Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 

Department of Environmental Protection 

One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 " 617-292-5500 

DEVAL L PATRICK RICHARD K. SULLIVAN JR, 

Governor Secretary 

TIMOTHY P MURRAY KENNETH L. KIMMELL 

Lieutenant Governor Con-imiccioner 

Background Information and Technical Support Document 

for 

Proposed Amendments to 

310 CMR 7.05: Fuels All Districts 

And 

310 CMR 7.00: Definitions 

Regulatory Authority: 

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

February 17, 2012 

This information is available in alternate format . Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-6761 . TDD# 1-866-639-7622 or 1-617-674-6868 

MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 

II . BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 

111. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .g 

IV . IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 

A. Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

B. AgriculturalImpacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 

C. Impact on Massachusetts Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

D. Impacts on Other Programs - Air Toxics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

E. Small Business Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

F. Stakeholder Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

G. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
I. INTRODUCTION 

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) proposes to revise 310 

CMR 7.05 : Fuels All Districts and 310 CMR 7 .00 : Definitions to lower the amount of sulfur 

allowed in petroleum-based fuel oils combusted at stationary sources in order to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SOZ), which in turn contribute to increased formation of fine 

particulate matter (PM2,5). These proposed revisions are part of Massachusetts' plan to reduce 

visibility-impairing pollutants that contribute to regional haze, as required by the federal Clean 

Air Act, and to protect public health from the adverse health effects of S02 and PMZ.5 pollution. 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act requires the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

address impaired visibility, also known as regional haze, in 156 national parks, forests and 

wilderness areas that have been federally designated as Class I areas. In 1999, EPA issued 

regulations known as the Regional Haze Rule, which requires states to develop State 

Implementation Plans to reduce haze-causing pollution to improve visibility in Class I areas.~ 

EPA established five regional planning organizations across the nation to coordinate regional 

haze efforts . Massachusetts is a member of one of these regional organizations, the Mid-Atlantic 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), comprised of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states, tribes, 

and federal agencies . 

In June 2007, the MANE-VU states agreed to pursue several regional strategies to reduce SOZ 

emissions 2, the main contributor to visibility impairment in the MANE-VU region, including 

lowering the allowable sulfur content in distillate and residual fuel oils to specified levels . In 

accordance with this commitment, MassDEP included the low sulfur fuel oil strategy in its 

December 30, 2011 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), available at 

mass. og v/dep/air/priorities/sip .htm#haze. 

In accordance with the Regional Haze SIP and ongoing efforts to reduce emissions of S02 and 

PM2.5 in order to protect public health, MassDEP proposes to amend 310 CMR 7.05 to lower 

sulfur content limits for stationary sources to 0.05 percent (500 parts per million or ppm) sulfur 

by weight for distillate oil and 1 percent (10,000 ppm) sulfur by weight for residual oils 

beginning July l, 2014,3 and to further lower the levels to 0.0015 percent (15 ppm) sulfur by 

weight for distillate oil and 0.5 percent (5,000 ppm) sulfur by weight for residual oils beginning 

July 1, 2018. 

' See 40 CFR 51 .300-309 

Z See Statement on Controls in MANE-VU at otcair .ora/manevu/document.asp?fview=Formal%20Actions# 

3 Power plants would be subject to a lower 0.5 percent sulfur by weight for residual oils beginning July 1, 2014. 

3 
II. BACKGROUND 

Fuel Oil Combustion and Emissions 

The combustion of petroleum-based fuel oils emits various pollutants, including SO2, particulate 

matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NO,), metals, carbon dioxide (C02) and other pollutants . 

Collectively, these pollutants have direct health impacts and contribute to the formation of 

regional haze, ozone and fine particulate matter, acid deposition and nitrification of water bodies, 

and the build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. 

The most common petroleum-based fuel oils combusted by stationary sources are distillate 

(Numbers I and 2) and residual oils (Numbers 4, 5 and 6). Sources that burn fuel oil include 

power plants that produce electricity, commercial and industrial businesses, institutions, and 

residential homes. Distillate fuel oils usually contain less than 3,000 parts per million (ppm) or 

0.3 percent sulfur by weight before desulfurization, and are used mainly in domestic and 

commercial applications for heating and hot water. Residual fuel oils contain up to 25,000 ppm 

(2.5 percent by weight) sulfur and are used mainly in power plant, industrial, and large 

commercial applications . 

The MANE-VU region, especially the Northeast and upper mid-Atlantic, is heavily reliant on 

distillate oil for heating and hot water in the residential and commercial sectors. Distillate oil 

also is used in the industrial and electric power sectors. According to Energy Information 

Administration estimates, over 5 billion gallons of distillate oil was used in the region in 2009 . 

Massachusetts was the second largest user of distillate oil in the region after New York, using an 

estimated 723 million gallons in 2009 . 

The heavier residual oils are used by power plants and in the industrial and commercial sectors, 

although use of residual oils has been dropping significantly due in part to the lower price of 

natural gas . In these sectors Massachusetts used 105 million gallons in 2009, down from 205 

million gallons in 2008. 

SOZ emissions are generated during the combustion of fuel oil from the oxidation of sulfur 

contained in the oil. The amount of uncontrolled SOZ emissions is almost entirely dependent on 

the sulfur content of the fuel . On average, more than 95% of the sulfur in fuel oil is converted to 

SO2 . S02 is the primary pollutant emitted in the MANE-VU region that causes regional haze. 

Reducing sulfur in fuel oil is one of the largest steps MassDEP can take to reduce SOZ emissions 

in the Commonwealth. In 2008,4 stationary sources burning distillate and residual fuel oils 

emitted an estimated 45,000 tons of S02, which represents 46% of all SOZ emissions in the state. 

The proposed regulation, when fully implemented, would reduce those S02 emissions to 

approximately 5,000 tons per year, assuming the same amount of fuel oil burned .s Distillate oil 

4 2008 is the most recent year for which MassDEP has compiled a comprehensive air emissions inventory. 

5 MassDEP expects that there will be even further reductions in SOZ emissions since there has been an overall 

decline in the amount of fuel oil burned in recent years as sources have switched to lower sulfur or less expensive 

fuels, such as natural gas, particularly for electricity generation . 

4 
alone contributed nearly 30,000 tons of SOZ emissions in 2008; the proposed regulations would 

reduce this amount to less than 1,000 tons in 2018. 

Regional Haze 

The proposed regulations are a key component of the Massachusetts plan for reducing regional 

haze . Regional haze is pollution that impairs visibility over a large geographic region, and 

affects many of the nation's national parks, forests, and wilderness areas . The primary cause of 

regional haze is the scattering and absorption of light by fine particles. Fine particle air pollution 

(i .e ., PMz,s) also adversely impacts human health, especially the respiratory and cardiovascular 

systems of people at increased risk, including children, the elderly, and people with heart or 

respiratory conditions . Reducing fine particles in the atmosphere is an effective method of 

improving visibility and protecting public health . 

The fine particles that cause haze may either be emitted directly or formed from emissions of 

precursors. Sulfate, which is formed from S02 emissions, is the dominant contributor to fine 

particle pollution and the principle cause of visibility impairment across the MANE-VU region . 

Sulfate typically accounts for over 70 percent of estimated particle-induced light extinction at 

MANE-VU Class 'l sites. 6 

In the eastern U.S ., the average visual range has decreased from 106 miles (under natural 

conditions) to 24 - 44 miles today. Examples of impaired visibility in Massachusetts, including 

the Boston skyline, can be seen at : http ://www.mass. og v/dep/air/aq/acLhaze .htm. 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51 Subpart P) 

require states to make reasonable progress towards the restoration and maintenance of natural 

visibility in Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) in 10-year increments, reaching 

the goal by 2064. Although Massachusetts has no Class I areas, emissions from Massachusetts 

sources contribute to visibility degradation in Class I areas in several other states . These include 

Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont), Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), 

Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Acadia National Park 

(Maine), Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge (Maine), and Roosevelt Campobello International Park 

(Maine/Canada).7 

All states are required to submit a Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA that 

demonstrates progress towards the restoration and maintenance of natural visibility in Class I 

areas. The MANE-VU states committed to propose several regional strategies to reduce haze at 

MANE-VU Class I areas in their SIPs, including implementation of a low sulfur fuel strategy . 

MassDEP included the low sulfur fuel oil strategy in its Regional Haze SIP and now proposes to 

adopt these regulations to implement that strategy . 

While the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel strategy calls for the sulfur content of residual oil to be 

lowered to 0.5% in 2018, in order to obtain emissions reductions "as expeditiously as 

practicable," as required by the CAA to meet other regional haze requirements, the proposed 

regulations require power plants to burn 0.5% residual oil by July 1, 2014. This should not be 

6 Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States . NESCAUM, 2006. 

' Ibid. 
difficult to comply with since 0.5% residual oil is readily available and is being used by many 

facilities and some power plants in Massachusetts. In addition, other states, such as Connecticut, 

currently require that residual oil contain no more than 0.3% sulfur, further demonstrating the 

feasibility of requiring 0.5% for power plants in Massachusetts in 2014. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The proposed regulations will help ensure that Massachusetts maintains compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by EPA, in particular the new standard for SOZ 

established in 2010 and the forthcoming standards for PM2.5 expected in 2013. 

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA periodically updates health-based National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants : ozone; nitrogen dioxide; particulate 

matter ; carbon monoxide; sulfur dioxide; and lead . These pollutants harm human health and the 

environment and cause property damage. EPA establishes primary standards to protect human 

health and secondary standards to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

In 2010, EPA revised the primary standard for SOZ by establishing a new 1-hour standard at a 

level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). EPA left in place the secondary standard, which is a 3-hour 

average at a level of 500 ppb. In June 2011, Massachusetts recommended to EPA that 

Massachusetts be designated as "unclassified" for the new S02 standard since Massachusetts 

does not yet have all the information needed to recommend either attainment or nonattainment 

(which will require modeling of SOZ emissions from large sources). Reducing the sulfur content 

in fuel oil will reduce SOZ emissions, helping to ensure Massachusetts meets the new SOZ 1-hour 

standard. 

The current prima7 and secondary standards for PM2.5 are an annual standard of 15 micrograms per 

cubic meter (pg/m ), and a 24-hour standard of 35 pg/m3 . EPA is in the process of updating these 

standards and is considering proposing lower PM2.5 standards. Massachusetts currently meets the 

existing PM2.5 standards, but experiences one or two days each year that exceed the 24-hour 

standard. Therefore, to protect public health and to avoid a nonattainment designation under any 

new lower standards, it is important for Massachusetts to reduce PM2.5 pollution. The proposed 

regulations would contribute to the lowering of PM2.5 concentrations, since SOZ emissions are a key 

contributor to PM2,5 pollution. 

State Actions to Implement Regional Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy 

MassDEP's proposed regulations are part of a regional strategy to lower the sulfur content of 

fuel oils . The MANE-VU states recognized early on that the only effective way to achieve the 

benefits of lower sulfur oil was for the states to act together in a coordinated fashion. In 

addition, the petroleum industry has advocated that states should have regionally consistent 

requirements with sufficient lead time in order to avoid heating oil market disruptions . 

Several MANE-VU states already have promulgated regulations or enacted legislation to lower 

the sulfur content of fuel oil in accordance with the 2007 MANE-VU commitment. Below is a 

summary of final and proposed state actions. 
In April 2010, Maine enacted legislation that requires the sulfur content of No. 2 heating 

oil to meet 50 ppm by January 1, 2014 and 15 ppm by January 1, 2018, and requires the 

sulfur content of residual oil to meet 0 .5% by January 1, 2018 .8 

In May 2010, Connecticut enacted legislation that requires the sulfur content of No. 2 

distillate to meet 50 ppm by July 1, 2011 and 15 ppm by July 1, 2014; however, 

Connecticut's law will not take effect until New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts 

have similar requirements in place.9 Connecticut already limits the sulfur content of 

residual oil statewide to 0.3%. 

In July 2010, New York enacted legislation that requires the sulfur content of No. 2 home 

heating oil to meet 15 ppm by July 1, 2012.'° New York is developing regulations to 

lower the sulfur content of residual oil statewide. In addition, New York City enacted 

Local Law 43 to lower the sulfur content of No. 4 residual oil to 1,500 ppm, and in April 

2011 enacted legislation phasing out No. 6 residual oil by 2015 and eventually requiring 

all boilers to burn fuels that meet the, equivalent emissions of burning 15 ppm No. 2 oil or 

natural gas. 

I 1 

In September 2010, New Jersey promulgated regulations lZthat require the sulfur content 

of No. 2 distillate (and lighter grades) to meet 500 ppm by July 1, 2014 and 15 ppm by 

July 1, 2016. The regulations also require the sulfur content of No. 4 residual oil to meet 

0.25% and No. 6 residual oil to meet 0 .5% (or lower) by July 1, 2014. In April 2011, 

New Jersey proposed to allow refiners of distillate oil an extension of the July 1, 2014 

deadline for up to one year to meet the sulfur in fuel limit of 500 parts per million (ppm) 

in a limited circumstance - where a refinery has a repair and maintenance shut-down 

(referred to as a "turn-around") scheduled within one year after July 1, 2014.13 The 

proposal does not affect the July 1, 2016 deadline for producing 15 ppm distillate oil for 

New Jersey . 

In September 2010, Pennsylvania proposed regulations 14 that would require No. 2 home 

heating oil to meet 15 ppm by May 1, 2012. The proposed regulations also would require 

No. 4 heating oil to meet 0 .25% and No. 6 residual oil to meet 0 .5% by May 1, 2012. 

In October 2011, Vermont promulgated regulations 15 that require the sulfur content of 

No. 2 distillate (and lighter grades) to meet 0.05% by weight (500 ppm) by July 1, 2014 

and 0.0015% by weight (15 ppm) by July 1, 2018, and require the sulfur content of No. 4 

residual oil to meet 0.25% by weight and No. 5 and 6 residual oils (and heavier oils) to 

meet 0.5% by weight by July 1, 2018. 

$ http ://www .mainelegislature .or .~/leeis/statutes/38/title38sec603-A .html 

9 http ://www heatingoil com/blog/ct-governor-siens-low-sulfur-and-biodiesel-heating-oil-mandates-into-law-0614/ 

'° http ://www heatingoil com/blog/gov-paterson-signs-ny-low-sulfur-heating-oil-mandate-into-law-0721/ 

" http ://www nvtimes com/2011/04/22/nvregion/new- o-city-bans-dirtiest-heatinp,-oils-atbuildin s.g html? r=1&scp=1&sq=Citv%201ssues%20Rule%20to%20Ban%20Dirtiest%200ils%20at%20Buildings& 

st=cse 

'2 www.n'.t gov/dep/aqm/ 1997ado .p htrnl 

'3 http ://www.nj,gov/dep/rules/notices/04041 lb .html 

'4 http ://www .pabulletin.com/secure/data/vo140/40-39/1834.html 

'S httv ://www .anr .state .vt.us/air/htm/Pror)osedAmendments .htm#sulfurlimit 
The remaining MANE-VU states (District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, and 

New Hampshire) are in various stages of developing proposals to implement the low sulfur oil 

strategy . 

These state actions have begun to change the distillate fuel oil market, and eventually will lead it 

toward a single 15 ppm product for heating oil and vehicle diesel fuel . This market shift will 

improve distribution efficiencies since terminals, pipelines, and trucks will no longer have to 

carry separate distillate fuels. For example, Buckeye Pipeline has announced that it will phaseout high sulfur No . 2 heating oil deliveries on its system to comply with the new requirements . 

16 

To implement the change, Buckeye will ship a single ultra-low sulfur fuel that can be used for 

heating or transportation . In addition, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve sold its existing 

stock of higher sulfur home heating oil and replaced it with cleaner burning ultra-low sulfur (e .g ., 

15 ppm) distillate home heating oil to meet the new state requirements . 

17 

III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

The proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7 .05 establish lower sulfur limits for distillate and residual 

oil in two phases, the first with a July 1, 2014 start date, and a second requirement beginning 

July 1, 2018, as shown in Table l . These limits apply to all source sectors, including power 

plants, industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, and residences . The proposed 

regulations allow any existing on-site stocks of higher sulfur fuel oil to be burned past the 

applicable compliance dates. The sulfur content limits for coal in 310 CMR 7.05 would not be 

changed, but would be clearly distinguished from the fuel oil limits. 

The proposed regulations eliminate existing exceptions that allow facilities to obtain approval 

from MassDEP to burn higher sulfur residual oil . Any existing approval that MassDEP has 

issued allowing a facility to burn higher sulfur fuel oil would remain in effect until July 1, 2014; 

beginning July 1, 2014, the facility would need to comply with the lower sulfur limits . However, 

the proposed regulations retain the ability for a facility to burn higher sulfur fuel oil under a 

MassDEP approval if the resultant emissions would be no greater than the emissions that would 

result from burning the lower sulfur fuel . 

The proposed revisions eliminate the requirement for distributors of fuel oils to register with 

MassDEP and eliminate the requirement for suppliers of fuel oil and coal to annually submit to 

MassDEP lists of customers that use certain amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas . MassDEP 

believes that these requirements are unnecessary due to the availability of fossil fuel market data 

and because MassDEP tracks similar information through its Air Source Registration reporting 

program. 

The proposed revisions also correct grammatical and typographical errors, including in the 310 

CMR 7.00 definition of "Sulfur in Fuel ." 

'6 http ://oilspot2 .dtnenergy .com/e artic1e002018966.cfm?x=b1 1,Qw 

" http ;//www.fossil .energy.Qov/programs/reserves/heatingoil/ 

8 
Table 1 : Proposed Low Sulfur Oil Limits 

Fuel Oil Date % Sulfur in Fuel 

% Reduction in SOZ 

Emissions from 

current Max. limits 

Distillate current limit 0.3% 3,000 m 

Jul 1, 2014 0.05% (500 m 83% 

Jul 1, 2018 0.0015% 15 m 99.5% 

Residual current limit 0.5% - 2.2% depending on area 

Jul 1, 2014 1%; 0.5% at power plants 55%-77% 

July 1, 2018 0.5% 77% 

The fuel sulfur limits in 310 CMR 7 .05 are regulated by Air Pollution Control District (APCD). 

The proposed sulfur limits for fuel oils shown in Table 1 would apply statewide in all APCDs 

with one exception. The Berkshire APCD has a 1974 legislative exemption allowing sources in 

this district to burn up to 2.2% sulfur residual oil.1$ Therefore, the proposed revisions do not 

require lower sulfur residual oil in the Berkshire APCD due to the existing law. Legislative 

action would be needed in order for MassDEP to apply the lower sulfur residual oil limits for this 

district. Despite this legislative exemption, MassDEP expects that the majority of residual oil 

burned in the Berkshire APCD will have a reduced sulfur content because the suppliers in 

Massachusetts, and in the surrounding states, will need to supply lower sulfur residual oil for sale 

in other APCDs and states . 

IV. IMPACTS 

A. Economic Impacts 

MassDEP believes that the proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.05 are cost-effective and will not 

result in economic hardship to residential consumers who use distillate heating oil to heat their 

homes or to businesses and power plants that use distillate or residual fuel oil. Domestic oil 

refiners have made the capital investments required to produce lower sulfur distillate fuels to 

comply with EPA's national ultra-low sulfur transportation diesel fuel requirements . As a result 

of state actions to implement the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel strategy, refiners are making further 

upgrades to produce ultra-low sulfur home heating oil . Thus, the market is shifting to the lower 

sulfur levels MassDEP is proposing to adopt. Furthermore, the use of lower sulfur distillate fuels 

can provide an economic benefit to consumers in the form of reduced maintenance costs and 

increased heating efficiency . For residual oil, sufficient supplies of lower sulfur oils (e .g ., 0.5% 

sulfur content) are readily available and already are being used by many Massachusetts facilities . 

Even lower sulfur content residual oil (i .e ., 0.3%) already is required in Connecticut and areas in 

other states . 

A number of reports (see below) analyzed the potential costs of the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel 

strategy . While the costs of the low sulfur oil strategy will vary depending on market conditions, 

they are reasonable when compared to the costs of controlling other sources of S02- 

" Chapter 353 of the Acts of 1974. 
Importantly, a January 2008 Public Health Benefits study prepared by NESCAUM19 shows that 

the low sulfur fuel strategy will result in billions of dollars in public health benefits for the 

region . Controlling the fuel-sulfur content of distillate oil to 500,ppm leads to health benefits of 

almost $3 .4 billion in MANE-VU and controlling the fuel-sulfur content to 15 ppm could lead to 

an additional $431 million in benefits, bringing the total benefits to $3 .7 billion, which 

corresponds to more than $20,000 of benefit per ton of SOz removed based on expected SOZ 

emissions reductions. 

No. 2 Distillate Fuel Oil 

No. 2 distillate heating oil and highway diesel fuel oil are essentially the same refinery-produced 

liquid . In Massachusetts, heating/hot water in homes and businesses accounts for about 63% of 

distillate fuel oil consumption . In comparison, transportation diesel accounts for about 36%.2° 

Beginning in 2006, the permissible level of sulfur in highway diesel fuel (ultra-low sulfur diesel, 

or ULSD) was lowered to 15 ppm. Prior to that, highway low sulfur diesel fuel was refined to 

contain 500 ppm sulfur (low sulfur diesel). Consequently, refineries have already made the 

capital investments required for the production of low sulfur diesel and ULSD fuel oil. Based on 

U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for the week of March 18, 2011 domestic 

production of ULSD fuel oil accounted for about 85% of all distillate oil in the United States . 

Due to these refinery investments, requiring additional use of low sulfur fuel in the heating oil 

sector should result in minimal impact on the price and availability of lower sulfur distillate 

heating oil, especially given the lead times in the proposed revisions (2014 and 2018) for 

achieving the required levels . 

In December 2005, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

published a report entitled "Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States : An Overview of 

Benefits, Costs, and Implementation Issues," which noted that the incremental cost of low sulfur 

(500 ppm) highway diesel fuel historically had averaged about 1 .5 cents per gallon more than the 

cost of heating oil. However, the report went on to state that any increased cost in producing low 

sulfur home heating oil would be more than offset by the avoided maintenance costs resulting 

from the reduced rate of equipment fouling when using low sulfur oi1 .21 

In July 2007, MANE-VU published a report entitled "Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas: Methodology for Source Selection, Evaluation of 

Control Options and Four Factor Analysis," which estimated that on average low sulfur distillate 

oil would be expected to cost 0.8 cents per gallon more than regular heating oi1.z2 

A March 2008 study by Hart Energy Consulting for the National Oilheat Research Alliance 

estimated that the cost of producing 15 ppm heating oil could be as high as 8.9 cents per gallon 

more than regular heating oil, but could be less than 5 cents per gallon for refineries that have 

existing desulfurization facilities that could be revamped to produce 15 ppm product. 

23 Note that 

" Public Health Benefits of Reducing Ground-level Ozone and Fine Particle Matter in the Northeast U.S ., A 

Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) Study . NESCAUM, January 15, 2008 

2° U.S . Energy Information Administration, 2009. 

21 Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States : An Overview of Benefits, Costs, and Implementation Issues . 

NESCAUM, December 2005 . 

22 Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas. MACTEC, July 2007. 

23 Northeast Heating Oil Assessment, Hart Energy Consulting, March 2008. 

10 
these are estimated costs to refiners and do not necessary translate to prices ultimately paid by 

consumers, which are influenced by factors in addition to the cost of reducing the sulfur content 

in crude oil. 

An April 2010 study prepared for the National Oilheat Research Alliance 24 evaluated the 

potential for suppliers to bring 15 ppm sulfur content heating oil into widespread use in the 

Northeast by 2018 . While the study acknowledges that additional refining capacity is needed to 

meet the increased demand in 2018 and beyond, it concludes that, given appropriate advance 

notice, the refining industry can supply the necessary fuels with minimal market disruptions and 

price impacts. In the short-term, excess production capacity of ULSD exists in the region and 

could be shifted to the home heating market . In the longer term, the transition to ULSD in the 

transportation sector, combined with clear signals from regulatory agencies that similar 

requirements will be widespread for heating oil in the coming years, will support a move toward 

greater availability of 15 ppm sulfur content heating oil. 

The study projects a volume-weighted average wintertime wholesale price differential between 

ULSD and higher sulfur heating oil of 1-3 cents per gallon, suggesting that the incremental cost 

of providing 15 ppm sulfur content heating oil will not be significant compared to normal price 

fluctuations. The study also notes that the incremental cost to consumers will be more than 

offset by cost savings associated with lower maintenance costs and higher fuel efficiency. For 

example, a typical consumer who uses 800 gallons of fuel per year would spend an additional 

$24 per year if per-gallon fuel costs increased by $0 .03 . However, the same consumer could 

expect to save approximately $50 per year in avoided maintenance costs (cleaner fuel reduces the 

frequency with which equipment must be serviced) and another $48 in avoided fuel costs from 

higher efficiency . This is because existing equipment ~enerally operates more efficiently with 

lower sulfur fuels (by 1-2% per year between services 2 ), so less fuel is required to produce the 

same amount of heat. In addition, lower sulfur fuel oils will enable the use of more efficient, 

condensing heating equipment. The current cost of condensing heating units is expensive due to 

the need for stainless steel parts for protection from sulfuric acid, which forms from the sulfur in 

fuel oil . If the sulfur in fuel is reduced, then manufacturers will be able to use less expensive 

steel. This will in turn reduce the costs of these very efficient appliances. More efficient and 

less costly furnaces/boilers could encourage more residential users to replace inefficient, older 

units . 

Residual Fuel Oil 

The sulfur content of residual fuel oils burned by power plants and other large sources also can 

be cost-effectively reduced. Residual oil is a byproduct of the refining process, and is produced 

in several grades that can be blended to meet a specified fuel sulfur content limit. In April 2011, 

MANE-VU published an Addendum 26 to its 2007 "Assessment of Reasonable Progress" Report 

that evaluated residual oil. The report averaged monthly price averages to compute annual prices 

and price differentials in cents per gallon for the years 2006 - 2009 . For these years in the 

Northeast, lower sulfur No. 6 residual oil (< 1%) ranged from 8.9 to 12.9 cents per gallon more 

Z° Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel Fuel/Heating Oil Market Study, Kevin J. Lindemer, LLC, prepared for the National 

Oilheat Research Alliance, April 2010 ( http ://www .nora-oilheat .or site20/uploads/Iowsstudv .pdfJ . 

25 Low Sulfur Home Heating Oil Demonstration Project Summary Report, Energy Research Center, Inc., and 

Brookhaven National Laboratories, BNL-74956-2005-IR, June 2005 . 

26 http ://otcair.org/manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports# 

11 
than higher sulfur No. 6 residual oil (> I%). The additional expense would be at least partially 

offset by reduced maintenance costs with the use of lower sulfur oil. Low sulfur oil is cleaner 

burning and emits less particulate matter than higher sulfur oil; this reduces the rate of fouling of 

heating units substantially and permits longer time intervals between cleanings. The decreased 

deposits also would enable a more efficient transfer of heat, thereby reducing fuel use. Thus, 

there are potential costs savings for switching to lower sulfur residual oil. Reducing the sulfur 

content of residual fuel is a cost-effective SOZ reduction strategy ; a simple calculation using a 

price differential of $0.089 - $0.129 suggests that a 78% reduction in SOZ emissions (by 

converting from 2.2 percent to 0.5 percent sulfur residual oil) is achievable at an approximate 

cost of $800 - $1,100 per ton of SOZ removed. This cost per ton removal compares favorably to 

the costs of other pollution controls typically required by environmental agencies and is well 

within the range considered to be cost-effective . 

B. Agricultural Impacts 

Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 18, state agencies must evaluate the 

impact of proposed programs on agriculture within the Commonwealth. The proposed revisions will 

require that all distillate and residual oil burned in Massachusetts, including by agricultural users, 

meet lower sulfur content limits . Therefore, agricultural users of fuel oil may incur a slight increase 

in the cost of fuel ; however, these costs would be offset by reduced boiler maintenance costs and 

increased boiler efficiency as described under Economic Impacts. Due to reduced SOZ emissions 

that will result from the proposed amendments, agricultural crop production in Massachusetts could 

improve due to less acid deposition, which is partly caused by S02 emissions. 

C. Impact on Massachusetts Municipalities 

The proposed revisions will require that all distillate and residual oil burned in Massachusetts, 

including by municipalities, meet lower sulfur content limits . Therefore, municipalities may incur a 

slight increase in the cost of fuel ; however, these costs would be offset by reduced boiler 

maintenance costs and increased boiler efficiency as described under Economic Impacts. 

In addition, some Massachusetts municipalities operate electric generating units (EGUs) that burn 

fuel oil and thus may incur some additional fuel costs. However, ownership and operation of a 

power plant, which some municipalities voluntarily undertake, is not a mandated municipal service . 

Therefore, costs associated with operation of a power plant would not be considered mandated costs 

subject to the restrictions of Proposition 2 %z (Town of Norfolk v. Department of Environmental 

Quality Engineering, 407 Mass 233 (1990)). 

D. Impacts on Other Programs - Air Toxics 

Air toxics are a group of chemical air contaminants that are associated with significant 

environmental impacts or adverse health effects such as cancer, reproductive effects and birth 

defects . The federal Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate source-specific controls based on 

Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) to address air toxics . MassDEP implements 

major source MACT standards as EPA promulgates them. In addition, MassDEP controls air toxics 

through other air quality programs and reduces the use of toxics through its Toxics Use Reduction 

12 
Program. The proposed amendments will decrease air toxics emissions by requiring cleaner fuel oil 

to be burned and by increasing the efficiency of combustion equipment. 

E. Small Business Impact Statement 

Small businesses that purchase distillate oil for heating are likely to experience slightly higher pergallon prices for oil as a result of this regulation . However, as discussed above in Section IV.A 

Economic Impacts, these costs would be offset by reduced boiler maintenance costs and increased 

boiler efficiency . In addition, some compliance costs to small fuel distributors and suppliers may be 

reduced due to the elimination of requirements for registration and filing of customer lists. 

V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT 

F. Stakeholder Input 

Between 2004 and 2010, MassDEP participated in several stakeholder meetings coordinated by 

NESCAUM and MANE-VU to solicit input on how to effectively implement a regional low 

sulfur heating oil strategy . Attendees included representatives of state environmental agencies, 

representatives from the heating oil industry (including retail distributors, wholesalers and 

refiners), environmental groups, EPA, NESCAUM, MANE-VU and the Ozone Transport 

Commission. In addition, the proposed low sulfur fuel strategy and commitment to propose 

these amendments were included in MassDEP's January 2011 draft Regional Haze SIP, which 

went through notice and public hearing. MassDEP received comments on its draft Regional 

Haze SIP from the Massachusetts Oilheat Association that were very supportive and from the 

Massachusetts Petroleum Council, which had one minor technical comment, and the requested 

change was made. 

G. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act 

The proposed regulations are exempt from the "Regulations Governing the Preparation of 

Environmental Impact Reports," 301 CMR 11 .00, in that no MEPA review threshold set forth in 

310 CMR 11 .03 is met or exceeded. In addition, these proposed regulations do not reduce 

standards for environmental protection, nor do they reduce opportunities for public participation 

in review processes or public access to information generated or provided in accordance with the 

regulations. (See MEPA review threshold pertaining to promulgation of regulations at 301 CMR 

11 .03(12).) 

M.G.L . Chapter 30A requires MassDEP to give public notice and provide an opportunity to review 

the proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.05 and 310 CMR 7 .00, including the background 

document and any technical information, at least 21 days prior to holding a public hearing. Since 

the proposed regulation is in response to federal law and will be submitted to EPA as part of 

MassDEP's Regional Haze SIP, formal notice will be issued 30 days before the public hearing. The 

hearing will be held in accordance with the procedures of M.G.L. Chapter 30A. The public hearing 

notice and proposed amendments are available on MassDEP's website at : 

www.mass.gov/dep/public/publiche .htm . 

13 
If there are any questions regarding this document, please contact Glenn Keith, 617-292-5874, 

Glenn.Keithna,state .ma.us, at MassDEP's Boston Office . 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

Amend 310 CMR 7.00: DEFINITIONS as follows: 

SULFUR IN FUEL - for the purpose of 310 CMR 7 .05, sulfur in fuel is as follows: 

(a) Oil 

2.2% sulfur content = 

1 % sulfur content 

0.5% sulfur content 

(b) Coal 

1 .57% sulfur content 

1 .21 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential 

0.55 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential 

0.28 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential 

1 .21 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential 

(assuming 13,000 Btu per pound) 

0.72% sulfur content 

0.36% sulfur content 

0.55 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential 

(assuming 13,000 Btu per pound) 

0.28 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential 

(assuming 13,000 Btu per pound) 

Amend 310 CMR 7.05: U Fuels All Districts as follows: 

7.05 : U Fuels All Districts 

(1) Sulfur Content of Fuels . (except natural gas) 

(a) Maximum Sulfur Content of Fuel. 

1 . No person owning, leasing or controlling the operation of a fossil fuel utilization facility shall 

cause, suffer, allow or permit the burning therein of any li uid fossil fuel having a sulfur content 

in excess of that listed in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)1 . : Table 1 and in accordance with the timelines 

listed in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)1 . Table 1 , except as provided in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(b). 

2. On and after July 1 2014, no person owning, leasing or controlling the operation of an 

indirect heat exchanger with an energy input capacity equal to or greater than 250 MMBtu per 

hour providing steam to a steam-electric generator that produces electrical energy for sale shall 

cause suffer, allow or permit the burning therein of any residual fuel oil having a sulfur content 

in excess of 0.28 pounds per million Btu heat release potential (i .e ., 0.5% sulfur content by 

weight), except as provided in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(b). 

TAT

~

I] G' 1 T T 

310 

(''AAD '7

.

(1G11\ 

---c . v 

r't"" :*.

u

.,ti, G' 1~; .

u

, . 

vu 

G e ate f it Ae f F. 'CYCf Appfer ~+~° ~' lfuc 

T u m

:" "ue^ u ~ Release 

Potentia l /1b.44N41

t,.\ 

4-.-24- 2.2 I 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

4,54 ' . 

1$01/0 

9,54 -1-A-% 

l-.-N '' . 

n. 

' .r-0-° o 

i .0 01/0 

-1-0-°7 6 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

310 CMR 7.050)(a) 1 . Tab le 1 : Sulfur Content Lim it of Liquid Fossil Fu el 

Maximum Sulfur 

Content of Fuel 

(parts per million, 

ppm; or heat release Sulfur Content 

District/Area Fuel 

potential, 

lb./MMBtu) 

Equivalent by 

Weigh t 

Applicability 

Date 

tatewide Distillate Oil 3,000 ppm 0.3% Prior to July 1, 

2014 

,S tatewide Distillate Oil 500 Rpm 0 .05% July l, 2014 

through June 30, 

2018 

S tatewide Distillate Oil 15 ppm 0.0015% July 1, 2018 

B erkshire APCD Residual Oil 1 .21 lb ./MMBtu 2 .2% June 23, 1975 

ities and Towns of Residual Oil 0.28 lb ./MMBtu 0 .5% October 1, 1970 

rlin ton Belmont 

B oston, Brookline 

ambrid e Chelsea 

verett Malden 

edford Newton 

omerville Waltham 

E nd W atertown 

errimack Valley Residual Oil 1 .21 lb./MMBtu 2.2% Prior to July 1, 

PCD except City of 2014 

L awrence and Towns of 

ndover North Andover, 

a nd Methuen 

errimack Vall ey APCD Residual Oil 0.55 lb ./MMBtu 1 .0% July 1, 2014 

through June 30, 

2018 

emainder of State, Residual Oil 0.55 lb ./MMBtu 1 .0% Prior to July l, 

i ncluding City of 2018 

awrence and Towns of 

ndover North Andover, , 

E nd Methuen ' 

tatewide except Residual Oil 0.28 lb ./MMBtu 0.5% July l, 2018 

erkshire APCD 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

310 CMR 7 .05 ( l )( a 1 . Table 2 : Sulfur Content Limit of Solid Fossil Fuel 

Maximum Sulfur 

Content of Fuel ' 

(heat release Sulfur Content , 

District/Area Fuel 

potential, 

lb ./MMBtu) 

Equivalent by 

Weight 

erkshire APCD and Coal 1 .21 Ib ./MMBtu 1 .57% 

errimack Valley 

PCD exce t City of 

awrence and Towns of 

ndover North 

ndover and Methuen 

ities and Towns of Coal 0.28 Ib ./MMBtu 0.36% 

rlin2ton, Belmont, 

I 

oston, Brookline, 

~!mbridge, Chelsea, 

verett, Malden, 

edford, Newton 

omerville, Waltham, 

nd Watertown 

emai der of State, Coal 0.55 Ib ./MMBtu 0.72% 

i cludin 2 Citv of 

L awrence and Towns of 

ndover North 

ndover and Methuen 

te-bey-~~ 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

DepaAmefft: 

1 Any ,person with an existing, approval issued by the Department that allows the 

burning of fossil fuel oil with a sulfur content in excess of the limits in 310 CMR 

7 05(l)(a)1 . Table 1 may burn such fuel in compliance with the Department's approval 

until July 1 2014 Beginning on July 1 2014 such person shall comply with the fuel oil 

sulfur content limits in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)l . Table l, except as provided in 310 CMR 

7.05(1)(b)2 . or 310 CMR 7.05(1)(W. 

2 Any person owning, or controlling the operation of a fossil fuel utilization 

facility may burn any existing stock of fossil fuel oil at the facility, but shall not accep t 

delivery of fuel with a sulfur content in excess of the limits in 310 CMR 7 .05(1)(a)1 . 

Table 1 on or after the applicable date(s) in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)1 . Table l, except as 

provided in 310 CMR 7.05(l)(b)3 . 

3 . The sulfur content limits in 310 CMR 7 .05(1)(a) 1 . Table 1 and Table 2 shall not apply 

to a facility whose owner or operator has applied for and 

received approval from the Department of a plan whereby use of a higher- su'fo~ fuel with 

a sulfur content in excess of the limits in 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)l . Table 1 and Table 2 

would cause no greater emissions of sulfur compounds into the ambient air than if 

keweqhe applicable sulfur content fuel in 310 CMR 7 .05(1)(a)1 . Table 1 and Table 2 

were used. The plan must be approved by the Department, in writing, and any conditions 

attached to the Department's approval must be agreed to by the applicant, in writing. 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

4_. Approval granted under the provisions of 310 CMR 7.05(1)(b)-1 .-,-2 : or 3 . may be 

revoked by the Department for cause or when in its opinion revocation is necessary to 

prevent or abate a condition of air pollution. 

(2) U Use of Residual Fuel Oil or Hazardous Waste Fuel. No person owning, leasing or 

controlling an individual fuel utilization emission unit rated by the Department as having an 

energy input capacity of less than 3,000,000 Btu per hour shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the 

burning of any residual fuel oil or hazardous waste fuel therein. 

(3) Ash Content of Fuels (except natural gas) . 

(a) No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the burning in the Commonwealth of any 

solid or solid/liquid mixture fossil fuel containing an ash content in excess of 4% by dry 

weight, except as provided in 310 CMR 7 .05(3)(b) and (c). 

(b) In CM, MV, and SM, fossil fuel utilization facilities having an energy input capacity 

rated by the Department of 250,000,000 or greater Btu per hour, may burn solid or 

solid/liquid mixture fossil fuel with an ash content in excess of 9% by dry weight, provided 

that : 

1 . An application is made to the Department in writing to use such fuel and any 

information as the Department may require is submitted; 

2. The Department determines that the use of such fuel would not cause other applicable 

air pollution control regulations or ambient air quality standards to be violated ; and 

3 . The use of such fuel has been approved, in writing, by the Department and the 

conditions of approval have been agreed to by the applicant, in writing. Such conditions 

of approval may include the installation, operation and maintenance of ambient air 

monitoring equipment by the applicant, in a manner specified by the Department. 

(c) In MB, B and PV, all fossil fuel utilization facilities may burn solid or solid/liquid 

mixture fossil fuel with an ash content in excess of 9% by dry weight, provided that : 

1 . An application is made to the Department in writing to use such fuel and any 

information as the Department may require is submitted; 

2. The Department determines that the use of such fuel would not cause other applicable 

air pollution control regulations or ambient air quality standards to be violated ; and 

3 . The use of such fuel has been approved, in writing, by the Department and the 

conditions of approval have been agreed to by the applicant, in writing. Such conditions 

of approval may include the installation, operation and maintenance of ambient air 

monitoring equipment by the applicant, in a manner specified by the Department. 

(4) Fuel Additives . No person owning, leasing or controlling a fuel utilization facility shall 

cause, suffer, allow or permit the use therein of any fuel additive except in accordance with the 

manufacturer's recommended specifications. 

(5) Fuel Suppliers. 

(a) No person shall ship or deliver in intrastate commerce to any person for burning or 

reshipment for burning, any fuels with a sulfur content in excess of those specified in 310 

CMR 7.05(1)(a)1 . or except that such shipment may be provided when_ 

1 . ttUse of such fuel has been approved by the Department in writing=s 

2. sSuch approval has been verified by the shipper; and 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

3 . fRecord of such shipment willshall be retained for two years and the record shall be 

made available to the Department for its review and inspection during customary 

business hours . 

(sb) Any person supplying in intrastate commerce for burning or for reshipment for burning, 

fuel oil of a grade No. 2 or greater or coal shall keep and maintain records showing the 

quantities of the fuels handled and analyses showing the Btu value, sulfur content, nitrogen 

content (required only for residual fuel oils), viscosity, and ash content of said fuels and 

make such records available to the Department for its review and inspection during 

customary business hours. 

, 

(ec) Any person supplying residual fuel oil in intrastate commerce shall provide certification of 

the nitrogen content of the oil to #isits customers: 

as determined by the applicable ASTM methods D3228 -and 

D4629 or any other method approved by the Department and EPA. 

(¬d) Shippers and distributors of fossil fuels shall provide evidence, to the satisfaction of 

customer-users, of the ash content of fuels supplied. 

(6) All fuel analyses to be performed by or for distributors , suppliers or users of fuels, for 

purposes of 310 CMR 7.00, shall be performed in 

areaccordance with the applicable ASTM method or any other method approved by the 

Department and EPA. 

(7) No person owning, leasing, or controlling the operation of a fossil fuel utilization facility 

shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit the burning therein of any quantity, batch, or lot of used oil 

fuel unless : 

(a) that quantity, batch, or lot of used oil fuel was generated and mixed at the site of said 

fossil fuel utilization facility by the person owning, leasing, or controlling the operation of 

said fossil fuel utilization facility in compliance with 310 CMR 30.201, or 

(b) both of the following requirements are met: 

1 . said quantity, batch, or lot of used oil fuel was mixed in compliance with 310 CMR 

30 .201 ;2 and 

2. the person owning, leasing, or controlling the operation of the fossil fuel utilization 

facility complied with 310 CMR 30 .250 . 

(8) Except as provided in 310 CMR 7.05(9), no person owning, leasing, or controlling the 

operation of a fossil fuel utilization facility shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit the burning 

therein of any used oil fuel that does not meet the specifications set forth in Table 310 CMR 

7.05(8) Table 3 . 

TABLE -310 CMR 7.05(8) Table 3 : 
Proposed Amendments February 17, 2012 

STANDARDS FOR USED OIL FUEL 

Constituent/Property 

Sulfur 

Total Halogens 

PCBs 

Higher Heating Value 

Flash Point 

Lead * * 

Arsenic ** 

Cadmium ** 

Chromium * * 

Allowable 

As allowed pursuant to 310 CMR 7.05(1) for 

residual fuel oil 

4000 ppm or less 

Less than 50 ppm* 

120,000 or more Btu per gallon 

100°F or more 

Less than 100 ppm 

5 ppm or less 

2 ppm or less 

10 ppm or less 

* The burning of PCBs in concentrations of 50 or more parts per million is prohibited unless 

done in compliance with 310 CMR 30.000. 

** Does not apply to any facility equipped with air pollution control equipment that the 

Department determines, in writing;_ (1) is Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and 

(2) reduces emissions to a level equal to or less than would be emitted if a used oil fuel 

meeting the standard set forth in 310 CMR 7.05(8): Table 3 were to be burned in compliance 

with 310 CMR 7.00 in a facility without BACT. 

(9) 310 CMR 7.05(8) shall not apply to the burning of used oil fuel in a used oil fuel fired space 

heater provided that the requirements set forth in 310 CMR 7.04(9), 310 CMR 7.05(7)(a), and 

310 CMR 30.250 are complied with.