= = ~ = ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 

222 Berkeley Street • P.O. Box 763 • Boston, MA 02117-0763 • 617-262-1180 • Fax: 617-536-6785 • www.aimnet.org 

February 18, 2004 

Karen L. Regas 

Attention: 310 CMR 7.00 Comments 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

RE: Comments to Proposed Regulations 310 CMR 7.00 - the Control of Air Pollution 

Dear Ms. Regas: 

Associated Industries of Massachusetts (A.I.M.) is pleased to submit the following comments to the 

Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP's) Proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 - the 

Control of Air Pollution. A.I.M. is the largest employer association in Massachusetts with over 7500 

members. A.I.M. members include large and small employers from the industrial, commercial and 

service sectors, including many people affected by this proposed rule. 

A.I.M., through a workgroup of its members, has been especially active in the development of these 

regulations, especially the proposed regulation dealing with a revised opacity standard 310 CMR 

7.06(l)(c). 

The original A.I.M. workgroup was convened over seven years ago to address a legal technicality 

involving the then antiquated opacity regulations — some sources could not certify compliance with the 

then existing standard due to routine events (startup/shutdown and sootblowing). The certification was 

required under the new 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix C - Operating Permit Program and was not due to any 

enforcement actions by DEP. Approximately 18 sources were affected by the rule, generally industrial 

sources burning No. 6 oil. 

After much discussion, the workgroup and DEP came to an agreement to change the regulation to address 

this technicality. The regulation went through the appropriate public hearing process and was adopted. 

Two years later the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the new regulation 310 CMR 

7.061(l)(c) did not meet the EPA standard of enforceability and declared it void, throwing the Title V 

permits for these sources into turmoil. As a result, the workgroup was reconvened. 

Although the visible emission problem presents itself during periods of startup/shutdown or sootblowing, 

not all of these sources have problems during all events. Some have problems just once or twice a year 

during start up or shutdowns while others have problems only during sootblowing. Developing a solution 

has not been easy since we cannot look to other states for much guidance. Most other states have much 

more flexible, higher opacity limits, or have regulatory exemptions for the events that are causing the 

problem, nullifying the need for an alternative compliance solution. 

Conceptually, A.I.M. supports the intent of the proposed regulation and we believe the regulation will 

result in the legal technicality being addressed for the majority of sources. However, as more technical 

experimentation has been undertaken by sources, it has become apparent that not all could meet the 

proposed new tighter limits. In addition to the proposed regulation not being an adequate solution for all 

sources (and with no indication as to how these sources will be dealt with), A.I.M. feels that the proposed 

process is overly and unnecessarily bureaucratic. 

BEDFORD, BR1DGEWATER, BURLINGTON, HOLYOKE, WORCESTER, Massachusetts « WASHINGTON, D.C. 
A.I.M. Comments to Proposed Regulations 310 CMR 7.00 - the Control of Air Pollution 

February 18,2004 

Page 2 

First, the assumption contained in the proposed 310 CMR 7.06(l)(c) is that a facility could find a cost 

effective way to come into compliance with this standard without major capital investment capital 

investment that for the most part would be far in excess of any environmental benefit gained under 

reduced opacity. A.I.M. knows it is not the intent of DEP to require these sources to perform major 

upgrades simply to avoid infrequent opacity events. 

Second, the proposed regulation contains a provision for an approved "Plan of Good Operating Practice". 

Originally, in discussions with DEP, formal approval of the "Plan of Good Operating Practice" was not a 

requirement for the alternative opacity limits. In fact, DEP emphatically stated they did not want to be in 

the business of "approving" these complicated plans, leaving that expertise to the people who know their 

facility best. The DEP intended that a facility prepare a plan with the aid of outside experts and having it 

on-site for inspection, nothing more. 

However, over time, this "requirement" has morphed into part of the regulations, such that the plan has 

become prescriptive and detailed, with DEP now being in a position to approve or disapprove very 

detailed operating requirements. We believe DEP is overregulating these sources and spending a lot of 

time on valueless activities. It is enough that the source is committed to complying with the numeric 

limits of this regulation. Those limits, once imbedded in the facility's operating permit, will fully satisfy 

EPA with a process that is analogous to virtually all other air limits and standards. Following a 

demonstration of need for the exemption, the facility should be allowed whatever means they need to 

comply with the regulation, without a bureaucratic approval process that pointlessly spends both public 

and private sector resources. Also, if a facility needs to change a minor portion of this plan it becomes 

very complicated in that they may need to receive another approval from the DEP and update their Title V 

permit. 

A far better approach would be to use the standard contained in the proposed regulation in conjunction 

with a flexible standard or process that would allow DEP discretion to work with each company to craft 

appropriate and cost effective guidelines and limits for those who cannot absolutely meet the proposed 

7.06(l)(c) during all operating scenarios. Using the criteria above as a guideline, there are several ways 

that DEP could handle these sources. Individual permit limits could easily be crafted for those times at a 

few sources when the opacity limits would be a problem. 

A facility could, working with the DEP and outside experts, come to an agreement on individual opacity 

limits, which would be written into the source's permit. The advantage to this approach is that DEP could 

work with each unique facility to make sure that all appropriate operational steps have been taken prior to 

issuing these limits, but in the end recognizing that these sources simply do not have the capacity to meet 

new source standards. This would likely be a handful of sources. 

A second alternative is to allow exceedences during a time period not to exceed a certain amount of 

operating time. Since start-ups and shutdowns can last over an hour and sometimes multiple hours, the 

standard should not be "based on a single six-minute block average" — rather, the Plan of Good 

Operating Practices should be a guide for any particular unit. However, as a general suggestion, this 

should read, "based on the average of three consecutive six-minute block averages". 

Either of these approaches would give DEP the necessary enforcement tools to deal with bad actors but 

allow flexibility. There is precedent for each one of these and EPA should find that each of them can 

meet their criteria. EPA has approved these types of limits in other states. 
A.I.M. Comments to Proposed Regulations 310 CMR 7.00 - the Control of Air Pollution 

February 18,2004 

Page 3 

It seems irrational to spend a vast amount of time regulating so few sources, especially where there is no 

environmental degradation issue. Of course, we recognize the need to allow for enforcement on the part 

of DEP for those sources that operate erratically. Choosing the NSPS standard with one of the additional 

flexible approaches would allow DEP to have the tightest standards in the nation, but allow some 

flexibility for these sources that simply cannot afford major upgrades. 

In addition to commenting on 310 CMR 7.06(l)(c) A.I.M. would like to address the following issues: 

Requirement of Professional Engineer signature on Limited Plan Application 

Requiring a Professional Engineer's review is an unneeded burden for the usual company that would be 

filing for Limited Plan Applications (LPA), especially where many of the LPAs are not particularly 

complicated. If DEP insists on having a review, DEP should consider other designations that would 

allow a similar high level of confidence in the completeness of the application — Certified Plant Engineer 

(CPE), etc. 

DEP should delete the term "air contaminant" from 7.02(3)(g) 

DEP has used the term "air contaminant" in 7.02(3)(g) which is defined in CMR 7.00 but is not used in 

MEPA (301 CMR 11). MEPA thresholds are defined by specific "federal potential emissions" of 

specified air pollutants (i.e. NOx, S02, VOC, etc.). DEP should delete the term "air contaminant" from 

this section of the proposed rules to eliminate confusion and potential conflicts. 

In 7.02(4) (b) Calculation of Emissions (for LPAs) may have unintended consequences 

While DEP's efforts to create a presumptive and expedited review process are certainly laudable, the 

proposed deletion of the sentence in 7.02(4)(b), "The calculation [ofpotential emissions] can consider 

proposed limitations or restrictions on operating rate or short and long term emissions, provided that 

these conditions become federally enforceable upon plan approval" will likely trump this goal. In many 

instances, sources are able to apply for an LPA because the potential emissions for a proposed 

modification are less than 5 TPY due to limitations they voluntarily propose on source operation. If 

potential emissions for such modifications were to be determined (unrealistically) without consideration 

for these restrictions, these projects may be subject to CPAs instead. 

Deadline on submittal for Source Registrations should not be shortened 

In 712(2)(a), DEP has shortened the deadline for submittal of source registrations to March 1 from April 

15, a deadline which many sources have difficulty meeting already. Many facilities do not have complete 

inventory, production and material consumption data for a calendar year until sometime in mid to late 

January. The proposed deadline of March 1 only gives such facilities a period of about 30 days to 

complete the Source Registration forms. In fact, DEP should consider extending the deadline to April 30. 

The source registrations are overly cumbersome and in need of an ambitious overhaul to determine 

simpler methods of collection of data as well as electronic reporting. Making the deadline earlier, without 

a significant simplification of the forms, will not give facilities the time to properly compile their annual 

operating data, complete the calculations required for the Source Registration forms, and prevent the 

deadline from coinciding with other required regulatory filings. 
A.I.M. Comments to Proposed Regulations 310 CMR 7.00 - the Control of Air Pollution 

February 18, 2004 

Page 4 

DEP should add OP-4 conditions to definition of "emergency" in 7.03(10) 

In 7.03(10) item (d) states the limitation of 300 hours per rolling twelve month period as applying only to 

periodic testing and " ... where the primary power source for a facility has been lost... . " However, in a 

letter dated May 28, 2002 from Assistant Commissioner Colman to ISO-NE, DEP stated that" ... certain 

Operating Procedure No. 4 (OP-4) conditions may qualify as emergency conditions that would allow the 

operation of emergency engines." DEP should include the OP-4 condition within the emergency period. 

DEP should clarify 7.03(23) for temporary boilers for boilers built before June 9, 1989 

In 7.03(23) DEP has added language to state that the installation of a temporary boiler with a heat input 

rating greater than 10 MMBty/hr is subject to NSPS Subpart Dc. There is numerous correspondence 

between EPA, state agencies and regulated sources that indicate this is not always the case. Simple 

relocation of an emission unit constructed prior to the date of the applicable NSPS subpart does not 

constitute "construction, modification or reconstruction", under the NSPS rules absent any other physical 

modifications which may impact emissions from the unit. DEP should clarify that the relocation of 

temporary boilers fabricated prior to June 9, 1989 (the effective date of subpart Dc) is not subject to 

NSPS, absent any other physical modifications that may impact emissions from the unit, and that overall 

costs do not exceed the threshold of "reconstruction". On a more philosophical note, DEP should 

consider the prudence of specifying the applicability of federal regulations within 310 CMR 7. 

DEP needs to clarify section 7.18(l)(c) Applicability and Handling (for Volatile and Halogenated 

Organic Compounds) 

In 7.18(l)(c) DEP has attempted to fold the requirements for coating mix tanks (deleted from 7.18(27)) 

into this section. However, in doing so, they have actually tightened the emission control requirements 

for such sources by failing to carry over many of the provisions formerly at 7.18(27)(c). The former 

7.18(27)(c) provided specific design criteria that allowed for some level of gaps between covers and tanks 

and provided for opening to allow the use of stationary mixers. This should be put back into the 

regulations. 

A.I.M. appreciates the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations and looks forward to 

continued discussion on these matters. 

Sincerely, 

Robert A. Rio, Esq. 

Vice President 

Environmental Programs 

RARrgm