1H002 

:>.)fi Uaku r A V t rl u . ConctiriJ , Mastachusiitt ; 0174 = 

February 20, 2004 

Ms. Karen Regas 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Regulation 

Bureau of Waste Prevention 8th Floor 

1 Winter StreetBoston, MA 02108 

Subject; Comments on the Proposed Amendments to Massachusetts DEP Regulations 

7.00 

Dear Karen: 

This letter provides several comments on the Department's proposed changes to 310 CMR 

7.00. In general, the clarifications being made to these regulations are welcome modifications. 

1- 702f2Vf) - Exemptions for Exclusions that Contravene an Existing Plan Approval: 

7.02(2)(f) includes new language that specifies that actions that would'contravene existing 

"monitoring, recordkeeping, testing or reporting requirements" require a Plan Approval. 

This wording seems to be too restrictive; it is suggested that the Department could add a 

qualifier here to indicate that "substantive relaxations o f existing monitoring, 

recordkeeping, testing or reporting requirements require a Plan Approval. This would 

allow monitoring flexibility provisions to be added without the unnecessary burden of 

undergoing the Plan Approval process. 

Telephone 

9 7 K, 3 7 1.4 A no 

F ;i <• N i rr\ i 1 e 

978.3 7 i .2^68 

2. 7.02f4Vai and (b) Limited Plan Approval (L?A> Applicability for Fuel Utilization 

Facilities 

The description of the calculation procedure for LPA potential emissions under 7.02(4)(b) 

proposes to strike the sentence: The calculation can-consider proposed limitations or 

restrictions on operating rate or short and long term emissions, provided that these 

conditions become federally enforceable upon plan approval. This raises several 

questions concerning the new LPA program. If such operating rate restrictions are 

proposed in the LPA Application, are such restrictions still adequate to maintain potential 

emissions < 5 tpy for LPA applicability? Also, with respect to 7.02(4X3X4), are LPA 

restrictions (still) considered federally enforceable for proposes of determining the nonapplicability of PSD and/or Non-Attainment NSR? If an LPA is presumptively approved, 

does this impact the federal enforceability of such operating limitations? 

3. 7.02(8X0 and (b) Emergency or Standby Engines 

The size restriction "but less than 10,000,000 Btu per hour" is proposed to be stricken 

from 7.02(8Xi), but this requirement appears to be retained in 7,03(10). Did the 

Department intend to leave the 10,000,000 Btu/hr upper limit in 7.03(10) but strike it from 

7.02(8)(0? 

A Tyco mfrasvucture Services Company 
02/20/04 FRI 17:26 FAX 508 371 2468 EARTH TECH 121003 

Ms. Karen Regas Page 2 

February 20,2004 

4. 310 CMR 7.06(1) Opacity Regulations: 

These rule changes seem to be an opportune time to consolidate 7.06(l)(a) and (l)(b) into 

a single consistent requirement. The distinction between "smoke" (as regulated under 

(IXa)) and "opacity" (as regulated under (1Kb)) has never been particularly clear. The 

definitions under 310 CMR 7.00 suggest smoke is any visible aerosol (other man water) 

that results from combustion. However, 1 have heard representatives of the Department 

indicate that "smoke" under (1 )(a) is really only "black smoke." The reference to the 

Ringlemann Chart appears to be a holdover from older regulatory programs. Exclusive 

use of opacity rather than "the Chart" would be consistent with both Federal COMS 

performance specifications, and references to visible emission tests using EPA Method 9. 

Also, there are other differences in (l)(a) and (l)(b) that would be eliminated if (l)(a) and 

(lXb) are consolidated. 7.06(1 Xa) allows up to 6 minutes per hour at or above "No. 1 of 

the Chart" (20 % opacity), while 7.06(1 Xb) allows only up to 2 minutes per hour above 

20% opacity. It would seem a consistent 6 minutes would be more appropriate in each 

case. Also, under the current rule, time at exactly 20% opacity (such as may occur with 

Method 9) would count against the 6 minute limit for 7.06(l)(a) but not for the 2 minute 

limit under (l)(b). It is suggested the Department consider adopting an opacity 

compliance approach using 6-minute block averages, and not defining an exceedance 

unless the opacity exceeds 20%. This would be consistent with the Federal New Source 

Performance Standards for Fossil-Fuel Steam Generation Units. Under this approach, no 

person would be permitted greater than 20% opacity, except that one 6-minute period no 

greater than 40% opacity per hour would be allowed. 

The new opacity provision under 7.06(1 )(c) has of course been debated and discussed in 

detail. The only suggestion begin made here is that the preparation of a Plan of Good 

Operating Practices does not seem warranted for sources which can meet the 15%/27?/0 

limits as specified in 7.06(c)(1). 

5. 7.54: New Large Combustion Emission Unit Rule 

7.54(2)(a) and (b): The definition of a "Large Combustion Emission Unit (LCEU)" should 

clarify whether a Combined Cycle turbine configuration falls within the definition of 

"indirect heat exchanger". 

7.54(2Xj): It is not clear why only electric utility steam generating units are able to use 

"representative actual annual emissions" occurring after implementation of the change. It 

is suggested that this provisions be extended to all LCEUs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 

Sincerely: 

S*>rge#. Lipka^P.E. 

EART H TEC H 

A Tyco infrastructure Services Company