Connecticut Department of

~ENERGY &

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

79 Elm Street o Hartford, CT 06~_06-5~[27 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

January 14, 2013

David B. Conroy, Chief

Air Programs Branch

United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1

5 Post Office Square

Boston, MA 02109-3912

Conroy.dave@epa.gov

Information to Support EPA ’s Approval of

Connecticut’s Requirements for Opacity

Dear Mr. Conroy:

I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental

Protection (the Department) to provide information to support the approval of section 22a-174-18 of the

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA), which was submitted to you as a voluntary State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request on December 1, 2004.

The SIP submission dated December I, 2004 focused on regulations that achieved emissions reductions to

support 2007 attainment of the l-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. The submission also

included the amendment, unrelated to ozone attainment, of RCSA section 22a-174-18, a regulation

concerned with the control of particulate matter and visible emissions from stationary sources. The

Department considers the mnendment a success primarily for the improvements to the opacity standards

for stationary sources, which allow for more effective enforcement.

The Department makes this submission to provide additional information to allow the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to determine that the 2004 version of RCSA section 22a- 174-18 does not

interfere with any applicable requirement regarding attainment. In particular, the Department believes

that the 2004 version of the regulation does not allow for an increase in actual emissions over those

allowed under the current EPA-approved version of RCSA section 22a-174-18. This submission begins

with a brief history of opacity regulation in Connecticut under RCSA section 22a-174-18. The

Department provides information on specific sources with opacity monitors and emissions from those

sources under RCSA section 22a-174-18, including a discussion of Connecticut’s attainment status for

fine particulate matter. The next section describes enforcement of the 2004 version of RCSA section 22a174-18. The final section describes other actions taken in Connecticut to reduce direct emissions of

particulate matter mad precursors of particulate matter. Together, this information should provide a

sufficient basis for EPA to conclude that the 2004 revisions to the visible emissions requirements have

not resulted in increased particulate matter emissions over the emissions allowed under the current EPAapproved version of RCSA section 22a-174-18 and have not interfered with any applicable requirement

regarding attainment.
Dave Conroy

Page 2

January 14, 2013

History of Opacity Regulation in Connecticut

Prior to the 2004 amendment that is the subject of this letter, RCSA section 22a-174-l 8 set out two

visible emission standards for stationary sources in Connecticut. These standards are in the currently

approved version of RCSA section 22a-174-18. The pre-2004 regulation included a time-exemption (5

aggregate minutes in a 60 minute period) opacity standard of 20% and an instamaneous opacity standard

of 40%. The pre-2004 version of RCSA section 22a-174-18 did not reference any compliance

determination methods for either standard and had no continuous opacity monitoring (COM)

requirements. Historically, RCSA section 22a-174-4 required the installation, operation and maintenance

of opacity monitors for certain types of sources operated in Connecticut, mostly electric generating units

(EGUs) with a capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. However, RCSA section 22a-174-4 did not require

that opacity monitors demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards of RCSA section 22a-174-18.

Concurrently, RCSA section 22a-174-18 did not reference opacity monitoring or any EPA-approved or

professionally recognized compliance determination methods. Connecticut recognized that without any

legally or professionally accepted compliance methods referenced in RCSA section 22a-174-18 and no

link to RCSA section 22a-174-4, the standards of RCSA section 22a-174-! 8 were potentially

unenforceable and that an amendment was necessary. With respect to compliance methods and averaging

times, the Department’s determination was bolstered by two federal court cases Donner Hanna Coke

Corporation v. Costle (464 F. Supp. 1295, 12 ERC 1780) (W.D.N.Y. February 12, 1979) (The

appropriateness of a method can be established only after its" consideration in a rule making proceeding.)

and [LS. v. Kaiser Steel Corporation (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 1984) (All procedures of Method 9, including the

data analysis requirements, must be complied with in order to establish a violation under this test

method.). Therefore, Connecticut set out to make RCSA section 22a-174-18 more stringent through the

adoption of complete standards for both visible and monitored measurements of opacity. The Department

also intended to revise RCSA section 22a-174-18 to provide a clearer basis for enforcement of the opacity

standards.

The Department began the process of amending RCSA section 22a- 174-18 in 1997. The Department

established a workgroup of staff and volunteers from the regulated community and set the goat for the

amendment of developing complete standards for visible and monitored measurements of opacity. In

developing the COM requirements, the workgroup recognized the need for a limited allowance of higher

opacity for certain sources with COM. Some of the information considered by staff and the workgroup

was collected under a Department guidance document in effect in the 1990s concerned with reporting of

data from COM. Under the guidance, owners of sources that were not subject to New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) but required to operate COMS in accordance with RCSA section

22a-174-4 were recording opacity data based on one-minute and six-minute averages. The guidance was

based on procedures and requirements found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.13 and 40 CFR

60, Appendix B. Based on the submitted COM data, the Department identified a group of 20 sources (see

Table 1) that frequently reported exceedances of the 40% opacity standard based on one-minute averages.

The Department performed an analysis that showed that these facilities were exceeding the standard for

short durations that in total accounted for a small percent of the total operating time. The exceedances

occurred during starmps, shutdowns, malfunctions and soot-blowing. The Department recognized that

these sources were not afforded the same operational considerations as NSPS sources. Boilers subject to

NSPS opacity standards and COMS requirements did not have to meet the opacity standards during

periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction (SSM). In addition, the NSPS source owngrs were allowed

to relax the opacity standard from 20% to 27% for one six-minute period every hour to allow for

operational maintenance (e.g., soot-blowing). The Department thus set out to develop similar but more

stringent requirements for the owners of non-NSPS sources. Unlike NSPS rules that allowed unlimited

periods of exceedance during SSM events, the Department planned to set both time caps and opacity limit

caps for snch events.

After seven years of meetings and many drafts, the final amendment of RCSA section 22a-! 74-18,

adopted on Aprd 1, 2004, included new time-averaged opacity standards with specified comphance
Dave Com’ny

Page 3

January 14, 2013

determination methods for sources with and without COM and a series of limited allowances for sources

that pre-dated the NSPS and used COM, with limitations on the allowances based on operating time and

the maintenance of(higher) opacity caps. The opacity limitations for owners mad operators of sources

without COM are set out in subsection (b)(1) of RCSA section 22a-174-18 and are based on visual

observation using EPA’s Reference Method 9. Owners and operators of sources with COM are subject in

subsection (b)(2) to a limitation of 20% opacity during any 6-minute block average and 40% opacity

during any one-minute block average. Sources with COM are allowed an allowance from the 20%/40%

limitations of subsection (b)(2) if the period of time subject to exemption is less than 0.5% of the total

operating hours per calendar quarter and the source does not exceed 60% opacity during any 6-minute

block average. This allowance is set out in subsection (j)(1).

The complete standards and limited allowances allowed for clearer understandings of compliance and

improved enforcement.

Sources with COJVI: Then and Now

The addition of the limited allowance in subsection (j)(1) of RCSA section 22a-174-18, which allows

certain sources with COM to exceed the opacity limitations of subsection (b)(l), has not resulted in an

increase in emissions. Evidence that emissions have not increased is provided in part by an examination

of the sources able to use the allowance of subsection (j)(1). In developing the 2004 amendment of

RCSA section 22a-174-18, the Department considered data from a group of 20 units for which the

allowance in subsection (j)(l) was developed. The 20 units are identified in Table 1. Sin(e the adoption

of the revised opacity stmadards and the allowance in 2004, eight of the original 20 units have been

permanently removed from service. Further contributing to an overall reduction in emissions fi’om the 20

units is a change in primary fuel from residual oil to natural gas for three of the remaining 12 units:

Middletown Station #2, Middletown Station #3, and Pfizer #5.

The location of each unit is also identified in Table 1, in order to demonstrate that emissions will not

increase in an area designated as nonattainment for PM2.5. Seven units are located in either New Haven

or Fairfield County. New Haven and Fairfield Counties are the Connecticut portion of the New YorkNew Jersey-Connecticut nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Note, however, that EPA published a

determination of attainment for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut nonattainment area for the 2006

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on December 3!, 2012. While the area currently remains designated

nonattainment, the Department has requested redesignation to attainment for both the 1997 annual and

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

The EPA’s clean data determination and the Department’s redesignation request are evidence that PM2.5

levels have reduced in New Haven and Fairfield Counties, suggesting that the revisions to RCSA section

22a-174-I 8, including the limited allowance for sources with COM, have not increased emissions or that

any increase has been more than compensated by a decrease (see discussion be!ow), thereby eliminating a

concern under section 110(/) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Dave Conroy

Page 4

January 14, 2013

Table 1. Original 20 Units with COM. Operations in Pre-2004 are Compared with

Current O

Middletown Station #2

Middletown Station #3

Middletown Station #4

Montville Station #5

Montville Station #6

Middletown/

Middlesex

Middletown/

Middlesex

Middletown/

Middlesex

Montville/

New London

Montvitle/

New London

Operating

Residual Oil/Natural Gas

Operating

Residual Oil/Natural Gas

Operating

Residual Oil

Operating

Residual Oil/Natural Gas

Operating

Residual Oil

Operating

Natural Gas/Residual Oil

Operating

Natural Gas/Residual Oil

Operating

Residual Oil

Operating

Residual Oil/Natural Gas

Operating

Residual Oil

Pfizer #5

Pfizer #8

Fusion Paperboard

PFI Boiler

Pratt & Whitney

Willgoos Labs Units 2 - 6

Groton/

New London

Grotoni

NewLondon

Sprague/

New London

East Hartford/

Hartford

Operating

Residual Oil/Natural Gas

Operating

Residual Oil

Operating

Natural Gas/Residual oil

Operating

Residual Oil

Operating. By Order can

only combust natural gas.

Unit rendered permanently

inoperable. Permit revoked

in October 2008.

Operating

Natural Gas/Residual Oil

All five units removed.

Shading indicates units’ that are located in a nonattainment area for the annual and 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS.

Enforcement Actions

Before the 2004 revision to RCSA section 22a-I 74-18, the Department had taken no formal enforcement

actions based on submitted COMS reports. The Department believed that it lacked the technical and

regulatory basis to pursue formal enforcement under the EPA-approved version of RCSA section 22a174-18.

RCSA section 22a-!74-i8, including the revised opacity standards, became effective on April 1, 2004.

Within six months, the Department issued formal enforcement actions against three sources for failing to

meet the new requirements based on submitted COMS reports: All three actions were resolved by orders

that required the owners of the three sources to develop opacity compliance plans to address the

mechanical and procedural issues that contributed to their non-compliance.
Dave Conroy

Page 5

January 14, 2013

Quantitative analysis of actual opacity excursions showed that between 2002 and 2008 total opacit~y

excursions and opacity excursions as a percent of operating hours dropped dramatically for the facilities

to which orde~’s had been issued. Subsequently, total excursions continue to be at historic lows for these

facilities.

Connecticut Has Taken Other Actions to Cause PM Emissions to Decrease

Connecticut has taken actions, which are not federally required, to reduce emissions of particulate matter

and its precursors, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Pursuant to an Executive Order of

the Governor enacted in 2000, Connecticut’s large EGUs and large industrial boilers were required to

reduce SO2 emissions by 30-50% and NOx emissions by 20-30%. The Department implemented the

Executive Order through the adoption of RCSA section 22a-174-19a and the revision of RCSA section

22a-174-22.

RCSA section 22a-174-19a reduces SO2 emissions primarily through fuel sulfur content restrictions.

Upon full implementation on January 1, 2003, RCSA section 22a-I74-19a required every industrial boiler

or EGU subject to the NOx Budget Program to use fuel with a sulfur content less than or equal to 0.3% by

weight; meet an average emission rate of less than or equal to 0.33 pounds of SO2 per mmBTU per

calendar quarter; meet an average emission rate of less than or equal to 0.3 pounds of SO2 per MMBtu

calculated per calendar quarter, if the emissions from two or more units are averaged; or meet an average

emission rate less than or equal to 0.3 pounds SO2 per MMBtu calculated for each calendar quarter,

provided that each unit combusts fuel with a sulfur content less than or equal to 0.5% by weight or meets

an actual quarterly average emissions rate less than or equal to 0.55 pounds SO2 per MMBtu.

The revisions to RCSA section 22a- 174-22 that resulted from the Executive Order had a compliance date

of October 1, 2003. The 61 EGUs and boilers subject to the NOx Budget Program were required to meet

an emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for the period of October I through April 30 of each year. In the first

year of implementation, the nou-ozone season limit resulted in NOx emissions reductions of 3,483 tons

compared to 1999 emissions.

The particulate inatter reductions resulting from. RCSA section 22a-174-19a and RCSA section

22a-174-22 clearly exceed any impacts from the visible emission allowances added to RCSA section

22a-174-18. The Department requests that EPA consider the effect of these changes together, as these

measures were all included in the post-2002 list of control measures in Connecticut’s PM2.5 attainment

demonstration submitted to EPA on February 1, 2008.

The requirements of RCSA sections 22a- 174-19a and 22a- I74-22 as adopted on December 28, 2000

remain in effect. Due in part to these two regulations, Connecticut has experienced a decrease in a~tual

total particulate matter emissions in the counties of Fairfield and New Haven, the two counties for which

Connecticut has been designated as being in nonattainment for the almual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Table 2 uses the 2002 actual emissions from the November 2008 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment

Demonstration and the 2007 actual emissions from tbe June 2012 Redesignation/Maintenance SIP for the

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The impact of the adoption of RCSA section 22a-174-19a and the

2000 revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-22 are reflected in the 2007 point source data. Actual emissions

of SO2 and NOx decline significantly for point sources (and for all sectors) between 2002 and 2007. The

apparent increase in point source PM2.5 between 2002 and 2007 is likely the result of a change in the

required emission estimation methodology, with the 2007 estimates including the condensable portion of

PM2.5 in addition to the filterable portion. In general, the 2002 estimates only accounted for the filterable

portion of PM2.5. Estimates for 2002 could be considerably higher if the condensable portion of PM2.5

was included. Emissions estimates of PM2.5 ~vere also improved in 2007 by the development of

emissions factors for PM2.5
Dave Conroy

Page 6

January 14, 20t3

Table 2. Change in Actual Emissions 2002 to 2007 for the Connecticut Portion of the

NY/NJ/CT PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (Fairfield and New Haven Counties)

PM2.5 2002 2007 Change 2002 to 2007

(tons) (tons) (tons)

Point~ 392.8* 456.7* 63.9*

Area 4775.7 3891.8 -883.9

Onroad 487.2 794.0 306.8

Nonroad 949.9 970.5 20.6

Total 6605.6 6113.0 -492.6

SO2 2002 2007 Change2002 to 2007

(tons) ( ns) (tons)

Point 10582.4 4344.3 -6238.1

Area 5800.5 7625.0 1824.5

Onroad 753.1 !76.1 -577.0

Nonroad !363.4 1470.7 107.3

Total 18499.4 13616.1 -4883.3

NOx 2002 2007 Change2002 to 2007

(tons) (tons) (tons)

Point 6196.8 5606.2 -590.6

Area 6070.8 6024.9 -45.9

Onroad 31854.4 23391.6 -8462.8

Nonroad 14985.8 15316.3 330.5

Total 59107.8 50339.0 -8768.8

*The emissions estimation methodology in later years re uired the inclusion of condensable PM, which was not

required in prior years. The Department believes that if earlier estimates of PM emissions during this time period

included condensable PM, then the data would show a decrease in PM emission in the point source sector.

The Department hopes that the information provided here is sufficient to allow EPA to approve

Connecticut’s opacity and visible emissions requirements as adopted on April i, 2004. Based on the

history of Connecticut’s visible emissions regulation, a comparison of the current regulation to its

potentially unenforceable SIP-approved predecessor, source-specific information, the identification of

other programs that have reduced emissions of precursors of particulate matter in Connecticut and the

measured improvement in PM2.5 levels in New Haven and Fairfield Counties, the Department believes

that RCSA section 22a-174-18 is consistent with CAA section 110(/) and an important tool in

Connecticut’s air quality programs.

Please get in touch with Bob Girard at 860-424-3461 if you have any questions concerning this

submission.

ARG/MAG/mag

Sincerely

Anne R. Gobin, Chief

Bureau of Air Management