Section 589 - Registration; penaltiesThe commissioner may require the registration of persons or air contamination sources, of a type the board may by rule prescribe, engaged in activities that emit air contaminants and may also require persons operating stationary air contamination sources to install, maintain and use reasonable emission monitoring devices as the board by rule may prescribe. [1991, c. 384, §9(RPR); 1991, c. 384, §16(AFF).]
1.Reporting requirements. Persons may be required by the commissioner to periodically report on the location, size of outlet, height of outlet, rate and period of emission and composition of air contaminants, location and type of air pollution control apparatus and other information as prescribed by rule of the board. A. The commissioner shall establish procedures for reporting ambient air quality data, including reporting violations of ambient air quality standards and emission standards. [1991, c. 384, §9(NEW); 1991, c. 384, §16(AFF).]B. A person may not be required to submit to the commissioner more than one copy of ambient air monitoring data or meteorological data more frequently than quarterly unless required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. [1991, c. 384, §9(NEW); 1991, c. 384, §16(AFF).] [1991, c. 384, §9(NEW); 1991, c. 384, §16(AFF).]
2.Stack tests. A person is not required to conduct stack tests for chlorine or chlorine dioxide more frequently than once every 5 years unless visible emissions, operating parameters or other information indicates the source may be operating out of compliance with any applicable emission standard or unless there are more stringent federal requirements. A person is not required to conduct stack tests for particulate matter on a source monitored by a continuous monitoring device for opacity as specified by 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Appendix B, specification 1 or appropriate surrogate parameters as required by the commissioner more frequently than once every 5 years unless visible emissions, operating parameters or other information indicates the source may be operating out of compliance with any applicable emission standard or unless there are more stringent federal requirements. If visible emissions, operating parameters or other information indicates potential noncompliance with an air emission standard or if there are more stringent federal requirements, the department may require additional stack tests. [2007, c. 589, §6(AMD); 2007, c. 589, §9(AFF).]
3.Emission monitoring devices. Except as provided in this subsection, failure by a person to register, install, maintain and use emission monitoring devices or to file reports from those devices renders that person liable to the penalties prescribed in section 349. Emission monitoring devices must record accurate and reliable data during all source-operating time except for periods when emission monitoring devices are subject to established quality assurance and quality control procedures or to unavoidable malfunction. In any enforcement action brought by the department, the burden of proof is on the licensee to demonstrate that the failure of emission monitoring devices to record accurate and reliable data was due to an unavoidable malfunction or the performance of established quality assurance and quality control procedures on the monitoring system.A. The department may not initiate enforcement action pursuant to section 349 against any person for failure to operate a continuous emission monitoring system for gaseous emissions as long as the system is recording accurate and reliable data at least 90% of the source-operating time in each quarter of the calendar year. If the continuous emission monitoring system for gaseous emissions is recording accurate and reliable data less than 90% of source-operating time within any quarter of the calendar year, the department may initiate enforcement action and may include in that enforcement action any period of time that the continuous emission monitoring system was not recording accurate and reliable data during that quarter unless the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that the failure of the system to record accurate and reliable data was due to the performance of established quality assurance and quality control procedures or unavoidable malfunctions. [1993, c. 464, §1(NEW).]B. The department may not initiate enforcement action pursuant to section 349 against any person for failure to operate a continuous opacity monitoring system as long as the system is recording accurate and reliable data at least 95% of the source-operating time in each quarter of the calendar year, excluding time periods when the licensee is performing quality assurance and quality control procedures on the system that are required by the department. If the continuous opacity monitoring system is recording accurate and reliable data less than 95% of the source-operating time within any quarter of the calendar year, the department may initiate enforcement action and may include in that enforcement action any period of time that the continuous opacity monitoring system was not recording accurate and reliable data during that quarter unless the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that the failure of the system to record accurate and reliable data was due to the performance of established quality assurance and quality control procedures or unavoidable malfunctions. [1993, c. 464, §1(NEW).] [1993, c. 464, §1(AMD).]
1969, c. 474, § 1 (NEW) . 1971, c. 462, § 4 (RPR) . 1971, c. 618, § 12 (AMD) . 1977, c. 300, § 44 (AMD) . 1989, c. 890, §§A40,B163 (AMD) . 1991, c. 384, § 16 (AFF) . 1991, c. 384, § 9 (RPR) . 1993, c. 464, § 1 (AMD) . 2007, c. 589, § 6 (AMD) . 2007, c. 589, § 9 (AFF) .