South Coast Air Quality Management District

Annual Status Report on Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings

SYNOPSIS: 

On August 13, 1999, the Board approved a workplan with goals and objectives, along with specific activities for implementation of Rule 1113 amendments. This annual report describes progress in its implementation over the past year. The following subjects are addressed: (1) meetings with committees; (2) compliance activities associated with implementation; (3) compliance option averaging plans received and reviewed; and (4) zero-VOC products introduced to the architectural coatings market. Finally, several key technology assessments are discussed and a recently completed report is included for review.

COMMITTEE: 

Stationary Source, May 24, 2002

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Receive and file.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

Following amendments to Rule 1113- Architectural Coatings on May 14, 1999, the Board approved a workplan for implementation and required updates on future technology assessments. This is the third annual progress report discussing ongoing research relative to specific coating categories.

It is important to note that subsequent regulatory actions at state and local levels across the nation have been modeled after Rule 1113. A multi-state commission created on the East Coast by the U.S. Congress, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Stationary/Area Source Committee (SAS), has established the STAPPA/ALAPCO Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Model Rule to serve as the OTC AIM Coatings Model Rule. The VOC limits in the OTC AIM Model Rule are the same in most cases as those in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Suggested Control Measure (SCM). In the state of California, thirteen air districts (see Appendix A) have amended their coatings regulations based on SCM that includes VOC limits that are as stringent as the interim limits included in Rule 1113 in nearly every category. For reference, Table 1 compares significant coating categories in the District’s Rule 1113 to those found in the CARB suggested control measure. A technology assessment has been completed for low- and zero-VOC formulations for four of the categories listed and the results are discussed in this report.
 

Table 1 - VOC Comparison
 

    * These coating categories have been evaluated under a technology
       assessment study conducted by KTA-Tator and are discussed in this report.
  ** Effective 1/01/2004.
*** Applies to Waterproofing Sealers for all porous substrates.
 

The contribution of VOC emissions from architectural coatings constitutes one of the most significant non-mobile sources attributable to ozone pollution within the District. VOCs contribute to the formation of ozone and PM₁₀ (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size) that are both in excess of national and state ambient air quality standards, adversely affecting human health and the environment. Through the adoption, promulgation and successful implementation of this regulation, the District Governing Board aims to reduce the 1993 annual average of 56.3 Tons/Day of VOCs by 75% in 2010. Following the May 1999 rule amendments, three lawsuits were filed against the District that were subsequently consolidated as one matter by the court. Although the District prevailed in the trial court, on June 24 the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court, holding that two amendments to address user concerns that were made after the 30-day public comment period began were so significant as to require a continuance of the Board hearing. Thus the 1999 amendments are not currently effective. Staff plans to propose re-adoption of the May 1999 amendments. Limits in effect prior to the May 1999 amendments remain effective.

This report provides information on milestones, accomplishments and issues associated with the implementation of Rule 1113. The concerns of the public and industry representatives are addressed and discussed through rule interpretations, completed and future technological assessments, current and future compliance activities, architectural coating usage surveys and coatings availability studies.

As with previous reports submitted to the Board regarding this rule, the results of coating technology assessments and staff’s product availability studies indicate the availability of compliant coatings in the specific categories studied that are viable alternatives to higher VOC products currently being manufactured for use on architectural structures. The necessary coating technology is available today to reduce significant amounts of VOCs that contribute to the overall formation of low level ozone within the Basin.

Meetings

Since the last annual report was received and filed by the Board, many meetings have been held to discuss various aspects of the rule. Teleconferences with CARB were held on numerous occasions discussing Suggested Control Measures (SCM) for architectural coatings and future averaging compliance options as allowed in Rule 1113 and proposed in the SCM.

A Working Group meeting was held on November 15, 2001 followed by a Technical Advisory Meeting (TAC) to discuss rule implementation and to address concerns with future limits. On December 5, 2001 the Rule 1113 TAC held a teleconference reviewing the ongoing technological assessments and other issues relative to Rule 1113. A follow-up teleconference was held on January 31, 2002.

On February 28, 2002 the District held a joint Rule 1113 Working Group and TAC Meeting to review the studies that were nearing completion and to address topics such as compliance with emission limits and the averaging compliance options allowed under section (c)(6) of Rule 1113.

Members of the TAC were invited to participate in site visits to evaluate test panels that have been subject to outdoor weather exposure relative to a contract with the National Technical Systems (NTS). Discussions with the TAC regarding the results contained in the NTS report are continuing.

Another teleconference with the TAC was held on May 17, 2002 to continue dialogue on the completed technological assessments and discuss future technological assessments through coordinated efforts of the AQMD and industry. Reports regarding the tests can be viewed in Appendix B and B1 with summaries given in the technology assessment portion of this report.

Surveys and Site Evaluations

Following submittal of the last annual report to the Board, the District has conducted surveys at paint distribution centers and at randomly selected coating applications projects at various locations throughout the Basin. The intent was to determine what is currently available for purchase at wholesale and retail outlets, and what type of coatings are being specified for construction activities including the coatings actually being used during the application process. The results indicate that nearly all facilities surveyed are offering for sale and distribution within the Basin coatings that not only meet but are lower than current and future VOC limits. Exceptions are those coatings that may have specific rule exemptions or limited rule provisions allowing the sale or application of otherwise non-compliant products. As reported by manufacturers, 349,730 gallons were sold under the small container exemption and 620,917 gallons were sold under the Quick Dry Primer, Sealer and Undercoater category in the year 2001. These account for approximately 2% of the total coatings volume sold in the Basin. It should be noted that the Quick Dry Primer, Sealer and Undercoater category was scheduled not to have an exemption after July 1, 2002. However, the recent court decision affects this timetable.

Additionally, there is an allowance in the rule for the sale or application of a coating manufactured prior to the effective date of the corresponding standard in the Table of Standards for up to three years after the effective date of the standard. This sell-through provision applies to all coatings listed in the Table of Standards and any effective dates applicable to the specific coating. Each architectural coating activity that was noted during staff’s surveys was using compliant coatings and in many instances those coatings had VOC concentrations in compliance with or lower than the July 2002 VOC limits of the rule.

As reported in the 2001 Annual Report to the Board, the 1998 CARB Architectural Coatings Survey examined sales data of architectural coatings from over 150 manufacturers. The survey focused on all coating categories of architectural coatings, including non-flats, floor coatings, primers, sealers and undercoaters and stains available in California. The data from the survey, which was summarized in the earlier report, demonstrated that coatings are available in all of these categories and are being used to meet current and future Rule 1113 requirements.

CARB is currently conducting another comprehensive survey to update the latest sales data, which will further evaluate certain niche coatings, including high gloss non-flat coatings. The data collection phase is almost complete, and the results are expected to be published by CARB by the end of this year.

As the July 1, 2002 compliance deadline in Rule 1113 approaches, many manufacturers, coatings specifiers and applicators have been contacting the District inquiring about rule definitions, applicability to specific coating categories and how the rule changes may affect their companies. Appendix C lists the most frequently asked questions and the District’s responses.

Averaging Compliance Option

The District, working extensively with members of the architectural coatings industry and other stakeholders, has developed and incorporated an alternative compliance option into Rule 1113, the Averaging Compliance Option (ACO). The purpose of the ACO is to promote compliance flexibility and improved cost efficiency. In the November 8, 1996 amendments to Rule 1113, an Averaging Compliance Option (ACO) was included for the Flats category with subsequent amendments on May 14, 1999 to streamline its implementation and add numerous categories to provide additional compliance flexibility with the future limits.

Over the past year, staff has updated the Averaging Compliance Option Guidance Document to include the additional coating categories specified in Rule 1113 and is currently working with manufacturers to assure that plans submitted under this option are complete and ready for implementation. Eight manufacturers have submitted plans under the ACO seeking approval to allow them to average for the July 2002 limits for specific coating categories. One manufacturer has since withdrawn their ACO program.

Zero-VOC Coatings

As coating technologies continue to advance leading to lower VOC products with improved performance characteristics, many small and large coating manufacturers have managed to produce products for many years that contain no VOCs. Table 2 lists just a few examples of the many zero-VOC coatings currently available from manufacturers. The District also maintains a web page listing those companies that have expressed an interest in having their products included on the page.

Table 2
Zero-VOC Manufacturers
Flats, Non-Flats, Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters
And Industrial Maintenance Coatings
 

PSU = Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters
F = Flats
NF = Non-flat

Technology Assessments

National Technical Systems
During the rule development process that started in 1998, the District contracted with National Technical Systems (NTS) to obtain additional performance data for zero-, low-, and high-VOC coatings. This study was called the Phase II Assessment Study of Architectural Coatings. The overall objective of this multi-year study was to analyze the application and durability characteristics of 94 individual coatings and 44 coating systems. The laboratory portion of this study was completed by May 1999, prior to the rule amendment. District staff thoroughly reviewed the results of the laboratory portion of the Phase II Assessment Study for Architectural Coatings with the TAC. In May 1999, the findings indicated that the zero- and low-VOC products studied show similar and in some cases, better performance properties than the high-VOC coatings. Once the laboratory testing of the coatings was completed, an accelerated weathering study of the coating systems, as well as a real-time 24-month exposure test was initiated to analyze the effect of ambient conditions on the paint systems. The real time exposure testing began in April of 2000 and continued through April 2002 at two sites with variable environmental conditions. One location was in Saugus and the other in El Segundo near the Los Angeles International Airport. At the end of the two-year outdoor test, the results show that zero and low-VOC coatings are similar in weathering and durability characteristics and in many cases have outperformed the higher VOC based counterparts, corroborating the conclusions reached by the laboratory weathering and accelerated outdoor weathering studies.

Included in Appendix B is a demonstration of the findings of the NTS exposure study using gloss loss as an indicator of performance. The results show that zero- and low- VOC non-flat exterior and industrial maintenance coatings loss of gloss were similar and in many instances less than the high-VOC coatings. Certain anomalies exist where specific products tested were not intended for exterior exposure and are noted on the matrices for review.

The District has obtained possession of the panels and in conjunction with the TAC, anticipates the continued evaluation of them at designated outdoor monitoring stations near the original exposure sites to simulate the same conditions.

KTA-Tator
Rule 1113 requires a technology assessment for the future VOC limits for nonflats; primers, sealers, and undercoaters; quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters; quick-dry enamels; waterproofing wood sealers; stains; floor; rust preventative; and industrial maintenance coatings as specified in paragraph (c)(2) by July 1, 2001 and July 1, 2005. In support of the technology assessment requirements, the District has completed the Phase II Assessment Study discussed above. Furthermore, in a continuing effort to compare low and high-VOC coatings in order to further substantiate that available products have characteristics similar to user expectations of higher VOC based products, the District also initiated a contract to study various coatings with KTA-Tator, Inc. The selection of the contractors, the protocol for conducting the study and the coatings evaluated, resulted from discussions and a consensus between the District and the TAC.

This most recent assessment compared high-, low- and zero-VOC formulations for four architectural coating categories: floor coatings, non-flat interior and exterior high gloss paints, interior and exterior primers, sealers and undercoaters and interior stains. The characteristics and performance of 31 coatings on various substrates were studied in the evaluation. Complete test results are shown in Appendix B1 of this report. Staff believes that overall, the results continue to substantiate current and future limits stated in the rule. Low-VOC products are currently available and, in all categories tested, work as well as and in some cases better than the higher-VOC counterparts. It is important to recognize that this study tested only a small portion of the low-VOC products currently available at retail and commercial outlets. While the test results do vary for some of the low-VOC products, all are currently being sold in the market, indicating acceptance by the consumer. The TAC and the District are continuing to discuss the findings of the study.

Essential Public Service Agencies
Following the May 14, 1999 amendments to Rule 1113, the Board directed staff to provide technical oversight and contribute funding to the Essential Public Service Agency (EPSA) technology assessment. District staff formed a committee in September 1999 comprised of representatives from Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Department of Water Resources, Cal Trans and the Department of Water and Power to conduct a technology assessment for the EPSAs.

The scope of the program is to be completed in several phases and is designed to test and evaluate VOC compliant coatings necessary for maintenance and new construction projects for agencies essential to the public. Approximately 100 VOC-compliant industrial maintenance coating systems have already been applied and are undergoing environmental testing over a three to four year period.

The first phase of the program consists of evaluating immersion and atmospheric coating systems. The second phase, in addition to atmospheric and immersion coatings includes the technology assessment of chemical containment and roofing coating systems. Approximately 90% of the coatings in the second phase are already undergoing environmental testing.

Staff plans to present the results of this study to the industry and the Governing Board upon completion.

Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (SCAP)
In last year’s annual report it was mentioned that SCAP, a coalition of sanitation agencies, decided to separate from the EPSA study to initiate an independent study of coatings to be applied at wastewater treatment plants. In September 2000, SCAP contracted with KTA-Tator to initiate a 2-year laboratory and field study of low-VOC coatings. This study is currently on schedule and should be completed by February 2003. Performance tests have been initiated to evaluate atmospheric and immersion coating systems and when completed will be compared to laboratory results to assess the effectiveness of each coating as applied by SCAP. While the District has not participated in the design of the project, the selection of a contractor or evaluations of the test panels, staff did visit one of the field sites this year to receive a progress report on the study.

Participants in this study include the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the Orange County Sanitation District, the Eastern Municipal Water District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District and the City of Los Angeles.

Recommendation

Staff continues to assemble a growing list of compliant and supercompliant coatings that are being used in various applications and settings. Furthermore, the additional technology assessments required by Rule 1113 for certain coating categories have generally verified that they are performing to expectations. Although some industry representatives have reservations regarding the District’s position, others have expressed support for staff recommendations. Additionally, the District is committed to continuing to work with interested parties toward future technology coating assessments that include reactivity studies as outlined in the three-year Advanced Air Pollution Research Plan for Fiscal Years 2002-05 that is part of Initiative No. 5 – Strategic Alliance for Advanced Air Pollution Research, adopted by the Board on June 7, 2002. Consequently, staff is recommending that the Board maintain current and future VOC limits as stipulated in the rule. However, staff will need to re-propose the May 1999 amendments that have been set aside by the Court of Appeal on procedural grounds. This recommendation is based on the information available from various technology assessments and on-going studies summarized within. As new information becomes available over the next year, staff will report back to the Board.

Attachments

/ / /