r ox ni.ver r'Sper Cc, LLC 

2?5 Psrk 5:ree: 

PC Box 5c'.5 

Hcusatonic MA 01236-01:65 

• L'\2 L;L, 3345 

P 27A 16c' Fox RIVER PAPER C° 

February 19, 2004 

Ms. Karen L. Regas 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

MATTER: Comments to Proposed Regulations 310 CMR 7.00 - The Control of Air 

Pollution 

Dear Ms. Regas: 

Fox River Paper Company - Rising Division 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. Fox River Paper Company is a specialty paper mill located in Housatonic, 

Massachusetts. Fox River has been active with the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) in the 

development of these regulations, especially the proposed opacity regulation at 310 CMR 7.06 (l)(c). 

Fox River was part of the original AIM workgroup that convened over 7 years ago to address a legal 

technicality involving 310 CMR 7.06. Specifically, Fox River was one of several sources that could not 

certify under 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix C that it was in compliance with the then existing opacity standard 

due to routine events - startup/shutdown and sootblowing. 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 7.06(c) did not meet the EPA 

standard of enforceability and had declared it void and forced a rewrite and re-issuance of the regulation 

and, coincidentally, threw the Title V permits for these sources into turmoil. The current proposed 

regulations address EPA concerns with 310 CMR 7.06 (l)(c). 

AIM's workgroup was reconvened to review the Department's proposed revised regulation. Fox 

River has continued to be part of that workgroup and supports the position that AIM has taken relative to 

the entire 310 CMR 7.00 proposed modifications. 

While recognizing the need to allow DEP enforcement for those sources that operate erratically, Fox 

River offers the following specific comments to the proposed changes. 

The proposed regulation contains a provision for an approved "Plan of Good Operating Practice". 

Originally, 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 complicated good 

operating plans - the facility would need to prepare one and have it on-site for inspection. 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 plans. The problems with DEP reviewing and approving such plans include the following: 

Representing Fox River and Gilbert Brands 
Ms. Karen L. Regas 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

February 19, 2004 

Page 2 

1. The Operating Plans are the facilities responsibility and not DEP's. DEP's approval or 

review of such Plans will likely have no effect on whether or not a source meets the 

opacity limits. 

2. The Plans contain procedures that change as facilities change and it is overly burdensome 

for facilities to submit such changes to DEP for approval. 

3. DEP is not equipped to review and approve Operating Plans in a timely or consistent 

fashion. 

4. It is not practical to consistently enforce such Operating Plans and to certify compliance. 

How will a facility certify that it is in compliance with the Operating Plan, if for example, 

it deviated from the Plan, but did not create a visible emission? 

5. It is enough that a facility 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 expends both public and private sector resources. 

6. Fox River points to the US EPA requirements for QA/QC Plans under NSPS. These 

plans are prepared by the facility for the facility use and must incorporate any standards 

in the applicable regulations. They must meet the standard of Good Engineering 

Practice, but the specific provisions are not "approved" by the Agency or the Department. 

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

with a flexible standard that would allow DEP discretion to work with each company to establish 

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

310 CMR 7.06(c) regulation during all operating scenarios. 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 operating permit. 

Sincerely, 

FOX RIVER PAPER CO., LLC. 

0 

Stephen A. Graham 

Mill Manager 

SAG:mh 

Federal Exp. 8435 0468 5661