### = = ~ = ASSOCIATE D INDUSTRIE S O F MASSACHUSETT S

22 2 Berkele y Stree t • P.O . Bo

x 76 3 • Boston , M A 02117-076 3 • 617-262-1180 • Fax : 617-536-6785 • www.aimnet.or g Februar y 18 , 200

4 Kare n L . Rega s Attention : 31 0 CM R7.0 0 Comment

s DEP/BWP/Busines s Complianc e Divisio n On e Winte r Street , 8t h Floor Boston , M A 0210 8 RE : Comment

s to Propose

d Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.0 0 - th e Contro l o f

Ai r Pollutio n Dea r Ms . Regas : Associate d Industrie s o f

Massachusett

s (A.I.M. ) i s please

d to submi

t th e followin g comment

s to th e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protection' s (DEP's ) Propose d Amendment

s to 31 0 CM R7.0

0 - th e Contro l o f

Ai r Pollution . A.I.M . i s th

e largest employe r associatio

n i n Massachusett

s wit h ove

r 750 0 members . A.I.M . member s includ e larg e an d smal l employer

s fro mth e industrial , commercia

l an d servic e sectors , includin g man y peopl e affecte d b

y thi s propose

d rule . A.I.M. , throug h aworkgrou p o f it s members , ha

s bee n especiall

y active i n th

e developmen

t o f thes e regulations , especiall

y th e propose d regulatio n dealing wit h arevise d opacit y standar d 31 0 CM R 7.06(l)(c) . Th e origina l A.I.M . workgrou p wa s convene d ove r seve n year s ag o to addres s alega

l technicalit

y involvin g th

e the n antiquate

d opacit y regulation s —som

e source s coul d not

certif y complianc e wit h th

e then existin g standar

d du e to routin e event

s (startup/shutdown an

d sootblowing) . Th

e certificatio n wa

s require d unde

r th e ne w 31 0 CM R 7.0

0 Appendi x C - Operating Permit Progra man d wa s not du e t o an y enforcemen

t action s by DEP . Approximatel y 1 8 sources wer e affecte d b

y th e rule , generall

y industria

l source s burnin g No . 6 oil . Afte r much discussion , th

e workgrou

p an d DE P cam e t o a n agreemen

t to chang e th e regulatio n to addres s thi s technicality . Th

e regulatio n wen

t through th

e appropriat

e publi c hearin g proces s an d wa s adopted . Tw o year s late r th e Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency (EPA ) decide d tha t th e ne w regulatio n 31 0 CM R 7.061(l)(c ) di d not

mee t th e EP A standar d o f enforceabilit

y an d declare d i t void , throwin g th

e Titl e V permit s fo r

thes e sources into turmoil . A s aresult , th e workgrou

p wa s reconvened . Althoug h th

e visibl e emission proble mpresent

s itsel f durin g period s o f

startup/shutdown o

r sootblowing , not al l o f these sources hav

e problems durin g al l events . Som e hav e problem s jus t

onc e o r twic e ayea

r durin g star

t u p o r shutdown s whil e other

s hav e problems only durin g sootblowing . Developin g asolutio n ha s not bee n eas y since w e canno t look to othe r states fo r muc h guidance . Mos t

othe r state s hav e muc h mor e flexible , highe

r opacit y limits , o

r hav e regulator

y exemption s fo r

th e event s tha t ar e causin g th e problem , nullifyin g th

e nee d fo r a n alternativ e complianc e solution . Conceptually , A.I.M . support s th e inten t o f th e propose d regulatio n an

d w e believ e th

e regulatio n wil l result i n th e lega l technicalit

y being addresse

d fo r th e majorit y o f sources . However , a

s mor e technica

l experimentatio n ha

s bee n undertake

n b y sources , i t

ha s becom e apparen t tha t not al l coul d mee

t th e propose d ne w tighter limits . I n additio n to th

e propose d regulatio n not

bein g a n adequat e solutio n fo r

al l source s (an

d wit h n o indicatio n a

s to ho w these sources wil l b

e deal t with) , A.I.M . feel s tha

t th e propose d proces s i s overl y an

d unnecessaril

y bureaucratic .
BEDFORD, BR1DGEWATER, BURLINGTON, HOLYOKE, WORCESTER, Massachusetts « WASHINGTON, D.C.A.I.M . Comment s t o Propose d Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.0 0 - th e Contro l o f

Ai r Pollutio n Februar y 18,2004 Pag e 2 First , th e assumptio

n contained i n th

e propose d 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c ) i s tha t afacilit y coul d fin d acos t effectiv e wa

y to com e into complianc e with thi s standar d withou t major capita l investmen

t capita l investmen t tha t fo r th e most par t woul d b e fa r i n exces s o f

an y environmenta

l benefi t gaine d unde r reduce d opacity . A.I.M . know s i t i s no t th e inten t o f DE P to requir

e thes e source s to perfor

mmajo r upgrade s simply t

o avoi d infrequent

opacit y events . Second, th

e propose d regulatio n contain s aprovisio n fo r a n approve d "Pla n o f Goo d Operating Practice" . Originally , i n discussion s wit h DEP , forma l approva l o f th e "Pla n o f Goo d Operating Practice " wa s no t a requiremen

t fo r th e alternativ e opacit

y limits . I n fact , DE

P emphaticall

y state d the y di d no t wan t to b e i n th e busines s o f

"approving " these complicate d plans , leavin g tha t expertis e t

o th e peopl e wh o kno w their facilit y best . Th

e DE P intended tha

t afacilit y prepar

e apla n wit h th e aid o f outsid e expert s an d havin g i t on-sit e fo r inspection , nothin g more . However , ove

r time , thi s "requirement " ha s morphed into par

t o f th e regulations , suc

h tha t th e pla n ha s becom e prescriptiv e an

d detailed , wit h DE

P now bein g i n apositio n to approv e o r disapprov

e ver y detaile d operating requirements . W e believ e DE

P i s overregulatin g thes

e source s an d spendin g alo t o f tim e o n valueles s activities . I t

i s enoug h tha t the sourc e i s committe d to complyin g wit h th e numeric limit s o f thi s regulation . Those limits , onc e imbedde

d i n th e facility' s operatin

g permit , wil l full y satisf y EP A wit h aproces s tha

t i s analogou s t o virtuall y al l othe r ai r limit s an d standards . Followin g a demonstratio

n o f nee d fo r th e exemption , th

e facilit y should b

e allowe d whateve

r mean s the y nee d to compl y with th e regulation , withou t

abureaucrati c approva

l proces s tha

t pointlessl y spend s bot h publi c an d privat e secto r resources . Also , i f

afacilit y need

s to chang

e aminor portio n o f

thi s pla n i t become s ver y complicate d i n tha

t the y ma y nee d to receive anothe

r approva l fro mth e DE P an d updat e their Titl e V permit . A far bette r approac h woul d b

e to us e th e standar d contained i n th

e propose d regulatio n i n conjunctio n wit h aflexibl e standar

d o r proces s tha

t woul d allo w DE

P discretio n to wor

k wit h eac h compan y to craf t appropriat e an d cost effectiv e guideline s an

d limit s fo r

thos e wh o canno t absolutel y mee t th e propose d 7.06(l)(c ) durin g al l operatin g scenarios . Usin g th e criteri aabov

e a s aguideline , ther

e ar e severa l way s tha t DE P coul d handl

e thes e sources . Individua l permi t limit s coul d easil

y b e crafte d fo r

thos e time s a

t a fe w sources whe

n th e opacit y limit s woul d b

e aproblem . A facilit y could , workin g wit h th e DE P an d outsid e experts , com

e to a n agreemen

t o n individual opacit

y limits , whic h woul d b

e writte n into th

e source' s permit . Th

e advantag

e t o thi s approac

h i s tha t DE P coul d wor k wit h eac h unique facilit y t o mak

e sur e tha t al l appropriat

e operationa

l steps hav

e bee n take n prio r to issuing thes

e limits , bu

t i n th e en d recognizin g tha

t these sources simpl

y d o not hav e th e capacit y t o mee t ne w sourc e standards . Thi s woul d likel y b e ahandfu l o f

sources . A secon d alternativ e i s t o allo w exceedence s durin g atim

e perio d not

t o excee d acertain amoun

t o f operating time . Sinc

e start-up s an

d shutdown s ca

n last ove r a n hou r an d sometime s multipl e hours , th e standar d should not

b e "base d o n asingl e six-minut

e bloc k average " —rather , th

e Pla n o f Good Operating Practice s shoul d b e aguid e fo r an y particula

r unit . However , a

s agenera l suggestion , thi s should read , "base

d o n th e averag e o f thre e consecutive six-minut

e bloc k averages" . Eithe r o f thes e approache s woul d giv e DE P th e necessar

y enforcemen

t tool s t o dea l wit h ba d actor s bu t allo w flexibility . Ther

e i s preceden

t fo r eac h on e o f thes e an d EP A shoul d fin d tha t eac h o f the mca n mee t thei r criteria . EP

A ha s approve d these type s o f

limit s i n othe

r states .A.I.M . Comment s to Propose

d Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.0 0 - th e Contro l o f

Ai r Pollutio n Februar y 18,200 4 Pag e 3 I t seem s irrational t o spen

d avas t amoun t o f tim e regulatin g s

o fe w sources , especiall

y wher e ther e i s n o environmenta

l degradation issue . O f

course , w

e recogniz e th e nee d t o allo w fo r

enforcemen

t o n th e par t o f DE P fo r those source s tha

t operat e erratically . Choosin

g th e NSP S standar d wit h on e o f th e additiona

l flexibl e approache s woul d allo w DE P t o hav e th e tightes t standard s i n th e nation , bu

t allo w som

e flexibilit y fo r

thes e source s tha

t simpl y canno

t affor d major

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

of Professional

Engineer signature on Limited

Plan Application Requirin g aProfessiona

l Engineer' s review i s a

n unneede d burde n fo r th e usua l compan y tha t woul d b e filin g fo r Limite d Pla

n Application s (LPA) , especiall y wher e man y o f th e LPA s ar

e no t particularl y complicated . I f

DE P insist s on havin g areview , DE P shoul d conside r othe r designation s tha

t woul d allo w asimila

r hig h leve l o f

confidenc e i n th

e completenes s o f

th e applicatio n —Certifie d Plan t Enginee r (CPE) , etc . DEPshould

delete the term "air

contaminant"

from 7.02(3)(g) DE P ha s use d th e ter m"air contaminant " i n 7.02(3)(g ) whic h i s define d i n CM R7.0 0 bu t i s not use d i n MEP A (30 1 CM R 11) . MEP A threshold s ar e define d b

y specifi c "federa

l potentia l emissions " o f specifie d ai

r pollutant s (i.e . NOx , S02 , VOC , etc.) . DE P shoul d delet e th e ter m"ai r contaminant " fro m thi s section o f

th e propose d rule s t o eliminat

e confusio n an

d potentia l conflicts . In 7.02(4) (b) Calculation of Emissions (for

LPAs) may have unintended consequences Whil e DEP' s effort s t o creat e apresumptive an

d expedite

d review proces s ar

e certainly laudable , th

e propose d deletio n o f

the sentenc

e i n 7.02(4)(b) , "Th

e calculatio n [ofpotentia l emissions ] ca n conside r propose d limitation s o r

restriction s o

n operatin g rat

e or shor t an d lon g ter

memissions , provide d tha t thes e condition s becom

e federall y enforceable upo n pla n approval " wil l likel y trum p thi s goal . I n man

y instances , sources ar

e able to appl

y fo r a n LP A becaus

e th e potentia l emission s fo r

apropose

d modificatio n ar

e les s tha n 5 TP Y du

e to limitation s the

y voluntaril y propose on source operation . I f potentia l emission s fo r

suc h modification s wer

e to b e determine

d (unrealistically ) withou t consideratio n fo r these restrictions , thes e project s ma y b e subject to CPAs instead . Deadline on submittal

for Source Registrations should not be shortened I n 712(2)(a) , DE

P ha s shortene

d th e deadlin e fo r submitta l o f sourc e registration s to Marc h 1 fro mApri l 15 , adeadlin

e whic h man

y source s hav

e difficult y meeting already . Man y facilitie s d

o not hav e complet e inventory , productio n an

d materia l consumption dat

afo r acalenda r yea r unti l sometim

e i n mi d to lat

e January . Th

e propose d deadline o f

Marc h 1 onl y give s suc

h facilitie s aperio d o f

abou t 3 0 day s to complet e th e Source Registratio n forms . I n fact , DE P should conside

r extending th

e deadlin e to Apri l 30 . Th e sourc e registration s ar

e overl y cumbersom

e an d i n nee d o f a n ambitiou s overhau

l to determin

e simple r methods o f

collectio n o f

dat aa s wel l a s electroni c reporting . Makin g th e deadlin e earlier , withou t asignifican t

simplificatio n o f

th e forms , wil l no

t give facilitie s th

e tim e to properly compil e thei r annua l operating data, complet

e th e calculation s required fo r th e Sourc e Registratio n forms , an

d preven t th e deadlin e fro mcoincidin g wit h othe r required regulator

y filings .A.I.M . Comment s to Propose

d Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.0 0 - th e Contro l o f

Ai r Pollutio n Februar y 18 , 200 4 Pag e 4 DEPshould

add OP-4 conditions to definition of "emergency"

in 7.03(10) I n 7.03(10 ) item(d ) states th e limitatio n o f

30 0 hour s pe r rollin g twelv e mont

h perio d a

s applyin g onl

y t o periodi c testin g an

d " .. . wher

e th e primar y powe r sourc e fo r afacilit y ha

s bee n lost.. . . " However , i n a lette r date d Ma y 28 , 200 2 fro mAssistan

t Commissione

r Colma n t o ISO-NE , DE

P state d that " .. . certai

n Operatin g Procedur

e No . 4 (OP-4 ) condition s ma y qualif y a s emergenc

y condition s tha

t woul d allo w th

e operatio n o f

emergenc

y engines. " DE

P shoul d includ e th e OP- 4 conditio n withi n th

e emergenc

y period . DEPshould

clarify 7.03(23) for

temporary boilers for

boilers built

before June 9, 1989 I n 7.03(23 ) DE

P ha s adde d languag e to stat e tha t th e installatio n o f

atemporar

y boile r wit h ahea

t inpu t ratin g greate

r tha n 1 0 MMBty/h r

i s subject to NSP S Subpar t Dc . Ther

e i s numerou s correspondenc e betwee n EPA , stat

e agencie s an

d regulated sources tha

t indicat e thi s i s not

alway s th

e case . Simpl

e relocatio n o f

a n emission uni t

constructe

d prio r t o th e dat e o f th e applicabl e NSP

S subpar t doe s no t constitut e "construction , modificatio n o r reconstruction" , unde

r th e NSP S rule s absen

t an y othe r physica l modification s whic h ma

y impac t emission s fro mth

e unit . DE

P should 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 not

subjec t t o NSPS , absen

t an y othe r physica l modification s tha

t ma y impac t emission s fro mth

e unit , an d tha t overal l cost s d o not excee d th e threshol d o f

"reconstruction" . O

n amor e philosophica

l note , DE

P should conside r th e prudenc e o f specifyin g th

e applicabilit

y o f federa l regulation s withi n 31 0 CM R7 . DEPneeds to clarify section 7.18(l)(c) Applicability and Handling (for

Volatile and

Halogenated Organic Compounds) I n 7.18(l)(c ) DE

P ha s attempte

d to fol d th

e requirements fo r

coatin g mi x tanks (deleted fro m7.18(27) ) into thi s section . However , i n doin g so , the y hav e actually tightene d th

e emission contro l requirements fo r suc h sources b

y failin g t o carr y ove r man y o f th e provision s formerl y a

t 7.18(27)(c) . Th

e forme r 7.18(27)(c ) provide d specifi c desig n criteri atha

t allowe d fo r

som e leve l o f gaps betwee

n cover s an d tank s an d provide d fo r

opening t

o allo w th e us e o f stationar y mixers . Thi s should b

e pu t bac k int o th e regulations . A.I.M . appreciate s th

e opportunit

y to commen

t o n thes e propose d regulation s an

d look s forwar d to continue d discussion on thes e matters . Sincerely , Rober t A . Rio , Esq . Vic e Presiden

t Environmenta

l Program s RARrg m