PROPOSALS



# (a) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION DIVISION OFAIR 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 NewRules: 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 : PRN2008-260. 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 10:00A.M .: New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection Hearing Room, 1st 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 newrules 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 maximumallowable 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 SIPrevision 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 NewJersey's proposed SIP revision to reduce fine particles. The proposed newrules 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 (70Fed. 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 newrules 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 ofsunlight. 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 ofozone, many VOCs are harmful ifdirectly 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 ofthe 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 fromheavy 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 VOCstationary 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 ofthe 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 fromthese 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 ofa 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 maximumallowable 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 o f 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 facilitiesill,

_ ._ .._., instead, be required to comply with these proposeMC I' eiriis'sion rates . The proposed ItACT emission rates for 14ISWincinerators 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 ofthe remaining 34facilities 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 newrules and amendments to impact 25 or fewer ofthe 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 newrequest for an alternative maximumallowable emission rate 60 days after the operative date of these amendments. As mentioned above, the Department approved only one facility for an alternative maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 newfacility-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 newrule is appropriate. If the Depart establfshes in a future rulemaking a maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 VOCEmission Limits Existing N

.J .A.C. 7:27-16 specifies the VOCRACT emission rates for various source categories. A source may deviate fromthese emission rates only if it submits an application for an alternate VOC control plan and obtains Department approval of an alternative VOCemission 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 newrules and amendments. The proposed new

rules and amendments also require each facility to submit a newcontrol 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 lowvapor 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 VOCemissions fromcutback and emulsified asphalt paving applications and are reasonably available. New Jersey worked with otherjurisdictions in the OTC to explore additional control measures for VOC fromasphalt 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 newcontrols, 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. NewJersey 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 fromthe asphalt under conditions of normal use. Under the proposed new rules and amendments, the Department will no longer allowthe use of cutback or emulsified asphalt fromApril 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 allowa 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 16through October 14, and then to continue using it during the next unregulated period. The Department estimates that implementing the proposed measures will achieve VOCemission reductions in 2009 of 3 .6 tons per day (tpd) (CITE 40 N.J.R

. 4392) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS

during the ozone season (May 1 through Sept 30) and 420 tons per year (tpy), as a result ofreductions fromApril 16through 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 frommost ofthese plants. The OTC recommended a 35 percent emission reduction fromthese plants by compliance with the OTC's recommended NO, emission limits based on fuel type and dryer type, or by installing lowNO, 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 ofsource 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 drummix 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 NewJersey plants have a lowNO, burner. According to the asphalt dryer manufacturers, who supply the majority of the dryers to NewJersey'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 NewJersey. The Department is also proposing to require compliance with BMPs which are already part ofeach 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 newemission limits are based on the Department's analysis ofactual 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 from22 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 35percent. Depending on fuel type, the Department's proposed limits are 37 percent to 62percent 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 drumor 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 belowshows 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 ofPavement 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 newlimits 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 ofup 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 ofthe proposed rules will be up to 43 tons in 2009, up to 86 tons in 2010, and up to 132tons in 2011 . Boilers Serving Electric Generatin Units The proposed amendments to N .J .A.C. 7:27-4.2 will address the particle emissions fromcoal-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 fromsolid 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 froma 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 10boilers 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, fromall New Jersey coal-fired boilers. The Department proposes to lower the maximum allowable emission rates of NO, fromcoal-fired boilers to help the State reach the Federal NAAQS for ozone. The Department proposes to lower the maximumallowable emission rates of NO,, particles and SOZ fromcoalfired boilers to help the State reach the Federal NAAQS for PMZ 5 and to reduce regional haze. More stringent maximumallowable 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 newrules and amendments are generally consistent with the May 2, 2007 Amendment to Consent Decree in United States of America, State ofNew Jersey v. PSEG Fossil LLC, Civ. No. 02-CV-340 (United States District Court for the District of NewJersey, Newark Division)" (ACD), regarding PSEG's Hudson and Mercer generating stations, and the January 24, 2006 Administrative Consent Order "In the Matter ofAtlantic 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 ACDor ACOis 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 ofthe 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 NewJersey 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 maximumallowable 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 NewJersey 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 SCRby 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 systemwill typically result in a 90 percent or greater reduction in NO, ; emissions. If an SCRsystem 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 maximumallowable 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 ACOrequires B.L. England unit I to install SOz emission controls by December 15, 2012

. The Deepwater coal-fired boiler can achieve the proposed maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 NewJersey, 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 newparticle control by December 31, 2010and Vineland Municipal Electric Utility will be shutting down. The Department proposes to codify the maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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, 2008PROPOSALS

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 NewJersey 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 .04tpd 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 NewJersey, 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. CTGdocument for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing The proposed amendments to~N.J .A.C. 7:27-16.7 will address the VOC emissions fromoffset 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 ofthe metal plate, and the image and non-printing areas are separated and maintained chemically. Printing is froma 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 fromcast 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 newN.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 fromdryers, 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. CTGdocument for flexible package printin~ The proposed amendments to N .J .A.C. 7 :27-16.7 will addrpss the VOC emissions fromflexible 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 ECHON which an image (type and art) is etched or engraved belowthe 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. VOCstandards 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 VOCemission 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 713and (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 fromglass 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 ofnitrogen, 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

OTCProposal 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 ExistingRule, OTCRecommendations, 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 30percent 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 newrule 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 NewJersey's only such plant converts fromelectric 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 systemif one is installed, or stack tests if a continuous emissions monitoring systemis 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 from2004 through 2006, consist of eight boilers and approximately 160 stationary combustion turbines, identified in Table 3 below . TABLE 3 Current New

Jersey HEDDUnits (based on 2004 - 2006data) 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 U1 Mickleton GS U1 Middle Street GS Ul Middle Street GS U2 Middle Street GS U3 Missouri GS U2 Missouri GS U3 Missouri GS U4 ShermanAve. 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 . 2FO/ NG WI No. 2FO/ NG WI No. 2FO 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. 2FO WI No. 2 FO WI No. 2FO Wl No. 2FO WI No . 2FO WI No . 2FO/NG WI NG NONE No. 2FO 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, 2008PROPOSALS Mercer GS U5 National Park GS Ul SalemGS 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 fromelectric 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 ofthese 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 fromall 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 ofthe 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 NOXemissions 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 fromHEDD 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 fromany 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 NewJersey, and implementing a renewable energy measure in NewJersey. The proposed rules allowthe 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 fromany 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 ofthese new rules and amendments. The proposed 2009Protocol will describe howthe 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 2009Protocol . 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 ofthe 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 0.200pounds/MMBtu for heavier than No. 2 fuel oil . These maximumallowable 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 lowNO, ; burners and/or a selective noncatalytic reduction systemon existing boilers. For HEDD turbines, the Department proposes at N.J .A .C. 7:27- 19.4(a), Table 7, maximumallowable emission rates of 1 .00pound/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 maximumallowable emission rates can be achieved by natural gas-fired turbines with dry lowNO, 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable emission rates. The proposed new

rules and amendments, in order to achieve the long termstrategy, 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 newrules 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 fromelectric generating units. These control devices are used widely in industry throughout the United States. In order to comply with the proposed newrules 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 fromelectric 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable emission rates that currently apply to all NO, budget source turbines in NewJersey. 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 maximumallowable emission rates for these HEDD turbines will not go into effect until May 1, 2015, the proposed newrules 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 maximumallowable 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, 2008PROPOSALS

below summarizes the proposed applicability ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION schedule of RACT maximumallowable emission rates to turbines in New Jersey. TABLE 4 Applicability Schedule ofTables 4through 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 (? 30MMBtu/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 newN.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 howthe 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 from2010 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 fromindustrial/commerciaUinstitutional (ICI) boilers and other indirect heat exchangers. ICI boilers combust fuel to produce heat or process steamfor 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 1,000MMBtu/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 newrules and amendments lower the threshold size of boilers that are subject to maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable NO, emission rates, and, based on the OTC control N/A A11 HEDDUnit 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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. LowNO, 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 ultralowNO, burner (ULNB) is a lowNOx 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 ofless 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 ofthe air combusted. The lower oxygen content air reduces the flame temperature, which reduces the amount of NOa formed. If the combustion temperature is held below1,400 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 30, 015 HEDDUnit Simple Cycle N/A Combustion Turbines HEDDUnit Combined Cycle N/A Combustion Turbines All Non-HEDD Unit All Non-HEDDUnit 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 ifsome small ICI boilers and other indirect heat exchangers comply by installing control devices, because the proposed newrules 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 frommunicipal 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 NewJersey MSW incinerators are in compliance with the Federal standard. Actual NOx emission concentrations fromthe State's MSW incinerators range from 90 to 200 ppm, which are belowthe 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 maximumallowable 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 fromMSW incinerators is SNCR SNCR is a chemical process for removing NO, fromflue gas. In the SNCRprocess, 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 1,100degrees Celsius. The reaction converts N0, to nitrogen gas and water vapor . SNCRperformance 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 MSWincinerators, have installed SNCR . The Department anticipates that four ofthese facilities will need to optimize their existing SNCR systemin 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 systemon 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 fromstorage 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 ofthe 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 fromthe 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 rimseals, 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 fromthis 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 fromthe 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.R4400) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS

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 fromthe 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 fromthe VOCremaining in the tank to accumulate. These vapors escape fromthe 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 SCAQMDalready requires control of roof landing cycle emissions fromexisting tanks. For example, Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Partners, Limited Partnership, has been controlling emissions fromroof 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

ofdegassing 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 newiules and amendments will achieve VOC emission reductions of over 2,000 tons per year and over six and one-halftons 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 ofgases, 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 programwould 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 rooftanks each time the tank is emptied and degassed, and to annually make sure the covers to any hatches or other openings on fixed-rooftanks 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 NewSource 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 newrules and amendments are more fully described below . Subehapter 4

. Control and Prohibition ofParticles fromCombustion 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, fromthe 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 maximumallowable 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 newN.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 newparticle control apparatus, that commences operating on or after the operative date of the proposed newrules 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, LAERand 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 newrules 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 ofparticulate matter fromcoal-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 termis 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 lowsulfur fuel to reduce the production of SOZ, or install controls to remove S02 fromthe 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 themwith 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 maximumSOZ 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 maximumSOZ 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 newN

.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 LAERrequirements 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 ofbest 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 maximumS02 emission rates for these sources. N .J .A.C . 7:27-10.5 SOz emission rate determinations Proposed newN.J .A.C. 7:27-10 .5 establishes howto 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, 2008PROPOSALS

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 newN.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 fromthe 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, butnot to asphalt plants at refineries. The Department proposes definitions of 43 new terms used in the proposed newrules and amendments for VOCstationary 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 conformthe 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," "maximumoperating level," "mechanical shoe seal," "non-contact floating roof," "organic liquid," "pole float," "pole sleeve," "pole wiper," "pressure-vacuumvent," "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 PetroleumProducts in Water, Soil, Sediment, and Sludge" is used to determine Total PetroleumHydrocarbons, 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 ASTME 260-85, "ASTMStandard Practice for Packed Column Gas Chromatography," to determine the VOC concentration in water for hydrocarbons heavier than C14using 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 ofdeck 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) fromprocess 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. EPAMethod 21 is located at 40 CFRPart 60 Appendix A, Determination ofVolatile 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 performtank 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 thestandards ofAPI 653 . The Department proposes to add or amend 12terms 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 ofwhat this termincludes. All ofthese 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 VOCstationary 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 tostationary 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 themas 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 10,000gallons 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 10,000gallons 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 newexemptions. 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 newparagraph (f)3 exempts any external floating roof tank fromthe 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 newparagraph (f)4 exempts any external floating roof tank fromthe 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, 2008PROPOSALS

requirement to submit a facility-wide tank VOC control plan for controlling roof landing emissions. Ifthe emissions are less than five tpy, the cost of controlling emissions would outweigh the small emission reductions achieved. Proposed newparagraph (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 rooftank 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, vacuumbreakers (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 frommeeting 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 newN .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 rimvent pallet and the gasket of the rimvent 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 fromthe outside of the tank. The Department is proposingAhat 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 allowthe 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 systemrequirements at subparagraphs (1)3i through x. Since replacing rimsystemseals 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 newtank 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 NewYork, 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 rooffor the tank shell . The Department proposes at new paragraph (1)4 the same measure for New Jersey. Fromthis 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 VOCwith 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 fromwind 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 rimseal systemthat 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 minimumof 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 roofnot to exceed 30percent of its lower explosive limit . This indicates the condition of the seals between out-of-service inspections. An exceedance of 30percent 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 rimseal systemrequirements 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 newparagraph (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 ofthese 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 roofusually 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 systemrequirements 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 rimseal systemrequirements 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 rimseal system, if it is demonstrated to the Department that the alternative rim seal system is better than the rimseal 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 rimseal 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-rooftanks 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 NewSource Performance Standards (NSPS) applicability requirements at 40 CFR 60 .11 Ob et seq. The Department intends to followthe 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 new75 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 rimseal 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 newparagraph (1)12 to Range I and 11 external floating roof stationary storage tanks. Proposed newparagraph (1)12 does not apply to Range III external floating roof stationary storage tanks because rimseal system requirements for Range III tanks are proposed to be deleted fromexisting 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 newparagraph (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 newN

.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 legsupports 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. Aroof 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 fromfloating 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, 2008PROPOSALS

continuous and as rapidly as possible to reduce VOC emissions by reducing the length oftime 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 ofone 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 rooftank with-a typical landed height of3.5 feet . (AP-42Tanks.) Proposed new N

.J .A.C. 7:27-16.2(n)2 requires that on and after the operative date of the proposed newrules 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 lowlanding provision to further reduce VOCemissions fromtank landings. Proposed newN

.J .A.C . 7:27-16.2(p) requires owners or operators of all floating rooftanks 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 frombeing 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 fromsuch a tank does not, at present,justify the cost of preparing and submitting a plan. Ifsuch 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 VOCcontrol 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 newrules for existing tanks, or 120 days after a new tank is installed. Proposed newparagraph (p)2 specifies the information that must be included in a facility-wide tank VOC control plan. Proposed subparagraph (p)2i requires the tank VOCcontrol plan to include for each tank, tank type, volume; diameter, contents, the permit activity number, any other identifying numbers, and the Bureau ofRelease 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 performemissions 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 10years 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 fromservice 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 bottomof 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 fromthe time the roof is landed until the roof is within 90 percent by volume of being refloated. This would control approximately 80 percent of VOCemissions 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 howthe 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 from2011 though 2013, four tons per year from 2014 though 2016, three tons per year from2017 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 ifthey 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 fromthe 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 newN .J .A.C. 7:27-16.2(q) to regulate tank degassing and cleaning operations. Degassing is the process of removing vapors froma 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 ofits contents and remaining gas vapors are at or belowan 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 fromtank 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 newN.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 newrules would not regulate degassing and cleaning operations outside the ozone season. The proposed newrules 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 VOCvapors, temporarily remove a fitting ifappropriate, 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. Steamcleaning 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 newrules 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 ReviewPerformance 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 termdefined 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 Formlocated 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 mthe secondary seal . Inspections are proposed annually to be consistent with the Federal NewSource 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 ofthe rim seal systemand 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 systemto 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 newN.J.A.C. 7 :27-16.2(r) refers to the "Inspection Form ." This formis 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 rooftanks, external floating rooftanks, and domed tanks . The formprovides 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 ofeach VOCat 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 oftime 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 newN

.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 ofthe 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 andjustifying 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 ofthe Bureau ofTechnical Services. (CITE 40 N

.J.R. 4408) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS 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 maximumallowable VOC content for "coating of flat wood paneling" and its three subcategories to be operative through April 30, 2009. On the operative date ofthese amendments, this category type would be replaced with a newcategory 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 maximumallowable VOCcontent per volume of coating (minus water) of 2.1 pounds per gallon or 0.25 kilogramper 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 newmore 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 fromPart 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 allowthis compliance alternative for fabric printing operations, but not for the other four printing operations. The Department proposes to remove this compliance ahernative fromexisting 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, ifthe operation is modified on or after May 1, 2010the 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 newN.J.A.C. 7:27-16.7(h)3 to allowthe 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 minimumcapture efficiency of 85 percent and either a minimumcontrol efficiency of 95 percent, if a thermal oxidizer is used (proposed subparagraph (h)3i), or a minimumcontrol 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 fromexisting N.J .A.C. 7:27-16

.7(h)3 and 4, with amendments to conformthe 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 VOCemissions fromthe dryer or, in the alternative, less than 20 parts per million by volume as equivalent hexane (on a dry basis) fromthe 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 VOCcontent 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 VOCcontrol 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 ofthe 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 VOCcontrol plan to apply for a new alternative VOCcontrol 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 newstricter 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 ofMay 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 newparagraph (c)2 requires any newplan the Department approves after the operative date of these amendments to have a termof 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 ifmore stringent controls are warranted. Proposed newparagraph (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 newplan 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 ofthe proposed amendments, as proposed at subparagraph (c)3ii . At proposed newparagraph (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 newparagraph (c)5 requires an owner or operator who has an alternative VOCemission 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 fromApril 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 allowthe 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 fromApril 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 fromthe Department's goal to achieve as close to zero VOC emissions fromcutback and emulsified asphalt as possible. The higher the VOC content in the asphalt, the higher the VOC emissions fromthe 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 ASTMMethod 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 newN.J .A.C. 7:27-16.19(b) to reduce VOCemissions 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, 2008PROPOSALS

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. 7:27-16Appendix 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 ProgramInterest 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 'des space to explain the reason for any termination of a tank rovi 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 ofAir Pollution fromOxides 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 fromthe 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 fromI-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 NewJersey 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 PJMInterconnection, 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 allowHEDD unit owners or operators to implement energy efficiency measures in NewJersey 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 termconsistent 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 newN .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 newtables 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 termconsistent 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' NewJersey 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 allowHEDD 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 allowHEDD 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 newN.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 maximumallowable emission rates for glass manufacturing furnaces producing commercial container glass, specialty container glass and borosilicate recipe glass. The Department proposes at newN.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 newrules establish NO

. emission standards for these twosource 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 ofSubchapter 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 maximumallowable 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 newrules 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. 7:27-19.4and 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) byJuly 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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, fromDecember 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 fromusing 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 newrates 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, 2008PROPOSALS

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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 24-hour NO, emission rate that is required by the previously mentioned ACD and ACO . The significance ofthis 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 fromTable 1 because Table 2 eliminates separate emission rates for two coal-fired boiler types (wet-bottomand 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 maximumallowable 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 0.200pounds/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 frommore 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 allowthe source time to, for example, schedule and complete a stack test and prepare the stack test report. Giving a source 180days 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 from2009 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 from2010through 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 maximumgross 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 newN

.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 ofproposed amended Table 4. Proposed newN.J .A.C. 7:27-19.5(a)3 requires that fromthe 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 maximumallowable 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 ofproposed 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 newparagraph (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 maximumgross 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 newN.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 newN.J .A

.C. 7:27-19.5(b)3 requires that fromthe 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 maximumallowable 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 ofthe 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 maximumheat 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 ofthe table, as set forth in proposed paragraphs (d)1 and - 2. On and after May 1, 2015, proposed newN.J .A.C. 7:27-19.5(g), and the maximumallowable emission rates at proposed newTable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable emission rates are more stringent . These proposed output-based maximum allowable emission rates are based on input-based emission rates of 25 ppmfor gas combustion and 42 ppmfor 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable emission rate than otherwise set forth at proposed amended N .J .A.C. 7:27-19.5. Under proposed newN.J .A.C. 7:27-19.5(i), the owner or operator of any stationary combustion turbine must demonstrate compliance with the maximumallowable NO, emission rate on or before a date that varies, depending upon the nature ofthe 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 . Ifthe HEDD unit is altered, proposed paragraph (i)2 would require the owner (CITE 40 N.J .R

. 4414) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS

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 newN

.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 from2009 through 2014, as discussed below . Proposed newN.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 from2010through 2014. N .J.A.C . 7 :27-19.7 Industrial/commercial/institutional boilers andother

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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumgross 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 newN.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 maximumallowable 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 ofthe 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 maximumgross 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 maximumallowable N0, emission rate would be set in NewJersey 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 maximumgross heat input rate of at least 50MMBtu/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 maximumgross heat input rate of at least 100 MMBtu/hr or greater to comply with the applicable maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 newTable 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 12boilers in New Jersey that operate with lowNO, 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable emission rate for boilers that can bumnatural 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 ofa 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 maximumallowable 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 newlimits to achieve an emission reduction equal to or greater than the OTC recommended 35 percent NOa emissions reduction. The newlimits are derived fromthe 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 ofNO, 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 10years. Proposed new

N .J .A.C. 7:27-19.9(e) requires the owner or operator to maintain records of the implementation ofthe 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 newN .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) from5.5 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 NewJersey. 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 maximumallowable 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 nowbeing achieved. SNCR systems are the most commcln add-on control technology for reducing NO, emissions fromMSW

incinerators. Proposed new

N.J .A.C. 7:27-19.12(a) requires owners or operators of MSW incinerators to comply with a maximumallowable 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 newrules 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 MSWincinerator, 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 maximumallowable NOx emission rate, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13, discussed below . Proposed newN.J .A.C. 7:27-19.12(c) requires the owner or operator of any MSWincinerator to install .. NTO, continuous emissions (CITE 40 N

.J .R . 4416) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS

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 maximumallowable 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 itemof 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 itemof 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 `'maximumallowable emission rate." Existing paragraphs (a) and (a)1 refer to facility-specific NO, emissions limits while existing paragraph (a)2 refers to alternative maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 howa 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 fromsubsection (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 howall 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 newN .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. Ifthis were to happen, such sources would be subject to the newrate for that source category. In accordance with proposed new N.J.A .C. 7:27-19.13(b)2, any alternative maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable emission rates to determine if more stringent controls are warranted. If the owner or operator modifies, alters or reconstructs the equipment during the termof the plan, then the owner or operator must apply for a newplan, 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 newN

.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 newplan 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 allowan 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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. Ifthe owner or operator plans to continue operating under an alternative maximumallowable 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 newN.J .A.C. 7:27-19.13(b)7 requires an owner or operator with a 10-year termalternative maximumallowable NO, emission rate to re-apply one year prior to the expiration date of the existing alternative maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 newN.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 fromthe 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 systemis 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 offull 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 allowphased 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 howit 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 maximumallowable 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 newfacility-specific NO, ; control plans to obtain a facility-specific maximumallowable emission rate. At proposed newN.J .A.C. 7:27-19.28(a) the Department proposes two maximumallowable NO, emission rates in Table 13. Based on actual stack test results from the existing sewage sludge incinerators, the Department determined that the proposed maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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, 2008PROPOSALS

7:27-19 .29 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction Compliance Demonstration Protocol The Department proposes newN.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 newN.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 HEDDwas 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 HEDDwas 0.15 pound/MMBTU or greater. The July 26, 2005 date was chosen since it represented the PJMgrid'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 newN

.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 newN .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 allowup 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 newN.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 newN.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 newN .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 fromday 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 NewJersey, inasmuch as some benefit to NewJersey air quality results fromreductions 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 howthey 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 newN.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 allowtime 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 newN .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 newN .J .A.C. 7:27-19.29(i), if one ofthe 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 ofthe 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 newowner 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 newN.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 HEDDEmission Limit Achievement Plan The 2015 HEDD Emission Limit Achievement Plan (2015 Plan), at proposed N

.J.A.C. 7:27-19.30, is part ofthe Department's proposed longtermstrategy 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 maximumallowable NO emission rates by 2015. A 2015 Plan describes howthe owner or operator of a HEDD unit intends to comply with the proposed HEDDmaximum 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 maximumallowable emission rates. The Department does not approve or disapprove of the 2015 Plan, but will reviewit 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. 7:27-19.4and 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 ofan 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 ofa 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 rooflanding 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 newcustomer. N .J .A.C . 7:27A-3

.10 Civil administrative penalties forviolation ofrules adopted pursuant to theAct The Department is proposing to amend N .J .A.C. 7 :27A-3.10, Civil administrative penalties for violation ofrules adopted pursuant to the Act, to include penalties for violations of the proposed newand 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 newpenalties 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 fromimproved public health and reduced medical costs. The proposed rules will result in the reduction ofozone, 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 fromthe 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 lowconcentrations 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 roomvisits 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 NewJersey, especially the susceptible populations. Based (CITE 40 N.J .R

. 4420) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS

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 termexposure to lowconcentrations ofVOCs 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 termexposure 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 fromexposure to N02include shortness ofbreath 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 fromoil in petroleumrefineries. SOZ dissolves ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION in water vapor to formacid, and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to formsulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and their environment . Long termexposure to lowconcentrations 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 termexposures 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 fromthe 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; 420tpy (4/16-10/14) Asphalt Production Plants 2009: 43 tpy; 0.21 tpd 0 ; season 2010: 86tpy; 0.42 tpd 03 season 2011 : 132 tpy; 0

.64tpd 03 season Boilers Serving Electric 2013: 788 tpy; 2 .16tpd 03 Generating Units season CTG: Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG : Flexible Package Printing CTG : Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing m 2009and subsequent: 0.08 tpd 0 ; season 2009 : 19tpy 2010 and subsequent: 35.3 tpy Additional reductions fromBMP 2009 and subsequent: 0.43 tpd in 03 sgason 2009: 104.6tpy 2010 and subsequent: 157 tpy Additional reductions fromBMP High Electric Demand 2009: 19.8 Day (HEDD) Units t/1IEDD 2015: 63.7 t/HEDDbased on HEDD units operating on 7/26/05 To Be Determined at Application 

### S0,

2013: 2,571 tpy; 7.04tpd 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 : 408tpy; Indirect Heat Exchangers 1 .7 tpd 0 ; season

. 2010: 740tpy; 2 .2 tpd 0 ; season 2011 : 970tpy; 2.9 tpd 0 ; season Municipal Solid Waste 2009 and subsequent : Incinerators 0.27 tpd 03 season; 2009: 67 tpy 2010: >100 tpy VOCStationary 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 belowfor 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 maximumallowable emission rate, 25 or fewer will be impacted by the proposed newrules and amendments to N.J .A.C. 7:27-19.13. The proposed newrules 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 maximumallowable emission rate. Facilities with an alternative maximumallowable emission rate will be required to re-apply for an alternative maximumallowable 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 ofthe application. The proposed newrules 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 NewJersey that have approved alternative VOCemission 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 newalternative VOC control plan (which would include a new alternative VOCemission liunit) within 60 days after the operative date of these new rules and amendments . The proposed newrules 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 VOCemissions. 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 ofthe 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 NewJersey 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 themin 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 newrules 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 VOCcontent asphalt mixtures. According to the Asphalt Institute, a United States-based association of international petroleumasphalt producers, manufacturers and affiliated businesses, the use of cutback and emulsified asphalt has significantly decreased in NewJersey as a result of the existing rule. Emulsified asphalt use decreased 44 percent from 1990 to 2001, and cutback asphalt use decreased 75percent from 1990to 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 warmmix 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 termcosts for some pavement repair . However, these alternative (CITE 40 N.J.R. 4422) NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008PROPOSALS

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 AASHTOT 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$2,500to $38,000per 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 NewJersey facilities. The Department does not expect the proposed amendments to N

.J .A.C. 7:27-4.2 to cause the owners or operators ofthe coal-fired boilers to install a control apparatus in order to comply with the proposed maximumparticle emission rates. Only one coal-fired boiler - Vineland Municipal Electric Utility unit 10 - would not be in compliance with the proposed maximumparticle 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 maximumparticle 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 froma wet scrilbber to be used as a rawmaterial 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 formofhigher electricity generating rates. The proposed amendments to N.J .A.C. 7:27-19.4will cause the owner or operator ofthe Deepwater EGUto install a control apparatus, such as a selective catalytic reduction system, in order to comply with the proposed maximumallowable NO, emission rates. The Department expects the cost-effectiveness of installing, maintaining and operating a new selective catalytic reduction systemon the coal-fired boiler to be less than $1,250 per ton ofNO, emission reductions in 2007 dollars (NESCAUM Report) . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Control costs are likely to be passed on to the consumer in the formof 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 $1,300to $2,800per 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 $1,900for 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 fromvolatilizing. 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. Ofthese, 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 ofthe 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 newrules 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 newrules 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 ofthe proposed newrules 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 lowNO, ; burner (LNB) Or a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system, installed on themin 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 systemto 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 newrules 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 maximumallowable 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 ofhigher 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 maximumallowable 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 2009Protocol 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 newlowN0, burners, flue PROPOSALS gas recirculation, or SNCR . The Department estimates that these new rules and amendments will result in the installation of newcontrols 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 maximumallowable 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 maximumallowable 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 systemon 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 SNCRsystemon 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 systemto an ammonia-based systemto be approximately $200.00 per ton NO, reduced. Sewage Sludge Incinerators The Department's RACT maximumallowable 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. VOCStationary 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 NewJersey 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 ofVOC 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, 2008PROPOSALS

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 fromthe weather, reducing maintenance, reducing risk of product contamination, and reducing risk oftank fires. There are at least 850 VOCstationary 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 belowfive 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 VOCreduced; 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 rooftank to an internal floating roof tank, as well as the cost of vapor control . Its lowcost 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 $4,290per 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 ofemissions. The Department expects costs for inspections to be minimal because owners or operators are already required to performinspections 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 newrules 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 maximumof $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 fromacid 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 ofmiles. 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 PM25. 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 fewdecades, 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 ofthe 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 showincrements 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 newrules and amendments will help New Jersey attain the goals for regional haze. The proposed newrules 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 themup. They can be ingested by animals and eventually magnified up through the food chain. Like humans, animals may experience health problems ifexposed 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 EPA2008Toxics Website) . Specific impacts by source category followbelow . Alternative and Facility-specific NO, Emission Limits The Department expects the proposed newrules 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 maximumallowable NO, emission rate to apply for a newalternative allowable NO, emission rate nowand every 10 years hereafter. This will cause these facilities to re-evaluate their alternative maximumallowable emission rates with respect to possible advances in the art ofair pollution control technologies now and every 10 years . The proposed newrules 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 reviewof applications for alternative maximumallowable emission rates and facility-specific NO, control plans. Alternative VOCEmission Limits Currently the Department has approved alternative VOC emission limits for five facilities. The proposed newrules and amendments will require each of these facilities that plans to continue operating under its approved alternative VOCemission limit to apply for a newalternative VOCemission limit in a newalternative VOC control plan shortly after the rules are adopted, and every 10 years hereafter. This will cause these facilities to re-evaluate their alternative VOCemission 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 newalternative 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 newequipment, 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 fromVOC 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 .8tpd 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 maximumemission 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 2013would be 7.04tpd during the ozone season and 2,571 tpy. A selective catalytic reduction systemwill typically result in a 90 percent reduction in NO, emissions. If Conectiv Energy installs a selective catalytic reduction systemon 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 newrules 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 newrules 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, 2008PROPOSALS

tpd, assuming overall potential NO, emissions fromHEDD 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 ifpotential NO, emissions are half of the HEDD unit NO, emissions onJuly 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) systemwill 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 maximumallowable emission rates to the HEDD units that were operating on the reference day of July 26, 2005, that a reduction in NOx emissions fromHEDD 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 grow1 .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 ofthe 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 newlow

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 ofNO, 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 belowany 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 ppmwould result in approximately 1,685tpy 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 rooftanks storing VOCwith 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 rooflanding 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 ofthe proposed rooflanding 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 fromdegassing a tank are approximately 0.5 tons (San Joaquin 2005 Report) . Degassing usually occurs once every 10 years (SJVUAPCD Final Draft StaffReport) . 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 fromone 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 newrule 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 maximumallowable NO, emissions rates, facility-specific maximumallowable 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 NewJersey, 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/ctQact/.) 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 AASHTOT 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 VOCemission reductions can be achieved. The storage, use or application of emulsified asphalt is one of these emission sources. Emulsified asphalts with a lower VOCcontent than is in EPA's Asphalt CTG exist and are currently being used by the iNewJersey 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 VOCcontent 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 NewJersey, 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 lowand that compliant emulsified asphalt is available at prices comparable to high VOCcontent 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 VOCcontent limit exist and are in use at prices comparable to asphalts with a high VOCcontent . 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 NewSource Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR Part 60 . Based on its reviewof these Federal regulations (40 CFR 60.40 and 60.40Da), the Department has determined that the proposed newrules 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 maximumparticle emission rate of 0 .0300 pounds/MMBtu for all existing coal-fired boilers in the State and a maximumparticulate 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 maximumemission 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 0.0150pounds/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 maximumemission 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, 2008PROPOSALS

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 ofFederal 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 CFR60.40Da NSPS Subpart Da

Coal : 0 .03 pounds/ MMBtu and 99percent Reduction On and after the Operative Date of these New

Rules and Amendments 40 CFR60.40Da 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 99.9percent reduction Date: Boiler existing as of the Operative 0.0300 pounds/MMBtuI If Constructed, Reconstructed or Modified after Operative Date:

0.0150pounds/MMBtu' ' Or as specified in a permit ifa more stringent limit is imposed due to SOTA or PSD applicability SO, The proposed rules would require a maximumS02 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 of90 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 S02reduction ranging from90 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 CFR52.21, these Federal PSD regulations will require the installation of BACT on the source, which would be capable of achieving the proposed maximumemission 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. Ifthe Federal PSDregulations 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 belowcompares the maximumS02 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 CFR60.40 NSPS Subpart D Starting 9/19/78 through 2/28/05 After 2/28/05 40 CFR60.40Da NSPS 40 CFR 60.40Da NSPS Subpart Da Subpart Da

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 (CITE 40 N.J .R . 4429)