1 Appendix F: Public Participation Attachment 3: Response to Comment Document

During the hearing and comment period, comme nts were received on the proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The followi ng is a summary of those comments and the State’s responses to those comments. After each comment is the name of the commenter(s) and their affiliation(s) in bold.

1) Comment : One commenter stated that the Clean Ai r Interstate Rule (CAIR) was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals on July 11, 2008. The USEPA is currently reviewing the decision and determining the next steps to take in response to the decision. The commenter stated that since New Jersey’s proposed PM 2.5 SIP relies on CAIR for the contingency measures and also included CAIR reductions in the photoc hemical modeling, New Jersey should consider how the CAIR vacatur will impact the final PM 2.5 SIP. The commenter stated that New Jersey’s

PM 2.5 SIP may need to be modified to reflect th e absence of the emission reductions from this

program. (Richard Ruvo, United States Environmen tal Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 2)

Response : On December 23, 2008, the court remanded the CAIR to the USEPA without vacatur of CAIR “so that EPA may remedy CAIR’s flaw s in accordance with” the court’s July 2008 opinion vacating CAIR. The court gave no dead line for the USEPA rulemaking, but it said: “[W]e remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental fl aws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition

to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion.” (Order at 1, Dec. 23, 2008.)

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

However, New Jersey has grave doubts that the imp lementation of CAIR al one will be sufficient to address interstate transport issues, especia lly for the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States. According to 2010 CAIR modeling, transported emissions from six states contribute significantly to New Jersey’s PM 2.5 nonattainment. In addition, CAIR focuses solely on Electric Generating Units (EGUs), and does not address in terstate transport of emissions from other sectors (non-EGU, mobile, area).

Other states’ failure to address their contribu tion to the New Jersey associated multi-state nonattainment areas’ air quality problems could result in New Jersey’s associated multi-state nonattainment areas’ inability to meet their attainment goal. Ne w Jersey relies on the USEPA to ensure sufficient progress in securing upwind emission reductions in accordance with Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act to provid e for expeditious attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey is relying upon the USEPA to provide su fficient emission reductions from upwind sources2 coupled with the interstate reductions provided in this plan to bring the multi-state nonattainment

areas into attainment with the 1997 PM 2.5 health standards and maintain them.

In response to the anticipated vacatur, the SO 2 emission reductions from the CAIR that were being used as a Contingency Measure (Chapter 6) were replaced by the emission reductions from a Consent Decree for the Hudson Generating Station (Unit 2). New Jersey did not reverse these changes due to the recent court decisions as both measures will provide sufficient emission reductions to meet contingency requirements.

We continue to rely on the USEPA requiring suffi cient reductions from out of state EGUs with the court ordered improvements to CAIR.

The following changes were made to the SIP based on this comment:

In Chapter 4 (Control Measures), “Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Mercer and Hudson)” were added as control measures in Section 4.3.1.5.5. These control measures were

also added to Table 4.5.

In Chapter 5 (Attainment Demonstration), on pa ge 5-43, CAIR was removed as a contingency measure and replaced with Controls fr om EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 ). On page 5-43, language about the 2002 consent decrees was moved to Chapter 4. On Page 5-46,

references to the CAIR NO

x trading program were removed.

In Chapter 6 (Contingency Measures), the CAIR contingency measure was removed from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the list of contingency measur es. “Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 )” were added to Table 6.1 and to the contingency measures list.

In Chapter 9 (Commitments and Requests for Future Action), the CAIR contingency measure was removed from Table 9.1 and replaced with SO 2 Controls from EGU Consent Decrees (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 ).

In Appendix C (Contingency Measure Calcula tions), the CAIR contingency section was removed and replaced with a section describing SO 2 Controls from EGU Consent Decrees. Additionally, CAIR was removed from the list of contingency measures and replaced with Controls from EGU Consent Decree (PSE&G Hudson SO 2 ).

2) Comment : One commenter stated that MOBILE 6.2 does not estimate any emission credit for diesel inspection and maintenance program s, and the USEPA has not approved of any alternate methods. Therefore, New Jersey cannot claim any emissions credit from changes to its diesel I/M cutpoint rule. (Richard Ruvo, USEPA Region 2)

Response : Although MOBILE6.2 does not estimate a ny emission credit for diesel inspection and maintenance programs, New Jersey’s diesel I/ M cutpoint air rule will result in emission reductions. New Jersey will not allocate this measure as a contingency measure, however, a description of this measure is sti ll included in Chapter 4 (Control Measures), as it is still a control measure being implemented by the Department to reduce PM 2.5 air pollution. The estimated3 emission reductions that were incl uded in the contingenc y section of the SIP are still anticipated reductions from the rule, but will not be used for contingency. Inspection and maintenance programs are effective in reducing emissions. The USEPA’s model fails to reflect the degradation of emission control systems. The USEPA should c onsider modifications to the model to consider degradation of emission cont rol systems in order to accurately reflect emissions from diesel powered vehicles.

Based on this comment, the diesel smoke (I/M cutpoint) rule was removed as a contingency

measure. References to the rule were rem oved from Chapter 6 and Appendix C (Contingency Measures), but were not removed from Chapter 4 where the measure is described. The estimated quantification of the measure ha s been included in Chapter 5.

3) Comment: The Northern New Jersey/New Yo rk Connecticut and Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia areas are cl assified as nonattainment for PM 2.5 - for both areas the attainment date is April 5, 2010. Provide a demonstration for each PM 2.5 nonattainment area which shows

how future control measures and the associated emission control credits by source sector (point, area, nonroad and onroad mobile sources) are enough to meet the a ttainment year target levels. (Richard Ruvo, USEPA Region 2)

Response : As discussed in the SIP in Chapter 5, the inventories used in the attainment demonstration were developed on a regional ba sis by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA). Development of the 2002 base inventory and future year projection inventories are disc ussed in the report prepared by MARAMA titled, “Development of Emi ssion Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Source in the MANE-VU Region, Final Report,” dated February 2007, and in the report prepared by MARAMA titled “Technical Support Document for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Ve rsion 3,” dated November 20, 2006. These reports were included in the SIP as Appendices B5 -2 and B4. The inventory files discussed in the reports can be found on the MARAMA website at: http://www.marama.org/visibility/EI_Projects/index.html

The NJDEP will work with the USEPA to provide a technical supplement to the PM 2.5 SIP,

which further summarizes the inventories and control measures used in the modeling in a mutually agreeable format and timeframe. This work will use the information readily available

from MARAMA.

4) Comment : The commenters stated that a 12.0 μ g/m 3 annual fine PM standard should be instituted for New Jersey. The commenters stated that since New Jersey has the legal authority

to set the annual PM 2.5 standard to 12.0 μ g/m 3 , there is no need for the State to wait for the Federal government to lower the standard. The commenters stated that the NJDEP should

include a recommendation in its PM 2.5 SIP that the annual PM 2.5 standard for New Jersey be

decreased from 15.0 μ g/m 3 to 12.0 μ g/m 3 . The commenters stated that if a 12.0 μ g/m 3 standard were legally established in the State, it woul d provide the NJDEP with additional legal and political power to implement policies that would lower PM 2.5 concentrations below this level. According to the commenters, the lower annual sta ndard would also help the State to attain the new daily PM 2.5 standard of 35 μ g/m 3

. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA),4 Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : As stated in the PM 2.5 SIP proposal, while New Jersey has not taken official steps to establish its own air qua lity standards for PM 2.5 , the NJDEP’s air quality goal is to achieve an

annual PM 2.5 level of 12 μg/m 3

.

A goal of 12 μg/m 3 is a 20 percent reduction from the Federal annual PM 2.5 NAAQS established in 1997. Proceeding through the process to estab lish a new state ambient air quality standard

will take a tremendous amount of time and resour ces. Taking steps to achieve the air quality goal is a better use of limited resources th an focusing the efforts on establishing a 12 μ g/m 3

ambient standard sometime in the future.

5) Comment : Some commenters requested that the NJDEP should establish a moratorium on the issuance of air pollu tion permits for overburdened enviro nmental justice neighborhoods that

fail to achieve attainment of the annual fine particulate matter standard by April 5, 2010. The

commenters stated that overbur dened neighborhoods should be id entified. Then a communitybased monitoring system should be established in the overburdened communities to determine

whether the Federal PM 2.5 standard has been achieved. If the standard has not been achieved, air pollution permits should be withheld until PM 2.5 concentrations are decreased to the NJDEP’s goal of 12.0 μ g/m 3 . The commenters suggested that if New Jersey institutes a 12.0 μ g/m 3 annual standard, then no air pollution permits should be issued in overburdened Environmental Justice (EJ) neighborhoods that fail to a ttain that standard, and the mora torium should remain in place

until concentrations are reduced to 9.6 μ g/m 3 (80% of that standard). The commenters stated that this pollution control strategy is a limited, we ll-defined use of a moratorium policy that recognizes the possible cumulative impacts on local residents of multiple pollution sources and limits fine PM air pollution in overburdene d Environmental Justice neighborhoods. The

commenters noted that the PM 2.5 SIP states that the NJDEP is committed to assessing cumulative impact policies. The commenters state that the 1954 New Jersey Air Pollution Control Law and New Jersey Administrative Code provide the NJDEP with the legal authority to establish a moratorium on the issuance of air pollu tion permits under these circumstances. (New Jersey

Environmental Justice Allian ce (NJEJA), Environmental Re search Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherh ood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : Air pollution permits serve many pur poses, among them, to reduce air pollution

issues. Permits for new and modified sources re sult in reductions of air pollution, not increases, as generally older, more polluting sources are replaced.

The 1954 New Jersey Air Pollution Control (APC) Act and New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) do not contain provisions that allow the Department to establish a moratorium on the issuance of permits. NJAC 7:27-8.14 (a) 2 states that an Air Pollution Control permit can be

denied if it causes exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. This would apply anywhere in

the State.5 On February 5, 2009, Governor Corzine signed a ne w executive order to address environmental issues in low-income and minority communities, which included the creation of an advisory council to oversee state policies and initiatives. 1 Created by Executive Order 131 (EO #131), the Environmental Justice Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) ex tends a similar environmental justice advisory council, the New Jersey Environm ental Justice Task Force (EJTF), created five

years ago. 2

EO #131 directs all State entities involved in d ecisions that affect e nvironmental quality and public health to provide opportuni ties for input by representatives of low-income and minority groups. The Advisory Council is charged with making recommendations to the Commissioner of the NJDEP about issues involving environmenta l justice in this State in fulfillment of this

Executive Order.

As discussed in this SIP revision, the NJDEP is working with the USEPA on a number of national air toxic reduction programs. To addres s disproportionate impacts of air toxic hazards across urban areas on highly exposed populati on subgroups, and predominately minority and low-income communities, 3 the NJDEP is developing methods a nd strategies to assess air impacts from multiple sources at the community scale.

The response to the community-based monitoring system portion of this comment is included in the response to Comment #9.

6) Comment : Some commenters stated that in or der to implement the moratorium policy

discussed in Comment #8 and determine whic h EJ neighborhoods are in nonattainment of the

Federal annual PM 2.5 standard as of April 5, 2010, the NJDEP should establish a communitybased PM 2.5 monitoring system in overburdened EJ co mmunities. The commenters stated that even if the moratorium is not established, a co mmunity-based monitoring system would still be desirable because it would be capable of provi ding information on fine PM concentrations on a much smaller geographic scale than DEP is curre ntly able to produce. They stated that a community-based monitoring system could prov ide long-term data on a neighborhood level and would be able to identify local pollution “hot spots” that might ex ist within urban areas. They stated that such a system would be consiste nt with the recommendation of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) that suggests states rely less on modeling and more on ambient air monitoring. The commenters also explained how the monitoring system could be studentdriven, and that high school stude nts have successfully completed this type of monitoring in the past. This would aid New Jersey’s public sc hools in providing improved science education to

the State’s students. (New Jersey Environmental Justic e Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Wi n (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalitio n for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

1 NJDEP. Environmental Justice Program. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, http://www.nj.gov/de p/ej/policy.html, accessed Ma rch 17, 2009. EO #131 replaced EO#96 (2004) as of February 17, 2009.

2 The New Jersey (EJTF) was created by Executive Order 96 (EO #96), which was signed in February 2004 and expired February 17, 2009.

3 USEPA. Fact Sheet, The Air Toxics Strate gy. United States Environm ental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/urban/str ategyfs0303.pdf, accessed November 28, 2007.6 Response : The type of monitoring referred to in the comment is good for promoting community involvement and for looking at spat ial variability, but this kind of monitoring is not appropriate for the regulatory applications that the commenter seeks. The described monitoring methods are not accepted methods for determining if an area complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Monitoring locations must meet Federal siting cr iteria and be conducted using Federal Reference Methods. There are requirements for traceability of standards used in calibrations and other areas that make it impractical to monitor for NAAQS compliance with a community based program with today’s technology.

Funding community based monitoring programs for ot her applications might be feasible, but the objectives and limitations of the methods need s to be understood ahead of time. In the Camden/Trenton/Newark study the commenter refe rred to, the type of instruments used to

monitor PM 2.5 can read twice as high as a reference method instrument. These instruments can

be used to look at relative concentrations and have been used successfully in several studies.

7) Comment : Some commenters stated that climate change policies should be developed and implemented that decrease emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors in addition to emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The commenters urged the State to select and implement climate change policies that go beyond having a “supplemental” effect on PM 2.5 and precursor concentrations. The commenters stated that New Jersey should use climate change strategies that significantly

reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors as well as em issions of carbon dioxide. The commenters stated that if a policy only decr eases carbon dioxide emissions and does not also yield significant reductions in PM 2.5 , nitrogen oxides or sulfur di oxide emissions, it should not be implemented. The commenters stated that if th is type of policy were adopted, the State would have to evaluate all potential cl imate change strategies for thei r ability to reduce emissions of these other toxic pollutants and mentioned that since the State has already performed a similar type of evaluation for NO

x reduction it should be comfortabl e applying it to proposed climate change policies.

The commenters stated that using climate change policies to also reduce PM 2.5 concentrations would not only help the Stat e achieve attainment for the current Federal annual PM 2.5 standard, but would also help the NJDEP to realize its internal goal of driving concentrations below 12.0

μ g/m 3 and fulfill its legal obligation of ensuring air quality in New Jersey meets the new 35.0

μ g/m 3 federal daily PM 2.5 standard. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : The Department agrees with this comment . The control measures implemented to meet the Federal ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze requirements wi ll also be beneficial in the State’s efforts to reduce greenhous e gas (GHG) emissions, and visa versa, since both ozone and black carbon (soot) have an atmospheric warming effect. In fact, since the atmospheric lifetime

of ozone and black carbon are so much shorter th an those of the long-lived GHG gases, days as opposed to years for CO 2 , methane and halocarbons, reductions in these short-lived species may prove to be of some importance in slowing globa l warming in the short term. Also, measures to7 reduce CO 2 emissions will reduce other ai r contaminant emissions as well. The State is in the process of formulating recommendations to m eet the Global Warming Response Act’s ambitious GHG limits, and these recommendations are fo cused not only on reducing GHG emissions, but on improving the overall air quality. A Dr aft of the Global Warming Response Act Recommendation Report was released on December 15, 2008, and there have been six public meetings held to solicit input on the pl an. Further details are available at: http://www.nj.gov/globalwarmi ng/home/stakeholder.html.

8) Comment : Some commenters stated that energy conservation and rene wable energy sources should be used extensively in urban areas. Th e commenters stated that this strategy has the potential to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide, decrease em issions of fine PM and its precursors, and provide employment and other economic opportunities to lo cal residents. The

commenters stated that the ultima te goal would be to make urban areas in New Jersey centers of innovation for, and the utilization of, energy c onservation and renewabl e energy sources in a manner that will help to economically revita lize inner-city neighborhoods. The commenters stated that energy conservation methods might s how rapid results and that the NJDEP needs to implement reduction strategies that will be effe ctive beyond 2010 to satisfy its internal goal of reducing fine PM c oncentrations to 12.0 μ g/m 3 and its legal obligation to attain the new Federal daily 35.0 μ g/m 3 standard. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : The NJDEP agrees with the commenter that energy conservation measures will help

to reduce PM 2.5 emissions. The use of energy conserva tion and renewable energy sources are addressed in New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan. Currently, the Stat e is working to develop green collar jobs across the State with special emphasis in urban areas. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development gave a grant to Isle s (a nationally recogni zed nonprofit community development and environmental organization) to develop a curriculum for home energy raters (auditors) that would allow people to receive the tr aining needed to take the certification tests.

Additional information about thes e and other energy conservation m easures will be discussed in the final Energy Master Plan. The Energy Ma ster Plan is available at this site: http://www.nj.gov/emp/docs/pdf/081022_emp.pdf.

9) Comment : Some commenters stated that privat ely-owned pre-2007 dies el vehicles should

be retrofitted or retired. The commenters made reference to a discussion from the PM 2.5 SIP of the extremely toxic nature of diesel PM, and how urban residents may face a disproportionately high health risk from diesel PM. The commenters also discussed a report that lists Trenton area residents as suffering from the fifth highest per capita mortality rate in the country due to diesel PM. The commenters suggested that the most effec tive manner to lower the health risks posed to urban residents in New Jersey by diesel PM is by either retrofitting or retiring privately-owned diesel-powered vehicles construc ted prior to 2007 and stated th at no comprehensive strategy is presented by the Fine PM SIP to accomplish this life-saving task.

The commenters stated that NJEJA, CUE, ERF, NJEF, Greenfaith, and the New Jersey Work Environment Council have developed, and are devel oping, policies intended to retrofit or retire discreet portions of the privately-owned di esel-powered fleet in New Jersey. These8 organizations are also part of, or work with, the Clean and Healthy Ports Coalition, which is developing policy that would resu lt in the thousands of trucks that travel through or near residential neighborhoods every day to service the ports in Northe rn New Jersey either being retrofitted or retired. The commenters stated that the leadership and authority of the NJDEP and

the state are needed for thes e efforts to be successful. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmen tal Research Foundation (ERF ), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT ), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : The Diesel Retrofit Law, which is curre ntly being implemente d, targets about 40,000 vehicles that operate in reside ntial areas, are us ed to transport children, or are publicly owned. For example, the law requires that garbage trucks and NJ Transit buses be retrofitted with diesel reduction technology because they operate in close proximity to people and throughout

residential areas. The law does not target most privately owned vehicles, such as long haul trucks traveling on major highways, because th e limited funding was directed towards sectors that potentially had a greater impact on huma n health and the environment. The NJDEP recognizes that there are additional opportunities for diesel reductions and will pursue additional measures where feasible. Ongoing efforts that w ill enable us to achieve reductions from some privately owned vehicles include the following:

• With assistance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the NJDEP granted $750,000 to the New Jersey Motor Truc k Association to reimburse truckers for

installation of idle re duction devices and tail pipe retrofit technol ogy. Currently, nearly all of the money has been allocated and th e Association has requested additional funding.

• The NJDEP recently enhanced New Jersey’s idling rule which limits idling of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles to three minut es, under most circumstances, and prohibits idling of a truck’s sleeper berth as of 2010.

• New Jersey has the nation’s oldest diesel inspection and maintenance program under which nearly 70,000 large diesel vehicles ar e annually inspected to ensure they are properly maintained thereby reducing emissions.

• The NJDEP is overseeing $13 million in voluntar y diesel risk reduction projects, with $3 million worth of projects already completed. Most notably, the NJDEP spearheaded the

installation of the state’s first two electrif ied truck stops with a third one underway shortly. The NJDEP has also granted $500,000 to the South Jersey Port Corporation to reduce emissions from their diesel operations and have begun a $3 million locomotive upgrade project at the North Jersey port. Money for these projects was obtained through competitive grants, discretionary grants, and enforcement settlements.

10) Comment : Some commenters stated that the NJ DEP should develop and implement a plan

to address PM 2.5 emissions generated by the ports operate d by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in Newark and Elizab eth. The commenters stated that PM 2.5 emissions from port machinery, trucking associated with the ports, and ships that operate in and around the ports on a regular basis are most likely having a detrimen tal health effect on many citizens in our state but especially on residents who liv e in neighborhoods that are in close proximity to the ports. The commenter acknowledges that the PM 2.5 SIP contains some discus sion concerning efforts to reduce emissions from the port in South Jersey, but stated that the SIP does not discuss plans to9 address PM pollution generated by the larger ports in Newark and Elizabeth. The commenters suggested that the first air pollu tion issue connected to the ports in Northern New Jersey that should be addressed is the diesel PM emitted by th e thousands of trucks that move items every day to and from the port near or through residential neighborhoods. The commenters stated that pre-2007 trucks that conduct business with the port on a regular basis need to be retrofitted with the most effective pollution control device possible or retired and replaced by trucks

manufactured after 2006. The comm enters stated that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) has an obligation to protect the health of New Jersey citizens and

therefore should ensure that these trucks are either retrofitted or retired.

The commenters stated that the Coalition for Healthy Ports is advocat ing that all trucking associated with the port should be handled by a tr ucking company that pays drivers a living wage with benefits and that is primarily responsible fo r utilizing trucks that are either manufactured after 2006 or emit no more air pol lution than a post-2006 truck. Under this plan the other responsible party for ensuring that port-associated trucks are emitting low levels of air pollution would be the Port Authority. This responsibilit y would include a financ ial contribution and the development of an enforcement system that wo uld guarantee trucks th at conducted business on a regular basis with the ports meet the requireme nt of producing no more air pollution than post2006 trucks.

The commenters stated that other port-related PM 2.5 air pollution issues that need to be addressed include: Retrofitting, repowering or retiring diesel -powered equipment such as cranes using the best available technology; retrofitting, repowerin g or retiring diesel-pow ered ships and boats, such as tugboats, that operate near a port on a regular basis, us ing the best available technology; and requiring that all ships and boa ts that operate within a certain distance of the coast utilize

low-sulfur fuel. (New Jersey Environmental Justi ce Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Wi n (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalitio n for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : The NJDEP is committed to developing diesel reduction strategies at both the north Jersey and south Jersey ports. The NJDEP is especially mindful of the numerous residents impacted by freight movement in and near thei r neighborhoods. Although much more needs to be done, some of the initiatives that are already underway include:

• NESCAUM is utilizing a $250,000 grant from th e USEPA to implement recommendations by the State’s Environmental Justice Task Force to reduce environmental risks to citizens of Waterfront South in Camden (near the South Jersey Port). The NJDEP supplemented the grant with $500,000 from an enforcement settleme nt to reduce particulate emissions from diesel equipment owned and operated by the South Jersey Port Corporation.

• The NJDEP recently received a grant in the amount of $85,000 from the USEPA for a project titled “Idling Reduction in a Multi-Cultural Port Community.” Our grant partner, Future City, Inc. of Elizabeth, will conduct an out reach and education program with the multilingual residents of the port communities surr ounding the Ports of Newark and Elizabeth. Future City’s efforts will concentrate on reducing idling and changing driving habits, especially among the trucki ng or “drayage” industry.10 • The NJDEP has also begun to reach out to mayor s, local police, and port authority police to remind them that they have authority to enforce our idling regulations.

• Through a supplemental environmental project, the NJDEP is undertaking a cutting edge locomotive emission reduction project at the nor th jersey port which involves replacing the traditional engine with a gen-set engine and installing a diesel particulate filter.

• The NJDEP also provided some funding for an innovative hybrid yard hostler project being spearheaded by USEPA and the Port Aut hority of New York and New Jersey.

• Former NJDEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson testified on Cap itol Hill in support of cleaner fuel for ships calling on our ports. Congress Co nsequently ratified the International Marine Organization (IMO) plan to reduc e air pollution from ships, es pecially when in a USA port.

In addition, the NJDEP is partic ipating in a workgroup launched by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to develop a Clean Air Strategy plan to reduce various air pollutants (including PM 2.5 ) at Port Elizabeth and Port Newark. As part of that process, the NJDEP will advocate for upgrading the fleet of drayage trucks that call on the port; reducing emissions from ships through idling redu ction and cleaner fuels; and providi ng incentives/disincentives for rail operators to utilize technology to reduce idling at their port located sw itchyards. The NJDEP will also take into account the recommendations recently received from the New Jersey Clean Air Council, based on testimony they received du ring their public hearin g earlier this year (“Improving Air Quality at our Port s and Airports”). The NJDEP e xpects that the Port Authority will be able to develop a plan to significantly reduce emissions from port operations as a result of this collaborative, stakeholder process.

11) Comment : Some commenters stated that the NJ DEP should institute an Indirect Source Review (ISR). The commenters stated that inst ituting an Indirect Source Review may provide the NJDEP with the authority to es tablish policies that will reduce PM 2.5 emissions from the ports in Northern New Jersey, and more specific ally from diesel-powered vehicles and other

sources that are difficult to regulate. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), indirect sources of pollution may be regulated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(5). The commenters stated that

indirect sources of PM 2.5 in New Jersey include the ports, th e New Jersey Turnpike, the airports, and the warehousing complexes across the state, each of which attract mobile sources of fine PM, primarily from diesel-powered trucks, larg e ships and airplanes. The commenters stated that regulation of indirect s ources may be included in a SIP and, given the primacy of environmental justice concerns to New Jersey and its citizens, New Jersey should assume a leadership role for the nation and institute it s own Indirect Source Review program via the PM 2.5 SIP. The commenter described Indirect Source Review program s that are in place in Oregon, Wisconsin and the region of San Joaquin Valley, California. The comment ers stated that these Indirect Source Review programs allow the states to reduce emi ssions in an efficient manner, and by encompassing mobile sources such as dies el-powered trucks and large ships within the non-mobile source regulatory scheme, em issions may be drastically reduced.

The commenters stated that any adoption of an Indirect Source Review in New Jersey would help the NJDEP and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to meet its mandate from Executive Order #96, i.e., developing “a co ordinated strategy for reducing the public’s exposure to fine particulate pollution in affected communities, particularly from diesel emissions from stationary and mobile sources.” The commen ters also stated that, as the most egregious11 indirect sources of fine PM are located in urba n areas, an Indirect Source Review would help address environmental justice concerns while moving the State toward compliance with the

Federal PM 2.5 standards. (New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), Environmental Research Foundation (ERF), Change to Win (CtW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Coalition for Healthy Ports (CHPs))

Response : Currently, The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule (40 C.F.R. § 93.100-129) provides the process by which the air quality im pact of transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and certain projects are analyzed. The agency preparing transportation plans (projections of twenty or more years), transportation improvement programs (projections of at least four years), or a pproving certain transportation proj ects must analyze the emissions expected from such a proposal in accordance with the Transportation Conformity Rule. For New Jersey, such plans are prepared by three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (North Jersey Transportation Planning Author ity, South Jersey Transporta tion Planning Organization, and Delaware Valley Regional Plan ning Commission). To some ex tent, this process already considers the impact of indirect sources.

The NJDEP agrees that there may be opportunities for further emission reductions from

additional indirect source eval uation and regulation. Indirect Source Review programs cited by

the commenters will be evaluated in order to de termine if they are a feasible way to reduce pollution from these sources in New Jersey. As time and resources allow, the NJDEP will investigate Indirect Source Review programs a nd will consider Indirect Source Review for possible inclusion in future SIPs.

Department-initiated Changes

In addition to the changes discussed above in the response to comment, the NJDEP made the following department-initiated changes when fi nalizing the document. Those changes are

described here.

1. New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP was proposed on September 15, 2008. References to the Regional Haze SIP revision were updated to reflect its proposal.

2. New Jersey’s VOC and NO

x RACT rules for 13 source cate gories were proposed on August 4, 2008. Additionally, changes to New Jersey’s Diesel Smoke Rule were proposed on June 16, 2008. References to these rules were updated to reflect their proposal.

3. In Chapter 4 (Control Measures), for clarity, Table 4.1 (PM 2.5 Control Measures) was combined with Table 4.6 (PM 2.5 Control Measures Summary). The number of the new table is Table 4.5 (PM 2.5 Control Measures Summary). Tabl e numbers in this chapter were subsequently changed. In Table 4.5, “Certain Refinery Operations” was deleted because it is the same measure as “Refinery Enforcemen t Initiative” and “Refinery Enforcement Initiative” was renamed “Refinery Consent D ecrees.” “Refineries - Fugitive Equipment Leaks” was marked as not being modeled. A ddition clarifications were made to Table 4.5 regarding Refinery Rules, Muni cipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators), ICI Boilers, and EGU

Consent Decrees.12 4. In Chapter 5 (Attainment Demonstration), “R efineries - Fugitive Equipment Leaks” was removed from Table 5.1 because it was not included in the modeling. New Jersey’s RACT commitments were updated in Section 5.3.2.6.2. Al so, a new section was added at 5.4 which

addresses “Emission Reduction Credits fr om Shutdowns and Curtailments.”

5. In Chapter 6 (Contingency Measures) and a ssociated Appendix C (Contingency Measure Calculations), the refinery rules were replaced as a contingency meas ure with the refinery consent decrees. In Table 6.2, the benefits fo r Municipal Waste Com bustors (Incinerators) were updated.

6. Chapter 8 (Section 110 Infrastructure Requi rements), was changed to reflect updates regarding CAIR, Prevention of Significan t Deterioration (PSD) permit program,

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Regional Haze.

7. In Chapter 9 (Commitments and Requests for Future Action), for consistency with Table 4.5 in Chapter 4, Chapter 6 and Appendix C (Con tingency Measures), NJ LEV (fleet turnover) was added to Table 9.1 as a contingency measur e. Table 9.1 was also updated to more clearly describe New Jersey’s PM 2.5 commitments. Additionally, editorial clarifications were

made to Table 9.1.

8. In Chapter 10 (Conclusions), Table 10.1 was removed because it was redundant to Table 9.1.

9. In Appendix A7 (Reasonably Available Contro l Technology (RACT) An alysis), the RACT commitments were updated based on feasibility and compliance dates, some of which are being modified in response to comments on the RACT rules.

10. In Appendix C (Contingency Measure Calculations), editorial clarifications were made. On page 4, the benefits for Municipal Wast e Combustors (Incinerators) were updated.

11. Two new attachments were added to Appendix B5-1: Attachment 1: Comparison of CAIR and CAIR Plus Proposal using the Integr ated Planning Model (IPM®) and Appendix Attachment 2: Development of MANE-VU Mobile Source Projec tion Inventories.