### 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 : MerrilyA . Gere Date of Hearing: April 29, 2003 On March 7, 2003, the Commissioner of the Department ofEnvironmental 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 ofApril 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) ofthe Connecticut General Statutes ("C.G .S.t'), this report describes the amendment as proposed for hearing; the principal reasons in support ofthe Department's proposed amendment; the principal considerations presented in oral andwritten 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) ofthe 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 fromadopted federal standards and procedures; provided: (1) such proposed amendment pertains to activities addressed by adopted federal standards and procedures; and (2) such adopted federal standards and procedures apply to persons subject to the provisions of such 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 Employerproposed 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 ofthe proposed amendment for one of the following two reasons: (1) there are no applicable federal standards or procedures; or (2) the provisions ofthe 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 formand 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 applyto 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 offuel 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 fromstationary reciprocating internal combustion engines, but no federal particulate matter standards applyto such sources; " Adds an exemption from the visible emissions standards for sources subject to federal New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") for opacity . This exemptionresults in only the federal NSPS standards for opacityapplying; " 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 EPAas meetingits 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 4ofthe amendment are minor revisions to Section 38. EPAhas 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 ofthe revisions made by the proposed amendment create3

differences fromEPA'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 forwhich EPAhas 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 ofthe annual NOx trading report. While EPA does not include NOx trading requirements in its emissions guidelines for MWCs, EPAdid review and approve the trading program of Section 38. Therevision to Section 3 includes minor clarifications to the approved state program

for whichthere are no adopted federal standards or procedures; and " Section 4 deletes opacity fromthe list ofpollutants 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 6ofthe 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 matchthe revisions to Section 18, and thus involve no federal standards or procedures. III . Summary and Text of the Amendment as Proposed Adescription ofthe revisions made by the amendment is set forth in Section II ofthis report . The text ofthe 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 andto 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 fromSection 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 theAmendment 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 underthe Air Bureau's State Irnplementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee ("SIPRAC") attended monthly meetings in Hartford and reviewed numerous drafts ofthe proposed amendment . The working group members gained an understanding ofthe 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 ofpublic participation processes such as SIPRAC and its subcommittees for proposed regulatory changes and held up the development ofthis 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. SIPRACwas identified as "one ofthe 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 SIPRACand its subcommittees: "These cooperative forums allow the regulators to hear fromstakeholders 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 waythat achieves the environmental goals without unnecessarily burdening the regulated community

." Snecific to theAmendment Content In general, cornmenters expressed support for the amendment ofSection 18. Kg ., comment by Pfizer, CRRA, NRG

. While supportive ofthe 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 andcompliance determination issues resulting fromthe revised text ; (2) revising the proposed exceptions from the visible emissions standards in Section 18 to make themmore rational ; and (3) providing more explanation to owners and operators of MWCs ofhow the proposed revisions to Section 38's emissions trading programserve 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), PSEGand NRGcomment that Method 9 consists of taking a series ofvisual 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: PSEGand NRGare 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) perthe comment, as follows:

(A) TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OPACITY DURINGANYSIX-MINUTE BLOCKAVERAGE AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR60, 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 BLOCKAVERAGE" MEANS, FOR MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT ASOURCE USING OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, THE AVERAGE OF THIRTY-SIX (36) OR MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY SPACED OVERASIX (6) MINUTE PERIOD ; AND, FOR MEASUREMENTS TAKENUSING40 CFR60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9, THE AVERAGE OF TWENTY-FOUROR MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY SPACED OVERASIX (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% opacitystandard. (UTC, PSEG, CBIA, Sussman, Pfizer, NRG) Opacity determinations are subjective and visual observationscan 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%) opacityAS MEASURED BY 40 CFR60, APPENDIXA, REFERENCE METHOD 9, REDUCEDTO FOUR (4) CONSECUTIVE READINGS AT 15-SECOND INTERVALS FORAONE-MINUTE AVERAGE. UTCrecommends the addition ofthe following language:

) Forty percent (40%) opacity FOR APERIOD OR PERIODS AGGREGATINGMORE THANONE (1) MINUTE AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9 . 

### NRGrecommends the following: (B) Forty percent (40%) opacity, AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9, AS FOUR CONSECUTIVE READINGS FORA ONE-MINUTE BLOCKPERIOD . PSEGalso recommends that the forty percent opacity standard in subsection (b)(1)(B) should be measured using avariant ofMethod 9, with the number ofobservations 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 ofthe 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 beliefor 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 reliabilityare (1) whether it can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer reviewand publication; (3) the known or potential rate oferror, including the existence and maintenance of standards controlling thetechnique'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 methodologyrather than variable and subjective measurements such as instantaneous visual observations of opacity . " An opacity violation based on avisual 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 performan opacityobservationusing an established method such as Method 9 . For example, performing a Method 9observation 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 observationof detached and attached steam plumes, and the angle of the observer with respect to a plume emitted froma rectangular stackwith 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 andthe 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 ofMethod 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 9error rate assumes that an observer is retrained every six (6) months. In the absence ofaclear method and training to support its use, the testimony of anyvisual emissions observer would be even more vulnerable to attack. The foregoing Method 9variables and controls would serve to highlight the absence ofsuch controls in anyvisual observation performed without reference to an established and accepted visual observation method for opacity

. In addition to the legal unenforceability ofthe proposed standard, commenters note the practical difficulty the proposed method-less 40% opacitystandard 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) UTCcomments that the suggested addition ofMethod 9and 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, EPAarticulated that the purpose ofopacity limits is to "supplement" the emission concentration standards. 39 Fed. Reg . 9308, 9309 (March 1974) . However, opacitystandards were not to be "morerestrictive 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 systemofemission reduction," while opacity standards were to "help ensure that sources and emission control systems continue to be properly maintained and operated so as to complywith concentration/mass standards." Id. As such, the opacitystandards were "established at a level whichwill 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 systemmore 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 complyingwith 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 indicatingwhether sources were properly operating and maintaining controls, while also accommodating the variations in opacitythat 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) FORTYPERCENT (40%) OPACITYAS MEASURED BY 40 CFR60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD9, REDUCEDTOAONEMINUTE BLOCK-AVERAGE. In addition, the proposed definition of "one-minute block average" in subsection (a) should be revised as follows to applyto visual observations: (4) "ONE-MINUTE BLOCKAVERAGE" MEANS, FORMEASUREMENTS TAKENAT A SOURCE USINGOPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, THE AVERAGE OF SIX (6) OR MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY SPACEDOVER ONE MINUTE; AND, FOR MEASUREMENTS TAKEN USING 40 CFR60, APPENDIXA, REFERENCE METHOD 9, THE AVERAGE OF FOUR OR MORE DATA POINTS EQUALLY SPACEDOVERA ONE MINUTE PERIOD; 3 . Comment : The Department proposed subsection (b)(1) to applyto ALL stationary sources, whether or notthey 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 ofthe subsection (b)(1)(B) standard. Moreover, such a reading ofthese provisions wouldrender the subsection (b)(2)(B) standard irrelevant by eliminating the abilityto average opacitydata 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 ofthe subsection (b)(2)(B) standard has occurred. (CBIA, PSEG, Pfizer) NRGadds 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, NRGand 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 OWNEROR OPERATOR OF ANY STATIONARY SOURCE WITHOUT OPACITY CEM

EQUIPMENT FORWHICH. . . 4 . Comment: Both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) would be clearer ifthe "and" between subparagraphs (A) and (B) were replaced with "or" since a violation occurs when either subparagraph (A) or (B) is exceeded. An exceedancc ofboth standards is not necessary for a violation. (EPA) Response : EPAis correct in stating that an exceedance of either subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) is aviolation ofthe section. Therefore, the Department should revise the proposed amendment as follows: 

### (1) STATIONARY SOURCES. EXCEPTAS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (j) OF THIS SECTION, ANOWNEROR OPERATOR OF ANY STATIONARY SOURCE FORWHICH OPACITY IS MEASURED USINGVISUAL OBSERVATION SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWINGVISIBLE EMISSIONS LIMITS: 

### ) TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OPACITY FOR APERIOD ORPERIODS AGGREGATINGMORE THAN FIVE (5) MINUTES DURINGANY SIXTY MINUTE PERIOD AS MEASURED BY 40 CFR60, APPENDIX A, REFERENCE METHOD 9 ; ANDOR10 (C) FORTY PERCENT (40%) OPACITY . (2) STATIONARY SOURCESWITH OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (j) OF THIS SECTION, AN OWNEROR OPERATOR OF A STATIONARY SOURCE FORWHICH OPACITY IS MEASUREDUSINGOPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWINGVISIBLE EMISSIONS LIMITS: (A) TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OPACITY DURINGANY SIX-MINUTE BLOCKAVERAGE; ANDOR ) FORTY PERCENT (40%) OPACITY DURINGANY ONE-MINUTE BLOCKAVERAGE. 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 EPAadopted opacity standards for new

sources under the NSPS, EPAspecified 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, whichis identical to 40 CFR60.43c(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 fromthe 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 fromthe opacity standards, which is limited to exemption necessary based on a review ofhistorical 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 forwhich heating or airconditioning is being provided for comfort ." However, " . . .will soon receive passengers. . ." is vague and it is unclear how this would be enforced. (EPA) Therefore, EPArecommends 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; or11 (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 allowfor heating, defrosting and cooling necessary for safe operation ofavehicle and the health and reasonable comfort ofthe 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 frommobile sources, recently issued a regulation to control emissions from buses, which, like Section 18, contains an exemption for heating and cooling without atime 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) WHENIT IS NECESSARY TOOPERATE DEFROSTING, HEATING

OR COOLINGEQUIPMENT TOENSURE THE SAFETY OR HEALTH OF THE DRIVER ORPASSENGERS, 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, EPArecommends 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 EPAat this time. While controlling emissions fromdiesel vehicles is a high Department priority, proposed subparagraph (iii) applies to all mobile sources, notjust diesel sources, and should continue to do so. Furthermore, the Department operates several programs to control emissions fromhighway 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 ofmobile 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) UTCand CBIA recommend that section 22a-174-18(b)(3)(C)(vi) be modified to read as follows: (vi) WHENTHE MOBILE SOURCE IS UNDERGOINGREPAIR OR MAINTENANCE ORTESTINGTHAT REQUIRES SUCH MOBILE SOURCE BE OPERATED FORMORE THAN THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE MINUTES. Response: Section (b)(3)(C)(vi) provides an exception fromthe 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 alongwith 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 fromthe 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 underwhich a mobile source would qualityfor an exemption from subsection (b)(3) . Also, "repair" should be deleted from subsection (b)(3)(C)(vi) since itsexception 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 fromthe 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-termexceedances ofthe visible emissions standards that may be necessary to make andtest 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) WHENTHE MOBILE SOURCE IS UNDERGOING REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE THAT REQUIRES SUCH MOBILE SOURCE BE OPERATED FOR MORE THANTHREE (3) CONSECUTIVE MINUTES. And proposed subsection (j)(4)(C) should be revised as follows: (C) AMOBILE SOURCE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOINGAMECHANICAL REPAIR ORTESTINGTHAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIR POLLUTANTS FROM SUCH SOURCE; 9 . Comment : An exemption should be added to subsection (b)(3)(C) fromthe 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 allowfor personnel at U .S. military installations to carry out required security searches and inspections ofvehicles seeking entrance to such installations, an exception fromthe 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 THANTHREE (3) CONSECUTIVE MINUTES WHENSUCH MOBILE SOURCE IS NOT IN MOTION EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:(i) 14 WHENAMOBILE SOURCE IS FORCEDTOREMAINMOTIONLESS BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS OR MECHANICAL DIFFICULTIES OVERWHICHTHE OPERATORHAS NOCONTROL, (v) WHENTHE OUTDOORTEMPERATURE IS BELOW TWENTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (20 DEGREES F), OR (vi) WHENTHE MOBILE SOURCE IS UNDERGOING MAINTENANCE THAT REQUIRES SUCH MOBILE SOURCE BE OPERATED FOR MORE THANTHREE (3) CONSECUTIVE MINUTES, OR (vii) WHENAMOBILE SOURCE IS IN QUEUE TOBE INSPECTED BY U .S. MILITARY PERSONNEL PRIORTOGAININGACCESS TOAU .S. MILITARY INSTALLATION . Subsection (e), particulate matter emission standards for fuel-burni ng 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 ofthe 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) maybe 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 maybe more stringent than the standards in subsection (e) . The Department drafted proposed Section 18 accordingly and therefore the clarification suggested by EPAis 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 ofthis subsection from "Process industries - general" to the new "Industries using process sources - general ." Though seeminglythe same title this change could have unexpected consequences. The new name now15

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 agivenprocess weight rate. Chapter 11 ofAP-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. Theproposed 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 ofparticulate 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 ofmeeting 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 ofsubsection (f), and UTCsuggests that the title of subsection (f) be revised to read: MINERAL PROCESSINGINDUSTRIES - GENERAL 

### Alternatively, UTCrecommends that the current title be retained: PROCESS INDUSTRIES - GENERAL Response: The use ofthe 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" fromproposed subsections (f)(2), (f)(5) and (f)(6) as follows: PROCESS INDUSTRIES -- GENERAL . 

### (2) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (g) OF THIS SECTION, NOOWNER OR OPERATOR OF A PROCESS SOURCE PROCESS INDUSTRY SOURCE SHALL (5) TODETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION, AN INTERPRETATIONRESULTING INTHE LOWEST ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE SHALL APPLY IF THE NATURE OF ANY PROCESS OR OPERATION, ORTHE DESIGN OF ANY PROCESS SOURCE UNIT, ALLOWS MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS.

### (6) TODETERMINE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE IN , ACCORDANCE WITHTHIS SUBSECTIONFOR EMISSIONS THAT PASS THROUGHA STACK ORSTACKS AT APREMISES CONTAINING SEVERAL SIMILAR PROCESS SO-URGES UNITS, THE TOTAL PROCESS WEIGHT SHALL INCLUDE ALL SUCH SIMILARPROCESS 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/EXTRAPOLATIONTABLE FOR DETERMINING PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION RATES ANDPROCESS 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 ofthis 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: Theproposed definition of "process weight" in subsection (f)(1)(A) is "the total weight, in pounds, ofall materials introduced into anyspecific process . . . including solid fuels burned and excluding combustion air, liquid fuels and gaseous fuels" [emphasis added] . Theprevious definition for process weight in Section 18(e)(3) states that " solid fuels charged will be considered as part ofthe process weight, but liquid and gaseous fuels and combustion air will not" [emphasis added] . PSEGand CBIA understand that it is not the intent ofthe 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 ofprocess 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, INPOUNDS, OF ALL MATERIALS INTRODUCED INTOANY SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT MAY CAUSE THE EMISSION OF PARTICULATE MATTER, INCLUDINGSOLID17 FUELS BURNED USED IN SUCH PROCESS FORPURPOSES OTHER THANCOMBUSTIONAND EXCLUDINGCOMBUSTIONAIR, AND LIQUID FUELS, SOLID FUELS ANDGASEOUS FUELS BURNED ; 14. Comment : EPArecommends that a subdivision be added to the endofsubsection (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 EPAis 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 processsources - snecific 15. Comment : EPArecommends that a subdivision be addedto the end of subsection (g) to clarifythat 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 EPAis 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. NRGrequests 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 ofthis amendment to the Legislative Regulations Review Committee, the Department should specifyan effective date at the beginning of acalendar quarter, such as October 1, 2003 orJanuary 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 in18

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 fromthe 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 applyto both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) . (Pfizer, PSEG, CBIA) CBIA recommends the following revision to proposed subsection (j)(1) :



### . (1) THE OWNEROR OPERATOR OF ASTATIONARY .SOURCE SHALL NOT

BE SUBJECT TOTHE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF SUBDIVISIONS (b)(1) AND(b)(2) . . . Asecond 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 inconsistencywith the proposed revisions. (NRG) For example, a boiler constructed after that date but before the applicability date for 40 CFR60, 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 fromthe 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 afterAugust 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 opacitystandards 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 offdate, because it is the date that the first boiler NSPS with an opacity standard became applicable. See, 40 CFR60.40(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 CFRsubparts 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 fromthe 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 afterAugust 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 rectifythis 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) applyto both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), UTCrecommends 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" andprior to "(b)(2) ." Response: " Regarding the comment that subsection (j)(1) should applyto 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 commentthat 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 TOTHE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS .OF SUBDIVISION(b)(2) OF THIS SECTION FORMEASUREMENTS OF OPACITY USINGOPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT DURINGAPERIODOF STARTUP, SHUTDOWN OR MALFUNCTION

; COMMISSIONER-APPROVED STACKTESTING ; OR INTENTIONAL SOOTBLOWING, FUEL SWITCHINGOR SUDDEN LOAD CHANGING DONE INACCORDANCE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES PROVIDEDTHAT:20 

### (13)(A) THE OWNER OROPERATOR IS .REQUIRED BY PERMIT, ORDER OR REGULATIONTOINSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAINOPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT AT SUCH STATIONARY SOURCE, ANDTHE OWNEROR OPERATORIS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PERMIT, ORDEROR REGULATIONWITH REGARD TOSUCHOPACITY 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 SUCHSTATIONARY SOURCE DURINGANY CALENDAR QUARTER ; AND (B)(C) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE STATIONARY SOURCE DOES NOT CAUSE ORALLOW

VISIBLE EMISSIONS IN EXCESS OF SIXTY PERCENT (60%) OPACITY DURINGANYSIX-MINUTE BLOCKAVERAGE 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 ofan opacity CEM . (CBIA, Sussman, Pfizer) Many sources faced with the compliance certifications under Title Vmayprefer 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, underthe 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 TOAPERMIT, ORDERORREGULATION REQUIRING OPERATIONANDMAINTENANCE OF OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT AN OWNEROR OPERATOR MAY, IN LIEU OF SUCH REQUIREMENT CERTIFY ONAFORM ACCEPTABLE TOTHE COMMISSIONER THAT21 SUCHSTATIONARY SOURCE HAS INSTALLED OPACITY CEM 

### EQUIPMENT THAT MEETS THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF 40C.F.R. PART 60 APPENDIX BANDF ANDTHAT SUCH OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OPERATED ANDMAINTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R . PART 60, APPENDIX BANDF THAT GOVERNTHE INSTALLATION OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF OPACITY CEMS. (Sussman, CBIA

.) Response: To allow

owners and operators of sources not subject to an applicable requirements requiring installation and operation ofopacity 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 ASTATIONARY SOURCE IS NOT SUBJECT TOA PERMIT, ORDEROR REGULATION REQUIRINGOPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF OPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT, AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAYCERTIFY ONAFORM ACCEPTABLE TOTHE COMMISSIONERTHAT: (i)

(11) THE OWNEROR OPERATOR OF SUCHSTATIONARY SOURCE HAS INSTALLEDOPACITY CEM EQUIPIVIENT THAT MEETS THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF 40 CFR60, APPENDICES B ANDF, AND THE OWNEROR OPERATOR OPERATES ANDMAINTAINS SUCH INSTALLEDOPACITY CEM EQUIPMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR 60, APPENDICES BAND 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 fromboth 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. Seethe 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 ofa large fossil fuel fired boiler is complex, partially because ofthe number of ancillary systems associated22

with theiroperation, 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 quicklyas possible, shut the unit down. Depending on the load at which the boiler maybe operating when theevent 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 andjeopardizing personal safety. Based on our records ofevents, 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 ofhistorical opacitydata for Connecticut sources. Based on this review, an increase in the limit to 75% is neither necessary to take into account source operation norappropriate 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 thevisible emission standards in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) . This is a significant andpositive clarification to the current regulations. The NSPS for various size boilers, 40 CFRSubparts 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-termopacity of40 percent. Furthermore, the NSPS provide an exemption for startup, shutdown and malfunction .See, e

.g., 40 CFR60.43b(g) and 60.43c(d) . By exempting NSPS sources fromthe 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 ofvisible air pollutants. " The same exemption should apply to the testing of mobile sources. (UTC, Stanadyne, CBIA) Testing is often an integral part ofmechanical 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 ofvisible air pollutants. 

### " The exception should be expanded to apply to nonroad and stationary engines. (Stanadyne) UTCand CBIA recommend that section 22a -174-18(j)(4)(C) be modified to read as follows: AMOBILE SOURCE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOINGAMECHANICAL REPAIR OR TESTINGTHATAFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VIS1BLE AIR POLLUTANTS ~ FROM SUCH SOURCE;Similarly, Stanadyne recommends that section 22a -I74-180)(4)(C) be modified to read as

follows: AMOBILE SOURCE, NONROADORSTATIONARY ENGINE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOINGAMECHANICAL REPAIR, RESEARCHANDDEVELOPMENT ORTESTINGTHAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIRPOLLUTANTS 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 necessarilyoperated, 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 fromthe 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 applythat exception to nonroad and stationary sources is not necessary. However, to take into consideration operation ofmobile sources in engine testing programs such as those conducted by UTCand Stanadyne, the Department should revise subsection (j)(4)(C) as follows in the final version of Section 18 to add to the conditions underwhich a mobile source would qualify for an exemption: (C) AMOBILE SOURCE WHILE IT IS UNDERGOINGAMECHANICAL REPAIR ORTESTINGTHAT AFFECTS THE EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIR POLLUTANTS FROM SUCHSOURCE. See also comment and response 8 . 23. Comment : As written, subsection (j)(4)(E) provides an exemption for locomotives fromthe 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. EPAis 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 SIPcredit . 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 fromidling 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 fromsuch 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 marinevessels are exempt from the idling restrictions in subsection 18(b) . However, there are approaches that can be taken to reduce marinevessel idling forvessels that are docked. We would suggest the following revisions to this section to decrease unnecessary idling: 

## G)(4)(~) (EPA) 

### Avessel 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 EPAto reduce emissions frommarine vessel idling by docked vessels. The Department should take EPA's suggestion under advisement and consider the potential emissions reductions fromsuch 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 ofthe exceptions included for emergency engines and engines less than 175 hp and support for the adoption of these requirements. 26 . comment : The exemption fromSection 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 ONSECTION 38 Subsection (d), NOx emissions trading pro-gram 27 . Comment : New

subparagraph (G) of subsection (d)(6) ofthe 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) . CRRAwishes.to comment on this amendment in the context ofthe larger regulatory andpolicy 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 takenwithout public consultation and have become evident piecemeal as part of other, more routine actions such as ERCapprovals and extensions ofTradingAgreements 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 ERCapproval and a Trading Agreement and Order. ANOx ERCis an asset that is intentionallycreated 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 throughpurchase, installation and operation of emission control equipment, the one-time cost and ongoing operation costs ofwhich 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 remainderofthe emissions reductions. However, according to subsection (d)(5)(B), "prior to the use, sale or transfer ofsuch ERCs," the participating source must "submit awritten 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 staffreview 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 anypractical use ofthe asset created. Ifthe Department chooses to restrict the life of an ERCto 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 ERCapproval process. The result is an owner or operator is likely to submit documentation for ERCapproval frequently in order to reduce thetime lost between creation and approval when an ERCmay not be used. More frequent submissions, monthly or even weekly compared to the current practice ofone annual submission, would be more burdensome to Department staff . It would seemmuch more26

logical to define ERCcreation as occurring at the time of ERCapproval 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 ERCis a salable asset, it is a means bywhich the participating source canrecoup some of the cost of creating that ERC . Limiting the useful life of an ERClimits the value of the asset. Ifthevalue of an ERCbecomes 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 airquality . CRRA believes that, ifvintage 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 CRI2Ahas, or had, an expectation ofrecouping the cost through the sale ofthe ERCs. It is likely that only a fraction ofthat cost is now recoverable due to the imminent expiration. CRRA recommends that the Department standardize its use ofthe terms "generation" and "creation" with respect to ERCs. Section 38 is consistent in its use ofthe term"creation." CRRAreceived an ERCapproval certification fromthe Department dated September 13, 2002 containing the following sentence. tThese ERCs shall only be used for five (5) calendar years fromthe 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 oftime when the reduced emissions occurred or when the ERCs were approved. This sentence appears to define a "year of generation" from whichthe 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 ERCcreation. Practically speaking, is the Department seeking to have sources that use ERCs track the date, to the day, ofcreation of everyton or part of a ton to assure timely usage? This seems quite onerous on both the source and Department staff, whowould audit ERCusage. CRRA is strongly in favorof 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 ERCtrading began are far greater than what would have been expected through old-style "command and control" methods or regulations., CRRAappreciates the efforts of Department staffwho haveworked cooperatively with regulated sources to make the ERCtrading programs work so well . CRRAunderstand the Department's desire to improve its ERCtrading program and is prepared to work with Department staff to do so. CRRA is an active participant in SIl'RACand SIPRAC subcommittees and workgroups. These cooperative forums allow

the regulators to hear fromstakeholders who are directly affected the Department's programs andregulations. This communication fosters greater understanding among the27

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 programcan continue to benefit us all . Response: , Much of CRRA's comment addresses an ERClife 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 opportunityfor informal discussions with all interested parties on July 10 and August 14, 2003 on the issue of ERC life span restrictions. CRRAparticipated in those discussions. CRRAalso submitted similar comments to those submitted here on a separate amendment to Section 38 for which a public hearingwas held on May 15, 2003 and in which the referred to ERClife span restriction was proposed. The Department fully respondedto 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 ERCcreation, 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 oftime 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 ofterms in its actions. Furthermore, CRRA comments that subsection (d)(6)(G) will require tracking of ERCcreation 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) FORTHE PURPOSES OF SUBPARAGRAPHS (E) AND(F) OF THIS SUBDIVISION, AN ERCIS CONSIDEREDCREATED ONTHE D IN THE SAME CALENDARYEARTHE NOx EMISSION REDUCTION OCCURS AT APLANT 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 ofthe 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 the28

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

### limitation effective fromthe 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 hearingwas 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. BRRFOCshould refer to that hearing report. 28. Comment : The proposed rule refers to the Department's "Emissions Trading Unit Vintage Restriction Policy." BRRFOCwould 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 discussionswith the regulated community on July 10and August 14, 2003 on the issue of ERClife span restrictions. 

### Subsection 0(19 29. Comment : BRRFOC supports the deletion of opacity fromthe list ofpollutants 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 fromthe 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) : Theterm"open air" should be replaced with "ambient air" for accuracy and consistencywith current Department definitions and usage, as follows: [(b)(4)](a) No PERSONSHALL 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 OWNEROR OPERATOR OF FUEL-BURNING EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TOSECTION22a-174-3a ORFORMER SECTION22a-174-3 OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES SHALL EMIT NO

### 29 MORE THAN0.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLION BTUOF HEAT INPUT ORTHE PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARD OF APERMIT APPLICABLE TOSUCH EQUIPMENT, WHICHEVERIS 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 fromthe final version ofthe amendment and remaining subparagraphs (B) through (E) relettered, as follows: (B)(A) 0 .14 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLIONBTUOF HEAT INPUT IF THE FUEL BURNED IS RESIDUAL OIL (NO . 4OR NO

. 6 OIL) ; 

### (C-)(B) 0.12 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLIONBTU OF HEAT INPUT IF THE FUEL BURNEDIS DISTILLATE OIL (NO . 2 OIL) ; (D)(C) 0 .10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTERPERMILLIONBTUOF HEAT INPUT IF THE FUEL BURNEDIS NATURAL GAS; OR (E)(D) 0 .20POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLIONBTUOF HEAT INPUT FORANY OTHERFUEL 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) 040

.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTERPER MILLION BTUOF HEAT INPUT OR COMBUST ONLY FUEL WITH A SULFUR CONTENT LESS THANOR EQUAL TO 0 .05%BY WEIGHT, IF THE STATIONARY RECIPROCATINGINTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WAS 

### MANUFACTURED PRIORTOOR IN MODEL YEAR 1996; OR ) 94 0

.10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PER MILLIONBTUOF HEAT INPUT IF THE STATIONARY RECIPROCATINGINTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WAS MANUFACTURED AFTERMODEL 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) TOMATHEMATICALLY INTERPOLATE FROM TABLE 18-1 PROCESS WEIGHT RATES UPTOANDINCLUDINGSIXTY THOUSAND POUNDS PERHOUR (60,000 LBS/HR), THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHALL BE USED: 

### P Log E = Log 3 . 5 9 + 0 . 62 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 INDICATEDVALUE 

### (4) TOMATHEMATICALLY INTERPOLATE ANDEXTRAPOLATE FROM TABLE 18-1 PROCESS WEIGHT RATES INEXCESS OF SIXTY THOUSAND POUNDS PERHOUR (60,000 LBS/HR), THE FOLLOWING EQUATIONSHALL 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 INDICATEDVALUE " Subsection (g)(2)(A) : The particulate matter standards for a hot mix asphalt plant is listed to one significant figure when two were intended, andthe standards should be revised as follows: (A) PARTICULATE MATTEREMISSIONS ARE LESS THAN8 :1- 0 .10 POUNDS OF PARTICULATE MATTER PERTONOF 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 specifya "Connecticut general statute." 0 Subsection (j)(2) : Thephrase "and promulgated on or after August 17, 1971" is a31 redundant modifier to the reference to a new source performance standard in 40 CFR 60 and should be deleted as follows: (2) THE OWNEROR OPERATOR OF AN EMISSIONS UNIT THAT IS SUBJECT TOAVISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARD PURSUANT TOANEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD SET FORTHIN40 CFR60AND 

### SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TOTHE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF SUBDIVISION (b)(1) AND(b)(2) OF THIS SECTION . " Subsection (j)(6) : The requirement that the owneror 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 fromthe particulate standards of subsection (e) ifit 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 OWNEROR OPERATOR OF ANY STATIONARY RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WITHTHAT IS AN EMERGENCY ENGINE, AS DEFINEDIN SUBSECTION (a)(2) OF SECTION 22a-174-22 OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES AND HAS AMAXIMUM

CONTINUOUS BRAKE HORSEPOWER OUTPUT RATING, AS SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER, GREATERTHANOR EQUAL TO 175 BHPSHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TOTHE PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF SUBSECTION (e) OF THIS 

### SECTION

.

### 32 REASONABLE DALESTMYATI PkWORALAXI

~

UN ER MADE IN THE SUBNC PUMSHABLE B rnrwrrn aA-1 .7 TXTI-NT TM

X7 fl ~~n.Q

~,r SIBLE FOROBTAP&49T14 n mu~ ~'0

0m nV Airv rrkrnXxrr UT)

. __ AND-'FI-~P ED PWO P a rihA En ANY FALSE-S

Urrvn n r L-r n 'PTT " rnV r nKrrnnIC ~TQT~STLZQI .L7 1Tl l-~1- ~ .1YQ~ -ai \ST77 t, nw rruMnni .nxrGr" rrrr~r r~ ANDINAGG 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) APERSON CONDUCTING OPEN BURNINGPURSUANT TOSECTION22a174(f) OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES OR REGULATIONS ADOPTEDDT m

cr r nNm TOPUBLIC ACT Nn. nn i THEREUNDER SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TOTHE 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 ofEnvironmental Protection for approval by the Attorney General and the Legislative Regulations Review Committee. Based upon the same considerations, I also recommendthe 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 MSN9077 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 NRGMiddletown 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