NRG Middletown Operations inc. 

P.O. Box 1001 

1866 River Road 

Middletown, CT 06457 NRG 

Direct (860) 343-6962 

Fax(860)343-6968 

an NRG Energy company 

February 20, 2004 

Ms. Karen L. Regas 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

Attention: 310 CMR 7.00 Comments 

Dear Ms. Regas: 

NRG - Somerset Power (NRG) submits comments on the Department of Environmental 

Protection's (DEP or Department) proposed revision to 310 CMR 7.00. Our comments 

focus on the proposed addition of 310 CMR 7.54, Large Combustion Emission Units but, 

also include comments on Limited Plan Application (310 CMR 7.02), and (310 CMR 

7.06). Our comments are contained in the attached document. 

We are disappointed that the Department chose to issue such a significant revision to the 

regulations without prior input or discussion with the regulated community. We believe 

that it is through such discussions that meaningful and effective regulations can be issued 

that will ensure a healthy business community and provide environmental benefits. In 

addition, the Background Document on the proposed revision does little to justify the 

changes, or the financial impact of such changes. 

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call me at (860) 343-6962. 

Very truly yours, 

NRG - Somerset Power 

Attachment 
NRG Somerset Power 

Comments on Proposed Changes to 310 CMR 7.00 

310 CMR 7.02(1) - Presumptive Plan Approvals 

In this new proposed section, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department 

or DEP) proposes that the current limited plan approval (LPA) process be replaced with 

presumptive approvals. The intention of the change is to streamline the approval process 

for LPAs. The revised process would require a PE stamp prior to submittal to the 

Department. This requirement may result in additional work and expense for the 

regulated community. 

The majority of LPAs that are currently filed are simple enough that many facilities can 

complete the filing using in-house personnel. The PE stamp requirement will make 

companies contract out the work that can now be done with a company's current 

personnel. For companies that may already use outside resources to complete LPAs, the 

PE requirement will add an additional charge, perhaps at a premium rate. 

If the Department is truly interested in streamlining its approval process, it should 

investigative actions that have been taken in other states. One example is in Connecticut 

where that state's air regulations, allow for the implementation of minor permit 

modifications 21 days after the submittal of the modification request (See 22a-174-2a(e) 

of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies). Another example is through the use 

of General Permit (GP) for certain activities. In the case of Connecticut, some general 

permits have been issued that have a presumptive approval including a GP for distributed 

generation. The use of a GP combined with the presumptive approval, without a PE 

stamp requirement, will result in a streamline process. 

Finally, the Department has proposed the elimination of 310 CMR 7.02(4)(c), which 

permits facilities holding an Appendix C permit to forego the submittal of LPAs for 

modifications to the facility, as long as a minor modification to the Appendix C permit is 

applied for pursuant to Appendix C (8). The Department's background document 

justifies this by expressing a concern that BACT requirements may not be satisfied under 

the current scheme. Rather than increase the costs and effort for minor modifications to 

heavily regulated sources by requiring two applications for the same activity - as the 

minor modification application is still required by Appendix C - the Department can add 

a sentence to the end of the current 7.02(4)(c) to the effect of: "The application made 

pursuant to 310 CMR Appendix C (8) shall demonstrate that the BACT requirements of 

310 CMR 7.02(4) are satisfied." 

310 CMR 7.06 - Visible Emission Limits 

The Department is proposing to revise 310 CMR 7.06(c) to allow a facility to comply 

with a visible emission limit not to exceed 15 percent during normal operation and not to 

exceed 27 percent during periods of start-up, shutdown, sootblowing, and other specified 

operating conditions. In addition, a facility must develop a Good Operating Practices 

Plan (Plan). 

1 
The proposed change in the opacity limits is an attempt to recognize that the operation of 

boilers can result in opacity spikes due to certain conditions. This attempt however, 

leaves a question of practicality. Other states have revised their opacity regulations to 

recognize the same operating conditions that the Department is addressing. In particular, 

Connecticut has recently issued it proposed final opacity regulations, which are scheduled 

for final approval on February 24, 2004. These regulations (22a-174-18 of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies) set the opacity standards for sources greater 

than 250 MMBTU/hr. The standards are a 20% 6-minute block average and a 40% 1-

minute block average. In addition, the standards are not applicable for 0.5% of the 

operating time in a calendar quarter provide that any exceedances of the standards are due 

to start-up, shutdown, equipment malfunctions, sootblowing, fuel switching, sudden load 

changes, and/or DEP approved stack testing. These regulations were developed over a 

five-year period with numerous discussions and meetings with the regulated sources. 

The Connecticut regulations address the same (and more) operating conditions that the 

Department is trying to address in its proposed revisions. If the Department's intent is to 

address certain operating conditions in its opacity standards then, it would be well served 

to look at the regulations that Connecticut has finalized and implement a similar 

regulation for all affected sources. 

The requirement in 310 CMR 7.06(c)2 for a Good Operating Practices Plan (Plan) does 

little to provide additional environmental benefit from the affected sources. The 

requirement to use a third party combustion system expert to develop the plan is a cost 

that should not be forced onto sources. In general, the contents of the Plan are very 

detailed and burdensome, and are not necessary. The Plan will end up being a 

voluminous document in order for a source to be covered by any and all cases where the 

opacity standards may be exceeded. As an example, a source must describe the duration 

and frequency of start-up shutdown, and soot blowing. The frequency of operation of the 

boiler (hours per day, days per week, etc.), and duration of operation of the boiler, can be 

so varied over a year's time that this section alone may encompass several pages of text. 

The Department should first look at revising its opacity standards, in total and then, look 

at requiring a Good Operating Practices Plan for those sources who cannot, due to 

technical constraints, meet the revised standards. 

310 CMR 7.54 - Large Combustion Emission Unit 

The Department is proposing to add a new section to its air regulations. This section is 

titled Large Combustion Emission Unit, and would be found in 310 CMR 7.54. 

As stated in the Background Document to the proposed regulatory changes, on February 

27, 2003, DEP returned to the EPA the implementation of the PSD program for sources 

in the Commonwealth. The proposed regulations are an attempt on the DEP's part to 

regulate sources that they believe would be exempt from the federal PSD program. 

2 
The EPA issued revisions to its New Source Review (NSR) regulations on June 13, 2002, 

with an effective date of March 3, 2003. The revisions included changes to the PSD 

program. (The references to the federal NSR program means changes to the NSR and 

PSD programs). The changes were issued as a way to streamline the NSR process while 

maintaining the environmental protection afforded by the regulations. 

In its Fact Sheet, EPA stated, " The current program is unnecessarily complex. It is 

widely recognized that the 20 year old program needs to be modernized not only to allow 

for the increased energy needs of the American public and to reflect the improved 

competitiveness of American industry ~ but also to ensure the protection of the 

environment." In addition, "EPA's improvements target situations where owners need to 

make changes to their existing facilities in order to ensure reliable, efficient, and safe 

operations. The overall approach is to create incentives for facilities to reduce air 

pollution. The current NSR program is effective for new industrial facility construction, 

but it is problematic for existing facilities." 

Under the federal program, projects that result in any significant increase in any 

pollutants regulated under the NSR program are required to go through the federally 

permitting process. Now the Department is proposing a similar process for large 

facilities that they state "..were exempted from the new federal PSD program...". It is 

unclear which type of facilities the DEP is referencing but since a facility rather than a 

source is referenced, it is assumed that the reference is to facilities that could utilize the 

federal Plant wide Applicability Limits (PAL) or the Clean Unit exemption. 

Plantwide Applicability Limits 

EPA allows a facility to obtain PAL based on its actual emissions baseline. The PAL is 

effective for a period of 10 years. During the 10-year period, a facility can make any 

change without undergoing major NSR approval provided that the emissions do not 

increase above the PAL level. The benefit of a PAL is that this provides operational 

flexibility to a site while ensuring environmental protection. If a facility was to increase 

emissions from one source at the site above the significant increase limit, no NSR 

permitting would be required provided that the PAL was met. As an example, if a source 

retired a unit in year 2 of the PAL, a significant increase in year 8 is allowed provide that 

PAL is not exceeded. Under the proposed Section 54, a net emission increase only 

allows for increases or decreases within a 5-year window. In the given example, the 

source with the significant increase would require Departmental approval since the 

decrease occurred more than five years from the increase. 

We recommend the following wording for Subsection (1), Applicability, of 310 CMR 

7.54: "For sources that have an approved Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL), the net 

emissions increase definition of Subsection(2)(d) is not applicable." 

Clean Unit Exemption 

EPA considers a unit to be "clean" if it underwent a review process that resulted in its 

achieving BACT or LAERA control levels. A clean unit would only trigger NSR if the 

3 
permitted allowable emission increased. The Clean Unit exemption allows sources to 

install BACT/LAER on existing sources undergoing a modification. The exclusion is 

valid for 10 to 15 years, and is based on the date that the control technology was 

installed. The Department does not recognize the Clean Unit exemption in its proposed 

Section 54. 

We recommend that the following wording for Subsection (1), Applicability, of 310 

CMR 7.54: "This section is not applicable to a source that meets the definition of a Clean 

Unit." Also, the definition of a Clean Unit found in 40 CFR 51.165(xxix), should be 

incorporated into Subsection (2), Definitions, of 310 CMR 7.54. 

4