31 0 CM R7.00 : AI RPOLLUTIO N CONTRO L RESPONS E T O COMMENT S Novembe

r 200 5INTRODUCTIO N

I n accordanc

e wit h th e provision s o f

M.G.L . chapte

r 30A , publi c hearing s wer e hel d a t th e Springfiel d an

d Bosto n office s o f

th e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n (Department

) o n Februar y 1 1 an d 12 , 2004 , respectively , to receiv e testimon y o n propose

d amendment

s to th e Department' s Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s a t 31 0 CM R7.00 . Th

e publi c commen

t perio d remaine d ope n unti l 5 p.m . o n Februar y 20 , 2004 . Thi s documen t provide s aresponse to th e comment s presente d durin g th

e publi c commen

t period . 

### BACKGROUN

D Massachusett

s Genera l Laws , Chapte

r 111 , Section s 142A-142N i s th e enablin g legislatio n tha t give s th e Departmen

t th e authorit y to adop t regulation s to prevent , contro l or abat e condition s o f ai r pollution , an

d to protec t

publi c healt

h an d welfare . Th

e Commonwealth' s regulation s fo r th e contro l o f ai r pollutio n ar

e promulgate d a

t 31 0 CM R7.0

0 "Ai r Pollutio n Control " an

d 31 0 CM R 6 0 "Moto r Vehicl e Inspectio n an

d Maintenance" . Th

e amendments , whic h th

e Departmen

t i s adopting an

d submittin g to th

e U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) a s aStat e Implementatio n Pla

n (SEP ) revision , ar

e par t o f th e effor t to attai n an

d maintai n th

e healt h an d welfare base

d National Ambien t

Ai r Qualit y Standard

s (NAAQS ) fo r

criteri apollutants . Mos t o f th e amendment

s updat e citations , correct

typographica

l errors , modif

y tex t to clarif y intent , o r reorganize subparagraphs an d ad d heading s fo r

easie r readability . Severa

l amendment

s delet e unnecessar

y definitions , expire d regulation s o r duplicativ e requirements . For example , th

e Departmen

t i s deletin g th

e outdated definition s o f

th e Inspectio n an

d Maintenanc e Program , no w located a t 31 0 CM R60.02 ; eliminatin g Table 1 a t 31 0 CM R7.0

2 since i t cause s confusion ; an

d deletin g 31 0 CM R7.03(14 ) Dr y Cleanin g Operations , an d 31 0 CM R 7.0

3 (20 ) Printer s a

s redundant . Th

e ke y amendment

s i n th e packag e addres s th

e impacts o f

federa l regulation s o n Massachusetts . Specifi c changes include :

• Requir

e tha t an y facilit y wit h a

n operatin g permi t

fil e aLimite d Pla

n Applicatio n a

s require d b y 31 0 CM R 7.02(4)(a) . • Allo w manufacturer s o f othe r spra y gu n technologie s t o b

e approve d a s equivalen

t to hig h volum

e lo w pressur

e o r electrostati c spra

y guns . • Requirements fo r

ne w an d existin g automotiv e refmis h facilitie s • Amendment

s t o incorporat

e curren t U S EP A NESHAP requirements fo r testin g material s fo r

Asbesto s • Adoptio n o f

31 0 CM R7.5 4 U Larg e Combustio n Unit s i n response to amendment s to EPA' s PS D regulation s (4 0 CF R 52.21) . • Appendi x C modifications . The February 2004 hearing package included revisions to 310CMR 7.06(l)(c) (Opacity). Due to substantial

revisions, the opacity regulation will be reissued

for public comment.

2RESPONSE S T O COMMENTS :

Th e Departmen

t hel d publi c hearing s o n proposed amendment s to th e ai r pollutio n contro l regulation s a

t 31 0 CM R7.00 . I n additio n to th e substantive comment

s detaile d below , othe

r comment s wer e receive d tha

t pointe d ou

t typographica

l errors , an

d suggeste

d clarifyin g changes . Since these changes ar

e no t substantive , th

e Departmen

t i s no t includin g aresponse to these comment s i n thi s document . LIS T O F COMMENTER S Ora l an d Writte n Commenters : 1 . U S EP

A Regio n I Davi d Conro y 2 . Associated Industrie s o f Massachusett

s (AIM ) Rober

t Ri o 3 . Harvar

d University Mile s Walke r 4 . Mas s Chemistr

y & Technolog y Allianc e (MCTA ) R . R . Bushnel l 5 . Environmenta

l Leagu e o f Massachusett

s (ELM ) Mega

n Amundso n 6 . Calpine Donal d Nea l 7 . Soluti a Ro y P . Har t 8 . NR G Cynthi aL . Karli c 9 . Fo x Rive r

Pape r Co . Stepha n A . Graha

m 10 . Rober

t Machave r 11 . Polaroi d Corporatio n Joh n P . Le Febvr

e 12 . Eart

h Tech Georg e S . Lipk a 13 . Genera

l Electri c (GE ) Rubi n & Rudman , b y Keren Schlom

y Comment s an d responses hav

e bee n grouped according to th e followin g categorie s an d issues : A . Pla n Approval s B . Limite d Pla

n Applicatio n C . Larg e Combustio n Unit s D . Section 7.03 an

d Reasonabl

y Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (VOC ) E . Operatin g Permit s F . Othe r Comment

s A . Pla n Approval s Commen t

A . 1 . : Th

e commenter

s ar e concerne

d wit h strikin g th

e languag e "Th e calculatio n ca n conside r proposed limitatio n o

r restriction s o n operatin g rat e o r shor t an d lon g ter m emission s provide d tha

t these condition s becom

e federall y enforceable upo n pla n approval " fro m 31 0 CM R7.02(4)(b) . Th e concer n i s tha t th e presumptiv e approva

l wil l no t b e federall y enforceable . (AIM , Polaroid ) Respons e A . 1. : Th

e presumptiv e approva

l i s no t bein g adopte

d (se e commen

t B.l.) . Rathe

r tha n delet e th e reference d sentence , i t

i s bein g amende

d to mak e i t clea r tha t limitation s must

b e enforceable a

s apractica

l matte r (i.e . terms an

d condition s o f

apla n approva l expresse d i n th e 3shortes

t averagin g time tha

t ca n be use d a s apractica

l matter . Se

e definitio n o f

federa l potentia l emissions ) i f

they ar e to be mad

e federall y enforceable . B y contrast , th

e definitio n o f

potential emission s allows , but doe s not require , afacility' s potentia l emission s t o b

e restricte d b y keepin g record s fo r changes i n emission s les s tha n on e to n pe r year . Thes

e limitation s throug h recor d keepin g ar

e no t federall y enforceable . Comment

A.2. : A commente

r note d aconflic t

betwee n 31 0 CM R7.02(2)(a

) an d 7.02(2)(f

) wit h regar

d t o contradictin g vs . contravenin g th e provision s o f

pla n approval . (Polaroid ) Respons e A . 2. : Th

e language ha

s bee n amende d to resolve thi s conflic t

s o tha t bot h o f th e abov e section s us

e consisten

t language . Comment

A . 3. : I t

i s not clea r whethe r th e on e to n pe r yea r increas e i n emission s fo r fue l utilizatio n facilities , reference d i n 31 0 CM R7.02(4)(a)2. , applie s t o on e pollutant , o

r th e su mo f al l pollutants . (Machaver

) Respons e A . 3. : Th

e referenc e i s to a

n individua l ai

r contaminan

t o r pollutant . Th

e language ha s bee n modifie d t o mak

e thi s clear . Comment

A . 4. : Th

e commente

r opposes adding languag e t o 7.02(2)(f

) statin g tha

t recor d keeping , monitoring , testin g or reportin g requirements i n apla n approva l canno t be contravened . H e think s thi s wil l ad

d to th e complexit

y o f obtainin g equivalenc y determinations . (Machaver ) Respons e A . 4. : Th

e language bein g adde

d i s simpl y fo r

clarification . An y facilit y wishin g to chang e on e o f these requirements contained i n apla n approva l mus t hav e Departmen

t approva l fo r th e change . Thi s i s no t

achang e fromth e curren t requirements . B . Limite d Plan Applicatio n Comment

B . 1. : Th

e presumptiv e approva

l o f Limite d Pla

n Application s (LP As ) i s no t approvabl e unde r federa l regulation s governin g th e stat e preconstructio n revie w program . I t doe s no t adequatel y allo w th

e Departmen

t to preven

t th e constructio n or

modificatio n a

t afacilit y tha t coul d resul

t i n aviolation . Specifically , 40 CF R 51.160(b ) require s the stat e to develo

p a permittin g pla

n tha t include s mean

s b y whic h th

e stat e wil l preven

t th e constructio n o

r modificatio n o f

afacilit y i f

th e constructio n o

r modificatio n wil l (1 ) result i n aviolatio n o f applicabl e portion s o f

th e contro l strategy , o

r (2 ) interfere wit h th

e attainmen

t or maintenance o f Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Quality Standards . (EPA ) Th e Departmen

t ha s n o wa y o f assurin g tha t th e presumptiv e approva

l wil l be enforceable a

s a practica l matte r sinc e th e applican

t wil l be presumptively approved fo r th e averaging times , recor d keeping , testin g an

d monitorin g condition s the y propose . (EPA )

4Respons e B . 1. : Th e presumptiv e approva

l i s no t bein g adopted . Th

e rational e fo r

proposin g th e presumptiv e approva

l wa s to creat e amor e streamline d approva

l process , resultin g i n time an d resource saving s fo r

facilitie s an

d th e Department . Instea

d o f adoptin g th

e presumptiv e approval , th

e revie w proces s wil l b

e streamline d to accomplis h asimila r administrativ e savings , fo r bot h applicant s an

d the Department . Commen t

B . 2. : Th

e requiremen

t tha t LP A s b e stampe

d b y aProfessiona

l Enginee r i s a n unwarranted expense t o th e applicant . (MCTA , Solutia , NRG , EarthTech) Addin g arequiremen

t tha t th e applicatio n be stampe

d b y aProfessiona

l Enginee r wil l no t adequatel y assur e protectio n o f

th e environment . Th

e LP A shoul d no t

b e mad e apresumptiv e approval . (ELM ) Respons e B . 2. : Since th e Departmen

t i s not adoptin g th

e proposa l to mak e th e LP A a presumptiv e approval , th e requiremen

t tha t th e applicatio n bea

r th e sea l an d signatur e o f a Professiona

l Enginee r i s als o no t

bein g adopted . Commen t

B . 3. : The Departmen

t currentl y act

s o n L P A s i n les s tha

n 6 0 days , s o th e 60 day s allowe d fo r

presumptiv e approval s i s to o long . (Solutia ) Respons e B . 3. : Since th e Departmen

t i s not adoptin g th

e presumptiv e approval , th e proces s timeline s wil l remai n th

e same . However , th

e Departmen

t does pla n t o mak e changes i n form s an d guidance to streamline th e revie w an

d approva

l process . Commen t

B . 4. : Th

e commenter

s oppose th

e requiremen

t tha t facilitie s issue

d a n operatin g permi t b e require d t o fil e a

n LP A fo r project s a

t th e facilit y tha

t trigge r th e LP A threshold , rathe

r tha n jus t fil e fo r amino r modificatio n t o th

e operatin g permit . Thes e facilitie s ar

e alread y heavil y regulated . On

e suggestion i s to ad

d arequiremen

t to th e filin g o f amino r modificatio n to th e operating permi t

tha t th e modificatio n must

mee t BACT . Anothe

r i s to ad d agenera

l permi t requirement . (NR G an

d Polaroid ) Respons e B . 4. : Unde

r th e previou s regulation , a

n owne r o r operato r holdin g a

n operating permi t wa s exemp t fro mfilin g a

n LPA . The

y coul d proceed wit h makin g th e chang e a s soo n a s the y file d a n applicatio n fo r

amino r modificatio n t o th

e operatin g permit . First , a s apractica

l matter , i t

i s difficul t

t o requir e utilizatio n o f

BAC T afte r

th e modificatio n ha

s bee n made . Second , EP

A di dno t conside r tha t exemptin g Operating Permit facilitie s fro mfilin g a n LP A satisfie d th

e requirements o f

40 CF R 70 , Stat e Operatin g Permit

Programs , an

d said th e provisio n coul d no t

be approved . Therefore , th

e Departmen

t i s deletin g th

e exemptio n fromfiling a n LP A fo r facilitie s wit h Operatin g Permits . C . Larg e Combustion Emissio n Unit s Commen t

C . 1. : Th

e commente

r quote s froma

n EP A statemen

t concernin g th

e Decembe

r 31 , 2002 final rulemakin g o n amendment s to Ne w Source Revie w (NSR) regulations . I n th e statement, EP

A raise s concern s abou

t th e complexit

y o f pas t regulations . Th

e commente

r 5suggest

s tha t certain changes b e mad

e t o th e regulatio n to avoi d discouraging facilitie s fro m usin g th e Plantwid

e Applicabilit y Limi t

(PAL ) an

d th e Clea n Uni t Exemption . (NRG ) Respons e C . 1. : Althoug h i t i s certainl y tru e th

e NS R regulation s wer

e complex befor

e EPA' s most recen t amendments , th

e revise d regulation s ar

e mor e complex . Th

e Departmen

t ha s objection s to th

e wa y tha t EP A amende d th e regulations . Althoug h ther e wer e portion s o f

th e amendment

s th e Departmen

t supports , w e d

o not thin k EP A reache d th e prope r balance i n it s regulation . Wit h regar

d t o th e specifi c comments , facilitie s ar e abl e to apply fo r

aPA L unde

r th e Department' s curren

t regulations . Th

e clea n uni t exemptio n wil l be on

e o f th e option s considere d fo r inclusio n when th

e Departmen

t adopt s it s ow n PS D regulations . Comment

C . 2. : Th

e regulatio n shoul d clarif y whethe r combined cycl e turbine s ar e include d i n th e definitio n o f

Larg e Combustio n Emissio n Unit . (Machaver , Eart h Tech) Respons e C . 2 : Combine d cycl e turbines , wit h indirec t hea t exchangers , regardles s o f whethe r ther e ar e duc t burners , wit h a

n energ y inpu t capacit y greate r tha n 25 0 millio n Bt u pe

r hou r ar e included . Thi s i s consisten t wit h EPA' s New Sourc

e Review interpretation . Th e definitio n o f Indirec t Hea t Exchange

r i s amende

d to clarif

y this . Comment

C . 3. : Pollutio n Contro l Projec t shoul d include lo w NO x burners . (Machaver ) Respons e C . 3. : Lo w NO x burners ar e not include d i n pollutio n contro l project s a s par t o f 31 0 CM R7.54 . However , installin g alo w NO x burne r a s par t o f complyin g wit h NO x RAC T (31 0 CM R7.19 ) pursuan

t to 31 0 CM R7.02(2)(g ) (ol d 7.02(2)(b)) , i s exemp t fro mpla n approval . Comment

C . 4. : Al l Larg e Combustio n Emissio n Unit s shoul d b e allowe d to us

e "representative actua

l annua l emission " occurrin g after implementatio n o f

th e change . (Machaver , Eart

h Tech) Respons e C . 4. : A s state d above , a

t suc h time a s th e Departmen

t proceeds wit h adopting it s ow n PS D regulations , i t

wil l evaluat

e expanding th

e us e o f representative actua

l annua l emission s b y othe

r source s beyond stea

melectri c generatin

g units . D . Sectio n 7.0 3 an d VO C Reasonabl

y Availabl e Contro l Technolog y Comment

D . 1. : Th

e Departmen

t propose s t o ad

d languag e to 31 0 CM R7.03(23 ) tha t states tha t temporar y boiler s ar

e subject to 40 CF R Subpar t Dc . Th e Departmen

t shoul d clarif

y tha t th e relocatio n o f

temporar y boiler s fabricate d prio r to Jun e 9,198 9 (th

e effectiv e dat

e o f subpar t Dc ) i s no t subject to NSPS , unles s eithe

r anothe r physica l modificatio n increase s emission s fro mth e unit , o r th e overal l cost

s excee d th e threshol d o f

'reconstruction' . I n addition , on e commente

r oppose s th e additio n o f

declarator

y language to thi s section o n th e belie f tha t i t i s bot h ba d practic e and , i n thi s case , wrong . (AIM , Polaroid , GE) Respons e D . 1. : I t

was no t th e inten t t o mak e boiler s no t

otherwis e subjec t

to D c subject

t o th e rule , but to b e informational . Th

e Departmen

t wil l no t adop t th e propose d change .

6Commen t D . 2. : 31 0 CM R 7.03(16)(d) currentl y require s th e us e o f electrostati c o

r HVL P (hig h volum e lo w pressure) spra

y application . Th

e Departmen

t i s proposin g t o amen

d thi s section to als o allo w "an

y othe r coatin g applicatio n metho d approved b y th e Departmen

t i n writing. " Th

e amendmen

t a s state d raise s th

e issu e o f Director' s discretion . Allowin g suc h aprovisio n woul d b e considered mor

e reasonabl

e i f th e criteri ab y whic h th

e DEP' s determinatio n wil l be mad e ar e include d i n th

e rule . For

example , 31 0 CM R 7.03(16)(d)(3 ) coul d be revise d t o rea d a s follows : 3 . An y othe

r coatin g applicatio n metho d tha t achieve s atransfe

r efficienc y o f

a t leas t 65 % an d i s approve d b y th e Departmen

t i n writing. " A simila r provisio n i s include d i n Rhod e Island' s rul e fo r

automobil e refinishin g operations , Regulatio n No . 30 . Alternatively , th e criteri acoul d be state

d mor e generally , i n whic h cas

e 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(d)(3 ) migh t allo w "an

y othe r coatin g applicatio n metho d tha t achieve s atransfe

r efficienc y equivalen

t to electrostati c o

r HVL P spra

y applicatio n an

d i s approved b y th

e Departmen

t i n writing. " (EPA ) Respons e D . 2. : Th

e Departmen

t i s includin g language tha t require s an

y spra y applicatio n method , othe

r tha n electrostati c o

r HVLP , to achiev

e atransfe

r efficienc y equivalen

t to electrostati c o

r HVL P spra

y application , an

d to b e approve

d b y th e Departmen

t i n writing . Commen t

D . 3 . : 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(h ) currentl y require s tha t spra y gu n cleanin g be performe d usin g atotall y enclose

d system . Th

e Departmen

t i s proposin g to amen

d thi s sectio n to allo w a totall y enclose

d or equally effectiv e system . Addin g suc h languag e to thi s provisio n woul d mak e i t difficul t t o enforce . (EPA ) Respons e D . 3 : Th

e Departmen

t i s amendin

g th e regulatio n languag

e to specif

y th e characteristic s tha

t aspra y gu n cleanin g syste

mmust exhibi t to contro l emission s effectively . Th e revise d language i s equivalen t to th e spra y gun washe

r requirements i n 31 0 CM R 7.18(28 ) Automotiv e Refinishing . Commen t

D . 4 . : Th

e Departmen

t i s proposin g to ad

d ane w section , 31 0 CM R 7.03(16)(1) , requirin g automotiv e refinishin g operation s to kee p records . Surfac e preparatio n product s ar e reference d onl y a

t th e beginnin g o f

thi s section . Thi s referenc e shoul d be carrie d throughou t th e entir e provision . Also , DE

P shoul d specif

y atim e perio d fo r

recor d retention . (EPA ) Respons e D . 4. : Th

e Departmen

t agree s an d i s includin g th

e ter msurfac e preparatio n produc t throughou

t al l o f th e subsection s o f

th e recordkeeping provision , 31 0 CM R7.03(16)(1 ) o f th e promulgate d regulation . Th e Departmen

t als o adde d aminimu mrecor

d retentio n perio d o f

thre e years , whic h i s consisten

t wit h recor

d retentio n time s i n othe

r section s o f

31 0 CM R 7.18 . Commen t

D . 5 : Th e commente

r suggeste d wordin g changes to clarif y proposed amendment

s to 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(g ) regardin g dail y emission s averaging . (EPA ) Respons e D . 5 : Th

e changes ar

e bein g adopted . Commen t

D . 6. : Clarif

y th e definitio n o f

Aqueou s Cleane

r b y removin g th

e 1 m mo f H g vapo r pressur e requirement . Vapor

pressur e value s ar

e no t alway s easil

y availabl e o

r accurat e i n MSD S o r othe r documents . DE

P shoul d no t

discourage operators fro mshiftin g to aqueou s cleaner s du e to uncertaint

y abou t vapo r pressure s tha

t ma y barely excee

d 1 m mo f Hg . Othe r 7states exemp t col d cleaner

s wit h u p to 5 % VO C withou t

avapo r pressur e limit . Massachusett

s shoul d als o exemp

t col d cleaner

s wit h les s tha

n 5 % VO C withou t

avapo r pressur e limit . (GE ) Respons e D . 6. : Severa

l states , includin g New York , Pennsylvania , an d Marylan d hav

e adopte d solven t degreasin g regulation s tha

t exemp t col d cleaning fluid s wit h les s tha n 5 % VO C b y weight , regardles s o f

vapo r pressure . Thi s exemptio n i s als o consisten t wit h th e Ozon e Transpor

t Commission (OTC ) Mode l Rul e fo r Solven t Cleaning . Th

e Departmen

t agrees wit h th

e commente

r an d i s modifyin g th

e definitio n o f

aqueous cleane

r b y deletin g the vapo

r pressur e limi t an d changin g th e VO C conten

t to 5 pe r cen t b y weight . Comment

D . 7. : Modif

y 7.18(8 ) to exemp

t col d cleanin g degreaser

s wit h asolven

t capacit y o f les s tha n tw o gallons . (GE ) Respons e D . 7. : Makin g thi s chang e woul d represen

t asubstantia

l lessenin g o f th e curren t regulatio n an

d woul d requir

e publi c commen

t befor e i t coul d b e adopted . I t

woul d exemp

t most degreaser s i n th e stat e tha t ar e currentl y subject

to th e regulation . I t

woul d als o presen

t significan t

saving s claus e issue s unde r section 19

3 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Also , since i t

represent s asignifican t

relaxatio n i n th

e regulatio n whic h was no t proposed , th

e Departmen

t coul d not mak e th e chang e withou t proposin g firs t

a t publi c hearing . Comment

D . 8. : I t i s proposed t o amen

d th e provision s i n 31 0 CM R 7.18(8 ) to include a n exemptio n fo r

aqueous cleanin g operation s i f th e cleaning flui d contain s no mor e tha n 1 0 percen

t b y weigh t organic material , excludin g soaps , an d al l organic material s hav e avapo r pressur e les s tha n 1 m mH g a t 25°C . (EPA ) Sinc e Massachusetts ' degreasin g rul e wa s par t o f th e Massachusett

s federall y approve

d SI P prio r to th e enactmen

t o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments o f

1990 , th e DE P mus t sho w tha t th e revision s to th

e rul e ar e consisten

t wit h th e requirements o f

th e Genera l Saving s Claus e i n Section 19

3 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Specifically , Massachusett s must sho w tha t th e modification s to th e rul e ensur

e equivalen

t o r greate r reduction s i n VO C emissions . I t appear s tha t exempting aqueous cleaner

s woul d encourag

e facilitie s to switc h to aqueous cleaning solutions , thereby decreasin g VO C emissions . Massachusett s shoul d provide a

n explici t justificatio n tha

t thi s i s th e cas e an d tha t th e Genera l Saving s Claus e ha

s bee n satisfied . For

example , suc

h a n equivalenc y demonstration coul d include acomparison o f th e degreasin

g emission s fro mafe w individua l facilitie s befor

e an d afte r thos e facilitie s switche d to aqueous cleaning . (EPA ) Respons e D . 8. : Th

e Departmen

t agree s tha t exempting aqueous cleaner s fro mth e equipmen

t requirements woul d encourag e thei r use . I n 1995 , i n alette

r addresse d to Ann e Arnold a

t EP A Regio n I , th

e Massachusett

s Offic e o f

Technica l Assistanc e (OTA ) provide d documentation (attached ) o f th e reductio n o f

VO C emission s o f

severa l companie s i n th

e jewelr y an

d electroni c equipmen t manufacturin g industrie s a s aresult o f replacin g thei r

TC E degreaser

s wit h aqueous cleaners . Th

e reduction s i n emission s wer e substantial , i n on

e cas e degreasin

g emission s dropped fro m10. 5 ton s pe r yea r to 9 8 pounds . Therefore , th e Departmen

t i s adoptin g a

n exemptio n fo r

cleanin g solvent s wit h aVO C conten t o f no mor e tha n 5 percen

t b y weight . Thi s exemptio n mor

e closely follow s th

e OTC model rule . Comment

D . 9. : Th

e referenc e t o "instantaneou s averaging time " i n 31 0 CM R 7.18(8)(f ) shoul d be deleted . I t

refer s to "instantaneou s averaging time " a s use d i n sectio n 31 0 CM R 87.18(2)(a

) whic h applie s t o coatings , no t degrease r solvents . Thi s ter

mi s confusin g an

d misleading . (GE ) Respons e D . 9. : Th

e referenc e to "instantaneou s averaging time " i n 31 0 CM R 7.18(8)(g ) (formerl y 7.18(8)(f) ) i s bein g deleted . However , instantaneou s averaging i s stil l require d b y 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(f

) (formerl y 7.18(8)(e)) . Commen t

D . 10. : Th

e 31 0 CM R7.18(19)(h ) SOCM I (syntheti c organic chemica l manufacturin g industry ) provision s ar e bein g amende

d t o stat e tha t afacilit y must

submi t quarterly monitorin g report s to th e Departmen

t "unles s otherwis e notifie d b y th e Department , i n writing. " I t

i s no t clea r wh y these changes ar

e bein g made , an

d i t appear s thes e changes ma

y reduce th e utilit y o f

th e monitorin g reports . (EPA ) Respons e D . 10 : Thi s proposed amendmen t i s no t bein g adopted . An y SOCM I facilit y wil l stil l b e require d t o report . Commen t

D . 11. : Th

e Departmen

t i s proposin g to delet

e th e existin g 31 0 CM R 7.18(27 ) coatin g mixin g tan

k provision s an

d to amen d 31 0 CM R 7.18(l)(c ) to apply to coatin g mixin g tanks . Th e existin g 31 0 CM R7.18(27 ) provision s tha t ar e to be deleted includ e mor e specifi c requirements tha

n th e provision s i n 31 0 CM R7.18(l)(c) . (EPA , AI M an d POLAROID ) Respons e D . 11 : Th

e proposed amendmen

t i s no t bein g adopted . Commen t

D . 12. : 31 0 CM R7.18(21) , (22) , (23) , (25) , an d (26 ) ar e bein g amende

d to allo w a

n exemptio n fromRAC T requirements fo r severa l surfac e coatin g categorie s provide d tha t th e perso n obtain s an

d complie s wit h afederall y enforceabl e emission limi t whic h restrict s th

e potentia l emission s belo w th

e applicabilit

y cut-off . I t

i s no t clear , however , wh y 31 0 CM R 7.18(24 ) i s not

als o bein g similarl y amended . (EPA ) Respons e D . 12. : Applicabilit y o f 31 0 CM R 7.18(24 ) i s base d on actua

l emission s (1 5 pounds pe r day) , not potential emission s (5 0 ton s pe r year ) lik e these othe

r section s referenced . Therefor e th e Departmen

t i s no t changing 31 0 CM R7.18(24) . Commen t

D . 13. : Th

e Departmen

t i s proposin g to ad

d to 31 0 CM R 7.00 , definition s o f th e followin g terms associate d wit h automobil e refinishing : adhesio n promoter ; elastomeric coating ; impac t resistan t coating ; underbod

y coating ; unifor mfinis h blender ; an d weld-throug h primer . I n EPA' s rule , al l o f

thes e term s ar

e use d i n th e definitio n o f

th e ter m"specialt

y coating, " fo r whic h a n emission limi t

i s specified . However , th e definitio n o f

th e ter m"specialt

y coating " i n 31 0 CM R7.0

0 currentl y include s some , but no t all , o f these terms . Therefore , EP A recommends tha t th e definitio n o f

"specialt y coating " be revise d t o include al l o f th e terms : (EPA ) Respons e D . 13 : Th

e Departmen

t agrees , an

d th e definitio n o f

Specialt y Coatin g i n 31 0 CM R 7.0 0 no w include s al l o f

th e term s i n EPA' s definition . Commen t

D . 14 : Th

e followin g proposed revision s t o 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(c) , whic h contai n th e emission s limit s fo r

automotiv e refinishin g products , constitut e arelaxatio n o f

th e rul e tha t ha s previousl y bee

n approved int o th

e M A SIP : • ane w emission limi t

fo r multi-colore d topcoats tha t i s les s stringen

t tha n th e limi t currentl y require d b y th

e Tabl e a t 31 0 CM R 7.18(28)(c) ; 9• additio n o f a n exemptio n fo r

stenci l coating s an

d coating s tha

t ar e sol d i n non-refillabl e aeroso l containers ; an

d • replacemen

t o f th e curren t 1. 7 pound s o f

VOC/gallo n o f

produc t emissio n limi t

fo r al l surfac e preparatio n product s wit h alimi t o f 1.6 7 pounds o f

VOC/gallo n fo r

product s use

d to clea n non-plasti c surfaces , an d 6. 5 pounds o f

VOC/gallo n limi t

fo r product s use

d to clea n plasti c surfaces . M A must mee t th e anti-backslidin g requirements unde r Section 110(1 ) o f

th e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d recommend

s tha t M A d o s o b y adopting model rule s fo r severa l VO C source categorie s develope d b y th e Ozon e Transpor

t Commissio n (OTC) . (EPA ) Respons e D . 14 : Th

e Tabl e a t 31 0 CM R 7.18(28)(c ) i s no t bein g amende

d t o include Multi

colore d topcoats . Departmen t staf f spok e wit h representative s o f

BAS F an d Dupont , an

d fou r local jobber s concerning th e proposed multi-colore d topcoa t category . The

y wer e no t familiar wit h thi s category , a

s define d i n th

e proposal . Th

e Departmen

t conclude s tha

t th e sal e an d us e o f thi s typ e o f

automotiv e refinis h coatin g i n M A i s insignificant , an d therefore , reconsidered th e nee d to adop t aseparat e emission limi t

fo r multi-colore d topcoats . 31 0 CM R7.18(28 ) i s bein g amende d to mak e clea r tha t stenci l coating s an

d coating s sol d i n non-refillabl e aeroso

l containers ar

e exemp t fro mthi s regulation . Thi s amendmen t i s intended to clarif y th e requirements o f

31 0 CM R7.18(28) . Th

e estimated reduction s resultin g fro m adoptio n o f

th e M A rul e wer

e calculate d usin g informatio n fro mEPA' s AC T an d CT G document s fo r automotiv e refinishing . Dat afro mthos e document

s di d no t include emission s fro mth e us e o f stenci l o r aerosol coatings . Since th e M A rul e does not

regulat e th e VO C conten

t o f stenci l coating s o

r coating s applie d fro mnon-refillabl e aerosol containers , DE P doe s no t conside r thi s clarificatio n to be arelaxatio n o f th e existin g automotiv e refinishin g rule . 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(f

) wa s amende d to ad d alimi t o f 6. 5 pounds o f

VO C pe r gallo n a s applie d fo r surfac e preparatio n product s fo r plasti c parts . Thi s i s arelaxatio n fro mth e curren t limit . Usin g th e methodology suggeste

d i n EPA' s Emissio n Inventor y Improvemen

t Progra m(EIIP 1 Guidance (Guidance) date d Januar y 2001 ; th

e predicte d emission s increas e i s approximately 24. 8 TPY o r 0. 1 TPSD . Thi s assume

s 15 % o f al l surfac e preparatio n product s ar e use d o n plasti c parts (primaril y bumpers) . I f facilitie s wer

e usin g th e lower VO C conten

t surfac e preparatio n product , th e Departmen

t feel s th e reduce d emission s emission s resultin g fro musin g lowe r VO C surfac e preparatio n products woul d be offse t

b y th e increas e i n coatin g failure s cause d b y insufficien t

decontaminatio n o f

th e plasti c par

t an d th e nee d t o re-pre

p an d repain t th e plasti c part . Th

e emission s increas e resultin g fro mrepaintin g abumpe

r i s approximately 1 0 time s th e emission s increas e resultin g fro mus e o f th e 6. 5 lbs./gallo n surfac e preparatio n product . Th e Departmen

t believe s tha

t thi s amendmen

t wil l not resul t i n a n increas e i n actua

l emissions , becaus

e th e emission s reduction s tha t wer e anticipate d fro msurfac e preparatio n product s wit h lowe r limit s hav

e no t occurred . Furthermore , Massachusett s anticipate s adopting additiona l contro l measure

s prio r to th e 200 7 attainmen t yea r a s note d i n Tabl e III- 2 o f

th e 2002 Easter

n Massachusett

s Attainment Demonstration SIP .

• Th e Departmen

t signe d a n OTC Memorandu

mo f Understanding unde

r whic h i t committe d t o adop t th e mode l rule s fo r

architectura

l an d industrial maintenance (AIM ) coatings , an d 1 0consume r products . Th

e Departmen

t i s currentl y developin g regulation s fo r AI M coating s an d consume

r product s base

d o n th e model rules , an

d anticipate s proposin g the ma t publi c hearin g durin g 2005 .

• DE P als o committe d to adop t th e OTC portabl e fue l containe r mode l rule , whic h wa

s base d o n th e Californi aportabl e fue l containe r rule . Californi aha

s recently proposed significan t revision s to it s rule . DE

P wil l dela

y proposin g aportabl e fue l containe r regulatio n unti l suc

h tim e a s revision s t o th

e Californi arul e ca

n b e incorporate d int o aproposed Massachusett s regulation . Wit h th e exceptio n o f

multi-colore d topcoats , th e Departmen

t i s adoptin g the changes to 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(c ) a

s proposed . Commen t

D . 15. : Since Tabl e 7.18(28)(c ) o f th e automotiv e refinishin g rul e i s bein g amended, th e DE P ma y wan t to conside

r als o clarifyin g som

e o f th e othe r limit s containe d i n th

e table . Specifically , th

e tabl e include s alimi t

fo r topcoats an

d another, les s stringent , limi t fo r thre e o r fou r stag e topcoats . EP

A recommends tha

t th e tabl e be clarifie d t

o stat e tha t th e mor e stringen t topcoa t limi t applie s to single an

d two-stag e topcoats . (EPA ) Respons e D . 15. : Th

e Departmen

t agrees wit h EPA' s suggestion , bu t two-stag e topcoa

t i s not define d i n 31 0 CM R 7.00 . Currently , th e regulation s defin e "basecoat/clearcoa t system" , whic h i s simpl y anothe

r ter mfo r two-stag e topcoat . Therefore , th e Departmen

t i s amendin

g th e regulation s a

s follows : 1 . Replace th

e "topcoat " categor

y i n Table 31 0 CM R7.18(28)(c ) wit h tw o categories : "single-stage topcoat " an

d "two-stage topcoat" . Two-stage topcoa t i s alread y subject to the topcoa

t limit . 2 . Replace th

e definitio n o f

"basecoat/clearcoa

t system " wit h adefinitio n o f "two-stage topcoat" . Th

e definitio n doesn'

t change . BASECOAT/CLEARCOA T SYSTE M TWO-STAG

E TOPCOAT mean

s atwe stag e topcoa t basecoat/clearcoa

t syste mcompose

d o f acolore d basecoa

t an d a transparen

t fina l coat . For

complianc e purposes , th

e VO C conten

t o f basecoat/clearcoa

t system s shal l mee

t th e emission limitatio n fo r

two-stag e topcoat s i n Tabl e 7.18(28)(c) , an d is-shal l be calculate d accordin g to th e followin g formula : Th e changes ar

e onl y clarification s an

d d o no t affec t th e stringenc y o f

th e regulation . Commen t

D . 16. : Th

e commente

r says th e ne w recor d keeping section a

t 31 0 CM R 7.18(28)(p ) shoul d requir e tha t record s b e kept o f surfac e preparatio n product s i n additio n t o informatio n o n th

e coatings . (EPA ) Th e commente

r als o says that , "th

e provisio n shoul d als o stat e tha t record s be mad

e availabl e to th e EP A an d shoul d specif

y atime perio d fo r

recor d retention. " Th

e commente

r propose d adding a t 31 0 CM R 7.28(p)4. : "Record s kept

to demonstrat

e complianc e must

b e kept o n sit e fo r fiv e year s an d must b e mad e availabl e t o representative s o f th e Departmen

t o r EP A upo n request. " (EPA )

1 1Respons e D . 16. : These changes ar e bein g made , excep

t tha t facilitie s ar

e onl y require d to retai n their

record s fo r

three years , whic h i s th

e duratio n th

e Departmen

t feel s i s sufficien t

to documen t afacility' s complianc e statu s an d use d i n recen t regulatio n adoptio n a

s wel l a s othe r subparagraph

s o f 31 0 CM R7.18 . E . Operating Permit

s Comment

E . 1. : Th

e Departmen

t narrowe d th

e scop e o f 31 0 CM R 7.0

0 Appendi x C(8)(c)4 . (processin g o f significan t

modification s to a

n operating permit ) fro mal l action s unde r 31 0 CM R 7.02(1 ) t o jus t

action s subject

to 31 0 CM R7.02(4 ) an

d (5) . However , these type s o f approval s ar e no t require d fo r

modification s mad

e unde r aReasonabl

y Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (RACT ) Emissio n Contro l Pla n (ECP) . Th

e commente

r believe s tha

t th e sam e consideratio n shoul d b e mad e fo r RAC T approval s issue

d b y th e Departmen

t an d request s tha t thi s section b

e additionall y modifie d to reflec t this . (Polaroid ) Respons e E . 1. : Th

e amendmen

t clarifie s aregulator

y citation . Thi s does no t affec t th e proces s fo r

afacilit y modifyin g aprovisio n approved b y th e Departmen

t i n it s RAC T ECP . I n general , th

e provision s o f

afacility' s RAC T EC

P ca n b e modifie d throug h th

e mino r modificatio n proces s o f

Appendi x C(8)(d ) an

d d o no t requir e asignifican t

modification . Comment

E . 2. : Th

e Departmen

t need s to eithe r simplif y o r delet e th e proposed changes t

o Appendi x C(9)(c)(2) . (CALPINE ) Respons e E . 2. : 31 0 CM R7.0 0 Appendi x C(9)(2 ) i s not arequiremen

t o f th e federa l operating permi t progra man d add s confusio n to th

e regulations , therefor

e th e Departmen

t i s deletin g thi s i n it s entirety . F . Othe r Comment

s Comment

F.l . : Th

e commente

r wa s concerne

d tha t proposed amendment

s to th e definitio n o f potentia l emission s woul d allo w afacilit y to include limitation s tha t ar e no t enforceable a

s a practica l matter . (EPA ) Respons e F . 1 . : Th

e proposed amendment

s an d curren t requirements o f

th e Departmen

t satisf y th e requirements to be enforceable a s apractica

l matter . Notification s pursuan t 31 0 CM R 7.02(11 ) (50 % o

r 25 % Facilit y Emissio n Ca p Notification ) requir

e th e facilit y t o kee

p record s tha t satisf y these requirements . Similarly , th e certification s th

e Departmen

t require s pursuan

t 31 0 CM R7.26 requir

e th e facilit y to certif

y to limitation s tha

t als o mee t th e requirements to be enforceable a

s apractica

l matter . Th

e emission contro l pla

n afacilit y propose s i s subject to Departmen

t approval . Th

e underlyin g regulation s contai n requirements tha t mak e th e limitation s enforceable a

s apractical matter . However , w e ar

e no t includin g th

e requiremen

t tha t al l limitation s b

e enforceable a

s apractica

l matte r since som

e limitation s contained i n ver y ol d pla n approval s (datin g bac

k t o 1970s ) ma

y not satisf y al l these requirements . Comment

F . 2. : Th

e Departmen

t shoul d ad

d OP-4 condition s to definitio n of'emergency ' i n 31 0 CM R7.03(10) . (AIM ) 1 2Respons e F . 2. : Thi s issu e i s bein g addresse

d i n anothe

r Departmen

t regulatio n package . Commen t

F . 3. : 31 0 CM R7.19(13)(a ) shoul d referenc e bot

h 31 0 CM R 7.2

7 an d 7.2 8 a s th e 7.2 7 progra mha s effectivel y expired . (Bob Machaver ) Respons e F . 3. : Th

e suggeste

d chang e i s no t bein g made . Th

e existin g regulatio n require s selectio n o f

"th e mor e stringen t o f th e provisions " a

s awa y o f harmonizin g stat

e an d federa l monitorin g requirements . Since writin g th e existin g regulation , th

e Departmen

t ha s foun d thi s approac h to be overl y simplistic , a s i t i s not alway s straightforward to determin e th e mor e stringen t requirement , an

d becaus e i t ma y preclud e reasonabl

e flexibilit y buil t

int o certai n monitorin g regulations . Indeed , som e Massachusett

s facilitie s hav

e sough t to harmoniz e monitorin g requirement s throug h case-by-case determination s involvin g DE P an d EPA . Simpl y adding th e language suggeste

d b y the commente

r woul d no t

addres s the harmonizin g complexitie s tha

t hav e bee n see n i n practice ; therefore , adding th e suggeste

d language woul d creat e th e impressio n tha

t complicate d issue s involvin g numerou s monitorin g regulation s coul d b e deal t wit h throug h amino r

language change , whic h ha s no t proven to b e th

e cas e i n practice . A s th e Departmen

t di d no t g o ou t t o publi c hearin g proposin g to remove th e existin g language , an d a s retainin g th

e existin g language ha

s n o practica l impac t since 31 0 CM R 7.2

7 ha s bee n supersede d b y 31 0 CM R7.28 , th

e Departmen

t i s retainin g th

e existin g language . Commen t

F . 4 . : Th

e Departmen

t use d th e ter m'ai r contaminant ' i n 31 0 CMR7.02(3)(g ) whic h i s define d i n 31 0 CM R7.0 0 bu t i s not use d i n 30 1 CM R 11.00 , th

e MEP A regulations . Thi s ca n lea d to confusio n an

d th e ter m'ai r contaminant ' shoul d be deleted . (Polaroid , AIM ) Respons e F . 4. : Th

e referenc e t o air

contaminan

t i s bein g replaced wit h areferenc e to criteri a an d hazardou s air

pollutant s to b e consisten t wit h 30 1 CM R 11.03 . Commen t

F . 5. : Di d th

e Departmen

t inten d t o delet

e th e siz e restrictio n o f

les s tha n 1 0 MMBt u pe r hou r fro m31 0 CM R7.03(10 ) a s wel l a s fro m31 0 CM R 7.02(8)(i) ? (Earthtech) Respons e F . 5. : No . Th e primar y reaso n fo r removin g th

e restrictio n fro m31 0 CM R 7.02(8)(i ) wa s to limi t th e hours o f operatio n o f

emergenc y or standb y engine s installe d before Jun e 1 , 199 0 to les s tha

n 30 0 hours pe

r yea r i n orde r to restric t

potentia l emissions . However , 31 0 CM R 7.03(10 ) applie s to ne

w engines . For

ne w engine s large

r tha n 1 0 MMBt u pe

r hour , th e inten t i s to requir e th e engin e to b e subject

to 31 0 CM R 7.02(5 ) (Comprehensive Pla n Approval ) befor

e construction . Th

e Departmen

t i s proposin g to amen

d thi s requiremen

t i n anothe r regulator y packag e (Engine an

d Combustio n Turbines) . Publi c hearing s o n tha t packag e wer e hel d o n Jun

e 22 , an d 23,2004 .

1 3