HEARING REPORT 

Prepared Pursuant to 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, Section 51.102 

Regarding Revision to the 

State Implementation Plan for Air Quality 

Hearing Officer: Kiernan J. Wholean 

Date of Hearing: October 18, 2006 

On September 7, 2006, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

signed a notice of intent to revise the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality required by 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA). The revision to the SIP is a demonstration that 

reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements adopted for attainment of the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) are sufficient to satisfy RACT for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to the notice, a public hearing was held on October 18, 2006. 

The public comment period for the proposed SIP revision closed on October 20, 2006. 

I. Hearing Report Content 

This report describes the revision to the SIP as proposed for hearing; a statement of the principal 

reasons in support of the SIP revision; all comments made and responses thereto regarding the 

proposed revision to the SIP; and the final recommendation based on the proposal and comments 

received . 

II. Summary and Text of the Revision as Proposed 

The purpose of this SIP revision is to ensure that RACT requirements for attainment of the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS are in place. In the SIP revision, DEP demonstrates that the control 

measures already in place as attainment measures for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS satisfy, and in 

some cases exceed, the 8-hour ozone requirements . The SIP revision as proposed is included in 

Attachment 1 to this report . 

III. Principal Considerations for the Proposed Revision 

This SIP revision satisfies the RACT requirements of Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) as it applies to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA requires that states achieve 

the health-based 8-hour ozone NAAQS by specified dates, based on the severity of an area's air 

quality problem. As the entire State of Connecticut is classified as moderate non-attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA's Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [70 FR 

71612, November 29, 2005] requires the DEP to submit a demonstration that the State has 

satisfactorily addressed EPA's 8-hour ozone RACT requirements. After identifying relevant 

regulations, the Department concludes in this SIP revision that existing controls on all major 
stationary sources of nitrogen oxide emissions and volatile organic compound emissions and all 

sources and source categories addressed in control techniques guidelines meet or exceed the 

CAA RACT requirements . 

IV. Summary of Comments 

Written comments were submitted only by EPA and by the State of New Jersey (NJ) . No oral 

comments were received at the hearing. 

The comments submitted by EPA and New Jersey are summarized here and responses follow . 

Comments Submitted by New Jersey : 

New Jersey is concerned that the State, by following EPA guidance, could miss an opportunity to 

advance RACT. Specifically ". . . the preamble to that [implementation] rule discusses 

flexibilities in application of the rule. New Jersey believes such f exibility could result in a lost 

opportunity for updating RACT requirements. For example, certifying that all previous 1-hour 

ozone RACT determinations will suffice for 8-hour ozone implementation purposes and allowing 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy RACT requirements for Electric Generating Units 

(EGU) facilities, fails to adequately address advances in RACT and provide for controls that are 

reasonable. Although the USEPA could have provided for national RACT limits by updating its 

Control Technique Guidance (CTGs) and Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs) documents or 

by creating new CTGs and ACTs for relevant source categories, the USEPA has failed to do so 

in a timely fashion. Thus, this Clean Air Act-mandated obligation places the burden to update 

RACT on the individual states. We urge you to thoroughly evaluate your current RACT 

requirement and obtain additional RACT emissions reductions where feasible. " Additionally, 

". . .possible PACT changes are included in the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection's 60 draft white papers posted at http://www.ni.gov/dep/airwork rQ oups/. " NJ 

encourages Connecticut to use this resource in development of its RACT rules . 

Response: We recognize that the CAIR could be more effective in reducing emissions from 

EGUs, and we support a more stringent CAIR rule that would implement more stringent controls 

on EGUs nationally . We believe, however, that NJ's comment is more appropriately directed at 

EPA. While we agree that EPA lost an opportunity to gain emission reductions nationally from 

EGUs, with respect to the State of Connecticut the opportunity to advance controls for these 

EGU facilities still remains. As we have stated in our SIP narrative, we are continuing to work 

with the Ozone Transport Commission, of which New Jersey is a member, to develop a model 

rule to implement additional control measures for EGUs that will assist in our attainment 

demonstration. Though these "beyond CAIR" measures will not be implemented as RACT, they 

will be no less effective in reducing emissions from the State of Connecticut. We believe, that 

adoption of rules "beyond CAIR" (i .e . beyond RACT) is, at this point, the best route to 

advancing the cause of more stringent national controls on EGUs. 

We disagree that any failure by EPA to update the CTGs or ACTs places the burden of doing so 

on the states . Section 183 of the CAA clearly states, and the implementation rule reiterates [70 FR 

71652], that it is EPA's burden to update these documents as necessary. EPA cannot shift this 

2 
burden onto the states . Nor has it . The CTGs which were proposed in the Federal Register on 

August 4, 2006 and made final on October 5, 2006 are clear evidence of this. If EPA had 

expected the states to take on this burden, it would have required that the states include these 

CTG measures in this RACT SIP revision. It did not. Instead, ". . . EPA provides that States 

should submit their SIP revisions within 1 year of the date that the CTGs are finalized." [71 FR 

58748] 

We acknowledge that a burden in finding control measures does result from EPA's failure to 

implement a strong national rule for controlling EGU emissions and for untimely updates to the 

CTGs. We share this burden with NJ as fellow member state to the OTC and seek to correct for 

these failures through development of regional ozone attainment measures by a process which 

considered these source categories for which NJ wrote 60 white papers, and many other source 

categories as well. 

No changes to the proposed SIP revision are recommended as a result of this comment. 

Comments submitted by EPA: 

EPA makes three comments and makes note of two updates . 

Comment 1 : "The analysis indicates that Connecticut has met the RACT requirement through 

the implementation of rules that have already been adopted by the state and approved by EPA, 

as well as by rules that are currently under development (such as revisions to the state's Section 

22a-174-22 NOx RACT rule and the adoption of a new CAIR rule). Therefore, Connecticut must 

submit to EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision the specified rules currently under 

development in order for the state to fully meet its obligation under the RACT requirement. " 

Response: With respect to Connecticut's Section 22a-174-22 (Section 22), Connecticut believes 

that the existing Section 22 meets RACT. We are pursuing revisions to Section 22 in order to 

further our attainment goals. It was our goal to point out the extent to which Connecticut has 

controlled its universe of sources through its history of nonattainment and through its efforts with 

respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We reiterate that the existing Section 22 already meets or 

exceeds RACT requirements and that the revised version, regardless of the final form it might 

take following its completion through the regulatory process will also meet or exceed RACT for 

the sources it regulates. We emphasize that Section 22 covers a broader category of sources than 

just the major source NOx emitters as defined by the implementation rule . 

With respect to CAIR, Connecticut is adopting CAIR to replace our existing NOx Budget 

Program. The sources subject to these rules are considered by EPA in the implementation rule to 

already meet RACT and are not required to be addressed in the RACT SIP revision . "For 

purposes of meeting the NOx RACT requirement, the State need not perform (or submit) a NOx 

RACT analysis for sources subject to the state's emission cap-and-trade program where the capand-trade program has been adopted by the State that meets the NOx SIP Call requirements . . ." 

[70 FR 71652] . Again, due to Connecticut's historic efforts to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

it has met this requirement. 
The status of our rule development process is posted at the Connecticut DEP website: 

http ://www .dep.state .ct.us/air2/regs/index .htm. When finalized, Connecticut will formally 

submit the rules to EPA as part of a SIP revision in support of its ozone attainment plan . 

No changes to this proposed SIP revision are recommended as a result of this comment. 

Comment 2: "Connecticut's analysis indicates that rules for two of the CTG (Control 

Techniques Guideline) categories are appropriate to update. They are cutback asphalt paving 

and solvent cleaning. It is not clear, however, if the state is proposing that the revised, or the 

existing, rules for these source categories are considered to represent PACT. " . . . "The DEP 

should revise the analysis to clearly state whether Connecticut considers the revised, or the 

existing, rules for these two source categories to represent RACT. If the revised rules are 

considered to represent RACT, then Connecticut must submit these revised rules to EPA as a SIP 

revision in order for the state to fully meet its obligation under the RACT requirement. " 

Response: The implementation rule recognizes that States which have been in non-attainment 

for the 1-hour standard would likely have satisfactory RACT in place. We agree, and believe 

that our RACT SIP analysis showed that we satisfied RACT requirements for the 8-hour standard 

through our existing rules. Our existing CTG rules represent RACT. Moreover, the analysis 

documents our continuing efforts to develop rules that build on our existing rules to garner 

further reductions in ozone producing emissions for the purpose of attaining the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Therefore, though we are in the process of adopting rules that regulate CTG category 

sources, these rules go beyond RACT. 

The status of our rule development process is posted at the Connecticut DEP website : 

http ://www.dep.state .ct.us/air2/regs/index .htm. When finalized, Connecticut will formally 

submit the rules to EPA as part of a SIP revision in support of its ozone attainment plan. 

No changes to the proposed SIP revision are recommended as a result of this comment. 

Comment 3. EPA points out that not all of the major VOC sources listed on page 21 have 

received their VOC RACT orders. Specifically, EPA and DEP are currently in the process of 

developing RACT orders for Stone Container and Cytec/Cyro. Sumitomo Bakelite /Vyncolit and 

Curtis Packaging have RACT orders that are also being developed, but those sources do not 

appear on page 21 as sources subject to major source VOC RACT. EPA comments that, 

"Connecticut must issue orders for all of the remaining Section 22a-174-32 sources, and submit 

these orders to EPA as a SIP revision, in order for the state to fully meet its obligation under the 

RACT requirement. " 

Response: The finalization of the orders did not in the past prohibit the acceptance of Section 

22a-174-32 to satisfy RACT [65 FR 626201, and should not now. The regulation satisfies the 

RACT requirement, not the implementation of the regulation through the adoption and 

subsequent submittal of orders . We are implementing Section 22a-174-32 as we should . 
As of November 8, 2006, the status of the orders outstanding under Section 22a-174-32 is as 

follows: The orders for Stone Container and Cytec are with EPA for review . Cyro, now a 

separate facility from Cytec, has an order, which is identical to Cytec's that has completed EPA 

review . The Cyro order is expected to be accepted by Cyro and signed and returned to DEP by 

no later than December 31, 2006. 

Sumitomo Bakelite, formerly known as Vyncolit, and Curtis Packaging are both currently subject 

to a General Permit to Limit Potential Emissions (GPLPE) and therefore are not major sources 

subject to VOC RACT under the implementation rule . Therefore, these two sources should not 

appear on page 21 . 

No changes to the proposed SIP revision are recommended as a result of this comment. 

EPA makes note that two updates should be made: 

The CTGs proposed on August 4, 2006 were finalized in October. SIP revisions for these CTGs 

are due to be submitted to EPA in October 2007 . We recognize this and will move forward with 

regulatory action as rapidly as our State process allows . To acknowledge publication of these 

CTGs as final, the text of page 8 of the SIP revision is changed as follows: 

New CTG Requirements. EPA is currently in the process of adopting new CTG 

requirements . On August 4, 2006, EPA published proposed CTGs for the following 

source categories: Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, 

Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, and Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents. These were made final by publication in the federal re ister on 

October 5, 2006 [71 FR 587451 . SIP revisions for these CTGs are due by October 4 

2007 . EPA expects to propose several more CTG categories [later this year. EPA has 

proposed that the states address these CTGs within one year of promulgation [71 FR 

44522] .] in the near future . [When the CTGs for these categories are published in final 

form] As appropriate, Connecticut will analyze the need to adopt requirements to 

address these CTGs for sources in the state and pursue adoption of such requirements 

[and a] in subsequent SIP submittals[, as appropriate] . 

EPA also notes that Table 3 in the SIP should be updated to reflect that EPA gave SIP approval 

to our revisions to Section 30 of the regulations concerning Stage II vapor recovery at gasoline 

service stations on August 31, 2006 . Therefore Table 3, third entry under the SIP Approval 

column for the Service Station Category is changed from : 

05/10/04 . . . . Currently Under EPA Review 

to: 

05/10/04 8/31/06 71 FR 51761 . . . . . . . (c) 95 

Additionally, the last sentence of the second paragraph of section III.A on page 7 of the RACT 

SIP revision, which discusses EPA review of the revised rule for service stations, is deleted as 

5 
follows : [The most recent revision to Section 30 is currently under EPA review.] 

No other changes to the proposed RACT SIP revision result from EPA's comments. However, 

the following updates were also made: 

" In Table 1 on page 4, the following sentence was added to the status section on the 

amendment to Section 22: "A public hearing was held on a proposed amendment to the 

existing regulation on October 19, 2006." 

" A missing word was added to the first sentence on page 6: "Despite Connecticut's 

noteworthy success in reducing emissions of ozone precursors, it is important to . . ." 

The second sentence of the first full paragraph on page 11 was changed from: "CTDEP 

current proposed draft regulation, R.C.S.A. section 22a-174-22c, to implement that CAIR 

trading program, are scheduled for public hearing on October 19, 2006 " to: "Public 

hearing was held on October 19, 2006 for CTDEP's current proposed draft regulation, 

R. C.S.A. section 22a-174-22c, to implement that CAIR trading program. " 

" Figure 3 on page 13 was updated to include data for the 2006 ozone season . 

V. Final Text of Proposed Revision 

The final text of the Revision as changed from the proposed version is included as Attachment 2 

to this report . 

V1. Conclusion 

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

recommend the final version of the revision, as contained herein in Attachment 2, be submitted 

to EPA by the Commissioner for approval as a revision to the SIP. 

to~., .. . - .1 le Nnu oc, 

Kiernan J. Wholean Date 

Hearing Officer