryland (January, February) for the purposes of determining PM 2.5 attainment. The four regional modeling centers were, therefore, able to model an entire year of meteorology and emissions. The NY SDEC was responsible for post

- processing

198 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone

, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States En vironmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007.

199 New Jersey wishes to thank the NYSDEC for its leadership in the regional modeling effort.96 the results for the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area, including calculating the projected PM 2.5 concentrations using the relative response factor (RRF) method specified in the USEPA’s Mode ling Guidance , included in Appendix B2. The projected PM 2.5 concentrations for the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area were calculated by

the UMDNJ/ORC.

The CMAQ model requires specific inputs, including meteorological information and em issions information. The remainder of this section discusses, in general, the needed data inputs for the CMAQ model, the particular parameters of the CMAQ model chosen for the PM 2.5 modeling runs, and the validation of the CMAQ model for use in the region al modeling effort. For more specific information, see Appendices B3, B4, B5, B6, and B7.

5.2.2.1 Meteorology Data

As explained in the USEPA’s Emission Inventory Guidance, 200 2002 was designated as the base year for 8

- hour ozone SIPs, PM 2.5 SIPs, and regional h aze plans; therefore, wherever possible, 2002 was used for baseline modeling for the PM 2.5 standard. The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 was used to generate the annua l 2002 meteorology for the modeling analysis. The

MM5 model is a non

- hydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban

- and regional

- scale photochemical regulatory modeling studies. Professor Da

- Lin Zhang (University of Maryland) perf ormed the MM5 modeling in consultation with the NYSDEC and Maryland Department of the Environment staff. The analyses showed that in general, the performance of the MM5 is reasonable both at the surface and in the vertical, thereby providing confidence in the use of these data in the CMAQ simulations. The documents supporting the MM5 modeling analysis are provided in Appendix B3. Based on model validation and sensitivity testing, the model results met the evaluation criteria and the MM5 configurations we re used for the regional modeling effort.

5.2.2.2 Regional Emission Inventories

Both the nonattainment areas associated with New Jersey have an attainment date of no later than April 5, 2010. Since January through April represents only part of the year, attainm ent must be demonstrated for the last full year prior to the attainment date; in this case 2009. 201 Emission reductions included in the regional modeling, therefore, should be implemented no later than the beginning of 2009 for the air quality benefits to h ave the greatest likelihood of improving air quality throughout the entire year and showing attainment of the annual standard. As such, the attainment modeling run is designed to show the incremental emission reductions associated with the implementation of control measures between the base year (2002) and the “attainment” year (2009).

200 USEPA. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations. United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Emissions Inventory Group, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 001, August 2005, updated November 2005.

201 Success will be judged by three years of data, i.e., 2007, 20 08, and 2009, to calculate the 2009 design value.97 To complete this modeling exercise, two regional emission inventories were developed to represent the 2002 base case (see Appendix B4) and the 2009 control case (see Appe ndix B5)

. In addition, two other future control case emission inventories (for 2012 and 2018, respectively) were developed simultaneous with the 2009 control case emission inventory to allow for additional modeling exercises. These future year emission i nventories were developed by projecting the 2002 base year emissions inventory using standard emissions projection techniques discussed in Appendix B5 . These future year emission inventories include emissions growth due to projected increases in economic activity, as well as the emission reductions due to the implementation of control measures. All of the regional emission inventories in this chapter are hereafter referred to as the modeling inventories.

The 2002 emissions were first generated by the ind ividual Ozone Transport Region states. MARAMA then coordinated and quality assured the 2002 inventory data, and projected it for the relevant control years. The 2002 emissions for non

- Ozone Transport Region areas within the modeling domain were obtained from other Regional Planning Organizations for their corresponding areas. These Regional Planning Organizations included the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), the Midwest Regional Planning Organization

, and the Central Regional Air Planning Association. The documentation for the OTC base and control modeling inventories are presented in Appendices B4 and B 5

- 1

, respectively

. The use of emission inventory data from the non

- MANE

- VU states is documented in Appendi x B6.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the OTC member states selected several control strategies for inclusion in the attainment demonstration modeling. These strategies were selected from groups of measures developed by the technical subcommittees responsible for identifying and developing the regulations and/or control measures to attain the ozone health standard. Consideration was given to maintaining consistency with control measures likely to be implemented in other Regional Planning Organizations. Emiss ion reduction requirements mandated by the Clean Air Act were also included in projecting future year emissions. Additional information on the emissions used in future year modeling is provided in Appendix

B6. The following sections provide a more detail ed discussion of base and control inventories used in the regional modeling.

5.2.2.2.1 Base Emission Inventory

Version 3 of the 2002 base year emission inventory was used in the regional modeling exercises. The technical support document for this inventory, whic h is included in Appendix B 4

, explains the data sources, methods, and results for preparing this version of the 2002 base year criteria air pollutant and ammonia emissions inventories for point, area, onroad, nonroad, and biogenic

sources for the MANE

- VU R egional Planning Organization . In addition to relying on this base inventory for PM 2.5 SIP

- related activities, the MANE

- VU states will use this base inventory to support air quality modeling, control measure development, and implementation activities for the Regional Haze SIP.

The inventory and supporting data include the following:98 1) Comprehensive, county

- level modeling inventories for 2002 emissions for criteria air pollutants and ammonia for the State and Local agencies included in the MANE

- VU region ; 2) The temporal, speciation, and spatial allocation profiles for the MANE

- VU region inventories; 3) Inventories for wildfires, prescribed burning, and agricultural field burning for the southeastern provinces of Canada; and 4) Inventories for other Re gional Planning Organizations , Canada, and Mexico.

The mass emissions inventory files were converted to the National Emissions Inventory Input Format Version 3.0. As discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2.2.3, the modeling inventory files were proce ssed in Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) /Inventory Data Analyzer.

The inventories include annual emissions for oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), ammonia, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM 10 ) and, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ). The inventories also included summer day, winter day, and average day emissions . However, not all states included daily emissions in their inventories. In these instances, temporal profiles prepared for this project were used to calculate daily emissions.

Work on Version 1 of the 2002 MANE

- VU inventory began in April 2004. The consolidated inventory for point, area, onroad, and nonroad sources was prepared by starting with the

inventories that the MANE

- VU state/local agencies submitted to the USEPA from May through July of 2004 as a requirement of the Consolidated Emissions Repo rting Rule (CERR). This version of the final inventory and SMOKE input files were finalized during January 2005.

Work on Version 2 (covering the period from April through September 2005) involved incorporating revisions requested by some MANE

- VU state/ local agencies on the point, area, and onroad inventories. Work on Version 3 (covering the period from December 2005 through April 2006) included additional revisions to the point, area, and onroad inventories as requested by some states. Thus, the Versi on 3 inventory for point, area, and onroad sources were built upon Versions 1 and 2. This work also included development of the biogenics inventory. In version 3, the nonroad inventory was completely redone because of changes that the USEPA

made to the N ONROAD2005 model.

Addressing Woodsmoke Emissions

There are differences between the 2002 base case inventory that was developed by New Jersey and the 2002 alternative wood burning emissions inventory that was developed regionally for modeling (fractional reduction from the base case). Both NO

x and VOC emissions are different in the base case and the modeling case, too.

The reason for this difference is that the regional modeling was conducted by starting with a ton per year value, not ton per day emissio ns as was used by the State’s emission inventory. The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) model takes those tons per year emissions99 and breaks them into hourly emissions using the temporal profiles built into the SMOKE model. Using this SMOKE temporal profile fewer residential wood burning emissions are placed into the model in the summer months, as most residential wood burning is not done in the summer. This would also be consistent with how the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec tion (NJDEP) developed emissions in its inventory. However, SMOKE further speciates the tons of VOC from woodsmoke into specific species, so that it is not possible from the SMOKE output to see where that ton of emissions went. The ton of VOC disappears into the sum of all component species.

5.2.2.2.2 Emission Control Inventories

The following is a summary of the future year inventories that were developed:

• Three projection years: 2009, 2012, and 2018;

• Three source sectors: non

- Electric Generating Units (n on

- EGUs) point sources, area sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Under separate efforts, MANE

- VU prepared EGU projections using the Integrated Planning Model and onroad mobile source projections using the SMOKE emission modeling system. The documentatio n for those efforts is included in Appendix B 5

- 1

.

The two emission control scenarios are:

1) A combined “on

- the

- books/on

- the

- way” (OTB/OTW) control strategy accounting for emission control regulations already in place, as well as some emission control

regu lations that are not yet finalized but are likely to achieve additional reductions by 2009 (i.e., adoption of the six shortfall measures by states outside the core Ozone Transport Region states); and

2) A beyond on the way (BOTW) scenario to account for cont rols from potential new regulations that may be necessary to meet attainment and other regional air quality goals.

The inventories were developed for seven pollutants, which are SO 2 , NO

x , VOCs, carbon monoxide, PM 10 - Primary (sum of the filterable and cond ensable components), PM 2.5 - Primary (sum of the filterable and condensable components), and ammonia.

The states included in the emission inventory are those that comprise the MANE

- VU region. In addition to the District of Columbia, the 11 MANE

- VU states a re Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

and Vermont.

An inventory technical support document for these future inventories is included in Appendices

B 5

- 1 and B 5

- 2 and explai ns the data sources, methods, and results for future year emission forecasts for three years; three emission sectors; two emission control scenarios; seven pollutants; and eleven states plus the District of Columbia.100 5.2.2.3 Emissions Processor Selection and Con figuration

The SMOKE Processing System was selected for the modeling analysis. SMOKE is principally an emissions processing system; this means that, with the exception of mobile and biogenic sources, its purpose is to provide an efficient, modern tool fo r converting emissions inventory data into the formatted emissions files required for a photochemical air quality model.

Inside the Ozone Transport Region, the modeling inventories were processed by the NYSDEC and NESCAUM using the SMOKE (Version 2.1) pro cessor to provide inputs for the CMAQ model. A detailed description of all SMOKE input files such as area, mobile, fire, point

, and biogenic emissions files and the SMOKE model configuration are provided in Appendices B 6

, B 7 , and B 8

.

5.2.2.4 Regional Modeling Co ordination

The CMAQ model was installed at all participating modeling centers and diagnostic tests were run to insure that the model was operating as designed. In addition, the CMAQ model was benchmarked against other modeling platforms to ensure similar results. The OTC modeling committee oversaw the modeling effort and reported to the OTC Oversight Committee. The NJDEP participated as a member of the various OTC committees. While the focus of this modeling effort was to develop estimates of ozone for mation, care was taken during the process to ensure that the data developed could be useful for future particulate SIP efforts.

5.2.2.5 Domain and Data Base Issues

5.2.2.5.1 Episode Selection

The entire 2002 base case and 2009 future case years were simulated with 2002 m eteorological

conditions for PM 2.5 modeling. This complete year of modeling provides a more robust analysis

of the seasonal variations in PM 2.5 levels due to secondary aerosol formation, an important pathway to understanding the transport of particulate m atter from out

- of

- state sources.

5.2.2.5.2 Size of the Modeling Domain

In defining the modeling domain, the location of the local urban area, the downwind extent of the

elevated PM 2.5 levels, the location of large emission sources, and the availability of

meteorol ogical and air quality data need to be considered. The domain or spatial extent to be

modeled includes as its core the nonattainment area . Beyond this, the domain includes enough of the surrounding area such that major upwind sources fall within the doma in and the emissions produced in the nonattainment area remain within the domain throughout the day.

Figure 5.1 shows the OTC modeling boundaries. This domain covers the Northeast region, including the Northeastern, Central and Southeastern United States as well as Southeastern Canada. The final SIP modeling analysis utilized this modeling domain. Further discussion of the modeling domain selection is provided in Appendices B1 and B3.101 Figure 5.1 : Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 12

- Kilometer CM AQ Modeling

Domain

5.2.2.5.3 Horizontal Grid Size

The basic CMAQ modeling platform utilized a two

- way nested domain consisting of a course 36 km horizontal grid resolution for the continental United States domain and a fine 12

- km grid

over the eastern United Sta tes. A larger domain was selected for the MM5 simulations to provide a buffer of several grid cells around each boundary of the CMAQ 36 km domain. This was designed to minimize any errors in the meteorology from boundary effects. A 12 km inner

domain wa s selected to better characterize air quality in the Ozone Transport Region and surrounding Regional Planning Organization regions. The horizontal grid definitions for the CMAQ and MM5 modeling domains are contained in Appendices B1 and B3.

5.2.2.5.4 Vertical Reso lution

The vertical grid used in the CMAQ modeling was primarily defined by the MM5 vertical structure. The MM5 model employed a terrain following coordinate system defined by atmospheric pressure. The layer averaging scheme adopted for CMAQ was designe d to reduce the computational demands of the CMAQ simulations, therefore only the uppermost layers of the CMAQ domain were coalesced. All layers in the planetary boundary layer were unchanged between the MM5 and the CMAQ simulation. This ensures that the near

- surface processes that102 affect air pollution the most are represented realistically in CMAQ, while the meteorological systems that are driven by upper level winds are allowed to develop properly in MM5. The effects of layer averaging have a relativel y minor effect on the model performance metrics when compared to ambient monitoring data. The vertical layer definitions and other details related to the MM5 and CMAQ modeling domains are contained in Appendices B1 and B3.

5.2.2.5.5 Initial and Boundary Conditions

The objective of a photochemical grid model is to estimate the air quality given a set of meteorological and emissions conditions. When initializing a modeling simulation, the exact concentration fields are not known in every grid cell for the start tim e. Therefore, typically photochemical grid models begin with clean conditions within the domain and are allowed to stabilize before the period of interest is simulated. In practice this is accomplished by starting the model several days prior to the peri od of interest; this is called spin

- up time.

The winds move pollutants into, out of, and within the domain. The model handles the movement of pollutants within the domain and out of the domain. An estimate of the concentration of pollutants at the edge of the domain, and therefore the quantity of pollutants moving into the domain, is needed as an input to the model. These are called boundary conditions. The 12 km grid boundary conditions were extracted from the 36 km CMAQ

simulation. To estimate the b oundary conditions for the modeling study, boundary conditions

for the inner OTR 12

- km grid used hour by hour boundary conditions extracted from the continental 36 km CMAQ run results by researchers at Harvard University using the GEOS

CHEM global chemical transport model. 202

, 203

The influence of initial conditions was minimized by using a 15

- day spin

- up period, which is sufficient to establish pollutant levels that are encountered in the eastern United States. Additionally, the predominant winds flow from we st to east, thus New Jersey is not influenced by nearby boundary conditions as the boundary begins in the states west of the Mississippi River. Additional information on the extraction of boundary conditions is provided in Appendix B1.

5.2.2.6 Quality Assurance

All the air quality, emissions, and meteorological data within the MANE

- VU Regional Planning Organization used in the regional modeling effort were reviewed to ensure completeness, accuracy, and consistency before proceeding with modeling. Any errors, mi ssing data or inconsistencies, were addressed using appropriate methods that are consistent with standard practices. All modeling was benchmarked through the duplication of a set of standard modeling results across different modeling centers using differe nt computer platforms to calculate results. Emissions inventories obtained from the other Regional Planning Organizations were examined

202 Moo, N. and Byun, D. A Simple User’s Guide For “geos2cmaq” Code: Linking CMAQ with GEOS

- CHEM. Version 1.0. Institute for Multidimensional Air Quality Studies (IMAQS). University of Houston, Houston, Te xas, 2004.

203 Baker, K. Model Performance for Ozone in the Upper Midwest over 3 Summers. Presentation given at the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, 2005 AWMA Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June 24, 2005.103 to check for errors in the emissions estimates. When such errors were discovered, the problems in the input data files were corrected, and the models were run again.

The CMAQ air quality model inputs and outputs were plotted and examined to ensure sufficiently accurate representation of the observed data in the model ready fields, and temporal and spatial consistency a nd reasonableness. The output of the CMAQ model results for the 2002 period underwent operational and scientific evaluations of the meteorological and air quality modeling data used and is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2.2.7.

5.2.2.7 Model Performance Evaluation

The first step in the modeling process is to verify the model’s performance in terms of its ability to predict particulate concentration fields in the right locations and at the right levels. To do this, model predictions for the base year si mulation are compared to the actual ambient data observed in the historical episode. This verification is a combination of statistical and graphical evaluations. If the model appears to be predicting particulate matter in the right locations for the righ t reasons, then the model can be used as a predictive tool to evaluate various control strategies and their effects on particulate formation. The purpose of the model performance evaluation is to assess how accurately the model predicts particulate levels observed in the historical episode and to use the knowledge of CMAQ’s performance to put CMAQ’s predictions of future year air quality in the appropriate context so that future policy decisions are informed by CMAQ’s predictions and its performance.

Th e results of a model performance evaluation were examined prior to using CMAQ’s results to support the attainment demonstration. The performance of CMAQ was evaluated using both operational and diagnostic methods. Operational evaluation refers to the mod el’s ability to replicate observed concentrations of particulate matter and/or its precursors (surface and aloft), whereas diagnostic evaluation assesses the model’s accuracy with respect to characterizing the sensitivity of particulate formation to change s in emissions (i.e., relative response factors).

The NYSDEC conducted a performance evaluation of the 2002 base case CMAQ simulation for

PM 2.5 on behalf of the Ozone Transport Region member states. Appendix B 9 provides comprehensive operational and di agnostic evaluation results, including spreadsheets containing the assumptions made to compute statistics. Highlights of this evaluation are summarized in

Section 5.2.2.7.1.

5.2.2.7.1 Summary of Model Performance

The CMAQ model was employed to simulate PM 2.5 for the entire year of 2002. A comparison of the temporal and spatial distributions of PM 2.5 and its precursors was conducted for the study domain, with additional focus placed on performance in both the Northern New Jersey/New

York/Connecticut and Southern N ew Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas.

The model performance for both Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas averaged over all stations and all days met the guidelines in the USEPA Modeli ng Guidance. Applying those criteria to individual days is a104 much more stringent test that is not required by the USEPA. In general, the CMAQ model results were best for daily maximum ozone and daily average PM 2.5 and sulfate (SO 4 ) mass.

No significant differences in model performance for particulate matter and its precursors were encountered across different areas of the Ozone Transport Region. While there are some differences in the spatial data among sub

- regions, there is nothing to suggest a tendenc y for the model to respond in a systematically different manner between regions. Examination of the statistical metrics by sub

- region confirms the absence of significant performance problems arising in one area but not in another, building confidence that the CMAQ modeling system is operating consistently across the full Ozone Transport Region domain.

Also, the USEPA Modeling Guidance suggests the use of the concentrations estimated from the mean of the nearby grid cells where the ambient monitor is locat ed unless large concentration gradients are encountered within the adjoining grid cells. If the modeling shows that large concentration gradients exist then the USEPA guidance suggests using only the concentration from the grid cell containing the monitor . An analysis of the Relative Reduction Factors (RRFs) in the grid cell containing the monitor and the average of the nine grid cells surrounding the monitor shows that large concentration gradients do not exist in the modeling conducted. This analysis i s presented in Appendix B10 of this SIP and shows relatively consistent results whether the concentrations of the one cell or concentrations of the average of nine cells are used. The attainment demonstration will, therefore, present the RRFs for the nine cell mean or average of the grid cells as this is consistent with USEPA guidance. 204

As stated previously, the model performance for the 2002 annual run meets all USEPA guidelines and thus demonstrates that the modeling platform is appropriate for modeling

emissions control scenarios for the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas . The CMAQ model has been evaluated by using measures that reflect its ability to represent average conditions instea d of its ability to respond to changes in emissions. Therefore, although CMAQ has met the traditional performance measures as stated in the USEPA Modeling Guidance, it may in fact under or over predict the magnitude of secondary aerosol formation changes due to the various control measures being modeled. This means future year (i.e., 2009) modeling results should not be viewed as exact, but should be utilized in a relative manner (see Section 5.2.4). Additional discussion on the uncertainty associated wi th the CMAQ model results is provided in Section

5.3.

5.2.3 Control Measures Modeled

As previously stated, the objective of the photochemical modeling analysis is to enable state air agencies to analyze the efficacy of various control strategies, and to demon strate that the

measures included as part of the SIP will result in attainment of the PM 2.5 standard by 2009.

204 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Mode ls and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling G roup, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, page 28.105 New Jersey’s attainment demonstration relies on the Beyond

- on

- the

- Way (BOTW) 2009 modeling run, which predicts future 2009 air quality conditions , after accounting for all air pollution controls that have been implemented since the base year of 2002 (OTB/OTW measures), and applying new control measures (BOTW measures) that will be implemented in

time to reduce emissions in 2009. Table 5.1 lists al l of the control measures included for New Jersey in the projected 2009 BOTW CMAQ modeling run. Each of these control measures is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

While Table 5.1 shows all the OTB/OTW and BOTW measures that New Jersey took into

account within the 2009 attainment demonstration model run, the overall attainment demonstration is reliant upon all the states' in the Ozone Transport Region implementing measures to reduce the amount of their emissions in order for New Jersey to achieve its goal s. Table 5.2 shows which BOTW measures each state in the Ozone Transport Region believed would be implemented in time to achieve benefits in 2009. These were the measures included in

the BOTW model run for each state.106 Table 5.1 : Modeled Control Measures Included in the 2009 BOTW Model Run

Pre

- 2002 with benefits achieved Post

- 2002

- On the Books

Federal

Residential Woodstove NSPS Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery ( ORVR) beyond Stage II Tier 1 Vehicle Program National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLE V) Tier 2 Vehicle Program/Low Sulfur Fuels

HDDV Defeat Device Settlement HDDV Engine Standards Nonroad Diesel Engines Large Industrial Spark

- Ignition Engines over 19 kilowatts Recreational Vehicles (includes snowmobiles, off

- highway motorcycles

, and all

- terrain vehicles) Diesel Marine Engines over 37 kilowatts Phase 2 Standards for Small Spark

- Ignition Handheld Engines at or below 19 kilowatts Phase 2 Standards for New Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Non

- Handheld Engines at or below 19

kilowatts

Post

- 20 02

- On the Books New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2005 Architectural Coatings 2005 Portable Fuel Containers 2005 (Area Source Only) Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Solvent Cleaning

NO

x RACT R ule ( 2006 ) New Jersey Heavy Duty Diesel Rules Including "Not

- To

- Exceed" (NTE) Requirements

New Jersey Only Stage I and Stage II (Gasoline Transfer Operations)

On

- Board Diagnostics (OBD)

– (I/M) Program for Gasoline Vehicles

Federal

USEPA MACT Standards

Aci d Rain
CAIR (NO

x Controls in 2009 Only) Refinery Consent Dec rees (Sunoco, Valero, and Conoco Phi l lips)

Post

- 2002

- Beyond on the Way New Jersey Measures Done Through a Regional Effort

Consumer Products 2009 Amendments

Portable Fuel Containers 2009 A mendments (Area Source Only) Asphalt Paving107 Adhesives and Sealants Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer) Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson NO

x )

New Jersey Only

Ne w Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program108 Table 5.2 : Ozone Transport Region

- Wide Modeling Assumptions for the 2009 BOTW Model Run

< 25

mmBtu/

hr 25-50

mmBtu/

hr 50-100

mmBtu/

hr < 25

mmBtu/

hr 25-50

mmBtu/

hr 50-100

mmBtu/

hr 100-250

mmBtu/

hr >250

mmBtu/

hr

NY NAA

Connecticut x x x x x x x x x x x x New Jersey x x x x x x x x New York x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Phila. NAA

Delaware x x x x Maryland x x x x x x x New Jersey x x x x x x x x Pennsylvania x x x x

Other States

Maine x x x x New Hampshire x x x x x x
Vermont

Massachusetts x x x x
Rhode Island x x x x DC x x x x x ICI Boilers - Area Sources

*Source: MACTEC. Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Final TSD. Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., February 28, 2007. Adhesives &

Sealants Consumer

Products

2005/2009 PFC

2005/

2009 Asphalt Paving Asphalt

Plants ICI Boilers - Non-EGU Point Sources

Cement

Kilns Glass

Furnances109 It is also important to note that the 2009 BOTW modeling did not contain the first round of

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) controls for SO 2 expected to occur in 2010. If these lowered emissions were modeled, the modeling results would show lower predicted levels of PM 2.5 than are presented in this attainment demonstration. Implementation of the CAIR SO 2 controls is

ex pected to provide a more assurance that the annual PM 2.5 standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 will be attained by 2010.

5.2.4 Photochemical Modeling Results

The USEPA recommends using the regional photochemical model estimates in a “relative” rather than “absolute” sense, due to the uncertainties and biases in the modeling system. Thus, the assumption is that the change between the modeled base year (2002) and the modeled future year (2009) reflects the impact of growth and control over time and is an appropriate use of th e results. The “absolute” modeled results are used in a “relative” sense by applying the ratios of the model’s future to current (baseline) predictions at each PM 2.5 monitor to the actual 2002 design values, thereby grounding the future design value to th e monitored results. These ratios are termed the “relative reduction factor” (RRF). An RRF is defined by the USEPA as the ratio of a future maximum concentration predicted “near a monitor” to a baseline maximum concentration predicted “near the monitor” averaged over selected days. 205

, 206 More simply put, the RRF is the ratio of average future concentrations over average baseline concentrations for each monitoring site.

The baseline design values used in the modeling application were calculated differently from the

monitored design values although both are based on monitored ambient air quality data. The monitoring design value s are calculated as the three

- year average of the one

- year annual average

values where the one

- year annual average value for a give n year is first calculated using the quarterly average of the daily values at each monitoring site. In other words, the quarterly average mass is calculated first, and then the average annual mass is calculated from the quarterly values for a given year. For modeling purposes, the baseline design value is calculated by averaging three three

- year design value periods, centered on the base inventory year of 2002. Specifically, the modeling baseline design value was calculated using the 2000

- 2002, 2001

- 2003

, and 2002

- 2004 periods. For more information about the modeling design value s and how they were calculated, see Appendices B11

- 1 and B11

- 2. The average annual base line design value (DV B

- I ) as shown in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 was calculated using the th ree, three

- year average design values centered around the 2002 base year. These values, calculated using the five years of monitoring data from 2000 to 2004, were then applied to the modeling output using the relative reductions as determined by the futur e year modeling.

Four monitoring sites located in New Jersey contain monitors that measure the component species of PM 2.5 and are designated as Speciation Trends Network (STN) monitors. These monitors are located in Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Br unswick. The STN monitoring program provides for the concentration of major ions, carbon compounds, and trace elements

205 ibid.

206 “Near a monitor” was determined by using an average of the concentration predicted within a 3x3 array of grid cells surrounding each monitor, as recommended by the USEPA fo r 12

- km grid resolution modeling.110 which constitute the bulk of the PM 2.5 mass. The STN samplers operate on a one

- in

- three day sampling schedule. It is important to note that only one of the STN samplers, the Camden monitor, is located in the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area; the other three (Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick) are located in the Northern New Jersey/New York /Connecticut nonattainment area.

Most of the samples from the PM 2.5 monitoring sites in New Jersey are collected and analyzed according to the Federal Reference Method (FRM). The FRM for fine particulate matter requires a 24

- hour collection period using a filter

- based collection method to measure fine particulate mass. The FRM samplers, like the STN samplers, operate on a one

- in

- three day schedule. Also, as per the network design requirements, several FRM sites have collocated duplicate samplers or meas ure fine particulate matter by other means than the Federal Reference Method (e.g., Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) sampling).

It is important to understand the unique aspects of measuring and modeling particulate matter as

it relates to d etermining attainment. The PM 2.5 attainment test uses both the total PM 2.5 mass results from the FRM monitors as well as the individual components of PM 2.5 as measured at the STN sites. Therefore, the modeled attainment test for PM 2.5 is called the Speci ated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT). In order to perform the recommended modeled attainment, the

observed total mass concentrations of PM 2.5 as measured at the FRM monitoring sites need to be first partitioned into seven components (plus passive mass). 207 These components are:

• Mass associated with sulfates

• Mass associated with nitrates

• Mass associated with ammonium

• Mass associated with organic carbon

• Mass associated with elemental carbon

• Mass associated with particle bound water

• Mass associated with “other ” primary inorganic particulate matter, and

• Passively collected mass.

A separate site specific calculation of the quantity of the component species was performed for

each of these PM 2.5 components (except passive mass) for each FRM monitoring site. This calculation applied the same ratio of each species collected from the “nearest” STN site, to the

total PM 2.5 mass measured at the FRM site. Each of these site

- specific ratios is called a

component

- specific design value.

Future PM 2.5 design values were estimated at each existing FRM monitoring site by multiplying the modeled RRF “near” each monitor times the observed “component specific design value.”

Future total PM 2.5 design values at a site were then estimated by summing the future year design

values of the seven PM 2.5 components. If the total of all future species

- specific PM 2.5 annual

207 The monitors are located either within the boundaries of the nonattainment area, or in close proximity to the

nonattainment area.111 design values for each site was less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m 3 , the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, the test for attainment of the standard, is passed.

Since the USEPA Speciat ed Modeled Attainment Test software is not available for the states to

use for their attainment demonstrations, the following procedure was performed by the NYSDEC and the UMDNJ/ORC (see Appendices B2, B11

- 1, B11

- 2 , and B12 ), following the USEPA guidance f or modeling attainment of the PM 2.5 health standard, to analyze the 2009 BOTW modeling results.

1. Using the data provided by the USEPA Region 2 208 on the monitored levels of particulate matter through the USEPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database, the quar terly averages of Federal Reference Method (FRM) mass for each monitor were determined.

2. The average quarterly STN speciation ratio for the years 2002 to 2004 (using the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, New Jersey and the four New York

si ted STN monitors to determine the fraction of each species that would be present in the

total PM 2.5 mass measured at the FRM monitoring sites) was determined. (Note: In order to ensure that comparable mass measurements between STN and FRM measurement

tech niques were used, an adjustment for a blank correction was made to remove the blank mass).

3. The quarterly RRF values from the modeling results for all the species using the 2002 Base B1 and 2009 BOTW B4 were calculated (Note: nine cell averages of the grid cells surrounding each monitoring site were used to calculate the RRF.)

4. The measured FRM mass at each monitoring site was divided by the total mass into the individual species using the ratio from Step 2.

5. Computed future values of species othe r than water and ammonia through RRF scaling using the Degree of Neutralization (DON) and future sulfate, retained nitrate to estimate the ammonia concentration, and a polynomial approximation from the NYSDEC to

estimate water within the total PM 2.5 mass. 209

6. The blank mass was then added back to the total mass to determine the total measured

PM 2.5 mass so that the predicted modeled results could be directly compared to measured

concentrations.

The following equation illustrates how New Jersey calculate d the future design values for each monitoring site (i):

(RRF) ij for each species = ([C j,projected of species x ]/[C j,current of species x ]) i

208 Personal communication by e

- mail, entitled “Fw: Re: Files from MATS,” between Kenneth Fr adkin, USEPA, Region 2 and Ray Papalski, NJDEP, August 17, 2007.

209 See Appendix B12.112 Where:

C

j,current is the quarterly mean concentration of species x predicted at or near the monitoring site (i) with emissions characteristic of the period used to calculate the baseline design value for

annual PM 2.5

C

j,projected is the future year quarterly mean concentration of species x predicted at or near the monitoring site (i) from a representative STN moni toring location.

The design value for each species or component was then calculated as follows:

DV F

- I for each species = (RRF I * DV B

- I )

Where:

DV B

- I = the average base concentration (d esign value) of each component monitored at site I, in micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 )

RRF I = the relative response factor calculated for each component at site (i)

DV F

- I = the estimated future design value for the time attainment is required, in μg/ m 3

The quarterly mean of each component was then summed to get quarterly mean PM 2.5 values. Then the quarterly mean PM 2.5 concentrations were averaged to get a future year annual average

PM 2.5 estimate for each FRM monitoring site.

Table 5.3 shows the PM 2.5 modeling results using the 2009 BOTW run for all monitors located within the Northern New Jersey /New York/Connecticut nonattainment area.113 Table 5.3 : 2009 Modeled PM 2.5 Design Values for the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Areas (Bold Type indicates Values over the Annual Standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 )

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design

Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Design

Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

90010010 Bridgeport

- Roosevelt School Connecticut 13.1 11.5

90010113 Bridgeport

- Congress Street Connecticut 12.6 11.2

90011123 Danbury Connecticut 12.8 11.2

90012124 Stamford Connecticut 12.9 11.4

90013005 Norwalk Connecticut 12.9 11.3

90019003 Westport Connecticut 11.8 10.4

90090018 New Haven

- Stiles Street 210 Connecticut 16.3 14.4

90091123 New Haven

- 715 State St Connecticut 13.7 11.7

90092123 Waterbury Connecticut 13.1 11.2

90099005 Hamden Connecticut 11.6 9.9

340030003 Fort Lee Library New Jersey 13.7 12.1

3 40130015 Newark Cultural Center New Jersey 13.9 11.8

340130016 Newark Lab New Jersey 14.7 12.5

340171003 Jersey City Primary New Jersey 14.9 13.3

340172002 Union City New Jersey 16.0 14.3

340210008 Trenton New Jersey 13.9 11.8

340218001 Washington Cro ssing New Jersey 11.9 10.1

340230006 New Brunswick New Jersey 12.5 10.4

340270004 Morristown New Jersey 12.4 10.4

340273001 Chester New Jersey 11.1 9.3

340310005 Paterson New Jersey 13.2 11.4

340390004 Elizabeth New Jersey 15.7 13.5

340390006 Elizabe th Downtown New Jersey 13.5 11.8

340392003 Rahway New Jersey 13.1 11.4

360050080 Morrisania Center

- Gerard Ave. New York 15.8 14.2

360050083 Botanical Gardens New York 13.8 12.4

360050110 East 156 Street New York 14.7 13.3

360470052 PS 314

- 60th St and GawanusExp. New York 15.2 13.4

360470076 PS 321

- 180 7th Ave. New York 14.4 12.7

360470122 JHS 126 424 Leonard St New York 14.7 13.0

210 The New Haven/Stiles St. monitor was designated as a “special purpose” monitor, and as such cannot be used to make an attainment or nonattainment designation. The site was found to be overly influenced by micro

- scale phenomena, including heavy duty truck exhaust from trucks leaving the New Haven Terminal area and accelerating uphill on the Interstate

- 95 on

- ramp. The monitor was less than twenty feet from the traffic la ne. Following a special, multi

- site monitoring study conducted by CTDEP, the Stiles Street monitor was deemed unrepresentative of population exposure in the City of New Haven. In 2006, it was shut down as part of the I

- 95 bridge reconstruction project. The information on this site, therefore, is for informational purposes only and should not be used to assess

attainment of the standard.11 4 Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design

Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Design

Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

360590012 East Hills Elementary School New York 11.9 10.5

360590013 1055 Stewart Place New York 12.0 10.6

360610056 P S 59, 288 E. 57th St., Manhattan New York 17.4 15.3

360610062 Post Office, 350 Canal St. New York 16.3 14.1

360610079 School IS 45, 2351 1st Ave. New York 14.7 12.9

360610128 PS 19, 185 1st Avenue New York 15.9 14.0

360710002 NYC

- 55 Broadway New York 11.5 10.2

360810094 NYC

- PS 29 125

- 10 23rd Avenue New York 13.7 12.1

360810096 NYC

- 3115 140th Street New York 13.7 12.1

360810124 NYC

- 14439 Gravett Road New York 13.3 11.8

360850055 Post Office, 364 Port Richmond New York 14.0 12.0

360850067 Susan Wagner New York 12.1 10.4

361030001 East Farmingdale Water Plant New York 12.1 10.6

361191002 5th Avenue & Madison, Thruway

Exit 9 New York 12.3 10.8

As can be seen from this table, the only site with a projected 2009 design value greater than the

annu al fine particulate standard of 15.0 μg /m 3 is the P.S. 59 site located in Manhattan, New York City. This is also illustrated in Figure 5.2. All other sites are below the annual fine particulate standard. The projected 2009 value for the P.S. 59 site is within the weight

- of

- evidence range of

values defined in the PM 2.5 modeling guidance as 14.5 μ g/m 3 through 15.5 μ g/m 3

. 211 Further justification to explain why New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut believe that fine particulate

levels at this site as well as all other sites, will be lower than predicted in 2009 and why this site will achieve the annual standard by 2009 is presented in Section 5.3

Table 5.4 shows the PM 2.5 modeling results using the 2009 BOTW run for all monitors located

within the Southern N ew Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area.

211 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone

, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, page 105.115 Figure 5.2 : Map of the 1997 PM 2.5 Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut

Nonattainment Area

Table 5.4 : 2009 Modeled PM 2.5 Design Values for the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia/Del aware Nonattainment Area (Bold Type indicates Values over the Annual Standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 )

Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design

Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Design

Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

100031003 Belle fonte Delaware 14.7 12.6

100031007 Lums2 Delaware 13.6 11.4

100031012 Newark

- Univ. Del. No. Campus Delaware 15.0 12.8

100032004 Wilmington Delaware 16.0 13.7

340070003 Camden New Jersey 14.3 12.3

340071007 Pennsauken New Jersey 14.3 12.4

340155001 Cl arksboro New Jersey 13.7 11.8

420170012 Bristol Pennsylvania 14.1 12.0

420290100 New Garden (Airport) Pennsylvania 14.9 12.5

420450002 Chester Pennsylvania 15.3 13.3

420910013 Norristown Pennsylvania 13.7 11.9

421010004 Frankford (Lab Pennsylvania 14. 9 12.9

421010014 Philadelphia

- Roxy Water Pump

Station Pennsylvania 13.6 11.8

421010020 Philadelphia

- Belmont Avenue

Water Plant Pennsylvania 14.2 12.4116 Site ID Monitoring Site Name State Name Average Annual Baseline Design

Value (DV B

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 ) Projected 2009 Annual Design

Value (DV F

- I ) ( μ g/m 3 )

421010024 Philadelphia

- Northeast Airport Pennsylvania 13.8 11.8

421010047 Philadelphia

- 500 South Broad

Street 212 Pennsylvania 16.1 13.9

421010052 Philadelphia

- 1439 East Passyunk

Avenue Pennsylvania 13.1 11.4

421010136 Philadelphia

- Southwest (Elm) Pennsylvania 14.5 12.6

As can be seen from this table, all sites in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelph ia nonattainment area are projected to be below the annual fine particulate standard of 15.0 μ g/m 3 and below the weight of evidence range of values.

5.3 Demonstrations

5.3.1 Introduction

A modeled attainment demonstration consists of:

• Analyses which estimate wh ether selected emission reductions will result in ambient concentrations that meet the NAAQS, and

• An identified set of control measures which will result in the required emission

reductions.

An analysis of the selected emission reductions which will re sult in ambient concentrations that

meet the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is discussed in Section 5.2.4. The measures included in the photochemical modeling, the 2009 BOTW modeling run, are listed in Table 5.1. Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 provide 2002 modeling baselin e design value concentrations and projected 2009

annual PM 2.5 concentrations, by nonattainment area. These tables show that all but one monitor in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and all the monitors in the New Jersey/Phila delphia nonattainment area are predicted to be in attainment of the annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date of April 5, 2010.

In the Northern New Jersey/ New York/Connecticut nonattainment area, one monitor is predicted to be above the annual PM 2.5 st andard of 15.0 μ g/m 3 in 2009. This monitor is located at P.S. 59 in Manhattan, New York City. This monitor is predicted to be at a value of 15.3

212 The s ite at 500 South Broad St. was the design value monitoring site for the City of Philadelphia for PM 2.5 NAAQS, and had been an area of focus for the USEPA

- Region 3 due to the need to find a suitable location for this monitoring site as a result of the pendi ng closure of the 500 South Broad Street office. Additionally, data from the fourth quarter of 2005 have not been quality assured but had been reported to AIRS

- AQS. The NJDEP expects that the City of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania will resolv e the data quality issues with this site in the near future and address them in their own State’s SIP. It is not expected that this site will be over the annual standard of

15 μ g/m 3 using the latest, quality

- assured monitoring data.117 μ g/m 3 . This value is within the weight

- of

- evidence range that is defined in USEPA guidance:

14.5 μ g/m 3 to 15 .5 μ g/m 3

. 213 Additional emission reductions of PM 2.5 and precursors will occur

between now and 2009 and are discussed in Section 5.3.2.6.

In the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area, the monitors located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania (Philadel phia area), and Delaware are predicted to come into attainment by 2009 (see Table 5.4). The highest value predicted in this nonattainment area is located on Broad Street in Philadelphia, PA, and the value is predicted to be 13.9 μ g/m 3 . This value is belo w the weight

- of

- evidence range that is defined in the USEPA guidance: 14.5 μ g/m 3 to 15.5 μ g/m 3

. Additional emission reductions of PM 2.5 and precursors will occur between now and 2010 and

are discussed in Section 5.3.2.5.

5.3.2 Supplemental Analysis/Weight

- of

- E vidence

While the USEPA attainment demonstration guidance emphasizes a single design value from a single modeling simulation as the core of any attainment demonstration, 214 it also supports, in conjunction with t he Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), states utilizing a multi

analysis approach to their PM 2.5 attainment demonstrations. 215 This is because the principles of atmospheric science acknowledge that, in using models, all of the uncertainties and biases need

to be considered. Uncertainties assoc iated with emission inventories, meteorological data, and the representation of photochemistry in the model can result in over or under predictions in design values. The CAAAC also recommends that states decrease reliance on modeling results

to demonstrat e attainment and rather focus more on ambient air monitoring data.

5.3.2.1 Monitoring Data Shows Trend toward Attainment of the Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and a Downward Trend in Ambient Air Concentrations

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 present the annual average monitoring results and design values, respectively, from the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area PM 2.5 monitors from 2000 through 2006. These monitoring results show that the measured values at the monitors in the nonattainment area have generally b een decreasing since 2000, and that the monitored values in 2006 were all below the lower range of values for the weight

- of

- evidence range for annual

PM 2.5 (14.5 μ g/m 3 to 15.5 μ g/m 3 ). During the period of 2000 to 2006, two New Jersey monitors

in the North ern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area were not operating for part of the time : Union City and Newark Lab. The site located in Union City, New Jersey had the highest annual PM 2.5 results in 2000 within the State, although not the highest values within

the nonattainment area. The annual PM 2.5 result at the Union City monitor in 2006 was 13. 9

213 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals

for Ozone , PM2.5, and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Qu ality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, page 17.

214 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Related Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS. United States Environmental Protection Age ncy, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 002, October 2005.

215 ibid.118 μ g /m 3 ; preliminary results for 2007 show that this value is the same at this monitor and below the weight of evidence range of values. The downward t rends in these values are consistent with

the annual PM 2.5 results seen in Chapter 2.

Table 5.6 contains the design values for the monitors in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area. Despite slightly elevated PM 2.5 values in 200 5, the 2006 design values are also showing a decreasing trend. These results further reinforce that the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area will attain

the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2009.

Tables 5.7 and 5. 8 present the annual average monitoring results and design values, respectively, from the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia PM 2.5 monitors from 2000 through 2006. These monitoring results show that the measured values at the monitors in the nonattainment a rea have been decreasing, and that the monitored values in 2006 were all below the lower range of values for the weight

- of

- evidence range for annual PM 2.5 (14.5 μ g /m 3 to 15.5 μ g/m 3 ). The design values in Table 5.8 show that the air quality in the New Jers ey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area is in attainment of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

These results further reinforce that the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia will attain the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2009.

5.3.2.2 Monitoring Data Shows Progress towards Attainment of the New Daily PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3

While the monitoring data shows a consistent downward trend in fine particulate concentrations,

the monitored values are still above the new 2006 Federal 24

- hour NAAQS of 35 μ g/m 3 . Tables 5.9 and 5.10 show the monitored fine particulate levels associated with New Jersey’s Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment, respectively. For 200 6, several sites (shown in bold and shaded) are above the 35 μ g/m 3 daily standard but it should be noted that all sites are well below the former daily standard of 65 μ g/m 3

.119 Table 5.5 : Annual Ambient PM 2.5 Levels in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Co nnecticut Nonattainment Area

State County Monitor Site Address 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

NJ Bergen Fort Lee 14.6 14.5 13.0 13.3 12.0 14.5 11.8

Essex Newark Cultural Center 15.6 13.5 13.2 14.1 13.2 14.3 12.1

Essex Newark Lab 15.3 14.1 13.1

Hudson Jersey City Primary 16.8 14.1 14.3 14.8 13.8 15.2 13.3

Hudson Union City 17.1 15.8 16.8 17.4 13.9

Mercer Trenton 14.7 14.9 13.0 13.5 12.5 13.0 12.5

Mercer Washington Crossing 12.1 12.2 11.5 12.0 11.0 12.1 10.0

Middlesex New Brunswick 1 3.1 13.2 11.1 13.0 11.2 13.4 10.8

Morris Chester 11.1 11.8 10.5 10.7 10.1 10.9 9.0

Morris Morristown 12.9 13.4 11.5 12.2 11.1 12.5 10.1

Passaic Paterson 13.7 13.1 12.9 13.3 12.6 13.4 12.0

Union Elizabeth Turnpike Primary 16.9 15.8 14.9 16.2 15.2 15 .2 14.2

Union Elizabeth Downtown 15.2 13.4 13.1 14.0 12.6 14.3 12.4

Union Rahway 14.2 12.8 12.4 13.3 12.6 14.0 11.9

NY Bronx Morrisania Center, 1225

- 57 Gerard Ave. 16.6 15.9 15.4 15.7 14.6 16.9 13.9

Bronx 200th St. And Southern Blvd. 14.4 13.5 13 .4 12.7 13.9 12.0

Bronx E 156th St. Bet Dawson and Kelly 15.3 14.6 15.0 14.8 13.5 14.8 12.8
Kings Jhs 126 424 Leonard St. 15.3 14.0 14.8 13.8 15.3 12.8

Nassau Lawrence High School, Arlington Place 12.2 12.9 11.4 12.4 11.4 12.4 10.8

New York Ps 59 , 288 E. 57th Street 18.5 17.8 16.4 15.4 17.0 14.4

New York Post Office, 350 Canal St. 17.6 17.3 16.0 15.8 14.5 15.7 12.8

New York School Is 45, 2351 1st Ave. 15.5 15.2 14.7 14.5 13.2 14.3 12.7

Orange 55 Broadway 11.6 11.0 11.8 10.4 12.1 9.7

Ora nge 14439 Gravett Rd. 14.2 12.7 13.5 12.2 12.4 11.6

Richmond Post Office, 364 Port Richmond Ave. 14.3 14.5 13.8 13.3 14.5 12.2

Richmond Susan Wagner HS, Brielle Ave. & Manor Rd. 12.4 13.1 11.5 11.6 12.5 10.4

Suffolk East Farmingdale Water Plant 1 3.0 11.4 11.9 10.7 12.0

Westchester 5th Ave. & Madison, Thruway Exit 9 12.9 11.8 12.1 11.3 12.4 11.0

CT Fairfield Roosevelt School Park Ave. 14.0 13.7 12.8 12.8 12.7 14.4 12.5120 State County Monitor Site Address 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fairfield Trailer, W. Connecticut State University 12.7 13.2 12.6 13.3 11.2 13.4 12.3

Fairfield Hillandale Ave. 12.9 13.0 12.7 13.5 11.8

Fairfield Norwalk Health Dept., 137 East Ave. 13.4 12.6 13.1 12.4 13.2 11.7

Fairfield Sherwood Island State Park 13.0 12.1 11.5 11.7 11.1 12.2 10.7

New Haven Stiles St. 16.2 17.0 15.9 16.8 15.4 18.9

New Haven Woodward Ave. 11.9 11.5 13.1 11.7

New Haven 1 James St. 12.2 13.3 12.2

New Haven 715 State St. 14.1 14.3 13.3 14.0 12.8 13.8 12.7

New Haven Agri. Expr. Sta. Huntington St. 11.9 11.1 11.8 10.8

New Haven Sh ed Meadow and Bank St. 13.7 13.9 13.1 12.6 12.1 14.1 11.9121 Table 5.6 : Ambient PM 2.5 Design Values in the Northern New Jersey/New York Connecticut Nonattainment Area 216

State County Monitor Site Address 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006

NJ Bergen Fort Lee 14.0 13.6 12.8 13.3 12.8

Essex Newark Cultural Center 14.1 13.6 13.5 13.9 13.2

Essex Newark Lab 14.7 14.2 13.6 13.1

Hudson Jersey City Primary 15.1 14.4 14.3 14.6 14.1

Hudson Union City 16.6 16.3 16.8 17.4 15.7

Mercer Trenton 14.2 13.8 13.0 13.0 12.7

Mercer Washington Crossing 11.9 11.9 11.5 11.7 11.0

Middlesex New Brunswick 12.5 12.4 11.8 12.5 11.8

Morris Chester 11.1 11.0 10.5 10.6 10.0

Morris Morristown 12.6 12.4 11.6 11.9 11.2

Passaic Paterson 13.2 13.1 12.9 13.1 12.7

Union Elizabeth Turnpike Primary 15.9 15.6 15.4 15.5 14.9

Union Elizabeth Downtown 13.9 13.5 13.2 13.6 13.1

Union Rahway 13.1 12.8 12.8 13.3 12.8

NY Bronx Morrisania Center, 1225

- 57 Gerard Ave. 16.0 15.7 15.2 15.7 15.1

Bronx 200th St. And Southern Blvd. 14.2 13.9 13.4 13.3 12.9

Bronx E 156th St. Bet Dawson and Kelly 15.0 14.8 14.4 14.4 13.7
Kings Jhs 126 424 Leonard St. 14.9 14.4 14.6 14.0

Nassau Lawrence High School, Arlington Place 12.3 12.4

New York Ps 59, 288 E. 57th Street 17.6 17.6 16.8 17.0 15.6

New York Post Office, 350 Canal St. 17.0 16.4 15.4 15.3 14.3

New York School Is 45, 2351 1st Ave. 15.1 14.8 14.1 14.0 13.4

New York 55 Broadway 15.7 15.8 15.8 15.2

Orange 14439 Gravett Rd. 11.7 11.6 11.2 1 1.4 10.7
Queens Post Office, 364 Port Richmond Ave. 13.6 12.9 12.7 12.1

Richmond Susan Wagner HS, Brielle Ave. & Manor Rd. 14.4 14.0 13.7 13.7 13.4

216 Monitoring sites with only two or less three

- yea r average values are not shown as no discernable trends can be seen due to a lack of sufficient data points. Also, only one monitoring value is shown at some sites that have duplicate monitoring performed to avoid confusion. In these limited cases, the h igher value of the two monitors is shown.122 State County Monitor Site Address 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006

Richmond East Farmingdale Water Plant 12.5 12.2 11.7 11.9 11.5

Suffolk 5th Ave. & Madison, Thruway Exit 9 12.5 12.3 11.5 11.5

Westchester Morrisania Center, 1225

- 57 Gerard Ave. 12.5 11.9 12.0 11.6

CT Fairfield Roosevelt School Park Ave. 13.4 13.1 12.7 13.3 13.2

Fairfield Trailer, W. Connecticut State University 12.8 13.1 12.4 12.7 12.3

Fairf ield Hillandale Avenue 12.9 13.1 12.7

Fairfield Norwalk Health Dept., 137 East Avenue 12.9 13.0 12.7 12.9 12.4

Fairfield Sherwood Island State Park 12.2 11.8 11.4 11.7 11.3

New Haven Stiles Street 217 16.4 16.6 16.1 17.1

New Haven 715 State Street 13.8 13.7 13.1 13.4 13.1

New Haven Shed Meadow And Bank Street 13.8 13.7 12.9 13.4 12.9

New Haven Mill Rock Basin 11.5 11.8

217 See Footnote 211 for explanation of the Stiles Street monitor.123 Table 5.7 : Annual Ambient PM 2.5 Levels in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area

State County Monitor Site Address 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

NJ Camden Pennsauken 15.5 14.2 13.9 13.9 13.2 14.3 12.4

Camden Camden Lab Primary 15.0 14.5 13.3 16.3 13.3 14.4 12.2

Gloucester Gibbstown 15.1 14.5 12.3 13.8 12.4 14.1 9.0

PA Bucks R ockview Lane 13.6 14.5 14.2 14.4 13.0 14.3 12.2

Chester New Garden Airport

- Toughkenamon 14.6 15.6 14.3 15.9 12.6

Delaware Front St. & Norris St. 16.0 15.9 14.7 15.3 15.0 16.5 14.0
Montgomery State Armory

- 1046 Belvoir Rd. 13.5 14.9 13.6 13.9 12 .0 12.5 12.1
Philadelphia 1501 E. Lycoming Ave. Ams Lab 14.9 16.5 14.8 14.8 13.9 14.3 13.5
Philadelphia Ford Rd.

- Belmont Ave. Water Treat Plant 14.7 15.4 13.8 13.7 13.9
Philadelphia Grant

- Ashton Roads, Phila. NE Airport 14.4 14.6 13.9 13.0 12.8 13 .0 12.4
Philadelphia 500 South Broad St.

- Parking Lot (Chs) 17.0 16.6 16.2 15.5 14.4
Philadelphia Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Ave. 14.8 16.7 14.4 14.1 12.8 14.3 13.2

DE New Castle River Road Park, Bellefonte 15.4 15.6 14.0 14.8 13.9 14.3 12.3

New Cas tle Lums Pond State Park 14.2 14.5 13.0 13.3 13.2 13.8 11.4

New Castle Univ. Del. North Campus 15.4 15.8 14.3 14.8 14.5 14.4 12.7

New Castle MLK Blvd. and Justison St. 16.4 17.6 14.8 15.5 14.9 15.0 14.7124 Table 5.8 : Ambient PM 2.5 Design Valu es in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area 218

218 Monitoring sites with only two or less three

- year average values are not shown as no discernable trends can be seen due to a lack of sufficient dat a points. Also, only one monitoring value is shown at some sites that have duplicate monitoring performed to avoid confusion. In these limited cases, the higher value of the two monitors is shown. State County Monitor Site Address 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006

NJ Camden Pennsauken 14.5 14.0 13.7 13.8 13.3

Camden Camden Lab Primary 14.3 14.7 14.3 14.7 13.3

Glouce ster Gibbstown 14.0 13.5 12.8 13.4 11.8

PA Bucks Rockview Lane 14.1 14.3 13.9 13.9 13.2

Chester New Garden Airport

- Toughkenamon 14.8 15.2 14.2

Delaware Front St. & Norris St. 15.5 15.3 15.0 15.6 15.2
Montgomery State Armory

- 1046 Belvoir Rd. 14.0 14.1 13.2 12.8 12.2
Philadelphia 1501 E. Lycoming Ave. Ams Lab 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.3 13.9
Philadelphia Ford Rd.

- Belmont Ave. Water Treat Plant 14.6 14.3 13.8
Philadelphia Grant

- Ashton Roads, Phila. NE Airport 14.3 13.8 13.2 12.9 12.7

Philade lphia 500 South Broad St.

- Parking Lot 16.6 16.1 15.4
Philadelphia Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Ave. 15.3 15.0 13.7 13.7 13.4

DE New Castle River Road Park, Bellefonte 15.0 14.8 14.2 14.3 13.5

New Castle Lums Pond State Park 13.9 13.6 13.2 13.4 12.8

N ew Castle Univ. Del. North Campus 15.2 15.0 14.6 14.6 13.9

New Castle MLK Blvd. and Justison St. 16.6 16.7 15.7 15.8 15.5125 Table 5.9 : Averaged Daily PM 2.5 Ambient Levels in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonatta inment Area ( μ g/m 3 )

98th Percentile 24

- Hour Average (μg/m 3 ) 3

- Year Average 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Average (μg/m 3 )

State County Monitor Site Address 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1999

- 2001 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006

NJ Bergen Fort Lee 39 36 30 33 39 31 41 38 35 33 34 34 37 37

Essex Newark Cultural Center 44 42 29 32 40 35 40 40 38 34 34 36 38 38

Hudson Jersey City Primary 46 40 34 34 46 37 38 41 40 36 38 39 41 39

Hudson Union City 50 39 35 38 44 41 42 3 7 36 38 44 43

Mercer Trenton 33 43 31 35 41 33 34 36 35 36 35 36 36 34

Mercer Washington Crossing 28 32 26 32 35 28 33 30 29 30 31 32 32 30

Middlesex New Brunswick 31 35 27 26 45 36 34 33 31 29 33 36 38 34

Morris Chester 30 29 31 30 36 30 33 2 8 30 30 32 32 33 31

Morris Morristown 35 30 27 30 37 31 33 30 31 29 31 33 34 31

Passaic Paterson 41 35 30 35 40 31 41 33 35 33 35 35 37 35

Union Elizabeth Turnpike Primary 41 39 38 42 37 41 43 40 39 40 39 40 40 41

Union Elizabeth Downtown 43 36 26 30 41 33 39 39 35 31 32 35 38 37

Union Rahway 17 38 29 31 35 37 38 38 28 33 32 34 37 37

NY Bronx Morrisania Center, 1225

- 57 Gerard

Ave. 45 40 37 35 45 38 38 40 41 37 39 39 40 39

Bronx 200th St. And Southern Blvd. 35 39 35 33 38 31 37 35 3 6 36 36 34 35 34

Bronx E 156th St. Bet Dawson and Kelly 34 41 39 41 38 29 37 38 38 40 39 36 34 35

Kings PS 321 180 7th Av 38 42 35 32 33 38 36 33

Kings Jhs 126 424 Leonard St. 35 36 41 37 36 38 37 38 38 37

Nassau Lawrence High School, Arlington

Place 32 31 32 39 31 35 33 32 32 34 34 35 33

New York PS 59, 288 E. 57th St. (monitor 2) 47 42 40 38 37 41 39 43 40 38 39 39

New York PS 59, 288 E. 57th St. (monitor 1) 36 42 40 38 37 41 40 41 39 40 38 39 39 41

New Yo rk Post Office, 350 Canal St. (monitor 1) 45 41 42 39 46 39 40 36 43 41 42 41 42 38

New York School Is 45, 2351 1st Ave. (monitor 1) 41 36 36 46 38 37 38 38 39 40 40 37

New York PS 19 185 1st Ave. 38 38 48 39 38 38 42 42 42 38

New York 55 Broadway 30 28 32 31 27 30 28 30 30 30 29 28

Queens 14439 Gravett Rd. 36 39 39 33 34 34 38 37 36 34

Richmond Post Office, 364 Port Richmond Ave. 40 32 40 46 31 33 36 37 39 39 37 34

Richmond Susan Wagner HS, Brielle Ave.&

Manor Rd. 33 31 28 32 34 33 32 32 31 30 31 33 33126 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Average (μg/m 3 ) 3

- Year Average 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Average (μg/m 3 )

State County Monitor Site Address 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1999

- 2001 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006

Suffolk East Farmingdale Water Plant 32 34 36 39 31 34 33 34 36 35 35

Suffolk East Farmingdale Water Dist.,Gazza

Blvd. 36 39 31 34 32 35 35 32

Westchester 5th Ave. & Madison, Thruway Exi t 9 34 33 37 34 33 34 35 34 34 34

CT Fairfield Roosevelt School Park Ave. 31 42 40 35 40 34 38 37 38 39 38 36 37 36

Fairfield Trailer, W. Connecticut State University 33 35 31 37 28 33 34 33 34 32 33 32

Fairfield Hillandale Ave. 36 37 35 42 32 36 38 36

Fairfield Norwalk Health Dept., 137 East Ave. 36 34 43 35 35 36 38 37 38 35

Fairfield Sherwood Island State Park 33 35 31 44 31 35 31 33 36 35 37 32

New Haven Stiles St. 40 40 41 40 44 35 44 40 40 42 40 41

New Haven Woodward Ave. 46 32 36 37 38 35

New Haven 1 James St. 37 38 37 37

New Haven 715 State St. 32 37 40 32 44 36 41 38 36 36 39 38 40 38

New Haven Agri. Expr. Sta. Huntington St. 44 32 33 3 4 36 33

New Haven Shed Meadow and Bank St. (USEPA, monitor 1) 38 34 35 33 13 30 34 36 36 34 27 25 26 33

New Haven Shed Meadow and Bank St. (CTDEP) 38 34 35 33 38 30 36 36 36 34 35 34 35 34

New Haven Mill Rock Basin 28 35 32 29 44 32 32 35127 Table 5.10 : Averaged Daily PM 2.5 Ambient Levels in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area ( μ g/m 3 )

98th Percentile 24

- Hour Average (μg/m3) 3

- Year Average 98th Percentile 24

- Hour Average (μg/m3)

State County Monitor Site Address 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1999

- 2001 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006

NJ Camden Pennsauken 35 36 33 35 38 35 37 38 35 35 35 36 37 37

Camden Camden Lab Primary 32 32 30 35 43 35 38 34 31 32 36 38 39 36

Gloucester Gibbstown 25 34 29 29 35 29 32 24 29 31 31 31 32 29

PA Bucks Rockview Lane 38 39 37 40 30 35 34 38 39 36 35 33

Chester New Garden Airport

- Toughkenamon 34 39 33 34 38 35 35 35

Delaware Front St. & Norris St. 36 36 40 32 38 31 37 37 37 36 37 34 35 35

Delaware State Armory

- 1046 Belvoir Rd. 32 48 37 38 29 36 39 41 35

Philadelphia 1501 E. Lycomin g Ave. Ams Lab 39 41 40 40 40 34 36 38 40 40 40 38 37 36

Philadelphia Ford Rd

- Belmont Ave. Water Treat

Plant 32 36 34 39 29 34 37 34

Philadelphia Grant

- Ashton Roads Phila. NE Airport 38 37 34 39 33 36 35 36 37 35 36 35

Philadelphia 500 South Broad St. 39 40 36 42 32 38 39 37

Philadelphia Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Ave. 39 46 37 36 30 38 41 40 34

DE New Castle River Road Park, Bellefonte 33 38 41 34 36 33 35 37 38 37 34 34 33

New Castle Lums Pond State Pa rk 36 36 37 31 36 29 35 34 34 33 35 32

New Castle Univ. Del.

- North Campus 35 40 40 42 36 29 35 31 38 41 39 36 33 32

New Castle MLK Blvd. and Justison St. 38 39 43 41 37 34 37 38 40 41 40 37 36 36128 5.3.2.3 Discussion of Monitoring Results Collected a t P.S. 59, Manhattan, New York

One monitor associated with New Jersey’s Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area is projected to have fine particulate levels slightly above the annual fine particulate standard of 15.0 μ g/m 3 in 2009. T he annual PM 2.5 design value at this monitor located at P.S. 59 in New York City is predicted to be 15.3 μ g/m 3 in 2009. This predicted value is within the USEPA weight

- of

- evidence range of values.

New York has prepared a weight

- of

- evidence demonstration for the P.S. 59 monitor to point out the factors unique to this site that need to be considered when determining that the site will attain

the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2010. First, the monitoring data is lacking complete information for the third q uarter of 2003. During this period, construction work was occurring at the site location that potentially invalidated a number of samples during the quarter and unfairly biased the collected fine particulate levels to the high side (see Appendix B2

- 1, Att achment 1); the construction work was the sole reason for the incomplete dataset. Also, analysis of the monitoring data suggests that lack of collocated speciation monitors and use of speciation information from the nearest neighborhood monitor may have c ontributed to the estimate of

PM 2.5 being above the level of NAAQS at the P.S.59 monitor. Examining the trends in precursors as well as measured PM 2.5 at P.S.59 suggests a downward path and that coupled with

the observation that the contribution to the se condary species is from upwind regions rather than local, favors strongly that this monitor will also be in attainment similar to the rest of them in the region. A more detailed discussion of these measures is included in Appendix B12.

In addition, New Y ork lists the following programs in the process of being adopted or implemented in their state, that are not represented in the projection inventories for 2009

, and that will contribute to attainment at the P.S. 59 monitor (refer to Appendix B12 for a

comp rehensive discussion of each of these measures):

• Part 222, Distributed Generation

• Part 227

- 2, NO

x RACT (High Electric Demand Day Units)

• Parts 243, 244, and 245, Clean Air Interstate Rule

• Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006

• Existing and New/Revised Sta te VOC Reduction Measures

• Federal Rules for VOC Reductions

• Proposed Federal Rules for VOC, NO

x , and PM Reductions

• Canadian Air Quality Efforts

• Governor Spitzer’s “15 by 15” Initiative

• New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Progr ams

New Jersey agrees with this demonstration and further believes that additional control measures not included in the 2009 modeling, like those that will occur in New Jersey (see Section 5.3.2.5) and the early implementation of CAIR SO 2 controls prior to 2010, will lower ambient

concentrations even further than the levels needed to demonstrate attainment of the annual fine particulate standard . New York’s weight

- of

- evidence discussion for the P.S. 59 monitor is included in Appendix B12.129 5.3.2.4 The Contributi on of Transport to Nonattainment

Representing the amount of transported particulates, and the components that contribute to secondary aerosol formation, accurately in the regional modeling not only affects the accuracy of the modeling results but also th e contribution of regional sources to nonattainment at a particular location. This information ultimately helps to inform the process on what sources to control to reduce precursor pollutants and thus fine particulate matter.

Fine particulate pollution apportionment modeling analyses show that transport from states

outside the State are significant contributors to nonattainment in New Jersey. Recent modeling conducted in 2005 by the USEPA to support the implementation of the CAIR indicates that out

of

- s tate contributions of sulfate and nitrate to Union County, New Jersey from just the Electric Generating Units in other states will contribute at least 3.4 μ g/m 3 to the projected 2010 levels

and at least 4.8 μ g/m 3 (or about 30 percent) to the P.S. 59 monito r in New York City. 219

Chapter 2 describes several studies that analyzed the sources of fine particulate matter in New Jersey’s air. Secondary sulfate appears as the largest portion of the fine particulate mass in both urban and rural areas of New Jersey. Transported sulfate concentrations from upwind electric power plants appears to be the largest contributor to these sulfate levels. Implementation of SO 2 controls under the first phase of CAIR in 2010 is anticipated to provide additional benefits as expl ained in Section 5.3.2.5. The implementation of the second phase of CAIR in 2015 will also have an air quality benefit on New Jersey.

5.3.2.5 SO 2 CAIR Reductions May Provide Early Reductions in PM 2.5

The effects of the SO 2 reductions from implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2010 on air quality in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area were not evaluated as part of the 2009 modeling. As the focus of that modeling was to gauge attainment of the ozone and fine particulate ma tter standards in 2009, adding SO 2 emission reductions which had not yet occurred, but would appear a year later in 2010, would not be appropriate for the 2009 modeling year. It is anticipated that these additional SO 2 reductions through CAIR will

further lower fine particulate levels in 2010, and these reductions may occur sooner.

A substantial amount of technical information was provided by the USEPA when it promulgated the CAIR. Part of this information included an analysis of the contributions from upwind states to downwind states fine particulate levels in the outside air. The USEPA defined the states listed in Table 5.12 as significantly contributing to fine particulate or ozone levels in New Jersey and quantified the contribution that these state s were having on the county containing the monitor of concern for the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area in this SIP revision (i.e., New York, New York). Table 5.12 shows the 2003 emissions of SO 2 and

additional SO 2 reductions thr ough CAIR implementation in the states identified by the USEPA

219 USEPA. Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule: Air Quality Modeling Analyses, Appendix H: PM 2.5 Contributions to Each Nonattainment County in 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 2005

.130 as significantly contributing and the modeled contribution that these states were having prior to implementation of CAIR.

Table 5.1 1 : Reductions from CAIR in 2010 in States that Significantly Contribute to Ozone or Fine Particulate Levels in New Jersey and the Modeled Contribution to NYC from those

States

State 2003 SO 2 Emissions (thousand tons per year) 2010 SO 2 Emissions (thousand
tons per

year) SO 2 Emission Reductions by

2010 (thousand

to ns per year) Modeled PM 2.5 Contribution to NY, NY (μg/m 3 )

New Jersey 51 27 24 0.45

New York 254 66 188 2.00
Pennsylvania 967 235 732 0.95

Delaware 37 28 9 0.09
Maryland 269 62 207 0.22
West Virginia 540 250 290 0.17
Virginia 216 136 80 0.21

M assachusetts 0 0 0 0.12

Ohio 1,176 298 878 0.41
Michigan 351 381

- 30 * 0.21

District of Columbia 51 27 24 NA (w/ Maryland)

Total 3,912 1,510 2,403 4.83 Source: USEPA at http://www.epa.gov/oar/interstateairquality/where.html * A negative number indicates an increase

Regional modeling results for 2009, presented in Table 5.3 predicts that the annual PM 2.5 design value in 2009 at the P.S. 59 monitor (i.e., the design value monitor) will be 15.3 μg/m 3 after implementation of the first phase of th e CAIR for additional NO

x (but not SO 2 ) controls. The USEPA analysis used a starting concentration without CAIR implementation (i.e., a 2010 Base Case) of 16.29 μg /m 3 and determined that 4.83 μg /m 3 of this fine particulate level came from the

states that significantly contribute. As the effects of the first phase of the NO

x reductions were already accounted for in the OTC modeling to obtain the predicted concentration of 15.3 μ g/m 3

, it would not be appropriate to again account for this effect on air quali ty. Holding the emissions

of NO

x constant, and adjusting for the emission reductions from SO 2 in 2010, a 48 percent

additional reduction in the total amount of SO 2 will occur (USEPA estimate) as a result of the first phase of CAIR SO 2 reductions in 2010 i n the states significantly contributing to New Jersey’s air quality. 220 A 48 percent reduction of the 4.83 μ g/m 3 that these states contributed in 2003 would then also be expected due to the additional SO 2 controls. Using the data presented

from the USEPA m odeling, an additional 2.31 μ g/m 3 reduction will occur at the P.S. 59 monitor

220 The 48 percent is determined by (1 minus (1,118 thousand tons of NO

x in 2003 + 1,510 thousand tons of SO 2 predicted to be emitted in 2010) divided by (1,118 thousand tons of NO

x held constant + 3,912 thousand tons of SO 2 emitted in 2003)) times 100 to get percent.131 as a result of CAIR SO 2 controls. 221 The predicted concentration in 2010, or earlier, at the P.S.

59 monitor due to the CAIR SO 2 reductions would be 13.0 μg /m 3

, 222 well below the we ight

- of

evidence range of values for the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. This estimate of SO 2 reductions provides further assurance that the P.S. 59 monitor will be in attainment by 2010.

5.3.2.6 Additional Measures Not Included in the 2009 BOTW Attainment Modeling

5.3.2.6.1 Introd uction

New Jersey is working to propose and implement a number of additional control measures by 2010 that were not included in the attainment demonstration modeling. In addition, some Federal measures are expected to become effective by 2010 that will provide air quality benefits. All these additional measures were the result of the efforts by the USEPA, the OTC, New Jersey’s Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis, or other New Jersey initiatives to identify measures that would improve air quality.

While there are numerous reasons why certain emission control measures were not included in a modeling scenario, the two most significant are:

• The preparatory work needed to run these models is resource

- intensive, making it neither

pract ical nor reasonable to model every possible control measure, and

• The uncertainty in calculating emission reduction benefits from certain types of control measures is acknowledged by the USEPA in its guidance for emerging measures, or

measures that are di fficult to accurately quantify. 223 Examples of these types of measures include tree planting or replacing roofs with reflective material, both of which help to decrease the high temperatures in an urban area that result from the ‘heat island effect’ that

in directly impacts ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations.

Although these additional measures and refinements were finalized too late to be included in the 2009 BOTW modeling, they will provide additional emission reductions by 2009 or by 2010, the attainment year for the annual fine particulate standard. As such, they provide additional evidence to support New Jersey’s conclusion that both of its associated nonattainment area s will

attain the annual PM 2.5 standard by their required attainment dates in addition to the continued monitored attainment of the areas. These measures will also bring us closer to attaining New Jersey’s goal of a 12 μ g/m 3 annual standard and closer to attaining the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μ g/m 3

.

221 4.83 μg/m 3 times 48 percent = 2.3 μg/m 3

222 15.3 μg/m 3 predicted

– 2.3 μg/m 3 reduction from first round SO2 reductions = 13.0 μg/m 3

223 USEPA. Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP). United States

E nvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Air and Radiation, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2004.132 5.3.2.6.2 Additional Measures to Improve A ir Quality

Even though it is not yet possible to determine the associated emission reductions from certain

type s of programs with the precision necessary for full Federal approval and for SIP credit

toward attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the programs disc ussed in this section provide a cumulative effect of reducing air emissions, which will help bring New Jersey and its associated nonattainment areas into attainment. For example, some of the measures listed in this section

will result in reductions of VOC emissions, and although New Jersey has not identified VOCs as

a PM 2.5 precursor, New Jersey expect s that these measures will also result in improved air quality. However, emission reductions of these air pollution control strategies were not included

in the scenarios utilized in the modeling analysis, as a quantified benefit is needed for each control measure that is used in photochemical modeling.

New Jersey is aware that the control measures in this section do and will continue to improve the

State’s overall air quality by indirectly decreasing fine particulate matter concentrations. As such, t hese strategies will result in actual air quality benefits that will be reflected in the monitoring data in both the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut a nd Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas in the years leading up to 2010. New Jersey promotes and supports these measures, but is not relying upon them to demonstrate attainment.

The control measures and strategies that will further improv e air quality can be grouped into 11 categories:

1) Contingency Measures

Contingency measures are additional controls needed to further reduce emissions in the event a nonattainment area fails to attain by its attainment date. These contingency measures mu st be fully adopted rules or measures that are ready for implementation quickly without further action by the State or the USEPA upon failure to reach attainment. New Jersey contingency measures have been identified and quantified and are discussed in Cha pter 6, Chapter 9, and in Appendix C. A more detailed explanation of these control measures is included in Chapter 4.

a) Diesel idling, b) Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NO

x rule, c) Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010), d) Nonroa d Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010), e) ICI Boiler Rule 2009 ( portion not modeled )

, f) NO

x RACT Rule 2006 ( portion not modeled ) g) Asphalt Production Plants Rule h) Controls from EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 ). i) Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoc o and Valero)

2) Point Source Related Measures

The NJDEP Air Quality Permitting Program (AQPP) is responsible for permitting and testing stationary sources of air pollution to ensure they do not adversely affect air quality in the State.133 Most old sourc es (those already constructed) and newer facilities are permitted. To accomplish this, the AQPP reviews air pollution control permit applications, evaluates air quality impact and health risks, and ensures stack emissions are measured properly. Some exam ples of point source related measures that improve air quality that were not included in the 2009 BOTW attainment modeling, but are expected to result in PM 2.5 benefits, include enhanced controls for glass furnaces and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR ).

New Jersey proposed amendments to its current glass manufacturing rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.10. The proposed amendments, based on OTC guidance, would revise the NO

x emission rates to reduce emissions consistent with the installation of oxy

- fuel firi ng at the time of the next

furnace re

- build. Of New Jersey’s 25 glass manufacturing furnaces, five are already equipped with oxy

- fuel firing and nine are electric. In addition to demonstrated nitrogen reduction at a reasonable cost, oxy

- firing may result in reduced PM 2.5 emissions, lowered energy consumption

, and increased glass production.

The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C

. § 7503 , requires new or modified major sources to install

the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER) control equipment and obtain a one for one emission offsets in order to locate in a nonattainment area. Thus, the NNSR program provides for continual emission reductions to help improve the air quality in the nonattainment area and

further downwind.

For more information on the enha nced controls for glass furnaces and NNSR, see Chapter 4.

3) VOC Measures

The State is implementing several VOC control measures that were adopted as discussed in the

2007 8

- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP. 224 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. The VOC measures that were not included in the 2009 BOTW attainment modeling, but are still expected to result in a PM 2.5 benefit, are

shown in Table 4.5.

4) Federal Measures

The Federal government plans to implement several measures that will provide emission reductions prior to the summer of 2009. These Federal measures included the Small Offroad Engine Stan dards rule and a rule for Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder.

The Small Offroad Engine Standards rule 225 was adopted by the USEPA o n May 18, 2007 and will set stricter standards for most lawn and ga rden equipment and small recreational watercraft.

224 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Proposal. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, June 15, 2007.

225 72 Fed. Reg. 28098

- 146 (May 18, 2007).134 The USEPA has indicated that states can claim the benefits from its proposed Small Offroad Engine Standards rule for contingency. 226 However, the USEPA has not released official guidance on the credit that states can claim for this proposed rulemaking.

The Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder rule, 227 adopted by the USEPA on March 14, 2008, requires more stringent exhaust

emission standards for locomotive s and marine diesel engines. This rule will result in reduced

direct PM 2.5 and NO

x emissions . As stated in Chapter 4, the standards for remanufactured locomotives will take effect as soon as certified remanufacture systems are available (as early as

2008 ). Tier 3 standards for newly

- built locomotive and marine engines would phase in starting in 2009. Tier 4 standards for newly

- built locomotives and marine diesel engines would phase in beginning in 2014 for marine diesel engines and 2015 for locomotives.

All of these actions, while not quantified, will provide continued reductions toward attaining the annual and daily revisions to the PM 2.5 NAAQS, and added public health and environmental protection to address adverse impacts of PM 2.5 below the current N AAQS. Detailed discussions of these measures are included in Chapter 4.

5) PM 2.5 RACT measures

New Jersey conducted a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis which

demonstrates that additional reductions of direct PM 2.5 emissions and it s precursors, SO 2 and

NO

x are reasonable. New Jersey’s PM 2.5 RACT analysis is discussed in detail in Appendix A7.

6) Voluntary Strategies

The strategies in this category are/will be implemented on a voluntary basis. Companies and organizations commit to various initiatives that reduce fine particulate and the secondary aerosol precursors. Examples of these strategies include: state

- level programs for days with high levels of particulate; a Federal campaign that targets reducing raw material usage; reu sing waste products, and decreasing waste production; and a tool to help permit writers, enforcement officers, and the regulated community identify and employ pollution prevention methods to

reduce or eliminate releases of hazardous materials to the enviro nment.

7) Energy Savings and Alternative Energy Strategies

The strategies in this category are specific to reducing energy consumption and utilizing alternative energy sources. Examples of strategies in this category include New Jersey’s Clean Energy P rogram and USEPA’s Green Power Partnership. Energy efficiency measures have a lasting “cumulative” effect on electric demand. The savings in the installation year of an energy efficiency measure continue for the duration of its life. Therefore, the effi ciency savings installed one year can be added to the measures included in all of the preceding years within its

226 Personal email communication from Paul Truchan, USEPA Region 2 to Christine Schell, NJDEP, May 16, 2007.

227 73 Fed

. Reg. 25097 (May 6, 2008)

.135 life. These energy efficiency and renewable energy programs are designed to lower the growth of electricity demand and avoid emissions associa ted with such growth.

The United States Department of Energy (USDOE), USEPA, NJDEP, and New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) collaborated on efforts to estimate emission reductions from energy efficiency. 228 The scenarios analyzed by this effort may be utilized in the future to determine SIP credit when the environmental benefits from the Clean Energy Program might be realized

with the retirement of NO

x allowances issued for the Clean Energy Program by the NJBPU. The

NJDEP may take SIP credit for the environmental benefits of the Clean Energy Program after

2009.

8) High Electrical Demand Day Program (HEDD)

As discussed in Chapter 4, the regional High Electrical Demand Day (HEDD) program will address peak load emissions from the electrical gener ation sector on a seasonal basis on days when the demand for electricity is high. Therefore, the High Electrical Demand Day program provides reductions only on the days that are categorized with a high electrical demand, not on a daily basis. The High El ectrical Demand Day measure is expected to provide significant NO

x emission reductions on the days they are most needed.

In March 2007, following a year long process, six of the OTC states committed to pursue

reductions in NO

x emissions from electrical generating units that primarily operate on high electrical demand days (HEDD) starting with the 2009 ozone season. 229 On these high electric demand days, increased power generation is needed, usually on short notice.

As part of the HEDD initiative, New J ersey plans to reduce NO

x emissions by 19.8 tpd on these high electrical demand days starting in 2009. Specifically, power generators in New Jersey will be responsible for securing these reductions and will be required to submit a plan on how they

will re duce NO

x . The generators will have flexibility in securing the 2009 to 2015 reductions. New Jersey also plans to require that all HEDD units meet performance standards that reflect

modern low NO

x technology by May 1, 2015. This will result in greater re ductions on HEDD and throughout the year for NO

x , with co

- benefits for PM 2.5 and SO 2

.

9) Mobile Strategies

The strategies in this category focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled and fuel consumption, and increasing the use of alternative fuel source s. Mobile strategies target onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment. Examples of strategies in this category include Carpool Makes $ense Program (Governor Corzine’s Initiative), the USEPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership, and the

Northeast Diesel Colla borative.

228 USDOE. Final Report on the Clean Energy/Air Quality Integration Initiative Pilot Project of the U.S. Department of Energ y’s Mid

- Atlantic Regional Office. United States Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Philadelphia, PA, May 2006.

229 OTC. Memorandum of Understanding among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning the

Incor poration of High Electrical Demand Day Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation Planning. Ozone Transport Commission, March 2, 2007.136 10) New Jersey Diesel Strategies

The NJDEP has an active Diesel Risk Reduction Program. This effort includes both Federal and State retrofit programs, including the USEPA’s Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program and projects under New Jersey’s Diese l Risk Reduction Program. In New Jersey, the Diesel Retrofit Law in 2005 was passed by the Legislature to clean up emissions from certain onroad, diesel

- powered motor vehicles and nonroad vehicles/equipment through the use of retrofit emission control

tec hnology. The benefits of this law and the subsequent regulations adopted by the NJDEP are a reduction of the harmful diesel exhaust that New Jersey citizens are exposed to every day. The regulations require a variety of vehicles and equipment to install “retrofits” by established deadlines at State expense. The mandatory installation of this technology will decrease emissions of particulate matter by 150 tons per year. 230 Additional information on this effort may be found at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sto pthesoot/retrofit.htm.

In addition to the mandatory diesel retrofit law, the Diesel Risk Reduction Program is involved in voluntary projects that also result in improved air quality. One of these projects includes the

reduction of diesel emissions from ports.

With respect to emissions from train engines, New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) has voluntarily implemented an “Idling Reduction Policy” to shut down their diesel passenger locomotives within one hour of idling when the temperature is above zero d egrees. The NJ Transit has also agreed to move forward with a New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) proposal to install idling reduction technologies and is seeking funding. Benefits from this voluntary

action at one train station are esti mated to be 1.5 tons per year, based on an 82 percent emissions reduction from implementing this policy. 231 However, New Jersey is not claiming these benefits

in this SIP revision.

Additional diesel reductions from trucks may be realized from truck stop el ectrification projects where trucks are encouraged to turn off their engines and instead use electricity provided. New Jersey is also working on establishing an inspection program for medium duty vehicles with a gross weight between 8,501

– 17,999 pounds. The inspection program will be a combination of

on

- board diagnostic (OBD) and smoke opacity inspections, and would help control particulate

emissions.

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes : Like the diesel idling efforts, the NJDEP requirements for the inspection and maintenance (I/M) of diesel vehicles are designed to reduce the emissions from diesel engines, which are significant contributors to ozone, PM 2.5 , and its precursors. The NJDEP propose d amendments on June 16, 2008 to its existing diese l I/M rules to reduce the allowable smoke from heavy

- duty diesel vehicles. Smoke opacity, which is used as a surrogate for particulate matter, is the degree to which a plume of smoke will obstruct transmission of visible light. Smoke opacity is used as a n indicator for mal

- maintenance. The NJDEP expects the benefit of these rule changes to be 13 tpy PM 2.5 and 2 9.9 tpy NO

x in the New

230 38 N.J.R. 5244(a) (December 18, 2006).

231 Data are not available to calculate emission benefits from all NJ Transit locomotives but an assumption could be made that an 82 percent reduction in idling is occurring from its 100 locomotives.137 Jersey p ortion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 3 tpy

PM 2.5 and 6.9 tpy NO

x in the Ne w Jersey p ortion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia

n onattainment a rea

.

New Jersey’s diesel initiatives are described further in Chapter 4.

11) Wood Burning Strategies

Several wood burning strategies to lower emissions from the burning of wood have been investigated. In order to provide information on wood burning, New Jersey has developed an informational webpage regarding techniques for proper wood burning, health effects of wood burning, and links to other useful web pages. 232

This source catego ry is also addressed in the “Smoke Management” section of the proposed Regional Haze SIP (including the agricultural and forestry smoke management, prescribed burning, and agricultural management discussions in that SIP proposal). One particulate control measure has already been implemented, namely to limit air pollution control permits to prevent open burning on days forecast to be of unhealthful air quality. This permit condition requires the permit holder to delay open burning until forecast meteorolog ical conditions and air quality have improved so that forecasted unhealthful conditions for that day will not be made worse by this activity. Similarly, New Jersey is considering a seasonal home wood heating advisory program

to further curtail wood smoke emissions, similar to the program adopted in Lane County, Oregon. 233 This program would advise homeowners when they could heat their homes with wood, according to the current air quality. Additionally, New Jersey will propose changes to New Jersey’s open b urning regulation (N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 2 et seq.) to limit the types of eligible open burning activities, and to increase fees for the activity; these changes are included in Chapter 4. Other control measures might include wood stove and fireplace change

- out pr ograms. Financial incentives would be necessary to ensure a productive program. New Jersey would consider implementing a change

- out program in the future if funds become available. New Jersey expects to include additional wood burning strategies in the p roposed SIP for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

5.4 Emission Reduction Credits from Shutdowns and Curtailments

Section IV.C.3 (Emission Reduction Credits from Shutdowns and Curtailments) of Appendix S

to 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, states that emissions reductions achi eved by shutting down an existing source or curtailing production or operating hours may be credited for offsets if such reductions are surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable and the shutdown or curtailment occurred after the last day of the base year (12/31/2002) for the SIP planning process. Appendix S allows the use of pre

- 2002 shutdown and curtailment credits of PM 2.5 , and its precursors (SO 2 and NO

x ), emissions for offsets, provided the projected emissions inventory used to develo p the

232 NJDEP. Wood Burning in New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Q uality Planning. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/woodburning.html , April 15, 2008.

233 LRAPA. Public Education: Home Wood Heating Programs. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). http://www.lrapa.org/public_education/home_wood_heating_programs/, a ccessed May 14, 2008.138 attainment demonstration explicitly includes emissions for offsets from such previously

shutdown or curtailed emission units.

The banked emissions from pre

- 2002 facility or equipment shutdowns were not included in the 2002 modeling inventory. Howe ver, as discussed in detail in Appendix C, there is a modeled differential between the modeled design values for 2009 and the PM 2.5 annual NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m 3

, which has been used to allow banked credits in the future

. In this SIP revision , New Jersey has assigned 268 tpy of PM 2.5 , 1,227 tpy of SO 2 , and 573 tpy of NO

x from the estimated modeled differential for potential use as emission offset credits from the bank. For more details regarding this assignment, see Appendix B13.

5.5 Results

When added togeth er, all the control measures and refinements discussed in Section 5.3.2.6.2

will result in emission reductions of direct PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 in the Northern New Jersey/New

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

nona ttainment area

. 234 These reductions will occur in addition to those included in the regional modeling and will further reduce the uncertainty associated with the 2009 modeled design values and supports New Jersey's demonstration of attainment of the PM 2.5 N AAQS in its two multi

state nonattainment areas.

The regional modeling assessment discussed in Section 5.2 demonstrates that the New Jersey

associated nonattainment areas have attained the PM 2.5 NAAQS by their designated attainment date. New Jersey is no t directly relying on these additional measures to demonstrate attainment

of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. These measures will help attain the new 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and the New Jersey annual goal of 12 μ g/m 3 . These control measures and refinements are not

be ing considered as “bundled measures” for this SIP revision. 235 Rather, this evaluation of emission reductions expected from these additional control measures and refinements provides further confidence that New Jersey will attain the PM 2.5 standard by 2010, and gives the State an abundance of additional emission reductions to rely upon in the event of exceedance. The

benefits of these measures and refinements will be reflected in the ambient air monitors. These measures are discussed further as part of the State’s contingency measure strategy for attainment in Chapter 6.

234 These are approximate emission reduction totals as the additional control measures and refinements to be proposed and adopted by May 2008, in accordance with New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (N.J.S.A.

52:14B

- 1 et. seq.) an d the Air Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C

- 1 et. seq.).

235 USEPA. Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Air and Radiation, Air Quality Strategies and Sta ndards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 2005.139 5.6 Unmonitored Area Analysis

The USEPA’s modeling guidance 236 requires an unmonitored area analysis:

“The unmonitored area analysis for a particular nonattainment area is intended to address potential problems within or near that nonattainment area. The analysis should include, at a minimum, all nonattainment counties and counties surrounding the nonattainment area (located within the State).” 237

The USEPA has developed a software packa ge called “Modeled Attainment Test Software” (MATS) 238 which will spatially interpolate data, adjust the spatial fields based on model output gradients and multiply the fields by model calculated RRFs. The MATS software for PM 2.5 was not available at the ti me of SIP development. Therefore, New Jersey performed its own unmonitored area analysis and was unable to verify the results of this analysis using the MATS

software.

Thirteen New Jersey counties are designated as nonattainment of the annual PM 2.5 stand ard. Ten of those counties are associated with the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and three with the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area. New Jersey's monitoring program and the use of the modeling results fro m a 9

- cell average provide adequate coverage of the State to determine attainment of the fine particulate standard. All modeling grid cells containing a monitor and the eight (8) adjoining grid cells were analyzed in New Jersey's attainment demonstrations to get a nine cell average of grid cells. By using this technique, a large area of the State is included in the analysis and is represented by the monitoring program. Therefore, New Jersey does not have any areas that would be considered

unmonitored. F igure 5.3 shows the coverage that is afforded by the current NJDEP monitoring network and the surrounding grid cells included in the modeling analysis. Note, on this map, areas covered solely by New Jersey’s monitoring stations are colored in orange (in b lack & white

- lightly shaded) and areas covered by either New Jersey’s monitoring stations or by those in another bordering state are shaded in red (in black & white

- darker shaded).

236 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007.

237 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Related Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standard s, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park,
NC, EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 002, October 2005.

238 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone

, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007.140 Figure 5.3 : Map of Grid Cells Used in Photochemical Modeling Ass ociated With New Jersey Fine Particulate Matter Monitors

5.7 Conclusions

The current air quality data (2006) demonstrates that the New Jersey monitors are currently in

attainment of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. With the exception of the Union City monitor, the design values at all New Jersey monitors are in attainment of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, and are below the weight

- of

- evidence range of values (14.5 μ g/m 3 through 15.5 μ g/m 3 . The regional air quality modeling demonstrates the two multi

- state nonattainment areas which include New Jersey will be in attainment of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2009. The only site with a projected 2009 design value greater than the annual fine particulate standard of 15.0 μg /m 3 is the P.S. 59 site located in Manhattan, New York Ci ty. All other sites are below the annual fine particulate standard and lower bound of the weight

- of

- evidence range. The projected 2009 value for the P.S. 59 site is within the weight

- of

- evidence range of values defined in the PM 2.5 modeling guidance as 1 4.5 μg /m 3 through 15.5 μ g/m 3

. 239

239 USEPA. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality

Goals for Ozone , PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Legend *Orange (in black & white

- lightly shaded): Areas covered s olely by New Jersey’s monitoring stations. *Red (in black & white

- darker shaded): Areas covered by either New Jersey’s monitoring stations or by those in another bordering State.141 Additional air quality benefits associated with the control measures not included in the modeling reduces the uncertainty of the demonstration and thus supports New Jersey’s demonstration of

attainment of the PM 2.5 standard by 2010 in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas. Additional support for this conclusion includes those additional measures being implemented in New York City to provide emission

reductions. All areas of the two nonattainment areas are expected to be in attainment by April 5,

2010.

The 2006 design value data show that more emission reductions are necessary to attain the State’s internal goal for annual PM 2.5 of 12 μ g/m 3 and to meet the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Only four of the 13 New Jersey monitors in the Northern New Jersey/New York/ Connecticut nonattainment area are currently below the annual PM 2.5 goal of 12 μ g/ m 3 and only eight of the 13 New Jersey monitors in the Northern New Jersey/ New York/ Connecticut nonattainment area

are above the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, page 105.142 6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

6.1 Background

42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (Section 172(c)(9)) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) final fin e particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) implementation rule 240 require that the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas include contingency measures. Contingency measures are additional

controls needed to further reduce emissions in the eve nt an area fails to meet a Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 241 milestone or fails to attain by its attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures that are ready for implementation quickly without further action by the S tate or the USEPA upon failure to meet an RFP milestone or reach attainment. The USEPA does not require a separate RFP submittal for areas with 2010 attainment dates and a demonstration that shows attainment (72 Fed. Reg. 20633 (April 25, 2007)). Thus, N ew Jersey does not need to submit a separate contingency plan related to RFP

due to its submittal of an attainment demonstration that satisfies the 2010 deadline. There are separate RFP requirements for those nonattainment areas with attainment dates beyo nd 2010.

The PM 2.5 attainment milestone for New Jersey’s associated annual PM 2.5 nonattainment areas is defined as 2009 (to achieve reductions by the April 2010 attainment goal). Therefore, no RFP and no RFP contingency is required for this standard. Co ntingency measures must provide for one year of reductions needed for RFP, based on the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the 2002 base year to the attainment

year. 242 There is no percent reduct ion associated with the RFP requirement for PM 2.5 as there is with the Rate of Progress (ROP) requirement under Subpart 2 for ozone. 243 Federal or local measures that are adopted and/or implemented prior to the milestone year and provide emission

reductions in excess of those needed to meet an RFP or attainment milestone may be used as contingency measures. 244 The USEPA’s guidance encourages this early implementation of contingency measures and relying on measures already implemented or under development. 245

T he remainder of this chapter:

- discusses the contingency targets (needed total emission reductions) associated with

attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS;

- lists contingency measures associated with attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS;

and

- demonst rates that the reductions expected from the contingency measures listed meet the attainment contingency requirement.

240 72 Fed. Reg. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007).

241 In general, the USEPA uses the term Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) as the more generic progress requirement under S ubpart 1, whereas it uses the term rate of progress (ROP) to denote the specific Subpart 2 (ozone specific) progress requirements that are defined as specific percent reductions from a baseline emissions inventory.

242 72 Fed. Reg. 20643 (April 25, 2007).

243 USEPA Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis to Regional Air Division Directors, “2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8

- hr Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze Programs ,” November 18,

2002.

244 72 Fed. Reg. 20642 (April 25, 2007).

245 7 2 Fed

. Reg

. 20642

- 43 (April 25, 2007).143 The measures included here as contingency measures are described in detail in Chapter 4. The calculation methodologies used to quantify t hese measures are included in Appendix C.

6.2 Contingency Measures for the Attainment Demonstration

As discussed above, the Clean Air Act requires New Jersey to identify contingency measures to be implemented in the event that the State does not attain the 1 997 annual PM 2.5 standard by 2010. Attainment of this standard is determined based upon the 2009 annual PM 2.5 design values from the air quality monitors. Table 6.1 shows the contingency measure calculation s for attainment on April 5, 2010, as well as th e contingency measures and their associated emission reductions, for both the New Jersey portions of its PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas. Contingency measures need to achieve the one year of RFP emission reductions for direct PM 2.5 and its precursor s (oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 )). This amount was calculated using the 2002 adjusted baseline inventory from Version 3 of the modeling inventory and the projected 2009 modeling inventory (refer to Chapter 5 for additional information on the emission inventories used for this SIP revision). Following the USEPA guidance outlined in Section 6.1, the State has estimated the contingency requirement to be 15,993 tons per year (tpy)

of direct PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 in the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 3,489 tpy of direct PM 2.5 , NO

x , and SO 2 in the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area.

New Jersey has identified eight control measures not inclu ded in the regional attainment demonstration modeling for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS to fulfill the contingency requirement should either of the nonattainment areas associated with New Jersey fail to demonstrate attainment by 2010. In addition, New Jerse y has identified one control measure included in the regional attainment demonstration modeling for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS to fulfill the contingency requirement for the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area. T he contingency requirements for the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area are satisfied through the eight measures not included in the regional attainment demonstration modeling. The refinery consent decrees for Sunoco, Valero, and ConocoPhillips were included in the attainment demonstration photochemical modeling for PM 2.5

. A s discussed in detail in Appendix C, there is

a “ modeled differential ” between the modeled design values for 2009 and the PM 2.5 annual NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m 3

. For the purposes of satisfying the contingency requirements, New Jersey is allocating 738 tpy of the emission reductions provided by the refinery consent decrees in the New Jersey portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonat tainment area from the modeling differential

.

The attainment demonstration discussed in Chapter 5 projects both nonattainment areas associated with New Jersey to attain by 2010. If both areas reach attainment based upon the ambient air quality data from 2007

- 2009, the measures identified for New Jersey’s contingency plan will still be implemented and will provide additional air quality benefits beyond the benefits projected by the annual PM 2.5 attainment demonstration modeling. The State and Federal

con tingency measures are:

1) Diesel idling,144 2) Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) NO

x Rule, 3) Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010), 4) Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Fleet turnover 2010), 5) Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) B oiler R ule 2009 (portion not modeled)

, 6) NO

x RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled)

, 7) Asphalt production plants rule, and 8) Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (Hudson SO 2 ), and 9) Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco and Valero).145 Table 6.1

PM 2.5 Attainment Contingenc y Measures for 2009 New Jersey Portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Nonattainment Area (tons per year)

Direct PM 2.5 NO

x SO 2 TOTAL 1. Calculations for the Contingency Requirement 2002 Baseline Modeling Emissions Inventory (tpy) 15,7 97 198,518 52,889 267,205

2009 Predicted Modeling Emissions Inventory (tpy) 14,752 113,690 26,811 155,254

Difference Between 2009

- 2002 Emission Inventories (tpy) 1,045 84,828 26,078 111,951

Contingency Requirement (1/7) (tpy) 149 12,118 3,725 15,993

2. New Jersey Contingency Measures (tpy) Diesel Idling Rule Changes 4 218 222

Municipal Waste Combustor s (Incinerators) NO

x Rule 0 0

Onroad Fleet Turnover (2010) 51 5,613 5,664

Nonroad Fleet Turnover (2010) 34 1,065 185 1,284

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (portion not modeled) 681 681

NO

x RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled) 548 548

Asphalt Production Plants Rule 50 50

Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSEG Hudson SO 2 ) 51,124 51,124

Total Reductions Available for Contingency by Pollutant (tpy) 89 8,175 51,309 59,573

A. Total Reductions from New Jersey's Contingency Measures (tpy) 59,573

B. Total Emissions Target for the Contingency Requirement (tpy) 15,993

C. Difference (A

- B) 43,580 Requirement Met? YES146 Tab le 6.2

PM 2.5 Attainment Contingency Measures for 2009 New Jersey Portion of the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia Nonattainment Area (tons per year)

Direct PM 2.5 NO

x SO 2 TOTAL

1. Calculations for the Contingency Requirement 2002 Baseline Modeling Emi ssions Inventory (tpy) 4,485 48,409 12,506 65,400

2009 Predicted Modeling Emissions Inventory (tpy) 4,336 30,928 5,712 40,976

Difference Between 2009

- 2002 Emission Inventories (tpy) 149 17,481 6,794 24,424

Contingency Requirement (1/7) (tpy) 21 2,497 97 1 3,489

2. New Jersey Contingency Measures (tpy) Diesel Idling Rule Changes 2 112 114

Municipal Waste Combustor (Incinerators) NO

x Rule 309 309

Onroad Fleet Turnover (2010) 25 1,808 1,833

Nonroad Fleet Turnover (2010) 7 166 32 205

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (portion not modeled) 193 193

NO

x RACT Rule 2006 (portion not modeled) 82 82

Asphalt Production Plants Rule 15 15

Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco and Valero) 738 738

Total Reductions Available for Contingency by Pollutant (tpy) 34 2, 685 770 3,489

A. Total Reductions from New Jersey 's Contingency Measures (tpy ) 3,489

B. Total Emissions Target for the Contingency Requirement (tpy) 3,489

C. Difference (A

- B) (tpy) 0 Requirement Met? YES

New Jersey is meeting its contingency requirement in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas with the control

measures and emission benefits shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.147 6.3 Contingency Measure Imple mentation Schedule

The required implementation schedule of contingency measures, should the USEPA make a finding of failure to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS, is one year. The earliest that contingency reductions would need to be in place would be September 2010 . The measures in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 will achieve even greater emission reductions than demonstrated, due to additional requirements within the rules that phase

- in after 2009 that will achieve additional benefits.

The status of the control measures ident ified for contingency is included in Table 9.1. The dates provided in Table 9.1 indicate that all of the measures will be implemented in time for contingency if failure to meet the attainment date occurs. By following the USEPA’s guidance that encourages early implementation of contingency measures and relying on measures already implemented or under development, 246 New Jersey is ensuring that no additional contingency measures will need to be developed and implemented beyond those identified, and is safegu arding itself against failure to attain. Since the contingency measures relied upon in this SIP revision will be implemented by the specified dates, which are before the time when the contingency measures would be required, there is no need for a trigger mechanism if the attainment goal is not reached.

Since New Jersey relied upon its attainment demonstration to satisfy RFP, New Jersey would need to modify its attainment demonstration so that it meets the standard if New Jersey does not

achieve attainme nt, thereby also satisfying the RFP requirements. 247

6.4 Conclusions

New Jersey has demonstrated that it met its contingency requirements for attainment. It is possible that the emission benefits estimated for New Jersey’s rule proposals may be amended in

res ponse to comments. If this does occur, there are sufficient modeling differential and associated control measures as shown in this SIP revision to satisfy contingency requirements and requirements for attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. In additio n, recent preliminary monitoring results indicate that the monitors are currently in compliance with the NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m 3 in the regional Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area and in the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment

area . Therefore, the data indicates that the contingency measures will not be necessary t o show

attainment of the NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m 3

.

246 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20642

- 43 (April 25, 2007).

247 72 Fed. Reg. 20633 (April 25, 2007).148 7.0 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

7.1 Introduction

The Clean Air Act 248 requires that Federal actions conform to a State’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically the Clean Air Act requires the action/activity wil l not:

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

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

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

To implement this requirement, the Clean Air Act directed 249 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to issue rules that governed how conformity determinations would

be co nducted for two categories of actions/activities: 1) those dealing with transportation plans, programs and projects (Transportation Conformity), and 2) all other actions, e.g., projects requiring Federal permits. This latter category is referred to as Gen eral Conformity.

The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule (40 C.F.R. § 93.100

- 129) provides the process by which the air quality impact of transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects are analyzed. The agency preparing transp ortation plans (projections of twenty or more years), transportation improvement programs (projections of at least four years), or approving a transportation project must analyze the emissions expected from such a proposal in accordance with the Transporta tion Conformity Rule. 250

For the purposes of transportation conformity, the emission budget is essentially a cap on the total emissions allocated to onroad vehicles. The projected regional emissions calculated based on a transportation plan, transportatio n improvement program, or project, may not exceed the motor vehicle emissions budget or cap contained in the appropriate SIP. Emissions in years for which no motor vehicle emissions budgets are specifically established must be less than or equal

to the mo tor vehicle emissions budget established for the most recent prior year.

Emission budgets in New Jersey are established by nonattainment area and Metropolitan Planning Organization boundary. New Jersey is part of two nonattainment areas as shown in Figur e 7.1: ten counties in Northern New Jersey associated with New York City and three counties in Southern New Jersey associated with Philadelphia.

248 42 U.S.C. § 7506.

249 42 U.S.C. § 7506.

250 For New Jersey, such plans are prepared by three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (North J ersey Transportation Planning Authority, South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization, and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission).149 Figure 7.1 : USEPA Designations of Nonattainment Areas for the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

There are three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in New Jersey that cover the geographic areas shown in Figure 7.2. These are the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA), the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC ), and the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization. Each MPO is responsible for the transportation plans and transportation improvement programs for its designated area. The MPOs each work in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration , the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), the USEPA, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to remain at or under established transportation emission budgets for their area. Transportation conformity budgets for PM 2 .5 are developed for each MPO by adding the onroad emissions from individual counties within each MPO planning area located within the New Jersey portions of the PM 2.5 n onattainment a reas. This results in the formation of the following three areas for bud get development:

• Nine counties located in the NJTPA MPO planning area and the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut (NNJ/NY/CT) PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset

, a nd Union Counties),

• Mercer County located in the DVRPC MPO geographic area and the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area, and

• Three counties included in the DVRPC MPO geographic area and the New Jersey portion of

the Southern New Je rsey/Philadelphia (SNJ/Phila.) PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties). BERKS PIKE ORANGE

SUFFOLK LUZERNE

KENT BUCKS

OCEAN CHESTER LANCASTER MONROE SUSSEX FAIRFIELD

BURLINGTON MORRIS

SCHUYLKILL

CECIL WAYNE

ATLANTIC NEW HAVEN

SALEM

KENT COLUMBIA

CARBON

HARFORD LEHIGH WARREN SULLIVAN

WYOMING

MONMOUTH LEBANON

CUMBERLAND HUNTERDON WESTCHESTER

NASSAU MIDDLESEX

BERGEN PUTNAM

MERCER PASSAIC

ESSEX LITCHFIELD

UNION

NEW CASTLE MONTGOMERY LACKAWANNA

SOMERSET

MIDDLESEX

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER NORTHAM PTON

QUEEN ANNES CAPE MAY ROCKLAND

DELAWARE ULSTER

QUEENS

CAROLINE PHILADELPHIA HARTFORD

KINGS HUDSON BRONX

RICHMOND NEW YORK

In Attainment

NY_NJ_LI_CT_nonattainment_area

PA_NJ_DE_nonattainment_area Geographic Areas

DE NJ CT NY

PA

MD In Attainment

NNJ/NY/CT Nonattainment Area

SNJ/Phila. Nonattainment Area150 Figure 7.2 : Metropolitan Planning Organizations in New Jersey

D

e l a w a r e V a l l e y R e g i o n a l
P

l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n N o r t h J e r s e y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P

l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t

y

S o u t h J e r s e y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P

l a n n i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n151 The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization does not have to perform t ransportation conformity for PM 2.5 because the counties within their planning area are in attainment of the

PM 2.5 annual NAAQS.

7.2 Transportation Conformity for PM 2.5

7.2.1 Interim Tests to be used Prior to the Establishment of Budgets

The Transportation Conform ity Rules that established the criteria and procedures relating to Transportation Conformity for PM 2.5 were promulgated by the USEPA on July 1, 2004. 251 Transportation Conformity for PM 2.5 became effective on April 5, 2006; the effective date is

based on a one

- year grace period from the effective date of designations, April 5, 2005.

Before a SIP budget is available, either through an adequacy finding or approval by the USEPA, conformity of the transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or proj ect not from a conforming plan is demonstrated with the interim emissions tests. 252 The interim emissions tests

for PM 2.5 are either the baseline year test or the build/no

- greater

- than

- no

- build test. The baseline year test is passed when the emissions from the proposed transportation system are either less than or no greater than the baseline year (2002) motor vehicle emissions in a given

nonattainment area. With the build/no

- greater

- than

- no

- build test conformity is demonstrated if emissions from the propo sed transportation system (“build” or “action” scenario) are less than or equal to the emissions in the same future analysis year from the existing transportation system (“no

- build” or “baseline” scenario). The MPOs performing planning in PM 2.5 nonattainm ent areas were required to utilize either the baseline year test or the build/no

- greater

- than

- no

- build test until emission budgets are approved or found adequate by the USEPA. Currently, the NJTPA and the DVRPC are using early budgets that have been appro ved by the USEPA for the counties in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area. The DVRPC is currently using interim tests for the counties in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia

nonattainment area.

7.2.2 PM 2.5 Precursors

For transporta tion conformity, four PM 2.5 precursors

– oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and ammonia (NH 3 )

– are considered in the conformity process in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas, 253 pursuant to the following USEPA requirem ents:

• Regional emissions analysis must include NO

x as a PM 2.5 precursor in all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas, unless the head of the state air agency and the USEPA Regional Administrator make a finding that NO

x is not a significant contributor to the PM 2.5 air quality problem in a given area.

251 69 Fed. Reg. 40004

- 81 (July 1, 2004).

252 40 C.F.R. § 93.119.

253 70 Fed. Reg. 24280

- 92 (May 6, 2005).152 • Regional emissions analyses are not required for VOC, SO 2 , or NH 3 before an approved SIP budget for such precursors is established, unless the head of the state air agency or the USEPA Regional Administrator makes a fi nding that onroad emissions of any of these precursors is a significant contributor.

The following criteria are considered in making significance or insignificance findings for PM 2.5
precursors:

• The contribution of onroad emissions of the precursor to the total 2002 baseline SIP inventory;

• The current state of air quality for the area;

• The results of speciation monitoring for the area;

• The likelihood that future motor vehicle control measures will be implemented for a given precursor; and,

• Projection s of future onroad emissions of the precursor.

After reviewing the USEPA requirements and the criteria regarding significance, the New Jersey transportation conformity budgets for PM 2.5 precursors will only include the establishment of an

annual NO

x budg et for the two PM 2.5 nonattainment areas addressed by this attainment

demonstration SIP revision.

7.2.3 Road Dust and Construction Related Fugitive Dust

The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule specifies that re

- entrained road dust is to be

included as a c omponent of direct PM 2.5 for transportation conformity regional emissions analysis only if the USEPA Regional Administrator or the director of the State air agency has made a finding that emissions from re

- entrained road dust within the area are a signific ant
contributor to the PM 2.5 nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and NJDOT. 254

Also, for PM 2.5 areas in which the implementation plan does not identify construction

- related fugitive PM 2.5 as a significant contributor to the nonattainment probl em, the fugitive PM 2.5 emissions associated with highway and transit project construction are not required to be considered in the regional emissions analysis. 255

The USEPA has indicated that a finding of significance for re

- entrained road dust would be

ba sed on a case

- by

- case review of the following factors: the contribution of road dust to current

and future PM 2.5 nonattainment; an area’s current design value for the PM 2.5 standard; whether control of road dust appears necessary to reach attainment; and w hether increases in re

- entrained dust emissions may interfere with attainment. Such a review would include consideration of local air quality data and/or air quality or emissions modeling results. 256

254 40 C.F.R. § 93.119(f)(8).

255 40 C.F.R. § 93.122(f)(1).

256 69 Fed. Reg. 40033 (July 1, 2004).153 Findings of significance have not been made for either r e

- entrained road dust or construction

related fugitive dust for the New Jersey portions of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas. As described in Chapter 2, a number of source apportionme nt studies have concluded that the primary components of the PM 2.5 mass measured in New Jersey monitors are: secondary sulfate from large

- coal fired power plants located primarily in other states, automotive emissions and biomass burning. Re

- entrained ro ad dust and fugitive dust from road construction projects would be monitored as a component of soil material. Soil material makes up a relatively small percentage

of the PM 2.5 mass measured in New Jersey monitors. 257 Therefore, neither re

- entrained road du st emissions or fugitive dust emissions from highway and transit project construction have been

included in the PM 2.5 transportation conformity budgets.

7.2.4 Early Budgets for PM 2.5

In a 2006 SIP revision 258 (referred to hereafter as the “2006 SIP Revision”), New Jersey established early PM 2.5 transportation conformity emission budgets including documentation of the justification for the early budgets. Early budgets were established for directly emitted fine particulate matter (direct PM 2.5 ) and annual NO

x (a PM 2.5 precursor) for the New Jersey portion of the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area. This nonattainment area includes one county in the DVRPC MPO planning area (Mercer County), with the other nine counties in the NJTPA MPO plan ning area. These early budgets for New Jersey were approved by the USEPA on July 10, 2006. 259 Once approved by the USEPA, these early budgets became the existing attainment budgets that must be used for transportation conformity determinations made by the NJTPA and the DVRPC.

In the recent 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) updated the planning assumptions that were used in the transportation conformity analyses. The distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) b etween vehicle types was updated to reflect a greater fraction of the total VMT attributed to the heaviest class of diesel trucks (trucks greater than 60,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating). When the updated VMT/vehicle type mix is used, the predicted e missions of direct PM 2.5 and annual NO

x increase. The higher predictions result in values that are significantly higher than the existing budgets.

The amount of the budget exceedance for Mercer County was much greater than the emission

reductions that could be achieved by changes to transportation projects by 2009. Therefore, an update to the existing budget for Mercer County was proposed on December 17, 2007 as a SIP

257 Hopke, P. K. and Kim, E. Application of Advanced Factor Analysis Modeling to Apportion PM 2.5 in New Jersey. Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Clarkson Univ ersity, March 2005.

258 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 8

- Hour Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 1

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and Fine

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard; and the 2002 Periodic Emission Inventory. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, May 2006.

259 71 Fed. Reg. 38770

- 72 (July 10, 2006).154 revision. 260 This SIP revision was approved by the USEPA, effective June 5, 2008. 261 Th is will enable the DVRPC MPO to meet its transportation conformity requirements when it conducts its regional analysis this spring. Updates to the existing budget established for the NJTPA MPO are provided in Section 7.3.

7.3 Budgets for Attainment of the An nual PM 2.5 NAAQS

The existing and updated attainment transportation conformity emission budgets for directly emitted fine particulate matter (direct PM 2.5 ) and annual NO

x (a PM 2.5 precursor), by MPO planning area for the New Jersey portions of the Norther n New Jersey/New York/Connecticut and the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment areas, are provided in Table 7.1. The attainment budgets are based on the latest planning assumptions, including those for vehicle age distribution, VMT by vehicle ty pe fraction, diesel sulfur level (43 ppm)

, 262 and the 2009 projected vehicle activity data.

Each MPO used their Travel Demand Models (TDM) to estimate the 2009 projected vehicle activity data. Both MPOs used the monthly approach outlined in the USEPA gui dance 263 to calculate annual average emissions. This approach involves twelve sets of MOBILE6.2 modeling runs using monthly average input conditions. The 12 months of results were then averaged together to compute the annual emissions used to estimate the attainment budgets.

Once approved by the USEPA, the attainment budgets must be used for future transportation conformity determinations by the NJTPA and the DVRPC. Computer files that document the calculation of the attainment budgets are provided in A ppendix D.

260 NJDEP. Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision For Attainment of the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Update of Early Transportation Conformity Budgets for Mercer County. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, December 17, 2007.

261 73 Fed. Reg. 24868 (May 6, 2008).

262 USEPA. T echnical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 for Emission Inventory Preparation. United States Environmental Protection Agency , EPA420

- R

- 04

- 013, Section 5.5.3, page 64, August 2004.

263 USEPA. Guidance for Creating Annual On

- Road Mobile Source Emission Invent ories for PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas for Use in SIPs and Conformity. United States Environmental Protection Agency , EPA420

- B

- 05

- 008, page 7, August 2005.155 Table 7.1 : Existing and Updated Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets for PM 2.5 Attainment

Direct PM 2.5 Emissions (a)
(tons per year) NO

x Emissions (tons per year)

T ype of Budget Existing Updated Existing Updated

NJTPA and NNJ/NY/CT

Nonattainment Area (b) 1,207 842 61,676 44,321

DVRPC and NNJ/NY/CT

Nonattainment Area (c) 105 105 5,323 5,323

DVRPC and SNJ/Phila.

Nonattainment Area (d) No Existing Budget 341 No Existin g Budget 17,319

Notes: (a) Direct PM 2.5 consists of the sum of: SO 4 , organic carbon, elemental carbon, particulate matter from gasoline vehicles, lead, brake particles, and tire particles. (b) This area consists of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Mon mouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset and Union Counties (New Jersey portion of the NNJ/NY/CT nonattainment area also located in the NJTPA planning area). (c) This area consists of Mercer County. (d) This area consists of Burlington, Camden and Gloucester Cou nties (New Jersey portion of the SNJ/Phila. nonattainment area).

Table 7.1 indicates that the updated attainment budgets for direct PM 2.5 and NO

x for NJTPA are 365 and 17,355 tons per year less, respectively, than the early budgets set forth in the 2006 S IP Revision. These new attainment budgets incorporate the latest planning assumptions, including recent updates to the NJTPA TDM. The update of the TDM results in reductions in emission predictions that more than compensated for the increases from the up date to the VMT by vehicle type fractions.

The Mercer County budget was proposed on December 17, 2007 in a separate Transportation Conformity SIP and proposed for approval by the USEPA on May 6, 2008, as discussed in Section 7.2.4. Thus, the updated bu dget in Table 7.1 is the same as the budget that was proposed in December 2007 in the Transportation Conformity SIP. Regarding the updated budget established for the DVRPC MPO for its three counties included in the New Jersey portion of the

Southern New J ersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area, this represents the first time that a PM 2.5 budget has been established for these counties.156 8.0 SECTION 110 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

8.1 Introduction and Background

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) (Sections 110( a)(1) and (2)) of the Federal Clean Air Act), hereafter referred to as the “Infrastructure” State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements, requires states to submit an implementation plan to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Administ rator that demonstrates their ability and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce each National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act addresses the timing requirement for the submissions of any Infrastructure

S IP revisions, while Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act lists the required elements that a state needs to demonstrate its authority for implementing. These elements including, but are not limited to, air quality monitoring, data analysis, and reporting ; enforcement; resources; consultation; emergency procedures; and reductions in transported air pollution.

On August 15, 2006, the USEPA issued guidance 264 on what states should submit in order to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act c oncerning transported air pollution. Subsequently, on October 2, 2007, the USEPA issued guidance 265 on what states should submit in order to comply with the remaining non

- transport

- related requirements of Section 110(a)(2)

for both the 1997 8

- hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS.

New Jersey has complied with both of the USEPA’s guidance documents to address its Infrastructure SIP requirements for the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS in two parts:

 On February 25, 2008, the NJDEP submitted an Infrastructure SIP 266

, 267 which addressed

all the non

- transport

- related elements of Section 110(a)(2) with respect to the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. 268 (See Appendix E)

 On December 22, 2006, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDE P) sent the USEPA a letter 269 describing New Jersey's plan for addressing the transported emission requirements prescribed in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. As described in this letter,

th e transported emissions related actions would be part of various SIP proposals, which would all go through a public comment process prior to being finalized for submission to the USEPA. To date, the NJDEP has held public hearings on New Jersey’s 8

- hour oz one

264 USEPA. Guidance for State Plan Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section

11 0(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.

265 USEPA. 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. United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 2, 2007.

266 Letter from NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated February 25, 2008. (See Appendix E)

267 NJDEP. State Implementation Plan Revision For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean Air Act. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, February 2008.

268 The infrastructure SIP proposal was submitted in December 2007: NJDEP. Proposed St ate Implementation Plan Revision For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean Air Act. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, December 2007. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/infrastructure.pdf.

269 Letter from NJDEP Comm issioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated December 22, 2006. The letter is posted on the NJDEP’s website at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm.157 reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIP and its Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), both of which included a discussion of interstate transport as outlined in the December 22, 2006 NJDEP letter to the USEPA.

Through these two efforts, New Jer sey demonstrated that it has the authority to implement its Infrastructure SIP requirements outlined in the USEPA’s guidance documents with respect to

both the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, these actions by the State satisfied the timing requirement under the Consent Decree for the Section 110(a)(2) elements for the 1997

8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On October 22, 2008, the USEPA determined that the State’s Infrastructure SIP did not include

two elements:

 A plan pertaining to the Part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program, and

 A PM 2.5 significant harm level (SHL) in a plan that addresses the infrastructure element concerning emergency powers and adequate contingency plans. 270

New Jersey addresses the plan for the PSD program in Section 8.2.2 of this SIP. 271 Pertaining to

the SHL for PM 2.5 emergency episodes, New Jersey is waiting for further guidance from the

USEPA. 272

As with 8

- hour ozone, addressing transported emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors, both to and from the State, is critical for New Jersey’s multi

- state nonattainment areas to attain and maintain

the health

- based ambient air quality standards. To emphasize this importance, the remainder of this Chapter reiterates the State’s plan as outlined in its transport letter, submitted to the USEPA on December 22, 2006, 273 as it pertains to the PM 2.5 NAAQS, and provides updates on the State’s progress in addressing interstate transport of PM 2.5 - related emissions. The public hearing on New Jersey’s proposed CAIR, 274 held on March 28, 2007, included a discussion of interstate transport as outlined in the December 22, 2006 NJDEP letter to the USEPA. New Jersey’s CAIR

allocation rule was adopted on June 19, 2007, became effective on July 16, 2007, became operativ e on August 17, 2007, 275 and the USEPA approved these rules on October 1, 2007. 276

270 73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008).

271 The USEPA stated that th e requirement was already addressed by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and no further FIP actions were required. (73 Fed. Reg. 62904 (October 22, 2008)).

272 The USEPA proposed the Significant Harm Level (SHL) for PM 2.5 at 500 μg/m 3 on January 19, 2009. At the time of this SIP revision, this proposal was not published in the Federal Register and is currently under review by

the new Federal Administration.

273 Letter from NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated De cember 22, 2006. The letter is posted on the NJDEP’s website at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm.

274 39 N.J.R. 300(a) (February 5, 2007).

275 39 N.J.R. 2637(a) (July 16, 2007). Also, see N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 30.

276 72 Fed. Reg. 55666

- 72 (October 1, 2007).158 8.2 Interstate Transport (§ 110(a)(2)(D))

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act

Each state’s SIP must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source, or other typ e of emissions activity, within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts that will:

1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS for areas in another state or interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS by another state; 2) Interfere with measures required to meet the implementation plan for any other state related to Regional Haze and Visibility; or, 3) Interfere with measures required to meet the implementation plan for any other state related to prevention of signification deteriorati on (PSD).

8.2.1 Significant Contribution to Nonattainment, or Interference with Maintenance, of a NAAQS in Another State

The USEPA’s analysis in support of the CAIR 277 shows that New Jersey is not a significant

contributor to PM 2.5 nonattainment in any other sta te (because its transported contribution is less than 0.2 μg/m 3 ). However, that same USEPA analysis indicates that the following upwind states significantly contribute to PM 2.5 nonattainment in Union County, New Jersey: 278

- Maryland/Washington, D.C.,

- Michigan,

- New York,

- Ohio,

- Pennsylv ania, and

- West Virginia.

Further, the USEPA’s analysis in support of the CAIR indicates that the following states significantly contribute to PM 2.5 nonattainment in New Jersey’s associated PM 2.5 multi

- state
nonattainment areas:

- Maryland/Washington, D.C

.,

- Michigan,

- New York,

- Ohio,

- Pennsylvania,

- West Virginia, and

- Virginia.

277 USEPA. Technical Support Document for the Final Clean 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 Triangle Park, NC, March 2005.

278 Union County was the only New Jersey county identified in nonattainment by the USEPA’s CAIR analysis.159 The USEPA’s transport guidance allows states that are subject to requirements of the CAIR to satisfy the requirements of Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i) through submittal of a CAIR SIP or reliance of the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). New Jersey finalized an abbreviated CAIR SIP on June 19, 2007 that complies with CAIR requirements. 279 As part of this submittal, New Jersey stated that the CAIR SIP also served to partially address t he transport requirement, and took that action through the public process. Based on the USEPA’s transport guidance, this action by New Jersey satisfies the first of the requirements of Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i). However, the implementation of CAIR alone w ill not be sufficient to address interstate transport issues, especially for the Northeastern and Mid

- Atlantic United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit identified six major problems in the CAIR in its July 11, 2008 opinion ( State of N orth Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), which included:

 CAIR trading programs are flawed because the region wide focus on emission reductions did not factor in each state’s contribution to air pollution issues;

 Th e USEPA did not give independent significance to the “interfere with maintenance” language in Section 110(a)(2)(D) and thus did not provide enough protection to downwind areas;

 The 2015 compliance date for Phase 2 of CAIR is inconsistent with downwind sta tes’

2010 attainment deadlines for PM 2.5 and ozone NAAQS;

 Both SO 2 and NO

x budgets (i.e., the allowances states were given in their trading programs) were not based on the objectives of section 110(a)(2)(D).

In addition, CAIR focuses solely on Electric Ge nerating Units (EGUs), and does not address interstate transport of emissions from other sectors (non

- EGU, mobile, area). In light of these concerns, New Jersey commits to implement additional strategies to address the transport of

PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precurs or emissions, as discussed in Section 8.2.2.

8.2.2 The Regional Haze and Visibility Interference Requirement

PM 2.5 is the main component of regional haze. Therefore, the PM 2.5 SIP is relevant to the visibility requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

Regio nal Haze is visibility impairment caused by air pollutant emissions from numerous sources over a wide geographic area. In 1977, Section 169A of the Clean Air Act set forth a national goal for visibility which is the “prevention of any future, and the reme dying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 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 international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. There are 156 Class I areas across the United States, including the Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey.

In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress added Section 169B requiring the states to achieve ‘reasonable progress’ toward the national goal of removing any visibility impairment

279 39 N.J.R. 2637(a) (July 16, 2007). Also, see N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 30.160 from manmade air pollution to the designated Class I area. The Brigantin e Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey is afforded the same visibility protection as the Grand Canyon. The goal of the USEPA Regional Haze Rule is to improve visibility to natural background levels by the year 20 64 in all federally designated Class I areas. States with Class I areas are required to establish Reasonable Progress Goals for Class I areas within their borders, and compare their projected rate of improvement with the Uniform Rate of Progress, with 10

- year incremental mid

- term goals to be attained along the way. All states are required to periodically conduct an analysis of available reasonable measures and implement those measures. The analysis and measures must be included in a SIP.

New Jersey prop osed its Regional Haze SIP on September 15, 2008. This plan proposes to establish the baseline and natural visibility conditions, identifies the states which contribute to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area, and establishes the 2018 R easonable Progress Goal. Based on a variety of technical methods, including the USEPA’s CAIR analysis discussed is Section 8.2.1, New Jersey identified 22 states which contributed to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area with respect to the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal, as pictured in Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1 : States Identified as Contributing to Visibility Impairment in New Jersey’s Class I Area

New Jersey Illi no is

Georgi a M ichi gan

K entuck y

Ten nessee

South Carolina M ic higan

Delaware Di st rict of Columbia Ohi o

Virginia I ndiana New York

Pennsy lvania

North C arolina W est Virginia M aryland Maine

Vermon t

Mass achu set ts

Con nect icut

N ew H amp shi re

Rho de Is land Iow a

Mis so uri

Ark ans as

Alabama W is co n si n

Louisiana Mis si ss ip pi M inneso ta

Kansas

Tex as N ebraska Sou th D ako ta

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

Reason for Inclusion

Not Id entified

MANE-VU Member
Contributory to Briga ntine

New Jersey

Additionally, New Jersey contributes to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont determined that New Jersey contributed to their Class I areas, Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area, and Lyebrook Wilderness Area, respectively.

To achieve the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal, the proposed plan relies upon the identified contributing states implementing the reasonable measures identified by New Jersey and the Mid

Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) s tates. Based on the modeling results and other analysis performed by MANE

- VU, the MANE

- VU states developed “Asks”, which are “emission management” strategies. These strategies served as the basis for the consultation with161 the other states. 280 The State co nsulted with the other Regional Planning Organizations and the contributing states within MANE

- VU regarding the reasonableness of the identified measures. The contributing states within MANE

- VU agreed to adopt and implement reasonable measures.

The measu res used to set the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal are:

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

 At least 90% SO 2 emission reductions from 2002 levels at the top 100 el ectric generating unit (EGU) sources that impact the Brigantine Wilderness Area (for the six MAN E

- VU visibility protected areas; there are 167 different EGU stacks that impact one or more of these areas);

 For the MANE

- VU states, reducing the level of sulf ur in fuel oil.

 For the contributing states outside of MANE

- VU, a 28% emission reduction from non

e lectric generating unit sources is sought; 281

 Continued evaluation of other measures, including Energy Efficiency, Alternative Clean

Fuels and other measures to reduce SO 2 , PM

, and NO

x from all coal

- burning facilities by 2018, and new source performance standards for wood combustion.

These regional reductions in air pollutant emissions will improve air quality in New Jersey.

New Jersey commits to implement additional strategies to address the transport of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions both to and from New Jersey. A s part of a regional effort, New Jersey commits to :

- Continue to meet its obligations under the oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) SIP Call,

i ncluding an allocation mechanism that encourages energy efficiency for New Jersey sources in the Federal CAIR program;

- Adopt multi

- pollutant (NO

x , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM)) performance standards providing additional emission reduct ions for coal

- fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs);

- Update its RACT rules to address the PM 2.5 precursors (see Table 9.1);

- Continue to implement the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program;

- Adopt rules and/or other measures to address emissions from oil and gas EGUs on High Electrical Demand Days (HEDD); and

- P ropose rules to implement long

- term, regional strategies, consistent with the MANE

VU statement (see Appendix A 6 ) , affecting the sulfur content and corresponding

emission limits of No. 2, 4, and 6 fuel o il.

The emission reductions from large stationary sources through the NO

x SIP Call have achieved significant progress in reducing the transport of PM 2.5 and its precursors in the eastern United

280 The regula tions at 40 C.F.R. 51.308 (d)(1)(iv) requires states with Class I areas to develop reasonable progress goals in consultation with any state that may reasonably cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I

area.

281 New Jersey and the other M ANE

- VU Class I states are recommending that contributing states determine the best way to achieve this level of emission reduction. The 28% represents an estimate of the benefits from the MANE

VU fuel oil strategy.162 States. The demonstration of attainment in Chapter 5 relies on the implementation of additional control measures by upwind states. These PM 2.5 measures include new or additional regulations on asphalt production, cement kilns, glass furnaces, and Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI)

boilers . Because New Jers ey has demonstrated that it needs the emissions reductions from these other states in order to meet its attainment obligations, the State requests (see Chapter 9) that the USEPA, in reviewing the SIP revisions from other states, take into consideration the other states’ impact on New Jersey’s attainment obligations, and ensure that other states are doing what is needed for New Jersey’s associated multi

- state nonattainment areas to reach attainment as soon as practicable.

All actions which New Jersey dete rmines are necessary to attain and maintain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in New Jersey, and to maintain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in neighboring states, will be proposed and included as a revision to New Jersey’s SIP. In accordance with the New Jersey Administrative

Procedures Act (APA) (N.J.S.A. 52:14B

- 1 et seq.) and the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) (N.J.S.A. 26:2C

- 1 et seq.), these proposals will be taken through public process at that time.

8.2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Nonattainment New Source Review (PSD/NNSR ) Requirement

With respect to the PM 2.5 standard, New Jersey has both attainment and nonattainment areas throughout the State, necessitating both a PSD and NNSR program with respect to this pollutant. This section explains how the separate regulatory act ions the USEPA has taken to implement these programs and how New Jersey plans to implement its programs for the PM 2.5 health

- based

standard.

O n April 25, 2007 , t he USEPA finalized its implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

. 282

N o final PM 2.5 requirem ents for the NSR program were included. Prior to the implementation of that rule, t he USEPA issued interim guidance 283

, 284 calling for use of coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ) as a surrogate for PM 2.5 in the PSD and NNSR programs until NSR rules were finalized

. Due to the lack of PM 2.5 NSR rules , PM 10 was used as a surro gate in both attainment and

nonattainment areas. Under the surrogate approach, compliance with applicable requirements

for PM 10 was assumed to satisfy PM 2.5 requirements.

On September 21, 200 7, the USEPA proposed a rule on increments, significant impact levels (SIL), and significant monitoring concentrations (SMC). 285 The proposal has not been finalized

as of this SIP revision . T he final rule is anticipated in the summer of 2009

.

282 72 Fed

. Reg

. 20586

- 667 (April 25, 2007 ).

283 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.

284 USEPA Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, “Interim Implementation of New Source Review for PM2.5,” October 23, 1997.

285 72 Fed. Reg. 54112

- 156 (September 21, 2007).163 O n May 16, 2 008 , t he USEPA issued a portion of the NSR rule for PM 2.5

. 286 That rule changed

the F ederal rule for PSD, Appendix S of 40 C.F.R. pt. 51 fo r nonattainment areas, and the

F ederal guidance for state PSD and nonattainment NSR SIPs.

PSD Requirements in New Jer sey’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 are effective as of July 15, 2008. 287 New Jersey is a PSD delegated

state. According to that rule, the changes for New Jersey’s attainment counties implementing the Federal PSD program through delegation were effective as of July 15, 2008. The PM 10 surrogate policy no longer applied after July 15, 2008.

Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) Requirements in New Jersey’s Non attainment C ounties :

Between July 15, 2008 and t he effective date of New Jersey’s NSR rules for PM 2.5 (expected in 2011)

, the US EPA’s Appendix S (40 C.F.R. pt. 51) a ppl ies

.

The PM 2.5 NSR rule allows up to three years for states to revise their regulations and SIP. New Jersey expects the three year clock to be triggered once the USEPA adopts the remaining components of its PM 2.5 NSR implementation rules, which are exp ected by the summer of 2009. The NJDEP expects to develop NNSR rule strategies in 2009, propose a NNSR rule revision in 2010, and adopt a revised NSR rule in 2011.

The NJDEP also expects to adopt New Jersey specific PSD rules in the same timeframe.

Curr ently, NJDEP implements most of the Federal PSD rules under a delegation agreement and will continue to do so until New Jersey PSD rules are effective.

8.3 Conclusion

New Jersey complied with the USEPA’s guidance in determining that it has the authority to implement its Infrastructure SIP requirements with respect to both the 1997 8

- hour ozone and

PM 2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, the State has satisfied the timing requirement under the Consent Decree for the Section 110(a)(2) elements for the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Addressing transported emissions, both to and from the State, is critical for New Jersey’s PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas to attain and maintain the health

- based ambient air quality standards. New Jersey is complying with the USEPA ’s guidance regarding interstate transport as

it relates to the PM 2.5 NAAQS and is doing more to ensure that it is not inferring with the ability of its neighboring states to attain and maintain that standard. While many of New Jersey’s existing requireme nts are already more stringent than the existing pollution control requirements in the neighboring upwind states, New Jersey will consider any additional measures, beyond those already in place, implemented by the neighboring upwind states, if they are mor e stringent

286 73 Fed. Reg. 28321

- 350 (May 16, 2008).

287 73 Fed. Reg. 28321

- 350 (May 16, 2008).164 than New Jersey’s current actions. New Jersey also encourages the USEPA to take action where states are preempted from action. New Jersey relies on the USEPA to ensure sufficient progress in securing upwind emission reductions to provide for expeditious attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS.165 9.0 COMMITMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ACTION

As discussed in Chapter 5, the two multi

- state annual fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) nonattainment areas associated with New Jersey are projected to reach attainment of the 1997

annual PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by their attainment date (i.e., April 5, 2010). This demonstration is contingent upon the continued implementation and enforcement of existing control measures, as well as the impleme ntation of a number of new

State and Federal control measures. The measures that were included in the attainment demonstration modeling are referred to as either on the books/on the way (OTB/OTW), or measures that are beyond on the way (BOTW). The se cont rol measures are outlined in Chapter

4.

In addition, although not outlined specifically in Chapter 4 , other State and Federal measures were implemented, and achieved benefits, prior to the 2002 base year. For example, control

measures such as the on

- boar d diagnostics (OBD) enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, the federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG ) program

, and all New Jersey’s existing stationary source control measures achieved pre

- 2002 benefits, and these programs, as well as

numerous oth ers, are incorporated into the 2002 inventory, from which the future inventories are projected.

Chapter 5 also discusses other measures , in addition to those OTB/OTW and BOTW measures included in the attainment modeling, that both New Jersey and the Unite d States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are implementing that are expected to provide benefits in time to help the 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas reach their attainment goals. These measures provide additional assurance that New Jerse y’s associated multi

- state nonattainment

areas will attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard by April 5, 2010. In addition, a portion of these

measures are relied upon as contingency measures. Additional non

- modeled measures provide

for additional emission reductions that not only will help the State attain both the 1997 8

- hour

ozone and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, but will help the State attain the 2006 daily PM 2.5 standard of

35 μ g/m 3 , address regional haze at New Jersey’s Class I area and other downwind Class I a reas
, reduc e air toxic emissions, advance the State’s Green h ouse Gas Initiative, and ultimately help

the State meet its own PM 2.5 goal of goal of 12 μg/m 3

. See Chapter 1 for more information on

these other air quality goals.

The remainder of this chapt er summarizes New Jersey’s control measures and other

commitments , as well as New Jersey’s requests of the USEPA with respect to PM 2.5 implementation.

9.1 Control Measure Commitments

Because the Ozone Transport Region conducted one

- atmospheric modeling to sa tisfy both the 8

- hour and PM 2.5 attainment demonstration obligations, all of measures included in the State’s

PM 2.5 attainment demonstration modeling are also in the State’s 8

- hour ozone attainment

demonstration. The 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration was submitted to the USEPA for166 approval on October 29, 2007, 288 and since its submittal, the State of New Jersey has been working to implement those measures needed for attainment. Table 9.1 provides a status on

those control measures committed to in the St ate’s 8

- hour ozone state implementation plan (SIP) that will also provide the emission reductions needed to bring about PM 2.5 attainment.

The State commits to propose and a dopt those measures in Table 9.1 in accordance with the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (N.J.S.A. 52:14B

- 1 et seq.) and the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) (N.J.S.A. 26:2C

- 1 et seq.). For a detailed explanation of each of these control measures, see Chapter 4.

Table 9.1 : PM 2.5 State Control Measure Commitments Not Y et Adopted and Contingency Measures

Control Measures Status Notes
BOTW Measures Included in Regional PM 2.5 Attainment Modeling *

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler Rule 2009 289 Proposed 8/4/ 08 NO

x reduction measure; for 8

- hour

ozone attainm ent
Contingency Measures
Refinery Consent Decrees (Sunoco and Valero) Filed (Final), See Appendix C,

Attachment s 3, 4 and 5 See Modeling Differential Analysis in Appendix C Diesel Idling Promulgated 8/6/07; operative

9/8/2007 PM 2.5 and NO

x reductions

Municipal Waste Combustor (Incinerator) NO

x Rule Proposed 8/4/ 08 NO

x reductions

Asphalt Production Plants P roposed 8/4/ 08 NO

x reductions

ICI Boiler Rule 2009 (portion not modeled) Proposed 8/4/ 08 NO

x reduction measure

NO

x RACT Rule ( 2006 ) A dopted Sep tember 8, 2005 NO

x reduction measure

Onroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Federal) (Fleet turnover 2010) New Federal vehicle standards are already adopted to provide for these

benefits Direct PM 2.5 and NO

x reductions

Onroad New Jersey Low Emission

Veh icle (LEV) Program (Fleet turnover) Adopted November 28, 2005 VOC, NO

x , SO 2 , and direct PM 2.5 reductions

Nonroad Motor Vehicle Control Programs (Federal) (Fleet turnover 2010) New Federal equipment and vehicle standards are already adopted to provide for these benefits Direct PM 2.5

, SO 2 , and NO

x reductions

Controls from EGU Consent

Decrees (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 ) Filed July 26, 2002; amended November 30, 2006 SO 2 reductions

Additional Measures that Support Attainment

Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Change s Proposed 6/16/08 PM 2.5 and NO

x reductions

* “Beyond On the Way (BOTW)” control measures (state, regional, or federal) that have been or will be proposed by New Jersey and will include those measures that were identified as part of the effort to reach a ttainment by April 5, 2010.

288 Letter dated October 29, 2007 from then NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Region II Administrator Alan J. Steinberg. Available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/8hr sip/commissioner's%20letter.pdf

. 289 Some cate gories have 2010 compliance dates; remainder have 2011 and 2012 compliance dates.167 The Department has proposed additional control measures as part of the effort to reduce ozone

which will also have PM 2.5 emission reduction benefits. These additional control measures are

included in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 : Add itional Control Measures

Control Measures Status Notes
Additional Measures that Support Attainment **

Ozone and PM 2.5 RACT Commitments

Oil and Gas Fired Electric generating units (EGUs) Proposed 8/4/08 NO

x reduction measure

Coal

- fired boilers serving E GUs Proposed 8/4/08 NO

x , SO 2 , and direct PM 2.5 reductions Sewage sludge incinerators Proposed 8/4/08 NO

x reduction measure Case by Case NO

x Emission Limit

Determinations (FSELs/AELs) Proposed 8/4/08 NO

x reduction measure

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Program Proposed 8/4/08 NO

x reduction measure

Glass Manufacturing Proposed 8/4/ 08 NO

x reductions but most benefits will

occur post

- 2010

Additional Measures that Support Attainment

BOTW VOC Measures

Consumer Products 2009

Amendments Adopted 10/30/08 V OC reduction measure; primarily for 8

- hour ozone attainment

Portable Fuel Container s 2009

Amendments Adopted 10/30/08 VOC reduction measure; primarily for 8

- hour ozone attainment

Adhesives and Sealants Adopted 10/30/08 VOC reduction measure; primarily fo r 8

- hour ozone attainment

Additional Measures that Support Attainment

Ozone RACT VOC Measures VOC stationary storage tanks Proposed 8/4/08 VOC reduction measure 2006 Control Techniques

Guidelines Proposed 8/4/08 VOC reduction measure

Asphalt Paving (e mulsified and cutback) Proposed 8/4/08 VOC reduction measure

Case by Case VOC Emission Limit

Determinations (FSELs/AELs) Proposed 8/4/08 VOC reduction measure

** These measures were not included in the regional attainment modeling for 2009.

Additionall y, New Jersey is implementing the Nonat tainment New Source Review (NNSR) rule

revisions (see Chapter 8)

. The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7503, requires new or modified major sources to install the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER) control equipm ent and obtain greater than one for one emission offsets in order to locate in a nonattainment area. Thus, the NNSR program provides for continual emission reductions to help improve the air quality in the nonattainment area and further downwind. See Cha pter 4 for

further discussion on NNSR.

The USEPA has also committed to implement additional emission control measures not listed in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. Specifically, the USEPA has proposed new, small offroad engine standards

, and adopted more stringent e xhaust emission standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines, as well as adopted a second phase of its Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program that will result in SO 2 reductions (refer to Chapter 4 for details). All of these efforts168 should provide additional emission reductions for 2009 and beyond. While New Jersey’s PM 2.5 attainment demonstration does not rely on further emission reductions from these measures, the implementation of these measures will help support New Jersey’s demonstrat ion of attainment and will benefit air quality. New Jersey expects the USEPA to promulgate these measures in a timely fashion so that emission reductions can be achieved by 2009 and beyond.

New Jersey commits, as part of this State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, to implement a number of future control measures that will result in emission reductions post

- 2010. These longer

- term measures will provide:

1. additional public health protection in view of health effects below the NAAQS,

consistent with th e NJDEP’s internal goal of meeting an annual PM 2.5 level of 12 μg/m 3 ; 2. progress toward the new 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS;

3. additional reductions, which would be relied upon should the State not attain by 2010;

4. additional benefits toward meeting the State’s other PM

- related air quality goals outlined in Chapter 1 (e.g., Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Air Toxics, etc.); and,

5. the regulated community with certainty and time to identify the necessary funding to install control equipment, modify their products or usag e patterns, and/or take other actions to implement pollution prevention strategies.

9.2 Transport

- Related Requirements

Chapter 8 of this SIP revision: 1) reiterates the State’s compliance with the USEPA’s guidance in determining that it ha s the authority t o implement its Infrastructure SIP requirements, and has met all timing requirements associated with those requirement s , with respect to the PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2) provides updates on the State’s progress in meeting its requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(D) (i) of the Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The

remainder of this Section reiterates the State’s PM 2.5 - related transport commitments.

New Jersey commits to implement strategies to address the transport of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5
precu rsor emissions from New Jersey, particularly in light of the State’s concerns that the implementation of CAIR alone does not resolve interstate transport issues. 290 New Jersey will also address interstate transport by relying upon its Regional Haze SIP to a ddress visibility requirements in New Jersey’s Class I area. New Jersey proposed its Regional Haze SIP on September 15, 2008. New Jersey commits to consider any additional measures, beyond those already in place, implemented by the neighboring upwind sta tes, if they are more stringent than

our current actions.

290 See letter from NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson to USEPA Regional Administrator Steinberg dated December 22, 2006. The letter is posted on the NJDEP’s website at http:/ /www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm.169 9.3 State Requests of the USEPA

New Jersey’s Reliance on the USEPA and Other State Actions for Attainment

As discussed in Chapter 4, New Jersey based its demonstration of attainment for its two multi

state nonattainment areas on the 2009 BOTW modeling exercise. This modeling demonstration relies not only on New Jersey working to meet its commitments to implement certain measures by 2009, but also on its neighboring states doing the same. Furthe r, the implementation of measures by states upwind than New Jersey’s immediate neighbors is relied upon to reduce the transport of PM 2.5 and its precursors into the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

VU) region, including New Jersey. Additional cost effective controls on the largest upwind

sources are still needed to reduce the PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors being transported into the

MANE

- VU region. New Jersey requests that the USEPA, in reviewing the SIP revisions from other states, take into con sideration the impact on New Jersey’s attainment obligations, and ensure that upwind states are doing all that is needed to bring New Jersey’s associated multi

- state nonattainment areas into attainment as soon as practicable. In addition, New Jersey expec ts that the USEPA will adopt all federal measures in a timely fashion so that the state can benefit from

the emission reductions from these measures.170 10.0 CONCLUSION

The health effects associated with fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are significant, due in par t to its small size, which allows it to reach deep in the recesses of the lungs, as well as its ability to be a

“carrier” for other toxic air contaminants. New Jersey and the other states that share New Jersey’s 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas are faced with the challenge of meeting the

1997 annual PM 2.5 standard. Although New Jersey and the other states that share the 1997 PM 2.5 multi

- state nonattainment areas have always met the 1997 daily PM 2.5 health

- based standard of 65 μg/m 3 , and these le vels have continued to improve since 2001, New Jersey and the other states also face the challenge of meeting the new 2006 daily PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 . Given the significance of the health concerns associated with fine particulate matter, New Jersey approached the requirements to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) not as a finite goal, but instead as the first step in a comprehensive plan to address

PM 2.5 emissions, as well as the precursor emissions that can form PM 2.5 , which can include sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 291 and ammonia. The actions taken in this state implementation plan (SIP) revision, therefore, will ensure that New Jersey and its shared nonattainment ar eas will come into compliance with the

1997 annual health

- based PM 2.5 NAAQS by their attainment date of 2010, and will also help the

State meet a number of other particulate matter (PM)

- related goals with deadlines beyond the

attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2010

. The following other PM

- related actions, that are anticipated in the near future or are already in place, comprise the rest of the State’s overall plan for reducing PM

- related emissions:

o Reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions in an effort to help New Jersey meet its obligations under the State’s Global Warming Response Act;

o Continuing to reduce PM 2.5 emissions in an effort to meet the new 2006 daily PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 and State’s annual goal of 12 μg/m 3 ;

o Supporting the State’s ef forts to meet the commitments in its 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in October 2007;

o Continuing the State’s on

- going efforts to reduce air toxic emissions throughout New

Je rsey;

o Establishing reasonable progress goals to address visibility in the State’s Class I area; and,

o Supporting the State’s overarching Environmental Justice initiatives.

To meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1) ( Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act ) for

the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey conducted two separate analyses designed to

determine what additional actions the State could take to reduce PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions; a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis of e mission control technologies for major stationary sources and a Reasonably Available Control Measures

291 According to the USEPA, high molecular weight organic compounds (typically 25 carbon atoms or more) are emitted directly as primary organic particles and exist primarily in the condensed phase at ambient tempera tures. Accordingly, high molecular weight organic compounds are considered a primary PM 2.5 emission for the purposes

of the PM 2.5 implementation program (72 Fed. Reg. 20592 (April 25, 2007)).171 (RACM) analysis of emission control technologies from all other sources (mobile and area sources). New Jersey’s RACM analysis identified several “re asonable” measures. However, the implementation of those measures would not advance the nonattainment areas’ attainment date by one year, to April 5, 2009 (which would require demonstration of attainment by the end of 2008). The State and the Federal gov ernment are acting to implement several of the measures identified as part of this analysis already to ensure the protection of public health and, for New Jersey, to move the State further toward meeting its other PM

- related goals. New Jersey’s RACT analy sis demonstrates that reductions of direct PM 2.5 emissions and its precursors, SO 2 and NO

x , from several major stationary source categories, are reasonable. In addition to these NJDEP analyses, the State hosted its own, and participated in several regiona l, stakeholder processes designed to select viable control measures. These efforts identified the remainder of the control measures relied upon in either the attainment demonstration or the contingency plans. New Jersey’s “Reducing Air Pollution Together ” Outreach Initiative and the State’s participation in regional efforts are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

As part of this SIP revision, New Jersey is proposing, in accordance with the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14B

- 1 et seq. ) and the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act, (N.J.S.A. 26:2C

- 1 et seq.), all the beyond all the way (BOTW) measures included in the 2009 attainment photochemical modeling. In addition, New Jersey is proposing, pursuant to the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14B

- 1 et seq.) and the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C

- 1 et seq.), a number of other control measures that were not included in the 2009 BOTW modeling, but will result in emission reductions by 2009,

as well as future measures that will result in emission reductions post

- 2010. These additional measures, in addition to providing additional evidence for this proposed attainment demonstration, will also provide:

o additional public health protection in view of h ealth effects below the NAAQS, consistent with the NJDEP’s internal goal of meeting an annual PM 2.5 level of 12 μg/m 3 ;

o progress toward the new 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS;

o additional reductions, which would be relied upon should the State not attain by 2010;

o additional benefits toward meeting the State’s other PM

- related air quality goals outlined in Chapter 1 (e.g., Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Air Toxics, etc.); and,

o the regulated community with certainty and time to identify the necessary funding to

install control equipment, modify their products or usage patterns, and/or take other actions to implement pollution prevention strategies.

The State’s status on its regulatory commitments for this SIP revision is discussed in Chapter 9.

The implementation of all of these measures will serve to help ensure that New Jersey’s associated nonattainment areas meet their mandatory attainment date, and will ensure that New Jersey is not negatively impacting any other area’s ability to meet the NAAQS through

transporte d emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors (see Chapter 8). The State’s attainment demonstration is not only based on New Jersey’s actions, but on the actions of all the other states in the region. Other states’ failure to address their contribution to the New Jersey associated

multi

- state nonattainment areas’ air quality problems could result in New Jersey’s associated

multi

- state nonattainment areas’ inability to meet their attainment goal. Therefore, New Jersey172 requests that the USEPA evaluate the impact of transported emissions as it reviews the SIPs, particularly those from the upwind states. In addition to meeting the interstate transport requirements in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, the SIP revision updates the State’s progress in meeting the 199 7 PM 2.5 Infrastructure SIP requirements (see Chapter 8).

New Jersey has included, as part of this SIP revision (see Chapter 7), onroad vehicle emission budgets to ensure that the plans and programs implemented by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations co nform with the requirements of the SIP.

In conclusion, this SIP revision provides a comprehensive plan that:

- highlights the successes of the past, demonstrates attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard, and directs the State beyond that standard towa rd its other PM

- related goals;

- identifies all the control measures necessary in order for New Jersey, and its

associated multi

- state nonattainment areas, to attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the April 5, 2010 attainment date and address transport in an d out of the State;

- identifies reasonably available control technology measures for PM 2.5 ;

- outlines the State’s authority to meet Section 110 (of the Clean Air Act) requirements

for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS;

- provides a safety net of contingency measures in th e event that the State fails to attain

the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS on time; and

- sets transportation conformity budgets that allow for growth without negatively impacting the attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in the multi

- state
nonattainment areas.