Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New Jersey; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 49711-49724 [2011-20482]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0607, FRL–9450–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
New Jersey; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
the revision to the State Implementation
Plan submitted by the State of New
Jersey on July 28, 2009, and
supplemented on December 9, 2010,
and March 2, 2011, that addresses
regional haze for the first planning
period from 2008 through 2018. This
revision addresses the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and EPA’s rules that
require states to prevent any future, and
remedy any existing, anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas caused by emissions of air
pollutants located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. This plan protects and improves
visibility levels in New Jersey’s Class I
area, the Brigantine Wilderness Area of
the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge, as well as other Class I areas in
the Northeast United States. New
Jersey’s SIP is in two parts: Reasonable
Progress and application of Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology.
EPA is proposing to approve the
Reasonable Progress portion of the plan,
since New Jersey has adopted all of the
reasonably available measures
recommended by the states during the
development of the SIP. EPA is
proposing approval of New Jersey’s
plans to implement Best Available
Retrofit Technologies on eligible
sources, as well New Jersey’s
Subchapter 9, Sulfur in Fuels.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 12, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket Number EPA–R02–
OAR–2011–0607, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
• Fax: 212–637–3901.
• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866.
• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner,
Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0607.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/air/docket.html.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49711
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if
at all possible, that you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view
the hard copy of the docket. You may
view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation
Planning Section, Air Programs Branch,
EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New
York, New York 10007–1866. The
telephone number is (212) 637–4049.
Mr. Kelly can also be reached via
electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for the
Regional Haze SIPs?
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology
E. Long-Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New Jersey’s
regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
2. Modeling to Support the Long-Term
Strategy and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of
Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility
Impairment
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
5. Subchapter 9—Sulfur In Fuels
6. Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology
a. BART-Eligible Sources in New Jersey
b. Identification and Evaluation of
Additional BART-Eligible Sources in
New Jersey
c. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified
as BART by New Jersey
C. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
D. Periodic SIP revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
49712
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
F. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used,
we mean the EPA.
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve the State
of New Jersey’s (New Jersey’s) July 28,
2009 State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision addressing regional haze under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). New
Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP revision
implements all measures determined by
the State to be reasonable and addresses
New Jersey’s Reasonable Progress Goals
(RPG), as required by the Act. RPGs are
interim visibility goals towards meeting
the national visibility goal. New Jersey’s
Regional Haze SIP revision also
implements Best Available Retrofit
Control Technology (BART) on eligible
facilities subject to the regional haze
program.
Consistent with EPA guidance and
regulations, (see 70 FR 39104, 39106
(July 6, 2005)), many states relied on
EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
to satisfy key elements of Regional Haze
SIPs. The D.C. Circuit, however, found
CAIR to be inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act and remanded
the rule to the Agency. North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 929–30 (D.C. Cir.
2008); modified on rehearing, North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the
remand of the CAIR rule, on July 6, 2011
EPA finalized the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR); a rule intended
to reduce the interstate transport of fine
particulate matter and ozone, located at
https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule.
Although New Jersey was subject to
CAIR, its Regional Haze SIP did not rely
on CAIR to meet the requirements for
BART or for attaining the in-state
emissions reductions necessary to
ensure reasonable progress, instead,
New Jersey evaluated controls for its
potential BART sources. New Jersey
made BART determinations for its
BART-eligible sources, including
Electric Generating Units (EGUs) that
might have been controlled under CAIR.
Similarly, its long-term strategy for
attaining the RPG at the Brigantine
Wilderness Area of the Edwin B.
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
(Brigantine) includes controls on EGUs
in New Jersey. Therefore, the remand of
CAIR has no negative effect on the
amount of emission reductions New
Jersey will achieve from its Regional
Haze SIP revision. This action and the
accompanying Technical Support
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Document (TSD) explain the basis for
EPA’s proposed approval of New
Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP revision
proposal.
New Jersey has met all of its
obligations with respect to the Regional
Haze SIP requirements, including the
recommendation1 of the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU)
regional planning organization. New
Jersey should not be required to
substitute for any emissions shortfalls in
other states’ plans, especially if other
states expected that EPA’s CAIR
program would be available as part of
their RPGs or their BART controls.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP
revision, since it adopts all the measures
determined to be reasonable by New
Jersey, as evaluated by the states
working together through MANE–VU.
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by many sources and
activities which are located across a
broad geographic area and emit fine
particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in
some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust), which
also impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. Visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national parks and wilderness areas,
many of which are also referred to as
Federal Class I areas.
In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA,
Congress initiated a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas.
Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act establishes
as a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air
1 On June 20, 2007, MANE–VU adopted two
documents which provide the technical basis for
consultation among the interested parties and
define the basic strategies for controlling pollutants
that cause visibility impairment at Class I areas in
the eastern United States. The documents, entitled
‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE–VU) Concerning a Course of Action
within MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable
Progress,’’ and ‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Concerning
a Request for a Course of Action by States outside
of MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable
Progress’’ are together known as the MANE–VU
‘‘Ask.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pollution.’’ In 1990 Congress added
section 169B to the Act to address
regional haze issues. On July 1, 1999
EPA promulgated the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The
requirement to submit a Regional Haze
SIP applies to New Jersey and all 50
states, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) of the
RHR required states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a
finding that New Jersey failed to submit
the Regional Haze SIP. New Jersey
subsequently submitted its Regional
Haze SIP on July 28, 2009. EPA’s
January 15, 2009 finding established a
two-year deadline of January 15, 2011
for EPA to either approve New Jersey’s
Regional Haze SIP, or adopt a Federal
implementation plan. This proposed
action is intended to address the
January 15, 2009 finding.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. New Jersey participates
in the MANE–VU RPO, which also
includes the state and tribal
governments of Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, the Penobscot Nation, and the
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
III. What are the requirements for
Regional Haze SIPs?
The following is a basic explanation
of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for a
complete listing of the regulations under
which this SIP revision was evaluated.
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the Act and EPA’s
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview
(dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is
determined by measuring the visual
range, which is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky.
The dv is calculated from visibility
measurements. Each dv change is an
equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. For this
reason, EPA believes it is a useful
measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility. Most people can
detect a change in visibility at one dv.2
The dv is used in expressing RPGs
(which are interim visibility goals
towards meeting the national visibility
goal), defining baseline, current, and
natural conditions, and tracking changes
in visibility. The regional haze SIPs
must contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by manmade air
pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air
pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program (40
CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the
process for determining reasonable
progress, the RHR requires states to
calculate the degree of existing visibility
impairment at each Class I area at the
time of each regional haze SIP submittal
and periodically review progress every
five years midway through each 10-year
planning period. To do this, the RHR
requires states to determine the degree
of impairment (in dv) for the average of
the 20 percent least impaired (‘‘best’’)
and 20 percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’)
visibility days over a specified time
period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, the RHR requires states to
develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for the purposes of
comparing progress toward the national
2 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to states regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural and current visibility
conditions.3
For the initial regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
baseline visibility conditions were used
as the starting points for assessing
current visibility impairment. Baseline
visibility conditions represent the
degree of impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days at the time the regional
haze program was established. Using
monitoring data for 2000 through 2004,
the RHR required states to calculate the
average degree of visibility impairment
for each Class I area, based on the
average of annual values over the five
year period. The comparison of initial
baseline visibility conditions to natural
visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to
attain natural visibility, while the future
comparison of baseline conditions to the
then current conditions will indicate the
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The submission of a series of regional
haze SIPs from the states that establish
RPGs for Class I areas for each
(approximately) 10-year planning period
is the vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal. The RHR does not
mandate specific milestones or rates of
progress, but instead calls for states to
establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
3 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule,
September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003
located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/
memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49713
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in the Act and in EPA’s
RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the time necessary for compliance; (3)
the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance;
and (4) the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting
the RPGs for the best and worst days for
each applicable Class I area. (See 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in our Reasonable Progress
guidance.4 In setting the RPGs, states
must also consider the rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (referred to as the
‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the
SIP. In setting RPGs, each state with one
or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I State’’)
must also consult with potentially
‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby
states with emission sources that may be
affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I State’s areas. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
D. Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the Act directs states
to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources.
Specifically, the Act requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing
stationary sources 5 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BART)’’ as determined by
the state. (CAA 169A(b)(2)(A)). States
are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such sources that
may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Rather than requiring
source-specific BART controls, states
4 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
under the Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s
Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 2007,
memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10
(pp.4–2, 5–1).
5 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART are listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49714
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
also have the flexibility to adopt an
emissions trading program or other
alternative program as long as the
alternative provides equal or greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. The BART
Guidelines require states to use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines in making a BART
applicability determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with
a total generating capacity in excess of
750 megawatts. The BART Guidelines
encourage, but do not require states to
follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of
sources.
The BART Guidelines recommend
that states address all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and PM. The
BART Guidelines direct states to use
their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) and
ammonia compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their BART control
determination analyses. In making
BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states consider the following factors: (1)
The costs of compliance, (2) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at
the source, (4) the remaining useful life
of the source, and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each
factor. (70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005)).
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP, as required in the Act
(section 169A(g)(4)) and in the RHR (40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to
what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source. States
have the flexibility to choose the type of
control measures they will use to meet
the requirements of BART.
source retirement and replacement
schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans
as currently exist within the state for
these purposes; (6) enforceability of
emissions limitations and control
measures; (7) the anticipated net effect
on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)).
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the Act that states
include in their regional haze SIP a
10 to 15 year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that states include
a Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their
SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all
control measures a state will use to meet
any applicable RPGs. The LTS must
include ‘‘enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve
the reasonable progress goals’’ for all
Class I areas within, or affected by
emissions from, the state. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with the contributing states
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. (40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that
it has included in its SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the
RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs
have provided forums for significant
interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be
required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile, and
area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the seven factors
listed below is taken into account in
developing their LTS: (1) Emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to
address Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI); (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (3) emissions
limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the RPG; (4)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must
provide for a periodic review and SIP
revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission
of the state’s first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment,
which was due December 17, 2007, in
accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On
or before this date, the state must revise
its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing reasonably attributable and
regional haze visibility impairment, and
the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional
haze SIP revision. Future coordinated
LTS’s, and periodic progress reports
evaluating progress towards RPGs, must
be submitted consistent with the
schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic reviews of a
state’s LTS must report on both regional
haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in
accordance with 51.308.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
participation in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environment (IMPROVE) network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years.
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR
51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New
Jersey’s regional haze submittal?
On July 28, 2009 the State of New
Jersey submitted a revision to the New
Jersey SIP to address regional haze in
the State’s Class I Brigantine Wilderness
Area as required by EPA’s RHR.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Affected Class I Areas
New Jersey contains a Class I area, the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge,
where visual impairment that the FLMs
have identified as an important value
that must be addressed in regional haze
plans. Emissions from New Jersey also
influence the amount of visibility
impairment of Class I areas located in
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
New Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP will
help to improve visibility in these
states. Thus, New Jersey is responsible
for developing a Regional Haze SIP that
addresses its own and other Class I
areas, that describes its long-term
emission strategy, its role in the
consultation processes, and how its SIP
meets the other requirements in EPA’s
regional haze regulations. Because New
Jersey is home to a Class I area, New
Jersey has the additional responsibility
to address the following Regional Haze
SIP elements: (a) Calculation of baseline
and natural visibility conditions, (b)
establishment of RPGs, (c) monitoring
requirements, and (d) RAVI
requirements as required by EPA’s RHR.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
As described above, the Long Term
Strategy (LTS) is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by
the state to obtain its share of emission
reductions to support the RPGs for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge.
New Jersey’s LTS for the first
implementation period, addresses the
emissions reductions from Federal,
state, and local controls that take effect
in the State from the baseline period
starting in 2002 until 2018. New Jersey
participated in the MANE–VU RPO
regional strategy development process.
As a participant, New Jersey supported
a regional approach towards deciding
which control measures to pursue for
regional haze, which was based on
technical analyses documented in the
following reports: (a) Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic United States 6; (b)
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I
Areas 7; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of
BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of
Options for Conducting BART
Determinations 8; and (d) Assessment of
Control Technology Options for BARTEligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers,
Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and
Paper, and Pulp Facilities.9
The LTS was developed by New
Jersey, in coordination with MANE–VU,
identifying the emissions units within
New Jersey that likely have the largest
impacts currently on visibility at the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge
Class I area, estimating emissions
reductions for 2018, based on all
controls required under Federal and
state regulations for the 2002–2018
period (including BART), and
comparing projected visibility
improvement with the uniform rate of
progress for the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
New Jersey’s LTS includes measures
needed to achieve its share of emissions
reductions and includes enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures
necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals established for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge
Class I area.
6 NESCAUM Report at https://www.nescaum.org/
documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-thenortheast-and-mid-atlantic—united-states/.
7 MANE–VU Report at https://www.otcair.org/
manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports.
8 NESCAUM Report at https://www.nescaum.org/
documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/.
9 NESCAUM Report at https://www.nescaum.org/
documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49715
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses was
developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Air Management Association for
MANE–VU with assistance from New
Jersey. The 2018 emissions inventory
was developed by projecting 2002
emissions, and assuming emissions
growth due to projected increases in
economic activity as well as applying
reductions expected from Federal and
state regulations affecting the emissions
of VOC and the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
The BART guidelines direct states to
exercise judgment in deciding whether
VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their
Class I area(s). As discussed further
below, MANE–VU demonstrated that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are
the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region.
It was also determined that the total
ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU
region are extremely small. In addition,
since VOC emissions are aggressively
controlled through the New Jersey
ozone SIP, the pollutants New Jersey
considered under BART are NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2.
In developing the 2018 reasonable
progress goal, and the 2018 projection
inventory, New Jersey relied primarily
upon the information and analyses
developed by MANE–VU to meet the
requirements of EPA’s regional haze
rules. Based on information from the
contribution assessment and additional
emission inventory analyses, MANE–
VU identified the following source
categories for further examination for
reasonable measures:
• Coal and oil-fired EGUs;
• Point and area source industrial,
commercial and institutional (ICI)
boilers;
• Cement and Lime Kilns;
• Heating oil; and
• Residential wood combustion.
MANE–VU, for its member states and
tribes, analyzed these potential source
categories based on the four factors
listed in section 169A(g)(1) of the Act
and in Section III.C of this action. New
Jersey and the MANE–VU states agreed
with the analysis that determined that
reasonable controls existed for coal and
oil-fired EGUs, industrial, commercial
and institutional (ICI) boilers and that
reducing the sulfur content of heating
oil was a reasonable strategy.
Additionally, MANE–VU determined
that due to the lack of specific data for
the wide range of residential wood
boilers, it was not reasonable to set
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49716
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
particular reductions amounts for
emissions from residential wood boilers.
New Jersey adopted controls on EGUs
and boilers. While New Jersey’s plan
does not include emission reduction
regulations for residential wood boilers,
New Jersey will consider state specific
wood burning provisions, which was
the strategy agreed to by the MANE–VU
states. ICI boiler controls were
implemented as an Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) regional measure for
VOC and NOX controls that have
benefits for reducing regional haze. New
Jersey does not have any cement or lime
kilns. More details on the adopted
controls are described later in this
section.
After identifying potential control
measures and performing the four factor
analysis, MANE–VU performed initial
modeling that showed the visibility
impacts from the implementation of the
measures. The initial modeling results
showed that the projected 2018
visibility on the 20% worst days at the
Brigantine Wilderness area was at least
as good at the uniform rate of progress.
Details of MANE–VU’s initial modeling
were later documented in the MANE–
VU Modeling for RPGs report.10 Based
on the modeling results and other
analysis performed by MANE–VU, the
MANE–VU states developed ‘‘Asks,’’
which are ‘‘emission management’’
strategies. These strategies served as the
basis for the consultation with the other
states.
As part of the modeling needed to
assess the emission reductions needed
to meet the RPG, MANE–VU developed
emissions inventories for four inventory
source classifications: (1) Stationary
point sources, (2) area sources, (3) offroad mobile sources, and (4) on-road
mobile sources. The New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the
entire MANE–VU region. Stationary
point emission sources are those sources
that emit greater than a specified
tonnage per year, depending on the
pollutant, with data provided at the
facility level. Area source emissions are
from stationary sources whose
individual emissions are relatively
small, but due to the large number of
these sources, the collective emissions
from the source category could be
significant. Off-road mobile source
emissions are from equipment that can
move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are from
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles
that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are
estimated by vehicle type and road type.
Biogenic sources emissions are from
natural sources like trees, crops, grasses,
and natural decay of plants. Stationary
point sources emission data is tracked at
the facility level. For all other source
types emissions are summed on the
county level.
There are many Federal and state
control programs being implemented
that MANE–VU and New Jersey
anticipate will reduce emissions
between the baseline period and 2018.
Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve
substantial visibility improvement by
2018 in the Brigantine National Wildlife
Refuge. To assess emissions reductions
from ongoing air pollution control
programs, BART, and reasonable
progress goals; MANE–VU developed
2018 emissions projections called Best
and Final. The emissions inventory
provided in the Best and Final 2018
projections is based on adopted and
enforceable requirements, as well as
Federal programs, such as Federal motor
vehicle control programs and maximum
achievable control technologies
(MACT).
These measures are included in the
MANE–VU modeling used to determine
the amount of progress in the
improvement of visibility in Class I
areas. MANE–VU States agreed to
implement several measures at the state
level. These measures are: a timely
implementation of BART requirements,
90 percent or more reduction in sulfur
dioxide at 167 stacks identified by
MANE–VU (or comparable alternative
measures), and low sulfur fuel oil
regulations (with limits specified for
each state).
Controls from various Federal MACT
regulations were also utilized in the
development of the 2018 emission
inventory projections. These MACTs
include the industrial boiler/process
heater MACT, the combustion turbine
and reciprocating internal combustion
engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-,
7-, and 10-year MACT standards.
EPA’s industrial boiler/process heater
MACT was vacated on June 8, 2007.11
The MANE–VU States, including the
State of New Jersey, included these
controls in modeling for their regional
haze SIPs. EPA accepts these emission
reductions in the modeling for the
following reasons. EPA expects to
propose a new Industrial Boiler MACT
rule to address the vacatur in October
2011 and issue a final rule in April
2012, giving New Jersey time to assure
10 MANE–VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress
Goals. February 7, 2008.
11 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir.
2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the required controls are in place prior
to the end of the first planning period
in 2018. In the absence of an established
MACT for boilers and process heaters,
the statutory language in section 112(j)
of the Act specifies a schedule for the
incorporation of enforceable MACTequivalent limits into the Title V
operating permits of affected sources.
Should circumstances warrant the need
to enact section 112(j) of the Act for
industrial boilers, compliance with
case-by-case MACT limits for industrial
boilers would occur no later than
January 2015, which is well before the
2018 RPGs for regional haze. The RHR
also requires that any resulting
differences between emissions
projections and actual emissions
reductions that may occur will be
addressed during the five-year review
prior to the next regional haze SIP. In
addition, the expected reductions due to
the original, vacated Industrial Boiler
MACT rule were relatively small
compared to the State’s projected total
SO2 emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to two
percent of the projected 2018 SOX,
PM2.5 and coarse particulate matter
(PM10) inventory), and are not likely to
affect any of New Jersey’s modeling
conclusions. Thus, even if there is a
need to address discrepancies between
the projected emissions reductions from
the now vacated Industrial Boiler MACT
and actual reductions achieved by the
replacement MACT, we do not expect
that this would be significant enough to
affect the adequacy of the New Jersey
Regional Haze SIP.
The MANE–VU States’ goal was to
reduce SO2 emissions from the largest
emission units in the eastern United
States by 90 percent or if it was
infeasible to achieve that level of
reduction, an alternative had to be
identified that could include other point
sources. In New Jersey, there are four of
the 167 units identified by MANE–VU
as having the highest SO2 emissions in
the eastern United States. New Jersey
has reduced emissions from these four
units at each facility by more than 90
percent, thus meeting and exceeding
this portion of the reasonable progress
goals.
New Jersey is fulfilling its goal of
achieving the emission reductions
needed to meet its contribution to the
reasonable progress goals projected by
the MANE–VU modeling with the
following measures: BART controls on
all BART-eligible facilities, 90 percent
or more control at the four New Jersey
units from the 167 EGU units identified
by MANE–VU, reductions due to New
Jersey’s Mercury rule, adoption of
performance standards at all coal-fired
boilers in New Jersey, adoption of the
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
lower limits on fuel oil and the
measures listed in Table 1 developed for
49717
other programs that support regional
haze emission reduction goals.
TABLE 1—ADDITIONAL STATE CONTROL MEASURES THAT SUPPORT REGIONAL HAZE GOALS
Control measures
Status
Diesel Idling Rule Changes ...................................................
High Electrical Demand Day units ........................................
Oil and gas Fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs) ............
Sewage Sludge Incinerators .................................................
Case by Case NOX Emission Limit Determinations (FSELs/
AELs).
Glass Manufacturing .............................................................
Rule adopted March 20, 2009 .............
Municipal Waste Combustor (Incinerator) NOX Rule ...........
Asphalt Production Plants .....................................................
Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Changes .........................
Onroad New Jersey Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program
Rule adopted March 20, 2009 .............
Rule adopted March 20, 2009 .............
Rule adopted April 3, 2009 ..................
Adopted November 28, 2005 ...............
Energy Master Plan ...............................................................
Finalized October 22, 2008.
Federal measures and other control
programs relied upon by New Jersey
include EPA’s NOX SIP Call; measures
adopted for New Jersey’s 1-hour and 8hour ozone attainment demonstration
SIPs, Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel
engine standards for on-road trucks and
busses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls
for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark
ignition and recreational vehicle
controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel
rules. New Jersey also relied on
emission reductions from various
Federal MACTs that were vacated, but,
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
adopted
adopted
adopted
adopted
adopted
Notes
May 25, 2007 ................
March 20, 2009 .............
March 20, 2009 .............
March 20, 2009 .............
March 20, 2009 .............
as described above, EPA expects these
rules to be adopted by 2018, and should
not negatively affect New Jersey’s
fulfillment of its commitment to meet
the RPGs. In addition, the RHR requires
that any resulting differences between
emissions projections and actual
emissions reductions that may occur
will be addressed during the five-year
review prior to the next 2018 Regional
Haze SIP.
Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the
2002 baseline and 2018 estimated
emissions inventories for New Jersey.
The 2018 estimated emissions include
Direct PM2.5 and NOX reductions.
SO2 and NOX reductions.
NOX reductions.
NOX reductions.
NOX reductions.
NOX reductions but most benefits will
occur post-2010.
NOX reductions.
NOX reductions.
PM2.5 and NOX reductions.
VOC, NOX, SO2, and direct PM2.5 reductions.
emission growth as well as emission
reductions due to ongoing emission
control strategies to meet RPGs and
BART.
These emissions were used in the
modeling that demonstrated that the
Brigantine Wildlife Refuge Class I area
would meet the Reasonable Progress
Goal set for 2018. New Jersey adopted
the emission reduction programs that
are forecast to improve visibility to meet
the goal for 2018, thus New Jersey is
projected to achieve its goal for the first
implementation period.
TABLE 2—NEW JERSEY/MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY, 2002 BASE INVENTORY
NOX
VOC
CO
NH3
Primary PM10
Primary PM2.5
SO2
Point .............................
Area ..............................
Non-Road .....................
On-Road .......................
51,593
26,692
63,479
161,289
16,547
167,883
83,919
110,529
12,301
97,657
704,396
1,461,653
0
17,572
43
7,316
6,072
31,664
5,501
3,785
4,779
17,044
4,997
2,529
61,217
10,744
15,686
3,627
Total ......................
303,053
378,877
2,276,006
24,931
47,021
29,350
91,273
TABLE 3—NEW JERSEY/MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY, 2018 PROJECTION INVENTORY
NOX
VOC
CO
NH3
Primary PM10
Primary PM2.5
SO2
31,100
21,684
41,166
30,150
20,267
134,089
53,625
31,415
19,855
83,119
831,880
742,000
564
21,435
52
8,555
8,969
31,874
3,489
1,232
7,745
15,220
3,143
1,140
23,421
1,781
832
785
Total ......................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .............................
Area ..............................
Non-Road .....................
On-Road .......................
124,100
239,396
1,676,854
30,606
45,564
27,247
26,819
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE–VU performed modeling for
the regional haze LTS for the states, the
District of Columbia and tribal nations
located in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
portions of the United States. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
modeling analysis is a complex
technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system.
MANE–VU used a modeling system
described below and discussed in more
detail in the TSD.
The EPA’s Models-3/Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) version
4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
capable of addressing ozone, PM,
visibility and acid deposition on a
regional scale. CMAQ modeling of
regional haze in the MANE–VU region
for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a
grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE–VU States and the
District of Columbia and states adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
49718
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
larger national CMAQ modeling grid of
36x36 km grid cells that covers the
continental United States, portions of
Canada and Mexico, and portions of the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the
east and west coasts. Selection of a
representative period of meteorology is
crucial for evaluating baseline air
quality conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis that resulted in the
selection of the entire year of 2002
(January 1–December 31) as the best
period of meteorology available for
conducting the CMAQ modeling. The
MANE–VU States’ modeling was
developed consistent with EPA
guidance.12
MANE–VU examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The
modeling assessment predicts future
levels of emissions and visibility
impairment used to support the LTS
and to compare predicted, modeled
visibility levels with those on the
uniform rate of progress. In keeping
with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality
model performance was evaluated using
graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles,
and acid deposition from various
monitoring networks and databases for
the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a
diverse set of statistical parameters from
the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress
and examine the model and modeling
inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable,
MANE–VU used the model to assess the
2018 RPGs using the current and future
year air quality modeling predictions,
and compared the RPGs to the uniform
rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), New Jersey provided the
supporting documentation for all
required analyses used to determine the
State’s LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glide path
and to support the LTS are consistent
with EPA’s RHR, and interim and final
EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts
the MANE–VU technical modeling to
support the LTS and determine
visibility improvement for the uniform
rate of progress because the modeling
system was chosen and used in
accordance with EPA Modeling
Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE–
VU model performance procedures and
results, and that the CMAQ is an
appropriate tool for the regional haze
assessments for the New Jersey LTS and
Regional Haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants
to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying
reasonable progress measures is to
identify the key pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, MANE–VU
developed emission sensitivity model
runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility
and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20
percent worst visibility days.
MANE–VU’s contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region.
Sulfate particles commonly account for
more than 50 percent of particle-related
light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as
much as or more than 80 percent on the
haziest days. In particular, for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge
Class I area, on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2000–2004, sulfate
accounted for 66 percent of the particles
responsible for light extinction. After
sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently
accounts for the next largest fraction of
light extinction due to particles. Organic
carbon accounted for 13 percent of light
extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days for Brigantine, followed
by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of
light extinction.
The emissions sensitivity analyses
conducted by MANE–VU predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements
in visibility in the Class I areas in the
MANE–VU region, more than any other
visibility-impairing pollutant. As a
result of the dominant role of sulfate in
the formation of regional haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region,
MANE–VU concluded that an effective
emissions management approach should
rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United
States. EPA proposes to accept this
conclusion as a reasonable strategy in
the eastern United States where
reductions in SO2 emissions will result
in the greatest improvements in
visibility.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
New Jersey contains a Class I area, the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge
Class I area, located on the New Jersey
shoreline, north of Atlantic City. The
RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires
states to establish RPGs for each Class
I area within the state (expressed in
deciviews) that provide for reasonable
progress towards achieving natural
visibility. MANE–VU calculated the
RPG for the Class I areas in the MANE–
VU states, and the CMAQ projections of
the effect of emission reductions on
visibility in the target year at the end of
the first period, 2018, as shown in Table
4.
TABLE 4—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS AND PROJECTED FUTURE VISIBILITY FOR THE BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA,
DEVELOPED BY MANE–VU
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Baseline
visibility
(2000–2004)
20% Worst Days ......................................................................................
20% Best Days ........................................................................................
Natural
background
conditions for
2064
29.0
14.3
Reasonable
progress
goal for 2018
12.2
5.5
25.1
14.3
2018 CMAQ
projections
25.1
12.2
(All values expressed as deciviews—lower deciviews means better visibility.)
12 EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional
Haze, located at https://www.epa.gov/scram001/
guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, and EPA
document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations, located at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/,
EPA–454/R–05–001, August 2005, updated
November 2005 (‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’).
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
From the MANE–VU analysis, New
Jersey determined that if the MANE–VU
states adopted certain measures, and
states in the surrounding regions
adopted similar measures, the Class I
areas would meet the RPG for the first
progress period ending in 2018. These
measures for the MANE–VU states are:
Implementation of BART requirements,
a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
from 167 EGU emission points (or
equivalent emission reduction) and a
low sulfur fuel oil strategy. New Jersey
adopted regulations sufficient to meet
its contribution to the reduction of
emissions needed to provide reasonable
progress towards achieving natural
visibility: A 90 percent or greater
reduction in SO2 emissions from each of
the four EGU stacks located in New
Jersey, adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil
strategy, implementation of BART
requirements during the first progress
period, as well as continued evaluation
of other control measures to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions.
The MANE–VU states’ goal was to
reduce SO2 emissions from the highest
emission stacks in the eastern United
States by 90 percent or, if it was
infeasible to achieve that level of
reduction, an alternative had to be
identified that could include other point
sources. In New Jersey, there are four of
the 167 units identified by MANE–VU
as having the highest emissions in the
eastern United States. New Jersey has
reduced emissions from these sources at
each facility by more than 90 percent,
thus meeting this portion of the
reasonable progress measures.
The modeling predicted that these
emission control regulations would
result in better visibility which would
meet the 25.1 deciviews goal of
reasonable progress by 2018 for the
Brigantine Class I area. At the time of
MANE–VU modeling, some of the other
states with sources potentially
impacting visibility, in the Class I areas
in both New Jersey and the rest of the
MANE–VU domain, had not yet made
final control determinations for BART,
and thus, these controls are not
included in the modeling prepared by
MANE–VU and used by New Jersey. At
that time, not all of the emission
reductions from New Jersey’s BARTeligible sources were included in the
modeling. Any controls resulting from
those determinations will provide
additional emissions reductions and
resulting visibility improvement, which
give further assurances that New Jersey
accomplished its share of emission
reductions needed to RPGs at all Class
I areas affected by New Jersey’s
emissions. This modeling demonstrates
that the 2018 base control scenario
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
provides for an improvement in
visibility equal to the uniform rate of
progress for the Brigantine area Class I
areas for the most impaired days over
the period of the implementation plan
and ensures no degradation in visibility
for the least impaired days over the
same period.
The modeling supporting the analysis
of these RPGs is consistent with EPA
guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The
regional haze provisions specify that a
state may not adopt a RPG that
represents less visibility improvement
than is expected to result from other
CAA requirements during the
implementation period. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR
states with Class I areas, like New
Jersey, took into account emission
reductions anticipated from CAIR in
determining their 2018 RPGs. MANE–
VU approximated the impact of CAIR by
reducing emissions from 167 EGUs by
ninety percent. But this reduction was
larger, in total tons of emissions
reduced, than the reductions expected
from CAIR, so MANE–VU added
emissions across the modeling domain
to more closely approximate the
emission reductions from CAIR. This
way, MANE–VU States would not
overestimate the RPG in case states used
the CAIR program as their response to
MANE–VU’s ‘‘ask’’ of ninety percent
reductions from the 167 EGUs in the
eastern United States.
As discussed in Section I of this
action, EPA anticipates that the CSAPR
will result in similar or better
improvements in visibility than those
predicted from CAIR. Because the
CSAPR was recently finalized, EPA does
not know at this time how it will affect
any individual Class I area and cannot
accurately model future conditions
based on its implementation. However,
by the time New Jersey is required to
undertake its five year progress review,
it is likely that the impact of the
CSAPR’s contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas in New
Jersey and other states will be
meaningfully assessed. Since New
Jersey implemented greater than ninety
percent control at each of its EGUs that
would have been subject to CAIR, which
would exceed the emission reductions
in New Jersey under CAIR or the
CSAPR, it is likely that New Jersey will
have contributed its share of reductions
that were modeled to produce the RPG
at New Jersey’s Class I area and other
Class I areas impacted by New Jersey. If,
for a particular Class I areas, these
reductions do not provide similar or
greater benefits than CAIR and meeting
the RPGs at one of its Class I areas is in
jeopardy, the State will be required to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49719
address this circumstance in its five
year review.
The RPG for the Class I area in New
Jersey (and other states’ Class I areas
affected by New Jersey) are based on
modeled projections of future
conditions that were developed using
the best available information at the
time the analysis was completed. While
MANE–VU’s emission inventory used
for modeling included estimates of
future emission growth, projections can
change as additional information
regarding future conditions becomes
available. It would be both impractical
and resource-intensive to require a state
to continually adjust the RPG every time
an event affecting these future
projections changed. At the same time,
EPA established a requirement for a
five-year, midcourse review and, if
necessary, correction of the states’
regional haze plans. See 40 CFR
52.308(g). New Jersey commits to the
midcourse review and submitting
revisions to the regional haze plan
where necessary.
Altogether, these emission controls—
a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
from EGUs, emission reductions from
boilers and a low sulfur fuel oil
strategy—are reasonable measures for
the reduction strategy required by EPA’s
RHR. EPA agrees that, combined with
New Jersey’s BART program, these
reductions will provide the emission
reductions New Jersey needs to meet its
share of the improvements in visibility
needed to meet the RPG goal for
Brigantine and to assist visibility
improvement at other Class I areas
affected by New Jersey’s emissions.
In order to address a timely
implementation of BART, as described
in Section IV.B.6. of this action, New
Jersey established BART emissions
limits for three facilities: PSEG Hudson
Generating Station, Chevron Products
and ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery.
For two other facilities, Amerada Hess
Port Reading Refinery and Sunoco Eagle
Point, New Jersey’s analyses determined
that their emissions were lower than the
250 tons per year threshold to make
them eligible for emission reductions
under BART. The BART limitations are
already in effect for the BART-affected
sources, except for additional controls
for nitrogen oxides at the PSEG Hudson
Generating Station, which will become
effective no later than May 1, 2015. New
Jersey is revising the permits for these
sources to include the modifications
needed to meet the BART requirements.
In summary, New Jersey used the
MANE–VU analysis which defined the
reasonable progress goals, and
reasonable measures. The reasonable
measures analyses, considered the cost
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
49720
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts, and the
remaining useful life of the existing
sources subject to such requirements.
Using input from the MANE–VU
consultations, the benefits from the
implementation of the identified
measures were modeled to project the
2018 visibility levels. These projections
serve as the 2018 Reasonable Progress
Goal. For the Brigantine Wilderness
Area, the 2018 projection is 25.1
deciviews. This projection meets the
Uniform Rate of Progress goal developed
per EPA’s RHR.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to
approve New Jersey’s RPG for the
Brigantine Wilderness Area of the
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge, and proposes that New Jersey’s
emission reductions will provide its
share of the reductions needed to
achieve the RPG at Brigantine, as well
as other Class I areas in the Northeast
United States. Letters from states with
Class I areas affected by New Jersey’s
emissions did not ask for any additional
controls beyond those specified in the
MANE–VU analyses.
5. Subchapter 9—Sulfur In Fuels
On September 20, 2010, New Jersey
satisfied a commitment included in the
Regional Haze SIP by adopting revisions
to New Jersey Subchapter 9 which
implements reductions in the sulfur
content of fuel oil, which will aid in
reducing sulfates that cause decreased
visibility. This regulation will
implement low sulfur fuel oil provisions
that will reduce the amount of sulfur in
fuel oils that are stored, offered for sale,
sold, or exchanged in trade for use in
New Jersey. On December 9, 2010, New
Jersey submitted Subchapter 9 to EPA as
a revision to its SIP. New Jersey
completed all the administrative
requirements for this rule, including a
public hearing and response to
comments.
The sulfur in fuel limits in New
Jersey’s rule are the same as the levels
of control included in the MANE–VU
analysis of reasonable controls for the
haze SIP. MANE–VU included these
controls in the modeling that showed
that the Brigantine area would achieve
the reasonable progress goals.
The regulation will reduce the sulfur
content in all distillate heating oil (No.
2 and lighter) to 500 parts per million
(ppm) by June 1, 2014 and to 15 ppm
by July 1, 2016. New Jersey’s rule also
reduces the sulfur content for No. 4 fuel
oil to 2,500 ppm and No. 5, No. 6, and
heavier fuel oils to 5,000 ppm for Zones
1, 2, 3 and 5 and 3,000 ppm for Zones
4 and 6 by July 1, 2014. By removing the
sulfur in the fuel oils, sulfur oxide
emissions and particulate emissions
will be reduced which will benefit both
the Regional Haze SIP and the
attainment of the PM 2.5 national
ambient air quality standard.
Subchapter 9 has been included in New
Jersey’s PM 2.5 SIP revision.
Subchapter 9 also contains maximum
allowable sulfur dioxide emission
limits, expressed in pounds per million
BTU, for those sources that chose to
control their emissions with control
devices. The compliance dates for these
limits are the same as for the fuel oil
compliance dates. Subchapter 9
provides provisions for the optional use
of an alternative emission control plan
based on a mathematical combination
that must first be approved by New
Jersey. These provisions require that for
each 24-hour period emissions will not
exceed the quantity of sulfur dioxide
expressed in pounds per million BTU
gross heat input as set forth in
Subchapter 9’s Tables 2A and 2B.
Additional requirements must be
satisfied including performing an air
quality modeling analysis to insure that
the national ambient air quality
standards will not be exceeded. These
provisions are designed to insure that
the use of optional alternative emission
controls plans will result in same or
greater emission reductions.
New Jersey completed all the
administrative requirements for this
rule, including a public hearing and
addressed the public comments. Since
New Jersey’s sulfur in fuel rule meets
the sulfur limits in the MANE–VU
‘‘ask,’’ and meets administrative
requirements, EPA proposes to approve
New Jersey’s Subchapter 9, for use in
both the Regional Haze SIP and the PM
2.5 SIP.
6. BART
BART is an element of New Jersey’s
LTS, as well as a requirement to
evaluate controls for older sources that
affect Class I areas. The BART regional
haze requirement consists of three steps:
(a) Identification of all the BART
eligible sources; (b) an assessment of
whether the BART eligible sources are
subject to BART; and (c) the
determination of the BART controls.
a. BART-Eligible Sources in New Jersey
The first component of a BART
evaluation is to identify all the BART
eligible sources. The sources in Table 5
were identified by New Jersey in its July
2009 Regional Haze SIP and met the
following criteria to be classified as
BART eligible:
• One or more emissions units at the
facility are within one of the 26
categories listed in the BART Guidelines
(70 FR 39158–39159);
• The emission unit(s) was in
existence on August 7, 1977 and begun
operation after August 6, 1962;
• Potential emissions of SO2, NOX,
and PM10 from subject units are 250
tons or more per year.
These criteria are from section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40
CFR Part 51, Appendix Y.
TABLE 5—BART-ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Source
Pollutants
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
PSEG—Hudson .............................................................
Chevron ..........................................................................
Amerada Hess ...............................................................
ConocoPhillips ................................................................
Sunoco Eagle Point .......................................................
The BART Guidelines recommend
addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as
visibility-impairment pollutants. The
Guidelines note that states can decide
whether to evaluate VOC or ammonia
emissions. New Jersey did not develop
additional strategies for VOC or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
NOX,
NOX,
NOX,
NOX,
NOX,
Location (county)
SO2, PM ..............................
SO2, PM ..............................
SO2 .....................................
PM, SO2 ..............................
PM, SO2 ..............................
ammonia emissions in its SIP. EPA
proposes to agree with New Jersey’s
determination because of the lack of
tools available to estimate emissions
and subsequently model VOC and
ammonia effects on visibility, and
because New Jersey is aggressively
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hudson .........................................
Middlesex .....................................
Middlesex .....................................
Union ............................................
Gloucester ....................................
Facility I.D.
12202
18058
17996
41805
55781
addressing VOCs through its approved
ozone SIPs. In summary, EPA agrees
with New Jersey’s determination that
SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are the
pollutants reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment to
target under BART.
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
The second component of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BART
eligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area.
As discussed in the BART guidelines, a
state may choose to consider all BART
eligible sources to be subject to BART
(70 FR 39.161). The MANE–VU Board
decided in June 2004 that because of the
collective importance of BART sources,
BART determinations should be made
by the MANE–VU states for each BART
eligible source. New Jersey followed this
approach by identifying each of its
BART eligible sources as subject to
BART, (see Table 5 above), but found
upon further review, that emissions
from Amerada Hess and Sunoco Eagle
Point made them ineligible for BART
controls. In its March 2011 supplement
to the RH SIP, New Jersey determined
that for Amerada Hess and Sunoco Eagle
Point, the permitted emissions for these
BART-eligible facilities were less than
the 250 tons per year threshold for each
of the pollutants regulated under the
Regional Haze regulations (see section
169A(g)(7) of the Act). Therefore, New
Jersey concluded they were not eligible
for BART controls.
b. Identification and Evaluation of
Additional BART-Eligible Sources in
New Jersey
During EPA’s review of New Jersey’s
July 2009 and March 2011 Regional
Haze SIP, EPA discovered that two other
facilities within the State had units that
were BART eligible. These two facilities
were not originally identified by New
Jersey as BART eligible because the
facilities indicated to the state that they
planned to shut down. Later the
facilities withdrew their requests.
The first BART eligible source, Unit
10 at Vineland Municipal Electric
Utility’s Howard M. Down Station is
under a Federal consent decree 13 to
either install additional pollution
control measures or to permanently shut
down by September 1, 2012. On July 1,
2011, Vineland’s Director submitted
written certification to EPA and New
Jersey that Unit 10 will be retired from
service by September 1, 2012. Vineland
is required to submit an application to
modify its permit by July 30, 2011 and
New Jersey will need to submit this
element of the permit to EPA as a
supplement to the RH SIP by November
2011. Another Vineland source is a
distillate fuel oil-fired emergency
generator that is considered BART, but
EPA agrees that it does not need
additional controls because its
13 U.S. District Court in New Jersey, Civil Action
1:11–cv–1826(RMB–JS), see paragraph 14.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
emissions are small and the unit has not
operated for at least 10 years.
The second BART eligible facility is
the BL England Generating Station
owned by RC Cape May Holding. This
facility has three electric generating
units that are BART eligible—Units 1, 2
and 3—as well as three support units
including a coal handling system that
supports the two coal-fired boilers,
Units 1 and 2; a natural draft cooling
tower that supports the oil fired boiler,
Unit 3; and an emergency fire water
diesel engine. Units 1 and 2 are subject
to an amended Administrative Consent
Order (ACO) by New Jersey that requires
the units either to repower by December
15, 2011 or meet performance standards
by a date certain. Under the ACO, Unit
1 is to add SCR controls for NOX, a
scrubber for SO2 controls and upgrade
the electrostatic precipitator to meet the
new performance standards by
December 15, 2013. EPA considers that
by December 2013, if Unit 1 modifies to
meet performance standards, it will be
implementing maximum control
measures for limiting emissions of NOX,
SO2 and PM, which meets EPA’s BART
requirements. Unit 2 is subject to an
amended ACO with New Jersey to
install selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) by May 1, 2012 to reduce
emissions of NOX. Unit 2 currently
implements controls for limiting SO2
emissions with wet scrubbers and PM
emissions with electrostatic
precipitators (ESP). EPA considers that,
if the Unit 2 implements these NOX
controls by May 12, 2012, Unit 2 will be
implementing maximum control
measures for limiting emissions of NOX,
SO2 and PM, and will meet EPA’s BART
requirements. Unit 3 combusts No. 6
Fuel Oil and primarily operates during
the summer season on days when the
demand for electricity is high. Since
2008, the annual operating capacity has
averaged about 3% and has not been
more than 32% since 1999. This unit
implements SNCR controls for NOX and
is required to comply with a NOX
emission limit of 2.0 lb/MW-hr
(equivalent to about 0.20 lb/MM BTU)
by May 1, 2015. In addition, to control
SO2 emission, this unit must combust
fuel oil with a sulfur limit of 0.50% by
July 1, 2014. EPA considers that, by May
15, 2015, Unit 3 will be implementing
maximum controls for limiting
emissions of NOX, SO2 and PM and will
meet EPA’s BART requirements. For the
three remaining support systems (coal
handling system, cooling tower, and the
emergency diesel engine. EPA considers
the existing operations to be BART. In
addition, RC Cape May, has indicated it
is evaluating the conversion of all three
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49721
electric steam generating units to
natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil. To the
extent that RC Cape May decides to
convert one or all of the units, New
Jersey anticipates that RC Cape May
would submit a specific proposal that
addresses applicable requirements
including BART. For additional details
the reader is referred to the TSD.
c. BART Evaluations for Sources
Identified as BART by New Jersey
The final component of a BART
evaluation is making BART
determinations for all BART subject
sources. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of
the Act requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility that may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. However, a
source that implements the maximum
feasible level of control for its emissions
has met the BART requirements, and no
further analysis is needed. Conversely, a
source that limits its emissions via an
enforceable permit limit no longer needs
to be subject to BART review.
NJDEP properly determined that
Chevron Products, ConocoPhillips
Bayway Refinery, and PSEG Hudson
Generating Station are subject to BART
review. Chevron Products is reducing its
annual combustion limit to bring the
facility’s potential to emit NOX to less
than 250 tons per year (tpy) by March
15, 2011, so no pollutants exceed the
BART threshold and Chevron Products
will not be subject to further BART
analyses. The ConocoPhillips Bayway
Refinery has NOX, SO2, and PM
controls, emission limits, averaging
times, and compliance dates in a
Federally enforceable consent decree
with New Jersey and EPA. Also, the
consent decree requires all the BARTqualified process heaters at the Bayway
facility to eliminate oil burning, and to
only burn refinery fuel gas with
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content less than
162 ppmvd in compliance with NSPS
subpart J. New Jersey expects full
implementation by June 30, 2011. EPA
proposes approval of these BART
evaluations since they were based on
maximum feasible controls or a multifactor analysis.
PSEG Hudson Generating Station has
two boilers serving electric generating
units (E1 and E2) and two coal handling
systems (E22 and E23) that are subject
to BART review. One boiler is coal-fired
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
49722
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(E2) and subject to controls and
Federally enforceable emission limits
effective December 31, 2010, due to a
Federally enforceable consent decree.
The other boiler (E1) primarily
combusts natural gas but is also
permitted to burn No. 6 fuel oil.
At PSEG, the coal receiving system
(E22) and the coal reclaim system (E23)
are support systems to coal-fired boiler
E2 with the potential to emit particulate
emissions only. The conveying systems
are covered and the coal piles are
controlled with a water dust
suppression system. New Jersey
determined that the new selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) and existing
low NOX burners (LNBs), new flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), and new bag
house air pollution control systems for
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and particulate matter (PM),
respectively, for coal-fired boiler E2,
and the existing PM controls for the two
coal handling systems, are BART. In
addition PSEG has submitted an
application to modify the Hudson
operating permit to include the
following more stringent NOX emission
limits: 1.0 lb/MW-hr when burning
natural gas and 2.0 lb/MW-hr when
burning No. 6 fuel oil, with a
compliance date of May 1, 2015, to
coincide with the requirements of the
revised NOX rule at N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.4
Table 3 for E1; and to only burn No. 6
fuel oil, already restricted to 0.3% sulfur
by weight, in this boiler when natural
gas is curtailed, effective upon approval
of the permit modification but no later
than December 31, 2011.
New Jersey’s BART requirements
must be included as operating permit
conditions in accordance with 40 CFR
part 70, and the State regulations
promulgated at N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.
Chevron, PSEG Hudson, and
ConocoPhillips have submitted timely
permit modification applications to
incorporate the BART requirements.
New Jersey has approved the permit
modifications for Chevron and PSEG
Hudson and has proposed the permit
modifications for ConocoPhillips. When
all permit modifications are completed,
New Jersey will submit all of the BART
determinations and associated
documents and permits to EPA as
source-specific SIP revisions.
EPA has reviewed New Jersey’s BART
determinations for all of the BART
eligible sources, including all
supporting documentation, information
and proposed permit modifications.
New Jersey has requested public
comment on the proposed permit
modifications, which identify the
required BART controls, and the
comment periods have closed. New
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Jersey is in the process of addressing
any comments received and issuing the
permit modifications in final form. EPA
proposes to approve New Jersey’s BART
determinations, including the sourcespecific permit modifications as
proposed by New Jersey.
This proposed approval is being
proposed under a procedure called
parallel processing, whereby EPA
proposes rulemaking action
concurrently with the state’s procedures
for amending its regulations or in this
instance amending source specific
operating permits. If the proposed
operating permit revisions are
substantially changed in areas other
than those identified in this document,
EPA will evaluate those changes and
may publish another notice of proposed
rulemaking. If no substantial changes
are made other than those areas cited in
this document, EPA will publish a final
rulemaking on the revisions. The final
rulemaking action by EPA will occur
only after the SIP revision has been
adopted by New Jersey and submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into
the SIP.
EPA proposes to approve New Jersey’s
BART requirements based on the BART
determinations discussed above and the
respective BART limitations on
emissions, source operation and fuel
use. New Jersey’s BART determinations
contain the appropriate regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the sources. Lastly,
New Jersey’s BART determinations
require BART controls be installed and
in operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
Regional Haze SIP, as required in the
CAA and in the RHR.
C. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU
State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation
Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context
of regional haze planning, intended to
create greater certainty and
understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU
States held ten consultation meetings
and/or conference calls from March 1,
2007 through March 21, 2008. In
addition to MANE–VU members
attending these meetings and conference
calls, participants from VISTAS,
Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal
Land Managers also attended. In
addition to the conference calls and
meeting, the FLMs were given the
opportunity to review and comment on
each of the technical documents
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
developed by MANE–VU. No additional
measures beyond those developed as
part of the MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’ were
recommended by other states or the
FLMs.
New Jersey consulted with the FLMs
at a meeting that EPA Region 2 attended
on October 20, 2009 during the
development of the Regional Haze SIP.
New Jersey submitted the draft plan for
review by the FLMs for the required
ninety-day review period before New
Jersey submitted the Regional Haze SIP
to EPA and responded to their
comments in their response to
comments document in Appendix O–3
in the Haze SIP. These actions fulfill
EPA’s requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A public hearing on this proposed SIP
revision was held on October 27, 2008
at the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Public
Hearing Room, Trenton, New Jersey.
Written comments relevant to the
proposal were accepted through
November 28, 2008. The only comments
were submitted by USEPA, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and one of the potential
BART sources. New Jersey responded to
the comments, as listed in Appendix
O–3 of New Jersey’s Regional Haze Plan.
New Jersey commits in its SIP to
ongoing consultation with the FLMs on
regional haze issues throughout the
implementation of the Regional Haze
SIP as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
New Jersey commits to revise and
submit a regional haze implementation
plan by July 31, 2018 to address the next
ten years of progress toward the national
goal in the Act of eliminating manmade
haze by 2064, and to submit a plan
every ten years thereafter, in accordance
with the requirements listed in 40 CFR
51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional
haze. To meet this commitment, New
Jersey expects to rely on the
collaborative regional organization
efforts such as MANE–VU. New Jersey
commits to address the following in its
Mid-Course Review report: Address any
uncertainties encountered during
regional haze planning process; report
on the progress of the BART analysis,
determinations, and implementation;
report on the progress of the Low Sulfur
Fuel Strategy; report on whether
additional potential actions identified in
its plan will be implemented and the
status of those efforts. The reasonable
progress report will evaluate the
progress made towards the RPGs for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge
Class I area, located in New Jersey.
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
In its Regional Haze Plan, New Jersey
committed to review the impact of
proposed sources on visibility under 40
CFR 52.26 and 52.28, by implementing
the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit requirements
for new or modified major sources of air
pollutants located within 100 kilometers
of the Class I area, or within a larger
radius on a case-by-case basis, in
accordance with all applicable Federal
rules for review of the impacts on Class
I areas. New Jersey’s PSD program
prevents new and modified sources
from significantly impacting visibility.
The PSD program includes a
requirement that evaluates the new
source’s visibility impact on any nearby
Class I areas (Brigantine in New Jersey’s
case).
On June 27, 2011, as part of its
acceptance of the PSD delegation from
EPA, New Jersey reaffirmed its
commitment to notify the Federal Land
Manager of new sources that may
impact the Class I area, in accordance
with 40 CFR 52.21(p).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for
regional haze in New Jersey is the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environment (IMPROVE)
network. There is currently one
IMPROVE site in New Jersey, in the
Brigantine Wilderness Area of the
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge. IMPROVE monitoring data from
2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the
regional haze program, and is relied
upon in the July 28, 2009 regional haze
submittal. Data produced by the
IMPROVE monitoring network are
essential for the verification of the
effects of changes in emissions on
visibility in Class I areas and will be
needed for preparing the 5-year progress
reports and the 10-year SIP revisions,
each of which relies on analysis of the
preceding five years of data. In addition,
New Jersey operates a comprehensive
PM2.5 network of filter-based Federal
reference method monitors, continuous
mass monitors, filter based speciated
monitors and the continuous speciated
monitors.
New Jersey will continue to operate
and maintain the monitoring site at the
Brigantine Wilderness Area. EPA will
continue its discussions with New
Jersey during the course of periodic
network reviews on the location of the
monitors and the number of monitors in
its monitoring network.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
New Jersey committed to continuing
to submit periodic emission inventories,
a mid-course review and a revised plan
for the next ten-year period starting in
2018.
V. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve a
revision to New Jersey’s State
Implementation Plan submitted on July
28, 2009, that addressed progress
toward reducing regional haze for the
first implementation period ending in
2018. The submittal was augmented by
submittals on December 9, 2010 with
New Jersey’s adopted regulation
lowering the sulfur content in fuel and
on March 2, 2011 which included BART
determinations and controls. EPA is
proposing to determine that New
Jersey’s Regional Haze SIP contains the
emission reductions needed to achieve
New Jersey’s share of emission
reductions that were determined to be
reasonable through the regional
planning process. Furthermore, New
Jersey’s Regional Haze Plan ensures that
emissions from the State will not
interfere with the reasonable progress
goals for neighboring States’ Class I
areas. Thus, EPA is proposing that the
Regional Haze Plan submitted by New
Jersey satisfies the requirements of the
CAA. EPA is taking this action pursuant
to those provisions of the Act. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document and
will consider these comments before
taking final action.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
approve New Jersey’s Subchapter 9,
Sulfur in Fuel rule, which is one of the
measures needed to fulfill New Jersey’s
Reasonable Progress Plan.
This proposed approval is being
proposed under a procedure called
parallel processing, whereby EPA
proposes rulemaking action
concurrently with the state’s procedures
for amending its regulations or in this
instance amending source specific
operating permits to incorporate BART.
If the proposed operating permit
revisions are substantially changed in
areas other than those identified in this
action, EPA will evaluate those changes
and may publish another notice of
proposed rulemaking. If no substantial
changes are made other than those areas
cited in this action, EPA will publish a
final rulemaking on the revisions. The
final rulemaking action by EPA will
occur only after the SIP revision has
been adopted by New Jersey and
submitted formally to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49723
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule
approving New Jersey’s Regional Haze
Plan does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
the SIP does not apply to Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
49724
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 2, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011–20482 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:43 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49711-49724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20482]
[[Page 49711]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0607, FRL-9450-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of New Jersey; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the revision to the State
Implementation Plan submitted by the State of New Jersey on July 28,
2009, and supplemented on December 9, 2010, and March 2, 2011, that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act and
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I
areas caused by emissions of air pollutants located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program'').
States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. This
plan protects and improves visibility levels in New Jersey's Class I
area, the Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge, as well as other Class I areas in the Northeast United
States. New Jersey's SIP is in two parts: Reasonable Progress and
application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology. EPA is
proposing to approve the Reasonable Progress portion of the plan, since
New Jersey has adopted all of the reasonably available measures
recommended by the states during the development of the SIP. EPA is
proposing approval of New Jersey's plans to implement Best Available
Retrofit Technologies on eligible sources, as well New Jersey's
Subchapter 9, Sulfur in Fuels.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2011-0607, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
Fax: 212-637-3901.
Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2011-
0607. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/air/docket.html.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation
Planning Section, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New
York, New York 10007-1866. The telephone number is (212) 637-4049. Mr.
Kelly can also be reached via electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs?
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
E. Long-Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
IV. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling to Support the Long-Term Strategy and Determine
Visibility Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
5. Subchapter 9--Sulfur In Fuels
6. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
a. BART-Eligible Sources in New Jersey
b. Identification and Evaluation of Additional BART-Eligible
Sources in New Jersey
c. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as BART by New Jersey
C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
D. Periodic SIP revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
[[Page 49712]]
F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, wherever ``Agency,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve the State of New Jersey's (New
Jersey's) July 28, 2009 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
addressing regional haze under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). New Jersey's Regional Haze SIP revision
implements all measures determined by the State to be reasonable and
addresses New Jersey's Reasonable Progress Goals (RPG), as required by
the Act. RPGs are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal. New Jersey's Regional Haze SIP revision also
implements Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) on
eligible facilities subject to the regional haze program.
Consistent with EPA guidance and regulations, (see 70 FR 39104,
39106 (July 6, 2005)), many states relied on EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to satisfy key elements of Regional Haze SIPs. The D.C.
Circuit, however, found CAIR to be inconsistent with the requirements
of the Act and remanded the rule to the Agency. North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896, 929-30 (D.C. Cir. 2008); modified on rehearing, North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to
the remand of the CAIR rule, on July 6, 2011 EPA finalized the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); a rule intended to reduce the
interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone, located at
https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule.
Although New Jersey was subject to CAIR, its Regional Haze SIP did
not rely on CAIR to meet the requirements for BART or for attaining the
in-state emissions reductions necessary to ensure reasonable progress,
instead, New Jersey evaluated controls for its potential BART sources.
New Jersey made BART determinations for its BART-eligible sources,
including Electric Generating Units (EGUs) that might have been
controlled under CAIR. Similarly, its long-term strategy for attaining
the RPG at the Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin B. Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge (Brigantine) includes controls on EGUs in New
Jersey. Therefore, the remand of CAIR has no negative effect on the
amount of emission reductions New Jersey will achieve from its Regional
Haze SIP revision. This action and the accompanying Technical Support
Document (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed approval of New
Jersey's Regional Haze SIP revision proposal.
New Jersey has met all of its obligations with respect to the
Regional Haze SIP requirements, including the recommendation\1\ of the
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning
organization. New Jersey should not be required to substitute for any
emissions shortfalls in other states' plans, especially if other states
expected that EPA's CAIR program would be available as part of their
RPGs or their BART controls. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve New
Jersey's Regional Haze SIP revision, since it adopts all the measures
determined to be reasonable by New Jersey, as evaluated by the states
working together through MANE-VU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 20, 2007, MANE-VU adopted two documents which
provide the technical basis for consultation among the interested
parties and define the basic strategies for controlling pollutants
that cause visibility impairment at Class I areas in the eastern
United States. The documents, entitled ``Statement of the Mid-
Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of
Action within MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress,'' and
``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States outside of
MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress'' are together known as
the MANE-VU ``Ask.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by many
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area
and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
Visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the
time at most national parks and wilderness areas, many of which are
also referred to as Federal Class I areas.
In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress initiated a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness
areas. Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act establishes as a national goal the
``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' In 1990 Congress added
section 169B to the Act to address regional haze issues. On July 1,
1999 EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The
requirement to submit a Regional Haze SIP applies to New Jersey and all
50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) of the RHR required states to submit the first implementation
plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than
December 17, 2007.
On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a finding that New Jersey failed to
submit the Regional Haze SIP. New Jersey subsequently submitted its
Regional Haze SIP on July 28, 2009. EPA's January 15, 2009 finding
established a two-year deadline of January 15, 2011 for EPA to either
approve New Jersey's Regional Haze SIP, or adopt a Federal
implementation plan. This proposed action is intended to address the
January 15, 2009 finding.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. New Jersey participates in the MANE-VU RPO, which also
includes the state and tribal governments of Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Nation,
and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
III. What are the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs?
The following is a basic explanation of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308
for a complete listing of the regulations under which this SIP revision
was evaluated.
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the Act and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
[[Page 49713]]
visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range, which is the
greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can
be viewed against the sky. The dv is calculated from visibility
measurements. Each dv change is an equal incremental change in
visibility perceived by the human eye. For this reason, EPA believes it
is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility. Most
people can detect a change in visibility at one dv.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility
goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline,
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility.
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by manmade air pollution
by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., manmade sources
of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part
of the process for determining reasonable progress, the RHR requires
states to calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at
each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five years midway through each 10-
year planning period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in dv) for the average of the 20 percent
least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'')
visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I
areas. In addition, the RHR requires states to develop an estimate of
natural visibility conditions for the purposes of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf),
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the initial regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, baseline visibility conditions were used as the starting points
for assessing current visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data for 2000
through 2004, the RHR required states to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of
annual values over the five year period. The comparison of initial
baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions
indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the
then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In
general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time from
which improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states
that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each (approximately) 10-year
planning period is the vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards
achieving the natural visibility goal. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. In
setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for
the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired
days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in the Act and
in EPA's RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst
days for each applicable Class I area. (See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)).
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors
into consideration, as noted in our Reasonable Progress guidance.\4\ In
setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed
to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the
``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission
reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-
year period of the SIP. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more
Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially
``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I
State's areas. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''),
July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators,
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp.4-2, 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the Act directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, the Act requires states to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing stationary sources \5\ built between
1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available
Retrofit Control Technology (BART)'' as determined by the state. (CAA
169A(b)(2)(A)). States are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-
specific BART controls, states
[[Page 49714]]
also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or
other alternative program as long as the alternative provides equal or
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. The BART Guidelines require states to use the
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines in making a BART
applicability determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. The
BART Guidelines encourage, but do not require states to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.
The BART Guidelines recommend that states address all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
PM. The BART Guidelines direct states to use their best judgment in
determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia
(NH3) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor. (70 FR 39170, (July 6,
2005)).
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP, as required in the Act (section 169A(g)(4)) and in the RHR
(40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source. States have the
flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to
meet the requirements of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the Act that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their SIPs. The LTS
is the compilation of all control measures a state will use to meet any
applicable RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within,
or affected by emissions from, the state. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state
must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP revision. Future
coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress
towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP
submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f)
and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic reviews of a state's LTS must
report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted
to EPA as a SIP revision, in accordance with 51.308.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation
in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE)
network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze
SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
[[Page 49715]]
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's regional haze submittal?
On July 28, 2009 the State of New Jersey submitted a revision to
the New Jersey SIP to address regional haze in the State's Class I
Brigantine Wilderness Area as required by EPA's RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
New Jersey contains a Class I area, the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge, where visual impairment that the FLMs have identified
as an important value that must be addressed in regional haze plans.
Emissions from New Jersey also influence the amount of visibility
impairment of Class I areas located in Maine, New Hampshire, and
Vermont. New Jersey's Regional Haze SIP will help to improve visibility
in these states. Thus, New Jersey is responsible for developing a
Regional Haze SIP that addresses its own and other Class I areas, that
describes its long-term emission strategy, its role in the consultation
processes, and how its SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's
regional haze regulations. Because New Jersey is home to a Class I
area, New Jersey has the additional responsibility to address the
following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and
natural visibility conditions, (b) establishment of RPGs, (c)
monitoring requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements as required by EPA's
RHR.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
As described above, the Long Term Strategy (LTS) is a compilation
of state-specific control measures relied on by the state to obtain its
share of emission reductions to support the RPGs for the Brigantine
National Wildlife Refuge. New Jersey's LTS for the first implementation
period, addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and
local controls that take effect in the State from the baseline period
starting in 2002 until 2018. New Jersey participated in the MANE-VU RPO
regional strategy development process. As a participant, New Jersey
supported a regional approach towards deciding which control measures
to pursue for regional haze, which was based on technical analyses
documented in the following reports: (a) Contributions to Regional Haze
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States \6\; (b) Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas \7\; (c)
Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for
Conducting BART Determinations \8\; and (d) Assessment of Control
Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers,
Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp Facilities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NESCAUM Report at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/
contributions-to-regional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic--
united-states/.
\7\ MANE-VU Report at https://www.otcair.org/manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports.
\8\ NESCAUM Report at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/.
\9\ NESCAUM Report at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LTS was developed by New Jersey, in coordination with MANE-VU,
identifying the emissions units within New Jersey that likely have the
largest impacts currently on visibility at the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, estimating emissions reductions for 2018,
based on all controls required under Federal and state regulations for
the 2002-2018 period (including BART), and comparing projected
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
New Jersey's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions and includes enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established for the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association for MANE-VU with assistance from New Jersey. The 2018
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions, and
assuming emissions growth due to projected increases in economic
activity as well as applying reductions expected from Federal and state
regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and
SO2. The BART guidelines direct states to exercise judgment
in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their
Class I area(s). As discussed further below, MANE-VU demonstrated that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the
total ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small. In
addition, since VOC emissions are aggressively controlled through the
New Jersey ozone SIP, the pollutants New Jersey considered under BART
are NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and
SO2.
In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, and the 2018
projection inventory, New Jersey relied primarily upon the information
and analyses developed by MANE-VU to meet the requirements of EPA's
regional haze rules. Based on information from the contribution
assessment and additional emission inventory analyses, MANE-VU
identified the following source categories for further examination for
reasonable measures:
Coal and oil-fired EGUs;
Point and area source industrial, commercial and
institutional (ICI) boilers;
Cement and Lime Kilns;
Heating oil; and
Residential wood combustion.
MANE-VU, for its member states and tribes, analyzed these potential
source categories based on the four factors listed in section
169A(g)(1) of the Act and in Section III.C of this action. New Jersey
and the MANE-VU states agreed with the analysis that determined that
reasonable controls existed for coal and oil-fired EGUs, industrial,
commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers and that reducing the sulfur
content of heating oil was a reasonable strategy. Additionally, MANE-VU
determined that due to the lack of specific data for the wide range of
residential wood boilers, it was not reasonable to set
[[Page 49716]]
particular reductions amounts for emissions from residential wood
boilers.
New Jersey adopted controls on EGUs and boilers. While New Jersey's
plan does not include emission reduction regulations for residential
wood boilers, New Jersey will consider state specific wood burning
provisions, which was the strategy agreed to by the MANE-VU states. ICI
boiler controls were implemented as an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
regional measure for VOC and NOX controls that have benefits
for reducing regional haze. New Jersey does not have any cement or lime
kilns. More details on the adopted controls are described later in this
section.
After identifying potential control measures and performing the
four factor analysis, MANE-VU performed initial modeling that showed
the visibility impacts from the implementation of the measures. The
initial modeling results showed that the projected 2018 visibility on
the 20% worst days at the Brigantine Wilderness area was at least as
good at the uniform rate of progress. Details of MANE-VU's initial
modeling were later documented in the MANE-VU Modeling for RPGs
report.\10\ Based on the modeling results and other analysis performed
by MANE-VU, the MANE-VU states developed ``Asks,'' which are ``emission
management'' strategies. These strategies served as the basis for the
consultation with the other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals. February 7,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the modeling needed to assess the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPG, MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for
four inventory source classifications: (1) Stationary point sources,
(2) area sources, (3) off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile
sources. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
also developed an inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-
VU region. Stationary point emission sources are those sources that
emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the
pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. Area source
emissions are from stationary sources whose individual emissions are
relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions from the source category could be significant.
Off-road mobile source emissions are from equipment that can move but
do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are from
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road
type. Biogenic sources emissions are from natural sources like trees,
crops, grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources
emission data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source
types emissions are summed on the county level.
There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and New Jersey anticipate will reduce emissions between
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement
by 2018 in the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge. To assess emissions
reductions from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and
reasonable progress goals; MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections
called Best and Final. The emissions inventory provided in the Best and
Final 2018 projections is based on adopted and enforceable
requirements, as well as Federal programs, such as Federal motor
vehicle control programs and maximum achievable control technologies
(MACT).
These measures are included in the MANE-VU modeling used to
determine the amount of progress in the improvement of visibility in
Class I areas. MANE-VU States agreed to implement several measures at
the state level. These measures are: a timely implementation of BART
requirements, 90 percent or more reduction in sulfur dioxide at 167
stacks identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures), and
low sulfur fuel oil regulations (with limits specified for each state).
Controls from various Federal MACT regulations were also utilized
in the development of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These
MACTs include the industrial boiler/process heater MACT, the combustion
turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, and the
VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards.
EPA's industrial boiler/process heater MACT was vacated on June 8,
2007.\11\ The MANE-VU States, including the State of New Jersey,
included these controls in modeling for their regional haze SIPs. EPA
accepts these emission reductions in the modeling for the following
reasons. EPA expects to propose a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to
address the vacatur in October 2011 and issue a final rule in April
2012, giving New Jersey time to assure the required controls are in
place prior to the end of the first planning period in 2018. In the
absence of an established MACT for boilers and process heaters, the
statutory language in section 112(j) of the Act specifies a schedule
for the incorporation of enforceable MACT-equivalent limits into the
Title V operating permits of affected sources. Should circumstances
warrant the need to enact section 112(j) of the Act for industrial
boilers, compliance with case-by-case MACT limits for industrial
boilers would occur no later than January 2015, which is well before
the 2018 RPGs for regional haze. The RHR also requires that any
resulting differences between emissions projections and actual
emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-
year review prior to the next regional haze SIP. In addition, the
expected reductions due to the original, vacated Industrial Boiler MACT
rule were relatively small compared to the State's projected total
SO2 emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to two percent of the
projected 2018 SOX, PM2.5 and coarse particulate
matter (PM10) inventory), and are not likely to affect any
of New Jersey's modeling conclusions. Thus, even if there is a need to
address discrepancies between the projected emissions reductions from
the now vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and actual reductions achieved
by the replacement MACT, we do not expect that this would be
significant enough to affect the adequacy of the New Jersey Regional
Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MANE-VU States' goal was to reduce SO2 emissions
from the largest emission units in the eastern United States by 90
percent or if it was infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, an
alternative had to be identified that could include other point
sources. In New Jersey, there are four of the 167 units identified by
MANE-VU as having the highest SO2 emissions in the eastern
United States. New Jersey has reduced emissions from these four units
at each facility by more than 90 percent, thus meeting and exceeding
this portion of the reasonable progress goals.
New Jersey is fulfilling its goal of achieving the emission
reductions needed to meet its contribution to the reasonable progress
goals projected by the MANE-VU modeling with the following measures:
BART controls on all BART-eligible facilities, 90 percent or more
control at the four New Jersey units from the 167 EGU units identified
by MANE-VU, reductions due to New Jersey's Mercury rule, adoption of
performance standards at all coal-fired boilers in New Jersey, adoption
of the
[[Page 49717]]
lower limits on fuel oil and the measures listed in Table 1 developed
for other programs that support regional haze emission reduction goals.
Table 1--Additional State Control Measures That Support Regional Haze Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control measures Status Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Idling Rule Changes....... Rule adopted May 25, Direct PM2.5 and NOX reductions.
2007.
High Electrical Demand Day units. Rule adopted March 20, SO2 and NOX reductions.
2009.
Oil and gas Fired Electric Rule adopted March 20, NOX reductions.
Generating Units (EGUs). 2009.
Sewage Sludge Incinerators....... Rule adopted March 20, NOX reductions.
2009.
Case by Case NOX Emission Limit Rule adopted March 20, NOX reductions.
Determinations (FSELs/AELs). 2009.
Glass Manufacturing.............. Rule adopted March 20, NOX reductions but most benefits will occur post-
2009. 2010.
Municipal Waste Combustor Rule adopted March 20, NOX reductions.
(Incinerator) NOX Rule. 2009.
Asphalt Production Plants........ Rule adopted March 20, NOX reductions.
2009.
Diesel Smoke (I/M Cutpoint) Rule Rule adopted April 3, PM2.5 and NOX reductions.
Changes. 2009.
Onroad New Jersey Low Emission Adopted November 28, VOC, NOX, SO2, and direct PM2.5 reductions.
Vehicle (LEV) Program. 2005.
Energy Master Plan............... Finalized October 22, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal measures and other control programs relied upon by New
Jersey include EPA's NOX SIP Call; measures adopted for New
Jersey's 1-hour and 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs, Federal
2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for on-road trucks and busses;
Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; Federal large
spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road
diesel rules. New Jersey also relied on emission reductions from
various Federal MACTs that were vacated, but, as described above, EPA
expects these rules to be adopted by 2018, and should not negatively
affect New Jersey's fulfillment of its commitment to meet the RPGs. In
addition, the RHR requires that any resulting differences between
emissions projections and actual emissions reductions that may occur
will be addressed during the five-year review prior to the next 2018
Regional Haze SIP.
Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for New Jersey. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emission growth as well as emission reductions due to
ongoing emission control strategies to meet RPGs and BART.
These emissions were used in the modeling that demonstrated that
the Brigantine Wildlife Refuge Class I area would meet the Reasonable
Progress Goal set for 2018. New Jersey adopted the emission reduction
programs that are forecast to improve visibility to meet the goal for
2018, thus New Jersey is projected to achieve its goal for the first
implementation period.
Table 2--New Jersey/MANE-VU Modeling Inventory Summary, 2002 Base Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC CO NH3 Primary PM10 Primary PM2.5 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 51,593 16,547 12,301 0 6,072 4,779 61,217
Area.................................... 26,692 167,883 97,657 17,572 31,664 17,044 10,744
Non-Road................................ 63,479 83,919 704,396 43 5,501 4,997 15,686
On-Road................................. 161,289 110,529 1,461,653 7,316 3,785 2,529 3,627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 303,053 378,877 2,276,006 24,931 47,021 29,350 91,273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--New Jersey/MANE-VU Modeling Inventory Summary, 2018 Projection Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC CO NH3 Primary PM10 Primary PM2.5 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 31,100 20,267 19,855 564 8,969 7,745 23,421
Area.................................... 21,684 134,089 83,119 21,435 31,874 15,220 1,781
Non-Road................................ 41,166 53,625 831,880 52 3,489 3,143 832
On-Road................................. 30,150 31,415 742,000 8,555 1,232 1,140 785
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 124,100 239,396 1,676,854 30,606 45,564 27,247 26,819
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the
states, the District of Columbia and tribal nations located in Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast portions of the United States. The modeling
analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of
the modeling system. MANE-VU used a modeling system described below and
discussed in more detail in the TSD.
The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) version
4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM,
visibility and acid deposition on a regional scale. CMAQ modeling of
regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and 2018 was carried out
on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 MANE-VU
States and the District of Columbia and states adjacent to them. This
grid is nested within a
[[Page 49718]]
larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers
the continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and
portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west
coasts. Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial
for evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an in-depth analysis that
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-
December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting
the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States' modeling was developed
consistent with EPA guidance.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at https://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/, EPA-454/R-05-
001, August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling
Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), New Jersey provided the
supporting documentation for all required analyses used to determine
the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to develop
the glide path and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's RHR,
and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the MANE-VU
technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility
improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling
system was chosen and used in accordance with EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model performance procedures and results,
and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze
assessments for the New Jersey LTS and Regional Haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
MANE-VU's contribution assessment demonstrated that sulfate is the
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate
particles commonly account for more than 50 percent of particle-related
light extinction at northeastern Class I areas on the clearest days and
for as much as or more than 80 percent on the haziest days. In
particular, for the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I area,
on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2000-2004, sulfate accounted
for 66 percent of the particles responsible for light extinction. After
sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts for the next largest
fraction of light extinction due to particles. Organic carbon accounted
for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility
days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of
light extinction.
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach should rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States. EPA
proposes to accept this conclusion as a reasonable strategy in the
eastern United States where reductions in SO2 emissions will
result in the greatest improvements in visibility.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
New Jersey contains a Class I area, the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, located on the New Jersey shoreline,
north of Atlantic City. The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states
to establish RPGs for each Class I area within the state (expressed in
deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility. MANE-VU calculated the RPG for the Class I areas in
the MANE-VU states, and the CMAQ projections of the effect of emission
reductions on visibility in the target year at the end of the first
period, 2018, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4--Reasonable Progress Goals and Projected Future Visibility for the Brigantine Wilderness Area, Developed
by MANE-VU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural
Baseline background Reasonable 2018 CMAQ
visibility conditions for progress goal projections
(2000-2004) 2064 for 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days.............................. 29.0 12.2 25.1 25.1
20% Best Days............................... 14.3 5.5 14.3 12.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(All values expressed as deciviews--lower deciviews means better visibility.)
[[Page 49719]]
From the MANE-VU analysis, New Jersey determined that if the MANE-
VU states adopted certain measures, and states in the surrounding
regions adopted similar measures, the Class I areas would meet the RPG
for the first progress period ending in 2018. These measures for the
MANE-VU states are: Implementation of BART requirements, a 90 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions from 167 EGU emission points (or
equivalent emission reduction) and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy. New
Jersey adopted regulations sufficient to meet its contribution to the
reduction of emissions needed to provide reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility: A 90 percent or greater reduction in
SO2 emissions from each of the four EGU stacks located in
New Jersey, adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy, implementation
of BART requirements during the first progress period, as well as
continued evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions.
The MANE-VU states' goal was to reduce SO2 emissions
from the highest emission stacks in the eastern United States by 90
percent or, if it was infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, an
alternative had to be identified that could include other point
sources. In New Jersey, there are four of the 167 units identified by
MANE-VU as having the highest emissions in the eastern United States.
New Jersey has reduced emissions from these sources at each facility by
more than 90 percent, thus meeting this portion of the reasonable
progress measures.
The modeling predicted that these emission control regulations
would result in better visibility which would meet the 25.1 deciviews
goal of reasonable progress by 2018 for the Brigantine Class I area. At
the time of MANE-VU modeling, some of the other states with sources
potentially impacting visibility, in the Class I areas in both New
Jersey and the rest of the MANE-VU domain, had not yet made final
control determinations for BART, and thus, these controls are not
included in the modeling prepared by MANE-VU and used by New Jersey. At
that time, not all of the emission reductions from New Jersey's BART-
eligible sources were included in the modeling. Any controls resulting
from those determinations will provide addit
