COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108 617-292-5500 

MITT ROMNEY 

Governor 

KERRY HEALEY 

Lieutenant Governor 

ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER 

Secretary 

ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr. 

Commissioner 

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 

AMENDMENTS TO 

REGULATIONS 310 CMR 7.00 

FOR THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION 

EST THE 

BERKSHIRE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

PIONEER VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

MERRIMACK VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

METROPOLITAN BOSTON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS APR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY 

M.G.L. c. Ill , Sections 142A through 142N 

FEBRUARY 2004 

This information is available in alternate format. Call Aprel McCabe, ADA Coordinator at 1-617-556-1171. TDD Service - 1-800-298-2207. 

DEP on the World Wide Web: http://www.mass.gov/dep 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
I. BACKGROUND 

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, Sections 142A-142N is the enabling legislation that 

gives the Department the authority to adopt regulations to prevent, control or abate conditions of 

air pollution, to protect public health and welfare. The Commonwealth's regulations for the 

control of air pollution are promulgated at 310 CMR 7.00 "Air Pollution Control" and 310 CMR 

60 "Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance". 

II. DISCUSSION 

The amendments, which the Department is proposing to adopt and submit as a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, are part of the effort to attain and maintain the health and 

welfare based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. Several 

amendments delete unnecessary definitions, expired regulations or duplicative requirements. 

Most of the amendments update citations, correct typos, modify text to clarify intent, or 

reorganize subparagraphs and add headings for easier readability. For example, the Department 

is deleting the outdated definitions of the Inspection and Maintenance Program, now located at 

310 CMR 60.02; eliminating Table 1 at 310 CMR 7.02 since it causes confusion; deleting 310 

CMR 7.03(14) Dry Cleaning Operations, 310 CMR 7.03 (20) Printers, and 310 CMR 7.18(27) 

Coating Mixing Tanks, as redundant. The key amendments in the package address the impacts 

of federal regulations on Massachusetts. Specific changes include: 

• Presumptive approval of Limited Plan Applications (LPAs) 

• Appendix A language 

• Appendix C modifications 

• Addressing EPA concerns with recently published 310 CMR 7.06( 1 )(c) 

• Requirements for new and existing automotive refmish facilities 

• Amend Department regulations to incorporate current United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) NESELAP requirements for testing materials for Asbestos 

• Adopt 310 CMR 7.54 TT Large Cnmhnstinn Units in response to EPA's recent PSD 

amendment 

These amendments are discussed in greater detail below. A complete listing of the amendments 

is in the attached Proposed Amendments document. 

Presumptive approval of Limited Plan Applications (LP As) 

The Department proposes to revise the plan approval process in 310 CMR 7.02(1) by adding a 

new section, 310 CMR 7.02(l)(b)2 Presumptive Plan Approvals. A limited plan application 

(LPA) will receive presumptive approval if the Department does not notify the applicant 

otherwise within 60 days. Approval may be denied due to administrative or technical 

deficiencies. The Department may also require a written approval. The purpose of this change 

is to streamline the approval process for LP As, which typically are simpler and less complicated 

than comprehensive plan applications (CPAs) to review/approve. Presumptive approvals will 

reduce paperwork and, in many cases, the time needed for an applicant to receive an approval. 

Under this proposal the LP A must have a professional engineer's (PE) stamp to demonstrate that 

a trained engineer prepared the LP A. 

l 
The Department also proposes to eliminate the exemption for operating permit facilities from the 

requirement to submit LP As. This amendment will ensure that new or modified emission units 

in operating permit facilities meet BACT requirements. 

310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A: 

The proposed revision to Appendix A(6), Emission Offsets, and Non-attainment Review is 

intended to make the section more consistent with federal requirements. 

310 CMR 7.00: Appendix C Modifications: 

The purpose of the proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix C, Operating Permit and 

Compliance Program, is to update and clarify the requirements, as well as improve consistency 

with the federal requirements. 

Amend 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix C(l), Definitions, by updating the definitions of Affected State 

and Major Source in 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix C (1). These changes are necessary due to 

changes in the federal regulations. 

Simplify the requirements in Appendix C(8)to be consistent with federal requirements by 

clarifying the language in Appendix C(8)(c) describing when a modification or other change in a 

facility, which requires a significant modification to the operating permit, may be operated prior 

to final EPA action. 

Update the requirements in Appendix C(9)(c)2 to operate continuous emission monitors (CEM). 

Address EPA concerns with recently published 310 CMR 7.06 (l)(c): 

The following is a summary of the significant changes proposed for 310 CMR 7.06(l)(c). 

The requirements for a Plan of Good Operating Practices are more clearly delineated. The plan 

must provide for: 

• Third party combustion expert to develop the plan with recommendations to minimize 

opacity; 

• Documentation of the need for different opacity limits and a proposal for specific opacity 

limits; 

• How improved technology, operating and maintenance procedures will minimize 

emissions; 

• Requirements for corrective action procedures and return to compliance; and 

• Record keeping and monitoring requirements 

A maximum average opacity limit of 27% is set for startup, shutdown, soot blowing and other 

specified operating conditions. 

The Department must approve Plans of Good Operating Practice. 

A formal approval process will make the limits and any terms and conditions of the plan 

enforceable. 

The terms and conditions of an approved Plan are required to be put in the Operating Permit. 

2 
This will include the visible emission limits for each operating event for which the facility seeks 

to establish a limit greater than 15 percent, but not to exceed 27 percent. Sufficient conditions to 

make the limits enforceable such as monitoring, record keeping, reporting and any other 

conditions as appropriate will also be incorporated into Operating Permits. 

Requirements for new and existing surface coating facilities: 

Amendments to the requirements for automotive refmishing operations are proposed in 310 

CMR 7.03(16) and 310 CMR 7.18(28). The proposed amendments simplify recordkeeping 

requirements, add language to 310 CMR 7.03(16) to allow the approval of new, innovative 

technology, and establish a new limit for surface preparation products formulated to clean new 

plastic parts. 

In addition to the changes described above, the following amendments, which may affect an 

automotive refinishing operation, are proposed. It is proposed to revise 310 CMR 7.03(1) to add 

facility-wide limits on emissions of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) of 10 tons per year of any one 

HAP and 25 tons per year of combined HAPs. This revision will provide facilities operating 

under 310 CMR 7.03 with an enforceable limit on their potential to emit HAPs. 

It is also proposed to revise 310 CMR 7.24 to modify the inspection requirements for organic 

material storage tanks. Currently, an internal floating roof with a single seal must be inspected 

every ten years, while an internal floating roof equipped with a double seal must be inspected 

every five years. The difference in inspection cycles was adopted due to a misinterpretation of 

federal requirements. Since there is no technical reason to inspect double seal versions twice as 

often as single seal versions of floating roofs, it is proposed that internal floating roofs of either 

type be inspected at least every ten years. 

Amend Department regulations to incorporate current United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) NESHAP requirements for testing materials for Asbestos 

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) proposes to amend 310 CMR 

7.00 definitions pertaining to the handling of Asbestos and correct typos at 310 CMR 7.15. 

These amendments incorporate current United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

requirements in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

applicable to testing a material to determine if it contains Asbestos. These testing protocols 

reflect current laboratory practices in the industry. The proposed amendments also include 

changes to certain regulatory definitions to increase clarity and to correct typographical errors. 

In 1990, EPA added several new aspects to the Asbestos NESHAP, including amendments to key 

provisions and regulatory terminology. Most importantly, EPA revised its definitions for friable 

asbestos material and non-friable asbestos-containing material to encompass asbestos-containing 

material that is greater than one percent asbestos by area rather than greater than one percent 

asbestos by weight. To date, DEP has not amended its regulations to reflect those changes. 

DEP's current regulations continue to reflect EPA's former "one percent asbestos by weight" 

test, although DEP's operational practice has been to use EPA's one percent asbestos by area for 

bulk samples, which is the current laboratory practice in the industry. 

DEP recently reviewed asbestos removal practices in the industry, asbestos testing methodologies 

3 
and laboratory practices. DEP's review included an analysis of the various methodologies 

available for testing material to determine if it contains asbestos. DEP concluded that EPA's 

Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) area test method, published after EPA's 1990 Asbestos 

NESHAP amendment, is the method most widely used by environmental laboratories in 

measuring asbestos content in bulk samples. Therefore, DEP is proposing to amend 310 CMR 

7.00 to require the regulated community to use EPA's approved testing methodologies. These 

amendments would render Massachusetts' Asbestos regulations consistent with EPA's testing 

methodologies, as reflected in the Asbestos NESHAP. 

Adopt 310 CMR 7.54 TT T arge Combustion Emission Unit in response to EPA's recent 

PSD amendments 

EPA adopted amendments to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD - 40 CFR 52.21) 

regulation that had the effect of relaxing the applicability to 310 CMR 7.02(5) and complicating 

applicability determinations for certain categories of major sources to PSD review. In order to 

assure that at least the largest of these facilities will still be required to receive Department 

approval, it is proposed to adopt 310 CMR 7.54 TT Large Combustion Emission Units. The 

proposed regulation reinstates the requirement that certain modifications at Large Combustion 

Emission Units be approved under 310 CMR 7.02(5). These are the emission units that generally 

have the highest emissions. The amendments will apply to large municipal waste combustors 

and large boilers, including electric utility generating units. 

Effective July 1, 1982, the Department became the implementing agency for the PSD program in 

Massachusetts through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The recent amendments to the 

PSD program were effective March 3, 2003 for states like Massachusetts with delegated PSD 

programs. The Department returned implementation of the PSD program to EPA on February 

27, 2003. 

States that implement PSD through regulations that are part of their State Implementation Plans 

(SJJPs) have three years to adopt these same, or equivalent, amendments. Similar changes are 

required to non-attainment new source review (NSR) regulations within three years. 

The Department recommends a two-phase approach to address the needed regulation changes. 

During phase I the proposed regulations (310 CMR 7.54) will be adopted. This will assure the 

largest facilities that were exempted from the new federal PSD program will still be subject to 

review under state NSR regulations. 

During phase II the Department will propose to adopt its own PSD regulations and amend its 

non-attainment NSR regulation (310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A). During this phase, the 

Department will work through STAPPA, and with other states, to ensure the regulations are 

equivalent to EPA requirements. This phase will be completed within the three-year timeframe. 

4 
III. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Most of the proposed amendments will have little if any economic impact because they simply 

streamline, correct, or clarify existing regulations, and bring the Department's regulations into 

line with the federal requirements and current industry practice in the case of the proposed 

changes to the asbestos related definitions. 

Changing the Limited Plan Application to a presumptive approval will have a have a favorable 

impact for facilities since they will generally be able to proceed with proposed changes at the 

facility more quickly. It will also save the Department time preparing individual approval letters 

for each application. 

Changing the inspection frequency for large tanks from 5 years to 10 years will save the gasoline 

marketing industry time and the cost of draining and purging the tanks. 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The primary impact of these amendments will be to clarify, reduce inconsistency/duplication, or 

streamline the requirements contained in the existing regulations. Therefore, the proposed 

changes will not have a significant environmental impact. 

V. IMPACTS ON OTHER PROGRAMS 

Toxics Use Reduction 

Implementation of toxics use reduction is a Department-wide priority. Toxics use reduction is 

defined as in-plant practices that reduce or eliminate the total mass of contaminants discharged to 

the environment. These amendments are not expected to impact on that effort. 

Air Toxics 

In the past, air pollution control programs have focused on the six criteria pollutants: particulate 

matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead. Recently concern has 

been raised over the components of air pollution that are not specifically regulated by programs 

developed to control criteria pollutants. These compounds are collectively known as air toxics. 

The health effects of air toxics are wide ranging and can vary from long-term carcinogenic 

effects to short-term adverse health effects. 

The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate control strategies for sources of toxic air emissions. 

The Department intends to implement those standards as promulgated by the EPA. Until that 

time, the Department will generally control air toxics through programs aimed at controlling the 

traditional criteria pollutants. In so far as these proposed amendments further limit emissions of 

CO, VOC and NOx, they also limit emissions of air toxics. 

5 
Impacts on Cities and Towns (Proposition 2 1/2) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 145, the Department must assess the fiscal impact of new 

regulations on the commonwealth's municipalities. The Executive Order was issued in response 

to Proposition 2 1/2. MGL c. 29 § 27C(a) that requires the state to reimburse municipalities for 

costs incurred as a consequence of new state laws and regulations. 

Proposition 2 1/2 requires the state to reimburse the cities and towns for the additional cost 

incurred by state regulations. Since these regulations will not burden municipalities with 

additional costs, reimbursement pursuant to Proposition 2 1/2 is not necessary. 

MEPA 

This proposed action is "categorically exempt" from the "Regulations Governing the Preparation 

of Environmental Impact Reports", 301 CMR 11.00, because the proposed amendments will 

result in an overall increase in emission controls. All reasonable measures have been taken to 

minimize adverse impacts. 

Agricultural Impacts 

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 18 requires state agencies to evaluate the 

impact of proposed programs on agriculture within the Commonwealth. As the proposed 

amendments affect only industrial facilities, the Department has determined that the proposed 

regulations will have no adverse impact on agriculture in Massachusetts. The only impact on 

agriculture will be beneficial, as the program will help Massachusetts to attain the NAAQS for 

ozone, thus lowering crop damage attributable to high ozone concentrations in the summer. 

VI IMPLEMENTATION 

These amendments are not expected to add significantly to the Department's workload since the 

majority of the changes clarify or correct the existing regulations. In general they clarify existing 

requirements. Where they add additional requirements, the amendments generally upgrade the 

enforceability of the regulations. 

VI PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

As required by M.G.L. c 30A, the Department gives notice and provides the opportunity to 

review background and technical information at least 21 days prior to proposing the regulation 

amendments at a public hearing. To assure more adequate notice for processing a rule as an 

amendment to the SEP, formal notice will be issued 30 days before the public hearings which will 

be held: February 11, 2004 in Springfield and February 12, 2004 in Boston. The hearing record 

will be kept open until the close of business on February 20, 2004. 

6