## ....

_ . 

# MDE . ' 1 ''

.



### DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS for the PUBLIC HEARING held on March 3, 2010 in BALTIMORE, MD

relating to: ( 1) amendments to Regulations

.01 and .05, repeal ofexisting Regulations .1 0 and .11, and adoption ofnew Regulation!; 1



### . 1 0 and 

## .i
· t' Wider COMAR 26.11

.01 General Administrative Provisions ; and : · · 1 •**~** ' · 

### (2) amendments to Regulations**0** 

### 1 and' 

## .05 'under COMAR 26.11.09 Control ofFuelBurning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations. Purpose ofHearing: The purpose ofthis hearing is to allow for public comment on the Department's proposal regarding opacity requirements for fuel burning equipment that demonstrate compliance with Continuous Opacity Monitoring (COM) data

. Date and Location : The public hearing was held on March 3, 2010 at 

### 10 :00 am
., at 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris Conference Room, Baltimore MD 21230. Hearing Officer: Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation Management Administration, served as Hearing Officer. Attendance: The public hearing was attended by David Cramer ofMirant and by Steve McLain ofPanda-Brandywine

.
I I 

### Statement: The Department's stateqteqt**was ~ubmitted**  

### into the record by Diane Franks, Program Manager ofthe Air Quality Plaklng , J?rogram ofthe Air and Radiation Management Administration, Depiutment : of**~e** 

### Environment.



# . Comments and Responses: The comments that were received by the Department during the 30-day comment period that relate directly to the proposed action have been summarized and the Department's responses are provided below

. COMMENT: The commenter states that Maryland's opacity standards help to minimize dangerous particulate emissions and move the state closer to attainment ofthe federal Clean Air Act standards designed to**limi~** 

### exposure to fine particles.

RESPONSE: This is true and in 2008, EPA recognized that Maryland measured fine particle levels that are actually below the current daily and annual federal fine particle

t

' t I**~**

### standards as noted in FR/Volume 74, No.7, January 1 , 2,

. 2009, page 1146 and FR/Volume 74, No. 146, July 31, 2009, page 38161. These reductions were due to controls currently in place. This equates directly to greater P.

. l;i,b.lidhe' Atth pr6tection for Maryland's citizens

. The particulate matter emissions reduced by**~he ·**  

### existing' opacity regulations are an important part ofthe current control program: 'especially for fuel burning equipment and other combustion sources not covered by 

### this revision ofthe regulations

. But reductions from affected sources under this regulation pale in comparison to the reductions being achieved by these same sources under the Maryland Healthy Air Act of2006, the cornerstone ofMaryland's State Implementation Plan (SIP) to comply with federal air quality standards for fine particles. With the additional reductions mandated by the Healthy Air Act but yet to occur, Maryland is to be on track to meet an even tougher fine particle standard that EPA is expected to finalize over the next 2 years.

COMMENT: The commenter recognizes that the Department is revising the regulations and eliminating the use ofthe enforcement policy contained in Technical Memorandum 90-0 I (TM90-0 1) to improve the opacity requirements. The commenter states that TM90-0 I contains an enforcement policy that weakens emission standards in the SIP and limits the Department's ability to enforce the SIP.

I ' I I> ' '

. 

### RESPONSE: The Department is**revising'th~·opadity re~ulations**  

### and eliminating the use ofthe enforcement policy contained in 

### TM90-0 I 

# ia strengthen enforcement ofthe opacity requirements

. The TM90-0l is part ofthe approved opacity SIP and, as such, establishes the enforcement requirements that the Department uses to determine whether sources comply with the opacity standard. The TM90-0I does not limit the Department's ability to enforce as stated by the commenter but instead sets the enforcement standard and establishes what a violation is. The commenter composes several scenarios in which the commenter states that the TM90-0llimits the Department's ability to enforce emission standards without realizing that as part ofthe SIP, TM90-0I sets the requirements for enforcement, and these scenarios are not the basis for comparison·ofthe revised regulations to the existing regulations. The Department's authority to administer the Title V operating permit program is not compromised

.
COMMENT: The commenter states the Department must eliminate the "one day" cap on penalties for violations ofthe opacity standards because it undermines the opacity standards and the proposed· rule limits all violations ofthe opacity standard in a 24 hour period to a single violation. The commenter states this limitation compromises the Department's authority to administer the State's Title)!. operating permit program
. The commenter includes a table ofviolations comparing their interpretation ofcurrent regulations to their interpretation ofthe proposed regula'tions.

• I 

### RESPONSE: As stated previously, the Department is eliminating the use of the enforcement policy contained in TM90-0l which is part ofthe approved opacity SIP and,

2 r

# .. ..

as such, establishes the enforcement requirements that the Department currently uses to detennine whether sources comply with the opacity standard. The proposed regulations contain new regulatory language which establishes stricter enforcement standards by providing for violations of the daily standard as well as the quarterly standard. With regard to the number of potential violations, under the proposed amendments it is possible for a plant to have multiple violations on a single day. Depending on the specific circumstances ofnoncompliance, a unit could be cited for up to six violations a day. 

### See COMAR 26. I I

.09 .058(2). Violations ofdaily and quarterly limits are separate violations. Moreover, every succ· essive day ofa quarter in which a unit operates in violation of a quarterly limitation is a**separat~** 

### violation. There is no "one day" cap on penalties for violations ofthe opac i ty standards. The Department's authority to administer the Title V operating pennit program is not compromised

. Even though the commenter again composes several scenarios in which the commenter claims that the TM90-0llimits the Department's ability to enforce emission standards, the TM90-0 1 as part ofthe SIP sets the requirements for enforcement, and these scenarios are not the basis for comparison ofthe revised regulations to the existing regulations. The table provided by the commenter tabulates violations incorrectly both for the current regulations and the proposed regulations.

COMMENT: 

### The commenter states that Maryland should eliminate the special exemptions from compliance for cycling units and keep**~e** 

### current exceptions in COMAR 26

. 11.09.05A(3) intact because the special exceptions weaken the current opacity standards. The commenter states that the current rule authorizes exceedances 10% ofthe time for units operating**ov~r** 

### 300 hours and the new rule would authorize exceedances between 5 

### and 10% ofthe time. ' '

## .. . RESPONSE: 

### The commenter ri9tes,that the :proposed regulations are more stringent than the existing regulations regarding percentage oftime allowed above the standard. The commenter also notes that opacity exceedances at power plants tend to occur in bunches around malfunctions, startup, and shutdown events as opposed to isolated six minute increments. The Department agrees with both these statements. The commenter then states MOE's sole focus on the percentage ofoperating time a plant is excused from compliance oversimplifies the problem and does not address the nature of opacity exceedances. The Department**cont~nds** 

### that focusing on the percentage oftime a unit is excused from compliance does**addr~ss** 

### the nature ofopacity exceedances. The Department has eliminated the general exception for startup and other allowed exceptions ofthe existing regulations and consolidated these exceptions into a specific time allowance above the opacity standard. The elimination ofstartup, shutdown and malfunction is in keeping with new EPA policies and results in a more stringent regulation. Less time exceeding the standard generally equates to less emissions.
Low capacity units are called on to operate during times ofpeak 

### demand and only for short periods when additional power is needed. Because low capacity units as a rule

• I 'I 3

, I.startup and shut down much more frequently than base load units, they operate in startup and shut down mode for a much larger proportion ofthe total quarterly operating time. As discussed above, opacity is generally**muc~** more**d~fficult** to control during startup, shutdown and load changing events

. Other**tat~s** allow ekemptions from opacity standards during startup and shutdown fot • tfii s teas6n, 

# e : g

.,North Carolina, Virginia and Alabama. Maryland has declined to exclude

### ~n\issions**·** during startup and shutdown from the compliance demonstration.

COMMENT: The commenter states that the proposed rules do not contain sufficient monitoring for condensable particulate matter

. The commenter supports the use of continuous emission monitors for particulate matter but requests that continuous opacity monitoring continue at the same time.

RESPONSE: The purpose ofthe opacity**egulations** 

### is to set an opacity standard and criteria to determine compliance with that standard. These amendments to the regulations retain the original standards and recognize and incorporate technology advances that h ave occurred with respect to opacity measurements. While opacity standards assist in maintainin g lower levels ofparticle pollution, continuous opacity monitors do not differentiate the size ofparticles comprising the opacity measurements and therefore cannot be a s urro gate for condensable paqiculat e matter

. Other approved methods ofmeasuring particulate matter which do**~iff rentiate**  between the condensable fraction and coarse fraction ofparticulate matter in 'ambient air and from stacks are part ofthe Department's plan to comply with federal**fi~e** parti

. cle air quality standards.
In some cases, flue gas desulfurization controls interfere with the accurate measurement of opacity for sources that use continuous monitors, hence the Department included the limited exception. When a source demonstrates the operation of flue gas desulfurization controls interferes with measurements from the continuous opacity monitor, the proposed regulations allow the source to operate a continuous emission monitor for particulate matter (PM CEMs) as long as opacity levels are monitored regularly using an approved alternative method. As stated earlier, current air quality monitoring for fine particles in Maryland demonstrates compliance with the current standard and shows a downward trend which is expected to continue. Significant additional controls are scheduled for implementation in 2010 to continue the downward trend in fine particle pollution and the Department maintains the exception is appropriate and does notjeopardize further air quality improvements

.



# ..

, · II' I f •.,. •,



### 4 

# -- ... 

# ... 

# .**:\tJ..\R\'L.\~0 OF.P..\RT:\IE~T**  

### OF 

### TilE**E;\1\'IRO~:\Ifo:;\JT** I**~Ill)** W.tshingtun Buull.!\
·;m.l •**B.dtinhlf~** \I() 212JI)

\l.trlllll l**\1.1lk~** ' " '' a:rnnr**\rtlho•ll~** (r Bh•\\n I**''' l~n.nlll** **,,,~n11•r** .JI0-5J7-JOilO •**l-~00-63)-hllll**

\larch 30.**~010**

The Honorable Paul Pinsky.**S~nator** 2:!0 James Senate Office Building 11 Bladen Street Annapolis MD 

### 21-JO 1
Dear Senator Pinsky: .... h.U I r**~~ \**  1 d '' f1

..**.1&:111~** l(o •

I><:II \I**'- llllll~h**  l'h I)**l.:pul~ \~~M** **II)**

(am responding to your**inc.~uiry** regarding the proposed amendments to Maryland's opacity regulations tor fuel-burning**~quipment** presently under consideration by the 

### AELR Committee. These regulations are very complex and the questions are good ones
. The enclosed tact sheet explains the regulations and addresses the three specific issues you rJise. The proposed amendments are the product of 

### a lengthy two-year process in consultation with a workgroup comprised ofenvironmental advocates and representatives ofregulated entities

. The proposed amendments eliminate the applicability of the Technical Memorandum and the existing**~nthrc~ment** policy as it applies to power plants and other fuel-burning sources
. This, coupled with uthcr proposed changes

. results in regulations that are signiticantly more stringent than the existing requirements. If adopted, these proposed amendments 

### will rank among the most stringent state opacity regulations in the Country. Opacity. as yuu know. is important as an indirect indkator of particulate emissions. the primary pollutant nf concern
. While limjtatinns un the opacity of stack cmissi,lns arc important to reduce particulate .:missions. much greater n:ductions in particulate emissions \\ill he achieved through implementation uf 

### the llt:althy : \ir.\ct. 

### This is hecausc**~missiuns** of 

### :"'iO, and S02. "hich t'llrrn 

### P\1**through** secondary chemical n:actions in the atnmsphcrc

. arc hy IJr the**hi g~st**  cnntrihutors to tine particulate It:\ ds in \faryland. In this regard. the nc\\S is good

.**lmpl~rncntati n**  ,,fthc llcalthy .\ir .\r.:t has already dramatically rcJuceJ :\0, '-'missions and ..;igm licant**SO~** cmis sil lO reJuctillllS .1rc c.xpcch.:J this ) car as the tirst pl1.1se S<**>~emissions** cap wkcs**~.·ffcct.** I hcsc reduct ions arc producing**mcasur~tbh:** air quality hcnclits. In 2009. our
.ur quality nwnitnrs n:cordcd tine particulat.:**)~:\ds** in the ambient air that arc hchm the**curr~nt** J•1ily and annual tine particulate -;tanJi.lrJs

. \\'c rccogni1.c. ufcourse. thar llC\\ nwrc :.tring.:nt 

### P\t !, and lllllllC standards arc li"dy tn 

### he adopted h y 

### I · .P

. \ in the ncar tcnn. 

### hut \\t: art: l.'ontiJI..'nt that the**s~l.'ond** ph.1sc**~0,** and SO : reductions**rc4uir~d** hy the I h:•Lithy

. \ir.\ct in**~0 I~**  anJ 

### 2111.1.**n:.,p.:~.:thdy .**  

### '' i ll g'> 

### a long \\il}' 

### hmanJ hdping 

### us ml..'ctthosc -;tandarJs.

\\ \\ \\o .mllc

.'tatc

.md

.u.s I I Y I ' ,.;r\ I**·:-illll- 1'** **·2 !1**  \ '
·'**\l,tr~J ,ll(~l.n** **'~'''~.:**I**h~** I hlllllf.1bl\!**S~n 111**  lr Paul**Pin:-.k~ Pag~**  l\\1l '
..... 

# . ...

I**h~** lkp;utm\!nl \\ouiJ lik\! tn linalil\! th\! pn1pnscJ am\!ndrn\!nls as .;nnn as**pn~..;ihlc** ..;,, that thl• JdJith,nal public h\!ahh l'l\!ndits c.m he r\!ali1cJ

.**If~** llU \\oulJ like tn discuss this further. pl\!asc**tllmc** at 41 

### 0-5J**7-J0~4** .

• Y· 

# L



# .iz

Secretary

Enclosure

cc: Kathy Kinsey,**S~!nior** Policy Advisor Tad Abum, Dir\!ctor, Air and Radiation Management Administration I**fcath~r** Barthd, Director of legislation and Policy

\\ '"\\ .mdc

. ..tatc

.md

.u-;

# '

. ...**.\IJlliTIO~AL l~FOI{.\IATIO~**  ON**"AR\'l.\~D'S** t•ltOPOSl-:1) OP.\CITY**..\~11-:~D~IE~TS** Fl!bruary**~010** IJackground
Do the proposed amendments !ltrengthcn or weaken the nisting opadty standards'! The proposl!d amendments to Maryland's opacity regulations lor powl!r plants and other fuel-burning l!quipmcnt clearly tighten the requirements by lowering the percentage of time that sources may exceed the standards through establishing daily limitations in addition to q_uarterly limitations. The proposed amendments 

### will result in lower levds of opacity and line particle emissions. Overall, the proposed amendments are approximately four times more restrictive than the existing opacity regulations as they are being implemented by the Department. Based on our review of other state programs and our discussions with 

### EPA, we believe that Maryland's proposed amendments are among the most stringent in the Country.
How did the development or Continuous Opacity Montiton (COMs) affect implementation and enforcement of opacity standards? The current opacity regulations were developed in the 1970's and 80's. Except in rural areas ofthe State, emissions that are visible to the human observer are prohibited. A 20% opacity level is allowed in rural areas ofthe State. When these standards were adopted, compliance was demonstrated through a periodic visual observation ofthe plume exiting the stack. Opacity is most difficult to control during periods of startup, shutdown, load \.:hanging Jnd malfunction, \\hen combustion is often incomplete or control equipment has not reached proper operating conditions. This is why the**c~isting** regulations allow \!:<ccedanccs of the standard during periods of startup and load changing. St!f! CO MAR 26.11.09.05(A)(3 ).
rhc ad vent of automatc.:d continuous !!mission monitoring cq_uipmcnt in the late 1980's '" ith its cap;.tc ity to**~untinuously** record opadty at levels below what could be \ isually**~>bserved** '" ith the human eye led to development of the Technical**~h:moranJum** (J0-0 I ( l"\.1) in 1990 lor sources that instalh:d ;.md operate a continuous emission monitor fur opacity. !"he T\.1 n:cogni1.1!d that pcrlcd compliancl! with a /.cro visible l!missilm -;tanJard on a continuous hasis may nut ah\ays be possible. especially Juring periods uf o.;tartup and shutdown. !"he**~l.** thcrdorc. alllmcd l!:<cecdancl!s ufthe opacity stamJanJs Juring a spccilh:d pen:entagc uf a unit's lJUarterly uperating time.

Ihis current proposal is the lir'il major rc\ isiun tu the npac ity n:gulations in the**~0** years -;incc the 1'\.1 \\as aJopli:J. ,. \!though the propuscJ amcnJmcnts retain the same bas ic .1pproach hl demonstrating ClHllpliam:c. in recognition 

### uf impnm:d pm\cr plant pollution**~nntrnl** h:dmology and npcrating**pra~tic~s.** they cstahlish nwrc stringent rcquin:rncnts tiHU press the li.mits oftcchnolngy anJ arc more prntedivc llf .1ir quality.
lfnw do the prnpnsed amendments change rhe existing requirements'! First, it i!i important to note that the proposed amendments Jo nnt re\ isc the currcnt1.cro 'i sihility stanJard for the urhan areas of the State, or the 20 11

.'0 llpacity standard for rural ••reas. The standards remain unchanged. Rather. the pruposed amendments revise the requirements for demonstrating compliance with the applicable standard by power plants and other fuel burning sources that are required to have continuous opacity monitors

. . As discussed in more detail below, the proposed amendments eliminate existing exemptions tor startup, load changing, sootblowing and adjustments to control equipment when demonstrating compliance though COMs data, and instead allow limited daily and quarterly exemptions from the applicable standard based on a unit's hours or percentage of quarterly operating time
. The Existing Regulations. The existing regulations allow excccdances of the applicable opacity standard during startup, load changing, sootblowing and adjustments to control equipment for a 6-minute peri od· in each operating hour, which is equivalent to I0% of a unit's operating**~ime .**  The Department's enforcement policy, which is set forth in the Technical Memorandum (TM 90-01) and incorporated by reference into the regulations, allows excccdances for an additional 5-l 0% of a unit's quarterly operating time. Thus, total cxceedances ofbetween 15 and 20% of a unit's quarterly operating time are permitted under the existing regulations.
The Proposed Amendments. hi contrast, the proposed amendments eliminate permitted cxceed<l:flccs for startup, load changing, sootblowing and adjustments to control equipment and limit allowable exceedances for base load units to 2% ofquarterly llpcrating time, 6% oflJUartcrly operating time tor low capacity units that operate I(Jr JO() hours or more per quarter and 12 hours per quarter for low capacity units that operate less than 300 hours per quarter

. In addit ion, all units are subject to a daily cap of**~.1** hours within which there arc limit s on the permissible level of opacity. The daily limits were established based on air lJUality modeling to ensure protection of ambient air lJUality standards for particulate matter. The**Con~ent Decree~.**  In developing the proposed amendments. the Department**~onsidcrcd** recent impro\'cd compliam:c \\ ith existing opacity standards by the State's**~.:nal-tircd** power plants achic\'cd as a result of equipment upgrJdes and improved npcratinnal practices required by the terms of three Consent Decrees with \firant and C\mstcllation rcsoh ing ent(m:cmcnt a ctions fnr npacity \'iolations. Tht! ohligations nf the C\111scnt Decrees remain in r.:fti.:ct and hoth \lirant and ConstdiJtinn remain suhjccttn the existing opacity regulations.

.., 

# - .. .**~**

# .,. . 

# .

a quarter. this is**stilll~ss** than I0'! 1 o \lf the unit's quarterly operating time and mmc rc
..**ari~tiv..:** th.m**th~** existing regulations.
For low capadty units that npcrah! less than IJO hours Juring a quan..:r, the 12 hour limitation is ncc..:ssary. Low capacity units .ue called unto operate Juring times of peak demand and only for short periods \\hen :1Jditiunal po\\t.:r is needed. Because low capacity units as a rule startup and shut Jown much more frequently than base load units, they operate in startup and shut down mode for a much larger proportion of the total I.JUartcrly operating time. As discussed above, opacity is generally much more difficult to control during startup, shutdown and load changing events. Other states allow exemptions from opacity standards during startup and shutdown for this reason, e.g., North Carolina, Virginia and Alabama. Maryland has declined to exclude emissions during startup and shutdown from the compliance demonstration, instead electing to allow a slightly higher overall exceedance percentage for low capacity units.
The proposed amendments also limit the level ofopacity during permitted exccedances. During startup and shutdown most opacity levels fall between I0 and 20%, with occasional spikes between 40% and 70% and even fewer spikes above 70% opacity. The proposed amendments limit the duration of opacity at these higher levels as an alternative to exempting startup and shutdown emissions from the standard altogether. This approach 

### will result in lower particulate matter emissions. These changes were modeled to ensure that the proposed amendments will not result in exccedances of ambient air quality standards tor particulate matter. Comment #2: "Other base-loadplants could now blow their opacity limit.'! up to .J lwur.'l a day. Currelft law limits any exceedunces to 2 hour.'l and 2-1 minutes

. " Re!lponse: In developing the proposed amendments, the Department performed various air 4uality mudding analyses that support a tiered approach to opacity standards and ensure compliance with daily air quality standards. The daily exceedance limit is intended to ensure maintenance of the daily PM coarse standard. While it is true that the proposed amendments allow a longer period of daily cxccedancc, air quality modeling**d~monstratcs** that this longer period of cxcccdance will nut cause or contribute to**..:xc~cdanccs** of the ambient air quality standard

. .\-forcovcr. as explained below

. the I.Jllartcrly limitation actually operates to signiticantly reduce from existing requirements, the total number ofdays and hours that a unit can exceed the standards.
l'ndcr the cxisting n:gulatinns, all plants arc allowed the same daily total**~A** hour CXI!mptiun t(lr each day 0 

## r the l) I days in a quarter. \\ hich for hase load plants that npcratc continuously. would he approximately 21M hours. Plants with a capadty factor of kss than**25n~** op\!rating JOO hours ( 1:!.5 da)
·S) could exceed the opacity limit**\!\'~ry** day li.lr J Iota/ nf 30 lwur" in**th~** quartcr. lly cnmparisun. under the proposed am\!nJmcnts, all pl.mts .trc suhj\!ct tn the same -l.l hour Jaily limit. ,\bas e lthtJ plant that exceeded 1hc daily limitlilr -l.l hours**~i.u:h** day \\ould reach the 

### 2n-o quarterly limit in II days alkr -lJ hours uf cxccedancc. Plants ,.. ith .1Why ill ;\II>E rctauc.sting adoption uf this regulation**~•s ~In**  emergency actiun'!**l"h~** Dl!partinl!nt**n:I.Jlh!St~J ~:mcrgcncy**  action so thl!**n~gulati,ms** wouiJ be dti.!ctin: •ll the neg inning of the tirst I.Jlli.lrtcr of**~0** 

### to for three reasons. First, the proposed .tmcnJrncnts arc more stringent than the curnmt regulations. Emergency actiun wouiJ implement the new regulations on thl! earliest possible timcframe. Sl!cond, compliance with both the current and pmposed upacity regulations is Jcmonstrah:d on a I.JUarterly basis. l'he opacity continuous emission monitors utilile sotiware devdopcd to prodUI.::e a quarterly cmissions report consistent with the reporting**r~I.Juircments** of the regulations. fransitioning to new regulatory re4uiremcnts in midI.JUartcr would unneccssarily complicate compliance determinations for that quarter. Finally, the operation of tlue gas desulfurization S02 controls required by the l lcalthy Air Act produces a water vapor plume that is known to i

. ntcrfcre \\,.ilh the ability of continuous opacity monitors to accurately measure opacity. Even though a water vapor plume adds no particulate emissions, the opacity monitor records elevated opacity readings. The proposed amendments address this problem by allowing a source to measure particulate matter emissions directly on a continuous basis in lieu of operating continuous opacity monitors, provided certain conditions are satisfied. Response to Specific Comments
The follow ing responses to the three specitic questions you raise are provided below.
Comment #1 : "Plants tlwt operate less than a quarter o.ltlre time-- C.P. Crane, Chalk L'nits 1 and .J, llA. Wugner and R

. Paul Smith could vialtlle their opacity limits "as much 

### as J(Jpttrc.:ent or more ofoperuting time. 

### Theil is a .\·ignifkantly higher le\.'t!l lifl'iolutian.v them 

### we f.lpical/y 

### we at tlle.'it!**plt~nts** 

### tadCiy. " l{esponse: This is not correct. First, \\o'e note that C. P. Crane is a base load phmt, and as such, is subject to the 2% limitation

. Second, the proposed amendments are, overall, more stringent than the**~xisting r~gulations**  for units that are not base load plants. l'he current regulations allow power plants to**~ccl!d** the opacity standard up to 10% uf their I.JUUrterly operating time and the**1'~1** allows add itional cxcccdances he yond the I0% of bemccn 5% anJ IO"la.
In contrast. the proposed Jmcndmcnts limit permitted I.JUartcrly c:<cccdanccs Jt lnw capaci ty plants that npcratl! 300 huur"l nr nwrc during ,l ')Uartcr to a maximum nf .:!0 hours. !'his is e4uh alent to 6' !11) of the unit's uperaling time • md much more n:stricti \ e than the**~: xisting**  rcgulatiuns.

l.uw**~.:;~padty** pl:..ints that 0pcrah! less than JUO hours a l{Ui.lrtcr arc allU\wJ .1 111<1.'< imum uf 12 hours uf**~:x~.:ccJanccs** in the quarter. For units that operate hcl\\ecn 130 anJ 300**hour~**



### 3> • # •**~ap>t~:ity fa~tor**  less than 

### 25% upcrating 

### JOO hours would**r~ach** the quarterly ''padty limit in 5Jays atier .20 hours ofcxcccdance. rhus, even \\ ith a daily allo\\ance of .J.I hours, the proposed amcmlmcnts allow signilkantly li.!wcr days and hours of cxcccJanccs than do the existing regulations.
Comment l#l: ··on a quarterly and amw,tl htt:•i

. v. ''ioltttions ,,r**hct 'l~~lottd** plttllls \rcmM he limited to 2% ofoperuting time. But bigplants rarely e:cc:eed**thutlewltode~y.** Also, the new**rul~s** wuulcllimit l'iolatimrs I(} no more than one per day, wlrereus c:rtrrmt rules mttke the indu.l·try liable for em:h six minute \'iolation

. In other words, lt!t's sayyou l!.n·eeded the more generous 

### new l'landards, by operctting with 

### si.t hours afopadty**\'iolt~tions** in a l'ingle day ul a base-loud plant. instetld oft he ulrectdy generous four hours tire new rule allowed Under the old "·ulc:ultttions. tile plant would be liablefor twmty violutions (1 hours divided by the six minute .\·tandurds 

### = 20 violcllions). Under tire new rule, you'd only be liub/e jor one. " Response: lt is correct that most, but not all, plants rarely exceed the 2% level today

. This is due in large part, however, to the recent equipment upgrades and improved operating practices required by the Consent Decrees

. With regard to the number ofpotential violations, under the proposed amendments it is possible for a plant to have multiple violations on a single day. Depending on the specific circwnstances of noncompliance, a unit could be cited for up to six violations a day

. See COMAR 26.11.09.058(2)

. Violations ofdaily and quarterly limits are separate violations. Moreover, every successive day ofa quarter in which a unit operates in violation ofa quarterly limitation is a separate violation

.



### 5