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: Merrily A. Gere 

Date of Hearing: October 23, 2002 

On August 30, 2002, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental 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 of the proposed amendments. 

Commenters are identified in Attachment 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 of public hearing, all provisions of a proposed regulation or amendment 

thereto that .differ from adopted 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 from these 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 for which 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 of the 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 of proposed 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 CFR 51 . 

lIl. Summary and Text of the Amendments as Proposed 

The amendment to Section 4 focuses the section on the Department's requirements for operation 

of continuous emissions monitoring equipment by removing general monitoring equipment 

operating requirements and incorporating them into 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 of the R.C.S .A., the amendment also streamlines environmental regulation . 

Revision is also included for consistency with 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 4 focuses 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 community to understand and 

comply with Section 4 will 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 of the 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 of this 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 of the 

comments to result in large part from the 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 4 were 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 the proposed availability requirements ; and the application of the 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 of 
filing 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 4 and comment 

specific to Section 7. Location and topic organize the comments in the sections of this report 

specific to Section 4 and 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 of maintaining 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: EPA recommends adding a note at the beginning of the section stating that 

facilities subject to CEM requirements under federal rules must comply with 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: Any source 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 4 should 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 specify an effective date at 

the beginning of a calendar quarter, October 1, 2003 or January 1, 2004, depending on the date of 

submission. 

Subsection (b), opacity CEM 

3. Comment: If it 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. If the 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 of control 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 EXCEEDING twenty-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.["] 

EDI TfDT ~T~TT 

z. , 

5. Comment: CRRA supports 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. A requirement for the 

installation of opacity CEM equipment on such units is not economically feasible . Further, it is 

sensible to exclude from such a unit'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, IN WRITING, REQUEST WRITTEN 

DOCUMENTATION FROM THE OWNER OR 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 OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL DELIVER SUCH 

DOCUMENTATION TO THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN FOUR-TM! (1 4) 

THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RECEIPT OF SUCH A WRITTEN REQUEST, 

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) from meeting 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" may revoke or "modify" an exemption under subsections 

(a)(3), (b)(2)(ii) and (iii), (b)(3) and (b)(4) if it 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 of 
REPEATED TTTLT C'L'SECTION 77 ., 1'7 _-~ 4 1 rS n~ TLT~ cC - ~FOAFCn 

L oI14~A-~F£~~~-~=-~r~ ~--

REGULATIONS Or. GnN.nTC/ ~TTI'~T TT STATE AGENCIES II 

. HAS 

OCCURRED ; 

CD7 

e GIR 

v u " 

AN OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT CLAIMS SUBDIVISION (b)(1) OF THIS 

SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE BY VIRTUE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 

'SUBDIVISIONS (b)(2) OR (b)(3) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, UPON NOTICE 

FROM THE COMMISSIONER, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CEM 

EQUIPMENT OR CONDUCT OTHER MONITORING OR INTERMITTENT 

STACK TESTING AS ALLOWED BY THIS SECTION, AND COMPLY WITH 

SUBSECTIONS (c) AND (d) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE COMMISSIONER 

FINDS : 

(A) REPEATED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 22a-174-18 OF THE 

REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES HAS 

OCCURRED; 
(B) NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE 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 TO INTERFERE WITH THE ATTAINMENT OR 

MAINTENANCE OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, 

CREATE A HEALTH HAZARD OR CREATE A NUISANCE; OR 

(D) MONITORING EQUIPMENT IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE 

COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT 

GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. PROMULGATED 

THEREUNDER. 

THE NOTICE PROVIDED FOR IN SUBDIVISION (b)(7)-(5) OF THIS 

SECTION SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF A PERMIT OR ORDER AND 

SHALL SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION AND 

OPERATION OR OTHER MONITORING INCLUDING A DAY BY WHICH 

SUCH INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OR OTHER MONITORING IS TO 

COMMENCE. 

(e) THE COMMISSIONER MAY EXEMPT AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A 

SOURCE SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS 

SECTION IF SUCH OWNER OR OPERATOR DEMONSTRATES IN WRITING, FOR 

THE COMMISSIONER'S WRITTEN APPROVAL, THAT SUCH SOURCE IS 

PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF VIOLATING ANY APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT 

SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES 

AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER 

(f) UPON WRITTEN NOTICE IN THE FORM OF A PERMIT OR ORDER TO -AN 

OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A SOURCE GRANTED AN EXEMPTION UNDER 

SUBSECTION (e) OF THIS SECTION, SUCH OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL 

INSTALL; . OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CEM EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 

SUCH NOTICE IF: . 

(1) THE COMMISSIONER -DETERMINES THERE IS REPEATED 

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 22a-174-18 OF THE REGULATIONS OF 

CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES; 

(2) OEERATION OF THE SUBJECT SOURCE HAS INTERFERED WITH OR IS 

LIKELY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, CREATE A HEALTH HAZARD OR 
CREATE A NUISANCE ; .OR 

(3) THE SOURCE HAS BEEN ALTERED OR THE OPERATIONS OF THE SOURCE 

HAVE CHANGED SUCH THAT SUBSECTION (e) OF THIS SECTION IS NO 

LONGER APPLICABLE. 

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 TO DETERMINE 

COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER; OR 

9. Comment: Subdivisions (7) and (8) of subsection (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 from the 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) of subsection (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) AN OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT CLAIMS SUBSECTION (b)(1) OF 

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE BY VIRTUE OF COMPLIANCE 

WITH SUBSECTIONS (b)(2) OR (b)(3) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, 

' UPON NOTICE FROM THE COMMISSIONER, INSTALL, OPERATE 

AND MAINTAIN OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT OR rnrmr Trr 
ALLOWED w ACCORDING TO THIS SECTION, AND COMPLY 

WITH SUBSECTIONS (c) AND (d) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE 

COMMISSIONER FINDS : 

INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

COMMENCE. 

THE NOTICE PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION (b)R(5) OF THIS 

SECTION SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF A PERMIT OR ORDER AND 

SHALL SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPACITY CEM 

EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 0R-9TRER 

A499~UTQRD~FrINCLUDING A DAY 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 

under subsection (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 and why 

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 A TECHNICAL .AND ECONOMIC.PERSPECTIVE FOR 

A SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION, AND THAT SUCH MONITORING 

EQUIPMENT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO OBTAIN , 

OPACITY OR EMISSION DATA, THE COMMISSIONER MAY REQUIRE, BY 

MODIFY THE SOURCE'S PERMIT PURSUANT TO C.G.S. 22a-174c AND 

' SHALL INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

INCLUDING A DAY BY WHICH SUCH INSTALLATION AND OPERATION IS 

TO COMMENCE. 

" The phrase "reasonably available" should be described with specific criteria that the 
11 

Department would apply to determine if CEM equipment is "reasonably available." 

(Covanta, Wheelabrator) Such criteria should include: final promulgation of source-specific 

EPA performance 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 of source may not perform as 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 of necessity. (DOD, Wheelabrator) 

Such a procedure at a minimum should include: evaluating the objective of obtaining 

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 if process 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 of the Connecticut 

General Statutes and regulations~promulgated thereunder." Use of similar language would 

improve the clarity of subsection (c)(1) . (DOD) 

" If providing DEP sole discretion to require additional monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements is intended to help implement Title V periodic monitoring or 

compliance assurance monitoring ("CAM") this intent should be stated . Further, the 

qualifications to periodic monitoring under 40 CFR 70.6(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 Air Act 

amendments already contain monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping provisions that meet 

the Title V periodic monitoring and CAM requirements as is the case for the R.C.S.A. section 

22a-174-38 . (Wheelabrator) 

Response: Commenters express concern that subsection (c)(1) will be used by the 

Commissioner to authorize the imposition of new 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 form but not substance of existing subsection (a)(2) . Proposed 

subsection (c)(1) addresses the installation of opacity 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 may not, have obtained a 

permit for such a source from the Commissioner. The Commissioner's judgement 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 of time 

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 to judge 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 Title V periodic 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 of subsection (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, FOR A SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION, THE COMMISSIONER, T"T~R 

, THE 

COMMISSIONER MAY REQUIRE, BY WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OWNER 

OR OPERATOR OF SUCH SOURCE, THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

OF CEM EQUIPMENT. SUCH WRITTEN NOTICE SHALL BE IN THE FORM 

OF A REGULATION, PERMIT OR ORDER AND SHALL INCLUDE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION AND OPERATION INCLUDING A 

DAY BY WHICH SUCH INSTALLATION AND OPERATION IS TO 

COMMENCE. 

PROMULGATED THEREUNDER 

EQUIPMENT:I.S REASONABLY AVAILABLE, TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, 

ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE AND NECESSARY FOR THE 

DEPARTMENT TO OBTAIN OPACITY OR EMISSION DATA TO 

EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 44bc OF THE 

CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 

, DETERMINES THAT OPACITY OR GASEOUS CEM 

11. Comment: R&C suggests that proposed section (c)(1) should be revised to exempt from 

Section 4 those sources for which EPA has adopted CEM requirements, particularly sources 

under MACT standards . R&C suggests the Department add the following text to the end of 

(c)(1) : 

.'".. . 
13 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT 

APPLY TO A SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL 

AND OPERATE CEM EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO . 

(A) 40 CFR PART 60, 61, 63 OR 72 OR OTHER REGULATIONS 

ADOPTED THE U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; 

OR 

(B) A PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATION ISSUED OR ADOPTED BY 

THE COMMISSIONER. 

Alternatively, R&C suggests that sources for which EPA has adopted CEM requirements should 

be exempt from particular 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&C is 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 

from Section 4. 

Subsection (c)(4) 

12. Comment: Subsection (c)(4) states that gaseous CEM equipment must meet the quality 

assurance requirements of 40 CFR 60 Appendix F. For sources 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 CFR 75 . The subsection should modified to read " . . . the quality 

assurance requirements of 40 CFR 75 or Appendix F of 40 CFR 60, 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 CFR 60 and 40 CFR 75 for sources subject to NOx Budget 

programs or Title IV of the Clean Air Act. 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 combining proposed subsections (c)(4) and (c)(5) to recognize sources subject to 

40 CFR 75, 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 S err ro n rrrr

. 

14 

(4) PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 

REQUIREMENTS. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE 

REQUIRED TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CEM. 

EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL MEET THE 

FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALITY 

ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 

(A) THE APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND 

QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR 60 

APPENDICES B AND F, UNLESS THE SOURCE IS SUBJECT TO 

40 CFR 75, IN WHICH CASE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR 

SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE 

SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 

REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR 75; 

) 

FOR OPACITY CEM 

EQUIPMENT, PUF,$UAIg TO SUBSECTION (b) OF THLS SECTION, 

SHALL ~,~ET THE FOLLOWING QUALITY ASSURANCE 

REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO QUALITY n eerv n r 

(1) 

(ii) 

CALIBRATION SHALL BE ADJUSTED WHENEVER THE 

DAILY ZERO OR UPSCALE CALIBRATION EXCEEDS 

PLUS/MINUS TWO PERCENT (f2%) OPACITY, 

DATA SHALL BE INVALID FOR CALCULATING DATA 

AVAILABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION (6) (5) 

OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE ZERO OR UPSCALE 

CALIBRATION VALUE EXCEEDS EITHER THE REFERENCE 

ZERO OR THE UPSCALE CALIBRATION VALUE RECORDED 

DURING THE MOST RECENT CLEAR-PATH CALIBRATION 

BY PLUS/MINUS TWO PERCENT (±2%) OPACITY FOR FIVE 

(5) CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR PLUS/MINUS FIVE PERCENT 

(±5%) OPACITY ON ANY SINGLE DAY. THE PERIOD OF 
15 

INVALID DATA BEGINS WITH EITHER THE FIFTH 

CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCE OF A DRIFT VALUE 

EXCEEDING PLUS/MINUS TWO PERCENT (±2%) OPACITY 

OR WITH THE LAST DAILY CHECK PRECEDING THE 

SINGLE OCCURRENCE OF A DRIFT VALUE EXCEEDING 

PLUS/MINUS FIVE PERCENT (±5%) OPACITY. THE PERIOD 

OF INVALID DATA SHALL END WHEN A CALIBRATION 

DRIFT CHECK, CONDUCTED AFTER CORRECTIVE ACTION, 

DEMONSTRATES THAT RELIABLE MONITORING DATA IS 

BEING GENERATED, 

(iii) QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED 

DURING EACH CALENDAR QUARTER IN WHICH TIE 

.SOURCE OPERATES, 

(iv) THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE NOTIFIED, IN WRITING, NO 

FEWER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE INITIALLY 

PROPOSED QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT, AND 

(v) QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN 

"PERFORMANCE AUDIT PROCEDURES FOR OPACITY 

MONITORS," EPA DOCUMENT NO. 450/4-92/O 10, DATED 

APRIL 1992. IF EPA PROMULGATES QUALITY 

ASSURANCE PROCEDURES IN 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX F, 

QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED 

ACCORDING TO SUCH PROCEDURES. IF EITHER EPA 

DOCUMENT NO. 450/4-92/O10 OR SUBSEQUENTLY 

PROMULGATED PROCEDURES IN 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX 

F, AS APPLICABLE, DOES NOT CONTAIN AUDIT 

PROCEDURES FOR THE OPACITY CEM SELECTED BY THE 

OWNER OR OPERATOR, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR 

SHALL, IN WRITING, PROPOSE AUDIT PROCEDURES TO 

THE COMMISSIONER.FOR REVIEW AND WRITTEN 

APPROVAL AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE 

INITIAL OPACITY CEM AUDIT; AND 

(C) . IF THE RESULTS OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT FAIL TO 

CONFORM TO THE QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS OF 

SUBPARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION, SUCH OPACITY CEM 

DATA SHALL BE DEEMED INVALID BY THE COMMISSIONER, 

AND THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE 

FAILED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT. DATA COLLECTED 

AFTER ANY FAILED QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT SHALL BE 
16 

INVALID FOR CALCULATING PERCENT DATA AVAILABILITY IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH SUBPARAGRAPH (b)(5)(A) OF THIS 

SUBSECTION. 

Subsection (c)(S) 

13. Comment: Subsection (c)(5)(B)(iii) requires a source 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 allow a source owner or operator to defer 

linearity testing to the following quarter if the source operated for fewer than 168 hours in a 

calendar quarter. This revision would conform the 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 4 explained 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 

of regional 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 from gaseous 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 system malfunction. Specifically, the Department should : (1) add 

the language from existing (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 of the 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 system malfunction. (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 availability 
17 

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% minimum data 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 system malfunction. EPA suggests the 

Department specify this by maintaining a revised version of current subsection (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 4 also 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) DATA AVAILABILITY. 

(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE REQUIRED TO 

INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OPACITY ~-CEM EQUIPMENT 

DT TD QT T A ATT TO ST TD C'E(''TT(lAT fl _1_LlF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS 

SECTION 

OR ORDER SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING DATA AVAILABILITY 

REQUIREMENTS 3~'r-~ RESPECT TO DATA AVAR7ABMITY ON AN 

EMISSION LIMITATION-SPECIFIC BASIS : 

(i) WHILE THE SOURCE IS OPERATING, THE OWNER OR 

OPERATOR SHALL OPERATE REQUIRED CEM 

EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 22a-174-7(b) OF 

THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE 

AGENCIES, AND ALLOWABLE PERIODS OF MISSING 

DATA SHALL APPLY ONLY TO PERIODS OF 

DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN ALLOWED BY SECTION 22a174-7(b) OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT 

STATE AGENCIES, UNAVOIDABLE SYSTEM 

MALFUNCTION OR AS 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 NO LESS THAN NINETYFIVE PERCENT (95%) OF THE TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 

OF THE SOURCE IN ANY CALENDAR QUARTER, AND 

(iii) PERCENT DATA AVAILABILITY SHALL BE CALCULATED 

USING THE FOLLOWING EQUATION: 

% Data Availability,= 

Unit Operating Time-Monitoring Downtime 

*l00 

Unit Operating Time 

WHERE: 

UNIT OPERATING TIME = TOTAL HOURS OF SOURCE OPERATION AT 

ANY LEVEL DURING THE CALENDAR 

QUARTER. 

MONITORING DOWNTIME = TOTAL HOURS OF SOURCE OPERATION AT 

ANY LEVEL DURING THE CALENDAR 

QUARTER WHERE EITHER NO CEM 

EQUIPMENT DATA WAS COLLECTED OR THE 

CEM EQUIPMENT DATA WAS INVALID. SUCH 

PERIODS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED 

TO, QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES SUCH 

AS CALIBRATION, PREVENTATIVE 

MAINTENANCE, AND CALIBRATION DRIFT 

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 from the 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 from 72 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 from the 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, IN WRITING, MAY EXEMPT THE OWNER 

OR OPERATOR OF A SOURCE FROM THE MINIIvfUM DATA 

AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPARAGRAPHS (A)(i)(ii) 

AND (A)(iii) OF THIS SUBDIVISION IF SUCH SOURCE IS EQUIPPED 

WITH PROPERLY OPERATING OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, AND 

THE SOURCE IS OPERATED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO FIVE 

HUNDRED FOUR (504) HOURS IN THE CALENDAR QUARTER. 

(C) THE COMMISSIONER, IN WRITING, 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 SUCH SOURCE IS EQUIPPED 

WITH PROPERLY OPERATING GASEOUS CEM EQUIPMENT, AND 

THE SOURCE IS OPERATED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO SEVENTY -

TWB-{7?}-THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX (336) HOURS IN THE 

CALENDAR QUARTER. 

(D) TO OBTAIN AN EXEMPTION UNDER SUBPARAGRAPHS (B) OR (C) 

17. Comment: Information to support a request for an exemption from the data availability 

requirements is required to be submitted 30 days from, the end of the quarter (subsection 

(c)(6)(D)). For ease of filing, the Department should revise the time of submittal to the "end of 

the month following the end of the 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&C supports 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 V program. 

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 of this 

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, if the 

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 form currently 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 form to 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 allow for reporting pursuant to the 

requirements of amended Section 4. 

Other requirements of subsection (d) 

20. Comment: 

" The record maintenance requirements of subsection (d)(3) are broader than necessary to 

determine compliance with the requirements of Section 4 and applicable emission limitations 

and standards, and the 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), which requires 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 OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE SUBJECT TO THE 

PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED THEREUNDER SHALL 

MAINTAIN ALL DATA, DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS REQUIRED BY 

IN A 

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 . A time 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 of records 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 CFR 60 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 of violating 

emissions standards and limitations. Since the CEM requirements of Section 4 are 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 AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A 

SOURCE SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 

THIS SECTION AS THEY APPLY TO A PARTICULAR AIR POLLUTANT 

IF SUCH OWNER OR OPERATOR DEMONSTRATES IN WRITING, FOR THE 

COMMISSIONER'S WRITTEN APPROVAL, THAT SUCH SOURCE IS 

PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF VIOLATING ANY APPLICABLE 

REQUIREMENT FOR SUCH AIR POLLUTANT SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 

446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 

PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. 

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 to 
23 

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 MWC or 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: MWC owners 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 MWC facilities should be exempt from additional . 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that may result from the 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 from time to. time. Section 4 is 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 4 provides 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 comply with all the notice and public 

participation requirements of the law. See the comment and response under Section VLA of this 

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 not 
revise Section 4 to 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 any records or reports of monitoring 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 WRITTEN NOTICE, REQUIRE THE OWNER OR 

OPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE TO CREATE, MAINTAIN AND SUBMIT DATA, 

RECORDS OR REPORTS OF MONITORING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION 

DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COMMISSIONER TO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE 

WITH CHAPTER 446c OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND 

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. SUCH INFORMATION SHALL 

BE RECORDED, COMPILED AND SUBMITTED ON FORMS AS MAY BE 

FURNISHED OR PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER. THE WRITTEN NOTICE 

SHALL PROVIDE THE DATE BY WHICH SUCH DATA, RECORDS OR REPORTS 

SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER. 

28. Subsection (d)(5) : To maintain consistency with existing Section 4, proposed subsection 

(d)(5) should apply only to information from opacity 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 TO SUBSECTION (b) 

OF THIS SECTION 

PEPJAIF OR ORDER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO 

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 CFR 51, 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 WITH A. MAXIMUM RATED HEAT INPUT 

GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO two 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 form of written 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 FOR A SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION, THE 

COMMISSIONER MAY, BY WRITTEN NOTICE, REQUIRE THE OWNER OR 

OPERATOR OF SUCH SOURCE TO COMPLY WITH AN ALTERNATIVE 

MONITORING TECHNIQUE OR CONDUCT INTERMITTENT STACK TESTING 

TO VERIFY THE SOURCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 446c OF THE 

CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED 

THEREUNDER. SUCH WRITTEN NOTICE SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF A 

REGULATION, PERMIT OR ORDER AND . . . 

" 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. AMENDMENT 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 provision will 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 of the 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 any responsibility 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 of the 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 any applicable 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 from such 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 AND DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN. 

(1) NEITHER BREAKDOWN, FAILURE NOR DELIBERATE 

SHUTDOWN OF ANY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

EQUIPMENT OR MONITORING EQUIPMENT NOR 

SUBMISSION OF ANY NOTICE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION 

SHALL EXCUSE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY 

SOURCE FROM THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH AN 

APPLICABLE EMISSION LIMITATION OR EMISSION 

STANDARD OR OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT. 

(2) IF AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OPERATES A STATIONARY 

SOURCE TO PRODUCE EMISSIONS OF AN AIR Dn~T LUTIAAF-~ 

POLLUTANT DURING BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE 
27 

SHUTDOWN OF ANY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT SO 

AS TO PRODUCE AN EXCEEDANCE OF AN APPLICABLE 

EMISSION LIMITATION OR EMISSION STANDARD, THE OWNER 

OR OPERATOR SHALL: 

(A) EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MINIMIZE EMISSIONS 

WHILE SUCH CONTROL EQUIPMENT IS INOPERATIVE; 

(B) CONTINUE THE USE OF MONITORING EQUIPMENT; AND 

(C) GIVE NOTICE TO THE 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 WITH THE NOTICE 

REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS (d) AND (e) OF THIS SECTION OR THE 

OPERATION REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (b) OF THIS SECTION SHALL 

NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR FROM COMPLYING WITH ALL 

APPLICABLE EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND EMISSION STANDARDS. THE 

COMMISSIONER MAY TAKE ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION, INCLUDING 

REQUIRING THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO CEASE OPERATION OF THE 

STATIONARY SOURCE, OR ATTACH ANY CONDITION TO THE OPERATION 

OF THE STATIONARY SOURCE DURING THE PERIOD OF ANY BREAKDOWN, 

FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OR 

MONITORING EQUIPMENT. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR ANY NOTICE 

SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL EXCUSE N 

PRECLUDE THE 

COMMISSIONER FROM TAKING ANY ACTION TMGESSA AUTHORIZED BY 

LAW TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. 

31. Comment: BRRFOC requests that the Department consider the following revisions to 

subsection (a): 

CONTROL EQUIPMENT 

IN A MANNER WHICH RESULTS IN AN 

fal BREAKDOWN, FAILURE ~r.~,F9 OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN. IF AN 

OWNER OR OPERATOR OPERATES A STATIONARY SOURCE TO 

EXCEEDANCE OF AN APPLICABLE EMISSIONS LIMITATION OR 

EMISSION STANDARD OF AIR POLLUTANTS DURING BREAKDOWN, 

FAILURE OR DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN OF ANY AIR POLLUTION 

OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL: 
28 

(1) EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MINIMIZE EMISSIONS WHILE 

SUCH CONTROL EQUIPMENT IS INOPERATIVE; 

(2) CONTINUE THE USE OF MONITORING EQUIPMENT NOT 

SUBJECT TO BREAKDOWN, 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-term shut down of the monitors but does not require operation of the 

boilers. The proposed amendment would require shutdown of the 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 A STATIONARY SOURCE IS IN OPERATION, NO person shall 

deliberately shut down any [such] OPERATIONAL AIR POLLUTION control 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 SUCH AIR POLLUTION 

CONTROL EQUIPMENT OR MONITORING EQUIPMENT SHUT DOWN EXCEPT 

TO PERFORM NECESSARY MAINTENANCE, WHICH 

CANNOT BE 

ACCOMPLISHED WHEN THE STATIONARY SOURCE ITSELF IS NOT IN 

OPERATION AND IS NOT EMITTING AIR POLLUTANTS. 

Subsection (b)(2), shutdown of air pollution control equipment and monitoring eguipment 

33 . Comment: CRRA agrees 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 apply to 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 clear what this 

provision adds by allowing such shutdown, since under condition (A) the equipment must not 

have been required in the first place. If this 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 and malfiuictions, 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. A situation 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 of the 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). If a 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) NOTWITHSTANDING SUBDIVISION (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: 

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) WHEN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND MONITORING 

EQUIPMENT IS NOT OPERATED, THE EMISSIONS CONTROLLED AND 

MEASURED BY SUCH EQUIPMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO GENERATE 

CREDITS IN AN EMISSIONS CREDIT TRADING PROGRAM 

ADMINISTERED BY EPA OR THE 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 comply with 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 by Wisvest so that subparagraph (C) specifies that emissions may not be used to 

calculate credits generated for use in an emissions credit trading program if monitoring 

equipment is not operated. With this specification, subsection (b)(2) includes sufficient and 

necessary circumstances for an exception from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) . 

Subsection (b)(2) should appear as follows in the final text of Section 7: 

(2) NOTWITHSTANDING SUBDIVISION (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 OWNER OR OPERATOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO OPERATE 

SUCH EQUIPMENT BY A PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATION; 
31 

(B) THE SOURCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE EMISSION 

LIMITATIONS AND EMISSION STANDARDS WHILE THE AIR 

POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IS SHUTDOWN; AND 

(C) EMISSIONS RELEASED WHILE ~x AIR POLLUTIO 

MONITORING EQUIPMENT THAT 

MEASURES SUCH EMISSIONS IS DELIBERATELY 

SHUT DOWN; 

BY 14 EQbqPMEN? MAY BE ARE NOT USED TO FE~,MRA ~ 

CALCULATE CREDITS GENERATED IN AN EMISSIONS CREDIT 

TRADING PROGRAM. 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 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT OR MONITORING 

EQUIPMENT REQUIRED BY PERMIT, ORDER OR 

REGULATION CONTINUES FOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR 

(24) HOURS AND THE 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 of the 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) NOTIFICATION TO COMPLY WITH THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE MADE 

BY TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE OR IN PERSON 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE 

SHUTDOWN OCCURRED OR IS DISCOVERED OR IN THE EXERCISE OF 

REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, AND IN NO 

CASE SHALL SUCH NOTICE BE SUB~fiq:TEB MADE LATER THAN TWO 

(2) BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SUCH BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR 

DELIBERATE SHUTDOWN. 

40. Comment: Subsection (e)(2) raises due process concerns since an owner or operator may be 

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 of the breakdown or failure. (R&C) 

R&C suggests that the Department revise subsection (e)(2) as follows : 

(2) NOTIFICATION TO COMPLY WITH THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE MADE 

BY TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE OR IN PERSON 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE 

SHUTDOWN OCCURRED -OR IS DISCOVERED OR IN THE EXERCISE OF 

REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, "'`~-"`o 

Alternatively, R&C requests that the Department explain how a source owner or operator can 

comply with subsection (e)(2) where an equipment breakdown or failure is not initially 

discovered or discoverable in the exercise of reasonable care. 

Response: ~ An: owner or operator who exercises reasonable care in the operation of air 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 

of reasonable. 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" from proposed 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 of subsection (e)(2) should appear as 

follows: 
33 

(2) NOTIFICATION TO COMPLY WITH THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE MADE 

BY TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE OR IN PERSON 

IIVIMEDIATELY AFTER THE BREAKDOWN, FAILURE OR DELIBERATE 

SHUTDOWN OGGLWRLED UR IS DISCOVERED OR IN THE EXERCISE OF 

REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, AND IN NO 

CASE SHALL SUCH NOTICE BE D MADE LATER THAN TWO 

(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 allow a source owners and operators the 

opportunity to discover, diagnose and repair 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), which requires 

the owner or operator to prepare a detailed, written explanation of an event of breakdown, failure 

or deliberate shutdown, is triggered after an event has occurred for 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 10 days 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 owner or 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 Erom Section 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 EPA statements regarding reporting of malfunctions : 

Thus, if a source experiences a minor problem that 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 malfunction provisions of Section 38, including 

the reporting of such events, are duplicative of Section 7, and therefore should allow for 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 

3 8. A MWC owner or operator would not be required to submit notification under Section 7 if 

the MWC is 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 CFR 60.58b 

regarding the fifteen hour malfunction exemption for loss of boiler 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 of Proposed Amendments 

The final text of the amendments to Sections 4 and 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 Attomey General 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 . Steven Yates 

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 

NRG Middletown 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 of Defense ("DOD") 

Naval Submarine Base New London 

Groton, CT 06349-5000 

- 10. Timothy J. Porter 

Director Air Quality Management 

Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. ("Wheelabrator") 

4 Liberty 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") 

280 Trumbull Street 

Hartford, CT 06103-3597