P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

16)11-1-8 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:18 AM Sheet 16 of 142 
P.2 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Southeast Regional Office 

jr-i-8 

William F. Weld 

Governor 

Daniel S. Greenbaum 

Commissioner 

Titleist and Foot-Joy Worldwide 

Ball Plant II 

P.O. Box 965 

New Bedford, Massachusetts 02714 

September 30, 1993 

RE: SMAPCD—DARTMOUTH—310 CMR 7.02(2) 

Titleist & Foot-Joy Worldwide, 

Ball Plant II, 256 Samuel Barnett 

Boulevard, Source No. 0254, 

Action Code no. E-T5 

TQM/Scoping Meeting 

FTv JUX- gvin repiscemen u pre]sc t 

ATTN: Joseph J. Bains, Division Compliance Manager 

Thank-you for taking the opportunity to meet with representatives of 

the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), Southeast Regional 

Office, Division of Air Quality Control on September 10, 1993, to discuss 

the permitting issues relative to a proposed paint spray gun replacement 

project at your facility located at 256 Samuel Barnett Boulevard, Dartmouth 

Massachusetts. 

Specifically, at the September 10, 1993 meeting, Cheryl Aloi of the 

U.S EPA-Region 1, Don Squires of the DEP-Prograra Implementation Section in 

Boston and Jean Warters of this office (hereafter DEP-SERO) met with Joseph 

Bains of Titleist and Foot-Joy Worldwide, and with Titleist's Consultant, 

Margaret Dwyer of Goldman Environmental Consultants, Inc., to discuss the 

State and Federal permitting requirements which would be associated with a 

replacement of all existing conventional air atomized paint spray guns with 

high volume low pressure guns ("HVLP" guns). 

The- existing guns were approved in August of 1988, when the coating 

operation was first approved for construction and operation; to have an 

emission potential of approximately 64 tons per year. The proposed HVLP 

guns are expected to have less paint pverspray, ...thereby ..reducing the amount 

of paint needed and reducing the emission of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) per unit of golf ball production. This is a "toxics use reduction 

project" which, if successful, could result in reduced paint costs for the 

company and reduced air pollution. 

DEP-SERO invited DEP-Boston and EPA-Region 1 staff to this September 

10, 1993 meeting so that they could consider the information presented 

first-hand and could advise DEP-SERO and Titleist of the applicable 

State/Federal permitting requirements. 

The applicable State/Federal regulations under consideration are: 

20 Riverside Drive • Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 • FAX (508) 947-6557 • Telephone (508) 946-2700 
P.3 

- 2 - . ' ' 

- 310 CMR 7.00: indicates "substantial reconstruction "means 

any physical change in or changes in the method of operation 

of a facility or its appurtenances which changes the amount 

of emission from such facility". 

310 CMR 7.02(4): indicates that construction, substantial 

reconstruction or alteration which increases the "facility 

potential emissions by equal to or more than 1 ton per year 

("TPY") requires filing either a Limited or Comprehensive 

Plan Application (LPA or CPA). (The project could not be 

exempt under 310 CMR 7.03 because facility-wide paint 

emissions are intended to be greater than 3 0 tons per year 

and 25 TPY increases at a major facility could trigger 

NonAttainment Review...see below). Note that in calculating 

whether a LPA or CPA application is required under this 

provision, credit for emission reductions is not allowed to 

bring the potential emissions below.the application 

threshold. Consequently, if the substantial reconstruction, 

by itself could emit more than 1 TPY, an LPA or CPA 

application, demonstrating Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT), would be required. BACT can be no less stringent 

than Reasonably Available Control Technology ("RACT"). 

Section 7.18(21) of the "Air Pollution Control Regulations" 

indicates RACT for Plastic parts (there is no emission 

limitation for clear coating of miscellaneous plastic 

parts). If the substantial, reconstruction resulted in a 

"significant net emissions increase" (see 310 CMR 7.00, 

Appendix A and the discussion of Federal NonAttainment 

requirements below), then NonAttainment requirements, 

including Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ("LAER") and 

offsets, would be required instead of BACT. 

The above would indicate that the new guns would be substantial 

reconstruction which (by themselves) have an emission potential in excess 

of 1 ton per year and would require, at a minimum, BACT permitting. The 

Department acknowledges that on net, the guns should actually reduce 

facility emissions, but the above regulatory language prohibits taking any 

credits in emissions (from the existing guns targeted for replacement) when 

determining the permitting threshold. 

Federal regulations require that no "major modification" 

shall be undertaken in any nonattainment area unless, as of 

the time of application for a permit for such construction, 

such plan meets the requirements of Part D, Title I of the 

Clean Air Act as amended (This section shall not apply to 

any nonattaimnent area once EPA has fully approved the State 

implementation plan for the area as meeting the requirements 

of Part D.) A "major modification" means any physical 

change in or change in the method of operation of a major 

stationary source that would result in a significant net 

emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation 

under the Act. (The term "modification" excludes routine 

maintenance, repair, and replacement.) 
P.4 

' " • .. - 3 -

At the September 10, 1993 meeting, the EPA representative indicated 

that the new rules for calculating a "net emissions increase", pursuant to 

the 1990 Clean Air Act, have not yet been established. Also, the 

Department has not yet promulgated a new 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A to 

implement Clean Air Act changes. Under the existing State and Federal 

regulations, the "baseline", for determining the increase, is the lower of 

current representative actual or allowable levels and the "incre-ase" was 

the "potential to emit" of the proposed modification. Because the 

applicability determination must be made in advance of construction, EPA's 

New Source Review ("NSR") regulations provide that when an emissions unit 

"has not begun normal operations" actual emissions equal the "potential to 

emit of the unit". This approach is referred to as the actual to potential 

methodology. 

Theoretically, if all the guns where replaced and no emissions benefit 

was realized, the "potential to emit" from the new guns, would be your 

current potential VOC emissions from painting or 64 TPY. The creditable 

reduction ("baseline") from the replaced guns would only be about 32-37 TPY 

(the current actual emissions at less than full production capacity). The 

proposed change, under this scenario, would fit the definition of a 

significant net emissions increase because the difference is greater than 

25 TPY (the 1990 Clean Air Act lowered the "significance" level from 40 to 

25 TPY and the "major source" level from 100 to 50 TPY). 

According to the EPA representative, Titleist would have to propose a 

less than 25 ton per year increase to their past actual emissions 

"baseline" in order to avoid extensive NonAttainment Review permitting. 

Both the Department and the U.S. EPA have stated goals of encouraging 

projects that reduce pollution. In fact, it was DEP-SERO's hope that EPA 

intended to propose, in PSD and NonAttainment areas, a regulatory exclusion 

that pollution control projects are not "modifications" and hence, are not 

subject to NSR. A similar approach was proposed and approved for the 

electric utility industry (See Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 115, Friday 

June 14, 1991 and 57 FR 32314, July 21, 1992), where "pollution control 

projects" were excluded except when the reviewing authority had reason to 

believe that the pollution control project would result in a significant 

net increase in representative actual annual emissions (an actual to actual 

test, where any increase in emissions that is attributable to an increase 

in projected capacity utilization at the unit, that is unrelated to the 

particular change, is excluded from the increase in emissions calculation). 

It was in recognition of this common goal that DEP-SERO scheduled this 

September 10, 1993 meeting, hoping that either DEP-Boston or the U.S. EPA 

could elucidate any current efforts where projects such as this would be 

eligible for some sort of "pollution control project" exemption from new 

source permitting. 

Unfortunately, the information presented at the-meeting was not 

encouraging. DEP-SERO was informed that no generic "pollution control 

project" exemption is contemplated for the NonAttainment rules and 

regulations currently under development. The proposed electric utility 

exemption is specific to that industry and the only other contemplated 

exemption is for facilities that modify to comply with mandated RACT 

regulations. 

At this juncture, the parties at the meeting concluded that the 

current permitting options are: 
__ 

/ • 

- 4 - • ' ' 

1. Titleist may file a CPA application with the Department for a one year 

"trial" to replace the existing 10 guns with new HVLP guns. Since it 

is not known what improvements in paint transfer efficiency, and thus 

what reductions in VOC emissions, would be realized, there would be no 

tightening of the current allowable "pounds of VOC emitted/mm Golf 

Balls Produced" standard, however...the application would have to 

present a representative actual emissions "baseline", and VOC 

emissions with the new guns would have to be restricted to a less than 

2 5 ton per year increase over the Department approved baseline. (The 

new annual limit for VOCs from painting, which would be lower than the 

current limit of 64 tons per year for painting, would have to be met 

even if it resulted in lowering production capacity from currently 

approved levels). 

EPA indicated at the meeting that, in some instances, a less than 2 

year period can be used to establish the "representative baseline". 

By way of this letter, which is being forwarded to EPA, the Department 

requests that EPA supply written criteria which may legitimately be 

used in making the "representative" determination. The Department 

also requests that Titleist forward a copy of this portion of the 

application to Lynne Hamjian, Chief of the Air Permits and Assessment 

Section, Air Management Division, for EPA's analysis and input. 

2. At the end of the 1-year research period, Titleist would be required 

to submit information, in a CPA application, identifying any improved 

transfer efficiency and lower emission limit (tons VOC/mm golf balls) 

realized through use of the new guns. At that time the Department 

would review the application and establish a new BACT emission limit 

to be met from that time forward. The new emission limit would be put 

in a federally enforceable permit. A new annual potential emission 

limit (tons per year) would be established which, under current rules, 

would have to be less than a 25 ton per year increase over the actual . 

emission "baseline" in order to avoid NonAttainment Review provisions. 

3. If at the end of the 1-year period, the new gun project failed to be 

an improvement, then the guns could be removed, the existing guns reinstalled and Titleist would be able to comply with the current permit 

(64 TPY VOC for painting) with no loss in permitted production 

capacity. 

It can be seen from the above that the magnitude of the pre-change 

actual emissions "baseline" could conceivably effect whether Titleist could 

maintain full production capacity and still not trigger NonAttainment 

Review at the end of the project. 

The Department acknowledges that, in concept, this proposed project is 

no different from many other conceivable equipment or raw material 

replacements intended, in part, to reduce toxic material usage and 

emissions. At the September 10, 1993 meeting DEP-SERO strongly emphasized 

the need for the DEP and EPA to work together, at this critical juncture 

where regulations are being rewritten to implement the Clean Air Act, to 

develop permitting language which will encourage these sorts of projects, 

which reduce emissions, without facilities having to contend with 

NonAttainment Review provisions, and possible losses in production. 
P.6 

- 5 - _ 

This letter is being forwarded to decision-making personnel of both 

Agencies in the hopes that they will give the Regional permitting groups 

the tools to carry out their respective mandates to encourage pollution 

reduction and toxic use reduction. 

This issue will remain a high priority for this Regional Office. We 

are, by way.of this letter, requesting written feedback and guidance on 

regulation implementation for these types of projects and will keep 

Titleist informed of any new guidance or clarification received by this 

office. 

In that area, DEP-SERO will request of DEP-Program Implementation and 

the U.S. EPA, written instruction as to the method by which Titleist could 

apply for a "case-specific exemption" from NonAttainment Review. 

DEP-SERO is also requesting that as soon as the State and Federal 

governments develop firm guidance and/or regulations on the "significant 

net emissions increase calculation", that this information be forwarded 

directly to Titleist. 

The Department takes this opportunity to commend Titleist for 

investigating this pollution reduction project and to again thank-you for 

attending this pre-application "scoping meeting". These meetings are 

designed to identify and resolve permitting issues prior to the development 

of an application for Department review. 

If we may be of more assistance in this matter, please contact Jean 

Warters at the Regional Office at (508) 946-2778. 

Very truly yours, 

Jrinn K. Winkler, Chief 

JKW/JAW - #ir Quality Control Section 

cc: DEP/DAQC-Program Implemention 

ATTN: Donald Squires 

DEP/DAQC-Boston 

ATTN: Barbara Kwetz, Division Director 

U.S. EPA/Air Management Division 

J.F.K. Federal Building 

Boston, MA 02203 

ATTN: Lynne Hamjiian, Chief, Air Permits & Assessment Section 

Cheryl Aloi, Environmental Engineer 

Goldman Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

Great Pond Center 

15 Pacella Park Drive 

Randolf, MA 02368-1755 

ATTN: Margaret Dwyer 

U.S EPA 

New Source Review Section (MD-15) 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

ATTN: Chebryll Edwards 
PJ_ 

/ 

-6 -

DEP/BWP-Boston 

ATTN: Patricia Deese, Assistant Comissioner, Waste Prevention 

DEP/Toxic Use Reduction Program-Boston 

ATTN: Susan Peck 

DEP-SERO 

ATTN: George Crombie 

Regional Director 

DEP-SERO 

ATTN: Andrea Papadopoulos 

Deputy Regional Director