## HEARINGREPORT Prepared Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, Section 51 .102

Regarding Revision to the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality Hearing Officer: KiernanJ. Wholean Date of Hearing

: October 18, 2006 On September 7, 2006, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) signed a notice of intent to revise the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) . The revision to the SIPis a demonstration that reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements adopted for attainment of the 1- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) are sufficient to satisfy RACT for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to the notice, a public hearing was held on October 18, 2006 . The public comment period for the proposed SIP revision closed on October 20, 2006. I . Hearing Report Content This report describes the revision to the SIP as proposed for hearing; a statement ofthe principal reasons in support of the SIPrevision; all comments made and responses thereto regarding the proposed revision to the SIP ; and the final recommendation based on the proposal and comments received. II . Summary and Text of the Revision as Proposed The purpose of this SIPrevision is to ensure that RACT requirements for attainment of the 8- hour ozone NAAQS are in place. In the SIP revision, DEPdemonstrates that the control measures already in place as attainment measures for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS satisfy, and in some cases exceed, the 8-hour ozone requirements. The SIP revision as proposed is included in Attachment 1 to this report. III . Principal Considerations for the Proposed Revision This SIP revision satisfies the RACT requirements of Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as it applies to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA requires that states achieve the health-based 8-hour ozone NAAQS by specified dates, based on the severity of an area's air quality problem

. As the entire State of Connecticut is classified as moderate non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA's Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005] requires the DEP to submit a demonstration that the State has satisfactorily addressed EPA's 8-hour ozone RACT requirements. After identifying relevant regulations, the Department concludes in this SIP revision that existing controls on all majorstationary sources of nitrogen oxide emissions andvolatile organic compound emissions and all

sources and source categories addressed in control techniques guidelines meet or exceed the CAA RACT requirements. IV . Summary of Comments Written comments were submitted only by EPAand by the State of New Jersey (NJ)

. No oral comments were received at the hearing. The comments submitted by EPAand New Jersey are summarized here and responses follow . Comments Submitted by New Jersey: New Jersey is concerned that the State, by following EPA guidance, could miss an opportunity to advance RACT. Specifically " . . . the preamble to that [implementation] rule discusses flexibilities in application ofthe rule. New Jersey believes suchfexibility could result in a lost opportunityfor updating RACT requirements. For example, certifying that all previous 1-hour ozone RACTdeterminations will sufficefor 8-hour ozone implementation purposes and allowing the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy RACT requirements for Electric Generating Units (EGU)facilities, fails to adequately address advances in RACTand providefor controls that are reasonable. Although the USEPAcould have providedfor national RACT limits by updating its Control Technique Guidance (CTGs) andAlternative Control Techniques (ACTs) documents or by creating newCTGs andACTsfor relevant source categories, the USEPA hasfailed to do so in a timelyfashion. Thus, this Clean AirAct-mandated obligation places the burden to update RACT on the individual states. We urge you to thoroughly evaluate your current RACT requirement and obtain additional RACT emissions reductions wherefeasible. " Additionally, " . . .possible PACTchanges are included in the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection's 60draft white papers posted at http://www .ni .gov/dep/airwork rQ oups/ . " NJ encourages Connecticut to use this resource in development of its RACT rules. Response: We recognize that the CAIRcould be more effective in reducing emissions from EGUs, andwe support a more stringent CAIRrule that would implement more stringent controls on EGUs nationally. We believe, however, that NJ's comment is more appropriately directed at EPA . While we agree that EPAlost an opportunity to gain emission reductions nationally from EGUs, with respect to the State of Connecticut the opportunity to advance controls for these EGUfacilities still remains. As we have stated in our SIP narrative, we are continuing to work with the OzoneTransport Commission, ofwhich New Jersey is a member, to develop a model rule to implement additional control measures for EGUs that will assist in our attainment demonstration. Though these "beyond CAIR" measures will not be implemented as RACT, they will be no less effective in reducing emissions fromthe State of Connecticut. We believe, that adoption of rules "beyond CAIR" (i .e. beyond RACT) is, at this point, the best route to advancing the cause of more stringent national controls on EGUs. We disagree that anyfailure by EPAto update the CTGs or ACTs places the burden of doingso on the states. Section 183 of the CAAclearly states, and the implementation rule reiterates [70FR 71652], that it is EPA's burden to update these documents as necessary. EPAcannot shift this 2burden onto the states. Nor has it. The CTGs which were proposed in the Federal Register on

August 4, 2006 and made final on October 5, 2006are clear evidence of this. If EPA had expected the states to take on this burden, it would have required that the states include these CTG measures in this RACT SIP revision. It did not . Instead, " . . . EPA provides that States should submit their SIP revisions within 1 year of the date that the CTGs are finalized." [71 FR 58748] We acknowledge that a burden in finding control measures does result fromEPA's failure to implement a strong national rule for controlling EGUemissions and for untimely updates to the CTGs. We share this burden with NJ as fellowmember state to the OTCand seek to correct for these failures through development of regional ozone attainment measures by a process which considered these source categories for which NJ wrote 60 white papers, and many other source categories as well . No changes to the proposed SIP revision are recommended as a result of this comment. Comments submitted by EPA: EPA makes three comments and makes note of two updates. Comment 1 : "The analysis indicates that Connecticut has met the RACT requirement through the implementation of rules that have already been adopted by the state and approved by EPA, as well as by rules that are currently under development (such as revisions to the state's Section 22a-174-22 NOx RACT rule and the adoption ofa newCAIR rule) . Therefore, Connecticut must submit to EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision the specified rules currently under development in orderfor the state tofully meet its obligation under the RACT requirement. " Response: With respect to Connecticut's Section 22a-174-22 (Section 22), Connecticut believes that the existing Section 22 meets RACT. We are pursuing revisions to Section 22 in order to further our attainment goals. It was our goal to point out the extent to which Connecticut has controlled its universe of sources through its history of nonattainment and through its efforts with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We reiterate that the existing Section 22 already meets or exceeds RACT requirements and that the revised version, regardless ofthe final formit might take following its completion through the regulatory process will also meet or exceed RACT for the sources it regulates. We emphasize that Section 22 covers a broader category of sources than just the major source NOx emitters as defined by the implementation rule. With respect to CAIR, Connecticut is adopting CAIR to replace our existing NOx Budget Program . The sources subject to these rules are considered by EPA in the implementation rule to already meet RACT and are not required to be addressed in the RACT SIPrevision. "For purposes of meeting the NOx RACT requirement, the State need not perform(or submit) a NOx RACT analysis for sources subject to the state's emission cap-and-trade programwhere the capand-trade programhas been adopted by the State that meets the NOx SIPCall requirements . . ." [70FR 71652] . Again, due to Connecticut's historic efforts to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it has met this requirement.The status of our rule development process is posted at the Connecticut DEPwebsite:

http ://www

.dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/index .htm . When finalized, Connecticut will formally submit the rules to EPAas part of a SIPrevision in support of its ozone attainment plan. No changes to this proposed SIPrevision are recommended as a result of this comment. Comment 2: "Connecticut's analysis indicates that rulesfor two ofthe CTG (Control Techniques Guideline) categories are appropriate to update. They are cutback asphalt paving and solvent cleaning. It is not clear, however, ifthe state is proposing that the revised, or the existing, rulesfor these source categories are considered to represent PACT . " . . . "The DEP should revise the analysis to clearly state whether Connecticut considers the revised, or the existing, rulesfor these two source categories to represent RACT . If the revised rules are considered to represent RACT, then Connecticut must submit these revised rules to EPA as a SIP revision in orderfor the state tofully meet its obligation under the RACT requirement. " Response: The implementation rule recognizes that States which have been in non-attainment for the 1-hour standard would likely have satisfactory RACT in place. We agree, and believe that our RACT SIP analysis showed that we satisfied RACT requirements for the 8-hour standard through our existing rules. Our existing CTGrules represent RACT. Moreover, the analysis documents our continuing efforts to develop rules that build on our existing rules to garner further reductions in ozone producing emissions for the purpose of attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, though we are in the process of adopting rules that regulate CTGcategory sources, these rules go beyond RACT. Thestatus of our rule development process is posted at the Connecticut DEPwebsite: http://www

.dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/index.htm . When finalized, Connecticut will formally submit the rules to EPAas part ofa SIPrevision in support of its ozone attainment plan. No changes to the proposed SIP revision are recommended as a result of this comment. Comment 3. EPA points out that not all of the major VOC sources listed on page 21 have received their VOC RACT orders. Specifically, EPA and DEP are currently in the process of developing RACT orders for Stone Container and Cytec/Cyro. Sumitomo Bakelite /Vyncolit and Curtis Packaging have RACT orders that are also being developed, but those sources do not appear on page 21 as sources subject to major source VOC RACT. EPAcomments that, "Connecticut must issue ordersfor all ofthe remaining Section 22a-174-32 sources, and submit these orders to EPAas a SIP revision, in orderfor the state tofully meet its obligation under the RACT requirement. " Response: Thefinalization ofthe orders did not in the past prohibit the acceptance of Section 22a-174-32 to satisfy RACT [65 FR626201, and should not now . The regulation satisfies the RACT requirement, not the implementation of the regulation through the adoption and subsequent submittal of orders. We are implementing Section 22a-174-32 as we should.As of November 8, 2006, the status of the orders outstanding under Section 22a-174-32is as

follows: The orders for Stone Container and Cytec are with EPAfor review . Cyro, now

a separate facility fromCytec, has an order, which is identical to Cytec's that has completed EPA review . The Cyro order is expected to be accepted by Cyro and signed and returned to DEPby no later than December 31, 2006. Sumitomo Bakelite, formerly known as Vyncolit, and Curtis Packaging are both currently subject to a General Permit to Limit Potential Emissions (GPLPE) and therefore are not major sources subject to VOCRACT under the implementation rule. Therefore, these twosources should not appear on page 21 . No changes to the proposed SIPrevision are recommended as a result ofthis comment. EPA makes note that two updates should be made: The CTGs proposed on August 4, 2006 were finalized in October. SIPrevisions for these CTGs are due to be submitted to EPA in October 2007. We recognize this andwill move forwardwith regulatory action as rapidly as our State process allows. To acknowledge publication of these CTGs as final, the text of page 8 of the SIP revision is changed as follows:

New CTGRequirements. EPAis currently in the process of adopting new CTG requirements . On August 4, 2006, EPApublished proposed CTGs for the following source categories: Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents. These were made final by publication in the federal re ister on October 5, 2006 [71 FR587451 . SIP revisions for these CTGs are due by October 4 2007. EPAexpects to propose several more CTGcategories [later this year. EPAhas proposed that the states address these CTGs within oneyear of promulgation [71 FR 44522] .] in the near future. [When the CTGs for these categories are published in final form] As appropriate, Connecticut will analyze the need to adopt requirements to address these CTGs for sources in the state and pursue adoption of such requirements [and a] in subsequent SIP submittals[, as appropriate] . EPAalso notes that Table 3 in the SIP should be updated to reflect that EPAgave SIP approval to our revisions to Section 30 of the regulations concerning Stage II vapor recovery at gasoline service stations on August 31, 2006. Therefore Table 3, third entry under the SIPApproval column for the Service Station Category is changed from : 05/10/04. . . .Currently Under EPA Review to: 05/10/04 8/31/06 71 FR 51761 . . .. . . . (c) 95 Additionally, the last sentence ofthe second paragraph of section III .A on page 7 of the RACT SIPrevision, which discusses EPA reviewofthe revised rule for service stations, is deleted as 5follows: [The most recent revision to Section 30is currently under EPAreview .] No other changes to the proposed RACT SIPrevision result fromEPA's comments. However, the following updates were also made: " In Table 1 on page 4, the following sentence was added to the status section on the amendment to Section 22: "Apublic hearingwas held on a proposed amendment to the existing regulation on October 19, 2006." " Amissing word was added to the first sentence on page 6 : "Despite Connecticut's noteworthy success in reducing emissions ofozone precursors, it is important to. . ." The second sentence ofthe first full paragraph on page 11 was changed from : "CTDEP currentproposed draft regulation, R .C .S.A. section 22a-174-22c, to implement that CAIR tradingprogram, are scheduledforpublic hearing on October 19, 2006" to: "Public hearing was held on October 19, 2006for CTDEP's currentproposed draft regulation, R . C .S.A. section 22a-174-22c, to implement that CAIR tradingprogram . " " Figure 3 on page 13 was updated to include data for the 2006ozone season. V . Final Text of Proposed Revision Thefinal text of the Revision as changed fromthe proposed version is included as Attachment 2 to this report. V1 . Conclusion Based upon the comments submitted by interested parties and addressed in this Hearing Report, I recommend the final version of the revision, as contained herein in Attachment 2, be submitted to EPAby the Commissioner for approval as a revision to the SIP . 

# to~ .,.. . - .1

### le

# Nnuoc, KiernanJ. Wholean Date Hearing Officer