1



### SUMMAR

Y O F COMMENT S AN

D RESPONSE S T O COMMENTS , FRO M PUBLI C HEARING S O N PROPOSE D AMENDMENT S T O 31 0 CM R7.0

0 e tseq . An d 31 0 CM R70.0

0 Thi s regulatio n revisio n affect s th e requirements fo r

engine s an

d combustio n turbine s unde r th e Commonwealth' s Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Regulations . Publi c Hearing s wer e hel d o n th e proposed amendment

s o n Jun e 22 , 200 4 i n Bosto n an

d Jun e 23 , 200 4 i n Springfield . Th

e hearin g recor

d was hel d ope

n unti l 5:0

0 P M on Jun

e 30,2004 . Thi s documen

t responds t o comment

s tha t wer e receive d fro mth

e followin g parties : Associated Industrie s o f

Massachusett

s (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. ) Biomas s Energy Resource Cente r (Biomas s Energy Resourc e Center ) Blu e Sk y Environmenta

l LL C (Blu e Sky ) Bo b Machave

r (Machaver

) Cit y o f Bosto n Environmenta

l Departmen

t (BOSTON ) Conservation Law Foundatio n (Conservatio n Law ) Divisio n o f

Energy Resource s (Div . o f Energy Resources ) Eart h Tec h (Eart h Tech) Energy an

d Environmenta

l Analysis , Inc (Energ y & Env . Analysis ) EnerNoc , In c (EnerNoc ) Engin e Manufacturer s Associatio n (Engine Mfg. ) ExxonMobil e (Exxon ) G E Aircraf t Engine s (Genera

l Electric ) Harvar d University (Harvard ) Homestea d Inc . (Homestead

) ISO-New Englan d (IS O Ne w England) Massachusett

s Institute o f

Technolog y (MIT ) Massachusett

s Petroleu mCounci l (Mas s Petroleum ) Massachusett

s Wate r Resource s Authorit y (MWRA ) MASSPIR G (MASSPIRG ) Ne w England Combine d Hea t an d Powe r Initiativ e (NECHPI ) Northeas t Energy an

d Commerce Associatio n (NECA ) Northeas t Utilitie s Syste

m(Northeast

) Pentt i Aalt o (Aalto ) Pinpoint Powe r (Pinpoint) Polaroi d Corporatio n (Polaroid ) Regulator y Assistanc e Projec t

(RAP ) Sola r Turbine s (Sola

r Turbines ) Southworth-Milto n (Southworth-Milton ) Tennesse e Ga s Pipelin e (Tennesse

e Gas ) Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA )2



## TABL E O F CONTENT S

GENERA L ISSUE S 3 RA P MODE L RUL E 1 0 EXISTIN G REGULATIO N REVISION S 1 1 NE W REGULATION S 1 5 COMBINED HEA T AND POWE R 3 73 

## GENERA L ISSUE S Comment 1. Support s th e proposa l i n concept , includin g requirin g emergenc y engine s t o mee

t federa l standard s an d th e diesel fue l requirements . (Polaroid ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 2. Support s th e proposa l i n th e followin g areas : us

e o f "nationa l model wit h regar

d to emission standards" ; proces s an d paperwor

k reductio n aspects ; an

d cleare r directio n o f wha t i s required . (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 3. Th e DE P mus t provid e sufficien t

staf f an d oversigh

t o f th e Environmenta

l Results Progra m(ERP ) tool s a

s the y apply t o these generators . (BOSTON ) Response: Th e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n (DEP ) ha

s propose d th e us e o f ER P tool s to implemen t regulation s fo r

engine s an

d turbines . Th

e ER P methods suc

h a s certification , piggybackin g o n federa

l standard s fo r emission s an

d fuel , along wit h specifyin g operationa

l an d dispersio n requirements i n th e rule , ar e muc h les s resource intensiv e tha n case-by-cas

e revie w o f

individua l projects . Comment 4. DE P should conside

r requirin g Diese l Oxidatio n Catalysts o n "older , dirtie r generator

s to supplemen

t th e improvement s b y us

e o f ULSD. " (BOSTON ) Response: Th e DEP' s strategy fo r

olde r engine s i s t o gai n emissio n improvements b y requirin g th e burnin g o f

cleane r fuel . I n th

e lon g run , thes e olde

r engine s wil l b e replaced wit h cleane r engine s meeting th

e up-to-dat

e standards .4

Comment 5. "Ther e ar e compellin g healt

h reason s limitin g th

e operatio n o f

olde r diesel fire d distribute d generators. " A n attache d pape r title d "Healt

h Risk s o f Exhaust fro mDiesel

Fueled Electri c Generators" , Geof f Keith , Synaps

e Energy Economics , Jun e 21 , 200 4 examine s an

d put s fort h informatio n o n th e healt h effect s fro mdiese

l emissions . (MASSPIRG ) Response: Th e DE P agree s tha t emission s fro mliqui d fuele d diese l engine s ca

n potentiall y pose healt h risks. T o minimiz e these risks, i t i s no t onl y importan

t tha t th e emission limitation s reflec t th e state-of-the-ar

t an d bur n clea n fuel , but

als o tha t th e unit s ar e site d an d buil t wit h suitable emission dispersio n characteristic s to minimiz e ambien t impacts . DE

P believe s th

e changes t o thes e regulation s wil l improv e air qualit y fromliqui d fuele d engines . Comment 6. "Th e DE P ha s provide d onl y minima l background informatio n o n th e Propose d Rule . Mor e detaile d background shoul d b e mad e availabl e to discus s th

e basi s an d achievabilit

y o f th e standards , an

d th e environmenta

l benefit s fromimplementin g th e Propose d Rule. " (Tennesse e Gas ) Response: Th e regulator

y strategy fo r

emission limitation s wa

s base d upo n th e Regulator

y Assistance Projec t

(RAP ) Mode l Rul e an

d recen t Best Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) determination s o f DEP . Thi s wa

s state d i n th e "Backgroun d Informatio n Document. " Referenc e t o th e we b sit e wher e th e RAP Rul e i s locate d wa s given . Th

e forma l titl e o f

th e RAP Rul e i s "Mode l Regulatio n fo r th e Outpu t o f Specifie d Ai r Emission s fromsmalle

r Scal e Electri c Generation Resources, " "Mode l Rul e an d Supporting Documentation, " date d 1 5 Octobe

r 2002 . Thi s 55-pag

e documen

t include s list s o f individual s an

d organization s tha

t participate d i n th

e project , a

s wel l a s thos e who commented . Commen t 7 . "Th e Propose d Rul e does no t

include man

y necessar

y implementatio n details . Fo r example , compliance-monitorin g requirements ar e no t defined . Monitorin g provision s shoul d b e include d tha

t ar e base d o n th e measuremen

t o r monitorin g o f

operatin g parameters . I n addition , othe r implementatio n issues , suc h a s allowance s durin g start-u p an d shutdown , shoul d be addressed . (Tennesse e Gas) Response: Implementatio n details , i n th e for mo f guidanc e documents , wil l be developed base d upon th e regulation' s requirements a s adopted . DE

P wil l consul

t wit h regulate d communit

y a s necessar

y o n implementatio n detail s an d intend s to provid e trainin g a s necessar y fo r affecte d parties .5

Comment 8. "Th e DE P ha s no t provide d an

y market-base

d option s fo r

compliance . TG

P urge s th e DE P to conside

r suc h options , a

s i t wil l enabl

e companie s to deriv e th

e mos t costeffectiv e solutio n fo r

compliance. " (Tennesse e Gas) Response: DE P di d not propos e an

y market-base

d options . N o comment

s wer e receive d tha

t provid e informatio n abou

t an y market-base

d option s fo r

consideration . Th

e basi s fo r

DEP' s regulator y strategy i s explaine d i n th e response to Commen

t 6 . Comment 9. "Th e propose d regulation s shoul d hav

e aprovisio n tha

t allow s fo r

variances , whe

n warranted , du

e t o th e provisio n o f

significan t

othe r publi c benefits. " (Biomas s Energy Resource Center

) Response: Regulation s adopte

d b y DE P tha t affec t non-attainmen

t pollutants , whic h these regulation s do , mus t

be submitte d to EP

A fo r approva l int o th e Massachusett

s Stat e Implementatio n Pla

n (SIP) . Emissio n limit s i n th e SI P ar e eithe r state d i n aregulatio n o

r ar e determined b y astat

e ne w sourc e revie w (NSR) program . Th e Massachusetts ' NS R progra mrequire s case-by-case revie w an d approval ; th

e emission limit s approved must represen t BACT . Variance s to BAC T o

r regulator y emission limitation s ar

e possible , bu t

woul d requir

e tha t th e varie d emissio n limit s be formall y transmitte d to EP A afte r publi c hearin g a

s a single sourc

e SI P revision . Thi s proces s i s ver y time consuming , wit h th e cost s bein g born e b y th e applican

t an d DEP , an

d a s apractica

l matte r i s aver y limite d option . Comment 10. "Th e regulation s nee

d to recogniz e th

e environmenta

l difference s betwee

n system s tha t operat e frequentl y an

d thos e tha

t onl y ru n occasionally . Expensive afte r treatments provide littl e environmenta l benefi t i n peakin g system

s when peaking d

o no t run . (NECA ) Response: Th e proposa l a t 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(a)2 . allow s individua l case-by-cas e revie w an

d approva l t o se t specifi c BAC T limit s fo r specifi c circumstance s suc h a s peakin g powe

r units .6

Comment 11. "Th e economi

c impac t o f th e proposed regulatio n a

s state d i n Section V o f

th e Background Documen

t does no t adequatel

y reflec t th e rea l cost s o f th e proposed regulatio n an

d shoul d be revised. " (Engine Mf g Assoc ) Response: A majo r par t o f thi s regulator

y actio n i s th

e shiftin g fro macase-by-cas e revie w proces s to th e DEP' s Environmenta

l Results Progra

m(ERP) certificatio n process . I n eithe r process , emission limit s woul d be se t base d o n state-of-the-ar

t o r BACT , resultin g i n no difference s i n air

pollutio n contro l or

operating costs . Thi s shif t t o a n ER P proces s shoul d sav e th e industr y an d DE P "permit " processin

g costs . Th e commen

t does not specif y an y example s o f

cost s "no t adequatel

y reflected. " Comment 12. "Adoptio n an

d implementatio n o f

th e regulatio n a

s propose d wil l discourage , an

d perhap s halt , th e expansio

n o f D G an d CH P i n th e Commonwealt

h o f Massachusetts. ' (Engin e Mf g Assoc ) Response: Th e Departmen

t disagrees . Th

e regulation s provid e stringen t an d consisten

t emission requirements , but

no mor e stringen t tha n wha t woul d be considere

d BAC T i n th

e nea r ter man d anticipate d BAC T i n th e lon g run . A s Massachusett s require s BAC T a

t threshold s lowe

r tha n Federa l Ne w Sourc

e Revie w requirements , th e regulatio n ar

e consisten t wit h othe

r Massachusetts ' BAC T requirements . A s such , th e regulation s ar

e neutra l regarding D G an

d CHP . Th

e regulation s als o provid e astreamline d proces s fo r project s an

d provide manufacturer s an d developers wit h certaint y o f emission requirements fo r

futur e D G an

d CH P projec t development . Comment 13. Th e DE P need s t o hav e a n effectiv e outreac

h progra mto infor mal l partie s o f

th e requirements onc

e th e regulation s ar

e put i n place . Thi s include s publicizin g th e rule s to buildin g owners , contractors , engineers , etc . (Southworth-Milton ) Response: Th e DE P agrees wit h th

e commen

t an d intend s to conduc

t a n outreac h program .7

Fee Syste m Comment 14. A n emission fe e syste

msimila r to th e marke t base d Ne w Hampshir

e syste mshoul d be implemente d a

s soo n a s possible . DE

P shoul d initiat e acommittee wit h th e task o f developin g a

n emission s fee-base

d syste mi n lie u o f

th e propose d emissio n standards . A propose d syste mcoul d b e developed i n afe w months . (Blu e Sky) , (NECA) , (Aalto ) Response: Th e DE P choose to contro l emission s fro mthese source s base d upo n technolog y advances , no t

o n amarke

t base d fee s system . Fue l Requirement

s Commen t 15 . Th e ultr alo w sulfu r

diesel requiremen

t shoul d not

preclud e th e us e o f bio

diesel , bio-diese l blends , bio-oil , vegetabl e oil s o r othe r bio-fuel s tha

t ca n be use d i n diese l engine s a

s lon g a s the y mee t th e EP A sulfu r standards . (Homestea d Inc.) , (Biomas s Energ y Resource Center) , (Div . o f Energy Resources) , & (BOSTON ) Response : DE

P agree s an d th e fue l requiremen

t wil l b e rewritte n suc

h tha t an y liqui d fuel s tha t d o no t excee d th e sulfu r conten t o f Ultr aLo w Sulfu r

Distillat e (ULSD ) ar

e allowed . Comment 16. Th e citatio n o f

4 0 CF R 80.500 i n 31 0 CM R7.05(l)(a)3 . i s correct . Propose d 31 0 CM R 7.02(8)(i)5. , 7.03(10)(b) , 7.26(42)(c) , an d 7.26(43)(c ) incorrectl y cite 40 CF R 80.500(a) . (Eart h Tech) Response: 4 0 CF R 80.500 i s th

e correc t citation . Comment 17. "W e strongl y believ e th

e Departmen

t shoul d requir

e th e us e o f non-roa d instea d o f highwa y diesel fue l fo r

th e application s regulate d unde r 31 0 CM R7.00. " Th

e federa l non-roa d fue l trac k

wil l requir

e ULS D i n 2012 . Becaus e o f storag e issue s i n differen t

area s o f th e stat e an d difference s i n th

e methods o f deliveries , "i t

ma y be difficul t

fo r user s to secur e a n availabl e an

d affordabl e suppl

y o f ULS D highwa

y fue l fo r us e i n small , sometime s remotely located engines... . W e believ e th e requiremen

t currentl y propose

d i n 31 0 CM R7.0

0 coul d ta

x th e abilit y o f

refiners ,8

suppliers an

d en d user s to supply an

d obtai n adequat

e volume s o f

complian

t ULSD , particularl y i n remot

e area s o f th e state. " (Mas s Petroleum) , (Exxon) , (Engine Manufacturer s Assoc. ) Response: Th e stat e o f Connecticu

t ha s recently adopte

d regulation s tha

t requir e ULS D fo r stationar y engine s according t o th e sam e schedul e a s on-roa d vehicles . Connecticut' s actio n should facilitat e increase d supplie s an

d availability fo r

remot e location s i n Massachusett

s i n additio n to ULS D bein g require d fo r mobil e sources i n these areas . Th e increase d deman d shoul d provid e a

n incentiv e fo r

refiner s an

d marketers . Since ULS D wil l b e require d fo r

on-roa d engine s acros s th

e countr y beginnin g i n 2006 , w e d o not believ e tha

t th e stationar

y engin e requiremen

t i n Massachusett

s wil l presen

t alarg e suppl y burde n to industry . Comment 18. Highwa y us e fue l i s taxe d b y th

e stat e an d federa l governments . Th

e sam e fue l use d fo r non-roa d application s i s dyed re d an d i s no t taxed . Because th

e highwa y us e fue l ma y be th e onl y fue l availabl e i n 2006 , stationar y sourc e user s wil l most

likel y hav

e t o pa y th e taxe s (47. 9 cent

s pe r gallon ) an

d the n see k reimbursement . (Mas s Petroleum) , (Exxon) , (Engine Manufacturer s Assoc. ) Response : Th

e Departmen

t i s delayin g th

e ULS D implementatio n dat e unti l Jul y 1 , 200 7 to allo w ampl

e time fo r th e fue l distributio n market s t o stabilize . Se

e response to Commen t 17 . Comment 19. "Accordin g to th

e supplier s o f

ultra-lo w sulfu r

diesel fuel , du

e t o testin g limitations , they canno t guarante e the sulfu r

conten t o f th e fue l t o 0.015 % or

1 5 ppm . A mor

e realisti c limi t i s 0.003 % [sic ] or

3 0 pp msulfu r

conten t whic h i s wha

t th e Connecticu

t DE P ha s propose d i n it s regulations. " (Pinpoint Power ) Response: Connecticu

t ha s recently adopte

d th e sam e sulfur-in-fue l requiremen t tha t DE P ha s propose d i.e . 1 5 ppm . Thi s i s consisten t wit h th e sulfur-in-fue l requirements se t b y EP A fo r mobil e sources beginnin g i n 2006 . I n an y cas e th e regulatio n wil l allo w purchas e o f 1 5 pp mfue l unti l Jul y o f

2007 . Comment 20. Engin e manufacturer s ar

e reluctan t to certif y performanc e o n an

y non-standar

d fue l an d man y voi d warrantie s fo r

non-standar

d fue l use . Potentia

l user s o f non-standar

d (alternative ) fuel s test

performanc e o n use

d engine s rated fro m50k

W t o 300kW .9

"BERC encourages th

e developmen

t o f aprovisio n tha

t provide s fo r

tria l period s fo r

th e us e o f renewabl e fuel s an

d avarianc e proces s tha

t allow s fo r

flexibility. " (Biomas s Energy Resource Center

) Response: 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(a)2 . allow s auni t fuele d b y non-traditiona l fuel s t o establis h emission limit s o n acase-by-case basi s b y filin g aComprehensive Pla n Applicatio n (CPA) . Th

e CP A proces s ca

n b e use d to establis h tria l period s an d allo w flexibilit y fo r

worthwhile , promisin g projects . Se

e als o response to Commen t 9 . Fue l Tankage Issue s Comment 21. Many MWR A facilitie s us e on e fue l storage tan

k to supply fue l oi l to bot

h emergenc

y generator s an d boilers . Th

e proposa l woul d requir

e th e installatio n o f

additiona l storag e tank s or th e purchas e o f

ULS D fo r

us e i n bot h emergenc

y generator

s an d boilers . "DE

P shoul d conside

r deferrin g th

e requiremen

t o f ULS D i n these situation s unti l marke t force s hav e stabilize d th

e availability an

d cost o f ULS D whe

n thi s fue l i s mor

e readil y available , a t th e inceptio n o f

th e non-roa d diesel progra

mi n 2010. " (MWRA ) Response: Emergenc y generator

s ar e limite d to 30

0 hour s pe r yea r operation . Mos t

operat e les s tha n 10 0 hour s pe r year . Separat

e smal l tank

s ar e no t unreasonable . ULS D ha

s bee n availabl e i n th e Greate r Bosto n are

aan d th e requiremen

t tha t i t b e use d i n mobil e source s wil l onl y increas e it s availability fo r stationar y engines . Comment 22. "A t MIT' s powe

r plant , th e sam e liqui d fue l tanks supply a n emergenc

y generator, th

e combustio n turbine , an

d aboiler. " ". . .i t

wil l be require d to either(l ) install , a t a significan t

cost , ane w fue l storag

e tan k dedicated to fue l th

e emergenc

y generator, or

(2 ) us e ULS D t o fue l th

e powe r plant' s combustio n turbin e an d th e boiler , a

t a n estimated increase d cost o f severa l hundre d thousan

d dollar s annually. " (MIT ) Response: Se e response t o Commen

t 21 . Comment 23. Simila r to Comment

s 2 1 an d 22 . Suggest

s tha t fo r smal l sources usin g asingl e tan k to fue l differen t

combustio n processes , suc h a s hospital s an

d schools , "i t

ma y be appropriat

e to provide eithe

r acomplianc e extension o r a n exemptio n to avoi d thei r bein g inadvertently saddle

d wit h asignifican t

ne w expens e a s aresult o f havin g to us

e ultr alo w sulfu r oi l fo r al l combustio n sources. " (Machaver )1 0

Response: Se e response t o Commen

t 21 . 

## RA P MODE L RUL E Comment 24. Th e developmen

t o f the Mode l Rul e was a

n open , tw o year, nationa l stakeholde

r process . Consensu s wa s reache d excep t fo r carbon dioxide . (RAP ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 25. Th e RAP Mode l Rul e provide s astrong an d appropriat

e foundatio n fo r

stat e emission standards . (MASSPIRG ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 26. "Whil e th e Mode l Rul e professe s to be fue l neutral , th e onl y wa y to currentl y mee

t th e propose d emission standards i s b y usin g natura l ga s i n ne w engine s an

d /o r after-market treatmen t devices . Th

e emission limitation s propose d fo r 200 8 an d beyond excee

d currentl y demonstrate

d technology . BER

C i s particularl y concerne d abou t th e unintended consequence

s these standards coul d hav e o n th e developmen

t an d deploymen

t o f ne w fuel s an d cleane r technologies. " (Biomas s Energy Resourc e Center ) Response: A s state d i n th e Mode l Rule , th

e emission limit s ar

e "base d o n th e level s o f

emission s tha t curren t technologie s ca

n achiev e o r ar e expecte d to achiev

e ove r th e next decade. " Th e thre e phase s o f increasingl y tighter

standard s ar e intended t

o spu r researc h an d developmen

t to promot

e ne w fuel s an

d cleane r technologies . Th

e Departmen

t i s committe d t o revie w th

e thir d phase standard

s prio r t o thei r effectiv e date . Thi s i s to assur e tha t th e standard

s remai n appropriat

e o r alternatively , be amende

d a s necessary . DE P ma y als o revie w th

e secon d phas e standard

s i f i t deem s i t appropriat

e t o d o so . Comment. 27. Th e model regulation s ar

e flawe d an

d thei r developmen

t wa s not ope n nor avali d stakeholde

r process . Onl y Connecticu t ha s propose d to follo w th

e model . " A detaile d technica l documen

t mus t be prepare

d b y th e Massachusett

s DE P before proceeding furthe r wit h thi s rule. " (NECA )1 1

Response: Th e DE P ha s use d th e RAP Mode l Rule , it s supportin g documentation an d recen t BAC T determination s a

s it s technica

l suppor t fo r thi s proposal . DE

P disagree s wit h th

e commen t an d believe s the proces s wa s ope n an d valid . I n addition , DE

P ha s provide d anothe r opportunit

y fo r publi c commen

t o n al l issue s durin g thi s rulemakin g proces s Als o se e response s t o Comment s 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , an

d 74 . Comment 28. Th e Mode l Rul e wa

s flawed . Doe s no t

believ e consensus wa

s reached . (Aalto ) Response: Se e responses to Commen

t 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , an

d 74 . 

## EXISTIN G REGULATIO N REVISION S 310CMR7.02(5)(a)3 . Comprehensiv e Plan Applicatio n - Applicabilit y

Comment 29. "Th e proposed amendmen

t to 31 0 CM R7.02(5)(a) 3 shoul d referenc e 4 2 U.S.C . § 754 7 no t §7457. " (Biomas s Energy Resource Center ) Response: Th e referenc e wil l be change d to be consisten

t wit h 31 0 CM R7.26(40)(b) . Als o se e commen t 40 . 310CMR 7.02(8)(i) Emergency or Standby Engines Comment 30. DEP' s background documen t states tha

t "currentl y regulate d existin g liqui d fuele d emergenc y engine s an

d turbine s wil l be require d t o receiv e fo r us e ULS D whe

n availabl e i n 2006. " 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)l.b . voluntaril y applie s to existin g emergenc y unit s smalle r tha n 3,000,00

0 BTU/h r fo r thos e facilitie s electin g to establis h limit s o n th e hour s1 2

o f operation . I t

i s no t entirel y clea

r whethe r th e requirements fo r

ULS D woul d apply i n thi s situation . (Eart

h Tech) Response: Yes , engin

e operatio n bein g restricte d b y complyin g wit h 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)2 . throug h 5 . wil l be require d t o us

e ULS D a

s require d b y 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)5 . Comment 31. 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i) , 31 0 CM R7.03(10) , an d 31 0 CM R7.26(41 ) specif y condition s whe n emergenc

y unit s ma

y operate . "The DE

P shoul d bette

r defin e "imminent " i n referenc e to threats t o powe r outages. " (BOSTON ) Response : Th

e DE P i s adoptin g language a

s suggeste

d b y ISO-New England , th e regiona l electrica l transmissio n organization . Se e response t o Commen

t 42 . 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)3.b . an d c . Emergenc

y or Standby Engines Comment 32. "These section s o f

th e regulation s (an

d a s they exis t

today ) ar e inconsisten

t wit h th e natur e o f th e device s bein g addressed " Request s tha t 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)3.b . be amende d t o rea d " A lo g o f

hours o f operation " an

d als o tha t 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)3.c . b e deleted . (Polaroid) , (Harvard) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: Th e existin g regulator

y languag e wil l b e retaine d a

s i t provide s th

e requirements tha

t DE P deem s necessar

y fo r th e regulatio n to be workabl e an d enforceable b y DE

P an d EPA . 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)5 . and 31 0 CM R7.03(10)(b ) Fue l Requirement s Comment 33. Thes e section s ar

e duplicativ e o f

31 0 CM R7.05(l)(a)3 . an d ar e oppose d a s unnecessar

y language . Concerne

d tha t these section s wil l creat

e applicabl e requirements . Thes e section s should be deleted . (Polaroid) , supporte d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: Th e fue l requirements ar

e repeate d i n section s to assis

t smal l entitie s subject

to th e regulatio n b y providin g applicabl e requirements i n on e place .1 3

31 0 CM R7.02(2)(b)29 . Exemption s fro m Pla n Approval - Turbine s and Reciprocatin g Engine s Comment 34. Include th e followin g language : "an d a n individua l interna

l combustio n engin

e suc h a s a combustio n turbin e o

r reciprocatin g engin

e havin g a

n energ y input capacit y o f les s tha n 3,000,00 0 BTU/H r

installe d prio r

to [si x month s fromth

e effectiv e date]... " " A s currentl y proposed , th

e ne w language wil l n o longe r specificall y exemp

t thes e existin g smal l unit s frompla

n approval , makin g thei r

regulator y statu s i n th

e MADE P regulation s unclear. " (Genera

l Electric ) Response: Th e DE P agrees wit h th

e inten t o f th e commen

t an d languag e changes hav

e bee n mad e i n thi s section t o assur

e greate r clarity abou

t pas t an d futur e exemptio n requirements . 31 0 CM R7.03(10)(c

) Reportin g and Record Keepin g Comment 35. Thi s section require s record s consisten t wit h 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)3 . throug h 5. , although 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)5 . i s no t arecordkeeping requirement . Th e sectio n shoul d rea

d 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)3 . an

d 4 . (Polaroid) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response : DE

P agrees , an

d th e language ha

s bee n changed . 31 0 CM R7.05(l)(a)3 . Stationar y Engine s an

d Turbine s - Diese

l Fue l Comment 36. Polaroi d i s concerne

d tha t Ultr aLo w Sulfu r

Distillat e (ULSD ) a

s specifie d i n 31 0 CM R 7.05(l)(a)3 . ma

y no t be availabl e fo r

us e a s require d b y th

e regulations . (Polaroid) , (Genera l Electric) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: Th e stat e o f Connecticu

t ha s recentl y adopte

d regulation s requirin g th e us e o f ULS D fue l b y stationar

y engine s an

d turbine s durin g th

e sam e time frame a

s require d b y th

e propose d regulations .1 4

ULS D i s currentl y availabl e fo r specifi c user

s i n th e Greate r Bosto n area . Th

e requirements tha

t ULS D be use

d i n on-roa

d mobil e sources i n 200 6 shoul d promot e widesprea d availability . Se e als o Comment

s 1 7 an d 18 . Comment 37. I n propose

d 31 0 CM R7.05(l)(a)3 . language i s suggeste d to replac e th

e regulator

y citation s wit h description s o f th e size unit s tha

t must bur n ULSD . Als o anothe

r languag e chang e suggest s tha t "no supplie

r shal l offe r

fo r sale " ULS D replac e th

e proposed languag e o f "n o perso n .. . shal l accep

t delivery... " o f

ULSD . (Polaroid) , (Genera l Electric) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: Th e firs t suggestion woul d exten

d coverag e o f th e regulation s to engine s tha t received pla n approval s unde

r 31 0 CM R7.02 . Thi s wa

s no t apar t o f th e Department' s proposa

l an d a s suc h th e Departmen

t canno t mak e th e chang e a s suggested . Wit h regar

d to fue l procurement , th e Department' s positio n i s tha t i t i s incumben

t o n th e owner/operato

r procurin g th

e fue l t o kno w wha

t i s required . Comment 38. Th e background documen

t state s tha

t ULS D wil l be require d i n 200 6 wherea s th e propose d regulatio n require s 50

0 pp msulfu r

distillate i n 200

5 an d 1 5 pp msulfu r distillate (ULSD ) i n 2006 . (Eart h Tech) Response: Yes . DEP' s requirements paralle l th e federa l implementatio n o f

lowe r sulfu r conten t diese l fue l fo r motor vehicles . 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i)5. , 7.03(10)(b) , an d 7.05(l)(a)3 . Fue l Requirement s Comment 39. Thes e section s shoul d be change d t o rea d ".. . diesel fue l tha

t doe s no t mee t th e applicable U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y sulfu r limit s fo r fue l pursuan

t to 40 CF R 80.2 9 a s promulgate d Januar

y 18,2001 . O n o

r afte r Jun e 2006 , no person shal l accep t fo r deliver y fo r burnin g i n an

y engine s subject

to th e appropriate section s liste d above , diese

l fue l tha t does no t mee t th e applicabl e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y sulfu r

limit s fo r

fue l pursuan

t to 4 0 CF R 80.500(a) , an

d 80.520(a

) an d (b ) a s promulgated Januar

y 18 , 2001. " (EPA ) Response:1 5

Agree , change

s hav e bee n mad e to th e appropriat

e sections . Th

e ter m"o r an y other " wil l b e adde d followin g th

e wor d "diesel " to allo w othe r fuel s suc h a s bio-derivative s to b

e burned s o lon g a s th e sulfu r conten t i s th e sam e or lowe r tha n ULSD .



## NE W REGULATION S

31 0 CM R7.26(40)(b ) Engine s an d Combustion Turbine s - Applicabilit y Comment 40. Chang e languag e t o rea d "Engine s regulate d unde r 40 CF R 89,90 , 91 , an

d 9 2 ar e exemp t fro mth e requirements o f

31 0 CM R7.26(40 ) throug h (44 ) i n it s entirety. " (EPA ) Response : Th

e language wil l b e changed . 31 0 CM R7.26(41 ) Definition s - Emergenc y Comment 41. Suggest s language t o bette

r defin e imminent

threa t o f apowe r outag e a s follows : "Emergenc

y shal l als o mea

n whe n th e imminent

threa t o f apowe r outage i s likel y du

e to failur e o f th e electrica

l supply , suc

h a s when th e operatio n o f

th e emergenc

y engin e i s require d durin g th

e perio d o f

tim e i n whic h th

e Ne w England Regiona

l Syste mOperato

r begin s voltag e reduction s or involuntar

y load interruption s withi n th e Massachusett

s loa d zone(s). " (Eart

h Tech) Response: Th e DE P i s adoptin g language a

s suggeste

d b y ISO-New England , th e regiona l electrica

l transmissio n organization . Se e response to Commen

t 42 . Comment 42. Recommend

s modificatio n o f

th e definitio n to rea

d a s follows : "Emergenc

y mean s a n electri c powe

r outag e du e t o failur e o f

th e grid , 'i n whol e o

r i n part, ' on-sit

e disaster , loca l equipmen t failure , flood , fire , or

natura l disaster . Emergenc

y shal l als o mea

n when th e imminent

threa t o f apowe r outag e i s likel y du

e t o failur e o f

th e electrica l supply o r whe n capacit y deficiencie s result

i n adeviatio n o f

voltag e fro mth

e electrica l supplie r to th e premise s o f

thre e percen t (3% ) abov

e o r fiv e percen

t (5% ) belo w1 6

standar d voltage , 'o r

period s durin g whic h IS O Ne w England , o r an y successo

r regiona l transmission organization , direct s th e implementatio n o f

voltag e reductions , voluntar y loa d curtailment s b y customers , o r automatic or

manua l load sheddin

g withi n Massachusett

s i n response to unusually lo w frequency , equipmen t overload , capacit

y o r energ y deficiency , unacceptabl e voltag e levels , or

othe r suc h emergenc

y conditions. " (IS O New England) Response : Th

e DE P wil l adop

t language a

s suggested , howeve

r withou t specifi c referenc e t o ISO-New England . Comment 43. "EnerNO C strongl y supports th e DEP' s Propose

d amendmen

t o f th e definitio n o f "Emergency " a

s i t pertain s to th

e operatio n o f

ne w an d existin g emergenc

y engines. " (EnerNoc ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 44. "Th e DEP' s recommendation to amen d th e definitio n o f

"emergency " need

s to explicitl y include situation s whe

n IS O New England declare s Actio n 1 2 unde r th e Ne w England Powe r Poo l ("NEPOOL" ) Operatin g Procedur e 4 ("O P 4" ) "Actio n Durin g A Capacit y Deficiency " or

highe r fo r aspecifie d area . OP4 , Actio n 12 , a s i t i s referre d to , i s th

e star t o f brownout s wit h th

e next ste p bein g involuntar

y interruption s o f

load. " "I t i s recommende

d tha t th e DE P us e languag e simila r to th e languag e tha t th e Connecticu

t DE P ha s use d i n it s propose

d amendmen

t t o th e definitio n o f

emergency. " (Pinpoin t Power) , (Blu e Sky) , (EnerNoc) , (NECA ) Response: Th e DE P i s adoptin g language a

s suggeste

d b y ISO-New England , th e regiona l electrica l transmission organization . Se e response to Commen

t 42 . 31 0 CM R7.26(42

) Emergenc

y Engine s an

d Turbine s Comment 45. Concerne d tha t when existin g emergenc y engine s ar

e replaced , thei r

replacements , bein g subject t o th e proposed requirements , woul d becom e emission unit s unde

r Appendi x C , th e Operating Permit

Program . Thi s woul d affec t annua l cos t i n fee s an

d paperwor

k withou t environmenta

l benefit . (Polaroid) , (Harvard) , (Genera l Electric) , supporte

d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. )1 7

Response: Fee s fo r operatin g permi t

source s ar

e base d o n tota l emission s fromafacility . Emergenc y engine s emission s ar

e require d to b e par

t o f th e operatin g permi t

fe e determinatio n fo r

a facilit y subject

t o th e operatin g permi t

program . "Emissio n units " ar e no longe

r par t o f th e determination . Requirements fo r

emergenc

y engine s wil l be th

e applicabl e requirements tha t must be include d i n afacility' s operatin g permi t i n accordanc

e wit h 31 0 CM R7.00 : Appendi x C(5) . Comment 46. A supplier-regulate d schem e shoul d be adopte

d wher e 31 0 CM R7.26(42 ) fo r

emergenc

y engine s woul d be comprise d o f section s (a

) an d (b ) only , an

d 7.26(42)(d) woul d b e addresse d elsewher

e i n th e regulation s s

o a s t o no t creat e applicabl e requirements i n th e Operating Permit

sense . (Polaroid) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: Th e requirements ar

e locate d togethe

r to assis t subject entitie s t o fin d thei r

requirements . Thi s approac

h i s designe

d to be use

r friendly , especially to thos e entitie s tha t ma y hav e fe w o r eve n no othe r environmenta

l regulator

y requirements o

r ma y be smal l businesses wit h limite d resources . Th e regulator

y approac h wil l remai n a

s proposed . Comment 47. I t i s recommende

d tha t th e ne w standards fo r

non-roa d engine s publishe d i n th e Jun e 29 , 200 4 Federa l Registe r be referenced . (EPA ) Response : EPA' s Tier I V standards wer

e no t par t o f th e Department' s proposa

l becaus e they wer

e adopte d b y EP A afte r DE P proposed thes e regulations . Th e DE P canno t adop t or referenc e th

e Tier I V standard

s withou t a n additiona

l rulemakin g process . Th e Departmen

t intend s t o addres s thi s issu

e withi n th

e next year . Comment 48. Temporar y emergenc

y engine s shoul d exempte d simila r t o 31 0 CM R7.03(23 ) Temporar y Boilers . (Harvard ) Response: Unde r EPA' s regulator

y schem e fo r non-roa d engines , temporar

y emergenc

y engine s ar

e regulated a

s non-roa d engine s an

d woul d no t

be subject

to th e DEP' s regulations . Comment 49.1 8

"Thi s section shoul d be applicabl e to bot h emergenc

y an d standb y engine s , i n conformit y wit h existin g subpart

s 31 0 CM R7.02(8)(i ) an

d 7.03(10) , whic h historicall y regulated thes e engin

e classification s together. " (Genera l Electric ) Response : DE

P intend s to continue regulatio n o f standb y unit s consisten

t wit h pas t practice . Th

e DE P wil l adop

t language to mak

e clea r tha t standb y engine s wil l be subject t o 31 0 CM R7.26(42) . Comment 50. CL F support s the requiremen

t tha t emergenc

y engine s b e require d t o mee t EP A non-roa

d engin e standards . "B y bringin g al l emergenc y engine s unde

r on e standard , th

e Departmen

t simplifie s th

e regulation , mor

e adequatel

y protect s Massachusetts' s air quality , an

d avoid s undu

e regulator

y burde n o n th e Department . Furthermore , becaus e engin e manufacturer s ar

e alread y preparin g fo r

th e EP A standards , incorporatin g the m int o th e propose d emission s limitation s shoul d no t lea d to additiona

l cost s fo r smal l engin e manufacturers. " (Conservatio n Law ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 51. Th e propose d language i s silent

o n previousl y approve

d emergenc

y engine s bein g allowe d t o operat e i n amanne

r consisten t wit h th e proposed chang

e i n th e definitio n o f "Emergency. " Previously approved emergenc y engine s shoul d b

e allowe d to operat

e unde r th e criteri ao f

amodifie d definitio n o f

emergency . (EnerNoc) , (Pinpoint Power) , (Blu e Sky) , (NECA ) Response : Agreed , th e appropriat

e section s hav

e bee n change d to allo w existin g emergenc y unit s to operat

e consisten

t wit h th e requirements fo r

ne w units . Comment 52. "EM A support

s th e adoptio n o f

emission standard

s fo r emergenc

y engine s base

d o n th e US EP A Non-roa

d Mobil e Sourc

e Regulations. " (Engine Mf g Assoc ) Response : Commen t noted . 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(b)l . Emergenc y Engine s an

d Turbine s - Emissio n Limitation s Comment 53.1 9

"Polaroi d believe s tha

t th e prope r implementatio n o f

thi s progra

mi s throug h th

e suppliers. " Th

e followin g languag

e i s offered : " a

t th e tim e o f installation . N o emergenc y engin e .. . shal l b e offere d fo r

sal e tha t ha s no t obtaine d acertificate o f

conformity... " (Polaroid) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: Ultimatel y i t

i s th e responsibilit

y o f th e owner/operato

r to certif y complianc e wit h ai

r qualit y requirements . T o protec t th e owner/operato

r interests , i t

i s recommende

d tha t owner/operators obtai n fro mth e supplie r acertificat e o f

conformity . Comment 54. Support s th e requiremen

t tha t emergenc

y engine s mee

t EPA' s non-roa

d engin e standard

s an d th e requiremen

t fo r ULSD . (Harvard ) Response : Commen t noted . Comment 55. "Emergenc

y turbine s shoul d be afforde d th e opportunit

y to mee t equivalen

t USEP A non roa d engin e standards , rathe

r tha n th e much stricte

r limit s fo r turbine s no w proposed i n Table 1 . (Eart

h Tech) Response: Th e emission limit s fo r

emergenc y engine s ar

e muc h les s stringen

t tha n th e leve l o f emission performanc e tha t ca n be achieved b y combustio n turbine s an d therefor e th e propose d limit s wil l no t

b e changed . DE

P believe s th

e standard

s fo r turbine s i n thi s regulatio n ar

e appropriate . Comment 56. Th e Departmen

t shoul d adop

t carbon monoxid

e emission limitation s fo r emergenc

y turbines . (MASSPIRG) , (Conservatio n Law ) Response: Carbon monoxide level s ar e lo w fro mcombustio n turbine s an d ver y fe w installation s us

e turbine s fo r

emergenc

y power . Th

e DE P doe s no t fee l tha t i t i s necessar

y a t thi s time to se t carbon monoxide emission limit s fo r emergenc

y turbines . Comment 57. "Larg e engine s (output

o f ove r 1 MW ) use

d a s emergenc

y generator

s shoul d eithe

r mee t amor e rigorou s NO x standar

d tha n smalle r engine s o

r b e hel d to th

e sam e standar d a s smal l engines. " "Absen

t acompellin g rationale , MASSPIR G urge s th e Departmen

t to apply th e EP A non-roa

d standard

s to al l emergenc

y engines. " (MASSPIRG )20

Response : Th

e regulatio n a

s proposed an

d a s adopte d require s al l emergenc

y engine s t o mee t EPA' s non-roa

d engin e standards . Thi s wa

s achang e fro mth e Septembe

r 200 3 pre-draf t document . Comment 58. Th e Departmen

t shoul d include provision s fo r mandator y revie w o f

th e standard

s applicable to emergenc

y engines . (MASSPIRG) , (Conservatio n Law ) Response: Th e emission limit s fo r

emergenc

y engine s ar

e th e sam e a s EPA' s non-roa

d engin e standards . These standards becom e mor e stringen t ove r time . Also , a

t th e tim e o f DEP' s proposal , EP

A ha d no t promulgate d it s Tie r

I V non-roa

d standards . DE

P plan s i n th

e futur e to propos e th

e requiremen

t tha t futur e emergenc

y engine s mee

t th e Tier I V standards . Comment 59. "The Propose

d Rul e shoul d clearl y indicat e tha t th e emissio n limit s onl y apply a t ful l load. " (Commen

t mad e fo r bot h emergenc

y an d non-emergenc

y units. ) (Tennesse

e Gas) Response: Th e regulation s a

t 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(e)3.c . an d 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(e)3.c . requir e tha t "testin g shal l be conducted a t ful l design load o f

th e engin e or turbine. " Comment 60. "Th e emission limi t

section s shoul d ad

d aprovisio n tha

t exempt s operation s from complyin g wit h th

e emissio n limit s whe

n unforesee

n circumstance s aris e tha t ar e beyond th e contro l o f

th e operator. " (Tennesse

e Gas ) Response: Th e Departmen

t disagree s wit h adopting suc h a n ope n ende d exemptio n to th

e propose d emission limits . 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(c) . Fue l Requirement s Comment 61. Thi s section i s redundan

t an d shoul d be removed . Se

e commen

t 33 . (Polaroid) , supporte

d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. )2 1

Response: Havin g al l applicabl e requirements i n on e plac e aid s sources , especially smal l businesses , i n findin g wha

t requirement s appl

y to the man d facilitate s compliance . 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(d)l . Emergenc y Engine s and Turbine s - Operationa l Requirement

s - Hour s o

f Operation . Comment 62. "Fo r emergenc

y turbine s an

d I C engines , th

e maximu mannua

l hours o f operatio n allowe d unde

r th e Propose d Rul e shoul d b e change

d fro m30

0 hours t o 50

0 hours . A 50

0 hou r operatin g limi t

i s consisten

t wit h emergenc

y generato

r definition s unde

r EP A Titl e V guidance an

d regulation s i n man

y othe r States. " (Tennesse

e Gas ) Response: Th e Departmen

t disagree s tha

t emergenc

y operatio n shoul d be allowe d fo r 50 0 hours pe

r year . Th e curren t allowe d 30

0 hours pe

r yea r o f operatio n wil l b

e retained . DE

P note s tha t Connecticu

t ha s recentl y lowere d it s hours o f operatio n allowe d fo r

emergenc y unit s fro m50 0 t o 30 0 hours pe

r year . Also , typica l emergenc y unit s operat

e approximately 5 0 hours pe r year . 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(d)4 . Emergenc y Engine s an

d Turbine s - Operationa l Requirement

s - Soun d -Stac k Heigh

tan d Emissio n Dispersio n Comment 63. Thi s proposed section i s inappropriatel y onerou s fo r larg e facilitie s whil e providin g n o environmenta

l benefit . Reques

t tha t section i s change

d to read : " Al l emergenc y engine s an d turbine s shal l utiliz e a

n exhaus t stac k tha t discharge s s

o a s no t to caus e aconditio n o f ai r pollutio n (31 0 CM R7.01(1)). " (Polaroid) , (Harvard) , (Genera l Electric) , supporte

d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. ) Response: Regardles s o f

th e siz e o f th e facility , installation s must mee t minimu mdesign standard s fo r stac k heigh t an d emission dispersion . Comment 64. Requiremen

t fo r soun d an d stac k heigh t shoul d be eliminate d o

r clarifie d wit h aclea

r indicatio n o f

nee d an d benefit . (Tennesse e Gas ) Response:2 2

Se e response t o Comment

s 63 . For sound , 31 0 CM R7.1 0 i s a n existin g universall y applicable requiremen

t fo r soun d tha t al l operation s must

comply with . Th

e stac k height / emission dispersio n requirements ar e necessar

y to assur e goo d moder

n ai r pollutio n contro l practice s ar

e employed t o preven

t negativ e air

qualit y impacts . 310CMR7.26(42)(d)5. Visible Emissions Comment 65. Thi s i s redundant, unnecessar y a s al l source s mus t

comply . A s these ar

e combustio n emission unit s an

d source s o f

smoke , 7.06(l)(b) doe

s no t apply . (Polaroid) , supporte d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. ) Response: Se e respons e to Commen

t 61 . Also , a s combustio n emissio n units , engine s an d turbine s ar

e subject t o 7.06(l)(b) a

s potentia l sources o f

opacity . 310CMR7.26(42)(e)l . Certificatio n Comment 66. I t i s recommende

d tha t thi s sectio n b

e deleted a

s certificatio n shoul d b e primaril y th e responsibilit

y o f th e supplier . Alternately , th e secon d sentenc e o f th e section should b

e removed . (Polaroid) , supported b y AI M Response : Th

e sectio n require s certificatio n o f "complianc e wit h th

e requirements o f 31 0 CM R7.26(42 ) i n it s entirety. " I t include s th

e provisio n tha

t th e owner/operato

r obtai n fromth

e supplie r astatemen

t tha t i t ha s obtained certificate o f

conformity from EP A pursuan

t to 40 CF R 89.105 and , second , th

e owner/operato

r must certif y complianc e wit h othe r requirements suc

h a s sound , stac

k height/emissio n dispersion , visibl e emissions , fuels . I n lie u o f case-by-cas

e permitting , thi s certificatio n o f complianc e wit h al l applicable regulator

y requirements , serves to increas e th e accountabilit

y o f th e owner/operato

r fo r compliance . Comment 67. Thi s section i s unnecessar y a s 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(b)l . states tha t engine s meeting th

e requirements o f

4 0 CF R 89.10 5 ar e automatically certified . "Verificatio n o f th e engine' s manufactur

e dat e shoul d suffice . (Northeas t Utilities ) Response : Se

e respons e to Commen

t 66 .2 3

31 0 CM R7.26(42)(e)2 . and 3 . Monitoring an d Testin g Comment 68. "These provision s appea

r pointles s and.. . exceptionally unfair. " "Polaroi d urge s th e Departmen

t to remove these sections. " (Polaroid) , supporte d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response : For

th e regulation s t o be approvable b y EP A fo r inclusio n int o th

e Massachusett

s Stat e Implementatio n Plan , the y mus t b e enforceable a

s apractical matter . EP A require s tha

t th e regulation s include monitorin g an d testin g procedures . Th

e DE P envision s tha

t suc h provision s wil l rarel y be fo r installe d certifie d emergenc y units ; nevertheles s they must

remai n i n th

e regulation . Comment 69. Fo r SI P enforceabl e emissio n reductions , al l test method s must

be EP A approved . Th

e languag e i n bot h section s shoul d rea

d "test s t o certif y complianc e wit h emissio n limitation s mus t

be performe d i n accordanc e wit h EP A referenc e methods , Californi aAi r Resource s Boar

d Method s approve d b

y EPA , o r equivalen

t methods a

s approved b y th

e Departmen

t an d EPA . (emphasi s added) . (EPA ) Response: DEP

agrees. The change has been made. Comment 70. EP A recommends IS O Metho d 817 8 D 2 be cite d a s i t i s claime d tha

t D 2 i s bes

t fo r reciprocatin g engine s a

s i t i s aconstan

t spee d test . (EPA ) Response : DE

P agrees . Th

e chang e ha s bee n made . 310 CMR 7.26(42)(f) Record Keeping and

Reporting Comment 71. Emergenc y engine s an

d turbine s ar

e require d to certif

y onl y a t installatio n an

d ther e i s no annua l ER P certificatio n requirement . Th e require d record s tha

t ar e t o b e maintaine d on2 4 sit e an d presente

d to th e Departmen

t upo n request, shoul d be certifie d a s tru e an d accurat e unde r th e provision s o f

7.0 1 (2 ) an

d no t 31 0 CM R70.00 . (Polaroid) , supporte d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. ) Response : DE

P agrees . Th

e chang e ha s bee n made . 31 0 CM R7.26(42)(f)2 . an d 3 . Recor d Keepin g an d Reportin g Comment 72. Sam e issues a s discusse d i n Commen

t 32 . (Polaroid) , (Harvard) , supported b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f

Mass. ) Response: Se e respons e t o Commen

t 32 . Comment 73. Many facilitie s hav

e emergenc

y engine s a

t unmanne d o r remot e location s wher

e record s canno t be stored . Th

e language shoul d b e modifie d fromrequirin g tha t recor d be maintaine d on-sit

e t o allo w record s t o b

e kept a t th e closest facilit y tha

t ca n accommodat

e th e recor d keeping requirements . (Northeas t Utilities ) Response: DE P ha s modifie d th

e recor d keeping requiremen

t to addres s th

e comment . 310 CMR 7.26(43) Engines and Turbines Comment 74. Ha s "heard " tha

t th e emission limitation s a

s proposed ar

e onl y achievabl

e throug h th

e use o f natura l gas . Th e emissio n limit s shoul d be attainable throug h adivers e fue l mi x a s a "d e facto natura

l ga s only " polic y "doe s no t mak e fo r soun d economic policy , an

d i s not require d t o provid e fo r

clea n ambien t air. " (Polaroid) , supporte d b y (Assoc . Industrie s o f Mass. ) Response: A s describe

d i n th e RA P Mode l Rule , th

e emission limitation s ar

e fue l neutral . Th

e ULS D requiremen

t allow s the use o f

catalys t base d emissio n contro l technologie s fo r liqui d fuele d units . A s Massachusett s i s i n non-attainmen

t fo r ozone , th e RAP Mode l Rul e non-attainmen

t emissio n limit s wer

e proposed . Th

e 200 5 emission limit s requir

e th e us e o f technologie s tha

t currentl y exist . Th

e 200 8 limit s requir

e technolog y improvements tha

t ar e withi n th

e rang e o f curren t expectations , an

d th e 201 2 limit s2 5 "stretch " th

e technolog y bu t

ar e withi n reasonabl

e expectation s fo r

technolog y expectations . Se

e als o responses t o Comment s 6 , 24 , 25 , an

d 26 .

31 0 CM R7.26(43)(a) . Engine s an d Turbine s - Applicabilit y Comment 75. Th e regulator

y threshold s ar

e proposed to b e lowere d fro mapproximately 30 0 k W t o 3 7 k W fo r emergenc

y engine s an

d t o 5 0 kW fo r

non-emergenc

y engines . Th e propose d regulatio n allow s anumbe r o f engin e application s t o fil e aCP A a s a n alternativ e t o complyin g wit h th e ER P standards . However , bot h complianc e an

d th e CP A "proces s wil l creat

e asignifican t

economic impac t

o n al l operator

s wh o wer

e previousl y exemp

t fromth e regulations . Thi s include s agriculture , forestr y an d industrial concerns operatin g pumps , compressor s or othe r stationar y mechanica

l engine s a

s wel l a s al l user s o f biogas. " (Biomas s Energy Resource Center ) Response : Many o f

th e operation s described i n th e commen

t ar e example s o f

typica l use s tha t wil l fal l directl y unde

r th e EP A non-roa

d engin e rule s an d no t thes e rules . Emissio n limitation s fo r

th e vas t majorit y o f

ne w smal l installation s belo w 300k w wil l be th e EP A non-roa

d emissio n standards . Thi s i s becaus e they ar e EP A regulate d a

s non roa d engine s (portabl e i n practice ) o r becaus e they ar e stationar

y emergenc

y engine s subject t o these DE

P regulations . Th e emission standards fo r

traditiona l fuele d non-emergenc y unit s ar e base d upo n curren

t technolog y fo r

engine s o f

5 0 k w an

d greate r output according t

o th e RAP Mode l Rule . For smal l non-emergenc

y unit s tha

t ar e propose d to us e non-traditiona

l fuel s suc

h a s biogas , th e CP A proces s wil l allo w acase-by-cas e analysi s determinatio n o f appropriat

e emission limits . Finally , i t shoul d b e note d tha

t th e operationa

l requirements , includin g stac k heigh t an d emission dispersion , ar

e les s stringen

t fo r unit s les s tha

n 30 0 kw . Comment 76. "Increas e th

e lower size threshol d to 30

0 kW. " (NECA ) Response : Se

e response to Commen

t 75 .2 6

Comment 77. Non-emergenc

y engine s an

d turbine s not

subject to ER P an d allowe d to submi

t traditional application s mus t be require d t o implemen t Best Availabl e Contro l Technology . (BOSTON ) Response: "Traditional " application s ar e require d to propos e Best Availabl e Contro l Technolog y a s pe r 31 0 CM R7.02 . Comment 78. Greate r flexibilit y shoul d be provide d fo r submission o f

individua l Pla

n Application s fo r potentiall y worthwhil e projects . Ad d languag e "o r othe r unit s tha t the Departmen

t determine s ar

e appropriat

e t o consider. " "Th e DE P shoul d no t

limi t th e optio n o f

obtainin g a

n air pla n approva l to alimite d numbe r o f facilit y types . Thi s optio n shoul d be availabl e to al l sourc e types. " (Eart

h Tech) , (Pinpoin

t Power) , (Blu e Sky) , (NECA ) Response : Th

e DE P believe s tha

t th e benefit s o f

th e certificatio n approac

h woul d b e diminishe d b y allowin g additiona l type s o f project s t o fil e individua l application s i n lie u o f th e certificatio n program . Se e als o responses t o Comment s 6,24,25 , an

d 26 . Comment 79. "Whil e unit s i n ga

s transmissio n servic e ca

n follo w th

e CP A proces s i n lie u o f

complyin g wit h th e Propose d Rule , i t i s implie d tha

t th e emission limit s i n th

e Propose d Rul e ar e feasible . Thus , i t

i s necessar

y to presen

t acas e against th e propose d presumptiv e limits . Base d on TG P experience , th

e NO x limit s propose

d ar e no t achievabl e fo r I C engine s an

d ga s turbine s i n ga

s transmissio n service . Th e DE P shoul d clarif

y thi s fac t

i n suppor t documentation , or

provid e evidenc e to th

e contrary. " (Tennesse e Gas ) Response: Base d upo n revie w o f

prio r application s o f

unit s i n ga

s transmissio n service , th e DE P recognize s tha

t emission limit s shoul d b e se t o n acase-by-cas

e basi s fo r

these installations . I f

a t afutur e time , technolog y ha s advance d suc h tha t aproponen

t i s confident tha t emission limit s se

t i n th e regulation s ca

n be achieved , then th

e proponen

t ca n tak e advantag

e o f th e tim e saving feature s o f th e regulation . Comment 80. User s o f biogas ma

y fil e aCP

A i n lie u o f

complyin g wit h th

e ER P standards . Thi s alternativ e shoul d b e extende d t o al l type s o f

biofuels . (Biomas s Energy Resource Center )2 7 Response: Th e DE P ha s allowe d th

e optio n o f

submittin g aCP

A fo r case-by-cas

e revie w fo r

al l biofue l applications .

Comment 81. Operator s ma y kee p olde r heavil y pollutin g engine s i n servic e i f engin e overhaul , rebuilding , replacemen

t or upgrad e i s determine d to be "construction , substantia l reconstructio n or

alteration " an

d therefor e be require d to mee

t standard s fo r ne w engines . "BER C recommends th

e additio n o f

language clarifyin g you r intent i n regard s to regula

r engin e overhauls. " (Biomas s Energy Resource Center ) Response : Wor

k tha t i s repair b y nature , doe

s no t increas e capacity , o

r i s no t a permanen t relocation , wil l not

trigger certificatio n to ne

w emission an

d othe r standards . Comment 82. Certai n type s o f

project s hav

e th e optio n to fil e aCPA . "However , th e mer e promulgatio n o f aregulatio n listin g these stringen t standard s ma y pre-determin

e th e Best Availabl e Contro l Technolog y ("BACT" ) proces s require d fo r suc h a n individua l permit. " (NECA ) Response: Se e response to Commen

t 79 . 310CMR 7.26(43)(b) Emission Limitations Comment 83. A ne w subsection shoul d be adde d to rea d "5 . An y revision s to th e emissio n limit s i n Table s 2 an

d 3 shal l b e submitte d to EP A fo r approval. " Als o chang

e "will " t o "shall " i n subsection s 2 . an

d 3 . (EPA ) Response : Massachusett s i s awar e tha t fo r changes i n emission limit s to be federall y enforceable , they mus t

be approve

d b y EP A a s par t o f th e Massachusett

s Stat e Implementatio n Plan . Th e suggeste

d language i s no t

contained i n an

y o f DEP' s regulation s an

d i s no t necessary . The DEPhas changed

"will" to "shall." Comment 84.2 8

"W e woul d appreciat

e i f DE P woul d articulat

e it s large r plan " wit h respec

t to carbon dioxid e control s an

d climat e chang e strategy . (Northeas t

Utilities ) Response: Th e commente

r shoul d revie w th

e Commonwealth' s "Climat e Protectio n Plan " whic h ca n b e foun d a t www.mass.gov/envi

r unde r key resources . Comment 85. "Th e emission limitation s i n Tabl e 2 o f 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(b ) tha t diffe r fromthos e i n 4 0 CF R8 9 i s [sic ] confusin g an d might requir e th e manufacturer s to design differen t engine s specifi c t o Massachusett

s requirements. " (Genera l Electric ) Response: Pleas e not e tha t th e emissio n limit s i n 40 CF R 8 9 apply to emergenc

y engine s wherea

s th e emission limit s i n Tabl e 2 apply to engine s i n non-emergenc y service . Comment 86. "(T)h e proposed emissio n limit s i n Tabl e 2 seem s t o prett y much preclud

e an y ne w liqui d fue l (diesel ) engines , unles s they ca n otherwis e qualif

y fo r a n individua l Pla

n Application. " (Eart

h Tech) Response: Se e respons e to Commen

t 74 . Comment 87. I t i s propose

d t o regulat

e ammoni aemission s fromturbine s bu t no t fo r engine s an

d t o regulat e CO 2 fromengine s but

no t turbines . Regulated pollutant s fromengine s an d turbine s shoul d match . Th e 2ppmammoni alimi t

i s "unnecessaril

y stric t fo r asmal l turbin e SC

R unit. " Also , "an

y referenc e to pp mlimit s shoul d b e reference d to standar d conditions , suc

h a s dr y basi s a t 15 % O2. " (Eart

h Tech) Response : Ammoni aemission s fo r SC R controlle d engine s ar

e variabl e dependin

g o n engin e dut y cycle s an

d whethe r th e engin e i s liquid , gas , o

r dua l fueled . DE

P doe s not believ e i t i s appropriat

e t o se t ammoni aemission limit s fo r engine s a

t thi s time . Th e CO 2 limit s wil l apply t o turbine s also . Th e pp mlimi t

wil l b e require d t o be reporte d a t standar d conditions . Comment 88.2 9 "MASSPIR G supports th e emission standard

s proposed fo r

non-emergenc

y engine s an

d turbine s (Table 2 an

d 3 i n proposed 31 0 CM R7.26(43)),. . .however , give n tha t Massachusett

s i s classifie d a

s anon-attainmen

t are afo r ozone , th

e Departmen

t shoul d follo w severa

l othe r state s an d adop t mor e stringen t NO x standards. " (MASSPIRG ) Response : Th

e DE P chose to propos e th

e RAP Mode l Rul e emissio n limit s fo r severa l reasons . Althoug h ther

e ma y be som e mor e stringen t i n afe w states , th

e propose d DE P limit s d o i n th e nea r ter mrepresen

t BAC T an

d push realisti c performanc e improvements ove

r tim e wit h th

e oute r yea r stretch goa

l emission limit s havin g abette r chanc e o f bein g attaine d i f

anumbe r o f state s adop

t th e Mode l Rule . Thi s approac h als o provide s greate

r certaint y to manufacturer s abou

t futur e requirements an

d enable s the

m to direc t thei r effort s t o complyin g wit h th e sam e standard

s fo r anumbe r o f states . Comment 89. Ther e shoul d b e a

n emission limitatio n fo r

ammoni astandar

d fo r non-emergenc

y engines . (MASSPIRG),(Conservatio n Law ) Response : Se

e response t o commen

t 87 . Comment 90. "The standard

s fo r non-emergenc

y generator

s ar e aggressiv

e withou t imposin g a

n undu e burde n on D G customer

s or manufacturers . Specifically , th e NO x standards proposed fo r non-emergenc

y engine s ar

e bot h aggressiv

e an d reasonable. " ". . .(T)he NO x standard s ar e mor e lenien t tha n thos e adopte

d i n othe r states , includin g California , Eas t Texas , an

d Connecticut . Althoug h curren t diesel fuele d engine s wil l hav e troubl e meeting th

e propose d NO x standards , othe

r reciprocatin g engine s wil l b e abl e t o mee t them . Lean

bur n engine s fuele d b y natura l ga s ca n alread y achiev e th e propose d 200 4 NO x standar

d wit h selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR ) systems . Wit h reasonabl e researc h an d developmen

t efforts , these unit s wil l be abl e to mee t th e propose d 200 8 an

d 201 2 standards . Rich-bur

n engine s fuele d b y natura l ga s ca n als o mee

t th e 200 4 NO x standar

d usin g athree-wa

y catalyst ; thes e unit s to o shoul d be abl e t o mee t th e 200 8 an d 201 2 standards. " (Conservatio n Law ) Response : Commen

t noted . Comment 91. "MASSPIR G strongl y supports th e inclusio n o f

a n emissio n standar

d fo r CO2. " "B y regulatin g CO2 , th

e Departmen

t i s effectivel y fulfillin g th e environmenta

l an d publi c healt h mandat e o f it s enablin g legislatio n an d responding t o th

e challeng e o f

th e Climat e Actio n Pla

n o f th e New England Governors an d th e Easter n Canadia

n Premiers . (MASSPIRG )3 0 "Th e CO 2 limit s liste d [i n th

e RAP Mode l Rule ] ar

e no t rigorous , bu t

they recogniz e th

e increasingly urgen

t nee d to contro l th

e releas e o f

greenhouse gases. " (Conservatio n Law ) Response: DE P ha s adde d th e requiremen

t tha t th e carbon dioxid e standard s wil l apply to combustion turbines . Comment 92. "Th e DE P shoul d conside

r developin g appropriat

e presumptiv e emission limit s fo r subcategorie s o f

equipmen

t tha t include non-EG

U industrial applications. " (Tennesse e Gas ) Response: Th e DE P doe s no t believ e thi s approac

h woul d be th

e bes t us e o f it s limite d resources . DE P allow s certai n categorie s o f activitie s to apply fo r

acase-by-cas

e BAC T revie w a

s provide d b y 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(a)2 . Comment 93. "TG P discourage s prescriptiv e emissio n limit s i n 2008,2012 , an d beyond , an

d urge s DE P to conduc

t aTechnolog y Revie w i n advanc e o f eac h phase-i n dat e to ensur e tha t progres s i n emission reductio n technolog y i s commensurat e wit h th e forecas t emission targe t an d to allo w public/stakeholde r participatio n i n th

e process. " (Tennesse e Gas) Response: Th e regulation s requir

e DE P t o performarevie w o f

th e 201 2 emission limit s prio r to Decembe r 31,2010 . Th

e DE P ma y performarevie w o f

th e 200 8 emissio n limit s i f

th e DE P determine s tha

t suc h arevie w i s prudent . Th e revie w woul d necessaril y include public/stakeholde

r input . Comment 94. Requirement

s fo r greenhouse ga

s emission s shoul d b

e eliminate d or

clarifie d wit h aclea

r indicatio n fo r

nee d an d benefit . (Tennesse e Gas ) Response : Se

e response to Commen

t 84 . Comment 95. "Th e propose d level s ar

e extremely lo w fo r

th e <10M W clas s o f

turbin e an

d represen

t LAE Rlevel s fo r

NO x an d stricter-than-LAER fo r

CO. " "Sola r recommends tha

t th e departmen

t pace an y require d emission level s wit h dry-low

emission s (DLE ) technolog y developments/advancements . Suc h apolic y wil l encourag

e3 1

DL E technolog y developmen t whil e supportin g th

e concep t o f pollutio n preventio n (vs . abatemen t technologies) . An y nee

d fo r add-o n control s shoul d b

e evaluated an

d applie d a s require d vi ath

e PS D an d Non-attainmen

t permittin g programs. " "Th e require d emission level s shoul d reflec t wha t i s achievabl

e b y severa

l manufacturer s acros s typica l operatin g an d ambien t temperatur

e ranges. " Recommend

s tha t th e emission level s i n Table 2 fo r NO x an d CO b e applicabl e t o natura l ga s fire d turbine s an

d tha t Tabl e 3 be deleted an

d emission level s fo r

liqui d fue l b e se

t a t achievable dry-low-emissio n levels . (Sola r Turbines ) Response : Th

e emission limit s i n Table 2 ar e th e RA P Mode l Rul e recommendations . DE P proposed Tabl e 3 wit h emission limit s fo r combustio n turbine s tha

t represen t technolog y tha

t i s currentl y available . Als o se e response s to Comment

s 2 6 an d 74 . Comment 96. Th e emission limitatio n fo r

particulate s fro mliqui d fuele d ga s turbine s shoul d be removed . Thi s issu

e wa s discusse d durin g th

e RAP Mode l Rul e developmen t proces s an d "consensu s wa

s reache d tha t regulatin g particulat

e matte r emission s fro mga

s turbine s wa

s unnecessary. " Emissio n test

dat ashow s particulat

e emission level s tha

t ar e fou r t o seve n time s th

e propose d limit s fo r

smal l turbines . (Sola

r Turbines ) Response : DE

P agrees . Th

e chang e ha s bee n made .

Comment 97. DE P ha s ha d apolic y fo r

ammoni asli p leve l o f

2 pp mfo r

severa l year s whic h add

s unnecessar

y complexit

y an d cos t t o th e SC R syste mfo r littl e o r n o environmenta

l benefit . " A typica l Best

Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) leve l fo r ga s turbine s i s 5-1 0 pp m ammoni aslip. " (Sola r Turbines ) Response: The DEPdisagrees and

will maintain the requirement for 2 ppm ammonia slip. Comment 98. Chang e th e ter m"gas " t o "natura

l gas " i n Tabl e 3 "a

s ther e ar e numerou s ga

s fuel s tha

t ca n b e burne d i n turbine s tha t ca n no t be use d i n conjunctio n wit h DL E o r add-o n contro l systems. " (Sola

r Turbines ) Response : DE

P agrees . Th

e chang e ha s bee n made .3 2 Comment 99. "Ou r newes t turbin e th

e Mercur y 5 0 i s a t 5 pp mNO x warrant

y an d woul d b

e unable to mee t th e propose d standar d withou t coge n or SC R whic h jus t

doesn' t see mright . Especially since th

e Mercur y 5 0 i s ahuge improvemen t ove r averag e MAS S gri d emissions . No t

al l D G application s hav

e astea mhost an d a n SC R woul d kil l most project s economically . Please conside r th e level s i n Table 2 fo r

ga s turbine s s

o tha t million s o f

dollar s spen

t ove r th e las t decad e i n R& D to achiev

e singl e digi t

NO x level s ( 5 pp mon th

e Mercur y 50 , 9 pp mtarge

t o n th e othe r models ) create s a

n opportunit

y fo r dry-low-NO x ga

s turbine s (withou t

SCR/CO ) to pla

y i n D G markets. " (Sola r Turbines ) Response: Th e emission limitation s i n Tabl e 2 ar e fo r engine s onl y an

d ar e th e RAP recommende

d levels . Tabl

e 3 , whic h i s applicabl e to turbines , i s base d upo n recen

t Massachusett

s BAC T determination s representing currentl y availabl e technology . Excep t fo r emergenc

y onl y an d specialize d units , typica l Massachusetts ' project s o f les s tha n 1 0 M W include recover y o f wast e hea t an d ar e intended to operat

e year-round i n combined cycl e mode . Give n tha t Massachusett

s i s a t th e en d o f th e natura l ga s pipelines , these combined hea

t an d powe r project s hav

e bee n universall y permitte d b y DE P wit h back-u p oi l firin g capability . I t

i s note d tha

t th e Mercur y 5 0 i s "availabl e i n gas-onl y configuration" . Comment 100. " Th e emission targets fo r

CO , NOx , an

d CO 2 i n th e draf t regulatio n ar

e base d on optimu mcondition s wit h th e cleanest o f fossi l fuels. " "Whil e w e recogniz e tha

t user s o f bioga s ma

y fil e aComprehensiv

e Pla n Application , w e ar e concerne

d tha t th e targets wil l preclud

e an y us e o f bioga s i n a

n engine. " Ther

e i s littl e emission s dat

ao n bioga s emissions , howeve r ther e i s dat atha t suggest s tha t NO x emission s compare s favorabl y t o natura l ga s an d diesel fuele d units . Othe r emission s howeve r d o not . (Biomas s Energy Resourc e Center ) Response: Th e DE P wil l evaluat

e eac h applicatio n fo r

us e o f non-traditiona

l fuel s o n it s ow n merits . Comment 101. 310CMR7.26(43)(b ) Engine s an d Turbine s - Emissio n Limitation s "BERC woul d recommen d tha t an y engin e operatin g o n a

t least 20 % bioga s or

othe r biofuels , a

s measure d annually base

d o n output , be exemp

t frommeeting th

e propose d CO 2 emission rates. " (Biomas s Energy Resource Center )3 3 Response : Th

e regulation s wil l allo w unit s burnin g non-traditiona l fuel s t o hav

e specifi c emission limit s established i n preconstructio n approval s a s allowe d b y 31 0 CM R 7.26(43)(a)2 .

Comment 102. 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(b ) Engine s an d Turbine s - Emissio n Limitation s "(T)h e distribute d generation ("DG" ) limits , a s proposed , ar

e to o low . Althoug h I agre e tha t wit h th e us e o f fuel-neutral , output-base d standard

s fo r larg e base-loa

d powe r generatin g facilities , I d

o no t agre e tha t fuel-neutral standard

s shoul d b e use

d fo r smal l D G engines . Diesel-fuele d D G engine s wil l no t be abl e to mee t th e proposed standards , eve n wit h add-on controls. " (Blu e Sky ) Response : DE

P disagrees . Se

e response to Commen

t 26 . Comment 103. "Include mor

e achievable emission s standards fo r fuel s fo r th e firs t categor y o f limit s (installatio n afte r

Januar y 1,2005 ) b y providin g fo r aBest Availabl e Contro l Technology ("BACT" ) analysis. " "Eliminate th

e secon d an d thir d categorie s o f

limit s (installatio n o n o

r afte r May 1 , 2008). " Develop amarket-base d syste mto determin

e emission requirements ove r th e lon g ter mfo r variou s project s base

d upo n engin

e size , fue l availability an d proposed use . (NECA ) Response : Th

e thrus t o f these comment

s i s to maintai n th

e statu s quo . Th

e DE P ha s decided tha

t contro l o f

emission s fromthese categorie s i s bes t accomplished b y a certificatio n process . Th

e emission standard

s an d implementatio n procedure s se t fort h i n th e RA P Mode l Rul e reflec t

curren t BAC T an

d anticipate d futur e BACT . Th e regulation s als o provide fo r

revie w o f

standards . Comment 104. "Rais e th e ammoni alimi t

from2 pp mto 1 0 ppm. " (NECA ) Response . Th

e DE P ha s require d 2 pp mammoni asli p a s aBAC T requiremen

t fo r severa l year s an d wil l maintai n thi s requirement . Comment 105. Wit h respec

t to "CO 2 neutrality " frombiomas s applications , DOE R believe s tha

t detaile d polic y discussion s nee

d t o occu r o n thi s issue . "Therefore , DOE R recommends tha

t DE P3 4 defe r th e decisio n regardin g CO

2 emission s fro mbiomas s fuel s i n th e fina l rul e unti l suc

h polic y discussion s ar

e complete d an

d methodologie s adopted. ' (Div . o f Energy Resources ) Response : Since th

e engin e an d turbin e regulatio n i s designe d to be fue l neutral , no fue l i s given specifi c standard s i n th e regulation . Therefore , th e CO 2 standar d i n th e regulatio n wil l apply to al l fuel s a t thi s time . However , DE

P i s willin g to hol d discussion s wit h DOE

R abou t whethe r adistinctio n shoul d b e mad e fo r biomas s an

d i f agreemen

t i s reached , th

e regulatio n ca

n be revise d a

t som e poin t i n th e future . Comment 106. "Th e propose

d emission standard

s fo r new , non-emergenc

y engine s ar

e unnecessaril

y stringen t an d wil l hav e asever e negativ e impac t

o n th e us e o f D G an d CH P o n th e Commonwealth . Massachusett s DE P shoul d adop

t alternat e emission standard

s tha t ar e technically feasibl e an

d cost effective . Thi s wil l allo w Massachusetts ' Businesse s an d industr y t o continue to deplo y clea n D G resources , thereby takin g advantag e o f th e resultan t enhance d reliability , economic savings , an d ai r qualit y benefit s o f

D G an d CHP. " (Engine Mf g Assoc ) Response : DE

P disagrees . Se

e response t o Commen

t 26 . Comment 107. "EM A recommend

s tha t DE P propos e reasonabl

e an d effectiv e NO x standard s tha t ar e i n lin e wit h th

e stat e o f technolog y a

s i t continue s to evolv e ove

r th e nea r future. " EM A recommend

s th e followin g NO x standards :

- 200 5 2.21bs/MW

h - lowe r tha n curren t centra l utilit y emission s

- 200 8 1. 0 lbs/MW h - allow s bes

t engine s withou t

SC Rthroug h 200

7

- 201 2 0. 3 lbs/MW h - consisten t wit h industr

y an d DO E researc

h objective s (Engin e Mf g Assoc ) Response : Consisten

t wit h othe

r state s an d i n agreemen

t wit h th e RAP Mode l Rul e process , th

e DE P wil l adop

t th e RAP standard

s an d th e RA P time schedul

e fo r implementation . DE

P believe s th

e standard

s ar e reasonabl

e an dDE P ha s provide d itsel f a n opportunit

y t o revie w th

e standards i f

necessary . Als o se

e responses t o Comment s 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , an

d 74 . Comment 108. "EM A als o recommends tha t th e DE P maintai n th

e initia l 1 0 lb/MW h standar d fo r C O throughou

t th e time perio d an

d tha t DE P delet e th e CO 2 standar d fro mth e regulation . Given th e nee d t o mee t th e othe r stric t emission standard

s o f th e proposed regulation , ther e i s n o wa y fo r engin e o r generato r manufacturer s to effectivel y contro l o r alte r th e inheren t CO 2 emission s fro maspecifi c generato r set. Considering tha

t th e priorit y to3 5 contro l emission s i s properl y place d o n minimizin g emission s o f criteri apollutants , suc

h a s NOx , CO , an

d PM , an d tha t CO 2 emission s fro mstationar y engine s ar

e minimal , ther

e i s littl e to be gained b y adding additiona l constraint s tha

t onl y mak e complianc e wit h th

e primar y emission s standards mor e difficult. " (Engine Mf g Assoc ) Response : Wit h regar

d t o CO , th

e DE P wil l adop

t th e RAP recommende

d emission limits . Se e response to Commen

t 107 . A s stated , CO

2 emission s fro mstationar y engine s ar

e minimal . Howeve

r according t o th

e RA P model Rule , th

e Phas e I an d IICO 2 standards ar

e achievable no w an

d th e Phas e II I standard s ar e withi n th

e rang e o f reasonabl

e expecte d improvements . Comment 109. "Revised emission s standard s fo r engine s tha

t utiliz e alternat

e gaseou s fuels , suc

h a s landfil l ga

s an d biogas , ar

e neede d s o tha t th e environmentall y beneficia l us e o f thos e fuel s ca n continue " (Engine Mf g Assoc ) Response : Se

e 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(a

) Applicability . Th

e abov e operation s ca

n hav e case-by-cas

e emissio n limit s se

t throug h submitta

l o f aCPA . Comment 110. Technolog y forcin g work s when ther e ar e n o alternatives . I f

th e limit s ar

e to o stric t researc h an d developmen

t wil l no t happen , cost

s wil l be to o great, an

d th e optio n o f buyin g electricit

y fro mth e gri d wil l prevail . (Aalto ) Response : Se

e responses to Comment s 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , an

d 74 . 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(d

) Operationa

l Requirements-Sound-Stac k Heigh tan d Emissio n Dispersio n Comment 111. Requiremen

t fo r soun d an d stac k heigh t shoul d be eliminate d o

r clarifie d wit h aclea

r indicatio n o f

nee d an d benefit . (Tennesse e Gas ) Response : Se

e response to Commen

t 64 . 31 0 CM R7.26(43)fe)l . Engine s an d Turbine s Certificatio n Commen t 112 . I t

woul d be mor

e efficien t

fo r manufacturer s to certif

y thei r product s tha

n requirin g stac

k testin g o f engines . (Northeas t

Utilities )

### 3 6

Response: Th e regulation

s requir e manufacturer

s (suppliers ) t

o certif y thei r engines . Th

e regulations stat e th e tes t method s an dprocedure

s tha t would constitut

e avali d manufacturer

s certification . Comment 113. Th e certificatio n requiremen

t doe s no t tak e int o accoun t instance s wher e pollutio n contro

l equipmen t i s use d t o control emissions . Suggest s tha t 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(e)l . shoul

d read : "Certificatio n shal

l includ e statement(s

) a s appropriat

e fro mmanufacturer

s an d othe r equipmen t o r emissio n contro l syste mprovider

s tha t th e installe d engin e o r turbine... " (Eart

h Tech ) Response: Th e requirement

s hav e bee n change d substitutin

g "supplier " (

adefine d term ) fo r manufacturer

. Th e supplie r typically sells th

e packag e tha t includes th

e engin e o r turbine , th e ai r pollutio n contro

l equipment

, an d othe r associate d equipment

. Comment 114. T o compl y wit h th e emissio n limitations , thes

e system s wil l requir

e som e combinatio

n o f add-o n controls , an

d fo r hea t recover y system s additiona

l equipmen

t wil l b e par t o f th e installation . Thi s equipmen t wil l b e provide d by severa

l manufacturers . Th

e engin e o r turbin e alon e i s no t capabl e o f complyin g wit h th e emissio n limits . Ca

n certificatio n o f complianc e b e base d upo n desig n parameter

s o f th e system ? (Sola

r Turbines)
Response: Yes . Th e DE P wil l provid

e guidanc e o n thi s an drelate d issue s a s i t develops th

e certification documents . Ultimatel y i t i s th e responsibilit

y o f th e owner/operato

r t o comply . Se

e als o respons e t o Commen

t 113 . Comment 115. "Th e DE P need s t o clarif y an dprescrib e th e certificatio n requirement

s fo r stationar y engines. " (Engin

e Mfg Assoc

) Response : Th

e certificatio n proces s wil l b e describe d i n detai l i n implementatio

n documents . Se

e als o respons e t o Commen

t 7 .3 7 Comment 116. "Th e proposa l t o requir

e manufacturer s t o certif

y tha t agenerato

r wil l mee t th e proposed emission standards fo r

15,00 0 hours o f operatio n or

3 year s i s beyond th

e curren t industr y standar d an d technica

l capabilit y o f emission contro l equipment. " (Engine Mf g Assoc ) Response : Th

e requiremen

t i s arecommendation contained i n th e RA P Mode l Rule . Connecticu

t recently ha

s adopte d these requirements an

d th e Californi aAi r

Resources Boar d (CARB ) adopte

d th e 15,00 0 hou r requiremen

t effectiv e Januar

y 1 , 2003 . I t

shoul d be note d tha

t th e CAR B rule s provid e fo r revie w o f

th e 15,00 0 hou r certificatio n provisio n b y Jul y 1,2005 . Th e Departmen

t wil l monito r

CARB S revie w an

d wil l respon

d a s appropriate . Commen t 117 . "(T)h e manufacturer s certificatio n proces s shoul d be eliminate d o r revise d t o provid e ameaningfu l guarante e o f performance , an

d th e DE P shoul d ensur

e tha t th e certificatio n woul d no t

introduc e unnecessar

y marke t constraints. " (Tennesse

e Gas) Response : Se

e responses t o Comment

s 113,114,115 , an

d 116 . 

# COMBINE

D HEA T AN D POWE R - CH P DE P di dno t propos e regulator

y provision s fo r

emissio n o

r othe r credit s fo r

CH P systems . DE P di drequest

comment s o n th e RAP Mode l Rul e credi t schem e o r suggestion s fo r othe r alternativ e incentives . Th e followin g informatio n wa s received . Comment I f DE P decide s t o giv e credi t

fo r combined hea

t an d powe r systems , th

e Regulator

y Assistanc e Projec t

(RAP ) Mode l Rul e languag e i s recommended . (EPA ) Comment Give n tha t man y facilitie s employ emergenc y engine s withi n th

e Cit y o f Bosto n an

d tha t th e us e o f Combine d Hea

t an d Powe r (CHP ) systems/distribute d generation i s expecte d to grow , i t i s importan

t tha t these unit s be adequatel

y regulate d b y DEP . Th

e Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Commissio n supports th e propose d regulations . (BOSTON ) Comment Support s DEP' s positio n o f

no t allowin g emission credit s agains t emissio n limitation s fo r CH P a s suggeste

d b y th e RAP Mode l Rule . "Incentive s fo r CH P shoul d not compromis e existin g air

qualit y standard

s an d regulations. " (BOSTON )3 8 Comment Th e regulation s shoul d provid e credit s fo r CH P applications . (MASSPIRG) , (Conservation Law ) Comment Th e regulation s shoul d provid e credit s fo r concurren

t emission reduction s achieved b y reduce d flarin g o f

wast e gases . (MASSPIRG) , (Conservatio n Law ) Comment DE P should adop

t astea mcredit metho d simila

r to th e simplifie d metho d Texa s adopted . (Sola r Turbines ) Comment Th e goa l o f recognizin g th

e therma l outpu t fromCH P i s no t to avoi d regulation , but

to promot e highl y efficien t

technology , afor mo f

pollutio n prevention . Pollutio n preventio n i s preferabl e to add-o

n control s a

s i t reduce s al l emissions , avoid s generation o f secondar y pollutants , an

d reduce s fossi l fue l consumption . "Federa l guidance o n BAC T instruct s state s to include inherentl y low-emittin g processes a s par t o f th e BAC T analysis . Thi s woul d include th e emission reductio n benefit s o f a highe r efficienc y proces s suc

h a s CHP . A complet

e assessmen

t o f BAC T shoul d therefor e include th

e cost-effectivenes s o f

CH P a s a n alternativ e emission contro l technology . Since th

e goa l o f th e proposed rul e i s streamlined permitting , asimple r alternativ e i s calle d for. " Th e RA P Mode l Rul e incorporate s th e effec t o f BAC T on th

e therma l componen

t o f th e CH P facilit y b y considerin g th e effec t o f efficienc y i n aBAC T analysis . (Energy & Env . Analysis ) Comment Th e RA P Mode l Rul e recognize s th e environmenta

l benefit s o f

CH P an d "provide s a well-though

t ou t credi t fo r CH P facilities . Massachusett s shoul d d o likewise. " (Biomas s Energy Resourc e Center ) Comment "I t i s recommende

d tha t th e regulation s provide fo r

a n emission credit

i n Combined Hea

t an d Powe r (CHP ) applications , provide d tha t th e propose d efficienc y standar

d doe s no t penaliz e som

e efficien t

system s whil e allowin g othe

r inefficien t

systems. " Recommend

s aformula. " Also , "NEC A believe s tha t amarke t base d syste mcoul d bes

t addres s . . .th

e combined hea t an d powe r credit. " (NECA ) Comment Support s th e RAP Mode l Rul e approac h to creditin g CH

P applications . Alternatively , DE P shoul d investigat

e alternativ e methodologie s pu t fort h b y othe

r state s an d federa l governmen

t to trea t energ y producin g project s equitably . (Div . o f Energy Resources ) Comment3 9

Strongly disagre

e tha t th e RA P Mode l Rul e provision s fo r CH P credit s woul d allo w project s t o ne t ou t o f BACT . Th

e emission limit s i n Phas e I I an d II I "ar e no t BACT , they ar e mor e stringen t tha n BAC T a

s acknowledged i n th

e RAP Mode l Rul e Background Document . I n fact , th

e RA P documen

t suggeste d tha t th e CH P incentiv e woul d be require d to mee

t Phas e III. " "I t i s currentl y impossibl e t o mee t these limit s withou t

add-o n controls. " (NECHPI) , supporte d b y (Div . o f

Energy Resources ) Comment B y failin g to includ e al l usefu l energ y produced , th

e proposa l regulation s d

o no t contain tru e outpu

t base d standards . (NECHPI) , supported b y (Div . o f Energy Resources ) Comment Withou t CH P credits , th

e proposed regulation s "actuall y create s adisincentiv e to increase d efficiency. " (NECHPI) , supported b y (Div . o f Energy Resources ) Comment "EM A strongly supports th e inclusio n o f

adjuste d emissio n standard s o r emission credi t o r offset s fo r

D G facilitie s usin g Combine d Hea t an d Powe r (CHP ) technolog y i n th

e fina l regulation. " (Engine Mf g Assoc )

Comment Th e positiv e benefit s o f

CH P a s se t fort h i n th

e RA P Mode l Rul e outweig h th e DEP' s concerns abou

t BACT . (Conservatio n Law ) Response Base d upon the abov

e informatio n an

d furthe r DE P investigatio n int o thi s issue , DE P intend s to consul

t furthe r wit h interested partie s o n CH P issues . Th

e goa l o f thi s effor t wil l be t o propos e regulatio n revision s withi n th e nex t yea r providin g incentive s fo r

CH P installations .