August 7, 2007

VIA E-MAIL

Attn: DEP Docket #14-07-06
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Alice A. Previte, Esq.
Office of Legal Affairs
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ  08625-00402

Re: DEP Docket #14-07-06
Comments on New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Proposal (“SIP Revision Proposal”)

Dear Ms. Previte,

I am writing on behalf of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association (NJBIA) in response to the above-referenced proposal.  NJBIA represents over 23,600 businesses in the State of New Jersey, many of which are considerably impacted by the proposed 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Proposal, hereinafter referred to as the SIP Proposal.  While NJBIA supports some of the measures included in the SIP proposal, we still have serious concerns with other proposed measures as outlined below.

It is clear from the data presented in the SIP Proposal that the Department has made great strides toward achieving ozone attainment in New Jersey and their efforts should be commended.  However, we believe that more discussion is needed before the Department proceeds with rulemaking to implement the proposed control measures.  Thus far, there has been a positive and open dialogue between the Department and stakeholders regarding the proposed control measures, and this dialogue should continue.  NJBIA believes that the final rules that account for stakeholder input will be more successful in meeting the Department’s goal of achieving ozone attainment by September 2010, than rules that do not employ all of the technical resources available to the Department.  Accordingly, we offer the following comments which include general comments, supportive comments and comments outlining our concerns:

• In the SIP Proposal, the Department has identified many State and Federal control strategies either in place or are “on-the-way” that will result in VOC and NOx emission reductions, and hopefully, ozone attainment by 2009;

• Additional measures characterized as “beyond-all-the-way,” that have been identified as plausible, also support that attainment will be reached.  These “beyond-all-the-way” measures are, in large part, the source categories proposed for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rulemakings in the Department’s February 2, 2007 SIP Revision;

• According to the SIP proposal, the majority of the proposed RACT source categories have not factored into the 2010 attainment demonstration.  Specifically, the “refinery RACT rules” and the “petroleum storage tank RACT rules” are not factored into the 2010 attainment modeling;

• The Department participated in productive meetings with stakeholders regarding upcoming petroleum storage tank RACT rules and refinery RACT rules.  It was made clear in those meetings that significant control measures would not be in place by 2009.  Therefore, this proposal should not allude to any control measures that could not be in place by 2009 (Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit {FCCU} retrofits, covers for external floating roof tanks, vapor recovery systems, or any tank retrofits);

• Of the long term VOC reduction measures being considered for RACT, the control of VOC emissions from floating roof tank roof landings requires additional due-process before RACT regulations can be written.  The emission quantification method was published only 9 months ago, so inventory information is still being developed, and many control measures will not be implemented in time to help achieve attainment by 2010.  Furthermore, we still do not have sufficient data to accurately assess the economic impacts of rulemaking that would require these measures.  Therefore, the Department should delay RACT rules for these VOC control measures for at least one year;

• The Department has appropriately factored in the real emission reductions from the refinery enforcement initiative into its 2010 attainment modeling; 

• The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) model rules for refineries do little more than apply these facility-specific refinery initiatives on an industry-wide basis, with minimal additional environmental benefit, but at a significant cost.  (NJBIA wrote a letter in opposition to the MARAMA draft model rule in October 2006) In fact, both the NJ stakeholders and MARAMA agree that there are almost no incremental emission reductions that will occur by 2009 as a result of imposing the MARAMA model rules as RACT on top of the current or pending refinery enforcement initiatives.  The MARAMA model rules will not help NJ meet its attainment goals and need not become NJ RACT Rules.

• Neither the MARAMA model rules nor the Department’s Whitepaper on petroleum storage tank emission controls are based on New Jersey-specific emission inventories.  Good data is the foundation for any good rulemaking process.  Such data will allow the Department to target appropriate subcategories of sources for their rulemaking efforts, rather than simply taking a broad based approach based on limited data.  NJBIA would respectfully request that the department do a more thorough assessment, based on New Jersey specific data, prior to proceeding with this rulemaking process.

NJBIA appreciates the opportunity to express our concerns on this proposal.  If requested, our organization would also serve as a liaison between industry and the Department in any future meetings to discuss the SIP Revision Proposal.  If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me at (609) 393-7707, extension 236.   

Sincerely,

David H. Brogan
Vice President, Environmental Policy
New Jersey Business and Industry Association