South Coast Air Quality Management District

Readopt the May 14, 1999 VOC limits and the Averaging Compliance Option with the following differences:

·                    Establish lower interim and final VOC limits for new and existing coating categories which will match or be more stringent than those in the CARB SCM for:

-        High Temperature Industrial Maintenance (IM) Coatings,

-        Zinc-Rich IM Primer,

-        Pre-Treatment Wash Primers,

-        Bituminous Roof Primers; and

-        Swimming Pool Repair Coatings.

·                    Change the interim compliance dates in the May 14, 1999 amendments, effective July 1, 2002 to January 1, 2003 for most categories and to January 1, 2004 for Industrial Maintenance Coatings.

·                    Delete the Essential Public Services and Chemical Storage Tank definitions to conform to the CARB SCM.

Other Revisions and Clarifications

·                    Extend administrative requirements for labeling of rust preventative coatings and specialty primers to January 1, 2003 .

·                    ·                    Align the exemption expiration date for architectural coatings recommended by the
            manufacturer for use solely as quick-dry primers, sealers and undercoaters, and
            annually reported, to January 1, 2003 .

·                    Clarify Applicability to include “field” application.

·                    Clarify the definition for Floor Coatings, Industrial Maintenance Coatings, Metallic Pigmented Coatings, and Sealers.

·                    Clarify that Specialty Primers are included in the Averaging Compliance Option.

·                    Correct the exemptions for small coatings manufacturers to clarify that “lacquers and flat coatings” were not intended to be exempt from the VOC limits.

·                    Identify specific records that can be used to track sales and emissions and clarify that the sell-through provision of the rule also applies to coatings included under the Averaging Compliance Option Program.

·

·                    Change compliance dates for VOC limits to meet the CARB SCM, and make the following additional administrative changes: clarify definition of specialty primers; clarify who is responsible for the improper use of a coating by an applicator; and exempt coatings applied to test specimens for research and development purposes of those coatings.

·                    Incorporate certain changes at the request of USEPA

·                    Add language to allow a Rust Preventative Coating to be used for industrial use, as long as it meets the VOC limit specified in the Table of Standards for Industrial Maintenance Coatings.

·                    Clarify the three year sell through provision.

·                    Allow the labels of specialty primers to display one or more of four possible descriptions.

·                    Clarify that the manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a coating is not liable for the improper use of a coating by the applicator.

·                    Clarify that coatings are exempt from the VOC limits when applied to test specimens for the purpose of research and development of those coatings.

·                     

Issue

Response

The Industrial Maintenance Coating category limit of 250 g/l limit should be extended to be consistent with the State SCM and to allow for additional time for testing required by specification standards for new products.

Agree
The AQ MD has proposed an extension of the implementation date for the industrial maintenance coating category, currently at 420 g/l VOC, from the proposed May 1999 rule date of July 1, 2002 to January 1, 2004 .  This will allow facilities that must meet stricter specification standards such as Essential Public Services to maintain the current VOC limit of 420 g/l essentially giving those facilities an additional 18 months to comply with the 250 g/l limit in rule. This proposed date aligns the requirements for industrial maintenance coatings with the SCM, allowing even more time for the manufacturers to prepare and for the users to test compliant coatings.  Averaging is also available to obtain specific coatings beyond the January 1, 2004 effective date.

The Specialty Primer category does not include stain blocking or extractive bleeding.

Agree
The AQ MD does not believe that extractive bleeding or blocking stains should be considered part of this higher-VOC limit for Specialty Primers.  While the National Technical Systems Study showed that the solvent-based primers performed better for stain-blocking of tannins from exterior wood substrates, as compared to waterborne primers, these primers were general primers and not specifically formulated for stain-blocking.  In contrast, the KTA TATOR technology assessment showed that specific low-VOC waterborne primers listed for stain-blocking and selected for the evaluation performed to an equivalent or superior level over the solvent-based solvents.  Additionally, the latest MPI approved products list includes numerous stain-blocking primers with a VOC content < than 200 g/l. 

The future final VOC limits are too restrictive and adequate coating replacements are not available that match current performance for any categories.

Disagree
The AQ MD does not believe that future limits will restrict the availability of adequately performing coatings.  In fact, since May 1999, additional evidence included in the staff report further confirms the District’s conclusion on performance and availability of lower-VOC products.  The District’s technology assessment, which included an evaluation of coatings available in 1999 for the specified coating categories, as well as a comprehensive laboratory and field testing evaluation conducted by a third-party contractor, with oversight by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), showed availability, commercial acceptance, and high performance associated with the low-VOC coatings.  It is expected that by 2006, even more high-performing industrial maintenance coatings will be available.  In addition, manufacturers may continue to make higher VOC coatings available under the averaging provisions of the rule and even under the final limits.  Furthermore, the additional information shows an increase in commercially available coatings compliant with the final VOC limits.  A list of these new products is included in the Staff Report, Appendix C.

The Averaging Compliance Option in the rule should allow for sell through of products.

Agree
Language has been added to Appendix A of the rule to clarify  that a coating included in an approved Averaging Program will be allowed to be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or applied for up to three years after the end of the compliance period specified in the approved Averaging Program.

Rust preventative coatings meeting the VOC limit for Industrial Maintenance Coatings, should be allowed by the rule to be used in non-residential settings.

Agree
Section (c)(2) of Rule 1113 specifically indicates that Industrial Maintenance Coatings are not for residential use and rust-preventative coatings are not for industrial use.  Furthermore, the definition of industrial maintenance coatings specifically prohibits their use in residential areas, and the definition of rust preventative coatings indicates that they are limited to metal surfaces found in residential and commercial uses.  However, based on oral testimony in public meetings, as well as subsequent letters from industry members, and considering the requirements of the CARB SCM, the proposal has been revised to indicate that rust preventative coatings may be used in industrial environments as long as the VOC content of those rust preventative coatings meet the compliance limit for the industrial maintenance coating VOC limit.

The AQMD should consider zinc-rich primers as metallic pigmented coatings and not Industrial Maintenance coatings, because there are not adequate zinc-rich coatings available that can meet the proposed 250 g/l limit in the rule.

Disagree
The AQMD believes that zinc-rich industrial maintenance primers used specifically for corrosion protection do not belong in the metallic pigmented coatings category used primarily for aesthetics.  However, the proposed rule has been modified to include a new category called zinc-rich industrial maintenance primers, and an interim limit of 340 g/l limit has been proposed effective January 1, 2003 , with a final limit of 100 g/l, effective July 1, 2006 .

Low VOC floor coatings are inferior to their high VOC counterparts.

Disagree
The AQMD has empirical data showing that low-VOC floor coatings perform just as well, and in some cases, better than their higher VOC counterparts.  As a part of technology assessment for the May 1999 amendments, staff identified hundreds of floor coatings that comply with both the 100 g/l interim VOC limit, as well as the 50 g/l VOC limit to be implemented in July 2006.  Furthermore, the technology assessment recently completed by KTA TATOR, assessed the performance of both single- and multi-component floor coatings.  This analysis indicated that the best performing floor coating was a zero-VOC, two-component coating, and one of the two single component compliant floor coatings performed better than the higher VOC floor coatings for most characteristics, while the other performed worse.  Additionally, staff has identified numerous additional single- and multi-component floor coatings that meet the interim VOC limit of 100 g/l as well as the final VOC limit of 50 g/l, and are included in Appendix C of the Staff Report.  Based on the District’s technology assessment and KTA Tator’s laboratory assessment, the interim VOC limit of 100 g/l and the final VOC limit of 50 g/l are feasible.

Low VOC high-gloss nonflat coatings are inferior to their high VOC counterparts.

Disagree
The testing conducted by KTA TATOR on each category of coatings was designed to assess the overall performance, and the TAC did not specify that one characteristic was more important than another.  The tables summarizing the results for both interior and exterior high-gloss nonflats indicate that for some characteristics, the low-VOC compliant products performed equivalent to or better than their higher VOC counterparts, as well as worse for some characteristics.  This does not indicate that the coating that performed worse completely failed.  In the KTA TATOR study, as well as the SCM, High Gloss Non-Flats are defined as coatings with a gloss of no less than 70 on a 60 degree meter.  This was the criteria used by the TAC, who had oversight over the coatings selected and used in the assessment.  The TAC relied upon gloss values published in the manufacturer’s data sheets.  The actual measurement for gloss shows that none of the coatings included in the testing, which includes the products with a VOC content less than 150 g/l, as well as more than 150 g/l met the gloss values, including the product manufactured and sold by the commentator’s employer, met the gloss levels indicated in the high-gloss nonflat definition.  The actual gloss values of waterborne coatings have been an issue within the industry for several years, and prompted the Master Painter’s Institute to conduct a special study entitled “New MPI gloss levels study 'spotlights' industry problem”.  This study also concluded that the industry has caused a lot of confusion in their marketing literature by going away from actually reporting gloss levels at both the 60 degree and 85 degree meter.  MPI proposed to adopt standardized gloss reporting methods as a resolution to this on-going issue.  Additionally, the staff report includes lists of approved products by MPI, including nonflat coatings that meet the high gloss criteria of 70 or greater on a 60 degree meter.  This clearly shows that compliant nonflat high gloss coatings are available and meet the MPI standards for performance, including gloss.