## Genera l Electri c Compan

y Comment

s Submitte d Februar

y 11 , 200 4 O n Propose d Amendment

s t o Regulation

s 31 0 CM R7.0

0 Fo r th e Contro l o f Ai rPollutio

n

## Content s Genera l Electri c Company ' Comment s o n th e Propose d Amendment

s t o 31 0 CM R7.0

0 Introductio

n an d Backgroun

d 1 Propose d 31 0 CM R7.03(23

) Temporar

y Boiler s 2 Propose d 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c

) Visibl e Emissio n Limit s 5 Propose d 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(d-g

) Solven tMeta l Degreasin

g 1

7 Propose d 31 0 CM R7.5

4 U Large Combustio

n Emissio

n Unit s 2 3 Attachment

s

## Introductio

n an d Backgroun

d G E Aircraf t Engine s (GEAE ) i s locatedo n 22 5 acres , includin g 3 6 majo r buildings , i n Lynn , MA . Construction on th

e sit e bega n i n 1892 , makin g i t

on e o f GE' s oldes t

manufacturin g facilities . Today , th

e principal activitie s o n sit e ar e th e design , development , manufactur e an dassembl y o f commercia

l an dmilitar y aircraf

t engine s an

dnava l propulsio n equipment . G E provide s wor

k fo r ove r 3,90 0 permanen

t employee s an

dapproximately 30

0 subcontractor

s a t Lynn . I t i s amon g th e larges t manufacturin g facilitie s i n Massachusett s an d employer s o n th e Nort h Shore . Th

e facilit y houses it s ow n powe r plan t tha t generates electricit y fo r plan t usag e an dfo r limite dexterna

l sale . GE' s presenc

e directl y an

dindirectl y support s numerou s loca

l businesses an

dvendors . Th e Lyn n sit e i s amajo r

sourc e o f emission s o f

nitroge n oxide s (NOx) , sulfu r dioxide (SO2) , carbon monoxid

e (CO) , particulat

e matte r (PM) , volatil e organic compounds (VOC) , an d hazardou s ai

r pollutant s (HAP) . Th

e equipmen

t an dprocesses resultin g i n these emissions include industria

l boilers ; engin

e test cells ; turbines ; ai

r heaters ; aerospac

e parts cleaning ; solven t degreasing ; miscellaneou s meta l parts surfac e coating ; sit e remediation ; an

d numerou s insignifican t

sources require dto suppor t manufacturing , researc

h an ddevelopmen

t an ddesign , a

s wel l a s facilitie s an

dmaintenance activitie s on-site . Th e powe r plan t an dtest cell s b y fa

r accoun t fo r th e majority o f

sit e emissions . These unit s ar e subject t o variou s fue l utilizatio n regulations , emission s contro l plans , an dspecifi c permit s (Pla

n Approvals) . Becaus e o f th e diversit y o f activitie s a

t th e G E Lyn n facility , th

e site' s operation s ar

e affecte d b y man y regulator

y developments . O f

th e proposedregulations , G E ha s chose n t o commen

t on provision s o f

th e propose drule s coverin g temporar y boiler s (Propose

d31 0 CMR 7.03(23)) , visibl e emission s limit s (Propose d31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c)), solven t meta l degreasin

g (Propose d31 0 CM R7.18(8)(d-g) ) an dlarg e combustio n unit s (Propose d31 0 CM R7.5 4 U) . W e appreciat

e th e opportunit

y t o submi t these comment

s to th e Massachusett

s Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n (M A DEP) .

1

## Propose

d 31 0 CM R7.03(23

) Temporar

y Boiler s Introduction M A DEP' s curren

t regulation s a

t 31 0 CM R7.03(23 ) provid e a n exemption fro mpla

n approva l requirements fo r

temporar y boiler s meeting fou r

conditions , wher

e suc h boiler s follo w th e othe r requirements o f

tha t section . Thi s languag

e recognize s th

e operationa

l realitie s tha

t sometime s suc

h boiler s ar

e neede d o n shor t notic e t o temporaril y replace a boiler tha t ha s gon e offline. 1 The MADE P ha s proposed to amen

d 31 0 CM R7.03(23 ) t

o rea d a s follows : (23 ) Temporar

y Boilers . Constructio n o r installatio n o f

atemporar

y boiler a t a facilit y wher

e aboile r i s n o longe r availabl e fo r

use . .. . A temporar

y boiler constructe d o r installe di n accordance wit h 31 0 CM R7.03(23 ) wit h a n energ y input capacit y exceedin

g 1 0 MMBt u pe

r hou r i s subject to Ne w Sourc

e Performanc e Standard s contained a

t 40 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar

t D c - Standard

s o f Performanc e fo r Smal l Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Stea mGeneratin

g Units . Thi s regulatio n woul dbe ahardshi p t o G E becaus e i t woul dsignificantl y impact th e flexibilit y wit h whic h G

E coul dmanag

e it s operations . No t

onl y doe s thi s ne w requiremen

t subject al l temporar

y boiler s to th

e reference d Ne w Sourc

e Performanc e Standard

s (NSPS) , but i t als o i s contrar

y t o th e expres s applicability provision s o f th e NSPS . I t

should not

b e adopte d i n thi s form ; rathe

r i t shoul d be amende

d (a s illustrate dbelow ) t

o include th

e clea r applicabilit

y threshold s inheren

t i n th e NSPS . Propose d Regulation

s Th e M A DEP' s propose

d temporar

y boile r provision s woul dimpos e th e Subpar t D c Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard

s o n olde r boiler s tha

t ar e not "new, " "modified " o

r "reconstructed, " an

d therefor e woul dno t

otherwis e be subject

to th e NSPS . Fo

r example , a 1 2 MMBt u pe

r hou r boile r constructed i n 1988 , bu t no t modifie do

r reconstructed since the

n woul dnot

b e subject t o Subpar t Dc . However , unde

r th e proposed MADE P rules , suc h a boiler woul db e require d t

o compl y wit h Subpar

t D c solely b y virtu e o f

bein g use

d a s a temporar y boiler . Th e M A DE P ha s no t disclosed wh y i t

ha s proposed t

o subject temporar y boiler s t o NSP S requirement

s i f the y ar e no t otherwis e covered b y tha t rule . Given tha

t temporar y boilers , b y definition , operat

e fo r onl y alimite dperio do f

time , ther

e doe s not appea r t o be asignificant environmenta

l benefi t t o b e gained b y imposin g NSP S requirements onl y o n temporar y boilers , bu

t no t o n al l othe

r exemp t sources . I f

th e goa l o f thi s provisio n i s t

o clarif y tha t boiler s otherwis e subject

to th e NSP S mus t continue t

o comply eve

n i f they ar e use d a s

1 Th e four condition s are : 1 . Hav e amaximumhea

t inpu t capacit y les s tha n o r equa l t o th e boiler i t i s replacing ; 2 . B e installe d fo r

aperio dno t

t o excee d 12 0 days ; 3 ) Us e th e sam e o r lowe r sulfu r conten t fue l a s th e boile r i t i s replacing ; an

d 4 ) Compl y wit h al l othe

r applicabl e requirements fo r th e boiler tha t i t replaced . 2temporar y boilers , th

e provisio n mus t

be revise d(a

s illustrate dbelow ) to accomplis h tha t objectiv e withou t

sweepin g s o broadl y a

s to include those temporar y boiler s tha

t ar e not otherwis e subject

t o NSPS . Th e NSP S Subpar t D c onl y applie s to boiler s "fo r whic h construction , modification , o r reconstruction i s commence dafter Jun e 9,1989. " Se

e 4 0 CF R60.40c(a) . Thus , th

e NSP S doe s no t appl y t o olde r boiler s unles s they hav

e bee n "modified " o

r "reconstructed. " Th

e NSP S Genera l Provision s defin e "modification " a s "an y physica l o r operationa

l chang e to a n existin g facilit y whic h result s i n a n increas e i n th

e emission rat

e o f an y pollutant.... " 40 CF R60.14(a) . Th

e definitio n goes on to expressl y stat e tha t the followin g i s NO T A MODIFICATION : "The relocatio n o r chang e i n ownership o f

a n existin g facility. " Emphasi s added . Se

e 40 CF R60.14(e)(6) . Unles s a

n otherwis e exemp

t boiler experience s a chang e tha t results i n a

n increas e i n emission rate , i t should not

b e subject to th e NSP S simply becaus

e i t i s use d a s atemporar

y boiler. 2 I n arecen t Unite dStates Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (US EPA ) applicabilit y determination involvin g asituatio n analogou s t o th e temporar

y placemen

t o f aboiler a t a stationar y source , US EP

A confirme dtha

t th e temporar

y us e o f a n exemp t emission uni t

(i n thi s case, a

n olde r combustio n turbine ) doe s no t caus e i t t o becom e subject t o NSP S i f i t wa s not alread y subject - eve n i f i t replace s auni t

tha t wa s subject t o NSPS . Se

e Attachmen

t 1 . I n alette r date dAugus t 1 , 2002 , fromJef

f Kenknight , US EPA , Regio n X , to Jorda n E . Jacobson, Counsel , AlyeskaPipelin e Servic e Company , US EP A confirme dth

e following : "Question 5 : D o th

e Alyesk aturbine s tha

t wer e manufacturedbefor

e Octobe r 3 , 197 7 [th e applicabilit

y dat e fo r NSP S requirements fo r

turbines , i n subpar

t GG] becom

e subjec t to NSP S G G i f they ar e treateda

s apoo l o f

identica l turbine s an

dmovedfro m locatio n t o locatio n betwee

n TAP S pum

p station s t

o allo w fo r

maintenance o f turbines ? Respons e 5 : Assumin g th

e maintenance doe

s no t resul t i n a"modification " o

r "reconstruction, " a

s thos e terms ar

e define di n 4

0 CF Rsubpar t A , and , assumin

g tha t th e turbine s ar

e no t otherwis e "modified " o

r "reconstructed, " a

s thos e terms ar

e define di n 4

0 CF Rsubpar t A , a s aresult o f th e relocatio n o f

th e turbines , relocatio n o f aturbine a

s par t o f apoo l o f identica l turbine s woul dno

t mak e th e turbin e subject

t o NSP S subpar t GG . Se e 40 CF R60.14(e)(6). " "Question 6 : Doe s aturbin e tha t i s not subject t o NSP S subpar t GG (becaus

e i t wa s no t constructed , modifie do

r reconstructedafter

Octobe r 3 , 1977 ) becom

e subject t o NSP S subpar t G G i f i t rotate dint o alocatio n to replac e aturbin e tha t i s subject to NSP S subpar t GG? Respons e 6 : A turbin e tha

t wa s no t constructed , modifie do

r reconstructed after Octobe r 3,1977 , a

s thos e terms ar

e define di n 4

0 CF Rsubpar t A , doe s no t becom e

2Similarly , th

e NSP S provide s aclea

r definitio n o f

"reconstruction, " whic h i s not triggere di n an

y wa y b y th e relocatio n o

r us e o f aboiler a s atemporar

y unit . Se e 40 CF R60.15 . Thi s definitio n i s triggere donl y b y th e replacemen

t o f component

s tha t exceed , i n th

e aggregate , 50 % o f

th e capita l cost o f ane w emission unit . 3subject to NSP S subpar t GG simpl y becaus

e i t i s rotate d into alocatio n to replac e a turbin e tha

t i s subjec t

to NSP S subpar t GG . A s discusse

d above , unde

r NSP S subpart s A an d GG , the turbin e i s th

e "affecte d facility, " a

s define di n 4

0 CF R60.2 , an darelocatio n o f

a n affecte d facilit y i s not , b y itself , amodification. " GE' s Proposal Given thi s clea

r statemen t b y US EP

A tha t th e us e o f temporar y replacemen

t emission unit s doe s not trigge r NSP S requirements absen

t aseparat e "modification " o

r "reconstruction " event, M A DE

P shoul drevis e it s propose d rul e amendmen

t t o accoun t fo r th e fac t tha t som e temporar y boiler s ma

y no t b e subject

to NSPS , Subpar

t Dc , an d recogniz e tha

t th e mer e us e o f suc h aboiler a s atemporar

y replacemen

t doe s not trigge r NSP S requirements a

s follows : (23 ) Temporar

y Boilers . Constructio n o r installatio n o f

atemporar

y boile r a t a facilit y wher

e aboile r i s n o longe r available fo r

use... . A temporar

y boile r constructio n modified , o r reconstructe d afte r

Jun e 9,198 9 o

r installe di n accordanc

e wit h 31 0 CM R7.03(23 ) wit h a n energ y input capacit y exceedin

g 1 0 MMBt u pe

r hou r i s subject

t o New Sourc

e Performanc e Standard

s contained a

t 40 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar

t D c - Standard

s o f Performanc e fo r

smal l Industrial

Commercial-Institutiona

l Stea mGeneratin

g Units . However , whil e G

E believe s tha

t th e propose d revisio n ma

y resul t i n temporar

y boiler s bein g treate d mor e stringentl y tha

n permanen

t boilers , tha

t resul t woul dstil l b

e preferabl e to a

n installatio n dela

y tha t migh t b e associate

d wit h permittin g suc

h aboiler .

4

## Propose

d 31 0 CM R7.06Q)(c

) Visibl e Emissio n Limit s Introductio n Th e powe r plant a t GE' s Lyn n facilit y operates fou r oil-fire dindustrial boiler s an d agas-fire d turbine , whic h ar

e described i n Table 1 below . Th e fou r boiler s produc e stea

mfo r electrica l generation , spac

e heating , manufacturin g support , an d testing . Eac

h o f th e boiler s i s equippe d wit h asoo

t blowin g syste

man d acontinuou s emission monitorin g syste m(CEMS ) tha t measures an

d record s NOx , SOx , CO , an d opacity . Tabl e 1 . Boile r

Installatio n Date s an d Heat Inpu t Uni t Yea r Installe d Maximu mHea t Inpu t Boile r # 1 194 3 19

9 M M Btu/h

r Boiler # 2 194 9 19

9 M M Btu/h

r Boile r # 3 196 2 38 3 MMBtu/h r Boile r # 5 198 8 (constructio n

commence

d 1986 ) 249 M M Btu/h r Curren t Regulation s an d Operatin g Histor y I n it s most

recen t Titl e V Operating Permit applicatio n submitted i n Decembe r 2003 , G E Lyn n certifie dcomplianc e wit h al l applicable requirements o f currentl y effectiv e regulations , permits , an

d approvals . I n additio n t o th e recently issue

d Final Approval unde

r 31 0 CM R 7.06(l)(c) , these include the followin g permit s an d regulation s tha

t apply to th

e powerhouse :

• MBR-94-COM-00 8 - NO x RAC T Emissio n Contro l Pla n Fina l Approva l
• MBR-97-COM-01 6 - Comprehensiv e Pla n Approval
• MBR-0 1 -728-009 - NO x Allowanc e Emissio n Contro l Pla n Fina l Approval
• 31 0 CM R7.2

7 an d 31 0 CM R7.2 8 - NO x Allowanc e an d Tradin g Progra

m • 31 0 CM R7.0

2 - Preconstructio n Approval s • 31 0 CM R7.2

2 - Sulfu r

Dioxid e Emission s Reduction s fo r Reducin g Aci dRai n • 31 0 CM R7.0

5 - Sulfu r

Conten t Limit s fo r

Fuel s Ove r th e las t severa l years , G E Lyn n ha

s bee n actively engage

d i n evaluatin g an

d improvin g boiler operation s an

d control s t

o maintai n continuou s complianc e wit h th e above-referenced applicable requirements , whic h include provision s relatin g to NOx , CO , SO2 , P M an d opacity . Combustio n Component s Associates , Inc . (CCA) , o f Monroe , CT , afir mwit h substantia l expertis e i n these areas , ha s bee n instrumenta

l i n improvin g boile r

performanc e an d emissions . Durin g 1994-95 , a

s par t o f NO x RAC T complianc e efforts , burne r control s wer

e eithe r refine do r modifie don al l boiler

units . Whil e those change s significantl y improve dNO x 5emissions ; the y als o substantially lowere dexces s air levels , makin g the combustion proces s much mor

e susceptible to opacit

y spike s durin g abrup

t loadvariation s an

dothe r combustion changes . I n general , combustio n condition s tha t suppres s NO x formatio n mak e opacit y contro l mor

e difficult , wit h much smalle r change s i n boile r

statu s triggerin g opacit

y spikes . Thi s problemi s mor

e pronounceda

t hig h loa dwher e exces s ai

r level s ar e mos t closely trimme dto maintai n NO x compliance . More recently , G

E ha s als o participate di n th

e effort s o f

th e Associate dIndustrie s o f Massachusett

s to identif

y appropriat

e an dpracticall y achievable opacit y standard

s fo r 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c) . I n addition , G E ha s kept u p proactiv e continuou s improvemen t effort s an

d preventiv e maintenance programs a t th e powerhouse . I n 1997 , G

E hire d Diamon dPower, th e manufacture

r o f th e soo t blower s use

d o n th e boilers , to evaluat e th e existin g soo

t blowin g syste

man dt o provide recommendation s to reduce opacity . I n conformanc e wit h th e recommendation s developedb y Diamond , a n automate

d soo t blower contro l syste

mwa s installe don Boiler s #1 , # 2 an d#3 , an d th e frequenc y o f

soo t blowin g wa

s increase d fro monc

e pe r ( 8 hour ) shif t t o twic e pe

r shift . Thi s automation proces s allowe d Diamon dto optimiz e th e timin g o f

soo t blowin g activitie s i n th

e variou s sections , an

dhenc e bette r contro l opacity . A s aresult o f thes e improvements , pea k opacit y level s wer

e substantially reduced , greatl y enhancin

g th e likelihoo dtha

t G E Lynn' s boiler s wil l abl e t o compl y wit h th

e 27 % opacit

y limi t propose di n 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c ) durin g soo t blowin g unde

r mos t "normal " operating circumstances . I n 2000 , CC A again wa

s engage d t o suppor t overal l powe

r hous e complianc e efforts , an d assis t i n developing a

n approac h t o satisf y requirements o f

th e ne w 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c ) rule . Ke y activitie s i n thi s contract included : (1 ) preparing a n Opacit y Pla n o f Goo dOperating Practice s (POGOP) ; an

d (2 ) evaluating boiler

operation s i n orde

r t o identif

y an dimplemen

t hardwar e an doperatin g practice s refinement s tha t coul dreduce opacity . Mor e recently , i n response to draf t revision s t

o 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c) , whic h woul dbecom e applicabl e requirements i n th e Operating Permit

expecte dto be issuedi n 2004 , CC A wa s tasked to expan

d upo n it s previou s work . Thi s time , CC A performe dadetaile devaluatio n o f opacit y fo r th e fou r G E boiler s an

dupdate dprocedure s i n th

e POGOP . Th

e purpose s o f

thi s evaluatio n wer

e to : (1 ) identif

y condition s durin g whic h th e "normal " opacit

y standar do f 15 % specifie dunde

r 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c ) coul dnot b e met ; an d(2 ) propos e limit s tha

t coul d be satisfie ddurin g "special " combustion condition s assumin g th e boile r wa s properl y maintaine d an

d operated . I t

shouldb e emphasize

dthat , a s par t o f thi s process , CC A also mad e variou s hardwar

e refinement s an

didentifie dmodification s to operatin g practice s i n orde r t o improv e th

e performanc e o f

th e boilers , focusin g o n thos e unit s wit h mor e problemati c issues , a

s wil l be discusse

d below . Thi s approac

h helpedto ensur

e propose d opacit y limit s wer

e consisten

t wit h th e performanc e achievable b y eac h boiler . CCA' s developmen

t o f a n Opacit y POGO P fo r G E Lynn' s boiler s involve drevie w o f bot h existin g operating practice s an dboiler operating history . CC A no t onl y examine

dexistin g standar d operating procedure s (SOPs) use d b y th e powerhouse , but

wa s abl e to dra w upon it s mor e tha n 1 0 year s o f experience i n workin g on GE' s boilers . CC A reviewe dnearly tw o year s o f CEM S historical opacit

y dat afo r eac h o f th e boiler s (2001

- 2003 ) an dexamine

d test

6dat

acollecte d durin g th

e variou s diagnostic studie s an d improvemen

t project s the

y ha d conducte dove r th e years . Th

e analysi s examine

dth e operatin g condition s prevailin g durin g eac h incident

o f elevated opacity , an

dassesse d th e exten t to whic h suc

h spike s wer

e inheren t i n th e specia l operating conditio n occurring . Th e fina l POGO

P expande

dan drefine d existin g SO

P practice s t

o includ e procedure s fo r

addressin

g key operationa

l activitie s likel y t o trigge r opacit y incident s (e.g . burne

r change , startup , shutdown , etc.) , an dals o provide d response procedure s t

o follo w i n th

e even t o f a n malfunctio n condition . Durin g th e perio d tha

t th e Opacit y POGO P wa s bein g developed , CC A als o wa s conducting diagnostic evaluation s an d customizing costly hardwar e refinement s to improv e emission s on th e boiler units . CC A fabricate dan dinstalle danumbe

r o f ne w hardwar

e component

s t o improv e boiler

emissions , includin g specia l startu p burne r tips , an d state-of-the-ar

t atomizer s an dflame stabilizers , al l o f

whic h wer

e customizedfo r

GE' s boilers . These improvements wer e develope

d base d o n diagnostic investigation s focusin g o n th e boiler s showing th

e most problemati c emission behavior . CCA wa s on-sit e o n severa

l occasion s specificall y t o observ e an danalyz e boile r emission s a

t col dstart-up , tes t

th e effec t o f variou s syste

m adjustments , an

d identif y appropriat

e hardwar e refinements . CC A als o ha dth e opportunit

y to examin e an dadjus t boiler operation ove

r avariet y o f othe r operatin g condition s t

o suppor t it s emission s optimizatio n efforts . A listin g o f th e key boile r

project s performe db y CC A ove r th e last severa l year s i s presente

d i n Table 2 below . Additiona l discussion o f thes e activitie s i s provide d i n th e Executiv e Summar

y o f th e CC A Opacit y Stud y an dUpdate dPla n o f Goo dOperatin g Practice s whic h wa s previousl y submitte dt

o th e M A DEP .
Tabl e 2 . Recen

tG E Lyn n Boile r Improvemen tProject s Relate d t

o Opacit y YEA R MONT H UNI T ACTIVIT Y 2003 No v - De

c # 1 Spli t

Flam e atomizers designe

d and fabricated . • Should provide improve d opacity/NO x characteristics . • No t ye t fiel devaluated . 2003 Decembe

r # 3 Provide dstar

t u p atomizer

s o f reduced capacit

y fo r col dstart

- ups . • Should improv e opacit y an d C O characteristic s durin g ligh t off/war m u p o f col dboiler . • No t ye t fiel devaluated . 2003 July #

5 Optimizatio n o f

burne r hardware . • Stage d firin g o f uppe r burners wit h respec

t to lowe r burners . • 30 % lowe

r capacit y burners i n uppe

r burners . • Demonstrate

d improve dNO x margi n wit h opacit y a t maximu mload . • Improve d opacit

y an d NO x emission s durin g soo t blowing . 2003 Apri l #

5 Initia l optimizatio n o f ne w Spli t Flam e atomizers wit h multi-zone flame stabilizers . • Optimizatio n demonstrate d improve d opacit

y NO x characteristics , bu t indicate dfurther

improvement s coul d b

e mad e wit h fue l stagin

g o f uppe r burners . 7YEA R MONT H UNI T ACTIVIT Y

200 3 Marc h #

5 Col dai

r flo w testin g conducted o f individua l burners t

o establis h optimum ai r registe r settings . • Used a

s aguid e i n burne r optimizatio n fo r

improve dopacity/NO x characteristics . 2003 Marc h #

5 Installe dne

w multi-zon e flame stabilizer s fo r improve dopacity/NO x characteristics . 2003 Marc h #

2 Provide dstar

t u p atomizers o f

reduced capacit

y fo r col dboile

r star t ups . • Demonstrated bot

h improve dopacit

y an d C O characteristic s durin g boiler war mup . 2002 Octobe

r Al l Conducte

d forma l particulat

e testin g o n Boiler s #1 , #2 , # 3 an d #5 . • A s par

t o f testin g reviewe dan

d u p date d optimu mburne

r settings . 2002 Apri l #

5 Desig n ne

w Spli t Flam e atomizers an

d Multi-Zon e Flam

e Stabilizers . • Thes e ne w designs hav

e demonstrate

d reduced NO x an

d opacit y i n simila r installations . 2002 Marc h #

2 Furthe

r optimize dSpli t

Flam e atomizers . Introduce dne w retainin g nu

t shap e fo r reduced carbon buil du

p whic h reduced th

e nee d fo r burne r shu t down s an d ligh t off s fo r cleaning . • Thi s resulte d i n areduced numbe r o f opacit y excursions . 200 2 Februar

y # 2 Optimize dne

w Spli t Flam e atomizers wit h ne

w multi-zone swirlers . • Provide dbette

r opacity/NO x characteristics . Note d som e carbo n buil d u p on tip . • Bega n design chang

e o n retainin g nut

to reduce buil dup . 200 1 Decembe

r # 2 Desig n ne

w Spli t Flam e atomizers an

d Multi-Zon e Flam

e Stabilizers . • These ne

w designs hav

e demonstrate

d reduced NO x an

d opacit y i n simila r installations . 200 1 Februar

y #2&# 3 Optimizatio n o f

burne r setting s fo r

NO x emission s an

d opacity . 200 0 Nov-Dec Al l Opacit y minimizatio n plan . • Initia l draft . Thi s activity ha s carrie d o n throug h th

e presen t wit h modification s to th

e pla n an d additiona

l informatio n requests . Propose d Regulation

s Th e US EP A cite d fou r

issues o f

concer n when i t

granted conditiona

l Stat e Implementatio n Pla n (SIP) approva

l o f M A DEP' s proposed revision s t o 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c ) (Se e th e Apri l 8 , 2003 Federal Registe r notic e a t 68 F R16959) : 1 ) th

e nee d fo r aca p o n opacit

y durin g star t u p an d shu t dow n operations ; 2 ) inclusio n o f a n averaging perio d ove r whic h opacit

y shoul d b e measured ; 3 ) specificatio n o f th e criteri ab y whic h aPla n o f Goo d Operating Practice s judged ; an

d 4 ) additio n o f

provision s to mak

e th e Good Operating Practice s enforceable . B y lette

r date d May 8 , 2003 , th

e Sierr aClu b submitte d to EP

A it s oppositio n t

o EPA' s conditiona

l approval , restatin g EPA' s concern s mentioned above . On Jun e 6 , 2003 , EP A withdre w it s direc t

fina l rule . Se

e 6 8 F R33875 . G

E toda y i s commenting on M A 8DEP' s respons e t o US EP A an dth e Sierr aClub' s concern s regarding th e firs t tw o concerns (opacit y ca p an d averaging period) , a

s addresse

d i n re-propose

d31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c) . G E regret s tha t ther e appear s t o be n o technica

l suppor t fo r these ne w limit s i n M A DEP' s BackgroundDocumen

t t o th e Propose dRegulation . N o regulator y basi s i s provide dfo r

th e 2 7 % opacit

y limi t using six-minut

e averaging , nor

i s a n analysi s given t

o suppor t M A DEP' s contentio n tha

t a2 7 % opacit

y limi t durin g asix-minut

e averagin

g perio di s technically feasibl e o r achievabl e fo r existin g facilitie s tha

t ar e no t otherwis e subject

to th e NSPS . Ther

e i s n o economi

c analysi s o f

th e cos t o f complyin g wit h th

e regulations , n

o dat aar e provide d tha t identif y what , i f any , environmenta

l benefit s ma

y be derive dfro mth

e propose d regulation . G E appreciate s M A DEP' s effort s to creat e a n alternativ e opacit

y standar dtha t i s highl y protectiv e o f

th e environmen

t whil e stil l bein g flexibl e an dpractica l fo r industry . G

E als o support s M A DEP' s inclusio n o f a n alternativ e opacit

y standar dtha t provide s separat

e limit s fo r startups , shutdown s an

d certain othe

r operating conditions . M A DE P clearly recognize s tha t i n practice , operation o f

industrial boiler s result s i n som e variatio n i n emissions , dependin g o n facility-specifi c condition s an dproces s equipment . However , G E believe s tha

t th e propose dopacit y regulation s ar

e far mor e restrictiv e an

dinflexibl e tha

n necessar

y t o satisf y U S EP A an dth e Sierr aClub' s concerns . I f

adopted , th

e 15 % opacit

y limi t wil l equa l th e lowes t opacit y standar dpromulgate db y th

e Ne w Englandan

dMiddl e Atlanti c states . Further , th

e propose dopacit y rul e wil l apply stricte

r opacit y limit s to al l industria

l boiler s tha n th e federa l NSP S imposedo n new , modifie do r reconstructe dboilers . Additionally , b y establishing opacit

y limit s fo r

period s o f

startup , shutdown an

dmalfunction , th

e propose d rul e wil l impos e additiona l regulator

y burden no t

applie deve

n t o new , modifie do

r reconstructed boiler s b y th e NSPS . Comparison t

o th e Federal Ne

w Sourc e Performance Standard s Th e federa l NSP S fo r Fossi l Fuel-Fire dIndustrial Boiler s (4 0 CF R6 0 Subpar t Db ) limit s opacit y durin g norma l operatio n to n o mor e tha n 20 % , excep

t fo r on e on e six-minut

e perio d i n eac h hou r whe n opacit y ma y averag e n o mor e tha n 27% . Th

e NSP S thu s impose s ales s stringen t standar d on new , reconstructedo r modifie dboiler s tha

n th e propose dMassachusett

s rul e wil l impos e o n al l industrial boilers , regardles s o f ag e o r installatio n date . Promulgatio n o f thi s rul e wil l plac e a

n uneve n burden o n olde

r boiler s suc

h a s thos e a t G E Lynn , sinc

e thre e o f GE' s boiler s wer

e designe dan dbuil t prio r t o th e 197 1 standards . Althoug h G E ha s mad e aconcerte

dan d costly effor t

t o improv e boiler

operation , a

s describedabove , "a

s built " advance dburne r an dcombustion contro l technologie s wer e not developedwhe

n th e olde r Lyn n boiler s wer

e installe di n 1943 , 194

9 an d1962 . EPA' s firs t

concer n (a s expresse

d i n it s Apri l 8 , 2003 conditiona l SI P approval ) tha

t ther e b e aca p o n opacit y durin g start-u

p an dshutdown i s difficul t

t o understan

di n ligh t o f th e opacit y provision s o f

th e NSP S regulations . Th

e Genera l Provision s (40 CF

R6 0 Subpar t A ) specificall y addres s thi s poin t a t 40 CF R60.11(c) :

9"Th e opacit y standards se

t fort h i n thi s par

t shall appl

y a t al l time s excep

t durin g period s o f startup , shutdown , malfunction , an d a s otherwis e provide di n th e applicable standard. " Thi s point

i s emphasize

d furthe r b y th e inclusio n o f

nearl y identica l language i n th

e NSP S fo r Industrial-Commercial-Institutiona l Stea mGenerator

s a t 4 0 CF R60.43b(g) : "Th e particulat

e matte r an d opacit y standard

s appl y a t al l time s excep

t durin g period s o f startup , shutdown o

r malfunction. " Clearly th e U S EP A fel t tha t th e opacit y standard

s should no t

apply durin g startu

p an d shutdown fo r

industrial facilitie s i n genera l an d industrial boiler s i n particular . Nonetheless , th e M A DE P no t onl y applie s aca

p i n these operating situations , bu t chose t o addres s U.S . EPA' s concer

n abou t th e nee d fo r a n opacit y ca p durin g star

t u p an d shu t dow n b y allowin g opacit y a s hig h a s 27 % average

d ove r on e six-minut

e perio di n eac

h hour . Th

e limi t itsel f i s th e sam e a s tha t foun di n th

e NSP S fo r "new " mdustrial-Commercial-Institutiona l Stea m Generator s a t 4 0 CF R60.43b(f) . Tha

t i s a n inappropriat

e ca p fo r existin g olde

r units . Th e EPA' s Ne w Source Review Worksho p Manual , issue

d a s aDraf t i n October , 1990 , provide s i n Appendi x H o n constructio n permits , a t Section II.D , tha

t "[pjermi t

condition s definin g exces s emission s ma y include alternat

e condition s fo r

startup , shutdown , an

d malfunction s suc

h a s maximu memission limit s an d operationa

l practice s an

d limits. " I n fact , man y permit s hav

e bee n issue d throughou

t New England wit h differen t standards fo r startup s an

d shutdowns , a

s hav e EPA-approved regulations , a s discusse d below . Other Northeaster

n State s Severa l Northeaster

n state s hav

e adopte d visibl e emission s o

r opacit y regulation s tha

t ar e mor e appropriat

e tha n th e visibl e emission limit s propose d b y th e M A DEP . Vermon t Vermont' s Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Conservation , Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Divisio n regulation s a

t Chapte r 5-21 1 differentiat e betwee n unit s constructed prio r

t o Apri l 30 , 1970 an d thos e constructed afte r

tha t date . Specifically , th

e regulation s provid e tha

t unit s constructe d before Apri l 30 , 1970 ar e allowe dto emit

u p t o 40 % opacit

y o r Ringleman

n #2 , excep t fo r si x minute s i n an

y hou r i n whic h emission s o f

u p t o 60 % opacit

y /Ringleman

n # 3 ar e allowed . I n addition , unit s constructed after Apri l 30 , 1970 ma

y emit u p to 20 % opacity/Ringleman

n #1 , excep

t fo r si x minute s i n an

y hou r i n whic h they ma

y emi t n o greate r tha n 60 % opacity/Ringlemann #3 . Th e EP A ha s approved these regulation s a s par t o f th e state' s SIP . Se

e 40 CFR . 52.2381 .

1 0New Hampshir e New Hampshire' s EPA-approve d SI P regulation s a

t Par t Env- A 120

2 als o differentiat e betwee n olde r an d newe r units , a s wel l a s betwee n large r an d smalle r units , an d provid e exemption s fo r

variou s operatin g scenarios . Specifically , th e regulation s provide a

s follows :

• Th e visibl e emissio n standar d fo r fue l burnin g device s installe dprio r to May 13 , 1970 i s n o greate r tha n 40 % opacity/Ringleman n #2 .

• Unit s installe d after

Ma y 13 , 1970 dat

e ar e limite dto emissions o f

n o greate r tha n 20 % opacity/Ringleman

n #1 , excep

t tha t unit s wit h agros s hea

t input o f 25 0 millio n BTU/h r ma y emi t u p to 40 % opacity/Ringleman n # 2 fo r u p to tw o minute s i n an

y hour . Thes e standard

s d o no t apply to emission s o f

an y uni t durin g th e buildin g o f

ane w fire , cleaning o f

fires , o r soo t blowing , whic h ma

y emit u p to 60 % opacity

/ Ringleman

n # 3 fo r period s aggregatin

g si x minute s i n an

y 6 0 minutes . Se

e 40 CFR . 52.1525 . I n August , 2002 , Ne w Hampshir e submitte d t

o th e EP A fo r SI P inclusio n revision s to it s regulation s currentl y promulgate d a t Par t Env- A 2003 , whic h change d th e genera l standard s b y allowin g bot h pre - an d post- May 13 , 1970 unit s t o excee d th e abov e threshold s fo r

a continuou s six minute s i n an y 6 0 minut e period. 3 Th

e ne w regulation s als o provide th e followin g exemptions :

• Stea mgenerating unit s subject t o 4 0 CF R6 0 ma y tak e eithe r (1 ) a n exemptio n t

o allo w emission s i n exces s o f 20 % opacit

y fo r on e perio d o f

six continuou s minute s i n an y 6 0 minut e perio d durin g period s o f startup , shutdow

n an d malfunction , o

r (2 ) a n exemption to allo w emission s u p t o 27 % opacit

y fo r on e perio do f

si x continuou s minute s i n an

y 6 0 minut e perio d durin g period s o f norma l operation , soo

t blowing , grat e cleaning , an

d th e cleaning o f

fires .

• Device s installe dprio r t o May 13 , 1970 , havin g gros s hea t input a t least 50 0 millio n BTU/h r an d equipped wit h automatic soo t blower s ma

y excee d 40 % opacit

y fo r a non-overlappin g se

t o r set s o f tim e u p t o 6 0 minute s i n an

y 8-hou r perio ddurin g startup , shutdown , malfunction , soo t blowing , grat

e cleaning an

d cleaning o f

fires .

• Fue l burnin g device s no t

covere d b y eithe r o f th e tw o abov

e exemption s ma

y excee d th e above-standar

d fo r on e perio d o f

si x continuou s minute s i n an y 6 0 minut e perio d durin g startup , shutdown , malfunction , soo t blowing , grat

e cleaning an

d cleaning o f fires .

• Exceedances o f

th e opacit y standard

s ar e no t considere d violation s i f

th e sourc e demonstrate s (1 ) tha

t suc h exceedance

s wer e th e resul t o f adherenc e t o goo d boile r operating practice s (such a s col dstartu

p ove r acontinuou s perio d o f

time ) or (2 ) suc h

3 Th e EP A ha s no t ye t acte d o n thi s submission .
1 1exceedance s wer e th e result o f th e occurrence o f

a n unplannedincident

beyondth

e contro l o f th e operator , an

dth e operato r too k appropriat

e step s i n accordanc

e wit h goo dboiler

operating practices . Main e Maine' s EPA-approvedSI P regulation s a

t 06-09 6 CM RChapte

r 10 1 o n visibl e emission standard s differentiate betwee

n large r an dsmalle r units , an dals o provid e exemption s durin g startups , shutdowns , an

d malfunctions . Specifically ,

• Unit s greate

r tha n 25 0 millio n BTU/hr

ma y excee d40 % opacit

y fo r u p to 1 5 minute s i n an y continuou s 3-hou

r period .

• Unit s les s tha

n 25 0 millio n BTU/hr

ma y excee d30 % opacit

y fo r u p to 1 5 minute s i n an y continuou s 3-hou

r period .

• Th e abov e standards d

o not appl y t o unit s greate

r tha n 200 millio n BTU/hr

durin g th e firs t fou r hours followin g th

e initiatio n o f

col dstartu

p or planne dshutdown , provide d operating record s demonstrat e tha t th e facilit y wa

s bein g operatedto minimiz e emissions .

• Th e DE P ma y exemp t emission s occurrin g durin g period s o f unavoidabl e malfunctio n o r unplanne dshutdown i f

not cause d b y poo r maintenance , careles s operation , etc . Se e 4 0 CF R52.1031 . Mos t recently , i n May , 2003 , Main e amende dit s visibl e emission s regulatio n t o rea da s follows 4 :

• Boiler s les s tha

n 100 0 millio n BTU/hr

firin g #4 , #5 , or

# 6 fue l oi l ma

y no t excee d 30 % opacit

y on a6 minut

e bloc k averag e basis , excep

t fo r tw o 6 minut

e bloc k averages/ 3 -h r period .

• Boiler s a

t least 100 0 millio n BTU/hr

firin g #4 , #5 , o

r # 6 fue l oi l ma

y no t excee d20 % opacit y on a6 minut

e bloc k averag e basis , fo r

90 % o f al l 6 minute bloc k

average s o n aquarterly basis . Th

e remainin g 10

% o f al l 6 minut

e bloc k average s ma

y not excee d 30 % opacity .

• Boiler s firin g #

2 oi l ma y no t excee d20 % o n a6 minut

e bloc k averag e basis , excep

t fo r on e 6 mi n bloc k

averag e i n a3-hou

r period .

• Fo r boiler s greate

r tha n 10 0 millio n BTU/hr , th

e abov e standards d

o not appl y durin g th e first fou r hours o f col dstartu

p o r plannedshu

t down , throug h Decembe r 31 , 200 6 providin g operating record s demonstrat e tha t th e facilit y wa

s bein g operate

dt o

4 Not e tha t th e ne w regulation s ma

y no t hav e bee n submitted t

o th e EP A a s o f yet . 1 2minimiz e emissions , an d tha t exces s emission s wer

e no t cause d b y poo r maintenance , careles s operation an

d th e like .

• Boiler s greate

r tha n 10 0 millio n BTU/hr

ma y amen dtheir air emission licens e t

o establish specifi c condition s an dallowance s fo r

boile r startu p an dshutdown . Th e Maine standard

s referenc e stat

e statute s tha

t provide a

n additiona

l potentia l exemption fro mvisibl e emission s rule . "Titl e 3 8 M.R.S.A . § 590(5 ) addresse s th e Department' s authorit

y to establish appropriat e licens e allowance s an

dcondition s fo r

period s o f

col dstar t up s an dshu t downs . Titl e 3 8 M.R.S.A . § 349(9 ) set s fort h th e condition s unde

r whic h th e commissione

r ma y exemp t emission s i n exces s o f

licens e limitation s o

r th e limit s an

d allowance s se

t fo r i n thi s Chapte

r occurrin g durin g period s o f star t up , shu t dow n o r malfunction . Afte r

Decembe r 31 , 2006 , i f

period s o f

star t u p o r shutdown ar

e not specificall y addresse

d b y asource' s license , th e license e ma y apply fo r

acas e b y cas e exemption unde

r M.R.S.A . § 349(9). " Throughou

t th e publi c commen

t perio dfo r

revise dChapte

r 10 1 an di n it s implementatio n memorandu

mfo r th e rule , th e Main e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n recognizedth e nee d fo r exemption s fro mth

e rule . I n it s memorandum , th e Main e DE

P states : "Th e star t up/shu t dow n exemptio n ha

s bee n adifficul t

issu e t o resolve becaus

e boiler s regulated b y thi s rul e var y i n size , typ e an

dmanufacturer' s recommende d star t u p procedures , an

d n o single exemptio n applie s t o al l boilers . Therefor

e th e Departmen

t i s proposin g to provid e exemption s through th e licensin g proces s on a case-by-cas

e basis. " (Memorandu

mfro mMar

c Cone , Main e Burea

u o f Ai r Qualit y to th e Maine Boar

d o f Environmenta

l Protection , Apri l 17 , 2003 ) Ne w Yor k Ne w York' s EPA-approvedopacit y rul e a t 6 NYCR R227-1.3(a

) impose s th

e sam e opacit y limit s a s propose d i n th e revised Massachusett

s rule , wit h n

o explici t exemption fo r

period s o f star t up , shu t dow n o r malfunction . However , th e Ne w York

rul e allow s th

e sourc e t o appl y fo r a n equivalen

t opacit y standar dles s stringen

t tha n th e opacit y standar di n Section 227-1.3(a ) i f th e sourc e owne r ca n demonstrat

e through emission test

s tha t th e boiler i s ". . .i n complianc e wit h al l applicable emission standard s othe r tha n th e opacit y standar dan dtha t th e sourc e an d an y associate

d emission contro l equipmen t i s operate

dan dmaintainedi n a manne r acceptabl

e to th e commissioner. " Se

e 6 NYCRR227-1.3(c) , 40 CF R52.1679 .

1 3Connecticu t Althoug h Connecticu

t does no t hav e exemption s fo r

olde r o r smalle r boilers , it s genera

l standard s a t R.C.S.A . § 22a-174-18 5 ar e simila r to thos e i n Massachusetts ' 1972 EPA

approve dSIP . Specificall y al l stationar y sources ma

y no t emit visibl e ai r pollutant s darke

r tha n 2 0 % opacity

/ Ringlemann #1 , excep

t fo r a n aggregation o f

fiv e minute s i n an

y 6 0 minute s asourc

e ma y emi t pollutant s no darke

r tha n 40 % opacity/Ringleman n #2 . Th e EP A ha s approve d these regulations . Se

e 40 CF R§ 52.385 . Impac tt o G E A s discusse

d above , i n 2003 , G

E retaine dCC A t

o conduc t adetaile d Opacit

y Study , whic h reviewe dal l period s o f

elevated6-minut

e bloc k opacit y greate r tha n 15 % datin g bac

k to Novembe r 2001 . These dat

awer e extractedfro mth

e CEM S database . T o assis t i n interpretatio n o f

th e data , NO x emission s an doperating/loa

ddat aoccurrin g coinciden

t wit h thes e opacit y incident s was als o provide dto CCA . Finally , i n man y case s operator

s ha d notedth e reaso n fo r opacit y excursion s o n th

e Dail y Opacit

y Reports ; thi s informatio n wa s also available t

o CC A to assis

t i n understanding o f

these events . Base d o n CCA' s opacit

y study , o n averag

e acros s al l fou r

unit s (excludin g specia

l testing) , GE' s boiler s compl y wit h th e 15 % 6-minut

e bloc k averag e limitatio n ove

r 99.5 % o f th e time . Mos t o f th e occurrence s o f

opacit y greate r tha n 15 % ar e associate

d wit h soo

t blowing , startu p o r shutdow n activities ; bu t

a s enumerate

di n th e Jun e 30 , 2003 CC A Repor

t an dth e Opacit y Submitta

l lette r to M A DEP , opacit

y excursion s ca

n also be cause

d b y fue l swapping , rapi d loa

dchanges , ver

y hig h loads (a

s atrade-of

f fo r NO x control) , malfunctio n typ e event

s (burne r trip , uni t trip , operatin g problems , etc. ) a s wel l a s performance/optimizatio n activities . Th e opacit y dat a( > 15% ) fo r

eac h boile r wer e compile db y CC A int o spreadsheets , an dthe n separate d into fou r

categorie s base

d o n Incident

Typ e (Soo

t Blowing , Startup , Shutdown an d Other) . Th

e groupeddat

awer e then formatte dint o graphs b y yea r fo r easie r visual examination . Th e graph s fo r Novembe

r 200 1 throug h 200 3 ar

e presente

d i n Attachmen

t 2 . Eac h pag e i n th e attachmen

t show s fou r

graphs (on

e fo r eac h Incident

Type ) containin g on

e yea r o f dat a fo r aparticula

r boiler . A 27 % opacit

y lin e ha s bee n inse t int o eac h grap h t o facilitat e identificatio n o f

incident s tha

t excee dthi s ceiling . Eac

h grap h als o include s summar

y statistic s listing : (1 ) th

e tota l numbe

r o f elevatedopacit

y ( > 15% ) 6-minut

e bloc k period s unde r eac h specia l operatin g conditio n tha

t occurredi n th

e year, (2 ) th

e percen t o f total operating time represente d b y suc h elevatedincident s (i.e . = total time opacit y > 15% / total operating time) . I n interpretin g these graphs , i t shoul dbe recognizedtha t th e operating pattern s o f

th e boiler s differ . Boiler

# 3 i s consideredthe bas

e uni t fo r th e powerhous e i n tha

t i t operates almost

5 Not e tha t th e versio n approvedb y th

e EP A wa s formerl y numbere

dR.C.S.A . § 19-508-18(a) . Th e text i s th e sam e i n th e curren t publication . 1 4continuously . Boile r # 2 i s th e primar y suppor t boiler an doperates fo r

lon g periods ; but

i t i s take n out-of-servic e when deman di s low , an

dtherefor e ha s mor e startup s an

dshutdown s tha n Boiler #3 . Boile r

# 1 an dBoile r # 5 provide supplementa

l support , an

d their utilizatio n durin g th e yea r i s mor e limited . Th e mos t basi c finding , see

n i n these graphs , i s tha

t elevate d opacit y incident s constitut

e a ver y small percentag

e o f overal l operating time , generall y les s tha n atent h o f apercent . Th

e graph s also sho w som e decline i n th

e numbe r an dseverit y o f elevate dopacit y event s ove r th e course o f th e las t tw o year s reflectin g th

e wor k o f CCA , particularl y on Boiler s # 2 an d#5 , a s wel l a s on-going effort s o f

plant personne l to refin e operating practices . A t th e sam e time , th e graphs clearl y documen t tha t occasiona

l opacit y spike s abov

e 27 % occu r durin g startup , shutdown an dcertain othe

r specia l conditions , i n spit

e o f al l th e improvements mad

e b y CC A an

din-hous e personnel . A s discusse d below , suc

h spike s ar

e inheren t i n th e transient , somewha

t unpredictable condition s prevailin g unde r specia l situation s o

r conditions . These elevate dreading s canno

t b e entirel y eliminate db y burne r refinements an

d prope r operatin g practices . CCA' s conclusio n i n Attachmen t 3 - tha t th e 27 % opacit

y ceilin g containedi n th

e draf t rul e coul dno t b e satisfie da

t al l time s - i s consisten

t wit h th e experience o f

plant personne l who hav e themselve s bee

n closely monitorin g opacit y i n orde r t o bot h identif y operating condition s tha

t tend to produc e opacit

y spike s an

ddevelo p procedure s to minimiz e suc h spikes . Th

e opacit y spike s tha

t hav e proven most

intractabl e ar

e associate

d wit h transien

t operatin g conditions , includin g startup , shutdown , fue l swapping , abrup t loa dchanges , burne r trips , etc.) . Durin g suc

h transient , off-desig n condition s th e combustion proces s canno t b e full y controlled , an

dtherefor e spike s canno

t b e completel

y avoided . Th

e inherently unpredictabl e natur e o f these transien

t event s makes i t infeasibl e to completely manag e opacit y o n al l occasions . O f thes e norma l type s o f transien t operating conditions , startu p an dt o alesse r exten t shutdown , ar

e th e mos t pron e to sporadi

c bursts o f

opacit y spiking , an

dhav e proven most difficul t t o contro l unde

r al l circumstances . Condition s a t initia l uni t

startu p var y significantl y depending o n th e lengt h o f th e shutdown , th

e amoun t o f time elapse

d since th e last major servicin g a

s wel l a s th e natur e o f an y maintenance performe ddurin g th e shutdown , ambien t conditions , etc . al l o f

whic h ca n combin e t o ac t i n asomewha

t unpredictabl e manne

r a t light-of f causin g unanticipate d combustion behavior , an di n som e case s brie f period s o f incomplet e fue l burn-out , resultin g i n elevate dopacity . Boiler s ar

e not hig h precisio n instruments , lik e ga

s turbines , s

o tha t startu p operation s ar

e not entirel y repeatabl

e o r predictable . Whil e prope r response b y operator

s ca n minimiz e th

e duratio n o f

suc h spikes , the y canno t alway s be entirel y prevented . I t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t G E feel s impositio n o f

a n absolut e 27 % opacit

y ceilin g a

t startu p an dshutdown , i n particular , i s inappropriate , a s i t i s inconsisten

t wit h leve l o f

contro l achievabl

e b y prope

r syste moperation . Mos t ai r qualit y regulations , includin g th e Massachusett

s NO x RAC T rul e an

dth e NSP S Opacit y rules , recogniz e tha

t combustio n sourc

e opacit y an demission control s ar

e not a s effectiv e durin g startu

p an d shutdown , an

dprovide a

n explici t exclusio n fromcomplianc e durin g suc

h periods . Th

e experience a

t G E support s th e ide atha t opacit y durin g startu

p an d
1 5shutdown period s i s no t amenabl e t o th e sam e typ e o f contro l a s ca n b e achieveddurin g norma l uni t operation . I n addition , th

e G E dat aals o indicat

e that , durin g schedule

dshakedown , testing , an d calibratio n activities , th

e 27 % opacit

y limi t coul dno t

be me t consistently . I n fact , enforcin g th e opacit y limi t durin g boile r

optimizatio n testing an

dtroubleshootin g activitie s woul dhav e th e impact o f discouragin g operators fro mimplementin g suc h testin g protocol s whic h bot h optimiz e boiler s an

d reduce emissions . I n th e lon g run , puttin g a27 % limi t o n shakedown , testing , an

d calibratio n activities , woul dlikel y hav e th e impact o f increasin g emissions . GE' s Proposa

l Base d o n th e informatio n presente

d above , G

E i s requesting tha

t th e proposed31 0 CM R 7.06(l)(c ) opacit

y standar dbe modifie dto allo w fo r occasional , brief, unavoidabl e opacit y excursions , to allo w u

p to tw o 6-minut

e bloc k period s greate

r tha n 27% , a s lon g a s th e on e hou r averag e containin g th

e tw o 6-minut

e bloc k period s tha

t excee d27% , i s belo w 27 % base d o n 6 0 minute s beginnin g a

t start-up . I n addition , G

E i s als o requesting aprovisio n t o allo w fo r exemption s fro m27 % opacit y limit s fo r

schedule dshakedow

n activities , testing , an dcalibration s when M A DE P i s informe d2

4 hour s prio r to th e schedule

devent . Thi s approac h wil l maintai n th

e overal l hig h stringency o f thi s rule , withou t

creatin g limit s tha

t ar e impossibl e to achieve . Specifically , G

E propose s tha

t MADE P conside

r th e exemption s belo w tha

t woul dpreserv

e th e stringenc y o f

th e opacit y regulatio n i n Massachusetts , b e acceptabl

e to U S EP

A base d on preceden t an d othe r Regio n I approve

dopacit y programs , an

d allo w fo r

improvement s i n boiler operations . 1 . ) Durin g startup , shutdown , an dsoo t blowing , allo w fo r

tw o 6-minut

e bloc k average s tha t excee d 27 % a s lon g a s th e one-hou r averag e remain s les s tha

n 27% , wit h aonehou r averag e base d o n 6 0 minute s beginnin g a

t th e onse t o f th e event . 2 . ) Allo w fo r

exemption s fro mth

e 27 % opacit

y limi t fo r schedule dshakedow

n activities , testing , an

dcalibration s whe

n M A DE P i s informe d2

4 hours prio r

to th e schedule

d event .

1 6

## Propose

d 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(d-g

) Solven tMeta l Degreasin

g Introductio n A t it s Lyn n facility , G

E work s on intricat

e an d highl y sophisticated aerospac e component

s tha t ar e no t amenabl e to parts cleaning wit h low-volatility , mineral spiri t typ e solvents . Thes e intricate an

d highl y specialized components , whic h ar e use d i n application s suc

h a s commercia

l aircraf t engine s an

d militar y fighter

jets , requir

e high-purity solvents tha t wil l leav e th e parts clean , dry , an

d withou t an y residue . Th

e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n o r th e Departmen

t o f Defens e approve s man

y o f th e cleaning specification s use d o n aviatio n components . I n fact , residue o n aviatio n parts ca n caus e flight-critica l malfunction s includin g in-fligh t

engin e shu t down . G E operate s numerou s solven t cleaning unit s a

t Lyn n tha t ar e subject to 31 0 CM R7.18(8) . T o reduce petroleum-base d solven t use , th e Lyn n facilit y ha

s migrate d ove

r time t o th e us e o f ultrasoni c cleaner

s an d aqueou s industria

l dishwashe

r unit s wher

e technologicall y feasible . A s par t o f it s ongoin g complianc e assuranc e activities , G

E Lyn n ha

s carefull y evaluate

d th e applicabilit

y o f th e Solven t Metal Degreasin

g rule s t o it s meta l cleanin g units . Extensiv e Si x Sigm

aerror-proofin g activitie s hav e bee n conducted to assur

e tha t unit s tha t ar e clearl y regulate d b y th

e curren t rule s comply wit h al l applicabl e requirements . Durin g these error-proofin g activities , GEA E ha s determined tha

t variou s type s o f

aqueous-base

d parts cleaner

s ar e inadvertentl y subject

t o regulatio n unde

r 31 0 CM R7.18(8) . These units , whic h contain water-base d detergent

s wit h onl y trac e amount

s o f volatil e organics , ar

e neithe r clearl y regulated by , no

r clearly exemp

t from , th e curren t Solven t Meta l Degreasin

g regulations . Thes

e unit s include suc

h cleaning equipmen

t a s larg e industrial dishwashers , ultrasoni c cleaning units , an d dip tank s containing aqueou

s solution s wit h smal l amount s o f volatil e organic compounds . Becaus e thes e unit s us e surfactants tha

t contai n asmall amoun

t o f organic components , the y coul dno t

clearly b e considere

d exemp t fro mth e curren t regulations . Curren tan

d Propose

d Regulation

s G E believe s tha

t 31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) a

s drafte drequire s clarificatio n s o th e regulate d communit

y ca n continue t

o pursu e feasibl e alternative s to petroleum-based solven t cleaning withou t jeopardizin g operating flexibility . I n short , th e rul e shoul d include exemption s fo r operation s tha

t wil l hav e minima l environmenta

l impact . Fo

r thi s reason , G

E request s tha t M A DE P conside

r i n it s final 31 0 CM R7.1 8 th e followin g revisions :

• Include a

n exemption fo r

low-volume col dcleaner s ( 2 gallon s o

r less) , • Clarif y th e exemption fo r

aqueou s cleaners , an

d • Clarif y areferenc e to instantaneou s averagin g time G E note s tha

t analogou s solven

t degreasin g rule s recently promulgate d b y th e Pennsylvani a Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protection , a

t 2 5 P A 129.63 (Solven

t Cleanin g Operations )

1 7and

New York Department

of Environmental

Conservation, at

6 NYCRR 266

(Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes), as set out below, provide examples of rules that

incorporate flexibility to account

forthe diversity of

regulated

activities. Both Pennsylvania and New York revised theirsolvent

cleaning rules - to promote furtherprogress toward the State's attainment

of the 1-hourozone National

Ambient AirQuality Standard. We note also that both US EPA and the Ozone Transport

Commission approved

Pennsylvania's and

New York's rules in final form, including the exemptions we are recommending forMassachusetts. It is significant that neitherPennsylvania's norNew York's pre-existing solvent cleaning rules included any such exemptions - these exemptions were only recently adopted. Therefore, Massachusetts should

have the same ability to adopt such exemptions. Ou r rational e fo r

requesting these exemption s i s presente d below . 1 . Lo w volume threshold . Includin g alow-volume threshol d (suc h a s th e 2-gallo n threshold s recently adopte db y Pennsylvani aan

dNe w York , an

dwhic h wa

s incorporated int o th e HalogenatedSolven

t Cleaning National Emission s Standards fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAP ) [4 0 CF R63.461] ) woul dprovid e significan t flexibilit y b y allowin g small , benc

h top containers o f

solven t to be use d fo r spo t cleaning o

r wip e cleaning , wit h littl e o r n o environmenta

l impact . Suc

h a n exemptio n woul dminimiz e regulator y burden s fo r

smal l cleaning operations , an dals o clarif

y th e applicability o f

31 0 CMR7.1 8 a s directe da

t immersio n col dcleaners . New Yor k lo w volum

e languag e - 6 NYCRR226. 6 Exemption s (a ) Thi s Par t shal l no t apply to : (a)(1 ) conveyorize ddegreaser s wit h a n air/vapor

interfac e smalle

r tha n 2 2 squar e fee t (2. 0 m 2 ) ; (a)(2 ) open-to

p vapo r degreaser

s wit h a n open-to p are asmalle r than l 1 squar

e fee t (1. 0 m 2 ) ; (a)(3 ) conveyorize dan

d open-to p vapo r degreaser

s subject to th e requirements i n 40 CF R63 , Subpar

t T ; an d (a)(4 ) col dcleaning degreaser s tha t us e asolven

t wit h aVO C conten

t o f 5 percen t o r les s b y weight . Pennsylvani alo w volum

e languag e - 2 5 PA129.63 . VO C Cleaning Operation s (a ) Col dcleanin g machines . Excep t fo r thos e subject

to th e Federa l NESHA P fo r halogenate

dsolven t cleaner s unde r 4 0 CF RPar t 63 (relatin g to Nationa

l emissio n standard s fo r hazardou s ai

r pollutant s fo r

source categories) , thi s subsectio n applie s to col dcleaning machine s tha t us e 2 gallon s o

r mor e o f solvents containin g greate

r tha n 5% VO C conten

t b y weight

fo r th e cleaning o f

meta l parts .

1 8Halogenate dSolven t Cleaning NESHA

P lo w volume language - 4 0 CF R63.46 1 Definition s Solven t cleanin g machin

e mean s an y devic e or

piec e o f equipmen

t tha t use s halogenate

dHA P solven

t liqui do r vapo r to remove soil s fro mth

e surface s o f materials . Type s o f

solven t cleaning machine s include , bu t ar e no t limite dto , batc

h vapor, in-lin e vapor , in-lin e cold , an dbatch col dsolven

t cleanin g machines . Buckets , pails , an d beaker s wit h capacitie s o f

7. 6 liter s ( 2 gallons ) o

r les s ar e no t considere d solven t cleaning machines . 2 . Clarif

y th e definitio n o f

"Aqueou s Cleaning" . GEAE lauds M A DE P fo r considering th e us e o f a n aqueou s exemption i n it s proposed31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) Solven t Metal Cleaning regulations . However , a s written , virtuall y n

o aqueou s solven t cleaner s woul d b e exempte

dfro mregulatio n since th e condition s fo r

exemption s ar

e eithe r to o stringen

t o r impractica

l t o apply . Man y aqueou

s cleaning solution s contai n asmal l amoun t o f organic components , suc

h a s glycol s o

r glyco l ethers , o

r variou s surfactants . To b e considere da n aqueou s cleaner, th

e curren t proposedregulatio n require s tha t "th e cleaning flui dcontain s n

o mor e tha n 1 0 percen

t b y weight

organi c material , excludin g soaps 6 ; and , al l organic material s hav

e avapo r pressur e les s tha n 1 millimete r

Mercur y (m mHg ) a t 2 5 degree s Celsius " (31 0 CM R7.18(8)(d)(ii)) . Althoug h i t appear s tha t som e organi c material s containedi n ou r curren t aqueou s cleaner s ma y mee t th e 1 m mH g threshold , man y o f th e surfactants an

dothe r additive s ar

e no t common chemical s an

dthu s vapo

r pressur e informatio n i s no t

readil y available . Example s o f these additive s ar

e "alky l polyoxyalkylen e glyco l ether " an d"nonylphenoxypol y (ethyleneoxy ) ethanol. " Determinin g th

e vapo r pressures o f

suc h obscur e material s wil l deman

dunreasonabl

e time an dresource s a

t th e facilit y level , wit h littl e valu e adde dbecaus e th e material s typicall y ar

e presen t i n ver y small amount

s ( < 5 %) . Thi s effor t

makes i t extremel y difficul t t o demonstrat

e complianc e wit h littl e adde dbenefi t give n th e lo w volum

e o f th e VO C contained withi n th e aqueou s cleaner . W e not e tha t th e Federa l Aerospace NESHA

P [4 0 CF R63.741(f) ] exempt

s fro m substantiv e regulatio n a

s wip e cleaning solvents , an y water-miscibl e solutio n wit h greate r tha n o r equa l t o 8 0 percen t wate r wit h aflashpoint

greate r tha n 20 0 degree s Fahrenheit . N o vapo r pressur e limitatio n i s imposed . Thi s rul e als o specifie s tha t "detergents , surfactants , an

dbioenzym

e mixture s an

dnutrient s ma

y be combinedwit h th

e wate r alon g wit h avariet

y o f additives , suc

h a s organic solvents (e.g. , hig h boilin g poin t alcohols) , builders , saponifiers , inhibitors , emulsifiers , p H buffers , an dantifoamin g agents. " (Table 1 , 4 0 CF R63.744(e)) . W

e encourag

e M A DE P t o adop t asimilar , eas

y t o implemen

t

6Typically , documentation fo r cleaners , suc

h a s aMaterial Safet

y Dat aShee t (MSDS) , wil l not

lis t an y non hazardou s ingredients ; an deve n i f manufacturers provide detaile dlisting s o f components , i t

i s not readily apparen t whethe r organic material s mee

t M A DEP' s definition s o f eithe r volatil e organic compound s (VOC ) o

r soaps . Sinc

e fe w member

s o f th e regulatedcommunit

y wil l g o to th e troubl e o

r expens e o f adetaileddatabas

e searc h o r analysi s t o determin

e i f acompoun

dwil l "participat

e i n atmospheric photochemica l reactions, " virtuall y an

y carbon-containing compoun dnot specificall y exclude dfro mM A DEP' s definitio n i s considere d a VOC . Similarly , i t

i s difficul t

t o appl y th e definitio n o f

a"soap " to alistin g o f

ingredient s tha

t ma y include , fo r example , "orang

e terpene " o

r "sodiu mxylene sulfonate, " a

s provide do n som

e householdan

dindustria

l cleaners . 1 9exemption i n it s rules . Th e impositio n o f

avapo r pressur e threshol d creates obstacle s t o complianc e du

e t o th e inabilit y to determin

e th e vapo r pressur e o f man y trace additives . Th e recently-promulgate d Pennsylvani aan d Ne w York

solven t cleaning rule s exemp

t aqueou s cleaner s wit h u p t o 5 % VO C - withou t

avapo r pressur e threshold . W

e encourag e M A DE P to incorporat

e thi s typ e o f

simple , percentage-base

d exemption i n it s solven t cleaning rules . Allowin g th e us e o f aqueous solvents wit h smal l amount s o f VO C wil l promote , rathe

r tha n hinder , Massachusetts ' progra mt o reduce VO C emission s b y encouragin

g conversio n to cleanin g technologie s usin g aqueous material s wit h small amount s o f VO C fo r us e a s surfactant , biocide , or

othe r purposes . W

e urge M A DE

P t o follo w th e exampl e o f U S EP A an d th e States o f

Pennsylvani aan

d New Yor

k b y exemptin g th e us e o f material s wit h u

p to 5 % VO C fro m31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) withou t limitin g th

e vapo r pressur e o f th e VO C components . 3 . Clarif y th e Referenc e t o Instantaneou s Averagin g Time . Th e proposed 31 0 CM R 7.18(8)(g ) reference s th

e preparatio n an

d maintenance o f

dail y record s to demonstrat e complianc e wit h instantaneou s averaging time . Whil e thi s i s not achang e t o th e existin g rul e excep

t i n citation , th

e revisio n offer s a

n opportunit

y to clarif y wha t i s aconfusin g referenc e fo r

th e regulate d community . Th e referenc e to instantaneou s averagin g tim e refer s bac k t o 7.18(2)(a) , whic h indicate s tha t instantaneou s averaging time i s th e complianc e test

metho d averaging time base d o n emission s contro l methods applicable t o coating s industries , not

to degreasers . Coating s ar e covered i n aseparat

e par t o f th e rule , an d referenc e t

o instantaneou s averaging time withi n th e contex t o f Solven t Metal Cleaning i s unclear . Therefore , G E suggest s tha t th e firs t sentenc e o f 31 0 CM R7.18(g ) b e revised t

o read : "An y perso

n subject t o 31 0 CM R7.18(8)(a)(b)(c ) o r (d ) shall prepar

e an d maintain dail y record s sufficien t

to demonstrat

e continuou s complianc e a s state d i n 31 0 CMR 7.18(2)(a). " G E believe s tha

t Massachusett

s ca n include th

e exemption s describe

d abov e i n 31 0 CM R 7.1 8 withou t

compromisin g th

e ai r quality goal s o f

th e State , U S EP

A o r th e Ozon e Transpor t Commission . Th

e sam e force s tha

t require d revisio n o f

solven t cleaning rule s i n Pennsylvani aan

d Ne w York , whic h wer

e approved b y bot

h U S EP A an d th e Ozon e Transpor t Commission , driv e revisio n o f 31 0 CM R7.18(8) . I n fact , promulgatio n o f

31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) withou t suc h exemption s woul dresul t i n a n unleve l playin g fiel damon g Ozon e Transpor

t Regio n states . Massachusetts ' propose d 31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) i s unnecessaril y much mor

e stringen t tha n eithe r Pennsylvania' s o

r Ne w York' s promulgated solven t cleaning rules . I n comparing th e regulator

y constraints impose

d b y th e tw o neighborin g states , industr y coul dchoose t o locat

e o r re-locat e i n eithe r stat e rathe r tha n Massachusett

s becaus e o f th e additiona

l operating flexibilit y offered , whil e stil l meetin g th e objective s o f

th e Ozon e Transpor

t Commissio n t

o reduc e VO C emissions . W e believ e tha

t exemption s fro m31 0 CM R7.18(8 ) suc h a s those describe

d abov e woul d focu s th e rul e o n th

e mor e significan t

solven t meta l cleaning operations . I n particular , G E

2 0believe s tha t exemption s fo r

smal l quantit

y solven t meta l cleaning operation s (< 2 gallons ) an d solution s wit h les s tha

n 5 % VO C conten

t ca n qualitativel y be show

n t o b e on th e whol e a s effectiv e a

s th e curren t rul e give n th

e relativel y lo w leve l o f

emission s fromsuc

h operations . W

e als o believ e th

e exemption s coul dresul t i n eve n furthe r VO C reduction s tha

n th e curren t 31 0 CM R7.1 8 becaus

e they woul dencourag

e th e us e o f aqueou s o r lowe r vapo r pressur e cleaning solvents wit h inherentl y lowe r emissions . Because controlling such de minimis sources (i.e., those containing 2 gallons or less, or those using solvents with less than 5% VOC content) under

310CMR 7.18would

result in little or no environmental

gain, Alabama Power

Co. v. Costle, 636

F.2d 323, 357 (D.C. Cir. 1979), provides sufficient

legal authority for

exempting them. Finally, to the extent that the Department

adopts new exemptions in 310CMR 7.18consistent with our comments, GE also asks the Department to adopt corresponding permitting exemptions under 310CMR 7.02 and 7.03. Impac tt o G E Th e inclusio n o f

th e requeste

d exemption s an

d clarifyin g languag

e i n th e revised 31 0 CM R 7.18(8 ) woul ddemonstrat e clearl y tha

t th e Solven t Metal Cleaning rul e doe s no t appl y t o industria l dishwasher

s an d ultrasoni c cleaner

s using aqueous-base

d surfactants containin g trace amount

s o f VOC . Regulatio n o f

suc h unit s doe

s not resul t i n an y appreciabl

e environmenta

l benefit , an

d th e origina l intent

behin d their

desig n wa s t o us e othe r mechanism

s fo r cleaning (i.e. , ultrasoni c an d high-pressur

e water) , tha

n thos e afforde db y traditiona l hydrocarbon-base

d solvents . Th

e clea r exemptio n o f

th e us e o f small amount

s o f VO C containe

d withi n aqueou

s solution s wil l encourag

e conversion t

o thes e technologie s tha t ar e mor e environmentally beneficial . Th e clarificatio n regarding instantaneou s averagin g time simply allow s th

e regulated communit y t o clearl y understan

d th e obligation s se

t fort h i n 31 0 CM R7.18(8) , Solven t Metal Cleaning , withou t

allowin g questio n o f

complianc e demonstration whic h clearly reference s anothe r section o f

th e regulation . GE' s Proposa

l G E proposes tha

t MADE P include i n it s Solven t Metal Degreasin

g Regulations , languag

e tha t wil l allo w fo r

th e continue d manufactur

e o f high-performanc e militar y an d commercia

l aircraf t engines an

d components , whil e realizin g significan t environmenta

l benefi t fro m encouragin

g th e us e o f aqueous cleanin g technologies . G E propose s tha

t MADEP : 1 . Include a

n exemptio n fo r

low-volume col dcleaner s tha t ar e 2 gallon s i n capacit

y o r smaller . Preceden

t fo r suc h a n exemption i s establishe

d i n th e U.S . EP A Halogenate

d Solven t Degreasin

g NESHA

P an d recently promulgated solven t cleaning regulation s i n New York an d Pennsylvania . 2 . Clarif y th e exemptio n fo r

aqueous cleaner

s suc h tha t u p t o 5% VOC-containin g material s ca

n b e containe d withi n th

e aqueou s cleaner , regardles s o f

th e vapo r

2 1pressur e o f th e VO C component . Suc

h a n exemptio n wil l encourag e migratio n fromtraditiona l solven

t cleaning technologies , t

o alternativ e aqueous cleaners . Eliminate th

e referenc e t

o instantaneou s averagin

g time to mor

e accuratel

y reflec t tha t th e complianc e test

metho d fo r

degreaser

s i s th e preparation an

d maintenance o f dail y record s o f

continuou s complianc e a s state d i n 31 0 CM R7.18(2)(a) .

## Propose

d 31 0 CM R7.5

4 U Large Combustio

n Emissio

n Unit s Introductio n G E offer s th

e followin g comment

s o n M A DEP' s propose

d change s to 31 0 CM R7.5 4 U Large Combustio n Emissio n Units . Specifically , th e definition s imposin g federa l enforceabilit

y requirements fo r

regulated facilitie s ar

e unnecessar

y a s aresult o f pas t decision s o f

th e D.C . Circui t

Cour t o f Appeals. 7 Therefore , G

E submits tha

t th e wor d "federally " shoul d be removed an d replace d wit h "practically " whe

n relatin g to enforceability . G

E als o submits tha

t th e definitio n fo r

"construction " i s redundan t i n th e amendment

s a s i t i s essentiall

y th e sam e a s th e definitio n fo r

"modification. " Finally , G E submits tha

t th e definitio n fo r

"pollutio n contro l project " should no t b e limite dt

o th e liste d projects ; i t

shoul d als o include lo w NO xburner s an d provide flexibilit y fo r

othe r obviou s pollutio n contro l measures . 1 . Federal Enforceabilit y Unnecessar y U S EPA' s definitio n o f

"potentia l to emit " ha

s bee n unde r controvers y fo r

2 5 years , wit h courts repeatedl

y asking th

e U S EP A t o amen d it s definitio n t

o recognize limitation s o n emission s to be include d i n th e calculatio n o f

asource' s potentia

l to emit . Initially , U S EP A amende d it s definitio n to include limitation s on emissions , bu t onl y thos e tha

t wer e "federall y enforceable. " T o compl y wit h thi s statutor y directive , US EPA' s rule s previousl y provided : An y physical o

r operationa

l limitatio n on th

e capacit y o f th e stationar

y sourc e t o emit apollutant , includin g ai

r pollutio n contro l equipmen t an d restriction s o n hours o f operatio n o

r o n th e typ e o r amoun t o f materia l combusted , stored , or

processed , shall b e treated a

s par t o f it s desig n i f th e limitatio n effec t

i t woul dhav

e o n emission s i s federall y enforceable. 8 Althoug h US EP

A announce

d arul e i n 1983 tha

t di dnot includ e th e federa l enforceabilit

y requirement , when th

e fina l rul e wa

s promulgated , U

S EP A state d tha t th e limitation s must b e federall y recognize d an d enforceable. 9 Finally , i n 1995 , th e D.C . Circui t

Cour t o f Appeal s recognized tha

t U S EPA' s definitio n o f

"potentia l t o emit " was base

d o n a n unsubstantiated nee d fo r absolut e federa l contro l an

d th e U S EP A ha d faile dto recognize obviousl y effectiv e state-impose

d limitations. 1 0Th

e definitio n wa

s onc e agai n sen t bac k t o U S EP A requesting tha t stat e an d local limitation s be recognized , unti l finall y i n Chemica l Manufacturer s Association e

t al . v . EPA , th

e D C Circui t

vacate d th e EPA' s definitio n altogether. 1 1

7 Nationa l Minin g Associatio n v . Unite dState s EPA , 31 3 U.S . App . D.C . 363 , 5 9 F.3 d 135 1 (D.C . Cir . 1995) . 8 4 5 Fed . Reg . 52,676(1980) . 9 5 4 Fed . Reg . 27,274(1989) . 1 0National Minin g Associatio n v . Unite dState s EPA,2,\ 3 U.S . App . D.C . 363 , 5 9 F.3 d 135 1 (D.C . Cir . 1995) . 1 1 Chemica

l Manufacturer s Association , e t al . v . EPA , 199

5 U.S . App . LEXI S 31475 , 70 F.3 d 63 7 (D.C . Cir . Septembe r 15 , 1995) ; Se

e als o Clea

n Ai r Implementation Projec t

v . EPA , No . 96-1224 , 199 5 U.S . App . LEXI S 1840 2 (D.C . Cir . Jun

e 28 , 1996) .

2 3O n th

e basi s o f th e D C Circui t

case s tha t le d t o US EPA' s regulatio n bein g vacated , G E submits tha

t th e proposed M A DE

P definition s fo r

"ne t emissio n increase " unde r section 7.54(d)(7)(b) , "potentia

l t o emit " unde

r section 7.54(e) an

d "allowabl e emissions " unde r section 7.54(i ) no t

include th

e word s "federall y enforceable " bu t rathe r us e "practicall y enforceable, " instead , makin g these definition s consisten t wit h curren

t federal law . Therefore , G

E request s tha t these propose

d definition s be revise d i n 31 0 CM R7.0 0 accordingly . 2 . Definitio n fo r Constructio n Unnecessar y Th e propose d M A DE

P amendment

s contain adefinitio n fo r

"construction " i n sectio n 7.54(f) , however , these regulation s fo r Large Combustion Emissio n Unit s onl y apply t o th e substantia l reconstructio n o f

on e o r mor e large combustion emissio n unit s resultin g i n majo r modification . Therefore , thi s definitio n fo r "construction " i s no t

reall y necessar

y an d i t doe s no t appea r to b e use d anywher

e i n th e propose d regulation s tha

t mak e changes t

o section 7.5 4 U Larg e Combustio n Emissio n Units . Also , th e definitio n tha

t i s writte n appear

s t o b e almost identica l t o th e previou s definitio n fo r

"majo r modification " i n sectio n 7.54(c) , tha t similarl y states , i n part , "an y physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f

operation. . .tha

t woul dresult

i n asignifican t

ne t emission s increase. " Therefore , the definitio n fo r "construction " i s redundan t an d nee d not b e include d i n th

e amendment . 3 . Definitio n o

f Pollution Contro l Projec t G E woul dals o lik e t

o commen

t on th e pollutio n contro l projec t definitio n i n section 7.54(n) , t o recommen

d tha t th e definitio n not

b e exclusive t

o th e project s liste dbu t

rathe r stat e "suc h project s o r activitie s include , bu t

ar e no t limite dto... " G

E als o propose s tha

t lo w NO x burner s be include d i n th e lis t o f project s unde

r "th e installatio n o f

conventiona

l o r innovativ e pollutio n contro l technology " unde r section 7.54(n)(l) . The installatio n o f lo w NO xburners shoul d clearl y be include d i n th e definitio n o f

"pollutio n contro l projects. "

2 4

## Attachmen t1 US EP A Regio

n 1 0 Respons

e Turbin e Relocation

s an d Impact s o n NSP S Applicabilit

yContro l Number : 030000 6 193405361.tx t

Category : NSP

S Region : Regio n 1 0 Date : 08/01/200 2 Title : Turbin e Relocation s an d Impact s o n NSP

S Applicabilit y Recipient : Jorda n Jacobso n Author : Jef f KenKnigh t Comments : Subparts : Par t 6 0 A Genera l Provision s

Par t 6 0 G

G Stationar yGa s Turbine s References : 60.14(e)(6 )

60. 2 60.33 0 Abstract : Ql : Ar e turbine s tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , bu t tha t di d no t begin operatio n o n th e TAPS pum p station s unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 , subjec t t o NSP S Subpar t GG , n

o matte r whe

n the ywer e purchase d b yAlyesk a fro mth e manufacture r o r othe r owner ? A l : No . Thes e stationar yga s turbines , tha t ar e purchase d i n complete d form , ar e no t subjec t t o NSP S G G provide d the y wer e no t "modified " o r "reconstructed " a s define d i n NSP S Subpar t A , o n o r afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Q2 : D o th e requirement s o f subpart s Aan d G G follo w a ne w turbin e whereve r i t i s operate d on th e TAPS ? Page 1193405361.tx t

A2 : Yes . Th

e requirement s o f subpart s Aan d G G follo w a turbin e constructed , modifie d o r reconstructe d afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 , regardles s o f wher e th e turbin e i s relocate d to , bu t d o no t appl yt o th e equipmen t tha t i s powere d b

yth e turbin e (suc h a s a generato r o r a pump) . Q3 : D o th e Alyesk a turbine s tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 197 7 becom e subjec t t o NSP

S G G i f the yar e relocate d betwee n TAP S pum p station s a s a poo l o f identica l turbine s t o allo w fo r maintenanc e o f turbines ? A3 : No . Th

e relocatio n o f a turbin e a s par t o f a poo l o f identica l turbine s woul d no t mak e th e turbin e subjec t t o NSP S subpar t G

G i f th e turbin e i s no t "modified " o r "reconstructed, " a s thos e term s ar e define d i n 4 0 CF R subpar t A , a s a resul t o f th e relocation , certai n requirement s ar e require d i n th e Titl e V permit . Q4 : Doe s a turbin e tha t i s no t subjec t t o NSP S subpar t G

G becom e subjec t t o NSP

S subpar t G

G i f i t i s rotate d int o a locatio n t o replac e a turbin e tha t i s subjec t t o NSP S subpar t GG

? A4 : No . A

s discusse d above , a relocatio n o f a n affecte d facilit yi s not , b

yitself , a modification . Letter : Augus t 1 , 200 2 Repl yTo Page 2Att n Of : OAQ-10 7 193405361.tx t

Jorda n E . Jacobso n Counse l Alyesk a Pipelin e servic e Compan y 183 5 Sout h Braga

w Stree t Anchorage , Alask a 9951 2
Re : 4 0 CF

R par t 60 , Subpar t GG , Applicabilit yDeterminatio n Dea r Mr . Jacobson : Th e purpos e o f thi s lette r i s t o respon d t o you r lette r o f Decembe r 18 , 2001 , askin g severa l question s relatin g t o th e applicabilit yo f Ne

w sourc e Performanc e standar d (NSPS ) subpart s Aan

d G G (Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Stationar y Gas Turbines ) t o turbine s use d i n th e operatio n o f th e Trans-Alask a Pipelin e Syste m(TAPS ) pum p stations . NSP

S subpar t G

G applie s t o al l stationar yga s turbine s wit h a hea t inpu t a t pea k loa d equa l t o o r greate r tha n 10. 7 gigajoule s (1 0 mil . Btu ) pe r hour , base d on th e lowe r heatin g valu e o f th e fue l fired , tha t commence d construction , modificatio n o r reconstructio n afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 . See 4 0 CF

R 60.330 . You r lette r correctl ystate s tha t th e stat e o f Alask a doe s no t hav e federa l delegatio n o f NSP S subpar t GG , an

d yo u therefor e appropriatel ydirecte d you r applicabilit y determinatio n t o EPA . Authorit yt o issu e determination s pertainin g t o applicabilit yo f a sourc e t o 4 0 CF R par t 6 0 ha s been delegate d t o th e uni t Manager s i n EPARegio n 10' s Page 3Offic e o f Ai r Quality . 193405361.tx t

Background Alyesk a i s th e operato r o f TAP S o n behal f o f th e pipelin e owne r companies , crud e oi l pipelin e commo n carriers . Th

e TAP S pipelin e transport s crud e oi l throug h th e pipelin e b

ypump s tha t ar e associate d wit h pum p stations . Accordin g t o Alyeska , th e pum p station s a t issue , includin g th e majo r equipmen t an d emissio n source s "commence

d construction, " a s define d i n NSP S subpar t A , prio r t o Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Th e pum p station s emplo y turbine s tha t provid e mechanica l powe r fo r a numbe r o f tasks , suc h a s powerin g pump s an d electri c generators . The turbine s ar e remove d fro m thei r operatin g location s periodicall yfo r maintenanc e an d a turbin e fro mth e TAP S inventor yo f th e sam

e turbin e famil yi s substitute d a s a replacement . Th

e equipmen t powere d b yth e turbin e (suc h a s th e pum p o r th e electri c generator ) remain s i n place . I n othe r words , ther e ar e a numbe r o f turbines , bot h i n us e an d i n inventory , tha t ar e move d aroun d th e TAP

S fro m locatio n t o location . Mos t o f th e turbine s wer e manufacture d an d bega n operatio n o n th e TAP

S prio r t o Octobe r 3 , 1977 , th e applicabilit y dat e fo r NSP

S subpar t GG . Alyesk a doe s als o hav e som e turbine s manufacture d afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Accordin g t o you r letter , Alyesk a ha s a t al l time s treate d thes e turbine s manufacture d afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 , a s subjec t t o NSP S subpart s Aan

d G G regardles s o f wher e the yar e operate d o

n th e TAPS . Page 4193405361.tx t

Th e turbine s a t issu e i n Alyeska' s applicabilit y determinatio n reques t ar e thos e tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , bu t di d no t begi n operatin g o n th e TAP S unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 , fo r on e o f severa l reasons : -th e turbine s wer e purchase d an d maintaine d b

yAlyesk a befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , bu t di d no t begi n operatio n o n th e TAPS unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Thes e turbine s wer e hel d a s spare s an

d late r rotate d int o servic e t o replac e operatin g turbine s remove d fo r maintenance ;

- th e turbine s wer e no t purchase d b yAlyesk a unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 197 7 an

d therefor e di d no t begin operatio n on th e TAPS unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 ; o r -th e turbine s wer e purchase d use d b yAlyesk a afte r Octobe r 3 , 197 7 fro manothe r owne r wh o bough t the

mbefor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Alyesk a doe s no t kno w whethe r the ywer e place d int o operatio n b

yth e previou s owne r befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Questio n 1 : Ar e th e turbine s tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 197 7 an

d purchase d an

d maintaine d b

yAlyesk a befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , bu t tha t di d no t begin initia l operatio n o

n th e TAPS unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 197 7 becaus e the ywer e hel d a s spare s an d late r rotate d int o service , subjec t t o NSP

S subpar t GG

? Questio n 2 : Ar e th e turbine s tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , bu t wer e no t purchase d b yAlyesk a fro mth e Pag e 5193405361.tx t

manufacturer s unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 197 7 (an d therefor e di d no t begin operatio n on th e TAP S unti l afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977) , subjec t t o NSP S subpar t GG

? Questio n 3 : Ar e th e turbine s tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , an

d purchase d a s use d b yAlyesk a afte r Octobe r 3 , 197 7 fro manothe r owne r wh o bough t the

mbefor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 , subjec t t o NSP S subpar t GG , eve n i f the y ma yno t hav e bee n place d int o operatio n b yth e previou s owne r befor e Octobe r 3 , 1977 ? Respons e 1 , 2 an

d 3 : I n th e cas e o f stationar yga s turbine s tha t ar e mass-produce d an d purchase d i n complete d form , EP Aconsider s th e manufacture r a s th e origina l owne r o r operator . Base d on th e informatio n provide d i n you r letter , th e turbine s yo u describ e appea r t o fi t thi s description . Therefore , thes e turbine s ar e no t subjec t t o NSP S G G provide d the ywer e no t "modified " o r "reconstructed" , a s define d i n NSP S subpar t A , o

n o r afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 . Se e Lette r fro mEdwar d E . Reich , EPA , t o David , L . Mulliken , date d Decembe r 29 , 198 0 (Contro l Numbe r GG06 ) (fo r purpose s o f subpar t GG , EP Aconsider s th e manufacture r a s th e origina l owne r o r operato r an d henc e subjec t t o th e standard ; onc e th e manufacture r ha s sol d a turbine , i t i s n

o longe r considere d th e owne r o r operato r o f tha t turb i ne) . Questio n 4 : D

o th e requirement s o f NSP S subpart s Aan

d G G appl yonl yt o th e turbine , a s th e "affecte d facility, " s o tha t a turbin e tha t i s subjec t t o NSP S subpart s Aan

d G G i s operate d a s a G

G turbin e n

o matte r wher e i t i s operate d o n

Pag e 6193405361.tx t

th e TAPS ? i n othe r words , do th e requirement s o f subpart s Aan d G G follo w th e ne

w turbin e whereve r i t i s operate d o n th e TAPS ? Respons e 4 : unde r NSP S subpart s Aan

d GG , th e turbin e i s th e "affecte d facility, " a s define d i n 4 0 CF R 60. 2 an

d th e requirement s o f subpart s Aan d G G follo w a turbin e constructed , modifie d o r reconstructe d afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 , regardles s o f wher e th e turbin e i s relocate d to . Se e 4 0 CF R 60. 2 (definitio n o f affecte d facility) ; 4 0 CF R 60.33 0 (applicabilit yan d designatio n o f affecte d facilit y unde r subpar t GG) . The "affecte d facility " subjec t t o NSP S subpar t G

G i s th e stationar yga s turbin e an d doe s no t includ e th e equipmen t tha t i s powere d b yth e turbin e (suc h a s a generato r o r a pump) . Questio n 5 : D

o th e Alyesk a turbine s tha t wer e manufacture d befor e Octobe r 3 , 197 7 becom e subjec t t o NSP

S G G i f the y ar e treate d a s a poo l o f identica l turbine s an d move d fro m locatio n t o locatio n betwee n TAP S pum p station s t o allo w f o r maintenanc e o f turbines ? Respons e 5 : Assumin g th e maintenanc e doe s no t resul t i n a "modification " o r "reconstruction, " a s thos e term s ar e define d i n 4 0 CF

R subpar t A , and , assumin g tha t th e turbine s ar e no t otherwis e "modified " o r "reconstructed, " a s thos e term s ar e define d i n 4 0 CF R subpar t A , a s a resul t o f th e relocatio n o f th e turbines , relocatio n o f a turbin e a s par t o f poo l o f identica l turbine s woul d no t mak e th e turbin e subjec t t o NSP S subpar t GG . Se e 4 0 CF R 60.14(e)(6)(th e relocatio n o r chang e i n ownershi p o f an affecte d facilit yi s not , b yitself , a modification) ; se e Pag e 7193405361.tx t

als o Lette r fro mSteve n c . Riva , Chief , Permittin g section , Ai r Program s Branch , EP ARegio n 2 , t o Thoma s Micai , Chief , Burea u o f Operatin g Permits , Ai r Qualit y Permittin g Program , Ne w Jerse yDepartmen t o f Environmenta l Protection , date d Apri l 1 , 199 9 (switchin g a poo l o f identica l turbine s amon g differen t generatin g station s t o allo w fo r th e routin e repai r o f malfunctionin g unit s doe s no t constitut e a "modification " fo r purpose s o f NSP S provide d th e turbine s ar e no t otherwis e modifie d o r reconstructed) ; lette r fro mR . Dougla s Neeley , Chief , Ai r an d Radiatio n Technolog yBranch , Air , Pesticide s an d Toxic s Management Division , EP ARegio n 4 , t o Ronal d W . Gore , Chief , Ai r Division , Alabam a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Management , date d Marc h 1 , 199 9 (Contro l Number 0000110 ) (subpar t G

G doe s no t appl yt o turbine s retrofitte d wit h pollutio n contro l equipmen t o r relocate d t o anothe r facilit yi f th e cos t fo r an yrepair s o r maintenanc e undertake n a s a resul t o f relocatio n i s les s tha n 50 % o f th e cos t fo r comparabl e ne w turbines ; assume s th e retrofittin g wit h pollutio n contro l equipmen t wil l no t increas e emissions) . Th e Titl e v permi t can b e writte n t o reflec t Alyeska' s practic e o f maintainin g a poo l o f turbine s an d movin g turbine s fro mlocatio n t o locatio n betwee n TAPS pum p station s t o allo w fo r maintenanc e o f turbine s b yusin g th e authorit yprovide d fo r reasonabl yanticipate d operatin g scenario s i n 4 0 CF

R 70.6(a)(9) . T o do this , i t i s essentia l tha t th e Titl e V permi t requir e monitoring , recordkeeping , an

d reportin g requirement s t o documen t tha t th e turbine s no t subjec t t o NSP S subpar t G

G can b e clearl y Pag e 8193405361.tx t

identifie d an

d tha t th e relocatio n an d replacemen t o f suc h turbine s fro mth e poo l doe s no t constitut e a "modification " o r "reconstruction, " a s thos e term s ar e define d i n NSP S subpar t A . EP

Atherefor e expect s tha t th e Titl e v permi t issue d fo r th e TAP

S wil l contai n monitoring , recordkeeping , an d reportin g requirement s alon g th e line s o f th e foi1ow i ng : 1 . inclusio n i n th e permi t o f a complet e lis t o f al l turbine s maintaine d a s par t o f th e pool , wit h detaile d informatio n on th e make , model , dat e o f manufacture , seria l number , maximu

mhea t input , an

d locatio n fo r eac h turbine . Thi s mus t b

e mad e par t o f th e Titl e V permi t an

d update d wit h regard t o th e locatio n o f eac h turbin e a s it s i s move d alon g th e TAPS . 2 . Arequiremen t t o maintain , fo r eac h turbine , record s o f th e maintenance/repairs/part s replacement , includin g th e dat e an d tim e o f eac h servicing , th e servic e performed , an d th e cost s o f th e service . 3 . Arequiremen t t o notif yth e permittin g authorit yi n writin g n

o late r tha n 7 day s afte r an yturbin e fro mth e poo l i s switche d wit h anothe r turbin e fro mth e pool . 4 . Arequiremen t t o recor d i n a lo g th e followin g informatio n eac h tim e a turbin e i s switched :

a . th e dat e th e switc h occurred ; b . identificatio n o f th e malfunctionin g turbin e an d th e substitut e turbin e b

ymake , model , dat e o f manufacture ,

Page 9193405361.tx t

seria l number , maximu mhea t input , an

d location ; an

d

c . a demonstratio n (suc h a s mas s balance ) showin g tha t th e switc h di d no t resul t i n a n increas e o f an

ypollutan t o r th e emissio n o f a ne

w pollutan t no t previousl yemitted . Questio n 6 : Doe s a turbin e tha t i s no t subjec t t o NSP S subpar t G

G (becaus e i t wa s no t constructed , modifie d o r reconstructe d afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 ) becom e subjec t t o NSP

S subpar t G

G i f i t rotate d int o a locatio n t o replac e a turbin e tha t i s subjec t t o NSP S subpar t GG

? Respons e 6 : Aturbin e tha t wa s no t constructed , modifie d o r reconstructe d afte r Octobe r 3 , 1977 , a s thos e term s ar e define d i n 4 0 CF

R subpar t A , doe s no t becom e subjec t t o NSP S subpar t G

G simpl ybecaus e i t i s rotate d int o a locatio n t o replac e a turbin e tha t i s subjec t t o NSP S subpar t GG . A

s discusse d above , unde r NSP S subpart s Aan

d GG , th e turbin e i s th e "affecte d facility, " a s define d i n 4 0 CF R 60.2 , an

d a relocatio n o f a

n affecte d facilit yi s not , b yitself , a modification . Pleas e not e tha t th e response s i n thi s lette r ar e limite d t o question s presente d unde r NSP S subpart s Aan

d GG . Othe r CA Arequirement s ma

yappl yt o thes e kind s o f changes , suc h a s majo r Ne

w Sourc e Revie w o r Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioration . I f yo u hav e an yquestion s regardin g th e above , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t m e a t (206 ) 553-664 1 o r contac t Kai-Ho n Shu

ma t (206 ) 553-211 7 fo r technica l matter s o r 3uli e vergeron t a t (206 ) 553-149 7 fo r lega l matters . Page 1 0193405361.tx t Sincerely , /Signed / Jef f KenKnight , Manage r Federa l An

d Delegate d Ai r Program s Uni t offic e o f Ai r Qualit y

cc : Joh n Kuterbac h (ADEC )

Pag e 1 1

## Attachmen t2 Combustio

n Component

s Associates, Inc . Analysi s o f G E A E Lynn , Massachusetts , Opacit y Dat a

## G E - Lynn , M A Boiler s 1,2, 3 & 5 6 Mi n Averag e Opacit y > 15 % b y Yea r

Novembe r 19,200 3 Prepare d b y Natha n Schindle

r Combustio

n Component

s Associates , Inc . 88 4 Mai n Stree

t Monroe , C

T 0646 8

## 10

0 g 8 0 S 6 0 o C O Q L 

### O 4 0 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 10 0 

## q r 8 0 > > 6 0 a 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 10 0 g 8 0 

### > r 60 o 

# a 4 0 

### O 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 10 0 g 8 0 > ? 6 0 o 

# a 4 0



### ° 2 0 0 

## GE-Lynn , M A - Boile r # 1 200 1 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g

4/2/200 1

4/2/200 1

4/2/200 1 1 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.042 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 7/2/200 1 Star t U p 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

7 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.295 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y ft o 

### 7/2/200 1 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

0 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.00 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 7/2/200 1 Othe r 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

- * :": ; 0 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.00 % Operatin g Tim e

: 

### i : 

### i

- 27 % ^picit y

i i ! \ 1 i 

### 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1 23 7 Operatin g Hour

s Novembe r1 - Decembe r3 1 

### 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

### 10

0 

## q r 8 0 ^ 6 0 § 4 0 Q . 

### O 2 0 : 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 8 0 : & 6 0 C D Q L 

### O 4 0 : 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 

## GE-Lynn , M A - Boile r #

1 200 2 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g

4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2 3- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 7/2/200 2 Star t U p 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

5- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.03 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 7/2/200 2 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2 10 0 q r 8 0 

## 5 6 0 

# a 4 0



### ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 C o 8 0 £ 6 0 '§ . 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 o o



### 4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2 Shu t Dow n
4 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.03 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 7/2/200 2 Othe r 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

2 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.01 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity

J [

_ 

### 7/2/200 2 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2 144 8 Operatin g Hour

s

### 10 0 3 ^ 8 0
c o 4 0 Q . 

## o 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 

## q r 8 0 

## 2 6 0 Q . 4 0 

### ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 8 0 : & 6 0

° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 8 0 ^ 6 0 F ' o C D Q . 

## o 4 0 2 0 

## G E - Lynn , M A - Boile r #1 200 3 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g

- }
_

- 5 % Operatin g Tim e ; 4- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.0 2 Operatin

: i

- j i

- * ~ —©—. •• 27 % Opacity r S 3 ; 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Start U p 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

- * 

### r.. - r:' : —':..-

f . : 8- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.05 % Operatin g Tim e

- i

- • ; 27 % Oparit v o _.o. . - o o

i i 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

3- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity

1 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Othe r 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

1 7- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.04 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 0 1/1/200 3 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 161 2 Operatin g Hour

s Thr u Novembe r1 3 

### 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

## GE-Lynn , M A - Boile r #2 200 1 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g 10 0 C o 8 0 0 s 

# J 6 0 8
. 4 0



### ° 2 0 0 ; 3- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.04 % Operatin g Tim e

' : }

- : ;

- * ; 27 % Opacity "" " - a

- f *

... . , .0 ? 

### 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 10 0 7/2/200 1 Star t U p 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1
C o 8 0 ~ 6 0 ' o C O Q . 

### O 4 0 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 5 8 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.76 % Operatin g Tim e "* .0.""'. Tz :;: ' • 0 • 0

r t

- • O

.. . . , . 27 % Opacit y 8 S -8 8 - 

### 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1

Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1 10 0 C o 8 0 > > 6 0 o C O Q . 

### O 4 0 2 0 4 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.05 % Operatin g Tim e



### 0 1/1/200 1 27 % Opacit y



### 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1

Othe r 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

> > 0 C O Q . 

## o 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1 76 0 Operatin g Hour s Novembe r1 - Decembe r3 1 - ; 2- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.026 % Operatin g Tim e

- ?7 % Opacity

1 i . . . 0 0

## G E - Lynn , M A - Boile r #

2 200 2 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g 10 0 C o 8 0 o ^ 

### > , 6 0 

# ° c o 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 8 0 & 6 0 

# i . 4 0



### ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 C o 8 0 > , 6 0 C D 4 0 

### ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 4/2/200 2

o o


### 4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2 10 0 C o 8 0 1 5 s 

## 6 0 

# I 4 0 ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 609 3 Operatin g Hour s 1 1 

### 4/2/200 2 3 0 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.05 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y o o 

### 7/2/200 2 Star t U p 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

109- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.18 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 7/2/200 2 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

: . ... . .... „ ........... : 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e . . 1 1 - Averages Operatin



# - - ; •_- 

# - -'• i t

. ° o § - T i 8o 

### 7/2/200 2 Othe r 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

11- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 7/2/200 2 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

### 10 0

8 0 > > 

### 6 0 ' o 

### 4 0 C O Q . 

### O 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 C o 8 0 J 6 0 

## g . 4 0 

### ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 C o 8 0 ^ 6 0 

## I 4 0

° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 

## c ? 8 0

+- « 

### 6 0 ' o C O o 

### 4 0 O 2 0 0 

## GE-Lynn , M A - Boile r #2 200 3 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacit y Soo t Blowin g
12- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Star t U p 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

— o 0 -©— e 8 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.0 1 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

3- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.005 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Othe r 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

OO '- 14- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e

— u — 27 % Opacity 

### 1/1/200 3 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3 588 7 Operatin g Hours Thr u Novembe r1 3

## GE-Lynn , MA - Boile r # 3 200 1 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g 10 0 C o 8 0 o ^ 

### J 6 0 c o 4 0 Q . 

## o 2 0 : 0 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 10 0 C o 8 0 & 6 0 C D 4 0 

### ° 2 0 0 7/2/200 1 Start U p 10/1/200 1

1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 1 10 0 C o 8 0 o" - 

### & 6 0 C D 

### 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 10 0 C o 8 0 0 s " 

## J 6 0 | 4 0 ° 2 0 0 7/2/200 1 Othe r 10/1/200 1

1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1 10/1/200 1 136 5 Operatin g Hour

s Novembe r1 - Decembe r3 1 : " ' • ; T : : -~

" • : 3- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e

- - 

# _. 

# • - ; 27 % Opacit y

- :

i i • o o - 

### 12/31/200 1

- ; - J- ; - - • * 0- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.00 % Operatin g Tim e I

- : 27 % Opacit y : z : • 

### 12/31/200 1

: 0- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.00 % Operatin g Tim e

~ : " ~ ^

- : ; 27 % Opacity :: :

1 1 

### 12/31/200 1

i 2 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.015 % Operatin g Tim e

... 1
27 % Opacity ;;; ;

I \ ! O 

### 12/31/200 1

## GE-Lynn , MA - Boile r # 3 200 2 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g 10 0 C o 8 0 o" - 

### J 6 0 c o 4 0 Q . 

## o 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 8 0 : 6 0 

# s . 4 0



### ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0

V P 

### 8 0 o ^ 

### 6 0 'o 

### 4 0 C D Q . 

## o 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 8 0 : 

## £ 6 0 

# I 4 0 ° 2 0 0 T

. o

_. . o 

### 4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2

1 ' o o 

### 1/1/200 2 4/2/200 2 810 7 Operatin g Hour

s * :'.
. . :: . . . 13 1 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.16 % Operatin g Tim e

:

. „ . , „ . ; : j
. 

# ^ •

- - ' - • ! " 

# " - ?7 % Opacit y . - c o — • 0 o -o 8>ooc^-

...<$5>..-, O. . i

- i 

### 7/2/200 2 Star t U p 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

i ~:...:..TM:L----:.—•:::T:-:- Z.-~-.Z * t 2 1 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.025 % Operatin g Tim e

- ' I

. o 27 % Opacity 1 8

- 8 

### ...

" i ; j o o e I " i 

### 7/2/200 2 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

3- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.004 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 7/2/200 2 Othe r 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

7 1 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.09 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 7/2/200 2 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

### 10 0 C o 8 0 J 6 0 « 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 C o 8 0 o" ~ 

### & 6 0 a 4 0 ° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 C o 8 0 & 6 0 c o 4 0 Q . 

## o 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 C o 8 0 o^ - 

### ^ 6 0 

# a 4 0



### ° 2 0 0 

## GE-Lynn , M A - Boile r # 3 200 3 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g

6 Minut e Averages : 0. 0 2 % Operatin g Tim e : .

_ , , . . ::::::z.:zp:... . 14 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0. 0 2 % Operatin g Tim e : .

: i

„ .



# - - ••- 97 % Dpar.it y ?

- : o %& & > i , 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Start U p 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

* i

_ :.:: / ; _1 2 • 6 Minut e Averages : 0.02 % Operatin g Tim e : " : ./
. o ; {

- • " ~; " D; ;_'/-_ ' ~' ; 9 7 % Opacit y i ;

- y » 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

4 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.006 % Operatin g Tim e
27 % Opacity 

### 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3

Othe r 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

2 0 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.03 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 1/1/200 3 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 653 2 Operatin g Hours Thr u Novembe r1 3 

### 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

## GE-Lynn , MA-Boile r # 5 200 1 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g

' o C O Q . 

### O 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 0- 6 Minut e Average s
27 % Opacit y i i



### 4/2/200 1

O C O C L 

### O 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1

' o C O Q . 

### O 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1

cr -

' o C D C L 

### O 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 - 6 Minut e Average s 

### 7/2/200 1 Star t U p 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

: 0- 6 Minut e Average s \

:

- • 97 % Opacit y i f i ; - . '"".]-
. :



### 7/2/200 1 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

; 0- 6 Minut

e Average s

- r - ::: : zz.'zzr~::.zzi"i.

- • • °7°/ L Omrit v r - ?

- i i 

### 7/2/200 1 Othe r 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

27 % Opacity 

### 0 1/1/200 1 4/2/200 1 7/2/200 1 0 Operatin g Hours Novembe r1 - Decembe r3 1 

### 10/1/200 1 12/31/200 1

### 10

0 C o 8 0 

### ^ 6 0 <- > 

## cl 4 0 

## ° 

## 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 C o 8 0 o ^ 

## J 6 0 c o 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 C o 8 0 o ^ 

### & 6 0 c o 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 2 10 0 8 0 o ^ >. •I— ' 

### 6 0 "o 

### 4 0 C O CL 

## o 2 0 0 

## GE-Lynn , M A - Boile r #

5 200 2 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g

4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2

4/2/200 2 123- 6 Minut e Averages : 1.6% Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 7/2/200 2 Star t U p 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

• •.::; :: 

### :';;-;:i:yj.::7 : ^ -r:. - 5 9 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.75 % Operatin g Tim e

; • " 0 ?7 % Opacit y i
. o § „ - • • 1
i i o « i 

### 7/2/200 2 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

- | : -

- ; " - - ' 5- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.06 % Operatin g Tim e

- : Z
. . ."
. .6. " 1
. 2/ % Opacity

_0

i i o o

" i i 

### 7/2/200 2 Othe r 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2

- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.55 % Operatin g Tim e 1 ; 43 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.55 % Operatin g Tim e

; ?7 % Opacit y a ft a * i i i i 1 1 

### 1 1/1/200 2 4/2/200 2 7/2/200 2 10/1/200 2 12/31/200 2 78 5 Operatin g Hours

## G E - Lynn , M A - Boile r # 5 200 3 - 6 Minut

e Average s > 15 % Opacity Soo t Blowin g 10 0 C o 8 0 & 6 0 c o 4 0 o . O 34- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.26 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacit y 

### 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 10 0 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 Star t U p 10/1/200 3
C o 8 0 o ^ 

### J 6 0 c o 4 0
° 2 0 0 Z
. 13- 6 Minut e Averages : 0.1 % Operatin g Tim e

27 % Opacity 

### 1/1/200 3 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 Shu t Dow n 10/1/200 3 10 0 CP 

### 8 0 o~ »

' o C O CL 

## o 2 - 6 Minut e Averages : 0.015 % Operatin g Tim e 

### 4 0 2 0 27 % Opacity 

### 0 1/1/200 3 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 Othe r 10/1/200 3 10 0 8 0 : ^ 6 0 \ c o 4 0
° 2 0 0 1/1/200 3 4/2/200 3 7/2/200 3 131 7 Operatin g Hours Thr u Novembe r1 3 

### 10/1/200 3 12/31/200 3

12/31/200 3

12/31/200 3

0 0 - R Minut e AvpranPR - 0 17 % Onpratin n Tim<= > + t 

# •" *
o : 27 % Opacity ?

- j 

### 12/31/200 3

## Attachmen t3 Combustio

n Component

s Associates , Inc . Letter Re : Propose

d 31 0 CM R7.06(l)(c

)

2 6

### COMBUSTIO N COMPONENT S ASSOCIATES , INC . 88 4 Mai n Street, Monroe , Connecticut0646 8 TEL : (203 ) 268-313 9 FAX : (203 ) 261-769 7 EMAIL : MAIL@CCA-INC.NE T

Februar y 4 , 200 4 TO : Bil l Currie r FROM : Joh

n Hurley/Joh

n Dale SUBJECT : Propose

dAmendments T o Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.0 0 (Specificall y 7.06(l)(c) ) COPY : Bo

b Machave

r Th e amendment

s proposedto CM R7.0 6 (1 ) (c ) ar e fo r th e most par t consisten t wit h th e wor k tha t CC A ha s don e fo r yo u a t th e G E Lyn n facility . Th

e on e exceptio n tha

t w e di d not e wa s th e fir mmaximumlimi t

o f 27 % fo r an y operationa

l situation . Base

do n ou r experience , i t

wil l b e difficult , i f

no t impossible , fo r

an y facilit y firin g heav

y oi l to hav

e a n operating scenari

o wher e 27 % wil l neve

r be exceede

d fo r asix-minut

e average . Anythin g tha

t substantially upset

s th e boile r therma l stabilit y o r combustio n stiochiometr

y ca n caus e brie f period s o f

opacit y excursions . Durin g stead y stat e boile r operation , an

deve n durin g typica l startu

p an dshutdown events , th

e 7.06( 1 )(c ) propose

d opacit y limit s shouldb

e achievabl

e fo r th e G E boilers . Ther

e wil l likel y be time s howeve r tha t unanticipated , unusual , o r atypical condition s aris e a t startu p an dshutdow

n an d othe r transien t firin g period s whic h upse t the combustio n proces s an dresult i n brie f opacit y spike s abov

e th e 27 % ceiling . These occurrence s ca n happe n an dno t necessaril

y b e associate

d wit h equipmen

t malfunctio n o

r imprope r operating practices . W e ar e not sayin g tha t 100% complianc e wit h th e proposedamendment

s i s impossible , jus t

tha t i t wil l b e highl y unlikely . I n ou

r proposedlimit s t o you , w e sugges t havin g annua

l limit s wher e severa l 6-minut e opacit y averages beyond27 % woul db e allowe dt o addres s thes e issues fo r 100% compliance . I f

these specia

l instance s ar

e no t allowed , w e stil l fee l complianc e wil l b

e exceptionally high . Shoul dyo u wan t t o discus s these concerns i n mor e detail , let

us know .