RESPONS E T O COMMENT S BOILER S PUBLI C HEARING S HEL D SEPTEMBE R 7 & 8,200 0 CQMMENTERS : 1 . Rober

t A . Ri o (Associate d Industrie s o fMassachusetts ) 2 . Le e Ehrenzelle r (Fran k I . Round s Company

) 3 . Ala n C . Bisho p (Georg e T . Wilkinson , Incorporated) 4 . Rober

t Goldber g (Goldber

g Energ y Management , Incorporated ) 5 . Michae l Ferrante (Massachusetts Oilhea t Council ) Note : Parenthetica l number s a t th e en d o

feac h comment represen t it s commenter , e.g. , (1,3,5) .Comment Give n th e recen t concern s about fue l prices an d potentia l supply problems , DE P shoul d b

e cautiou s about requirin g facilities t o us e on e particula r fue l ove r another . Limitin g fue l choice ma y caus e customer

s significant cos

t increase s an d potentia l los s o ffue l supply . Th e economi c burden i s no t wort h th e smal l gai n i n environmenta l benefit . (1,2,5 ) Respons e DE P i s awar e o fth e cos t an d supply concern s expresse d b y th e commenters . However, natura l ga s i s th e cleanest conventiona l fue l availabl e an d shoul d b

e utilize d i n ne wboiler s i feconomically feasible . Th e criteri a t o b e use d t o determine th e primar

y fue l hav

e bee n significantly simplified . Th e proposa l ha s bee n modifie d t o stat e tha t re d dy e distillat e fue l ma y b e burne d a s the primar

y fue l i fther e i s n o existin g pipeline adjacen t t

o th e facility' s property. Comment I

fDE P proceed s wit

h a presumptio n tha

t natura l ga s mus

t b e used a s th e primar y fuel , limitin g th e us e o fre d dy e distillat e a s backu p fue l fo r onl

y 3 0 days annuall y i s unacceptabl e an d unjustified . A 90-da y windo wwoul d allo wth e custome r greate r flexibilit y an d th e abilit

y t o negotiat

e pric e a s par t o fa n interruptibl e contrac t wit h a ga s supplier . (1,2,5 ) Respons e Th e DE P agrees . Whil e the DE P believes tha t natura l ga s shoul d b

e utilize d a s th e primar

y fue l i ffeasible , DE P acknowledges tha t a lac k o f flexibilit y ma y be burdensome . Therefore , th e fina l regulatio n wil l allo wth e us e o fre d dy e distillat e a s backu p fue l fo r u p t o 90 days pe r calenda r year . Comment Unde r current regulations , applicabilit y i s sometime

s unclea r whe n a facilit

y owne r install s multiple boilers . I n additio n t o applicability , th e information require d from a n applicant ma

y var y i n differen

t region s o

fth e state . (2 ) Respons e Unde r ERP , applicabilit y i s clearl y defined . Only individua l boiler s installe d afte r th e effectiv

e dat e wit h a maximu m firin g rat

e betwee n 1 0 an d 4 0 million Btu pe r hou r ar

e subjec t t o th e ne wregulation . Th e sam e certificatio n form an d outreac h material s wil l b e used state-wide . Comment DE P shoul d delet e references t

o a n "Automate

d Combustio n Contro l System" . Suc h system s ar e expensive , usuall y requir e increased servic e du e t o greate r complexity, ar

e no t always effectiv

e a t significantly raisin g combustio n efficiency , an d ar e manufacture

d b y ver y fe wcompanies . Also , th e proposa l implie

s tha t a boile r equippe

d wit h suc h a syste m require s n o maintenance . (2,4) Respons e Th e DE P acknowledges tha t suc h contro l system s ma y b e mor e expensiv

e an d requir

e mor e extensiv

e maintenanc

e tha n boiler

s equippe d wit h

2conventiona l controls . However , th e greate r overal l combustio n efficiency , lowe r emissions , an d fue l saving s o feve n 1 % t

o 2 % resultin g fro m automate d combustio n contro l system s ar e significant benefits . Th e DE P believes tha

t th e incentive , i.e. , n o mandate d tune-up , t

o instal l suc h a contro l syste m shoul d b

e retained i n th e regulation . B y waivin g th e tune-u p requirement , DE P does no t mea n t o impl y tha t thes e boiler

s d o no t requir e servic e o r maintenance . Any boile r subjec t t o thi s regulatio n mus

t b e operated i n accordanc e \wt h the manufacturer' s standar d operatin g an d maintenanc

e procedures . Finally , th e us e o fa n automate

d combustio n contro l syste m i s optional , no t required . Comment Th e propose d carbo n monoxide (CO ) limi t o f0.08 lbs pe r million Btu i s reasonabl e unde r mos

t operatin g conditions . However , boiler s designed t

o operat e a t lo wfirin g rates (hig h turndow n ratios) ma

y no t mee t th e C O limi

t whe n operatin g belo

w25 % o fthei r maximu m firin g rate . Sinc e hig h turndow n ha s severa l benefits , suc h a s fue l efficienc y an d bette r contro l ove r temperature/pressure , th e DE P shoul d no t hol d boiler

s designed fo r hig h turndow

n t o th e 0.08 C O limi

t whe n operate

d a t les s tha n 25 % o

f maximu m firin g rate . (2 ) Respons e Th e DE P agrees . Th e propose d languag e ha s bee n amended t o state tha

t boiler s designed with a hig h turndow n ratio , i.e. , greate r tha n 4 t o 1 , wil l no

t b e hel d t o th e C O limi

t specified i n 31 0 CM R 7.26(33)(b) whil e operatin g a t les s tha n 25 % o

fth e maximu m firin g rate . Comment Th e propose d visibl e emissio n standard s ar e mor e stringent tha n existin g requirements . Th e propose d regulatio n shoul d reference th e existin g standard s i n 31 0 CM R 7.06 . (1 ) Respons e Th e DE P disagrees . Th e standard s specified i n 31 0 CM R 7.06 apply t o combustio n o

fan y fossi l fuel , includin g residua l oi l an d coal . Thi s proposa l allow s only natura l ga s o r re

d du e distillat

e t o be burned . Thes e are clea n fuel s tha t emit lo wlevel s o

fvisibl e emissions , an d therefore , ca n mee t th e 1 0 percen t opacit

y standard . Comment Annua l tune-ups ar e cost effective , bu

t th e commente r doe s no t understan d th e benefit o

frequirin g tw

o annua l tuneups fo r oil-fire d boilers . Al l ER P boiler s shoul d b

e require d t o underg o on e tune-u p annually , regardles s o f th e fuel . (2 ) Respons e Th e DE P disagrees . Combustio n contro l setting s tha t are adjusted b

y mechanica l linkages ca n chang e o r "drift" ove r time , resultin g i n reduced combustio n efficienc

y an d increase d emissions . Sinc e re d dy e distillat e

3result s i n somewha

t highe r emission s tha n natura l ga s eve n unde r optima l conditions , th e Department believes tha t a n additiona l tune-u p pe r yea r i s warrante d fo r oil-fire

d boilers . Comment A n annua l tuneu p i s th e ver y minimu m standar

d tha t shoul d b

e utilize d for ca m an d linkag e styl e burners . (3) Respons e Th e DE P agrees . Comment Th e DE P shoul d eliminat e th e reference t

o th e aci d de

wpoin t a s bein g approximately 300 ° F . an d th e requiremen t t o maintai n th e flu e ga s temperatur

e abov e th e aci d de

wpoin t a t th e stac k

exit . Th e actua l de

w poin t o fflu e ga s i n a natura l gas-fired boile r i s approximately 190 ° F , no t 300 ° F . Boilers hav

e bee n operate

d fo r years a

t temperature

s tha t are occasionall y belo

wth e aci d de

wpoint, suc h a s durin g col d startup . Stainles s stee l o r refractor y lining s ar

e currently i n us e t

o effectively manag e flu e ga s condensation . (2 ) Respons e Th e DE P agrees . Th e requirement t o maintai n th e flue ga s temperatur e abov e th e aci d de

wpoin t (approximately 300 ° F ) i s deleted . Comment Th e ful l impac t o fth e propose

d regulation s canno

t b e determine

d withou t havin g acces s t

o th e ERP-Boile rWorkbook . Th e workboo k

shoul d hav

e bee n availabl e t

o commenter

s a s par t o fth e publi c hearin g package . DE P shoul d exten d th e publi c comment perio d an d postpon e implementatio n o f the regulation . (5 ) Respons e Th e DE P agree s tha t intereste

d partie s would hav

e ha d a bette r understandin g o

fth e economi c impac

t o fth e proposa l havin g rea d th e draf t workbook

. Th e additiona l information concernin g th e fue l cos t analysi s would hav

e bee n useful . However , revision s t o the proposa l greatly simplif y the criteri a use d t

o determin e th e require

d fuel . Deletio n o

fth e requiremen

t t o conduc t a cost analysi s an d cost threshol d number s from th e regulatio n obviate s th e nee d t

o exten d th e commen

t perio d o r postpon e implementation . Comment Th e difference betwee n natura l ga s an d fue l oi l emission s fro m boiler s betwee n 1 0 an d 4 0 million Btu pe r hou r i s no t tha t significant i

fon e consider s ne wboile r technology . (5 ) Respons e Th e DE P disagrees . Th e propose d emissio n limit

s fo r natura l ga s an d re

d dy e distillat e reflec t th e differences i n emission s betwee n th e tw o fuel s a s burne d usin g current boile r technology. Emission s from a natura l gas-fired

4

### boile r wil l emi t 1/ 4 o f th e NOx , 1/ 2 th e particulat

e matte r an d virtuall y n o SOx . Commen t Wha t is the justification for allowing th e us e o f re d dy e distillat e fue l a s a

n alternativ e onl y whe n th e facilit y i s greater tha

n on e hal fmil e fro m th e neares t existing natura

l ga s pipeline? (5 ) Respons e Th e commente

r misinterprete

d thi s section o

f th e propose d rule. Th e draf

t allow s a n owne

r whos e facilit y is locate d furthe r tha n 1 4 mil e fro m an existing natural ga

s pipelin e t o choos e re d dy e distillat e withou t havin g t o demonstrat

e tha t th e cos t ceilings specifie

d i n th e propose d regulatio

n wer e exceeded . However

, this provisio

n ha s been delete

d a s par t o fth e decision t o simplif y th e fuel us e section o

fth e regulation . Commen t Th e Massachusett

s Oilhea t Counci l ha

s contacte d tw o majo r boile r manufacturer

s regardin g the proposal . Reportedly , th e manufacturer

s expresse d concer n abou t the impac

t o fth e propose d regulation

s o n thei r abilit y t o d o busines s i n Massachusett

s and boile

r sales i n thei r entir

e produc t line . (5 ) Respons e Durin g developmen

t o f th e proposal DE P receive

d request s fro m industr y t o adjus t tw o emission limit

s becaus e the y coul d no t b e me t consistentl

y wit h existing equipment

. DE P agree

d t o mak e sligh t adjustment

s t o th e particulat e limi t fo rgas-fire d boiler s and th e NO xlimi t fo rdistillate-fire

d boilers , a s suggested . Th e DE P receive

d onl y on e commen

t concerning th

e propose d emission limit s (C O limit

) propose d durin g th e public commen

t period . DE P agree

d wit h th e commenter

, an d modifie d th e fuel limi t section accordingly

. Excep t fo rth e abov e comment

, DE P receive

d n o comment

s fro m boile r manufacturer

s orsales representative

s tha t the propose

d requirement

s coul d no t b e me t o raffec t "thei r abilit

y t o d o busines s in Massachusetts" . Th e propose

d emission limit

s ar e equivalen

t t o thos e currentl y require d o f boiler s approve d unde r th e permittin

g requirement

s o f31 0 CM R 7.02 . Commen t Th e proposal require s an excessiv

e level o f recor d keeping . Severa l recor

d keeping items , suc h a s Bt u conten t o rsulfu r conten

t o fnatural gas , ar

e no t unde r th e facility' s contro l o r no t neede d t o demonstrat

e compliance. (1,2

) Respons e Th e DE P agree

s and ha s simplifie d th e recor d keeping requirement

s b y deleting unnecessar

y recordkeeping items .

5