PROPOSALS 

(a) 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

Air Pollution Control 

Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile 

Organic Compounds and Oxides of Nitrogen 

Proposed Amendments : N .J .A.C. 7 :27-4.1, 4.2, 10.1, 

10.2,16.1through 16.3,16.7,16.11,16.16,16.17, 

16.22, 16.27, 19.1 through 19 .5, 19.7 through 19 .10, 

19.13, 19.15, 19 .21, 21.1, and 21 .5, and 7 :27A-3.10 

Proposed New Rules: N.J..A.C. 7:27-10 .5,16 

Appendix 11, 19.12, 19.28, 19.29 and 19.30 

Proposed Repeal and New Rule: N.J.A.C. 7:27-16 .19 

Authorized By: Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner, Department of 

Environmental Protection . 

Authority : N.J.S .A. 13 :1B-3(e), 13 :1D-9, 13:1D-134 et seq . and 

26:2C-1 et seq ., in particular 26:2C-9 .2 . 

Calendar Reference: See Summary below for explanation of 

exception to calendar requirement. 

DEP Docket Number: 10-08-07/643 . 

Proposal Number: PRN 2008-260 . 

A public hearing concerning this proposal and a proposed State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, represented by this proposal, will be 

held on Friday, September 26, 2008 at 10 :00 A.M. : 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Hearing Room, 1 st Floor 

401 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625 

Directions to the hearing room may be found at the Department's 

website address at http ://www.state.nj .us/dep/where .htm. 

Submit written comments by close of business on October 3, 2fiJ08, to : 

Alice A. Previte, Esq. ' 

Attention: DEP Docket No. 10-08-07/643 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Office of Legal Affairs 

401 East State Street, Fourth Floor 

PO Box 402 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 

Written comments may also be submitted at the public hearingi it is 

requested (but not required) that anyone providing oral testimony at the 

public hearing provide a copy of any prepared text to the stenographer at 

the hearing . 

The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) requests 

that commenters submit comments on diskette or CD, as well as on 

paper. Submittals on disk or CD must not be access-restricted (locked or 

read-only) in order to facilitate use by the Department of the 

electronically submitted comments . Submittal of a diskette or CD is not a 

requirement. The Department prefers Microsoft Word 6.0 or above . 

Macintosh formats should not be used. Each comment should be 

identified by the applicable N.J .A.C . citation, with the commenter's name 

and affiliation following the comment. 

This rule proposal can be viewed or downloaded from the 

Department's web site at http ://www.state.nj .us/dep . 

The agency proposal follows : 

Summary 

As the Department has provided a 60-day comment period on this 

notice of proposal, this notice is excepted from the rulemaking calendar 

requirements pursuant to N.J .A .C . 1 :30-3 .3(a)5 . 

The Department is proposing new rules and amendments at N.J .A.C . 

7 :27-16, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic 

Compounds, and N.J .A.C . 7:27-19, Control and Prohibition of Air 

Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen . The Department is also proposing 

related amendments at N.J .A.C . 7:27-4, Control and Prohibition of 

Particles from Combustion of Fuel ; N.J.A.C . 7 :27-10, Sulfur in Solid 

Fuels ; and N.J .A.C . 7 :27A-3 .10, Air Administrative Procedures and 

Penalties . 

The proposed new rules and amendments will help New Jersey meet 

the Federal 1997 Eight-Hour. National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone by reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions and oxides of nitrogen (NO.) emissions . The proposed new 

rules and amendments will also reduce sulfur dioxide (SOZ) emissions, 

which will help the State meet the Federal 1997 annual NAAQS for 

PMZ,5 . The proposed new . rules and amendments will impact the 

following 13 source categories of emissions : sources with alternative or 

facility-specific maximum allowable NO., emission rates ; sources with 

alternative VOC emission fimits ; asphalt used for paving; asphalt 

pavement production plants;' boilers serving electric generating units; 

sources subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) for flat wood 

paneling coatings, flexible packaging printing materials, and offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress printing ; glass . manufacturing 

furnaces ; stationary combustion turbines and boilers serving electric 

generating units that operate on high electric demand days (HEDD); 

industrial/conunerciaUinstitutional (ICI) boilers and other indirect heat 

exchangers ; municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators; and VOC 

stationary storage tanks . 

Pursuant to N.J.S .A. 26:2C-8, these proposed new rules and 

amendments will become operative 60 days after adoption by the 

Commissioner . The Department anticipates that the operative date will be 

approximately May 1, 2009. 

Background , 

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is-'a written plan that describes a 

state's strategy for achieving and maintaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S .C . 

§§7401 through 7671q (CAA or Clean Air Act), requires states with areas 

that do not meet the NAAQS to develop a SIP revision outlining the steps 

the state will take to reduce air pollution . States are also required to 

develop a SIP revision for regional haze visibility improvement in certain 

national parks and wilderness areas . The proposed new rules and 

amendments are part of New Jersey's final SIP revision to reduce ozone 

and New Jersey's proposed SIP revision to reduce fine particles . The 

proposed new rules and amendments are also proposed pursuant to the 

Department's general authority to prevent, prohibit and control air 

pollution at N.J .S .A . 26:2C-8 . These proposed new rules and 

amendments would require emission reductions over the next 10 years for 

the subject source categories to improve air quality and protect public 

health . 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

identified all New Jersey counties as being nonattainment with the 

Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's phase two ozone 

implementation final rule (70 Fed. Reg. 71658, November 29, 2005), as it 

applies pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Air Act, requires New 

Jersey to provide for the implementation of Reasonably Achievable 

Control Technology (RACT). RACT is generally ;he lowest emission 

(CITE 40 N.J .R . 4390) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
-limitation that a source can meet using control technology that is 

_reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility . 

On October 29, 2007, the Department approved the final revisions to 

its -SIP to address RACT and other requirements to attain the Federal 

1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. The Department committed to adopt 

ozone rules, subject to public comment . The October 2007 final SIP 

revisions included a commitment to propose rules regulating certain 

source-specific categories with the greatest potential of reducing 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds, both 

, precursors to the formation of ozone. Some of the Department's existing 

-tules are over a decade old and do not reflect advancements in technology 

that are currently reasonably available . 

The Department is proposing most of these new rules and amendments 

to reduce VOC and N0, emissions, which are precursors to ozone. Ozone -to 

naturally in the upper regions of the atmosphere (stratosphere) and 

is critical to shielding the Earth from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet 

radiation. However, in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), where the air 

we breathe lies, ozone is a harmful air pollutant formed by complex 

_chemical reactions involving VOCs and NO, in the presence of sunlight. 

VOCs are chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that evaporate easily at 

room temperature . Sources of those VOCs that form ozone include 

vehicle and industrial exhaust, evaporation of gasoline, and a variety of 

consumer products . In addition to contributing to the formation of ozone, 

many VOCs are harmful if directly inhaled. 

NO, consists of a mixture of gases comprised mostly of nitric oxide 

(NO) and nitrogen dioxide (N02). These gases are emitted primarily from 

combustion processes, including the exhaust of motor vehicles, and the 

burning of coal, oil or natural gas for electricity and heat . Although most 

NO, is emitted as N0, it is readily converted to NOZ in the atmosphere . 

NO2 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, 

N02 provides the primary source of the oxygen atoms required for ozone 

formation . In addition to contributing to the formation of ozone, NO, is 

harmful if directly inhaled. 

The "ozone season" is the time of year when ground-level ozone is 

most likely to be fonned in significant amounts . Ground-level ozone 

forms when pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides (NO.) react in heat and sunlight . The hot, sunny days of 

summer are ideal for ozone formation. In general, the higher the 

temperature and the more direct the sunlight, the more ozone is produced. 

For regulatory purposes, the Department's Emission Statement Program 

defines "ozone season" in New Jersey as May 1 through September 30. 

This is based on the control period for the Federal NO, Budget Trading 

Program. (40 CFR 96 .2) 

In addition to reducing emissions of VOC and NO., these proposed 

rules also reduce and SOZ, which contribute to the formation of fine 

particulate matter (PMZS). PMzs is a complex mixture of small particles 

and liquid droplets, 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller, which can 

be inhaled deeply into the Iungs. PMz.5 aggravates existing heart and lung 

diseases, changes the body's defenses against inhaled materials, and 

damages lung tissue. Sources of PM2.5 include power plants and industry. 

PMZ 5 is the major cause of reduced visibility (haze) in many parts of the 

United States, including Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge in New 

Jersey. (EPA 2008 PM) The Department is in the process of further 

evaluating sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions from heavy ell boilers 

and may propose more stringent limits for these two pollutants in the 

future as part of the fine particle or regional haze SIPs . 

New Jersey has been working with other states, including the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) members, and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE VU) member states to develop strategies for 

implementing measures to reduce emissions necessary to reduce 

interstate pollution. As an OTC member state, New Jersey is proposing to 

amend its rules consistent with the recent OTC guidelines developed for 

asphalt used for paving, asphalt pavement production plants, electric 

generating units (with boilers), glass manufacturing_ furnaces, high 

electric demand day electric generating units, industrial adhesives and 

sealants, and ICI boilers . New Jersey has already proposed amendments 

to its air regulations to reduce emissions from industrial adhesives and 

sealants . (See 39 N.J .R . 4492(a).) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The Department identified additional sources of emissions through its 

internal technical analyses and the collaborative efforts of the New Jersey 

air quality workgroups. In addition to the regional measures cited above, 

New Jersey is proposing new rules and amendments relating to municipal 

solid waste incinerators and VOC stationary storage tanks. 

The Department has determined that certain technologies have 

advanced over the last 10 years, making it appropriate for the Department 

to revise the SIP to reflect modified requirements for specific sources or 

source categories, primarily for NO,: control . Also, the Department plans 

to conduct case-by-case RACT determinations for the State's approved 

alternative or facility-specific NO, emission limits and alternative VOC 

emission limits . 

The State is also submitting SIP revisions covering sources subject to 

EPA published control techniques guidelines (CTGs). 

Information regarding the above emission reduction strategies is 

available by sending a request for "Workgroup Recommendations and 

Other Potential Candidate Control Measures" to Assistant Director, Air 

Quality Permitting Element, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, 401 East State Street, PO Box 027, Trenton, New Jersey 

08625-0027 or by calling 609-777-0942. A person requesting this 

background information should state the source category of the request. 

Alternative and Facility-Specific NO, Emission Rates 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 specifies the RACT maximum allowable 

NO emission rates for various source categories . A source may deviate 

from these emission rates only if it obtains Department approval of an 

alternative maximum allowable NO, emission rate through existing 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .13 . A facility with significant NO,; emitting equipment 

for which N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 does not specify a RACT maximum 

allowable emission rate must obtain Department approval of a facilityspecific maximum allowable NO. emission rate also through existing 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13 . To obtain Department approval of a facility-specific 

NO, emission rate, the owner or operator must obtain Department 

approval of a facility-specific NO, control plan . To obtain Department 

approval of an alternative maximum allowable NO, emission rate, the 

owner or operator must submit to the Department a request for an 

alternative maximum allowable emission rate . 

There are 43 facilities in New Jersey that currently have either a 

facility-specific emission limit (in an approved facility-specific NO, 

control plan) or an alternative maximum allowable emission rate. Nine of 

these facilities will not be affected by the _propqsed_xulcs for facilityspecific maximum aliowabTe emission rates because the Department is 

pioposing specific RAC'1' emission rates for them . These include five 

facilities with municipal solid~~waste (MSW) ~incinerators and four 

facilities with-, sewage .slud~e ,incinerators. These nine facilities ill, 

_._ 

.._ ., 

in stead, be required to comply with these proposeMC I' eiriis'sion rates . 

The proposed ItACT emission rates for 14ISW incinerators can be found 

proposed _ N.J .A .C . 7:27-19,12, Municipal solid waste (IvtSW) 

incinexators . The proposed RACT emission rates for -sewage sludge 

incinerators can be found at proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .28, Sewage 

sludge incinerators . 

The Department approved each of the remaining 34 facilities under the 

existing rules on a case-by-case basis . As part of the Department's 

October 29, 2007 SIP revision to address RACT, the Department reexamined these alternative maximum allowable emission rates and 

facility-specific maximum allowable emission rates and found that many 

were approved as long ago as 1997 . Since that time, control technologies 

have advanced considerably, such that it is appropriate ~ for the 

Department to re-evaluate these alternative maximum allowable emission 

rates and facility-specific maximum allowable emission rates to 

determine if more stringent rates are justified. Of the remaining 34 

facilities, three have shut down, one plans to shut down, and four already 

comply with the existing or proposed emission limits . These nine 

facilities no longer need a facility-specific maximum allowable emission 

rate or an alternative maximum allowable emission rate . Also, as 

explained below, the Department recently approved an alternative 

maximum allowable emission rate for one facility . Therefore, the 

Department expects the proposed new rules and amendments to impact 

25 or fewer of the remaining 34 facilities . 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R . 4391) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The Department proposes to require each facility with an alternative 

maximum allowable emission rate approved before May 1, 2005 to 

submit a new request for an alternative maximum allowable emission rate 

60 days after the operative date of these amendments. As mentioned 

above, the Department approved only one facility for an alternative 

maximum allowable emission rate after May l, 2005 . The Department 

has reviewed the alternative~maximum allowable emission rate for this 

facility and found it to be appropriate . The proposed amended rule 

requires each facility with an alternative maximum allowable emission 

rate to submit a new request every 10 years, unless the facility operates in 

accordance with the RACT requirements. 

The Department proposes at N.J.A.C . 7,27-1.9 .13 to .require . each 

facility with a facility-specific NO, control plan approved before May 1, 

200 to apply for a new facility-specific NO, control plan 60 days after 

the'operative date of these amendments. The Department would not 

rsequire each of_these facilities to submit a new contro plan in 10 years ; 

roer, the Department will evaluate the plans periodicalT_y,and deterniine 

whether a new rule is appropriate . If the Depart establfshes in a 

future rulemaking a maximum allowable emissions rate for a new source 

category, any facility in that source category with a facility-specific NO 

control plan (which, necessarily, includes a facility-specific maximum 

allowable emission rate) would be required to meet that source category's 

new specified emission rate, or apply for an alternative maximum 

allowable emission rate . 

The amount of emissions reductions that the proposed amendments to 

the alternative and facility-specific maximum allowable emission rate 

rules will achieve depends on the alternative maximum allowable 

emission rate or facility-specific maximum allowable emission rate that a 

facility applies for, and that the Department approves . 

Alternative VOC Emission Limits 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 specifies the VOC RACT emission rates for 

various source categories . A source may deviate from these emission 

rates only if it submits an application for an alternate VOC control plan 

and obtains Department approval of an alternative VOC emission limit in 

accordance with N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .17 . 

The Department has re-examined case-by-case alternative VOC 

emission limits and found that many were approved as long ago as 1998. 

Since that time, control technologies have advanced considerably, such 

that it is appropriate for the Department to re-evaluate these alternative 

VOC emission limits . The Department is proposing to amend N.J .A.C. 

7:27-16 .17 to require each facility with an approved alternative VOC 

emission limit to apply for a new alternative VOC control plan within 60 

days after the operative date of the new rules and amendments . The 

proposed new rules and amendments also require each facility to submit a 

new control plan every 10 years after approval of the new alternative 

VOC emission limit. 

The amount of emissions reductions that the proposed amendments to 

the alternative VOC emission limit rules will achieve depends on the 

alternative VOC emission limit that a facility applies for, and that the 

Department approves . 

Asphalt Used for Paving 

The proposed amendments to N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .19, Application of 

cutback and emulsified asphalts, will address asphalt used to pave, seal 

and repair surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, driveways, walkways and 

airport runways . Asphalt used for paving is grouped into three` general 

categories : hot-mix, cutback, and emulsified . Hot-mix asphalt is the most 

commonly used asphalt . Hot-mix asphalt produces minimal VOC 

emissions because its organic components have high molecular weights 

and low vapor pressures . Cutback asphalt has traditionally been used as a 

tack coat between old and new layers of hot-mix asphalt, in seal 

operations, in priming new roadbeds for hot-mix applications and in coldmix applications for pavement repair. Emulsified asphalt is now used in 

most of the same applications as cutback asphalt, but is a lower VOC 

alternative to cutback asphalt . 

The Department does not currently regulate, nor is it proposing to 

regulate, hot-mix asphalt. In 1977, the EPA published a Control 

Technique Guideline (CTG for .the use of cutback asphalt that 

recommended replacing cutback asphalt binders with emulsified asphalt 

during the ozone season . In 1979, the Department adopted similar rules . 

PROPOSALS 

Also in 1979, EPA added to the CTG a specification to limit the VOC 

content in emulsified asphalt . In 1982, the Department adopted a similar 

rule . 

The proposed amendments to N.J.A .C . 7 :27-16 .19 would further reduce 

VOC emissions from cutback and emulsified asphalt paving applications 

and are reasonably available . New Jersey worked with other jurisdictions 

in the OTC to explore additional control measures for VOC from asphalt 

used for paving. The OTC developed a control measure summary (see 

OTC February 2007 Proposal) for this source category, which serves as 

guidance to OTC member states to use to develop rules . As par[ of the 

regional effort to address the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone, 

the OTC commissioned a study (see MACTEC Report February 2007) to 

quantify the emission reduction benefits from potential new controls, 

which they deemed to be reasonable . New Jersey's proposed VOC limits 

are identical to Connecticut's revised proposed VOC limits . The 

Department based its proposed rules on this OTC control measure 

summary and on the revised rule the state of Connecticut proposed on 

December 12, 2007. The proposed Connecticut rule is R.C .S .A Section 

22a-174-20(k) "Restrictions on VOC emissions from cutback and 

emulsified asphalt" available online at httn'//www.ct.Qov/dep/lib/dep/air/ 

_re_snllations/proposecLand-reports/Whal~twebfmal pdf. 

The technological and economic feasibility of the proposed content 

limits and storage requirements are based on rules and practice in New 

Jersey or other states and on EPA guidance . Emulsified asphalt that 

complies with the proposed VOC content limits is already being supplied 

to some users in New Jersey. The use of cutback and emulsified asphalt 

in New Jersey has decreased substantially since 1990. New Jersey is 

proposing the same VOC content limits that the state of Connecticut 

proposed, the first OTC state to propose limits after OTC published its 

control measure summary. Delaware has had a rule in place since 1993 

that bans the use of any cutback asphalt, except for use as a penetrating 

prime coat, and the use of emulsified asphalt that contains any VOC 

during the ozone season. The California SCAQMD has had a rule in 

place since 1985 that bans the use of cutback asphalt containing more 

than 0 .5 percent by volume organic compounds . According to the EPA, 

"States with experience in applying asphalt report that emulsions can be 

used in almost all applications where cutback has heretofore been 

employed ." (EPA Asphalt CTG, page 68.) The EPA recommends 

replacing cutback asphalt binders with emulsified asphalt during the 

ozone season . Finally, asphalt users should experience long-term (but not 

short-term) cost savings resulting from the proposed ban of noncompliant asphalt during the ozone season. See the Economic Impact 

statement below for additional explanation . ' 

The existing rule at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .19 bans the application or use of 

cutback and emulsified asphalt from April 16 through October 14, unless 

the asphalt is used solely as a penetrating prime coat ; the emulsified 

asphalt contains no greater than eight percent VOC by volume and is 

used for mixed-in-place construction; the material is a cold-mix, stockpile 

material used for pavement repair ; or the user can demonstrate that there 

are no emissions of VOCs from the asphalt under conditions of normal 

use . Under the proposed new rules and amendments, the Department will 

no longer allow the use of cutback or emulsified asphalt from April 16 

through October 14, unless the cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt 

contains no greater than 0.1 percent VOC by weight ; or the cutback 

asphalt or emulsified asphalt produces no greater than 6 .0 milliliter of oil 

distillate in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Method D244 or American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T 59. 

The existing rule does not regulate storage of cutback and emulsified 

asphalt. Since improper storage of these asphalts contributes VOC 

emissions to the atmosphere, the proposed rule requires a person to store 

non-compliant cutback and emulsified asphalt from April 16 through 

October 14 in sealed containers . The Department's intention is to allow a 

person who uses non-compliant cutback or emulsified asphalt during the 

unregulated period, October 15 through April 15, to store it during the 

regulated period, April 16 through October 14, and then to continue using 

it during the next unregulated period. 

The Department estimates that implementing the proposed measures 

will achieve VOC emission reductions in 2009 of 3 .6 tons per day (tpd) 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4392) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

during the ozone season (May 1 through Sept 30) and 420 tons per year 

(tpy), as a result of reductions from April 16 through October 14 . 

Asohalt Pavement Production Plants 

New Jersey has 70 asphalt production dryers at 51 asphalt pavement 

production plants. These facilities would potentially be regulated by the 

proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .9 that would require NO 

emission reductions from most of these plants . The OTC recommended a 

35 percent emission reduction from these plants by compliance with the 

OTC's recommended NO, emission limits based on fuel type and dryer 

type, or by installing low NO, burners/implementing best management 

practices (BMP). 

The OTC's recommended NO, emission limits are based on EPA's 

AP-42 emission factors for different types of source operations that emit 

air contaminants . (See AP-42 Asphalt .) An emissions factor is a 

representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant 

released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of 

that pollutant . For example, the emissions factor of a drum mix asphalt 

pavement production plant combusting natural gas is 0.026 pounds of 

NO,; emitted per ton hot mix asphalt produced. 

Since the Department recognizes that different plants will need 

different emission reduction measures to achieve the proposed emission 

limits, the Department intends to give plants the flexibility to choose the 

type of emission reduction measure. Therefore, the Department is not 

proposing the installation of a specific technology . These reductions 

could be achieved by low NO, burners, fluid gas recirculation, water 

injection, .best management practices and/or other NO, reduction 

measures . None of the New Jersey plants have a low NO, burner. 

According to the asphalt dryer manufacturers, who supply the majority of 

the dryers to New Jersey's plants, these control systems have been 

installed and implemented in asphalt production plants in other states . 

These asphalt production plants are comparable in size and operation to 

those in New Jersey . The Department is also proposing to require 

compliance with BMPs which are already part of each New Jersey plant's 

preconstruction permit. 

The Department is proposing emission limits that would result in NO. 

emission reductions of at least 35 percent by implementing requirements 

similar to those recommended by the OTC. (See OTC February 2007 

Proposal, p 57.) The proposed new emission limits are based on the 

Department's analysis of actual New Jersey stack test data and additional 

production information provided by the asphalt pavement production 

industry. The Department compiled actual stack test data for 29 asphalt 

production dryers from 22 asphalt pavement production plants .between 

2001 and 2006, and reviewed 119 test results (38 test events) . The 

Department analyzed this data to determine what NO, emission limits 

would result in an overall actual NO. reduction-of at least 35 percent. 

Depending on fuel type, the Department's proposed limits are 37 

percent to 62 percent more stringent than the existing New Jersey limit at 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .9(a) of 200 parts per million dry volume (ppmvd) at 

seven percent oxygen (02) for all plants regardless of fuel type or dryer 

type . The Department proposes limits that are 62 percent more stringent 

for natural gas, 50 percent more stringent for No. 2 fuel oil and 37 

percent more stringent for No. 4 fuel oil or heavier fuel oils/onspecification used oil . Since the Department's analysis of actual stack test 

data indicated no emission difference between drum or batch dryer type, 

but did indicate a difference by fuel type, the Department propose$ limits 

based on fuel type, but not dryer type . 

Table 1 below shows that New Jersey's proposed limits are similar to 

the OTC's recommended limits based on fuel type and dryer type (that is, 

batch and/or drum). 

TABLE 1 

Comparison of New Jersey Proposed and OTC Recommended 

NO, Emission Limits at Asphalt Pavement Production Plants 

(Pounds NO, Emissions per Ton of Pavement Asphalt Produced) 

NJ Proposed Limits OTC Recommended Limits 

Natural Gas: 75 ppmvd at seven Natural Gas (Batch and Drum): 

percent oxygen (about 0 .025 0 .020 pounds/ton 

pounds/ton) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

No. 2 Fuel Oil : 100 ppmvd at seven Fuel Oil/Waste Oil (Batch) : 0 .090 

percent oxygen (about 0 .04 pounds/ton 

pounds/ton) 

No. 4 Fuel Oil or Heavier Fuel Fuel Oil/Waste Oil (Drum): 0 .040 

Oils/On-Specification Used Oil : pounds/ton 

125 ppmvd at seven percent 

oxygen (about 0.05 pounds/ton) 

AND OR 

Best Management Practices Low NOx Burners/Best 

Management Practices 

The Department is proposing emission limits in parts per million dry 

volume (ppmvd) at seven percent oxygen in order to be consistent with 

the Department's current practice of requiring emissions limits in ppmvd 

at seven percent oxygen for this industry, and also for ease of testing and 

enforcement . The Department is proposing BMPs to be implemented for 

all asphalt pavement production plants. The Department is also proposing 

recordkeeping requirements . Finally, the Department proposes that the 

new limits be phased in from 2009 to 2012. The larger dryers, being 

higher NO, emitters, will be phased in first in 2009 and 2010, followed 

by the middle-sized dryers in 2010 and 2011, and then the smaller dryers 

in 2011 and 2012. For each size dryer, an extra year will be allowed 

depending on whether or not compliance is achieved with a physical 

modification . 

The Department estimates emission reductions of up to 0.21 tpd during 

the 2009 ozone season, up to 0.42 tpd during the 2010 ozone season, 

progressing up to 0 .64 tpd during the 2011 ozone season based on actual 

stack test and production data. The Department estimates the tons per 

year emission reductions as a result of the proposed rules will be up to 43 

tons in 2009, up to 86 tons in 2010, and up to 132 tons in 2011 . 

Boilers Serving Electric Generatin Units 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 7 :27-4 .2 will address the 

particle emissions from coal-fired boilers, including those serving electric 

generating units (EGU). The proposed amendments to N.J.A.C . 7 :27-10 .2 

will address the sulfur dioxide emissions from solid fuel burning sources, 

including boilers serving EGU. The proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 

7 :27-19 .4 will address" the oxides of nitrogen emissions from boilers 

serving electric generating units . 

The EGUs produce electricity by turning a generator. Some generators 

are turned by steam produced from a boiler . Other generators are turned 

by combustion gasses produced by a turbine. Boilers and turbines 

typically use coal, oil, or gas as fuel . Some EGUs operate only on days on 

which there is a very high demand for electricity, such as during hot 

summer days when there is an increased use of air conditioners . For the 

purpose of these rules, High Electric Demand Days (HEDD) units are 

EGUs that are capable of generating .15 Megawatts (MW) or more and 

have been operated less than or equal to an average of 50 percent of the 

time during the immediately preceding three ozone seasons . The 

proposed rules do not address nuclear powered EGUs. 

In New Jersey there are 10 coal-fired boilers serving EGUs. These 

coal-fired boilers are not HEDD units . Coal-fired boilers are the highest 

emitting sources of particles, sulfur dioxide (S02) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NO,;) in New Jersey. These 10 boilers and their locations are: 

B.L. England Generating Station unit 1 - Upper Township, Cape May 

County, , 

B.L. England Generating Station unit 2 - Upper Township, Cape May 

County, 

Carney's Point Generating Station unit 1 - Carney's Point, Salem 

County, 

Carney's Point Generating Station unit 2 - Carney's Point, Salem 

County, 

Deepwater Generating Station unit 6/8 - Pennsville, Salem County, 

Hudson Generating Station unit 2 - Jersey City, Hudson County, 

Logan Generating Plant - Logan Township, Gloucester County, 

Mercer Generating Station unit 1 - Hamilton Township, Mercer 

County, 

Mercer Generating Station unit 2 - Hamilton Township, Mercer 

County, and 

Vineland Municipal Electric Utility unit 10 - City of Vineland, 

Cumberland County 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4393) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-4 .2, 10, and 19 .4 would 

implement a multi-pollutant control strategy to reduce allowable particle, 

S02, and N0, emissions, respectively, from all New Jersey coal-fired 

boilers . The Department proposes to lower the maximum allowable 

emission rates of NO, from coal-fired boilers to help the State reach the 

Federal NAAQS for ozone. The Department proposes to lower the 

maximum allowable emission rates of NO,, particles and SOZ from coalfired boilers to help the State reach the Federal NAAQS for PMZ 5 and to 

reduce regional haze . More stringent maximum allowable emission rates 

will cause non-compliant facilities to achieve compliance by installing 

reasonably available control technology. The proposed amendments to 

N.J .A.C. 7 :27-4 .2, 10, and 19.4 set forth a December 15, 2012 

compliance date to provide reasonable time to install the necessary 

pollution control equipment and to be consistent with the compliance 

deadline for the existing multi-pollutant provisions of the mercury rule 

for coal-fired boilers at N.J .A .C . 7:27-27 .7(d) . 

The proposed new rules and amendments are generally consistent with 

the May 2, 2007 Amendment to Consent Decree in United States of 

America, State of New Jersey v. PSEG Fossil LLC, Civ. No. 02-CV-340 

(United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark 

Division)" (ACD), regarding PSEG's Hudson and Mercer generating 

stations, and the January 24, 2006 Administrative Consent Order "In the 

Matter of Atlantic City Electric Company, Conectiv, and Pepco Holdings, 

Inc, 800 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801" (ACO) the 

Department entered into for the B.L. England generating station. The 

ACD and ACO required these facilities to comply with more stringent 

requirements than the existing requirements or shut down. Where the 

ACD or ACO is more stringent than the proposed rules, the ACD or ACO 

would govern the respective parties named in the ACD or ACO. The 

ACD and ACO are negotiated documents, which established maximum 

allowable emission rates for NO., particles and SOZ based on violation of 

New Source Review permit rules . 

The ACD and ACO affect five of the 10 coal-fired boilers . Three 

additional coal-fired boilers, one Logan unit and two Carney's Point 

units, were installed in the 1990s and were required to install state of the 

art controls at that time. The relatively small coal-fired boiler at Vineland 

Municipal Electric Utility is expected to shut down between 2008 and 

2013 . Only one coal-fired boiler, at Conectiv's Deepwater plant, is 

without reasonably available control technology in place and without an 

enforceable agreement to install such technology. The Department has 

determined that the technology installed or required to be installed by the 

ACD, the ACO, or the operating permits for the three coal-fired boilers 

that were installed in the 1990s, is also reasonably available for use on 

Conectiv's Deepwater coal-fired boiler. 

The proposed rules would cause Conectiv to install reasonably 

available control technology at its Deepwater coal-fired boiler and 

incorporate standards that are consistent with the updated air pollution 

controls that have already been required at other New Jersey coal-fired 

boilers . The fact that these standards have already been used extensively 

at facilities in New Jersey underscores the fact that these technologies are 

reasonably available . Promulgating maximum allowable emission rates in 

rules for all existing coal-fired boilers serving EGUs meets the 

requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and communicates to other 

states the emission rates-that New Jersey considers reasonable for 

existing EGUs with respect to ozone nonattainment, PMz.s nonattainment, 

and control of regional haze . ` 

To reduce NO,; emissions the Department proposes a more stringent 

maximum allowable NO, emission rate . While the proposed rules do not 

mandate the installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) if 

another technology can be used to attain the proposed maximum 

allowable N0, emission rate, SCR is one technology that is clearly 

reasonably available given its extensive use in New Jersey and elsewhere . 

Five of the 10 coal-fired boilers in New Jersey have already installed 

SCR and have achieved compliance with the proposed maximum 

allowable N0, emission rates . SCR was installed on the one Logan and 

two Carney's Point coal-fired boilers in the 1990s and on the two Mercer 

coal-fired boilers in 2005. The Hudson coal-fired boiler is required under 

the ACD (discussed above) to install SCR by December 31, 2010. Under 

the ACO (discussed above), B.L . England unit 1 is required to install NO, 

emission controls by December 15, 2012 and B .L . England unit 2 is 

PROPOSALS 

required to install NO, emission controls by May 1, 2010. The Deepwater 

coal-fired boiler can achieve the proposed maximum allowable NO,; 

emission rate with SCR. Operation of an SCR system will typically result 

in a 90 percent or greater reduction in NO,; emissions. If an SCR system 

is installed on the Deepwater Unit, and the unit achieves a 90 percent 

N0, emission reduction, the Department estimates, based on 2002 

emission statement data projected to 2009, an annual decrease in NO,; 

emissions from the Deepwater Unit of over 750 tons starting December 

15, 2012. 

To reduce S0Z emissions the Department proposes a more stringent 

maximum allowable SOZ emission rate . While the proposed rules do not 

mandate the installation of a scrubber if another technology can be used 

to attain the proposed maximum allowable SOz emission rate, both 

wet/dry scrubbers and wet scrubbers are demonstrated options that are 

clearly reasonably available given their use in New Jersey and elsewhere . 

Three of the 10 coal-fired boilers in New Jersey have already installed a 

scrubber and have achieved compliance with the proposed maximum 

allowable S02 emission rates . A wet/dry scrubber was installed on the 

Logan and Camey's Point coal-fired boilers in the 1990s and a wet 

scrubber was installed on the B.L. England unit 2 coal-fired boiler in 

1994 . The Carney's Point unit 2 coal-fired boiler will require physical or 

operational modifications to achieve compliance with the proposed 

maximum allowable SO2 emission rates . The ACD requires PSEG to 

install a wet/dry scrubber on the two Mercer coal-fired boilers by 

December 31, 2008, and Hudson coal-fired boiler by December 31, 2010. 

The ACO requires B.L . England unit I to install SOz emission controls 

by December 15, 2012. The Deepwater coal-fired boiler can achieve the 

proposed maximum allowable SOz emission rates by installing a spray 

dryer scrubber (also known as a wet/dry scrubber) or a wet scrubber. 

Since the Deepwater coal-fired boiler already has a baghouse installed, 

the Department expects Conectiv to install a wet/dry scrubber . Operation 

of a wet/dry scrubber with a baghouse will typically result in a 95 percent 

or greater reduction in SOZ emissions . If a wet/dry scrubber is installed on 

the Deepwater Unit, and the unit achieves a 95 percent SOZ emission 

reduction, the Department estimates, based on 2002 emission statement 

data projected to 2009, an annual decrease in SOZ emissions from the 

Deepwater Unit of over 2,000 tons starting December 15, 2012. 

Similarly, the Department estimates that increased control of Carney's 

Point unit 2 will further reduce annual S02 emissions by over 200 tons 

starting December 15, 2012. 

The Department proposes compliance with two maximum allowable 

S0z emission rates : a daily rate of 0 .250 pounds/MMBtu, and a 30-

calendar-day rolling average rate of 0 .150 pounds/MMBtu. The 

Department proposes short term (24-hour) and long term (30-calendarday) emission rates because there are both acute and chronic health 

effects of SOZ as reflected in the ~short .~and long term NAAQs. The 

proposed 0 .150 pounds/MMBtu, based on a 30 calendar day average, 

emission rate for SOZ is also consistent with the multi-pollutant 

provisions of the mercury rule for coal-fired boilers at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

27.7(d)2 . 

The Department proposes a more stringent maximum allowable PM 

emission rates for coal-fired boilers serving an EGU. Although the 

proposed rules do not mandate the installation of a baghouse if another 

technology can be used to attain the proposed maximum allowable PM 

emission rates, a baghouse is one technology that is clearly reasonably 

available given its use in New Jersey and elsewhere . All coal-fired boilers 

in New Jersey, except Hudson unit 2 and Vineland Municipal Electric 

Utility unit 10, are already in compliance with the proposed maximum 

allowable PM emission rate, with their existing particle control devices . 

Hudson is already required to install new particle control by December 

31, 2010 and Vineland Municipal Electric Utility will be shutting down. 

The Department proposes to codify the maximum allowable particle 

emission rates in the ACD and the ACO discussed above so that these 

rates would apply to any coal-fired boiler serving an EGU. The proposed 

0 .0150 pounds/MMBtu maximum allowable particle emission rate has 

been demonstrated to be technically feasible, inasmuch as the parties to 

the ACD, discussed above, are bound by and complying with this 

proposed rate . This rate is reasonable for new or modified particle control 

devices because it is easily achievable by modern baghouse technology . 

The 0.0300 pounds/MMBtu maximum allowable particle emission rate is 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4394) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

proposed for existing units that already meet this rate, to avoid the 

replacement of the existing particulate control if only 50 percent 

improvement would be achieved . This rate would apply to the Deepwater 

and B .L . England units . This rate is also consistent with the rate in the 

multi-pollutant provisions of the mercury rule for coal-fired boilers at 

existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-27 .7(d) . 

The proposed amendments would ensure that all operating coal-fired 

boilers in New Jersey have modern air pollution control for NO 

particles, and SOz by 2013 . The Department estimates that implementing 

these measures will, by 2013, reduce NO, emissions by 2.16 tpd during 

the ozone season and 788 tons per year, and reduce SO2 emissions by 

7 .04 tpd during the ozone season and 2,571 tons per year. 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

The Clean Air Act, Section 182(b)(2) (42 U.S .C . §7511(b)(2)), 

requires states, such as New Jersey, that have nonattainment areas to 

revise their SIPs to include reasonably available control technology for 

sources of VOC emissions covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area's 

date of attainment. In September 2006, the EPA issued CTG documents 

for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing (EPA 453/R-06-

002), flexible package printing (EPA 453/R-06-003), and flat wood 

paneling coatings (EPA 453/R-06-004) . (See http :www.epa .gov/ 

ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg=actn . 

States can use the recommendations in each CTG document to make 

their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOC for the 

listed sources . The proposed rules are equivalent to the recommendations 

in EPA's CTG documents. The recommendations in EPA's CTG 

documents are EPA's recommendations for controls that are RACT. 

CTG document for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing 

The proposed amendments to~N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7 will address the 

VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing . 

Lithography uses the planographic method, where the image and nonprinting areas are essentially on the same plane of the surface of the metal 

plate, and the image and non-printing areas are separated and maintained 

chemically . Printing is from a plane or flat surface, one that is neither 

raised nor depressed. 

Letterpress is printed by the relief method, which uses type directly . 

Printing is done from cast metal type or plates on which the image or 

printing areas is raised above the non-printing areas . Ink rollers touch 

only the surface of the raised areas . The surrounding (non-printing) areas 

are lower and do not receive ink. The inked image is transferred directly 

to the paper. 

The CTG document for offset lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing lists recommended control options . The Department is proposing 

the CTG document's recommendations at new N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .7(r) 

through (t) and that, except for more stringent emission controls, they be 

achieved on and after the operative date of these amendments . Since 

achieving more resource intensive emission controls involves modifying 

the equipment, the Department proposes an extra year (May 1, 2010) to 

comply. These proposed new requirements include emission or 

concentration limits from dryers, content and application standards for 

cleaning materials and fountain solutions, and best management 

practices. Fountain solutions are solutions used in lithographic printing 

operations that renders the non-image areas unreceptive to ink. } 

The Department estimates that implementing these measures will 

achieve VOC emission reductions in 2009 of 0.43 tpd during the ozone 

season, 104 .6 tons in 2009 (May 1 through December 31) and 157 tpy in 

subsequent years (January 1 through December 31) . Implementing best 

management practices will result in additional emission reductions . 

CTG document for flexible package printin~ 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7 will addrpss the 

VOC emissions from flexible package printing. Flexible packaging refers 

to any package, or part of a package, where the shape can be readily 

changed. Flexible packaging includes, but is not limited to, bags, 

pouches, labels, liners, and wraps utilizing paper, plastic, film, aluminum 

foil, metalized or coated paper or film, or any combination of these 

materials . Flexible package printing facilities use rotogravure printing 

and flexographic printing. Rotogravure printing is a printing process in 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROI EC HON 

which an image (type and art) is etched or engraved below the surface of 

a plate or cylinder . In flexographic printing, the image is raised above the 

printing plate, and the image carrier is made of rubber or other 

elastomeric materials . 

The Department's proposed requirements are similar to the CTG 

document's recommendations. The Department is proposing that printing 

operations installed or modified on or after the operative date of these 

amendments meet either of the following VOC content standards : 0.8 

pounds VOC per pound of solids applied; or 0.16 pound VOC per pound 

of material applied . The Department proposes that in lieu of these content 

standards, a printing operation that is newly constructed or altered on or 

after the operative date of these amendments and that plans to control 

emissions with a thermal oxidizer, a carbon adsorption unit, or some 

other device, would have the option of complying with more resource 

intensive emission standards by May 1, 2010. VOC standards for existing 

printing operations remain unchanged. The Department also proposes the 

CTG document's recommendations for best management/work place 

practices for existing and new printing operations . The Department is 

proposing these requirements at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(f) Table 7D, (h) and 

(t) . 

The Department estimates that implementing these measures will 

achieve VOC emission reductions in 2009 of 0 .08 tpd during the ozone 

season, 19 tons in 2009 (May 1 through December 31) and 35.3 tpy in 

subsequent years (January 1 through December 3 1) . Implementing BMP 

will result in additional emission reductions . 

CTG document for flat wood paneling coatings 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .7 will address the 

VOC emissions from flatwood paneling coatings . The Department 

proposes the CTG document's maximum allowable VOC content per 

volume of coating (minus water) standard of 2.1 pounds per gallon (0 .25 

kilograms/liter) for printed interior panels made of hardwood, plywood, 

or thin particleboard; natural finish hardwood plywood; hardwood panels ; 

exterior siding ; and tileboards. The proposed content standard is more 

stringent than the Department's existing content standard : The 

Department proposes two new subcategories to regulate that are included 

in the CTG document: exterior siding and tileboards . The proposed rule 

includes the CTG document's recommendations for best 

management/work place practices . The Department is proposing these 

requirements at N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .7(f) Table 713 and (t) . 

The Department does not anticipate emission reductions in 2009 as a 

result of these proposed amendments, because the State has no facility 

with this source operation . 

Glass Manufacturing Furnaces 

The Department is proposing amendments to N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .10 to 

lower NO, emissions from glass manufacturing furnaces . There are seven 

plants in New Jersey, with a total of 25 furnaces that produce container 

glass, pressed glass, blown glass, and fiberglass . Nine of these furnaces 

are electric . Five use oxyfrring, in which nearly pure oxygen is used for 

combustion instead of ambient air . Ambient air contains a significant 

amount of nitrogen. By using nearly pure oxygen, the oxyfiring process 

reduces the presence of nitrogen, which reduces NO, emissions . These 14 

furnaces already comply with the proposed NO, limits . Two of the 

remaining 11 furnaces are temporarily inactive . The proposed rules 

would require the remaining nine furnaces to implement additional 

emission control measures to comply with the proposed emission limit . 

Compliance with the proposed emission limit may be achieved in a 

number of ways, including combustion modifications (low NO, burners, 

oxyfiring, oxygen-enriched air staging), process modifications (fuel 

switching, batch preheat, electric boost), and post-combustion 

modifications (fuel rebum, selective non-catalytic reduction, selective 

catalytic reduction) . 

Oxyfiring is demonstrated technology and has penetrated into all 

segments of the glass industry . (See MACTEC Report February 2007, 

page C-18) . The Department expects that most of the remaining nine 

glass manufacturing furnaces in the State will install oxyfiring. The 

Department attempts to make compliance with the proposed rules 

economically feasible by requiring compliance at rebricking, by expected 

savings in annual emission fees due to reduced emissions, and by 

expected savings in reduced fuel costs if oxyfiring is used. 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4395) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The existing rule established NO, emission limits for glass 

manufacturing furnaces producing commercial container glass, specialty 

container glass and borosilicate recipe glass, each of which is a category 

of container glass . The Department proposes, for all three categories, the 

OTC's recommended more stringent container glass emission limit of 4.0 

pounds NO,; per ton of glass_ removed. The OTC based its recommended 

emission rates on San Joaquin (California) Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4354, which has been in place since 

September 14, 1994. (See MACTEC Report February 2007, page C-18.) 

The Department is proposing a limit, similar to OTC's reconunended 

emission limit, of 9.2 pounds NO./ton glass removed for flat glass 

OTC Proposal Rolling 30- NJ Proposed Rule (pounds 

day avg (pounds NO./ton glass 

N0./ton glass pulled) removed 

4 .0 -

- 4.0 

TABLE 2 

NO,; Emission Limit Comparison of 

NJ Existing Rule, OTC Recommendations, and NJ Proposed Rule 

Glass Furnace NJ Existing Rule (pounds 

NO./ton glass 

removed 

Container Glass - 

Commercial Container 5 .5 

Glass 

Specialty Container Glass 11 

Borosilicate Recipe Glass 30 percent reduction from 

Fiberglass 

Flat Glass 

1994 baseline 

OTC Proposal Block 24 hr 

avg (pounds NO./ton 

glass pulled) 

4.0 

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Units 

The proposed new rule at N.J .A.C . 7:27-19.29 will address the NO, 

emissions from high electric demand day (HEDD) units, also called 

HEDD electric generating units . For the purpose of this rule, HEDD units 

are electric generating units that are capable of generating 15 MW or 

more and are operated less than or equal to an average of 50 percent of 

the time during the previous three ozone seasons. The Department 

manufacturing furnaces in the event that such a furnace is constructed in New 

Jersey. The Department is proposing a limit, similar to OTC's recommended 

emission limit, of 4.0 pounds NO,;/ton glass removed for fiberglass 

manufacturing furnaces in the event that New Jersey's only such plant 

converts from electric furnaces to fossil fuel-fired finnaces . The Department's 

existing and proposed emission limits and the OTC's recommended emission 

limits are summarized in Table 2 below. The Department is also proposing 

compliance demonstration rules at N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .15 based on a continuous 

emissions monitoring system if one is installed, or stack tests if a continuous 

emissions monitoring system is not installed. 

4.0 

9.2 

PROPOSALS 

4.0 

4.0 

4 .0 4.0 

7 .0 9 .2 

proposes to tighten the emission standards for HEDD units because these 

units emit significant quantities of NO, on high electric demand days, 

which are typically high temperature and high ozone days during the 

summer. The current New Jersey HEDD units, based on data from 2004 

through 2006, consist of eight boilers and approximately 160 stationary 

combustion turbines, identified in Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3 

Current New Jersey HEDD Units (based on 2004 - 2006 data) 

Where: CC - Combined Cycle ; DLN - Dry Low NOx Burners ; FO - Fuel Oil ; GS - Generating Station ; NG - Natural Gas; OFA - Over Fire Air; SC - Simple 

Cycle ; SCR- Selective Catalytic Reduction System ; SNCR - Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction System ; WI - Water Injection 

Owner or Operator Facility Emission Unit 

Conectiv Caril's Corner , U1 

Carll's Corner U2 

Cedar Station Ul 

Cedar Station U2 

Cedar Station U3 

Cumberland GS U1 

Deepwater U 1 

Mickleton GS U1 

Middle Street GS Ul 

Middle Street GS U2 

Middle Street GS U3 

Missouri GS U2 

Missouri GS U3 

Missouri GS U4 

Sherman Ave. GS U1 

PSEG Bergen GS U2 

Burlington GS U4 

Burlington GS U5 

Burlington GS U7 

Edison GS U1 

Edison GS U2 

Edison GS U3 

Essex GS Ul 

Essex GS U2 

Essex GS U3 

Essex GS U4 

Hudson U1 

Linden GS U4 

Kearny GS U4 

Keamy GS U5 

Kearnv GS U6 

Equipment 

(2) Turbines - SC 

(2) Turbines - SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Boiler (cyclone) 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(2) Turbines - SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

~ (1) Turbine- SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(1) Boiler (cyclone) 

(4) Turbines- SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(8) Turbines- SC 

Fuel Current NO,; Control 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO . WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 6F0/NG NONE 

NG WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO Wl 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

NG NONE 

No. 2 FO NONE 

No. 2 FO NONE 

No. 2 FO NONE 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG Wl 

No. 2F0/NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2F0/NG NONE 

No. 2F0/NG NONE 

No. 2 FO / NG NONE 

No. 6 FO WI 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN, WI 

NG NONE 

No. 2F0/NG NONE 

No. 2F0/NG NONE 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4396) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

Mercer GS U5 

National Park GS Ul 

Salem GS U3 

Sewaren GS Ul 

Sewaren GS U2 

Sewaren GS U3 

Sewaren GS U4 

Sewaren GS U7 

Reliant Gilbert GS U2210 

Gilbert GS U2211 

Gilbert GS U2212 

Gilbert GS U2213 

Gilbert GS U2215 

Gilbert GS U2216 

Gilbert GS U2217 

Gilbert GS U2218 

Gilbert GS U2323 

Glen Gardner GS U3302 

Glen Gardner GS U3303 

Glen Gardner GS U3304 

Glen Gardner GS U3305 

Glen Gardner GS U3306 

Glen Gardner GS U3307 

Glen Gardner GS U3308 

Glen Gardner GS U3309 

Sayreville GS U4318 

Sayreville GS U4319 

Sayreville GS U4320 

Sayreville GS U4321 

Werner GS U5305 

Werner GS U5306 

Werner GS U5307 

Wemer GS U5308 

Other Bayonne Plant Holding, LLC UI 

Bayonne Plant Holding, LLC U2 

Bayonne Plant Holding, LLC U3 

B.L. England U3 

' Forked River U1302 

Forked River U1303 

Lakewood Cogeneration U4 

Ocean Peaking Power, LP U11 

VMEU Down Station U9 

VMEU - West Station Ul 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

~(2) Turbines - SC 

(1) Boiler (tangential) 

(1) Boiler (tangential) 

(1) Boiler (tangential) 

(1) Boiler (tangential) 

(8) Turbines - SC 

(1) Turbine-CC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine-SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine-SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(i) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine - SC 

(1) Turbine- SC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(1) Boiler (tangential) 

(1) Turbine-CC 

(1) Turbine - CC 

(2) Turbines - CC 

(3) Turbines - CC 

(1) Boiler (face) 

(1) Turbine- SC 

The Department proposes both short-term and long-term emission 

control strategies, intended to reduce emissions during high electric 

demand days. 

The purpose of the short-term strategy, at proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

19 .29, is to achieve NO, emission reductions from electric generating 

companies starting in 2009, which is the attainment date for the current 

Federal eight-hour ozone standard, while allowing all affected electric 

generating companies time to develop and implement the long term 

strategy proposed at N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .30, to achieve the more stringent 

emission performance standards at proposed amended N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .4 

and 19 .5 . The short-term strategy is based on the "Memorandum of 

Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission 

Concerning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day Emi;ssion 

Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implemenfation 

Planning" (MOU), signed on March 2, 2007. This MOU requires New 

Jersey to obtain 19 .8 tpd of NO, emission reductions on high electric 

demand days . This reduction is based on an analysis of the NO. 

emissions from HEDD units that were operating in the OTC states on 

July 26, 2005. 

The short-term strategy, which uses the 2009 HEDD Emission 

Reduction Compliance Demonstration Protocol (2009 Protocol), will 

affect those owners or operators in the State that fall under the 

applicability criteria of new proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(a) . Those 

owners or operators were responsible for the majority of high electric 

demand day emissions on July 26, 2005, which is the date chosen as 

representative of a high electricity demand day, for purposes of the 

proposed rules . Each of these companies will be assigned a portion of the 

19 .8 tpd NO,; emission reduction, based on the level of NO. emission 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

No. 2F0 NONE 

No. 2 FO NONE 

No. 2 FO NONE 

No. 6F0/NG NONE 

No. 6F0/NG NONE 

No. 6F0/NG NONE 

No. 6 FO / NG NONE 

No. 2 FO NONE 

No. 2F0/NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN, WI 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN, WI 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN, WI 

No. 2 FO / NG DLN, Wl 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

No. 2 FO WI 

Kerosene / NG SCR / WI 

Kerosene / NG SCR / WI 

Kerosene / NG SCR / WI 

No. 6 FO SNCR 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG WI 

No. 2 FO / NG SCR ! WI 

NG DLN 

No. 6 FO LNB / OFA 

No. 2 FO WI 

control installed on their HEDD units and the amount of NO, that the 

owner or operator's HEDD units emitted on July 26, 2005. The emission 

reduction that will be required of each owner or operator on any given 

high electric demand day will be determined by Equation 1 as shown 

below. The required emission reduction will be based on the NO,; 

emissions from all of a particular owner or operator's HEDD units that 

are operated on that particular high electric demand day without 

considering any reductions that resulted from the emission reduction 

measures (Baseline Emission) ; the tons of NO, emitted by that owner or 

operator's HEDD units on July 26, 2005; and that owner or operator's 

share of the required 19.8 tpd. 

The equation calculates a ratio of the Baseline Emission to the 

Emission Factor . This ratio is then multiplied by the Reduction Factor. 

This equation will require each owner or operator to achieve their full 

share of the 19 .8 tpd of NO, emission reductions on any high electric 

demand day on which that owner or operator's HEDD unit NO, 

emissions (without emission reduction measures) is equal to their NO, 

emissions on July 26, 2005 . On high electric demand days when the NO, 

ernissions are lower, the owner or operator would be responsible for a 

proportionately smaller reduction and on high electric demand days when 

the NOX emissions are higher the owner or operator would be responsible 

for a proportionately higher reduction . Thus, the actual reduction 

responsibility on any given high electric demand day is tied to emissions 

from HEDD units running on that day, rather than the specific units that 

ran on July 26, 2005, or all HEDD units owned or operated. 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4397) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Equation l : 

Emission Reduction = (Baseline Emission = Emission Factor) x Reduction 

Factor 

The proposed rules require each owner or operator of the highest 

emitting HEDD units on July 26, 2005 to reduce NO, emissions on each 

high electric demand day during the interim period, which is the 

operative date of these amendments through September 30, 2014. A 

phased compliance plan may be obtained, pursuant to N.J.A.C . 7:27-

19.22, which would give the owner or operator up to 12 months to 

achieve compliance, if emission reduction measures can not be 

implemented by the operative date of these amendments . The owners or 

operators may obtain these NO,; emission reductions from any source that 

meets the requirements at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(d) . The proposed rules 

suggest some possible emission reduction strategies, including 

installation of a control apparatus on certain existing EGUs, reducing the 

usage of certain HEDD units, combusting a lower emitting fuel when it 

would be economically preferred to combust a higher emitting fuel, 

implementing an energy efficiency plan in New Jersey, implementing a 

demand response plan in New Jersey, and implementing a renewable 

energy measure in New Jersey. The proposed rules allow the owner or 

operator the flexibility to obtain the NO, emission reductions from any 

source that the owner or operator chooses . The proposed rules do not 

require the reductions to come from any specific source, nor do they 

require any specific source to meet a given emission limit . The proposed 

rules require each owner or operator that meets the criteria at proposed 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(a) to submit a proposed 2009 Protocol to the 

Department within 30 calendar days after the operative date of these new 

rules and amendments. The proposed 2009 Protocol will describe how the 

owner or operator is achieving the required NO. emission reductions . 

The proposed 2009. Protocol must be approved by the Department . 

Each emission reduction measure used to obtain the required emission 

reductions shall be included in the 2009 Protocol . The owner or operator 

may modify an approved 2009 Protocol at any time by submitting a 

revised 2009 Protocol to the Department for approval . However, all 

measures in an approved 2009 Protocol shall be implemented on each 

HEDD until a revised 2009 Protocol is approved . The owner or operator 

may implement any measures that meet the requirements at N.J.A.C . _ 

7 :27-19 .29(d), provided all necessary permits have been obtained, a 

revised 2009 Protocol is submitted to the Department within 30 days of 

implementing the measures, and compliance with all other provisions of 

this rule are maintained . The proposed rule requires each owner or 

operator to submit an annual report, for calendar years 2009 through 

2014, to the Department by January 30th of the following year . 

The Department proposes a long-term emission control strategy for 

HEDD boilers at proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .4, Boilers serving electric 

generating units, and for HEDD combustion turbines at proposed 

N.J.A .C . 7 :27-19 .5, Stationary combustion turbines, that consists of 

performance standards that will go into effect on May 1, 2015 . 

For HEDD boilers, proposed N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .4(a), Table 3, sets forth 

maximum allowable emission rates of 1 .00 pound per Megawatt-hour 

(pound/MWh) for natural gas, 1 .00 pound/MWh for No. 2 and lighter 

fuel oil, and 2 .00 pounds/MWh for heavier than No. 2 fuel oil . These 

output-based emission rates are based on a heat rate of 10,000 British 

thermal units per Kilowatt-hour (Btu/KW-hr) and input-based iemission 

limits of 0.100 pounds/MMBtu for natural gas ; 0.100 pounds/MMBtu for 

No. 2 and lighter fuel oil ; and 0.200 pounds/MMBtu for heavier than No. 

2 fuel oil . These maximum allowable emission rates are consistent with 

the maximum allowable emission rates being proposed for non-HEDD 

boilers serving electric generating units and industrial/commercial/ 

institutional (1CI) boilers with a heat input greater than 100 MMBtu/hr. 

The proposed rates identified at proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .4(a), Table 3 

can be achieved by installing low NO,; burners and/or a selective noncatalytic reduction system on existing boilers . 

For HEDD turbines, the Department proposes at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

19.4(a), Table 7, maximum allowable emission rates of 1 .00 pound/MWh 

for natural gas-fired simple cycle turbines, 1 .60 pounds/MWh for fuel oilfired simple cycle turbines, 0 .75 pounds/MWh for natural gas-fired 

combined cycle turbines, and 1 .20 pounds/MWh for fuel oil-fired 

combined cycle turbines . These output-based emission rates are based on 

PROPOSALS 

an input-based emission rate of 25 ppm (0 .100 pounds/MMBtu) for 

natural gas combustion and 42 ppm (0 .160 pounds/MMBtu) for fuel oil 

combustion, and an effeciency of 35 percent for simple cycle combustion 

turbines and 46 percent for combined cycle combustion turbines . These 

maximum allowable emission rates can be achieved by natural gas-fired 

turbines with dry low NO, combustors and fuel oil-fired turbines with 

water injection . The Department also proposes requiring that all HEDD 

turbines that are permitted to combust natural gas as well as fuel oil meet 

the natural gas maximum allowable emission rate during operation on all 

high electric demand days, regardless of the fuel combusted. The 

Department's proposed compliance date of May 1, 2015 will allow 

sufficient time for these facilities to design and implement an emission 

control strategy or unit replacement schedule. 

Proposed amended N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .4(a) and 19 .5(h) require all 

boilers and turbines that are constructed, reconstructed or modified to 

comply with all applicable state of the art (SOTA), lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER) and best available control technology (BACT) 

requirements . SOTA, LAER and BACT requirements may be more 

stringent than the proposed maximum allowable emission rates . All new 

sources and most modified or reconstructed sources are likely to be 

subject to SOTA, LAER and BACT requirements and, therefore, are 

likely to have emissions lower than the proposed maximum allowable 

emission rates . 

The proposed new rules and amendments, in order to achieve the long 

term strategy, would primarily affect electric generating companies that 

have boilers serving electric generating units or turbines in New Jersey 

that are capable of generating 15 MW or more of electrical power and 

that were operated less than or equal to an average of 50 percent of the 

time during the previous three ozone seasons . In order to comply with the 

proposed new rules and amendments for HEDD units that are boilers, 

these facilities will have to install a NO,; control apparatus, such as a low 

NO, burner or a selective non-catalytic reduction system, two commonly 

used control devices to control NO, emissions from electric generating 

units . These control devices are used widely in industry throughout the 

United States . In order to comply with the proposed new rules and 

amendments for HEDD units that are turbines, these facilities will have to 

install a NO, control apparatus, such as water injection, or replace the 

turbine entirely . Water injection is also a commonly used control device 

to control NO,; emissions from electric generating units . Based on similar 

sources that currently meet the proposed requirements, the Department 

has determined that these proposed new rules and amendments are 

achievable under current technology and are cost effective. 

The proposed new rules and amendments will recategorize all 

stationary combustion turbines in New Jersey as either HEDD units or 

non-HEDD units . The rules also require all non-HEDD stationary 

combustion turbines to comply with the maximum allowable emission 

rates in Table 4 of existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(d) (Table 6 of the 

proposed amended rule) . The rates in the existing rules are applicable to 

all non-NO, Budget Source turbines through the operative date of these 

amendments. 

Through April 30, 2015, all HEDD stationary combustion turbines will 

be subject to the maximum allowable emission rates in proposed 

renumbered and amended N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .5 Table 4 (for simple cycle 

turbines) or proposed renumbered and amended Table 5 (for combined 

cycle turbines), or the permitted maximum allowable emission rate, 

whichever is lower. Proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .5 Tables 4 and 5 are the 

maximum allowable emission rates that currently apply to all NO, budget 

source turbines in New Jersey. Proposed Tables 4 and 5 will apply to 

these sources until the operative date of these amendments. Most of New 

Jersey's HEDD turbines are currently NO, budget sources and, therefore, 

are currently subject to these emission rates. Since the proposed 

maximum allowable emission rates for these HEDD turbines will not go 

into effect until May 1, 2015, the proposed new rules and amendments 

allow all HEDD turbines to comply with the applicable maximum 

allowable emission rates in proposed Table 4 (for simple cycle turbines) 

or proposed Table 5 (for combined cycle turbines), or the permitted rates 

for that turbine, whichever is lower, until the operative date of the 

proposed HEDD maximum allowable emission rates (May 1, 2015) . On 

and after May l, 2015, all HEDD units will be subject to the maximum 

allowable emission rates in proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .5 Table 7 . Table 4 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4398) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

below summarizes the proposed applicability 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

schedule of RACT maximum allowable emission rates to turbines in New Jersey . 

TABLE 4 

Applicability Schedule of Tables 4 through 7 

at Proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .5 

N.J.A .C. Through March 6, 2007 March 7, 2007 Through 

7 :27-19 .5 Operative Date 

Table 4 All Simple Cycle Combustion NO, Budget Source Simple 

Turbines (_> 30 MMBtu/hr) Cycle Combustion Turbines 

(? 25 MMBtu/hr) 

Table 5 All Combined Cycle NO, Budget Source Combined 

Combustion Turbines Cycle Combustion Turbines 

(? 30 MMBtu/hr) (? 25 MMBtu/hr) 

Table 6 N/A All Non-N0, Budget Source 

Combustion Turbines 

(? 25 MMBtu/hr) 

Table 7 N/A N/A 

The Department proposes at new N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .30, 2015 HEDD 

Emission Limit Achievement Plan, that each owner or operator of a 

HEDD unit submit a 2015 HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan 

(2015 Plan) to the Department, by May 1, 2010. The purpose of the 2015 

Plan is to document how the owner or operator intends to comply with 

the 2015 HEDD emission limits and to provide a schedule by which 

compliance with the 2015 HEDD emission limits will be achieved for 

each HEDD unit owned or operated . The 2015 Plan may be revised at 

any time, prior to May 1, 2015. The owner or operator shall submit an 

annual update on the, progress of the 2015 Plan with their annual 

compliance certification for each calendar year from 2010 through 2014. 

The update shall address all HEDD units owned or operated. The update 

shall include information sufficient to identify each HEDD unit, an 

update on the progress -toward obtaining compliance with the 2015 

emission limit for each HEDD unit, an explanation of any obstacles that 

have impeded or are expected to impede progress toward compliance 

with the applicable 2015 emission limit, any steps taken to overcome 

these obstacles, and an explanation of any revisions to the 2015 Plan . 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers and Other Indirect Heat 

Exchangers 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .7 address the N% 

emissions from industrial/commerciaUinstitutional (ICI) boilers and other 

indirect heat exchangers . ICI boilers combust fuel to produce heat or 

process steam for applications in the chemical, metals, paper, petroleum, 

food production and other industries . Industrial boilers are generally 

smaller than boilers in the electric power industry, and typically have heat 

input in the 10 to 250 MMBtu/hr range; however, industrial boilers can 

be as large as 1,000 MMBtu/hr or as small as 0.5 MMBtu/hr. Commercial 

and institutional boilers are commonly used to produce steam and hot 

water for space heating in office buildings, hotels, apartment buildings, 

hospitals, universities, and similar facilities . Seventy percent of the ICI 

boilers in New Jersey are smaller than 50 MMBtu/hr . There are no coalfired ICI boilers in New Jersey . 

The proposed new rules and amendments lower the threshold size of 

boilers that are subject to maximum allowable NO. emission rates fi~om 

50 to 25 MMBtu/hr consistent with the OTC's recommendations . This 

will make approximately 200 additional units subject to maximum 

allowable NO, emission rates . 

The OTC member states, via OTC workgroups, collected and 

evaluated information regarding emission benefits, cost-effectiveness, 

and implementation issues . The workgroups developed and 

recommended emission reduction percentages, maximum allowable 

emission rates, and control measures. The control measures were 

summarized in a series of "Control Measure Summary Sheets" (See 

MACTEC Report February 2007) . The OTC's recommended control 

measures include a combination of emission rates, control technologies, 

allowances and phase-in periods . 

The Department is proposing most of the OTC's recommended 

maximum allowable NO, emission rates, and, based on the OTC control 

N/A A11 HEDD Unit Combustion 

Turbines 

measure selection process, believes that they are technologically feasible . 

To further support their technological feasibility, when the Department 

examined the stack test results for 46 boilers in the three categories in 

which the Department proposes a more stringent maximum allowable 

emission rate than the Federal regulations, it found all the stack .test 

results were below the proposed more stringent emission rates . This 

supports the Department's conclusion that its proposed maximum 

allowable emission rates for these three categories are technologically 

feasible . Furthermore, the Department found that the stack test results in 

one of these three categories - boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr firing 

No. 2 fuel oil - showed that a more stringent maximum allowable 

emission rate than even the OTC proposed rate can be achieved with low 

NO, burners, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), and other control 

methods. Therefore, the Department is proposing a maximum allowable 

emission rate that is more stringent than the OTC's proposed rate for this 

category . 

The Department is proposing maximum allowable emission rates, 

leaving it up to the individual owners or operators to choose a control 

technology to meet the proposed emission rates . Several control 

technologies are available . Low NO, burners are used to minimize No. 

emissions from boilers of all sizes . They can be retrofitted on most 

existing boilers at reasonable cost . Low NO, burners have the potential to 

reduce NO, emissions over 50 percent . An ultralow NO, burner (ULNB) 

is a low NOx burner that rapidly mixes fuel and air near their entrance to 

the combustion chamber . Rapid mixing results in a nearly uniform 

fuel/air mixture at the ignition point, which virtually eliminates NO, 

formation . 

SNCR is a chemical process for removing N0, from flue gas . The 

technology has a demonstrated reduction of N0, emissions greater than 

50 percent . In the SNCR process, a reagent, typically urea or anhydrous 

gaseous ammonia, is injected into the hot flue gas and reacts with the 

NO., converting it to nitrogen gas and water vapor. Selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) is another NO, emission reduction control technology 

that works the same way that an SNCR system works, except with a 

catalyst. The catalyst results in more NOx emission reductions and also 

allows for use of less reagent . 

In flue gas recirculation (FGR), the gas leaving the burner (that is, flue 

gas), which has lower oxygen content then the injected combustion air, 

passes through a heat recovery unit (such as a boiler) where it looses heat 

to the heat recovery unit. A portion of the cooled flue gas is recirculated 

back to the burner where it is mixed with the higher oxygen content 

combustion air, lowering the overall oxygen content of the air combusted. 

The lower oxygen content air reduces the flame temperature, which 

reduces the amount of NOa formed. If the combustion temperature is held 

below 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit, the NOx formation will be negligible . 

The Department anticipates that to comply with the proposed new 

rules and amendments, most owners or operators will install low-NO, 

burners, flue gas recirculation, or SNCR control measures . Some of the 

ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers already have air pollution 

One day after the Operative On and After May L 2015 

Date Through April 3 0, 015 

HEDD Unit Simple Cycle N/A 

Combustion Turbines 

HEDD Unit Combined Cycle N/A 

Combustion Turbines 

All Non-HEDD Unit All Non-HEDD Unit 

Combustion Turbines Combustion Turbines 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4399) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

controls and meet the proposed limits because they received air pollution 

control permits at the time they were constructed or modified . 

According to the Department's emission inventory in 2002, the total 

actual NO, emissions from 25 and 250 MMBtu/hr ICI boilers was 

approximately 2,000 tpy . Installing NO, control technology that achieves 

50 percent NO, emission reductions could result in up to 1,000 tpy of 

NOX emission reductions. Because some of these boilers already have 

some NOx controls installed, the Department expects an emission 

reduction of less than 50 percent. The Department anticipates 

approximately 1 .7 to 2 .9 tons of NO, emission reductions per ozone 

season day from the ICI boilers as the result of compliance with the 

proposed maximum allowable NO, emission rates . The Department 

identified ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers as having a 

Statewide potential of reducing NOx emissions by nearly 1,000 tpy by 

2011 assuming compliance is achieved by optimizing each boiler's 

combustion processes . This 2011 estimate would be lower if some small 

ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers comply by installing 

control devices, because the proposed new rules and amendments allow 

such sources an extra year to comply. 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Incinerators 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 7:27-19.12 will address the 

N0, emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators . 

There are 13 MSW incinerators at five resource recovery facilities in 

Essex, Union, Camden, Gloucester and Warren counties . Three MSW 

incinerators are located at the Camden County Resource Recovery 

Facility . The Department does not have a general NOx emission standard 

for MSW incinerators under the existing rules . Instead, for each MSW 

incinerator the Department adopted a facility-specific emission limit for 

NO, pursuant to N.J .A.C . . 7 :27-19 .13 to meet the one-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

The Federal emission concentration standard of NO, from MSW 

incinerators is 205 ppm.- (See 71 Fed. Reg. 27334 (May 10, 2006).) 

Currently all New Jersey MSW incinerators are in compliance with the 

Federal standard . Actual NOx emission concentrations from the State's 

MSW incinerators range from 90 to 200 ppm, which are below the 

Federal standard. 

The Department reevaluated the facility-specific emission limits for 

the MSW incinerators in the State, and determined that air pollution 

control technologies have advanced sufficiently over the past several 

years to justify further NO, emission reductions . The Department 

proposes at N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .12 a maximum allowable NO, emission 

concentration of 150 parts million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) at seven 

percent oxygen for MSW incinerators, based upon the ability of selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems to reduce emissions more than 

are now being achieved . The Department does not propose to allow 

MSW incinerators to use emissions averaging as a compliance 

alternative. 

The only generally applicable and feasible add-on control technology 

for reducing NO. emissions from MSW incinerators is SNCR SNCR is a 

chemical process for removing NO, from flue gas . In the SNCR process, 

a reagent, typically liquid urea or anhydrous gaseous ammonia is injected 

within a boiler or in ducts in a region where the temperature is between 

900 and 1,100 degrees Celsius . The reaction converts N0, to nitrogen gas 

and water vapor . SNCR performance depends on factors specific to each 

type of combustion equipment. The factors include flue gas temperature, 

residence time for the reagent and flue gas, amount of reagent injected, 

reagent distribution, uncontrolled NO, level and carbon monoxide and 

oxygen concentrations . 

Control optimization of existing SNCR systems can often result in 

additional emission reductions at relatively low capital cost. Control 

optimization may include the application of computational fluid dynamic 

modeling to determine better distribution of reagent, addition of reagent 

injection ports, and/or upgrading from ammonia-based SNCR to ureabased SNCR. 

The four facilities in Essex, Union, Warren and Gloucester counties, 

with 10 MSW incinerators, have installed SNCR. The Department 

anticipates that four of these facilities will need to optimize their existing 

SNCR system in order to meet the proposed 150 ppmvd limit . Camden 

County Resource Recovery Facility's three MSW incinerators, none of 

PROPOSALS 

which has SNCR, will need to install a SNCR system on each incinerator 

to control NO, emissions to meet the proposed limit. Currently the 

Camden facility has a facility-wide emissions cap for NO. . 

The Department anticipates the proposed new rules will achieve a 

reduction in NO, emissions of approximately 67 tpy in 2009, more than 

100 tpy in subsequent years, and approximately 0 .27 tons per ozone 

season day in 2009 and subsequent years . 

VOC Stationarv Storage Tanks 

The proposed amendments to N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2 will address the 

VOC emissions from storage tanks . 

Volatile organic compounds are often stored in aboveground 

stationary storage tanks . The tanks that store VOCs come in many sizes 

ranging from 2,000 gallons to 28 million gallons . They are located at 

many types of facilities . Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2 regulates three 

groups of stationary storage tanks (identified at Table 2A) - Range I, 11 

and III - based on tank capacity and vapor pressure of the VOC stored . 

Range III tanks are VOC stationary storage tanks that existing rules 

require to have a floating roof based on its storage capacity and the vapor 

pressure of the VOC stored . Range III tanks are the larger tanks that store 

high vapor pressure VOCs, such as gasoline . Most of the proposed new 

rules and amendments apply to, Range III tanks . Range III tanks are 

located at refineries, terminals, and pipeline breakout stations . 

Aboveground storage tanks are significant sources of VOC emissions . 

The Department evaluated its air pollution control rule at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2 and determined the rule can be updated . Since several states have 

successful regulations in place to regulate VOC stationary storage tanks, 

the Department has evaluated the regulations from the other states, and 

proposes many of them. The Department is proposing regulations from 

California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 

California's San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD), and the Texas Council on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ). The Department's proposed regulations can be grouped into five 

categories : deck fittings and seals (proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)), 

domes (proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2 (1)), roof landings (proposed 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16.2 (n), (o) and (p)), degassing and cleaning (proposed 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(q)), and inspection and maintenance (proposed 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(r)). They are described in the following paragraphs . 

Deck fittings and seals : Evaporative losses may occur through roof 

penetrations, such as those for deck fittings such as slotted guidepoles, 

access hatches (manways), and adjustable roof legs . Also, evaporative 

losses may occur along the rim seals, where the floating roof contacts the 

tank wall . Therefore, the first category of proposed rules is for deck 

fittings and seals and are based primarily on SCAQMD's regulation Rule 

1178 "Further Reductions of VOC Emission from Storage Tanks at 

Petroleum Facilities, Adopted December 21, 2001, amended April 7, 

2006." Also, the Department proposes to 'remove the current exemption 

for some tanks constructed or installed prior to December 17, 1979 from 

the requirement to install a double seal floating roof or other control 

apparatus . The Department anticipates 187 tpy or 0.51 tons per ozone 

season day of VOC emission reductions starting in 2010 as a result of 

retrofitting slotted guide poles, and anticipates additional emission 

reductions for upgrading other deck fittings and seals . 

Domes: A stationary storage tank may be constructed with a floating 

roof or without a floating roof. Most of these tanks store gasoline . When 

the liquid, such as gasoline, is removed from a tank without a floating 

roof, a large vapor space is created between the stationary roof and the 

liquid surface . VOC vapors accumulate in, and then escape to the 

atmosphere from this vapor space. A floating roof eliminates this vapor 

space by floating on the liquid surface, thus eliminating VOC losses to 

the atmosphere . There are several types of floating roof tanks, including 

an internal floating roof tank, where the internal floating roof is covered 

by a fixed roof; an external floating roof tank, where the floating roof is 

not covered by a fixed roof, thereby exposing the external floating roof to 

the weather ; or a domed external floating roof tank, where an external 

floating roof tank has been retrofitted with a dome to protect it from the 

weather. 

Wind blowing across external floating roof tanks causes evaporative 

losses, because the external floating roof is directly exposed to the wind. 

Therefore, the Department proposes in the second category of 

aboveground storage tank rules to require external floating roof tanks to 

(CITE 40 N.J.R 4400) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

be retrofitted with a dome by May l, 2020 if the stored liquid has a high 

vapor pressure (greater than three psia) . Although industry has already 

fitted many external floating roof tanks with domes in New Jersey, the 

proposed rules are intended to assure that the remaining tanks are fitted 

with domes. By May 1, 2020 the Department expects to yield an emission 

reduction of about 130 tpy of VOC from the New Jersey tank universe 

beyond the reductions achieved by upgrading deck fittings and seals. The 

proposed rules are based primarily on SCAQMD's regulations . 

Roof landings : When enough liquid is removed from a floating roof 

tank such that the roof is lowered to the height at which it is lowered no 

further (that is, the roof rests on its legs or suspended by cables or 

hangers), the contact between the floating roof and the liquid VOC is 

broken as the remaining liquid is removed. This is referred to as a "roof 

landing ." A vapor space is created between the floating roof and the 

liquid surface ; which enables vapors from the VOC remaining in the tank 

to accumulate . These vapors escape from the vapor space as the tank is 

sitting idle and when they are displaced during refilling. This three-step 

process - roof landing, idling, and refilling - is a roof landing cycle . The 

emissions during a roof landing cycle are called roof landing emissions . 

Also, some of the liquid VOC being used to refill the tank may evaporate 

and be expelled from the tank during refilling . 

A floating roof tank emits one quarter ton to three tons of VOC per 

roof landing cycle, depending on the tank size . A large floating roof tank 

can emit over three tons of VOC from a single roof landing cycle . 

Considering that there are thousands of roof landing cycles annually in 

New Jersey, significant VOC emissions occur during unregulated roof 

landing cycles . These emissions are required to be included in emission 

statements, but the Department found many emissions were not included . 

California's SCAQMD already requires control of roof landing cycle 

emissions from existing tanks . For example, Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines 

Partners, Limited Partnership, has been controlling emissions from roof 

landing cycles since 1991 at its Watson Station breakout tanks, and 

Pacific Energy is proposing tanks with controls for roof landing cycles at 

its Pier 400 Terminal Proj&ct. Also, Kinder Morgan Terminals has 

controls for roof landing cycles at its Carson, California terminal . These 

controls were installed on multi-product ."drain-dry" tanks to comply with 

SCAQMD Rule 1149, which regulates storage tank roof landing cyeles 

(as a form of degassing as defined by Rule 1149) . 

Therefore, the third category of proposed rules would regulate "rooflanding cycles ." Proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2 (n), (o), and (p) are based 

primarily on SCAQMD and TCEQ's regulations . In addition to 

regulating roof landing cycles, the Department proposes that owners or 

operators submit a facility-wide tank VOC control plan with an 

implementation schedule that coincides with each tank's inspection and 

maintenance schedule . The Department expects that each year more tanks 

will be brought into compliance resulting with cumulative emission 

reductions over a 10-year period . The proposed amendments at N.J.A.C . 

7:27-21 .5 require the owner or operator of any VOC stationary storage 

tank with a floating roof to submit to the Department as part of the 

facility's Emission Statement the tank's annual roof landing cycle 

emissions . If the owner or operator has not implemented all of the 

facility-wide tank VOC control plan's control measures, or if the floating 

roof tank is exempt from being included in a facility-wide tank VOC 

control plan, then the owner or operator must report the tank's emissions 

to the Department in a different report . 

The Department estimates that in 2019 these proposed new iules and 

amendments will achieve VOC emission reductions of over 2,000 tons 

per year and over six and one-half tons per ozone season day. 

Degassing and cleaning : VOC stationary storage tanks must be 

cleaned periodically . Before a tank is cleaned, it must be degassed (the 

removal of gases, such as gasoline vapor) so personnel can safely enter to 

clean the tank and remove accumulated sludge. The sludge removed from 

the tank can contain residual VOC liquid that may evaporate 'when 

exposed to the atmosphere . Therefore, the fourth category of proposed 

rules for aboveground tanks is intended to regulate degassing and 

cleaning operations . The proposed rules are based primarily on 

SJVUAPCD's regulations . The Department estimates these new 

requirements will reduce VOC emissions during the ozone season by 

approximately 265 tons each year . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Inspection and maintenance : The Department's existing rules do not 

require inspection and maintenance of VOC stationary storage tanks . An 

inspection and maintenance program would reduce VOC emissions by 

assuring that tank components are in good condition and operating 

properly. Therefore, the final category of proposed regulations (N.J .A.C. 

7:27-16 .2(r)) establishes a tank inspection and maintenance program. An 

inspection would be initiated by the tank owner or operator and 

performed by his or her own staff or by a person or organization the 

owner or operator hires . The proposed regulations require owners or 

operators to inspect deck fittings and seals on external floating roof tanks 

every year and each time the tank is emptied and degassed, to inspect 

deck fittings and seals on internal floating roof tanks each time the tank is 

emptied and degassed, and to annually make sure the covers to any 

hatches or other openings on fixed-roof tanks over 40,000 gallons storing 

VOC are leak-free . The proposed regulation provides deadlines for 

repairing defects found during the inspections . The Department modeled 

its proposed tank inspection and maintenance rules on SCAQMD's rules 

and the Federal New Source Performance Standards, 40 CFR Part 60 

Subpart Kb. 

Correction to N.J.A.C . 7-27-16. 2 

The Department discovered an error in the text at N.J.A.C . 7:27-

16.2(b)lii, which it proposes to correct, as discussed below in the 

Summary of N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2 . ' 

Phased Compliance 

Existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .22 contains compliance and submission 

dates that have passed . Proposed amended N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .22 provides 

a mechanism for phased compliance for owners or operator subject to 

N.J.A.C. 7 :27-19 .29 . The proposed phased compliance plan will allow up 

to 12 months for full compliance with N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29 for emission 

reduction measures that cannot be implemented by the operative date of 

these amendments. 

The proposed new rules and amendments are more fully described 

below. 

Subehapter 4. Control and Prohibition of Particles from Combustion of 

Fuel 

N.J.A.C.7 :27-4.1 Definitions 

The Department proposes new definitions of "construct" or 

"construction," "install" or "installation," "modify" or "modification," 

and "reconstruct" or "reconstruction." The Department intends to use the 

proposed terms to differentiate the proposed more stringent emission 

limit of a coal-fired boiler that serves an electric generating unit, if the 

combustion source or the' associated particle control apparatus is newly 

constructed, installed, reconstructed, or modified, from the less stringent 

limit for an existing coal-fired boiler that is not reconstructed or 

modified. The proposed definitions of . "construct" or "construction," 

"modify" or "modification," and "reconstruct" or "reconstruction" are 

identical to the existing definitions at N.J.A.C . 7:27-22 .1 . The proposed 

definition for "install" or "installation" is identical to the existing 

definition at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-8 .1 . 

N.J .A .C. 7 :27-4.2 Standards for the emission of particles 

The Department proposes to amend existing N.J.A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(a) to 

establish standards to replace the less stringent standards in the existing 

subsection . For coal-fired boilers the maximum allowable emission rates 

in the existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-4.2(a) table would no longer apply on or 

after the operative date of the proposed amendments if the boiler or the 

associated particle control apparatus is newly constructed, installed, 

reconstructed or modified, and commences operation on or after the 

operative date of the proposed amendments. Instead, the more stringent 

requirements in proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(b) would apply . For any 

coal-fired boiler that is already operating as of the operative date of the 

proposed amendments and is not reconstructed or modified by December 

15, 2012, the less stringent standards at proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

4.2(a) would no longer apply as of December 15, 2012. Instead, the 

proposed new more stringent standards at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(c), which are 

less stringent than the proposed new N.J .A .C. 7 :27-4 .2(b) requirements, 

would apply until such time as that boiler or its control apparatus is 

reconstructed or modified, making it subject to proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

4.2(b) . There are two different compliance schedules because it is more 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4401) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

cost-effective if a source complies with more stringent emission rates at 

the same time that the source is constructed or installed or undergoes a 

reconstruction or modification . 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-4 .2(b) establishes requirements for the owner 

or operator of a newly constructed, installed, reconstructed or modified 

coal-fired boiler or new particle control apparatus, that commences 

operating on or after the operative date of the proposed new rules and 

amendments. Proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(b) establishes a maximum 

allowable emission rate of 0.0150 pounds/MMBtu of particles, unless 

otherwise specified in an enforceable agreement with the Department . 

The Department's intention is to assure that this proposed emission rate 

does not supercede the emission rates required by the ACO and ACD, 

two enforceable agreements discussed above, or any other enforceable 

agreement. Proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(b) requires these sources to 

comply with all applicable SOTA, LAER and BACT requirements, which 

may result in compliance with a more stringent maximum allowable 

emission rate than is required at proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-4 .2(b) . Also, 

proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(b) requires a compliance demonstration in 

accordance with the approved permit. 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-4 .2(c) establishes requirements for coal-fired 

boilers already in operation as of the operative date of these new rules 

and amendments . Proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-4 .2(c)1 establishes a maximum 

allowable particle emission rate for coal-fired boilers that started 

operating prior to the operative date of these new rules and amendments . 

This rate is the lower of 0.0300 pounds/MMBtu of particles or the 

boiler's currently permitted particle emission rate, unless otherwise 

specified in an enforceable agreement with the Department. As with 

proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-4 .2(b), the Department's intention is to assure 

that these proposed emission rates do not supercede the emission rates 

required by the ACO and ACD, or any other enforceable agreement . 

Proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-4 .2(c)1 requires coal-fired boilers to meet the 

rate on and after December 15, 2012. The proposed December 15, 2012 

compliance date is consistent with the multi-pollutant provisions of the 

mercury rule at existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-27 .7(d), which also governs 

emissions of particulate matter from coal-fired boilers . Proposed N.J .A .C . 

7:27-4 .2(c)2 requires the coal-fired boiler to demonstrate compliance 

with its permitted emission rate in accordance with the approved permit. 

Subchapter 10 . Sulfur in Solid Fuels 

N.J.A.C .7:27-10 .1 Definitions 

The Department proposes definitions of "24-hour emission rate" and 

"30-calendar-day rolling average ernission rate" because the Department 

is proposing two new emission rates at N.J .A .C . 7:27-10 .2 . The 

calculation of the 24-hour emission rate will be based on a calendar day, 

while the calculation of the 30-calendar-day rolling average emission rate 

will be based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average . The Department's 

proposed definition of these terms is derived from common language and 

refers to proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-10 .5, which specifies how these 

emission rates are to be detennined . The Department's proposed 

definition of "calendar day" is based on the definition at N.J .A.C . 7:27-

19.1 . The 24 hour emission rate is based on a calendar day. The 

Department's proposed definition of "one-hour block" is derived from 

common language . This term is used in the proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-10 .5 

methodology for determining the 24-hour emission rate . 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-10 .2 Sulfur contents standards 

Existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-10 .2(a) controls SOz emissions by regulating 

the sulfur content of the solid fuel stored, offered for sale, sold delivered 

or exchanged in trade, for use in New Jersey and existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-

10 .2(b) controls SOZ emissions by regulating the sulfur content of the 

solid fuel burned . The sulfur content standards are in Table 1 of existing 

subsection (b) . The Department proposes that, starting December 15, 

2012, subsections (a) and (b) and Table 1 would no longer applyito any 

source . Instead, the output based performance standards proposed at 

subsection (h) would apply . 

An output based performance standard regulates the SO? actually 

emitted to the environment . Each facility could choose how to control its 

SO2 emissions no matter what the sulfur content of the fuel combusted. 

For example, a facility could combust a low sulfur fuel to reduce the 

production of SOZ, or install controls to remove S02 from the exhaust 

PROPOSALS 

gas, or some combination of the two. S02 emission control technology to 

reduce SOz emissions to the proposed S02 emission rates is reasonably 

available to enable a source to combust a solid fuel no matter the solid 

fuel's sulfur content (See Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units 

Section of the Background above) . The Department proposes, starting 

December 15, 2012, to make compliance with the Table 2 output based 

performance standards required by subsection (c) inoperative, and to 

replace them with the requirements proposed at subsection (h) . 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-10.2(c) requires different output based performance 

standards for four areas of New Jersey ("zones" in Table 2) based on the 

level of S02 non attainment of that zone. Existing N.J.A.C . 7 :27-10 .2(c) 

established these zones effective September 15, 1978 . Although the 

"anthracite coal and coke" standard is the same for each zone, the 

standard for "all other solid fuels" is more stringent in the zones that were 

in non attainment . Since all New Jersey is currently in attainment with the 

NAAQS for S02, different performance standards for each zone are not 

necessary . The Department proposes to eliminate basing performance 

standards on the zone in which a source is located, and to require sources 

to comply with more stringent output based performance standards 

proposed at subsection (h), starting December 15, 2012. 

Existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-10.2(d), (e) and (f) regulate S02 emissions 

based on sulfur content of the fuel . Since, starting December 15, 2012, 

the Department would regulate SOZ emissions based only on perfonnance 

standards (proposed new subsection (h)), and not based on sulfur content 

of fuel, existing subsections (d), (e) and (f) would no longer apply . The 

Department proposes to make these three subsections operative only 

through December 14, 2012. 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-10 .2(g) applies to authorizations granted 

pursuant to subsection (f) . Since the Department proposes that subsection 

(f) be operative only through December 14, 2012, the Department 

proposes that subsection (g) likewise be operative only through 

December 14, 2012. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-10 .2(h) requires that on and after 

December 15, 2012, all sources that combust solid fuel must comply with 

proposed maximum SOZ emission rates of 0.250 pounds/MMBtu gross 

heat input based on a 24-hour emission rate and 0.150 pounds/MMBtu 

gross heat input based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average emission rate, 

unless otherwise specified in an enforceable agreement with the 

Department . The Department's intention is the same as in the above 

explanation of the proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-4.2(b) . These 

proposed maximum SOZ emission rates are a minimum requirement. The 

Department proposes a December 15, 2012 compliance date to be 

consistent with the multi-pollutant provisions of the mercury rule for 

coal-fired boilers at N.J .A.C . 7 :27- 27 .7(d) . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-10 .2(i) requires all sources that combust 

solid fuel, and that are constructed, installed, reconstructed or modified, 

to comply with all applicable SOTA, LAER and BACT requirements . 

SOTA and LAER requirements are contained in the State's Air Pollution 

Control rules, N.J .A.C . 7 :27 . The BACT requirements are at 40 CFR 

52.21, which the Department proposes to incorporate by reference. The 

Federal rule contains the requirements for BACT for major stationary 

sources . Under the Federal rule, BACT is an emissions limitation that is 

achievable through application of production processes or available 

methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or 

innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of such pollutant . If 

technological or economic limitations would make the imposition of an 

emissions standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, 

operational standard, or combination may be prescribed instead to satisfy 

the requirement for the application of best available control teclhnology . 

SOTA, LAER and BACT may require more stringent maximum 

allowable emission rates than the rates required at proposed N.J .A.C . 

7:27-10 .2(h) or the rates derived from the sulfur content requirements of 

the existing subsections . As technology advances, the case by case 

SOTA, LAER and BACT determinations are likely to result in more 

stringent maximum S02 emission rates for these sources . 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-10 .5 SOz emission rate determinations 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-10.5 establishes how to calculate a "24-

hour emission rate" and a "30-calendar-day rolling average emission 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4402) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

rate" to compare a source's actual emission rates with the Department's 

proposed emission rates at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-10 .2(h) . 

Under proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-10 .5(a); a 24-hour emission rate 

shall be calculated by measuring the quantity of SOZ emitted for each 

one-hour block time period in one calendar day using a certified 

continuous S02 emission monitoring system (SOZ CEMS), a certified 

continuous oxygen emission monitoring system (02 CEMS) and EPA 

Method 19 . EPA Method 19 converts SO2 parts per million (the source's 

S02 CEMS measurement) to pounds per dry standard cubic foot, corrects 

this concentration to zero percent oxygen (based on measurements from 

the 02 CEMS), and multiplies the corrected concentration by the F-factor 

(a specific volume of dry gas generated from the combustion of a specific 

fuel), to determine pounds of S02 emitted per million BTU gross heat 

input (pounds/MMBtu). As an alternative to using EPA Method 19, some 

other Department approved method may be used only where the fuel 

combusted is clean, unprocessed wood. The combustion of clean, 

unprocessed wood, having a very low sulfur content (0 .1 percent by 

weight) results in a SOZ emissions rate of 0 .125 pounds/MMBtu that 

would be in compliance with the Department's proposed rates. In such 

case, the owner or operator must submit an application for approval of the 

alternative method to the Department at the address at proposed N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-10 .5(c) . If some other Department approved method is used, EPA 

Method 19 and possibly one or both of the continuous emissions 

monitoring systems would not be needed. The total emissions would be 

divided by the number of one hour block time periods during which solid 

fuel was combusted. The result is the 24-hour emission rate . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C .. 7 :27-10.5(b) establishes the method for 

determining a "30-calendar-day rolling average emission rate." The 

Department's proposed method is to average the 24-hour emission rates 

for 30 consecutive calendar days . The result is the "30-calendar-day 

rolling average emission rate" for the 30th day. Each day would begin a 

new 30-day calendar day rolling average . Any calendar day during which 

no combustion of solid fuel occurred shall not be included in the 30-

calendar-day rolling average . For example, if solid fuel were not 

combusted during two calendar days of the 30-day period, the 24-hour 

emission rates of 28 days would be used to determine the 30-calendar-day 

rolling average . The total emissions for the 28 days would be divided by 

28, not 30 . 

Subehapter 16 . Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile 

Organic Compounds 

N.J .A.C.7 :27-16 .1 Definitions 

The Department proposes to define the acronym for "AASHTO" 

because this acronym is used in the proposed new rules for the 

application of cutback and emulsified asphalts . 

The proposed definition of "asphalt pavement production plant" is 

intended to make it clear that proposed amended N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .11 and 

16 .16, where the term is used, applies only to those asphalt plants that 

produce asphalt pavement, but not to asphalt plants at refineries . 

The Department proposes definitions of 43 new terms used in the 

proposed new rules and amendments for VOC stationary storage tanks . 

The proposed new definitions are taken from similar definitions in 

California's Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 

Rule 5 (Storage of Organic Liquids) under Regulation 8 (Organic 

Compounds), SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids), or 

SCAQMD Rule 1178. The Department proposes to modify the 

definitions from the California rules to conform the definitions to New 

Jersey's regulatory format, refer to New Jersey instead of California, and 

as otherwise discussed below. The terms are : "AP-42," "capacity," "clean 

produced water ;" "crude oil," "deck fitting," "degassing," "domed roof," 

"fixed roof tank," "gauge float," "gauge hatch/sample ports," 

"guidepole," "internal floating roof," "ladder and well," "leak-free," 

"liquid mounted primary seal," "maximum operating level," "mechanical 

shoe seal," "non-contact floating roof," "organic liquid," "pole float," 

"pole sleeve," "pole wiper," "pressure-vacuum vent," "pressure vessel," 

"primary seal," "resilient filled primary seal," "resilient-toroid-type seal," 

"rim mounted secondary seal," "rim seal system," "rim vent," "roof 

drain," "roof leg," "roof opening," "secondary seal," "shoe mounted 

secondary seal," "small producer," "tank battery," "true vapor pressure 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

(TVP)," "vacuum breaker," "visible gap," "wiper primary seal," "zero 

gap" and "zero gap pole wiper seal ." 

"AP-42" incorporates by reference the EPA's manual, "Compilation of 

Air Pollutant Emission Factors Stationary Point and Area Sources," 

which provides a collection of emission factors for various types of 

equipment and source operations that emit air contaminants . AP-42 lists 

emission factors for the following industries : petroleum, food and 

agriculture, mineral products, metallurgical, organic and inorganic 

chemical, and waste disposal . The specific source operations and 

equipment that are covered in AP-42 include, but are not limited to, 

combustion sources, evaporative sources, storage tanks, grinders, 

conveyors, ovens, dryer, and incinerators . In addition to emission factors, 

AP-42 provides, as applicable, descriptions and diagrams of the source 

operations, the number and capacity of the source operations in the 

United States, and the types and effectiveness of air pollution control 

equipment . Background information of how the emission factors were 

derived is also provided. 

Since California's definition of "clean produced water" includes three 

test methods either withdrawn from use or replaced by EPA, the 

Department's proposed definition includes two EPA-approved methods 

and one Department-approved method. The Department's proposed 

definition prescribes the use of either the Diesel Range Organics option 

under EPA SW-846 Method 8015B or NJDEP Method OQA-QAM-025, 

Revision 6, and/or, as necessary, EPA SW-846 Method 8260, to 

determine the VOC concentration in water for hydrocarbons C14 or 

lighter . EPA Method 8015B "Non-halogenated Organics Using GC/FID" 

is used to determine the concentration of various nonhalogenated volatile 

organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds by gas 

chromatography . NJDEP Method OQA-QAM-025 "Quantitatioh of 

Semi-Volatile Petroleum Products in Water, Soil, Sediment, and Sludge" 

is used to determine Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, a category of VOCs, 

using a gas chromatagraph fitted with a flame ionization detector . EPA 

SW-846 Method 8260 "Volatile Organic Compounds By Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS)" is used to determine the 

VOC concentration in a water sample . The proposed definition prescribes 

Test Method ASTM E 260-85, "ASTM Standard Practice for Packed 

Column Gas Chromatography," to determine the VOC concentration in 

water for hydrocarbons heavier than C14 using a gas chromatograph. 

The Department's proposed definition of "deck fitting" includes 

examples of deck fittings listed in SCAQMD's definition of "roof 

opening ." Accordingly, the Depqrtment's proposed definition of "roof 

opening" does not list these examples of deck fittings . 

To be consistent with the Department's existing definition of "leak" in 

Subchapter 16, the Department proposes California's definition of "leakfree," modified to refer to VOCs. The~proposed definition of "leak-free" 

prescribes the use of EPA Method 21, which is used to determine VOC 

emissions (leaks) from process equipment. A local VOC concentration at 

the surface of a source indicates that a leak is present. The VOC 

instrument detector types used for EPA Method 21 measurements 

include, but are not limited to, catalytic oxidation, flame ionization, 

infrared absorption, and photoionization . EPA Method 21 is located at 40 

CFR Part 60 Appendix A, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds 

Leaks. 

The Department's proposed definition of "in-service roof landing" 

refers to the circumstance when a roof landing is conducted for a reason 

other than the tank being removed from service. Examples of "in-service 

roof landing" include roof landings done to switch tank contents or to 

change the customer who is using the tank. 

The proposed definition of "roof landing" is from the EPA's 

explanation of the term in its "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors" (AP-42 Tanks) . 

The proposed definition of "roof opening," from SCAQMD Rule 

1178, refers to "roof fitting ." Instead of the term "roof fitting" the 

Department proposes to use the term "deck fitting" because "roof fitting" 

and "deck fitting" have the same meaning. The Department proposes a 

definition of "deck fitting," rather than "roof fitting ." 

The Department proposes definitions of six additional terms used in 

the proposed rules for VOC stationary storage tanks . Proposed definitions 

of "aboveground storage tanks," "APl" and "underground storage tank" 

are identical to the definitions at N.J .A.C . 7 :1E-1 .6 . "API 653" refers to 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4403) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Standard 653 for the 

maintenance, inspection, repair, alteration and reconstruction of existing 

above ground, atmospheric storage tanks. Atmospheric storage tanks 

store products under atmospheric conditions, which means they are not 

pressurized. Atmospheric storage tanks include VOC stationary storage 

tanks regulated by N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2 . API 653 standards include 

methods for determining tank shell thickness and how to perform tank 

seal inspections. The proposed definition of "API 653" is based on the 

definition at N.J .A .C . 7:1E-1 .6, with additional language to indicate 

where API 653 is available. Proposed definitions of "authorized 

inspection agency" and "authorized inspector" are based on the 

definitions of these terms in API 653. An authorized inspection agency 

would be an insurance company licensed or registered in New Jersey to 

write aboveground storage tank insurance, an owner or operator of an 

aboveground storage tank, or an independent organization or person 

contracted by an aboveground storage tank owner or operator to perform 

an inspection. An authorized inspector would be an employee of an 

authorized inspection agency who is certified as an Aboveground Storage 

Tank Inspector in accordance with the standards of API 653. 

The Department proposes to add or amend 12 terms regarding printing 

and flat wood paneling operations . The Department proposes to amend 

the term "coating of flat wood paneling" to "coating of flat wood 

paneling and printed hardwood," and expand the definition to include 

wood panels, exterior siding, and tile board because these categories are 

now being regulated, and to give examples of what this term includes . All 

of these proposed amendments are to make the definition consistent with 

the CTG for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, EPA 453/R-06-004 

guidelines . 

The Department proposes to replace the existing definition of 

"fountain solution" with a new definition to indicate that fountain 

solutions are used only in lithographic printing operations, not all graphic 

arts operations . The Department proposes to amend the definition of 

"graphic arts operation" to include letterpress and lithographic printers 

because proposed new N.J .A.C. 7 :27-16 .7(r) includes emission limits for 

these printers . The Department proposes to add the definition of 

"`modify' or `modification"' as it is defined in N.J .A.C . 7:27-8 . The 

Department proposes to add definitions of "cleaning material" and 

"mixing vessel" because these terms are referenced and described in the 

work practices section of the Control Technique Guidelines for FlatWood Paneling Coatings, EPA 453/R-06-004 . The Department also 

proposes definitions of "letterpress printing," "heatset web lithographic 

printing," "coldset web lithographic printing," "sheet-fed offset 

lithographic printing" and "tileboard," which are terms used in the 

proposed amended subchapter . The Department proposes to amend the 

definition of "lithographic printing operation" to state that it applies to 

any "lithographic printing" and to list specific types of lithographic 

printing . 

The Department proposes to relocate "wash coat" in correct 

alphabetical order. 

N.J.A .C. 7:27-16 .2 VOC stationary storage tanks 

The Department proposes to amend the heading of N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2, 

because the section applies to stationary storage tanks that store VOCs. 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(a), because the 

section does not apply to stationary storage tanks that store only nonVOC. Also, the Department proposes to identify the piovisions, 

subsections (e) and (f), that contain exemptions . 

The Department proposes to correct an error at N.J .A.C . 7:27-

16 .2(b)lii . At the time of the August 5, 2002 proposal (2002 proposal), 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(a) required tanks with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or 

greater to be painted and maintained white, or to have an equivalent 

emission control ; and N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(b) required these tanks be 

equipped with a control apparatus as determined in accordance with the 

procedures for using Table 2A or an equal or better control measure. 

In 2002, the Department proposed to amend N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16 .2(a) and 

(b) . (See 34 N .J .R . 2489(a) .) According to the 2002 proposal Summary, 

The proposal would combine current paragraph (a)1 and 

current subsection (b) and recodify them as subsection (b) . As 

a result, subsection (b) would make clear that any stationary 

storage tank with a capacity of 2,000 gallons (7,570 liters) or 

PROPOSALS 

greater containing VOCs shall not be exposed to the rays of 

the sun unless the external surface of the tank is painted and 

maintained white, or an equivalent method of emission 

control approved by the Department is used. (34 N.J .R. 2492) 

The 2002 proposal's intention was to clarify that tanks with a capacity 

of 2,000 gallons or greater (which includes 10,000 gallon tanks or 

greater) must be painted and maintained white or have an equivalent 

control . The Summary did not indicate any other intended change. 

However, the 2002 proposal's rule text and the June 2, 2003 

adoption's (2003 adoption) rule text made these requirements optional for 

10,000 gallon or greater sized tanks by inserting the word "or" at the end 

of adopted N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(b)lii. (See 35 N.J .R. 2509(a) .) This error 

allowed any tank with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or greater to meet one 

of three controls (be painted and maintained white, have an equivalent 

control, or be equipped with a control apparatus using Table 2A) instead 

of requiring two controls (being painted and maintained white or having 

an equivalent control, and a control using Table 2A). The Department's 

intention as stated in the 2002 proposal Summary appears inconsistent 

with the 2002 proposed and 2003 adopted amendment. 

The Department proposes to correct this error by amending N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .2(b)lii to replace the word "or" with the word "and," clarifying 

that any stationary storage tank with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or 

greater must meet two requirements, not one of three requirements . Also, 

the Department proposes to make clear in proposed amended paragraph 

(b)2 that the requirements in existing paragraph (b)1 as amended apply to 

tanks with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or greater . 

At N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(d), the Department proposes to replace the term 

"vapor-tight" with the term "leak-free ." "Leak-free" is a defined term, 

referring to a known reliable analytical method. "Leak-free" is a 

requirement of California's SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD. Unlike the 

proposed definition of "leak-free," the Department's existing definition of 

"vapor-tight" does not refer to an analytical method. The Department also 

proposes to relocate the exception to the "leak-free" requirement in 

subsection (d) . In order to locate all exemptions in one place, the 

Department proposes to relocate the exception to proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-

16 .2(f)8 . 

At N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(f), the Department proposes to recodify the two 

existing exemptions, at paragraph (f)1 and 2, as proposed subparagraphs 

(f)1i and ii, and to add new exemptions . At new subparagraph (f)liii, the 

Department proposes to add pressurized tanks designed to operate in 

excess of 15 pounds per square inch gauge without emissions to the 

atmosphere . 

Proposed new paragraph (f)2 exempts any fixed roof storage tank with 

a capacity less than 40,000 gallons from proposed subsection (q), 

proposed degassing and cleaning requirements . The cost of complying 

with proposed subsection (p) would, for those tanks, be excessive 

compared to the amount of emissions reduced . Degassing emissions are 

less in these small tanks . ' 

To reduce the risk of explosion, proposed new paragraph (f)3 exempts 

any external floating roof tank from the requirements of subparagraph 

(I)Ii, which requires each access hatch and gauge float well to be 

equipped with a cover, until the tank is emptied and degassed, if a device 

must be welded to the fitting in order to install a cover . Welding 

operations on a tank that has not been properly degassed would present a 

safety hazard. 

Proposed new paragraph (f)4 exempts any external floating roof tank 

from the requirement to install a dome if the tank contains more than 97 

percent crude oil ; however, this tank must comply with all other 

requirements, including all other visible gap requirements . California 

exempts these tanks because they tend to be very large and installing a 

dome is expensive . Proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(f)3 and 4 are based on 

exemptions in SCAQMD Rule 1178. 

Proposed new paragraph (f)5 exempts any floating -roof tank from 

meeting the gap seal requirements at proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)3i 

through x while the roof is resting on its legs during draining, degassing 

or refilling the tank to prevent roof damage during these operations . 

Proposed new paragraph (f)6 allows the owner or operator of any 

floating roof tank with a Federally enforceable emission condition 

limiting its annual roof landing emissions to less than five tons, to choose 

to be exempt from proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(p), which is a 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4404) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

requirement to submit a facility-wide tank VOC control plan for 

controlling roof landing emissions . If the emissions are less than five tpy, 

the cost of controlling emissions would outweigh the small emission 

reductions achieved . 

Proposed new paragraph (f)7 exempts any external floating roof tank 

in Range III that is subject to the more stringent requirements at 

subparagraph (1)lvi from the less stringent requirements at paragraph 

(1)13 . Throughout the proposed tank requirements, the Department is 

proposing more stringent requirements for Range III tanks . 

Proposed paragraph (f)8 was relocated from existing subsection (d) 

and amended with an exemption that a floating roof tank does not need to 

be leak-free during refilling if the tank meets the condition at proposed 

subparagraph (q)lv . The exemption is intended to prevent tank damage 

during refilling by equalizing the tank pressure with the outside air 

pressure. During refilling, vacuum breakers (a type of roof fitting) must 

open to expel the VOC vapors displaced by the incoming liquid. If 

refilling is continuous and done as rapidly as possible (the conditions at 

proposed subparagraph (q)Iv), the tank will be exempt from meeting the 

"leak-free" conditions at proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(d) during refilling . 

The Department proposes to relocate and amend existing N.J.A.C . 

7:27-16 .2(g), (h) as it pertains to Range I and II stationary storage tanks, 

and (i) to proposed paragraphs (1)8, 12 and 13, respectively, to keep all 

deck fitting and most seal requirements together . The proposed 

amendments are discussed below. The Department proposes to reserve 

existing subsections (g) and (i) . The rim seal requirements at existing 

N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16 .2(h) apply to all (that is Range I, II and III) external 

floating roof stationary storage tanks . The Department proposes to clarify 

that amended subsection (h) pertains only to Range III stationary storage 

tanks that store VOCs and that amended subsection (h) remains in effect 

for such tanks until the more stringent Range III stationary storage tank 

seal requirements at proposed paragraph (1)3 become effective for each of 

those tanks. 

The Department proposes to delete the recordkeeping requirements at 

existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(k) and reserve this subsection. The 

Department proposes expanded recordkeeping requirements at proposed 

new N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s) . The Department proposes to amend existing 

cross references to N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(k) throughout the subchapter to 

refer to N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s), instead . 

The Department proposes to consolidate all tank deck fitting and seal 

requirements at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1) . The proposed tank deck fitting 

requirements of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1) are identical to the deck fitting 

requirements at SCAQMD Rule 1178(d)(1)(A)(i) through (xiv), Proposed 

new N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2(1)1 sets forth deck fitting requirements for 

external floating roof tanks in Range III . For example, the proposed 

amendments would require unslotted guidepoles to be retrofitted with 

sliding covers, wipers and flexible fabric sleeves . Slotted guidepoles 

would have to be retrofitted with sliding covers, gasketed covers, pole 

wipers and pole sleeves. A "no visible gap" requirement means that an 

opening between, for example, an access hatch and its cover, shall not 

exceed 0.06 inch. The proposed amendment requires no visible gaps 

between a gauge/hatch sample and its cover, between a rim vent pallet 

and the gasket of the rim vent cover, and between other deck fittings and 

seals . Replacing deck fittings on an external floating roof does not require 

taking a tank out of service .because the fittings can be replaced or 

installed from the outside of the tank. The Department is proposing Ahat 

existing tanks with an external floating roof comply by 120 days aftef the 

operative date of these proposed amendments. as this would allow 

adequate time to comply. For such tanks constructed after the operative 

date of the amendments, the proposed deck fitting requirements must be 

met before the tank is initially filled. 

Proposed paragraph (1)2 would allow the owner or operator of an 

external floating roof tank in Range III to maintain the tank in a "leakfree" condition, rather than complying with the "no visible gap" 

requirements of proposed paragraph (1)1 . The proposed definition of 

"leak-free" means use of a specific instrument . The Department proposes 

that an owner or operator of an existing tank who maintains a "leak free" 

tank shall also comply by 120 days after the operative date of these 

proposed amendments . which is the compliance date for the "no visible 

gap" requirements . For such a tank constructed after the operative date of 

the amendments, the proposed "leak-free" requirement must be met 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

before the tank is initially filled . The proposed alternative is taken from 

SCAQMD Rule 1178(d)(1)(C) . 

Proposed paragraph (1)3 requires the owner or operator of a stationary 

storage tank in Range III to meet the rim seal system requirements at 

subparagraphs (1)3i through x. Since replacing rim system seals requires 

taking a tank out of service, the Department is requiring existing tanks to 

comply when it is refilled after the first degassing after the operative of 

these amendments, but no later than May 1, 2020. A new tank must meet 

these requirements prior to being initially filled. These 10 requirements 

are identical to the requirements at SCAQMD Rule 1178(d)(1)(B)(i) 

through (x), except that proposed subparagraph (1)3vii references the 

Department instead of SCAQMD's Executive Officer. 

Shells of external floating roof tanks do not come with a fixed roof or 

cover . They are highly susceptible to wind effects, which result in higher 

VOC emissions . To mitigate this problem, several states, including 

California and New York, require that existing external floating roof 

tanks that store materials with true vapor pressures greater than three 

pounds per square inch absolute (psia) be retrofitted with a dome, which 

is a type of fixed roof for the tank shell . The Department proposes at new 

paragraph (1)4 the same measure for New Jersey . From this proposed 

requirement, the Department expects to achieve an emission reduction of 

about 130 tpy of VOC from the New Jersey tanks, beyond the reductions 

achieved by upgrading deck fittings and seals . 

Proposed new paragraph (1)4 requires the owner or operator of an 

external floating roof tank in Range III without a domed roof that stores 

gasoline or some other VOC with a vapor pressure greater than or equal 

to three psia at standard conditions, to install a domed roof before the 

tank is refilled after its first degassing after the operative date of these 

amendments, but no later than May 1, 2020. A new tank would be 

required to install a domed roof before the tank is initially filled. A 

domed roof reduces emissions by protecting a floating roof from wind 

effects . This proposed amendment is based on SCAQMD Rule 

1178(d)(2)(A). 

Proposed new paragraph (1)5 consists of requirements for domed 

external floating roof tanks in Range III that are in operation prior to the 

operative date of these amendments. Owners or operators must comply 

prior to the tank's being refilled after being degassed the first time after 

the operative date of these amendments, but no later than May 1, 2019. 

Proposed subparagraph (1)5i, based on SCAQMD Rule 1178(d)(2)(B), 

requires the tank to be in compliance with the deck fitting requirements at 

proposed subparagraph (1)li through xiv . Proposed subparagraph (1)5ii, 

based on SCAQMD Rules 1178(d)(2)(E) and 463(c)(2)(B), requires the 

owner or operator to install on an existing domed external floating roof 

tank a rim seal system that meets the requirements at paragraph (1)3 with 

two exceptions, a secondary seal is not required if the primary seal is 

liquid mounted and the mechanical shoe.primary rim seal must have one 

end extend a minimum of 15 centimeters (six inches) .above the stored 

liquid surface and the other end a minimum of 10 centimeters (four 

inches) into the stored liquid . Both exceptions are in the SCAQMD rule. 

The Department proposes compliance with subparagraph (1)5ii prior to 

the tank's being refilled for the first time after the first degassing after the 

operative date of these amendments, but no later than May 1, 2020. 

Proposed subparagraph (1)5iii, identical to SCAQMD Rule 1178, requires 

the gasoline vapors in the space between the external floating roof and -

the domed roof not to exceed 30 percent of its lower explosive limit . This 

indicates the condition of the seals between out-of-service inspections. 

An exceedance of 30 percent of its lower explosive limit might indicate a 

leaking seal or deck fitting . 

Proposed new paragraph (1)6 regulates domed roofs installed on 

existing external floating roof tanks in Range III on or after the operative 

date these amendments. The proposed rule is based on SCAQMD Rule 

1178(d)(2)(D) through (F) . Proposed subparagraph (1)6i requires a tank to 

meet the rim seal system requirements at proposed paragraph (1)3 at the 

time the tank is refilled after being degassed for the first time on or after 

the operative date of these amendments, but no later than May 1, 2020. 

Proposed subparagraph (1)6ii requires the gasoline vapors in the space 

between the external floating roof and the domed roof not to exceed 30 

percent of its lower explosive limit which indicates the condition of the 

seals between out-of-service inspections . By 120 days after the operative 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R. 4405) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

date of these proposed amendments, these tanks should already be in 

compliance with the deck fitting requirements at proposed paragraph (1) 1 . 

Proposed new paragraph (1)7 regulates any internal floating roof tank 

in Range 111 . The Department proposes that deck fitting and seal upgrades 

coincide with internal tank inspections . The owner or operator of a tank 

existing before the operative date of these amendments must comply with 

these requirements at the time the tank is refilled after being degassed for 

the first time on or after the operative date of these amendments, but no 

later than May I, 2020. The owner or operator of a new tank would be 

required to comply the first time the tank is filled. Installing deck fittings 

on an internal floating roof usually requires taking the tank out of service 

because it requires a person to go inside the tank itself, unlike installing 

fittings on a tank with an external floating roof. A tank with an internal 

floating roof must undergo an internal tank inspection, which also 

requires a person to go inside the tank, in accordance with the 

Department's Bureau of Release Prevention's discharge prevention, 

containment and countermeasure plan (DPCC plan), or in accordance 

with the American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 653 "Tank 

Inspection, Repair, Alternation, and Reconstruction" (API 653), 

described above . 

Prior to a tank inspection the tank must be degassed, in order that the 

inspector can safely enter the tank . So that a tank with an internal floating 

roof is not taken out of service twice, once to upgrade the deck fittings 

and once for an internal tank inspection, the Department will require that 

the deck fittings be upgraded at the same time the tank undergoes an 

internal tank inspection . Proposed paragraph (1)7 is based on SCAQMD 

Rules 1178(d)(3)(A) through (E) and 463(c)(2)(B) and requires an owner 

or operator to install gasketed sliding covers on support columns and 

wells (proposed paragraph (1)7i), install gasketed covers on ladder wells 

(proposed subparagraph (1)7ii), install and maintain deck fittings 

(proposed subparagraph (1)7iii), install a rim seal system (proposed 

subparagraph (1)7iv), and ensure the vapor concentration in the vapor 

space between the floating roof and the fixed roof does not exceed 50 

percent of the lower explosive limit for internal floating roofs installed 

prior to June 1, 1984 (proposed subparagraph(1)7v) and 30 percent of the 

lower explosive limit for internal floating roofs installed after June 1, 

1984 (proposed subparagraph (1)7vi). 

The Department proposes to relocate the existing rim seal 

requirements that apply to stationary storage tanks in Range III at 

subsection (g), to proposed paragraph (1)8, the proposed rim seal 

requirements . At subparagraph (1)8i the Department proposes that the 

existing rim seal system requirements, currently at existing subsection 

(g), for such tanks constructed on and after December 17, 1979 remain in 

effect until the more stringent rim seal system requirements at proposed 

paragraphs (1)3, 5, 6 and 7 apply. Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(g) does not 

regulate the seals of tanks constructed prior to December 17, 1979 . The 

Department proposes to remove this exemption and regulate these tanks . 

However, with this exemption is removed, there would be no rim seal 

system requirements for tanks constructed prior to December 17, 1979. 

Therefore, at subparagraph (1)8ii, the Department proposes that these 

tanks comply with the more stringent rim seal system requirements at 

proposed paragraphs (1)3, 5, 6 and 7 as applicable and in accordance with 

the proposed compliance dates . 

Proposed paragraphs (1)9 and 10 apply to any floating roof stationary 

storage tank in Range 111 . If a primary seal is to be replaced, ;proposed 

paragraph (1)9 requires that one of four rim seal systems (proposed 

subparagraphs (1)9i through iv) replace the primary seal . If a secondary 

seal is to be replaced, proposed paragraph (1)10 requires that one of two 

rim seal systems (proposed subparagraphs (1)10i and ii) replace the 

secondary seal . Both proposed subparagraph (1)9v and 10iii allow a 

primary or secondary seal to be replaced with an alternative rim seal 

system, if it is demonstrated to the Department that the alternative rim 

seal system is better than the rim seal systems listed in the rule ."These 

requirements are based on SCAQMD Rule 1178(d)(1)(b)xi, which 

references a SCAQMD list of approved replacement rim seal systems at 

Attachment A of SCAQMD Rule 463, "Organic Liquid Storage ." 

Proposed paragraph (1)11 requires leak-free conditions for the roofs of 

fixed-roof tanks . Proposed subparagraphs (I)lli through iii, identical to 

SCAQMD Rules 1178(d)(4)(A)(ii) and (iii), require leak-free emission 

control requirements for gauging and sampling devices, the roof 

PROPOSALS 

generally, and all roof openings . Proposed paragraph (1)11 applies to any 

fixed roof tank with a capacity greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons 

that stores VOCs with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 0 .5 

pounds per square inch absolute (psia) at standard conditions . The roofs 

of fixed-roof tanks under 40,000 gallons would not be regulated. 

The Department's proposed fixed-roof tank size and vapor pressure 

applicability requirements are consistent with the Federal New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) applicability requirements at 40 CFR 

60.11 Ob et seq . The Department intends to follow the direction of these 

NSPS regulations to regulate the larger fixed-roof tanks and to regulate 

the tanks that store the higher vapor pressure VOCs at this time . The 

Department's applicability requirements differ from SCAQMD's fixedroof tank applicability requirements . SCAQMD's requirements apply to 

fixed-roof tanks with facility-wide VOC emissions greater than 20 tons 

per year and vapor pressure of the stored material being greater than or 

equal to 0.1 pounds per square inch absolute, regardless of tank size . It is 

reasonable to regulate similar size and content tanks the same way, 

whether they are at large or small facilities . Hence, the Department has 

not included the SCAQMD 20 ton per year facility-wide VOC emission 

criteria. Also, the Department proposes the Federal 0.5 psia cutpoint, 

rather than 0 .1 psia, to avoid controlling tanks that emit a relatively low 

amount of VOC. This cutpoint will be reconsidered for future rules when 

the State Implementation Plan is developed for the new 75 parts per 

billion ozone NAAQS. 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .2(h) and relocate 

it to proposed paragraph (1)12 . The rim seal requirements at existing 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(h) apply to all (that is Range 1, II and 111) external 

floating roof stationary storage tanks . The Department proposes to limit 

new paragraph (1)12 to Range I and 11 external floating roof stationary 

storage tanks . Proposed new paragraph (1) 12 does not apply to Range III 

external floating roof stationary storage tanks because rim seal system 

requirements for Range III tanks are proposed to be deleted from existing 

subsection (h) and replaced with the requirements at proposed paragraph 

(1)3, which are more stringent . 

In order to keep all deck fitting requirements at proposed N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .2(1), that is, within the same subsection, the Department proposes 

to relocate existing subsection (i) to proposed new paragraph (1)13 . The 

Department proposes that a tank be exempt from paragraph (1)13 if the 

tank meets the exemption criteria at proposed paragraph (f)7 . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(m) through (p) regulate roof landing 

cycles . A roof landing takes place when a tank is emptied and its floating 

roof comes to rest on its deck or interior leg supports with the liquid level 

below the floating roof. Roof landing emissions are caused by 

evaporation of the tank's products into the vapor space created between 

the liquid level and the floating roof. A roof landing cycle is a three-step 

process: landing, idling, and refilling. There are significant emissions 

resulting from a roof landing. A large floating roof tank can emit over 

three tons of VOC from a single roof landing cycle. As discussed 

previously with regard to VOC stationary storage tanks with a floating 

roof, when a tank is in use the roof floats on the surface of the liquid 

inside the tank . The continuous contact between the floating roof and the 

liquid reduces evaporative losses during normal operation. This contact is 

maintained as the liquid level decreases, until the floating roof comes to 

rest on its legs . At this point, the floating roof is said to have landed . As 

the liquid continues to drop below the leg heights, a vacuum is created, 

which could cause the floating roof to collapse. To prevent collapse, a 

breather vent is actuated to equalize the pressure. This forms a vapor 

space between the floating roof and the liquid . Vapor is lost through the 

breather vent to the atmosphere . These losses are called "standing idle 

losses ." The breather vent remains open until the roof is again floated 

during refilling. When the tank is filled, the vapor in the vapor space is 

forced through the breather vent to the atmosphere . These losses are 

called "filling losses ." The total evaporative loss from floating roof tanks 

during a roof landing cycle is the sum of the standing idle losses and the 

filling losses . 

Proposed subsection (m) requires a floating roof to float on the liquid 

surface at all times, except during initial fill and those intervals when the 

tank is completely emptied or subsequently emptied and refilled . 

Proposed paragraphs (n)1 and (o)1 require emptying and refilling of an 

external floating roof or an internal floating roof, respectively, to be 

(CITE 40 N.J .R . 4406) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

continuous and as rapidly as possible to reduce VOC emissions by 

reducing the length of time the vapor space is present . The Department's 

proposed amendments at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(m), (n)1 and (o)1 are based 

on the Texas Council on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ's) regulations 

at 30 TAC §115 .112(d)(2)(H) . 

There are two types of roof landing cycles : in-service roof landing 

cycles and out-of-service roof landing cycles . An in-service roof landing 

cycle is a roof landing cycle in which the tank is not taken out of service . 

An out-of-service roof landing cycle is a roof landing cycle in which the 

tank is taken out of service so a person can enter to perform some 

acti~ ity, such as maintenance, cleaning or inspection . 

71he proposed amendments require that all in-service roof landing 

cycles be conducted with the landed height of the floating roof at its 

lowest setting . Any roof with adjustable legs would have to be set with 

the legs in the "low landing" position . Using the lowest setting will 

minimize VOC emissions when the tank is idle or refilling by minimizing 

the volume of the vapor space between the surface of the liquid VOC and 

the bottom of the roof. Depending upon the height of liquid VOC that 

remains in the tank after landing, a floating roof tank with landed height 

of one foot can emit over 75 to 100 percent (depending on the amount of 

product remaining at the bottom) less VOC to the atmosphere than a 

floating roof tank with -a typical landed height of 3.5 feet . (AP-42 Tanks.) 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(n)2 requires that on and after the 

operative date of the proposed new rules and amendments, all in-service 

roof landings of external floating roof tanks be conducted with the roof 

landing at its lowest height setting. Proposed new N.J .A.C. 7:27-16 .2(o)2 

requires that after the first time an internal floating roof is taken out of 

service, all in-service landings must be conducted with the roof landing at 

its lowest height setting . The Department proposes different compliance 

dates because resetting the lander height on an internal floating roof 

requires taking the tank out of service, while resetting the lander height 

on an external floating roof does not require taking the tank out of 

service . The TCEQ regulation does not require this low landing 

provision. The Department proposes the low landing provision to further 

reduce VOC emissions from tank landings. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C. 7 :27-16 .2(p) requires owners or operators of 

all floating roof tanks that have in-service roof landing cycle emissions of 

five tons or greater per year, to submit a tank facility-wide VOC control 

plan to control the VOC emissions . A tank may be exempt from being 

included in this plan if its in-service roof landing cycle emissions are less 

than five tons per year and the owner or operator keeps appropriate 

records . The emission reductions expected from such a tank does not, at 

present, justify the cost of preparing and submitting a plan . If such a tank 

is a Range III tank and is used to store gasoline, the facility, at its 

discretion, may include the tank in the emissions averaging plan of a 

facility-wide tank VOC control plan . 

Proposed paragraph (p)l .requires the facility-wide tank VOC control 

plan to be submitted to the Department at the address at proposed 

subsection (v), 120 days after the operative date of these new rules for 

existing tanks, or 120 days after a new tank is installed . 

Proposed new paragraph (p)2 specifies the information that must be 

included in a facility-wide tank VOC control plan. Proposed 

subparagraph (p)2i requires the tank VOC control plan to include for each 

tank, tank type, volume; diameter, contents, the permit activity number, 

any other identifying numbers, and the Bureau of Release Preventiop tank 

inspection schedule (proposed sub-subparagraphs (p)2i(1) through (7)) . 

Proposed paragraph (p)2 requires submission of one of two types of 

control plans : a plan to implement emission control measures or a plan to 

perform emissions averaging . 

The plan to implement emission control measures, which are listed in 

proposed sub-subparagraphs (p)2ii(1) tlu-ough (3), must include tank 

identifying information for each tank (proposed subparagraph (p)2i) and 

the control measures to be implemented (proposed subparagraph (p)2-ii) . 

Proposed subparagraph (p)2ii requires the tank VOC control plan to 

include a schedule to implement one or more of the three emission 

control options by 10 years after the operative date of these amendments . 

Proposed subparagraph (p)2ii requires the implementation schedule to be 

consistent with the facility's schedule for removing a tank from service 

for inspection and maintenance to enable modifications to be performed 

during the same time a tank is taken out of service for an inspection . This 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

consistency will also enable the Department to more effectively evaluate 

the emission control implementation schedule, since the Department will 

be able to determine whether a facility has implemented a tank's 

scheduled control measures in the tank's VOC control plan while the 

Department evaluates the tank's nonnal inspection and maintenance 

results. 

The Department proposes three control measures at sub-subparagraphs 

(p)2ii(1) through (3) . One of the proposed control measures is to 

configure their tanks so that the bottom of the floating roofs can be 

lowered to within one foot of the bottom of the tank shell . As explained 

in the Summary above, this control measure reduces emissions by 

reducing the vapor space . Another control measure is to control VOC 

emissions with an efficiency of at least 90 percent from the time the roof 

is landed until the roof is within 90 percent by volume of being refloated. This would control approximately 80 percent of VOC emissions 

during refilling . This control measure is based on 30 TAC 

§115.112(d)(2)(H)(iv) and (d)(3) . The third control measure is to 

implement some other measure that the Department approves as at least 

as effective as the two proposed measures in reducing VOC emissions to 

the atmosphere . 

The second type of facility-wide tank VOC control plan is to 

implement emissions averaging. The facility-wide tank VOC control plan 

to implement emissions averaging must include tank identifying 

information for each tank (proposed subparagraph (p)2i) and an 

emissions averaging plan describing how the facility will calculate the 

average emissions from all its Range III floating roof tanks storing 

gasoline (proposed subparagraph (p)2iii) . The emissions averaging plan 

must show how each tank will meet a per tank emissions average of less 

than five tons per year from 2011 though 2013, four tons per year from 

2014 though 2016, three tons per year from 2017 through 2019, and two 

tons per year thereafter. These averaging provisions are meant to give 

facilities more flexibility to achieve the required facility average per-tank 

emission rate . The owners or operators can achieve these averages by 

modifying some tank operations, controlling emissions from selected 

tanks, physically modifying selected tanks, or by a combination of these 

options . The Department intends that facilities that comply with the 

proposed emission averages will achieve more VOC emission reductions 

sooner than if they were to comply on a tank by tank basis . The emissions 

averaging option is limited to Range III floating tanks actually used to 

store gasoline at some point during a calendar year . Allowing facilities to 

include in the averaging plan other floating roof tanks, which are 

generally expected to have lower roof landing emissions than the 

proposed averages, would unduly offset the emissions from the Range III 

floating roof tanks storing gasoline . This would result in VOC emission 

reductions less than implementing the specified emission controls . 

Accordingly, tanks other than Range III tanks cannot be included in an 

averaging plan. 

The Department proposes new N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(q) to regulate tank 

degassing and cleaning operations . Degassing is the process of removing 

vapors from a storage tank . The vapors are displaced (either by negative 

pressure, or by emptying and refilling the tank with lower vapor pressure 

liquids repeatedly) until the tank is completely emptied of its contents and 

remaining gas vapors are at or below an acceptable lower explosive limit 

level . Degassing is a prerequisite for tank entry and preventive 

maintenance. The proposed requirements are based on the tank cleaning 

and degassing control requirements at California's SJVUAPCD Rule 

4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids) . Unlike the SJVUAPCD rule, which 

requires controls for all VOC emissions from tank degassing and interior 

tank cleaning operations, proposed subsection (q) requires controls for 

only degassing and cleaning operations conducted during New Jersey's 

ozone season, May 1 through September 30. Recordkeeping requirements 

for degassing and cleaning operations, and for treatment and disposal of 

tank sludge are required at proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s) . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(q)1 sets forth the requirements an 

owner or operator must follow to degas and clean a stationary storage 

tank that stores a VOC with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0 .5 

psia at standard conditions . These VOCs are the more volatile VOCs. The 

proposed new rules would not regulate degassing and cleaning operations 

outside the ozone season . The proposed new rules require the owner or 

operator to empty the tank, minimize VOC vapors by exhausting or 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4407) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

displacing VOCs to achieve at least 95 percent efficiency, discharge or 

displace the VOC vapors, temporarily remove a fitting if appropriate, and 

drain and refill the tank . 

Proposed new paragraph (q)2 requires certain low-VOC cleaning 

agents or steam cleaning to clean a tank that stores the more volatile 

VOCs, those with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.5 psia at 

standard conditions . Steam cleaning does not require VOC-containing 

cleaning agents . Proposed subparagraph (q)2i specifies cleaning agents 

that have low volatility, in order to minimize VOC emissions from 

cleaning operations . On a case-by-case basis, one method may be 

preferable over another method; consequently, the Department's 

proposed rule does not require one method over another . 

Proposed new paragraph (q)3 regulates emissions of the more volatile 

VOCs during sludge removal, transportation and storage . VOCs are 

present in sludge . The proposed new rules are intended to prevent or 

minimize VOC loss from sludge through evaporation. Proposed 

subparagraph (q)3i requires 95 percent emission control during the sludge 

removal process . Proposed subparagraph (q)3ii requires transporting the 

removed sludge in closed, leak-free containers . Proposed subparagraph 

(q)3iii requires the removed sludge to be stored in leak-free containers or 

in tanks that comply with existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-16.2(b). 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) establishes inspection and 

maintenance requirements for VOC stationary storage tanks to prevent 

VOC emissions . All of the Department's requirements at proposed 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .2(r) are based on the preventive inspection and 

maintenance requirements in SCAQMD Rule 1178 and Federal New 

Source Review Performance Standards Subparts Ka and Kb (40 CFR 

60.110a through 60.116b) . Proposed subsection (r) requires any 

inspection to be performed by an "authorized inspector," a term defined 

at proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .1 . 

Proposed paragraph (r)1 requires the inspection results to be recorded 

on the Inspection Form located in N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 Appendix II. 

Proposed paragraph (r)2 requires the authorized inspector performing 

the inspection to have a copy of the permit, to compare the permit to the 

existing tank and actual operating conditions, and to record any 

discrepancies in the Inspection Form. 

Proposed paragraphs (r)3 and 4 require an annual inspection for leaks 

and to annually complete all calculations and records, respectively . 

In accordance with proposed paragraph (r)5, an external floating roof 

tank in Range III must be visually inspected annually for obvious deck 

fitting and seal problems and for permit and rule violations that can be 

seen with the naked eye, and more rigorously for visible gaps in deck 

, fittings and for gaps m the secondary seal. Inspections are proposed 

annually to be consistent with the Federal New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) requirements for annual inspections . The primary seal 

must be inspected for gaps every five years and each time the tank is 

degassed. The primary seal inspection schedule would also be consistent 

with the inspection schedule required by NSPS. Proposed paragraph (r)5 

specifies the methods for performing this inspection. The methods are the 

same methods as those in SCAQMD's regulation 1178 . 

Annually, an authorized inspector must visually inspect a domed 

external floating roof tank's or an internal floating roof tank's deck 

fittings and visible seal of the rim seal system and must measure for VOC 

leaks with an explosimeter without requiring the authorized inspector to 

enter the tank (proposed subparagraphs (r)6i and 6ii and paragraphs (r)7 

and 8) . Each time a domed external floating roof tank or an internal 

floating roof tank is degassed, but not less than once every 10 years, its 

deck fittings and rim seal system must undergo a more rigorous 

inspection using probes for visible gaps or leaks (proposed subparagraph 

(r)6iii and paragraphs (r)7 and 8) . In order for the deck fittings and rim 

seal system to be inspected safely, the tank must be emptied, which it is 

prior to degassing. This schedule is consistent with the NSPS schedule . 

A fixed roof tank larger than 40,000 gallons that store the lmore 

volatile VOC's (vapor pressure greater than 0.5 psia) must be inspected 

annually to assure it is leak-free (proposed paragraph (r)9) . The proposed 

annual inspection would be consistent with SCAQMD's inspection 

schedule . 

Proposed new N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) refers to the "Inspection Form." 

This form is contained in proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 Appendix 11, which 

also provides instructions for completing the form. The "Inspection 

PROPOSALS 

Form" must be used to demonstrate compliance for fixed roof tanks, 

internal floating roof tanks, external floating roof tanks, and domed tanks . 

The form provides a checklist of items to inspect and tank information to 

insert, including company infonnation, who conducted the inspection, 

tank specifications, fitting and seal information, ground level inspection 

information, and certifications . Appendix II requires an authorized 

inspector to sign the "Inspection Form." Appendix II also includes a copy 

of the "Fugitive Emissions Form" used to report measured fugitive 

emissions, repairs made to the tank, and the date of the repairs . 

In the proposed new recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 

proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(s) through (v), the Department proposes to 

relocate and expand existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(k), the existing 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements . Existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-

16.2(k) requires that records be maintained of each VOC stored and the 

vapor pressure of each VOC at standard conditions . 

Proposed new N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .2(s) expands the recordkeeping 

requirements for each VOC stationary storage tank and requires the 

records to be maintained on-site for five years, in accordance with 

existing N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .22(a), or another length of time specified in the 

proposed rule . Proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s)1 lists the requirements 

that are in existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(k) . In addition to the requirements 

at N.J .A .C. 7 :27-16 .2(s)l, the owner or operator must maintain records 

regarding the manner of storage of VOCs emitted during roof landings ; 

roof landing emissions ; operating parameters of vapor control devices ; 

inspection reports; and degassing, cleaning and sludge removal. Proposed 

paragraph (s)5 requires inspection records to be kept for the lifetime of 

the tank, which is consistent with the retention period at existing N.J .A .C . 

7 :1E-2 .15(d), which requires the owner or operator of an above ground 

storage tank at a major facility to maintain records of integrity testing, 

inspection, and repair for the lifetime of the tank. Proposed paragraph 

(s)7 requires retention of a tank's integrity testing schedules . N.J .A.C . 

7:1E-4 .2(c)lv requires such schedules to be included in the tank's 

"Discharge, Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan ." 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(t) requires the owner or operator of 

any floating roof stationary storage tank that installs a vapor control 

device to record certain information based on the type of vapor control 

device installed. The Department based this proposed requirement on 

recordkeeping requirements at existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-16.4(o) for loading 

rack control devices . Proposed subparagraph (t)li through iii require 

operating parameter records for a thermal oxidizer . Proposed 

subparagraphs (t)2i through iii require operating parameter records for a 

vapor control system that uses carbon or other adsorptive material. 

Proposed paragraph (t)3 requires operating parameter records the 

Department requests for any other vapor control system. These records, 

required to be maintained by proposed paragraph (s)4, would help owners 

and operators to monitor compliance and the Department to verify 

compliance . 

Proposed subsection (u) requires an owner or operator to submit a 

report to the Department if he or she determines during an inspection, or 

at any other time, that the tank does not comply with any decking and 

seal requirement (proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(1)) . If the facility has an 

approved operating permit under N.J .A .C . 7 :27-22, the owner or operator 

shall submit this report as part of the periodic compliance report . For any 

facility that does not have an operating permit, the owner or operator of 

any tank with a preconstruction permit or any tank not required to have a 

preconstruction permit pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-8 .2, must submit the 

report within three business days after becoming aware of the noncompliance . 

Proposed subsection (v) requires an owner or operator who requests an 

alternate method for calculating average annual roof landing VOC 

emissions for an emissions averaging plan, to submit a complete 

application describing and justifying the alternate method to the Assistant 

Director of the Department's Air Quality Permitting Element. Proposed 

paragraph (v)1 identifies the application's contents . 

N.J.A .C . 7:27-16.3 Gasoline transfer operations 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .3(i)lii and iii, the Department proposes to correct 

the mailing address of the Bureau of Technical Services . 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4408) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16 .7 Surface coating and graphic arts operations 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7(e), the Department proposes to exempt certain 

heatset web lithographic printing operations and heatset letterpress 

printing operations from the control requirements at proposed N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .7(r)1, to be consistent with the "Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing." (EPA 453/R06-002) . 

At N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .7(f), the Department proposes to amend Table 7B 

to cause the existing maximum allowable VOC content for "coating of 

flat wood paneling" and its three subcategories to be operative through 

April 30, 2009. On the operative date of these amendments, this category 

type would be replaced with a new category type "printed interior panels 

made of hardwood, plywood, or thin particleboard," consisting of the 

three existing categories plus two new subcategories, "exterior siding" 

and "tileboards ." Effective the operative date of these amendments, the 

Department proposes a more stringent maximum allowable VOC content 

per volume of coating (minus water) of 2 .1 pounds per gallon or 0.25 

kilogram per liter for these five subcategories . - 

At N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7(f), the Department proposes to amend Table 7D 

Part B. Graphic arts operations includes rotogravure, sheet-fed gravure, 

flexographic, fabric, and screen printing operations . Existing Part B 

applies to graphic arts operations, except screen printing operations . The 

Department proposes to separate the control criteria for fabric printing 

operations from the control criteria for rotogravure, sheet-fed gravure, 

and flexographic printing operations because the fabric printing standards 

are no longer similar to the standards of the other three printing methods. 

The Department proposes to relocate the existing fabric printing content 

requirements at Part B to new proposed Part D. The Department proposes 

that Part B apply to rotogravure, sheet-fed gravure or flexographic 

printing operations . Existing Part B rates would apply to control criteria 

of a source operation constructed prior to the operative date of these 

amendments, while new more stringent rates would apply to control 

criteria of a source operation constructed or modified on or after the 

operative date of these amendments, The proposed more stringent control 

criteria is a maximum allowable VOC content of surface coating 

formulation (minus water) of 0.8 pound VOC per pound of solid applied 

or 0 .16 pound VOC per pound of materials applied . The Department 

proposes to amend the heading of Part B and to repeat a heading within 

the table to reflect the proposed amendments . 

The Department proposes to delete from Part B the fountain solution 

content limits . The Department is proposing more stringent fountain 

solution content requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .7(s) operative on the 

operative date of these amendments, as discussed below. 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7(h) provides alternatives for rotogravure, 

sheet-fed gravure, flexographic, fabric and screen printing operations to 

comply with the standards in existing Table 7D. Existing subsection (h) 

allows these five printing operations to alternatively comply with 

subsection (p), which allows a printing operation to use a control 

apparatus that has not been altered or replaced since the printing 

operation was permitted, if the permit was issued prior to July 26, 1994. 

The Department proposes to continue to allow this compliance alternative 

for fabric printing operations, but not for the other four printing 

operations . The Department proposes to remove this compliance 

ahernative from existing paragraph (h) and subparagraph (h)li and add it 

to proposed amended paragraph (h)4, which applies only to fabric 

printing operations . 

Existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(h)1 allows alternative compliance for the 

owner or operator of a rotogravure or sheet-fed gravure printing operation 

that has its emissions controlled by either a thermal oxidizer or carbon 

adsorption system . In such operations, the owner or operator can meet 

certain capture and control requirements . The Department proposes that 

paragraph (h)1 apply only to rotogravure or sheet-fed gravure printing 

uhcrations installed prior to May 1, 2010. The requirements at propose(1 

pa-_qgraph (h)l would apply whether or not the operation was modified 

p :-ior to May 1, 2010. As explained below, if the operation is modified on 

or after May 1, 2010 the operation must meet proposed paragraph (h)3 . 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .7(h)2 allows alternative compliance for the 

owner or operator of a flexographic printing operation that has its 

emissions controlled by either a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorption 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

system, by meeting certain capture and control requirements . As in 

proposed paragraph (h)1, the Department proposes that paragraph (h)2 

apply only to operations installed prior to May 1, 2010. The requirements 

at proposed paragraph (h)2 would apply whether or not the operation was 

modified prior to May l, 2010. As explained below, if the operation is 

modified on or after May 1, 2010, the operation must meet proposed 

paragraph (h)3 . 

The Department proposes new N.J.A.C . 7:27-16 .7(h)3 to allow the 

owner or operator of any rotogravure, sheet-fed, or flexographic 

operation installed or modified on or after May 1, 2010, as an alternative 

to complying with the control criteria requirements set forth at proposed 

Table 7D, to install or use control apparatus with more stringent capture 

and control requirements . Proposed paragraph (h)3 would require these 

sources to have a minimum capture efficiency of 85 percent and either a 

minimum control efficiency of 95 percent, if a thermal oxidizer is used 

(proposed subparagraph (h)3i), or a minimum control efficiency of 90 

percent, if a carbon adsorber is used (proposed subparagraph (h)3ii). 

Equipment installed prior to May 1, 2010 would be subject to proposed 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .7(h)l or 2, whether or not the equipment was modified 

before May 1, 2010. For equipment modified after May 1, 2010, the less 

stringent limits at proposed amended paragraphs (h)l and 2 would no 

longer apply ; instead the more stringent limits at proposed paragraph (h)3 

would apply . 

Proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(h)4 and 5 are relocated from existing 

N .J .A .C . 7 :27-16.7(h)3 and 4, with amendments to conform the rule to 

the remainder of amended subsection (h) . Existing subparagraph (h)3i 

incorrectly references N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(r), a subsection that does not 

exist . In proposed amended subparagraph (h)4i, the Department proposes 

to correct this cross reference. 

Existing N.J .A.C. 7 :27-1b .7(p) applies to rotogravure, sheet-fed 

gravure, flexographic and fabric printing operations . Since the 

Department is proposing specific compliance alternatives for rotogravure, 

sheet-fed gravure, and flexographic printing operations at paragraph (h)1 

through 3, the compliance alternative at existing subsection (p) would 

apply only to fabric printing operations . 

For heatset web offset lithographic printing operations and heatset 

letterpress printing operations, the Department proposes at N.J .A.C. 7 :27-

16.7(r)1 that on and after May 1, 2010, these operations must achieve 

greater than 95 percent control for VOC emissions from the dryer or, in 

the alternative, less than 20 parts per million by volume as equivalent 

hexane (on a dry basis) from the dryer . Proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(r)1 

is equivalent to the CTG guideline for new thermal oxidizers . The 

Department proposes at paragraphs (r)2 through 4 that on and after the 

operative date of these amendments, these printing operations must 

comply with the CTG document's recommended VOC content standards 

for materials used to clean the printing presses . Since it will take more 

time for a printing operation to install additional controls or modify a 

printing operation in order to comply with paragraph (r)1, the Department 

proposes to give the printing operation a longer time to comply. 

Proposed N.J .A .C. 7 :27-16.7(s) includes the CTG document's 

recommendations for fountain solutions . Fountain solutions are solutions 

used in lithographic printing operations that renders the non-image areas 

unreceptive to ink . 

The Department is proposing new N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .7(t) to require best 

management practices to be complied with on and after the operative date 

of these amendments for any new or existing surface coating operation or 

graphic arts operation addressed in the CTG documents. The Department 

proposes these best management practices because the CTG documents 

recommended them. 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .11 Asphalt pavement production plants 

The Department proposes to amend the heading of this, section to 

"Asphalt pavement production plants," which is the Department's 

proposed term for the regulated facilities . The same amendment is 

proposed throughout the subchapter . 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.17 Alternative VOC control requirements 

The Department proposes to amend the heading of this section, 

because the section refers to alternative VOC control requirements, not to 

facility-specific VOC control requirements . 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4409) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-16 .17(a)3 would extend the application 

of the section to any source operation that was issued an alternative VOC 

control plan before the operative date of these amendments . The 

Department intends that all existing approved alternative VOC control 

plans be re-evaluated . Accordingly, as discussed below, the Department 

proposes to amend the section to require each facility with an approved 

alternative VOC control plan to apply for a new alternative VOC control 

plan within 60 days after the operative date of the proposed rules . The 

Department proposes grammatical changes to paragraph(a)2 to improve 

clarity. 

The Department proposes that N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .17(c) shall apply to all 

owners or operators seeking approval of an alternative VOC control plan, 

not to only those owners or operators of unregulated or exempt sources, 

as is the applicability of the existing rule . These amendments are being 

proposed because all existing alternative VOC control plans were 

approved to meet the one-hour ozone standard, but not the new stricter 

eight-hour ozone standard . The majority of these plans were approved in 

1997 or 1998 and may not reflect current control technology, which 

would be classified as RACT for the given source operation . 

Proposed amended N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16.17(c) would terminate all 

existing alternative VOC control plans, and establish a process for 

applying or re-applying for a plan. Existing N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .17(c) would 

become part of the process . Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .17(c) contains a 

compliance date of May 31, 1995 for some sources . Because this date has 

passed, the Department proposes to delete the date from the rule . 

Regulated facilities would continue to be bound by the compliance dates 

in the other sections of the subchapter . The Department proposes to 

recodify the remainder of existing subparagraph (c) as paragraph (c)1 

with granunatical changes to improve clarity. 

Proposed new paragraph (c)2 requires any new plan the Department 

approves after the operative date of these amendments to have a term of 

10 years . Within 10 years, the Department expects technology to have 

progressed such that it would be appropriate to re-evaluate the alternative 

VOC control plans to determine if more stringent controls are warranted . 

Proposed new paragraph (c)3 requires each owner or operator with an 

existing alternative VOC control plan that the Department approved 

before the operative date of these amendments to submit a new plan for 

the Department's approval . Proposed new paragraph (c)3 allows the 

owner or operator to request a 60-day extension for submitting the new 

plan if the owner or operator cannot submit the plan within 90 days of the 

rules' operative date . If the proposed plan is submitted within 90 days 

after the rules' operative date or by the date specified in an approved 

extension, the existing plan will terminate on the date specified in the 

implementation schedule of the aliernative VOC control plan the 

Department approves as proposed at subparagraph (c)3i . This will allow 

the existing plan to remain in effect until the owner or operator has an 

appropriate amount of time, as approved by the Department, to 

implement the proposed plan . If the proposed plan is not submitted within 

90 days after the rule operative date, the existing plan will terminate 90 

days after the operative date of the proposed amendments, as proposed at 

subparagraph (c)3ii . 

At proposed new paragraph (c)4, if an owner or operator modifies or 

reconstructs the equipment or control apparatus during the plan's 10-year 

term, the existing plan terminates upon the start date of that activity . If 

the owner or operator intends to continue operating under an alternative 

VOC control plan, proposed paragraph (c)4 requires the owner or 

operator to apply for a new plan, which will have a new 10-year term. 

Proposed new paragraph (c)5 requires an owner or operator who has 

an alternative VOC emission plan issued after the operative date of these 

amendments to re-apply one year prior to the plan's expiration date . One 

year is the approximate time period for the Department to process an 

application for an alternative VOC control plan . 

Proposed amended subparagraph (d)2x requires an owner or, operator 

to submit as part of a proposed alternative VOC control plan an 

implementation schedule for the plan's proposed control technologies or 

process alternatives . This will enable the Department to determine 

whether the owner or operator plans to implement the proposed control 

measures in a timely manner. 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .17(h) allows the Department to deny a 

request for approval of any of three submissions listed at N.J .A.C . 7 :27- 

PROPOSALS 

16 .17(g) if an owner or operator fails to provide information to the 

Department. Although these three types of submissions are submitted to 

the Department to consider for approval, the submissions are not referred 

to in subsection (g) as requests for approval . Since the reference to a 

request in subsection (h) is confusing and not necessary, the Department 

proposes to remove the reference to a request. 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .17(j) established the Department's options 

it can take after receiving a complete proposed alternative VOC control 

plan . However, existing paragraphs (j) and (j)1 refer to a request in 

addition to a proposed plan . Subsection 17 requires an applicant to submit 

a proposed alternative VOC control plan, not a request . Although the 

term "request" was adopted on December 20, 1993 (25 N.J .R . 6002(a)), 

the August 2, 1993 proposal Summary (25 N.J .R. 3339(a), 3346) 

discussed only a plan, not a request . Since the term "request" is not 

needed, the Department proposes to delete the reference to a request from 

paragraphs (j) and (j)1 . 

The Department proposes at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .17(q) to allow the 

Department to authorize a 60-day extension of a deadline set forth at new 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-16 .17(c)3, to clarify that such an extension may not be 

renewed, to delete outdated provisions, to delete an unnecessary word, 

and to update the address to which an owner or operator must submit a 

request for a deadline extension. 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-16 .19 Application of cutback and emulsified asphalts 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .19(a) allows a person to use cutback or 

emulsified asphalt from April 16 through October 14, if at least one of 

four conditions at paragraphs (a)2 through 5 is met. The Department 

proposes to no longer allow the use of cutback or emulsified asphalt 

under any of these four conditions during this time period. Proposed new 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .19(a) bans the use or application of cutback asphalt or 

emulsified asphalt from April 16 through October 14 . unless the asphalt 

contains no greater than 0 .1 percent VOC by weight (proposed paragraph 

(a)1) or the asphalt produces no greater than 6.0 milliliter of oil distillate 

(proposed paragraph (a)2) . The 0.1 percent VOC by weight limit was 

developed from the Department's goal to achieve as close to zero VOC 

emissions from cutback and emulsified asphalt as possible . The higher 

the VOC content in the asphalt, the higher the VOC emissions from the 

asphalt. It is technically impossible to achieve zero VOC emissions from 

these two asphalts because they will always contain trace amounts of 

VOCs. Therefore, the Department determined that a 0.1 percent detection 

limit of VOC content is sufficiently close to achieving zero VOC 

emissions . The other limit, 6.0 milliliter of oil distillate, is close to the 

detection limit of the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Method D244. 

Proposed paragraph (a)2 prescribes either ASTM Method D244 or 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) T 59 to determine 6e amount of oil distillate in asphalt. Both 

methods determine the amount of oil distillate by examining the asphalt 

emulsions, which are composed principally of a serni-solid or liquid 

asphalt base, water and an emulsifying agent. Both methods use 

analytical procedures that include phase separation by sieve tests and 

distillation . 

The Department also proposes new N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .19(b) to reduce 

VOC emissions during the regulated period, April 16 through October 14, 

by requiring persons to store non-compliant cutback and emulsified 

asphalts in sealed containers . The Department's intent is to allow a 

person to store asphalt that would be non-compliant if used during the 

regulated period, and use it after October 14, the end of the regulated 

period . 

N.J .A.C. 7:27-16 .22 Emission information, recordkeeping and testing 

The Department proposes to delete the recordkeeping requirements at 

existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(k) and to add expanded recordkeeping 

requirements at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s) . Therefore, at N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .22(b) and (i), the Department proposes to change the reference 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(k) to N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(s) . The Department proposes 

to delete existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(h) because the requirements are 

outdated . The subsection is proposed to be reserved . 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4410) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

N.J .A .C .7 :27-16 .27 Exceptions 

The Department is proposing to delete exceptions at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

16 .27(b)l, 2, 4 and 5, since these exceptions have expired . N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16 .27(b)3 and 6 are proposed to be recodified as paragraphs (b)l and 2, 

respectively . 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 Appendix 11- Inspections 

Proposed Appendix II to N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 contains the inspection 

procedures and forms referenced at proposed N.J .A.C. 7:27-16 .2(r) . The 

Department based proposed Appendix II on California's SCAQMD Rule 

1178, Attachment A, with minor changes to conform to the style, 

terminology, and format of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 . 

The headings "Equipment Needed" and "Inspection Procedures" refer 

to the equipment needed and the procedures to perform the seal and 

fitting inspections required at proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-16 .2(r)2 through 4. 

The proposed "Inspection Report" form would be used to record 

inspection results . "Program Interest No." is the Department-assigned 

Program Interest number for an operating permit . This number is called 

the Facility Identification number for a Preconstruction Permit and 

Operating Certificate . "Permit Activity No." is the permit activity number 

stated on the approved permit . "Tank ID No. E" is the equipment 

identification number stated on the approved permit . "Inspection date" 

and "time" are the date and time of day of the inspection . 

Section A, "Company Information," is to record the required company 

identification information . Section B, "Inspection Conducted By," is to 

record information about the company and person conducting the 

inspection . Section C, "Tank Information," is to record tank information, 

such as size, roof type, contents, and vapor pressure . Section D, "Ground 

Level Inspection," is to record ground level information, such as 

temperature and product level, leaks and deviations from permit 

conditions . Section E, "Internal Floating Roof or Domed Tank," is to 

record explosimeter readings under the fixed roof of a domed or internal 

floating roof tank to determine compliance with proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

16 .2(1)5iii and 7v and vi, to require that a visual inspection be performed 

(as required by proposed N.J .A .C: 7:27-16 .2(r)3), and to record whether 

all roof openings are covered . Section F, "External Floating Roof Tank 

(or Domed Tank and Internal Floating Roof Tank when needed)," is to 

record applicable seal and deck fitting information required at proposed 

N.J.A.C. 7 :27-16 .2(1)1, 3 and 4. Section G, "Calculation," is to record 

seal gaps that deviate from proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .2(1)3 and 4. 

Section H "Determine Compliance Status of Tank" is to record a tank's 

compliance status with permit and regulatory requirements . Section I 

p rovi 'des space to explain the reason for any termination of a tank 

inspection before completion . Section J, "Comments," is a general 

comment section . Section K, "Certifications," is for authorized inspectors 

and company representatives to certify the truth, accuracy and 

completeness of the inspection report using certification language 

required by N.J .A.C . 7:27-1 .39 . Since N.J .A .C . 7:27-16.2(r)1 requires 

any inspection to be performed by an authorized inspector, the authorized 

inspector must sign the "Inspection completed by" line . The authorized 

inspector must be API certified, and must write his or her API 

Certification number on the "Inspection completed by" line. An API 

certification number is the API 653 authorized inspector certificate 

number for the prospective "authorized inspector." A "responsible 

official," as that term is defined at N.J .A .C . 7:27-1 .4, must sign the 

"Responsible Official" line . The responsible official need not possess an 

API certification number. The authorized inspector, the responsible 

official, or a person designated by the responsible official, must sign the 

"Compliance status determined by" line . Anyone who signs the 

"Compliance status determined by" line, other than the authorized 

inspector, need not possess an API certification number. 

Proposed Appendix II, "Inspections," also contains a Fugitive 

Emissions Report form, on which N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .2(r) requires ~ny 

fugitive emissions to be recorded . 

Subehapter 19 . Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of 

Nitrogen 

N.J .A .C.7 :27-19 .1 Definitions 

The proposed definition of "asphalt pavement production plant" is 

intended to make it clear that proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .2, 19 .9 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

and 19.13, where the term is used, applies only to those asphalt plants 

that produce asphalt pavement, but not to asphalt plants at refineries . 

The Department proposes to define "blown glass," "fiberglass," "flat 

glass," and "pressed glass ." The definitions of "blown glass," "flat glass," 

and "pressed glass" are the same as are used by Pennsylvania in its Air 

Resources rules at 25 Pa. Code §121 .1 . The Department proposes to 

regulate glass melting furnaces that produce fiberglass . The proposed 

definition of "fiberglass" is the same as proposed by Pennsylvania in its 

July 11, 2007 "Draft Proposed Rulemaking on Glass Manufacturing 

Furnaces ." The OTC gave the Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania the lead 

responsibility in developing emission reduction strategies for glass 

manufacturing furnaces . The Department intends to be consistent with the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's definitions of these three terms . The 

Department proposes to define "glass removed," which is undefined in 

the existing rules . The proposed definition is identical to the definition of 

"pull rate" in SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 on glass melting furnaces. The 

Department defines "glass removed" as the amount of glass coming out 

of a glass melting furnace, rather than the amount of glass coming out of 

a glass manufacturing plant or facility . Glass actually coming out of the 

manufacturing plant as final product would be less than glass .removed 

from the melting furnace, and this is because of the remelting of offspecification product . As a result, the Department's proposed "glass 

removed" definition will provide a more accurate performance measure 

of the furnace with respect to NO, emissions as opposed to using the 

amount of glass leaving the facility . 

The Department proposes to place in alphabetical order the existing 

definitions of "CFR" and "Clean Air Act." 

The Department proposes to add definitions of "class I renewable 

energy" and "class II renewable energy" because these terms are used in 

the Department's proposed definition of renewable energy. The 

Department proposes to define these terms consistent with the Electric 

Discount and Energy Competition Act, N.J .S .A . 48 :3-49 et seq ., because 

this Act pertains to equipment that is similar to the equipment N.J .A.C . 

7 :27-19 regulates. 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "clean distributed 

generation" because the Department proposes to allow HEDD unit 

owners or operators to shed load from I-IEDD units to clean distributed 

generation units on high electric demand days, in order to achieve the 

NO, emission reductions required by proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29 . The 

Department proposes to define this term to be consistent with the 

emission limits at existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-8 .2(f)lii . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "demand response" 

because the Department proposes to allow HEDD unit owners or 

operators to implement demand response measures in New Jersey in 

order to achieve the NO, emission reductions required by proposed 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .29, 2009 HEDD emission reduction plan . The 

Department proposes to define this term consistent with a Mid-Atlantic 

Distributed Resources Initiative (MADRI) definition. MADRI was 

established in 2004 by the public utility commissions of Delaware, the 

District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and the 

U.S . Department of Energy, EPA, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and PJM Interconnection, to identify and remedy retail 

barriers to the deployment of distributed generation, demand response 

and energy efficiency in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "dual fuel" because 

the Department is proposing emission standards for an 

industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) boiler that is capable of 

combusting more than one type of fuel . "Duel fuel" identifies this type of 

ICI boiler. 

To the existing definition of "electric generating unit" the Department 

proposes to add the acronym "EGU." This acronym is used throughout 

the proposed new rules and amendments. 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "energy efficiency 

measure" because the Department proposes to allow HEDD unit owners 

or operators to implement energy efficiency measures in New Jersey in 

order to achieve the NO, emission reductions required by proposed 

N .J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .29, 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction Compliance 

Demonstration Protocol . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "heavier than No. 2 

fuel oil" because proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .4(a) would require boilers 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4411) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

that combust this grade of fuel oil to comply with a specific emission 

limit . The Department proposes to define this term consistent with Table 

1 at existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-9 .2(b) and Table 2 at existing N.J.A.C . 7:27-

9 .2(c) . This would include, but not be limited to, No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil. 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "high electric demand 

day" or "HEDD" because several proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-19 .3, 19.4 and 19 .5 and proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29 and 

19 .30 reference HEDD. Similarly, the Department proposes to add a 

definition of "`high electric demand day unit' or `I3EDD unit"' because 

several amendments to N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .3 through 19 .5 and proposed 

new N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .29 and 19.30 reference HEDD units . The 

Department's proposed definitions are based on research and analysis 

conducted during a regional stakeholder process . The definitions that the 

Department proposes are consistent with the terms used in the regulated 

community. 

The Department proposes to modify the existing definition of "interim 

period" to reflect the revised compliance date in N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19.22 and 

that the owner or operator, and not the combustion source, attains 

compliance . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "MWh" to define this 

tenn as megawatt-hour. 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "pounds/MWh" to 

clarify that the megawatt-hours used in the emission factor in several of 

the amended and new tables in proposed 19 .4 and 19 .5 refers to total net 

energy output and not only to electric energy output . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "No. 2 and lighter fuel 

oil" because proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .4(a), would require boilers that 

combust this grade of fuel oil to comply with a specific emission limit. 

The Department proposes to define this term consistent with Table 1 at 

existing N.J .A.C. 7:27-9 .2(b) and Table 2 at existing N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

9.2(c) . This does not apply to motor vehicle fuel . The Department 

proposes to add a definition of "non-high electric demand day unit" or 

"non-HEDD unit" because proposed N.J .A.C. 7:27-19 .5 and 9 .29 

reference non-high electric demand day units . As stated above, the 

Department's proposed definition is based on research and analysis 

conducted during a regional stalceholder process . 

The Department proposes to define "on-specification used oil" since 

the Department is proposing an emission standard that applies to burning 

these types of fuel . The proposed definition is consistent with existing 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-20 .1 . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "renewable energy" 

because the Department proposes to allow HEDD unit owners or 

operators to implement renewable energy measures in' New Jersey in 

order to achieve the NO, emission reductions required by proposed 

N.J.A .C . 7 :27-19 .29, 2009 HEDD emission reduction compliance 

demonstration protocol . The Department proposes to define "renewable 

energy" as either "class I renewable energy" or "class II renewable 

energy ." 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "shed load" because 

the Department proposes to allow HEDD unit owners or operators to shed 

load to clean distributed generation units in order to achieve the NO, 

emission reductions required by proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .29 . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "shift load" because 

the Department proposes to allow HEDD unit owners or operators to shift 

load in order to achieve the NO. emission reductions required by 

proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19.29 . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "SSU viscosity" 

because this term is used to define "No. 2 and lighter fuel oil" and 

"heavier than No. 2 fuel oil ." The Department's proposed definition is 

identical to the definition at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-9 .1 . 

The Department proposes to define "used oil" since the Department is 

proposing an emission standard that applies to burning these types of 

fuel . The proposed definition is consistent with existing N.J .A.C . 

7 :27-20 .1 . 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "viscosity" because 

this term is used in the proposed definition of "SSU viscosity." The 

Department's proposed definition is identical to the definition at existing 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-9 .1 . 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-19 .2 Purpose, scope and applicability 

PROPOSALS 

The Department proposes to amend N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .2(b)5 to use the 

proposed new term "asphalt pavement production plant ." 

The Department proposes to recodify existing paragraph (b)9 as (b) 12, 

and amend cross references . 

The Department proposes at new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .2(b)9 to regulate 

glass manufacturing furnaces that manufacture blown glass, flat glass or 

pressed glass with the potential to emit at least JO tons NO, per year. As 

discussed above, the existing rule established NOx maximum allowable 

emission rates for glass manufacturing furnaces producing commercial 

container glass, specialty container glass and borosilicate recipe glass . 

The Department proposes at new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .2(b)10 and 11 to 

regulate municipal solid waste incinerators and sewage sludge 

incinerators, respectively. As discussed above, the proposed new rules 

establish NO. emission standards for these two source categories . 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .3 General provisions 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .3(e) established requirements for extending 

deadlines set forth in other provisions of Subchapter 19, and for renewing 

these extensions . Proposed amended subsection (e) allows the 

Department to authorize one non-renewable 60-day extension of a 

deadline set forth at new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(b)5 (the proposed deadline 

for submitting a request for an alternative maximum allowable emissions 

rate or a facility-specific NO, control plan), to delete outdated provisions, 

and to update the address to which an owner or operator must submit a 

request for a deadline extension. 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .3(f) allows the equipment and sources 

identified in N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .2(b) to comply with the alternatives at 

paragraphs (f)1 through 4, rather than with the emissions limits elsewhere 

in Subchapter 19 . Under proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .3(f), on and 

after the operative date of these proposed new rules and amendments, 

instead of complying with the emission rates at proposed N.J.A.C. 7 :27-

19.28, a sewage sludge incinerator may alternatively comply with 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .3(f) . Under proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .3(f), 

on and after May 1, 2015, HEDD units will be unable to use the 

alternatives in subsection (f) to comply with the emission limits at 

proposed amended N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .4 and 19 .5 . 

Existing N.J.A.C . 7:27-19.3(g) established requirements for former 

discrete emission reduction (DER) credit holders, including modified 

deadlines to meet at paragraphs (g)1 through 13 . Existing paragraph (g)3 

allowed former DER credit holders to submit a proposed NO control 

plan in accordance with existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13(b) by July 25, 2004. 

The Department proposes to delete this requirement, since it is outdated 

and because the proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.13 establish 

separate deadlines for submitting a proposed NO, control plan and a 

request for an alternative maximum allowable NO,; emission rate. 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.4 Boilers serving electric generating units 

The proposed amendments to N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .4 limit the operative 

period of the portion of N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19.4(a) that requires the owner or 

operator of any boiler serving an electric generating unit to cause it to 

emit NO,; at a rate no greater than the applicable maximum allowable 

NO. emission rate specified in Table 1 . The amendments would also 

establish the allowable NO, emission rates that will apply after the 

expiration of the existing rates set by the table at N.J.A .C. 7:27-19.4(a) . 

The three tables will apply to boilers serving electric generating units 

during different time periods : Table 1 through December 14, 2012; Table 

2, from December 15, 2012 through April 30, 2015; and Table 3 on and 

after May 1, 2015. As previously discussed, proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .3(o prohibits HEDD units from using N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .3(f) as an 

alternative to complying with the emission rates in Table 3, on and after 

May 1, 2015. The owner or operator would be required to comply with 

the existing rates at proposed amended Table 1 or the proposed new rates 

in Tables 2 and 3, unless otherwise specified in an enforceable agreement 

with the Department. Similarly to other amendments proposed above, the 

Department's intention is to assure that these proposed maximum 

allowable NO, emission rates do not supercede the emission rates 

required by the ACO and ACD, two enforceable agreements discussed 

above, or any other enforceable agreement . 

(CITE 40 N.J .R. 4412) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

Also, proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .4(a) will make it clear that a boiler 

serving an electric generating unit is also subject to the state-of-the-art 

(SOTA) requirements at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-8 .12 and 22.35, lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER) requirements at N.J .A.C. 7 :27-18, and best 

available control technology (BACT) requirements at 40 CFR 52 .21, as 

applicable . SOTA, LAER or BACT requirements may result in a more 

stringent maximum allowable emission rate than the rates in proposed 

subsection (a) . 

The category "oil and/or gas" in Table 1 and proposed Table 2 refers 

to a boiler with a burner that is capable of burning only oil, or a boiler 

with a burner that is capable of burning oil and gas simultaneously or 

individually. The latter burner is called a dual fuel burner . At Table 2, the 

proposed maximum allowable emission rates for an EGU boiler that 

bums oil and/or gas, and the emission rates for a boiler that burns only 

gas, are obtained by converting the Table 1 pounds per million British 

thennal units (pounds/MMBtu), input-based emission rates, into pounds 

per megawatt-hour (pounds/MWh), output-based emission rates . For the 

purposes of this conversion, the Department uses a generic heat rate of 

10,000 British thermal units per kilowatt hour (Btu/KWh) . Therefore the 

proposed Table 2 emission rates for categories "oil and/or gas" and "gas 

only" are equivalent to the existing emission rates in Table 1 . 

However, the proposed Table 2 coal-fired boiler maximum allowable 

emission rate of 1 .50 pounds/MWh, an output-based emission rate, is 

more stringent than the existing emission rates in Table l, input-based 

emission rates . The proposed Table 2 output-based emission rate is based 

on an input-based emission rate of 0 .150 pounds/MMBtu and heat rate of 

10,000 (Btu/KWh). The input-based emission rate of 0.150 

pounds/MMBtu is consistent with the maximum allowable 24-hour NO, 

emission rate that is required by the previously mentioned ACD and 

ACO. The significance of this ACO and ACD are explained above in the 

section of the Background statement addressing coal-fired boilers . The 

Department is proposing output-based maximum allowable emission 

rates to encourage energy efficiency improvements . The Department has 

proposed output-based emission rates instead of input-based emission 

rates, because output-based rates consider the energy efficiency of the 

boiler in determining boiler emissions . The more energy efficient a piece 

of equipment is, the lower the output-based emission level . This energy 

efficiency would be accomplished by minimizing thermal losses (for 

example, insulation, ductwork improvement) and maintaining equipment 

tuned-up and operating properly. Proposed Table 2 differs from Table 1 

because Table 2 eliminates separate emission rates for two coal-fired 

boiler types (wet-bottom and dry-bottom) . 

Tables 1 and 2 also differ in that Table 1 category is "fuel/boiler type" 

while the proposed Table 2 category is "boiler type ." 

Proposed Table 3 provides emission rates .for combustion of coal, 

heavier than No. 2 fuel oil, No. 2 and lighter fuel oil, and gas . Each of 

these fuels typically produces a different amount of NO,; emissions, and 

proposed maximum allowable emission rates have been selected based on 

what emission rate is reasonably achievable for each fuel . Proposed Table 

3 eliminates separate emission rates for three fuel-firing methods 

(tangential, face or cyclone) for sources combusting these fuels because 

existing NO, control technology is capable of providing a high emission 

control rate efficiency for all sources, regardless of boiler type and fuel 

firing method. 

Proposed Table 3 emission rates are based on "fuel" and not "boiler 

type." For example, for a boiler with a dual fuel burner that is capa'ble of 

burning No. 4 fuel oil and natural gas, when it bums only No. 4 fuel oil 

the boiler must meet the "heavier than No. 2 fuel oil" rate of 2 .00 

pounds/MWh. When it bums only natural gas, the boiler must meet the 

`gas only" rate of 1 .00 pound/MWh. When it simultaneously burns No. 4 

fuel oil and natural gas, the boiler must meet the more stringent "gas 

only" rate of 1 .00 pound/MWh. 

Proposed Table 3 contains an emission rate of 2.00 pounds/MWh Tor 

combustion of fuel oils heavier than No. 2 fuel oil and an emission rate of 

1 .00 pound/MWh for combustion of No. 2 and lighter fuel oils or gas . 

These output-based emission rates are based on an input-based emission 

rate of 0 .200 pounds/MMBtu for combustion of fuel oils heavier than No. 

2 fuel oil, an input-based emission rate of 0 .100 pounds/MMBtu for 

combustion of No. 2 and lighter fuel oils or gas, and a heat rate of 10,000 

Btu/K_W-hr . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Several emission rates in proposed Table 2 differ from more stringent 

emission rates in proposed Table 3 . These are rates for boilers that burn 

only gas, any fuel oil with a face or cyclone firing method, and dual fuel 

burners that bum fuel oil with a face or cyclone firing method. The Table 

2 emission rates can be met more easily and at a lower cost by making 

modifications, such as increasing energy efficiency . However, meeting 

the Table 3 emission rates may require the installation of a new control 

device at facilities that do not already have such controls . Such an 

installation would be more costly and more complicated than have to 

implement the simpler control strategies . Also for these reasons, the 

December 15, 2012 compliance date for meeting the proposed Table 2 

rates is sooner than the May 1, 2015 compliance date for meeting the 

proposed Table 3 rates . 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .4(d)1 requires the owner or operator of a 

coal-fired boiler serving an electric generating unit to demonstrate 

compliance with the 1 .50 pounds/MWh emission rate in Table 2 by June 

15, 2013 (180 days after the Table 2 rate is operative) or, if the boiler is 

altered, 180 days after commencing operations, whichever is earlier, and 

thereafter according to the schedule in the approved permit . This 

demonstration would suffice for the Table 3 rate, since the Table 2 and 

Table 3 emission rates for coal-fired boilers are identical . 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .4(d)2 requires the owner or operator of a 

boiler serving an electric generating unit that combusts any fuel other 

than coal to demonstrate compliance with the emission rates in Table 3 

by November 1, 2015 (180 days after the Table 3 rate is operative) or, if 

the boiler is altered, 180 days after commencing operations, whichever is 

earlier, and thereafter according to the schedule in the approved permit . 

The compliance date is the date by which a source must begin to meet 

a specified emission rate . The compliance demonstration date is the date 

by which a source must demonstrate to the Department that it is 

complying with a specified emission rate. Usually the Department allows 

a source to demonstrate compliance 180 days after the compliance date to 

allow the source time to, for example, schedule and complete a stack test 

and prepare the stack test report. Giving a source 180 days to demonstrate 

compliance is consistent with the Department's existing compliance 

demonstration rules at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .15 . It is also consistent with the 

stack test requirement in most preconstruction permits and operating 

permits. 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .4(e) will require each owner or operator 

identified at N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(a) to submit a 2009 HEDD Emission 

Reduction Compliance Demonstration Protocol and an annual report to 

the Department, pursuant to N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .29 . Under proposed 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29, discussed below, the HEDD Emission Reduction 

Compliance Demonstration Protocol is due within "30 days after the 

operative date of the rule, and annual reports are required for each 

calendar year from 2009 through 2014.. 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-19.4(f) will require the owner or operator of 

any boiler that is a HEDD unit to submit a 2015 HEDD Emission Limit 

Achievement Plan and annual progress updates to the Department, 

pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .30 . Under proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .30, 

discussed below, the HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan is due by 

May 1, 2010, and annual progress updates are required for each calendar 

year from 2010 through 2014. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-19 .5 Stationary combustion turbines 

The Department proposes additional control requirements for simple 

cycle combustion turbines, the source category regulated at existing 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .5(a) . The Department proposes to recodify existing 

subsection (a) as N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .5(a)1 . Proposed new paragraph (a) 

requires compliance with proposed paragraphs (a)1 through 3, as 

applicable . Like the existing rule, the proposed amended rule allows an 

owner or operator to comply with N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .3(fJ, rather than the 

emission limits of proposed amended Table 4. 

Existing subsection (a) requires that all stationary simple cycle 

combustion turbines with a maximum gross heat input rate of at least 30 

MMBtu/hr comply with the emission rates in existing Table 2. As of 

March 7, 2007, existing Table 2 has applied only to NO, Budget sources . 

Proposed paragraph (a)2 makes Table 4 (existing Table 2) applicable 

to only NO, budget sources through the operative date of the rules . 

Starting the day after the operative date, all sources will be regulated as 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R . 4413) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

either an HEDD unit or non-HEDD unit . The simple cycle combustion 

turbines that are HEDD units will be required to meet the rates in 

proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .5(a)3 . The, simple cycle combustion 

turbines that are non-HEDD units will be required to meet the rates in 

proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .5(d)2 . The proposed amended rule allows 

an owner or operator to comply with N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.3(f), rather than 

with the emission limits of proposed amended Table 4. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .5(a)3 requires that from the day after 

the operative date of the rules, through April 30, 2015, all simple cycle 

combustion turbines that are HEDD units must comply with the 

maximum allowable emission rates in proposed Table 4, or the maximum 

allowable emission rate in the applicable preconstruction permit or 

operating permit, whichever is more stringent. The proposed amended 

rule allows an owner or operator to comply with N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .3(f), 

rather than with the emission limits of proposed amended Table 4. 

Proposed amended Table 4 contains the same emission limits as 

existing Table 2. As of March 7, 2007, existing Table 2 has applied only 

to NO,; budget sources . This limitation is continued, through proposed 

paragraph (a)2 . The Department proposes to amend the column heading 

from "Emission Limit" to "Maximum Allowable NO, Emission Rate," in 

order to be consistent with proposed amended N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .5(a), The 

proposed amended table also includes, in a note, the dates and sources to 

which the table applies . These are taken from proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-

19.5(a)1 through 3. On and after May 1, 2015, Table 4 will not apply to 

any source . 

The Department proposes additional control requirements for 

combined cycle combustion turbines or regenerative cycle combustion 

turbines, the source categories regulated at existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-

19 .5(b) . The Department proposes to recodify existing subsection (b) as 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .5(b) 1 . Proposed new paragraph (b) requires compliance 

with proposed paragraphs (b)1 through 3, as applicable . Like the existing 

rule, the proposed amended rule allows an owner or operator to comply 

with N.J .A .C . 7:27-19.3(f), rather than the emission limits of proposed 

amended Table 5 . 

Existing subsection (b) requires that all combined cycle combustion 

turbines or regenerative cycle combustion turbines with a maximum gross 

heat input rate of at least 30 MMBtu/hr comply with the emission rates in 

existing Table 3 . As of March 7, 2007, existing Table 3 has applied only 

to NO, Budget sources . 

Proposed paragraph (b)2 makes Table 5 (existing Table 3) applicable 

to only NO budget sources through the operative date of the rules . 

Starting the day after the operative date of the rules, all sources will be 

regulated as either an HEDD unit or non-HEDD unit . The combined, 

cycle combustion turbines or regenerative cycle combustion turbines that 

are HEDD units will be required to meet the rates in proposed new 

N .J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .5(b)3 . The combined cycle combustion turbines or 

regenerative cycle combustion turbines that are non-HEDD units will be 

required to meet the rates in proposed new N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(d)2 . The 

proposed amended rule allows an owner or operator to comply with 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-19 .3(f), rather than the emission limits of proposed 

amended Table 5 . 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(b)3 requires that from the day after 

the operative date of the rules through April 30, 2015, all combined cycle 

combustion turbines or regenerative cycle combustion turbines that are 

HEDD units must comply with the maximum allowable emission rates in 

proposed Table 5, or the maximum allowable emission rate in the 

applicable preconstruction permit or operating permit, whichever is more 

stringent . The proposed amended rule allows an owner or operator to 

comply with N.J .A .C . 7:27-19.3(f), rather than the emission limits of 

proposed amended Table 5 . 

Proposed amended Table 5 contains the same emission limits as 

existing Table 3 . As of March 7, 2007, existing Table 3 has applied only 

to NO, budget sources . This limitation is continued, through proposed 

paragraph (b)2 . The Department proposes to amend the column heading 

from "Emission Limit" to "Maximum Allowable NO, Emission Rate," in 

order to be consistent with proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .5(b). The 

proposed amended table also includes, in a note, the dates and sources to 

which the table applies. These are taken from proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-

19 .5(b)1 through 3 . On and after May 1, 2015 Table 5 will not apply to 

any source . 

PROPOSALS 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .5(d) applies to stationary combustion turbines . The 

Department proposes to recodify subsection (d) as paragraph (d)1, and 

amend it to reflect the change in turbine classification from NO, 

Budget/non-NO, Budget sources to HEDD/non-HEDD sources on the 

operative date of the rules, and to correct cross references . 

Proposed amended Table 6 applies to any stationary combustion 

turbine that is not a No. budget source, and that has a maximum heat 

input rate of at least 25 million BTU per hour. As in proposed amended 

N.J .-A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(a) and (b), and Tables 4 and 5, proposed amended 

Table 6 will apply to these sources only until the operative date of the 

rules . Thereafter, in accordance with proposed new paragraph (d)2, 

proposed amended Table 6 will apply only if the stationary combustion 

turbine is a non-HEDD unit, unless the owner or operator is complying 

with N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.3(f) or 19.5(c)1 through 5 . 

The Department proposes to amend Table 6 to add a note, indicating 

the applicability of the table, as set forth in proposed paragraphs (d)1 and -

2 . 

On and after May 1, 2015, proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .5(g), and 

the maximum allowable emission rates at proposed new Table 7, will 

apply to any stationary combustion turbine that is a HEDD unit. If the 

preconstruction permit or operating permit for the turbine specifies that it 

can be fueled by either liquid fuel oil or gaseous fuel, proposed paragraph 

(g)2 requires compliance with the applicable Table 7 gaseous fuel 

emission rate, on high electric demand days, regardless of which fuel is 

combusted. The emission rate for combusting gaseous fuel is more 

stringent than the emission rate for combusting fuel oil . 

Proposed new Table 7 specifies the maximum allowable N0, emission 

rates for any stationary combustion turbine (both simple cycle and 

combined cycle or regenerative cycle) that is a HEDD unit . The types of 

turbines and types of fuel in proposed Table 7 are the same as in 

proposed amended Table 6; however, the maximum allowable emission 

rates are more stringent . These proposed output-based maximum 

allowable emission rates are based on input-based emission rates of 25 

ppm for gas combustion and 42 ppm for oil combustion and a thermal 

efficiency of 35 percent for simple cycle combustion turbines and 46 

percent for combined cycle combustion turbines . 

Table 4 above summarizes the applicability of maximum allowable 

NO., emission rates in proposed Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7. 

Proposed amended N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(f) has been modified to change 

the pound per megawatt-hour abbreviation from "Ib/MWh" to 

"pound/MWh" to be consistent with the proposed definition of "pound 

per megawatt-hour ." 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(h) requires all stationary 

combustion turbines that are constructed, installed, reconstructed or 

modified to comply with all applicable SOTA, LAER and BACT 

requirements, which may result in a more stringent maximum allowable 

emission rate than otherwise set forth at proposed amended N.J .A .C . 

7:27-19 .5 . 

Under proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .5(i), the owner or operator of 

any stationary combustion turbine must demonstrate compliance with the 

maximum allowable NO, emission rate on or before a date that varies, 

depending upon the nature of the turbine . 

Proposed paragraph (i)1 requires the owner or operator of any 

stationary combustion turbine that is a non-HEDD unit to demonstrate 

compliance by 180 days after the day after the operative date of the rules . 

Thereafter, compliance must be demonstrated in accordance with the 

schedule in the unit's approved permit . The owner or operator would be 

exempt from demonstrating compliance prior to 180 days after the 

compliance date, if the owner or operator already demonstrated 

compliance within the preceding five years . 

Proposed paragraph (i)2 requires the owner or operator of any 

stationary combustion turbine that is a HEDD unit to demonstrate 

compliance by November 1, 2015, and thereafter according to the 

compliance demonstration schedule in the unit's approved permit, to 

assure that the owner or operator is maintaining compliance after 

November 1, 2015. A compliance demonstration schedule in a unit's 

permit may require a compliance demonstration 180 days before the 

Department renews a permit or a compliance demonstration schedule 

may require a compliance demonstration every five years or sooner . If the 

HEDD unit is altered, proposed paragraph (i)2 would require the owner 

(CITE 40 N.J .R. 4414) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

or operator to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Table 7 

emission rates by November 1, 2015 or the date determined by N.J .A.C. 

7 :27-19 .15(c), whichever date is earlier . 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .5(j) requires each owner or operator 

identified at proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(a) to submit a 2009 HEDD 

Emission Reduction Compliance Demonstration Protocol and an annual 

report to the Department, pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29 . Under 

proposed N.J .A .C. 7:27-19 .29, discussed below, the HEDD Compliance 

Demonstration Protocol is due within 30 days after the operative date of 

the rule, and annual reports are required for each calendar year from 2009 

through 2014, as discussed below. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .5(k) requires the owner or operator of 

a stationary combustion turbine that is a HEDD unit to submit a 2015 

HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan and annual progress updates, 

pursuant to N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .30 . Under proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .30, 

discussed below, the HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan is due by 

May 1, 2010, and annual progress updates are required for each calendar 

year from 2010 through 2014. 

N.J.A .C. 7 :27-19 .7 Industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and other 

indirect heat exchangers 

The Department proposes to delete N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .7(a) through (c), 

(e) and (f), and reserve the subsections, because the March 7, 2007 

compliance date has passed . The maximum allowable emission rates and 

other requirements in existing subsections (a) through (c), (e) and (f) will 

be replaced by maximum allowable emission rates and other 

requirements elsewhere in the proposed rules . The Department proposes 

to delete references to the deleted subsections elsewhere in the section. 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .7(h), Table 7, proposed to be renumbered as Table 8, 

establishes maximum allowable NO, emission rates for any ICI boiler or 

other indirect heat exchanger with at least 50 MMBtu/hr heat input . The 

Department proposes to amend subsection (h) in order that the maximum 

allowable emission rates in renumbered Table 8-apply only until the date 

that the maximum allowable emission rates in proposed Table 9 become 

effective . The proposed effective date of the maximum allowable 

emission rates in proposed Table 9 varies, depending on the size of the 

boiler or heat exchanger, and whether or not it is modified, as discussed 

below. Also, for consistency with other parts of N.J .A .C . 7:27-19, the 

Department proposes to make clear that it is the owner or operator that is 

required to take the required action. 

In proposed Table 8, for boilers with a maximum gross heat input rate 

of 50 to 100 MMBtu/hr, by renaming the "natural gas" fuel/boiler type as 

"natural gas only," the Department proposes to make it clear that this 

fuel/boiler type is for boilers with a burner that burns only natural gas . 

Similarly, by renaming the "#2 fuel oil" fuel/boiler type as "No. 2 fuel oil 

only," the Department proposes to make it clear that this fuel/boiler type 

is for boilers with a burner that burns only No. 2 fuel oil . The Department 

proposes to replace the symbol "#" with the abbreviation "No." for 

consistency with other proposed amendments and existing rules . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .7(i) requires the owners or operators 

of industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and other indirect heat 

exchangers with at least 25 MMBtu/hr heat input, whether or not they are 

located at a major NO, facility, to comply with the maximum allowable 

NO,; emission rates specified at proposed new Table 9, unless the owner 

or operator is alternatively complying with an option at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

19 .3(f) . Proposed N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .7(i) allows compliance to be phased 

in over three years, depending on the size of the industrial/ 

commercial/institutional boiler or other indirect heat exchanger . Size is 

determined by heat input rate . The larger the heat input rate, the larger the 

size of the boiler or other indirect heat exchanger. Phasing in compliance 

based on size would allow an owner or operator of 

industrial/commercial/institutional boilers or other indirect heat 

exchangers of different sizes to focus their compliance efforts qn a 

different boiler size during each compliance period . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .7(i)1 requires an industrial/ 

commercial/institutional boiler or other indirect heat exchanger with a 

maximum gross heat input rate of at least 25 MMBtu/hr, but less than 50 

MMBtu/hr, to comply with the applicable maximum allowable NO, 

emission rate set forth at proposed Table 9 on and after May 1, 2011 if 

compliance is achieved without a physical modification, or on and after 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

May l, 2012 if compliance is achieved with a physical modification . This 

is the first time that a maximum allowable N0, emission rate would be 

set in New Jersey for this size boiler or other indirect heat exchanger . 

Proposed paragraph (i)1 allows the longest time for the implementation 

of NO, controls on these boilers . Smaller boilers are given more time to 

come into compliance than larger boilers because emission reductions 

achieved will be less, and because the burner industry and owners and 

operators of industrial/commercial/institutional boiler or other indirect 

heat exchanger have had less experience installing and operating low NO, 

burners on smaller boilers . 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .7(i)2 would require an industrial/ 

commercial/institutional boiler or other indirect heat exchanger with a 

maximum gross heat input rate of at least 50 MMBtu/hr, but less than 100 

MMBtu/hr to comply with the applicable maximum allowable NO,; 

emission rate set forth at proposed Table 9 on and after May 1, 2010 if 

compliance is achieved without a physical modification, or on and after 

May 1, 2011 if compliance is achieved with a physical modification . 

Proposed new N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .7(i)3 would require an industrial/ 

commercial/institutional boiler or other indirect heat exchanger with a 

maximum gross heat input rate of at least 100 MMBtu/hr or greater to 

comply with the applicable maximum allowable NO, emission rate set 

forth at proposed Table 9 on and after the operative date of these 

amendments, if compliance is achieved without a physical modification, 

or on and after May 1, 2010 if compliance is achieved with a physical 

modification. The largest boilers are in the first phase, in order that the 

State can achieve a large amount of NO, emission reductions within a 

short time period. 

The proposed maximum allowable NO,; emission rates at Table 9 are 

based on the OTC proposal for ICI boilers (See MACTEC Report 

February 2007, page 4-14) for additional NO, control measures except 

for boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr firing No. 2 fuel oil . Unlike 

proposed renumbered Table 10, discussed below, the Department 

proposes that Table 9 not contain maximum allowable NO, emission 

rates for different firing methods for coal-fired ICI boiler source 

categories because there are no coal-fired industrial/commercial/ 

institutional boilers in New Jersey. 

Proposed Table 9 differs from proposed renumbered Table 8 with 

regard to the maximum allowable emission rates for boilers greater than 

100 MMBtu/hr . Proposed renumbered Table 8 includes the fuel/boiler 

type category "fuel oil and/or natural gas," which includes boilers with a 

burner that combusts only No. 2 fuel oil and boilers with a burrrner that has 

the capability to combust dual fuel using fuel oil and natural gas . Due to 

the difference in configuration of single fuel and dual fuel burners- in 

boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr, proposed Table 9 lists as separate 

categories "No. 2 fuel oil," which is burned by a single fuel burner, and 

"dual fuel using fuel oil and natural gas," which is burned by a dual fuel 

burner . The Department proposes to eliminate maximum allowable 

emission rates for different firing methods for boilers firing "fuel oil 

and/or natural gas," since actual emissions test data demonstrated that the 

proposed maximum allowable emission rates in Table 9 can be achieved 

with available NO,; control technologies, regardless of firing method. 

In proposed Table 9, the Department proposes to split the proposed 

Table 8 category "fuel oil and/or natural gas" (which includes all liquid 

fuels) into two categories : "No. 2 fuel oil only" and "other liquid fuels ." 

Proposed new Table 9 includes these two categories . The Department 

determined that a more stringent limit of 0.10 pounds NO,/million BTU 

is achievable for No. 2 fuel oil than for the other liquid fuels . The 

Department based its determination on actual emission stack tests 

conducted at 12 boilers in New Jersey that operate with low NO, burners 

and/or flue gas recirculation . These tests demonstrated that 50 percent of 

these boilers already achieve an emis~ions rate of 0.10 pounds/million 

BTU or less . 

The Department proposes in Table 9 the category "other liquid fuels," 

with a maximum allowable emission rate of 0 .20 pounds/million BTU for 

No. 4 fuel oil, No. 6 fuel oil, kerosene and all other liquid fuels . These 

four fuel categories emit a higher level of pollutants than natural gas and 

No. 2 fuel oil when combusted ; therefore, the maximum allowable 

emission rates will be less stringent as determined by the RACT process . 

For both boiler sizes, the Department proposes in Table 9 a separate 

maximum allowable emission rate for boilers that can bum natural gas 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R. 4415) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

and fuel oil together or separately, identified in proposed Table 9 as the 

fuel type category "dual fuel using fuel oil and natural gas ." This rate is 

more stringent than the rates for "natural gas only" and for "No. 2 fuel oil 

only" because the design of a boiler that combusts two fuels together or 

separately is constructed of a separate nozzle for each fuel that directs the 

fuel to the same burner box. This type of burner, called a dual fuel burner, 

emits more pollutants than a single nozzle burner used to burn either 

natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil . The rate for a dual fuel burner is less 

stringent than the rates for "refinery fuel gas and other gaseous fuels" and 

for "other liquid fuels" to discourage combustion of No. 4 and No. 6 fuel 

oils which emit more pollutants . 

N.J.A .C . 7:27-19 .9 Asphalt pavement production plants 

The Department proposes to amend the heading of this section to 

"Asphalt pavement production plants," which is the Department's 

proposed term for the regulated facilities . The same amendment is 

proposed throughout the subchapter . 

The Department proposes to specify fuel-specific maximum allowable 

NO, emission concentrations for asphalt pavement production plants in 

proposed new Table 11 at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .9(a) . The proposed 

amendment would set new limits to achieve an emission reduction equal 

to or greater than the OTC recommended 35 percent NOa emissions 

reduction . The new limits are derived from the Department's analysis of 

actual stack test data as described previously in the Summary 

Background section. The OTC's recommended limits are expressed in 

pounds per ton (pounds/ton), or pounds of NO, emitted per ton of asphalt 

produced. New Jersey's proposed limits are expressed in ppmvd at seven 

percent oxygen as described previously in the Background section . New 

Jersey's proposed limits in ppmvd at seven percent oxygen and the 

approximate equivalent in pounds/ton are : for natural gas, 75 ppmvd at 

seven percent oxygen, which is equivalent to 0.025 pounds/ton; for No. 2 

fuel oil, 100 ppmvd at seven percent oxygen, which is equivalent to 0.04 

pounds/ton; and for No. 4 fuel oil, heavier fuel oils, or on-specification 

used oil, or any mixture of these three oils, 125 ppmvd at seven percent 

oxygen, which is equivalent to 0 .05 pounds/ton . 

Existing NT .J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .9(c) and existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .3(f) 

provide the same alternate compliance measures for asphalt production 

plants . The Department proposes to delete N.J .A.C. 7 :27-19 .9(c), and 

replace it with a reference to the options at N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .3(f) . 

The Department is proposing new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .9(d) to require use 

of best management practices to minimize emissions at asphalt pavement 

production plants . These proposed best management practices are based 

on the Department's experience with regulating this source category. 

They are a form of pollution prevention and have been included in 

permits for over 10 years . 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .9(e) requires the owner or operator to 

maintain records of the implementation of the best management practices . 

The Department needs to review records periodically for enforcement 

purposes . The records must be maintained onsite for five years, in 

accordance with N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .19 which contains recordkeeping 

requirements for the entire subchapter. 

The Department is proposing new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .9(f) to phase in 

compliance from the operative date of these amendments to May l, 2012, 

depending on the dryer's gross heat input rate and whether compliance 

will be achieved by a physical modification or by a means other than a 

physical modification . The smaller emission sources will be allowed a 

longer time to comply, and the higher emission sources must be brought 

into compliance sooner . An extra year will be allowed if a plant plans to 

come into compliance by a physical modification . 

N.J.A .C. 7:27-19 .10 Glass manufacturing furnaces 

The Department proposes to reduce the NO, emission limit for 

commercial container glass manufacturing furnaces at N.J .A .C . 7:27-

19 .10(a) from 5 .5 pounds of NO, per ton of glass removed to 4.0 pounds. 

The Department also proposes to add emission limits of 4.0 pounds of 

NO, per ton of glass removed for specialty container glass manufacturing 

furnaces, borosilicate recipe glass manufacturing furnaces, pressed glass 

manufacturing furnaces, blown glass manufacturing furnaces, and 

fiberglass manufacturing furnaces . 

PROPOSALS 

The proposed limit at subsection (a) for specialty container glass 

manufacturing furnaces is more stringent than the existing limit of 11 .0 

pounds at existing N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19.10(b) . This renders the existing limit 

for specialty container glass manufacturing furnaces at subsection (b) 

unnecessary. The Department proposes to amend subsection (b) by 

deleting the reference to specialty container glass manufacturing furnaces 

and adding the new emission limit of 9.2 pounds NO, per ton of glass 

removed for flat glass manufacturing furnaces . Currently there is no flat 

glass manufacturing furnace in New Jersey . In the event a glass 

manufacturing furnace is constructed, applicable SOTA requirements 

would apply that are likely to be more stringent than the proposed flat 

glass limit. 

The Department proposes to delete N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .10(c), which 

regulates borosilicate recipe glass manufacturing furnaces, and reserve 

the subsection . Proposed amended subsection (a) contains the proposed 

more stringent emission limit for borosilicate recipe glass manufacturing 

furnaces . This renders subsection (c) unnecessary . The Department 

proposes to delete cross references to subsection (c) throughout the 

section. 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .10(d) to require 

furnaces to comply with the NO, emission limits at proposed subsections 

(a) and (b) beginning on the first date of startup after rebricking is 

completed after May 1, 2010. Rebricking is an economically convenient 

time to install new controls in a glass manufacturing furnace, because the 

furnace is taken out of service for rebricking . 

Due to the proposed amendments to subsections (a) and (b), proposed 

amended subsection (f) will be applicable to not only commercial 

container, and specialty and borosilicate glass manufacturing furnaces, as 

in the existing rule, but it will also apply to blown glass, fiberglass, flat 

glass and pressed glass manufacturing furnaces . The Department 

proposes to eliminate the phased compliance option at existing N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-19 .10(f)4 for all glass manufacturing furnaces, because phased 

compliance is not compatible with proposed amended subsection (d), 

which requires compliance at the next rebricking . 

N.J.A .C. 7:27-19 .12 Municipal solid waste (MSRI) incinerators 

As discussed in the Background above, the Department does not have 

a general NO emission standard for MSW incinerators . Instead, for each 

MSW incinerator, the Department adopted a facility-specific emission 

limit for NO, pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13 to meet the Federal onehour NAAQS for ozone. The Department reevaluated the facility-specific 

emission limits for the MSW incinerators in the State, and determined 

that air pollution control technologies have advanced sufficiently over the 

past several years to justify fiu-ther NO, emission reductions . The 

Department proposes at new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .12 a maximum allowable 

NO, emission concentration of 150 ppmvd for MSW incinerators, based 

upon the ability of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems to 

reduce emissions more than are now being achieved . SNCR systems are 

the most commcln add-on control technology for reducing NO, emissions 

from MSW incinerators. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .12(a) requires owners or operators of 

MSW incinerators to comply with a maximum allowable N0, emission 

concentration of 150 ppmvd at seven percent oxygen based on each 

calendar day average . A calendar day average is the average of all NOx 

cmission concentration readings corrected to seven percent oxygen from 

the continuous emissions monitoring system in one calendar day. The 

facility must comply beginning 60 days after the operative day of these 

new rules and amendments, if compliance is achieved by optimizing an 

existing NO, air pollution control system . A facility would have 

additional time to comply, by May 1, 2010, if the owner or operator 

complies by installing new NO, air pollution controls on an existing 

MSW incinerator, or by physically modifying an existing MSW 

incinerator . The Department anticipates that the additional time is 

sufficient for such installation or modification to be completed . 

Instead of complying with the 150 ppmvd limit, proposed new 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19.12(b) allows an owner or operator to comply with an 

alternative maximum allowable NOx emission rate, pursuant to N.J.A .C . 

7 :27-19 .13, discussed below. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .12(c) requires the owner or operator 

of any MSW incinerator to install .. NTO, continuous emissions 

(CITE 40 N.J .R. 4416) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

monitoring system on a MSW incinerator and demonstrate compliance 

using the NO, continuous emissions monitoring system. 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13 Alternative and facility-specific NO, emission rates 

The Department proposes to change the heading of existing N.J .A.C. 

7 :27-19 .13 to more correctly tlescribe the subject of the section, and to 

make clear that N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.13 applies to alternative maximum 

allowable emission rates, as well as facility-specific maximum allowable 

emission rates. The Department proposes to use the consistent term 

throughout N.J .A .C . 7:27-19.13 . 

Under existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13, the Department will approve a 

maximum allowable emission rate not specified in the rules in two 

situations . In the first, for a source or item of equipment not regulated 

elsewhere in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19, the owner or operator must obtain 

Department approval of a facility-specific NO, control plan by submitting 

a proposed NO. control plan. For most facilities, sources or items of 

equipment that were in operation prior to January 23, 1994, the existing 

rules required the owner or operator to submit the proposed plan by April 

23, 1994 . Included in the Department's approval of this plan is an 

emissions rate for that unregulated source or item of equipment . Existing 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .13 refers to this rate as a facility-specific NO, emissions 

limit . In the second situation, for a source or item of equipment for which 

the owner or operator seeks approval of an alternative maximum 

allowable emission rate instead of the rate for that source category 

established elsewhere in N.J.A.C . 7:27-19, the owner or operator is 

required to submit a request for an alternative maximum allowable 

emission rate . 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13 uses the phrases "NO, emissions limit," 

"emissions limit" and "maximum allowable emission rate ." By "NOX 

emissions limit," N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 usually means the "maximum 

allowable emission rate" at existing N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .5(d), 19 .7(h), or 

19 .8(e) . To use consistent terminology within N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .13, the 

Department proposes to replace throughout N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13 the 

phrases "NO, emissions limit" and "emissions limit" with the phrase 

`'maximum allowable emission rate ." 

Existing paragraphs (a) and (a)1 refer to facility-specific NO, 

emissions limits while existing paragraph (a)2 refers to alternative 

maximum allowable emission rates . Proposed amended paragraph (a) is 

an introductory provision, and refers to both NO,; emission rates . 

Proposed amended paragraph (a)1 refers only to facility-specific 

maximum allowable emission rates, and proposed amended paragraph 

(a)2 refers only to alternative maximum allowable emission rates . Each 

paragraph describes what an owner or operator of a facility must do to 

obtain the respective emission rate . The Department proposes to amend 

paragraph (a)1 to eliminate duplicative language, and to make the 

structure of the paragraph more similar to paragraph (a)2 . It also proposes 

to delete the list of source categories, which is not complete, and could 

lead to confusion. 

Proposed N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .13(a)3 is new. If a source operation or item 

of equipment was issued an alternative maximum allowable emission rate 

or a facility-specific maximum allowable emission rate before May 1, 

2005, then the owner or operator must submit the appropriate application 

if the owner or operator desires to continue operating under one of those 

rates. 

Existing N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13(b) explains how a major NO. facility 

obtains approval of a facility-specific NO, control plan or an alternative 

maximum allowable NO. emission rate . The Department proposes to 

remove from subsection (b) two outdated requirements . One required an 

owner or operator to submit a NO. control plan by April 23, 1994. The 

second required the owner or operator to submit a NO. control plan by 

February 7, 2006. The Department is proposing to amend the remainder 

of subsection (b), in order that it explain how all NO. facilities obtain 

either a facility-specific NO, control plan or an alternative allowable 

emission rate, as applicable . The Department proposes to relocate the 

remainder of paragraph (b), and paragraphs (b)1 and 2, as proposed 

paragraph (b)3 and subparagraphs (b)3i and ii, respectively, and to 

correct cross references . 

In accordance with proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13(b)l, a facilityspecific No, control plan approved after the operative date of these 

amendments will not have an expiration date ; therefore, unless the source 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

operation or equipment is modified, altered or reconstructed, the source 

operation or equipment would continue to be subject to the requirements 

of that facility-specific NO,; control plan. In the future, the Department 

could amend its rules to establish maximum allowable N0, emission 

rates for a source category comprised of sources for which the 

Department has approved facility-specific allowable rates . If this were to 

happen, such sources would be subject to the new rate for that source 

category . 

In accordance with proposed new N.J.A.C. 7:27-19 .13(b)2, any 

alternative maximum allowable emission rate the Department approves 

after the operative date of these amendments will have a term of 10 years, 

unless the owner or operator modifies, alters or reconstructs the 

equipment during the plan's term . Within 10 years, the Department 

expects technology to have made enough progress for the Department to 

re-evaluate the approved alternative maximum allowable emission rates 

to determine if more stringent controls are warranted . If the owner or 

operator modifies, alters or reconstructs the equipment during the term of 

the plan, then the owner or operator must apply for a new plan, under 

proposed paragraph (b)6 . 

Proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13(b)3 was recodified from existing 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.13(b) and amended. Proposed paragraph (b)3 applies 

only to an owner or operator applying for a facility-specific maximum 

allowable emission rate . The Department proposes to delete outdated 

proposed plan submittal requirements 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19.13(b)4 requires an owner or operator 

to submit in writing a request for an alternative maximum allowablc 

emission rate and to include in that request the information listed at 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .13(d) . 

Proposed new N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(b)5 requires each owner or 

operator of a facility with a facility-specific NO, control plan or 

alternative maximum allowable emission rate approved by the 

Department before May 1, 2005, to submit a new plan or request, as 

applicable, to the Department for approval . Proposed paragraph (b)5 

requires submission of this plan or request by 90 days after the operative 

date of the new rule and amendments, and would allow an additional 60-

day extension upon request to the Department. Proposed subparagraph 

(b)5i requires a proposed facility-specific NO,; control plan to include the 

information listed at subparagraphs (b)3i and ii, which contain the 

requirements of such a plan . Proposed subparagraph (b)5i requires a 

request for an alternative maximum allowable emission rate to include 

the information at N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .13(d), which sets forth the 

requirements for such a request. According to proposed subparagraph 

(b)5ii, if the proposed plan or request is submitted within 90 days after 

the operative date of the new rules and amendments, the existing plan or 

request shall terminate on the date specified in the implementation 

schedule of the plan or request the Department approves . This would 

allow the existing plan to remain in effect until the Department makes a 

final decision on the proposed plan or request . According to proposed 

subparagraph (b)5iii, if the proposed plan or request is not submitted 

within 90 days after the operative date of these new rules and 

amendments, the existing plan or request shall terminate 90 days after the 

operative date of these new rules and amendments . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .13(b)6 requires the owner or operator 

of a facility to re-apply for an alternative maximum allowable emission 

rate or a facility-specific maximum allowable emission rate . if the 

affected source operation or the item of equipment is either modified, 

altered or reconstructed. In such a case, the existing alternative maximum 

allowable emission rate or facility-specific NO, control plan terminates 

on the start date of that activity. If the owner or operator plans to continue 

operating under an alternative maximum allowable emission rate or a 

facility-specific NO, control plan, proposed paragraph (b)6 requires the 

owner or operator to apply for a new alternative maximum allowable 

emission rate or facility-specific NO,; control plan, as applicable . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .13(b)7 requires an owner or operator 

with a 10-year term alternative maximum allowable NO, emission rate to 

re-apply one year prior to the expiration date of the existing alternative 

maximum allowable NO,; emission rate . One year is the approximate time 

for the Department to process an application for an alternative maximum 

allowable NO, emission rate . 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R. 4417) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Proposed amended N..1 .A .C . 7:27-19 .13(d)6 requires an owner or 

operator to submit as part of a request for a proposed alternative 

maximum allowable N0, emission rate or a facility-specific NO, control 

plan, an implementation schedule for the request or plan's proposed 

control technologies or process alternatives . This will enable the 

Department to determine whether the owner or operator plans to 

implement the proposed control measures in a timely manner . 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .15 Procedures and deadlines for demonstrating 

compliance 

In light of the proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19.9 and 19.10, 

concerning asphalt pavement production plants and glass manufacturing 

furnaces, respectively, the Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

19 .15 . 

Proposed new N.J .A.C. 7:27-19 .15(d) and (e) describe when and how 

owners and operators of asphalt pavement production plants and glass 

manufacturing furnaces must demonstrate compliance with the 

subchapter . 

Proposed new subsection (d) requires asphalt pavement production 

plants to demonstrate compliance by meeting the requirements at 

paragraph (a)2 . As a result of the proposed amendments, asphalt 

pavement production plants will not be subject to paragraph (a)1 and 

subsections (b) and (c) . As proposed, the amended rule gives these plants 

180 days from the dates in the schedule at proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .9(f) 

to demonstrate compliance . Thereafter, the plants must demonstrate 

compliance at the frequency required under their permits. The proposed 

180 day period is consistent with the existing rules' time period for 

demonstrating compliance, such as in existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .15(c) . 

Proposed N.J .A.C. 7 :27-19 .15(e) requires the owner or operator of a 

glass manufacturing furnace to demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission limits at N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .10(a) or (b) or an 

alternative maximum allowable emission rate determined pursuant to 

existing N.J.A.C . 7:27-19.10(f)2 . As with asphalt pavement production 

plants, proposed paragraph (e)1 allows the owner or operator 180 days 

after the first rebricking after the operative date of these amendments to 

demonstrate compliance. Thereafter, the glass manufacturing furnace's 

pennit will specify how frequently to conduct this demonstration. 

Proposed paragraph (e)2 provides the method of demonstrating 

compliance if a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is not 

installed . This demonstration would be performed by averaging three 

stack tests performed in accordance with existing N.J .A .C . 7:27-

19 .15(a)2, expressing this average in pounds NO, emitted per hour and 

dividing this average by the average tons of glass removed per hour 

during the same time periods in which the three stack tests were 

performed . The owner or operator would still be required to conduct the 

carbon monoxide testing, in accordance with N. .1 .A .C . 7 :27-19 .15(a)2 . 

Proposed paragraph (e)3 provides the method of demonstrating 

compliance if a continuous emissions monitoring system is installed . This 

demonstration would be performed daily by determining the pounds of 

NO, emitted per day in accordance with N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .15(a) 1, divided 

by the tons of glass removed per day during the same time period. 

Existing N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .15(a)1 requires compliance based on a block 

24-hour average during the ozone season and based on a rolling 30-day 

average outside the ozone season . 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .15(a) through (c) 

to reflect that, as to certain facilities, subsections (a) through 1c) do not 

apply . Existing subsection (d) is proposed to be recodified as subsection 

(f), in order that it remains at the end of the section, and amended to 

include proposed new subsections (d) and (e) among the listed 

subsections . 

N.J.A .C . 7:27-19.22 Phased compliance -impracticability of full 

compliance by the operative date of these 

amendments 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .22 to remove 

provisions that are no longer applicable and to allow phased compliance 

for owners or operators of HEDD units that must achieve the NO, 

emission reductions required by Equation 1 at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .29(c) . 

The proposed amendment to the section heading refers to the 

requirement that HEDD units achieve compliance with the N0, 

PROPOSALS 

emissions limits in Equation 1 at N.J .A .C. 7:27-19 .29(c), as of the 

operative date of the amendments . Although the operative date might not 

be a high electricity demand day, N.J .A.C . 727-19 .29(c) requires 

compliance on each high electricity demand day following the operative 

date. The proposed amendment to subsection (a) limits phased 

compliance to the sources identified at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .29(a), who has 

submitted a phased compliance plan to the Department. 

The Department proposes to amend N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .22(b) to require 

the owners or operators who want to have phased compliance submit a 

phased compliance plan within 21 days after the operative date of the 

amendments . A plan must address the implementation of measures to 

obtain compliance with NO, emission reduction requirements, and 

explain why compliance by the operative date of the amendments is not 

practicable . Proposed amendments to subsection (b) also delete deadlines 

that no longer apply . 

Proposed amendments to subsection (c) replace the provisions of the 

proposed compliance plan that are not applicable to HEDD units with a 

requirement that the plan describe each proposed measure and how it is 

expected to reduce NO emissions, a schedule of implementation . 

In accordance with proposed amended subsection (d), the Department 

will approve the phased compliance plan based on the NO, emission 

reduction measures . The Department also proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 

7:27-19 .22(d) to remove the May 31, 1995 date, which is no longer 

applicable, and to update the references to N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .22(b) . 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .22(e) to update 

the compliance date, remove the May 31, 1995 date, which is no longer 

applicable, and to state that compliance will be determined based on the 

emission reduction determined by Equation i at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(c) . 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .22(f) to state 

that the phased compliance plan expires when full compliance is achieved 

with the emission reduction determined by Equation 1 . 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .22(g) to clarify 

that all combustion sources affected by the phased compliance plan be 

operated in a manner that complies with the plan and with all conditions 

of the Department's approval, to state that the provisions of 

subparagraphs (g)4i and ii apply to all combustion sources affected by the 

plan, and deletes the reference to implementing selective non-catalytic 

reduction since this is not appropriate for the emission reduction 

measures . 

N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29 Use of NO, budget allowances by a former DER 

credit user 

The Department proposes to amend N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29 to update 

cross references . 

N.J.A .C. 7:27-19 .28 Sewage sludge incinerators 

The Department proposes new N.J .A.C. 7:27-19 .28 to establish 

maximum allowable NO, emission rates for sewage sludge incinerators . 

Under the existing rules, the Department regulates N0, emissions from 

sewage sludge incinerators via facility-specific emission rates . If the 

proposed maximum allowable emission rates for sewage sludge 

incinerators were adopted, existing sludge incinerators would not need to 

submit new facility-specific NO,; control plans to obtain a facility-specific 

maximum allowable emission rate . 

At proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .28(a) the Department proposes two 

maximum allowable NO, emission rates in Table 13 . Based on actual 

stack test results from the existing sewage sludge incinerators, the 

Department determined that the proposed maximum allowable emission 

rates would be reasonable for the facilities to meet without modifications . 

Some sewage sludge incinerators may have to revise their existing 

compliance plan in order to comply with the proposed maximum 

allowable emission rates . 

Instead of complying with the maximum allowable NO, emission rates 

at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .28(a), proposed N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .28(b) allows an 

owner or operator to comply with proposed amended N.J .A .C . 7 :27-

19 .3(f), or apply for an alternative maximum allowable N0, emission 

rate at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13 . 

The owner or operator of a facility must demonstrate compliance in 

accordance with proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .15(c), by conducting stack 

tests . 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4418) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

7:27-19.29 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction Compliance Demonstration 

Protocol 

The Department proposes new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.29, which contains 

the requirements for the proposed 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction 

Compliance Demonstration Protocol (2009 Protocol) . As discussed in the 

Background above, the Department is proposing amendments to reduce 

NO,, emissions from high electric demand day electric generating units 

(HEDD units) . HEDD units are electric generating units that are capable 

of generating 15 MW or more and are operated less than or equal to an 

average of 50 percent of the time during the immediately preceding three 

ozone seasons . In other words, they are the electric generating units that 

are put into service when electricity demand is high. The Department 

proposes to tighten the emission standards for HEDD units because these 

units emit significant quantities of NO on high electric demand days, 

which are typically high temperature and high ozone days during the 

summer. The Department proposes both short-term and long-term 

emission control strategies, intended to reduce emissions during high 

electric demand days. Proposed N.J .A.C . 7:27-19.29 is the short-term 

strategy. 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(a) lists the applicability criteria of 

the section. The section applies to owners or operators of HEDD units 

that operated on July 26, 2005 if the HEDD was a combustion turbine not 

controlled by water injection or selective catalytic reduction or the HEDD 

unit was a boiler and was not controlled by selective catalytic reduction 

or selective non-catalytic reduction; and the NO, emission rate of the 

HEDD was 0.15 pound/MMBTU or greater . The July 26, 2005 date was 

chosen since it represented the PJM grid's highest electric usage up to 

that day. The "0 .15 pound/MMBTU" NO, emission rate was chosen 

since it represents the higher emitting HEDD units . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(b)1 requires the owner or operator 

to assure NO, emission reductions as determined by Equation 1 occur on 

each HEDD from the operative date of these amendments through 

September 30, 2014. Proposed new N.J .A.C. 7:27-19 .29(b)1 also allows 

the owner or operator to obtain a phased compliance plan, pursuant to 

N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .22, which would allow up to a 12-month extension for 

the owner or operator to obtain the reductions if additional time is 

necessary to implement the emission reduction measures . Proposed new 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .29(b)2 requires the owner or operator to prepare a 2009 

Protocol . Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(b)3 requires the owner or 

operator to submit a 2009 Protocol to the Department within 30 days of 

the operative date of these amendments . Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

19.29(b)4 require the owner or operator to submit an annual report, 

pursuant to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.29(k). 

An emission reduction is the total tons of NO, reduction that an owner 

or operator must achieve on each high electric demand day. In 

accordance with proposed new N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .29(c), each owner or 

operator that is subject to this section must first calculate the amount of 

NOx emission reductions that it must achieve on each high electric 

demand day from the operative date of these amendments through 

September 30, 2014. This is based upon the baseline emissions, measured 

in tons of NO, that would be emitted on a particular high electric demand 

day if the owner or operator did not implement the required reductions, 

divided by the emission factor . The baseline emission figure will change 

from day to day, depending on the electric demand. The emissiop factor 

is the total tons of NO,; that the owner or operator emitted on J`uly 26, 

2005, and must be determined by the owner or operator as outlined in 

proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(c)2 . The quotient of the baseline 

emissions divided by the emission factor is multiplied by the reduction 

factor, to determine the required emission reduction for that day. The 

reduction factor, which the owner or operator must calculate operator as 

outlined in proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(c)3, a represents the owner 

or operator's share of the required 19 .8 tpd of NO that the Depardnent 

seeks to achieve from the 2009 Protocol, in order to comply with the 

Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. As explained above, 19 .8 tpd 

of NO, is the Department's share of emission reductions it agreed to 

achieve in the "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" (MOU), signed on March 2, 

200-7 . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .29(d) identifies the contents of a 2009 

Protocol . Proposed paragraph (d)1 requires the calculation of the 

Emission Factor and Reduction Factor performed in subsection (c) to be 

included in the 2009 Protocol. Proposed paragraph (d)2 identifies several 

measures that an owner or operator can select in order to achieve the 

necessary reductions . Each owner or operator is encouraged to propose 

any additional measures that he or she anticipates will work for the 

facility's situation. Some of the measures can be undertaken in states 

other than New Jersey, inasmuch as some benefit to New Jersey air 

quality results from reductions in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. 

The measures that the owner or operator proposes must result in emission 

reductions that the owner or operator is not otherwise required to make, 

and the reduction must be one that the owner or operator has not already . 

committed to make. Proposed subparagraphs (d)3i through iv requires 

that the 2009 Protocol describe the measure that the owner or operator 

proposes to implement, the anticipated reductions and how they will be 

measured, and an assurance that the measure is not already required. The 

2009 Protocol must also include monitoring requirements (proposed 

subparagraph (d)3v) to indicate that the reductions are achieved, and the 

records (proposed subparagraph (d)3vi) that the owner or operator will 

maintain to document the achievement of the reductions . These records 

are listed at proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(e) . 

In accordance with proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.29(f), within 30 

days of the proposed 2009 Protocol's submittal, the Department will 

determine whether the proposed plan is complete. If it is not complete, 

the Department will notify the owner or operator of the information that 

is required, and allow time for submittal of a complete plan. No plan will 

be approved that does not contain all the required elements, set forth at 

proposed subsection (d). 

In accordance with proposed new N.J.A.C. 7:27-19 .29(g), the 

Department can approve the plan, disapprove of the plan, or make 

revisions to the plan. 

In accordance with proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.29(h), an owner or 

operator may, at any time, revise a 2009 Protocol . Pursuant to proposed 

paragraph (h)l, the revised plan must meet all of the requirements of the 

initial plan, set forth in proposed subsection (d) . Pursuant to proposed 

paragraphs (h)2 and 3, the Department will notify the owner or operator 

of plan deficiencies, approve, revise and approve, or disapprove the 

proposed revised plan, and notify the owner or operator of the 

Department's action. - 

In accordance with proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .29(i), if one of the 

owners or operators transfers ownership or operation of a HEDD unit or 

non-HEDD unit that is the subject of a 2009 Protocol, the new owner or 

operator must submit a revised 2009 Protocol . For instance, if the owner 

or operator of a turbine or boiler-that is included in that owner or 

operator's 2009 Protocol is sold to another owner or operator, a revised 

plan must be submitted to the Department' in order to document the 

change in ownership and clarify whether the previous owner or operator 

will continue to achieve all of the required emission reductions or the 

new owner or operator will be responsible for any portion of the required 

emission reductions . The revised 2009 Protocol must state how the new 

owner or operator will achieve any reductions for which they are 

responsible . Any revisions to the approved 2009 Protocol must continue 

to demonstrate that all required emission reductions will continue to be 

obtained, either by the old owner or operator or by the new owner or 

operator . The revised plan must be submitted within 30 days of the 

transfer of ownership or operation, and must meet all of the requirements 

of a 2009 Protocol. Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .29(i) applies even if 

one of the three owners or operators to which this section applies 

transfers partial ownership . 

Proposed new N.J .A.C . 7:27-19 .29(j) states that emission reduction 

measures may be implemented at any time as long as all provisions of 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27 have been met, all necessary air pollution control permits 

have been obtained, and an revised 2009 Protocol has been submitted . 

Proposed new N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19.29(k) requires each owner or operator 

to submit an annual report, for calendar years 2009 through 2014, to the 

Department by January 30th of the following year. The report must 

include all information necessary to document that the required emission 

reductions were obtained and demonstrate that the emission reductions 

are real, quantifiable, surplus and enforceable. This information is 

NEW- JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4419) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

necessary so the Department can determine whether the agreed to 

reductions have been met, and whether the owner or operator otherwise 

complied with the 2009 Protocol . 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-19 .30 2015 HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan 

The 2015 HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan (2015 Plan), at 

proposed N.J.A .C . 7:27-19 .30, is part of the Department's proposed longterm strategy to reduce emissions during high electric demand days . The 

Test of the Department's proposed long-term strategy is at proposed 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .4 and 19 .5, which require sources to meet more 

stringent maximum allowable NO emission rates by 2015. A 2015 Plan 

describes how the owner or operator of a HEDD unit intends to comply 

with the proposed HEDD maximum allowable NO,; emission rates. 

On or before May 1, 2010, each owner or operator of an HEDD unit 

must submit the 2015 Plan to the Department. The plan must include, in 

accordance with proposed N.J .A .C. 7 :27-19 .30(b), a list of the HEDD 

units that are expected to be shut down by May 1, 2015; and a list of the 

HEDD units that the owner or operator proposes to install emission 

control apparatus, or that will be operated differently in order to comply 

with the proposed maximum allowable emission rates . The Department 

does not approve or disapprove of the 2015 Plan, but will review it to 

determine whether the owner or operator is prepared to meet the 2015 

maximum allowable emission rate . The owner or operator will be in 

violation if it does not submit the plan, or if it does not meet the required 

emission limits at proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .4 and 19 .5 by May 1, 2015. 

In order that the Department can monitor the owner or operator's 

progress toward achieving the measures contained in the 2015 Plan, 

proposed N.J.A.C. 7 :27-19.30(c) requires the owner or operator to submit 

annually an update describing the progress made that year toward 2015 

compliance . An owner or operator shall demonstrate its progress in 

meeting the proposed schedule for permitting, installation and operation 

of the proposed control apparatus or modification. An owner or operator 

could demonstrate progress by listing the dates that new units were 

installed, that existing units were shut down or modified, or that existing 

units were in the process of being modified. In the update, the owner or 

operator must also identify any circumstance that has impeded progress 

toward 2015 compliance, or that is anticipated in the future and that may 

impede progress . Such circumstances could include permitting delays, 

unavailability of control devices, or a control device installed and 

operated that did not provide the expected emission reductions . The 

update is to be submitted along with the annual compliance certification 

that is required under N.J .A .C . 7 :27-22 . If the owner or operator is 

revising its 2015 Plan, it can notify the Department through the annual 

update . (See proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .30(c)7 .) 

Subchapter 2l . Emissions Statements 

N.J.A .C .7 :27-21 .1 Definitions 

The Department proposes to add a definition of "operating scenario" 

to N.J .A.C . 7:27-21 .1 since that term is used in the Department's 

proposed amendments to N.J.A.C . 7 :27-21 .5 . The proposed definition is 

identical to the definition in N.J .A .C . 7 :27-22 . 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-21 .5 Required contents of an Emissions Statement 

N.J .A .C . 7:27-21 regulates Emissions Statements, which all major and 

some non-major facilities must submit to report their actual air 

contaminant emissions . The Department proposes to amerad N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-21 .5, which identifies the required contents of an Emissions 

Statement . To assist the Department in tracking roof landings at VOC 

stationary storage tanks and the resulting VOC emissions, proposed new 

N.J .A.C . 7 :27-21 .5(j) requires the owner or operator of a VOC stationary 

storage tank with a floating roof to submit each tank's annual roof 

landing emissions as a separate operating scenario . An operating scenario 

is a plan for operating a tank, or part of a tank, in a way, or according to a 

method or process that is different from other ways, methods or processes 

used at the tank. This operating scenario will be listed separately from 

other operating scenarios in the facility's emission statement, and 

eventually in the tank's preconstruction permit upon modification or in 

the tank's operating pen-nit upon modification or renewal . This operating 

scenario will also be listed separately in the Department's facility 

tracking system, New Jersey Environmental Management System 

PROPOSALS 

(NJEMS) which includes permit information, emissions, and operating 

history. This will enable the Department to electronically search the 

NJEMS database for the roof landing emissions for each tank. 

If the owner or operator has not implemented all of the control 

measures that are contained in the tank VOC control plan, or if the 

floating roof tank is exempt from the requirement to submit a VOC 

control plan, then the owner or operator must submit a Floating Roof 

Landing Emission Summary Report, in accordance with proposed 

paragraph (j)2 . The Floating Roof Landing Emission Summary Report 

would report emissions and other tank infonnation to the Department 

where the owner or operator did not implement all the plan's control 

measures, and would enable the Department to verify that the tank 

emitted less than five tons VOC per year if the tank was exempt from 

submitting a plan . This report will enable the Department to track roof 

landings and the reasons for them, such as changing stored liquid from 

one liquid to an incompatible liquid or leasing a tank to a new customer. 

N.J .A.C. 7:27A-3.10 Civil administrative penalties for violation of rules 

adopted pursuant to the Act 

The Department is proposing to amend N.J .A.C . 7 :27A-3 .10, Civil 

administrative penalties for violation of rules adopted pursuant to the Act, 

to include penalties for violations of the proposed new and amended 

rules, discussed above. The proposed penalties are consistent with other 

penalties in N.J.A.C . 7:27A for similar violations, such as the existing 

penalties at N.J .A.C . 7:27A-3 .10(m). 

In addition, the Department proposes to designate new penalties as 

either minor or non-minor in accordance with the Grace Period Law, 

N.J .S .A. 13 :1D-125 through 133, consistent with similar penalty 

provisions in N.J .A .C . 7:27A-3.10(m) . 

The Department proposes to delete penalty provisions for violations of 

those portions of N.J .A.C . 7:27 that are proposed to be deleted. 

Social Impact 

The Department anticipates that the proposed new rules and 

amendments will have a positive social impact, primarily from improved 

public health and reduced medical costs . The proposed rules will result in 

the reduction of ozone, VOCs, NO,, I3APs, PMt,_5 and other air pollutants. 

The proposed amendments and rules are primarily designed to reduce 

VOC and NO, emissions, which will help the State make progress toward 

attainment of the 1997 Federal eight-hour NAAQS for ozone . The 

NAAQS are the Federal standards established to protect the public from 

the health effects of the "criteria" pollutants, of which ozone is one . The 

general public will benefit from the proposed amendments and rules 

because ground-level ozone is a health concern in New Jersey. 

Ozone exposure can cause irritation of the lungs . This can make the 

lungs more vulnerable to diseases such as pneumonia and bronchitis, 

increase incidents of asthma and susceptibility to respiratory infections, 

reduce lung function, reduce an individual's ability to exercise and 

aggravate chronic lung diseases . Increased ozone concentrations severely 

affect the quality of life for susceptible populations - small children, the 

elderly, and asthmatics - and present health risks for everyone . Exposure 

to ozone for several hours at relatively low concentrations significantly 

reduces lung function and induces respiratory inflammation in normal, 

healthy people during exercise . This decrease in lung function is 

generally accompanied by symptoms such as chest pain, coughing, 

sneezing, and pulmonary congestion (MARAMA 2005 Report) . 

Recent research in Southern California strongly suggests that, in 

addition to exacerbating existing asthma, ozone also causes asthma in 

children (MARAMA 2005 Report) . Long term exposure may lead to 

scarring of lung tissue and lowered lung efficiency . Repeated exposure 

may cause permanent lung damage. When ozone reaches unhealthy 

levels, children, people who are active outdoors, and people with 

respiratory disease are most at risk . 

The Department estimates that attaining the Federal 1997 eight-hour 

NAAQS for ozone in New Jersey would eliminate about 40,000 asthma 

attacks each year and substantially reduce hospital admissions arid 

emergency room visits among children and adults with asthma and other 

respiratory diseases (NJDEP 2006 Brochure) . As such, implementing the 

proposed RACT rules would not only yield greater air quality benefit, but 

also would save lives and money and provide better living conditions for 

the people of New Jersey, especially the susceptible populations . Based 

(CITE 40 N.J .R. 4420) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

on an article in the April 2007 of Harvard Center for Risk Analysis' 

newsletter "Risk in Perspective," the Department estimates that ozone 

exposure results in increased deaths per year in New Jersey 

("Relationship between Exposure and Mortality Risk," Risk in 

Perspective, Vol. 15, Issue 2, p.l (April 2007); available at 

http ://www.hera.harvard .ed erspective .html) . 

Reducing long term exposure to low concentrations of VOCs will also 

have beneficial health effects . The adverse health effects of VOCs may 

include elevation of serum enzyme levels, mild cellular changes and 

changes in lipid metabolism (Colorado Fact Sheet) . 

Acute effects include eye irritation and 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 (Minnesota Fact Sheet) . 

In addition, several VOCs are also hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 

(1990 Clean Air Act Title I, §112(b), 42 U.S .C . §7412(b)) . Cutback 

asphalts, for example, contain the HAPs hexane, toluene, ethylbenzene, 

xylenes, naphthalene and benzene . Benzene is also classified as a toxic 

substance in N.J .A .C . 7 :27-17 and is a human carcinogen . HAPs cause 

serious health effects, including cancer, birth defects, nervous system 

problems and death (EPA 1993) . 

NO,;, too, is a potential health hazard. Long term exposure to low 

concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NOZ), a component of NO., causes 

adverse health effects . Elevated levels of NO2 cause 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 . Long term exposure to high levels of N02 can cause chronic lung 

disease . It may also affect sensory perception, for example, by reducing a 

person/s ability to smell an odor (Queensland 2006 Report). Other health 

effects from exposure to N02 include shortness of breath and chest pains . 

SOZ belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOx) . These gases are 

formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned, and 

when gasoline is extracted from oil in petroleum refineries . SOZ dissolves 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

in water vapor to form acid, and interacts with other gases and particles in 

the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people 

and their environment . Long term exposure to low concentrations of SOZ 

causes adverse health effects . SOz aggravates existing lung diseases, 

especially bronchitis, constricts the breathing passages, especially in 

asthmatic people and people doing moderate to heavy exercise, and 

causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing . (EPA 2007 S02)-

High levels of particulate matter appear to worsen the effect of SOZ, and 

long term exposures to both pollutants lead to higher rates of respiratory 

illness (NJDEP 2006 Pollutants Report) . 

In addition to contributing to the formation of ozone, both NO., and to 

a lesser extent VOCs, contribute to the formation of fine particulate 

matter (PMZS), either through condensation or complex reactions with 

other compounds in the atmosphere (EPA 2008 PM). Also, SOZ may 

condense into an aerosol component of PMZ 5 . 

PM2,5 is either direct or formed. Direct PM2.5 are particles emitted 

directly into the atmosphere from sources such as diesel-powered 

engines, forest fires, cars, trucks, buses, burning of wood. Formed PMZ 5 

are particles produced from the physical and chemical transformation of 

other vaporous or gaseous pollutants emitted from power plants, 

industries and automobiles . Fine particulate matter is associated with a 

number of adverse human health effects, which include premature death, 

aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory symptoms, changes in lung tissues and 

structure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms (61 Fed. Reg. 

65638, December 13, 1996) : The Department estimates that each year 

there are approximately 1,900 deaths and 53,000 cases of asthma in the 

State attributable to the exceedance of the Federal 1997 annual NAAQS 

for PM2.s. These proposed rules reduce fine particulate matter in New 

Jersey . 

Table 5 below summarizes the estimated emission reductions from 

implementing the proposed amendments for each source category. 

TABLE 5 

Estimated Emission Reductions 

Source 

Category NO" VOC 

Alternative and facility- To Be Determined at 

specific N0, emission Application Evaluation 

rates " 

Alternative VOC 

Emission Limits Evaluation 

Asphalt Used for Paving 2009 and subsequent: 3 .6 tpd in 03 

season; 420 tpy (4/16-10/14) 

Asphalt Production Plants 2009: 43 tpy ; 0 .21 tpd 0; season 

2010: 86 tpy ; 0 .42 tpd 03 season 

2011: 132 tpy ; 0.64 tpd 03 

season 

Boilers Serving Electric 2013: 788 tpy ; 2.16 tpd 03 

Generating Units season 

CTG: Flat Wood 

Paneling Coatings 

CTG: Flexible Package 

Printing 

CTG: Offset Lithographic 

Printing and Letterpress 

Printing 

m 

2009 and subsequent: 0 .08 tpd 0; season 

2009: 19 tpy 

2010 and subsequent: 35 .3 tpy Additional 

reductions from BMP 

2009 and subsequent: 0 .43 tpd in 03 

sgason 2009: 104 .6 tpy 

2010 and subsequent: 157 tpy Additional 

reductions from BMP 

High Electric Demand 2009: 19 .8 

Day (HEDD) Units t/1IEDD 

2015: 63 .7 t/HEDD based on 

HEDD units operating on 

7/26/05 

To Be Determined at Application 

S0, 

2013: 2,571 tpy; 7.04 tpd 03 season 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4421) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Glass Manufacturing 2012: 1,170 tpy; 3 .2 tpd 0; 

Furnaces season 

ICI Boilers and Other 2009: 408 tpy; 

Indirect Heat Exchangers 1 .7 tpd 0; season 

. 2010: 740 tpy; 2.2 tpd 0; season 

2011: 970 tpy; 2 .9 tpd 0; season 

Municipal Solid Waste 2009 and subsequent : 

Incinerators 0.27 tpd 03 season; 

2009: 67 tpy 2010: >100 tpy 

VOC Stationary Storage 

Tanks: 2 .25 

tpd 03 

seas ; 

464 

tpy 

Economic Impact 

The Department anticipates that the proposed new rules and 

amendments will have an economic impact . Some facilities will incur 

costs, and others will receive an economic benefit, as discussed below. 

The specific economic impacts of the proposed new rules and 

amendments are discussed separately below for each source category . 

Alternative and Facility-specific NO, Emission Limits 

As the Summary above explained, of the 43 facilities with either a 

facility-specific emission limit (in an approved facility-specific NO, 

control plan) or an alternative maximum allowable emission rate, 25 or 

fewer will be impacted by the proposed new rules and amendments to 

N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .13 . 

The proposed new rules and amendments will require any facility 

wishing to continue operating under an approved facility-specific 

maximum allowable emission rate or alternative maximum allowable 

emission rate for NO,; to re-apply for a new facility-specific maximum 

allowable emission rate or alternative maximum allowable emission rate . 

Facilities with an alternative maximum allowable emission rate will be 

required to re-apply for an alternative maximum allowable emission rate 

every 10 years, so the Department can re-evaluate the rate with respect to 

possible advances in the art of air pollution control technologies . The 

Department estimates that the cost to prepare and complete an application 

for a facility-specific NOx control plan or a request for an alternative 

maximum allowable NO,, emission rate would range from $5,000 to 

$57,500 depending upon the technical complexity of the application . The 

proposed new rules and amendments will have an additional cost to a 

facility if the revised facility-specific NOa control plan or alternative 

maximum allowable emission rate requires installation of additional 

technologies to control NO, emissions . Additional costs could include 

costs for design, consultants, equipment, operation and monitoring . The 

annualized cost of NO,; control will vary depending on the type and size 

of the source . 

Alternative VOC Emission Limits 

Currently there are five facilities in New Jersey that have approved 

alternative VOC emission limits . The proposed amendments at N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .17(c) will terminate their current alternative VOC emission limits 

and require any facility wishing to continue operating under an approved 

alternative VOC emission limit to apply for a new alternative VOC 

control plan (which would include a new alternative VOC emission liunit) 

within 60 days after the operative date of these new rules and 

amendments . The proposed new rules and amendments will require any 

facility that receives a new Department-approved alternative VOC 

control plan, to re-apply for an alternative VOC control plan'every 10 

years, so the Department can re-evaluate the emission rate with respect to 

possible advances in the art of air pollution control technologies . The 

Department generally estimates that the cost to prepare and complete an 

application for an alternative VOC control plan would probably range 

from $5,000 to $57,500 depending upon the technical complexity of the 

application. The proposed new rules and amendments will have an 

additional cost to a facility if the Department requires the installation of 

2011 2013 2016 2019 

2.73 3 .68 5.10 6.53 

tpd 03 tpd tpd tpd 

0; 03 0; 

seas ; seas ; seas ; seas ; 

637 984 1,504 2,024 

tpy tpy tpy tpy 

2010 

PROPOSALS 

additional technologies to control VOC emissions . Additional costs could 

include costs for design, consultants, equipment, operation and 

monitoring . The annualized cost of VOC control will vary depending on 

the type and size of the source. 

Asphalt Used for Paving 

The proposed cutback and emulsified asphalt amendments at N.J .A .C . 

7 :27-16 .19 will impact manufacturers and users of cutback and 

emulsified asphalts. In New Jersey there are approximately 50 

manufacturers of asphalt used for paving, 23 major asphalt paving 

contractors, and numerous smaller paving contractors . Asphalt paving 

contractors, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and some 

New Jersey municipalities are among the users of this asphalt. 

In order to comply with the proposed new rules and amendments, 

manufacturers may have to reformulate some of their products or refrain 

from selling them in New Jersey for use in New Jersey . Any current users 

of cutback asphalt will have to use alternative products from April 16 

through October 14 . The Department does not anticipate that most asphalt 

users will experience increased costs as a result of the proposed 

amendments. 

Regarding emulsified asphalt, based on existing material safety data 

sheets (MSDS) for emulsified asphalts, Department employees' 

conversations with emulsified asphalt manufacturers, and the OTC's 

2006 analysis (see OTC February 2007 Proposal), the Department 

anticipates that the cost to manufacturers of reformulating emulsified 

asphalt as a result of the proposed new rules and amendments will be 

relatively low. There are emulsified asphalts in use that already comply 

with the proposed amendments . For example, emulsified asphalt 

suppliers to the New Jersey Department of Transportation indicated that 

their products already comply with the VOC content limits in the 

proposed amendments . 

Compliant emulsified asphalt is available at prices comparable to high 

VOC content asphalt mixtures (Connecticut Analysis) . Therefore, there 

should be negligible or no additional cost to purchasers of emulsified 

asphalt who may currently purchase high VOC content asphalt mixtures . 

According to the Asphalt Institute, a United States-based association 

of international petroleum asphalt producers, manufacturers and affiliated 

businesses, the use of cutback and emulsified asphalt has significantly 

decreased in New Jersey as a result of the existing rule . Emulsified 

asphalt use decreased 44 percent from 1990 to 2001, and cutback asphalt 

use decreased 75 percent from 1990 to 2001 . 

The ozone season ban on non-compliant cutback and emulsified 

asphalt may impact some users. However, there are alternatives for 

pavement repair that comply with the proposed amendments, such as 

portable hot and warm mix machines, and emulsions that do not require 

hot mix asphalt. Portable hot and warm mix road repair services or 

machines are offered by companies throughout the country, as are road 

repair products that do not need large equipment and machinery. 

Replacing non-compliant cutback and emulsified asphalt for maintenance 

and repair with hot mix or an alternative complying product may increase 

the short term costs for some pavement repair . However, these alternative 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4422) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

products should create a better, longer lasting repair, which may be more 

cost-effective in the long run and provide a better product . 

Manufacturers of asphalt may need to employ a laboratory in order to 

test asphalt for compliance with the rules. A test of emulsified asphalt 

using ASTM Method D244 or AASHTO T 59 costs between $290.00 and 

$320.00 . - 

Asphalt Pavement Production Plants 

The technologies that are available to achieve the NO,; emission 

concentrations proposed at N.J.A.C . 7:27-19 .9 are retrofitting an existing 

burner with flue gas recirculation (FGR), and upgrading a burner to a 

low-NO,; burner . Based on an equipment life of 10 years, the Department 

estimates the cost to be $100,000 for the FGR package and installation, 

including upgrading the computer-based control, and $50,000 to upgrade 

an existing burner to a low NO, burner system . The Department estimates 

the cost-effectiveness to upgrade or retrofit to be in the range of $2,500 to 

$38,000 per ton of NO, emissions reduced . Lower cost alternatives, such 

as implementation of best management practices are feasible for some 

plants. 

The Department expects upgrades and retrofits to improve production 

efficiency, which results in fuel savings and reduced annual emission fees 

due to more efficient dryer operation. In addition, significant fuel savings 

are expected from adopting best management practices. These cost 

savings have not been accounted for in the above cost estimates . 

Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units 

Ten coal-fired boilers are used to generate electrical power at seven 

New Jersey facilities . The Department does not expect the proposed 

amendments to N.J .A .C . 7:27-4 .2 to cause the owners or operators of the 

coal-fired boilers to install a control apparatus in order to comply with the 

proposed maximum particle emission rates . Only one coal-fired boiler -

Vineland Municipal Electric Utility unit 10 - would not be in compliance 

with the proposed maximum particle emission rate and is not required by 

a consent decree or an administrative consent order to comply with an 

emission rate that is at least as stringent as the proposed maximum 

particle emission rate . This boiler is expected to shut down prior to 

December 15, 2012, in lieu of complying with the mercury rule for coalfired boilers at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-27 .7 . Therefore, the Department does not 

expect the proposed maximum particle emission rates at N.J.A.C. 7 :27-

4.2 to have an economic impact . 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A.C . 7 :27-10 .2 will cause the owner 

or operator of the Deepwater Electric Generating Unit (EGU) to install a 

control apparatus, such as a scrubber, in order to comply with the 

proposed S02 maximum emission rates . The Department expects the 

cost-effectiveness of installing a scrubber to be less than $4,600 per ton 

of SOZ reduced in 2007 dollars (MACTEC Report July 2007). Carney's 

Point unit 2, which already has a scrubber installed, may need to increase 

the amount of reagent that is used by the scrubber in order to ensure 

continuous compliance with the proposed emission rates . The Department 

expects increased maintenance and operation costs (including disposal 

costs) to add extra reagent will be small, approximately $50.00 per ton of 

SOz emissions reduced, compared to the cost of installing a new scrubber. 

The Department estimates the use of extra reagent will cause an increase 

in scrubber by-product, the slurry or solid formed when the reagent reacts 

with the gaseous SOz, of approximately one percent. The owner or 

operator may sell or give away the slurry by-product from a wet scrilbber 

to be used as a raw material in the cement industry, for manufacturing 

wallboard, or for agricultural use . The owner or operator may dispose of 

the solid by-product from a dry scrubber in a landfill at a cost of 

approximately $12.00 per dry ton . Any additional control costs that are 

not absorbed by the electric generating companies are likely to be passed 

on to the consumer in the form of higher electricity generating rates . 

The proposed amendments to N.J .A .C . 7:27-19 .4 will cause the owner 

or operator of the Deepwater EGU to install a control apparatus, such as a 

selective catalytic reduction system, in order to comply with the proposed 

maximum allowable NO, emission rates . The Department expects the 

cost-effectiveness of installing, maintaining and operating a new selective 

catalytic reduction system on the coal-fired boiler to be less than $1,250 

per ton of NO, emission reductions in 2007 dollars (NESCAUM Report) . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Control costs are likely to be passed on to the consumer in the form of 

somewhat higher electricity generating rates . Companies that design, 

build and install these emission control systems could benefit from the 

proposed amendments as they will experience an increase in demand for 

their products and services . 

Control Technique Guidelines 

The proposed amendments at N.J .A .C . 7:27-16 .7, regarding flexible 

package printing, are anticipated to have an economic impact on the 

regulated facilities . The CTG document for Flexible Package Printing, 

EPA 453/R-06-003, published in April 2006, lists the cost-effectiveness 

associated with the proposed rules to be $1,300 to $2,800 per ton of VOC 

controlled. 

The proposed amendments at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7 incorporate the 

recommendations of the EPA, as published in the CTG document for 

Flatwood Paneling Coatings . The EPA estimates that the cost per ton of 

VOCs reduced, in 2005 dollars, to be $2,600 for exterior siding; and 

$1,900 for interior wall paneling and tileboard . 

The proposed amendments at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-16 .7 incorporate the 

recommendations of the EPA, as published in the CTG document for 

Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing. The EPA estimates 

the cost to implement the proposed controls for heatset offset lithographic 

printing operations, in 2005 dollars, at $2,010 per ton VOC controlled. If 

a facility uses lower VOC cleaning materials for Offset Lithographic 

Presses, the cost-effectiveness estimate is $855.00 per ton VOC 

controlled . Also, the reduction in alcohol use in fountain solutions or 

conversion to alcohol substitutes in fountain solutions results in cost 

savings, because lower content alcohol products are less expensive . 

Implementing Best Management Practices, which are applicable to all 

surface coating and graphic art source operations included in the CTG 

documents, should result in economic gains since these practices will 

prevent coatings from volatilizing . Accordingly, more of the coating will 

remain on the surface. 

Glass Manufacturing Furnaces 

As discussed above, there are 25 glass manufacturing furnaces in the 

State . Of these, 14 already comply with the proposed limit at N.J .A.C . 7 :27-

19 .10 ; consequently, there will be no additional cost for these furnaces as a 

result of the proposed rules . Two existing furnaces are temporarily inactive . 

The Department expects that most of the remaining nine glass 

manufacturing furnaces in the State will install oxyfiring in order to comply 

with the proposed emission limit and to improve the operation of the 

furnace . The OTC estimated the cost-effectiveness of installing oxyfiring to 

be between $1,250 and $2,500 per ton of NOx removed, in 2001 dollars. 

Other RACT control measures that could be installed include low NO. 

burners and selective non-catalytic reduction at estimated installation costs 

from $920.00 to $2,340 per ton of NO, removed. See 

http ://www.nj,gov/do/airworkgroups/docs/wpsummary_table-web .xls for 

further information. 

The Department expects the proposed new rules and amendments to 

minimize costs . The proposed amendments require installation of controls 

at the time of rebricking . This will lessen the economic impact of the 

proposed new rules and amendments on a plant,, since a furnace would 

not be subject to an unscheduled shutdown to install controls . Also, as a 

result of reduced emissions that are anticipated as a result of the proposed 

new rules and amendments, the Department expects glass manufacturing 

plants to save approximately $100.00 per ton of NO, reduction in annual 

emission fees . Finally, where oxyfiring is installed, the savings due to 

less fuel consumption will amount to approximately 15 percent of current 

fuel cost. The OTC did not consider these savings in the cost estimates 

cited above. 

The Department will experience a manageable increase in workload as 

a result of the proposed amendments relating to glass manufacturing 

furnaces . A facility will have to apply for a modification of its permit to 

install any additional control measure. 

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Units 

In New Jersey, there are eight HEDD units that are No. 6 fuel oil-fired 

boilers (six of which also combust natural gas) . These units are primarily 

used on high electric demand days to generate electrical power at five 

New Jersey facilities . The proposed amendments at N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 .4(a) 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J.R 4423) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

will require seven of these boilers to have a control apparatus, such as a 

low NO,; burner (LNB) Or a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) 

system, installed on them in order to comply with the proposed maximum 

allowable emission rates . The Department expects the cost-effectiveness 

of installing, maintaining and operating a LNB or SNCR system to be in 

the range of $600.00 per ton to $18,000 per ton of NO, emissions 

reduced, with an approximate average of $5,000 per ton of NO, 

emissions reduced (See MACTEC report February 2007, page 4-22) . Any 

additional control costs that are not absorbed by the electric generating 

companies are likely to be passed on to the consumer in the form of 

higher electricity generating rates. 

Approximately 160 HEDD units in the State are turbines that are 

primarily used on high electric demand days to generate electrical power 

at 27 New Jersey facilities . The proposed new rules and amendments at 

N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .5 will require approximately 143 of these turbines to 

either have a control apparatus, such as water injection, installed on them 

or require the turbine to be replaced entirely in order to comply with the 

proposed maximum allowable emission rates . The cost-effectiveness of 

installing water injection is approximately $44,000 per ton of NOx 

emission reductions . Most of these reductions would occur on high ozone 

days . Since these units are operated mostly on high electric demand days, 

which are typically high ozone days, the NOx emissions are concentrated 

in a short period, that is, during high ozone days, when NOx emission 

reductions are most critical . The total replacement cost, including 

maintenance and operation, for a simple cycle combustion turbine ranges 

from $0.5 to 0 .8 million per MW. Any additional control costs that are 

not recovered by the electric generating companies are likely to be passed 

on to the consumer in the form of higher electricity generating rates . 

The cost of implementing the 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction Plan 

will vary depending on what measures the owner or operator proposes to 

use in order to obtain the required maximum allowable emission rates . 

The Department expects the cost of implementing a 2015 HEDD 

Emission Limit Achievement Plan could be offset by a measure 

implemented as part of the 2009 Protocol because this measure will also 

be used to achieve the required 2015 emission rates . If the owner or 

operator chooses to install a control apparatus or replace an existing 

HEDD unit to obtain the required 2009 N0, emission rates, this measure 

is likely to achieve compliance with the 2015 emission rates for that 

particular HEDD unit. If the owner or operator chooses another option, 

such as combusting natural gas when fuel oil is economically favored, the 

cost of purchasing natural gas will be minimized because HEDD units are 

not operated frequently. There will be an additional cost to the owners or 

operators to prepare the 2009 Protocol, 2009 Protocol annual reports, 

2015 Plan and the 2015 Plan annual updates ; however, this cost will be 

minimal compared to the cost of installing a control apparatus or 

replacing existing equipment . The Department estimates that the total 

cost to each company to prepare these plans and reports would be 

between $20,000 and $40,000 . The more HEDD units in the two plans 

the higher the cost . This cost may be reduced if the company prepares 

plans that do not need substantial updating . 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers and Other Indirect 

Heat Exchangers 

The OTC completed an analysis of ICI boiler NO, control cost 

estimates using detailed information on direct capital equipment costs, 

direct installation costs, indirect capital costs, and direct and indirect 

operating costs . The analysis examined five types of NO, control 

technologies : low-N0, burners (LNB), ultra low-NO, burners (ULN13), 

LNB plus flue gas recirculation (LNB+FGR), LNB plus selective noncatalytic reduction (LNB+SNCR), and selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR). The analysis also considered various fuel types : coal, residual oil, 

distillate oil, and natural gas . The cost of the controls varies by fuel type, 

boiler size, current regulatory requirements, current control technology, 

and boiler firing type . The OTC analysis found that annual costeffectiveness varied from $600.00 per ton to $18,000 per ton . In general, 

for most scenarios, the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be less than 

$5,000 per ton of NO, removed (MACTEC Report February 2007, pg 4-

22) . 

The Department anticipates that the emission reduction from ICI 

boilers can usually be achieved by installing new low N0, burners, flue 

PROPOSALS 

gas recirculation, or SNCR. The Department estimates that these new 

rules and amendments will result in the installation of new controls on 

approximately 250 boilers . Phasing in these controls over three years, as 

proposed, is anticipated to have less of an economic impact on the burner 

industry and the owners and operators of ICI boilers or other indirect heat 

exchangers than if all the boilers were required to meet the proposed 

emission rates earlier and simultaneously . 

Indirect fired heat exchangers other than boilers, such as process 

heaters, would also be required to comply with the more stringent 

maximum allowable NO, emission rates if they have the same heat input 

size as ICI boilers . New Jersey's existing rule regulates both ICI boilers 

and indirect fired process heaters as a common source category, and 

continues to do so in the proposed amendments to these rules . Since such 

indirect fired process heaters are similar design to ICI boilers, the same 

control technology is generally applicable, and the cost of the controls is 

similar as that for ICI boilers, discussed above. 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Incinerators 

The proposed new rules establish a maximum allowable NO, emission 

concentration for MSW incinerators of 150 ppmvd at seven percent 

oxygen based on each calendar day average . The Department anticipates 

that the State's MSW incinerators can meet the proposed standard using 

existing technology, at a reasonable cost. 

The capital cost of installing a selective non-catalytic reduction system 

(SNCR) on a MSW incinerator is approximately $1,500 per MMBtu/hr 

(Institute of Clean Air Companies, 2000, page 7) . The primary cost of 

using a SNCR is in operating expenses (Institute of Clean Air 

Companies, 2000, page 7) . The EPA estimates the cost of operating a 

SNCR system on an ICI boiler to be $680.00 to $1,200 per MMBtu/hr in 

1993 dollars (See Table 14 in EPA 1999), which the Department believes 

would be the approximate cost for operating a SNCR system on an MSW 

incinerator boiler . This equates to between $950.00 and $1,675 in 2006 

dollars . The EPA estimates the cost-effectiveness of operating a SNCR 

system on an MSW incinerator boiler to be $2,140 per ton of NO, 

emissions reduced in 1990 dollars (see Table 16 in EPA 1999) . 

The capability exists, through optimization, for a SNCR system to 

obtain greater NO, emission reductions than the State's MSW 

incinerators are currently achieving. The Department estimates the costeffectiveness to optimize an SNCR system by switching from a ureabased system to an ammonia-based system to be approximately $200.00 

per ton NO, reduced . 

Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

The Department's RACT maximum allowable NO, emission rates for 

sewage sludge incinerators at proposed N.J.A.C . 7 :27-19 .28 will not 

economically impact these incinerators, as they all are currently 

complying with the proposed maximum allowable emission rates. 

VOC Stationary Storage Tanks 

The proposed amendments will apply to any VOC stationary storage 

tank with an external or internal floating roof subject to N.J .A .C . 7:27-

16.2, and will affect mainly refineries, terminals, and pipeline breakout 

stations. The cost estimates are based on data derived from documents 

that addressed costs for tanks located in California . It is appropriate to use 

this data for tanks installed and operated in New Jersey . The many of the 

manufacturers and vendors who will supply, install, or operate the 

necessary equipment at the New Jersey facilities are the same as those 

which service the California facilities . Labor costs for New Jersey and 

California facilities are similar since the cost of living in these areas of 

the country are comparable . 

The Department estimates that retrofitting guidepoles and upgrading 

other deck fittings on external floating roof tanks storing an applicable 

VOC has a cost-effectiveness, in 2001 dollars, of $29,000 per ton of VOC 

emissions reduced, based on a cost of $10,000 to retrofit a slotted 

guidepole with pole sleeves, cover and wipers, and $500.00 per fitting to 

upgrade other deck fittings (South Coast 2001 Report) . Installing 

gasketed covers or flexible fabric sleeves on each roof column or well 

and upgrading the other deck fittings on an internal floating roof tank has 

a cost-effectiveness of $6,000 per ton of VOC removed in 2001 dollars 

(South Coast 2001 Report) . The Department estimates that upgrading th's, 

seals on any floating roof tank storing an applicable VOC has a cost- 

(CITE 40 N.J.R. 4424) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

effectiveness of $13,200 per ton of VOC reduced as the tank is filled an 

emptied, in 2001 dollars (South Coast 2001 Report) . However, the 

Department expects that most floating roof tanks are already in 

compliance with the proposed seal requirements . 

There are approximately 240 stationary storage tanks with external 

floating roofs in the State . The Department proposes to require those that 

store VOC with a vapor pressure of three pounds per square inch or 

greater, except for crude oil, to install a dome. Many owners or operators 

of external floating roof tanks have already installed domes. However, 

the Department estimates there will be at least 70 other tanks that the 

proposed rules will cause to install a dome. The Department estimates the 

cost-effectiveness at $12,036 per ton of VOCs reduced in 2001 dollars 

(South Coast 2001 Report) . 

Improved deck fittings and installing domes provide additional 

benefits that would affect a tanks' operating expenses by protecting 

floating roofs from the weather, reducing maintenance, reducing risk of 

product contamination, and reducing risk of tank fires . 

There are at least 850 VOC stationary storage tanks with internal and 

external floating roofs in the State. All these tanks will be subject to the 

proposed roof landing emission rules . The Department estimates the 

proposed rule will cause 200 to 300 of these tanks to be modified . One 

possible modification is to include replacing an existing floating roof 

with one that has an opening to accommodate a vapor recovery line that 

would go to a vapor control device . This is currently being done in parts 

of California, such as in the SCAQMD . Another possible modification is 

to retrofit a tank to meet the landing height requirement. This might be 

cost prohibitive if this would require piping, sumps or other hardware to 

be placed underneath the tank . The remaining tanks will not be required 

to be modified because their roof landing emissions are below five tons 

per year. 

Cost-effectiveness estimates for performing these modifications and 

operating the installed controls varies from $2,288 to $20,000 per ton of 

VOC reduced based on tank size . Smaller tanks have a higher costeffectiveness, while larger tanks have a lower cost-effectiveness . The 

South Coast 1987 Report estimated the cost-effectiveness to be $4,000 to 

$20,000 per ton of VOC reduced ; the San Joaquin 2005 Report estimated 

the cost-effectiveness to be $2,288 to $4,290 per ton of VOC reduced; 

and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 1997 

Report estimated the cost-effectiveness to be $3,000 per ton of VOC 

reduced. The BAAQMD 1997 Report estimate included the cost of 

converting an external floating roof tank to an internal floating roof tank, 

as well as the cost of vapor control . Its low cost estimate resulted from 

the estimate being performed on a large tank, approximately five million 

gallons . 

The estimated cost to control emissions during a degassing operation 

is $6,283 to $11,781 for a 62,832-barrel floating roof tank, with a costeffectiveness of $2,288 to $4,290 per ton of VOC emissions reduced (San 

Joaquin 2005 Report). There will be additional cost for tank cleaning that 

can vary significantly depending upon tank size, contents stored, liquid 

heel height, sludge level and solids content . The proposed degassing 

amendments will affect tanks greater than 40,000 gallons in size that 

store primarily gasoline, ethanol or methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE). 

The larger the tank and the higher the vapor pressure of the stored 

contents, the lower the cleaning cost per ton of emissions . 

The Department expects costs for inspections to be minimal because 

owners or operators are already required to perform inspections undeii the 

Department's Discharge, Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures 

(DPCC) program rules and the Federal New Source Performance 

Standard regulations and/or maximum achievable control technology 

regulations . The Department's proposed inspection requirements can be 

performed concurrently with the other inspections . 

The proposed new rules and amendments may have a small affect on 

gasoline prices at the pump. The Department estimates that the overall 

annualized compliance cost-effectiveness to this industry in its entirety 

would be a maximum of $58,000,000 for 2,000 tons per year of VOC 

reductions in 2018. Throughput of gasoline in these tanks in 2006 

exceeded ten billion gallons . Based on that figure, if owners or operators 

of VOC stationary storage tanks pass on compliance costs to distributors 

and retailers, the Department would expect gasoline prices at the pump to 

increase less than $0 .01 per gallon . Some tank owners or operators may 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

not choose to pass some or all of these costs on to distributors and 

retailers . Distributors and retailers may be impacted if the potential 

increase in costs of gasoline increases their expenses and dampens 

demand. 

Penalty Provisions 

The proposed amendments to the penalty schedule in N.J .A .C . 7:27A 

will have no economic impact on persons who comply with the air 

pollution control rules . For violators, the economic impact of the 

proposed rules will vary according to the severity of the air pollution 

exceedance or other violation. The proposed penalties for violations of 

proposed additions to N.J .A .C . 7 :27-19 are comparable to violations of 

similar provisions elsewhere in N.JA.C . 7:27A. 

Environmental Impact 

The Department anticipates that the proposed new rules and 

amendments will have a positive environmental impact. Ozone interferes 

with the ability of plants to produce and store food, which makes them 

more susceptible to disease, insects, other pollutants, and harsh weather . 

Ozone damages the leaves of trees and other plants, ruining the 

appearance of cities, national parks, and recreation areas . Ozone reduces 

crop and forest yields and increases plant vulnerability to disease, pests, 

and harsh weather . This impacts annual crop production throughout the 

United States, resulting in significant losses, and injures native vegetation 

and ecosystems . Ground-level ozone also damages certain man-made 

materials, such as textile, fibers, dyes, and paints, requiring more frequent 

upkeep and repair. , 

Another benefit of the proposed new rules amendments is that 

emissions of S02 will also be reduced . NO,; and SOZ emissions contribute 

to the adverse environmental impacts from acid rain. Acid rain causes 

damage to forests, soil, and aquatic ecosystems; damage to infrastructure 

and human health ; and reduces visibility . Nitric acid and sulfuric acid is 

formed when NO, and SOZ are released during high-temperature fuel 

combustion. These pollutants stay in the air for days, sometimes 

travelling thousands of miles . Precipitation washes these acids out of the 

atmosphere as acid rain . 

In addition to the formation of acid rain, SOZ and NO, condense into 

an aerosol component of fine particulate matter, or PMZ,5 . Fine particulate 

matter is particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less equivalent 

aerodynamic diameter . To a lesser extent VOCs, also contribute to the 

formation of PM2 5 . Reduction in fine particulate matter in New Jersey 

will have a positive environmental impact, for the reasons discussed 

below. 

PMzs (direct and formed) contributes to visibility impairment. 

Visibility impairment, called "regional haze," occurs when particles and 

gases scatter and absorb light in the atmosphere . Reduced visibility is a 

problem in both urban and rural areas but is of most concern in national 

parks and wilderness areas that are valued for their aesthetic qualities. 

Without the effects of pollution, a natural visual range is approximately 

140 miles in the western United States and 90 miles in the eastern United 

States . However, over the last few decades, sulfates, nitrates, and other 

particles in the atmosphere have reduced that range to 33 to 90 miles in 

the West and 14 to 24 miles in the East (Ceres Investors and 

Environmentalists for Sustainable Prosperity, Publication and Reports -

Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Generation 

Owners in the U.S ., 2002) . 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S .C . §7491) requires that 

states prepare a plan that makes reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility levels, caused by regional haze, in all Federally mandated Class 

one areas where such impairment is the result of the manmade emissions 

of air pollutants . New Jersey has a Class 1 visibility area located at the 

Brigantine Wilderness area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge. Therefore, New Jersey is responsible for developing reasonable 

progress goals, in conjunction with other States identified as contributing 

to visibility impairment at Brigantine . The goals are to prevent future 

degradation, remedy existing impairment and attain natural background 

visibility conditions in the Class 1 area by the year 2064. The States will 

need to show increments of progress at ten-year intervals (with the first 

interval being 2018). The final regional haze State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) is scheduled to be proposed in September, 2008 . Emission 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R. 4425) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

reductions from the proposed new rules and amendments will help New 

Jersey attain the goals for regional haze . 

The proposed new rules and amendments are also expected to reduce 

emissions of HAPs and toxic substances that cause serious environmental 

effects . For example, some toxic air pollutants such as mercury can 

deposit onto soils or surface waters, where plants take them up. They can 

be ingested by animals and eventually magnified up through the food 

chain . Like humans, animals may experience health problems if exposed 

to sufficient quantities of air toxics over time. These health effects can 

include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, 

reproductive (such as reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory and 

other health problems (see EPA 2008 Toxics Website) . 

Specific impacts by source category follow below. 

Alternative and Facility-specific NO, Emission Limits 

The Department expects the proposed new rules and amendments to 

affect 25 or fewer facilities . The proposed new rules and amendments 

will require each of these facilities that plan to continue operating under 

its approved alternative maximum allowable NO, emission rate to apply 

for a new alternative allowable NO, emission rate now and every 10 

years hereafter. This will cause these facilities to re-evaluate their 

alternative maximum allowable emission rates with respect to possible 

advances in the art of air pollution control technologies now and every 10 

years . 

The proposed new rules and amendments will require each of these 

facilities that plan to continue operating under its approved facilityspecific N0, control plan to apply for a new facility-specific NO, control 

plan shortly after the rules are adopted . This will cause these facilities to 

re-evaluate their facility-specific NO., control plans with respect to 

possible advances in the art of air pollution control technologies almost 

immediately. The proposed new rules and amendments will have a 

positive environmental impact if they result in the Department's 

approving facility-specific NO. control plans or alternative maximum 

allowable emission rates that cause facilities to install additional NO x 

control technologies . The Department can not predict any NO, emission 

reductions at this time, because reductions will be determined during the 

review of applications for alternative maximum allowable emission rates 

and facility-specific NO, control plans . 

Alternative VOC Emission Limits 

Currently the Department has approved alternative VOC emission 

limits for five facilities . The proposed new rules and amendments will 

require each of these facilities that plans to continue operating under its 

approved alternative VOC emission limit to apply for a new alternative 

VOC emission limit in a new alternative VOC control plan shortly after 

the rules are adopted, and every 10 years hereafter. This will cause these 

facilities to re-evaluate their alternative VOC emission limits with respect 

to possible advances in the art of air pollution control technologies every 

10 years . These new rules and amendments will have a positive 

environmental impact if the new alternative VOC emission limits cause 

these facilities to install additional VOC control technologies . Future 

VOC emission reductions will depend on advances in the art of air 

pollution control technologies, the development of new equipment, and 

the remaining useful life of the equipment . The Department can not 

predict any VOC emission reductions at this time, because reductions will 

be determined during the review of applications for new alterriative VOC 

control plans . 

Asphalt Used for Paving 

The primary environmental benefit from controls on cutback and 

emulsified asphalt will be a reduction in the emission of VOCs. Also, as 

discussed in the Social Impact above, the proposed new rules and 

amendments are expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) (substances listed in 1990 Clean Air Act Title IIl, See. 112(b)) 

and toxic substances (substances listed in N.J .A.C. 7 :27-17), such as 

hexane, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene, hydrogen sulfide 

and benzene; and PMz ; (fine particulate matter of 2 .5 microns or less 

equivalent aerodynamic diameter), some of which is created from VOC 

emissions . 

Based on the MACTEC Report (see MACTEC Report February 

2007), the Department estimates that the proposed new rules and 

PROPOSALS 

amendments for cutback and emulsified asphalt will result in a reduction 

of VOC emissions in New Jersey of approximately 3 .6 tpd in the 2009 

ozone season (1 .8 tpd for cutback and 1 .8 tpd for emulsified) . 

Asphalt Pavement Production Plants 

Assuming that each owner or operator chooses to comply with the 

proposed maximum allowable NO,; emission rates by a strategy other 

than a physical modification, instead of installing new controls, the 

Department's estimated NO,; emission reductions in tpd during the ozone 

season would be 0 .21 tpd in 2009, 0.42 tpd in 2010 and 0.64 tpd in 2011 . 

The Department's estimated annual emission reductions in tons per 

calendar year would be 43 tons in 2009, 86 tons in 2010, and 132 tons in 

2011. This would amount to an overall 35 percent or more reduction from 

the 2002 base emissions . These annual estimates would change if an 

owner or operator complies by making a physical modification to the 

plant, for which the proposed new rules and amendments allow an 

additional year to comply. 

Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units 

The only coal-fired boiler in the State that is not either currently in 

compliance with the proposed maximum particle emission rate or 

required by a consent decree or administrative consent order to comply 

with an emission rate that is at least as stringent as the proposed 

maximum particle emission rate is Vineland Municipal Electric Utility 

unit 10 . The Department expects this boiler to shut down prior to 

December 15, 2012, in lieu of complying with the mercury requirements 

for coal-fired boilers at N.3 .A .C . 7:27-27 . 

Operation of a dry scrubber with a baghouse will typically result in a 

95 percent reduction in SOZ emissions. If Conectiv Energy installs a 

scrubber on Deepwater unit 6/8 and achieves a 95 percent reduction in 

S02 emissions, the Department estimates, based on 2002 emission 

statement data projected to 2009, an annual decrease in S02 emissions of 

over 2,000 tons . If Cogentrix increases S02 control on Carneys Point unit 

2 in order to obtain compliance with the proposed maximum emission 

rate, the Department estimates, based on 2002 emission statement data 

projected to 2009, an annual decrease in S0= emissions of over 200 tons . 

The Department's estimated total projected SOZ emission reductions in 

2013 would be 7.04 tpd during the ozone season and 2,571 tpy . 

A selective catalytic reduction system will typically result in a 90 

percent reduction in NO, emissions . If Conectiv Energy installs a 

selective catalytic reduction system on Deepwater unit 6/8 and achieves a 

90 percent reduction in NO, emissions, the Department estimates, based 

on 2002 emissions statement data projected to 2009, a decrease in NO, 

emissions in 2013 of 2.16 tpd during the ozone season and 788 tpy. 

Control Techniques Guidelines 

As a result of the proposed new rules and amendments, the emission 

reductions expected from lithographic, and letterpress printing are 

approximately 0.43 tons of VOC per day during the ozone season and, in 

2010 and subsequent years, 157 tons of VOC emission reductions per 

year . These reductions would be primarily from the proposed rules 

requiring lower VOC content cleaning materials . The emission reductions 

expected from flexible package printing are approximately 0.08 tons 

VOC per day during the ozone season and, in 2010 and subsequent years, 

35.3 tons per year . No VOC emission reductions are anticipated for flat 

wood coatings, since there are currently no such facilities in the State. 

Additional VOC emission reductions are expected from implementing 

Best Management Practices, such as covering mixing vessels and sealing 

storage containers . 

Glass Manufacturing Furnaces 

The Department expects the proposed new rules and amendments to 

cause nine glass manufacturing furnaces to install controls or take other 

measures to reduce N0x emissions . The Department estimates this will 

result in nearly 1,170 tons per year of N0, emission reductions by 2012, 

which is approximately 3.2 tpd during the ozone season, based on a 2002 

NO, emissions baseline . 

High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Units 

The 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction Compliance Demonstration 

Protocol will reduce NO, emissions on high electric demand days by 19 .8 

(CITE 40 N.J .R. 4426) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

tpd, assuming overall potential NO, emissions from HEDD units will be 

similar to HEDD unit emissions on July 26, 2005. If overall potential 

N0, emissions are higher than HEDD unit emissions were on July 26, 

2005, the expected NOX emission reduction would be proportionately 

higher. Likewise, if overall potential NO, emissions are lower than 

HEDD unit emissions were on July 26, 2005, the expected NO, emission 

reduction would be proportionately lower. For example, if the potential 

NO, emissions are twice the HEDD unit emissions on July 26, 2005, the 

expected N0, emission reduction would be 39.6 tpd (two times 19 .8 tpd) 

and if potential NO, emissions are half of the HEDD unit NO, emissions 

on July 26, 2005, the expected NO, emission reduction would be 9.9 tpd 

(one-half times 19 .8) . These emission reductions will occur on each high 

electric demand day from the operative date of these amendments 

through September 30, 2014. 

A low NO, burner or a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

system will typically result in a 40 percent reduction in NO. emissions . A 

water injection (WI) system will typically result in a 55 percent reduction 

in N0, emissions . Replacing existing aeroderivative turbines with newer 

Dry-Lo NO,; (DLN) based simple cycle turbines will typically result in a 

90 percent reduction in NO, emissions. The Department estimates, by 

applying the proposed 2015 maximum allowable emission rates to the 

HEDD units that were operating on the reference day of July 26, 2005, 

that a reduction in NOx emissions from HEDD units of 54.9 tpd will be 

achieved on a high electric demand day similar to July 26, 2005. This 

result comes from replacing the actual NO,, emission rates of July 26, 

2005 with the maximum allowable NO, emission rates proposed at 

N.J .A .C. 7:27-19 .4, Table 3 and N.J .A.C . 7:27-19.5, Table 7 . However, 

peak electric use is forecast to grow 1 .5 percent annually in Pennsylvania 

New Jersey Maryland Interconnection LLC's (PJM) Mid-Atlantic Region 

through 2017. Applying 1 .5 percent annual electric use growth to the 54.9 

tpd expected reduction; results in an anticipated NO, reduction of 63 .7 

tpd or more, by 2015 on a high electric demand day. The annual emission 

reduction will depend on the actual usage of the HEDD units . 

The Department expects that the NOa emission reduction will be 

approximately 19 .8 tpd on each high electric demand day starting on the 

operative date of these amendments. The effective emission reduction is 

likely to grow between 2009 and 2015 (when the 2015 proposed 

performance standards go into effect) because many HEDD unit owners 

or operators will install emission controls or replacing high emitting 

sources with new low emitting sources in order to attain compliance with 

the proposed 2015 performance standards by May 1, 2015. By May 1, 

2015, all HEDD units are expected to be in compliance with the 2015 

performance standards and the emission reduction is expected to be 

approximately 63 .7 tpd. 

lndustrial/Commercial/InstitutionaI (ICI) and Other Indirect Heat 

Exchangers 

Assuming that each owner or operator chooses to comply with the 

proposed maximum allowable NO, emission rates by optimizing a 

boiler's combustion processes, instead of installing new controls, the 

Department anticipates that the proposed new rules and amendments will 

result in a reduction of NOx emissions of approximately 1 .7 tpd during 

the 2009 ozone season to approximately 2.9 tpd during the 2011 ozone 

season. The Department expects approximately 408 tons of NO, emission 

reductions in 2009 increasing to approximately 970 tons in 2011 "These 

annual estimates would change if an owner or operator complies by 

installing new controls, for which the proposed new rules and 

amendments allow an additional year to comply . 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Incinerators 

The Department anticipates that the proposed 150 ppmvd maximum 

allowable NO, emissions concentration would reduce the amount of 

ozone in the Ozone Transport Region and other areas affected by the 

transport of NO,. The resulting reduction in ambient ozone concentration 

is expected to reduce the adverse health effects and damage to the 

environment described above in this section . Actual NO, emission 

concentrations from the State's 13 MSW incinerators range from 90 to 

200 ppm. Actual N0,, emissions in 2002 for the State's 13 MSW 

incinerators was 1,803 tpy . MSW incinerators usually set their emission 

concentrations to a level below any required limit to reduce the likelihood 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

they will exceed the required limit. Therefore, by May 1, 2010 the 

Department expects each MSW incinerator to emit NO, at a 

concentration of approximately 130 ppm, which would result in 

approximately 0.27 tpd of NO, emission reductions during the 2009 

ozone season . Emitting NO at approximately 130 ppm would result in 

approximately 1,685 tpy NO, emissions . Compared to the 2002 emissions 

of 1,803 tpy, the Department expects the emission reductions to be 

approximately 67 tpy in 2009 and greater than 100 tpy in subsequent 

years . 

VOC Stationary Storage Tanks 

The proposed new rules and amendments require all Range III tanks to 

upgrade their deck fittings and seals if they are not already upgraded . 

Range III tanks are those that would be most likely to store gasoline or 

other high vapor pressure VOC liquids . The Department expects the 

proposed rules to upgrade deck fittings and seals to yield an emission 

reduction of approximately 187 tons per year of VOC starting in 2010. 

New Jersey emission inventory data indicates VOC emissions of over 

400 tpy from at least 70 external floating roof tanks without domes 

storing gasoline . The proposed new rules and amendments require 

existing external floating roof tanks storing VOC with a vapor pressure of 

three psia or greater to be retrofitted with domes. Retrofitting external 

floating roof tanks with domes cuts emissions by an average of 63 

percent (SCAQMD Final Staff Report) . The proposed compliance date is 

10 years after the operative date of the amendments. The Department 

expects the proposed rules requiring tanks to be retrofitted with domes to 

yield an additional emission reduction of approximately 13 tons per year 

of VOC, starting in 2010. In other words, the Department expects 

approximately a 13-ton reduction in 2010, a 26-ton reduction in 2012, 

and up to a 130-ton reduction in 2020. 

The total roof landing VOC emissions in New Jersey are at least 2,000 

tons per year . The total may be 3,000 tons or more because many of these 

emissions have not been reported in the past. The Department's proposed 

rules would require an average of 80 percent control of these emissions . 

The Department estimates approximately 160 tons of additional emission 

reductions will be achieved each year or as much as 0.5 tons per ozone 

season day as a result of the proposed roof landing rules . The Department 

estimates VOC emission reductions in 2020 in the range of 1,400 to 

2,400 tons or possibly more. These estimates are difficult to determine 

because they depend on the tank VOC control plans that the tank owners 

or operators submit . 

The uncontrolled emissions from degassing a tank are approximately 

0 .5 tons (San Joaquin 2005 Report) . Degassing usually occurs once every 

10 years (SJVUAPCD Final Draft Staff Report). Using these factors, and 

with a New Jersey tank universe of at least 1,000 floating roof tanks (that 

is, those subject to an Operating Permit), the Department estimates that 

100 tanks are degassed annually with total degassing emissions of about 

50 tons per year. There are additional fixed and floating roof tanks 

subject to a Preconstruction Permit and Operating Certificate . 

The uncontrolled emissions from one degassing and cleaning of a tank 

are approximately 6 .7 tons (Ferry 2007) . Assuming that 100 tanks are 

degassed and cleaned annually, the Department estimates that the annual 

uncontrolled VOC emissions are approximately 670 tpy. Applying 95 

percent control efficiency required by the proposed rules and 

amendments, the emission reductions during the five month ozone season 

would be approximately 265 tons . 

Federal Standards Analysis 

Executive Order No. 27 (1994) and N.J .S .A. 52:14B-1 et seq . (P.L . 

1995, c. 65) require State agencies that adopt, readopt, or amend State 

regulations that exceed any Federal standards or requirements to include 

in the rulemaking document a Federal standards analysis . 

The proposed new rules and amendments are needed to fulfill a 

Federal Clean Air Act requirement that New Jersey adopt control 

measures to reduce NO VOC, SOZ, particulate emissions to attain the 

ozone and fine particulate national ambient air quality standards . 

Therefore, proposal of the new rule and amendments are consistent with 

Federal requirements . 

Based on its review of Federal regulations, the Department has 

determined that the proposed new rules and amcndments for the 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R. 4427) 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

following source categories do not contain any standards or requirements 

that are comparable to Federal law: alternative maximum allowable NO, 

emissions rates, facility-specific maximum allowable NO, emission rates, 

alternative VOC emission limits, asphalt pavement production plants, the 

source categories affected by the proposed control techniques guidelines, 

and glass manufacturing furnaces . Accordingly, Executive Order No. 27 

(1994) and N.J .S .A. 52:14B-1 et seq . (P.L. 1995, c . 65), do not require 

any further analysis for these source categories . 

The Clean Air Act, Section 182(b)(2) (42 U.S .C . §7511(b)(2)), 

requires states, such as New Jersey, that have nonattairnnent areas to 

revise their SIPs to include reasonably available control technology for 

sources of VOC emissions covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area's 

date of attainment . In September 2006, the EPA issued CTG documents 

for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing (EPA 453/R-06-

002), flexible package printing (EPA 453/R-06-003), and flat wood 

paneling coatings (EPA 453/R-06-004) . (See http :www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/ozone/ctQ act/.) The proposed amendments are equivalent to and 

are not more stringent than these CTG. Accordingly, Executive Order No. 

27 (1994) and N.J .S .A . 52:14B-1 et seq. (P .L . 1995, c .65), do not require 

any further analysis for these source categories . 

Based on its review of comparable Federal regulations, the 

Department has determined that the proposed new rules and amendments 

for the following source categories contain standards or requirements that 

exceed the standards or requirements imposed by Federal law: asphalt 

used for paving, boilers that serve electric generating units, high electric 

demand day units, ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers, 

municipal solid waste incinerators, and VOC stationary storage tanks. 

However, as stated above, all of these proposed new rules and 

amendments are needed to fulfill a requirement, imposed by EPA 

pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, Section 182 (b)(2) 42 U.S .C . 

§§7401 et seq ., that New Jersey adopt sufficient control measures to meet 

the NAAQS for ozone and fine particulates . Therefore, the proposed new 

and amended rules are necessary for the State to comply with Federal 

requirements . Failure to achieve these reductions could subject the State 

to Federal sanctions. 

Despite the fact that the proposed new rules and amendments are 

necessary if the State is to meet Federal Requirements, a Federal 

Standards Analysis follows below by source category . 

Asphalt Used for Paving 

In 1979 EPA recommended a seven percent VOC content limit for 

emulsified asphalt used during the ozone season . The Department is 

proposing a more stringent VOC content limit (0 .1 percent VOC by 

weight; or 6 .0 milliliter of oil distillate in accordance with the ASTM 

Method D244 or AASHTO T 59) for emulsified asphalt used during the 

period April 16 through October 14 . The entire state of New Jersey is not 

in attaumlent with the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. The 

purpose of the proposed more stringent VOC content limit is to help 

bring the State into attainment. 

The Department has investigated various emission sources to 

determine where further VOC emission reductions can be achieved . The 

storage, use or application of emulsified asphalt is one of these emission 

sources . Emulsified asphalts with a lower VOC content than is in EPA's 

Asphalt CTG exist and are currently being used by the iNew Jersey 

Department of Transportation . EPA's Asphalt CTG has not Seen revised 

since 1979 (almost 30 years ago) and is outdated . In 1993, the state of 

Delaware prohibited VOC in emulsified asphalt manufactured, mixed, 

used or applied during the ozone season . The OTC has recommended that 

each state in the OTC region adopt a rule for emulsified asphalt and 

issued white papers to help states develop rules . On December 12, 2007 

the state of Connecticut re-proposed a rule . The Department's,proposed 

VOC content limit for emulsified asphalt is the same as Connecticut's reproposed limit. 

The proposed rules could affect manufacturers of emulsified asphalt . 

The proposed rules may also affect some asphalt paving contractors and 

some municipalities in New Jersey, as users of emulsified asphalt. The 

Department has analyzed the potential costs and benefits, based on 

compliance in 2009. As discussed in the Economic Impact above, the 

Department anticipates that the cost to manufacturers of producing 

PROPOSALS 

emulsified asphalt with the more stringent VOC content limit will be 

relatively low and that compliant emulsified asphalt is available at prices 

comparable to high VOC content asphalt mixtures . 

The Department anticipates that the proposed new rules and 

amendments will result in a direct benefit to public health of 3 .6 tpd of 

VOC reduced during the ozone season, and 420 tpy during the regulated 

period (April 16 through October 14) as well as other benefits described 

in the Environmental Impacts section . 

The 1979 EPA-recommended VOC content limit for emulsified 

asphalt is outdated. Emulsified asphalts that would comply with the 

proposed VOC content limit exist and are in use at prices comparable to 

asphalts with a high VOC content . The proposal to manufacture and use 

compliant asphalt is not anticipated to pose a financial burden to 

emulsified asphalt manufacturers or users . 

The benefits to public health and the environmental outweigh any cost 

to manufacturers and users in order to help bring the State into attainment 

with the Federal 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. 

Boilers Serving Electric Generating Units 

The Department has compared proposed N.J.A.C . 7:27-4 .2, 10 .2(c), 

and 19 .4(a) with analogous Federal regulations, namely New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR Part 60. 

Based on its review of these Federal regulations (40 CFR 60.40 and 

60.40Da), the Department has determined that the proposed new rules 

and amendments are more stringent than some of the standards or 

requirements imposed, by the Federal regulations . Standards of 

Performance for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators for which 

construction is commenced after August 17, 1971 (40 CFR 60 .40 -

Subpart D) do not apply to boilers that were constructed prior lo August 

17, 1971, and not modified or reconstructed since ; therefore the Federal 

regulations do not impose any emission limit for particulates, SOZ or NOx 

on these sources . Similarly, Standards of Performance for Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units for which construction is commenced after 

September 18, 1978 (40 CFR 60.40Da - Subpart Da) do not apply to 

boilers that were constructed prior to September 18, 1978, and not 

modified or reconstructed since; therefore the Federal regulations do not 

impose any emission limit for particles, SOZ or NO, on these sources . 

The amendments being proposed by the Department will require all 

coal-fired boilers in the State to comply with the proposed particle and 

SOZ emission limits and all boilers serving electric generating units to 

comply with the proposed NO, emission limits, regardless of installation 

date and whether or not the source has been modified or reconstructed . 

Particles 

The proposed rules would set a maximum particle emission rate of 

0.0300 pounds/MMBtu for all existing coal-fired boilers in the State and 

a maximum particulate emission rate of 0.0150 pouuds/MMBtu for any 

coal-fired boiler that is constructed, installed, reconstructed or modified 

on or after the operative date of the rule . These maximum emission rates 

are more stringent than NSPS for sources that were installed prior to 

August 17, 1971 because neither 40 CFR 60.40 nor 40 CFR 60 .40Da 

apply to these boilers . The proposed 0 .0300 pounds/MMBtu emission 

rate is also more stringent than the NSPS for sources that were 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after August 17, 1971, but before 

September 18, 1978, and not subsequently reconstructed or modified . The 

Federal rule at 40 CFR 60.40 requires an emission limit of 0.10 

pounds/MMBtu for these sources . Also, for sources constructed, 

reconstructed or modified after February 28, 2005, 40 CFR 60.42Da 

allows a less stringent alternative to the 0 .0150 pounds/MMBtu emissions 

limit of 0 .030 pounds/MMBtu, as long as the emission reduction is at 

least 99.8 percent for sources modified after February 28, 2005, or 99.9 

percent for sources constructed or reconstructed after February 28, 2005. 

However, if the construction, reconstruction or modification of the source 

triggers the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule at 

40 CFR 52.21, PSD regulations will require the installation of BACT on 

the source, which would be capable of achieving the proposed maximum 

emission rate . Therefore, the proposed maximum emission rate is not 

more stringent than Federal rules for a new or modified coal-fired boiler 

that is subject to PSD. 

(CITE 40 N..I.R. 4428) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 
PROPOSALS 

Table 

imposed 

6 below compares the maximum particulate emission rates 

by Federal NSPS regulations with the proposed maximum 

None 0.10 

pounds/ 

MMBtu 

TABLE 6 

Comparison of Federal Particulate Emission Limits and Proposed Particle Emission Limits for Boilers 

Date Source Was " 

Constructed 

Reconstructed or Starting 8/18/71 

Modified Prior to 8/18/71 through 9/18/78 

No Applicable 40 CFR 60.40 NSPS 

Federal Rules Subpart D 

Federal Regulations 

(for coal-fired 

only) 

Proposed 

Emission Rates 

(for coal-fired 

only) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

particle emission rates as applicable to boilers that were constructed, 

reconstructed or modified at various times . 

Starting 9/19/78 

through 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da 

NSPS Subpart Da 

Coal: 

0.03 pounds/ 

MMBtu and 

99 percent 

Reduction 

On and after the 

Operative Date of 

these New Rules and 

Amendments 

40 CFR 60.40Da 

NSPS Subpart Da 

0.14 

pounds/MWh 

or 

0.015 

pounds/MMBtu 

or 

Modification: 

0.031 

pounds/MMBtu 

and ~ 

99.8 percent 

reduction 

or 

Construction or 

Reconstruction : 

0 .03 

pounds/MMBtu 

and 

99.9 percent 

reduction 

Starting 2/28/05 until 

the Operative Date of 

these New Rules and 

Amendments 

40 CFR 60 .40Da 

NSPS Subpart Da 

0 .14 

pounds/MWh 

or 

0.015 

pounds/MMBtu 

or 

Modification : 

0.03 

pounds/MMBtu 

and 

99.8 percent 

reduction 

or 

Construction or 

Reconstruction : 

,0 .03 

pounds/MMBtu 

and 

99.9 percent 

reduction 

Boiler existing as of the Operative Date: 

0 .0300 pounds/MMBtuI 

If Constructed, Reconstructed or Modified after Operative Date: 

0.0150 pounds/MMBtu' 

' Or as specified in a permit if a more stringent limit is imposed due to SOTA or PSD applicability 

SO, 

The proposed rules would require a maximum S02 emission rate of 

0 .150 pounds/MMBtu (based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average) and 

0 .250 pounds/MIv1Btu (based on a 24-hour emission rate) for all sources 

in the State that combust solid fuel . These limits are more stringent than 

the NSPS for sources that were installed prior to August 17, 1971, 

because neither 40 CFR 60.40 nor 40 CFR 60.40Da apply to these 

sources . The proposed emission limits are also more stringent than the 

NSPS for sources that were constructed, reconstructed or modified after 

August 17, 1971, but before September 18, 1978, and not subsequently 

reconstructed or modified. The Federal regulation at 40 CFR 60.40 

requires an emission limit of 1 .2 pounds/MMBtu for these sources . These 

limits are also more stringent than NSPS for sources that were 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after September 18, 1978, but 

before February 28, 2005 and not subsequently reconstructed or 

modified (40 CFR 60 .40Da requires an emission limit of # 1 .20 

pounds/MMBtu along with an S02 reduction of 90 percent or an emission 

limit of 0 .60 pounds/MMBtu along with an SOZ reduction of 70 percent 

for these sources) . 

For sources that are reconstructed or modified after February 28, 2005, 

40 CFR 60.42Da requires an emission limit of 0.150 pounds/MMBtu 

based on a 30-calendar-day rolling average, which the proposed rule also 

requires . However, the proposed rule also requires an emission limit of 

0 .250 pounds/MMBtu based on a 24-hour emission rate, which is more 

stringent than the Federal 0.150 pounds/MMBtu emission limit based on 

a 30-calendar-day rolling average . Therefore, the proposed rule is more 

stringent than the Federal regulation . Also, NSPS allows an alternative 

emission limit of 1 .4 pounds/MWh or an S02 reduction ranging from 90 

percent to 95 percent for a source depending on whether the source is 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after February 28, 2005. If the 

construction, reconstruction or modification of the source triggers the 

Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, these Federal PSD regulations 

will require the installation of BACT on the source, which would be 

capable of achieving the proposed maximum emission rates . Therefore, 

the proposed maximum emission rates are not more stringent than 

Federal regulations for a new, reconstructed or modified coal-fired boiler 

that is subject to PSD . If the Federal PSD regulations are not triggered the 

proposed emission rates may or may not be more stringent than the 

Federal regulations, depending on the characteristics of the combustion 

unit. 

Table 7 below compares the maximum S02 emission rates imposed by 

Federal NSPS regulations with the proposed maximum S02 emission 

rates as applicable to boilers that were constructed, reconstructed or 

modified at various times . 

JABLE 7 

Comparison of Federal S02 Emission Limits and Proposed SOZ Emission Limits for Boilers 

Date Source was 

Constructed Reconstructed 

or Modified Prior to 8/18/71 

No Applicable Federal 

Rules 

Starting 8/18/71 through 

9/18/78 

40 CFR 60.40 NSPS 

Subpart D 

Starting 9/19/78 through 

2/28/05 After 2/28/05 

40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS 

Subpart Da Subpart Da 

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R. 4429)