### ATT'"'HMENT A-3



# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HEARING REPORT Prepared Pursuant to Section 4-168(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes and Section 22a-3a-3(d)(5) of the Department of Environmental Protection Rules of Practice

Regarding Amendment of Sections 22a-174-4 and 22a-174-7 of the

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Hearing Officer: MerrilyA . Gere Date of Hearing: October 23, 2002 On August 30, 2002, the Commissioner of the Department ofEnvironmental Protection ("Department") signed a notice of intent to propose two amendments to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ("R.C.S.A .") : section 22a-174-4 concerning . source monitoring, record keeping and reporting and R .C.S .A . section 22a-174-7 concerning air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment operation. Pursuant to such notice, a public hearing was held on October 23, 2002. ~The public comment period for the proposed amendments closed on October 25, 2002. I . Hearing Report Content As required by section 4-168(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes ("C.G.S."), this report describes the amendments as proposed for hearing ; the principal reasons in support of the Department's proposed amendments; the principal considerations presented in oral and written comments in opposition to the Department's proposed amendments; all comments and responses thereto on the proposed amendments; and the final wording ofthe proposed amendments. Commenters are identified inAttachment 1 . This report also includes a statement in accordance with C .G.S. section 22a-6(h) . II . Compliance with Section 22a-6(h) of the General Statutes Section 22a-6(h) of the C .G.S. requires the Commissioner of the Department to distinguish clearly, at the time ofpublic hearing, all provisions of a proposed regulation or amendment thereto that .differ fromadopted federal standards and procedures, provided: (1) such proposed amendment pertains to activities addressed by adopted federal standards and procedures; and (2) such adopted federal standards and procedures apply to persons subject to the provisions of such proposed amendment. In addition, the Commissioner must provide an explanation for all such provisions. in the regulation-making record required under Title 4, Chapter 54 of the Connecticut General S~'atutes. In accordance with the requirements of C .G.S. section 22a-6(h), the Hearing Officer made a ( Printed on Recycled Paper)2



### written statement available at the public hearing. Such statement, incorporated into the administrative record for this matter, indicated that the requirements of C .G .S. section 22a-6(h) do not apply to the provisions of the proposed amendments for one of the following two reasons: (1) there are no applicable federal standards or procedures; or (2) there are applicable federal standards or procedures, and such standards or procedures are adopted without change. The proposed amendment to R .C.S .A . section 22a-174-4 ("Section 4") clarifies and updates the Department's general requirements for continuous emissions monitoring (',CEM") equipment. The federal government requires states to have legally enforceable measures in the state implementation plan for air quality that require stationary sources subject to emission standards to install and properly operate CEM equipment . See 40 CFR 51 . However, the revisions in proposed Section 4 do not differ fromthese general federal requirements on the state. In the case of the data availability, quality assurance for opacity CEM equipment and monitoring plan requirements, proposed Section 4 does not add any requirements forwhich the federal government has adopted standards or procedures. In the case of quality assurance for gaseous CEM equipment, the federal government has adopted standards and procedures in 40 CFR 60, Appendix F, and the amendment requires sources to meet these federal standards. The proposed amendment to R .C.S .A. section 22a-174-7 ("Section 7") eliminates provisions redundant to other sections ofthe Department's regulations; clarifies air pollution control and monitoring equipment operation in conjunction with the amendment to Section 4 ; and clarifies the notification requirements for breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown of air pollution control and monitoring equipment . To the extent EPA has requirements applicable to the subject matter ofproposed Section 7, EPA directs the state to address the general operation of control and monitoring equipment in the state's implementation plan for air quality . See 40 CFR51 . lIl . Summary and Text of the Amendments as Proposed The amendment to Section 4 focuses the section on the Department's requirements for operation ofcontinuous emissions monitoring equipment by removing general monitoring equipment operating requirements and incorporating theminto the corresponding amendment to Section 7. The amendment updates the continuous emissions monitoring equipment requirements to current federal requirements, incorporates relevant portions of the Department's Continuous Emission Monitoring Guideline and revises language for improved clarity as well as consistency with current Department and Legislative Commissioner's Office practices. The amendment to Section 7 clarifies notification, reporting and compliance requirements for operation of air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment in conjunction with the amendment of Section 4 . By removing requirements that are redundant of sections 22a-174-12 and 22a-174-38 ofthe R .C.S .A., the amendment also streamlines environmental regulation. Revision is also included for consistencywith current Department and Legislative Commissioner's Office practices. The text of the amendments as proposed is located in Attachment 2 to this report .3

IV. Principal Reasons in Support of the Proposed Amendments The amendment to Section 4focuses the section on the operation of continuous emissions monitoring ("CEM") equipment and removes general monitoring equipment requirements. The amendment also updates requirements for continuous emissions monitoring equipment operation based on current federal requirements and the Department's Continuous Emission Monitoring Guidelines. Through such changes, the ability of the regulated communityto understand and comply with Section 4will be improved. The amendment to Section 7 streamlines environmental regulation by eliminating requirements that are redundant.sections 22a-174-12 and 22a-174-3 .8 of the R

.C.S.A. ; and clarifies requirements for air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment in conjunction with a corresponding amendment to section 22a-174-4 . The amendment also clarifies the notification, reporting and compliance requirements ofthe section . V . Principal Considerations in Opposition to the Proposed Amendments While comments were submitted recommending technical changes to the proposed amendments, no comments were submitted in opposition to moving the amendments forward for approval and promulgation. All comments submitted, both in opposition and support, are addressed in detail in Section VI of this report. VI . Summary of Comments In general, comments submitted were thoughtful, detailed and constructive. After considering these comments, the Department made changes, set out in detail in this section ofthis report, that improve the proposed amendments. The Department thanks commenters for the time and attention to drafting submitted comments. The Department credits the high quality ofthe comments to result in large part fromthe dedicated participation by many of the commenters in a :working group organized under the Bureau of Air Management's State Implementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee ("SIPRAC") . Over a period of approximately five years, members of this working group attended monthly meetings in Hartford and reviewed numerous drafts of the proposed amendments. These working group members gained an understanding of the Department's air quality goals and objectives, and the Department staff gained an understanding -of how these goals could be achieved in a manner that takes into account, in certain respects, needs of regulated source owners and operators. Substantive comments on the amendment of Section 4were focused on three topics: the performance specifications and quality assurance requirements, particularly for sources subject to federal requirements; minimum data availability, with comments supporting both increasing and decreasing theproposed availability requirements; and the application ofthe amendment of Section~4 to municipal waste combustors ("MWCs") .

.; . . Substantive comments on the amendment of Section 7 focused on the statement of an owner or operator's obligation to comply with all applicable emission limits and standards regardless offiling of notice under Section 7; the application of Section 7's requirements to sources

participating in emissions credit trading programs; and the application of the amendment to MWCs. All comments submitted are summarized below with the Department's responses, organized in three categories consisting of general comment, comment specific to Section 4and comment specific to Section 7. Location and topic organize the comments in the sections ofthis report specific to Section 4and Section 7. Commenters are identified by abbreviation in this section of this report and are identified fully in Attachment 1 to this report . When changes to proposed text are indicated in response to comment, new text is in bold font and deleted text is in, strikethrough font. 

### A . GENERAL COMIVIENT Comment : Several commenters support the Department's commitment to amend Sections 4 and 7. Appreciation is expressed for the Department's effort to involve the regulated community in the process of developing the amendments. (BRRFOC, CRRA, Wisvest) Response : The Department appreciates BRRFOC, Wisvest and CRRA's support for the amendment process and thanks these commenters as well as others in the regulated community for their dedication to the lengthy development of the proposed amendments and the SIPRA .C working group described earlier in this report . Through the SIPRAC working group as well as this hearing process, the Department believes it has arrived at amendments that both meet the, Department's goal ofmaintaining and improving the quality of Connecticut's environment in a manner that takes into account, when possible, the business practices of the regulated community

. 

### B . AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4 General comments 1 . Comment: EPArecommends adding a note at the beginning of the section stating that facilities subject to CEM requirements under federal rules must complywith the federal quality assurance/quality control, data availability and reporting standards found in the relevant federal rule and must not rely solely on the requirements in Section 4 . Response: Anysource subject to both state and federal requirements for the same activity must comply with all applicable state and federal requirements. Such is the case in Section 4 . However, the text of an adopted regulation stands alone, having undergone an extensive review process in order to arrive at clearly written requirements that will be interpreted consistently throughout the lifetime of the regulation. This hearing report and other supporting documentation required by statute serve as guidance regarding the intent of the regulatory amendrrient . The revision oethe proposed amendment described in the response to Comment 12 also addresses the concern expressed by EPA .5

2 . Comment : Since the proposed amendment includes standards that apply on a quarterly basis, Section 4should specify an effective date at the beginning of a calendar quarter, i . e ., January l, 2003 or April l, 2003. (NRG) Response: In the support documents accompanying the submission of this amendment to the Legislative Regulations Review Committee, the Department should specifyan effective date at the beginning of a calendar quarter, October 1, 2003 orJanuary 1, 2004, depending on the date of submission. Subsection (b), opacity CEM 3 . Comment : Ifit is the Department's intention, subsection (b)(1) should state clearly that it applies to stationary sources, not mobile sources, by adding the word "stationary" prior to "sources." (CBIA, BRRFOC) 

### Response: The Department should revise subsection (b)(1) to state clearly its application to stationary, not mobile, sources as follows: (1) 

### [Effective on January l, 1976] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISIONS (2) AND (3) OF THIS SUBSECTION, the owner or ["]operator["] of [any of] the [following "] STATIONARY sources["] LISTED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) THROUGH (D) OF THIS SUBDIVISION shall install[, maintain and operate a smoke and "opacity" monitor approved] OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT. . . . . 4 . Comment : The reference to process equipment operated "in combination with pollution control equipment" in subsection (b)(1)(D) is unclear. Ifthe intent is to require opacity CEM for process sources with more than 25 pounds per hour after application of control equipment, then the existing language, "after application ofcontrol equipment," should not be deleted as this existing language is clearer. (CBIA) 

### Response: The Department should revise subsection (b)(1)(D) to improve clarity, as follows: D~ [A "process source" that will emit in excess of] ANY PROCESS SOURCE WITH PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS EXCEEDINGtwenty-five [(25)] pounds per hour 25 LBS/HR), [of "particulate matter" as determined] after the application of control equipment,j when operated at ["]maximum rated capacity.["] EDITfDT ~T~TT z. , 5 . Comment : CRRAsupports subsection (b)(3) as proposed. Connecticut's tight electricity supply situation requires the use of standby fuel burning equipment to generate electricity during short-lived but crucial periods, particularly during warm weather. Arequirement for the installation of opacity CEM equipment on such units is not economically feasible. Further, it is sensible to exclude from such aunit's allowed operating hours those periods when the unit is operated for emissions testin~ or solely to maintain reliability .6

Response: The Department appreciates the support of CRRA for the requirements of subsection 

### ) 6 . Comment : Wisvest suggests that the 14-day limit on a source owner or operator to provide requested documentation to the Commissioner in subsection (b)(4) is inconsistent with time limits in other regulations and should be increased to 30 days. Response: The Department should change the 14-day submission limit to 30 days in subsection (b)(4), as follows: (4) THE COMMISSIONER MAY, INWRITING, REQUEST WRITTEN DOCUMENTATIONFROM THE OWNEROR OPERATOR OF EQUIPMENT LISTED IN SUBDIVISIONS (2) OR (3) OF THIS SUBSECTION TO ASCERTAIN THE APPLICABILITY OF SUBDIVISIONS (2) OR (3) OF THIS SUBSECTION

. AN OWNEROR OPERATOR SHALL DELIVERSUCH DOCUMENTATIONTOTHE COMMISSIONER WITHIN FOUR - TM! (1 4) THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RECEIPT OF SUCHAWRITTENREQUEST, 7. Comment : Proposed subsections (b)(5) and (b)(6) should be moved to subsection (e) . Subsections (li)(5) and (b)(6) are specific to a source for which the Commissioner, having first exempted the source as provided in subsection (e) frommeeting the monitoring requirements of chapter 446c of the Connecticut General Statutes, now revokes that exemption due to the existence of certain conditions. In moving the requirements of subdivisions (5) and (6) to subsection (e), subparagraphs (B) and (D) of subdivision (5) should be deleted. (DOD) Response: The Department should revise subsections (b) and (e) as follows: (1) delete subdivisions (5) and (6) from subsection (b) ; (2) revise and renumber proposed subdivisions (7) and (8) of subsection (b) ; and (3) incorporate the content of subdivisions (5)(A), (5)(C), (5)(E) and (6) of subsection (b) into subsection (e) 'and a new subsection (f), as follows: 

### (b) [Smoke and "Opacity" Monitoring.] OPACITY CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING (CEM). [(b)(5)

nuisance.]

applicable "ambient air quality standards," create a health hazard or create a The "commissioner" mayrevoke or "modify" an exemption under subsections (a)(3), (b)(2)(ii) and (iii), (b)(3) and (b)(4) ifit is determined that repeated violations of subsection 22a-174-18(a) or violations of any specific applicable conditions in these exemptions have occurred or if it is determined that operation of the "source" will prevent or interfere with the "attainment" or maintenance ofREPEATE

### D TTTLT C'L'SECTION 77 ., 1'7 

### _-~ 4 1 

### rS n~ TLT~ cC 

### -~FOAFCn 

### oI14~A-~F£~~~-~=-~r~ ~-- L REGULATIONS Or . GnN.nTC/ ~TTI'~T TT STATE AGENCIES II HAS . O C CURRED;

CD7

e 

### GIR

v u "



### ANOWNER OR OPERATORTHAT CLAIMS SUBDIVISION (b)(1) OF THIS SECTION IS NOTAPPLICABLE BY VIRTUE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 'SUBDIVISIONS (b)(2) OR (b)(3) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, UPONNOTICE FROM THE COMMISSIONER, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CEM EQUIPMENT ORCONDUCT OTHERMONITORINGOR INTERMITTENT STACK TESTINGAS ALLOWED BYTHIS SECTION, AND COMPLY WITH SUBSECTIONS (c) AND (d) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE COMMISSIONER FINDS: (A) REPEATED NONCOMPLIANCE WITHSECTION22a-174-18 OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES HAS OCCURRED

;

### (B) NONCOMPLIANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISIONS (2) OR (3) OF THIS SUBSECTION HAS OCCURRED ;

(6) (C) OPERATION OF THE SUBJECT SOURCE HAS INTERFERED WITH

OR IS LIKELY TOINTERFERE WITH THE ATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, CREATE A HEALTH HAZARD OR CREATE A NUISANCE; OR (D) MONITORING EQUIPMENT IS NEEDEDTO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. PROMULGATED THEREUNDER

. 

### THE NOTICE PROVIDED FOR INSUBDIVISION (b)(7)-(5) OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE INTHE FORM OF A PERMIT ORORDERAND SHALL SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATIONAND OPERATION OROTHERMONITORING INCLUDINGA DAY BYWHICH SUCH INSTALLATIONAND OPERATIONOROTHERMONITORING IS TO COMMENCE. (e) THE COMMISSIONER MAY EXEMPT AN OWNEROR OPERATOR OF A SOURCE SUBJECT TOTHIS SECTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION IF SUCHOWNEROR OPERATOR DEMONSTRATES IN WRITING, FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S WRITTENAPPROVAL, THAT SUCHSOURCE IS PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF VIOLATINGANYAPPLICABLE REQUIREMENT SET FORTHIN CHAPTER446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATEDTHEREUNDER (f) UPONWRITTENNOTICE IN THE FORM OF A PERMIT OR ORDERTO -AN OWNEROR OPERATOR OF ASOURCE GRANTEDAN EXEMPTIONUNDER SUBSECTION (e) OF THIS SECTION, SUCH OWNEROR OPERATOR SHALL INSTALL; . OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CEM EQUIPMENT INACCORDANCE WITH SUCH NOTICE IF: . (1) THE COMMISSIONER-DETERMINES THERE IS REPEATED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION22a-174-18 OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES; (2) OEERATION OF THE SUBJECT SOURCE HAS INTERFERED WITHOR IS LIKELY TO INTERFERE WITHTHE ATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF AMBIENT AIRQUALITY STANDARDS, CREATE A HEALTH HAZARD OR

### CREATE A NUISANCE ; .OR

(3) THE SOURCE HAS BEENALTERED ORTHE OPERATIONS OF THE SOURCE HAVE CHANGEDSUCH THAT SUBSECTION(e) OF THIS SECTION IS NO LONGERAPPLICABLE. 8 . Comment : Subsections (b)(5)(D) and (b)(7)(D) provide the Commissioner with the authority to require a source owner or operator to install and operate CEM equipment if, among other reasons, such CEM

equipment is "needed to determine compliance with chapter 446c of the Connecticut General Statutes . . ." Technological and economic feasibility should be added to these subparagraphs as additional factors the Commissioner will consider before requiring the installation of CEM

equipment. (CBIA) Response: The Department should delete subsection (b)(5)(D) as explained in the response to Comment 7 and revise proposed subsection (b)(7)(D) in response to this comment as follows: 

### ) MONITORING EQUIPMENT IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, ECONOIVIICALLY FEASIBLE AND NEEDED TODETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES ANDREGULATIONS PROMULGATEDTHEREUNDER ; OR 9 . Comment : Subdivisions (7) and (8) ofsubsection (b) should be revised to -state .clearly whether these subdivisions apply only to opacity CEM equipment, the installation of which is required by subdivision (1), or to other forms of emissions monitoring. Subdivisions (2) and (3) apply to sources that are exempt fromthe requirement to install opacity CEM equipment under subdivision (1) . Subdivisions (7) and (8) invalidate a source's operation under the exemptions provided by subdivisions (2) and (3) and require such source owner or operator to install monitoring equipment. Therefore, subdivisions (7) and (8) should require installation of opacity CEM equipment, not other monitoring or intermittent stack testing . (DOD) Response: The Department agrees that subdivisions (7) and (8) should be limited to opacity CEM equipment. Should the Commissioner determine that a source requires monitoring by gaseous CEM, opacity CEM or any other method, authority to require such monitoring is provided in subdivisions (1) and (2) of subsection (c) . Subdivisions (7) and (8) ofsubsection (b) should be revised in response to this comment and renumbered as subdivisions (5) and (6) as indicated in the response to Comment 7, as follows: (7)(5) ANOWNER OR OPERATORTHAT CLAIMS SUBSECTION (b)(1) OF

THIS SECTIONIS NOT APPLICABLE BY VIRTUE OF COMPLIANCE WITHSUBSECTIONS (b)(2) OR (b)(3) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, ' UPON NOTICE FROM THE COMMISSIONER, INSTALL, OPERATE ANDMAINTAIN OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT OR rnrmrTrr

### ALLOWEDw ACCORDINGTOTHIS SECTION, ANDCOMPLY WITH SUBSECTIONS (c) AND (d) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE COMMISSIONER FINDS:

INSTALLATIONAND OPERATION COMMENCE. THE NOTICE PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION (b)R(5) OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE INTHE FORM OF A PERMIT OR ORDERAND SHALL SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT INSTALLATIONAND OPERATION 0R-9TRER A499~UTQRD~FrINCLUDING ADAY BY WHICH SUCH 10

IS TO Subsection (c)(1) 10 . Comment: Several commenters noted concerns with the proposed language of (c)(1) : The phrase "in his or her sole discretion" is not reasonable since a reviewing court would subject a decision by the Commissioner to require installation of CEM equipment at a source to an arbitrary and capricious standard. (CBIA) The language appears to give the Department unilateral authority to require a source owner or operator to meet a new CEM requirement without formal regulatory due process. Sources to which recent regulations or regulatory amendments and permits with monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply should not have additional requirements imposed undersubsection (c)(1) unless such a change is implemented through the existing regulatory or permitting process. Subdivision (1) appears to allow a circumvention of such a process. (Am . Ref-Fuel, Wheelabrator, Covanta) The Department should explain how andwhy additional monitoring is required. (Covanta) Am . Ref-Fuel suggests the following alternative language: 

### (1) IF THE COMMISSIONER, , DETERMINES THAT OPACITY OR GASEOUS CEM EQUIPMENT IS REASONABLY AVAILABLE FROM

ATECHNICAL .AND ECONOMIC.PERSPECTIVE FOR ASOURCE OF AIRPOLLUTION, AND THAT SUCHMONITORING EQUIPMENT IS NECESSARY FORTHE DEPARTMENT TOOBTAIN , OPACITY OREMISSION DATA, THE COMMISSIONER MAY REQUIRE, BY MODIFY THE SOURCE'S PERMIT PURSUANT TOC .G .S. 22a-174c AND ' SHALL INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FORINSTALLATIONANDOPERATION INCLUDINGADAY BY WHICH SUCH INSTALLATIONAND OPERATIONIS TO COMMENCE. " The phrase "reasonably available" should be described with specific criteria that the11

Department would apply to determine if CEM equipment is "reasonably available." (Covanta, Wheelabrator) Such criteria should include: final promulgation of source-specific EPAperformance specifications; source-specific demonstrated commercial availability, where three or more vendors offer the CEM equipment to provide a source with cost effective choices and the ability to evaluate the best technical vendor; and source-specific demonstrated commercial viability where vendors have evaluated and addressed sourcespecific monitoring difficulties. Criteria must be source-specific since CEM equipment that performs well on one type ofsource may not performas well on another source. For example, equipment that performs well on a gas fired combustion turbine could not be expected to achieve similar performance on a MWC . (Wheelabrator) " The phrase "necessary for the Department to obtain opacity or emission data" should be described with a procedure for making the determination ofnecessity. (DOD, Wheelabrator) Such a procedure at a minimum should include: evaluating the objective ofobtaining emissions data, i . e

., is emissions data necessary for direct compliance monitoring, emission characterization or emission inventory purposes; reviewing source operating history where current process parameter monitoring may indicate a need for actual emissions monitoring; and evaluating ifprocess monitoring can be used as a surrogate for emissions in lieu of installing new

CEM equipment . (Wheelabrator) " In locations other thariproposed subsection (c)(1) in the proposed amendment to Section 4, such as subsections (c)(2), (d)(1) and (e), the need for emissions monitoring is linked to that necessary to verify, determine or .evaluate "compliance with Chapter 446c ofthe Connecticut General Statutes and regulations~promulgated thereunder." Use ofsimilar language would improve the clarity of subsection (c)(1) . (DOD) " Ifproviding DEP sole discretion to require additional monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements is intended to help implement Title Vperiodic monitoring or compliance assurance monitoring ("CAM") this intent should be stated. Further, the qualifications to periodic monitoring under 40 CFR70.6(a)(3)(i) and CAM exemptions under 40 . CFR 64.2(b) should be provided. These qualifications and exemptions are based on EPA's presumption that standards developed to implement the 1990 Clean AirAct amendments already contain monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping provisions that meet the Title Vperiodic monitoring and CAM requirements as is the case for the R .C.S.A . section 22a-174-38. (Wheelabrator) Response: Commenters express concernthat subsection (c)(1) will be used by the Commissioner to authorize the imposition ofnew CEM requirements on a source currently subject to CEM

requirements, circumventing normal, required regulatory procedures. This is not the intended purpose of subsection (c)(1) . Subsection (c)(1) is a revision in formbut not substance of existing subsection (a)(2) . Proposed subsection (c)(1) addresses the installation ofopacity or gaseous CEM equipment at a source that does not have such equipment and to which a source-specific regulation requiring CEM equipment does not apply . Such a source owner or operator may, but maynot, have obtained a permit for such a source fromthe Commissioner . The Commissioner'sjudgement of whether or not CEM

equipment is available for installation at a source under current subsection (a)(2)

### 12

balances many considerations specific to the source and the circumstances. Such considerations include cost, equipment availability, number of vendors offering the equipment, length oftime such equipment has been available, extent of use in the source category and necessity in relation to air quality concerns. The same considerations will be used tojudge CEM availability under new subsection (c)(1) . Furthermore, the installation and operation of CEM equipment under new subsection (c)(1) will be performed under the regulations as they exist at that time, and all required process would be followed to issue a new permit or modify an existing permit, as stated in proposed subsection (c)(1)

. Furthermore, in response to Wheelabrator's comment questioning whether or not subsection (c)(1) is intended to help implement TitleVperiodic monitoring or CAM, the answer is no. Subsection (c) addresses general operation and performance requirements for all sources with CEM, not qualifications and exemptions specific to particular source technologies. However, the Department agrees with the commenters that the language ofsubsection (c)(1) could be revised in some aspects to state more clearly the intended purpose. For example, the phrase "in the Commissioner's sole discretion" is not necessary to modify the Commissioner's authority to require CEM equipment installation at a source and should be deleted from subsection (c)(1)

. The Department should revise subsection (c)(1) to make this change and others in response to comment, as follows: (1) IF, FORASOURCE OF AIRPOLLUTION, THE COMMISSIONER , T"T~R



## , THE COMMISSIONER MAY REQUIRE, BY WRITTENNOTICE TOTHE OWNER OROPERATOR OF SUCH SOURCE, THE INSTALLATIONAND OPERATION OF CEM EQUIPMENT. SUCHWRITTEN NOTICE SHALL BE INTHE FORM OF A REGULATION, PERMIT ORORDERAND SHALL INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATIONAND OPERATION INCLUDINGA DAY BY WHICHSUCHINSTALLATIONAND OPERATIONIS TO COMMENCE. PROMULGATED THEREUNDER EQUIPMENT:I.S REASONABLY AVAILABLE, TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE AND NECESSARY FORTHE DEPARTMENT TOOBTAIN OPACITY OR EMISSION DATATO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITHCHAPTER 44bc OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS , DETERMINES THAT OPACITY ORGASEOUS CEM

11 . Comment : R&Csuggests that proposed section (c)(1) should be revised to exempt from Section 4those sources for which EPAhas adopted CEM requirements, particularly sources under MACT standards . R&Csuggests the Department add the following text to the end of (c)(1) : .'"...

### 13

NOTWITHSTANDINGTHE FOREGOING, THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TOASOURCE OF AIR POLLUTIONTHAT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND OPERATE CEM

EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO . (A) 40CFR PART 60, 61, 63 OR 72 OROTHERREGULATIONS ADOPTEDTHE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY; OR (B) A PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATION ISSUED ORADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. Alternatively, R&Csuggests that sources for which EPAhas adopted CEM requirements should be exempt fromparticular requirements in Section 4 such as data availability. Response: As stated in response to Comment 10, Section 4 . includes general requirements for operation and performance of all CEM equipment . These general requirements apply in addition to federal CEM

requirements. The revision suggested by R&Cis too broad, exempting many, if not most, regulated owners and operators from Section 4

. The Department should revise Section 4 as recommended in response to Comment 12 as that revision is partially responsive to the concern expressed here yet appropriately limits the federal requirements that allow for exemption fromSection 4

. Subsection (c)(4) 12. Comment : Subsection (c)(4) states that gaseous CEM equipment must meet the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR60 Appendix F. Forsources that are required to have CEM equipment under the Acid Rain and/or oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") Budget programs, the correct reference should be to 40 CFR75. The subsection should modified to read " . . . the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 75 or Appendix F of 40 CFR60, as applicable." (NRG) Response : While Section 4 addresses general CEM equipment operation and performance, the Department agrees that Section 4's implementation is improved by recognizing the quality assurance requirements in both 40 CFR60 and 40 CFR75 for sources subject to NOx Budget programs or Title IV ofthe Clean AirAct . In order to make this change, proposed subsections (c)(4) and (c)(5) should be replaced with a single subdivision, indicated following this paragraph. In addition, in combiningproposed subsections (c)(4) and (c)(5) to recognize sources subject to 40 CFR75, proposed subsection (c)(5)(B)(v) should be revised to recognize EPA's plan to promulgate new

performance audit procedures for opacity monitors:

### B-. Ls_~ QUALITY n Serr ro n rrrr

. 

### 14

(4) PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ANDQUALITYASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. THE OWNEROR OPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE REQUIREDTOINSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CEM . EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TOTHIS SECTIONSHALL MEET THE FOLLOWINGPERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ANDQUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: (A) THE APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR60 APPENDICES B ANDF, UNLESS THE SOURCE IS SUBJECT TO 40 CFR75, INWHICHCASE THE OWNEROR OPERATOR SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALITYASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR 75; 

### ) FOROPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, PUF,$UAIg TOSUBSECTION (b) OF THLS SECTION, SHALL ~,~ET THE FOLLOWING QUALITYASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TOQUALITY n eerv n r (1)

(ii) 

### CALIBRATIONSHALL BE ADJUSTEDWHENEVERTHE DAILY ZEROORUPSCALE CALIBRATION EXCEEDS PLUS/MINUS TWOPERCENT (f2%) OPACITY, DATA SHALL BE INVALID FORCALCULATING DATA AVAILABILITY INACCORDANCE WITHSUBDIVISION (6) (5) OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE ZEROOR UPSCALE CALIBRATIONVALUE EXCEEDS EITHER THE REFERENCE ZEROORTHE UPSCALE CALIBRATIONVALUE RECORDED DURINGTHE MOST RECENT CLEAR-PATHCALIBRATION BY PLUS/MINUS TWOPERCENT (±2%) OPACITY FORFIVE (5) CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR PLUS/MINUS FIVE PERCENT (±5%) OPACITY ONANYSINGLE DAY . THE PERIOD OF

### 15 INVALID DATA BEGINS WITH EITHERTHE FIFTH CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCE OF A DRIFT VALUE EXCEEDING PLUS/MINUS TWOPERCENT (±2%) OPACITY ORWITHTHE LAST DAILY CHECK PRECEDINGTHE SINGLE OCCURRENCE OF A DRIFT VALUE EXCEEDING PLUS/MINUS FIVE PERCENT (±5%) OPACITY. THE PERIOD OF INVALID DATA SHALL END WHENACALIBRATION DRIFT CHECK, CONDUCTED AFTERCORRECTIVE ACTION, DEMONSTRATES THAT RELIABLE MONITORING DATA IS BEING GENERATED, (iii) QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED DURING EACH CALENDAR QUARTER INWHICH TIE .SOURCE OPERATES, (iv) THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE NOTIFIED, INWRITING, NO FEWERTHANTHIRTY (30) DAYS PRIORTOTHE INITIALLY PROPOSED QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT, AND (v) QUALITYASSURANCE AUDITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE PROCEDURES CONTAINEDIN "PERFORMANCE AUDIT PROCEDURES FOROPACITY MONITORS," EPA DOCUMENT NO . 450/4-92/O10, DATED APRIL 1992. IF EPA PROMULGATES QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES IN 40 CFR60, APPENDIX F, QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ACCORDINGTOSUCHPROCEDURES. IF EITHER EPA DOCUMENT NO

. 450/4-92/O10 OR SUBSEQUENTLY PROMULGATED PROCEDURES IN 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX F, AS APPLICABLE, DOES NOT CONTAINAUDIT PROCEDURES FORTHE OPACITY CEM SELECTED BY THE OWNER OROPERATOR, THE OWNEROR OPERATOR SHALL, INWRITING, PROPOSE AUDIT PROCEDURES TO THE COMMISSIONER.FOR REVIEW ANDWRITTEN APPROVAL AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TOTHE INITIAL OPACITY CEM AUDIT; AND (C) . IF THE RESULTS OF A QUALITYASSURANCE AUDIT FAIL TO CONFORM

TOTHE QUALITYASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION, SUCHOPACITY CEM DATA SHALL BE DEEMED INVALID BY THE COMMISSIONER, ANDTHE OWNEROR OPERATOR WILL BE DEEMEDTO HAVE FAILED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT. DATA COLLECTED AFTERANY FAILED QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT SHALL BE

### 16 INVALID FOR CALCULATING PERCENT DATAAVAILABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBPARAGRAPH (b)(5)(A) OF THIS SUBSECTION

. Subsection (c)(S) 13. Comment : Subsection (c)(5)(B)(iii) requires asource owner or operator to conduct quality assurance audits during each calendar quarter in which the source operates. Wisvest requests that the Department revise proposed subsection (c)(5) to allowa source owner or operator to defer linearity testing to the following quarter ifthe source operated for fewer than 168 hours in a calendar quarter. This revision would conformthe subdivision to EPA's requirements for acid rain program

sources . Response: The Department should not revise proposed subsection (c)(5)(B)(iii) in response to this comment . EPA's requirements for acid rain program sources in 40 CFR 75 are addressed in the revision to proposed Section 4explained in response to Comment 12. The requirements of 40 CFR 75 apply to monitoring of sulfur dioxide and NOx emissions. Since subsection (c)(5)(B)(iii) applies to opacity CEM monitoring, it should not be revised to conform to 40 CFR 75. Subsection (c)(6)(A), minimum data availability 14. Comment: " The Department should increase the minimum data availability requirements of subsections (c)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) to match those demonstrated as achievable in Connecticut. EPA's review ofregional monitoring records demonstrates that the majority of sources are able to maintain more than 98%

data availability for opacity and gaseous CEM . (EPA) " The Department should decrease the minimum data availability requirements of subsections (c)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) to include a minimum data availability requirement for all CEM equipment (opacity and gaseous) of 80%, which is consistent with EPA's minimum data availability for CEM

equipment. (NRG)



### . Subsection (c)(6)(A)(ii) is vague and ambiguous, and, since that subparagraph applies to emissions data fromgaseous CEM equipment, the phrase "air pollutant emissions other than opacity" should be replaced with "gaseous emissions data." (DOD) . " The Department should limit the allowable periods when data is not available to periods of unavoidable monitoring systemmalfunction. Specifically, the Department should: (1) add the language fromexisting (e)(1) as a new (c)(6)(A)(i) and change the numbering of the subsequent subparagraphs; (2) add the phrase "except for during periods of unavoidable malfunction ofthe monitoring system" to existing (e)(1) ; and add a sentence at the end of subsection (c)(6)(A)(iv) stating that the allowable periods of missing data only apply in cases of-unavoidable systemmalfunction. (EPA) Response : After receiving conflicting comments on the minimum data availability requirements of subsections (c)(6)(A)(i) and (ii), the Department reviewed the demonstrated data availability17

for Connecticut sources. The Department agrees with EPA that the proposed minimum data 

### availability of 90%for all emissions other than opacity should be increased, not to 98%but to 95%, as the majority of Connecticut sources are able to maintain this level of data availability. With this change, Section 4 will require a 95% minimumdata availability for all CEM data. This revision will also provide the clarity regarding the application of subsection (c)(6)(A)(ii) that DOD seeks in its comment . EPA also suggests that Section 4 should specifically limit the allowable periods when data is not available to periods of unavoidable monitoring systemmalfunction. EPAsuggests the Department specify this by maintaining a revised version ofcurrentsubsection (e)(1), which requires a source owner or operator to operate CEM equipment whenever the source is operating. While subsection (e)(1) is deleted from the proposed amendment to Section 4, the requirement to operate required monitoring equipment when a source is operating is included in the corresponding amendment to Section 7, discussed in detail later in response to Comment 30. While it is not necessary that Section 4also require that monitoring equipment should be operated whenever the source is in operation, to improve clarity, a statement referencing Section 7 with respect to Section 4's data availability requirements should be added. The Department should re,-number proposed subsection (c)(6) as subsection (c)(5) to correspond to the revision explained in the response to Comment 12 and should revise proposed subsection (c)(6)(A) as follows: (6)(5) DATAAVAILABILITY.



### (A) THE OWNEROROPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE REQUIREDTO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OPACITY ~- CEM

EQUIPMENT DT TD QT T A ATT TO ST TDC'E(''TT(lAT fl_1_LlF 

### INACCORDANCE WITHTHIS SECTION OR ORDER SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING DATAAVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS 3~'r-~RESPECT TODATAAVAR 7ABMITY ONAN EMISSION LIMITATION-SPECIFIC BASIS: (i) WHILE THE SOURCE IS OPERATING, THE OWNEROR OPERATORSHALL OPERATE REQUIRED CEM EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TOSECTION22a-174-7(b) OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES, ANDALLOWABLE PERIODS OF MISSING DATA SHALL APPLY ONLY TOPERIODS OF DELIBERATE SHUTDOWNALLOWED BY SECTION22a174-7(b) OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES, UNAVOIDABLE SYSTEM MALFUNCTION ORAS OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION,

### 18 (i) (ii) OPACITY 1zUSSTOTS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS (B) AND (C) OF THIS SUBDIVISION, DATA SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR NOLESS THAN NINETYFIVE PERCENT (95%) OF THE TOTAL OPERATING HOURS OF THE SOURCE INANY CALENDAR QUARTER, AND

(iii) PERCENT DATAAVAILABILITY SHALL BE CALCULATED USINGTHE FOLLOWING EQUATION : % Data Availability,= Unit Operating Time-Monitoring Downtime *l00 Unit Operating Time WHERE: UNIT OPERATINGTIME =TOTAL HOURS OF SOURCE OPERATIONAT ANY LEVEL DURINGTHE CALENDAR QUARTER

. MONITORING DOWNTIME =TOTAL HOURS OF SOURCE OPERATIONAT ANY LEVEL DURINGTHE CALENDAR QUARTERWHERE EITHER NOCEM EQUIPMENT DATAWAS COLLECTED ORTHE CEM EQUIPMENT DATAWAS INVALID . SUCH PERIODS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, QUALITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CALIBRATION, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE, ANDCALIBRATIONDRIFT EXCEEDANCES OR QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS THAT RESULT IN INVALID DATA . Subsection (c)(6), other comments 15. Comment: Subsection (c)(6)(A) should be revised to address use of an opacity monitor or other CEM

equipment in a common stack situation. Such revision should define an operating hour as an hour when one or both sources that share a common stack are in operation. Such a definition would specify that any hour in which two sources sharing a common stack are operating is considered as a single operating hour rather than two. (NRG) Response: The Department interprets proposed Section 4(c)(6)(A) to apply to a source with a

### 19

common stack as the commenter describes. No change to the proposed language is necessary. 16 . Comment : " The operating hour limits of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (c)(6) establish maximum

hours of operation for CEM and opacity monitors seeking exemption fromthe data availability requirements. DEP should use 504 hours as the operating hour limit for both opacity and gaseous CEM equipment . (NRG) " The 72 hour maximum period of operation for gaseous CEM equipment in subsection (c)(6)(C) should be replaced with the current requirement to prepare and submit an engineering evaluation under section 4 .3 of the Department's Continuous Emission Monitoring Guideline. Alternatively, the maximum operating time period in subparagraph (C) should be increased from72 hours to 252 hours. This change is recommended because the amended data availability requirements present a significant tightening of the current requirements of Section 4, and data availability is not a matter affecting health or the environment since a source's emissions and emission control equipment remain the same. (Pfizer) - Response : The proposed operating hour limits of subsection (c)(6)(C) represent a reasonable allowance for the Commissioner to grant an exemption, after taking into account minimum data availability and other performance requirements. The Department calculated these operating hour limits based in part on the proposed minimum data availability of 95% for opacity monitor data and 90%

for all other pollutant data. Due to the increase in the proposed minimum data availability for pollutant data other than opacity explained in response to Comment 14, the proposed 72 hour operating hour limit should be increased to 336 hours. However, the Department should not increase the operating hour limit to 504 hours as one commenter recommends since the commenter fails to present calculations or other persuasive evidence for the recommended increase. In summary, the Department should revise the proposed exemptions fromthe minimum data availability in subsection (c)(6) in two respects: (1) in response to comment on the operating hours explained in the paragraph above; and (2) to correspond to the revision explained in the response to Comment 14:



## (B) THE COMMISSIONER, INWRITING, MAY EXEMPT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ASOURCE FROM THE MINIIvfUM

DATA AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPARAGRAPHS (A)(i)(ii) AND(A)(iii) OF THIS SUBDIVISION IF SUCH SOURCE IS EQUIPPED WITH PROPERLY OPERATINGOPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, AND THE SOURCE IS OPERATED LESS THANOR EQUAL TOFIVE HUNDRED FOUR (504) HOURS IN THE CALENDAR QUARTER . (C) THE COMMISSIONER, INWRITING, MAY EXEMPT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A SOURCE FROM THE MINIMUM

DATA AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPARAGRAPHS (A)(ii)

### 20 AND (A)(iii) OF THIS SUBDIVISION IF SUCHSOURCE IS EQUIPPED WITH PROPERLY OPERATINGGASEOUS CEM EQUIPMENT, AND THE SOURCE IS OPERATEDLESS THANOR EQUAL TOSEVENTY- TWB-{7?}-THREE HUNDREDTHIRTY-SIX (336) HOURS INTHE CALENDAR QUARTER . (D) TOOBTAINAN EXEMPTIONUNDER SUBPARAGRAPHS (B) OR (C) 17. Comment : Information to support a request for an exemption fromthe data availability requirements is required to be submitted 30days from, the end ofthe quarter (subsection (c)(6)(D)) . For ease of filing, the Department should revise the time ofsubmittal to the "end of the month following the end ofthe calendar quarter." (NRG) . Response: The Department should not revise proposed subsection (c)(6)(D) in response to this comment . The proposed 30-day submission deadline is consistent with the 30-day deadline in proposed subsection (d)(6), which is described in response to Comment 22.~ Subdivision (d)(2), s4enatorv requirements 18. Comment : " R&Csupports the signatory requirements of(d)(2) for referencing the standards of R .C .S.A. section 22a-430-3(b)(2) rather than the recently adopted R .C.S .A. section 22a-174-2a(a) . The requirements of R

.C.S.A. section 22a-174-2a(a) raise significant uncertainty and go significantly beyond federal baseline requirements for the state's Title Vprogram . If the Department intends to replace the reference in (d)(2) to R .C.S.A . section 22a-430- . 3(b)(2) with a reference to R .C.S.A. section 22a-174-2a(a), the Department should revise R .C.S .A. section 22a-174-2a(a) at the earliest convenience to address the uncertainties ofthis section. (R&C) The proposed reference to R .C.S.A. section 22a-430-3(b)(2) should be replaced now with R .C.S .A . section 22a-174-2a(a) to avoid confusion. (CBIA) " While having no objection to the proposed reference to section 22a-430-3(b)(2), the Department should change the citation to section 22a-174-2a(a) now rather than later, ifthe Department does intend to make this change in the future. (Pfizer) Response: The Department should not revise the reference to R .C.S .A . section 22a-430-3(b)(2) proposed in subsection (d)(2) . Until and unless R .C.S .A. section 22a-174-2a(a) is revised, subsection (d)(2) should remain as proposed. 19. Coinment : The formcurrently used to submit quarterly opacity and NOx exceedance data includes a certification for a duly authorized representative of the source but does not include a certification for the individual preparing the filing as required by subsection (d)(2) . The

### 21

Department should issue a modified formto match the requirements of amended Section 4. (NRG) Response : At such time as the amendment to Section 4 becomes effective, the Department should revise current forms or create new forms to allowfor reporting pursuant to the requirements of amended Section 4 . Other requirements ofsubsection (d) 20 . Comment : " The record maintenance requirements of subsection (d)(3) are broader than necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of Section 4and applicable emission limitations and standards, andthe Department should revise subdivision (3) accordingly. (Pfizer)

. The requirement in subsection (d)(3) to maintain data "to determine compliance with an emissions limitation or standard" is unnecessary in conjunction with and contradictory to subsection (d)(1), whichrequires a source owner or operator to maintain data to "evaluate compliance with Chapter 446c of the Connecticut General Statutes." The last sentence in subsection (d)(3) should be deleted. (DOD) Response: The Department agrees that subsection (d)(3) should be revised for clarity and conciseness as follows: 

### (3)

THIS SECTION 

### THE OWNEROROPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE SUBJECT TOTHE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES ANDREGULATIONS ADOPTEDTHEREUNDER SHALL MAINTAINALL DATA, DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS REQUIRED BY INA 

### CREATED

. LEGIBLE AND COMPREHENSIBLE FORM FOR "T~ T~~ FIVE (5) YEARS FROM

THE DATE SUCH DATA, DOCUMENT OR REPORT IS

21 . 'Comment : The record retention requirement of subsection (d)(4) should be revised to , specify that a certification of installation issued by the Commissioner is a sufficient record to determine compliance. Atime period should be associated with this requirement . (Pfizer) Response: The Department should delete subsection (d)(4) as indicated below . The subdivision, which addresses the retention ofrecords evidencing compliance with CEM equiprri4nt calibration drift testing, has become outdated and unnecessary since its addition to earlier drafts of the proposed amendment :Dn~~nA`T'T~-E- ;TDE1_AIC1NGCBM~ .T LA2rCE WITH THE S SE~c'~"T p) 2'7



### GFR 60 . Remaining subdivisions (5) and (6) should be re-numbered as subdivisions (4) and (5) . 22. Comment : Subsection (d)(6) requires that the quarterly reports be filed no later than 30 days after the end of the .quarter . For ease of filing, the submittals should be required by the "end of the month following the end of the quarter ." (NRG) Response: The Department should not revise the proposed 30-day submission deadline. That time period is consistent with 40 CFR60 and other federal and state reporting requirements. Subsection (d)(6) should be re-numbered as subsection (d)(5) as explained in the response to Comment 21 . Subsection (e) 23. Comment : Subsection (e) allows the Commissioner to waive monitoring requirements if a source owner or operator demonstrates that the source is physically incapable ofviolating emissions standards and limitations. Since the CEM requirements of Section 4are pollutantspecific, subsection (e)'s physical incapability determination should also be pollutant-specific. (CBIA) Response: In addition to the revision to proposed subsection (e) explained in response to Comment 7, the Department should add the text highlighted below to- subsection (e) : (e) THE COMMISSIONER MAY EXEMPT ANOWNER OR OPERATOR OF A SOURCE SUBJECT TOTHIS SECTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTIONAS THEY APPLYTOAPARTICULARAIR POLLUTANT IF SUCH OWNEROR OPERATORDEMONSTRATES IN WRITING, FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S WRITTENAPPROVAL, THAT SUCHSOURCE IS PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF VIOLATINGANYAPPLICABLE REQUIREMENT FORSUCHAIR POLLUTANT SET FORTHIN CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES ANDREGULATIONS PROMULGATEDTHEREUNDER . Comments specific to municipal waste combustors ("MWCs") 24 . Comment : As proposed, the language in subsection (c)(1) establishes a basis for the Departr~ent to mandate changes in monitoring that may have serious economic consequences. Technical and economic feasibility should be considered. Subsection (c)(2) is similar in granting broad authority to the Commissioner to require stack testing . Connecticut's MWCs are subject to23

R .C.S.A. section 22a-174-38 ("Section 38"), which includes extensive requirements to monitor, report and stack test . (BRRFOC) Response: The Department appreciates that Section 38 includes significant requirements for the operation of MWCs. Such requirements are necessary to meet Connecticut's air quality needs and federal air emissions requirements for MWCs. In considering the need for additional emissions monitoring at a MWCor any other source, the Commissioner will consider compliance with all applicable requirements in statute or regulation. Any changes to existing monitoring requirements will be made with all process that is due under the law . See also the response to Comment 10 . 25. Comment : MWCowners and operators are subject to extensive monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping through R .C.S.A . section 22a-174-38 and facility permits. Such requirements are sufficient, and the owners and operators of MWCfacilities should be exempt fromadditional . monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that mayresult fromthe proposed amendment . (Wheelabrator) Response: The Department should not exempt N4-WCs from Section 4

. As stated in the response to Comment 24, *the Department appreciates that MWCs are subject to significant requirements by the Department . Such requirements are necessary to regulate air emissions from MWCs in a manner that is sufficiently protective of Connecticut's air quality. Other categories of stationary sources also are subject to requirements specific to that source category through regulations and/or permits. MWCs and all such categories of stationary sources will be required to comply with all applicable regulations, including regulations of general application to many source categories, as may be amended fromtime to. time. Section 4is necessary to include general monitoring requirements for all stationary sources and is designed to function in conjunction with source-specific requirements. 26 . Comment: Proposed Section 4provides the Department with the ability to create new enforceable permit conditions on any facility without providing the facility with the ability to comment on or discuss the change. The existing requirements of Section 38 are appropriate for defining appropriate emissions limits and comprehensive monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. (Covanta) Response: As explained in the responses to Comments 10 and 24, Section 4 is not intended to and does not allow

the Department to circumvent the current permit and regulatory amendment processes. When considering the need to change existing or to add new requirements on a source owner or operator, the Department has and will continue to complywith all the notice and public participation requirements of the law . See the comment and response under Section VLAofthis report . 'L While S~-ection 38 does include emission limits applicable to MWCs and related monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, those requirements do not replace the general monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Section 4 . The Department should notrevise Section 4to make any exception for source owners and operators to which Section 38

applies. Additional comments by Hearinz Officer 

### The Department should make the corrections identified in comments 27 and 28. 24

27. Subsection (d)(1) : To maintain the Commissioner's authority in existing subsection (c) to require a source owner or operator by notice to submit anyrecords or reports ofmonitoring data and other information necessary for compliance, proposed subsection (d)(1) should indicate that information is required to be submitted on forms only if the Commissioner has created forms that address the information requested, as follows: 

### (1) THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY WRITTENNOTICE, REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOROF ANY SOURCE TOCREATE, MAINTAINANDSUBMIT DATA, RECORDS ORREPORTS OF MONITORING DATAANDOTHERINFORMATION DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COMMISSIONER TOEVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITHCHAPTER446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATEDTHEREUNDER . SUCH INFORMATIONSHALL BE RECORDED, COMPILEDANDSUBMITTED ONFORMS AS MAY BE FURNISHED OR PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER . THE WRITTENNOTICE SHALL PROVIDE THE DATE BY WHICHSUCH DATA, RECORDS OR REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TOTHE COMMISSIONER . 28 . Subsection (d)(5) : To maintain consistencywith existing Section 4, proposed subsection (d)(5) should apply only to information fromopacity CEM equipment. The Department does not need to receive additional quarterly reports under this section. Proposed subsection (d)(5) should be re-numbered as subsection (d)(4) as explained in response to Comment 21 and revised as follows: f5)(4) 

### EACH CALENDAR QUARTER, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY

OPACITY CEM

EQUIPMENT REQUIRED PURSUANT TOSUBSECTION (b) OF THIS SECTION PEPJAIF OR ORDERSHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIONTO THE COMMISSIONER: 29. Technical corrections: The Department should make the following technical corrections in the identified subsections of the proposed amendment : " Subsection (b)(1)(B) : The word "gaseous" should be eliminated as indicated below to make Secion 4 consistent with 40 CFR51, Appendix P, section 2 .1 .1 .1, which does not require opacity CEM

for fuel burning equipment burning only gaseous fuel :25

[(ii)] (B) ["Fuel-burning equipment" burning liquid or solid fuels having a maximum

rated heat input of] ANY r="SS LIQUID OR SOLID FUEL 

### BURNING EQUIPMENT WITHA . MAXIMUM

RATED HEAT INPUT GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TOtwo hundred fifty million [(250,000,000) "BTU"] BTU per hour (250,000,000 BTU/HR) [or more] ; " Subsection (c)(2) " The word "regulation" should be added as a formofwritten notice in addition to a permit or an order by which the Commissioner may require alternative monitoring at a source for which CEM equipment is-not reasonably available, as follows : (2) IF THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES THAT CEM EQUIPMENT IS NOT REASONABLY AVAILABLE FORA SOURCE OF AIRPOLLUTION, THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BYWRITTEN NOTICE, REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF SUCHSOURCE TOCOMPLY WITHANALTERNATIVE MONITORINGTECHNIQUE OR CONDUCT INTERMITTENT STACKTESTING TOVERIFY THE SOURCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITHCHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES ANDREGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER

. SUCHWRITTENNOTICE SHALL BE INTHE FORM OF A REGULATION, PERMIT ORORDERAND. . . " Internal references should refer by name to the outermost unit of the section for consistency with formatting requirements of the Legislative Commissioner's Office. In proposed subsection (b)(1), the word "subdivisions" should be replaced with "subsections;" in proposed subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3), the word "subparagraph" should be replaced with "subdivision;" in proposed subsections (b)(7) and (b)(8), the words "subdivision" and "subdivisions" should be replaced with "subsection" and "subsections;" in proposed subsection (c)(5)(C), the word "subparagraph" should be replaced with "subdivision;" and in proposed subsection (d)(4), the word "subparagraph" should be replaced with "subsection." 

### C . AMEN DMENT OF SECTION 7 Subsection (a) 30 . Comment: Proposed subsection (a) implies that it is legally permissible to operate a source despite a breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown of air pollution control equipment, even if it leads to an exceedence of an emission limitation. Existing subsection (a), which is deleted by the proposed amendment, makes it clear that such equipment shall be maintained in operation at all times that the stationary source is in operation or is emitting air pollutants." (EPA) Specifically, EPA suggests two changes to improve the clarity of proposed subsection (a) : (1) Retain the language of the existing subsection (a) . This unambiguous provisionwill alert source dwners and operators that their legal obligation is to operate the necessary pollution control ~quipment at all times the source is emitting pollutants; and (2) add a statement similar to existing Section 4(e)(4) that helps clarify a source owner or operator's legal obligation to comply with the emissions standards regardless ofthe status of control equipment. For example, after

### 26

(a)(3), the Department could add, "compliance with this subsection in no way relieves the owner or operator of anyresponsibility to comply with applicable emission standards." Response: EPA's comment is directly on point with a message that the Department staff stressed to those members ofthe regulated community participating in the rule development process and that the Department sought to state clearly in the proposed amendment -- compliance with the notice requirements of Section 7 in no way excuses an owner or operator of a source from complying

.with anyapplicable emission limitation or requirement . The proposed amendment is structured as indicated below to state this point and address EPA's concern: (1) Subsection (b)(1) requires a source owner or operator to operate air pollution control equipment. and monitoring equipment whenever the source is operating with the exception provided in existing Section 7 of performing maintenance that may only be performed with the source operating; . (2) Subsection (a) states an owner or operator's due diligence obligation to minimize emissions should the source operate to produce an exceedance of an emission limitation during air pollutiori control equipment breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown. It does not provide an excuse fromsuch an exceedance, but creates a legal obligation to minimize such an event; (3) Subsection (f) specifically states that "nothing in this section . . . shall excuse noncompliance with any emission limitation or emission standard and other applicable requirements" and reinforces the Commissioner's existing authority to take enforcement action during any breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown of air pollution control equipment or monitoring equipment. EPA's suggestions to improve the clarity are appreciated, and the Department should revise 'Section 7 at subsections (a) and (f) as follows:

BREAKDOWN, FAILURE ANDDELIBERATE SHUTDOWN . (1) NEITHERBREAKDOWN, FAILURE NORDELIBERATE SHUTDOWN OF ANYAIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ORMONITORING EQUIPMENT NOR SUBMISSION OF ANY NOTICE PURSUANT TOTHIS SECTION SHALL EXCUSE THE OWNEROROPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE FROM

THE OBLIGATIONTO COMPLY WITHAN APPLICABLE EMISSION LIMITATION OREMISSION STANDARD OR OTHERAPPLICABLE REQUIREMENT. 

### (2) IF ANOWNER OROPERATOR OPERATES ASTATIONARY SOURCE TOPRODUCE EMISSIONS OF ANAIR Dn~T LUTI AAF-~ POLLUTANT DURING BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE

### 27 SHUTDOWNOF ANY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT SO AS TO PRODUCE AN EXCEEDANCE OF ANAPPLICABLE EMISSION LIMITATION OR EMISSION STANDARD, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL: 

### (A) EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TOMINIMIZE EMISSIONS WHILE SUCH CONTROL EQUIPMENT IS INOPERATIVE; (B) CONTINUE THE USE OF MONITORING EQUIPMENT; AND (C) GIVE NOTICE TOTHE COMMISSIONER AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTIONS (d) AND (e) OF THIS SECTION . [(d)](f) [The Commissioner may attach conditions to the operation of the stationary source during the period of shutdown or breakdown .] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (g) OF THIS SECTION, COMPLIANCE WITHTHE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS (d) AND(e) OF THIS SECTIONORTHE OPERATIONREQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (b) OF THIS SECTIONSHALL NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR FROM COMPLYING WITHALL APPLICABLE EMISSIONLIMITATIONS ANDEMISSION STANDARDS. THE COMMISSIONER MAYTAKE ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION, INCLUDING REQUIRINGTHE OWNEROR OPERATORTO CEASE OPERATIONOF THE STATIONARY SOURCE, ORATTACHANY CONDITIONTOTHE OPERATION OF THE STATIONARY SOURCE DURINGTHE PERIOD OF ANY BREAKDOWN, FAILURE ORDELIBERATE SHUTDOWN OF AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL OR MONITORING EQUIPMENT. NOTHINGINTHIS SECTIONORANY NOTICE SUBMITTED PURSUANT TOTHIS SECTIONSHALL EXCUSE N 

### PRECLUDE THE COMMISSIONER FROM TAKINGANY ACTIONTMGESSA AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. 31 . Comment : BRRFOCrequests that the Department consider the following revisions to subsection (a) :



### CONTROL EQUIPMENT INAMANNERWHICH RESULTS INAN 

### fal BREAKDOWN, FAILURE ~r .~,F9 OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN . IF AN OWNEROROPERATOR OPERATES A STATIONARY SOURCE TO EXCEEDANCE OF ANAPPLICABLE EMISSIONS LIMITATION OR EMISSION STANDARD OF AIR POLLUTANTS DURING BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN OF ANYAIR POLLUTION OWNEROR OPERATOR SHALL:28 

### (1) EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MINIMIZE EMISSIONS WHILE SUCHCONTROL EQUIPMENT IS INOPERATIVE; (2) CONTINUE THE USE OF MONITORING EQUIPMENT NOT SUBJECT TOBREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN

; AND . . . . Response: The Department should not revise the proposed language as recommended in this comment. No explanation is provided in support of the recommended revision, and such revision does not make any obvious improvement in the section . Subsection (b)(1) 32. Comment: Subsection (b)(1) states that monitoring equipment may not be shut down for maintenance while a source is operating, unless such maintenance requires the source to continue operating. Proposed subsection (b)(1) conflicts with Section 4(c)(6), which defines the data availability requirements for CEM equipment and includes maintenance as an allowable downtime. (Am

. Ref-Fuel, Wheelabrator) Am . Ref-Fuel states that its CEM equipment maintenance requires short-termshut down ofthe monitors but does not require operation ofthe boilers. The proposed amendment would require shutdown ofthe boilers during routine maintenance, and Am

. Ref-Fuel does not believe this is the Department's intent . Response: The Department agrees that the proposed language in subsection (b)(1) regarding maintenance should be clarified, and, to more precisely state the intent, the Department should replace the proposed language with the existing language regarding maintenance, as follows: 

### (1) [No] WHILE ASTATIONARY SOURCE IS IN OPERATION, NOperson shall deliberately shut down any [such] OPERATIONAL AIRPOLLUTIONcontrol OR MONITORING equipment [, method or other instrument specified in subsection 22a174-7 (a) while the source is in operation except for such necessary maintenance as cannot be accomplished when the stationary source itself is not in operation and is not emitting air pollutants.] OR DELIBERATELY KEEP SUCHAIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ORMONITORINGEQUIPMENT SHUT DOWN EXCEPT TOPERFORM

NECESSARY MAINTENANCE, WHICH 

### CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WHEN THE STATIONARY SOURCE ITSELF IS NOT IN OPERATIONANDIS NOT EMITTINGAIR POLLUTANTS. Subsection (b)(2), shutdown ofair pollution control equipment and monitoring eguipment 33. Comment : CRRAagrees with the clarifications of subsection (b)(2), which address longstanding concerns among some members of the regulated community regarding situations in which a~source owner or operator may shut down pollution control equipment. Response: The Department appreciates CRRA's agreement with the proposed language of

### 29

subsection (b)(2) . 34. Comment: Proposed Section 7 is ambiguous as to how it would applyto an unavoidable control or monitoring equipment malfunction. In particular, proposed Section 7(b)(2) provides that "Notwithstanding . . . [Section 7(b)(1)], a source owner or operator may shut down air pollution control equipment or monitoring equipment while the source is in operation if.- (A) the owner or operator is not required to operate such equipment by a permit, order or regulation; [and] (B) the source is in compliance with applicable emission limitations and emission standards while the air pollution control equipment is shutdown . . ." It is not clearwhat this provision adds by allowing such shutdown, since under condition (A) the equipment must not have been required in the first place. Ifthis provision is intended to address shutdown as provided under a startup, shutdown and malfunction provision in a separate applicable permit, order or regulation limit, this should be clarified. Similar treatment would be appropriate for startups andmalfiuictions, to ensure that the progress achieved over the past several years on this issue is clearly reflected in Section 7. (R&C) Response: Subsection (b)(2) is intended to address deliberate shut down of air pollution control equipment, not unavoidable malfunction. See the revision in response to Comment 35. Under subsection (b)(2), an owner or operator may shut down . air pollution control equipment on a source that is capable of meeting applicable emissions limits and standards without such equipment operating. Such a situation may arise if a source owner or operator invests in "overcontrol" of air pollutant emissions to use the emissions controlled to generate credits for use in an emissions trading program . Asituation of overcontrol may also arise if a source owner or operator adds air pollution control equipment and later reduces a pollutant emission through pollution prevention efforts or where a change outside ofthe control of the owner or operator causes a reduction in the input of a pollutant. In such cases, subsection (b)(2) allows for the owner or operator to shutdown air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment deliberately as long as the owner and operator complies with applicable standards and limits. The deliberate shutdown provision of subsection (b)(2) is not drafted to address air pollution control equipment or monitoring equipment malfunction. If a source owner or operator experiences an air pollution control or monitoring equipment malfunction, Section 7 requires the source owner or operator to comply with the due diligence requirements of (a)(2) and the notice requirements. of subsections (d) and (e) . Ifa source exceeds an applicable emission limit or standard during a malfunction but the limit or standard includes an applicable malfunction exception from

such limit or standard, the source owner or operator may qualify for that exception from

meeting the emission limit or standard. Nonetheless, for that same exceedence the owner or operator must comply with the due diligence and notice requirements of Section 7. 35. Comment : In subsection (b)(2), the Department should add the word "deliberately" prior to shut down to prevent confusion. (Pfizer) .x. . Response: The Department should revise subsection (b)(2) as follows:

### 30 (2) NOTWITHSTANDINGSUBDIVISION (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION, A . SOURCE OWNEROR OPERATOR MAY DELIBERATELY SHUT DOWN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT OR MONITORING EQUIPMENT WHILE THE SOURCE IS IN OPERATION IF: 36. Comment : Regarding subsection (b)(2)(C), commenters offered the following:

. 

### Subparagraph (C) is unclear and should be revised. (BRRFOC) Subparagraph (C) implies that emission reduction credits cannot be generated for use in an emissions credit trading program if the monitoring equipment is not operated. (Wisvest) If this is the Department's intention, Wisvest suggests revising (b)(2)(C) as follows: (C) WHENAIRPOLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ANDMONITORING EQUIPMENT IS NOT OPERATED, THE EMISSIONS CONTROLLEDAND MEASURED BY SUCH EQUIPMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO GENERATE CREDITS INAN EMISSIONS CREDIT TRADINGPROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY EPAORTHE DEPARTMENT. Subparagraph (C) should be deleted . (Pfizer, DOD, CBIA) Subparagraph (C) is unnecessarily restrictive, and the conditions in subparagraphs (A) and (B) are sufficient to limit the circumstances in which a source owner or operator may deliberately shut down air pollution control equipment. (Pfizer, DOD) There may be circumstances in which a source owner or operator installs control or monitoring equipment that is not required by permit, order or regulation and that is not needed to complywith an applicable emission limitation. In these circumstances, the owner or operator should be able to shut down such equipment voluntarily, even if the source has not installed such equipment to generate emission reduction credits. (CBLA, DOD) Response: The Department should revise subparagraph (C) in a manner similar in substance to that suggested byWisvest so that subparagraph (C) specifies that emissions may not be used to calculate credits generated for use in an emissions credit trading program ifmonitoring equipment is not operated. With this specification, subsection (b)(2) includes sufficient and necessary circumstances for an exception from the requirements ofsubsection (b)(1) . Subsection (b)(2) should appear as follows in the final text of Section 7: 

### (2) NOTWITHSTANDINGSUBDIVISION (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION, A SOURCE OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY DELIBERATELY SHUT DOWN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT OR MONITORING EQUIPMENT WHILE THE SOURCE IS IN OPERATION IF: (A) THE OWNEROR OPERATOR IS NOT REQUIREDTOOPERATE SUCH EQUIPMENT BY APERMIT, ORDEROR REGULATION ;

### 31 (B) THE SOURCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITHAPPLICABLE EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND EMISSION STANDARDS WHILE THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IS SHUTDOWN ; AND AIRPOLLUTIO (C) EMISSIONS RELEASEDWHILE ~x MONITORING EQUIPMENT THAT MEASURES SUCH EMISSIONS IS DELIBERATELY SHUT DOWN

; BY 14 EQbqPMEN? MAY BE ARE NOT USEDTOFE~,MRA~ CALCULATE CREDITS GENERATED INAN EMISSIONS CREDIT TRADINGPROGRAM

. ADNIDUSTERED BY-EP.A . OR == TI~U A

u ~ TT ~ATT

. ' ~rt. Subsection (d), ten-day notification requirements 37 . Comment : Subsection (d) should apply only to air pollution control equipment or monitoring equipment required by permit, order or regulation. Such specification of the air pollution control equipment or monitoring equipment to which the subsection applies is consistent with language proposed in subsection (c) and subsection (e)(1) . (DOD) Response: The Department should add.the phrase "required by permit, order or regulation" to subsection (d) as follows: 

### [(c)MI IF ANY BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN

OF AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT OR MONITORING EQUIPMENT REQUIRED BY PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATIONCONTINUES FOR MORE THANTWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS ANDTHE SOURCE OPERATES . . . 38. Comment : CRRA is pleased to see the specific requirements for notification to the Department in the event of breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown of air pollution control equipment as these requirements will enable more streamlined communication between regulated entities and the Department . Response: The Department appreciates CRRA's recognition that the proposed amendment will serve to streamline communication between the Department and members ofthe regulated community

. Subsection (e), immediate notification requirements 39. Comment : Pfizer recommends that the word "submitted" in subdivision (2) of subsection (e) should be changed to "made." The term"submitted" implies a written notice while the subdivi, ;ion allows for notification by telephone, email or in person as well as written notification by facsimile. Response: The Department should revise subsection (e)(2) as follows:

### 32 (2) NOTIFICATIONTOCOMPLY WITHTHIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE MADE BY TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE OR IN PERSON IMMEDIATELY AFTERTHE BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN OCCURRED ORIS DISCOVERED OR INTHE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, ANDINNO CASE SHALL SUCH NOTICE BE SUB~fiq:TEB MADE LATERTHANTWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SUCH BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN . 40 . Comment: Subsection (e)(2) raises due process concerns since an owner or operator maybe in a situation in which it is impossible to avoid a violation for failing to report a breakdown or failure that the owner or operator is not aware of. For example, in certain situations an owner or operator may find it impossible to discover a breakdown or failure within two business days in the exercise of reasonable care, yet that owner or operator is required to submit notice no later than two business days after the occurrence ofthe breakdown or failure . (R&C) R&Csuggests that the Department revise subsection (e)(2) as follows: (2) NOTIFICATIONTOCOMPLY WITHTHIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE MADE BY TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE OR INPERSON IMMEDIATELYAFTERTHE BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWNOCCURRED -ORIS DISCOVERED ORINTHE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE BEENDISCOVERED, "'`~-"`o

Alternatively, R&Crequests that the Department explain how a source owner or operator can complywith subsection (e)(2) where an equipment breakdown or failure is not initially discovered or discoverable in the exercise ofreasonable care. Response: ~ An

: owner or operator who exercises reasonable care in the operation ofair pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment and yet does not discover a breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown of such equipment would not be in violation of the section since the exercise ofreasonable. care would eliminate failures to discover a breakdown caused by carelessness or negligence. To link the timing of submission of an immediate notice to discovery, the Department should delete the phrase "occurred or" fromproposed subsection (e)(2), yet retain the two business day deadline to establish an appropriate and clear boundary on notice. With this change and the revisio~i~ made in response to Comment 39, the final text ofsubsection (e)(2) should appear as follows:

### 33

(2) NOTIFICATIONTOCOMPLY WITHTHIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE MADE BY TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE OR IN PERSON IIVIMEDIATELY AFTERTHE BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWNOGGLWRLED UR IS DISCOVERED OR INTHE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, ANDIN NO CASE SHALL SUCHNOTICE BE D MADE LATERTHANTWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SUCH BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN . 41 . Comment: The ten-day written report and immediate notification requirements of subsection (e) should be revised as follows: " The requirements should be consistent with subsection (d), which requires a report only in situations where, after a shutdown, there is "an exceedance of an emission limitation or standard;" and " Subsection (e)(2) should require notice no earlier than 24 hours after an event of breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown in order to allowa source owners and operators the opportunity to discover, diagnose andrepair prior to giving notice. (CBIA) Response: The Department should not revise subsection (e) in response to comment by CBIA . The notification requirements of subsections (d) and (e) are designed collectively to strike a balance between allowing a source owner or operator sufficient time to diagnose and correct a breakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown and providing the Department with sufficient information regarding compliance. The written notification requirement of (d), whichrequires the owner or operator to prepare a detailed, written explanation of an event ofbreakdown, failure or deliberate shutdown, is triggered after an event has occurredfor more than 24 hours in which time the source is operating and an exceedance of an emission limitation occurs.' The source owner or operator has 10days to prepare this report of an event that involves an actual exceedance. In contrast, the immediate notification requirements of subsection (e) are triggered by the occurrence of an event and depend on the owneror operator's estimate of the length of the event and planned operation of the source. The immediate notification is not triggered by an actual exceedance and notification is not required in writing. This requirement, which can be cat ;gyfi_Pri ~xrith a tPl,-Mhnne Call ic tw-iRnarPd imnn rlicrnvornv of nn c .vPnt of 1hrPalttjnumfa1111TP !1T y . .bb. . . . . . . t . . ._. deliberate shutdown that the owner or operator anticipates will last longer than 24 hours and during which the owner or operator anticipates operating. Comments snecifc to municipal waste combustors ("MWCs") 42 . Comment : CRRA applauds the efforts of the Department in removing the duplicative requirements for NIAVCs EromSection 7. CR .R .A worked cooperatively with the Department in the development of R

.C.S.A. section 22a-174-38 ("Section 38") for MWCs . It is most logical for regulations pertaining to MWCs to be located in Section 38 and not scattered across other + 1 This ap~roach is consistent with recent EPAstatements regarding reporting of malfunctions: Thus, if a source experiences a minor problemthat does not affect its ability to meet the applicable emissions standard, the problem does not need to be addressed by the SSM plan and would not be a reportable "malfunction" under our regulations. 67 FR 72881 (12/09/02, proposed rule on NESHAPs) .

### 34

sections of the R

.C.S.A. Response: The Department appreciates CRRA's recognition that the deletion of the requirements for MWCs in Section 7 is logical since the requirements in Section 7 are obsolete and outdated due to the promulgation of Section 38. 

### 43. Comment : Section 7 should be adjusted to recognize the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions inclusive of all reporting requirements established in Section 38. (Covanta) Response: The Department should not revise Section 7 in response to this comment. The . comment implies that the startup, shutdown and malfunctionprovisions of Section 38, including the reporting of such events, are duplicative of Section 7, and therefore should allowfor MWC owners and operators to be exempt from all or part of Section 7. However, the emissions limits in Section 38 take into account periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction allowed in Section 38 . A MWCowner or operator would not be required to submit notification under Section 7 if the MWCis operated in compliance with the emission limits in Section 38, inclusive of allowed periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. 44. Comment : Section 38 should be revised to incorporate final amendments to 40 CFR60.58b regarding the fifteen hour malfunction exemption for loss ofboiler water level control and combustion air control . (Covanta) Response: As the comment is directed to Section 38 rather than the subject matter of this proceeding, the Department should make no change to Section 7 in response to the comment. The Department should consider the need to address recent changes in EPA's regulations for MWCs in Section 38 and may as a result begin a separate amendment process for Section 38 . VII . Final Text ofProposed Amendments The final text ofthe amendments to Sections 4and 7 is located at Attachment 3 to this report . VTTT_ Conclusion Based upon the comments submitted by interested parties and addressed in this hear-mg Report, i recommend the final amendments, as contained in Attachment 3 to this report, be submitted by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection for approval by the AttomeyGeneral and the Legislative Regulations Review Committee

. Based upon the same considerations, I also recommend these proposed amendments, upon promulgation, be submitted to the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency as revisions to the Connecticut State Implementation Plan for Air Quality

. /' ~ f

~' .-I , /n /!"` ~ . . MeiriYyA~ 1~e'rb~ V~ --~' Date ~ ` Hearing Office ' l;

### Attachment 1 List of Commenters 1 . Steve Rapp, Manager Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Air Programs United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 - 2023 2 . Robert Silvestri Wisvest Connecticut, LLC ("Wisvest") Bridgeport Harbor Station 1 Atlantic Street Bridgeport, CT 06604-5513 3. StevenYates Environmental Scientist Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority ("CRRA") 100 Constitution Plaza, 17'' Floor 

### Hartford, CT 06103-1772 4 . Darryl R

. Conner Pfizer PGM

Division ("Pfizer") Eastern Point Road 

### Groton, CT 06340 5 . Eric J . Brown, Associate Counsel Director, Environmental Policies Council Connecticut Business and Industry Association ("CBIA") 350 Church Street TTartfnri1 ('T (1F1(l1_1 17(, -- 6. -Mark H

. Bobman Assistant Director Bristol Resource Recovery Facility Operating Committee ("BRRFOC") 43 Enterprise Drive Bristol, Connecticut 0C,(11_0 7. Cynthia L

. Karlic Regional Environmental Manager NRGMiddletown Operations Inc. ("NRG") P.O . Box 1001 1866 River Road

### Middletown, CT 06457

8. Derek Grasso Manager of Regulatory Affairs American Ref-Fuel Company of Southeastern Connecticut ("Am . Ref-Fuel") 132 Military Highway 

### Preston, CT 06365-8330 9 . Andrew

Stackpole Commander Navy Region Northeast Environmental Program Manaaer U .S. Department ofDefense ("DOD") Naval Submarine Base New London Groton, CT 06349-5000

- 10. TimothyJ. Porter

Director Air Quality Management Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. ("Wheelabrator") 4Liberty Lane West Hampton, NH 03842 11 . Brian Bahor, QEP Vice President, Environmental Permitting Covanta Energy Group, Inc. ("Covanta") . 40 Lane Road 

### Fairfield, NJ 07004 12. Brian C

. S. Freeman Robinson &Cole LLP ("R&C") 280Trumbull Street 

### Hartford, CT 06103-3597