# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONJ\tIENTAL PROTECTION

February 8, 2011 Mr. David Conroy, ChiefofAir Programs Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I 5 Post Office Square Mail Code: OEP05-2 Boston, MA 02109-3912 Re: Clean Data Detennination for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Dear Mr. Conroy: The Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) hereby requests the United· States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make a determination that the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area has attained the 24-hour fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) established by EPA in 2006. This request is based on recent air quality data from monitors located throughout the NYNJ-CT nonattainment area, including Fairfield and New Haven Counties in Connecticut, all of which measure compliance with the NAAQS. DEP works diligently and in partnership with EPA, and the states ofNew York and NewJersey to assure clean air for our citizens. The air quality monitors throughout the area tell a compelling story
- our air is cleaner and we are protecting public health. As demonstrated in the attachment to this correspondence, all air quality monitors in the Connecticut portion ofthe NY-NJ-CT area achieved attainment ofthe 24-hour PM2.5standard for the 2008-2010 period, the most recent period with fully quality assured, quality controlled and Connecticut certified monitoring data. Connecticut's maximum 2010 design value l 

### of291lg/m3, 

### measured at Criscuolo Park and State Street in New Haven, is well below the 351lglm31evel ofthe 2006 PM2 .5NAAQS. Air quality monitors in the New York and New Jersey portions ofthe NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area also reached attainment ofthe 2006 PM2 .5 

### NAAQS for the most recent design value period ending in 2009, with maximum design values of331lg/m3 

### in both states. Therefore, it is appropriate at this time to request a clean data detennination for the 2006 24-hr PM2 .5NAAQS for the entire NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area. Notably and due to our ongoing partnership, attainment levels have been achieved well in advance ofthe December 2014 statutory deadline. It 

### is our understanding that an EPA clean data detennination for the 2006 24-hr PM25 NAAQS suspends the requirement for DEP to submit an attainment demonstration and associated

I Design Values are developed in accordance to 40 CRF 50 Appendix N (Printed on Recycled PapcO 79 Elm Sireet • Ilartford. CT 06106-51

### n www.ct.gov/dep A/I Equal OPI'0r!lll/;II' ElI/ployerreasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and otherplanning items related to attainment ofthe PM2.5NAAQS, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004. The DEP also understands that the suspension ofthese planning requirements can be rescinded ifEPA subsequently issues a finding that the area is no longer attaining the NAAQS. As described in the attachment, the measured improvements in PM2 .5 air quality are due to a variety ofstate and federal control programs implemented to reduce emissions ofPM2.5 and its precursorpollutants. Connecticut was one ofthe first states to adopt annual limits for both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and other large industrial sources. Connecticut has also adopted motor vehicle emission standards for new light and medium duty vehicles that are more stringent than the federal standards and continues to sponsor retrofit programs to reduce PM2.S emissions from the existing vehicle fleet. Our efforts notwithstanding, DEP recognizes and values ourpartnership with EPA; many federal programs have also furthered our clean air goals such as low sulfur fuel standards for gasoline and dieselfuel, and heavy duty diesel engine standards. As sound science provides an ever better understanding ofthe impact offmeparticles on public health, our cooperative efforts must continue to provide the additional reductions in locally generated emissions and interstate air pollution transport needed to assure clean air for all ofConnecticut's citizens. Ifthe DEP can be ofassistance inprocessing this request, please contact me at 860-424-3026. Thank you for your consideration ofthis matter. Yours truly,

# a~~**~'** Anne Gobin, Chief Bureau ofAir Management
Enclosure

2

### ATTACHMENT Connecticut's 24-Hour 

### PM2.5 Ambient Data Summary (February 2011) 

### EPA's revision to the 24-hour PM2 .5 NAAQS went into effect on December 18,2006, reducing the standard to 35J.lg/m3 

### from 65J.lg/m3 • 

### On December 14,2007, in accordance with Section 107(d)(l) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), Connecticut recommended that EPA include Fairfield and New Haven Counties as part ofa multi-state nonattainment area with northern New Jersey and southern New York counties, based on 2006 design values that violated the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009 the EPA finalized designations for the standard, concurring with Connecticut's recommendations. Summary of**PM~5** 

### Ambient Monitoring Data 

### Connecticut's December 2007 letter to EPA cited several ongoing state and federal control efforts that were expected to result in improved PM2.5 air quality, including programs targeting power plants, mobile source fuels, new on-road and non-road engine standards, and retrofit. controls for portions ofthe existing heavy-duty mobile source fleet. As anticipated, the implementation ofthese programs has resulted in improved air quality. Recent ambient monitoring data for 2008, 2009 and 2010 (see Figure 1) demonstrate that 24-hour PM2 . 5design values in Connecticut comply withthe NAAQS.

A-l

### Table 

### 1. 24 HrPM2.5 Design Values and Associated 98th Percentiles for 2009 and 2010. 2 Current 98th Percentiles and DesignValues for the New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ·CT Non­**·w~;··;;'·;·';;** ; 'f?;,' "y"_,;,';"" i"",:, ,';••if,.,

State Site Bridgeport Danbury Norwalk Westport Connerllrut New Haven Firehouse New Haven Cri""uolo New Haven State St New Haven Ag Station 200798th Perrentlle

30.2 30.4 31.9 29.0 29.8 30.S 30.6 28.5**'~"""$;,:'** ".".".'" "';,".:,**~.;£t"** .• ",; 200898th Perrentile

30.3 275 263 30.7 30.9 31.S 32.1 25.4 200998th Perrentile

29.3 27.6 293 26.4 28.5 32.3 30.8 27.3 20tO 98th Perrentlle

23.3 25,7 23.0' 24.2 SSD 25.5 23.9 SSD ",**.~'.** '"''*1<:'\';'**,~,;"** .f,**;;;)~;"** 2009 Design 2010**D~illn** "alue "alue

31 28 29 

### ," .' 29 26 1 29 27 30 SSD 31 29 31 29 27 SSD**f------=:----+------+------f------~------I------ ~---**  Waterbury 32.7 28.4 28.1 25.7 30 27

...---**.--l-----l-----~-....+---** ......----__I Fort lee 34.5 322 27.1 NA 31 NA Jen;ey City 34.9 32.0 29.2 NA 32 NA I----....:c.----.:---
....--------·-·--·I------I----.J-------I·---­ Newark .14.9 28.7 NA NA NA UnionCily 39.1 33.4 26.6 NA 33 NA

Trenton 32.5 31.0 23.0 NA 29 NA NA New Jersey Washington Crossing 27.2 280 22.2 NA 26 North Bruns,,;ck Township 30.4 28.9 20.7 NA 27 NA ._-_..._-------- ---_. "--'--- ---- ---_._- -_.---­ Morristown 32.4 23.8 2\.9 NA 26 NA

Chester 31.4 24.3 20,9 NA 26 NA Paterson 36.6 28.6 26.1 NA JO NA \----....+-----1----_.­ Elizabeth Turnpike 35.0 33.8 27.7 NA 32 NA

........ )._ " \_

. Elizabeth Downtown 35.9 JI I 25.6 SA .11 1'A Rahway .,4.4 299 25.2 NA .'0 1':A New York Morrisania J6.2 31.3 30.0 .n NA 200lh Street And Southern 32.5 29.8 27.4 NA JO 1':A

Bh'd'Botanical Garden New York IS-52 33.9 299 30.6 32 NA**N~y** York mS·126 J3.6 29.4 26
..9 NA JO NA Cedarhurst Hempstead 28.5 29.2 25.8 NA 28 NA

New York mS-4S 34.3 32.3 28.8 NA 32 NA New York PS·19 37.8 25.7 29.0 NA 31 NA :Sew York PS·124 37.1 31.8 29.0 NA 33 NA Newburgh 30.4 26.0 20.6 NA 26**N~w** York Queens**Colleg~** 11.8 10 -' 267 NA New York Port Richmond 32.8 28.7 24.6 29 NA New York Susan Wagner 28.8 27.7 2.1.0 27 NA East Fanningdale Babylon 28.8 26.8 21.6 NA 26 NA Mamaroneck 30.6 30.4 27.0 NA 29 NA 'Slte shut down ID 2009, new Newark SIte opened on 6,30109 SSD= Site Shut down in 2010 1 Value not valid, year is incomplete due to site construction**NA~QA'd** data from NJ and NY will be available early 2011

2 Values were calculated and derived from each states representative agency using their certified data. A-4

### Figure 1. 

### Connecticut's Maximum, Mean and Minimum PM2.5 Design Value Trend.


### Distribution of Connecticut's 24 Hr PM 2.5 

### Design Value Trend 50**-r------------------------~**
40

M 

# - E 

# - 30 

# - Q) 

### a; 

## > l: 20**.~** fI) Q) Q Number of Sites

-- CT Maximum 10

-- CTMean

-- CT Minimum

- .- - 2006 NAAOS (35mg1m3) 0 

# 8 8 C'II C'II 

# H 14
12 rIl 

### .! 

# en 10 C) c:: 'i:: 0 .1: 8 c:: 0 

### '0 6 Q,) .Q E Z 4
2 0



## .... 

# 8 0 0 C'II C'II 

### Year

Improved ambient PM25 levels have occurred not only in Connecticut, but throughout the remainder ofthe nonattainment area as well. Figure 2 displays 2009 design values for Connecticut and the rest ofthe NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area. The highest design values in 2009 (33!lglm3 ) occurred at the Union City, NJ and the New York City Morrisania and PS-124 monitors. These levels represent attainment because they are less than the 35!lglm3 PM25 NAAQS. The maximum Connecticut design value in 2009 was 31 !lglm3 , measured at both the New Haven Criscuolo Park and State Street monitors. Table 1provides more detail, including the 98th 

### percentile values from 2007 through 2009 which are used to calculate the design value at each monitoring location. Data are also provided for 2010 for the CT sites where quality assured data recently became available.

A-2

### Figure 2. 2009 Design Values in Connecticut and the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area 

# '2009 PM2•S 

# 24-bour Design Values· for the New-York-New JerseyConn
....aU East Ha.tf",d**~l<Alllin;,** 

# Connecticut NonattainmentArea 23 26 

# J

Thomas'oll ""'--
. 

# lEas, Ha';tonl High:' 24 • -Wale,ltmy ,r . 26 •.**JNO~~iCh** ") jsJ- 

### lJO -1 \ • I---
.....Sl.f· 1 

### \ t 

# \ r 1 't./\. 

# ,r:- New HavellAg

# Sta'i"~U.-\**Dalluu~~ ~'**  , 

# 4 29 New

# ~~~ Cnscuolo New Ha'eu State --------_. 31 

# ? Bnd!!;;' H veu F
...e House I. INew 8 JO

NewYOIkffiS-126 30 New York PS-19 31 

### PM1.5 uglm'

### levels (24-bour NAAQS= 35 uglm') •**~35** 

### uglm 3 

### • >35 

### uglm'

"The deelgn
.. II'" 3-yMr

__ oI
... 1l8Ih of2+11ourconcentnotlon
.....v menlor. (Up""o-mbe,**~.** 2010)

A-3

### Control Strategies As listed in Table 2 below, numerous Federal and Connecticut control programs implemented since 2002 have resulted in decreased emissions ofPM2.5 and its precursors. These programs are responsible for the significant improvements in ambient PM2s levels, which now comply with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.Table 2.

Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle ControlslLow Sulfur Gasoline Federal On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery Federal Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Controls and Fuels Federal 2007 Highway Rule Federal Highway Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards Federal Non-Road Control Programs (See Table 4-2 for details ofeach strategy) Federal CAIR Requirements for S02 Sources· Outdoor Wood Burning Furnace Restrictions Section 22a-174k ofthe Connecticut General Statutes General Permit to Construct and/or Operate a New or Existing Distributed Generation Resource Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources RCSA Section 22a-I74-3a Improvements in the Control ofParticulate Matter and Visible Emissions RCSA Section 22a-I74-I8 Control ofSulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Power Plants and Other Large Stationary Sources RCSA Sections 22a-I74-I9a and 22a-I74-22(e)(3 X

X X X
X

X X X X X

X X X
X

X X X X X

X X

X
X

X

X X X X X X
X

X

Restrictions on Asphalt Paving Operations RCSA Section 22a-I74-20(k) Reduced Vapor Pressure Limitation for Solvent Cleaning RCSA Section 22a- I74-20(1) The Post-2002 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Budget Program RCSA Section 22a-I74-22b X X

X

A-5CAIR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program X RCSA Section 22a-174-22c CT On-Board Diagnostic Inspection & Maintenance Program X X RCSA 22a-174-27 X Pressure-Vacuum Gas Station Vent Valves and Increased Testing X for Stage 11 Controls RCSA Section 22a-174-30 Heavy Duty Diesel Engines X X X RCSA Section 22a-174-36a CT's California Low Emission Vehicle Phase 2 (CALEV2) X X X RCSA Section 22a-174-36b Standards for Municipal Waste Combustion (Phase 2) X RCSA Section 22a-174-38 VOC Content Limits for Consumer Products X RCSA Section 22a-174-40 VOC Content Limits for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance X (AIM) Coatings RCSA Section 22a-174-41 Design Improvements for Portable Fuel Containers X RCSA Section 22a-174-43 Restrictions on the Manufacture and Use ofAdhesives and Sealants X RCSA Section 22a-174-44



### Additionally, EPA has proposed the Transport Rule3 

### to replace the court remanded CAIR rule. The upwind reductions required in this rule are critical to future emission reductions and the prevention ofbacksliding ofthe current accomplishments. Conclusion 

### As demonstrated above, all ofthe air quality monitoring sites within the NY-NJ-CT 24-hour PM2.5 

### nonttainment area recorded design values below the standard for 2009. Connecticut has maintained attainment levels since 2008. Therefore, DEP believes a clean data determination for Connecticut's New Haven and Fairfield counties is both reasonable andjustified at this time. Connecticut recognizes that the clean data determination suspends the requirement to submit all SIP revisions concerning reasonable further progress, attainment demonstrations and
. contingency measures related to this NAAQS unless DEP submits and EPA approves a redesignation request or future nonattainment levels are monitored. DEP will continue to operate its monitoring network to track continued attainment.

3 Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 147 A-6