Jun

e 30 , 200 4 Mr . Rober t Donaldso n Massachusett

s Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n On e Winte r Stree t Boston , M A 02108 RE : Comment

s o n Propose

d Modification

s t o 310 CM R7.00/70.0

0 Engine s an d Combustio

n Turbine

s Dea r Bob : Than k yo u fo r th e opportunit

y t o commen

t o n th e propose d Engine/Turbin

e Regulations . 1 . Wit h respec t to existing emergenc

y engine s < 3 MMBtu/h

r hea t input , I believ

e th e propose d rule i s no

t entirel y clea r o n wha t (i f anything ) fo r

ne w fue l sulfur

limit s applies t o thes e units . Unde

r 7.02(8)(i) l b . a

s proposed

, th e inten t appear s t o b e tha t a n existing emergenc

y engin e < 3 MMBtu/h

r ma y (voluntarily ) elec

t t o limi t its operatio n pe r 7.02(8)(i)2- 5 o

r pe r 7.02(11) . I f

th e 7.02(8)(i)2- 5 optio

n i s chosen

, thi s wouldthe n trigge r th e ne w fue l sulfur

limits . However

, i f th e 7.02(11 ) option i s chose n (50%/25 % emissio

n caps) , i t appear s th e ne w fue l sulfu

r limit s wouldno

t b e triggered , bu

t thi s i s no t entirel y clear . Thi s i s becaus

e th e ne w propose

d fue l sulfur provision 7.05(l)(a)3 . i s state d a s applying t

o an y stationar

y engin e o r turbin e subjec t t o 7.02(8)(i ) (a

s wel l a s 7.03(10 ) an dth e ne w 7.2 6 provisions) . Doe

s th e Departmen

t inten d a n existing emergenc

y engin e < 3 MMBtu/h

r electin g a n emissio n ca p unde r 7.02(11 ) t

o b e subjec t t o 7.02(8)(i ) an

d(consequently

) th e ne w fue l sulfur

limits ? Also , certai

n smalle r emergenc y engine s installation s ma

y hav e no t nee d an y limi t o n hour s o r a n emissio n ca p t o b e a"pure " mino

r sourc e (a t 876 0 hours/year) . Thes

e emergenc y engines wouldno

t nee d t o elec t a n operatin g hou r limi t o r emissio n ca p pe r 7.02(8)(i) l b. , whic

h woul dpresumabl

y the n no t trigge r an y ne w fue l sulfur requirements . If clarity is added

to confirm that

a 7.02(11) cap does not trigger 7.02(8)(i) applicability, the effective result of the fuel sulfur provisions for

existing emergency engines < 3 MMBtu/hr

is that use of new low sulfur

fuel would be entirely voluntary. Any existing emergency engine (that would otherwise trigger

major source requirements) could chose the 7.02(11) cap rather than a 7.02(8)(i) hour limitation. This is consistent with the Department's background document

that states that

currently regulated

existing liquid

fuel emergency turbines will be required to receive for

use ULSD when available. Unless otherwise regulated by total site emissions, existing emergency generators < 3 MMBtu/hr would not seem to be currently regulated. 2 . Wit h respec t t o th e ne w fue l sulfu

r provision propose

d unde r 7.05(l)(a)3. , th

e requiremen

t t o us e fue l complian

t wit h 4 0 CF R80.2 9 an d4 0 CF R80.520(a

) an d(b ) applies si x month s afte r th e effectiv e dat

e o f th e regulation changes . Therefore , a n existin g emergenc

y generato

r (presumabl

y > 3 MMBtu/hr) tha

t i s subjec t t o th e ne w fue l limitatio n woul dpresumabl y nee d to tak e deliver y o f 0.05 % sulfu

r oi l beginnin

g Pag e 1 of 3Mr . Rober t Donaldso n Jun e 30,200 4

si x month s afte r th e effectiv e dat

e fo r thes e propose d change s t o 31 0 CM

R7.0 0 (presumabl

y sometim

e i n 2005) . Then , sometim e i n 2006 , th

e deliver y requiremen

t fo r th e ne w 1 5 pp msulfur fue l woul dkic k

in . However

, th e Department' s Backgroun

d Documen

t onl y appear s t o refe r t o th e requiremen

t fo r ULS D (i n 2006) . I s i t th e Department' s inten

t t o requir e receip t o f 0.05 % sulfu

r oi l si x month s afte r th e effectiv e rule date, an

d the n receip t o f 1 5 pp msulfu r oi l i n 200 6 a s specified i n th e schedul e containe d i n 4 0 CF R80.500 ? Also , wit h respec t t o th e fue l sulfur

citations , th

e citatio n t

o 4 0 CF R80.50 0 i n 7.05(l)(a) 3 a

s propose d i s correct . However

, 4 0 CF R80.500(a

) i s cited i n 7.02(8)(i)5 , 7.03(10)(b) , 7.26(42)(c ) an d 7.26(43)(c) . I believ

e thes e citation s shoul

d b e change d fro m80.500(a

) t o 80.500 . 3 . Wit h respec t t o 31 0 CM R7.26(42) , Emergenc

y Engines an

d Turbines , I sugges

t th e Departmen

t reconside

r makin g th e emissio n requirement

s fo r ne w emergenc

y engine s an d turbine s "technolog

y neutral" . Specifically , emergenc y turbine s shoul

d b e afforde d th

e opportunit

y t o mee t equivalen

t USEP A non-roa d engin e standards , rathe r tha n th e muc h stricte r limi t fo r turbine s no

w propose d i n Tabl e 1 o f 0.6 0 pound s o f NO xpe r MW-hr . Thi s probabl

y ha s limite dpractica

l significanc e sinc

e emergenc y turbine s ar

e no t expecte d t o b e acommo

n selection . However

, fro ma philosophica

l perspective , i t

doe s no t see mappropriat

e tha t on e coul d install a n emergenc y engin e tha t meet s USEPA , non-roa

d limits , bu

t b e preclude

d from installin g a

n otherwise lowe

r emitting emergenc

y turbin e tha t can' t mee t th e 0.6 0 lb/MW-h r o f NO x . 4 . Wit h respec t t o 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(a)2. , I sugges

t tha t th e Departmen

t allow greate

r flexibilit y fo r

submissio

n o f a n individua

l Pla n Application s tha

n th e specific categories listed . While i t doe s see mth e Departmen

t ha s covere d th e types o f projects fo r

which a n individua

l pla n application coul

d b e appropriate , inclusion o f

a categor y suc h a s "o r othe r units tha t th e Departmen

t determine

s ar e appropriat

e t o consider " woul davoid asituatio n wher e som e otherwise worthwhile projec t tha t doe s no t fal l int o on e o f th e categories alread

y liste d i s preclude

d fro mfilin g a

n individua l Pla n Application . 5 . Wit h respec t t o 31 0 CM

R7.26(43) , th

e propose d emissio n limit s fo r

engine s i n Tabl e 2 seem s t o prett y muc h preclud e an y ne w liqui dfue l (diesel

) engines , unles s the y ca n otherwise qualif

y fo r a n individua

l Pla n Application . Thi s situation applies eve n fo r th e initia l (Phas

e 1 ) limits , an

d i s onl y exacerbate

d i n Phase

s 2 an d 3 . Th e propose d NO xlimi t

o f 0. 6 lbs/MW-h

r woul drequir

e a96% efficient

SC Rcatalys t fo r areasonabl

y size d ( > 56 0 kW ) diese

l engin e otherwise meetin

g th e Tie r 2 (2006) USEP A non-roa d limits . Similarly , th

e propose d P M limi t o f 0.0 9 lbs/MW-h

r would requir e som e technolog

y tha t could achiev

e 80% + P

M remova

l fo r areasonabl

y size d ( > 56 0 kW ) diese

l engin e otherwis e meetin

g th e Tie r 2 (2006) USEP

A nonroa d limits . While I recogniz e th e Departmen

t ha s adopte d th e "RAP " mode

l rule limits , I sugges

t th e Departmen

t conside r resettin g som e o f thes e limit s tha

t see mt o otherwise preclud

e eve n awell-controlle dliqui dfue l (diesel ) unit . I n particular , I woul dse t th e SC Rremova l assumptio

n fo r liqui dfue l fo r

NO xa t n o mor e tha n 90% . Also , I wouldadop

t th e USEP A Tie r 2 non-roa d limit s fo r

PM . I als o wouldsugges

t no t including th

e Phas e 2 an d 3 limit s tha

t ar e propose d t o appl y a s o f 1/1/0 8 an d 1/1/12 . M y suggestio

n i s tha t suc h ne w limit s shoul

d onl y b e adopte d afte r th e Pag e 2 of 3

iMr . Rober t Donaldso n Jun e 30 , 2004

Departmen

t conduct s periodi c technolog y review s and identifie s th e availabl e technolog y o n whic h the new limit(s ) ar e based . 6 . Wit h respect

t o 31 0 CM R7.26(43) , i n Table s 2 and 3 , i t i s propose d t o regulat

e turbine s fo r

ammoni abut

no t engines . Also , the propose d ammoni alimi t o f 2 pp m fo r turbine s seem

s unnecessarily stric t

fo r asmal l turbin e SC

Runit . I n addition , an

y referenc e t o pp mlimit s shoul d b e reference d t o astandar d condition , such a

s dry basi s a t 15 % 0 2 . Also , engine s ar e propose d t o b e regulate d fo r C0 2 but

no t turbines . I t

woul dsee

mthe regulate d pollutant s fo r engine s an d turbine s shoul d match . 7. With respect

to 301 CMR 7.26(43)(e)l., the certification requirement suggests a manufacturer's certification will be sufficient

but does not appear to anticipate a case where a pollution control device (i.e., SCR) is used and the engine manufacturer cannot certify NO x

limitations that

depend on an SCR installed

by a third

party. I suggest changing the last

sentence in 7.26(43)(e)l. to read: Certification shall include statement(s) as appropriate from manufacturers and other equipment

or emission control

system providers that

the installed

engine or

turbine ... 8. With respect

to the definition of

emergency operation incorporated into the proposed language for

7.02(8)(i)2.c, 7.03(10)(a)4.c, and 7.26(41), I

support the language change (also to be proposed by NECA) that

the Connecticut

definition for

the imminent threat emergency use be used

in lieu of

the Department's proposed 3%/5% voltage language: Emergency shall also mean when the imminent threat of a power outage is likely due tofailure of the electrical

supply, such as when the operation of the emergency engine is required during the period

of time in which the New England Region System Operator begins voltage reductions or involuntary load interruptions within the Massachusetts load zone(s). I f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e d

o no t hesitat e t o contac t

m e a t 978-371-4206 . I appreciat e th e effor t th e Department

ha s pu t int o developin g thi s propose d regulatio n an d th e outreach effort s fo r

seekin g inpu t

fro mthe affecte d parties . Ver y trul y yours , Georg e S . Lipka , P.E . Principa l Enginee

r Eart h Tec h

Pag e 3 o f 3