ATTACHMENT B-3 

,STA TIE, OF CONNECTffCU 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

EXHIBIT E 

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-174-18, 22a-174-38, 22a-174-19(f) and 

22a-174-22(a)(21) of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies 

Hearing Officer: Merrily A. Gere 

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2003 

On March 7, 2003, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection 

("Department") signed a notice of intent to propose an amendment to the Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies ("R.C.S .A.") : sections 22a-174-18, 22a-174-38, 22a-174-19(f) and 

22a-174-22(a)(21). Pursuant to such notice, a public hearing was- held on April 29, 2003, with 

the public comment period closing on May 2, 2003 . The originally announced comment deadline 

of April 29, 2003 was extended through May 2, 2003 in response to a request for such an 

extension. 

I. Hearing Report Content 

As required by section 4-168(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes ("C.G.S.t'), this report 

describes the amendment as proposed for hearing; the principal reasons in support of the 

Department's proposed amendment; the principal considerations presented in oral and written 

comments in opposition to the Department's proposed amendment; all comments and responses 

thereto on the proposed amendment; and the final wording of the proposed amendment. 

Commenters are identified in Attachment 1 . 

This report also includes an explanation to comply 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, l 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 

1 Section 5 of Public Act 03-276, effective July 1, 2003, amended C.G.S . section 22a-6(h) to require that the 

Commissioner make the required information available at the time of public notice . This proceeding is not subject to 

Public Act 03-276. 

( Printed on Recycled Paper ) 

79 Elm Street ° Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127 

http ://dep .state .ct.us 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
proposed amendment. In addition, the Commissioner must provide an explanation for all such 

provisions in the regulation-making record required under C.G.S. Title 4, Chapter 54. 

In accordance with the requirements of C.G.S . section 22a-6(h), the Hearing Officer made a 

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 amendment for one of the following two reasons: 

(1) there are no applicable federal standards or procedures ; or (2) the provisions of the 

amendment are the same as the federal standards and procedures. 

2 

Section 1 of the proposed amendment includes revisions to R.C.S .A. section 22a-174-18 

("Section 18"). Each revision made and its relationship to existing federal standards and 

procedures is summarized as follows: 

" Specifies the form and averaging time of the existing opacity standards for stationary sources. 

While the federal government has adopted opacity standards for specific types of stationary 

sources, there are no federal standards for opacity that apply to all stationary sources; 

" Adds particulate matter standards appropriate to fuel-burning equipment using certain fossil 

fuels. There are no federal particulate matter standards that apply to stationary fuel-burning 

equipment based on the type of fuel burned; 

" Adds particulate matter emissions standards and requirements for stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines. The federal government has proposed standards for hazardous 

air pollutants emitted from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines, but no 

federal particulate matter standards apply to such sources; 

" Adds an exemption from the visible emissions standards for sources subject to federal New 

Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") for opacity. This exemption results in only the 

federal NSPS standards for opacity applying; 

" Adds an exemption from the visible emissions standards for smoke generating units used for 

training purposes by a branch of the U.S . military. No federal particulate matter standards 

apply to such sources; 

" Adds an exemption from the section for municipal waste combustors ("MWCs") to recognize 

the promulgation of R.C.S.A. section 22a-174-38 ("Section 38"), which includes opacity and 

particulate matter standards for these sources. Since Section 38 includes requirements for 

MWCs that are based on the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") emission 

guidelines and standards for MWCs and since Section 38 has been approved by EPA as 

meeting its guidelines and standards, this exemption conforms Section 18 to federal standards 

and procedures ; and 

" Makes non-substantive changes that do not involve standards or procedures to conform the 

overall format and language to current practices. 

Sections 2 through 4 of the amendment are minor revisions to Section 38. EPA has approved 

Section 38 as the enforceable mechanism of the Connecticut "Plan for Implementing the 

Municipal Waste Combustor Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards" 

because it includes requirements that are identical to or more stringent than EPA's emissions 

guidelines for MWCs. None of the revisions made by the proposed amendment create 
3 

differences from EPA's emissions guidelines. The specific revisions to Section 38 are as follows: 

" Section 2 adds a provision to subsection (c) regarding the calculation of emission levels for 

reciprocating grate waste tire-fired incinerators, incinerators for which EPA has not adopted 

standards or procedures ; 

" Section 3 clarifies the use of emission reduction credits in the nitrogen oxides ("NOx") 

trading program established by subsection (d) and changes the reporting date for submission 

of the annual NOx trading report. While EPA does not include NOx trading requirements in 

its emissions guidelines for MWCs, EPA did review and approve the trading program of 

Section 38. The revision to Section 3 includes minor clarifications to the approved state 

program for which there are no adopted federal standards or procedures; and 

" Section 4 deletes opacity from the list of pollutants in subsection (k)(10) for which owners or 

operators must keep records of annual performance tests. In accordance with EPA's emission 

guidelines for MWCs, only an initial performance test is required for opacity. Subsequent to 

the initial performance test, compliance with the opacity limit is measured using data from 

continuous emissions monitoring equipment. Thus, this revision is a change that makes 

Section 38 identical to federal procedures. 

Sections 5 and 6 of the amendment are non-substantive revisions to R.C.S.A. sections 22a-174-

19(f) and 22a-174-22(a)(21), to revise internal references to match the revisions to Section 18, 

and thus involve no federal standards or procedures . 

III. Summary and Text of the Amendment as Proposed 

A description of the revisions made by the amendment is set forth in Section II of this report . 

The text of the amendment as proposed is located in Attachment 2 to this report. 

IV. Principal Reasons in Support of the Proposed Amendment 

The amendment serves two general purposes, to update and clarify the opacity and visible 

emissions standards for stationary sources in Section 18 and to make minor technical corrections 

to the current requirements for MWCs in Section 38. Comments in general support the proposed 

clarifications and corrections, particularly the following: 

" Addressing technological limitations of some older sources; 

" Addressing- instances in Section 18 when equally stringent but conflicting federal 

standards apply; 

" Exempting MWCs from Section 18's standards given the adoption of Section 38, which 

includes standards at least as protective as the requirements of Section 18; and 

" Making minor changes to Section 38 for consistency with federal standards and 

guidelines. 

V. Principal Considerations in Opposition to the Proposed Amendment 

While comments were submitted recommending technical revisions to the proposed amendment, 

no comments were submitted in opposition to moving the amendment forward for approval and 

promulgation. 

All comments submitted are addressed in detail in Section VI of this report . 
Vf. Summary of Comments 

The Department received both general comment on the amendment development process and 

specific comment on the content of the proposed amendment. 

Specific to the Amendment Development Process 

Comment regarding the amendment development process was overwhelmingly positive. 2 Over a 

period of approximately seven years, members of a working group organized under the Air 

Bureau's State Irnplementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee ("SIPRAC") attended 

monthly meetings in Hartford and reviewed numerous drafts of the proposed amendment. The 

working group members gained an understanding of the Department's air quality goals and 

intentions, and the Department staff gained an understanding of how these goals could be 

achieved in a manner that takes into account, in certain respects, the needs of regulated source 

owners and operators. 

Commenters stressed the importance of public participation processes such as SIPRAC and its 

subcommittees for proposed regulatory changes and held up the development of this amendment 

as an excellent example of such a process, noting in particular the Department's commitment to 

maintain the process over seven years through changes in the working group members both for 

the Department and the participants . SIPRAC was identified as "one of the best examples of an 

effective public participation process to be found in state government" (comment by PSEG) and 

"an excellent example of the public participation process at its best" (comment by UTC). To 

quote CRRA's submitted comments regarding SIPRAC and its subcommittees: "These 

cooperative forums allow the regulators to hear from stakeholders who are directly affected by 

the Department's programs and regulations. This communication fosters greater understanding 

among the stakeholders and allows Department policies and regulations to be thoughtfully 

crafted in a way that achieves the environmental goals without unnecessarily burdening the 

regulated community." 

Snecific to the Amendment Content 

In general, cornmenters expressed support for the amendment of Section 18. Kg., comment by 

Pfizer, CRRA, NRG. While supportive of the adoption of the amendment, many commenters 

suggested that the proposed amendment could be improved by: 1) revising the proposed visible 

emissions standards of Section 18(b)(1) and (b)(2) to address enforceability and compliance 

determination issues resulting from the revised text ; (2) revising the proposed exceptions from 

the visible emissions standards in Section 18 to make them more rational; and (3) providing more 

explanation to owners and operators of MWCs of how the proposed revisions to Section 38's 

emissions trading program serve the Department's goals and objectives. 

All comments submitted are summarized below with the Department's responses; comment on 

Section 18 is presented first followed by comment on Section 38 . No comments were submitted 

on the revisions to R.C.S .A. sections 22a-174-19(f) and 22a-174-22(a)(21). Location and topic 

2 Including comment by PSEG, CBIA, Sussman, CRRA, Pfizer and UTC. Commenters are identified in full 

in Attachment 1 to this report . 
5 

organize the comments in the sections of this report specific to Section 18 and Section 38. 

Commenters are identified by abbreviation in this section of this report and are identified fully in 

Attachment 1 to this report . When changes to the proposed text are indicated in response to 

comment, new text is indicated in bold font and deleted text in strikethrough font. 

COMMENT ON SECTION 18 

Subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), stationarv source visible emissions standards 

1 . Comment: Regarding proposed subsection (b)(1)(A), PSEG and NRG comment that Method 

9 consists of taking a series of visual observations at fifteen-second intervals over a period of at 

least six minutes and averaging those observations . Hence, any observation of a violation of the 

20% opacity standard by Method 9 would be for a six-minute average time period . For accuracy, 

PSEG recommends that subparagraph (A) read "twenty percent (20%) opacity during any sixminute block average as measured by 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Reference Method 9 ." 

Response: PSEG and NRG are correct in stating that a Method 9 observation would be made for 

a six-minute average time period, and the Department should revise subsection (b)(1)(A) per the 

comment, as follows: 

(A) TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OPACITY 

DURING ANY SIX-MINUTE BLOCK AVERAGE AS 

MEASURED BY 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9; AND 

In addition, the proposed definition of "six-minute bock average" in subsection (a) should be 

revised as follows since the proposed definition applies only to measurements by opacity 

continuous emissions monitoring ("CEM") equipment: 

(6) "SIX-MINUTE BLOCK AVERAGE" MEANS, FOR MEASUREMENTS 

TAKEN AT A SOURCE USING OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, THE 

AVERAGE OF THIRTY-SIX (36) OR MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY 

SPACED OVER A SIX (6) MINUTE PERIOD; AND, FOR 

MEASUREMENTS TAKEN USING 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX A, 

REFERENCE METHOD 9, THE AVERAGE OF TWENTY-FOUR OR 

MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY SPACED OVER A SIX (6) MINUTE 

PERIOD; 

2. Comment: This section establishes visible emissions standards for stationary sources. 

Subsection (b)(1)(A) identifies Reference Method 9 as the means for establishing compliance 

with the 20% opacity standard. However, subsection (b)(1)(B) simply states the limit as "forty 

percent (40%) opacity" with no averaging time and no reference method. It is necessary to 

include an averaging period and a reference method for the 40% opacity standard. (UTC, PSEG, 

CBIA, Sussman, Pfizer, NRG) Opacity determinations are subjective and visual observations 
can be affected by many different parameters . (CBIA, Sussman, Pfizer, PSEG, UTC) 

Specifically, several commenters (CBIA, Sussman, Pfizer) recommend that subsection (b)(1)(B) 

include the following additional language, which includes a one-minute average for consistency 

with the averaging times specified for sources using opacity CEM equipment: 

(B) Forty percent (40%) opacity AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX A, 

REFERENCE METHOD 9, REDUCED TO FOUR (4) CONSECUTIVE 

READINGS AT 15-SECOND INTERVALS FOR A ONE-MINUTE 

AVERAGE. 

UTC recommends the addition of the following language: 

) Forty percent (40%) opacity FOR A PERIOD OR PERIODS 

AGGREGATING MORE THAN ONE (1) MINUTE AS MEASURED BY 40 

CFR 60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9. 

NRG recommends the following: 

(B) Forty percent (40%) opacity, AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX 

A, REFERENCE METHOD 9, AS FOUR CONSECUTIVE READINGS 

FOR A ONE-MINUTE BLOCK PERIOD. 

PSEG also recommends that the forty percent opacity standard in subsection (b)(1)(B) should be 

measured using a variant of Method 9, with the number of observations limited to at least four 

individual observations taken at fifteen-second intervals and averaged to give a one-minute 

average. 

Commenters recommend the addition of a reference method and averaging time to the opacity 

standard of subsection (b)(1)(B) because the proposed standard ("forty percent (40%) opacity') is 

unenforceable without an established, reliable method for determining an instantaneous violation 

of an opacity standard . (CBIA, Sussman, PSEG) CBIA and Sussman provide the following 

comment on the enforceability of the proposed 40% opacity standard: 

" Connecticut has adopted the "Daubert" standard for determining the admissibility of 

scientific evidence. State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) . Under the Daubert 

standard, in order for expert testimony to be admissible it must be scientifically valid 

and rooted in the methods and procedures of science. Id. at 64. It must be "more than 

subjective belief or unsupported speculation." Id. (internal quotes omitted). Among 

the factors that can be applied to determine whether the science underlying specific 

testimony meets this standard for evidentiary reliability are 

(1) whether it can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has 

been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate 

of error, including the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the 
technique's operation; and (4) whether the technique is, in fact, generally 

accepted in the relevant scientific community. Id. 

" Thus, evidentiary reliability is predicated on evidence being based on an established, 

objective methodology rather than variable and subjective measurements such as 

instantaneous visual observations of opacity. 

" An opacity violation based on a visual observation that is not performed using a 

reliable, objective, and scientifically recognized method of visual observation, could 

also be easily attacked by comparison to what is required in order to perform an 

opacity observation using an established method such as Method 9. For example, 

performing a Method 9 observation requires that the visible emissions observer 

control certain variables and take other, non-controllable variables into account. 

Controllable variables include the angle of the observer in relation to the sun, the 

point of observation of detached and attached steam plumes, and the angle of the 

observer with respect to a plume emitted from a rectangular stack with a large length 

to width ratio . In addition, the observer must be positioned perpendicular to the 

plume direction and there must be no more than one plume at a time in his line of 

sight. Non-controllable variables include luminescence and color contrast between 

the plume and the background against which the plume is viewed, moisture in the air, 

and ambient air temperature. 

" Also, an established method would have a known error ratc . In the case of Method 9, 

any observation must be adjusted for the known error rate which is 5% positive error. 

It is worth emphasizing that one of the Daubert evaluation criteria is whether the 

method has a known.error rate . Importantly, the Method 9 error rate assumes that an 

observer is retrained every six (6) months. In the absence of a clear method and 

training to support its use, the testimony of any visual emissions observer would be 

even more vulnerable to attack . The foregoing Method 9 variables and controls 

would serve to highlight the absence of such controls in any visual observation 

performed without reference to an established and accepted visual observation 

method for opacity. 

In addition to the legal unenforceability of the proposed standard, commenters note the practical 

difficulty the proposed method-less 40% opacity standard causes in determining compliance. Of 

critical importance to the regulated community is the ability to know when a facility is in 

compliance or non-compliance . Without an established test for measuring instantaneous opacity, 

a facility would never truly know whether its operations comply with the Section 22a-174-

18(b)(1)(B) opacity standard . (CBIA, Sussman) 

UTC comments that the suggested addition of Method 9 and a one-minute average to the 

proposed 40% opacity standard supports the Department's ability to assess source operation and 

maintenance, the basic reason for requiring source owners and operators to meet opacity 

requirements . When promulgating the first opacity standards for the New Source Performance 

Standard ("NSPS") program, EPA articulated that the purpose of opacity limits is to 

"supplement" the emission concentration standards. 39 Fed. Reg. 9308, 9309 (March 1974). 

However, opacity standards were not to be "more restrictive than the concentration/mass 
8 

standards ." Id at 9309. Emissions concentration limits were to "result in the design, installation 

and operation of the best adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction," while opacity 

standards were to "help ensure that sources and emission control systems continue to be properly 

maintained and operated so as to comply with concentration/mass standards." Id. As such, the 

opacity standards were "established at a level which will require proper operation and 

maintenance of such control systems on a day-to-day basis but not require the design and 

installation of a control system more efficient or expensive than that required by the 

concentration/mass standard ." Id. Because opacity standards were created as a tool to help 

assess operating and maintenance practices, those limits were not set with the goal of assuring 

that sources were complying with the specified opacity limit at every minute. To this end, 

establishing opacity limits with Method 9 as the compliance determination measure allowed 

regulators to gather data indicating whether sources were properly operating and maintaining 

controls, while also accommodating the variations in opacity that are normal and expected at 

even the most well-controlled and well operated sources. (UTC) 

Response: To address the enforceability and compliance concerns stated in comments, the 

Department should revised proposed subsection (b)(1)(B) to specify an averaging time and a 

reference method as follows: 

(B) FORTY PERCENT (40%) OPACITY AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR 60, 

APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9, REDUCED TO A ONEMINUTE BLOCK-AVERAGE. 

In addition, the proposed definition of "one-minute block average" in subsection (a) should be 

revised as follows to apply to visual observations : 

(4) "ONE-MINUTE BLOCK AVERAGE" MEANS, FOR MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT 

A SOURCE USING OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, THE AVERAGE OF SIX (6) OR 

MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY SPACED OVER ONE MINUTE; AND, FOR 

MEASUREMENTS TAKEN USING 40 CFR 60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE 

METHOD 9, THE AVERAGE OF FOUR OR MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY 

SPACED OVER A ONE MINUTE PERIOD ; 

3. Comment: The Department proposed subsection (b)(1) to apply to ALL stationary sources, 

whether or not they have acceptable CEM for opacity. However, the best evidence of an opacity 

violation is CEM data. (CBIA, PSEG) Therefore, subsection (b)(1) should be clarified to apply 

only to stationary sources without opacity CEM and subsection (b)(2) to apply only to stationary 

sources with opacity CEM. (CBIA, PSEG, Pfizer, UTC, NRG) 

The proposed opacity standard in subsection (b)(1)(B), which is based on an instantaneous event, 

could lead to the absurd result in which a stationary source using an opacity CEM could be in 

compliance with the subsection (b)(2)(B), but in violation of the subsection (b)(1)(B) standard . 

Moreover, such a reading of these provisions would render the subsection (b)(2)(B) standard 

irrelevant by eliminating the ability to average opacity data as provided in subsection (b)(2)(B). 
(CBIA, PSEG) 

To the extent that the Department's purpose in applying the subsection (b)(1) standard to 

stationary sources with opacity CEM is to simplify field inspectors' tasks, it would not be any 

hardship for such an inspector to request CEM data from a stationary source in the event a field 

inspector suspects that a violation of the subsection (b)(2)(B) standard has occurred. (CBIA, 

PSEG, Pfizer) NRG adds that a field inspector has the right and ability to review the CEM 

documentation of a source . Ultimately, CEM data is much more reliable than opacity measured 

by visual observation. (CBIA, PSEG, Pfizer, NRG) 

In sum, CBIA, PSEG, UTC, NRG and Pfizer request that the Department clarify subsection 

(b)(1) to apply only to stationary sources without opacity CEM, using the following language : 

"(b) Visible Emission Standards. 

(1) Stationary Sources WITHOUT OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT." 

Response: To recognize that, when available, opacity CEM data is the best evidence of opacity 

emissions, the Department should revise proposed subsection (b)(1) as follows: 

(1) STATIONARY SOURCES WITHOUT OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT. 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (j) OF THIS SECTION, AN 

OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY STATIONARY SOURCE WITHOUT 

OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT FOR WHICH . . . 

4. Comment: Both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) would be clearer if the "and" between 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) were replaced with "or" since a violation occurs when either 

subparagraph (A) or (B) is exceeded. An exceedancc of both standards is not necessary for a 

violation. (EPA) 

Response : EPA is correct in stating that an exceedance of either subparagraph (A) or 

subparagraph (B) in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) is a violation of the section. Therefore, the 

Department should revise the proposed amendment as follows: 

(1) STATIONARY SOURCES. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (j) OF 

THIS SECTION, AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY STATIONARY 

SOURCE FOR WHICH OPACITY IS MEASURED USING VISUAL 

OBSERVATION SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING VISIBLE 

EMISSIONS LIMITS : 

) TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OPACITY FOR A PERIOD OR PERIODS 

AGGREGATING MORE THAN FIVE (5) MINUTES DURING ANY 

SIXTY MINUTE PERIOD AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR 60, 

APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9; AND OR 
10 

(C) FORTY PERCENT (40%) OPACITY. 

(2) STATIONARY SOURCES WITH OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT. EXCEPT AS 

PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (j) OF THIS SECTION, AN OWNER OR 

OPERATOR OF A STATIONARY SOURCE FOR WHICH OPACITY IS 

MEASURED USING OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 

THE FOLLOWING VISIBLE EMISSIONS LIMITS: 

(A) TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OPACITY DURING ANY SIX-MINUTE 

BLOCK AVERAGE; AND OR 

) FORTY PERCENT (40%) OPACITY DURING ANY ONE-MINUTE 

BLOCK AVERAGE. 

5. Comment: The Department should add a new subdivision (3) to subsection (b) to make clear 

that the visible emission standards do not apply during "startup, shutdown or malfunction." 

(CBIA, Sussman) Such a provision is consistent with the NSPS. When EPA adopted opacity 

standards for new sources under the NSPS, EPA specified that such standards do not apply 

during such conditions. In light of EPA's decision to exempt new sources from visible emissions 

standards during startup, shutdown or malfunction, the commenters find it reasonable to exempt 

older sources in the same circumstances. Therefore, the commenters suggest the addition of the 

following language, which is identical to 40 CFR 60.43c(d) : 

"(b)(3) The opacity standards under this section apply at all times, except during 

periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction." (CBIA, Sussman) 

Response: The Department should not provide a blanket exemption from the opacity standards 

of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) for older stationary sources during periods of startup, shutdown 

and malfunction. In subsection (j)(1), the amendment provides for exemption from the opacity 

standards, which is limited to exemption necessary based on a review of historical opacity 

measurements at Connecticut sources . See also comment 17 and response. 

Subsection (b)(3) mobile source visible emissions standards 

6. Comment: Subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii)(b) includes language that states "has passengers aboard 

or will soon receive passengers for which heating or air conditioning is being provided for 

comfort." However, ". . .will soon receive passengers . . ." is vague and it is unclear how this would 

be enforced. (EPA) Therefore, EPA recommends the following language: _ 

(ii) When it is necessary to operate heating or cooling equipment that is located in or on 

the mobile source provided that the vehicle is intended for passenger transport, and 

(a) has passengers aboard for which heat or air conditioning is being 

provided for passenger comfort; or 
11 

(b) is scheduled to have passengers onboard within 5 minutes and the 

ambient outside temperature is greater than 800 F (27o C) or less than 400 F 

(5o C)" 

Response: The Department should not revise proposed subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii)(b) as suggested 

by EPA at this time. While a five-minute restriction on idling for heating or cooling provides a 

clear measure for enforcement, such a restriction on the length of the exemption defeats the 

purpose of the exemption. The exemption is intended to allow for heating, defrosting and 

cooling necessary for safe operation of a vehicle and the health and reasonable comfort of the 

driver and passengers . Five minutes is not adequate time to heat a bus on many days in a New 

England winter and could create a safety concern if, for example, a driver could not adequately 

defrost windshields and windows in that time yet must put the vehicle in motion or violate 

Section 18 . 

Furthermore, the California Air Resources Board, a recognized authority on standards to control 

emissions from mobile sources, recently issued a regulation to control emissions from buses, 

which, like Section 18, contains an exemption for heating and cooling without a time limit. 

The Department agrees that proposed subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii) could be more clearly stated to 

reflect its purpose, and the Department should revised proposed subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii) as 

follows : 

(ii) WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO OPERATE DEFROSTING, HEATING 

OR COOLING EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OR 

HEALTH OF THE DRIVER OR PASSENGERS, THAT IS 

THE 3'9~MGLE! 

7. Comment: In subsection (b)(3)(C)(iii), for alternative power operations, the section could 

include requirements for diesel control equipment. (EPA) Therefore, EPA recommends the 

following language for this section: 

(iii) When the vehicle is engaged in an operation for which engine power is 

necessary for a power take-off unit and substitute alternate means cannot be 

made available, provided that measures have been taken to reduce emissions 

of diesel exhaust during engine operation such that the vehicle: 
12 

(a) is equipped with an oxidation catalyst or other technology certified by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or 

) is a 2007 or later model year on-road engine that meets EPA's diesel 

emission standards. 

Response: The Department should not revise subsection (b)(3)(C)(iii) as suggested by EPA at 

this time. While controlling emissions from diesel vehicles is a high Department priority, 

proposed subparagraph (iii) applies to all mobile sources, not just diesel sources, and should 

continue to do so. Furthermore, the Department operates several programs to control emissions 

from highway diesel engines such as R.C.S .A. section 22a-174-36a, which requires all 2006 and 

later model year heavy-duty highway diesel engines sold in Connecticut to be certified by the 

California Air Resources Board ("CARB") to meet CARB's requirements, and the Clean School 

Bus Program, which retrofits school bus engines to control emissions. The Department should 

consider the need to add EPA's suggested revision to Section 18 to augment existing and planned 

requirements to control diesel source emissions. 

8. Comment: Proposed section 22a-174-18(b)(3)(C)(vi) provides an exception for mobile 

sources to allow them to operate for more than three (3) minutes when undergoing repair or 

maintenance. The same exception should allow for the testing of mobile sources. During testing 

mobile sources typically are not moving as they have test equipment connected to them. Testing 

is an integral part of maintenance and repair. Testing is also performed by manufacturers for 

research and development as well as production testing prior to delivery to customers. In all 

these cases it is necessary for the mobile source to be operated for greater that three minutes 

without being in motion. (UTC, CBIA) 

UTC and CBIA recommend that section 22a-174-18(b)(3)(C)(vi) be modified to read as follows: 

(vi) WHEN THE MOBILE SOURCE IS UNDERGOING REPAIR OR 

MAINTENANCE OR TESTING THAT REQUIRES SUCH MOBILE SOURCE 

BE OPERATED FOR MORE THAN THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE MINUTES. 

Response: Section (b)(3)(C)(vi) provides an exception from the three-minute idling restriction 

for mobile sources undergoing repair or maintenance. The comment, which recommends 

broadening this exemption to include mobile sources undergoing testing, should be considered 

along with the exception provided in proposed subsection (j)(4)(C) and comment on that 

subsection. Subsection (j)(4)(C) provides an exemption for mobile sources undergoing repairs 

from the visible emissions standards of subsection (b)(3) including the three-minute idling 

restriction. 

As stated fully in comment 22 and the response thereto, commenters recommend that the 

exception in (j)(4)(C) should be broadened to including "testing." To take into consideration 

operation of mobile sources in engines testing programs, subsection (j)(4)(C) should be revised 

to add testing to the conditions under which a mobile source would quality for an exemption 

from subsection (b)(3) . Also, "repair" should be deleted from subsection (b)(3)(C)(vi) since its 
exception is subsumed within proposed subsection (j)(4)(C). 

13 

As a result of these revisions to the proposed text, mobile sources undergoing maintenance are 

exempt only from the three-minute idling restriction of subsection (b)(3)(C), and mobile sources 

undergoing repair or testing are exempt from all the visible emissions requirements of subsection 

(b)(3) . These revisions take into account possible limited, short-term exceedances of the visible 

emissions standards that may be necessary to make and test certain repairs as well as the unique 

situation presented by engine testing and development programs, while also placing an 

appropriate limitation on maintenance to only allow necessary exceptions from the three-minute 

idling restriction. 

Specifically, to make the changes explained above, the Department should revise proposed 

subsection (b)(3)(C)(vi) as follows: 

(vi) WHEN THE MOBILE SOURCE IS UNDERGOING REPAIR OR 

MAINTENANCE THAT REQUIRES SUCH MOBILE SOURCE BE 

OPERATED FOR MORE THAN THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE MINUTES. 

And proposed subsection (j)(4)(C) should be revised as follows: 

(C) A MOBILE SOURCE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOING A MECHANICAL 

REPAIR OR TESTING THAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIR 

POLLUTANTS FROM SUCH SOURCE; 

9. Comment: An exemption should be added to subsection (b)(3)(C) from the restriction on 

mobile source operation when a mobile source is not in motion. Such an exemption is necessary 

to address security measures at military installations, including the Naval Submarine Base New 

London in Connecticut, that have been added since September 11, 2001 . Such security measures 

include vehicle searches and inspections that are performed before a vehicle may access a 

military installation. Such inspections normally require five to seven minutes per vehicle, and 

several vehicles may be in line and operating while waiting for inspection. Such operation may. 

therefore exceed the three-minute idling restriction. (DOD) 

Response: In order to allow for personnel at U.S. military installations to carry out required 

security searches and inspections of vehicles seeking entrance to such installations, an exception 

from the three-minute idling restriction of subsection (b)(3)(C) should be added to subsection 

(b)(3)(C) as new subparagraph (vii) as follows: 

(C) ,A MOBILE SOURCE TO OPERATE FOR MORE THAN THREE (3) 

CONSECUTIVE MINUTES WHEN SUCH MOBILE SOURCE IS NOT IN 

MOTION EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: 
(i) 

14 

WHEN A MOBILE SOURCE IS FORCED TO REMAIN MOTIONLESS 

BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS OR MECHANICAL 

DIFFICULTIES OVER WHICH THE OPERATOR HAS NO CONTROL, 

(v) WHEN THE OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE IS BELOW TWENTY 

DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (20 DEGREES F), OR 

(vi) WHEN THE MOBILE SOURCE IS UNDERGOING 

MAINTENANCE THAT REQUIRES SUCH MOBILE SOURCE BE 

OPERATED FOR MORE THAN THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE 

MINUTES, OR 

(vii) WHEN A MOBILE SOURCE IS IN QUEUE TO BE INSPECTED 

BY U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL PRIOR TO GAINING ACCESS 

TO A U.S. MILITARY INSTALLATION. 

Subsection (e), particulate matter emission standards for fuel-burning eAuipment 

10. Comment: The proposed standards for particulate matter emissions pertaining to stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engines in subsection (e)(3) are reasonable and achievable 

standards for stationary engines. (EMA) 

Response: The Department notes EMA's confirmation of the appropriateness of the standards 

proposed for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. 

11 . Comment: Best available control technology ("BACT") is a requirement for all new 

sources. (EPA) Therefore, the requirements set forth in subsection (e) may be superceded by 

more stringent BACT requirements. Subsection (e) should be made clear in this regard, as 

follows: 

(e) "Particulate matter emissions standards for fuel burning equipment, unless 

superceded by BACT requirements." 

Response: The Department agrees that, for some sources, BACT requirements may be more 

stringent than the standards in subsection (e) . The Department drafted proposed Section 18 

accordingly and therefore the clarification suggested by EPA is not necessary. Subsection (j)(8) 

includes an exception from the requirements of subsections (e), (f) and (g) for the "owner or 

operator of a source subject to more stringent BACT requirements, provided that the source is 

operated in compliance with a BACT determination." (See also Section VII, additional comment 

by hearing officer on proposed subsection (e)(1), regarding more stringent permit requirements.) 

Subsection (fl, industries usinz process sources - ffeneral 

12. Comment: The proposed amendment changes the former title of this subsection from 

"Process industries - general" to the new "Industries using process sources - general ." Though 

seemingly the same title this change could have unexpected consequences. The new name now 
15 

refers to "process sources," which have a specific definition under R.C.S.A. section 22a-174-1 . 

The original title refers to a group of industries . Although not clear in the current regulation, this 

subsection has long been considered to be applicable to industries that process large quantities of 

material such as mineral processing industries . This is supported by the use of emission limits 

expressed as an emission rate for a given process weight rate . Chapter 11 of AP-42 lists 

emission factors for "Mineral Products Industries ." Emission factors in AP-42 Chapter 11 are 

typically listed as emission rates for a given process weight rate . The proposed change in title 

could result in the subsection's application to sources not currently regulated under the subsection 

such as small industrial machines, drill presses or grinding machines. Such sources do not 

generate large quantities of particulate matter and emissions typically occur inside buildings with 

relatively little particulate escaping into the ambient atmosphere. While such sources would 

likely meet the standard, the demonstration of meeting it would be unduly burdensome especially 

in facilities where hundreds of such sources are in operation. (UTC, CBIA) 

CBIA requests that the Department clarify the applicability of subsection (f), and UTC suggests 

that the title of subsection (f) be revised to read: 

MINERAL PROCESSING INDUSTRIES - GENERAL 

Alternatively, UTC recommends that the current title be retained: 

PROCESS INDUSTRIES - GENERAL 

Response: The use of the term "process source" in proposed subsection (f) is intended to make 

the application of the subsection clearer., However, as noted in the comment, the proposed 

change creates, rather than eliminates, uncertainty and confusion about the applicability of the 

subsection. 

To avoid uncertainty and confusion regarding the applicability of subsection (f), the Department 

should retain the current title, "process industries -- general" and eliminate the term "process 

source" from proposed subsections (f)(2), (f)(5) and (f)(6) as follows: 

PROCESS INDUSTRIES -- GENERAL. 

(2) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (g) OF THIS SECTION, NO OWNER OR 

OPERATOR OF A PROCESS SOURCE PROCESS INDUSTRY SOURCE SHALL 

(5) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS 

SUBSECTION, AN INTERPRETATION RESULTING IN THE LOWEST 

ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE SHALL APPLY IF THE NATURE OF ANY 

PROCESS OR OPERATION, OR THE DESIGN OF ANY PROCESS SOURCE UNIT, 

ALLOWS MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. 
(6) TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE IN , 

ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION FOR EMISSIONS THAT PASS 

THROUGH A STACK OR STACKS AT A PREMISES CONTAINING SEVERAL 

SIMILAR PROCESS SO-URGES UNITS, THE TOTAL PROCESS WEIGHT SHALL 

INCLUDE ALL SUCH SIMILAR PROCESS SOURCES UNITS. 

The phrase "industries using process sources -- general" in the title of Table 18-1 should be 

replaced with "process industries -- general" as follows: 

16 

TABLE 18-1 . INTERPOLATION/EXTRAPOLATION TABLE FOR DETERMINING 

PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION RATES AND PROCESS WEIGHT RATES FOR 

PROCESS INDUSTRIES -- GENERAL. 

In addition, the Department should retain the current title of subsection (g), "process industries --

specific" since the title of subsection (g) was only revised to be parallel in construction to the 

proposed title of subsection (f). 

(g) PROCESS INDUSTRIES -- SPECIFIC. 

13. Comment: The proposed definition for "process weight" in subsection (f)(1)(A) may 

inadvertently cause confusion regarding possible application of this subsection to fuel-burning 

sources. The Department should revise the definition of "process weight" in new subsection 

(f)(1)(A) to clarify that this subsection does not apply to the burning of fossil fuels, including 

solid fuels, in any fossil fuel-fired combustion unit and only applies to the use of solid fuels in 

processes where they are used for purposes other than combustion . (PSEG, CBIA) 

PSEG and CBIA explain the recommendation as follows: The proposed definition of "process 

weight" in subsection (f)(1)(A) is "the total weight, in pounds, of all materials introduced into 

any specific process . . . including solid fuels burned and excluding combustion air, liquid fuels 

and gaseous fuels" [emphasis added] . The previous definition for process weight in Section 

18(e)(3) states that "solid fuels charged will be considered as part of the process weight, but 

liquid and gaseous fuels and combustion air will not" [emphasis added] . PSEG and CBIA 

understand that it is not the intent of the Department to regulate the burnin~ of solid fuels under 

this subdivision. However, the slight shift in wording in this definition may make this intent 

unclear. 

Response: PSEG and CBIA are correct in stating that the burning of solid fuels should not be 

included in the determination of process weight for a process source . Therefore, in the final text 

of the amendment, the Department should revise Section 18(f)(1)(A) as follows : 

(A) "PROCESS WEIGHT" MEANS THE TOTAL WEIGHT, IN POUNDS, OF ALL 

MATERIALS INTRODUCED INTO ANY SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT MAY 

CAUSE THE EMISSION OF PARTICULATE MATTER, INCLUDING SOLID 
17 

FUELS BURNED USED IN SUCH PROCESS FOR PURPOSES OTHER 

THAN COMBUSTION AND EXCLUDING COMBUSTION AIR, AND 

LIQUID FUELS, SOLID FUELS AND GASEOUS FUELS BURNED; 

14. Comment: EPA recommends that a subdivision be added to the end of subsection (f) to 

clarify that the requirements set forth in this subsection can be superceded by more stringent 

BACT requirements, as follows: 

(8) The requirements of subsection (f) may be superceded by more stringent 

BACT requirements for any emissions source. 

Response: The revision for clarity suggested by EPA is not necessary since subsection (j)(8) 

includes an exception from the requirements of subsections (e), (f) and (g) that applies to the 

"owner or operator of a source subject to more stringent BACT requirements, provided that the 

source is operated in compliance with a BACT determination." 

Subsection (~), industries using process sources - snecific 

15. Comment: EPA recommends that a subdivision be added to the end of subsection (g) to 

clarify that the requirements set forth in this subsection can be superceded by more stringent 

BACT requirements, as follows: 

(5) The requirements of subsection (g) may be superceded by more stringent 

BACT requirements for any emissions source. 

Response: The revision for clarity suggested by EPA is not necessary since subsection (j)(8) 

includes an exception from the requirements of subsections (e), (f) and (g) that applies to the 

"owner or, operator of a source subject to more stringent BACT requirements, provided that the 

source is operated in compliance with a BACT determination." 

Subsection (i), excepted activities 

16. Comment: Proposed subsection (j)(1) implements an exemption for stationary sources 

equipped with opacity CEM based on calendar quarter operations. NRG requests that revised 

Section 18 become effective at the start of a calendar quarter such as October l, 2003 or January 

1, 2004. 

Response: In the supporting 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, such as October 1, 2003 or January l, 2004, depending on 

the date of submission. 

17. Comment: Proposed subsection (j)(1) creates an internal inconsistency. Commenters 

identify two concerns with the subsection and recommend the following revisions to the 

proposed text: (1) the exceptions in subsection (j)(1) apply to both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) 

(NRG, PSEG, UTC, Sussman, CBIA, Pfizer); and (2) subsection (j)(1)(A) should be deleted in 
18 

its entirety and the remaining subparagraphs re-lettered accordingly (Pfizer, NRG, PSEG). UTC 

notes that its recommendation for the exception in (j)(1) apply to subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) is 

an alternative to its recommended revision to limit subsection (b)(1) to sources without opacity 

CEM equipment and subsection (b)(2) to sources with opacity CEM equipment. Commenters 

state the following on subsection (j)(1) : 

" The most significant problem with this provision [proposed subsection 6)(1)] is that it 

does not except such sources from the subsection (b)(1) opacity standard that allows a 

maximum of (1) 20% opacity emissions for five minutes over any sixty minute period as 

measured by Method 9, and (2) 40% opacity as, apparently, measured instantaneously. If 

the Department fails to include such an exception, the subsection (j)(1) provision would 

be rendered largely meaningless since there is no way in which a source to which 

subsection (j)(1) is applicable could have opacity emissions in excess of 40% at any time: 

In order for subsection (j)(1) to provide a meaningful exception, the language should be 

modified such that the exceptions apply to both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) . (Pfizer, 

PSEG, CBIA) CBIA recommends the following revision to proposed subsection (j)(1) : 

. 

(1) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A STATIONARY .SOURCE SHALL NOT 

BE SUBJECT TO THE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF 

SUBDIVISIONS (b)(1) AND (b)(2) . . . 

A second problem with subsection (j)(1) is that it does not include sources for which 

construction commenced on or after August 17, 1971 . There is no substantive rationale 

for distinguishing between sources that were constructed before or after that date, 

provided the sources are equipped with CEM. (CBIA, Pfizer, PSEG, NRG) 

There can be two identical sources, whose only difference is construction date that would 

be regulated differently. Also, there are sources that were built after August 17, 1971 that 

are equipped with CEMS that should be allowed to use the excepted activities. If not, 

then, two sets of standards exist for stationary sources equipped with CEMS. This seems 

to be an internal inconsistency with the proposed revisions. (NRG) For example, a boiler 

constructed after that date but before the applicability date for 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db or 

Dc would not be in any different position than a boiler that was constructed prior to 

August 17, 1971, and that, except for the construction date, satisfied all other Subpart Db 

or Dc applicability criteria. There is no discernible reason why such pre- and post-August 

17, 1971 boilers should be treated differently. Since individual NSPS provide a startup, 

shutdown and malfunction exemption from the opacity standard, it is not clear why all 

stationary sources with opacity CEM should not also have such an exemption. (PSEG, 

CBIA, Pfizer) In addition, the inclusion of sources that commenced construction on or 

after August 17, 1971 could have the beneficial effect of encouraging such sources to 

install opacity CEM. (PSEG, CBIA., Pfizer) Installing CEM is a more accurate and 

consistent method for assuring compliance with the opacity standards of Section 18 than 

relying on infrequent visual observations . (PSEG, CBIA, Pfizer) Therefore, subsection 

(j)(1)(A) should be deleted in its entirety and the remaining subparagraphs re-lettered 

accordingly. (PSEG, CBIA, NRG, Pfizer) 
19 

Sussman comments similarly, as follows : Subsection (j)(1) should not be limited to 

sources constructed on or before August 17, 1971 . It is our understanding that August 17, 

1971, is the cut off date, because it is the date that the first boiler NSPS with an opacity 

standard became applicable. See, 40 CFR 60.40(c) . Therefore, this subsection provides a 

different opacity standard for soot blowing, fuel switching and sudden load changing for 

non-NSPS sources. However, the section fails to provide similar relief to smaller boilers 

constructed before 40 CFR subparts Db or Dc became effective on June 19, 1984, and 

June 9, 1989, respectively. Taken together, sections (j)(1) and (j)(2) provide very old 

sources and newer NSPS sources with relief from the 40% one-minute opacity standard 

for soot blowing and other activities, but boilers installed between August 17, 1971 and 

June 9, 1989, are not provided any such relief. The numerous boilers built after August 

17; 1971, but before the effective dates of the NSPS for different size boilers, should be 

treated similarly to the pre-August 17, 1971 boilers. To rectify this situation, section 

(j)(1) should apply to any source constructed prior to otherwise applicable NSPS visible 

emissions standards. 

In order to implement the suggested change that subsection (j)(1) apply to both subsections (b)(1) 

and (b)(2), UTC recommends that the phrase "(b)(1) and " be inserted into the text of subsection 

(j)(1), subparagraph (C) of subsection (j)(1) and subparagraph (D) of subsection (j)(1) following 

the word "subdivision" and prior to "(b)(2)." 

Response: 

" Regarding the comment that subsection (j)(1) should apply to both subsections (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) : The suggested revision is not necessary given the revisions to proposed 

subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) explained in the responses to comments 1 through 3. 

" Regarding the comment that subsection (j)(1)(A) should be deleted since it is not 

necessary: The Department should not limit the exemption in subsection (j)(1)(A) to 

sources constructed on or prior to August 17, 1971 in order to address sources 

constructed after that date but that are similarly situated technologically to those sources 

constructed on or before August 17, 1971 . The requirements for the exemption in 

subsections (j)(1)(B) through (j)(1)(D) are sufficient in themselves to limit the scope of 

the exemption. The Department should revised subsection (j)(1) as follows : 

(1) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A STATIONARY SOURCE SHALL NOT BE 

SUBJECT TO THE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS .OF SUBDIVISION (b)(2) OF 

THIS SECTION FOR MEASUREMENTS OF OPACITY USING OPACITY CEM 

EQUIPMENT DURING A PERIOD OF STARTUP, SHUTDOWN OR 

MALFUNCTION; COMMISSIONER-APPROVED STACK TESTING; OR 

INTENTIONAL SOOTBLOWING, FUEL SWITCHING OR SUDDEN LOAD 

CHANGING DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES 

PROVIDED THAT: 
20 

(13)(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS .REQUIRED BY PERMIT, ORDER OR 

REGULATION TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OPACITY CEM 

EQUIPMENT AT SUCH STATIONARY SOURCE, AND THE OWNER OR 

OPERATOR IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PERMIT, ORDER OR 

REGULATION WITH REGARD TO SUCH OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT; 

(G)(B) THE PERIOD OF EXCEPTION FROM THE VISIBLE EMISSIONS 

STANDARDS OF SUBDIVISION (b)(2) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT 

EXCEED ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT (0.5%) OF THE TOTAL 

OPERATING HOURS OF SUCH STATIONARY SOURCE DURING ANY 

CALENDAR QUARTER; AND 

(B)(C) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE STATIONARY SOURCE DOES NOT 

CAUSE OR ALLOW VISIBLE EMISSIONS IN EXCESS OF SIXTY PERCENT 

(60%) OPACITY DURING ANY SIX-MINUTE BLOCK AVERAGE OF THE 

PERIOD OF EXCEPTION FROM THE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS 

OF SUBDIVISION (b)(2) OF THIS SECTION. 

18. Comment: Subsection (j)(1) only applies to those sources required by "permit, order or 

regulation to install, operate and maintain opacity CEM equipment. . . ." Subsection (j)(1) does 

not specify a whether there is a process for obtaining a permit or order that requires installation, 

operation and maintenance of an opacity CEM. (CBIA, Sussman, Pfizer) Many sources faced 

with the compliance certifications under Title V may prefer to install voluntarily more rigorous 

monitoring equipment in order to assure compliance and should be encouraged to do so and 

supported by the Department through some expedited means. These sources would, under the 

current wording, be faced with the worst possible outcomes. (Pfizer) 

Section 22a-174-2a(f)(2)(D), which authorizes permit revisions for "requiring more frequent or 

additional monitoring, record keeping or reporting," should be available to sources wanting to 

use opacity CEMs to fall within the terms of section 22a-174-18(j)(1). (CBIA, Sussman) In the 

Hearing Report or in the final regulations, the Department should explain how sources can 

become subject to section 22a-174-18(j)(1). An alternative approach would be to add an "opt-in" 

provision to section 22a-174-18(j)(1)(B) as follows: 

(B) The owner or operator is required by permit, -order or regulation to install, operate 

and maintain opacity CEM equipment as such stationary source, and the owner or 

operator is in compliance with such permit, order or regulation with regard to such 

opacity CEM equipment. IF A STATIONARY SOURCE IS NOT ALREADY 

SUBJECT TO A PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATION REQUIRING 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT AN 

OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY, IN LIEU OF SUCH REQUIREMENT 

CERTIFY ON A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMISSIONER THAT 
21 

SUCH STATIONARY SOURCE HAS INSTALLED OPACITY CEM 

EQUIPMENT THAT MEETS THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF 40 C .F .R. 

PART 60 APPENDIX B AND F AND THAT SUCH OPACITY CEM 

EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OPERATED AND MAINTAINED IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. PART 60, 

APPENDIX B AND F THAT GOVERN THE INSTALLATION OPERATION 

AND MAINTENANCE OF OPACITY CEMS . 

(Sussman, CBIA.) 

Response: To allow owners and operators of sources not subject to an applicable requirements 

requiring installation and operation of opacity CEM equipment to install such equipment, 

subsection (j)(1)(B) should be revised as follows: 

) The owner or operator is required by permit, order or regulation to install, operate 

and maintain opacity CEM equipment as such stationary source, and the owner or 

operator is in compliance with such permit, order or regulation with regard to such 

opacity CEM equipment. IF A STATIONARY SOURCE IS NOT SUBJECT 

TO A PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATION REQUIRING OPERATION 

AND MAINTENANCE OF OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, AN OWNER 

OR OPERATOR MAY CERTIFY ON A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE 

COMMISSIONER THAT: 

(i) 

(11) 

THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF SUCH STATIONARY SOURCE 

HAS INSTALLED OPACITY CEM EQUIPIVIENT THAT MEETS 

THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF 40 CFR 60, APPENDICES B 

AND F, AND 

THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OPERATES AND MAINTAINS 

SUCH INSTALLED OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR 60, 

APPENDICES B AND F; 

19. Comment: The reference in subsection (j)(1)(C) to subsection (b)(2) of this section should 

be broadened to subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) if (j)(1) is revised as recommended in comment 17. 

This subsection should except the source from both the requirements of (b)(1) and (b)(2), during 

the applicable periods noted. (Pfizer) 

Response: The recommended revision to proposed subsection (j)(1)(C) is not necessary. See the 

explanation in response to comment 17. 

20. Comment: Under proposed subsection (j)(1)(D), sources would not be able to have 

exempted activities if a single opacity reading greater than 60°lo for a six-minute block period 

occurred in the quarter. While the excepted activities recognize that the operation of a large 

fossil fuel fired boiler is complex, partially because of the number of ancillary systems associated 
22 

with their operation, the regulation does not fully recognize the issues surrounding an equipment 

malfunction. Though not common, power boilers can be subject to malfunctions such as a boiler 

tube blowout, a precipitator fire or a plugged oil gun, to name a few examples. When any of 

these events occur, the first and primary action of the equipment operators is to safely, but as 

quickly as possible, shut the unit down. Depending on the load at which the boiler may be 

operating when the event happens (which relates to the steam pressure), shutdown may take 

longer than six minutes. By trying to limit opacity to no greater than 60% in a six minute period 

could force the operators to bring the unit's load down too quickly, possibly causing additional 

damage to the equipment and jeopardizing personal safety. Based on our records of events, we 

believe that the limit should be a balance of the environmental standard and safe operations . For 

these reason, we request that the limit in Subsection (j)(1)(D) be revised to 75%. (NRG) 

Response: The Department should not revise the proposed 60% opacity limit in proposed 

subsection (j)(1)(D) in response to this comment. The 60% opacity limit was identified as the 

appropriate level after conducting a review of historical opacity data for Connecticut sources. 

Based on this review, an increase in the limit to 75% is neither necessary to take into account 

source operation nor appropriate to best serve air quality needs. 

21. Comment: Subsection (j)(2) provides that sources subject to an opacity standard in an 

NSPS adopted after August 17, 1971 are not subject to the visible emission standards in 

subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) . This is a significant and positive clarification to the current 

regulations. The NSPS for various size boilers, 40 CFR Subparts Da, Db, and Dc, include 

specific opacity requirements, which are not entirely consistent with subsections (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) . For example, the NSPS sets the maximum opacity at 27 percent for up to six minutes, 

rather than a shorter-term opacity of 40 percent. Furthermore, the NSPS provide an exemption 

for startup, shutdown and malfunction . See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.43b(g) and 60.43c(d). By 

exempting NSPS sources from the general opacity standards of section 22a-174-18(b), the new 

regulations represent a great improvement over the current regulations. (CBTA, Sussman) 

Response: The Department notes the commenter's support for proposed subsection (j)(2) . 

22. Comment: Section 22a-174-18(j)(4)(C) provides an exemption for mobile sources 

undergoing mechanical repair that affects the emission of visible air pollutants. 

" The same exemption should apply to the testing of mobile sources. (UTC, Stanadyne, CBIA) 

Testing is often an integral part of mechanical repair . Testing is also performed by 

manufacturers for research and development as well as production testing prior to delivery to 

customers. By their very nature, engine testing programs subject mobile sources to varying 

conditions that affect the emission of visible air pollutants . 

" The exception should be expanded to apply to nonroad and stationary engines. (Stanadyne) 

UTC and CBIA recommend that section 22a -174-18(j)(4)(C) be modified to read as follows: 

A MOBILE SOURCE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOING A MECHANICAL REPAIR OR 

TESTING THAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VIS1BLE AIR POLLUTANTS ~ 

FROM SUCH SOURCE; 
Similarly, Stanadyne recommends that section 22a -I 74-180)(4)(C) be modified to read as 

follows: 

A MOBILE SOURCE, NONROAD OR STATIONARY ENGINE WHILE IT IS 

UNDERGOING A MECHANICAL REPAIR, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

OR TESTING THAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIR POLLUTANTS 

FROM SUCH SOURCE. 

23 

Stanadyne includes nonroad engines in its recommended revision because the engines used in its 

research, development and testing program remain in place at the Stanadyne facility for more 

than twelve months, although they are not necessarily operated, and therefore could be 

considered nonroad engines under EPA's definition in 40 CFR 89.2 . 

Response: Proposed subsection (j)(4)(C) is an exception from the mobile source visible 

emissions standards in proposed subsection (b)(3) . A "mobile source" for the purposes of 

Section 18 is defined in R.C.S .A. section 22a-174-1 and includes sources such as the engines 

used in Stanadyne's testing program. Therefore, Stanadyne's recommendation to apply that 

exception to nonroad and stationary sources is not necessary. However, to take into 

consideration operation of mobile sources in engine testing programs such as those conducted by UTC and Stanadyne, the Department should revise subsection (j)(4)(C) as follows in the final 

version of Section 18 to add to the conditions under which a mobile source would qualify for an 

exemption: 

(C) A MOBILE SOURCE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOING A MECHANICAL 

REPAIR OR TESTING THAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIR 

POLLUTANTS FROM SUCH SOURCE. 

See also comment and response 8. 

23. Comment: As written, subsection (j)(4)(E) provides an exemption for locomotives from the idling restrictions in subsection 18(b). Locomotive idling, particularly for switchyard 

locomotives, can be reduced or eliminated through innovative approaches that reduce emissions, noise and fuel consumption. EPA is currently developing guidance on quantifying emission 

reductions from strategies that reduce locomotive emissions. By imposing reasonable idling 

restrictions on locomotives, Connecticut can achieve NOx emission reductions for SIP credit . 

Therefore, we recommend that Connecticut subject locomotives to idling restrictions by deleting 

subsection 18(j)(4)(E). (EPA) 

Response: The Department should not change the proposed exemption from idling restrictions for locomotives at this time. That exemption continues an exemption now allowed in current 

Section 18 . The Department should take EPA's suggestion under advisement and consider EPA's guidance when it becomes available, in particular the potential emissions reductions that may be achieved from such measures. As necessary, the Department should then consider the need to amend Section 18 to impose idling restrictions on locomotives. 
24 

24. Comment: As written in subsection (j)(4)(F), all marine vessels are exempt from the idling 

restrictions in subsection 18(b). However, there are approaches that can be taken to reduce 

marine vessel idling for vessels that are docked. We would suggest the following revisions to 

this section to decrease unnecessary idling : 

G)(4)(~) 

(EPA) 

A vessel operating on water, unless such vessel is secured to a stationary 

dock; and 

Response: The Department should not at this time restrict the exception from the idling 

restrictions as recommended by EPA to reduce emissions from marine vessel idling by docked 

vessels. The Department should take EPA's suggestion under advisement and consider the 

potential emissions reductions from such a measure and its effect on the potentially xeguiated 

entities . The Department should then consider the need to amend Section 18 to impose idling 

restriction on docked marine vessels. 

25. Comment: The exclusions listed in subsection (j)(7) regarding emergency generators and 

engines less than 175 hp are necessary and appropriate and should be adopted in the final 

regulation . (EMA) 

Response: The Department notes EMA's confirmation of the appropriateness of the exceptions 

included for emergency engines and engines less than 175 hp and support for the adoption of 

these requirements . 

26. comment: The exemption from Section 18 in subsection (j)(11) for MWCs is logical given 

the adoption of section 22a- 174-38 of the R.C.S.A. (CRRA.) 

Response: The Department notes CRRA's support for the exemption in subsection (j)(11) . 
25 

COMMENT ON SECTION 38 

Subsection (d), NOx emissions trading pro-gram 

27. Comment: New subparagraph (G) of subsection (d)(6) of the proposed amendment 

specifies that an emission reduction credit ("ERC") is considered created on the date the NOx 

emissions reduction occurs at a plant or source for the purposes of subparagraphs (E) and (F) . 

CRRA wishes. to comment on this amendment in the context of the larger regulatory and policy 

framework of which it is a part. 

The Department, through a series of actions, has begun to restrict certain aspects of its NOx ERC 

trading programs. Unlike the usual rulerimaking process, involving participation of the regulated 

community and other stakeholders, these actions have been taken without public consultation and 

have become evident piecemeal as part of other, more routine actions such as ERC approvals and 

extensions of Trading Agreements and Orders . The Department has not, to date, presented its 

new policy in toto to the regulated community. CRRA's comments are based on conversations 

with Department staff and written statement by the Department in an ERC approval and a 

Trading Agreement and Order. 

A NOx ERC is an asset that is intentionally created by a participating source according to a 

Department-administered program. Such a source is voluntarily controlling NOx emissions to 

levels below those required. Such control improves air quality and benefits human health and the 

environment. This is typically done through purchase, installation and operation of emission 

control equipment, the one-time cost and ongoing operation costs of which are not insignificant. 

The Department, in quantifying emissions reductions reflected in created credits, discounts the 

emissions significantly to benefit the environment. The Department gives the source credit for 

the remainder of the emissions reductions . However, according to subsection (d)(5)(B), "prior to 

the use, sale or transfer of such ERCs," the participating source must "submit a written request to 

the commissioner for approval." In effect, the participating source can make no practical use of 

ERCs it has "created" until the Commissions approves them. 

Subsection (d)(5)(A) requires the participating source to maintain records that document the NOx 

mass emissions, concentrations, operating hours and ERCs created. The participating source 

accumulates these records and makes periodic submissions of this information to the Department 

for approval of the ERCs. Upon receipt of such submissions, the Department staff review the 

information and send a letter to the participating source of the approval of the ERCs. Only after 

receiving this approval can a participating source make any practical use of the asset created. 

If the Department chooses to restrict the life of an ERC to five years and defines creation as the 

date on which a NOx reduction occurs, the effective useful life will always be less than five 

years, perhaps significantly less, due to the ERC approval process. 

The result is an owner or operator is likely to submit documentation for ERC approval frequently 

in order to reduce the time lost between creation and approval when an ERC may not be used. 

More frequent submissions, monthly or even weekly compared to the current practice of one 

annual submission, would be more burdensome to Department staff. It would seem much more 
26 

logical to define ERC creation as occurring at the time of ERC approval by the Department and 

setting the expiration date of a given block of ERCs explicitly. 

The concept of 'vintage restrictions' or expiration dates for ERCs has both positive and negative 

implications . Such restrictions would allow the Department to create a registry of ERCs to better 

understand how many credits are held and by whom. CRRA. feels that using expiration dates to 

eliminate older credits may have unintended effects. Since an ERC is a salable asset, it is a 

means by which the participating source can recoup some of the cost of creating that ERC. 

Limiting the useful life of an ERC limits the value of the asset. If the value of an ERC becomes 

less than, perhaps significantly less than, the cost to create one, some participating sources may 

choose to cease "over-controlling." This would adversely impact Connecticut's air quality. 

CRRA believes that, if vintage restrictions are imposed, existing ERCs should be 

"grandfathered," that is, have no expiration date. CRR.A holds 114 ERCs created in 1998 (but 

not approved until December 2000). Even though the Department has set an expiration date of 

December 31, 2004 for these ERCs rather than simply declaring them expired, the perceived 

value of these ERCs has undoubtedly plummeted. These credits were created at some finite cost 

to CRRA and CRI2A has, or had, an expectation of recouping the cost through the sale of the 

ERCs. It is likely that only a fraction of that cost is now recoverable due to the imminent 

expiration. 

CRRA recommends that the Department standardize its use of the terms "generation" and 

"creation" with respect to ERCs. Section 38 is consistent in its use of the term "creation." 

CRRA received an ERC approval certification from the Department dated September 13, 2002 

containing the following sentence. tThese ERCs shall only be used for five (5) calendar years 

from the year of the generation of such ERCs or until April 30, 2007, whichever is earlier, as 

shown on the following table." It is unclear if "generation" means the actual period of time when 

the reduced emissions occurred or when the ERCs were approved. This sentence appears to 

define a "year of generation" from which the five-year usable life span is measured. This seems 

inconsistent with what the amendment in Section 38 subsection (d)(6)(G) is defining as the date 

of ERC creation. Practically speaking, is the Department seeking to have sources that use ERCs 

track the date, to the day, of creation of every ton or part of a ton to assure timely usage? This 

seems quite onerous on both the source and Department staff, who would audit ERC usage. 

CRRA is strongly in favor of emissions credit trading as a tool to improve Connecticut's air 

quality. The Department has demonstrated that the emissions reductions and air quality 

improvements achieved since ERC trading began are far greater than what would have been 

expected through old-style "command and control" methods or regulations., CRRA appreciates 

the efforts of Department staff who have worked cooperatively with regulated sources to make 

the ERC trading programs work so well. CRRA understand the Department's desire to improve 

its ERC trading program and is prepared to work with Department staff to do so. CRRA is an 

active participant in SIl'RAC and SIPRAC subcommittees and workgroups. These cooperative 

forums allow the regulators to hear from stakeholders who are directly affected the Department's 

programs and regulations . This communication fosters greater understanding among the 
27 

stakeholders and allows the Department's policies and regulations to be thoughtfully crafted in a 

way that achieves the environmental goals without unnecessarily burdening the regulated 

community. CRRA urges the Department to hold open, cooperative discussions on this 

important and successful program so that a consistent, fair, sustainable and environmental 

protective trading program can continue to benefit us all. 

Response: , Much of CRRA's comment addresses an ERC life span restriction, which was not the 

subject matter of the proposed amendment. The Department presented its policy on and reasons 

for the ERC life span restriction to the regulated community on July 10, 2003, made available a 

written statement regarding the life span restriction and provided an opportunity for informal 

discussions with all interested parties on July 10 and August 14, 2003 on the issue of ERC life 

span restrictions . CRRA participated in those discussions. CRRA also submitted similar 

comments to those submitted here on a separate amendment to Section 38 for which a public 

hearing was held on May 15, 2003 and in which the referred to ERC life span restriction was 

proposed. The Department fully responded to CRRA's comments on the proposed life span 

restriction in the hearing report prepared in that amendment process. This response does not 

repeat the responses in that hearing report. The relevant comments on this amendment are those 

that apply to the date of ERC creation, proposed in this amendment in Section 38(d)(6)(_ G) as 

"the date the NOx emissions reduction occurs at a plant or source ." 

Regarding subsection (d)(6)(G), CRRA comments that the Department uses the terms "creation" 

and "generation" interchangeably. The terms "generation" and "creation" are used consistently 

within Section 38 as proposed for amendment. In this context, both terms refer to the actual 

period of time when the reduced emissions occur. This usage does not create conflict with any 

other applicable requirements. As a general matter, the Department strives for appropriate 

consistency in the use of terms in its actions. 

Furthermore, CRRA comments that subsection (d)(6)(G) will require tracking of ERC creation 

on a daily basis, which is an onerous burden on owners and operators and the Department . To 

address CRRA's concern and make the proposed language defining creation as the date the 

reduction occurs consistent with recently issued MWC Trading Agreements and Orders that limit 

ERC life span based on the year the reduction occurs, the Department should revise the text of 

proposed subsection (d)(6)(G) as follows: 

(G) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBPARAGRAPHS (E) AND (F) OF THIS 

SUBDIVISION, AN ERC IS CONSIDERED CREATED ON THE D IN 

THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR THE NOx EMISSION REDUCTION 

OCCURS AT A PLANT OR SOURCE. 

28. Comment: The vintage restriction on ERCs proposed in (d)(6)(G) will penalize creation of 

credits early in the winter (non-ozone) season by shortening their useful life . If the Department 

certifies ERCs after submittal of the emissions statements in the spring of the calendar year 

following the year of creation, the winter non-ozone season credits have already aged 15 months 

(25% of their useful life) . Any delay in approval following that period further reduces the 
28 

eligible trading life for such credits. The Department should reconsider and make any vintage 

limitation effective from the date of approval, not the date of creation. (BRRFOC) 

Response: The comment is not pertinent to this amendment process. Rather, the comment 

addresses a vintage restriction that was proposed in a separate amendment to Section 38 for 

which a hearing was held on May 15, 2003 . BRRFOC submitted the same comment on that 

amendment, and the Department responsed to this comment in the hearing report on that 

amendment. BRRFOC should refer to that hearing report. 

28. Comment: The proposed rule refers to the Department's "Emissions Trading Unit Vintage 

Restriction Policy." BRRFOC would like to have a copy of this policy made available. 

Response: The text of the amendment to Section 38 does not refer to the Department's 

"Emissions Trading Unit Vintage Restriction Policy." However, the revisions to subsection 

(d)(6) are based in part on such a policy. The Department made that policy available on July 10, 

2003 and held a discussions with the regulated community on July 10 and August 14, 2003 on 

the issue of ERC life span restrictions . 

Subsection 0(19 

29. Comment: BRRFOC supports the deletion of opacity from the list of pollutants measured 

during annual performance tests. Compliance with opacity limits is measured using CEM 

equipment, which is routinely subject to audit and calibration. 

Response: The Department notes BRRFOC's support for the deletion of opacity from the list of 

pollutants for which a source must record the results of annual performance tests. 

VH. Additional Comment by Hearing Officer 

The Department should make the following technical corrections to the identified subsections of 

the proposed amendment to Section 18: 

" Subsection (c)(3) : The term "open air" should be replaced with "ambient air" for 

accuracy and consistency with current Department definitions and usage, as follows: 

[(b)(4)](a) No PERSON SHALL EMIT ["]particulate matter[" shall be emitted] into the open 

AMBIENT air in such a manner as to cause a nuisance. 

" Subsection (e)(1) : The relationship of the standard in subsection (e)(1) to particulate 

matter standards in permits should clearly state that the more stringent standard applies, 

as follows: 

(1) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF FUEL-BURNING EQUIPMENT SUBJECT 

TO SECTION 22a-174-3a OR FORMER SECTION 22a-174-3 OF THE 

REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES SHALL EMIT NO 
29 

MORE THAN 0.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION 

BTU OF HEAT INPUT OR THE PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARD 

OF A PERMIT APPLICABLE TO SUCH EQUIPMENT, WHICHEVER IS 

MORE STRINGENT. 

" Subsection (e)(2)(A) : Subparagraph (A) of subsection (e)(2) is not necessary since the 

identical standard is required in proposed subparagraph (E), which standing alone 

encompasses subparagraph (A). Subparagraph (A) of subsection (e)(2) should be deleted 

from the final version of the amendment and remaining subparagraphs (B) through (E) relettered, as follows: 

(B)(A) 0.14 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTU OF HEAT 

INPUT IF THE FUEL BURNED IS RESIDUAL OIL (NO. 4 OR NO. 6 OIL); 

(C-)(B) 0.12 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTU OF HEAT 

INPUT IF THE FUEL BURNED IS DISTILLATE OIL (NO. 2 OIL); 

(D)(C) 0.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTU OF HEAT 

INPUT IF THE FUEL BURNED IS NATURAL GAS; OR 

(E)(D) 0.20 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTU OF HEAT 

INPUT FOR ANY OTHER FUEL BURNED. 

" Subsections (e)(3)(A) and (B): The standards for particulate matter emissions from 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 

subsection (e)(3) are listed to one significant figure when two were intended, and these 

standards should be revised, as follows: 

(A) 04 0.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTU OF 

HEAT INPUT OR COMBUST ONLY FUEL WITH A SULFUR CONTENT 

LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.05% BY WEIGHT, IF THE STATIONARY 

RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WAS 

MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OR IN MODEL YEAR 1996; OR 

) 94 0.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTU OF 

HEAT INPUT IF THE STATIONARY RECIPROCATING INTERNAL 

COMBUSTION ENGINE WAS MANUFACTURED AFTER MODEL YEAR 

1996. 

" Subsections (f)(3) and (f)(4) : The formulas in subsections (f)(3) and (f)(4) 

should more clearly identify "E" as the maximum emission rate and "log" as the natural 
30 

logarithm, as follows: 

(3) TO MATHEMATICALLY INTERPOLATE FROM TABLE 18-1 PROCESS 

WEIGHT RATES UP TO AND INCLUDING SIXTY THOUSAND POUNDS 

PER HOUR (60,000 LBS/HR), THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHALL BE 

USED : 

P 

Log E = Log 3 . 5 9 + 0 . 6 2 x Log 

2000 

WHERE: P = PROCESS WEIGHT RATE IN POUNDS PER 

HOUR 

E = MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE emission rate in 

pounds per hour 

LOG = THE NATURAL LOGARITHM OF THE 

INDICATED VALUE 

(4) TO MATHEMATICALLY INTERPOLATE AND EXTRAPOLATE FROM 

TABLE 18-1 PROCESS WEIGHT RATES IN EXCESS OF SIXTY 

THOUSAND POUNDS PER HOUR (60,000 LBS/HR), THE FOLLOWING 

EQUATION SHALL BE USED : 

P 

Log E = Log 17 .31 + 0 .16 x C Log 

2000 

WHERE: P = PROCESS WEIGHT RATE IN POUNDS PER HOUR 

E = MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE emission rate in 

pounds per hour 

LOG = THE NATURAL LOGARITHM OF THE 

INDICATED VALUE 

" Subsection (g)(2)(A): The particulate matter standards for a hot mix asphalt plant is 

listed to one significant figure when two were intended, and the standards should be 

revised as follows: 

(A) PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS ARE LESS THAN 8:1- 0.10 POUNDS 

OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER TON OF ASPHALT PRODUCED; AND 

" Subsections (j)(1)(D), (j)(2), (j)(3), (j)(4) : . To include appropriate labels, the term 

"subdivision" should be replaced with "subsection" and, in subsection (j)(3), the reference 

to a "general statute" should specify a "Connecticut general statute." 

0 Subsection (j)(2) : The phrase "and promulgated on or after August 17, 1971" is a 
31 

redundant modifier to the reference to a new source performance standard in 40 CFR 60 

and should be deleted as follows : 

(2) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EMISSIONS UNIT THAT IS SUBJECT 

TO A VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARD PURSUANT TO A NEW SOURCE 

PERFORMANCE STANDARD SET FORTH IN 40 CFR 60 AND 

SHALL NOT BE 

SUBJECT TO THE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF SUBDIVISION 

(b)(1) AND (b)(2) OF THIS SECTION. 

" Subsection (j)(6) : The requirement that the owner or operator of a stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engine that is an emergency engine and has a maximum 

bhp rating greater than or equal to 175 many only be exempt from the particulate 

standards of subsection (e) if it submits a certification in writing to the Commissioner is 

unnecessary. The owner or operator of such an engine is required to apply for and obtain 

either a general permit, a permit under R.C.S.A. section 22a-174-3a or to operate such 

engine under R.C.S .A. section 22a-174-3b or section 22a-174-3c. Under either permit 

option, the owner or operator would submit a certification of such information to the 

Commissioner. Engines operated under sections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c have limits 

on operating requirements sufficient to address air quality concerns. Therefore, the 

Department should delete the certification requirement and revise subsection (j)(6) as 

follows : 

(6) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY STATIONARY RECIPROCATING 

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WITH THAT IS AN EMERGENCY 

ENGINE, AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION (a)(2) OF SECTION 22a-174-22 

OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES AND 

HAS A MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS BRAKE HORSEPOWER OUTPUT 

RATING, AS SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER, GREATER THAN OR 

EQUAL TO 175 BHP SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE PARTICULATE 

MATTER EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF SUBSECTION (e) OF THIS 

SECTION. 
32 

REASONABLE DALESTMYATI 

PkWORALAXI 

UN ER ~ 

MADE IN THE SUBNC 

PUMSHABLE 

B 

~~nrnrwrrn a A-1.7 TXTI-NT TM X7 fl .Q ~,r 

SIBLE FOR OBTAP&49 T14 

n mu~ ~'0 0 m nV A irv rrkrnXxrr UT) . __ 

AND-'FI-~P 

ED PWO 

a rihA P 

En 

ANY FALSE-S 

Urrvn n r L-r n 'PT T"rnV r nKrrnnIC 

~TQT~STLZQI.L7 1Tl l -~1- ~.1 YQ~ -ai \ ST77 

t, nw rruM nni.nxrGr"rrrr~r r~ 

AND IN AGG n- 44 ANY - ARP ABLE 

A 'PIE I 1~ 

» 

Subsection (j)(9) : The reference to Public Act No. 00-1 should be deleted, as that 

section is now codified within the referenced statute, as follows: 

(9) A PERSON CONDUCTING OPEN BURNING PURSUANT TO SECTION 22a174(f) OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES OR REGULATIONS 

ADOPTED DT m cr r n Nm TO PUBLIC ACT Nn. nn i THEREUNDER SHALL 

NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. 

V1II. Final Text of Proposed Amendment 

The final text of the amendment is located at Attachment 3 to this report . 

IX. Conclusion 

Based upon the comments submitted by interested parties and addressed in this Hearing Report, I 

recommend the final amendment, as contained in Attachment 3 to this report, be submitted by 

the Commissioner of Environmental Protection for approval by the Attorney General and the 

Legislative Regulations Review Committee. Based upon the same considerations, I also 

recommend the proposed amendment, upon promulgation, be submitted to the U.S . 

Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the Connecticut State Implementation Plan for 

Air Quality. 

aZ~, z~'c' 3 

Date 
Attachment 1 

List of Commenters 

1 . David B. Conroy 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 1 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114 - 2023 

2. Andrew Stackpole 

Commander Navy Region Northeast 

Environmental Program Manager 

U.S . Department of Defense ("DOD") 

Naval Submarine Base New London 

Groton, CT 06349-5000 

3. Joseph L. Suchecki 

Engine Manufacturers Association ("EMA') 

Two North LaSalle Street 

Suite 2200 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

4. Darryl R. Conner 

Pfizer PGM Division ("Pfizer") 

Eastern Point Road MSN 9077 

Groton, CT 06340 

5 . David B. Damer 

Environmental Policy Manager 

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC ("PSEG") 

New Haven Harbor 

1 Waterfront Street 

New Haven, CT 06512 

6. Steven Yates 

Environmental Scientist 

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority ("CRRA.") 

100 Constitution Plaza, 174' Floor 

Hartford, CT 06103-1772 

7. Rick Bennett 

Vice President of Environment, Health and Safety 

United Technologies Corporation ("UTC") 
8 . Eric J. Brown, Associate Counsel 

Director, Environmental Policies Council 

Connecticut Business and Industry Association ("CBIA") 

350 Church Street 

Hartford, CT 06103-1126 

9. Mark R. Sussman ("Sussman") 

Murtha Cullina LLP 

CityPlace I 

Hartford, CT 06103-3469 

10. Robert Silvestri 

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC ("PSEG") 

New Haven Harbor 

1 Waterfront Street 

New Haven, CT 06512 

11 . Cynthia L. Karlic 

Regional Environmental Manager 

NRG Middletown Operations Inc. ("NRG") 

P.O . Box 1001 

1866 River Road 

Middletown, CT 06457 

12. Kathleen C. Golas 

Manager, Environmental Affairs 

Stanadyne Corporation ("Stanadyne") 

92 Deerfield Road 

Windsor, CT 06095-4209 

13 . Mark H. Bobman 

Assistant Director 

Bristol Resource Recovery Facility Operating Committee ("BRRFOC") 

43 Enterprise Drive 

Bristol, CT 06010