UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

% REGION 1 

Xj^l/Z . | 1 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 1100 

^ ^ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023 

February 18, 2004 

Karen L. Regas 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

Attention 310 CMR 7.00 Comments 

Dear Ms. Regas: 

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection held public hearings on several 

proposed revisions to its air pollution control regulations, 310 CMR 7.00, et seq., on February 11 

and 12, 2004. 

EPA staff have reviewed the proposed revisions and comments are provided in the Enclosures. 

If you have any questions on the enclosed comments, please contact the appropriate EPA staff as 

outlined below: 

VOC RACT Anne Arnold 617-918-1047 

New Source Review Brendan McCahill 617-918-1652 

Opacity Tim Williamson 617-918-1099 

Thank you for the opportunity to review these proposed revisions. 

Sincerely, 

David B. Conroy, Acting <$hief 

Air Programs Branch 

Enclosures 

cc: Donald Squires, MA DEP 

Barbara Kwetz, MA DEP 

Toll Free • 1 -888-372-7341 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov/region1 

Recycled/Recyclable •Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
Enclosure 1 

EPA COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 2004 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 310 CMR 7.00 

1. EPA recommends that the definition of the term "nonattainment area" be revised as follows: 

"NONATTAINMENT AREA means an area classified designated by the EPA as not 

meeting or exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for a criteria pollutant 

published at 40 CFR Part 81. The current Massachusetts attainment status is published at 

40 CFR 81.322, Subpart C - Section 107 Attainment Status Designations." 

2. Currently, the definition of the term "potential emissions or potential to emit" includes 

physical and operational limitations on capacity, including air pollution control equipment, if the 

limitation is stated in the facility's plan approval(s). The DEP is proposing to revise this term to 

also include limitations on the capacity if the limitation is stated in the facility's "emission 

control plan(s), operating permit, certification(s), restricted emission status, notification(s) and 

applicable regulations." EPA is concerned that some of the items on this expanded list, such as 

the emission control plan which is submitted by the facility, may not be practicably enforceable. 

Specifically of concern is the use of the revised definition in Massachusetts' miscellaneous metal 

parts and products (MMPP) rule, 310 CMR 7.18(11). As stated, in 310 CMR 7.18(1 l)(a), this 

rule applies to a person who operates MMPP coating lines "which have the potential to emit 

equal to or greater than ten tons per year of VOC." Therefore, EPA recommends that 310 CMR 

7.18(1 l)(a) be revised to reference "federal potential to emit," a term which is already defined in 

310 CMR 7.00. 

3. Massachusetts is proposing to add to 310 CMR 7.00 definitions of the following terms 

associated with automobile refinishing: adhesion promoter; elastomeric coating; impact resistant 

coating; underbody coating; uniform finish blender; and weld-through primer. The proposed 

definitions are consistent with EPA's definitions of these terms found at 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart 

B, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refmish 

Coatings." In EPA's rule, all of these terms are used in the definition of the term "specialty 

coating," for which an emission limit is specified. In Massachusetts' rule, however, the 

definition of the term "specialty coating" in 310 CMR 7.00 currently includes some, but not all, 

of these terms. Therefore, EPA recommends that the definition of "specialty coating" be revised 

to read as follows: 

"SPECIALTY COATING means a product which is necessary due to unusual job 

performance requirements. These coatings or additives include, but are not limited to, 

adhesion promoters, uniform finish blenders, elastomeric materials, impact resistant 

coatings, underbody coatings, weld-through primers, gloss flatteners, bright metal trim 

repair, and anti-glare/safety coatings." 
Enclosure 2 

EPA COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 2004 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 310 CMR 7.02(l)(b)(2) 

310 CMR 7.02(l)(b)2 Presumptive Plan Approvals - The draft provision would allow 

sources to construct a new source or modification based on the presumption that, if it does not 

hear from the DEP within 60 days after submitting a Limited Plan Application (LPA), the DEP 

has approved the source's LPA and has made it the source's plan approval. EPA does not agree 

that this provision is approvable under federal regulations governing the State preconstruction 

program. In particular, 40 CFR § 51.160(b) requires States to develop permitting plans that 

include means by which the State will prevent the construction or modification of a facility if the 

construction or modification will (1) result in a violation of applicable portions of the control 

strategy, or (2) interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. 40 CFR §51.160(b). 

While 310 CMR 7.02(l)(b)2 allows the DEP to disapprove an LPA within 60 days of receiving 

the application and payment of the permit application fee, it also clearly allows projects to 

proceed in the absence of DEP review. Once this 60-day period has expired, 310 CMR 

7.02(l)(b)2 provides no means for the State to prevent construction or modification of a source, 

even if the DEP later finds that such construction or modification will result in a violation of 

applicable requirements. 

EPA also notes that the provision essentially allows for a source to set its own enforceable permit 

conditions. Even if the proposed compliance requirements established in an application are not 

practicably enforceable, do not protect emission limits, or contradict other state regulations, they 

nevertheless become the source's "state-approved" compliance requirements if the DEP fails to 

respond in 60 days. If the DEP finds that a source is violating a national standard or an 

applicable portion of a control strategy but the source is complying with the presumptive 

approval's emission limits and conditions, the DEP and EPA has little, if any, enforcement 

remedy. 

The provision also undermines the DEP's and EPA's ability to seek an adequate remedy once a 

source has begun construction or modification under a Presumptive Plan Approval. 310 CMR 

7.02(1 )(b)2 provides that any LPA "shall be deemed granted" unless, within the 60 day-period 

for DEP review, the DEP notifies the applicant of a deficiency or denies the LPA in writing, or 

notifies the applicant in writing that a written approval is required. Given the equities involved 

where a source has begun construction or modification in accordance with an approved LPA, a 

permitting authority's ability to stop or alter construction or modification activities is severely 

restrained once the LPA has been "deemed granted" by the DEP. 

EPA understands the DEP's desire to streamline its permitting program. However, the proposed 

Presumptive Plan Approval does not adequately allow the state to prevent the construction or 

modification at a facility that could result in a violation. In addition, the proposal has significant 

enforcement issues. EPA believes the DEP's recent expansion of the "permit by rule" 

regulations at 310 CMR 7.03 and "exemptions" at 310 CMR 7.02 will remove many small 

activities from the case-by-case plan approval review process. EPA encourages the DEP to 
expand upon these provisions which further administrative efficiency while maintaining 

environmental benefits. 
Enclosure 3 

EPA COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 2004 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 310 CMR 7.03 

1.310 CMR 7.03(16)(d) currently requires the use of electrostatic or HVLP (high volume low 

pressure) spray application. The DEP is proposing to amend this section to also allow "any other 

coating application method approved by the Department in writing." The amendment as stated 

raises the issue of Director's discretion. Allowing such a provision would be considered more 

reasonable if the criteria by which the DEP's determination will be made are included in the rule. 

For example, 310 CMR 7.03(16)(d) could be revised to read as follows: 

"Spray guns shall utilize one of the following methods. .. 

1. Electrostatic spray application; or, 

2. High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) spray application; or 

3. Any other coating application method that achieves a transfer efficiency of at 

least 65% and is approved by the Department in writing." 

A similar provision is included in Rhode Island's rule for automobile refinishing operations, 

Regulation No. 30. Alternatively, the criteria could be stated more generally, in which case 310 

CMR 7.03(16)(d)(3) might allow "any other coating application method that achieves a transfer 

efficiency equivalent to electrostatic or HVLP spray application and is approved by the 

Department in writing." 

2. 310 CMR 7.03(16)(h) currently requires that spray gun cleaning be performed inside a totally 

enclosed system. The DEP is proposing to amend this section to allow a totally enclosed or 

equally effective system. Adding such language to this provision would make it difficult to 

enforce. 

3. The DEP is proposing to add a new section, 310 CMR 7.03(16)(1), that specifies records for 

automotive refinishing operations. Surface preparation products are referenced at the beginning 

of this section, however, this reference should be carried throughout the entire provision. EPA, 

therefore, recommends that 310 CMR 7.03(16)(1) be revised to read as follows: 

"As an alternative to 310 CMR 7.03(16)(k)l and (k)2, persons subject to 310 CMR 

7.18(28) automotive refinishing shall maintain purchase records of coatings and surface 

preparation products on a monthly basis. The purchase records must be summarized and 

include coating category, coating or coating component, or surface preparation product as 

identified on the container, the quantity of each coating, coating component, or surface 

preparation product and the VOC content (pounds per gallon) of each coating or surface 

preparation product, after mixing according to the manufacturer's instructions. Records 

must be made available to representatives of the Department upon request." 
Enclosure 4 

EPA COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 2004 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 310 CMR 7.06(l)(c) 

EPA appreciates the care with which DEP has proposed to address the changes in section 

7.06(l)(c) which EPA requested in our notice of proposed conditional approval. 68 FR 16959, 

16960 (April 8, 2003). We have one suggestion for clarifying the minimum requirements for the 

plan of good operating practices under 7.06(l)(c)(2)(f). We recommend DEP include a reference 

to the maximum allowable opacity limit of 27 percent, as provided for in 7.06(1 )(c), so that 

applicants are reminded about the upper bound of any alternative opacity limit they propose in 

their plans: 

f. Propose visible emission limitations no greater than 27 percent opacity that the facility 

will comply with during startup, shutdown, soot blowing and other specified operating 

conditions; 
Enclosure 5 

EPA COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 2004 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 310 CMR 7.18 

1. The DEP is proposing to delete the existing 310 CMR 7.18(27) coating mixing tank provisions 

and to amend 310 CMR 7.18(l)(c) to apply to coating mixing tanks. The existing 310 CMR 

7.18(27) provisions that are to be deleted include more specific requirements than the provisions 

in 310 CMR 7.18(l)(c). For example, 310 CMR 7.18(27)(b)(2) requires that the coating mixing 

tank lid extend at least 0.5 inch beyond the outer rim of the tank or be attached to the rim of the 

tank and that the lid must maintain contact with the rim of the tank for at least 90% of the rim's 

circumference, whereas the proposed 310 CMR 7.18(l)(c) states that "proper coating mixing tank 

operation shall include covering the tank with a tight fitting lid." Therefore, it is not clear why 

Massachusetts is proposing to delete the more specific 310 CMR 7.18(27) coating mixing tank 

provisions. We recommend either retaining 310 CMR 7.18(27) or augmenting 310 CMR 

7.18(l)(c) to include provisions from 310 CMR 7.18(27) that make mixing tank requirements 

clearly enforceable. 

2. 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g)(5), which contains the equation for calculating the daily weighted 

average VOC content of coatings applied on an individual coating line, is being amended to 

include the following statement: 

"Coating usage may be averaged, providing the units in the equation are the same as the 

units that are used in the section of 310 CMR 7.18 that applies to the coatings included in 

the daily average. Only coating lines subject to the same emissions standard may be 

averaged together." 

The second sentence as stated is inappropriate because the daily weighted average technique 

should only be used for an individual coating line. Cross-line averaging is covered under 310 

CMR 7.18(2)(b) and Appendix B(4). According to conversations with DEP staff, the intention 

of the second sentence is to clarify that daily weighted averaging is allowed only for coatings that 

are subject to the same emission standard. Therefore, EPA recommends that the second sentence 

of the proposed amendment to 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g)(5) be revised as follows: 

"Only coatings fares subject to the same emissions standard may be averaged together." 

In addition, the first sentence of the proposed amendment is confusing as currently stated. 

According to conversations with DEP staff, the intention of the first sentence is to allow 

averaging in units other than the units of lbs VOC per gallon of solids currently specified in the 

equation, depending on how the RACT limit is stated. Such an approach, however, is not 

relevant for Massachusetts' RACT coating rules, according to how the emission limits are 

currently stated in 310 CMR 7.18. 

Specifically, the majority of the coating emission limits specified in 310 CMR 7.18 are in units 

of lbs VOC per gallon of solids, as currently specified in the 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g)(5) equation. 
The only coating limits that are stated in alternative units are those for flatwood paneling that are 

stated in units of lbs VOC per 1000 sq ft coated, those for textile finishing that are stated in lbs 

VOC per lb of solids, and those for automotive refinishing that are stated in lbs VOC per gallon 

of coating, respectively. 

First, in the case of flatwood paneling, Massachusetts has adopted the EPA recommended 

emissions limits which are in terms of lbs VOC per 1000 sq ft of coated surface. EPA 

established the limits in these terms to give operators flexibility in adjusting the VOC content of 

the various coatings applied to a given panel, rather than setting a VOC limit for each type of 

coating. Thus, a type of averaging has already been incorporated in establishing the limits and 

the 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g)(5) daily weighted averaging equation is not appropriate for this source 

category. 

Second, the daily weighted averaging formula could work if translated to units of lbs VOC per 

gallon of coating. However, automotive refinishing is the only category for which the 310 CMR 

7.18 RACT emission limits are currently stated in these terms, and daily weighted averaging is 

not relevant for this source category, since EPA's national rule "National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings" codified at 40 CFR Part 59 

Subpart B and the Massachusetts automotive refinishing rule, 310 CMR 7.18(28), require that 

coating manufacturers, as well as those who apply the coatings, meet the specified emission 

limits. 

Finally, in the case of Massachusetts' textile finishing limits which are stated in units of lbs VOC 

per lb solid, daily weighted averaging would be appropriate. However, in this case, a mass based 

formula should be used, rather than using the volume based formula in 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g)(5). 

Therefore, in order to address the above concerns, EPA recommends that the first sentence of the 

proposed amendment to 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g)(5) be deleted and that 310 CMR 7.18(2)(g) be 

revised to read as follows: 

"Daily Weighted Averaging. Any person who owns, leases, operates or controls a coating 

line subject to 310 CMR 7.18, with the exception of coating lines subject to 310 CMR 

7.18(24) flatwood paneling surface coating or 310 CMR 7.18(28) automotive refinishing. 

may comply with the VOC emissions limitations of the applicable section of 310 CMR 

7.18 through the use of a daily weighted average on an individual coating line... 

1. the daily weighted average for each coating line, each day, complies with. .. 

5. The daily weighted average for each coating line, with the exception of coating 

lines subject to 310 CMR 7.18(26) textile finishing, is calculated according to the 

following equation. .. 

2 
6. For coating lines subject to 310 CMR 7.18(26) textile finishing, the daily 

weighted average for each coating line is calculated according to the following 

equation: 

VOCTM = I MiC, 

i = 1

 M T 

where: 

VOCyM = the daily weighted average VOC content of the coatings used each 

day on each coating line in units of pounds of VOC per pound of 

solids, as applied; 

n = the number of different coatings applied each day on a coating line: 

Mj = the mass of solids as applied for each coating, each day, on each 

coating line, in units of pounds of solids as applied: 

Cj = the VOC content of the coatings used each day on each coating line 

in units of pounds of VOC per pound of solids, as applied: 

M T = the total mass of solids as applied, each day on each coating line." 

3. The provisions in 310 CMR 7.18(8) are being amended to include an exemption for aqueous 

cleaning operations if the cleaning fluid contains no more than 10 percent by weight organic 

material, excluding soaps, and all organic materials have a vapor pressure less than 1 mm Hg at 

25°C. 

Since Massachusetts' degreasing rule was part of the Massachusetts federally-approved SEP prior 

to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the DEP must show that the 

revisions to the rule are consistent with the requirements of the General Savings Clause in 

Section 193 of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, Massachusetts must show that the modifications 

to the rule insure equivalent or greater reductions in VOC emissions. It appears that exempting 

aqueous cleaners would encourage facilities to switch to aqueous cleaning solutions, thereby 

decreasing VOC emissions. Massachusetts should provide an explicit justification that this is the 

case and that the General Savings Clause has been satisfied. For example, such an equivalency 

demonstration could include a comparison of the degreasing emissions from a few individual 

facilities before and after those facilities switched to aqueous cleaning. 

4. The 310 CMR 7.18(19)(h) SOCMI (synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry) 

provisions are being amended to state that a facility must submit quarterly monitoring reports to 

the DEP "unless otherwise notified by the Department, in writing." Also, the list of items that 

should be included in the report is being deleted. It is not clear why these changes are being 

made, and it appears these changes may reduce the utility of the monitoring reports. 

3 
5. 310 CMR 7.18(21), (22), (23), (25), and (26) are being amended to allow an exemption from 

RACT requirements for several surface coating categories provided that the person obtains and 

complies with a federally enforceable emission limit which restricts the potential emissions 

below the applicability cut-off. It is not clear, however, why 310 CMR 7.18(24) is not also being 

similarly amended. 

6. Table 7.18(28)(c), which contains the emission limits for automotive refinishing products, is 

being amended to include a new emission limit for multi-colored topcoats. This new limit is 

consistent with EPA's "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

Automobile Refinish Coatings," codified at 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart B. However, since 

Massachusetts' existing rule does not specify a limit for multi-colored topcoats, such coatings are 

currently subject to the rule's topcoat limit, which is more stringent than the proposed multicolored topcoat limit. Therefore, although the proposal seems technically reasonable, it is a 

relaxation of the existing rule which has already been approved into the Massachusetts SIP. 

Also, in the automotive refinishing rule, 310 CMR 7.18(28)(f) is being amended to require a 1.67 

pounds of VOC per gallon of product as applied emission limit for surface preparation products 

used to clean non-plastic surfaces and a new 6.5 pounds of VOC per gallon of product as applied 

emission limit for surface preparation products used to clean new plastic surfaces. Such limits for 

surface preparation products are consistent with the limits adopted by other areas such as Rhode 

Island and the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. However, Massachusetts' 

existing rule includes a 1.7 pounds of VOC per gallon of product as applied emission limit for all 

surface preparation products. Thus, although the proposal seems technically reasonable, it is a 

relaxation of the existing rule which has already been approved into the Massachusetts SIP. 

In addition, the automotive refinishing rule is being amended to include an exemption for stencil 

coatings and coatings that are sold in non-refillable aerosol containers. This exemption seems 

reasonable as EPA's rule for automobile refinishing coatings also includes an exemption for 

coatings that are sold in non-refillable aerosol containers. However, such an exemption is a 

relaxation of Massachusetts' existing rule which has already been approved into the SIP. 

As outlined above, Massachusetts is proposing three relaxations to its automotive refinishing 

rule. In order for EPA to be able to approve the revised rule, Massachusetts must meet the 

Section 110(1) anti-back sliding provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), since the rule has 

already been approved into the Massachusetts SEP since 1990. In order to compensate for the 

proposed relaxations to the automobile refinishing rule, EPA recommends that Massachusetts 

consider adopting the new requirements discussed below. 

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) has developed model rules for several VOC source 

categories and the OTC states, including Massachusetts, have signed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) committing to adopt these model rules. Although Massachusetts already 

has rules in place for the categories addressed by the OTC model rules, in some cases, the state's 

4 
rules do not contain all of the requirements included in the OTC model rule. Therefore, 

Massachusetts should consider adopting these requirements. 

Specifically, EPA encourages the DEP to consider including in its degreasing rule a provision 

which prohibits the use of cold cleaning solvents with a vapor pressure of 1.0 mm Hg or greater, 

measured at 20°C. Such a requirement is included in the OTC's "Model Rule for Solvent 

Cleaning," dated March 6, 2001, and has already been adopted by several OTC states. In order to 

take into account some of the concerns industry has previously raised regarding such a 

requirement, Massachusetts could adopt the OTC vapor pressure requirement with certain 

specified exemptions, similar to the provision that has been adopted by New York. For example, 

Massachusetts could add the following provision to 310 CMR 7.18(8)(a) and the following 

definition to 310 CMR 7.00, respectively: 

"(a) Cold Cleaning Degreasing. On or after December 31,1980 no person owning, 

operating, leasing or controlling any solvent metal degreasing facility which utilizes a 

cold cleaning degreaser shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emissions of volatile organic 

compounds therefrom unless they comply with either 310 CMR 7.18(8)(a) 1. through 6. or 

310 CMR 7.18(8)(a)6. through 9. and, on or after Tdatel. unless they comply with 310 

CMR7.18(8)(aM0. 

1. each cold cleaning degreaser is equipped with a cover... 

10. each cold cleaning degreaser must use a solvent with a vapor pressure of 1.0 

mm Hg. or less, at 20°C. This paragraph does not apply to degreasers: 

(i) used in special and extreme solvent metal cleaning; 

(li) for which the owner or operator has received Department approval of a 

demonstration that compliance with the requirement of a solvent with a 

vapor pressure of 1.0 mm Hg. or less, at 20°C will result in unsafe 

operating conditions; or 

(iii) that are located in a permanent total enclosure having control 

equipment that is designed and operated with an overall VOC removal 

efficiency of 90 percent or greater." 

"SPECIAL AND EXTREME SOLVENT METAL CLEANING means the use of 

degreasers: 

(a) to clean metal parts in the manufacturing and rework of electronic parts. 

5 
assemblies, boxes, wiring harnesses, sensors and connectors used in aerospace 

service; 

(b) to clean metal parts used in the manufacturing of ozone, nitrous oxide, 

fluorine, chlorine, bromine, halogenated compounds, or oxygen in concentrations 

greater than 23 percent; or 

(c) to clean metal parts exposed to ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorine, chlorine, 

bromine, halogenated compounds, or oxygen in concentrations greater than 23 

percent." 

Furthermore, the DEP should consider updating its consumer and commercial products and 

architectural and industrial maintenance (ATM) coating requirements contained in 310 CMR 7.25 

to be consistent with those requirements included in the OTC model rules for these source 

categories. Massachusetts' consumer products rule could be updated to. include more stringent 

emission limits for some of the products contained in the rule, as well as emission limits for 

additional products. For example, Massachusetts' rule currently requires that hair sprays meet a 

80 percent VOC content by weight limit, whereas the OTC model rule, and rules adopted by New 

York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, contain a 55 percent VOC content by weight limit for hair 

sprays, as well as a 6 percent VOC content by weight limit for hair mousses and hair styling gels. 

Also, several of the ATM coating limits in Massachusetts' rule could be updated to include the 

more stringent emission limits contained in the OTC model rule. For example, Massachusetts' 

rule requires that clear and pigmented fire retardant coatings meet a 850 and 500 g VOC per liter 

limit, respectively, whereas the OTC model rule, and rules adopted by New York and Delaware, 

contain a 650 and 350 g VOC per liter limit for these coatings. 

In summary, the proposed relaxations to Massachusetts' automobile refinishing rule are 

technically reasonable. However, since the rule has already been approved into the SEP, DEP 

must meet the anti-backsliding provisions of the CAA. Therefore, EPA recommends that the 

DEP adopt additional solvent metal cleaning, consumer and commercial products, and ATM 

coating requirements in accordance with the state's OTC MOU commitment, to compensate for 

the proposed automobile refinishing relaxations. 

7. Since Table 7.18(28)(c) of the automotive refinishing rule is being amended, the DEP may 

want to consider also clarifying some of the other limits contained in the table. Specifically, the 

table includes a limit for topcoats and another, less stringent, limit for three or four stage 

topcoats. EPA recommends that the table be clarified to state that the more stringent topcoat 

limit applies to single and two-stage topcoats. 

8. The DEP is proposing a new section, 310 CMR 7.18(28)(p), which contains recordkeeping 

requirements for the automotive refinishing rule. Since this rule includes VOC emission limits 

for coatings, as well as surface preparation products, the recordkeeping section should include 

6 
requirements for both coatings and surface preparation products. The beginning of the proposed 

310 CMR 7.18(28)(p) does mention surface preparation products, however, that reference is not 

carried through all of the provision's subsections. In addition, although the proposed section 

requires that records be made available to the DEP upon request, the provision should also state 

that records be made available to the EPA and should specify a time period for record retention. 

In order to address these issues, EPA recommends that 310 CMR 7.18(28)(p) be revised to read 

as follows: 

"Recordkeeping Requirements. Any person subject to 310 CMR 7.18(28)(a) must 

maintain purchase records of coatings and surface preparation products on a monthly 

basis. The purchase records must be summarized and include: 

1. Each coating category, coating, coating component, or surface preparation 

product as identified on the container; 

2. The quantity of each coating or surface preparation product, and 

3. The VOC content (pounds per gallon) of each coating or surface preparation 

product, after mixing according to the manufacturer's instructions. 

4. Records kept to demonstrate compliance must be kept on site for five years and 

must be made available to representatives of the Department or EPA upon 

request." 

7