DEVALL PATFliCK 

Gover·nor 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 

Department of Environmenta l Protection 

One W inter Street Boston, MA 02108 • 617-292-5500 

Response to Comments on Proposed Amendments to: 

310 CMR 7.00 Air Pollution Control 

310 CMR 7.00 Definitions 

MAEVE VALLELY BARTLETT 

Secmtary 

DAVID W. CASH 

Comrniss1oner 

310 CMR 7.03 Plan Approval Exemption: Construction Requirements 

310 CMR 7.24 Organic Material Storage and Distribution 

Regulatory Authority: 

M.G.L. c. 111 , Sections 142A through 142M 

December 19, 2014 

This information Is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TDD# 1·866-539·7622 or 1·617-574-6868 

MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
In February 2013, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7. 00 Air Pollution Control to: 

(1) amend existing definitions and add new definitions at 310 CMR 7.00 pertaining to 

Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery; 

(2) amend existing Plan Approval Exemption requirements at 310 CMR 7.03 to ensure 

consistency with new definitions; and 

(3) amend existing Organic Material Storage and Distribution requirements at 310 CMR 

7.24 to require regulated gasoline dispensing facilities to decommission their Stage II 

systems and install enhanced Stage I vapor controls. 

These amendments will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

inclusion in the Massachusetts Ozone State Implementation Plan. 

MassDEP held public hearings and solicited oral and written testimony on the proposed 

regulations in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A. On February 10, 2014, 

MassDEP published a notice in the Boston Globe announcing the schedule of public hearings 

and public comment period on the proposed regulatory revisions. Public hearings were held on 

March 11,2014 in Lenox; March 12, 2014 in Worcester; March 13, 2014 in Bourne; March 18, 

2014 in Boston and Wilmington; and March 20, 2014 in Holyoke. The comment period closed 

on March 31 , 2014. 

This document summarizes and responds to comments that were received during the public 

comment period. Those who provided comments are listed below: 

1. Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region I (EPA) 

2. Dave Berberian, Compliance Solutions, Rochdale, MA 

3. Bruce Garrett, President, Dependable Petroleum Services, Plymouth, MA 

4. Tim Moll, President, Mass Marine Trades Association, Milton, MA 

5. Peter Romano, President, Independent Oil Marketers Association of New England, North 

Falmouth, MA 

6. Kevin Walsh, Director, Massachusetts Department ofTransportation 

1. Comment: Require EVR PV Vent Valves Only Upon Decommissioning. MassDEP 

should require Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) pressure vacuum (PV) vent valves upon 

decommissioning of Stage II systems, but not require that EVR PV vent valves be installed 

within 180 days of the effective date of the regulation for existing Stage II systems since they are 

not CARB certified to operate with EVR PV vent valves. Also, requiring these valves to be 

installed before decommissioning contradicts 310 CMR 7 .24( 6)(b) 1 a. 

1 

. . 
Response: MassDEP currently requires all regulated gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) in 

Massachusetts to operate with PV vent valves. MassDEP proposed requiring EVR PV vent 

valves to reduce VOC emissions from Stage I systems. In response to this comment, and to 

reduce the burden on GDFs, in the final regulation MassDEP has changed the deadline for 

installing EVR PV vent valves and rotatable adapters from within 180 days of the effective date 

of the regulation to upon decommissioning of Stage II systems, but no later than two years from 

the effective date of the final regulations. 

2. Comment: Stage I EVR and Stage II Operating Requirements are Contradictory. The 

proposed requirement for all GDFs to install EVR PV vent valves contradicts the existing 

requirement for Stage II systems to be operated and maintained according to the terms of the 

applicable Stage II CARB executive order. 

Response: The final regulation requires GDFs to install PV vent valves upon decommissioning 

of Stage II systems, but no later than two years from the effective date of the amended regulation 

(see response to Comment #1 as well). 

3. Comment: Include References to Future CARB Executive Orders. 310 CMR 

7.24(3)(c)l. only allows for current Stage I CARB EVR certified systems. There is no mention 

of future CARE-certified systems or components. 

Response: To ensure proper public notice, comment and review of any proposed changes to 

regulations, MassDEP does not establish requirements based on potential or future standards. 

Therefore, the final regulation lists only those CARB executive orders that were issued as of the 

promulgation date of the final regulations. MassDEP will periodically update these regulations 

as necessary to include future CARB orders. 

4. Comment: Clarify Timeline for Commencing Operation after Installation/Substantial 

Modification. Regarding 310 CMR 7 .24(3 )( e )3 ., does MassDEP have to receive the form for 

installation or substantial modification prior to commencing operation? Or is the completion of 

testing sufficient, provided documentation is submitted to MassDEP within 7 days? 

Response: MassDEP has clarified the final regulation at 310 CMR 7.24(3)(e)3 to make clear 

that a GDF may commence operations after passing all applicable tests. The Installation/ 

Substantial Modification Certification must be submitted to MassDEP within 7 days after the test 

date. 

5. Comment: Clarify Notification Requirements for Stage II Testing Companies that Also 

Conduct Stage I Testing. Will all current Stage II testing companies have to notify MassDEP 

prior to conducting Stage I testing? 

2 
Response: Yes. Every two weeks, in accordance with 310 CMR 7.24(3)(h)4., the Stage I 

Testing Company owner or operator shall submit to MassDEP a list of all facilities at which the 

Testing Company is scheduled to perform Stage I compliance tests. 

6. Comment: Allow Slip-on Spill Buckets. The regulations do not address the use of slip over 

spill buckets. This style of spill bucket is Underwriter's Laboratory approved for use in 

containing overfills on underground storage tanks (USTs); however, it is not connected to the 

Stage I system thus preventing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from entering the 

atmosphere. There are no slip-on buckets listed in any CARB executive order since they are not 

part of the Stage I systems. The use of slip on spill buckets would greatly benefit the program 

since it would reduce potential leak points. 

MassDEP should allow for the continued use of slip-on spill buckets since they are not a source 

of vapor leaks and replacement costs will be around $10,000 per UST. Screw-on spill buckets 

can be a source of vapor leaks if not installed and maintained properly because they are screwed 

on to the fill risers. Slip-on buckets are secured to a continuous length of riser pipe so, while 

there is a potential for a liquid leak or spill, there is no potential for a vapor leak. 

Response: MassDEP recognizes that many GDFs currently use slip-on spill buckets that are not 

part of a CARB EVR Stage I system. Under the proposed regulations, slip-on spill buckets could 

continue to be used until they needed to be replaced or by 7 years of the effective date of the 

final regulations, whichever came first, and then an EVR spill bucket would be needed (none of 

which currently are slip-on). To provide more time to transition to EVR systems, the final 

regulations allow the continued use and repair/replacement of slip-on spill buckets for 7 years. 

After 7 years, existing non-EVR slip-on spill buckets may continue to be used until replaced, but 

new spill buckets installed would need to be EVR. While the final regulations provide more 

flexibility for slip-on spill buckets, they still require an eventual transition to Stage I EVR spill 

buckets. MassDEP believes having the entire Stage I system and/or all components certified to 

meet the rigorous EVR specifications provides the best vapor capture system. 

7. Comment: Adopt Most Recent CARB Executive Order for Existing ASTs. In a 

document dated March 13, 2014, CARB extended the date for aboveground storage tank (AST) 

Stage I EVR requirements for existing ASTs due to EVR systems not yet being available. This 

should be incorporated in the regulations. 

Response: The commenter is correct. On March 13, 2014 CARB issued Executive Order G70-216 that delays the effective date of Stage I EVR requirements for existing ASTs that have 

one of four design parameters: (1) no-top filling capacity (2) cannot accommodate an emergency 

vent (3) have less than three bungs available for vapor recovery components; or (4) do not have a 

3 
product bung with a diameter of 4 inches. MassDEP has incorporated this executive order into 

the final regulation. 

8. Comment: Exempt Low Through-put GDFs from Co-Axial Phase-Out. MassDEP should 

allow low through-put facilities to install a poppeted co-axial drop tube. Many smaller facilities 

do not have an extra tank riser that will allow the Stage I drybreak to be installed. Excavating to 

the top of the tank to find an available hole will be costly and in some cases impossible. A 

poppeted coaxial drop tube should be allowed to be installed at these facilities. MassDEP also 

should allow GDFs with co-axial systems to repair and replace them with conventional 

components. 

Response: MassDEP recognizes that requiring GDFs with co-axial systems to install a dualpoint system likely will require the UST to be replaced, which is a significant cost. Therefore, 

the final regulations allow the continued use of existing co-axial systems until such time that the 

UST is replaced, at which point the new UST would need to be equipped with a CARB EVR 

dual-point Stage I system/component system. The final regulations also allow GDFs with 

existing coaxial systems to install poppeted co-axial drop tubes (which are needed to pass the 2-

inch pressure/decay test), and to repair/replace these drop tubes as needed with non-EVR 

components until the UST is replaced and a dual-point EVR system/component system 1s 

installed. 

9. Comment: Limit Spill Bucket Inspections to one Time Per Week. The proposed new 

requirement to inspect the Stage I system within 24 hours of a motor fuel delivery is redundant 

and overly burdensome given that some GDFs have deliveries once a day, and sometimes twice a 

day. If a Stage I system passes the proposed robust annual testing requirements, and weekly 

inspections are performed, no additional inspection should be required. There are multiple 

requirements to inspect spill buckets found in the UST and Vapor Recovery regulations. Only 

one set of regulations should require these inspections and once per week should be more than 

adequate. With the new testing requirements for spill buckets, a small amount of liquid in a spill 

bucket for less than a week should pose no environmental risk. 

Response: MassDEP agrees that weekly inspections of Stage I systems (as is required by the 

current Stage II program) is sufficient and therefore the final regulations maintain the 

requirement for weekly inspections but do not require inspections within 24 hours of a fuel 

delivery. 

10. Comment: Allow for Conventional and Over-fill Drop Tubes. Since Stage I EVR 

CARB Executive Orders allow for conventional and over-fill drop tubes, MassDEP should allow 

for their use as well. Failing to do so would result in MassDEP effectively dictating that overfill 

drop tubes are the method of overfill protection that must be used at stations, which contradicts 

what is allowed by existing and proposed UST rules. 

4 
Response: The proposed and final regulations at 310 CMR 7.24(3)c.l list CARB Executive 

Orders that allow for either EVR straight drop tubes or EVR drop tubes with over-fill prevention 

devices (often referred to as flapper valves). Since both types of drop tubes are identified in the 

CARB orders, both types of drop tubes may be used. 

11. Comment: Include EMCO-Wheaton before Regulations are Final. The Stage I EVR 

system by EMCO Wheaton may soon receive certification from CARB. MassDEP should 

include this system in the final regulations. 

Response: The EMCO Wheaton Stage I EVR system was certified by CARBon August 27, 

2014 and has been included in the final regulation. 

12. Comment: Level of Training is too High for Weekly Inspections. The proposed 

regulations state that visual inspections be performed by a person who is trained to operate and 

maintain the Stage I system in accordance with the applicable Executive Orders and 

manufacturer's guidelines. Certified testing companies that perform routine maintenance and 

annual testing should fully understand these Executive Orders and manufacturer's guidelines. 

However, for any inspections performed by station personnel (e.g., weekly inspections), the 

visual inspections should be just that, a visual inspection. The inspection should focus on 

whether the swivel adapters are in place, the caps are on, the P/V vent valve is present and that 

product is not present in containment. 

Response: In the final regulations MassDEP has clarified that persons who conduct visual 

inspections of Stage I systems should be trained in accordance with applicable manufacturers' 

guidance but do not need to be trained in or know the details of applicable CARB Executive 

Orders. Stage I visual inspections are intended to be similar to visual inspections that GDFs 

have performed on Stage II systems. Any person inspecting a Stage I system should have a 

basic understanding of how the system works, and the facility owner/operator must ensure that 

these persons have received basic training to ensure they understand how to operate and maintain 

the Stage I system according to the applicable manufacturer's guidelines, including how to 

conduct routine, visual inspections. Visual inspections are required on a weekly basis and 

include inspection of co-axial adaptors, fuel and vapor rotatable adaptors, dust caps and gaskets, 

fuel and vapor spill buckets, drain valves, and pressure/vacuum vent valves. 

13. Comment: Allow 7 days for Stage I Inspection Records Submittal. MassDEP should 

change the Stage I inspection records submittal deadline from within 48 hours to within 7 days. 

Response: MassDEP agrees with this comment and has changed the records request submittal 

deadline to within 7 business days of the initial request. 

5 
14. Comment: Clarify Testing Requirement. MassDEP should clarify that CARB TP-20 1.1 D 

is not required within 7 years of the effective date of the regulation if EVR drop tubes are not yet 

installed. 

Response: MassDEP has clarified the language for this testing requirement to indicate that 

compliance tests CARB TP 201.1C (Leak Rate of Drop Tube/Drain Valve Assembly Test) and 

CARB TP 201.1 D (Leak Rate of Drop Tube/Overfill Prevention Device) apply only to EVR 

equipment. 

15. Comment: Recommence Operations and Notification after Stage II Decommissioning. 

In the case of Stage II decommissioning, MassDEP should allow GDFs to recommence 

operations after passing the required tests, without having to first submit the Stage II 

Decommissioning Notification. In addition, GDFs should have up to 30 days to deliver the 

notification paperwork to MassDEP. 

Response: The final regulation has been revised to allow GDFs to recommence operations after 

passing the required tests and requires the decommissioning forms to be submitted no later than 

thirty days after the required tests have been passed. 

16. Comment: MassDEP should exempt Marinas from Stage I EVR Requirements 

Most marinas have been exempt from Stage II requirements due to their small scale. Under the 

proposed regulations, most marinas would now be subject to Stage I EVR requirements. 

MassDEP should reconsider this and exempt marinas. The cost of EVR Stage I equipment is too 

high, and will outweigh the benefits of supplying fuel, leading marinas to the decision to no 

longer provide fuel. This in turn will force many vessels to travel further to re-fuel, thus 

negatively off-setting any environmental gains of EVR. Exempting marinas would maintain the 

intended pollution reduction benefits. 

Response: Marinas have been subject to basic Stage I requirements since 1991 , including using 

submerged filling and a vapor balance system (see 310 CMR 7.24(3) Distribution of Motor 

Vehicle Fuel). There are over 100 marinas in Massachusetts that dispense gasoline. MassDEP 

recognizes that some of these facilities may have a relatively low through-put; however, others 

dispense many thousands of gallons of fuel per week. 

Since MassDEP is enhancing Stage I requirements, all gasoline tanks (above 250 gallons) will be 

subject to the same Stage I requirements to reduce the amount of vapors emitted during the 

filling ofthe tanks. Requiring marinas to upgrade to Stage I EVR will reduce the amount of 

vapor emissions from these tanks during filling - especially during the summer ozone season. 

The regulation has not been changed. 

6 
-~----- ~-~--- ------------------

17. Comment: Use the term "Gasoline Dispensing Facility" GDF. MassDEP should amend 

the definition of Motor Vehicle Fuel to replace the term "Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing 

Facility" with "Gasoline Dispensing Facility." The term GDF is a more accurate description of 

the regulated activities and would be more clear and useful to the regulated community. 

Response: MassDEP did not make this change and believes the existing term is adequate. 

18. Comment: Change the Definition of "Monthly Throughput." MassDEP should change 

the definition of"Monthly Throughput" and add a separate term for "Annual Throughput." 

Change "Monthly Throughput" by keeping the first sentence and deleting the remainder of the 

definition. Add a separate definition for "Annual Throughput" that reads: "Annual Throughput 

is calculated by summing the volume of motor vehicle fuel loaded into, or dispensed from, all 

motor vehicle fuel storage tanks at a motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility during the current 

day, plus the total volume of motor vehicle fuel loaded into, or dispensed from, all motor vehicle 

fuel storage tanks at a motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility during the previous 364 days." 

Response: MassDEP did not change the definition of"Monthly Through-Put" because it is 

based on the federal definition established under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants. 

19. Comment: Clarify Whether Decommissioned Stage II Piping Can Remain Connected 

to the UST. MassDEP should make it clear in the regulation whether or not an owner who 

decommissions a Stage II system can choose to leave the decommissioned Stage II piping 

connected to the tanks. PEl RP 300 is not 100% clear on whether the piping can remain 

connected to the tanks. An owner should be able to make a decision based on his/her comfort 

level as to whether or not they will choose to leave the abandoned stage II piping connected to 

the UST or not. 

Response: The regulation requires owners and operators to adhere to decommissioning 

procedures described in section 14 of the PEl Recommended Practices for Installation and 

Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle-Fueling Sites (PEI/RP300-09). The 

decommissioning procedure allows Stage II vapor piping to be left in the ground, but it requires 

that the vapor piping be securely capped in several locations (see sections 14.6.5 through 14.6 .. 7). 

The guidance indicates that the vapor piping may be left connected to the UST when the piping 

is inaccessible. Specifically, section 14.2 has a note that states "NOTE: Below-grade Stage II 

vapor piping will in many cases remain connected to the tank and will contain vapors after it has 

been decommissioned. The integrity of this piping will be verified in any subsequent pressure 

decay testing that may be conducted." In addition, section 14.6.7 states "Disconnect the Stage II 

piping from the tank only if this procedure can be done without excavation." Thus, the guidance 

requires that vapor piping be disconnected from the tank if it is accessible (e.g., the connection is 

7 
., • l • 

located in a tank-top sump) but the piping may be left connected to the tank if disconnecting the 

piping would otherwise require excavation. 

Other Changes. In the final regulation MassDEP included an exemption for certain motor 

vehicle fuel storage tanks at motor vehicle salvage yard operations from the majority of Stage I 

requirements. This is based on a similar exemption in the Stage II regulations. The addition can 

be found in the Applicability section at 310 CMR 7.24(3)(a). 

MassDEP also updated references to four CARB Executive Orders that were revised since the 

draft regulations were proposed, including: 

• VR-1020, OPW Phase I Vapor Recovery System, dated October 3, 2014 

• VR-301F, Standing Loss Control of Vapor Recovery Systems for New Installations of 

Aboveground Storage Tanks, dated June 3, 2014 

• VR-302F, Standing Loss Control of Vapor Recovery Systems for New Installations of 

Aboveground Storage Tanks, dated June 3, 2014, and 

• VR-401D, OPW Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) System for Above Ground Storage 

Tanks (AST), dated May 12, 2014. 

8