®

e ®®i theemployer's 222 Berkeley Street " P.O . Box 763 voice&resource Boston, MA 02117-0763 _-- ~ = 617-262-1180 " Fax: 617-536-6785 ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MASSACHUSETTS www .aimnet .org BRIDGEWATER BURLINGTON HOLYOKE MARLBOROUGH WASHINGTON, D .C . March 22, 2007 Department of Environmental Protection Bureau ofWaste Prevention OneWinter Street Boston, MA 02108 ATTN : Ms. Karen Regas Re: Amendments to 310CMR7.00 - Forthe Control ofAirPollution Dear Ms. Regas: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments as stated above. Associated Industries of Massachusetts (A.I .M .) is the largest employer association in Massachusetts with over 7500members. A .I .M . members include large and small employers fromthe industrial, commercial and service sectors, including many people affected by this proposed rule. Since most of the proposed regulations are clarifications and updates, our comments will be focused on the Boiler Environmental Results Program(ERP) ofthe proposed regulation ((310 CMR7.26 (30)-(36)), which has substantive changes. A .I .M . is a huge supporter ofthe ERPmodel and has been since its beginning. We believe that the ERp model is working and has reduced the burden on . DEP and on regulated sectors with absolutely no reduction in environmental protection. DEP has collected better data through these programs and as a result has freed themselves from mundane tasks that offer no environmental benefit. The ERPmodel, combined with DEP's continued focus on electronic data initiatives, has saved the business community hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and consultant time. As a side note, we hope the legislature continues to support the efforts of DEP in their electronic initiatives by making sure the next steps in DEP's information technology investment are adequately funded and resources are available to allowDEP to continue to make these customer service strides. Having been associated with DEP's information technology programsince its inception, (including the participation of our members in several feedback sessions), A .I .M . has seen incredible improvement by DEP . However, what is left is the most complicated parts of DEP's programs . In order to truly finish thisproject, DEPneeds stable and predictable investment in this area. The return on

investment is huge both in terms of customer satisfaction, efficiency and environmental improvement. A

.I .M . pledges our assistance in these efforts. The Boiler ERP contained is the proposed regulation is an update ofthe original proposal from2000, which A

.I .M . supported. In fact, some of the suggestions we submitted in our original 2000comments are now being incorporated here, which in our opinion demonstrates that regular reviewofregulations is good regulatory policy. While we support most of the proposal, we believe there are a few minor areas where DEPshould consider changes. Both comments deal with Section 7.29 (33)a(3) - Fuel of Use/Emission Limitations. First, we believe that theJuly 1, 2007 deadline for the prohibition of using non ultra low sulfur distillate oil (ULSD), which will bejust a few months after these regulations are promulgated, is fartoo soon for companies to make this switch since the ULSD mayhave cost and availability issues. Also, by the time these regulations are finalized, some companies may have already contracted for their oil supply for next year. We believe changing that deadline until July l, 2008 would be more appropriate for outreach and availability issues and will have little effect on environmental quality. This section is also confusing in that it prohibits burning of low-sulfur distillate fuel as of July 1, 2007 (or July 1, 2008 in our suggestion) . We assume DEP meant that the regulation would prohibit thepurchase or delivery after that date, not the burning since it is reasonable to presume that companies need to work offtheir inventory. We believe DEP should clarify this statement. Finally, it is our understanding that the upper threshold limit for the boiler ERP applicability (40million Btu per hour) is due primarily to the fact that larger boilers wouldtrigger the 50-ton NOx threshold for Title VOperating Permit applicability. A .I .M . has long been critical ofthis threshold and suggests that DEP rethink this threshold. In 2005, A

.I .M . sent a letter to then Commissioner Bob Golledge (attached) suggesting that DEP change the definition ofmajor source under the Appendix C Operating Permit Programfrom50tons oftiOx to 100tons ofNOx to reflect the fact that as ofJune 2005 Massachusetts was redesignated by the EPAas a "moderate" nonattainment area for the new 8-hour ozone standard, a change fromthe previous designation of "serious" . As such, the thresholds for determining major-source applicability for facilities for NOx can increase from potential emissions of 50tons per year to potential emissions of 100tons per year. A .I .M .'s only intent is to change the threshold for purposes of determining amajor source under the Appendix COperating Permit Programand not under any other program . We do notpropose any emission limit changes for any sources nor are we proposing any changes for the VOCthreshold. Since the Operating Permit program is basically a paperwork exercise without additional environmental requirements, this regulation change can be accomplished with minimal issues. Although there are only a few major sources that would drop fromthe operating permit program(estimate 1 or 2) A .I .M .believes there are likely many sources that have accepted Restricted Emissions Status

(RES) in orderto stay below the 50-ton threshold but have potential emissions of between 50-100 tons. These sources would drop fromRES sources to minor sources, where they really belong and their reporting schedule would drop fromannually to every three years, a huge savings in data management for DEP . This would also allowDEPto allow larger boilers to use the ERPwithout much worry, since they will be using the cleanest fuels currently available on the market . DEPhas done an excellentjob streamlining their regulations and A .I .M . supports the changes proposed in this package with the comments above . Ongoing streamlining by DEP and a commitment by the legislature to fund continued electronic initiatives is good for existing businesses as well as good for marketing Massachusetts to potential out of state companies interested in moving here. Without continued IT investment, the much talked aboutpermitting reforrn not realize its full potential . Thank you for allowing us to comment on these regulations and we look forward to working with you as you continue to update DEP's regulations to further reflect the changes occurring in Massachusetts. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-262-1180 . Sincerely, Robert A . Rio, Esq. Vice President Government Affairs