# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HEARINGREPORT Prepared Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 51 .102 Regarding a Revision to the State Implementation Plan: Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update

Hearing Officer: Merrily A

. Gere Date of Hearing: August 27, 2009 On July 27, 2009, the Commissioner ofthe Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) published a notice of intent to revise the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality to: (1) address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A ofthe federal Clean Air Act (CAA) ; and (2) update RACT requirements, given the promulgation of eleven federal control techniques guidelines (CTGs) in 2006through 2008. Pursuant to such notice, a public hearing was held on August 27, 2009, with the public commentperiod closing on August 28, 2009. This hearing report addresses only the RACT update proposal, comment and final recommended SIP revision. I . Hearing Report Content This report describes the revision to the SIP as proposed for hearing; the comment made and a response thereto; and the final recommendation based on the proposal and comment received. II . Summary and Purpose of Proposal On February 1, 2008, CTDEP submitted to the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an attainment demonstration SIP revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. That attainment demonstration includes an analysis of how Connecticut's SIP complies with the RACT requirements of the CAA . EPA's adoption ofeleven CTGs in 2006 through 2008 requires that CTDEP update its RACT analysis. In the proposed SIPrevision, CTDEP makes negative declarations for three CTGsource categories (flat wood paneling coating, fiberglass boat manufacturing, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating) ; provides a statement of equivalency for one CTG (miscellaneous industrial adhesives) ; and indicates the status of pending CTDEPregulatory revisions for the seven remaining CTGs (industrial cleaning solvents; offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing; flexible package printing; paper, filmand foil coating; large appliance coating; metal furniture coating; miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating) . (Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 ElmStreet * Hartford, CT 06106-5127

www .ct.gov/dep An Equal Opportunity Employer111. Summary of Comments

EPAwas the only commenter onthe SIP proposal, as follows: Anne Arnold, Manager Air Quality Planning Unit U .S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 Mcconnell .robert@epamail .epa.gov EPA's comment is summarized below with CTDEP's response. Comment: CTDEP's RACT update to address CTGs issued by EPAin 2006through 2008 includes a determination that the state's existing adhesives and sealants rule (section 22a-174-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA)) represents an equivalent level of control as compared to EPA' s CTGfor miscellaneous industrial adhesives. In most cases, the VOCemission limits of Connecticut's rule and EPA's CTGare identical, although some differences do exist. For example, EPA's limit for wood adhesives (30grams/liter) is more stringent than the comparable limit in Connecticut's rule (120 grams/liter), but Connecticut's limit forautomotive glass adhesive primer (700 grams/liter) is more stringent than the comparable limit in EPA's CTG(900grams/liter) . In addition to these emission limits, there are other potentially more significant differences that Connecticut should consider in making the equivalency determination. " For example, EPA's CTGcontains a recommendation that certain application methods such as electrostatic spray, high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray, and airless spray methods be used in conjunction with the recommended VOCemission limits. Connecticut's adhesives and sealant rule does not address this. We note that other Connecticut rules, such as RCSA section 22a-174-3c regarding automotive refinishing operations, do contain application method requirements. " Additionally, although both the Connecticut rule and EPA's CTGcontain many similar exemptions, Connecticut's rule includes additional exemptions not found in the CTG . For example, subsection (c)(9) of RCSA section 22a-174-44 provides an exemption for the United States military. This provision, as currently structured, is very broad and does not require any type of showing be made that the emission limits within Connecticut's rule are impracticable for the military to meet . Given the fairly large number of U .S. military facilities in Connecticut, this exemption is likely to lowerthe emission reduction potential ofthe state s rule. Response: RCSAsection 22a-174-44 differs from the CTGrecommendations in one aspect crucial to Connecticut's view of RCSAsection 22a-174-44 as equivalent. RCSA section 22a-174-44 applies to manufacturers, sellers and users ofregulated products, while the CTGrecommendations only apply to users of regulated products at industrial facilities. The much greater breadth of Connecticut's applicability produces emissions reductions beyond those of the CTGrecommendations, which makes up for anydecreased emissions benefits that may result fromthe lack of specific application techniques] and additional exemptions. Furthermore, the CTGrecommendations do not include adhesives applied to EPDM single-ply roofmembrane, the dominant single-ply roof material in Connecticut, which, by some estimates, is alone responsible for as much as 25% of Connecticut's summer day emissions fromregulated adhesives and sealants. For these twodifferences in applicability, CTDEP maintains that the emissions benefits of RCSA section 22a-174-44 are at least equivalent to, ifnot greater than, the emissions benefits of the CTG recommendations for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. CTDEP should submit the RACT update SIP without revision to the discussion of RCSAsection 22a-174-44. IV. Hearing Officer Comment Final regulations that are responsive to six of the CTGs discussed in Table 2 of the RACT update have been adopted, effective April 6, 2010 . Table 2and the text discussing Table 2 should be revised consistent with the adoption of the CTG-based regulatory requirements, and the newly adopted regulatory requirements should be submitted to EPAwith the RACT update. V . Conclusion I recommend that the proposed RACT update SIPrevision be revised as recommended in this report and be submitted to EPAfor approval .

April 28, 2010 Date

' DEP'sexperience is that industrial users ofadhesives andcoatings use those application methods that reduce waste becausethey are cost effective; such waste reducing methods often happen to be those same methods that reduce VOCemissions.