March 31, 2006 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND .RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 

310 CMR 7.00 et sea. 

This regulation revision affects the requirements for: 

1) 310 CMR 7.00 - Definitions. The definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) is 

modified to exempt five additional compounds. The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) issued final rules on November 29, 2004 exempting these compounds. 

2) 310 CMR 7.06 - Visible Emissions. Visible emissions limitations are proposed for 

certain facilities required to have Operating Permits. 

3) 310 CMR 7.24 - Organic Material Storage and Distribution . Expand the time period 

during which gasoline tank trucks are required to be tested for vapor leak tightness. 

Hearings were held on the proposed amendments on October 18, 2005 in Boston and 

October 19, 2005 in Springfield. The hearing record was held open until 5 :00 PM on 

October 28, 2005 . 

This document summarizes and responds to the comments received from the following 

parties : 

Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) 

General Electric Company (GE) 

Harvard University (Harvard) 

Bob Machaver (Machaver) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
March 31, 2006 

310 CMR 7.00 Definitions 

1 . Comment: The proposed exemption of t-butyl acetate (TBAC) from the term 

"volatile organic compound" (VOC) differs from EPA requirements . While EPA 

Exempts TBAC from control requirements, TBAC is not exempted from record 

keeping and reporting requirements. Massachusetts should delete TBAC from the 

list of exempt compounds and add the following language that is consistent with 

EPA requirements : 

"In addition, the following compound(s) are VOC for the purpose of all 

recordkeeping, emission reporting= photochemical modeling, and inventory 

requirements which apply to VOC and shall be uniquely identified in emission 

reports but are not VOC for the purposes of VOC emissions limitations or VOC 

content requirements : t-butyl acetate." EPA 

Response: Agree, the language will be included. 

2. Comment: The CAS Number of two of the chemicals within the list of exempt 

VOC compounds should be revised to read as follows: 

124389 carbon dioxide 

420462 HFC-143a(1,1,1,-trifluoroethane) EPA 

Response: Agree, the change will be made to include the correct CAS 

numbers. 
March 31, 2006 

310 CMR 7.06 Visible Emissions 

General 

l . Comment: "Massachusetts' proposed revision to section La, l .b, and l .c under 

310 CMR 7 .06(l)(c) (exemption to visible emission limits) is in accordance with 

revisions suggested by EPA in January 2005. We support the proposed language 

in 310 CMR 7.06(1)(c)l .b., which allows visible emissions to exceed 27 percent 

opacity during one hour per quarter calendar year. We agree with the state that 

specifying a threshold for average opacity during this hour would complicate the 

type of continuous monitoring equipment required ." EPA 

Response: The comment is noted. 

7.06(1)(c)1 . Visible Emission Limits 

2. Comment: The reference to 7.06(1)(c)l .f. in 7.06(1)(c)l .a . appears to be 

incorrect and should be 7.06 1)(cll .g. EPA, GE 

Response: Agree, the reference will be changed. 

3 . Comment: Several comments expressed concern that it is unclear if the shortterm opacity excursions are allowed on an applicable emission unit basis or 

facility wide. AIM, Harvard, Machaver, GE 

Response: Language will be added to make it clear that the requirements apply 

on a per unit basis. 

4. Comment: Facilities should be entitled to the exemptions allowed by both 

7 .06(1)(c)l .b and Lc. Language should be revised to more clearly indicate that 

both exemption options are available. AIM, Harvard, GE, Machaver 

Response: Agree. This will be made clear that both exemptions are allowed. 

5. Comment: Requests that 7.06(1)(c)l .b . be changed to allow the two exceedances 

of 27% opacity to occur at any time during a quarter instead of both occurring 

within the same hour. The requirement is sufficiently restrictive, compliance will 

be easier to track and the intent of the requirement will be maintained. GE, 

Machaver 

Response: Agree. The regulation will be revised. 
March 31, 2006 

6. Comment: 7 .06(1)(c)l .c . The one-tenth of one per cent allowance penalizes 

limited use boilers that, because of their limited use, are more prone to experience 

problems. It is suggested that a fixed number of excursions be allowed that 

corresponds to one-half of that allowed (22) for a unit that operates at all time. 

Limited use boilers should be allowed 11 excursions per quarter. AIM, GE, 

Machaver 

Response: Agree that a set number of excursions is reasonable . The 11 

excursions as proposed by the commenters are too many for limited use units such 

as back-up units or those that operate primarily during below average cold 

weather. The regulation will allow all units to have a minimum of six excursions 

per quarter. Six excursions corresponds to a boiler operating 27% of the time in a 

quarter. Those units operating less than 27% of the time will be allowed six 

excursions . Those operating more than 27% would be allowed between 6 and 22 

excursions depending upon the total quarterly operating hours. 

7. Comment: 7 .06(1)(c)l .c . The one-tenth of one percent (0.1) rule is too 

restrictive for limited operation boilers and should be changed to 0.5 percent. 

Harvard 

Response: See response to Comment 6. 

8. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)l .c . It is not technologically feasible to comply with the 

proposed regulations for our older, load following steam plant. The upper cap of 

60 percent is burdensome especially during unforeseen conditions such as boiler 

trip, burner or equipment upsets, and unanticipated load ramps. It is requested that 

up to 15 spikes above 60% opacity per quarter be allowed. Harvard 

Response: Except for unanticipated load ramps, the conditions listed in the 

comment are malfunctions for which no exception to 310 CMR 7.06(1)(c)l .a. are 

provided. The request to allow 15 excursions above 60% opacity was not 

supported by documentation. 

The Plan of Good Operating Procedures, developed in concert with the third party 

combustion experts, should focus on minimizing the frequency of, and emissions 

from, unanticipated load ramps. 

9. Comment: 7.06(l)(c)l .c . The first sentence should be revised to read "For a 

facility equipped with a visible emission monitor with a numeric data reduction 

system that can printout or output to an electronic file individual block 

averages . . ." This will provide increased flexibility in obtaining the data. 

Machaver 

Response: Agree, the change will be made. 
March 31, 2006 

10. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)l .c . The first sentence states that the Department may 

approve the opacity exceptions for a facility provided in the section. The language 

should be changed to state that the Department will or shall approve the opacity 

exceptions, if consistent with an approved Plan of Good Operating Practices. GE, 

Harvard, Machaver 

Response: The Department should not be bound to approving opacity exceptions 

that would in effect relax requirements for a unit that historically has complied 

with 310 CMR 7 .06(1)(a) and 310 CMR 7.06(1)(b). The language will be 

changed to "the Department will make a determination to approve or deny" to 

indicate that the Department will take action . 

11 . Comment: 7.06(1)(c)l .c . References to one hour should be changed to one hour 

block to be consistent with EPA accepted data reduction methodologies. 

Machaver, GE 

Response: Agree, the change will be made. 

12. Comment: 7 .06(1)(c)l .c . The phrase "during the one-hour period when a 6-

minute block average exceeds 27 percent opacity" at the end of the second 

sentence is redundant and should be deleted. GE 

Response: This language is to minimize any misunderstanding . 

13. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)l .d . The regulation should be modified to clarify that a 

source is not required to use their visible emission monitor as a direct compliance 

monitor unless such a requirement is contained in an existing 7.02 Plan Approval 

or the source requests the opacity monitor serve as a direct compliance monitor. 

Machaver, GE 

Response: Agree, the change will be made. 

14. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)l .g . Recommends that five-business days notification be 

required instead of two for scheduled activities that are for the purpose of 

improving boiler performance. As these activities are scheduled, two days may 

not be adequate time to determine if exemption to visible emission limits is 

appropriate. EPA 

Response: The Department agrees with the comment and will modify the 

language. 
March 31, 2006 

7.06(1)(c)2. Plan of Good Operating Practices 

15. Comment: Believes the provisions for an approved "Plan of Good Operating 

Practices" (POGOP) is overly complicated and unnecessary. AIM 

Response: More than a dozen facilities statewide have developed POGOP's 

that have been approved by the Department. The Department has found that this 

requirement is valuable in obtaining improvements in facility operation and 

reductions in visible emissions. 

16. Comment: Previously approved POGOP should either immediately terminate 

upon adoption of new regulations, be allowed to be modified by a source or at the 

request of sources remain in effect . Machaver, Harvard, GE 

Response: The Department will work with the facilities to allow 

modifications to POGOP as appropriate to reflect requirements as adopted. 

Facilities may request modifications of their approved POGOP and then a minor 

modification to their Operating Permit to reflect the specific requirements of the 

regulations as amended. 

17. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)2.d . The requirement that the duration and frequency of 

startup, shutdown, soot blowing and other specified operating conditions be 

proposed is not feasible. Sources should be allowed to qualitatively characterize 

these conditions . Machaver, Harvard, GE 

Response: The Department needs sufficient information about a facility's boiler 

operations to be convinced that the relief sought is appropriate and that the 

corresponding POGOP is feasible and hence approvable . 

18 . Comment: 7.06(1)(c)2 .e. It is requested that only a general description of the 

need for visible emission limitations greater than 15 % opacity be required in the 

POGOP. Opacity during these special conditions cannot be predicted and past 

emissions are not necessarily an indicator of future conditions . Sources should be 

allowed to take advantage of the full range of the visible emission limitations 

provided for in 7.06(1)(c). GE 

Response: See response to Comment 17. The extent of documentation will be 

based upon the Department's knowledge of visible emission history of a facility 

as supplemented by information submitted by a facility. 

19. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)2.f. The citation (7.06(1)(c)b) is incorrect and should be 

7.06(1)(c)1 . GE 

Response: The citation will be corrected. 
March 31, 2006 

20. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)2 .f. This provision should be deleted and the source 

should be required to state if they will be complying with the visible emission 

limits contained in 7 .06(1)(c)l .b or Lc, or they will be complying with the visible 

emission limits contained in 7.06(1)(c)l .b . and l .c . GE, Machaver, Harvard 

Response: It is necessary for the facility to state where relief is necessary. The 

Department will not approve exceptions to visible emission requirements when it 

determines relief is not necessary. There may be circumstances where historically 

visible emissions have not been a problem for a particular boiler . An example is a 

boiler that starts-up utilizing natural gas should not have a visible emission 

problem needing relief as provided by these regulation revisions. 

7.06(1)(c)3. Department Action 

21 . Comment: 7.06(1)(c)3 .c . This provision should be deleted and the approval 

should state if the facility is required to comply with the visible emission limits 

contained in 7 .06(1)(c)l .b or Lc, or comply with the visible emission limits 

contained in 7 .06(1)(c)l .b . and l .c . GE 

Response: An approval of a POGOP must state the specific visible emission 

requirements and the conditions necessary to assure compliance. See response to 

Comment 20. 

7.06(l)(c)4. Notice of Exceedances 

22. Comment: 7.06(1)(c)4. "It is requested that a sentence be added at the end 

of this Section indicating that `opacity excursions > 27°lo that qualify as 

allowed exceptions under 310 CMR 7 .06(1)(c)l .b and 7.06(1)(c)l .c shall not 

be considered deviations under the Operating Permit."' Machaver 

Response: Agree, language will be added. 
March 31, 2006 

310 CMR 7.24 Organic Material Storage and Distribution 

l . Comment: The proposed change is reasonable, however, 310 CMR 

7.24(4)(a)4 .b . states that the certification "shall expire July 1 of the 

year following the test ." This is inconsistent with the stated goal of 

spreading out the testing and 7.24(4)(a)4.b . should be revised to read: 

"shall expire not more than 12 months after the date the tank truck last 

passed the test." EPA 

Response: Agree, the suggested change will be made to make the 

regulation consistent.